Startseite Lebenswissenschaften Behavioral response of breeder toward development program of Ongole crossbred cattle in Yogyakarta Special Region, Indonesia
Artikel Open Access

Behavioral response of breeder toward development program of Ongole crossbred cattle in Yogyakarta Special Region, Indonesia

  • Widodo EMAIL logo , Diah Rina Kamardiani und Beti Nur Utami
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 24. März 2022

Abstract

Ongole crossbred were endemic cattle in Java Island due to their good adaptation to the environment. The Government of Yogyakarta Special Region sought to develop cattle farms through an Ongole crossbred cattle development program in the Gunungkidul Regency to preserve this Ongole crossbred population. The study aimed to describe the behavior of breeders who participated in the Ongole crossbred cattle development programs on the post of this program. A sample of 40 small-breeder participants of this program was interviewed. The observed behaviors were all activities conducted by the breeders in carrying out the Ongole crossbred cattle farming. This study showed that breeders well implemented toward some core program, i.e., facilities management, cultivating forage, integrated animal service, and conserving productive female cows since program completion. However, due to limitations of capital ownership, the breeders were not well producing alternative fodder. Based on this result, the government was recommended to introduce a simple small farming capacity machine to small farmers to process the agricultural waste as animal feed.

1 Introduction

Cattle have an essential socio-economic function for rural communities in the Yogyakarta Special Region [1]. The number of livestock sub-sector workers in the Special District of Yogyakarta was 133,654 in 2017, increasing from 2016, which was 123,264. The cattle population in the province in 2017 reached 309,960 heads. Although the Special District of Yogyakarta was not the leading national producer, it was one of the provinces with surplus of cattle [2]. The Gross Regional Domestic Product of the livestock sub-sector in 2017 reached IDR 1643.5 billion, a significant increase from 2013 by IDR 1410.0 billion on fixed figures in 2010 [2]. For the agricultural sector, the livestock sub-sector is quite essential. In 2017, the livestock sub-sector contributed 22.63% of the Gross Domestic Product in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery sectors [3].

Most of the cattle raised by the breeder of the Yogyakarta Special Region in the past were Ongole crossbred (called as Peranakan Onggol in Javanese term), but lately, breeders preferred to crossbred between female Ongole crossbred cow with Simmental or Limousin males through artificial insemination technology. The Government of Gunungkidul Regency sought to conserve and develop cattle farms of Ongole crossbred. In the long term, the program was meant to be a self-sufficiency effort for meat resources. In addition, the program was also an effort to improve the welfare of the breeders. The Ongole crossbred cattle was one type of cattle that have been bred from generation to generation by the people of Gunungkidul Regency [1]. The program was a continuation of the national programs being carried out, such as the meat sufficiency program in 2010 [4], and beef and buffalo self-sufficiency program, which were expected to be achieved in 2014.

Some studies show that cattle agribusiness development programs bring various impacts on the breeders. The Gaduhan (a Javanese term that meant a profit sharing pattern between the breeder and cow owner) in Manokwari, West Papua was able to increase the cattle population, employment and breeders’ income, but had not yet reached the expected target [5]. Cattle breeders faced problems concerning program implementation, such as lack of socialization, planning, and program implementation. As a result, the program could not run optimally, as in Sekadau Regency [6]. As cattle is raised extensively and only as a side business makes it difficult to implement the livestock agribusiness program [7]. The cattle development programs did not significantly improve the income of breeders.

The success of the sustainable rural development program depended on the beneficiary’s involvement and participation, starting from planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating activities, and utilizing the results [8]. The breeder involvement at each stage of the program will increase the success of the program implementation, such as the intensification program in Rwanda [9] and the maintenance of the agricultural production infrastructure [10]. A farmer who participated in the veterinary management had higher milk production than a farmer who did not participate in this program [11].

Various studies on evaluating the cattle development programs have been carried out. Studies on the response of livestock farmers encompassed the attitude components, including cognitive, affective, and conative responses. Participation was investigated from socialization [6], planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and sharing benefits [12]. Other research related to the economic impact of a program was the financial approach of the cattle development [5]. Animal health management programs impacted higher milk production, better quality, but poorer fertility performance and age of livestock [11].

The aforementioned research did not discuss small farmers’ post-development program implementation on cattle farming, even though this behavior has long-term impact on cattle farming management. This research contributed knowledge related to the behavior as a result of the breeders learning in the cattle development program. The study aimed to describe the behavior of breeders who participated in Ongole crossbred cattle development programs on the post of this program. The subsequent sections will present the Research Method that described the data exploration and analysis, and Result and Discussion.

2 Methods

Ongole crossbred cattle have been developed by smallholder farmers in Central Java and East Java due to their good adaptability to environmental limitations. The Ongole crossbred cattle reared in the seed source area of Java Island showed specific characteristics [13] that are adaptable to extensive livestock production systems [14]. To maintain the preservation of Ongole crossbred cattle, the government conducted a breeder empowerment program of seed source development in several regencies of production center in Java Island, including Gunungkidul Rembang, Blora, Kebumen, Bojonegoro, Tuban, and Lamongan Regency. Farmer empowerment is defined as all means to improve self-direction, provide convenience and business progress, and improve the competitiveness and welfare of farmers [15].

