192 J. Indonesian Trop. Anim. Agric. 47(3):192-203, September 2022 J I T A A Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture Accredited by Ditjen Riset, Teknologi dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat No. 164/E/KPT/2021 J. Indonesian Trop. Anim. Agric. pISSN 2087-8273 eISSN 2460-6278 http://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/jitaa 47(3):192-203, September 2022 DOI: 10.14710/jitaa.47.3.192-203 Comparative analysis of technical efficiency of piglet farming in three production center provinces in Indonesia H. Harianto 1 and E. N. Keraru 2* 1 Department of Agribusiness, Faculty of Economics and Management, IPB University 2 Department of Socioeconomics of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture and Animal Science, Universitas Katolik Indonesia St. Paulus Ruteng *Corresponding e-mail: keraruesternurani@yahoo.com Received March 5, 2022, Accepted July 13, 2022 ABSTRACT Pork production occupies the third position in Indonesia, after chicken and beef. Even pigs occupy the top rank in contributing to Indonesia's live animal exports. The purpose of this study was to com- pare the level of technical efficiency of smallholder piglet production farming in three centers of pig production areas, namely North Sumatra, Bali, and East Nusa Tenggara (NTT). The research data was sourced from secondary data at the farm level, collected by the Central Statistics Agency of Indonesia, through the Livestock Business Household Survey. This research utilized the stochastic production frontier model to assess the production efficiency and the one-step maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) method to measure the level of technical efficiency and the significance of the factors. The re- sults show that the average level of technical efficiency of piglet production farms in Indonesia is rela- tively low. Piglet production farms in Bali have the highest efficiency level and NTT is the lowest of the three provinces being compared. The number of pigs, feed expenditure, capital, and vaccinations are important factors in influencing production and the level of technical efficiency. Public policies that can increase farmers' access to production factors and better pig farm vaccine management become a necessity. Keywords: Bali, Household survey, Stochastic production frontier, Vaccination INTRODUCTION The majority of Indonesia's population are adherents of Islam. For Muslims, pork and its various derivative products are forbidden for consumption. However, based on data from Livestock and Health Animal Statistics of Indo- nesia (LHASI) in 2020, it could be seen that pig farming is an important livestock business. Pork production occupies the third position after chicken and beef. The share of pork production was 5.2% of the total meat production in 2020 which is 4.6 million tons. Meanwhile, the share of chicken and beef at the same year were 79.3% and 11.0% respectively. National pork produc- tion is supported by the pig population which is Piglet Farming in Indonesia (H. Harianto and E. N. Keraru) 193 increasing every year with a national average growth in 2014 to 2020 of 2.58%. The growth of Indonesia's pig population is higher than other countries such as China 1.70%, Vietnam -0.89%, or the Philippines -0.17% (Nga et al., 2014). Pig farming is also the mainstay of Indonesia's live- stock exports. Live animal exports were domi- nated by pigs, with a share of 99.1% of total live cattle exports in 2019. On the other hand, live animal imports were dominated by cattle, which amounted to 94.3% of total live animal imports. Basically, the pig farming industry in Indo- nesia is centered in three regions, namely North Sumatra, Bali, and East Nusa Tenggara (NTT). Based on Livestock in Figures 2020 published by the Central Agency of Statistics of Indonesia (BPS), the three regions accounted for 66.2% of the total domestic pig production. The share of swine production in North Sumatra, Bali, and NTT were 16.7%, 30.0%, and 19.5%, respective- ly, of the total pig production in Indonesia, with the rest spread over 21 other regions (provinces). Although pigs produce is the mainstay of livestock exports in Indonesia, the structure of pig agribusiness is still considered to be relative- ly unequal. The development of pig farming is not supported by developments in the down- stream industry, especially livestock that specifi- cally produces and provides piglets. Based on a household survey of livestock business in 2014 conducted by BPS, there are only 0.8% of pig farms that specialize in producing piglets. More than 52.8% of small-scale pig farmers use pig seeds that come from the piglets they raise, and not from purchases. In general, domestic pig farming businesses still have subsistence charac- teristics in the production factors they use (Keraru et al., 2021). In the future it is neces- sary to have better quality pig breeds so that pig agribusiness in Indonesia will be more competi- tive. Therefore, it is necessary to study the effi- ciency level of the piglet industry on a small- holder