Progress. Agric.
24(1 & 2): 191 – 201, 2013 ISSN 1017-8139
EXISTING STATUS AND PRACTICES OF FISH FARMING IN
TRISHAL UPAZILA OF MYMENSINGH DISTRICT
S. Sheheli*, K. Fatema and S. M. Haque1
Department of Agricultural Extension Education, Bangladesh Agricultural University
Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to investigate the existing status and practices of fish
farming. A total of 100 farmers were interviewed by using a structured interview
schedule from three villages (Porabari, Mathabari and Vabanipur) of Trishal
upazila of Mymensingh district at their houses and/or farm sites during January to
May 2013. Most of the farmers (89%) made profit from fish production. The study
confirmed that most farmers have improved their socio-economic conditions
through fish production which plays an important role in increasing income, food
production and employment opportunities. Five major areas are identified to
improve the existing fish farming situation, which are quality fry, credit facilities,
low-cost quality feed, training, and marketing channel. The impact analysis of fish
farming on livelihood of fish farmers shows that overall 64% fish farmers have
increased overall livelihood from fish farming during the last four years (2010-
2013). Access to micro-credit, provide good quality input such as fry, feed,
vaccines, etc., market facilities, supply of improve technologies, and provide
training all lead to increased fish production. The constraints index (CI) analysis
shows that overall 74% fish farmers faced medium constraints for fish farming. A
total of nine (9) main constraints identified hindering their fish farming, and major
constraints are high production cost, lack of technical knowledge and inadequate
supply of good quality fry etc.
Key Words: Fish, Farmers, Livelihood, Bangladesh
INTRODUCTION
In spite of steps to reduce poverty over the last three decades, Bangladesh remains one of
the world’s poorest and least developed countries. Within the overall agro-based economy
of the country, fish production is crucial for livelihoods, income, animal protein,
employment opportunities, nutritional security and food supply. About 10% of the
population directly and indirectly depends on fisheries for their livelihood (DoF, 2011).
Around 400,000 ha of fish ponds/ditches and more than 900,000 households are involved in
aquaculture (ADB, 2010). Fisheries are currently one of the most important sub-sectors of
the national economy accounting for 5% of gross domestic product and 6% of export
earnings. The total fish production in Bangladesh in 2006 was estimated at 2.32 million tons,
of which 0.89 million tons (38%) were obtained from inland aquaculture, 0.96 million tons
(41%) from inland capture fisheries and 0.48 million tons (21%) from marine fisheries (DoF,
192 Status and practices of fish farming in Trishal Upazila
2007). In Bangladesh, around 46% of children between the ages 6 to 7 years are stunted and
70% are wasted due to malnutrition (Ahmed et al., 2007). The greater emphasis should be
given to meet the animal protein deficiency among the people as well as to boost up fish
production in this country through proper management of open water fishery and
aquaculture. But fish production from open water bodies is decreasing day by day (DoF,
2012). Once upon a time, these unique ecosystems supported huge and diverse biodiversity.
At present, most of the water bodies are contaminated by agricultural, industrial and
municipal waste as a pollutant and those are accumulated by runoff into these resources.
Aquatic organisms are silent victims of chlorine sub-lethal toxicity resulting from different
types of pollutants (Bernet et al., 1997). Fish production is also decreasing due to natural
causes like flood, drought, etc. (Chakraborty, 2009). But it is important that closed water or
pond fishery production is increasing day by day due to necessitate and demand of the
people (Ahmed, 2010). In addition more return also come from the fish production (DoF,
2012).
To fulfill the need of time, dependency on culture fisheries and pond aquaculture is
increasing to a great extent, of which pond aquaculture is of greatest importance. With the
increasing demand for fish and the decline in capture fish production, small indigenous
species (SIS) farming in Bangladesh is becoming more intensive (Ahmed et al., 2007). A
current focus is on promoting viable SIS farming with carp for local food supply and to
increase the income of poor farmers. SIS can be integrated into existing carp culture without
negative effects (Roos, 2001; Roos et al., 2003). For the improvement of cultural system and
future planning, the information regarding present aquaculture practices at the grass root
level is absolutely necessary. This study seeks to understand how fish farming lead to
improve the status and practices of fish farming as well as improve their livelihood.
