Submitted:
23 August 2023
Posted:
24 August 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Location and Time of Research
2.2. Research Method
2.2.1. The Suitability and Spatial Analysis
2.2.2. Economic Performance
2.2.3. Sorghum Development Strategy
3. Results
3.1. The Suitability and Spatial Analysis
3.2. Economic Performance
3.2.1. The Feasibility of Sorghum Farming
3.2.2. Competitive Advantage of Sorghum Farming
3.2.3. Sensitivity of Sorghum Farming
3.3. Sorghum Development Strategy
3.3.1. SWOT (Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats)
- (1)
- Increase production by optimally utilizing available swamp tidal land resources, technological innovation, human resources, and market potential
- (2)
- Optimize the utilization of sorghum plant waste as animal feed.
- (3)
- Increase and maintain production continuity by utilizing the potential of land, technology, and human resources of farmers.
- (4)
- Increase productivity and processed products by optimizing land resources, technological developments, and government policies to reduce wheat imports.
3.3.2. Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM)
4. Discussion
4.1. Tidal Swamplands Potential for Sorghum Development
4.2. Economic Aspects of Sorghum in Tidal Swamplands
4.2.1. Feasibility Analysis of Sorghum Farming in Tidal Swamplands
4.2.2. Competitive Advantages of Sorghum in Tidal Swamplands
4.2.3. Sensitivity of Sorghum Farming in Tidal Swamplands
4.3. Development Strategies for Sorghum in Tidal Swamplands
5. Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sachs, J.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Woelm, F. Sustainable Development Report 2022; Cambridge University Press, 2022; ISBN 9781009210058. [Google Scholar]
- Central Bureau of Statistics Indonesia. Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2023; 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Förster, H.; Sterzel, T.; Pape, C.A.; Moneo-Lain, M.; Niemeyer, I.; Boer, R.; Kropp, J.P. Sea-Level Rise in Indonesia: On Adaptation Priorities in the Agricultural Sector. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, 893–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erythrina, E.; Anshori, A.; Bora, C.Y.; Dewi, D.O.; Lestari, M.S.; Mustaha, M.A.; Ramija, K.E.; Rauf, A.W.; Mikasari, W.; Surdianto, Y.; et al. Assessing Opportunities to Increase Yield and Profit in Rainfed Lowland Rice Systems in Indonesia. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erythrina, E.; Susilawati, S.; Slameto, S.; Resiani, N.M.D.; Arianti, F.D.; Jumakir, J.; Fahri, A.; Bhermana, A.; Jannah, A.; Sembiring, H. Yield Advantage and Economic Performance of Rice–Maize, Rice–Soybean, and Maize–Soybean Intercropping in Rainfed Areas of Western Indonesia with a Wet Climate. Agronomy 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fahmid, I.M.; Wahyudi; Agustian, A.; Aldillah, R.; Gunawan, E. The Potential Swamp Land Development to Support Food Estates Programmes in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environ. Urban. ASIA 2022, 13, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatta, M.; Sulakhudin; Burhansyah, R.; Kifli, G.C.; Dewi, D.O.; Kilmanun, J.C.; Permana, D.; Supriadi, K.; Warman, R.; Azis, H.; et al. Food Self-Sufficiency: Managing the Newly-Opened Tidal Paddy Fields for Rice Farming in Indonesia (A Case Study in West Kalimantan, Indonesia). Heliyon 2023, 9, e13839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Widodo, S.; Triastono, J.; Sahara, D.; Pustika, A.B.; Kristamtini; Purwaningsih, H.; Arianti, F.D.; Praptana, R.H.; Romdon, A.S.; Sutardi; et al. Economic Value, Farmers Perception, and Strategic Development of Sorghum in Central Java and Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Agric. 