Livestock Research for Rural Development 26 (4) 2014 Guide for preparation of papers LRRD Newsletter

Citation of this paper

Effect of agro-ecological zone on the dairy cattle production system in East Java

L Rahardjo, S Ifar*, S Chuzaemi* and B A Nugroho*

Faculty of Animal Husbandry Islamic University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia
liliek_unisma@ymail.com
* Faculty of Animal Husbandry Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

Abstract

This study aimed at describing the effect of ago-ecological zone (AEZ) on the dairy cattle production system, especially related to feed intake, milk poduction, and income over feed cost.  

 

Dairy cattle in East Java have been well developed in upland to lowland areas, and the owners of the animal husbandry are members of dairy cooperatives. The location of the dairy cooperatives can be clustered into 4 AEZ; namely old-age cooperatives in uplands (AEZ-I), old-age cooperatives in middle-lands (AEZ-II), old-age cooperatives in lowlands (AEZ-III) and young-age cooperatives in lowlands (AEZ-IV). 

 

The conclusion of this study indicates that: (1) Cooperatives in AEZ-I have good or established management and farmers in AEZ-IV have good human resource; (2) AEZ affects feed intake, milk production, and income over feed cost; and (3) the highest income over feed costs is in AEZ-I, but it is not different with the income over feed cost in AEZ-IV, each of which is Rp 21,003 h/d and Rp 20,234 h/d. 

Key words: AEZ, feed intake, milk production, income over feed cost


Introduction

Statistical data shows that there are about 597 thousand heads of dairy cattle in Indonesia and mostly are located in the Island of Java, that is East Java, Central Java, West Java, Yogyakarta, and Jakarta, each of which accounts for 34.63%, 32.87%, 28.71%, 1.50%, and 0.90% (Anonymous 2011).  The cattle have been well developed, but the milk they produce is still considered low, which is only 925 thousand tons per year (Anonymous 2011).

 

The cattle are reared by smallholder farmers in different dairy cattle areas. These farmers, locally, develop dairy cooperative that collect the milk produced and sell the milk to processing industries. Beside, the cooperatives also provide necessary production inputs such as concentrate feeds. Reported by GKSI (2009), about 51 dairy farmer cooperatives exist in various places in East Java.

           

The spread of dairy cattle in East Java started from the importation of Holstein Friesian dairy cattle by the Dutch during the 19th century to fulfill their demand of milk. During the 1970s, Indonesian Goverment imported large numbers of the same breed of dairy cattle to increase national milk production and to improve farmers’ income. By dairying, in every ten days, farmers received cash for the milk they sold to the local milk cooperatives. As it provided regular income, dairying became an attractive activity for the smallholder farmers. At present, Agroecological Zone (AEZ) for dairy cattle areas can be found along the vertical transect of East Java, from upland to the lowland areas.

           

Initially, dairy cattle areas were developed in the uplands of East Java where climatic factors i.e. temperature and humidity was similar to the cattle’s origin. Blade and Bade (1991) state that environmental temperature of 15-21oC with humidity of about 55% is the most suitable place for dairy cattle. Suitability to climate has always been a critical consideration of policy makers in developing dairy cattle industry in East Java. The concept of comfort zone for dairy cattle is also taught to students who learn about animal husbandry at Indonesians’ higher learning institutions. However, the concept is not in accordance with field circumstances. How such discrepancies exist is worth to be revealed.

 

Feed is a major component in the production system of dairy farm business. Forage is a staple food for the animal; it may originate from agricultural land (elephant grass and maize stalks), communal land (native grass) and residual/agricultural waste (rice straw). Tropical areas generally have lower nutritional quality compared to temperate regions, therefore shortage of forage nutrients need to be substituted with concentrate feed.

 

Farmers generally are members of dairy cooperatives, so the need of concentrate feed can be fulfilled by the cooperative. However, given the fact that not only lactating cows need the concentrate feed, but also calves, heifers, adult females and males as well as to substitute forage shortage during the dry season or forage difficulty, the cost of concentrate feed can be so expensive; thus, to reduce the cost, some farmers substitute the concentrate feed with other types of feed that are cheaper.

