The Analysis of Semi Intensive Native Chicken Farming in Rural Communities

The study was aimed to determine the income for semi intensive native chicken farming and todetermine the factors influence it. The study was conducted by survey method and direct interview usingquestionnaire to 35 members of farmers group “Poyuyanan” in Poyowa Besar Village, SouthKotamobagu Dstrict North Sulawesi Province. Data were analyzed by using descriptive and quantitativeanalysis using multiple regression analysis of Cobb-Douglass model. The result showed that farmer withan average ownership of 8 hens could obtain income equivalent to 37.9 kg of rice per month. Theregression analysis showed that altogether the dependent variables had effect to income as much 81.2%(R2 = 0.821). Partially variables that could increase farmers' income were hatching rate, number ofproductive hen, cost of production and number of eggs hatched. Mortality was the only variable thatdecreased farmers' income. Cost of production in semi intensive native chicken farming which mainlyfor buying feed could increase the production and income for farmers that in turn would support foodavailability of rural communities in Poyowa Besar Villages


INTRODUCTION
In Southeast Asia local -or native-chicken meat is preferred by most consumers (Chang, 2007). Native chicken are an important part of traditional rural living. Typically, a farm household keeps around 10-20 birds (Suryana and Hasbianto, 2008). More than 70% of the national meat consumption are from poultry. In that portion about 85% are from broiler chicken (Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan, 2012). However pertain to the income contribution, broiler chicken farming is less significant for improvement of the rural welfare because the production system is largely depending on imports (Yuwono and Prasetyo, 2013). On the other hand, the native chicken which is usually raised in the rural area has many potensials to support the national meat consumption because of the taste and quality of the meat (Kperegbeyi et al. 2009) This factors have made native chicken meat has a premium price. The price is considered to be stable and even going up, thus it makes the native chicken farming a good business opportunities for people in rural area to increase their income Semi intensive farming is believed to be the better system than the traditional ones. According to Mangesha (2012) semi intensive farming is a way to raise chicken in a small fence space with routine feeding, thus the growth of the poultry can be observed. On the contrary in the traditional one the chicken is raised freely without any cage and any routine feeding, therefore semi intensive native chicken farming is able to produce meat and eggs more than traditional ones and ensure food availability from animal protein for rural communities. Heryadi and Rusfrida (2010) proposed a program namely Family Poultry based on semi intensive native chicken farming activity with 10 hens and 1 cock per household to establish food avalability from animal protein. In the first year of the program the amount of the chicken parents increased by 5.8 times and the family could consume 150 eggs and 24 chicken meat. Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan (2012) stated that Indonesian meat consumption is lower than neighborhood country such as Malaysia and Thailand. Therefore semi intensive native chicken farming is an alternative to meet the food availability especially meat consumption for rural communities.
The farmers in Poyowa Besar village, have started to rear native chicken in semi intensive farming since 2010. However farmers have not been able to run their business optimally due to lack of knowledge about semi intensive native chicken farming. Farmers need information continuously about how to increase the production and their income that in turn would support the food availability for rural communities in Poyowa Besar Villages. Therefore it is necessary to investigate the factors affecting farmers' income from semi intensive native chicken business.

Sampling Methods and Data Collection
The study was conducted in Poyowa Besar Village, South Kotamobagu District, North Sulawesi Province. Poyowa Besar Village was purposively chosen based on the existence of farmer group who rear semi intensive native chicken farming, namely "Poyuyanan group". All of native chicken farming in Poyowa Besar village are member of "Poyuyanan " group that in 2010 the group have got extension service from Faculty of Animal Husbandry Sam Ratulangi University (FAHSRU). Thirty five members of native chicken farmer group were selected as respondents. Data were collected by using survey method with interview directly to farmers assisted by questionnaires taken in June -August 2013. Data collection consisted of primary data of technical parameters and economic parameters such as egg production per hen, number of egg hatched per year, rearing, production cycle of hen, mortality of DOC until 75 days old of chicken, hatchability, body weight of chicken sold, inputs and outputs price and characteristic of respondent.

