Abstract
Farmer cooperatives represent a vertical coordination strategy aimed at reducing transaction costs and facilitating the adoption of technologies among farmers. In their roles, cooperatives undertake internal coordination of activities which may include enforcement measures, provision of quality inputs, internal control, and negotiation of favourable terms of exchange with buyers. However, limited attention has been given to understanding how cooperatives’ performance in the internal coordination of activities either promotes or hinders the continued adoption of agricultural technologies among cooperative members. We conducted a case study of the dairy sector in West Java, Indonesia, and utilised a mixed-method approach combining insight from dairy cooperative board members and dairy farming households. Our results suggest that the dis-adoption of dairy technologies is rooted in weak or non-existent monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure input and output quality, the absence of price incentives, and inadequate provision of extension services. Furthermore, the lack of tight monitoring and control mechanisms reduces the cooperatives’ bargaining power with input providers and milk buyers. Unless these issues within the cooperatives are addressed, continued adoption of recommended dairy farming practices by smallholder farmers will not be sustained.
1. Introduction
Extension efforts, policies, and technology dissemination programs actively promote various agricultural technologies to improve farm productivity and income, especially for smallholder farmers, which account for the largest share of agricultural producers globally (Lowder et al., 2014). Technologies are successfully adopted by some farmers when their socioeconomic characteristics and access to resources facilitate adoption decisions (Ruzzante et al., 2021). However, getting farmers to adopt technologies successfully is not a “once and for all” victory of extension and technology dissemination programs. As shown in the literature, farmers often dis-adopt technologies after beginning to use them, and their reasons for doing so are not well understood (Chinseu et al., 2019; Lwiza et al., 2017; Razafimahatratra et al., 2021).
The literature has discussed the determinants of technology adoption at length (for a review, see ,e.g., Feder et al., 1985; Liu et al., 2018; Pannell et al., 2006; Ruzzante et al., 2021), and mostly conceptualised adoption decisions as a choice between adoption and non-adoption, ignoring the complexities of the adoption process (Brown et al., 2017; Jones-Garcia and Krishna, 2021; Lambrecht et al., 2014). This bias limits our understanding of farmers’ motivations underpinning dis-adoption. In fact, a better understanding of the dis-adoption process is significant to enhance sustained adoption and long-lasting agricultural development impacts (Beissinger et al., 2017; Chinseu et al., 2019; Hassen, 2018; Pedzisa et al., 2015).
Previous adoption studies explore how individual-level or farm-level characteristics, such as farmers’ socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., age, education, experience), plot characteristics (e.g., slope, soil quality, elevation), and farm business scale (Liu et al., 2018; Mozzato et al., 2018) relate to adoption decisions. Fewer dis-adoption studies have been conducted compared to studies on adoption. Dis-adoption studies suggest that the determinants of farmers dis-adoption of technologies are similar to those of adoption, but typically have the opposite signs (Kanyamuka et al., 2020; Mantey et al., 2020; Marenya and Barrett, 2007; Wakeyo and Gardebroek, 2015).1
However, factors beyond the farm are also likely to affect adoption, particularly after farmers have decided to adopt the technology (Kebebe, 2019). For example, if output markets offer price premiums or other incentives to farmers who use technologies that enhance the quality and safety of products, then farmers may be more likely to continuously adopt technologies which allow them to produce outputs with certain attributes (Saenger et al., 2014; Treurniet, 2021). Additionally, the continuous adoption of technologies relies on inputs availability, affordability, and accessibility (Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010; Simtowe and Mausch, 2019).
Agricultural markets in rural areas of developing countries are characterised by high transaction costs (de Janvry et al., 1991; Dillon and Barrett, 2017; Gabre-Madhin, 2009) that may limit the adoption of agricultural technologies by smallholder farmers (Jack, 2013; Pingali et al., 2019; Saenger et al., 2014). Farmer cooperatives are a vertical coordination strategy strategically structured to reduce transaction costs by aligning direction and control across segments of a production and marketing system (Holloway et al., 2000; Ortmann and King, 2007; Peterson et al., 2001; Williamson, 1971). In their roles, cooperatives undertake internal coordination of activities including negotiation of fair prices for produce and establishing favourable terms of exchange with buyers on behalf of their members, information control, enforcement measures, and provision of quality inputs and extension services.
The literature has documented how cooperatives can facilitate technology adoption among smallholder farmers by providing access to extension services and agricultural inputs and assisting in the negotiation of exchange conditions and output prices (Abebaw and Haile, 2013; Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010; Kebebe, 2019; Wossen et al., 2017). To our knowledge, studies about agricultural cooperatives’ performance tend to focus on organisation attributes (e.g., ownership, governance), legal environment, availability of external technical and financial supports (e.g., from government and NGOs), farmers engagement (e.g., active participation in meetings and training), and managerial capabilities of their leaders (Banaszak, 2008; Fernando et al., 2021; Garnevska et al., 2011; Nkhoma, 2011; Ortmann and King, 2007). However, there has been less attention paid to understanding how performance in the internal coordination of activities within cooperatives can contribute to or hinder the adoption of agricultural technologies by cooperatives’ members.
We contribute to the literature by investigating how internal coordination of activities unfolds. We do this by examining the management practices and services provision implemented by cooperatives. We undertake our empirical analysis using dairy farming cooperatives in West Java, Indonesia as a case study. In the context of Indonesia, dairy cooperatives facilitate access to input and extension services, collect milk from farmers and distribute it to milk processing companies (Akzar et al., 2023; Priyono and Priyanti, 2015). Additionally, cooperatives also facilitate government programs and foreign aid initiatives.
Different development agencies, including the government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and universities have introduced and disseminated various types of productivity-enhancing dairy farming technologies and management practices (referred to hereafter as ‘technologies’) to smallholder dairy farmers via dairy cooperatives. While some technologies are widely adopted (e.g., using detergents for washing milking equipment, growing improved varieties of grasses, and applying fertilisers to grow grasses), some other technologies are having lower adoption rates, or they are dis-adopted by farmers. However, there is a limited understanding of why smallholder dairy farmers dis-adopt the technologies that have the potential to improve dairy farms’ productivity and milk quality.
This study utilises a mixed-method approach and combines insight from board members of dairy cooperatives and dairy farming households. We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine board members of the dairy cooperatives and a household survey of 600 dairy farming households in the main dairy production districts in West Java Province, Indonesia. The interviews provide insight regarding the cooperatives’ management practices and service provision implemented to perform the internal coordination of activities. The household survey data provides information on dairy farming households’ reasons for dis-adopting dairy farming technologies. We analysed the data descriptively to understand the performance of cooperatives in their service provision and dairy farmers’ perceptions of the barriers to continuous adoption of some technologies.
This study focuses on four technologies that were frequently dis-adopted by smallholder farmers in the study sample. These include two feed technologies: high crude protein concentrates and forage conservation; and two herd-health enhancing technologies: teat dipping after milking and mastitis testing. The dairy feed technologies aim to improve dairy cows’ nutritional intakes, while the health-enhancing technologies aim to prevent mastitis in dairy cows, which can both improve dairy cow productivity, milk hygiene and quality (Moran and Chamberlain, 2017; Salem and Smith, 2008; Shamsuddin et al., 2006; Wicaksono et al., 2019).
Our results suggest that the adoption of dairy farming technologies faces obstacles due to inefficiencies in the internal coordination of activities within dairy cooperatives. These challenges include inadequate internal control mechanisms to ensure output quality, the absence of individual price incentives, problems related to input quality, and a shortfall in providing extension services. Additionally, the weak internal control and monitoring schemes aimed at ensuring input and milk quality diminishes the bargaining power of cooperatives, particularly in negotiations with milk buyers, thereby hindering the potential for better exchange terms. However, there is potential for improvement. This potential can be achieved by enhancing control and tightening operations, mainly to reduce information asymmetry with respect to input and milk quality, establishing favourable arrangements for service provision including extension programs, and engaging in negotiation regarding the pricing and quality of inputs and outputs with input suppliers and milk processors, respectively. Efficient internal coordination of activities within the cooperatives has the potential to sustain rates of adoption of recommended dairy farming technologies, increasing productivity and product quality, resulting in a sustained supply of milk to processors and better prices for farmers – ultimately improving dairy farming households’ incomes.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the roles of dairy cooperatives in Indonesia. Section 3 discusses the conceptual framework of transaction costs and the roles of farmer cooperatives. Section 4 describes the methodology and data. Section 5 presents cooperatives performance of internal coordination of activities across a range of services, farmers’ constraints to adopt, and a comparison of the characteristics of adopters versus dis-adopters. Section 6 discusses the results and highlights potential solutions that can be implemented and concludes.
