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

World Vegetable Center

P.O. Box 42
Shanhua, Tainan 74199
TAIWAN

Tel: +886 6 583 7801

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

Publication No.: 16-804

©2016, World Vegetable Center

Disclaimer 

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

Suggested citation 

Nasir M, Zubair Anwar M, Shah MH, Ali A, ZahidUllah Khan M. 2016. Baseline Report: Improved
Mungbean Cultivation in World Vegetable Center Project Areas of Pakistan. World Vegetable
Center Publication No. 16-804, World Vegetable Center, Taiwan. 37 p.
 Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................................... iv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... v
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Objective of the Study ............................................................................................................. 2
Chapter2: 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

i
 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

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

v
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

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 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

2
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.

3
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

4
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

5
Table 2: General Characteristics of Mungbean Farmers

Farm Size Groups

Small Medium Large
Overall
Characteristics Farmers Farmers Farmers
Age (Years) 41 46 47 45
Education (Years) 8 9 9 9
Farming Experience (Years) 16 21 22 20
Household Members (Numbers) 6 6 7 6
Permanent Labor ( Numbers) 1 4 8 5
Temporary Labor (Numbers) 6 7 10 8
Wage Rate of Temporary Male Laborers
309 317 309 313
(PKR/Day)
Wage Rate of Temporary Female Laborers (PKR
250 250 276 296
/Day)
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).

6
Table 3: Farm Characteristics (% of total sample)
Farm Size Groups
Small Medium Large Overall
Farmers Farmers Farmers
Yes 8 34 28 70
Own Tube Well
No 19 7 4 30
Electricity 4 12 5 21
Source of Power Diesel 7 35 32 74
Tractor Driven 2 2 2 5
Wheat-Mungbean 19 7 14 41
Wheat-Rice 0 2 4 6
Cropping System Sugarcane-Mungbean 2 14 11 28
Mungbean Intercropped
6 17 3 25
with Other Crops
Yes 0 8 7 16
Legume Crop Rotation
No 28 33 24 84
Good 12 8 11 31
Soil Quality
Medium 16 33 20 69
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.1.3. Household Assets

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

Figure 6: Access to sources of information

7
Table 4: Household Assets (% of total sample)
Farm Size Groups
HH Assets Overall
Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers
Yes 26 42 30 97
Cell phone No 1 0 1 2
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 25 39 30 94
TV No 2 2 1 6
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 1 7 4 12
Microwave No 26 35 27 88
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 4 2 6 12
Car No 23 39 25 88
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 22 38 28 89
Motorcycle No 5 4 2 11
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 17 33 26 76
Washing Machine No 10 9 5 23
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 17 30 30 76
Refrigerator No 10 12 1 23
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 2 5 7 15
Air conditioner No 24 37 24 85
Total 26 42 31 100
Yes 26 41 30 96
Iron No 1 1 1 4
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 9 9 11 28
Cycle No 18 33 20 72
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 6 31 17 54
Cart No 21 11 14 46
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 4 11 12 27
Room Cooler No 23 31 18 73
Total 27 42 31 100
Yes 0 0 2 2
Landline Phone No 27 42 28 97
Total 27 42 31 100
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.1.4. Farming Assets

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

8
Table 5: Agriculture Machinery (% of total sample)
Farm Size Groups
Description of machinery Overall
Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers
Yes 6 31 25 62
Tractor
No 21 11 6 38
Yes 6 23 20 49
Trolley
No 21 18 11 51
Yes 6 33 22 62
Tube Well
No 21 9 9 38
Yes 2 5 4 11
Zero Till Drill
No 25 37 27 89
Yes 2 5 5 12
Moldboard Plough
No 25 37 26 88
Yes 5 12 16 33
Rotavator
No 22 30 15 67
Yes 2 5 5 12
Laser Leveler
No 25 37 26 88
Yes 6 7 10 23
Thresher
No 21 35 21 76
Yes 5 14 15 33
Seed Drill
No 22 28 16 67
Yes 4 5 11 20
Ridger
No 23 37 20 80
Yes 6 26 14 46
Planker
No 21 16 17 54
Yes 2 5 2 10
Reaper
No 25 37 28 90
Yes 0 0 2 2
Combine Harvester
No 27 42 28 97
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.1.5. Livestock Inventory