Therefore, the present study is conducted with the following specific objectives:
i. to determine the existing status and practices of fish farming;
ii. to identify the existing constraints which hindering fish farming of the fish farmers;
and
iii. to collect and formulate farmers’ suggestions to conduct fish farming for improving
their livelihood.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was undertaken in Trishal Upazila of the Mymensingh district in north-central
Bangladesh. Trishal was selected as it is an important area for fish farming due to the
availability of fish fry, favorable resources and climatic conditions, such as the availability
of ponds and low lying agricultural land, warm climate, fertile soil, and cheap and
abundant labor. The maximum number of farmers made fish farming in Trishal. Data were
collected for five months from January to May 2013. Questionnaire interviews with fish
farmers were preceded by preparation and testing of the questionnaire, use of statistical
procedures to determine the sample size and sampling method. A total of 100 farmers were
interviewed from three villages (Porabari, Mathabari and Vabanipur) of Trishal Upazila at
their houses and/or farm sites. The interviews, lasting about two hours, focused on fish
Sheheli et al. 193
production systems, productivity, impact of fish farming on their livelihood and constraints
of fish farming etc. Cross-check interviews were conducted with District and Sub-district
Fisheries Officers, researchers and relevant non-government organization (NGO) workers.
Where information was found to be contradictory, further assessment was carried out. A
total of 4 key informants were interviewed. Moreover, secondary information (web articles,
organizations reports, and scientific reports) were used to crosscheck, complement or
illustrate the primary data, collected through the survey schedule. Data from questionnaire
interviews were coded and entered into a database system using Microsoft Excel software.
The identification and determination of the prevailing status and practices of fish farming is
one of the main objectives of this study. The eleven selected dimensions were used to
determine the existing status and practices of fish farming. These are: year of fish farm
establishment and its’ possession, experience of technical assistance and training, pre-
stocking management, use of chemicals, cultured species and stocking density, feed for fish
farming, occurrence of disease outbreak, harvesting and marketing of fish, yield from fish
farming, annual income, savings and credit, and impact of fish farming on their livelihood.
Nine potential constraints, related to economic, social and technical aspects were selected
based on the results of the pre-test. Fish farmers were asked to indicate their response for
each constraint on a four-point scale (Rahman et al., 2007) where 3 assigned for ‘severe’, 2
for ‘significant’, 1 for ‘insignificant’ and 0 for ‘not at all’. As 9 constraints were considered,
the possible score for constraint in fish farming of a fish farmer could vary from 0 to 27.
Finally, a constraint index (CI) was calculated for ranking the constraint as follows:
Constraint Index (CI) = C3×3 + C2×2 + C1×1 + C0×0
Where, C3 = frequency of fish farmer faced ‘severe’ constraints to conduct fish farming;
C2 = frequency of fish farmer faced ‘significant’ constraints to conduct fish farming;
C1 = frequency of fish farmer faced ‘insignificant’ constraints to conduct fish farming; and
C0 = frequency of fish farmer faced ‘not at all’ constraints to conduct fish farming.
Constraint index (CI) could range from 0 to 300 where ‘0’ indicate lowest constraint and
‘300’ indicate highest constraint faced by fish farmer to conduct fish farming.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Existing status and practices of fish farming according to the perception of fish farmer
Year of fish farm establishment and its’ possession
A large number of small and marginal farmers are associated with fish farming in the study
area. The data generated from the survey shows that 47% farmers established their farms
between 2000 and 2004, where 30% in or after 2005, 18% between 1995 and 1999 and only
5% of farmers were between 1990 and 1994. Of the fish farmers, 70% were established their
fish farms on own land and 30% were established on leased land. A general belief of the fish
farmers (89%) is that more profit come from it than crop agriculture. That is why; large
number of cultivable lands is converted into fish farms. In the study area, the average pond
size was 0.22 ha. The highest proportion (49%) of the fish farmer belonged to the 0.37 ha,
22% to the 0.20 ha and 11% to the 0.11 ha.
