Homestead Aquaculture in Bangladesh: Current Status
and Future Directions
A report on a placement with WorldFish Center in fulfilment of the requirements of the MSc in
Aquatic Resource Management of King’s College London
Module - 7SSG5133
Jack Bloomer
Submitted for examination on 14th September 2012
1
KING’S COLLEGE LONDON
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
MA/MSc DISSERTATION
I, Jack Bloomer hereby declare (a) that this Dissertation is my own original
work and that all source material used is acknowledged therein;
(b) that it has been specially prepared for a degree of the
University of London; and (c) that it does not contain any
material that has been or will be submitted to the Examiners of
this or any other university, or any material that has been or
will be submitted for any other examination.
This Dissertation is 10,541 words.
Signed: ……………………………………
Date: 14th September 2012
2
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 5
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 6
1. Background Information ............................................................................................................ 7
2. Introduction of Investigation .................................................................................................. 10
2.1.Nutrition.................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.Economic status.................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3. Fish production ................................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.1.Nutrition .......................................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2. Economics...................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.3.Pond production practices....................................................................................................................... 14
2.4. Homestead food production (HFP) .............................................................................................. 15
2.4.1.Benefits to nutrition ................................................................................................................................... 16
2.4.2.Benefits to Income....................................................................................................................................... 16
2.4.3. Aquaculture interventions ...................................................................................................................... 16
2.5. Aims and objectives ........................................................................................................................... 17
3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1. Study area .............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.2. Data collection ..................................................................................................................................... 18
3.3. Data collation and analysis ............................................................................................................. 20
4. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1 General information ........................................................................................................................... 21
4.2. Production practices and their productivity ............................................................................ 22
4.2.1. Species cultured .......................................................................................................................................... 22
4.2.2. Seasonality .................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.2.3. Culture practice ........................................................................................................................................... 24
4.2.4. Management practice................................................................................................................................ 25
4.2.5. Pond depth .................................................................................................................................................... 26
4.3. Household welfare ............................................................................................................................. 27
4.3.1. Income............................................................................................................................................................. 27
4.3.2. Self-perceived financial Status .............................................................................................................. 28
4.3.3. Food security ................................................................................................................................................ 28
4.3.4. Self-sufficiency ............................................................................................................................................. 29
4.4. Pond profitability ............................................................................................................................... 29
4.5. Constraints to intensification ......................................................................................................... 30
5. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 31
5.1. General information .......................................................................................................................... 31
5.2. Production practices ......................................................................................................................... 32
5.2.1.Species cultured ........................................................................................................................................... 32
5.2.2. Seasonality .................................................................................................................................................... 33
5.2.3. Culture practice ........................................................................................................................................... 33
5.2.4. Management practice................................................................................................................................ 34
5.2.5. Pond depth .................................................................................................................................................... 34
5.3. Pond ownership and welfare.......................................................................................................... 34
5.4. Income and profit from ponds ....................................................................................................... 35
5.5. Constraints ............................................................................................................................................ 36
6. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 36
3
7. References ...................................................................................................................................... 37
8. Appendices..................................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix I – Risk Assessment and Research Ethics ....................................................................... 43
Appendix II – Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix III - Questions asked to determine parameter ............................................................. 68
4
Executive Summary
A work placement was conducted from 4th June 2012 to 7th September 2012 at the WorldFish
Center in Khulna, Bangladesh. WorldFish Center is an international organisation that aims to
increase food security and reduce poverty through environmentally sustainable increases in
aquaculture production in some of the most impoverished countries in the world.
15% of the Bangladeshi population are food insecure and a rice dependant diet has left many
suffering from deficiencies of essential micronutrients such as vitamin A. Although there have
been recent improvements, 31.5% of the population still live in poverty.
Aquaculture in Bangladesh is a very important and growing industry. With careful
management it has the potential to be an important tool in addressing issues such as
malnutrition and poverty. Certain species of fish have very high levels of important
micronutrients such as vitamin A and aquaculture has been shown to be a considerably more
profitable activity than other forms of agriculture such as rice production. Many households in
Bangladesh have a small pond located next to their dwelling area that is used to produce fish
for home consumption as well as to be sold in markets. The benefit received by households
from these ponds is highly variable and is strongly dependant on the management practices
employed. Such management practices include: species produced in the ponds, seasonality of
production, culture practice and management practice.
Homestead food production (HFP) involves the production of food items for both consumption
and sale in the immediate area surrounding the household. Interventions aiming to enhance
HFP, and subsequent consumption, of fruits, vegetables and livestock have been successful
although interventions targeting homestead aquaculture have been less so. For this reason a
survey of 1280 households throughout southwest Bangladesh was conducted to determine the
nature of their HFP practices and to find out which practices were the most effective. For the
sake of this survey, particular attention was given to aquaculture. A range of analyses were
conducted to determine: (1) the general status of homestead aquaculture; (2) the management
practices being employed in these ponds and which are the most beneficial, (3), the
comparative welfare of pond-owning and non-pond owning households using the key welfare
indicators of income, financial status, food security and self-sufficiency; (4) the nutritional and
economic benefits of pond ownership; (5) the constraints faced by households practicing
homestead aquaculture.
Key findings and recommendations include:
• Larger, wealthier households were more likely to own a pond;
• Family-sourced labour was dominated by male members of the household. It is
recommended that future programmes involving education on homestead aquaculture
are focused towards female members of the household to make use of the extra labour
source;
• Child labour was observed. More information on the nature of this labour is necessary
and where possible it should be discouraged;
• The most commonly produced fish were low nutrient carp species. Future programmes
should encourage production of more nutritious small indigenous species (SIS) or more
profitable species;
• Better record taking is encouraged to return a more detailed picture of which species are
consumed and when;
5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The majority of ponds were perennial. However there were a considerable number of
seasonal ponds. Deepening of these ponds is recommended to improve their water
holding capacity;
Polyculture was practiced much more frequently than monoculture although this often
only involved the culture of a variety of carp species. Interactions between species
should be investigated to determine which combinations produce the highest yields.
The target should be to produce more nutritionally and economically beneficial species;
The majority of ponds were extensive. This means they receive little inputs in terms of
supplementary feed or fertiliser. Improved integration between other HFP components
such as livestock or vegetable production are encouraged. Recording of which inputs
are used and when is also recommended;
Most of the fish produced in homestead ponds were consumed. This represents the
importance of producing more nutritious species;
Profitability of the ponds varied by location. Three out of four of the study sites
returned a profit but one site returned a considerable loss. The reasons for this loss
should be investigated;
Pond-owning households were better off with regards to all of the key welfare
indicators. It is unclear whether pond ownership results in improved welfare or the
improved welfare means households can construct a pond. This requires more
investigation. Furthermore, comparisons of the nutrient status of pond-owning and nonpond-owning households are recommended;
The main constraint to intensification of production was financial limitations.
Investigation into the best way to alleviate such limitations are recommended.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks go to Bappy Sharier for his help, advice and friendship and Mike Phillips for his
help and kindness from beginning to end. I would also like to thank Kabir Kazi Ahmed for his
guidance and Rayhan Sarwer for his unique sense of humour and assistance when needed. I am
also very grateful to Mike Chadwick for his help whenever it was asked for and for giving me
the freedom to follow my interests. Thanks also go to my parents for their support and to
Sharon for her excellent company.
6
1. Background Information
A work placement was conducted from 4th June 2012 until 7th September 2012 at the
WorldFish Center Offices in Khulna, Bangladesh (Fig. 1). WorldFish Center is a member of
the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) consortium whose
aim is to “To reduce hunger and poverty, and improve human health in the tropics through
research aimed at increasing the eco-efficiency of agriculture” (CGIAR 2010). WorldFish
Center contributes to these aims through careful management of fisheries and aquaculture
resources by following two key objectives:
1. “Improving the livelihoods of those who are especially poor and vulnerable in places
where fisheries and aquaculture can make a difference” (Hall 2011);
2. “Achieving large scale, environmentally sustainable increases in supply and access to
fish at affordable prices for poor consumers in developing countries” (Hall 2011).
Khulna
Figure 1. The location of Bangladesh within Asia and the location of Khulna within
Bangladesh.
WorldFish Center works in more than nineteen of the poorest and most food insecure countries
around the world, with particular focus on Africa and Asia. Regional or country offices are
found in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Solomon Islands, Egypt, Malawi,
and Zambia (Hall 2011).
7
South Asia has some of the most impoverished and food insecure people in the world (FAO
2011; Mose & Dey 2007). Predictions suggest that by 2050 there will be an extra 700million
people in this region (FAO 2011). This will lead to intense pressure on already strained food
resources and reflects the need for more efficient food production practices.
The work of WorldFish Center in this region is focused principally on Bangladesh. The
availability of water resources in the country is very well documented and represents an
important opportunity in terms of food production. Work has been conducted on a range of
projects including the development of aquaculture on seasonal floodplains, integrated
agriculture-aquaculture systems and the distribution of high quality fish seed (WorldFish
Center 2012). These projects have resulted in increased yields, thereby enhancing the food
security and economic status of fish producers (WorldFish Center 2012). Furthermore, the
success of these projects means that they have been rolled out throughout the region
(WorldFish Center 2012).
Floodplains of the three great rivers: the Brahmaputra, Ganges and Meghna occupy 80% of the
country (Brammer 1990). The people living within this region are strongly dependant on the
river waters for household use (Pimental et al. 1997), irrigation for crop production
(Falkenmark 1989) and livestock production (Pimentel & Pimentel 1996) amongst others.
Through collaboration with other members of the CGIAR consortium, government
organisations and local NGOs, WorldFish Center have established five projects in the Ganges
delta (G1-G5). These are part of the Research for Development Program of the Ganges Basin
Development Challenges (BDC), which was set up with the aim of reducing poverty,
increasing food security and strengthening livelihood resilience in the coastal areas of
Bangladesh through improved aquatic resource governance and management (CGIAR 2011).
This work placement took place within the G2 project, which aims to contribute to these aims
by developing and implementing more resilient, diverse and productive food production
systems in the coastal zones of Bangladesh and India. The G2 project has five specific
objectives by which to achieve its aims (CGIAR 2011):
1. Develop germplasm that is suitable in a variety of cropping systems and establish
distribution networks for this seed;
2. Develop more effective and diverse rice-based cropping systems including riceaquaculture systems;
3. Improve the food production systems found within homesteads;
4. Develop new production systems for brackish-water locations where water is too saline
for traditional agricultural crops;
5. Provide recommendations in terms of technology and policy for up- and out-scaling.
This placement focused on objective three: improvements to homestead production systems.
The work was based around a survey that took place from January 2012 to March 2012, which
concentrated on homestead food production practices. This is the production of food items in
the small area around the homestead that many households, particularly those in rural areas
have. The aim of this survey was to provide a detailed account of the homestead farming
options available in Bangladesh.
Work centred around two key projects: firstly, a large homestead report provisionally entitled
‘Report on a Survey of the Homestead Production System’. This involved compilation and
analysis of data collected in a survey regarding five key components of the homestead
production system: aquaculture, livestock, poultry, fruits and vegetables. Each component was
allocated a separate section within the report where information was provided regarding the
8
varieties or species produced, inputs used in their production, the labour required for their
production (with particular focus on gender and child labour issues) and the nutritional and
economic benefits of each system. Furthermore, information on integration between these
components was also gathered. This information was used to define the ideal homestead food
production system and to determine future research questions with the aim of enhancing
productivity.
Construction of this report required a great deal of collaborative work. Guidance and direction
with regards to the content of the report was provided by Dr. Mike Phillips (Senior Scientist of
Aquaculture and Genetic Improvement, Penang office, Malaysia), Dr. Manjurul Karim (Deputy
Chief of Party in Aquaculture and Genetic Improvement, Dhaka office, Bangladesh) and Kazi
Ahmed Kabir (G2 project leader, Khulna office, Bangladesh). The survey was a large
document and was conducted throughout 1280 households; this resulted in a very large
database that required careful management, which was mainly handled by Bappy Sharier (G2
data analyst, Khulna office, Bangladesh). Constant collaboration with Mr. Sharier in particular
was necessary to ensure that all the necessary data was extracted to provide detailed and
accurate information regarding the aforementioned components and parameters. The data was
subsequently analysed using a combination of graphs, tables and statistics. The presented data
was accompanied by descriptive text.
The second piece of work, which is presented here, is entitled ‘Homestead Aquaculture in
Bangladesh: Current Status and Future Direction’. This report utilised data from the same
survey but with a particular focus on the aquaculture component. The majority of this work
was conducted on an individual basis although, again, some collaborative work with Mr.
Sharier was necessary in order to obtain the relevant data sets. Furthermore, a substantial
amount of relevant literature was reviewed in order to provide context for the work.
To compliment this work a literature review was also undertaken. This aimed to determine the
farming options available in southwest Bangladesh and their outputs, how are they affected by
environmental risks such as flooding and salinisation and gender aspects of labour involved in
the different farming systems. There was relatively little published information available so a
detailed search of recent masters theses from local universities was required in order to find
relevant literature. This literature review was in the early stages upon the termination of the
placement.
