Socio-economic condition of fish farmers of Jhikargachha upazila in Jessore district , Bangladesh

The present study was conducted to assess the livelihood status of fish farmers and socioeconomic condition in the Jhikargachha upazila, Jessore, Bangladesh. Data were collected from 50 fish farmers for a period of six months from June 2016 to November 2016. The study indicated that 38% of the farmers were in age structure of 50-60 years, 44 farmers (88%) were Muslims and others Hindu (12%). About 82% farmers had a primary occupation of agriculture and others were involved in business (8%), service (4%) and politics (4%). It was found that, 66% farmers had joint family and others lived in separated family (34%). Majority (44 farmers) respondents had concrete house and rest of (6 farmers) had semi-concrete house. Almost (44%) farmers used concrete toilet and rest of farmers used semi-concrete (56%). All the respondents used to drink tube well water for drinking and other household works. Out of 50 fish farmers, 4% had no education (illiterate), 36% had primary education, 42% secondary level (Up to X), 10% S.S.C., 4% H.S.C. and 4% bachelor level of education. In the study area, 32% of the farmers had ponds of 34-66 dec, 28% had pond of 15-33 dec, 14% had ponds of up to 100 dec, 22% had ponds of 101-330 dec and 4% had ponds of 330-above dec. It was found that, 62% farmers had training on fish farming and rest 38% farmers had no training on fish farming. Among 50 farmers 64% farmers were found used to invest their own credit and rest 36% farmers took loan from bank, NGO, money lender and broker agency. Most of the farmers were interested to stock rui, catla and mrigal and other species. In the study area, cow dung was used by 50 (100%) of farmers, 47 farmers used urea, 40 farmers used TSP and 34 farmers used MoP. It was found that, 40% farmers produced fish between 1001 kg – 2000 kg/year and 17 (34%) farmers produced 3001 kg-above/year. The highest income was 3,30,75,000Tk/Year and the lowest income from a pond was 20000 Tk/Year. In the study area, every farmer had at least one mobile phone. Almost 96% farmers were used to go MBBS doctor and only 4% to homeopathic treatment.


Introduction
As a member of south Asian country, Bangladesh is an agrarian, highly populated developing country and the nation striving hard for rapid development of its economy.Critics showed that the future economic and social advancement of the country is highly depends on the agricultural sectors and plays a vital role in the socioeconomic blossoming of rural area, carry out the animal protein demand, creating new employment opportunity, eradication of poverty and earning foreign exchange for the national economy.About 2.7 million people are directly employed in this sector and another 17.80 million people indirectly earn their livelihood indirectly involving activities related to fisheries (DoF, 2015).At present fisheries and aquaculture contributes 3.69% to national GDP and 2.01% to foreign exchange earnings through export (Export Promotion Bureau, 2014).Fisheries sectors contributed to agricultural GDP as 23.12% (Bangladesh Economic Review, 2015).In fish production was 3,68,4894 MT in 2014-15 fiscal years.Fish also contributed about 60% to the nation's animal protein intake during 2013-14.At present annual fish intake by an individual is 19.34 kg and the annual fish demand is 3.09 million metric tons (DoF, 2015).So malnutrition problem can be reduced by increasing the production of fish.Fisheries sector creates 1.4 million full time employments and nearly 11 million part time employments (Haque et al, 1991).A large portion of rural family members are engaged in part time fishing from the beels (Hughes et al., 1994).It creates diverse livelihood opportunities for a number of people, many of whom living below the poverty level, in the form farmers, operators, employees, traders, intermediaries, day laborers and transporters (Ahmed and Rahman 2005).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 (Islam et al., 2002).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 socioeconomic condition through pond fish farming activities (Ara, 2005).Bangladesh has got a large number of ponds scattered all over in the country.There are 47, 08,193 ha water bodies of which 3, 77,968 ha ponds are suitable for fish culture (BBS, 2014 andDoF, 2015).It has been estimated that about 1.28 million people are directly related to fishing activities (Mahfuj et al., 2012).For sustainable rural development and poverty elimination, different approaches have been adopted and the "Sustainable Livelihood Approach" has been gradually expanded with its own core and principles for poverty focused development activities (DFID, 1998).A sustainable livelihood approach is a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and priorities for development.Considering the financial hardship and other complexities of the rural fish farmers, it is important to analyze their livelihood status.In near present years further improvement in pond aquaculture has gained due to application of technique by introducing scientific strategies of pond preparation (liming, repair dam), species selection, stocking density, feed application, fertilizers, water exchange and proper management.This scientific knowledge is gain by the fish farmer in upazila fisheries office and local NGOs.In the recent year fish farming activities are gradually increase in Jhikargachha upazila.Most of the farmer followed two types of culture technique are characterized by extensive (traditional) and improved traditional (semi-intensive) system.The present study was planned to know the status of fish culture in ponds of the study area.Therefore, the present study was done with the objectives to investigate the fish culture strategy and management in some selected area of Jhikargachha upazila under Jessore district and to know the socio-economic condition of involved fish farmer.

