Analysis of Efficiency and Income

of Farmers in Rice Farming

(Case of Kecamatan Kepanjen, Kabupaten Malang, Jawa Timur)
Created by :
Dwiki Wicaksono
Faculty of Economics and Business Brawijaya University
Email : dwiki.wicaksono@gmail.com
Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Agus Suman, SE., DEA.

ABSTRACT
The aims of this research are (1) to find out the effect of several production
factors (large of the field, labor, seed, Urea fertilizer, Phonska fertilizer, ZA fertilizer,
herbicide, and insecticide & fungicide) to rice farming production; (2) to find out the
efficiency of the allocation of production factors in rice farming production; (3) to find
out the income of the farmer compared to UMR.
This research was conducted by survey, from September to November 2015 in
Malang. The sampling from the district level to the farmer level done by purposive
sample of 90 farmers. The analysis model: (1) the relationship of inputs to production are
analyzed through a model of Cobb-Douglass, (2) the level of efficiency of the allocation
of inputs were analyzed using the index allocation efficiency (ki), (3) the income level of
farmers were analyzed using analysis of tabulation and R / C ratio.
The results showed that the quantity of the type of field input, urea, ZA, and
insecticide & fungicide can be added to increase the production of rice in the rainy season
(MP), whereas in the dry season (MK) in addition to the type of these four inputs, labor
inputs also can be added to increase production. In terms of efficiency in the allocation of
MP and MK, all kinds of inputs that can still be added as mentioned above is not
efficient. Farmers' income from rice farming compared to minimum wage each month
Malang shows that in the rainy seasons (MP) farmers with farming area of 0.5 ha; 1 ha;
and > 2 ha are able to achieve a higher income than the minimum wage each by 4.8%;
113%; and 891%. Whereas in the dry seasons (MK) their income is more productive than
the monthly minimum wage, which in the vast farm of 0.375 ha; 1 ha; and > 2 ha
respectively exceeding the minimum wage by 3.8%; 152.8%; and 1090%.
Keywords : production of rice in the rainy season (MP), production of rice in the dry
season (MK), production elasticity, the level of efficiency of the allocation of
inputs, the income of the farmer compared to UMR.

I.

INTRODUCTION
The position of rice as food commodities will be increasingly important in an
effort to maintain self-sufficiency, especially to meet the high rate of demand for food
staples. Among the foodstuffs are commonly consumed in Indonesia, the contribution of
rice to the provision of calories per capita is the highest in the period 2009-2013 reached
an average of 62.88% (BPS, 2013).
Rice is a crop that produces rice as a staple food source the majority of the
Indonesian population. At the PELITA IV Indonesia has become one of the rice exporting
countries, namely the achievement of self-sufficiency in rice. But this time Indonesia
returned slumped into a net importer of rice (Ashari, 2010). During the period 2010-2014
the average 1,081,673.3 tons of imported rice and the highest imports in 2011 reached
2.75062 million tons (BPS, 2015).
One of the main causes Indonesia to import rice that is, agricultural land
increasingly narrow. Therefore, the current intensification of agriculture needs to be done
because agricultural land is becoming increasingly narrow due to the conversion of
agricultural land into non-agricultural (> 500 ha / year) and due to the influence of
globalization. The intensification of the existing agricultural land management as well as
possible to increase agricultural output by using various means. The sapta farming in
agriculture include processing proper soil, regular watering, the selection of seeds,
fertilization, pest control and plant diseases, post-harvest processing and marketing
(Ashari, 2010).
Rice cultivation broader scale than other major food commodities such as corn
and soybeans. BPS data (2013) indicate that the rice harvested area in 2009 and 2013
reached an average of 13,324,289 hectares, while corn and soybeans each of the average
area of 3,987,225 hectares and 624 857 hectares.
Based on the deployment area of rice production, East Java Province ranks first
that harvested area of 2,037,021 hectares, followed by West Java Province area of
2,029,891 hectares, for three Central Java area of 1,845,447 hectares, while the province
of South Sulawesi, South Sumatra, North Sumatra and others under one million hectares
(BPS, 2013).
The level of productivity of rice in the province of East Java, the highest in 2012
at 6.3 tonnes / ha, but declined in 2013 and 2014 reached an average of 6.05 tonnes / ha
(BPS, 2013). While the yield potential of varieties on average more than 9 tons / ha. For
example Ciherang potentially result reached 9.6 tons / ha (Balai Besar Padi, 2012). This
suggests a gap results in the farmer level with the potential outcome. Malang as the study
area is also one of the centers of rice production in East Java, the harvest area in 2013
covering an area of 59 839 hectares. In the irrigated fields of technical, rice can be grown
twice in one year with the cropping pattern: rice - rice - crops, while the paddy nonirrigation can only be planted twice, namely: rice - crops - crops or rice - crops (Dinas
Pertanian Tanaman Pangan Jawa Timur, 2013).
The role of commodity rice as food commodities that are important to farmers,
and especially East Java, Malang as a buffer of national production is still likely to be
increased productivity and production. Therefore, various policies supporting orientation
in an effort to spur farmers to increase productivity is needed.
The purpose of this study are: (1) Determine the influence of factors of
production (land, labor, seed, fertilizer urea, fertilizer Phonska, ZA fertilizer, herbicides,
insecticides and fungicides) on rice farming production at the farm level. (2) Determine
the efficiency of the allocation of production factors on rice production at the farm level.
(3) Know the income of rice farmers when compared to the minimum wage (Minimum
Wage).

