CC BY
1
DOI https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2021-01.16
THE FARMER GROUPS INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY LEVEL IN IMPROVING BEEF CATTLE BUSINESS IN GORONTALO DISTRICT, INDONESIA
Pateda Sri Yenny*, Postgraduate Student Hartono Budi, Kuswati, Azizah Siti, Lecturers Faculty of Animal Science, University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia *E-mail: sriyennyp@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This study aims to determine the level of farmer group institutional capacity and its influencing factors. This research was conducted in Gorontalo District from February to June 2018. The method used in this research is quantitative method. Determination of the sample was using multi stage sampling. The data were processed using the AMOS program's Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis. The results showed that the level of institutional capacity of farmer groups in Gorontalo District obtained a score of 3.18 or good category. The internal factors influence external factors directly effect of the institutional capacity of farmer groups in Gorontalo District.
KEY WORDS
Beef cattle, institutional capacity, Gorontalo District.
Beef cattle has strategic value in national development in order to improve the welfare of farmers, but the success of beef cattle livestock agribusiness is largely determined by the ability or capacity of human and institutional resources. The approach of breeders as actors of development through groups, with groups of farmers, is expected to be able to meet needs and develop themselves with their own abilities lately.
This group approach has been implemented for a long time and is one of the government programs but so far farmer institutions have been difficult to develop and experience obstacles because of the large number of groups but have not shown that the group can move to make better changes, this is due to the limited ability of human resources internal factors and factors outside the group, namely as external factors, such as the role of the government, the availability of infrastructure, the role of extension and private involvement.
Farmer groups need to be empowered by knowing the resources that are owned and used optimally, and how the farmer groups are oriented towards the future to be more developed and advanced. The ability of human resources in the group is as a force in the group environment that can determine the behavior of group members to carry out activities in an effort to achieve group goals. Farmer groups must work together and must be able to increase their role or participation in each group activity to be more productive. Farmers as the main actors of agricultural development need to have the responsibility to realize the hope of a strong and independent group institution so that they can increase beef cattle business.
This study aims to determine the internal factors - external factors that affect the institutional capacity development of beef cattle farmer groups in Gorontalo District. The government is expected to be able to provide information or references related to policies and strategies for institutional development of beef cattle farmer groups located in beef cattle business development centers.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
The research was conducted in Gorontalo District from February 2018 to June 2018. This study used a survey method with a quantitative approach by focusing on collecting quantitative data for analysis using statistical analysis (Mardikanto, 2006). The population in
the study was all group leaders, administrators and members of farmer groups in Gorontalo District. The total number of breeders is 2,610 people who are members of 230 groups and spread over 16 sub-districts. The sample determination in this research was carried out using a multi-stage sampling method which was carried out using two or more stages (Rianse, 2008).
Table 1 - Number of Samples at Research Sites
No Districts Village Group Population Number of Sample
1 Boliohuto 1. Monggolito Karya mandiri 20 20
2. Sidomulya Setia Kawan 20 20
2 Pulubala 1. Puncak Lestari 20 20
2.Toyidito Marga Makmur 20 20
3 Tolangohula 1. Suka Makmur Mekaryo Indah 20 20
2. Sukma Utara Cahaya Tani 20 20
Total 120 120
Source: Processed Primary Data, 2018.
The research data comes from primary and secondary data. Primary data were obtained from interviews with livestock farmer organizations / groups (group leaders and administrators), sample breeders and all related elements in the animal husbandry sector. Collecting data from farmer respondents was using a questionnaire instrument. Secondary data was in the form of area descriptive data, livestock population, population, land use. Secondary data is collected from agencies such as the Animal Husbandry and Animal Health Service (PKH), the Central Statistics Agency (BPS), Population and Civil Registry Service (Disdukcapil) and Scientific Libraries.
Data collection technique was using observation and interviews. Observation is a method of obtaining information that is carried out directly with the purpose of knowing the activities of each respondent in the farmer group. This method is intended to find out an initial description of the activities of farmer groups in the beef cattle business including events, processes, relationships and conditions in cattle raising which was carried out by members; interactions between members and groups (Sugiyono, 2012).
In-depth interview is an in-depth interview to conduct questions and answers directly to the respondent; it was the breeders who are members of the farmer group. In-depth interviews are carried out using instruments in the form of a questionnaire with the purpose of collecting data which is frequency distribution (Sugiyono, 2012).
