Agriculture is one of the priority sectors in Timor-Leste need to be promoted to decrease poverty, secure food over the population and develop economic growth in rural areas across the country [1] .

Aside from the importance of agriculture, the areas cultivation has not yet fully developed as about 174,000 ha for cultivation and 124,000 ha area of bush garden. The total area which is utilised for agriculture purposes is approximately 600,000 ha [2] [3] . The different agriculture activities including cultivating food crops and livestock production utilised these areas.

Farmers have not yet developed enough their agricultural skills and knowledge as well as lack of capital is the constraints to rapidly develop more agriculture into productive and sustainable. This is because farmers still use existing method to cultivate crops and raising their livestock. Hence, introducing new agriculture innovation on how to enhance crops and livestock production as well as providing capital to the farmers are important to increase agriculture production and income generation to the farmers.

The main staple foods in Timor-Leste are rice and maize. The two crops production has been fluctuated during the last two years. This was reported by Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries that rice production was declined to 49,983 tonnes in 2020 and increased in the following two years, reaching 72,081 tonnes in 2021 and 85,805 tonnes in 2022. Maize production was also encounter similar issues during the last two years. In 2020, maize output was 119,167 tonnes and declined in 2020, to 77,606 tonnes. However, it has changed in increasing mode over the following years. As in 2021 and 2022, the maize output was increased at 85,627 tonnes and 86,037 tonnes, respectively [4] .

A part form the crop production, livestock is likewise important aspect in agriculture sector which generated income to the farmers in Timor-Leste. Cattle production was around 221.787 heads in 2015 [5] . Farmers rear cattle in various ways in both intensive and extensive care which effect on the cattle production.

These challenges need to be addressed for enhancing cattle production in Timor-Leste. The intervention of enhancing cattle values collaboration between ACIAR, MAFF and Universidade Nacional Timor Lorosa’e have introduced Rede Kamodi (Karau ba moris diak) to the farmers in selected area such as Atabae, Bobonaro municipality [6] . However, what is the impact of Redi kamodi program to the cattle farmers?

The study aims to look at the impact of cattle fattening technology on farmer households in selected area in Atabae administrative post, Bobonaro municipality in Timor-Leste. People in this area raise cattle for the generating the income.

The general objective of the study was to examine the impact adoption of cattle fattening technology on farmer households in Atabae.

The specific:

1) Estimate costs and returns of cattle fattening and farmers workload;

2) Determine constraints production and marketing of cattle; and

3) Suggest possible actions to address these constraints.

Farmers are facing various obstacles which anchor their farming activities to move forwards. These problems include erratic weather conditions, lack of knowledge of new technologies, high cost of inputs. Additionally, social, economic, cultural, and traditional factors are also contributed to hamper agricultural production. The implementation of new agricultural innovation is crucial as a pathway to overcome some of these challenges.

The intervention of programme such as improved agriculture practices and farm management techniques are potentially generate benefit to farmers. According to [7] the aim of intervention programme is to bring about changing per unit production by using limited resources includes land, labour, capital, and entrepreneurship which can minimise production cost and marketing of the product output. This can turn to enhance food security, consumption, and income [7] .

It depends on the individuals’ attitude whether receive or reject towards applying innovation. For instance, [8] highlighted the implementation of agriculture technology such conservation agriculture is significantly influence by intention and perceive behavioural control followed by subjective norm (perform or not to perform). The implementation of agriculture technology is more likely to use efficiently to minimize production cost of a combination factor of production including land, labour, and capital to produce agriculture products. For instance, [9] found that the production cost such as fertiliser, irrigation and machinery was positive and significant affect per unit area of wheat production.

There is one of the main of agriculture technology is improvement in crop production and productivity. For example, a study conducted in Mexico on adoption of improving maize varieties showed that farmers group who participated in the project of new improved maize varieties increased their maize production and income. Their per capita expenditure was also higher when compared with non-participant groups [10] [11] . A similar result from an intervention project happened in Nepal when the intended group targeted for the improvement of maize varieties enhanced their maize yield and net revenue as well as contributed to maize availability in the market when compared with the unintended group.