II. Literatur Review

Results of Previous
Rahmat. (1997) examines the allocative efficiency of input use in the case of corn
in dryland farming Lumajang in East Java, estimates a production function using the
Cobb Douglass, to see the level of efficiency while utilizing allocation Allocation
Efficiency Index (allocative efficiency Index ) as implemented by Widodo (1989) which
is an index ratio of the value of the marginal product of the market price of the relevant
input is equal to one. This condition means that the allocation of inputs to a firm in
optimal circumstances to achieve maximum profit. The results showed in the aggregate
index allocative efficiency (IEA) on all types of inputs (input) shows that the IEA with a
range of (0-0.5); (0.51 to 1); and (> 1) respectively of 25%, 33%, 42%, and the
mean cumulative IEA is still far from achieving the absolute value of the maximum
profit. Thus in terms of allocative efficiency (allocative efficiency), in addition to most of
the input level of the allocation is not optimal, this study also proves that tegal corn farm
management at all levels of farming in the study area is oriented for the purposes of
family income.
Prayoga. (2010) analyze the productivity and technical efficiency of organic rice
farming rice fields, conducted in Sukorejo and Jambeyan, District Sambirejo, Sragen,
Central Java. The study used a total of 120 respondents selected people with nonengineering proportionate stratified random sampling were divided equally into four
strata. This study aims to analyze productivity, technical efficiency and resourceefficiency in technical organic rice, and compared with conventional rice. Productivity
analysis using total factor productivity approach using index numbers TFP (Total Factor
Productivity), while technical efficiency was measured using frontier production function.
Estimation of technical efficiency using the MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation),
assuming Cobb-Douglas is the functional form of organic rice farming in the study area.
Then the in-source technical efficiency estimated using linear regression models were
estimated simultaneously with frontier production function. The results showed that
organic rice farmers in the 8th and 5th year is more productive than conventional rice
farmer. The level of technical efficiency achieved sample of farmers varies between 0:47
- 0.96 with an average of 0.70. The level of technical efficiency of organic rice farmers in
the 8th and the 5th year higher, significantly compared to conventional rice farmer. The
results also found that the number of family members to follow the age and frequency
extension activities in-lowering effect of technical efficiency.
Chintya Dewi et al. (2012) study is also about the efficient use of production
factors and the constraints faced by farmers in agricultural activities in Subak Pacung
Babakan, Mengwi, Badung. To determine the factors that affect the production output
was analyzed using the Cobb-Douglas production function. As for knowing the efficient
use of production factors using analysis of technical efficiency, price efficiency, and
economic efficiency. Then to know the constraints of the farmers themselves using
descriptive qualitative method. The results showed that the visible aspects of the technical
efficiency of all factors of production are not efficient, while the price of efficiency
estimation results indicate also all factors of production there is no efficient. Similarly, the
estimation of economic efficiency is also inefficient. This happens because the factors of
production are used in excess, therefore the use of factors of production should be
reduced to obtain efficient management. Constraints faced by farmers are mostly farmers
relatively low economic level, besides that it is also difficult for farmers to obtain
agricultural inputs.
Firdauzi. (2013) tried to examine factors Rojolele and IR64 rice production in
Candirejo Village, District Ngawen, Klaten regency, Central Java. This study aims to
determine the difference between the income of farmers and growers Rojolele Rice Rice

IR64, as well as to determine the level of efficiency of use of production factors. Function
probe used is multiple linear regression were used to determine the factors of production
that affect the production of rice, then the analysis of frontier serves to determine the
maximum production resulting from the factors of production of rice by using MLE
(Maximum Likelihood Estimation), and test efficient use of production factors using
analysis of technical efficiency, price efficiency and economic efficiency. Multiple linear
regression analysis using production quantities dependent variable and the independent
variables include land, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor. The result showed that all the
variables positively and significantly affect rice production and rice Rojolele IR64.
Efficiency levels Rojolele Rice farmers and rice farmers IR64 yet technically efficient,
and economical price. In this study, also known ratio of R / C Rojolele Rice farming is
6.24 while Rice IR64 was 2.49. This suggests that rice farming in the study area Rojolele
more profitable when compared with IR64 rice farming.
Wibowo. (2012) tried to analyze the allocative efficiency of the factors of
production and farm income paddy rice in the village Sambirejo, Saradan subdistrict,
Madiun district, East Java. The analytical method used is to qualitative data through
interviews and analyzed with tabulation system. While quantitative data analysis with
Cobb Douglas production function approach, analysis of allocative efficiency (efficiency
prices), and the calculation of the income of farmers. The results showed the factors that
influence the production of rice farming activity is a factor of seed production and labor.
For the analysis of allocative efficiency of use of production factors paddy shows the
allocation of seed is not efficient allocative. The average total income of rice farmers in
the research area of Rp. 28,779,232, - and the average total cost of Rp. 9,545,414, -. Thus
obtained value of R / C ratio of 3.01. This shows that the average rice farm in the village
of Sambirejo, District Saradan, Madison County is quite advantageous, because the
average value of the RC ratio is more than 1 (one).
Definition, Elements of the Farm, and Rice Farming
Bachtiar Rifai (1980) defines farming as the organization of nature, labor and
capital devoted to production in the agricultural field. The system implementation of this
organization stand alone and deliberately cultivated by a person or group of people either
are bound genelogis, political, and territorial as managers (Hernanto, 1996). Further
Tjakrawiralaksana (1983) defines the farm there are four basic elements, namely : (1)
Land in the area and a specific form. Principal elements in farm land has a function as a
container holding means planting effort. (2) Farming will always be there: the buildings
as a farmer's dwelling house, barn, granary and others; agricultural implements such as
plows, hoes, and may also tractor sprayer; production facilities or materials such as seeds,
fertilizers, medicines eradication of pests and diseases; crops in the field as an object that
is done farmers; domesticated farm animals such as cattle, buffalo, duck and others; cash,
bank loans and cash stored in a house that is an element of capital. (3) There farming the
family farm all of which are a source of farm labor is concerned. (4) Farmers itself, as
well as labor force also acts as the manager of the farm that is someone who is authorized
to decide on all measures related to the process of farm productivity.
Rice is a staple crop that has always cultivated by farmers in both rainfed areas
and on dry land. Rice is used as a source of food supplies and sources of income for the
family. More (Makarim, et al. 2015) explained that the rice plant during its growth
process to achieve yields are determined by the climate, the internal factors of plants, soil,
water, pests and diseases, and management. Therefore, in order to increase productivity of
rice for the present and future need in-depth system analysis approach.
Thus factually rice farming is farming the farmers cultivated with main commodities are
rice on certain paddy field area by applying a factor of production of seed, fertilizer,
pesticides, and management with labor to obtain results in the production of one growing
season.

Rice Farming Revenue

Revenue is one indicator to measure the well-being of a person or community, so that
people's income reflects the economic progress of a society. Mubyarto (1995) and
Pangandaheng (2012), stated revenues are revenues minus the costs incurred.
Soekartawi, et al (1986) explain in more detail that the gross farm income is defined as
the total value of farm products within a specified period, whether sold or not.
Bookkeeping general term of one year, and covers all products: sale, farm household
consumption, used in farming for seed or forage, used for payment and stored in the
warehouse or at the end of the year. Then the difference between gross income and total
expenditures farming farm called net farm income (farm net income). Net farm income
measures the remuneration derived by a family of farmers from the use of production
factors of labor, management, and self-owned capital or loan capital is invested in
farming. Income of rice farmers in this study is rice farming receipts minus costs of
production per season tanam.Secara mathematically formulated rice farm incomes :

=TRTC

(1)
Where:

= State Revenue

TR = Total Revenue
TC = Total Cost
Production Function Theory
Rice farming in paddy fields in the aggregate a production process that is carried
out on the quality of farmers' land is relatively uniform, allocating capital and labor in
addition to the possibility there is a difference in management as well as various levels of
technology management. The relationship between the input and production (output) can
be formulated in the form of the production function as follows (Soekartawi, 1993;
Nicholson, 2001; and Sugiarto et al, 2002) :
Y
H
K
L
M
T

Y = f (H, K, L, M, T)
= kuantitas produksi padi
= luas usaha tani
= besarnya modal
= jumlah tenaga kerja
= manajemen
= teknologi

(2)

Form relationships above, when the independent variable is simplified and

grouped into inputs is not fixed (Xi) and a fixed input (Zi) then in the form of the
production function is :
Y = f (Xi, .... , Xm , Zi, ...., Zn)

