Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 46
Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan Baseline Study Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center
Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan Baseline Study Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center
Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan Baseline Study Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center
Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan Baseline Study Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center
Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan Baseline Study Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center

Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan

Baseline

Study

Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center Project Areas of Pakistan

June 2016

for Pakistan Baseline Study Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center Project Areas of Pakistan June
for Pakistan Baseline Study Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center Project Areas of Pakistan June
for Pakistan Baseline Study Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center Project Areas of Pakistan June

Baseline Study

Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center Project Areas of Pakistan

June 2016

The World Vegetable Center is the leading international nonprofit research organization committed to alleviating

The World Vegetable Center is the leading international nonprofit research organization committed to alleviating poverty and malnutrition in the developing world through the increased production and consumption of nutritious, health-promoting vegetables.

World Vegetable Center P.O. Box 42 Shanhua, Tainan 74199 TAIWAN

Tel: +886 6 583 7801 Fax: +886 6 583 0009 Email: info@worldveg.org Web: avrdc.org

Publication No.: 16-804 ©2016, World Vegetable Center

Disclaimer

This study was made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the World Vegetable Center and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Suggested citation

Nasir M, Zubair Anwar M, Shah MH, Ali A, ZahidUllah Khan M. 2016. Baseline Report: Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center Project Areas of Pakistan. World Vegetable Center Publication No. 16-804, World Vegetable Center, Taiwan. 37 p.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

 

i

List of Tables

ii

List of Figures

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

iv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

v

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

1.1.

Objective of the Study

2

Chapter2:

3

2.1. Research Methodology

3

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

4

Chapter 3: Result and Discussion

5

3.1.

Socioeconomic Conditions of the Farmers

5

3.1.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics

5

3.1.2. Farm Characteristics

6

3.1.3. Household Assets

7

3.1.4. Farming Assets

8

3.1.5. Livestock Inventory

9

3.1.6. Availability and Distance from Various Facilities

10

3.2.

Production Systems

12

3.2.1.

Cropping Pattern in the Kharif Season

12

3.2.2.

Cropping Pattern in the Rabi Season

12

3.2.3.

Firsthand Information Sources

13

3.2.4.

Source of Seed

13

3.2.5.

Diffusion of Mungbean Varieties

14

3.2.6.

Seed Selection and Sowing Method

15

3.3.

Mungbean Cost of Production

15

3.3.1. Cost of Production

15

3.3.2. Mungbean Residue Management

17

3.4.

Weed and Disease Management

19

3.4.1. Weeds, Infestation Levels and Control

19

3.4.2. Diseases and Their Control Measures

20

3.5. Gender Participation and Decision Making

21

3.6. Impact of Climate Change on the Adoption of Heat Tolerant Varieties

22

3.7. Problem and Issues in Mungbean Production

23

Conclusions and Recommendations

25

References

26

List of Tables

Table 1: Area, Production and Yield of Mungbean (2012-13) ----------------------------------------------- 2 Table 2: General Characteristics of Mungbean Farmers------------------------------------------------------- 6 Table 3: Farm Characteristics (% of total sample) ------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Table 4: Household Assets (% of total sample)----------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Table 5: Agriculture Machinery (% of total sample)----------------------------------------------------------- 9 Table 6: Household Livestock Inventory ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Table 7: Availability of Basic Facilities (% of total sample) ----------------------------------------------- 11 Table 8: Distance from Basic Facilities (km) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Table 9: Cropping Pattern in the Kharif Season -------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Table 10: Rabi Cropping Pattern-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 Table 11: First Hand Information Source (Ranking)--------------------------------------------------------- 13 Table 12: Seed Source of Mungbean (% of total sample) --------------------------------------------------- 14 Table 13: Mungbean Variety (% of total sample) ------------------------------------------------------------ 14 Table 14: Seed Selection and Sowing Method (% of total sample) ---------------------------------------- 15 Table 15: Cost of Production ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17 Table 16: Mungbean Residue Management (% of total sample) ------------------------------------------- 18 Table 17: Type of Weeds Identified by Mungbean Growers in Their Crops (%) ------------------------ 19 Table 18: Infestation Levels and Weed Control Method (% of total sample) ---------------------------- 20 Table 19: Weedicides Application Cost ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 Table 20: Diseases and Their Control Measures (% of total sample)-------------------------------------- 21 Table 21: Gender Role in Agriculture (%) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 Table 22: Impact of Climate Change (%)---------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 Table 23: Problem and Issues in Mungbean Production (% of total sample)----------------------------- 23

