Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan Baseline203.64.245.61/fulltext_pdf/EB/2016-2020/eb0267.pdfThis document is the report of a scoping/baseline study on mungbean cultivation

BaselineStudy

Improved Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center Project Areas

of Pakistan

June 2016

Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan

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 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: [email protected] 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.

i

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: Methodology. ........................................................................................................................ 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

ii

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

iii

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.

iv

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: [email protected]

v

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

1

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

2

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

Figure 1: Mungbean crop and seed

1.1. 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

3

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).

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.

4

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.

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

5

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).

Figure 5: Agricultural assets for farming

6

Table 2: General Characteristics of Mungbean Farmers

Characteristics

Farm Size Groups

Small Farmers

Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

Overall

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).

7

Table 3: Farm Characteristics (% of total sample)

Farm Size Groups Overall Small

Farmers Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

Own Tube Well Yes 8 34 28 70 No 19 7 4 30

Source of Power Electricity 4 12 5 21 Diesel 7 35 32 74 Tractor Driven 2 2 2 5

Cropping System

Wheat-Mungbean 19 7 14 41 Wheat-Rice 0 2 4 6 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


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).

Figure 6: Access to sources of information

8

Table 4: Household Assets (% of total sample)

HH Assets Farm Size Groups

Overall Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers

Cell phone Yes 26 42 30 97 No 1 0 1 2 Total 27 42 31 100

TV Yes 25 39 30 94 No 2 2 1 6 Total 27 42 31 100

Microwave Yes 1 7 4 12 No 26 35 27 88 Total 27 42 31 100

Car Yes 4 2 6 12 No 23 39 25 88 Total 27 42 31 100

Motorcycle Yes 22 38 28 89 No 5 4 2 11 Total 27 42 31 100

Washing Machine Yes 17 33 26 76 No 10 9 5 23 Total 27 42 31 100

Refrigerator Yes 17 30 30 76 No 10 12 1 23 Total 27 42 31 100

Air conditioner Yes 2 5 7 15 No 24 37 24 85 Total 26 42 31 100

Iron Yes 26 41 30 96 No 1 1 1 4 Total 27 42 31 100

Cycle Yes 9 9 11 28 No 18 33 20 72 Total 27 42 31 100

Cart Yes 6 31 17 54 No 21 11 14 46 Total 27 42 31 100

Room Cooler Yes 4 11 12 27 No 23 31 18 73 Total 27 42 31 100

Landline Phone Yes 0 0 2 2 No 27 42 28 97 Total 27 42 31 100


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.

9

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


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).

10

Table 6: Household Livestock Inventory

Livestock inventory Farm Size Groups

Small Farmers Medium 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


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).

Figure 7: Key facilities needed by farmers

11

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

Farm Size Groups

Overall Small Farmers

Medium Farmers

Large 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


Table 8: Distance from Basic Facilities (km)

Basic Facilities Farm Size Groups

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


12

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

Cropping Pattern Farm Size Groups

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


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).

13

Table 10: Rabi Cropping Pattern

Crops (Hectares) Farm Size Groups

Small Farmers

Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

Overall 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


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

Small Farmers Medium 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


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.

Figure 8: Sources of seed supply

14

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

Farm Size Groups


Large Farmers

Overall

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


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).

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

Table 13: Mungbean Variety (% of total sample)

Farm Size Groups Overall

Small Farmers Medium 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


15

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)

Seed selection Farm Size Groups


Medium Farmers

Large 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

Sowing method

Broadcast (B)

19 5 6 30

Line sowing (LS)

9 36 21 66

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

16

(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).

17

Table 15: Cost of Production


3.3.2. Mungbean Residue Management

All farmers whether small, medium or large harvested their mungbean crops manually by cutting the

stems and allowing them to dry in the field. Table 16 reveals that only 2% of farmers retained the residue

in their fields; 6% mixed the residue into their soil. About 30% of farmers grazed animals after

harvesting mungbean, and only 4% of farmers burned mungbean residues (Table 16).

