IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Eternal inflation in swampy landscapes
Optimal use of tidal swampland by implementing Jose J. Blanco-Pillado, Heling Deng and
Alexander Vilenkin
technology innovation “Panca Kelola” to enhance - Multi-field inflation in high-slope potentials
Vikas Aragam, Sonia Paban and Robert
farmer’s income in Central Kalimantan Indonesia Rosati

- The characteristics of swampland rice

To cite this article: Y R Darsani et al 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 648 012045 farming in South Sumatra: local wisdom
for climate change mitigation
N P S Ratmini and Herwenita

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 103.208.137.90 on 27/03/2023 at 07:50

1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

Optimal use of tidal swampland by implementing technology

innovation “Panca Kelola” to enhance farmer’s income in
Central Kalimantan Indonesia

Y R Darsani1, W A Yusuf1 and H Sosiawan2

1
Indonesian Swampland Agriculture Research Institute, Banjarbaru, Indonesia
2
Indonesian Agroclimate and Hidrology Research Institute, Bogor, Indonesia

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. Rice production in swampland can increase farmers’ income through intensification
activities based on local wisdom. This study aims to determine the household income of farmers by
implementing the Innovation Technology “Panca Kelola”. This technology has components namely:
water management, land preparation, ameloriation and fertilization, high yielding variety and pest
control. The method of data collection is done through a survey with direct interviews to farmers
using a questionnaire. The results showed that the implementation of Technology Innovation “Panca
Kelola” has economic prospects to be developed on a large scale with R/C> 1 and MBCR> 2. The
increased income of cooperator farmers was 60.73% (IDR. 20,363,987,- household-1 year-1)
compared to non-cooperative farmers.

1. Introduction
Utilization of acid sulphate tidal land is one of the options to address agricultural development problems in
food production centers such as in Java, Bali, and Sumatra as a result of land degradation, sloping
production, climate change, and land conversion. Swamp areas covered 33.4 million ha are found on the
island of Sumatera (32.9%), Kalimantan (40.4%), Papua (21%), Sulawesi (5.7%) and the rests are in small
areas [1]. The availability of tidal swampland for agriculture reaches 9.3 million ha [2].
Swampland development or reclamation had been carried out by the government since the 1970s through
the Tidal Rice Field Development Project (Proyek Pengembangan Persawahan Pasang Surut, P4S) in
Kalimantan and Sumatra [3] and until now it has not been given real impact, especially in supporting
national food security. Its contribution is still low, around 1 to 1.5% of the total production of 62.56 million
tons of dry unhulled rice [4].
Swampland development for agriculture, especially for crops, is not easy due to various obstacles.
Problems from soil aspects are physical and chemical properties, fertility, and soil biological properties.
From an environmental aspect, the problems are climate, topography, altitude from sea level, water systems,
weeds, pests, and diseases. From the socio-economic aspect, it includes the availability and quality of
manpower, regional accessibility, institutional and service mechanisms, capital, and marketing [5]. There
are also social constraints caused by isolated residential conditions by water and congenital factors from the

