BANGLADESH FISHERIES SOCIETY

STUDIES ON POND FISH FARMING AND LIVELIHOODS OF RURAL FISH FARMERS IN SOME SELECTED

AREAS OF MAULVIBAZAR DISTRICT

A THESIS

SHARIFUL ISLAM
ARI ISLAM

EXAMINATION ROLL NO. 08 FISH M JD-34 M

REGISTRATION NO. 29901

SESSION: 2002-2003

SEMESTER: JANUARY-JUNE 2010

MASTER OF SCIENCE (MS)

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

MYMENSINGH

MAY 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author at first expresses his gratefulness to the Almighty Allah, the creator and sustainer of the universe for giving an opportunity and ability to pursue his higher education in Fisheries Science and to complete the research work and this manuscript for the fulfilment of Master of Science (MS) in Fisheries Management.

The author sincerely expresses his deepest sense of gratitude and indebtedness to his respected research supervisor, Prof. Dr. Saleha Khan, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh for her scholastic supervision, helpful advice, constructive criticism and continuous suggestions during the entire period of the research work and finally to shape up the thesis into this form.

The author also expresses his heartiest gratitude and sincere appreciation and profound indebtedness to his reverend co-supervisor, Prof. Dr. Md. Mahfuzul Haque, Department of Fisheries Management, for his valuable suggestions and kind cooperation in completion of the research work and preparation of the thesis.

The author feels proud to acknowledge all teachers of the Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh for their valuable advice throughout the period of the research work. The author wishes to take this opportunity to record his gratitude to all the teachers of the Faculty of Fisheries for their affection during the entire period of study at this university

The author specially acknowledges the encouragements made by his friend S.M. Zaker Hossain and other well wishers during the research period.

The author acknowledges with great regards and pleasure, his deepest sense of gratitudes and thanks to his beloved parents, brother and relatives, who sacrificed a lot during his studies and were the constant source of inspiration.

The Author

ABSTRACT

The fish farming systems and livelihoods of rural fish farmers in Kamalganj and Sreemangal upazila under Maulvibazar district was studied from July 2009 to December, 2009. A total of 100 fish farmers were interviewed with a well-structured questionnaire. The survey reveals that average pond size was 0.11 ha with 87% of the farmers having ponds of single ownership and 13% having ponds of multiple-ownership. Polyculture of Indian major carps and exotic carps has been practiced by most of the farmers. In the study areas, 40% of the ponds were seasonal and 60% perennial. Fish fingerlings were stocked from April to June and average stocking density was 14,202 fingerlings/ha. The average use of organic fertilizer (mainly cowdung), urea and TSP were 2593 kg/ha, 295 kg/ha and 152 kg/ha, respectively. The average annual yield of fish was found to be 2593.5 kg/ha. The average fish production cost was Tk. 72,200/ha/yr. The gross income and net profit were Tk. 124908.9 and Tk. 54708.9/ha/yr respectively. It was found that the average cost benefit-ratio was 1.77. Although the living condition of the rural fish farmers were poor, livelihood outcomes were found positive and 90% of the farmers have improved their socio-economic conditions through fish farming. 10% of the fish farmers could not improve their socioeconomic condition significantly from their involvement in fish farming. The constraints for sustainable pond fish farming in the areas were lack of technical knowledge of the farmers, disease of fishes, insufficient water in dry season, higher production cost (mainly seeds and feed), in-sufficient supply of fry and fingerlings, lack of money and credit facilities and inadequate extension services. The households have broadly improved their food consumption, family education, standards of living, purchasing power, choice and economic ability through fish farming. It is therefore essential to provide the necessary training facilities with institutional and organizational supports, credit facilities and extension services for sustainable fish production and livelihoods of rural fish farmers.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER		TITLE	PAGE
		ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	i
		ABSTRACT	ii
		LIST OF CONTENTS	iii
		LIST OF TABLES	iv
		LIST OF FIGURES	v
I		INTRODUCTION	1
II		REVIEW OF LITERATURE	5
III		MATERIALS AND METHODS	17
IV	RESULTS		24
V	DISCUSSION		43
VI	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION		50
	REFERENCES		54
	APPENDIX		62

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE	TITLE	PAGE
4.1	Problems faced by the fish farmers in the study areas	28
4.2	Production cost of fish/ha in the study areas	29
4.3	Average distribution of land of the fish farmers	31
4.4	Income level of the fish farmers	32
4.5	Source of income per year (Tk)	32
4.6	Primary and subsidiary occupation of the fish farmers	33
4.7	Status of credit in fish farming	35
4.8	Age distribution of fish farmers in the study areas	36
4.9	Family type of fish farmers in the study areas	37
4.10	Education level of pond fish farmers and their family members	38
4.11	Housing status of pond fish farmers in the study areas	39
4.12	Health services used by the pond fish farmers	40
4.13	Types of toilets used by the pond fish farmers in the study areas	40
4.14	Source of fish farming experience in the study areas	41
4.15	Percentage of farmers who improved socio-economic condition through fish farming	42

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE	TITLE	PAGE
3.1	Flow chart of the research design	17
3.2	Kamalganj and Sreemangal Upazilas of Maulvibazar district. Red circles indicate study areas	19
3.3	Focus group discussion (FGD) with fish farmers	21
3.4	Collection of data from a fish farmer	21
4.1	Time schedule of fish farming in pond system	25
4.2	Fish marketing channel in the study area	27
4.3	Cost items of fish production in the study area	29
4.4	Average distribution of land of the fish farmers	31
4.5	Income level of the fish farmers	34
4.6	Source of income per year of the fish farmers	34
4.7	Age distribution of the fish farmers	37
4.8	Education level of pond fish farmers and their family members	38

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Bangladesh is an agro-based developing country and is striving hard for rapid development of its economy. It is often argued that the future development of the country depends particularly on the agricultural sector. Fisheries is one of the major sub-sector in the agricultural sectors and plays a vital role in the socio-economic development of rural area, fulfilling the animal protein demand, creating employment opportunity, alleviating poverty and earning foreign exchange for the country. About 1.2 million people are directly employed in this sector and another 12 million people indirectly earn their livelihood out of activity related to fisheries.

The fisheries sector contributes 3.74% of the gross domestic product (GDP), 20.87% of agricultural resources and 4.04% of foreign exchange earning of Bangladesh (DoF, 2009). Total fish production in our country during the 2007-2008 was about 2.57 million metric tons of which 2.065 million metric tons were produced from freshwater including culture fisheries and 0.04 million metric tons from marine water including shrimp (DoF, 2009). Bangladesh situated in the north eastern part of the South Asian subcontinent has an area of 147570 sq km. The country is blessed with about 40.47 lakh ha open inland waterbody, 5.28 lakh ha closed inland waterbody and marine water covers an area of 1.66 lakh ha. These waterbodies are very rich in fisheries resources. Bangladesh has at least 260 freshwater fish species and over 475 marine species (DoF, 2009).

Fish and fisheries have been linked to the development of the human’s earliest civilization. There is a popular saying that “Fish and Rice makes a Bengali.” There was a time when fish was a regular food item in the daily menu of Bengali household and the harvest of natural waterbodies was sufficient to meet the requirement of fish. That is why, the people did not seriously think of culturing fish. Most of the farmers are poor. They are not able to buy artificial feed. But they are becoming interested in fish culture as fish is gradually losing its share in the daily menu. Fisherfolk are considered as one of the most backward sections in our society. Information on socio-economic framework of the fish farmers forms a good base for planning and development of the economically backward sector. Lack of adequate and authentic information on socio-economic condition of the target population is one of the serious impediments in the successful implementation of developmental programme (Ellis, 2000). Aquaculture practice has become a promising and gainful methodology to attain self-sufficiency in food sector and also to alleviate poverty in developing country like Bangladesh (Ahmed et al. 2003). Scientific management techniques are rarely followed by the rural people in this country. It is generally agreed that capture fisheries, both marine and freshwater are declining day by day. To prevent the declining fish catches and malnutrition, excellent opportunities exist for small scale aquaculture development in rural areas, where majority of households have pond and ditches. These water resources are presented unutilized or underutilized. Most farmers in rural areas have access to water bodies such as ponds, ditches, canals etc.

Freshwater fish farming plays an important role in rural livelihoods in Bangladesh. Apart from direct self-employment opportunities from fish farming, pond fish farming offers diverse livelihood opportunities for operators farming employees of hatcheries and seed nurseries, and for seed traders and other intermediaries. Labourer is needed for pond construction, repairs, and fish harvesting. The total number of people benefiting from direct employment in aquaculture is difficult to estimate because households are rarely engaged full time in fish farming. Most of the work is part time, however, and the number of people directly involved is probably much more than 2 million. When related, services are included, freshwater fish farming may benefit 3 million or more people and much more again if their dependents are included as indirect household beneficiaries. Much of the employment benefits accrue in rural areas and include the poor. Thus the contribution of freshwater fish farming to rural livelihoods is far reaching in Bangladesh.

Pond fish farming has been proved to be a profitable business than rice cultivation, so many farmers in rural areas are converting their rice field into aquaculture pond. Many pond fish farmers in rural areas have taken fish farming activities as their secondary occupation and most of the people involved in fish farming improved their socio-economic condition through pond fish farming activities.

Most of the freshwater pond fish farming systems in Bangladesh are either extensive or semi-intensive and in very few cases intensive. In semi intensive culture system ponds are stocked mainly with Indian major carps and exotic carps; fertilizer (mainly cowdung, Urea and TSP) is used irregularly and supplemental feed consisting of rice-bran and oilcakes are given. In extensive method fishes are grown on natural feeds and fertilizer. Feeds and fertilizer are rarely used in small quantity and or irregular basis. The stocked fish are not specifically selected, predator are not eliminated and are not fertilized or managed throughout the production cycle. In general fish culture in Bangladesh is characterized by the use of both extensive and semi-intensive systems and semi-intensive farming which began from 1993 onwards has produced on increase in production (Mazid, 2002).

Pond fish farming in Bangladesh is mainly major carps and exotic carps oriented farming. At present major carps such as ruhu (Labeo rohita), catla (Catla catla) and mrigal (Chirrhinus cirrhosus) along with exotic carps such as silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) are cultured in polyculture system in ponds and gained much popularity because of its easy culture system, rapid growth, disease resistance and high market price.

Maulvibazar district is situated in the eastern part of the country. It is bounded on north by Sylhet, on the south by Tripura state (India), on the east by Asam state (India) and west by Habiganj district. It occupies an area of 2799 sq. kms. The total population in Maulvibazar district is 1644000. The population density is 507/sq. km. (BBS, 2008).

