“STUDIES ON THE ADOPTION OF SCIENTIFIC FISH

FARMING BY THE FISH FARMERS OF UMSNING

BLOCK, MEGHALAYA”

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED

TO

DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND APPLIED AQUACULTURE,

BARKATULLAH UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

FOR THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF M.F.Sc IN

APPLIED AQUACULTURE

2017-2018

SUBMITTED BY

MR. ROUSELL LYTAN

GUIDANCE CO-GUIDANCE

Dr. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH Dr. RUPAK NATH

BARKATULLAHUNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

MADHYA PRADESH – 462026

DECEMBER - 2017
 DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND APPLIED AQUACULTURE

BARKATULLAH UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL – 462026 (M.P) INDIA

Dr. VipinVyas Phone : 7746041105

M.Sc, Ph.D Fax : (0755)2677703
Head of Department E-Mail :vyasvipin992@gmail.com
Zoology & Applied Aquaculture Gram : University
Barkatullah University, Bhopal – 462026 Ref.NO : Z&A. F-1607

CERTIFICATE

This is to certified that the dissertation entitled “Studies on the adoption of

scientific fish farming by the fish farmers of Umsning block,
Meghalaya” has been carried out by Mr. ROUSELL LYTAN under the
guidance of Dr. Pawan Kumar Singh and Co-guidance of Dr. Rupak Nath
for the partial fulfillment of M.F.Sc Applied Aquaculture in the Department
of Zoology and Applied Aquaculture, Barkatullah University, Bhopal during
the academic session 2017-18.

I wish him every success in his academic career.

Date: 28-12-2017

Place: Bhopal

Dr. VipinVyas

Head of department of

Zoology and Applied Aquaculture

Barkatullah University, Bhopal

 DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND APPLIED AQUACULTURE

BARKATULLAH UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL – 462026 (M.P) India

Dr. Pawan Kumar Singh Phone : 8839510097

M.Sc, MphilPh.D Fax : (0755)2677703
Faculty E-Mail : Singhdrpk404@gmail.com
Department of Zoology & Applied Aquaculture Gram : University
Barkatullah University, Bhopal – 462026 Ref.NO : Z&A. F-1607

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the dissertation entitled “Studies on the adoption of scientific

fish farming by the fish farmers of Umsning block, Meghalaya”has been
carried out by Mr. Rousell Lytan under my guidance and co-guidance Dr.
Rupak Nath for the partial fulfillment of M.F.Sc in Applied Aquaculture in
the Department of Zoology and Applied Aquaculture, Barkatullah
University, Bhopal during the academic session 2017-18.

Date: 28-12-2017

Place: Bhopal Dr. Pawan Kumar Singh

 Declaration
I hereby declare that this dissertation entitled“Studies on the Adoption of Scientific
Fish Farming by the Fish Farmers of Umsning block, Meghalaya” is an authentic
record of work done by me under the guidance of Dr. Pawan Kumar Singh and Co-
guidance Dr. Rupak Nath and that no part of this work has been presented for the award
of any Degree, Diploma, Associateship, Fellowship or any other similar title or for any
publication.

Rousell Lytan
Department of Zoology and Applied Aquaculture
Barkatullah University
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, praises and thanks to God, the almighty, for his showers of
blessings throughout my dissertation work to complete the dissertation successfully.
I am grateful to thanks to my Guide, Dr.Pawan Kumar Singh professor of Department of
Zoology and Applied Aquaculture, Barkatullah University Bhopal, for his valuable
guidance and all the support and encouragement he gave me.

I would like to extend my deep and sincere gratitude to my dissertation Co-Guide,

Dr.Rupak Nath Assistant professor of Department of Fishery science, St. Anthony’s
College Shillong, for providing invaluable guidance throughout this dissertation. His
dynamism, vision, sincerity and motivation have deeply inspired me. Under his guidance I
successfully overcame many difficulties and learn a lot. I would also like to thank him for
his friendship, empathy and great sense of humor. It was a great privilege and honor to
work and study under his guidance. Without his guidance and constant feedback this
dissertation would not have been achievable.

I grateful acknowledge Dr.Vipin Vyas Head of Department of Zoology and Applied

Aquaculture, Barkatullah University, Bhopal for his valuable help to carry out my work.

I sincerely thank Dr. Ashok K. Munjal former Head of Department of Zoology and
Applied Aquaculture, Barkatullah University Bhopal for his valuable guidance.

I am extremely indebted to Dr. R.N. Bhuyan Head of Department Fishery Science of St.
Anthony’s College Shillong, for providing necessary infrastructure to accomplish my
dissertation work.

I am grateful acknowledge Bro. Albert Dkhar Principal of St. Anthony’s college Shillong
for allowing me to do my dissertation work in the college.

Many thanks also to Dr.Shriprana Saxena Assistant professor of Department of Zoology

and Applied Aquaculture, Barkatullah University Bhopal, for her kind help to complete
this work.

i
 I would also like to thank some people from research tenure, Mrs.Neha Patil, Mr.Shadab
Siddiqui and Mr.Bholaram Brahamne for valuable help and support.

I expand my thanks to my dearest friend, Kamwamut Talang who has been by my side
during the journey and for keen interest shown to complete this work successfully.

My deep appreciation goes out to the local farmers for their kind help for contribution
towards my dissertation. I am grateful to them, for their friendship and the warmth they
extended to me during my time in the villages and for always making me feel so welcome.

