This study evaluated the types of risks faced by agripreneurs in North Central Nigeria.  Multistage random sampling technique was adopted in the selection of 300 respondents from Nasarawa, Niger and Kogi States used for the study. Well -structured questionnaires were used to elicit the required data from the respondents. The significant economic and financial risk facing the input agripreneurs were exchange rate fluctuations (mean=3.84), high interest rate (mean=4.82) and high level of debts (3.20). The significant production risks facing the production agripreneurs were inadequate storage and processing facilities (mean=4.25), power supply interruption (mean=4.56), outdated technology and lack of expertise (mean=4.34) inaccessibility of input (mean=3.94). The significant production risk facing the processing agripreneurs were inadequate processing and storage facilities (mean=3.42), instability in power supply (mean=4.54), outdated technology and lack of expertise (mean=4.41) and inadequate and improve inputs (mean=3.42). The Major risks faced by marketing agripreneurs include frequent price fluctuation (mean=4.04), high level of inflation (mean=4.66), lack of product variety (mean=3.12), past failure (mean=3.4.07) and too many competitors (mean= 3.97). The significant economic and financial risk facing the support agripreneurs were limited ways of raising fund (mean=4.95), exchange rate fluctuation (mean=4.42) and high interest on loans (mean=4.53). Programs and policies meant to promote capital access of the agripreneurs should be promoted and executed judiciously. Agripreneurs should be enlightened that risk is essential part of entrepreneurial success.

Agripreneurs; Risks; Risk Types; Likert Scale; North Central; Nigeria.

Risk is a major issue that affects so many aspects of people’s livelihoods in the developing world. It affects whether people can own and maintain assets and endowments, how these assets are transformed into incomes via activities and how these incomes and earnings are translated into broader development outcomes [1]. According to [2] apprehension of risk induces certain behaviour into a farmer and this would grossly affect enterprise selection and consequently his resource use and allocation pattern The rural poor are risk averse as they are always skeptical of losing the little resources that they have at their disposal and thus specialize on the risk-low return activities [3]. These farmers are therefore more of risk minimizers contrary to the neo-classical principle of profit maximization [4]. These risks and uncertainties easily trigger food shortages, deterioration in nutritional status, destitution and agro-business failure [5]. This explains why risk analysis among agribusiness investments has become increasingly popular obviously because agribusiness investment depends on vagaries of the environment and nature [6]. Many authors have made efforts at classifying different kinds of risks that hit agriprenuers income, welfare and life generally. Using the analogy of colours in the spectrum, [7] stated that the range of business risks contains many shades and variations, but can be reduced to few primary types of risk, like primary colours, to include production risks, market risk and financial risks. Generally speaking, scholars categorize types of risk differently, most times depending on study objectives and motives. Whereas [8] classified general sources of risk to include; business risk (which incorporates production risk and market risk) and financial risk. [9] identified three additional categories of business risk to include technological, legal/social and human.  More recently, comparatively though, [10] argued that any classification of risk should include social, health and policy risks as well as the traditional yield and price risks which are familiar to agribusiness. According to a range of scholars, the main sources of risk in farming specifically and agribusiness generally include production or yield risk, financial risk, price or market risk, institutional or political risk, environmental risk, human resource or personal risk and legal risk [11]. The various types of risk give rise to uncertainty in the minds of agripreneurs regarding their ability to predict the future. The degree of uncertainty, the consequences of the various possible outcomes and the personality of the individuals will determine how best to behave under the circumstance and what strategy they adopt to minimize the effects of risks [12]. Most agripreneurs are generally thought to be risk averse. That is, given for example a choice between a certain 8100, or the equal chance of receiving an uncertain 81100 or nothing they will always choose the 8100, and there will be sums of money less than 8100 which will be chosen in preference to an equal chance of 81100 or nothing. The implication of this is that an agripreneur may not aim for the production plan with the highest expected profit if this profit is associated with a wide range of alternative profit outcomes; he may instead opt for a lower expected profit if this involves a narrower range of profit outcomes. Risk adverse decision rules differ from risk neutral choices because of the existence of marginal risk premium, which is the wedge between input cost and expected marginal product at the optimum level of input use [13].