farm scale. If the efficiency level is still low, then the performance can be improved by increasing the efficiency to get closer to the fron- tier. On the other hand, if the piglet industry is already efficient, it is necessary to has a techno- logical breakthrough to improve the performance of the piglet industry at small holder farm scale. Various studies on pig farms generally dis- cuss the characteristics and performance of grower-finisher pig farming (Dedecker et al., 2005; Galanopoulos et al., 2006; Aminu and Akhigbe-Ahonkhai, 2017). Likewise, research that utilizes the stochastic production frontier model in assessing the performance of piglet pro- duction farms, has not been widely carried out (Sharma et al., 1997; Lansink and Reinhard, 2004; Umeh et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2021). The objective of this study is to analyze and compare the level of technical efficiency of piglet production farms in three production centers in Indonesia, namely North Sumatra, Bali and NTT. As far as the best au- thors knowledge, no one has specifically dis- cussed the level of technical efficiency of piglet production farms, namely farms that only raises breeding pigs to produce piglets, at the house- hold level. Moreover, there has never been a comparison of the technical efficiency of pig farming in Bali, NTT, and North Sumatra. One of the main obstacles to assessing the technical efficiency of piglet production farms is the diffi- culty of obtaining sufficient research samples, especially cross section data that is suitable for analysis using the regression method. Less than 1 percent of the total smallholder pig farms in In- donesia that produce piglet are entirely dedicated to selling to the market. In the field, the charac- teristics of farms that produce piglet entirely sold to the market are also difficult to distinguish from those that produce piglets for their own use in the process of fattening pigs. The Livestock Census, which is the source of the data for this research, is an invaluable source of information to obtain an adequate number of observations for farms with a relatively small population in Indo- nesia. This research is based on the idea that pig- let breeding is an important factor that deter- mines the development of a pig farming business in an area. Thus, the knowledge of the technical efficiency of piglet breeding business is needed to be able to formulate appropriate public poli- cies. 194 J. Indonesian Trop. Anim. Agric. 47(3):192-203, September 2022 MATERIALS AND METHODS Source of Data The data used in this study is part of the lat- est Livestock Farms Household Survey (ST2013- STU). This study covers pig farms throughout Indonesia using samples from 20 provinces. The number of samples in the Livestock Business Household Survey is 6,738 pig farms on a house- hold scale, and from the total number of samples there are only 57 farms who are categorized as piglet production nursery. The sample used in this study was dominated by piglet production farming from North Sumatra 28.01%; East Nusa Tenggara 27.86%; and Bali 21.42%. These three provinces have contributed more than 77% of the total sample. The household of piglet production farming selected as a sample must use a cage, because it allows a more accurate calculation of the relationship between input and output of pig farming. Empirical Model and Method of Estimation Research on the technical efficiency of farm- ing using the stochastic production frontier (SPF) model has been widely carried out in various countries. The SPF model used is based on the thoughts of (Aigner et al., 1977). The SPF esti- mation adopted is based on the ideas presented by (Jondrow et al., 1982), namely through the vari- ance decomposition model. In this study, ineffi- ciency effect was formulated using the model suggested by (Battese and Coelli, 1995). There are two production function models that are commonly used in stochastic production frontier research, namely the Cobb-Douglas mod- el and the Translog model. Based on the results of a survey of several major SPF studies using SPF, the Cobb-Douglas production function mod- el is the most widely used (Meeusen and van Den Broeck, 1977; Ahmad and Bravo-Ureta, 1996; Coelli and Battese, 1996; Tabe-Ojong and Molua, 2017; Mwangi et al., 2020). In this study the Cobb-Douglas production function was deliber- ately chosen. There are two main reasons for us- ing the Cobb-Douglas model in this study. First, the Cobb-Douglas production function requires a relatively small number of samples to obtain a degree of freedom equivalent to the Translog model. With the limited number of samples of piglet-producing farms obtained in the livestock national survey, which was only 57 samples, the Cobb-Douglas model became a more appropriate model. Second, the Translog model has a greater chance to violate the regression assumption, namely the existence of a high multicollinearity phenomenon among its independent variables, which is indicated by a high VIF value (Hair et al., 2010). The specification of Cobb-Douglas