CC BY
0
UDC 332; DOI 10.18551/rjoas.2022-08.21
INTEGRATED POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR REDUCING PRODUCTIVE COWS SLAUGHTERING IN DRYLAND AGRICULTURE OF INDONESIA
Lole Ulrikus R.*, Keban Arnoldus, Sogen Johanes G., Mulyantini S.S.N.G.A.
Study Program of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Husbandry, University of Nusa Cendana, Indonesia *E-mail: ulrikusromsenlole@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Policy implementation (controlling productive cow slaughtering) and institutions are not yet integrated and effective on each line. Objectives: a) Analyze the effectiveness of policy implementation, b) Formulate general strategies in the form of integrated policies, and c) Organize institutional and partnership models to support policy implementation. Method: Survey of related parties in the effort to implement the policy. Data from production (in village, Line I), trade (in transportation, Line II), and slaughtering (in abattoir, Line III). Data were analyzed descriptively and other qualitative approaches. Analysis of the success of the model through analysis of the effectiveness of policy implementation. Results: Pergub and Perbup as derivatives of the UU and Permentan are not optimal because of weaknesses. Important articles and verses concerning fines and confinement sanctions are not included (the red thread of regulations is interrupted). Pergub has inserted verses that weaken prevention efforts. The implementation of the policy is not integrated between stakeholders. As a result, slaughtering remains high and uncontrolled. Conclusions: 1) Implementation of policies is not effective because of legal, socio-cultural, economic, and technical constraints; 2) Integrated policy strategy is a prerequisite for the revitalization of regulations in the context of regional autonomy; and 3) Institutional and partnership models based on specific roles and mutual support do not yet exist. Recommendations: 1) Revised Pergub and issuance of Perbup that are not multiple interpretations; and 2) Designing an integrated model of policies and institutions that are standard with the structure and SOP of each related party.
KEY WORDS
Model, policy, institutional, reduce slaughter, productive cow.
Slaughter of productive cows (PCs) is significantly occurred in all production center areas ranging from 40.0-80.0%. PCs butchering in the City/Regency Kupang abattoir is around 80.0-89.7%, thus threatening business sustainability (Yusuf and Nullik, 2009). Uncontrolled PCs slaughter has the effect of reducing its population (Pally, 2019; Soejosopoetro, 2011; Rianto, 2020). Excessive and uncontrolled PCs abolition will weaken the livestock breed base and undermine the essential strength of the domestic livestock industry, and at the same time will continue to encourage and strengthen the level of import dependence (Paly, 2019; Rezitis and Stavropoulus, 2010). If PCs lives longer and has the opportunity to give more calves (optimization), then in turn it can increase the population (Paly, 2019: Khan, 2017; Larson and Berglund, 2008). In the program for self-sufficiency in beef, efforts towards beef self-sufficiency can be achieve through optimizing PCs, delaying PCs slaughter, and limiting imports (Bunmee, 2018; Aritonang, 2017; Han et al, 2016; Olmo et al, 2016).
The implementation of the PCs slaughter control policy in the form of Law 18/2009 (UU), Agricultural Ministry Regulation 35/2011 (Permentan), and NTT Governor Regulation 25/2012 (Pergub) turned out to be not integrated and ineffective, so PCs slaughter remained high. Failure to implement the policy results in a decline of PCs population, low pregnancy, low calve production, and a slight population growth (Devendra, 2007; Gosalamang et al, 2012). Low production due to inadequate management in the implementation of the natural mate intensification policy and the failure of the artificial insemination policy. So that not all PCs can be pregnant and give more calves (Lole et al, 2013; Wirdahayati, 2010; Ibragimov
et al, 2016). Policies that are not integrated can reflect the conditions of stakeholders who have not been integrate (Nxumalo and Oladele, 2013; Zhu and Yang, 2012). Efforts to involve stakeholders require policies that are proportionally relate, so that they can be implement properly and effectively (Isyanto and Iwan, 2016; Poddaturi et al, 2020).
The problem is whether the application of policies and institutional participation in efforts to control PCs butchering had been integrated and effective in various aspects and lines; reduce slaughter; increase pregnancy, calves production, population, and cattle supply; and increase farmers' income and welfare? The objectives of the study are: a) Analyzing the effectiveness of the implementation of PCs butchering control policies, b) Formulating a general model of integrated PCs abatement reduction policies, and c) Organizing institutional models and stakeholder partnership networks to support the implementation of PCs abatement reduction policies.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
Survey of parties related to the implementation of policies/regulations, in this case covering all stakeholders. Primary data were obtained through individual in-depth interviews and stakeholder group discussions (interested parties) including breeders, village-level livestock traders, sub-district/district-level livestock traders, inter-island livestock traders, cattle slaughter traders (abattoir), village heads, field extension officer, farmer groups/ farmer groups association, business units/ cooperatives, animal husbandry services (provincial, district, and sub-district), professional organizations, traders' organizations, control posts, animal markets, etc.; guided by the open-ended questions in the questionnaire. Secondary data were obtained from various institutions related to the development and control of PCs livestock.
