 |
 |
 |
 |
| Photo 1. Collective housing of beef cattle in Takisung District, Tanah Laut Regency. | |
| Livestock Research for Rural Development 26 (8) 2014 | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
The study was carried out in Takisung district, Tanah Laut regency, South Kalimantan, Indonesia. The objectives were (a) to investigate the characteristics of beef cattle raising and (b) to investigate the contribution of beef cattle income to household farmers. Data were analyzed descriptively and using several formulae.
Results showed that 88 % of the farmers were in productive age, 60 % of the households were 3-4 people, 69 % of the rearing experiences were between 10 to 20 years, 47 % of respondents have as many as 4-5 AU and 81% of respondents did not complete elementary school, junior high school, and high school. The contribution of beef cattle income to farming households ranged from 15% to 26%. The agricultural land area owned negatively affected the beef cattle income contribution to the household farming.
Keywords: beef, capital, feed, small scale
Opportunities of raising cattle are an effort to meet the growing needs of local meat, and the continuity of the local meat supply needs to be to maintained (Winarso 2005). Main source of meat production is so far from cattle breeding expected to give births every year. Breeding beef cattle is traditionally located in rural areas (Prayoga 2002). Potential local beef cattles as meat producers have not been optimally used to do with better management. Raising local beef cattle has several advantages, high adaptability to the local environment, ability to take advantage of low-quality feed, and good reproducibility (Suryana 2009).
The farming system of beef cattle fattening is still largely traditional. The rules of economic principles have not been applied optimally in traditional system, because beef cattle farming is still positioned as sideline business by the farmer. In many agricultural production systems, the animal component is included in addition to the plant component (Prasetyo et al 2012) . Wibowo et al (2011) explained that the implementation of development programs in agribusiness beef cattle was not optimal because of the lack of socialization group. The roles of livestock in rural households are food supply, source of income, asset saving, source of employment, soil fertility, livelihoods, transport, agricultural traction, agricultural diversification and sustainable agricultural production (Bettencourt et al 2014). Furthermore, Hartono (2012) explained that farmers maintained beef cattle as a part of supporting the needs of family ranchers, since farmers could use family labor for grazing or collecting the unused f agricultural products for animal feed, and the livestock would bring benefits in the form of calves, the value of livestock and livestock manure as fertilizer. In addition, the cattle will have a social status value in the community.
Sources of the venture capital in rural beef cattle were generally derived from personal capital, product of cattle sharing system between local people as individual and government assistance programs. Government programs have been done to empower communities through various economic productive capitals in the hope that the production, productivity, and income can be increased (Widiati 2012). Therefore, in raising beef cattle, the farmers largely cultivate and develop from small-holder livestock production with patterns of cow-calf operation in a small scale and it is usually integrated with other agricultural enterprises (Winarso and Basuno 2013).
In Takisung Distict, Tanah Laut regency, South Kalimantan Province, raising cattle is part of the agricultural farming with a variety of crop patterns. Thus, a study on the contribution revenue in the cattle business in rural households needs to be done.
This research was a study on household beef cattle in small-scale farming. The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the contribution of the beef cattle income to the household farmers in Takisung District, Tanah Laut Regency, South Kalimantan, Indonesia.
The study was conducted in Takisung district, Tanah Laut regency, Province of South Kalimantan, Indonesia. Takisung distric has a total land area of 343 km2, located in the South of Tanah Laut regency. Its geographic location is 114° 30`20`` East Longitude – 115o23`31`` East Longitude and 3° 30`33`` South Latitude – 4o11`38`` South Latitude. Average temperature ranges between 20o-34o C and humidity ranges between 80-83% with annual rainfalls about 731 mm / year.
People who raise cattle were 452 farmers, 68 of those were selected as respondents taken by random sampling method.
Data were analyzed descriptively and using several formula and multiple regression. The formula was used to calculate the income of beef cattle raising, farming and cropping patterns and contribution to farming system. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to describe the characteristics of respondents and the distribution of each variable item shown in percentage figures (Hartono et al 2011).