Study area and periods
The study was conducted in some selected areas of Jhikargachha upazila during June to November, 2016 by using survey and frequent interview method.Fifty fishermen of the area were interviewed during the survey.The study was carried out in the five unions named Navaran, Nirbashkhola, Hazaribagh, Shankarpur and Bankra (Figure 1).

Target group
Total 50 farmers from five unions (10 farmers from each union) in Jhikargachha upazila were selected purposively.

Data collection 2.3.1. Primary sources
The questionnaire interviews were the primary sources of acquired data.Interviews were conducted at the pond sites and home in the selected area.At the time of interview, the physical conditions of the ponds and the fish cultivation methods like pond repairing, application of food and fertilizers, harvesting, etc. were observed for well understanding the fish production technology in the study area.Time required for each interview was about an hour to one and half hour.

Secondary sources
The secondary sources of data were central library, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh; different websites and journals; Upazila Fisheries Office, Jhikargachha and District Fisheries Office, Jessore.

Data processing and analysis
After collection of data from the field, data were verified to eliminate errors and inconsistencies.Then the data were tabulated carefully.The qualitative data were categorized and analyzed mainly based on descriptive statistical analysis using MS excel.

Age structure of fish farmers in Jhikargachha, Jessore
In the study area, majority of fish farmers (38%) were 50-60 years old.On the other hand, 30% respondents were less than 40 years old and 32% respondents were 40-50 years old (Table 1).

Primary occupation of fish farmers
According to the survey, the fish farmers were found to be involved in activities such as agriculture (82%), business (8%), service (4%) and politics (4%) and rest (2%) as daily labor work (Figure 3).

Family type
It was found that 66% fish farmers lived in joint families and 34% lived with separated families (Table 2).

Family member
It was found that around 13 (26%) families had four members, 9 (18%) families had five members, 16 (32%) families had six members and 12 (24%) families had seven or more members in their family in the study area (Figure 4).

Housing condition of fish farmers
Majority respondents around 44 (88%) had concrete house (Concrete wall with concrete roof) and rest of 6 (12%) respondents had semi-concrete (Concrete wall and tin shed roof) house (Figure 5).

Sanitation facilities
In the study area it was found that 100% farmer had a good sanitation facility.Almost 22 (44%) farmers used concrete (concrete platform) toilet and rest of 28 (56%) farmers used semi-concrete (concrete platform with tin shed) toilet (Figure 6).

Drinking water sources
All the 50 respondents (100%) were used to drink tube well water and other household work.Every farmer had at least one tube well in the house premises (Table 3).

Educational status of fish farmers
There were six categories used to determine the level of education.Out of 50 fish farmers, 4% had no education (illiterate), 36% had primary level, 42% had secondary level (up to X), 10% had S.S.C. level, 4% had H.S.C. level and 4% had bachelor level of education (Figure 7).

Training of fish farmers
In the study areas, all the selected farmers (Table 5) received training on fish poly culture from the local NGO named BRAC, ASA and ANSER; government organization like Department of Fisheries (DoF) and Upazila Fisheries officer (UFO).It was found that 31 (62%) farmers had training on fish farming and rest 19 (38%) farmers had no training on fish farming (Table 5).

Finance source
It was found that 32 (64%) farmers used to invest their own credit.And rest of 18 (36%) farmers used money taken from bank, NGO, money lender and broker agency as a loan.The overall interest percentage of money in Jhikargachha upazila was 7% (Figure 9).

Feed types preferred by farmers
It was found that 72% (36) of the farmers applied supplementary and homemade feed prepared with rice-bran and mustard oil cake and 28% ( 14) farmers used company made commercial feed (Figure 11).

Grow out time of fish allowed by farmer
During the interview periods every farmer responds that, they allowed to grow fish in their pond was to 6 month or more.

