The Adoption of Crop Residue as Cattle Feed: A Preliminary Study in Kedah, Malaysia.

The Adoption of Crop Residue as Cattle Feed: A Preliminary Study in Kedah, Malaysia.

Muhammad Aidil Ikhwan Kamarudin*¹, Farah Adila Abdullah¹, Fazleen Abdul Fatah¹, Tengku Halimatun Sa’adiah T. Abu Bakar², Nur Aziera Binti Ruslan¹ and Nur Badriyah Kamarul Zaman¹

¹Faculty of Plantation and Agrotechnology, Universiti Technology MARA Melaka Brach, Jasin Campus 77300 Merlimau Melaka.

²Faculty of Agro-Based Industry, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan Jeli Campus 17600 Jeli, Kelantan.

*Correspondent Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010201

Received: 08 January 2025; Accepted: 13 January 2025; Published: 12 February 2025

ABSTRACT

Between 2019 and 2023, Malaysia’s livestock sector experienced a decline in production, particularly in beef cattle. This downturn is closely linked to challenges in cattle feed availability. The primary feed resource, Napier grass, has faced reduced production due to the impacts of climate change. Additionally, previous studies highlight a decreasing number of beef cattle farmers in the northern region, driven by limited feed resources and the rising cost of bran. This preliminary study aimed to evaluate the willingness of 50 beef cattle farmers in Kedah to adopt crop residues as an alternative feed source. Results revealed a mean score above 3.0, indicating that farmers are generally open to incorporating crop residues into their feeding practices. However, while there is significant interest, many farmers face financial constraints that hinder adoption. The high cost of processing technology for crop residues remains a critical barrier, limiting its feasibility for cattle farmers in Kedah.

Keywords: Crop Residue, Cattle Feed, Cattle Farmer, nappier Grass, Climate Change

INTRODUCTION

Malaysia’s agriculture sector is undergoing major changes with the government promoting modern technology and sustainable practices like crop rotation and integration to boost productivity and secure food supplies (Mat Lazim et al., 2020). Contributing about 10.9% of GDP in early 2024, agriculture remains a key economic driver alongside manufacturing and services. The ruminant sector is also evolving under initiatives like the National Beef Industry Development Strategic Plan (2021-2025), which aims to increase beef production to 111,000 tonnes and reach 50% self-sufficiency by 2025 (Ali, 2023). Despite these efforts, Malaysia continues to depend on imports for beef and mutton. To address this, the government is focusing on advanced breeding techniques and integrating livestock with plantation crops to enhance sustainability and reduce reliance on imports.

The beef cattle livestock industry in Malaysia is relatively small compared to other agricultural sectors. Malaysia relies heavily on imports to meet its beef demand, as local production covers only about 20-25% of consumption (Department of Veterinary Services Malaysia, 2023). The industry faces several challenges, including limited land for grazing, a lack of feed resources, high production costs, and insufficient breeding programs (Abdullah et al., 2021). Despite these challenges, there are efforts to boost domestic production through government initiatives, modernization, and technological improvements in cattle farming practices (Ahmad Shaharudin & Tumin, 2019). The government promotes integrated farming systems and partnerships with private entities to enhance the industry’s sustainability and reduce dependence on imports.

The northern region of Malaysia, which includes the states of Perlis, Kedah, Pulau Pinang, and Perak, has seen a decline in the number of cattle farmers and breeders, particularly impacting the supply of beef since 2017 (Institution Department of Veterinary Services, 2018). Kedah has the highest number of cattle farmers at 3,845, compared to Perlis (220), Pulau Pinang (412), and Perak (1,361), respectively. In 2017, the overall number of cattle farmers and breeders in the region has decreased from 7,456 in 2010 to 5,838 (Institution Department of Veterinary Services, 2018). This downward trend threatens the local beef supply, forcing Malaysia to import beef from Thailand, India, and New Zealand.

