Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 IMPROVED PROFITS AND WETLAND PADDY FARMING SCALE AS THE LEADING COMMODITY IN AGROECOLOGICAL ZONES Joko Mulyono1, Setia Hadi2, Khursatul Munibah2 1Institute Center For Agricultural Technology Assesement And Developmnet Jl. Tentara Pelajar No. 10, Bogor, West Java 2Faculty of Economics and Management, Pascasarjana IPB Correspondence E-mail: [email protected] Recieved: January 2016; Accepted: June 2016 Abstract This study aims to analyze the farming feasibility, the increase in net profit and the scale of farming of wetland paddy as a leading commodity according to agro ecological zones (AEZ). The study was conducted at the location of the wetland paddy as a leading commodity and non leading commodity Bantul Regency in 2015. The feasibility of farming is analyzed using revenue and cost ratio (R/C), the increase in profits is analyzed by an increase in net profit (NKB) and the scale of farming is analyzed by determining the break even point of production (TIP) or break even point of price (TIH). The results showed that wetland paddy farming as a leading commodity according to agro ecological zones in Bantul is feasible and more optimal (R/C 2.17) than the non leading commodity (R/C 1.99). Wetland paddy farming as a leading commodity according to agro ecological zones can raise the net profit (NKB 1.13). Wetland paddy farming as a leading commodity according to agro ecological zones can be profitable if the production is at least 2,729 kg/ha or the price is at least Rp. 1,643/kg. Keywords: profit, wetland paddy farming, leading commodity, agro-ecological zone JEL Classification: D51, E23 1. Introduction area, production and productivity of food crops Wetland area in Bantul Regency was 15,471 sub-sector (2011-2013) are presented in Table 1. ha (30.52%), non wetland area was 14,125 ha In doing farming activities, farmers rarely (27.9%) and non-agricultural area was 21,089 paid attention to whether the commodity (41.6%). The total area of Bantul Regency was that cultivated was a commodity that has a 50,685 ha (BPS Bantul Regency, 2014). In comparative advantage, competitive advantages Province of Yogyakarta, Bantul Regency was and in accordance with agro-ecological zones the second rank acreage for wetland area after (AEZ), so the productivity was low. Commodities Sleman (22,642 ha). Wetland paddy harvested that have comparative advantages indicates the field area in 2013 amounted to 32,621 ha with a commodity is produced through the dominance productivity of 6.41 tonnes/ha and it’s production of natural resource support, where other areas are not able to produce. Commodities that have a reached 209,149 tonnes. Wetland paddy harvested competitive advantages indicates the commodity field area tend to increase 3.44%, the production is produced in a way that is efficient and effective, tends to increase 2.88%, but productivity tends to so have a good competitiveness of the aspects of decline 0.63%. The development of the harvested quality, quantity, continuity and price. Rusastra, Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081 15 Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 Rachman and Friyantno (2004) revealed that social and economic as well as having comparative financial gain indicates competitive advantage and competitive advantages (IAARD, 2003). of a commodity, while the economic benefits of a According Setiyanto (2013), a leading commodity commodity indicates a comparative advantage in is a commodity that is in accordance with the resource utilization. Leading commodity means local agro-ecological and competitive advantage, a commodity that has a strategic position to be good market in the region itself, in other areas developed in a region are decided based on various in the national scope, as well as in international considerations, both technically (soil and climate) markets. Table 1. Harvested Area, Production and Productivity Food Crops Sub Sector by Type of Plants (2011-2013) Type of Year crop 2011 2012 2013 P P P Area (ha)Harvested (ton)Production (ton/ha)roductivit Area (ha)Harvested (ton)Production (ton/ha)roductivit Area (ha)Harvested (ton)Production (ton/ha)roductivit y y y Wetland 30,559 197,618 6.5 30,064 204,959 6.8 32,621 209,149 6.4 Paddy Dryland 140 386 2.8 141 396 2.8 