List of Figures

Figure 1: Mungbean crop and seed

2

Figure 2: Sites of improved mungbean production in Pakistan

3

Figure 3: Hand harvesting of mungbean

4

Figure 4: Capacity building of enumerators; questionnaire pre-testing

4

Figure 5: Agricultural assets for farming

5

Figure 6: Access to sources of information

7

Figure 7: Key facilities needed by farmers

10

Figure 8: Sources of seed supply

13

Figure 9: Mungbean varietal trials in a farmer’s field

14

Figure 10: Practices of crop residue management in farmers’ fields

18

Figure 11: Weeds

20

Figure 12: Types of diseases in mungbean crop

20

Figure 13: Women’s participation in different agricultural jobs

21

Figure 14: Impact of climate change in farming communities

22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In Pakistan, mungbean is the most widely grown pulse crop after chickpea. Pakistan spends a large

amount of funds on the import of pulses to fill the gap between its supply and demand. Mostly these pulse crops are grown as a cash crop in the summer or autumn seasons. Pulses are consumed in several forms including cooked, fermented, roasted, sprouted or milled. A survey was conducted in 14 districts across the country to obtain a baseline understanding of the issues faced by mungbean producers. A

total of 83 randomly selected mungbean farmers were interviewed in areas targeted by the Agricultural Innovation Program.

Most of the farmers were middle aged (41-47 years) and they had above middle school education (9 years of schooling). The average family size of the sampled farmers was six persons and most of the farmers were owners or owner-cum-tenants. Most (70%) had their own tube-well and their major (74%) source of power was diesel. They mainly grew mungbean as a sole crop (41%); however, some intercropped with sugarcane (28%), sorghum, millet, groundnut or other crops (31%). Most farmers (62%) had their own tractors, but the implements used with the tractor varied.

A total of 83 randomly selected mungbean farmers were interviewed in the project area. In the Rabi

season, they planted wheat on 28.70 ha, followed by fodder on 0.73 ha. Other crops like, mustard and chickpea, averaged about 0.65 ha and 0.31 ha, respectively. In the Kharif season, rice was the dominant and commercial crop, followed by sugarcane, while an average of 0.65 ha of land remained fallow. Farmers preferred to receive cropping information from the agriculture extension department. Most (62%) purchased seed from the market (Table 12) and the variety AZRI-06 was cultivated by a minority (36%) of the farmers (Table 13).

Most of the farmers (89%) did not produce their own mungbean seed, and a minority (30%) sowed the crop by broadcasting, while 66% used line sowing. The average mungbean production cost was PKR 45,527/ha, with a gross revenue of PKR 1,17,749/ha and a net profit of PKR 72, 222/ha. All farmers harvest mungbean manually, cutting plants in the field. Most farmers (72%) indicated that their mungbean fields face medium to high levels of weed infestation with Trianthema portuclacastrum, Cyperus esculentus, Corchorus tridens and Tribulus terrestris as major threats among a long list of weeds. Small numbers of farmers (24%) treat the seed with fungicide and about 9% treated the seed with Rhizobium + PSB (Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria).

Women had an active role in household-focused tasks related to feeding the crop to livestock and fodder storage management, but were seldom involved in other farm operations. About 82% of farmers were not able to adopt any heat/stress tolerant variety due to a lack of such seed in the market. The main concerns of mungbean growers were the high price of fertilizer, pest attacks, and weather uncertainty.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document is the report of a scoping/baseline study on mungbean cultivation in two provinces of Pakistan, conducted under the World Vegetable Center Vegetable Component of the Agricultural Innovation Program-Pakistan. The author would like to acknowledge USAID, CIMMYT, and the World Vegetable Center for commissioning this study as a contribution to the field of agricultural development in general and vegetable value chains in particular. The author is also grateful to AVRDC staff members, enumerators, mungbean growers, and other stakeholders for their participation during the course of this study. The contribution of their generous time and valuable information to survey teams is highly appreciated.

Dr. Asghar Ali, Mr. Mazhar Hussain Shah, and Mr. Muhammad Arif Shahzad provided technical input at various stages of this work, and have been instrumental in conceptualizing this study. The author is greatly indebted to Dr. Warwick Easdown, Dr. Ramakrishnan M. Nair, Dr. Pepijn Schreinemachers, Dr. Mansab Ali, and Dr. Tariq Hassan and his team at the Social Sciences Research Institute, National Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad who have helped through their contributions, reviews, critical input, and expertise in compiling this study.