194 Status and practices of fish farming in Trishal Upazila
Experience of technical assistance and training
Fifty percent of farmers acquired fish farming experience from friends and neighbors where
33% received formal training from different organizations such as: DoF, BFRI and NGOs
and remaining 17% have no fish farming experience. Data shows that they entered into fish
farming by their self experience and still now they are continuing it. Result indicates that
50% farmers gain their knowledge from friends and neighbors. So, formal training is not
frequent in the survey areas. It is important that 50% farmers were expecting training
regarding fish farming.
Pre-stocking management
Preparation of pond is essential precondition to get more production from fish culture.
Some steps were followed by the farmers before stocking fish. These are dike repairing,
remove the excessive mud from the bottom of the pond; eradicate predatory and undesired
fish, lime and fertilizer application, etc. In pre-stocking management, all farmers eradicate
undesired weeds, predatory and undesired fish and repair their dike. Almost all (86%)
farmers dried their ponds when quality of water becomes deteriorated, among them 54%
used lime @ 1kg/dec, while 46% used @ 1.5 kg/dec. In the study area, farmers used
fertilizers mainly in the form of cow dung, urea and triple super phosphate (TSP) at various
rates. The purpose of using fertilizers in the ponds was to increase the production of natural
feeds (phytoplankton, zooplankton), thereby increasing fish production. It was also found
that 86% farmers fertilized their pond by using cow dung (@ 150 kg/ha) before stocking. In
the study area, the use of cow dung is widespread due to being relatively cheap and
available.
Use of chemicals
Farmers used various chemicals and toxic substances like- lime, salt, KMnO4, dipterex,
copper sulphate, methylene blue, malachite green, calcium hypochlorite and antibiotics in
the study area. Of the fish farmers, 100% farmers used these chemicals and toxic substances,
which are used to control aquatic weeds, pests, predators and undesirable species and
prevent different fish diseases. It also appears that 22% farmers used antibiotics. Aoki (1992)
reported that the use and sometime abuse of antibiotics in more intensive farming has led to
multiple drug resistance among the pathogens. These chemicals and antibiotics may have
lethal or sub lethal effects on non-target organisms in the environment. Pillay (1992) stated
that there is a possibility of generating drug-resistant strains of pathogens by the use of
antibiotics for treating diseases into the environment. As the resistance to antibiotic can be
transmitted from one bacterium to another, there is a risk of transference of antibiotic
resistance to normal bacteria in the human gut if antibiotic resistant bacteria are ingested in
numbers. Boyd and Massout (1999) reported about the risks associated with the use of
chemicals in pond aquaculture.
Cultured species and stocking density
In the study area, both exotic and indigenous species were cultured by fish farmers with
similar emphasis and stocked indian major carp such as catla (Catla catla), rohu (Labeo
rohita), mrigal (Cirrhinus cirrhosus), and exotic carp: silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix),
Sheheli et al. 195
grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). The average size of
fingerlings was 5.56 cm in length and 12 gms in weight. Farmers also produced SIS with
carp in their ponds. The most common small indigenous species are: mola
(Amblypharyngodon mola), puti (Puntius sophore), koi (Anabas testudineus), shing
(Heteropneustes fossilis), magur (Clarias batrachus), etc. The average annual stocking density
of SIS was 20,671 per ha. According to literature and fisheries specialist, average stocking
density of fish is 17,370 fry/ha (Islam, 2005).
Feed for fish farming
A variety of feeds were used in fish production. Farmers mainly used three types of feed
such as loose, pellet and both (loose + pellet). Among the farmers, 70% farmers used loose
feed, 23% used both types and only 7% used pellet. Loose feed was prepared by the farmers
with their own feed machine; while pellet was prepared by different fish feed companies.
Usually farmers collect these pellets from the local market. Different hormones, antibiotics
and growth promoter also used as feeds additives for fish culture. All of the farmers did
not know the recommended doses of these supplementary components. The indiscriminate
use of mediated feeds with hormones, antibiotics and growth promoter often caused
disease outbreaks in hatcheries, nurseries and farms (Hossain et al., 2001). It is important
that these chemicals also have harmful effects on human health. In the study area, 75%
farmers applied feed twice in a day, while 20% of farmers applied thrice and only 5%
applied feed once per day. The recommended feeding frequency is two or three times per
day (DoF, 2009). Of the farmers, 68% said that the average annual feeding rate was 4583
kg/ha. Twenty two percent (22%) farmer used 3827 kg feed/ha, while 10% farmer used
5103 kg/ha.