 

The substitution feed is a by-product or waste from the production of food crops, plantation crops, food industry, and plantation from various locations in the East Java region (rice bran, tofu waste, cassava waste) and from outside the region of East Java (soy meals and coconut waste), as well as outside the country or imported (pollard). Then, of course, the existence of the feed ingredients in terms of quality, quantity, and price continuity is always important for the AEZs in East Java region, outside the region, and outside the country or imported.

 

The problems faced by farmers to determine the nutrient content of livestock feed as needed by cattle are the ones dealing with the quality, quantity, continuity, and price of the substitution feed which is always fluctuating. This is due to differences in the stages of processes that farmers do to obtain the substitution feed in each AEZ; and the problems have become more intensified when involving AEZs across areas, across regions, and across countries.  

 

In addition, most farmers have low level of education and of knowledge about nutrition feed making it more difficult to construct a minimum quality diets according to the nutritional needs of the cattle to produce normally.

        

Objectives


Material and methods

Study area

 

Determination of AEZ in this study was based on the age of the cooperatives and altitude. Each cooperative was grouped into 2 classes based on the cooperative age:

According to Rahardjo (2012), the development of a cooperative consists of:  at the time of setting up the management (young-age cooperatives) and at the time the management of cooperatives become more solid or better (old-age cooperatives).

 

Further, the altitude of the areas is classified based on their position from the sea level, this is related to the requirement of the life of a plant or animal which is connected to the temperature (Ritung et al 2007). The altitude of a specific area in respect to the life of plant or animal has no definite limitation, there will only be an adjustment to the temperature of a tropical area, that is lower or cooler in a upland areas and the vice versa. The altitude area of each cooperative location is as follows:

Further, the development of a dairy cooperative based on the age of the cooperative and altitude can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1: Classification of dairy cooperatives based on the age and altitude

Age of cooperatives (years)

Altitude (m)

Total

Old age (>25 years)

Upland ( ≥1,200 m)

8

 

Middleland ( 600 - <1,200 m)

12

 

Lowland ( <600 m) 

8

Young age (10-25 years)

Upland ( ≥1,200 m)

-

 

Middleland ( 600 - <1,200 m)

-

 

Lowland ( <600 m) 

5

Total

 

51

Source: GKSI  (2009).

Based on the information in Table 1, we can see that young-age cooperatives exist only in lowland, and thus there are only four AEZs in East Java:

Using a random sampling method, study areas were generated. The characteristics of the study areas can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2: Carachteristic of the study area

 

AEZ-I

AEZ-II

AEZ-III

AEZ-IV

Cooperative

SAE

Dau

Suka Makmur

Jaya Abadi

District

Malang

Malang

Pasuruan

Blitar

Altitute

Upland ( ≥1,200 m)

Middleland ( 600 - <1,200 m)

Lowland

 ( <600 m) 

Lowland

 ( <600 m) 

The age of cooperatives

Old

Old

Old

Young

Temperature (C)

<21,3

24,9 – 21,9

>24,9

>24,9

Dairy farmer population

6.551

404

2.529

694

Dairy cattle population

21.208

1.233

16.861

4.507

Farmer selection

 

Selection of dairy farmers (Photo 1) in each AEZ was done by simple random sampling from a number of farmers in the village. The villages were chosen based on the following considerations:

Photo 1: Dairy cattle in  East Java Photo 2: Dairy cattle weighing

 

Photo 3: Forage weighing Photo 4: Feed concentrate weighing 

 

Photo 5: Traditional milking 
Data collection

 

Data on the description of farmers were obtained from questionnaires. The number of farmers becoming respondents in AEZ-I,  AEZ-II,  AEZ-III and AEZ-IV was 245, 16, 96 and 27. While data on feed intake, milk production, and income over feed costs were obtained from on-farm observations in each AEZ from as many as 10 farmers.

 

Feed intake (intake of Dry Matter = DM and Crude Protein = CP) on feed concentrates produced by cooperatives, feed substitutes, and forage was based on metabolic body weight (body weight0.75). Measurement of body weight was done using electronic scales livestock of Rudweight brand, which has four-ton capacity with sensitivity of 0.5 kg (Photo 2). Weighing forage was done using hanging scales with a capacity of 25 kg and a sensitivity of 0.2 kg (Photo 3). As for artificial concentrate feed produced by cooperatives and feed substitute was done using sit scales, with the capacity of 15 kg and sensitivity of 0.1 kg (Photo 4). The calculation of the nutrient content of the feed (DM and CP) was based on proximate analysis (AOAC 1995).

