Indian Journal of Environmental Sciences 19(1&2) 2015, pp. 71-78Green Earth Foundation

SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL PROFILE OF FISH FARMERS: A STUDY INAND AROUND THE LUMDING TOWN, NAGAON DISTRICT OFASSAM

Tapashi Gupta* and Mithra DeyDepartment ofZoology, Lumding College, Lumding-782447IDepartment ofEcology and Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar*Corresponding Author

ABSTRACT

Livelihood generation through fish culture is an age old practice and especially so in places where fish formsan integral part of both social and cultural life. Fish and rice is staple food for the people ofAssam. Assamis gifted with abundant freshwater resources which can generate food and income ifutilize to full potential.The study was conducted in Lumding town to identify factors that influence the socio-economic condition offish farmers, who were involved in culturing various fish species in ponds and how the adoption ofmodernfish farming technology would help in improving their status. Data were collected from 110 respondentsrandomly sampled, through questionnaire survey and a structured interview schedule. There are 171 fishponds in and around Lumding and among fish farmers men outnumbered women. Most of the farmersbelonged to scheduled caste (54.5%) and 51 % elders were engaged in fish farming. Majority of the fishfarmers had their own land and practiced fish farming as primary occupation from many decades. Majorityof their family size was large. The study reveals that their income from fish farming was too low (60%earned Rs. 20,000-30,000/year). Most of them were borrowers and took financial help from their friendsand relatives. They spent their earnings for basic needs like food and children's education. They had lowinstitutional participation and lack of technical training. Poverty, lack of marketing facilities and lack oftechnical training are the major hurdles in the path of good income generation for fish farmers. Initiativefrom Government fisheries department, NGOs and awareness generation are necessary.Key words: Socio-economic profile, adoption ofnew farming technology, ponds, technical knowledge

INTRODUCTION

The socio-economic characteristics pertaining to demographymeans ofproduction and investment, income and expenditureofpeople living in aparticular location strongly influence theirresponse to technological changes and participation in thedevelopment schemes. Lackofauthentic informationon socio­economic condition ofthe target group is one ofthe seriousimpediments in the successful implementation ofdevelopmental programmes. In fisheries sector, several microand macro level socio-economic surveys had been conductedbyvarious agencies and research workers in different regionsofour country to study one or the otherproblem offish farmercommunity. However, attempts have not been made to carryout similar studies among inland fish culturists, particularlyofLumding ofAssam.

Lumding town is the second biggest town ofNagaon district,Assam. Nagaon district is situated in central part ofAssam.It lies between 25 °451 and 26 °45 I North latitudes & 91 °50 1and 93 °20 lEast Latitudes. Alarge section ofthe people

ofLumding depends onAgriculture, Poultry, and Fishery etc.as their livelihood. There are 171 fish ponds have beenconstructed and stockedwith fish in Lumding and its adjacentarea and few ofthem have not utilized to its full potential.

METHODOLOGY

Sources of data: During collection ofdata, both primaryand secondary sources are considered. Primary data werecollected from fish farmers whereas secondary informationwas procured from fishery offices.

Statistical tools used: For calculation ofpercentage, meanstatistical tool like MS-Excel was used

Socio-economic research variables

Ten variables were identified in socio-domainviz., gender offish farmer, age, education, landholding, family size,institutional participation and in economic domain, sourcesofincome, income-expenditure pattern etc. were included.A structured interview scheduled was developedincorporating all the queries to accomplish the objectives set

72 Gupta and Dey

Fig. 1Age distribution ofthe fish farmers

Male 104 (94.6 %)Female 6 (5.4 %)

Education: The pond fish culture system is scientific oneand therefore, fish culturists need to gather knowledge onimproved fish culture technique. Ifthe farmers have someinstitutional educational background they can easilyunderstand the system. Literacy rate ofpond fish farmerscan playavital role in efficient management and operationas well as in successful production offish. Education and

10(9%)20(18.2%)24(21.8%)56 (50.9%)

20-3031-4041-50

51 and above

were conservative, risk averse and unlikely to try new ideas.Table 1reveals that in Lumding 44% ofthe total fish farmersbelonged to the middle age group followed by 50% olderage groups and 9.1% young age groups.

