Working File_Tilapia Training Need

8/8/2019 Working File_Tilapia Training Need

1/41

i

ABBRIVATION

Cons = Constrain for Tilapia culture and Tilapia farming business

DOF = Department of Fisheries, ThailandHH = Tilapia fish farmer household

Tr = Training content


2/41

1

INTRODUCTION

Tilapia is becoming the important culture freshwater specie with the large amount of production and

still demand is increasing1. Many strategies have been developed under the national policy

2in

promoting culture, marketing and quality control for certification of this specie. Farm registration,

Trader and farmer meeting, typical training, advice and service providing to fish farmer, etc areconsidered activities help expanding good quality Tilapia production.

Culture practice for Tilapia in Thailand has very long development started around 1960/1970. In early

stage of aquaculture promotion, Tilapia was the specie of interest and it was totally promoted as

extensive system to stock fish without any management for production. Later on the practice on semi-

intensive was carried out from various extension programmes to promote better production of food

fish and alternative income of household in the rural area around late 1980. Many training

programmes and typical training materials for Tilapia culture had been developed ad discrimination to

the fish farmer and the production of Tilapia showed increased significantly.

In aquaculture development process, training activities and program offer to improve experience and

knowledge in culture are crucial. Although the knowledge in tilapia culture in Thailand has long-term

promoted and the fish farmer also have good experience. The development of training programs thatenable appropriate technology to transfer to the fish farmers is still needed. In the extension point of

view, the wish of giving sound advice to fish farmers has to understand the needs of information and

knowledge in order to provide proper advises and beneficially training programme.

This training needs survey continued from the Tilapia Stakeholder Workshop which carried out in

November 2008 to broadly collect the problem and potential in improve production system. Results

summarized of four main headings highlighted of new technology, fish disease, better access to

information and fish farmer institution had been considered in developing the training materials in

order to help providing knowledge and experience in improving Tilapia culture and farming business.

The aims of this survey are to find out the need to improve Tilapia culture and Tilapia farming

business and also reduce constraints in culture through proper training process. The survey designed

according to information derived from Tilapia Stakeholder Workshops. Few specific objectives

developed in order to better understanding current situation of Tilapia culture practices, determining

the obstacles to Tilapia production process and Tilapia farming business and finding out the

requirement of training regarding the contents on Tilapia culture techniques and information included

other related topics.

1 National statisticreport of Fishery Information Technology Centre, Department of Fisheries, Thailand(Thai version)

2 Report of Tilapia workshop organized by the DOF, Thailand at Chaingrai Province(Thai version)


3/41

2

SURVEY DESIGN

The finding of training needs carried out by the use of interview face to face application. Simply

design of semi-structural questionnaire (appendix 1) applied to elicit information and perception of

Tilapia culture practice, constrains of tilapia farming and training needs for fish farmers. The survey

conducted in April 2009. A total of 47 fish farmers in Ang-thong Province which mainly the cage

culturist had joined this survey. Overall, the survey contains three parts of general information of

respondent and culture practice, constrains and difficulty encountered in Tilapia farming and the last

part of training needs as;

General information

Background information of respondents included age, gender, experience, culture practice and broad

detail information related to production and farm management.

Constrains to Tilapia farming

The survey conducted interview on situation that is presently limiting Tilapia culture and generate the

difficulty in raising the production. Fish farmer had been asked to present their perceptions on any

limitation in the production process and factors that affected yield. List bellowed of eight constrains

are from the workshops organized in November 2008 and the site visited in Mar 2009.1. Environment (Cons 1) is the major concern to the successfulness of crop. Fish farming

system is strongly needed the good environment. In addition, environmental issue had been

arisen in the Tilapia stakeholder workshops as the uncontrollable physical forces of nature.

2. Fish disease (Cons 2) for this survey is specific to Tilapia disease.

3. Information orientation and access to information of tilapia culture (Cons 3)

4. Access to information of tilapia marketing (Cons 4) is limitation in business in term of losing

ability to influence profitability of the farm enterprise.

5. Fish price (Cons 5) of both access to price information and ability to negotiate for price is

obviously one of limitation in business perspective.

6. Fish seed (Cons 6) refers to the quality and availability of good quality Tilapia seed for fish

farmer. Good quality is concerning fish health, high survival rate after stock and efficiency of

sex-reversed or percent of male in each batch.

