Content uploaded by Basanta Kumar Barmon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Basanta Kumar Barmon on Jan 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Impacts of Rice
Impacts of RiceImpacts of Rice
Impacts of Rice-
--
-Prawn Gher Farming on Cropping Patterns,
Prawn Gher Farming on Cropping Patterns, Prawn Gher Farming on Cropping Patterns,
Prawn Gher Farming on Cropping Patterns,
Land Tenant System, and Household Income in Bangladesh
Land Tenant System, and Household Income in BangladeshLand Tenant System, and Household Income in Bangladesh
Land Tenant System, and Household Income in Bangladesh
-
--
-A Case Study of Khulna District
A Case Study of Khulna DistrictA Case Study of Khulna District
A Case Study of Khulna District-
--
-
Basanta Kumar B
Basanta Kumar BBasanta Kumar B
Basanta Kumar BARMON, Takumi KONDO, and Fumio OSANAMI
ARMON, Takumi KONDO, and Fumio OSANAMIARMON, Takumi KONDO, and Fumio OSANAMI
ARMON, Takumi KONDO, and Fumio OSANAMI
Laboratory of Development Economics, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Graduate School of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Japan
A
AA
Abstract
bstractbstract
bstract
This paper examines the impact of rice prawn gher farming on cropping
patterns, land tenant system, agricultural income as well as household income. Rice
prawn gher farming is a newer agricultural technology in the southwestern Bangladesh.
The comparative analysis research was conducted in two contrasting villages―Bilpabla
village for rice prawn gher farming, and Kuloti village for
boro
and
aman
paddy farming
under Dumuria
thana
in Khulna District. The primary data were collected through a
cross sectional farm survey. Before the gher farming had started, the farmers produced
only local
aus
and local
aman
paddy in swampland, and cultivated pulses and oil seeds
in comparatively high land in altitude once a year. The gher farming system has
changed the cropping patterns dramatically with diverse products like prawn, carp fish,
boro
paddy, and vegetables in the field where only single crop of paddy was cultivated.
Gher farming system has also changed the land tenure system from sharecropper to
fixed land tenant. Gher farming system is very profitable enterprise compared to MV
boro,
and local
aman
paddy. Total gross revenue and agricultural income of gher farmer
were about five times and seventeen times higher than MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy
farmer, respectively. In addition, the household income of gher farmers was also more
than double compared to
boro
and
aman
paddy farmers. The study has found a very
positive impact of gher farming on agricultural income as well as household income in
the study area.
1. Introduction
1. Introduction1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Bangladesh is climatically suitable for aquaculture, which embodies a large
number of rivers,
beels, baors, haors
and ponds, and has a long tradition of aquaculture.
Bangladesh is rich in marine and inland biodiversity. In Bangladesh, there are about 4
million hectares of open inland water body and about 4.3 million hectares of closed
water body and about 710 km coastal lines. Bangladesh also possesses 210 nautical
miles EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) of Bay of Bengal, which plays an important role
2
in aquaculture (BBS, 2001). Fishery is one of the major sub-sectors of the agricultural
sector of Bangladesh. It has both economical and nutritional importance in Bangladesh.
Fish supplies about 50 percent of animal protein and about 1.2 million people are
directly employed in fisheries, and additional 11 million people are indirectly employed
in upstream and downstream activities related to shrimp/prawn culture such as
harvesting, culture, processing and exporting (DOF, 2000). The fishery sector accounts
for 3.5 percent of the GDP and contributes about 10.4 percent of gross value in the
agricultural sector. Among fishery sub-sectors, prawn (
Macrobrachium rosenbergii
) and
shrimp (
Penaeus monodon
) are very important exportable items in Bangladesh, which
accounts for about 9 percent of total national exports (Talukder, 1999). This sector grew
at the rate of around 9 percent per annum during the last decade (Bhattacharya et al.,
1999). Shrimp/prawn has replaced raw jute (so called golden fibre in Bangladesh) as the
dominant export item and contributes nearly half of the export items in the primary
goods category. Therefore, the shrimp and prawn are now called as the “white
hite hite
hite g
gg
gol
olol
old
dd
d” in
Bangladesh.
Rice-prawn culture in the southwest Bangladesh is an indigenous technique
developed solely by farmers. In Bangladesh, two types of gher farming are operated; one
is brackish water based shrimp culture and another is fresh water based rice-prawn
culture. Shrimp gher farming is large in size and scale, and needs saline water, whereas
prawn gher farming is comparatively small in size and scale, and need fresh water.
The landholding patterns, cropping patterns as well as land tenant system
have changed after the introduction of gher farming in southwest Bangladesh in late
1980s. As a result, socioeconomic condition as well as household income level of the gher
farmers has changed. There is a small number of literature that focused on cost and
benefit analysis of fresh water rice prawn gher farming in greater Khulna district
(Abedin, J. and Kabir, 1999; Abedin, Sarker and Hena, 1997; Alim et al, 1998), as well
as the impact of shrimp gher farming on environment and ecology in the coastal region
in Bangladesh (Asaduzamman et al, 1998; Habib 1998; Nijera Kori 1996; Nabi et al
1999; Rahman et al, 1995; Datta 2001; and Sobhan 1995). However, the impact of rice
prawn gher farming on income has received less attention. The objective of the study is
to evaluate the impact of rice-prawn gher farming on cropping patterns, land tenant
system, and agricultural income as well as household income in the southwest
Bangladesh.