Data Analysis
Data were analysed by using descriptive and quantitative methods. Descriptive analysis was used to determine the characteristic of the respondents, whereas quantitative analysis was used to determine the economic incentive or income and to determine factors influencing the native chicken farmers' income. Income was computed by subtracting revenue obtained to cost of production spent by farmers. The formula is given as follow (Amir and Knipscheer, 1989) : П = TR -TC Where: П = Income/ economic incentive (IDR/year/farmer) TR = Total revenue (IDR/year/farmer) TC = Total cost (IDR/year/farmer). In this research cost of production was considered because the shift from traditional to semi intensive farming needed an extra cost to purchase feed and vaccines and to build cages to protect the chicken.
Cobb-Douglass model of production function was used to analyse factors influencing farmers' income (Gujarati, 2003) : Ln Y = α0 + α1 Ln X 1 + α2 Ln X 2 + α3 Ln X 3 + α4 Ln X 4 + α5 Ln X 5 + α6 Ln X 6 + e Where: Y = Income (IDR/year/farmer) X 1 = Number of productive hen (bird) X 2 = Cost of production (IDR/year/farmer) X 3 = Mortality of DOC until 75 days old of chicken (%) X 4 = Number of egg hatched (egg/year) X 5 = Hatching rate (%) X 6 = Average of body weight of chicken sold, 75 days old (kg/year/farmers) α0 = Constant α1, α2,..... α6 = Regression coefficient of each variable X1,…X6 (Independent variables) e = error term To estimate the coefficient of regression, ordinary least square method was used. Furthermore, accuracy of the model was evaluated using hypothesis test namely coefficient of determination test (R 2 ) overall test ( F test) and partial test (t test). Completion of analysis was conducted using computer with SAS. Version 9.1.3

Characteristics of Respondents and Production Parameters
The research showed that most of the farmers were 19-54 years old and on the average was 41 years old. It showed that almost all native chicken farmers are still in the productive age. Fourty two percent of farmers' education background was senior high school. However they had farming experience more than 5 years. Besides the formal education, the native chicken farmers, also obtained informal education, such as counseling by Agriculture and Animal Officer from District of South Kotamobagu and extension service from FAHSRU. Nevertheless extension Officer from District of South Kotamobagu rarely provide technical information about semi intensive native chicken farming in the study area due to limited amount of the Officer whereas extension service from FAHSRU was only implemented in 2010.
Farmers usually used their courtyard to manage their chicken. The average number of hen raised by farmer was eight hens and 1 cock. Farmers kept the hens and cock in the limited space of cage. Productive hens were managed for breeding, brooding, rearing, and chicken parenting for about 5-6 days, then farmer separated the day old chick from its parent. This treatment will make hen lay again and so on. Chicks were raised until the age of about 75 days with intensive feeding, then they were sold as resulting product for breeder (Table 1).
Production parameters consist of technical and economic parameters. Technical parameters consisted of egg production, production cycle, mortality, hatching rate and body weight of chicks. In the animal production, feed was a very important factor which along with good raising management factors would affect the technical parameters (Justus et al., 2013) The feed which were given by farmers in "Poyuyanan" group are presented in Table 1. Economic parameters consisted of input and output price. Based on the technical and economic parameters cost of production and income could be measured appropriately.
The raw materials of feed in the form of rice bran, dried rice and and corn were local raw materials which were easily obtained from the local market. Nevertheless, broiler feed was still supplied from the factory. Therefore farmers still needed guidance from the relevant institution to make feed mix ratio that meet the needs by utilizing local raw materials. Based on the price research data of broiler feed, rice bran, dried rice and corn were IDR 6425/kg, IDR 2500/kg, IDR3200/kg and IDR 4250/kg respectively. In regard to local raw material, corn was the most expensive ones so it was rarely used by farmers.
Some researchers showed that semi intensive farming was one of the intensification approach to increase the production, productivity and income of smallholder farming. In the backyard system of chicken farming, production cycle of native chicken had taken about five months or 158 days and produced 30-40 eggs/hen/year (Haunshi et al., 2009) whereas based on the result of this study that is presented in Table 2 it only took about 59 days in semi intensive farming or six times per year. This meant that semi intensive native chicken farming performed by farmers in the study area could reduce production cycle and increase egg production. The production and productivity of native chicken farming are presented at Table 3. Table 3 shows that the number of productive hen per farmer per year was 8 birds, therefore they produced 594 eggs or 66 eggs/hen/year. The productivity of semi intensive native chicken farming in the study area was good compared with the result of previous research (Dutta et al., 2013;Park et al., 2010) that hatching rate and production cycle of Bangladesh indigenous chicken and Korean cross breed native chicken were 79.30%, 82.8% and 4 -6 times per year respectively while the hatching rate and production cycle of native chicken farming running by "Poyuyanan" group farmers in Poyowa Besar Village were 88.7% and 6 times/year respectively. This is because a female Bangladesh indigenous chicken lays 3-4 clutches of eggs yearly. It takes 2 weeks for laying, 3 weeks for hatching, and 6-10 weeks for taking care of her broods. Thus, a hen spends 10-15 weeks for each production cycle. The time period of a hen's production cycle depends on two main factors namely feed and body weight (Suryana dan Hasbianto, 2008). A hen needs good quantity and quality feed and should reach at least the previous body weight before entering the next production cycle. However, mortality rate of native chicken farming in the study site still needed to be controlled with better management. Each household can consume two eggs and two birds every months or 25.77 birds and 27.18 eggs per year. The number of chicken per farmer were eight birds per year and it varies greatly depending on hatching rate, mortality until 75 day old, the availability of natural feeds and crop -by products and endemic deseases. All parameters in Table 3 would determine the success of "Poyuyanan" group farmers in getting the economic incentives to meet their food.

