​Priortization Strategies for the Resources of Traditional Paddy-cum-fish Culture in Lower Subansiri District

In India, 42 million ha area is under paddy cultivation out of which 0.23 million ha is under rice-cum-fish culture (Anonymous 2007). As per census 2013-14, the total area for paddy-cum-fish culture in state like Arunachal Pradesh is 2,800 ha with production of 200-400 kg/ha/season (Kacha, 2016). At present there are 19 districts of the state, among them Lower-Subansiri is the district where cultivation of paddy is done abundantly (Olapade et al., 2015). The practice of rice-cum-fish is extensively practice by Apatani tribe living in Lower Subansiri district having its headquarter (Ziro), popularly known as “Rice Bowl of Arunachal Pradesh’, Ziro, a scenic valley is the home of the Apatani tribe whose unique land use pattern, resource management and culture of conservation have made them a focal point of attraction” (Moyoung et al., 2014). According to local mythology literally, the word Apatani comprised of two words ‘Apa’ display of affection and ‘Tani’ human race (Anonymous 2014a). The Rice growing Belt of the world like China, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Thailand etc; also practice the Rice-Fish culture (Anonymous 2016).
 
Paddy-cum-fish culture became the Part and Parcel of Apatani Agricultural system, organic inputs are used in the plots utilized for rice cum fish culture (Anonymous 2014b). The practice of culturing fish in rice fields is a long tradition in many parts of Asia. It has largely been practiced in a traditional way in the Indian coastal states of Kerala and West Bengal (Shingara et al., 2000). Fish farming in rice fields has becomean additional source of income andimportant economic avenue among the Apatani farm families of the state (Rai, 2005; Anonymous 2012).
       
In Apatani valley, about 48.38 per cent land is under paddy cultivation followed by 16.41 per cent of bamboo forest, 2.75 per cent home-gardens. Integrating aquaculture with agriculture assures higher productivity and year round employment opportunities for farmers (Kumar et al., 2015). The yield of fish from such indigenous practice ranges from 45 to 280 kg/ha/season (Rahman et al., 2012). The Apatani plateau possesses a very fertile and terraced type, with estimated area of nearly 2,779 ha (Anonymous 2016).
       
The present study was conducted in Lower Subansiri district of Arunachal Pradesh was purposively selected as the researcher is a native of the area where paddy-cum-fish culture is quite prevalent (Yani, 2015).

For the present study a total of 70 numbers of paddy-cum-fish respondents were selected by following a multi-stage simple random sampling technique from one RD Block of Lower Subansiri district, one block was selected and then seven villages viz; Hong, Bulla, Sululya, Mudang-Tage, Bamin-Michi, Hari, Lempya, all were selected from Ziro-I block by simple random quota sampling method, then a list of farmers from selected villages was prepared based on their experience and ITK knowledge, then selected farmers were stratified into four groups based on their total land holding. A list of the paddy-cum-fish growers was acquired through various Government Offices and VDBs taking the households as the ultimate unit.
 

       
The production-function analysis was carried out to measure the efficiency of input variables on the output and also to access the impact of input. The Cobb-Doulas Production Function form was fitted by the method of least squares as follows:
Whereas
y = Return of fish-cum-paddy cultivation in Rs/ha.
x₁  = Land cost in ha.
x₂  = Human labour cost in Rs.
x₃  = Irrigation water cost in Rs.
x₄ =   Farm yard manure cost in Rs.
x₅  = Seed/fingerling cost incurred in Rs.
x₆  = Miscellaneous expenditure cost incurred in Rs.
x₇  = Marketing cost in Rs/q.
x₈  = Chemical fertilizer cost in Rs.
x₉  = Plant protection measures cost in Rs.
a = Constant.
b₁, b₂, b₃,b₄,b₅, b₆, b₇, b₈ and b₉ = Regression coefficients of respective independent variables over dependent variable (y).

Table 2 reveals that the values of coefficients of multiple determination (R²) was explained with large variation of 98.61 per cent with positive significant of 1 per cent on large farm, followed by 91.37 per cent variation with positive significant at 1 per cent on medium with 54.99 per cent with positive of 1 per cent on small farm with 26.51 per cent with positive significant at 1 per cent on marginal farm, while the overall accounted as 92.947 per cent on the total output.
       

 
The constant (a) was found to be significant at 1 per cent on marginal, small, medium, large and overall farm size groups and human labour (x₂) and irrigation water (x₃), both were found to be significant at 5 per cent, which indicates the good fit of the model. The land cost (x₁) and labour cost (x₂) both were found to be significant at 5 per cent level on marginal farm size group, while the irrigation water cost (x₃) and chemical fertilizer cost (x₈) both were found to be significant at 5 per cent level on small farm size group, contribution towards the output. Even the land cost (x₁), labour cost (x₂), irrigation water cost (x₃) and seed/fingerlings cost (x₅), all the mentioned cost were found to be significant at 5 per cent level on medium farm size group, whereas the chemical fertilizer cost (x₈) and fingerlings cost (x₅) both were found to be significant at 1 and 5 per cent level on large farm size group, respectively.
       