The formula of household farm income is the sum of beef cattle raising income, cropping pattern income, and non farming income as follows :
I = Pbc + S Pi + S Pj
|
Where : |
|
|
I |
= Household farm income (IDR/year) |
|
Pbc |
= Beef cattle income raising (IDR/year) |
|
Pi |
= Cropping pattern income (IDR/year) |
|
Pj |
= Non farming income (IDR/year) |
The formula of beef cattle raising income contribution to the farming system is:
Z = (X/Y) x 100%
|
Where : |
|
|
Z |
= Contribution of beef cattle raising income (%) |
|
X |
= beef cattle raising income (IDR/year) |
|
Y |
= Household farming income (IDR/year) |
Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the factors affecting the contribution of beef cattle in household income as follows:
Y = b0 + b1 X1 +b2 X2 +b3 X3 +b4 X4 +b5 X5 +b6 X6 +b7 X7 + e
|
Where : |
||
|
X1 |
: |
respondent’s age (year) |
|
X2 |
: |
number of family members (person) |
|
X3 |
: |
raising experience (year) |
|
X4 |
: |
land area owned (ha) |
|
X5 |
: |
number of beef cattle ownership (AU) |
|
X6 |
: |
non-farming income (IDR/year) |
|
X7 |
: |
farm income beyond the income of beef cattle (IDR/year) |
|
b0 |
: |
Intercept |
|
b0=1,2,3,4,5,6,7 |
: |
regression coefficients associated with X1, X2, …….., X7 respectively. |
|
E |
: |
Error |
Beef cattle raising success depends on the ability and the willingness to manage the farm. Some of the factors that also influence are age, education, number of household members, raising experience, agricultural land owned and number of beef cattle ownerships.
Age is one factor that affects the work and mindset of the respondents in determining management applied in livestock-farming. Table 1 shows that 88% of the farmers are in productive age. Productive age ranges from 15 years to 64 years and non-productive age is the age under 15 years and above 64 years (BPS 2000). Farmers who belong to the productive age show a potential to develop beef cattle production. Productive age is the age when the farmers are able to carry out productive activities efficiently so that they can generate income.
Table 1 shows that 81% of the respondents consist of uneducated people, elementary school, and junior high school education. Education affects the manner and the mindset of the farmers in adopting innovations and technologies that can improve the efficiency and the productivity of the farming (Djaelani 2009). It is still low due to parent’s income is low. The farmer with higher education seems to be creative, open and easy to adopt the technology. Therefore, we need non-formal education for the farmers through the government assistance in order to improve their knowledge. Moreover, Sadono (2008) explained that the role of agricultural extension was to assist farmers in addressing the issue properly and satisfactorily in order to increase the welfare of the farmers so that they could be self-supported.
Labor used to raise beef cattle were family labor. This was because the scale of livestock ownership mean was only 4-5 AU and still maintained through traditional system. This statement agrees with Wibowo (2011) which explained that agriculture and traditional livestock farming business mostly used family labor. Table 1 shows that number of family members of 3-4 people are 60%. It is a potential source of labor running the beef cattle production activities. However, the larger the family size, the greater the need for families to fulfill. Thus, it will encourage farmers to earn additional income through other
businesses. Number of household members is also a source of household economic income (Hartono 2011).
Table 1 shows that raising experience ranging from 1 to 20 years was 69%. Farmers have already known in a relatively long time because cattle have a very close relationship with agriculture, for example manure can be used as fertilizer. Thus, increasing the agriculture and livestock productivity could be used to cover school expenses. Experiences affect the learning process. The more experiences the farmers have, the more cautious they will be in making decisions (Padmowihardjo 2004). They will be more responsive to technological innovation so that the technology transfer will be easier.