(3)

Input and output relationship above will also provide most of the information
necessary to determine the criteria achieve the maximum benefit from a production
process. Hose level where agricultural producers use the input as a rational manager
would carry out farming is limited to the physical production of Xi declining marginal.
This means that each additional unit of an input and other input maintained at a given
level, will give rise to diminished results of "The Law of Diminishing Marginal Return".
Another important condition for optimization is the state average physical product (APP)

as a function of Xi decreased. The rational hose ends when the total production (TPP)
reaches a maximum point and a decline in absolute terms followed by the marginal
physical product of input Xi (MPPXi) to negative (Figure 1).
The marginal physical product of an input Xi is indicated by a change in total
production caused an additional inputs, while the other input is kept constant at a certain
level. Mathematically the first derivative of the production function, namely :

Y f ( Xi , , Xm ; Zi , , Zn)
=
Xi
Xi
(4)
The concept of marginal importance above all to look at the level of the
allocation of the type and number of inputs, the elasticity of production to the use of
inputs, as well as other forms of association relationships in the production process.

Source : Sugiarto, et al (2002).

Figure 1. Relationship TPP, MPP and APP curve
Production Elasticity
Production elasticity (Ep) is the percentage of output as a result of a percentage
change of input (Soekartawi, 1993; Nicholson, 2001; and Sugiarto et al, 2002). As shown
in Figure 1, Elasticity Production >1 (one) to negative is described as follows:
When MP> AP obtained Elasticity Production> 1
When MP = AP obtained Elasticity Production = 1
When MP = 0 obtained Elasticity Production = 0
When a negative MP obtained Elasticity Negative Production
The link between the rationality of the production area with the elasticity of production is
as follows:
Areas with production Elasticity> 1 until Elasticity Production = 1 is irrational
area region (Region I).
Areas with production Elasticity = 1 to Elasticity Production = 0 is a rational area
region (Region II).
Areas with production Elasticity = 0 to Elasticity Production <0 is the irrational
area region (Region III).
Price Efficiency Theory
To see the type and number of the appropriate input can be approximated by
using the concept of marginal. In determining the optimum production levels in the
concept of efficiency, which is a condition of the physical relationship not enough. The

prerequisite is the existence of an indicator of choices. On the relationship between the

input and output that is widely used as an indicator of price comparison options are the
input and output prices.
In obtaining the final image of the relationship between input and output
indicators options, mathematically can be traced as follows :

=Py . f ( Xi , , Xm ; Zi , , Zn )Px . Xi

= short-term benefits

Py

= the price of production per unit

Px

= the price of input are not fixed per unit

Requirements to achieve maximum profit is the first derivative profit function is

equal to zero, so that the value of the marginal product is equal to the price of inputs
(Soekartawi, 1993; Nicholson, 2001; Sugiarto et al, 2002; and Dumairy, 2010). This
situation can be expressed mathematically as follows :

f ( Xi , , Xm ; Zi , , Zn)
=
PyPx=0
Xi
Xi
(5)

Py

f ( Xi , , Xm ; Zi , , Zn)
=Px
Xi
f
Px
=MPPxi=
Xi
Py

By using the marginal physical product (MPPxi) at a price of production will be

obtained for the marginal product value Xi (NPMxi) which is equal to the price of inputs.
This condition can be written as follows :

NPMxi=Pxi atau

NPMxi
=1
Pxi

(6)
Thus, the maximum profit a farmer would be achieved if the number of inputs
used must be such that the value of the marginal product of that input as large as the
corresponding unit price input. This condition is achieved when the state called the price
efficiency.
Farming Aspect :
Definiton
Element
Rice Farming

Rice
Farming
Efficiency

Microeconomics :
Production
Function
Production
Elasticity
Price Efficiency
Rice Farming
Revenue

Figure 2. Farming efficiency associated with microeconomic theory and aspects of rice
farming.

III.

Metodologi

The study was conducted by survey method, in the rainy season (MP) 2014/2015
and dry season (MK) in 2015 designed a model case study in District Kepanjen, Malang,
East Java. Selection of study areas with consideration (BPS Kabupaten Malang, 2012) :
(1) Malang is one of the central areas of rice production for East Java, with an area of
planting 49 515 hectares in 2012, and (2) Most of the acreage of rice crops in Malang
cultivated in paddy fields (wet land), and the proportion of wetland nearly 70 % of total
expanse for agriculture. Sampling of respondents was purposive sampling method and the
number of respondents altogether 90 farmers who cultivate rice plants in paddy fields
(Kuncoro. M, 2013).
Relation of The Inputs and Production Estimation
Model analysis to determine the relationship of input and output is used CobbDouglass assuming (Henderson and Quant, 1980): (1) there is no influence of time; (2)
the elasticity of production is relatively constant; (3) there is an interaction between the
factors of production; and (4) apply to farming groups, but not to individuals. Empirical
models in the form of multiple regression (log-log) (Gujarati dan Porter 2010) :
n

i=8

j=1

log Y =log A+ i log Xi+ j Dj

Y
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
D1
D0

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

paddy production (kg)

large of the field (ha)
labor quantity (HOK)
seed quantity (kg)
Urea fertilizer (kg)
Phonska fertilizer (kg)
ZA fertilizer (kg)
Herbicide (gr)
Insecticide & Fungicide (lt)
dummy penggarap (maro, majek, and rent)
dummy pemilik dan penggarap

elastisitas produksi terhadap perubahan masukan Xi (Epxi)

(7)

Allocative efficiency approach

To see the level of allocative efficiency, approximated by the use of allocative
efficiency index with the rules of profit maximization in economic theory production
(Henderson and Quandt, 1980 and Nicholson, 2002). Formula allocation efficiency index
(ki) and the test (Widodo, 1989 and Racmad M, 1997) is :

k i=

Y Py
Xi P x

(8)
i

k i = i

Y Py
Xi P x

thitung=

ki
Py
Pxi

=
=
=

k i 1
ki

(9)
allocative efficiency index
output price
input price i

Farming Income Analysis

Farm income is the difference between revenues and all costs (Mubyarto, 1995
and Pangandaheng, 2012). Farm income used to calculate the equation (1) in the chapter
review of the literature are as follows:

=TRTC

Where :

= Net income

TR = Total Revenue
TC = Total Cost

IV.

Result and Discussion

Respondents Age
Based on data in Table 1, it can be seen that most of the farmers of the
respondents had ages ranging between 41 and 50 years (35.5%), followed by the farmer
respondents aged between 51-60 years at 25.5%. Both age groups are quite dominate
because besides being head of the family who are required to meet the needs of their
families, both the age groups of farmers with its main job is farming since their teens
when they join their parents. Farmer with age more than 60 years in general bertaninya
submit work to their children and grandchildren so that not infrequently obtained when
interviewed the father and son have the same profession as rice farmers as well..
Table 1. Farmers Distribution of Respondents by Age Group
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Umur Responden (th)

20 30
31 40
41 50
51 60
> 60
Total

Jumlah (jiwa)
6
15
32
23
14
90

Persentase (%)
6,7
16,8
35,5
25,5
15,5
100,0

Source : Primary Data be Treated, 2015.