This research paper has been organized in six sections. Following the
introduction section two presents the methodology of the study. The general
description of the study village, rice-prawn gher farming system, MV
boro
and local
3
aman
paddy production, and types of gher and paddy farmers are discussed in
section three, whereas the impacts on cropping patterns, land tenure system, and
land holding patterns are presented in section four. Section five briefly explains
household income of gher and paddy farmers in the study villages. Finally
conclusions are drawn based on the results and discussions.
2. Methodology o
2. Methodology o2. Methodology o
2. Methodology of the study
f the studyf the study
f the study
The primary data are collected through a comprehensive cross-sectional field
survey, which the survey was conducted from November to December 2003 which
covering the crop cultivation in the year 2002. The data for this study are collected from
a farm household survey of two contrasting villages, Bilpabla and Kuloti, located in
Khulna district. Khulna District is purposively selected for the study, as it is the leading
rice-prawn producing district in Bangladesh, while Bilpabla village is selected as it is
one of the typical villages in rice prawn production in Khulna district. In Bilpabla
village, the survey consisted of two stages. First, all households in the village were
identified. Second, a detailed survey of 40 randomly selected gher farmers from this
village was conducted.
Kuloti village is not far from Bilpabla village and most of the farmers of this
village cultivate MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy. Kuloti village is also selected
purposively and 10 farmers were randomly selected from this village. The altitude level
of paddy field of Kuloti village is slightly higher than the land gher farming in Bilpabla
village. Therefore, the farmers in Kuloti village cannot convert their paddy field into
gher farm.
Gher farming system, and modern variety (MV)
boro
and local
aman
paddy are,
respectively, two adopted technologies in Bilpabla and Kuloti. However, gher farming is
newer as compared to MV
boro
and
aman
rice/paddy production. Before the gher
farming had started, the farmers in Bilpabla village produced only local
aus
and local
aman
paddy. On the other hand, the farmers in Kuloti village now cultivate MV
boro
and local
aman
instead of the traditional local
aus
and local
aman
paddy.
Since the rural households’ activities are not generally kept, it is difficult to
estimate household income accurately, particularly for unpaid households’ activities.
Most rural households are also involved in many expenditure-saving activities for
family consumption such as homestead fruits, vegetables gardening, poultry and
livestock rearing, fishing nearby swamplands and canals, processing food, and
manufacturing personal and household effects. The rice prawn gher farmers and MV
paddy farmers also do not normally keep such types of records properly. Therefore,
4
there is a tendency to under or over report these activities in the present study.
3. General Description
3. General Description 3. General Description
3. General Description
3.1 Profile of the Bilpabla Village
3.1 Profile of the Bilpabla Village 3.1 Profile of the Bilpabla Village
3.1 Profile of the Bilpabla Village
Bilpabla is one of the typical villages in Dumuria Thana in Khulna District and
is located about 7 kilometers west of headquarter of Khulna district, and about 310
kilometers south from capital Dhaka. The village has been divided by a small river and
the households are mainly living on both sides of the river (Figure 1). The land area is
defined as medium high in altitude, and the soil quality is alluvial, loamy and sandy.
The demographic characteristics of the village are very similar to any other villages
where rice prawn gher farming is practiced.
The general description of population and households of Bilpabla village are
presented in table 1. In this study, a family is defined as a group of persons living
together and taking meals jointly in one kitchen and under one family head. Permanent
hired labors are not included as a member of the family. Bilpabla village had a total of
401 households with a total population of 1893 people with 53% male (1002) and 47%
female (892). Most of the people (about 98%) of this village are
Hindu
. The average
5
family size of the households was 4.72, which was lower than that of (5.6) Bangladesh
(BBS, 2002). The working population in this village was 871people. In other words,
about 46% total population are engaged in temporary or permanent in money earning
activities in inside or outside of the village. Out of 871 working populations 64% (561)
were male and rest of the 36% (310) was female. The average age of the farmers in this
village was 44 years.
Table 1. General descriptive statistics of Bilpabla village.
Numbers
1. Total Population 1,894
2. Number of male 1,002
3. Number of female 892
4. Total working population 871
5. Total male working poputation 561
6. Total female working population 310
7. Number of household 401
8. Average family size (numbers) 4.72
9. Average age of head of households (years) 44
Source: Field Survey, 2003.
Particulars
Note: 1) In this study, female working population is defined as
the group of individuals, whose age is between 12 years to 60
years and engaged in mud snail crashing.
2) In this study, male working population is defined as
the group of individuals, whose age is between 15 years to 65
years and engaged in any economic activities inside or outside
of the village.
Gher farming is the main occupation in the village. Along with gher farming,
people are also engaged in the several activities such as prawn business, integrated
culture, van pulling, boating, mud snail crashing for prawn feed and other formal and
informal activities both inside and outside of village. Before the gher farming started,
almost all households were farmers, day labors, and fishermen. The main occupations of
the households in the Bilpabla village are presented in table 2.
6
Table 2. Occupations of head the households
in Bilpabla village.
Occupations Numbers
1. Gher farming 292
2. Part time gher farming 40
3. Daily labor 30
4. Service 11
5. Prawn depot 10
6. Fishing 5
7. Paddy farming 3
8. Others 10
Total 401
Source: Field Survey, 2003.