71 215 3.0 Paddy Maize 3,892 23,081 5.9 4,244 23,304 5.5 3,371 19,077 5.7 Soybean 3,074 4,355 1.4 2,415 3,987 1.7 1,412 2,203 1.6 Peanut 3,205 3,470 1.1 3,226 4,082 1.3 2,451 3,335 1.4 Cassava 2,307 44,033 19.1 2,237 35,236 15.8 1,925 34,865 18.1 Sweet potato 18 182 10.1 25 248 9.9 64 649 10.1 Source: BPS Bantul, 2014 (analyzed) Agro ecological zones (AEZ) is a grouping based on characteristics, ability and suitability of a region based on the physical environmental and supported by technology and appropriate conditions which are almost the same, where government policies. Farming with a leading the diversity of plants and animals is not differ commodity according to agro ecological zones significantly. The main component of agroecology (AEZ) is one form of farming that aims to increase is the climate (temperature and precipitation), production, reduce costs thereby increasing profit. physiographic region or shape (flat, wavy to According Hendayana (2003), that in order to mountainous) and soil (acidity, texture and achieve the efficiency of agricultural development drainage). Farming with commodities that not can be done by developing a commodity that has correspond to agro ecological zones (AEZ) can a comparative advantage both in terms of the lead to low agricultural productivity, rising supply and demand. From the supply side, leading farming costs (production costs) and damage commodities characterized by excess (superiority) to the environment or ecosystem. According in growth in biophysical conditions, technological Syafruddin et al.(2004), a farming system that is and socio-economic farmer. On the demand side, efficient, high production and sustainable can be the leading commodity market characterized by achieved among others by utilizing land resources strong demand domestically and internationally. 16 Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081 Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 According Sukmayani et al. (2014), development primary data were obtained through interviews of leading commodities are different for each with respondents/farmers using a structured area/region depending on the characteristics and questionnaire. The questionnaire is intended to potential local resources. provide guidance to the enumerators questions in Wetland paddy is a leading commodity the interview, so focus and be able to answer the according to agro ecological zones (IV/Wrh) on research objectives. Respondents were selected food crops sub-sector in Bantul by Loqation by stratified random sampling approach. The Quotient (LQ) > 1, Shift Share Analysis (SSA) number of respondents are 30 farmers consisting is positive and in accordance with the zoning of 15 farmers of wetland paddy as a leading of agricultural commodities (Mulyono, 2015). commodity according to agro ecological zones Wetland paddy as the leading commodity was (AEZ) and 15 farmers of wetland paddy as a non- spread out in 10 sub-districts, namely Sanden, leading commodity. The number of farmers from Kretek, Pundong, Bambanglipuro, Pandak, both of wetland paddy as a leading commodity Bantul, Jetis, Banguntapan, Kasihan and and non-leading commodity were not identified Sedayu with area 11,666.66 ha (23%). This study properly. Juanda (2009) stated that if there is not purposed to analyze the farming feasibility, the any information of the variance of the population, increase in net profit and the scale of farming of sampling method can be applied at least for 30 wetland paddy as a leading commodity according samples, because according to the central limit to agro ecological zones (AEZ). theory estimated average would be closer to the normal distribution. Data collected includes: 2. Research Method 1. Characteristics of respondents/farmer, 2. Tenure respondents/farmer, 3. Accessibility 2.1. Location and Time Research and infrastructure of research sites, 4. The cost The study was conducted in 2015 at the sites of production facilities cover the cost of seeds, of the wetland paddy fields as a leading commodity, fertilizers and pesticides or drugs, 5. Labor costs namely: 1). Panjangrejo Village, Pundong District, include the cost of land preparation, planting, 2). Srigading Village, Sanden District and 3). fertilizing, spraying, harvesting and post-harvest, Tirtomulyo Village, Kretek