The effect of Kampung Unggul Balitbangtan (KUB) chicken innovation characteristics toward the development of farmers perceptions in South Sumatra

Abstract

This study aims to determine the effect of five variables characteristic of KUB chicken innovation, including relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability, on farmers’ perceptions in developing KUB chickens. It consists of four farmer groups in Cereme Taba Village, Lubuk Linggau City. The determination of the study location was taken purposively based on the consideration that Lubuk Linggau City was used for the development of KUB chickens. The study method used descriptive quantitative analysis to obtain 95 members of the farmer groups as respondents. Furthermore, the variables studied were the innovation characteristics and farmers’ perceptions measured by a mathematical model using the score category of each variable and the SIM (Successive Interval Method) program. The results showed that the farmers’ perceptions of the five variables were included in the agree category. It obtains positive support from respondents by looking at the advantages of implementing a technology package on the development of KUB chickens. From an environmental aspect, the development of KUB chickens can reduce household and market waste, especially vegetable waste used as a source of chicken feed. Waste reduction has a positive impact on environmentally friendly pollution.

Full text

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
The effect of Kampung Unggul Balitbangtan (KUB)
chicken innovation characteristics toward the
development of farmers perceptions in South
Sumatra
To cite this article: M Masito et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1001 012027
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
You may also like
Carcass percentage of male KUB-2 KK
chicken on different body weight
Komarudin, T Sartika, N Pratiwi et al.
-
Genotyping of Mx Gene Related to Avian
Influenza (AI) Using PCR-RFLP Analysis
on KUB Chicken
T Sartika, A A R Hapsari and Komarudin
-
Crossbred Local Chickens from East Nusa
Tenggara Province Indonesia Under Semi
Intensive Management System
N.G.A Mulyantini S.S and Ulrikus R Lole
-
This content was downloaded from IP address 119.13.208.188 on 01/02/2023 at 16:51

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
ICARELI-2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1001 (2022) 012027
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1001/1/012027
1
The effect of Kampung Unggul Balitbangtan (KUB) chicken
innovation characteristics toward the development of farmers
perceptions in South Sumatra
M Masito*, A R S Putra and S Andarwati
Department of Livestock Social Economics, Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas
Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia.
*E-mail: masito86@mail.ugm.ac.id
Abstract. This study aims to determine the effect of five variables characteristic of KUB chicken
innovation, including relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability, on
farmers' perceptions in developing KUB chickens. It consists of four farmer groups in Cereme Taba Village,
Lubuk Linggau City. The determination of the study location was taken purposively based on the
consideration that Lubuk Linggau City was used for the development of KUB chickens. The study method
used descriptive quantitative analysis to obtain 95 members of the farmer groups as respondents.
Furthermore, the variables studied were the innovation characteristics and farmers' perceptions measured by
a mathematical model using the score category of each variable and the SIM (Successive Interval Method)
program. The results showed that the farmers' perceptions of the five variables were included in the agree
category. It obtains positive support from respondents by looking at the advantages of implementing a
technology package on the development of KUB chickens. From an environmental aspect, the development
of KUB chickens can reduce household and market waste, especially vegetable waste used as a source of
chicken feed. Waste reduction has a positive impact on environmentally friendly pollution.
1. Introduction
Indonesia has a lot of poultry genetic resources that can still be optimized. One local chicken with
genetic variation and high adaptive power is the "Ayam Kampung Balitbangtan" (KUB chicken). KUB
chicken is one of the breeds of native chicken (Gallus-gallus domesticus) originating from Cianjur,
Depok, Majalengka, and Bogor areas, West Java Province. Furthermore, this KUB chicken results from
a selection of local breeds in West Java and DKI Jakarta for 6 generations and has received a Decree on
the Release from the Minister of Agriculture [1].
South Sumatra is one of the provinces with a population of native chickens, which has continually
increased in the last five years by 17.37% of the total national poultry population [2]. The increase shows
that the public's interest in developing native chickens is still relatively high. Subsequently, the demand
for local chicken continues to increase while production has not been able to keep up with. The demand
in urban areas with the increasing number of restaurants and households that consume local chicken as
a diversification for meat has resulted in the depletion and scarcity of local chicken seeds [3].
The KUB chicken selection criteria maximize egg production while minimizing brooding
characteristics. The average egg production reached 180 eggs/year, expected to produce large amounts
of DOC [4]. The selection until the third generation showed an increase in egg production which was
quite good from the original 54.32 eggs/head/six months to 89.10 eggs [5]. These results are different