2) Others include vegetable business,
boatman, small shopkeepers, carpenters, and
tailoring.
Note: 1) The households with part time gher
farming are engaged mainly in labor, boatman,
driver, government service, tailoring, fishing,
small shopkeepers and poultry farming.
The average farm size of gher farmers in Bilpabla is presented in table 3.
Among 401 households, there are 332 households own the gher farmland and the
remaining 69 households, who have no gher farmland in 2003. Therefore, the average
gher farming size was calculated by 332 households. Average gher farming size was 5.98
bigha, which 2.57 bigha was own land and 3.41 bigha was rented in for gher farming.
Table 3. Average farm size of gher farming
in Bilpabla village, 2003.
Particulars (Bigha)
1. Own land 2.57
2. Rented in land 3.41
Average farm size 5.98
Source: Field Survey, 2003.
Note: One bigha is equivalent to about 0.5
acres in the locality.
There are no recreational instruments or organized play ground in the study
area. Television and radio are the main means of recreation. Only 54 (14%) households
own Black and White televisions (B&W), and 238 households (about 59%) possess radio
and tape recorders for recreation (Field Survey, 2003). However, this number is
increasing almost every year. Although most of the villagers are able to afford color
7
television, they view only B&W televisions by using rechargeable Alternate Current
(A/C) batteries, due to the lack of electric facilities in the village. This, however, requires
the villagers to go town only to recharge battery regularly. Therefore, they enjoy some
selected prime-time TV program to save the battery. Before gher farming, there was not
any television in this village.
The villagers use kerosene oil lamp or hurricane lantern during the nighttime
and usually they finish their dinner by 9.00 pm and go to bed. Students usually make
their study during the daytime. However, some intellectual students prepare their
homework in the night.
The villagers do not have good toilet facilities as well as safe drinking water
facilities. Only 77 families (20%) have brick made toilet facilities, and some of the
remaining 80% have semi brick made toilets and some do not have hygienic toilets at all.
There are only 12 tube-wells in this village, which are mainly used for cooking purposes
due to the high level of iron containment. The villagers bring safe drinking water from
nearby villages (Field Survey, 2003).
The villagers send their children only to primary and high schools because of
the limited access to higher education facilities. There is only one government primary
school in this village (Field Survey, 2003). Some educated farmers send their sons to the
high school of nearby villages, but they are not interested in sending their daughter to
high school due to social problems, also these high schools are far from home village.
The literacy rate is increasing up to the high school level, (i.e. 5 to 10 year schooling)
because parents do not send their children for higher education.
3.2 Rice Prawn Gher Farming
3.2 Rice Prawn Gher Farming 3.2 Rice Prawn Gher Farming
3.2 Rice Prawn Gher Farming System
SystemSystem
System
Gher is the physical construction used for freshwater prawn (
Macrobrachium
rosenbergii
) farming. A gher is a modified rice field having high wide dikes and a canal
inside the periphery of the dikes that retains water during the dry season. At the early
stage of gher farming most of the farmers cultivated prawn in monoculture ponds, but
recently the farmers commonly grow fish with prawn. In additions, rice, vegetables and
fruit trees are also grown under the integrated gher farming.
The gher cycle begins in May/June when the farmers release prawn post larvae
(PL) into gher. Before this, farmers repair the gher dikes and trenches. This repair work
is done almost every year. Farmers use lime during gher preparation to reduce soil
acidity. During the grow-out period, the farmers give supplementary feeds to the prawn.
Traditionally, only snail meat was used as a prawn feed, but nowadays farmers use wide
range of homemade and commercial supplementary feeds.
8
Carp fish fingerlings are released into gher in May/June and cultured for nine
months as long as sufficient water is retained in the gher. Usually, no specific
supplementary feeds are provided for fish. Fish share the feeds that are supplied for
prawn. Usually farmers grow vegetables in gher during both winter and summer
seasons on the dikes. Some farmers grow vine-type vegetables up trellises inside the
gher.
In the gher farming system, farmers usually grow
boro
rice on gher
chatal
(the
land inside the gher) during the winter season between January and April. Farmers
irrigate the paddy field from canal using indigenous hand made tools such as
Done,
and
basket. Some large farmers use pump sets. Some times farmers do not irrigate to paddy
field. Usually the gher farmers do not use any types of organic fertilizer for
boro
paddy
production. Farmers give different types of feed in the gher unit during the prawn and
carp fish production. But the prawn and carp fishes do not eat completely these supplied
feed. These remain unused feeds make the paddy field fertile and the paddy crop takes
necessary nutrients from the fertile field. After
boro
paddy, the gher is used
predominantly for prawn and fish cultivation.
3.3 MV
3.3 MV3.3 MV
3.3 MV
Boro
Boro Boro
Boro
and Local
and Local and Local
and Local
Aman
Aman Aman
Aman
Paddy Production
Paddy Production Paddy Production
Paddy Production
Rice in Bangladesh is grown in three distinct seasons:
boro
(January to April),
aus
(April to August), and
aman
(August to December). But farmers mainly grow
boro
and local
aman
paddy once a year in Kuloti village. Farmers transplant MV
boro
seedling from mid-January to mid-February, and harvest paddy from mid-April to
mid-May. Farmers usually use different types of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and
irrigation like in the other
boro
paddy producing areas in Bangladesh. The
transplanting and harvesting time of local
aman
paddy is from mid-July to mid-August
and the whole December, respectively. Farmers do not use any types of chemical
fertilizers, pesticides, and do not give any irrigation for local
aman
paddy production.
