Practical Marketing System as a Solution to Limited Labor and Post-Harvest Processing Areas for Rice

Abstract

The majority of rice farmers in Denpasar City chose a practical marketing system, this system implements rice sales based on estimated production results. Farmers generally sell their produce when the rice is approaching harvest time. The buyer determines the purchase price for rice by estimating the number of transaction objects after carefully observing and viewing the rice to be harvested. With this system, farmers no longer need to think about the availability of labor to harvest, transport the harvest home, dry the grain until it reaches a certain level of dryness. The novelty of this research is conducting in-depth research on the practice of buying and selling rice using a practical marketing system in Denpasar City. This research will also examine in depth the practical marketing system from two sides, namely from the perspective of farmers and buyers. The results of this research reveal that the practice of buying and selling rice using a practical marketing system in Denpasar City involves farmers as sellers and buyers who are usually called penebas. The reason why farmers choose a practical marketing system is that this system is considered more profitable for farmers with all the limitations of farming in urban areas, where farmers only need to care for the rice they plant until it is ready to harvest.


 

References

[1] Abacı, N. İ., and Demiryürek, K. 2019. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology Factors Affecting Farmers ’ Decision Making on Product Pattern : A Case of Vegetable Producers in Bafra District of Samsun Province, Turkey Çiftçilerin Ürün Desenlerine Karar Vermelerini Etkileyen Faktörler : Samsun İli Bafra İlçesi Sebze Yetiştiricileri Örneği, 7(3): 426–434.
[2] Abebe, G. K., Bijman, J., and Royer, A. 2016. Are middlemen facilitators or barriers to improve smallholders’ welfare in rural economies? Empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Rural Studies, 43: 203–213. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.004
[3] Acclassato Houensou, D., Goudjo, G. G., and Senou, M. M. 2021. Access to finance and difference in family farm productivity in Benin: Evidence from small farms. Scientific African, 13: e00940. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00940
[4] Ajumobi, D. O., and Kyobe, M. 2017. Alignment of human competencies with mobile phone technology and business strategies by women-led smes in South Africa. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 80(1): 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2017.tb00592.x
[5] Akhtar, S., et al. 2018. Factors influencing hybrid maize farmers’ risk attitudes and their perceptions in Punjab Province, Pakistan. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 17(6): 1454–1462. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(17)61796-9
[6] Balezentis, T., et al. 2020. Young farmers’ support under the Common Agricultural Policy and sustainability of rural regions: Evidence from Lithuania. Land Use Policy. DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104542
[7] Bilewicz, A., and Bukraba-Rylska, I. 2021. Deagrarianization in the making: The decline of family farming in central Poland, its roots and social consequences. Journal of Rural Studies, 88(July): 368–376. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.08.002
[8] Blanc, M., Cahuzac, E., Elyakime, B., and Tahar, G. 2008. Demand for on-farm permanent hired labour on family holdings. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 35(4): 493–518. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbn032
[9] Britos, B., Hernandez, M. A., Robles, M., and Trupkin, D. R. 2022. Land market distortions and aggregate agricultural productivity: Evidence from Guatemala. Journal of Development Economics. DOI:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102787
[10] Brown, K., Schirmer, J., and Upton, P. 2021. Regenerative farming and human wellbeing: Are subjective wellbeing measures useful indicators for sustainable farming systems? Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100132
[11] Brown, P., Daigneault, A., and Dawson, J. 2019. Age, values, farming objectives, past management decisions, and future intentions in New Zealand agriculture. Journal of Environmental Management. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.018
[12] Coopmans, I., et al. 2021. Understanding farm generational renewal and its influencing factors in Europe. Journal of Rural Studies, 86: 398–409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.06.023
[13] Darmawan, D.P. et al. 2023. Farmers’ Motivation and Obstacles in the Smallest Available Agricultural Region. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 9 (4): 967–82. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22035/gjesm.2023.04.20
[14] Fauziana, D. R., Marimin, Suwarsinah, H. K., and Prasetio, E. A. 2023. What factors impact the adoption of postharvest loss-reduction technologies in mangosteen supply chain? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(3): 100102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100102
[15] Góngora Pérez, R. D., Milán Sendra, M. J., and López-i-Gelats, F. 2020. Strategies and drivers determining the incorporation of young farmers into the livestock sector. Journal of Rural Studies, 78(June): 131–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.028
[16] Grubbström, A., and Eriksson, C. 2018. Retired Farmers and New Land Users: How Relations to Land and People Influence Farmers’ Land Transfer Decisions. Sociologia Ruralis, 58(4). DOI: 10.1111/soru.12209
[17] Harenčárová, H. 2017. Managing Uncertainty in Paramedics’ Decision Making. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11(1): 42–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416674814
[18] Hormozi, M. A., Asoodar, M. A., and Abdeshahi, A. 2012. Impact of Mechanization on Technical Efficiency: A Case Study of Rice Farmers in Iran. Procedia Economics and Finance, 1(12): 176–185. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(12)00021-4
[19] Huber, R., et al. 2018. Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models. Agricultural Systems, 167: 143–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.007