2. Study setting: The roles of cooperatives in Indonesian smallholder dairy farming
Smallholder dairy farming in Indonesia is characterised by low milk production (less than 10 litres per cow/day),2 poor milk quality, and limited access to quality inputs (feed and water), capital and finance (Akzar et al., 2023; Morey, 2011; Priyanto and Rahmayuni, 2020). Smallholder dairy production systems in Indonesia are primarily in peri-urban areas where unprocessed fresh milk is sold to dairy cooperatives or directly to consumers (small businesses or households).
In general, cooperatives are an alternative organisational structure designed to reduce transaction costs (Tawaf et al., 2009). In Indonesia, dairy cooperatives were first established in 1962 in East Java and were subsequently established in West Java, Central Java and the Special Region of Yogyakarta between 1969 and 1979 (Nurtini and Muzayyanah, 2014). They were initiated by farmers and supported by the government to improve farm-gate milk prices, milk production and farmers’ access to improved dairy cow breeds. The development of dairy cooperatives in Indonesia has required multi-sectoral support from government and industry, as well as regulatory frameworks, policies, and incentive programs to facilitate growth.
Cooperatives play several essential roles in Indonesian smallholder dairy value chains including marketing farmers’ products to private milk processing companies, supplying farm inputs and credit, and providing extension services (including technology dissemination programs). In fact, the majority of dairy farming households in Indonesia (almost 60% of a total of 141,989 households) report that they are members of cooperatives (Statistics Indonesia, 2015).
Cooperatives do not operate in isolation of other organisations such as buyers (private companies), input suppliers, governments, and development agencies (NGOs). Private milk processing companies are the main buyers of smallholder farmers’ fresh milk sold through cooperatives. Cooperatives organise milk collection points in different areas for collecting the milk from farmers and then distribute it to the processors’ plants. These buyers negotiate with cooperatives on the arrangements for sales of farmers’ milk which include pricing and quality testing mechanisms. They also provide support to cooperatives such as training programs for cooperative extension staff.
Cooperatives also facilitate the procurement of inputs from input suppliers such as vitamins and minerals, veterinary supplies for dairy cows, and milking or other production equipment. Feed concentrates, highly nutritious feed supplements to support milk production, are usually mixed in the cooperatives’ feed mills using raw materials procured from input suppliers.
Cooperatives provide animal health and reproduction (i.e., artificial insemination) services to farmers by visiting farms. Cooperatives establish and organise farmer groups for delivering extension programs, including technology dissemination and training to improve milk production and quality. They also serve as intermediaries for development programs that promote improved welfare among farmers. For example, they work closely with local and national governments, NGOs, international organizations, and private companies to develop programs and disseminate new technologies and information on management practices that can help farmers to improve their farm productivity and incomes. Governments often provide support to farmers through subsidies and credit provisions, which are delivered through cooperatives.
As members of a cooperative, farmers are required to pay membership fees, which consist of a principal savings payment made at the beginning of their membership, as well as regular fees to cover the cost of services provided by the cooperative. The fees vary from a flat monthly rate to a fee based on the total milk production. Farmers typically receive a share of the cooperative’s earnings at the end of the financial year.
Cooperatives can promote and facilitate the adoption of technologies by smallholder farmers through their various roles discussed above (Abebaw and Haile, 2013; Wossen et al., 2017). For example, market incentives through milk sales and access to extension and technological inputs (e.g., physical complementary inputs, capital, and critical information required to adopt technologies) are embodied in their services, and these elements are necessary in facilitating technology adoption (Foster and Rosenzweig, 2010; Kebebe, 2019; Orr, 2018; Shiferaw et al., 2015).
3. Conceptual framework
Agricultural markets in rural regions of developing countries are characterised by prevalent market failures (de Janvry et al., 1991; Dillon and Barrett, 2017; Gabre-Madhin, 2009) and transaction costs that may disincentivise adoption of agricultural technologies by smallholder farmers (Jack, 2013; Pingali et al., 2019; Saenger et al., 2014; Williamson, 1971). Transaction costs are the costs involved in exchanging or transacting in the economy, which include costs of searching and information, bargaining, contracting and enforcement (Williamson, 1985). Search and information costs are the costs spent to identify potential suppliers or buyers, including obtaining information about prices for inputs and outputs; bargaining costs, include the costs of negotiating an agreement with the other party in the transaction. Contracting and enforcement costs are related to drafting the contract and ensuring the parties involved in the transaction fulfil their obligations as stated in the contract. Some or all of these costs are potentially faced by farmers when they produce and market their products (Staal et al., 1997).
Transaction costs can affect farmers’ incentives to adopt agricultural technologies. For example, if technology inputs are unavailable, farmers must bear the costs of searching for suppliers and bargaining for favourable terms. Furthermore, as a result of the high transaction costs discussed above, smallholder farmers may experience opportunistic behaviour and imbalances of market power from buyers and sellers, which disincentivise the adoption of technologies or practices that lead to product quality improvements (e.g., premiums for higher quality products are not passed on to farmers).
Farmer cooperatives are one vertical coordination strategy option to reduce transaction costs (Holloway et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2019; Ortmann and King, 2007) by aligning incentives and control across different actors in the value chain (so called vertical coordination), and by controlling price, quantity, quality, and the terms of exchange between different production and marketing segments (Peterson et al., 2001; Williamson, 1971). Another advantage of cooperatives is that internal control is usually equity-based, meaning that decision-making powers are shared amongst cooperative’s members (Peterson et al., 2001). In addition, cooperatives have internal control over the formation and execution of policies and procedures. This internal control may include enforcement mechanisms and incentives to ensure members comply with product standards demanded by buyers (Peterson et al., 2001). For instance, the governance to ensure their members produce quality products through facilitating access to agricultural extension services, inputs and price premiums to reward good quality.
However, the internal coordination of activities within cooperatives can be problematic due to a lack of enforcement mechanisms and information asymmetry, thereby triggering opportunistic behaviour by dominant parties upstream and downstream of the value chain (Hobbs and Young, 2000; Peterson et al., 2001). Internal coordination errors within cooperatives hinder farmers from improving their farming practices, leading to disincentives for technology adoption (de Janvry et al., 2019; Ullah et al., 2020). For example, asymmetric information regarding input quality may discourage technology adoption due to the variable quality of inputs that can undermine the expected benefits (Ashour et al., 2017). Limited information about product quality may result in farmers producing output with suboptimal quality, lowering output prices. The low reliability of (or absence of) independent quality-assuring institutions forces sellers and buyers in the input and output markets, respectively, to rely on self-inspection, which can result in opportunistic behaviour (Hobbs and Young, 2000).
This study focuses on analysing the performance of cooperatives in the internal coordination of activities. Specifically, we will examine their effectiveness in negotiating prices and favourable exchange terms with buyers, managing information, enforcing mechanisms, and providing quality inputs and extension services.
Cooperatives execute internal coordination of activities by implementing management practices and offering services to their members. For instance, they establish standards for input and output quality, implement testing protocols, set price schedules based on various measures, and establish agreements with input suppliers and buyers regarding the quantity and quality of inputs and outputs, as well as payment terms. Having control and information about input and output quality enhances bargaining power, facilitating negotiations for purchase, and sale arrangements. Moreover, cooperatives play a crucial role in capacity building through training for their members and providing technical assistance.
We will examine the current arrangements of cooperatives regarding milk sales, input procurement, and provision of extension services to assess their performance and understand how it is likely to impact incentives for technology adoption at the farm level. If management practices and service provision work well, the benefits to members include better prices for high-quality products, stable access to quality inputs, and the provision of extension services. These are expected to translate into incentives to continuously adopt agricultural technologies.
4. Methods
4.1. Data and sampling
The research was part of a large multi-year smallholder dairy farmers development project funded by the Australian government in partnership with the Government of Indonesia. Semi-structured interviews with dairy cooperative board members and structured interviews with dairy farming households (a survey) were conducted to gain insight on issues related to the adoption and dis-adoption of dairy farming technologies. The study site, located in West Java Province, Indonesia, included four districts with high concentrations of dairy farms. In each district, one to two major dairy cooperatives were selected for a total of five cooperatives.
