mm

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

ADOPTION OF ORGANIC VEGETABLE PRODUCTION
PRACTICES IN WEST JAVA AND BALI, INDONESIA

Ph.D.

 

presented by

CHIFUMI TAKAGI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

degree in Community, Agriculture,
Recreation, and Resource
Studies
A [(8th gzuwé;

 

Major Professor’s Signature

[("(‘K\/ [2 .- 7U/L’
/

I

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

A .. _

- —-.--------u-.---o---c----.--I-I-I—l-l-l-l-n-a-I-o-c-l-

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 K IPrq/AccaPrelelRC/Dateoue indd

ADOPTION OF ORGANIC VEGETABLE PRODUCTION PRACTICES IN
WEST JAVA AND BALI, INDONESIA

By

Chifumi Takagi

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2010

ABSTRACT

ADOPTION OF ORGANIC VEGETABLE PRODUCTION PRACTICES IN WEST
JAVA AND BALI, INDONESIA

by

Chifumi Takagi

One of the challenges in developing organic agricultural production in Indonesia
is increasing farmers’ knowledge of organic farming methods to grow high quality
organic products. Recognizing the need for research and development of organic
agriculture, the Development of New Bio-Agents for Alternative Farming (DNBAF)
project established pilot farms in West Java and Bali in 2005 in order to field test the use
of bio-pesticides and compost. Since lack of extension is a constraint in developing
organic agriculture in Indonesia, it is important to understand what factors determine 1)
farmers’ knowledge of organic farming methods, 2) their attitudes toward such methods,
and 3) their adoption of the methods. The goal of this study was to determine farmers’
perceptions of organic vegetable production practices including bio-pesticides and
compost in West Java and Bali, Indonesia. The following hypotheses were tested in this
study: (1) socio-economic variables will affect the familiarity with bio-pesticides and
compost. The socio-economic variables are: respondent's location, gender, age, education
level, household size, number of family laborers, farming experience, farm size, distance
to the pilot farm, irrigation sources, land tenure status, net revenue of cabbage, tomato,
carrot production, exposure to the pilot farm and any information source groups (media,
extension, farmer and commercial groups); and (2) farmers’ familiarity with the target

organic vegetable practices will affect farmers’ attitude toward target organic methods,

and it will be possible to increase the chances that the farmer will adopt organic farming

by changing his/her attitudes toward the target organic methods.

Data were collected using a mixed method: face-to-face survey and interviews
with key informants. In the face-to-face survey, a total of 627 households of vegetable
farmers surrounding the pilot farms in West Java and Bali constituted the population, and
210 farmers selected by a systematic random sampling method were interviewed. The
study hypothesis (1) was tested by a binary logit analysis, and hypothesis (2) was tested
by a path analysis. In the interviews with key informants, a snowball sampling was used
to collect detailed information fi'om persons representing the Department of Agriculture,
the agricultural extension agency, and people in an organic vegetable market channel in
the study sites. A total of 10 people fi'om the three groups were interviewed by the

researcher in Bahasa Indonesia.

Result of the binary logit analysis showed that the factors associated with
awareness of the practices include: location, gender, educational level, distance to the
pilot farms, exposure to the pilot farms, and information sources. However, results of the
path analysis showed no statistically significant relationships between awareness of the
practices, attitude toward the practices, and intention to adopt the practices. The results of
interviews with key informants indicated that the following factors limit acceptance of
organic farming: 1) limited interaction with extension agents; 2) limited contact between
farmers and consumers; 3) lack of enforcement of standards for organic produce; 4) the
high cost of certifying produce as organic; and 5) weather conditions, especially long dry
seasons and excessive precipitation during the rainy season, which makes control of

diseases difficult.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deep appreciation to following people who support my

dissertation study and academic life at Michigan State University.

First, I am especially grateful to my major advisor, Dr. Murari Suvedi. Without
his supervision, mental and financial support, I would not have completed my degree
here. My deep gatitude extend to my advisory committee members including, Dr.
Richard Bernsten, Dr. Richard Paulsen and Dr. Russell Freed. I would like to emphasize
that all of my committee members had rich international research experiences in
developing countries, which made me the recipient of very useful and practical advice
during my dissertation. I really appreciate their concerns and supports of my professional

development.

Second, I am deeply grateful to Dr. Akimi Fujimoto, who is a leader of the
Development of New Bio-Agents for Alternative Farming project at Tokyo University of
Agriculture. He provided the research opportunity for my dissertation using this project,
and financial support for my fieldwork in Indonesia. During the fieldwork, several
Indonesian faculty members who were involved in the project supported my fieldwork.
Especially, I would like to express my special appreciation to Dr. Yusman Syaukat at

Bogor Agricultural University and Dr. I Made Sudana at Udayana University.

Third, I must thank vegetable farmers in the Sukagalih village in West Java and
Bangli village in Bali for their warm hospitality and unconditional cooperation to my

study. I was able to complete my research because of their kindness and supports.

Fourth, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Drs. Frank and Katherine
Dennis for providing lesson in English language. Since the summer of 2004, I have
studied English with Dr. Katherine Dennis. Dr. Dennis also gave me useful advice to

improve my academic writing skills.

Finally, I would like to say “thank you very much” for my colleagues with whom
I studied in the Department of Agricultural Economics and the Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies at Michigan State University.
I make mention here of Chirs Wight, Maria Laura Donnet, Sindi Kirimi and Lilian
Kirimi, Honglin Wang, Woohyan Shim, Hikuepi Katjiuonguan, Wolfgang Pejuan, Tracy
Beedy, Tomokazu Nagai, Satoshi Tsukamoto, Eric Bailey, Lourdes Martinez, Sung Hee
Park, Chi-Ming (Allen) Hsieh, Mi Ran Kim, Gwo-Bao Liou, Kaoruko Miyakuni, Eunice
Cavane and Kana Aoki. It would have been difficult to complete my degree without
their kindness and supports. I will continue to value our shared experiences and treasure
our fiiendships. Also I must say “thank you very much” to my husband, Toshiji Takagi
and my parents, Masao and Teruko Takagi. They provided me the blessing and support to

pursue my academic and professional goals. Again, thank you very much.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................
Problem Statement .............................................................................
Research Objectives ...........................................................................
Importance of the Study .......................................................................
Definition of Terms ............................................................................

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................
Agricultural Development in Developing Countries «Current Issues ..................
The Role of Agricultural Extension in Developing Countries ...........................
Agricultural Extension System in Indonesia ................................................
The Adoption/Diflirsion Model ..............................................................
Evaluating Impacts of Extension Programs ................................................
Vegetable Production and Marketing in Indonesia ........................................
Development of New Bio-Agents for Alternative Farming (DNBAF) Project ........
Model of the Process of Organic Conversion ..............................................
Information Gathering Stage ..........................................................
Evaluation and Adaptation Stage ......................................................
Implementation Stage ..................................................................
Conventional and Organic Vegetable Production Context in Indonesia ...............
Policies ....................................................................................
Research Activities in Vegetable Production .......................................
Technical Feasibility for Organic Vegetable Production ..........................
Economic Feasibility for Organic Vegetable Production ..........................
Other Factors Influencing Farmers’ Decisions to Convert ........................
Conceptual Framework of Organic Conversion in Vegetable Production ..............
Possible Factors Influencing the Decision to Convert to Organic Farming. . . ..
Social Network, Availability of Information and Farming Press Variables. . . ..
Gender and Lifestyle and Health Variables ..........................................
Goals, Objectives and Values Variables .............................................
Personal Attitude Variables ............................................................
Other Variables ..........................................................................
Conceptual Framework for the Process of Organic Conversion in Vegetable
Production in Indonesia ................................................................
Study Hypotheses ..............................................................................

Summary ........................................................................................

vi

ix

xi

OO\IO\UI'-‘

l 1
14
17
20
23
25
26
29
29
31
31
31
32
33
34
36
37
37
38
39
39
40
40

40
42
42

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 44
Research Design ................................................................................ 44
Research Area .................................................................................. 44
Units of Analysis ............................................................................... 47
Data Collection Procedures ................................................................... 47
Face-to-face survey ............................................................................ 47
Population and Sample ................................................................. 47
Instrument Development ............................................................... 48
Data Collection .......................................................................... 51
Data Analysis ............................................................................ 53
Summated Scales ........................................................................ 56
Logistic Regression Analysis .......................................................... 57
Path Analysis ............................................................................ 61
Interviews with Key Informants ............................................................. 66
Background .............................................................................. 66
Interview Participants .................................................................. 67
Interview Schedule Development ..................................................... 67
Interview Process ........................................................................ ' 68
Limitation of the Study ........................................................................ 68
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS ....................................................................................... 70
Vegetable Production System in the Study Area .......................................... 7O
Aspects of Vegetable Production Systems in the Study Sites .................... 70
Tumpangsarr’ ............................................................................. 72
The Target Vegetable Production Systems .......................................... 74
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Vegetable Farmers ................................... 85
General Information Source on Vegetable Production ............................. 89
Awareness of Organic Vegetable Production Practices ................................... 92
Farmers’ Awareness of Bio-pesticide ................................................ 92
Farmers’ Awareness of Compost ...................................................... 95
Attitudes toward Organic Vegetable Production Practices ............................... 97
Relative Advantage ..................................................................... 97
Compatibility ............................................................................ 98
Complexity ............................................................................... 101
Trialability ............................................................................... 102
Observability ............................................................................. 103
Adoption of the Organic Vegetable Production Practices ................................ 105
Adoption Rate of the Target Organic Practices ..................................... 105
Reasons Respondents did not Adopt the Organic Production Practices ......... 106
Intention to Adopt Bio-pesticide ...................................................... 109
Intention to Adopt Compost ........................................................... 112

Reasons Why Respondents will not Adopt Bio-pesticide and Compost. . . . . l 13

vii

Relationship between Socio-Economic Characteristics and Familiarity with

Organic Vegetable Production Practices .................................................... 114
Relationship between Familiarity with, Attitude toward, and Intention to Adopt
Organic Vegetable Production Practices .................................................... 125
Possible Reasons why the Data did not Support the Study Hypothesis ......... 127
Key Informant Interviews ..................................................................... 129
Interview Results from Policy Maker of Organic Farming in Indonesia ........ 129
Interview Results from Regional Extension Agents ................................ 134
Interview Results from Marketing People of Organic Vegetables ............... 137
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND RECOMMENDATION. . 147
Summary ........................................................................................ 147
Conclusions ..................................................................................... 156
Implications ..................................................................................... 157
Opportunities for Future Research ........................................................... 162
APPENDICES
Appendix A: DNBAF Project Pilot Farm Summary ...................................... 164
Appendix B. Consent Forms" 166
Appendix C: Research Instruments—Englrsh and Bahasa Indonesra .................. 171
Appendix D: Interview Guideline ............................................................ 264
Appendix E: Interview Transcribed Notes .................................................. 271
Bibliography .................................................................................... 289

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Vegetable Harvested Area, Production, and Value of Production in

Indonesiainl999.................... ............................................................................. 23
Table 2. Factors Influencing the Decision to Convert to Organic Farming ............ 28
Table 3. Possible Factors Influencing the Decision to Convert to Organic

Vegetable Farming in Indonesia ............................................................. 38
Table 4. Third Name Sampling of Households in West Java and Bali .................. 48
Table 5. Structure of the Survey Instrument ................................................ 49
Table 6. Summary of Summated Scales .................................................... 57
Table 7. Variables Definition in the Binary Logit Model ................................. 60
Table 8. Results of the Analysis of Scales Using Cronbach’s Alpha ................... 63
Table 9. Harvested Area under Different Crops in the Study Sites in 2006 ........... 71
Table 10. Typical Cropping Patterns in the Sub-District of Megamendung ............ 71
Table 11. Summary of Cabbage Production in West Java and Bali ..................... 75
Table 12. Summary of Tomato Production in West Java and Bali ...................... 79
Table 13. Summary of Carrot Production in West Java and Bali ........................ 83
Table. 14 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics ........................... 85
Table 15. Educational Level .................................................................. 86
Table 16. Respondents’ Land Tenure Status in West Java and Bali ..................... 87
Table 1?. Respondents’ Irrigation Resources in West Java and Bali ................... 88
Table 18. Respondents’ Exposure to the DENBAF Project Pilot Farms in West

Java and Bali .................................................................................... 88
Table 19. Information Source for Vegetable Production in West Java and Bali ...... 90

Table 20. Farmers’ Awareness of the Target Organic Vegetable Production
Practices in West Java and Bali .............................................................. 94

ix

Table 21. F arrners’ Attitudes towards the Target Organic Vegetable Production
Practices in West Java and Bali ..............................................................

Table 22. Farmers Who have Adopted/not Adopted the Organic Vegetable
Production Practices in West Java and Bali ................................................

Table 23. The Reasons why Vegetable Farmers did not Adopt Bio-pesticide in
West Java and Bali .............................................................................

Table 24. The Reasons Why Vegetable Farmers did not Adopt Compost in West
Java and Bali ....................................................................................

Table 25. Farmers Who Intcnd to Adopt the Organic Vegetable Practices in the
Near Future in West Java and Bali ...........................................................

Table 26. Comparison of Variables between Familiarity and Non-Familiarity with
Bio-Pesticide ....................................................................................

Table 27. Comparison of Variables between Familiarity and Non-Familiarity with
Compost ..........................................................................................

Tables 28. Estimated Coefficients of the Binary Logit Model for Familiarity of
Bio-Pesticide ....................................................................................

Table 29. Estimated Coefficients of the Binary Logit Model for Familiarity of

Compost ..........................................................................................

Table 30. Descriptive Statistics for the Familiarity-Attitude-Intention to Adopt

Model .............................................................................................

Table 31. Coefficients and t-value for the Causal Paths of the F amiliarity-Attitude-
Intention to Adopt Model .....................................................................

Table 32. Comparison of the Target Vegetables’ Prices in 2007 ........................

100

106

107

109

111

115

117

120

123

125

126

144

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Structure of the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture and Extension in
1991 .............................................................................................. 16
Figure 2. Model of Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process ........................... 18

Figure 3. HierarchyinExtension Program 21

Figure 4. Hierarchy for Targeting Impacts of Programs .................................. 22
Figure 5. Marketing Channels for Vegetables in West Java .............................. 24
Figure 6. Padel’s Model of the Organic Conversion Process ............................ 27
Figure 7. Conceptual Framework for the process of organic conversion in

vegetable production in Indonesia... . .. .. ................................................................... 41
Figure 8. Map of Indonesia and the Research Sites ........................................ 45
Figure 9. Example of Tumpangsarr’ in the study site of West Java ...................... 74
Figure 10. Factors Associated with Awareness of the Target Organic Vegetable
Production Practices ........................................................................... 124
Figure 11. Relationships among Familiarity with, Attitudes toward, and Intention

to Adopt the Target Organic Vegetable Production Practices ........................... 127
Figure 12. Process to Obtain an Organic Certification .................................... 133
Figure 13. Organic Logo Mark of “Competent Authority Organic Food” ............. 133

xi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Indonesia is well-known as an agricultural country. In 2008, more than 41 percent
of the working population was engaged in agriculture. Agriculture accounted for 14.4
percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), with 4,954 trillion Indonesian rupiah (Rp.),
second only to the industrial sector, with 27.9 percent (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2009).
Approximately 59 percent of the land was in agricultural production, including rice (14.2
percent), large foreign-owned or privately owned estates (25.1 percent), as well as
vegetables, fruits, staples and cash crops (19.4 percent) (Badan Pusat Statistik, 1999).
Most of the cash and the estate-grown crops, including rubber, tobacco, coffee, tea, sugar,
and palm oil were exported to the United States, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, United
Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. In recent years, rice was imported mainly
from Thailand, India, China, and Vietnam (U .S. Embassy Jakarta, 2006; FAO, 2009).

Vegetables are an important agricultural sub-sector in Indonesia. In the highlands
(> 800 meters altitude) vegetables dominate; in the lowlands (< 200 meters altitude) rice,
corn, cassava, fruits and cash crops dominate (Johnson, et al., 2008). Vegetable
production has great potential for increasing the income of small-scale farmers.
Indonesian agricultural policy has focused on self-sufficiency and import minimization,
with emphasis on the strategic commodities of rice, sugar, corn, and soybeans. This
strategy is not economically productive for small-scale (0.5 hectare) farmers. The best
strategy for increasing income is to promote high-income options, including vegetable
production (Molyneaux and Rosner, 2004). From a consumption perspective, vegetables

are an important part of Indonesian diets. They are usually spiced and served as the main

meal with rice, as ingredients in soup, and as sambals, which are spicy condiments made
with chili and shallot. In addition, the majority of the Muslim community requires halal
foods, including vegetables, to conform to Muslim dietary laws (Johnson, et al., 2008).
Agricultural extension services could be instrumental in promoting vegetable production.

Agricultural extension in Indonesia is defined as “a non-formal education system
for farmers and their families (men and women) aiming at assisting them in enhancing
better rational and technical skills, as well as increasing knowledge, developing more
positive attitudes toward change and self reliance in managing their farming, business
and living” (Zakaria, 2003; p. 3). Goals of the extension system are to develop
agribusiness systems, improve agribusiness efficiency and productivity in order to
increase farmers’ income, and improve their welfare. The system consists of four sub-
systems: agricultural research and development, agricultural education, agricultural
training, and agribusiness and agricultural extension education (Zakaria, 2003). All of the
sub-systems were formerly under the Ministry of Agriculture (Mundy, 1992). However,
after decentralization in Indonesia in the 19905, private sector and civil societies were
involved in the extension system (Zakaria, 2003). Historically, the golden era of
agricultural extension in Indonesia was the Green Revolution program. Agricultural
extension played a pivotal role in increasing production of rice (Mundy, 1992).

Green Revolution farming practices supported by the government — including the
use of improved seeds, application of agrichemicals and development of irrigation
systems - became the mainstream model of agriculture in Indonesia in the 19705.
Traditional farming methods disappeared in many parts of the country, especially in Java

(Prawoto and Suyono, 2005). Indonesia temporarily achieved self-sufficiency in rice in

1984 (Nourin Tokei Kyokai, 1995; Mundy, 1992). With continuing economic growth,
Indonesian consumption patterns have changed; consumption of rice and other staples
has declined, while consumption of fruits, vegetables, and prepared food has increased.
Rising income, urbanization, and greater participation in the workforce encouraged the
use of ready-prepared ingredients and ready-to-eat meals, including vegetables (Johnson,
et al., 2008). Vegetable production increases from 1984 to 1994 resulted from the use of
better seeds and technologies (Darmawan and Pasandoran, 2000). However, pesticide use
was excessive, fertilizer use imbalanced, and organic matter inputs drastically below
levels required to maintain healthy soils (Darmawan and Pasandoran, 2000; Hilrnan et al.,
1990)

Although the agricultural extension system played an important role in the
development of agriculture in Indonesia, lack of sufficient management and the huge
institutional inertia of a large extension bureaucracy considerably weakened the system.
Because of weakening financial and technical support, extension services virtually
collapsed (Sulaiman and Hall, 2004). In the 19903, the Ministry of Agriculture moved
toward decentralization to ensure effectiveness, increase accountability to farmers, and be
less costly to the government. Many districts dissolved their old extension systems and
set up new extension structures based on the needs of regional farming conditions
(Zakaria, 2003). As a result of the decentralization, the elimination of governmental
subsidies reduced the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and boosted interest in
integrated pest management (IPM) and non-chemical alternative technologies, such as

organic farming (Johnson, et al., 2008).

Organic agriculture is defined by the Secretariat of the Joint FAO/WHO Food
Standards Program (Codex CAC-GL 32/1999) as “holistic production management
systems which promote and enhance agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity,
biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management
practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional
conditions require locally adapted systems. This is accomplished by using, where
possible, cultural, biological and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic
materials, to fulfill any specific function within the system” (p.3). In Indonesia, organic
agriculture was started in the early 19803 by non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
collaborating with small farmers (Surono, 2007). After the monetary crisis in 1997, many
farmers switched to organic methods because of the soaring cost of agricultural inputs
(Prawoto and Suyono, 2005). In 2001, recognizing the need for organic agriculture, the
Ministry of Agriculture established a program, entitled “Go Organic 2010,” and a
National Standard for Organic Food (SNI 01-6729-2002), adopted from the Codex CAC-
GL 32/1999, was issued in 2002 (Novianty and Andoyo, 2008). In 2007, the Ministry of
Agriculture officially initiated the organic agriculture program, with a budget of
approximately $4 million US. Most of these funds were used for technical development
of organic agriculture (Surono, 2007), rather than for research and development (Prawoto
and Suyono, 2005).

In general, the three main components of a sustainable agricultural system,
including organic agriculture, are eliminating the use of: l) pesticides and fungicides to
control pests and diseases; 2) herbicides to control weeds; and 3) chemical fertilizers

(Y amazaki, 2005). According to Kawai, et al. (2003) and Dadang, et a1. (2005),

establishing a control system which does not depend on insecticides was required for
organic vegetable production in West Java and Bali. Also, Narioka, et al. (2001)
indicated that appropriate soil management was needed to achieve sustainable farming in
Bali. However, there was insufficient research-based information to provide guidelines
for use in regional extension centers in West Java and Bali.

Recognizing the need for research and development, the Tokyo University of
Agriculture (TUA) initiated a research-cum demonstration project in 1999, in cooperation
with Bogor Agriculture University and Udayana University of Indonesia. The goal of the
project, known as Development of New Bio-Agents for Alternative Farming (DNBAF),
was to develop bio-pesticides to promote sustainable farming systems (TUA, 2005).
Several bio-pesticides were developed during the project period (Dadang, et al., 2005;
Sumiartha, et al., 2005; Sudana, et al., 2003). In January of 2005, the DNBAF project set
up organic vegetable pilot farms in two sites -— West Java and Bali — in order to field test
the use of bio-pesticides and compost. At both research sites, farmlands were rented in
the local villagers, and local farmers were hired to operate the pilot farms as instructed by
the project researchers. Workshops and training seminars were conducted to disseminate
organic farming methods to the farmers in July 2007 in West Java and in September 2007
in Bali. Information about the pilot farms is summarized in Appendix B.

Problem Statement

One of the challenges in developing organic agriculture in Indonesia is increasing
farmers’ knowledge of organic farming methods to grow high quality organic products
(Surono, 2007). As a result of an agricultural extension process, farmers may adopt a new

technology. The farmers may obtain enough knowledge of the technology through

communication and education processes. Through these processes, farmers will form an
attitude toward the technology, and can decide whether they will adopt the technology or
not. If the farmers decide to adopt the technology, it will be implemented. Since lack of
extension is a constraint in developing organic agriculture in Indonesia, it is very
important to understand what factors determine 1) farmers’ knowledge of organic
farming methods, 2) their attitudes toward such methods, and 3) their adoption of the
methods. However, until 2007, no systematic technology adoption study of the organic
conversion process had been conducted in Indonesia.

Since the DEN BAF project is an example of organic conversion, this study
investigated farmers’ perceptions of organic farming methods, including use of bio-
pesticides and application of composts in the DENBAF project sites in West Java and
Bali. The study was conducted in communities surrounding the model farms. It examined
two organic vegetable production practices, the application of biological insecticides
(bio-pesticides), and the use of organic fertilizers (compost) on three vegetable crops —
cabbage, tomato, and carrot. These were the major vegetables grown in these areas, and
the selected technologies were being tested on the pilot farms.

Research Objectives
The overarching goal of this study was to determine farmers’ perceptions of
organic vegetable production practices, including bio—pesticides and compost, in West
Java and Bali, Indonesia. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to:
1. Describe vegetable production systems, including the target vegetables (cabbage,
tomato and carrot) in the study sites.

2. Determine demographic-socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents in the

study sites.
3. Ascertain farmers’ awareness of the target organic vegetable production practices,
including the application of bio-pesticides and the use of compost.
4. Ascertain farmers’ attitudes towards these practices.
5. Find out if farmers in the area had adopted these practices or intended to adopt them
in the near future.
6. Determine the factors associated with awareness of these practices.
7. Determine the impact that awareness and attitude had on vegetable farmers’ decision
to adopt, or intention to adopt, these practices.
8. Ascertain farmers’ constraints, if any, in converting from conventional to organic
vegetable farming in the study sites.
Importance of the Study
The findings from this study provide valuable information to project staff and
extension educators as to the level of awareness farmers had of bio-pesticide and compost,
and the impact this awareness had on their decision to adopt the practices. For potential
organic farmers, this study introduces current organic farming policy, activities of
extension agents related to organic farming, and market opportunities for organic
vegetables. It also provides useful information for future DNBAF projects and for
Indonesian agricultural extension agents in planning how to disseminate the technology

developed by the DNBAF project to potential organic farmers in Indonesia.

Definition of Terms

Bio-pesticides: Plant/fungallbacterial extracts used to control insects and pests in
vegetable production. For example, extract mixtures of Swietem'a mahogany and
A glaiaodorata to reduce the larval population of Plutella xylostella
(L.)(Lepidoptera:Yponomeutidae), which is a major insect pest on cabbage (Dadang et a1.
2005); use of Selasih oil can be an effective bio-agent to control fruit fly population on
long chili fields (Sumiartha et al. 2005).

Compost/bogging In Indonesia, organic material mainly used to supplement nutrients to
plants. Cow dung, chicken manure and “bokashi”, a product of waste plant material

fermented by microorganisms, are used to make compost.

Chapter II
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the review of literature on agricultural development in the
developing countries. The first section introduces issues facing agricultural development
and the role of agricultural extension. Then the extension system in Indonesia is
discussed briefly. The next section describes the adoption-diffusion processes as they
relate to organic vegetable production. A conceptual model on the adoption of organic
vegetable production is presented and study hypotheses are discussed.

Agricultural Development in Developing Countries - Current Issues

The study of agricultural development in developing countries started in the
1950s. At that time, most Western agricultural practitioners assumed that agricultural
technology and models of agricultural extension could be directly transferred from high
income countries to low-income countries to increase farmers’ agricultural productivity
and overcome rural poverty. In many extension programs, the American model of
agricultural extension was successfully implemented in developing countries (Holdcrofi,
1984; Staatz and Eicher, 1998). However, many of the extension programs failed, leading
to a reevaluation of the applicability of the American model. Through this reevaluation,
two critical issues were raised. First, there were structural barriers, such as highly
concentrated political power and asset ownership in developing countries (Staatz and
Eicher, 1998). Second, Schultz (1964) indicated that farmers were “efficient but poor,”
given existing agricultural technologies. Schultz assumed if farmers obtained new
agricultural technologies or materials and the means to exploit them, then productivity

would increase. Thus, investments in agricultural research to develop new technologies

and in human capital, such as agricultural extension education, were needed to increase
agricultural productivity (Staatz and Eicher, 1998).

In 1971, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
was established to reduce poverty, foster human well-being, promote agricultural growth
and protect the environment. CGIAR membership includes international and regional
organizations, and 15 international agricultural centers supported by private foundations,
international organizations and governments (CGIAR, 2006). The International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines and the Centro International de Mej oramiento
dc Maizy Trigo (CIMMYT) (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) in
Mexico are members of CGIAR, and contributed to increased food production through
scientific research and research-related activities in the field of agriculture. As a result of
lRRI’s and CIMMYT’s success in developing high-yielding varieties of rice, corn and
wheat, many farmers adopted these varieties, and cereal productivity increased rapidly in
Asia (the “Green Revolution”). In this case, agricultural practitioners sought a better
understanding of the factors that influenced farmers’ decision-making when they adopted
new varieties and farming practices (Staatz and Eicher, 1998).

The 19803 and 19903 were an era of globalization of the world economy and
institutional restructuring of economies throughout the world. While the economy
improved, environmental problems such as acid rain and pollution increased
simultaneously worldwide (Staatz and Eicher, 1998). The Green Revolution contributed
to increased grain production in Asia, but its technical package (use of irrigation systems,
improved varieties and agrichemicals) resulted in negative impacts on the environment,

such as soil erosion and agrichemical pollution (F ujimoto and Matsuda, 2005).

10

Agricultural practitioners have sought alternative agricultural systems for sustainable
agriculture in terms of economy, society and environment, such as Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) and Low-Extemal-Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA). However,
these alternatives should be adapted to the climate, soil, topography and bio-physical
factors of a given region. The adequacy and economic efficiency of these alternative
technologies have not been studied and evaluated fully in developing countries (Crucefix,
1998; Smalley, 2000).
The Role of Agricultural Extension in Developing Countries
Agricultural extension does not have a monolithic structure. According to
Swanson and C1aar(1984), “extension is an ongoing process of disseminating useful
information to people (the communication dimension) and then helping those people
acquire the necessary skills and attitudes to utilize this information or technology
effectively (the educational dimension)” Given these factors, the term “agricultural
extension” was defined by Maunder (1973) as “ a service system which assists farm
people, through educational procedures, in improving farming methods and techniques,
increasing production efliciency and income, bettering their levels of living, and lifting
the social and educational standards of mral life.” Therefore, agricultural extension is an
essential and major part of transfer of technology (Swanson and Claar, 1984).
Agricultural extension has played an important role in disseminating new
agricultural knowledge and technology to rural people. In the 19503, due to previous
colonial policies, many extension services focused on export crops such as coffee, rubber,
sugar, palm oil, and tea (Antholt, 1998). Western extension advisors flooded developing

countries with foreign aid programs and Western agricultural technologies. Although the

11

19503 were called the “golden age of extension” (Britan, 1985), many extension
programs failed because it was assumed that Western technology and models of extension
could be directly transferred to developing countries to increase productivity. Western
extension advisors had a high degree of confidence that Western technologies could solve
the problems of poverty through improved production (Evenson, 1984; Antholt, 1998).

In the 19603 and 19703, the failure and subsequent reevaluation of many
extension programs led to changes in extension that emphasized investment in research
and human capital. In order to improve the effectiveness of conventional extension
organizations, high-yielding varieties of rice, corn and wheat were developed by IRRI
and CIMMYT, and the training and visit (T&V) approach to extension management was
introduced by Daniel Benor in 1967. The clientele of the T&V approach are all farmers,
and some progressive farmers fiom each community are selected as contact farmers. The
contact farmers have access to resources and inform other small farmers in the
community of the new agricultural knowledge and technology taught by extension
workers. The extension workers visit the contact farmers of each community at regular
intervals, assess progress, and provide needed support. Through these activities, new
knowledge and technology can reach all farmers in the community (Benor 1987;
Swanson and Claar, 1984). The World Bank supported the T&V approach to improving
existing extension systems, and committed between $3 and $4 billion US to extension
projects in developing countries from 1977 to 1992 (Anderson and F eder, 1994; Antholt,
1998).

The T&V approach was used and modified for extension in the 19803. However,

there are four major criticisms of the T&V model. First, the model is too rigid to work

12

appropriately, given the variation in cultural, historical, and institutional factors among
countries. Second, its management is too top-down oriented and does not accommodate
the various demands and needs of farmers. Third, it is too labor-intensive, requiring
numerous extension workers with knowledge and skill in agriculture, so that a country
may not be able to afford it. Fourth, the contact farmers no longer play a key role in
transfer of new knowledge and technology; farmer groups serve this function instead
(Antholt, 1998; Swanson and Claar, 1984; World Bank, 1994). Kearl (1991) and Antholt
(1998) stated that the T&V model is no longer the central model, and should be replaced
by new extension models for the 21 st Century.

In order to develop new extension models in developing countries, Chambers
(1983) suggested that more attention should be given to the client, the “farmer first”
approach of developing appropriate technology. Also, Umali-Deininger (2005) indicated
that there is no “one size fits all” solution in agriculttual extension. For example, a few
developed countries such as Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have
fully private extension systems, and the extension system in the United States has been
developed and organized by land-grant universities. Some developing countries such as
India, Indonesia and Ghana have transferred responsibility for decision-making and
administration of extension service functions from the central government to local
government to increase the efficiency of the system, but the degree of decentralization
varies according to conditions within the country (Umali-Deininger, 2005).

Therefore, it is important to take into account the specific conditions of a country
in terms of politics, economics, history, culture, and natural environment in order to

establish an appropriate extension model.

13

The Agficultural Extension System in Indonesia
Indonesia’s agricultural research and extension systems were large and complex. The
extension function belonged to the Ministry of Agriculture (Figure 1). Mundy (1992)
mentioned that the Agency for Agricultural Education and Training (AAET) mainly
functioned as extension. However, the extension function was never fully unified under
one body, and it was returned to four directorates—general for food crops, livestock, estate
crops, and fisheries. AAET coordinated and managed Indonesia’s agricultural information
and training institutions. These included agricultural high schools, Agricultural Staff
Training Centers (Balai Latihan Pegawai Pertanian), and Agricultural Information
Centers (AICs, Balar' Informasi Pertanian). The AICs were keys to the flow of
information on new agricultural technologies (Mundy, 1992).

The Ministry of Agriculture operated an array of provincial and district technical
units to oversee and implement different aspects of its work. These were provincial
coordination offices (Kantor Wilayah), and provincial and district-level Agricultural
Service offices (Dinas). Those were responsible administratively and technically to the
regions. Under these regional ofiices, rural extension centers were placed, and field
extension workers provided useful information for farmers in the centers. According to
the Ministry of Agriculture (as sited in Mundy, 1992), there were 29,407 field extension
workers in 1991. These large and complex systems led to inefficient communication
between extension organizations and farmers (Mundy, 1992).

Historically, Indonesia implemented the T&V system for extension in the late
19703 with World Bank sponsorship (Benor and Harrison, 1977). Under this system,

extension subject-matter specialists (Penyuluh Pertanr'an spesr’alis) train field extension

14

workers (FEW, Penyluh pertanian Iapangan) in seasonally relevant material at regular
fortnightly training sessions. A FEW is assigned to several villages, and visits each
village once every two weeks. FEWs work with groups of contact farmers (kontak tanr‘)
in each village. In turn, these contact farmers are expected to disseminate their
knowledge to follower farmers in their village (Mundy, 1992).

Even though the T&V system contributed to increased rice production (Mundy,
1992), the lack of sufficient preparation on the part of the T&V system management and
the huge institutional inertia of large extension bureaucracies have considerably
weakened the system. As a result, extension services virtually collapsed because of
weakening financial and technical support (Sulaiman and Hall, 2004). In the 19903, the
government of Indonesia was moving toward decentralization. Major steps have been taken
to decentralize agricultural extension. In 1991 a joint decree between the Ministry of
Agriculture and Ministry of Home Affair was released to expand the roles of district
government and agricultural services to manage extension activities at district level. The
goals of the decree were to ensure effectiveness, be more accountable to clients, and be

less costly to the government (Zakaria, 2003).

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        
     

 
    

 

 

 

 

32 E :o_m:3xm_ Ea Ezzsotwfluo DEE: :23:er 2: Co oeaosbm ._ oeswi

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

 

 

  
  

.vm omen .moo. x332 ”325m

53:36

 

 

EoEno_m>oo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

               
              

  

2253 53:35.. a counting”.
55:: mm tmum tmnxm
:26th
39:95 acmEaBmSmo Ema
coucmuxw .m 83:36 28¢ Emma
22: 812
$3ch “motmzémon.
H 38:3 comm mm a m:_E:£ 352.5
28ch . 5:33ng 322
55:25 285m :91 8830 85262;
3.31 NHNN .u_um< HN _NE_C< h umwamT—rumoa 95“ch aunt—guano: mQOhU
cosmuEtou
a mEEemu a 35:8 223 00
8qu 3:5 “Ego .25 masses 8% 3 8836;
55.9.5 8: 25¢. Q 553% 3 5.8335 3.323
memw x839: _ a 8E 8:05: 8
meEO mmED Mew—uhumrnwnwm mwuztumc— (£383.00;me muwuch
3:395 mg . . :oemmmmm .mE_:< m c2829“. .95ch
.2ch m mEESmoE 22.... S mEESmoE 5.8225
32% wage: a
EEG. .uaum acme. 98... 0:3. 390 3550
3:395 AN :8 .653 .8 >u:wm< 36882.. 00 noon. on 22233:.
n F I

 

 

.3255. :25...

8339:? we SEES.

 

l6

 

As a result of enforcement of Public Law No. 22/ 1999 in 1999, every district
could have the fieedom to establish organizational structure to manage agricultural
extension, although a joint decree of the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Home
Affair issued earlier directed district governments to establish agricultural information
and extension centers (Balai Informasi dan Penyuluhan Pertanian, BIPP) at a district level
and Rural Extension Center at a sub-district level. Many districts dissolve the BIPP and
set up new extension structures, based on the needs of regional farming conditions.
Consequently, various structures of agricultural extension institutions were established at
district and sub-district level (Zakaria, 2003). In 2006, the Law No.16/2006 on Extension
Systems for of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was finally passed. The law explicitly
recognized the need for a multi-provider system for the delivery of agricultural services
to increase the competitiveness of the Indonesian agricultural sector and increase farmers’

incomes (Indonesian Center for Agriculture Socio Economic and Policy Studies, 2008).

fire Adopfion/Difi’usion Model

Rogers (1995) developed the adoption/difliusion model based on several research
studies in the fields of communication, anthropology, rural sociology, and extension
education. According to Rogers (1995), the innovation-decision process is the process
through which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an
attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the
new idea, and to confirmation of this decision. Figure 2 shows a model of stages in the
innovation-decision process. The model was consisted of five stages:

1. Knowledge — a person (or decision-making unit) becomes aware of an

17

innovation and gains some understanding of how it functions.

2. Persuasion — a person (or decision-making unit) forms a favorable or

unfavorable attitude toward the innovation.

3. Decision — a person (or decision-making unit) engages in activities that lead

to choice to adopt or reject the innovation.

4. Implementation —— a person (or decision-making unit) puts an innovation

into use.

5. Confirmation — a person (or decision-making unit) evaluates the results of

an innovation—decision already made (Rogers, 1995).

Innovation Decision Process

 

 

 

“may“... HEW“... llll

t

I |
I I
1 l

  

 

Characteristics Perceived
of the Characteristics
Decision—making of the Innovation
Unit

- Socio-economic ° Relative

characteristics advantage

- Personality ° Compatibility
variables ° Complexity

- Communication ‘ Trialability
behavior ' Observability

 

 

 

 
  
      

 

 

 

Source: Rogers, 1995, page 170.

 

”Hi-mmm... “woman...

Continued Adoption
\ , Later Adoption

’ \
Continued Rejection

 

   
 
  

Adoption

 

Figure 2. Model of Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process.

There are some key features of the model. At the knowledge stage,
characteristics of earlier knowers are different from late knowers. Some characteristics of
the earlier knowers are that they are better educated, and have higher social status and
wider social networks. In other words, there are three characteristics of the decision
making unit: socio-economic characteristics, personality variables, and communication
behavior. At the persuasion stage, people become more psychologically involved with the
innovation, and develop a general perception of the new idea. Such perceived attributes
of an innovation as its relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and
Observability are important at this stage. Relative advantage is the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes. The degree of relative
advantage is often expressed as economic profitability. Compatibility is the degree to.
which a new idea is perceived as consistent with the existing value, past experiences, and
needs of potential adopters. An idea that is more compatible is less uncertain to the
potential adopter and fits more closely with the individual’s situation. Complexity is the
degree to which a new idea is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use.
Trialabilityis the degree to which a new idea may be experimented with on a limited basis.
Innovations that can be tried on the installment plan are generally adopted more rapidly
than ones that are not divisible. Observability is the degree to which the results of a new
idea are visible to others.

Once a person makes a decision whether to adopt an innovation (adoption or
rejection), there are four alternatives sequentially (continued adoption, later adoption,
discontinuance, and continued rejection). Discontinuance is a decision to reject an

innovation after having previously adopted it. There are two types of discontinuance: (1)

l9

 

replacement discontinuance, in which an innovation is rejected in order to adopt a better
idea which supersedes it, and (2) disenchantment discontinuance, in which an innovation
is rejected as a result of dissatisfaction with its performance (Rogers, 1995).
Evaluating Impacts of Extension programs

Evaluating the impacts of extension programs is important in order to improve
them.
Farmers may obtain enough knowledge through communication and education
procedures to decide whether or not they will adopt the technology. If the farmers decide
to adopt the technology, then it will be implemented.

Under the rubric of Agricultural Development, many agricultural programs
aimed at improving productivity in developing countries have been planned and
implemented with the support of international organizations and foundations, and
extension has played an important role in these programs. Recently, the need for
accountability to stakeholders of the programs has been increased; as a result, program
evaluation has also increased in importance in agricultural extension.

According to Suvedi and Morford (2003), “evaluation is a management tool that
involves measuring and reporting on the results of programs”. In the theory of evaluation,
there is a model to help extension workers focus on outcomes through program planning
and evaluation, the Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) model (Bennett and
Rockwell, 1994). TOP assumes that most extension programs are represented by the

model in Figure 3.

20

 

 

 

 

KASA

 

Reactions

 

 

 

Participation

Activities
Resources _.

Adopted from Bennet and Rockwell, 1994.

 

FT Social, Economic and Environmental
Conditions
Practices g

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Hierarchy in Extension Program.

Program planning descends the model on the right side and program
performance ascends the model on the left side. Resources refer to the staff time devoted
to the program and the money spent on it. Activities is a list of the methods and
techniques used to transfer information to a target audience. Participation includes
description of the participants. Reactions focus on how participants feel about the
program. KASA, Practices, and Social, Economic and Environmental Conditions are the
short-term, medium-term and long-term impacts of the program, respectively. Finally,
impacts are the lasting and generalized changes achieved by a program.

For extension workers, understanding the impacts is important to improve the
program. Figure 4 shows the hierarchy for targeting program impacts. The three levels of

impacts are all outcomes of the program, and they are interrelated. Practice change refers

21

to individuals or communities altering behaviors in a manner that produces positive or
negative changes in social, economic and environmental conditions. KASA change, such
as increased knowledge, attitude or opinion shift, skills improvement, and aspirations to
change courses of action, will happen before practice changes occur. In other words,
KASA change results in practice change, and practice change results in economic, social
and environmental change due to program performance (Rockwell, 1996).

In the extension process, the communication procedures and the education
procedures refer to the KASA change in the TOP model, and Practice change refers to
farmers implementing a new technology. In addition, Kim and Hunter (1993) indicated
that the larger the attitudinal relevance, the stronger the relationship between attitude and
behavior. Therefore, among the KASA changes, understanding farmers’ attitude shift in

order to predict the degree of adoption rate of the technology is important for evaluating

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

agricultural extension programs.
Evidence of impact 7. Social, Economic and
Environmental change
6. Practice change = implementing a
new agricultural technology by farmers
as a result of agricultural extension
process
5. “KASA” change = the communication
procedures and the education procedures in an
_____________________________________________ agricultural extension process
Evidence of participant 4. Reactions
..§=:I.ti§f.a.9ii.9ri ......................
Evidence of I 3. Participation
program I 2. Activities
.itaalsasaatisal 1. Resources

Source: Rockwell, 1996.

Figure 4. Hierarchy for Targeting Impacts of Programs.

