




































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN 2375-1061 Vol. 5 (3), pp. 001-007, March, 2017. Available online at 
www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s)                                           Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 

 

Full Length Research Paper 

 

The determinants of cassava productivity and price 

under the farmers’ collaboration with the emerging 

cassava processors: A case study in East Lampung, 

Indonesia 
 

Tomohide Sugino*1 and Henny Mayrowani2 
 

1
Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Japan. 

2
Indonesian Center for Agriculture Socio- economic and Policy Studies, Indonesia. 

 
Accepted 17 September, 2016 

 
This study identified the impact of the emerging cassava processors to the cassava production in Sukadana, East 
Lampung, Lampung, Indonesia. 80 cassava farmers in Sukadana were surveyed to know their relationships with 
processors, production cost structures and cultivation practices. Regression analysis showed that harvesting age was 
a critical factor to determine the cassava yield and price in the study area. Three types of farmers were observed in the 
study area, namely, farmers joining collaboration with a foreign food company, collaboration with local processors and 
farmers who have no collaborations with processors. The technical support provided by the emerging processing 
companies which tried to break into the current oligopsonistic cassava market had a positive impact to optimize the 
plant management. The increasing demand for cassava induced by biofuel production would attract more companies 
to the processing business and the tightening competition among the companies would motivate the companies’ 
investment in supporting activities for farmers. This in return would contribute to the farmers’ welfare through 
improved profit of cassava production. These findings can be used as practical information for formulating effective 
cassava marketing policies in the study area. 
 

Key words: Biofuel, farmers’ welfare, oligopsonistic market. 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 
Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) is a woody plant 
with a height between 1 - 3 m, and most parts of the plant 
can be used for food and industrial purposes (Pakpahan 
and Gunawan, 1992). Introduced in the 1650s with 
imported roots from Mexico, cassava has acquired a 
significant place in the agricultural system of South-East 
Asia (Mougeot and Leveng, 1990). Cassava production in 
Indonesia makes up about 30% of the production of Asia 
and the Pacific, and Indonesia is the forth largest cas-
sava exporter in the world. The total amount of production 
is almost the same as Thailand’s, the world largest 
cassava exporter, however Indonesia’s cassava export is 
less than 10% of Thailand’s (based on FAOSTAT, http://  
 
 

 
*Corresponding author. E-mail: tosugino@jircas.affrc.go.jp. Tel.: 
+81-29-838-6348. Fax: +81-29-838-6342. 

 
 
 

 
faostat.fao.org/). Production can be observed all over the 
country but the major production area is located in the 
islands of Sumatra and Java. Lampung Province in 
Sumatra is the largest production area. In 2005, it 
produced 4,768 thousand tons of cassava, 25% of the 
total production in Indonesia (BPS, 2006). East Java 
Province in Java is another production area. It produced 
around 20% of the national output.  

In many developing countries, cassava is thinly traded 
and/or traded informally. The lack of established 
marketing channels and poor infrastructure and market 
information has been among the main factors con-
straining trade in cassava (FAO and IFAD, 2000). The 
most commonly identified bottleneck to develop cassava 
market opportunities was the lack of a reliable supply of 
cassava. In Zimbabwe, there was also a lack of good 
planting material. Lack of equipment, mechanization and 
power were also mentioned on several occasions as 

file:///C:\Users\user\Documents\REPUBLICATION\AGRICULTURAL%20SCIENCES\AppData\Local\Temp\www.internationalscholarsjournals.org


 
 
 

 

bottlenecks to developing the industry. 
Some less frequently mentioned bottlenecks, but per-

haps as important as those above, are infrastructure, 
consumer acceptance, education and training of key 
actors in the industry, and good weather for drying 
cassava (IFAD and FAO, 2004). Although there is no 
government intervention in the cassava market in 
Indonesia, the cassava market has some oligopsonistic 
characteristics. This situation is more typical in Lampung 
than East Java. In East Java, the number of cassava 
processors is high and the size of each processor’s 
production is relatively small. Therefore, the cassava 
market in East Java can be considered competitive, 
making marketing more efficient (Pakpahan and 
Gunawan, 1992). On the other hand, in Lampung, the 
number of cassava processors is limited and this makes 
the cassava market in Lampung oligopsonistic (Pakpahan 
and Gunawan, 1992).  