A purposive proportional random sampling method was used to select our sample of 600 dairy farming households. All households were members of one of the five cooperatives (Table 1). The number of dairy farming households selected from two districts, Bandung and Garut, was proportional to the share of the total dairy farmers in these districts. As the proportion of farmers in Cianjur and Bogor districts was relatively small, we decided to interview 80 farmers in each district to be able to statistically compare groups. Dairy farmers were randomly selected from each district according to the proportion that had been identified.
Distribution of population and respondents by districts in the household survey
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
A detailed structured interview instrument (survey) was developed in a mobile-based application, CommCare version 2.36.1 (Dimagi, Cambridge, MA, USA). The survey compiled cross-sectional data, such as farmers’ socioeconomic and household statuses, dairy farm production characteristics, and decision-making processes about adopting different technologies (Table 2). Interviews with the 600 dairy farming households were conducted between August and September 2017.
Questions in the household survey to collect information for this study
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Semi-structured interviews with dairy cooperative board members from the five cooperatives were conducted between December 2017 and January 2018. Nine cooperative leaders and board secretaries were involved in the interviews. The interviews were recorded and guided by an interview instrument designed to focus on the roles undertaken by cooperatives, especially with respect to the provision of key services to their farmer members, including marketing milk, accessing inputs and extension services.
4.2 Data analysis
Audio recordings from the semi-structured interviews were transcribed and translated from Bahasa Indonesia into English. The transcription was analysed through categorisation, following Morris et al. (2017) and Tobin et al. (2016), to explore common themes raised in the interviews. From the identified themes, we picked out patterns exhibited across the interviews. Verbatim quotes were used to support and complement the key findings from the quantitative analysis, enriching discussion on the issues that discourage continuous adoption by smallholder dairy farmers.
The descriptive results from the farm household survey data analysis are presented to summarise responses to the questions outlined in Table 2. To put dis-adoption into context, percentages3 are compared between continuous adopters and discontinuous adopters using t-tests for the agents or people who introduced the technology to farmers, assistance farmers received, and who provided the assistance to encourage adoption of each of the technologies. Analysis of the differences between continuous adopters and discontinuous adopters was also conducted using t-tests for each of the technologies with respect to their socioeconomic and dairy farm characteristics and their access to agricultural services. Logistic regression models were estimated to explore the correlates of dis-adoption for each of the technologies.4 To understand issues underpinning the dis-adoption of technologies (as perceived by farmers) percentages were compared to explore common themes and patterns in the discontinuous adopters’ responses.
5. Results
This section uses the data from the semi-structured interviews and farmers’ responses to the household survey to describe the management practices and service provision implemented by cooperatives. We provide an overview of the dairy cooperatives service arrangements in the context of this study. We divide the results section into three subsections that describe arrangements in (1) milk sales, (2) access to inputs, and (3) access to extension services. We focus on how these arrangements incentivise or disincentivise the adoption of four dairy farming practices: forage conservation, high protein (16% protein content or higher) concentrates, teat dipping after milking, and mastitis testing (Table 3). These practices are likely to increase both milk quality and milk yield (see description about the technologies in Appendix A).
Dis-adoption rates of technologies
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
5.1 Milk sale arrangements
Farmers deliver their milk to milk collection points (MCP), which are managed by cooperatives. The cooperatives then distribute the milk to processors. Milk quality tests (Table 4) for bacterial contamination (measured in total plate counts (TPC)) and milk composition (e.g., total solids include fat and protein content) are conducted by the milk processor.
Most cooperatives collect ‘group’ samples from comingled milk delivered to a MCP by several farmers. These ‘group’ samples are then tested for quality. However, for a subgroup of farmers in Cooperative 5 (23% of members), it uses samples collected from individual farms (Table 4). This subgroup of farmers supplies their milk to a newly developed MCP (modern MCP) that allows individual farm samples to be tested and recorded using digital barcodes. The modern MCP has been developed in partnership with milk processors, the cooperative, and a development agent. The rest of Cooperative 5 members (77%) supply their milk to conventional MCPs where their milk is co-mingled and tested as a group.
Milk sales arrangements
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Milk price is incentivised at the group level for most of the cooperatives (Table 4). In Cooperative 2, the milk price is a flat rate of USD 0.31/litre although the milk samples are tested by groups. Farmers who are members of Cooperative 5 that can deliver to the modern MCP are incentivised individually. Across cooperatives, the milk price is not immediately known by farmers when delivering their milk (Table 4). The milk price is shared with farmers three to seven days after delivery or when the milk payment is distributed (fortnightly or monthly). With respect to price negotiation with the processors, cooperatives can negotiate with the processors (Table 4). However, cooperative board members mentioned that they do not have enough bargaining power as milk quality tests and prices are conducted and formulated by milk processors.
We compared adoption rates among farmers who supply milk to the modern MCP in Cooperative 5, the conventional MCP in Cooperative 5, and the conventional MCP in Cooperatives 1–4 (Table 5). On average, farmers supplying milk to the modern MCP adopt significantly more technologies than those supplying to the conventional MCP. Furthermore, the adoption rates of teat dipping after milking and mastitis tests for farmers supplying the modern MCP are statistically higher than those supplying the conventional MCP. These technologies are adopted to prevent mastitis in dairy cows, which can improve milk hygiene and quality (Wicaksono et al., 2019). These results suggest that individual-quality-based incentives may drive farmers to adopt technologies that can enhance milk quality. However, the adoption rates of forage conservation and high protein concentrates are not significantly different between the modern and conventional MCP groups. This could be explained by the lack of availability of inputs, addressed in the next section. In addition, in our multivariate analysis results in Section 5.4, we included variables of farmers being member of Cooperative 5 and whether farmers supply their milk to the modern MCP to further assess whether the individual-quality-based incentive correlates with adoption behaviour after controlling for other determinants.
Comparison of adoption rates
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
As mentioned above, individual-quality-based incentive is the exception rather than the rule across the five cooperatives studied. Since milk quality is measured by the buyers (milk processors), milk quality is observable to buyers but not to the sellers (cooperatives/farmers). These arrangements could lead to opportunistic behaviour by the processors. In addition, most of the cooperatives in the study sites are not incentivised for individual milk quality. This situation has the potential to keep the price of milk paid to farmers/cooperatives low and, because of the potentially under-reported milk quality by buyers, ultimately discourages farmers from adopting technologies (Saenger et al., 2014; Treurniet, 2021).
In this case, the cooperatives are failing to negotiate arrangements with buyers that are beneficial for cooperative members. Moreover, payments are received with delays after the product is delivered, which can be an unattractive arrangement for smallholder farmers who typically have cash constraints. Providing price incentives and favourable arrangements beneficial to both farmers and buyers is likely to help solve this issue. Alternatives may include following practices like those implemented by Cooperative 5 that have already been successful in providing individual price incentives to farmers resulting in milk quality improvements and better prices paid to farmers.
5.2 Arrangements to facilitate access to dairy farm inputs
Dairy cooperatives facilitate access to farm input supplies, including feed concentrates, medicine, vitamins, and farm equipment (e.g., milk cans, filters, and rubber floor mats for cow barns). Dairy cooperatives procure dairy farming inputs directly from suppliers to get benefits of economies of scale and negotiate lower prices. With respect to concentrates, most cooperatives mix the concentrates at their feed mills and procure the raw materials (e.g., materials with high protein content: pollard and palm oil kernel) from different suppliers. One exception is Cooperative 2, which does not mix concentrates in house, instead they supply “ready to use” concentrates procured from a supplier. Cooperatives sell concentrates to farmers in retail packages (e.g., a 40 kg sack), which facilitates input purchase since concentrate manufacturers tend to sell concentrates in bulk (e.g., in a 50 kg sack and require a minimum purchase of 2000 kg), which is impractical and unaffordable for individual smallholder dairy farmers. Additionally, cooperatives provide credit to farmers for input purchases and deduct the input costs from the farmers’ fortnightly or monthly milk payment. In contrast, if farmers buy concentrates directly from the manufacturers, farmers are required to pay at the time of purchase.