This research was conducted by taking samples of areas in Gunungkidul Regency. This research was conducted on breeders who actively participated in the Ongole crossbred cattle development program in Gunungkidul Regency. The target of the Ongole crossbred cattle development program was set in Playen and Wonosari Districts, involving 25 breeder groups [1]. Samples of breeders were taken from two breeder groups chosen randomly from each of Wonosari and Playen Districts. By the program target, each group of 10 breeders was invited to participate in the Ongole crossbred cattle development program so that the total sample of breeders was 40 people.

In this study, data on the behavior of breeders were obtained by interviewing sample of farmers. The observed behaviors were the actions carried out by breeders in carrying out Ongole crossbred cattle breeding business, including some aspects, such as livestock facilities management, producing alternative fodder, cultivating forage fodder, and administering integrated fodder animal service, and conserving productive female cows. Each behavioral aspect was outlined into some indicators concerning cattle farming implementation. Any data on cattle farming implementation was measured by five alternative answers, which were categorized as fully implemented (score 5), mostly implemented (score 4), partly implemented (score 3), less implemented (score 2), and not implemented (score 1). The score of aspect of livestock development program was shown by the arithmetic mean of their indicator.

A descriptive analysis was conducted to describe the breeder’s behavior. The percentage of score (P) achieved for each aspect of the livestock development program was calculated by formula as below:

P s = X i X min X max X min × 100%

In this formula, the X i symbol indicates the arithmetic mean, the X min symbol indicates the minimum score that could be achieved (i.e., 1), and the X max symbol indicates the maximum score that could be achieved (i.e., 5). Based on the percentage of score achieved, the breeders’ behavior was categorized into 5 categories, which were poorly implemented (0–20%), almost poorly implemented (21–40%), moderately implemented (41–60%), well-implemented (61–80%), and perfectly implemented (81–100%).

3 Results and discussion

Most Ongole crossbred cattle are grown by smallholder farmers. Smallholder farmers in Indonesia keep between two and four heads of cattle and integrate livestock into crop production [14]. Ongole crossbreed is favored by breeders because farmers do not encounter many difficulties in reproductive performance and easy pregnancy compared to cattle of subtropical crossbreed [16]. Other advantages of Ongole crossbred cattle are their excellent adaptability to high tropical climates, heat resistance, resistance to mosquito and tick bites, and tolerance to high coarse fiber feed [17]. Smallholder farmers in Java mostly grow cattle either to produce meat or to support cropping with manure and draught power. Keeping cattle is also livelihood saving [14].

The Ongole crossbred cattle development programs in Yogyakarta Special Region aimed to increase the local cattle population, i.e., Ongole crossbred, as a long-term effort to self-sufficiency meat in Indonesia. This program was officially supported by the Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia. This program was conducted due to smallholder farmers facing limited access to inputs, information, and services that were required to grow cattle [14]. Various activities were carried out to support the implementation of the program, including (i) livestock facilities management, (ii) producing alternative fodder, (iii) cultivating forage fodder, (iv) integrated animal services, and (v) conserving productive female cow. Farmers particularly consider the animals’ productivity and healthiness in their understanding of animal welfare [18]. The farmers’ motivation for improving animal welfare must be understood as a moral, economic, and regulatory question [19].

Farming technology guidance was initiated in 2013. It emphasized the importance of maintaining a clean cage environment, animal health, and group management, including group administration and efforts to increase group income. Alternative fodder was fermented forage fodder and agricultural waste. The Livestock Division of the Gunungkidul Regency’s Agriculture and Food Service held a course on producing alternative fodder in 2016. Materials used to make alternative fodder could be in the form of forages such as grass and leaves and agricultural wastes such as straw, peanut shells, corncobs, and so on. The ingredients were then chopped using a chopper machine. After that, other ingredients were added in the form of bran, molasses, and starter bacteria. All ingredients were then mixed evenly and put into a tightly closed fermentation barrel. The fermentation process could take about a month. To support the production of alternative fodder, the government assisted in a chopper or cutting machine and fermentation barrel. Our result is in line with the research conducted in Uganda that one of the cattle farmers’ priorities were fodder cultivation, feeding, and animal nutrition [20].

The cultivation of forage fodder was one of the efforts made to meet the forage needs for cattle. Fulfillment of forage would support cattle productivity so that the business of Ongole crossbred cattle could run well. To support the cultivation of forage, in 2017, the government aided in the form of providing forage seeds and supporting farm equipment, such as water pumps and hand tractors. Furthermore, integrated animal service was learned by the farmers in each group area. The implementation of integrated animal service was followed by cow breeders and goat breeders. Integrated animal service participants were not only limited to breeders who were the members of the livestock group but could also be followed by outside people in the location. In the cattle breeding farming, conserving productive female cows was an effort to produce cattle breeds continually. The government’s aid in Ongole broodstock was given to groups of breeders for managing and raising broodstock.