22

 

Vegetable Production and Marketing in Indonesia

In Indonesia, vegetables are classified as either highland or lowland types.
Lowland (tropical) vegetables are generally grown below 1,000 meters and most
intensively in coastal areas. Due to the market demand, tropical vegetable cultivation
takes place in households somewhat near the production sites. Highland (temperate)
vegetables are primarily grown in mountain areas that characterize central areas of the
archipelago, and consumption often occurs far from the farmers who grow them because
of the largely intensive production. Table 1 shows the most important vegetables by
wholesale value in 1999. According to crop value, the most important were: chili, shallot,
potato, and cabbage (Mather, et al., 2002). According to Agung (2001), and Sudana and
Temaja (2002), many companies in the agricultural sector and educated farmers are

showing a greater interest in organic vegetable production ( Sudana, et al., 2003).

Table 1. Vegetable Harvested Area, Production, and Value of Production in Indonesia in
1999.

 

 

 

 

Planted Area Production Price Wholesale Value
Vegetables (ha) (mt) (Rp/kg) Million Rp Rank
Chili 183,347 1,007,726 8,043 8,105,140.2 1
Shallot 102,289 938,293 5,154 4,835,962.] 2
Potato 62,776 924,058 3,161 2,920,947.3 3
Cabbage 65,352 1,447,910 1,119 1,620,211.3 4
Tomato 46,259 562,406 956 537,660. 1 5
French Bean 28,546 282,198 1,828 515,857.9 6
Leek 36,882 323,855 1,521 492,583.5 7
Carrot 17,985 286,536 1,217 348,714.3 8
Cucumber 48,121 431,950 741 320,075.0 9
Garlic 12,936 62,222 3,943 245,341.3 10

 

 

Source: Mather, et al., 2002.

There are no marketing control systems for vegetables in Indonesia. Under these

free distribution systems, primary factors in forming a marketing channel are conditions

23

of supply and demand, characteristics of commodities, and distributional technologies
and infrastructure. Basically, mainstream vegetable marketing was local because
vegetables are perishable goods; however, marketing areas have been expanding due to
increasing population and progressing storage/transport technologies. Therefore, it is

difficult to generalize Indonesian vegetable marketing charmels (N ourin Tokei Kyokai,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1995)
Peddler
I Consumers I Wholesale
f market
I__— Retail market
(Bazaar) I
Metropolitan
Area Stall ‘__‘ Bazaar
Bazaar vender resalers .
r I Consrgnee
: i 4
Peddler C l
W Inter-village collector
A Informal
Town Retail market I wholesale
r 1 market
Stall A I —I
’ T [
| l I

 

 

 

 

 

 

Village Collector
Bazaar vendor L Stall
village
Villag collector I

I— Farmer = Farm household

Source: Hayami and Kawagoe, 2000; Darmawan and Pasandaran, 2000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Marketing Channels for Vegetables in West Java.

Figure 5 is a vegetable marketing channel in West Java. There are two significant

features: the clear separation of the channel for local consumption from the channel for

24

 

shipment to other regions, and the specialization of the inter-village collectors and market
retailers. Vegetables for metropolitan markets are gathered by village-collectors
(pengepak), and then shipped via inter-village collectors; normally no vegetables are used
for local consumption. For local markets, the most important agent is the 'bazaar vendor'
(pedagang kaki lima). Bazaar vendors are usually village women who collect vegetables
in quantities of about 100-200 kg fiom nearby farmers and transport them by minibus to
the bazaar for sale. Their customers are housewives, as well as peddlers and keepers of
small grocery stores (warung) in town (Hayami and Kawagoe, 2000; Darmawan and
Pasandaran, 2000).

Recently, the number of supermarkets has increased rapidly, and contract
farming systems between supermarkets and farmers’ groups have been observed in the
marketing channel (Reardon, 2004; Witono, et al., 2005). Organic vegetables are sold
under contract in some supermarkets and hotels in the big cities of Indonesia (Dadang, et
al., 2006).

Development of New Bio-Agents for Alternative Farming (DNBAF) Project

The DNBAF project was initiated by TUA in collaboration with universities in
four other countries in 1999: Bogor Agricultural University and Udayana University in
Indonesia, Hanoi Agricultural University in Vietnam, Kasetsart University in Thailand,
and National Agrarian University La Molina in Peru. The general purpose of the project
is to develop bio-pesticides and establish sustainable farming systems, based on the
exploration and use of new bio-agents rather than agro-chemicals. The project is being
implemented in two phases: phase I (1999-2003) and phase II (2004-2008), and is

organized into four teams. The first team is the “Bio-pesticide Team,” whose objective is

25

to find bio-active substances produced by plants, and apply them as bio-pesticides. The
second team is the “Microorganism Team,” with the objective to find parasitic
microorganisms that control insect pests and weeds, and develop their bio-fitnctions. The
third team is the “Natural Enemies Team,” whose objectives are to establish natural
enemies technology by investigating interactions among insects specific to local
conditions, and discover new control methods by applying bio-technology. The fourth
team is the “Farming System Team,” whose objective is to develop alternative farming
systems, based on crop production technology with bio-agents (Academic Frontier
Research Center, 2005).
It is anticipated that the organic farming technologies developed by the DNBAF
project will be disseminated to farmers after enough data have been accumulated (A.
F ujimoto, personal communication, October 2, 2006). Two of the demonstration farms
are located in Sukagalih village in West Java, and in Bangli village in Bali. The pilot
farms started production in January of 2005, testing two types of organic vegetable
practices: application of bio-pesticides and use of compost. The DNBAF project held
workshops to teach the two organic methods to the farmers in July of 2007 in West Java
and in September of 2007 in Bali.
Model of the Process of Organic Conversion
Susanne Padel (2001b) studied the organic conversion process of milk
production in the United Kingdom. In this study, Padel (2001b) clarified that the organic
conversion process is a typical example of the diffirsion of an innovation by a literature
review of studies of Western organic farmers. Padel (2001b) also developed the model of

the organic conversion process based on Roger’s adoption/diflirsion model (Rogers,

26

 

1995).
Figure 6 shows Padel’s model of the organic conversion process. The model

consists of three key stages and factors that influence the decision to convert to organic

 

 

 

 

  
   
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

    
 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

taming (Padel, 2001b).
Information
Personal Gathering
.,......

E'

> 9;

Personal & g'

Confidence & Er
Attitude E3”
Adjustments §
‘2
o
3
(D
. 5’.
‘Organic’ Attitude Implementation g;
I 3
Certification
Stable system Marketing
Income Stability

 

 

 

Source: Padel, 2001b, page 176.

Figure 6. Padel’s Model of the Organic Conversion Process.

Padel (2001b) developed the basic structure of the three stages in the farmers’
decision-making process based on the adoption model (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971;
Rogers, 1995), and modified the model for organic farmers and conversion.

The three key stages are: 1) information gathering, 2) evaluation and adaptation

27

and 3) implementation. The information gathering stage reflects the farmers’ general need
for information and has no impact on the farm. During the evaluation and adaptation
stage, the farmer learns more intensely about the new practices through a combination of
a theoretical as well as a practical evaluation, leading to the adaptation of new practices
and growing confidence to continue. The final implementation stage appears necessary
during conversion because a farmer has to reduce the reliance on external inputs and
increase the management of biological and ecological processes (Padel, 2001b).

Padel (2001b) also identified the factors as variables influencing the decision to
convert to organic farming at each stage through the literature review. The factors are
summarized using three categories (Personal, Farm and External factors) based on

Willok’s categorical work (1994) in Table 2.

Table 2. Factors Influencing the Decision to Convert to Organic Farming.

 

 

 

 

 

Personal Farm External

Personal characteristic Farm resources Relative profitability
Background Farm size Conversion aid programs
Age Farm type Organic market stores
Social network Enterprise structure Organic premiums
Gender Capital resources Input & output prices
Goals, objectives, values Labor resources Subsidies

Lifestyle and health Institutional factors
Organic farming Availability of information
knowledge

Technical Farming press
Profitability Research

Market development Advisory support
Personal attitudes Loans

To the environment

To input & technology

To business

To challenge and change
Source: Padel, 2001b.

 

28

Therefore, the organic conversion process represents basically three key stages
that are influenced by personal, farm specific and external variables. The three key stages
and their relationship to variables are discussed as follows:

Information Gathering Stage

Personal variables influence the Information Gathering stage. Organic farmers
and potential organic farmers tend to have broader environmental concerns, and they
appeared to have a positive attitude to challenge and change (Duram, 1999). A lack of
technical, financial and marketing information remains an important barrier for organic
conversion and could influence farmers’ attitude in taking further action (F airweather,
1999; Midrnore et al., 2001; National Westminster Bank, 1992; Soil Association, 2000).

External variables do not directly afi'ect farmers’ decision-making, but they do
influence their perception and attitude toward organic conversion. For example, organic
premium prices, changes in conventional agricultural prices, food and farming scares, and
subsidies for conversion and organic management have the additional afl‘ect of enhancing
the profile of organic farming (Michelsen etal., 2001; Padel et a1, 1999). This personal
opinion about external variables is formed on the availability of information to farmers,
which influences attitude. In addition, farmers’ health experiences influence their attitude
(Padel, 2001b).

Evaluation and Adaptation Stage

Personal, farm, and external variables influence the Evaluation and Adaptation
stage. This is the key stage in the farmers’ conversion process, and this stage represents
an important time of knowledge-building and development of insights for farmers (Padel,

2001b).

29

There are four ways to evaluate organic farming (Padel, 2001b):

fl

. gradual adoption or extensification (e.g., clover production before conversion),

N

. block experiments (e.g., organic farming on a block of land),

3. gradual implementation (e.g. staged conversion), and/or

4. theoretical evaluation (e.g., financial feasibility assessment and conversion planning).
Farmers did practical evaluation of organic farming in one of the three different ways in
her study. Therefore, practical experience with a new system is essential to make firm
decisions in progressing to the Implementation stage for farmers (Rogers and Shoemaker,
1971; Padel, 2001b). Also, farmers adapt the new organic systems to suit their personal
objectives and farm resources (Padel, 2001b). The period of this stage vary from one to
approximately ten years. External variables such as conversion aid may force farmers
into having certain period of the Evaluation and Adaptation stage (Padel, 2001b).

The distinction between the Evaluation and Adaptation stage and the
Implementation stage depends on the farmer’s confidence and attitude toward being able
to manage organic farming. This indicates that attitudes influence not only the propensity
to conversion, but are also important for further progression (Padel, 2001b). Willock et al.
(1999) pointed out that the experience of practical experiments and gradual
implementation influence the farmer’s attitudes. Thus, the attitudinal difference found
between organic and non-organic farmers (Beharrell and Crockett, 1992; McCann et al.,
1997; De Cock, 2005) reflect the outcome of this attitudinal change process that farmers
experience when they evaluate and implement organic farming, as well as attitudinal
difl’erences in their propensity to consider organic conversion in the first place (Padel,

2001b).

30

 

Implementation Stage
Personal and farm variables influence the Implementation stage. It is difficult to

differentiate exactly between the Evaluation and Adaptation stage and the
Implementation stage because farmers begin to practice organic farming gradually.
However, if a farmer has certification as an organic farmer, he has moved to the
Implementation stage (Padel, 2001b). The implementation time period varies because
there are numerous ways to establish an organic system. In some cases farmers may
undergo additional declines in yields and income before they qualify for premium organic
prices (Dabbert, 1994; Padel and Lampkin, 1994).

Conventional and Organic Vegetable Production Contact in Indonesia

Compared with the Western world, Indonesia’s organic movement is fairly new,
which means that there may not be many organic farmers to construct a model at the
implementation stage of Roger’s and Padel’s models. Therefore, to develop an Indonesian
model of organic conversion, Indonesian organic agricultural studies were reviewed and
discussed, focusing on the influencing factors at the Information gathering and the
Evaluation and Adaptation stages in the Padel’s model.
Policies

Indonesia began to implement IPM policies after reliance on pesticides failed to
control pests. In 1989, the first national IPM program was established as a follow-up of
Presidential Decree No.3/ 1986. The program had a broad range of ' community-based
activities such as IPM training for farmers, and helped spread IPM knowledge and skills.
As a result, the Indonesian IPM Farmer Association was organized by 461 farmer

representatives from 11 project-provinces in 1999. After the Asian Financial Crisis in

31

1997, the national government, short of funds, shifted the responsibility for IPM
programs to local agencies (Alirnoeso, et al., 2001; Arya, et al., 2001).

The organic agricultural movement in Indonesia has occurred as a part of the
world organic development that opposes ecological destruction and social degradation. In
2000, the Ministry of Agriculture made a policy about organic agriculture, which was
called “Go Organic 2010.” Under the policy, the Board of Indonesia Organic Certification
(BIOCert) was established as an organic certification agency by 33 Indonesian organic
NGOs, researchers, the private sector and farmer groups in 2002. The BIOCert’s goals
include protection for small farmers, while promoting environmental and agricultural
sustainability. BIOCert gives recognition to indigenous knowledge, and places
importance on social justice (BIOCert, 2004).

Research Activities in Vegetable Production

There have been some research projects to assess and resolve the sustainable
agricultural problems of vegetable production systems in Indonesia, such as the DNBAF
project, which study production efliciency and ecosystem conservation in highland
Indonesia, conducted by researchers of TUA, Osaka Prefectural University and Okayama
University in Japan, in collaboration with Bogor Agricultural University and Udayana
University in Indonesia (F ujimoto and Abdullah, 2001). Another project, attempting to
evaluate and improve regional farming systems in Indonesia, is being conducted by the
Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Science (JIRCAS) and the Ministry
of Agriculture of Indonesia (JIRCAS, 2005). Through these projects, useful alternative
agricultural production techniques were developed and recommendations have been

made (Academic Frontier Research Center, 2005 and 2006; JIRCAS, 2005; F ujirnoto and

32

Abdullah, 2001; ISSAAS, 2003 and 2005). However, the extent to which these
technologies have been adopted by farmers has not been fully studied and evaluated.
Technical Feasibility for Organic Vegetable Production

The DNBAF project published several papers concerning the technical
feasibility of organic vegetable production in West Java and Bali. Among them, I focused
on the papers dealing with the technical feasibility at the field level.

Dadang, et al. (2005) conducted field tests to evaluate the effectiveness of plant
extracts (extract mixtures of Swietenia mahogany and A glaia odorata, both belonging to
Meliaceae) on cabbage insect pests in Cianjur, West Java. According to the study, the
application of the plant extracts at 0.2 and 0.4 percent reduced the larval population of
Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidopteraszonomeutidae), which is a major insect pest on
cabbage. In addition, plant extracts were as effective as application of synthetic
insecticides (profenofos and deltamethrin).

Sumiartha, et al. (2005) conducted a field experiment to evaluate the effect of
Selasih plant, or sweet basil (0cimum. tenuiflorumoil), as an attractant to fi'uit fly
(Bactrocera dorsaIr's complex) populations on long chili fields in Mengwi, Bali.
Petrogenol (commercial methyl eugenol) and Selasih oil were equally effective. The use
of Selasih oil can be an effective bio-agent to control fruit fly populations.

Sudana, et a1 (2003) conducted a one-year monitoring survey on organic and
conventional vegetable production in Bali in 2001 . Organic farmers used organic
fertilizers only, including cow dung, chicken manure, and compost. For plant pest and
disease management, they used mainly microorganisms and botanical pesticides.

Recently some commercial bio-pesticides, such as Turex, Bipel and Bactospine, with the

33

active ingredient Bacillus thuringiensis, became available. In addition, the farmers often
use EM 5 (fermented botanical bio-pesticide: Sudana, et al., 2005) to control plant pests
and disease.
Economic Feasibility for Organic Vegetable Production

Dadang, et al., (2006) conducted vegetable farming experiments in Megamendung,
West Java, for approximately a year. The commodities were tomato and cabbage and the
experiments tested six treatments: organic farming of cabbage, organic farming of
cabbage and tomato, low-input farming of cabbage, low-input farming of cabbage and
tomato, conventional farming of cabbage, and conventional farming of cabbage and
tomato. The study showed that conventional farming was superior to organic and low-
input farming in terms of yield According to the economic analysis, non—organic farming
was more profitable than organic farming, even though prices of organic vegetables were
higher than the conventional vegetables in the study area (Dadang, et al., 2006).

Sudana, et al., (2003) conducted a one-year monitoring survey on highland
vegetable cultivation with 10 plots in Candikuning village, Bali. There were two
company-based organic farmers, four family-based organic farmers, and five
conventional farmers. Mainly, cabbage, cauliflower, leek, carrot and potato were grown
in the study area. The company-based and family-based farmers sold their vegetables
through a contract system with supermarkets, hotels, and restaurants. The conventional
farmers had three marketing channels: local wholesaler, wholesaler at the local market,
and government cooperative. Organic vegetables commanded higher prices than did non-
organic vegetables. However, the prices of company-based produce were higher than the

family-based produce because the quality of the latter was lower. Economic analysis of

34

this study revealed the highest net revenue was obtained by the company-based farmers,
typically earning 14 million Rupiah (Rp.) per 0.1 hectare per year. The second highest net
revenue was by the family-based farmers with about 700,000 Rp and the lowest net
revenue was earned by conventional farmers with about 600,000 Rp. However, the
conventional farmers who grew vegetables received higher net revenue than the family-
based farmers. (Sudana, et al., 2003). The reason why the farmers received higher
revenue was high profitability of potato production (Miyaura, et al., 1998).

Syaukat’s (2006) study was conducted in Sukagalih village, West Java. He
carried out a survey of 35 vegetable farmers: seven organic farmers and 28 conventional
farmers. Economic analysis showed that organic crop yield was less than conventional
crops. However, net revenue of organic farmers (Rp. 20.7 million per hectare per year)
was higher than those of conventional farmers (Rp.15.7 million). Also, the organic
farmers had higher total costs than the conventional farmers. Intensive labor use and the
use of organic fertilizer (bokashi) in the organic farming system accounted fort
significant cost difference between organic farmers and conventional farmers. There was.
no problem in marketing the organic vegetables, and the study concluded that organic
vegetable farming was technically and economically feasible in the study area (Syaukat,
2006).

Principally, farmers’ acceptance of organic agriculture systems depends on
profitability (Syaukat, 2003), and rational farmers consider only the profits rather than
quality of the environment (Dadang, et al., 2006). Even though the study of Dadang, et al.
(2006) found organic farming was less profitable and productive than non-organic

farming, results fiom two farmers’ survey showed that an organic farming system is

35

 

economically feasible in highland vegetable production. One of the possible reasons of
the results seen in the Dadang, et al (2006) study could have been that the experimented
period was not long enough to develop organic farming systems. In many developed
counties, to obtain organic certifications, farmers need to have a certain period of
transition (several years) from conventional to organic farming systems (Padel, 2001b).
Other Factors Influencing Farmers’ Decisions to Convert

Syaukat’s (2006) described characteristics of organic farmers in his study. There
were seven organic farmers and two of them were pioneers. The pioneers were outsiders
who brought knowledge and capital to their village in order to run organic vegetable
farming. Later on, a few local farmers followed their lead and adopted organic farming.
He also mentioned even if there were no market problems, farmers should expand their
potential organic market.

Sudana, et al. (2003) suggested that support in the form of low interest loans and
subsidies from the government or private sector would be very useful for promoting
organic farming systems for small-scale farmers. In addition, the establishment of a
certification system for organic farming is urgently needed to guarantee consumers’ trust
in the quality of production. This system could also support premium prices for organic
produce.

Syaukat (2003) conducted a survey of 21 farmers in the categories of
conventional farmers and low-input farmers, and analyzed the factors affecting farmers’
adoption of low-input rice farming in Karawang, West Java. He used a linear probability
model, probit model, and logit model for the analysis, and identified such factors as the

farmers’ age, field-courses taken in IPM, land status, years of education, land area,

36

 

 

fertilizer costs, pesticide costs, labor costs and net income. The results showed that the
most statistically significant factors in affecting farmers’ decision to adopt low-input rice
farming were total costs of labor, IPM courses, and land area. Moreover, farmers
considered the total cost of labor as the factor in selecting the farming system.
Conceptual Framework of Organic Conversion in Vegetable Production in
Indonesia
Possible Factors Influencing the Decision to Convert to Organic Farming
To identify possible factors influencing the decision to convert to organic
vegetable production in Indonesia, the factors were summarized based on Padel’s work
(Table 2) in Table 3 with corresponding references. There were some variables in Padel’s
original factors that were not confirmed by literature review. These variables were social
network, gender; objectives and values, lifestyle and health, and personal attitude in

personal factors, and, availability of information and farming press in external factors.

37

 

Table 3. Possible Factors Influencing the Decision to Convert to Organic Vegetable

F arming in Indonesia.

 

 

Personal F arm External
Personal characteristic Farm resources Relative profitability
Education level, Farming Farm size (Syaukat, 2003) Agricultural policy (Sudana,

experience, Household size
(Syaukat, 2006)
Age (Syaukat, 2003)

i
Information sources

#
Gender

a
Location

 

Organic farming
knowledge
Attitude toward the target

#
organic methods —technical,
profitability, and market
development (Dadang, 2005;
Sumiartha, 2005; Sudana,
2003; Dadang, 2006;
Syaukat, 2006)

Land tenure status (Sudana,
2003; Syaukat, 2003)
Availability of loans (Syaukat,
2003; Sudana, 2003)

Availability of labor (Syaukat,
2003)

2003)

Marketing service (Syaukat,
2006)

Net revenue of the target
vegetable productions per
hectare (Dadang, 2006;
Sudana, 2003; Syaukat, 2003,
2006)

 

Institutional factors

Extension systems (Sudana,
2003)

$
Note: This table is based on Padel’s work (Table 1). Variables have not been discussed in the literature in

Padel’s original factors.

Social Network, Availability of Information and Farming Press Variables

In general, the more social contact people have, the more information was

available. Thus, social network in personal factors and availability of information in

external factors were related to each other. According to Rogers (1995), the availability of

information about the innovation was considered as an important pre-condition for its

wider diffusion in the theory. In other words, these variables could be considered as

information sources. In this study, the model farm could be a different information source

from others such as radios, TVs, books, and other farmers. This is called the exposure to

model farm variable.

38

Gender and Lifestyle and Health Variables

There was some indication that a woman’s influence was significantly important
for the development of organic farming (Padel, 2001a). According to R. Fischer (1982), a
qualitative study done in Switzerland on the motivation to adopt organic farming, several
of the 100 organic farmers said that initial ‘organic’ ideas came from women (as cited in
Padel, 20013). Also, R. Fischer (1982) and P. Fischer (1989) pointed out that organic
methods were tried and initially adopted for small vegetable gardens, which were
traditionally the woman’s domain in developed countries (as cited in Padel, 2001a). In
addition, women’s roles as caretakers of family nutrition and health led to women being
the ones to purchase and use organic products, as these products were perceived as better
foods for family health (Padel, 2001a). Historically, the development of the organic
agricultural movement occurred from bottom up in developed countries, whereas it has
been occurring from the top down in developing countries (A. Fujimoto, personal
communication, June 4, 2007). Therefore, even if gender and lifestyle and health
variables were significant in the organic conversion process, such variables may lack
significance in Indonesia because of the top-down approach to developing organic
farming. In this study, I only focused on the gender variable because it was very diflicult
to measure the lifestyle and health variables in quantitative terms.
Goals, Objectives and Values Variables

Goals, objectives and values variables would be related to farmers’ value systems.
However, it was very difficult to identify value systems. One significant factor in their
value systems could be religion. In Padel’s model (2001b), the goals, objectives and

values variables might be influenced by Christianity, because Padel developed the model

39

based on reviewing many organic conversion studies in Western countries which were
predominately Christian. On the other hand, about 90 percent of Indonesians are Muslims,
and the inhabitants in Bali are predominately Hindu. There could be differences in value
systems among religions. Thus, the location variable as religion variable was proposed as
a possible variable influencing the decision to convert to organic farming in Indonesia
instead of goals, objectives and values variables.
Personal Attitude Variables

Kim and Hunter (1993) mentioned that the larger the attitudinal relevance, the
stronger the relationship between attitude and behavior. Thus, attitude toward the target
organic methods variables was expected to be a significant factor.
Other Variables

Since one of the research objectives was to determine farmers’ awareness of
model farm and the organic vegetable production practices, exposure to the model farm,
distance to the model farm and awareness of the target organic methods variables could
be important factor. Moreover, an irrigation resource was very important for vegetable
production in developing countries (M. Suvedi, personal communication, May 3, 2007)
so that the irrigation resources variable was expected to influence farmers’ decisions of
organic conversion.
Conceptual Framework for the Process of Organic Conversion in Vegetable
Production in Indonesia

Figure 7 showed a proposed Indonesian model for the process of organic
conversion in vegetable production. The model was developed by Rogers (1995), and

possible influencing variables were identified by Padel’s study (2001b) reviewing

40

.mmmocer E 55355 oESowo> 5 56.5250 0590 Mo $895 2: n8 xcoaoESm 333250 .N. 2:me

 

 

 

«manoo
Eons
9. cozcmHE

>83.

 

 

 

 

 

mEozmoQ

co_E9c_

>83.

 

 

3:59.080.
bzfimafi.
\ExmfiEoO.
b___n:mano.

mmmwcm>om
$23.01.

wmozoma
909.com;
o_cmm._o “.093
05 0.539
apart/x

 

 

 

“woo E00

£3,
3_.m___Emn_

 

 

 

 

 

 

mEozmma
-05 53>
ect—2:55“.

 

 

 

 

moonaow coszcohE.

EEC
“0.7.... or... 9 oczmoaxw.

cozozuoca
ofimammo> $99
or: .6 mscm>mz ~02.

mafia 93:9 0cm...
moonaowo. c2592.

Eco,—
uo__a 05 9 $9.685.

oflw Econ.
mocotoaxo mEEcmu.

noon.
>=Efl Co non—:32.

®N_m EocmmsoI.
_m>m_ cosmoavw.
006?

.5950.

cosmoo...

 

 

41

Indonesian organic farming. In this study, target vegetables were cabbage, tomato, and
chili because these were the most widely planted crops in the study sites of West Java and
Bali. Selected target organic farming methods were the application of biological
insecticides and use of organic fertilizers only. In the model, agricultural policy, extension
systems and marketing conditions were considered to influence indirectly the organic
conversion process.
Study Hypotheses
The following hypotheses have been drawn to be tested by the model:
(1) socio—economic variables will affect the familiarity with bio-pesticides and compost.
The socio-economic variables are: respondent's location, gender, age, education level,
household size, number of family laborers, farming experience, farm size, distance to the
pilot farm, irrigation sources, land tenure status, net revenue of cabbage, tomato, carrot
production; exposure to the pilot farm and any information source groups (media,
extension, farmer and commercial group); and, (2) farmers’ familiarity with the target
organic vegetable practices will affect farmers’ attitude toward the target organic methods,
and make it possible to increase the chance that the farmer will adopt organic farming by
changing their attitudes toward the target organic methods.
Summary
This chapter provided the history of agricultural development, and role of
agricultural extension in developing countries. This chapter also reviewed the literature
and research on evaluating impacts of extension programs, diflirsion of innovation in
organic conversion, and the related literature on the engaged organic vegetable

production in Indonesia. Additionally, a conceptual framework was developed based on

42

the diffusion of innovation theory and the study of Padel. The methodology for the study

will be discussed in chapter III.

43

Chapter HI
METHODOLOGY
Research Design

This study is considered descriptive research, as described by Leedy (1993), with
a mixed methods design. The mixed methods research design “includes the use of both
quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and data analysis” (National
Science Foundation, 2002). Though it is relatively new in social and human sciences as a
distinct research approach (Creswell, 2003), mixed methodology has been utilized
successfully in many international agricultural evaluation studies (Tmanov, 2001). The
method could provide an excellent understanding of the overall picture of a study, and
bring distinct insight to the study (Tmanov, 2001). According to Tashkkori and Teddlie
(1998), most studies using a mixed method generate numerical and narrative data.

Research Area

The research was conducted in two communities of Indonesia: Sukagali village in
West Java and Bangli village in Bali. Figure 8 shows a map of Indonesia and the research
sites.

West Java’s study site was located at Sukagalih village, sub-district of
Megamendung, and district of Bogor. At an altitude fi'om 450 to 1,000 meters and with a
year-round temperature of 2lto 25 degrees Celsius, there are two seasons in terms of
rainfall -— the dry season from May to September, and the rainy season from October to
April. The average annual rainfall was 2,145 mm in recent years (Kantor Desa Sukagalih,

2007; Rudi, 2005). Most of the land is terraced because of the hilly terrain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mozm noaomom 05 Ea «6282: mo .32 .w 052m

8555 maxohmo basic: 6958

45

 

According to Darmawan and Pasandoran (2000), a place where the altitude is more than
800 meters is appropriate for temperate vegetable production in Indonesia. In the village,
there are two sub-districts called DUSUN 1 and DUSUN 2. DUSUN l is located in a
place where the predominant altitude is lower than 850 meters, which is in the southern
part of the village. Rice and some vegetable production occur on the land used for
agriculture in this area. DUSUN 2 is located in the northern part of the village, with an
average altitude higher than 850 meters. Farmers in DUSUN 2 grow mostly vegetables.
The study site is known as a center for temperate vegetable production in the district of
Bogor. Chili, bean, cabbage, tomato, carrot, Chinese cabbage, shallot, and broccoli crops
are grown there. The pilot farm is located in DUSUN 2. There are irrigation systems for
rice fields, but not all vegetable fields have them. In 2007, the total population of
Sukagalih was 6,516 people, with a working population of 2,296. In the working
population, 28 percent (643 people) were farmers (Kantor Desa Sukagalih, 2007).

Bali’s study site was located at Bangli village, sub-district of Baturiti, and district
of Tabanang. Geographically, the site’s altitude is between 700 to 900 meters and
temperature is 22 to 25 degrees Celsius year-round. Two seasons exist in terms of rainfall.
The dry season is from April to September, and rainy season from October to March. The
annual rainfall was 3,126 mm in 2006 (Kantor Desa Bangli, 2007). The site has beautiful
rice terraces, and is one of the most popular areas for temperate vegetable production in
Bali. Several varieties of vegetables are grown, such as chili, beans, cabbage, tomato,
carrot, Chinese cabbage, lettuce, and cucumber. There are irrigation systems for rice
fields and vegetable production. Bangli had eight sub—districts. Vegetables and coffee are

grown in the northern part of the village, and rice and some vegetables are grown in the

46

 

southern part. The pilot farm exists in a sub—district of the northern part of the village.
The population was 4,394 people, with 1,667 people making up the working population.
Thirty percent of the working population (500 people) consisted of farmers in Bangli
(Kantor Desa Bangli, 2007).
Unim of Analysis
There were two major units of analysis used in the study. The first was a group of
vegetable farmers living around the pilot farms. The second was a group of agricultural
professionals representing agricultural policy makers and extension workers, and those
involved in organic vegetable market systems.
Data Collection Procedures

The data collection process consisted of two parts. The first part was a face-to-
face survey of vegetable farmers to assess their awareness of, attitudes toward and intent
to adopt the target organic vegetable production practices. The second part (the
interviews with key informants) was conducted with agricultural professionals in three
different fields of agriculture to obtain current information about vegetable production
policy, the agricultural extension system, and current issues in organic vegetable
marketing. These methods are described below:

F ace-to-face survey

Population and Sample

Rural households producing vegetables in the DUSUN 2 of Sukagalih (N = 312)
in West Java and the three sub-districts called MUNDUR ANDONG, TITIGALAR, and
BANGLI (N = 315) of Bangli in Bali represented the population in this study. The

population of the study was comprised of vegetable farmers who lived around the pilot

47

 

farms in the study sites of Sukagalih village, West Java and Bangli village, Bali. The
population list was developed by the researcher through interviews with each head of
villages’ sub-districts to obtain information about the households in each. A systematic
sample with a random start was used for sample selection. Data were collected between
July and August in Sukagalih, and September to October in Bangli. The survey was
conducted between July 24th and August 24th of 2007 in West Java, and between
September 23rd and October 19th of 2007 in Bali. In this study, every third name was

chosen from the lists. Table 4 shows sample sizes of the two study sites.

Table 4. Third Name Sampling of Households in West Java and Bali

 

 

 

 

 

Villages Sub-districts HH Population HH
interviewed

Sukagalih DUSUN 2 312 107

(West Java)

Bangli MUNDUR ANDONG 179 56

(Bali) TITIGALAR 88 3 1
BANGLI ' 48 16
Total 315 103

 

 

Instrument Development

The face-to-face survey questionnaire was developed by the researcher, based on
the review of pertinent literature and methodology. The instrument followed
recommendations described by Francis, et al. (2004) in Constructing questionnaires
based on the theory of planned behaviour: A manual for health service researchers, and

by Alreck and Settle (1995) in Survey Research Handbook.

48

 

Content

The instrument included a definition of terms and eight major sections: basic

information of respondents’ vegetable production and knowledge of organic farming,

vegetable production and marketing, exposure of the DNBAF project pilot farms,

information source, awareness of organic vegetable production practices, attitude toward

the organic farming methods, intention of conversion to organic, and background

information. Table 5 shows the detail of the instrument.

Table 5. Structure of the Survey Instrument.

 

 

 

 

Section Information collected Number of
items
Introduction Basic information of respondents’ vegetable production 6
and knowledge of organic farming
1 Vegetable production and marketing;
Cabbage 26
Tomato 26
Carrot 26
2 Exposure of the DNBAF project pilot farms 5
3 Information source 1
4 Awareness of the organic vegetable production practices 8
5 Attitude toward the organic vegetable production 2
practices
6 Intention to adopt the organic vegetable production 2
practices
7 Background information 7
Total 109

 

 

The introduction section included basic information about respondents’ vegetable

production and knowledge of organic farming. The items in this section addressed

farmers’ total farming and vegetable farming areas, varieties of vegetables grown in the

last growing season between 2006 and 2007, whether or not a respondent knew the term

“organic farming” and its meaning, and land use of respondents’ farming lands.

49

 

Section 1 included items about vegetable production and marketing of cabbage,
tomato and carrot. Farmers who had grown at least one of the three vegetables within the
last growing season between 2006 and 2007 were asked questions in this section.
Moreover, in order to calculate net revenues from vegetable production per unit area, the
following items were covered: vegetable yield, price per kilogram, marketing method,
availability of loans, varieties of seedlings, fertilizers, pesticides and their costs, and other
vegetable production costs including labor cost, selling cost and other material cost.

Section 2 included items about exposure to the DNBAF project pilot farms. In this
section, farmers were asked if they had either heard about, seen, visited, or worked at the
pilot farms or talked with the project people.

Section 3 included items about information sources. Here farmers were asked
where they obtained information for their vegetable production in the past year. This was
a multiple choice question.

Section 4 included items about farmers’ awareness of (familiarity with) the target
organic vegetable production practices. In this section, farmers were asked eight different
statements on their degree of familiarity with bio-pesticides and compost. Four
statements dealt with bio-pesticides, and four dealt with compost. Farmers’ degree of
familiarity with the target organic practices for each statement was measured by a 5-
pointLikert-type scale with 1== Very Familiar, 2= Familiar, 3= Somewhat Familiar, 4= Not
Familiar, and 5= Not at all Familiar.

Section 5 included items about farmers’ attitude toward target organic vegetable
production practices. In this section, farmers were asked their level of agreement with 18

attitudinal statements on the target organic practices. Among the 18 statements, six

50

statements lexpressed images of organic farming and 12 statements expressed attitudes
toward the organic practices. Farmers’ level of agreement with each statement was
measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale with l= Strongly Agree, 2= Agree, 3= Neutral,
4= Disagree, and 5= Strongly Disagree.

Section 6 included items about farmers’ intention to adopt the target organic
vegetable production practices. First, farmers were asked if they had already adopted the
target organic practices. For those who answered “No” to the question, they were asked
their degree of likeliness to adopt these practices, with six statements on the target
organic practices. Three statements dealt with bio-pesticides, and three statements dealt
with compost. Farmers’ degree of intention to adopt the organic practices was measured
by a 5 point Likert-type scale with 1= I will likely convert, 2= I may convert, 3= 1 am not
sure, 4= I may not convert, and 5= I will likely not convert.

Lastly, section 7 includes background and demographics questions. Farmers and
their immediate family members were asked their gender, age, educational level,
occupation and distance from their house to the pilot farms.

Data Collection

The following topics were discussed related to data collection: selection of
research assistants, informing local authorities, research assistant training, oral
translations, and data collection.

Selection of Research Assistants
Two research assistants named A in West Java and B in Bali were contracted for

the face-to-face survey. A was born and raised in the Sukagalih village, West Java. A

 

1 The six statements were not used for data analysis because the researcher changed some research
objectives alter data collection.

51

 

completed high school and her parents were vegetable farmers. The researcher hired A in
July 2007, ten days before data collection.

B had lived in Bangli village, Bali for about seven years since her marriage. Her
husband was born and raised in Bangli. B had a bachelor’s degree and was growing
vegetables for family consumption. The researcher hired B in September 2007, two
weeks before data collection.

Both A and B knew the agricultural system and the community of their respective
study sites. They had a higher level of education than most in their villages, and they
could communicate well with the researcher in Bahasa Indonesia. Moreover, they spoke
the local languages: Bahasa Sunda in West Java and Bahasa Bali in Bali.

Informing Local Authorities

The researcher was introduced by the Indonesian DNBAF project researchers to
the local authorities in West Java and Bali. The district director, the sub—district directors,
the directors of extension office in the sub-districts, and the villages’ representatives were
informed about the research objectives and the survey schedule.

Research Assistant Training

The research assistants received two days of training on survey procedures. On
the first day, a questionnaire was given to the assistants and the researcher explaining the
survey, including research objectives, contents of the questionnaire, and things research
assistant would do. The assistants had two main tasks: guide the researcher to the
respondents’ house or farm, and support the researcher’s verbal communication with
respondents as an interpreter. On the second day, the assistants practiced a role-play

interview with the researcher, whereby the researcher interviewed with an assistant’s

52

 

friend in Bahasa Indonesia while the assistants interpreted the researcher’s sentences for
the fiiend in the local language, and vice versa.
Data Collection

The face-to-face survey was conducted by the researcher. The interviews were
conducted from nine o’clock in the morning to nine o’clock in the evening (except meal
times), when the respondents were available. Research assistants guided the researcher to
the respondents’ homes. Before the interview, the researcher introduced herself and tried
to engage in small talk to make respondents comfortable. After a brief conversation, the
researcher asked respondents if they could spend about an hour to answer the questions.
If they said yes, the interviews were started. Ifthey requested another time, the researcher
re-visited them when they were available. During the survey, the researcher instructed the
respondents on each question without influencing the answer. Moreover, the researcher
recorded data that she observed from the respondents on the questionnaire. At the end of
the interview, the researcher checked the completed questionnaire to make sure all of the
data were recorded correctly and thanked the respondents’ participation for the interview.
Research assistants supported the researcher ’s verbal communication with respondents
when necessary.
Data Analysis

Data were coded and entered in SPSS. Net revenues for each vegetable’s
production were calculated by hand for the data entry. Since all data were collected and

entered into SPSS by the researcher, there were no missing data in the data set.

53

Net Revenue of Vegetable Production

To analyze net revenue of vegetable production, it is best to organize income and
expenses or cost into major categories. Total income from vegetable production is the
sum of periodical sales transactions. Usually costs are recognized as either: 1) a variable
cost; or 2) a fixed cost. Variable costs are expenses that occur only if a vegetable is grown,
and change as output changes. Farmers often think of variable costs as out-of-pocket
expenses. Variable costs generally include numerous cultural production expenses, such
as the seed/plant costs, pest control management costs, labor costs, interest on borrowed
money, and marketing expenses. Fixed costs usually remain the same irrespective of how
much vegetable yield is produced. Total fixed cost does not change with output. Fixed
costs include land, equipment and machinery, and property taxes (Estes, et al., 2003).

To calculate net revenue of a vegetable’s production, the gross income and total
cost information is needed. Gross income for vegetable production is the total quantity
sold times the price it was sold and summed over a harvest season. Total cost is the sum
of variable costs and fixed costs over a harvest season. Net revenue is obtained by
subtracting the total cost fiorn the gross income. Given the range of areas planted by
vegetable farmers, it is useful to convert net revenue to a per unit basis (Estes, et al.,
2003). Therefore, this study used total cost and net revenue per 0.1 hectare because the
average plot area per harvest season of vegetable farmers in the study sites was less than
0.2 hectare.

Descriptive
Descriptive statistics, percentage, mean, and standard deviation were used to

describe:

54

 

 

(1) Vegetable production systems in the study sites.

(2) Characteristics of respondents (vegetable farmers). The variables analde were:
gender, age, education level, household size, number of family laborers, farming
experience, farm size, distance to the pilot farms, irrigation sources, land tenure
status, net revenue of cabbage, tomato, and/or carrot production, exposure to the
pilot organic farm, and the information source for vegetable production practices.

(3) Farmers’ awareness of bio-pesticides and compost.

(4) Farmers’ attitudes toward bio-pesticide and compost. The following items were
analyzed: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and
Observability.

(5) Adoption rate of bio-pesticides and compost.

(6) Intention to adopt bio-pesticides and compost in near future.

T-test

T-test was used to compare:

(1) Mean scores of explanatory variables between familiarity and non-familiarity
with bio-pesticides and,

(2) Mean scores of explanatory variables between familiarity and on-familiarity with
compost. The explanatory variables were: gender, age, education level, household
size, number of family laborers, farming experience, farm size, distance to the
pilot organic farms, irrigation sources, land tenure status, net revenue of cabbage,
tomato, and/or carrot production, exposure to the pilot farm, and information

source for vegetable production practices.

55

 

may

To make sure the questionnaire was valid (Weiss, 1998), it was reviewed and
evaluated by the dissertation advisor, the Japanese DNBAF project leader, and the project
researchers in Indonesia. They provided feedback on the questionnaire and it was
modified based on the feedback.
Reliabilig

For intemal-consistency checks (Weiss, 1998), the questionnaire was translated
into Bahasa Indonesia and tested by five Indonesian people, including a graduate student
at Michigan State University (MSU) and vegetable farmers in West Java. Modifications
were made based on the responses. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure
the internal consistency of the statements assessing farmers’ awareness of and attitude
toward the target organic practices. According to Koshio (2004), there is a high intemal-
consistency of the material if the alpha value is greater than 0.7; however, if the alpha
value is less than 0.5, the measurement of the material may need to be reconsidered.
Summated Scales

The following variables’ scales were summated to use for binary logit analysis
and path analysis. The variables were: farmers’ awareness of the target organic practices,
farmers’ attitudes toward organic vegetable practices, and intention to adopt organic

practices. Table 6 shows summary of summated scales.

56

Table 6. Summary of Summated Scales

 

 

 

Range Mean (SD)

Construct Number Min Max West Java Bali Total

of items (N=107) (N=103) (N =2 1 O)
Familiarity with 4 4 20 10.98 (3.7) 14.00 (2.6) 12.46 (3.6)
bio-pesticides
Familiarity with 4 4 20 8.91 (2.8) 10.45 (3.1) 9.66 (3.0)
compost
Attitude toward 12 12 60 27.92 (5.4) 28.00 (5.4) 27.96 (5.4)
the target organic
vegetable
practices
Intention to adopt 3 3 15 9.16 (4.0) 7.43 (3.2) 8.31 (3.7)
bio-pesticides
Intention to adopt 3 3 15 8.69 (4.2) 9.44 (4.2) 9.03 (4.2)
compost

 

 

Logistic Regression Analysis

Since the multiple regression model with discrete dependant variables (the linear
probability model) has certain drawbacks, it can produce predicted probabilities that are
less than zero or greater than one, and the partial effect of any explanatory variables is
constant; the logistic regression model is appropriate if the dependant variable involves
two or more discrete/qualitative variables (Cramer, 2003; Pindyck and Rubinfeld, 1998;
Wooldridge, 2000). The binary logit model is one of the logistic models which have
dichotomous dependent variables such that Y is dependant variable where: Y = 0 if Y <
16 and Y = 1 if Y Z 16 (Dwyer, 1983). The binary logit model is a very popular method to
analyze the factors influencing decision making in the field of agriculture, such as

adoption of new technologies (Cavane, 2007; Banerjee, et al., 2008; Zhou, et al., 2008).