Under such imperfect market conditions, the farmers 
are forced to accept unfavorable treatment by the 
processors. For example, in most cases when the buyer 
weighed the cassava sold by the farmers, the farmers 
were not allowed to see the measuring procedures. 
Another example relates to pricing the cassava is that the 
processors usually reduce the cassava price according to 
the deviation from a specified standard such as starch 
content (called rafaksi). However, many processors don’t 
disclose the standard and how they test the cassava to 
check its quality. In order to overcome the unfavorable 
market conditions for cassava farmers, the local govern-
ment of Lampung Province implemented the develop-
ment of the Community’s Tapioca Processing Unit or 
ITTARA (Industry Tepung Tapioka Rakyat) in 1997. The 
project aimed to diversify cassava market channels 
through establishing small scale cassava processing 
units. Though the ITTARA program had a positive impact 
on the price of cassava, many tapioca processing units of 
ITTARA have gone bankrupt because of managerial 
incompetence and inadequate monitoring and control 
(Siregar et al., 2006).  

It should be noted that recent changes of global and 
local economic conditions provide cassava farmers with a 
unique opportunity to break the bottlenecks of current 
cassava production. The rapid integration of East Asian 
economy which is typified by the implementation of FTAs 
(Free Trade Agreements) will provide good opportunities 
for expanding regional trade. Before the Second World 
War, Indonesia (then the Netherlands East Indies) was by 
far the world’s greatest exporter of processed cassava 
(Nelson, 1984). Though Indonesia’s exports were 
surpassed by Thailand, the potential of cassava product 
exports is still large, which is shown by the lower DRC 
(Domestic Resource Cost) in the starch making process, 
indicating a comparative advantage in the world market 
(Nelson, 1984).  

The other noteworthy movement is an increasing 

demand for biofuels. Biofuels are liquid fuels for vehicles, 

  
  

 
 

 

which are made from various kinds of biomass. The most 
common types of biofuels are bio- ethanol made from 
carbohydrates and bio-diesel made from vegetable oil. 
Food crops which are rich in carbohydrates or oil are 
used as raw materials for biofuel. Cassava is one of the 
promising raw materials for bio-ethanol due to its high 
yield of starch, adaptability to low-fertility soil and drought 
resistance. The Government of Indonesia formulated a 
roadmap for biofuel development in 2006. The roadmap 
is targeting a 10% reduction in the country’s consumption 
of petroleum-based fuel by 2010, by developing 5.25 
million hectares of energy crop plantation including cas-
sava, oil palm, sugar cane and Jatropha (Jatropha 
curcas) (Tim Nasional Pengembangan BBN, 2006).  

Various companies have shown interest in producing 
biofuel, and the emergence of the newcomers could be 
an opportunity to breakthrough the current oligopsonistic 
cassava market.  

The emergence of the newcomers in cassava 
production area like Lampung is anticipated to motivate 
the conventional cassava processors to change their cur-
rent business practices which are sometimes 
disadvantageous to the farmers. Considering this back-
ground, the present study first describes the features of 
the processor- farmer collaboration observed in the study 
area. Second, it identifies the factors which determine the 
cassava yield and price in the study area. Finally, it 
identifies the impact of the emerging cassava processors 
to the cassava production. 
 
 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
Sukadana district, East Lampung Regency, Lampung Province was 
selected as a study area. Cassava production in Lampung is spread 
in the whole province and East Lampung is one of the production 
centers. It is new regency which separated from Central Lampung 
Regency in 1999 according to Law No.12, 1999. The office of East 
Lampung Regent located in Sukadana district. Sukadana is around 
50 km from Bandar Lampung, the provincial capital, connected with 
a paved road. The road condition is relatively good and it takes 
around 2 h from Bandar Lampung to Sukadana by car. The total 
area of Sukadana district is 76 thousands hectares, 14% of East 
Lampung Regency, and the altitude of Sukadana is around 25 m 
above sea level (BPS Kabupaten Lampung Timur, 2006). There are 
16 villages (11 Desa and 5 Kelurahan) in the area. Sukadana was 
selected as a study area because the estimated cassava planted 
area in Sukadana in 2007 was 13,285 hectares (Pemerintah 
Kabupaten Lampung Timur, 2006), which was the largest in East 
Lampung Regency. In addition, a foreign food processing company 
had implemented a technical collaboration project in Sukadana 
since 2005. It seemed useful to observe the effect of the project. 
 