Table 1. Age distribution ofthe fish farmers

Age groups Percentage total(N=110)

Gender: Females are less likely to adopt fish farming thanmales due to their high workload. They do not have theirown land and are not decision makers, as a lot ofphysicallabor is required in pond management (Department ofFisheries,Assam. 2010), it involves major repairs also. Table2 reveals thatwomen participation in the fish culture practicesin Lumding was only 5.4% and ofmale was 94.6 %.

Table 2. Gender offish farmer

Gender Percentage oftotal( N-II0)

for the study. The collected datawere tabulated for statisticalanalysis.

RESULTS

In the fisheries, socio-economic status offishermen plays akey role in productive activities. Socio-economic parameterssuch as gender offish farmer, age, education, land holding,family size, institutional participation, sources ofincome,income-expenditure pattern etc. were included. Studies onthese variables attempt not only to explain the overall socio­economic conditions offish farmers, but also to identify thefactors constraining the realization ofthe full potential ofthetraditional fishery and the appropriate area for Governmentintervention (Sarma and IrshadAli 2005).

The study revealed that the farmers in the district operateaquaculture in an easy going manner and they lack theentrepreneurship spirit. Extent of adoption of therecommended practices is summarized below. The farmersofthe study area operate aquaculture in old ponds, whereproduction is limited by anaerobic conditions. It is concludedfrom the study that 88% farmers do not remove silts fromthe pond bottom, which attribute to poor productivity. Ponds(80%) are generallywell impounded and do not allow entryofcatchment water in the rainy season.

Fishes reared under composite culture ofcarps in Assamare Catla catla (Catla), Cirrhinus mrigala (Mrigal), Labeorohita (Rohu), Hypothalmichthys molitrix (Silver carp),Ctenopharyngodon idella (Grass carp) and Cyprinuscarpio (Common carp). All these species need slightlyalkaline water and pH ranging between 6.5-8.0. The soiland water ofthe study area are acidic in reaction, which ismajor alimiting factor. The package ofpractices recommendsapplication ofagricultural lime @ 2,100 kg/ha/yr in splitdoses, but the farmers have not adopted this practice.Majority ofthe fish farmers (74%) do not apply regularly.Only 2% regularly apply lime following a standard methodofrecommended dose.

Growth ofphytoplankton is essential for sustainingthe primaryproductivity ofthe pond as the fish yield is the function ofprimary productivity (Sathiadhas and Pankkar 1988).

Demographic profile offish farmer

Age: Age is an issue, which can not be approached withcultural preconceptions about what the roles and need ofspecific age groups mightbe. Young and middle-aged farmerswere aggressive and energetic people who were more willingto adopt new technology than older farmers. Older farmers

SOCIOECONOMICAND CULTURALPROFILE OF FISH FARMERS 73

Fig. 2 Educational status offish farmers

farming efficiency are closely related and education generallyhas apositive effecton farm productivity.An educated farmeris more likely to adopt new technology than an uneducatedone (Meena et al. 2002). With regard to the educationallevel ofrespondents, it could be observed that 11.8% ofthetotal respondents had attained primary education, 33.6%were below the high school level ofeducation, 21.8 wereHSLC passed, 14.5 % were under graduate while 9% weregraduates in the study area (Table 3). Since majority offishfarmers were educated up to middle school level and therebyindicating aminimum level ofeducation. However, a smallpercentage has high level ofeducation suggesting that evenliterate farmers were attracted to fish farming.