I would like to thank many others who have directly and indirectly contributed to this study. None of the opinions or comments expressed in this study are endorsed by the organizations mentioned or individuals interviewed. However, errors of fact or interpretation remain exclusively with the consultant, Dr. Mohammad Nasir: nasir786.2012@gmail.com

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AARI

Ayub Agricultural Research Institute

AIP

Agricultural Innovation Program

AVRDC

Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center

CBO

Community Based Organization

CIMMYT

International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

FGDs

Focus Group Discussions

GDP

Gross Domestic Products

GOs

Government Organizations

GOP

Government of Pakistan

ha

Hectare

ICT

Islamabad Capital Territory

kgs

Kilograms

KPK

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

MNFSR

Ministry of Food Security and Research

NARC

National Agriculture Research Center

NGOs

Non-Governmental Organizations

PARC

Pakistan Agriculture Research Council

PKR

Pakistani Rupees

UNDP

United Nations Development Program

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

Chapter 1: Introduction

Food legumes like beans, peas, lentils, and groundnuts belong to the family Leguminosae, also called Fabaceae. They are mainly grown for their edible seeds, and are thus known as grain legumes or pulses. They play an important role in human nutrition because they are a rich source of protein, calories, certain minerals and vitamins (Deshpande, 1992). Pulses are one of humanity's oldest food crops and originated in the fertile crescent of the Near East (Webb and Hawtin, 1981).

Mungbean is an important protein source for most people in Asia. It contains about twice as much protein as cereals, including the amino acid lysine, which is generally lacking in food grains (Elias, 1986). Mungbean fits well into existing cropping systems due to its short duration. Its input requirements are low, and its drought tolerance enables it to withstand adverse environmental conditions, allowing it to be successfully grown in rainfed areas (Anjum et al., 2006).

The optimum growing temperatures for mungbean are between 28-30ºC. It is mainly a warm season crop and is grown in summer when the temperature and irradiance fluctuate. In some mungbean growing areas of the tropics, the early summer is characterized by high temperatures (often exceeding 40ºC) and cloudy skies, while the late summer has high temperatures and bright sunshine. Because of the tropical monsoon, the irradiance shows regular fluctuations during the same day. Tolerance to abiotic stress can be more important than tolerance to biotic stress in new production areas. Terminal heat and drought stress may lead to considerable flower drop and to reduced pod set (Singh et al., 2011).

Pulses have a special role in sustainable agriculture on account of their ability to reduce protein malnutrition, diversify cropping systems and improve soil health. Short duration mungbean offers a viable option for diversification both in intensive agriculture and rainfed areas (Masood Ali and Shiv Kumar, 2006). However the optimum time for sowing mungbean will vary between varieties and locations and research is needed to determine optimum sowing dates in new production districts.

The major pulses grown in Pakistan are gram (chickpea), field pea (mutter) and lentil (masoor) as winter legumes; and mungbean (green-gram), pigeon pea (red-gram) and mashbean (black- gram) as summer legumes (Nusrat et al., 2014). They are consumed cooked, fermented, roasted, sprouted or milled, and are also used in making soups, curries, noodles, bread, and sweets. The remaining parts of the mungbean plant (leaves, stalks, and husks) are used as animal fodder, as fuel material for brick kilns and for cooking food in major mungbean production regions.

Mungbean is one of the important Kharif (summer) pulses of Pakistan but it is also grown during the spring season as well. Punjab is the major mungbean growing province, accounting for 85% of the area and 87% of total mungbean production (Table 1). The reason for its low productivity is limited use of high yielding varieties, low use of inputs and fluctuating environmental conditions. The other major mungbean growing provinces are Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and Sindh (Table 1). The

mounting pressure on the economy to feed more people has increased the importance of utilizing the rainfed regions of Pakistan to improve food security (Mahmood et al., 1991).

Table 1: Area, Production and Yield of Mungbean (2012-13)

 

Punjab

Sindh

KPK

Baluchistan

Pakistan

Area (000 ha)

116.80

2.10

7.10

10

135.90

Production (000 tons)

78.50

0.90

4.40

6.20

90.00

Yield (kg/ha)

672.09

428.57

619.72

626.26

662.25

Source: Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan, 2012-13

662.25 Source: Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan, 2012-13 Figure 1: Mungbean crop and seed 1.1. Objective of

Figure 1: Mungbean crop and seed

1.1. Objective of the Study

1: Mungbean crop and seed 1.1. Objective of the Study The general objective of the study

The general objective of the study was to determine the basic mungbean production technology and systems in the project areas of Pakistan, to:

identify and describe mungbean production systems, productivity and production constraints

identify the level of access to particular varieties and varietal selection criteria

assess insect, pests, diseases and weed infestation levels and status of pesticide use

Chapter 2: Methodology

2.1. Research Methodology

The study was conducted in Punjab and Sindh provinces where mungbean is produced. Samples were collected from T.T. Singh, Kasoor, Sheikhupura, NankanaSahib, Bhakkar, Layyah, Chakwal, Jhelum, Attock, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, in Punjab province; and Larkana, Thatta, and Sajawal districts in Sindh province. These locations are marked on the map (Figure 2).

province. These locations are marked on the map (Figure 2). Figure 2: Sites of improved mungbean

Figure 2: Sites of improved mungbean production in Pakistan

A comprehensive structured questionnaire was developed for data collection covering detailed information regarding production technologies, best IPM practices, likely access to markets, credit, information, varietal trials, the availability of inputs and marketing.