Thus, data is obtained from various parties related to production activities (parties in the village which are included in the First Line or Line I), trade (parties in transportation and trade activities which are included as the Intermediate Line or Line II), and withholding PCs (parties in the abattoir who are covered as the Last Line or Line III). Tracing stakeholders as livestock trade actors is carried out using the snowballing technique, namely by following the flow of PCs movements from farmers to slaughterhouses (abattoir and non- abattoir). In addition, based on the type, it consists of qualitative data and quantitative data, which in this study are of course very dominated by qualitative data because of the nature of policy research itself. Policy research data collection requires a description or assessment and assessment of a certain aspect of the implemented policy. Data were analyzed by descriptive analysis and other qualitative approaches. To analyze the indicators of the success of the model through an analysis of the effectiveness of community-based policy implementation (Dunn 2012; Suharto 2010; Nugroho 2009).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The results of the study provide information about the composition of cattle based on the age period of cattle per sex. The results of the analysis also provide an overview of the implementation of related policies along with their advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, an integrated strategic policy model is formulated that involves various stakeholders to maximize the level of achievement of efforts to prevent/reduce PCs deductions in the field.
Regarding the trend of slaughtering cows (including PCs), the results of the study in Table 1 show the composition of the cattle population based on livestock groups in the last two years. It turns out that the dominant number of livestock in the field at this time is cows consisting of cows calves, young cows, and adult cows (both PCs, disabled cows, majir cows, and old/rejected cows). The fact that the slaughter of PCs is very dominant in the abattoir and non abattoir, requires close supervision in order to avoid PCs slaughter. A special regulation is needed so that the slaughtered cows are classified as adult cows in the categories of disabled cows, majir cows, and old/rejected cows. The government's role is
very much needed in regulation, in addition to supervision carried out by relevant government agencies, NGOs, universities, and professional organizations.
Table 1 - Estimation of the composition of the cattle population in NTT based on sex and age
category (2020)
Cattle composition Age (year) Heads Percentage Per total Per sex Description
Calf bulls 0-1 122.048 10,3 32,3 Ready to cut in year t+2
Yearling bulls >1-2 134.826 11,3 35,69 Ready to cut in year t+2
Adult bulls >2 120.852 10,2 31,99 Ready to cut in year t
Total bulls - 377.726 31,8 100,0 Percentage of total cattle
Calf cows 0-1 124.781 10,5 15,4 Become a parent in year t +2 or ready to cut in year t+8
Yearling cows >1-2 143.781 12,1 17,7 Ready to cut in year t+7
Adult cows (total) >2 542.694 45,6 66,9 Productive and non productive
Productive cows >2 386.967 32,5 47,7 Represents 71.3% of the total mature cows
Total cows - 811.256 68,2 100,0 Percentage of total cattle
Total beef cattle - 1.188.982 100.0 -
Sources: Mixed data with Livestock Office and others.
Implementation of Law 18/2009 (juncto Law 41/2014), Permentan 35/2011, and Pergub 25/2012 are ineffective and have legal, socio-cultural, economic, and technical obstacles in the field. The fact that slaughtering of PCs by employers (in abattoir) and the community (in non-abattoir) are against the law. Generally, entrepreneurs have reasons for economic benefits as well as a lack of concern for the sustainability of germplasm, populations, livestock businesses, and livestock farmers' income (Lole, 2009; Bettencourt, 2015; Kemi, 2016). Therefore, prevention is needed as early as possible since productive cows are still in the hands of farmers (Line I), in the hands of traders (Line II), up to the hands of abattoir entrepreneurs (Line III).
Prevention of slaughtering PCs should be done from Line I (in the village), Line II (in traders, transportation, post, and markets), to Line III (in abattoir/non- abattoir). In the First Line (Line I) there are mechanisms/procedures that have not been integrated. Pergub inhibiting factors: a) PCs do not have a livestock card; b) Village head permit without seeing the condition of PCs; c) Not all PCs get a health certificate; d) License for PCs has not been accompanied by specific information; e) Farmers are not yet members of the cooperatives group; and f) The sale of PCs individually results in low prices. Mechanisms and procedures must be improved in an integrated manner. This is in line with research on the important role of institutions in livestock conservation and increasing farmer income (Khan and Iqubal, 2010; Ibrahim et al, 2013); Siswoyo et al, 2017; Siswijono et al, 2014).
