Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP) for Pakistan

Baseline
Study

Improved Mungbean Cultivation in

World Vegetable Center Project Areas
of Pakistan
June 2016

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

June 2016

TheWorldVegetableCenteris 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.

Suggestedcitation
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: 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 ofMungbean 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 farmers 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: Womens participation in different agricultural jobs .......................................................... 21
Figure 14: Impact of climate change in farming communities ............................................................. 22

ii

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.

iii

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

iv

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 28-30C. 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
40C) 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 (blackgram) 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
1

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
Area (000 ha)
116.80
2.10
Production (000 tons)
78.50
0.90
Yield (kg/ha)
672.09
428.57
Source: Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan, 2012-13

KPK
7.10
4.40
619.72

Baluchistan
10
6.20
626.26

Pakistan
135.90
90.00
662.25

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

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.

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

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

Table 2: General Characteristics of Mungbean Farmers

Farm Size Groups
Characteristics
Age (Years)
Education (Years)
Farming Experience (Years)

Small
Farmers

Medium
Farmers

Large
Farmers

Overall

41

46

47

45

16

21

22

20

Household Members (Numbers)

Permanent Labor ( Numbers)

Temporary Labor (Numbers)

Wage Rate of Temporary Male Laborers
(PKR/Day)
Wage Rate of Temporary Female Laborers (PKR
/Day)
Operational Landholding (ha)

10

309

317

309

313

250

250

276

296

28

13

0.4

1.3

2.4

1.4

26
1
0

39
1
1

27
6
0

93
6.2
1.2

Mungbean Area (ha)

Owner (%)
Tenant (%)
Owner-Cum-Tenant (%)
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)

Yes
No
Electricity
Source of Power
Diesel
Tractor Driven
Wheat-Mungbean
Wheat-Rice
Cropping System
Sugarcane-Mungbean
Mungbean Intercropped
with Other Crops
Yes
Legume Crop Rotation
No
Good
Soil Quality
Medium
Source: Author calculation from survey data
Own Tube Well

Small
Farmers
8
19
4
7
2
19
0
2

Farm Size Groups

Medium
Farmers
34
7
12
35
2
7
2
14

Large
Farmers
28
4
5
32
2
14
4
11

Overall

17

25

0
28
12
16

8
33
8
33

7
24
11
20

16
84
31
69

70
30
21
74
5
41
6
28

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

Table 4: Household Assets (% of total sample)

HH Assets

Small Farmers
Yes
26
Cell phone
No
1
Total
27
Yes
25
TV
No
2
Total
27
Yes
1
Microwave
No
26
Total
27
Yes
4
Car
No
23
Total
27
Yes
22
Motorcycle
No
5
Total
27
Yes
17
Washing Machine
No
10
Total
27
Yes
17
Refrigerator
No
10
Total
27
Yes
2
Air conditioner
No
24
Total
26
Yes
26
Iron
No
1
Total
27
Yes
9
Cycle
No
18
Total
27
Yes
6
Cart
No
21
Total
27
Yes
4
Room Cooler
No
23
Total
27
Yes
0
Landline Phone
No
27
Total
27
Source: Author calculation from survey data

Farm Size Groups

Medium Farmers
42
0
42
39
2
42
7
35
42
2
39
42
38
4
42
33
9
42
30
12
42
5
37
42
41
1
42
9
33
42
31
11
42
11
31
42
0
42
42

Large Farmers
30
1
31
30
1
31
4
27
31
6
25
31
28
2
31
26
5
31
30
1
31
7
24
31
30
1
31
11
20
31
17
14
31
12
18
31
2
28
31

Overall
97
2
100
94
6
100
12
88
100
12
88
100
89
11
100
76
23
100
76
23
100
15
85
100
96
4
100
28
72
100
54
46
100
27
73
100
2
97
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.