7. Farmer organisation and connection among the farmer groups (Cons 7). As a management

point of view, fish farmer institution considers as weak management to promote Tilapia

culture and business.

8. Cost of investment for crop which mostly refers to feed (Cons 8). For cage culturist, cost of

feed found directly affect to farm enterprise as it contains of around 70 percent of total cost.

Investigating of difficulty encountered is for current situation which covers the period of three - five

years. All constrains raised to the respondents to provide the personal opinion on those are facing to

culture practices, production and farming business. Factors accepted affected their farming activities,

then, again asked for further ranked for the degree of serious affected. Scaling to degree started from

1 as the most important factors.

Training needs

Training needs is a part consider tremendous important to help increasing Tilapia production and

strengthening Tilapia farming business. The study exposes the needs of Tilapia fish farmer in

particular four main area which have been explored from Tilapia fish farmer during conducted Tilapia

Stakeholder Workshops. Training contents that has been taken into consideration for training needs

survey refers to four main headings derived from the Tilapia Stakeholders Workshops below;

1 Tilapia culture content refers to intensive culture techniques for tilapia. The content given

diverse of typical practice and also more specific to new techniques which can provide high


4/41

3

yield and/or reduce disrupting of the production process. There are seven contents

considered proper knowledge as:

1.1 Tilapia hatchery and quality Tilapia seed production process - (Tr 11).

1.2 Intensive and semi-intensive culture practice (Tr 12).

1.3 Tilapia feed and feeding - (Tr 13).

1.4 Harvesting technique - (Tr 14).

1.5 Tilapia farm management - (Tr 15).1.6 Tilapia farming in closed system - (Tr 16).

1.7 Tilapia hybrid culture (Tr 17).

2 Tilapia disease has the content concerning disease control, disease management and

chemical available and use to control disease. Fish disease training context considers the

knowledge help reducing disrupting of the production process and managing on risk of

uncontrollable physical forces of nature that affect fish health and farm hygiene. Total 6

contents in Tilapia disease can be provided as;

2.1 Tilapia fish disease management - (Tr 21).

2.2 Environmental and the affect to Tilapia disease - (Tr 22).

2.3 Caused of fish disease - (Tr 23).

2.4 Knowledge various symptoms of Tilapia disease - (Tr 24).

2.5 Chemical and medicine used for Tilapia disease - (Tr 25).

2.6 Tilapia disease management for small-scale farm - (Tr 26).

3 Information is concerning access to tilapia culture and marketing. There are 7 contents of

information required to get better in accessing as;

3.1 Tilapia culture technique - (Tr 31).

3.2 Environmental factor affect to Tilapia culture and farming - (Tr 32).

3.3 Source of information on chemical and medicine for Tilapia disease - (Tr 33).

3.4 Source of information of Tilapia price at difference market levels - (Tr 34).

3.5 Negotiate for fish price - (Tr 35).

3.6 Source of information on farming certification and farming certification system -

(Tr 36).

4 Fish farmer institution and farmer organization refer to the need of farmer organisation

establishment, conflict management and etc to strengthen tilapia farmer group and buildingfish farmer network.

4.1 Fish farmer organisation - (Tr 41).

4.2 Technique to develop proposal for funding and loan from financial institute -

(Tr 42).

4.3 Technique in straitening farmer group and build up linkage among farmer groups

- (Tr 43).

4.4 Conflict management - (Tr 44).

4.5 Building up leadership - (Tr 45).

4.6 Technique to contract and communicate with government agencies - (Tr 46).

5 Others contents

5.1 Culture technique of other species - (Tr 51).

5.2 Knowledge for Tilapia crop/production insurance - (Tr 52).5.3 Others - (Tr 53).

The dependent variable is the training information needs for Tilapia fish farmers. Result summarised

measured by subjecting the respondents to 5 major heading and total 28 contents on culture and

management practices place on scaling method. The analysis determines by ascertaining the

important and needed requirement by respondents. Any content to illustrate the important and need

for training was placed on 4 points where extremely need = 3, moderately need = 2,

marginally need = 1 and not important and no requirement for training = 0.


5/41

4

Data obtained were analysed using the statistic package JMP versio 8 (Trail version) and MS Office

Excel 2007. Results summarised for descriptive involved frequencies, percentage and mean of

perception of training material requirement. Training needs score was computes by cumulating the

total respondents score and frequency shared for all training contents. Independent variables of

socio-economic like age and gender were introduced for analysis to present difference needs among

different groups of respondents.

