PRESENT STATUS OF AQUACULTURE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITION OF FISH FARMERS IN A RURAL SETTING IN BANGLADESH

Received 13 July, 2020 Revised 22 August, 2020 Accepted 24 August, 2020 Online 31 August, 2020


INTRODUCTION
For sustainable rural development and poverty alleviation, different options were adopted and the "Sustainable Livelihood Approach" has been gradually expanded with its own interior and principles for poverty focused development activities (DFID, 1998). The execution of the developmental program often failed due to the lack of adequate necessary information and socio economic condition's data (Hassan et al. 2012). Bangladesh is one of the world's leading fish producing country with a total production of 42.76 million MT in financial year 2017-18 (DoF, 2018). The country became self-sufficient in fish production providing 62.58 g of fish per person in daily dietary consumption (DoF, 2018). Now a days aquaculture is economically profitable and farmers in rural areas are interested into aquaculture ponds ). The annual pond fish production of Habiganj was 3.55 MT/Ha in financial year 2017-18 (DoF, 2018). Although Habiganj is an area with aquaculture dominating as the farming activity, adequate information, data and literature was not reported on the socio-economic and livelihood status of fish farmers of Habiganj. In this context, the present study was conducted to assess the status of aquaculture at Habiganj Sadar Upazila with a view to estimate the socioeconomic status of fish farmers in the study area.

Study area and duration
The present study was carried out at Habiganj Sadar upazila under the district of Habiganj (Figure 1), Bangladesh during January to May 2019. Habiganj Sadar upazila was selected because pond based aquaculture is practiced in this area. The study was carried out in the five villages named Poil, Panch Paira, Eralia, Shihaldaria, Mahmudabad where 30 fish farmers were interviewed during the survey.

METHODOLOGY
Data were collected from randomly selected 30 fish farmers by personal interview with a well-structured questionnaire. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tool such as Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted to obtain more accurate data (Chambers, 1992). Five FGD were conducted with average group size of six farmers. Key Informant (KI) interviews were done with Upazila Fisheries Officer (UFO) to cross-check the collected data.

Data processing and analysis
All the collected data were tabulated, scrutinized, analyzed carefully and presented graphically by Microsoft Excel (version 2010).

Ponds of fish farmers
The ponds (37.61%) were dominated by those with a water spread area of 0.02-0.06 ha. Next dominant group (30.28%) farmers had ponds with 0.07-0.13 ha of water spread area, 20.18% farmers had ponds with a size of 0.14-0.20 ha, 9.17% farmers had ponds with a size of 0.21-0.35 ha and 2.75% farmers had ponds which were larger than 0.35 ha, respectively (Table 1). Asif et al. (2017) found most of the farmers had ponds with size of 34-66 decimal in Jhikargachha upazila of Jessore district, Bangladesh.

Farming experience of farmers
In the study area 26.67% farmers had farming experience for 1-3 years, 20% farmers had farming experience for 4-6 years, another 20% farmers had farming experience for 7-10 years, 13.33% farmers had farming experience for 11-15 years and 20% farmers had farming experience for 16 years or above. There was a significant positive relationship between the farming experience of the farmers and the production per ha per year, r=0.84, P<0.001. It was observed that farmers who had farming experience for more than 16 years got higher production.

Farm's land ownership
It was revealed that 63.33% farmer's farmlands were under single ownership while 26.67% farmer's farmlands and 10.00% farmer's farmlands were under multi ownership and leased, respectively ( Figure 2). It was observed that, in case of multiple ownership farms, decision-making phases of pond management are often affected for a consensus among the owners and it also affect the production negatively. Ali et al. (2009) found that 70% of the ponds were under single ownership in Mymensingh district of Bangladesh, which is almost similar to the results of the present study.

Feed types preferred by farmers
In the study area, all farmers provided feeds with the cultured species. Homemade feed was provided by 30% of the farmers and commercial feed was provided by 70% of the farmers. Most of the homemade feed providers used household waste, rice bran and mustard oil. Rahman et al. (2018) observed that artificial feed (63%), farm made feed (3%), and both artificial and homemade feed (34%) were supplied to the cultured species in Nilphamari district of Bangladesh. It was observed that, farmers who provided commercial feed got higher production than those are provided homemade feed.