A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in future, while not undermining the natural resource base (Chambers and Conway, 1992).

In recent years farmers are getting some support from the government and non-government organizations. The present study was planned with the following objectives:

i. To understand the existing pond fish farming systems in some selected areas of Maulvibazar district.

ii. To identify the constraints of pond fish production in the areas.

iii. To know the socio-economic conditions and livelihood status of pond fish farmers in the areas.

iv. To make some suggestions for development and management of pond fish production.

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was based on field survey where primary data were collected from farmers who are involved in pond fish farming. The design of the survey for the present study involved some necessary steps, which are outlined below‑

Fig. 3.1 Flow chart of the research design

3.1 Selection of the study area

Two Upazila namely Kamalganj and Sreemangal of Maulvibazar district were selected for the present study. Data were collected from 100 pond owners randomly covering the selected study areas. The areas were selected considering the following

i) intensity of fish farming areas,

ii) dependency of farmers on fish farming for their livelihoods,

iii) communication facilities in the area, and

iv) activities of GOs and NOGs on fish farming

3.2 Target farmers

In the study areas most of the farmer’s livelihoods depend on fish farming and its associated activities. For the study target farmers were marginal and rich. Only some farmers are from solvent families and the majorities are small and marginal farmers, who are generally poor. Most of the poor farmers live in the rural areas in Maulvibazar district and culture fish in order to supplement their family income.

3.3 Methodology

For collecting data on various aspects of livelihood and technological issues, only questionnaire interview method were used. For collecting data both individual and group interviews were also applied with different degree of effectiveness of the farmers’ information. The data were collected from July 2009 to December 2009.

Fig. 3.2 Kamalganj and Sreemangal Upazilas of Maulvibazar district. Red circles indicate (●) the study areas

3.4 Sample number and sampling procedure

Among the 100 sample farmers 50 samples were selected from Kamalganj Upazila and the other 50 from Sreemangal Upazila of Maulvibazar district. For questionnaire interview, simple random sampling method was followed for fish farmers. Data were collected through questionnaire interview.

3.5 Design and test of questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed with both closed and open form of questions. The draft questionnaire was tested with 10 fish farmers in the study area. In the pilot survey, much attention was given to any new information which was not designed to be asked, but was important and informative towards the objectives. The questionnaire was changed, modified and rearranged according to the experience. Thus final survey questionnaire was developed in logical sequence so that farmers could answer systematically and confidently without hesitation. The farmers who have pond were mainly considered to collect personal information and fish farming information. Though the questionnaires were prepared in English but the farmers were asked the questions through face to face interview in Bengali during the interview.

3.6 Method of data collection

The data were collected using questionnaire interview and crosscheck interview. It was difficult to collect data since farmers did not keep written records on pond fish culture activities and data which they provided were mostly from their memory.

3.7 Questionnaire interview

The questionnaire interviews were conducted at the pond sites or in the house of the farmers. At the beginning of the interview a brief introduction about the objectives of the study was given to each of the farmers and assured them that all information would be kept confidential. Each question was explained clearly and asked systematically for their sound understanding. At the time of interview the physical conditions of the ponds and steps of the fish cultivation methods, like pond construction, renovation, application of feed and fertilizers, liming and harvesting were asked and responses were recorded. Time required for each interview was about 30 minutes to an hour.

3.8 Focus group discussion (FGD)

For this research one of the PRA tool, such as Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted with fish farmers. In this research, FGD was used to get an overview of particular issues such as existing fish production system, constraints of fish farming and farmers’ socio-economic condition. A total of 20 FGD sessions was conducted where each group size of FGD was 5 to 7 farmers. FGD session was held in front of village shops, under the big trees, farmer's houses and school premises.

Fig. 3.3 Focus group discussion (FGD) with fish farmers

Fig. 3.4 Collection of data a from fish farmer

3.9 Crosscheck interviews

After collecting the data through questionnaire interviews and FGD, crosscheck interviews were conducted with Upazila Fisheries Officer, Assistant Fisheries Officer, Field Assistant and relevant NGO workers, School teacher, Chairman and Members of the Union councils and fry traders at their offices or home.

3.10 Problems encountered during data collection

During the period of data collection, the following methodological problems were encountered:

1. Most of the farmers do not say the accurate income.

2. Most of the farmers in the study area had no idea about a research work and it was therefore, difficult to explain the purpose of this research to convince them.

3. Most of the farmers initially hesitated to give answer to questions.

4. On some occasions farmers were not available at home and in such cases the investigator had to give extra effort and time to collect information from them.

5. The respondents did not maintain any written records of their farming business. Therefore, had to depend on data supplied by respondents from their memory.

3.11 Socio-economic characteristics of the fish farmers

Attempt was made to identify the main socio-economic characteristics viz. age distribution, family size, literacy status, occupation, source of earning, income level, land ownership pattern, size of land holding, fish culture period and training received.

3.12 Data processing and analysis

The collected data were scrutinized and summarized carefully before the actual tabulation. Some of the data were collected into local units and those data were converted into international units. The processed data were transferred to a master sheet from which classified tables were prepared revealing the findings of the study. Then the data were tabulated into a preliminary data sheet of a computer and compared with computer spread sheets to ensure the accuracy of the data entered. After data entry, the data were analyzed with computer programs, Microsoft Excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science).

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

5.1 Pond feature

5.1.1 Pond size

Pond size is an important factor for fish culture because all management measures are planned considering the size of ponds. The management of small size pond is easier than large size pond. In my study area most of the ponds were medium size (0.11 ha). That’s why the farmers can easily manage their pond during culture as well as harvesting. In the present study, it was found that the average pond size was 0.11 ha with a range from 0.04 ha to 0.81 ha (200 decimals). Saha (2004) found that the average pond size in Tangail sadar upazila was 0.19 ha, this result was more or less similar to the present study. Rahman (2003) found that the average pond size in Gazipur was 0.12 ha. Saha (2003) found that the average pond size was 0.21 ha in Dinajpur sadar upazila. Saha et al. (1995) observed that the range of pond size were within 0.05 to 0.15 ha. Khan (1994) stated that fish culture efficiency varied with the size of ponds.

5.1.2 Pond ownership

In the present study 87% ponds were under single ownership and 13% ponds were under multiple ownership. These results were matched with the findings of Saha (2004), who found that 52% ponds under single ownership, 21% ponds were under multiple ownership and 27% ponds as leased ponds. Quddus et al. (2000) observed that about 34% of the total ponds were under joint ownership and 54% were under single ownership and the rest 12% ponds were under public or organization property in Demra, Dhaka. It is evident from many studies that multiple ownership is one of the main problems to improve the pond condition as well as efficient use of resource for fish cultivation (Ali and Rahman, 1986 and Mollah et al., 1990).

5.1.3 Type of pond

From the survey, it was found that 40% ponds were seasonal and the remaining 60% ponds were perennial. Saha (2004) found that 37% ponds were seasonal and 63% ponds were perennial in Tangail sadar upazila. Saha (2003) observed that 17% ponds were seasonal and 83% ponds were perennial in Dinajpur sadar upazila. The sandy soil properties are the cause of drying during dry season.

5.2 Fish production technology

5.2.1 Culture season and method

From the survey it was found that almost all farmers (100%) carried out polyculture system. In the study area the culture season was from April-December. Farmers in this area stocked carp (Indian major carp and exotic carp), pangas and tilapia. Ahmed (2003) observed that peak period of carp polyculture was from April to December. Rahman (2003) reported that the season of carp farming was from March to December. Saha (2003) stated that there were two culture seasons in Dinajpur sadar Upazila (Fazilpur and Sunderban union). One was from June to December and the another was from February to June.

5.2.2 Pre-stocking management

As pre-stocking management most of the farmers (96%) controlled their pond weed manually. For removing unwanted species 92% farmers used netting method and 10-15% farmers did not use any chemicals or other methods. Only a few farmers (2-5%) used rotenone and phostoxin. The chemicals and other toxic substances used in pond farms for controlling aquatic weeds, pests, predators and undesirable species were rotenone, phostoxin, dipterex, bleaching powder, diseal, sumithion, endrin, copper sulphate, aldrin and DDT in 75.0, 65.0, 22.5, 10.0, 7.5 5.0, 2.5 and 2.5% farms respectively (Biswas, 2003).

5.2.3 Stocking density

Stocking density is important for fish culture in terms of culture technique, food habit. According to DoF the stocking density of carp; 30-40 per decimal. The standard stocking density for carp culture is 35 to 40 per decimal. The average stocking density in the study area was found 14,202/ha. Rahman (2003) found that the average stocking density was 25,250/ha in Gazipur. Hassanuzzaman (1997) stated that the average stocking density was 16,196 fry/ha in the district of Rajshahi. NFEP-II (1998) suggested that the stocking density was about 14,820 fry/ha. Hossain et al. (1992) observed that the range of stocking density was from 10,000-31,000/ha in a village of Mymensingh district.

5.2.4 Fertilization

The average dose of organic fertilizer was 2,593 kg/ha/yr and inorganic fertilizer such as Urea and TSP was 295 kg/ha/yr and 152 kg/ha/yr respectively. Saha (2004) observed that the average dose of organic fertilizer was 8330 kg/ha/yr and inorganic fertilizer was urea 387 kg/ha/yr and TSP 176 kg/ha/yr. Rahman et al. (1998) found in his study that doses of organic and inorganic fertilizer were 11,075 kg/ha and 739 kg/ha respectively. Hassanuzzaman (1997) observed in his study in Rajshahi district that the average dose of organic fertilizer was 2,801 and inorganic 97 kg/ha/yr. Rana (1996) found in his study in Sirajgonj district that the organic fertilizer was 8,122 kg/ha/yr and inorganic fertilizer was urea 315 and TSP 111 kg/ha/yr.

5.2.5 Feed and feeding practices

Supply of feeds, is important to increase fish production. In the study area, the average dose of rice-bran and mustard-oil cake was 2,150 kg/ha/yr and 450 kg/ha/yr, respectively. Farmers normally do not use pellet feed because it is costly and not available. Rahman (2003) found that the dose of rice-bran and oil-cake was 2,730 and 580 kg/ha, respectively. The result of the present study is different from the report of Rahman (2003). Saha et al. (1995) found the average dose of rice-bran and oil-cake was 5,192 and 734 kg/ha, respectively. Hassanuzzaman (1997) found in the Rajshahi district the dose of rice-bran and oil-cake was 1,250 and 1,212 kg/ha, respectively. Mia (1996) observed that the average amount of applying rice-bran was 3,000 kg/acre. But the farmers in the study area, did not follow any scientific methods, their feeding practice was more irregular.