 

Data on milk quantity was based on the amount of milk production for 305 days (Photo 5), and the quality of the milk (fat content and density) based on the results of Lactoscan MCC50.

Income over feed cost was calculated based on the differences between the selling price of milk and feed costs.

 

Statistical analysis

 

The data obtained from the afore-presented procedure was then analyzed using descriptive statistics method, Analysis of Variance (Anova), and Least Significant Difference (Steel and Torrie 1991) employing SPSS version 13.0.


Results and Discussion

Spatial distribution of dairy cattle area

 

Data from GKSI (2009) show that there are 51 dairy cooperatives in East Java; located in 10 districs i.e. Tulungagung, Blitar, Kediri, Jombang, Gresik, Mojokerto, Pasuruan, Probolinggo, Lumajang and Malang. Their spatial distribution is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Dairy cattle population in East Java

These districts, except of Gresik, comprise lowland and upland areas. This is related with the ecology of Java where chain of mountains exists along the middle of the island from West to East in paralel with limestone hills along the northern and southern coasts (Palte 1989).

 

Taking this into account, the distribution of the dairy cattle areas along the vertical transect of East Java can be depicted as that in Figure 2 together with the existed number of dairy cooperatives and dairy cattle population. 

Figure 2: Vertical transects of cooperative and dairy cattle population in East Java (Rahardjo 2012)

Data in Figure 2 shows population of dairy cattle in upland, middleland, and lowland areas. Each of it is 37.34%, 17.83%, and 44.83%. It identifies those smallholder dairy cattle that are ideally in uplands, can also grow well in middleland and lowland.

 

Development of dairy cattle business has never been far without government support and policy. In 1977 to 2000, there was improvement of cooperation number specialized in milk production. This improvement was equivalent with the development of dairy cattle farmer. After 2000, the number of milk production cooperatives is relatively in constant level (Rahardjo 2012).

 

AEZ setting

 

Regarding to complexity of the problem occurred in describing different characteristic of each type in AEZ, the description on the process and development of smallholder dairy cattle in this study was only focused in farmers, feed, production, and income over feed cost.

 

Description of farmers

 

Performance of farmers in this study was seen from the total number of dairy cattle owned and their educational degree (Table 3 and 4).

Table 3: Number of dairy cattle owned  in AEZ- I,AEZ- II, AEZ-III and AEZ-IV  

 

AEZ- I

AEZ- II

AEZ-III

AEZ-IV

Number of dairy cattle owned (%):

      <3

51.8

12.5

16.6

3.70

3 - <6

31.8

62,5

47.9

25.9

6 - <9

8.98

12.5

27.1

25.9

     >9

7.35

12.5

8.33

44.4

Total

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

Data in Table 3 show that farmers having above 9 dairy cattle were relatively low except in AEZ- IV (44.44%), while in the other areas were 7.35%  (AEZ-I), 12.50%  (AEZ-II) and 8.33% (AEZ-III). Having less than 10 dairy cattle is claimed as smallholder dairy cattle (Yusdja 2005). The number of cattle owned has a profound and positive impact on household income (Sutanto 2007). Dairy farm business can benefit with a minimum of 6 cattle owned, although the level of efficiency can be achieved with 2 cattle with an average of milk production of 15 l/h/d (Putranto 2006).

Table 4: Educational degre of farmers in AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III and AEZ-IV

 

AEZ-I

AEZ-II

AEZ-III

AEZ-IV

Education:

 

 

 

 

Elementary School (%)

74.7

62.5

89.6

59.3

Primary (%)

16.7

18.7

6.25

18.5

Secondary (%)

8.16

12.5

4.17

14.8

University (%)

0.41

6.25

-

7.41

Total (%)

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

Table 4 shows that the majority of farmers held elementary education degree; they were 74.69% (AEZ-I), 62.50% (AEZ-II), 89.59% (AEZ-III) and 59.26% (AEZ-IV).