Farm Size Groups


Large Farmers

Overall Average

Ploughing ( PKR/ha) 4813 2799 4117 3732

Planking ( PKR/ha) 2204 1976 2011 2039

Sowing ( PKR/ha) 1270 1054 1308 1162

Mungbean Seed rate (kg/ha) 26 28 26 27

Seed Cost ( PKR/kg) 3498 3269 3144 3317

Land preparation and Sowing Cost 11786 9099 10580 10250

Urea Cost (PKR/ha) 4446 4060 5002 4521

DAP Cost (PKR/ha) 5317 6651 6079 5780

NP Cost (PKR/ha) 0 7410 7410 7410

Other Fertilizer Cost (PKR/ha) 0 4940 0 4940

Fertilizer Cost 9763 23061 18491 22651

Hoeing Operational Cost (PKR/ha) 2668 2668 2717 2703

Pesticides (PKR/ha) 2503 2305 2141 2391

Weeds (PKR/ha) 1891 479 399 845

Weeding, Weedicides and Insecticides Cost 17440 14200 12984 14669

Canal Irrigation (PKR/ha) 494 494 494 494

Tube Well Irrigation (PKR/ha) 1976 1976 1976 1976

Irrigation Cost 2,470 2470 2470 2470

Harvesting (PKR/ha) 1751 3516 3912 3159

Threshing (PKR/ha) 3238 2313 1972 2459

Other Cost 1168 581 0 561

Harvesting and Threshing Cost 6157 6410 5885 6179

Total Cost 37236 46789 42682 42236

Average Yield (40 kg/ha) 747 789 816 780

Potential Yield (40 kg/ha) 1298 1545 1528 1471

Grain Price (PKR/40 kg) 3000 3000 3000 3000

Value of By-Product (PKR/ha) 7410 7410 7410

Average Gross Profit (per hectare) 56034 65763 68617 65878

Potential Gross Profit (per hectare) 97389 123275 122018 117750

Average Net Profit (per hectare) 18797 18975 25935 18389

Potential Net Profit (per hectare) 60152 76486 79336 70260

18

Table 16: Mungbean Residue Management (% of total sample)

Residue Management Farm Size Groups


Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

Mungbean harvesting method Manually 28 42 30 100 Complete cut at the base of the plant Yes 28 42 30 100

Completely retain the residues in the field

Yes 0 0 2 2 No 13 60 25 98

Total 13 60 26 100

Used as fuel for cooking Yes 4 4 0 9 No 9 57 26 91 Total 13 61 26. 100

Animals are grazed on it

Yes 4 15 11 30

No 9 46 15 70

Total 13 61 26 100

Cut and burn

Yes 2 2 0 4

No 11 59 26 96

Total 13 61 26 100

Mix in soil (completely/partial)

Yes 4 2 0 7

No 9 59 26 93

Total 13 61 26 100 Source: Author calculation from survey data

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

19

3.4. Weed and Disease Management

3.4.1. Weeds, Infestation Levels and Control

The following table provides information about weeds, infestation levels, and control measures taken

by mungbean growers. Respondents identified a long list of weed problems, but the most important of

these were horse purslane (it-sit) Trianthema portuclacastrum (22% of respondents); purple nut sedge

(dela) Cyperus rotundus (14% of respondents); and puncture clover (bhakra/gokhove) Tribulus

terrestris (10% of respondents). A total of 54% of respondents were able to name other problem weeds

(Table 17).

The respondents were asked about the weed infestation levels in their mungbean crops. Most of the

farmers (72%) indicated that their mungbean fields face a medium level of weed infestation, and a

minority (5%) classified their weed infestations as high. Almost half of farmers (48%) had used both

manual and chemical methods to control weeds, whereas 44% carried out manual weed control only

(Table 18). Most farmers (57%) who had used herbicides were using both pre- and post-emergence

weedicide due to awareness created by the World Vegetable Center through the Agricultural Innovation

Program (AIP). From Table 19 it is clear that most of the farmers had applied herbicides twice to their

mungbean crop, which cost them PKR 3370/ha.

Table 17: Type of Weeds Identified by Mungbean Growers in Their Crops (%)