The following piece of work is a detailed account of the aquaculture component of the survey
on homestead food production systems. The introduction will describe the current nutritional
and financial status of households in Bangladesh and how this can be influenced by homestead
aquaculture as well as the different management options available to pond-owning households.
This is followed by a description of the survey sites and the methods that were undertaken for
the construction of the report. The results of the data analysis are subsequently presented and
discussed. There is focus on the production practices and their relative productivity as well as
the overall profitability of pond ownership and which factors are restricting intensification of
homestead aquaculture. Finally, conclusions regarding the current status and future direction of
aquaculture in homestead ponds are made.
9
2. Introduction of Investigation
Bangladesh has the ninth highest population in the world and one of the highest population
densities (UNDESA 2010). Established in 1971, it has made significant progress in its short
history in terms of social and economic development (UNDP 2010). Nevertheless, 15% of the
population are food insecure (Mose & Dey 2007) and 31.5% still live in poverty (BBS 2010).
2.1.Nutrition
Food consumption in Bangladesh has risen considerably in recent years, but this has been
accompanied by a certain degree of dietary imbalance (Underwood & Smitasiri 1999). The
average Bangladeshi adult consumes 999.9g of food, or 2318 kcal per day, an increase of 5.5%
since 2005 (BBS 2010). This has been achieved by increasing consumption of foodstuffs such
as fish, livestock, poultry, fruits and vegetables (BBS 2010). Despite falling by an average of
24g/person/day from 2005, rice consumption still accounts for 42% of average daily food
consumption by weight (BBS 2010) and provides as much as 74% of total dietary energy
(Mose & Dey 2007).
Micronutrients such as vitamin A and iron are absent from rice; therefore the dependence on
this food item has led to a ‘hidden hunger’ of severe micronutrient deficiencies (Underwood &
Smitasiri 1999), the impacts of which can be severe. Vitamin A deficiencies cause
xeropthalmia (night-blindness), stunted growth and ultimately total blindness (Underwood &
Smitasiri 1999; Singh 2004). Insufficient iron can result in anaemia and impaired physical and
cognitive development (Faruque et al. 2006). Pregnant or lactating women and children are
most at risk from these deficiencies due to their higher metabolic demands and unequal access
to food resources and healthcare that tends to favour men (Bouis 2000). Recent statistics show
that anaemia affects over half of the pregnant women and children aged between 6 months and
5 years of age in Bangladesh (Helen Keller International 2010) and 43% of children of the
same age-range suffer from stunted growth (UNICEF 2010). Such malnourishment has been
attributed to 35% of child and maternal mortality (Black et al. 2008) along with developmental
impairments that can persist into adulthood. When these impairments are as widespread as in
Bangladesh, they can hinder national development (Helen Keller International 2010).
Despite the widespread nature of these deficiencies, a large variety of food items rich in
micronutrients such as fruits, vegetables and animal source foods (ASFs) are produced in
Bangladesh. The most common vegetables are leafy varieties such as spinach and cabbage as
well as gourds, onions and carrots (Hels et al. 2004). Mango, jackfruit, banana and guava are
the most common fruits (Banglapedia 2006) and there is a variety of poultry and livestock.
Fish and their nutritional benefits, which are the focus of this study, will be discussed in greater
detail in later sections. Unfortunately, many of the poorest households cannot afford these
micronutrient rich food items, instead spending their limited food budget on energy rich but
vitamin and mineral poor staples such as rice and wheat (Rashid et al. 2011).
2.2.Economic status
Even though hard-core poverty (consumption of less than 1,805kcal/capita/day (Ahmed 2004))
has declined by 7.5 percentage points in the last five years, it continues to affect 17.6% of the
total population of Bangladesh (BBS 2010). Over the same time frame average household
income has increased by 59% to Tk.11 480 (US$140.86) and expenditure by 83% to Tk. 11
200 (US$137.42)(BBS 2010). In rural areas the disparity between average income and average
expenditure is only Tk. 36/household (BBS 2010). This suggests households are saving very
10
little money and means that the vulnerability level, particularly of agricultural dependent
households, is high. Should these households suffer unexpected losses as a result of natural
disasters, for example, then they may struggle to make up for the shortfall in food production.
Decreases in levels of extreme poverty and increases in income and household expenditure are
likely to have knock-on benefits for household nutrition due to expenditure on micronutrient
rich food items (Deb & Haque 2011). In addition, children of a financially secure family will
be able to receive an education and there will be fewer instances of the worrying practice of
families foregoing important medical treatment due to insufficient funds (McIntyre et al.
2011).
2.3. Fish production
The importance of fish to the Bangladeshi diet and economy cannot be underestimated.
Currently 63% of animal protein consumed is fish (Murshed-E-Jahan & Pemsl 2011), and
surveys have shown that fish is the only ASF available to the rural poor (Thilsted 2012). One
in 10 Bangladeshi people gain employment through the fisheries sector (Murshed-E-Jahan &
Pemsl 2011). From 1983/84 to 2007/08 capture fisheries grew by an average of 3.4% - 4.6%
per year. Over the same time period the annual growth of aquaculture was 9.2% (DOF 2008).
Despite these figures it has been reported that overall fish consumption by the rural poor has
begun to decline (Thompson et al. 2002), furthermore this decline has been accompanied by a
shift towards the production of larger, less nutritious species (Thompson et al. 2002).
There is approximately 4.3million ha of inland water in Bangladesh, fishponds alone account
for 0.3million ha of this (DOF 2008). Estimates suggest that 4.27million households in
Bangladesh own a pond (Fig. 2) and these account for 29.5% of Bangladeshi aquaculture
(Belton & Azad 2012). If these ponds are successfully managed they can provide household
members with a sustainable source of important micronutrients as well as an additional income
stream.
Figure 2. Traditional Bangladeshi homestead pond.
11
2.3.1.Nutrition
One of the main benefits associated with fish consumption is related to protein intake.
However most of the daily protein requirements in Bangladesh are met by rice consumption
(Halwart 2006). Nevertheless, fish is an important source of micronutrients such as vitamin A,
calcium and iron (Roos et al. 2003). These vitamins and minerals reduce the risk of a long list
of ailments including xeropthalmia (night-blindness), rickets, anaemia, heart disease and stroke
(WHO 2009), diseases that are particularly prevalent in children (WHO 2009).
The nutritional content of fish varies strongly between species. In Bangladesh, small
indigenous species (SIS) such as mola (Amblypharyngodon mola), chanda (Parambassis
baculis) and darkina (Esamus danicus) have very high levels of essential micronutrients (Roos
et al. 2003; Table 1). Furthermore, these fish are generally eaten whole which means that the
eyes and viscera (areas of high vitamin A content) and bones (high calcium content) are also
consumed (Roos et al. 2003). For example, recommended daily vitamin A intake can be met
by consuming just 20g mola flesh (Table 1). By contrast, 90 times this quantity of carp flesh
would be required to provide the same quantity of vitamin A (Roos et al. 2003; USDA 2012;
Table 1). In addition, larger species are generally filleted prior to consumption, which means
that the eyes and viscera are not consumed while the larger bones are left as plate waste (Roos
et al. 2003).
Table 1. Nutritional information of commonly cultured species observed in Bangladeshi
ponds in comparison to daily human nutritional requirements. Figures are based on average
values.
Unless otherwise stated data was taken from Roos et al. (2003)
*Data taken from USDA (2012)
**Data taken from Titi Tudorancea (2008).
***Data taken from FAO/WHO (2001) and represents requirements of a man aged 18-59 years.
RAE stands for retinol active equivalents, 1 RAE = 1μg retinol.
The nutritional benefits of SIS are widely acknowledged in the Bangladeshi public and they are
secondary only to fruit in terms of preferred food items to buy (Deb & Haque 2011; Nielsen et
al 2003; Thilsted & Roos 1999). During the peak production season in October, small fish
make up 57% of all fish consumption (Roos et al. 2003). Nevertheless, production of SIS in
aquaculture ponds is still relatively uncommon, possibly because of their low economic value
(Thilsted 2012). These fish are generally caught in open water capture fisheries and then sold
12
in markets in bundles of mixed small species (Thilsted 2012). Their low price makes them
attractive for the consumer but unattractive for the capture fishermen or producers.
As the importance of aquaculture in Bangladesh increases in comparison with capture fisheries,
the species produced in homestead ponds will become more important in terms of the national
diet. Therefore the finding that 88% of fish produced in homestead ponds from 2007-09 were
carp (Belton & Azad 2012) is not necessarily encouraging in terms of the Bangladeshi diet.
2.3.2. Economics
Greater income indirectly aids micronutrient intake through increased expenditure on nutritious
food items. Such benefits are exemplified by the fact that a 1% increase in income leads to a
0.58% increase in protein consumption (Rashid et al 2011). Even though protein consumption
should not be the main focus of dietary improvements, such changes in consumption patterns
are indicative of increased consumption of micronutrients.
Fish production is a more profitable practice than many other forms of agriculture. For
example, the gross return of a hectare of land growing a combination of Pajam and BRRIDhan
29 rice is Tk. 81 098. In comparison a hectare of pond land devoted to carp polyculture returns
Tk. 115 788 (Dey et al. 2008). Stocking more profitable species such as tilapia, shrimp or
prawn would increase this further.
The income to the producer from aquaculture is dependant on a range of factors including the
market price of the species being produced, stocking costs, input costs, labour costs and market
access. The giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) and black tiger shrimp
(Penaeus monodon) have substantially higher returns per kilogram than fish species. Despite
being one of the least nutritious, tilapia has the highest value of the fish species, while the
yellowtail catfish has the lowest (Table 2).
Table 2. Wholesale and retail value of the most frequently produced aquaculture species in
Bangladesh. Note that the carp value is between the four most commonly produced carp
species: Rui, silver carp, catla and mrigal.
Data taken from WorldFish Center database market survey, June 2012.
Costs vary greatly depending on the species being produced and the production practices being
utilised. Stocking costs of shrimp and prawn are substantially higher than other cultured
species (Islam et al. 2005). By contrast, many SIS are allowed to reproduce in ponds meaning
that stocking is not required. Inputs including fertilisers and feed vary greatly depending on the
intensity of production (section 1.3.3). In comparison to rice production, expenditure on labour
in aquaculture is low. It has been observed that the cost of labour for double-cropped rice
culture is 1.5 times that for carp polyculture and 2.3 times that of semi-intensive M.
rosenbergii culture (Dey et al. 2008), despite considerably lower returns.
13
2.3.3.Pond production practices
As stated, returns from aquaculture are highly dependant on production practices being
employed in the ponds. The following section describes different production practices available
to fishpond owners.
Seasonality of production
The seasonality of production refers to the length of time fish are produced throughout the year
and, to a certain extent, is linked to pond depth. Perennial fish production is generally
encouraged as it can aid year-round food security and micronutrient consumption (Prien &
Ahmed 2000). In addition, fish of the same species, particularly in seasonal ponds, are often
harvested and subsequently marketed at the same time leading to high availability and lower
market value at the time of sale (Belton & Azad 2012). Perennial producers have more choice
about when they can harvest their fish and will be able to sell during periods of low availability
and therefore higher market value (Belton & Azad 2012).
Culture practice
Monoculture involves the production of a single species whereas polyculture involves the
production of 2 or more species. Effective polyculture utilises the interactions between species
to maximise productivity (Alim et al. 2005). The benefits to the pond owner can be greater
income, greater nutritional diversity or both. For example a cash-SIS system has been
developed that combines carp species with nutritionally rich SIS species (e.g. Milstein et al.
2002, 2008; Wahab et al. 2002, 2003). The fact that different species within the pond utilise
different resources means that water quality is generally maintained at a higher level (Tian et
al. 2001). This reduces the likelihood of fish kills and minimises environmental damage.
Management practice
Management practices refer to the intensity of production, which is linked to factors such as the
level of inputs and stocking density (Table 3). Extensive aquaculture requires little to no inputs
and is the most common form in Bangladesh (Belton et al. 2011). Indeed, when semi-intensive
or intensive aquaculture is practiced it is usually by the wealthier land-owners or large
commercial producers (Alam & Thomson 2001). Improved extensive farming is often
encouraged by governments and NGOs as a way to sustainably intensify production through
integration of homestead food production components, in particular integrated agricultureaquaculture (IAA) technology (Murhsed-E-Jahan & Pemsl 2011).
Table 3. Outline of the four main aquaculture management practices in Bangladesh.
Information taken from Hambrey et al. (2008) and Dieu et al. (2011).
Pond depth
14
In Bangladesh, many ponds are very shallow with a maximum depth of approximately 1m
(Ahmed, K., personal communication). When a pond is this shallow, the stocking capacity is
limited. Furthermore, a shallow pond means that water retention capacity is low and the pond
is prone to drying out, this limits the period of production. This is particularly problematic in a
country like Bangladesh where a substantial proportion of the ponds are rain-fed (Kund et al.
2008). However, this is not to say that the deeper the pond the better. Many of the cultured
species are phytophagus (Belton & Azad 2012), which means they are reliant on
photosynthetic production, which, in the turbid waters of many Bangladeshi ponds (Azim et al.