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

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

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

9
Table 6: Household Livestock Inventory
Farm Size Groups
Livestock inventory Medium
Small Farmers Large Farmers
Farmers Overall Average
Buffalo (No.) 8 5 5 6
Bullock (No.) 1 2 2 2
Cow (No.) 2 5 6 5
Goats (No.) 4 6 17 9
Donkey (No.) 1 1 1 1
Poultry (No.) 4 9 12 7

Cost of Livestock
Fodder Cost (PKR/year) 55787 48255 82609 60903
Straw Cost (PKR/year) 9333 17407 35000 21896
Vanda Cost (PKR/year) 1000 5735 8600 5333
Medicine Cost (PKR/year) 1614 1500 4840 2562
Hired Labor Cost (PKR/month) 2500 5412 19474 8961
Other Cost (PKR/year) 8611 10400 35400 20146
Total Cost 78846 88709 185923 119801
Milk Produced Per Day (liters) 7.5 15.9 24.8 17.0
Milk Sale Per Liter (PKR/liters) 58.3 54.1 52.7 54.4
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.1.6. Availability and Distance from Various Facilities

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

Figure 7: Key facilities needed by farmers

10
Table 7: Availability of Basic Facilities (% of total sample)
Farm Size Groups
Small Medium Large Overall
Farmers Farmers Farmers
Yes 26 41 30 96
Road
No 1 1 1 4
Yes 15 35 17 67
Health Unit
No 12 7 12 32
Yes 15 35 17 67
Veterinary Centre
No 12 7 12 32
Yes 15 30 15 60
Agriculture Extension Office
No 12 12 15 40
Yes 19 35 21 76
Bank
No 8 8 9 24
Yes 27 41 27 96
Electricity
No 0 1 2 4
Yes 21 35 21 77
Pesticide Dealer
No 6 7 9 22
Yes 2 4 5 11
Water Supply Scheme
No 25 39 25 89
Yes 22 35 20 77
Implements Rapier
No 5 7 10 22
Yes 16 35 18 70
Input Dealer
No 10 8 13 30
Yes 15 35 17 67
Output Market
No 12 7 12 32
Yes 2 2 2 7
On Farm Water Management
No 25 40 27 92
Yes 9 14 10 33
Research Station
No 19 29 19 67
Yes 9 6 3 18
Soil Fertility Lab
No 18 37 27 82
Source: Author calculation from survey data

Table 8: Distance from Basic Facilities (km)

Farm Size Groups
Basic Facilities
Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers Overall Average
Road 2 1 1 1
Basic Health Unit 10 6 8 8
Veterinary Centre 7 6 8 7
Agriculture Extension Office 9 14 13 12
Pesticide Dealer 7 8 9 8
Water Supply Scheme 17 6 7 12
Post Office 8 5 5 6
Implements Rapier 9 7 9 8
Input Dealer 8 7 10 8
Output Market 14 11 13 12
OFWM 18 12 14 15
Research Station 19 15 16 16
Soil Fertility Lab 19 11 14 15
NGO 11 8 11 10
Source: Author calculation from survey data

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

Farm Size Groups
Cropping Pattern
Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers Overall Average
Rice Sowing (ha) 10.07 7.52 54.68 22.76
Sugarcane Sole Sowing (ha) 0.27 0.41 5.36 1.90
Sugarcane + Other Sowing (ha) 0.02 0.14 0 0.06
Sugarcane + Mungbean Sowing (ha) 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.07
Mungbean Sole Sowing (ha) 0.36 1.06 1.92 1.14
Mungbean Sole Harvested (ha) 0.36 1.04 1.92 1.14
Other Sowing (ha) 0.23 2.48 2.40 1.84
Fallow (ha) 0 0.11 1.94 0.64
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.2. Cropping Pattern in the Rabi Season

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

12
Table 10: Rabi Cropping Pattern
Farm Size Groups
Crops (Hectares) Small Medium Large Overall
Farmers Farmers Farmers Average
Wheat 10.6 12.4 66.7 28.7
Rape/Mustard 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.3
Gram 0 0.1 0.8 0.3
Fodder 0.2 0.8 1.1 0.7
Other sole crops 0 0.1 3.0 0.9
Intercrop 0 0 0 0.1
Fallow 0 0 3.2 1.0
Total (Hectares) 11.0 15.0 74.9 32.1
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.3. Firsthand Information Sources