Farmers cited that the cost of adoption and limited availability of inputs are the main reasons for the dis-adoption of high protein concentrates, teat dipping after milking, and forage conservation. About 73% of the dis-adopters of high protein concentrates identified costs as the main barrier to adoption (Figure 1).
Main reasons for dis-adoption of dairy technologies
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Approximately 44%, 37%, and 19% of dis-adopters of teat dipping, forage conservation, and concentrates respectively, identified limited availability of inputs as their reason for dis-adoption (Figure 1). Teat dipping adoption requires farmers to have a reusable dipping cup and a disinfectant solution, such as iodine. From the survey, it was identified that the issue was either the dipping cup was broken, or iodine was running out, and farmers did not know where to buy it as cooperatives were not supplying them. For forage conservation, farmers face challenges when obtaining inoculants,5 an input needed to conserve forages. This input is not supplied by the cooperatives simply because farmers rarely make silage from conserving forage as cut and carry grass is a common practice among farmers. In the case of concentrates, when cooperatives do not supply high protein concentrates, farmers need to buy the concentrates directly from manufacturers.
“We let farmers decide which concentrates they want to use. If the farmers want to use concentrates with better quality, they need to buy it by themselves [from manufacturers]” (Participant 2, Cooperative 2).
Another concern raised during semi-structured interviews involved the dis-adoption of forage conservation, which appears to be connected to challenges surrounding the repair and maintenance of farm equipment provided by the cooperatives. One cooperative board member provided interesting insight. Farmers seem to be unable to repair or replace forage choppers and are also either unaware or unable to replace the machine with labour:
“We have given farmers equipment to make silage, but after it gets damaged they stop using it. Actually, for silage making, they do not need expensive tools, for example, the forage chopper machine. It could be done using a simple tool such as sickle to chop the forages. It was because they see the demonstration used forage chopper machine, and they constrained with the machine because they have to buy it, and it is expensive. Therefore, even though now I keep communicating to make silage, it would be difficult for them” (Participant 6, Cooperative 4).
The semi-structured interviews revealed the issue with the supply of concentrates is complex. For cooperatives that mix their concentrates, they commented on the issue of raw materials for making concentrates: increasing prices, decreasing quality, and availability of raw materials. One respondent said,
“On the one hand, we have to make concentrates with adequate protein content for the needs of cows. On the other hand, the price is high, and it is not affordable for farmers. The problem is the price of raw materials continue to increase” (Participant 3, Cooperative 3).
Additionally, the quality of raw materials is decreasing:
“In the past, we produced a lot of concentrates [high protein concentrates]. We bought the [raw] materials from outside [suppliers], but there were many obstacles. First, shrinkage and second, the quality of the materials was originally good, but it is bad after that” (Participant 5, Cooperative 3).
The availability of raw materials was another concern which could happen due to the high demand for the materials (e.g., pollard is also used by poultry industry for feed) and big ocean waves during the rainy seasons can impede shipping, particularly for materials supplied from outside Java. Furthermore, three cooperatives that mix concentrates in-house lack written contracts with suppliers, which may lead to difficulty securing a reliable supply.
In addition, farmers appear to be unaware of the quality of concentrates. The data from the dairy farming household survey shows that only around 11% of the sampled farmers are aware of the quality content of the concentrates they use. A complementary nutrition study by Puastuti et al. (2021) found using laboratory tests that the concentrates used by farmers which were labelled as 16% crude protein content on the package, actually contained only 14% crude protein.
The evidence in this section, such as farmers’ lack of knowledge of where to finds cups and iodine for teat dipping after milking, and the unavailability of services to maintain machinery for conservation forages, suggests that the cooperatives are not always playing a role in facilitating input access for smallholder farmers. However, the cooperatives can help farmers by negotiating input quantity and prices with input providers. For example, the cooperatives are likely to be able to purchase inputs in bulk at lower prices. The unavailability of technology inputs at the cooperative means farmers must search to find alternative suppliers. This increases farmers’ search, information and negotiation costs and could reduce the potential benefits of using the technology (Kebebe, 2019).
The issues with the availability of high protein concentrates are more complex and rooted in problems with information asymmetries in the input market (and more concerning, at the cooperative level) with respect to the protein content of the concentrates. Poor or highly variable quality inputs disincentivise farmers to use the inputs, because the results of the adoption will not bring the promised benefits (e.g., high productivity or profitability) (Ashour et al., 2017).
There are also issues with the reliability of raw materials from cooperatives’ suppliers which may have links with the issues of quality, availability, and price of the raw materials to produce concentrates with high protein content. Cooperatives have not been able to solve these issues which undermine the availability of high-quality and affordable concentrates. In this sense, the cooperative arrangements to help reduce transaction costs in input acquisition are not always in place, or when in place, they are not working efficiently and effectively. As a result, farmers do not have incentives to adopt high protein concentrates because these are not available, and when available, they are costly or of poor quality.
Cooperatives could take advantage of economies of scale and facilitate input procurement for farmers, thereby ensuring consistent availability. They can also facilitate arrangements for third-party quality control of inputs such as concentrates. These types of arrangements have been effective in addressing counterfeit input problems in various settings (Haggblade et al., 2021; Oyenpemi et al., 2023).
5.3 Extension services arrangements
Cooperatives provide extension services to disseminate information on best-recommended dairy farming practices and provide technical assistance to their members, with the objective of improving dairy farms productivity and milk quality. Extension services are provided in different technical areas, including reproduction, herd health, herd nutrition, milk hygiene, and improved dairy farming technologies and practices. Cooperatives also facilitate the delivery of programs initiated by the government and development agencies. However, these are not consistent and dairy farmers tend to mostly rely on the services provided by the cooperatives.
Dairy cooperatives played a dominant role in introducing forage conservation, high protein concentrates, teat dipping after milking and mastitis test to farmers (see Table A2 in the Supplementary materials). The government also played an important role in introducing forage conservation to farmers, and veterinarians were important in introducing mastitis testing to smallholder farmers. With respect to the assistance received by farmers in adopting technologies, seminars or training is common, and this was provided mainly by the cooperatives (Tables A3 and A4 in the Appendix).
Extension service provision is under-resourced across the cooperatives, the average ratio of extension staff to the number of farmers that needs to be served is 1:159 farmers (Table 6). The biggest cooperative in this study serves 3500 farmers with only ten extension staff, suggesting the ratio is 1 in 350 farmers (Table 6). Some cooperatives did not have specialised extension staff, and extension activities are delivered by veterinary staff and/or the cooperative board members. The remote and scattered location of farmers, coupled with poor road infrastructure, further reduces access to extension services for farmers.
Cooperative size: number of farmers served and technical staff
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Given the issues associated with extension provision, it is unsurprising that farmers associate complexity when dis-adopting forage conservation (33%, Figure 1), as this practice demands extensive knowledge, highlighting farmers’ lack of adoption skills. Furthermore, farmers’ satisfaction with current practices, cited at 31% and 74% for forage conservation and mastitis tests respectively (Figure 1), could also be linked to the issues with extension provision leading to dis-adoption. Farmers clarified their dis-adoption of forage conservation by mentioning adequate access to forages (indicative of satisfaction), thus perceiving no need to preserve forages for the dry season. Regarding mastitis tests, farmers frequently expressed that due to the apparent health of their cows, conducting such tests seemed unnecessary, leading them to discontinue this practice. This suggests that farmers may lack an understanding of the benefits of regularly implementing the practice to prevent cows from developing mastitis. Veterinary technologies, like mastitis tests, are usually only adopted by farmers when problems are visible (Nell and Schwalbach, 2002). Most of the mastitis cases in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are subclinical mastitis, which is not visible to farmers (FAO, 2014).
With respect to high protein concentrates, the adoption barrier due to cost (73%, Figure 1) as explained in the previous subsection, is not always about whether farmers have access to credit because the cooperatives have credit input facilities for farmers. The adoption of high protein concentrates is likely perceived as a loss by farmers since the costs of concentrates are deducted from milk sales revenues. This is in line with Foster and Rosenzweig (2010), who suggest that the adoption of technologies depends only on the net return if all farmers are not constrained with access to credit. The perceived high cost of high protein concentrates adoption may also be related to the lack of farmers’ knowledge in correctly implementing the technology. The provision of incorrect quantities of concentrates to cows and at the wrong time during the lactation period would not increase milk production.