For this report,

Training needrefer mainly to training information and content to produce the training material support

the implement training programs.

Perceptionrefers to the opinion or view of Tilapia fish farmers on training topics with reference to the

three levels of scales (very useful/strongly required = 1, moderately = 2, marginally useful/strongly

required = 1 and not useful = 0).

Interviewing Tilapia fish farmer


6/41

5

RE

ULT

The

ey

ied

t t

ill

t

te the li

it

ti

i

Til

i

lt

e

ti

e i

A

thong inordertohel

determining

reaof interest fortheneedson trainingand

ilding

etterexperience inTilapia

farming.

esult from thesurveydivided intopartsofgeneral information, constrains inordifficulty in

Tilapiacultureand farming, trainingneeds to improvecultureandorganisation forTilapia fish farmer.

GENERAL INFORMATION OF INTERVIEW GROUP

Agegroupofrespondents

erevaries fromyoung tohighageandmostly inagroupofmid-age

eteen

and

years (figure

. It isalsonoted thatomenhashighly involved in tilapiaculture.

f total

!

"respondents,

#

respondents

ere female fish farmer(

! !

."

%

. Theobservationand

informal discussionamong fish farmers foundomen fish farmerappreciated to tilapiaculture,

especially forcageculture. It isacceptedasasuitableeconomicactivity foroman fish farmer.

$any

of themshared that cageculturecouldmade thembetter liveandhelpgeneratedgood income.

%ish farmershavegoodexperiencealthough theyhave just engaged inTilapiacultureas the

informationofculture techni&ues ispassing farm to farm included the farmervisiting fromvarious

groupsofprivateandgovernment sectors.Therespondentsexperience in tilapiaculturesummarised

ofaverage

years.'

ataobtainedshowed therangeofexperiencewasbetweenyearandup to

more than

years.(ewTilapia farmerhave just engaged inTilapiaculturebusiness influencedby

perceptionongoodopportunity forincomegenerateat the timeofhighdemandofdomestic fish

market. Interestingpoint raisedabout basicknowledgeofTilapiaculture techni&ues isavailablebut

theriskofcropsuccessfulness isstill beingabigconstrain forTilapiacultureandbusiness.

The twomajorculturepracticesofTilapiaarepondandcage.)ultureperiod fortilapia inearthen

pond isaroundoneyear.Tilapia farm ismainlysmall-scale, especiallycageculture. Thenumberofcageownedofaverage

"cageswith therange from

to

0cagesper

1 1.Thecycleofcrop forcage

culture foundhigh frequency.)ageculturist normallycarrieson

#

-3cropsperyear(0

% of total cage

culturist respondents).2enerally, cropperiod takearound

!

months.)agesi

3evaries from3x3m to

x5m. Themost commonlyused in Angthong Province is3x3m. Stockingrate foundhighof

average0

ind/m2

(n4

32). Therangeofstockingratewas from5

ind/m2up tohighstockingrateof

more than20 ind/m

2. Si

3eat first stocked isnormallyaround2 inchoraround20-25gram.

%igure2

showeddistributionofstockingrateclass for tilapiacageculture. Themost commonstockingratewas

between006

20 ind/m

2.

%igure

'

istributionofagegroupofrespondents

7

8

9 9

and5missingdata

CDF Plot

Note: 2 = 21-30 years

3 = 31-40 years

4 = 41-50 years

5 = 51-60 years

6 = more than 60 year


7/41

6

Theproduction fromcageculturereportedof fluctuationdue tomany factorofuncontrollable factors

likeenvironment andpollutionand farmmanagement. Dataobtainedofproductionvaried from500-

1,000percagepercropof themarketablesi@e from500-1,000gram.

Figure2Distributionof Stockingrate forTilapiacageculturepractice

A

B

32

CDF Plot

Note: 1 = 60 80 ind./m 2

2 = 81 100 ind./m2

3 = 101 120 ind./m2

4 = > 120 ind./m2


8/41

7

CONSTRAINS IN TILAPIA CULTURE AND FARMING BUSINESS

Thedeterminationondifficultyorconstrains inTilapiacultureandTilapia farmingbusinesshas

summrised fromallC

D

respondents. Personal perceptionwasalmost focusingon therisk toraise

successfulnesscrop.Figure2showedattitudeonobstacle factorsencountered toTilapia fish farmer

whichreferred toenvironment and farmmanagement includedorganisationand information. The

summarised frequencypresentedscorerankingofeachaspect. ClearlyshowedriskofTilapia farmingcausedbyenvironment anddiseaseand these two factorsarewidelyacceptedas themajor

constrains, especially forTilapiacageculturist.