In the Intermediate Line (Line II) there are mechanisms/procedures that have not been integrated. Pergub inhibiting factors: a) PCs with a letter can pass in the surveillance post to abattoir. b) the PCs without letters can pass the surveillance post. c) Surveillance posts are only sub-district officials; e) PCs without letters pass to the market and produce a letter, so that conditions and ownership of animals can be manipulated to the slaughterhouse; and f) Village permit does not specify the health condition of PCs. As a result, healthy PCs may be tortured to disability during the journey to the abattoir. This is in line with research on the role of various institutions in the beef production system and supply chain (Han et al, 2016; Rianto et al, 2020; Tiro and Lalus, 2012; Nendissa et al, 2018).
At the Last Line (Line III) there are several mechanisms/procedures that have not been integrated. Pergub inhibiting factors: a) There is no detailed information on the origin and condition of PCs so that the abattoir officers approve the slaughtering of PCs, even though abuse may occur; b) Weak control has the potential to exchange bulls with healthy PCs/pregnant cows by butchers; d) The supervisor has not involved the relevant parties. This is in line with the results of research on the risk of reproductive diseases (Muflihanah et al, 2013; Reka et al, 2018) and research on the management of livestock slaughter supervision in abattoirs (Rianto, 2020).
Table 2 shows the composition of cattle slaughtered which is dominated by PCs, namely in abattoir 80.0% (78.0-85.0%) and non abattoir 20.0% (15.0-22.0%) and is evidence that the Pergub is not effectively implemented. Many reasons for butchers when
they breaking the rules. It is reflect that the butcher does not feel responsible for the existence (population and condition) of PCs at this time, especially for future sustainability.
Table 2 - Number of cattle slaughter per age category in RPH and non-RPH (May 2020)
Age category
Abattoir3
Non Abattoir6
Total
n
%
%
%
Yearling bulls 12 0,94 0 0,00 12 0,74
Adult bulls 108 8,44 40 11,40 148 9,08
Defective bulls 22 1,72 8 2,28 30 1,84
Sterile bulls 17 1,33 11 3,13 28 1,72
Old bulls 15 1,17 9 2,56 24 1,47
Bulls 174 13,60 68 19,37 242 14,85
Yearling cows 10 0,78 0 0,00 10 0,61
Productive cows 1.028 80,38 247 70,37 1.275 78,22
Defective cows 28 2,19 20 5,70 48 2,94
Sterile cows 19 1,49 11 3,13 30 1,84
Old cows 20 1,56 5 1,42 25 1,53
Cows 1.105 86,40 283 80,63 1.388 85,15
Total 1.279 100,00 351 100,00 1.630 100,00
Abattoir 78,47 Non Abattoir 21,53
Sources: aFrom Abattoir Oeba-Kupang City, Soe-TTS, and Atambua-Belu, bFrom several samples of traditional ceremonies, funerals, and marriages.
Pergub and Perbup as a derivative of the UU and Permentan have not been implemented optimally due to various weaknesses in the policy document.
Weakness of the Pergub NTT 25/2012:
• The Pergub does not include the fines and criminal sanctions in Chapter VII Article 15 Paragraph 2 (specifically Article 86 Paragraph 2 in UU 18/2009 and Article 91B in UU 41/2014). Even though the paragraphs in Articles 86 and 91B are the power of implementation and law enforcement;
• Pergub no strict sanctions for traders/butchers who bring PCs (pregnant or not pregnant) in abattoir (not yet slaughtered). Whereas PCs should be confiscate without compensation, because it is proven that there is already an intention to break the law;
• Pergub has included Article 2 of Article 11, which is not consistent with law enforcement. Moreover, this paragraph does not exist in the Act, consequently weakening the implementation of the Act. The point of the verse is that for PCs owners in the market without a permit (original village), they can take care of the technical service in the market area. This verse has the potential to pass PCs without letters and legalize the sale of PCs resulting from crime;
• Pergub has not yet included a special chapter on implementing organizations and partnerships starting at the provincial, district/city, sub-district and village levels.