This study was carried out in the North Central Geo-political zone of Nigeria. Multistage sampling technique consisting of purposive and random sampling was adopted in the selection of the agripreneurs that were used for the study. The first stage involved a purposive selection of three states in the North Central Zone namely Nasarawa, Kogi and Niger States mainly because of the predominance of agripreneurs, accessibility, security challenges and time constraint. The second stage involved a process of stratifying the agriprenuers in the area into various agribusiness types: input supply, production, processing and marketing and support subsystems. The third and final stage involved adoption of purposive sampling technique to select 100 agripreneurs from each of the three states that gave a total of three hundred agripreneurs. Primary data were collected through the use of questionnaire.

From the survey results, agripreneuer respondents were found to fall into input, production, processing, marketing and support service categories. The input agripreneurs were involved in seedlings, chemical and fertilizers, feeds and drugs and equipment/ tools. The production agripreneurs were involved in vegetable and fruits, cassava farming, distillation and livestock. The processing agripreneurs were involved in cassava, palm, eatery, timber and livestock. The marketing agripreneurs were involved in cassava, processed food, palm products, staple food and livestock while those in the support services were involved in consultancy and extension/education. The distribution of the agripreneurs according to their area of investment is presented in (Table1). The agripreneurs involved in the input, production, and processing, marketing and support service stages of the value chain were 16.3%, 31.67%, 11.3%, 28.6%, 18.6% and 4.6% respectively. 

          Table 1: Agripreneurs Areas of Investment

          Source: Field survey data, 2020.

The risk types experienced by the agripreneurs involved in the different stages of the agribusiness value chain were discussed in this section.

The risk types experienced by the input agripreneurs are as presented in (Table 2). A five point linkert scale was used to ascertain descriptively the risk types that significantly affect the agripreneurs who are input suppiers. The result is presented in Table 2. Score was ascribed to each response in the following manner: strongly agreed = 5; agreed = 4; undecided = 3; disagree = 2 and strongly disagreed = 1. The mean of this point was calculated and used to determine whether a variable was significant or not. The decision rule states that any variable which has a mean that is less than or equal to 3 is not a significant risk affecting the agripreneurs. Any variable with a mean that is greater than 3 is accepted to be a significant risk affecting the agripreneurs.

Table 2: Analysis of the Input Agripreneurs Types of Risk

Source: Field survey data, 2020.

The significant economic and financial risk facing the input agripreneurs are limited ways of raising fund (mean=3.65), exchange rate fluctuations (mean=3.84), high interest rate (mean=4.82) and high level of debts (3.20). These economic and financial risk factors affect the input agripreneurs significantly and are very vital in the decision making of the enterprise. The input agripreneurs deal with the basic agricultural inputs, they produce seedlings and chemicals required as inputs in agriculture and most times require huge financial implications. With the economic condition of the nation, factors such as source of fund, interest rate and exchange rate pose so much risk. The inability of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) including agripreneurs to identify and manage exchange rate changes expose them to the negative effects of exchange rate volatility (Kwasi et al 2012). The significant production risk faced by the input agripreneurs were inaccessibility of inputs (mean=3.63), difficulty in maintaining standards (mean=4.45), power supply interruption (mean=5.00), lack of technological expert (mean=3.65) and outdated technology (mean=4.92).  The most significant production risk factor is the power interruption which negatively affects agripreneurs that need electricity for heating, incubation and other processes. Despite the huge endowment of energy sources, Nigeria is also an energy deficient country whose economy suffers tremendously from the shortages of energy supply [14]. The significant market risks faced by the input agripreneurs were frequent price fluctuation (mean=3.63), high level of inflation (mean=3.78), poor access to global markets (mean=3.08) and past failure (mean= 3.30).  The persistent increase in the prices of commodities in the market is a source of risk to the agripreneurs as they are affected by this ugly trend. Price fluctuations have been troublesome in their destabilizing effects and huge risk impact on the enterprise performance of businesses involved in agriculture [15]. The significant political risks faced by the input agripreneurs are threats of terrorism (mean=3.96), menace of Fulani herdsmen (mean=3.96), and political instability (mean= 3.30). The growing wave of political instability with the herdsmen attack poses a great risk to the agripreneurs as this disturbs their business. The overall consequences are that, since most of them have been negatively employed to wreak havoc against the society, the once bubbling commercial cities, serene and peaceful towns with a perfect blend of modern and traditional exotic cultural heritages have turned into fearful ghost towns. It is almost impossible to assess the painful feelings, quantify the number of invaluable deaths (because some are not recorded) and evaluate the cost of public infrastructure and personal properties destroyed by the terrorists [16]. The significant environmental risks faced by the input agripreneurs were erosion menace (mean=3.73) and incidence of flooding (mean=3.89). Erosion and flooding are the two major environmental challenge facing agripreneurs in Nigeria. Floods are among the most devastating natural disasters, claiming more lives and causing more property damage than any other natural phenomena. In Nigeria, though not leading in terms of claiming lives, flood affects and displaces more people than any other disaster; it also causes more damage to properties [17]. The significant personnel risks facing the input agripreneurs were low commitment to duty (mean=3.20), lack of skilled employee (mean=3.06), and loss due to accident (mean= 3.25). Labour in Nigeria is greatly affected by the lack of skill, most of the workers are unskilled. This poses a serious risk to the input agripreneurs resulting to reduction in their output. The significant legal risks faced by the input agripreneurs were registration and conditionality cost (mean=3.25), expensive license renewal (mean=3.20), change of on time delivery of goods (mean=4.22) and suppliers unreliability (mean= 3.88). The cost of doing business in Nigeria is very high as the registration procedure and the expensive nature of license renewals make agriprenuership a risky venture.