5.2.6 Harvesting and marketing of fish

In the study area, the peak-harvesting season was from December to January because during this period fish became marketable size and market price was high. Saha (2004) reported that, the peak-harvesting season was from November to January. However, Rahman (2003) observed that the peak period of harvesting was from October to January. Ahmed (2003) stated that the peak-harvesting season was from December to March. Farmers harvested their fish by using cast net and seine net in the study area. Similar result showed by Rahman (2003) and Saha (2004). Ahmed (2003) observed that farmers harvested their fish usually by using cast net.

5.3 Cost-return analysis

The average total cost of fish production/ha/year in the study area was observed Tk. 70,200. Ahmed (2003) found that the average fish production cost was Tk. 23,210 -Tk. 24,790/ha. Biswas et al. (2000) revealed that the average total cost of pond fish production was Tk. 59,813. It was found that the average BCR was 1.77. Sohel (1999) revealed in his study that the BCR was 2.02.

5.4 Constraints of fish production

From the survey, it was found that, multiple ownership, lack of scientific knowledge, lack of carp seed, lack of equipment for harvesting, lack of feed and lack of marketing facilities were most constraints for fish production. Khan et al. (1998) found that lack of extension work for fisheries improvements caused the highest difficulty in pond fish culture.

5.5 Socio-economic conditions of fish farmers

5.5.1 Age distribution

In the study area it was found that most of the farmers (34%) belong to the age group of 31-40 years. Kaiya et al. (1987) also stated that fish culture efficiency varied with the age and number of owners of pond. Rana (1996) found in Sirajgonj district that 70% of the pond farmers were in 18-45 years.

5.5.2 Literacy level

Literacy rate of pond fish farmers can play a vital role in efficient management and operation as well as in successful production of fish. Education and farming efficiency are closely related and education generally has a positive effect on farm productivity. A high rate of illiteracy was resulting in low farming efficiency. From the survey, the reported literacy rate was found to be 92% which was higher than the national adult literacy level of 65% (BBS, 2002).

5.5.4 Family size

In the study area it was found that the average family size was 5.00 (members). Masud (2000) observed in his study that average family size of farmers related to fish culture in inundated waterbodies was 6.36 (members). Saha (2004) found in his study in Tangail sadar upazila that the average family size was 5.65 (members).

5.5.5 Occupation of the pond owners

In the study area 59%, 17%, 11%, and 13% of the fish farmers were related to agriculture, fish culture, service and business respectively as their primary occupation. Saha (2004) reported in his study that 41% pond owners were related to agriculture and 40% to business and 9% to fish culture as their main occupation. Rana (1996) observed in his study in Sirajgonj district that 28% farmers were related to agriculture, 35% to business and 17% to fish culture as their main occupation.

5.5.6 Income level of fish pond owners

The socio-economic status of a household is measured by income level. In the study, it was found that 47% of the farmers were included in annual income level of Tk. above 30,000-45,000. Saha (2004) reported in his study that 38.5% were included in annual income level of Tk. 76,000-1,00000. Khan et al. (1998) stated that levels of family income are important economic factor affecting utilization of pond fish farming.

5.5.7 Housing status

The study reveals that 80% of housing structures were tin shed, while 15% were katcha, 5% were half-building. Rahman (2003) reported that 70% of were katcha, while 21% were semi-pucca and only 9% were pucca. Ahmed (2001) also found that 62% of katcha housing structure of prawn farmers in Mymensingh area.

5.6 Socio-economic improvement

In the study area, most of the farmers (90%) have improved their socio-economic conditions through fish farming. Saha (2004) found that 67% farmers improved their socio-economic conditions through aquaculture. Rahman (2003) reported that 82% farmers improved their socio-economic conditions through carp farming in Gazipur district. Such improved conditions may be described as increased food consumption, increased social status, broadly improved their standards of living, purchasing power, choice and ability as an economic sector. Ahmed (2001) also found that 71% prawn farmers improved their socio-economic condition through prawn production.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

4.1 Background of fish farming

Among the 100 respondents 13% fish farmers started fish farming in 1989 or before, 35% farmers started between 1990 and 1994, 41% between 1995 and 1999 and 11% after 1999. Most of the interviewed farmers reported that the primary reason of fish farming was for household consumption and to get some extra income from the sale of excess production. The farmers pointed that fish farming is more profitable than agricultural crop farming.

4.2 General features of fish ponds

4.2.1 Pond ownership and size

In the study area 87% of the farmers have ponds of single ownership and 13% have ponds of multiple ownership. The average pond size in the study area was found to be 0.11 ha. The average pond size in Kamalganj (0.13 ha) was larger than that of Sreemangal (0.09 ha).

4.2.2 Pond type and depth

In the study area, ponds were of two categories: homestead and commercial. The homestead and commercial ponds were 85% and 15%, respectively. 40% of the ponds were seasonal and 60% were perennial. The water level of perennial ponds declined during dry season and become unsuitable for fish culture. Some farmers pump water to their ponds during dry season. Seasonal ponds become unsuitable for fish culture during dry season. The average depth of the ponds was 2.8 m.

4.3 Fish production technology

4.3.1 Culture season and method

In the study area, the season of fish farming is from April to December. Fish fries are stocked when they become available in April to June and the cultured fishes are harvested primarily during December to January. Most of the farmers (99%) carried out polyculture of fishes. Among the surveyed ponds 1% were under integrated culture system. In polyculture system farmer cultured mainly Indian major carps such as rohu, (Labeo rohita), catla (Catla catla), mrigal (Cirrhinus cirrhosus) and Chinese carps such as silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), grass carps (Ctenopharyngodon idella), common carp (Cyprinus carpio var communis). Farmers did not follow any scientific combination of the species.

Farming activities

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Pond preparation

Stocking

Rearing

Harvesting

Fig. 4.1 Time schedule of fish farming in pond system

4.3.2 Pre-stocking management

Pre-stocking management of ponds in the study area comprises dike repairing, aquatic weed control and undesirable species (predator and trash fish) control. About 96% of the farmers control aquatic weeds manually. For controlling undesirable species most of them (92%) used netting method. Some farmers used rotenone and phostoxin (2-6%) but did not follow any recommended dose. 15-20% farmers did not use any chemicals or other methods. Then farmers used lime at the rate of 150-250 kg/ha and organic fertilizer mainly cowdung at the rate of 700-900 kg/ha.

4.3.3 Stocking density

From the survey, it was found that majority farmers stocked hatchery produced fry and some farmers stocked wild fry. The average stocking density was found to be 14202 fry/ha. The stocking density was higher in Kamalganj (14820/ha) than in Sreemangal (13585/ha).

4.3.4 Fertilization

It was observed that majority of the farmers used cowdung and only a few farmers used poultry droppings as organic fertilizer. Farmers used both urea and TSP as inorganic fertilizers. In the study area pond fish farmers generally used cowdung in their ponds at the rate of 2593 kg/ha/yr on a regular basis or four to five times in a month. The average dose of inorganic fertilizer such as urea and TSP was 295 kg/ha/yr and 152 kg/ha/yr, respectively. Most of the farmers used fertilizers irregularly.

4.3.5 Use of lime and its application rate

All the farmers used lime irregularly in variable doses. The average rate of liming was found to be 480 kg/ha/yr in the study areas.

4.3.6 Feed and feeding practices

It was found that 70% of the farmers applied supplementary feed such as both rice-bran and mustard oil-cake. The average doses of rice-bran and mustard oil-cake were 2150 kg/ha/yr, and 450 kg/ha/yr, respectively. The average dose of green grass used for mixed culture was 72 kg/ha/yr.

4.3.7 Harvesting and marketing

Although fish are harvested throughout the year, the peak harvesting period was found from December to January. In this season, around 70% of the stocked fishes were reported to be harvested and rest of the fish (30%) was harvested during other season. Farmers harvested their fish using cast net and seine net locally known as berjal. Harvested fish were kept in aluminum containers or bamboo baskets. From the survey it was found that around 75% of the fishes are sold by the farmers to local paikers and the rest 25% consumed by the households and given to the relatives. It was found that 58% of the farmers hired labourer for harvesting their fish.

In marketing systems, there found to be a number of middlemen such as local agents, whole sellers, local fish traders and retailers. Market communication is normally being made through middlemen. It was observed that a few pond fish farmer directly sold their fish to local paikers or local agents at the bank of the ponds and majority of the farmers brought their fish in local markets and sold them directly to local paikers or consumers.

Fig. 4.2 Fish marketing channel in the study area

4.3.8 Fish production

It was found that the average annual yield of fish was 2593.5 kg/ha. The average fish production per hectare pond was higher in Kamalganj (2717 kg/ha) than in Sreemangal (2470 kg/ha).

4.3.9 Problems faced by the fish farmers

A number of problems were reported by farmers those are: poor technical knowledge, fish disease, non availability of fish seed during stocking period, insufficient water during dry season, lack of money, lack of credit and natural disaster (flood, drought). According to the survey, 27% of the farmers reported non-availability of fish fry during stocking period as the single most important problem for fish farming. While 24%, 15%, 9%, 15%, 5%, 5% respondents identified fish disease, poor technical knowledge, lack of money, insufficient water in dry season, low price of the product and lack of credit source to be the most important problems respectively (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Problems faced by the fish farmers in the study areas

Problem	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal =50	Total n=100
Poor technical knowledge	7 (14%)	8 (16%)	15 (15%)
Non availability of fish fry	12 (24%)	15 (30%)	27 (28%)
Fish disease	13 (26%)	11 (22%)	24 (25%)
Insufficient water during dry season	7 (14%)	8 (16%)	15 (15%)
Lack of money	5 (10%)	4 (8%)	9 (9%)
Lack of credit source	3 (6%)	2 (4%)	5 (5%)
Low price of the product	3 (6%)	2 (4%)	5 (5%)

Source: present study

4.3.10 Production cost

In the study area, it was found that the average total annual cost of fish production was Tk. 70,200/ha (Table 4.2). The average total cost of fish production was higher in Kamalganj (Tk. 74,252/ha) than in Sreemangal (Tk. 66,148/ha).