2023, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abreha, K.B.; Enyew, M.; Carlsson, A.S.; Vetukuri, R.R.; Feyissa, T.; Motlhaodi, T.; Ng’uni, D.; Geleta, M. Sorghum in Dryland: Morphological, Physiological, and Molecular Responses of Sorghum under Drought Stress. Planta 2021, 255, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardino, K.C.; de Menezes, C.B.; de Sousa, S.M.; Guimarães, C.T.; Carneiro, P.C.S.; Schaffert, R.E.; Kochian, L. V; Hufnagel, B.; Pastina, M.M.; Magalhaes, J. V Association Mapping and Genomic Selection for Sorghum Adaptation to Tropical Soils of Brazil in a Sorghum Multiparental Random Mating Population. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 295–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chadalavada, K.; Kumari, B.D.R.; Kumar, T.S. Sorghum Mitigates Climate Variability and Change on Crop Yield and Quality. Planta 2021, 253, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chadalavada, K.; Gummadi, S.; Kundeti, K.R.; Kadiyala, D.M.; Deevi, K.C.; Dakhore, K.K.; Bollipo Diana, R.K.; Thiruppathi, S.K. Simulating Potential Impacts of Future Climate Change on Post-Rainy Season Sorghum Yields in India. Sustainability 2022, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appiah-Nkansah, N.B.; Li, J.; Rooney, W.; Wang, D. A Review of Sweet Sorghum as a Viable Renewable Bioenergy Crop and Its Techno-Economic Analysis. Renew. Energy 2019, 143, 1121–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, Y.; Zhang, P.; Warner, R.D.; Fang, Z. Sorghum Grain: From Genotype, Nutrition, and Phenolic Profile to Its Health Benefits and Food Applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 2025–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Irianto Kebijakan Pengembangan Lahan Rawa Dalam Mendukung Ketahanan Pangan Nasional. In Proceedings of the Seminar Nasional Pertanian Lahan Rawa; 2006.
- Sulaiman, A.A.; Sulaeman, Y.; Minasny, B. A Framework for the Development of Wetland for Agricultural Use in Indonesia. Resources 2019, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistics of Central Kalimantan Province Central Kalimantan Province in Figures; 2023; Vol. 6.
- BPS KALTENG, S. Central Kalimantan Province in Figures; 2023; Vol. 6.
- NRCS, U. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Aboah, J.; Setsoafia, E.D. Examining the Synergistic Effect of Cocoa-Plantain Intercropping System on Gross Margin: A System Dynamics Modelling Approach. Agric. Syst. 2022, 195, 103301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wake, R.D.; Oumer, A.M.; Alemu, D. A Comparative Assessment of the Profitability of Improved Sorghum Varieties in Western Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Agric.Sci 2022, 32, 132–147. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, E.B.; Agyekum, E.B.; Adadi, P. Agriculture for Sustainable Development: A SWOT-AHP Assessment of Ghana’s Planting for Food and Jobs Initiative. Sustainability 2021, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paschalidou, A.; Tsatiris, M. SWOT Analysis of Perennial vs Annual Energy Crops: A Case Study in Greece. New Approaches Eng. Res. Vol. 3 2021, 16–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montgomery, B.; Dragićević, S.; Dujmović, J.; Schmidt, M. A GIS-Based Logic Scoring of Preference Method for Evaluation of Land Capability and Suitability for Agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 124, 340–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feizizadeh, B.; Blaschke, T.; Akinci, H.; Özalp, A.Y.; Turgut, B.; Malczewski, J. Land Suitability Analysis for Tabriz County, Iran : A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Approach Using GIS. J. Environ. Plan. Manag 2013, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritung, S.; Kusumo, N.; Mulyani, A.; Suryani, E. Petunjuk Teknis Evaluasi Lahan Untuk Komoditas Pertanian; Suryani, E. , Tarma, I., Eds.; Revisi 201.; BBSDLP - Badan Litbang Pertanian. 2011; ISBN 9786028977470. [Google Scholar]