 

Concerning with the relatively small size of the dairy cattle and low educational degree, it makes the farmers difficult to make innovation. Smallholder dairy cattle are characterized by the traditional taking care of the dairy cattle leading into low input and low output (Talib et al 2001). The process and development of dairy cattle business depends much on cooperatives.  According to Jarmadi and Hidayati (2005), the aim of the dairy cooperatives is to provide production facilities, to accommodate dairy production, and to distribute the dairy products.

 

Farmers in AEZ-IV had the best human resources, i.e. the number of farmers who graduated from secondary school level was 14.81% and graduated from university was 7.14 %.

 

Feed intake

 

Farmers normally feed their dairy cattle with the concentrate feed produced by the cooperatives, feed substitute, and forage as explained in Table 5a.

Table 5a: Kinds of feed consumed by dairy cattle in  AEZ-CD I, II, III and IV

 

AEZ-I

AEZ-II

AEZ-III

AEZ-IV

Feed stuffs:

 

 

 

 

Concentrate

Concentrate produced by cooperatives

Concentrate produced by cooperatives

Concentrate produced by cooperatives

Concentrate produced by cooperatives

Substitutes

Rice bran,

tofu waste,

casava waste,

pollard

Rice bran,

tofu waste,

pollard

Rice bran,

tofu waste,

casava waste

Rice bran,

tofu waste,

casava waste,

soys meals

coconut waste

Forages

Elephant grass,

maize stalks

Elephant grass,

maize stalks,

native grass,

rice straw

Elephant grass, maize stalks,  native grass,

rice straw

Elephant grass, maize stalks

Farmers use the concentrate feed produced by cooperative because of the dependence between the dairy farmers and cooperatives. Farmers generally only have the capital, but with little knowledge and limited access, they are highly dependent on the existing dairy cooperatives in each AEZ in the process and production system, particularly in providing concentrate feed, production, and marketing of milk.


The cooperatives sell the concentrate feed to farmers under a general selling system of 2 : 1, meaning that when famers sell 2 liters of the milk their cattle produce, they are required to purchase the artificial concentrate feed as much as 1 kg. However, this pattern is not always applied by the cooperatives; so many farmers, in order to fulfill the nutrient content needed by their dairy cattle, substitute the concentrate feed with other forms of feed that are cheaper in price (Rahardjo 2012). Some considerations are taken by farmers in the production system in each AEZ, especially on the procurement of feed (concentrate feed produced by cooperatives, feed substitute, and forage), preparation of feed and short-term economic considerations in feeding cattle (instant benefit) from the total production as a whole.

Table 5b: Mean of feed intake in AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III and AEZ-IV

 

AEZ-I

AEZ-II

AEZ-III

AEZ-IV

SEM

Prob.

DM intake (g/kg W0,75/d)

 

 

 

 

 

Concentrate

49.97c

25.66a

28.64ab

38.51ab

2.45

<0.001

Substitute

40.55a

44.43ab

36.62a

57.99b

2.74

0.030

Forage

58.69b

48.60a

43.66a

50.95a

1.56

0.004

Total

149.21b

118.70a

108.92a

147.45b

3.58

<0.001

CP intake (g/kg W 0.75/d)

 

 

 

 

 

Concentrate

8.33b

3.71a

4.47a

4.80a

0.41

<0.001

Substitute

3.47a

4.08a

3.60a

7.39b

0.57

0.004

Forage

5.80b

4.37a

3.85a

5.55b

0.18

<0.001

Total

17.60b

12.16a

11.92a

17.74b

0.68

<0.001

abc Means in the same row without common letter are different at P<0.05

When the body weight of lactating cows in AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III and AEZ-IV are 416.30  14.83 kg, 416.28   35.09 kg, 382.80 21.30 and 403.70 22.94 kg, based on the data presented in Table 5, the obtained DM intake in AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III and AEZ-IV each of which is 3.36%, 2.57%, 2.31% and 3.10%  of the body weight. The total DM intake is very diverse and is in accordance with the conditions of the cattle, where the need for DM ranges between 2-4 % of the body weight (NRC 2001).

 

AEZ factors affect the total DM intake (Table 5b and Figure 3). The highest total DM intake was in AEZ-I, but this was not so much different from the total DM intake in AEZ-IV. Differences in AEZ also lead to differences in concentrate feed, feed substitutes, and forage utilization by farmers.