Common Name Local Name Scientific Name Farm Size Groups

Overall Small Farmer

Medium Farmer

Large Farmer

Purple nut sedge Dela Cyperus rotundus 2 10 10 22

Horse purslane It-sit Trianthema portulacastrum

2 10 10 22

Puncture clover Bhakra/Gokhoue khawl

Tribulus terrestris 2 7 0 10

False amaranth Tandla/luloor Digera muricata 2 7 0 10

Lambs’ quarter Jhill/bathu Chenopodium album 6 2 1 10

Big cord grass Dabh/Dab Desmostachya bipinnata 1 2 2 6

Toothed dock Gangli palk Rumex acetosa 2 0 2 5

Wild muskmelon Chabar/ciabbar Cucumis melo var, agrestis

0 1 2 4

Dog ban Ghaniri Rhazya stricta 1 1 1 4

Wild oat Jungli jai Avena fatua 2 0 1 4

Bermuda grass Khabbal Cynodon dactylon 2 0 1 4

Field bind weed Lahli Convolvulus arvensis 1 0 1 2

Blue pine Kal Pinus wallichiana 0 0 2 2

Tall seed Naro Phragmites karkae 1 0 1 2

Johnson grass Baromargh baru Sorghum halpense 0 0 1 1

Jungle rice Swank, Sawari Echinochloa colona 0 1 0 1

Common fumitory Shatra Fumaria indica 0 1 0 1

Total 27 42 31 100


20

Table 18: Infestation Levels and Weed Control Method (% of total sample)

Infestation & control measures Farm Size Groups

Overall Small


Large Farmers

Infestation

High 0 1 4 5 Medium 14 36 22 72 Low 14 5 5 23 Total 27 42 31 100

Weed Control Method

Manual 18 10 16 44 Herbicides 1 5 1 7 Both 7 27 14 48 Total 27 42 31 100

Herbicide users – use of both Pre and Post Emergence

7 31 18 57


Figure 11: Weeds

Table 19: Weedicides Application Cost

Weedicides Application Farm Size Groups


Large Farmers Overall Average

No. of operations 2 2 2 2

Cost for weeds control (PKR/ha) 3424 3462 3201 3371


3.4.2. Diseases and Their Control Measures

In the study area, mungbean farmers had little awareness of mungbean diseases and their control. Table

20 reveals that only about a quarter of farmers (24%) treated their seed with fungicide, although the

majority of farmers (62%) answered that fungicides were easily available.

Figure 12: Types of diseases in mungbean crop

21

However, most farmers (72%) were not satisfied with the fungicide quality. About 91% of the farmers

had not used Rhizobium + PSB for seed. Most of the farmers (68%) had not used pest- and disease-

resistant varieties (Table 20).

Table 20: Diseases and Their Control Measures (% of total sample)

Diseases & control Farm Size Groups


Medium Farmers Large Farmers

Treatment of fungicide to seed Yes 4 10 10 24 No 23 32 21 76

Satisfied from fungicide quality Yes 5 11 12 28 No 22 31 19 72

Easy availability of fungicide Yes 7 36 19 62 No 20 6 12 38

Purchase fungicide Cash 7 35 17 59 Not Purchased

20 7 14 41

Use of Rhizobium + PSB Yes 5 2 1 9 No 22 40 30 91 No 20 11 12 43

Used pest/disease resistant variety

Yes 15 6 11 32 No 12 36 20 68


3.5. Gender Participation and Decision Making

In agricultural and non-agricultural activities, the participation of women varied from region to region

in Pakistan. This is due to different cultures, crops, landholdings and norms of the different areas.

Table 22 provides an estimate of several parameters for the study area.

Figure 13: Women’s participation in different agricultural jobs

Men completely dominated the sowing, ploughing, fertilizing and irrigating of mungbean crops while

both men and women were involved in hoeing for weed control, management of livestock, harvesting

and storage; there was no obvious difference depending on farm size. Women were more highly

involved in household tasks such as livestock management and storage, with less involvement in

hoeing and harvesting (Table 21).

22

Table 21: Gender Role in Agriculture (%)

Gender participation Farm Size Groups



Male Female Male Female Male Female Gender participation in sowing Male 100 100 100 100 Gender participation in ploughing Male 100 100 100 100 Gender participation in hoeing Both 70 30 70 30 70 30 100 Gender participation in livestock management

Both 60 40 60 40 60 40 100

Gender participation in fertilization Male 100 100 100 100 Gender participation in irrigation Male 100 100 100 100 Gender participation in harvesting Both 70 30 70 30 70 30 100 Gender participation in storage Both 100 100 100 100


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

The effect of climate on agriculture is related to variability in local weather rather than in global climate

patterns. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately

0.3-0.6oC over the last century (NASA Earth Observatory), but agronomists consider that any

assessment must be individually considered at the local area. Regional specific studies are more

important in understanding the impact of climate change on agriculture and also for developing

mitigation strategies (Kalra et al., 2008).