Table 5: Agriculture Machinery (% of total sample)

Description of machinery

Small Farmers
Yes
6
Tractor
No
21
Yes
6
Trolley
No
21
Yes
6
Tube Well
No
21
Yes
2
Zero Till Drill
No
25
Yes
2
Moldboard Plough
No
25
Yes
5
Rotavator
No
22
Yes
2
Laser Leveler
No
25
Yes
6
Thresher
No
21
Yes
5
Seed Drill
No
22
Yes
4
Ridger
No
23
Yes
6
Planker
No
21
Yes
2
Reaper
No
25
Yes
0
Combine Harvester
No
27
Source: Author calculation from survey data

Farm Size Groups

Medium Farmers
31
11
23
18
33
9
5
37
5
37
12
30
5
37
7
35
14
28
5
37
26
16
5
37
0
42

Large Farmers
25
6
20
11
22
9
4
27
5
26
16
15
5
26
10
21
15
16
11
20
14
17
2
28
2
28

Overall
62
38
49
51
62
38
11
89
12
88
33
67
12
88
23
76
33
67
20
80
46
54
10
90
2
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).

Table 6: Household Livestock Inventory

Livestock inventory

Small Farmers

Farm Size Groups

Medium
Large Farmers
Farmers
5
5

Overall Average
6

Buffalo (No.)

Bullock (No.)

Cow (No.)
Goats (No.)
Donkey (No.)
Poultry (No.)

2
4
1
4

5
6
1
9

6
17
1
12

5
9
1
7

55787
9333
1000
1614
2500
8611
78846
7.5
58.3

48255
17407
5735
1500
5412
10400
88709
15.9
54.1

82609
35000
8600
4840
19474
35400
185923
24.8
52.7

60903
21896
5333
2562
8961
20146
119801
17.0
54.4

Cost of Livestock
Fodder Cost (PKR/year)
Straw Cost (PKR/year)
Vanda Cost (PKR/year)
Medicine Cost (PKR/year)
Hired Labor Cost (PKR/month)
Other Cost (PKR/year)
Total Cost
Milk Produced Per Day (liters)
Milk Sale Per Liter (PKR/liters)
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).

Figure 7: Key facilities needed by farmers

10

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

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

Road
Health Unit
Veterinary Centre
Agriculture Extension Office
Bank
Electricity
Pesticide Dealer
Water Supply Scheme
Implements Rapier
Input Dealer
Output Market
On Farm Water Management
Research Station
Soil Fertility Lab

Small
Farmers
26
1
15
12
15
12
15
12
19
8
27
0
21
6
2
25
22
5
16
10
15
12
2
25
9
19
9
18

Farm Size Groups

Medium
Farmers
41
1
35
7
35
7
30
12
35
8
41
1
35
7
4
39
35
7
35
8
35
7
2
40
14
29
6
37

Large
Farmers
30
1
17
12
17
12
15
15
21
9
27
2
21
9
5
25
20
10
18
13
17
12
2
27
10
19
3
27

Overall
96
4
67
32
67
32
60
40
76
24
96
4
77
22
11
89
77
22
70
30
67
32
7
92
33
67
18
82

Source: Author calculation from survey data

Table 8: Distance from Basic Facilities (km)

Basic Facilities

Farm Size Groups

Small Farmers

Road
Basic Health Unit
Veterinary Centre
Agriculture Extension Office
Pesticide Dealer
Water Supply Scheme
Post Office
Implements Rapier
Input Dealer
Output Market
OFWM
Research Station
Soil Fertility Lab
NGO
Source: Author calculation from survey data

2
10
7
9
7
17
8
9
8
14
18
19
19
11

Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

Overall Average

1
6
6
14
8
6
5
7
7
11
12
15
11
8

1
8
8
13
9
7
5
9
10
13
14
16
14
11

1
8
7
12
8
12
6
8
8
12
15
16
15
10

11

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

Rice Sowing (ha)

Sugarcane Sole Sowing (ha)
Sugarcane + Other Sowing (ha)
Sugarcane + Mungbean Sowing (ha)
Mungbean Sole Sowing (ha)
Mungbean Sole Harvested (ha)
Other Sowing (ha)
Fallow (ha)
Source: Author calculation from survey data

Medium Farmers

Large Farmers

Overall Average

7.52
0.41
0.14
0.06
1.06
1.04
2.48
0.11

54.68
5.36
0
0.11
1.92
1.92
2.40
1.94

22.76
1.90
0.06
0.07
1.14
1.14
1.84
0.64

10.07
0.27
0.02
0.06
0.36
0.36
0.23
0

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).