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

farmers themselves, such as low levels of education and weak economic conditions since in their origin
place, both local residents and transmigrants. Such conditions lead to low land productivity [6]. The low
productivity of land due to degradation of soil fertility, water management is not optimal, low cropping
index, land arrangement, commodity choice, lack of proper varieties, and applied imperfect agricultural
model [7, 8]. In addition, water management technology is one of the main keys to the success of farming
in tidal land because if the water is not controlled, it will not only result in failure but also cause various
environmental damages, especially on tidal land with type B overflow [9]. The income of farmers in tidal
swamplands in Central and South Kalimantan is an average of IDR 20,784,434 household-1year-1 [10].
Furthermore, the income of farmers in Sidomulyo Village, Tamban Catur District, Kapuas Regency in 2015
was IDR 30,049,800 household-1year-1 or IDR 2,504,150 month-1household-1 [11]. Meanwhile, based on
land ownership, with narrow (<1 ha), medium (1 to 1.5 ha) and wide (>1.5 ha) land ownership strata,
respectively IDR 23,360,675 household-1year-1, IDR 28,973,970 household-1year-1 and IDR 36,158,060
household-1year-1. The distribution of farmers' income per capita is categorized as medium with a Gini
coefficient of 0.43 [12].
To increase farmers' income, optimal use of swamps is required. To increase support for the cultivation
system, it is prioritized to develop adaptive, economical, inexpensive technology that is in line with the
preferences and socio-culture of the community [13].
Many innovative technologies in the swamps field have been produced but have not been widely adopted
by farmers. Technology adoption is strongly influenced by the level of farmers' social conditions, including
farmer education, farmer capital, and the level of technology suitability [14 - 15]. The low application of
technology is indicated by the large gap between the potential production of research results and the yield
at the farmer level [6]. Furthermore, Bunch (2001) in [17] stated that the adoption of a technology can run
quickly if the technology is able to increase farmers' income by at least 50 to150 %.
Many agricultural technologies have been produced by the Agricultural Research and Development
Agency, but only partly adopted by farmers. Therefore, Balittra carried out demonstration farming activity
of Environmentally Friendly Integrated Land and Plants Management Model in Acid Sulphate Tidal Field
in Sidomulyo Village, Tamban Catur District, Kapuas Regency from 2015 to 2019 to produce "Panca
Kelola" technology package for rice cultivation on acid sulphate land. The technological advantages of an
applied package must be considered by farmers with the technology they are currently using. This paper
aims to present information on the feasibility of introducing "Panca Kelola" technology in increasing
farmers' income in tidal fields.

2. Materials and methods

The technology introduced research was carried out in the 2019 dry season and 2019 - 2020 rainy season in
Sidomulyo Village, Tamban Catur District, Kuala Kapuas Regency, Central Kalimantan covering an area
of 8 ha in 2019 dry season and 10 ha on 2019 - 2020 rainy season. The technology introduced research
activities which were carried out are presented in table 1.
The technique of collecting data was the survey method. Primary data come from cooperator farmers
and non-cooperators. The number of respondents each consisted of 10 cooperator farmers which selected
purposely (the ones that implementing introduced technology) and 20 non-cooperator farmers who were
randomly selected. Data were collected by means of interviews using a structured questionnaire. Primary
data collected include: (a) Farming systems (cropping patterns, cultivation technology, land arrangement
etc. on yards and business lands), (b) Resources owned by farmers (average area of land ownership,
productive labor), (c) Inputs and outputs of rice farming and (d) Perception of farmers on one-way micro
water systems.

2
1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

Table 1. Model of Integrated Land and Crop Management in Acid Sulphate soils of Tidal Land.
Utilized Technology Technology Introduced Package Farmers’ Pattern
Water Management One Way System Two Way System
Land preparation Tractors and Agricultural Machine Tractors and Agricultural Machine
Tools Tools
Amelioration and fertilization x Balanced (Soil nutrient status / Chemical Fertilizers
DSS)
x Chemical / Biological
Fertilizers (250 kg NPK
Ponska, 100 kg Urea, 0.5 kg
lime and 1 t of manure)

Use of Varieties Adaptive variety with Argo Pawon Siam

Pest control x Refugia plants Use of chemical pesticides

x Light trap
x Use of vegetal pesticides
x Use of chemical pesticides
based on economic thresholds
Source : [26].