A total of 80 cassava farmers in Sukadana were surveyed from 
February - March, 2007. The sampling method was random 
sampling. Information was collected from each farmer concerning 
their household structure, income, operational farm land, cultivation 
history, cassava production costs and relationships with processors. 
Descriptive analyses and statistical analyses were applied to the 
data. Regression analysis was performed to estimate a cassava 
yield determination function, a cassava price determination function 
and a harvesting age determination function. The exchange rate of 



 
 
 

 
Table 1. Characteristics of processors - farmers collaborations in the study area. 
 

  Type I Colaborations with a foreign Type II Collaborations with local Type III No-collaborations 
  food company processors   with processors 
 Cassava price Defined by market price Defined by market price. Defined by market price 
 determination  Sometimes not very transparent.  

 Floor price Partly available Available     Not available 
 Access to credit Available with no interest Available with interest   Not available 
 Source of input No restriction Compulsory purchase from the No restriction 
   processors      

 Channels of No restriction Compulsory  sales to the No restriction 
 sales  processors      

 Other services Technical support. Tractor service with Technical  support  (not  all  the Not available 
  lower price processors)      

 
Source: Interview survey, 2007. 

 
 

 
Indonesia rupiah was US$ 1 = 9,150 rupiah at the time of the 

survey period (March, 2007). 
 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

 

The processor farmer collaboration in the study area 

 

The characteristics of the processor-farmer collaborations 
in the study area are shown in the Table 1. A foreign food 
company, whose major products were synthetic 
seasonings and used cassava as one of the ingredients, 
implemented a collaborative project to support the 
cassava farmers in the study area (Type I in the Table 1). 
The project (hereinafter called “cassava project”) started 
in 2005. The company provided a project fund and 
technical support. The project was implemented under 
the close collaboration among the company, the local 
governments and the farmers. A part of the fund was 
used to establish “revolving funds” in each farmers’ group 
formulated by the farmers who joined the project. The 
fund was used to purchase fertilizers before the planting 
season and the member farmers could receive fertilizers 
without payment. The amount of fertilizers was decided 
by the planting area of the farmers with reference to the 

standard dosage (ZK
+
 , a local brand of potassium 

fertilizer containing 34% K2O at 200 kg per hectare, urea 

at 200 kg per hectare and rock phosphate at 150 kg per 
hectare) recommended by the company. After the 
harvest, each farmer should return the money which 
amount was equivalent of the fertilizers received, deter-
mined by the market price at the harvest season. Though 
no interest was charged, the amount of reimbursement 
might fluctuate because the reimbursement was defined 
by the fertilizer price in the harvest season, not in the 
planting season. If the fertilizer price increased between 
planting and harvesting, then the farmers needed to pay 
back at a higher price. Farmers were also requested to 
pay an administration fee to the group they belonged, the 
value of which was determined by each group. In one 
group, the fee was 1 rupiah per kg of cassava. In the 

 
 
 

 

other group, the members pay 10,000 rupiah per hectare 
of planted land. The extension staffs in the local exten-
sion office of the local government were hired by the 
company as technical advisors and the farmers were able 
to get technical advice for their production and marketing. 
The farmers could also use a tractor service with a 
subsidized cost. The company donated one tractor to the 
project and the members of the farmers’ group were able 
to use the tractor by only paying the operational cost (fuel 
and wage of operators), which was cheaper than the 
other tractor services in the area. The project was carried 
out as a Cooperate Social Responsibility (CSR) project of 
the company and the farmers didn’t have any financial 
obligation to the company such as an obligation to sell 
their harvest to the company.  