Production of Fish
Fish production was continuously increasing in the surveyed area because of gaining knowledge on fish culture.The highest production was measured as 27000 kg/year and the lowest production was 650 kg/year.It was found that there were 4 (8%) farmers produced 600 kg -1000 kg/year, 20 (40%) farmers produced 1001 kg -2000 kg/year, 9 (18%) farmers produced 2001 kg -3000 kg/year, and 17 (34%) farmers produced 3001 kgabove/year in the study area (Table 6).

Annual income
The highest income was 33075000 Tk/year and the lowest income from a pond was 20000 Tk/year.Among 50 farmers, almost 28 (56%) farmers got their annual income as 100001 Tk to 500000 Tk and 5 (10%) farmers got their annual income as 500001 Tk to 1000000 (Figure 13).

Public or private bank account status of farmer
It was found that every farmer had at least one bank account.Some farmers had more than one account.In rural area BKash, Dutch-Bangla Bank, MCash, OK cash and other mobile banking were too much popular for any amount of transaction.

Mobile phone used by farmers
In the study area, it was found that every farmer had at least one mobile phone.Some farmer had more than one.They usually consulted with feed dealers, fertilizer dealers, NGO workers, technical service providers along with government official through mobile phone.

Health status of farmers and their family
It was found that 48(96%) farmers were used to go MBBS doctor or allopathic treatment and only 2 (4%) farmers were used to go to homeopathic treatment (Figure 14).

Problems faced by the fish farmers
A number of constraints and risks were reported by the farmers.Every farmer responds these problems.These problems are diseases; lack of proper management; theft; lack of quality fish fry; cheating of fry traders and multiple ownerships of ponds.