Perception data of the one-way micro water system was collected through a survey method for
cooperators farmer. Data collection was carried out through individually interviews with farmers using a
structured questionnaire. Measurement of one-way water system technology based on technological
requirements criteria, namely relative advantage, technology suitability, ease of implementation, possibility
to be tried, and possibility to be observed. Each indicator was developed in several statements. Respondents
were asked to provide an assessment of all statements, using a rating scale with the terms score 1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = doubt / don't know, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The obtained data regarding
perceptions were then distributed to different classes. Interval magnitude number class was determined
based on the class interval formula. The score is displayed in the form of numerical value Suharyanto and
Kariada [18] using a formula:

Highest Score – Lowest Score

Interval length = -----------------------------------
Number of class interval

Based on the highest score of 5 then subtracting the lowest score of 1, then range value is 4. The interval
length is obtained from the division between the range value and the number of class intervals which is 5,
then the interval length is 0.8. So based on these data, the score intervals are 1 to 1.8 = very negative, > 1.8
to 2.6 = negative, > 2.6 to 3.4 = doubtful, > 3.4 to 4.2 = positive and > 4.2 to 5 = very positive.
The obtained data are tabulated and presented in table form, then financial analysis is carried out [19]
with the following stages:
a. Total revenue is determined by subtracting total revenue with total costs, as follows:

I = TR – TC

3
1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

Where:
I = Income (IDR/Season)
TR = Total Revenue (IDR/Season)
TC = Total Cost (IDR/Season)
b. Farming efficiency is assessed by using a ratio between total revenue and total costs, as follows:
R/C = Ratio between total revenue and total costs
TR = Total Revenue (IDR)
TC = Total Cost (IDR)
Decision Rule:
R / C ≥ 1 is economically efficient
RC <1 is economically inefficient
c. To find out the possibility of new technology being developed on wider scale (compared to the old
technology), the Marginal Benefit Cost Ratio (MBCR) analysis was used. New technologies will be
feasible to develop if the MBCR value is> 2 [20].

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Land characteristics

The research location is a tidal field with overflow type B. In the tidal area of overflow type B, tide range
to the land is affected by large tidal overflows which occur twice a month, namely at full moon and dead
moon. The condition of the water management infrastructure has not been yet perfect, some of the gates are
damaged and are not functioning, there is sedimentation in the secondary and tertiary channels, so that water
traffic entering and leaving the land cannot be managed properly. Based on soil classification, the
demonstration plots were classified into Typic Sulfaquents and Typic Endoaquepts. The pyrite content in
the upper layer of 0 to 30 cm ranges from 0.1 to 0.56 % and is said to be high if it is found in layers> 100
cm [30]. The pattern of pyrite content is the same as reported by Markus et al. [21]. Acid sulphate soils in
South Kalimantan generally have pyrite in the oxidation layer between 0.09 to 0.32 percent and lower than
the reduction layer which ranges from 0.17 to 1.91 %. From the characteristics and evaluation of tidal lands
in Tamban Catur district shows that they are classified as quite suitable (S2) and marginally suitable (S3)
for rice plants [17]. The cropping pattern at the farm level is local rice - bero. Rice cultivation in the dry
season uses local Siam varieties with 2.1 to 3.5 t ha-1 production.

3.2 Characteristics of farmers

The characteristics of farmers in Sidomulyo Village, Tamban Catur District are presented in Table 2. Table
2 shows that the average age of cooperator farmers is 45 years, and the level of education from elementary
school to junior high school. Average farming experience is 26 years. Likewise, the age of the non-
cooperator farmers is 46 years old and the education level is 9 years. The productive workforce owned by
cooperator farmers is 2.30 people per family on average and 2.25 people per family for non-cooperators.
The average area of land owned by cooperator farmers is 2.16 ha per family and non-cooperator 2.14 ha
family-1. With a total workforce of 2.28 people household-1year-1, related to the area of land owned and the
availability of machine tools such as hand tractors, thresers, the increase in planting intensity in tidal land
using existing technology using local varieties is 2 times a year.
The average capital ownership of cooperator farmers is IDR 21,043,830 household-1year-1. This value
represents the difference in income of IDR 53,894,190 household-1year-1 and food and non-food
expenditures of IDR 32,850,366 household-1year-1, while for non-cooperators, capital ownership is IDR

4
1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

1,883,703 household-1year-1 from IDR 33,530,203 household-1year-1 of income minus IDR 31,646,500
household-1year-1 of expenses.