Suppose dependent variable Y,- is a scalar which can take only two values, 0 and 1.

The event Y,- = l is habitually designated as a success of the experiment, and Y,- = 0 as a

failure (Cramer, 2003). In the present study I have

57

 

Y,- = 1 if vegetable farmer i is familiar with the target organic vegetable practices,

Y,- = 0 otherwise.

According to the basic econometric text books (Pindyck and Rubinfeld, 1998;
Wooldridge, 2000; Gujarati, 1995), the logit model is based on the cumulative logistic

probability function and is specified as:

a+BX +Bx +...+BiXi a+BX +Bx +...+BiXi
11 2 2 / 11 2 2

fi=k 1+e

] (eq 1)
Where: P,- is a probability when Y,- = 1 and X,- is an explanatory variable. Bi are unknown
but fixed parameters known as the regression coefficient.
Odds ratio is identified by [Pi/ l - Pi] and, it can be derived in equation 2 from equation
1 by taking the natural log of the odds ratio:
Li = 108 [Pi / (1 - P01: (1 +BIX1+ Bzxz + + BiXi (C(12)
L is called the logit, and hence equation 2 is called the logit model.

Interpretation of the Logit Model

The coefficients give the signs of the partial effects of each X,- on the response
probability, and the statistical significance of X,- is determined by whether one can reject
a null hypothesis; Ho: [3; = 0 at a sufficiently small significance level (Wooldridge, 2000).

The intercept a is the value of the log-odds in the success of the experiment Yi if

all X,s are zero. This interception may not have any physical meaning. 8;, the slope,

measures the change in L for a unit change in X (Gujarati, 1995).

Probably the best measure of association for causal analysis of dichotomous

58

variables is the odds ratio. The odds ratio ranges from zero to infinity. If the odds ratios
of explanatory variables are close to one, there are likely no relationships between the

dependent variable and the explanatory variables (Dwyer, 1983).

Binary Logit Analysis

 

A binary logit analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with awareness
of bio-pesticides and compost. Definitions of variables used in the logit model are listed
in Table 7. Two dichotomous dependent variables (Y) were created based on the results
of the summated scales. (1) Familiarity with bio-pesticides is a dependent variable where
Y = 1 if Y < 12.46 and Y = 0 if Y 2 12.46; in other word, if respondent is familiar with
bio-pesticides = 1 and if not familiar = 0 (F_BIO). (2) Familiarity with compost is a
dependent variable where Y = 1 if Y < 9.66 and Y = 0 if Y Z 9.66; in other word, if

respondent is familiar with compost = 1 and if not familiar = 0 (F_COMP).

59

Table 7. Variables Definition in the Binary Logit Model

 

 

Variables Definition

Dependent

Variables

F_BIO Familiarity with bio-pesticides (familiar = 1, not familiar = 0)

F_COMP Familiarity with compost (familiar = 1, not familiar = O)

Explanatory

Variables .

LOCA Location of respondent (West Java = 1, Bali = 0)

GEN Gender of respondent (male = 1, female = 0)

AGE Age of respondent (year)

EDU2 Education level of respondent (some primary school = 1, other =
0)

EDU3 Education level of respondent (completed primary school = 1,
other = 0)

EDU4 Education level of respondent (completed junior high school = 1,
other = 0)

EDUS Education level of respondent (completed high school = 1, other
= 0)

HS Household size of respondent

FL Number of farming labor force in a household

EXPERIENCE Farming experience of respondent (year)

FARM Area of the farm (unit: are; 1 ha = 100 a)

DIS Distance from respondent’s house to the pilot farm (km)

DIRR Irrigation dummy (have irrigation = 1, no irrigation = 0)

DLAND Land tenure dummy (secure land tenure = 1, unscure land tenure
= 0)

CNETREV Net revenue of cabbage production (thousand rupia / 0.5 ha)

TNETREV Net revenue of tomato production (thousand rupia / 0.5 ha)

WNETREV Net revenue of carrot production (thousand rupia / 0.5 ha)

EXPO Total number of “exposure question” checks

IFG_MEDIA Total number of “information source question” checks: TV,
radio, magazine/joumal, intemet (media information group)

IFG_EXTEN Total number of “information source question” checks: extension
agent, NGO, university (extension information group)

IFG_FARMER Total number of “information source question” checks: farmers’
group, organic farmers, other farmers, family member, self-study
(farmer information group)

IFG_COMMER Total number of “information source” checks: market people,

commercial company/agricultural retail store (commercial
information group)

 

Note: EDU variables compare familiarity with bio-pesticides relative to vegetable farmers with educational
level of no schooling (EDU I ).

60

Explanatory variables include location of respondent (LOCA), gender of respondent
(GEN), age of respondent (AGE), five dummies for education level (EDU), household
size of respondent (HS), number of farming family labor (FL), farming experience of
respondent (EXPERIENCE), area of the farm (FARM), distance from respondent’s house
to the pilot farm (DIS), irrigation dummy variable if respondent has an irrigation = l and
if no irrigation = 0 (DIRR ), land tenure status dummy if respondent has secure land
tenure = 1 and if unsecure land tenure = 0 (DLAND ), net revenue of cabbage production
in Indonesian rupia per 0.5 hectare (CNETREV), net revenue of tomato production in
Indonesian rupia per 0.5 hectare (TNETREV), net revenue of carrot production in
Indonesian rupia per 0.5 hectare (WNETREV), total number of “information source
questionz” checks for media information source group including TV, radio,
magazine/joumal and intemet (IFG_MEDIA), total number of “information source
question” checks for extension information group including extension agent, NGO,
university (IFG_EXTEN), total number of “information source question” checks for
farmer information source group including farmers’ group, organic farmers, other farmers,
family member and self-study (IFG_FARMER) and total number of “information source”
checks for commercial information source group including market people, commercial
company/agricultural retail store (IF G_COMMER). In addition, variable of exposure to
the pilot farm was identified as total number of “exposure questionz” checks (EXPO).
Path Analysis

Structural equation model (SEM) is used to analyze the technology adoption I

model in difl’erent fields including agriculture (Adrian, et al., 2005; Calantone, et al.,

 

2 See Appendix C

61

 

2006; Bayard and Jolly, 2007). Path analysis is one of the SEMs. It is also referred to as
SEM without latent variables (Toyota, 1998) and as simultaneous equation model in the
field of econometrics (Kaplan, 2000).

In the path analysis, structural parameters and coefficients which represent
hypothesized relationships among a set of observed variables are estimated by utilizing
software programs such as SPSS, AMOS and EQS. The set of relationships among the
variables can be modeled in terms of systems of equations and a path diagram is drawn as
usual (Kaplan, 2000).

A path analysis was performed to confirm the hypothesis that farmers’ familiarity
with the target organic methods may affect their attitude toward the target organic
methods in terms of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and
Observability. Also it may be possible to increase the chance that the farmer will adopt
organic farming by changing attitudes toward the target organic methods.

Measurement items and scale reliabilities were summarized in Table 8.

62

Table 8. Results of the Analysis of Scales Using Cronbach’s Alpha

 

Item

 

Construct
Familiarity of bio-
pesticide
(a = 0.89)

How familiar are you with a word of bio-pesticide?

How familiar are you with raw materials for making bio-
pesticides?

How familiar are you with how to make bio-pesticides?
How familiar are you on use of bio-pesticides?

 

Familiarity of compost
(a = 0.87)

How familiar are you with a word of compost/bokashi?
How familiar are you with raw materials for making
compost/bokashi?

How familiar are you with how to make compost/bokashi?
How familiar are you with the use of compost/bokashi?

 

Attitude toward the target
organic vegetable practices
(a = 0.80)

Intention to adopt bio-
pesticide
(u = 0.99)

Intention to adopt compost

(a = 0.99)

Using bio-pesticides to control insect pests can reduce
production costs.

Using only compost to grow vegetables can reduce
production costs.

Using bio-pesticides to control insect pests is a good fit
with my culture.

Using bio-pesticides to control insect pests is a good fit
with my experience.

Using only compost to grow vegetables is a good fit with
my culture.

Using only compost to grow vegetables is a good fit with
my experience.

Using bio-pesticides to control pests is easy.

Using only compost to grow vegetables is easy.

Bio-pesticides can be tested in a small part of my field to
control insect pests.

Compost can be tested in a small part of my field.
People can easily see a difference between vegetables
grown using bio-pesticides and vegetables grown using
synthetic insecticide to control insect pests.

People can easily see a difference between vegetables
grown using only compost and vegetables grown using
synthetic fertilizer.

I intend to adopt the use of only compost for cabbage
production.

I intend to adopt the use of only compost for tomato
production.

I intend to adopt the use of only compost for carrot
production.

I intend to adopt the use of bio-pesticides for cabbage
production.

I intend to adopt the use of bio-pesticides for tomato
production.

I intend to adopt the use of bio-pesticides for carrot
production.

 

63

 

Math with bio-pesticides

Familiarity with bio-pesticides refers to a person who becomes aware of a bio-
pesticide and gains some understanding of how it functions. The four-item scale (with 1=
Very Familiar, 2= Familiar, 3= Somewhat F arniliar, 4= Not Familiar, and 5= Not at all
Familiar) used to measure familiarity with bio-pesticide use included (1) How familiar
are you with the word “bio-pesticide?” (2) How familiar are you with raw materials for
making bio-pesticides? (3) How familiar are you about how bio-pesticides are made? (4)
How familiar are you about the use of bio-pesticides? The Cronbach’s alpha for the
familiarity with bio-pesticide scale was 0.89.
Marin! with compost

Familiarity with compost refers to a person who becomes aware of compost and
gains some understanding of how it functions. The four-item scale (with l= Very Familiar,
2= Familiar, 3= Somewhat Familiar, 4= Not Familiar, and 5= Not at all Familiar) was
used to measure familiarity with compost included (1) How familiar are you with the
word “compost/bokashi?” (2) How familiar are you with raw materials for making
compost/bokashi? (3) How familiar are you with making compost/bokashi? (4) How
familiar are you with the use of compost/bokashi? The Cronbach’s alpha for the
familiarity with compost scale was 0.87.
Attitude toward target gg‘anic vegetable practices

The attitude toward target organic vegetable practices is the degree of a favorable
or an unfavorable attitude toward the use of bio-pesticides and compost. The attitude has
five characteristics including relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, traiability and

Observability (Rogers, 1995). Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is

 

perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes. The degree of relative advantage is
often expressed as economic profitability (Rogers, 1995). Compatibility is the degree to
which a new idea is perceived as consistent with the existing value, past experiences, and
needs of potential adopters (Rogers, 1995). Complexity is the degree to which a new idea
is perceived as relatively diflicult to understand and use (Rogers, 1995). Trialability is the
degree to which a new idea may be experimented with on a limited basis. Innovations
that can be tried on the installment plan are generally adopted more rapidly than ones that
are not divisible (Rogers, 1995). Observability is the degree to which the results of a new
idea are visible to others (Rogers, 1995). The twelve-item scale (with 1= Strongly Agree,
2= Agree, 3= Neutral, 4= Disagree, and 5= Strongly Disagree) used to measure attitude
toward the target organic vegetable practices was developed based on the definitions of
the five characteristics. They were: (1) using bio-pesticides to control insects/pests can
reduce production costs, (2) using only compost to grow vegetables can reduce
production costs, (3) using bio-pesticides to control insects/pests is a good fit with my
culture, (4) using bio-pesticides to control insects/pests is a good fit with my experience,
(5) using only compost to grow vegetables is a good fit with my culture, (6) using only
compost to grow vegetables is a good fit with my experience, (7) using bio-pesticides to
control pests is easy, (8) using only compost to grow vegetables is easy, (9) biopesticides
can be tested in a small part of my field to control insects/pests, (10) compost can be
tested for use to grow vegetables in a small part of my field, (11) people can easily see a
difference between vegetables grown using bio-pesticides and vegetables grown using
synthetic insecticide to control insects/pests, and (12) people can easily see a difl'erence

between vegetables grown using only compost and vegetables grown using synthetic

65

fertilizer. The Cronbach’s alpha for attitude toward the target organic vegetable practices
scale was 0.80.
Intention to admit bio-pesticides

The intention to adopt bio-pesticides is the strength of the adopter ’s intention to
support the decision to use bio-pesticides. The three-item scale (with 1= I will likely
convert, 2= I may convert, 3= I am not sure, 4= I may not convert, and 5= I will likely
not convert) used to measure intention to adopt bio-pesticides included (1) I intend to
adopt and use bio-pesticides for cabbage production. (2) I intend to adopt and use bio-
pesticides for tomato production. (3) I intend to adopt and use bio-pesticides for carrot
production. The Cronbach’s alpha for intention to adopt bio-pesticide scale was 0.99.
Intention to adopt compost

The intention to adopt compost is the strength of the adopter ’s intention to
support the decision to use compost. The three-item scale (with 1= I will likely convert,
2= I may convert, 3= I am not sure, 4= I may not convert, and 5= I will likely not
convert) used to measure intention to adopt compost included (1) I intend to adopt and
use only compost for cabbage production. (2) I intend to adopt and use only compost for
tomato production. (3) I intend to adopt and use only compost for carrot production. The
Cronbach’s alpha for intention to adopt compost scale was 0.99.

Amos 18 was used for the path analysis.

Interviews with Key Informants

Background

Interviews with key informants were scheduled to answer research question eight

of this study. The interviews provided the most current information regarding organic

66

farming policy, the agricultural extension system, and the organic vegetable marketing
system in West Java and Bali, Indonesia.
Interview Participants

A snowball sampling was used in this study to collect detailed information from
persons representing the Department of Agriculture, the agricultural extension agency,
and people in an organic vegetable market channel in the study area. For representatives
from the Department of Agriculture, one government officer at the Quality and
Standardization Bureau of the Department of Agriculture was identified. Drafts of
organic agricultural policy have been developed by the bureau. For agricultural extension
agency personnel at sub-district level, two extension workers were identified in both West
Java and Bali. They have served as vegetable production specialists in the study sites. For
people in an organic vegetable marketing system, two organic farmers who have been
doing direct selling of organic vegetables were identified in both West Java and Bali. All
key informant interviews were scheduled by phone with a subsequent personal face-to-
face meeting, and were interviewed by the researcher in Bahasa Indonesia.
Interview Schedule Development

The interview questions were developed to obtain information regarding current
organic agricultural policy, extension systems and marketing systems of organic farming

in Indonesia. Appropriate changes were made to the questions through an expert panel

review process. Interview schedules3 were developed to collect accurate and verbal data

smoothly (Berg, 2004).

 

3 See Appendix D

67

 

Interview Process

Interview participants were identified by consulting with faculty members at
Bogor Agricultural University and Udayana University, who took part in the DNBAF
project.

Interviews were conducted by following the interview schedule described by
Kumu (2002). Each interviewing schedule had three major components: opening, body
and closing. The opening was needed to make the interviewee feel welcomed and
relaxed. Moreover, the opening needed to indicate clearly the objectives of the interview,
and made it clear what topic area was being addressed. It was good if the interviewer
could provide some information to motivate the respondent to answer the questions. It
was also important to indicate the expected length of the interview. The body of the
interview schedule listed the topics to be covered and potential questions. The schedule
still allowed some freedom to probe into answers and adapt to the situation. The closing
needed to maintain the tone set throughout the interview and was brief but not abrupt. It
was good to discuss the next course of action to be taken, and the interviewer thanked the
interviewee for his or her time.

The interviewer took notes during the interview process to formulate new
questions and to clarify some additional points and details. After the interviews, field
notes were made for each interviewee. Finally, the verbal data were summarized based on
the field notes.

Limitation of the Study
Since the study sites were rural areas of Indonesia, the societies were male-

centered. conservative. and had major religious component (both Islam and IIindu’). 1" mm

68

the viewpoint of the respondents. the researcher was a foreign. female stranger. Also. it
was a rare event that such a stranger. including the research assistant. lived with famiers
and conducted surveys in the study sites. Thus. the possibility existed for some threat bias.
hostility bias (Alreck and Settle, 1995) and politeness bias. To remove these biases. the
researcher made efforts to blend into the rural societies by staying at a farmer’s house.
eating the same foods as the farmers. following the societies’ customs. attending the
communities’ activities. and learning the local languages during the survey period.

The scales of awareness of. attitude toward. and intention to adopt the target
organic practices were used for the first time to determine farmers’ perceptions of organic
vegetable production practices. The awareness of, attitude toward, and intention to adopt
bio-pesticides and compost expressed by respondents in the study sites may not

generalize to other populations.

69

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The results presented in this chapter are based on data collected from face-to-face
surveys and interviews with key people in West Java and Bali. The findings presented
follow the specific research objectives for this study.

Vegetable Production System in the Study Area

The first research objective of this study was to describe vegetable production
systems involving target vegetables (cabbage, tomato and carrot) in the study sites. First,
aspects of vegetable production systems in both study sites in West Java and Bali are
discussed. After that, vegetable production systems of target vegetables are discussed.
Aspects of Vegetable Production Systems

Geographical conditions of the study sites were very similar. The study sites were
located in hilly, high-altitude, cool areas, and were famous centers for vegetable
production. Table 9 shows harvested areas of the major vegetable crops in the study sites
in 2006. Common vegetables and staples were grown in both sites.

However, there was one significant difference between the study sites. In Bali,
almost all of the farmers had irrigation, but in West Java about 30 percent of the farmers
did not. Farmers who did not have irrigation could grow only a few vegetable cr0ps
during the May to September dry season.

Availability of irrigation could influence vegetable production systems in West

Java and Bali. Irrigation influences the cropping pattern and tumpangsaei.

70

Table 9. Harvested Area under Different Crops in the Study Sites in 2006

 

 

Harvested area (ha)

 

 

 

Item Sukagalih (West Bangli
Java) (Bali)
Leek 14’ N/A
Cabbage 12’ l 17
Chinese cabbage/Mustard 18 1 14
green
Carrot 12 13
Chili 22 135
Tomato 10 93
Beans 6 102
Cucumber 3 47
Rice 240 173
Corn 24 75
Sweet Potato 36 0

 

 

t

Data of leek and cabbage in West Java were used from Rudi (2005). N/A indicates data not
available.
Source: UPTD Penyuluhan Wilaya Ciawi, 2007; UPTD Pertanian Tanaman Pagan Kec. Batriti ,
2007.

Cropping [Lattem
West Java

There were various annual cropping rotations in the study sites. According to the
Ciawi extension office (2007), these were typical cropping rotations in the West Java

study site. Table 10 summarized the cropping rotations.

Table 10. Typical Cropping Rotations in the Sub-District of Megamendung

 

 

 

 

Type of farming land Annual cropping rotations
Rice field 1. Rice — rice — rice
2. Rice — vegetables - vegetables
3. Rice — cereals except rice - vegetables
Non-rice field 4. Vegetables —-vegetables - vegetables
5. Vegetables - cereals except rice -

vegetables

 

Source: UPTD Penyuluhan Wilaya Ciawi, 2007.

71

In the study site, farmers in the southern part practiced the cropping rotations 2
and 3. Farmers in the northern part practiced cropping rotations 4 and 5.

Farmers tended to choose vegetable varieties that had a high market value when
planning their cropping rotation for the next harvest season, because Indonesian
vegetable markets did not have governmental price adj ustrnents. From the survey, various
cropping rotations were found in the study site. In the southern part, examples of the
cropping rotations were: rice — tomato — cabbage, rice — chili - beans, rice — sweet potato
— Chinese cabbage, and rice — tomato — corn. In the northern part, examples of the
cropping rotations were: cabbage — tomato — mustard green, Chinese cabbage - leek —
carrot, beans - chili — cauliflower, broccoli — carrot - beans, and corn -— chili — mustard
green. However, farmers who did not have irrigation needed to choose crops that
tolerated dry conditions, such as chili and sweet potato. Unfortunately, market prices for
these crops slumped when too many farmers grew and sold the same crops during the
same time. Thus some farmers left their farm land fallow during the dry season.

Bali

The study site in Bali had very similar situations to West Java, except for some
cropping rotations. Farmers did not leave their farm land fallow during the dry season
because almost all of them had irrigation. Some farmers in the southern part of the study
site planted rice twice a year. The examples of these cropping rotations: rice —— beans —
rice, rice — mustard green — rice, rice — rice — com, and rice — rice — tomato.

Tumpangsari

According to Dinata, et al. (2001), Tumpangsari is a multiple cropping system

“where more than two crops co-exist simultaneously and share both time and space in the

72

same field” (p.331). Multi cropping systems, including Tumpangsari, may increase
productivity of land, make more efficient use of resources, and reduce risks of total crop
failure. According to Fujimoto and Miyaura (1997), Tumpangsari has been practiced in
vegetable production for a long time in Indonesia and especially in West Java;

Tumpangsari predominated in some vegetable production areas.

In the West Java study site, T umpangsari was observed frequently, including the
BNBAF project pilot farm. However, Tumpangsari was not practiced in the Bali study
site. Availability of irrigation was one of the main reasons for this. Since farmers in West
Java had a higher risk of loss pertaining to the lack of irrigation water than farmers in
Bali, farmers in West Java practiced Tumpangsari frequently to reduce that risk in their
vegetable production. Figure 9 is a picture of an example of T umpangsari in the study
site of West Java. The picture shows that more than two crops were planted in each plot.
For example, sweet potatoes and corn were planted in the same plot at the left-hand side
of the picture; beans and carrots for seed production were planted together in the center

of the picture.

73

 

Figure 9. Example of Tumpangsari in the West Java study site.

The Target Vegetable Production Systems

The target vegetables for this study were cabbage, tomato, and carrot.

m

Cabbage is grown in the study areas. Respondents were asked about their cabbage

production during the interviews.

Table 1 1 shows a summary of cabbage production in West Java and Bali.

In West Java, about 20 percent of the respondents grew cabbage at least once a
year from July 2006 to June 2007. Average plot area/harvest season was 0.206 hectare.

A harvest season for cabbage was about 3 months in Indonesia.

74

Table 11. Summary of Cabbage Production in West Java and Bali

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Java (N= 22) Bali (N= 40)
Average Jlot area / harvest season (ha) 0.206 0.161
Seed
Variety Green 11 20 26
Green 22 1 2
Rontan l 0
Sunbarat 0 5
Mustika 0 2
Sumit 0 3
Probit 0 3
Average number of seedlings planted/0.1 ha 2488.4 2082.2
Average seedling cost (Rp/plant) 18.0 17.7
Fertilizer
Organic 100 % 95 %
Inorganic 77.3 % 100 %
Both 77.3 % 95 %
Average fertilizer cost (Rp/OJ ha) 233,773 163,103
Pesticide
Organic 22.7 % 0 %
Inorganic 81.8 % 100 %
Both 4.5 % 0 %
Average pesticide cost (Rp/0.1 ha) 132,204 112,959
Labor (average cost: Rp/0.l ha)
Male labor 603,980 57,331
Female labor 156,705 30,41 1
Total labor 760,686 87,742
Marketing
Average marketing expenses (Rp/0.l ha) 123,166 34,522
Immediate sale destination Village collector 72.7% 82.5%
Local market 9.1 %' 17.5 %
Jakarta market 9.1 % 0 %
BNBAF project 4.5 % 0 %
Consumer direct 4.5 % 0 %
Require grading? Yes 40.9 % 20.0 %
No 59.] % 80.0 %
Marketing method Individually 31.8 % 55.0 %
Borongan 68.2 % 45.0 %
Loan
Availability of loans Yes 22.7 % 50.0 %
Average price (Rp/kg) 1,209.1 859.3
Average production (kg/0.1 ha) 1,916.4 1,987.2
Average gross income (Rp/0.1 ha) 1,799,714 1,402,405
Average net revenue (Rp/OJ ha) 922,093 940,540

 

 

 

 

Note: Exchange rate of US dollar to Indonesian rupiah in December, 2009 was: $l= Rp. 9,450.

75

Three seed varieties: Green 11, Green 22 and Rontan, were commonly planted, with
Green 11 most common. Average number of seed planted/0.1 hectare was 2,488, with
swdling cost of 18 Rp/plant. All farmers used organic and 77 percent of them used
inorganic fertilizers. In pesticide application, about 23 percent of farmers used organic
and 81 percent of them used inorganic pesticides. Both organic and inorganic pesticides
were used by 4.5 percent of farmers. On an average, male labor costs was about four
times higher than female labor. From the data, the range of male wages per day was from
12,750 Rp to 20,000 Rp, and female wage was from 6,000 Rp to 10,000 Rp. Traditionally,
typical small farmers in West Java worked on other farmers’ farms for half a day (7 am.
to 12 pm.) as a laborer, then they returned to their own farms for the rest of a day (2 pm.

to 6 pm.) Thus, daily wages meant five hours of labor. A majority of farmers sold

cabbage to village collectors (73 percent), and by Boronganl (68 percent). Also, 40
percent of the cabbage had to grade to sell. In terms of production loans, 20 percent of
farmers indicated they obtained a loan. Average price and production per 0.1 hectare
were 1,209 Rp/kg and 1,916 kg respectively. The ratio of total production costs to gross
income was 49 percent was for cabbage production (calculated using average gross

income per 0.1 hectare and average net revenue per 0.1 hectare).

In Bali, more than 38 percent of the respondents grew cabbage at least once a year
fiom September 2006 to August 2007. The average plot area for each harvest season was
0.161 hectare. An average harvest season for cabbage was about 3 months. Six seed
varieties (Green 11, Green 22, Sunbarat, Mustika, Sumit and Probit) were planted, with

most of the farmers choosing Green 11. Average number of seeds planted/0.1 hectare was

 

1 An Indonesian marketing method that farmers sell all of a product to a broker before harvest for a certain
price and the broker owes for harvest work and costs.

76

2,082 with seedling costs about 18 Rp / plant. In fertilizer application, 95 percent used
organic and all used inorganic fertilizers. In pesticide application, none used organic and
all used inorganic pesticides. Use of male labor cost about twice that of female labor, and
the average total labor costs in Bali (Rp 87,742) being much lower than West Java (Rp
760,686). From the data, the range of daily male wages was from 20,000 Rp to 30, 000
Rp, and daily female wages was fiom 15,000 Rp to 30,000 Rp. When farmers in Bali
worked on other farmers’ farms as a laborer, it was for an entire day (7 am. to 5 pm.)
Thus daily wages means a wage for eight hours. A majority of farmers marketed their
cabbage to village collectors (82 percent) or by individual (55 percent). Also, 20 percent
of the cabbage crop had to grade to sell. Half of the farmers obtained loans. Average
price and average production per 0.1 hectare in the periods were 859 Rp/kg and 1,987 kg
respectively. The ratio of total production cost to the gross income of a cabbage
production was 33 percent, calculated using average gross income per 0.] hectare and

average net revenue per 0.1 hectare.
Twat—0
Respondents were asked about tomato production on their farm.
Table 12 shows summary of tomato production in West Java and Bali.

In West Java, about 32 percent of the respondents grew tomato at least once from
July 2006 to June 2007. Average plot area/harvest season was 0.194 hectare. Tomatoes
were harvested for about three to five months, depending on the variety in Indonesia.
Five seed varieties (Marthe, TW, Tomato Sayur, Antaralocal, and Permata) were planted,

with most of the farmers planting Marthe. Average number of seedlings planted/0.1

77

hectare was 1,681, with seed costs about 44 Rp /p1ant. All farmers used organic fertilizers,

and 85 percent of them used inorganic pesticides.

78

Table 12. Summary of Tomato Production in West Java and Bali

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Java (N= 34) Bali (N= 25)
Average plot area / harvest season (ha) 0.194 0.152
Seed
Variety Marthe 18 15
TW 4 0
Tomato Sayur 4 0
Antaralocal 7 5
Permata 2 3
Spirit 0 2
Average number of seedlings planted/0.1 ha 1,681.1 1,665.8
Average seedling cost (Rp/plant) 43.8 31.1
Fertilizer
Organic 100 % 100 %
Inorganic 79.4 % 96.0 %
Both 79.4 % 96.0 %
Average fertilizer cost (Rp/0.1 ha) 302,291 195,632
Pesticide
Organic 14.7 % 4.0 %
Inorganic 85.3 % 100 %
Both 8.8 % 4.0 %
AverageJesticide cost (Rp/0.1 ha) 190,444 340,151
Labor (average cost: Rp/0.l ha)
Male labor 657,990 190,657
Female labor 294,191 45,658
Total labor 952,182 236,315
Material cost (Average cost: Rp/0.1 ha) 158,488 300,070
Marketing
Average marketing expenses (Rp/0.1 ha) 81,939 36,632
Immediate sale destination Village collector 76.5 % 92.0 %
Local market 17.6 % 8.0 %
BNBAF project 2.9 % 0 %
Consumer directly 2.9 % 0 %
Require grading? Yes 55.9 % 80.0 %
No 44.1 % 20.0 %
Marketing method Individually 41.2 % 100.0 %
Borongan 58.8 % O %
Loan
Availability of loans Yes 29.4 % 48.0 %
Average price (Rp/kg) 1,778.0 1,195.8
Average production (kg/0.1 ha) 1,644.7 1,651.4
Average gross income (Rp/0.1 ha) 2,400,438 1,922,275
Average net revenue (Rp/0.1 ha) 889,433 375,057

 

 

Note: Exchange rate of US dollar to Indonesian rupiah in December, 2009 was: $1 = Rp. 9,450.

79

 

Both organic and inorganic pesticides accounted for 8.8 percent of use. On the average,

male labor costs were about three times higher than female labor costs. From the data, the
range of male wages per day was from 12,000 Rp to 25, 000 Rp, and female wages were
from 6,000 Rp to 10,000 Rp. Typically, small farmers in West Java worked on other
farmers’ farms for half a day (7 am. to 12 pm.) as a laborer, then work on their own
farms for the rest of a day (2 pm. to 6 p.m.). Thus, daily wages account for five hours of
labor. A majority of farmers sold tomatoes to village collectors (77 percent), and by
Borongan (59 percent). Also, 56 percent of tomatoes had to grade to sell. About 30
percent of farmers indicated they had obtained a loan. Average price and production per
0.1 hectare during this period were 1,778 Rp/kg and 1,645 kg respectively. The ratio of
total production cost to the gross income of / tomato production was 63 percent,
calculated using average gross income per 0.1 hectare and average net revenue per 0.1

hectare.

In Bali, more than 24 percent of respondents grew tomato at least once from
September 2006 to August 2007. Average plot area/harvest season was 0.152 hectare.
Cabbage harvest took place or about three to five months in Indonesia. Four seed
varieties (Marthe, Antaralocal, Permata and Spirit) were planted, with farmers choosing
Marthe most often. Average number of seed planted/0.1 hectare was 1,666 with seed
costs about 31 Rp/plant. All farmers used organic fertilizers, and 96 percent used
inorganic fertilizers. Four percent of farmers used organic pesticides and all of them used
inorganic pesticides. On the average, male labor costs were about four times higher than
female labor costs and the average total labor costs in Bali (Rp 236,315) was much lower

than West Java (Rp 952,182). From the data, male daily wages ranged from 20,000 Rp to

80

 

25,000 Rp, and female wages ranged from 17,000 Rp to 20,000 Rp. When farmers in
Bali worked on other farms as a laborer, it was for an entire day (7 am. to 5 p.m.). Thus a
daily wage equaled eight hours of labor. A majority of farmers sold tomatoes to village
collectors (92 percent), by individual (100 percent). Also, 80 percent of tomatoes had to
grade to sell. About a half the farmers indicated obtaining a loan. Average price and
average production per 0.1 hectare in the periods were 1,196 Rp/kg and 1,651 kg,
respectively. The ratio of total production cost to the gross income for tomato production
was 80 percent, using average gross income per 0.1 hectare and average net revenue per

0.1 hectare.

Carrot

Carrot is a popular vegetable in Indonesia. It is widely grown.

Table 13 shows summary of carrot production in West Java and Bali.

In West Java, more than 46 percent of the respondents grew carrot at least once
from July 2006 to June 2007. Average plot area/harvest season was 0.179 hectare.
Carrots were harvested for about three months. Two seed varieties (Local and
Cianj ur/Bandung) were planted, with most farmers choosing Local. Seventy-eight
percent of farmers used organic fertilizers and 86 percent of them used inorganic
fertilizers. Sixty-six percent of the farmers used both organic and inorganic fertilizers. 1n
pesticide application, none used organic and 16 percent of them used inorganic pesticides.
More than half of the total average labor costs (Rp 442,919) was for male labor (Rp 258,
516). From the data, the range of male wages per day was from 12,000 Rp to 25, 000 Rp,

and female wages was from 5,000 Rp to 10,000 Rp. Typically, small farmers in West

81

Java worked on other farms for half a day (7 am. to 12 pm.) as a laborer, then spent the
rest of the day working on their own farms (2 pm. to 6 p.m.). Thus, a daily wage meant

laboring for five hours.

82

 

Table 13. Summary of Carrot Production in West Java and Bali

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Java (N= 50) Bali (N = 38)
Average plot area/harvest season (ha) 0.179 0.164
Seed
Variety Local 46 38
Cianjur/Bandung 4 0
Average seedling cost (Rp/0.1 ha) 26,322 48,248
Fertilizer
Organic 78.0 % 34.2 %
Inorganic 86.1 % 13.2 %
Both 66.0 % 2.6 %
Average fertilizer cost (Rp/0.1 ha) 157,808 10,225
Pesticide
Organic 0 % 0 %
Inorganic 16.0 % 5.3 %
Both 0 % 0 %
Average pesticide cost (Rp/0.1 ha) 5,982 61]
Labor (average cost: Rp/0.1 ha)
Male labor 258,516 5,756
Female labor 1 84,402 14,148
Total labor 442,919 1 9,904
Marketing
Average marketing expenses (Rp/0.1 ha) 12,903 2,773
[mediate sale destination Village collectors 92.0 % 94.7 %
Local market 4.0 % 5.3 %
BNBAF project 2.0 % 0 %
Consumer 2.0 % O %
directly
Require grading? Yes 6.0 % 50.0 %
No 94.0 % 50.0 %
Marketing method Individually 14.0 % 50.0 %
Borongan 86.0 % 47.4 %
Contract 0 % 2.6%
Loan
Availability for loans Yes 12.0 % 23.7 %
Average price (Rp/kg) 879.0 1,211.4
Average production (kg/0.1 ha) 1,098.4 1,010.8
Average gross income (Rp/0.1 ha) 845,695 1,119,647
Average net revenue (Rp/0.1 ha) 446,997 985,932

 

 

 

 

Note: Exchange rate of US dollar to Indonesian rupiah in December, 2009 was: S l = Rp. 9,450.

A majority of farmers sold carrots to village collectors (92 percent) by Borongan (86

percent). Also, only 6 percent of carrots had to grade to sell. In terms of production loan,

83

12 percent indicated obtaining a loan. Average price and production per 0.1 hectare were
879 Rp/kg and 1,098 kg, respectively, for each period. The ratio of total production costs
to gross income for carrot production was 47 percent, calculated using average gross

income per 0.1 hectare and average net revenue per 0.1 hectare.

In Bali, about 37 percent of the respondents grew carrots at least once within a
year from September 2006 to August 2007. Average plot area/harvest season was 0.164
hectare. Carrots were harvested for about three month in Indonesia. Local was seed
variety planted. In Thirty-four percent of farmers used organic fertilizers and 13 percent
of them used inorganic fertilizers. About 3 percent used both organic and inorganic
fertilizers. In pesticide applications, none used organic, and 5 percent used inorganic
pesticides. More than half of the total average labor cost (Rp 19,904) was female labor
cost (Rp 14,148) and Bali had lower average labor costs than West Java (Rp 442,919).
From the data, the range of male daily wages was from 25,000 Rp to 27, 000 Rp, and
female wage was 20,000 Rp. When farmers in Bali worked on other farms as a laborer,
typically they did for a day (7 am. to 5 p.m.). Thus a daily wage meant laboring for eight
hours. A majority of farmers sold carrots to village collectors (95 percent). There were
three marketing methods: individual, Borongan and contract; percentages of each method
were 50 percent, 47.4 percent, and 2.6 percent respectively. Half of the carrots had to
grade to sell. In terms of production loans, about 24 percent of farmers indicated
obtaining a loan. Average price and production per 0.1 hectare during the periods were
1,211 Rp/kg and 1,011 kg, respectively. The ratio of total production cost to the gross
income of carrot production was 12 percent, calculated using average gross income per

0.1 hectare and average net revenue per 0.1 hectare.

84

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Vegetable Farmers

The second research objective of this study was to determine demographic-socio-
economic characteristics of the respondents in the study sites.

The demographic and socio-economic characteristics of respondents in the two
study sites are presented in Table 14.

Table. 14 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics

 

 

 

 

West Java (N=107) Bali (N=103)
Variables Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Age (years) 44.3 (13.8) 38.1 (8.9)
Household size 4.8 (1.8) 3.6 (1.0)
(P801316)
Number of 1.8 (0.7) 2.2 (0.6)
family laborers
(people)
Farming 14.3 (10.8) 21.1 (9.2)
experience
(yearS)
Distance to the 0.9 (0.7) 1.6 (1.0)
pilot farm (km)

 

 

t
Number of respondents answering the question on farm size was 99.

The average ages of respondents in West Java and Bali were 44.3 years old and
39.1 years old, respectively. Average household sizes in West Java and Bali were 4.8
people and 3.6 people, respectively. Average number of family members who contributed
to farm labor in West Java and Bali were 1.8 people and 2.2 people, respectively.
Average years of farming experience for respondents in West Java and Bali were 14.3
years and 21.1 years, respectively. Average farm size in West Java and Bali was 0.59
hectare and 0.65 hectare, respectively. Average distance from respondents’ house to the

BNBAF project pilot farms was 0.9 km and 1.6 km, respectively.

85

All respondents in West Java were male. Most respondents in Bali (89.3 percent) were
also male. One of the main reasons for the predominance of male respondents was that
the study sites were in rural Indonesia, where the societies are male-centered,
conservative, and have heavy religious influences from both Islam and Hindu faiths.
When the researcher developed a list of respondents, all were male heads of households
in West Java, and male heads of households also predominated in Bali. The researcher
explored who was really involved in vegetable farming in a respondent’s household
during a short conversation before the actual interviews, and this was what the actual
collected data showed.

Table 15 shows that the most frequent educational level of respondents in West
Java (44.8 percent) was some primary school, and the most frequent educational level in
Bali (44.7 percent) was completed primary school. This means that respondents in Bali

had a slightly higher education level than in West Java.

Table 15. Educational Level

 

 

 

 

West Java Bali
(N=107) (N=103)
Variables Number % Number %
Educational No school 18 16.8 5 4.9
level Some primary school 48 44.8 14 13.6
Completed primary school 37 34.6 46 44.7
Completed junior high school 2 1.9 25 24.2
Completed high school 2 1.9 13 12.6

 

 

86

Table 16. Respondents’ Land Tenure Status in West Java and Bali

 

West Java Bali
Number % Number %

 

 

 

Own 6 6.1 85 82.5
Rent 28 28.6 6 5.8
Use of public land at no cost 26 26.5 1 1.0
Use of private land at no cost 35 35.7 10 9.7
Mixed tenure 3 3.1 l 1.0
Total 98 100 103 100

 

 

Table 16 shows respondents’ land tenure status].

In West Java, 6 percent of respondents owned their land, 28.6 percent rented farm
land, 26 percent used public land for farming at no cost without authority, 35 percent
used private land for farming at no cost without permission; and 3 percent of respondents
had mixed land tenure. Use of public or private land at no cost was not stable. If the
government decides to make a road on these lands, those farmers who use the public land
at no cost have to leave the land immediately, even if the farmers have cultivated the land
for a long time. In Bali, most respondents owned their own land (82.5 percent) and about
10 percent of respondents used either public land or private land at no cost without

permission.

Table 17 showed respondents’ irrigation resourcesz. In West Java, the majority of

respondents had irrigation (73.5 percent), but 26.5 percent of respondents did not. In Bali,

almost all respondents had irrigation (99 percent).

 

I In total, 37.8 % of respondents had unsecure land tenure status, including mixed tenure, and 62.2 % had
secure land tenure status. Based on the result, this data were categorized into two groups: secure land tenure
status and unsecure land tenure status. A dummy “land tenure status” variable was created to use for the
binary logit analysis.

87

Table 17. Respondents’ Irrigation Resources in West Java and Bali

 

 

 

 

 

West Java Bali
Number % Number %
Stream/Spring 65 66.3 5 4.9
Reservoir 2 2.0 94 91 .3
Home 2 2.0 1 1 .0
Rainfall (No irrigation) 26 26.5 1 1.0
Mixed irrigation 3 p 3.1 2 1 .9
Total 98 100 103 l 00

 

 

The nature and extent of respondents’ exposure to the BNBAF project pilot farms

in the two study sites are presented in Table 18.

Table 18. Respondents’ Exposure to the BNBAF Project Pilot Farms in West Java and

Bali

 

 

 

West Java (N= 107) Bali (N= 103)
Yes No Yes No
% % % %

Have you ever heard about 31.8 68.2 9.7 90.3
the BNBAF project pilot
farm?
Have you ever seen the 30.8 69.2 5.8 94.2
pilot farm?
Have you ever talked with 28.0 72.0 7.8 92.2
project people to learn
about organic farming?
Have you ever visited the 27.1 72.9 5.8 94.2
pilot farm?
Have you ever worked at 1.9 98.1 0 100
the pilot farm?

 

 

In West Java, 31.8 percent of respondents had heard about the BNBAF project

pilot farm; however, only 9.7 percent of respondents in Bali had heard about the pilot

 

In total 13.4 % of respondents Clld not have irrigation and 86.6 % of respondents had Irrigation. Based on
the result, this data were categorized into two groups: have irrigation and no irrigation. This categorized
data were named inigation dummy variable and were used for binary logit analysis.

88

farm. In West Java, 30.8 percent of respondents had seen the BNBAF project pilot farm;
however, only 5.8 percent of respondents in Bali had seen the pilot farm. In West Java,
28 percent of respondents had talked with project people to learn about organic farming;
however, only 7.8 percent of respondents in Bali had talked with project people. In West
Java, 27.1 percent of respondents had visited the BNBAF project pilot farm; however,
only 5.8 percent of respondents in Bali had visited the pilot farm. In West Java, 1.9
percent of respondents had worked at the BNBAF project pilot farm, and 0 percent of
respondents in Bali had worked at the pilot farm. This indicated that about a third of
respondents in West Java were aware of the pilot farm, but less than 10 percent of

respondents in Bali were aware of the pilot farm.
General Information Source on Vegetable Production

The respondents’ information sources in the two study sites are presented in Table

19.