stochas- tic production frontier function employed in this study are as follow: Description: Where, vi is a random component which is as- sumed to be independently identically distributed (iid). ui is a random variable that represents the effect of technical inefficiency in production. i is i th household of piglet production farm. The effi- ciency effect (ui) model used in this study em- ployed the form function specification as sug- gested by Battese and Coelli (1995), which is ln π‘Œπ‘– = ln 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ln 𝑋1𝑖 + 𝛽2 ln 𝑋2𝑖 + 𝛽3 ln 𝑋3𝑖 + 𝛽4 ln 𝑋4𝑖 +𝛽5𝑋5𝑖 + 𝑣𝑖 βˆ’ 𝑒𝑖 Yi = the production value, namely the accumulation of livestock added value (IDR000) X1= quantity of pig cultivated (head) X2= quantity of labor (man days) X3= quantity of feed (kg) X4= capital, namely fuel, electricity, water; maintenance of livestock health; other expenses (IDR000) X5= dummy pig origin (=1 if own pro- duction, =0 if otherwise) Ξ²0 to Ξ²5 > 0 = coefficient of regression vi - ui = error term Piglet Farming in Indonesia (H. Harianto and E. N. Keraru) 195 empirically expressed in the following equation: Description: Pig farmers produce piglets that were not stand- ardized, and the production benefits received from the production process in on-farm were determined not only in units of tails or kilograms but also by looking at non-measurable quality of the piglets they produce. Therefore, the produc- tion function model used in this study did not use tails or kilograms but uses a value-added measure. If the units used are physical (tails or kilograms), then the model cannot capture the dimensions of quality in the product, so the re- sults of production function became biased. The value-added measure as a representa- tion of output can capture the dimensions of quantity and quality of a product. Value added is also more suitable to represent output in farm- ing where the harvest is not done at one time, such as harvesting corn or rice farming. Harvest- ing in piglets is not done at the same time but is harvested when the farmer needs cash or when it is deemed that the piglets are on time for sale. The stochastic production frontier function that did not use physical measurements for the rela- tionship between output and input in pig farming had also been carried out by Etim et al. (2022) and Jabbar and Akter (2008). The stochastic frontier production function model does not have to be in the form of physical input-output rela- tionship. It is possible that the input-output rela- tionship represented by measurement of output and input in money value terms (Tenaye, 2020). The estimation of the SPF model using the Cobb-Douglas production function above was carried out using the maximum likelihood esti- mation (MLE) approach without rejecting the assumption of heteroscedasticity, and the analy- sis was done with the help of the STATA 13 pro- gram (Wang and Schmidt, 2002; Belotti et al., 2013; Tian et al., 2015). This study applied a single-stage MLE ap- proach which it allows simultaneous estimation of the frontier production function and technical inefficiency model parameters and is free from high bias (Coelli et al., 2005). The SPF model has been widely used in research related to pig farming as in Adetunji and Adeyemo (2012); Tian et al.(2015); and Aminu and Akhigbe- Ahonkhai (2017). The SPF model specification test is carried ln π‘Œπ‘– = ln 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ln 𝑋1𝑖 + 𝛽2 ln 𝑋2𝑖 + 𝛽3 ln 𝑋3𝑖 + 𝛽4 ln 𝑋4𝑖 +𝛽5𝑋5𝑖 + 𝑣𝑖 βˆ’ 𝑒𝑖 𝑒𝑖 = 𝛿0 + 𝛿1𝑍1𝑖 + 𝛿2𝑍2𝑖 + 𝛿3𝑍3𝑖 + 𝛿4𝑍4𝑖 + 𝛿5𝑍5𝑖 + 𝛿6𝑍6𝑖 + 𝛿7𝑍7𝑖 + 𝛿8𝑍8𝑖 + 𝛿9𝑍9𝑖 + 𝛿10 𝑍10𝑖 + 𝛿11 𝑍11𝑖 + 𝛿12 𝑍12𝑖 + 𝛿13 𝑍13𝑖 ui= the effect of technical inefficiency of i th piglet production farm Z1= age of head of household (year) Z2= number of household members (person) Z3= formal education of household head (year) Z4= dummy gender of household head (1=man, 0=otherwise) Z5= dummy farming experience (1= more than 10 years, 0= otherwise) Z6= dummy feed area (1= available, 0= oth- erwise) Z7= dummy vaccination (1=yes, 0=no) Z8= dummy feed combination (1=forage+factory feed+industrial waste; 0=otherwise) Z9= dummy access to finance (1=yes, 0=no) Z10= dummy access to extension (1=yes, 0=no) Z11= dummy member of cooperative (1=yes, 0=no) Z12= dummy market orientation (1=yes, 0=no) Z13= dummy province (1=North Sumatra, Bali; NTT, 0=otherwise) 196 J. Indonesian Trop. Anim. Agric. 47(3):192-203, September 2022 out by testing two hypotheses using the likeli- hood ratio (LR) test, as follows: The first hypothesis examines the existence of an inefficiency component of the total error term of the stochastic production function. In the first hypothesis test, L(H0) is the log likelihood value of the generalized linear model (GLM) and L(H1) is the log likelihood value of the Stochastic Frontier (SF). The second hypothesis tests that each explanatory variable in the inefficiency ef- fect model has an influence on the level of ineffi- ciency in the production process. In the second hypothesis test, L(H0) is the log likelihood value of the SF model without explanatory variables for the inefficiency effect model and L(H1) is the complete SF model with all explanatory varia- bles for the inefficiency effect model. The calcu- lated test statistic should be compared with the critical value of the mixed Chi-square distribu- tion proposed by Kodde and Palm (1986). The null hypothesis is rejected if the LR test value is greater than the mixed Chi-square distribution at the 1% probability level. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Performance of the Piglet Production Farming Based on research samples, it can be said that piglet production is a small-scale farming business. The average number of pigs cultivated in one period is 15 pigs, consisting of 6 males and 9 females. Smallholder pig farming with the number of pigs below 50 heads is a business that is commonly found in many developing coun- tries (Adetunji and Adeyemo, 2012; Than- apongtharm et al., 2016). The average feed con- sumption per head per period is 343 kg. The composition of feed comes from various sources, namely factory waste (39%), forage (17%), fac- tory feed (14%), agricultural waste (12%), household waste (6%), and others (12%). Based on the composition of the feed sources, the piglet production farm relies on vari- ous types of waste as its feed source, which is 57%. In contrast, the content of feed from feed mills is only 12%. This can be an indication that the nature of subsistence in piglet farming is still relatively high, especially from the aspect of providing production inputs. Research Pheng- savanh et al. (2010) in Northern Lao, Mekuriaw and Asmare (2014) in Northwestern Ethiopia, Leslie et al. (2015) in Indonesia, Nantima et al. (2015) along the Uganda-Kenya border, and Le- kule and Kyvsgaard (2003) in resource-poor tropical areas of Africa, also found important sources of pig food originating from the sur- rounding environment and from agricultural and industrial waste or by-products. The amount of feed per head per period in Indonesia is relatively less than pig farm in other country, which daily feed intake ranging from 1.8 kg – 2.5 kg (Pierozan et al., 2016). The optimum amount and 𝐿𝑅 = βˆ’2[ln 𝐿 𝐻0 / ln {𝐿 𝐻1 }] = βˆ’2[ln 𝐿 𝐻0 βˆ’ 𝑙𝑛{𝐿 𝐻1 }] Table 1. Cost Structure and Profitability in Piglet Production Farming of the Three Provinces in Indonesia per Pig Head Managed per Period Description North Sumatra Bali NTT IDR % IDR % IDR % A. Variable Cost 1,426.74 1,057.79 474.36 Labor 560.57 38.55 250.72 21.95 179.49 33.81 Feed 796.49 54.77 760.44 66.58 232.73 43.84 Capital 69.68 4.79 46.63 4.08 62.15 11.71 B. Fixed Cost* 27.55 1.89 84.40 7.39 56.53 10.65 C. Total Cost (A+B) 1,454.29 100 1,142.19 100 530.89 100 D. Revenue (Value Added) 2,717.39 - 1,588.82 - 1,510.00 - E. Profit (D-C) 1,263.10 446.63 979.11 IDR in β€˜000’. *With the following detail: fuel, electricity, water; maintenance of livestock health; other expenses. **With the following details: capital goods improvements; land lease; rent on stables, buildings, machinery, and tools; tax and levies; interest on loans. Piglet Farming in Indonesia (H. Harianto and E. N. Keraru) 197 composition of feed depends on the age, body weight, and breed of the pig, and the manage- ment of the pig's feed (Njoku et al., 2013; Pa- tience et al., 2015; Colpoys et al., 2016). Based on research data, feed and labor were the dominant production factors in the cost struc- ture of piglet farming (Table 1). Piglet farming in North Sumatra employed more feed and labor than farms in Bali and East Nusa Tenggara. The share of the use of inputs other than feed and labor, namely capital, was largest in piglet farm- ing in East Nusa Tenggara. However, piglet farming in North Sumatra provided the highest added value and profit compared to piglet farm- ing in the other two provinces. Technical Efficiency of Piglet Production Farming Based on the results of the likelihood ratio test on the SPF model used, it can be seen that there is an inefficiency effect in the model. This inefficiency effect is influenced by various fac- tors, and this is also evident from the results of the likelihood ratio test obtained. Table 2 pre- sents the results of the specification test on the Cobb-Douglas SPF model along with the factors that affect the inefficiency. The estimation results of the SPF in Table 3 show that only labor inputs show no significant effect on production. By using primary data from a household-scale pig farming survey in Nigeria, the research of Umeh et al. (2015) found a posi- tive effect of labor and feed on the level of pro- duction. However, the results of their research did not find a real effect of capital input on the level of production. On the other hand, this study found that capital has a significant positive effect on the level of piglet production farming. In the SPF function to control the influence of seed sources, a dummy variable equal to 1 was included if the pigs that were cultivated come from own farming products and were equal to zero if others. The estimation results show that the origin of the pigs raised from the farm itself has a positive influence