Occurrence of disease outbreak
Every farmer took preventive measure to keep away their ponds from disease outbreak. The
common preventative measures found in the study area are pond drying, lime application,
controlling weed, remove undesirable fish, change dirty water etc. In the study area some
fish diseases were seasonal and some were found round the year caused by bacterial, viral
or fungal infection. Seventy three percent (73%) farmer reported that their cultured fish was
occasionally attacked by diseases, while 12% fish farmers found disease outbreak every
year. Fifteen percent (15%) fish farmers did not found fish diseases in the pond. The most
common diseases were tail and fin rot, epizootic ulcerative syndrome (EUS), unknown
disease, oxygen deficiency disease, argulosis, saprolegniasis, gas bubble disease and
nutritional deficiency.
Harvesting and marketing of fish
The pick period of fish harvesting was November to December. The farmers complete their
harvesting after one year and partial harvest also done by some farmers from May to July.
Most of the farmers (64%) practiced total harvest and others (36%) practiced partial harvest
to get more benefit. Ahmed (2003) stated the peak harvesting season was from December to
March. A large number of farmers (43%) harvested their fish by the middlemen harvester
team and 33% farmers hired a local harvester team but 24% farmers harvested themselves.
In the study area, farmers harvested their fish by using a cast net (Jhaki jal) and seine net or
196 Status and practices of fish farming in Trishal Upazila
by total drying of pond. Data shows that 75% farmer harvested fish by using cast net and
seine net and 25% farmers used other methods.
Table 1. Existing status and practices of fish farming considering eleven dimensions
(n = 100)
Dimensions Key findings
Year of fish farm ● 47% farmers established their farms during 2000-2004
establishment and its’ ● The average pond size was 0.22 ha
possession ● Agricultural land especially paddy field has converted to
aquaculture
Experience of technical ● 33% farmer received formal training from different organizations
assistance and training ● 50% farmers were expecting training
Pre-stocking management ● Farmers used fertilizers in their pond mainly in the form of cow
dung, urea and triple super phosphate
● 86% farmers fertilized their pond by using cow dung (@150 kg/ha)
Use of chemicals ●100% farmers used chemicals and toxic substances to control
aquatic weeds, pests, predators and prevent different fish diseases
Cultured species and stocking ● Both exotic and indigenous species were cultured
density ● The average annual stocking density of SIS was 20,671/ha
Feed for fish farming ● 75% farmers applied feed twice in a day
● 68% said that the average annual feeding rate was 4583 kg/ha
Occurrence of disease ● 73% farmer reported their cultured fish was occasionally attacked
outbreak by diseases
Harvesting and marketing of ● 64% practiced total harvest
fish ●75% farmer harvested fish by using cast net and seine net
● 82% of harvested fish are sold to the wholesalers or local agents
Yield from fish farming ● Fish production was 6,752 kg/ha
Annual income, savings and ● The average annual income of fish farmer was Tk. 228,300
credit ● 71%farmer used their own money for fish farming
● The average amount of credit received by a farmer was Tk.
8880/year from all sources
Impact of fish farming on ● 64% farmer indicated that their livelihoods improved through fish
their livelihood farming
Around 82% of harvested fish are sold to the wholesalers or local agents, which transported
to the district markets in Mymensingh, 20-30 km from the study area. The rest (18%) of the
under-sized fish are sold to local markets in Trishal. The average prices of carp and SIS were
Tk. 190 and Tk. 210 kg-1, respectively in district town. Fish prices depend on size, weight,
quality, seasonality, supply and demand, and distance to markets. Heavy rains often
destroy the muddy roads in villages making them eventually inaccessible for the rickshaws,
vans and motorised vehicles to carry fish to the markets. This leads to high transport costs
and hence low profit margins. In addition to these problems, farmers are in a particularly
Sheheli et al. 197
weak position in relation to intermediaries. A large number of rural poor including women
and children operate in the fish marketing chain as intermediaries, day labourers and
transporters. The market chain from farmers to consumers encompasses mainly primary,
secondary and retail markets, involving local agents, suppliers, wholesalers and retailers.