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

Table 11: First Hand Information Source (Ranking)

Farm Size Groups
Medium
Overall
Small Farmers Farmers Large Farmers
Agricultural extension 9 9 8 9
Other farmers 7 7 9 8
TV 7 6 7 7
Newspaper 6 7 6 6
Radio 5 6 7 6
Mobile 6 7 6 6
Seed companies 4 6 6 5
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.4. Source of Seed

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

Figure 8: Sources of seed supply

13
Table 12: Seed Source of Mungbean (% of total sample)

Farm Size Groups

Medium Large
Small Farmers Overall
Farmers Farmers
Home-kept Seed 0 10 3 13
Seed Companies 2 3 0 5
Tehsil/District Market 28 18 16 62
Research Department 0 7 2 8
Extension Department 0 2 0 2
Others 0 5 5 10
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.2.5. Diffusion of Mungbean Varieties

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

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

Table 13: Mungbean Variety (% of total sample)
Farm Size Groups
Overall
Medium
Small Farmers Farmers Large Farmers
AZRI-2006 3 25 9 36
AEM-96 15 1 6 22
Local 9 9 5 22
NM-92 1 4 2 8
NM-2011 0 3 4 6
NM-2006 0 0 5 5
Source: Author calculation from survey data

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)

Farm Size Groups
Seed selection Small Medium Large Overall
Farmers Farmers Farmers
Yes 1 1 9 11
Produce own seed
No 26 41 22 89
Carry out germination test before Yes 10 5 7 22
sowing No 17 37 23 78
Yes 19 20 25 63
Certified seed planted
No 9 22 6 37
Yes 20 33 23 77
Satisfied with seed quality
No 7 9 7 23
Observe seed mixing in purchased Yes 15 23 17 56
seed No 12 19 14 44
Yes 2 4 7 14
Seed multiplication in past
No 25 38 23 86
Desired quality seed availability in Yes 25 38 23 86
market No 2 4 7 14
Broadcast
19 5 6 30
(B)
Sowing method Line sowing
9 36 21 66
(LS)
B & LS 0 0 4 4
Source: Author calculation from survey data

3.3. Mungbean Cost of Production

3.3.1. Cost of Production

Land preparation is the first step in mungbean production, and it has an important impact on soil
moisture conservation by killing weeds and in breaking soil hardpans that decrease root growth and
yields (Reddy et al., 1983; Atwell 1990). In the study area, all respondents used a tractor-mounted
plough for cultivating followed by smoothing with a wooden plank (locally known as planking or
sohaga) for the primary tillage. The average cost of tractor ploughing was PKR 3732/ha, and farmers
spent 3.7 hours/ha ploughing the land for mungbean. Total land preparation and sowing cost was PKR
10,250/ha and this did not vary much between different farm sizes. Table 16 reveals that the average
mungbean seeding rate was 27 kg seed/ha, with a cost of PKR 3317 and total sowing cost of PKR
1162/ha.

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

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 Overall
Small Farmers Farmers Farmers 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
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)
Farm Size Groups
Residue Management Small Medium Large Overall
Farmers Farmers Farmers
Mungbean harvesting method Manually 28 42 30 100
Complete cut at the base of the plant Yes 28 42 30 100
Yes 0 0 2 2
Completely retain the residues in the field No 13 60 25 98
Total 13 60 26 100
Yes 4 4 0 9
Used as fuel for cooking No 9 57 26 91
Total 13 61 26. 100
Yes 4 15 11 30
Animals are grazed on it No 9 46 15 70
Total 13 61 26 100
Yes 2 2 0 4
Cut and burn No 11 59 26 96
Total 13 61 26 100
Yes 4 2 0 7
Mix in soil (completely/partial) 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

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 Overall
Small Medium Large
Farmer Farmer Farmer
Purple nut sedge Dela Cyperus rotundus 2 10 10 22
Trianthema
Horse purslane It-sit 2 10 10 22
portulacastrum
Bhakra/Gokhoue
Puncture clover Tribulus terrestris 2 7 0 10
khawl
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
Cucumis melo var,
Wild muskmelon Chabar/ciabbar 0 1 2 4
agrestis
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
Source: Author calculation from survey data