3.1 Breeder behavior on farming technology implementation of Ongole crossbred cattle

The farming technology implementation in the raising of Ongole crossbreds could be described from the behavior of breeders in maintaining the cleanliness of the environment around the barn, the barn floor, fodder tub, drinking tub, and administering anthelmintic. Table 1 describes some farming technology implemented by small farmers.

Table 1

Behavior on livestock facilities management of Ongole crossbred cattle farm

No. Dimensions Cattle supplied by government (n = 30) Not supplied by government (n = 10)
Score (%) Category Score (%) Category
1. Breeders cleaned the environment around the cage 50.0 Moderately implemented 50.0 Moderately implemented
2. Breeders cleaned the cage floor 55.0 Moderately implemented 42.5 Moderately implemented
3. Breeders cleaned the fodder tub 67.5 Well implemented 70.0 Well implemented
4. Breeders cleaned the drinking tub 75.0 Well implemented 95.0 Perfectly implemented
5. Breeders administered anthelmintic 75.0 Well implemented 75.0 Well implemented
Average score 64.5 Well implemented 66.5 Well implemented

Table 1 shows that both the breeders, who were aided by government and not, well implemented the technology of farming Ongole crossbred cattle . However, the behavior on the cleaning environment around cage and cage floor was moderately implemented for both types of breeders. These were due to cleaning the cage’s environment and the cage’s floor was done only occasionally by the breeders. They reasoned that cleaning the environment around the cage and the cage floor required free time. In addition, most of the cages owned by breeders were soil floored, so breeders thought that the cage floor did not need regular cleaning.

Practice on cleaning the fodder tub was well conducted by breeders since they often cleaned the fodder tub. Cleaning the fodder tub did not require a particular time, it was done before the farmers added fodders. Cleaning the fodder tub was done by cleaning the remnants which the cows did not eat. The behavior of breeders whom the government aided in cleaning the drinking tub was well implemented. In contrast, the behavior of breeders who were not assisted by the government was perfectly implemented. The difference in behavior was due to breeders who got aid cleaned the drinking tub once every 2 days, while farmers who did not receive any aid cleaned the drinking tub every time after feeding the cows. The behavior of both breeder types on administering anthelmintic was well implemented. These were due to farmers often giving cows anthelmintics to prevent intestinal worms every 4–6 months. Anthelmintic was usually given together during integrated animal service. The study results indicated that farmers did not care for the animal production infrastructure because they were not aware that the breeding infrastructure has an impact on bovine meat production at the farming level. Research showed that the type of cage was determined as an essential variable [21]. The environmental factor can impact cows’ physiological behavior, finally resulting in impacting meat production [22].

3.2 Breeders’ behavior on producing alternative fodders

The behavior of breeders in producing alternative fodder can be described from the activities of the breeders in producing alternative fodder and providing it as cattle feed. Table 2 figured the farmers’ activity in producing alternative fodders.

Table 2

Breeders’ behavior in producing alternative fodders

No. Dimensions Cattle supplied by government (n = 30) Not supplied by government (n = 10)
Score (%) Category Score (%) Category
1. Breeders produced alternative fodder 40.75 Moderately implemented 30.00 Almost poorly implemented
2. Breeders fed cattle with alternative fodder 38.25 Almost poorly implemented 30.00 Almost poorly implemented
Total 39.50 Almost poorly implemented 30.00 Almost poorly implemented

The behavior of the breeders in alternative feed producing is almost poorly implemented, for both farmers who were assisted and not assisted by the government (Table 2). The difference in behavior was due to farmers who were assisted produced alternative fodders only occasionally, while those who did not receive help did not produce alternative fodders.

Feeding and nutrition of farm animals based on knowledge and good practices increased the production of animals [23]. The technical production system is the most important aspect affecting beef production at the farm level. The amount of the daily-consumed concentrate feed was determined as the most critical variable [21]. The implementation of good agribusiness raises the beef production of a cattle farm in the Grobogan Region [24]. The reason was that the production of alternative fodders required a particular time for the manufacturing process. The breeder also needed to prepare the tools and materials to be used. The breeders in Gunungkidul found it troublesome. The behavior of both the breeders in using alternative fodders was almost poorly implemented. The reasons were that they rarely made it; they also assumed that cows were less fond of alternative fermented silage.

3.3 Breeders’ behavior on cultivation of forage

The behavior of breeders towards the implementation of forage cultivation was described from the behavior of the breeders in growing and using the forage. Table 3 shows the cultivating practice of Yogyakarta Special Region breeders.

Table 3

Breeders’ behavior in cultivating forage fodder

No. Dimensions Cattle supplied by government (n = 30) Not supplied by government (n = 10)
Score (%) Category Score (%) Category
1. Farmers cultivate forage fodder 67.5 Well implemented 65.00 Well implemented
2. Farmers use the produced forage fodder 78.25 Well implemented 95.00 Perfectly implemented
Total 73.00 Well implemented 80.00 Well implemented

Table 3 shows that both the breeders well implemented the cultivation of forage. This was due to the breeders often cultivating forage in their own land. Cultivation was carried out on land devoted to growing forage or on the edge of agricultural land managed by the farmers.