My special thanks to my roommates Bashanlang Nongrang with whom I started this work
and many rounds of discussions on my dissertation with him help me a lot.

Words are short to express my deep sense of gratitude towards my following friends,
Arun, Athi, Ratnakar, Priyesh, Rahul, Rajhuveer, Rickystar, Rohit, and Saloni.

Last but not least, I would like to pay high regards to my Mother (Bei), Sisters, brother,
sister in law and brother in law for their sincere encouragement and inspiration throughout
my dissertation work and lifting me uphill this phase of life. I owe everything to them.
Besides this, several people have knowingly and unknowingly helped me in the successful
completion of this dissertation.

Date: 28-12-2017
Place: Bhopal Rousell Lytan

ii
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgement i-ii

List of tables Iv

List of figures V

List of plates Vi

Abstract

Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1-3

Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5-7

Chapter III MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY 9-19

Chapter IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 21-32

Chapter V CONCLUSION 34

Chapter VI REFERENCES 36-39

Appendix 41-43

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Sl no Title Page
1 Description of various variables 13
2 Classification of farmer by Age 14
3 Classification of farmer by Education 15
4 Classification of farmer by Income 15
5 Classification of farmer by Pond size 15
6 Classification of farmer by Family size 16
7 Classification of farmer by Age, frequency and percentage 21
8 Classification of farmer by Education, frequency and percentage 22
9 Classification of farmer by Income, frequency and percentage 23
10 Classification of farmer by Pond size, frequency and percentage 24
11 Classification of farmer by Family size, frequency and percentage 25
12 Classification of farmer by community, frequency and 26
percentage
13 Classification of farmer by Overall Adoption level 29
14 Coefficient of correlation between selected characteristics of Fish 29
farmers and their Adoption

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

SL. NO TITLE PAGE No.

Fig 1 Map showing state of Meghalaya 10

Fig 2 Map showing state of Ri-Bhoi District and study area 10

Fig 3 Diagrammatic representation of the sample 11

Fig 4 Data collected through personal interview the farmers 18

v
 LIST OF PLATES

Sl. no Title Page no

1 Picture with farmer in Umtru Village 18

2 Picture along with farmers in Umiarong village 18

3 Picture with farmer in Umroi village 18

4 Picture with farmer in Umeit village 18

5 Picture with farmer in Rtiang village 19

6 Picture with farmer in umroi village 19

7 Picture with farmer in Sumer Village 19

8 Picture with farmer in Bhoi-Lymbong village 19

9 Pond in Umiarong village 27

10 Pond in Umtru village 27

11 Pond in Rtiang village 27

12 Pond in Umroi village 27

13 Stocking of fish seeds in Umiarong village 28

14 Pond in sumer village 28

15 Angling of fish in Umeit village 28

16 Pond in Bhoi-Lymbong village 28

vi
 Abstract

The present study was carried out in the purposively selectedon the
adoption of scientific fish farming by the fish farmers of Umsning block,
Meghalaya. The data was collected through interview schedule and 21 fish
farmers were selected. The findings revealed that majority of the fish
farmers have medium (76%) level of adoption.The coefficient correlation
was found in age, education and pond sizewas positive and not significance
and incase of income is found negative and not significance in relationship
with the adoption level.
 Chapter-1
INTRODUCTION

Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic animals and plants. Globally the aquaculture sector
witnessed a growth of over 8 percent per annum in the past two decades and fish
production reached about 53 million tons in 2008. So, employment in aquaculture is
increasing at a faster rate than world population growth and now accounts for one-quarter
of the total number of workers directly involved in the fisheries sector (FAO, 2012).
There are about ten million fish farmers around the world, most of them living in
developing countries and using low intensity production methods. Globally 60 percent of
the aquaculture is undertaken, in fresh water followed by 32 percent and 8 percent in salt
and brackish water respectively. However the brackish water systems tend to concentrate
on higher value species and account for 13 percent of production value (FAO 2010).
Globally, fish provides 20 percent of animal protein to the 2.9 billion people. Aquaculture
probably the fastest growing food-producing sector, it contributed 40.1% to the world
total fish production (FAO, 2011).
India is now the second largest producer of fresh water fish in the world. Fisheries
sector occupies an important place in the socio-economic development of the country. It
is a powerful income and employment generator as it stimulates growth of a number of
subsidiary industries and is a source of cheap and nutritious food besides being a foreign
exchange earner. Most importantly, it is a source of livelihood for 14.49 million
economically backward people in the country. The contribution of fisheries to the
agricultural GDP as well as overall GDP has been showing a rising trend (FAO 2010).In
India, Fisheries and Aquaculture is an important sector of food production. India is the
sixth largest producer of fish (6.4 million tonnes) in the world and second in inland fish
production. The total fish production is 9.58 million metric tonnes according to 2013-14
and Aquaculture contributes 65% to the fisheries sector (Anon, 2014).About 95 per cent
of India’s aquaculture production has been reported through inland aquaculture and per
capita consumption of fish also increased from 5 kg to 16 kg during the last 50 years
(Ayyappan and Biradar, 2004).