ICARELI-2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1001 (2022) 012027
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1001/1/012027
2
from the average egg production of native chickens, which reached 20% (73 eggs per year per head) and
30% (110 eggs per year per head) in semi-intensive and intensive maintenance [6]. KUB chickens are
pure native chickens with the advantage of high egg production, which is 60% hen day with incubating
properties of 10% of the total population [7]. Furthermore, KUB chicken egg weighs 35-45 grams with
a feed conversion of 3.8. It is also a meat-producing chicken type and can reach a bodyweight of 1 kg
within 2.5 months in males [5].
A dissemination process is needed to develop and disseminate the advantages of the KUB chicken.
One of the dissemination programs is the development of KUB chickens in the province of South
Sumatra by introducing a technology package based on the study results. Lubuk Linggau City is one of
the locations for developing KUB chickens on a household scale involving four farmer groups in Cereme
Taba Village. Meanwhile, understanding technological innovation is crucial for increasing adoption and
improving the quality and quantity of livestock production. The adoption of innovation is a mental
process since the information is known and can be willingly accepted or rejected[8].
The study was conducted based on the assumption that farmers are still adopting the KUB chicken
technology package. Dissemination of technology through farmer groups is an effective way to
implement innovation. Therefore, farmer groups are expected to increase technology adoption and
innovation as an influencing variable [9]. The study results [10] stated that the weight of male KUB
chickens at the age of 1 week ranged from 34-63 g/head and will reach 487-1198 g/head, with an average
of 830.55 g at the age of 10 weeks. The results of an applied study in West Java reported that KUB
chickens can reach a bodyweight of 1.2-1.6 kg at the age of 70-90 days. After seven months of rearing
250 chickens, 636 eggs were produced, while the maintenance for ten weeks resulted in average weight
of 817 g/head [11]. Commercial feed had a significant effect on the bodyweight of KUB at 5, 8, and 11
weeks of age [12]. The highest increase in body weight was at the age of 6 weeks, mortality was 10-
13% at the age of 0-4 weeks, and 5% at the age above five weeks. The weight achieved by KUB chickens
with commercial feed at 70 days was 1.031±84 g.
The development of household-scale KUB chickens in Banten in 2018 showed that household waste
can supply animal feed. It increases nutritional adequacy, reduces household expenses, and hopes that
KUB chickens' development will be preserved [11]. Market waste derived from organic waste can save
on costs for animal feed supply. Waste from the market, mostly from vegetable and fruit waste used as
animal feed, is 48.3% [13]. The proximate analysis result shows that vegetable waste from traditional
markets has a crude protein and natural fibre content of 12.64–23.50% and 20.76– 29.18%. Market
vegetable waste included cabbage, caisim, cauliflower leaves, bean sprout skins, spinach, cabbage, corn
husks, kale leaves, cassava leaves, tomatoes, cucumbers, and chicory [14]. Vegetable waste is helpful
when the feed is obtained through processing. Zero waste is a concept that applies the 3 R (Reduce,
Reuse, Recycle) principles. The 3R concept is the basis to reduce and optimize waste production [15].
Central Java's community interest in developing KUB chicken is very high [11]. In 2019 KUB chickens
have spread to 33 of 35 cities, showing that they are in demand by the public and consumers even though
the availability of DOC is still limited. In developing KUB chickens based on farmer households in
Central Java, the Day Old Chick (DOC) assistance packages were provided, including box cages, feed,
vaccines, and other supporting medicines. Subseqsuently, technical guidance includes housing,
maintenance, feed, health, and institutional management before the farmer households receive the aid
package. To ensure the success of KUB chickens, the development, escort, and assistance of the
Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology (AIAT) Balitbangtan Central Java should be
continually conducted. Moreover, disease prevention efforts are carried out by utilizing livestock herbs,
ND vaccinations, and biosecurity. The application of correct feed technology, disease prevention, and
strengthening product marketing networks are strategies to develop KUB chickens in South Kalimantan
to provide new jobs and increase farmers' income [16].
Dissemination is directed at accelerating the utilization of the study results [ 1 7 ] . Innovation is
defined as an idea, practice, or object considered or perceived as new by an individual or group.
Expressions are considered or felt with an idea, practice, or object; therefore, everything depends on
how the individual or group feels [9]. Acceptance or rejection of innovation is a decision made by

