Model Pengembangan Ternak Ruminansia di Kabupaten Tasikmalaya Berbasis Ketersediaan Pakan

Abstract

Tasikmalaya Regency has not yet achieved beef independence because the demand for beef for consumption is higher than its production. Local farmers have not been able to meet these needs due to various factors, namely maintenance management and feed availability. The development of ruminants needs to be improved through the potential of natural resources and human resources so that both are in harmony and able to build beef cattle farms for the better. The purpose of this study was to analyze the natural resources and human resources owned by calculating the capacity factor of ruminant livestock in Tasikmalaya Regency. This study uses primary and secondary data obtained from observations, interviews, and analysis. Primary data was obtained from a survey of 43 beef cattle breeders, while secondary data was obtained from the Department of Agriculture, Food Security, and Fisheries of Tasikmalaya Regency. This study uses descriptive analysis and LQ (Location Quation) analysis, as well as a KPPTR (Capacity to Increase Ruminant Livestock Population) analysis which ends with a SWOT (Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat) analysis. From the results of the descriptive analysis illustrates if the supporting factors in the form of natural resources and human resources are closely related to the development of beef cattle in Tasikmalaya Regency. The results obtained through LQ analysis from 39 sub-districts there are 25 sub-districts with LQ<1 and 14 sub-districts with LQ>1, so it can be concluded that the 25 sub-districts are base areas with great potential for development areas, while the remaining 14 subdistricts are areas non-base with less potential for development areas. From the KPPTR analysis, it was found that the effective KPPTR value was 209,184.90 ST which illustrates that in Tasikmalaya Regency it is still feasible to add livestock according to the effective KPPTR value. SWOT analysis of internal and external factors obtained results in the form of group I with a KPPTR + value, LQ> 1 and group III with a KPPTR value -, LQ> 1 getting an aggressive strategy position that has high strengths and opportunities, while group II with a KPPTR + value, LQ<1 and group IV with KPPTR value -, LQ<1 are in a