Along with paddy crops, farmers also cultivate some crops such as oil seeds, potato, and
vegetables in the comparatively high land during the winter season.
Before gher farming had started in Khulna district, the farmers in Kuloti
village cultivated only local
aus
and local
aman
paddy in the swampland. Oil crops-rape,
mustard and
til
(one kind of oil seed crop) were produced along with local
aus
and
aman
in the comparatively high land. The life cycle of local
aman
was longer than local
aus
even though the sowing time was the same for the both types of paddy. The sowing time
of
aus
and
aman
paddy was in April/May and harvesting time was August for local
aus
and November for local
aman
. Therefore, before the gher farming had started in Khulna
9
district, the cropping patterns of Bilpabla village were similar to Kuloti village.
3.4 Types of Gher Farmers
3.4 Types of Gher Farmers3.4 Types of Gher Farmers
3.4 Types of Gher Farmers
Gher farmers can be classified into three types depending on the land holding
patterns in Bilpabla village and these are―own, rented, and both own and rented. The
own farmers cultivate their gher farm on their own land. Rented farmers have no own
land and all gher farming land rent in from landlords, manage gher farms on their own
or at times hire permanent labor. Besides cultivating own land, some farmers also rent
in land from landlords. Some rented farmers’ gher farming area is comparatively larger
than own gher farmers, and these types of rented farmers usually hire permanent hired
labor in annual basis. The economical conditions of the rented farmers are better than
prior to gher farming system in this village. Before gher farming had started most of the
rented farmers were sharecroppers, or agricultural day labors or fishermen in the study
area (Field survey, 2003).
3
33
3.5 Types of Paddy Farmers
.5 Types of Paddy Farmers .5 Types of Paddy Farmers
.5 Types of Paddy Farmers
Kuloti village is one of the typical paddy producing villages in the Dumira
thana
and is not far from Bilpabla village and most of the farmers in this village
cultivate
boro
and
aman
paddy. Like gher farming system in Bilpabla village, the
farmers in Kuloti village can also be classified into three types depending on the land
holding patterns and these were―sharecropper, own, and own and sharecropper (Field
Survey, 2003). Some farmers rented in their cultivable land from landlord on the
sharecropper basis, and some small farmers have own land, and in addition, rent in
land from landlord on sharecropping basis. Own farmers usually cultivate their own
land or lease out their surplus land to landless, marginal and small farmers. The
farmers usually use chemical fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides for
boro
paddy production,
but they do not use any types of chemical fertilizers, irrigation and pesticides for
aman
paddy production. Therefore, production cost of
boro
paddy production is comparatively
higher than
aman
paddy production. The sharecroppers bear the all production cost for
boro
paddy production. The output is distributed between the sharecropper and the
landlord at the ratio of 6:4 for
boro
paddy, whereas the output is equally distributed
between the sharecropper and landlord for
aman
paddy.
10
4. Results and Discussions
4. Results and Discussions4. Results and Discussions
4. Results and Discussions
4.1 Impacts of
4.1 Impacts of 4.1 Impacts of
4.1 Impacts of Cropping
Cropping Cropping
Cropping P
PP
Pat
atat
atterns
terns terns
terns
Prior to gher farming, the farmers cultivated local
aus
and
aman
paddy in the
swampland, and the oil crops-rape, mustard and
til
(one kind of oil seed crop) were
produced along with local
aus
and
aman
in the comparatively high land which is located
in the small river side of the study area. The life cycle of local
aman
is longer than local
aus
though the sowing time was the same for both types of paddy. The sowing time of
aus
and
aman
paddy was in April/May and harvesting time was August for local
aus
and November for local
aman
. The farmer sowed
aus
and
aman
together in April/May
because after June/July the whole area was water logged due to heavy rain and at times
it was not possible to plant transplanted
aman
(T.aman). This was the most popular
cropping system before the introduction of the gher farming system, which was locally
known as
Domuti
.
Gher farming has changed the cropping patterns dramatically in the study
area, where this case study has been carried out. Along with prawn and carp fish, the
farmers can now cultivate
boro
paddy and vegetables in the same paddy fields. The life
cycle of prawn and carp fish is from May/June to December/January and
boro
paddy is
from the end of January to end of April and seasonal vegetable is throughout the year.
The cropping patterns of the area before and after are presented in figure 2.
Figure 2. Changes in Cropping Patterns after the Introduction of Gher Farming.
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Before Gher Farming:
Swampland:
Aus paddy
Aman paddy
High Land:
Aus paddy
Aman paddy
Rape/Musterd/Til
After Gher Farming:
Prawn
Carp fish
Boro paddy
Vegetables
Note: indicates the period up until the sowing paddy, and releasing of prawn and fish is carried out.
indicates harvesting time starts.
Source: Field survey, 2003.