ICARELI-2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1001 (2022) 012027
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1001/1/012027
3
a person or individual in accepting an innovation. Adoption is a mental process or behavior change, both
in the form of knowledge (cognitive), attitude (affective), and skills (psychomotor) in a person since he
knows the innovation until he decides to adopt it [18]. The adoption process occurs when a person hears a
new idea until he finally implements it (adopted) [19]. The recipient of the message that has the most
influence on accelerating the adoption of innovations is the characteristics of farmers or targets [ 20 ] .
Farmer characters influencing innovation adoption include age, gender, education, income, social status
[21]. Based on the background, it is necessary to conduct a study related to KUB chicken technology
innovations carried out by farmers in the Farmers Group, Cereme Taba Village, Lubuk Linggau City.
This study aimed to assess the effect of five characteristics of KUB chicken innovation on farmers' perceptions
of developing KUB chickens in Cereme Taba village, Lubuk Linggau City, including relative advantage and
compatibility complexity, trialability, and observability.
2. Materials and methods
The study location in Lubuk Linggau City consists of four farmer groups in Cereme Village. The
determination was taken purposively based on the consideration that Lubuk Linggau City was used to
develop KUB chickens on a household scale. The study method used descriptive quantitative analysis by
analyzing the independent and dependent variables' causal relationship. The variables studied were the
innovation characteristics and farmers' perception, measured by a mathematical model using the score
category of each variable and the SIM (Successive Interval Method) program. The study involved 95
members of the farmer group as respondents.
The study instrument was a questionnaire that has been tested for validity and reliability. The
questionnaire is composed of several questions and answers in a secure manner using a Likert scale. The
variables used to measure respondents' perceptions include the following: including relative advantages,
compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Furthermore, the data that has been
transformed into an interval scale were categorized, and the score achievement was analyzed as follows:
(Table 1).
Table 1. Categorization of perception.
No.
Variable
Score category
0-25
26-50
51-75
76-100
1.
Relative advantage
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Totally Agree
2.
Compatibility
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Totally Agree
3.
Complexity
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Totally Agree
4.
Trialability
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Totally Agree
5.
Observability
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Totally Agree
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characteristics of farmers
The farmer's age is 45.67±11.62 years; therefore, they belong to the productive age, which strongly
correlates with innovation adoption. It is simpler to absorb and use novel ideas in several aspects of life
at a productive age, most notably in meeting economic needs [8]. Additionally, productive age affects
one's physical ability to function optimally. The increasing age in the productive phase causes farmers
to increase production by being more willing to take risks, but with increasing age, farming efficiency
decreases [22].
The majority of respondents' formal education degrees were 10-12 years old. This indicates that the
average education level was high school (SMA). Table 1 shows that the formal education level of the
respondents is in the high category of 41.05%. Therefore, the farmer's resources were high, affecting
the ability to respond and implement innovation. Furthermore, the higher level of education, the more
rational the mindset and reasoning power, and it will be easier to change attitudes and behavior to be