Table 4.2 Production cost of fish/ha in the study areas

Cost items	Kamalganj (Tk.)	Sreemangal (Tk.)	Mean
Fingerlings	21227	19745	20486
Feed	14160	13210	13685
Fertilizers	4820	4630	4725
Lime	5243	4963	5103
Cowdung	1795	1420	16075
Salts	580	490	535
Drugs and chemicals	1120	870	995
Water pumping and electricity	6725	5630	6177
Human labourer	5720	3035	5377
Harvesting	1990	1875	19325
Marketing	5672	5480	5576
Miscellaneous	5200	2800	4000
Total	74252	66148	70200

Source: present study

Fig. 4.3 Cost item of fish production in the study area

4.3.10.1 Return from fish harvest

It was found that the average return of fish production was Tk. 124908.9/ha/yr. The average return of fish production was higher in Kamalganj (Tk. 137366.2/ha/yr) than in Sreemangal (Tk. 112451.6/ha/ yr).

4.3.10.2 Net profit and cost benefit ratio (CBR)

From the survey, it was found that per hectare average profit from fish culture was 54708.9/ha/yr. Per hectare average profit from fish culture was higher in Kamalganj (Tk. 63114.2/ha/yr) than in Sreemangal (Tk. 46303.6/ha/yr). The average cost-benefit ratio (CBR) was 1.77. The CBR was higher in Kamalganj (1.85) than in Sreemangal (1.70).

4.4 Livelihood analysis

4.4.1 Natural capital

Natural capital of people involved in fish farming represent the natural resources such as land, pond area, open water, fish seed, soil type, snail and wider environmental goods that are critical for farmers and associated groups to support production. Large areas of land, water and natural resources have been used for fish production.

4.4.1.1 Distribution of land of the fish farmers

Table 4.3 represents that average land area of fish farmers had 1.01 hectare in Kamalganj upazila and 1.07 hectare in Sreemangal upazila.

Table 4.3 Average distribution of land (in ha.) of the fish farmers

Land status	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Mean n=100
Homestead area	0.11	0.13	0.12
Pond	0.14	0.12	0.13
Cultivated land	0.76	0.82	0.79
Total	1.01	1.07	1.04

Source: present study

Fig. 4.4 Average distribution of land of the fish farmers

4.4.2 Financial capital

4.4.2.1 Income level of pond fish farmers

Selected pond fish farmers were grouped into four categories according to the level of their income for all locations. The categories are up to Tk. 15,000, 15,000 to 30,000, 30,000 to 45,000 and above Tk. 45,000 (Table 4.4). It reveals that the Tk. 30,000 to 45,000 categories had the highest number (48%) of farmers while the above Tk. 45,000 categories had the lowest number (4%). Source of income per year is shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.4 Income level of the fish farmers

Income level (Tk.)	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n=100
up to 15,000	06 (12%)	05 (10%)	11 (11%)
15,000 to 30,000	8 (36%)	19 (38%)	37 (37%)
30,000 to 45,000	23 (43%)	24 (48%)	47 (47%)
Above 45,000	03 (6%)	02 (4%)	05 (5%)

Source: present study

Table 4.5 Source of income per year (Tk)

Source	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Mean n=100
Agriculture	18574	20570	19572
Business	5436	5090	8263
Service	3430	2400	2915
Fish culture	12650	11900	12275
Others	4500	3195	3847.5
Total	44590	43195	43872.5

Source: present study

4.4.2.2 Occupational status

In the study areas, farmers typically pursue more than one occupation for their livelihoods. These can be classified into following two groups on the basis of their relative importance.

I) Primary occupation

Almost all respondents reported agriculture to be their occupation and 59% of their total income comes from agriculture. 17% of the respondents stated that their primary occupation was fish farming, while 13% and 11% reported business and service (GO and NGO workers, school teachers etc.) respectively as their main occupation (Table 4.6).

II) Subsidiary occupation

In the study area 24% respondents stated that their secondary occupation was fish farming while, 33% and 43% were business and agriculture respectively
(Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Primary and subsidiary occupation by fish farmers

Occupation	Kamalganj n=50		Sreemangal n=50		Total n=100
Occupation	Primary	Subsidiary	Primary	Subsidiary	Primary	Subsidiary
Agriculture	30 (60%)	22 (44%)	29 (58%)	21 (42%)	59 (59%)	43 (43%)
Fish farming	09 (18%)	13 (26%)	08 (16%)	11 (22%)	17 (17%)	24 (24%)
Business	07 (14%)	15 (30%)	07 (14%)	18 (36%)	13 (13%)	33 (33%)
Service	05 (10%)	-	06 (12%)	-	11 (11%)	-

Source: present study

Fig. 4.5 Income level of the fish farmers

Fig. 4.6 Source of income per year of the fish farmers

4.4.2.3 Rice production

In the study area it was found that 83% of the households cultivated rice. Mean paddy productivity was 2366 kg/ha/crop. The average paddy production was higher in Kamalganj (2422 kg/ha/crop) than in Sreemangal (2310 kg/ha/crop).

4.4.2.4 Savings of the farmers

It was found that 29% of the respondents had savings from agriculture, fish farming, business, service and other activities. Savings were used for many purposes such as children's education, healthcare, loan payment, agriculture inputs, housing, clothes, livestock and poultry rearing, lease out of lands, food purchase for own consumption etc. The rest of the respondents could not save money due to poor resources and household expenses.

4.4.2.5 Source of credit

In the present study, it was found that 88% of the farmers used their own money for fish farming and 6% of the farmers received loan from bank for farming activities. 4% of the fish farmers received loan from NGOs. The rest of the respondents received loan from money lenders (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7 Status of credit in fish farming

Source of fund	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n=100
Self	45 (90%)	43 (86%)	88 (88%)
Self + Bank	02 (4%)	04 (8%)	06 (6%)
Self + NGOs	02 (4%)	02 (4%)	04 (4%)
Self + Money lenders	01 (2%)	01 (2%)	02 (2%)

Source: present study

4.4.3 Human capital

4.4.3.1 Age distribution

In the present study, the pond fish farmers were classified into four age groups viz, 20 to 30 years, 31 to 40 years, 41 to 50 years and above 50 years. Out of the total fish farmers 17% belonged to the age group of 20 to 30 years, 34% in 31 to 40 years, 41% in 41 to 50 years and 8% above 50 years age (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8 Age distribution of fish farmers in the study areas

Age group (years)	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n=100
20 to 30	08 (16%)	09 (18%)	17 (17%)
31 to 40	16 (32%)	18 (36%)	34 (34%)
42 to 50	22 (44%)	19 (38%)	41 (41%)
Above 50	04 (6%)	04 (8%)	08 (7%)

Source: present study

4.4.3.2 Family type and family members

In the study area 29% farmers lived with joint families and 71% lived with nuclear families (Table 4.9). The highest number of fish farmers with nuclear family structures was found in Sreemangal (68%). The average family size was estimated at 5.00 members in a family. The average family size was higher in Kamalganj (5.00 members) than in Sreemangal (5.00 members).

Fig. 4.7 Age distribution of the fish farmers

Table 4.9 Family type of fish farmers in the study areas

Age group (years)	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n=100
Joint	13 (26%)	16 (32%)	29 (29%)
Nuclear	37 (74%)	34 (68%)	71 (71%)

Source: present study

4.4.3.3 Education level of fish farmers and their family members

In the present study seven categories were used to determine the level of education. These categories are illiterate, capable to sign only, primary (up to 5 class), secondary (6 to 10 class), SSC, HSC and bachelor levels. The education levels of fish farmers recorded in two upazilas under the present study are shown in Table 4.10. Out of 100 fish farmers, 5% had no education, 14% were capable to sign only, 21% has primary level (up to 5 class), 30% has secondary level (6 to 10 class), 18% has SSC level (10 class pass), 9% has HSC level and 3% has bachelor level of education.

Table 4.10 Education level of pond fish farmers and their family members

Education level	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n=100
No education (illiterate)	02 (4%)	03 (6%)	05 (5%)
Capability to sign only	07 (14%)	07 (14%)	14 (14%)
Primary (up to 5 class)	10 (20%)	11 (22%)	21 (21%)
Secondary (6 to 10 class)	14 (28%)	16 (32%)	30 (30%)
SSC (10 class pass)	10 (20%)	08 (16%)	18 (18%)
HSC	05 (10%)	04 (8%)	09 (9%)
Bachelor	02 (4%)	01 (2%)	03 (3%)

Source: present study

Fig. 4.8 Education level of pond fish farmers and their family members

4.4.3.4 Religious status

In the study area, 81% of the interviewed fish farmers were Muslim, 17% were Hindus and 2% others.

4.4.4 House ownership and type of house

It was found that the fish farmers live in rural areas and they had own house of dwelling units. Majority (80%) of the respondents had tin shed house, 15% had katcha house, 5% had half-building Table 4.11. It was also observed that tin shed housing status was similar in Kamalganj (80%) and Sreemangal (80%).

Table 4.11 Housing status of pond fish farmers in the study areas

Housing status	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n=100
Kathcha	07 (14%)	08 (16%)	15 (15%)
Tin shed	40 (80%)	40 (80%)	80 (80%)
Half building	03 (6%)	02 (4%)	05 (5%)
Building	-	-	-

Source: present study

4.4.4.2 Health facilities

The study showed that 41% of the pond fish farmers households were dependent on village doctors (unqualified practitioners), while 33% and 26% got health services from the upazila health complex, MBBS doctors, and others respectively (Table 4.12).

Table 4.12 Health services used by the pond fish farmers

Health facilities	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n=100
Village doctor	20 (40%)	21 (42%)	41 (41%)
Upazila health complex	16 (32%)	17 (34%)	33 (33%)
MBBS doctor	14 (28%)	12 (24%)	26 (26%)

Source: present study

4.4.4.3 Drinking water facilities

During the survey it was found that 100% of the households have access to tube-wells for drinking water.

4.4.4.4 Sanitary facilities

It was observed that farmers sanitary conditions were very poor. Three types of toilets are used: 1) katcha toilet made of bamboo with leaf shelter and inadequate drainage disposal, 2) semi-pucca toilet made of tin or wood with inadequate drainage disposal, 3) pucca toilet made of brick with good drainage disposal. Pucca toilets are considered good sanitation, but only 18% had these facilities (Table 4.13). Good sanitation facilities were found in Kamalganj (28%) than in Sreemangal (26%). A few farmers reported that the households of fish farmers often suffered from diarrhoea due to lack of good sanitary facilities.