Pergub needs to be revising by adding new verses and canceling verses that are disturbing and have an ineffective effect when implemented. This is in line with studies related to improving policies/regulations in the development process (including livestock) (Dunn, 2012; Devendra, 2017). Some changes in this case:
• Enter the sentence of confinement and fines in Chapter VII Article 15 Paragraph 2 of the Pergub and become a guideline in law enforcement. The related party only needs to hold one regulatory document (Pergub/Perbup) with detailed sanctions. Sometimes the parties only see the verses in Perbup, because they do not feel it is important to refer the verses to higher regulations (Pergub, Permentan, and UU). The important thing is that the description of administrative and criminal sanctions in the Pergub does not go beyond the sanction limit in the Act;
• Include the verse that every PCs found de facto in the abattoir (not yet slaughtered) must be confiscate in full without compensation. Sanctions are carry out because it has been proven the intention of slaughtering PCs (violating);
• Including criminal sanctions for slaughtering PCs (pregnant or not pregnant) can be
n
n
increase by confiscation of carcasses/meat without compensation and weighting with fines. Sanctions are increase based on the number of PCs that have been slaughtered (or will be slaughter) and there is strong evidence that the crime has been repeated;
• Revoke Paragraph 2 of Article 11 concerning making letters for PCs without documents that are already in the animal market. This is to close opportunities for manipulation of PCs health and/or to avoid buying PCs from the proceeds of crime (theft of public/private cows or embezzlement of cows from government/NGO programs);
• Include special chapters on implementing organizations and partnerships starting at the provincial, district/city, sub-district and village levels. This is important because efforts to monitor the slaughter PCs require serious attention and involve many parties in an integrated manner. Implementing and partnership organizations are formed as new units/sub-units or in the form of additional roles of existing organizational functions.
For the effective implementation of policies/regulations, in addition to the revised Pergub/Perbup, comprehensive and integral work mechanisms need to be develope in the form of an integrated policy system or model. The integration is to synchronize the role/function and effectiveness of the implementation of policies and related institutions in the effort to prevent slaughter of PCs. This is in line with research on the importance of developing a dynamic model of the meat availability system which requires an integrated and dynamic inter-institutional collaboration (Siswijono, 2014; Lole, 2020). In addition, other studies expect there is an economic impact of livestock production on society at large (Kemi, 2016).
The integrated policy and institutional model is base on the results of the study. There are many stakeholder relevant information/data sources for analysis. The model includes several stakeholder groups with different roles and responsibilities but need each other structurally and functionally. The above is in accordance with the study of the effects of motivations of farmers who have formed groups to participate in small-scale cattle production (Zhu and Yang, 2012; Guntor and Priyadi, 2012). In this context, stakeholder groups are the Policy Stakeholder Group, the First Line Group, the Intermediate Group, the Last Line Group, and the Stakeholder Group (Figure 1).
Revision of the Governor's Regulation can be implemented easily and effectively. Through organizational structures and partnerships with specific positions and roles, the control process can be carried out in a compact and firm manner based on the authority and function. Thus, a formal structure supported by strategic partners will strengthen efforts to control and supervise PCs mutations and deductions.
Clear and detailed sanctions greatly facilitate prosecution for violations. It requires a combination of administrative sanctions (written warnings, operational termination, and revocation of permits), the imposition of fines (according to the level and frequency of violations), and imprisonment (according to the level and frequency of violations).
Line Group of Policy Maker Stakeholder (Line of Policy Maker): includes central/regional government institutions (Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate General of Livestock, Police, Legislator, Governor, Regent, Animal Officer, Village Head, etc.) and nongovernment organizations (Aspidi, Aspindo, Pepehani, ISPI, PPSKI, PDHI, HILPI, Persepsi, Perhepi, etc.). The institution plays a role in formulating policies/strategies/ programs and related laws/regulations for the development of livestock and preventing PCs slaughter.
Regional level policies/programs that need to be strengthened and revitalized or that need to be formed as a whole (Morales, 2011; Siswijono et al, 2014; Siswoyo et al, 2017; Lole et al, 2013), include: livestock card policies, more operational productive slaughter control policies, reproductive disease control policies, SIWAB development policies, policy of synchronization, development policies livestock cooperatives, etc. Legal products produced by policy makers: UU, Permentan, Director General Decree, Pergub, Perbup, Kadisnak Decree, Perdes, etc.).
