Mungbean as a catch crop for dryland systems in Pakistan and Uzbekistan: A situational analysis

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample farm household characteristics for Pakistan and Uzbekistan, in proportion of respondents, unless indicated otherwise, 2016

	Pakistan			Uzbekistan
	Growers	Non-growers	Significance	Growers	Non-growers	Significance
Household size (persons)	9.1	8.9	ns	6.5	6.0	***
Joint family household	0.49	0.46	ns	–	–
Farm size (ha)	3.6	3.4	ns	64.9	35.0	***
Area irrigated (prop. of area)	0.52	0.67	***	1.00	1.00	ns
Most common crops
Winter wheat	1.00	1.00	ns	1.00	1.00	ns
Cotton	0.44	0.36	ns	0.80	0.34	***
Sugar cane	0.30	0.13	ns	–	–
Vegetables	0.12	0.11	ns	0.47	0.43	ns
Potatoes	–	–		0.24	0.33	**
Mustard	0.17	0.12	**	–	–
Sorghum/millet	0.24	0.28	ns	–	–
Fodder crops	0.62	0.52	*	–	–
Observations (n)	165	156		180	180

Notes: *, **, *** denote significance levels at 10%, 5% and 1%, respectively.

ns = not significant (p ≥ 0.10).

Pakistan includes Pothwar region, southern Punjab and Sindh province; Uzbekistan includes Fergana, Tashkent and Karakalpakstan regions.

Figure 1. Land use during the kharif season in Pakistan’s Pothwar region among mungbean growers and non-growers.

Table 2. Mungbean production practices in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, in proportion of respondents unless indicated otherwise, 2016

	Uzbekistan	Pakistan
		All	Southern Punjab	Pothwar	Sindh
Sowing practices
Cultivated as catch crop	0.98	0.32	0.00	0.02	0.96
Cultivated as full season crop	0.01	0.68	0.98	0.98	0.04
Sowed in a standing crop	0.09	0.10	0.06	0.23	0.04
Broadcast seed	0.12	0.72	0.32	0.92	0.98
Manual sowing in lines	0.27	0.02	0.06	0.00	0.00
Machine sowing in lines	0.61	0.26	0.61	0.08	0.02
Irrigation practices
Applied irrigation	0.75	0.65	1.00	0.00	0.81
Times irrigated (all farmers)	1.26	1.88	3.11	0.00	2.07
Harvesting practices
Scythed by hand	0.50	0.98	0.97	1.00	1.00
Machine harvested	0.48	0.01	0.03	0.00	0.00
Threshing practices
Threshing by hand	0.12	0.43	0.18	0.86	0.35
Machine threshing	0.87	0.47	0.82	0.10	0.31
Other (e.g. animals)	0.01	0.11	0.00	0.00	0.33
Crop residue use
Collect and feed to animals	0.81	0.48	0.56	0.70	0.19
Collect and sell	0.04	0.44	0.47	0.02	0.81
Give to field labor as payment	0.38	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Let animals feed in the field	0.03	0.02	0.00	0.08	0.00
Plow it under	0.00	0.05	0.02	0.14	0.00
Burn it in the field	0.00	0.01	0.02	0.00	0.00
Use as fuel for cooking	0.20	0.01	0.00	0.02	0.00
Observations (n)	180	165	62	50	53

Notes: Includes Fergana (n = 100), Tashkent (n = 50) and Karakalpakstan (n = 30) regions in Uzbekistan.

Figure 2. Mungbean seed sources as reported by growers in Pakistan, in percent of respondents, 2016.

Note: Pothwar region (n = 50), southern Punjab (n = 62) and Sindh province (n = 53).

Table 3. Mungbean area, yield and prices and selling practices in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, average per farm household, 2016

	Uzbekistan	Pakistan
		All	Southern Punjab	Pothwar	Sindh
Area planted (ha)	3.88	0.88	1.25	0.35	0.90
Crop yield (tons/ha)	1.92	1.11	1.67	0.55	0.97
Farmers selling (proportion)	1.00	0.86	0.97	0.57	1.00
Harvest sold (proportion)	0.94	0.46	0.48	0.26	0.61
Selling price (USD/kg)	0.58	0.84	0.82	0.83	0.89
Outlets if sold (proportion)
Sell to middlemen/fellow farmers	0.60	0.44	0.45	0.70	0.33
Sell to grain market	0.79	0.39	0.53	0.20	0.29
Sell to seed dealers	0.01	0.08	0.02	–	0.20
Other	–	0.08	–	0.10	0.18
Observations (n)	180	165	62	50	53

Notes: Includes Fergana (n = 100), Tashkent (n = 50) and Karakalpakstan (n = 30) regions in Uzbekistan.