 

1 Information sources were categorized into four groups for use in the binary logit analysis.

89

Table 19. Information Source for Vegetable Production in West Java and Bali

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information Information sources West Java Bali
source group (N= 107) (N = 103)
Number 0/0‘ Number 0/0‘
Farmer group Farmers’ group 40 37.4 31 30.1
Organic farmers 13 12.1 3 2.9
Other farmers 84 78.5 91 88.3
Family members 6 5.6 2 1.9
Conunercial Commercial companies 23 21 .5 77 74.8
group (Agricultural retail
stores)
Market people 1 1 10.3 12 11.7
Extension group Extension agents 33 30.8 45 43.7
NGOs 2 1.9 2 1.9
Universities 10 9.3 2 1 .9
Media group TVs 21 19.6 12 11
Radios 12 11.2 7 6.8
Magazines and journals 12 1 1.2 17 16.5
Internet 1 0.9 0 0

 

 

#
Total percentage did not become 100% because of multiole choice questions.

In West Java, the top five most frequently used information sources were: other
farmers (78.5 percent), farmers’ groups (37.4 percent), extension agents (30.8 percent),
commercial companies/agricultural retail stores (21.5 percent), and TVs (19.6 percent),
respectively. In Bali, the top five most frequently used information sources were: other
farmers (88.3 percent), commercial companies/agricultural retail stores (74.8 percent),
extension agents (43.7 percent), farmers’ groups (3 0.1 percent), and magazines/joumals
(16.5 percent), respectively. Even though the rank of these information sources was
different, four information sources were common in both West Java and Bali. This

implies that other farmers, farmers’ groups, extension agents and commercial

90

companies/agricultural retail stores were significantly important information sources for

vegetable farmers in West Java and Bali.

91

Awareness of Organic Vegetable Production Practices

The third research objective of this study was to ascertain farrners’ awareness of
target organic vegetable production practices. Table 20 provides the percentage for each
item used to measure awareness of bio-pesticides and compost. The data were summated
and categorized as “familiarity with bio-pesticides” and “familiarity with compost.” The
two categorical items were used for the binary logit analysis and path analysis (see binary
logit analysis and path analysis parts in chapter 3). Respondents were asked their degree
of familiarity with form statements on bio-pesticides and compost. Farmers’ degree of
familiarity with bio-pesticides and compost for each statement was measured on a 5-point
Likert-type scale with 1= Very Familiar, 2= Familiar, 3= Somewhat Familiar, 4= Not
Familiar, and 5= Not at all Familiar. Data were summarized in three groups, including
familiar, somewhat familiar, and not familiar in Table 20. For this grouping, the 5-point
Likert-type scale consisting of 1 and 2 were grouped into “Familiar,” while the scales of
3 and 4 were grouped into “Not familiar.”

Farmers’ Awareness of Bio-pesticides

The item related to bio-pesticides includes four statements in the upper part of
Table 20. In West Java, a majority of respondents knew the word “bio-pesticide” and
how to use bio-pesticides. Sixty point seven (60.7) percent of respondents answered
“familiar” to the statement “How familiar are you with the word bio-pesticide?” on a 5-
point Likert-type scale, while 63.5 percent responded with “familiar” to the statement
“How familiar are you with how bio-pesticides are used?” In addition, more than halfof
respondents knew the materials for making bio-pesticides and how to make bio-pesticides.

Fifty five point one (55.1) percent of respondents answered “familiar” to the statement

92

“How familiar are you with the raw materials used to make bio-pesticides?” and 52.3
percent responded “familiar” to the statement “How familiar are you with how bio-

pesticides are made?”

93

 

mEmev—ocbmomfig main
5:: so» 2e 85:5 >53.

 

 

 

 

0.2 5: ”an Q: 06 _.mw
Enmaxonbmoafioo wEer
3m 5. : 2m ”.2 3 n; 5? so» as ease 3oz.
EnmmxonbmomEoU @512:
“8 com: 235:2: 38
SM 2 N. s 3; 2 on» 5E .8» as seen 3oz.
:mEmmxopbmomfioQ: 903 2:
New 3 98 a: 3 New 5;» so» as 35:5 8:.
.8955
seems 2a 82038905 Bo;
m.mm Z: 0.? m.mm ed mac 5:3 so» 8e. 358mm 30E.
$38 new 82038905 25:
new 3. a. : we. 3 3m £3 8» as Ezaa 3oz.
mmoEoumoeéB weEeE
com com: 23.522: 38
Zn 2: ed _. 3 2 2m 5s, 3% ea ease 25:.
successes. who; a:
in SN «.8 on E :5 as» so» as Ezee 3oz.
02938955

o\o .x. o\o o\o Axe o\o
358$ 858$ 80:
3:58.; 82 cacaofiom 528$ 528mm 82 finBoEom 358mm
S: Ma sum E: uzv as: a;

 

 

 

:em new «>2. “we? E $0385 :2838; ozfiowo> oEewaO sowed. 2: mo mmocosae. .mbfiam .om 038.

94

In Bali, more than half of respondents did not know the word “bio-pesticides” or
how to use them. Fifty three point four (53.4) percent answered “Not familiar” to the
statement “How familiar are you with the word ’bio-pesticide’?” Fifty five point three
(55.3) percent answered “Not familiar” to the statement “How familiar are you with how
to use bio-pesticides?” Moreover, about 80 percent of respondents did not know the
materials used for making bio-pesticides or how to make bio-pesticides. Seventy six point
seven (76.7) percent of respondents answered “Not familiar” to the statement “How
familiar are you with the raw materials used to make bio-pesticides?” and 83.5 percent
responded “Not familiar” to the statement “How familiar are you with how to make bio-
pesticides?”

Farmers’ Awareness of Compost

The item related to compost includes four statements in the lower part of Table 20.
In West Java, more than 80 percent of respondents knew the word “compost,” the
materials used for making compost, how to make compost, and the way to use compost.
A majority (83.2 percent) responded “Familiar” to the statement “How familiar are you
with the word ’compost/bokashi’?” and 85 percent responded “Familiar” to the statement
“How familiar are you with raw materials used for making compost/bokashi?” Eighty one
point 3 (81.3) percent answered “Familiar” to the statement “How familiar are you with
how to make compost/bokashi?” and 85.1 percent answered “Familiar” to the statement
“How familiar are you with how to use compost/bokashi?”

In Bali, a majority of respondents knew the word “compost,” the materials used
for making compost, and the ways to use compost. Sixty six (66) percent of respondents

answered “Familiar” to the statement “How familiar are you with the word

95

“compost/bokashi?” More than half (61.2 percent) responded “Familiar” to the statement
“How familiar are you with the raw materials used for making compost/bokashi?”
Seventy two point eight (72.8) percent responded “Familiar” to the statement “How
familiar are you with how to use compost/bokashi?” Also, more than half of respondents
knew the materials for making compost, a351.5 percent of respondents answered
“Familiar” to the statement “How familiar are you with how compost/bokashi is made?”

In short, it could be said that respondents in West Java knew about bio-pesticides
and compost; respondents in Bali did not know about bio-pesticides, but knew about

compost.

96

Attitudes toward Organic Vegetable Production Practices

The forth research objective of this study was to ascertain farmers’ attitudes
toward target organic vegetable production practices. Table 21 provides the percentage
for each item used to measure attitude toward bio-pesticide and compost. The data were
summated and categorized as “relative advantage,” “compatibility,” “complexity,”
“trialability,” and “Observability.” Respondents were asked to indicate their level of
agreement with 12 attitudinal statements on target organic practices. Farmers’ level of
agreement with each statement was measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale with 1=
Strongly Agree, 2= Agree, 3= Neutral, 4= Disagree, and 5= Strongly Disagree. The five
categorical items were used for path analysis (see path analysis parts in chapter 3). In
addition, data were summarized by three groups including agree, neutral, and disagree in
Table 21. For this grouping, the 5-point Likert-type scales grouped 1 and 2 into the
“Agree” category, while 3 and 4 were grouped into “Disagree.”

Relative Advantage

Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
better than the idea it supersedes. The degree of relative advantage is often expressed as
economic profitability (Rogers, 1995). The items related to relative advantage include
two statements in the Table 21.

In West Java, a majority of respondents thought that target organic practices
reduced production costs. More than three-quarters (75.7 percent) of the respondents
answered “Agree” to the statement “Using plant extracts to control insect pests can

reduce production costs” on the 5-point Likert-type scale. A majority (78.5 percent) of

97

respondents answered “Agree” to the statement “Using only organic fertilizer to grow
vegetables can reduce production costs.”

In Bali, more than 80 percent of respondents thought that target organic practices
reduce production costs. A majority (80.6 percent) of respondents answered “Agree” to
the statement “Using plant extracts to control insect pests can reduce production costs.”
Most respondents (84.5 percent) answered “Agree” to the statement “Using only organic
fertilizer to grow vegetables can reduce production costs.”

Compatibility

Compatibility is the degree to which a new idea is perceived as consistent with the
existing value, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters (Rogers, 1995). Farmers’
level of agreement with each statement was measured with the 5-point Likert-type scale
where l= Strongly Agree, 2= Agree, 3: Neutral, 4= Disagree, and 5= Strongly Disagree.

The items related to compatibility are four statements in the Table 21.

In West Java, a majority of respondents thought that use of target organic
practices are a good fit with their culture and experience. More than half (65.4 percent)
answered “Agree” to the statement “Using plant extracts to control insect pests is a good
fit with my culture.” Sixty one point seven (61.7) percent answered “Agree” to the
statement “Using plant extracts to control insect pests is a good fit with my experience.”
More than three quarters of respondents (77.6 percent) answered “Agree” to the
statement “Using only organic fertilizer to grow vegetables is a good fit with my culture.”
A majority (79.4 percent) answered “Agree” to the statement “Using only organic

fertilizer to grow vegetables is a good fit with my experience” (Table 21).

98

In Bali, a majority of respondents thought that the use of bio-pesticides is good fit
with their culture; whereas less than half of respondents thought that the use of bio-
pesticides is good fit their experience. More than half (69 percent) answered “Agree” to

the statement “Using plant extracts to control insect pests is a good fit with my culture.”

99

 

85:50.5 0Eew85 m:_8 ESE 835%? 0:: 585.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M: M: mew N._ _ o wdw 03890 3:0 Main 530% 8380»? 803505 005050.506 a €80 000 :8 0300; .

.58a 5085 65:00 9 02050005 0_:nw:o:_ 98 550% 83.8w?

0&— o.m_ 5.3. <9 0.. 0.3 “Eu $0058 5:2: 96: :BBw 838%? 803505 00:08.:6 e. 000. 980 :8 0300?

3:35:030

o...V ms v.5 0.x 0.0 Doe .8388? 38m 8 20¢ b: .8 Ba :25. a E 00585 05 :8 85:50.5 0:890.

v.2 50 0.2. of o; 2% .585 5085 85:00 S 20: b: .50 8: :25 a E 00585 05 :8 $858 552:.

.Ezasnth

0.3 2: mi. 00 ed 53 '1 s80 5 8.88m? 39w 8 85:50.5 0:890 .25 833.

fem o. _ m me vdm 5.2 3% x80 5 0585 65:00 9 900508 :53 86:.

£83500

0.3 0.2 o. _ b 0.2 Tv v.3 0050:0503 5: :53 E 000» e m_ 8.580»? 39% 9 53:58.5 28%. >75 wEmD.

5w we Yew w.o_ 06 0.2. 05530 b: 5:3 E 50% e. E 8380M? 39w 2 85:50.5 0:890 3:0 9.75.

New new Wow 03 0.3 n. 5 008538 b: :53 E team a m_ 38: 508E 65:00 8 38506 5:03 wEmD .

Yon Eo— ode TR ms v.3 05:30 zE 553 E 500» a m_ 98: 50005 35:00 8 900508 5:03 wEmD.

5:58:25

0&— od 3% max hm 2:. .580 550302: 00:00. :8 8550»? 32m 8 58:58.5 Scams bco $83.

5.3 06 0.0» S: 9m Numb .580 550202: 00:50. :8 $85 5085 65:00 9 30:58 5:2.“— 955.

. 09553—3. 0.520%

.x. .x. .x. ..\o 3 ex. 50:
ago .5502 005m< 00%85 35:02 005w<

 

E: "20 :8

E: u 20 «>2 83

 

 

 

sum 08 «>3 58>? E 805005 50505253 0380w0> Paelwao 50?”; 5.839 8535?. .Eogm gm 033.

100

Almost half (49.5 percent) of respondents answered “Agree” to the statement “Using
plant extracts to control insect pests is a good fit with my experience.” In addition, a
majority of the respondents thought that the use of compost is good fit with their culture
and experience. A majority (84.4 percent) of respondents answered “Agree” to the
statement “Using only organic fertilizer to grow vegetables is a good fit with my culture.”
Almost three quarters (71.9 percent) of respondents answered “Agree” to the statement
“Using only organic fertilizer to grow vegetables is a good fit with my experience”
(Table 21 ).

Complexity

Complexity is the degree to which a new idea is perceived as relatively difficult to
understand and use (Rogers, 1995). Farmers’ level of agreement about complexity was
measured with ratings on two statements: 1) using plant extracts to avoid pests is easy; 2)

using only organic fertilizer to grow vegetables is easy.

Findings in Table 21 show that a majority of respondents thought that use of
target organic practices was not difficult in West Java. More than half (64.4 percent) of
respondents answered “Agree” to the statement “Using plant extracts to control pests is
easy.” Almost nine out of ten (89.7 percent) respondents answered “Agree” to the

statement “Using only organic fertilizer to grow vegetables is easy.”

In Bali, a majority of respondents thought that the use of bio-pesticides is not easy.
Only about 40 percent of the respondents (38.9 percent) answered “Agree” to the
statement “Using plant extracts to control pests is easy.” However, regarding compost,

majority of respondents thought that the use of compost is easy. Almost three out of four

101

(74.8 percent) of respondents answered “Agree” to the statement “Using only organic

fertilizer to grow vegetables is easy” (Table 21).

Trialability

Trialability is the degree to which a new idea may be experimented with on a
limited basis. Innovations that can be tried on the installment plan are generally adopted
more rapidly than ones that are not divisible (Rogers, 1995). Two statements dealt with

the trialability of organic vegetable production practices in table 21.

In West Java, more than 80 percent of respondents thought that they could try the
target organic practices using a small plot. A majority (83.2. percent) of respondents
answered “Agree” to the statement “Plant extracts can be tested in a small part of my
field.” Most (90.7 percent) respondents answered “Agree” to the statement “Organic

fertilizer can be tested in a small part of my field to grow vegetables.”

In Bali, a majority of respondents thought that they could try target organic
practices using a small plot. More than three out of four (77.6 percent) of respondents
answered “Agree” to the statement “Plant extracts can be tested in a small part of my
field to control insect pests.” Similarly, more than four out of five (87.4 percent) of
respondents answered “Agree” to the statement “Organic fertilizers can be tested in a

small part of my field to grow vegetables” (Table 21).

102

Observability

Observability is the degree to which the results of a new idea are visible to others
(Rogers, 1995). Farmers’ level of agreement about Observability was measured using two

statements.

Observability is the degree to which the results of a new idea are visible to others
(Rogers, 1995). Farmers’ level of agreement about Observability was measured using two

statements.

Findings in Table 21 show that more than 80 percent of respondents thought that
they could distinguish between conventional vegetables and organic vegetables in West
Java by looking at the vegetables. Most (85.9 percent) respondents answered “Agree” to
the statement “People can easily see a difference between vegetables grown using plant
extracts and vegetables grown using inorganic insecticides to control insect pests.” The
majority (88.8 percent) of respondents answered “Agree” to the statement “People can
easily see a difference between vegetables grown using only organic fertilizer and

vegetables grown using inorganic fertilizer.”

In Bali, a majority of respondents thought that they could distinguish between
conventional vegetables and organic vegetables. Almost three quarters (74.7 percent) of
respondents answered “Agree” to the statement “People can easily see a difference
between vegetables grown using plant extracts and vegetables grown using inorganic
insecticides to control insect pests.” Most (84.5 percent) respondents answered “Agree”
to the statement “People can easily see a difference between vegetables grown using only

organic fertilizer and vegetables grown using inorganic fertilizer” (Table 21).

103

In summary, respondents in West Java had positive attitudes toward use of bio-
pesticides and compost. Respondents in Bali had positive attitudes toward use of compost,
but they had somewhat negative attitudes toward the use of bio-pesticides in terms of

compatibility and complexity.

104

Adoption of Organic Vegetable Production Practices

The fifth research objective of this study was to find out if farmers in the area
have adopted organic vegetable production practices or intend to adopt these practices in
the near future. The data of intention to adopt the target organic practices were
summated and categorized as “intention to adopt bio-pesticides” and “intention to adopt
compost.” The results on intention to adoption are discussed after adoption rates of the
target organic practices. Adopting one practice is only one step in going organic.
Adoption Rate of the Target Organic Practices

Findings on the adoption rate of bio-pesticides and compost in West Java and Bali
are presented in table 22. In West Java, adoption rates of bio-pesticides in cabbage,
tomato, and carrot productions were 9.3 percent, 9.3 percent, and 13.1 percent,
respectively. Also, adoption rates of compost use in cabbage, tomato, and carrot
production were 5.6 percent, 7.5 percent, 11.2 percent, respectively.

In Bali, adoption rates of bio-pesticides in cabbage, tomato, and carrot
productions were all 2.9 percent. Moreover, adoption rates of compost use in cabbage,

tomato, and carrot productions were 1.9 percent, 2.9 percent, and 9.7 percent,

respectively.

l05

Table 22. Farmers who have Adopted/not Adopted Organic Vegetable Production
Practices in West Java and Bali

 

 

 

 

West Java (N= 107) Bali (N= 103)
Vegetables Adopted Not adopted Adopted Not
% % % adopted
%
Application Cabbage 9.3 90.7 2.9 97. 1
of bio- Tomato 9.3 90.7 2.9 97.1
pesticides Carrot 13.1 86.9 2.9 97.1
(plant
extracts)
Cabbage 5 .6 94.4 1.9 98.1
Use of Tomato 7.5 92.5 2.9 9.1
compost Carrot 11.2 88.8 9.7 90.3

 

 

Reasons why Respondents did not Adopt Target Organic Vegetable Production
Practices
Application of Bio-Pesticides

Table 23 shows the reasons why respondents did not adopt bio-pesticides in West

Java and Bali.

106

Table 23. The Reasons why Vegetable Farmers did not Adopt Bio-pesticides in West

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Java and Bali
Reasons West Java Bali
(N =69) (N=99)

Frequency Frequency

I cannot make bio-pesticides 11 16

I don’t know how to make bio-pesticides O 30

It is difficult to make bio-pesticides 1 0

It takes long time to make bio-pesticides 3 O

I don’t know the raw materials needed to make bio- I O

pesticides

It is difficult to find raw materials to make bio- 17 2

pesticides

I don’t have enough time to find raw materials to 2 0

make bio-pesticides

I don’t know about bio-pesticides 0 l

I haven’t used bio-pesticides 3 6

I cannot trust bio-pesticides 1 1

I cannot buy bio-pesticides in an agricultural store in 0 l

the village

Using pesticide is easy to kill pests 1 1 10

Pesticides must be used to grow vegetables in rainy O 1

seasons in the village

Using bio-pesticides may reduce vegetable 4 1

production

Using bio-pesticides may take longer than pesticides 1 0

to kill pests

Bio-pesticide may not kill pests easily 1 1 16

I am not happy about using bio-pesticides 0 1

Using bio-pesticides is not good fit for me 1 0

Many farmers still use pesticides 1 6

 

 

 

 

In West Java, various reasons were given, including:

“1 cannot make bio-pesticides.”

“It is difficult to find raw materials to make bio-pesticide.”

“Using pesticides is easy to kill pests” and,
“Bio-pesticides may not be able to kill pests easily.”

Similarly in Bali, numerous reasons were given, including:

“I cannot make bio-pesticides,”
“I don’t know how to make bio-pesticides,”

107

“Using pesticides makes it easy to kill pests” and,
“Bio-pesticides may not kill pests easily.”

In general, both regions had similar reasons for not adopting bio-pesticides.

In Bali, the most frequently mentioned reason was “I don’t know how to make
bio-pesticides;” while the most frequently mentioned response in West Java was “it is
difficult to find raw materials to make bio-pesticides.”

Use of Compost

Table 24 showed the reasons why respondents did not adopt compost in West
Java and Bali. In West Java, various reasons were mentioned. These included:

“Using only compost may take longer than chemical fertilizers to harvest vegetables,”
“Using only compost may not grow vegetables well” and,
“It takes a long time to make compost.”

Similarly in Bali, several reasons were given by the respondents. These included:

“Using only compost takes more time than chemical fertilizers to harvest vegetables” and,
“Using only compost may not grow vegetables well.”

Both regions had similar reasons why farmers did not adopt compost. In short,
respondents wanted to use a fertilizer because it is easy to use and fast-acting. Key

indications are that if bio-pesticides are readily available, they will use them.

108

Table 24. The Reasons Why Vegetable Farmers did not Adopt Compost in West Java and
Bali

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reasons West Java Bali
(N =71) (N =1 00)
Frequency Frequency
I don’t know how to make compost 4 0
It is difficult to make compost 4 0
It is difficult to find raw materials to make compost 2 1
It takes a long time to make compost 6 1
Making compost is very hard work 1 0
I don’t have time to make compost l 0
I always use chemical fertilizer 3 2
For carrot production, it is not necessary to use both 2 0
chemical fertilizer and compost
Chemical fertilizer is better than compost 1 0
Using chemical fertilizers is easy and I can buy them at 2 3
an agricultural store
Both chemical fertilizer and compost must be used for l 0
vegetable production
It is difficult to grow vegetables without chemical 0 1
fertilizers because of the weather
Using only compost may reduce vegetable production 4 4
Using only compost may take longer than chemical 27 4O
fertilizer to harvest vegetables
Using only compost is not a good fit for vegetable 2 0
production
Using only compost may not grow vegetables well 8 43
Soil conditions require chemical fertilizers 0 1
I don’t need to use compost because the quality of soil on 1 O
the farm is good
Using only compost may reduce soil fertility/nutrition 0 2
It is difficult to change all my farms to organic at the 1 0
same time
No extension agents teach nothing about compost 0 l

 

 

 

 

Intention to Adopt Bio-pesticides
First, respondents were asked if they have adopted organic vegetable production
practices, which included the use of plant extracts and compost. Those who answered

“No” were asked to indicate their degree of likeliness to adOpt organic practices. Farmers’

109

degree of intention to adopt organic practices with each statement was measured by a 5-
point Likert-type scale with 1= I will likely convert, 2= I may convert, 3= I am not sure,
4= I may not convert, and 5= I will likely not convert. The items related to the intention
to adopt bio-pesticides include: 1) I intend to adopt plant extracts in my cabbage
production; 2) I intend to adopt plant extracts in my tomato production; 3) I intend to
adopt the use of plant extracts for my carrot production in Table 25. Data were
summarized by three groups including convert, not sure, and not convert in Table 25. For
this grouping, the 5-point Likert-type scales 1 and 2 were grouped into “Convert” and the
3 and 4 were grouped into “Not convert.”

In West Java, more than half of respondents who did not use bio-pesticides for
their vegetable production intended to adopt bio-pesticides in the future. More than half
(53.6 percent) of respondents answered “Convert” to the statement “I intend to adopt the
use of plant extracts for my cabbage production.” Similarly, 53.6 percent of respondents
answered “Convert” to the statement “I intend to adopt the use of plant extracts for my
tomato production.” About half (5 1 .1 percent) of respondents answered “Convert” to the
statement “I intend to adopt the use of plant extracts for my carrot production.”

In Bali, more than half of those who did not use bio-pesticides for their vegetable
production intended to adopt bio-pesticides in the future; however, a third of respondents
were not sure whether or not to adopt them. Sixty percent of respondents answered
“Convert” to the statements “I intend to adopt the use of plant extracts for my cabbage
production,” “I intend to adopt the use of plant extracts for my tomato production,” and
“I intend to adopt the use of plant extracts for my carrot production.” However, 33

percent of respondents answered “I am not sure” to the same three statements.

110

 

:8503005: 8:80 :8 888:8

 

 

 

 

3m 3: fm 3 3: 8m 3m 00 2505 38:0 a: 05 5:8... 2 22:: :.
:8503005: 8:88 :8 88:88
SH 3: 9mm 8: N2 NR 3: 8 2505 :8 :o a: 2:: 0:23 2 22:: :.
:88:on 033380 :8 882:8
EN fl: 0% s: :0: 0.8 0.3 8: 2505 58 :o a: 2:: 0:8... 8 225 :.
ll 002.500
'1 l detosnoa 52.80 :8
o a 9m... :8 8: Now SN 2: :5 ages :5: :o a: 2:: :82 9 9.2:: :.
88:03:08: 82:8 :8
o .\. cam ode 2: 3: WE 9mm no 80:58 5:3: 00 0m: 0:: 5:08: 8 30:85 2.
:850308: 033:0 :8
o a 0.2 0.8 8: 2: 0.: 9mm 3 885 as: :o a: 2:: 0:08 9 22:: :.
080585-55
X: X ..\o X. .x. .x.

80.800 t0>:00 E0:

:02 0:5 502 5:02:00 2 82 0:8 502 80>:00 2

 

:8: n 5 =8

 

Cb— ” 5 «>2. 583

 

 

3m :5: «>3 58>? E 0:85: :82 0:: E 80:08: 0380w0> 0:890 503‘. 8 30:08:: 053 20:58 .mm 033.

Ill

Intention to Adopt Compost

Farmers’ degree of intention to adopt organic practices with each statement was
measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale with 1= I will likely convert, 2= I may convert,
3= I am not sure, 4= 1 may not convert, and 5= I will likely not convert. The items related
to intention to adopt compost included the following: 1) I intend to adopt the use of only
organic fertilizer for cabbage production; 2) I intend to adopt the use of only organic
fertilizer for tomato production; 3) I intend to adopt the use of only organic fertilizer for
carrot production.

As shown in table 25, in West Java more than half of the respondents who did not
use compost only for their vegetable production intended to adopt the use of compost
only in the future. A little more than half (59 percent) answered “Convert” to the
statement “I intend to adopt the use of organic fertilizer only for cabbage production.”
More than half (56.5 percent) answered “Convert” to the statement “I intend to adopt the
use of organic fertilizer only for tomato production.” Also, 58.3 percent of respondents
answered “Convert” to the statement “I intend to adopt the use of organic fertilizer only
for carrot production.”

In Bali, more than half the respondents who did not use compost only for their
vegetable production intended to adopt the use of compost only in the fiiture. About half
(52.5 percent) answered “Convert” to the statement “I intend to adopt the use of organic
fertilizer only for cabbage production.” Similarly, 53 percent answered “Convert” to the
statement “I intend to adopt the use of organic fertilizer only for tomato production.”
About half (51.6 percent) said “convert” to the statement “I intend to adopt the use of

organic fertilizer only for carrot production.”

112

In short, adoption rates of bio-pesticides in cabbage and tomato production were
less than 10 percent for both West Java and Bali. Adoption rates for compost in cabbage
and tomato production were also less than 10 percent in both sites. For carrot production,
around 12 percent of respondents use bio-pesticides and compost in both sites. Thus,
about 90 percent of respondents in West Java and Bali did not practice target organic
methods. However, more than half of respondents in the both sites intended to adopt them
in the future.

Reasons Why Respondents Will Not Adopt Bio-pesticide and Compost

Respondents those who answered “I may not convert” and “I will likely not
convert” were asked the reasons why they would not adopt bio-pesticides and compost
use. Sixty eight respondents were asked the questions.

The main reasons farmers would not adopt bio-pesticides in both West Java and
Bali were:

“Using bio-pesticides may reduce vegetable production because it cannot kill pests easily”
(11 respondents) and,

“I don’t know how to make bio-pesticides” (5 respondents)

Main reasons farmers would not adopt compost in West Java include:

“I want to harvest vegetables quickly” (7 respondents),

“Using only compost may not grow vegetables well” (3 respondents)

“Using only compost may reduce vegetable production” (3 respondents) and,
“It is difficult to make compost” (2 respondents).

In Bali, two main reasons farmers would not adopt compost were:

“Using only compost may not grow vegetables well” (15 respondents) and, “Using only
compost may take longer than chemical fertilizers to grow vegetables” (10 respondents).

ll3

Relationship between Socio-Economic Characteristim and Familiarity with Organic

Vegetable Production Practices

The sixth research objective of this study was to determine the factors associated
with awareness of organic practices. The study hypothesized that a respondent's location,
gender, age, education level, household size, number of family laborers, farming
experience, farm size, distance to the pilot farm, irrigation sources, land tenure status, net
revenue of cabbage, tomato, carrot production; exposure to the pilot farm and any
information source groups (media, extension, farmer and commercial group) may affect
the familiarity with bio-pesticides and compost.

To test the hypothesis, binary logit analysis was used. SPSS was used to analyze
the logit model. Table 26 presents comparison of the explanatory variables between
familiarity and non familiarity with bio-pesticides. Significant differences (p<0.05) in
means of the variables were observed between familiarity with and non-familiarity with
bio-pesticides. The explanatory variables of this analysis were: location of respondent
(LOCA), gender of respondent (GEN), age of respondent (AGE), five dummies for
education level (EDU), household size of respondent (HS), size (number) of the farming
labor force in a household (FL), farming experience of the respondent (EXPERIENCE),
area of the farm (FARM), distance from respondent’s house to the pilot farm (DIS),
irrigation dummy (DIRR), land tenure dummy (DLAND), net revenue of cabbage
production (CNETREV), net revenue of tomato production (TNETREV), net revenue of
carrot production (WNETREV), exposure to the pilot farms (EXPO), media information

source group (IF G_MEDIA), extension information source group (IF G_EXTEN), farmer

114

information source group (IFG_FARMER), and commercial company/agricultural retail

store (IFG_COMMER).

Table 26. Comparison of Variables between Familiarity and Non-Familiarity with Bio-
Pesticides

 

 

Mean (SD)
Familiar Not familiar

Variables (N =89) (N=121) t-value
LOCA 0.74 (0.4) 0.34 (0.5) 6.259'
GEN 1.00 (0.0) 0.91 (0.3) 2.969”
AGE 41.09 (11.0) 41.36 (12.7) -0.166
EDU2 ” 0.33 0.27
EDU3 " 0.42 0.38
EDU4 a 0.11 0.14
EDUS “ 0.07 0.07
HS 4.47 (1.6) 4.00 (1.5) 2159'
FL 1.82 (0.7) 2.08 (0.7) -2820’
EXPERIENCE 15.56 (9.6) 19.16 (11.0) -2518’
FARM 63.41 (97.1) 56.21 (45.9) 0.649
DIS 0.91 (0.7) 1.48 (0.9) -4897’
DIRR 0.80 (0.4) 0.92 (0.3) -2483’
DLAND 0.49 (0.5) 0.71 (0.5) -3200’
CNETREV 1,233 (4,982) 1,486 (5,997) -0333
TNETREV 2,034 (9,103) 141 (6,526) 1.755
WNETREV 1,413 (5,047) 1,642 (3,649) -O.363
EXPO 1.46 (1.7) 0.23 (0.7) 7.124‘
IFG_MEDIA 0.55 (0.8) 027 (0.7) 2.641'
IFG_EXTEN 0.58 (0.7) 0.35 (0.5) 2.755‘
IFG_FARMER 1.53 (0.8) 1.21 (0.6) 3.424’
IFG_COMMER 0.52 (0.5) 0.64 (0.6) -1450

 

 

t
Note: indicate statistical significant at P<0.05.

a EDU], with frequency 210 (familiar mean = 0.13, not familiar mean = 0.08 ), was captured in
the constant and thus omitted to facilitate its comparison with other educational levels.

Regarding familiarity with bio-pesticides, variables showing significant

differences (P<0.05) in familiarity (familiar and not familiar) were: location of

115

respondent (LOCA), gender of respondent (GEN), household size of respondent (HS),
size (number) of the farming labor force in a household (FL), farming experience of
respondent (EXPERIENCE), distance from respondent’s house to the pilot farm (DIS),
irrigation dummy (DIRR), land tenure dummy (DLAND), exposure to the pilot farms
(EXPO), media information source group (IF G_MEDIA), extension information source

group (IFG_EXTEN), and farmer information source group (IFG_FARMER).

Characteristics of the respondents who tended to know more about bio-pesticides
were: lived in West Java, male, no irrigation, have unsecure land status, larger household,
have fewer numbers in the farming labor force in a household, have less farming
experience, live close to the pilot farm, know more about the DNBAF project, have more
information sources from the media, use information from extension, and have more

interaction with the farmer information group.

Table 27 does the same comparison between familiarity and non-familiarity with
compost. Significant differences (p<0.05) in means of the variables were observed
between familiarity with and non-familiarity with compost. The explanatory variables
were: location of respondent (LOCA), gender of respondent (GEN), age of respondent
(AGE), five dummies for education level (EDU), household size of respondent (HS), size
(number) of the farming labor force in a household (FL), farming experience of
respondent (EXPERIENCE), area of the farm (FARM), distance from respondent’s house
to the pilot farm (DIS), inigation dummy (DIRR), land tenure dummy (DLAND), net
revenue of cabbage production (CNETREV), net revenue of tomato production
(TNETREV), net revenue of carrot production (WNETREV), exposure to the pilot farms

(EXPO), media information source group (IF G_MEDIA), extension information source

116

group (IF G_EXTEN), farmer information source group (IF G_F ARMER), and

commercial company/agricultural retail store (IFG_COMMER).

Table 27. Comparison of Variables between Familiarity and Non-Familiarity with

Compost

 

 

Mean (SD)
Familiar Not familiar

Variables (N=130) (N=80) t-value
LOCA 0.61 (0.5) 0.35 (0.5) 3.748‘
GEN 0.98 (0.5) 0.89 (0.3) 3.124'
AGE 41.63 (12.2) 40.63 (11.7) 0.594
EDU2” 0.28 0.31
EDU3 ’ 0.36 0.45
EDU4a 0.13 0.13
EDU5 a 0.10 0.03
HS 4.35 (1.6) 3.96 (1.5) 1.758
FL 1.91 (0.6) 2.08 (0.7) -1.679
EXPERIENCE 16.59 (10.1) 19.33 (11.1) -1793
FARM 64.30 (84.2) 51.08 (45.2) 1.476
DIS 1.12 (0.9) 1.41 (0.9) -2311’
DIRR 0.85 (0.40) 0.90 (0.3) -0.995
DLAND 0.59 (0.5) 0.68 (0.5) -1.230
CNETREV 961 (4,667) 2,058 (6,783) -1273
TNETREV 973 (7,093) 894 (8,784) 0.068
WNETREV 1,593 (4,796) 1,467 (3,328) 0.226
EXPo 1.09 (1 .6) 0.20 (0.7) 4.802'
IFG_MEDIA 0.50 (0.8) 021 (0.6) 2.687’
IFG_EXTEN 0.55 (0.7) 0.28 (0.4) 3.203‘
IFG_FARMER 1.44 (0.8) 1.19 (0.5) 2.597'
IFG_COMMER 0.60 (0.6) 0.56 (0.6) 0.433

 

 

‘
Note: indicate statistical significant at P<0.05.

a EDUl, with frequency 210 (familiar mean = 0.12, not familiar mean = 0.09 ), was captured in the
constant and thus omitted to facilitate its comparison with other educational levels.

Familiarity with compost variables showing significant differences (P<0.05) in

familiarity dependent variables (familiar and not familiar) were: location of respondent

ll7

(LOCA), gender of respondent (GEN), distance from respondent’s house to the pilot farm
ODIS), exposure to the pilot farms (EXPO), media information source group
(IF G_MEDIA), extension information source group (IFG_EXTEN), and farmer

information source group (IFG_FARMER).

Characteristics of the respondents who tended to know more about compost were:
live in West Java, male, live close to the pilot farm, know more about the DNBAF project,
have more information sources from the media, have more information sources from

extension, and have more interaction with the farmer information group.

The coefficients, their standard errors, significance levels and odd ratio for bio-
pesticides are listed in Table 28. The likelihood ratio test suggests the estimated model
had a good fit with a statistically significant score of 192.15 at the 1 percent level. The
McFadden R2, a pseudo R-square, was 0.294, which falls in the range 0.2 to 0.4 that is
considered an “extremely good fit” (Hensher and Johnson, 1981). Prediction success

statistics indicated that the model correctly predicted about 76.6 percent of the responses.

The results of Table 28 identified no significant influences of any variables except
exposure to the pilot farm (EXPO), educational level equaling completed primary school
(EDU3), educational level equaling completed junior high school (EDU4) and distance
from respondent’s house to the pilot farm (DIS) for the probability of familiarity with

bio-pesticides.

Exposure to the pilot farm (EXPO) had a significant positive effect at the 1
percent level in the model, indicating that vegetable farmers who knew about the pilot

farm had higher probabilities of being familiar with bio-pesticides than farmers who did

118

not know about the pilot farm. In addition, the positive coefficients of the educational
level of completed primary school (EDU3) and the educational level of completed junior
high school (EDU4) were significantly different from zero at the 5 percent level. The odd
ratio of DEU3 indicated that farmers who had completed primary school had about six
times higher probability of being familiar with bio-pesticides, compared to the farmers
who never went to school. Also, the odd ratio of DEU4 indicated that farmers who had
completed junior high school had about eleven times higher probability of being familiar

with bio—pesticides, compared to the farmers who never went to school.

119

Tables 28. Estimated Coefficients of the Binary Logit Model for Familiarity of Bio-

 

 

 

Pesticide

Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)
LOCA 1.204 0.733 2.697 0.101 3.332
GEN 20.194 11838.243 0.000 0.999 589042554.824
AGE 0.005 0.021 0.054 0.816 1.005
EDU2 1.239 0.759 2.666 0.103 3.453
EDU3” 1.729 0.872 3.930 0.047 5.637
EDU4" 2.392 1.087 4.846 0.028 10.938
EDU5 1.495 1.209 1.531 0.216 4.461
HS 0.167 0.146 1.301 0.254 1.182
FL -0.111 0.310 0.128 0.720 0.895
EXPERIENCE 0.009 0.023 0.163 0.686 1.009
FARM 0.001 0.003 0.244 0.621 1.001
DIS" -0433 0.253 2.938 0.087 0.648
DIRR -0.660 0.574 1.322 0.250 0.517
DLAND -0210 0.488 0.186 0.667 0.810
CNETREV 0.000 0.000 0.332 0.564 1.000
TNETREV 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.722 1.000
WNETREV 0.000 0.000 0.918 0.338 1.000
EXPG‘” 0.551 0.183 9.026 0.003 1.734
IFG_MEDIA -0029 0.267 0.01 1 0.915 0.972
IFG_EXTEN 0.003 0.403 0.000 0.993 1.003
IFG_FARMER 0.191 0.333 0.328 0.567 1.210
IFG_COMMER 0.244 0.386 0.400 0.527 1.277
Constant -23155 11838.243 0.000 0.998 0.000

 

 

Note: Likelihood ratio test: x2 = 192.152 (d.f. = 22); critical x2 = 33.92; p > x2: < 0.0001. McFadden R2 =

it it

t
0.294. The percent correct classification is 76.6 %. Number of observations = 210. and indicate
statistical significant P<0.001, P<0.005, and P<0. 10, respectively. EDU variables compare familiarity with
bio-pesticides relative to vegetable farmers with an educational level of no school (EDUl). A positive sign
on any of the educational dummies would mean that farmers in that particular educational category had a
higher probability of being familiar with bio-pesticides than farmers with an educational level of no school.

Moreover, the negative coefficient of distance from respondent’s house to the
pilot farm (DIS) was Significantly different from zero at the 10 percent level. This was

interpreted to indicate that farmers who lived closer to the pilot farm had a higher

120

probability of being familiar with bio-pesticides rather than those who lived far from the

pilot farm.

Table 29 shows the coefficients, their standard errors, significance levels and odd
ratio for compost. The likelihood ratio test suggests the estimated model had a good fit
with a statistically significant score of 209.1 16 at the 1 percent level. The McFadden R2,
a pseudo R-square, was 0.218, which falls in the range 0.2 to 0.4 that is considered an
“extremely good fit” (Hensher and Johnson, 1981). Prediction success statistics indicated

that the model correctly predicted 72.6 percent of the responses.

The results of Table 29 identified no significant influences of any variables except
exposure to the pilot farm (EXPO), location of respondent (LOCA), gender of respondent
(GEN), net revenue of cabbage production (CNETREV), total number of “information
source” checks for the commercial information source group (IFG_COMMER), and the

constant on the probability of being familiar with compost.

Exposure to the pilot farm (EXPO) had a significant positive effect at the 5
percent level in the model, indicating that vegetable farmers who were exposed to the
pilot farm had higher probabilities of being familiar with compost than farmers who were
not exposed to the pilot farm. In addition, the positive coefficients of the location of
respondent (LOCA) and gender of respondent (GEN) were significantly different from
zero at the 10 percent level. According to the odd ratio of LOCA, farmers in West Java
had about a four times higher probability of being familiar with compost than farmers in
Bali. According to the odd ratio of GEN, male farmers had about a six times higher

probability of being familiar with compost than female farmers. Moreover, the positive

121

coefficient of net revenue of cabbage production (CNETREV) was significantly different
from zero at the 10 percent level. However, the coefficients of CNETREV were zero
because their frequencies were small; thus there was no influence on the familiarity with

compost.

122

Table 29. Estimated Coefficients of the Binary Logit Model for Familiarity of Compost

 

 

 

Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)
LOCA' 1.329 0.710 3.509 0.061 3.779
GEN‘ 1.730 0.898 3.716 0.054 5.643
AGE 0.013 0.020 0.399 0.527 1.013
EDU2 -0317 0.664 0.228 0.633 0.728
EDU3 -0.263 0.731 0.129 0.719 0.769
EDU4 0.853 0.920 0.860 0.354 2.347
EDU5 1.598 1.197 1.782 0.182 4.944
HS 0.010 0.143 0.005 0.946 1.010
FL 0.090 0.284 0.100 0.752 1.094
EXPERIENCE -0.016 0.021 0.552 0.457 0.984
FARM 0.001 0.003 0.043 0.836 1.001
DIS -0.029 0.224 0.016 0.899 0.972
DIRR -0.316 0.584 0.293 0.588 0.729
DLAND 0.213 0.482 0.195 0.659 1.237
CNETREv' 0.000 0.000 3.514 0.061 1.000
TNETREV 0.000 0.000 0.843 0.359 1.000
WNETREV 0.000 0.000 2.604 0.107 1.000
EXPO” 0.464 0.216 4.616 0.032 1.591
IFG_MEDIA 0.163 0.284 0.332 0.564 1.178
IFG_EXTEN 0.430 0.41 1 1.092 0.296 1.537
IFG_FARMER 0.143 0.340 0.178 0.673 1.154
IFG_COMMER’ 0.644 0.359 3.206 0.073 1.903
Constant. -3.1 13 1.640 3.603 0.058 0.044

 

 

Note: Likelihood ratio test: 12 = 209.1 16 (d.f. = 22); critical x2 = 33.92; p > )8: < 0.0001. McFadden
2
R = 0.218.
it! it t

The percent correct classification is 72.6 %. Number of observations = 210. , and indicate
statistical significant

P<0.001, P<0.005, and P<0.10, respectively. EDU variables compare familiarity with bio-pesticides
relative to vegetable farmers with an educational level of no school (EDUl). A positive sign on any
of the educational dummies would mean that farmers in that particular educational category had a
higher probability of being familiar with compost than farmers with an educational level of no
school.