1
The Northeast region of India is blessed with rich aquatic resources. More than 95% of
the populations are fish eaters and there is huge demand for fish. Northeastern India has a
good potential of fisheries resources. Most of the fish species are caught from wild
habitat (Inaotombi.,et al,2015).
Aquaculture is developing quickly in most of the north-eastern India because of the high
demand for fish in the region. However, this growth is not uniform because of different
food consumption habits of the people, though all states in the region have excellent
potential for aquaculture (Anon, 2011).Fish culture in North East region is becoming
promising enterprise in respect of providing employment and particularly integrated fish
farming has proven environmentally sustainable and economically viable technology for
this region (Mahanta, 2001 and Vinod, 2001).
Meghalaya with its vast inland fishery resources in the form of rivers, reservoirs,
lakes and ponds offers tremendous scope for developing the fisheries sector, but lags
behind in harnessing the potential of these natural resources. (Anon,2014).Catching of
fish in the rivers, lakes, wetlands, tanks and ponds has always formed the rural
livelihoods and a base for food security. Meghalaya is predominantly a fish consuming
State, but the supply of fish is inadequate to meet its growing demand in the State.The
State produces only 4,500 tons of fish that is insufficient for a population of 29, 66,889
(2011 Census) leaving an estimated gap of 14,500 tons annually. As a consequence, most
of the fish consumed in the state are imported from other states like Andhra
Pradesh(Anon,2015). Meghalaya, is the only state, perhaps, throughout India where even
local villagers prefer to go for game fishing, most of them pursue it mainly for food
purpose (Borgohain, 2010).
The success of fish culture depends to a great extent on the adoption of proven
new technology evolved for the purpose of obtaining higher yields and return. Adequate
information about any new farming practice and interaction complements to bring about
desirable change in human behavior in any programme of planned change (Haque et al,
1983)

2
Adoption of any improved technology involves a process in which awareness is created,
attitude is changed and favorable conditions for adoption are provided.
The principle behind the scientific fish culture is to produce maximum quantity of fish
per unit area from a scientifically managed water body by stocking fast growing,
economically important, compatible species having shortest food chain utilizing the all
ecological niches of the water body(Goswami, et al,2010).
Though fish culture is an age old practice in Meghalaya, but the adoption behavior of fish
farmers about scientific fish culture practices is not known. In fact, hardly any systematic
research has done to explore these areas. In view of above the present study “Studies On
The Adoption of Scientific Fish Farming by the Fish Farmers of Umsning block,
Meghalaya” has undertaken with following objectives.

1.2 OBJECTIVE
1) To assess level of adoption of technology for scientific fish culture and evaluate
the constraints in Umsning block.

2) To assess the present status in fish culture in the block.

3) To suggest remedial measures for harnessing the potential of the culture fisheries
in the block.

3
 Chapter-2

2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Technological advance in aquaculture envisages through continuousresearch and by

transfer of technology to fish farmers. Even when improvedtechnology is available,
expected aquaculture production could be achievedonly when there is no gap between the
recommendation and adoption(Suresh et al., 1988)
Research investigations on technology generation in India during thelast decades
have laid the strong foundation of scientific fish farming with promise of high economic
returns. With this background of technologicalinnovations, effective extension service for
the desired fisheries developmentis the present requirement in the country (Natarajan,
1982)
Daset al. (1988) carried out a study to find out the relationship of adoption of fish
culture innovations with 14 selected independent variables like situational {total pond
area, maximum and minimum water depth}, socio-personnel (age and education of the
fish farmers), socio-psychological (experience in traditional and improved fish culture)
and communication (participation in training programmed and fish farmers days,
utilization of mass media, cosmopolite source of information and localize source of
information).
Studiesconducted under Indian conditions in agriculture have shown that the size
of the farm was positively and significantly associated with the adoption of farming
practices (Sinha, 1978).
A negative relationship of the variable 'age of the fish farmers' with theadoption of
composite fish culture was found in the study of Das et al. (1988).
This showed that younger fish farmers are progressive while the older onesare
conservative. Experience in improved fish culture in the study wasobserved to have
strong positive relation with the adoption of composite fishculture. Positive contribution
was made by training programmed followed byfish farmers days which are in lines with
the observations in agriculture (Sinha, 1978) and animal husbandry (diary extension)
(Sohi and Kherdar, 1980).

5
 According to Siar et al. (1994)researchers, development workers and policy makers
understand the indigenous knowledge shared by a particular community. Indigenous
knowledge constitutes a community'sadoption to its environment. Adoption here means
the way fisherfolk harness the resources of their environment in order to establish a viable
relationship to it(Jacano and Velor, 1976).
Gupta et al. (1999) undertook a study to assess the extent of adoption of integration of
aquaculture with rice, factors contributing and limiting adoption, factors affecting
farmersmanagement decisions and the effects ofrice fish farming on local farming
systems and the families general welfare.The three stimuli encouraged farmer to take up
the practices were motivationby extension workers, the experience of being involved in
on farm researchand direct observation of examples.
Bhaumik and Saha (1998) carried out investigations in some areas of West Bengal to
know the level of adoption, extent of continuance ofrecommended package of practices.
The study further revealed that there was positive andsignificant relationship between
adoption behavior and fish farmer'scharacteristics viz. education level, socio-economic
status and contact withextension functionaries. Age and caste did not show any
significantassociation with adoption. The problem faced by the farmers in
adoptingrecommended package of practices were in the descending order due to highcost
of input, poaching of fish, poisoning in the pond, high rent of water body,lack of follow-
up action, marketing of harvested fish, non-availability ofsubsidy non availability of
finance, multiple ownership of water body andstagnancy of capital.
Training of fish farmers on new fish culture practices has beenrecommended to induce
motivation, create awareness and confidence andinculcate efficiency. The training can be
more fruitful, if designed according tothe participant needs, which are based on the
knowledge and attitudealready possessed by them. Socio-economic factors viz. Age,
education, land holding etc., may also plays role on the knowledge and attitude at
adopters(Singh and Kunzroo, 1985 & Zhagonand Singh, 1986).