Figure 14: Impact of climate change in farming communities

It is clear that farmers in the study area had not adopted any measures related to changing climatic

conditions. While 96% of farmers agreed with that climate conditions were changing they mainly saw

this in terms of changes in rainfall distribution over time. About 96% farmers answered that due to

change in climatic conditions, temperatures are also changing in the study area. About 93% of farmers

claimed that climate change had affected the onset of the monsoon season, but most had not changed

their sowing times. Of those that had done so, about 9% of farmers plant their crops early and about

17% cultivate late. Some farmers also suggested high yielding heat and drought tolerant varieties are

needed, but only 10% of farmers have diversified their cropping patterns in response to perceived

changing climatic conditions (Table 22).

23

Table 22: Impact of Climate Change (%)

Farm Size Groups

Total Small


Large Farmers

Climate conditions change over time Yes 26 42 28 96 No 1 0 2 4

If yes: Rainfall Yes 25 40 26 90 No 2 2 5 10

Temperature Yes 26 41 30 96 No 1 1 1 4

Rainfall distribution Yes 26 41 21 88 No 1 1 10 12

Onset of monsoon Yes 26 41 26 93 No 1 1 5 7

Adjusted the sowing time accordingly Yes 9 9 11 28 No 19 33 20 72

If yes, then which type: Early 3 1 5 9 Late 6 4 6 17 No 19 35 21 74

You adopted the heat/stress tolerant varieties Yes 7 4 7 19 No 20 39 23 81

Adopt/left out some new crops due to climatic condition

Yes 0 1 9 10 No 27 41 22 90


3.7. Problems and Issues in Mungbean Production

Although mungbean was observed as a profitable crop in the study area, there are still several constraints

to higher production (Table 23). Almost all farmers shared their views that the high price of fertilizers

was the most important problem of mungbean production. Other major constraints were untimely pest

attack (64%), scarcity of water (14%), salinity (10%), lack of quality seed (3%), and the use of untreated

seed. A few farmers also were concerned by a lack of capital, underground water suitability and the

lack of suitable land were additional problems of mungbean cultivation (Table 23).

Table 23: Problem and Issues in Mungbean Production (% of total sample)

Issues Farm Size Groups

Total Small Farmers


Underground water suitability

Yes 19 46 22 88

No 0 3 9 12

Total 19 49 31 100

Mungbean seed treatment No 14 57 29 100

Reason for not getting potential mungbean yield

High Fertilizer Cost 27 42 31 100 Low Quality of Seed

0 0 3 3

Scarcity of Water 7 4 3 14

Salinity 4 0 6 10

Pest Attack 12 35 17 64

Other 6 3 1 10

Total 29 42 29 100 Source: Author calculation from survey data

24

Major Constraints

Lack of quality seed of new improved high yielding varieties.

Weed infestation caused around 66% average yield losses. Traditionally, farmers controlled weeds

manually and also by crop rotation. In the recent past, some mungbean-specific herbicides have

been introduced but are seldom used, mainly due to a lack of supplies and awareness in the

mungbean growing area.

Farmers view harvesting and threshing as laborious and time-consuming work for themselves and

their families. The rainy season coincides with harvesting time and farmers can lose a major share

of their crop from untimely rains. Although mechanical/combine harvesting of mungbean has been

introduced recently in some parts of the country, the majority of farmers were not aware of this

technology. There is no government support price, and farmers feel exploited by middlemen when

marketing their crops.

25

Conclusions and Recommendations

Most of the farmers were middle aged and have above middle school education. Most of the farmers

have their own basic agricultural machinery. Mungbean is cultivated as a sole crop on an average area

of 1.14 ha per farm but mungbean is also intercropped in sugarcane. The average yield is 780 kg/ha,

which is more than the national average in the study area. Mungbean production in the study areas is

profitable, and farmers received a high return on their investment.

Women are more involved in livestock management and crop storage, with less involvement in hoeing

and harvesting. Many farm operations are totally dominated by men. The main problems for mungbean

growers are the high price of fertilizer, pest attacks, and concern about a changing environment.

If modern, high yielding varieties, improved production technologies, and proper machinery are

available to farmers, yields can be increased, which would also help to increase their income and

nutritional status. The farmers in the study areas want fair prices for fertilizers, seed, and insecticides;

better quality seed and varieties; and improved marketing channels for their produce.

The majority of farmers, whether small, medium or large landholders, preferred cultivating mungbean,

but they appeared to be reluctant to grow mungbean on a large scale because of climatic factors, non-

availability of mechanical harvesting/threshing machinery, low yielding varieties, and low prices for

mungbean in local markets. It is important for researchers, extensionists, agricultural engineers and

policy makers to make consolidated efforts to resolve these issues of concern and promote mungbean

cultivation to farmers in Pakistan.

