J Agric. Res., 201 7, Vol. 55(2):409-416 [620040]

J Agric. Res., 201 7, Vol. 55(2):409-416
ISSN: Online: 2076 -7897, Print:0368 -1157
http://www.jar.com.pk

ECONOMICS OF CHICKPEA PRODUCTION AND EMPIRICAL
INVESTIGATION OF ITS YIELD DETERMINANTS IN LOW
INTENSITY ZONE OF PUNJAB, PAKISTAN

Mazher Abbas, Irfan Mahmood, Arshed Bashir *, Tahir Mahmood **,
M. Ather Mahmood and Sonila Hassan *

ABSTRACT

This resea rch work was designed at Social Sciences Research Institute
(PARC), AARI, Faisalabad during the year 2015. The objective was to calculate
chickpea cost of production in Bhak kar and Layyah districts of low intensity
zone and also to investigate the factors responsible for low chickpea yield in
selected districts. A sample of 80 farmers was selected through purposive
sampling technique and a well developed interview schedule was used for data
collection. Chickpea cost of production was estimated at Rs. 13688 with the
gross returns of at Rs. 19958. Net income rec eived by the farmers was noted as
Rs. 6270 showing benefit cost ratio of Rs. 1.00:1.50. The results of the
regression model indicate that farming experience, seed cost, ploughing and
harvesting cost sho w significant effect on chickpea yield. The coefficient for
experience, seed cost, ploughi ng cost and harvesting cost showed positive
impact on yield indicating that 1 percent increase in these variables will bring
0.03, 0.44 and 0.85 percent increase in c hickpea yield. The paper concluded
that use of improv ed and high yielding seed along with better management
practices like proper land prepa ration, weeding, etc. can help increase the per
acre yield of chickpea in low intensity zone.

KEYWORDS : Cicer arietinum; chickpea ; production; determinants yield;
benefit cost ratio; Punjab; Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is widely grown in all areas of Pakistan
especially desert areas and contribute for mass production. This crop serve s
as maj or source of livelihood for rural people in the area. Its production
entirely depends upon the distribution and intensity of rainfall. Two varieties
of chickpea are commonly grown, distinguished by seed shape, size and
colour. The one is called desi with relatively small seed and second with

*Social Sciences Research Institute (PARC ), AARI, Faisalabad . **Department of
Economics , PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi , Pakistan .

M. Abbas et al.
J. Agric. Res., 201 7, 55(2) 410
large seed called kabuli . Desi variety is commonly cultivated in the Indo –
Pakistan subcontinent. Chickpea stands third among various pulses in
Pakistan, after soybean and pea . This crop accounts for 15 percent o f the
entire world pulses production (3) . In Pakistan, chickpea covers largest area
among rabi pulses crops and occupies 5 percent of rabi cropped area. In
year 2015 -16. This crop was grown on area of 945 thousand hectares with
the production of 312 thousa nd tonnes showing decreasing trend of 17.7
percent compared to last year. Overtime productivity of chickpea decreased
from 439 to 330 kg per hectare during 2001 -2015(4).

The overtime decline in production of chickpea is mainly because of various
factors l ike, cultivation of other crops like wheat, low rainfall in desert area,
lack of education, non -availability of latest chickpea’s varieties, lack of
certified seed, no support price by the government and diseases attack in
Pakistan. Lethal epidemic of dise ases in c hickpea has been voiced by
various studies (12, 13, 15, 16). Fusarium wilt is a serious disease of
chickpea mainly prevailed in India, Pakistan, Burma, Nepal, Mexico, Spain,
and Tunisia. In Pakistan, disease is responsible for 10 -50 percent loss e very
year (14).

Chickpea is mainly drought resistant crop that is successfully grown by
subsistence farmers in various area s of Punjab under rainfed and irrigated
condition s. For rural premises, in Thal wasteland of Punjab, chickpea is a
major source of l ivelihood for the residents (18). Indesert area of Layyah and
Bakhar districts of Punjab, where o ther crop not successfully grown , it plays
vital role in the food security of subsistence farmers and fit in cropping
systems (4). Only Pu njab contributes 80 p ercent in c hickpea production
within Pakistan and it is grown nearly 90 percent under rain -fed conditions
(10).

In the past considerable progress has been made in developing new
varieties of chickpea specifically for rainfed regions that fits in cropping
pattern. Many interventions brought into consideration like bring fallow
rainfed area under chickpea cultivation but large scale production could not
be sustained due to various technological, socio -economic constraints and
environmental factors. Overtime low productivity of this crop has resulted in
stagnant or declining per capita availability of chickpea in the major
producing belts.

