EurAsian Journal of BioSciences Eurasia J Biosci 14, 5849-5863 (2020)

The influence of internal factors and external factors of farmers on the communication effectiveness of maize special efforts based on local wisdom in North Central Timor Regency

Marsianus Falo 1,2*, Sugiyanto 3, Keppi Sukesih 3, Yayuk Yuliati 3 1 Doctoral Program, Agriculture Extension and Communication, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Brawijaya Malang, INDONESIA 2 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Timor, INDONESIA 3 Lecturers of Faculty of Agriculture, University of Brawijaya Malang, INDONESIA *Corresponding author: Marsianus Falo

Abstract This study aims to describe the internal factors of farmers and external factors of farmers, the effectiveness of communication in the program of special efforts of maize, and analyze the influence of internal factors of farmers, external factors of farmers on the effectiveness of communication in the program of special efforts of maize in North Central Timor Regency. The unit of analysis in this study is Farmers who participating in Special Efforts, respondents determination conducted using the Simple Random Sampling technique with the Slovin approach. Primary data collection was carried out through questionnaires and interviews in August-December 2019. In-depth interviews conducted in Insana sub-district, TTU-NTT Regency on the farmer group of special efforts of maize. Secondary data collection is done by collecting data from the Pajale special efforts, BPS and related agencies. The analysis shows that the internal factors of farmers (age which is in the adult category, formal education, non-formal education in the low category, experience of farmers in the high category, while land area, and cosmopolitan are in the very low category), farmer external factors (the availability of infrastructure is in the high category, while the availability of market access and access to capital is low), communication effectiveness (the method is in the high category, while the communicator, message, channel, receiver, and effect are in the low category). Factors that influence the effectiveness of communication in the program of Special efforts of maize are internal factors of farmers with CR values greater than the critical value (CR> 1,96). While the external factors of farmers have a positive value but have no significant effect on the effectiveness of communication. Several theories and research results that support this statement, among others, Lionberger & Gwin, (1982), Slamet (2007), Rogers (2003), Koesoemawardani and Sumardjo, (2008), Fatchiya (2010), Adawiyah (2017) state that one of the factors affecting the effectiveness of communication is the internal and external factors of group member of farmer.

Keywords: internal factors, and external factors of farmers, Communication Effectivenes, farmer, Special efforts of maize

Falo M, Sugiyanto, Sukesih K, Yuliati Y (2020) The influence of internal factors and external factors of farmers on the communication effectiveness of maize special efforts based on local wisdom in North Central Timor Regency. Eurasia J Biosci 14: 5849-5863.

© 2020 Falo et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.

INTRODUCTION (37,20%) has a height of more than 500 meters ASL (BPS. TTU, 2018). Geographically, TTU regency has an area of TTU Regency since its establishment as a district in 2 2.669,7km or around 5,48% of the total land area in the 1958, in the process of development until now has had Nusa Tenggara Timur Province. Meanwhile, the sea a lot of progress, when compared to the previous 2 area is approximately 950 km with a coastline of condition. Previously, the TTU area only had 4 sub- approximately 50 km. TTU Regency topography is districts as administrative regions. And in the generally bumpy and hilly with varying heights: 1) 177,60 effectiveness of public services, this is not effective, Km2 (6,63%) has a height of less than 100 meters above sea level (ASL); 2) 1.499,45 Km2 (56,17%) has a height Received: January 2020 of 100‒500 meters above sea level; 3) 993,19 Km2 Accepted: April 2020 Printed: November 2020

5849

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al. because the distance between the village and/or sub- medicines, high pest attack, limited labor, low district as an administrative center is very far so that this technology dissemination, high transportation costs, condition complicates the social and economic life of the lack of market for production result, and limited capital, community. To facilitate mileage in public services and lack of access to information. The various problems the community socio-economic, based on Regional above caused the rate of increase in the corn planting Regulation (Perda) No. 08 of 2007 conducted the area to run slowly, which in turn had an impact on the administrative regional expansion into 24 sub-districts, low production and productivity of corn achieved. 182 villages and 640 hamlets with varying area sizes The implementation of maize special efforts / Upsus (BPS. TTU, 2018). in TTU can be effective if properly communicated by Corn / maize commodity has the main role as taking into account the local wisdom of farmers. More meeting the needs of food, feed and industry, which often communicated between extension workers and tends to increase every year in line with population farmers in offering technological innovations, the growth and the development of the food and feed adoption process would be faster (Harinta, 2010; industry. For this reason, the Ministry of Agriculture Eastwood et al., 2017; Weyori et al., 2018; Adnan et al., seeks to increase corn production. In connection with 2019; Relf-Eckstein et al., 2019; Putra et al., 2019; this, then starting in 2015 the Ministry of Agriculture Kebebe, 2019; Narine et al., 2019; Aldosari et al., 2019). implemented a program to increase food production, That means, if Special efforts/Upsus communication can especially corn/maize in the form of Special Efforts / be utilized properly and correctly and continuously, then Upaya Khusus (Upsus) programs for rice, maize and the adoption process will take place better and faster soybeans / padi, jagung, dan kedelei (Pajale) with the because the expectation of the effectiveness approach of the planting area expansion, the Integrated communication of maize special efforts/Upsus is a Crop Processing Implementation Movement / Gerakan change in farmer’s behavior so that able to increase the Penerapan Pengolahan Tanaman terpadu (GP-PTT), productivity of corn/maize sustainably. According to provision of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, alsintan, and Mardikanto (2009) communication is a process of prevention of pest organisms. awareness through the delivery of information about the The implementation of communication on maize/corn importance of development activities to improve the special effort program in TTU Regency has been going quality of life so that it can grow the spirit of trying to on since four years ago through the socialization of the achieve the quality of life. Hubeis (2007), Linder & Agricultural Office through extension workers / Sperber (2017), Oteyza et al. (2018), Sunhaji (2018), assistants to corn farmers in accordance with the Edwards et al. (2019), states that the effectiveness of potential land owned and innovation can be developed communication is a process of delivering messages that in the land of each farmer. Corn/maize special efforts are able to achieve the goals of the contents of the communication system that developed namely still message and provide feedback or reaction so that the interpersonal because farmers in TTU are still in message was successfully conveyed and lead to an conventional conditions both in terms of human effective communication. resources and the availability of farming facilities and Description above, then an in-depth study is needed infrastructure they have. Based on data from the in order to be able to answer the problems related to the Department of Agriculture of TTU (2018) that the target description of the internal factors of farmers, external of corn production in 2015: 26.462 tons, in 2016: 26.665 factors of farmers, and the communication effectiveness tons, and in 2017: 69.184 tons. But the results obtained, of maize Special efforts based on local wisdom in TTU in 2015: 23.462 tons, in 2016: 23.462 tons, and in 2017: as well as how the influence of internal and external 79.184 tons, where the productivity achieved an average factors of Special efforts / Upsus farmers on the of 2,62 tons/ha. communication effectiveness of the implementation of Considering the data above, it shows that the corn farming in the TTU. expectancy number of corn commodity prospects in order to achieve the target of income improvement and MATERIAL AND METHOD food security of the corn/maize commodity has not been This research was conducted in Insana Subdistrict, successful. The low production and productivity of maize North Central Timor / Timor Tengah Utara (TTU) at the TTU is due to several reasons among others: Regency, Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) Province, which farmers are still using conventional farming methods began in August 2019 until January 2020. The approach with the application of less intensive cultivation used to solve the problem in this study using a technology, even though farmers have received quantitative approach. Quantitative approach to explain socialization and facilities / infrastructure assistance the relationship between variables (explanatory from the Pajale program (without tillage, and/or research), and is supported by qualitative data as a minimum tillage, without fertilizing, and pest organism complement or explanatory to quantitative data controlling not yet optimal). Other factors namely Quantitative research approaches using survey drought, lack of availability of superior seeds, fertilizers,

