This study examines the relative profitability of rice-fish culture and rice mono-crop production at Gouripur thana of Mymensingh district. The results of the study show that the rice-fish farming was economically more rewarding than the rice mono-crop farming, although both the farming activities were found profitable over cash as well as full costs. In addition to extra earnings from fish, the rice-fish farming produced significantly a higher yield of rice requiring very minimum extra cost for fish. Rice-fish farming also reduced variability in yield of and return from rice

Haque, M.Z.

Kabir, M.H.

Miah, M.T.H.

Aquatic Commons

Bangladesh}. Fish. Res., 2(1), 1998:91-98 
Rice-fish and rice mono-crop production at Gouripur, 
Mymensingh : an economic analysis 
M.Z. Haque, M.H. Kabir 1 and M.T.H. Miah 
Dept. of Agricultural Economics 
Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladresh 
1 Present address : Farming Systems & Environmental Studies, BAU, Mymensingh 
* Corresponding author 
Abstract 
This study examines the relative profitability of rice-fish culture and rice mono-
crop production at Gouripur thana of Mymensingh district. The results of the 
study show that the rice-fish farming was economically more rewarding than the 
rice mono-crop farming, although both the farming activities were found 
profitable over cash as well as full costs. In addition to extra earnings from fish, 
the rice-fish farming produced significantly a higher yield of rice requiring very 
minimum extra cost for fish. Rice-fish farming also reduced variability in yield of 
and return from rice. 
Key words : Rice-fish, Economics 
Introduction 
The notion of rice-fish culture originated with a view to ensure better return 
from high yielding variety (HYV) boro rice to farmers thorough the best and 
maximum use of scarce land resources. The increased fish production 
harvested from simultaneous production of rice and fish is expected to lift the 
11ational fish consumption and to contribute much to the household welfare. 
Although the rice-fish culture under scientific management (i.e. in irrigated boro 
rice fields) is relatively a new gesture in Bangladesh, on-station rice-fish culture 
of the Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute (FRI), the Farming Systems and 
Environmental Studies (FSES) and the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) 
proved to be technologically feasible and economically viable. This performance, 
of course, is based on the results of the experimental stations. However, only a 
few farmers in some places have already changed their farm planning towards 
rice-fish farming from irrigated rice' mono-crop farming. 
According to Dewan (1992) Bangladesh has 10,22,9000 ha area under rice 
production of which irrigated area is 12,27,000 ha and potential area for rice-fish 
culture is 6,15,000 ha. Unfortunately, rice-fish farming presently occupy a very 
small portion of the suitable area of Bangladesh. 
To become accepted by the farmers a technology must satisfy farmers 1 
socioeconomic settings and farm environment. But detailed farm level study is 
yet to be done to confirm rice fish production system. Thus the present study 
aimed at determining farm level profitability of rice-fish farming against rice 
mono-crop farming. 
M.Z. Haque et a/. 
Materials and methods 
The farmers of Gouripur in Mymensingh district have been cultivating HYV 
boro rice under irrigated condition for last few years, although the area is well-
suited for rice-fish culture. In 1992, rice-fish culture was initially introduced in 
this area by the FRI in the form of some field experiments. The encouraging 
yield of both rice and fish in the experimental plots attracted the farmers to 
adopt this new technology. That is why, the area was selected for the study. 
A stratified random sampling technique was followed in this study. In total, 
sixty farms taking thirty from rice with fish and the remaining thirty from rice 
without fish, were randomly selected for this study. The study covered only the 
Boro cropping season beginning from December'94 to May'95. 
To collect necessary primary data a sample survey was conducted by using 