ICARELI-2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1001 (2022) 012027
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1001/1/012027
4
more rational. Therefore, breeders who accept an innovation will undoubtedly be faster because of the
broader mindset [8].
Table 2. Characteristics of farmers.
Description
Percentage (%)
Average age of respondents (years)
45.67±11.62
Length of Education (years):
0-6
29.47
7-9
25.26
10-12
41.05
>12
4.21
Average experience of raising KUB chickens (years)
2.00±0.10
Average Number of family members (person):
0-2
33.68
3-5
65.26
>5
1.05
Livelihood:
Farmer
24.21
Entrepreneur
36.84
Trader
2.11
Worker
26.32
Other
5.26
Income:
<IDR. 1 millions/month
6.32
IDR. 1 - 2.5 millions/month
78.95
IDR. 2.5 - 4 millions/month
14.74
Source: (primary data analysis, 2021)
The average farmer's income is IDR. 1 million - 2.5 million every month (78.95%). This implies that
the income level was classified as moderate. This situation promotes farmers to add side jobs to increase
income. The income level will affect the farmer's decision to run the farm and affect the attitude in taking
risks [8].
The highest percentage of family members was 65.26%, ranging from 3-5 people in one family. The
number of family members affects the economic condition of the farmer. The more family members, the
greater the need, and this affects farmers in taking the risk of developing a livestock business. However,
the number was also the working capital in the family, which can help in the implementation of farming
[23].
Most of the respondents' types of livelihood are self-employed, workers and breeders. Entrepreneurs
and workers make up most of the respondents' main occupations, while farmers rank third. This was
related to the area of their home yard, which is relatively narrow; therefore, it is not possible to carry
out a livestock business on a larger scale.
3.2 Farmers' perception in KUB chicken development
The farmer's perception of the relative advantage in the development of KUB chickens was 67% or is
included in the agree category (Table 3). Therefore, farmers agree that benefits will be obtained when
KUB chickens are developed, especially from the economic side. This is because KUB chickens are easy
to market, have competitive prices, and increase household income. According to Rusdiana and
Soeharsono [24], a superior local chicken business with good professional management can increase the
economic value of farmers more optimally. Additionally, small farmers in rural areas can continue to
cultivate village chicken business, even though the scale of maintenance is still low. From the
information of group members, feces from KUB chickens were used as manure for ornamental plants in