2004), cannot take place at greater depths.
2.4. Homestead food production (HFP)
There are well over 15million households in Bangladesh (Alam & Masum 2005). Although the
average size of these households is declining (BBS 2010), the majority, especially in rural
regions, have a patch of land next to the dwelling area. This land can be used to produce fruits,
vegetables, livestock and fish and provide households with access to foods rich in
micronutrients that may not be readily available or within their economic reach (Talukder et al.
2000). In a country such as Bangladesh where poverty and malnutrition is so widespread,
successful use of this homestead land (Fig. 3) can be the difference between a nutrient deficient
and nutrient rich diet.
Figure 3. Efficient use of a homestead garden in Bangladesh for the growth of vegetables.
Recognising the severe ‘hidden hunger’ of deficiencies of micronutrients, Helen Keller
International instigated a pilot programme involving 1,000 households (de Pee et al. 2008).
This programme aimed to implement a food-based strategy to tackle micronutrient
deficiencies. This involves the efficient use of the area around the homestead for the
production of micronutrient rich foods. In particular, the focus was on increasing production,
and subsequent consumption, of fruits and vegetables rich in vitamin A. This involved
educating the participants on how to use their homestead land more effectively for the
production of fruits and vegetables and was accompanied by nutritional education to inform
15
participants of the importance of micronutrients for their health (Helen Keller International
2010). The pilot was highly successful and was subsequently rolled out throughout Asia,
reaching over 900,000 households in Bangladesh alone (de Pee et al. 2008). During this time
the programmes, or interventions, have further evolved to include livestock, poultry and fish
production and have expanded to tackle deficiencies of other micronutrients such as calcium
and iron (de Pee et al. 2008).
2.4.1.Benefits to nutrition
Interventions involving the aforementioned 900,000 households have contributed to production
of a greater variety of produce for a longer time throughout the year (de Pee et al. 2008). The
daily nutrient requirements of these people can now be met as well as producing a substantial
surplus that can be sold or stored for leaner periods (Bushamuka et al. 2005; de Pee et al.
2008). Comparative studies have shown that households involved in homestead food
production (HFP) interventions produce a considerably higher volume of produce for a longer
period than non-intervention households (Bushamuka et al. 2005; Helen Keller International
2010; Talukder et al. 2010). When interventions have promoted the production of poultry and
livestock similarly positive results have been obtained (reviewed in Leroy & Frongillo 2007;
Talukder et al. 2010). Poultry production in particular has been strongly linked to lower levels
of night blindness (Helen Keller International 2004).
2.4.2.Benefits to Income
HFP generates revenue directly through the sale of goods produced in the homestead (Helen
Keller International 2010). Furthermore, money that was set aside for the purchase of such
foodstuffs can be used to buy more food items to add more variety to the diet, re-invest in food
production, buy essential healthcare or to allow children to attend school (Helen Keller
International 2010). A more diverse expenditure pattern allows investment in important items
that could in turn further improve the well being of household members.
Traditionally, rice has been the predominant crop throughout Bangladesh. However fruit and
vegetable production as encouraged by HFP interventions has been shown to be considerably
more profitable (Bouis 2000; Bushamuka et al. 2005; Helen Keller International 2010). The
fact that animal source foods (ASFs) account for 3% of household energy consumption but 2025% of food budgets (Bouis 2000) shows the high cost per unit quantity. Therefore homestead
production of ASFs can improve a household’s economic status by reducing expenditure and
increasing revenue. Interventions have been shown to increase the profitability of egg and
poultry production (Talukder et al. 2010) but there is limited evidence regarding livestock. The
problem facing homestead livestock production is an apparent lack of space, a situation that
appears to be worsening (BBS 2010). This means that larger farm animals are generally
stocked in very low numbers so profitability can be limited by space as much as production
methods.
2.4.3. Aquaculture interventions
It could be expected that, in a similar fashion to fruits, vegetables, livestock and poultry,
interventions aimed at enhancing aquaculture on homestead land will result in an increase to
both income and consumption. Indeed, per capita consumption of fish is substantially higher in
rural areas for producers of fish than non-producers (Murshed-E-Jahan & Pemsl 2011).
However, excluding expenditure of fish-based income on micronutrient rich foods, the results
of interventions aimed at improving homestead aquaculture are highly variable. Developmental
organisations have implemented programs aimed at simple improvements to current pond
management strategies including the use of fertilisers and feeds as well as educating
households on optimum stocking patterns (Leroy & Frongillo 2007). When these directions
16
have been followed then levels of production have as much as tripled (ADB 2004; Winrock
International 2004). However the uptake of these technologies has been limited (Belton &
Azad 2012). In other cases the promotion of polyculture has resulted in no change of overall
quantity of fish consumption but did result in consumption of larger, less nutritious fish (Leroy
& Frongillo 2007).
As with other forms of HFP, constraints can limit enhancements to production. Among the
most commonly occurring constraints to aquaculture improvements in Bangladesh are
unavailability of high-quality seedstock, feed and fertilisers (Nuruzzaman 1994) and
insufficient access to land and water (Barman & Little 2011). Furthermore, disputes between
multiple owners of a single pond about how best to utilise the resource and divide costs and
returns can often lead to ponds going unused (Lewis 1997). Considering the very small gap
between household income and expenditure (BBS 2010), it could be expected that households
will have little available income with which to intensify production. Indeed, it has been
observed that a lack of funds prevents the poorest farmers from intensifying aquaculture
practices because they cannot afford important inputs (Murshed-E-Jahan & Pemsl 2011).
2.5. Aims and objectives
The importance of fish production to the diet and economy of Bangladesh is obvious, as are the
opportunities for improvements. In the past, interventions aimed at enhancing homestead
production of fruits, vegetables and ASFs have proved successful but the benefits to homestead
aquaculture are not so clear. It appears that better direction is required to maximise the
nutritional and financial benefits. For this reason a survey was conducted in selected parts of
the southwestern region of Bangladesh to determine the current status of homestead food
production. There was particular focus on the aquaculture practices of the region and their
comparative benefit to household welfare. The first aim of the study is to determine how many
households have access to a pond and then to establish the species that are produced as well as
the production practices taking place and which of these production practices are most
beneficial. The total financial returns per unit area from homestead aquaculture will be
calculated, as will profitability in order to determine the possible effects of pond ownership on
household financial welfare. There will be subsequent comparisons of the welfare of pondowning against non-pond-owning households using four key indicators: income, financial
status, food security and self-sufficiency. Finally, the constraints that households face in
enhancing homestead aquaculture will be examined. This information will be used to
determine the current status and possible benefits of pond-ownership as well as helping to
determine which are the preferential production practices and what factors may be limiting
improvements. Lastly, recommendations will be made regarding the future direction of
homestead aquaculture research and development in Bangladesh.
3. Methodology
3.1. Study area
Starting in the 1960s the Pakistani government began poldering in Bangladesh. This involved
the construction of earthen embankments along riverbanks with the aim of reducing the flood
risk for the surrounding area. This poldering created distinct land areas, each of which was
assigned a number according to its location. Households in three polders were selected for
study: polder 3, polder 30 and polder 43 (Fig. 4).
17
All polders were located in different upazilas from three separate districts. Polder 30 is located
in Batiaghata, Khulna district, Polder 3 is located in Debhata and Kaliganj, Satkhira district and
Polder 43 is located in Amtali, Barguna district. Polders ranged in size from 4,453ha (polder
43) to 35,780ha (polder 3). The number of unions and villages and total population correlated
with the total area. Polder 3 had 8 unions, 67 villages and 221,945 inhabitants. By contrast
polder 43 had 1 union, 12 villages and a population of 32,370. Only polder 3 has a prolonged
period of water logging in the monsoon season and here the salinity level fluctuates greatly
from 0ppt to 28ppt. Annual salinity is lowest at polder 43, rarely exceeding 6ppt, at polder 30
there is a medium level of salinity, peaking at 20ppt (Table 4). The salinity peak is observed in
the dry season at every location while the heavy rainfall and peak river flows in the monsoon
season mean that salinity is lowest during this period.
Due to its size, this survey focused on the southwest portion of polder 3. Within this region the
westerly areas with an elevation of 10-20ft are considered medium highland, the easterly areas
with an elevation of 0-10ft are considered low-lying land. For the sake of this survey, polder 3
was further subdivided into households on medium-highland (3-H) and households in the lowlying land (3-L).
Table 4. Some key geographical characteristics of the three locations selected for study.
All information was taken from the relevant Union Parishads, the smallest administrative unit of
Bangladesh. In the case of polder 3 and polder 30 where multiple unions are present, data from
numerous union parishads were compiled to provide accurate polder information.
3.2. Data collection
Complete lists of all the households in each polder were collected from the Union Parishad, the
smallest administrative unit of Bangladesh. A total of 21 851 households were recorded
throughout the sample regions (Table 5).
Each polder, including the subdivisions of polder 3, was considered as separate strata, meaning
that a representative sample of each location could be collected. This allowed for stratified
random sampling. In order to do this it was targeted that 5% of the total number of households
at each stratum would be sampled to provide an accurate picture of the homestead production
systems at each location whilst minimising time pressures. This was later adjusted to 5.86%
overall with slight variations between polders (Table 5). The number of households sampled at
each stratum is given in table 5.
18
Figure 4. The location of each polder within Bangladesh and individual maps of each polder.
Note: the survey focused on the southwestern region of polder 43, section 2b.
Table 5. Total number of households at each strata and number of households sampled. Each
strata represents the four pre-defined study locations. Total number of households is the figure
obtained from the Union Parishad. The number of households sampled is the number of
households that were interviewed using the homestead production system questionnaire.
Each household was assigned a unique id number and SPSS Statistics-20 software was used to
randomly select the pre-defined number of households for sampling from each stratum as
displayed in table 5. Eleven temporary employees of WorldFish Center were assigned the task
of visiting each one of these selected households and interviewing the household head by
19
asking the questions set out in the questionnaire (Appendix I) following ethically approved
methods. The aim of the interviews was to determine the homestead production system of each
household questioned. Initial questioning focused on basic household information such as
household area, main occupation and level of income. This was followed by more detailed
questions regarding all the components of the homestead food production system including
fruit, vegetables, livestock poultry and fish.
3.3. Data collation and analysis
Microsoft Access and Microsoft Excel were used to compile and analyse the data upon
completion of data collection. For the purpose of this study the focus was on data regarding
homestead pond production. This information was used to answer five important questions:
1. What is the general information on pond ownership? This included data on how many
households had a pond within their homestead area, the average surface area of these
ponds and the distribution of labour for homestead aquaculture production;
2. What are the main homestead production practices and which are the most productive?
This included information on which species were being cultured and where, the
seasonality of production as well as management practices and whether households
were practicing polyculture or monoculture. Furthermore, returns per unit area for the
aforementioned production practices were compared and a correlation test between
depth and returns per unit surface area was also conducted;
3. What is the comparative welfare of pond-owning and non-pond-owning households?
Indicators of welfare such as household income, financial status, food security and selfsufficiency were compared between pond-owning and non-pond-owning households;
4. How beneficial is pond ownership? Distribution of returns from homestead aquaculture
was analysed with particular attention given to how much fish was sold and how much
was consumed in the homestead. Furthermore, the profitability of the ponds was
calculated by comparing total returns with total expenditure. For the calculation of
expenditure, a value of Tk. 220/day was applied to both family and hired labour. This is
the average daily wage of the region (Sarwer, R., personal communication) and its
application means that the relative financial benefits of homestead aquaculture over
alternative employment could be assessed;
5. What are the constraints to production? Responses to this question were compiled
according to location.
A detailed account of which sections of the questionnaire were used to provide information for
the different research questions is given in appendix III.
All statistical analysis was performed on SPSS Statistics-20 software package. A Pearson’s
product moment correlation test was used to determine the significance of any correlation
between landholding size and pond size and pond depth and productivity. Independent samples
t-tests were used to compare productivity between ponds practicing seasonal or perennial
production and polyculture or monoculture. One-way ANOVA tests were used to compare
returns per unit area from different management practices at polders 30 and 43 but due to the
presence of only two forms of management at polder 3, independent samples t-tests were
performed to compare management at this location. An independent samples t-test was used to
determine statistical significance of differences in income of pond-owning and non-pondowning households.
Throughout this survey the Bangladeshi unit of decimals was used for measurements of area.
One decimal is equal to 40.46m2 or 1/100th of an acre.
20
4. Results
4.1 General information
Pond ownership was highest at polder 43, the low salinity region, and lowest at the mediumhighland at polder 3, the high salinity region. There is a positive correlation between land-size
and pond ownership at all land-size categories. It should be noted that only 1.7% of households
throughout the survey were of the large category, this resulted in fluctuating pond ownership
percentages (Table 6).
Table 6. Percentage of households owning a pond by polder and land-size.
1 dec = 40.46m2 or 1/100th of an acre. The landholding category is defined by the
area of land owned by the household.