- Panhalkar, S. Land Capability Classification for Integrated Watershed Development by Applying Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2011, 6, 46–55. [Google Scholar]
- Bhermana, A.; Suparman, S.; Tunisa, H.; Hendro Sunarminto, B. Identification of Land Resource Potential for Agricultural Landscape Planning Using Land Capability Evaluation Approach and GIS Application (a Case in Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia). J. Lahan Suboptimal J. Suboptimal Lands 2021, 10, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Václavík, T.; Lautenbach, S.; Kuemmerle, T.; Seppelt, R. Mapping Global Land System Archetypes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 1637–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suharta, N. Sistem Lahan Barongtongkok Di Kalimantan : Potensi, Kendala Dan Perkembangannya Untuk Pertanian Lahan Kering. J. Litbang Pertan. 2007, 26, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.; Bogner, C.; Lee, S.; Koellner, T. Crop Selection under Price and Yield Fluctuation: Analysis of Agro-Economic Time Series from South Korea. Agric. Syst. 2016, 148, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jezeer, R.E.; Santos, M.J.; Boot, R.G.A.; Junginger, M.; Verweij, P.A. Effects of Shade and Input Management on Economic Performance of Small-Scale Peruvian Coffee Systems. Agric. Syst. 2018, 162, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinseye, F.M.; Birhanu, B.Z.; Ajeigbe, H.A.; Diancoumba, M.; Sanogo, K.; Tabo, R. Impacts of Fertilization Management Strategies on Improved Sorghums Varieties in Smallholder Farming Systems in Mali: Productivity and Profitability Differences. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramli, R.; Swastika, K.S. Analisis Keunggulan Kompetitif Beberapa Tanaman Palawija Di Lahan Pasang Surut Kalimantan Tengah. J. Pengkaj. dan Pengemb. Teknol. Pertan. 2005, 8, 67–77. [Google Scholar]
- Sukmawani, R.; Haeruman, M.K.; Sulistiyowati, L.; Perdana, T. Determining Agricultural Superior Commodity in the District of Sukabumi through a Combination Method of LQ, Description Scoring, and Competitive Analysis. Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manag. 2014, 3, 599–604. [Google Scholar]
- Hardiyanto, T.; Pardani, C. Analisis Keunggulan Kompetitif Beberapa Tanaman Pangan Utama Di Kabupaten Ciamis. Mimb. AGRIBISNIS J. Pemikir. Masy. Ilm. Berwawasan Agribisnis 2017, 3, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dachin, A.; Ursu, A. Sensitivity of Gross Margin for Field Crops. Agrar. Econ. Rural Dev. REALITIES Perspect. Rom. 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Sim, J.; Waterfield, J. Focus Group Methodology: Some Ethical Challenges. Qual. Quant. 2019, 53, 3003–3022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Indriarti, R.; Chaidir, N.R. Penerapan Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (Qpsm) Untuk Merumuskan Strategi Bisnis. J. Manajerial 2021, 20, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taslimi, M.S.; Omeyr, A.K.; Arabkooshar, S. Formulating a Strategy through Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) Based on SWOT Framework (Case Study : Industrial Group of Barez Tires). Int. J. Econ. Manag. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3, 451–457. [Google Scholar]
- Noor, M. Lahan Rawa : Sifat Dan Pengelolaan Tanah Bermasalah Sulfat Masam; Soedarsono, J., Ed.; PT. RAJAGRAFINDO PERSADA: Jakarta, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Slameto, S.; Jannah, E.; Meidaliyantisyah, M.; Wibawa, W. Analysis of Rice Farming in Tidal Swampland, Tulang Bawang Regency, Lampung Province. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Agriculture and Applied Science; 2020; pp. 100–108. [Google Scholar]
