Tapan Kumar Shandilya,
- Principal, Thakur Prasad Singh College, Patliputra University, Patna, Bihar, India
Abstract
Fish farming is a vital source of livelihood, income, and nutritional security, especially in regions where aquaculture is embedded in local economies and culture. In India’s Mithila region (Bihar), fish (machh) holds substantial cultural, economic, and nutritional significance. This research analyzes the economics of pond-based fish production in Madhubani district, focusing on Benipatti Block, an area with high pond density. The study investigates determinants of productivity, profitability, and resource utilization, while examining socio-demographic and cultural factors influencing production outcomes. A dual methodological framework was employed, integrating primary field surveys with quantitative and econometric analysis. A total of 116 fish farmers were selected and categorized by pond size: Category I (smaller than two acres) and Category II (larger than two acres). Data collected included human labor (male, female, family, hired), pond area, input utilization (seed, feed, lime, fertilizers), and total production costs. Analytical tools included descriptive and inferential statistics, Cobb-Douglas and Constant Elasticity of Substitution production functions, Total Factor Productivity estimation, benefit-cost analysis, and correspondence analysis. Results show that pond size is a critical determinant of productivity and profitability. Larger ponds (Category II) yield higher absolute returns, emphasizing the importance of scale. Human labor is a central input, with male labor (ages 31–45) contributing most significantly. Female labor shows greater age diversity, with younger women in smaller ponds and older women in larger ponds. Family labor plays a crucial role in cost management, particularly for smaller ponds, enhancing economic efficiency. Capital inputs (land rent, irrigation) dominate cost structures, accounting for approximately 70% of total expenditures. Benefit-cost ratios consistently exceed one across all age groups and pond sizes, confirming economic viability. Older farmers (ages 46–60) exhibit higher efficiency due to lower input costs, optimal family labor use, and accumulated experience. Correspondence analysis reveals a significant association between farmer age and the political economy of fishing, reflecting socio-demographic influences on resource access and decision-making. The study highlights aquaculture’s broader contributions: employment generation, enhanced household income, and food security. Key interventions include improving access to quality fish seed, promoting modern scientific methods, supporting small-scale farmers, optimizing labor allocation, and ensuring efficient capital use. The study concludes that pond-based fish farming in Madhubani represents a profitable, culturally embedded, and scalable economic activity with significant potential for poverty reduction and rural transformation, provided that institutional, infrastructural, and marketing constraints are systematically addressed.
Keywords: Aquaculture economics, benefit-cost analysis, fish marketing, profitability, pond size productivity, rural livelihoods
[This article belongs to Research & Reviews : Journal of Food Science & Technology ]
Tapan Kumar Shandilya. Economics of Fish Production and Marketing: A Case Study of Madhubani District in Bihar. Research & Reviews : Journal of Food Science & Technology. 2026; 15(02):22-36.
Tapan Kumar Shandilya. Economics of Fish Production and Marketing: A Case Study of Madhubani District in Bihar. Research & Reviews : Journal of Food Science & Technology. 2026; 15(02):22-36. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/rrjofst/article=2026/view=249855
References
1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024: Blue Transformation in Action. Rome: FAO; 2024.
2. Department of Fisheries, Government of India. Annual Report 2024–25. New Delhi: Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying; 2025.
3. National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB). State-wise Fish Production Statistics 2024–25. Hyderabad: NFDB, Government of India; 2025.
4. Department of Fisheries, Government of Bihar. District-wise Fisheries Statistics 2023–24. Patna: Department of Fisheries; 2024.
5. NABARD. Potential Linked Credit Plan (PLP) for Madhubani District 2023–24. Patna: NABARD Bihar Regional Office; 2023.
6. Edwards P. Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquaculture. 2015; 447:2–14.
7. Belton B, Thilsted SH. Fisheries in transition: Food and nutrition security implications for the global South. Global food security. 2014 Feb 1;3(1):59-66.