Table 2. Characteristics of cooperator and non cooperator farmers in Sidomulyo Village, Tamban Catur
District, Kapuas Regency, 2020.
Cooperator Non Cooperator
Characteristics
Average Range Average Range
Age (years) 45 33 – 64 46 33 – 56
Education (years) 8 6 – 12 9 6 – 12
Farming experience (years) 26 3 – 50 22 2 – 35
Productive workforce (person household-1) 2.30 1–3 2.25 1–3
Land ownership area (ha) 2.16 1.25 – 11 2.14 1.0 –2.75

3.3 Cost and income analysis

3.3.1 Rice production. The analysis results of farming costs under introduced technology and existing
technology is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Analysis of costs and income for rice farming with introduced technology and farmer
technology in Sidomulyo Village, Tamban Catur District, Dry Season 2019 and Rainy Season 2019 to
2020.
Introduced Technology Existing Technology
No
Description Value Total Value Value
. Physical Physical Value (IDR) Physical
(IDR) (IDR) (IDR)
1. Production 5,530 ton 30,415,000 5,250 ton 26,250,000 56,665,000 2,922 ton 18,993,000
2. Production cost 12,817,400 10,434,400 23,251,800 8,770,300
Production
3,420,000 3,500,000 6,920,000 1,167,500
Means
Seed 25 kg 225,000 25 kg 225,000 450,000 10 kg 70,000
Urea 100 kg 220,000 100 kg 220,000 440,000 50 kg 110,000
NPK 250 kg 675,000 250 kg 675,000 1,350,000 175 kg 472.500
KCl 100 kg 500,000 100 kg 500,000 1,000,000 50 kg 350,000
Manure 1000 kg 500,000 1000 kg 500,000 1,000,000 - -
Biotara 25 kg 300,000 25 kg 300,000 600,000 - -
Lime 1000 kg 900,000 1000 kg 900,000 1,800,000 50 kg 45,000
Herbicide 1L 60,000 1L 60,000 120,000 1.0 L 60,000
Botanical
40 ml 40,000 - - 40,000 - -
pesticide
Drugs - - - 120,000 120,000 - 60,000
55.5 23 57.5
3. Labor 9,397,400 6,934,400 16,331,800 7,602,800
manday manday manday
4. Income 17,597,600 15,815,600 33,413,200 10,222,700
5. R/C 2.37 2.52 2.43 2.16
6. MBCR 2.60
Source: Primary Data

5
1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

3.3.2. Farmers household income. The household income of cooperator and non-cooperator farmers comes
from agricultural and non-agriculture resources, which is presented in Table 4. The farming system at the
farm level, namely in the yard, is partly cultivated for poultry and large livestock such as cows. The rice
fields and vegetable farming, generally cultivated for their own needs and the rest is sold. Meanwhile, non-
agricultural income comes from service activities, civil servants, and working as construction workers.
Table 4 shows that the household income of cooperator farmers in 2017 was IDR 53,894,190 household-
1
year-1 and non-cooperator IDR 33,530,203 household-1year-1. The income of cooperator farmers comes
from agriculture (rice, livestock and annual crops/vegetables) 88.61% and non-agriculture 11.39%.
Meanwhile, non-cooperator farmer household income comes from agriculture 72.18% and non-agriculture
27.82%. The contribution of rice to the source of income for cooperator farmers was 86.44% and non-
cooperators was 65.24%. If the household income of cooperator farmers is compared to non-cooperators,
there is an increase of IDR 20,363,987 household-1year-1 or 60.73%.

Table 4. Income of cooperator and non-cooperator farmers in Sidomulyo Village, Tamban Catur
District, Kapuas Regency, 2020.