Figure 3: Hand harvesting of mungbean 2.2. Data Collection and Analysis The data was collected

Figure 3: Hand harvesting of mungbean

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The data was collected using the structured questionnaire and ten enumerators were trained to collect information from mungbean growers. A total of 83 farmers were randomly selected from those within the main growing districts for interviewing.

During analysis, farmers were classified into three categories: 23 small farmers with operational farmland of less than 5 ha; 29 medium farmers with operational land between 5 ha and 10 ha; and 31 large farmers with more than 10 ha of operational land. Data was recorded in MS Excel and analyzed using the statistical software SPSS. Nonparametric statistics, cross tabulations and means were calculated to compare the mean value and percentages of different variables.

the mean value and percentages of differe nt variables. Figure 4: Capacity building of enumerators; questionnaire
the mean value and percentages of differe nt variables. Figure 4: Capacity building of enumerators; questionnaire

Figure 4: Capacity building of enumerators; questionnaire pre-testing

Chapter 3: Results and Discussion

The results of the survey are presented in three sections. The first includes data on financial attributes of sample farmers, landholding size and tenure status, while the second part deals with the production practices of mungbean, integrated pest management and gender roles in mungbean production. The third and final section deals with problems raised, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.

3.1. Socioeconomic Conditions of the Farmers

3.1.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics

Socioeconomic characteristics included age, education, farming experience and size of land holdings. These characteristics affect individual attitudes and behaviours (Hassan, 2008). Details are presented in Table 3.

Most of the farmers were middle aged (41-47) years, with an average of nine years of schooling (above middle school education), except for those farmers in the small farm size category. The farmers in all areas had quite good experience (up to 22 years) in farming with the skills to manage the crop well. The household characteristics of the sample farmers are presented in Table 2. The average family size of sampled farmers was six persons, and seven persons for the large farm size category. The use of permanent labor was uncommon among small farmers, but farmers in the medium and large farm size categories did engage significant amounts of permanent labor. Hiring of temporary labor is more common for all farmers, mainly during sowing and harvesting, and men are paid more than women (Table 2).

Most of the farmers are owners and owners-cum-tenants. Only some farmers are pure tenants (6%). The average operational landholdings in the mungbean growing areas are large (13 ha), and those farmers in the large farm category have significantly more land (28 ha) than other farm size categories (Table

2).

significantly more land (28 ha) than other farm size categories (Table 2). Figure 5: Agricultural assets
significantly more land (28 ha) than other farm size categories (Table 2). Figure 5: Agricultural assets

Figure 5: Agricultural assets for farming

significantly more land (28 ha) than other farm size categories (Table 2). Figure 5: Agricultural assets

Table 2: General Characteristics of Mungbean Farmers

   

Farm Size Groups

 

Small

Medium

Large

Overall

Characteristics

Farmers

Farmers

Farmers

Age (Years)

41

46

47

45

Education (Years)

8

9

9

9

Farming Experience (Years)

16

21

22

20

Household Members (Numbers)

6

6

7

6

Permanent Labor ( Numbers)

1

4

8

5

Temporary Labor (Numbers)

6

7

10

8

Wage Rate of Temporary Male Laborers (PKR/Day)

309

317

309

313

Wage Rate of Temporary Female Laborers (PKR /Day)

250

250

276

296

Operational Landholding (ha)

3

8

28

13

Mungbean Area (ha)

0.4

1.3

2.4

1.4

Owner (%)

26

39

27

93

Tenant (%)

1

1

6

6.2

Owner-Cum-Tenant (%)

0

1

0

1.2

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.1.2. Farm Characteristics

Irrigation: Water is essential to crop growth and the availability of underground water in addition to canal water provides an opportunity for timely irrigation at critical stages of crop growth. The quality of tube well water greatly influences irrigation management. Most farmers (70%) were using tube wells as their sole source of irrigation. The main source of power used for pumping from the tube well was diesel (74%) followed by electricity (21%) and a tractor (5%). Cropping system: A range of cropping systems were used. About 41% of farmers sowed mungbean as

a

sole crop after wheat harvest, while 28% intercropped mungbean in sugarcane and 25% intercropped

it

in other crops. Smaller farmers were more likely to sow mungbean alone, while larger farmers were

more likely use it as an intercrop. Legume rotations: Very few farmers appeared to recognize the importance of legumes as a part of rotations with other crops, with only a small proportion of medium (8%) and large (6%) farmer categories following this practice. Soil quality: Most farmers (69%) rated their soil quality as medium rather than good (Table 3).

