Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022.

55-69

International Journal of
Social Studies
ISSN: 2958-602X (Print), 2958-6038 (Online)

Research Article
Optimal Economic and Resource Use Efficiency Analysis of
Groundnut Production in Punjab, Pakistan
a Muhammad Wajahat*, bMuhammad S. Mushtaq, aUmer Farooq, aRubina Kousar
aPMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Punjab, Pakistan.
Article History bInstitute of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Received: August 12, 2022 *Correspondence: [email protected]
Accepted: October 29, 2022
Published: December 30, 2022
Abstract
This study was carried out to investigate resource use efficiency in groundnut production
and to identify and analyze groundnut production and marketing constraints in district
Attock. This study was based on the primary data of 150 groundnut growers for the year
2021-22. The Cobb-Douglas production function has been carried out in the functional
analysis and resource use efficiency has been used to measure the productivity of resources
used in groundnut production. The results of the Cobb-Douglas production function
analysis revealed that there are 64.6 percent variations in Groundnut yield collectively
explained by all eight independent variables. The model obtained an F-value of 32.145,
which was highly significant. The results of resource use efficiency revealed that the ratio
of MVP to MFC was less than 1 for human labor X1, machinery power X2, transportation
X4, manures X5, and fertilizer X6. The ratio of MVP to MFC for farm X3 was greater than 1
which shows the under-utilization of resources. The significant constraints of the
production and marketing of groundnut are lack of adaptability of improved varieties,
climate change, high input cost, no support price mechanism, limited markets, and lack of
processing units, etc. On the basis of the results, the study recommends using an optimum
level of inputs and using improved technology, and HYVs. Initiatives should be taken to
raise the area of groundnut crops, and plant processing units and assure better support
price mechanisms to achieve maximum productivity.

Keywords: Groundnut, Production, Marketing, Cobb-Douglas, Resource use efficiency,

Constraints analysis
________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. The Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) or Peanut is an essential cash crop and food crop of
Licensee Roots Press, Islamabad
the Kharif season worldwide. It is also an excellent source to fulfil the requirement of edible
Pakistan.
oil and vegetable protein. Groundnut is generally grown in arid, semi-arid, tropical,
This article is an open access article subtropical, and warm temperate climates. Sandy-loam, deep and well-drained soils are
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons suitable for better crop growth, consisting of calcium and, to an extent, organic matter. For
Attribution (CC BY) license better production, the pH of the soil must be at 5.0 to 6.2, and the suitable temperature for
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses
/by/4.0/).
better growth of a plant is 25-30⁰C (Kapopo and Assa, 2012). Groundnut is used for
multiple beneficial purposes (Adinya, 2009; Woodroof, 1983). Groundnut is rich in
nutrients which contains about 11% carbohydrate, 45% oil, 5% water, 2% ash, and 30%

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 55
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

protein (Adinya, 2009; Awoke, 2003; Baraker et al., 2017; Kumar and Popat, 2010).
Groundnut crop is mainstream oilseeds and cultivated on about 28 million hectares in
more than 100 countries (Bruinsma, 2017; Ncube & Maphosa, 2020; USDA, 2021). Global
production projected 47.7 million tons (USDA, 2021), 95 per cent of which occurred in
developing countries (FAO, 2011). China, India, Nigeria, and the US are the primary
producers of groundnut, where India taking first place in terms of total area and second
place in terms of production. China is the world's largest groundnut producer, with 17.5
million tons production, followed by India with 6.7 million tons production, Nigeria with
3.9 million tons production, and then the USA with 2.78 million tons production (USDA,
2021). Out of the entire world's groundnut production, about 50% is contributed by two
major Asian countries, India and China (Rehman et al., 2015).
In Pakistan, groundnut is mainly concentrated in the Potohar region (barani areas of
Pakistan), consisting of the Chakwal, Jhelum, Rawalpindi, and Attock districts. In
Pakistan, the total cultivation area under the groundnut crop is 98 thousand hectares, and
the total annual production is 90 thousand metric tons with an average yield of 0.9 metric
tons per hectare. Punjab produces more than three-quarters of the product, accounting for
85 per cent of total production, while KPK and Sindh follow Punjab, accounting for 10 per
cent and 5 per cent of the total output, respectively (PARC, 2021).
According to PARC (2021), groundnut is a significant source of oil and protein. Its nut is
rich in protein (25-28 per cent) and oil (43-55 per cent). Its oil includes approximately 22
per cent linoleic acid and 61 per cent oleic acid and is regarded as one of the best vegetable
extracts for human use. Groundnut is essential and economically significant and improves
soil potency by supplying nitrogen to the soil. Peanut oil is one of the most refined cooking
oils characterized by a high smoke point and is preferred for use in ghee, margarine,
shortening, and salad oil. Peanut is also an excellent resource of vitamins and involves a
high quantity of thiamine, niacin, and riboflavin (Aweke et al., 2020).
Presently, in Pakistan, peanuts are consumed as roasted nuts. A negligible amount of the
groundnut yield is processed for confectionery purposes. There is no oil extraction of
groundnuts on an industrial basis. There are minimal groundnut markets, so any surge in
its production will lead to a decrease in prices until substitute markets are developed.
There is no support price mechanism for produce which leads to abnormal fluctuations in
prices every year. So, to boost its production, domestic groundnut oil extraction units and
markets will be required (PARC, 2021).
But even though the peanut or groundnut is a formidable source of edible oil, little effort
has been put into its processing to boost the economy and support people's livelihood. The
government is clueless about the situation and does not perceive to address the gravity of
the circumstances (Dhakku, 2015). There is a dire need to pay attention to the production,
processing, and marketing of groundnut.
There is a scope to increase the country's groundnut production as this will decrease its import
for edible oils requirement and the increased yield, raises exports of confectionery nuts,
improves diet quality, and also improve cash income of smallholders (Kapopo and Assa, 2012).
In Pakistan, its yield is consistently decreasing during the last decade because of
population growth, decreased annual rainfall, and fluctuations in prices (Abdalla, 2000).
The reduction in precipitation to produce groundnut may be due to below-average rain