Cooperator Non Cooperator

No. Description Value Value
% %
(IDR household-1year-1 ) (IDR household-1year-1)
1. Agriculture 47,754,190 88.61 24,202,703 72.18
Rice 46,585,860 86.44 21,876,578 65.24
Livestock 618,330 1.15 1,700,625 5.07
Other plants 550,000 1.02 625,500 1.87
2. Non Agriculture 6,140,000 11.39 9,327,500 27.82
Total (1+2) 53,894,190 100.00 33,530,203 100.00

An increase in income is also followed by an increase in expenditure. The expenditure for cooperator
farmers is IDR 32,850,360 household-1year-1 and non-cooperators is IDR 31,646,500 household-1year-1.
Even though the expenditure is quite high for cooperator farmers, there is still a surplus of income, namely
IDR 21,043,830 household-1year-1 and non-cooperator IDR 1,883,703 household-1year-1 (Table 5).

Table 5. Household income and expenditure of cooperator and non-cooperator farmers in Sidomulyo
Village, Tamban Catur District, Kapuas Regency, 2017.
Expenditure
Income (IDR household-1year-1) Income Surplus
No. Farmer
(IDR household-1year-1 ) (IDR household-1year-1)
Food Non Food
1. Cooperator 53,894,190 20,.982,000 11,868,366 21,043,830
2. Non Cooperator 33,530,203 20,740,000 10,906,500 1,883,703
Source: Primary Data

3.3.3. Farmer household income performance. Research activities were carried out in 2015 - 2019. Table 6
shows the cooperator farmer household income from 2015 to 2019. The household income of cooperator
farmers from 2015 to 2019 has seen an impressive increase in 2017. This is because the contribution of

6
1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

farmers' income from rice is quite high, then in 2018 is decreased. The decrease in income from rice is due
to the once-a-year planting activity that is only during the dry season. Then in 2019 the contribution of
income from rice increased because the yield of rice cultivation was quite high. The rate of increase /
decrease was between 37.69 to 60.59%. Or average increase of 21.12% year-1.

Table 6. Income and expenditure of cooperator farmer households in Sidomulyo Village, 2015 to 2019.

Income and Expenditure (IDR household-1year-1) in Year

No. Description
20151 20162 20173 20184 20195
1. Agriculture 25,049,800 26,858,920 37,278,168 23,428,887 47,754,190
Rice 19,346,500 15,544,830 26,337,925 19,315,272 46,585,860
Livestock 4,903,300 11,173,636 8,867,576 2,975,153 618,330
Vegetables and fruit 800,000 140,454 2,072,667 1,138,462 550,000
2. Non Agriculture 5,000,000 8,950,000 16,579,999 10,130,769 6,140,000
3. Total income 30,049,800 37,308,920 53,858,167 33,559,656 53,894,190
4. Income increase / - 24.15 44.36 37.69 60.59
decrease (%)
5. Spending 28,231,330 30,419,082 42,210,272 31,762,095 32,850,360
6. Income increase / - 7.75 38.76 24.75 3.43
decrease (%)
7. Income surplus 1,818,470 6,889,838 11,647,895 1,797,561 21,043,830
Source: [11, 17, 25, 26]