Fertilizer used in fish farming
In the present study, organic fertilizer cow-dung was used by 50% farmers, inorganic fertilizer urea was used by 96.67% farmers, TSP (Triple super phosphate) was used by 26.67% farmers and MoP (Murate of Potash) was used by 6.67% farmers. Here, fertilizer is generally used in the fishpond to create favorable condition, which facilitate to produce good quality natural fish feed, as a result fish production increased. Asif et al. (2017) found in his study that cow-dung was used by all (100%) surveyed farmers in Jhikargachha upazila of Jessore district.

Farming duration
The aquaculture started usually in March and continued up to December in the study area. Other authors also observed that peak season of carp polyculture were from March to December (Rahman, 2003) and April to December (Ahmed, 2003).

Disease Outbreak
It was found that, gas bubble disease was experienced by 3 farmers, dropsy was experienced by 11 farmers, EUS (Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome) was experienced by 10 farmers, bacterial gill disease was experienced by 1 farmer, fin and tail rot was experienced by 6 farmers was experienced by 1 farmer in their farm ( Figure 4). The conscious farmers adopted preventive measures like pond drying, liming, weed control, maintaining water quality parameters etc. to keep away the infectious pathogens from the farms. Harvesting and marketing of fish Farmers' harvest fish by using cast net and seine net. The farmers sold around 80% fish to the traders/agents and rest of the fish time to time consumed by the households. Gosh et al. (2006) found that, the farmers sold around 75% fish to the traders and the households consumed the rest (25%). The findings almost similar to the present study.

Production of fish
The highest fish production was found 6.19 MT/ha/year while the lowest production was 0.54 MT/ha/year. Most of the farmers (60.00%) produced 0.50-2.50 MT/ha/year, 33.33% farmers produced 2.51-4.50 MT/ha/year and 6.67% farmers produced 4.51-6.50 MT/ha/year. The average production was found 2.13±1.39 MT/ha/year ( Table 2). The average fish production from pond in Habiganj district was found 3.55 MT/ha in 2017-18 Financial Year (DoF, 2018). Asif et al. (2017) found the highest production was 27000 kg/year and the lowest production was 650 kg/year in Jhikargachha upazila of Jessore district.

Annual Income
It was found that highest income of fish farmer was 5,00,000 Tk/ha/year and the lowest income was 74,534 Tk/ha/year. Most of the fish farmers (60%) got their annual income between the range of 1,50,001 Tk/ha/year to 3,00,000 Tk/ha/year, 16.67% farmers got their annual income between the range of 50,000 Tk/ha/year to 1,00,000 Tk/ha/year, 10% farmers got their annual income between the range of 1,00,001 Tk/ha/year to 1,50,000 Tk/ha/year and 13.33% farmers got their annual income between the range of 3,00,001 Tk/ha/year to 5,00,000 Tk/ha/year. The average annual income was found 2,31,385±1,25,365 Tk/ha/year (Table 3). Pravakar et al. (2013) stated that 34% fish farmers earned 75,000 to 1,00,000 Tk/ year. Table 3. Annual income fish farmers in the study area

Constraints of fish production
The fish farmers reported a number of constraints. Among 30 farmers, 34.38% reported high cost of feed as most important problem. The lack of insurance reported by 3.13% farmers, another 3.13% farmers reported lack of availability of loan, 6.25% reported lack of technical training, 9.38% farmers reported lack of security, 6.25% farmers reported lack of governmental help, another 6.25% farmers reported high cost of fertilizer, 15.63% farmers reported high labor cost and another 15.63% farmers reported disease outbreak as constraint of fish production in their farm ( Figure 6). Adhikary et al. (2018) found that, 40% of the surveyed fish farmers identified fish disease as the single most important problem in Noakhali, Bangladesh.

Age structure and sex composition of fish farmers in Habiganj Sadar Upazila
The present study observed that, majority of fish farmers (33.33%) were 31-40 years old. On the other hand, 3.33% respondents were less than 20 years old, 20.00% respondents were 21-30 years old, 30.00% respondents were 41-50 years old, 6.67% respondents were 51-60 years old and 6.67% respondents were 61-70 years old (Table-3). Ali et al (2009) revealed that most of the fish farmers (50%) belonged to age group of 31-40 years in Mymensingh district. Present study implies that the majority of the sample farmers were in active age group of 31-40 years indicating that they provided more physical efforts for fish farming and it had effect on production. All the respondents were male.