6
 Sancley and Bose, (2017) reported that age, education, occupation, income, family and
fish farming experience of the fish farmers showed positive significant relationship with
the adoption behavior of the respondents in Meghalaya.

North Eastern India has been identified as hot spot of biodiversity including that of
fresh water fish (Sarkar, 2000). States of this region is lagging far behind in industrial
development because of difficult geographical situation. Due to this reason rural people
have depend on agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries.

7
 Chapter-3

3.1 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted during the month of September- December of 2017 to evaluate

the adoption level of scientific fish farming practices in Umsning block, Meghalaya. Both

Primary and Secondary data were collected for this purpose.

3.2 Location of the Study Area

The State of Meghalaya was purposively selected for the study as the State has immense

resource potential for aquaculture development and 95 per cent of the population are fish

eaters. The study area Umsning block of Ri-Bhoi district was selected. From the said

block 7 villages and 3 fish farmers each from the village, total 21 fish farmers were

selected purposively.

The data was collected using interview scheduled, Collected data were analyzed

by the application of suitable statistics and draw the inference.

9
Fig 1:Map showing the state of Meghalaya

Fig 2: Map showing Ri-Bhoi district and study area

10
 Fig 3: Diagrammatic Representation of Sampling
Meghalaya

District Ri-Bhoi

Development Block
Umsning

Villages Umtru Umiarong Umroi Sumer Umiet Bhoilymbong Rtiang

Respondents Total 21 practicing fish farmers

11
3.3Methodology

A structured interview schedule was developed incorporating all the queries to

accomplish the objectives set for the study referring packages of practices of on
aquaculture given by CIFA, 2005.
3.4Conceptual Background

Aquaculture:-As per Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), Aquaculture is the

farming of aquatic organisms including fish, mollusces, crustaceans and aquatics plants.
Adoption:-Adoption of innovations is the decisions to apply an innovation to continue
use it, (Van De Ban and Hawkins, 1994).
Knowledge:-Knowledge as those behavior and test situations which emphasizes the
remembering either by recognition or recall of ideas, materials or phenomena. (Bloom et
al.,1956)
Age:- Age refer to the chronological age of respondents expressed interms of years
completed at the time of interview.
Education:-Education refers to the formal education received by the respondents.
Income:- Income refer to the total income refer from the fishery sources.
Pond size:- Pond size refer to the total size of the pond having by the respondents.
Family Size:- Total size of the family given by the respondents.
Economic Motivation:-It is defined as the occupational success in terms of profit
maximization and relative value an individual places on economic ends (Supe, 1969).

12
3.5Variable Studied and their Empirical Measurements
The details of variable and their measurement are presented in the following
Table1:Description of various variables
Variable Empirical Measurement
A. Dependent Variable Adoption scores assigned to acceptance
1. Adoption culture practices.
B. Independent Variable
Number of years completed by the
1. Age of the respondent
respondent at the time of interview.

2. Education of the respondent Formal education of the respondent.

3. Income of the respondent The total money earned by the farmer per
year.
4. Pond size Total size of the pond having by the
farmer.
5. Family size
Total size of the family having by the
farmer.

3.6 Sampling Procedure

Purposive sampling method was followed in order to select representative sample for the
purpose of study, which is presented diagrammatically.Out of 3 blocks in Ri-Bhoi
district, Umsning block was selected purposefully because the acquaintance of the
researcher with the block would provide ease in collecting the data.
3.7 Selection of Respondent
The present study aimed at exploring the adoption practices of scientific fish farming by
the fish farmer in Umsning block of Meghalaya. From each of the 7 villages 3 fish farmer
was selected for the purpose of drawing the sample for study
3.8 Development of data collecting tools
An interview schedule was developed after Nath, 1999. Interview schedule was
pertaining to personal profile, technical details regarding fishery and major fishery related
problems.

13
3.9 Analysis of Data
The procedures used for analysis of data were categorization scoring, coding, tabulation
and statistical analysis. For analysis of data personal characteristics of respondent were
classified in terms of age, education, income, pond size, family size and adoption.
3.9.1 Categorization and scoring
For measuring Adoption behavior, 10 practices were included namely.
1. Pond Preparation
2. Stocking Density
3. Time of Stocking
4. Species ratio
5. Size of fish
6. Liming
7. Feeding
8. Fertilizing
9. Periodic Checking
10. Health care
Adoption of culture fisheries by the fish farmers was measured based on the 10 practices.
Adoption behavior of the fish farmers toward scientific fish culture, was quantified by
using adoption and non- adoption, with score 2, 1 and 0, respectively for each of the
practices as suggested by Sinha and Kolte (1967).
3.9.2 Age
The age of the respondents was categorized based on Goswami et al, 2015 and
Nath(1995)
Table2:Classification of farmers by age
Categories Age (Years)
Young <36
Middle 36-50
Old >50

14
3.9.3 Education
A classification category for education of the respondents was followed after Goswami et
al, (2015) with slight modification.
Table 3:Classification of farmers by education
Categories Education
Illiterate No formal schooling
Primary Level Studied up to class IV
Middle Studied from V-VII
High School Studied from VIII-X
High Secondary Studied from XI-XII
Graduate level & above Studies Degree and above