Despite the cooperatives’ efforts to facilitate access to information aimed at improving milk yields and quality, several challenges hinder the effectiveness of such initiatives. These include incomplete information, limited dissemination of messages to all farmers, and inadequate price incentives. As a result, even if farmers have access to and understand the benefits of innovative technologies, the lack of incentives discourages them from adopting these practices.
The limited availability of extension staff fully dedicated to providing technical assistance requires considering alternatives like farmer-to-farmer extension (F2FE) and utilising information and communication technologies (ICT) such as text messages and mobile phone applications, which can serve as viable options. Other alternatives include partnering with input providers to deliver extension services to farmers.
5.4 Comparison of the characteristics of continuous adopters and discontinuous adopters
The discontinuous adopters generally have fewer physical assets (non-production and production assets) and human assets (family members and hired labour) than continuous adopters. Discontinuous adopters live further away from dairy cooperative offices (meaning more travel time), have a fewer number of contacts with the cooperative extension staff and are less likely to receive assistance to adopt technologies compared to continuous adopters (Tables A5–A6 in the Appendix). These results are consistent with the literature on dis-adoption, which suggests an association between fewer assets, less engagement with extension activities or programs with dis-adoption of technologies (Kanyamuka et al., 2020; Marenya and Barrett, 2007). Tables A7 and A8 in the Appendix also present the correlates of dis-adoption of each technology calculated using logistic regressions. Linking to the variation in milk sales arrangements explained in the previous section, this finding suggests that farmers who receive individual-quality-based incentives through the modern MCP are less likely to dis-adopt teat dipping after milking, which is in line with our results in Table 4. In addition, farmers who are members of Cooperative 5 are less likely to dis-adopt high protein concentrates, suggesting that adoption of high protein concentrates correlates with the provision of inputs by the cooperative. However, it is also important to note that only 8% of farmers in the sample adopted high protein concentrates, and the rest of the sample are still experiencing constraints to adoption. While these results only show correlations, our results suggest that studying the causal link between individual-quality-based incentives and adoption deserve further exploration.
6. Discussion and conclusion
Our results suggest that the internal coordination of activities within dairy cooperatives has been inefficient. The lack of robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure input and output quality, the absence of individual price incentives for quality milk, inability to secure reliable and reasonably priced high-quality inputs with input suppliers, and under-resourced extension teams limit the cooperatives’ effectiveness in providing incentives to continuous adoption. Moreover, the inability to control product and input quality results in reduced cooperatives’ bargaining power with milk buyers and input providers.
A key finding from the study of milk sales arrangements is that the group or flat milk price received by farmers does not provide an incentive to adopt technologies that improve milk quality. Although a subgroup of farmers in Cooperative 5 is incentivised individually and found to adopt more technologies, the cooperative may require some time to modernise all their milk collection points to effectively serve all of their members. This is due to the capital-intensive nature of investing in modern MCPs and the requirement for skilled human capital to operate the system. A recent study by Treurniet (2021) in one dairy cooperative in Indonesia highlights the positive impact of public-private partnerships (PPP) in improving milk quality through individual price incentives. The cooperative was supported to upgrade some of their milk collection points to be able to implement individual quality testing, and farmers were given physical inputs and training to improve milk hygiene (same as the modern MCP in Cooperative 5). However, as the provision of physical inputs and training by the intervention stopped, the milk quality also decreased (Treurniet, 2021). Without subsidised inputs and training, the price incentive for farmers was not enough to continue adopting improved technologies and practices.
Given these shortcomings, cooperatives may need to find alternative approaches to incentivise improvements in product quality, while also ensuring prices that incentivise change of practice by farmers. These include negotiating arrangements to invest in upgrading MCPs and training cooperative members to operate the system. Scaling out the use of digital farm-specific barcodes for individual milk testing on a roll-out basis could be beneficial. Perhaps cooperatives can take advantage of economies of scale to negotiate better prices to undertake these investments and rely less on subsidised equipment.
The mechanisms in the milk quality testing performed by the buyers (milk processors) may create room for opportunistic behaviour, as they may use the mechanism to signal lower milk quality and subsequently reduce milk prices. An experimental study by Saenger et al. (2014) tested the effect of the provision of third-party assessment on the quality of milk quality produced by dairy farmers. The experiment found that the provision of independent quality assessment increased farmers’ use of quality inputs (purchased concentrates), which translated into higher milk quality and revenue. This approach can be undertaken in West Java Indonesia, using a third-party certification process for milk quality (e.g., TPC, protein content), tightening monitoring and control mechanisms for improved quality, whilst implementing a system that is transparent to both producers and buyers. A trusted third-party certifier may need to be found, and cooperatives may need to negotiate reduced costs of the certification process. This type of system will work if accompanied by individual price incentives to improve milk quality.
There are also issues with the quality of input provision. From the cups and iodine required for farmers to implement teat dipping after milking, to the lack of available services for machinery maintenance for forage conservation. The most complex one is high protein concentrates, where the cooperatives claim to provide concentrates with 16% protein content, but they are of inferior protein content. The potential issues could be with the cooperative when mixing the ingredients of the concentrates or issues with the quality of raw materials from suppliers. High protein concentrates are expensive for farmers and the provision of below quality inputs that may not deliver benefits is likely to result in dis-adoption.
Cooperatives can leverage economies of scale for input provision, to reduce the price of inputs to farmers and reduce reliance on subsidised inputs. Contracts for consistent and timely delivery of cups and iodine may need to be negotiated with input providers. Arrangements with the providers of silage machines to train cooperative members on how to properly use and maintain the machines will also help solve the issues. Addressing input quality issues can be accomplished via a third-party certification process to reduce room for opportunistic behaviour and ensure high-quality input for farmers. These arrangements are expected to promote farmers’ adoption of technologies aimed at improving cow health and milk hygiene, consequently enhancing milk production and quality.
Finally, extension services aimed at improving milk productivity and milk quality, likely to help ensure a continuous supply of milk up to standards, are under-resourced. This leads to lack of understanding of technologies used and their benefits. This adds to issues with coordination and alignment of incentives described above. One of the main issues with extension services is the lack of extension agents. This requires the use of alternative ways of providing extension services, thereby ensuring the improvement of on-farm practices leading to higher milk yield and quality. This can be achieved through various approaches, including the use of ICTs, videos and text messages, as well as virtual sharing of information with farmers have been shown effective in other settings (Fisher et al., 2018; Shikuku, 2019; Voss et al., 2021). Cooperatives can help facilitate these with government organisations, input providers, and processors. In addition, integrating the provision of extension services into contractual arrangements with input providers and milk buyers can also be considered.
Ultimately, the improvement of managerial practices and correcting inefficiencies in internal controls can lead to better outcomes for farmers. This includes boosting adoption of technologies and improving milk yields and quality, and by these means improving farmers’ income. The cooperatives model requires leveraging economies of scale to reduce cost as well as move towards less reliance on subsidies and support from government and international projects.
To ensure continuous adoption of technologies, efficient and effective enforcement mechanisms, and arrangements for service provision, price, and quality negotiation are necessary at both the upstream and downstream of the value chain. Improved management practices can be achieved by enhancing control and tightening operations, mainly to reduce information asymmetry related to input and milk quality. Additionally, establishing favourable arrangements for service provision within the cooperatives, including extension programs and engaging in negotiation regarding the pricing and quality of inputs and outputs with relevant parties in the value chain are crucial to incentivise smallholders effectively.
Simply addressing constraints faced by smallholder farmers in technology adoption programs will not be sufficient. Cooperatives as equity-based alliances have inherent structural advantages that can be leveraged to streamline transaction costs (Peterson et al., 2001; Williamson, 1971) and promote sustained technology adoption. However, if management practices and service provision within cooperatives are not improved, the adoption of dairy farming technologies may not be sustained.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) for funding this research under the project “AGB/2012/099: Improving Milk Supply, Competitiveness and Livelihoods of Smallholder Dairy Chains in Indonesia”. We would also like to thank Institut Pertanian Bogor (Bogor Agricultural University - IPB University), The Indonesian Centre of Agricultural Socio-Economic Policy Studies (ICASEPS), the Indonesian Centre for Animal Research and Development (ICARD), and Australasian Dairy Consultants Pty Ltd for their contributions during the design and data collection stages of this research. We also would like to thank Dr Risti Permani for her contribution in the early phase of the project development and Mr Jack Hetherington for his role as project coordinator. We gratefully acknowledged Associate Professor Adam Loch for his valuable comments on this manuscript. We would like to thank all enumerators who collected the data and the Indonesian dairy cooperatives and dairy farmers who participated in this study and made it possible. Finally, we would like to thank our two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and input, which have been helpful in improving this paper.