POLICY FOR PREVENTION OF SLAUGHTER PRODUCTIVE COW
a. Policy of livestock card
b. Policy to control slaughter of productive cattle
c. Policy for controlling reproductive diseases
d. Policy of cattle compulsory pregnancy (SIWAB)
e. Policy of intensification of nature mating (INKA)
f. Policy of lust synchronization
g. Policy of livestock cooperative
h. Policy of village financial institution_
LICENSES FROM VILLAGE LEVEL:
a. Livestock Card from animal officer recording (containing livestock owners, livestock age, body condition and productive cow health)
b. Branding/eartag for each productive cow
c. Proof of weighing productive cattle from the head of the group/cooperative
d. Letters of sale and purchase of productive cows from the head of the group/cooperative
e. A statement from the village trader that the productive cattle that have been purchased are in good health and are not intended to be slaughtered at slaughterhouses or other places (signatures and stamp of traders)_
SUPERVISION OF INTER-REGIONAL LIVESTOCK TRANSPORTATION:
a. Give pass permission for all productive cows that have complete legal documents
b. Hold in productive cows post that does not have complete legal documents
c. Detain in the post of owner, trader and transporter of productive cows cattle that do not have complete legal documents
d. Detain in the cattle market against all productive cows cattle without complete legal documents
e. Eliminating procedures for issuing livestock issuance certificates when livestock are already in the cattle market
f. File a court hearing for violations of productive cows mutations without complete legal documents
REVENTION OF SLAUGHTER PRODUCTIVE COWS IN ABATTOIR/NON ABATTOIR:
a. Productive cattle that reach the abattoir and students non abattoir must have complete legal documents examined by the livestock officers and police witnessed by NGOs and students
b. Veterinarians at abattoir must ensure again that cows are not productive before slaughtering animals
c. Cows that do not have legal and complete documents must not be slaughtered
d. Cows that have complete documents but are still classified as productive broods must not be cut
e. Productive female livestock without a complete letter are held by the government (Disnak) to be returned to the community through certain agreed mechanisms
f. Actors involved in presenting productive cattle at abattoir /non abattoir locations are brought to court because there is an intent or intention to slaughter productive cows or cows without legal documents_
COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED SUPERVISION OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS:
a. Structural oversight by provincial, district, sub-district and village governments
b. Functional supervision from animal officer of provincial, district and sub-district
c. Oversight from NGOs
d. Supervision from students and university
e. Supervision from professional organizations (breeders, traders, and industry)
f. Oversight from the wider community
0
POLICY MAKERS &
STAKEHOLDERS GOVERNMENT/NON GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
0
O
FIRST LINE (LINE I)
FARMERS/PRODUCERS
LINK INSTITUTIONS IN VILLAGES
0
0
INTERMEDIATE LINE (LINE II)
TRADERS/BORDER POSTS/MARKETS
RELATED INSTITUTIONS:
ACCROSS SUB REGENCIES/REGENCIES
O
0
LAST LINE (LINE III)
ABATTOIRS/ NON ABATTOIRS
RELATED INSTITUTIONS:
ACCROSS SUB REGENCIES/REGENCIES
0
0
POLICY USER STAKEHOLDERS
GOVERNMENT, MARKET PLAYERS, REGULAR COMMUNITIES
STAKEHOLDERS: PRODUCT OF LAW (LEGAL):
a, Agric. Ministry j. Senator a Law
b. Ditjen PKH k. Animal office b Agric Ministry Regulation
c. Police l. Pepehani c. Decree of DG Animal Husbandry
d. Governor m. ISPI d Governor Regulation
e. Head of regent n. PDHI e. Regent Regulation
f. Village o. PPSKI f. Sub regent Regulation
g. Aspidi p. HTPI g Village Regulation
h. Aspindo q. HILPI
i. Apfindo r. Persepsi
STAKEHOLDERS:
a. Head of village
b. Farmer group
c. Cooperative
d. Extension officer
e. LMD
f. Village trader
g. Local police
h. NGO Students University
k. Professional organization in the field of animal husbandry
PRODUCT OF LAW (LEGAL):
a. Village regulations regarding compulsory livestock cards and livestock card-based branding
b. Village regulations for compulsory weighing cattle
c. Village regulations are mandatory for sale and purchase transactions through farmer groups
d. Village regulations prohibit slaughtering productive cows in various social events in the community
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS:
a. Savings and loan cooperatives without collateral
prepare a loan scheme < Rp 3 million with low interest to help the emergency needs of farmers productive cattle owners
b. Government/private banks prepare a low interest credit loan scheme
a. Animal officer
b. Butcher
c. Trader
d. Local police
e. Consumer
f. NGO
g. Student/university
h. Professional organization
STAKEHOLDERS (ABATTOIR)
STAKEHOLDERS (NON ABATTOIR)
a. Animal officer
b. Trader
c. Community/consumer
d. Local police
e. NGO
g. Student/university
h. Professional organization
PRODUCT OF LAW (LEGAL):
a. Pergub and Perbup regarding trade and/or slaughtering of cows (especially productive cows) that are legal or have complete documents. Legal sanctions for various types and levels of violations are detailed in the Pergub and Perbup.
b. Pergub and Perbup regarding the repurchase of productive cows are canceled
because they are ineffective and prone to abuse of authority and finance. The reason is because slaughtering productive cows in NTT reaches 40,000 head per year so it requires a very large fund.