26

References

Anjum MS, Ahmed ZI, Rauf CA. (2006). Effect of Rhizobium inoculation and nitrogen fertilizer on yield and yield components of mungbean. Int. J. Agric. and Biol. 8(2):238-240.

Deshpande SS. (1992). Food legumes in human nutrition: A personal perspective. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutrition 32: 333-363.

Dharmalingam C, Basu RN. (1993). Determining optimum seasons for the production of seeds in mungbean. Madras Agric. J. 80: 684-688.

Government of Pakistan. 2012-13. Pakistan Agricultural Statistics. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. p. 46

Hassan MZY. (2008). Analysis of the obstacles to gender mainstreaming in Agricultural Extension in the Punjab, Pakistan: a case study of district Muzaffargarh. Available at: http://prr. hec.gov. pk/thesis/2327.pdf

Mahmood K, Munir M, Rafique S. (1991). Rainfed farming systems and socioeconomic aspects in Kalat Division (Highland Balochistan). Pakistan J. Agric. and Social Sci. 5: 15-20.

Masood A, Kumar S. (2006). Mungbean and Urdbean: Retrospect and prospects. In Advances in Mungbean and Urdbean. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India. pp. 1-19.

Nusrat H, Anwar MZ, Saeed I. (2014). Comparative profitability analysis of recommended mungbean varieties at NARC experimental station, Islamabad, Pakistan. Pakistan J. Agric. Res. 27(1).

Reddy DS, Chant GV. (1983). A note on the effect of deep ploughing on basic infiltration rate of soil and root growth under rainfed agriculture. Annals of Arid Zone 16(1): 149-152.

Singh DP, Singh BB. (2011). Breeding for tolerance to abiotic stresses in mungbean. Journal of Food Legumes 24 (2): 83-90 pp.

Webb C, Hawtin G. (eds). (1981). Lentils Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux and ICARDA. Press Minneapolis. p. 69-90.

27

Appendices Cluster information for baseline survey of improved mungbean production (Component-II)

Province Region District Tehsil Cluster #

Cluster Name

CroppingSystem

Name of Villages

Beneficiaries

Punjab

AARI-Faisalabad

(30)

T.T Singh Kamalia 1 Mumdana Kalan

CroppingSystem

Mumdana Kalan, Chadhar, Chak # 710 GB, 664/5 GB

10

Kasoor Pattoki 2 Pattoki Farm

CroppingSystem

Pattoki Sugar Mills

1

Sheikhupura Sheikhupura

3 Farooq Abad

rice- wheat

Bhindoor, Sucha Soda, Siddiqabad, Sarkari Khurd, Sarkari Kalan, Moza Cheenda

19

Nankana Sahib

Nankana Sahib 4

Chandi Kot

rice- wheat

Chandi Kot 1

AZRI-Bhakkar

(46)

Bhakkar

Bhakkar 5 Thal traditionalmungbean

Chah Lakha, 36 TDA, 34 TDA, 44 TDA, Muslim Kot, Sarai Mohajir

10

Nashaib 6 Nashaib traditionalmungbean

Bhakkar, Kotla Jam Asghar Shaheedabad, Gadola, Notak

5

Darya Khan

7 Tibba traditionalmungbean

Tibba Hamid Shah

5

8 Luck Kallan

traditionalmungbean

Jhok Khichi, Jhok Haji Abad, Luck Kallan, Daraya Khan Nasheeb Chah Kheemta wala, Daraya Khan

9

Layyah Layyah

9 148B/TDA traditionalmungbean

Chah Darboli 8

10 Chowk Azam

traditionalmungbean

Ladhana, Chak No.157 TDA Mian wala Qadeem, 399/TDA Chowk Azam

9

BARI-Chakwal

(41) Chakwal Chakwal 11 Bhagwal

rainfed double cropping

Thoha Bahadar, Murid, Bhagwal, Nain Sukh/Dharabi, Mohra Allo, Chak Baqar Shah

21

28

Jhelum Pin Dadan Khan 12 PD Khan rainfed double cropping

Darapur, Chak A. Khaliq, Gahora, Kari, Nurpur Baghan

20

Federal NARC-

Islamabad (22)