References
Abebaw, D. and M.G. Haile. 2013. The impact of cooperatives on agricultural technology adoption: empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Food Policy 38: 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.10.003
Akzar, R., W. Umberger and A. Peralta. 2023. Understanding heterogeneity in technology adoption among Indonesian smallholder dairy farmers. Agribusiness 39 (2): 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21782
Ashour, M., L. Billings, D. Gilligan, J.B. Hoel and N. Karachiwalla. 2017. Do beliefs about agricultural inputs counterfeiting correspond with actual rates of counterfeiting? evidence from Uganda. IFPRI discussion papers. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Banaszak, I. 2008. Determinants of successful cooperation in agricultural markets: evidence from producer groups in Poland. In G. Hendrikse, M. Tuunanen, J. Windsperger and G. Cliquet (Eds.), Strategy and governance of networks: cooperatives, franchising and strategic alliances: 27–46. Springer, Berlin.
Beissinger, A., J.R. Goldberger, C.A. Benedict and D.A. Inglis. 2017. Seed potatoes, virus management and the nonadoption of an agricultural innovation. Rural Sociology 83 (3): 598–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12181
Brown, B., I. Nuberg and R. Llewellyn. 2017. Stepwise frameworks for understanding the utilisation of conservation agriculture in Africa. Agricultural Systems 153: 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.012
Chinseu, E.L., A.J. Dougill and L.C. Stringer. 2019. Why do smallholder farmers dis-adopt conservation agriculture? Insights from Malawi. Land Degradation & Development 30 (5): 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3190
de Janvry, A., M. Fafchamps and E. Sadoulet. 1991. Peasant household behaviour with missing markets: Some paradoxes explained. The Economic Journal 101 (409): 1400–1417. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234892
de Janvry, A., E. Sadoulet and C. Trachtman. 2019. Achieving coordination in agricultural value chains: the role of lead agents and multi-stakeholder platforms. HAL Open Science: hal-02287771.
Dillon, B. and C.B. Barrett. 2017. Agricultural factor markets in Sub-Saharan Africa: An updated view with formal tests for market failure. Food Policy 67: 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.015
FAO. 2014. Impact of mastitis in small scale dairy production systems. In Animal Production and Health Working Paper. No. 13. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2022. FAOSTAT Statistical Database – Crops and livestock products.FAO, Rome.
Feder, G., R.E. Just and D. Zilberman. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33 (2): 255–298.
Fernando, S., E. Garnevska, T. Ramilan and N. Shadbolt. 2021. Organisational attributes of cooperatives and farmer companies. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 9 (1): 100132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2021.100132
Fisher, M., S.T. Holden, C. Thierfelder and S.P. Katengeza. 2018. Awareness and adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi: what difference can farmer–to–farmer extension make? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 16 (3): 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1472411
Foster, A.D. and M.R. Rosenzweig. 2010. Microeconomics of technology adoption. Annual Review of Economics 2 (1): 395–424. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124433
Gabre–Madhin, E. 2009. A market for all farmers: Market institutions and smallholder participation. UC Berkeley: Center for Effective Global Action.
Garnevska, E., G. Liu and N.M. Shadbolt. 2011. Factors for successful development of farmer cooperatives in Northwest China. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 14 (1030–2016–82904): 69–84.
Haggblade, S., A. Diarra, W. Jiang, A. Assima, N. Keita, A. Traore and M. Traore. 2021. Fraudulent pesticides in West Africa: a quality assessment of glyphosate products in Mali. International Journal of Pest Management 67 (1): 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2019.1668076
Hassen, S. 2018. The effect of farmyard manure on the continued and discontinued use of inorganic fertilizer in Ethiopia: an ordered probit analysis. Land Use Policy 72: 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.002
Hobbs, J.E. and L.M. Young. 2000. Closer vertical co‐ordination in agri‐food supply chains: a conceptual framework and some preliminary evidence. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 5 (3): 131–143.
Holloway, G., C. Nicholson, C. Delgado, S. Staal and S. Ehui. 2000. Agroindustrialization through institutional innovation Transaction costs, cooperatives and milk-market development in the east-African highlands. Agricultural Economics 23 (3): 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2000.tb00279.x
Jack, B.K. 2013. Market inefficiencies and the adoption of agricultural technologies in developing countries. University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Jones-Garcia, E. and V.V. Krishna. 2021. Farmer adoption of sustainable intensification technologies in the maize systems of the Global South. a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 41 (1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00658-9
Kanyamuka, J.S., C.B. Jumbe, J. Ricker-Gilbert, A.-K. Edriss and W.G. Mhango. 2020. Determinants of ISFM technology adoption and disadoption among smallholder maize farmers in Central Malawi. In B.R. Singh, N.A. Amuri, B.K. Sitaula, A. Safalaoh, L.O. Eik and R. Lal (Eds.), Climate Impacts on Agricultural and Natural Resource Sustainability in Africa: 449–469. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37537-9
Kebebe, E. 2019. Bridging technology adoption gaps in livestock sector in Ethiopia: a innovation system perspective. Technology in Society 57: 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.00.
Lambrecht, I., B. Vanlauwe, R. Merckx and M. Maertens. 2014. Understanding the process of agricultural technology adoption: mineral fertilizer in eastern DR Congo. World Development 59: 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.024
Liu, T., R.J. Bruins and M.T. Heberling. 2018. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of best management practices: a review and synthesis. Sustainability 10 (2): 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020432
Liu, Y., W. Ma, A. Renwick and X. Fu. 2019. The role of agricultural cooperatives in serving as a marketing channel: Evidence from low-income regions of Sichuan Province in China. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 22 (2): 265–282. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2018.0058
Lowder, S.K., J. Skoet and S. Singh. 2014. What do we really know about the number and distribution of farms and family farms in the world? Background paper for The State of Food and Agriculture 2014. In ESA Working Paper. FAO, Rome.
Lwiza, F., J. Mugisha, P.N. Walekhwa, J. Smith and B. Balana. 2017. Dis-adoption of household biogas technologies in Central Uganda. Energy for Sustainable Development 37: 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2017.01.006
Mantey, V., J. Mburu and C. Chumo. 2020. Determinants of adoption and disadoption of cage tilapia farming in southern Ghana. Aquaculture 525: 735325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735325
Marenya, P.P. and C.B. Barrett. 2007. Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in western Kenya. Food Policy 32 (4): 515–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.10.002
Moran, J. and P. Chamberlain. 2017. Blueprints for tropical dairy farming: increasing domestic milk production in developing countries. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, ACT.
Morey, P. 2011. Dairy industry development in Indonesia. International Finance Corporation, Jakarta.
Morris, W., A. Henley and D. Dowell. 2017. Farm diversification, entrepreneurship and technology adoption: analysis of upland farmers in Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 53: 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.01
Mozzato, D., P. Gatto, E. Defrancesco, L. Bortolini, F. Pirotti, E. Pisani and L. Sartori. 2018. The role of factors affecting the adoption of environmentally friendly farming practices: can geographical context and time explain the differences emerging from literature? Sustainability 10 (9): 3101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093101
Nell, W.T. and L. Schwalbach. 2002. Adoption of veterinary technologies amongst sheep and goat farmers in Qwawqa, South Africa. International Farm Management Congress, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 7–12 July 2002.
Nkhoma, A.T. 2011. Factors affecting sustainability of agricultural cooperatives: lessons from Malawi: MSc thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North.
Nurtini, S. and M.A.U. Muzayyanah. 2014. Profil peternakan sapi perah rakyat di Indonesia [Profiles of smallholder dairy farmers in Indonesia]. Indonesia: UGM Press. Yogyakarta.
Orr, A. 2018. Markets, institutions and policies: A perspective on the adoption of agricultural innovations. Outlook on Agriculture 47 (2): 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727018776433
Ortmann, G.F. and R.P. King. 2007. Agricultural cooperatives II: Can they facilitate access of small–scale farmers in South Africa to input and product markets? Agrekon 46 (2): 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2007.9523769.