District, Bantul and 6. Production and price of grain. Regency and wetland paddy fields as a non- leading commodity, namely: 1). Panggungharjo 2.3. Data Analysis Village, Sewon District, 2). Sriharjo, Imogiri Feasibility of wetland paddy farming as a District and 3). Srimartani Village, Piyungan leading commodity according to agro ecological District, Bantul Regency. The criteria of wetland zones (AEZ) were analyzed using revenue paddy as a leading commodity were (1) LQ > 1, (2) and cost ratio (R/C), with R/C > 1 for feasible. SSA positive and (3) appropriate with AEZ, vice According to Soekartawi (2002), formulation for versa if at least one criterion was unfulfilled. R/C is presented as follows: 2.2. Types and Data Collection Methods The data used in this research are secondary R/C = TR/TC (1) and primary data. Secondary data were obtained from publications Bantul Central Bureau of where TR is for total revenue and TC is for total Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Forestry cost. Bantul and Assessment Institute for Agricultural To analyze the increase in net profit of Technology (AIAT) Yogyakarta and any relevant wetland paddy farming as a leading commodity research results such as wetland paddy area, according to agro ecological zones (AEZ) used harvested area, production and productivity. The ratio of the increase in net profit (NKB). According Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081 17 Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 Adnyana and Kariyasa (1995), the increase in net rational in managing farming. Isgin et al. (2008), profit formulation is presented as follows: the farmers decisions whether “to adopt” or “not to adopt” an innovation were extremely affected NKB = (2) by the level of formal education. The farmers which got experiences in farming more than 26 where NKB is the value of net profit, KBs is a years were 40%-60% and no one of the farmers net gain as a leading commodity wetland paddy got experiences less than 5 years. Experience in farming according to agro ecological zones (AEZ) farming became a value in doing farming, such and KBts is a net gain as a non-leading commodity as the timing of planting, pest and diseases, etc. paddy farming. Experience in farming can be a driving force for Scale farming can be determined using introducing new technologies and to improve a break even approach (Sudjana, 2007). Scale abilities to take rational decisions. Rangkuti farming can be determined by the break even (2009), the experience build the farmer character point of production (TIP) and the break even point into more open and able to cooperate with other of price (TIH). The break even point is determined farmers in a network. The number of covered at the time of TR = TC or total revenue equal to the total cost of farming. According Rahmanto family members between 3-4 people for each and Adnyana (1997), the break even point of (53.33%), while 33.33% to 40% are between 1-2 production (TIP) and the break even point of price people for each. While number of covered family (TIH) formulated as follows: members which more than 5 people were 6.67% to 13.34%. The main job of the farmers were TIP = BP/H (3) 80%-100% as a farmer, and the rest were non- TIH = BP/P (4) agricultural labors and others (village officials). The main income of respondents were 73.33% to where P is production (kg), H is production price (Rp/kg) and BP is cost of production (Rp). 100% from farm production and more than 20% were from non-agricultural labors and 6.67% 3. Results And Discussion from village officials. 3.1. Farmers’ Characteristics Characteristics of the farmers include 3.2. Land Tenure of Farmers age, education, farming experience, number of Land is known as a major asset for farm dependents, the main job and main income as households related to farming activities. Land shown in Appendix 1. tenure became one of the indicators that used in Farmers majority, were aged over 35 years the assessment for the level of welfare. The land (Table 2), this showed that the farmers are in tenure performance includs the type of land, land the productive age. On the other hand, people in area and land ownership. Land types consist of productive age were potentially in doing farming. irrigated land, rainfed areas, dry land and yard. The farmers had low level of formal education The status of land tenure describes in three ways: where as 46.66% to 93.33% of the farmers got its own, rent and profit sharing. The performance education below the junior high school and of land tenure is presented in Table 2. 