on the level of produc- tion. It seems that pigs that come from own live- Table 2. Hypothesis Test for SPF Specification in Piglet Production Farming Description Results No inefficiency effect; H0: 𝛾 = 0 LR Test 33.843 Mixed Chi-square 5.412 Decision Reject H0 Coefficient of inefficiency factors; H0: 𝛿0 = 𝛿1 = 𝛿2 = β‹― 𝛿𝑛 = 0 LR Test 29.266 Mixed Chi-square 28.485 Decision Reject H0 Table 3. The Estimation Result of SPF in Piglet Production Farming Variable Coefficient Standard Error Constant 6.269*** 0.017 Total pig 0.360*** 0.097 Labor 0.546 ns 0.353 Feed 0.198*** 0.022 Capital 0.137*** 0.020 Pig’s origin 0.797*** 0.247 Sigma_u_sqr 0.489*** 0.098 Sigma_v_sqr 0.000 0.000 Log likelihood -43.9379 Wald chi2(5) 3.30E+09 Prob>chi2 0.0000 *** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.1; ns p>0.1 198 J. Indonesian Trop. Anim. Agric. 47(3):192-203, September 2022 stock have better quality than pigs that come from other sources. Probably, breeders select the pigs it produces which were considered to have the best quality for the piglet production farm they are working on. Based on the estimation results of the SPF model, the TE level of each observation can be measured. Of the 57 samples used in the SPF estimation, the average TE level of piglet pro- duction farms in Indonesia is 41.9% (Table 4), and can be categorized as a low level of TE, be- cause it is below 70% (Coelli et al., 2005). The efficiency level of piglet production farms is relatively lower when compared to pig farming in other countries (Tian et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2016). The estimation results from this study indicate that there is still great potential to in- crease the productivity of piglet production farms in Indonesia. The currently available pig farming technology does not appear to be opti- mally applied by breeders. It is still possible to improve the allocation of resource use in order to obtain a higher level of piglet production farm productivity. Increasing production through a new technology is certainly more difficult to do, because many factors can hinder the decision to adopt technology by piglet farmers (Zanu et al., 2012). If piglet production farms were grouped based on the area where the farm is located, it can be seen that piglet production farms in Bali have the highest average TE value and NTT is the lowest. Based on the research results present- ed in Table 5, the average TE values of piglet production farms in Bali and NTT are 50.1% and 35.9%, respectively. Bali also has the lowest di- versity of TE values compared to the other two regions, with a coefficient of variation of 45.7%. The TE value of piglet production farms in Bali relatively higher to the other two provinces was supported by Budaarsa's (2017) explanation that pig breeders in Bali have widely applied arti- ficial insemination (AI). The positive effect of insemination methods and breeding practices for increasing pig farming productivity was also found by Galanopoulos et al. (2006) research in Greece. Sources of Technical Inefficiency The average value of technical efficiency in the three provinces which was classified as low, with available technology, indicates that there is a great opportunity to increase the productivity of piglet production farms. Table 6 presents the Table 4. Distribution of TE Level in Piglet Production Farming Technical Efficiency Number of Observation Percentage (%) <0.5 37 64.91 0.5-0.6 7 12.28 0.6-0.7 4 7.02 0.7-0.8 2 3.51 0.8-0.9 2 3.51 0.9-1 5 8.77 Total sample 57 100 Mean 0.419 Std. Dev 0.266 Min 0.052 Max 0.999 Table 5. The Comparison of the Mean and Coefficient Variation of TE of Piglet Production Farming in Three Provinces Province Mean of TE CV of TE North Sumatera 0.437 0.645 Bali 0.501 0.457 NTT 0.359 0.618 Piglet Farming in Indonesia (H. Harianto and E. N. Keraru) 199 results of the estimation of factors that affect pro- duction inefficiency in piglet production farms. Table 6 should be presented as an integral part of Table 3, because it is generated by estimation using a one-step procedure with the maximum likelihood method, as suggested by Coelli et al. (2005). However, for the purposes of a clearer explanation followed, the results of processing the models of factors that affect technical ineffi- ciency are separated into Table 6. Piglet produc- tion farms located in North Sumatra, Bali, and NTT are more efficient than in other provinces. This is indicated by the significant negative effect of the variable dummy of province on technical inefficiency. Based on the estimation results, the age of the breeder has a negative effect on increasing technical efficiency. The older age of the head of the household has a negative and significant ef- fect on the efficiency level of the piglet produc- tion farm. It seems that the younger generation is less and less interested in running a small-scale pig farming business, and prefers to work in the non-agricultural sector or work in urban areas. The experience of raising pigs is a factor that can significantly affect the efficiency of a piglet production