Pricewasalsoprioritisedalthough therankof important limitation factortoTilapia farmingwasbelow

environmental and fishdisease factors.E

fa total respondent, 19 fish farmersperformed theopinion

that lowpriceofproductioncancauseof the failure toattainprofitability.FanyTilapia fish farmerhas

lessability innegotiate tobetterpriceofproduct. Additionally, most of the famersunderstand that fish

farmerorganisationcouldperhapshelpbuildingupabilityinpricenegotiation.

Duringconducted thesurvey, fish farmersprovidedaddition information that manyof them joined

informal fish farmergroup inorder to increasepower inmarketingsystemandsupport eachotherfor

loan, material, information, etc.Thepersonal attitudeofTilapia fish farmerfoundquitepositive to the

needofestablishment ofTilapia farmergroup. Therefore, low frequencyonconstrain forfarmer

organisation (Cons7)performed from thissurvey. By theway, the limitationraisedby fish farmerthe

issueof fish farmerinstitutionwas thesustainof thegroupandconnectionamongdifference fish

farmergroups toshare, knowledge, experience and informationrelated toTilapiacultureand

farming.

GimitationofTilapiamarket (Cons4)wasalsonot highprioritisedbyrespondents. Thesituationof

demandgradually increaseddue to thepotential ofexportationanddomesticdemand increasing

whereassupply isstill limited is forcingmarket expansion.Fost of fish farmersshared thepersonal

opinions forgoodopportunity toexpansescaleofproduction toservemarket demand. The limitation

raised fortilapiamarket was the lackofexperience inbuildupmarket, especially forexportation.

Tilapia fish farmersaremainlysmall-scaleand theirability inexplorenewmarket isvery limited.

Access to information (Cons3) founddoesnot beinghighprioritisedaswell asmarket issue. F ost of

the fish farmersattitudewascommunicationamong fish farmersand theconnectionbetween fish

farmerandprivatesectorand/orgovernment agency isgood. Farm isnormallyvisitedregularlyby the

middle-man, salemanagerofbigagro-industrial cooperationnamedCharoen PokphangroupCo.ltd

orknownas CP ofotherfish feedcompanyand fisheriesextensionofficer. The informationrelated

toculture technique, marketingandmarket price included farmcertification foundofnoobstacle. The

limitation in termof informationwasmainly fortechnical support toprevent andmanage forfish

disease.

Figure3Frequencychart ofattitudeonconstrains forTilapiacultureand farmingbusiness

Const1_Environment

Const2_Disease

Const3_AccInformation

Const4_TilapiaMkt

Const5_Price

ConstH

_FishSeed

Const7_FForganisation

Const I _Gover


9/41


10/41

9

Table 2 Frequency of respondents responded to constrain items and cumulative percent acceptation

of respondents by gender group

f = 21 and m =28

Freq Share ofConstrains

Gender Number of respondents response by score ranked Cumulativepercent ofacceptation

of

respondents

Notranked(0)

1 2 3 4 5 6

rank_Cons1 f 10 6 3 0 0 0 38.78 2

m 17 6 1 2 0 0 53.06 2

rank_Cons2 f 10 7 0 2 0 0 38.78 2

m 12 11 1 1 1 0 53.06 2

rank_Cons3 f 0 0 1 2 0 0 6.12 18

m 0 2 3 0 1 0 12.24 22

rank_Cons4 f 0 1 1 0 1 0 6.12 18

m 0 1 2 1 2 0 12.24 22

rank_Cons5 f 1 3 6 1 0 0 22.44 10

m 0 6 7 2 1 1 34.69 11

rank_Cons6 f 1 2 0 2 0 0 10.20 16

m 1 2 2 3 0 1 18.36 19

rank_Cons7 f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21m 0 0 0 1 0 0 2.04 27

rank_Cons8 f 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.04 18

m 0 1 0 0 0 0 2.04 22


11/41

10

RESULT OF TRAINING NEEDS

TRAINING NEEDS CONTENTS

Fourmainheadingofculture technique, fishdisease, informationand fish farmerorganisationwhich

consist of25 topics/contentsandadditional 3other topicshavebeensummarised inorder to illustrate

theneedof trainingmaterial forTilapia fish farmers. Simpleanalysisof trainingneeds iscomputing in

frequencyof49 tilapia fish farmerresponsesandpercent byscoreranked to training topics.Data

obtainedon theusefulnessandrequirement ofeachof the topic tohelpTilapia fish farmerto improve

cultureandbusiness.Figure4showed theperceptionon trainingneeds from frequencyofscorerated

foreachof the training topic fromall respondents.

