The financing operations of conventional microfinance institutions are usually based on interest (Usury/Riba) which is strictly prohibited by the Shariah of Islam, therefore, some Islamic microfinance institutions were set up in Pakistan to provide micro credit and other financial help to the deserving people based on Shariah compliant mechanism. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and compare the social and financial performance of these microfinance institutions in Pakistan. Two separate samples containing two microfinance institutions each, representing conventional and Islamic microfinance institutions has been selected for this study. Four stars, Wasil Foundation and Akhuwat from Islamic microfinance institutions while Asasah and Community Support Concern (CSC) from conventional microfinance institutions, rated by Mix market have been selected for this research paper. The social and financial performance based on outreach, profitability, efficiency/productivity, and portfolio quality of both these microfinance institutions were studied and compared. The study revealed that Islamic MFIs were more cost effective compared to conventional MFIs based on cost per borrower (CPB) and operating expenses to assets (OEA), while on the basis of financial efficiency conventional MFIs performed well. Though the financial and social performance of both Islamic and conventional MFIs have improved over the passage of time, still they have to struggle hard on various fronts especially to improve their profitability based on ROA and ROE measures to make the institutions profitable and sustainable. This study reveals that the successful operation of Akhuwat and Wasil Foundation for the last more than a decade latterly proves that Islamic MFIs are viable and sustainable even in the absence of charging interest from their clients. So, the society and the government should encourage and promote these Shariah compliant organizations in order to help the extremely marginalized people of the society.
The current study, illustrate the toxicity of five pesticides i.e. sulfoxaflor, nitenpyram, spinetoram, azoxystrobin and neem leaf extract against imago (Pheretima posthuma Kinberg) earthworm in respect of its impact on total protein, protein mobility by electrophoresis and activity of cholinesterase. By applying the contact cum feeding method the earthworms were exposed to the test materials. Three major parts of LD50 exposed alive and active earthworms have been subjected to the estimation of total protein amounts, the activity of cholinesterase and for protein mobility through native gel electrophoresis. The average percent mortality was found to be 20%, 40%, 60%, 70% and 90% and 20%, 30%, 40%, 60% and 80% of post treatments in respect of doses i.e. 0.06, 0.12, 0.24, 0.48, 0.96 ppm of soil, under the effect of sulfoxaflor and nitenpyram respectively. The average percent mortality was found to be 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90% and 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 70% and 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% against the treatment doses of 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 and 8.0 ppm in soil by the spinetoram, azoxistrobin and neem leaf extract respectively. The LD50 values of neem leaf extract were foundat 5.47 ppm as compared to the LD50 values of other four compounds under studies sulfoxaflor, nitenpyram, spinetoram, azoxystrobin were observed as 0.1841, 0.2908, 1.4288, 3.2107 ppm of soil respectively. It was observed that in the peristomium region amongst all the treatments the preponderance amount of protein was found as 56.5>38.86>35.23>30.6>28.6 mg/ml at post treatment of neem extract, nitenpyram, sulfoxaflor, spinetoram and azoxystrobin respectively. In the clitellum region amongst all the treatments the preponderance amount of protein was found at 66.8>42.0>48.1>43.2>34.0 mg/ml at post treatment of neem leaf extract, sulfoxaflor, nitenpyram, azoxystrobin and spinetoram respectively, while in the abdomen region the total amount of protein was found as 58.0>44.5>39.0>36.0>35.0 mg/ml at post treatment of neem leaf extract, spinetoram, nitenpyram, azoxystrobin and sulfoxaflor respectively. Comparatively, in the control batch the total amount of protein was found in the peristomium region as 66.1-78.2 mg/ml, clitellum region as 72.0-85.0 mg/ml and abdomen region as 60.0- 78.0 mg/ml. In the peristomium region amongst all the treatments, the cholinesterase inhibition was found at 30sec as 86%>86.00%>85.38%>81.33%>76.68% at post treatments of