3.9.4 Income

Classification categories for income of the respondents was followed after N.K. Shaha,
(1999)
Table 4:Classification of farmers by Income
Category Income
Low Below 50,000
Medium 50,000-1 Lakh
High& above 1 Lakh

3.9.5 Pond Size

Pond size of the respondents was based on Goswami et al, (2015) and

Table 5: Classification of farmers by pond size

Category Size (ha)
Small <0.25
Medium 0.25-0.50
Large >0.50

15
3.9.6 Family size
Family size of the respondents was based on Kumar Bose, 2017
Table 6:Classification of farmers by Family size
Category Size
Small 1-5 members
Medium 6-10 members
Large Above 10 members

The percentage adoption scores of the respondentswas suggested bySingh,(1999) and

were calculated as per the following method:-

Total Obtainable Score

Adoption (%) =Maximum Possible Score × 100

3.9.7 Statistical Analysis: Simple frequencies, percentage and mean were used for
analyzing data and correlation coefficient(r).
3.9.8 Correlation coefficient (r):
This was used to find out the relationship between the dependent and independent
variables. The formula used to compute the ‘r’ is as follow.
∑ XY−(∑ X).(∑ Y)
r=
2 2
√[(X2 )−(∑ X) ][(Y2 )−(∑ Y) ]
n n

Where,
r = Correlation Coefficient
∑X = Sum of X values
∑Y = Sum of Y values
∑X 2 = Sum of square of X values
∑Y 2 = Sum of square of Y values
∑Y = Sum of products of X and Y values
n = Number of paired observations.

16
3.9.9‘t’ test
The ‘t’ test of significance was employed to see whether the correlation of
coefficient between independent variables and dependent variables were
significant or not. The ‘t’ value was computed by using the following
formula

r
√n−2
‘t’ =
√1− r2
Where, r = Correlation coefficient
n = Size of the sample
If calculated t value is greater than the table value at n-2 degree of freedom with
5 percent or 1 percent level of significance, then r is significant at 5 percent or 1 percent
level of significant (P <0.05 or P <0.01) and null hypothesis is rejected. Otherwise null
hypothesis will be accepted.

17
 Plate 1-8: Data collected through personal interview the farmer

Plate-1 Picture with farmer in Umtru Village Plate-2 Picture along with the farmerinUmiarong
village

Plate-3 Picture with farmer in Umroi village Plate-4 Picture with farmer in Umiet village

18
 Plate-5 Picture with farmer in Rtiangvillage Plate-6 Picture with farmer in Umroi village

Plate-7 Picture with farmer in Sumer village Plate-8 Picture with farmer in Bhoi-lymbong

19
 Chapter-4

4.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results:
4.1.1Age
Table 7: Classification of farmer by Age, frequency and percentage
Age Frequency Percentage
Young - -
Middle 12 57
Old 9 43

Fig 4: Classification of farmers by Age

14
12
Number of Farmers

10
8
6
4
2
0
Young Middle Old
Age Group

From the table 1, it can be seen that 57 percent of respondents belonging to the middle
age group and 43 percent belonging to the old age group. Therefore, it was found that the
largest number of age group was in middle age.

21
4.1.2 Education
Table 8:Classification of farmers by Education,frequency and percentage

Education level Frequency Percentage

Illiterate 3 14
Primary 0 -
Middle 3 14
High school 6 29
Higher secondary 1 5
Graduate and above 8 38

Fig 5: Classification of farmers by Education

9
8
7
Number of farmers

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
illiterate Primary Middle High school Higher Graduate
Scondary and above
Educational level

It is seen from the above table that the education of the respondents show that 14
percent of the respondents are illiterate, 14 percentage middle class, 29 percent are high
school, 5 percent have passed their higher secondary school and 38 percent have
completed graduate level. Therefore, it can be seen that larger number of education
belonged to the graduate and above with 38 percent.

22
4.1.3 Income
Table 9: Classification of Farmers by Income, frequency and percentage
Income Frequency Percentage
Low - -
Medium 5 24
High 16 76

Fig 6: Classification of farmers by Income

18
16
14
Number of Farmers

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Low Medium High
Income Level

From the above table 3 show that 24 percent of the respondentsare getting
medium income and 76 percent getting high income.

23
 4.1.4 Pond Size

Table 10: Classification of Farmers by Pond Size,frequency and percentage

Pond Size Frequency Percentage

Small 14 67
Medium 4 19
Large 3 14

Fig 7: Classification of farmer by pond size

80
70
Number of farmers

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Small Medium Large
Pond size level

From the above table 4, 67 percent of the respondents have small pond sizes, 19
percent of them have medium pond sizes and 14 percent have large pond sizes

24
 4.1.5 Family Size

Table 11: Classification of farmers by Family size, frequency and percentage

Family Size Frequency Percentage

Small 7 33
Medium 12 57
Large 2 10

Fig 8: Classification of farmers by Family size

14
12
Number of farmers

10
8
6
4
2
0
Small Medium Large
Family Level

From the above table 5 show that 33 percent of the respondents have small family
sizes, 57 percent of them have medium family sizes and 10 percent have large family
sizes.

25
 4.1.6 Community

Table 12: Classification of farmers by Community,frequency and percentage

Community Frequency Percentage

General - -
Schedule tribe 21 100
Schedule caste - -
OBC - -

Fig 9: Classification of farmer by Community

25

20
Number of farmers

15

10

0
General Schedule Tribe Schedule Caste Obc
Community level

From the above table found that fish farmer’s majority belong to Schedule tribe

community.

