Social economic factors that affect cattle farmer’s willingness to pay for artificial insemination programs
Keywords:
artificial insemination, cattle, cattle farmers, willingness to pay, IndonesiaAbstract
There is a serious problem in Indonesia in the fi eld of animal husbandry, that is the low productivity and genetic quality of cattle. To solve the problem, artificial insemination (AI) was done to improve the productivity of cattle and farmer’s income. But actually the farmer’s willingnes to pay (WTP) affects the AI programs. This research aimed to understand the social economy factors that affected beef cattle breeder’s WTP for artificial insemination programs in Barru Regency, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. The research was conducted from May to July 2017 in the Balusu district, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. The type of research is explanatory quantitative. The populations were all of the farmers that do artifi cial insemination in cattle in Balusu district, a total of 85 farmers. The data sources were primary data and secondary data; data types were qualitative and quantitative. Analysis of data used multiple regression analysis. The results showed that simultaneously age factors, formal education, social care, and the attitude, AI’s knowledge, business scale and extension significantly affected the farmers WTP for artificial insemination of their cattle. However, the social care factors, location, and the farmers’ attitude in separate, partial regressions were also significantly influential. So, it is necessary to increase knowledge about AI with intensity of counseling higher on Bali cattle breeder. As the conclusion, age factor, formal education, social awareness, knowledge about AI, business scale, counseling and location significantly influence the willingness to pay farmers in applying artificial insemination to Bali cattle.
References
Ahuja, V., & Redmond, E. (2001). Economic and policy issues in livestock service delivery to the poor. Background paper for the FAO project memorandum “Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative: Fostering the Policy Dialogue in Support of Equitable, Safe and Clean Livestock Farming”, May 2001.
Arifah, F. N. (2008). Analysis of farmer’s willingness to pay for increasing the irrigation services through irrigation network rehabilitation (Case study: Cisadane-Empang irrigation region, Bogor, West Java, Indonesia). Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economic and Natural Resource, Agricultural Institute of Bogor, West Java, Indonesia (Id).
Bachev, H., Ivanov, B., Toteva, D., & Sokolova, E. (2017). Agrarian sustainability in Bulgaria – economic, social and ecological aspects. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 23(4), 519-525.
Bahar, L. D. (2017). Analysis of breeder’s willingness to pay through adoption of Bali cattle artifi cial insemination. Thesis, Postgraduate Program, Hasanuddin University, Indonesia (Id).
Barth, A. D. (1993). Factors affecting fertility with artifi cial insemination. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract., 9(2), 275-289.
Battershill, M. R., & Gilg, A. W. (1996). Traditional farming and agro-environment policy in Southwest England: Back to the future?. Geoforum, 27(2), 133-147.
Burrows, C., & Brown, K. (1992). Are any numbers better than no numbers? The sorry state of willingness-to-pay and some major methodological shortcomings. Aust. Health. Rev., 15(2), 135-144.
Castellini, A., Disegna, M., Mauracher, C., & Procidano, I. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to pay for quality and safety in clams. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 26(3), 189-208.
Christensen, T., Pedersen, A. B., Nielsen, H. O., Mørkbak, M. R., Hasler, B., & Denver, S. (2011). Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones – a choice experiment study. Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1558-1564.
Day, B., & Mourato, S. (1998). Willingness to pay for water quality maintenance in Chinese rivers. CSERGE Working Paper WM 98-02, University College London and University of Anglia.
Hanley, N. D., & Spash, C. L. (1993). Cost–benefi t analysis and the environment. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK.
Hartati, S. (2010). Manual of Artifi cial Insemination Implementation for Cow, General Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Hastuti, D. (2008). Cow artifi cial insemination success degree observed from conception number and service per conception. MEDIAGRO, 4(1), 12-20 (Id).
Horan, R. D., Shogren, J. F., & Gramig, B. M. (2009). Conservation payments to reduce wildlife habitat fragmentation and disease risks. In: Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC., pp. 103-132.