The risk types experienced by the production agripreneurs were critically examined in this section as presented in Table 3. A five point linkert scale was used to ascertain descriptively the risk types that are peculiar and of most concern to the production agripreneurs.

This is presented in the (Table 3) below. Score was ascribed to each response in the following manner: strongly agreed = 5; agreed = 4; undecided = 3; disagree = 2 and strongly disagreed = 1. The mean of this point was calculated and used to determine whether a variable was significant or not. The decision rule states that any variable which has a mean that is less than or equal to 3 is not a significant risk affecting the agripreneurs. Any variable with a mean that is greater than 3 is accepted to be a significant risk affecting the production agripreneur.

Table 3: Analysis of the Production Agripreneurs Types of Risk

Source: Field survey data, 2020.

The significant economic and financial risks faced by the production agripreneurs were limited ways of raising fund (mean=4.79), exchange rate fluctuations (mean=3.19) and high interest rate (mean=4.46).  High interest rate is a major risk of concern for the production agripreneurs and there is the need for proper debt management. [18] Observed that debt has the ability to cause the non-performance of small scale enterprises. Most empirical studies on the impact of debt management on the performance of businesses have focused basically on large scale businesses in developed countries [19]. The significant production risks faced by the production agripreneurs were inadequate storage and processing facilities (mean=4.25), power supply interruption (mean=4.56), outdated Technology and lack of expertise (mean=4.34) inaccessibility of input (mean=3.94). The state of technology in any organization has a significant influence on the quality and quantity of production of its goods or services. But despite this, technology is prone to constant change and organizations have to monitor, manage and cope with this [20]. The significant market risk faced by the production agripreneurs were frequent price fluctuation (mean=4.40), high level of inflation (mean=4.40), past failure (mean= 3.68) lack of product variety (mean = 4.15) and too many competitors (mean =4.43). This result agrees with [21], they stated that inadequate processing and storage facility is a major problem producer of agricultural produce face. The significant political risks faced by the production agripreneurs were menace of herdsmen (mean= 4.30), and political instability (mean= 3.21). Also, the significant environmental risks faced by the production agripreneurs were erosion menace (mean=3.21) and incidence of flooding (mean=4.48). The significant personnel risks faced by the production agripreneurs were low commitment to duty (mean=4.35), lack of skilled employees (mean=4.44), and difficulty in retaining owned trained staff (mean= 4.16) and theft by employees and customers (4.03). The significant legal risks faced by the production agripreneurs were registration and conditionality cost (mean=3.93), challenge of on time delivery of goods (mean=4.28) and expensive license renewal (mean= 4.36).

The risk types experienced by the processing agripreneurs were critically examined in this section as presented in Table 4. A five-point linkert scale was used to ascertain descriptively the risk types of concern to the processing agripreneurs as is presented in the (Table 4). Score was ascribed to each response in the following manner: strongly agreed = 5; agreed = 4; undecided = 3; disagree = 2 and strongly disagreed = 1. The mean of this point was calculated and used to determine whether a variable was significant or not. The decision rule states that any variable which has a mean that is less than or equal to 3 is not a significant risk affecting the agripreneurs. Any variable with a mean that is greater than 3 is accepted to be a significant risk affecting the processing agripreneurs.