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 56
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

and drought. Erratic rains result in late planting, which lowers yield because of ailments
and poor pod filling. Production can be nourished by using better varieties and innovative
practices (Minde et al., 2008).
According to Minde et al. (2008), the most crucial issues in groundnut cultivation are the
high prices of inputs, unappealing pricing, and a lack of water availability. The decrease
in groundnut production may be attributed to several challenges that smallholder farmers
must overcome. These include the less use of high-yielding varieties, decreasing soil
fertility due to poor crop management and insufficient fertilizer application, a lack of
extension services, and a clash between labor supply and demand (Kumwenda and
Madola, 2005; Minde et al., 2008). According to (Kumwenda and Madola, 2005), low
producer prices are amongst the most important marketing challenges faced by farmers.
The prices of seeds tend to rise as the planting season arrives. Some of the other issues
found were a lack of knowledge, difficulties in obtaining capital for exporting, a lack of
support services, and a lack of marketing experience. Another issue that was found was a
lack of access to marketplaces in rural regions as a result of inadequate road infrastructure.
Pakistan has an agriculture-based economy that provides job opportunities at a massive
scale and significantly contributes to the national GDP. It is imperative to divert our
synergies to this sector. Agricultural commodities are produced for multiple reasons, but
we would affectively look into groundnut that has been ignored to work upon. Neglecting
its resourcefulness, which is shown by the fact that it is the world's leading source of edible
oil, nothing has been done to support it as a business.
Groundnut is the primary source of oil, protein, and vitamins. It also generates a cash
income that contributes heavily to food security and alleviates poverty. As a legume,
groundnut improves soil fertility and has a positive impact (Usman, 2016).
Therefore, the objectives of the study were to estimate resource use efficiency and resource
productivity in groundnut production and to identify and analyze the problems faced in the
study area and factors that directly or indirectly affect groundnut production and marketing.

Methodology
A multistage random sampling technique was carried out in selection of district, tehsils,
villages and groundnut growers in order to achieve objectives. The major area under kharif
groundnut production is expanded in Potohar region of Punjab. Attock district was
selected purposively, because the groundnut crop become more popularize in this area
and due to its quality and increasing area of cultivation and then out of six tehsils, three
tehsils namely Pindi-gheb, Jand and Attock tehsils were selected on the basis of maximum
groundnut cultivation area in these tehsils. For the selection of villages, five villages from
each tehsil were selected randomly. Thus, total 15 villages were taken under the study and
for the selection of Groundnut Growers, 10 groundnut farmers were taken from each
designated village. Farmers was divided into three groups based on their land holding
capacity viz, small (0 to 5 ha), medium (5 to 10 ha), and large (10 ha and more) farmers
(Naidu et al., 2019; Qasim et al., 2016; Rawal et al., 2021).
This study was based on primary data. Primary data were collected from the year 2021-22
by using structured questionnaire and personal interviews with the assistance of well-
designed and pre-tested schedules from the groundnut growers to meet the study goals
(Idoko and Sabo, 2014; Rawal et al., 2021; Sapkota et al., 2020).