a set of well designed questionnaires. The collected data were analysed by using 
enterprise costing technique and the results were presented in the tabular form 
with the help of simple statistical measures like arithmetic mean, percentage 
and ratio. Whenever necessary the results were confirmed with the help of 't' 
test. 
Results and discussion 
The profitability analyses of HYV boro rice with and without fish were done 
on the basis of full and cash costs. In the case of full costs, all input items both 
family ·supplied and purchased were valued at the market prices of the inputs. 
On the othe.r hand, only the out of pocket costs were taken into consideration to 
arrive at the cash cost. The major findings of the study are presented in the 
following sections. 
Production cost of· HYV boro rice with fish 
P.er hectare cost of producing HYV boro with fish in the sample farms is 
shown in Table 1. The table reveals that the cost of simultaneous rice-fish 
farming stood Tk 32,666.00 on the basis of full cost. The analysis showed that 
operating costs represented 64.18 percent (Tk 20,966.00/ha) of total costs and 
the rest 35.82 percent (Tk 11 ,700.00/ha) was interest cost in which interest on 
land value alone accounted for 34.90 percent (Tk 11 ,400.00/ha). The major part 
of the operating cost was shared by human labour and irrigation charge 
representing 17.99 (Tk 5877.00/ha) and 13.45 percent (Tk 4393.00/ha) of total 
costs, respectively. The other important operating cost items were fertilizer, 
animal power, seedlings and cow-dung. Fish culture in the rice fields added 
extra cost of Tk 3331 .00/ha (1 0.20 percent) to the total costs of which 5.94 
percent was shared by fingerlings. It may be noted here that the family supplied 
inputs accounted for 15.19 percent (Tk 4962.00/ha) of full cost. 
92 
Economic analysis of rice-fish culture 
Table 1. Per hectare input use and cost in rice-fish production 
Cost item Unit of Quantity Cost 
quantity Full cost Cash cost 
Tk!ha %of total Tk!ha %of total 
Human labour Man-day 167.91 5876.85 17.99 3286.15 20.53 
Animal labour Pair-day 30.45 1827.00 5.59 1624.20 10.15 
Seedling Kg 45.42 1589.70 4.87 635.60 3.97 
Cow-dung ton 5.06 1265.63 3.87 337.88 2.11 
Fertilizer 2682.37 8.21 2682.37 16.76 
Urea kg 205.05 1127.78 3.45 1127.78 7.05 
TSP kg 107.72 969.48 2.97 969.48 6.06 
MP kg 51.03 357.21 1.09 357.21 2.23 
Gypsum kg 22.45 67.35 0.21 67.35 0.42 
Oil cake kg 32.11 160.55 0.49 160.55 1.00 
Irrigation 4393.00 13.45 4393.00 27.45 
Fingerling Nos 3878.00 1939.00 5.94 1939.00 12.12 
Feed kg 259.50 519.00 1.59 232.00 1.45 
Lime kg 9.12 72.96 0.22 72.96 0.46 
Excavation of ditch 800.00 2.45 800.00 5.00 
Int. on oprt. capital 300.06 0.92 
Int. on land value - 11400.00 34.90 
Total - 32665.57 - 16003.16 
On the basis of cash cost, the production cost (Tk 16,003.00/ha) of rice-fish, 
as expected, was less than half of the cost calculated on full cost basis (Tk 
32,666.00/ha). Irrigation, human labour, fertilizer and animal power appeared to 
be the most important items of cash costs. These cost items accounted for 
74.89 percent of cash costs of rice-fish production. The extra cost for fish in the 
rice field was Tk 3044.00/ha (19.02%) of which fingerlings alone accounted for Tk 
1939.00/ha (12.12%) and the rest Tk 11 05.00/ha (6.89%) was represented 
together by feed, lime and excavation of ditch. 
Production cost of HYV boro without fish 
Per hectare cost of producing rice without fish is given in Table 2. Per 
hectare cost of producing HYV boro as a single enterprise was estimated at Tk 
28,263.00 of which Tk 16,631.00 (58.84%) and Tk 11,632.00 (41.16%) were, 
respectively operational and interest costs. As a single cost item, interest on 
land value represented the lion 1s share (40.34%) of total costs. Among the 
operational cost items human labour, irrigation and fertilizer accounted for 19.34, 
12.32 and 11.34 percent, respectively of total costs of producing boro rice. 
Animal power and seedlings appeared to be other two important cost items 
representing 6.23 and 6.08 percent of total costs, respectively. In producing 