3.4. Farmers perception towards one-way water system technology

Water management is one of the keys to the success of farming in tidal swamps field. For tidal land overflow
type C, the availability of water in the dry season is badly needed, while in land types A and B, the
availability of water during the rainy season needs to be managed to avoid flooding. Water that smoothly
enters and leaves the fields will wash out the toxic materials for plants. In this research activity carried out
the application of one-way water system, namely water management that regulates water intake through the
inlet door and water discharge through the outlet door. In order for the system to run properly, the
conservation "tabat" system (SISTAK), which is a floodgate model that combines a swing door that is used
at high tide and a stoplog door that is used to hold water at low tide, is installed in the outlet channel. In
tidal swampland, water management should be accommodated by water user farmer groups or P3A groups.
In Sidomulyo Village there is Kencana Tirta Makmur, a P3A organization, which has the management
structure of a chairman, treasurer and secretary. The P3A institution Kencana Tirta Makmur has not been
functioning. The P3A group needs to be activated because water management problem is a major problem
in rice farming. Water regulation is not only to reduce or increase surface water availability but also to
reduce soil acidity, prevent salinity, and wash out toxic substances that accumulate in the root zone [13].
According to WA Yusuf [27], one-way water management compared to two-way flow systems can increase
yields of 46% in the dry season and 55% in the rainy season.
The perception of cooperative farmers about a one-way water system with variable relative benefits,
suitability to farmer needs, ease of implementation, possibility to try, and possibility to be observed is very
positive. Respondents' perceptions of water management technology are very positive because they get

7
1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

higher yields and income by using a one-way water system compared to using rice technology with the two-
way water system they previously used. The technology recommended is relatively simple, as needed, and
not complicated, easy to understand, and easy to try with little risk. Therefore, respondents put suitability to
their needs and ease of testing with a small risk, each of which has the highest value, namely 4.67, then the
second place is relative advantage, and third is ease of implementation. The existence of a common
perception among farmers allows good communication among farmers. Farmers' perceptions of a
technology are determined by technological characteristics and individual personal characteristics [28]. The
characteristics of the technology have relevance to the habits of society, then applying and the benefits
obtained. Soekartawi [29] emphasizes this with his statement that agricultural technology innovation will
be quickly accepted if it is more profitable, in accordance with the habits and needs of farmers, easy to
understand, allows it to be tried with less risk and is easily observed and felt.
The complete farmer's perception of the one-way water system technology in Sidomulyo Village,
Tamban Catur District is presented in table 7.

Table 7. Average score of farmers' perceptions of one-way water systems in Sidomulyo Village, Tamban
Catur District, Kapuas Regency, Dry Season 2020.
No. Technology Characteristics Average score of perception Category
1. Relative advantages of micro water
4.62 Very positive
management technology
2. Compliance with farmers' needs 4.67 Very positive
3. Ease to implement 4.56 Very positive
4. Possibility to try 4.67 Very positive
5. Possibility to be observed 4.53 Very positive
Information: 1,0 to 1,8 = very negative, > 1,8 to 2,6 = negative, > 2,6 to 3,4 = doubtful, > 3,4 to 4,2 = positive, and >
4,2 to 5 = very positive. Source: Primary Data.

4. Conclusions
Panca kelola technology on tidal fields resulting in rice productivity of 268.9% higher for cooperator
farmers than non-cooperator farmers. Economically, the rice-rice pattern is profitable and feasible to be
developed on a large scale as indicated by the MBCR value > 2. Cooperator farmer household income
compared to non-cooperator increased by IDR 20,363,987 household-1year-1 or 60.73%. The rate of increase
in household income of cooperator farmers (2015 to 2019) was higher (21.12% household-1year-1) than
expenditure (6.30% household-1year-1).
The farmer cooperator's perception of the introduced one-way water system technology is very positive,
so it is an internal supporting factor for farmers to increase the cropping index from once to twice a year.

References
[1] Wahyunto R S, Nugroho K, and Sarwani, M 2012 Inventarisasi dan pemetaan lahan gambut di
indonesia Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pengelolaan Lahan Gambut Berkelanjutan Bogor (in
Bahasa) (Bogor: Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian - Kementerian Pertanian)
[2] Balai Besar Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian 2014 Sumberdaya lahan pertanian indonesia: luas
penyebaran dan potensi ketersediaan (in Bahasa) (Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan
Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian - Badan Litbang Pertanian) p 62