6.67% to 20% of them had senior high school The total area of land tenure by farmers level. The level of education affects the ability were 0.32 to 0.53 ha for each, where the land of farmers to receive and find information about tenure was dominated by irrigated land with new technologies that support farming activities. Suharyanto, Destialisma, and Parawati (2005), an area 0.27 to 0.39 ha for each (Table 2). Land higher education encourages farmers to be more tenure status not only from its own farmers, but 18 Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081 Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 also were obtained through a system of rent or provisions all of the production cost and labor from profit sharing. Land that was leased or shared tenants. Land planted with crops, the distribution was land owned by individuals and belong to the of the results were 1/3 (33.3%) for owners and 2/3 village. The price for paddy field rent reached 15 (66.7%) for tenants with the provisions of all costs million/year/hectare. In a profit-sharing system, from tenants. Koirala, Mishra, and Mohanty the percentage of revenue sharing based on the (2016), land was a key factor in the agriculture commodities that grown on fields. For the area production and land tenure had a significant planted with paddy, the distribution of the results impact on the technical efficiency. are 50% for owners and 50% for tenants, with the Table 2. Performance of Land Tenure Land area (ha) and Status Leading Commodity Non-Leading Type of land According to AEZ Commodity Profit Profit Own Rent Total Own Rent Total sharing sharing Irigated land 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.27 0.18 0.02 0.19 0.39 Rainfed - - - - - - - - Dry land - - - - 0.01 - - 0.01 Yard 0.05 - - 0.05 0.13 - - 0,13 Total 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.02 0.19 0.53 Source: primary data (analyzed) 3.3. Accessibility and Infrastructure Table 3. Accessibility Research Area Research Area Leading Commodity Non-Leading Accessibility and infrastructure are No Brief According Commodity factors that affect the success in farming. The to AEZ (km) performances of farmer accessibility are a distance (km) of a farmer house to the farm/field, to the input Distance to 1 0.63 0.67 farm/field market, to the output market and to resources Distance of information. Input market is the store or shop 2 to input 1.61 1.50 that provides or sells agricultural inputs such as market seeds, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals (pesticides), Distance etc. Market output is the store or shop that accepts 3 to output 1.48 2.81 market and purchase of agricultural products. Sources of 4 Distance to the information is the Institute of Agricultural resources of 2.59 1.00 Extension in each district. The function and role information of the Institute of Agricultural Extension (BPP) is Source: primary data (analyzed) a provider of information that needed by farmers, extension to farmers, farmers assistance and From Table 3, it was shown that the distance the development of farmers. The performance of of farmers’ places to farm/field was approximately 0.6-0.7 km. The respondents places to input accessibilities of the research location is shown in markets took the distances 1.5-1.6 km. Distanceof Table 3. Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081 19 Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 farmers’places to market output were from 1.48 to wetland paddy farmers as a leading commodity 2.81 km. Distance of farmers’places to resources according to agro ecological zones, while the were from 1.00 to 2.59 km. Accessibility of this wetland paddy farmers as non-commodity as 37 research location was very supportive where as kg/ha. Sahara, Alam, and Idris (2007), the results the farms/fields, both input and output market of research in Uepai District, Konawe, that the as well as resources information were close to the use of seed in paddy farming was between 30-80 farmers’ places. Not only the