The above mentioned conditions provided by the com-
pany were quite attractive to the farmers comparing to the 
support given by the local cassava processors in the 
study area. Some surveyed farmers joined collaboration 
with the local processors called “partnerships 
(kemitraan)” (Type II in the Table 1). This partnership was 
a kind of contract farming in which the processors provide 
input (mainly chemical fertilizer such as urea and SP36, a 

kind of superphosphate containing 36% P2O5) to the 

farmers before the planting season. The farmers should 
reimburse the cost of the inputs when they sold cassava 
to the processors. The nominal interest rate was usually 
around 0.7% per month. However, the input price 
determined by the processors was 3 - 17% higher than 
the market price. Therefore, the real interest was possibly 
much higher than the nominal interest. Interest rates 
differed from one agent to another. One of the surveyed 
farmers reported that he borrowed 120,000 rupiah in the 
last cropping season for purchasing fertilizer and returned 
150,000 rupiah after eight month, a loan in which the 
annual interest was 38%. The farmers had obligations to 
sell all the harvested cassava to the processors which 
provided the loan. The floor price was assured by the 
processors, which was 280 - 290 rupiah per kg at the 
time of the survey. When cassava price was low, the floor 
price would be useful to support farmers’ income. 



 
 
 

 

However, considering the actual farm gate price of 
cassava (above 300 rupiah per kg at the time of the 
survey), this option was not very attractive for the 
farmers. Moreover, some farmers complained that the 
practices of some processor to determine the cassava 
price were not very transparent. Cassava price could 
fluctuate according to the quality, especially the content 
of starch. For example, a processor in the study area 
increased the cassava price by 4% for every 1% excess 
of the standard starch content (25%). On the other hand, 
the company reduced the cassava price by 4% for every 
1% decrease of the starch content below the standard. 
The processor usually measured the starch content every 
time when they receive cassava from farmers. Some 
processors didn’t show their measuring process to 
farmers and it was suspicious if the disclosed cassava 
weight and starch content was accurate. 

 

Factors determining cassava yield and price 

 

The profiles of the surveyed households and the cost 
structures of cassava production are shown in the Table 
2 and the Table 3 respectively. Cassava income formed 
43% of the total household income and 57% of the total 
agricultural income of the surveyed households. The 
average cassava yield of the surveyed households (21.8 
ton per hectare) was higher than the average yield in 
Lampung Province, which was 19.0 ton per hectare in 
2005 (BPS Lampung, 2006). The higher observed yield 
reflects the fact that the study area is the cassava 
production center of the province.  

The estimation result of cassava yield determination 
functions is shown in the Table 4. Cassava yield was 
explained by material cost and harvesting age (the period 
from planting to harvesting) positively. Labor cost didn’t 
affect cassava yield, which is controversial with the earlier 
studies such as Onu and Edon (2009), which identified 
positive contribution of labor to cassava yield. It is known 
that the harvesting age affects both the yield and the 
starch content of cassava. Cassava can be harvested at 
the age of 6 months, but the best harvesting age is 10 - 
12 months, with variation according to variety (Pakpahan 
and Gunawan, 1992). If the farmer harvests too early, 
cassava is still young, and the starch content and yield 
are low (Hershery et al., 2001). According to observations 
in the study area, the farmers tended to harvest their 
cassava earlier than the recommended period due to the 
urgent need for cash income. Therefore it is rational that 
the estimated cassava yield determination function 
showed that yield was explained by harvesting age 
positively. Material cost was used as a proxy of input use 
in this study, which consisted of fertilizers, pesticides and 
seedlings, because the variety of input was very large 
among the respondents and it was difficult to adopt an 
amount of input as a factor to determine the yield. For 
example, the majority of the respondents used chemical 
fertilizer as a nutrient source of their crops. On the other 

  
  

 
 

 

Table 2. Profiles of surveyed households.  
 

 Mean STD 

Sample size 80  

Number of HH
a
 members (person) 4.3 1.3 

Education of HH head (year) 7.9 3.1 

Operational farm land (ha) 1.32 0.94 

Total Income (1,000rupiah/year) 11,848 6,835 

Cassava production (1,000rupiah/year) 5,197 3,046 

Rice production (1,000rupiah/year) 1,347 2,350 

Other crops (1,000rupiah/year) 798 2,728 

Farm labor (1,000rupiah/year) 1,181 1,624 

Other agricultural income 661 1,477 
(1,000rupiah/year)   

Non-agricultural income 2,666 3,937 
(1,000rupiah/year)   

 
a
  HH =  Household; 

b
  STD =  Standard deviation. Data source: 

Interview survey, 2007. 
 
 

 
Table 3. Cassava production cost and returns (1,000 rupiah/ha). 