8
1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

[3] Hidayat T, Panjaitan N K, Dharmawan A H, Wahyu M T, and Felix S Kontestasi sains dengan
pengetahuan lokal petani dalam pengelolaan lahan rawa pasang surut (in Bahasa) Jurnal
Transdisiplin Sosiologi, Komunikasi dan Ekologi Manusia 4 (1) 1-16
[4] Haryono 2013 Strategi dan kebijakan kementerian pertanian dalam optimalisasi lahan sub-optimal
mendukung ketahanan pangan nasional (in Bahasa) In: Herlinda et al (eds.) Prosiding Seminar
Nasional Lahan Sub Optimal (Palembang) p 11
[5] Balittra 2011 Setengah abad balittra: rawa lumbung pangan menghadapi perubahan iklim (in
Bahasa) (Balittra) p 75
[6] Useng D 2013 Accounting for risk of using shallow ground water forsecondary crops on lowland
paddy fields in Indonesia Lowland Technology Int. 15 (1) 29-37
[7] Masganti 2013 Teknologi inovatif pengelolaan lahan sub-optimal gambut dan sulfat masam untuk
peningkatan produksi tanaman pangan (in Bahasa) Pengembangan Inovasi Pertanian 6(4) 87-97
[8] Masganti and Yuliani N 2009 Arah dan strategi pemanfaatan lahan gambut di Kota Palangka Raya
(in Bahasa) Agripura 4 (5) 58-71
[9] Suriadikarta 2005 Pengelolaan lahan sulfat masam untuk usaha pertanian (in Bahasa) Jurnal Litbang
Pertanian 24 (1) 36-45
[10] Rina Y, Noorginayuwati, and Subagio H 2014 Aspek sosial ekonomi pada budidaya padi di lahan
pasang surut (in Bahasa) In: Nursyamsi D et al (eds.) Teknologi Inovasi Lahan Rawa Pasang Surut
Mendukung Kedaulatan Pangan Nasional (IAARD PRESS) pp 275 - 99
[11] Subagio H and Darsani Y R 2016 Status kelembagaan dan sistem usaha tani di lahan rawa pasang
surut (kasus desa sidomulyo kecamatan tamban catur kabupaten kapuas) (in Bahasa) Prosiding
Seminar Nasional Inovasi Teknologi Pertanian Spesifik Lokasi: Inovasi Pertanian Spesifik Lokasi
Mendukung Kedaulatan Pangan Berkelanjutan (Banjarbaru: Balai Besar Pengkajian dan
Pengembangan Teknologi Pertanian - Badan Litbang Pertanian) p 9
[12] Hutapea Y and Raharjo 2016 Distribusi pendapatan dan kemiskinan rumah tangga petani di wilayah
pasang surut (kasus di desa saleh mukti kecamatan air salek kabupaten banyuasin sumatera
selatan) (in Bahasa) Prosiding Seminar Nasional Lahan Suboptimal (Palembang: Pusat Unggulan
Riset Pengembangan Lahan Suboptimal (PUR-PLSO) UNSRI) pp 52-62
[13] Susilawati A, Wahyudi and Minsyah N 2017 Pengembangan teknologi untuk pengelolaan lahan rawa
pasang surut berkelanjutan (in Bahasa) Jurnal Lahan Suboptimal 6 (1) 87-94
[14] Suryana A, Lekir A D, and B Irawan 1982 Faktor agro ekonomis dan sosial yang mempengaruhi
kualitas intensifikasi usahatani padi sawah (in Bahasa) Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi 1 (1)
(Pusat Sosial Ekonomi)
[15] Noorginayuwati and Anwar K 2015 Tingkat adopsi komponen teknologi usahatani padi melalui sl-
ptt di lahan rawa lebak tengahan (kasus di kabupaten hulu sungai selatan dan hulu sungai tengah)
(in Bahasa) Jurnal Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Teknologi Pertanian 18 (1) 57-66
[16] Haryono, Subagyono K, and Sunandar N 2012 Role and strategy of agricultural research and
development in increasing production and productivity of food In: Muahaemin M et al (eds.) Proc.
of the Nat. Sem. on Food Self-Reliance 2012”Increasing Competitiveness and Added Value of
Local Recource-Based Agricultural Product” (Collaboration with the Faculty of Industrial
Technology UNPAD with West Java BPTO and The Regional Research Council of West Java)
[17] Subagio H 2019 Evaluasi penerapan teknologi intensifikasi budidaya padi di lahan rawa pasang surut
(in Bahasa) Jurnal PANGAN 28 (2) 95-108 https://doi.org/10.33964/jp.v28i2.438
[18] Suharyanto and Kariada IK 2011 Kajian adopsi penerapan teknologi pupuk organik kascing di daerah
sentra produksi sayuran kabupaten tabanan (in Bahasa) Jurnal Pengkajian dan Pengembangan
Teknologi Pertanian 14 (1) 28-39
[19] Soekartawi 2016 Analisis usahatani (in Bahasa) (Jakarta: UI PRESS) p 110