123

The positive coefficient of total number of “information source” checks for commercial
information source group (IFG_COMMER) was significantly different from zero at the
10 percent level. This was interpreted to indicate that farmers who obtained information
for their vegetable production from market people and commercial company/agricultural
retail stores (commercial information group) had higher probability of being familiar with
compost than those who did not obtain information from the commercial information
group. Finally, the negative coefficient of constant was significantly different from zero
at the 10 percent level, but this interpretation of the intercept might not have any real

meaning (Gujarati, 1995).

In short, it could be said that the factors associated with awareness of target
organic vegetable production practices, including bio-pesticides and compost in the study
sites would be: location (LOCA), gender (GEN), educational level (EDU) distance to the
pilot farms (DIS), exposure to the pilot farm (EXSPO), and information sources in the

conceptual framework (Figure 10).

 

Location
Gender Familiarity with bio-pesticides
Educational level
Distance to the pilot
farms

0 Exposure to the pilot F .1. . .
farms arm IarIty w1th compost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Information sources

 

 

 

Figure 10. Factors Associated with Awareness of the Target Organic Vegetable

Production Practices

124

Relationship Between Familiarity With, Attitude Toward, and Intension to Adopt
Organic Vegetable Production Practices
The seventh research objective of this study was to demonstrate the impact of
awareness and attitudinal characteristics of vegetable farmers on the decision to adopt
organic practices. The study hypothesis is that farmers’ familiarity with target organic
vegetable practices may affect farmers’ attitude toward the target organic methods, and it
may be possible to increase the chance that the farmer will adopt organic farming by

changing attitudes toward target organic methods.

To test the study hypothesis, path analysis was used. Table 30 shows descriptive
statistics and correlations. From the conceptual framework of this study (Figure 7 in
Chapter 2), the conceptual model was tested to see if the data support the model. A

structural equation modeling program Amos 18 was used for this analysis.

Table 30. Descriptive Statistics for the Familiarity-Attitude-lntention to Adopt Model

 

Correlations

 

 

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1 Familiarity of bio- 12.46 3.56
pesticides

Familiarity of compost 9.66 3.04 0537*

3 Attitudetoward target 27.96 5.41 0,375‘ 0,330.
organic vegetable

 

 

practices

4 Intentionto adoptbio- 8.31 3.71 -O.l34 -0.084 0.125
pesticides

5 Intentionto adopt 9.03 4.21 0,152’ 0.080 0142* 0.436‘
compost

Notes: N=210

0
Correlations are significant at p < 0.05.

125

Table 31. Coefficients and t-value for the Causal Paths of the F amiliarity-Attitude-

Intention to Adopt Model

 

 

 

Dependent variable Independent variable Standardized p-value
coefficient

Attitude toward target Familiarity with bio- 023‘ 0.00
organic vegetable pesticides
production practices

Familiarity with compost 0,13. 0.02
Intention to adopt bio- Attitude toward target organic 0,13‘ 0.07
PeStiCideS vegetable production

practices
Intention to adopt compost Attitude toward target organic 0,14" 0.04

Chi-square

Root Mean Square Error

of Approximation
(SMREA)

Goodness of fit index
(GFI)

Comparative fit index
(CFI)

vegetable production
practices

Chi-square = 60.6

Degree of freedom = 5
Probability level = 0.000

0.23 (recommended value: <0.05)

0.91(recommended value: >0.90)

0.67(recommended value: >0.90)

 

# it

and = Significant at p<0.05 and p<0.10, respectively.

Shown in Table 31, the model did not fit well statistically, 12 (5, N=210) = 60.6, p

= 0.000. Table 33 shows standardized path confidents for the model and the fit indexes

indicating a less than good fit of the model to the data: root mean square error of

approximation (SMREA) = 0.23, goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.91 and comparative fit

index (CFI) = 0.67 (Honda, 2007; Toyota, 1998). Therefore the model did not support the

data.

Figure 11 Shows the diagram to indicate the relationships among familiarity with

target organic vegetable production practices, attitudes toward target organic vegetable

126

production practices, and intention to adopt target organic vegetable production practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the conceptual framework-
. . . Adopt/intention

Familiarltv 352:0) Attitude 0.13 to adopt bio-
W'thR'O' ' toward the (0'07) pesticide
pest1c1de \ target organic R2 = 0-02

0.18 vegetable 0.14

(0.02) pgactlces 0.04) Adopt/intention
Familiarity R = 0‘16 to adopt
with compost
compost R2 = 0.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SMREA= 0.23 GFI=O.91
CF1=0.67 Chi-square=60.6
d.f.=S P=0.000

N=210

 

 

 

Figure 11. Relationships among Familiarity With, Attitudes Toward, and Intention to
Adopt Target Organic Vegetable Production Practices

Possible Reasons why the Data did not Support the Study Hypothesis

There are several possible reasons why the data did not support the study
hypothesis.

The first possible reason is that target organic vegetable production practices as an
innovation had not been disseminated widely by the BNBAF project. The BNBAF
project set pilot farms to demonstrate target organic vegetable production practices,

including bio-pesticides and compost in West Java and Bali in January of 2005. As far as

127

timing of conducting fieldwork in 2007, the BNBAF project had workshops to
disseminate information on two organic practices to the vegetable farmers in July 2007 in
West Java and in September 2007 in Bali. However, though the BNBAF project had
conducted several informational activities for more than two years, approximately one-
third of respondents in West Java and less than 10 percent of respondents in Bali
recognized the pilot farms (see Table 18). Therefore, it might be possible that the
BNBAF project activities had not reached the perceptions and decision stages in the

adoption/diffusion model.

The second possible reason is small sample size. According to MacCallum and
Austin (2000), the statistical properties of the various estimators are dependent on large
samples (N>1000). However, this is not common in most existing communication
research (Holbert and Stephenson, 2002). Holbert and Stephenson (2002) recommended
“at least a sample of 100, but encourage 200 for simple mediating models with
moderately reliable measures” (p. 536.) to analyze a structural equation model, including
path analysis in communication research. Tanaka (1987) suggested that more complex
models require larger samples for stable estimates. The study sample size was 210. It
looked like a reasonable sample size for the conceptual model (see Figure 11). However,
if the true model was more complex model than the conceptual model and it had more
than four hypothetical paths described arrows in the model, a sample Size larger than 210

might be needed.

128

Key Informant Interviews

The last research objective of this study was to find out farmers’ constraints, if
any, in converting from conventional vegetable farming to organic vegetable farming in
the study sites.

This study used a mixed method, including quantitative and qualitative methods
for data collection and analysis. To answer research objective eight (a qualitative method),
interviews with key informants in three different categories (policy maker for organic
farming in Indonesia, regional extension agents and marketing people of organic
vegetables) were used. Results of the interviews were summarized as follows. All of the

interviews were transcribed in Appendix F.

Interview Results from Policy Makers of Organic Farming in Indonesia

Description of Interviewee

Policy maker of organic farming in Indonesia (Ms. A)

Ms. A was a government officer at the Department of Agriculture located in
Jakarta. She had served as a government officer more than ten years and worked at the
Quality and Standardization Bureau since 2005. ller main task was to assist in developing
a policy draft of organic farming in lndonesia. She looked to be in her late 305. The
researcher was introduced to her by an undergraduate student at Bogor Agricultural
University. whose advisor was a researcher in the BNBAF project. Since the thesis topic
of the student was related to organic farming. he had an appointment with Ms. A to ask

about organic farming policy in Indonesia in August 2007. For the second interview. the

129

researcher went to Ms. A's office by herself and She gave the researcher materials about

organic famiing policy in Indonesia.

Through an interview with Ms. A, details of current organic agricultural policy in

Indonesia were revealed. All materials cited in this section were given by Ms. A.

Go Organic 2010 Progm

In 2001, the Department of Agriculture established a program called “Go Organic
2010,” with the purpose to be one of the world’s biggest exporters of organic
commodities by 2010 (Novianty and Andoyo, 2005). Main activities of this program

were I

1. Human resource development and knowledge dissemination,

2. Regulation development, and

3. Development of organic certification agencies.

The purpose of the first major activity was to increase awareness of organic
agriculture. As a part of a national campaign, several trainings, workshops, and seminars
were conducted in various places. The government has tried to diffuse organic agriculture
as a certifiable management system. For this purpose, the second and the third major
activities are important to implement the system correctly. This program was set as the
development step of organic farming in Indonesia (Centre for agriculture standardization

and accreditation, 2006; Novianty and Andoyo, 2005).

130

Organic Certification System

Organic certification is relatively new to Indonesia. In 2002, the government
created the National Standard for Organic Food (SNI). According to Ms. A, the current
SNI is voluntary and violators of the SNI are not punished. Those who are certified and
violate the standard can be sanctioned by their certification agency, however. There are
several domestic certification agencies and foreign certification agencies (Novianty and

Andoyo, 2005).
Competent Authorities

In the organic certification system, the role of government is very important to
guarantee quality and certification for consumers. A nationwide working group and two
units of government play an important role as competent authorities in the certification

system. They are;

1. The Indonesian National Standardization Body/National Accreditation Committee
(BSN/KAN)

2. The Centre for Agriculture Standardization and Accreditation (PSA)

3. The National Agency of Drug and Food Control of Indonesia (N A-DFC)

BSN consists of stakeholders involved in organic agriculture in Indonesia including
PSA, NA-DFC, certification agencies, farmers, consumers, NGOS, technical experts,
universities, and the private sector. The main task of BSN is to publish national standards,
including regulations on accreditation and certification, on organic agricultural products.
PSA and NA-DFC belong to the Department of Agriculture in Indonesia. The main task

of PSA is to design the standards, guidelines and oversight system for organic inspection

131

and certification. It is also offering training and gives recommendation on approvals of
certification agencies. The main task of NA-DFC is to monitor processed foods. NA-DFC
has developed regulations on the monitoring of organic processed food (N ovianty and

Andoyo, 2005; Centre for agriculture standardization and accreditation, 2006).

Process in Obtaining an Organic Certification

Farmers first submit all required documents to the certification agency. The
agency checks the processes based on the regulations developed by the legal authority.
The agency checks all documents and asks the audit team for an inspection. After that,
the audit team reports the results to the certification agency. The agency then gives all
documents and results of the inspection to the technical committee. Once the committee
receives all materials, they exchange their results with the audit team for cross checks.
After the committee confirms all results, the materials are returned to the certification
agency again. Ifno problems are found, the farmer is finally certified as an organic
farmer. The farmer needs to pay a fee for the organic certification. Figure 12 shows all
processes involved in obtaining organic certification. Now the certified farmer can put
the organic logo mark on his products. Figure 13 is the official organic logo. According
to Ms. A, a farmer could receive a subsidy to obtain organic certification. If a farmer is
approved by the Department of Agriculture, he can get a subsidy, which is 10 percent

t012 percent of the total cost of the organic certification.

132

 

 

 

The Indonesian National

Competent Authority " _____ Standardization Body

 

 

 

 

 

L—_ll—I

 

7 —::{ Certification Agency ll

Team Auditor

 

 

  
 

 

    

Technical
Committee

 

 

 

> Adequacy audit
>Declaration audit
>Sampling test in
the laboratory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmers ‘
I

 

Source: Centre for agriculture standardization and accreditation, 2006.

Figure 12. Process to Obtain an Organic Certification

KPO

INDONESIA

 

 

Source: Centre for agriculture standardization and accreditation. 2006.

Figure 13. Organic Logo Mark for "Competent Authority Organic Food”

133

Interview Results from Regional Extension Agents

Description of Interviewees

Regional extension agents (Mr. B and Mr. C in West Java; Mr. D and Mr. E in Bali)

Mr. B and Mr. C were extension field workers at the Rural Extension Center
(REC) in the Ciawi region in West Java. Mr. B served as an extension worker for 15
years and Mr. C for five years. Mr. B looked to be in his early 403 and Mr. C was in his
mid 20$. Their main tasks were to provide useful information about crop production for
farmers by visiting their assigned areas, and solving farmers’ various problems through
the extension center. Periodically they conducted a variety of workshops in different
areas. A contact farmer (kontak tani) at the study site of West Java kindly took the
researcher to the REC and introduced the researcher to the extension field workers. The
center was located about three kilometers from the study village. Since extension workers
were not often in the office, the researcher visited the office several times to catch them

for interviews.

Mr. D and Mr. B were extension field workers at the REC at the Batriti sub-
district in Bali. Mr. D and Mr. E served as extension workers for more than 20 years.
Both of them looked to be in their late 403 or early 50$. Their main tasks were nearly the
as Mr. B and Mr. C. As in West Java, a contact farmer (kontak tam) at the study site of
Bali kindly took the researcher to the REC and introduced them to the extension field
workers. The center was located about five kilometers from the study village, which was
difficult to visit because of the lack of bike taxis, unlike West Java. Thus the researcher

planned interviews on Mondays, when the center staff had weekly meetings.

134

Through interviews with Mr.’s B, C, D, and E, the extension system and its

various organic farming activities in West Java and Bali were revealed.

Current extension system and activities related to organic farming

Before decentralization in 1990S, extension systems were in various parts of the
Department of Agriculture and never integrated (see Figure 5 in chapter 11). In the Bali
study site, extension systems in the district of Tabanan were independent from the
Department of Agriculture. However, according to Mr. D and Mr. E, bottom of the
extension system including REC did not change. In the study site of West Java, the
extension system still belongs to the Department of Agriculture and Forestry in Bogor
district. However, the bottom parts of their extension system including REC were
changed. The new REC called unit pelaksana teknis dinas (UPTD) were placed at the
sub—district and village level. Current extension systems in the study sites include the
organizational structure of extension unit in Tabanan district and the organizational

structure of department of agriculture and forestry in Bogor district. (Appendix F)
According to Mr. B and Mr. C,

“In the Bogor district, the extension system belongs to the Department of
Agriculture and Forestry. This center is one of UPTD (unit pelaksana tekm's
dinas), which means the REC. Before the decentralization, the RECs located at
each sub-district with a different name (balai penyuluhan pertanian, BPP). But
now the centers are placed by functions. There are 20 UPTD in Bogor district; 12
for agricultural extension, two for agricultural machinery, two for rice seedlings.
three for lumber, and one for dry fields. This center is one of 12 agricultural
extension function centers.”

135

Mr. B and Mr. C also explained about their UPTD;

“This center covers three sub-districts (Cisarua, Megamedung, and C iawi) with 34
villages. Cisarua sub-district has 10 villages; two field extension workers for crop
production and one for livestock are assigned. In the Megamedung sub-district,
there are llvillages; two field extension workers for crop production and one for
livestock are assigned. Ciawi sub-district has 13 villages; three field extension
workers for crop production and one for livestock are assigned. For all regions.
there is a field extension worker for pest and plant pathology in the center."

In Bali, Mr. D and Mr. E told about their BPP;

“This center covers one sub-district (Baturiti) with 12 villages. An extension field
worker is assigned in each village.”

While surveying vegetable farmers, the researcher listened to complaints about
extension workers in both West Java and Bali. They said that extension workers did not
come to their villages frequently. One of them said he saw the extension worker more
than two months ago. If the extension workers did not come to their villages, they were
useless to farmers. At that time, the researcher Simply thought that extension workers
stayed and worked in the office and did not want to see farmers who lived far from their
office. This assumption was incorrect. Problems existed in the extension system.
Especially after decentralization, working conditions for extension workers were getting

worse and worse. This resulted in complaints about extension workers.

Mr. B and Mr. C explained these changes before and after decentralization in

West Java:

“Before decentralization, there were five types of extension field workers:
vegetable, cereal, pest and plant pathology, livestock, and fishery. Also an
extension worker was assigned to only one or two villages. Thus they could rotate
farmers frequently. But now an extension worker has to rotate through more than
five villages and many of them have to cover different fields. For example, an
extension worker may have been assigned to the fishery field. but now has to

136

work in the livestock field. Also, the worker could see a farmer every two weeks,
but now once every two months or as needed. So. it is very difficult to provide
useful information for farmers effectively.”

Similarly. Mr. D and Mr. E told of Bali’s changes for extension workers;

“The one extension worker has to cover all agricultural fields. Before
decentralization, there were five types of extension field workers: vegetable.
cereal, pest and plant pathology, livestock, and fishery. But now an extension
worker has to cover all fields. So, it is very difficult to provide useful information
for farmers efficiently. Every Monday all extension field workers gather to attend
the weekly meeting and they share all information with other extension workers.”

This is a very serious structural problem within the extension systems in West

Java and Bali.

Extension workers in West Java and Bali were asked if there were some
programs/activities related to organic vegetable production, and they said no. However,
both RECS in West Java and Bali had demonstration farms and tested compost/manure

there. In West Java. they had taught 1PM to famiers.

Interview Results from People Marketing Organic Vegetables

Description of Interviewees

People marketing organic vegetables (Mr. F and Mr. G in West Java; Mr. H aner. I in

Bali).

Mr. F and Mr. G were organic farmers in the West Java study Site. However, Mr.
F lived in Bogor and Mr. G lived in Jakarta They worked in their farms about three or
four times a week. They grew organic vegetables and sold them directly to consumers in

Jakarta Both of Mr. F and Mr. G knew about the organic certification system. However

I37

they did not think to get the certification because they felt strongly that they grew real
organic vegetables, and had already developed strong, reliable relationships with the
consumers without the certifications. They also did not purse certification because it was

costly for them.

Mr. F started organic farming in 2001 and grew around 40 varieties of vegetables
on 2.2 hectares of farm land with about 20 employees. He sold and delivered organic
vegetables to two Japanese supermarkets and about 120 individual home-delivery
customers in Jakarta twice a week (Monday and Thursday). He was in his mid 30s. The
researcher had stayed at a farmer’s house near Mr. F’s farm during the survey. The
researcher first met him at the beginning of the survey in July 2007. After that, the
researcher visited his farm several times for interviews, and had an opportunity to follow
the vegetable delivery to Jakarta. At that time, the researcher also met with his individual

customers, and arranged to interview one of the Japanese customers on another day.

Mr. G started organic farming in 2000 and grew around 20 varieties of vegetables
on 1.3 hectares of farm land with five employees. He sold and delivered organic
vegetables to several organic food retail shops, about 20 individual home-delivery
customers, and two banks in Bogor and Jakarta twice a week (Tuesday and Friday). He
was in his mid 403. The researcher had stayed at farmer’s house not so far from Mr. G’s
farm during the survey. The researcher met him at the beginning of the survey in July
2007. After that, the researcher visited his farm several times for interviews, and had an

opportunity to follow his vegetable delivery to Bogor.

138

Mr. H was a businessman in Bali. He ran a restaurant and a hotel in Ubud. To
provide safe foods to his restaurant and hotel, he started organic farming on one hectare
of farm land and ten cows in the study village in 2003. In the study village, there was a
farm manager who managed all farming operations with several employees, following Mr.
H’s orders. Mr. H came to the farm at least twice a month to check the farm. At Mr. H’s
farm, manure produced by the cows was used for growing vegetables. The cows were
raised for meat and sold in Java because most people in Bali were Hindu, and did not eat
beef. Almost all vegetables from this farm were consumed at Mr. H’s restaurant and hotel,
but sometimes extra vegetables were sold at a farmers’ market in Ubud. During the
survey in Bali, the researcher stayed in a neighboring farm house close to the manager’s
house. Mr. H was in his mid 503. The researcher was introduced to the manager by the
neighboring farmer and the researcher met with Mr. H through the manager. The
researcher not only interviewed Mr. H on his farm, but also went to his restaurant to taste

the food made with the organic vegetables from the farm.

Mr. I was a broker who collected and bought various vegetables, including some
organic vegetables, from farmers around the study site. He was originally from East Java
and moved to Bali about 10 years ago. He used to stay in Australia for three months for
business and had several opportunities to see organic vegetable markets there. At that
time, he recognized that organic vegetables were good for people’s health and the
environment, and felt he had a potential market in Indonesia, especially Bali, because of
the foreign tourist trade. He looked to be in his late 40s. The researcher met with Mr. I
when the researcher interviewed with a respondent in the study site in October 2007.

Dining the interview with the respondent, Mr. I came to the respondent’s house to pick

139

his vegetables. At that time, the interview was suspended and the researcher was
introduced to Mr. I by the respondent. The researcher interviewed Mr. I when he came to
the study site. He also helped find other organic farmers who sold their products in Bali.
With his help, the researcher could find an organic farmer who grew organic vegetables
in a northern part of the study site. The farmer sold his vegetables to hotels and
restaurants in Bali. However, the researcher could not meet with the farmer directly, but

did obtain his price list for his vegetables.

Through interviews with Mr.’s F, G, H, and 1, knowledge of their sales
destinations, sale methods, and current issues of organic vegetables marketing were

discovered.

Sales Destinations and Methods of Organic Farmers

In West Java, individual home-delivery customers were the major sales
destinations of Mr. F and Mr. G. Mr. F had about 120 customers and delivered organic
vegetables twice a week to Jakarta by car. Among the customers, 75 percent were
Japanese. Mr. G also sold his organic vegetables to individual home-delivery customers
by car, but his customers were all wealthy Indonesian households. The researcher
observed this difference when accompanying Mr. G on vegetable deliveries. When the
researcher saw organic farmer Ms. C in the study village, the researcher asked her if she
had some individual home-delivery customers among her organic vegetable customers.
She answered yes, and noted that her individual home-delivery customers were mainly
rich Chinese-Indonesian households in Jakarta; there were also a few Korean customers.

After the researcher observed the differences between home-delivery customers of the

140

three organic farmers in West Java, she asked Mr. F how he had attracted Japanese
customers a couple of times, but it wasn’t until the researcher interviewed Ms. K, who
was Japanese and one of Mr. F’s individual home-delivery customers in Jakarta, that she

understood.

In August 2007, the researcher interviewed Ms. K at her house two days after the
she had accompanied Mr. F while doing vegetable delivery in Jakarta When the
researcher handed the vegetables to her, she mentioned that she had bought the
vegetables fi'om Mr. F for long time. At that time, the researcher wondered if Ms. K knew

how Mr. F attracted Japanese customers.

Ms. K had lived in Jakarta for 20 years. Her husband was an accountant and
worked at a Japanese company in Jakarta. She, her husband and her two sons also spent
their time in Indonesia until their sons graduated high school. The sons were now on their
own, and Ms. K lived with her husband in a house. She looked to be in her late SOS or

early 605.

According to MS. K, Mr. F received training in organic farming at the OISCA (a
Japanese NGO), and started an organic farming business afterward in the study site, with
the landowner’s approval. One day Mr. F met with a JICA (Japan International
Cooperation Agency) expert whose specialization was crop production. At the early stage
of his organic farm, Mr. F had many problems with his vegetable production. Mr. F got
advice from the expert. The expert’s wife was also there. And she had experience in
managing consumers at Japanese organic supported agricultural groups. In these groups,

consumers support organic farmers by helping with farm and shipment work. Because of

141

Mr. F’s dedication, she decided she wanted to support Mr. F’s organic farming like the
Japanese groups. At that time (around 2002), Jakarta had no organic vegetable home-
delivery service. Many Japanese wives/mothers were very interested in organic
vegetables. The expert’s wife started to ask her friends if they wanted to buy organic
vegetable from Mr. F’s farm. Slowly and surely the members increased. The expert’s
wife disseminated farm information to the consumer groups by newsletters, and
sometimes took members to Mr. F’s farm to enhance their understanding about organic
farming. Mr. F also accepted the consumers’ requests, and they built a very good
relationship. Mr. F’s honest and sincere character was instrumental in increasing the

number of Japanese consumers.

Ms. K helped the researcher understand the reason why Mr. F had so many

Japanese customers.

In Bali, according to Mr. H and Mr. I, mainly organic vegetables were sold and
consumed to hotels and restaurants in the resort areas. Mr. I also mentioned that some of
the organic vegetables were sold to supermarkets in Denpasar, and recently the
supermarkets had requested to obtain the “organic certificate.” This may become a big

obstacle for small farmers to selling organic vegetables.

Current Issue§ in Organic VeggLable Mariteting

 

In the interviews, organic farmers were asked about current issues in organic
vegetable marketing. Interestingly, all of them pointed out the same issue: many people
did not know or understand what organic vegetables were. Mr. F mentioned that some of

new organic farmers did not understand what exactly organic farming was. He said that,

142

“Newcomers as organic farmers indicate ‘organic vegetables’ without
understanding ‘true organic vegetables’ to sell their products—their ‘organic
vegetables’ are not organic vegetables primarily. If some farmers sell ‘fake’
organic vegetables, customers may not start to trust Mr. F’s organic vegetables
either.”

Mr. I mentioned that consumers did not know about what “real” organic
vegetables were. When Mr. I sold organic vegetables to supermarkets in 2002, they did
not request the organic certificate because there was no organic certification system in
Indonesia at that time. However, Mr. I failed to sell organic vegetables to the
supermarkets because they did not accept “poor looking” vegetables. They did not
understand what “real” organic vegetables were; organic vegetables tended not to be as
good looking as the conventional vegetables, and may have included a few worm-eaten

holes on the vegetables.
Prices of Organic Vegetables

According to Mr. 1, higher prices for organic vs. conventionally grown vegetables
was another reason why organic vegetables failed to sell in supermarkets in 2002.
Nowadays this is a commonly known fact about organic vegetables, but the supermarkets

in Bali were not that knowledgeable at the time.

Table 32 shows comparisons of target organic vegetable prices among organic

farmers.

143

Table 32. Comparison of Target Vegetables’ Prices in 2007

 

 

Farm gate price of Vegetables (Rp/kg)

 

 

 

 

West Java Bali

Organic Organic Organic NGO General Organic General
Vegetables Farmer A Farmer Farmer D farmer Farmer farmer

(Mr. F) B (Mr. C respondent E respondent

G) group. group.

Cabbage 15,000 10,000 7,000 6,500 1,209 N/ A 859
Tomato 18,000 14,000 7,600 7,500 1,778 N/A 1,196
Carrot 15,000 12,000 6,000 6,000 879 12,000 1,21 1

 

 

t
Average vegetable prices from the survey. N/A indicates data not available.

There were no standard prices among organic farmers, but one thing was obvious — prices
for organic vegetables were much higher than the vegetable prices obtained through the

survey—at least four times as high.
Organic Farming Training Place

Through the interviews, the researcher learned of a NGO, called NGO D, in West
Java; Mr. F and Mr. G stayed at the NGO D for a period of time to learn how to grow
organic vegetables when they first started farming. According to Mr. F and Mr. G, NGO
D was a pioneer in organic farming in Indonesia, and was not far from the study site. The

researcher visited NGO D in August 2007.

NGO D was established to disseminate organic farming practices by a Swiss
pastor in 1984. NGO D provides various training programs for people who want to study
organic farming. Many people visit NGO D to learn organic farming. NGO D has 16
hectares of land in total, and currently uses 10 hectares for vegetable production.
Currently 110 employees have worked there — 40 people for farm work, 20 people for

offices work, and 50 people for construction work.

144

NGO D has a store near the farm. Thus customers can buy organic vegetables
directly from this NGO D. There are two main market channels; one is NGO D —
supermarkets — consumers, the other is NGO D — NGO’s agents — consumers. NGO D
has 15 agents in Bogor and Jakarta. These agents buy vegetables from the NGO D for a
special price and sell the vegetables at their prices. Total income of this NGO D comes
from the agents’ sales (70 percent), supermarkets and the NGO’S store (30 percent). To
provide enough quantity and variety of vegetables, 25 contract farmers grow organic

vegetables following the NGO’S methods exactly.

Currently NGO D has three main obstacles. The first problem is plant diseases
and poor growing weather. In recent years, there have been long dry seasons, or too much
rain during the rainy seasons. This unpredictability made it very difficult to control
diseases. Workers’ habits were another obstacle. Some employees were rough, which
influenced vegetable production poorly. Marketing is the third obstacle. There are still

many people who do not understand what organic vegetables are, and don’t buy them.

Issues for Organic Farming in Indonesia

Since the price of organic vegetables is at least four times higher than
conventional vegetables (see Table 32), farmers may have the opportunity to increase

their income if they become organic farmers.

The results of interviews with key informants indicated that the following factors limit
acceptance of organic farming: 1) limited interaction with extension agents; 2) limited
contact between farmers and consumers; 3) lack of enforcement of standards for organic

produce; 4) the high cost of certifying produce as organic; and 5) weather conditions,

145

especially long dry seasons and excessive precipitation during the rainy season, which

makes control of diseases difficult.

146

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary

In recent years, there has been an increased demand for vegetables, including
those organically produced, by farmers in the highlands in Indonesia. This demand is
seen as an opportunity to develop agricultural production and increase the income of
small scale farmers. One of the challenges in developing organic agriculture in Indonesia
is increasing farmers’ knowledge of organic farming methods to grow high quality of
organic products (Surono, 2007).

The agricultural extension system helps farmers adopt new farming technologies.
They may obtain this knowledge through communication and educational processes.
Through these processes, farmers will form an attitude toward a particular technology,
and will decide whether or not they will adopt this technology. Once they decide to adopt
it, it will be implemented. Since the lack of extension is a constraint in developing
organic agriculture in Indonesia, it is very important to understand what factors determine
1) farmers’ knowledge of organic farming methods, 2) their attitudes toward such
methods, and 3) their adoption of the methods. However, until 2007, no systematic
technology adoption study of the organic conversion process had been conducted in
Indonesia.

Recognizing the need for research and development of organic agriculture,

Tokyo University of Agriculture initiated a research-cum demonstration project in 1999,
in cooperation with Bogor Agriculture University and Udayana University of Indonesia.

The goal of the project, known as Development of New Bio-Agents for Alternative

147

Farming (DNBAF), was to develop bio-pesticides to promote sustainable farming
systems (TUA, 2005). Several bio-pesticides were developed during the project period
(Dadang, et al., 2005; Sumiartha, et al., 2005; Sudana, et al., 2003). In January of 2005,
the DNBAF project set up organic vegetable pilot farms in two sites — West Java and Bali
— in order to field test the use of bio-pesticides and compost.

Since the DENBAF project is an example of organic conversion, this study
investigated farmers’ perceptions of organic farming methods, including use of bio-
pesticides and application of compost in the West Java and Bali DENBAF project sites.
The study was conducted in communities surrounding the model farms. It examined two
organic vegetable production practices: the application of biological insecticides (bio-
pesticides) and the use of organic fertilizers (compost); on three vegetable crops —
cabbage, tomato, and carrot. These are the major vegetables grown in these areas, and the
selected technologies were being tested on the pilot farms.

The overarching goal of this study was to determine farmers’ perceptions of organic
vegetable production practices, including bio-pesticides and compost in West Java and
Bali, Indonesia. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to:

1. Describe vegetable production systems, including the target vegetables (cabbage,
tomato and carrot) in the study sites.

2. Determine demographic-socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents in the
study sites.

3. Ascertain farmers’ awareness of target organic vegetable production practices,
including the application of bio-pesticides and the use of compost.

4. Ascertain farmers’ attitudes towards these practices.

148

5. Find out if farmers in the area had adopted these practices or intended to adopt them
in the near future.

6. Determine the factors associated with awareness of these practices.

7. Determine the impact that awareness of, and attitude toward these practices had on
vegetable farmers’ decisions to adopt or intention to adopt, these practices.

8. Ascertain farmers’ constraints, if any, in converting from conventional vegetable
farming to organic vegetable farming in the study sites.
The following hypotheses were tested in this study:

(1) socio-economic variables will affect the familiarity with bio-pesticides and
compost. The socio-economic variables are: respondent's location, gender, age, education
level, household size, number of family laborers, farming experience, farm size, distance
to the pilot farm, inigation sources, land tenure status, net revenue of cabbage, tomato,
carrot production; exposure to the pilot farm and any information source groups (media,
extension, farmer and commercial group). And,

(2) Farmers’ familiarity with the target organic vegetable practices will affect
their attitude toward these methods, and likely increase the probability that the farmer
will adopt organic farming methods.

Data were collected using a mixed method: face-to-face surveys and interviews
with key people. The face-to-face surveys were conducted with 210 farmers within a
population of 627 vegetable farming households surrounding the pilot farms in West Java
and Bali, Indonesia, selected at random. A questionnaire was used for the survey,
developed following recommendations fiom existing literature, addressing survey

research and later modified, based on the results of pilot tests and input obtained from the

149

dissertation advisor, the Japanese DNBAF project leader, and the project researchers in
Indonesia. The questionnaire was translated into Bahasa Indonesian, and the survey was
conducted by the author with two Indonesian research assistants in Bahasa Indonesia.
The study hypothesis (1) was tested by a binary logit analysis, and hypothesis (2) was
tested by a path analysis.

The interviews with key informants was done using a snowball sampling to
collect detailed information fi'om persons representing the Department of Agriculture, the
agricultural extension agency, and people involved in an organic vegetable market
channel in the study sites. A total of 10 people from the three groups were interviewed by
the researcher in Bahasa Indonesia. The interview schedule was developed using
literature reviews that addressed qualitative research methods, and later modified through
an expert panel review process. Field notes were made for each interviewee and the
verbal data were summarized based on the field notes.

The main results of this study were as follows:

In general, both study sites could grow vegetables throughout the year if there
were irrigation facilities. Various vegetables were grown in the study sites including
cabbage, carrot, tomato, chili, beans, and cucumber. In West Java, some farmers grew
crops that tolerate low moisture, such as chili and sweet potato, during the dry season
because they did not have irrigation. Also, a multiple cropping system, Tumpangsari, was
frequently used there. In cabbage and tomato production, farmers used organic and
synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, but they use very little synthetic pesticides in carrot

production.

150

The average respondent was 41 years of age, in a four-person household with two
family members contributing to farm labor, had about 18 years of farming experience,
and live in a house about 1.2 kilometer from the pilot farms. The majority of respondents
were male in both West Java and Bali. In general, respondents in Bali had a higher level
of education than in West Java. Around half of the respondents in West Java did not
complete primary school, but a majority of respondents in Bali completed at least primary
school. In West Java, the majority of respondents did not have secure land tenure status,
but a majority of respondents in Bali did. Also, a third of the respondents in West Java
lacked irrigation, however almost of all respondents in Bali had irrigation. In general, a
third of the respondents in West Java recognized the DEBAF project pilot farm, however
less than ten percent of respondents in Bali did. In general, respondents in both West Java
and Bali had similar information sources for their vegetable production, including other
farmers, farmers’ groups, extension agents, and commercial companies/agricultural retail
stores, or about three information resources on average.

Regarding awareness of target organic vegetable practices, respondents in West
Java knew about bio-pesticides and compost; respondents in Bali did not know about bio-
pesticides, but knew about compost.

Regarding attitudes toward the organic practices, respondents in West Java had
positive attitudes toward use of bio-pesticides and compost. Respondents in Bali had
positive attitudes toward use of compost, but they had some negative attitudes toward the
use of bio-pesticides in terms of compatibility and complexity. One possible reason why
respondents in Bali had some negative attitudes toward bio-pesticides is that they did not

know much about them.

151

Regarding adoption rates of the organic practices and the intention to adopt the
organic practices, adoption rate of bio-pesticides in cabbage and tomato production was
less than 10 percent for both West Java and Bali.

Adoption rates for compost-only use in cabbage and tomato production was also
less than 10 percent in the both sites. For carrot production, around 12 percent of
respondents use bio-pesticides and compost only in both sites. Thus, about 90 percent of
respondents in West Java and Bali did not practice the target organic methods in their
vegetable production. More than half of respondents in the both sites intended to adopt
the target organic practices in the future. However, it might be possible that there was
some politeness bias in the respondents’ answers to the intention questions to the
researcher. In Bali, the most frequent response to why farmers did not adopt bio-
pesticides was “I don’t know how to make bio-pesticides”; the most fiequent response in
West Java was that “it is difficult to find raw materials to make bio-pesticides.” Also, the
most frequent response in both West Java and Bali to why farmers did not adopt compost
was that “using only compost takes longer than chemical fertilizer to harvest vegetables.”
The main reason why farmers would not adopt bio-pesticides in both West Java and Bali
was that “using bio-pesticides may reduce vegetable production because it cannot easily
kill pests.” The most frequent response in West Java to why farmers would not adopt bio-
pesticides was that “I want to harvest vegetables quickly”; the most frequent response in
Bali was that “using compost only may not grow vegetables well.”

As a result of the binary logit analysis, the data partially supported the hypothesis
(1). The results indicated no significant influence of any of the variables, except exposure

to the pilot farm (EXPO), educational level of completed primary school (EDU3),

152

educational level of completed junior high school (EDU4) and distance from
respondent’s house to the pilot farm (DIS) on the probability of being familiar with bio-
pesticides; no significant influences of any variables except exposure to the pilot farm
(EXPO), location of respondent (LOCA), gender of respondent (GEN), and commercial
information source groups (IF G_COMMER) on the probability of being familiar with
compost. These findings imply that an educational level of at least primary school,
distance to the pilot farms, and exposure to the pilot farms would be the key factors in
increasing farmers’ awareness of bio-pesticides. Gender, exposure to the pilot farms, and
commercial information source groups would be the key factors to increase farmers’
awareness of compost. Especially, exposure to the pilot farms would be the most
important factor to increase farmers’ awareness of target organic vegetable production
practices.

As a result of the path analysis, the data did not support the hypothesis (2). The fit
indexes Showed these were not good fit of the model to the data. The possible reasons
why the data did not support the study hypothesis (2) were: 1) the target organic
vegetable production practices as an innovation had not been disseminated widely by the
DENBAF project; and 2) small sample size.

The results of the interviews with key informants revealed the program called “Go
Organic 2010,” established by the Department of Agriculture in 2001 with the goal to be
one of the biggest exporters of organic commodities in the world by 2010. To establish an
organic certification system in Indonesia, the government created the National Standard
for Organic Food in 2002. However, the current National Standard for Organic Food

(SNI) is voluntary and violators are not punished. So far, there are several domestic

153

certification agencies and foreign certification agencies, and farmers can obtain the
organic certifications if they clear all checks and pay a fee.

Before decentralization in the 19903, Indonesian extension systems existed in
several parts of the Department of Agriculture and were not integrated. However,
extension systems in the study sites were changed and re-organized. Many problems exist
within the system. Working conditions of extension workers are poor. This is a very
serious structural problem for extension systems in West Java and Bali. Extension
workers were asked if they conducted programs/activities related to organic vegetable
production. There were no activities directly related to organic vegetable productions in
either West Java or Bali. However, both Rural Extension Centers in West Java and Bali
had demonstration farms and tested compost/manure there.

In West Java, individual home-delivery customers were a major sales destination
for organic farmers. It is important to develop a strong, reliable relationship between
organic farmers and consumers for this marketing system. In Bali, farmers were recently
told by supermarkets that they need to obtain an “organic certificate” to sell organic
vegetables. This may become a big obstacle for small farmers in selling organic
vegetables to supermarkets, because of the high price to obtain organic certifications.
Organic farmers were asked about current issues in organic vegetable marketing.
Interestingly, all of them pointed out the same issue — many people did not know or did
not understand what organic vegetables were. There were no standard prices among
organic vegetables. In general, prices for organic vegetables were much higher than the

vegetable prices obtained by the survey — at least four times as high. This may be a good

154

 

 

incentive for farmers to adopt organic practices to increase their income. However, there
are some issues in organic farming in Indonesia as follows.
Organic farming Policy

0 Lack of enforcement of standards for organic produce (farmers can deviate easily).

Extension system

0 Extension agents cannot make home visits and advise farmers frequently because

of organizational problems — farmers cannot get useful information when they

need it.

o No programs related to organic farming. This means farmers do their own trial

and error to confirm appropriate organic farming techniques.

Marketing

0 Need to expand the marketing channels — supermarkets demand organic
certifications to sell; farmers need to develop reliable relationships with
consumers, and need to grow “true” organic vegetables to develop this

relationship.
0 Many people do not know about organic farming.
Technical
0 Difficult to control plant diseases because of the long dry seasons, and too much

precipitation in rainy seasons.

155

Conclusions

Both study sites could grow vegetables throughout the year if there were irrigation
facilities. Various vegetables were grown in the study sites including cabbage, carrot,
tomato, chili, beans, and cucumber. In West Java, some farmers grew crops that tolerate
low moisture, such as chili and sweet potato, during the dry season because they did not
have irrigation. In addition, a multiple cropping system, Tumpangsari, was fiequently
used. For both study sites, farmers used organic and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
for cabbage and tomato production, but used very little synthetic pesticides in carrot
production.

The study results revealed that the data partially supported the proposed
conceptual model. As a result of the binary logit analysis, the factors associated with
awareness of target organic vegetable production practices including bio-pesticides and
compost in the study sites were: location, gender, educational level, distance to the pilot
farms, exposure to the pilot farm, and information sources. However, as a result of the
path analysis, there were no statistically significant relationships between awareness of
the organic practices, attitude toward the practices, and intention to adopt the practices.
The possible reasons why the data did not support the conceptual model were: 1) the
target organic vegetable production practices as an innovation had not been disseminated
widely by the DENBAF project; and 2) small sample size.

The results of interviews with key informants indicated that the following factors
limit acceptance of organic farming: 1) limited interaction with extension agents; 2)
limited contact between farmers and consumers; 3) lack of enforcement of standards for

organic produce; 4) the high cost of certifying produce as organic; and 5) weather

156

 

t.’

a.
1.‘

44- .
D 'E_
u ”I.
I;

" I? i. 3";

 

 

conditions, especially long dry seasons and excessive precipitation during the rainy
season, which makes control of diseases difficult.
Implications

The results of this study have implications for the Department of Agriculture, the
DNBAF project, extension agents, universities, and NGOs in Indonesia, which play an
important role to develop organic farming in Indonesia.

Effective Use of the Diffusion of Innovation They

Study results showed that the data partially supported the proposed conceptual
model. The conceptual model was developed based on the diffusion of innovation theory
(Rogers, 1995). It could be expected to apply the theory to increase farmers’ knowledge
of organic agricultural practices in Indonesia. According to Rogers (1995), characteristics
of earlier knowers are different from late knowers at the knowledge stage of the theory.
Some characteristics of the earlier knowers are that they are better educated, and have
higher social status and wider social networks. During the survey, some farmers
mentioned that they knew/learned about bio-pesticides and compost because they worked
at an organic farm in the West Java study site. There were five organic farmers in that
study site; all of them completed at least high school. Four out of five of them live in
Jakarta; two out of five of them used to work at a bank in Jakarta and have wide social
networks there. The organic farmers have visited their organic farms two to four times a
week. Usually local farmers were hired by the organic farmers to manage the organic
farms. For the local farmers, it was an opportunity to make money and to be able to learn
about organic farming methods. However, these five organic farmers managed their

organic farms individually and sought out needed information about organic farming

157

methods and marketing by themselves. This was sometimes difficult for them. If
extension agents can provide the necessary information to organic farmers and
collaborate with them to increase their knowledge of organic farming methods, it could
be beneficial to the extension agents, organic farmers and potential organic farmers.
Effective Use of Demonstration Farms

Results showed that exposure to the pilot farm (EXPO) had a Significant positive
effect of at least a 1 percent level in the binary logit analysis with dependent variables
both “familiarity with bio-pesticides” and “familiarity with compost,” indicating that
vegetable farmers who were exposed to the pilot farm had higher probabilities of being
familiar with bio-pesticides and compost than farmers who were not exposed to the pilot
farm. Also, the negative coefficient of distance from respondent’s house to the pilot farm
(DIS) was significantly different from zero at the 10 percent level in the binary logit
analysis with dependent variable “familiarity with bio-pesticides.” This indicated that
farmers who lived closer to the pilot farm had a higher probability of being familiar with
bio-pesticides than who lived far fi'om the pilot farm. These is evidence that pilot farms
(demonstration farms) were effective tools in increasing farmers’ awareness of target
organic vegetable production practices, including bio-pesticides and compost. Thus,
extension educators need to use demonstration farms effectively to increase farmers’
knowledge of bio-pesticides and compost.