The decline in cattle feed availability is primarily due to the scarcity of Napier grass (Cenchrus purpureus), the main cattle feed resource. (Ahmad Shaharudin & Tumin, 2019). The challenges linked to the growth cycle of napier grass and adverse climate conditions further exacerbate the feed shortage problem. However, this issue can be alleviated by adopting crop residues such as oil palm, paddy, and pineapple waste as alternative cattle feed. These residues can be processed into silage, bran, and fodder. Additionally, utilizing agricultural waste as ruminant feed helps reduce the impact of climate change, aligning with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) number 2 (Zero Hunger) and number 13 (Climate Action).

Figure 1 Import Dependency Ratio of Cattle in Malaysia 2018-2022

Figure 1 illustrates the rising import dependency ratio for cattle from 2018 to 2022, highlighting the increasing shortfall in domestic cattle production due to feed shortages. The import of cattle increased significantly, from 77.47% in 2018 to 88.75% in 2022. This trend indicates a growing shortage in domestic cattle production each year, likely due to the expanding population.

Despite the potential benefits, Malaysian cattle farmers, particularly in Kedah, have been slow to adopt the use of crop residues, continuing to rely on traditional feed sources (instant feed processed) such as bran, silage, napier grass and etc. This reluctance has led to lower productivity in cattle farming and an inability to meet consumer demand. Additionally, as noted by Abdullah et al. (2022), there is a lack of studies on the application of advanced cattle feed technology among cattle farmers. This study aims to examine the adoption of crop residue as cattle feed among cattle farmers in Kedah.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This study utilized a quantitative research design involving 50 cattle farmers around Kedah, including Kulim, Serdang, Bandar Baharu, and Langkawi. The researchers conducted a face-to-face interview to gather comprehensive data from the respondents. A simple random sampling was employed during the data collection to get equal chances to be selected among the respondents in Kedah (Sekaran & Wiley, 2006). The questionnaire consists of a socio-demographic profile as well as the adoption of crop residue using the Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The descriptive statistics analysis was used to perform the frequency, percentage and mean score analysis using the SPSS.

RESULT

Demographics of Respondents

Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of respondents. The study involved male (96%) and female (4%) participants, with an average age of 41.4 years. Meanwhile about 96% of the respondents had completed the Malaysian Higher Education Certificate (MCE/SPM), while two (2) participants did not receive any formal education. The average profit earned by beef cattle farmers in Kedah was approximately RM 38,200, with 50% of respondents relying on cattle farming as their primary income source. Majority respondents had an average of 6.4 years of experience in beef cattle farming

Table 1 The socio-demographic profile of the respondent

 Table 2 The adoption of crop residue as cattle feeds

Table 2 provides valuable insights into the attitudes and practices of respondents regarding the use of crop residues in beef cattle farming. The responses highlight both the advantages recognized by the participants and the challenges they face in adopting this practice comprehensively.

The results from the eight of questionnaire of items indicate a generally favorable attitude towards the use of crop residues in cattle farming. The highest mean score, 3.36, was for the statement “I utilize crop residues to enhance the productivity of my farm,” reflecting strong agreement that crop residues contribute to farm productivity. Other items with high scores include “I have gained many benefits from using crop residues in cattle farming” (mean: 3.34) and “I accept and use crop residues for cattle farming” (mean: 3.28), both showing positive responses. Additionally, the statement “I believe practicing an integrated farming system also counts as utilizing agricultural waste as cattle feed” had a mean score of 3.20, indicating that farmers value integrated farming systems.

Conversely, the lowest mean score of 2.86 was for the item “I stay informed about the latest crop residue technologies introduced in cattle farming,” suggesting a lack of awareness about new technologies. The item “I believe that using crop residues does not involve high costs” scored 2.98, reflecting mixed views on the affordability of crop residues. The statement “I believe utilizing crop residues is important in cattle farming” had a mean score of 3.02, showing moderate agreement on its importance, which was similar to the item “I am constantly aware of the importance of utilizing crop residues in cattle farming” (mean: 3.02).

DISCUSSION

The study’s findings underline the duality of opportunities and challenges faced by beef cattle farmers in adopting crop residues as cattle feed. While the majority of respondents recognized the benefits of crop residues and were actively utilizing them, the adoption rate of advanced technologies and sustainable practices remains limited.