9
1st International Conference on Sustainable Tropical Land Management IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 648 (2021) 012045 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012045

[20] Rina Y D and H Subagio 2016 Usahatani di Lahan Rawa: Analisis ekonomi dan aplikasinya (in
Bahasa) In: Fatah L and Noor M (eds.) (Yogyakarta: IAARD PRESS) p 240
[21] Markus A, Siswanto A B and Subandiono R E 2009 Properties of organic and acid sulphate soils and
water of reclaimed tidal backswamps in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia Geoderma 149 54-65
[22] Yusuf W A, Purwanto B H, and Shiddiq D 2011 Pengaruh pemberian jerami padi dan purun tikus
pada berbagai tingkat dekomposisi terhadap konsentrasi besi dari tanah sulfat masam (in Bahasa)
Jurnal Tanah dan Iklim Edisi Khusus Rawa pp 25-32
[23] Subagio H, Annisa W, and Noor, M 2016 Model of tidal farming based on food crops and livestock
Balittra Research Result for Budget Year 2016 (Research and Development Center for
Agricultural Land Resources Swampland Agricultural Research Institute) p 48
[24] Rina Y D and Wahida A Y 2019 Innovation of rice culture with “five management technology of
land” on acid sulphate soil: a case study in Kapuas, Central Kalimantan Int. Sem. and Congress of
Indonesian Soil Science Society: Land Resource Management and Agriculture Innovations,
Towards Sustainable Enviroment and Food Security (Bandung: ISCO-ISS) p16
[25] Rina YD and Wahida A Y 2020 Management optimazation technology of acid sulphate tidal
swampland for improving farmers income (case study of Sidomulyo Village Tamban Catur
District Kapuas Sub-district) In: Sulaeman et al (eds.) Proc. Int. Tropical Wetlands-Innovation in
Mapping and Management (London: Taylor & Francis Group) pp 140-146
[26] WA Yusuf 2019 Model pengelolaan lahan dan tanaman terpadu ramah lingkungan di lahan pasang
surut sulfat masam (in Bahasa) Laporan Akhir Tahun Anggaran 2019
[27] WA Yusuf 2014 Peran bahan organik dan pengelolaan air terhadap kelarutan besi, emisi grk dan
produktivitas padi di lahan sulfat masam (in Bahasa) Dissertation (Yogyakarta: Fakultas Pertanian
- Universitas Gadjahmada)
[28] Hamidjojo SS 1980 Mempersiapkan masyarakat pedesaan untuk menerima teknologi baru (in
Bahasa) Dalam teoritis dan praktisi publisistik berbicara (Bandung: Padjadjaran University)
[29] Soekartawi 1988 Prinsip dasar komunikasi pertanian (in Bahasa) (Jakarta: UI PRESS)
[30] Soil Survey Staff 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Tenth Edition, 12th Edition. In Natural Resources
Conservation Service.

10