HYV boro rice, more than 15 percent (Tk 4263 .00/ha) of total costs was 
represented by family supplied inputs. 
93 
M.Z. Haque et a/. 
Table 2. Per hectare input use and cost in rice mono-crop production 
Cost item Unit of Quantity Cost 
quantity Full cost Cash cost 
Tk/ha %of total Tk/ha %of total 
Human labour Man-day 156.20 5467.00 19.34 3132.15 25.33 
Animal labour Pair-day 29.35 1761.00 6.23 1516.80 12.26 
Seedling Kg 49.10 1718.50 6.08 563.15 4.55 
Cow-dung ton 3.14 785.25 2.78 256.25 2.07 
Fertilizer 3206.44 11.34 3206.44 25.93 
Urea ~ 238.05 1309.28 4.63 1309.28 10.59 
TSP ~ 118.36 1065.24 3.77 1065.24 8.61 
MP ~ 63.11 441.77 1.56 441.77 3.57 
Gypsum ~ 33.00 99.00 0.35 99.00 0.80 
Oil cake ~ 58.23 291.15 1.03 291.15 2.35 
Irrigation 3481.00 12.32 3481.00 28.15 
Insecticides 212.00 0.75 212.00 1.71 
Int. on oprt. capital 231.90 0.82 
Int. on land value - 11400.00 40.34 
Total - 28263.09 - 12367.75 
The total cash costs of producing HYV boro rice as a single enterprise stood 
Tk 12,368.00/ha which, as expected, was much lower (43.76%) than the full cost 
of production. As were in the full costs, tlie most important cost items in the 
total cash costs were irrigation (28.15%), fertilizer (25.93%), human labour. 
(25.33%) and animal power (12.16%). However, seedlings, cow-dung and 
insecticides combinedly shared only 8.33% of total cash cost of HYV boro rice 
production. 
Comparison of input use in rice-fish and rice mono-crop farming 
It is evident from the results presented in Tables 1 and 2 that there is a 
variation in input use in producing HYV boro with and without fish. It can be 
seen from the Tables that more human labour (167.91 man-day/ha) was used in 
rice-fish farming than the farm producing boro rice without fish (156.20 man-
day/ha). This was due to some extra activities required to produce fish in rice 
fields. The amount of seedlings (45.42 kg/ha) used for producing rice in rice-fish 
farming was lower by 3.68 kg/ha than the amount used in rice mono-crop 
farming (49.1 0 kg/ha). This was resulted from alternate double row system of 
transplanting rice which gave adequate space for easy movement of fish in the 
rice fields and saved some seedlings. A substantial difference in using fertilizers 
and cow-dung was also observed between the above mentioned two types of 
farming. In the case of rice-fish farming, amount of all types of fertilizer used 
were much lower than the amount used in rice as single crop. In fact, the 
application of fertilizer was substituted partially by higher amount of cow-dung 
used in rice-fish fields (higher by 1.92 t/ha). The higher amount of cow-dung 
contributed in the production of miC'"" "'"""_.,,..,;,..,.,...,.. f,...,. +;,.hac- +..-. ,.,..,+ ..,,..,,-1 ... lc-..-. 
94 
Economic analysis of rice-fish culture 
added nitrogen to rice plants. To maintain sufficient standing water for fishes to 
move in the rice fields the rice-fish farmers paid Tk 912.00/ha more for irrigation 
than paid for that by the rice mono-crop farmers·. It may be noted here that in 
the case of rice mono-crop farming the farmers paid Tk 212.00/ha for 
insecticides while the rice-fish farmers paid nothing for that. Like all other studies 
(.Grist 1965, Coche 1967 and Dela Cruz 1980) it was also observed that fishes 
helped to control some insects biologically. 
Agro-economic performance of rice-fish and rice mono-crop farming 
Agro-economic performance of rice-fish as well as rice mono-crop farming 
was examined in terms of yield, gross return, net return and undiscounted 
benefit-cost ratio (BCR). The results are presented in Table 3. The table shows 
that per hectare yield of rice (4.77 t/ha) in rice-fish farming was significantly 
higher (t = 5.09) than the yield (4.23 t/ha) obtained from rice mono-crop farming. 
Similar findings were also found in several experimental studies conducted by 
the FSES (Mazid eta/. 1992), the FRI (FRI 1995) and the BRRI (Ali eta/. 1993). 
Hora and Pillay (1962) also observed that the yield of rice increased by 
approximately 15.00 percent in Indo-Pacific countries due to adoption of fish 
culture. According to Dela Cruz et a/. (1980) rice-fish farming provides higher 
