Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 142, 2020
The 3rd International Conference on Agricultural and Life Sciences (ICALS 2019)
Article Number 06008
Number of page(s) 6
Section Smart Social and Politics for Agriculture
Published online 21 January 2020
  1. BUMN, National Sugar Cane Commodity Road Map. Jakarta: BUMN, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. A.A. Sulaiman, Y. Sulaeman, N. Mustikasari, D. Nursyamsi, and A.M. yakir, “Increasing ugar Production in Indonesia through Land Suitability Analysis and ugar Mill estructuring,” Land, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-17, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Subiyono, Sumbangan Pemikiran Menggapai Kejayaan Industri Gula Nasional. Surabaya: PT. perkebunan Nusantara X, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  4. G.R. Patrick, P.H. Wilson, P.J. Barry, W.G. Bogges, and D.L. Young, “ isk Perceptions and Management Response: Producer-Generated Hypotheses for isk Modelling,” South. J. Agric. Econ., Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 231-238, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  5. T. Binici, A.A. KOC, C. Zulauf, and A. Bayaner, “ isk Attitudes of Farmers in Terms of isk Aversion: A Case Study of Lower Seyhan Plain Farmers in Adana Province, Turkey,” Turkish J. Agric. For., Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 305-312, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  6. O. Ayinde, O. Omotesho, and M. Adewumi, “ isk Attitudes and Management trategies of Small Scale Crop Producer in Kwara State, Nigeria: A anking Approach,” African J. Bus. Manag., Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 217-221, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  7. R. Jain, S. Solomon, A.K. Shrivastava, and A. Chandra, “ ugarcane bud chips: A promising seed material,” Sugar Tech, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 67-69, 2010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. A. Guttormsen and K. oll, “Production risk in subsistence agriculture,” J. Agric. Educ. Ext., Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1-13, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. T.K. amant, “Bud chip method: A potential technology for sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) cultivation,” J. Med. Plants Stud., Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 355-357, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  10. A. Zainuddin and .Wibowo, “Preferensi Petani terhadap Varietas Tebu di PT. Perkebunan Nusantara X,” J. Pangan, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 45-56, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. A. Zainuddin and. Wibowo, “Preferensi isiko Produksi Petani Tebu Di Wilayah PT. Perkebunan Nusantara X,” in Prosiding Seminar Nasional Hasil Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. I. Purnamasari, N. Hanani, and Suhartini, “Technical Efficiency Analysis of ugar Cane Farming In East Java Indonesia (Statistical Approach of Frontier Production Functions),” Agric. Socio-Economics J., Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 23-29, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. E. Mutenheri, D. Kibirige, M.B. Masuku, and A. Singh, “Production Efficiency of smallholder Sugarcane Farmers in Swaziland: A Case Study of Ubombo (Lusip & Poortzicht) Andhhohho (Kddp & Vuvulane) Farmers,” Int. J. Bus. Manag. Invent., Vol. 6, no. 72-80, pp. 72-80, 6AD. [Google Scholar]
  14. J. Chen, “Utility Priority Number Evaluation for FMEA,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 321-328, 2007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. N. Xiao, H.Z. Huang, Y. Li, L. He, and T. Jin, “Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA,” Eng. Fail. Anal., Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 1162-1170, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. J. Hallikas, I. Karvonen, U. Pulkkinen, V.M. Virolainen, and M. Tuominen, “ isk management processes in supplier networks,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., Vol. 90, No. 1, pp. 47-58, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  17. H. Aini, M. yamsun, and A. etiawan, “ isiko Rantai Pasok Kakao Di Indonesia Dengan Metode Analytic Network Process Dan Failure Mode Effect Analysis Terintegrasi,” J. Manaj. Agribisnis, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 209-219, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. T. oger and A. Engler, “ isk Preferences Estimation for Small Rasberry Producers in the Bio-Bio egion Chile,” Chil. J. Agric. Res., Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 175-182, 2008. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.