Van der Horst, D. (2011). Adoption of payments for ecosystem services: an application of the Hägerstrand model. Applied Geography, 31(2), 668-676.
Ivanov, G. Y., Bilgucu, E., Balabanova, T. B., Ivanova, I. V., & Uzatici, A. (2017). Effect of animal breed, season and milk production scale on somatic cell count and composition of cow milk. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 23(6), 10471052.
Kvapilik, J., Hanus, O., Roubal, P., & Filip, V. (2015). Economic metaanalysis of impact of once a day milking. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 21(2), 419-428.
Mariani, A. W., & Pêgo-Fernandes, P. M. (2014). Willingness to pay... What???. Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 132(3), 131132.
Morrell, J. M. (2011). Artifi cial insemination: current and future trends. In Artifi cial insemination in farm animals. InTech, UK.
Mzoughi, N. (2011). Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?. Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1536-1545.
Nedelkov, K., Todorov, N., Girginov, D., & Simeonov, М. (2015). Comparison on the response of ewes to the “ram effect” in seven Bulgarian breeds. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 21(1), 189-192.
Nurlina, L., & Alim, S. (2007). Relation between characteristics and cow farmers perception toward artifi cial insemination. Jurnal Ilmu Ternak (Journal of Animal Husbandry Science), 7(2), 165-169 (Id).
Priyanto, D. (2011). SPSS pocket book. MediaKom. Yogyakarta, Indonesia (Id).
Quiggin, J. (1998). Individual and household willingness to pay for public goods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 58-63.
Řiha, J., & Bezdiček, J. (2016). Breeding value and their relationship to the cutting parts in beef bull progeny. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 22(5), 821-828.
Rohani, S., Sirajuddin, S. N., Malaka, R., & Kasirang, A. (2017). Factors cause reduction of members of fresh milk production cooperative dairy cattle breeder. American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 11(2), 1-6.
Said, S. (2015). Role of knowledge and technology for increasing the productivity of local livestock. Research Central of Biotechnology, Research Institute in Indonesia, Bogor, Indonesia, 9 pp. (Id).
Salamah, L. A. (2012). Breeder’s willingness to pay (WTP) analysis toward provision of biogas instalation in management of dairy cattle animal husbandry waste (Case of Cisarua subdistrict, Bogor regency, Indonesia). Thesis, Postgraduate Program, Agricultural Institute of Bogor, Bogor, West Java, Indonesia (Id).
Santoso, S. (2011). SPSS 10 version: statistics data processing professionally. PT Elex Media Komputindo, Jakarta, Indonesia (Id).
Sarjono, H., & Julianita, W. (2011). SPSS vs LISREL: an introduction, application for research. Salemba Empat, Jakarta, Indonesia (Id).
Sirajuddin, S. N., Siregar, A. R., Nurlaelah, S., Lestari, V. S., & Tenrisanna, V. (2017a). The limitations and benefi ts of partnership sharing system of Corporated Cattle Market (CCM). American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 11(1), 11-14.
Sirajuddin, S. N., Nurlaelah, S., Amrawaty, A., Amrullah, T., Rohani, S., & Saleh, I. M. (2017b). RelationshipBetween Farmers Characteristic and Income from Beef Cattle with The Traditional Profi t-Sharing. American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainability Agriculture, 11(5), 29-34.
Schultz, P., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(3), 255-265.
Sudrajat, I. S., Rahayu, E. S., Kusnandar & Supriyadi (2017). Effect of social factors in stochastic frontier profi t of organic rice farming in Boyolali. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 23(4), 551-559.
Sugiyono, J. (2010). Statistics for research. Alfabeta, Bandung, Indonesia (Id).
Umar, H. (2001). Metodologi Penelitian /Research method/. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta (Id).
Vanslembrouck, I., Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Verbeke, W. (2002). Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. Journal of agricultural economics, 53(3), 489-511.
Zbinden, S., & Lee, D. R. (2005). Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA program. World Development, 33(2), 255-272.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