farmers of wetland kg/ha. According to Andriati and Sudana (2007), paddy as a leading commodity but also the farmers in Karawang, West Java Province the use of seed of wetland paddy as non-leading commodity were is up to 25 kg/ha. easy to acquire farming inputs such as seeds, Fertilization that was done by farmers did fertilizers and pesticides, as well as in selling not yet follow the fertilizer recommendations their crops due to their places were close to both which drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture. input and output markets. The extension agents For the wetland paddy farmers as a leading became the representative of the information commodity according to agro ecological zones, resource which were be part of monthly meeting the average use of urea 116 kg/ha, ZA 33 kg/ of the farmers’ group. This made the distance ha, SP-36 50 kg/ha, KCL 3 kg/ha, NPK 274 kg/ between the farmers and information resources ha and organic fertilizers 1.24 tonnes/ha, while was not a kind of obstacle. for the wetland paddy farmers as a non-leading Performance of infrastructure includes the commodity, the use of urea 182 kg/ha, ZA 82 kg/ availability of labeled seeds, organic fertilizers, ha, SP-36 25 kg/ha, KCL 7 kg/ha, NPK 188 kg/ inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural ha and organic fertilizer 1.43 ton/ha. According tools and machinery, marketing of products and to Andriati and Sudana (2007), the results of frequency of extension activities. The availability research in Karawang, West Java Province, the of organic fertilizers, inorganic fertilizers, use of urea fertilizer are between 217-263 kg/ pesticides, agricultural tools and machinery and ha, SP-36 88-121 kg/ha and KCL 15-26 kg/ha. the availability of sufficient product marketing Sahara et al. (2007), the result of research in available in the field (Appendix 2). Extension Uepai District, Konawe the use of urea fertilizer activitiesare often done by the extension of the are 150-250 kg/ha, SP-36 50-150 kg/ha and Institute of Agricultural Extension, so it helps KCL 0-50 kg/ha. Based on the regulation of the farmers to overcome the problems in the field. Minister of Agriculture Number 40/Permentan/ Availability of infrastructure in the field is very OT.140/4/2007 on the recommendation for N, supportive with the farmers farming to reach the optimal production. The performanceof P, and K in paddy farming specific locations in Bantul, urea fertilizer 250-300 kg/ha, SP-36 infrastructure research is presented in Appendix 2. fertilizer 50-100 kg/ha and KCL 50 kg/ha without organic matter. Fertilization using organic 3.4 Analysis of Wetland Paddy Farming materials such as straw (5 ton/ha), then the use of Wetland paddy farming was a farming urea fertilizer were 230-280 kg/ha, SP-36 50-100 system that analyzed the first growing season kg/ha without KCL fertilizer. Fertilization using (MT-I) or the rainy season in 2014/2015 on a organic materials such as manure (2 tonnes/ha), half technical irrigated land. The seeds used by the urea fertilizer 225-275 kg/ha, SP-36 0-50 kg/ farmers was the seed of new varieties (VUB), as ha and KCL 30 kg/ha. Sirrapa, Rieuwpassa, and Mekongga, Situbagendit, IR-64, Ciherang and Waas (2007), the use of quality seed and fertilizer Inpari-23. Average use of seeds as 33 kg/ha on plaid a role in increasing grain yield. 20 Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081 Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 The cost structure of paddy farming include spraying, weeding, harvesting and post-harvest). the cost of production inputs (seed, fertilizer, The cost structure of paddy farming is presented pesticides) and labor (tilling, planting, fertilizing, in Table 4. Table 4. Cost Structure Paddy Farming MTI 2014/2015 Leading Commodity Non-Leading Brief According to AEZ Commodity Total Percent Total Percent Cost of production input(Rp) 2,480,574 25.5 2,601,509 25.5 Seed 334,489 3.4 351,719 3.4 Fertilizer 1,710,115 17.6 1,825,123 17.9 Pesticide/Medicine 435,970 4.5 424,667 4.2 Cost of Labor (Rp) 7,254,193 74.5 7,613,303 74.5 Tillling 1,747,685 18.0 1,951,204 19.1 Seeding 366,667 3.8 375,000 3.7 Planting 1,462,566 15.0 1,519,599 14.9 Fertilizing 353,333 3.6 411,667 4.0 Spraying 520,000 5.3 526,667 5.2 Weeding 1,064,524 10.9 1,087,407 10.6 Harvesting and post-harvest 1,739,418 17.9 1,741,759 17.0 Total cost of farming(Rp) 9,734,767 100.00 10,214,812 100.00 Source: primary data (analyzed) From Table 4, the portion of the production as a leading commodity according to agro cost reached 25.5%, while labor costs reached ecological zones (AEZ) Rp. 2,480,574.