19
Table 18: Infestation Levels and Weed Control Method (% of total sample)
Farm Size Groups
Infestation & control measures Small Medium Large
Farmers Farmers Farmers Overall
High 0 1 4 5
Medium 14 36 22 72
Infestation
Low 14 5 5 23
Total 27 42 31 100
Manual 18 10 16 44
Herbicides 1 5 1 7
Weed Control Method
Both 7 27 14 48
Total 27 42 31 100
Herbicide users – use of both Pre and Post
7 31 18 57
Emergence
Source: Author calculation from survey data

Figure 11: Weeds

Table 19: Weedicides Application Cost

Farm Size Groups
Weedicides Application Medium Overall
Small Farmers Large Farmers
Farmers Average
No. of operations 2 2 2 2
Cost for weeds control (PKR/ha) 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 disease-
resistant varieties (Table 20).

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

Farm Size Groups
Diseases & control Small Medium Overall
Farmers Farmers Large Farmers
Yes 4 10 10 24
Treatment of fungicide to seed
No 23 32 21 76
Yes 5 11 12 28
Satisfied from fungicide quality
No 22 31 19 72
Yes 7 36 19 62
Easy availability of fungicide
No 20 6 12 38
Cash 7 35 17 59
Purchase fungicide Not
20 7 14 41
Purchased
Yes 5 2 1 9
Use of Rhizobium + PSB No 22 40 30 91
No 20 11 12 43
Used pest/disease resistant Yes 15 6 11 32
variety No 12 36 20 68
Source: Author calculation from survey data

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).

21
Table 21: Gender Role in Agriculture (%)
Farm Size Groups
Gender participation Medium Overall
Small Farmers Farmers Large Farmers
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
Both 60 40 60 40 60 40 100
management
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
Source: Author calculation from survey data

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).

22
Table 22: Impact of Climate Change (%)
Farm Size Groups
Small Medium Large
Farmers Farmers Farmers Total
Yes 26 42 28 96
Climate conditions change over time
No 1 0 2 4
Yes 25 40 26 90
If yes: Rainfall
No 2 2 5 10
Yes 26 41 30 96
Temperature
No 1 1 1 4
Yes 26 41 21 88
Rainfall distribution
No 1 1 10 12
Yes 26 41 26 93
Onset of monsoon
No 1 1 5 7
Yes 9 9 11 28
Adjusted the sowing time accordingly
No 19 33 20 72
Early 3 1 5 9
If yes, then which type: Late 6 4 6 17
No 19 35 21 74
Yes 7 4 7 19
You adopted the heat/stress tolerant varieties
No 20 39 23 81
Adopt/left out some new crops due to climatic Yes 0 1 9 10
condition No 27 41 22 90
Source: Author calculation from survey data

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)

Farm Size Groups
Issues Small Medium Total
Farmers Farmers Large Farmers
Yes 19 46 22 88
Underground water suitability No 0 3 9 12
Total 19 49 31 100
Mungbean seed treatment No 14 57 29 100
High Fertilizer Cost 27 42 31 100
Low Quality of
0 0 3 3
Seed
Reason for not getting potential Scarcity of Water 7 4 3 14
mungbean yield 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

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, 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.

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)