Attock

Fateh Jang 13 Dhokri rainfed double cropping

Dhokri, Behlot

4

Pindi Gheb 14 Khunda rainfed double cropping

Bajwal Farms, Kamal Pur Sher Jang, Khunda

3

Rawalpindi

Kallar Saidan 15 Rawat rainfed double cropping

Tiala, Dhoke Ch. Hayat Bakhsh, Byepass Kallar Syedan

3

Gujar Khan 16 Mandra rainfed double cropping

Jatall , Kali Pari, Rakh More, Jhangi Jalal

6

Islamabad Islamabad 17 ICT rainfed double cropping

Dhalla, Sihala Farms, Barkat Town, Har Do Gahar, Mawa Tumair, Tumair Mohra

6

Sindh

QAARI Larkana

(5) Larkana Ratodero/Larkana 18 Ratodero

rice- wheat

Ratodero, QAARI Farm, Sujawal, Kodrani, Ali Jatoi, Sheral Jatoi

5

NSTHRI Thatta (11)

Thatta Thatta 19 Makli intercropping

Makli, Shah Latif Colony, Palejo Farm, Jakhra, M. Hassan Shoro, Haji M. Juman Shoro , Babu Shah, Pathan Colony, Missan Farm

9

Sajawal Sajawal 20 Saeedpur intercropping

Gul Hassan Tahirani, Saeedpur

2

29

Questionnaire – II Mungbean Baseline Information

Questionnaire number : │_____│

1. Tenancy Status (Owner / Tenant / Owner-cum-tenant / Lessee / Owner-cum-lessee) _________________________________

If tenant, % share of input and output:

Category Seed Fertilizer Irrigation Pesticide Labor Output Owner

Tenant

2. Landholding Information (in acres)

i. Own Land ii. Rented in iii. Rented out iv. Shared in v. Shared out

Total land holding in acres (i+ii-iii+iv-v) _______________________Land rent per year (PKR / acre) _______________________

Have legume included in crop rotation (Yes / No) ______________ if yes which crop ________________________

Soil quality (Good / Medium / Poor) ______________________

3. Crops Information

Crops sown during Kharif (summer) season 2014 Crops sown during Rabi (winter) season 2013-14

Crop Area (Acres)

Crop Area (Acres)

Sown Harvested Sown Harvested Rice Wheat

Sugarcane Sole Rape/Mustard

a-District _______________ b-Tehsil/location __________________________ c-village name ____________________

e-date _________________f-Enumerator names and Cell number ______________________________________________

h- Respondent name ___________________ i- Respondent cell number _______________ j-Age (years) ______________

k-Education (years) _______________l- Marital status (Single/Married/Widower) ____________________________________

m-Status of Respondent (Beneficiary / non-beneficiary) ______________ n-Farming experience(years) ____________________

o- Relationship with HH head (Self / Father / Brother / Son / Other) __________________________

a-Cropping systems (Wheat- Mungbean /Wheat-fallow /Rice-Wheat/Sugarcane-Mung intercropping/others) _______________

b-Area (rainfed/irrigated) ___________________________

30

Sugarcane + other crops intercropping

Gram

Sugarcane + Mungbean intercropping

Lentil

Mungbean (Sole) Fodder Crop…...

Mungbean + other crops intercropping

Fallow Fallow

Reasons of keeping the land fallow in Kharif: ____________________________________

Reasons of keeping the land fallow in Rabi: _____________________________________

4. Household Members Information:

Family member Relationship with household head

Gender (M/F)

Age (Years)

Education (Schooling Years)

Occupation Estimated Income

Head of household

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Number of permanent laborers___________ Number of temporary laborers__________

Number of days of employment of temporary laborers (approx.) _______________ /year

31

Average wage rate of temporary laborers (PKR/day) Male:_____________ Female: _________

What is cost of permanent laborers? 1. In cash _________ /year 2. In Kind ________/year

5. Village Profile (Please circle Yes or No)

Facility Responses Distance (Km)

Facility Responses Distance (Km)