Table 3. Educational status offish farmers

Educational level

No education (Illiterate)Up to primaryUp to middle school levelH.SL.C.H. S.Graduate

Percentage of total(N-II0)

13 (11.8 %)37 (33.6 %)24(21. 8 %)16(14.5%)

10(9 % )

Table 4. Family status ofthe fish farmer in the study area

Family Type Percentage oftotal(N-II0)

Joint Family 82 (74.5%)Nuclear Family 28 (25.5%)

Family size: The family size ofthe fish farmers were dividedinto three categories according to the number ofthe familymembers. Acritical analysis ofthe data revealed that 24.5%of the respondents ofLumding had small size of familyconsisting of four members (Table 5). The majority ofrespondents (75.5%) had large family size consisting ofmorethan sixmembers. The size ofthe family has adirect influenceon the expenditure and income patterns ofthe family. As thefish production is a labour intensive activityhence family sizeinfluences the fish production. The fishing community ofAssam, their society and economy has been extensivelystudied by Sarma andAli (2005). They found that the size ofthe family has direct influences onthe expenditure and incomepatterns of the family and thereby influences on fishproduction. Pandey and Upadhayay (2012) made similarfindings.

Table 5. Family size ofthe fish farmers

Family size Percentage oftotal(N-II0)

2-3 11 (10%)4-5 16 (14.5%)> 6 83 (75.5%)

Caste status: The caste pattern ofthe respondents showedthat majority (54.5%) ofthem was from Scheduled castesfollowed by other backward classes (7.2%) and 32.9% werefrom general castes (Table 6).

Table 6. Caste status offish farmerCastes Percentage of total

( N-II0)

Family status: In the present study, families were classifiedinto two types as nuclear family andjointfamily. About 75.5%farmers lived injoint families and the remaining 24.5% innuclear families (Table 4). Joint family was predominant inthe study area which also correspondents well with the[mdings ofAli et al. (2009) in MYmensingh district. The familysize has considerable influence on the income and expenditureofthe family.

Scheduled caste 60 (54.5 %)Scheduled tribe

G.B.C. 8 (7.2 %)General 42 (38.1 %)

Religion: Religion plays avital role in the social and culturalenvironment ofpeople in a given area. It acts as a notableconstraint and modifies social pattern ofpeople. Hindus werefeaturing as the absolute majority ofthe fish farmer in thestudy area (Table 7). About 96.4% were Hindus while smallportions i.e. 5.4 % were Muslims.

74 Gupta and Dey

Table 7. Religious status ofthe fish farmers

Religion

HindusMuslims

Percentage oftotal( N-II0)

106 (96.3) %4 (3.6%)

fish farmers were not willing to participate for fear ofwageloss, waste oftime and lack ofincentives (Mahendra Kumar1996). Majority offarmers did not receive any training forfish culture practices. The percentage oftrained farmers wasvery less (only 1.8%, Table 10) which was more or lesssimilar to the findings ofGoswami et al. (2002).

Table 8. Experience level in fish farming offish farmers

Source of fish farming experience: Experience in fishfanning have positive influence on fish production. In the studyarea, majority (80%) of the farmers have fish farmingexperience from their fore fathers, 10% from their friendsand the rest (10%) from their relatives (TabIe 9)..

Experience level: Farmers who have acquired knowledgeon fish farming were more likely to adopt it than those whohad not acquired knowledge. The study revealed that inrural area ofLumding town, 73% ofthe respondents havemedium level ofexperience followed by 17% ofrespondentshaving high level ofexperience ofmore than 15 years and10% had lower level ofexperience, less than 8 years (Table8). Our finding agrees with that ofofPandey and Upadhayay(2012).

Table 11. Area ofponds (ha) in the surveyed area

2 (1.8%)108(98.1 %)

TrainedNon-trained

Area and depth of ponds (ha)The pond areaandwater depth are the important determinantoffish productivity as it provides living space for fishes. Inthe present study, average pond size in the study area wasfound to be 0.15 ha but a few were larger in size rangingfrom 1-5 ha in the study area. This is clear indicative ofsmaller size ofpond available with the farmers ofLumding.Khan (1986) stated that fish culture efficiency varied withthe size ofponds. The average depth ofpond in the studyarea was found 3.2 meter (Table 11) which was higherthan the recommended depth of 1.5m for ponds Assam(Department ofFisheries 2010). The average depth ofpondsin Bangladesh (Pravakar et al. 2013) is between 2 and 5meter, which correspond well with the present study.