 

 Mean S T D
a
 

Sample size 80  

Harvested area (ha) 0.91 0.54 

Yield (ton/ha) 21.8 5.5 

Harvesting age (months) 9.3 1.3 

Cassava price (rupiah/kg) 303 50 

Output (1) 6601 1969 

Current inputs:   

Seedlings 210 100 

Fertilizer 721 330 

Pestiside 100 72 

Subtotal (2) 1,031 339 

Labor costs:   

Hired 1427 765 

Family 388 469 

Subtotal (3) 1,815 774 

Others(4) 623 739 

Total costs (5)=(2)+(3)+(4) 3469 1196 

Operator’s surplus (6)=(1)-(5) 3132 1744  
 

a
 STD = Standard deviation. Data source: Interview survey, 2007.

 

 

 

hand, a significant number of farmers used rock phos-
phate as a source of phosphate instead of SP36. Some 
farmers didn’t apply chemical fertilizers at all while they 
use a liquid organic fertilizer made from food factory liquid 
waste. It is rational that yield was explained by material 
cost since the fertilizer application in the study area was 
still low comparing to the recommended dosage and the 
plants would response positively to the increase 



 
 
 

 
              Table 4. Estimation results of cassava yield determination function.  

 

 Standardized coefficient T-value 
   

In Labor cost 
a
 -0.073 -0.686 

In Material cost 
b
 0.257 2.394 * 

In Harvesting age 
c
 0.287 2.616 * 

Adjusted R 
2
 0.149  

F-value 5.600  

Number of samples 80    
a
 Total labor cost including farm labor; 

b
 Total material cost including seedlings, fertilizers, 

pesticides and other materials; 
c
 Harvesting age (months) in the respondents' fields; * 

Significant at 5% level. Data source: Interview survey (2007).
 

 

 
              Table 5. Estimation results of cassava price determination function.  

 

 Standardized coefficient T-value 
   

In Labor cost 
a
 0.393 3.771 * 

In Material cost 
b
 -0.060 -0.607 

In Harvesting age 
c
 0.222 2.144 * 

Partnership with processor 
d
 -0.144 -1.296 

Cassava project 
e
 0.238 2.167 * 

Adjusted R 
2
 0.310  

F-value 8.103  

Number of samples 80   
 

a
 Total labor cost including farm labor; 

b
 Total material cost including seedlings, fertilizers, pesticides 

and other materials; 
c
 Harvesting age (months) in the respondents' fields; 

d
 Respondent joining 

partnership (kemitraan) with a processor = 1, not joining partnership = 0; 
e
 Respondent joining the 

project = 1, not joining the project = 0; * Significant at 5% level. Data source: Interview survey (2007).
 

 
 

 

of the input. 
The estimation result of cassava price determination 

function is shown in the Table 5. Labor cost, harvesting 
age and participation into the cassava project significantly 
affected cassava price. It is rational that harvesting age 
positively affected cassava price, because the cassava 
price is usually determined by the starch content. Though 
labor cost and participation into the cassava project 
showed positive effect to cassava price, both didn’t show 
significant effect to yield. It is supposed that the inten-
sified farm management could contribute more to the 
cassava root quality, rather than the yield. Sahat et al. 
(1992) classified the processes of price formation in 
cassava marketing into free transaction (a direct bar-
gaining between farmers and traders), contract 
transaction (farmers receive credit from traders and are 
obliged to repay in the form of cassava) and un-free 
transaction (a price formation between farmers and a 
large factory, in which farmers are not given the oppor-
tunity to bargain). Even in the free transaction where 
farmers can do a bargaining process, their bargaining 

 
 
 

 

power is very weak. This observation is consistent with 
the finding in the present study that partnership with 
processor, which obliges farmers to sell their cassava to 
the creditors, didn’t show the significant effect to the 
cassava price.  

Harvesting age was a crucial factor in the cassava 
production because it determined both yield and price. 
The estimation result of cassava harvesting age deter-
mination function was shown in the Table 6. Participation 
into the cassava project and cassava income ratio 
significantly affected the harvesting age. As mentioned, 
the participants into the cassava project could receive 
technical supports by the extension staffs. Since the 
extension workers recognized the shorter harvesting age 
as a constraint factor of cassava production in the area, 
their extension works to optimize the plant management 
were supposed to be effective to increase the harvesting 
age of the project participants. Cassava is planted as a 
supplementary crop with upland rice and corn as the 
main crop (Nasution et al., 1992) and according to the 
interview to the extension staffs, farmers usually pay less 



  
 
 

 
Table 6. Estimation results of cassava harvesting age determination function.  