Discussion
The present study observed that, the highest number of fish farmer's age were 50 to 60 year (38%) and lowest age (30%) were 30-40 years.Khatun et al. (2013) reported that the age group of 36-50 years was the highest (46%) and 51-65 years were the lowest (26%) considering all fish farmers.This result is more or less relevant to the present study.Rana (1996) found in his study in Sirajgonj district that 70% of pond farmers were in 18-45 years.Ali et al. (2009) Sen and Roy (2015).In the study of Jhikargachha, Jessore it was found that 66% fish farmers lived in joint families and 34% lived in separated families.Provakar et al. (2013) found that about 54% of farmers lived in joint families and 46% in nuclear (seperated) families in Shahrasti upazila of Chandpur district.This result is not relevant to the present study.Ali et al. (2008) was found that about 28% farmers lived with joint families and 72% lived with nuclear families.Sharif et al. (2015); Ahsan et al. (2016) and Asif et al. (2015) stated the similar result with the present findings.It was found that around 13 (26%) families had four members in their family, 9 (18%) families had five members in their family, 16 (32%) families had six members in their family and 12 (24%) families had seven and more members.Hossain et al. (2015) found that 27% family had only 2-4 members.The highest 60% family has only 5-7 members.Halder (2002) recorded the largest family size (6.67 persons) was in Cast net fishermen and smallest family size (4.50 persons) was in hogra fishermen of Doba Beel.Most of the fish farmer (45%) belonged in 4 to 5 member's family in Mymensingh district (Ali et al. 2009).Average members in the household of the fishermen were found 3.60±1.34by Islam et al. (2013) which has similarity with present findings.In present study, majority respondents 44 (88%) had concrete house (concrete wall with concrete roof) and rest of 6 respondents (12%) had semi-concrete (concrete wall and tin shed roof) house.Hossain et al. (2009) found that 40.3% of farmers' had house of earthen condition, 46.7% had semi-concrete and 10% had concrete house.However, at beel Chandpur, 36.67%,56.67% and 6.67% farmer had earthen house, semi-concrete and concrete house respectively.Rahman (2003) reported that 70% of houses were earthen, while 21% were semiconcrete and only 9% were concrete.Islam et al. (2017); Islam et al. (2014), Asif et al. (2015), Islam et al. (2015) and Sharif et al. (2015) did the same study.All the study is more or less similar with the present study.It was found that almost 22 (44%) farmers used concrete (concreted platform) toilet and rest of 28 (56%) farmers used semi-concrete (Concrete platform with tin shed) toilet.Sharif et al. (2015) found that 5% concrete toilet, 50% has earthen toilet and 45% semi concrete toilet.Asif et al. (2015) investigated in Jessore that about 69% and 31% of fish farmers used semi-concrete and concrete toilet respectively.All these study are more or less similar with the present study.All the respondents 50 (100%) farmers used to drink tube well water and other household work.Hossain et al. (2015) found that 100% fishermen used tube-well water for drinking purpose.Sharif et al. (2015) described that about 97% fish farmers used tube well and rest 3% of the farmer uses pond water.This has more or less similarity with the present study.Education has a role in influencing yields through production decisions.Out of 50 fish farmers, 4% had no education (illiterate), 36% had primary level, 42% had secondary level (Up to X), 10% had S.S.C. pass level, 4% had H.S.C. level and 4% had bachelor level of education.Provakar et al. (2013) found in his study in Shahrasti upazila of Chandpur district that about 10% had no education while 16%, 48%, 16% and 10% had primary, secondary, higher secondary and bachelor level of education, respectively.23.3% farmers were illiterate whereas 14.4%, 8.9% and 6.7% were educated up to primary, secondary and higher secondary or above level, respectively.This study also has similarity with the findings of Hossain et al. (2009), Islam et al. (2014), Hossain et al. (2015), Asif et al. (2015), Islam et al. (2015); Zaman et al. (2017) and Sharif et al. (2015).In the present study, 9 (18%) childrens of farmers had primary education, 33 (66%) had secondary level, 6 (12%) children had in higher secondary level and rest 2 (4%) children of farmers had bachelor level.Hossain et al. (2015) investigated in Rajshahi that 64% of fishermen were found to send their children to school whereas 36% did not send children for schooling.These results are similar with the present (Asif et al., 2015 andIslam et al., 2014).Among the 50 farmer most of them (32%) had the agricultural land (34-66 dec).On the other hand, 28% had (15-33 dec), 14% had up to 100 dec, 22% had (101-330 dec) and 4% had (330-above dec).Provakar et al. (2013) reported that the average pond size of the area was 0.24 ha (60 dec) in Shahrasti upazila of Chandpur district.This study is not similar to the present study.Khan (2012) revealed that the average pond size was 0.13 ha in Sreemongal upazila of Maulvibazar district which is not to similar to the present study.Islam (2011) reported that the average pond size was 0.16 ha with a range from 0.04 to 0.81 ha in some selected areas of Maulvibazar district.All the studies are more or less similar with the present study (Asif et al., 2014).It was found that, 62% (31) farmer had training on fish farming and rest of 38% ( 19) farmer had no training on fish farming.Sarwer et al. (2016) said that 18% received formal training from Upazila Fishery Office with the help of Department of Fisheries (DoF).Hossain et al. (2015) stated that only 20% fishermen had training on one or more than one related matter, 80% have no any training.These results differ with the findings of Biswas (2003) and Sultana (2001) study.Khatun et al. (2013) reported that 14% of farmers received training from DoF and 7% of farmers gain fish farming experience from relatives.It was found that 32 (64%) farmer used to invest their own credit.And rest of 18 (36%) farmers took loan from bank, NGO, money lender and broker agency.Sarwer et al. (2016) reported that 91% of the farmers used their own money for fish farming and 6% of the farmers received loan from bank for farming activities.3% of the fish farmers received loan from other sources.Sharif et al. (2015) stated that 