STAKEHOLDERS INTEGRATED POST PRODUCT OF LAW (LEGAL):
a. Animal officer a. Perbup must have complete legal
b. Cooperative do cuments when crossing the
c. Local financial officer border post or while in the cattle
d. Local police market
e. NGO b. Regional postal officers or postal
f. Student/university authorities have the authority to
g. Professional organization hold a productive cows that does
STAKEHOLDERS (ANIMAL MARKET): not have complete legal documents
a. Animal officer c. Regional postal officers or postal
b. Local financial officer authorities have the authority to
c. Local police hold productive cows owners,
d. NGO traders, or carriers who do not
e. Student/university have complete legal documents
f. Professional organization
0
STAKEHOLDERS:
a. Local government (provincial, district, sub-district and village)
b. Farmer
c. Farmer group
d. Cooperative
e. Animal officer (provincial, district, sub-district and field extension)
f. Trader (village, sub district, district, and inter island)
g. Police officer (provincial, district, and sub-district)
h. NGO Student/university Organisaton of farmer and trader
k.Professional organization_
Figure 1. Model of integrated policies and institutions for control of slaughtering of productive cows in NTT.
First Line Group (Line I): includes farmers and institutions in the village, includes: village heads, groups, cooperative, extension officer, LMD, traders, sector police, NGOs, students/university, professional organizations, etc. Institutions in this group interact directly with farmers. These parties certainly influence the creation, implementation, supervision and law enforcement in the village (Nxumalo and Oladel, 2013; Olmo et al, 2016; Siswijono, 2013). Related legal products in this case are: Perdes mandatory livestock cards and cattle-based branding, Perdes mandatory weighing livestock, Perdes mandatory transactions through farmer groups/cooperative, Perdes prohibition/restrictions on slaughtering productive cattle in social events, etc.
The activities for implementing Perdes: use of livestock cards from extension officer (containing owner information and ownership mutations, age, pedigree records, exterior characteristics, body and health conditions, disease and drug/vaccination records); branding/eartag, weighing and buying and selling letters from the cooperative group, the village head's permission, and the merchant's statement that the productive cattle are healthy and not for slaughter.
Efforts to control the sale of productive cattle can be do in terms of providing cash for farmers (Siswijono et al, 2014; Ibragimov, 2016; Ajetomobi, 2010). Cooperative savings and loans without collateral can provide a loan scheme skema <Rp3 million with low interest to help address the emergency needs of cash from productive cow owners. Government/private banks can prepare credit schemes with low interest rates and long repayment periods.
Intermediate Line Group (Line II): includes traders, transporters, control posts, and markets. Officers in the post and market come from: animal officer, monetary officer, cooperative, sector police, NGOs, students/university, professional organizations, etc. The legal products in this Intermediate Line: a) Marketing of PCs must have documents when crossing the post or market, b) The postal officer has the authority to hold PCs without complete documents, c) The postal officer has the authority to arrest the owner/trader/transporter of the PCs without complete documents, and d) Animal husbandry officers are authorized to submit cases of violations/crimes of PCs mutations without documents.
The supervision of transportation of animal is needed (Morales, 2011; Yusuf and Nulik, 2009). Several supervision at border posts are in the form of: a) grants permission for each PCs with supporting documents, b) holds in the post against PCs without documents, c) holds in the post against the owner/trader/carrier of PCs without documents, d) holds on the market for all PCs without complete documents, e) omitting the procedure for granting permits for PCs without documents even though they are already on the market, and f) submitting a court hearing for violations of PCs mutations without complete documents.
Last Line Group (Line III): includes abattoir and non-abattoir stakeholders: animal husbandry officer, butchers, traders, police sector, consumers, NGOs, students/university, and professional organizations. Legal product: Pergub/Perbub concerning prevention of PCs slaughtering, where legal sanctions for the type and level of violation are describe in detail and decisively (Rezitis and Stavropoulus, 2010; Morales, 2011).
Efforts should be made to prevent slaughtering of PCs in both abattoir and non-abattoir by the government and other related parties (Palii et al, 2020; Soejosopoetro, 2011; Rianto et al, 2020. In this case, in order to prevent slaughtering of PCs in abattoir and non- abattoir, it is necessary to do: a) PCs in abattoir and non- abattoir must have legal documents examined by Livestock and Polsek witnessed by NGOs and students; b) Doctors/paramedics in abattoir must ensure that cows are no longer productive; c) the PCs that do not have legal documents must not be slaughtered; d) the PCs that have documents must not be slaughtered; e) the PCs without a government retained letter (animal officer) to be returned to the community through a mechanism; and f ) The perpetrators who present PCs at abattoir/non-abattoir locations are brought to court because there is an intention or intention to slaughter PCs or cows without legal documents.
Line Group of Policy User Stakeholder (Line of Policy Users): includes government, market participants, and the wider community. This interest group is very much needed its active role in efforts to prevent the slaughter of PCs widely (Rezitis and Stavropoulos, 2010;
Morales, 2011). In this case, the stakeholders can be specified as follows: Local government (provincial, district, sub-district and village), breeders, groups, cooperative, Animal officer (provincial, district, sub-district, and extension officer), traders (village, sub-district, district and inter-island), The National Police (Polda, Polres and Polsek), concerned NGOs (international, national and local), students/ university, livestock breeding and trade organizations, and professional organizations in the field of animal husbandry.