 
 Standardized coefficient T-value  

Partnership with processor 
a
 0.136 1.154  

Cassava project 
b
 0.270 2.285 *  

Cassava income ratio 
c
 0.239 2.092 *  

Adjusted R 
2
 0.135   

F-value 5.101   

Number of samples 80   
 

a
 Respondent joining partnership (kemitraan) with a processor = 1, not joining partnership = 0;

 

b
 Respondent joining the project = 1, not joining the project = 0; 

c
 Ratio of household 

income from cassava production to total household income; * Significant at 5% level. Data 
source: Interview survey (2007).

 

 
 

 

attention to cassava than other main crops. It is supposed 
that this tendency would be stronger for the farmers who 
get less income from cassava production. On the other 
hand, the farmers who rely more on cassava as income 
source would pay more attention to their plant manage-
ment and would try to maximize the yield and starch 
content. This is supposed as a reason why the cassava 
income ratio showed positive impacts to the harvesting 
age. 

 

Conclusion 
 
As mentioned before, the cassava market in Indonesia, 
especially in Lampung Province, has been dominated by 
several large scale cassava processors. In spite of the 
efforts by the government such as the ITTARA project, it 
has been difficult to change the oligopsonistic character-
ristics of the market to improve the welfare of cassava 
farmers. In the present study, it was observed that 
harvesting age was a critical factor to determine cassava 
yield and price. It was also clear that the technical 
support provided by the emerging processing company 
had a positive impact to optimize the plant management. 
It can be concluded that the increasing demand for cas-
sava will attract more companies to the processing 
business.  

In the study area, it was observed that an ethanol 
company based in East Java province was constructing a 
new ethanol plant in East Lampung Regency, Lampung 
Province. Since the company was a newcomer in  

Lampung, they were carrying out various efforts to 
attract the local cassava farmers in order to secure 
sufficient raw material for the new factory, which had a 
processing capacity of 1,000 ton of cassava per day. The 
company already succeeded in concluding production 
contracts with 1,000 farmers within a 50 km radius of the 
factory. The total production area of the farmers was 
around 1,200 hectares. The company offered farmers not 
only similar support provided by the other processors 
such as assuring a cassava floor price and providing 

 
 
 

 

credit, but also various other services to attract the 
farmers. They were disseminating grafting seedlings 
which graft two cassava varieties. The upper part of the 
seedlings is Karret variety (a variety of tree cassava, 
Manihot glazovii), which has a high photosynthesis ability, 
while the lower part is Kasetsart variety (a variety of true 
cassava, Manihot esculenta), which has a good root 
quality. The technical support included monthly meeting 
with contract farmers and providing the growing 
guidelines which included ploughing three times, fertilizer 
application (basal and twice topdressing) and manure 
application. Their credit covered the cost of seedlings, 
pesticide, tractor service fees and fertilizer. They also 
gave the farmers price incentives for high quality cas-
sava. These services were supposed to be the major 
reasons why the company could conclude the contracts 
with so many farmers within a limited time.  

With the tightening competition among the companies, 
the positive impacts of the support to the farmers like the 
cassava project to the cassava production in the study 
area will raise the companies’ confidence that the invest-
ment in supporting activities for farmers will result in an 
improved output, thus ensuring it is worthwhile for the 
companies to take these costs. This in return will contri-
bute to the farmers’ welfare through improved profit of 
cassava production. 
 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

This study was performed through Special Coordination 
Funds for Promoting Science and Technology of the 
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and 
Technology, the Japanese Government, and operational 
grants for administration of the Japan International 
Research Center for Agricultural Sciences. We thank all 
the staff members of Sukadana District Extension Center, 
Sukadana, East Lampung, Lampung, Indonesia for their 
assistance during the survey. We also thank Mr. Geoff 
Thompson, UNESCAP-CAPSA, for his English editing. 