Oyenpemi, L.O., A.A. Tijani and A.D. Kehinde. 2023. What determines a sustained use of approved pesticides for cleaner production and its impact on yield? Evidence from the cocoa industry in Osun State, Nigeria. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 9: 100113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100113
Pannell, D.J., G.R. Marshall, N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay and R. Wilkinson. 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46 (11): 1407–1424. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05037
Pedzisa, T., L. Rugube, A. Winter-Nelson, K. Baylis and K. Mazvimavi. 2015. Abandonment of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development 8 (1): 69–82. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v8n1p69
Peterson, H.C., A. Wysocki and S.B. Harsh. 2001. Strategic choice along the vertical coordination continuum. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 4 (2): 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7508(01)00079-9
Pingali, P., A. Aiyar, M. Abraham and A. Rahman. 2019. Linking farms to markets: Reducing transaction costs and enhancing bargaining power. In Transforming food systems for a rising India: 193–214. Springer, Berlin.
Priyanto, D. and D. Rahmayuni. 2020. Strategi dan kebijakan pengembangan sapi perah di area luar Pulau Jawa dalam mendukung produksi susu segar dalam negeri [Strategy and policy on dairy cattle development in areas outside Java island in supporting domestic fresh milk production]. Wartazoa 30 (3): 149–162. https://doi.org/10.14334/wartazoa.v30i3.2493
Priyono and A. Priyanti. 2015. Penguatan kelembagaan koperasi susu melalui pendekatan pengembangan kawasan peternakan nasional [Strengthening dairy cooperative through national development of livestock region]. Wartazoa 25 (2): 85–94. https://doi.org/10.14334/wartazoa.v25i2.1145
Puastuti, W., T. Magrianti, V.W. Hanifah, R.G. Sianturi, E. Romjali and C. Talib. 2021. Introduction of 16% crude protein concentrate and Ca-FA feed to increase milk production for dairy cows on smallholder farms in Bogor Regency. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science (788): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/788/1/012044
Razafimahatratra, H.M., C. Bignebat, H. David-Benz, J.-F. Bélières and E. Penot. 2021. Tryout and (dis)adoption of conservation agriculture. evidence from Western Madagascar. Land Use Policy 100: 104929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104929
Ruzzante, S., R. Labarta and A. Bilton. 2021. Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Development 146: 105599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105599
Saenger, C., M. Torero and M. Qaim. 2014. Impact of third-party contract enforcement in agricultural markets — a field experiment in Vietnam. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96 (4): 1220–1238. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau021
Salem, H.B. and T. Smith. 2008. Feeding strategies to increase small ruminant production in dry environments. Small Ruminant Research 77 (2–3): 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.03.008
Shamsuddin, M., W.J. Goodger, M.S. Hossein, Azizunnesa, T. Bennett and K. Nordlund. 2006. A survey to identify economic opportunities for smallholder dairy farms in Bangladesh. Tropical Animal Health and Production 38 (2): 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-006-4274-y
Shiferaw, B., T. Kebede, M. Kassie and M. Fisher. 2015. Market imperfections, access to information and technology adoption in Uganda: challenges of overcoming multiple constraints. Agricultural Economics 46 (4): 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12175
Shikuku, K.M. 2019. Information exchange links, knowledge exposure and adoption of agricultural technologies in northern Uganda. World Development 115: 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.11.012
Simtowe, F. and K. Mausch. 2019. Who is quitting? An analysis of the dis–adoption of climate smart sorghum varieties in Tanzania. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 11 (3): 341–357.
Staal, S., C. Delgado and C. Nicholson. 1997. Smallholder dairying under transactions costs in East Africa. World Development 25 (5): 779–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(96)00138-6
Statistics Indonesia. 2015. Analisis rumah tangga usaha peternakan Indonesia: hasil survei rumah tangga usaha peternakan tahun 2014 [Analysis on Indonesian farming households: survey results on farming households in 2014]. Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta.
Tawaf, R., T. Murti and R. Saptati. 2009. Kelembagaan dan tata niaga susu [Institutions and dairy value chain]. In K.A. Santosa, A. Diwyanto and T. Toharmat (Eds.), Profil usaha peternakan sapi perah di Indonesia [Indonesia dairy farms profiles]. LIPI Press, Bogor, pp. 301–346.
Tobin, D., L. Glenna and A. Devaux. 2016. Pro-poor? Inclusion and exclusion in native potato value chains in the central highlands of Peru. Journal of Rural Studies 46: 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.06.002
Treurniet, M. 2021. The potency of quality incentives: Evidence from the Indonesian dairy value chain. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 103 (5). https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12176
Ullah, A., M. Arshad, H. Kächele, A. Khan, N. Mahmood and K. Müller. 2020. Information asymmetry, input markets, adoption of innovations and agricultural land use in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Land Use Policy 90: 104621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104261
Voss, R.C., T. Jansen, B. Mané and C. Shennan. 2021. Encouraging technology adoption using ICTs and farm trials in Senegal: lessons for gender equity and scaled impact. World Development 146: 105620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105620
Wakeyo, M.B. and C. Gardebroek. 2015. Empty pockets, empty ponds? disadoption of water harvesting technologies in Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments 120: 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.04.013
Wicaksono, A., E. Sudarnika, H. Pisestyani, M. Sudarwanto, A. Zahid, A.B. Nugraha, M.P. Lubis and I.P. Patsiwi. 2019. Role of teat dipping after milking for subclinical mastitis control and improving production of dairy cow. Buletin Peternakan 43 (2): 135–140. https://doi.org/10.21059/buletinpeternak.v43i2.30380
Williamson, O.E. 1971. The vertical integration of production: Market failure considerations. The American Economic Review 61 (2): 112–123.
Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism : Firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press, New York, NY.
Wossen, T., T. Abdoulaye, A. Alene, M.G. Haile, S. Feleke, A. Olanrewaju and V. Manyong. 2017. Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare. Journal of Rural Studies 54: 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.022
Appendix Explanation of the characteristics of technologies analysed in the study
Forage conservation for the dry season (e.g. making silage)
In tropical dairy farming conditions, such as in Indonesia, the dry season (peaking from July to September) causes limited availability of forages, hindering dairy production (Maleko et al., 2018; Reiber et al., 2010). Conserving forages, such as making silage, is an alternative management practice that helps ensure sufficient feed resources to maintain dairy cow production during dry seasons (Lewa and Muinga, 2013; Reiber et al., 2010). The implementation of the practice requires that farmer have access to complementary inputs, including forage choppers, storage containers and molasses as a substrate (Moran, 2005). Besides labour, time and resource intensiveness, the adoption of forage conservation also requires farmers implementing a strict set of guidelines to produce high-quality silage (Balehegn et al., 2020; Moran, 2005), thus, this could be considered to be a knowledge-intensive technology.
High crude protein concentrates
Feeding dairy cows rations (diets) that include high (16% or greater) crude protein (CP) concentrate, improves the nutrition of dairy cows, particularly those that are fed primarily tropical forages. Higher protein diets can in-turn lead to increased milk production (Garg, 2012; Moran and Chamberlain, 2017; Salem and Smith, 2008; Stur and Horne, 2001). High CP concentrates are more expensive than standard concentrates, which generally have a protein content of less than 13%. The use of high protein concentrates requires farmers to understand the specific proportion of concentrates and roughage to feed, and also to understand the correct time during the lactation period that high protein concentrate should be fed (Moran, 2005). This suggests use of high CP concentrate is also a knowledge-intensive technology.
Teat dipping after milking
Mastitis is the most prevalent disease affecting dairy cow productivity in Indonesia. This disease can decrease milk production and milk quality, leading to substantial economic losses for farmers (FAO, 2014; Rajala-Schultz et al., 1999; Sah et al., 2020). Mastitis can be both clinical and subclinical; the latter is more prevalent, because the symptoms of the disease are not visible (FAO, 2014). Studies have shown that post-milking teat dipping implementation can effectively prevent subclinical mastitis (Wicaksono et al., 2019; Yanuartono et al., 2020). The implementation of this practice requires farmers to have a teat dipping cup, which can be used multiple times, and disinfectant solutions, such as iodine. After milking the cow, the farmer immerses all four teats/quarters of the dairy cow into the teat dipper containing the disinfectant solution. The implementation of this practice is considered relatively low cost and simple. Beside for prevention, the adoption of teat dipping after milking improve milk hygiene, hence increase milk quality.