5% of finance are contributed by farmers, 73% farmers got finance from bank whereas 22% farmers took finance from local moneylenders.Asif et al. (2014) and Zaman et al. (2017) did similar research and got the relevant results.About 70% farmers fertilized ponds after removing of weeds.Along with rui, catla and mrigal the farmer used to stock other species like bata (43 farmers), silver carp (44 farmers), grass carp (30 farmers), common carp (34 farmers), pangus (25 farmers), mirror carp (39 farmers), tilapia (32 farmers), monosex-tilapia (1 farmer), scale carp (2 farmers), sarpunti (1 farmer), bighead carp (22 farmers) and tengra (10 farmers) were stocked.Ahmed (2003) observed that peak period of carp polyculture was from April to December.On the other hand, Tanjina (2011) stated that there were 17 available fish species under five orders found during the study period in Shinghorkhali beel in Dinajpur district.Ahmed (2003) also stated that there were about 15 different fish species found to culture in the farms of Naogaon district.Biswas (2003) stated that there were about 14 different fish species found to culture in the farms of Mymensingh district.Most of the farmers had small size pond where they used household waste, rice bran and mustard oil cake to feed fishes.Farmers increased the use of feeds as rice bran, mustard oil cake along with commercial feed.Provakar et al. (2013) found in Shahrasti upazila of Chandpur district that 95% of the farmers applied supplementary feed such as rice bran, mustard oil cake and commercially manufactured feed and rest 5% of farmers depended on the natural food in the pond.Alam (2006) found that 80% of the farmers applied supplementary feed such as rice bran and mustard oil cake.In the study area, cowdung was used by 50 (100%) farmers.Urea was used by 47 farmers, TSP (Triple super phosphate) was used by 40 farmers and MoP (Murate of Potash) was used by 34 farmers.Saha et al. (2003) found that only 25% farmers gave fertilizer in the pond which has no similarity with the present work.Saha (2004) observed that the average dose of inorganic fertilizer of urea was 387 kg/ha/year and TSP 176 kg/ha/yr.Rahman (1998) found in his study that doses of organic and inorganic fertilizer were 11,075 kg/ha and 739 kg/ha, respectively.This study is not equivalent with the present study.Rana (1996) found that farmers used organic fertilizer was 8,122 kg/ha/year and urea was 3l5 kg/ha/year and TSP was 111 kg/ha/yr.(2015).The highest income was 33075000 Tk/yr and the lowest income from a pond was 20000 Tk/yr.In the study area 9 (18%) farmers got their annual income from 20000 to 100000 Tk.Almost 28 (56%) farmers got their annual income from 100001 to 500000 Tk, some 5 (10%) farmers got their annual income from 500001 Tk to 1000000 Tk and rest of 8 (16%) farmers got their annual income from 1000001 Tk to above.Provakar et al.
(2013) stated that the highest (34%) fish farmers earned 75,000 to 1,00000Tk per year in Shahrasti upazila of Chandpur district.Islam (2015) stated that the average fish production of 16.67% respondents were high (3188 kg/ha/yr), 33.33% respondents were medium (2627/kg/ha/yr), 16.67% low (1864 kg/ha/yr) and 33.33% were very low (1407 kg/ha/yr) which is similar with the present study.It was found that, every farmer in the study area had at least one bank account.Some farmers had more than one account for saving money and money transaction.BKash, Dutch-Bangla Bank, MCash, OK cash and other mobile banking was too popular for any amount of transaction in the study area.Zaman et al. (2017); Asif et al. (2015) and Sharif et al. (2015) did the same study and their findings are more relevant with the present study.It was found that 100% farmers had one or more mobile phone.Which is similar with the findings of Asif et al. (2015) and Sharif et al. (2015).It was found that 48 (96%) farmers were visited MBBS doctor or took allopathic treatment and only 2 (4%) of farmer were used to go to homeopathic treatment which is relevant with the findings of Zaman et al. ( 2017 (2015).
From the survey, it was found that diseases, theft, shadow of trees, fallen leaves of tree, multiple ownership, lack of quality feed, lack of quality fish fry, water contamination by human baths and clothes washing, rapid water decrease in dry season, dike erosion in rainy season, snakes ate fishes in the pond etc were the major problems of fish production.Ali et al. (2009) and Ali et al. (2015) reported that lack of scientific knowledge, multiple ownership of ponds, attack of fish disease and non-availability of good quality fish fry were the major problems in pond fish culture in Bangladesh.Mollah et al. (1990) conducted that the farmers have major constraints as; 72.50% of farmers reported theft was one of the main problems followed by financial problem (40%), lack of contact with fisheries officer (37.75%), lack of fish seeds (27.50%) and lack of feeds

Conclusions
Generally fish farming played a vital role in the uplifting of the life style and socio-economic condition of fish farmer of Jhikargachha upazila.From the results of present study, it can be concluded that fish culture has broad socio-economic benefits for the fish farmers.If the farmers are given precious training, economic support on easy terms and conditions, more profit would be outputted.Thus it can be concluded that fish farming is a fruitful business that can help the peasant to uplift their livelihood situation as well as economic criteria.This study also explored some major problems which were faced by the local people after starting the fish culture.
From the survey, it was found that diseases, lack of proper management, theft, multiple ownership and lack of quality fish fry etc. were the major problems of fish production.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Map of Jhikargachhaupazila showing the study area.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.Primary occupation of fish farmers.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Family member percentage of fish farmers.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Housing status of pond fish farmers in the study area.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Educational status of fish farmers in Jhikargachha upazila.

Figure 13 .
Figure 13.Annual income pattern of 50 pond farmers under four culture systems.

Figure 14 .
Figure 14.Health treatment status of farmers.