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 57
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

Tools of Analysis
Various methods for data analysis were employed according to study objectives.

Functional analysis
The Cobb-Douglas production function, which offers particular diminishing, increasing,
or constant returns, is the best appropriate for evaluating resource productivities,
according to empirical data from previous studies. Thus, according to (Choudhary et al.,
2017; Devi et al., 2020; Jelliffe, 2020), the data were functionally analyzed by using the
following approach:
Y = a. X1b1. X2 b2. X3 b3. X4 b4. X5 b5.…. Xn bn. eµ
Where;
The dependent variable is represented by the letter 'Y'.
The independent resource variables are denoted by the letters 'Xi’s'.
A constant or an intercept is represented by 'a'.
The regression coefficients are denoted by the letters 'bi'.
This function generates regression coefficients, which are also known as production
elasticities, remain constant regardless of the input level in each case. The sum of all
coefficients i.e., ‘bi’s’, shows the returns to scale. According to (Kapopo & Assa, 2012),
when expressed in logarithmic terms, this function transforms into the following linear
function:
log Y = log a + b1 log X1 + b2 log X2 +… bn log Xn + µ log e
Where;
Y= Groundnut yield per hac (kg/ha)
a = constant / intercept
X1 = Human labor (man days)
X2 = Machinery cost (Rs/kg)
X3 = Farm size
X4 = Transportation cost
X5 = Manures
X6 = Fertilizer cost (kg/ha)
X7 = Seed cost (Rs/ha)
X8 = Other working capital cost (Rs/ha)
µi = Disturbance Term
bi = Regression coefficient
A production function analysis has been carried out in order to calculate the productivities
of resource variables. The production function has been determined by using an SPSS
software, and the values of R (coefficient of multiple correlation), R2 (coefficient of multiple
determination), coefficients, standard errors of regression, and 'F' statistics have been
calculated in order to evaluate the overall significance level of the production function and
regression coefficients as well.

Estimation of Resource Use Efficiency

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 58
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

Pawar et al. (2016a) reached to conclusion that the resource use efficiency would be
measured by the ratio of marginal value products (MVP) to Marginal factors cost (MFC),
which must be equal to 1. (Devi et al., 2020; Sapkota et al., 2020).
The resource use efficiency (r) was estimated as;
r = MVP / MFC
where,
If r=1, this indicates that resources are being used effectively, i.e., MVP=MFC=1.
If r is positive, it implies that resources are overutilized i.e., MVP > MFC
If r is negative, it shows that resources are underused i.e., MVP < MFC

Estimation of MPP and MVP

• Marginal value of product (MVP) has been calculated by using the following
formula:
MVP = MPP x Py

• Marginal physical productivity (MPP) of inputs has been worked out by following
formula:
𝑌̅
MPP =bi
𝑋̅𝑖
Where;
MPP = Marginal physical product
̅
Y = Arithmetic mean of output Y
̅i =Arithmetic mean of ith input
X
bi = Regression coefficient of ith input

Constraints in production and marketing of groundnut

Analysis of problems in production and marketing of groundnut faced by farmers were
ranked according to frequency and percentage.

Results and Discussion

Demographic Profile of Groundnut Growers of District Attock
This section covers the general features of sample farmers that may have significant impact
on decision-making process. It contains their educational status, age, family size, source of
income, operational land holding, livestock ownership, implements and machinery
ownership and cropping pattern in respected area (Rawal et al., 2021; Rout et al., 2018; I.
Usman et al., 2013). Therefore, it is necessary to obtain an overview of
demographic information of the chosen groundnut growers in district Attock, is provided
as follows:

Age of Farmer
In the overall farm size, the percentages of selected farmers lie within the age group of up-
to 25 years, 26-35 years, 36-45 years, 46-55 years and above 56 years was 3.33%, 44%,
21.33%, 17.33%, and 14% respectively. The largest proportion i.e., 44% of overall farmers
belonged to the age group of 26-35 years followed by 21.33% belonged to the age group of
36-45 years, 17.33% to the age group of 46-55 years, 14% to the age group of above 56 years
and 3.33% belonged to the age group of up-to 25 years. In case of small, medium and large

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 59
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

farmers, majority of small farmers (18.67%) belonged to the age of 26-35 years, and majority
of the medium (16%) and large farmers (9%) belonged to the same age group of 26-35 years.
The average age of groundnut farmer was 41.25 years which means mostly farmers were
adult and belonged to age group of 36-45 years.

Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according to age.
No. of respondents
S.No. Age (years) Overall
Small land Medium land Large land
1 3 1 5
1. Up-to 25
0.67% 2% 1% 3.33%
28 24 14 66
2. 26-35 yrs
18.67% 16% 9% 44.00%
14 13 5 32
3. 36-45 yrs
9.33% 9% 3% 21.33%
20 6 26
4. 46-55 yrs -
13.33% 4% 17.33%
18 3 21
5. 56-above yrs -
12% 2% 14.00%
81 49 20 150
6. Total
54% 32.67% 13.33% 100%

Educational Status of Farmers

Table 2 shows the distribution of respondents based on the educational level of groundnut
growers. Education is the crucial factor that effect the skills and provide ability to analyze
and solve problems. Producer’s awareness and knowledge levels can be measured by their
educational status since higher education helps them to grasp advanced methods,
agricultural technology, and their potential use on farms to increase profitability. It was
observed that the highest proportion of overall farmers that was 28% were education up-
to high school followed by 27% were educated up-to primary level, 20% were educated
up-to college level, 19% were illiterate and only 6% of the farmer were at university level.

Farmer’s Average Family Size and its Composition

The table 3 shows the details about selected family’s average size and composition. The
size and structure of a family provide information about the available labor force and
indirectly suggest the family's consumption demands. The table reveals that at overall
level the average size of the family was 7.3 individuals including 56.16% males and 43.83%
females. In case of small, medium and large size of land holdings the average family size
was 41.09%, 31.50% and 27.39% respectively. In case of large holding family composition
was found to be 0, but in case of small and medium land holding family labor were used
on different farm practices.

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 60
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

Table 2. Educational statis of respondents.

No. of respondents
S.No. Education Overall
Small land Medium land Large land
20 9 29
1. Illiterate -
13.33% 6% 19%
24 16 40
2. Primary -
16% 10.67% 27%
14 20 8 42
3. High School
9.33% 13.33% 5.33% 28%
17 4 9 30
4. College
11.33% 2.67% 6% 20%
6 3 9
5. University -
4% 2% 6%
81 49 20 150
6. Total
100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 3. Distribution of Farmer’s average family size and its composition.

No. of respondents
S.No. Particulars Overall
Small land Medium land Large land
F F F F
Family size
% % % %
1.7 1.3 1.1 4.1
1. Male
23.28% 17.80% 15.06% 56.16%
1.3 1.0 0.9 3.2
2. Female
17.80% 13.70% 12.32% 43.83%
3 2.3 2 7.3
3. Total
41.09% 31.50% 27.39% 100%
Family Composition
1. (Male) Average farm worker 1 1 -
(Female) Average farm
2. 1 - -
worker

Source of Income of Farmers

The table 4 shows that among the selected farmers agriculture was the most common
occupation. Agriculture was identified as the primary source of income for farmers in the
study area. Furthermore, some of the respondents chosen for the research were involved
in other occupations, such as farming, dairy and poultry, government job, private jobs and
other non-agricultural services. In order to get findings, the farmer’s income sources have
been divided into different categories (i.e., farming, farming-cum business and farming-
cum services) as shown in Table 4. The table revealed that highest proportion 46% of
overall farmers adopted farming as well as other non-agricultural services (like
government job or private job) as a source of income, while 33.33% of overall farmers were
linked with farming and business and the 20.67% farmers were adopted farming as a
primary source of income.

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 61
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

Table 4. Income sources of respondents.

No. of respondents
S.No. Occupation Overall
Small land Medium land Large land
Frequency F F F F
Percentage % % % %
1. 22 9 31
Farming -
14.67% 6% 20.67%
2. 18 20 12 50
Farming-cum business
12% 13.33% 8% 33.33%
3. 41 20 8 69
Farming-cum services
27.33% 13.33% 5.33% 46%
81 49 20 150
4. Total
100% 100% 100% 100%

Land Use Pattern of Sampled Farmers

Land is one of the most essential assets for producers. The table 5 displays data on the land
use patterns in the respective study area. At overall level the total average land holding
was 6.0422 hectares, followed by small size group 3.676 hectares, medium size group
10.26641 hectares and large size group 22.8157 hectares respectively. The overall average
area under groundnut cultivation was 4.0403 hectares, where the average area under
groundnut cultivation in small size group was 2.46 hectares followed by medium 6.8442
hectares and then large 15.266 hectares respectively. The total land holdings of sampled
farmers have been cultivated and came under irrigated area. Non-agriculture use of land
of sampled respondents was not seen under study area.

Table 5. Distribution of operational land use pattern.