yield of rice through reducing rice pests, aerating bottom soil and making more 
nitrogen and phosphorus available to rice plants. In this regard Grist (1965) and 
Coche (1967) put arguments that this extra increase in yield is due to biological 
control of harmful insects and pests and grazing of the fish on weeds. Apart 
from the paddy, 159.32 kg/ha of fish was harvested from rice-fish fields during 
the boro season of 1995. 
To obtain gross return, total produced was multiplied by the prevailed 
farmgate prices of the products. At the rate of Tk 7,011 .30/t, gross return from 
rice stood Tk 33,465.00/ha and Tk 29,672.00/ha, respectively under rice-fish and 
rice mono-crop farming. The estimated gross return from straw in rice-fish and 
rice mono-crop farming were Tk 1,176.00/ha and Tk 1,030.00/ha, respectively. 
Gross return obtained from fish was Tk 6,381 .20/ha where the prevailed 
farmgate price of fish was Tk 40.00/kg. Thus, the overall gross return from rice-
fish and rice mono-crop farming amounted Tk 41,022.00/ha and Tk 
30,702.00/ha, respectively. 
To arrive at net return, gross cost was deducted from gross return and was 
calculated on both full cost and cash cost basis. Per hectare net return in rice-
fish farming was Tk 8357.00/ha over full cost and Tk 25,019.00/ha over cash 
cost while net returns in rice mono-crop farming stood Tk 2,439.00/ha and Tk 
18,334.00/ha, respectively over full cost and cash cost. It is noted here that the 
net return per hectare from rice-fish farming was significantly higher (t = 7.75) 
than the net return earned from rice mono-crop farming. As a measure of 
average return to each Taka spent in production, undiscounted BCR was 
calculated. Table 3 reveals that regardless the methods of estimating cost, the 
95 
M.Z. Haque et a/. 
BCR in rice-fish farming appeared to be relatively higher (1.26 and 2.56) than in 
rice mono-crop farming (1.09 and 2.48). The results of the study clearly shows 
that both rice-fish farming and rice mono-crop farming are profitable business 
from the view point of individual farmers considering both cash as well as full 
costs. 
Table 3. Per hectare costs and returns of producing HYV bora 
with and without fish at Gouripur, Mymensingh 
Particular 
Yield 
Rice (t/ha) 
Fish (kg/ha) 
Gross return (Tk/ha) 
Rice 
Straw 
Fish 
Gross cost (Tk/ha) 
Full cost basis 
Cash cost basis 
Net return (Tk/ha) 
Full cost basis 
Cash cost basis 
Benefit-cost ratio 
Full cost basis 
Cash cost basis 
*Significant at 1% level 
HYV boro 
with fish 
4.77* 
159.53 
41,022.14 
33,464.94 
1,176.00 
6,381.20 
32,665.57 
16,003.16 
8,356.57* 
25,018.98* 
1.26 
2.56 
HYV boro without fish 
4.23 
30,701.82 
29,671.82 
1,030.00 
28,263.09 
12,367.75 
2,438.73 
18,334.07 
1.09 
2.48 
Variability in yield and net return from HYV boro 
An attempt was made in this section to examine farm to farm variation in 
yield and net return from rice under rice-fish and rice mono-crop farming. The 
results are presented in Tables 4 and 5. 
Table 4. Variation in per hectare yield of HYV bora with and without fish at Gouripur, 
Mymensingh 
96 
Yield group (t/ha) 
3.49-3.99 
4.00-4.39 
4.40-4.79 
4.80-5.47 
Total 
Farms producing HYV 
boro with fish 
Number %of total 
3 10.00 
4 13.33 
9 30.00 
14 46.67 
30 100.00 
Farms producing HYV 
boro without fish 
Number %of total 
8 26.67 
11 36.67 
9 30.00 
2 6.67 
30 100.00 
Economic analysis of rice-fish culture 
Table 5. Variation in net return per hectare from HYV boro 
with and without fish at Gouripur, Mymensingh 
N 1et return Farms producing HYV 
group (Tk/ha) boro with fish 
Number %of total 
12,721-15,000 3.33 
15,001-18,000 3.33 
18,001-21,000 3 10.00 
21,001-24,000 4 13.33 
24,001-27,000 11 36.68 
27,001-29,776 10 33.33 
Total 30 100.00 
Variation in yield of HYV boro 
Farms producing HYV 
boro without fish. 
Number 
6 
10 
9 
5 
30 
%of total 
20.00 
33.33 
30.00 
16.67 
100.00 
The average per hectare yield of HYV boro in the rice mono-crop farming 
was not only significantly lower than the yield obtained in the rice-fish farming 
but the variability in yield obtained was also higher in rice mono-crop farming 