From theabove figuresummarised frequencyof the training topics, thecontent of fishdisease

showedhighperception to theknowledgeand informationneeded.Thecontext ofTilapiaculture

techniques, many fish farmers interested in fourcontentsofseedproductionprocessorTilapia

hatcheries, Intensiveculture techniques, feedandfeedingandharvestingmanagement. Additionally

forfishharvesting, it wasraisedas the issue tomaintaingoodproductionandpricewhich the fish

farmerscouldgainbetterprofitability.

The fishdiseaseheading forall topicshasgot highresponses.Table2showed three topicsof the

causeofTilapiadisease, diseasemanagement, anddiseasesymptomrespondedofhighscoreand

accounted forP5.7,

P3.7and

P1.

Qpercent of total respondents. The interestingpoint found from the

survey isTilapia fish farmerhadnegativeattitudeon farmmanagement toprevent from fishdisease.

N = 49

Tr11_SeedTr12_InntensiveCul

Tr13_FeedTr14_Harvest

Tr15_FarmingTechniqueTr16_CloseSyst

Tr17_StrainTr21_DiseaseMgt

Tr22_Env&DisTr23_CauseDisTr24_DisDetail

Tr25_ChemcalUsedTr26_FMgtPrev

Tr31_AccCulTechTr32_AccEnvInfTr33_AccChemTr34_AccPriceTr35_AccNigoTr36_AccCert

Tr37_AccIntMktTr41_FFInstituteTr42_ProposalD

Tr43_StrenGroupTr44_ConflictMgtTr45_LeadershipTr46_DrilGovm

Tr51_OthSppCulTr52_Insurance

Tr53_Others

Figure4Frequencychart ofperceptionofall respondentsonrequirement to trainingcontents

Tilapia

cultu R e

tecS T

ique

Fis S

disease

Access to

information

Fis S

farmerinstitution

Other


12/41

11

Many of them mentioned of the effort spent for management on fish health and farming system. This

might be because there is an uncontrollable physical factor for cage culture practice.

Access t information is strong required for Tilapia fish farmer. Although fish farmers have quite good

experience in Tilapia culture and well communication with the outsiders, the issue of information on

new technology and knowledge on culture aspects, disease and chemical are still needed. In

consideration to the topics of information required, technical aspects ((Tr 31) found high frequency of

respondents compared to information on price and certification. Many fish farmer informed the detail

information about certification system is well delivery to fish farmer through various channels such as

the middle man, field extension officer, sale manager from feed and chemical company, etc. The

regularly farm visiting by the field extension office to inspect production process can build up

understand the certification system of food fish.

The attitude on farmer institution is interesting that many fish farmers concern of establishment the

proper organisation and build up connection among the famer groups (Tr 41). From table 2, high

frequency of response fish farmers of 87.7 percent of total samples agreed upon the need to

understand on good functioning and networking of Tilapia fish farmer. The activities under farmer

organisation included developing proposal for credit and loan (Tr 44), conflict management (Tr 44),

strengthening leadership of the member(Tr 45) have high response of 77.5, 73.5 and 69.4 percent of

total respondents. In comparison with the need on technical aspects like culture and diseasemanagement, fish farmer institution had been scored more of the moderately requirement of training

material.

About other three topics which had been raised by some fish farmers during conducted interview

survey were another species culture technique, crop insurance seed quality control. These training

topics were the interest of few fish farmers and the farmer responded to these topic had strong

required for the training material

The determination on some socio-economic dependent variables with the training needs. Chi-square

test on percent of training topic scored and gender was applied. The result clearly indicates gender

role didnt generate difference perception on information need regarding training topics. Age group is

significantly affected to the need of training contents.


13/41

12

Table 2 Perception of training needs regarding content of aquaculture and management summarised

in percent of respondents and mean score.