No. of respondents
S. No. Land use pattern Overall
Small land Medium land Large land
1. Total land holding
3.676401 10.26641 22.815795 6.0422868
(in hectares)
2. Total area under Groundnut
production 2.460568 6.844273 15.26673 4.0403304
(in hectares)
3. Total cultivated area 3.676401 10.26641 22.815795 6.0422868
4. Irrigated area 3.676401 10.26641 22.815795 6.0422868
5. Unirrigated area - - - -
6. Non-agriculture use - - - -

Livestock Ownership of Sampled Farmers

The Table 6 shows the average number and percentages of livestock and other poultry
birds available to sampled farmers in the respective study area. The table revealed that the
highest proportion of cows and buffaloes (i.e., 15%) were seen in medium size group of
land holding, followed by large and then small. Mostly Sheep were seen in large size group
and goats were concentration in medium size group, where the highest proportion of
poultry (i.e., 57%) was seen in small size group followed by large size group (i.e., 44%) and
then medium (i.e., 41%).

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 62
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

Table 6. Distribution of Livestock ownership of farmers.

No. of respondents
S. No. Livestock Overall
Small land Medium land Large land
1.73 2.1 1.91 1.87
1. Cow
11% 15% 14% 12.42%
1.77 2.15 1.83 1.90
2. Buffalo
11% 15% 13% 12.82%
1.83 2.06 2.07 1.94
3. Sheep
11% 14% 14% 13.09%
1.84 2.18 2.08 2.01
4. Goat
11% 15% 15% 13.57%
9.30 5.97 6.23 7.09
5. Poultry
57% 41% 44% 47.87%
16.47 14.46 14.12 14.81
6. Total
100% 100% 100% 100%

Owned Machinery and Implements of Sampled Farmers

The Table 7 shows the average number and percentages of owned machinery and
implements available to sampled farmers in the respective study area. The table reveled
that greatest proportion of land machinery was seen in large size group of land holders,
where 36.67% were farm implements followed by cultivator 31.3% and then tractor and
thresher, 17.33% and 15% respectively. In case of small size group no one have their owned
machinery or any other implement for farm practices. In case of medium size group there
were only few farmers who had their own cultivator and other farm implements but no
tractor and thresher were seen there too.

Cropping Pattern on Sampled Farms in District Attock

The Table 8 shows the cropping pattern of groundnut producers in selected areas of
district Attock. Cropping pattern is the part of area under which different crops grown
annually with respect to area specifications (like space and time). The table reveals that
out of the total area, majority of the area were covered under kharif crops that was
718.51556 hectares followed by Rabi crop area 330.0302 hectares in study area. The
Groundnut and Wheat were the major kharif and rabi crops grown in 606.04 hectares
and 159.12 hectares of area in district Attock. The main reason of the higher concentration
of Groundnut and Wheat was the rain-fed area. Chickpea and maize were the next major
crops grown in 112.22 hectares and 63.24 hectares of area. Therefore, the results of
demographic characteristics supported the outcomes of previous studies by (Akter et al.,
2015b; Devi et al., 2020; Rawal et al., 2021; Rout et al., 2018; Sonvanee, 2015; I. Usman et
al., 2013; Zekeri & Tijjani, 2013).

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 63
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

Table 7. Distribution of Owned machinery and implements of farmers.

Machinery and No. of respondents
S. No. Overall
implements Small land Medium land Large land
0.52 0.52
1. Tractor - -
17.33% 17.33%
0.45 0.45
2. Thresher - -
15% 15%
0.64 0.94 0.94
3. Cultivator -
48.48% 31.33% 31.33%
Other farm 0.68 1.10 1.10
4. -
implements 51.51% 36.67% 36.67%
1.32 3.00 3.00
5. Total -
100% 100% 100%

Table 8. Distribution of cropping pattern in selected area.

S. No. Cropping pattern Overall area in hectares
Kharif
1. Groundnut 606.04956 hectares
2. Maize 63.242 hectares
3. Mash 49.224 hectares
Total area 718.51556 hectares
Rabi
1. Wheat 159.1242 hectares
2. Chickpea 112.226 hectares
3. Lentil 58.3321 hectares
Total area 330.0302 hectare

Results of Cobb-Douglass Production Function

The Cobb-Douglas type production function, which is explained in the methodology, was
used in this study to investigate the resource productivity in groundnut farming.

Table 9. Results of Cobb-Douglas production function in Attock District.