Keeping in view the declining chickpea yield in low intensity zone of Punjab
in recent years, the present study was plan ned to explore the existing
production practices, cost of chickpea’s production and returns at farm level

Chickpea production and its yield determinants
J. Agric. Res., 201 7, 55(2) 411
and the factors contributed towards low yield of chickpea. The previous
studies on chickpea only identify the net return s from this crop. This study
first time will attempt to highlight various factors responsible for chickpea
yield.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted at Social Sciences Research Institute (PARC),
AARI, Faisalabad , Pakistan during the year 2015. A sample of 80 farmers
from two districts of low intensity zone viz . Bhakkar and Layyah was taken .
The purposive sampling technique was used for sample se lection and data
were collected through well -developed interview schedule. The survey was
conducted in the months of March 2015 in Karror Laal Eson tehsil of district
Layyah and Bhakkar tehsil of district Bhakkar. From each district 40
chickpea growers were interviewed. The analysis was done by using SPSS
17. The mean and standard deviations of socio -economic indicators and
cost-benefit parameters is accounted through descriptive statistics
application. Simple budgeting technique was used to derive the cost benefit
estimates and economic analysis of chickpea. Total cost was estimated by
summing up all variable s and fixed costs wher eas gross returns were
estim ated by multiplying price per ma und of chickpea received by growers to
total yield per acre. Henc e net i ncome was estimated by subtracting total
cost from gross revenue stated as;

Net Income (NI) = GR – TC

Furthermore, to esti mate benefit cost ratio the gross revenue is divided by
total cost the formula stated as;

Benefit Cost Ratio BCR= GR/TC

To empirically investigate the factors influencing per acre yield of any crop
the Cobb -Douglas production function is widely used by a gricultural
economists for analysis (7). Various studies (4, 5, 17, 20) used this
functional form for the coefficient of every explanatory variable measures
the elasticity of dependent variable in proportional to that variable. This
model is used for its s implicity, easily computation, understandable and
simply interpretation (9). Furthermore, logarithmic transformation of this
model into linear form made Cobb -Douglas production function easy to
estimate (6). Generalized form of normalized Cobb -Douglas type production
function used for chickpea crop in the study area was as follow:

it i i i i i μ harvestingβ ploughing seedβ Expβ Eduββ Y       ln ln ln ln ln ln 543 2 1 0 

M. Abbas et al.
J. Agric. Res., 201 7, 55(2) 412
Where

lnY = Natural log of averag e Chickpea yield of the farm (ma unds/acre)
In exp i = Natural log of experience of the i -th farmer in years
Ledui = Natural log of years of schooling of the i -th farmer
In seed = Natural log of average seed rate of the i -th farm for c hickpea crop (Rs/acre)
In ploguhing = Natural log of average ploughing cost of the i -th farm for Chickpea crop (Rs/acre)
In harvestin g = Log of average harvesting cost of the ith farm for chickpea crop (Rs/acre)
itμ
= Disturbance t erm

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Personal characteristics of respondents of study area

The information regarding socio -economic characteristic s of the sample
farmers is pr esented in Table 1. Average age education and farming
experience were estimated at 47.7, 5.8 and 22.76 years , respectively. The
average age of the respondents of Bhak kar dsitrict was about 48.33 years,
on the other hand average age of Layyah district respondents was 47.32
years. The average formal education of the respondents of Bha kkar and
Layyah districts was 6.36 and 5.32 schooling years , respectively. On an
average, the respondents of Bhak kar and Layyah districts had farm
experience of 25.39 and 20.61 years , respectively. Table 1 also explains the
tenancy status of the sample chickpea growing respondents. In Bha kkar all
the respondents (100 pe rcent) were owners while in case of Layyah district
97 percent were owners. Overall 1.3 percent res pondents were owner -cum-
tenant in the study area. In both Bhak kar and Layyah districts, majority of
chickpea growers (75 %) involved full time in farming, while the about 25
percent involved as part time in farming .