- Kurniasari, R.; Suwarto; Sulistyono, E. Growth and Production of Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor (L.) Moench) Varieties of Numbu with Different Organic Fertilization. Bul. Agrohorti 2023, 11, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murdaningsih, M.; Uran, A.F.G. Kajian Agronomi Potensi Pengembangan Tanaman Sorgum Varietas Numbu Di Kabupaten Ende. J. Budid. Pertan. 2021, 17, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Susilo, E. ; Fahrurrozi; Sumardi Extensification of Sorghum in Swamp Land: Reviews on Utilization Allelopathy as Bioherbicide. J. Agroqua 2020, 18, 75–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imanudin, M.S.; Madjid, A.; Armanto, E. ; Miftahul The Study of Limiting Factor and Land Improvment Recomendation for Corn Cultivation in Tidal Lowland C Thypologi. J. Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkung. 2020, 22, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masganti Inovasi Teknologi Lahan Rawa Mendukung Kedaulatan, Pangan; Masganti; Simatupang, R.S.; Alwi, M.; Maftu’ah, E.; Noor, M.; Mukhlis; Sosiawan, H.; Susanti, M.A. (Eds.) PT. RAJAGRAFINDO PERSADA: Depok. 2018; ISBN 9786024256579. [Google Scholar]
- Las, I.; S, D.A.; (Indonesia), B.B.L.S.L.P. Karakteristik Dan Pengelolaan Lahan Rawa; Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian, Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian, Departemen Pertanian. 2006; ISBN 9789799474520. [Google Scholar]
- Fahmi, A.; Wakhid, N. Karakteristik Lahan Rawa. In Agroekologi Rawa; PT. RAJAGRAFINDO PERSADA, 2018; pp. 91–118.
- Dabukke, F.B.M.; Iqbal, M. Kebijakan Pembangunan Pertanian Thailand, India, Dan Jepang Serta Implikasinya Bagi Indonesia. Anal. Kebijak. Pertan. 2014, 12, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syuryawati; Lalu, M.S.; Pabendon, M.B. Syuryawati; Lalu, M.S.; Pabendon, M.B. Peningkatan Produksi Brangkasan Sorgum Mendukung Ketersediaan Pakan Dan Peningkatan Pendapatan Petani. In Proceedings of the Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknologi Peternakan dan Veteriner 2017, 2017, 566–574. [Google Scholar]
- Nurcholis, M.; Puspitaningrum, D.A. Pengembangan Sorgum (Sorghum Bicolor L.) Sebagai Produk Potensi Penyangga Pangan Dan Energi; UPN “VETERAN” Yogyakarta: Yogyakarta, 2020; ISBN 0020217722. [Google Scholar]
- Nugraha, M.R.; Milla, A.N.; Rini, N.K. Feasibility Analysis of Sorghum Farming (Sorghum.L) (Case Study in Women Farmers Group (KWT) PANTES Kebonpedes Village, Sukabumi Regency). J. Ilm. Pertan. 2022, 10, 163–167. [Google Scholar]
- Hendayana, R. Analisis Data Pengkajian, 1st ed.; Ananto, E.E., Ed.; IAARD Press: Jakarta, 2016; ISBN 9786021280966. [Google Scholar]
- Suarni, S. Role of Sorghum Physicochemical Properties in Food Diversification and Industry and Its Development Prospect. J. Penelit. dan Pengemb. Pertan. 2016, 35, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gultom, I.A.; Puspa, A.K.; Dharmawan, Y.Y.; Subing, A. Analisis Perencanaan Sektor Pertanian Berbasis Korporasi. J. Manaj. VISIONIST 2020, 9, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siadari, U.; Batubara, H.D.A.; Pane, P.Y.A.; Shanty, A.M.M. Analisis Kelayakan Usaha Tani Kopi Arabika Di Kabupaten Simalungun. SOSIOHUMANIORA J. Ilm. Ilmu Sos. Dan Hum. 2022, 8, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rifai, H.; Ashari, S. Damanhuri Keragaan 36 Aksesi Sorgum (Sorghum Bicolor L.). J. Produksi Tanam. 2015, 3, 330–337. [Google Scholar]
- Karimuna, S.R.; Wahab, A. ; Warda; Baharudin The Effectiveness of Fertilizing to Increase Growth and Productivity Sorghum on Dry Land and Marginal in Southeast Sulawesi. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO Animal Feed Resources Information System. Available online: https://www.feedipedia.org/content/feeds?category=13588.