Figure 3: Mean values of  dry matter  intake (concentrate, feed substitute  and forage) from AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III and AEZ-IV

The data in Figure 4 shows that the percentage of DM intake of feed substitutes in AEZ-IV (39.30%) is higher than in AEZ-I (27.18%). Based on the suitability of land, AEZ-IV is more appropriate than AEZ-I for the cultivation of food crops/industrial/plantation whose by-products/waste can be used as feed substitutes, especially rice bran and cassava waste (Las et al 1990,  Anonymous 1993, Ritung et al 2007).

Figure 4: Mean values for percentage of  dry matter  intake (concentrate, feed substitute,  and forage) from AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III and AEZ-IV)

DM intake of feed concentrates produced by cooperatives was highest in AEZ-I. This suggests that the cooperatives in AEZ-I have good management, especially in regard to strategy and feed management. According to Rahardjo (2012), one of the functions and roles of dairy cooperatives is to provide concentrate feed, so farmers’ trust to cooperatives can be seen by the number of concentrate feed distributed to them.

 

The higher DM intake of feed concentrates produced by cooperatives in AEZ-I compared to the DM intake of feed concentrates produced by cooperatives in AEZ-II  and AEZ-III indicates that cooperative age does not always correlate with the established and well management of the cooperatives.

Figure  5:  Mean values  of crude protein intake (concentrate, feed substitute, and forage) from the AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III and AEZ- IV

The highest total CP intake was in AEZ-IV, but this was not so much different from the total DM intake in AEZ-I. The high total CP intake in AEZ-I was due to the high CP intake of concentrate produced by cooperatives. Meanwhile, the high total CP intake in AEZ-IV was due to the high CP intake of feed substitutes (Figure 5 and 6).

Figure 6: Mean values for percentage of  crude protein  intake (concentrate, feed substitute  and forage) from AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III and AEZ-IV  
Production and income over feed cost

 

The AEZ factor affects milk yields and income over feed cost (Table 6). The highest milk production was from AEZ-I, but this was not so much different from the total milk production in AEZ-IV (Table 6 and Figure 7). Milk production correlates with protein content of the feed; so as to obtain high milk production, high protein content is needed as well. This condition can be obtained when human resources in the AEZ have sufficient knowledge on feed nutrients.
 

The high production of milk in AEZ-I because of better support from the dairy cooperative, especially in the procurement of feed concentrate. This is indicated by the high number of farmers using feed concentrate produced by cooperatives (Table 5a). Although AEZ-IV is located in lowlands that are considered not suitable for dairy cattle, dairy cattle is growing quite well because feed is made to available in adequate amount and is supported with good human resources (Table 4). Thus, milk production in AEZ-IV can be relatively the same with the one in AEZ-I.

Table 6: Production and income over feed cost in  AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III and AEZ-IV

 

AEZ-I

AEZ-II

AEZ-III

AEZ-IV

SEM

Prob.

Milk yields #

2,861c

2,251b

1,643a

2,815c

101.42

<0.001

Fat (%)

4.12

3.93

4.03

4.06

0.04

0.300

Density

1.025

1.025

1.025

1.026

0.0001

0.273

IOFC ##

21,003b

14,136a

12,849a

20,235b

916.01

<0.001

# l/h/305d; ## IOFC = income over feed cost 2011 (Rp/h/d) and 1$ = IDR  9,750

abc Means in the same row without common letter are different at P<0.05

The long duration of the development of the dairy cattle business in an AEZ does not always guarantee that farmers in that particular AEZ have better experience and knowledge related to production system and management. Similarly, the old-age of a dairy cooperative does not guarantee that the dairy cooperative has good and well established management.
 

As a comparison is the research by Chinogaramombe et al (2008) in Zimbabwe in areas with altitude of 1,300 mm, temperature of 20 - 30C, half dry areas (rainfall 400-600 mm/year ). Although the dominant crop in the area is calophospermum mopane and acacia species, many grass species of hiparrhenia and aristida, and many leftover food crops (agro-industry), farmers in the region are categorized as poor farmers with limited experience and knowledge on animal husbandry, own only 6-10 cattle (in average 5 lactating cows), they can only produce about 10 kg of milk/farmer/day.