While on the overall farm size group the land cost (x₁), labour cost (x₂) and seed/fingerlings cost (x₅) all the three were found to be significant at 5 per cent level, shows their contribution towards the output actively.
       
Table 3 (a-b) reveals that the Marginal value of product (MVP) of an input is worked out at 5.983 indicating that investment of Rs 1.00/- will be contributing Rs 5.98/- as return towards the gross income.  Among the different size groups, it ranges from 1.009 to 5.983 on marginal to large farm size group, respectively.
 

 

       
The marginal value product of x₁ (land) was worked out of at 2.859, indicating that addition investment on land of Rs 1.00/- would be increasing in gross income by Rs 2.86/-, among the different farm size groups, it ranged from 1.069 to 2.859 on marginal to medium farm size groups, respectively. Also, the marginal value product of x₂ (human labour) was worked out at 1.095, indicating that addition of one unit of human labour unit cost would increase gross income by Rs 1.09/-. Among the different farm size groups, it ranged from 1.009 to 1.095 on marginal to overall farm size groups, respectively.
       
The marginal value product of x₃ (irrigation water land) was worked out at 1.143, indicating that addition of one unit of land unit cost would increase gross income by Rs 1.14/. Among the different farm size groups, it ranged from 1.118 to 1.143 on small to medium farm size groups, respectively. The marginal value product of x₄ (farm yard manure) was worked out at 1.299, indicating that addition of one unit of land unit cost would increase gross income by Rs 1.30/-. The marginal value product of x₈ (machinery and implement charges) was worked out at 1.868, indicating that addition of one unit of land unit cost would increase gross income by Rs 1.87/-, among the different farm size groups, it ranged from 1.12 to 1.868 on small to large farm size groups, respectively.
       
While x₅ (seed or fingerlings cost), x₆ (miscellaneous charges), x₇ (marketing cost) and x₉ (disease and plant protection measures cost) were found to be non-significant, which indicate less contribution towards the gross income, therefore it is an urgent needs to re-allocate the resources to the potential area or resources even the negative values on  inputs further indicate loss in the returns after investment of single unit, therefore the investment on these inputs may be diverted towards the potential input after re-allocate for better output with the available input resources on the different farm size groups. Therefore for the re-allocation of the resources two categories has been created viz; underutilized and over utilized, which clearly indicates the potential inputs as underutilized and over utilized to be shifted towards the underutilized inputs for the better prospects in future.
       
The Table 4 reveals that the constraints faced by the paddy-cum-fish culture growers/respondents during the production, some of the major constraints faced by the respondents were lack of knowledge about plant protection, low productivity and lack of training on how to reared paddy-cum-fish culture for more production, lack of technical assistance from extension workers, lack of knowledge about fertilizers, fund and capital and also high cost of labour, out of all the constraints the problems with highest frequency was lack of knowledge about plant protection with a percentage of 86.33 per cent followed by low productivity  with a percentage of 81.67 per cent which was mainly due to lack of cultural practices. Problems like lack of technical assistance by extension workers, lack of knowledge of fertilizers and high labour cost accounted with a percentage of 70.00 per cent, 65.00 per cent and 48.33 per cent, respectively.
 
 
 
Table 5 reveals that some of the major constraints faced by the farmers were lack of knowledge about plant protection, low productivity and lack of training on how to cultivator more production, lack of technical assistance from extension workers, lack of knowledge about fertilizers, fund and capital and also high cost of labour. Out of all the constraints the problems with highest frequency was lack of knowledge about plant protection with a percentage of 86.33 per cent followed by low productivity with a percentage of 81.67 per cent which was mainly due to lack of cultural practices. Problems like lack of technical assistance by extension workers, lack of knowledge of fertilizers and high labour cost accounted with a percentage of 70.00 per cent, 65.00 per cent and 48.33 per cent.
 

       
Table 6 revealed the constraints/problems faced by the paddy-cum-fish growers/respondents during marketing of both paddy and fish cultivation was listed out as per the chronological order based on the 100 per cent to 48.57 per cent respectively. The marketing channel where producers sell their produce directly to the final consumers was found to be very weak; hence the producers have to sell their produce to the retailer at a lower price, such type of problems has been estimated from the selected respondents. Price fluctuation, exploitation of price by intermediates, lack of storage facilities, lack of packaging materials with grading facility, lack of government support and lack of market information.
 

       
Policy to overcome the constraints/problems faced by the paddy-cum-fish respondents:
 
➢ Training farmers for effective control of pest and diseases.
➢  Establishing regulated block market.
➢  Application of price policy.
➢  Proper storage facilities.
➢  Proper transportation system.
➢  Institutional credit facilities.
➢  Effective farmer organization.
➢  Application of organic compost.
➢  Higher and bigger bunds or dykes.
➢  Use of cultural practices.
➢  Formulation of Strict Laws and Regulation.