In this section the findings on the selected characteristics of farmers have been discussed. Different farmers possess different characteristics which are focused by their behavior. Seven characteristics of the farmers were selected to find out their
Categories Basis of categorization
(Score)
Respondents (n=77) Mean Standard Deviation Number Percentage
Low practice
<22
(<Mean-0.5sd) 22 28.6
24.74 5.85 Medium
practice
22-28
(Mean ± 0.5sd) 29 37.6
High practice
Above 28
(>Mean+0.5sd) 26 33.8
Total 77 100.0
27
relationships with their knowledge and practice on fish farming. The selected characteristics included their age, education, fish farming area, annual income from fish farming, training exposure, extension contact and problem faced on fish farming.
Measuring unit, range, mean and standard deviations of those characteristics of the farmers are described in this section. Data contained in the Table 4.3 provides a summary profile of the farmers‟ characteristics.
Table 4.3 Salient features of the characteristics of the fish farmers Sl.
No.
Characteristics Unit of measurement
Range Mean SD
Possible Observed
1. Age Year Unknown 22-73 46.66 12.21
2. Education Level of
schooling
Unknown 0-18 7.299 5.53 3. Fish Farming
Area
Hectare Unknown 0.08-4.05 0.81 0.84 4. Annual Income
from Fish Farming
„000‟ Tk. Unknown 8-525 161.6 9
107.82
5. Training Exposure
No. of days Unknown 0-120 4.73 14.82 6. Extension
Contact
Score 0-15 2-12 5.39 2.30
7. Problem Faced on fish farming
Score 0-24 9-21 14.90 2.10
4.2.1 Age
Age of the farmers varied from 22 to 73 years, the average being 46.66 years with the standard deviation of 12.21. On the basis of the age, the farmers were classified into three categories: “young aged” (≤35 years), “middle aged” (36-50 years) and “old aged” (above 50 years). The distribution of the farmers according to their age is shown in Table 4.4.
28
Table 4.4 Distribution of the farmers according to their age Categories
Basis of categorization
(Years)
Farmers (N=77) Number Percentage
Young aged ≤35 17 22.1
Middle aged 36-50 35 45.4
Old aged ˃50 25 32.5
Total 77 100
Data presented in Table 4.4 indicated that majority (45.4 percent) of the farmers belonged to the middle aged category compared to 22.1 percent young aged and 32.5 percent old aged. It was found that middle aged respondents were more interested in fish farming.
4.2.2 Education
In accordance with the year of schooling educational background of the farmers ranged from 0-18 where the average education score of the farmers was 7.299 with the standard deviation of 5.53. Based on the education scores, the farmers were classified into five categories namely illiterate (0), can sign only (0.5), primary level (1-5 years), secondary level (6-10 years) and above secondary level of schooling. The distribution of the farmers according to their educational qualification is shown in Table 4.5.
29
Table.4.5. Distribution of the farmers according to their education
Data presented in Table 4.5 show that highest percentage (42.8 percent) of the farmers were under secondary level of education compared to 20.8 percent, 18.2 percent, 10.4 percent, and 7.8 percent of the farmers belonged to the categories above secondary, illiterate, can sign only and primary level of education respectively. The findings also indicate that most of the farmers (71.4 percent) were under different level of education.
4.2.3 Fish Farming Area
The fish farming area ranged from 0.08 to 4.05 ha. The mean was 0.81 and the SD was 0.84. Based on fish farming area the farmers were classified into three categories as “small fish farm” (less than 0.39 ha), “medium fish farm” (0.39-1.23 ha) and “large fish farm” (above 1.23 ha). Distribution of farmers according to their fish farming area is mentioned in Table 4.6.
Categories Basis of categorization (schooling year)
Respondents (N=77) Number Percentage
Illiterate 0 14 18.2
Can sign only 0.5 8 10.4
Primary level 1-5 6 7.8
Secondary level 6-10 33 42.8
Above secondary level
Above 10 16 20.8
Total 77 100.0
30
Table 4.6. Distribution of the farmers according to their fish farming area
Data presented in Table 4.6 stated that the maximum (54.5 percent) farmers had medium farm followed by 28.6 percent, and 16.9 percent of small farm and large farm respectively. So, the findings indicated that maximum farmers in this locality had medium fish farming area.