From the above explanation also shows that increasing a person's age can lead to
decreased productivity. The phenomenon of farmers overview of the respondents also
showed, increasing a person's age, the declining percentage of farmers who want to work.
The highest productivity is in the age 41 to 50, and then decreased at the age of 60 years
to over 60 years. At the age of farmers has the experience and mindset that is mature
enough, despite having little difficulty to accept innovation and technology are given.
There are things that are important to the respondents between the ages of 20 to 30 years
and aged 31 to 40 years, each of which has a percentage of 6.7% and 16.8%. This age

10

group showed an increased spirit of youth to develop farming activities in the village,
although the profession of farmer is not the main profession for respondents in both these
age groups.
Respondents Level of Education
The level of education of a person influential also in the activities of his farming
business, in this case is the ability and skill of farmers in absorbing new information and
technologies derived from the group as well as the extension. Low levels of education
will result in the ability and absorption of farmers to technology and information in the
form of development of agriculture and aquaculture to help improve the welfare of
farmers become more sluggish, so that the efforts that lead to increased production and
incomes will move slowly anyway. Whereas if the farmer has a high level of education
and is good enough, it can cause a farmer is able to adjust its work with the results to be
obtained later. The distribution of respondents by level of education can be seen in Table
2.
Table 2. Distribution of Farmers Respondents by Education Level
No
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Tingkat
Pendidikan
Tidak sekolah
Tidak tamat SD
SD
SMP
SMA
Perguruan Tinggi
Jumlah

Jumlah
(jiwa)
4
27
27
9
21
2
90

Persentase
(%)
4,4
30,0
30,0
10,0
23,3
2,3
100,0

Source : Primary Data be Treated, 2015.

Based on Table 2 above, it can be seen that the respondents' level of education of
farmers in the study area there is still a low level of education, where the farmer
respondents with elementary education level and did not complete primary school have a
cumulative percentage of 34.4%. Distribution of respondents by education level of
respondents with low levels of education were also dominated by respondents in old age,
the age of 50 years. Constraints in education for people in the study area are economic
factors and access to education. High cost of education and access to education such as
the location of the school that much, causing the population prefer not to continue their
education to pursue better. In the category of elementary school to junior high and high
school, each of which has a percentage of 30%, 10% and 23.3%. This group seemed to be
more responsive to a new thing, so this group of respondents can be motivator of rural
development.
Respondents Rice Farming Experience
Distribution of the number of farmers with long experience of respondents
related to farm rice presented in Table 3. The group of respondents with experience to
farm 14-23 years and 24-33 years had a cumulative percentage of up to 52.2%, and the
age group is around 41-60 years. Then followed the group of respondents with 14-23
years of experience, more than 53 years, and 3-13 years in which each percentage of
18.9%, 15.6% and 8.9%. Long experience to farm rice to more than 53 years in the
majority of farmers respondents are "heritage experience" of his parents, and farmers
explained that from his teens joined his father cultivating rice, although not every day are
routinely followed. While there were 3 respondents (3.3%) had experienced farming
padisekitar 3-13 years due to trade jobs concurrently.

11

Table 3. Distribution of Respondents by Experience Farmers Rice.

No
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Lama Pengalaman Berusahatani Padi (th)

3 13
14 23
24 33
34 53
> 53
Total

Jumlah
(jiwa)
8
17
30
21
14
90

Persen (%)
8,9
18,9
33,3
23,3
15,6
100,0

Source : Primary Data be Treated, 2015.

Production Function of Rice Farming Estimation

Model estimator function in the process of production of paddy rice farming in
this study using the Cobb-Douglass, and the application of this production function
assuming: (1) there is no influence of time; (2) the elasticity of production is relatively
constant; (3) there is an interaction between factors; and (4) apply to farming groups, but
does not apply to individuals (Henderson and Quandt, 1980).
Results of the estimation is done with the aid of a computer using the software
SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solution), and the results are presented in Table 4,
in the table, it can be seen the results of estimation of the production function parameters
in rice farming rice in the rainy season (MP) and season 2014/2015 dry (MK) in 2015.
Model equation estimators good to evaluate the phenomenon of variables
explanatory (independent variable) to the variables described (dependent variable),
determined on several criteria such as SEE (Standard Error of Estimation), the coefficient
of determination (R2), the sign or magnitude of the slope variables explanatory and other
indicators. SEE small value, R2 and the amount of slope that representative is able to
explain the causal relationship with the explanatory variables described variables is one
of the indicators in the selection of a good regression equation (Goodness of Fit)
(Gujarati, 2010).
The coefficient of determination (R2) two equations estimators in Table 4 show
that rice farming MP MK 2014/2015 and 2015, respectively 0.968 and 0.976. This value
gives meaning approximately 96.8% and 97.6% variation of the explanatory variables
that make up each model in question is able to describe the process of production of
paddy rice farming in Malang. Another thing that supports picture of the real contribution
of these variations is variable constituent equation model on the probability level = 0.01
to 0.1, the following signs or direction coefficient (slope) variables making up the model
also gives the sense that in accordance with the phenomenon of production behavior
paddy rice farming in Malang, especially those that include the nature of the relationship
of input and output.
Table 4. Results Analysis Function Parameters in Rice Farming Production 2014/2015
MP and MK 2015 at Kepanjen District of Malang.
Variables
Rice Farming
Rice Farming
MP 2014/2015
MK 2015
Constanta
3,257***
2,685***
(9,792)
(7,946)
Log large of field
0,728***
0,491***
(4,824)
(3,208)
Log labor
0,050
0,372***
(0,981)
(10,639)

12

Log seed
Log urea
Log phonska
Log ZA
Log herbicide
Log insecticide &
fungicide
Dummy Penggarap
F-test
Standart Error
Estimation (SEE)
Coefficient of
Determination (

-0,221
(-1,508)
0,191**
(2,270)
0,041
(0,756)
0,061***
(2,848)
-0,020
(-0.890)
0,186***
(3,264)
0,031**
(2.205)
276,322
0,060041136

-0,150
(-1,023)
0,196**
(2,294)
-0,077
(-1,421)
0,038**
(1,698)
-0.010
(-0,445)
0,156***
(2,677)
0,026*
(1,793)
369,142
0,54860381

0,968

0,976

90

90

R2 )
Sample Total

Note :
***
= significantly different at the level of the error 1%
**
= significantly different at the level of the error 5%
*
= significantly different at the level of the error 10%
Figures in parentheses (...) is a t-test
Source : Primary Data be Treated, 2015.