farm. Small-scale pig farms tend to use technology that has been traditionally passed down from generation to generation, so experience is a determining factor for success (Zanu et al., 2012). This was reinforced by the estimation results which show the level of educa- tion and extension variables that do not have a significant effect. Likewise, the effect of the vari- able presence of feed land which significantly increases inefficiency can be an indication that piglet production farms that rely on feed sourced from nearby forages are lower in efficiency com- pare to farms that rely on feed from other feed sources. The estimation results also show that vac- cination, although with a low statistical signifi- cance level, does increase inefficiency. This is certainly contrary to expectations, where vac- cination should be expected to improve the tech- nical efficiency of piglet production farms. How- ever, the estimation results that were contrary to this expectation could be an indication of the need to improve a more credible vaccination pro- gram in pig farms. Vaccinations that do not show the expected results may be caused by vaccina- tion management or inadequate biosecurity prac- tices at the internal pig farming level (Delsart et al., 2020; Mutua and Dione, 2021). With the complexity of the problems surrounding pig farming, especially with the increasing ASF pan- demic in pig farms, the role of research institu- tions and universities is urgently needed (Gunnarsson et al., 2020) to improve the effec- tiveness of vaccination. The model proposed in this study is able to capture the influence of institutions, namely co- Table 6. The Sources of Technical Inefficiency in Piglet Production Farming in Indonesia Variable Coefficient Standard Error Constant -0.241 0.755 Head of household age 0.038*** 0.012 Number of household members -0.032 0.079 Education of household head 0.010 0.023 Gender of household head 0.255 0.332 Farming experience -0.936** 0.370 Feed area 0.816** 0.340 Vaccination 0.594* 0.338 Feed combination -0.767 0.619 Access to financing 0.553 0.478 Access to extension 0.398 0.392 Member of cooperative -0.662* 0.399 Market orientation -0.323 0.333 Province -0.754** 0.368 *** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.1; ns p>0.1 200 J. Indonesian Trop. Anim. Agric. 47(3):192-203, September 2022 operatives, in increasing the technical efficiency of piglet production farms. Farmer households who join cooperatives have a greater opportunity to gain access to the required input market and the output market for the piglets they produce. Members of agricultural cooperatives generally also have a higher level of technical efficiency when joining a cooperative (Ma et al., 2018; Qu et al., 2020; Olagunju et al., 2021). CONCLUSION The results show that the efficiency level of piglet production farms in Indonesia is relatively low. The production factors of the number of livestock, feed expenditure, and capital has a positive and significant influence on the level of production. Bali has the highest level of tech- nical efficiency and also the lowest level of vari- ation in technical efficiency. The experience of raising pigs and the implementation of vaccina- tion have contributed to the reduction of tech- nical inefficiency in this farm. Public policy that can increase farmers' access to sows, feed and capital is expected to increase piglet production. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Authors would like to thank the Department of Agribusiness - IPB University for access to the ST2013-STU data which became the basis of this research. However, if there are omissions and errors in this paper, it is entirely the respon- sibility of the authors. REFERENCES Adetunji, M. O. and K. E. Adeyemo. 2012. Eco- nomic efficiency of pig production in Oyo State, Nigeria: A Stochastic Production Frontier approach. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2:382 –394. Ahmad, M. and B. E. Bravo-Ureta. 1996. Tech- nical efficiency measures for dairy farms using panel data: A comparison of alterna- tive model specifications. J. Product. Anal. 7:399–415. Aigner, D., C. A. K. Lovell, and P. Schmidt. 1977. Formulation and estimation of sto- chastic frontier production function models. J. Econom. 6:21–37. doi:10.1016/0304- 4076(77)90052-5. Available from: https:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/0304407677900525 Aminu, F. O. and C. E. Akhigbe-Ahonkhai. 2017. Profitability and technical efficiency of pig production in Nigeria: The case of Ekiti State. Agric. Trop. Subtrop. 50:27–35. doi:10.1515/ats-2017-0004. Battese, G. E. and T. J. Coelli. 1995. A model for technical inefficiency effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production function for panel data. Empir. Econ. 20:325–332. Belotti, F., S. Daidone, G. Ilardi, and V. Atella. 2013. Stochastic frontier analysis using Stata. Stata J. 13:719–758. doi:10.1177/1536867x1301300404. BPS (Statistics Indonesia). 2020. Statistik Produksi Daging Babi Menurut Provinsi. BPS-Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta. Budaarsa, K. 2017. East Indonesia as the Center of Pig Production. Int. J. Agric. Innov. Res. 6:2319–1473. Coelli, T. and G. Battese. 1996. Identification of factors which influence the technical ineffi- ciency of Indian farmers. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 40:103–128. Coelli, T. J., D. S. P. Rao, C. J. O’Donnel, and G. E. Batesse. 2005. An introduction to effi- ciency and productivity analysis. 2nd ed. Springer Science + Business Media, New York. Colpoys, J. D., A. K. Johnson, and N. K. Gabler. 2016. Daily feeding regimen impacts pig growth and behavior. Physiol. Behav. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.03.003. Availa- ble from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.physbeh.2016.03.003 Dedecker, J. M., M. Ellis, B. F. Wolter, B. P. Corrigan, S. E. Curtis, and G. R. Hollis. 2005. Effect of stocking rate on pig perfor- mance in a wean-to-finish production sys- tem. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 85:1–6. Delsart, M., F. Pol, B. Dufour, N. Rose, and C. Piglet Farming in Indonesia (H. Harianto and E. N. Keraru) 201 Fablet. 2020. Pig farming in alternative sys- tems: Strengths and challenges in terms of animal welfare, biosecurity, animal health and pork safety. Agric. 10:1–34. doi:10.3390/agriculture10070261. Etim, N.-A. A., E. S. Ebukiba, E. J. Udoh, and E. U. Essang. 2022. Technical efficiency in swine production under different waste management techniques. World J. Soc. Sci. 9:38–49. doi:10.5430/wjss.v9n1p38. Galanopoulos, K., S. Aggelopoulos, I. Ka- menidou, and K. Mattas. 2006. Assessing the effects of managerial and production practices on the efficiency of commercial pig farming. Agric. Syst. 88:125–141. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.03.002. Gunnarsson, S., K. A. Segerkvist, T. Wallgren, H. Hansson, and U. Sonesson. 2020. A sys- tematic mapping of research on sustainabil- ity dimensions at farm-level in pig produc- tion. Sus. 12:1–15. Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analy- sis. Vectors. 816. doi:10.1016/ j.ijpharm.2011.02.019. Jabbar, M. A. and S. Akter. 2008. Market and other factors affecting farm specific produc- tion efficiency in pig production in Vi- etnam. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 20:29– 53. doi:10.1080/08974430802157606. Jondrow, J., C. A. Knox Lovell, I. S. Materov, and P. Schmidt. 1982. On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic fron- tier production function model. J. Econom. 19:233–238. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(82) 90004-5. Available from: https:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/0304407682900045 Kementrian Pertanian Direktorat Jenderal Peter- nakan dan Kesehatan Hewan (Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate General of Animal Husbandry and Health). 2020. Livestock and Animal Health Statistics 2020. Kemen- trian Pertanian, Jakarta. Keraru, E. N., H. Harianto, and Y. Yusalina. 2021. Profitability of the three types of smallholder pig farming in Indonesia: An adaptation of enterprise budgeting method. Bull. Anim. Sci. 45:262–269. doi:10.21059/ buletinpeternak.v45i4.68763. Kodde, D. A. and F. C. Palm. 1986. Wald Crite- ria for Jointly Testing Equality and Inequal- ity Restrictions. Econometrica. 54:1243. doi:10.2307/1912331. Lansink, A. O. and S. Reinhard. 2004. Investigat- ing technical efficiency and potential tech- nological change in Dutch pig farming. Agric. Syst. 79:353–367. doi:10.1016/ S0308-521X(03)00091-X. Lekule, F. P. and N. C. Kyvsgaard. 2003. Im- proving pig husbandry in tropical resource- poor communities and its potential to re- duce risk of porcine cysticercosis. Acta Trop. 87:111–117. doi:10.1016/S0001- 706X(03)00026-3. Leslie, E. E. C.,M. Geong,M. Abdurrahman,M. P. Ward,and J. A. L. M. L. Toribio. 2015. A description of smallholder pig production systems in eastern Indonesia. Prev. Vet. Med. 118:319–327. doi:10.1016/ j.prevetmed.2014.12.006. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.prevetmed.2014.12.006 Ma, W., A. Renwick, P. Yuan, and N. Ratna. 2018. Agricultural cooperative membership and technical efficiency of apple farmers in China: An analysis accounting for selectivi- ty bias. Food Policy. 81:122–132. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.10.009. Meeusen, W. and J. van Den Broeck. 1977. Effi- ciency estimation from Cobb-Douglas pro- duction functions with composed error. Int. Econ. Rev. (Philadelphia). 18:435–444. doi:10.2307/2525757. Mekuriaw, Y. and B. Asmare. 2014. Assessment of pig production and constraints in Mecha District, Amhara Region, Northwestern Ethiopia. Adv. Agric. 2014:1–5. doi:10.1155/2014/329254. Mutua, F. and M. Dione. 2021. The context of application of biosecurity for control of Af- rican Swine Fever in smallholder pig sys- tems: Current gaps and recommendations. Front. Vet. Sci. 8:1–11. doi:10.3389/ 202 J. Indonesian Trop. Anim. Agric. 47(3):192-203, September 2022 fvets.2021.689811. Mwangi, T. M., S. N. Ndirangu, and H. N. Isab- oke. 2020. Technical efficiency in tomato production among smallholder farmers in Kirinyaga County, Kenya. African J. Agric. Res. 16:667–677. doi:10.5897/ ajar2020.14727. Nantima, N., M. Ocaido, J. Davies, M. Dione, E. Okoth, A. Mugisha, and R. Bishop. 