Cluster Cluster Cropping Name of
Province Region District Tehsil Beneficiaries
# Name System Villages
Mumdana
Kalan,
Mumdana Cropping Chadhar,
T.T Singh Kamalia 1 10
Kalan System Chak # 710
GB, 664/5
GB
Pattoki Cropping Pattoki Sugar
Kasoor Pattoki 2 1
Farm System Mills
AARI-
Faisalabad Sheikhupura Sheikhupura Bhindoor,
(30) Sucha Soda,
Siddiqabad,
Farooq rice- Sarkari
3 19
Abad wheat Khurd,
Sarkari Kalan,
Moza
Cheenda
Nankana Nankana Sahib Chandi rice-
4 Chandi Kot 1
Sahib Kot wheat
Chah Lakha,
36 TDA, 34
traditional TDA, 44
Bhakkar 5 Thal 10
mungbean TDA, Muslim
Kot, Sarai
Mohajir
Bhakkar,
Kotla Jam
traditional Asghar
Nashaib 6 Nashaib 5
mungbean Shaheedabad,
Gadola,
Punjab Notak
Bhakkar
traditional Tibba Hamid
7 Tibba 5
mungbean Shah
AZRI- Jhok Khichi,
Bhakkar Jhok Haji
(46) Abad, Luck
Darya Khan Kallan,
Luck traditional
8 Daraya Khan 9
Kallan mungbean
Nasheeb Chah
Kheemta
wala, Daraya
Khan
traditional
9 148B/TDA Chah Darboli 8
mungbean
Ladhana,
Layyah Layyah Chak No.157
Chowk traditional TDA Mian
10 9
Azam mungbean wala Qadeem,
399/TDA
Chowk Azam
Thoha
Bahadar,
Murid,
BARI- rainfed Bhagwal,
Chakwal Chakwal Chakwal 11 Bhagwal double Nain 21
(41) cropping Sukh/Dharabi,
Mohra Allo,
Chak Baqar
Shah

27
 Darapur,
Chak A.
rainfed
Khaliq,
Jhelum Pin Dadan Khan 12 PD Khan double 20
Gahora, Kari,
cropping
Nurpur
Baghan
rainfed
Dhokri,
Fateh Jang 13 Dhokri double 4
Behlot
cropping
Attock Bajwal
rainfed
Farms, Kamal
Pindi Gheb 14 Khunda double 3
Pur Sher Jang,
cropping
Khunda
Tiala, Dhoke
rainfed Ch. Hayat
Kallar Saidan 15 Rawat double Bakhsh, 3
NARC- cropping Byepass
Federal Islamabad Rawalpindi Kallar Syedan
(22) Jatall , Kali
rainfed
Pari, Rakh
Gujar Khan 16 Mandra double 6
More, Jhangi
cropping
Jalal
Dhalla, Sihala
Farms, Barkat
rainfed Town, Har Do
Islamabad Islamabad 17 ICT double Gahar, Mawa 6
cropping Tumair,
Tumair
Mohra
Ratodero,
QAARI Farm,
QAARI
rice- Sujawal,
Larkana Larkana Ratodero/Larkana 18 Ratodero 5
wheat Kodrani, Ali
(5)
Jatoi, Sheral
Jatoi
Makli, Shah
Latif Colony,
Palejo Farm,
Sindh Jakhra, M.
Hassan Shoro,
inter-
Thatta Thatta 19 Makli Haji M. 9
NSTHRI cropping
Juman Shoro ,
Thatta Babu Shah,
(11) Pathan
Colony,
Missan Farm
Gul Hassan
inter-
Sajawal Sajawal 20 Saeedpur Tahirani, 2
cropping
Saeedpur

28
 Questionnaire – II Mungbean Baseline Information

Questionnaire number : │_____│

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) ___________________________

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
Area (Acres) Area (Acres)
Crop Crop
Sown Harvested Sown Harvested
Rice Wheat

Sugarcane Sole Rape/Mustard

29
Sugarcane + other crops
Gram
intercropping
Sugarcane + Mungbean
Lentil
intercropping
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 Gender Age Education Occupation Estimated Income
household head (M/F) (Years (Schooling
) Years)
Head of household

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 Distance Facility Responses Distance (Km)

(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 Sold Last Costs PKR/Year

year (No.) year (No.)
Bullock/Ox Fodder
Buffalo Straw
Cow Vanda
Goats/Goats Medicine
Donkey Labor
Poultry 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 Fellow Seed Tehsil/District Research Extension Village Others

Seed Farmers Companies Market Dept Dept Shop (kg)
(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (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 Approximate Approximate Since when (please Approximate yield per
(number of Sowing date Harvesting date provide acre?
acres) information for
each variety)?

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, Control Method Number of Cost of Control
Medium, Low) (Manual/Hand weeding/ Operations
chemical)

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

Number /quantity per acre

Operation Price
/unit
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

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 2. Scarcity of water 3.Quality of water 4. Salinity
5. Financial problem 6. Pest attack 7. Disease 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 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

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 Carried out by whom

Activity Activity
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. __________

36
 21. Availability of Technology

Technology Own Fellow Other Extension Others Not Rent Affordability Yes/No
Farmers Village department available per
acre
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