There is a great deal of variability within land-size categories and polder with regards to pond
area, however, there is a positive relationship between landholding size and average pond area
(Table 7; Pearsons product-moment correlation: N = 753, R = 0.443, p < 0.001).
Table 7 Average area of ponds by polder and land-size category with standard
deviations.
The gender distribution of family adult labour is relatively even at polders 30 and 43. However,
at polder 3, the female contribution is somewhat diminished, accounting for only 22% and 25%
of total labour at the high and low land respectively. Child labour is utilised at every polder but
most strongly at polder 43 where it is the source of 14% of family-based labour in aquaculture
(Fig. 5).
21
Figure 5. Distribution of family labour by gender and age for
homestead pond culture in 2011.
4.2. Production practices and their productivity
4.2.1. Species cultured
Carp was the group most commonly cultured in household ponds at every polder. In some
cases a single household produced more than one carp species. Puti (Puntius sophore) was the
second most frequently produced species however production was very low at polder 3. Tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus) and catfish (Pangasius bocourti) were produced most frequently at
polder 43. Polder 30 and low-land of polder 3 had highest levels of the giant freshwater shrimp
and black tiger shrimp respectively (Fig. 6).
Figure 6. Frequency of production of a variety of species in homestead ponds in 2011.
When more than one carp species was cultured in a single pond, each species contributed
towards the overall total.
22
4.2.2. Seasonality
Perennial production was practiced in the majority of homestead ponds at each polder (Fig. 7).
There was very little variation between polders in terms of the percentage of seasonal ponds.
The most seasonal ponds were observed at polder 30 (19%).
Figure 7. Percentage of households practicing seasonal or perennial
production in their ponds in 2011.
Returns from seasonal pond production were highly variable and exceeded those from
perennial ponds at polder 30 and the higher ground of polder 3. Returns at polder 43 were
lower than all other polders for both culture practices (Fig. 8). Overall and at all polders, except
polder 43, the differences were not deemed to be significant at the 95% confidence interval
(Table 8).
Figure 8. Comparison of annual income per decimal of pond surface area for ponds
practicing seasonal or perennial production in 2011. Error bars indicate standard
deviation.
23
4.2.3. Culture practice
Polyculture was practiced in nearly every fishpond at every polder. Low-lying land of polder 3
had the highest number of monoculture ponds (13%). Only 1% of ponds at the high ground of
polder 3 and polder 43 practiced monoculture (Fig. 9).
Figure 9. Percentage of households practicing monoculture/polyculture
in their homestead ponds in 2011.
Average annual returns per decimal were highly variable for both forms of pond management.
With the exception of the higher ground of polder 3, average annual returns from polyculture
were higher than those for monoculture (Fig. 10). Differences were not significant at the 95%
confidence interval (Table 8).
Figure 10. Comparison of annual income per decimal from ponds for
households practicing monoculture/polyculture in 2011. Error bars indicate
standard deviation.
24
Table 8. Results of independent samples t-tests for the comparison of returns per
decimal from seasonal and perennial and monoculture and polyculture production.
*significance at 99.9% confidence interval.
4.2.4. Management practice
Extensive production is the most common management practice at every polder, 91% of all
ponds studied were extensive. Semi-intensive management was the only other practice
observed at every polder although this only accounted for 7% of the ponds overall. Improved
extensive management was only seen at polders 30 and 43. One household in the entire study
practiced intensive aquaculture, at polder 43 (Fig. 11).
Figure 11. Percentage of households practicing a variety of
management strategies in their ponds in 2011.
There was a great deal of variability in terms of income per decimal for every management
practice and there was no clear pattern between them (Fig. 12). The one household practicing
intensive aquaculture at polder 43 had returns of Tk. 772/decimal. Statistical analysis
confirmed the absence of a significant difference between the different management practices
(Table 9).
25
Figure 12. Comparison of annual income per decimal from ponds for households
practicing a variety of management strategies in 2011. Error bars indicate standard
deviation.
Table 9. Results of statistical analysis to compare productivity of different production
practices. Where more than two management practices were observed one-way ANOVA
tests were performed. At polder 3 where only extensive and semi-intensive aquaculture
was observed, independent samples t-tests were performed.
4.2.5. Pond depth
There was little relationship between pond depth and productivity (Fig. 13) Furthermore,
statistical analysis confirms the lack of a relationship overall and at each of the polders at the
95% confidence interval (Table 10)
26
Figure 13. Relationship between depth of pond and annual income per decimal for (a)
polder 30, (b) polder 3-H, (c) polder 3-L, (d) polder 43.
Table 10. Results of a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to assess the
relationship between pond depth and financial returns per decimal surface area.
4.3. Household welfare
4.3.1. Income
The average household with a pond has a higher income than the average household without a
pond at all polders (Fig. 14). These differences were statistically significant overall and at all
polders apart from the low-lying land at polder 3 where income of pondless households was
highly variable (Table 11).
Figure 14. Average annual household income from homestead farming activities in 2011
and comparison between pond-owning and non-pond-owning households. Error bars
indicate standard deviation.
27
Table 11. Results of independent samples t-test for comparison of
income between households with and without a homestead pond.
4.3.2. Self-perceived financial Status
The percentage of households with a pond that considered themselves to be very poor was
substantially lower than those without a pond at each polder (Fig. 15a). By contrast, the
percentage of households with a pond that considered themselves to be solvent was
substantially higher than the percentage of households without a pond at each polder (Fig.
15b). At polder 3 in particular pond owners had high rates of solvency.
Figure 15. Comparison of the percentage of households with and without a pond that consider
themselves to be (a) very poor and (b) solvent.
4.3.3. Food security
Overall 8% of households with a pond and 23% of households without a pond said that all their
household members would be unable to consume three meals every day of the year. At every
polder, households that did not own a pond were more food insecure than those that did (Fig.
16). Total levels of food insecurity were highest at polder 43 where 41% of households without
a pond had doubts about their ability to consume three meals a day, every day.
28
Figure 16. Percentage of households that stated that every household member
would be unable to consume three meals a day every day throughout the year.
4.3.4. Self-sufficiency
Households with a pond were self-sufficient for a longer period of time than households
without a pond. A much lower percentage of households with a pond relied on external sources
of food than those without a pond at all polders. By contrast, the percentage of pond owners
able to support themselves year round on their own produce was substantially higher than the
percentage of households without a pond (Fig. 17).
Figure 17. The percentage of households that could survive for (a) 0 months and (b) 12 months
consuming only food items produced on the homestead compared by pond ownership.
4.4. Pond profitability
At all polders, a far greater value of fish was consumed in the household than was sold, only
between 14% (polder 30) and 31% (polder 3-L) of the total fish value was sold (Fig. 18).
29
Figure 18. Total income per decimal of pond surface area from 2011 and how the
returns were utilised.
Ponds at the high ground of polder 3 were the most profitable per unit area, those on the lowlying ground and at polder 30 also made slightly smaller profits. However, the ponds at polder
43 actually made a substantial loss of Tk. 130/dec (Fig. 19).
Figure 19. Profit per decimal of pond surface area from homestead pond
aquaculture.
4.5. Constraints to intensification
Households conducting fish farming at polder 43 faced substantially more constraints to
aquaculture production than at the other locations. The most common constraint was
insufficient funds, this limited 56% of households unable to enhance production. Other
obstacles such as limited land, poor water quality and disputes between joint owners of a single
pond were found in similarly low numbers at all polders (Fig. 20).
30
Figure 20. Number of households suffering from constraints that limit their
ability to intensify aquaculture production and the reasons for the
constraints.
5. Discussion
5.1. General information
59% of households in this study owned a pond, this is substantially higher than previous
estimates of 20% (Jahan et al. 2010). This difference is particularly striking at the functionally
landless category where pond ownership is more than 5 times that recorded by Jahan et al.
(2010) for landless households. This could be related to shrinking households (BBS 2010),
increased promotion of aquaculture production by NGOs (Edwards 2000) or the fact that other
studies have neglected to include the smallest pond-sizes (Huda et al. 2010; Belton & Azad
2012). Nevertheless, the finding that there is a strong positive relationship between landholding
size and pond ownership and landholding size and pond size is in accordance with other studies
(Barman 2001; Jahan et al. 2010; Belton et al. 2011). These authors suggest that this is related
to available landholding area as well as sufficient funds to support pond construction,
maintenance and production. There is no reason to disagree with such conclusions in this
study.
Males dominated the adult workforce throughout the study. This became exaggerated at polder
3 where less than a quarter of the workforce was female. Traditionally female contribution to
household production activities would be limited due to Bangladeshi customs. Involvement of
women in aquaculture can be even more strongly restricted due to the location of the ponds
(Brugere 2001). Social practices in some regions of Bangladesh limit the movement of women
beyond a certain distance from the homestead, often no more than 50m (Mandelbaum 1988), a
distance exceeded by 5% of the ponds in this study. In these situations the potential for female
contribution to aquaculture is limited to activities such as feed preparation that can be
conducted in the home (Brugere et al. 2001).
The large percentage of females excluded from homestead aquaculture represents a large
potential workforce. Ever since the first interventions based on enhancing homestead
production were initialised, female empowerment has been one of the core objectives (Helen
31
Keller International 2010). Such targeting of women has repeatedly been shown to be
successful in terms of the production and consumption of micronutrient rich foods (Bushamuka
et al. 2005; de Pee et al. 2008; Helen Keller International 2010). Women regularly report that
their economic contribution to the household increases following the introduction of HFP
programmes (Bushamuka et al. 2005). In fact those studies that specifically target women are
generally the most successful (Leroy & Frongillo 2007). For this reason it is recommended that
future interventions aimed at enhancing aquaculture production are targeted towards women as
much as possible. This will enable them to make decisions regarding culture practices and how
to use the products and profits. Such targeting towards women has been successful in cage
aquaculture in the regions of Jessore and Khulna where 98% of cage operators are female and
their status and capacity to make important household decisions has been enhanced (Brugere et
al. 2001). However this may be difficult in the more conservative areas such as Sylhet in
eastern Bangladesh where the development of aquaculture may result in increased female
workload without much more control over household activities or indeed their own lives
(Brugere et al. 2001).
Child labour was present at each location and particularly frequent at polder 43. Employment
of children in aquaculture usually occurs as a replacement for hired labour to reduce costs
(FAO 2010), this fits in with its high presence at the income poor houses of polder 43. School
attendance and literacy rates are generally lower in child labourers and there can be negative
impacts on physical development (Halim 2010). Although these negative impacts of child
labour are very much contextual and dependent on factors such as how much time they spend
working and which activities they are involved in (FAO 2010), it is something that should be
discouraged.
There is a lack of data regarding where and when children are involved in aquaculture (Halim
2010) and the data presented in this study do not provide any further details. Obtaining these
data should be the first step in reducing dependence on children in aquaculture. Following on
from this, a wide range of policies and interventions (discussed in FAO 2010 and Halim 2010)
must be implemented on a national scale. Such changes in policy go beyond the scope of this
report and must be tackled at a governmental scale.
5.2. Production practices
5.2.1.Species cultured
In accordance with Belton and Azad (2012) there is a high focus on larger, less nutritious carp
species in homestead ponds. Puti was the only SIS observed in significant numbers. This
suggests that fish are generally bred for their economic as opposed to their nutritional value.
This is in contradiction to the finding that only a small proportion of the fish are sold (Fig. 18).
It may be that traditional knowledge on fish farming only extends to the production of carp,
while the widespread nature of such farming means that fry and fingerlings of these species are
more widely available. In addition, due to the fact that many SIS species are consumed directly
(Roos et al. 2003) there may be insufficient recording of such species. This is something that
has been noted in the past and improvement of which is recommended in the future (Berning et
al. 2010). The cash-SIS polyculture system (as discussed in section 4.2.3) could be utilised as a
more progressive step towards the enhancement of nutrient intake in combination with income
maintenance.
Direct nutrition from ponds should not necessarily be the main focus of homestead
aquaculture. Income from fish can be used to purchase other nutrient rich products; indeed the
32
purchase of nutrient rich food items is often the priority when it comes to spending household
resources (Deb & Haque 2011; Nielsen et al 2003; Thilsted & Roos 1999). Furthermore, this
elevated level of income can act as a buffer in the face of shocks such as ill health or natural
disasters which often elicit a descent into extreme poverty, even in wealthier households (Little
et al. 2010). Moreover, the benefits of aquaculture may go beyond income or nutrition. In
Bangladesh it has been noted that carp species have a high cultural value, its production and
consumption thereby enhances the emotional well being of the household and overall quality of
life (Belton & Azad 2012).
5.2.2. Seasonality
The majority of ponds at every polder practiced perennial production. Year-round production is
beneficial because fish can either grow to a greater size or a second production cycle can take
place. Additionally, farmers may delay harvesting of fish until availability is lower. This will
allow them to attract a higher market price for their product (Belton & Azad 2012).