 
 
 

 
REFERENCES 
 
BPS (2006). Statistik Indonesia (2005/2006). BPS Jakarta, 592. 
BPS Kabupaten Lampung Timur (2006). Dalam Angka (2006). BPS 

Jakarta, 241. 
BPS Propinsi Lampung (2006). Lampung dalam Angka (2006). BPS 

Jakarta 213-233.  
FAO and IFAD (2000). The world cassava economy – Facts. Trends 

outlook. FAO, IFAD Rome pp.1-64.  
Hershery Cl, Henry G, Best R, Kawano K, Howeler R, Iglesias C (2001). 

Cassava in Asia: Expanding the competitive edge in diversified 
Markets, In: Proceedings of the validation forum on the global 
cassava development strategy. Rome, 26-28 April 2000, A review of 
cassava in Asia with country case.  

studies on Thailand and Viet Nam, Volume 3.FAO, IFAD Rome pp.1-62. 
IFAD and FAO (2004). Proceedings of the validation forum on the global 
cassava development strategy, Volume 6. Global cassava market study, 
Business opportunities for the use of cassava.IFAD, FAO  

Rome. pp. 1-175.  
Mougeot E, Leveng P (1990). Marketing of rice, cassava and coffee in 

Lampung, Indonesia. CGPRT Centre, Bogor. p.123.  
Nasution A, Djauhari A, Pakpahan A (1992). Cassava farming and 

marketing in Lampung, In: Cassava marketing in Indonesia. 
(Pakpahan Agus, Gunawan Memed, Djauhari Achmad, Pasaribu 
Sahat M, Nasution Aladin, Friyanto Supena eds.). Monograph series 
No.2, Center for Agro-Socioeconomic Research, Agency for 
Agricultural Research and Development, Bogor pp.60-77. 

Nelson GC (1984). Starch. In: The cassava economy of Java (Falcon 
Walter P, Jones William O, Pearson Scott R, Dixon John A, Nelson 

Gerald C, Roche Frederick C, Unnevehr Laurian J. eds). Stanford 
University Press, Stanford, California. p. 212. 

 
 
 
 

 
Onu JI, Edon A (2009). Comparative Economic Analysis of Improved 

and Local Cassava Varieties in Selected Local Government Areas of 
Taraba State. Niger. J. Soc Sci. 19(3): pp. 213-217. 

Pakpahan A, Gunawan M (1992). Introduction and conceptual 
framework for cassava marketing research. In: Cassava marketing in 
Indonesia. (Pakpahan A, Gunawan M, Djauhari A, Pasaribu SM, 
Nasution Aladin, Friyanto Supena eds). Monograph series No.2, 
Center for Agro-Socioeconomic Research, Agency for Agricultural 
Research and Development, Bogor pp. 20-29. 

Pemerintah Kabupaten Lampung Timur (2006). Program Dinas 
Pertanian Tanaman Pangan dan Hortikultura, Kabupaten Lampung 
Timur Tahun (2007). Dinas Pertanian Tanamam Pangan dan 
Hortikultura, Kabupaten Lampung Timur, Lampung Timur p.12. 
Siregar Masdjidin, Nagai Naoko, Suryadi Muhammad (2006). 
Secondary crops based farming systems and their integration with 
processing in Lampung, Indonesia. CAPSA Working paper No.98. 
UNESCAP CAPSA, Bogor p. 95.  

Sahat MR, Pakpahan A (1992). Rules and regulations in cassava 
marketing in Lampung, In: Cassava marketing in Indonesia. 
(Pakpahan Agus, Gunawan Memed, Djauhari Achmad, Pasaribu 
Sahat M, Nasution Aladin, Friyanto Supena eds). Monograph series 
No.2, Center for Agro-Socioeconomic Research, Agency for 
Agricultural Research and Development, Bogor pp. 77-96.  

Siregar M, Nagai N, Suryadi M (2006). Secondary crops based farming 
systems and their integration with processing in Lampung, Indonesia. 
CAPSA Working paper No.98. UNESCAP CAPSA, Bogor, p.95 

Tim Nasional, Pengembangan BBN (2006). Blueprint pengembangan 
bahan baker nabati untuk percepatan pengurangan kemiskinan dan 
pengangguran (2006/2025). Tim Nasional Pengembangan BBN, 
Jakarta p.56. 