Utilization of Crop Residues

A significant majority of respondents, 84%, agreed with the statement, “I utilize crop residues to enhance the productivity of my farm,” which underscores the high adoption rate and practical application of crop residues in cattle farming. This response reflects the critical role crop residues play in the farming systems of many cattle farmers, particularly in regions like Kedah, where agriculture is intrinsically linked to livestock farming. With a mean score of 3.87, the statement not only attained the highest score among all items but also emphasized the importance of crop residues as a vital resource for improving farm productivity. In this context, crop residues are seen as more than just a by-product of crop cultivation; they have become an essential feed resource for cattle, helping farmers mitigate the rising costs of traditional cattle feed.

Farmers view crop residues as an economical and accessible supplement or even a substitute for conventional feeds such as Napier grass, which can be expensive and sometimes less available due to weather or market conditions. The use of crop residues offers a sustainable solution to the feed supply problem, particularly for small-scale farmers or those with limited financial resources (Cheng et al., 2022). It is an easily accessible feed source that helps farmers optimize the resources available on their farms, reducing the need for external feed inputs and minimizing waste. This high utilization rate suggests that many farmers have recognized the potential of crop residues to improve both the economic sustainability of their operations and the nutritional quality of their cattle feed (Widarni et al., 2020a). As a result, crop residues have become an integral part of cattle management for a significant number of respondents, aligning with broader goals of resource efficiency, cost reduction, and sustainability in the agricultural sector (Baba et al., 2019a). The adoption of crop residues also reflects a growing awareness among farmers of the environmental benefits of recycling agricultural waste, which not only reduces feed costs but also contributes to better waste management practices within the farming ecosystem.

Awareness of Technology

Although crop residues are widely utilized by farmers, a notable gap in technological awareness remains, which hinders the full potential of this valuable resource. A significant 76.7% of respondents admitted that they were unaware of the latest technologies related to crop residue management, a trend that is reflected in the lowest mean score (M = 2.86) for the statement, “I stay informed about the latest crop residue technologies introduced in cattle farming.” This result underscores the fact that many farmers, despite their widespread use of crop residues, are not fully capitalizing on the advancements available in crop residue utilization, which could improve both the quality and efficiency of the feed produced.

The lack of awareness regarding modern techniques such as silage technology, advanced chopping equipment, or innovative storage methods is a significant barrier to optimizing the use of crop residues (Ashley et al., 2018). Silage-making technology, for example, allows for the fermentation of crop residues, making them more digestible and nutritious for livestock(Sereenonchai & Arunrat, 2022). However, without knowledge of these technologies, many farmers are still relying on basic and traditional methods of using crop residues, which may not fully maximize the benefits that modern practices can offer(Giller et al., 2021). Furthermore, advanced chopping equipment and improved storage methods, such as better drying or preservation techniques, can significantly enhance the shelf life and nutritional value of crop residues, yet these remain largely underutilized due to the knowledge gap.

This lack of technological awareness can be attributed to several factors, including insufficient extension services, limited access to relevant information, or a lack of technical training programs tailored to farmers’ needs (Clay et al., 2019). Extension services, which play a crucial role in disseminating new knowledge and practices, may not be reaching all farmers effectively or may not be providing the necessary training on how to adopt new technologies (Sudrajat et al., 2020). Limited access to information, especially in rural areas, could also contribute to this gap, as many farmers may not be aware of the advancements available or how to implement them in their own farming operations. In addition, technical training programs may not be widespread or easily accessible, leaving farmers without the expertise needed to adopt and implement more efficient crop residue management practices (Fisher et al., 2018). As a result, despite the recognition of the benefits of crop residues, many farmers continue to rely on outdated methods that may not yield the maximum possible productivity or sustainability.

Costs of Crop Residues

Cost perceptions represent another significant barrier to the wider adoption of crop residues in cattle farming. The mean score for the statement, “I believe that using crop residues does not involve high costs,” was relatively low (M = 2.98), suggesting that many farmers perceive the costs associated with utilizing crop residues to be higher than expected or manageable. This perception of high costs can discourage farmers from fully exploring or adopting more advanced methods of crop residue management, which could potentially enhance the quality of feed and increase productivity (Folefack Jaza, 2015). Although crop residues are generally considered an economical resource compared to traditional feed sources, the associated costs can quickly add up, especially when more advanced processing methods are involved.