However, with the exception of polder 43, no significant difference was observed in terms of
annual returns per decimal between seasonal and perennial ponds. It is likely that this is as a
result of the low number of seasonal ponds and high inter-household variation. Nevertheless, it
is recommended that perennial pond production be encouraged in future interventions as a way
of maximising profitability and providing a year-round source of fish flesh (Belton & Azad
2012). Deepening of ponds by re-excavation as advocated by Alam & Thomson (2001) would
enhance water-holding capacity of the shallowest ponds and would be preferential for the
majority of households in this study as 88% were rain fed.
5.2.3. Culture practice
The dominance of polyculture in all ponds is positive. Effective polyculture systems can lead
to greater and more varied fish production and can also help to maintain water quality (Tian et
al. 2001). This can enhance household status by increasing income and improving nutritional
health. Such benefits are reliant on an efficient, well-planned and well-managed system.
Unfortunately such technical knowledge is often lacking in Bangladesh (Lewis et al. 1996) and
a variety of species are often added to a pond with little consideration for how their ecological
interactions may affect productivity, leading to disappointing yields (Kadir et al. 2006).
Furthermore, polyculture in Bangladesh often consists of a two or more carp species (Kadir et
al. 2006), which means that both the economic and nutritional benefits of polyculture are
limited.
The best polyculture systems will target the needs of the family by providing a nutrient rich
and highly profitable system. The cash-SIS system combines filter feeding and bottom feeding
carp species that are considered the cash crop along with SIS such as puti and mola that are
nutrient rich and can be consumed by the family (Wahab et al. 2002, 2003; Milstein et al.
2002, 2008; Alim et al. 2004, 2005). Once established, the profit from the carp species along
with the ability of the SIS to reproduce in the ponds (Milstein et al. 2008) means that the
system could be self-sustaining. However this system does require an initial financial outlay
that may be difficult to find and education would be essential to ensure successful
management. Alternatives such as tilapia-carp polyculture are also feasible in Bangladesh but
remain underdeveloped in Bangladesh despite success in other Asian countries (Karim et al.
2011; Little & Bunting 2005).
Thorough research is required to ensure polyculture provides households with the maximum
possible benefit. Interactions between species must be investigated to ensure yields are not
33
restricted and species involved should be carefully selected to ensure households receive
maximum financial and nutritional benefit.
5.2.4. Management practice
Few households intensified aquaculture production beyond traditional extensive methods; of
those that did the benefits were apparently limited. This is unsurprising because there is a
severe shortage of technical knowledge due to a lack of relevant experience and education
(Lewis et al. 1996). Until recently, fish farming was deemed an activity for the wealthy that
were not reliant on the pond for their well being. In this format fingerlings were often
deposited into the ponds and, following little to no management, the pond owner would later
harvest whatever they could (Lewis 1997). Nevertheless, when education has been involved
and inputs carefully managed then improved management could see production as much as
triple (ADB 2004; Winrock International 2004; Azim 2004).
Aquaculture intensification in Bangladesh is severely constrained by resources and fish farmers
must compete with livestock and fuel producers for the most common feeds such as wheat
bran, rice bran and oil cake (Azim & Wahab 2003). For this reason the ideal way to improve
productivity would be through integration between the household’s food producing
components. Training in such integrated agriculture-aquaculture (IAA) has been shown to
increase usage of cow dung, poultry droppings, compost and rice and wheat bran (Murshed-EJahan & Pemsl 2011). This fertilises the pond, increasing autochthonous production and
providing a greater food source for phytophagus fish such as carp, tilapia and many SIS
(Milstein 1993). However such integration is reliant on these other food producing practices
being present in the household and it has been observed that financial and space restrictions
mean that the use of such inputs is often limited (Beveridge & Phillips 1993). Furthermore, the
almost negligible gap between household income and household expenditure (BBS 2010)
means that the poorest households will have little to no extra resources to invest in aquaculture
enhancement.
Due to the enormous availability of water in Bangladesh, intensification of aquaculture offers
an opportunity for economic improvement from an individual to a national scale. Further
investigation into how best to implement it is necessary.
5.2.5. Pond depth
Overall, pond depth had no noticeable effect on productivity per decimal. High levels of
turbidity in many Bangladesh homestead ponds (Azim et al. 2004) mean that phytoplankton
production can only take place in the uppermost pond layers. This limits growth rates of the
phytophagus species that dominate aquaculture in the region. However, deeper ponds do aid
production in that they are more likely to contain water all year round, thereby increasing the
possibility of perennial production. 8% of ponds had an average yearly depth below 4ft; the
depth of which can be expected to be substantially lower in the dry season. This limits the
number of individuals that can be stocked and the duration of production.
5.3. Pond ownership and welfare
There is a clear positive relationship between pond ownership and the welfare status of the
household. This is indicated by higher income, financial status, food security and selfsufficiency at the households with a pond than those without. Despite this finding, fishpond
ownership does not guarantee financial solvency or food security, in fact 9% of households
with a pond considered themselves very poor while 8% of pond owning households could not
guarantee household members three meals a day for 365 days a year.
34
It is very difficult to apply causation between welfare and pond ownership. There are
uncertainties about whether the better off households are better off because of pond ownership
or own a pond because they are better off. Furthermore, are the very poor households who own
a pond poorer because of low pond productivity? Or is homestead aquaculture an activity that
even the poorest can participate in, which offers an opportunity for households to escape from
poverty? Statistics have rarely given any answers to these questions (Hambrey et al. 2008) but
the fact that ponds at polder 30 and 3 returned a profit from aquaculture shows that pond
ownership can result in economic benefits. Interestingly, households at polder 43 had
substantially lower returns and, overall, were more likely to return a loss from aquaculture,
have a lower average income and be food insecure. Again, from the data available it is
impossible to confirm causation. The fact that there was a similar polder-based disparity in
welfare indicators for households that did not own a pond suggests that homestead aquaculture
is not the only cause of poorer welfare. However, if households are making a loss on
aquaculture then it is clearly not a financially beneficial practice.
From the data presented here it is impossible to know the exact impact of pond ownership on
household nutritional status. Clearly, households with a pond are more likely to consume three
meals a day but this may not be because of pond ownership and the exact content of these
meals is unknown. The majority of the fish produced are consumed and the dominance of carp
production suggests that direct consumption of fish will have limited nutritional benefits,
although the frequent presence of puti at polders 30 and 43 is promising. It is also important
not to discount the fact that extra income is likely to be spent on food items (Helen Keller
International 2010) with priority given to the purchase of fruits, vegetables and SIS (Deb &
Haque 2011; Nielsen et al 2003; Thilsted & Roos 1999). In Africa it has been shown that when
knowledge is restricted, pond ownership can have little to no benefit on household nutritional
status (Ayoade 1991). However, following the provision of education on better production
practices such as the inclusion of SIS in polyculture and efficient harvesting methods, there
were noticeable improvements in the nutritional status of these households (Brummett & Noble
1995). A comparative study on the nutritional status of pond-owning and non-pond-owning
households with a focus on the prevalence of ailments such as xeropthalmia, stunted growth
and rickets would yield interesting results.
5.4. Income and profit from ponds
The majority of fish produced in homestead ponds are consumed; this contrasts with the
findings of Karim et al. (2011) who found the ratio between consumption and sale was almost
reversed. Indeed there does appear to be substantial variation between regions in terms of the
utilisation of homestead-produced fish. Figures from previous studies range from 29% of home
consumption in the north and northwest (Hossain et al. 2010) to 47% in Mymensingh (Karim
2006). However 76% of fish by value produced in this study were consumed. Polder 3 was the
region with the highest proportion of sales. It is likely that this is related to the production of
prawn and shrimp at this location, which are generally used for export purposes instead of
home consumption (Belton & Azad 2012).
Profitability is a more accurate indicator of the benefit pond ownership can have on a
household’s welfare, the results of which were highly variable. Polders 3 and 30 both received
profits from their ponds suggesting that, from an economic point of view, homestead
aquaculture is financially preferential to alternative forms of employment. However the profit
margins were relatively small and overall profits are strongly dependant on pond size. This
means that the larger households with the larger ponds will return the biggest profit. At polder
35
43 it appears that pond ownership actually has a negative financial impact, in fact the losses per
unit area observed here are greater than the financial gains at any of the other three locations.
5.5. Constraints
The most common constraint to aquaculture improvements was financial limitations. Finding a
solution to this constraint is very difficult. When given a grant of Tk. 2000 (US$24.53) and
additional training, returns of fish farmers in four districts of Bangladesh increased from
US$3.70 to US$5.60 per labour day through effective use of IAA technology (Murshed-EJahan & Pemsl 2011). However, there are question marks over the feasibility of disseminating
grants and education to all the households suffering from financial restrictions. Microcredit
loans are one possibility and have been shown to be effective (Kleih et al. in press) but must be
accompanied by education and training to ensure additional funds are spent wisely. Despite the
success of some projects, addressing the challenge of financial limitations is difficult and
requires collaboration with governmental organisations and NGOs.
Constraints related to joint ownership did not occur as frequently as observed previously
(Lewis 1997). In recent years, as demand for aquaculture products have risen and seed and
fingerlings have become more readily available, there is anecdotal evidence that these disputes
have been resolved (Belton & Azad 2012). When such issues still arise, they must be tackled
on a case-by-case basis. If a solution cannot be found then the use of floating net cages will
allow individuals to take control of production practices within their own cage (Brugere et al.
2001). This means cage owners can take care of their own area, thereby mitigating conflicts.
It is difficult to propose solutions to the issue of poor water quality without more information
regarding the cause of the problem. Land limitations have been observed before (Barman &
Little 2011) but are an issue with no obvious solution. In fact, decreasing household sizes (BBS
2010) mean that the frequency of this constraint is likely to increase. The development of
aquaculture in ponds or ditches next to rice land has been promoted strongly by the
government and NGOs as a way to make use of all available water bodies (Dey et al. 2008).
Furthermore the CAGES (cage aquaculture for greater economic security) project promotes the
use of privately owned floating cages in public water bodies as a way for households without a
pond to become involved in aquaculture (Dey et al. 2008). However the CAGES project would
not necessarily be compatible with female-targeted aquaculture in locations where women’s
movement is restricted (Brugere et al. 2001).
6. Conclusions
The dense population of Bangladesh puts an enormous strain on natural resources while its
limited financial resources mean that imports are limited. For this reason food production
within the country must be as efficient as possible. Due to the abundance of water in the
country and the high nutrient content and value of fish species, aquaculture can be one of the
main tools in tackling malnourishment and poverty. However, current aquaculture practices,
particularly in the homestead, are generally inefficient with outputs rarely matching their
potential (Dey et al. 2008). Interventions have been shown to be successful for other
components of the HFP system such as fruit, vegetables, livestock and poultry but less so for
aquaculture. For future interventions to be more successful they require greater direction
towards better production practices.
It could be expected that a perennial, semi-intensive polyculture pond would be the ideal
system. However, what this study makes clear is that there is not one particular management
36
pattern that will guarantee success. The mere presence of polyculture, for example, does not
ensure improved returns; it requires careful selection of species as well as effective
management of inputs and water resources. In addition, access to aid and technical support
should help the establishment and continued efficient running of household ponds. In
accordance with Berning et al. (2008) it is also recommended that households be encouraged to
keep better records of inputs and returns from ponds. This should help to evaluate exactly
which types of feeds and management practices are best suited to which species as well as
providing accurate data with regards to levels of production. A substantial amount of research
is required to determine the future direction of interventions aimed at enhancing such
production. Below are some of the key recommendations from the outcome of this survey with
regards to the future of homestead aquaculture-based research and interventions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Encourage the participation of women through targeting future aquaculture based
interventions towards female members of the household;
Discourage the participation of children, this will require research into where they
participate and how frequently, as well as governmental cooperation to implement
monitoring strategies;
Gather more information on the frequency and nature of child labour in homestead
aquaculture to support future policies and legislation;
Encourage the production of more nutritious species such as SIS due to the high level
of fish consumption. More profitable species such as tilapia and shrimp/prawn should
also be produced more frequently;
Encourage improved record taking with regards to species produced and which are
consumed and which are sold;
Encourage the deepening of ponds where suitable in order to convert seasonal ponds
into perennial ponds. This will provide year-round supply of fish for consumption and
give more flexibility with regards to time of marketing those fish that are sold;
Investigate interactions between species to optimise polyculture practices for both
income and nutritional value. Particular focus should be given to those combinations
that provide both financial and nutritional benefits e.g. cash-SIS system (Wahab et al.
2002, 2003; Milstein et al. 2002; Alim et al. 2004, 2005);
Where possible encourage intensification of production and conduct research with
regards to the best forms of inputs for aquaculture intensification such as which
fertilisers and supplementary feeds to use. Improved record taking of which inputs are
used and when would aid this process;
It is clear that households with a pond are financially better off than those without. It
will be interesting to investigate exact impact pond ownership has on household
nutrition by comparing the nutritional status of pond owning households against those
without a pond. This would require information on the prevalence of certain
malnutrition related ailments such as stunted growth and xeropthalmia;
Investigate the best way to alleviate financial restrictions for aquaculture expansion and
ensure that such alleviation is accompanied by education to prevent direct expenditure
on food items as opposed to improved aquaculture technologies.