Month
Crops
4.2
4.2 4.2
4.2 Impacts of Land Tenancy System
Impacts of Land Tenancy System Impacts of Land Tenancy System
Impacts of Land Tenancy System
Land leasing system is important in the agriculture of Bangladesh. About 23% of
the total cultivated area in the country is formed under various tenancy arrangements
such as sharecropping, rental contracts, ownership contracts, and wage rate system.
11
The most common tenancy arrangement is the sharecropping system, which accounts
for nearly 90% of the total leased land in Bangladesh (Januzzi and Peach, 1980).
The land tenure system is completely different between before and after the
introduction of gher farming. Before gher farming started, the land tenure system was a
typical “
sharecropping contract”
, where by the tenant carried all the production costs
and the output was equally split between the landlord and tenant. Moreover, the
landlord influenced the tenant’s decision to produce a certain crop among many types of
aus
and
aman
paddy. In the gher farming system, the land tenure system consists of
“
rental contract
”, where by the tenant pays a fixed rent to the landlord annually. Per
unit rent depends on the size, location, and quality of soil gher, and its amount varies
from Tk 4,000 to Tk 5,000 per bigha. Consequently, the landlords have no influence over
their tenants’ crops as long as they receive rent. Since the gher farming system is very
capital intensive and is risky business as compared to other agricultural crops such as
local aus and aman paddy, the landowners are likely to be more interested in “rental
contract” rather than “
sharecropping system
” to avoid risk.
4.3 Impacts of Land Holding Patterns
4.3 Impacts of Land Holding Patterns 4.3 Impacts of Land Holding Patterns
4.3 Impacts of Land Holding Patterns
Prior to gher farming, about 80% of landlords rented out all of their land to
tenants on a sharecropping basis, but the introduction of the gher farming system lead
landlords to convert their paddy field into gher farming. Landlords now operate gher
farming themselves on the plots, which are close to their house. However, in gher
farming system, it is difficult to operate several gher at the same time. Therefore,
landlords still have to rent out their surplus lands even if the lands are located close to
their house. The remaining 20% of landowners and small farmers who used to cultivate
their own land have also converted their paddy fields into gher farming (Field survey,
2003).
Financially more stable sharecroppers preferred a fixed period rental contract
to operate gher-farming, while the financially relatively weak farmers were unable to
operate gher by themselves and worked as hired labors in gher farming. Moreover, some
of the non-agricultural day labors, landless and marginal farmers in the area also
rented land from the landlord on a rental contract basis. They are called rented farmers
in gher farming system or locally called
hari
.
The changed land holding patterns of Bilpabla village are summarized in table
4. It is evident from the table that before the gher farming had started, among 401
households, 129 households had their own land for paddy cultivation, 127 households
had some land and rented in some land from landlords on a sharecropping basis, 45
12
households had no land but they rented in all land on a sharecropping basis, and the
remaining 100 households had no land and they engaged in other agricultural and/or
non agricultural activities such as day laborers, fishing from swamplands or rivers,
carpenters and services. The status of households has changed after the introduction of
gher farming technology in Bilpabla village. In 2003, among 401 households, 36
households have their own land for gher farming, 247 households have a combination of
their own land and rented in land from landlords on fixed tenant basis, 82 households
have no land for gher farming but they have rented in gher land on a fixed rent basis,
and the remaining 36 households have no gher land and engage in either agriculture or
non-farm activities. The figures in table 4 indicate that the number of landowner
farmers have been decreased significantly after the introduction of gher farming. This is
not the impact of gher farming but a waterlogged condition, which prevented the
production of crop. As a result landowner farmers had to sell their land to maintain
their livelihood. However, farmers who have a combination of owned and rented land
have increased (about two times) significantly compared to prior to gher farming. The
main reason is that farmers have rented in gher land along with their own land, and
landless and others households have engaged in gher farming. As a result, a large
number of landless and others have significantly decreased (about three times)
compared to prior to gher farming. Farmers renting land have also increased about two
times compared to sharecroppers. The figures in the table also indicate that
sharecroppers and landless households have gained access to their own land after the
introduction of gher farming. Therefore, it is concluded from the table that the land
holding patterns and status of households in Bilpabla village has been changed after the
introduction of the gher farming technology.
13
Table 4. Change in land holding patterns and status of households in Bilpabla village.
Own Own and Rented Landless
Number farmer rented famer farmer and others
1. Own farmer 129 22 94 11 2
(100) (17) (73) (9) (1)
2. Own and sharecropper
127 9 109 8 1
(100) (7) (86) (6) (1)
3. Sharecropper 45 3 15 25 2
(100) (7) (33) (56) (4)
4. Landless and others 100 2 29 38 31
(100) (2) (29) (38) (31)
Total 401 36 247 82 36
Source: Field survey, 2003.
Note: 1) The figures in parenthesis indicate percentages.
2) Landless and others include labors, fishermen, carpentars and service holders.
Present (2003)Former status
5. Impact of Household Income
5. Impact of Household Income 5. Impact of Household Income
5. Impact of Household Income
5.1 Agricultural Income from Gher Farming
5.1 Agricultural Income from Gher Farming 5.1 Agricultural Income from Gher Farming
5.1 Agricultural Income from Gher Farming
Costs, returns, profit, and agricultural income as well as household income of
rice prawn gher farmers are discussed in this section. The cost items in gher farming
includes prawn and carp fish fingerlings cost, various kinds of feed cost, labor, medicine,
watching house cost, seed/seedling cost of paddy and vegetables, land preparation cost
(bullock), irrigation, pesticides and fertilizer costs. On the return side, gross return
includes revenue from prawn, fish, paddy and vegetables. The costs, gross revenue,
agricultural income and household income are presented in table 5.