Focusing on Farmers with at Least a Completed Primary School Educational Level to
Increase Farmers’ Knowledge of Bio-pesticides
Results showed that the positive coefficients of educational levels of completed

primary school and junior high school were significantly different from the zero at 5

158

percent level in the binary logit analysis with dependent variable “familiarity with bio-
pesticides.” The odd ratio indicated that farmers who completed primary school had
about six times higher probability of being familiar with bio-pesticides compared to the
farmers who never went to school. Also, the odd ratio indicated that farmers who
completed junior high school had about 11 times higher probability of being familiar with
bio-pesticides compared to the farmers who never went to school. There were 61.6
percent of respondents who did not complete primary school in West Java and 18.5
percent in Bali. To increase farmers’ knowledge of bio-pesticides, extension educators
may need to use mass media to disseminate information, and invite farmers with at least
an elementary school education to participate in their programs, especially in West Java.
Effective Use of Commercial Information Source Groups to Increase Farmers’
Knowledge of Compost

Results showed that the positive coefficient of the total number of “information
source” checks for the commercial information source group (IF G_COMMER) was
Significantly different from zero at the 10 percent level in the binary logit analysis with
dependent variable “familiarity with compost.” This indicates that farmers who obtained
information for their vegetable production from market people and commercial
company/ agricultural retail stores (commercial information group) had higher probability
of being familiar with compost than who did not obtain information fiom this group.

In each of the village study sites, there was at least one agricultural retail store.
The percentages of the respondents who obtained information fiom commercial
companies/agricultural retail stores and market people in West Java were 23 percent and

11 percent, respectively. In Bali, percentages of the respondents who obtained

159

information from mass media or commercial companies/agricultural retail stores and
market people were 77 percent and 12 percent, respectively. According to the interviews
with regional extension agents, they could not visit farmers frequently because of
organizational problems. Therefore, extension educators should consider a strategic way
to use these agricultural retail stores in order to increase farmers’ knowledge of compost.
Therefore, extension educators should consider the strategic way to use of these
agricultural retail stores in order to increase farmers’ knowledge of compost.
Policy-Related Suggestioflr Develop Organic Agriculture

According to the key informant interview with policy makers, though the
government created the National Standard for Organic Food (SNI), the current SNI is
enforced by third parties, including the Indonesian organic certification agencies. If
farmers deviate from the SNI, they are not able to obtain/renew the organic certificates,
nor sell their organic products for premium prices. Prices of organic vegetables are higher
than conventional vegetables — at least four times as high, according to interviews with
organic farmers. Thus, some farmers may sell their conventional products as “organic
products” with a higher price than conventional products because of the lack of
enforcement. Consumer confidence on “organic products” in the future may drop,
creating a harmful situation for “true” organic farmers.

According to interviews with organic farmers in West Java, they sold their
vegetables as “organic vegetables” without organic certifications. They have made a
strong effort to grow “true” organic vegetables to keep consumers’ confidence on organic
vegetables for many years. They sell their vegetables through home-delivery, and have

developed a confident relationship with consumers. In Bali, some of the organic

160

vegetables are sold to supermarkets in Denpasar, but recently the supermarkets were
required to obtain the “organic certificate.” In the interviews, organic farmers mentioned
that the cost of obtaining organic certification was expensive. Suroso (2008) mentioned
that the cost of organic certification depends on the length of time required for the
inspection. When implementing organic farming in the process of certification and
inspection, the cost is required lower by farmers. After the inspection, an Indonesian
organic certification agency will charge the cost of inspection and certification activities,
which amount to approximately 10 million to 11 million Rp. These fees include
registration for application fees, appraisal fees, organic certification, and the cost of
monitoring visits, until the cost of the technical commission meeting. According to the
interview with policy makers, farmers could receive a subsidy to obtain organic
certification. If a farmer is approved by the Department of Agriculture, he/she can get a
subsidy, which is 10 to 12 percent of the total cost of the organic certification. However,
none of interviewed organic farmers knew about this. Thus the government should make
more efforts to inform farmers about the subsidy, which may lead other farmers to

consider organic production.

According to the interview with policy makers, the Department of Agriculture
established a program called “Go Organic 2010” in 2001, and one of the main activities
of this program was human resource development and knowledge dissemination. A goal
of this program was to increase awareness of organic agriculture. As a part of a national
campaign, several trainings, workshops, and seminars were conducted in various places
in Indonesia. However, interviewed organic farmers mentioned that many people did not

know about organic farming, and those people may not buy organic products. The

161

Department of Agriculture should reconsider the method of the national campaign to

inform more people about organic agriculture.

Develop Markets for Organic Agricultural Products

According to the interviews with organic farmers in West Java, the most
successful organic farmer in the study site sold his vegetables by home-delivery in
Jakarta. He had about 120 individual home-delivery customers, and 75 percent of the
customers were Japanese nationals living in Jakarta. He was able to do this by deve10ping
a Japanese Teikei system between him and the Japanese customers. Teikei are organic
crop production, marketing and consumption activities, with a direct cooperative
relationship between farmers and consumers to promote sustainable agriculture
(Okumura, 2004). Concepts and activities of Teikei are similar to American community-
supported agriculture systems (Hendersen and Van En, 1999). If the Teikei system is
good fit with Indonesian culture, developing such a system between organic farmers and
Indonesian consumers might be a good way to increase consumers’ satisfaction, vis-a-vis
farmers’ income. To do so, organic farmers must be honest with consumers and grow

“true” organic crops, even if they do not have organic certification.

Opportunities for Future Research
The organic movement is relatively new to Indonesia, thus there are opportunities
for future research related to organic vegetable production in Indonesia fiom both social
and economical points of view. The following list contains potential research, or a

continuation of this study:

162

. Conduct the same survey to the same respondents after several years to observe
respondents’ changes in awareness of, attitude toward, and adoption of target
organic vegetable production practices.

. Replicate the study using other organic vegetable production practices to confirm
if this study’s conceptual model will or will not work.

. Replicate the study in other areas of Indonesia to confirm if this study’s
conceptual model will or will not work.

. Replicate the study using other vegetables to confirm if this study’s conceptual
model will or will not work.

. Perform a study in Jakarta to identify the factors associated with consumers’
willingness to buy organic vegetables.

. Perform qualitative studies to identify the reasons why farmers do or do not

convert to organic farming in Indonesia.

163

Appendix A. DNBAF Project Pilot Farms’ Summary

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Java Bali
Location of pilot farms Dusun H, Sukagali village, Banjar Titigalar, Bangli,
Sub-district of village, Sub-district of
Megamandung, District of Baturiti, District of
Bogor Tabanang
Size
Rice farm 70 are 0 are
Vegetable farm 20 are 20 are
When started? January, 2005 January, 2005
Organic methods

Application of bio- \l ‘1

pesticides

Use of organic fertilizer \/ 3]

Crops

Tomato ‘1 ‘1

Potato *1

Cabbage J 4

Carrot I

Chili J

 

 

 

165

 

Appendix B: Consent Forms

166

Research Consent Form

My name is Chifumi Takagi. I am a doctorate student at Michigan State
University and I am conducting a study to learn about organic farming in Indonesia. I
would like to ask you some questions about your vegetable productions and your
opinions about organic farming. The information that you provide will be used to assess
the effect of model farms on the dissemination of organic farming practices to farmers in
Indonesia.

This study is supported by Bogor Agricultural University/Udayana University, in
collaboration with Tokyo University of Agriculture in Japan.

The interview will take about an hour. Your participation is voluntary. Your
refusal to participate or to withdraw the study carries no penalty or loss of any benefits.
You are flee to not answer any of questions that I will ask. However, I hope that you will
agree to answer my questions, as your answers will help me to better understand about
organic farming in Indonesia. All of the information that you provide will be kept
confidential. This means that your answers will only seen by my advisor and me. No one
will know your answer except my advisor and me. Your privacy will be protected by to
the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Chifumi Takagi by
phone: 1-517- 432-0296, e-mail: takagich@msu.edu, or regular mail: Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies, Michigan State University,
131 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222 USA. If you have any
questions about your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any
aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you wish—Dr. Peter Vasilenko,
Director, by phonezl-517- 355-2180, fax: 1-517-432-4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu, or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
USA.

 

 

Thank you very much for agrees to cooperation for this study.

I voluntarily participate in this study

 

Signature (Name) Date

167

Research Consent Form for Policy Maker of Organic Farming in Indonesia

My name is Chifumi Takagi. I am a doctorate student at Michigan State
University and I am conducting a study to learn about organic agriculture in Indonesia. I
would like to ask you some questions about organic agriculture, especially for vegetable
in order to answer the question “what is the government doing to support organic
agriculture?”

The information that you provide will be used to assess the effect of model
farms on the dissemination of organic farming practices to farmers in Indonesia.

This study is supported by Bogor Agricultural University/Udayana University, in
collaboration with Tokyo University of Agriculture in Japan.

The interview will take about 30 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. Your
refusal to participate or to withdraw the study carries no penalty or loss of any benefits.
You are free to not answer any of questions that I will ask. However, I hope that you will
agree to answer my questions, as your answers will help me to better understand about
organic farming in Indonesia. All of the information that you provide will be kept
confidential. This means that your answers will only seen by my advisor and me. No one
will know your answers except my advisor and me. Your privacy will be protected by to
the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Chifumi Takagi by

phone: 1-517- 432-0296, e-mail: takagich@msu.edu, or regular mail: Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies, Michigan State University,
131 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222 USA. If you have any
questions about your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any
aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you wish—Dr. Peter Vasilenko,
Director, by phone:l-517- 355-2180, fax: 1-517-432-4503, e-mail: irbfigjmsucdu, or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
USA.

 

Thank you very much for agrees to cooperation for this study.

I voluntarily participate in this study

 

 

Signature (Name) Date

168

Research Consent Form for Regional Extension Agents

My name is Chifumi Takagi. I am a doctorate student at Michigan State
University and I am conducting a study to learn about organic farming in Indonesia. 1
would like to ask you some questions about the agricultural extension system in order to
answer the question “What are the agricultural extension agents doing to support organic
farming?”

The information that you provide will be used to assess the effect of model farms
on the dissemination of organic farming practices to farmers in Indonesia.

This study is supported by Bogor Agricultural University/Udayana University, in
collaboration with Tokyo University of Agriculture in Japan.

The interview will take about 30 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. Your
refirsal to participate or to withdraw the study carries no penalty or loss of any benefits.
You are free to not answer any of questions that I will ask. However, I hope that you will
agree to answer my questions, as your answers will help me to better understand about
organic farming in Indonesia. All of the information that you provide will be kept
confidential. This means that your answers will only seen by my advisor and me. No one
will know your answer except my advisor and me. Your privacy will be protected by to
the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Chiftmri Takagi by

phone: 1-517- 432-0296, e—mail: takagi Ch@n1 su.edu, or regular mail: Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies, Michigan State University,
131 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222 USA. If you have any
questions about your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any
aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you wish—Dr. Peter Vasilenko,
Director, by phone:l-517- 355-2180, fax: 1-517-432-4503, e-mail: irbi’g‘jmsuedu, or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
USA.

 

 

Thank you very much for agrees to cooperation for this study.

I voluntarily participate in this study

 

 

Signature (Name) Date

169

Research Consent Form for Marketing People of Organic Vegetables

My name is Chifumi Takagi. I am a doctorate student at Michigan State
University and I am conducting a study to learn about organic farming in Indonesia I
would like to ask you some questions about the organic vegetable marketing system in
order to answer the question “What are organic vegetable marketing channels and what
are the issues and problems to sell organic vegetables in Indonesia?”

The information that you provide will be used to assess the effect of model farms
on the dissemination of organic farming practices to farmers in Indonesia.

This study is supported by Bogor Agricultural University/Udayana University, in
collaboration with Tokyo University of Agriculture in Japan.

The interview will take about 30 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. Your
refilsal to participate or to withdraw the study carries no penalty or loss of any benefits.
You are free to not answer any of questions that I will ask. However, I hope that you
will agree to answer my questions, as your answers will help me to better understand
about organic farming in Indonesia. All of the information that you provide will be kept
confidential. This means that your answers will only seen by my advisor and me. No
one will know your answers except my advisor and me. Your privacy will be protected
by to the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Chifirmi Takagi by

phone: 1-517- 432-0296, e-mail: takagichfijmsuedu, or regular mail: Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies, Michigan State University,
131 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222 USA. If you have any
questions about your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any
aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you wish—Dr. Peter Vasilenko,
Director, by phone: 1-517- 355-2180, fax: 1-517-432-4503, e-mail: irbfimsucdu, or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
USA.

 

 

Thank you very much for agrees to cooperation for this study.

I voluntarily participate in this study

 

 

Signature (Name) Date

170

Appendix C: Research Instruments

171

 

”0:5 8:0 800 >035
"A: 8000:0003“

 

=8 go: so? 220

 

.300 m0m0n§a 50.880: :8 00m: 00 EB 8300:
>023 05. 05:08:? 80090 :0 00800083 .8058 0380w0> 802050
8 000380 “000:0 00:08:80.8 muwmxflt 888:0 m0 :8 mm >023 mfg.

 

 

 

A080§08m000v

0600005 0: 800.005 00:00:00.5 0380w0> 80%:0 .:0 000.003:

172

 

 

 

”mama—.8.“ 2590 m0 wfiugfigns 50» 095000 0303 .m
02 00> mags—3&0 gamma: .8 358.8.“ gawk? 0003 05 0.30: 026 :0» 0%: .v
”0050 .0 0:00m .m 300,0 H APBEK .o 0w00000 000030 .m :20 .v 000.80 .m 3080B .N 0w0£00 .—

030& :0» 00 00380w0> 0055 .m
8 000000005 0380m0> 00m 0w: :0» 00 NE has. 30: 000.3% 05 w008< .N
E 0020: :0» 00 05.8.3.0 .«0 N8 >508 30$ .—

 

 

N

I73

 

”02:00
0030me
£0 E .2.—

 

0.050505
0080):?— 05
02:0 32 6.0.:
55

wire #05:: <05:
0.qu .v 0.332
«ugh 30.30 .m
0001 .N 030;

 

”02:00
003095
me I .2.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23
3.52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

05:08 E 003 5 00303005 0380M; .30» 305 08 00— 00005 .0

174

 

 

 

 

 

W W W m M m M W W W m $000006
3235
W W W M W W m M M W M .02: 32.2:
E
W W W W W M W W W 0520 .33 €50
025.2002
020003
3.250
M m M W M W M M W m M 02:8
5.0g
r ma 5...:
W W M W 0 Egg
23:3
m m m m m m m m m m m 53
M w M W W W M W W W M 05:0 «as 00:8
030.2302
030%?
.522

 

 

I75

 

 

 

v 00000m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m 00000m
N 00000m
0 00000m
am
0000 0000.5 000000 00> A00 003 000 0205
000 >002: 002: 30E m>00 00> 000 00000 0055 950009 A0802
.3 0500 a; 20 0230 0020 so» 20
0000 0m==000m .0 0w0=0000 >008 303 .0 000009 0w0nn00 00E? .0
$00300

 

@50wa 000 0060:0000 0380M0> "a ZO—HOHm

 

005200 000 00: E 0005 0 000 00>00 0 000 00: 5 1.0300 005 000 08:00 0.80 00 00 000: 00 00E.“ 2F .E0H0>0 05

550$ 00005.0 2.00000 >00 5:00 00 000000008 0005030 9000 00 0000000 00 000508 0000000008 000 00030—03 400830 6100000
00003 $50: >3 00000—080000 00 0E .0880>0 080000 >=000_ 0000000 00030000 300300 009 0000000 003 mg .0300: 8000.00
00 00: 05 00 0000000000 E 00030000 000803008 00 00: 05 030000080 00 090600 000E205 :00 000 .00_0>0 00030003 50003005
900305 42000 E000>0000-00w0 005300 000 0008000 0033 0E0a0>0 8080300000 00000000 000202 “min—.30 000090 A
0:200. 00 005502—

176

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00305 0020,00 0 a:
00390 000500m
0030.0 255,00 0020
0505 0020,00 0
20090 000.00% < 020 00000m
30090 000503
2505 0020.00 0 a:
2505 0020900
2505 0:20:00 0 6:
000030 000500m N
000w5 0:05am < 0000 00000m
000090 0005003
00305 0020.00 0 a:
ogwho 0005§m
000.05 205,00 0 80
000030 000583 0
300m5 000.00% < 00.0 00000m
A00 5000
as: $800 30 0:5 “a
00% 20 00008 00008 0080 00% 9000009 A0032 .00N=0._00v
0008 30$ 20 0000 0003 “3000 00» 0000.8 030000
Md 0% 0850.000 0000 0000030 .8 .50» 00 D000 00» 20
080 50:50 .0_ 0o :88 so: .2 235.00 020 20>» .0 05,0030 523 .2

 

 

 

 

 

I77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0E0m..0 000.00%

2590 2.05.00 0 a...
gamuo 000.00%

250.0 2.2.000 m .20
2505 2.2.2.00 v
2300 2.20.00 <60. .8080
0.0.0w5 000.00%

 

 

 

I78

 

000090 000.00%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.500 0020.00 0 80.
0.500 0005.00 0
000090 000.00% .0 00—0 00000m
30090 000.00%
2.005 2.2.000 0 s...
000090 000.00%
3.000 2.20.00 0 8:
000090 000.00% 0.
00.090 000.00% < 020 00000m
000090 000.00%
0.500 00209.0 0 6.0
000090 000.00%
0.5000 0.05.00 0 a:
30090 000.00% 0
000090 000.00% < 020 00000m
A00 0000
000.0 000000 A00 000. .00 00002 02000000
000 000 00000. 00000 0000 000 00000000 000000 0$0.500
:88 300 00 80.. .33 00.0% .50 so» 9 0.0%
a 000 0200000 0000 000.090 0 000.0000 000 000
0000 0200000 .5 00 0008 30m .3 00.0 0.03 .3 00200000 00005.:

 

 

 

 

 

179

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000090 000.00%

0.50.0 0020.00 0 a...

0.0090 000.00%

2500 0.20.00 0 8...

000.0.0 2.20.00 0
00.090 000.00% <83 080%
000090 000.08%

00.000 2.2000 0 80

 

 

180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000020.00 202 < 020 080%
000020000 20000
000020.00 202 0 .20
000020000 20.000
000020.00 202 m .20
000020.00 200.00 M
000020.00 202 < 020 080%
000020.00 20.000
000020.00 0002 0 .20
000020000 20.000
000020.00 202 m 020
000020.00 20.000 N
000020.00 202 < 020 080%
000020000 20000
000020.00 20.2 0 .20
000020000 20.000
000020000 202 m .20
000020000 20.00 0 0
000020000 2.02 < 020 080%
00.0.0020 000000000
A040 0000 90.0030 9030090900000
09>» 0:000 0093 00000 0000 0000 .0 00020.00
0000 .003 0.0. .3 000.0 300 00 0 .0. 0003 20000 0000. 30m .3 0000A

 

181

 

000020.00 20.00 0

 

 

 

000020.00 202 O .20
000020.00 20.000
00002000 202 m .20

 

 

 

 

 

000020.00 200.0 0

 

 

 

 

182

 

 

U .20

 

 

m .20

 

 

< .20

00000m

 

 

O .20

 

 

m .20

 

 

< .20

00000m

 

 

U .20

 

 

m .20

 

 

< .20

00000m

 

 

 

 

00.0 ”.000 000
3.05 000000 000 “.00.. .00 000% 0000
0.0 0000.0 000.0 30E. 000 0.0 02.0 .055
a
.000 000.02 00.00 .mn

 

$0039 .00:
.50 20 00308 .08
00 000.0 320 .NN

 

00.002 3.0.006
000000000 m00$00w0w0£00
0.00 .0 000 000

.0. 00.508 sec 0.5 ...

 

 

 

 

183

 

 

U .20

 

 

m .20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

< .20

 

00000m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

02 00>
02 00> 0
02 00> 00000.0
02 00>
02 00> m
02 00> 00000m
02 00>
02 00> N
02 00> 00000m
02 00>
02 00> .
02 00> 00000m
302.00 .200 u 0
0.000000% u 0.
.8080 n v
0.0.0.0.. .050
A00 .00 ”0.000 003 02.0.0008 0m n m
"0.000 00.0.0. w2w02000v 000 ”0.000 000% .0..00...0.. 00 u N
.0200 0300.30 8000.00.05 00:23.... n.
.00 .000 00.. .000 00000000000... «000 003.500 00.
.0 0.0 000.0 .. 0.0 000.0 00.. .000 ._ 00 0000.000 0020.500 .000 :00 0. .000 000.0 0w0na00 0.00 :00
30: .0" 320 .3 .000... 320 .0" 000 000 00 00.000. .003 .0" 000 .002 .3 000 0.0 0.03 .0"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

185

.X. wan—OE HOG 3“,. $0.85 23 £038 >905

”000.0 .0 00..0N.00w.0 .000800“. .m 0.00m. .N 03.0.0.5 ..

 

0:00. 00. .0m 00.. 0... 0.003 .00> ..

02 00> 0000. 0 .0m 00% 0.00 00000.00... 0w00000 00.. 0000.0 00.0000 00% .. .Nm

 

O .05

 

m .05

 

< .05

v 00000m

 

U .05

 

m. .05

 

< .05

186

m 00000m

 

U .05

 

m .05

 

< .05

N 00000m

 

O .05

 

m. .05

 

< .05

 

. 00000m

 

 

 

.0000.

00900000 000% :00 00.. 0003
.0w 0. 0.00 0:00.00. 00% 0.03
0.00%.... 00.. 00.0.. .003 Am

 

0.00300 00% 0... 0000000
..0 08003.0. .308 30... .em

 

 

 

 

v 00000m

 

 

m 00000m

 

 

N 00000m

 

 

. 00000.0

 

”.000 .0.th 000000 000

0.0 0000.0 0000. 30m 000.. 000 0.0 00.... .003

 

 

0.00... 000 0.0 090.0000

 

 

 

.0802

0.00... 000 0.0
0000...0> 0.00.0. 00.03 .mm

 

 

0.0.00.0.

187

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.5000 000200.0 0 .20
0.0090 0..00.00m
0000.0 00200.0 0 a:
0000.0 00205.0 0
0.0090 0..00.00m < .05 00000m
0.0090 0..00.00m
Q000.0 00200.0 0 .20
0.0090 0..00.00m
0000.0 00200.0 0 a:
0000.0 000000.0 0
0.0090 0..00.00m < .0... 00000m
0.0090 0..0...00m
0000.0 00208.0 0 .20
0.0090 0..00.00m
00000 2.20.00 0 .20
000000 0020.00 0
0.0090 0..00.00m < .0... 00000m
.00 0000
.080 .002... .00 00s .2.
000 0.0 000000 00.00. 0000 000 00.0.0000. 00.0.0 Z 000....000.
00000 303 0.0 00.00 .003 00.000 000 000000 0.00.0.
KIO. 0.0 000000.. 0000 00.0090 00 0000 0. 0.000 000 0.0
.000 000....000 .0». 00 000.0 30: .wm 0..00.000 000. 0003 Km 000N....00.. 00.03 .00”

 

 

 

 

 

188

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0090 0.0585

0.50.0 255.00 0 a:
0.0090 0.050%

0000.0 00200.0 0 a:
0.0090 0.050% 0
0.0090 0..05§m < .0... 00000m
0.0090 0.050%

 

 

 

 

189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0090 0.050%

250.0 2.20.00 0 .2.

250.0 2.2050 0
250.0 2.2050 52. 55.0
0.0090 0.050%

250.0 2.2050 0 .2.

0.0090 0.050%

250.0 2.2050 0 .2.

250.0 2.2050 0
0.0090 0.050% {.0... 00000m
0.0090 0.050%

250.0 2.2050 0 .2.

0.0090 0.050%

.505 2.2050 0 .2.

250.0 2.2050 .
0.0090 0.050% .0. .0... 00000m

 

 

 

.3. ”.000

.08... 000000 .00. 0.00 .00

00.. 0... 0000.0 00...... 0.0.. 00..

2.. 8... .2....

 

0000. 30..

 

 

mm
.000 0.0.0.00. .0...

 

.0055.
00.000 00..
2.. 222.5. 55
.0 0000. 30... .9.

 

.05

00.0090 .0 0505000

0.03 .3.

 

.0507. 0.0.0500...
0000.0 0.00.0.
.00.. 0. 0.9.0 00.. .0...

W222.... 523.?

 

 

190

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0030 0.050%

250.0 2.2050 0 .2.

0.0030 0.050%

250.0 2.20.00 0 .2.

250.0 2.2050 0
0.00w5 0.050% .030... 080%
0.00w5 0.050%

250.0 2.2050 0 .2.

 

 

 

 

 

191

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00002000 0.02 < .0... 00000m
0093.000 0.000...
009.2000 0.0.). U .0...
0000.000 0.000...
00002000 0.0.). m .0...
000020.00 0.000.. m
0093.000 0.0.). < .0... 00000m
0093.000 0.0000
0098.000 0.02 U .0...
0098.000 0.000...
0098.000 0.02 m. .0...
00002000 0000.. N
00002000 0.02 < .0... 080%
0098.000 0.000..
0098.000 0.02 U .0...
0003.000 0.0000
000.2000 0.0.). m. .0...
0098.000 0.000... .
0098.000 0.0.). < .0... 00000m
.552.
.00. 000.. 3.0.0.5. 0.00.0000 w0.30.m-0.00.0.
0w03 0508 0.0003 0000.. .00. .00.. 0. 5000.000
3.0.. .003 .< .3. 0000. 30.. .00 .9. 003 0.0000 0000. 30... .3. .000.

 

192

 

0098.000 0.000...

 

 

 

0023.000 0.0.). U .0...
0000.000 0.0000
0093.000 0.0.). m .0...

 

 

 

 

 

0098.000 0.0000

 

 

 

 

193

 

 

U .0...

 

 

m. .0...

 

 

< .0...

080%

 

 

U .0...

 

 

m .0...

 

 

< .0...

080%

 

 

U .0...

 

 

m. .0...

 

 

< .0...

00000m

 

 

 

 

.0... ”.000 .00
0.00. 050000 00.. 0.00 00 00...... 0000
5.5 .0000. 0000. 30.. 00.. 5.5 00.00 .055
0'0
.000 0.0.0.). 050 .00

 

32.500. .00..
00.. 5.5 0.0.0.0 0000
.0 000.0 30.. .av

 

.0007. 0.00.02.
000.0000
0.3000008. 00.. 0. 000 00..

5.5 0.0.000. 050 .003 .05

 

 

 

 

194

 

 

O .0...

 

 

m. .0...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

< .0...

 

v
08an

 

 

195

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

02 8%
oz 8% v
07. 8% 008m
02 8%
02 8% m
02 8% 008cm
02 8%
02 8% N
07. 8% 008cm
02 8%
02 8% .
07. 8% 080m
8.8.9 .200 u 0
00m=08m u m.
.8080 u w
800.00.. 80.0
.00 .00 “0.80 0.55 00.380000 km. N m
“0.80 .050. 8.80.00... .00 0.80 000.0 .8080... am. n N
0300.0 08.80.80 00......0080FV 0.305.350. u .
.0. .80 .0. .80 «00.03.0080... «000 00.080. ...0.
.. 5.5 0000. .. 5.5 0000. .0. .80 .. 5.5 089.0. 00.0.00. .00.. :8 0. .00.. 050E 0.0.00. .00.. :3
>60 .mm 30.. .2. .8... 33. .mm a: 8. 2.. .552: 00.3 .0. so. .92 .3 =3. 20 2.3 0m

 

 

196

.x. 00.000. .00 0.0.. .88.... 0... 0000. 30..
”.050 .0 02.00.0090 .8005... .m 0000 .N 0>..0.00 .N
0000. 0... .00 00.. 5.5 0.003 .8% ..

 

07. 8% 0000. 0 .0m 00% 000 0000050... 0.00.0. .0. 00000. 505000 000 0. .nm

 

O .0...

 

m. .0...

 

< .0...

v 00000m

 

U .0...

 

m. .0...

 

< .0...

.0 008m

 

U .0...

 

m. .0...

 

< .0...

N 080m

 

U .0...

 

m .0...

 

< .0...

 

. 0080m

 

 

 

.00....

00.080. .000 :00 000 0003
.0w 0. 0.00 0:00.00. 00% 0.03
0.0.8.... .00 00.00 .003 .3

 

0.820.. 000 5.5 0.0.00.
.0 8.0.8.... 000.0 30.. dm

 

 

197

 

 

v 00000m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m 00000m
N 00000m
. 088m
30
”.80 .08.... 050000 00.. .00 0.00 .00 0000.
5.5 .0000. 000.0 30.. 0.00 00.. 5.5 0000 .003 0.0.0000.
ml... 0.00.0 00.. 5.5 09.05000 .0802 0.0.0.6 0.00.0 00..
.000 mw0..500m .S .000. .50... .8 5.5 0000...... .0...00 00.03 dm

 

.0...—00

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

250.0 2050.0 0 .2.
0.0%... 0..00.....m
2500 205:0 m .2.
0.00m... 0..00.0..m m
0.0.00.0 0..00.0..m < .20 00000m
0.0%... 0..00.....m
250.0 2.2.8.0 0 .2..
0.00m... 0..00.0..m
250.0 2.2.50 0 .2.
250.0 2.2.00 0
0.0090 0..00.0..m < .0... 00000m
0.00m... 0..00.0..m
2.0.0.0 2.20.20 0 .2..
0.00m... 0..0...0..m
2.00.0 2.2.00 0 .2..
2.00.0 2059.0 .
0.00m... 0000.0..m < .0.0 00000m
.00 ”.000
.500 0.2.2.0 0.0 25. .2.
00.. 5.5 .000... 0000. 0.00 00.. 9.00000. 80.07. 000.000.
0000. .50: 5.5 00..0 .003 0...000 00.. 0000.0 .0000
a 5.5 500.00.. 0000 00.00w.0 .0 .00.. 0. ...000 00.. 5.5
.000 .00.....00 .me 00 0000. .50... .3 0..0....0..0 ..00. 0.03 .8 0.000.000 00.03 .3

 

 

 

 

 

199

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0030 0..05§m

250.0 200.5 0 .2.
0.0030 0..00.§m

2.00.0 2.20:... m .2.
250.0 2.205 0
0.0090 0.850% < .0... 0om00m
2.00.0 2.20%

 

 

 

 

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0030 0000.03

2.00.0 2.2.2.00 m .2..

2.00.0 2.2.200 0
2.00.0 2.20.00 <6... .8000
0.0030 0..00.§m

2.00.0 2.2.2.00 0 .2..

0.0030 0000.03

2.00.0 2.2.200 m .2..

2.00.0 2.2.2.00 0
0.0030 000.00% < .20 00000m
0.0030 003.0%

2.00.0 2.2.2.00 0 .2..

0.0030 0..0..0§m

2.00.0 2.2.200 m .2..

2.00.0 2.2.200 .
2.00.0 2.2.200 < .2.. 8.000

 

 

A00 ”.000

.0...: 02.2.. 0... 2.... .2.

00.. .0... 00000. 0000. 0000 00..

0008 30.. .0... 0000 .003

 

 

 

ma.
.80 2.0.0.... .00

 

3.02.0.
00.000 00.0
.2.. 222.02. .08
00 000.0 30: do

000.

 

00.0030 .0 0000.000

0.03 .00

 

00.07. 00.00000.
0000.0 .0000
.000 0. 0.000 00.. .0...

82202. 60.3.8

 

 

20]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0030 000.00%

2.00.0 2.20.00 0 .2..

0.0030 000.00%

2.00.0 2.2.2.0 m .2..

2.00.0 2.20.00 0
0.0030 000.00% <8... 00000m
0.0030 000.00%

2.00.0 2.20.00 0 .2..

 

 

202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00000.00... 0.03. < .0... 00000m
0093.000 0.0.00 0
000020.00 0.0.... 0 .0...
00000.00... 0.0.000
00000.00... 0.03. m .0...
00000.00... 0.0.000 m
000020.00 0.02 < .0... 000.00m
000020.00 0.0.000
0098.080 0.02 0 .0...
0098.080 0.0.00 0
000020.00 0.03. m. .0...
000020.00 0.0.000 N
000020.00 0.02 < .0... 080%
000020.00 0.0.000
000020.00 0.0.). 0 .0...
000020.00 0.00.0...
00000.00... 0.0.). m .0...
00000.00... 0.00.00 .
00000.00... 0.0.2 < .0... 00000m
.0......2.
A00. .0000 3.0003. 00000.000 3.383.008
.0003 .0000. 0.0003 0.000.. .000. .00.. 0. 0000.080
000.. .003 .< .Nh 0000. 30.. .0 0 Ar 0.03 0.0000 000.0 30.. .3. .0......

 

 

 

 

 

203

 

0098.080 0.0000".

 

 

 

0098.900 0.03. O 00.0
0003.080 0.00.00“.
0098.080 0.03. m. 00:.

 

 

 

 

 

0098.080 0.080”.

 

 

 

 

204

 

 

U SE

 

 

m 00.3.

 

 

< worm GOmMOW

 

 

D 00...

 

 

m 00...

 

 

< uO—m :Owwom

 

 

O .0...

 

 

m “or.

 

 

< 00.0 0om00m

 

 

 

 

EM. 0000 a”.
.0005 0.000% 00» 0.00 000 00.0% 0.0.00 A0802 .00—000.5
.0... 0.00000 0.0000 30m. 00» 2.0 00.00 000.3 $300000. 0000 000000000
[KIN 00» 0.0 3.00000 0000 3.303-850 000» 0. 0m: 00»

080 0502 500 .00 0o 035 300 i 20 “00308550 EB 0..

 

 

 

 

 

205

 

 

 

O 00.“.

 

 

m .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

< 00...

 

v
00000m

 

 

206

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

02 00>
02 00> v
02 00> 00000m
02 00>
02 00> m
07. 00> 00000m
02 00>
02 00> N
07. 00> 00000m
02 00>
02 00> .
02 00> 00000m
5.800. 050 n 0
=0m=000m n m.
000080 n 0
000000.. 000.00
.3. .3. ”0.000 5.3 0000000000 .m u m
“0.000 0050. 3.30.00... .9. ”0.000 000% .0005». .m. u N
022% 00508.80 800020880 0052205 u.
00.. .000 00.. 0000 0000000000000 «000 0.0000 000
0. 0.0 0.0000 0. 0.0 0.000. 00.. .000 0 0.0 000000. 0000.000 .59. :00 0. 009. 0.0000 .0000 009. :00
30.. A» 30.. .3 00000 30... .00 000 09. 0.0 000000.. 000.3 .2. =9. .00.). .E. 00.. 0.0 00.3 .0...

 

 

 

 

207

°\° 00.008 .00 0.0.. 6000.0. 0... 0008 30..
”000.0 .0 02.00.0090 .8080". .m 0.00m. .N 03.0.3. .m
0000. 0... .0w 0?. .0... 0.2.3 00> ..

 

02 00> 0000. 0 .0w 00. 000 00.80.00... .0000 .00.. .0008 00.0000 09. .. .vn

 

U .07.

 

m. .07.

 

< .07.

v 00000m

 

U .07.

 

m. .07.

 

< .07.

m 00000m

 

O .07.

 

m .07.

 

< .07.

N 00000m

 

U .07.

 

m. .07.

 

< .07.

 

. 00000m

 

 

 

.0......

0.0.00 H09. :00 09. 0003
.0w 0. 0.00 b.0083 00.. 0.03
80000.0. .00 00.0. .003 .3

 

0.00200. 00.. .0... .0000
..0 08080.... .008 30.. .Na

 

 

208

 

9.02.0 0... .0 02.800 .50...

 

030.00.. 0.0090
.080 E00. 0. 0.0000 80.8.0. 5.3 000:0. .0>0 09. 0>0... .aw

 

0000.. .0.... 00. .0 000.83 .0>0 00m 26.. .3

 

00:0,. .0.... 0... .00..m.> .0>0 00.. 0>0... .5

 

00.00.. .0.... 0... 0000 .0>0 00% 0>0... .3

 

0000..
.0.... .008... h.‘.V.m..,.n..n. 0... .030 0.000.. .0>0 09. 0>0... .ma

 

 

 

5:28 20 08% 00> 0

 

 

 

was. 3:0 08.20 “20200 20 .o 2:890. "N 229000

 

209

 

.200

 

0.0000,. .005

 

0.0.0.0.. 0.0090

 

0000a .0.00..0...

 

00.00.0303

 

00.000080 30.0.0080

 

0007.

 

.00w0 00.000.0m.

 

«088.:

 

0.00.00. .000 000.0032

 

0>..l

 

8.03.

 

 

000.000
E00008.
.000. m.
0.00. 0.00.
00007.

 

 

0.0000000

.0
3 .85

 

 

0000.000 00.3000. 00. .0 000 0.0.... 00.08.80. 00000080 0.00.0w0> 08.0w 09. 0>00 0000 .000 00. 0. .00

 

Tot—om 02.000500. "m 7.0.0.005—

 

210

 

03000000000800 000 0. .500 00.. 0.0 0:000. 50.. .00

 

v

N

03000000000800 8.00. 0. 500 00.. 0.0 00.0.0. .50.. .5

 

003.300.0088
3.0.0.0 .0. 0.0..0.00. .50. 0...» 00.. 0.0 0.0.0.0. 50m. .00

 

03000000000080 .0 0.05 0 0.05 00.. 0.0 .0....00. 50m. .3

 

0002000000... 000 0. 500 00.. 0.0 .0......0. .50.. .00

 

WWWW

VV'VV

MMMM

NNNN

Hv—‘I—CU—I

000.00.000-05 00.00. 0. 500 00.. 0.0 000.80. .50.. .8

 

m

V

M

N

000000850
900.00. .0. 0.0.8.00. 50. 0.05 00.. 0.0 .0....00. 50.. .Na

 

m

00.00.000.20 .0 0.0.5 0 0.05 00.. 0.0 .0...0.0. .50.. .3

 

 

 

.0....00.
:0
.0 .oZ

 

.00.0.0..
.07.

 

00.0.0. .

00500.8

 

00.0.00.

 

.005.

...0>

 

 

 

T005007. 0.00.03.» 0.00M.O .0 00002050. 0.. ZOEUHM

 

211

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00.8000
w v m N . 0.00.0.0 9.00 .00....5 0000.5 .0008 0. 0.0.0000 0. .. 0
00000.0
m 0 m N . 058m ....000..00>000 :00. .0.....000 0. 00:00.0 0.0090 0
0.0.0.0. .000..00>000
n v m N . 00 000. 0.0.00 0.05 .000000 0. 0.00. 0>.. 0.0000. 0.0090 0
0
0.w00.n. 00.w<
...m00..m 00.w00.Q 00.0002 00.m< ...w00..m

.0.00 000000.. .00..

..0.0 00. .0. 00080.80 0000 .0000 00%.. .0 00.9.0.0 00.. .. 00. ..0. 000 ....0.0.00 0.00. 00.0.. 0000.0 0.000.880 .0.0>00 000. ....5 . .00

 

01.50.02 90.0.0.0 0.0090 00. 0.0.50. 000....41m ZOE—Dam.

 

.00.0.00w.00.0.0. ..0 00.00000. 0.000080

.0 000 0. .00. :.0000.00: 000 6.0000. 08.0.00 n9.00 500 0000.00 00 0000 05.0.0. 0.0030 ...00 9003 £000.05. 0.0.5.0 .0 00: A

.0000. .0000 0.0.6 0. 00.000000. 30.00.05 0 00 00.0000. 0.00.0.0 .00.0 w0....00< ”.3003: .020. 000.0..000-0.0 .0 00000000<A.

00.00.03.» 00 0.000

000.0000... 0w00000 .0. 0000.00. 0.5.0.0 .030. 00 02.0000. 0.0 0000.08 w0..0..0. 00.0. 6000000000.. 0.0. 0.

0000.00. 0.00»? .09....

0.0.0... .0 00.00.05

212

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0000 ..0. 0.05
m 0 m N . .m. 000m 0 0. 00900000 .50..» 0. .00—.03. 0.0090 ...00 9003 0
000000003
m .0 m N . ..0. 0.05 0.. 000m 0 0. 0.000 .0000. 0.0.50 0. 0.00....0 .500 w0.0D 0
. 0.003
m 0 m N . ..0. 0.05 0. 000m 0 0. 0.000 .000... 0.0>0 0. 0.00.500 .00—0 m0.0D 0
0.000 00000020
m 0 m N . 00000. 000 00.00.0095 50% 0. 000.20. 0.0.00.0 ...00 m0.0D 0
0.000 00000080
w v m N . 00000. 000 0.000 .0000. 0.050 0. 0.00.500 .500 @003 0
0
0.30.9 00%....
...w00..m 00.m00.n. 00.0002 00.00. ...w00..m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0-00. 000000.. 0.0..
5.0 0.0 .00 0.00.0000 0000 .0000 00.00 .0 08000.0 00.. .. 00. :0. 000 ....0.0.00 0.00. 00.0.. 0000.0 0.000.880 .0.0>00 000. ....5 . .00.

 

 

 

 

m 0 m N . .0000 .000..00>000 00... 0.00.080 0.00. 0.0 00.0. 0.0030 ..
0.0000000

m 0 m N . 0..00.0..0 w0.00 .000...5 000000... .0008 0. 0.0.0000 0. .. 0
0.00.8000

m 0 m N . 0000.0..0 w0.00 500.05 0.000 .00000 0. 0.0.0000 0. .. 0

 

 

 

 

213

 

 

5.000 0000.00
0000.00 00.00 050.0 00.00.000> 000 .00—0.0.. 0.00000 000
00.00 050.0 00.00.000> 0005.00 0000.000 0 000 000 0.0000

 

00.000 0.000 .0000. 0.0>0 0. 00.000000.
0000.00 00.00 050.0 00.00.000> 000 0.03.00 .020
00.00 050.0 00.00.000> 0005.00 0000.000 0 000 0.00 0.0000

 

0.0... 00. 00 .000 000.0 0 0. 00.00.000>
50.0 0. 30......00 0.0.00.0 0.00 000 0. 00.00. 00 000 ..