S.No. Variables Regression Coefficients (bi) p-value (significance level)
1 Intercept (a) 3.978* (.881) .000*
2 Human Labor (X1) .029NS (.083) .726NS
3 Machinery Power (X2) .010NS (.069) .890NS
4 Farm size (X3) .061NS (.038) .117NS
5 Transportation (X4) .061NS (.096) .522NS
6 Manures (X5) .060** (.027) .027**
7 Fertilizer (X6) .021NS (.101) .833NS
8 Seed (X7) .378* (.115) .001*
9 Other working capital (X8) .278* (.078) .001*
10 R2 0.646
11 Standard error of estimates .40068
12 F-value 32.145* .000*
13 No. of Observations 150
(* and ** indicates significance level at 1% and 5%, NS indicates variable is not significant), (numbers in parenthesis are
standard error of coefficients)

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 64
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

The Table 9 revealed that the value of R2 pertaining to the groundnut’s production data,
was estimated 0.646 at the overall level which indicates that there are 64.6 per cent
variations in Groundnut yield collectively explained by all eight independent variables
under consideration. In contrast, the observed values of standard error of estimates (S)
deviate from the regression line by an average of 0.40068 units which shows the
observations are very close to regression line. The model obtained an F-value of 32.145 was
highly significant at 1% level (p-value = 0.000) indicating that all predictor variables
significantly explained the variance in the dependent variable at 1% level.
The values of regression coefficient of human labor X1, machinery power X2, farm size X3,
transportation X4 and fertilizer X6 were seen positive and insignificant which shows that
there was over utilization of these resources and there is need to decrease their usage.
Where the values of regression coefficient of seed X7 and other working capital X8 were
seen positive and highly significant which shows that there was efficient utilization of
these resources and the value of regression of coefficient of manure X5 was positive and
significant at 5% level which shows that there was under-utilization of input and there is
need to increase its use to increase yield (Akter et al., 2015b; Devi et al., 2020; Jelliffe, 2020;
Kapopo & Assa, 2012; Pawar et al., 2016b; Zekeri & Tijjani, 2013).

Estimation of resource use efficiency

To determine if the resources utilized in groundnut production were appropriately
allocated, the allocative efficiency with regard to various resources was evaluated using
the MVP to MFC ratio, and the findings are shown in Table 10.
The results of resource use efficiency revealed that the ratio of MVP to MFC was less than
1 for human labor X1, machinery power X2, transportation X4, manures X5 and fertilizer
X6 which shows there were higher utilization of these resources and there is need to
decrease their use in order to achieve maximum profitability. The ratio of MVP to MFC for
farm X3 was greater than 1 which shows the under-utilization of resource, in order to
maximize profit function, there is need to increase its use (Akter et al., 2015a; Devi et al.,
2020; Pawar et al., 2016b; Sonvanee, 2015; Zekeri and Tijjani, 2013).

Table 10. Results of resource use efficiency in Attock District.

MVP MFC
Variables AM bi values r= MVP/MFC Decision rule
(pkr) (pkr)
Output (Y) 1075671
Human Labor (X1) 70910.06 0.029 65.9873 800 0.0824 Over-utilization
Machinery Power (X2) 48245.05 0.01 33.4439 600 0.0557 Over-utilization
Farm size (X3) 68.25333 0.061 14420.3 1000 144.203 Under-utilization
Transportation (X4) 4712.107 0.061 2088.74 3000 0.6962 Over-utilization
Manures (X5) 128115.2 0.06 75.5651 120 0.6297 Over-utilization
Fertilizer (X6) 121852.7 0.021 27.8070 210 0.1324 Over-utilization
Seed (X7) 149863.9 0.378 406.972 400 1.0011 Efficiently utilized
Other working capital (X8) 64195.81 0.278 698.729 690 1.0010 Efficiently utilized

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 65
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

Constraint analysis in production and marketing of groundnut

One of the most crucial aspects of this research is to identify the constraints experienced
by farmers regarding production and marketing of groundnut in respective area. In order
to study the intensity of problem, the data regarding constraints in production marketing
of groundnut in respective area were gathered from 150 sampled farmers (Qasim et al.,
2016; Sapkota et al., 2020).
The constraints regarding groundnut production faced by farmers were ranked according
to frequency and percentage in the Table 11.

Table 11. List of production constraints faced by farmers in district Attock.

Production Constraints
Frequency
S. No. Problems Percentage Rank
n = (150)
1 Non-availability of improved seed quality 129 86% II
2 High seed cost 77 51.33% IV
3 High cost of hired labor 29 19.33% VIII
4 Climate change 131 87.33% I
5 High machinery cost 53 35.33% VI
6 Non-availability of machinery on time 11 7.33% IX
7 Lack of fertilizer availability 48 32% VII
8 Lack of technical knowledge 69 46% V
9 High prices of insecticides and pesticides 89 59.33% III
10 Others 9 6% X

The Table 11 revealed that according to majority of the farmers (87.33%), climate change is the
major problem that is effecting groundnut production, followed by non-availability of improved
seed varieties which is given ranked II by 86% farmers and then high prices of insecticides and
pesticides is highlighted by 59.33% farmer (Qasim et al., 2016; Sapkota et al., 2020).
The constraints regarding groundnut marketing faced by farmers were ranked according
to frequency and percentage in the Table 12.