14
Table 5. Production costs and returns of rice prawn gher farming.
Particulars
(Taka)
A. Variable costs of prawn and fish production:
1. Prawn fingerlings
42,238
2. Carp fish fingerlings
1,785
3. Feed
42,281
4. Medicine
11,904
5. (a) Permanent hired labor
5,870
(b) Temporary hired labor (male)
9,906
(c) Temporary hired labor (female)
3,238
Sub total
Sub total Sub total
Sub total
117,222
117,222117,222
117,222
B. Variable costs of paddy and vegetables production:
1. Paddy seed/seedlings
1,262
2. Vegetables seed/seedlings
453
3. Land preparation (bullock)
1,189
4. (a) Temporary hired labor (male)
4,848
(b) Temporary hired labor (female)
806
5. Irrigation
1,308
6. Pesticides
1,062
7. Fertilizer
732
8. Machinary cost
470
Sub Total
Sub Total Sub Total
Sub Total
12,130
12,13012,130
12,130
C. Total variable costs (A+B)
C. Total variable costs (A+B)C. Total variable costs (A+B)
C. Total variable costs (A+B)
129,352
129,352129,352
129,352
D. Fixed costs:
1. Depreciation cost of gher preparation
1,197
2. Monitoring housing:
(i) Maintenance/repairing
770
(ii) Depreciation cost
256
3. Opportunity cost of land
10,013
4. Opportunity cost of family labors (male and female)
21,422
5. Land rent
14,288
Total fixed costs
Total fixed costs Total fixed costs
Total fixed costs
47,946
47,94647,946
47,946
E. Total costs (variable and fixed costs) (C+D)
E. Total costs (variable and fixed costs) (C+D)E. Total costs (variable and fixed costs) (C+D)
E. Total costs (variable and fixed costs) (C+D)
177,298
177,298177,298
177,298
F. Revenue from prawn and fish:
1. Prawn
231,451
2. Carp fish
20,088
G. Revenue from paddy and vegetables:
3. Paddy
20,933
4. By-product of paddy
2,798
5. Vegetables
3,813
H. Total revenue (F+G)
H. Total revenue (F+G)H. Total revenue (F+G)
H. Total revenue (F+G)
279,083
279,083279,083
279,083
I. Net profit (H-E)
I. Net profit (H-E) I. Net profit (H-E)
I. Net profit (H-E)
101,785
101,785101,785
101,785
Source: Field Survey, 2003.
Note: 1) 1US$=58.50 Taka, October, 2003.
2) Surveyed average gher farmi size was 1 hectare.
3) Sample size was 40.
4) Depreciation of construction of gher and monitoring house were
calculated by the straight-line method. In this method, depreciation is to
divided total expected depreciation equally among the expected number years
of the life of the gher. It works fairly well for purpose of analyzing the farm
business (Hopkins and Heady, 1955). On the basis of the farm survey data,
the economic life of gher farming was considered as 25 years.
15
5.2 Sources Household Income
5.2 Sources Household Income 5.2 Sources Household Income
5.2 Sources Household Income
Rural households in developing countries derive income from various sources.
Basically the agricultural households in developing countries earn income from three
sources ―profit from agricultural production, agricultural labor income, and
non-agricultural activities. The agricultural profit is the sum of crop income, and
income from livestock and poultry production. Likewise, agricultural labor income
includes both family labor used on farm and labor sold to other farms, and
non-agricultural income can be decomposed into earnings from self-employment, wage
received in rural non-farm labor markets, and remittances from household members
working in urban areas (Renkow, 2000). Each of these components of overall household
income varies widely, and depends on household endowments of human and physical
capital (including land), agronomic endowments of household-owned land, proximity to
urban centers, and many other cultural, historical, and institutional circumstances.
Table 6 provides information concerning household income sources. The table
shows that agricultural income remains the principal source of income for households in
the sampled gher farmers. The amounts of agricultural wage, opportunity cost of family
members, and off-farm income were roughly the same in the contribution of total
household income for gher farmers. The agricultural wage was accounts only 9 percent
for gher farmers, indicating that the percentage share of agricultural wage to total
household income was very small. The main reason was that the family members
enjoyed more leisure time and engaged in other off-farm activities.
Annual per household income in rural areas in Bangladesh was Tk 57,792 in
2001 (BBS, 2001). Table 6 shows that the total household income for gher farmers was
Tk 164,647. The figure indicates that per household income of gher farmers was roughly
three times higher than that of Bangladesh. Therefore, it is concluded that the gher
farming technology has increased household income in this area than other rural areas
of Bangladesh.
16
Table 6. Household income of rice prawn gher farmers.
Taka
1. Profit/agricultural income 101,785
2. Opportunity cost of family labors
(i) Male 19,616
(ii) Female 1,806
3. Opportunity cost of land 10,013
4. Agricultural wage (male) 11,358
5. Agricultural wage (female) 3,951
6. Livestock 2,443
7. Off-farm income 12,359
8. Homestead gardening 1,316
Total household income
Total household incomeTotal household income
Total household income 164,647
164,647164,647
164,647
Source: Field survey, 2003.