The financial costs of crop residue utilization can arise from several factors. One of the most significant costs is the purchase of processing equipment, such as silage-making machines, choppers, or other machinery designed to prepare and enhance the nutritional quality of crop residues (Abdullah et al., 2021). These machines, while crucial for improving feed quality, can be expensive and may not be affordable for small-scale or resource-limited farmers (Abdullah et al., 2020). Additionally, the cost of transportation can also be a considerable barrier, especially if crop residues need to be moved from fields to storage or processing locations. In some cases, farmers may need to hire transportation services or invest in vehicles for this purpose, which can add to the overall expense (Paul et al., 2017). Furthermore, the labor required for preparing crop residues, including cutting, chopping, drying, or fermenting the materials, can be labor-intensive, and farmers may need to hire additional help to manage the workload (Sereenonchai & Arunrat, 2022). This labor cost, combined with the need for specialized equipment, can make the adoption of more advanced crop residue management practices seem financially unfeasible for some.

These financial constraints are particularly challenging for small-scale or resource-limited farmers, who may already face difficulties in accessing capital or financing for their farming operations (Baba et al., 2019b). Without the ability to invest in advanced equipment or technologies, these farmers may find it difficult to implement more efficient or productive crop residue utilization methods. The perception of high costs is further amplified by the lack of financial assistance or subsidies that could offset some of the expenses associated with modernizing crop residue management (Widarni et al., 2021). For many farmers, the upfront costs involved in purchasing equipment or paying for additional labor may seem too high a barrier to overcome, leading them to continue using traditional, less efficient methods that do not fully exploit the potential benefits of crop residues.

The perception of high costs may also have a broader effect on the willingness of farmers to explore new technologies or practices (Widarni et al., 2020b). If farmers believe that adopting advanced methods for processing crop residues will result in significant financial strain, they may choose to forgo such innovations altogether, thereby limiting the full potential benefits that could be gained from crop residues (Borges et al., 2014). This reluctance to invest in advanced technologies may perpetuate a cycle of inefficiency, where farmers continue to rely on basic, less productive methods despite the availability of alternatives that could improve feed quality, reduce waste, and increase productivity (Clay et al., 2019).

Perceived Benefits of Crop Residues

Farmers demonstrated a strong recognition of the benefits of crop residues, as reflected in the consistently high mean scores for statements regarding the importance of utilizing crop residues in cattle farming. The mean scores for these statements regularly exceeded M = 3.0, indicating that farmers generally hold positive attitudes towards the use of crop residues as a feed resource for cattle. For instance, the statement, “I am constantly aware of the importance of utilizing crop residues in cattle farming,” received a mean score of M = 3.02, which suggests that farmers have a moderate level of awareness about the value of crop residues in cattle farming. This moderate awareness indicates that farmers understand the role that crop residues can play in improving feed supply, reducing dependency on external resources, and enhancing the overall sustainability of their farming practices (Mutwedu et al., 2022). However, there may still be room for increased awareness, particularly regarding the more advanced methods and benefits associated with crop residues.

Similarly, the statement, “I believe that practicing an integrated farming system also counts as utilizing agricultural waste as cattle feed,” received a higher mean score of M = 3.20, reflecting farmers’ acknowledgment of the broader role that crop residues play within integrated farming systems (IFS). Integrated farming systems, which involve the use of agricultural by-products, such as crop residues, as resources for cattle feed, help promote the recycling of nutrients and the sustainable management of farm waste. This high score suggests that farmers are increasingly recognizing the environmental benefits of using crop residues not only as a feed source but also as a key component in promoting sustainable farming practices. By utilizing crop residues within IFS, farmers contribute to reducing waste, lowering their reliance on commercial feed, and optimizing the use of available resources, all of which can lead to increased farm productivity and environmental sustainability (Raza et al., 2022).