TabIe 1O. Fish culture training details offish farmers

Training Percentage of total( N-II0)

19 (17 %)80(73 %)11 (10 %)

Percentage oftotal( N-II0)

HighMedium

Low

Level ofExperience

TabIe 9. Source offish farming experience (n=110)

ExperienceForefather 80%

DoFNeighbours /friend 10%

Relatives 10%NGOs

Range (ha)

0.001-0.0090.01-0.09

0.1-1.01-5

Small varying size

Percentage of total(N-II0)

11 ( 10%)19 (17%)66 (60%)10 (9%)2 (1.8%)

Training: Training is an effective tool oftransfer offishfanning technology scientifically(Wetengere 2008). Trainingis a planned process to modify attitude, knowledge or skillbehavior through a learning experience to achieve effectiveperformance in an activity or range ofactivities and educationis an activities which aim at developing the knowledge, skillsand moral values (Smith 1992). Even though trainingprogrammes are being organized in Nagaon district by FishFarmers DevelopmentAgencies and other organizations, the

Type of pond: In the study area, majorities (90%) oftheponds were perennial and only 10% were seasonal (Table12). The water level in the perennial ponds declinedsignificantly during dry season and became unsuitable forfish culture. Some ofthe farmers filled their ponds up to 2­3ft level by pumping water from the nearly dug well/ river.Seasonal ponds became totally unsuitable for fish culture.Ali et al. (2008) found 46% ofthe ponds were seasonal and54% ponds were perennial in Rajshahi district.

SOCIOECONOMICAND CULTURALPROFILE OF FISH FARMERS 75

Single 106 (96. 3%)Multiple 4 (3.6%)

Table 12. Type ofpond owned by the participating farmers:

Type ofpond Percentage oftotal(N-IIO)

Housing pattern: Housing pattern is one of the mostimportant indicators used to assess the economic well- beingofany community. During the survey, attempts were madeto find out the condition ofliving house ofthe farmer. On anaverage 25.5% ofthe respondents ofLumdingwere living inearthen house (Kacha), 40% under tin shed, 24.5% inAssampattern houses and 10% in RCC building houses (Table 14).This reflects the poor living condition ofthe people in thestudy area.

Table 14. Housing pattern offish farmers

Housing Condition Percentage oftotaleN-I 10)

Pond ownership: Many management decisions related tofish farming are influenced by the type of ownershipinvolved. In the study area, it was found that majority(96.3%) ofthe ponds were under single ownership whereasonly 3.6% under multiple ownership(Table 13). Pandeyand Upadhayay (2012) found higher percentage ofmultipleownership ofpond in Tripura in comparison to the presentstudy. Hossain et al. (2002) reported that multiple pondownership was a major constrains for pond aquaculture.

Table 13. Ownership ofthe ponds in the study area

Ownership Percentage of total(N-IIO)

83(75.5%)

27 (24.5%)

Percentage oftotal(N-IIO)

Own dig wellSupply waterNeighbour's well

Sources of drinking water

Village doctor (Kobiraj) II(IOOA»Homeopathic Doctor M(400A>)Railway Hospital 6 (5.4%)District Hospital M(400A>)MBBS Doctors (Private) 5 (4.5%)

Health services Percentage of total(N-IIO)

Table 16. Health service received by the fish farmers in thesurveyed are

Table 15. Drinking water facilities

Health service: When health problem occurs, initially thefarmers (10%) take village doctor advice and 40% tookmedicines from Homeopathic Doctor ofthe area. Whenproblem become severe, most of them (40%) move toDistrict hospital, 5.4% move to Railway Hospital and rest4.5% to private MBBS doctor (Table 16). It is evident thataccess to health facilities ofthe fish farmer was poor. Ali etal. (2008) found that 46% ofthe farmers received healthservice from village doctors, 18% from upazila healthcomplex, 14% from district hospital and 20% from MBBSdoctors in Bangladesh which was almost similar with thepresent study.