Road Yes / No Water Supply Scheme Yes / No

Basic Health Unit (BHU) Yes / No Post Office Yes / No

Veterinary Center Yes / No Implements Repair Yes / No

Agricultural Extension office Yes / No Input Dealer Yes / No

School (Boys) Yes / No Output Market Yes / No

School (Girls) Yes / No OFWM Yes / No

Bank Yes / No Research Station Yes / No

Transport Yes / No Soil Fertility Lab Yes / No

Electricity Yes / No Agricultural Extension Yes / No

Pesticide dealer Yes / No NGOs Yes / No

6. Farm Household Assets (Please circle Yes or No)

Asset at Farm Responses Asset at home Responses

Tractor Yes / No Microwave Yes / No

Trolley Yes / No Car Yes / No

Tube well Yes / No TV Yes / No

Zt drill Yes / No Washing machine Yes / No

MB plough Yes / No Refrigerator Yes / No

Rotavator Yes / No AC Yes / No

Laser leveler Yes / No Iron Yes / No

Thresher Yes / No Motorcycle Yes / No

Seed drill Yes / No Cycle Yes / No

Ridger Yes / No Cart Yes / No

Planker Yes / No Room cooler Yes / No

Reaper Yes / No Landline phone Yes / No

Combine harvester Yes / No Mobile Yes / No

Livestock Number Purchased last year (No.)

Sold Last year (No.)

Costs PKR/Year

Bullock/Ox Fodder Buffalo Straw Cow Vanda Goats/Goats Medicine Donkey Labor Poultry Other (Shelter etc.)

32

7. Livestock Inventory(Please write down the number of animals owned by the farmer)

Number of liters of milk produced per day ___________ Sale price of milk Rs/Liter________

8. Source of Seed for season 2014

Crop/Source Home Seed (kg)

Fellow Farmers

(kg)

Seed Companies

(kg)

Tehsil/District Market

(kg)

Research Dept (kg)

Extension Dept (kg)

Village Shop (kg)

Others (kg)

Wheat

Rice

Maize

Sugarcane

Rapeseeds/Mustard

Cotton

Others

Which mungbean variety do you plant? _____________________

Do you produce your own seed? 1. Yes 2.No

Before sowing, did you carry out germination test? 1. Yes 2.No

If yes, approximate germination percentage _____________

Did you treat seed with any fungicide? 1. Yes 2.No

If yes, which of the fungicides did you use for seed treatment? ___________

Were you satisfied with the fungicide quality? 1. Yes 2.No

Is fungicide easily available? 1. Yes 2.No

How did you purchase fungicide? 1. Cash 2.Credit

Did you use seed inoculated with Rhizobium + PSB? 1-Yes 2-No

How do you control weeds in the crop _____________________________

Do you use any pre-or post-emergence weedicides? 1-Yes 2-No

The variety used is pest/disease resistant 1.Yes 2.No

The seed planted is certified 1.Yes 2.No

Satisfied with the seed quality? 1. Yes 2. No

Did you observe any mixing in the purchased seed? 1. Yes 2. No

Have you multiplied seed in the past? 1. Yes 2.No

Was the desired quality seed available in the market? 1. Yes 2. No

What sowing method do you use for mungbean? 1-Broadcast 2-Line sowing

33

9. Mungbean Varieties Grown by the Farmer

Variety Area Sown (number of acres)

Approximate Sowing date

Approximate Harvesting date

Since when (please provide information for each variety)?

Approximate yield per acre?

Which are most important characteristics while selecting a variety, please select from below;

1. High Yield 2.Home seed 3.Good taste 4.less disease attack 5.More market value

10. Weeds Problem

Common Weeds Name Infestation (High, Medium, Low)

Control Method (Manual/Hand weeding/

chemical)

Number of Operations

Cost of Control

Do you face water scarcity during the season? 1. Yes 2. No

Is underground water suitable for irrigation? 1. Yes 2.No

Have you sold/purchased water? 1. Yes 2.No

Rate of sale or purchase of canal water in rupees (PKR/irrigation/acre) _____________________

Rate of sale or purchase of tube well water in rupees (PKR/irrigation/acre)___________________

Do you have your own tube well? 1. Yes 2. No

If yes, what is the source of power?