N = 49

Responses content Percent of respondent by score Number and

% response

need

training

%

response

not need

0

Mean

3 2 1

TUc

V W Xc

Yl

Ysp

Uc

s

a WT

Xl

Yp

X Ycul

ur

U

Tr11_Seed 53.06 14.29 10.20 (32) 77.55 22.45 1.98

Tr12_InntensiveCul 53.06 16.33 8.16 (32) 77.55 22.45 2.00

Tr13_Feed 46.94 12.24 20.41 (39) 79.59 20.41 1.86

Tr14_Harvest 24.49 10.20 12.24 (23) 46.93 53.06 1.06

Tr15_Farming Technique 36.73 22.45 8.16 (33) 67.34 32.65 1.63

Tr16_CloseSyst 0.00 2.04 0.00 (1) 2.04 97.96 0.04

Tr17_Strain 2.04 0.00 0.00 (1) 2.04 97.96 0.06

Fbs

cd

bs

d es

d

Tr21_DiseaseMgt 67.35 8.16 6.12 (40) 81.63 18.37 2.24

Tr22_Env&Dis 59.18 10.20 8.16 (38) 77.54 22.45 2.06

Tr23_CauseDis 69.39 12.24 4.08 (42) 85.71

14.29 2.37Tr24_DisDetail 61.22 18.37 4.08 (41) 83.67 16.33 2.24

Tr25_Chemcal f sed 59.18 16.33 2.04 (38) 77.55 22.45 2.12

Tr26_FMgtPrev 53.06 18.37 2.04 (36) 73.47 26.53 1.98

Access to information

Tr31_AccCulTech 32.65 28.57 12.24 (36) 73.46 26.53 1.67

Tr32_AccEnvInf 51.02 22.45 2.04 (37) 75.51 24.49 2.00

Tr33_AccChem 57.14 14.29 2.04 (36) 73.47 26.53 2.02

Tr34_AccPrice 24.49 26.53 10.20 (30) 61.22 38.78 1.37

Tr35_AccNigo 32.65 16.33 16.33 (32)65.31 34.69 1.47

Tr36_AccCert 36.73 16.33 14.29 (33) 67.35 32.65 1.57

Tr37_AccIntMkt 18.37 8.16 24.49 (25) 51.02 48.98 0.96

Fish farmer institution

Tr41_FFInstitute 40.82 30.61 16.33 (43) 87.76 12.24 2.00

Tr42_ProposalD 55.10 14.29 8.16 (38) 77.55 22.45 2.02

Tr43_StrenGroup 30.61 20.41 22.45 (36) 73.47 26.53 1.55

Tr44_ConflictMgt 18.37 22.45 28.57 (34) 69.39 30.61 1.29

Tr45_Leadership 26.53 22.45 14.29 (31) 63.27 36.73 1.39

Tr46_DrilGovm 0.00 2.04 2.04 (2) 4.08 95.92 0.06

Og h i

rcp q g i q g

s

Sc trr s q

51 2.04 0.00 0.00 (1) 2.04 97.96 0.06

Sc tr t u v 52 2.04 0.00 0.00 (1) 2.04 97.96 0.06

Sc trw x y

53 2.04 0.00 0.00 (1) 2.04 97.96 0.06

Note: level of score 3 = extremely needed, 2 = moderately needed, 1 = marginally needed = 1 and

0 = not important and no requirement for training


14/41

13

The analysis Data obtained indicated age of respondents and topics of training need is significantly

difference among different age groups. Gender role


15/41

14

DISCUSS ION

Requirement on training material is subjecting to culture process and management to increase

production and help reducing risk for Tilapia farming business of fish farmer. The survey obtained

personal attitude on the important/usefulness of 29 training topics from 49 Tilapia fish farmers to

reveal perception on important training context

The following recommendations have been made according to the results from field survey:

1. The perception of The fish farmers, especially the cage culturist mentioned that tilapia

disease is seriously affect the croup during these few years and make them feel of

uncertainty in continue the culture activities.

2. In the view of promoting gender policy to put women to boost rural economy, women found

as important group respond for culture and the information derived this activity is necessarily

to women compared to other field works like paddy, etc. Cage culture is good as it not very

hard work and they can work nearby their house which easy for them to earn money as well

as carry on their chore work. They want the problem to be solved properly so that they can

continue Tilapia culture. Most of the women are willing to get to know new technologies

included disease control practice.

3. Result clearly determined age affect to the response on training needs. The high age group

seemed to have low interest to all training programme and information. Therefore, the

development of training material must concern to the issue of age and especially the

material will be develop should consider of age.