Religion status
Muslims were featuring as the absolute majority of the fish farmer in Habiganj Sadar upazila, Habiganj. It was recorded that 93.33% farmers were Muslims and 6.67% farmers were Hindus. Ali et al (2009) found 85% of fish farmers were Muslims and remaining 15% were Hindus in Mymensingh. It is more or less similar to the present study.

Educational qualification of fish farmers
Six educational categories were used to determine the level of education. Out of 30 fish farmers, 13.33% had no education (illiterate), 40% had primary level, 16.67% had secondary level (up to X), 16.67% had SSC level, and 6.67% had HSC level, 3.33% had bachelor level and 3.33% had MS level of education (Figure 7). It was observed that educated farmers were more conscious about farm management, thereby got higher production. Pravakar et al (2010) found in his study in Shahrasti upazila of Chandpur district that about 10% had no education while 16%, 48%, 16%, 10% had primary, secondary, higher secondary and bachelor level of education, respectively. This study has similarity with the present findings.

Family Type
It was found that 60% fish farmers lived in joint families and 40% lived with separated families. Asif et al (2017) found that 66% fish farmers lived in joint families and 34% lived with separated or nuclear families in Jhikargachha upazila in Jessore district, Bangladesh. 20% families had up to four members, 23.33% families had five members, 6.67% had six members, 3.33% had seven members and 46.67% had eight or more members in their family. Touhidur et al (2017) observed that 57% fish farmer's family consisting 6 to 10 members in selected areas of Mymensingh.

Housing condition of fish farmers
Majority of respondents around 43.33% had tin shed house, 16.67% farmers had half building, 40.00% had brick constructed house. Ali et al. (2009) found that 50% households of the fish farmers were tinshed in Tarakanda upazila of Mymensingh district. Ali et al. (2008) also noticed that the majority (54%) of the respondents had tinshed house in some selected areas of Bagmara upazila under Rajshahi district.

Electricity facility of fish farmers
It was found that all of the respondents had electricity facility in their house and farm. In addition, all the 30 respondents had at least one mobile phone. Some farmers had more than one. They usually consulted with feed dealers, fertilizer dealers, NGO workers, technical service providers through mobile phone. 66.67% farmers had television and 33.33% farmers had no television set. 60% farmers had refrigerator and 40% had no refrigerator in their house (Figure 8). Ali et al. (2009) found that 95% farmers had electricity facilities in Myemensingh. Asif et al. (2017) observed every surveyed fish farmer had at least one mobile phone in Jhikargachha upazila in Jessore district.

Sanitation facilities
In the study area, it was found that 10.00% farmers used unconstructed toilet, 36.57% farmers used semi constructed and 16 53.33% farmers used constructed toilet. Pravakar et al. (2010) found that 76% and 24% of fish farmers used semi constructed and constructed toilet respectively in Shahrasti Upazila of Chandpur District.

Drinking water sources
All the respondents 30 (100%) farmers used tube well water for drinking and other household work.

Health service facilities
The present study showed that 50.00% farmers received health service from village doctor while 3.33% farmers, 23.33% farmers and 23.33% farmers received health service from Upazila Health complex, MBBS doctor and Sadar hospital respectively ( Figure 9). Ali et al. (2008) found that 46% of the farmers received health service from village doctors, 18% from upazila health complex, 14% from district hospital and 20% from MBBS doctors.

Training of fish farmers
In the study area, it was found that 33.33% farmers had received technical training on fish farming from BRAC training center, Upazila fisheries office while 66.67% farmer had no training on fish farming. In addition, only 6.67% farmers had training from government organization ( Figure 10

338
. Figure 10. Receiving of training of fish farmers in the study area

Bank account holding status of fish farmers
It was found that 73.33% farmers had bank account for savings and transaction while 26.67% farmers had no bank accounts. Some farmers had more than one account and mobile banking found much popular.  also noticed mobile banking was much popular.

CONCLUSION
Fish farming played important role in the livelihood and socio-economic status of fish farmers'. From the present study, it is clearly indicated that fish farmers in Habiganj Sadar upazila, Habiganj are showing better condition in their life style through fish farming. The aquaculture management practices were not followed duly, even though they are benefited from the fish culture. The profit margin will be higher if the farmers were given technical training; economic support with low interest loan, feed and fertilizer in fair price, proper advice about treatments against disease outbreak, more prosperity would be outputted. It can be concluded that fish farming is a profitable business that could be of helpful in uplifting of fish farmer's livelihood.