Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorGumbira-Sa'Id, Endang
dc.contributor.advisorFahmi, Idqan
dc.contributor.authorGianto
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-23T13:15:02Z
dc.date.available2024-05-23T13:15:02Z
dc.date.issued1996
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.ipb.ac.id/handle/123456789/151462
dc.description.abstractCPO industry grows well for the time being since the word demand keeps increasing. In the spectrum of industries, CPO is classified as upstream industry. In this regard, low cost plays a very important role for competition. Many ways can be made for minimizing the cost, few of those are increasing efficiencies and decreasing the production losses. LFL (loose fruit losses) was still a significant problem in Region II of PTP Nusantara IV. The direct and indirect losses which was generated could amount to more than Rp 30 billion per year. Considering the worth and the future effect, LFL was a strategic problem, therefore the better solution was very urgent. The objectives of this study were to estimate the magnitude of LFL on the basis of both interview and field checking, to identify factors affecting LFL and to formulate strategies for minimizing LFL. A survey on LFL was carried out by interviewing 68 respondents comprised three estate managers, three senior assistants, 14 field assistants, seven first foremen, six harvesting foremen and 35 harvesters. Based on the interview, it was found that the average magnitude of LFL was 6.25. On the other hand, the field checking in five representative locations found that the number of LFL was 17.46. Since the later was more reliable, it was used as a factor of correction for the interview-based LFL distributions. Technically, the maximum tolerable limit of LFL per tree was 1.25 and economically the limit was 1.7. The existing LFL was beyond these limits. Quantitatively, a regression between LFL and interrow weeding cost (Ca), pruning cost (Pr) and individual area size of harvesting (Az) was made. An equation of LFL61.5+0.00275 Ca-0.00348 Pr+ 1.21 Az was found. As illustrated by its R-sq, the three variables explained 55.7% the variation of LFL. The rest was descriptively explained by qualitative factors namely method of harvesting, tool being used, harvesting rotation, height of tree, topography, harvesting criteria, harvesting quality, rainfall, harvesting period, supervision and infrastructure. The samples who agreed that the mentioned factors affected the number of LFL were 76, 28, 75, 87, 84, 100, etc..id
dc.language.isoen_USid
dc.publisherIPB Universityid
dc.subject.ddcManajemen Produksi Dan Operasiid
dc.titleStudy On Loose Fruit Losses Of Oil Palm Harvesting At Region Ii Of Ptp Nusantara Iv North Sumateraid
dc.typeThesisid
dc.subject.keywordCPOid
dc.subject.keywordTOWS Analysisid
dc.subject.keywordPalm Oilid
dc.subject.keywordHarvestingid
dc.subject.keywordFruitid


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record