Data analysis used in this research was descriptive analysis and Structural Analysis of Equation Modeling - Analysis of moment structures (AMOS) program VERSION 24.
The research variables consist of exogenous variables (independent variable) and endogenous variables (dependent variable):
1. Internal factors (X1) (farmer characteristics) which include age, education, number of family members, farming experience, livestock ownership;
2. external factors (X2) external factors: the role of government, the role of extension services, the role of capital institutions, the availability of facilities / infrastructure;
3. Institutional capacity (Y): achievement of goals, institutional functions and roles, institutional innovativeness, institutional sustainability.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The institutional capacity of farmers has four parameters, such as aspects of goal achievement, aspects of function and role, aspects of innovation and aspects of sustainability (Anantayu, 2009). Table 1 presents the institutional level of farmer groups having an average value of 3.18 or good. The existence of farmer groups has an important meaning for farmers to join. A good level of capacity of farmer groups shows that farmer groups are the foundation of farmer members to gain access to outside so that they can spur an increase in beef cattle business.
Table 1 - Farmers Group Institutional Capacity Level
No Indicator Respondent Score Category
1 2 3 4
F % F % F % F %
1 Objective Achievement 2 2 6 5 61 51 51 42 3,34
2 Institutional Functions / Roles 2 2 12 10 72 60 34 28 3,15
3 Institutional Innovation 2 2 15 12 62 52 41 34 3,12
4 Continuity 3 2,5 14 12 63 52,5 40 33 3,11
Average 3,18 (Good)
Source: Processed Primary Data, 2018.
The level of group institutional capacity includes parameters for achieving goals, functions and roles of institutions, innovativeness, and institutional sustainability:
Objectives Achievement. The Objective Achievement was 3.34 or in the very good category. Farmers with low educational status rated the achievement of goals relatively high. In general, farmers in the research locations considered that the existing farmer group institutions had the purpose of helping farmer members. The rationality of thinking between farmers and their lives lies with the farmer institution. Farmers' rationality is a moral economic issue for farmers who are struggling to live under subsistence boundaries (Saleh. 2016)
Institution Functions and roles. The functions and roles of getting a score of 3.15 are in the good category, meaning that the institutional roles and functions of farmer groups play a major role in carrying out their functions. The farmer group institution is considered capable of mobilizing human resources, especially human resources of farmers as labor. Farmers need to involve the government or the private sector for the success of a beef cattle business. This is in line with the results of Harmini's research (2011) which states that the smooth running of the beef cattle business must involve the government, private sector and community breeders. Farmer groups in the research locations conducted family gathering to solve the difficulties of members who needed funds even though it was only Rp. 500 000. The source of funds was obtained from cash proceeds from group members' fines who did not attend regular group meetings.
Institutional Innovation. Institutional innovativeness was in the good category with a score of 3.12. Farmers in the research location really hope to be able to participate in technological innovation training for the development of beef cattle business through groups in line with Kumar's (2002) statement that participating in institutional development both in intensity and quality will encourage the effectiveness of the group in carrying out reforms.
Institutional Sustainability. The institutional sustainability value is 3.11 which mean the category is good. Farmers in the research location are reluctant to cooperate with other parties such as banks, this is due to administration that takes a long time, farmers are not confident and are not sure will be able to make payments, this is in accordance with the statement of Pandey et al (2011) that the problem what farmers often experience is difficult access to credit card. One of the efforts that was made by the group in the research location to overcome capital difficulties is loans to fellow members and family gathering managed by group members. All efforts of group members have the support of the village government. The roles of the village tutor in supporting group activities that will make the group's sustainability continue. (Hariadi, 2011)
All of internal factors have a significant direct effect on institutional capacity of 0.180. This means that internal factors have an effect of 18%. Individual characteristics are traits that a person has that are related to aspects of life and their environment. Loading factors show that age is proven to have a greater contribution to other internal factors; it was with a value of 0.649 or 64.9%. It is easier to innovate than the old ones (Mathjis, 2003; Murphy et al. 2011). Furthermore, Espinoza et al (2007) stated that older farmers are more traditional and less likely to change, while young farmers are more likely to be progressive, willing to do or try new things and it is easier to participate in extension activities.
