Abstract
There was a large number of aquaculture extension projects implemented by the DOF however, the
comprehensive assessment of extension activities were hardly done. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of NATP's aquaculture extensions part (DOF component) through characterisingextension delivery mechanisms of aquaculture technologies, assessing effectiveness of extension
approach in terms of knowledge-base and system productivity of aquaculture farms and findingout major factors affecting the extensions along with its broader impacts at the farmer level in six
upazilas of Bangladesh. Four upazilas namely, Muktagachha, Gauripur, Rangpur Sadar and Mithapukur were selected from NATP area and two, Kurigram Sadar and Ulipur were from nonNATP area. The questionnaire surveys (N=360) along with PRA tool, particularly 24 sessions of
FGD were done to collect data. Key informant's interview was carried out with CIG leaders,
extension workers, project and DOF staffs both from field and PIU levels. In terms of livelihoods
assets, no significant difference (p>0.05) was found between the NATP and non-NATP farmers
however, most of the livelihoods indicators were better for NATP farmers. Agriculture tended to be
the main occupation of NATP farmers while about 20% of farmers reported aquaculture as their
main occupation in both areas. NATP applied decentralized extension mechanisms including the
intervention of CIG, FIAC, LEAF, PO, micro extension plan, training, demonstration, exposure visit
and farmers' field day, which were absent in non-NATP area. Most of the extension delivery tools
were found to be effective though there were some limitations both from project authority and field offices. The SWOT analysis identified a number of weaknesses and threats of the project approaches
which includes insufficient monitoring at different tires, inadequate co-ordinations among extension service providers and policy makers, inadequate logistic supports to extension workers as well as their stakeholders. Almost all the farmers of both NATP and non-NATP areas received basic knowledge on aquaculture and pond management, though mean score of aquaculture knowledge in NATP area was higher (28.14±3.822) than that of non-NATP study area (22.76±5.544). There were highly significant difference (p<0.05) in mean score of aquaculture knowledge of respondents of the study area. In case of stocking management, feeding, disease control and post harvest handling,
NATP respondents had higher level of knowledge. On the other hand, opposite scenario was observed in case of using manure and fertilizer, which indicates NATP farmers reached to an advanced stage of aquaculture practices intensifying their production systems receiving modern knowledge from extension activities. Carp polyculture was most widely practiced package in the study area, however a diversified aquaculture packages (18 packages) were practiced by NATP farmer compared to non-NATP (10 packages) farmers. NATP farmers reduced excessive stocking density of their farms to an optimum level after having extension services. NATP farmers tended to stock bigger size fingerlings and used artificial feeds with higher protein level while non-NAТР farmers followed traditional supplementary feeding. A remarkable increase (177%) of pellet feed
users and decrease (69.5%) of loose feed users found in NATP areas. The systems' productivity of NATP farmers was increased to a greater extent (form 3,318±186kg to 7,000±327kg/ha) than that of non-NATP farmers (from 2,458+125kg to 4,017±182kg/ha). The Cobb-Douglas production function model was used to estimate the values of co-efficients and related statistics of production function of aquaculture in both areas. All of four explanatory variables in NATP area were significant at 1% level both before and after intervention while, three variables in non-NATP area found insignificant at 1, 5 and 10% level. An on-farm trial to assess water quality parameters, growth performances and length-weight relationship of similar demonstration package in NATP and non-NATP area was performed. There were no significant differences for water quality parameters between NATP and non-NATP ponds found though higher fish production was obtained in NATP areas. Though some interventions/supports were appreciable, but insufficient financial and logistic supports affected the extension approach, technology dissemination and adoption of NATP farmers.