12

Table 10: Rabi Cropping Pattern

Farm Size Groups
Crops (Hectares)
Wheat

Small
Farmers
10.6

Medium
Farmers
12.4

Large
Farmers
66.7

Overall
Average
28.7

Rape/Mustard
Gram
Fodder

0.2
0
0.2

1.3
0.1
0.8

0.1
0.8
1.1

0.3
0.3
0.7

Other sole crops

Intercrop
Fallow

0
0
0

0.1
0
0

3.0
0
3.2

0.9
0.1
1.0

11.0

15.0

74.9

32.1

Total (Hectares)
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)

Small Farmers
Agricultural extension
9
Other farmers
7
TV
7
Newspaper
6
Radio
5
Mobile
6
Seed companies
4
Source: Author calculation from survey data

Farm Size Groups

Medium
Farmers
Large Farmers
9
8
7
9
6
7
7
6
6
7
7
6
6
6

Overall
9
8
7
6
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

13

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

Farm Size Groups

Home-kept Seed

Medium
Farmers
10

Seed Companies

Tehsil/District Market

28

18

16

62

Research Department

Extension Department

Others

10

Small Farmers

Large
Farmers
3

Overall
13

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).

Figure 9: Mungbean varietal trials in a farmers field

Table 13: Mungbean Variety (% of total sample)
Farm Size Groups
Overall

Small Farmers
3

Medium
Farmers
25

Large Farmers
9

36

AEM-96

15

22

Local

22

NM-92

NM-2011

NM-2006

AZRI-2006

Source: Author calculation from survey data

14

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
Yes
No
Yes
Carry out germination test before
sowing
No
Yes
Certified seed planted
No
Yes
Satisfied with seed quality
No
Yes
Observe seed mixing in purchased
seed
No
Yes
Seed multiplication in past
No
Yes
Desired quality seed availability in
market
No
Broadcast
(B)
Sowing method
Line sowing
(LS)
B & LS
Source: Author calculation from survey data
Produce own seed

3.3.

Small
Farmers
1
26
10
17
19
9
20
7
15
12
2
25
25
2

Farm Size Groups

Medium
Farmers
1
41
5
37
20
22
33
9
23
19
4
38
38
4

Large
Farmers
9
22
7
23
25
6
23
7
17
14
7
23
23
7

Overall

19

30

36

21

66

11
89
22
78
63
37
77
23
56
44
14
86
86
14

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
15

(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).

16

Table 15: Cost of Production

Farm Size Groups
Medium
Large
Farmers
Farmers
2799
4117

Overall
Average
3732

Ploughing ( PKR/ha)

Small Farmers
4813

Planking ( PKR/ha)

2204

1976

2011

2039

Sowing ( PKR/ha)

1270

1054

1308

1162

Mungbean Seed rate (kg/ha)

Seed Cost ( PKR/kg)

26
3498

28
3269

26
3144

27
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)

7410

7410

7410

Other Fertilizer Cost (PKR/ha)

4940

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

Canal Irrigation (PKR/ha)

17440
494

14200
494

12984
494

14669
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

561

Harvesting and Threshing Cost

6157
37236

6410
46789

5885
42682

6179
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

7410

7410

7410

Total Cost

Value of By-Product (PKR/ha)

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

Source: Author calculation from survey data

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).