Some forages are used as animal feed, including agricultural wastes (rice, maize, and peanuts) and grasses found in food crops and forests [25]. Inclusion of forage into fodder increases dry matter [26], the diets with a greater forage content enable high digestibility [27] and increases rumination time [26]. Breeders in Gunungkidul Regency who received aid in using forage fodder had well-cultivated forage, while the other parties had perfectly cultivated forage but they were limited to land of forage cultivation. For smallholder farmers, the essential factor to grow cattle was the availability of land for cultivating forage [28]. The rural high gradient land was used to cultivate forage production [29], and the smallholder farmers offered this limited forage to their cattle [30]. The biggest animal nutritional challenge seems to be a lack of access to grazing lands and no or very limited grains or forage crops grown for cattle feed sources [31]. The main reason was that smallholder breeders had limited access to the land for forage [14].

3.4 Breeders’ behavior on implementation of integrated animal services

The behavior of breeders towards implementing integrated animal services was described from the behavior of the breeders in checking the health, pregnancy, and reproduction of cattle. Table 4 describes breeders’ practice on administering integrated animal service.

Table 4

Breeder’s behavior in administering integrated animal service

No. Dimensions Cattle supplied by government (n = 30) Not supplied by government (n = 10)
Score (%) Category Score (%) Category
1. Breeders check cows’ health 67.50 Well implemented 67.5 Well implemented
2. Breeders check cows’ pregnancy 75.75 Well implemented 80.0 Well implemented
3. Breeders check cows’ reproductive conditions 46.75 Moderately implemented 40.0 Almost poorly implemented
Total 63.25 Well implemented 62.5 Well implemented

Table 4 shows that the behavior of both the breeder groups was similar. These were due to all of them often checking the health condition of cows. This behavior showed that breeders were fully aware of maintaining the health of cows. Animal health and disease management may be important in conventionally managed cattle herds in Sweden [32]. The risks posed for disease introduction and spread are believed to be higher for smallholder livestock producers due to less appropriate animal health management practices [33].

Beef cattle farming can only run well if enough calves are born and growing well until it is marketed. The optimum reproductive performance of a female cow is an essential factor in a beef cattle business. Reproductive performance of Ongole crossbred cattle was better than Limousine crossbred cattle [34]. Breeders did not well conduct the checking of cattle reproduction. The only cattle reproduction performance that breeder observed was the period of anestrus postpartum after 1–2 months since it calved. The signs of estrus that were well known to breeders are clear fluid coming out of the vulva, swelling, decreased appetite, and climbing the feed. Breeders in Gunungkidul Regency well implemented checking pregnancy of their cows. The breeders checked pregnancy to ensure the success of artificial insemination and natural mating that has been conducted. In addition, pregnancy checks were performed to estimate the age of pregnancy for cattle.

3.5 Breeders’ behavior on conserving productive female cows

The behavior of farmers in the implementation of preserving productive female cows was described from the behavior of breeders in raising female Ongole crossbred for broodstock and mating productive cows. The following was an explanation of the behavior of the breeders towards the implementation of saving productive female cows.

Table 5 shows that the behavior of both the breeders in the implementation of conserving productive cows was in the well-implemented category. The behavior of both the breeders in maintaining Ongole crossbreds as broodstock also belonged to the well-implemented category. This was due to that breeders often raise female Ongole crossbreds for broodstock. The breeders understood that calving interval of Ongole crossbreed was shorter than other types of cows, so they got pregnant again faster. Results of research showed that the fertility rate of Ongole crossbred cows was higher than that of Limousine cows [35].

Table 5

Breeders’ behavior in conserving productive female cows

No. Dimensions Cattle supplied by government (n = 30) Not supplied by government (n = 10)
Score (%) Category Score (%) Category
1. Breeders raise female Ongole crossbred for broodstock 71.75 Well implemented 62.5 Well implemented
2. Breeders mate the productive female cows 71.75 Well implemented 72.5 Well implemented
Total 71.75 Well implemented 67.5 Well implemented

Reproductive health was very important to get high pregnancy and calf birth. Many breeders understood good broodstock yield superior calve, but breeders did not practice either a good broodstock maintenance management or reproductive health management. Quality and availability of calves determined the success of the increasing population and production of cows. So far, the obstacle to increasing the population of cattle was the limited number of breed cows. One of the reasons was that many productive cows are slaughtered [36]. The behavior of breeders in Gunungkidul in mating productive cows was of well-implemented category, this meant that breeders would mate when they met broodstock estrous. In addition, farmers maximize the potential of productive female cows that still produce calves. The farmers will continue to raise the broodstock as long as female cows are able to produce calves, and sold them when they were infertile and replace them with younger ones. This behavior showed that breeders were aware of increasing the cattle population with limited capital. The higher numbers of cow per farm increased the efficiency of cattle farming [37].