Cost of Production, Revenue and Economic Incentive (Income)
The component of production cost, revenue and income or economic incentive of semi intensive native chicken farming are presented in Table 4. The result of the research showed that feed consumption had most contribution on semi intensive chicken farming cost production. The average feed cost per year was IDR 9,175,564. It  Marketing systems for native chicken farming in Poyowa Besar Village can be divided into two levels; there were person-to-person transaction in the villages, and market in Kotamobagu Town. Person-to-person transaction in the villages involve a direct contact between wholesaler and native chicken farmers. These transaction occured when some consumer received guest at home or running the party This marketing system was occasional or seasonal. Chicken were sold live and the bird size varies from young, 1 kg body weight birds up to old parent stocks. In the case of markets in Town, the farmers carried their chikens to the markets very early in the morning. The number of chicken brought by a farmer ranges from three to six birds. The desired weight was around 1.0 kg/bird; if heavier, the price tends to go down due to the inferior, tougher and meat texture. The price of chicken 75 days was IDR 38,000/kg body weight in August 2013. Farmers sold 379.67 birds/year , thus each farmer has opportunity to get the monthly income of IDR 360,753 equivalent to 37.9 kg of rice per month (Table 4), the price of rice was IDR 9,500/kg. The result indicated that semi intensive native chicken farming conducted by "Poyuyanan " group farmers has contributed on food availability to rural community in this region. Dutta et al. (2013) stated that indigenous chicken has contributed about 25.06% of total meat and eggs production thus it can establish food sovereignty for sub urban and rural households in Rajshahi Regency, Bangladesh.

Factors Influencing The Income
The result of regression analysis from 35 farmers are presented in Table 5. The result showed altogether the dependent variables have effect to farmers' income or economic incentive as much as 81.2% (R 2 = 0.812). The magnitude of the regression coefficient indicated the extent to which specific independent variable can increase or decrease income or economic incentive. The variables that can significantly increase (P,0.05) income or economic incentive were hatching rate (0.891), number of productive hen (0.671), cost of production (0.562) and number of egg hatched (0.524), respectively and P<0.10. The only variable that significantly decrease income was mortality (-0.106) with P<0.10, while body weight of chicken sold, 75 days was completely not significant. The result was in line with previous study reported by Dewanti and Sihombing ( 2012) that hatching rate and cost of production had a significant influence to the income of semi intensive and intensive native chicken farmer therefore semi intensive native chicken rearing could be more economical for the small holder poultry keepers (Sanka and Mbaga,  . Hatching rate determined the farmer's income because the higher of hatching rate, farmer can sold the more eggs and obtain more income. In semi intensive native chicken farming conducted by Poyuyanan farmers group provided the chicken with routine feeding and vaccine thus it increased chicken's production and productivity thus would also increase revenue for farmer. Similarly Pham et al. (2013) reported that Taiwan native chicken is well managed by feed and breeds and therefore there is a good potential for adaptation to new environmental conditions or markets. The level of education, farming experience, mortality, number of eggs hatched, the existing of capital, extension agents, and training of farmers could affecting native chicken's production which in turn made farmers income increase.

CONCLUSION
Farmers conducted semi intensive native chicken farming in Poyowa Besar Villages, South Kotamobagu District North Sulawesi Province could obtain an income that equivalent to 37.9 kg of rice per month. Factors that significantly influenced farmer's income on semi intensive native chicken farming were hatching rate, number of productive hens, cost production and number of eggs hatched