Table 12. List of marketing constraints faced by farmers in district Attock.

Marketing Constraints
Frequency
S. No. Problems Percentage Rank
n = (150)
1 Lack of transport facility on time 49 32.67% IX
2 High transportation cost 109 72.67% V
3 Poor market management 89 59.33% VI
4 Price variations in market 115 76.67% IV
5 No support price mechanism 121 80.67% III
6 Storage problems 130 86.67% II
7 Delayed payments 51 34% VIII
8 Malpractices adoption by markets 79 52.67% VII
9 Lack of processing of groundnut 131 87.33% I
10 Others 27 18% X

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 66
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

The Table 12 revealed that according to majority of the farmers (87.33%), lack of processing
of groundnut is the major problem that is effecting groundnut marketing, followed by
storage problem which is given ranked II by 86.67% farmers and then no support price
mechanism is highlighted by 80.67% farmer (Akter et al., 2015a; Daudi et al., 2018; Ezihe
et al., 2017; Idoko & Sabo, 2014; Jelliffe, 2020)

Conclusion
The results of Cobb-Douglas production function analysis revealed that the value of R-
squared indicates that there are 64.6 per cent variations in Groundnut yield collectively
explained by all eight independent variables. The model obtained an F-value of 32.145 was
highly significant at 1% level. The values of regression coefficient of human labor X1,
machinery power X2, farm size X3, transportation X4 and fertilizer X6 were seen positive
and insignificant which shows that there was over utilization of these resources and there
is need to decrease their usage. Where the values of regression coefficient of seed X7 and
other working capital X8 were seen positive and highly significant which shows that there
was efficient utilization of these resources and the value of regression of coefficient of
manure X5 was positive and significant at 5% level which shows that there was under-
utilization of input and there is need to increase its use to increase yield. The results of
resource use efficiency revealed that the ratio of MVP to MFC was less than 1 for human
labor X1, machinery power X2, transportation X4, manures X5 and fertilizer X6 which
shows there were higher utilization of these resources and there is need to decrease their
use in order to achieve maximum profitability. The ratio of MVP to MFC for farm X3 was
greater than 1 which shows the under-utilization of resource, in order to maximize profit
function, there is need to increase its use. Major constraints identified by farmers in
production and marketing of groundnut was climate change, non-availability of improved
seed varieties, high seed prices, no support price mechanism, lack of processing units,
limited markets and storage problems.

References
Abdalla, A. A. (2000). Reorganization of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform.
Final Report (GCP/SYR/006/ITA).
Adinya, I. (2009). Analysis of costs-returns profitability in groundnut marketing in
bekwarra local government area cross river state, Nigeria. The Journal of Animal
& Plant Sciences, 19(4), 212-216.
Akter, A., Alam, J., Majumder, M., Hoque, F., & Afrin, S. (2015a). Financial Profitability
and Resource Use Efficiency of Broiler Farming in a Selected Area of Bangladesh.
Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management, 5(1), 492-499.
Akter, A., Alam, J., Majumder, M., Hoque, F., & Afrin, S. (2015b). RESEARCH
ORGANISATION Financial Profitability and Resource Use Efficiency of Broiler
Farming in a Selected Area of Bangladesh. 5.
Aweke, C. S., Lahiff, E., & Hassen, J. Y. (2020). The contribution of agriculture to household
dietary diversity: evidence from smallholders in East Hararghe, Ethiopia. Food
Security, 12(3), 625-636.

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 67
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

Awoke, M. (2003). Production analysis of groundnut,(arachis hypogaea) in Ezeagu local