Breeders involved in the development program of Ongole crossbred cattle in Gunungkidul Regency had well-practiced livestock growing management. The breeders well implemented the livestock facilities management, development of forage fodder, integrated animal services, and conserving productive cows, but they disliked to use agriculture by-product to produce alternative fodders. The availability of facilities and infrastructure that were suitable to smallholder farmers influenced the breeders to implement good livestock management as they had learned in the development program. Farmers stated that they declined to produce alternative feed due to non-availability of equipment yet [20]. Moreover, breeders were reluctant to produce alternative fodders due to the cost, and unavailability of labor and motivation [38]. Farmer institution has a strategic role in empowering small farmers [15], so the government is advised to facilitate the farmer institutions an investment on small-scale agriculture machinery [39].

4 Conclusions

The Ongole crossbred cattle development program was officially supported by the Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia to preserve the Ongole crossbred population. Various activities were carried out to support the program, including (i) facilities management, (ii) producing alternative fodder, (iii) cultivating forage fodder, (iv) integrated animal services, and (v) conserving productive female cow. This study showed that the breeders practice facilities management, integrated animal service, and conserving productive female cows. Although the smallholder farmers well cultivated forage, they were constrained with land owned for forage growth. Moreover, smallholder farmers were poor in producing alternative fodder due to high costs and complex operations. Smallholder cattle breeders need simple machinery to produce alternative fodder. It is suggested that government facilitate investment in the agriculture machinery industry that produces small capacity fodder treatment. This Ongole broodstock conservation program successfully brought farmers to conserve their female cattle but was insufficient to raise the Ongole crossbred population.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ms Siti Yusi Rusimah for her constructive discussion on this research, and 40 smallholder farmers for providing the data so that we can complete this article.

  1. Funding information: The authors state no funding involved.

  2. Author contributions: W – conceptualization, supervision, validation, and writing; D.R.K. – methodology and formal analysis; B.N.U. – resources and investigation.

  3. Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Agriculture Agencies of Yogyakarta Special Region. Performance Report of Government, Agriculture Service of Yogyakarta Special Region. 2018.Suche in Google Scholar

[2] Nurdiman M, Ramadhany A, editors. Livestock and animal health statistics 2018. Kementerian Pertanian RI: Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan; 2018.Suche in Google Scholar

[3] Kusriatmi PM, editors. Gross regional domestic product of Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta by industry 2013–2017. Yogyakarta Province: BPS-Statistics of D.I; 2018.Suche in Google Scholar

[4] Mukson M, Marzuki S, Sari PI, Setiyawan H. Factors affecting development potency of household livestock in Kaliori district, Rembang Regency, Central Java. J Indones Trop Anim Agric. 2008;33:305–12.Suche in Google Scholar

[5] Sonbait LY, Santosa KAP. Evaluation of cattle sharing system in the development of cattle farming for the farmer groups under Lembaga Mandiri Yang Mengakar in Manokwari Regency, West Papua. Bul Peternak. 2011;35:208–17.10.21059/buletinpeternak.v35i3.1095Suche in Google Scholar

[6] Wibowo HMS, Guntoro B, Sulastri E. Assessment of agribusiness development program implementation of beef cattle farming in Sekadau Regency, West Kalimantan. Bul Peternak. 2011;35:143–53.10.21059/buletinpeternak.v35i2.601Suche in Google Scholar

[7] Wangchuk K, Wurzinger M, Darabant A, Gratzer G, Zollitsch W. The changing face of cattle raising and forest grazing in the Bhutan Himalaya. Mt Res Dev. 2014;34:131–8. 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-13-00021.1.Suche in Google Scholar

[8] Budhi GS. Escalating people’s participation in rural development through GO-NGO collaboration. Forum Penelit Agro Ekon. 2008;26:58–70.10.21082/fae.v26n1.2008.58-70Suche in Google Scholar

[9] Nahayo A, Omondi MO, Zhang XH, Li LQ, Pan GX, Joseph S. Factors influencing farmers’ participation in crop intensification program in Rwanda. J Integr Agric. 2017;16:1406–16. 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61555-1.Suche in Google Scholar

[10] Sharaunga S, Mudhara M. Determinants of farmers’ participation in collective maintenance of irrigation infrastructure in KwaZulu-Natal. Phys Chem Earth. 2018;105:265–73. 10.1016/j.pce.2018.02.014.Suche in Google Scholar

[11] Derks M, van Werven T, Hogeveen H, Kremer WDJ. Associations between farmer participation in veterinary herd health management programs and farm performance. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97:1336–47. 10.3168/jds.2013-6781.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Saptarini FHT, Guntoro G, Sulastri E. Level of participation of members in “Pandan Mulyo” Farmer Group, Srandakan, Bantul. Bul Peternak. 2007;31:101–10.10.21059/buletinpeternak.v31i2.1224Suche in Google Scholar