26
 Plate 9-16: Different types of fish culture activities of fish farmers

Plate-10 Pond in Umtru village

Plate-9 Pond in Umiarong village

Plate-11 Pond in Rtiang village Plate-12 Pond in Umroi village

27
Plate-13 Stocking of fish seeds in Umiarong Plate-14 Pond in sumer village
village

Plate-15 Angling of fish in Umiet village Plate-16 Pond in Bhoi-lymbong village

28
4.1.8 Overall Adoption Level

Table 13: Classification of farmers by Overall Adoption Level

Adoption level Frequency Percentage

Low Adoption 1 4
(0-3)
Medium Adoption 16 76
(4-6)
High Adoption 4 19
(7-10)

Fig 10: Classification of farmers by Overall

Adoption level
5%

19%
Low adoption
Medium adoption
High adoption
76%

From the above table 6, it can be seen that 4 percent of the respondents were low
adoption, 76 percent were in medium adoption and 19 percent were high adoption level.
The overall adoption scores by the respondents was adopted medium adoption with 76
percent.

Table 14: Coefficient of correlation between selected characteristics of Fish farmers

and their Adoption

Sl.No Variable Value of coefficient of t-value

correlation (r)
1 Age 0.08NS 0.35
2 Education -0.114NS -0.5
3 Pond Size 0.41NS 1.96
4 Income -0.15NS -0.669
*Significant at 5 per cent level NS = Non-significant

29
4.2 Discussion

In the present study it was found that majority (76%) of the respondents have medium
levelof adoption of scientific fish farming practicesfollowed by 19% high level of
adoption and 4% low level of adoption. This finding is in conformity with the study of
Sancley et.al, 2017. Though farmers were practicing composite fish culture, in the same
time they also practice fee fishing business from the same pond. Borgohain, 2010 and
Nath, 2010 also observed that sport fishing is very common in Meghalaya and farmers
use same pond for dual purpose.
In the present study it was observed that highest percentage (57%) of fish farmers
were belong to middle age group and followed by old age group. No farmers were
recorded under young age group. In case of education it was recorded highest percentage
(38%) of fish farmers weregraduate level followed by high school level education.
Lyngwa et al., 2015 reported in their study that maximum number of fish farmers belong
to middle and old age group. But his findings do not support with regard to education
level where he reported highest percentage of farmers under the group matriculation. In
connection to pond size, family size and community of fish farmers it was found that
maximum number of farmers have small size pond, 57% of farmers family size is
medium i.e. 6-10 and 100% farmers were belong scheduled tribe. This study is in
conformity with Lyngwaet.al 2015.

In the present study positive relationship was found between age and adoption but
it was not significant at 5% level of significance. This finding does not support the
previous finding of Das et al. (1988). He reported that negative relationship between age
of farmers and adoption of composite fish farming. Similar findings reported by Sancley
et al, 2017 in their study that age of the fish farmers has positive and significant with the
adoption. This indicates that with the increase in age does not have significant impact on
adoption of scientific fish farming in Umsning block.

In relation to education and adoption level the co-efficient of correlation was

found negative and not significant.The present finding is not in conformity with the
previous findings of Bhaumik et al, 1998 that there was positive and significant
relationship between level of education and adoption level of fish farming. The present

30
study indicates that adoption of scientific fish farming does not depend on level of
education of farmers.

In the present study the co-efficient of correlation between pond size and adoption
level was found positive andnot significant. Similar finding was also given by Singhet al,
1999 for size holdings and farmers knowledge on wheat production technology in Bihar.

In the present study the co-efficient of correlation between income of farmers and
adoption of scientific fish farmers were found negative and not significant. This indicates
that increase in income of farmers does not have influence on adoption of scientific fish
farming. The present findingin the study area however do not support findings of Sancley
et al, 2017 who reported positive and significant correlation between income and
adoption.

4.3 Constraints identified for Development of Scientific fish culture practices in

Umsning block

Technical Knowledge: The findings of study revealed that adoption of scientific fish
farming was medium in the study area.It indicates that fish farmers do not have scientific
knowledge on fish farming up to date level. However it has been observed that lack of
technical knowledge on scientific fish culture on farmers is one of the most important
constraints. Many farmers do not have knowledge on water quality management aspect of
their pond. To propel the scientific fish farming in the Umsning block, the technical
knowledge and skills of farmers must be develop.Therefore, training, demonstrations on
scientific fish farming for the fish farmers is the need of the hour.

Non-availability of Inputs:Non availability of fish seed in Umsning block is a major

problem because most of the fish seeds are coming from Assam and West Bengal and
there is also mass mortality of fishes during transportation. Fish feedis not available at
reasonable price is also one of the constraints in development of scientific fish culture.

Use of ponds for dual purpose:Maximum numbers of fish farmers in the study area
were using their ponds for fee fishing and also organized annual fishing
competition.Therefore, though fish farmer culture fish in the pond but that was not

31
production oriented. Farmers do not sale entire fish in the market rather they prefer to go
fee fishing business in their pond to earn money.