- lower than 74.5% from the total cost of wetland paddy the wetland paddy farmers as a non-leading farming. Ariani, Saryoko, and Muttakin (2009), commodity Rp. 2,601,509.-. This is because the concerning paddy farming during the rainy average seed and fertilizer used by farmers of season on the Prima Tani location, Banten wetland paddy as a leading commodity according Province (Serang, Pandeglang and Lebak to agro ecological zones lower than wetland paddy District), costs of production input reaches 21.2% as a non-leading commodity. The largest portion of to 25%, while labor costs reached for over 60 % the production input cost used for the provision of of the total cost of paddy farming. Andriati and fertilizers reached 69%-70%, while the portion for Sudana (2007), paddy farming during the rainy the provision of seeds around 14 % and pesticides season in Karawang, West Java province in 2005 about 16%-18%. According to Ariani et al. (2009), claimed that expenses used for production input the largest portion of the production input cost reach 22%-25% of the total cost of paddy farming. was used for fertilizers. Baharudin et al. (2016), the paddy farming Labor cost included costs for land preparation, input costs reached 42.2 %, while operations and nursery, planting, fertilizing, spraying, weeding employment cost reached 57.8 %. Chang et al. and harvesting and post-harvest. The cost (2016), states that the cost of its inputs to produce of labor in the wetland paddy farmers as a paddy were less than 40 %. leading commodity according to agro ecological Cost of production input cover the purchase zones (AEZ) Rp. 7,254,193.-, while the wetland of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. Cost of paddy farmers as a non-leading commodity Rp. production input on the wetland paddy farmers 7,613,303,-. The largest portion of the labor Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081 21 Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 cost used for the cultivation of land (24%-26%), means that any expenses amount Rp 1,000.- harvest and post-harvest (23%-24%). The largest to an input that given, gained acceptance Rp. portion of the labor cost used to harvest (Ariani 2,170. R/C farming value in wetland paddy paddy et al., 2009). Total costs of farming of the wetland farmers as a non-leading commodity of 1.99 paddy farmers as a leading commodity according means that any expenses amount Rp 1,000.- to an to agro ecological zones (AEZ) Rp. 9,734,767.- input that given, gained acceptance Rp. 1,990.-. lower than the wetland paddy farmers as a non- Ariani et al. (2009), research on paddy farming leading commodity Rp. 10,214,812.- or difference during the rainy season on the location of Prima Rp. 480,045.-. Tani Banten (Serang District, Pandeglang and The feasibility of wetland paddy farming Lebak) acquired R/C from 1.9 to 2.3. Andriati and is determined from the value of R/C, where the Sudana (2007), research about paddy farming wetland paddy farming is considered feasible if during the rainy season in Karawang, West Java the value of R/C is more than one. Production on in 2005 acquired R/C 1.54 to 1.70. Sahara et al. wetland paddy farmers as a leading commodity (2007), the result ofresearch in Uepai District, according to agro ecological zones (AEZ) was Konawe obtained R/C of 2.28. 5.9 tonnes/ha of unhusked harvest was higher than in wetland paddy farmers as a non- Table 5. Paddy Farming Feasibility Analysis leading commodity 5.7 tonnes/ha (Table 7). The MTI 2014/2015 production was still lower than the average Leading of wetland paddy farming production Bantul Commodity Non-Leading Brief Regency in 2013, which is 6.4 tonnes/ha (BPS According to Commodity Bantul 2014). The average price of unhusked AEZ harvest (GKP) on wetland paddy farmers as a Total cost of 9,734,767 10,214,812 farming (Rp) leading commodity according to agro ecological Production (kg/ha) 5,924 5,734 zones (AEZ) Rp. 3,567.-, while in wetland paddy farmers as a non-leading commodity Rp. 3,543.