Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorT. Mohapatra

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 56 issue 3 (june 2022) : 357-362

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

Pani Yani1, Amod Sharma1,*
1Department of Agricultural Economics, School of Agricultural Sciences and Rural Development, Nagaland University, Medziphema Campus, Dimapur-797 106, Nagaland. India.
Cite article:- Yani Pani, Sharma Amod (2022). ​Priortization Strategies for the Resources of Traditional Paddy-cum-fish Culture in Lower Subansiri District . Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 56(3): 357-362. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5015.
Background: The practice of rice-cum-fish is extensively practice by Apatani tribe living in Lower Subansiri district of Arunachal Pradesh. The current study aimed to access the inputs impact on output, a resource-use-efficiency model on traditional paddy-cum-fish culture has been fitted.

Methods: The present research investigation was carried out during the agricultural year 2014-15 with a total of 70 numbers of paddy-cum-fish respondents were selected by following a multi-stage simple random quota sampling technique.

Result: Study reveals that the majority of the farmer’s were dependent upon agriculture and traditional paddy-cum-fish culture, the total cost of cultivation of traditional paddy-cum-fish culture was ₹ 28,782.70 per ha with average yield of 2.76 q per ha. The constraints faced by the traditional paddy-cum-fish farmers during production and marketing viz: poor marketing channel, price fluctuation and exploitation of farmers by intermediaries thereby farmer receives less profit etc.
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.
 

Table 1: Selection of sample respondents based on land holding (ha).


       
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.
       

Table 2: Coefficient, SE, t-value and remark of different farm group.


 
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.
 

Table 3(a): Allocation of Resources on marginal and small farm group.


 

Table 3(b): Allocation of Resources on medium and large farm group.


       
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 4: Production constraints perceived by the Paddy-cum-fish cultivators.

 
 
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 5: Marketing Constraints Perceived by the Paddy-Cum-Fish respondents.


       
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.
 

Table 6: Prioritization strategies and suggestion of respondent for the improvement.


       
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.

  1. Anonymous (2007). NEDFi-Databank on Fisheries and Animal Husbandry. Quarterly J. on North Eastern States Economy Sericulture. 5(IV): 1-24.

  2. Anonymous (2012). Handbook on Fisheries Statistics. Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Fisheries Division, New Delhi: 1-153.

  3. Anonymous (2014)a. Annual Report of FAO-STAT. FAO, Rome.

  4. Anonymous (2014)b. Technologies from ICAR. ICAR, New Delhi: 280-338.

  5. Anonymous (2015). Statistical Handbook of Arunachal (various issues). Published by Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh.

  6. Anonymous (2016). www.FAO.Org/filed min/templates. Apatani- Wet-Rice-Cultivation. http://lowersubansiri.nic.in/html/ paddyfish_culture.html. Accesses on 12.05.2016.

  7. Kacha, Dani. (2016). The Traditional Way of Paddy-Cum-Fish Culture in Ziro Valley, Arunachal Pradesh, India. International J. of Innovative Res. and Dev. 5(5): 188-193.

  8. Kumar, Amulya. Saikia, A. Kumar, Santosh. Debangshu, Abujam. Biswas, Narayan. Das. and Shyama, Prasad. (2015). Economics of paddy cum fish culture: A case study in Sivsagar, Assam. International Journal of Fishery and Aquatic Studies. 2(5): 198-203.

  9. Moyong, O. Saroh, V. and Tage, U. (2014). Cost Benefit Analysis of Paddy-Cum-Fish culture in Ziro valley of AP. Indian Asian J. of Res Busi. Eco. and Mgt. 2(12): 249-254.

  10. Olapade, G., Olufemi, Julius. Alimamy, Turay. Momoh, Rashid. and Raymond, J. (2015). Economic Assessment of Integrated Fish Farming (Fish-rice-piggery) in Sierra Leone. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. 4: 87-94.

  11. Rahman, MA. Haques, Q. and Sharma, PK. (2012). Socio-economic impact of Rice-cum-fish culture in selected Areas of Bangladesh. J. of Bangladesh Ag. Univ. 10(1): 119-123.

  12. Rai, S.C. (2005). Apatani Paddy-cum-Fish cultivation: An Indigenous Hill Farming system of North East India. IJTK. 4: 65-71.

  13. Shingare, D., Shirgur, R.S., Biradar, R. and Sathiadhas, J. (2000). Techno-economic viability of Rice-fish culture in Assam. Aquaculture Economics and Management. 8(6): 309- 317.

  14. Yani, Pani. (2015). Production and marketing of paddy-cum-fish in lower subansiri district of Arunachal Pradesh, M. Sc (Ag) thesis, Nagaland University, SASRD, Medziphema Campus, District Dimapur, Nagaland.

Editorial Board

View all (0)