- Sutrisna, N.; Sunandar, N.; Zubair, A. The Adaptation of Several Varieties Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor L.) on Dry Land in the District Ciamis, West Java. J. Lahan Suboptimal 2013, 2, 137–143. [Google Scholar]
- Hasibuan, S.; Nazir, N. The Development Strategy of Sustainable Bioethanol Industry on Iconic Sumba Island, Eastern Indonesia. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2017, 7, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koten, B.B.; Soetrisno, R.D.; Ngadiyono, N.; Suwignyo, B. Production of Sorghum Plant (Sorghum Bicolor (L.) Moench) of Rote Local Variety As Forage For Ruminant Feed At Different of Harvest Time and Urea Level. Bul. Peternak. 2012, 36, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pino, F.; Heinrichs, A.J. Sorghum Forage in Precision-Fed Dairy Heifer Diets. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anandan, S.; Zoltan, H.; Khan, A.A.; Ravi, D.; Blümmel, M. Feeding Value of Sweet Sorghum Bagasse and Leaf Residues after Juice Extraction for Bio-Ethanol Production Fed to Sheep as Complete Rations in Diverse Physical Forms. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012, 175, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irawan, B.; Sutrisna, N. Prospect of Sorghum Development in West Java to Support Food Diversification. Forum Penelit. Agro Ekon. 2011, 29, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geleta, N.; Labuschagne, M.T.; Osthoff, G.; Hugo, A.; Bothma, C. Physical and Chemical Properties Associated with Food Quality in Sorghum. South African J. Plant Soil 2005, 22, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguerre, M.; Cajarville, C.; Kozloski, G. V; Repetto, J.L. Intake and Digestive Responses by Ruminants Fed Fresh Temperate Pasture Supplemented with Increased Levels of Sorghum Grain: A Comparison between Cattle and Sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013, 186, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]




| No | Description | Volume | Unit | Price (USD)* | Cost (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |
Production facilities Sorghum seeds Herbicides Insecticides Dolomites Urea Manures KCl SP36 Rodenticides Depreciation of equipment |
5 1 2 8 50 1,000 50 50 1 |
kg liter kg sack kg kg kg kg kg |
3.17 13.36 3.68 6.33 1 46.67 1 1 4 |
15.85 13.36 7.36 50.64 50 40.67 50 50 4 10.33 |
| Total | 281.88 | ||||
| 2. | Labor Land preparation Land processing Planting Fertilization Weed removal Harvesting |
5 15 5 5 5 5 |
Working day Working day Working day Working day Working day Working day |
5.33 5.33 5.33 5.33 5.33 5.33 |
26.65 79.95 26.65 26.65 26.65 65.65 |
| Total | 213.2 | ||||
| 3. | Total Cost | 495.08 | |||
| 4. | Production | 3,070 | kg | ||
| 5. | Revenue | 3,070 | kg | 0.28 | 859.6 |
| 6. | Profit | 364.52 | |||
| 7. | R/C | 1.73 | |||
| 8. | B/C | 0.73 | |||
| 9. | BEP of sorghum price | 0.16 | |||
| 10. | BEP of sorghum unit | 1,788 | kg |
| Commodity | Production (kg ha-1) | Price (USD kg-1) | Total Cost (USD ha-1) | Profit (USD ha-1) | F Value | Q Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sorghum1 | 3,070 | 0.28 | 859.6 | 354.52 | ||
| Sweet potato2 | 900 | 1 | 722.67 | 177.33 | 2,421.64 | 0.79 |
| Maize2 | 5,200 | 0.36 | 1,229.33 | 642.67 | 4,083.55 | 1.33 |
| Soybean2 | 1,200 | 0.07 | 821.50 | 218.50 | 2,568.67 | 0.84 |
| Description | Existing | Changes in Financing and Revenue Structures | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 | ||