Figure 7: Mean values of milk production from AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III, and AEZ-IV

Income over feed cost is one way to determine the economic efficiency in the field of animal husbandry, and is calculated based on the difference between the selling prices of milk to feed cost incurred to produce the milk. Income over feed cost was highest in AEZ-I, but was not different with the one in AEZ-IV (Table 6 and Figure 8).

Figure 8: Mean values  of  income over feed cost from the AEZ-I, AEZ-II, AEZ-III, and AEZ-IV

AEZ-IV has a better potential to develop into dairy cattle business because its topography (slope) is wider, making it easier and cheaper in the utilization of land and erosion control (Ritung et al 2007). The temperature constraints in AEZ-IV can be overcome by building dairy cowshed in accordance with the tropical climate (Siregar and Kusnadi 2004).


Conclusions


Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the support financed from Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education and Culture of Republic of Indonesia.


References

Anonymous 1993 Petunjuk Teknis Evaluasi Tanah. Pusat Penelitian Tanah dan Agroklimat. Proyek Pembangunan Penelitian Pertanian Nasional. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian. Departemen Pertanian. Jakarta

Anonymous 2011 Statistik Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan. Direktorat Jendral Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan. Kementrian Pertanian Republik Indonesia. Jakarta

AOAC 1995 Official Method of Analysis, 16th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington

Blade J and Bade D H 1991 Ilmu Peternakan. Universitas Gajah Mada Press. Yogyakarta

Chinogaramombe G N C, Muchhenje V, Mapiye C, Ndlovu T, Chimonyo M and Musemwa L 2008 Challenges for Improving Smollholder Dairy Production in The Semiarid Areas of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 20 (3) 2008. Retrieved Mei 26, 2009 from http://www.lrrd20/3/chin20034.htm

GKSI 2009 Data Peternakan Sapi Perah. Gabungan Koperasi Susu Indonesia (GKSI) Jawa Timur. Malang (unpublicized)

Jarmani S N and Hidayati N 2005 Kemungkinan Menambah Pendapatan Mandiri Peternak Sapi Perah Rakyat Melalui Perbaikan Manajemen Pemberian Pakan. Seminar Nasional Teknologi Peternakan dan Veteriner. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from http://www.peternakan.litbang.deptan.go.id/publikasi/seminar/pfo.05-48.pdf

NRC 2001 Nutrient Requirement of Dairy Cattle, Seven Revised. National Research Council (NRC), National Academy Press, Washington DC . Retrieved March 11, 2014, from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309069971

Putranto E H 2006 Analisis Keuntungan Usaha Peternakan Sapi Perah di Jawa Tengah. Univesitas Diponegoro. Semarang

Las A, Makarim A K, Hidayat A, Karama A S and Marwan I 1990 Peta Agroekologi Utama Pangan Indonesia. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian. BPPT. Bogor

Rahardjo L 2012 Implications of Variability Feed Concentrate in Feeding System of Dairy Small-holder Farms. PhD thesis. Faculty of Animal Husbandry Brawijaya University. Malang

Palte J G L 1989 Upland Farming on Java, Indonesia: A Socio-economic Study of Upland Agriculture and Subsistence Under Population Pressure. Netherlands Geographical Studies No. 97, Utrecht

Ritung S, Wahyunto, Agus F and Hidayat H 2007 Evaluasi Kesesuaian Lahan. Balai Penelitian Tanah. Bogor

Siregar S B and Kusnadi U 2004 Peluang Pengembangan Usaha Sapi Perah di Daerah Dataran Rendah Kabupaten Cirebon. Media Peternakan. Balai Penelitian Ternak. Bogor

Stell R G D and Torrie J H 1991 Principles and Procedures of Statistics. Gramedia. Jakarta

Sutanto A 2007 Analisis Hubungan Karakteristik Sosial Ekonomi Peternak Dengan Skala Kepemilikan Sapi perah. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Peran Sektor Peternakan-Perikanan Dalam Rangka Peningkatan Keamanan dan Ketahanan Pangan, Malang 16 Juni 2007. Fakultas Peternakan-Perkanan UMM. Malang

Yusdja Y 2005 Kebijakan ekonomi Industri Agribisnis Sapi Perah di Indonesia. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Pertanian. Volume 3 No 3: 257 268. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from http://www.bwfitri.files.wordpress.com


Received 6 November 2013; Accepted 7 March 2014; Published 5 April 2014

Go to top