There was also an intervention of the program of cattle fattening in Atabae administrative post Timor-Leste. The program of cattle fattening called Redi Kamodi (Karau bá moris diak) to enhance cattle production. The implementation of the technique through farmers groups with assessment of their own situation, defining their needs, and then seeking, testing, and implementing better beef cattle business practices. The transition of farmers is from the existing method of raising cattle to more profitable cattle systems. The production system is particularly leucaena, in high-input cattle fattening systems. Redi Kamodi program has enhanced farmers’ skills and knowledge on how utilized best practised of cattle fattening through training on technical and business skills [12] .

Thus, this study was to examine the impact of adoption on cattle fattening technology included farmers’ income and workload.

There is gender distribution of farmers in the study sites. In Figure 1 illustrates that the number of male farmers was 187 (93.5%) and the number of female farmers was 13 (6.5%) respectively.

Male farmers are involved more in raising cattle compared with female farmers. This is to confirm that respondents participated in this interview are mainly responsible directly for their raising cattle activity. This is not surprisingly that male farmers are getting involved more than their female counterpart.

The average age of farmers practicing cattle fattening was 51.09 years old while non-practicing farmers was 51.65. The experience of farmers practicing cattle fattening were 12.16 on average and non-practicing cattle fattening farmers was 15.45 years on average (Table 1). On the other hand, the average education attainment of farmers practicing cattle fattening was 5.75 years of schooling while non-cattle fattening farmers was 3.87 years of schooling on average. The average of number of members in the households of farmers practicing cattle fattening were 7 same with non-practicing cattle fattening farmers. Area size was slightly higher of farmers practicing cattle fattening on average than non-practicing cattle fattening farmers on average as indicated in Table 1

This indicates that the year of schooling of farmers practicing cattle fattening are more compared to non-cattle fattening farmers. However, both farmers groups in the study area do not conclude compulsory basic education.

The average amount of labour spent on cattle activities by farmers practicing cattle fattening was about 2.24 hr/day as shown in Table 2. While labour spent on cattle activities by non-practicing cattle fattening farmers was around 2.34 hr/day on average. The difference in time spent on cattle activities was not statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.

t = −0.587; not significant at 95% level of confidence.

In Table 3 indicated that the average amount of total cost spent by farmers practicing cattle fattening was $46.05 per head. While total cost spent by non-practicing cattle fattening farmers was $32.19 per head on average.

The difference in total cost of cattle was not statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.

The average amount of value of cattle received by farmers practicing cattle fattening was $837.72 per head as illustrated in Table 4. While non-practicing cattle fattening farmers received value of cattle were $543.02 per head on average. The difference in value of cattle was statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.

The average amount of profit obtained by farmers practicing cattle fattening was 792.45 $/head. While profit gained by non-practicing cattle fattening farmers was 513.99 $/head on average. The difference in profit was statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence as indicated in Table 5.

There are several factors hamper cattle production overcome by cattle farmers in the study areas. These challenges need to be addressed in appropriate manner to enhance cattle production. The percentage of farmers was at 27 (52.9%) mentioned that water and forage shortage were constraints them to undertake cattle production. Following by 17 (33.3%) of farmers reported that they spent time on culture ceremonies and lack of capital. Cattle die and wild were the issue that concerned by the small percentage of farmers accounted for 3 (5.9%) as well as at 3 (5.9%) of farmers said that lack of labour respectively. Meanwhile, lack of buyer was reported by 1 (2.0%) of the percentage of farmers (Figure 2).

The percentage of farmers were at 26 (55.3%) said that collected water from river, feed cattle with sago and forage. Following by 11 (23.4%) mentioned that cultivate forage and at 5 (10.6%) of farmers stated that they were managed the time for doing the activities related to the cattle production. A small percentage of farmers were 3 (6.4%) declared that they have done vaccination to the cattle and at 2 (4.3%) of farmers revealed that they were sold their cattle as indicated in Table 6

t = 1.367; not significant at 95% level of confidence.

t = 4.869; significant at 95% level of confidence.

t = 4.682; significant at 95% level of confidence.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Brito, M.E.F.E., Correia, V.P., De Deus, C.C. and Gomes, M.J. (2024) Analysis on the Impact of Cattle Fattening Technology on Farmer Households in Atabae Timor-Leste. Agricultural Sciences, 15, 399-407. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2024.154023