32
 Chapter-5
CONCLUSION

The present study revealed that maximum number of fish farmers has shown medium
level of adoption of scientific fish culture practices. This may be due to lack of
inadequate knowledge on scientific fish culture, non-availability of inputs in reasonable
price. There is a great prospect in the state to start fish seed hatchery to produce fish seed
and to meet the growing demand in the state.More number of younger fish farmers need
to be encouraged in training on scientific fish culture practices.Private entrepreneurs may
be encouraged to take fish culture with financial support from banks.Integrated fish
farming should be introduced to the farmers for more beneficial in the farming
community. As waste of one enterprise become input to another and it minimized the
operational expenses in feed and fertilizer.The Fisheries department of Meghalaya must
provide necessary extension, and training support to the farmers so that the farmers will
be the true representative to disseminate their acquired knowledge to their fellow farmers.
At present the farmers in the state is following the package of practices for both
composite and integrated fish farming which is not formulated for this state. It is now
utmost important to develop Package of Practices for varied agro climatic condition of
the state. There is a tremendous prospects in the Umsning block to initiate aquaculture
based eco- tourism which will accelerate economic development in the block as a whole
in the state.

34
 Chapter-6

References

❖ Anon (2002), Aquaculture Authority News, vol.1(2), December, 2002.

❖ Anon (2007), Statistical hand book, Meghalaya, Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong.
❖ Anon (2011), College of fisheries, Central Agricultural University, Lembucherra,
Tripura (W)-799210, India.
❖ Anon (2015), Impact of assessment of thousand pond schemes by State institute
of rural development, Nongsder Meghalaya.
❖ Atul Borgohain, (2010) Sport Fisheries in North East India For Encouraging Eco-
Tourism, Coldwater Fisheries Management. pp281
❖ Ayyappan, T. M. (1999) new duck culture system for integrated farming.
SEAFDECAsianAquaculture,XXI (2) 14-15
❖ Biswajit Goswami, Golam Ziauddin and S.N. Datta (2010). Adoption behavior of
fish farmers in relation to scientific fish culture practices in West Bengal Indian
res.J.Ext. Edu 10(1.)24-28
❖ Bolorundoru PI, Adesehenwa AOK, 2004. Adoption status of dissemination
technologies on the artisanal fisheries of Nigeria state. Nigeria Tropical and sub-
tropical Agro ecosystem;4(1):1-5.
❖ Bhaumik, U. and Saha, S.K. (1998) Need for modification of composite fish
culture technology in West Bengal as perceived by the fish farmers. In: P.C.
Thomas (Ed.). Current and Emerging Trends in Aquaculture Daya publishing
House, Delhi, 348-354 pp.
❖ Census of India 2011. Registrar General of India. http://www.cencusindia.gov.in.
❖ CIFA Aquaculture technologies for farmers, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (2005), New Delhi
❖ Das, P., Bhaumik, U., Pandit, P.K. Roy, B., Banerjee, B.K. and Mondal, S.K.
(1988) some variables contributing to the adoption of composite fish culture
innovations. In: M. Mohan Joseph (Ed.). Proceedings of The First Indian
Fisheries Forum, Asian Fisheries Society, Indian Branch, Mangalore 467-470 pp.
❖ Das, S.K. (1990) An empirical approach to social aquaculture in India, Fishing
Chimes, 11(5): 21-23.
❖ FAO. Production Yearbook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nation, 2010.
❖ FAO (2004) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: FAO Fisheries.
❖ FAO (2001) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture, Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome, Italy, 8-9 pp.
❖ Ghosh, S., Haque, A. and Biswas, A. (1993) Farmers knowledge and extent of
application of composite fish culture technology, Environment and Ecology,
Kalyan j, 11 (4): 926-929.
❖ Gupta, M.V. and Rab, M.A. (1994) Adoption and economics of silver barb
(Puntiusgonionotus) culture in seasonal waters in Bangladesh, ICLARM
Technical Reports, 41: 10-21.
❖ Gupta, M.V., Ahmed, M., Bimbao, M.A.P. and Lightfoot, C. (1992)
Socioeconomic impact and farmers assessment of Nile tilapia
(Orechromisniloticus) culture in Bangladesh, ICLARM Technicai Reports, 35: 1-
19.
❖ Gupta, M.V., Sollows, J.D., Mazid, M.A., Rahman, A., Hussain, G. and Dey,
M.M. (1998) Integrating aquaculture with rice farming in Bangladesh: feasibility
and economic viability, its adoption and impact, ICLARM Newsletter, Philippines,
1-3pp.
❖ Goswami, (2001) Techno-socio-economic evaluation of fish farming practices in
Assam Ph.D Thesis, CIFE,Mumbai.
❖ Haque, M.A. (1979) Adoption of recommended species of fish in composite fish
culture, management development for farmers, Mittal Publications, New Delhi,
99-125pp.
❖ Haque, M.A. (1981)* Study of some factors related to the adoption of
recommended species of fish in composite fish culture (Unpub.) Ph. D. Thesis,
Department of Agril. Extension, BidhanChandraKrishiViswavidyalay, West
Bengal.
❖ InaotombiShaikhom (2015) Aquaculture diversification in Northeast India.