Table 4.13 Types of toilets used by the pond fish farmers in the study areas

Sanitary facilities	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n=100
Katcha	14 (28%)	13 (26%)	27 (27%)
Semi pucca	27 (54%)	28 (56%)	55 (55%)
Pucca	09 (18%)	09 (18%)	18 (18%)

Source: present study

4.4.4.5 Electricity facilities

In the study areas out of 100 interviewed farmers, 79% had electricity. The higher percentage of households using electricity were in Kamalganj (40%) than in Sreemangal (78%).

4.4.4.6 Cooking fuel

In the study areas, three main types of cooking fuel were used by the respondents: 1) cowdung, 2) wood including tree branches and dry leaves, and 3) cowdung mixed with straw and dried to become hard and odour less to be used as cooking fuel. In the study areas, most of the respondents used wood as cooking fuel.

4.4.5 Training of fish farmers

Of the total interviewed farmers only 72% received formal training; 70% in Kamalganj and 74% in Sreemangal upazila. Farmers obtained training from Upazila Fishery Office with the help of Department of Fisheries (DoF).

4.4.5.1 Experience of fish farmers

According to the survey, 11% of the farmers gained experience by self study, 71% obtained experience from Department of Fisheries (DoF), 6% from friends and neighbours, 3% from relatives and 9% from NGOs (Table 4.14).

Table 4.14 Source of fish farming experience in the study areas

Experience	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n=100
Self	05 (10%)	06 (12%)	11 (11%)
DoF	35 (70%)	36 (72%)	71 (71%)
Neighbours/friend	03 (6%)	03 (6%)	06 (6%)
Relatives	02 (4%)	01 (2%)	03 (3%)
NGOs	05 (10%)	04 (8%)	9 (9%)

Source: present study

4.4.5.2 Social status of fish farmers

In the study areas, most the fish farmers (69%) have ordinary social status, 13% were local leaders and 19% were respectable persons in the society.

4.4.6 Livelihood outcomes

The survey suggests that farmers have improved their socio-economic conditions through fish farming, as confirmed by 90% fish-farmers. Table 4.15 shows that the percentage of positive response was higher in Kamalganj (92%) than in Sreemangal (88%). Only 10% of the farmers have not improved their socio-economic conditions due to poor knowledge on fish farming, high price of fish feed, poor marketing facilities and lack of money for fish farming.

Table 4.15 Percentage of farmers who improved socio-economic condition through fish farming

Improved socio-economic condition	Kamalganj n=50	Sreemangal n=50	Total n = 100
Yes	46 (92%)	44 (88%)	90 (90%)
No	04 (8%)	06 (12%)	10 (10%)

Source: present study

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This study was conducted to know the pond fish farming systems, livelihoods and socio-economic condition of rural fish farmers. The research work was carried out in two upazilas, namely Kamalganj and Sreemangal under Maulvibazar district. The study was conducted from July 2009 to December 2009 through questionnaire interview with 100 farmers (50 in each upazila).

In the study, it was found that the average size and depth of pond was 0.11 ha and 2.80 m. 40% ponds were seasonal and 60% ponds were perennial. 85% ponds were homestead and 15% were commercial. From the survey, it was found that 87% of the farmers having single ownership and 13% having multiple ownership on ponds. It was found that almost all of the farmers carried out different polyculture system and they culture mostly carps (Indian major carps and exotic carps). Cowdung was used at the rate of 2593 kg/ha in their ponds, and 95% of the farmers controlled aquatic weeds manually. The period of fry stocking was from April to June and average stocking density was found to be 14,202 fry/ha/yr.

The average dose of organic fertilizer was 2593 kg/ha/yr and inorganic fertilizer such as Urea and TSP was 295 kg/ha/yr and 152 kg/ha/yr, respectively. The average dose of rice-bran and mustard oil-cake were 2150 kg/ha/yr and 450 kg/ha/yr, respectively. In the study area 14% farmers did not use any feed for their farmed fish. According to the fish farmers the average production of fish was 2593.5 kg/ha in the study area. Twenty eight percent (28%) of the farmers identified non-availability of fish-fry during stocking period as the single most important constraint. 25%, 14% and 9% farmers noted that disease of fish, poor technical knowledge and lack of money respectively was the most important constraint.

In the study, it was found that the average total cost of fish production/ha/yr was Tk. 70,200 and net profit Tk. 5408.9, respectively. It was found that the cost benefit-ratio (CBR) was 1.77.

The average land area of the fish farmers in the present study was found to be 1.04 ha. 41% of the pond fish farmers were in the age group of 42 to 50 years. 5% had no education, 14% capable to sign only, 21% in primary level, 30% in secondary level ( 6 to 10 class), 18% in SSC ( 10 class pass) level, 9% in HSC level and 3% in Bachelor level education. About 29% of the fish farmers have joint family in the study areas. Agriculture and business were found as the main and fish-farming was the secondary occupation of the farmers in the area. 47% farmers have annual income of Tk. 30,000 to 45,000.

In the study area, 88% of the fish farmers used their self-money for farming. On the other hand, 6% of the farmers used self + bank money for fish farming, 4% of the farmers used self + NGOs loan money for fish farming activities. Rest of the farmers used self money and that credited from money lender for fish farming.

In the present study areas 11% of the farmers gained fish farming experience by self-study, 71% through training by Upazila Fishery Office under (DoF), 6% from friends and neighbours and 3% from relatives.

In the study areas, 41% of the fish farmers got health service from village doctors and 33% and 26% of the farmers got health service from upazila health complex and MBBS doctors respectively. 87% of the fish farmers used tube-well water for drinking. It was observed that 27% of the fish farmers household sanitary facilities were katcha toilet, 49% semi-pucca toilet and only 18% were pucca toilet.

Livelihood outcomes were found positive and 90% of the farmers have improved their socio-economic conditions through fish farming.

The fish farming sector plays important economic role in Maulvibazar district through production of valuable cash crop, increasing food production, and increasing employment opportunities. However, concerns have arisen about the long-term sustainability of fish farming due to lack of technical knowledge, poor supply of fish seed and marketing problems. The lack of technical knowledge in fish farm management may have an effect on productivity.

Recommendations

On the basis of the findings of the present study the following recommendations were made for sustainable pond fish farming and to maintain sustainable livelihoods of fish farmers in Maulvibazar district.

i) People should be educated to develop social consciousness and bring majority people under group activity. Local security system should also be developed.

ii) The problem of multiple ownership can be solved by leasing the pond to a person interested in fish culture or through cage or pen culture by different owners.

iii) To get proper price of fish in the market the number of middle man should be reduced.

iv) Supply of net and other harvesting and marketing equipments to the farmers with less fare may reduce harvesting and marketing cost. For this purpose, co-operative society among fish farmers should be established to make harvesting and marketing equipments and their maintenance.

v) Government and other organizations should play their assigned role by disseminating information to the farmers and arranging necessary training for scientific methods of fish production in pond. Such training will assist farmers to identify and solve the problems related to the fish farming.

vi) To supply quality fish seed to the farmers more hatcheries should be established by the help of Government and NGO. In that case existing problems in the hatcheries should be overcome.

vii) Money lending from bank is lengthy and bureaucratic process and also a question of bribe. The availability of credit at a low interest rate from bank should be eased and existing problems should be removed.

viii) Government should take necessary measures for proper extension work, which will improve the social, moral and scientific education among the farmers and neighbours; therefore the fish production will be ultimately improved.

ix) CHAPTER II

xi) REVIEW OF LITERATURE

xii)

xiii) The available literatures related to the present work have been reviewed and are presented below:

xiv)

xv) 2.1 Production technology of fish farming

xvi) Ali et al. (2008) conducted a study to assess the livelihood status of the fish farmers in Hamirkutsha and Kamarbari Unions of Bagmara upazilla under Rajshahi district. Average pond size was 0.13 ha with single (64%) and multiple ownerships (36%). Average annual incomes of majority of fish farmers were above Tk. 75,000 per annum and 62% of the farmers used semi-pucca sanitary, 28% used pucca sanitary while only 10% used katcha sanitary. About 62% of the farmers had electricity facilities while 38% did not have and 88% of the farmers used own tube-well, while 12% of the farmers used neighbor’s tube-well. Lack of scientific knowledge, multiple ownerships and lack of capital for fish culture were the major constraints.

xvii) Tanjeena et al. (2007) conducted a study in Mohanpur Upazila, Rajshahi to determine the pond fishery resources and the livelihood status of fish farmers. Pond sizes of the area varied from 15 to above 180 decimal of which maximum ponds (57.8%) were operated by single owner. Field observation revealed that 65.5% ponds were used for fish culture, whereas 28.5% and 6% ponds were culturable and derelict, respectively. Among the fish farmers 23.3% was illiterate whereas 14.4, 8.9 and 6.7% were educated up to primary, secondary and higher secondary or above level, respectively. Agriculture (51.1%) was the principal occupation of the pond owners followed by aquaculture (18.9%). Thirty three percent of the fish farmers earned Tk. 25,000-50,000 per year, 32% earned Tk. 50,000-1,00,000 an the rest 25% earned above Tk. 1,25,000 annually.

xviii) Alam (2006) conducted an study on the socio-economic conditions of fish farmers in some selected areas of Mithapuqur Upazila in Rangpur district. The average pond size was 0.15 ha; about 32% were found seasonal and 68% were perennial. The survey revealed that 80% farmers having single ownership and 20% having multiple ownership of their ponds. The stocking density was found 17,262 fry/ha/year and annual yield was 2,609 kg/ha/year. The average production cost was Tk 65,236/ha/year. The net profit was Tk 52,596/ha/year and cost benefit ratio was 1.81.

xix) Islam (2005) conducted a survey on socio-economic status of fish farming in some selected areas of Dinajpur district and found that the average pond size was 0.16 ha (40 decimals) with range from 0.40 ha (11 decimals) to 0.81 ha (200 decimals). In the study 60% of the ponds were found seasonal and 64% were perennial and 76% of the farmers having single ownership and 24% having multiple ownership. He found that the period of fry stocking was from March to May and average stocking density was found to be 17, 370 fry/ha/year. Rice-bran and mustard oil-cake were commonly used as feed for fish culture at the rate of 1,976 kg/ha/year and 371 kg/ha/year, respectively. The average use of organic fertilizer (mainly cowdung), urea and TSP was 3,242 kg/ha/year, 294 kg/ha/year and 243 kg/ha/year, respectively. The average annual yield of fish was found to be 2,609 kg/ha/year in the study area.