(Table 4). The highest and the lowes~ yields recorded in rice-fish farming were 
5.47 t/ha and 3.67 t/ha, respectively while the yield of rice obtained in rice 
mono-crop farming varied from 3.49 to 4.81 t/ha. Table 4 reveals that 46.67 
percent (14 farms) of the sample farms under rice-fish farming had yield 
between 4.80 to 5.47 t/ha while only 6.67 percent (7 farms) of the rice mono-
crop farms had yield in this range of yield. Again, in the case of rice-fish farming 
only 23.33 percent (7 farms) farms obtained yield of rice between 3.49 to 4.39 
t/ha but 63.34 percent (19 farms) of the rice mono-crop farms fall in this group. 
The results indicated that most of the rice-fish farms were concentrated in the 
highest yield group but the rice mono-crop farms were scattered in lower yield 
groups. Variation in yield of rice in rice-fish farming was relatively lower due to 
even management practices of rice-fish plots required for fish over the growing 
period. 
Variation in net return from HYV boro 
Only the variation in net returns over cash cost from rice were analysed. 
Table 5 reveals that the net return from rice in rice-fish farming varied from Tk 
12J21.00 to Tk 29,796.00/ha while the net return from rice mono-crop farming 
ranged between Tk 14,511.00 to 22,673.00/ha. The distribution of rice mono-
crop farms was scattered over the lower net return groups. But in the case of 
rice-fish farming the distribution was concentrated mainly over the two high net 
return groups which is similar to the concentration of rice-fish farms over the 
yield groups (Tables 4 and 5). 
97 
M.Z. Haque et a/. 
Conclusions 
The results of the present study clearly indicate that farmers can make profit 
from both rice-fish and rice mono-crop farming. The farmers, however, can 
make more profit from rice-fish culture than the farms producing only HYV boro 
rice. Extension workers should, ther·efore, encourage farmers to adopt this new 
technique (rice-fish culture) of farming. Thus, both the production of rice and fish 
could be increased within the shortest possible time. This will contribute much 
to farmers 1 income and thereby in well being of rural people. The government 
and non-governmental organizations should· strengthen their efforts to 
disseminate rice-fish culture technology elsewhere in the country where similar 
type of topography (low-lying area) is found. 
References 
Ali, M.H., N. I. Miah and N. U. Ahmed, 1993. Experiences in deepwater rice-fish culture. 
Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Bangladesh. 17 pp. 
Cache, A. G., 1967. Fish culture in rice fields: a world-wide synthesis. Hydrologia, 30 : 
11-14. 
Dela Cruz, C. R., 19~0. Integrated agriculture-aquaculture farming systems in the 
Philippines with two case studies on simultaneous and rotational dee-fish 
culture. ICLARM Conf., Manila, Philippines. 15 pp. (mimeo) 
Dewan, S., 1992. Rice-fish farming systems in Bangladesh: past, present and future. In: 
Rice fish research development in Asia. (eds. C.R. Dela Cruz, C. Lightfood, B. 
A. Conta-pierce, V. R. Carangal and M. P. Bimbaw). ICLARM, Conf. Proc. 
No. 24. : 457 pp. 
FRI., 1995. Dhaner Khete mach chash projukti (leaflet in Bangia). Fisheries Research 
Institute, Mymensingh. 
Grist, D. H., 1965. Rice. London, U. K. 
Haque, M. Z., 1997. A comparative economic study on rice-cum-fish culture and rice-
mono culture in a selected area of mymensingh district. M. S. Ag. Production 
Econ. Thesis, Submitted to the Dept. of Ag. Econ. BAU, Mymensingh. 
Hora, S.L. and T.V.R. Pillay, 1962. Handbook of fish culture in Indo-Pacific region. FAO 
Fish Biological Paper 14. 204 pp. 
Mazid, M. A., B. C. Bakshi, A. K. Das and N. Bari, 1992. Dhaner khete macher chash 
(Booklet in Bangia, ed. K. U. Ahmed), Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, 
Farmgate, Dhaka. june, 1992. 
(Manuscript received 11 September 1997) 
98 


Rice-fish and rice mono-crop production at Gouripur, Mymensingh: an economic analysis

http://aquaticcommons.org/16392/1/BJFR2.1_091.pdf

Rice-fish and rice mono-crop production at Gouripur, Mymensingh: an economic analysis

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons