Assessment of good dairy farming practices on small-scale dairy farms in Malang Regency of East Java, Indonesia

Sutawi, Indah Prihartini, Abdul Malik and Septi Nur Wulan Mulatmi

Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Animal Science, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang 65144, East Java, Indonesia
sutawi@umm.ac.id

Abstract

The low milk production is not only caused by genetic, feed, and environmental factors, but also business management factors. A management standard about implementing sound practices on dairy farms called Good Dairy Farming Practice (GDFP). The research was conducted in May 2019 at 47 small-scale dairy farms in Malang Regency, East Java. This study aims to assess GDFP on small-scale dairy farms in Malang Regency. The assessment of GDFP was conducted with interviews with dairy farmers on five technical aspects, namely: Breeding and Reproduction, Feeding and Drinking Management, Dairy Cattle Management, Housing and Equipment, and Animal Health. Assessment of GDFP on small-scale dairy farms in Malang Regency was in the "Good" category.

Keywords: dairy farming, Good Dairy Farming Practices, small-scale dairy farms

Introduction

East Java Province is the center population of dairy cattle and the largest milk production in Indonesia. East Java contributed 252,680 heads (49.66%) to 544,791 dairy cattle populations and 461.73 thousand tons (54.25%) to 920,093 tons of Indonesian milk production (Kementan 2018). Indonesia's dairy cattle business had a composition of 80% small-scale, 17% medium-scale, and 3% large-scale farmers (Mandaka and Hutagaol 2005). The problems on the small-scale livestock businesses were limited forage, decreased the number of farmers, low quality of milk, livestock disease, and limited agribusiness infrastructure (Ramadhan et al 2015). The average milk production was only 10.7 liters/head/day, it was below the minimum standard by 15 liters/head/day. The low milk production was not only caused by genetic, feed, and environmental factors but also business management factors (Aminah and Rondhi 2019).

Good Dairy Farming Practices (GDFP) is a management standard for dairy farming with six key aspects including animal health, milking hygiene, nutrition (feed and water), animal welfare, environment, and socio-economic management (FAO and IDF 2011). These practices have been drawn from best practice guidelines and existing assurance schemes around the world, and so individual practices will vary in their applicability to various dairying regions. GDFP focuses on the relationship between consumer safety and economic, social, and environmental management at the farm level. GDFP is used world-wide which supports the farmers to produce and market safe, quality milk to satisfy the quality standards. When adopted, it will support the production and marketing of safe, quality-assured milk and dairy products.

Most of the small-scale dairy farming businesses do not pay attention to general maintenance management, ignoring animal health control, animal biology and veterinary conditions, feeding and drinking management, environment and infrastructure, and product handling (Asminaya et al 2018). As the result, it has implications for low milk productivity. This study aims to assess GDFP on small-scale dairy farms in Ngantang District, Malang Regency.

Materials and methodos

Materials

The research was conducted in May 2019 on a small-scale dairy farm in Ngantang District, Malang Regency. A total of 83,660 heads (33.11%) of the 252,680 dairy cattle in East Java are in Malang Regency, which 15,511 heads are in Ngantang District. The study respondents were 47 dairy farmers who had participated in training on "Becoming a Successful Dairy Farmer with Technology Innovation" in Ngantang District. Each respondent owns 12-13 dairy cattle (± 10 Animal Units, AU).

Methods

The GDFP assessment uses interviews with farmers in five technical aspects: (1) Breeding and Reproduction, (2) Feeding and Drinking Management, (3) Dairy Cattle Management, (4) Housing and Equipment, and (5) Animal Health. The implementation of dairy cattle rearing management in each aspect of the GDFP was quantified by providing a score of 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0 in each alternative answer. GDFP performance was classified into five categories based on the assessment system of the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of Republic of Indonesia (Simamora et al 2015), namely: (1) Score 0.00-0.50, Quality Score "E", Category "Worst"; (2) Score 0.51-1.00, Quality Score "D", Category "Bad"; (3) Score 1.01-2.00, Quality Score "C", Category "Not Good Enough", (4) Score 2.01-3.00, Quality Score "B", Category "Good Enough"; and (5) Score 3.01-4.00, Quality Score "A", Category "Good".

Results and discussion

Breeding and Reproduction

The assessment of the breeding and reproduction management aspect was in the “Good Enough” category with a score of 2.76 points (Table 1). The breed of cattle being raised was FH (Friesian Holstein). Dairy cattle breeding in Ngantang District was carried out in three ways: 30 (63.83%) farmers bought the calves from the nearest animal market, 26 (55.32%) used their calves, and 16 (34.04%) bought calves from the other dairy farmers. The cattle gave the first calving at 31-36 months. Then, the cattle were bred again 61-120 days after. Moreover, the cattle had a calving interval of 13-24 months. Delay in conception cattle after calving was influenced by knowledge of heat, availability of semen, availability of inseminators, reproductive diseases, and health problems. The method of conception cattle used Artificial Insemination (AI). AI indicators included days open (DO), service per conception (S/C), and calving interval. In general, the range of good S/C is between 1-2, but in Indonesia, it has an average S/C value of 1.72-3.13 times (Sulistyowati et al 2009). The reproductive cycle of cattle ran well, whereas there was 37 (78.72%) farmers were able to manage cattle to mating once a year. This means that two to three months after mating, the cattle was pregnant again. The farmer members of the Sumber Makmur Cooperative showed an average DO of 100.66 days, S/C 1.9 times, and CI 385.50 days (Retno et al 2014). Low levels of detection, low nutritional fulfillment, and inadequate recording harmed the conception of dairy cows (Mwambilwa et al 2013). Repairing 12-13 month calving intervals can improve business profitability on dairy farming (Hertanto et al 2012).

Feeding and Drinking Management

The assessment of the feeding and drinking water aspect was in the "Good" category with a score of 3.74 points (Table 2). The average forage consumption for dairy cattle in Ngantang was 34.43 kg/head/day with an average body weight of 365-442 kg/head. Forage types, namely elephant grass, field grass, corn straw, and rice straw, are given in sufficient quantities with a frequency of 2-4 times a day. The frequency of giving forage to lactating cattle was 2 times a day. The average feeding rate was 35-40 kg per head per day and the concentrate was 3.4 kg/head/day (Siregar 2001). The provision of concentrate feed that was not suitable for cattle’s needs caused low milk production (10-15 liters/head/day). The production was equivalent to other areas in Java, such as in Jabung District (Malang Regency) 10 liters/head/day (Wahyudi et al 2013), in Pujon District (Malang Regency) 10.88 liters/head/day (Aisyah 2011), in Bogor Regency 10 liters/head/day (Ramadhan et al 2015), and in Bandung Regency 12.06 liters/day/head (Agusta et al 2014). The lack of concentrate feed on dairy farms in Ngantang District was due to the high price of concentrate feed IDR 3,500/kg. Feeding concentrate is recommended by 50% of milk production. Forage feed costs contribute 25-26% while concentrate feed was 51-59% of the total cost of production of dairy cows (Utami and Seruni 2014). Fulfillment of feed quantitatively and qualitatively was a limitation of small-scale farmers (Ngongoni et al 2006). Limited availability of forage and land caused low milk production (Anggraeni and Mariana 2016).

Dairy Cattle Management

The assessment of dairy cattle management was in the “Good” category with a score of 3.59 points (Table 3). The factors of cleaning cattle and drying lactation cattle have been in line with GDFP expectations. The farmers cleaned the cattle twice a day before milking. The dry period was done two months before calving. Clean the dairy cattle houses, milking method, post-harvest handling, rearing of calves and heifer, and manure management was according to GDFP's expectations. The cleanliness of the houses and equipment affected the quality of milk and the number of milk bacteria and also determines the price of milk (Kusnadi and Juarini 2007). Most farmers did not have a complete and good livestock business registration system (Asminaya et al 2018). The absence of health and production records in most farmers may prevent farmers from recognizing certain problems (Costa et al 2013). Farmers process cattle manure as organic fertilizer or biogas. Organic fertilizer derived from cattle manure becomes an additional income for farmers (Muriithi et al 2014).

Housing and equipment

Assessment of the dairy cattle housing and equipment aspect was in the “Good” category with a value of 3.57 points (Table 4). The housing had a function to keep livestock in comfortable conditions so that the cattle can produce optimally. A good dairy cattle housing must be able to meet the needs and health requirements of dairy cattle (Haskell et al 2006). The general requirements of the housing for dairy cattle are sufficient air circulation and get sunlight, not humidity (ideal humidity 60%-70%), the floor is always dry, the feed area is wide and the water place contains water throughout the day (Simamora et al 2015). The lowest GDFP score was seen in the enclosure layout. Dairy cattle housing was generally close to the farmer's house (less than 10 meters). The advantage of placing the housing close to the farmer’s house was it provided easy access to care for dairy cattle and cleaning the housing. Limited land was also a factor that caused the houses built near the farmer’s house. The distance of the dairy cattle housing and residential areas of less than 250 meters had the potential to cause pollution and health problems (Asminaya et al 2018). There were no complaints regarding the health of farmers while working in dairy cattle housing (Zuroida and Azizah 2018).

Animal health

The assessment of animal health aspects was in the "Good" category by 3.07 points (Table 5). Farmers' knowledge of dairy diseases is still limited so their ability to prevent disease is also limited. If dairy cattle are infected with a disease, the farmer directly contacted the animal health officer from the Livestock Office or Farmer Cooperative to check and treat. Diseases that infect dairy cattle were inflammation of the mammary glands (mastitis), tuberculosis, brucellosis, worm infections, inflammation of the spleen, and diseases of the skin and nails. Mastitis was one of the main health issues in dairy production and remains a major challenge for the world dairy industry (Jansen et al 2010). Mastitis, abortions, and dystocia caused major economic losses to dairy farms (Fareed et al 2017). Diseases in dairy cattle can be caused by ectoparasites and endoparasites (Safitri et al 2015). The prevalence of dairy cattle disease was associated with poor housing conditions (Mekonnen et al 2010). Prevention of diseases can be done by maintaining the cleanliness of the housing, cleanliness of livestock, providing feed according to the needs, providing worm medicine, and vitamins periodically (Anggraeni and Mariana 2016; Simamora et al 2015).

Assessment GDFP

The assessment of small-scale dairy cattle farms management in Malang Regency was based on the average score of Good Dairy Farming Practices (GDFP) of 3.35 points was in the category "Good" (Table 6). GDFP assessment on small-scale farms had been carried out in several dairy farming centers in Indonesia. The implementation of GDFP in Karo Regency (North Sumatra Province) shows that the highest GDFP score was the Dairy Farm Management aspect by 3.05 points (Good) when the lowest GDFP score was the Dairy Cattle Health aspect by 1.52 points (Not Good Enough) (Simamora et al 2015), in Pondok Ranggon District (West Java Province) in the category of Good Enough by 2.28 points (Anggraeni and Mariana 2016), and in Subang Regency (West Java Province) milking Hygiene, Reproduction, and Animal Welfare aspects are good implementation, meanwhile, Economic Management aspect is not a priority in the dairy farmers (Firman et al 2016). The score of GDFP implementation on small-scale dairy farms in Cibungbulang (Bogor Regency) during the rainy season was Good category by 2.79 points, meanwhile in the dry season was 2.69 points (Asminaya et al 2018). The implementation of GDFP in Jember Regency (East Java Province) by partnership farmers was 62.96% and independent farmers were 53.33% (Aminah and Rondhi 2019). Assessment of the GDFP in other developing countries showed similar results. In the Punjab, Pakistan, farmers did not have the technical knowledge and they lacked-resources to create interest toward technicality attainments (Ashraf et al 2013). In India, the overall adoption level of GDFP was only 12% in Uttar Pradesh because the farmers were not fully aware of the GDFP and lack of resources to adopt (Singh et al 2018).

Conclusion

• Assessment of Good Dairy Farming Practices (GDFP) on small-scale dairy farms in Malang Regency of East Java was in the "Good" category.

Acknowledgements

This project was carried out in collaboration between the Directorate of Research and Community Service of University of Muhammadiyah Malang with PT Permodalan Nasional Madani (Persero) Malang Branch in 2019.

References

Agusta Q T M, Lestari D A H and Situmorang S 2014 The analysis of income and welfare level of animal husbandry cooperative’s member in South Bandung (KPBS) Pangalengan. Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Agribisnis, 2(2), 109–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jiia.v2i2.109-117

Aisyah S 2011 Tingkat produksi susu dan kesehatan sapi perah dengan pemberian Aloe Barbadensis Miller. Gamma, 7(1), 50–60. http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/gamma/article/view/1421/2818

Aminah S and Rondhi M 2019 Implementation of good dairy farming practice (GDFP) and income of partnership and independent dairy farm. Journal of Social and Agricultural Economics, 12(3), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.19184/jsep.v12i03.14009

Anggraeni A and Mariana E 2016 Technical aspects evaluation of dairy cow maintenance towards good dairy farming practices on Pondok Ranggon small holder dairy farm. Jurnal Agripet, 16(2), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.17969/agripet.v16i2.5162

Ashraf S, Iftikhar M, Khan G A, Shahbaz B and Ashraf I 2013 Performance evaluation of the dairy farmers regarding adoption of precise dairy farming practices in the Punjab, Pakistan. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(29), 4074–4080. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.7259

Asminaya N S, Purwanto B P, Atabany A and Nurlaha 2018 Evaluasi aspek teknis pemeliharaan sapi perah berdasarkan good dairy farming practices (GDFP) di peternakan rakyat Cibungbulang. Jurnal Ilmu Dan Teknologi Peternakan Tropis, 5(3), 79–87. http://ojs.uho.ac.id/index.php/peternakan-tropis/article/view/4977

Costa J H C, Hötzel M J, Longo C and Balcão L F 2013 A survey of management practices that influence production and welfare of dairy cattle on family farms in Southern Brazil. Journal of Dairy Science, 96(1), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5906

FAO and IDF 2011 Guide to good dairy farming practice. Animal production and health guidelines. No. 8. FAO and IDF. http://www.fao.org/3/ba0027e/ba0027e00.htm

Fareed S K, Memon K H, Kachiwal A B, Azhar S, Brula M I, Mehmood-Ul-Hasan, Ali M and Khan T A 2017 Prevalence and economic losses of reproductive disorders and mastitis in buffaloes at Karachi, Pakistan. Indian Journal of Animal Research, 51(6), 1130–1133. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.8602

Firman A, Marina S, Hermawan, Paturachman S, Linda H and Anita F 2016 Evaluation of good dairy farming practice method on dairy farming in Subang District, West Java, Indonesia. Proceedings of International Seminar on Livestock Production and Veterinary Technology 2016, 204–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.14334/Proc.Intsem.LPVT-2016-p.204-212

Haskell M J, Rennie L J, Bowell V A, Bell M J and Lawrence A B 2006 Housing system, milk production, and zero-grazing effects on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 89(11), 4259–4266. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72472-9

Hertanto B S, Widiati R and Adiarto 2012 Econimic analysis and the development strategies of smallholders dairy farm and dairy company in the low land. Buletin Peternakan, 36(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.21059/buletinpeternak.v36i2.1589

Jansen J, Renes R J and Lam T J G M 2010 Evaluation of two communication strategies to improve udder health management. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(2), 604–612. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2531

Kementan 2018 Outlook susu 2018. Pusat Data dan Informasi Pertanian. http://epublikasi.setjen.pertanian.go.id/download/file/479-outlook-susu-2018

Kusnadi U and Juarini E 2007 Income optimization of dairy farm to increase national milk production. Indonesian Bulletin of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 17(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.14334/wartazoa.v17i1.887