7. References
ADB (2004). An Evaluation of Small-Scale Freshwater Rural Aquaculture Development for
Poverty Reduction. Operations Evaluation Department. Asian Development Bank, Manila,
Philippines.
37
Ahmed, A. I. M. U. (2004). Socio-demographic of Correlates of Rural Poverty in
Bangladesh: A Case Study of Gaibandha Sadar and Tanore Upazilas. Bangladesh e-Journal of
Sociology 1: 1-17.
Alam, M. S. & Masum, K. M. (2005). Status of Homestead Biodiversity in the Offshore
Island of Bangladesh. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences 1: 246-253.
Alam, M. F. & Thomson, K. J. (2001). Current Constraints and Future Possibilities for
Bangladesh Fisheries. Food Policy 26: 297-313.
Alim, M. A., Wahab, M. A., Milstein, A. (2004). Effects of Adding Different
Proportions of the Small Fish Punti (Puntius sophore) and Mola (Amblypharyngodon mola) to
a Polyculture of Large Carp. Aquaculture Research 35: 124–133.
Alim, M. A., Wahab, M. A., Milstein, A. (2005). Effects of Increasing by 20% the
Stocking Density of Large Carps of the Basic “Cash” Carp-Small Fish Polyculture of
Bangladesh. Aquaculture Research 36: 317–325.
Ayoade, R. B. (1991). The Role of Aquaculture in Household Food Security, Nutrition
and Health Status in Central Malawi. In Costa-Pierce, B. A, Lightfoot, C., Ruddle, K. & Pullin,
R. S. V. (eds.). Aquaculture Research and Development in Rural Africa. ICLARM Conference
Proceedings 27. Penang, Malaysia: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management 52.
Azim, M. E., Rahaman, M. M., Wahab, M. A., Asaeda, T., Little, D. C. & Verdegem,
M. C. J. (2004). Periphyton-based Pond Polyculture Systems: a Bioeconomic Comparison of
On-farm and On-station Trials. Aquaculture 242: 381-396.
Banglapedia.
(2006).
Fruit.
Available:
http://www.banglapedia.org/httpdocs/HT/F_0183.HTM. Last accessed 15th August 2012.
Barman, B.K. (2001). Women in Small-Scale Aquaculture in North-West Bangladesh.
Gender, Technology and Development 5: 267–287
Barman, B. K. & Little, D. C. (2011). Use of Hapas to Produce Nile Tilapia
(Orechromis niloticus L.) Seed in household Foodfish Ponds: A Participatory Trial with SmallScale Farming Households in Northwest Bangladesh. Aquaculture 317: 214-222.
BBS (2010). Report of the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2010.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division. Ministry of Planning. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Belton, B. & Azad, A. (2012). The Characteristics and Status of Pond Aquaculture in
Bangladesh. Aquaculture 358-359: 196-204.
Belton, B., Karim, M., Thilsted, S., Jahan, K. M., Collis, W., Phillips, M., (2011).
Review of Aquaculture and Fish Consumption in Bangladesh. Studies and Reviews 2011–53.
The WorldFish Center, Penang, p. 76.
Berning, C., Corrêa, B., Sirman, K. & Sosa, F. (2008). Homestead Food Production in
Barisal, Bagladesh. Capstone Report. George Washington University and Helen Keller
International. Pp. 72.
Beveridge, M. C. M. & Phillips, M. J. (1993). Environmental Impact of Tropical Inland
Aquaculture. In Pullin, R.S.V., Rosenthal, H. & Maclean, J. L. (eds.). Environment and
Aquaculture in Developing Countries. The WorldFish Center, Penang.
Black, R.E., Allen, L.H., Bhutta, Z.A., Caulfield, L.E., de Onis, M., Ezzati, M. (2008).
Maternal and Child Undernutrition: Global and Regional Exposures and Health Consequences.
Lancet 371:243-260
Bouis, H. E. (2000). Commercial Vegetable and Polyculture Fish Production in
Bangladesh: Their Impacts on Household Income and Dietary Quality. Food and Nutrition
Bulletin 21: 482-487.
Brammer, H. (1990). Floods in Bangladesh II. Flood Mitigation and Environmental
Aspects. The Geographical Journal 156: 158-165.
38
Brugere, C., McAndrew, K. & Bulcock, P. (2001). Does Cage Aquaculture Address
Gender Goals in Development? Results of a Case Study in Bangladesh. Aquaculture
Economics & Management 5: 179-189.
Brummett, R. E. & Noble, R. P. (1995). Aquaculture for African Smallholders.
ICLARM Technical Report 46. Penang, Malaysia: International Center for Living Aquatic
Resources Management.
Bushamuka VN, de Pee S, Talukder A. (2005). Impact of a Homestead Gardening
Program on Household Food Security and Empowerment of Women in Bangladesh. Food
Nutrition Bulletin 26:17–25
CGIAR.
(2010).
Mission,
Vision,
Values.
Available:
http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/AboutUs/Paginas/mision_vision_valores.aspx. Last accessed 12th
September 2012.
CGIAR (2011). G2 Productive, Profitable and Resilient Agriculture and Aquaculture
Systems. IRRI Proposal April 2011.
de Pee, S., Talukder, A., Bloem, M. W. (2008). Homestead Food Production for
Improving Nutritional Status and Health. pp.753-779. In Semba, R. D. & Bloem, M. W. (eds.).
Nutrition and Health: Nutrition and Health in Developing Countries, Second Edition. Humana
Press, Totowa, NJ.
Deb, A. K. & Haque, C. E. (2011). ‘Every Mother is a Mini-doctor’: Ethnomedicinal
Use of Fish, Shellfish and Some Other Aquatic Animals in Bangladesh. Journal of
Ethnopharmacology 134: 259-267.
Dey, M. M., Bose, M. L., Alam, M. F., (2008). Recommendation Domains for Pond
Aquaculture. Country Case Study: Development and Status of Freshwater Aquaculture in
Bangladesh. WorldFish Center Studies and Reviews No. 1872. The WorldFish Center, Penang,
Malaysia
Dieu, B.T.M., Vlak, J.M. and Zwart, M.P. (2011). Effects of Extensive and Intensive
Shrimp Farming on the Genetic Composition of White Spot Syndrome Virus Populations, pp.
145-156. In Bondad-Reantaso, M.G., Jones, J.B., Corsin, F. and Aoki, T. (eds.). Diseases in
Asian Aquaculture VII. Fish Health Section, Asian Fisheries Society, Selangor, Malaysia. 385
pp.
DOF (2008). Fishery Statistics Year Book of Bangladesh 2007/08. Fisheries Survey
System, Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh.
Edwards, P. (2000). Aquaculture, Poverty Impacts and Livelihoods. Natural Resource
Perspectives 56: 1-4.
Falkenmark, M. (1989). Water Scarcity and Food Production. In Pimentel, D. & Hall,
C. W. (eds.). Food and Natural Resources. San Diego, Academic Press.
FAO (2010). Report of the FAO Workshop on Child Labour in Fisheries and
Aquaculture in Cooperation with ILO. Rome, 14-16 April 2010.
FAO (2011). Bangladesh and FAO: Achievements and Success Stories. FAO
Representation in Bangladesh. FAO, Rome.
FAO/WHO (2001). Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation. Bangkok,
Thailand. Food and Nutrition Division. FAO Rome.
Faruque, A. S. G., Khan, A. I., Malek, M. A., Hug, A., Wahed, M. A., Salam, M. A.,
Fuchs, G. J. & Khaled, M. A. (2006). Childhood Anemia and Vitamin A Deficiency in Rural
Bangladesh. The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 37: 771777.
Halim, M. U. (2010). Child Labour in Fishery and Aquaculture: Need for a Perspective
in the Light of Experiences from India. Presented in the Expert Consultation on Child Labour
in Fisheries organised by FAO and ILO. FAO, Rome.
39
Hall,
S.
(2011).
Welcome
to
the
WorldFish
Center.
Available:
http://www.worldfishcenter.org/welcome-worldfish-center. Last accessed 30th August 2012.
Halwart, M. (2006). Biodiversity and Nutrition in Rice-Based Aquatic Ecosystems.
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19: 747-751.
Hambrey, J., Edwards, P., Belton, B. (2008). An Ecosystem Approach (EAA) to
Freshwater Aquaculture: a Global Review. Building an Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture.
FAO Fisheries Proceedings N14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, pp. 117–173.
Helen Keller International (2004). Homestead Food Production Improves Household
Food and Nutrition Security. Homestead Food Production Bulletin 2.
Helen Keller International (2010). Homestead Food Production Model Contributes to
Improved Household Food Security, Nutrition and Female Empowerment – Experience from
Scaling-up Programs in Asia (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal and Philippines). Nutrition
Bulletin 8: 1-8.
Hels, O., Larsen, T., Christensen, L. P., Kidmose, U., Hassan, N. & Thilsted, S. H.
(2004). Contents of Iron, Calcium, Zinc and β-Carotene in Commonly Consumed Vegetables
in Bangladesh. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 17: 587-595.
Huda, K.M.S., Atkins, P.J., Donoghue, D.N.M., Cox, N.J. (2010). Small Water Bodies
in Bangladesh. Area 42: 217–227.
Islam, M. S., Milstein, A., Wahab, M. A., Kamal, A. H. M. & Dewan, S. (2005).
Production and Economic Return of Shrimp Aquaculture in Coastal Ponds of Different Sizes
and with Different Management Regimes. Aquaculture International 13: 489-500.
Jahan, M.K., Ahmed, M., Belton, B. (2010). The Impacts of Aquaculture d
Development on Food Security: Lessons from Bangladesh. Aquaculture Research 41: 481–
495.
Kadir, A., Kundu, R. S., Milstein, A. & Wahab, M. A. (2006). Effects of Silver Carp
and Small Indigenous Species on Pond Ecology and Carp Polycultures in Bangladesh.
Aquaculture 261: 1065-1076.
Karim, M. (2006). The Livelihood Impacts of Fishponds Integrated within Farming
Systems in Mymensingh District, Bangladesh. PhD Thesis. Institute of Aquaculture, University
of Stirling: Stirling, UK.
Karim, M., Little, D. C., Kabir, M. S., Verdegem, M. J. C., Telfer, T. & Wahab, M. A.
(2011). Enhancing Benefits from Polycultures Including Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
Within Integrated Pond-Dike Systems: A Participatory Trial with Households of Varying
Socio-Economic Level in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas of Bangladesh. Aquaculture 314: 225235.
Kleih, U., Linton, J., Marr, A., Mactaggart, M., Naziri, D. & Orchard, J. E. (in press).
Financial Services for Small and Medium-scale Aquaculture and Fisheries Producers. Marine
Policy: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.006.
Kunda, M., Azim, M. E., Wahab, M. A., Dewan, S., Roos, N. & Thilsted, S. H. (2008).
Potential of Mixed Culture of Freshwater Prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) and SelfRecruiting Small Species Mola (Amblypharyngodon mola) in Rotational Rice-fish/Prawn
Culture Systems in Bangladesh. Aquaculture Research 39: 506-517.
Leroy, J. L. & Frongillo, E. A. (2007). Can Interventions to Promote Animal
Production Ameliorate Undernutrition? The Journal of Nutrition 137: 2311-2316.
Lewis, D. (1997). Rethinking Aquaculture for Resource Poor Farmers: Perspectives
from Bangladesh. Food Policy 22: 533–546.
Lewis, D. J., Wood, G. D. & Gregory, R. (1996). Trading the Silver Seed: Local
Knowledge and Market Moralities in Aquacultural Development. Intermediate Technology
Publications, Dhaka: University Press Limited, London.
40
Little, D. C. & Bunting, S. W. (2005). Opportunities and Constraints to Aquaculture
with a Focus on South and Southeast Asia. In Costa Pierce, B. A., Edwards, P., Baker, D.,
Desbonnet, A. (eds.). Urban Aquaculture. CABI Publishing.
Little, D. C., Barman, B. K., Belton, B., Beveridge, M. C., Bush, S. J., Dabaddie, L.,
Demaine, H., Edwards, P., Haque, M. M., Kibria, G., Morales, E., Murray, F. J., Leschen, W.
A., Nandeesha, M. C., Sukadi, F. (2010). Alleviating Poverty through Aquaculture: Progress,
Opportunities and Improvements. In Subasinghe, R. P., Arthur, J. R., Bartley, D. M., De Silva,
S. S., Halwart, M., Hishamunda, N., Mohan, C. V., Sorgeloos, P. (eds.), Farming the Waters
for People and Food. Proceedings of the Global Conference on Aquaculture 2010. Phuket,
Thailand. FAO, Rome and NACA, Bangkok, pp. 719–783.
Mandelbaum, D. G. (1988). Women’s Seclusion and Men’s Honor. Sex Roles in North
India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Tucson, University of Arizona Press. pp. 153.
McIntyre, L., Rondeau, K., Kirkpatrick, S., Hatfield, J., Islam, K. S. & Huda, S. N.
(2011). Food Provisioning Experiences of Ultra Poor Female Heads of Households Living in
Bangladesh. Social Science & Medicine 72: 969-976.