17

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

Residue Management
Mungbean harvesting method
Complete cut at the base of the plant
Completely retain the residues in the field

Manually
Yes
Yes
No

Farm Size Groups

Small
Medium
Large
Farmers
Farmers
Farmers
28
42
30
28
42
30
0
0
2
13
60
25

Overall
100
100
2
98

Animals are grazed on it

Total
Yes
No
Total
Yes
No

13
4
9
13
4
9

60
4
57
61
15
46

26
0
26
26.
11
15

100
9
91
100
30
70

Cut and burn

Total
Yes
No

13
2
11

61
2
59

26
0
26

100
4
96

Mix in soil (completely/partial)

Total
Yes
No

13
4
9

61
2
59

26
0
26

100
7
93

Total

13

61

26

100

Used as fuel for cooking

Source: Author calculation from survey data

Figure 10: Practices of crop residue management in farmers fields

18

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 (%)
Farm Size Groups
Common Name

Local Name

Scientific Name

Purple nut sedge

Dela

Cyperus rotundus

10

10

22

Horse purslane

It-sit

Trianthema
portulacastrum

10

10

22

Puncture clover

Bhakra/Gokhoue
khawl

Tribulus terrestris

10

False amaranth

Tandla/luloor

Digera muricata

10

Lambs quarter

Jhill/bathu

Chenopodium album

10

Big cord grass

Dabh/Dab

Desmostachya bipinnata

Toothed dock

Gangli palk

Rumex acetosa

Wild muskmelon

Chabar/ciabbar

Cucumis melo var,

agrestis

Dog ban

Ghaniri

Rhazya stricta

Wild oat

Jungli jai

Avena fatua

Bermuda grass

Khabbal

Cynodon dactylon

Field bind weed

Lahli

Convolvulus arvensis

Blue pine

Kal

Pinus wallichiana

Tall seed

Naro

Phragmites karkae

Johnson grass

Baromargh baru

Sorghum halpense

Jungle rice

Swank, Sawari

Echinochloa colona

Common fumitory

Shatra

Fumaria indica

Total

Small
Farmer

Medium
Farmer

Overall

Large
Farmer

27

42

31

100

Source: Author calculation from survey data

19

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

Small
Farmers

High
Medium
Infestation
Low
Total
Manual
Herbicides
Weed Control Method
Both
Total
Herbicide users use of both Pre and Post
Emergence
Source: Author calculation from survey data

Farm Size Groups

Medium
Farmers
0
1
14
36
14
5
27
42
18
10
1
5
7
27
27
42
7

Large
Farmers

31

Overall
4
22
5
31
16
1
14
31

5
72
23
100
44
7
48
100

18

57

Figure 11: Weeds

Table 19: Weedicides Application Cost
Farm Size Groups
Weedicides Application

Small Farmers

No. of operations
Cost for weeds control (PKR/ha)

Medium
Farmers

Large Farmers

Overall
Average

3424

3462

3201

3371

Source: Author calculation from survey data

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

20

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 diseaseresistant varieties (Table 20).
Table 20: Diseases and Their Control Measures (% of total sample)
Diseases & control
Yes
No
Yes
Satisfied from fungicide quality
No
Yes
Easy availability of fungicide
No
Cash
Purchase fungicide
Not
Purchased
Yes
Use of Rhizobium + PSB
No
No
Yes
Used pest/disease resistant
variety
No
Source: Author calculation from survey data
Treatment of fungicide to seed

3.5.

Small
Farmers
4
23
5
22
7
20
7

Farm Size Groups

Medium
Farmers
Large Farmers
10
10
32
21
11
12
31
19
36
19
6
12
35
17

Overall
24
76
28
72
62
38
59

20

14

41

5
22
20
15
12

2
40
11
6
36

1
30
12
11
20

9
91
43
32
68

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: Womens 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).

21

Table 21: Gender Role in Agriculture (%)

Gender participation
Gender participation in sowing
Male
Gender participation in ploughing
Male
Gender participation in hoeing
Both
Gender participation in livestock
Both
management
Gender participation in fertilization
Male
Gender participation in irrigation
Male
Gender participation in harvesting
Both
Gender participation in storage
Both
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.6.