1. Electric 2. Diesel 3.Tractor driven 4. Other____

11. Crop Production Technology

Operation Price /unit

Number /quantity per acre

Wheat Rice Sugarcane Mungbean Other Other Other

Ploughing field after previous crop

Ploughing PKR

Planking PKR

Sowing/Drilling PKR

Seed Treatment Yes/No

Seed Rate/acre (kg)

Seed Price/kg

34

Varieties Sown Names

Fertilizer bags

Urea PKR

DAP PKR

NP PKR

SSP PKR

TSP PKR

Other (Specify) PKR

FYM PKR

Cost of Chemicals/Spray

Fungicide PKR/acre

Pesticide PKR/acre

Insecticide PKR/acre

Weedicide PKR/acre

Irrigation Cost

Canal PKR

Tubewell PKR

Labor requirements

Weeding/Hoeing PKR/acre

Harvesting PKR/acre

Threshing PKR/acre

Others PKR/acre

Production

Avg yield per acre Mnds

Potential yield Mnds

Reasons of not getting potential yield*

Price per maunds

value of by-product PKR

*Reasons for not getting potential yield:

1. Low quality of seed 2. Scarcity of water 3.Quality of water 4. Salinity 5. Financial problem 6. Pest attack 7. Disease 8. Others ____

35

12. Institutional Support (Please encircle Yes or No)

Institute Support Provided Yes/No Institute Support Provided Yes/No

Agri. Extension Yes / No Fertilizer Company Yes / No

ZTBL Yes / No Pesticide Company Yes / No

OFWM Yes / No Soil Fertility Lab Yes / No

13. Access to Credit

Source Amount (Rupees) Purpose Duration (months) Monthly interest rate

Commercial bank

ZTBL

Commission agent

Input dealers

Relative/Friends

Other

14. First-hand source of Information for Agriculture Operations (Please rank in the order of importance i.e. 1=most important)

Information Source Rank Information Source Rank

Agricultural Extension Newspaper

TV Radio

Mobile Seed Companies

Others Others

15. Estimated Family Income per Year

Income Source Income in Rupees

Income from Crop

Income from Livestock

Income from Nonfarm

Remittances

Any Other

Total Family Income

16. Estimated Expenditure per month

Item Expenditure in rupees Item Expenditure in rupees

Wheat Flour Milk

Rice Cloths

Pulses Education

Oil Transportation

Sugar House Rent

Savings Utility Bills

36

17. Farmers’ Membership

Are you member of some organization? Yes/No _____ If Yes please indicate name ________________

18. Gender Participation in Farming Activities (Please tick the appropriate box)

Activity Carried out by whom

Activity Carried out by whom

Male Female Both Male Female Both

Sowing Fertilization

Grading Weedicide

Transplanting Irrigation

Ploughing Pesticide

Hoeing Harvesting

Marketing Drying

Livestock management Others

19. Mungbean Residues Management at Farm Level

Do you carry out mungbean harvest through combine harvester/reaper/manually?_______________

How do you normally manage the residues at farm level? Please choose from below:

1. Completely cut the at the base of the plants 2. Completely retain the residues in the field 3. Completely burn the residues 4. Used as energy for cooking purposes 5. Animals are grazed on it 6. Cut and burn 7. Mix in soil (completely/partially) 8. Others (please specify)

For how long the residues are normally retained at the farm? time (days) _______________

20. Impact of Climate Change on Adoption of Heat Tolerant Varieties

In your opinion are the climatic conditions changing over time? Yes/No ______________________

If yes, Rainfall 1.Yes 2.No

Temperature 1.Yes 2.No

Rainfall distribution 1.Yes 2.No

Onset of Monsoon 1.Yes 2.No

Have adjusted the sowing times accordingly? Yes/No ________ if Yes Early/Late _____ days ___

Have adopted the heat/stress tolerant varieties? Yes/No _____________

Have adopted some new crops/left out some crops due to climatic condition? Yes/No ___________________

If yes which new crops included in cropping system? 1. ________ 2. ________ 3. ________

Which crops left out from the cropping system? 1.________ 2._________ 3. __________

37

21. Availability of Technology

Technology Own Fellow Farmers

Other Village

Extension department

Others Not available

Rent per acre

Affordability Yes/No

Tractor Trolley Happy Seeder Laser Leveler Combine Harvester Thresher Rotavator Disc plow Tube well

Have you ever practiced green manuring? _________________ Yes/No

If yes, of which crop __________________________

Green manuring was normally practiced for which crop _______________________________

Have information about micronutrients? ________________________ Yes/No

Have ever applied zinc/boron? ___________________ Yes/No

22. Any other comments by respondents:

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Comments by enumerator:

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Please thank the farmer for spending the time and providing valuable information.

World Vegetable CenterUSAID Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP)PGRI Building, NARC Campus, Park RoadIslamabad 45500 Pakistan

avrdc.org

Documents

Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan Baseline203.64.245.61/fulltext_pdf/EB/2016-2020/eb0267.pdfThis document is the report of a scoping/baseline study on mungbean cultivation