Table 3: Farm Characteristics (% of total sample)

   

Farm Size Groups

 

Small

Medium

Large

Overall

Farmers

Farmers

Farmers

Own Tube Well

Yes

8

34

28

70

No

19

7

4

30

 

Electricity

4

12

5

21

Source of Power

Diesel

7

35

32

74

Tractor Driven

2

2

2

5

 

Wheat-Mungbean

19

7

14

41

Wheat-Rice

0

2

4

6

Cropping System

Sugarcane-Mungbean

2

14

11

28

Mungbean Intercropped with Other Crops

6

17

3

25

Legume Crop Rotation

Yes

0

8

7

16

No

28

33

24

84

Soil Quality

Good

12

8

11

31

Medium

16

33

20

69

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.1.3. Household Assets

Household assets of respondents are an indication of financial status and are presented in Table 4. Almost all farmers have their own cell phones (97%), which are used for social reasons and to contact input and output dealers to get market information. The ownership of a TV for access to information and entertainment was also widespread (94%). The ownership of motorcycles (89%) greatly exceeded that of cars (12%), and medium-scale farmers had the greatest number of assets and were better off than the other two groups (Table 4).

number of assets and were better off than the other two groups (Table 4). Figure 6:
number of assets and were better off than the other two groups (Table 4). Figure 6:

Figure 6: Access to sources of information

Table 4: Household Assets (% of total sample)

HH Assets

   

Farm Size Groups

Overall

Small Farmers

Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

 

Yes

26

42

30

97

Cell phone

No

1

0

1

2

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

25

39

30

94

TV

No

2

2

1

6

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

1

7

4

12

Microwave

No

26

35

27

88

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

4

2

6

12

Car

No

23

39

25

88

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

22

38

28

89

Motorcycle

No

5

4

2

11

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

17

33

26

76

Washing Machine

No

10

9

5

23

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

17

30

30

76

Refrigerator

No

10

12

1

23

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

2

5

7

15

Air conditioner

No

24

37

24

85

Total

26

42

31

100

 

Yes

26

41

30

96

Iron

No

1

1

1

4

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

9

9

11

28

Cycle

No

18

33

20

72

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

6

31

17

54

Cart

No

21

11

14

46

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

4

11

12

27

Room Cooler

No

23

31

18

73

Total

27

42

31

100

 

Yes

0

0

2

2

Landline Phone

No

27

42

28

97

Total

27

42

31

100

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.1.4. Farming Assets

The most preferred farming asset is a tractor. Most (62%) farmers have their own tractor followed by a tube well (62%), planker (46%), trolley (49%), seed drill (33%) and rotavator (33%). Ownership of a combine harvester (3%) or zero tillage drills (11%) was much less common. Other farm assets under agriculture machinery are given in Table 5.

Table 5: Agriculture Machinery (% of total sample)

Description of machinery

   

Farm Size Groups

Overall

Small Farmers

Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

Tractor

Yes

6

31

25

62

No

21

11

6

38

Trolley

Yes

6

23

20

49

No

21

18

11

51

Tube Well

Yes

6

33

22

62

No

21

9

9

38

Zero Till Drill

Yes

2

5

4

11

No

25

37

27

89

Moldboard Plough

Yes

2

5

5

12

No

25

37

26

88

Rotavator

Yes

5

12

16

33

No

22

30

15

67

Laser Leveler

Yes

2

5

5

12

No

25

37

26

88

Thresher

Yes

6

7

10

23

No

21

35

21

76

Seed Drill

Yes

5

14

15

33

No

22

28

16

67

Ridger

Yes

4

5

11

20

No

23

37

20

80

Planker

Yes

6

26

14

46

No

21

16

17

54

Reaper

Yes

2

5

2

10

No

25

37

28

90

Combine Harvester

Yes

0

0

2

2

No

27

42

28

97

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.1.5. Livestock Inventory

The survey findings showed that on an average, more buffaloes were kept (6) than cows (5), but goats (9) were the most common livestock. Donkeys and bullocks were the least commonly owned livestock in all farm size categories (Table 6).