Production Elasticity terhadap Perubahan Masukan

As it is known that the production function estimators in the analysis is a CobbDouglass, and therefore the function parameter estimation is also a coefficient of
elasticity of production. The coefficient of elasticity of production to a highest input also
shows that the ratio of marginal production and average production of these inputs is
greater than the ratio of marginal production and average production of other inputs. Thus
the elasticity of production with respect to a change in the type of input implies
production response caused by the intensity of the level of use of the input type of a
process of farm production.
Results of the estimation equation production function for assessment in Table 4,
the next of the t test (partial test) explanatory variables on the probability level of 0.01 to
0.1 of the equation estimators on rice farming MP 2014/2015 showed that 5 variables,
while the rice farming MK 2015 showed 6 variables that directly contributes significantly
to production.
Picture parameter explanatory variables that significantly affect production and
production as well as the coefficient of elasticity can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5. Production elasticity against changes Input Rice Farming in the District
Kepanjen MP 2014/2015 and 2015.
Jenis Masukan

Usahatani Padi
MP 2014/2015

Usahatani Padi
MK 2015

13

Lahan
Tenaga kerja
Benih
Urea
Phonska
ZA
Herbisida
Insektisida &
fungisida

0,728
0,191
0,061
0,186

0,491
0,372
0,196
0,038
0,156

Keterangan: nilai elastisitas di atas merupakan parameter estimasi fungsi produksi yang berbeda
nyata pada = 0,01 sampai 0,1
Sumber: Analisis Data Primer, 2015

From Table 5 there are some important indications with regard to the level of
productivity of inputs on cultivation of paddy MP 2014/2015 and MK 2015 in Malang.
Put rice farming land on MK MP 2014/2015 and 2015 each have a production elasticity
of 0.728 and 0.491. This means that every 10 percent increase in farm farming area MP
MK 2014/2015 and 2015 will increase the production of respectively 7.28% and 4.91%.
Labor input only on rice farming MK 2015 make a real contribution to the probability =
0.01 (see Table 4). Thus the labor elasticity of production for farming MK 2015 indicates
that each additional unit of labor input can provide a 10 percent production increase of
3.72%. Elasticity of production for Urea fertilizer inputs for each of the 2014/2015 rice
farming MP and MK 2015 amounted to 0.191 and 0.196, means that every additional 10
percent urea in each growing season was obtained production increase of 1.91% and 1.96
%. Elasticity of production for ZA fertilizer inputs for each farm MP MK 2014/2015 and
2015 amounted to 0.061 and 0.038, means that every additional 10 percent ZA at each
planting season obtained production increase of 0.61% and 0.38%. For input Insecticide
and Fungicide in the second growing season showed a positive contribution to
production, where production elasticity of 0.186 and 0.156, means that every additional
10 percent of Insecticide and Fungicide at each planting season obtained production
increase of 1.86% and 1.56% , However, for production factors Insecticide and Fungicide
in the case of this study, following the addition of application should be careful and
controlled by taking into account the rules and recommendations.
Efficient use of Input
To determine the level of allocation of an input economically has achieved
optimal conditions or not, one indication if the value of the marginal product is equal to
the opportunity cost (market price) of the input or the index of comparison of the
marginal product with the opportunity cost of the inputs in question is equal to one
( Widodo, 1989).
The value of marginal product obtained by multiplying the marginal physical
product and the price of production, while the magnitude of the marginal physical product
can be calculated using the following equation:

MPP X i=i

Y
Xi

(10)

MPP X i

produk fisik marjinal pada masukan ke-i

14

i
Y

Xi

elastisitas produksi terhadap korbanan ke-i

produksi padi per usahatani

kuantitas masukan per usahatani ke-i

Average yield of rice production of SMP 2014/2015 farming and farmers in 2015
MK example in the study area are respectively 3767 kg and 4872 kg, while the
production price received by farmers is Rp 3,800, - / kg time MP 2014 / 2015, and Rp
4,300, - / kg MK time in 2015. the results of the calculation of the marginal physical
product, the value of marginal product and input prices for farmers are presented in Table
6.
Tabel 6. Elastisitas, Produk Fisik Marjinal, Nilai Produk Marjinal dan Harga Masukan
pada Usahatani Padi Sawah di Kec. Kepanjen Kab. Malang MP 2014/2015 dan
MK 2015.
MPP
Variables
Input Price
i
x
Variables0
NPM i
x
i
Average
(Rp)
Lahan (ha)
Urea (kg)
ZA (kg)
Insektisida &
fungisida (Lt)
Lahan (ha)
Tenaga kerja
(Hok)
Urea (kg)
ZA (kg)
Insektisida &
fungisida (Lt)

Usahatani padi sawah MP 2014/2015

0,711
0,728
3.857,1
14.656.980
173,324
0,191
4,151
15.773,8
117,885
0,061
1,949
7.406,2
1,773

0,186

395,184

1.501.701

Usahatani padi sawah MK 2015

0,711
0,491
3364,47
14.467.221

10.000.000
2.500
2.000
480.000

10.000.000

360,45

0,372

5,028

21.620,4

30.000

173,324
117,885

0,196
0,038

5,509
1,57

23.688,7
6751

2.500
2.000

1,773

0,156

428,67

1.834.281

480.000

Sumber : Analisis Data Primer, 2015.

To estimate the allocative efficiency by utilizing the formula allocative efficiency

index (ki) as defined in equation (8) in the chapter on data analysis methods.
Furthermore, according to Widodo (1989) taking into account the standard error of the
estimate parameter index value comparison marginal product with the opportunity cost of
inputs is concerned that the value ki, can also be specified statistical test (t-test) level
allocations.
The estimation results of the allocation efficiency index entries and statistical test
on paddy rice farming MP MK 2014/2015 and 2015 are presented in Table 7.

Tabel 7. Hasil Uji Statistik Efisiensi Alokasi Penggunaan Masukan Usahatani Padi Sawah
di Kecamatan Kepanjen Kabupaten Malang MP 2014/2015 dan MK 2015.
Peubah
K i pada
Nilai

15

Lahan
Tenaga Kerja
Urea
ZA
Insektisida &
Fungisida
1) Nilai

usahatani1)
MP 2014/2015 MK 2015
1,465*
1,447*
(1,4498)
(1,4209)
0,720**
(3,3333)
6,309**
9,476**
(3,1100)
(3,1525)
3,703***
3,376***
(5,8957)
(5,6560)
3,129***
3,840***
(3,455)
(3,571)

K i diperoleh dengan memanfaatkan formula persamaan (8).

() = t-hitung dengan menggunakan persamaan (9) pada bab analisa data, dengan selang
uji : ***, **, * = masing-masing berbeda nyata pada tingkat kesalahan 1%, 5%, dan 10%.
Sumber : Analisis Data Primer, 2015.