4.2.4 Annual Income from Fish Farming
Annual income from fish farming of the farmers ranged from 8 to 525 thousand taka with a mean and standard deviation of 161.69 and 107.82 respectively. According to the annual income from fish farming, the farmers were categorized into three groups as low income (<107.78), medium income (107.78-215.6) and high income (>215.6) as shown in Table 4.7.
Categories Basis of categorization
(ha)
Respondents (N=77) Number Percentage Small fish farm <0.39
(<Mean-0.5sd)
22 28.6
Medium fish farm 0.39-1.23 (Mean ± 0.5sd)
42 54.5
Large fish farm >1.23 (>Mean+0.5sd)
13 16.9
Total 77 100.0
31
Table 4.7 Distribution of the farmers according to their annual income from fish farming
Data presented in Table 4.7 indicated that majority (46.7 percent) of the farmers belonged to medium income group as compare to low (35.1 percent) and high (18.2 percent) income group. So the findings mean that overwhelming majority (95.5 percent) of the farmers had low to medium income from fish farming.
4.2.5 Training
The score of training exposure of the farmers ranged from 0 to 120 days, the average being 4.73 with the standard deviation of 14.82. Based on the training experience scores, the farmers were classified into three categories: “no training experience” (0),
“low training experience” (1-7) and “medium training experience” (above 7).
Distribution of farmers according to their training exposure related to fish farming is mentioned in Table 4.8.
Categories Basis of categorization
(„000‟ tk.)
Respondents (n=77) Number Percentage
Low income <107.78
(<Mean-0.5sd) 27 35.1
Medium income 107.78-215.6
(Mean ± 0.5sd) 36 46.7
High income Above 215.6
(>Mean+0.5sd) 14 18.2
Total 77 100.0
32
Table 4.8 Distribution of farmers according to their training Categories
Basis of categorization
(No. of days)
Respondents (N=77) Number Percentage
No training 0 45 58.4
Low training 1-7 22 28.6
Medium training Above 7 10 13
Total 77 100
Table 4.8 stated that, majority (58.4 percent) of the farmers had no training exposure;
while 28.6 percent of the farmers had low and rest of the farmers (13 percent) had medium training exposure. The findings also indicate that farmers in this locality were not so serious about training program. Training might help a lot to increase the knowledge and practice of the fish farmers.
4.2.6 Extension contact
Computed extension contact scores of the farmers ranged from 2 to 12 against the possible range of 0-15 with a mean of 5.39 and standard deviation of 2.30. According to extension contact, the farmers were classified into three categories such as „low contact‟ (0-5), „medium contact‟ (6-10) and „high contact‟ (11-15). The distribution has been shown in the Table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Distribution of farmers according to extension contact Categories
Basis of categorization
(score)
Respondents (N=77) Number Percentage
Low contact 0-5 43 55.8
Medium contact 6-10 32 41.6
High contact 11-15 2 2.6
Total 77 100
Data shown in Table 4.9 stated that majority of farmers (55.8 percent) had low extension contact followed by medium contact (41.6 percent) and high contact (2.6
33
percent). It was found that most of the farmers (97.4 percent) had low to medium extension contact and very few were under high extension contact level (2.6 percent).
4.2.7 Problem faced in Fish Farming
Scores obtained on problem faced in fish farming varied from 9 to 21 against the possible range of 0-24 with average of 14.90 and standard deviation of 2.10. Based on problem faced in fish farming, the farmers were classified into two categories. These categories were medium problem faced (≤16) and high problem faced (above 16). The distribution of the pond farmers according to their problem faced is presented in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Distribution of the farmers according to their problem faced in fish farming
It is shown that overwhelming majority (81.8 percent) of the farmers faced medium problem compared to 18.25 percent of them faced high problem. As most of the farmers of the locality faced medium problem they can minimize it with appropriate monitoring.
4.3 Relationship between the Selected Characteristics of the Farmers and Their