The average total cost per year of maintaining livestock for different farm size categories varied significantly. Small farmers spent an average of PKR 78,845 while large farmers spent an average of PKR 119,800 per year.

Also, in milk production on average, large farmers produced much more milk (24.8 liters/day) than medium (15.9 liters/day) and small farmers (7.5 liters/day).

Table 6: Household Livestock Inventory

   

Farm Size Groups

 

Livestock inventory

 

Medium

   

Small Farmers

Farmers

Large Farmers

Overall Average

Buffalo (No.)

8

5

5

6

Bullock (No.)

1

2

2

2

Cow (No.)

2

5

6

5

Goats (No.)

4

6

17

9

Donkey (No.)

1

1

1

1

Poultry (No.)

4

9

12

7

Cost of Livestock

Fodder Cost (PKR/year)

55787

48255

82609

60903

Straw Cost (PKR/year)

9333

17407

35000

21896

Vanda Cost (PKR/year)

1000

5735

8600

5333

Medicine Cost (PKR/year)

1614

1500

4840

2562

Hired Labor Cost (PKR/month)

2500

5412

19474

8961

Other Cost (PKR/year)

8611

10400

35400

20146

Total Cost

78846

88709

185923

119801

Milk Produced Per Day (liters)

7.5

15.9

24.8

17.0

Milk Sale Per Liter (PKR/liters)

58.3

54.1

52.7

54.4

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.1.6. Availability and Distance from Various Facilities

The availability of nearby services such an extension office or research station for access to crop management information or access to a good road to easily ship produce to market has an impact on crop production. It is clear that most of the necessary facilities are available to all farm size categories and within a distance of 2-16 km. Although the average distance to a facility did not vary much between the farm categories, a larger percentage of medium sized farmers did have access to these facilities than the other categories of farmers (Table 7 & 8).

to these facilities than the other categories of farmers (Table 7 & 8). Figure 7: Key
to these facilities than the other categories of farmers (Table 7 & 8). Figure 7: Key

Figure 7: Key facilities needed by farmers

to these facilities than the other categories of farmers (Table 7 & 8). Figure 7: Key
to these facilities than the other categories of farmers (Table 7 & 8). Figure 7: Key

Table 7: Availability of Basic Facilities (% of total sample)

   

Farm Size Groups

 

Small

Medium

Large

Overall

Farmers

Farmers

Farmers

Road

Yes

26

41

30

96

No

1

1

1

4

Health Unit

Yes

15

35

17

67

No

12

7

12

32

Veterinary Centre

Yes

15

35

17

67

No

12

7

12

32

Agriculture Extension Office

Yes

15

30

15

60

No

12

12

15

40

Bank

Yes

19

35

21

76

No

8

8

9

24

Electricity

Yes

27

41

27

96

No

0

1

2

4

Pesticide Dealer

Yes

21

35

21

77

No

6

7

9

22

Water Supply Scheme

Yes

2

4

5

11

No

25

39

25

89

Implements Rapier

Yes

22

35

20

77

No

5

7

10

22

Input Dealer

Yes

16

35

18

70

No

10

8

13

30

Output Market

Yes

15

35

17

67

No

12

7

12

32

On Farm Water Management

Yes

2

2

2

7

No

25

40

27

92

Research Station

Yes

9

14

10

33

No

19

29

19

67

Soil Fertility Lab

Yes

9

6

3

18

No

18

37

27

82

Source: Author calculation from survey data

Table 8: Distance from Basic Facilities (km)

   

Farm Size Groups

 

Basic Facilities

Small Farmers

Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

Overall Average

Road

2

1

1

1

Basic Health Unit

10

6

8

8

Veterinary Centre

7

6

8

7

Agriculture Extension Office

9

14

13

12

Pesticide Dealer

7

8

9

8

Water Supply Scheme

17

6

7

12

Post Office

8

5

5

6

Implements Rapier

9

7

9

8

Input Dealer

8

7

10

8

Output Market

14

11

13

12

OFWM

18

12

14

15

Research Station

19

15

16

16

Soil Fertility Lab

19

11

14

15

NGO

11

8

11

10

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.

Production Systems

Mungbean is grown during the spring and summer seasons in Pakistan, but it is mainly a summer (Kharif) crop. Sowing starts in the first week of March in Punjab and in the first week of February in Sindh for spring cultivation and May to July in different areas of the country as a Kharif crop. The sowing of mungbean is adjusted by the farmers with early sowing for late maturing varieties according to climatic conditions. Mungbean growers produce a range of crops on their farms. Rice, sugarcane, cotton and fodder in the Kharif season and wheat, mustard, mash, gram and fodder in the Rabi season were the other crops grown in the project area.