8. Dey MM, Sudhakaran PO, Rajagopalan R. Economics of carp polyculture in West Bengal: A production function approach. Aquac Econ Manag. 2019;23(1):45–62.
9. Saha P, Hossain ME, Prodhan MM, Rahman MT, Nielsen M, Khan MA. Profit and loss dynamics of aquaculture farming. Aquaculture. 2022 Dec 15;561:738619.
10. Rasal A, Patnaik M, Murmu K, Mohanty RK, Sundaray JK, Swain JK, Mahapatra KD. Climate smart carp hatchery: Bringing resilience to sustainable fish seed production. Aquaculture. 2023 Jun 30;571:739476.
11. ICAR-Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture (ICAR-CIFA). Best Management Practices for Carp Culture in Eastern India. Technical Bulletin No. 142. Bhubaneswar: ICAR-CIFA; 2023.
12. Sarangi SK, Mohanty RK, Munilkumar S, Sundaray JK. Agroecology and Integrated Farming System. CRC Press; 2025 Mar 19.
13. Basu S, Dutta A. Marketing efficiency in freshwater fish markets of West Bengal: An empirical analysis. Indian J Agric Econ. 2021;76(3):412–428.
14. Government of Bihar. Poverty Estimates for Rural Bihar: NITI Aayog Working Paper. Patna: Planning and Development Department; 2024.
15. Reserve Bank of India. Report on Trend and Progress of Banking in India 2023–24. Mumbai: RBI; 2024.
16. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Bihar. Economic Survey of Bihar 2023–24. Patna: DES Bihar; 2024.
17. Acharya SS, Agarwal NL. Agricultural Marketing in India. 4th ed. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing; 2004.
18. Belton B, Haque MM, Little DC. Does size matter? Reassessing the relationship between pond size and productivity in Bangladesh. Aquaculture. 2011;318(1–2):140–150.
19. Rahman MA, Ali H, Mondal B. Profitability of small-scale carp farming in Bangladesh: A microeconomic analysis. Aquac Rep. 2021;20:100712.
20. Swain S, Sarangi N, Jena JK. Economics of freshwater aquaculture in Odisha: A district-level analysis. J Coast Res. 2020;36(S11):456–465.
21. Bordoloi R, Hazarika D. Economics of composite fish culture in Sonitpur district of Assam. Indian J Fish. 2019;66(2):85–92.
22. Kumar P, Gupta S, Reddy R. Semi-intensive aquaculture in Andhra Pradesh: Profitability and constraints. Aquac Int. 2022;30(4):1821–1840.
23. Poulton C, Dorward A, Kydd J. The future of small farms: New directions for services, institutions, and intermediation. World Dev. 2010;38(10):1413–1428.
24. Rahman S. Labour productivity in aquaculture: A comparative study of Bangladesh and India. Asian Fish Sci. 2019;32(S1):45–58.
25. Ali H, Rahman MS, Islam MA. Economics of Pangasius farming in Mymensingh district of Bangladesh. J Bangladesh Agric Univ. 2020;18(2):342–350.
26. Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (CIBA). Shrimp Farming Economics in India: Cost of Production Survey 2022–23. Chennai: ICAR-CIBA; 2023.
27. Sinha P, Kumar V. Value chain analysis of fish in Begusarai district, Bihar. J Agribus Dev Emerg Econ. 2025;15(1):112–128.
28. Jha AK, Chaudhary SB. Marketing channels and price spread of fish in Samastipur district, Bihar. J Inland Fish Soc India. 2024;56(1):78–89.
29. Tauer LW. Age and farmer productivity. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2018;40(2):239–253.
Research & Reviews : Journal of Food Science & Technology
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 02 |
| Received | 08/06/2026 |
| Accepted | 16/06/2026 |
| Published | 16/07/2026 |
| Publication Time | 38 Days |
Login
PlumX Metrics