Farm Size Groups

Medium
Small Farmers
Farmers
Large Farmers
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
100
100
100
100
100
100
70
30
70
30
70
30
60
100
100
70

40

30
100

60
100
100
70

40

30
100

60
100
100
70

Overall
100
100
100

40

100

30
100

100
100
100
100

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).

22

Table 22: Impact of Climate Change (%)

Climate conditions change over time

If yes: Rainfall
Temperature
Rainfall distribution
Onset of monsoon
Adjusted the sowing time accordingly
If yes, then which type:
You adopted the heat/stress tolerant varieties
Adopt/left out some new crops due to climatic
condition
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.7.

Farm Size Groups

Small
Medium
Large
Farmers
Farmers
Farmers
26
42
28
1
0
2
25
40
26
2
2
5
26
41
30
1
1
1
26
41
21
1
1
10
26
41
26
1
1
5
9
9
11
19
33
20
3
1
5
6
4
6
19
35
21
7
4
7
20
39
23
0
1
9
27
41
22

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Early
Late
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

Total
96
4
90
10
96
4
88
12
93
7
28
72
9
17
74
19
81
10
90

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
Yes
Underground water suitability
Mungbean seed treatment

No
Total
No

High Fertilizer Cost

Low Quality of
Seed
Scarcity of Water
Reason for not getting potential
Salinity
mungbean yield
Pest Attack
Other
Total
Source: Author calculation from survey data

Small
Farmers
19

Farm Size Groups

Medium
Farmers
Large Farmers
46
22

Total
88

0
19
14
27

3
49
57
42

9
31
29
31

12
100
100
100

7
4
12
6
29

4
0
35
3
42

3
6
17
1
29

14
10
64
10
100

23

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.

24

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, nonavailability 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.

25

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.

26

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

Region

AARIFaisalabad
(30)

District

Tehsil

Cluster
Name

Cropping
System

Name of
Villages

10

T.T Singh

Kamalia

Mumdana
Kalan

Cropping
System

Kasoor

Pattoki

Pattoki
Farm

Cropping
System

Pattoki Sugar
Mills

Sheikhupura

Sheikhupura

19

Nankana Sahib

Bhakkar

Nashaib

Farooq
Abad

ricewheat

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

Chandi
Kot

ricewheat

Chandi Kot

traditional
mungbean

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

10

Bhakkar,
Kotla Jam
Asghar
Shaheedabad,
Gadola,
Notak

Thal

Nashaib

traditional
mungbean

Tibba

traditional
mungbean

Luck
Kallan

traditional
mungbean

148B/TDA

traditional
mungbean

Bhakkar

AZRIBhakkar
(46)
Darya Khan

Layyah

BARIChakwal
(41)

Beneficiaries

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

Nankana
Sahib

Punjab

Cluster
#

Chakwal

Layyah

Chakwal

10

Chowk
Azam

traditional
mungbean

11

Bhagwal

rainfed
double
cropping

Tibba Hamid
Shah
Jhok Khichi,
Jhok Haji
Abad, Luck
Kallan,
Daraya Khan
Nasheeb Chah
Kheemta
wala, Daraya
Khan
Chah Darboli
Ladhana,
Chak No.157
TDA Mian
wala Qadeem,
399/TDA
Chowk Azam
Thoha
Bahadar,
Murid,
Bhagwal,
Nain
Sukh/Dharabi,
Mohra Allo,
Chak Baqar
Shah

21

27

Jhelum

Pin Dadan Khan

12

PD Khan

rainfed
double
cropping

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

Fateh Jang

13

Dhokri

rainfed
double
cropping

Dhokri,
Behlot

Attock

Federal

NARCIslamabad
(22)