Table 1. Personal chara cteristics of respondents of study a rea

Particulars Bhak kar Layyah Overall
Age (years) 48.33 47.32 47.78
Education (years) 6.36 5.32 5.79
Farm e xperience (years) 25.39 20.61 22.76
Tenancy s tatus ( percent)
Owners 97.2 100.00 98.8
Owner –cum-tenant 2.8 0.0 1.3
Level of involvement (p ercent)
Full Time 75 75 75
Part Time 25 25 25

Chickpea cost and return a nalysis

Table 2 explains the cost of production of chickpea in rain fed conditions. In
land preparation ploug hing cost was reported as Rs. 935/acre followed by
planking cost Rs.250/acre. Among other input costs, weeding cost was

Chickpea production and its yield determinants
J. Agric. Res., 201 7, 55(2) 413
Table 2. Cost and return analysis of chickpea

Practices Units Total u nits Per unit p rice (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)
Ploughing No. 1.65 567.04 935.616
Planking No. 1 250.00 250.00
Sowing cost (drill) No. 1 602.27 602.27
Seed Kg 24.43 51.02 1246.419
Weeding No. 1.75 1337 .0 2339.75
Harvesting No. 1 1533.39 1533.39
Threshing No. 1 1063.63 1063.63
Land rent Rs./acre 1 4954.55 4954.5 5
Mark up @12 percent Rs./acre 1 763.0 763.00
Total cost Rs./acre – – 13688.62
Grain yield Mds/acre 9.16 1802.27 16508.79
Dry stalk yield Mds 23 150.0 3450 .00
Gross returns Rs./acre – – 19958.79
Net benefits Rs./acre – – 6270.169
BCR – – 1.00:1.50

reported to be highest (Rs.2339/acre ) followed by seed cost Rs. 1246/acre.
Harvesting and threshing cost was calculated as Rs.1533 and Rs.1063/acre ,
respectively. Total cost incurred in chickpea production was Rs.13688/acre
with the gross returns of Rs. 19958/acre. Net income received by the
farmers was estimated as Rs.6270/acre showing benefit cost ratio
Rs.1.5/rupee investment.

Empirical analysis: Identification of factors r esponsible for low
chickpea yield

The empirical analysis wa s conducted to id entify the factors responsible for
low chickpea production in study area. The estimates of model revealed that
coefficient of the experience was statistical significant and directly related to
the output. The coefficient of farming experience of the respon dent was
0.08, depicted that 1 percent change in experience of the re spondent will
increase average c hickpea yield by 0.08 percent (Tabl e 3). The coefficient
for education was insignificant and had the positive sign. These results were
in-line with Asfaq et al. (5), who estimated that education and farming
experience had direct relation w ith farm diversification. Abrha (2) concluded
that above mentioned two variables, had direct relation with production in
birr.

As far as the cost variables are concerned, the analysis indicate that one
percent increase in cost of seed, ploughing and harvesting brought 0.44,
0.31 and 0.85 percent changes in the average chickpea yield ,
respectively.

M. Abbas et al.
J. Agric. Res., 201 7, 55(2) 414
Table 3. Factors affecting chickpea y ield

Variables Coefficient T-statis tics
Cons -2.216 -0.881
Lexp 0.08 1.703*
Ledu 0.028 1.303
Lnseed 0.442 2.794***
Dumy 0.252 5.921***
Lnplo 0.314 1.964**
Lnharvestng 0.855 2.511**
R2= 0.62 Adjusted R2=0.588 F. Statistics= 19.824***
Source: Author’s Survey 2015 , ***, ** and * shows 1, 5 and 10 percent level of significance

Result of seed cost are in line with th ose of Semerci et al . (7), who
concluded that seed cost had direct relation with the wheat production.
Overall, Cobb Douglas function was significant having F -value 19 .824 and
value of R2 indicate that 62 percent variance in dependent variable is
explained by explanatory variables included in the model. The model was
tested for heteroscedasticity using the Breusch -Pagan test (BPG) which is
designed to detect any linear form of heteroscedasticity (8) and adjustments
were made by using robust standard error.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results clearly indicate that seed and ploughing cost contribute positively
to enhance chickpea yield along with experience and edu cation of the
chickpea growers. The use of improv ed and high yielding seed along with
better management practices like proper land preparation, weeding , etc. can
help to increase the per acre yield of chickpea in low intensity zone. Due to
the use of conven tional management practices as obvious from the cost
indicators is the major obstacle to enhance chickpea yield in study area.

To increase the per acre productivity of chickpea there is a need to motivate
and encourage farmers to grow recommended high yi elding and disease
resistant varieties, to adopt improved cultural and management practices.
Farmer s had a little bit knowledge about seed management. If the farmer s
keep improved variety seed by their own traditional method then a great risk
is there in l osing its viability. Farmer s should be trained regarding seed
management and seed production. Government should encourage the
farmer s by good price of their produce; give them subsidies so that they
willingly increase the investment for this crop in the fo rm of improved seed
and management practices that will lead to increase per acre productivity.
Farmers should be trained in seed production and storage management
techniques so that its viability is maintained.