The level of education has a small effect, namely 0.546. This is because 87% of farmers have low education and cannot provide maximum results. Farmers and their families
do not have the motivation or awareness of the importance of education. Roger (2003) states that education has an effect on the response of farmers to an innovation. Furthermore, education can increase farmers' knowledge, it will affect the desire to advance and participate as group members so that they are able to achieve goals and sustainability
Business age contributed of 0.631 or 63.1% to internal factors. Farming experience can support the performance of farmer groups. This is supported by the research of Mukson et al. (2009) states that individual internal factors such as age and length of business affect the institutional performance of livestock group businesses. Wahyuni and Sri's research (2003) also states that the membership status and facilities owned by group members affect the institutional performance of farmer groups.
The number of family dependents made a positive contribution to internal factors of 0.535 or 53.5%. This means that the higher the number of family members the more they help as a source of labor and can substitute labor outside the family. Sumbayak (2006) explains that family members are the driving factor that will ultimately support farmer group activities The number of family dependents is the number of family members who are the dependents of the household, both siblings or non-siblings who live in the same house but have not work.
Ownership of Livestock contributed 0.53. Ownership of cows of more than 3 cows was 34 people or 28.3% and less than 3 cows were 86 people or 71.7%. Ownership of cows for farmers is still relatively small; this is due to the fact that raising livestock is still classified as a sideline and coupled with the lack of capital and lack of management knowledge and limited group dynamics. Kakansing (2009) states that farmers basically carry out activities only to meet their needs. The message which is not suitable with the needs would be refused by farmers which cause the difficulties in developing their business. Ownership of female cattle is still more than male cattle. The comparison was 63.2% and 36.8%, with an average male ownership of 1.08 and 1.8 ST or the equivalent of 2 adult female cattle. Ownership of female cattle is still more dominant for farmers, this is because farmers release or sell more male cattle. The beginning of livestock ownership comes from generation to generation as well as government assistance.
The influence of external factors on institutional capacity has a coefficient value of 0.168 External factors contribute significantly to the development of institutional capacity of farmer groups.
External factors with indicators of the role of government, in this case as contributing policy makers of 0.715 or 71.5% The need for the role of the government to be able to increase the institutional capacity development of farmer groups so as to form farmers to become independent, this is in accordance with the Regulation of the Minister of Law No. 67 of 2016 that the Government is responsible for the institutional development of farmer groups.. Anantayu (2009) argues that the support of various parties is needed in the process of strengthening the institutional capacity of farmer groups, such as policy support.
The availability of facilities / infrastructure is an indicator of external factors. The development of livestock in an area needs to be supported by infrastructure. Farmers' assessment of facilities / infrastructure was contributing to external factors is 90%. Transportation facilities are still not able to fully support the activities of farmer groups. The road conditions that are damaged and have not been paved, are difficult to reach by public transportation, apart from having a limited fleet, transportation costs are expensive, which hinders farmer's business activities in terms of increasing production within farmer groups. According to Daryanto (2007), if infrastructure in a rural area is inadequate, it will affect the smooth flow of distribution and output so that it is natural to find cheap commodity prices due to underdeveloped infrastructure.
The role of extension has an influence of 55.9% on the institutional capacity of farmer groups, this shows that the extension activities carried out by extension agents are in good category. Visiting activities, as well as information delivery activities, were very useful and needed by the respondents. There was only one meeting a month for farmer groups at the research location, this was due to the lack of extension workers at the research location. Each extension worker is responsible for a sub-district area consisting of 5-10 villages. Even
though the frequency of visits is limited, outreach has a big influence in accelerating behavior change. With active extension activities, it is expected that there will be changes in the behavior of the attitudes, knowledge and skills of farmers to be better than before, so that civil and independent farmers will be formed. This is in accordance with Mardikanto's (2009) statement that counseling is a process of disseminating information, a process of information / explanation, a process of behavior change, a learning process, a social change process, a social marketing process, a community empowerment process, a capacity strengthening process and the communication process of development. According to Ofuoku (2012), the counseling provided by extension agents has been able to convey messages that are useful for agricultural business development. Information is accurate and the language used by extension workers must be able to be understood by farmers (recipients).