xx) Sarker (2004) studied socio-economic aspects of pond fish cultured by women in some selected areas of Habiganj district and found that fish culture are practiced in traditional way in the study area. Most of them used high stocking density on an average of 19,189 fry/ha before training and 14,511 fry/ha after training. Before training the average fish production was 1,673 kg/ha/yr but after training the average fish production was 2,902 kg/ha/yr.

xxi) Saha (2004) conducted a survey on socio-economic aspects of aquaculture in Tangail sadar upazila and observed that the average pond size was 0.19 ha, 37% ponds were seasonal, 74.5% ponds were homestead and 21% ponds were under multiple ownership. The average stocking density was found to be 17,419 fry/ha. The average annual fish production was found to be 2,890 kg/ha/yr.

xxii) Saha (2003) conducted a survey on fish production technology in Dinajpur sadar upazila and found that the average pond size was 0.21 ha, 17% ponds were seasonal, and 83% ponds were perennial; and 14.5% were under multiple ownership. The average stocking density was found to be 16,561 fry/ha. Rice-bran, mustard oil-cake and poultry manure in the rate of 1,407, 793 and 1,936 kg/ha/yr, respectively were commonly used.

xxiii) Rahman (2003) conducted a survey on socio-economic aspects of carp culture development in Gazipur district and observed that 90% farmers cultured both Indian major carps and exotic carps. The average pond size was 0.12 ha and the stocking density of carp fry was found to be 25,250/ha. The average annual yield of carp was estimated about 2,925 kg/ha/yr.

xxiv)Robbani (2002) conducted a survey of fisheries resources in Mymensingh, Jessore and Laxmipur region. Production of carps was found 1-2 tons/acre/year. Inbreeding problems, lack of quality seed, inadequate technical knowledge on scientific fish culture, incidence of fish disease, marketing, multiple ownership and feed were identified as the constraints to fish culture.

xxv) Quddus et al. (2000) observed that about 34% of the total ponds were under joint ownership, 54% were under single ownership and the rest 1-2% ponds were public or organizational property in Demra, Dhaka. About 95% of the pond owners showed their interest in fish culture. Only 28% were found to become flooded every year and 21% were found rarely flooded, whereas 51% of the ponds found to be never flooded. Per hectare yields of extensive, improved extensive and semi-intensive categories of culture were 1300, 2120 and 4000 kg respectively and their net return were Tk. 46,000, Tk. 63,000 and Tk. 9,2000 respectively.

xxvi)Biswas et al. (2000) indicated that pond fish culture of BRAC was highly profitable. The average total cost of pond fish production/ha/year was Tk. 59,813.57 while gross income and net return were Tk. 14,532.67 and 85,511.10 respectively for all locations. Cobb-Douglas production function analysis revealed that material inputs such as fingerlings, feed, fertilizer and manure had positive impact on pond fish production.

xxvii) Hossain (1999) conducted a study to determine the costs, returns and profitability of pond fish culture under Mymensingh Aquaculture Extension Project. He used a linear production function model to see the relationships of major factors in pond fish production. The study showed that gross return from pond fish production was Tk. 1,67,631/ha/yr. In the case of small, medium and large farms net returns was Tk. 25,224, 26,060 and 32,973/ha, respectively.

xxviii) Islam (1998) found that the average annual per hectare fish production of credit and contact farmers were 4,258 and 3,019 kg, respectively. Per hectare yearly gross return of the credit and contact farmers were Tk. 1,47,965 and Tk. 1,05,514, respectively. Net return on the basis of full cost and cash cost, were Tk. 61,777 and Tk. 104,585 for credit farmers and Tk. 35,493 and Tk. 74,411 for contact farmers, respectively. The findings of the study clearly indicate that credit farmers obtained higher profit than the contact farmers. This study identified that scientific use of inputs, normal depth of water, easy flow of capital, efficient extension services increased the production of fishes.

xxix)Hossain et al. (1997) obtained the average production of carp 2,133 kg/ha in 105 days in a mixed culture system using supplementary feed (rice-bran and mustard oil-cake 1:1) at the rate of 5% of total body weight, daily in two installments.

xxx) Shohag (1996) studied fish production under supervised credit in Nandail thana of Mymensingh district. The study conducted in 50 ponds and attempted to determine the ownership pattern of the fishponds, production practices, costs and return of pond fish culture, and different factors affecting the yield. It was observed that pond fish production under supervised credit system was mainly dependent on stocking of fingerlings, use of fertilizer and artificial feed and human labourer for different operations. The average annual fish production was 5,229 kg/ha.

xxxi)Saha et al. (1995) found that average per hectare return over operation expenses of pond fish production per year were 2,892, 3,035, 2,803 and 1,847 kg in Netrokona, Ghatail, Bhaluka and Pakundia with net return of Tk. 15,611, 75,028, 51,489, 23.560/ha, respectively. The average dose of organic matter and inorganic fertilizers used were 15,280 kg/ha and 432 kg/ha respectively for all ponds and locations. Farmers did not apply any feed of animal origin. The average dose of rice-bran and oil-cake were used 5,192 and 734 kg/ha with the range of 1,025-11,780 kg/ha and 110-1,367 kg/ha, respectively for all farms and locations. He concluded that 1% increase in stocking of fish seed might result in 0.5% increase in outputs and net return.

xxxii) Rahman (1995b) conducted a study in four unions of Gouripur thana in Mymensingh district covering 60 ponds and observed that the higher level of inputs used resulted in higher output. Consequently, a higher investment produced higher gross return as well as net return on per unit water body of pond. He found that the average annual fish yield was 4,923 kg/ha and it ranges from 4,505 to 5,413 kg/ha. The average gross returns and net returns were Tk. 72,910 and 15,833/ha, respectively.

xxxiii) 2.2 Problems of fish farming

xxxiv) Ali et al. (2008) studied on assessment of the livelihood status of the fish farmers in some selected areas of Bagmara upazilla under Rajshahi district. A number of constraints and risks were reported by the farmers which were inadequate technical knowledge, multiple ownership, theft, poisoning, lack of money, poor quality of fish seed etc. The single largest problem reported by 48% of the respondents was lack of technical knowledge. Multiple ownership of pond was also a big problem (20%).

xxxv) Islam (2005) identified that, the lack of scientific knowledge, poor supply of fry, high production cost, diseases, lack of money, poor credit facilities, poor institutional support and inadequate extension services were the main problems for pond fish farming.

xxxvi) Sarker (2004) studied on socioeconomic aspects of pond fish cultured by women in some selected areas of Habiganj district. He found that lack of sufficient fund, poor marketing facilities, unavailability of fingerlings and lack of awareness of fish production technology, multiple ownership problems, fish disease were the important constraints for fish farming in the study area.

xxxvii) Roy (2004) conducted a study on socioeconomic aspects of carp culture farming in Kurigarm district. The identified major constraints of carp fish farming were dike overflow, natural disasters (flood, drought), water pollution, excessive rainfall, theft, multiple ownership problems, harvesting and marketing problems, lack of money, higher production costs, lower market price, poor quality of fish seed and lack of technical knowledge etc.

xxxviii) Rahman (2003) identified that multiple ownership, lack of technical knowledge, lack of quality seed, high price of feed, lack of money etc. were the main constraints of fish production in the surveyed area. He stated that the major constraints of carp farming were lack of money and higher production cost.

xxxix) Quddus et al. (2000) observed that the multiple ownership was a problem for fish culture in Demra, Dhaka because the shareholders were usually unable to arrive at a unified decision in respect of fish farming. They suggested that utilization of joint ownership ponds could be done by (a) co-operatives, (b) leasing to interested person/s, and (c) village organization under which all ponds might be put into productive use. They also suggested that the necessary steps to be taken by the government to provide a minimum level of education and training facilities to the fishermen on the scientific methods of pond fish cultivation.

xl) Khan et al. (1998) found that the lack of extension work for fisheries improvements caused the highest difficulty in pond fish culture.

xli) Rana (1996) studied three upazilas in Sirajgonj district covering 60 ponds and observed that pond fish culture was a highly profitable activity. He found that pond size and stocking of fingerlings had negative effect and pond ownership, feed, fertilizer and human labor had positive effect on pond fish culture. Major problems associated with fish production were non-availability of feed, inadequate marketing facilities, lack of equipment and scientific knowledge, flood, disease, multiple ownership, high price of inputs and theft of fish.

xlii) Haider (1995) found that low product price, lack of water during dry season and lack of marketing facilities were dominant problems for fish farmers. Khan (1994) found that lack of extension work of fisheries improvement caused the highest difficulty in pond fish culture and followed by lack of knowledge about improved practices of fish culture, lack of fund, theft fish from pond, dereliction of pond, multi-ownership of ponds inconvenience of procuring fish fry, lack of clear understanding regarding the profitability of fish culture, inconvenience of fish marketing caused the lowest difficulties. In Rangpur district, about 89 percent farmers mentioned non-availability to fish fries (both indigenous and exotic species) as the major problem for fish pond culture. In Mymensingh, 37 percent of fish pond owners complained about these problems. Lack of sufficient fund for fish culture was the major problem to 53 and 32 percent of the fish pond owners in Rangpur and Mymensingh, respectively. About 45 percent of the selected fish pond owners in Rangpur felt that women involvement could increase fish production while in Mymensingh it was suggested by 60%.

xliii) Gill and Motahar (1982) investigated possible social and economic constraints on realizing the enormous potential for intensified fish farming in Bangladesh. Multiple ownership was found to be a major constraint to fish farming and other problems identified were non-availability of fish fry, lack of technical training for the farmers, shortage of investment capital and theft of fish or deliberate poisoning of pond due to rivalry, enmity and jealousy.

xliv) 2.3 Livelihoods approach and socio-economic aspects of fish farming

xlv) Hossain (2007) studied on socio-economic conditions of haor fishermen in terms of age structure, family size, educational status, religious status and income. It was found that age group of 25-50 years was the highest (55.00%) and less than 25 years was the lowest (20.00%). The largest family size (7.26) was found in the seine net fishermen group and lowest family size (5.00) was found in the push net fishermen group. Regarding the educational level, 66.67% of the haor fishermen were illiterate, 30% of them had primary and 3.33% of them had secondary level of education. The highest monthly average income was found in the seine net fishermen group and the lowest monthly average income was found in the seine net fishermen group and the lowest monthly average income was found in the push net fishermen group.