Table 4: Analysis of the Processing Agripreneurs Types of Risk.

Source: Field survey data, 2020.

The significant economic and financial risk faced by the processing agripreneurs were limited ways of raising fund (mean=4.80), exchange rate fluctuations (mean=3.10), and high interest rate (mean=3.4.39). The significant production risk faced by the processing agripreneurs were inadequate processing and storage facilities (mean=3.42), power supply instability (mean=4.54), outdated technology and lack of expertise (mean=4.41) and inadequate and improve inputs (mean=3.42). Nto et al. (2011) had a similar result. The significant market risk faced by the processing agripreneurs were frequent price fluctuation (mean=4.66), past failure (mean= 3.76) and lack of product variety (3.12). This result is in agreement with [22] who observed that lack of product variability and price instability pose a great challenge to marketers of agricultural produce. The significant political risks faced by the processing agripreneurs were menace of herdsmen (mean= 4.44), and political instability (mean= 3.33).  Extreme violence repels rather than attracts business investors as in the case of the activities of terrorists. When human, material and financial resources are channeled into the advancement of sectarian ideology, economic development is retarded. Also he noted state action and war as constraints that face agripreneurs [23]. The significant environmental risks faced by the processing agripreneurs were erosion menace (mean=4.02) and incidence of flooding (mean=4.52). In recent years, risk-based approaches have received increasing attention as means to manage flood hazards. In day-to-day language, the term risk is often used as a synonym for probability or chance. This should not be a surprise since the denotation of the term often varies with the sector in which it is applied such as, legal profession, insurance, natural disaster research communities and cultural heritage researchers among others [24]. Yet, even in the context of flood alone, numerous definitions of flood risk have been suggested [25]. The significant personnel risks faced by the processing agripreneurs were low commitment to duty (mean=4.41), lack of skilled employee (mean=4.10), retention of owned - trained staff (mean= 3.24) and loss theft by employees and customers (mean= 3.62); while the significant legal risks faced by the processing agripreneurs were registration and conditionality cost (mean=4.30) and expensive license renewal (mean=4.43) and challenge of on – time delivery of goods (4.54). The change of regulation especially without planning has affected a lot of business operations. An example is how the foreign exchange regulation has affected the access to money for procuring raw materials for their business. This has even made businesses leave the country for a more stable and conducive environment, with attendant capital flight. There have been other regulations in other institutions as well. One that many have been affected is the banking regulations [26].

The risk types experienced by the marketing agripreneurs were critically examined in this section as presented in Table 4.2.4. A five point linkert scale was used to ascertain descriptively the risk type that is of major concern to the marketing agripreneurs as is presented in the table below. Score was ascribed to each response in the following manner:  strongly agreed = 5; agreed = 4; undecided = 3; disagree = 2 and strongly disagreed = 1. The mean of this point was calculated and used to determine whether a variable was significant or not. The decision rule states that any variable which has a mean that is less than or equal to 3 is not a significant risk affecting the agripreneurs. Any variable with a mean that is greater than 3 is accepted to be a significant risk affecting the marketing agripreneurs.

Table 5: Analysis of the Marketing Agripreneurs Types of Risk.

Source: Field survey data, 2020.

The significant economic and financial risk faced by the marketing agripreneurs were limited ways of raising fund (mean=4.45), exchange rate fluctuations (mean=3.08), high interest rate (mean=4.52), high level of debts (mean=4.41) and difficulty in debt collection (mean= 4.50s). Cecchetti, Mohanty and Zampolly (2011) studied the effects of debt on firms and concluded that moderate debt level improves welfare and enhances growth but high levels of debt can lead to a decline in growth of the firm. [26] Argued that debt impacted positively to the growth of a firm only when it is within certain levels. When the ratio goes beyond certain levels financial crisis is very likely. The significant production risk faced by the marketing agripreneurs were power supply interruption (mean=4.38) and inadequate storage and processing facilities (mean=4.23).  This result is in agreement with [3] who argued that marketing risks associated with the variability of product, input prices and inadequate processing and storage facilities were the most important sources of risk considered by the farmers. Market risks are very challenging to the marketing agripreneurs and they include frequent price fluctuation (mean=4.04), high level of inflation (mean=4.66), lack of product variety (mean=3.12), past failure (mean=3.4.07) and too many competitors (mean= 3.97). Furthermore, the significant political risks faced by the marketing agripreneurs were menace of herdsmen (mean=4.41), and political instability (mean= 4.62). The significant environmental risks faced by the marketing agripreneurs were erosion menace (mean=4.42) and incidence of flooding (mean=4.46). The significant personnel risks faced by the marketing agripreneurs were theft by employees and customers (mean=3.15), low commitment to duty (mean=4.42), retention of own – trained staff (mean= 4.47) and skilled employees are not easily available (4.66). [27] stated that Lack of skilled workers is a major challenge facing agribusiness, this agrees with the findings of this study. The significant legal risks faced by the marketing agripreneurs were registration and conditionality cost (mean=4.49), challenge of on time delivery of goods (mean=4.47) and expensive license renewal (mean= 4.53).