Milstein, A. (1993). Water Quality and Freshwater Fish Culture Intensification: the
Israeli Example. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management 24: 719-724.
Milstein, A., Wahab, M.A., Rahman, M.M. (2002). Environmental Effects of Common
Carp, Cyprinus carpio (L.), and Mrigal, Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton), as Bottom Feeders in
Major Indian Carp Polycultures. Aquaculture Research 33: 1103–1117.
Milstein, A., Wahab, M. A., Kadir, A., Sagor, M. F. H. & Islam, M. A. (2008). Effects
of Intervention in the Water Column and/or Pond Bottom through Species Composition on
Polycultures of Large Carps and Small Indigenous Species. Aquaculture 286: 246-253.
Mose, M. L. & Dey, M. M. (2007). Food and Nutritional Security in Bangladesh:
Going beyond Carbohydrate Counts. Agricultural Economics Research Review 20: 203-225.
Murshed-E-Jahan, K. & Pemsl, D. E. (2011). The Impact of Integrated AquacultureAgriculture on Small-Scale Farm Sustainability and Farmers’ Livelihoods: Experience from
Bangladesh. Agricultural Systems 104: 392-402.
Nielsen, H., Roos, N., Thilsted, S. H. (2003). The Impact of Semi-Scavenging Poultry
Production on Intake of Animal Foods in Women and Girls in Bangladesh. Journal of
Nutrition 133: 4027S-4030S.
Nuruzzaman, A.K.M. (1994). Aquaculture in Bangladesh: Constraints and
opportunities In Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission. Proceedings of the Symposium on SocioEconomic Issues in Coastal Fishery Management. Bangkok, Thailand. FAO/IPFC/RAPA
Publication, 1994. p. 259–72.
Pimentel, D., Houser, J., Preiss, E., White, W., Fang, H., Mesnick, L., Barsky, T.,
Tariche, S., Schreck, J. & Alpert, S. (1997). BioScience 47: 97-106.
Pimentel, D. & Pimentel, M. (1996). Food, Energy and Society (revised edition).
Niwot, University Press of Colorado.
Prien, M. & Ahmed, M. (2000). Integration of Aquaculture into Smallholder Farming
Systems for Improved Food Security and Household Nutrition. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 21:
466-471.
Rashid, D. A., Smith, L. C. & Rahman, T. (2011). Determinants of Dietary Quality:
Evidence from Bangladesh. World Development 39: 2221-2231.
Roos, N., Islam, M. M. & Thilsted, S. H. (2003). Small Indigenous Fish Species in
Bangladesh: Contribution to Vitamin A, Calcium and Iron Intakes. The Journal of Nutrition
133: 4021S-4026S.
Singh, M. (2004) Role of Micronutrients for Physical Growth and Mental
Development. Indian Journal of Pediatrics 71: 59-62
41
Talukder, A., Kiess, L., Huq, N., de Pee, S., Darnton-Hill, I. & Bloem, M. W. (2000).
Increasing the Production and Consumption of Vitamin A-Rich Fruits and Vegetables: Lessons
Learned in Taking the Bangladesh Homestead Gardening Programme to a National Scale.
Food and Nutrition Bulletin 21: 165-172.
Talukder, A., Haselow, N. J., Osei, A. K., Villate, E., Reario, D., Kroeun, H., Sokhoing,
L., Uddin, A., Dhunge, S. & Quinn, V. (2010). Homestead Food Production Contributes to
Improved Household Food Security and Nutrition Status of Young Children and Women in
Poor Populations. Field Actions Science Reports [Online], Special Issue 1.
URL : http://factsreports.revues.org/404.
Thilsted, S. H. (2012). Improved Management, Increased Culture and Consumption of
Small Fish Species can Improve Diets of the Rural Poor. The WorldFish Center. Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Thilsted, S. H. & Roos, N. (1999). Policy Issues on Fisheries in Relation to Food and
Nutrition Security. In M. Ahmed, M., C. Delgado, S. Sverdrup- Jensen, R. A. V. Santos (Eds.),
Fisheries Policy Research in Developing Countries. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 60.
ICLARM, Penang, Malaysia pp. 61-69.
Thompson, P., Roos, N., Sultana, P., Thilsted, S. H. (2002). Changing Significance of
Inland Fisheries for Livelihoods and Nutrition in Bangladesh. Journal of Crop Production 6:
249-317.
Tian, X., Li, D., Dong, S., Yan, X., Qi, Z., Liu, G. & Lu, J. (2001). An Experimental
Study on Closed-polyculture of Penaeid Shrimp with Tilapia and Constricted Tagelus.
Aquaculture 202: 57-71.
Titi
Tudorancea.
(2008).
The
Titi
Tudorancea
Bulletin.
Available:
http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/nutrition_facts_fish_catfish_channel_wild_cooked_dry_heat.
htm. Last accessed 1st August 2012.
Underwood, B. A., Smitasiri, S. (1999) Micronutrient Malnutrition: Policies and
Programs for Control and their Implications. Annual Review of Nutrition 19: 303-24.
UNDESA (2010). World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision. Available:
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm. Last accessed 15th August 2012.
UNDP (2010). Human Development Report 2010. The Real Wealth of Nations:
Pathways to Human Development. 20th Anniversary Edition.
UNICEF
(2010).
Bangladesh
Statistics.
Available:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/bangladesh_bangladesh_statistics.html#64. Last accessed
15th August 2012
USDA. (2012). National nutrient database for standard reference. Available:
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4692?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25
&offset=&sort=&qlookup=tilapia. Last accessed 2nd August 2012.
Wahab, M.A., Rahman, M.M., Milstein, A. (2002). The Effect of Common Carp
Cyprinus carpio (L.) and Mrigal Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton) as Bottom Feeders in Major
Indian Carp Polycultures. Aquaculture Research 33: 547–557.
Wahab, M.A., Alim, M.A., Milstein, A. (2003). Effects of Adding the Small Fish Punti
(Puntius sophore) and/or Mola (Amblypharyngodon mola) to a Polyculture of Large Carp.
Aquaculture Research 34: 149–164.
WHO (2009). Global Prevalence of Vitamin A Deficiency in Populations at Risk 19952005. WHO Global Database on Vitamin A Deficiency. Geneva, World Health Organization.
Winrock International (2004). Mymensingh Aquaculture Extension Component Impact
Evaluation Study. The GoB/Danida Fisheries Support Unit, Dhaka: Bangladesh.
WorldFish Center. (2012). Asia. Available: http://www.worldfishcenter.org/ourresearch/where-we-work/asia. Last accessed 12th September 2012.
42
8. Appendices
Appendix I – Risk Assessment and Research Ethics
This page must be completed for all fieldwork taking place outside the Department of
Geography, any laboratory work inside the College premises and ALL student
dissertation projects, whether human or physical, and whether undergraduate,
postgraduate taught or postgraduate research.
AFTER reading through ALL risk categories, please sign RISK TYPE A or B below,
which applies to you.
RISK TYPE A. I have considered ALL categories in this form and I declare that I am
undertaking a student project/dissertation where NONE of my research will be outside of
college premises or home, and will not involve any of the risks identified in ANY of the
categories of this risk assessment form. For example, the research wholly involves
library/archival research or analysis of existing on-line/other data. None of the risks of
my project/dissertation are greater than in everyday life and normal activities. Should my
research project change, such that there risks involved, it is my responsibility to fill out
this form appropriately and obtain the appropriate signatures for Risk Type B.
SIGNATURES OF PERSON FILLING
COUNTERSIGNATURE.
A. Person filling in this risk assessment
Name (Typed or printed in BLOCK letters):
Signature:
Date:
IN
A
RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
B. Countersignature and date
(Students – Research Supervisor; Research Staff – Project Leader; Academic Staff –
Head of Department)
Name (Typed or printed in BLOCK letters):
Signature:
Date:
Print this page in triplicate; the three copies signed and countersigned, and lodged with:
(1) Your supervisor.
(2) The Department Office.
(3) One for retention by yourself.
For UGT and PGT students, this signatures page of your risk assessment must be
included in Appendix 1 of your dissertation.
RISK TYPE B. I have considered ALL categories in this form, indicated which risks
apply to me that are greater than in everyday life and normal activities (writing yes/no
for every section), for those sections where I have answered ‘yes’ I have indicate the
43
degree of risk from 1–5 (1=low, 5=high), where appropriate added notes and indicated
other additional risks in the final section.
SIGNATURES OF PERSON FILLING IN A RISK
COUNTERSIGNATURE.
A. Person filling in this risk assessment
Name (Typed or printed in BLOCK letters): Jack Bloomer
Signature:
ASSESSMENT
AND
Date: 29 July 2012
B. Countersignature and date
(Students – Research Supervisor; Research Staff – Project Leader; Academic Staff –
Head of Department)
Name (Typed or printed in BLOCK letters): Michael Chadwick
Signature:
Date: 31 July 2012
All pages in this form except for p. 1 should be printed in triplicate, the three copies
signed and countersigned, and lodged with:
(1) Your supervisor.
(2) The Department Office.
(3) One for retention by yourself before fieldwork commences.
For UGT and PGT students, this signatures page of your risk assessment must be
included in Appendix 1 of your dissertation.
For work outside of the UK, please do not forget to obtain insurance in accordance with
College
regulations
(application
form http://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/structure/admin/finance/staff/insurance/travel.html).
Research ethics
This dissertation is based on an industrial project placement and is a key element of the MSc
programme. The project placement offers hands-on operational and research training with a
host organisation. Students are individually counselled on their choice of project placement
with the goal to match individual career aspirations and compliment individual interest and
expertise. Placements are in a wide range of organisations and agencies including, inter alia,
the Environment Agency, other government agencies and departments, consultancies, water
utilities, NGOs and research centres. As such, Research Ethics Screening and Health and
Health and Safety Risk Assessments are host dependent, but students were encouraged to
consult the course coordinator regarding any issues. At the beginning of the course, a
comprehensive Ethics and Health and Safety Risk Assessment was conducted regarding the
wide range of potential issues and situations associated with activities conducted during the
course.
All data was collected prior to the commencement of the work placement by temporary staff
employed by WorldFish Center. All temporary members of staff employed by WorldFish
Center received training on correct ethical procedures prior to the survey implementation.
44
45
Appendix II – Questionnaire
Survey of the Homestead Production System
WorldFish Center, Bangladesh and South Asia, 2011
1.
Basic information
a) Interviewee name: ……………………………………………………………….………………. If you are not
the
owner
of
the
homestead
Please
specify
your
role:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
b. Interviewee’s address:
GPS Location:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…
Para: …………………………………..…. Village:……………...………………………
Mouza:……………….……………………………………… Union:….…………………Polder:……….. Upazilla:
………………………… District: …………………………………………………………..
c) Years of stay in current village:
..............................................................................................................................
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2.
Household (hh) information:
a) Major occupation of the household head (in terms of HH head’s
income):……….………………………….…………….
b)
Major
occupation
of
the
household
head
(in
terms
of
time
spent):……………………………………………………....…….
c) If current major occupation (income) is aquaculture, what was the previous major
occupation?...................
46
d)
Secondary
occupation
(in
income):………………………………………………………………………………………..…
terms
of
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
f) Participation of household members on agricultural activities (No.):
Adult: male……………………………… female………………………… Child:
male……………………..…..female………………………...
g) Participation of household members on aquaculture activities (No.):
Adult: male……………………….…… female…………………………
male………………….…..…..female………………….…
Child:
i) Indicate the area of land under your possession (dec):
Homestead
Items
Own
Rented Rented Leased Leased Mortgaged Mortgaged
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
Dwelling
pond
Vegetable
Fruit garden/trees
Poultry
Livestock
Tree covered
Yard
Pond (outside
homestead)
Rice-fish plot
Crop land
Forest land
Fallow
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
k) Give particulars about your household income from different off farm and non-farm income sources in 2011
Source of income
No of hh members
No of Days
Annual income
involvement
involvement
(Tk)
Male
Female
Male
Female
1
2
47
3
4
5
6
l) Why did you first decide to take up homestead pond culture and where did you acquire the
information needed to do so?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………..……
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………
m) How many years of experience do you have in aquaculture……………… homestead pond
culture …………..………….
n) Please discuss about your homestead aquaculture production practices in the last 5 years
Last 5 years
Selected culture species
Management Practice
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
o) Please comment about the reasons of change (if any) of your homestead aquaculture
production practices over the last 10 years
48
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………p) Have you or any members of your family been the
beneficiary of any homestead aquaculture program (Yes -1; No – 0)? ……
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………q) If yes, please give the details of the support received
Name of the
Program
Institution
Nature of
support
If the support is training,
give subject of training
Training
duration
r) Access to organizations or institutions: What type of support you have received from these
organizations/institutions?