Table 7 above can be interpreted several important things, related to the value of
the input allocation efficiency index (ki) in rice farming MP MK 2014/2015 and 2015.
First, the use of land in the 2014/2015 growing season MP and MK 2015 both reached
0,711 ha showed allocations not be at its optimum level. The situation is at the price of
grain (GKS) harvest time average of USD 3800.00 / kg on MP 2014/2015 and Rp 4,300 /
kg in the MK 2015, while the price of land rent was Rp 10,000,000 / ha per growing
season. Thereby to increase the production per farm is still possible to increase the area
planted. Then considering the increase in rice planting area in the study area by extension
is not possible, then one alternative is the addition of extensive farming with increased
cropping intensity through the cultivation of rice to 3 times a year. Second, the use of
labor input in the wage rate of Rp 30,000, - / HOK with the use of employment reached
360.45 HOK for farming MK 2015 seems not yet optimum allocation. Therefore, the
addition of labor input can still be done, but the addition to be precise allocation of the
farming activities that potentially increase production. Third, to enter with the use of urea
reached 173.24 kg in both farming MP MK 2014/2015 and 2015 seem not optimal
allocation, means the addition of urea by referring to the fertilizer recommendation is still
needed. Based on the recommendations of urea fertilizer per hectare of about 300 kg
(Center for Rice, 2015). Fourth, for ZA fertilizer inputs by the user reaches 117.885 kg in
both farming MP MK 2014/2015 and 2015 appear too inefficient allocation, and can still
be added again. Based fertilizer recommendations rice cultivation, says that ZA fertilizer
can be added as a complement to the fulfillment of nitrogen in rice (R & D Department of
Agriculture, 2008). Fifth, to input Insecticides and Fungicides with average usage reaches
1,773 liters in both farming MP MK 2014/2015 and 2015 there were also no elasticity
efisien.Walaupun Fungicide Insecticide + positive, but suggested its use must remain
cautious and restrained.
Dummy variables
Dummy variable in this analysis represents a qualitative variables in working
status cultivation of rice farming MP MK 2014/2015 and 2015 in the study area. Dummy
variable tiller, a proxy status cultivation of paddy during the first planting seasons, and
measurement by giving a score of 0 (zero) for sharecroppers and owner of the paddy
field, while a score of 1 (one) for the sharecropper system "maro", "majek ", and lease.
Results of the analysis of the Cobb-Douglas production function is presented in Table 4,
obtained dummy coefficient of 0.031 for the MP 2014/2015 tenants with significant level

16

of 5% and a dummy cultivators for MK 2015 obtained coefficient 0,026 with significance
level of 10%. Means of estimation dummy tiller in rice farming in both seasons it can be
concluded that the model of workmanship farming in a way done other farmers either by
the system "maro", "majek", as well as lease gives a higher rice yield or productivity is
rising than when farming is done by owners of their own land. Therefore, the cooperation
of land owners and tenant farmers both in "maro, majek, or rent" should be preserved and
protected Local Government, because these activities in addition to increasing the
production of rice, can also mobilize rural economic development.
Analysis of Farmer Income Rice Compared UMR
Farm income is the difference between revenues and all costs (Mubyarto, 1995
and Pangandaheng, 2012). Farm income used to calculate the formula in equation (1) in
chapter methods of data analysis and tabulation analysis. Beginning with the rank of
farmer respondents narrowly wide up the most extensive farming, then grouped percategory farming area and calculated the net income per-month, following percentages
(%) different from nominal to UMR Malang Rp 1.96 million per month. Tabulation
analysis results which illustrate a broad level of farming, rice farming nominal net income
per-month lows and highs in 2014/2015 MP and MK 2015, and the percentage difference
between the income of farmers against UMR Malang presented in Table 8.
Tabel 8. Luas Usahatani, Jumlah Petani Responden, Pendapatan Bersih Per Bulan Petani
Usahatani Padi MP 2014/2015 dan MK 2015 dan Persentasenya terhadap UMR
di Kabupaten Malang.

No.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Luas
Usaha
tani
(ha)
0,125
0,250
0,375
0,400
0,500
0,625
0,750
0,800
1,000
1,250
1,500
2,000

Jumlah
Res
pon
den
(org)
10
10
10
5
10
7
8
6
9
8
5
3

Pendapatan Bersih per Bulan Petani Usahatani

Padi (Nominal Terendah-Tertinggi ...Rp)
MP 2014/2015

MK 2015

161.625 474.525
417.250 1.082.125
495.500 1.720.725
472.125 1.493.750
1.125.625 2.057.250
816.750 2.407.250
2.393.375 3.614.225
2.610.200 3.846.500
2.291.000 4.179.000
3.797.750 5.120.562
5.016.750 5.981.875
6.466.250 19.451.350

212.475 559.125
527.000 1.285.500
667.900 2.037.275
534.025 2.298.650
1.389.225 2.464.600
1.046.750 2.846.450
2.838.875 4.238.725
3.175.425 4.610.100
2.772.000 4.960.050
4.583.500 6.091.712
5.993.000 8.526.800
7.735.375 23.351.250

% Lebih Rendah /
% Lebih Tinggi
terhadap UMR
(Rp. 1,96jt)
MP
-75,8%
-44,85%
-12,3%
-23,86%
4,8%
22,7%
84,2%
96%
113%
161%
205%
891,4%

MK
-71,5%
-34,5%
3,8%
17,2%
25,6%
45,1%
116%
135%
152,8%
210,5%
334,6%
1090,2%

Sumber : Analisis Data Primer, 2015.

Table 8 explains that the MP 2014/2015 farming, farmers' income per month with
an area of farming under (<) 0.5 ha shows the percentage difference compared UMR
negative income, namely: -12.3% to -75.8%. At MK 2015 shows the percentage
difference compared with revenues ranging negative on the UMR extensive cultivation
under 0,375 ha, namely: -34% and -71.5%. MP 2014/2015 means the farmers who
cultivate paddy area of 0,125 ha to 0.40 ha farming incomes are still below the minimum
wage Malang regency Rp 1.96 million. As for the MK 2015, farmers who cultivate paddy
area of 0,125 ha and 0.25 ha of farming income is still below the minimum wage.