Mastitis testing
Mastitis testing aims to quickly determine whether cows infected by mastitis need to undertake treatment as soon as possible. Early detection of mastitis through regular testing is critical for dairy farmers in preventing economic losses due to decreasing milk production and milk quality (Sah et al., 2020; Sumon et al., 2017). Mastitis testing requires farmers to have the equipment to perform the tests, which is usually a tray/paddle with four small dishes, which can be used multiple times. Reagent liquid is also needed for the tests, and the cost of this depends on the type of tests undertaken.6 The implementation of the tests is considered simple. Farmers need to fill each dish with milk from each teat and add the reagent. Despite its easy implementation, farmers still need to have the knowledge to use the process and accurately interpret the test results, which may be challenging for some farmers, illustrating the knowledge-intensive nature of this technology.
Dis-adoption rates of dairy technologies
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Agents/people who initially introduced the technologies to continuous and dis-adopters (%)
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Types of assistance received by continuous adopters and dis-adopters (%)
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Who provided the assistance to continuous adopters and dis-adopters (%)
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Comparisons of key characteristics continuous adopters and dis-adopters for forage conservation and high protein concentrates
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Comparisons of key characteristics continuous adopters and dis-adopters for teat dipping after milking and mastitis testing
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Odds ratios from the results of binary logistic regression models, dependent variables (1 = Dis-adopters and 0 = Continuous adopters)
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Table A7 above presents the correlates for dis-adoption of each of the technology, with continuous adopters being the control groups. The aim to include this analysis is to observe whether the correlates for dis-adoption are similar to the correlates for adoption but with the opposing signs as what was found in the literature. Overall, the results show that the signs for most of the significant variables have the opposing signs with the correlates for adoption found in the literature, suggesting the results are in conformity with the literature. For example, farmers with less household members, not participating in off-farm activities, less household asset, and less number of contacts with dairy cooperative staff have higher probability to dis-adopt conserving forages. Accounting for the heterogenity in milk sales arragements among cooperatives, farmers who sell their milk to modern MCP are less likely to dis-adopt teat dipping after milking. Interestingly, farmers who are members of Cooperative 5 are less likely to dis-adopt high protein concentrates. While the results show mix correlates for each of the technology, in general, it can be inferred that farmers with less ownership of production assets (dairy farming equipment), live far distance from the cooperative and not receiving assistance to adopt technologies were correlated with dis-adoption of technologies.
Average partial effects from the results of binary logistic regression models, dependent variables (1 = Dis-adopters and 0 = Continuous adopters)
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Reasons for dis-adoption of dairy technologies (multiple responses)
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Reasons for dis-adoption of dairy technologies (percentages are frequency of responses divided by total dis-adopters)
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Codes for reasons in Tables A9 and A10
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
Other responses (code P) in Table A 9 and A10
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2022.0045
References
Balehegn, M., A. Duncan, A. Tolera, A.A. Ayantunde, S. Issa, M. Karimou, N. Zampaligré, K. André, I. Gnanda and P. Varijakshapanicker. 2020. Improving adoption of technologies and interventions for increasing supply of quality livestock feed in low-and middle-income countries. Global Food Security 26: 100372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100372
FAO. 2011. Guidelines for the preparation of livestock sector reviews. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2014. Impact of mastitis in small scale dairy production systems. Animal Production and Health Working Paper No. 13. FAO, Rome.
Filmer, D. and L.H. Pritchett. 2001. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data-or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography 38 (1): 115–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088292
Garg, M.R. 2012. Balanced feeding for improving livestock productivity - increase in milk production and nutrient use efficiency and decrease in methane emission. FAO, Rome.
Lewa, K. and R. Muinga. 2013. Status of fodder conservation among smallholder dairy farmers in coastal Kenya. Proceedings of the Animal Production Society of Kenya 2013 Annual Symposium.
Maleko, D., W. Ng, G. Msalya, A. Mwilawa, L. Pasape and K. Mtei. 2018. Seasonal variations in the availability of fodder resources and practices of dairy cattle feeding among the smallholder farmers in Western Usambara Highlands, Tanzania. Tropical Animal Health and Production 50 (7): 1653–1664.
McKenzie, D.J. 2005. Measuring inequality with asset indicators. Journal of Population Economics 18 (2): 229–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-005-0224-7
Moran, J. 2005. Tropical dairy farming: feeding management for small holder dairy farmers in the humid tropics: CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, ACT.
Moran, J. and P. Chamberlain. 2017. Blueprints for tropical dairy farming: increasing domestic milk production in developing countries. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, ACT.
Rajala-Schultz, P.J., Y.T. Gröhn, C.E. McCulloch and C.L. Guard. 1999. Effects of clinical mastitis on milk yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82 (6): 1213–1220. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75344-0
Reiber, C., R. Schultze-kraft, M. Peters, P. Lentes and V. Hoffmann. 2010. Promotion and adoption of silage technologies in drought-constrained areas of Honduras. Tropical Grasslands 44 (4): 231–245.
Sah, K., P. Karki, R.D. Shrestha, A. Sigdel, A.T. Adesogan and G.E. Dahl. 2020. Milk symposium review: improving control of mastitis in dairy animals in Nepal. Journal of Dairy Science 103 (11): 9740–9747. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18314
Salem, H.B. and T. Smith. 2008. Feeding strategies to increase small ruminant production in dry environments. Small Ruminant Research 77 (2–3): 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.03.008
Setiawan, H., P. Trisunuwati and D. Winarso. 2012. Kajian sensitivitas dan spesifisitas reagen CMT, WST dan SFMT sebagai bahan uji mastitis subklinis di peternakan sapi perah rakyat, KUD Sumber Makmur Ngantang [Sensitivity and specificity study of CMT, WST, SFMT reagents as subclinical mastitis test materials in smallholder dairy farms, KUD Sumber Makmur Ngantang]. Program Studi Pendidikan Dokter Hewan, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang.
Stur, W.W. and P.M. Horne. 2001. Developing forage technologies with smallholder farmers-how to grow, manage and use forages. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, ACT.
Sumon, S., M. Ehsan and M. Islam. 2017. Subclinical mastitis in dairy cows: somatic cell counts and associated bacteria in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University 15 (2): 266–271. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbau.v15i2.35073
Wicaksono, A., E. Sudarnika, H. Pisestyani, M. Sudarwanto, A. Zahid, A.B. Nugraha, M.P. Lubis and I.P. Patsiwi. 2019. Role of teat dipping after milking for subclinical mastitis control and improving production of dairy cow. Buletin Peternakan 43 (2): 135–140. https:/doi.org/10.21059/buletinpeternak.v43i2.30380.
Yanuartono, Y., A. Nururrozi, S. Indarjulianto, H. Purnamaningsih and D. Ramandani. 2020. The benefits of teat dipping as prevention of mastitis. Journal of Livestock Science and Production 4 (1): 231–249. https://doi.org/10.31002/jalspro.v4i1.2796
Corresponding author
Factors that increase probability of farmers adopting technologies, also decrease the probability of farmers dis-adopting the technologies (Marenya and Barrett, 2007).
Milk production of dairy cows in developing countries is considerably low compared to dairy cows in more developed countries such as Australia and the United States of America, with average productivity of 21 and 36 litres/cow/day respectively (FAO, 2022).
Percentages or ratios are the frequency of responses divided by the number discontinuous adopters or continuous adopters.
Logistic regressions were conducted only as complement to observe whether the correlates of dis-adoption are similar to the correlates of adoption, but with different sign that were found in the literature (Marenya and Barrett, 2007). The results are presented in the Appendix.
Live cultures of lactic acid bacteria which promote forage fermentation and enhance silage quality.
Two different mastitis tests are familiar to smallholder dairy farmers in Indonesia, including the California Mastitis Test (CMT) and Surf Field Mastitis Test (SFMT). While CMT is more efficient than SFMT, the reagent to perform CMT is more challenging to find and is more expensive, whereas SFMT uses household detergent as the reagent and is relatively cheap and easy to find (Setiawan et al., 2012).