3.2.1. Cropping Pattern in the Kharif Season

The cropping pattern is a sequential arrangement of crops within a cropping year, and is determined by physical, biological and socioeconomic factors. There are two cropping seasons in Pakistan; the Rabi and the Kharif, and mungbean is planted in the Kharif season. Cropping patterns vary depending on the land type, soil texture and rainfall. The study revealed that rice is by far the most dominant crop in the Kharif season, followed by sugarcane with only small areas of other crops and fallow land. Mungbean is cultivated as a sole crop on an average area of 1.14 ha per farm, but mungbean is also intercropped in sugarcane (Table 9).

Table 9: Cropping Pattern in the Kharif Season

   

Farm Size Groups

 

Cropping Pattern

Small Farmers

Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

Overall Average

Rice Sowing (ha)

10.07

7.52

54.68

22.76

Sugarcane Sole Sowing (ha)

0.27

0.41

5.36

1.90

Sugarcane + Other Sowing (ha)

0.02

0.14

0

0.06

Sugarcane + Mungbean Sowing (ha)

0.06

0.06

0.11

0.07

Mungbean Sole Sowing (ha)

0.36

1.06

1.92

1.14

Mungbean Sole Harvested (ha)

0.36

1.04

1.92

1.14

Other Sowing (ha)

0.23

2.48

2.40

1.84

Fallow (ha)

0

0.11

1.94

0.64

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.2. Cropping Pattern in the Rabi Season

In the Rabi season the average total cultivated land was 32.4 ha in which wheat was the major crop (28.7 ha) sown followed by fodder (0.7 ha). On average there was a larger area of Rabi season crops sown than Kharif season crops. Other crops like, mustard and gram were planted on very small areas with an average of 0.6 ha and 0.3 ha respectively. Larger farmers were more likely to have more diversified cropping patterns than smaller farmers (Table 10).

Table 10: Rabi Cropping Pattern

   

Farm Size Groups

 

Crops (Hectares)

Small

Medium

Large

Overall

Farmers

Farmers

Farmers

Average

Wheat

10.6

12.4

66.7

28.7

Rape/Mustard

0.2

1.3

0.1

0.3

Gram

0

0.1

0.8

0.3

Fodder

0.2

0.8

1.1

0.7

Other sole crops

0

0.1

3.0

0.9

Intercrop

0

0

0

0.1

Fallow

0

0

3.2

1.0

Total (Hectares)

11.0

15.0

74.9

32.1

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.3. Firsthand Information Sources

The firsthand information sources were analyzed and ranked from 1 (rarely used) to 9 (mostly used). Most farmers got information about mungbean production from the Agricultural Extension department (9) followed by other farmers (8) and TV (7) (Table 11).

Table 11: First Hand Information Source (Ranking)

   

Farm Size Groups

 
 

Medium

   

Small Farmers

Farmers

Large Farmers

Overall

Agricultural extension

9

9

8

9

Other farmers

7

7

9

8

TV

7

6

7

7

Newspaper

6

7

6

6

Radio

5

6

7

6

Mobile

6

7

6

6

Seed companies

4

6

6

5

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.4. Source of Seed

Seed is a basic input and quality seed can increase crop productivity. The survey results indicate that 62% of farmers purchased their seed from the market, 13% produced their own seed, while 8% got seed from the Agriculture Research Department and 10% from other farmers (Table 12). As long as high quality seed of good varieties can be provided in the marketplace, farmers are likely to make use of it— particularly smaller farmers, who were those most likely to be buying their seed from the markets.

smaller farmers, who were those most likely to be buying their seed from the markets. Figure

Figure 8: Sources of seed supply

smaller farmers, who were those most likely to be buying their seed from the markets. Figure

Table 12: Seed Source of Mungbean (% of total sample)

   

Farm Size Groups

 

Small Farmers

Medium

Large

Overall

Farmers

Farmers

Home-kept Seed

0

10

3

13

Seed Companies

2

3

0

5

Tehsil/District Market

28

18

16

62

Research Department

0

7

2

8

Extension Department

0

2

0

2

Others

0

5

5

10

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.5. Diffusion of Mungbean Varieties

The survey reported that a number of known varieties are planted by the farmers in the study area. Table 13 shows that more than 30% of the respondents knew the names of varieties they planted. The most common variety grown was AZRI-06 (35%) followed by AEM-96 (22%) and a local variety (22%). Medium sized farmers were much more likely to be growing AZRI-06 while small farmers were much more likely to be growing AEM-96. Other varieties grown were NM-92 (7%), NM-2011 (6%) and AZRI-2006 (1%) (Table 13).