5850

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

Table 1. The proportion of Maize Special efforts Farmers by Internal Factors of Farmers, 2019 Internal Factors of Farmers Category N (Person) Percentage (%) Mean (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Young (<42 years) 32 20

Age (Year) Adult (42-55) 87 54 49,77 Old (> 55 years) 42 26 Total 161 100 Very Low ( < 4 years) 19 12 Low (4-7 years) 103 64 Formal education High (8-11 years) 27 17 6,41 Very high ( > 11 years) 12 7 Total 161 100 Very Low (<2 times) 152 94 Low (2-3 times) 9 6 Non-formal education High (4-5 times) - - 0,65 Very high ( > 5 times) - - Total 161 100 Very Low ( < 9 years) 20 12 Low (9-15 years) 24 15 Farming Experience High (16-22 years) 77 48 17,72 Very high ( > 22 years) 40 25 Total 161 100 Very narrow ( < 0,65 ha) 90 56 Narrow (0,65 ha – 1,09 ha) 52 32 Area of arable land Large ( 1,10 ha – 1,54 ha) 11 7 0,33 Very large ( > 1,54 ha) 8 5 Total 161 100 Very Low ( < 3 times/month) 102 63 Low (3 – 4 times/month) 51 32 Cosmopolitan High (5-6 times/month) 5 3 2,33 Very high ( > times/month) 3 2 Total 161 100 Source: Primary Data, 2019 methods. The population in the study amounted to 270 was calculated starting from the year of birth and people spread in 11 farmer groups. The number of rounded up to the nearest birthday. Based on the results research samples was determined as many as 161 of the study (Table 1) shows that most farmers are in the corn/maize farmers, which were randomly determined range between age 42-55 years (54 percent) with age of (random sampling). Sample determination technique is farmers in this study ranged from 28 to 75 years. If seen done in stages (multi-step random sampling). The from the average age of maize special efforts farmers in determination of the research location and sample is Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency namely 49,77 or 49,77 carried out as follows: The first stage, determine the years. Based on the productivity of farmers’ age as in number of villages chosen purposively. The second BPS TTU, (2018) that the age of farmers is classified as stage, determine the number of groups to represent productive if they are between 15 years to 64 years, then each village in a proportional random sampling (30%) the majority of maize Special efforts farmers (92.05 from the total number of farmer groups in each village. percent) are classified as productive age, only 7,95 The third stage, determine the number of corn/maize percent are not productive. Farmers of productive age farmers in each group in proportional random sampling. have the ability to work and think higher than farmers Determination of sample size is calculated using the who are not productive. Younger farmers usually have a Slovin formula. Quantitative data collection techniques high enthusiasm because of their curiosity so they try to were carried out by means of structured interviews using adopt innovations more quickly even though they are questionnaires and participatory observations for inexperienced (Soekartawi, 2005). However, if seen primary data collection, while secondary data were from the average age of maize/corn special efforts collected by looking at documentation from the TTU farmers, it can reach 49,77 years which will enter the old Regency Agriculture Office, Village Offices, and BPP age. Older farmers have difficulty accepting and Offices. Data were analyzed descriptively, inferentially implementing new technology compared to young ones and by structural equation modeling (SEM) with because they are affected by the old ways so that they generalized structures component analysis (GSCA) are slower in making decisions to accept innovation (SEM-GSCA). (Fatchiya, 2010). Therefore, in the development approach of maize Special efforts need to pay attention MATERIAL AND METHOD to the age of farmers by doing an ideal farming model seen by farmers and become an example in their area Internal Factors of Farmers so that the application of maize Special efforts can Age develop continuously. Age is the life span that has been passed by farmers until when the research was conducted. Age in this study

5851

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

Formal Education Crops Office at the level of TTU Regency and NTT Formal education can be seen as a level of education Province, which was only attended by some farmers and that is taken formally because of formal, regular, and sometimes the participants were determined by group systematic schooling. The level of education achieved administrators and extension workers. Suratiyah (2006) by a corn/maize farmer can determine whether easy or states that for low formal education it is very important to not in adopting maize technology, applying it and being develop non-formal education such as farmer group able to solve the problems it faces because the higher courses, counseling, demplot, comparative studies and the education of corn farmers the more insightful field meetings that will open up farmers ‘horizons, thinking develops and the better his decision in a more increase farmers’ skills and experience in managing productive corn/maize farming. Based on the study their farming. For this reason, group administrators, results (Table 1) shows that most farmers are in the low village/urban village officials and advanced farmers who category (4-7 years) amounted in 64 percent, with the have received training are expected to be able to pass education level of farmers in this study ranging from 0 to on the knowledge gained to their members or other 16 years. If seen at the average level of education of farmers so that can expand and develop from one farmer maize special efforts farmers in Insana Subdistrict, TTU to another. Regency namely 6,41 years (Elementary school). This Farming Experience means that the majority of maize special efforts farmers Based on the results of the study (Table 1) shows in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency in this study had that the dominant of farmer respondents were in the high Elementary school education. The low level of education category with a 16-22 year experience amounted to 48 at that time was due to several reasons, namely: 1) percent. As for the range of experience of farmers in this because of economic needs so that many dropped out study ranges from 2-29 years with an average of 17,72 of school; 2) the absence of educational facilities in the years. This means that the maize/corn farmers in Insana region especially for junior and senior high school and Subdistrict, TTU Regency have had experience in corn college; 3) the distance of the location of the residence farming. The experience of these farmers can provide is far and the infrastructure of the road is inadequate so farmers with knowledge and skills in making that it causes only up to the level of elementary improvements related to their maize farming to be better. education. It is assumed that the lower the level of This is supported by the results of Arimbawa’s research someone’s education, then the lower the insight and (2020) that factors of farmer internal characteristics such knowledge to behave in carrying out the activities of as work experience as one of the factors that can affect maize special efforts. Therefore, the low education of one’s innovation capacity. maize Special efforts farmers greatly influenced the Rogers (2003) states that the longer a person’s development of maize Special efforts. The low experience of farming, the easier it will be to understand production of corn special efforts is caused by farmers a technological innovation and tend to be easier to in planting and maintaining corn/maize not according to implement it. This is consistent with the results of the existing technical instructions. This condition is research by Falo, M (2011) who found that the more supported by Rogers (2003) that education influences experienced farmers in farming, the more they knew, farmers’ acceptance of the innovation. Therefore, maize meticulously, innovatively understood the various special efforts farmers in Insana Subdistrict, TTU problems in farming. Likewise, the same with the study Regency need to be involved in training/courses and conducted by Oluwasusi, J., and Akanni, Y. (2014) learning with farmers who are more advanced found that farmers in the Ekiti region of Nigeria who had continuously or routinely because with training/courses high farming experience had a good influence on and learning with other advanced farmers, then will utilizing agricultural information on food crops. Based on increase the knowledge, attitudes and skills of maize this, it can mean that the long enough experience in farmers in developing sustainable maize technology. maize farming must make farmers more informed and Non-formal education more mature in carrying out their farming activities. Based on the results of the study (Table 1) shows The area of arable land that most the maize special efforts farmers are in the Land is one of the factors of production which is very range of <2 times (94 percent) with non-formal education important in the development of farming. Land area has levels in this study ranging from 0 to 3 times. If seen from an impact on the efforts of transfer and technology the average non-formal education of maize special application. The vast land will make it easier for efforts farmers namely 0,65 times. This shows that maize/corn farmers to apply technology without fear of maize special efforts farmers in relation to non-formal risk of failure, this is also related to the costs generated education are classified as very low. The training that and the income earned by farmers. was followed was in the form of maize/corn cultivation The results of the study (Table 1) show that the area training (the making of organic fertilizer, pest and of arable land of maize special efforts farmers dominant disease control) organized by the Agriculture and Food in a very narrow category (<0,65 ha) amounted to 56

5852

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

Table 2. The proportion of Maize Special efforts Farmers by External Factors of Farmers, 2019 External Factors Category N (Person) Percentage (%) Mean (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Very low (< 11) 10 6 Availability of Infrastructure Low (11-14) 40 25 Facilities High (15-18) 73 45 15,56 Very high (> 18) 38 24 Total 161 100 Very low (< 4) 25 16 Low (4-5) 99 61 Availability of Market Access High (6-7) 34 21 4,41 Very high (> 7) 3 2 Total 161 100 Very low (< 4) 38 24 Availability of Access to Financial Low (4-5) 84 52 Capital High (6-7) 28 17 4,15 Very high (> 7) 11 7 Total 161 100 Source: Primary Data, 2019 percent, with an average land area of 0,33 ha which is External Factors entirely privately owned land. As for the range of land External factors of maize special efforts farmers area owned by maize special efforts farmers are observed in this study were: (1) availability of facilities between 0,2 - 2 ha. This means that maize special and infrastructure, (2) availability of market access, (3) efforts farmers in the study area have a narrow land area availability of access to financial capital. The detailed (0,2 ha) to land area (2 ha). The description of the land description is presented in Table 2. area of maize special efforts farmers shows that in Availability of Infrastructure Facilities Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency in terms of the land Based on the results of the study (Table 2) shows area is very narrow which shows that farmers are that the dominant of respondent farmers in maize experiencing problems related to the maize special special efforts are in the range of 15-18 (45 percent) with efforts which promoted by the government. This is a range of achievement scores in the availability of because farmers have difficulty in working their land infrastructure facilities in this study ranging from scores namely not having capital in hiring workers so that the between 7 to 22. When viewed from the average score land used in the program is intended according to his of the availability of infrastructure facilities of maize ability. The expansion of land is certainly related to the special efforts in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency ability of workers to be used or in wages and will also namely 15,56. This means that the availability of relate to the capital owned by farmers. infrastructure facilities in the development of maize Cosmopolitan Level special efforts in the Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency is Cosmopolite implies how many farmers come out of high or available. This shows that in general farmers feel their villages or regions to interact with other sources of that the number and types of facilities and infrastructure information in order to obtain information about corn needed in the farming of maize special efforts are plants. available. However, in the process, the management Based on the results of the study (Table 1) shows has not been going well, such as the aid of seeds, that the cosmopolitan level of maize special efforts fertilizers, and pesticides which are late, and sometimes farmers in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency mostly in the seeds distributed are not all used because some the very low category (<3 times/month) amounted to 63 have been damaged.. When the program finishes and percent. If seen from the average score of 2,33, it shows moves to other farmer groups, farmers are not able to the cosmopolitan level of maize special efforts farmers access the farm shop because of the limited capital they in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency is very low. Usually, have in buying seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. farmers go out of their area just to wander, visit their Likewise, according to observations at the research relatives or deliver provisions for their children who go to location illustrate that the availability of agricultural school. This condition illustrates that the information shops can be achieved within a distance of 33 Km so searching activities related to maize special efforts are that it requires capital in reaching that location. This still very low. In addition, most farmers are always busy certainly imposes on farmers to provide seeds because with social activities, and even if farmers go out to other the yield of corn in maize special efforts cannot be areas not to find information related to corn farming but prepared for the needs of seeds in the next planting to meet the needs of other households. This condition season. While the condition of the road that connects the makes it difficult for farmers to accept new ideas from farmer’s house to the corn land and the market can be outside in the development of corn farming activities in a passed by four-wheeled vehicles or two-wheeled sustainable manner. vehicles is felt quite good, but the high costs incurred in achieving an adequate market makes farmers often

5853

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al. market their crops in the closest location (local market ) namely 4,15. This illustrates that maize special efforts which can be reached on foot. This is in contrast to Falo farmers in the research location in Insana Subdistrict, (2011) that the availability of appropriate and affordable TTU Regency have not accessed financial capital facilities and infrastructure needed in the farming properly because the source of capital is less known by process will support its farming and achieve better farmers and that there is not suitable with farmers’ results and consist of land, seeds, fertilizer, medicines needs, less in supporting farming development, and loan and labor. requirements are not easy such as government banks, Availability of Market Access private banks. Farmers are generally not interested in Based on the results of the study (Table 2) shows borrowing from banks, because they are less able to that most farmers are in the range of 4-5 (61 percent) meet the requirements and are afraid of not being able with a range of achievement scores in the availability of to return the loan installments. Meanwhile, farmers market access between 2 to 8. If seen from the average generally use a relatively small amount of private capital score achieved, then the availability of market access by or sometimes borrow from fellow farmers, and loans maize special efforts farmers in Insana Subdistrict, TTU from group cash, and cooperatives. There have been Regency, namely 4,41. This means that maize special loans through group cash and have had a negative efforts farmers in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency in impact on farmers, because some farmers misuse loans terms of availability of market access are relatively low. without repayments due to not getting guidance on the This is because farmers in accessing market information use of loans for corn/maize farming. The existence of related to the suitable price of maize in marketing their cooperatives no longer attracts farmers, because products are low, and these corn farmers tend to market cooperative management has diverged in the past. their crops not on a large scale but sufficient to buy other Counseling/extension activities need to be directed needs. Farmers if they get enough harvest, then can sell not only at technical matters of cultivation of corn to traders in the capital, on the other hand, if the results farming, but also on tips on getting capital loans with the are small, then farmers can simply sell to collectors from banking system and looking for credit opportunities from the local market in the subdistrict. When viewed from the other sources; so that farmers have adequate way the sale of corn yields is still done manually knowledge and skills about the terms and process of traditionally such as displaying the harvest at the market capital lending from banks. location while waiting for offers from buyers and vice Communication Effectiveness of Maize versa through mass media has not been done, and from Special Efforts the special efforts program has not been carried out 1. Communicator (Source) efforts to collect farmers’ yields at reasonable prices. Based on the results of the study (Table 3) shows In addition, before selling their harvests, farmers can that the effectiveness of communication as a keep it while following the development of the price that communicator, is dominant in the high category in the are deemed suitable but there are farmers who can sell range of 7-8 (49 percent). The range of achievement their crops without regard to appropriate prices due to scores in communicators by instructors/extension the needs of families and school children. Selling to the agents in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency is between 3 capital city requires a vehicle with transport costs to be and 12. If seen from the average achievement score of paid by farmers Rp. 5000 per bag. Agribusiness corn the communicator is 7,43. This can be explained in shell prices at the time of the study were on average Rp. accordance with farmers’ answers to their questions, 3000 per kilogram with a price range of 2500 up to Rp. namely the clarity of giving messages, showing 3500. The price level is according to farmers adjusted to sympathy or hospitality, and extension workers are the quality of seeds produced even though farmers flexible in getting along. Almost all farmers gave positive expect higher prices. evaluations to the extension workers by saying they Availability of Access to Financial Capital were satisfied, kind and flexible. This is due to the fact Availability of access to financial capital in this study that extension workers lived together with the village is the availability of capital sources and the ease of use community as happened in Nunmafo Village, Bitauni of farmers so that in planning and implementing farming, Village, and Fatoin Village and then the extension able to overcome the problem of maize special efforts workers lived in neighboring houses with farmers such farming. as in Manunain A Village, Manunain B Village, and Based on the results of the study (Table 2) shows Oinbit Village. As stated by Soekartawi (2005), which that the dominant farmers are in the range of 4-5 (52 states that counseling/extension is a process of working percent) with a range of achievement scores in the with farmers and therefore counseling is applicative in availability of access to financial capital between 2 to 8. nature that has certain methods. If viewed from the average score achieved, the However, there are extension agents who have not availability of access to financial capital by maize special been able to become the source of communication as efforts farmers in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency expected, such as those assigned in Oinbit Village and

5854

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

Table 3. The proportion of Maize Special efforts Farmers by Internal Factors of Farmers, 2019 N Percentage Communication Effectiveness Category Mean (Person) (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Very low (< 5) 7 4

Komunikator Low (5-6) 40 25

(source) High (7-8) 78 49 7,43 Very High (>8) 36 22 Total 161 100 Very Low (< 5) 18 11 Pesan Low (5-6) 95 59 (message) High (7-8) 39 24 6,25 Very High (>8) 9 6 Total 161 100 Very Low (< 7) 18 11 Saluran/Media Low (7-9) 112 70 (channel) High (10-12) 28 17 8,49 Very High (>12) 3 2 Total 151 100 Very Low (< 7) 24 15 Metode Low (7-9) 103 64 (method) High (10-12) 29 18 8,54 Very High (>12) 5 3 Total 161 100 Very Low (< 7) 16 10 Penerima/Petani Low (7-9) 101 63 (receiver) High (10-12) 36 22 9,41 Very High (>12) 8 5 Total 161 100 Very Low (<4) 12 7 Efek/dampak Low (4-5) 102 63 (impact) High (6-7) 38 24 4,79 Very High (>7) 9 6 Total 161 100 Source: Primary Data, 2019

Fatoin Village, because extension agents will come the language well. The language here is the language when requested and needed by farmers and sometimes used and can be understood by the communicant. do not even come, and reside far from where farmers 2. Message live, often not started by making the farmer aware but he Message is the information that will be sent to the was in a hurry so the farmer often did not understand the recipient (farmer). A good communication message if it message, the farmer was also upset because he did not suits to the farmers’ problems and needs. So far, the conduct a demonstration and mutation of the extension extension message, especially related to maize special agents suddenly. This is in accordance with the results efforts, has been delivered according to existing of Levis’s research (2017) which states that the inability technical guidelines in the form of expansion of planting of extension workers to sensitize farmers and there are areas, superior seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides which no demonstrations in the target villages because they intended to produce according to the expected target. are not given the budget to conduct demonstrations Based on the results of the study (Table 3) shows directly with farmers. Although the farmers feel that the effectiveness of communication in terms of dissatisfied and very dissatisfied with the source of messages most or dominant are in the low category in communication in this case the extension workers, but the range of 5-6 (59 percent), and the range of the efforts of the sub district-level extension coordinator achievement scores in messages by extension agents can build harmonious interactions and relationships with in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency is between 3 to 12. the maize special efforts farmers. And Schramm in If seen from the average score for the achievement of Effendy (2005) suggests that to be a good effective communication through the message delivered communicator, it is necessary to pay attention to the is 6,25. The low of messages delivered by extension following three requirements: 1) Appearance, agents is due to the fact that some messages cannot be appearance of the communicator is very important in seen directly by farmers (joint demonstrations on conveying messages to the communicant. This farmers’ land), messages delivered by extension agents appearance is certainly in accordance with manners and are often not as promised such as seeds arrive late and pay attention to circumstances, time and place. 2) do not meet the needs of planting time, fertilizers, and Mastery of the problem, someone who appears/ shown pesticides are cannot be obtained by farmers because as a communicator must really master the subject matter of scarcity and even late arrival and farmers are allowed so that after the communication process takes place to compete in the free market for determining the price does not cause distrust of the communicant to the of corn. This is the opposite of what was said by communicator. 3) language acquisition, language is the Vardiansyah, 2004 in Levis (2017) that the message main communication tool. Communicators must master must be delivered properly and hit the target i.e. a) the

5855

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al. message must be well planned and in accordance with TTU Regency is between 4 to 16. If seen from the needs; b) the message must use language that can be average score of the achievement of communication understood by both parties; c) the message must be effectiveness through the message delivered is 8,54. interesting and meet the recipient’s needs and give rise The lack of extension methods in maize special efforts to satisfaction, d) the correct treatment of the message is due to the implementation of special efforts activities (must be proven). are conducted with direct communication either through 3. Channel meetings or discussions, the instructor has not utilized Channels are links that connect communicators with available technological advancements such as TV, communicants. Communication media are objects or Radio, or HP to communicate with extension workers, mediums where messages from the communicator can because farmers lack the media, besides the availability get to the communicant. In the extension activities, some of human resources are limited and do not like to read. media that are often used are farmer groups, gardens, Joint demonstration methods, joint fieldwork methods, materials and tools, demonstration of results, flip charts, and comparative study methods are expected to films, etc. that can support the learning process and are strengthen the use of extension methods, but the reality available around the community environment is rarely done by extension agents. Farmers have not (Agricultural Extension Center 2013). been active in seeking information, officials are Based on the results of the study (Table 3) shows sometimes included in meetings and field meetings in that the effectiveness of communication in terms of other regions or villages or due to the cosmopolitan channels/media is mostly or dominantly in the low nature of the farmers themselves which causes category in the range of 7-9 (70 percent), and the range motivation in utilizing available media, as stated by Arif of achievement scores in messages by extension agents (2008) followed by Levis (2015) that in fact extension in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency is between 4 up to methods can be used in a variety of methods by 16. If seen from the average score of the achievement extension agents such as participatory training methods of communication effectiveness through the message on farmer’s land so that farmers actively hear, see, and delivered is 8,49. The lack of communication act can occur. Activities like this in the theory of adult channels/media in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency is learning processes for changes in farmer’s behavior are due to the communication channels used in the very good because able to reach 90 percent. implementation of the maize special efforts using more 5. Penerima (receiver) direct or verbal communication where the instructor talks The communicant is the recipient of the message. In directly to farmers. So that farmers only listen, listen and the maize special efforts, the communicant is a farmer. write while their memory is weak, which causes Since this communicant varies depending on the communication to run ineffectively, the role of available existing social systems around it, then the media is neglected such as indirect communication understanding of the social system in rural farming through TV channels, newspapers, brochures that communities is very needed. If this understanding cannot be utilized properly due to lack of ownership and already exists, then it will make it easier for a human resources whereas communication via mobile communicator to deliver his message. Based on the phones is only for group management or certain results of the study (Table 3) shows that the members who are used for telephone calls or listening effectiveness of communication in terms of to music, as stated by Soetrisno (1988) that tools or recipients/farmers the majority or dominant are in the media can be selected by extension agents which low category in the range of 7-9 (63 percent), and the available in the participant’s own environment. Farmers range of achievement scores in the effectiveness of who use informal media occur in Nunmafo Village, communication as a recipient/farmer in Insana Bitauni Village, Manunain A Village, and Manunain B Subdistrict, TTU Regency between 4 and 16. If seen Village. Conversely, sustainable informal from the average score of the achievement of communication is not felt by farmers in Fatoin Village, communication effectiveness through the message and Oinbit Village because extension workers live far delivered is 9,41. The low level of farmers as recipients away in other villages. of information on the maize special efforts is due to the 4. Method education level on the average are primary/elementary The method is a way to convey a message to the school education, having narrow land, not fluently communicant with the intention that the message reading and writing, having a lot of social affairs and lack directly touches, inspires, and influences the recipient to of focus in farming, resulting in receiving unclear change behavior as expected. Based on the results of information, and giving less message feedback to the study (Table 3) shows that the effectiveness of extension agent. In this condition, then their perception communication in terms of methods is largely or on the management of the maize special efforts dominantly in the low category in the range of 7-9 (64 implementation will affect the effectiveness of percent), and the range of achievement scores in communication. This is in accordance with Hubeis messages by extension agents in Insana Subdistrict, (2007) that communication will be effective if the

5856

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

Table 4. Linearity Test Results Variable Relationship Pattern P-Value Linierity Conclusion Exogenous Variables --> Endogenous Variables Internal Factors of Farmers (X1) --> Communication Effectiveness (Y1) 0,000 Linear External Factors of Farmers (X2) --> Communication Effectiveness (Y1) 0,000 Linear Source: Primary Data, 2019 communication is able to produce attitude changes in Determinants of the Effectiveness of other people that can be seen in the communication Communication on Maize Special Efforts Based process. But farmers assess the presence of maize on Local Wisdom special efforts can get help, increase income so that they Analysis of determinants that influence the are always happy to try to get better results than before. effectiveness of communication in the development of Indeed, sometimes the information conveyed by the maize special efforts based on local wisdom in the extension agent is unclear, but farmers always try to get Subdistrict of Insana, TTU Regency using SEM-GSCA additional information related to maize special efforts so analysis. In general, the linearity test aims to test that they know and understand about the maize special whether the form of the relationship between the efforts innovation. independent variable and the dependent variable is 6. impact linear or not. The researcher uses SPSS assistance in The effect/impact in this study can be seen as an testing the linearity assumptions. The relationship impact that occurs in the communicant (recipient/farmer) between the two variables is said to be linear if the after receiving the message of the maize special efforts significance value of the test is smaller than alpha (5% / from the source/communicator/extension agents such 0,05). as changing attitudes and increasing knowledge. Based Based on Table 4 shows that the linearity test results on the results of the study (Table 3) shows that the to determine the SEM-GSCA model is appropriate or effectiveness of communication in terms of inappropriate to use. The test results show that all of the effects/impacts caused in the maize special efforts causal variables have significance values to the effect mostly or dominant in the low category in the range of 4- variables. This shows that the SEM-GSCA model is 5 (63 percent), and the range of achievement scores in appropriate to be used in this study. A variable has good the effects/impacts in maize special efforts in Insana validity for its construct or latent variable if the t-value of Subdistrict, TTU Regency between 2 to 8. If seen from its load factor is greater than the critical value (≥ 1,96) the average score of the achievement of communication and/or the standard load factor ≥ 0,50. While the effectiveness through the effect/impact of the maize evaluation on the reliability of the measurement model special efforts is 4.79. The low level of effect/impact in the GSCA could use Constability Reliability (CR ≥ experienced by farmers as information recipients of the 0,70) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE ≥ 0,50). maize special efforts is due to the many activities of Then proceed with the measurement model analysis farmers that must be carried out such as spiritual using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) method, matters, customary affairs, livestock business, carpentry the results of the analysis can be seen in Table 5. business, which causes farmers to be less Based on Table 4 it can be seen that the entire value present/active in every activity of maize special efforts of the Loading factor≥ 0,50 (Valid), and the value of and less interact with extension workers due to time AVE≥ 0,50 (Valid), while the results of the calculation of constraints that make it difficult for farmers to attend reliability indicate that all Cronbach Reliability (CR) meeting activities. In addition, the area of planting added values ≥0,70 (Reliable). Thus it can be concluded that is low because the land owned is narrow, less use of all of these exogenous latent variables have good and corn seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides due to late decent indicators. In detail, in order to find out the most distribution, limited labor availability, the proposed dominant indicators in contributing to exogenous and prospective recipients of the program actually change endogenous latent constructs, it is explained as follows. became decrease/increase as a result farmers are not 1. The best indicator in forming the Farmer’s Internal ready to accept the program referred to, besides Factor (X1) variable is X1.1 (Farmer’s age) with the counseling/extension that is not accompanied by highest loading factor of 0,838 demonstrations. Besides that, the implementation of 2. The best indicator in forming the Farmer External extension communication carried out by extension Factor (X2) variable is X2.3 (Access to capital) with the agents in the maize special efforts activities at the study highest loading factor of 0,862 site was not based on an analysis of the problems and 3. The best indicator in forming the Communication needs faced by farmers in relation to corn agribusiness Effectiveness variable (Y1) is Y1.4 (Method) with the activities and was not preceded by an awareness highest loading factor of 0,893 process and this was contrary to the views of Hickerson, The next step can be carried out path analysis by F.J. and Jhon Midleton, 1995, and Aportadera, et al, designing measurement models and structural models 1991, Levis, 2017. so that forming a path diagram to determine the effect of

5857

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

Table 5. Evaluation of the Exogenous and Endogenous Variable Measurement Models (Outer Model) OverAll Validity (Per Partial Validity (Per Indicator) Cronbach Reliability (CR > Observed Construct) Latent Variable Ranking 0,7) Variables (LF > 0,5=Valid) (AVE > 0,5=Valid) Outer Loading Inf AVE Conclusion CR Inf. X1.1 0,838 Valid 1 X1.2 0,708 Valid 6 Internal Factors of X1.3 0,729 Valid 5 0,629 Valid 0,877 Reliable Farmers (X1) X1.4 0,832 Valid 2 X1.5 0,824 Valid 3 X1.6 0,817 Valid 4 X2.1 0,845 Valid 3 External Factors of X2.2 0,850 Valid 2 0,726 Valid 0,801 Reliable Farmers (X2) X2.3 0,862 Valid 1 Y1.1 0,747 Valid 5 Y1.2 0,785 Valid 4 Communication Y1.3 0,841 Valid 3 0,658 Valid 0,895 Reliable Effectiveness (Y) Y1.4 0,893 Valid 1 Y1.5 0,876 Valid 2 Y1.6 0,708 Valid 6

Fig. 1. The Influence Among The Structural Model Research Variables each variable. As for the path coefficients in the indicators, method indicator is very important to consider structural model and the value of the manifest factor in shaping better communication effectiveness. weighting in the measurement model can be illustrated Farmer’s internal factors which are measured based through the following path diagram of the measurement on six indicators, all have a significant influence. The model and structural model. dominant indicator as a constituent of internal factors of Based on Fig. 1 and the analysis of the results it farmers in influencing the effectiveness of shows that the Farmer’s Internal Factor (X1), has a communication to improve changes in farmer’s behavior positive and significant effect on the effectiveness of is the age of the farmer. The approach improvement communication (Y). Likewise, Farmer External Factor based on the character of farmers ‘age will affect (X2) has a positive but not significant effect on farmers’ internal factors and will improve communication Communication Effectiveness (Y). effectiveness. The effectiveness of communication measured by Model testing, the procedure is carried out in several the six constituent indicators has a pretty good value. stages. The first stage is designing the structural model, The six indicators have a significant influence, namely the second stage is designing the measurement model, communicators, messages, channels/media, methods, the third stage is constructing the path diagram, the recipients, and effects/impacts. Based on the six fourth stage is constructing the path diagram to the

5858

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

Table 6. Goodness of fit Index (Inner Model) results Goodness of fit Index Cut of Value Result Information FIT > 0,500 0,585 Model good fit AFIT > 0,500 0,578 Model good fit GFI > 0,900 0,933 Model good fit SRMR < 0,080 0,423 Model Marginal fit

equation, the fifth stage is the parameter estimation, and covariance. This GFI value must range from 0 to 1. the sixth stage is the Goodness of Fit test, and the last Although in theory GFI might have a negative value but stage is hypothesis test. The seven steps have been this should not happen, because a model that has a carried out and the results meet the criteria for testing negative value is the worst model. GFI values greater the model. The results of the model suitability test than or equal to 0,9 (0,933> 0,900) indicate the fit of a (Goodness of Fit) can be seen in Table 6. model (Diamantopaulus, 2000 in Ghozali, 2005). This suitability test is intended to evaluate in general SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square the degree of compatibility or Goodness of Fit (GOF) Residual) = 0,423 between the data and the model. Structural Equations Standardized RMR represents the average value of do not have the best statistical test that can explain the all standardized residuals, and has a range from 0 to 1. predictive power of the model. Instead, several GOF or Models that have a good fit will have a Standardized Goodness of Fit Indices (GOFI) measurements can be RMR value less than 0,08. The model proposed in this used together or in combination. None of the GOF or study has an SRMR value of 0,423, because the SRMR GOFI measures can be used exclusively as a basis for value is greater than 0,08, it can be concluded that the evaluating the suitability of the whole model. The best model is declared Marginal fit. clue in assessing model compatibility is a strong According to Bollen (1993) none of the GOF or GOFI substantive theory. If the model only shows or measures exclusively can be used as a basis for represents substantive theories that are not strong, and evaluating the suitability of the whole model. The best although the model has a very good model fit, it is rather clue in assessing model compatibility is a strong difficult for us to judge the model. substantive theory. This means that although there are The overall model fit test relates to the analysis of the criteria that are not met, it does not mean that the overall GOF statistics generated by the program, in this case model is not accepted, if there is only one GOF indicator the GSCA. By using the GOF measurement guidelines that is met, then the indicator can represent other and GOF statistical results, then overall model fit can be indicators of the accuracy test of the model. From the analyzed as shown in Table 6. exposure of the Goodness of Fit Test above, it is known FIT = 0,585 that 3 of the 4 Tests for the accuracy of the Model are FIT shows the total variance of all variables that can declared feasible (Good Fit). Thus it can be concluded be explained by a particular model. FIT values range that the results of the synthesis of several theories that from 0 to 1. Thus, the model formed can explain all the are combined to form a structural construct on the Path existing variables amounted to 0,585. Exogenous Diagram holistically can be ratified/feasible as a new variables that can be explained by the model equal to scientific finding or a Grand Theory applicable for 58,5% and the rest (41,5%) can be explained by other nowadays. variables. This means that the model can explain the In the hypothesis testing stage, a causal relationship phenomenon being studied. is declared insignificant if the value of the critical ratio AFIT = 0,578 (C.R) is between the range -1.96 and 1.96 with a Adjusted from FIT is almost the same as FIT. significance level of 0,05. With the help of the GSCA However, because exogenous variables that affect program application, it is obtained the estimation value endogenous more than one variable, it would be better of the structural model critical ratio. The calculation if the interpretation of the accuracy of the model uses a results the coefficients are presented in Table 7. corrected FIT or uses AFIT. Because the more variables Based on Table 7 it is known that the Effectiveness that affect then FIT value will be even greater because of Communication (Y1) is significantly influenced the proportion of diversity will also increase so that to (significant) by Farmers Internal Factors (X1). adjust to the existing variables could use a corrected Hypothesis testing by comparing the value of the path FIT. If seen from the AFIT value namely 0,578, the coefficient with CR with the criteria of the CR value > variable that can be explained by the model is 57,8% 1.96 and the value of P <α 0,05. and the rest (42.2%) can be explained by other The discussion of each variable that affects the variables. Effectiveness of Communication and Behavior Change Goodness of Fit Indices (GFI) = 0,933 of the Maize special efforts Farmers will be explained in The goodness of Fit Indices (GFI) is a measure of the detail using the results of interviews and field accuracy of the model in producing an observed matrix observations below.

5859

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

Table 7. Results of Estimation and Testing of Research Variables Effect among Latent variables Hypothesis Path Coefficient CR p-value Conclusion Exogenous Variables --> Endogenous Variables Communication Internal Factors of Farmers (X1) --> H1 0,15 3,88 0,000 Significant Effectiveness (Y) External Factors of Farmers Communication --> H2 0,09 1,52 0,130 Not significant (X2) Effectiveness (Y)

The Influence of Internal Factors of Farmers development of thinking ability occurs along with on the Effectiveness Communication of Maize increasing age and the older the age of a farmer, will Special Efforts Based on Local Wisdom further add to the experience in farming. Therefore in Based on the results of the structural model analysis improving the pattern of development approach of maize (Fig. 1), it is known that overall of the Farmer Internal special efforts in order to improve the effectiveness of Factor (X1) variable has a positive effect on communication should pay attention to the Communication Effectiveness (Y), meaning that the characteristics of the adults. This is consistent with Carl higher the Farmer Internal Factor (X1) is considered, Rogers (1969) quoted by Malik (2018) in his theory then the consequence will be to raise the known as ‘student centered learning’. The essence of Communication Effectiveness variable (Y), where the this theory are; 1) we cannot teach others but we are Path coefficient obtained is 0,155 with a CR value of only able to facilitate their learning; 2) someone will learn 3,88. Because the CR value is greater than the critical significantly only on things that strengthen him/her ‘self value (3,88> 1,96), then the statistical hypothesis states ‘; 3) humans cannot learn when they are under pressure; that H0 is rejected, meaning that the Farmer Internal 4) the application of psychotherapy in the learning Factor (X1) variable has a significant influence on the process; 5) participants and facilitators should have a Communication Effectiveness (Y1) variable. The results deep understanding of themselves through groups of this study are consistent with research conducted by known as group sensitivity exercises. According to Adawiyah, et al., (2017): Arimbawa, et al (2020) that one Rogers, this sensitivity training is very important to keep of the factors influencing the effectiveness of participants learning to share feelings, attitudes, and communication in groups is the internal characteristics interpersonal relationships (relations with of farmer of the group members. Bucata and Rizescu communication science using media, methods, (2017) research results also support the findings of this materials) among them so he calls ‘student-centered study which states that communication will be more learning’. He emphasized three main points in effective if it is supported by internal communication experiential learning namely; 1) participants learn to be among the members so that they can collaborate faced with real problems that want to find a solution; 2) effectively in every organizational activity. Based on if the awareness of the problem already exists/formed, supporting indicators of Farmer Internal Factors (X1) then the attitude towards the problem is also formed; 3) that has the dominant influence on the effectiveness of there are learning resources, both in the form of humans, communication in maize special efforts is X1.1 (Age of as well as written or printed materials. Carl Rogers farmers) with the highest loading factor of 0,838 in places more emphasis on careful understanding of the forming the Farmers Internal Factors. Meaning that, the enhancement of student satisfaction (in this study, more mature a person is in a job and actively seeking farmers) prioritizing farmers as subjects of education. information, then the more it will affect the effectiveness This theory focuses on farmers as adults and as subjects of communication in maize special efforts and if the in determining the communication model in terms of manager/management wants to raise the value of the choosing material, media, and methods. So this theory Farmer Internal Factor (X1) then the statistical mandates a deeper understanding of the satisfaction of recommendations regarding indicators need to be farmers in implementing effective communication so that prioritized to be improved. is X1.1 (Age of farmer) it helps farmers in adopting and implementing indicator. This is consistent with the results of research sustainable technology of maize special efforts. This is from Cahyono (2014), and Agunga et al 2016, as well as in accordance with Padmowihardjo (1994) who states Arimbawa (2020) that the low information access of that age is a factor that determines the efficiency of one’s farmers’ to agricultural innovation is a fundamental learning process. A person’s age has an indirect effect problem for farmers with weak characteristics. on his/her attitude, physical maturity and mental In this research, generally the sample farmers are maturity. Farmers whose age is older than their classified and are in the adult category. That is, the counselors/extension agents will lead to unfavorable increasing age of the farmer will also increase the attitudes in the learning process, for example, lack of mindset and experience that will cause the farmers respect, tend to be satisfied with the situation, maintain increasing the farmer’s competence in farming. This is their habits. in accordance with the results of the research of Manyamsari and Mujjiburahmad (2014) that the

5860

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

The Influence of Farmers’ External Factors on land tenure, the negative consequences among other the Communication Effectiveness of Maize business failures or losses while the positives can get Special Efforts Based on Local Wisdom higher results and many benefits. Based on the analysis of structural models (Fig. 1) it In this study, generally the sample farmers were is known that the Farmer External Factor (X2) variable classified in the low category. This means that the lower has a positive influence on Communication the farmer’s access to financial capital sources, the Effectiveness (Y), meaning that the higher the Farmer lower the effectiveness of communication in the External Factor (X2) is considered, then the management of maize special efforts. This is in line with consequence will raise the Communication the fact that maize special efforts farmers in the research Effectiveness (Y) variable, where Path coefficient location in Insana Subdistrict, TTU Regency have not obtained is 0,093 with a CR value of 1,52. Because the yet accessed financial capital properly because the CR value is smaller than the critical value (1,52 <1,96), source of capital is less by farmers and that there is not then the statistical hypothesis states that H0 is accepted, suitable with farmers’ needs, lack of support in farming meaning that the Farmer External Factor (X2) has an development, and loan conditions that are not easy such insignificant influence on the Communication as government banks, private banks. Mosher (1987) Effectiveness (Y) variable. The results of this study are states that the source of credit should be near the farmer in accordance with Mardikanto (2010) that the external with a simple acquisition procedure and officers should characteristics of farmers such as the availability of be friendly and help farmers. Even farmers in the facilities and infrastructure at the local level, product research location are generally not interested in marketing and transportation are absolute conditions borrowing from banks, because they are unable to meet that must be met for the sustainability of agricultural the requirements and are afraid of not being able to development. Similarly, Mosher (1987) states that in return the loan installments. Whereas farmers generally supporting agricultural development there are five basic use a relatively small amount of private capital or requirements and five accelerating requirements that sometimes borrow from fellow farmers, and loans from are at least fulfilled so that development activities can group cash, and cooperatives. There have been loans proceed well. The five basic requirements are: (a) the through group cash and have had a negative impact on existence of market for agricultural products; (b) the farmers, because some farmers misuse loans without presence of technology that is always developing; (c) the repayments due to not getting guidance on the use of availability of production facilities at the local level; (d) loans for corn/maize farming. The existence of the existence of production incentives for farmers; and cooperatives no longer attracts farmers, because (e) the existence of transportation in facilitating the cooperative management has diverged in the past. distribution of production. Whereas the five Counseling/extension activities need to be directed facilitating/accelerating factors referred are: (a) the not only at technical matters of cultivation of corn existence of education for farmers; (b) the availability of farming, but also on tips on getting capital loans with the credit for farming; (c) the presence of farmer cooperation banking system and looking for credit opportunities from or farmer institution; (d) the existence of improvement other sources; so that farmers have adequate and expansion of farming land; and (e) the existence of knowledge and skills about the terms and process of national plans for agricultural development. Based on capital lending from banks or other sources of capital. the supporting indicators of Farmer External Factors (X2), that has the dominant influence on the CONCLUSION effectiveness of communication in the maize special Based on the results of research and discussion it efforts is X2.3 (Access to capital) with the highest can be concluded that: loading factor of 0,862. Thus if the 1. Internal factors of farmers (age is in the adult manager/management wants to raise the value of the category, formal education, non-formal education is in Farmer External Factor (X2) variable, then the statistical the low category, experience of farmers is in the high recommendations regarding indicator that need to be category, while land area, and cosmopolitan are in the prioritized for improvement is X2.3 (Access to capital) very low category), farmer external factors (the indicator. This is consistent with Falo research (2011) availability of infrastructure facilities is in the high that the low access to the financial capital of farmers can category, while the availability of market access and affect the rate of adoption of corn farmers in Lapeom access to capital is low). village, Insana Barat Subdistrict, TTU Regency. 2. Factors that influence the effectiveness of Similarly, Mosher (1987), Mardikanto (2009) states that communication of maize special efforts are internal financial capital is needed for the procurement of seeds factors of farmers, with a CR value greater than the and labor wages, the existence of capital determines the critical value (CR > 1,96). While the external factors of level or type of technology applied and can have positive farmers have a positive value but have no significant or negative effects, especially on farming with narrow

5861

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al. effect (CR value is smaller than the critical value (CR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS <1,96) on the effectiveness of communication. We thank to my supervisor for support and ideas in writing this paper.