government area of Enugu state, Nigeria. Global Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
2(2), 138-142.
Baraker, B., Jha, S., Wani, S., & Garg, K. K. (2017). Effect of balanced fertilizer management
practices on factor of productivity on Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)
cultivation. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 5(4 (E)), 1288-1291.
Bruinsma, J. (2017). World agriculture: towards 2015/2030: an FAO study: Routledge.
Choudhary, R., Rathore, D., & Sharma, A. (2017). An economics analysis of production and
marketing of groundnut in porbandar district of Gujarat. Economic Affairs, 62(3),
547-553.
Daudi, H., Shimelis, H., Laing, M., Okori, P., & Mponda, O. (2018). Groundnut production
constraints, farming systems, and farmer-preferred traits in Tanzania. Journal of
Crop Improvement, 32(6), 812-828.
Devi, I. S., Suhasini, K., & Sunandini, G. (2020). Resource Use Efficiency of Groundnut in
Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh. Current Journal of Applied Science and
Technology, 1-7.
Dhakku, N. A. (2015). Groundnut farmers lament low production, lack of govt attention.
DAWN News.
Ezihe, J. A., Agbugba, I. K., & Idang, C. (2017). Effect of climatic change and variability on
groundnut (Arachis hypogea, L.) production in Nigeria. Bulgarian Journal of
Agricultural Science, 23(6), 906-914.
Idoko, M. D., & Sabo, E. (2014). Challenges in groundnut production and adoption of
groundnut production technology information packages among women farmers.
Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 5(6), 252-258.
Jelliffe, J. L. (2020). An Economic Analysis of Smallholder Groundnut Production in
Selected African Countries.
Kapopo, V., & Assa, M. (2012). Economic Analysis of Groundnut Production in Kasungu
District, Malawi: A production Economics Approach.
Kumar, G., & Popat, M. (2010). Farmers’ perceptions, knowledge and management of
aflatoxins in groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) in India. Crop Protection, 29(12),
1534-1541.
Kumwenda, I., & Madola, M. (2005). The status of contract farming in Malawi: Citeseer.
Minde, I., Madzonga, O., Kantithi, G., Phiri, K., & Pedzisa, T. (2008). Constraints,
challenges, and opportunities in groundnut production and marketing in Malawi
Report No. 4.
Naidu, C. B., Kumar, S., & Rai, A. (2019). An economic analysis of production of groundnut
(Arachis hypogea) in Ananthapur district of Andhra Pradesh. International
Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 4(5).
Ncube, J., & Maphosa, M. (2020). Current state of knowledge on groundnut aflatoxins and
their management from a plant breeding perspective: Lessons for Africa. Scientific
African, 7, e00264.
PARC. (2021). Groundnut. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad, Pakistan.

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 68
 Int. J. Social. Stud. 02 (2) 2022. 55-69

Pawar, R., Adhale, P., Phuge, S., & Deorukhakar, A. (2016a). Resource Use Efficiency of
Groundnut (Arachishyogaea L.) Cultivation in Raigad District of Konkan Region
[MS]. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 34(6), 1843-1847.
Pawar, R., Adhale, P., Phuge, S., & Deorukhakar, A. (2016b). Resource Use Efficiency of
Groundnut (Arachishyogaea L.) Cultivation in Raigad District of Konkan Region
[MS]. Int. J. Trop. Agric, 34(6), 1843-1847.
Qasim, M., Bakhsh, K., Tariq, S. A., Nasir, M., Saeed, R., & Mahmood, M. A. (2016). Factors
affecting groundnut yield in Pothwar region of Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal
of Agricultural Research, 29(1).
Rawal, A., Pathak, H., & Choudhary, V. (2021). Estimate the compound growth rate (CGR)
of area, production & productivity of groundnut in Chhattisgarh state.
Rehman, A., Jingdong, L., Shahzad, B., Chandio, A. A., Hussain, I., Nabi, G., & Iqbal, M. S.
(2015). Economic perspectives of major field crops of Pakistan: An empirical study.
Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 145-158.
Rout, R., Behera, S., Jena, M., & Nanda, P. (2018). Economic analysis of groundnut crop in
western district of Odisha. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 7(3),
462-465.
Sapkota, S. C., Rokaya, P. R., Acharya, H., & Uprety, S. (2020). Economic analysis of potato
production in Achham district of Nepal. Nepalese Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 19, 21-30.
Sonvanee, O. (2015). An economic analysis of post harvest losses in major oilseeds in Bastar
plateau of Chhattisgarh. M. Sc.(Ag.) Agricultural Economics Thesis, 73-170.
USDA. (2021). World's Agriculture Production.
Usman, I., Taiwo, A. B., Haratu, D., & Abubakar, M. A. (2013). Socio-economic factors
affecting groundnut production in Sabongari Local Government of Kaduna State,
Nigeria. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC),
1(1128-2016-91995), 41-48.
Usman, M. (2016). Contribution of agriculture sector in the GDP growth rate of Pakistan.
Journal of Global Economics, 4(2), 1-3.
Woodroof, J. (1983). Peanuts, production processing, products 3rd edition AVI publising
company. Inc. Westport Connecticut.
Zekeri, M., & Tijjani, I. (2013). Resource use efficiency of groundnut production in Ringim
local government area of Jigawa state, Nigeria. Agrosearch, 13(2), 42-50.

https://doi.org/10.55627/ijss.02.2.0263 69