| Input: Sorghum seeds Herbicides Insecticides Liming (dolomite) Urea Manure NPK KCl SP-36 Rodenticides Other expenses Labor Total cost Output: Revenue Income R/C B/C |
1.84 1.55 0.86 5.89 4.94 5.43 0.00 5.62 5.62 0.47 1.20 24.82 58.25 100 41.75 1.73 0.73 |
1.84 1.55 0.86 5.89 0.89 6.20 5.12 0.00 0.00 0.47 1.20 24.82 48.85 100 51.15 2.05 1.05 |
1.84 1.55 0.86 5.89 2.17 21.33 18.15 0.00 0.00 0.47 1.20 24.82 48.85 100 21.72 1.28 0.28 |
2.30 1.94 1.07 7.37 1.11 7.76 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.58 1.50 31.02 61.06 100 38.94 1.64 0.64 |
2.30 1.94 1.07 7.37 2.71 26.66 22.68 0.00 0.00 0.58 1.50 31.02 97.85 100 2.15 1.02 0.02 |
| Factors | Description |
|---|---|
| Internal Factors | |
|
Strengths (S) |
S1- Sorghum is more adaptive to the environment than maize. S2- The stover can be used as animal feed. S3- The potential of swamplands that has not been utilized is relatively wide. S4- Motivation and availability of agricultural human resources. |
| Weaknesses (W) | W1- Lack of knowledge and experience of farmers on sorghum cultivation. W2- Land biophysical constraints and requires well-drained soils. W3- Difficult to get quality seeds. W4- Limited number and capacity of agricultural tools and machinery. |
| External Factors | |
| Opportunities (O) | O1- To substitute part of wheat imports with domestic sorghum. O2- Sorghum products present choices of domestic and foreign markets. O3- The development of adaptive varieties reduces production costs. O4- Policies on fertilizer subsidizing and rural development to support small-scale cultivation. |
|
Threats (T) |
T1- Extreme weather causes the risk of inundated or dry plants T2- Specific sorghum variety for tidal swamplands is not yet available. T3- Continuity of production for industrial needs. T4 - Uncertainty about the selling price. |
| Internal Factors | Significance Factor (0-1) |
Weight | Score (Rank Coefficient) (1-4) |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1- Sorghum is more adaptive to the environment than maize | 0.172 | 10 | 1.720 (2) |
| S2- The stover can be used as animal feed. | 0.103 | 6 | 0.618 (4) |
| S3- The potential of tidal swamplands that has not been utilized is relatively wide. | 0.207 |
12 | 2.484 (1) |
| S4- Motivation and availability of agricultural human resources. | 0.138 | 8 | 1.104 (3) |
| Sub total | 0.621 | 5.926 | |
| W1- Lack of knowledge and experience of farmers on sorghum cultivation. | 0.086 | –5 | -0.430 (3) |
| W2- Land biophysical constraints and requires well-drained soils. | 0.069 | –4 | -0.845 (4) |
| W3- Difficult to get quality seeds. | 0.121 | –7 | -0.847 (1) |
| W4- Limited number and capacity of agricultural tools and machinery. | 0.103 | –6 | -0.618 (2) |
| Sub total | 0.379 | -2.171 | |
| Total score | 1.000 | 3.755 |
| External Factors | Significance Factor (0-1) |
Weight | Score (Rank Coefficient) (1-4) |
|---|---|---|---|
| O1- To substitute part of wheat imports with domestic sorghum. | 0.196 | 10 | 1.960 (1) |
| O2- Sorghum products present choices of domestic and foreign markets. | 0.137 | 7 | 0.959 (3) |
| O3- The development of adaptive varieties reduces production costs. | 0.118 | 6 | 0.708 (4) |
| O4- Policies on rural development support small-scale cultivation. | 0.176 | 9 | 1.584 (2) |
| Sub total | 0.627 | 5.211 | |
| T1- Extreme weather causes the risk of inundated or dry plants. | 0.078 | –4 | –0.312 (3) |