Plastic containers are commonly used for containing the fish during transport. Fish are
traded whole, un-gutted and fresh without processing apart from sorting and icing.
Yield from fish farm
In the study area, fish production was 6,752 kg/ha, where Biswas (2003) reported that fish
production was 3,743 kg/ha in Mymensingh district. In addition, the average annual yield
of carp and SIS were estimated at 3217 kg/ha and 929 kg/ha, respectively. Kamruzzaman
(2011) estimated average annual yield of carp production is 2,925kg/ha in Bhaluka. It is
significant that the fish production is high in the study area because of soil fertility,
environment, lower water pollution, proper management by the farmer and farmers’ own
interest on fish farming.
Annual income, savings and credit
The lowest annual income of fish farmer from one hectare area was Tk. 192,930 and the
highest income was Tk. 348,650 per year with the mean Tk. 228,300. Based on annual
income, the fish farmer were classified into three categories namely ‘low income’ (≤ Tk. 200
thousand), ‘medium income’ (Tk. 201-300 thousand), and ‘high income’ (Tk. >300
thousand). With regard to total income, a high variability was observed, where the majority
of fish farmer (85%) fell under low to medium income categories and very few had a high
income (15%). The causes for the low per capita income mentioned by fish farmer are: many
household members, loss of farm income, insignificant earning, and chronic illness of the
main earners. In addition, six items were identified as the important reason behind the low
to medium income of fish farmers: spent most of their incomes on basic items like food,
housing, clothing, medication, and marriage of their sons and daughters, dowry payments,
etc. In the study area, the savings performance of fish farmer was calculated based on both
informal and formal saving mechanisms. The overall savings in the study area were very
small. Although most of the respondents (71%) used their own money for fish farming, 29%
received loans from NGOs, moneylenders and banks. However, due to lack of education
farmers often go to moneylenders and pay high interest rates of 10% monthly (i.e. 120%
yearly). The average amount of credit received by a farmer was estimated at Tk. 8880 per
year from all sources.
Opinion of fish farmers regarding impact of fish farming on their livelihood
Fish farmer were asked whether there had been any changed aspect of their lives since
performing fish farming over the last four years. Seven items of livelihood were selected as
the major areas that changed by the increase in income and opinion of fish farmers are
summarized in Table 2.
The majority of the fish farmer (64%) indicated that their livelihoods improved through fish
farming. The position in the family, water facilities, freedom in cash expenditure, and
participation in social activities also increased remarkably. Many farmers (29%) reported
198 Status and practices of fish farming in Trishal Upazila
that involvement with fish farming does not change their livelihood status and 7%
mentioned that their livelihood status in fact was decreased. Loss of property due to
discontinuation of income projects, unstable market prices, defaulting and the burden of
loans were major reasons for the negative effects reported by fish farmer.
Table 2. Overall impact of fish farming on livelihood of fish farmer (n = 100)
Statement Opinion of fish farmer (%)
Improved Same as before Decreased
Household income 61 35 4
Position in the family 85 20 5
Housing condition 55 45 0
Health situation 35 56 9
Water facilities 78 22 0
Participation in social activities 70 20 10
Freedom in cash expenditure 74 21 5
Overall livelihood 64 29 7
Problems faced by fish farmers towards fish farming
The interviewed fish farmers faced a variety of multi-dimensional difficulties and
constraints (economic, social and technical) that affected the fish farming activities as well
as their livelihood. The view of fish farmers has here been ranked according to their index
values. The constraint index (CI) of the 9 pre-selected constraints ranged from 179 to 274.
The most common constraint confronted by fish farmer is ‘high production cost’ (CI = 274).
Costs of fish farming were reported to have increased significantly in recent years as a result
of increased costs of seed, feed, fertilizers and wage rates. Inadequate and costly finance
can, therefore, be a major constraint to expand the fish farming. Naser (2009) identified the
similar problems of pond fish culture in Bangladesh.