14

Khunda

Kallar Saidan

15

Rawat

rainfed
double
cropping

Gujar Khan

16

Mandra

rainfed
double
cropping

Islamabad

17

ICT

rainfed
double
cropping

Rawalpindi

Islamabad

QAARI
Larkana
(5)

Pindi Gheb

rainfed
double
cropping

Larkana

Ratodero/Larkana

18

Ratodero

ricewheat

Sindh
NSTHRI
Thatta
(11)

Thatta

Thatta

19

Makli

intercropping

Sajawal

Sajawal

20

Saeedpur

intercropping

Bajwal
Farms, Kamal
Pur Sher Jang,
Khunda
Tiala, Dhoke
Ch. Hayat
Bakhsh,
Byepass
Kallar Syedan
Jatall , Kali
Pari, Rakh
More, Jhangi
Jalal
Dhalla, Sihala
Farms, Barkat
Town, Har Do
Gahar, Mawa
Tumair,
Tumair
Mohra
Ratodero,
QAARI Farm,
Sujawal,
Kodrani, Ali
Jatoi, Sheral
Jatoi
Makli, Shah
Latif Colony,
Palejo Farm,
Jakhra, M.
Hassan Shoro,
Haji M.
Juman Shoro ,
Babu Shah,
Pathan
Colony,
Missan Farm
Gul Hassan
Tahirani,
Saeedpur

20

28

Questionnaire II Mungbean Baseline Information

Questionnaire number : _____
a-District _______________
e-date

b-Tehsil/location __________________________

c-village name ____________________

_________________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) ___________________________

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

_________________________________
If tenant, % share of input and output:
Category
Owner

Seed

Fertilizer

Irrigation

Pesticide

Labor

Output

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

Crop

Crops sown during Kharif (summer) season 2014

Area (Acres)
Sown
Harvested

Crops sown during Rabi (winter) season 2013-14

Area (Acres)
Crop
Sown
Harvested

Rice

Wheat

Sugarcane Sole

Rape/Mustard

29

Sugarcane + other crops

intercropping
Sugarcane + Mungbean
intercropping

Gram
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

30

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

Road

Distance
(Km)

Facility

Responses

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

Distance (Km)

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
Bullock/Ox
Buffalo
Cow
Goats/Goats
Donkey
Poultry

Number

Purchased last
year (No.)

Sold Last
year (No.)

Costs

PKR/Year

Fodder
Straw
Vanda
Medicine
Labor
Other (Shelter etc.)

31

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

32

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

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

Cost of Control

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

Number /quantity per acre
Operation

Price
/unit

Wheat

Rice

Sugarcane Mungbean

Other

Other

Other

Ploughing field after

previous crop
Ploughing
Planking
Sowing/Drilling
Seed Treatment

PKR
PKR
PKR
Yes/No

Seed Rate/acre (kg)

Seed Price/kg

33

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
5. Financial problem

2. Scarcity of water
6. Pest attack

3.Quality of water
7. Disease

4. Salinity
8. Others ____

34

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

Agricultural Extension

Newspaper

TV

Radio

Mobile

Seed Companies

Others

Others

Rank

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

Wheat Flour

Milk

Rice

Cloths

Pulses

Education

Oil

Transportation

Sugar

House Rent

Savings

Utility Bills

Expenditure in rupees

35

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)
Carried out by whom

Activity

Male

Female

Activity

Both

Sowing

Fertilization

Grading

Weedicide

Transplanting

Irrigation

Ploughing

Pesticide

Hoeing

Harvesting

Marketing

Drying

Livestock management

Others

Carried out by whom

Male

Female

Both

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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Completely cut the at the base of the plants

Completely retain the residues in the field
Completely burn the residues
Used as energy for cooking purposes
Animals are grazed on it
Cut and burn
Mix in soil (completely/partially)
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. __________

36

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.

37

World Vegetable Center

USAID Agricultural Innovation Program (AIP)
PGRI Building, NARC Campus, Park Road
Islamabad 45500
Pakistan

avrdc.org