azoxystrobin, nitenpyram, sulfoxaflor, spinetoram, and neem extract respectively, the cholinesterase inhibition was found at 60 sec as 89.55%>88.10%> 87.22%>86.52%>72.39% at post treatments of nitenpyram, azoxystrobin, spinetoram, sulfoxaflor and neem extract respectively, the cholinesterase inhibition was found at 90sec as 95.11%>87.60%>87.39%>84.42%>79.01% at post treatments of spinetoram, nitenpyram, azoxystrobin, neem extract and sulfoxaflor respectively. In the clitellum region amongst all the treatments, the cholinesterase inhibition was found at 30sec as 57.11%>51.62%>27.09%>25.46% at post treatments of nitenpyram, spinetoram, sulfoxaflor and azoxystrobin respectively, the cholinesterase inhibition was found at 60sec as 52.00%>28.81%>19.42%>09.33% at post treatments of sulfoxaflor, spinetoram, nitenpyram and azoxystrobin respectively, the cholinesterase inhibition was found at 90sec as 68.84%>33.58%>23.44%>22.90% at post treatments of nitenpyram, sulfoxaflor, azoxystrobin and spinetoram respectively. While, in the case of treatment with neem leaf extract, a cholinesterase enhancement case was found in the clittelum region at 15.09%, 09.04% and 30.23% at the intervals of 30sec, 60 Sec and 90 Sec respectively. In the abdomen region amongst all the treatments, the cholinesterase inhibition was found at 30sec as 90.00%>81.58%>64.89%>64.89%>51.50% at post treatments of nitenpyram, sulfoxaflor, spinetoram, azoxystrobin and neem leaf extract respectively, the cholinesterase inhibition was found at 60 sec as 74.29%>73.96%>73.96%>60.59%>52.77% post treatments of spinetoram, nitenpyram, sulfoxaflor, azoxystrobin and neem leaf extract respectively, the cholinesterase inhibition was found at 90sec as 77.76%>68.84%>50.72%>34.61% >33.58% at post treatment of spinetoram, nitenpyram, azoxystrobin, neem leaf extract and sulfoxaflor respectively. In the present work, the impacts of sulfoxaflor, nitenpyram, spinetoram, azoxystrobin and Azadirachta indica (Neem) on exposure to earthworm Pheretima Posthuma Kinbergin peristomium, clitellum and abdomen regions have been determined by employing 6% native gel electrophoresis. The estimated proteins as observed in the region of peristomium of earthworm designated as proteins–Rm–0.987 and Rm–0.025 were found only in neem treated, proteins–Rm–0.900, Rm–0.600 and Rm–0.125 were newly appeared in azoxystrobin treated, proteins–Rm–0.892 and Rm– 0.383 were present in sulfoxaflor treated, newly appeared proteins–Rm–0.851, Rm–0.679 and Rm–0.283 were present in nitenpyram treated, proteins–Rm–0.567, Rm–0.370 and Rm–0.271 were found in spinetoram treated only and proteins–Rm–0.650, Rm–0.450, Rm–0.312 and Rm–0.135 were observed in control samples. Some proteins were found in contrast treatments i.e. proteins–Rm–0.925 and Rm–0.135 were present in control and neem treated, protein- Rm–0.792 has been found in control and azoxystrobin treated and a distinctive protein–Rm–0.723 has been only found in sulfoxaflor and spinetoram treated worms. In the clitellum regions, appeared proteins–Rm–0.938, Rm–0.809, Rm–0.415 and Rm–0.158 were present in sulfoxaflor treated, proteins–Rm–0.937, Rm-0.737and Rm–0.150 have been found in spinetoram treated, proteins–Rm–0.925, Rm–0.792, Rm–0.450 and Rm–0.312 were found in control, proteins–Rm–0.920, Rm–0.400 and Rm–0.162 have been observed in nitenpyram treated, proteins–Rm–0.887, Rm–0.762, Rm–0.375, Rm–0.125 and Rm–0.025 have been observed in neem treated and Protein–Rm–0.250 was present in azoxystrobin treated samples only. While, few same proteins were found in contrast treatments i.e. protein–Rm–0.600 was merely found in sulfoxaflor and nitenpyram treated, protein–Rm–0.525 was observed in azoxystrobin and neem leaf extract treated samples and proteins– Rm–0.650 and Rm– 0.135 were observed in control and azoxystrobin treated. Whereas, in the abdomen regions freshly, emerged proteins–Rm–0.975, Rm– 0.875, Rm–0.737, Rm–0.387, Rm–0.387 and Rm–0.050 were present in neem treated samples, proteins–Rm–0.925, Rm–0.792, Rm–0.650, Rm–0.450, Rm–0.312 and Rm– 0.135 were found in control treated, proteins–Rm–0.827, Rm–0.617, Rm–0.419 and Rm–0.209 were found in nitenpyram treatement, proteins–Rm–0.756, Rm–0.609, Rm–0.390 and Rm–0.219 were merely found in spinetoram treated samples, unique proteins-Rm–0.750, Rm–0.612, Rm–0.412, Rm–0.325 and Rm–0.0625 were only found in azoxystrobin treated and proteins–Rm–0.861, Rm–0.646 and Rm–0.507 have been observed in sulfoxaflor treated samples, while, all above mentioned proteins absent in contrast treatments of sulfoxaflor, nitenpyram, spinetoram, azoxystrobin, neem treated and control samples.