The second most important constraint was ‘lack of technical knowledge’. Fish farmers
indicated that they have less formal training in technical matters regarding fish farming,
which keeps them away from using technology and up-to-date information. ‘Inadequate
supply of good quality fry’ was the 3rd most commonly encountered problem for the fish
farmers. According to the report of fish farmers, the increase in fish hatchery and demand
for fry decreased the quality of fry over time. Furthermore, poor infrastructure facilities
such as earthen roads and lack of bridges created a marketing problem, and there was a lack
of marketing channels. During monsoon, they faced difficulties to travel on the muddy
roads. Often, they could not reach market sites easily and in a timely manner. Fish farmer
also reported that poor health status was a barrier to conducting fish farming. They often
suffered from diarrhea, cholera, dysentery, skin diseases, malnutrition, night blindness, and
mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and malaria. In addition, they reported that
social insecurity and natural calamities hindered their fish farming. Fish farmers did not
have enough leaflets, booklets and other information materials on fish farming. Therefore,
Sheheli et al. 199
supply of adequate finance though credit program, establishing good quality hatcheries to
supply adequate fry on time, extension of technical knowledge by training program,
selecting appropriate site for fish farming, taking appropriate preventive and controlling
measures and extension of different facilities in the study area are essential.
Overall constraints of fish farmer
The observed constraint score ranged from 8 to 24 against a possible range score of 0 to 27.
From these constraint scores, fish farmers have been classified into three categories, namely
low constraints (≤8), medium constraints (9-16) and high constraints (>16). Survey data
shows that 74% of fish farmers faced medium constraints to conduct fish farming, while
21% faced high and 5% faced low constraints.
Suggestions of fish farmers
Suggestions by fish farmers to improve their livelihood status
Fish farmers suggested five major areas in order to improve livelihood situations. It is
noteworthy that adequate supply of quality fry on time was most important to the fish
farmers for improving their livelihood. In addition, they gave priority to credit facilities,
low-cost quality feed, training, and marketing channel to improve their existing livelihood
status.
Suggestions of fish farmers to overcome barriers of fish cultivation
Participants were asked to give their opinion on possible solutions to overcome barriers that
hindered the fish cultivation. In response to financial, social and technical barriers, they
suggested a number of initiatives that might be taken by development organizations (such
as GOs, NGOs, and private organizations) to remove barriers and to improve fish
cultivation. After a lively discussion with each other, they put forward the following
suggestions which have been arranged in Table 3. Here, lower rank indicates the need first
priority and higher rank indicate least priority to overcome the constraints.
Table 3. Possible solutions to overcome the constraints of fish farming as perceived by fish
farmer (n = 100)
Solutions Percent of Rank order
citations
Providing sufficient credit at low interest rate in time 75 1
Adequate supply of inputs (fry, fertilizer, hormone, vaccine) in time 68 2
Developing a cooperative society to resolve the marketing problems 60 3
Providing sufficient need-based training facilities on fish farming 56 4
from GOs and NGOs
Providing sufficient extension services from DAE, DLS, DOF, etc. 48 5
Adequate supply of technologies and information by skilled 38 6
personnel
Providing sufficient government support 29 7
200 Status and practices of fish farming in Trishal Upazila
CONSCLUSION
From the present investigation it is evident that Trishal Upazila is very rich with
aquaculture resources. Most of the farmers (89%) made profit from fish production. The
annual income from fish farming is relatively sound as of fish an economic perspective. The
study confirmed that most farmers have improved their socio-economic conditions through
fish production which plays an important role in increasing income, food production and
employment opportunities. Five major areas are identified essential to improve the existing
fish farming situation, which are quality fry, credit facilities, low-cost quality feed, training,
and marketing channel. The impact analysis of fish farming on livelihood of fish farmers
shows that overall 64% fish farmers have increased overall livelihood from fish farming
during the last four years (2010-2013). Access to micro-credit, provide good quality input
such as fry, feed, vaccines, etc., market facilities, supply of improve technologies, and
provide training all lead to increase fish production. It is important to mention that the
above opportunities are usually less accessible to the “fish farmers” in the study area.
The constraints index (CI) analysis shows that about 74% fish farmers faced medium
constraints for fish farming. A total of nine (9) main constraints identified hindering their
fish farming, and major constraints are high production cost, lack of technical knowledge,
inadequate supply of good quality fry, inadequate training facilities, lack of marketing
channels, poor transport facilities etc. Input services also need strengthening. In addition,
the development of low-cost quality feed is essential to improve farmers’ profit margins.
The provision of low-interest credit would help to reduce the risks for small and marginal
farmers. Farmers require credit at low interest rates from the government and national
banks. Better training and extension services would also help to improve profitability and
reduce risks. Farmer training and extension activities are relatively low cost methods of
increasing production efficiency (ADB, 2005). It is, therefore, necessary to provide
institutional, organizational and government support for sustainable fish farming in the
study area.
REFERENCES
ADB. 2005. An evaluation of small-scale freshwater rural aquaculture development for poverty
reduction. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila, Philippines.
ADB. 2010. An evaluation of small-scale freshwater rural aquaculture development for poverty
reduction. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila, Philippines.
Ahmed, F. 2003. Comparative study on carp poly culture practices of three different NGOs in Mymensingh
district, M. S. Thesis. Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh.
Ahmed, N., Wahab, M. A., and Thilsted, S. H. 2007. Integrated aquaculture-agriculture systems in
Bangladesh: Potential for sustainable livelihoods and nutritional security of the rural poor.
Aquaculture Asia. 12(1): 14-22.
Ahmed, J. 2010. Attitude of farmers towards the effect of pond ownership on fish production. M. S. Thesis.
Department of Agricultural Extension, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.
Sheheli et al. 201
Aoki, T. 1992. Chemotherapy and resistance in fish farms in Japan. In: Diseases in Asian Aquaculture,
Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, 1 519-529.
Bernet, D. H., Schmidt, W., Meier, P., Burkhardt, H. and Wahli, T. 1997. Histopathology in fish,
Proposal for a protocol to assess aquatic pollutions, J. Fish Dts., 22(1): 25-34.
Biswas, D. 2003. Study of the impacts of Aquaculture in and around fish farms in Mymensingh
district. Progressive Agriculture, 11(1-2): 243-249.
Boyd, C. E. and Massout, L. 1999. Risks associated with the use of chemicals in ponds aquaculture,
Aquacult Engg., 20(2): 113-132.
Chakraborty, B. K. 2009. Aquatic biodiversity of Someswari and Nethai River and Gharia and Nidaya
Beel of Northern Bangladesh. In Takumi K. Nakamura (Ed.). Aquaculture Research Progress,
Nova Science, Publishers, New York, USA. 3231-3268.
DoF. 2007. Fishery Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh 2005-2006. Fisheries Resources Survey System,
Department of Fisheries, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
DoF. 2009. Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Jatiyo Matshya Saptaho,
54-56.
DoF. 2011. Fishery Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh. Fisheries Resources Survey System,
Department of Fisheries, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
DoF. 2012. Fishery Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh. Fisheries Resources Survey System,
Department of Fisheries, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Hossain, M. A., Ahmed, M. and Islam, M. N. 2001. Mixed culture of fishes in seasonal ponds through
fertilization and feeding. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries Research, 1(2): 9-18.
Islam, M. S. 2005. Socio-economic status of fish farming in some selected areas of Dinajpur District. MS
Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh.
Kamruzzaman, M. 2011. Study of aquaculture practices of Bhaluka Upazil, Mymensingh. M. S. Thesis,
Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.
Nesar, A. 2009. The sustainable livelihoods approach to the development of fish farming in rural
Bangladesh. Journal of International Farm Management, 4(4): 1-18.
Pillay, T. V. R. 1992. Aquaculture and the environment. Fishing News Book, Blackwell Scientific
Publications Ltd., Osney mean. Oxford OX2 OEL., England, 189 pp.
RAHMAN, Z. M., Yamao, M. and Alam, M. A. 2007. Barriers Faced by Small Farmers in Adopting the
Integrated Plant Nutrient System for Sustainable Farming Development. Sabaragamuwa
University Journal, 7(1): 7 p.
Roos, N. 2001. Fish consumption and aquaculture in rural Bangladesh: nutritional contribution and
production potential of culturing small indigenous fish species. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Royal
Veterinary and Agricultural University, Department of Human Nutrition, Frederiksberg,
Denmark.
Roos, N., Islam, M. M. and Thilsted, S. H. 2003. Small fish is an important dietary source of vitamin A
and calcium in rural Bangladesh. International J. Food Science Nutrition, 54: 329–339.