The positive attitudes toward crop residues as a practical feed resource reflect a broader understanding among farmers of how they can optimize the resources available on their farms. Crop residues, when properly utilized, provide a cost-effective and sustainable alternative to traditional feed sources, especially as feed costs continue to rise (Porichha et al., 2021). By using crop residues, farmers can reduce their dependence on external feed inputs, leading to cost savings and improved farm profitability (Dahlanuddin et al., 2019).

Utilization Trends and Farmer Perceptions

Farmers demonstrated an awareness of the importance of crop residues in enhancing farm productivity, aligning with previous studies that emphasize the efficiency of using agricultural waste as a feed alternative to reduce reliance on traditional fodder (Sarkar et al., 2020). Additionally, farmers recognized the connection between integrated farming systems (IFS) and the sustainable use of agricultural waste. However, barriers such as cost perceptions and lack of awareness about modern technologies remain significant. For instance, advanced silage technologies, such as Silage Chopper Grass Chaff, are often out of reach for small-scale farmers due to their prohibitive costs (Balehegn et al., 2020). This is consistent with findings from Sudrajat et al. (2020), who found similar challenges in Gowa Regency, where farmers were reluctant to adopt silage technology due to limited knowledge, technical expertise, and financial constraints, despite its potential to enhance feed quality and efficiency.

Role of Breeders vs. Traders in Crop Residue Adoption

An interesting distinction was found between breeders and traders in their use of crop residues. Breeders, with their hands-on approach to cattle farming and focus on long-term productivity, were more inclined to use crop residues (Giller et al., 2021). In contrast, traders showed less interest in unprocessed agricultural waste, preferring napier grass, which is known for its superior nutritional profile. Napier grass is particularly valued for its high levels of nitrate nitrogen (NO3–N) and oxalates, which are essential for cattle nutrition (McGrath et al., 2018). However, when Napier grass is unavailable, traders reportedly turn to crop residues as a backup feed option (Dahlanuddin et al., 2019). This suggests that crop residues could play an important role as a supplementary feed resource, especially during periods of feed scarcity, if awareness and accessibility improve.

RECOMMENDATION

Future research should focus on advancing the adoption of crop residues as cattle feed by exploring cost-effective and accessible technologies, such as affordable silage-making equipment, to support small-scale farmers. Investigating government subsidies, cooperative funding models, and innovative financial strategies can help reduce barriers to adoption. Studies should also evaluate the impact of targeted training programs and educational campaigns to improve farmers’ awareness and technical skills. Research on the environmental benefits of integrating crop residues into sustainable farming systems, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing resource efficiency, is crucial. Comparative studies across regions should assess variations in adoption and effectiveness, while also exploring the potential of other agricultural residues like oil palm or pineapple waste. Additionally, analyzing socioeconomic factors, including education, gender dynamics, and resource access, can provide valuable insights into adoption behaviors. Finally, examining integrated farming systems and their long-term effects on productivity and profitability will help develop a comprehensive approach to improving cattle feed sustainability in Malaysia.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the utilization of crop residues among cattle farmers is a vital strategy for enhancing the self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) of beef production in Kedah state. This practice not only ensures a steady and reliable supply of beef products but also underscores the potential of agricultural by-products to contribute to sustainable livestock farming. Notably, farmers who incorporated crop residues into their feeding systems experienced a 20% reduction in feed costs and observed significant improvements in cattle weight gain, emphasizing the practical benefits of this approach. Additionally, the integration of advanced technologies and knowledge transfer plays a pivotal role in strengthening beef production. Technologies such as feed processing equipment and nutrient management applications enable farmers to optimize the use of crop residues effectively. Furthermore, farmers who accessed training programs and extension services demonstrated a 15% increase in herd productivity, highlighting the value of support and education in this sector. To achieve greater self-sufficiency in beef production, it is imperative to address challenges related to technology access and knowledge dissemination. By overcoming these barriers and promoting the effective adoption of crop residues, Kedah can establish a sustainable and resilient beef supply chain, reducing reliance on external sources and supporting local agricultural ecosystems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study was funded by Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) through Fundamental Research Grant scheme (FRGS) (FRGS/1/2023/SS02/UITM/13).

REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, F. A., Ali, J., & Zamzuri Noor, M. S. (2021). Factors influencing the adoption of innovation in beef cattle farming: A study in Peninsular Malaysia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 756(1), 012021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/756/1/012021
2. Abdullah, F. A., Muhammad, M., Zamzuri Noor, M. S., Sidek, S., T. Abu Bakar, T. H. S., & Jusoh, M. F. (2022). Challenges faced by beef cattle farmers in innovation adoption towards food security and sustainability: a narrative review. Journal of Tropical Resources and Sustainable Science (JTRSS), 10(2), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.47253/jtrss.v10i2.1004
3. Abdullah, Farah Adila, Ali, Jamal Noor, Mohd Saifoul, & Zamzuri. (2020). The adoption of innovation in ruminant farming for food security in Malaysia: A narrative literature review. In Journal of Critical Reviews (Vol. 7, Issue 6, pp. 738–743). Innovare Academics Sciences Pvt. Ltd. https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.06.130
4. Ahmad Shaharudin, A. A., & Tumin, S. A. (2019). A Brief on “Beef.” www.KRInstitute.org.
5. Ali, R. (2023). Empirical Analysis on Import Diversification of Major Livestock Commodities in Malaysia. MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS. https://doi.org/10.36877/mjae.a0000434
6. Ashley, K., Young, J. R., Kea, P., Suon, S., Windsor, P. A., & Bush, R. D. (2018). Socioeconomic impact of forage-technology adoption by smallholder cattle farmers in Cambodia. Animal Production Science, 58(2), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16164
7. Baba, S., Dagonb, M. I. A., Sohrah, S., & Utamy, R. F. (2019a). Factors affecting the adoption of agricultural by-products as feed by beef cattle farmers in Maros regency of South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tropical Animal Science Journal, 42(1), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2019.42.1.76
8. Baba, S., Dagonb, M. I. A., Sohrah, S., & Utamy, R. F. (2019b). Factors affecting the adoption of agricultural by-products as feed by beef cattle farmers in Maros regency of South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tropical Animal Science Journal, 42(1), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2019.42.1.76
9. Balehegn, M., Duncan, A., Tolera, A., Ayantunde, A. A., Issa, S., Karimou, M., Zampaligré, N., André, K., Gnanda, I., Varijakshapanicker, P., Kebreab, E., Dubeux, J., Boote, K., Minta, M., Feyissa, F., & Adesogan, A. T. (2020). Improving adoption of technologies and interventions for increasing supply of quality livestock feed in low- and middle-income countries. Global Food Security, 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100372
10. Borges, J. A. R., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., Marques Ribeiro, C., & Lutke, V. (2014). Understanding farmers’ intention to adopt improved natural grassland using the theory of planned behavior. Livestock Science, 169(C), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.09.014
11. Cheng, M., McCarl, B., & Fei, C. (2022). Climate Change and Livestock Production: A Literature Review. In Atmosphere (Vol. 13, Issue 1). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13010140
12. Clay, D. E., Alverson, R., Johnson, J. M. F., Karlen, D. L., Clay, S., Wang, M. Q., Bruggeman, S., & Westhoff, S. (2019). Crop residue management challenges: A special issue overview. Agronomy Journal, 111(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.10.0657
13. Dahlanuddin, Panjaitan, T., Waldron, S., Halliday, M. J., Ash, A., Morris, S. T., & Shelton, H. M. (2019). Adoption of leucaena-based feeding systems in Sumbawa, eastern Indonesia and its impact on cattle productivity and farm profitability. Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales, 7(4), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.17138/TGFT(7)428-436
14. Department of Veterinary Services Malaysia. (2023). PERANGKAAN TERNAKAN. https://www.dvs.gov.my
15. Fisher, M., Holden, S. T., Thierfelder, C., & Katengeza, S. P. (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
16. Folefack Jaza, A. J. (2015). The determinants for the adoption of compost from household waste for crop production by farmers living nearby Yaoundé, Cameroon: descriptive and logit model approaches of analysis. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 9(1), 308. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v9i1.28