2015. Characterization of smallholder pig produc- tion systems in four districts along the Uganda-Kenya border. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 27. Nga, N. T. D., H. N. Ninh, P. Van Hung, and M. L. Lapar. 2014. Smallholder pig value chain development in Vietnamβ€―: Situation analysis and trends. Nairobi, Kenya. Available from: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/ handle/10568/53935/ pr_situation_analysis_vietnam_web.pdf? sequence=7&isAllowed=y Nguyen, T.-L., T. Nanseki, and Y. Chomei. 2016. Technical Efficiency and Its Determi- nants in Household Pig Production in Vi- etnamβ€―: A DEA Approach. Japanese J. Rural Econ. 18:56–61. doi:10.18480/jjre.18.56. Njoku, C. P., A. B. J. Aina, O. M. Sogunle, O. A. Adeyemi, and O. O. Oduguwa. 2013. Eval- uation of feed quantity offered, feeding fre- quency and duration of feeding on the per- formance of growing pigs. Thai J. Agric. Sci. 46:181–190. Olagunju, K. O., A. I. Ogunniyi, Z. Oyetunde- Usman, A. O. Omotayo, and B. A. Awotide. 2021. Does agricultural cooperative mem- bership impact technical efficiency of maize production in Nigeria: An analysis correct- ing for biases from observed and unob- served attributes. PLoS One. 16:16–18. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245426. Patience, J. F., M. C. Rossoni-SerΓ£o, and N. A. GutiΓ©rrez. 2015. A review of feed efficiency in swine: Biology and application. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 6:1–9. doi:10.1186/s40104- 015-0031-2. Phengsavanh, P., B. Ogle, W. StΓΌr, B. E. Frankow-Lindberg, and J. E. Lindberg. 2010. Feeding and performance of pigs in smallholder production systems in Northern Lao PDR. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 42:1627–1633. doi:10.1007/s11250-010- 9612-4. Pierozan, C. R., P. S. Agostini, J. Gasa, A. K. Novais, C. P. Dias, R. S. K. Santos, M. Pereira Jr, J. G. Nagi, J. B. Alves, and C. A. Silva. 2016. Factors affecting the daily feed intake and feed conversion ratio of pigs in growfinishing units: The case of a company. Porc. Heal. Manag. 2:1–8. doi:10.1186/s40813-016-0023-4. Qu, R., Y. Wu, J. Chen, G. D. Jones, W. Li, S. Jin, Q. Chang, Y. Cao, G. Yang, Z. Li, and L. J. Frewer. 2020. Effects of agricultural cooperative society on farmers’ technical efficiency: Evidence from stochastic fron- tier analysis. Sustain. 12:1–13. doi:10.3390/su12198194. Sani, A. S., J. G. Sogen, and S. M. Makandolu. 2020. Efisiensi Penggunaan Faktor Produksi pada Usaha Ternak Babi Skala Rumah Tangga di Kecamatan Ende Timur Kabupaten Ende. J. Nukl. Peternak. 7:41– 50. Sharma, K. R., P. Leung, and H. M. Zaleski. 1997. Productive efficiency of the swine industry in Hawaiiβ€―: Stochastic Frontier vs . Data Envelopment Analysis. J. Prod- uct. Anal. 8:447–459. Tabe-Ojong, M. P. J. and E. L. Molua. 2017. Technical Efficiency of Smallholder To- mato Production in Semi-Urban Farms in Cameroon: A Stochastic Frontier Produc- tion Approach. J. Manag. Sustain. 7:27. doi:10.5539/jms.v7n4p27. Available from: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ jms/article/view/71395 Tenaye, A. 2020. Technical efficiency of small- holder agriculture in developing countries: The case of Ethiopia. Economies. 8. doi:10.3390/ECONOMIES8020034. Thanapongtharm, W., C. Linard, P. Chinson, S. Kasemsuwan, M. Visser, A. E. Gaughan, M. Epprech, T. P. Robinson, and M. Gil- bert. 2016. Spatial analysis and character- Piglet Farming in Indonesia (H. Harianto and E. N. Keraru) 203 istics of pig farming in Thailand. BMC Vet. Res. 12:1–15. doi:10.1186/s12917- 016-0849-7. Tian, X., F. Sun, and Y. Zhou. 2015. Technical efficiency and its determinants in China’s hog production. J. Integr. Agric. 14:1057– 1068. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60989- 8. Umeh, J. C., C. Ogbanje, and M. A. Adejo. 2015. Technical efficiency analysis of pig production: A sustainable animal protein augmentation for Nigerians. J. Adv. Agric. Technol. 2:19–24. doi:10.12720/ joaat.2.1.19-24. Wang, G., C. Zhao, Y. Shen, and N. Yin. 2021. Estimation of cost efficiency of fattening pigs, sows, and piglets using SFA ap- proach analysis: Evidence from China. C. A. ZΓΊniga-GonzΓ‘lez, editor. PLoS One. 16:e0261240. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0261240. Wang, H. J. and P. Schmidt. 2002. One-step and two-step estimation of the effects of exog- enous variables on technical efficiency levels. J. Product. Anal. 18:129–144. doi:10.1023/A:1016565719882. Zanu, H. K., A. Antwiwaa, and C. T. Agyemang. 2012. Factors influencing technology adoption among pig farmers in Ashanti region of Ghana. J. Agric. Technol. 8:81– 92. Zhou, Y., X.-H. Zhang, X. Tian, X. H. Geng, P. Zhang, and B. J. Yan. 2015. Technical and environmental efficiency of hog produc- tion in China - A stochastic frontier pro- duction function analysis. J. Integr. Agric. 14:1069–1080. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119 (14)60990-4.