Sources of income
5.3 Total Costs and Revenue of Paddy
5.3 Total Costs and Revenue of Paddy 5.3 Total Costs and Revenue of Paddy
5.3 Total Costs and Revenue of Paddy
The costs and revenue of paddy production in Kuloti village are summarized in
table 7. The costs of paddy are considered as land preparation cost, seed/seedling cost,
labor cost, fertilizer cost, irrigation cost, pesticides cost and threshing machinery cost.
The farmers use fertilizer, irrigation and pesticides only for
boro
paddy production. The
farmers usually do not use any types of chemical fertilizer, irrigation and pesticides for
aman
paddy production. On the other hand, the returns from paddy are considered as
output (paddy) and by-product (straw of paddy). The gross revenue is calculated by
multiplying the total volume of production of paddy by farm-gate price. Net profit is
calculated by subtracting total production cost from gross revenue. Total production cost,
total revenue and total profit of MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy are Tk 46,765, Tk
52,702, and Tk 5,937, respectively.
17
Table 7. Costs and returns of
boro
and
aman
paddy in
Kuloti village, Khulna.
1. Costs of paddy production Taka
(a)
Boro
paddy
1. Seed/Seedings 1,434
2. Land preparation (bullock) 1,925
3. Hired labor (male) 5,030
4. Hired labor (female) 1,266
5. Fertilizer 1,199
6. Irrigation 2,395
7. Pesticides 1,058
8. Machinary cost 590
Sub total 14,897
(b)
Aman
paddy
1. Seed/Seedings 535
2. Land preparation (bullock) 1,145
3. Hired labor (male) 3,530
4. Hired labor (female) 498
5. Threshing machine 295
Sub total 6,003
(c) Total variable cost (a+b) 20,900
(d) Opportunity cost of family labors 16,084
(e) Opportunity cost of land 9,781
(f) Total production cost 46,765
2. Return of paddy
1.
Boro
paddy 32,902
2.
Aman
paddy 19,800
(g) Total revenue 52,702
3. Profit (2-1) 5,937
Source: Field Survey, 2003.
Note: 1) Surveyed average paddy farm size was 1 hectare.
2) Sample size was 10.
5.4 Household Income of Paddy Farmers
5.4 Household Income of Paddy Farmers 5.4 Household Income of Paddy Farmers
5.4 Household Income of Paddy Farmers
Table 8 summarized the total household income from
boro
and
aman
paddy
farmers in Kuloti village. Total household income includes in profit from paddy
production, revenue from homestead vegetables, livestock and poultry, off-farm income,
and agricultural wage. It is evident from the table that off-farm income is about four
18
times higher than the profit of MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy production. The main
reason is that paddy crop is not a profitable enterprise like gher farming, and the family
members are engaged in other non-farm, and agricultural activities insides and
outsides of the village.
Table 8. Household income of paddy farmers in Kuloti village.
Taka
1. Profit/agricultural income 5,937
2. Homestead garding 3,890
3. Opportunity cost of family labors
(i) Male 14,020
(i) Female 2,064
4. Opportunity cost of land 9,781
5. Income from livestock 2,380
6. Off-farm income 20,500
7. Agricultural wage 14,100
Total household income 72,672
Source: Field survey, 2003.
Sources of income
5.5 Comparison of Income
5.5 Comparison of Income 5.5 Comparison of Income
5.5 Comparison of Income
As is shown above, the farmers in gher farming in the study area have gained
their agricultural income as well as household income. In this section, an attempt is
made to determine the income gain from gher farming system by comparing to other
agricultural crop―MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy.
Total gross revenue, agricultural family labors’ income, off-farm income, total
agricultural income and household income of gher farmers and MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy farmers, and their ratios (gher farmers to
boro
and
aman
paddy farmers) are
presented in table 9. It is appeared from the table 9 that total gross revenue of gher
farmers was more than five times higher than MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy farmers.
Similarly, the agricultural income of the gher farmers was about seventeen times higher
than MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy farmers, indicating that the agricultural income
has considerable impact on household income compared to MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy farmers. The family agricultural labor income of gher farmer was slightly higher
than MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy farmer. However, the family off-farm income of
gher farmers was about two times lesser than paddy farmers. The main reason was that
the paddy farming was not a profitable enterprise like rice prawn gher farming;
therefore, the paddy farmers were engaged in varies types of off-farm activities. Along
with gher farming operation, and
boro
and
aman
paddy cultivation, the gher farmers,
and the
boro
and
aman
paddy farmer are usually sales their wage to any types of
19
agricultural activities. Therefore, it is concluded from the table that rice prawn gher
farmer has generated more agricultural income as well as household income compared
to paddy farmers.
Table 9. Comparison of total revenue, agrcultural family labor income, agricultural
income and household income between gher farming and paddy farming.
Gher farming Ratio
1. Total gross revenue 52,702 279,083 5.30
2. Agricultural family labor income 16,084 21,422 1.32
3. Agricultural income 5,937 101,785 17.14
4. Off-farm income 20,500 12,359 0.60
5. Household income 72,672 164,647 2.27
Source: Field survey, 2003.