xlvi) Faroque (2006) conducted the socio-economic status of fishers in Borobela beel. Among the fishers the percentage of Muslims, Hindus and others were 80, 12.5 and 7.5, respectively. The average number of family members of the fishermen was 6.3. Among the fishermen 17.5% were illiterate, 72.5% were semiliterate (primary level) and only 10% were literate. The fishermen’s housing condition, health and sanitary condition were very poor. Most of the fishermen’s (82.5%) housing condition was katcha and they were found to use katcha toilets (67.5%). The average highest and lowest monthly incomes of the fishermen were Tk. 3250 and Tk. 2350 respectively.

xlvii) Hoq and Kohinoor (2005) demonstrated the livelihood and consumption of small indigenous species (SIS) in fishing community of two upazila viz., Trisal and Ishwarganj under Mymensingh district. Forty-eight of the surveyed fishers were between 41-45 age groups. Family size of 76% was larger (6-8 persons) than the national average. No woman was found to be participating in fishing operations. The fishers were permanent settler, every one has at least own house. Among respondents, 46% had no cultivable land. More than 50% had 0.08-0.16 has homestead and 26% had less than 0.20 ha agricultural land. Only 28% had pond in their homestead. Most of the fisher folk of the study areas belong to resource poor section of the society living below the poverty level. Majority of the fisher households consumed SIS three to four days a week. The fisher households of Trisal upazila consumed more small fish than those of Ishwargonj upazila.

xlviii) UNDP was the first international organization (apart from NGOs) to adopt the human development approach which sees poverty not as a condition but as a process in which poor people are leading actors struggling against a process of impoverishment. The sustainable livelihoods approach helps to reduce poverty as well as find out the way to increase income (Goldman, 2000).

xlix) The sustainable livelihoods approach varies with different agencies through the approaches have many in commons but there are also some variation and difference in emphasis. DFID sustainable livelihoods approach includes five assets: i) natural, ii) financial, iii) human, iv) social and v) physical asset (Carrey, 1998). Whereas the sustainable livelihood approach of United Nations Development Program (UNDP) based on six assets including i) natural, ii) financial, iii) human, iv) social, v) physical and vi) political assets and strongly emphasized the importance of technology and increased productivity (Goldman, 2000; Shing et al, 2000).

l) Quddus et al. (2000) found that educational levels of pond farmers in Demra, Dhaka was below SSC 43%, below Bachelor 38% and Bachelor and above were 19% respectively, but there was no illiterate fish farmer.

li) Islam (2000) identified socio-economic profile of freshwater and brackish water fish farmers and riverine and marine fishermen. He showed that farm income contributed about 60 to 97% of total income for sample households. In the case of freshwater fish farmers, farm income contributed about 57 to 72% of total income where crop income alone contributed 23 to 50%.

lii) According to Shing et al. (2000) household livelihood security is defined as adequate and sustainable access to income and resources to meet basic needs, which include adequate access to food, potable water, health facilities, educational opportunities, housing, time for community participation and social integration. The concept of household security allows for a more comprehensive understanding of poverty, malnutrition and the dynamic and complex strategies that the poor use for survival. The risk of livelihood failure determines the level of vulnerability of a household are secure when households have secure ownership of, or access to resources including reserves and assets, and income earning activities to offset risks, shocks and meet contingencies.

liii) Hossain (1998) found that the Muslims were featuring as the absolute majority (77.78%) fishermen whereas Hindus were very much negligible (22.22%) in the old Brahmaputra River. The largest family size (7.67 persons) belonged to the ber Jal fishermen with the highest income and the lowest family size (5.50% persons) was found among the push netters. Regarding education level, 71.12% had only secondary level and the majority fishermen were illiterate. However, average monthly income of borshi fishermen was the lowest in his work.

liv) Siddique (1996) examined various aspects like major castes among fishermen community, their language, age distribution of workers engaged in various fishery related activities, marital status, household size, literacy rate, livelihood, insurance, source of funding, marketing facilities, expenditure and indebtedness. Finally, the author made few suggestions to improve the socio economic status to the traditional fishermen in the study area.

lv) Hossain et al. (1992) observed that the largest problems faced by fish farmers is multiple ownership followed by lack of fund, lack of scientific knowledge, unavailability of desired fingerlings, theft, incidence of flooding, insufficient water in the pond during dry season, attack of birds, less profitable and poor fish growth.

lvi) Mollah et al. (1990) conducted a study on fish production of ponds in Luxmipur of Bangladesh. They found that the average size of fish farmer family was 7.61 persons, among them 3.95 and 3.61 were male and female, respectively. They revealed that 8.8% pond owners were illiterate and had no formal education. Again, 35% and 16.3% of pond fish farmers had primary and secondary level of education, respectively. About 24% of pond fish producers had higher secondary level of education. Rice cultivation was the main occupation and main source of income other than fish production.

lvii) Kaiya et al. (1987) concluded that the number of ponds under fish culture decreased with the increase of pond owners. There was a significant interaction between fish culture status and pond ownership. Regarding the problems of fish culture multiple ownership was found to be the most important problem. The acute problem of multiple ownership could be solved by leasing out the pond to a person/group interested in fish culture.

lviii) REFERENCES

lix) Ahmed, F. 2003. Comparative study on carp polyculture practices of three different NGOs in Mymensingh district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Aquaculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 65 pp.

lx) Ahmed, N. 2001. Socio-economic aspects of freshwater prawn culture development in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. A report prepared for ICLARM.

lxi) Alam, G. 2006. Status of fish farming and livelihoods of fish farmers in some selected areas of Mithapuqur Upazila in Rangpur district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 59 pp.

lxii) Ali, M.H. and Rahman, M.I. 1986. An investigation on some socio-economic and technical problems in pond fish culture in two districts of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Aquaculture, 8 (1): 47-51.

lxiii) Ali, M.H., Hossain, M.D., Hasan, A.N.G.M. and Bashar, M.A. 2008. Assessment of the livelihood status of the fish farmers in some selected areas of Bagmara upazilla under Rajshahi district. J. Bangladesh Agril. Univ. 6(2): 367–374.

lxiv) BBS, 2002. Statistical year book of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Division, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 660 pp.

lxv) BBS, 2008. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Statistics Division. Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 673 pp.

lxvi) Biswas, D. 2003. Study of the impact of aquaculture in and around fish farms in Mymensingh. M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 58 pp.

lxvii) Biswas, S.S., Hossain, M.I. Mazumder, M.S. and Akteruzzaman, M. 2000. An economic analysis of pond fish culture of BRAC in some selected areas of Mymensingh district. Progressive Agriculture, 11(1-2): 243-244.

lxviii) Carrey, D. 1998. Implementing the sustainable rural Livelihoods approach. In: D. Carrey (ed.) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, What contribution can We Make. DFID, London, UK.

lxix) Chambers, R. and Conway, R. 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concept for the 21^stcentury, Discussion paper, IDS No. 296.

lxx) DoF, 2009. Matsha Pakkha Sankalan-2009. Directorate of fisheries. The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 14pp

lxxi) Ellis, F. 2002. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries, Oxford

lxxii) Faroque, G. 2006. Fisheries in Borobela beel in Mymensingh District and Livelihood of the Adjacent Fishers and Fish Farmer. An M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, BAU, Mymensingh. 55pp

lxxiii) Gill, G.J. and Motahar, A.S. 1982. Social factors affecting prospect for intensified fish farming in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agril. Econ., 5
(1 and 2).

lxxiv) Goldman, I. 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods approaches: Origins, applications to aquaculture research and future directions. Background paper for FGRP/FGP Workshop on practical strategies for poverty target research, Vietnam.

lxxv)Haider, Z. 1995. Profitability of DANIDA supervised contact and credit fish culture: a comparative study in Gouripur Thana in Mymensingh district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 77 pp.

lxxvi) Hassanuzzaman, A.K.M. 1997. Comparative study on pond fish production under different management systems in some selected areas in Rajshahi district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 76 pp.

lxxvii) Hoq, M.E. and Kohinoor, A.H.M. 2005. Impact of small indigenous species and livelihood of local fishing community in two upazila of Mymensingh. Bangladesh J. Fish. Res., 9(1): 101-102.

lxxviii) Hossain, M.A., Ahmed, M. and Islam, M.N. 1997. Mixed culture of fishes in seasonal ponds through fertilizer and feeding. Bangladesh J. Fish. Res., 1 (2): 9-18.

lxxix) Hossain, M.M. 2007. Utilization of Mokash beel for Livelihood Management of Local Fishermen and their Socio-economic Conditions. M.S. Thesis, Department of Aquaculture, BAU, Mymensingh. 85 pp.

lxxx)Hossain, M.S., Dewan, S. Islam, M.S. and Hossain, S.M.A. 1992. Survey of pond fishery resources in a village of Mymensingh district. Bangladesh J. Aquaculture, 14-16: 33-37.

lxxxi)

lxxxii) Hossain, M.Z. 1999. A socio-economic study of pond fish production in some selected areas in Noakhali district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 67 pp.

lxxxiii) Hossian, M. 1998. A preliminary survey on the fishermen and socio-economic status of fishermen of the Old Bramhmaputra River. M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 95 pp.

lxxxiv) Islam, M.A. 2000. Recent trends in fisheries sector of Bangladesh. In: Changing Rural Economy of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Economic Association, Dhaka, 78 pp.

lxxxv) Islam, M.S. 2005. Socio-economic status of pond fish farming in some selected areas of Dinajpur district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 65 pp.

lxxxvi) Islam, S. 1998. An Economic evaluation of pond fish culture under the supervised credit and contact system of DANIDA project Modhupur Thana of Tangail district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 56 pp.

lxxxvii) Kaiya, M.K.U., Mollah, M.F.A. and Islam, M.S. 1987. Survey of pond resources of Mirzapur Upazila under Tangail district. Bangladesh J. Fisheries, 10 (1): 37-43.

lxxxviii) Khan, A.N.M.A.I., Rahman, M.M. and Islam, M.A. 1998. Factors causing difficulty in pond fish culture in a selected area of Mymensingh district. Bangladesh J. Aquaculture, 20: 23-27.

lxxxix) Khan, M.S. 1994. Socio-economic factors in the development of pond fisheries. Bangladesh J. Agril. Econ., 10 (2): 43-47.

xc) Masud, S.M. 2000. An economic analysis of fish culture in inundated water bodies under the supervision of SAPAP in some selected areas of Kishorgonj district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 83 pp.

xci) Mazid, M.A. 2002. Development of Fisheries in Bangladesh. Plans and Strategies for income generation and poverty alleviation. Dhaka, Bangladesh 176 pp.