ICARELI-2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1001 (2022) 012027
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1001/1/012027
5
their yard area, hence reducing the impact of environmental pollution.
Table 3. The farmer's perception of the relative advantage (X1).
No.
Component
Score
Category
Interval
Average
Achievement
rate (%)
1.
KUB chickens can be kept as laying hens
as well as broilers
1 - 2,60
1,69
65
Agree
2.
KUB chickens grow faster than ordinary
native chickens
1 – 4,05
2,78
69
Agree
3.
KUB chickens are more resistant to disease
than ordinary native chickens
1 – 4,31
2,96
69
Agree
4.
KUB chicken DOC is easy to get
1 – 4,50
2,90
64
Agree
5.
KUB chicken maintenance is relatively
easy
1 – 3,89
2,49
64
Agree
6.
The mortality rate of KUB chickens is
relatively low compared to ordinary native
chickens
1 – 4,90
3,40
69
Agree
7.
KUB chickens lay eggs faster than
ordinary native chickens
1 – 5,16
3,27
63
Agree
8.
KUB chickens lay their first eggs earlier
than native chickens (aged 5.5 – 6 months)
1 – 5,05
3,05
60
Agree
9.
KUB chickens lay more eggs than
ordinary native chickens (ranging from
130-160)
1 – 4,20
2,64
63
Agree
10.
KUB chicken is easy to market
1 – 4,89
3,65
75
Agree
11.
The selling price of KUB chicken can
compete with ordinary native chicken
1 – 4,94
3,65
74
Agree
12.
KUB Chicken can increase household
income
1 – 4,91
3,65
74
Agree
13.
The by-product of feces can be used as
compost
1 – 4,81
3,25
68
Agree
14.
By-products (feces/compost) can be sold
as additional income
1 – 5,03
3,13
62
Agree
Average
67
Agree
The farmer's perception of the compatibility variable in the development of KUB chickens was 67%
included in the agree category (Table 4). Therefore, the KUB chicken development technology package
follows the maintenance pattern as recommended. This is achieved by not leaving the original nature
and character of the KUB chicken as free-range. From the results of [25], intensively reared KUB
chickens showed normal behavior with the three highest activities in the morning, including eating
(10%), drinking (9.9%), and perching (9.2%). Therefore, it is recommended that the KUB chicken coop
be given a perch. Carcass characteristics, the breast of KUB chicken has high protein and fat content
compared to free-range, male, and purebred chickens, pale meat color, savory taste value (lower than
native chicken), and moderate tenderness [4]. Feed management and rearing can affect meat's nutritional
quality and physical properties. KUB chickens kept in cages showed more tender meat than ordinary
free-range exposed. Furthermore, the research results revealed that the forage provided by farmer groups
as an addition to KUB chicken comes from market waste as vegetable waste is freely collected. The
dominant type of vegetable selected is cabbage because it is not easily rotten compared to others..

ICARELI-2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1001 (2022) 012027
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1001/1/012027
6
Table 4. The farmer's perception of the compatibility (X2).
No.
Component
Score
Category
Interval
Average
Achievement
rate (%)
1.
KUB chicken has almost the same
characteristics as ordinary native chicken
1 – 4.91
3.41
69
Agree
2.
KUB chicken maintenance is relatively
easy because it is almost the same as
raising ordinary native chickens
1 – 5.30
3.40
64
Agree
3.
Intensive maintenance of KUB chickens
using a simple cage
1 – 4.65
2.96
64
Agree
4.
Raising KUB chickens requires a cage for
DOC and rearing
1 – 4.03
2.60
65
Agree
5.
KUB chickens need a perch just like
regular native chickens
1 – 4.74
3.25
69
Agree
6.
KUB chicken feed consists of a mixture of
several types of feed such as bran, corn,
and concentrate, which is readily
available in the neighborhood and feed
stores
1 – 4.71
3.25
69
Agree
7.
DOC feeding until the age of 1 month is
BR I (factory feed)
1 – 4.48
3.13
70
Agree
8.
Giving KUB chicken feed according to
the recommendations can increase growth
and development
1 – 4.53
3.40
75
Agree
9.
Forage is needed to distract chickens from
cannibalism (attacking each other) and
easy to get from the surrounding
environment
1 – 4.08
2.84
70
Agree
10.
Sugar water is vital to increase energy in
KUB chickens at the age of 1-7 days
1 – 4.21
2.64
63
Agree
11.
The taste of KUB chicken is similar to
ordinary free-range chicken. Although the
harvest age is younger
1 – 4.74
3.13
66
Agree
12.
The taste of KUB chicken eggs
resembles ordinary native chicken eggs
1 – 4.42
2.78
63
Agree
Average
67
Agree
The farmer's perception of the complex variable in maintaining KUB chickens was 72% or had an
agreeable category (Table 5). This means that respondents agree that the KUB chicken development
technology package requires good management, including equipment and infrastructure, KUB chicken
maintenance, biosecurity and disease prevention, and livestock health. These items are needed to
increase the results obtained as supported by the opinion of [16] that the strategy implemented in the
effort to develop KUB chickens in South Kalimantan prevents disease by utilizing livestock herbal
medicine, ND vaccination, and biosecurity. These include applying correct feed technology, preventing
disease, and strengthening product marketing networks to provide new jobs and increase farmers'
income.
The farmer's perception of the variable that can be tested (trialability) from KUB chickens was 68%
or had an agree category (Table 6). Therefore, respondents agree that the KUB chicken technology
package can be tested on other breeders with easy maintenance and livestock health facilities.