Boro
and
aman
paddyParticulars
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
The gher farming system is a very profitable business compared to MV
boro
and local
aman
. The farmers have gained agricultural income as well as household
income from gher farming as compared not only MV
boro
and local
aman
paddy
production but also to rural household income in Bangladesh. After the introduction of
gher farming in the southwest Bangladesh the cropping patterns has changed. Prior to
the gher farming system the farmer cultivates only local
aus
, local
aman
and oil seeds
but now the farmer produces MV
boro
rice along with prawn and carp fish. Land tenant
systems as well as farm size have changed after the introduction of gher farming. The
tenant system has changed from sharecropping to rental, and the farm size has become
bigger. Prior to gher farming system, the landlords rented out their lands to tenants on
a sharecropper basis but now the landlords rent out only the surplus land that they
cannot utilize on their on rental basis. As a result, the landlords get cash from rented
farmers, while the rented farmers can be actively involved in gher farming to make
higher profit. The results show that the gher farming system has increased agricultural
income, which has lead to a better living standard for people in this area. All these
reasons suggest a very positive impact of gher farming on the area, which the study has
focused on.
REFFERENCES
REFFERENCESREFFERENCES
REFFERENCES
1. Abedin, J., and Kabir, K. (1999).
Cost benefits analysis of gher system under Khulna
areas before project intervention
. A survey report prepared by greater options for
local development through aquaculture project of CARE- Bangladesh.
20
2. Abedin, J, Sarker, G. and Hena, A. (1997).
A cost benefit analysis of current gher
farming system practices in Bagherhat district
. Paper presented at the CARE
Bangladesh Aquaculture Workshop, BARD, Comilla, and May 3-4, 1998.
3. Alim, M.A., Chowdhury, M.M.H., and Nabi, S.M.N. (1998). Popyculture of fish
(
Labeo rohita, Hypopthalmichthys molitix and Puntius gonionotus
) with prawn
(
Macrobrachium rogenbergii
) in gher farming systems. Greater options for local
development through aquaculture (GOLDA) project, CARE, Bangladesh, Road No.
7/A, House No. 65, Dhanmondhi, Dhaka-1209.
4. Asaduzamman, M. and Toufique, K.A. (1998). Rice and Fish: “Environmental
dilemmas of development in Bangladesh” in
Growth or Stagnation
?
A review of
Bangladesh’s Development
1996, Center for Policy Dialogue, University presses Ltd.
Dhaka (mimeo).
5. BBS (2001). Statistical Yearbooks,
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics,
Government of
Bangladesh, Dhaka.
6. Bhattacharya, D., M. Rahman and F. Khatun (1999). Environmental impact of
structural adjustment policies: The case export oriented shrimp culture in
Bangladesh,
Centre for Policy Dialogue,
and Dhaka.
7. Datta, D.K. (2001).
Ecological role of fresh water apple snail Pila globosa and the
consequences of its over-harvesting from beel ecosystem of Bagerhat and Gopalgonj
district.
A study report. Study carried out jointly by Khulna University and GOLDA
project of CARE Bangladesh. Funded through Department for International
Development.
8. DOF, (2000). Shrimp Resources Statistics. Central Shrimp Cell,
Department of
Fisheries
, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka.
9. Habib, E. (1998). “Legal Aspects of Shrimp Cultivation”, paper presented at the
workshop on environmental impact of structural adjustment policies in Bangladesh
organized by the Center for Policy Dialogue, 17 May 1998, Dhaka.
10. Hopkins, J.A. and Heady, E.O, (1955).
Farm Records and Accounting
. Fourth edition.
Composed and printed by the Iowa State College Prsee, Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.
11. IRRI (1995). World rice statistics, 1993-94. International Rice Research Institute,
1995. P.O. Box 933, Manila 1093, Philippines.
12. Jannuzi, T.F. and Peach, J.T. (1980). The agrarian structure of Bangladesh: An
impediment to development. Colorado, Westvies Press.
13. Kangmin, L. (1988). Rice-fish culture in China: A Review,
Aquaculture
, 71 (1988)
173-186.
14. Nabi, S.M.N., Sarker, G., Alim, M.A., and Islam, M.T. (1999). The effect of rice
21
cultivation on growth of freshwater prawn (
Macrobrachium rogenbergii)
in gher
farming systems. Greater options for local development through aquaculture
(GOLDA) project, CARE, Bangladesh, Road No. 7/A, House No. 65, Dhanmondhi,
Dhaka-1209.
15. Nijera Kori (1996). The impact of shrimp cultivation on soils and environment in
Paikgacha region, Khulna (Limited to polders 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24).
16. Rahman, A. et. al. (1995). Shrimp culture and environment in the coastal region.
Working paper new series no. 8. Bangladesh Institute of Development (BIDS),
Dhaka.
17. Renkow, M. (2000). Poverty, productivity and production environment: a review of
the evidence.
Food Policy
, 25, 463-478.
18. Sobhan, A.S. (1997). Bangladesh country paper on shrimp sector. Paper presented at
the international training course on pollution control and minimization in small and
medium sized marine food processing industries in the developing countries of
South Asia, 28-30 October 1997, Bangkok.
19. Talukdar, R. (1999). Financial profitability of shrimp-based farming systems in
Bangladesh, paper presented at the workshop on economic, social and
environmental implication of shrimp-rice integrated farming systems in Bangladesh,
held at Dhaka, December.