17

However, especially farmers with farming area of 0.125 ha and 0.25 ha, most (86%)
stated that the harvest is kept for family consumption. This means that a group of farmers
with farming area has a narrow "food security" is more secure (Aristyani, R .. 2015),
although their income is lower than the minimum wage. Thus the farmers' income from
rice farming than the minimum wage each month Malang shows that in the rainy season
(MP) farmers with farming area of 0.5 ha; 1 ha; and> 2 ha is able to achieve a higher
income than the minimum wage each by 4.8%; 113%; and 891%. Whereas in the dry
season (MK) income is more productive than the monthly minimum wage, which in the
vast farm of 0.375 ha; 1 ha; and> 2 ha respectively exceeding the minimum wage by
3.8%; 152.8%; and 1090%.
Differences Rice Crops 2014/2015 MP and MK 2015 Factually surveys or
interviews with all of the farmer respondents indicate a different crop in the second
season. Results tabulation analysis yields the percentage difference between the MP and
MK 2015 2014/2015 are presented in Table 9. Percentage difference between MP and
MK results in value of 21.4% to 32.9% is represented by 59 farmers of respondents,
while the lowest percentage difference is 13 , 6% and 17.0% represented by 16
respondents, and the highest percentage of difference is 37.9% and 46.4% of respondents
are represented by 13 farmers. This means that the percentage difference between the
yield of rice MK MK 2014/2015 and 2015 were more representative is approximately
21.4% to 32.9%.
Tabel 9. Luas Usahatani, Jumlah Petani Responden, Rata-rata Hasil Usahatani Padi
Sawah per Hektar MP 2014/2015 dan MK 2015 dan Persentase Beda Hasil
Usahatani MP 2014/2015 dan MK 2015 per Hektar.
% Beda Hasil
JuRata-rata Hasil Usahatani
Usahatani
Luas
mlah Padi Sawah per Hektar (kg)
MP
UsahaRes
No.
tani
pon
2014/2015
MP
den
MK 2015
(ha)
dan MK 2015
2014/2015
(org)
per Hektar
1.
0,125
10
5788,8
7187,0
24,1%
2.
0,250
10
5990,0
7272,0
21,4%
3.
0,375
10
6079,5
7116,0
17,0%
4.
0,400
5
5005,0
7326,6
46,4%
5.
0,500
10
6022,0
7486,8
24,3%
6.
0,625
7
5618,3
7356,8
30,9%
7.
0,750
8
6193,5
8538,9
37,9%
8.
0,800
6
6378,7
7248,7
13,6%
9.
1,000
9
6104,4
8116,6
32,9%
10.
1,250
8
5905,5
7635,1
29,3%
11.
1,500
5
6046,8
7852,6
29,9%
12.
2,000
3
6194,0
7615,7
22,9%
Sumber : Analisis Data Primer, 2015.

Differences in yields in the second season, the related explanations of farmer

respondents can be summarized as follows: (1) yields MP has since always been lower
than yields dry season (MK), (2) for farmers respondents outcome "ditebaskan" , also
explained that the sale value of rice per hectare MP slash difference difference of about
30% to 45% lower than the sale value of MK. Furthermore explored further in
respondents penebas rice which also has a rice mill (machine "celebrity") and an
explanation of the respondents is as follows: (1) the main factor when buying or "cut" of
rice at a time when the rainy season (MP) at a price lower than the dry season is the yield

18

of rice obtained definitely lower than the dry, (2) the yield of rice on the MP obtained
approximately 49% - 53% per 100 kg of grain, while the yield of rice in the dry season
can reach 57% - 60%, and (3) often a "cut" of rice compared to a loss of time MP MK,
therefore a "cut down" the MP should be careful in predict.
From the viewpoint of the growth process of rice, a major risk factor in the MP
rice yield was lower than rice yields MK is sunlight on the MP is not the maximum good
quality and frequency than in MK. Due to maximum sunlight time MP, a decrease of rice
production can be significant because of the width of the leaf or leaf area index is very
limited for the process of photosynthesis. Prediction drop in rice yields in MP is loaded in
JavamasAgrophos.com, this media is also featuring some questions from friends of
farmers in Indonesia on rice yields in China and Japan over rice yields in Indonesia, such
as: "Why in China and Japan could produce crops rice with the same spacing, type of rice
with the same yield potential, the same fertilization, control HPT which is almost the
same, can produce dry grain harvest to reach 15-20ton / ha, if our farmers to grow rice
stupid? "The answer:" not a friend of farmers Indonesia stupid, friend of the farmers here
instead tend to be more tenacious and hard-working than in China or in Japan, but the
geographical location are different, there has annual cycle that is very favorable to the
length of time the sun more than 12 hours a day, so the process perfect physiology and
ripening of photosynthesis which results will be distributed on-going grain rice grains to
be the grain of grain weighing, containing and flavorful maximum "(Agrophos, Javamas.
2015).
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
From the results of this study can be formulated some conclusions as follows:
a) Type of production factors of land, fertilizer urea, ZA, and insecticides and fungicides
quantity of use affect the production of rice in the rainy season (MP), whereas in the
dry season (MK) in addition to the type of the four factors of production, production
factors of labor also affects the production , so the addition of the five types of these
inputs can increase rice production.
b) In terms of efficiency in the allocation of MP and MK type of input or production
factor of land, fertilizer urea, ZA fertilizer, and insecticides and fungicides, manpower
is at its optimum level yet or have not been efficient. Especially for the addition of
urea and ZA must remain guided by the recommendation, as well as for the addition
of Insecticides and Fungicides must be carefully controlled, and orientation towards
environmental safety.
c) Farmers' income from rice farming than the minimum wage each month Malang
shows that in the rainy season (MP) farmers with farming area of 0.5 ha; 1 ha; and> 2
ha is able to achieve a higher income than the minimum wage each by 4.8%; 113%;
and 891%. While the income of farmers of rice farming in the dry season (MK)
seemed more productive than the UMR Malang each month, which the farming area
of 0.375 ha; 1 ha; and> 2 ha respectively exceeding the minimum wage by 3.8%;
152.8%; and 1090%.
Suggestion
1) The results showed some kind of input is not optimal, particularly urea, ZA,
Insecticides and Fungicides, policy counseling and training the farmers who work
together on applying the factors of production or inputs in rice farming proper
management of both the number and time of application need to be optimized.
2) Training management practices in rice farming model "field school" involving
farmers to learn and practice directly on farming oriented at a company (maximixing
profit-oriented) need to be intensified continuously.

19

3) Policies of government assistance either in the form of credit, counseling, training