[13] Sudaryanto AT, Sutopo, Kurnianto E. Phenotype diversity of Ongole grade cattle in breeding area of Central Java. J Vet. 2018;19:478–87. 10.19087/jveteriner.2018.19.4.478.Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Agus A, Widi TSM. Current situation and future prospects for beef cattle production in Indonesia – a review. Asian-Australasian J Anim Sci. 2018;31:976–83. 10.5713/ajas.18.0233.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[15] Amam JMW, Harsita PA. Institutional performance of dairy farmers and the impacts on resources. Agrar J Agribus Rural Dev Res. 2020;6:63–73. 10.18196/agr.6191.Suche in Google Scholar

[16] Sudrajad PS. Phenotypic characteristics of Ongole grade cows in Kebumen. Widyariset. 2011;17:283–90. 10.14203/widyariset.17.2.2014.283-290.Suche in Google Scholar

[17] Susilawati T. Sapi Lokal Indonesia (Jawa Timur dan Bali). Malang: UB Press; 2017.Suche in Google Scholar

[18] Franz A, Deimel I, Spiller A. Concerns about animal welfare: a cluster analysis of German pig farmers. Br Food J. 2012;114:1445–62. 10.1108/00070701211263019.Suche in Google Scholar

[19] Borgen SO, Skarstad GA. Norwegian pig farmers’ motivations for improving animal welfare. Br Food J. 2007;109:891–905. 10.1108/00070700710835705.Suche in Google Scholar

[20] Kataike J, Modekurti DPV, Butali E, Magumba D, Mugenyi AR, Aine-Omucunguzi A, et al. A parametric test evaluating smallholder farmers’ training needs in Uganda: A case of dairy farmers in the Rwenzori region. J Agribus Dev Emerg Econ. 2018;8:537–53. 10.1108/JADEE-08-2016-0053.Suche in Google Scholar

[21] Ertek N, Keskin A. An enterprise level analysis of the factors affecting beef production. J Anim Plant Sci. 2019;29:578–84.Suche in Google Scholar

[22] Colditz IG, Hine BC. Resilience in farm animals: biology, management, breeding and implications for animal welfare. Anim Prod Sci. 2016;56:1961–83. 10.1071/AN15297.Suche in Google Scholar

[23] Huque KS, Huda N. Advancement in the feeding and nutrition of farm animals of Bangladesh and a panoramic view 2050. Turkish J Agric - Food Sci Technol. 2018;6:226. 10.24925/turjaf.v6i2.226-232.1612.Suche in Google Scholar

[24] Ekowati T, Prasetyo E, Handayani M. The factors influencing production and economic efficiency of beef cattle farm in Grobogan Region, Central Java. J Indones Trop Anim Agric. 2018;43:76–84. 10.14710/jitaa.43.1.76-84.Suche in Google Scholar

[25] Gunawan A, Sodiq A, Muatip K, Setianto NA. Reproductive performance of beef cattle raised under SPR program in Tegal Regency. Bul Peternak. 2020;44:27–34. 10.21059/buletinpeternak.v44i1.46127.Suche in Google Scholar

[26] EbnAli A, Khorvash M, Ghorbani GR, Mahdavi AH, Malekkhahi M, Mirzaei M, et al. Effects of forage offering method on performance, rumen fermentation, nutrient digestibility and nutritional behaviour in Holstein dairy calves. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2016;100:820–7. 10.1111/jpn.12442.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] Pazoki A, Ghorbani GR, Kargar S, Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi A, Drackley JK, Ghaffari MH. Growth performance, nutrient digestibility, ruminal fermentation, and rumen development of calves during transition from liquid to solid feed: Effects of physical form of starter feed and forage provision. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2017;234:173–85. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.06.004.Suche in Google Scholar

[28] Fadli C, Satriawan H. Analysis of the potential integration of palm oil-cattle in Bireuen Regency, Aceh Province. Agrar J Agribus Rural Dev Res. 2018;4:69–80. 10.18196/agr.4262.Suche in Google Scholar

[29] Ariti AT, van Vliet J, Verburg PH. Farmers’ participation in the development of land use policies for the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Land Use Policy. 2018;71:129–37. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.051.Suche in Google Scholar

[30] Widiati R, Widi TSM. Production systems and income generation from the smallholder beef cattle farming in Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia. Anim Prod. 2016;18:51–8.10.20884/1.anprod.2016.18.1.524Suche in Google Scholar

[31] Herring AD, Kyaw AT, Khaing T. Beef cattle production system capacity considerations for improved food security: a case study in Myanmar. Anim Front. 2018;8:38–46. 10.1093/AF/VFY010.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[32] Emanuelson U, Sjöström K, Fall N. Biosecurity and animal disease management in organic and conventional Swedish dairy herds: a questionnaire study. Acta Vet Scand. 2018;60:1–7. 10.1186/s13028-018-0376-6.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[33] Hernández-Jover M, Hayes L, Woodgate R, Rast L, Toribio JALML. Animal health management practices among smallholder livestock producers in Australia and their contribution to the surveillance system. Front Vet Sci. 2019;6:1–14. 10.3389/fvets.2019.00191.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[34] Faidiban OR. Puberty in beef heifers: a review. J Ilmu Peternak. 2010;5:20–7. 10.30862/jipv.v5i1.759.Suche in Google Scholar