The comprehensive and integrated supervision of all stakeholders are needed:
a) structural supervision by provincial, district, sub-district and village governments;
b) functional oversight from provincial, district and district of the animal officer; c) supervision from NGOs, d) supervision from students and universities, e) supervision from professional organizations (breeders, traders, and industry), and f) supervision from the wider community (individuals and groups).
CONCLUSION
Conclusions: 1) Implementation of policies is not effective because of legal, socio-cultural, economic, and technical constraints; 2) Integrated policy strategy is a prerequisite for the revitalization of regulations in the context of regional autonomy; and 3) Institutional and partnership models based on specific roles and mutual support do not yet exist.
Recommendations: 1) Revised Pergub and issuance of Perbup that are not multiple interpretations; and 2) Designing an integrated model of policies and institutions that are standard with the management structure and standard operational procedure (SOP) of each related party.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial, personal, or other relationships with other people or organizations related to the material discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Ajetomobi, J.O. (2010). Supply response, risk and institutional change in Nigerian Agriculture. African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) Research Paper 197. 2010. https://www.africaportal.org/documents/6442/RP197.pdf.
2. Aritonang, M.W. (2017). Trend of slaughtering of the cattle and buffalo productive female in Jambi Province [in Indonesian]. J. Anim. Sci. 20(1):17-23.
3. Bettencourt, E.M.V., Tilman, M., Narciso, V., Carvalho, M.L.D.S., Henriques, P.D.D.S. (2015). The livestock roles in the wellbeing of rural communities of Timor-Leste. Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rur. 53(1): 63-80.
4. Bunmee, T., Chaiwang, N., Kaewkot, C., Jaturasitha, S. (2018). Current situation and future prospects for beef production in Thailand - A review. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. (AJAS). 31(7):968-97.
5. Deka, R.P., Magnusson, U., Grace, D., Lindahl, J. (2018). Bovine brucellosis: prevalence, risk factors, economic cost and control options with particular reference to India- A review. Infection Ecology & Epidemiology. 8(1): 1-7.
6. Devendra, C. (2007). Perspectives on animal production systems in Asia. Livest. Sci. 106(1):1-18.
7. Dunn, W.N. (2012). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Second Edition (In Indonesian, Editor: Darwin M). UGM Press, Yogyakarta.
8. Gosalamang, D.S., Belete, A., Hlongwane, J.J., Masuku, M. (2012). Supply response of beef farmers in Botswana: A Nerlovian partial adjustment model approach. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 7(31):4383-4389.
9. Guntoro, B., Priyadi, R. (2012). Motivation and performance of beef cattle small-holders farmer in Central Java Indonesia. Res. J. Anim. Sci. 6(4):85-89.
10. Han, X.P., Hubbert, B., Hubbert, M.E., Reinhardt, C.D. (2016). Overview of the beef cattle industry in China: The widening deficit between demand and output in a vicious circle. J. Fish. Livest. Prod. 4(3): 1-6.
11. Ibragimov, A., Arshad, F.M., Bala, B.K., Bach, N.L., Mohammadi, S. (2016). Management of beef cattle production in Malaysia: A step forward to sustainability. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 13(9):976-983.
12. Ibrahim, A.S., Shiwei, X., Wen, Y. (2013). The impact of social factors of rural households on livestock production and rural household income in White Nile State of Sudan International. J. Agric. Food Res. 2(4):1-13.
13. Isyanto, A.Y., Iwan, S. (2016). Factors influencing population of beef cattle in Ciamis Regency, West Java Province, Indonesia. J. Econ. Sus. Dev. 7(22):33-38.
14. Kemi, A.O. (2016). Economic impact of livestock production on the society: A case study of Ikare Akoko Ondo State. IOSR J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 9(12):77-80.
15. Khan, N., Iqubal, M.D.A. (2010). Livestock revolution and its impacts on the sustainability of marginal and small farmers in India: A case study. J. Geogr. 5(2):95-108.
16. Khan, S. (2017). Study of gestation period, calving interval and birth weight of achai cattle at livestock research and development station Dir Lower, Pakistan. Biol. Agric. Healthcare. 7(9):12-15.
17. Larsson, B., Berglund, B. (2008). Reproductive performance in PC with extended calving interval. J. Reprod. Domes. Anim. 35(6):277-279.
18. Lole, U.R., Keban, A. (2020). Strategies to increase calves production in East Nusa Tenggara as a National Production Center. Journal of Animal Production. 22 (2):98-104.
19. Lole, U.R., Hartoyo, S., Kuntjoro, Rusastra, I.W. (2013). Analysis of regional distribution capacity and priorities for improving beef cattle population in East Nusa Tenggara Province. Media Peternakan. 36(1):70-78.