The effect of private involvement in providing capital has a value of 65.9%, this indicates that most respondents stated that the need for capital assistance for the development of their farming business. The availability of capital assistance is expected to help farmers to obtain business capital in their farming activities. The results showed that farmers received business capital assistance in the form of livestock in the area development assistance program. Each group receives 40 cows consisting of 2 males and 18 females. Farmers do not make capital loans to banks due to administrative constraints and high collateral, but in their group farmers can get loan assistance with a minimum value of Rp. 500.000. The funds available to the group are obtained from cash proceeds from fines of group members who are not attend regular meetings that have been scheduled. According to Ratnawati et al. (2017), there is a need for a mediator so that farmers and the private sector can work together in obtaining capital therefore farmers can more easily develop their farming business, furthermore Pandey et al (2011) stated that the problem often faced by farmers was difficult access to credit.
CONCLUSION
Internal factors have a positive influence on the development of the institutional capacity of farmer groups. The contribution is obtained from the contribution of age level, education level, number of family dependents, length of business, and livestock ownership.
External factors have a positive influence on the development of group institutional capacity. Influence obtained from the contribution of clarity of group goals, group roles and functions, developing innovativeness and group sustainability.
REFERENCES
1. Anantayu, 2011. Kelembagaan Petani: Peran and Strategi Pengembangan Kapasitasnya. SEPA 7 (2): 102-109.
2. Daryanto, A. 2007. Peningkatan Daya saing Industri Peternakan. Jakarta: Permata Wacana Lestari.
3. Espinoza OA, Espinoza AE, Bastida L, Castaneda MT, Arriaga JCM 2007. Small scala dairy farming in the highlands of central Mexico: technical, economic and social aspects and their impact on poverty. Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 43 (16): 241-256.
4. Hariadi, Sunarru Samsi, 2011. Dinamika Kelompok. Teori and Aplikasinya Untuk Analisis Keberlanjutan Kelompok Tani Sebagai Unit Belajar. UGM. Yogyakarta.
5. Harmini. RW. Asmarantaka and Alamakusuma J. 2011. Model Dinamis Sistem Ketersediaan Daging Sapi Nasional. Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan. IPB. 12(1): 128 -146.
6. Kakansing W.2009 Efek Komunikasi and Intensitas Komunikasi terhadap kebutuhan Informasi Para Petani Kabupaten Sangihe. Sulawesi utara. Jurnal Agritek 1(6):1101-1108
7. Kumar, Somesh. (2002). Methods for Community Participation: A Complete Guide for Practitioners. London. ITDG. Publishing.
8. Mardikanto T.2009. Sistem Penyuluhan Pertanian. Surakarta (ID): Universitas Sebelas Maret Press.
9. Mathjis E.2003. Soial Capital and Farmers Willingness to Adopt Countryside Stevardship Schemes. Outlook on Agriculture. 32 (1): 13-16.
10. Mukson, Ekowati T, Handayani M, and harjanti DW 2009. Faktor- Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Kinerja Usaha Ternak Sapi di Kecamatan Getasan Kabupaten Semarang. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Kebangkitan Peternakan Semarang, 20 Mei 2009. 339-345.
11. Murphy. G Hynes S, Donoghue CO, Green S. 2011 Assesing the Compatibility of Farmlandbiodiversity and Habitats to the Specifications of Agri environmental Schemes Using a Multinominal Logic Approach. Journal of Ecological Economics. 7 (1):111- 121.
12. Ofuoku, A.U and B.I. Isife. 2009. Causes, Effect and Resolution of Farmers-nomadic Cattle Herders Conflictin Delta State. Nigeria. International Journal of Sosiology and Anthropology. 1(2).pp. 047-054.
13. Pandey D, Kumar A, Singh R, 2011. Marketing of Sweet Orange (Malta) in Kumaon Regin Of Uttarakhand. Journal Of Recent Advances in Applied Sciences 26 (5):6-11.
14. Ratnawati, Mappaming and Ansyaery. 2017. Pemberdayaan Kelompok Tani. Jurnal Administrasi Publik. Vol 3 (3): 342-358.
15. Rianse. U, and Abdi. 2008. Metodologi Penelitian Sosial and Ekonomi (Teori and Aplikasi) Edisi Pertama.Alfabeta Bandung.
16. Sugiono, 2012. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif and R&D. Cetakan ke 16 Alfabeta. Bandung.
17. Sumbayak, Jimmy B., 2006. Materi, Metode,dan Media Penyuluhan. Fakultas Pertanian. Universitas Sumatera Utara:Medan.
18. Wahyuni and Sri .2003. Kinerja Kelompok dalam Sistem Usaha tani Padi and Metode Pemberdayaannya.Jurnal Litbang Pertanian (22). Pusat Penelitian and Pengembangan Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian. Bogor.