Drinking water facilities: The provision ofclean and safedrinking water is considered to be the most valued elementin the society. The study showed that!00% ofthe fish farmersused well water for drinking purposes (Table 15). In thestudy area 90% ofthe fish farmers own dug wells and only10% used neighbor's well for drinking water. It indicates apositive sign for health facilities in the study area.

2080

28 (25.5%)44 (400A»

27 (24.5%)11(10%)

SeasonalPerennial

KachaTinshedAssam pattern housesRCC building houses

Electricity facilities: It was found that 100% of thesurveyed farmers have electricity facilities. SinceAssam StateElectricity Board services were very poor, and so, duringload shedding they used Kerosene lamps, candle andoccasionally they hired generators.Sanitary facilities: Due to the initiative taken by theLumding Municipal Board and DRM, Lumding, most ofthe farmers ofthe study area had higher access to good

Fig.3 Housing pattern offish farmers

76 Gupta and Dey

sanitation. The present study revealed that the sanitaryconditions ofthe fish farmers were relatively satisfactoryonly in the pucca houses (Table 17).

NilNil100

Percentage oftotal(N-II0)

KatchaSemi-puccaPucca

Table 17. Use ofsanitary facilities by the fish farmers in thestudy area

Sanitary facilities

Table 19. Annual Income level ofthe fish farmers

70155721

%ofExpenditure

Item

FoodClothing

EducationMedicalEntertainmentOthers

Yes 77 (70%)No 33 (30%)

Table 20. Expenditure Pattern (% ofearnings) offish farmerhouseholds

Fig. 4Annual Income level ofthe fish farmers

Expenditure Pattern: Most ofthe fish farmer belongs tothe low incoming group and found difficult to maintain theirrequirements from their earnings. Aperusal ofexpenditurepattern shows that about 70% ofthe income ofthe farmerswas spent on their food alone. The clothing was found to bethe next major item for expenditure point ofview among thefarmers (Table 20).

Savings: It was found form the survey that 70% of therespondent had savings. The farmers could save some moneyfrom agriculture, fish culture, business, services and fromother activities (Table 21). Savings were used for manypurposes such as children's education, healthcare, loanpayment, agriculture inputs, housing, clothes, livestock andpoultry rearing, lease out oflands, food purchase for ownconsumption etc. However the rest 30% could not savedue to poor resources and household expenses.Table 21. Savings by farmers in the study area

Savings Percentage oftotal eN-II 0)

5050

n=11020 (18.2%)77 (70%)11 (10%)2 (1.8%)

Percentage oftotal eN-II 0)

LPG cylinderWoodCow dung

Income level (Rs)/yrup to 15,00015,000 to 30,00030,000 to 50,000Above 50,000

Cooking fuels: About 50% ofthe respondents stated thatthey mainly used LPG cylinder as fuel and rest 50% usedwood as fuel (Table 18).

Table 18. Cooking fuels

Cooking Fuel

Annual income: In general, employment and income arethe twin decisive factors mostlyused for determining the livingstandard ofany community or region. Equitable distributionof income further enhances the social harmony amongdifferent sections ofpopulation. Analysis ofincome levels ofthe fish farmer families revealed that annual income offishfarmer were varied from Rs. 15,0001- to Rs.l 00,0001. Theselected fish farmers were grouped into five categories basedon the level of their income (Table 19). The highestpercentage (70%) offish farmers earned Rs. 15,0001- Rs.30,0001-. This low level of income reflects their pooreconomic condition, whichwas not sufficientto maintain theirnormal livelihood. They cannot afford much for fish cultureactivities. The present findings of annual income offishfarmers correspond well with the findings ofGoswami et al.(2002) and Rahman et al. (2012).