ICARELI-2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1001 (2022) 012027
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1001/1/012027
7
Table 5. The farmer's perception of the complexity (X3).
No.
Component
Score
Category
Interval
Average
Achievement
Rate (%)
1.
The essential equipment needed for DOC
maintenance (1-7 days old) is a heater or
lamp
1 – 2.63
1.55
59
Agree
2.
Feeding according to the
recommendations can increase the
growth and development of KUB
chickens
1 – 4.05
3.04
75
Agree
3.
Spraying of disinfectant in the cage is
carried out at least once a week
1 – 4.43
3.40
77
Totally
Agree
4.
As an effort to prevent disease, it is
done through vaccination
1 – 3.92
2.90
74
Agree
5.
Initial vaccination is given to KUB
chickens at the age of 1-3 days through
eye drops called ND IB vaccine
1 – 4.31
3.25
75
Agree
6.
KUB chickens need vitamins and
medicines for their health
1 – 4.33
3.25
75
Agree
7.
KUB chicken rearing facilities and
infrastructure are easy to obtain (feed,
feed, and drink containers and
medicines) at the nearest Location
1 – 4.15
2.84
68
Agree
8.
Giving forage to KUB chickens is very
useful to reduce the nature of
cannibalism
1 -3.73
2.64
71
Agree
Average
72
Agree
Table 6. The farmer's perception of the trialability (X4).
No.
Component
Score
Category
Interval
Average
Achievement
Rate (%)
1.
Ease of getting KUB chicken feed at the
nearest location
1 – 4.84
3.65
75
Agree
2.
Ease of getting a place to feed and drink
for KUB chicken maintenance at the
nearest location
1 – 4.07
2.90
71
Agree
3.
Ease of obtaining medicines at the
nearest location
1 – 3.73
2.50
67
Agree
4.
KUB chicken maintenance is relatively
easy
1 – 3.82
2.53
66
Agree
5.
A maintenance system with a caged
model is easy to implement
1 – 4.89
3.65
75
Agree
6.
The process of giving vitamins is easy
1 – 4.22
2.73
65
Agree
7.
Ease of health facilities from veterinarians
1 – 4.02
2.29
57
Agree
8.
Provision of additional forage is easy to
do
1 – 3.91
2.56
65
Agree
Average
68
Agree