20. Morales, A. (2011). Marketplaces: Prospects for social, economic and political development. J. of Plann. Lit. 26(1):3-17.
21. Muflihanah, H., Hatta, M., Rood, E.P., Abdoel, T.H., Smits, H.L. (2013). Brucellosis seroprevalence in bali cattle with reproductive failure in South Sulawesi and Brucella abortus biovar 1 genotypes in the Eastern Indonesian archipelago. BMC Veterinary Research. 9(1):233.
22. Nendissa, D.R., Anindita, R., Hanani, N., Muhaimin, A.W. (2018). Dynamics of degree of beef cattle market concentration in Kupang of East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Russ. J. of Agric. and Soc. Econ. Sci. (RJOAS). 78(6):379-384.
23. Nxumalo, S., Oladele, O.I. (2013). Factors affecting farmers' participation in agricultural programme in Zululand District, Kwazulu Natal Province, South Africa. J. Soc. Sci. 34(1):83-88.
24. Palii, A.P., Admina, N.G., Mihalchenko, S.A., Lukyanov, I.M., Denicenko, S.A., Gurskyi, P.V., Paliy, A.P., Kovalchuk, Y.O., Kovalchuk, V.A., Kuznietsov, O.L., Gembaruk, A.S., Solodchuk, A.V. (2020). Evaluation of slaughter cattle grades and standards of cull cows. Ukr. J. of Ecol. 10(1):162-167,
25. Poddaturi, D.R., Hart, C.E., Schulz, L.L., Pouliot, S. (2020). A dynamic model of US beef cattle. Iowa State University Digital Repository.
26. Reber, B. (2007). Technology assessment as policy analysis: From expert advice to participatory approaches. In: F Fischer, GJ Miller, and MS Sidney (Eds). Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, NW USA, pp. 493-512.
27. Rianto, M.S., Demmallino, E.B., Amrawaty. (2020). The slaughter control on the productive cows on animal health division in food security, animal husbandry, and animal health service in Merauke Regency. In: IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environ. Sci. 2020, pp. 1-8.
28. Olmo, L., Ashley, K., Young, J.R., Suon, S., Thomson, P.C., Windsor, P.A., Bush, R.D. (2016). Improving smallholder cattle reproductive efficiency in Cambodia to address expanding regional beef demand. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 49(1): 163-172.
29. Paly, M.B. (2019). Calving interval of productive pc to increase cattle population growth: A case study at South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 67(5):1325-1333
30. Rezitis, A.N., Stavropoulos, K.S. (2009). Modeling beef supply response and price volatility under CAP reforms: The case of Greece. Food Policy. 35(2):163-174.
31. Rianto, M.S., Demmallino, E.B., Amrawaty. (2020). The slaughter control on the productive cows on animal health division in food security, animal husbandry, and animal health service in Merauke Regency. In: IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environ. Sci. 2020, pp. 1 -8.
32. Siswijono, S.B., Nurgiartiningsih, V.M.A., Hermanto. (2014). Development of institutional models for Madura cattle conservation [in Indonesian]. J. Anim. Sci. 24(1):33-38.
33. Siswoyo, H., Setyono, D.J., Fuah, A.M. (2017). Institutional analysis and its role farmer' income in the Simpay Tampomas Farmer Group, Sumedang Regency, West Java Province. J. Anim. Husb. Prod. and Tech. 1(3):172-178.
34. Soejosopoetro, B. (2011). Study of productive female cattle slaughter in slaughterhouse of Malang. J. Tropic. Anim. 12(1):22-26.
35. Tiro, M., Lalus, M.F. (2019). Spatial price connectivity in marketing beef cattle in Kupang Regency, Indonesia. Russ. J. of Agric. and Soc. Econ. Sci. (RJOAS). 12(96):182-194.
36. Wirdahayati, R.B. (2010). Application of technology in an effort to increase beef cattle productivity in East Nusa Tenggara. J. Wartazoa. 20(1):12-20.
37. Wollmann, H. (2007). Policy evaluation and evaluation research. In: Fischer, F., Miller, G.J., Sidney, M.S. (Eds). Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, NW USA, pp. 393-404.
38. Yanow, D. (2007). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In: Fischer, F., Miller, G.J., Sidney, M.S. (Eds). Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, NW USA, pp. 405-416.
39. Yusuf, Nulik, J. (2009). Institutional marketing of beef cattle in West Timor, East Nusa Tenggara [in Indonesian]. J. Agric. Tech. Study and Develop. 11(2):133-145.
40. Zhu, Y., Yang, J. (2012). Effects of farmers' motivation on their participation in publicly funding training programs in Sichuan Province, China. J. Agric. Sci. 4(10):68-74.