The risk types experienced by the support agripreneurs were critically examined in this section as presented in (Table 6). A five point linkert scale was used to ascertain descriptively the risk types that are of major concern to the marketing agripreneurs. This is presented in the Table 6. Score was ascribed to each response in the following manner:  strongly agreed = 5; agreed = 4; undecided = 3; disagree = 2 and strongly disagreed = 1. The mean of this point was calculated and used to determine whether a variable was significant or not. The decision rule states that any variable which has a mean that is less than or equal to 3 is not a significant risk affecting the agripreneurs. Any variable with a mean that is greater than 3 is accepted to be a significant risk affecting the support agripreneurs.

Table 6: Analysis of the Support Group Agripreneurs Types of Risk.

Source: Field survey data, 2020.

The significant economic and financial risk faced by the support agripreneurs were limited ways of raising fund (mean=4.95), exchange rate fluctuation (mean=4.42) and high interest on loans (mean=4.53).The significant production risk facing the support agripreneurs are inadequate storage and process facilities (mean=4.32), difficulty in maintaining standards (mean=3.21), outdated technology (mean=3.37), inadequate and improve input (4.32) and power supply interruption (mean=4.32). The significant market risk faced by the support agripreneurs were frequent price fluctuation (mean=4.37), high level of inflation (mean=4.32), lack of product variety (mean=4.63), past failure (mean= 4.21) and too many competitors (3.05). Also, the significant political risks faced the support agripreneurs were menace of herdsmen (mean=4.37), and political instability (mean= 4.63). Furthermore, the significant environmental risks faced by the support agripreneurs were erosion menace (mean=4.52) and incidence of flooding (mean=3.63).The significant personnel risks faced by the support agripreneurs were low commitment to duty (mean=4.53), skilled employee are not easily available (mean=4.53), difficulty in retention of own-trained employees (mean= 4.63) and theft by employees and customers (mean= 3.11). Also, the significant legal risks faced by the support agripreneurs were registration and conditionality cost (mean=4.74), expensive license renewal (mean=4.32) and challenge of on-time delivery of goods (4.26).

Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations are proffered:

1. Since limited source of fund is a risk facing the agripreneurs, programes and policies meant to promote capital access of the agripreneurs should be promoted and executed judiciously.

2.Exchange rate fluctuation is an economic risk facing the agripreneurs. The government should ensure that a favourable exchange rate is maintained to support the agripreneurs involved in international trade. Specifically agripreneurs who produce for export, and hence earn foreign exchange for the country, should be allowed to access foreign exchange at government official rates, preferentially.

3.Policies and programmes meant to ensure that financial institutions provide capital to agricultural entrepreneurs at a single digit cost should be monitored to ensure its adherence.

4. Agripreneurs should be enlightened that risk is essential in the success of a business as entrepreneurs with high risk attitude may earn more return, since profit is compensation for risk taking.

5.Agriprenuers are encouraged to participate in the agribusiness value chain. They are encouraged to do these through the vertical integration of their business from the input, production, processing to the marketing of their products to reap the returns of the value chain, through increased value-addition in the agri-system of Nigeria.

1.Alama Agricultural and Mechanical University (2003) Risk Overview. Small Farmers Research Centre Fact Sheet, pp. 1-2.

2.Boehlje MD, Trede LD (1977) Risk Management in Agriculture. Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 41, pp. 20-29.