ICARELI-2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1001 (2022) 012027
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1001/1/012027
8
The farmer's perception of the observability variable in the maintenance of KUB chickens was 66%
or had an agreeable category (Table 7). Therefore, respondents agree that the KUB chicken
development technology package was easy to observe, starting with the growth rate supported by
adequated feeding and the health condition when the weather changes to create prevention efforts before
disease attacks.
Table 7. The farmer's perception of the observability (X5).
No.
Component
Score
Category
Interval
Average
Achievement
Rate (%)
1.
Farmers can distinguish between healthy
and sick cattle
1 – 4.33
2.96
68
Agree
2.
Early indications of livestock getting sick
can be observed significantly when the
weather changes
1 – 4.16
2.73
66
Agree
3.
KUB chicken growth rate is easy to
monitor
1 – 4.21
2.64
63
Agree
4.
The level of adequacy of feed can be seen
from the highs and lows of cannibalism
(attacking each other)
1 – 3.95
2.69
68
Agree
Average
66
Agree
4. Conclusions
The results showed that the farmer's perception of the five variables was included in the agree category
to obtain positive support by looking at the advantages of implementing a technology package on the
development of KUB chickens in Lubuk Linggau city. Furthermore, the development also positively
impacted the reduction of vegetable waste in the market because it can be used as an additional animal
feed. This indicates KUB chicken farmers in this region implemented the 3R principle (Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle) and zero-waste concept.
References
[1] Multida I, Sari M, Nurlita S and Sudrajat 2019 Jurnal Agroekoteknologi dan Agribisnis 3 1
[2] BPS 2020 Populasi Unggas Provinsi. Sumatera Selatan 2020 (Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik)
[3] Suprijatna E 2010 Sem. Nas. Unggas Lokal ke IV (Semarang: Indonesia)
[4] Hidayah R, Ambarsari I and Subiharta S 2019 Indonesian J. Anim. Sci. 21 93
[5] Silalahi M, Haevrizen R and Panjaitan I 2019 Pros. Nas. Pengembangan Teknologi Pertanian
(Lampung: Indonesia) p 1
[6] Iskandar S 2010 Usahatani Ayam Kampung (Bogor: Balai Penelitian Ternak Ciawi)
[7] Subiharta and Prabowo A 2020 Seminar Nasional Kesiapan Sumber Daya Pertanian dan Inovasi
Spesifik Lokasi Memasuki era Indonesia 4.0 (Semarang: Indonesia) p 220
[8] Prasetyo A F, Nurkholis and Suryadi U 2017 Jurnal Ilmiah Inovasi 17 62
[9] Ahmad Y 2016 Pengaruh Karakteristik Inovasi Pertanian Terhadap Keputusan Adopsi Usaha Tani
Sayuran Organik Agroscience 6 1
[10] Sartika T 2016 Panen Ayam Kampung 70 Hari (Jakarta: Penebar Swadaya)
[11] Munir I M, Haryani D, Alfarizi A M, Malik R J and Putri M S 2019 Pengembangan Ayam Kampung
Unggul Berbasis Rumah Tangga 2018 di Provinsi Banten (Serang: Balai Pengkajian Teknologi
Pertanian Banten)
[12] Hasyim A R, Alwiyah, Rahma F F, Ramija El K, Khairiah and Yusriani Y 2020 E-Pros. Sem. Nas.
Ilmu Peternakan Terapan (Jember: Indoensia) p 103
[13] Muktiani A, Achmadi J, Tampoebolon B I M and Setyorini R 2013 Jurnal Inovasi Teknologi

ICARELI-2021
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1001 (2022) 012027
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1001/1/012027
9
Pendidikan 2 144
[14] Rahayu A and Perdana A S 2018 Pros. Sem. Teknologi dan Agribisnis Peternak. VI Fakultas
Peternakan UNSOED vol 6 (Purwokerto: Indonesia) p110
[15] Affandy N A, Isnaini E and Yulianti C H 2015 Sem. Nas. Sains dan Teknologi Terapan Vol 3
(Surabaya: Indonesia) p 814
[16] Suryana 2017 Wartazoa 27 45
[17] Mashur, Hunaepi, Oktaviana D, Kholik, Tirtasari K and Jannah M 2020 The 2nd Nat. Conf. on
Education, Social Science, and Humaniora Vol 2 (Mataram: Indonesia) p13
[18] Hendayana R 2016 Persepsi dan Adopsi Teknologi (Bogor: IAARD Press)
[19] Rogers E M 2003 Diffusion of Innovations Fifth Edition (New York: Free Press)
[20] Gayatri S and Vaarst M 2020 J. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric. 45 58
[21] Amin M 2014 Informatika Pertanian 23 211
[22] Wahyuningrum R D and Gunawan N 2016 Informatika Pertanian 25 61
[23] Sahara D, Kurniaty E, Basuki S and Hermawan A 2019 Jurnal Pangan 28 121
[24] Rusdiana S and Soeharsono S 2019 Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu-Ilmu Peternakan 22 73
[25] Wardi W, Ishak A B L and Dewi M 2019 T Jurnal Peternakan 16 49