- Price (Rp/kg) 3,567 3,543 . That grain prices were still lower than the Acceptance (Rp) 21,130,908 20,315,562 government purchase price (HPP) which was Rp. Profit (Rp) 11,396,141 10,100,750 3,700.-. Acceptance of farming in the wetland R/C 2.17 1.99 paddy farmers as a leading commodity according NKB 1.13 to agro ecological zones (AEZ) Rp. 21,130,908.- , while in the wetland paddy farmers as a non- Source: primary data (analyzed) leading commodity Rp. 20,315,562.-. Profits earned from farming on wetland paddy farmers as The increase in net profit (NKB) from a leading commodity according to agro ecological wetland paddy farming as a leading commodity zones (AEZ) Rp. 11,396,141.- was greater than according to agro ecological zones (AEZ) is 1.13. the profit to the wetland paddy farmers as a non- This means that the profit of farming in wetland leading commodity Rp. 10,100,750.-. Wetland paddy farmers as a leading commodity according paddy farming feasibility analysis is presented in to agro ecological zones (AEZ) 1.13 higher Table 5. compared with a profit of wetland paddy farmers The results of R/C analysis of wetland paddy as a non-leading commodity. is more than one, so that the wetland paddy Analysis of the scale of farming can be farming is considered feasible. R/C farming value determined by the break even point of production in wetland paddy farmers as a leading commodity and the break even point of price. The break even according to agro ecological zones (AEZ) of 2.17 point is used to determine the level of production 22 Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081 Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 and the minimum price that must be achieved so Banguntapan, Kasihan and Sedayu. From the that paddy farming could be profitable. Analysis results of this study showed that wetland paddy break even paddy farming is presented in Table 6. production as a leading commodity according to agro ecological zones higher than wetland paddy as Table 6. Analysis of Break Even Paddy Farming a non-leading commodity and total costs wetland MTI 2014/2015 paddy production as a leading commodity lower than wetland paddy as a non-leading commodity. Leading Commodity Non-Leading Brief According to Commodity 4. Conclusion AEZ Wetland paddy farming as a leading Total cost of 9,734,767 10,214,812 commodity according to agro ecological zones in farming (Rp) Bantul is feasible and more optimal (R/C 2.17) Production (kg/ 5,924 5,734 than the non leading commodity (R/C 1.99). ha) Cost of wetland paddy farming as a leading Price (Rp/kg) 3,567 3,543 commodity according to agro ecological zones Break even lower than wetland paddy farming as a non- production (kg/ 2,729 2,883 ha) leading commodity. The profit of wetland paddy Break even farming as a leading commodity according to agro 1,643 1,781 price (Rp/kg) ecological zones was 1.13 higher than wetland Source: primary data (analyzed) paddy farming as a non-leading commodity. Scale of wetland paddy farming as a leading commodity Table 8 shows that the break even point of according to agro ecological zones was still be production and the break even point of price on profitable if the production of at least 2,729 kg/ wetland paddy farmers as a leading commodity ha or a minimum selling price of Rp. 1,643/kg. according to agro ecological zones (AEZ) Bantul Scale of wetland paddy farming as a non-leading were 2,729 kg/ha and Rp. 1,643/kg. This means commodity was still be profitable if the production of at least 2,883 kg/ha or a minimum selling price that farming in wetland paddy farmers as a of Rp. 1,781/kg. leading commodity according to agro ecological Coaching and counseling about the latest zones (AEZ) was still profitable if the production technologies in agriculture needs to be done, was not less than 2,729 kg/ha or the selling price especially fertilizer technology. Until now, was not lower than Rp. 1,643/kg. Break even fertilization is done by farmers do not follow point of production and the break even point of fertilizer recommendations that have been price on wetland paddy farmers as a non-leading prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture. In the commodity is 2,883 kg/ha and Rp. 1,781/kg. This future, the use of chemical fertilizers should be means that farming