SOCIOECONOMICAND CULTURALPROFILE OF FISH FARMERS 77

yes NilNo 1000A>

Bank Loan or finance: From the study area it was foundthat no any farmers have received bank loan for farming(Table 22).

Table 22. Bank Loan received by farmers for farming

Loan received Percentage oftotal (N-ll 0)

Social participation: The social participation is essentiallyimportant for socio-cultural development and discussion onmany issues including fish production and marketing. Themajority offish farmer (78%) selected for the study hadmedium level ofsocial participation (Table 24). However,only small segment (12%) offish farming community hadhigher level ofsocial participation and this was followed bylower (10%) (Table 23). Farmers participated in socialinstitutions like club, school, co-operatives andvillage welfareorganizations.

Table 23. Social participation level offish farmer

DISCUSSION

This study was undertaken with a view to know the socio­economic characteristics ofthe pond fish culturists and theirsignificance in pond fish production and their cultural profileoflife.

The result ofthe study indicate that level ofeducation, sizeofland holding, annual family income from fish culture etc.were important factors affecting the utilization ofpond fishfarming. In fisheries sector, socio-economic status offisherfolk/Fish farmers plays a key role in productive activities.Socio-economic parameters such as family size, age structure,education, social participation, income, and experience inaquaculture, size and nature ofownership ofpond influencefish production. The pond area is an important factor becauseall management measures are planned considering the sizeofponds in schemes sponsored byvarious agencies. Studieson these variables were attempted not only to explain theoverall socio-economic conditions ofthe fish farmers, butalso identified the factors inhibiting the realisation ofthe full

potential oftraditional fishery and the appropriate area forgovernment intervention (Sathiadhas and Panikkar 1988).The interactions ofpersonnel, psychological and situationalfactors always influence strategies and adoption of thescientific fish farming by fish farmers. Hence, preparingsocioeconomic profile ofthe respondents is important toestablish andexplainthe possible relationships among differentsocio-economic variables. Characteristics representing thepersonal and socio-economic attributes like family size andage, caste, social participation, educational status, experiencein fish farming, income-expenditure pattern etc. arerepresented in Table 1-23.

Fish pond requires a considerable amount ofinvestment formodem fish culture practices. The investment is necessaryfor the preparation of pond annually before stocking offingerlings and also for purchase ofinputs. From the Table19 it was clearly indicated that most ofthe pond owner earnvery little so it is difficult to save a certain portion oftheirincome for investment in the pond after meeting necessaryfamily expenses. According to the supplied data it was foundthe per acre production, gross return and net return follow adefinite trends. Higher income group produced higherproduction as they had their savings to invest for pond fishproduction. Mahabubullah (1983) showedthat family incomehas significantpositive relationship with investment in ponds.

Considering the different observations during the presentstudy, Lumding was found to be potential areafor fish culture.In conclusion it can be said that, farmers should be givenfacilities on training program and input availabilities. Theyshould also be provided with credit facilities, motivated toutilize all types ofwater bodies for fish culture as well asintegrated culture should be adopted. The fish farmers shouldbe given amenities for education so that they can be wellaware of their problems and prime rights. All the waterresources should be utilized for fish culture to get maximumproduction by using suitable technology. More hatcheriesshould be established, so that farmers can get quality seedseasily.

The economic profitability of fish farming is more incomparison to cultivatingrice or any other crops, thus farmersconsidered on convertingtheir rice fields into pond. The studyreported that though fish farming is a raising sector inAssambut it has some strong barriers which are hindering its growth.The income from fish farming is very important. The presentstudy explored the factors that can influence income from

12%78%10%

Percentage oftotal (N-ll 0)

HighMedium

Low

Level of Socialparticipation

78 Gupta and Dey

fish farming. These factors need to be addressed properlyto make fish farming more profitable.