Organizations
Access (Yes
-1;
No – 0)
Frequency of What type of support you received
contact
in from these organizations
2011
Upazilla fisheries office
Upazilla agriculture office
Upazilla livestock office
Research Institutes
NGOs
Projects
s) Are you the member of any community/farmer organizations? If yes, pls. give details
49
Organization
Formal or
informal
Position
Organization activities
3. Basic information of homestead pond
a)
How many ponds do you operate………………………………………………………………. ………
b) Proving us the input and output information for homestead pond
Items
Answers
How old is your pond
Why your pond was originally
constructed
Pond surface average area (decimal)
Dike area (decimal)
Soil type (sand/ silt/ clay/ loam/ sandy loam/ clay loam/ silty
loam/others…………………………, pls specify)
Pond type (seasonal/perennial)
Water retention for fish culture in pond (month)
Maximum water depth in 2011 (ft)
Minimum water depth in 2011 (ft)
Duration of aquaculture practices
Distance of pond from homestead (km)
Water source (DTW / STW / Rainfall/Rivers/Others …………………………..)
Tenure status (single owned / joint owned / single leased / joint leased):
If multiple ownership (joint owned or joint leased), how many persons
If leased, for how many years
Your current year (2011) aquaculture production consists of how many
50
cycles
Please provide details
Production Cycle
Practices
1st (……………..………. to
2nd
Pond dike used for production of vegetables/short growing fruits/ fruit
Level of pond water salinity
Growing days
4. Information of fixed costs of fish culture in the homestead pond in 2011
a)
Leased
Value
(Tk):
………………………………….………….……………
Land
Tax
(Tk,)
………………………………………………..…………….
b) Excavation/last re-excavation of pond
Year of excavation / last reexcavation/dike repairing
c)
Cost (Tk)
Economic Life (Years)
Did you borrow money for fish culture in the homestead pond? Yes = 1, No = 0
…………………………………………………
d) If yes, how much money did you borrow this year for culture in the sample pond?
Source
e)
Date of loan
Amount
Date of loan
Final repayment
received
borrowed
repayment
amount
If you repay loan in kind, give details of the repayment arrangements including value
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………
f)
if you take any loan in kind for fish culture in homestead pond : ……….Yes………No; If yes, please give details
Source
Form of kind (inputs)
Quantity of inputs
Value of inputs
51
g) Please give details of the repayment arrangements including value
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
j) Equipments (Durable: Economic life is more than one year) used in the homestead pond:
Equipments or
Accessories
Value
(TK)
No.
Economic
life (years)
Annual
Repairing Cost
(Tk)
% used in the HP
(Sample Pond)
Cast net
Irrigation pump
5. Information on operating costs for fish culture in the homestead pond in 2011
a) Equipments (non-durable: Economic life is less than one year) used
Equipments or Accessories
Purchase Value
(TK)
% used in the HP
Blue Net
Bamboo and Wooden material
(Stick/branch/pole, rope, tire, tube,
polythene)
b) Input use for fish culture and dike cropping:
1st Cycle
Inputs
Quantity
(Kg)
Unit
Price
(Tk/kg)
2nd Cycle
Quantity
(Kg)
Unit
Price
(Tk/kg)
Pond dikes
Quantity
(Kg)
Unit
Price
(Tk/kg)
Organic fertilizer
52
Cowdung
Compost
Poultry litter
Inorganic fertilizer
Urea
TSP
MP
DAP
Chemical
Lime
Supplementary feed
Azolla /Duckweed
Rice bran
Wheat bran
Maize bran
Oil cake
Fish meal
Commercial feed
(floating pellet)
commercial feed
(Sinking pellet)
Homemade feed
(pellet)
Homemade feed
(mix)
Other costs
Vegetable
seed/seedling
Fruit tree
seed/seedling
53
Fencing
Platform
c) Information of stocking
Name
species
Month of
Cycle
stocking
Number
Source*
Average
Size
(Inch)
Total
Weight
(Kg)
Total
Value
(Tk)
Source code: 1 = Patiwala; 2 = Nursery; 3 = Hatchery; 4 = Open sources; 5 = Seed commission agent
d) Human labor used for fish culture
Labor Type
Hired Labor
(Permanent
)
No of
Labo
r
Hour
/ Day
Time spent
Day/
Mont
h
Month
/ Year
Total
labor
day
annuall
y
Salary
Paid
(Tk /
month
)
Salary
Paid
(Tk/day
)
%
labo
r
used
in SP
% labor used
Pon
d
Dyk
e
54
Hired Labor
(Harvesting
)
Hired Labor
(Pond
preparation
)
Hired Labor
(Other type)
Family
Labor
e) Distribution of labor by gender for fish culture in homestead ponds
Selected activities
family labor
Men
Women
Men
hired labors
Women
Pond excavation
Pond preparation
Collection of organic manure
Buying of inputs (fertilizer,
insecticide etc.)
Buying of fry/fingerling
Release of fingerling
Application of fertilizer
Feed Preparation
Feeding
Use of lime
Use of insecticide and pesticide
Disease checking
Water quality management
Harvesting of fingerling/fish
Selling of fingerling/fish
Marketing of fingerling/fish
Guarding
Dike cropping
f) If you use mechanical power for water supply and exchange in fish culture
Source
If money paid by time use
If money paid by area coverage
of
Time spent
Unit cost
Unit cost
Equipment
Area
Frequency
water (Hour Day/ Month/ (Tk/hour)
used
covered (Tk/Dec)
of use
(Dec.)
/Day) Month
Year
55
6. Information of harvesting in the homestead pond in 2011
a) Information of harvesting for sale
Name species
Month of
harvest
Number
Cycle
Average
size at
harvest
(gm)
Quantity
sold (kg)
Total sales
Value (Tk)
b) Information on home consumption & gifting of fish from the homestead pond
Frequency of
consumption
(days/month)
Frequency of
consumption
(months/year)
Average quantity
consumed each
time (kg/day)
Frequency of
gifting
Average quantity
gifted in each
(occasions/year) occasion
(kg/occasion)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
d) % contribution of each source to the total household fish consumption
Fish source
Own
Ponds
Purchased Self caught
in market (from own
rice field)
Selfcaught
(from
open
water
body)
Other
(specify)
Other
(specify)
% of fish
consumed from
the source
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
56
8. Have you ever made a financial loss on a production cycle since you started homestead
aquaculture – explain the reason for the loss and how much money it cost you (do this for
every loss; if >5 losses, give details of only the 5 most recent losses but also give the figure for
the total number of times you made a loss)
When
Reasons of losses
Monetary loss (Tk)
9. Did you face any shocks in fish culture in the sample pond in 2011 (Yeas -1; No -0)?
……………………… If yes please mention about the type of shocks
………………………………………………………….……frequency ……………………..…………………..
If any loss in 2011, please give details compared to your production of 2010
Item
Decrease (%)
Quantity loss
(kg)
Monetary loss
(Tk)
Fish production (kg)
Vegetable production (kg)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
13. Are there any constrains which would prevent you from increasing production from your
pond or expanding the area under aquaculture if you wanted to? Explain….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………….
14. Phone number of the interviewee (if applicable):
…………………………………………………………………..……..……………………………………………..
57
……………………………
……………………………………………….
Date
the Interviewer
Name of
15. Homestead non-aquaculture farming Information:
a) Non-aquaculture homestead production practices in 2011
Crop name
a) Homestead based
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
b) Pond-dike cropping
b) Non-aquaculture homestead production practices in the last 5 years
Year
Vegetable
Fruits
Poultry
Livestock
2011
Variety:
Variety:
Variety:
Variety:
Area:
Area:
Variety:
Variety:
Variety:
Variety:
Area:
Area:
Variety:
Variety:
Variety:
Variety:
2010
2009
58
2008
2007
Area:
Area:
Variety:
Variety:
Area:
Area:
Variety:
Variety:
Area:
Area:
Variety:
Variety:
Variety:
Variety:
c) Please comment about the reasons of change of your non-aquaculture homestead
production practices over the last 5 years
2011 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2010…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2009 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2008 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2007 ....……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
d) Input use for homestead non-aquaculture production:
59
Homestead fruit
production
Poultry
Quantity
(Kg)
Unit Price
(Tk/kg)
Total
Cost (Tk)
Unit
Price
(Tk/kg)
Total
Cost (Tk)
Quantity
(Kg)
Total
Cost (Tk)
Unit
Price
(Tk/kg)
Unit
Price
(Tk/kg)
Total
Cost (Tk)
Homestead
vegetable
Quantity
(Kg)
Pond-dike vegetable
Quantity
(Kg)
Total
Cost (Tk)
Unit
Price
(Tk/kg)
Quantity
(Kg)
Inputs
Livestock
Seed
Feed
60
Organic
fertilizer
Inorganic
fertilizer
Chemical
(pesticide etc)
Medicine for
poultry &
livestock
Equipments
(pump, net
etc)
Veterinarian’s
visit
61
Fixed cost
(construction
of farm, lease
value, etc)
Maintenance
(electricity,
water, repair)
Other costs
e) Human labor used for homestead non-aquaculture production:
Total labor day /yr
Month/ Year
Day/
Month
Hour/ Day
No of Labor
Time spent
Salary Paid(Tk/day)
Livestock
Total labor day /yr
Month/ Year
Day/
M th
Hour/ Day
No of Labor
Total labor day /yr
Month/ Year
Day/
Month
Hour/ Day
No of Labor
Total labor day /yr
Month/ Year
Day/
Month
Hour/ Day
No of Labor
Poultry
Time spent
Salary Paid(Tk/day)
Fruits
Time spent
Salary Paid(Tk/day)
Vegetable
Time spent
Salary Paid(Tk/day)
Labor Type
Hired Labor
(Permanent)
Hired Labor
(Harvesting)
Hired Labor
(Seed bed
preparation
and sowing
seeds)
Hired Labor
(Other type)
Family Labor
62
f)
Information of homestead non-aquaculture products
Crops produced
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
Total
Total
consumed
Gifted
sold (kg)
Production
value (Tk)
(kg)
(kg)
(kg)
Vegetable
Fruits
Poultry
Livestock
g)
Have you ever made a financial loss on a production cycle since you started nonaquaculture homestead production – explain the reason for the loss and how much
money it cost you (do this for every loss; if >5 losses, give details of only the 5 most
recent losses but also give the figure for the total number of times you made a loss)
Production Sector
(crop, vegetable,
poultry, livestock)
When
Reasons of loss
Monetary loss
63
h) Are there any constrains which would prevent you from increasing non-aquaculture
homestead production if you wanted to? Explain….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………….
16. Information on field cropping practice and production
a. Mention the name of crop and yield of crops grown in your agricultural land in
each season.
Season
Aus (Apr-July)
Crop
Variety
Area
(decimal)
Yield
(maund/acre)
Aman (Aug-Dec)
Rabi/Boro (NovApril)
b. Do you grow more than one crop per year on some of your rice land, if so on what area?
Land id
Area (decimal)
Patterns
A
B
C
17. Information on annual household expenditure( in BDT):
i.
Food (rice and other food items): …………………………………….
64
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Education: …………………………………….
Health: …………………………………
Clothing: …………………………………
Buying/hiring agricultural inputs (fertilizer, irrigation, feed, power tiller etc): ………….
Energy (kerosene, electricity etc): …………………………………
Entertainment: …………………………………
Others (specify): …………………………………
18. Information on livelihoods
a. Which of the categories would you place your household compared to others in your locality?
(Solvent =1, Moderate Poor =2, Very Poor =3)
b.
Can household members take three satisfactory meals per day throughout the year? (Yes =1, No =2)
c.
How many months you can run your family with your own production from your land (own and
rented)?
19.
Level of integration among homestead components
a.
Sources of water for vegetable crops grown in pond-dikes and homestead area:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
b.
Sources of water for poultry and livestock
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
c.
Do you use pond bottom soil to the vegetable crops? Yes……… No………..
If yes, provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
d.
Do you use vegetable byproducts to fed fishes raise in pond? Yes……… No………..
If yes, provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
e.
Do you use poultry and livestock manure in ponds for aquaculture? Yes……… No………..
If yes, provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
f.
Do you use poultry and livestock manure in vegetables/fruits tree/crops? Yes……… No………..
If yes, provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
g.
What are the uses of homestead pond waters?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
h.
Do you fed homestead residue to animals? Yes……… No………..
If yes, provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
i.
Have you faced salinity in your homestead or crop land in last 5 years?
65
Yes……in homestead……….… in cropland………… No………..
If yes, How do you know this is salinity?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
What are your problems regarding salinity?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
….
What do you think is the source of salinity?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
During which months salinity was a problem?
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
Did you take any measure to solve the problem? Yes……… No………..
If yes, mention the measures you took to solve the problem:
……………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
..
j.
Did the measure solve the problem?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
….
k.
Do you think some factors have negatively affected your measures to be effective? Yes………
No………..
If yes, provide details:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…..
l.
Do you make compost? Yse……….. No……….. If yes, How much? ………………………………..
How do you make it?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
66
Where do you use it?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
20. Give particulars about your household income from different farm sources in 2011
Income source
Fish
Poultry
Livestock
Vegetable
Fruit tree
Other agricultural
product
Income from homestead
Total Cost
Total Production
Total Income
Income from field
Rice
Wheat
Maize
Pulses
Other crops
Shrimp/Prawn
Fish
67
Appendix III - Questions asked to determine parameter
68