in wetland paddy farmers reduced even abandoned, and replaced with as a non-leading commodity still profitable if an organic fertilizer or manure. Dissemination production is not less than 2,883 kg/ha or the strategy needs to be improved so that farmers selling price is not lower than Rp. 1,781/kg. willing to adopt the technology, so as to increase The implication of this study is that an production and productivity. increase in harvested area, production and productivity in Bantul to do and focused on 10 5. Acknowledgments districts wetland paddy as a leading commodity The author would like to thank especially to agro ecological zones with an area of 11,666.66 to the Director General of Indonesian Agency hectares, namely Sanden, Kretek, Pundong, for Agricultural Reserach and Development and Bambanglipuro, Pandak, Bantul, Jetis, Director of the Indonesian Center for Agricultural Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081 23 Avalaible online at http://journals.ums.ac.id Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, 17 (1), Juni 2016, 15-27 Technology Assessment and Development which [IAARD] Indonesian Agency for Agricultural has provided the opportunity to continue studies Research and Development. 2003. General at IPB Bogor. The author also expressed his Guidelines: Implementation of the gratitude to the Head of Agriculture and Forestry Program Assessment and Information, Department Bantul Regency, Indonesian Agency Communication and Dissemination BPTP. of Agricultural Technology of Yogyakarta, Agency for Agricultural Research and extension and farmer groups that have helped in Development. Ministry of Agriculture. the conduct of research. Jakarta. Isgin, T., Bilgic, A., Forster, D.L., Batte, M.T. 6. Reference 2008. Using Count Data Models to Determine Adnyana, M.O. dan Kariyasa, K. 1995. Model the Factors Affecting Farmer’s Quantity Competitive Advantage as a Analysis Tools Decisions of Precisions Farming Technology in Choosing The Leading Agricultural Adoption. Computer and Electronic in Commodity. Agricultural Informatics. Agriculture. 62:231-242. 5(2):25-258. Juanda, B. 2009. Methodology of Economic and Andriati, Sudana, W. 2007. Performance and Business Research. Second Edition. Bogor. Financial Analysis of Paddy Farming IPB Press. (Case Primatani Village, Karawang, West Java). Journal of Agricultural Technology Koirala, K. H., Mishra, A., Mohanty, S. 2016. Assessment and Development. 10(2): 106- Impact of Land Ownership on Productivity 118. and Efficiency of Rice Farmers:The Case of the Philippines. Land Use Policy. 50:371- Ariani, M., Saryoko, A., Muttaqin, S. 2009. 378. Increasing Profits Paddy Farming Through PTT Approach in Prima Tani Location Mulyono, J. 2015. Strategy of Agricultural Banten Province. Journal of Agricultural Sector Development in the Agro Ecological Technology Assessment and Development. 12 Zone Rural Areas Bantul Regency. Thesis (3): 172-179. Pascasarjana School of Bogor Agricultural Baharudin, A.A., Arshad, F.M., Tasrif, M., University, Bogor. 2015. Ibragimov, A. 2016. Impact of Fuel Prices Rahmanto, B. dan Adnyana, M.O. 1997. Potential on Paddy Farmer’s Expenditure Allocation SUTPA In Upgrading Competitiveness in Malaysia. British Journal of Applied of Food Commodities In Central Java. Research. 1(1): 0005-0009. Papers On National Seminar Dynamics [BPS] Central Bureau of Statistics Bantul. 2014. of Rural Economy and Agriculture Sector Bantul In Figures 2014. Competitiveness Improvement in Bogor, 5-6 August 1997. Chang, Y.C., Norman, T., Uphoff, Yamaji, E. 2016. A Conceptual Framework for Eco- Rangkuti, F. 2009. Analysis of Farmer’s Role in Friendly Paddy Farming in Taiwan, Based Adoption Communication Network Hand on Experimentation with System of Rice Tractor Innovation in Cianjur Regency, West Intensification (SRI) Methodology. Paddy Java. Agro Economic Journal. 27 (1): 45-60. and Water Environment. 14(1):169-183. Rusastra, I.W., Rachman, B., Friyatno, S. 2004. Hendayana, R. 2003. Application Methods Competitiveness Analysis and Protection Location Quotient (LQ) In the determination Structure of Commodity Crops. http:// of the National Commodities. Agricultural pse.litbang.deptan.go.id/ind/pdffiles/pros- Informatics. 12: 658-675. 24 Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan, ISSN 1411-6081