[35] Akriono M, Wahjuningsih S, Ihsan MN. Performans reproduksi sapi peranakan ongole dan peranakan limousin di kecamatan padang kabupaten lumajang. TERNAK Trop J Trop Anim Prod. 2017;18:77–81. 10.21776/ub.jtapro.2017.018.01.10.Suche in Google Scholar

[36] Ilham N, Indraningsih KS, Elizabeth R. Local cow business performance in several regions of beef cattle development. Anal Kebijak Pertan. 2017;15:67–82. 10.21082/akp.v15n1.2017.67-8267.Suche in Google Scholar

[37] Mareth T, Thomé AMT, Cyrino Oliveira FL, Scavarda LF. Systematic review and meta-regression analysis of technical efficiency in dairy farms. Int J Product Perform Manag. 2016;65:279–301. 10.1108/IJPPM-02-2015-0027.Suche in Google Scholar

[38] Lestari VS, Rahardja DP, Rombe MB. Knowledge and attitude of beef cattle farmers towards adoption of crop residue technology for animal feeding. J Ilmu Dan Teknol Peternak. 2015;4:90–3.Suche in Google Scholar

[39] Dokić D, Gavran M, Gregić M, Gantner V. The impact of trade balance of agri-food products on the state’s ability to withstand the crisis. HighTech Innov J. 2020;1:107–11. 10.28991/HIJ-2020-01-03-02.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-12-01
Revised: 2022-03-07
Accepted: 2022-03-07
Published Online: 2022-03-24