Chickpea production and its yield determinants
J. Agric. Res., 201 7, 55(2) 415
REFERENCES

1. Abbas, M., T. Mehmood, A. Bashir, M. Zafar and A. Afzal. 2012.
Economics of Lallemantia royleana (tukham -e-balangoo) production
in the low intensity cropping zone of the Punjab, Pakistan. Pak. J.
Agric. Res. 25:110 -119.
2. Abrha, B.K. 2015. Factors Affecting Agricultural Production in Tigray
Region. Dept. of Development Studie s. Northern Ethiopia (Doctoral
Dissertation). University of South Africa.
3. Anon. 2010. Agricultural P roduction, Food and Agriculture
organizat ion of the united nations (FAO). Year B ook/or
http://faostat.fao.org .
4. Anon. 2016. Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2015 -2016. Economic
Advisor’s Wi ng Governments of Pakistan , Finance Division, Ministry
of Finance. Islamabad. Pakistan.
5. Ashfaq, M., S. Hassan, M. Z. Naseer, I. A. Baig and J. Asma. 2008 .
Factors affec ting farm diversification in rice -wheat. Pak. J. Agri.
Sci.45:91 -4.
6. Beattie, B. R. and C. R. Taylor .1985. The economics of production.
Malabar, FL: Robert E. Kreiger Publishing Company.
7. Debertin, L. D. 1986. Agricultural Production Economics . McMillan
Publishing Comp., New York. USA.
8. Gujarati, D. N. 2009. Basic E conometrics. Tata McGraw -Hill
Education.
9. Heady, E. O. and J. Dillon. 1961. Agricultural Production F unctions.
Ames: Iowa State University Press.
10. Hussain, N., M. Aslam, A. Ghaffar,M. I rshad and N. U. Din. 2015.
Chickpea genotypes evaluation for morpho -yield traits under water
stress conditions. J. Ani. & Plant Sci. 25:206 -211.
11. Pankaj, K., P.S. Deshmukh, S.R. Kushwaha and Sunita -Kumari.
2001 . Indian Society of Agricultural Science. Annal s of Agricultural
Research. Division of Plant Physiology, Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, New Delhi, India. p. 110 -112.
12. Kausar, A.G. 1965. Epiphytology of recent epiphytotic of gram blight
in West Pakistan. Pakistan J. Agri. Sci., 2:185 -195.
13. Malik, B.A. and M. Tufail. 1984. Chickpea production in Pakistan. In:
Ascochyta Blight and Winter Sowing of Chickpeas , M.C. Saxena ,
K.B. Singh. M. Nijhoff and W. Junk (eds.) . The Hague, The
Netherlands, p. 229.
14. Nazir, M.A., M. A. Khan and S. Ali. 2012. Evaluatio n of national and
international chick pea germplasm for resistance against Fusarium

M. Abbas et al.
J. Agric. Res., 201 7, 55(2) 416
wilt ( Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Ciceris) i n Pakistan. Pak. J.
Phytopathol. 24:149 -151.
15. Radulescu, E., E. Capetti, E. Schmidt and A. Cassian. 1971.
Contributions to the stud y of anthracnose of chickpea
(Mycosphaerella rabiei Kov.), Lucrari Stuntifice, 14:311 -321.
16. Sattar, A. 1933.On the occurrence, perpetuation, and control of gram
(Cicer arietinum L.) blight caused by Ascochyta rabiei (Pass)
Labrousse, with special reference to Indian condit ions. Annals of
Applied Biology. 20:612 -632.
17. Semerci, A., A. Mazid, K. N. Amegbeto, M. Keser, A. Morgounov, K.
Peker, A. Bagci, M. Akin, M. Kucukcongar, M. Kan, S. Karabak, A.
Altikat and S. Yaktubay. 2012. The production functions of wheat
production in Turkey. Bulgarian J. Agri. Sci.18:240 -253.
18. Shah, N.A., K. M. Aujla, M. Abbas and K. Mahmood. 2007.
Economics of chickpea production in the Thal desert of
Pakistan. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci., 5:6 -10.
19. Sharif, M. 2004. Wheat yield Gap Analysis: F uture Options for
Pakistan: A Report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement
for internship programme in Agricultural Economics. B.Sc. (Hons.)
Agriculture .
20. Sher, F. and E. Ahmad. 2008. Forecasting wheat production in
Pakistan. Lhr. J. Eco. 13:57 -85.

Received: November 10, 2016 Accepted: January 10, 2017

***

CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS:

Mazher Abbas : Conceived research idea
Irfan Mahmood : Statistically analysed the data
Arshed Bashir : Checked data analysis
Tahir Mahmood : Collec ted data and entered in SPSS
M. Ather Mahmood : Prepared writeup of introduction, methodology and
references
Sonila Hassan : Overall management of the article