[20] I.D.P.O.Suardi, Widhianthini, G.M.K. Arisena, I.M. Sukewijaya, and A.A.K. Krisnandika. 2023. Status of Agriculture Resources Sustainability and Agricultural Policy in Denpasar City, Province of Bali, Indonesia. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 23 (3): 22694–710. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.118.21875.
[21] Islam, A. H. M. S., Schreinemachers, P., and Kumar, S. 2020. Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions and management of chili pepper anthracnose disease in Bangladesh. Crop Protection, 133. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105139
[22] Janssen, M., van der Voort, H., and Wahyudi, A. 2017. Factors influencing big data decision-making quality. Journal of Business Research, 70: 338–345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.007
[23] Kaminski, J., and Christiaensen, L. 2014. Post-harvest loss in sub-Saharan Africa-what do farmers say? Global Food Secur., 3(3–4): 149–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.10.002
[24] Klein, G. 2015. A naturalistic decision making perspective on studying intuitive decision making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3): 164–168. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.07.001
[25] Kumarathunga, M., Calheiros, R. N., and Ginige, A. 2022. Smart Agricultural Futures Market: Blockchain Technology as a Trust Enabler between Smallholder Farmers and Buyers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052916
[26] Kyire, S. K. C., et al. 2023. Perceived risk and risk management strategies under irrigated rice farming: Evidence from Tono and Vea irrigation schemes-Northern Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100593
[27] Lanya, I., Subadiyasa, N. N., Sardiana, K., and Adi, G. P. R. 2015. Numerical Classification, Subak Zoning and Land Transfer Function Rice Field in the Province of Bali Based on Remote Sensing and GIS. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 24: 47–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.03.008
[28] May, D., Arancibia, S., Behrendt, K., and Adams, J. 2019. Preventing young farmers from leaving the farm: Investigating the effectiveness of the young farmer payment using a behavioural approach. Land Use Policy, 82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.019
[29] Mbah, L. T., Molua, E. L., Bomdzele, E., and Egwu, B. M. J. 2023. Farmers’ response to maize production risks in Cameroon: An application of the criticality risk matrix model. Heliyon, 9(4). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15124
[30] Mukoviz, V., Leshchii, L., Khodakivska, O., Prokopova, O., and Kuzub, M. 2022. Accounting for Transactions Costs of Agricultural Producers in the Shadow Economy. Agricultural and Resource Economics, 8(2): 67–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2022.08.02.04
[31] Munyimi, T. F., and Chari, D. F. 2018. The role of buyer–supplier relationships in achieving economic sustainability in the private telecommunication sector in Zimbabwe. Cogent Business and Management, 5(1): 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1540917
[32] Nguyen, H. T. T., Lee, C. H., and Hung, R. J. 2021. Willingness of end users to pay for e-waste recycling. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 7(1): 47–58.
[33] Nurliza. 2023. The effect of income and smallholder characteristics on cultivation, harvesting, and post-harvest management of natural rubber. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 9(4): 983–994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22035/gjesm.2023.04.21
[34] Pikhart, M. 2020. The Use of Mobile Devices in International Management Communication: Current Situation and Future Trends of Managerial Communication. Procedia Computer Science, 171(2019): 1736–1741. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.04.186
[35] Pindado, E., Sánchez, M., Verstegen, J. A. A. M., and Lans, T. 2018. Searching for the entrepreneurs among new entrants in European Agriculture: the role of human and social capital. Land Use Policy, 77(May): 19–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.014
[36] Promkhambut, A., et al. 2023. Rethinking agrarian transition in Southeast Asia through rice farming in Thailand. World Development, 169: 106309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106309
[37] Schoolman, E. D., Morton, L. W., Arbuckle, J. G., and Han, G. 2021. Marketing to the foodshed: Why do farmers participate in local food systems? Journal of Rural Studies, 84(May): 240–253.
[38] Shi, Min, Krishna P. Paudel, and Feng bo Chen. 2021. “Mechanization and Efficiency in Rice Production in China.” Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20 (7). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63439-6.
[39] Sroka, W., Dudek, M., Wojewodzic, T., and Król, K. 2019. Generational changes in agriculture: The influence of farm characteristics and socio-economic factors. Agriculture (Switzerland), 9(12): 1–27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9120264
[40] Suamba, I. K., et al. 2023. The Subak-Based Agro-Tourism Management Model in the World Cultural Heritage Area of Catur Angga Batukaru Tabanan Regency, Bali Province, Indonesia. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 23 (2): 22534–47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.117.21970
[41] Suess-Reyes, J., and Fuetsch, E. 2016. The future of family farming: A literature review on innovative, sustainable and succession-oriented strategies. Journal of Rural Studies, 47: 117–140.
[42] Wójcik, M., Jeziorska-Biel, P., and Czapiewski, K. 2019. Between words: A generational discussion about farming knowledge sources. Journal of Rural Studies, 67(May 2018): 130–141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.02.024
[43] Yeboah, T., et al. 2020. Hard work and hazard: Young people and agricultural commercialisation in Africa. Journal of Rural Studies, 76(March): 142–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.027
[44] Zou, B., Mishra, A. K., and Luo, B. 2018. Aging population, farm succession, and farmland usage: Evidence from rural China. Land Use Policy, 77(May): 437–445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.001
Published
2024-03-29
How to Cite
ARISENA, Gede Mekse Korri et al. Practical Marketing System as a Solution to Limited Labor and Post-Harvest Processing Areas for Rice. Theoretical and Practical Research in Economic Fields, [S.l.], v. 15, n. 1, p. 35 - 44, mar. 2024. ISSN 2068-7710. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/tpref/article/view/8360>. Date accessed: 20 apr. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v15.1(29).04.