© 2022 Widodo et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Foliar application of boron positively affects the growth, yield, and oil content of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.)
  3. Impacts of adopting specialized agricultural programs relying on “good practice” – Empirical evidence from fruit growers in Vietnam
  4. Evaluation of 11 potential trap crops for root-knot nematode (RKN) control under glasshouse conditions
  5. Technical efficiency of resource-poor maize farmers in northern Ghana
  6. Bulk density: An index for measuring critical soil compaction levels for groundnut cultivation
  7. Efficiency of the European Union farm types: Scenarios with and without the 2013 CAP measures
  8. Participatory validation and optimization of the Triple S method for sweetpotato planting material conservation in southern Ethiopia
  9. Selection of high-yield maize hybrid under different cropping systems based on stability and adaptability parameters
  10. Soil test-based phosphorus fertilizer recommendation for malting barley production on Nitisols
  11. Effects of domestication and temperature on the growth and survival of the giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) postlarvae
  12. Influence of irrigation regime on gas exchange, growth, and oil quality of field grown, Texas (USA) olive trees
  13. Present status and prospects of value addition industry for agricultural produce – A review
  14. Competitiveness and impact of government policy on chili in Indonesia
  15. Growth of Rucola on Mars soil simulant under the influence of pig slurry and earthworms
  16. Effect of potassium fertilizer application in teff yield and nutrient uptake on Vertisols in the central highlands of Ethiopia
  17. Dissection of social interaction and community engagement of smallholder oil palm in reducing conflict using soft system methodology
  18. Farmers’ perception, awareness, and constraints of organic rice farming in Indonesia
  19. Improving the capacity of local food network through local food hubs’ development
  20. Quality evaluation of gluten-free biscuits prepared with algarrobo flour as a partial sugar replacer
  21. Effect of pre-slaughter weight on morphological composition of pig carcasses
  22. Study of the impact of increasing the highest retail price of subsidized fertilizer on rice production in Indonesia
  23. Agrobiodiversity and perceived climatic change effect on family farming systems in semiarid tropics of Kenya
  24. Influences of inter- and intra-row spacing on the growth and head yield of cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) in western Amhara, Ethiopia
  25. The supply chain and its development concept of fresh mulberry fruit in Thailand: Observations in Nan Province, the largest production area
  26. Toward achieving sustainable development agenda: Nexus between agriculture, trade openness, and oil rents in Nigeria
  27. Phenotyping cowpea accessions at the seedling stage for drought tolerance in controlled environments
  28. Apparent nutrient utilization and metabolic growth rate of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, cultured in recirculating aquaculture and biofloc systems
  29. Influence of season and rangeland-type on serum biochemistry of indigenous Zulu sheep
  30. Meta-analysis of responses of broiler chickens to Bacillus supplementation: Intestinal histomorphometry and blood immunoglobulin
  31. Weed composition and maize yield in a former tin-mining area: A case study in Malim Nawar, Malaysia
  32. Strategies for overcoming farmers’ lives in volcano-prone areas: A case study in Mount Semeru, Indonesia
  33. Principal component and cluster analyses based characterization of maize fields in southern central Rift Valley of Ethiopia
  34. Profitability and financial performance of European Union farms: An analysis at both regional and national levels
  35. Analysis of trends and variability of climatic parameters in Teff growing belts of Ethiopia
  36. Farmers’ food security in the volcanic area: A case in Mount Merapi, Indonesia
  37. Strategy to improve the sustainability of “porang” (Amorphophallus muelleri Blume) farming in support of the triple export movement policy in Indonesia
  38. Agrarian contracts, relations between agents, and perception on energy crops in the sugarcane supply chain: The Peruvian case
  39. Factors influencing the adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
  40. Meta-analysis of zinc feed additive on enhancement of semen quality, fertility and hatchability performance in breeder chickens
  41. Meta-analysis of the potential of dietary Bacillus spp. in improving growth performance traits in broiler chickens
  42. Biocomposites from agricultural wastes and mycelia of a local mushroom, Lentinus squarrosulus (Mont.) Singer
  43. Cross transferability of barley nuclear SSRs to pearl millet genome provides new molecular tools for genetic analyses and marker assisted selection
  44. Detection of encapsulant addition in butterfly-pea (Clitoria ternatea L.) extract powder using visible–near-infrared spectroscopy and chemometrics analysis
  45. The willingness of farmers to preserve sustainable food agricultural land in Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  46. Transparent conductive far-infrared radiative film based on polyvinyl alcohol with carbon fiber apply in agriculture greenhouse
  47. Grain yield stability of black soybean lines across three agroecosystems in West Java, Indonesia
  48. Forms of land access in the sugarcane agroindustry: A comparison of Brazilian and Peruvian cases
  49. Assessment of the factors contributing to the lack of agricultural mechanization in Jiroft, Iran
  50. Do poor farmers have entrepreneurship skill, intention, and competence? Lessons from transmigration program in rural Gorontalo Province, Indonesia
  51. Communication networks used by smallholder livestock farmers during disease outbreaks: Case study in the Free State, South Africa
  52. Sustainability of Arabica coffee business in West Java, Indonesia: A multidimensional scaling approach
  53. Farmers’ perspectives on the adoption of smart farming technology to support food farming in Aceh Province, Indonesia
  54. Rice yield grown in different fertilizer combination and planting methods: Case study in Buru Island, Indonesia
  55. Paclobutrazol and benzylaminopurine improve potato yield grown under high temperatures in lowland and medium land
  56. Agricultural sciences publication activity in Russia and the impact of the national project “Science.” A bibliometric analysis
  57. Storage conditions and postharvest practices lead to aflatoxin contamination in maize in two counties (Makueni and Baringo) in Kenya
  58. Relationship of potato yield and factors of influence on the background of herbological protection
  59. Biology and life cycle Of Diatraea busckella (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) under simulated altitudinal profile in controlled conditions
  60. Evaluation of combustion characteristics performances and emissions of a diesel engine using diesel and biodiesel fuel blends containing graphene oxide nanoparticles
  61. Effect of various varieties and dosage of potassium fertilizer on growth, yield, and quality of red chili (Capsicum annuum L.)
  62. Review Articles
  63. Germination ecology of three Asteraceae annuals Arctotis hirsuta, Oncosiphon suffruticosum, and Cotula duckittiae in the winter-rainfall region of South Africa: A review
  64. Animal waste antibiotic residues and resistance genes: A review
  65. A brief and comprehensive history of the development and use of feed analysis: A review
  66. The evolving state of food security in Nigeria amidst the COVID-19 pandemic – A review
  67. Short Communication
  68. Response of cannabidiol hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) varieties grown in the southeastern United States to nitrogen fertilization
  69. Special Issue on the International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research – Agrarian Sciences
  70. Special issue on the International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research – Agrarian Sciences: Message from the editor
  71. Maritime pine land use environmental impact evolution in the context of life cycle assessment
  72. Influence of different parameters on the characteristics of hazelnut (var. Grada de Viseu) grown in Portugal
  73. Organic food consumption and eating habit in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown
  74. Customer knowledge and behavior on the use of food refrigerated display cabinets: A Portuguese case
  75. Perceptions and knowledge regarding quality and safety of plastic materials used for food packaging
  76. Understanding the role of media and food labels to disseminate food related information in Lebanon
  77. Liquefaction and chemical composition of walnut shells
  78. Validation of an analytical methodology to determine humic substances using low-volume toxic reagents
  79. Special Issue on the International Conference on Agribusiness and Rural Development – IConARD 2020
  80. Behavioral response of breeder toward development program of Ongole crossbred cattle in Yogyakarta Special Region, Indonesia
  81. Special Issue on the 2nd ICSARD 2020
  82. Perceived attributes driving the adoption of system of rice intensification: The Indonesian farmers’ view
  83. Value-added analysis of Lactobacillus acidophilus cell encapsulation using Eucheuma cottonii by freeze-drying and spray-drying
  84. Investigating the elicited emotion of single-origin chocolate towards sustainable chocolate production in Indonesia
  85. Temperature and duration of vernalization effect on the vegetative growth of garlic (Allium sativum L.) clones in Indonesia
  86. Special Issue on Agriculture, Climate Change, Information Technology, Food and Animal (ACIFAS 2020)
  87. Prediction model for agro-tourism development using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system method
  88. Special Issue of International Web Conference on Food Choice and Eating Motivation
  89. Can ingredients and information interventions affect the hedonic level and (emo-sensory) perceptions of the milk chocolate and cocoa drink’s consumers?
Heruntergeladen am 20.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/opag-2022-0076/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen