Article Sidebar

Submitted
August 17, 2019
Accepted
September 27, 2019
Published
September 30, 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 704 Download : 542

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

One indication of the risk is fluctuations in production yield. Chili as a superior competitor is the most vulnerable to fluctuations in production. The purpose of this study was to analyze the factors that influence the risk of production and farmers' policies on the risk of production. This research used purposive sampling with 66 farmers sampel size. This research used Just and Pop models which were analyzed using regression analysis and analysis of farmer relationships with utility function models. The results reflected that land area, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and labor can increase the yield of chili. While the area of land, seeds, fertilizers, labor and planting seasons can increase the risk of chili production. Most farmers have risk takers compared to the potential for chili production.

Keywords

preference production risk production red chili

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree with the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  4. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Wibisonya, I., Fariyanti, A., & Jahroh, S. (2019). PREFERENSI PETANI DALAM MENGHADAPI RISIKO PRODUKSI CABAI MERAH KERITING DI KABUPATEN CIANJUR. Jurnal AGRISEP: Kajian Masalah Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Dan Agribisnis, 18(2), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.31186/jagrisep.18.2.359-370
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Anwar MR, Liu DL, Farquharson R, Macadam I, Abadi A, Finlayson J, Wang B, Ramilan T. 2015. Climate change impacts on phenology and yields of five broadacre crops at four climatologically distinct locations in Australia. Agricultural Systems 132: 133-144.
  2. Apriana N. Analisis Risiko Produksi Petani Padi di Daerah Aliran Sungai Bengawan Solo, Kabupaten Bojonegoro, Provinsi Jawa Timur. [Tesis]. Bogor (ID): Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  3. Asche F, Tveteras R. 1999. Modeling production risk with a two-step prosedure. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 24(2):424-439.
  4. Fariyanti A. 2008. Perilaku Ekonomi Rumahtangga Petani Sayuran dalam Menghadapi Risiko Produksi dan Harga Produk di Kecamatan Pangalengan Kabupaten Bandung [Disertasi]. Bogor (ID): Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  5. Fauziyah E. 2010. Pengaruh Perilaku Petani dalam Menghadapi Risiko Produksi terhadap Alokasi Input Usahatani Tembakau: Pendekatan Fungsi Produksi Frontir Stokastik [Disertasi]. Bogor (ID): Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  6. Guan Z, Wu F. 2009. Specification and Estimation of Heterogeneous Risk Preference. Beijing, China. Contributed Paper prepared for Presentation at the 27th International Conference of Agricultural Economists (IAAE).
  7. Hartuti N. Sinaga R M. 1997. Pengeringan Cabai. Balai Penelitian Tanaman Sayuran. (ID): Bandung
  8. Hidayati R. 2016. Pengaruh Efisiensi Teknis dan Preferensi Risiko Petani Terhadap Penerapan Usahatani Kubis Organik di Kecamatan Baso Kabupaten Agam Sumatera Barat [Tesis]. Bogor (ID): Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  9. Kahan D. 2008. Managing risk in farming. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations
  10. Kementerian Pertanian Direktorat Jenderal Hortikultura. 2015. Statistik Produksi Hortikultura 2014. (ID) : Jakarta
  11. Kementerian Pertanian Direktorat Jenderal Hortikultura. 2016. Program Peningkatan Produksi Dan Produktivitas Hortikultura Ramah Lingkungan Tahun 2015. (ID) : Jakarta
  12. Kumbhakar S. 2002. Specification and Estimation of Production Risk, Risk Preferences and Technical Efficiency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 84(1):8-22.
  13. Ningsih GM. 2016. Analysis of efficiency and factors affecting theproduction of cabbage farming (Brassica oleracea L) in Belung Village, Poncokusumo, Malang, Indonesia. International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology 6 (1): 8-13
  14. Nurhapsa. 2013. Analisis Efisiensi Teknis dan Perilaku Risiko Petani serta Pengaruhnya terhadap Penerapan Varietas Unggul pada Usahatani Kentang di Kabupaten Enrekang Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan [Disertasi]. Bogor (ID): Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  15. Qomaria N. 2011. Analisis Preferensi Risiko dan Efisiensi Teknis Usahatani Talas di Kota Bogor [Tesis]. Bogor (ID): Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  16. Rahayu RB. 2011. Preferensi Risiko Petani pada Usahatani Padi Organik di Kabupaten Sragen [Tesis]. Bogor (ID): Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  17. Robinson LJ, PJ Barry. 1987. The Competitive Firm’s Response to Risk. Macmillan Publisher, London.
  18. Saptana. 2011. Efisiensi Produksi dan Perilaku Petani Terhadap Risiko Produktivitas Cabai Merah di Provinsi Jawa Tegah [Disertasi]. Bogor (ID): Institut Pertanian Bogor.
  19. Tiedemann T, Lohmann UL. 2012. Production Risk and Technical Efficiency in Organic and Conventional Agriculture: The Case of Arable Farm in Germany. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 64(1):73-96
  20. Villano R, E Fleming. 2006. Technical Inefficiency and Production Risk in Rice Farming : Evidence from Central Luzon Philippines. Asian Economic Journal. 20(1) : 29-49.