REFERENCES [BPS]. Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten TTU. (2018). Timor Tengah Utara dalam Angka, Kefamenanu Adawiyah, Cut. R., Sumardjo, dan Mulyani, E.S., (2017). Faktor yang mempengaruhi peran komunikasi kelompok dalam adopsi inovasi teknologi upaya khusus (padi, jagung, kedelai) di Jawa Timur, Jurnal Agro Ekonomi. 35 (2): 151-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.21082/jae.v35n2.2017.151-170. Adnan, N., Nordin, S. M., Bahruddin, M. A., & Tareq, A. H. (2019). A state-of-the-art review on facilitating sustainable agriculture through green fertilizer technology adoption: Assessing farmers behavior. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 86, 439-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.02.040. Aldosari, F., Al Shunaifi, M. S., Ullah, M. A., Muddassir, M., & Noor, M. A. (2019). Farmers’ perceptions regarding the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Northern Pakistan. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 18(2), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.05.004 Aportadare, A. D., Florencio, A.A., Donato,S.F., Ernesto A.F., Cynthia, R.G., Mario, G.L., Agapito, M.L., Heidi, M.M., Themistocles, D.P., Florosito, Q.P., Dulce, Q,S., Sixto, Q.S., Manuel, M.T. (1991). Training, A How to Book for Trainers and Teachers, National Book Store. Inc. Publisher, Metro Manila, Philipines Azmi, Kaerul. 2014. Filsafat Ilmu Komunikasi. Kerjasama Universitas Budi Luhur dengan Indigo Media. Tangerang Arimbawa,P. (2020). Peran Komunikasi Dalam Kelembagaab Petani untuk Peningkatan Kapasitas Petani Mengembangkan Kakao Di Kabupaten Kolaka Timur. Disertasi. Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Brawijaya. Malang Ban, Van Den., A.W dan H.S Hawkins. (2010). Penyuluhan Pertanian, Agnes Dwina Herdiasti, penerjemah. Yogyakarta : Kanisius Bollen, Kenneth A., dan J. Scot Long (editors). (1993). Testing Struktural Equation Model, Sage Publication Bucata George., Rizescu A.M. (2017). The role of Communication in enhancing work effectiveness of an organozation, Land Forces Academy Review XXII (1)(85):49-57 Cahyono, E.D. (2014). Challenges Facing Extention Agents in Implementing the Participatory Extention Approach in Indonesia: A Case Study of Malang Regency in the East Java Region. Disertasi. The Ohio State University. Dinas Pertanian TTU, (2019). Perkembangan Luas Tanam, Luas Panen, dan Produksi Jagung Program Upsus di Kabupaten TTU. Kefamenanu. Eastwood, C., Klerkx, L., & Nettle, R. (2017). Dynamics and distribution of public and private research and extension roles for technological innovation and diffusion: Case studies of the implementation and adaptation of precision farming technologies. Journal of Rural Studies, 49, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.008. Edwards, A., Edwards, C., & Gambino, A. (2019). The social pragmatics of communication with social robots: Effects of robot message design logic in a regulative context. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1-13. Effendi OU. (2005). Ilmu Komunikasi Teori dan Praktek. Bandung : Remaja Rosda Karya Falo, M. 2011. Tingkat Adopsi Teknologi Jagung Hibrida oleh Petani Di Lahan Kering Kabupaten Timor Tengah Utara Provinsi NTT. Thesis. IPB. Bogor Fatchiya A. (2010). Tingkat kapasitas pembudi daya ikan dalam mengelola usaha aquakultur secara berkelanjutan. Jurnal Penyuluhan, 6 (1):11-18 Harinta YW. (2010). Hubungan Sosial Ekonomi Petani dan Kualifikasi Penyuluh Terhadap Adopsi Teknologi Pengelolaan Tanaman dan Sumberdaya Terpadu Budidaya Padi (Oryza sativa). Jurnal WIDYATAMA Vol. 19, No. 2 Tahun 2010. Universitas Veteran Bangun Nusantara Sukoharjo Hickerson, F.J. dan John Midleton. (1995). Helping People Learn: A Module for Training, A Profesional Development Module, East West Communication Institute, Honolulu, Hawai. Hubeis, AVS., (2007). Komunikasi Inovasi. Edisi 2. Penerbit Universitas Terbuka. Jakarta. Kebebe, E. (2019). Bridging technology adoption gaps in livestock sector in Ethiopia: A innovation system perspective. Technology in Society, 57, 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.002. Levis, L.R. (2017). Struktur Perilaku Petani dan Model Komunikasi Penyuluhan Untuk Meningkatkan Adaptasi Agribisnis Jagung Oleh Petani Di Timor Barat NTT. Disertasi. Pascasarjana Universitas Brawijaya Malang.

5862

EurAsian Journal of BioSciences 14: 5849-5863 (2020) Falo et al.

Linder, C., & Sperber, S. (2017). If what you want is not what you get: A communication‐based approach to top managers’ intended firm creativity and employees’ failure to deliver. European Management Review, 14(3), 227- 246. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12104. Lionberger, Herbert F. and Gwin, Faul H. (1982). Communication Strategies: A Guide for Agricultural Change Agents. Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. United States Of America. Malik, H. (2018). Teori belajar androgogi dan penerapannya, http://www.kompasiana.com/unik/55008878a33311ef6f511659/teori-belajar-andragogi-dan-penerapannya Mardikanto. T., (2009). Sistem Penyuluhan Pertanian. Surakarta: Lembaga Pengembangan Mardikanto. T., (2010). Sistem Penyuluhan Pertanian. Lembaga Pengembangan Pendidikan (LPP) UNS dan Penerbit Percetakan UNS (UNS Press). Surakarta Mosher AT. (1987). Menggerakkan dan Membangun Pertanian: Syarat-syarat Pokok Pembangunan dan Modernisasi. (terjemahan, Krisnandhi dan Bahrin Samad). CV. Yasaguna. Jakarta Narine, L. K., Harder, A., & Roberts, T. G. (2019). Extension Officers’ Adoption of Modern Information Communication Technologies to Interact with Farmers of Trinidad. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 26(1), 17-34. Obiero, K. O., Waidbacher, H., Nyawanda, B. O., Munguti, J. M., Manyala, J. O., & Kaunda-Arara, B. (2019). Predicting uptake of aquaculture technologies among smallholder fish farmers in Kenya. Aquaculture International, 27(6), 1689-1707. Oteyza, A. M., Balmoria, B. E., & Sabularse, M. (2018). Effectiveness of oral and written communication of university employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(1). Padmowihardjo, S. (1994). Psikologi Belajar Mengajar. Materi Pokok . Universitas Terbuka. Jakarta Putra, A. R. S., Pedersen, S. M., & Liu, Z. (2019). Biogas diffusion among small scale farmers in Indonesia: An application of duration analysis. Land Use Policy, 86, 399-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.035. Relf-Eckstein, J. E., Ballantyne, A. T., & Phillips, P. W. (2019). Farming Reimagined: A case study of autonomous farm equipment and creating an innovation opportunity space for broadacre smart farming. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90, 100307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100307. Rogers EM. (2003). Diffusions of Innovations. 5th Edition. New York : Free Press. London Toronto Sydney. Soekartawi. (2005). Prinsip dan Dasar Komunikasi Pertanian. Universitas Indonesia. Jakarta Soetrisno, Kh. (1988). Lebih Lanjut Tentang Latihan Yang Partisipatif. YIS. Solo Sunhaji, S. (2018, April). Building An Effective Educational Communication: A Study on Educator-Educatee Relationship in an Effective Teaching and Learning. In International Conference of Moslem Society (Vol. 2, pp. 84-94). Suratiyah K. (2006). Ilmu Usahatani. Jakarta : Penebar Swadaya Weyori, A. E., Amare, M., Garming, H., & Waibel, H. (2018). Agricultural innovation systems and farm technology adoption: findings from a study of the Ghanaian plantain sector. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 24(1), 65-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1386115

www.ejobios.org

5863