| T2- Specific sorghum variety for tidal swamplands is not available. | 0.098 | –5 | –0.490 (2) |
| T3- Continuity of production for industrial needs. | 0.059 | –3 | –0.177 (4) |
| T4- Uncertainty about the selling price. | 0.137 | –7 | –0.959 (1) |
| Sub total | 0.373 | –1.941 | |
| Total score | 1.000 | 3.273 |
| IFAS | Strength Strategy | Weakness Strategy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EFAS | |||
|
Opportunity Strategy |
Strategi SO 5.926 + 5.211 = 11.137 |
Strategi WO -2.171 + 5.211 = 3.040 |
|
|
Threat Strategy |
Strategi ST 5.926 + (– 1.938) = 3.988 |
Strategi WT -2.171 + (-1.938) = -4.109 |
|
| Internal Factors | Rating | External Factors | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| S3- The potential of swamplands that has not been utilized is relatively wide. | 12 | O1- To substitute part of wheat imports with domestic sorghum. | 10 |
| S1- Sorghum is more adaptive to the environment than maize | 10 | O2- Sorghum products present choices for domestic and foreign markets. | 7 |
| S2- The stover can be used as animal feed. | 6 | O3 – The development of adaptive varieties reduces production costs. | 7 |
| S4- Motivation and availability of agricultural human resources. | 7 | O4- Policies on rural development sup-port small-scale cultivation. | 9 |
| Total | 35 | Total | 33 |
| W1- Lack of knowledge and experience of farmers on sorghum cultivation. | –5 | T1- Extreme weather causes the risk of inundated or dry plants. | –4 |
| W2- Land biophysical constraints and requires well-drained soils. | –4 | T2- Specific sorghum variety for tidal swamplands is not available. | –5 |
| W3- Difficult to get quality seeds. | –7 | T3- Continuity of production for industrial needs. | –3 |
| W4- Limited number and capacity of agricultural tools and machinery. | –6 | T4- Uncertainty about the selling price. | –7 |
| Total | –22 | Total | –19 |
| Average S | 9.000 | Average O | 8.000 |
| Average W | –5.500 | Average T | –4.750 |
| Value on the X axis = S + (–W) | 3.500 | Value on the Y axis = O + (–T) | 3.250 |
|
Internal Factors |
Strength (S) S1- Sorghum is more adaptive to the environment than maize plants. S2 - The stover can be used as animal feed. S3- The potential of swamplands that has not been utilized is relatively wide. S4- Motivation and availability of agricultural human resources. |
Weakness (W) W1- Lack of knowledge and experience of farmers in sorghum cultivation W2- Land biophysical constraints and requires well-drained soils. W3- Difficult to get quality seeds. W4- Limited number and capacity of agricultural tools and machinery |
|
|
External Factors |
|||
|
Opportunity (O) O1- To substitute part of wheat imports with domestic sorghum. O2- Sorghum products present choices of domestic and foreign markets. O3- The development of adaptive varieties re-duces production costs. O4- Policies on fertilizer subsidizing and rural development to support small-scale cultivation. |
S-O strategy Increase production by optimally utilizing available swamplands resources, technological innovation, human resources, and market potential (S1, S2, S3, S4, O1, O2, O3, O4). Optimize the utilization of sorghum plant waste as animal feed. (S1, S2, S3, S4, O1, O2, O3, O4). Increase and maintain production continuity by utilizing the potential of land, technology, and human resources of farmers (S1, S4, O3, O4) Increase productivity and processed products by optimizing land resources, technological developments, and government policies to reduce wheat imports (S1, S2, S3, S4, O4) |