|
Table 1. Respondent’s Characteristics |
|||
|
No |
Demographic Variables |
Number |
% |
|
1 |
Age (years) |
|
|
|
|
a. 15-64 (productive) |
60 |
88 |
|
|
b. > 64 (unproductive) |
8 |
12 |
|
|
Total |
68 |
100 |
|
2 |
Level of education |
|
|
|
|
a. No school |
2 |
3 |
|
|
b. Elementary school |
31 |
46 |
|
|
c. Junior high school |
22 |
32 |
|
|
d. Senior high school |
13 |
19 |
|
|
Total |
68 |
100 |
|
3 |
Number of household members |
|
|
|
|
a. 1-2 persons |
7 |
9 |
|
|
b. 3-4 persons |
41 |
60 |
|
|
c. > 4 persons |
21 |
31 |
|
|
Total |
68 |
100 |
|
4 |
Farming experiences (years) |
|
|
|
|
a. 1-10 |
24 |
35 |
|
|
b. 11-20 |
28 |
41 |
|
|
c. > 20 |
16 |
24 |
|
|
Total |
68 |
100 |
|
5 |
Agriculture land area (ha) |
|
|
|
|
a. <. 1 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
b. 1-2 |
24 |
35 |
|
|
c. > 2 |
41 |
61 |
|
|
Total |
68 |
100 |
|
6 |
Average of beef cattle ownership (AU/respondent) |
|
|
|
|
a. < 4 |
29 |
42 |
|
|
b. 4-5 |
32 |
47 |
|
|
c. > 5 |
7 |
11 |
|
|
Total |
68 |
100 |
Farmers generally had a narrow agricultural land, so that the revenue earned was low and could not meet the needs of the family. Conversely, if farmers had larger land then they would more focus on agriculture compared to their livestock. Table 1 shows that farmers who have more than 2 ha of land are as much as 61%. The majority of the beef cattle raising is only for savings so that the agricultural land owned does not mean that the beef cattle raising is growing, since the big area of land is used not for the beef cattle raising development, but for non-beef cattle raising, such as rubber plants. Thus, farmers focus more on non-beef cattle farming.
Table 1 shows that 47% of the respondents have as many as 4-5 AU (Animal Unit). The livestock owned in this study area was relatively low due to limited capital and low cattle breeding practices. This happens because the farmers had less knowledge of maintenance management and lack of good quality of bulls in the study area. Number of livestocks owned is relatively constant as more animals require much greater cost and longer time so that it could interfere with other beef cattle raising. This is understandable because the beef cattle kept as savings will only be sold when the farmers need money.
|
|
|
|
| Photo 1. Collective housing of beef cattle in Takisung District, Tanah Laut Regency. | |
 |
 |
| Photo 2. Bull of Bali cattle (left) and Cow of Bali cattle (right) | |
Rearing system of beef cattle performed extensively (traditionally) is 27% and intensively 63%, respectively. The former is a rearing system in which the cattle is removed from the pen every day to let the cattle look for food themselves. The latter is a rearing system where every day the livestock is kept in the collective pens. Collective Pen is rearing space holding the cattles of the group members managed together. The pen management is collective including pen cleaning, feeding, manure processing and livestock safeguarding. Collective pens are partitioned and each partition contains one to two cows. In this place is also provided a useful stud marry. Rashid et al (2012) explained that the benefit of the collective pen was to improve the efficient use of labor and the management of cattle reproduction. Larger-scale maintenance will require less time and labor, so that it is suitable to be applied for the local farmers. Another benefit for farmers is they could increase the number of animals kept or develop livestock raising.
Every morning around 1-2 hours are used for exercising out off the farm. Feeding on the grass field, agricultural wastes, rice bran or bran are then added. Collective pens are made simple from bamboo, wood and roof of corrugated asbestos (Photo 1). Banteng (Bull of Bali cattle) are a sexually dimorphic species, with mature males in dark bluish black color and cows and juveniles in reddish brown color. Both sexes have white rump patches and stockings. They carry horns, although males are much heavier and larger (Photo 2)
Cropping patterns in the study area run poly-culture or diversification of crops and livestock commodities. The benefit of diversification is to reduce risk of failure and to increase income, employment, and environmental conversion. The farm household income consists of beef cattle raising, non-beef cattle raising and non-agriculture. Non-farm income is obtained from traders, construction workers and private employees.
Table 2 shows that the largest household income is IDR 42,190,469/year in cropping pattern 2 with a land area of 0.599 ha and IDR 37,118,857/year in cropping pattern 3 with a land area of 0.719 ha, respectively. This could happen because the rubber crops that can be harvested every week have very good price, between IDR 7,500 / kg to IDR 10,000 / kg. The contribution of the beef cattle income to farming households ranges from 15% to < 30% (Table 2). This result shows that raising beef cattles is not only as a livelihood to meet basic household needs but as a saving saleable at any time as well.