xcii) Mia, M.G.F. 1996. A study of production and marketing of cultured fishes by the selected pond owners in Mymensingh district. M.S. thesis, Department of Co-operation and Marketing, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh. 119 pp.

xciii)Mollah, A.R., Zaman, M.M. Chowdhury, S.N.I. and Habib, M.A. 1990. An economic analysis of fish production of pond in Laxmipur of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Aquaculture, 11-13: 37-45.

xciv) Quddus, M.A., Rahman, M.S. and Moniruzzaman, M. 2000. Socio-economic conditions of the pond owners of Demra, Dhaka. Bangladesh J. Fish. Res., 4(2): 203-207.

xcv) Rahman, M.H., Sofiquzzahan, M.Z. and Nurullah, M. 1998. Efficiency of pond fish production in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agril. Science, 25(2): 235-239.

xcvi) Rahman, M.M. 2003. Socio-economic aspects of carp culture development in Gazipur, Bangladesh. M.S. thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh. 72 pp.

xcvii) Rana, M.S. 1996. An economic analysis of pond fish culture in some selected areas of Sirajgonj district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 57 pp.

xcviii) Robbani, M.G. 2002. Survey of certain parameters of fish fanning in three selected areas of Bangladesh. M.S. Thesis, Department of Aquaculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 67 pp.

xcix) Roy, R.K. 2004. Socio-economic aspects of carp culture in Kurigram district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 48 pp.

c) Saha, M.K. 2003. A study on fish production technology in North-west Bangladesh. M.S. Thesis, Department of Aquaculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 71 pp.

ci) Saha, N.C., Islam, M.S. Saha, J.K. and Modak, P.C. 1995. Economics of pond fish production in some selected areas of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Aquaculture, 17: 13-18.

cii) Saha, S.K. 2004. Socio-economic aspects of Aquaculture in Tangail sadar Upazila. M.S. Thesis, Department of Aquaculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 77 pp.

ciii) Sarker, C. 2004. Socio-economic aspects of pond fish culture by women in some selected areas of Habigonj district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 27 pp.

civ) Shohag, M.S.H. 1996. A socio-economic study on the supervised credit pond fish culture in Nandail Thana of Mymensingh district. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 76 pp.

cv) Siddique, S. 1996. A study of socio-economic problems of the fishermen in Tamilnadu and Orissa. Fish-Chimes, 16(8): 35-36.

cvi) Tanjeena Z., Jewel1, M.A.S. and Bhuiyan, A.S. 2007. Present status of pond fishery resources and livelihood of the fish farmers of Mohanpur Upazila in Rajshahi District. Univ. J. Zool. Rajshahi Univ, 25: 31-35.

APPENDIX

Questionnaire for pond fish farmers:

Date of interview: Sample no:

Section A. Personal information:

1. Name: .....................................

2. Address: Village: .......................... Upazila: ...................... District: ...........................

3. Age: ...............

4. Religion: .............................

5. (a) Number of family members: ..................................... Male........... Female .............

(b) Family types: 1 = Joint family, 2 = Nuclear family

6. Education:

0 = No education, 1 = Primary (1-5 class), 2 = Secondary (class 6-10), 3 = SSC (class 10 pass), 4 = HSC (class12 pass), 5 = Bachelor

7. Education status of other family members:

S1 no.	Family members	Education level

8. Information about land (in decimal):

a) Homestead area: .................................. b) Cultivated land: ..................................

c) Permanent pond: ..................................

9. Occupation:

Occupation	Primary	Secondary
Agriculture
Business
Fish culture
Service
Poultry raising
Others

10. Annual family income of fish farmers:

Source of income	Amount of income (Taka/yr)
1. Agriculture
2. Business
3. Fish culture
4. Poultry raising
5. Service
6. Others

Section B. Fish farming information:

1. Pond size: ....................... Decimal or ....................... ha. Depth ....................... ft.

2. When did you start fish farming: ......................................

3. Did you take any training, for fish farming? 1 = Yes, 2 = No

If yes, when ................ where ............... How long: ............... by whom ................

4. Pond type: 1 = Seasonal: 2 = Perennial:

5. Pond ownership: 1 = Single ownership: 2 = Multiple ownership: 3 = lease:

6. Category of pond: 1 = Homestead: 2 = Commercial:

7. a) Fish farming season ................................ stocking period: ................................

Harvesting season: .....................................

b) Harvesting frequency: 1 = Total harvest 2 = Partial harvest

c) Do you harvest fish yourself? 1 = yes 2 = No

If no, 1 = Hire local harvester, 2 = Middle men harvest

3 = others (specify) ................................

8. Source of information:

a) Learning of fish farming: 1 = Neighbours 2 = Friend; 3 = Relatives

4 = DoF 5 = Self study

b) Get technical assistance for fish farming: 1 = Neighbours, 2 = Friend

3 = Relatives 4 = DoF 5 = Self study 6 = NGOs

9. Culture method: 1 = Monoculture 2 = Polyculture 3 = Integrated culture.

If polyculture, what species and number of fry/fingerlings

……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………

10. Pre stocking management: ……………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

11. Stocking density: ……........ Fry/decimal of pond or ……....... fingerlings/decimal of pond

a) Size of fry/fingerlings stocked ……............................................................................ b) Source of fry/fingerlings: 1 = Hatchery 2 = Natural waterbody.

12. Fertilization and liming:

a) Do you use fertilizer for fish farming ? 1 = yes 2 = no

b) If yes, please indicate the fertilizer and fertilization rate

Fertilizer	Quantity	Time interval
Cowdung
Urea
TSP
Lime

13. Feed and feeding:

a) Do you feed for fish? 1 = yes 2 = no

b) If yes, please indicate feed and feeding rate

Name	Quantity	Time interval
Rice bran
Mustard oilcake
Formulated feed
Fish meal
Leaves and grasses

14. Fish harvesting systems: .................................................................... …………………

………………………………………………………………………………………….

15. Total fish production (in polyculture): ........................................................ kg/ ha/ yr.

16. Amount of fish consumed by your household: ............ kg/ yr, Gifts: ............ kg/ yr

17. Where and whom do you sell your fish: ...................................................................

18. For fish farming did you buy any permanent fishing materials?

Please tell name and price of this things:

………………………………………………………………………………………….

19. What are the main problem for fish farming: ................................................................

20. What is the advantage / benefit for polyculture of fish:

21. Cost-return analysis of fish production: Cost analysis:

Input	Quantity	Price/unit	Amount (TK.)
Fingerlings
Feed
Fertilizer
Lime
Cowdung
Insecticide
Salt
Water pumping and electricity
Human labourer
Harvesting
Marketing
Miscellaneous
Total cost

Return analysis:

Output	Quantity	Price (TK.)	Amount (TK.)
Fish
Rice
Others

Total returns

Profit = Total returns (income)- total costs ………………………..… TK.

Section C. Socio economic information:

1. House dwelling unit ownership: 1 = owned, 2 = Rented, 3 = Mortgaged, 4 = Free use.

2. Housing condition: 1 = Katcha 2 = Tin shed 3 = Half building 4 = Building

3. Source of drinking water: 1 = Tube well 2 = Pond 3 = Others

4. Do you have own tube well: 1 = Yes 2 = No

5. Where do you go for health facilities? 1= Village doctors 2= Upazila health complex
3= MBBS doctors

6. Do you have electricity facilities? 1 = Yes 2 = No

7. Sanitation facilities: 1= Kacha 2 = Semi-pacca latrine 3 = Pacca latrine.

8. Using fuel for cooking: 1= Cowdung 2 = Paddy straw 3 = wood 4 = others

9. Did you receive any loan for fish farming? 1 = Yes 2 = No if yes, who provide loan? 1 = Bank 2 = NGOs 3 = Money lender

10. What is your social status? 1 = Ordinary person 2 = Local leader 3 -= Respectable person 4 = Member of school committee

11. Do you think that your socio economic condition improved after fish farming? 1 = Yes 2 = No

if yes how: ……………………………………………………

if no why: ………………………………………………….…

12. If you have more land, would you like to convert that land into fish farm? 1 = Yes 2 = No

if yes why: ………………………………………………….

Thank you

৫টি মন্তব্য:

Pond Leaks১৬ মে, ২০১২ এ ৩:৩৯ AM
I am checking many blogs from since morning in search of unique information i have got some of my related info on your blog its really good.
উত্তরমুছুন
উত্তরগুলি
Unknown২৮ মে, ২০১৫ এ ১১:০৩ AM
your information is really good. I am really happy to read your blog. I hope that you will share many many fish cultivation formula.
Check My Fishing site fishmarketbd.com
Thanks
উত্তরমুছুন
উত্তরগুলি
osma২৩ নভেম্বর, ২০১৭ এ ১০:১২ PM

Hello Everybody,
My name is Ahmad Asnul Brunei, I contacted Mr Osman Loan Firm for a business loan amount of $250,000, Then i was told about the step of approving my requested loan amount, after taking the risk again because i was so much desperate of setting up a business to my greatest surprise, the loan amount was credited to my bank account within 24 banking hours without any stress of getting my loan. I was surprise because i was first fall a victim of scam! If you are interested of securing any loan amount & you are located in any country, I'll advise you can contact Mr Osman Loan Firm via email osmanloanserves@gmail.com

LOAN APPLICATION INFORMATION FORM
First name......
Middle name.....
2) Gender:.........
3) Loan Amount Needed:.........
4) Loan Duration:.........
5) Country:.........
6) Home Address:.........
7) Mobile Number:.........
8) Email address..........
9) Monthly Income:.....................
10) Occupation:...........................
11)Which site did you here about us.....................
Thanks and Best Regards.
Derek Email osmanloanserves@gmail.com
উত্তরমুছুন
উত্তরগুলি
Triumphant Finance Company Ltd১৮ মার্চ, ২০১৯ এ ২:৫৪ PM
We are here to help you with all your financial needs. Are you in debt? Have you been rejected by banks and other financial institutions? Do you need a loan to enhance your business? We give out loans within the range of $5,000.00 to $100,000,000.00 with an affordable low interest rate of 2%. Our transaction is 100% guaranteed as we also ensure a cordial relationship with our clients. To apply! Email us via: worldwidefundservice@gmail.com
উত্তরমুছুন
উত্তরগুলি

মন্তব্য যুক্ত করুন

পৃষ্ঠাসমূহ

শুক্রবার, ২৪ জুন, ২০১১

৫টি মন্তব্য:

পৃষ্ঠাসমূহ

শুক্রবার, ২৪ জুন, ২০১১

৫টি মন্তব্য:

এতে সদস্যতা