W – O strategy Increasing farmers' knowledge and skills regarding cultivation, land management, and sorghum seed production technology (W1, W2, W3, W4, O1, O2, O3, O4, O5). Facilitate farmer/farmer group collaboration with sorghum seed breeders (W4, O1, O2, O4, O5). |
|
|
Threats (T) T1- Extreme weather causes the risk of inundated or dry plants. T2- Specific sorghum variety for tidal swamplands is not available. T4- Uncertainty about the selling price. T3- Continuity of production for industrial needs. |
S-T strategy Increase production by optimally utilizing available swamplands resources, technological innovation, human resources, and market potential (S1, S2, S3, S4, O1, O2, O3, O4). Optimize the utilization of sorghum plant waste as animal feed. (S1, S2, S3, S4, O1, O2, O3, O4). Increase and maintain production continuity by utilizing the potential of land, technology, and human resources of farmers (S1, S4, O3, O4) Increase productivity and processed products by optimizing land resources, technological developments, and government policies to reduce wheat imports (S1, S2, S3, S4, O4) |
W – T strategy Improve the quality of human resources by providing training in land management, climate and weather, production, and marketing management (W1, W2, W3, W4, T2, T3, T4). Machine tool facilitation |
|
| Key Factors | Alternative Strategy | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | AS | TAS | ||
| Strength | |||||||||
| 1. The potential of swamplands that has not been utilized is relatively wide | 0.207 | 4 | 0,828 | 3 | 0,621 | 4 | 0,828 | 4 | 0,828 |
| 2. More adaptive to the environment than maize plants. | 0.172 | 4 | 0,688 | 3 | 0,516 | 4 | 0,688 | 4 | 0,688 |
| 3. The stover can be used as animal feed | 0.103 | 2 | 0,206 | 4 | 0,412 | 3 | 0,309 | 2 | 0,206 |
| 4. Motivation and availability of agri-cultural human resources | 0.138 | 3 | 0,414 | 3 | 0,414 | 3 | 0,414 | 3 | 0,414 |
| Weakness | |||||||||
| 1. Lack of knowledge and experience of farmers in sorghum cultivation | 0.086 | ||||||||
| 2. Land biophysical constraints and requires well-drained soils. | 0.069 | ||||||||
| 3. Difficult to get quality seeds. | 0.121 | ||||||||
| 4. Limited number and capacity of agricultural tools and machinery. | 0.103 | ||||||||
| Opportunity | |||||||||
| 1. To substitute part of wheat imports with domestic sorghum. | 0.196 | 3 | 0,588 | 2 | 0,392 | 2 | 0,392 | 3 | 0,588 |
| 2. Policies on rural development support small-scale cultivation. | 0.176 | 2 | 0,352 | 2 | 0,352 | 2 | 0,352 | 3 | 0,528 |
| 3. Sorghum products present choices for domestic and foreign markets. | 0.137 | 4 | 0,548 | 2 | 0,274 | 2 | 0,274 | 2 | 0,274 |
| 4. The development of adaptive varieties reduces production costs. | 0.118 | 3 | 0,354 | 4 | 0,472 | 3 | 0,354 | 3 | 0,354 |
| Threat | |||||||||
| 1. Specific sorghum variety for tidal swamplands is not available (bird-resistance) | 0.098 | ||||||||
| 2. Extreme weather conditions cause the risk of inundated or dry plants. | 0.078 | ||||||||
| 3. Uncertainty about the selling price. | 0.137 | ||||||||
| 4. Continuity of production for industrial needs | 0.059 | ||||||||
| Total Attraction Value (TAS) | 3,98 | 3,45 | 3,61 | 3,88 | |||||
| Rank | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | |||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).