Table 3 shows that Fcal.value is 3.99. This means that respondent’s age, number of family members, raising experience, number of beef cattle ownerships, agrucultural land area owned, non-farm income and farm income, but the income from beef cattle, collectively influence the contribution of beef cattle to the household income. R2 value of 0.64 means that factors affecting the contribution of beef cattle to the household income could be explained by the independent variables as much as 64 % and 66 % caused by other factors outside the model. Our result also showed that the agricultural land area negatively had more significant (P<0.01) effect on contribution of beef cattle to household income. This means that the agricultural land owned is more extensive resulting in smaller income contribution from the beef cattle. This suggests that the beef cattle raising is done as a saving. When the farmers have money they tend to buy the agriculture land than the beef cattle, because the income is higher from agriculture than that from beef cattle.
|
Table 2. Contribution of beef cattle income to household farmers |
|||||
|
Cropping Pattern |
Land area (ha) |
Type of income |
% |
||
|
1. |
|
Beef Cattle |
3,000,000 |
22 |
|
|
0.674 |
Farming non beef cattle |
: Rice plant |
3,118,193 |
23 |
|
|
|
Non farming |
7,537,500 |
55 |
||
|
|
|
Total |
13,655,693 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
|
Beef Cattle |
5,425,000 |
13 |
|
|
|
Farming non beef cattle |
: Rice plant |
2,669,178 |
6 |
|
|
0.599 |
: Rubber plant |
27,712,958 |
66 |
||
|
|
Non farming |
6,383,333 |
15 |
||
|
|
|
Total |
|
42,190,469 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
|
Beef cattle |
4,357,143 |
12 |
|
|
|
Farming non beef cattle |
: rice plant |
2,074,143 |
6 |
|
|
0.719 |
: rubber plant |
21,137,714 |
57 |
||
|
|
: soybean plant |
2,921,286 |
8 |
||
|
|
Non farming |
6,628,571 |
17 |
||
|
|
|
Total |
37,118,857 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. |
|
Beef cattle |
|
3,347,222 |
17 |
|
|
Farming non beef cattle |
: rice plant |
3,125,679 |
16 |
|
|
0.834 |
: soybean plant |
2,696,500 |
14 |
||
|
|
Non farming |
|
10,183,333 |
53 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
19,392,734 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Beef cattle |
4,750,000 |
26 |
|
|
|
Farming non beef cattle |
: rice plant |
2,319,074 |
13 |
|
|
0.583 |
: soybean plant |
1,443,850 |
8 |
||
|
|
: peanut palnt |
2,881,800 |
16 |
||
|
|
Non farming |
6,700,000 |
37 |
||
|
|
|
Total |
18,094,724 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Beef cattle |
3,830,940 |
15 |
|
|
|
Farming non beef cattle |
: rice palnt |
2,893,556 |
11 |
|
|
0.665 |
: sweet corn crop |
6,883,615 |
27 |
||
|
|
Non farming |
11,630,769 |
47 |
||
|
|
|
Total |
|
100 |
|
|
Table 3. Factors affecting contribution of beef cattle to household income |
||
|
Variables |
Coefficient regression |
Sign |
|
Constant |
32.351 |
.002 |
|
Respondent’s age (X1) |
.078 |
.797 |
|
number of family members (X2) |
-.769 |
.743 |
|
farming experience (X3) |
.076 |
.780 |
|
land area owned (X4) |
-9.617 |
.000* |
|
number of beef cattle ownerships (X5) |
2.415 |
.177 |
|
non-farming income (X6) |
5.007E-7 |
.071 |
|
farm income beyond the income from beef cattle (X7) |
2.143E-6 |
.021 |
|
F = 3.99 |
||
|
Squared R (R2) = 0.64 |
||
|
* Showed more different (P<0.01) |
||
An investigation on the beef cattle income contribution to household farming in South Kalimantan, Indonesia indicated the following conclusions.
The characteristic of respondents consisted of 88 % of farmers in productive age, 60 % of household member with 3-4 people, 69 % of raising experience between 10 to 20 years, 47 % of respondents with 4-5 AU and 81% of respondents of no school education, elementary school, junior high school, and senior high school .
The contribution of the beef cattle income to farming households ranged from 15% to 26%.
The land area owned negatively affect contributions of the beef cattle income to the household farming
BPS 2009 Badan Pusat Statistik. Indikator Kesejahteraan Rakyat. Jakarta. Indonesia.