3.Dorward A, Omamo G (2007) A Framework for Analyzing Institutions, in Kirsten J. (Ed) The Economics of Institutions: Theory and Applications to African Agricultural Development.

4.Lawrence C, Gene C, Steve I, et al. (2013) Introduction to Risk Management: Understanding Agricultural Risk. Published by: Extension Risk Management Education and Risk Management Agency, USA. (2^nd edn).

5.Ogoegbunam ME (2012) Effects of Land Holding on Food Consumption: Implications for Food Security in Anambra State, Nigeria: A project submitted for the Degree of Master of Science at the Departmentof Agricultural Economics, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike.

6.Martin P, Markus D (2000) Risk in Agriculture As Impediment To Rural Lending- The Case of North-Western Kazakhstan. Discussion paper, Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe.

7.Yunus AD, Waidi AA (2011) Technological Change and Employee Performance in Selected Manufacturing Industry in Lagos State of Nigeria.  Aust J Busi  Manage Res. 1 (5): 32-43.

8.Salimonu KK, Falusi AO (2012) Sources of Risk and Management Strategies Among food Crop Farmers in Osun State, Nigeria. Africa J Food Agri Nutri Develop. 9 (7): 1591-1605.

9.Not PO, Mbanasor JA, Nwaru JC (2011) Analysis of Risk among Agribusiness Enterprises Investment in Abia State, Nigeria. J Economi Int Finan. 3 (3): 187-194.

10.Fuksaku K (2007) Business for Development. Fostering the Private Sector. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Publishing.

11.Hardaker J, Huirne R, Anderson J, et al. (2004) Cooping with Risk in Agriculture Cambridge.

12.Fleisher B (1990) Risk Management. The Australian New Crops Newsletter, Issue No. 11, pp. 4.

13.Burgaz F (2000) Insurance Systems and Risk Management in Spain. OECD Workshop on Income Risk Management in Agriculture, Paris, France.

14.Banquent AE, Hambleton R, Jose D (1997) Understanding Agricultural Risk: Production, Marketing, Financial, Legal and Human Resources, Risk Management Agency, USDA, USA. (2^nd edn). World Cat.

15.Cecchetti GS, Mohanty MS, Zampolly F (2011) The Real Effects of Debt. FAO Economic and Social Development paper No. 144. Food and Agriculture Organization Rome.

16.Barredo J, DeRoo A (2010) Flood damage functions for EU member states – Flood risk mapping using Corine land cover datasets, Presentation on CIS Working Group F Thematic Workshop Floods and Economics Appraising, prioritising and financing flood risk management measures and instruments, Ghent, 25 – 26.

17.Korir LK (2011) Risk Management among Agricultural Households and the role of off-farm Investments in Uasin Gishu Country, Kenya. Master Sci Thes. 3 (2): 41-50.

18.Pinstrup-Aderesen P (2002) Food and Agricultural Policy for Globalizing World: Preparing for the Future. Amer J Agr Econ. 84 (5): 1201-1214.

19.Kay RD, Edwards WM (1999) Farm Management, WCB/McGraw-Hill, New York, USA (4^th edn). Ideas.

20.Roberts MJ, Osteen C, Soule M (2004) Risk, Government Programmes, and the Environment. United States Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin no 1908; 2004.

21.Udama R A (2013) Understanding Nigeria Terrorism, its Implications to National Peace, Security, Unity and Sustainable Development. A Discuss. IOSR Journal of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 8, Issue 5 (Mar. - Apr. 2013), PP 100-115

22.Sonka ST, Patrick GF (1984) Risk Management and Decision Making in Agricultural Firms. Lowa State University Press. 95-115.

23.Kumbhakar SC (2002) Specfication and Estimation of Production Risk Preferencces and Technical Efficiency. Amer J Agric Econ. 84 (1): 8-22.

24.Gabriel SC, Baker CB (1980) Concepts of Business and Financial Risks. Amer J Agric Econ. 62 (3): 560-564.

25.Teweldemedhin MY, Kapimbi Y (2012) Factors influencing  enterprise. The Economics of Institutions. Theory and Applications to African Agricultural Turkey.

26.Goucher G (1996) Farm Risk Management – Policy and Practice. The Australian Farm Manager. 5:  2-7.

27.Clark A, Brinkley T (2001) Risk Management; for climate, agriculture and policy, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra Australia.

 PDF