groups or individuals which lead to the rice farming and sideline farmers such as
Agro-industry and other business, should be preferred to the farmers with farming
area below or less than 0.4 hectares, as farmers group This income is still below the
minimum wage.
4) Forms of cooperation of the landlord and tenant farmers both in "Maro, Majek, or
rent" should be preserved and protected local government, for example in the form of
Local Government Regulations or the other, because these activities in addition to
increasing the production of rice, can also mobilize rural economic development.
REFERRENCE
Agrophos, Javamas. 2015. Energi Sinar Matahari. http://www.javamas.com/energy-sinarmatahari/. Diakses pada tanggal 18 November 2015.
Ashari. 2010. Peranan Perbankan Nasional Dalam Pembiayaan Sektor Pertanian
di Indonesia. (Online), (pse.litbang.pertanian.go.id/ind/pdffiles/FAE27-1b.pdf),
diakses diakses pada tanggal 13 September 2015
Aristyani,
Rufina.
2015.
Makalah
Ketahanan
Pangan
di
Indonesia.
https://www.academia.edu/8345749/makalah_ketahanan_pangan_di_indonesia.
Diakses pada tanggal 15 November 2015.
Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian. Deptan. 2008. Pengelolaan Tanaman
Terpadu (PTT) Padi Sawah Irigasi. Jakarta Selatan. Indonesia.
Balai Besar Padi. 2013. Varietas Inpari 30 Ciherang Sub 1. BB Padi Sukamandi Jawa
Barat.
Indonesia.
Balai Besar Padi. 2015. Penggunaan Pupuk dalam Padi Sawah Irigasi. BB Padi
Sukamandi Jawa Barat. Indonesia.
Biro Pusat Statistik. 2013. Tabel Luas Panen-Produktivitas-Produksi Tanaman Padi per
Provinsi di Indonesia. BPS Jakarta. http://www.bps.go.id/site/pilihdata. Diakses
pada tanggal 25 Agustus 2015.
Biro Pusat Statistik. 2013. Luas Panen Padi, Jagung, dan Kedelai Tahun 2009-2013. BPS
Jakarta. Indonesia. http://www.bps.go.id/site/pilihdata. Diakses pada tanggal 25
Agustus 2015.
Biro Pusat Statistik. 2013. Ketersediaan Kalori per Kapita Menurut Kelompok Bahan
Makanan. BPS Jakarta. Indonesia. http://www.bps.go.id/site/pilihdata. Diakses
pada tanggal 25 Agustus 2015.
Chintya Dewi, I.G.A., Suamba, I.K, Ambarawati I G.A.A. 2012. Analisis Efisiensi
Usahatani Padi Sawah (Studi Kasus di Subak Pacung Babakan, Kecamatan
Mengwi, Kabupaten Badung). E-Journal Agribisnis dan Agrowisata ISSN: 23016523 Vol. 1, No. 1, Juli 2012
Dinas Pertanian Tanaman Pangan Jawa Timur, 2013. Luas Panen, Produktivitas dan
Produksi Padi Sawah. Surabaya. Indonesia.
Dinas Pertanian Tanaman Pangan Jawa Timur, 2013. Pola Tanam Padi dalam Satu Tahun.
Surabaya. Indonesia.
Doll, J., and F. Orazen. 1978. Production Economics. Theory with Applications. New
York: John Wiley and sons Inc. p:205-225.
Dumairy. 2010. Matematika Terapan untuk Bisnis dan Ekonomi. Yogyakarta. BPFE. Hal
152-154.
Firdauzi,
Sylvianingrum.
2013.
Analisis
Faktor
Produksi
Usahatani
Padi Rojolele Dan Padi Ir64. (Studi kasus di Desa Candirejo, Kecamatan Ngawen,
Kabupaten Klaten, Jawa Tengah). Skripsi tidak diterbitkan. Semarang: Fakultas
Ekonomika Dan Bisnis Universitas Diponegoro.
Gujarati, N. Damodar dan Porter, Dawn C. 2010. Dasar-dasar Ekonometrika. Jakarta.
Salemba Empat.

20

Henderson, J.M. and R.E. Quandt, 1980. Microeconomic Theory An Mathematical

Approach. New York: Mc Grawhill Kogakusha Ltd.
Hernanto, Fadholi. 1996. Ilmu Usahatani. Jakarta: Penebar Swadaya.
Kuncoro, Mudrajat. 2013. Metode Riset untuk Bisnis dan Ekonomi. Edisi 4. Jakarta:
Penerbit Erlangga.
Makarim, A. Karim. Suhartatik, E. Fagi, Achmad. M. Analisis Sistem dan Simulasi
Peningkatan Produksi Padi Melalui Penggunaan Teknologi Spesifik Lokasi.
http://bbpadi.litbang.pertanian.go.id/index.php/publikasi/artikelilmiah/content/item/165-analisis-sistem-dan-simulasi-peningkatan-produksi-padimelalui-penggunaan-teknologi-spesifik-lokasi. Diakses pada tanggal 7 September
2015.
Mubyarto. 1995. Pengantar Ekonomi Pertanian. LP3ES. Jakarta.
Nicholson, Walter. 2001. Teori Ekonomi Mikro Prinsip Dasar dan Pengembangannya.
Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo.
Pangadaheng, Yanti. 2012. Analisis Pendapatan Petani Kelapa di Kecamatan Saliabu
Kabupaten Talaud. Skripsi tidak diterbitkan, Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado
Hal. 14
Prajitno, D. 1981. Analisa Regresi dan Korelasi untuk Penelitian Pertanian. Yogyakarta.
Liberty.
Prayoga, Adi. 2010. Produktivitas dan Efisiensi Teknis Usahatani Padi Organik Lahan
Sawah. Jurnal Agro Ekonomi, Volume 28 No.1, Mei 2010:1-19
Purwoto, A. 1990. Bentuk - bentuk dan Penggunaan Fungsi Keuntungan. dalam
Pendekatan Dualitas dengan Fungsi Biaya dan Fungsi Keuntungan. Latihan Metode
Penelitian Agroekonomi di Cisarua Bogor 15 Pebruari - 17 Maret 1990. Pusat
Penelitian Agroekonomi. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian.
Rachmad, Margono. 1997. Kajian Komersialisasi Usahatani Tanaman Pangan di Lahan
Kering : Kasus komoditas Jagung di Jawa Timur. dalam Pemberdayaan Lahan
Kering Untuk Penyediaan Pangan Abad 21. Prosiding Seminar Nasional.
Perhimpunan Ekonomi Pertanian Indonesia (PERHEPI). Hal 139-155.
Soekartawi., Soeharjo. A., Dillon. John. L., dan Hardaker. J. Brian. 1986. Ilmu Usahatani
dan Penelitian Untuk Pengembangan Petani Kecil. Penerbit UI Press. Jakarta
Soekartawi. 1993. Prinsip Dasar Ekonomi Pertanian, Teori dan Aplikasi, Edisi Revisi.
Rajawali Pers PT Rajagrafindo Persada. Jakarta.
Sukirno, Sadono. 2000. Mikro Ekonomi Modern: Perkembangan Pemikiran dari klasik
sampai Keynesian Baru, Edisi 1. PT Raja Grafindo, Jakarta
Sukirno, Sadono. 2006. Ekonomi Pembangunan. Proses, Masalah dan Kebijakan,
Kencana Prenada Media group, Jakarta.
Sugiarto, et al. 2002. Ekonomi Mikro. Sebuah Kajian Komprehensif. Penerbit PT.
Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Jakarta.
Suharyadi dan S.K. Purwanto. 2011. Statistika untuk Ekonomi dan Keuangan Modern.
Jakarta Selatan. Salemba Empat.
Tjakrawiralaksana, Abbas. 1983. Usaha Tani. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan.
Wibowo, Larasati S. 2012. Analisis Efisiensi Alokatif Faktor-Faktor Produksi dan
Pendapatan Usahatani Padi (Oryza Sativa L.) (Studi Kasus Di Desa Sambirejo,
Kecamatan Saradan, Kabupaten Madiun). Skripsi tidak diterbitkan. Malang:
Fakultas Pertanian Jurusan Ilmu Pertanian Universitas Brawijaya.
Widodo, S. 1989. Production Efficiency of Rice Farmers in Java Indonesia. Gadjah
University Press. Yogyakarta.