'H

 

0.00 00. 00 ..00 000.0
0 0. 0.000 .0000. 0.0>0 0. 0.00.000 .00—0 000 0. 00.00. 00 000 ..

 

.0000 0. 00.00.000> 50.0 0. .00....0. 0.5.0.0 .000 00.0 D

 

.0000 0. 0.000 0.0>0 0. 0.00.500 .020 00.0 D

50.:

 

 

 

000000000 0.0. 0.5
0.. 0000 0 0. 00000000 50.0 0. 300.20.. 0.5.0.0 0.00 00.0...

 

 

 

214

 

E? .02 :

 

@3268: «9:3 :0.“
fl Loam—Eon 2:an b5. 3: 8 E03 8 385 _

 

@2838: 32:3 8m
_ Suite.— o_:uw.8 b3 8: 8 E23 9 285 _

 

w

v

agroauoa 09:38 :8
~ Lei—Eon 35MB b5 3: 8 “new: 8 285 _

 

 

 

9.5250 Ho:
38:2: :5 :

 

toxin—Co

8: $8 H

 

Sanam

05m

 

“.8280 35 ~

to>:oo
:35 as _

 

 

 

moESowP» 898 some :8 $6508 355% 3:590 8 “.6280 3 so» 53 box: Bo: .02 mm 5265. Box .2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E3 .82:

“:2? .mm; .3

mung—«tom

OZ 3% oz 3% oz 3% 3:an 2:: cm: 8 3:38 38:? so» 023 .89» 53 E .2:
8.50 Smack owafiao

 

1.32355 3530 a: 55:8:— 6 ZO—EUm—m

 

215

 

T33 .02 HH

 

$83268: 8:8
:3 33.55 E3: 8: 2 flow: 3 98:: H

 

928365 3:58
8H £3.55 “:2: em: 8 Bow: 3 HESS H

 

n

v

$3838: $233
:8 83.55 23.: 8: 8 E8: 8 25:: H

 

 

3355. 53 H

 

C0>GOO #0:

 

952:8

Ho: ~88 H

 

8::3H

OHDm

 

H5280 :88 H

 

to>floo
:85 53 H

 

 

moHnSowP, Howus :80 SH $5608 38.3 3590 3 “.5280 8 so» HHHB box: 32H .02 .HH

 

3? 62 :

 

macs? “mgr:

 

oz 8%

OZ

8%

02

3%

$8955 ES: 8: 8 @833 38% so» 022 .80» H3: 5 .NeH

 

 

850

 

 

8:88.

 

owmnnmo

 

 

216

30:5 .59» :8 :05: E: :9» :53:

:3

«Sam 8:: 05 9 8:0: Bo» Bod 8H 3:: .2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use:
2383:
basis. :0 owe—H8 3:29:00 a
3952:: :o owe—H8 oEom w
3050 s 628 :an cos—9:00 n
Bio? 8.83350 .c Hoonom .HwE oEom e
was: so» a 3.2.280: .m 32.8 an: BEHEaaaoo .m
gun—8H noon H533. 23:: .v Hoonom :wE SE3 oEom H. can:
o>§H wqu ban—:8 89:5 .m Hoonom Eat: HUBoEEoU m Eonomso: oHqunHum
32 “mafia Hos: 5.: 3:5: .N 62.8 ESE 28m N .23 2.93
mg :oumqsooo 8:5 :3": wfigm .H Hooaom 02 H mEmcoHHmHoyH ow< .8930
E850 .HH 83838 32.50 .2: :32 HacoHHmosHum .2: 6H: .m: .2: 08:2 .fl:

 

 

£850» Ea £352: mafia .59» .3 5:838 28 :23”.an :o :ouwnuomfi 05 at» 8:on

 

 

 

133555 23.3%: K zofiomm

 

217

 

”08: 0:0 0:00 330m
"DH 0:00:0nHm3H

 

:8 as: «a: 226

 

5:0 00009:: £03000: 00H 00m: 09 :5 0:30:
>033 2F .05H30tw0 03090 .3 30300800 MEEEH 0330w0> 80200
8 00cme0H0 0008.5 0053:8me 9meme H8330 .3 tan mH >023 03H

 

 

 

A00H0§0H0m030v

300009: E 80:08: 00303005 0HnHS0w0> 0H§w00 .Ho :0HE0H0<

218

 

 

033

0>

 

”M093 3.558 owawuo 580:5 Ema—0M mac—oh .m
maomnawho 520:3: :80 .3590 550:0? .awSu fifia x093 saving .v
”FEES .ocwomm .w 50.00 .N. hoe—um .0 Sam .m 300 .v 3:03 .m 0088. .N 3v:
58053 0393 was» $38.33 «Fm an? .m

E mgfi 380:8: §fi_ 8:. 380m .N

a 3:86 05; .52 £923: 923 as 8800 .—

 

 

219

 

:83: 0038.5
ma 0
m 103—ox—

 

Asfiaene
sub—092

332. .1 33.
53

E56 «SE {32
$0.30 .v 9832
£335 AEUU .m
m30m

.N £50m i=5.—

 

awqu honfism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ma 0
< E30..—
and.

5.5m

 

 

.0588 5:3 e 33 gas can? 3320 £303 08.00 .0

220

 

3.333:
0359::

£83 «A .53.
55

M536 #5.: £05:
«EEO .v 3:32
{anus A936 .m
0.300.

.N 50:00 x58.—

 

amamt. .8365
ma 0
U 553‘—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Afifiaeg
098090:

0:05: .YN :23—
53

93.3 «5E SEE
5.39 .v 0.332
.35: :26 .m
030m

.N 5:00 052:.—

 

 

221

 

v :05:

 

80:2

 

m :05:

 

80:2

 

N :05:

 

85:2

 

_ :05:

 

80:2

 

 

EM 500
58.5 N55020:: :0
w5» 5:0: 553 5:80m

EM 8:: :0: $55

 

$5: :0: :35 $5: 0:80m

 

 

Hal:
:5: as: .:

 

Agung:
:55: 05:3 w5x 5883 55:6 255:
:33 5:83 5:80.: .w 5:3 w5x 55 55> :3: .h

 

 

 

 

5 5050 55 50 5 50,0 50 05 : 55 555 5580 5 :0 58: 880

.8:
5535:: 5 5:33.: 2:350: ”: 20:90::

 

 

 

5:82
5 58?. 5:55: 6 5885:

558:0: .55 50:00:80: 550 550 88:: :05 58000: 55:00 55590 8 5985: 80: 550090: :58: w5>
5:530: :50 5590: m5058: 0:55 5:0: 088580 0:85 59888 80: 8:85: .m5n8om 5000. 80:00 8 080.590
885 55:88 5:: 0:58:00 55 5500 088580 55:5 53:5: 5: 50:50.85 w5m 58000: 88:50: isEOA

85:0,: 5:3: 85:»:

222

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:590 88M < m :05:
50:0 :80: 5:3 58:82
0:590 «:5: 0
590 «as: :86:
5:5 :80: 0
8390 «as: use:
v85:0 :80: < N 85.:
50:0 :8: use: 2532
V€55 :80: 0
V8:5 sec: :93:
V59.0 :80: m
590 :50: was:
8.05 :80: < : 85:
590 «as: was: :83:
a:
”558?: 555::
5:53 a:
05:5: 8:: :0: 555 E $58536
ms: :32: 59:53 50:90: 03%: £82:
:58: 5:0: 5:5: m5» w5m 5:8: @593
55:: 5:80P 553 5:5:0m w858 -m858 :00: 55:5: 058:
:18: :58: 05:5: @0580 :55 88:: 55:85 m5»
5%: 55mm .2 55:0»: .2 05:8: 505%: .3 5:5 05%: 080:. .3

 

223

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x330 2:5. 0

€390 280. £33

£590 280. m

£590 289 633

£35 gag < v :88
£390 289 m§3 sans:
éawho 389 o

éamho gag g3

€330 «:5 m

éawho 382 333

 

 

 

 

 

224

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#3590 «35— m 553
£590 ESE aims—3 3332
£830 £89
3690 as 0 ~33
335 289
£5“qu SEQ m Mme—3
:33qu ESE N 5:3
V3&5 sag 58*: 2532
3&5 as
38pr 389 O Ego:—
3590 289
$590 $5 m mwmxoq
3830 £39 :53.“
3&5 as $33 :33:
am
Una—3:3 «mane
““353 am
:33 3:5 Ba «wast Ru— lmSuqsiv AmEmwmom 952v
wag V393 wamxuwfiox 2833wa
3:: 38 “Emma was» m5» «2333 mfiqfi
935 330m 933 335 main“: -wfimaE Bx 5833 3::
a 3:: x533 @2590 3% 332 adv—«5&6 was» an
«233 «Em .: 5.92$ .2 83mg 39? .2 «283 we“; .2

 

225

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2:30 2:5.

2:30 2:5. 0 .85.
25:5 2:5.

2:25 2:5. 2 .22....
25:5 2:5. .. 5:2.
25:5 2:5. < 22.3 228:
23:5 225.

2590 2:5. 0 .223
2:220 2.:5.

25:5 2:5. 2 .223

 

 

226

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«Wm «W8. «wgh < 68.0. 28.3.).
8.:«3 «W8. «wgoh
«.2. «W8. «mac... 0 38.01.
8.525 «W8. «wgoh
«.3 «W8. «mach m 38.01.
«:53 «W8. «wash m .35..
«.3 «W8. «w«:«... < 68.9. 53.33.
8.:«3 «W8. «$5..
«.3 «W8. «wank O 68.9.
3.53 «W8. «wash
«.3. «W8. «wash m 68.01.
3.:«3 «W8. «mach N 5.8..
«.3 «W8. «35.. < .88.... 32.9.3.
8.:«3 «W8. «3:0...
«.2. «W8. «mach 0 68.01.
«3.95 «W8. «w«:o,.l
«.3. «W8. «mach m 38.01.
8.:«3 «W8. «wash . 5.8..
«.2. «W8. «mach < 68.04 58.3.2
.252 E... 2887..
EM. «283:. .«qsam :85. «.8. .339... 3::
2.2.2 22.. 2:2. :2. 22.3. 38.2. 2.20:. 2:22. 5:2 2: 33.2.
«W8. :3: «aflom .3 «E«. «aflom .3 m5» mafia «3.0.. .2 «W8. «wan...

 

227

 

 

 

 

«:53 «W8. «mgoh

«.5 «W8. «ma—oh 0 68.9.
5.:«3 «W8. «wash

«.2. «W8. «mach m 68.01.

 

 

 

 

 

5.:«3 «W8. «mg—0H

 

 

w 55..

 

 

228

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$8.01.
m
«9.8.01.
< m 55....
.9.on 38.9.3.
O
.3on
m
$8.04
< N 5.8..
58.9. 58.32
U
.820».
m.
78.9.
< .35...
$8.9. «mamas.

 

.2... “£38.... “2......

Em 5.9. .2. «mam.
2525.3 22.3

«9393... .88 «mfiom was. «.893... «afiom

 

 

 

Ina...

a... «s2 :2.2. «Em «a

 

Sago.
mwfim«8&5m«8
«.38. «2.5.2.252.
«Exam. .NN

 

:5 35...

2.3.... 28. .2382. 239.
22.2. .25 .« 528.... 22....
w:«.. «.33. m5» a«..«m AN

 

 

 

 

229

 

 

.223

 

 

.223

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

< v non—«m
.301. 2£33.

 

 

230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.3.... «N. v
8.8.... «N. 805..
8.3.... «Mr 8.8.).
8.8.... «> m
8.3.... «w 808...
8.3.... «> 8.9.3.
8.3.... «W N
8.3.... «V 80.3..
8.8.... «> 8.83.
8.3.... «> .
8.3... «> .58...
.«U... «M. 8.8.).
25.3.2. a... u .
tawnoSm n b
28.32. H ....
V.2883. u v
a... .522.
EN. EN. .89.»... «8% «W8. n m
Em 8.... “8.38032. ”.88....ng .83 8.8.80.8. 58.0.. n N 603$
m8... «8.... 98.... «8.... 59.88.... H . 5.8.8.5..
.688. $538089. ..«.....m«...o%..«b «SE. 8.8... £28 .8885. .32....qu $8.... .8. ..m«..
ms... «.8... 8.88. «.3... «.3... ..m«.. .8808 v.«..«.. 8.8.. v.«..«.. .8808 83......
«..«.um. .aN «afiom 6N «88.5 ....N «.888 «8.8.8.2... 6N ..«u.«..< .mN «..«.m «82.3. ..N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

231

.88...

 

..\o

.803... .08 9.8.0885. 380m.

”8.38.88. .v 9.5. .m V.8....m. .N 88.088m ..

 

85.8... .82 gas... .8. 5:.

0> 88888.8... 88.89.8808 8... 8.8.8.. 8.8.880 .8. 8.8.5.8808 8.888 mg: 88.280808 0.8.8. 8.... .Nm

 

U .98....

 

m. .08....

 

< 88.0.

v. 8088. 8.083.

 

O 88.8.

 

m 88.3

 

< 88.3

m 8088. 8.083.

 

o .283

 

m. 88.8.

 

< 89.3

N 8088. 8.08.).

 

u 883

 

m. 68.0..

 

< .383

 

. 8088. 8.08.).

 

 

.0888.
58088.. 88.03 8880... .80.. .8.
.88.. «was 38.88 8883. Am

 

 

5808......
mg.» .8. 8882.8. 8.80m. .em

 

 

232

 

 

v 5:8
.532

 

 

m 859
532

 

 

N :88
.532

 

 

fl coca
€82

 

 

EM 580

as: $553 6 am "€32” «was
was» :33 935 380mm SE: Hum :95 amass «swam

 

 

 

flaws

EB «Em .mm

 

Aguasvc
2553 3.83 mag
EB fi_§_ «92$ .3.

 

Amflta> «32V mamas v.33
was» an“ 9333 888. .mm

 

 

«an—ch

233

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£590 £90. < m Baa
£890 «Ea 03.3 2592
£590 £99 0
£590 «Ea. 393
£890 «:5 0
£590 389 5.93
0:530 280— < N 0280
0:590 3me 60x04 2332
£590 gag 0
£590 £59 £53
£590 NEE m
£890 NEE £33
£995 £89 < _ 8:8
0:590 SEQ 6864 3582
am
”fleas.“ “9%:
““5983 am
#82 95 Ha «9&0 9 i359
man» #0000 mggfiox mcdxdasmmu 9:95 mEmZV
x30: 38 #83 we?» we?» x5000 3003
SEE «080m 933 afiom mafia -wEmaE “.089 008008 0:50:
a x30: x933 onwwho :80 0.55 Enigma. m5»
03000 835 .am «agom .wm 039a §q< .bm mam 030:0 £03. 6m

234

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£590 55 0

£590 sag 533

£590 £89 0

V£590 £89 £503

£590 £59 < ¢ 55¢.
V£590 £59 553 :55:
£590 gag 0

£590 £89 £533

V£590 55. 0

£590 £85 503

 

 

 

 

 

235

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:590 05 m 0250
£590 «E < $3 :55:
£590 £89
£590 55 0 523
£590 ESQ
£590 £89 0 503
0:00qu 389 N 5an
0:595 flag <£m§3 59:32
£590 £85
£590 £50. 0 £33
£590 £85
£590 25E 0 553
£590 as _:o:.&
£590 £59 £503 2552
am
”am—2:3 «mama
£505.53 am
559 £52 595:0 ax $55530 555$ 9570
mag 030:0 008—538— £536
:30: 38 0303 we?» wag 02380 $83
.933 «neon 983 aflom mama“: -9:de 888 5588 £30:
a £30: £933 @3590 :35 SEE HHS—Sammy was» an.
«296$ 959m .3 880m .3 «06080 5353 .2. 529500 £03. .3.

 

236

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v£590 £89

£590 £89 0 £593
£590 £89

£590 £89 m 593
0:5qu ESE v 00:00
£590 £89 < 593 885::
£590 £89

£590 £89 0 £593
£590 £89

£590 £89 m 593

 

 

237

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«ma abov— mwmcoh < 98.04 08902
8:53 «@8— «wank
«E «to: «munch D 98.04
0:53 «we. «munch
mtg «be. «munch m 9304
8903 «D8— mwmcoh m 00:90
«E are. 09809 < 9904 38632
0:53 «we. «munch
35 FOB. awmcoh 0 M990:—
8395 mp8— «munch
«tn «@8— awmcob m 6304
5:53 3.98. mwmaoh N 583
BE «D8. «munch 129904 08632
8:83 «.50— «was»;
«ta «@8— awmcoh 0 98.04
SE95 «.50. «munch
mtg «@8— mwmcoh m 950—04
«:53 «be. awmcoh _ 00:3
«in are. awash < 9304 586:2

 

 

 

 

am
”5:8 500 £58 .2
«be. :3: 380m .3.

 

N508 5088 £559

a .88. 5:0

90.nov, 0.08—on «9208

«89

380m .3.

 

$088

:08on

3589 £85

55; 55 £0 £032.
was» wafio «080m .3.

 

are. «munch

 

 

238

 

 

 

 

 

SE03 050— $0009

0:0 050— 0w0coh U mmfioq
SE03 0?:— 035%

00.0 050— 0w000H m 6090:

 

 

 

 

 

0:003 050— $0000.

 

 

v 00:00

 

 

239

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O
98.04
m
Nazca
< m 00:00
9090A 25002
0
9090;
m
9090‘—
< N850
900—04 08902
0
#0904
m
6090‘.—
< 28:00
«08—04 0:502

 

am U5889 095:0

 

Em ”:0: 000 0905
5953 £050

50.808505 ~88 000.8mlrw09n 0830903 00055

 

 

1.30

:3 05» 550 059 .3.

 

$08500
$9008-39?“
93:: 089909000
aflom .av

 

SD BEE

63033 $083 803005 930:
£93 5:3 6 5550 £83
wag 03E mag 008$ .5

 

 

 

 

240

 

 

£593

 

 

£593

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£593

 

v 00800
08932

 

 

241

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

900E. 0% v
9.0.90. 0% 00000
902% 0% 09002
902,—. 0% m
903... 0% 00000
9020. 0% 00002
900:. 0% N
9090. 0% 00000
900:. 0% 00002
9020. 0% _
9020. 0% 00000
9020. 0% 09002
959500 £3 u 0
=0M=000m n 0
000000& n m.
900009 n v
:9 £5.00
A00 EM 00w000 00000 0009 u m
A009 “50— 00000000w0o0 9000000000000 0000 900000.09 00w000 u N 0000.9
w00> 0%0BV 0x098 009$ 003000000 u 0 0090800000 090009
009090— 000000Bm000 00909000000000 «500 0000 03.0% 0000000000 9092000000 000000 :00:
w00> 0905 9300 0x03 0003 :00: 900.0008 90000 9000 9000: 90.320 90000
000005 .mm 000.8m .vm 000.05 .mm 0900000 000090w0m .Nm 00900< Am 000% 000009 .3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

242

900mb

 

.x.

00005 000 00:032. 00000.0

”:53 .v 000 .m 050 .N 80030 .N

 

060.80 083 2080 00> 8.:

0% 0580.900 30000008 003 90000 909000 JOEE 00900000008 930: wad: 009510808 90000— 09:. .mm

 

0 #09010

 

m 03.3

 

< 000909

0 00:00 00002

 

0 000909

 

m 3.3

 

.0 000909

m 00:00 80002

 

0 083

 

m 000909

 

< 033

N 00000 90002

 

0 £03

 

m 0803

 

< 000.904

 

_ 00000 89002

 

 

30:05 000500
8903 800309 000 0083 00000090 wag

 

 

000.0 090: 800-0000 00000.0 .5. «0800 30:9 00000.0 6m

 

 

243

 

 

v 00000
00002

 

 

m 00000
00002

 

 

N 00000
00002

 

 

_ 00000
00002

 

 

 

 

 

Em #000
050 03053 0 am 0% 50 0000
was» 9008 0003 00000.0 0.000 .000 033 0300 000.00m
I030

:00 £00 .3

 

0000000000
08008 90000 w000
EB 0000.0 8000 .8

 

000003 8an 08003 9003
w000 000 000.0% 90:03 in

 

 

.0203

244

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0505 E0 < m 55..
0500 08.9 053 30:2
u00000 00.5. 0
0500 08E 08.3
08000 005. m .
0:005 080. 09.3
9.0030 0.05. < N 00000
9.00000 0.05. .0093 08.002
0.000 0050 0
05000 00:00 0.03
08000 0050 m
0505 050. .003
00005 0.50 < 228
00005 000. 08.3 0&3:
.00
0.0.0800 00005
0:000:00 0.0
0&2 00500 00000 .09 $000800
w000 90000 000900.09 000900030 30000 0087c
9300 .008 90000 w000 was» 90000 090000 .0003
000.0 000.0%. 000.0 0000.0 00.000. -w0.008 00.00000 9300
0130 9300 900000 0000090 080 0.0.0.9 00900030 M000
90000 0005 .me 00000.0 .00 90000 00900< .8 000 90000 0.00.. .Ne

 

245

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0500 0.00 0

0500 000 09.3

0500 0.00 m

0500 0000 0505

0500 0800 < v 550
0500 0.00 50: 0002
0500 5000 0

0500 0.00 50:

0500 0.00 m

0500 080. 50.3

 

 

 

 

 

246

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

990090 00009 n 00000
0500 050 550.3 2052
0500 0:00
0500 .000 0 50.3
0500 0800
0500 0.00 0 50.3
900030 00009 N 00000
9000000 09009 < 000900 000002
0500 050
0500 5000 0 08.3
900030 00009
0500 0000 m 0505
900090 00009 000000
0500 0000 $503 2052
00
”00350.9 00005
0.50.520 am
550 05 50 0500 A0. $000500 0020000 8520
w00» 90000 0009000909 000900000
9300 90000 90000 M00» M00» 00000000 090000
00000 00000m 00000 00000m 300000 0090000 90003 00000000 9300
Mud 9300 9009000 0000090 080 00009 009000m00 900% 000
50080 0000 .3 0550 .8 0.053 5003 .5 80080 050 .8

 

247

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0500 050

0500 5000 0 503
0500 5000

v0500 050 m 0500
93090 0300 v 00000
0500 000 < 0503 2002
0500 5000

0500 080. 0 50:
0500 080.

0500 50.50 0 _§00

 

 

248

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.00 0009 $0000 < 0009010 000002
00003 0009 00000.
300 0009 0w000h 0 00090:—
00003 0009 0w0000.
000 0009 0w000H m 30904
00003 0009 0m0000l m 00000
010 0009 0w0000. < 009010 000002
00003 0.009 $00005
0000 0009 0m000h 0 000904
00003 0009 0w0000.
0000 0.009 $000.0 m 000909
00003 0009 00000.0 N 00000
0900 0.009 0w0000\ 0. 900904 000002
00003 0009 000000
0900 0009 00000.0 0 000904
00003 0009 0w0000‘
000 0.009 0w0000. m 0090)—
00003 0009 0m000h _ 00000
000 0009 000000 4 60909 000002
0.09. 50 050
A00 000000 00.000 3008 20003 00900000 9300
H5.5 500 050 50 00.5 5.03.3 0208 550 5:0 0 0.503
0009 0000 000.00m .3. 000— 0080m .E. w00» w0000 00005 .2. 0009 0m0000.

 

 

 

 

 

249

 

 

 

 

 

SE03 0009 0w000h

000 0009 0w0000l 0 000904
00003 0009 0w0000.

000 0009 0w0000l m 000904

 

 

 

0:003 0009 0w000h

v 00000

 

 

 

 

 

 

250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90090.0
.0
E093
< m 00000
00093 000.002
0
0.093
m
90093
< N 00000
00909 000002
0
900904
m
0093
< 900000
7.093 000002

 

A00 “000 000 0905

30 00305.0 “0000 030:3 0008
00000005 9008 00000m m00> 0000005 00000m

 

 

 

I080
509 w00> 00000 000mm .3

 

305:9
0w0_00_0&0_m08
9300 000400000
00000m .vn

 

:5 000000

600098 20003 9090080 9300
083 035 0. 50050 0003
was» 0000— M00» 500m .mb

 

 

 

 

251

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D
0090.9

m
0093

< v 00000
900909 000002

 

 

 

252

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9020. 0% v
9020. 0% 00000
9020. 0% 00002
9020. 0% m
9020. 0% 00000
9020. 0% 00002
9020. 0% N
9020. 0% 00000
9020. 0% 02002
9020. 0% 0
9020. 0% 00000
9020. 0% 02002
05030.0 03 u 0
00M=000m H 0
000300 n 0.
90.0030 n v
00 0000
A00 A00 00m000 0.000 0009 n m
A000 “0000 ”0000000w000 9000000000000 0000 90008009 00m000 n N 0.000%
w000 002$ 00003 0000: 000000800 u 0 009000000000 09000:
0.00000— 0000000300 0002000000000 «0000 0.000 03.0% 0.0080000 0900000000 00:03 :00:
m000 000B 9800 0005 0003 :00: 000.0008 9000a 00.000 9000p 000.8000 9000p
00000m .5 00000m .05 00000m .00 0000000 0000:0m0m .00 00900< .00. 00020 000030 60.

 

 

253

 

 

9020.

0%

 

o\a

0.00000 000 0000300 00000m

”00050.0 .0 Obv— .m 900m .N gnaw .m
0.30.0000 9000p 000000 .0% 09:.

 

0000000000 0909000000000 005 90000 009000 .0003 00902000000 9300 w000 0090—0000000 9000p 09:. .00

 

0 000990

 

0 0.03

 

< 0803

v 00000 00002

 

o 053

 

0 0.03

 

< 00090.9

m 00000 00002

 

0 0090.0

 

0 0003

 

< 0093

N 00000 00002

 

D 0090.0

 

m 0093

 

< 00090.0

 

0 00000 00002

 

 

8906 0.00000
3903 0000wo=9 000 00003
000.0 0900 800-300 00000m .mw

 

 

0.0000000 m000
00003 0000mo=9 00000.0 .3

 

 

254

 

0900.00 05 00 000.000 0800.

 

0000090 00000000 w08000 0000000000000 9300
90.800 wqfio 000000 00005000 000000 9000m 00900< .00

 

05002 020800 0 0.033 082. 000 .003 .00

 

030000.000 20800 E50358 0.00.000 9000m 009090. .5

 

000000.000 200000 302000. 000000 9095 00900< .3

 

0.0.0 00008
90.800 800300 00003000 00w000 900.000 9000m 00900< .ma

 

 

 

0020 0000 .0003 .00 .300

 

 

 

10:0 8:0 .8020 00.0200 20 0. 208000 “a 7500.000

 

255

 

 

chafing

 

£53 33$

 

9:390 Baum

 

ES 988239

 

3:332:

 

32053 gag

 

2mg

 

quantum gang muwBom

 

8535

 

353 5% €3.32

 

a

 

03

 

 

Estevan“:
9888.3
898%

9 wish
5:qu

 

 

9890
3:8
"Eton

 

 

5399.63 €8.83 Mona—a 8833 5 5:8 E9355 99250.9“: 928382: 98am 599.9an 6955—38 558 «van .3

 

Tot—cm actuate:— "m ZO—HUHm

 

256

 

wafioemaafi
5995358 «53839 92980308 9.8mm 93A Kaboom .wa

 

fifiéfiafi
3:332: “589%“: Efiowaofi 93mm 9:3 883% .3

 

wafiéaafi
395an 93:: 5:395:39 Enfiomcofi 98am 93% 833% 6a

 

9.239%8809: 889 38%qu 933 9:2 agfifiom .ma

 

pagans E 838.:
fifigmwaofi «53839 Enfiowcofi 93mm 92% «aw—Bum .3

 

mama—ES 3%
«238: 33808 9838wa 9398032: 923m 93% aux—Bow .ma

 

mgg flaw «23.6:
3:382: 93:: gfin-§n 93980303 93am 9:2 magnum .Na

 

3.5% Eu «Emma; 38: 350208 98am as». 882% .3

 

 

 

:38 ~58

:53 93:.

 

29
9%:

 

=95
azfitoaom

 

2::

 

3.5
898m

 

 

 

1363.5 oESowo> 2:5ng .3 mmunoha3< ”v ZO—HUHm

 

257

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5959.5: 9959:

w v m N _ :85 5:5 5:055:52 52 555: 9505

.528 5.0.882:

m v m N 9 59: £953 599 390555: 5999580808 59:38:85

535.50

w v m m 9 85080: 59c .85: 599 «5:9 59995905808 59898885

8:83 85980:

n v m m 9 5.90 8953 599 8883 599955808 59898885

99580 5989 w5~9

m w m N 9 595:0: 995: $95.95: 590m 9509 0580 5580: 99599

9505 5a 593

n v m N : «was: 5: 58% 505; :52 5: 9505 5a

:38

9.093 :38 P938
55 9%: :52 aaom 55

5.93% 5w5m 55 3.938 .985:
08.3% 9593 59.300 9593 5w5m 5955 .9999: 5: 959-9989 595809990 59039 .555980: «55909 5955958 59m 55m .3

 

5262 uses: 2..an 2.. 233. 2552 "m zofiofl

 

8293983 590 @5589 5.559 9.5: 939:: 995: 595.9 "9na9eem298o9 989:.— abua: 58:35.9 A
55.9 859808 93:: 55:83 9590 5:953 w5m 590 595.9 ”588395.93983 9.59. 93829 95.9 3935.9 52835.— A
:53 .33 5:8:

258

 

.983: 89:90: 88:33:88 8:95:03 93::
w v m N 9 nan—«55:23:33 9.39. 989.0: was: «9.90980: 833:0: w

 

.598 538980: 5&8: 988 89:9... «Eagwwfitom
m w m N 9 8:95:08 93:: BS...£8:ES9 9:::: 99:29 883:0: .9

 

.898 939039 58:09: 988 89:90: 0399:0388
w v m N 9 9.8933303 93:: 3590;909:339 9:::: 99:29 833:0: 0

 

.998 58908:
:88: 988 £098: 0305:3588 9:833:03 93::

 

 

259

 

 

 

 

 

n v m N 9 33:538—939.:3 9.39. 989.29 an: «1958: 833:0: 9.
6:98 99:90::
38:09: 988 £980 «85:35:08 9890:3808 93::

m v m N 9 553.58.93.53 9.39. 98.229 ME“: «99300: 8::ww8: 0
89:98:: 939: 99:08:08 3:8 «3:303:38

w v m N 9 9.8339308 93:: 9na90£nc:Eo9 9.5:: 99:29 8830: a
89:98::
99:3 @3883 8:8 «858838 9:855:03 93::

n v m N 9 :aEa:8\:a.9:a:_3 9.39. 989.29 ”:99 «9.938: 883:0: :

:38
9:93 3.38 :38

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:8 0:2: :52 :58 3QO

 

5.938 38:8 :3: .338 9:30:
3.38 9:93 3.38 98: 38:8 9890:: £99: :8 993.990: 89:88:99. 8902 .8830: 88290: 89:03:03 :89: 93m .39

 

SEE v.32. gang. €583 wad» 3.5.8.28 fiwcow
.maxcémoafis. “.2....— amna: gficsmwcofi H.383 was»
gammafixaw «55 23:8 sumac“. 58.3358 $98 .583.

 

$82 3838:. 8335308
3383 may. 55%«313 fimaou :uEanauEaaanEE
.5... .323 an?» 2.3.32. 5.93358 5583 was»
gammLaam 88$. .338 gwcou gfiwonuofi .33 Egon.

 

.gmm 558. :08. 5.398 .u 88% 39% aggwwqfiom
565558 v.85. 35.23358. “.2.—z. 9.5:. Sandmwcon.

 

.88». 558. .68.
8.35% .u 38... 3%.. aggwmqfiom 5:13:08 .35.
uafianflEaasnfia tau .332. was» «2322. awagwmcon.

 

 

 

.8358 €35 mgfiwmqfiom
353:2: v.35. .naxcémonfie. “—2.2. «.552. gawaom

 

 

 

 

260

 

 

8828 .88 SE

 

.8.—8.5 88.888. 38.8.80... 8.8.88 3812.32.88.

 

 

 

 

 

 

w v m N . 8.82.2. 9.82. 88.88.8888 88838.2. 88.8w
.888
38.8.5... 8.8.88 38....Q8888.
w v m N . 8.2.8.. 8.88. 88.888888 888.8882. 828m
..8. 888888. 38.8.8.8 8.888 3882.32.88.
n v m N . 8.2.2. 9.8:. 88.88.8888 838.8882. 8.3m
8
2.82. 88.8
8888.3 88.8 8.8.... 88.8. 8.8. 88882. 82.8.2.
8.8.8.. 88.8w 8888 88.8w 8.8.... 888m 8.8.8888 88.8w 88.8 88.8w

 

 

 

 

 

8.8. 88382... 888888. 8.888888 38.8.80... 8.388 8.8888 88.8882. 8.88.8 88.888888 888.8 8.888.. 88.888 n8.8.... 8....

 

.883 .8... SE

 

 

 

 

 

 

«page. a» a...

838.82.32.88.

8.8851 8% £8.85. 8% £88? 8% 8.2.2. 5.8.... 88.888888 8.88.2. 4883 8.888... 88.888. .2:
.8883 888% .ov.

 

 

 

 

 

$8382.80 8.8830 .8 88.888— 6 ZOE—DMZ

 

26]

 

.820. .82. 5.:

 

.889: 888.888. .8360...
8.888 8888858888888. 38.. .8382.

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m N . 888.. 883.32. 88.888808 888.88.“... 8.8m
.888 888888. .8380...
.88: 888.888.888.88. .8.. .382.
m m N . 888.. «83.32. 88.88.8888 8838.3 9.8
.8. 888.888. .8380...
.88: 8888838888888. .8.. .8382.
m m N . 88... 883.32. 88.888888 888.883.. 8.8m
..
8.82. 888.8
88.82.8888. V.8.... 8.. 8.8. 8.2.82. ~.8882.
8.8.... 9.8m w888 8.8m 8.8.... 9.8m 8.8.8888 8.8m 88.8 8.8m

 

 

 

 

 

8.8. 48389... 888888. 33888888 .8860... 8.888 8.8888 88.8882. 8.8.8.8 88.888888 888.8 8.888.. 888.888 .8.—8.... 88....

 

.820. .82. 3.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.589. 8. 3..

8888885888888... .8..

8.8.8.8 8% v.83... 8% 8.82% 8% .8822. an?» 8.83.32. 88.888808 888.2. 8883. 8.888.. 88.8%.. .N...
.383 .888. .3.

262

 

”2&5; £3. sates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ex mm“: £590 5:8:083 tau x83 €82 nag. 880m .2:
«wagox
880M
m8“ .8 Saw—um .o
Mun—-5 .w
win: <38 BEN—K .5
mafia 55mg Pam .o <35 388 gig .0
figs mamas .m 3% 3:5 .m
«ES 383 EEE Eamon .v Em HES “BEE .v SEBHN
:83 .88 £33 2;» .m cm .25 .m «En.
PEEK ES 2.5 .N Om 3E3 “35 .N swag—8— E823
«has 5% Ex ._ 529.3 3: ._ fimfifim 58: may. 982
SE 53.50; .2: any—88 5:238 .2: .2: .mc— .2: .mcn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£33 swans—8. mass“ 23 5.3x wasoh

 

 

 

1.2.33...— Esflwxam K 2253

 

263

Appendix D: Interview Guideline

264

 

Interview Schedule for Policy maker of organic farming in Indonesia

1. Opening
1. (Establish Rapport) [Bow] My name is Chifiimi Takagi and I am a
graduate student and participating in a project of Bogor Agricultural
University/Udayana University. I am conducting this interview for my
dissertation research.
2. (Purpose) I would like to ask you some questions regarding policy
about organic agriculture, especially for vegetable in order to answer the
question “what is the government doing to support organic agriculture?”
3. (Motivation) I hope that the data I collect provide useful information
for potential organic farmers in Indonesia.
4. (Time Line) The interview should take around 30 minutes. Are you

available to respond to some questions at this time?

(Transition: Let me begin by asking you some questions about the policy of integrated
pest management (IPM) and organic agriculture in Indonesia)

II Body
(Topic) IPM policy

Explain: Since Indonesia started to implement IPM policies in 19803, the
national government (Ministry of Agriculture) led the IPM programs and
in 1989, the first national IPM program was established as a follow—up of
Presidential Decree No.3/1986.

1. Are you familiar with the decree?

a. (If Yes) Can you tell me what the decree involved?
b. (If No) I would like to read the decree. Do you know
where I can find a copy?

Explain: After the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the national government changed
the structure of ministries and agencies; the national government program
has now shifted to a local based program.

2. What [PM programs/activities are currently conducted by the local (West
Java/Bali) government?

3. How are the IPM programs/activities currently conducted by the local
(West J ava/Bali) government?

(Transition to the next topic: Next, let me ask you some questions about policies
concerning organic agriculture)

265

 

 

(Topic) Organic agriculture policy
Explain: In 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture established a policy about organic
agriculture, which was called ‘Go Organic 2010’.

1. What are the details of the policy ‘Go Organic 2010’?

' a. Are there any laws that regulate production of organic
vegetables?
If Yes, what are the components of the laws?

b. Are there any government programs (subsidies) that help farmers
convert to organic vegetable farming?
If Yes, what type of assistance do the programs provide to farmers?

c. Are there any organic certification programs for vegetables
production?

If Yes, what are the requirements for certification? How does the

government enforce these requirements?

(Transition: Well, that is all what I want to ask you today.)

III Closing

1. (Maintain Rapport) I appreciate the time you took for this interview.
Is there anything else you think would be helpfiil for me to know so that I
can understand the policy about organic agriculture?

2. (Action to be taken) I should have all the information I need. Would it
. be alright to call you at your office if I have any more questions? Thank
you again.

266

 

 

Interview Schedule for Regional Extension Agents

1. Opening

1. (Establish Rapport) [Bow] My name is Chifumi Takagi and I am a
graduate student and participating in a project of Bogor Agricultural
University/Udayana University. I am conducting this interview for my
dissertation research.

2. (Purpose) I would like to ask you some questions about the agricultural
extension system in order to answer the question “What are the
agricultural extension agents doing to support organic farming?”

3. (Motivation) I hope that the data I collect provide useful information for
potential organic farmers in Indonesia.

4. (Time Line) The interview should take around 30 minutes. Are you
available to respond to some questions at this time?

(Transition: Let me begin by asking you some questions about the current extension
organizational system and function)

11 Body
(Topic) Extension system and function

Explain: In the 19905, Indonesia began to implement decentralize
extension. It shifted extension management from the central to the district
government, made extension more agribusiness-oriented and less
community-related and established research-extension-farmer linkage
mechanisms at the local level.

1. How is the current extension service organized in West
J ava/Bali? (e.g. organizational chart)

2. How does each division/department serve the farmers?

(Transition to the next topic: Next, let me ask you some questions about information,
related to organic agriculture)

(Topic) Information about organic agriculture
1. Does the agency for agricultural research and development in the

267

 

 

 

 

extension system currently have any projects related to organic
vegetable production?
If Yes, what projects are they?

2. Do district-level extension agents provide any information related
to organic vegetable production?
If Yes, what type of information do they provide?

(Transition: Well, that is all what I want to ask you today.)
111 Closing

1. (Maintain Rapport) I appreciate the time you took for this
interview. Is there anything else you think would be helpful for me to
know so that I can understand the agricultural extension system?

2. (Action to be taken) I should have all the information I need. Would it
be alright to call you at your office if I have any more questions? Thank
you again.

268

 

 

Interview Schedule for Marketing People of Organic Vegetable

1. Opening

1. (Establish Rapport) [Bow] My name is Chifumi Takagi and I am a
graduate student and participating in a project of Bogor Agricultural
University/Udayana University. I am conducting this interview for my
dissertation research.

2. (Purpose) I would like to ask you some questions about the organic
vegetable marketing system in order to answer the question “What are
organic vegetable marketing channels and are issues and problems to
sell organic vegetables in Indonesia?”

3. (Motivation) I hope that the data I collect provide useful information
for potential organic farmers in Indonesia.

4. (Time Line) The interview should take around 30 minutes. Are you

available to respond to some questions at this time?
5.
(Transition: Let me begin by asking you some questions about the current organic

vegetable marketing system)

II Body
(Topic) Organic vegetable marketing system

Explain: There may be several organic vegetable marketing channels.
1. To where do you sell organic vegetables?
2. How do you sell organic vegetables to each place?

3. What are the vegetable prices to each place?

(Transition to the next topic: Next, let me ask you some questions about the issues and
problems to sell organic vegetables.)

(Topic) Issues and problems for organic vegetable marketing

1. Are there any issue and problems to sell organic vegetables?
If Yes, what are they?

(Transition: Well, that is all what I want to ask you today.)
111 Closing

1. (Maintain Rapport) I appreciate the time you took for this
interview. Is there anything else you think would be helpful for me to
know so that I can understand the organic vegetable marketing system?

269

 

 

2. (Action to be taken) I should have all the information I need. Would
it be alright to call you at your office if I have any more questions?
Thank you again.

 

270

 

 

Appendix E: Interview Transcribed Notes

271

 

Interview Answers of Policy maker of organic farming in Indonesia (Summary)
Ms. A in Jakarta
Date when signed on the research consent form: August 22, 2007
(Topic) IPM policy

Explain: Since Indonesia started to implement IPM policies in 19803, the national
government (Ministry of Agriculture) led the IPM programs and in 1989, the first
national IPM program was established as a follow-up of Presidential Decree No.3/1986.

Are you familiar with the decree?

No.

(If Yes) Can you tell me what the decree involved?

(If No) I would like to read the decree. Do you know where I can find a copy?

I could not get the decree, but I can read a book “IPM in the Global Arena ” written by
Dr. Oka to learn the IPM policy in Indonesia.

Explain: Afier the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the national government changed the
structure of ministries and agencies; the national government program has now shifted to
a local based program.

a. What IPM programs/activities are currently conducted by the local (W est J ava/Bali)
government?

b. How the IPM programs/activities are currently conducted by the local (West Java/Bali)
government?

I don ’t work at the rural extension centers and don ’t know about the IPM program at
the local leveL Please ask these questions to the extension agents.

(Topic) Organic agriculture policy

1. What are the details of the policy ‘Go Organic 2010’?
Instead of answering this question, Ms. A gave rne a PPT/ile and papers made by
Department of Agriculture to understand the policy.

a. Are there any laws that regulate production of organic vegetables?
If Yes, what are the components of the laws?

Yes, there are some laws to support organic products, but there have not been any
punishments if deviate the SNI—Standard National Indonesia.

b. Are there any government programs (subsidies) that help farmers convert to organic
vegetable farming? Yes

If Yes, what type of assistance do the programs provide to farmers?

272

 

r
\

 

 

Subsidies to get organic certifications—Department of A griculture subsidizes 10-12%
of the total cost to get organic certifications for potential organic farmers. But
“potential organic farmers” will be identified by the Department of Agriculture

c. Are there any organic certification programs for vegetables production?

If Yes, what are the requirements for certification? How does the government enforce
these requirements?

Yes, there are several organic certificate agents in Indonesia. They will give the

organic certification based on the SNI, but the methods and costs are various. However,
there have not been any punishments if deviate the SNI. Ms. A gave me papers related
to the certification issue.