Mandaka S and Hutagaol M P 2005 Analisis fungsi keuntungan, efisiensi ekonomi dan kemungkinan skema kredit bagi pengembangan skala usaha peternakan sapi perah rakyat di Kelurahan Kebon Pedes, Kota Bogor. Jurnal Agro Ekonomi, 23(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21082/jae.v23n2.2005.191-208

Mekonnen T, Bekana M and Abayneh T 2010 Reproductive performance and efficiency of artificial insemination smallholder dairy cows/heifers in and around Arsi-Negelle, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 22 (Article#61). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/3/meko22061.htm

Muriithi M K, Huka G S and Njati I C 2014 Factors influencing growth of dairy farming business in Amentia South District of Mere County, Kenya. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16(4), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.9790/487x-16432131

Mwambilwa K, Yambayamba K E and Simbaya J 2013 Evaluation of the reproductive performance and effectiveness of artificial insemination on smallholder dairy farms in Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 3(10), 391–400. https://www.scholarly-journals.com/sjas/archive/2013/Oct/pdf/Mwambilwa et al.pdf

Ngongoni N T, Mapiye C, Mwale M and Mupeta B 2006 Factors affecting milk production in the smallholder dairy sector of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 18 (Article #72), 89. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/5/ngon18072.htm

Ramadhan D R, Mulatsih S and Amin A A 2015 Sustainable dairy cattle farming systems : A case study of smallholders in Bogor Regency. Jurnal Agro Ekonomi, 33(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21082/jae.v33n1.2015.51-72

Retno P, Ihsan A M N and Nuryadi 2014 Evaluation efificiency reproduction Fries Holland of dairy cattle various parity in ”KUD” Sumber Makmur Subdistrict Ngantang, Malang Regency. Jurnal Ternak Tropika, 15(2), 61–64. https://ternaktropika.ub.ac.id/index.php/tropika/article/view/213/209

Safitri R I, Harjanti D W and Setiatin E T 2015 Health evaluation of dairy cows. Jurnal Agripet, 15(2), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.17969/agripet.v15i2.2852

Simamora T, Fuah A M, Atabany A and Burhanuddin 2015 Evaluation of Technical aspects on smallholder dairy farm in Karo Regency of North Sumatera. Jurnal Ilmu Produksi Dan Teknologi Hasil Peternakan, 03(1), 52–58. https://journal.ipb.ac.id/index.php/ipthp/article/view/10814

Singh A K, Saryam M, Shah R and Ghatawal J P 2018 Compare the extent of adoption of good dairy farming practices by the dairy farmers in Central Plain and Eastern Plain Zones of Uttar Pradesh. International Journal of Pure & Applied Bioscience, 6(1), 1383–1391. https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.5084

Siregar S B 2001 Increasing milk production ability of lactating cows through improvement of feeding management. Jurnal Ilmu Ternak dan Veteriner, 6(2), 76–82. http://medpub.litbang.pertanian.go.id/index.php/jitv/article/view/222/222

Sulistyowati E, Kuswadi E, Sutarno L and Tampubolon G 2009 Reproduction performance of FH dairy cows and their calves aging 1-3 months. Case study: Air Duku and Desa Air Putih Kali Bandung Villages, Selupu Rejang, Rejang Lebong, Bengkulu. Jurnal Sain Peternakan Indonesia, 4(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.31186/jspi.id.4.1.21-26

Utami H D and Seruni A P 2014 Financial performance of small scale dairy farming in East Java Indonesia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 26 (Article #200). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/11/utam26200.htm

Wahyudi L, Susilowati T and Wahyuningsih S 2013 Reproductive performance of dairy cattle with varity parity in Kemiri Village, Jabung Sub District, Malang Regency. Jurnal Ternak Tropika, 14(2), 13–22. https://ternaktropika.ub.ac.id/index.php/tropika/article/view/178/177

Zuroida R and Azizah R 2018 Cages sanitation and health complaints among dairy farmers in Murukan Village, Jombang. Jurnal Kesehatan Lingkungan, 10(4), 434–440. https://doi.org/10.20473/jkl.v10i4.2018.434-440