37
❖ Jhingran, V.G (1987). Introduction to Aquaculture, Based on lectures presented
at African Regional Aquaculture centre for the senior Aquaculturist course, Food
and Agriculture Organization of United Nations,.
❖ Mahanta. P.C, Srivastava. S>M, Paul. S.K; “Aquacult”PreliminaryAssesment of
fish germaplasm resources of North-Eastern Region to evolve strategy for
conservation, Vol.2 (2), 2001.pp-181-191
❖ Mahanta,G;Astudy on Adoption of improved Rice cultivation practices by the
tribal Farmers in Jorhat Sub-Division of Jorhatdistrict,Assam, Unpublished
M.Sc.Thesis. Assam Agricultural University,Jorhat.
❖ Mahandra Kumar, K. (1996) Communication behaviour of fish farmers in Tamil
Nadu, Ph.D. Thesis, Central Institute of Fisheries Education , Mumbai, 21-26 pp.
❖ Monika Tandon (1999) Gender bias in control over productive resources in farm
families 182-183pp. Indian Jorrnal of Ext. Education Vol.XXXV No. 3&4, 1999
❖ N.K.Shaha, Md.GolamFarouque and A.B.M Nurul Anwar (1999) Preference of
rural youth for selected income generating activities in Bangladesh, Department
of Agril. Education, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensigh-2202,
Bangladesh 216pp.
❖ Nath. P.K; Astudy on the technological Gap in high yielding Ahu rice in Darrang
District in Assam. MSc thesis, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat 1995.
❖ Natarajan, A.V. (1982) Achievements in Inland fisheries research in India Fishing
Chimes, 2(1): 11-17.
❖ Nath, R (2001) Present status and prospects of culture fisheries in KarbiAnglong
District of Assam. MSc thesis, Indian Institute of Ecology and Environmental,
New Delhi.
❖ Nath, R (2010) current status and strategies for sustainable development of
fisheries sector in Meghalaya. Coldwater fisheries management,DCFR,pp111-124
❖ P. Michael (1994) Ecological methods for field and laboratory investigation.
Department of Biology purdue University W Lafayette USA 314pp.
❖ R.K. Singh. K. Kumarri and R.P. Singh ‘Ratan’ farmers’ knowledge of late sown
wheat production technology Indian Jorrnal of Ext. Education Vol.XXXV No.
3&4, 1999

38
❖ Rogers, M.E. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971)* Communication of innovation, The
Free Press New York.
❖ Rogers, M.E. (1998)* Diffusion of innovations, The Free Press, Macmillan
Publishing Co. New York.
❖ Sancley and Bose (2017) Adoption of improved fish farming practices in Ri-Bhoi
district of Meghalaya.
❖ Sathiadhas R, Panikkar KK. Socio-economics of small scale fishermen with
emphasis on costs and earnings of traditional fishing units along Trivandrum
coast, Kerala – A case study, Sea Food Export J. 1988; 20(2): 21-36.
❖ Sarkar.U.K, Ponniah, A.G; “Evaluation of north-Eastern Indian Fishes for their
potential as cultivable, sports and ornamental fishes along with their conservation
and endemic status” In: Fish Biodiversity of North-East India, NBFGR,NATP,
2000, pp. 11-13
❖ Sinha, P.R.R. and Kolte, N.V. (1974). Adult education in relation to agricultural
development – An evaluation study of a development block in Andhra Pradesh,
NIRD, Hyderabad.
❖ Sinha, V.R.P. (1978)* Project co-ordinator's report. Fourth workshop on All:
Indic Co-ordinated Research Project on Composite Fish culture and Fish Seed
Production. ICAR, Bhubaneshwar.
❖ Siar, V.S., Ortega, R.S. and Babol, A.S. (1994) Learning from Fishers:
Indigenous knowledge and SEAFSEC'S Community Fishery Resource
Management Project, NACA News Letter, 17(4): 56-57.
❖ Singh, R. (1983) Selected characteristics of farmers in relation to their adoption of
farm mechanization, Indian journal of Extension Education, XIX:11-17.
❖ Vinod. K, Margaret A.M.R, Mandal.B.K; “Integrated fish Farming to enhance
food production in hills” In: Indian Journal of hill farming, Vol 13(1&2), pp.8-12

39
40
Appendix

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
1.General Description

i) Name of the village:_____________________________________

ii) Community Development Block:______________________________
iii) District:___________________________ Post Office:_______________
iv) Sub-Division

2.Personal Profile

i) Name:_____________________________________
ii) Address:____________________________
iii) Caste:_______________________
iv) Educational Qualification:_________________________
v) Family Size:__________________________
vi) Yearly Income from Fishery:_______________________
vii) Whether fisheries activity is primary occupation or
subsidiary:____________________________
viii) Whether fisheries activities are done by family member/hired
labor:____________________________
ix) Whether trained:______________________
x) Whether the farmer has any other business:___________________
3. Technical Survey

i) Pond Size:________________________
ii) Culture system adopted:___________________
iii) Stocking Density:________________________
iv) Sources of seed:___________________________
v) Time of stocking:__________________________
vi) Whether stocking is done through maintaining species
ratio:___________________
vii) Whether all species are stocked at the same
time:________________________
viii) Whether integrated system is adopted, which system is being adopted
(a) Paddy cum fish culture:____________________
(b) Horticulture cum fish:____________________
(c) Live stock cum culture:________________________
ix) Price of fish seed:____________________
x) Type of feed used:_____________________
xi) Sources of feed:___________________
xii) Price of feed:______________________
xiii) Whether liming is done in the pond:_____________________
xiv) Whether fertilizer are used in the pond:_________________
xv) What kind of fertilizer is used:______________________
xvi) Harvesting size/ Time/ Total production:______________________
xvii) Whether sold directly in the market or through whole
sale:________________

42
4. Major Fisheries Related Problems

i) Fish diseases:
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

ii) Water Quality Management:

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

iii) Any other:

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

43