273

 

 

 

Interview Answers of Regional Extension Agents (summary)
Mr. B and C in West Java
Date when signed on the research consent form: August 13, 2007

(Topic) Extension system and function

Explain: In the 1990s, Indonesia began to implement decentralize extension. It shifted
extension management fi'om the central to the district government, made extension more
agribusiness-oriented and less community-related and established research-extension-

farmer linkage mechanisms at the local level.

1. How is the current extension service organized in West Java/Bali? (e.g. organizational
chart)

Mr. B drew the current structure of extension system in Department of Agriculture and
Forestry in Bogor district by free-hand.

2. How does each division/department serve the farmers?

Yes, each region @rovince and district) has different extension system. In Bogor
district, extension system belongs to the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. This
center is one of UPTD (unit pelaksana teknis dinas), which means the rural extension
center. Before the decentralization, the rural extension centers located at each sub-
district with different name (Balai Penyuluhan Pertanian, BPP). But now the centers
are placed by functions. There are 20 UPT D in Bogor district; I 2 for agricultural
extension, 2 for agricultural machine, 2 for rice seedling, 3 for lumber, and I for dry
field. This center is one of 12 agricultural extension function centers.

This center covers three sub-districts (Cisarua, Megamedung, and C iawi) with 34
villages. C isarua sub-district has I 0 villages; two field extension workers for crop
production and one for livestock are assigned. In Megamedung sub—district, there are
11 villages; two field extension workers for crop production and one for livestock are
assigned. Cia wi sub-district has 13 villages; three field extension workers for crop
production and one for livestock are assigned. For all regions, there is afield extension
worker for pest and plant pathology in the center.

Before decentralization, there were five types of extension field workers: vegetable,
cereal, pest and plant pathology, livestock, and fishery. Also an extension worker was
assigned only one or two villages. Thus they could rotate farmers frequently. But now
an extension worker has to rotate more than five villages and many of them have to
cover different fields. For example, an extension worker was assigned in fishery field,
but now the worker has to work in livestock field. Also, the worker could see a farmer
every two weeks, but now once a two months or more time length were needed. So, it is
very difficult to provide useful information for farmers effectively.

274

 

 

 

 

(Topic) Information about organic agriculture

1. Does the agency for agricultural research and development in the extension system
currently have any projects related to organic vegetable production?

If Yes, what projects are they?

Not yet.

2. Do district-level extension agents provide any information related to organic vegetable
production?

Yes.
If Yes, what type of information do they provide?

We have not special program for organic farming, but mainly we have three
activities/program related to organic farming and provide various information:

1. we call “SLPHT, ” which short for Sekolah Lapang Pengendalian Hama T erpadu in
Bahasa Indonesia. This means IPM school for farmers. This is a government program
to increase farmers" knowledge about IPM.

2. we conduct “farmers ’ school (sekolah tani) ” once a month. In the school, we teach
difi'erent topics needed for farmers. Sometime we teach about organic farming related
topics.

3. we are managing demonstration farm to examine several techniques including IPM
and application of compost.

275

 

Interview Answers of Regional Extension Agents (summary)
Mr. D and E in Bali
Date when signed on the research consent form by Mr. D: October 24, 2007

Date when signed on the research consent form by Mr. E: October 21, 2007

(Topic) Extension system and function

Explain: In the 19903, Indonesia began to implement decentralize extension. It shifted
extension management from the central to the district government, made extension more

agribusiness-oriented and less community-related and established research-extension-
fanner linkage mechanisms at the local level.

1. How is the current extension service organized in West Java/Bali? (e.g. organizational
chart)

Mr. E drew the current structure of extension unit in Tabanan district by free-hand.

2. How does each division/department serve the farmers?

In T abanan district, extension system was independent from the Department of
Agriculture in Tabanan. Now an extension unit holds all extension functions in
Tabanan. However, the bottom parts of the edension system don ’t change. This center
is one of BPP (Balai Penyuluhan Pertan ian), which means the rural extension center
at sub-district level like before

This center covers one sub-district (Baturiti) with 12 villages. An extension field
worker is assigned in each village. The one extension worker has to cover all
agricultural fields. Before the decentralization, there were five types of extension field
workers: vegetable, cereal, pest and plant pathology, livestock, and fishery. But now an
extension worker has to cover all fields. So, it is very difficult to provide useful
information for farmers efficiently. Every Monday all extension field workers gather to
attend the weekly meeting and they share all information with other extension workers.

Main functions of the extension center:

Make agricultural data base in Batruriti sub-district
Conduct a village meeting once a year

Assist to organize farmers ’ group

Manage demonstration form

276

 

 

‘\

 

 

(Topic) Information about organic agriculture

1. Does the agency for agricultural research and development in the extension system
currently have any projects related to organic vegetable production?

If Yes, what projects are they?

Yes. We have a program to make compost from chicken manure using microorganisms.
Also we examine effectiveness of the compost at small plots by different crops.

2. Do district-level extension agents provide any information related to organic vegetable
production?

Yes.
If Yes, what type of information do they provide?

Based on the result of the compost program, we disseminate the information to farmers.

 

277

 

 

Interview Answers of Marketing of Organic Farming (Summary)
Mr. F in West Java
Date when signed on the research consent form: August 26, 2007
(Topic) Organic vegetable marketing system
1. To where do you sell organic vegetables?

0 Two Japanese Supermarkets

0 Individual households and oflices in Jakarta (2 times a week—Mom! Thu).
Current consumers are about 120 households and 75% is Japanese

O

2. How do you sell organic vegetables to each place?

Mr. F has a car with refrigerator and ship/deliver organic vegetables to Jakarta using
the car twice a week. When I followed Mr. F’s delivery to Jakarta, found that at an
apartment/oflice, there is a household called “station ” that collects and pays members ’
vegetable charge and keep the vegetables for a while Then each household pick it up
from the station.

3. What are the vegetable prices to each place?
Mr. F gave me the price lists.

(Topic) Issues and problems for organic vegetable marketing

1. Are there any issue and problems to sell organic vegetables?

Yes

If Yes, what are they?

New comers as organic farmers indicate “organic vegetable” without understanding
“true organic vegetables” to sell their products—their “organic vegetables” are not
organic vegetables primarily. If some farmers sell “fake” organic vegetables, customers
may not start to trust Mr. F ’s organic vegetables either.

Mr. F is the most success organic farmer among organic farmers in Sukagalih village.

The Japanese customers make several consumer groups at each apartment complex to
support Mr. F. This is the key reason why Mr. F can get many Japanese customers.

278

 

 

 

Interview Answers of Marketing of Organic Farming (Summary)
Mr. G in West Java
Date when signed on the research consent form: August 24, 2007
(Topic) Organic vegetable marketing system
1. To where do you sell organic vegetables?

0 Organic food retail stores in Bogor
- One Yoga school place in Bogor
o 10 individual home-delivery customers in Bogor and 10 customers in Jakarta
(all rich Indonesian households).
0 2 banks in Jakarta
2. How do you sell organic vegetables to each place?

Mr. F has a car and uses ice when he delivers organic vegetables to Bogor and Jakarta
twice a week (Tuesday and Friday). When I followed his delivery to Bogor, he delivered
his vegetables to a Yoga school (students are all Japanese and his customers), one
organic food retail shop, and stopped by five individual households to sell.

3. What are the vegetable prices to each place?

Mr. G gave me the price lists.
(Topic) Issues and problems for organic vegetable marketing

1. Are there any issue and problems to sell organic vegetables?

Yes

If Yes, what are they?

There are many people who don ’t know or cannot understand what organic vegetables
are Mr. G always invites his potential customers to his organic farm so that they can
see and may be able to understand what organic vegetable is.

Mr. G is the first person to start organic farming in Sukagalih village After that,
several people started organic farming followed him. Whenever the new people wanted
to learn about organic farming from Mr. G, he always told his knowledge and
experience to them. But some of them didn ’t give enough information when Mr. G
asked about their organic farming. He believes that organic farmers need to help each
other to make a famous organic vegetable production area. If the Sukagalih village
becomes famous area of organic vegetable production, people will come here to buy
organic vegetables; Mr. G and other organic farmers don ’ need to deliver the
vegetables to far places and they can focus on production. Also, they can reduce their
selling costs.

 

279

 

Interview Answers of Marketing of Organic Farming (Summary)
Mr. H in Bali
Date when signed on the research consent form: September 16, 2007
(Topic) Organic vegetable marketing system
1. To where do you sell organic vegetables?

0 his restaurant in Ubud

0 his hotel in Ubud

o If there are extra vegetables, bring to the farmers ’ market in Ubud
2. How do you sell organic vegetables to each place?

From July to August, every day Mr. H’s employees harvest and deliver the vegetables
to Ubud by car. In Septembr, every two days do so.

3. What are the vegetable prices to each place?

Since almost of all organic vegetables were consumed at my restaurant and hotel, there
are no prices to sell to other place

(Topic) Issues and problems for organic vegetable marketing

1. Are there any issue and problems to sell organic vegetables?

No

If Yes, what are they?

280

 

Interview Answers of Marketing of Organic Farming (Summary)
Mr. I in Bali
Date when signed on the research consent form: October 24, 2007
(Topic) Organic vegetable marketing system

1. To where do you sell organic vegetables? (In Mr. I ’s case, he sells conventional
vegetables, too)

0 Supermarkets in Denpasar
0 Hotels in the southern resort area in Bali
0 Restaurants in southern resort area in Bali

2. How do you sell organic vegetables to each place?

Mr. I is a vegetable broker. He has a car and periodically comes to the Bangli village to
collect vegetables from farmers. Among the collected vegetables, there are few organic
vegetables.

3. What are the vegetable prices to each place?

About four years ago, he sold organic vegetables to an organic food restaurant At that
time he made a price list for organic vegetables. He asked several vegetable farmers to
grow vegetable ordered from the restaurant. But the restaurant closed a business after
two years. Since then Mr. I doesn ’t have a price list.

(Topic) Issues and problems for organic vegetable marketing

1. Are there any issue and problems to sell organic vegetables?

Yes

If Yes, what are they?
In order to sell organic vegetables to supermarkets in Denpasar, they demand “organic

certification. ” Technically, it may be not so difficult to obtain the certificate, but the
man: problem is its cost. If Mr. I asked farmers to do so, they cannot get profit because
the certification cost is very expensive

When Mr. I sold organic vegetables to supermarkets five years ago (in 2002), they

didn ’t request the organic certificate (because there was not the organic certification
system in Indonesia at that time), they didn ’t understand what organic vegetables were;
not good looking compared to the conventional vegetables including many worm-eaten

281

 

holes on the vegetables and their prices were higher than conventional vegetables.
Thus Mr. I failed to sell organic vegetables.

282

 

Field Note
A NGO as a pioneer of organic farming in Indonesia
Talked with the field manager, Mr. J
Visited the NGO on August 21, 2007
1. Reason why I visited the NGO

During the interview with organic farmers in the study village, this NGO’s name was
frequently listened. When I asked about the NGO to the farmers, I was told that the NGO
is a pioneer of organic farming in Indonesia and out of five organic farmers in the study
village; four of them had an experience to study organic farming at the NGO. Also,
according to them, the NGO is not so far from the study site. Thus I went to the NGO for
my study.

2. Overview of the NGO

Located in sub-district of Cisarua, District of Bogor. It took about 20 minutes by bike taxi
from the study site in West Java.

A Swiss pastor started organic farming in this place in 1984. This NGO is a pioneer of
organic farming in Indonesia. Nowadays many pe0ple visit the NGO to learn organic
farming. The NGO provide various training program for these people.

The NGO has 16 ha of land in total and currently uses 10 ha for vegetable production. So
far 110 employees are worked in the NGO; 40 people works on farm, 20 people works at
offices, and 50 people works construction sites.

The NGO has a store near the farm so that customers can buy organic vegetables directly
fiom this NGO. There are two main market channels; one is NGO — supermarkets —
consumers, the other is NGO — NGO’s agents — consumers. The NGO has 15 agents in
Bogor and Jakarta. These agents buy vegetables from the NGO with special price and
they can sell the vegetables at their prices. In total income of this NGO, 70 % comes from
the agents’ sales and 30 % comes fiom sales of supermarkets and the NGO’s store. To
provide enough amount and variety of vegetables, there are 25 contract farmers (21
farmers use the NGO’s farming lands and 4 farmers use their own lands) , who grow
organic vegetables following the NGO’s methods exactly.

I got the NGO’s price list.

283

 

 

 

3. Current Problems

There are three main problems. First problem is plant disease and climate. In recent years,
there were long dry seasons and in the rain season, sometimes there were too much water
for vegetables. Under these unexpected climates, it is very difficult to control diseases.

Second problem is employees’ working habit. Some staff work very roughly and these
influence vegetable production badly.

Third problem is marketing. There are still many people who do not understand what
organic vegetables are, and these people likely don’t buy organic vegetables.

4. A bad experience of export cabbages to Singapore

About five years ago (in 2002), the NGO received a big cabbage order from Singapore.
That was the first order from foreign country for the NGO. But the client requested to
obtain the organic certification for cabbage. At that time, there were no that certification
system in Indonesia, the NGO obtained an organic certification from an Australian
organic certified organization. After the formal contract, the NGO shipped the first
cabbages to Singapore. To do so, cabbages were harvested and packed on the shipping
day’s very early morning; they were exported to Singapore by airplane and arrived there
around 7 am. Then the cabbages were delivered to each supermarket before the store’s
open time. For the first contract period, there were no claims and it worked well.
However, when the second contract period started, the assigned person of client was
changed. And the new person claimed that the cabbages spoiled when they open the
boxes in Singapore several times. The NGO sent staff to Singapore to check the quality
of the cabbages. In Singapore, the NGO staff asked the new client to see the cabbages.
However, the client told them that the cabbages were already dumped because they
already went off. The staff could not believe because the cabbages were harvested,
shipped from Jakarta and arrived in Singapore on the same day and it took for about five
hours to complete the all process such that:

Delivered from Bogor to Jakarta is about for 1.5 hours;
Flew from Jakarta to Singapore is about for 1 hour;
In Singapore, to complete all quarantine process may be about 2 hours;

After that the client checks the cabbages to deliver them to the supermarkets. The NGO
tried to do their best to remove the problem, but finally they judged that the client’s
accusation was not true. Since then, the NGO has not export their products to any
countries

284

 

 

. Field Note
A Japanese customer of Mr. F’s organic vegetawa

Interviewed with Ms. K on August 15, 2007
1. Reason why I interviewed with Ms. K.

Before going to the delivery, I had asked Mr. F about the trigger to get Japanese
customers couple of times, but I could not understand by that time.

When I followed Mr. F’s vegetable delivery to Jakarta on August 13th of 2007, I met with
Ms. K as one of Mr. F’s customer. When I passed the vegetables to her, she mentioned
that she had bought the vegetables from Mr. F for long time. At that time, I wondered if
Ms. K knew how Mr. F got these Japanese customers.

The vegetables were prepared (harvested, rinsed and packed) the day before of the
delivery day (Sunday) and kept them in a refrigerator for one night. On the delivery day,
Mr. F, his staffand I left Mr. F’s farm at 5:30am. Jakarta’s trafficjam was terrible on the
day and we arrived at the first delivery place, a Japanese supermarket around 8 am, then
we went to the second place, another Japanese supermarket around 8:20 am. After the
second place, we ate breakfast near Block M. During the breakfast, Mr. F told me that we
would go to 13 apartments/house complexes and 2 offices for about 60 customers to
deliver the vegetables. The Japanese customers organized a consumer group in each
apartment complex and one person received all members’ ordered vegetables fi'om Mr. F,
and paid all members’ vegetable cost to Mr. F. It was very helpful for Mr. F to reduce his
time and cost. When we completed all deliveries in Jakarta and came back to the study
site, it was already 6 pm.

2. About Ms. K

Ms. K lives in Jakarta for 20 years. Her husband is an accountant and worked a Japanese
company in Jakarta. She followed her husband and her two sons also spent their time in
Indonesia until they graduated high school. Now they are independent from the parents
and Ms. K lives with her husband in a house at Pondock Indah. She looked around late
503 or early 608.

3. The trigger

According to Ms. K, Mr. F used to get training of organic farming at the OISCA (a
Japanese NGO), and after the training, Mr. F started organic farming in the study site
with the landowner’s agreement. One day Mr. F met with a JICA expert whose major
was crop production (Connection between a J ICA expert and Mr. F was unclear). At the
early stage of his organic farm, Mr. F had many problems for his vegetable production.
Mr. F got advises to improve his vegetables from the expert. The expert’s wife was also
there with her husband. She had an experience to manage consumer group at Japanese
organic supported agricultural groups. At these groups in Japan, consumers support

285

 

 

organic farmers through helping farm works and shipment works. From Mr. F’s serious
attitude of studying, she thought that she wanted to support Mr. F’s organic farming like
Japanese groups. In Jakarta at that time (around 2002) there was no organic vegetable
home-delivery service. And many Japanese wives/mothers had strong interests about
organic vegetables. The expert’s wife started to ask from her friends if they want to buy
organic vegetable from Mr. F’s farm. Slowly and surely the members were getting
increase. The expert’s wife disseminated farm’s information to the consumer group by
newsletters and sometimes took some members to Mr. F’s farm to increase their
understanding of organic farming. Mr. F also accepted the consumers’ requests, and they
had built a very good relationship. Especially Mr. F’s honest and sincere character helped
to increase the Japanese consumers.

4. Things become change. ..

Usually Japanese workers’ residence period is from three to five years. Thus Japanese
society in Jakarta changes rapidly. Ms. K also looked after many people including the
expert’s wife. As follow the change of people, the form of consumer group of Mr. F’s
farm also changes. In the past years, majority of consumers were like the expert’s wife;
members were interested organic food and also wanted to cooperate in helping Mr. F’s
farm activities. However, new comers are different from before; they are still interested
in organic food, but have less interest about Mr. F’s farm and the consumer group
activities. Nowadays, very few members disseminate the information about Mr. F’s farm
or vegetables’ recipe by newsletters.

286

 

2x." 85. :8 .353 5.5.: 5 E5 5:85. a 282:5 18:3...»5

 

 

:oEZQ
meaning/H on emote: Eon

 

 

 

a

5635 mac—2508 mo nocaozmme. _

 

_
_ .8?ng 1283335 _
E

 

 

fl 8635 E83”— _

 

 

6.6— ow£=>
6 £8.53 Emu c2225 ESE—3&6.

 

 

 

 

uOHmeUuOOO OOBOmou 585m

 

_

_o>o_ activism 3 E850 aoficoexm REM _

 

_

 

 

cocoomnsm 358.8;

 

couoombsm 30585

 

cowoomnam coweigm

 

 

somehow somegmemfiue.

 

 

 

 

59282 EEO

 

 

 

 

 

 

80m

 

 

 

_
4 commEQ mow—05E i
! "SEED 88mm _
— “SEED x8635 _
_

— .8635 mob 22m ?
_

jeoficszooo wEEEEon ;

 

 

 

287

 

IIIIL

 

5c" 3:: 95:. .83 63.55 .Suom um Sachem use Baggage. we anofitanon no 239—Em 353.3595

 

‘ _o>o_ 03:3 8 $8103 206 2225on 35:233. _

 

 

 

HE
I!

SEE

3:03.528 mmoEmsm

 

 

~32 33:58 was
BEBE 3 £850 commaoaxm 33M

 

 

 

 

 

SEED mooEOmom

an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:oEZQ 8326on

seamin—
wEEESon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

assesses?

 

 

 

 

 

80m

 

 

 

cowoom Race—dams "m6

cocoom eqoaaofigow mmofimsm ”mm
nouoom 5:393 e853 “we
cowoom 803%. “one? 98 was ”is
groom 5:8on Ema “Wm

538m nouoacoi “fin

noboom 35:00 ”Nd

groom ESwEm ”mm

23833 ESSEX use 233 ”m;
8383:» Banana “2

288

Bibliography

289

REFERENCES

Academic Frontier Research Center (2005). Development of New Bio-Agents for
Alternative Farming systems: 2004 Report. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo University of
Agriculture.

Academic Frontier Research Center (2006). Development of New Bio-A gents for
Alternative Farming systems: 2005 Report. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo University of
Agriculture.

Adrian, A. M., Norwood, S. H., & Mask, P. L. (2005). Producers' Perceptions and
Attitudes toward Precision Agriculture Technologies. Computers and Electronics
in Agriculture, 48(3), 256-271.

Agung, M. (2001). Transisi ke Pertanian Organic [Transition to Organic Farming].

Seminar regional dan prospek pengembangannya di Bali. Hut. XXXIV dan BK.
XXIII Fak. Pertanian UNUD.

Ajzen, 1., & F ishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The Survey Research Handbook. Homewood, IL:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Alimoeso, S., Nasikin, and Wienarto, N. (2001). Country Report- Indonesia. Paper
presented at the meeting of the program advisory committee, Ayutthaya, Thailand.

Anderson, J. and Feder, G. (1994). Agricultural Extension: Lessons from Complete
Projects. Washington, D. C: World Bank.

Antholt, C. H. (1998). Agricultural Extension in the Twenty-First Century. In C. K.

Eicher & J. M. Staatz (Eds), International Agricultural Development: Third
Edition (pp. 354-370). Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

290

 

Arya, N., Temaja, R. M., & Suyama, K. (2005). Evaluation of Several Cabbage Varieties
Against Club-Root Disease of Crucifers. Journal of International Society for
Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences, 1 1(3), 1 15-120.

Arya, N., Temaja, R. M., & Wirya, A. S. (2001). Integrated Pest Management for
Vegetable Production in Highland Bali. In A. Fujimoto & K. Abdullah (Eds.),
Highland Vegetable Cultivation in Indonesia (pp. 305-314). Tokyo, Japan: World
Planning Co., LTD.

Badan Pusat Statistik (1999). Statistical Pocketbook of Indonesia. _J akarta, Indonesia.

Badan Pusat Statistik (2009). Statistical Pocketbook of Indonesia _J akarta, Indonesia.

Banerjee, S., Martin, S. W., Roberts, R K., Larkin, S. L., Larson, J. A., Paxton, K. W., et
al. (2008). A Binary Logit Estimation of Factors Affecting Adoption of GPS
Guidance Systems by Cotton Producers. Journal of A gricultural and Applied
Economics, 40(1), 345-355.

Bayard, B., & Jolly, C. (2007). Environmental Behavior Structure and Socio-Economic
Conditions of Hillside Farmers: A Multiple-Group Structural Equation Modeling
Approach. Ecological Economics, 62(3-4), 433-440.

Beharrell, B., & Crockett, A. (1992). New Age food! New Age consumers! British Food
Journal, 94(7), 5-13.

Bennett, C., & Rockwell, K. (1994). Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP): An
Integrated Approach to Planning and Evaluation. Unpublished manuscript.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.

Benor, D., & Harrison, J. Q. (1977). Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit
System. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Benor, D. (1987). Training and Visit: Back to Basics. In W. River & S. Schrarn (Eds.),

Agricultural Extension Worldwide: Issues, Practices and Emerging Priorities (pp.
137-148). London: Croom Helm.

291

 

 

Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods: Fifth Edition. Boston, MA: Peason
Allyn and Bacon.

BIOCert. (2004). Position paper on organic certification. BIOCer's Organic Certification:
A way to Protect Small Scaled-Farmers. Retrieved December 10, 2004, from
http://eru_1.bioccrt.or.id/tcntangghp?aid‘=47

 

Britan, G. M. (1985). AID’s Experience in Agricultural Extension. Paper presented to the
Joint Committee for Agricultural Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Calantone, R. J ., Griffith, D. A., & Yalcinkaya, G. (2006). An Empirical Examination of
a Technology Adoption Model for the Context of China. Journal of International
Marketing, 14(4), 1-27.

Cavane, E. P. A. (2007). Farmers ’Attitudes and Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties
and Chemical Fertilizers in the Manica District, Mozambique (Doctoral
dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Centre for Agriculture Standardization and Accreditation. (2006). Kebijakan Departemen
Pertanian Dalam Pengembangan Produk Pangan Organik [Policy Development of
Organic Food Products in the Department of Agriculture]. Unpublished power
point manuscript.

CGIAR. (2006). Who We Are. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from
http://www.cgiar.org/who/index.html

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London, U.K.:
Longman.

Cramer, J. S. (2003). Logit Models fi'om Economics and Other Fields. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches: Second Edition. London, U.K.: SAGE Publications.

Crucefix, D. (1998). Organic Agriculture and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in

292

Developing Countries. Bristol: Soil Association.

Dabbert, S. (1994). Economics of Conversion to Organic Farming: Cross-Sectional
Analysis of Survey Data. In N. H. Larnpkin & S. Padel (Eds.), The Economics of
Organic Farming: An International Perspective (pp. 285-293). Wallingford,
U.K.: CAB-International.

Dadang, A, and Ohsawa, K. (2005). The Eflectiveness of Plant Extracts in Reducing
Cabbage Insect Pest Population and Their Effect on Natural Enemies. Journal of
International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences, 1 I (3 ), 142-149.

Dadang, G. S., Nawangsih, A. A., Syaukat, Y., & Tjahjono, B. (2006). Development of
Organic Rice and Vegetables in the District of Bogor, West Java, Indonesia:
Development of New Bio-Agents for Alternative Farming Systems: 2005 Report.
Tokyo, Japan: Academic Frontier Research Center, Tokyo University of
Agriculture.

Darmawan, D. A., & Pasandaran, E. (2000). Indonesia. In M. Ali (Ed), Dynamics of
Vegetable Production, Distribution and Consumption in Asia. Taiwan: The world
vegetable center.

De Cock, L. (2005). Determinants of Organic Farming Conversion Paper presented at
the The sixth International Congress of the European Association of Agricultural
Economists, 'The future of rural Europe in the global agri-food system',
Copenhagen, Denmark.

Dinata, K., Arta, N., & Temaja, R M. (2001). Vegetable Yields Under Tumpangsari.
Highland Vegetable Cultivation in Indonesia (pp. 331-337). Tokyo, Japan: World
Planning Co., LTD.

Duram, L. A. (1999). Factors in Organic Farmers' Decision Making: Diversity, Challenge,
and Obstacles. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 14(1), 2-10.

Dwyer, J. H. (1983). Statistical Models for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

293

 

Estes, E., Kleese, T., Lauffer, L., & Director, E. (2003). North Carolina Organic
Vegetable Production Cost Stuay: Department of Agricultural & Resource
Economics, North Carolina State University.

Evenson, R. E. (1981). Benefits and Obstacles in Developing Appropriate Agricultural
Technology. In C. K. Eicher & J. M. Staatz (Eds.), Agricultural Development in
the Third World (pp. 348-361). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fairweather, J. R. (1999). Understanding How Farmers Choose between Organic and
Conventional Production: Results from New Zealand and Policy Implications.
Agriculture and Human Values, 16(1), 51-63.

FAOSTAT. (2009). Agricultural Data Retrieved December 20, 2009, fiom
http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx

Fischer, R. (1982). Der andere landbau: Hundert Bio-Bauern und Gartner berichten uber
ihre waeggrunde, Arbeitsweisen und Erfahrunge [Organic Farmers’ Report: Its

Function and Farmers’ Experiences] (Zurich: Verlag Buchhandlung Madliger-
Schwab).

Fischer, P. (1989). Barriers to the Adoption of Organic Farming in Canterbury (Master’s
Thesis). Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand.

Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. and Morris, L. L. (1987). How to Design a Program Evaluation,
London, U.K.: SAGE Publications.

Fliegel, F. C. (1984). Extension Communication and the Adoption Process. In B. E.
Swanson (Ed), Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual: Second Edition.
Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Francis, J., Eccles, M., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J ., Foy, R., et al. (2004).
Constructing Questionnaires Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior: A
Manual for Health Services Researchers. Newcastle, U.K.: Centre for Health

Services Research.

F ujimoto and Matsuda (2005). Seeking of A lternative Agriculture. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo

294

University of Agriculture Press.

Fujimoto, A. and Abdullah, K. (2001). Highland Vegetable Cultivation in Indonesia.
Tokyo, Japan: World Planning Co., LTD.

Fujimoto, A. and Miyaura, R. (1996). An Ecological and Economic Assessment of
Vegetable Cultivation in Highland Areas in Southeast Asia. Japanese Journal of
Agricultural Science, 40(4), 248-263.

Fujimoto, A. and Miyaura, R. (1997). Farm Management Appraisal of Turnpang Sari
Vegetable Cultivation in Highland West Java— A One Year Study of Farmers’
Practices in Cipanas. Japanese Journal of Agricultural Science, 40(4), 211-228.

Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic Econometrics: Third Edition New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hayami, Y., & Kawagoe, T. (1999). Middlemen in a Peasant Community: Vegetable
Marketing in Indonesia. In M. Aoki & Y. Hayami (Eds.), Communities and
Markets in Economic Development (pp. 129-152). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Hefferrnan, W. (1984). Assumptions of the Adoption/Drfi‘uswn Model and Soil
Conservation. Paper presented at the RCA Symposium: Future Agricultural
Technology and Resource Conservation, Washington DC.

Henderson, E. and Van En, R. (1999). Sharing the Harvest: a Guide to Community
Supported Agriculture. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

l-Iensher, D. A., and Johnson, L. W. (1981). Applied Discrete Choice Modeling. London:
Croom Helm.

Hilman, Y., Suwandi, S., and Asandhi, A. A. (1990). Efisiensi Penggunaan Pupuk
Padaanaman Sayuran [Efl‘ective Use of Fertilizer for Vegetables]. Makalah
Disampaikan pada sminar efisiensi pupuk 12-13 November 1990. Pusat Penelitian
Tanah dan Agroklimat.

Holbert, R. L. and Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural Equation Modeling in the

295

Communication Sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28(4).
53 1-55 1 .

Holdcroft, LE. (1984). The Rice and Fall of Community Development, 1950-65: A
Critical Assessment. In Eicher, C. K. & Staatz, J. M. (Eds.), Agricultural
Development in the Third World (pp. 46-58). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Honda, T. (2007). Path Analysis of Factors behind Inefl‘ectiveness of Wildlife Control
Fences. Journal of the Japanese Forest Society, 89(2), 126-130.

Indonesian Center for Agriculture Socio Economic and Policy Studies. (2008).
Revitalizing Agricultural Extension. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from
http://pse.litbang.deptan.go.id/eng/index.php?option=com_content&task=riew&i

=232&Itemid=157

ISSAAS. (2003). Journal of the International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural
Sciences 9 (3), Tokyo: Academic Frontier Research Center, Tokyo University of
Agriculture.

IS SAAS. (2005). Journal of the International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural
Sciences 11 (3), Tokyo: Academic Frontier Research Center, Tokyo University of
Agriculture.

JIRCAS. (2005). Evaluation of Vegetable-Based Farming Systems and Improvement of

Vegetable and Fruit Cultivation in Highland Regions of West Java, Indonesia.
Tokyo: J IRCAS.

Johnson, G. 1., Weinberger, K., and Wu, M. H. (2008). The Vegetable Industry in
Tropical Asia: Indonesia. Tainan, Taiwan: The World Vegetable Center.

Kantor Desa Banglih. (2007). [Statistics of Bangli Village in 2007]. Unpublished raw
data

Kantor Desa Sukagalih. (2007). [Statistics of Sukagalih Village in 2007]. Unpublished
raw data.

296

Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. London,
U.K.: Sage Publications.

Kawai, S., Susila, W., Takahashi, N., & Nemoto, H. (2003). The Strategy for the Pest
Control of Highland Vegetables by Conservation of natural Enemies in
Candikuning, Bali, Indonesia. Journal of the International Society for Southeast
Asian Agricultural Sciences, 9(3), 78-89.

Kearl, B. (1991, March 28-30). Evolution in Thinking about the Extension Function.
Paper based on the meeting of the Association for International Agricultural and
Extension Education, St. Louis, Missouri.

Kim, M., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Meta-Analysis of
Attitudinal Relevance and Topic. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 101-136.

Kommerskollegium National Board of Trade. (2003). Market Access for Organic
Products fiom Developing Countries; Analysis of the EC Regulation (2092/91).
Stockholm: Kommerskollegium National Board of Trade.

Koshio, S. (2004). Organizing an Interview. The Public Speakers' Page. Retrieved
December 20, 2009, from
http://www.hawaii.edu/mauispeech/html/interviewing.html

Leedy, P. (1993). Practical Research, Planning and Design. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

MacCallum, R. C., and Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of Structural Equation
Modeling in Psychological Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201-226.

McCann, E., Sullivan, 8., Erickson, D., and Young, R. D. (1997). Environmental
Awareness, Economic Orientation, and Farming Practices: A Comparison of
Organic and Conventional Farmers. Environmental Management, 21(5), 747-758.

Mather, D., Bernsten, R., &. Maredia, M. (2002). Ex—Ante Assessment of The Impact of '

Disease-Resistant Cucurbits Germplasm in Indonesia and South Africa. Michigan
State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

297

Maunder, A. H. (1973). Agricultural Extension: A reference Manual (Abridged edition).
Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Michelsen, J ., Lynggaard, K., Padel, S., & Foster, C. (2001). Organic Farming
Development and Agricultural institutions in Europe: A Study of Six Countries:
Economics and Policy, vol 9. Hohenheirn, Germany: University of Hohenheim.

Midmore, P., Padel, S., McCalman, H., Isherwood, J ., Fowler, 8., & Lampkin, N. (2001).
Attitudes towards Conversion to Organic Production Systems: A Stuay of
Farmers in England. Wales, U.K.: Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales.

Miyaura, R., Suryadi, A. M., and Fujimoto, A. (1998). Vegetable Cultivation Practices
and Cost in Tropical Highland: A Case Study of Highland Bali, Indonesia. Journal
of Agricultural Development Studies, 9(1), 51-61.

Molyneaux, J. M. and Rosner, L. P. (2004). Changing Patterns of Indonesian Food
Consumption and Their Welfare Implications. Working Paper 15. Indonesian
Policy Program, BAPENAS/Department of Agriculture/U SAID/DAI Food Policy
Advisory Team. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from
http://www.pd£dec.org/pdf_docs/Pnade890.pdf

Mundy, P. G. W. (1992). Information Sources of Agricultural Extension Specialists in
Indonesia (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Narioka, H., Mastur, I. W., Adnyana, S., and Medina, S. M. (2001). Biophysical
Characteristics and Cropping Systems in Highland Slope Farming. In A. F ujimoto
& K. Abdullah (Eds.), Highland Vegetable Cultivation in Indonesia (pp. 153-172).
Tokyo, Japan: World Planning Co., LTD.

National Science Foundation. (2002). The 2002 User-Friendly Handbook for Project
Evaluation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Westminster Bank. (1992). Nat West National Farm Survey, U.K., Conventry:
National Westminster Bank.

298

Nourin Tokei Kyokai. (1995). Indonesia no Yasai. [Vegetables in Indonesia: Producing,
Marketing, Consuming, and Trading]. Tokyo, Japan: Nourin Tokei Kyokai.

Novianty, D., and Andoyo, R. (2005). Organic Market in Indonesia. Unpublished
manuscript. ‘

Nowak, P. J. (1982). Adoption and Difiitsion of Soil and Water Conservation Practices.
Paper presented at the RCA Symposium: Future Agricultural Technology and
Resource Conservation, Washington DC.

Okurnura, N. (2004). Beikoku ni okeru CSA undou no tayouka: Seisansya to shouhisya
kaiinn no kankeisei no henka [Diversification of the CSA Movement in the
United States: Changes in the Relationship between Producer and Consumer
Members]. In Nihon Yuuki Nougyou Gakkai (Eds.), Y uukinougyou Nenpou vol. 4
(pp. 207-219). Tokyo, Japan: Commons.

Padel, S. (2001a). Conversion to Organic Farming: A Typical Example of the Diffusion of
an Innovation? Sociologia Ruralis, 41(1), 49-61 .

Padel, S. (2001b). Conversion to Organic Milk Production: The Change Process and
Farmers ’Information Needs (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wales, Dyfed,
U.K.

Padel, S. and Lampkin, N. H. (1994). Conversion to Organic Farming: An Overview. In
N. H. Lampkin & S. Padel (Eds.), The Economics of Organic Farming: An
International Perspective (pp. 295-313). Wallingford, U.K.: CAB-Intemational.

Padel, S., Lampkin, N., and Foster, C. (1999). Influence of Policy Support on the
Development of Organic Farming in the European Union. International Planning

Studies, 4(3), 303-315.

Pindyck, R. S., and Rubinfeld, D. L. (1998). Econometric Models and Economic
Forecasts. Fourth Edition. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill

Prawoto, A., & Surono, I. (2005). Organic Agriculture in Indonesia: A Wannabe Big
Player in the Organic World. The Organic Standard 49, 3-6.

299

 

Reardon, T. (2004). Supermarkets and Agricultural Development in Indonesia: First
Impressions. Unpublished manuscript.

Rockwell, K. (1996). Evaluating Program hnpact. Unpublished manuscript.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diflitsion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A Cross-
Cultural Approach New York, NY: Free Press.

Rudi. (2005). Potensi pengembangan ekonomi local berbasiskan usahatani sayuran
organic di desa Sukagalih kecamatan Megamendung kabupaten Bogor [Local
Economic Development Potential Based on Organic Vegetable Farming in the
Sukagalih Village, Sub-District of Megamendung, District of Bogor.] (Bachelor’s
thesis). Bogor Agricultural University, J awa Barat, Indonesia. ,

Soil Association (2000). The Organic Food and Farming Report 2000. Bristol, U.K.: Soil
Association Certification Ltd.

Schultz, T. W. (1964). Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

Smalley, S. B. (2000). The Emergence of Stakeholder Consensus: Examining Issues in
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (Doctoral Dissertation).
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Staatz, J. M., and Eicher, C. K. (1998). Agricultural Development Ideas in Historical
Perspective. In C. K. Eicher & J. M. Staatz (Eds.), International Agricultural
Development (pp. 8-3 8). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sudana, M., and Temaja, I. G. R. M. (2002). Input and Output Analysis of Organic and
Conventional Farming system in the Highland of Bali. Paper presented in
ISSAAS International Symposium, Tokyo, Japan.

Sudana, M., Temaja, I. G. R. M., Miyaura, R., and Fujimoto, A. (2003). Cultural Practices

300

 

and Economic Analysis of Organic and Conventional Vegetable Farming in Bali,
Indonesia. Journal of International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural

Sciences, 9(3), 104-113.

Sulaiman, R., and Hall, A. (2004). Extension Policy at the National Level in Asia. Paper
presented at the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Sumiartha, K., Susila, W., and Sudiarta, P. (2005). Eflect of “Selasih ” (Ocimum
tenuiflorum) Plant Oil on Fruit flies (Bactrocera dorsalis complex) in Long Chili.
Journal of International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences, 1 1(3),
46-50.

Surono, J. I. (2007). Country Case Study of Indonesia. Power point document presented
at the Regional Conference on Organic Agriculture in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand.

Suvedi, M. and Morford, S. (2003). Conducting Program and Project Evaluations: A
Primer for Natural Resource Program Managers in British Colombia. Kamloops,
BC: Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources.

Suvedi, M., Heinze, K. & Ruonavaara, D. (1999). How to Conduct Evaluation of
Extension Programs. East Lansing, MI: ANRECS Center for Evaluate Studies,
Michigan State University Extension.

Swanson, B. E., and Claar, J. B. (1984). The History and Development of Agricultural
Extension. In B.E. Swanson (Ed), Agricultural Extension: a reference manual
(pp. 1-19). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Syaukat, Y. (2003). Factors Affecting Farmers in Adopting Low-Input Rice Farming
System in Tempuran Sub-District, Karawang, Indonesia. Journal of International
Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences, 9 (3 ), 90-103.

Syaukat, Y. (2006). Potential Development of Organic Vegetables in Sukagalih Village,
Megamendung Subdistrict, Bogor, West Java. In Development of New Bio-Agents
for Alternative Farming Systems: 2005 Report (pp. 194-205). Tokyo, Japan:
Tokyo University of Agriculture.

301

 

 

Tanaka, J. S. (1987). How Big is Enough?: Sample Size and Goodness of Fit in Structural
Equation Models with Latent Variables. Child Development, 58, 134-146.

Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Taylor-Powell, E. (1996). Sampling. WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension.

Tmanov, A. (2001). Case Study of the Ula'ainian Agricultural Advisory Services
(Doctoral Dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Toyota, H. (1998). Kyobunsankouzoubunseki: Nyumonhen [Structural Equation
Modeling]. Tokyo, Japan: Asakurashoten.

Umali-Deininger, D. (2005). Improving Delivery of Extension Services to Rural People:
New Perspectives. Paper presented in the SEARCA Conference “Agricultural and
rural development in Asia: Ideas, paradigms, and policies three decades after,”
Manila, Philippines.

UPTD Penyuluhan Wilaya Ciawi. (2007). [Statistics of Sukagalih Village in 2007].
Unpublished raw data.

UPTD Pertanian Tanaman Pagan Kec. Batriti. (2007). [Statistics of Bangli Village in
2007]. Unpublished raw data.

United States Embassy in Jakarta. (2006). Indonesia: Trade and Investment Highlight
September - November 2006. Retrieved December 20, 2009, fi'om
http://iakarta.usembassvgov/econ/Trade%20and%201nvestnrcnt‘l/oflll Ii gh l i ghts‘lb
BOScp-Nov%2006.pdf

 

Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G. (1994). Farm Rationality and the Adoption of
Environmentally Sound Practices: A Critique of the Assumptions of Traditional

Agricultural Extension. European Journal for Agricultural Education and
Extension 1(1), 59-90.

Weiss, C. (1998), Evaluation: Second Edition Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice

302

 

Hall.

Willock, J. (1994). Decision-Making on Family Farms. In B. H. Jacobsen, D. E. Pedersen,
J. Christensen & S. Rasmussen (Eds.), Farmers ’Decision Making a Descriptive
Approach. (pp. 63-75). Copenhagen, Denmark: Institute for Agricultural
Economics and Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.

Witono, A., Nonaka, N., Kosugi, S., and Mayrowani, H. (2005). Analysis and Evaluation
of Marketing Systems for Temperate Vegetables in West Java, Indonesia. In
Koyama, O. (Ed), Evaluation of Vegetable-Based Farming Systems and
Improvement of Vegetable and Fruit Cultivation in Highland Regions of West
Java, Indonesia. (pp. 117-122). Tokyo, Japan: Japan International Research
Center for Agricultural Sciences.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2000). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach Mason, OH:
South-Westem college publishing.

Yamazaki, K. (2005). Ecological Balance in Alternative Farming. In Research of
Alternative Farming Methods (pp. 7-17). Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Nodai Shuppankai.

Yarbough, J. P., Tait, J. L., \Vrbe, J. A., and Beanlieu, L. J. (1992). Communication
Process andLleadership. Gainesville, FL: Florida cooperation extension service,
University of Florida.

Zakaria, A. (2003). Decentralizing Extension to Local Government: Indonesia
Experience. Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on Operational zing
Reform in Agricultural Extension in South Asia, New Delhi, India.

Zhou, S., Herzfeld, T., Glauben, T., Zhang, Y., and H11, B. (2008). Factors Affecting

Chinese Farmers’ Decisions to Adopt a Water-Saving Technology. Canadian
Journal of Agricultural Economics 56 (I), 51 -61 .

303