17. Giller, K. E., Delaune, T., Vasco Silva, J., Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G., Schut, A. G., van Wijk, M., Hammond, J., Hochman, Z., Taulya, G., Chikowo, R., Narayanan, S., Kishore, A., Bresciani, F., Mancini Teixeira, H., Andersson, J. A., & van Ittersum, M. K. (2021). The future of farming: Who will produce our food? https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01184-6/Published
18. Institution Department of Veterinary Services. (2018). WILAYAH KERBAU LEMBU KAMBING BEBIRI BABI Region Buffalo Cattle Goat Sheep Swine. Livestock Population.
19. Mat Lazim, R., Mat Nawi, N., Masroon, M. H., Abdullah, N., & Che Mohammad Iskandar, M. (2020). Adoption of IR4.0 into Agricultural Sector in Malaysia: Potential and Challenges. Advances in Agricultural and Food Research Journal, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.36877/aafrj.a0000140
20. McGrath, J., Duval, S. M., Tamassia, L. F. M., Kindermann, M., Stemmler, R. T., de Gouvea, V. N., Acedo, T. S., Immig, I., Williams, S. N., & Celi, P. (2018). Nutritional strategies in ruminants: A lifetime approach. In Research in Veterinary Science (Vol. 116, pp. 28–39). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.09.011
21. Mutwedu, V. B., Bacigale, S. B., Mugumaarhahama, Y., Muhimuzi, F. L., Munganga, B., Ayagirwe, R. B. B., Dontsop Nguezet, P. M., & Manyawu, G. (2022). Smallholder farmers’ perception and challenges toward the use of crop residues and agro-industrial byproducts in livestock feeding systems in Eastern DR Congo. Scientific African, 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01239
22. Paul, J., Sierra, J., Causeret, F., Guindé, L., & Blazy, J. M. (2017). Factors affecting the adoption of compost use by farmers in small tropical Caribbean islands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1387–1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.168
23. Porichha, G. K., Hu, Y., Rao, K. T. V., & Xu, C. C. (2021). Crop residue management in india: Stubble burning vs. other utilizations including bioenergy. In Energies (Vol. 14, Issue 14). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144281
24. Raza, M. H., Abid, M., Faisal, M., Yan, T., Akhtar, S., & Mehedi Adnan, K. M. (2022). Environmental and Health Impacts of Crop Residue Burning: Scope of Sustainable Crop Residue Management Practices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084753
25. Sarkar, S., Skalicky, M., Hossain, A., Brestic, M., Saha, S., Garai, S., Ray, K., & Brahmachari, K. (2020). Management of crop residues for improving input use efficiency and agricultural sustainability. In Sustainability (Switzerland) (Vol. 12, Issue 23, pp. 1–24). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239808
26. Sekaran, U., & Wiley, J. (2006). A Skill-Building Approach Fourth Edition RESEARCH METHODS FOR BUSINESS. http://www.wiley.com/college
27. Sereenonchai, S., & Arunrat, N. (2022). Farmers’ Perceptions, Insight Behavior and Communication Strategies for Rice Straw and Stubble Management in Thailand. Agronomy, 12(1), 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010200
28. Sudrajat, E., Baba, S., & Amrawaty, A. A. (2020). Factor analysis in the adopting of utilization of rice straw waste as feed in South Bontonompo district, Gowa regency. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 492(1), 012144. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/492/1/012144
29. Widarni, N. A. A., Astuti, A., Andarwati, S., Kusumastuti, T. A., & Putra, A. R. S. (2021). Determinants of rice by-product utilization as a potential local feed for ruminants in Magelang Regency, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 902(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/902/1/012049
30. Widarni, N. A. A., Kusumastuti, T. A., & Putra, A. R. S. (2020a). A study on farmers’ choice in integrating paddy and cattle farming as farm management practices. Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture, 45(4), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.14710/jitaa.45.4.356-364
31. Widarni, N. A. A., Kusumastuti, T. A., & Putra, A. R. S. (2020b). A study on farmers’ choice in integrating paddy and cattle farming as farm management practices. Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture, 45(4), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.14710/jitaa.45.4.356-364