Fish Production in Punjab-An Economic Analysis Singh Manjinder1, Singh J.M.2,,* 1Research Scholar, Department of Economics and Sociology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141004 (India) 2Senior Agricultural Economist, Department of Economics and Sociology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141004 (India) *Corresponding author's email: jmsinghpau@rediffmail.com
Online published on 13 December, 2017. Abstract Aquaculture in Punjab is purely carp culture and fish farming play a major role in the economic upliftment of the rural masses. However, during last decades, the stagnating farm incomes prompted Punjab's peasantry for undertaking subsidiary occupations such as fish farming. Keeping this in view present study was planned to work out the economics of inland fish production along with marketable surplus of fish in the study area and to investigate the production and marketing constraints in fish farming. Three districts namely Gurdaspur, Bathinda, and Pathankot were selected, which were having maximum concentration of fish farmers and a sample of 100 fish farmers was selected according to their concentration in selected districts by using probability proportional to size sampling technique. Cost-return analysis of fish farming on sample fish farms revealed that labour cost, electricity usage, diesel use in irrigation and aeration cost were the major constituents of variable cost. On private fish farms, total variable cost per hectare was maximum on small fish farms ( 2, 26, 034) followed by medium (2, 10, 620) and large (1, 59, 178) farms which shows the economies of scale. However, on Panchayati fish farms, total variable cost per hectare was higher on small fish farms (1, 68, 864) followed by large (1, 61, 241) and medium (1, 59, 115) farms. In overall, total variable cost per hectare was2, 21, 348 on private and1, 62, 366 on Panchayati fish farms. On the contrary, fixed cost increased with farm size on private fish farms and it was least on medium farms category in case of Panchayati fish farms. Also, fixed cost investment was more on private as compared to Panchayati fish farms. Gross return per hectare on private fish farms were higher (3, 04, 021) than Panchayati fish farms (2, 75, 751), however, there was not much variation in gross returns according to farm categories. Net returns per hectare were higher on Panchayati fish farms (93, 467) as compared to private fish farms (16, 638). Benefit-cost ratio (B: C ratio) was 1.06 on private and 1.51 on Panchayati fish farms. On private fish farms B: C ratio was highest on medium and large (1.11) farms followed by small farms (1.04) while on Panchayati fish farms, B: C ratio was maximum on medium farms (1.60) followed by large (1.49) and small farms (1.44). Thus, medium fish farmers were more efficient than their counterparts in terms of judicious utilization of resources. The marketable surplus was nearly 99 per cent of the total fish production on both private and Panchayati fish farms. The major problems in production and marketing of fish farming were; poaching, the incidence of disease, less subsidy and lack of remunerative price, low price etc. Major policy issues brought out were; formation of aqua club by fish farmers, higher subsidization of fish farming, involvement of Govt. agency for the purchase of fish produced at the remunerative price and increasing the demand for fish by advertising about its nutritional importance through print and electronic media. Top Keywords Benefit-cost ratio, constraints, cost-return structure, fishery trends. Top |