References

Ali, M.H., M.D. Hossain, A.N.G.M. Hasan and M.A.Bashar. 2008. Assessment oflivelihood status ofthefish farmers in some selected areas of BaghmaraUpazilla under Rajshahi district. 1. BangladeshAgil.Univ. 6 (2): 367-374.

Ali, H., M.A.K. Azad, M. Anisuzzaman, M.M.R.Chowdhury, M.Hoque and M.1. Sharful. 2009.Livelihood status ofthe fish farmers in some selectedareas ofTarakandaUpazila ofMymensingh district. 1.Agrofor. Environ. 3(2): 85-89.

Department ofFisheries, Assam. 2010. Fish seed productionofAssam.

Edwards, P and H. Demaine. 1997. Rural Aquaculture:Overview and Framework for Country Reviews. RAPPublication 1997/36, RAPIFAO, Bangkok.

Goswami, M., R. Sathiadhas, U.C. Goswami and S.N.Ojha. 2002. Socio-economic dimensions of fishfarming in Assam. Journal of the Indian FisheriesAssociation 29: 103-110.

Hossain, M.A., M.A.R. Khan and M.A. Mannan. 2002.Present status ofpond fishery in Dhamaihat Upazila,Naogoan. Univ. 1. Zool. Rajshahi. Univ. 21: 79-80.

K. Mahendra Kumar. 1996. Communication Behavior ofFish Farmers in Tamil Nadu. Ph.D Thesis CIFE, ,Mumbai

Khan, M.S. 1986. Socio-economic factors in thedevelopment offisheries. Bangladesh 1. Agril. Econ.10(2): 43-47.

Meena, S.B., T.N.Kirway, N.M. Lema andAJ.Nalitolela.2002. Farming System Approach to TechnologyDevelopment and Dissemination. A Teaching Manualand Tutors' Guide for Training at Certificate and

Diploma Levels. Color Print Ltd. Ministry ofAgriculture and Food Security, Dares Salaam, pp. 228.

Pandey, D.K. and Upadhayay 2012. Socio-economicprofile offish farmers ofan adopted model aquaculturevillage: Kulubari, WestTripura. Indian Research JournalofExtension Education, Special Issue, 2: 55-58.

Pravakar, P, B. PSarkar, M. Rahman and M.B. Hossain.2013. Present Status ofFish Farming and Livelihoodoffish farmers in Shahrasti UpazilaofChandpurdistrict,Bangladdesh. American-Eurasian JournalAgric. andEnviron. Sci. 13(3): 391-397.

Rahman, M., M.P. Tazim, S.C. Dey,A.K.M.S. Azamandand M.R. Islam. 2012. Alternative livelihood optionsoffishermen ofNijhumDwip under HatiyaUpazila ofNoakhali district, Bangladesh. Asian 1. Rural Dev. 2(2):24-31.

Sarma, C. andN.M. IrshadAli. 2005.AFishingCommunityofAssam. Their Society and Economy. 1. Hum. Ecol.17(3): 205-209.

Smith, A. 1992. Training and Development in Australia.Sydney, Butterworth, pp. 279.

Sathiadhas, R. andK.K. P Pankkar. 1988. Socioeconomicsofsmall scale fishermen with emphasis on costs andearnings oftraditional fishing units along Trivandrumcoasts, Kerala-Acase study. Seafood Export 1. 20(2):21-36.

Sugunan VV and M. Sinha. 2001. Sustainable capture andculture based fisheries in freshwaters of India. In:Sustainable Indian fisheries, T. 1. Pandian (Ed.).NationalAcademy ofAgricultural Sciencs, New Delhi,43-70.

Wetengere, K. 2009. Socio-economic factors critical foradoption of fish farming technology: The case ofselected villages in Eastern Tanzania. InternationalJournal ofFisheries andAquaculture 1 (3): 28-37.