Bettencourt E M V, Tilman M, Narciso V, Carvalho M L S and Henriques P D S 2014 The role of livestock functions in the well being and development of Timor-Leste rural communities. Livestock Research for Rural Development Vol. 26 (4). http://lrrd.org/lrrd26/4/bett26069.htm
Djaelani S, Widiati R and Santosa K A 2009 Project of cattle sharing system as a means for community development in Oba Tengah and Oba Utara subdistricts, Tidore kepulauan, north Maluku. Buletin Peternakan UGM .Vol. 33(1) : 40-48 . http://journal.ugm.ac.id/buletinpeternakan/article/view/135/488
Hartono B, Hariyono M B and Rochman F 2006 Goat raising as source of the houshold‘s farming income. J.Indon.Trop.Anim.Agric. Vol 31 (2) : pp 99-104. http://www.jppt.undip.ac.id/modules.php?name=volume-search.
Hartono B 2011 Analisis ekonomi rumahtangga peternak sapi potong Di Kec. Damsol, Kabupaten Donggala, Propinsi Sulawesi Tengah. Jurnal Ternak Tropika Vol 12 No. 1. pp. 60-70. http://ternaktropika.ub.ac.id/index.php/tropika/article/view/114/110
Hartono B, Ningsih UW and Septiarini NF 2011 The consumers` behavior in purchasing meatballs in Malang, Indonesia. Buletin Peternakan UGM. Vol. 35(2) : 136-141. http://journal.ugm.ac.id/buletinpeternakan/article/view/600/426
Hartono B 2012 Peran daya dukung wilayah terhadap pengembangan usaha peternakan sapi Madura. Vol 13 (2) : 316-326. http://publikasiilmiah.ums.ac.id/handle/123456789/2840
Padmowihardjo 2004. Pengembangan SDM dalam sistem dan usaha agribisnis. Pusat Penelitian dan Pelatihan Pegawai Departemen Pertanian. Jakarta.
Prayoga UH and Ilham N 2002 Problem dan prospek pengembangan usaha pembibitan sapi sotong di Indonesia. Jurnal Litbang Pertanian. Vol. 21 No. 4. Pp. 148-157.
Prasetyo E, Sunarso, Santosa P B and Rianto E 2012 The influence of agribusiness subsystem on beef cattle fattening farm’s profit in central java. J.Indonesian Trop.Anim.Agric. Vol 37 (2) : 121-126. http://www.jppt.undip.ac.id/modules.php?name=volume-search
Rasyid A, Efendi J and Mariyon 2012 Sistem pembibitan sapi potong dengan kandang kelompok “Model Litbangtan”. Badan Penelitian Dan Pengembangan Pertanian Kementerian Pertanian. Jakarta. http://peternakan.litbang.deptan.go.id/fullteks/booklet/kandang_kelompok_2012/kandang_kelompok_2012.pdf
Sadono D 2008 The Leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. Jurnal Penyuluhan Vol 4 No. 1. Pp 152-159. http://ejournal.skpm.ipb.ac.id/index.php/jupe/article/view/28/35
Suryana 2009 Pengembangan usaha ternak sapi potong berorientasi agribisnis dengan pola kemitraan. Jurnal Litbang Pertanian, Vol 28 (1), pp. 29-37.
Wibowo MHS, Guntor B and Sulastri E 2011 Assessment of agribusiness development program implementation of beef cattle farming in sekadau regency, west kalimantan. Buletin Peternakan Vol. 35(2): 143-153. http://journal.ugm.ac.id/buletinpeternakan/article/view/601/427
Widiati R 2012. Fainancial feasibility of beef cattle breeding with various apital aid in rural area of Gunung Kidul District of Yogyakarta. Buletin Peternakan. Vol 36 (2) : 122-128. http://journal.ugm.ac.id/buletinpeternakan/article/view/1588/1376
Winarso B and Basuno E 2013. Developing an integrated crop-livestock to enhance the domestic beef cattle breeding business. J.Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi Vol 31 (2) : 151-169. http://pse.litbang.deptan.go.id/ind/pdffiles/FAE31-2_e.pdf
Winarso B, Rosmiyati S dan Muslim C 2005 Tinjauan ekonomi ternak sapi potong di Jawa Timur. Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi. Vol. 23. No. 1. Hal. 61-7 . http://pse.litbang.deptan.go.id/ind/pdffiles/FAE23-1e.pdf
Received 24 June 2014; Accepted 13 July 2014; Published 1 August 2014