NM -92 (7%), NM-2011 (6%) and AZRI-2006 (1%) (Table 13). Figure 9: Mungbean varietal trials in

Figure 9: Mungbean varietal trials in a farmer’s field

Table 13: Mungbean Variety (% of total sample)

   

Farm Size Groups

 
 

Medium

 

Overall

Small Farmers

Farmers

Large Farmers

AZRI-2006

3

25

9

36

AEM-96

15

1

6

22

Local

9

9

5

22

NM-92

1

4

2

8

NM-2011

0

3

4

6

NM-2006

0

0

5

5

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.6.

Seed Selection and Sowing Method

Good seed selection and the sowing method play important roles in high yields of any crop. From Table 14 it is clear that only a small proportion of the large farmers (9%) produced their own seed, and similar small proportions had multiplied their seed in the past. Most farmers were open to buying new seed, and at least one in five farmers in all groups buy certified seed, with a similar percentage satisfied with the seed quality. There is quite a difference in how the seed is sown, with small farmers much more likely to broadcast, while medium and large farmers are much more likely to use line sowing.

Table 14: Seed Selection and Sowing Method (% of total sample)

   

Farm Size Groups

 

Seed selection

Small

Medium

Large

Overall

Farmers

Farmers

Farmers

Produce own seed

Yes

1

1

9

11

No

26

41

22

89

Carry out germination test before sowing

Yes

10

5

7

22

No

17

37

23

78

Certified seed planted

Yes

19

20

25

63

No

9

22

6

37

Satisfied with seed quality

Yes

20

33

23

77

No

7

9

7

23

Observe seed mixing in purchased seed

Yes

15

23

17

56

No

12

19

14

44

Seed multiplication in past

Yes

2

4

7

14

No

25

38

23

86

Desired quality seed availability in market

Yes

25

38

23

86

No

2

4

7

14

 

Broadcast

       

(B)

19

5

6

30

Sowing method

Line sowing

9

36

21

66

(LS)

B & LS

0

0

4

4

Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.3.

Mungbean Cost of Production

3.3.1.

Cost of Production

Land preparation is the first step in mungbean production, and it has an important impact on soil moisture conservation by killing weeds and in breaking soil hardpans that decrease root growth and yields (Reddy et al., 1983; Atwell 1990). In the study area, all respondents used a tractor-mounted plough for cultivating followed by smoothing with a wooden plank (locally known as planking or sohaga) for the primary tillage. The average cost of tractor ploughing was PKR 3732/ha, and farmers spent 3.7 hours/ha ploughing the land for mungbean. Total land preparation and sowing cost was PKR 10,250/ha and this did not vary much between different farm sizes. Table 16 reveals that the average mungbean seeding rate was 27 kg seed/ha, with a cost of PKR 3317 and total sowing cost of PKR

1162/ha.

Fertilizer is essential to maintain soil nutrition and using the recommended fertilizer rates increases production in most crops (Singh et al., 1981). In the study area, urea and di-ammonium phosphate

(DAP) were the most commonly used chemical fertilizers. The fertilizer price including application cost for small farmers was PKR 9763/ha, but it was clear that large farmers and particularly the medium sized farmers used much more fertilizer, with medium sized farmers paying an average of PKR 23,062/ha and large farmers PKR 18,490/ha (Table 16).

Hoeing was the most labor intensive activity in mungbean production with an average cost over PKR 2700/ha. Much less was spent on herbicides, the cost of which averaged about PKR 845/ha. Insecticides were much more expensive, at almost PKR 2400/ha. Although the costs of hoeing and insecticides were similar across all farm sizes, the amount spent on herbicides by small farmers was much higher than other groups, possibly because a larger proportion of their crops were broadcast rather than line sown.

More money was spent by all farmers on tube well irrigation than canal irrigation, and although the harvesting costs were higher for medium and larger farmers, averaging over PKR 3100/ha, the threshing costs for small farmers were higher, averaging over PKR 2400/ha for all farmers.

The total revenue was estimated at around PKR 18,800/ha for small farms, whereas for medium it was about PKR 19,000/ha and about PKR 25,900/ha for large farmers. On average the total net revenue of the mungbean crop for all categories in the study area was estimated to be about PKR 18,400/ha (Table

15).

Table 15: Cost of Production

   

Farm Size Groups

 
 

Medium

Large

Overall

Small Farmers

Farmers

Farmers

Average

Ploughing ( PKR/ha)

4813

2799

4117

3732

Planking ( PKR/ha)

2204

1976

2011