Table 4. Cost and returns to mungbean production by region in Pakistan, in USD per hectare, average per farm household, 2016

Operation	All regions	Southern Punjab	Pothwar	Sindh
A. Total variable cost^a	294.7	348.0	209.7	326.4
Land preparation	119.9	116.6	120.5	122.6
Seed and sowing	39.0	42.2	35.4	39.5
Fertilizing	19.0	25.5	–	31.6
Pest management	33.8	59.2	1.7	40.5
Irrigating	19.9	32.8	–	26.9
Harvesting and threshing	54.6	63.1	46.8	53.9
Cleaning and selling	8.5	8.7	5.2	11.6
B. Opportunity cost of land^b	166.7	240.5	19.2	240.5
C. Total cost (A + B)	461.4	588.4	228.9	566.9
D. Gross revenues^c	932.4	1369.4	456.5	863.3
Profit margin (D ‒ C)	193.3	264.5	64.4	260.2
Benefit–cost ratio (D/C)	2.0	2.3	2.0	1.5

Notes: ^aIncludes opportunity cost of own household labor, calculated from average daily rate of hired labor per region.

^b Other fixed costs can be considered as negligible because farmers didn’t use farm machinery. Average rent during mungbean season per region was used to estimate opportunity cost.

^cYield × farmgate selling price (Table 3).

Figure 3. Labor use in mungbean production (left) and the relative contribution of male, female and child labor in manual and mechanized mungbean production (right), Pakistan, 2016.

Note: Pothwar region (n = 50), southern Punjab (n = 62) and Sindh province (n = 53).

Table 5. Mungbean consumption by smallholder farmers in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, 2016

	Pakistan			Uzbekistan
	Growers	Non-growers	Significance	Growers	Non-growers	Significance
Mungbean consumed
Household (proportion)	0.67	0.63	ns	0.81	0.66	ns
Women 16–44 years (prop.)	0.66	0.63	ns	0.81	0.66	ns
Children 1–15 years (prop.)	0.64	0.62	ns	0.81	0.63	**
Quantity (gram/person/day)	11.47	4.41	ns	7.88	8.06	ns
Other dry pulses consumed
Household (proportion)	0.69	0.67	ns	0.32	0.3	ns
Women 16–44 years (prop.)	0.69	0.67	ns	0.32	0.3	ns
Children 1–15 years (prop.)	0.67	0.65	ns	0.32	0.3	ns
Quantity (gram/person/day)	11.33	9.31	ns	36.42	34.22	ns
Observations (n)	165	156		57	56

Notes: Estimated from a 7-day recall.

*, **, *** denote significance levels at 10%, 5% and 1%, respectively.

ns = not significant (p ≥ 0.10).

Pakistan includes Pothwar region, southern Punjab and Sindh province; Uzbekistan includes Fergana, Tashkent and Karakalpakstan regions.

Table 6. Perceptions about mungbean among farmers that did not cultivate it, in proportion of respondents, 2016

	Pakistan	Uzbekistan
Has cultivated mungbean in the past	0.47	0.23
Perceived benefits
Provides profit/income	0.42	0.33
Provides food to eat	0.26	0.78
Provides fodder for the animals	0.06	0.48
Improves the yield of subsequent crop	0.03	0.13
Improves soil fertility	0.05	0.38
Don’t know	0.39	0.18
Thinks mungbean would fit in crop calendar	0.84	0.92
If given seed, would be willing to try	0.42	0.33
Observations (n)	156	180

Notes: Pakistan includes Pothwar region, southern Punjab and Sindh province; Uzbekistan includes Fergana, Tashkent and Karakalpakstan regions.

Table 7. Perceived constraints to mungbean production among growers and non-growers, in proportion of respondents, 2016

	Pakistan		Uzbekistan
	Growers	Non-growers	Growers	Non-growers
Resource constraints
Not enough land	–	0.07	0.06	0.11
Not enough labor	0.07	0.19	0.02	–
Not enough cash or credit	0.02	0.08	0.33	0.19
Not enough water	0.02	0.03	0.33	0.02
Abiotic constraints	0.11	0.03	0.64	0.04
Rain damage during ripening
Too hot (flowers drop)	0.06	0.01	0.26	0.58
Soil fertility too low	0.19	0.12	0.71	0.21
Land too saline	0.01	0.01	0.03	–
Biotic constraints	0.42	0.10	0.23	–
Insect pests	0.42	0.12	0.03	0.01
Plant diseases
High storage losses	0.12	0.01	0.34	0.21
Seed constraints	0.13	0.03	0.33	0.28
Poor seed quality	0.11	0.13	0.47	0.29
Seed is unavailable	0.01	0.03	0.78	0.66
Available period too short	–	–	0.02	0.04
Economic constraints	–	0.09	0.06	0.01
Lack of market demand
Input costs too high	0.01	0.09	0.38	0.56
Yields too low	0.07	0.06	0.07	0.09
Selling prices too low	0.01	0.01	0.41	0.20
Other crops perform better	0.01	–	0.01	–
Observations (n)	165	156	180	180

Notes: Pakistan includes Pothwar region, southern Punjab and Sindh province; Uzbekistan includes Fergana, Tashkent and Karakalpakstan regions.

Figure 4. Pest and disease problems in mungbean as perceived by growers in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, 2016.

Notes: Pakistan includes Pothwar region, southern Punjab and Sindh province; Uzbekistan includes Fergana, Tashkent and Karakalpakstan regions.