16/41

15

APPENDIX 1

Interview form


17/41

16

APPENDIX 2

Gender By train11

CountTotal %Col %

Row %

0 1

f 510.20

45.4523.81

1632.65

42.1176.19

2142.86

m 612.2454.5521.43

2244.9057.8978.57

2857.14

1122.45

3877.55

49

Gender By train12

CountTotal %

Col %Row %

0 1

f 510.2045.4523.81

1632.6542.1176.19

2142.86

m 612.2454.5521.43

2244.9057.8978.57

2857.14

1122.45

3877.55

49

Gender By train13

CountTotal %Col %Row %

0 1

f 510.20

50.0023.81

1632.65

41.0376.19

2142.86

m 5

10.2050.0017.86

23

46.9458.9782.14

28

57.14

1020.41

3979.59

49

Gender By train14

CountTotal %

Col %Row %

0 1

f 11

22.4542.3152.38

10

20.4143.4847.62

21

42.86

m 1530.6157.69

53.57

1326.5356.52

46.43

2857.14

26

53.06

23

46.94

49

TestsN DF -LogLike RSquare (U)

49 1 0.01947497 0.0007

Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq

Likelihood Ratio 0.039 0.8435Pearson 0.039 0.8433

Fisher's ExactTest

Prob Alternative Hypothesis

Left 0.7082 Prob(train11=1) is greater for Gender=f than mRight 0.5549 Prob(train11=1) is greater for Gender=m than f2-Tail 1.0000 Prob(train11=1) is dif ferent across Gender


49 1 0.01947497 0.0007



Fisher's ExactTest


Left 0.7082 Prob(train12=1) is greater for Gender=f than mRight 0.5549 Prob(train12=1) is greater for Gender=m than f2-Tail 1.0000 Prob(train12=1) is different across Gender


49 1 0.12990765 0.0052

Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqLikelihood Ratio 0.260 0.6102Pearson 0.262 0.6089

Fisher's ExactTest




49 1 0.00341377 0.0001


Fisher's ExactTest


Left 0.5813 Prob(train14=1) is greater for Gender=f than mRight 0.6450 Prob(train14=1) is greater for Gender=m than f

2-Tail 1.0000 Prob(train14=1) is different across Gender


18/41

17

CountTotal %

Col %Row %

0 1 Gender Bytrain15

f 4

8.1625.0019.05

17

34.6951.5280.95

21

42.86

m 12

24.4975.0042.86

16

32.6548.4857.14

28

57.14

1632.65

3367.35

49



f 2142.8643.75

100.00

00.000.000.00

2142.86

m 2755.10

56.2596.43

12.04

100.003.57

2857.14

4897.96 12.04 49



f 2142.8643.75

100.00

00.000.000.00

2142.86

m 2755.1056.25

96.43

12.04

100.00

3.57

2857.14

48

97.96

1

2.04

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 4

8.1644.4419.05

17

34.6942.5080.95

21

42.86

m 510.2055.56

17.86

2346.9457.50

82.14

2857.14

918.37

4081.63

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 5

10.2045.4523.81

16

32.6542.1176.19

21

42.86

m 612.2454.55

21.43

2244.9057.89

78.57

2857.14

1122.45

3877.55

49


49 1 0.56741518 0.1162



Fisher's ExactTest


Left 1.0000 Prob(train16=1) is greater for Gender=f than m

Right 0.5714 Prob(train16=1) is greater for Gender=m than f



49 1 0.56741518 0.1162


Fisher's ExactTest



Tests

N DF -LogLike RSquare (U)49 1 0.00565859 0.0002


Fisher's ExactTest



Right 0.5999 Prob(train21=1) is greater for Gender=m than f2-Tail 1.0000 Prob(train21=1) is different across Gender


49 1 0.01947497 0.0007



Fisher's ExactTest





49 1 1.6064317 0.0519

Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqLikelihood Ratio 3.213 0.0731

Pearson 3.093 0.0786

Fisher's ExactTest Prob Alternative Hypothesis



19/41

18

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 4

8.1657.1419.05

17

34.6940.4880.95

21

42.86

m 36.12

42.86

10.71

2551.0259.52

89.29

2857.14

714.29

4285.71

49



f 48.16

50.0019.05

1734.6941.4680.95

2142.86

m 48.16

50.00

14.29

2448.9858.54

85.71

2857.14

816.33

4183.67

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 5

10.2045.4523.81

16

32.6542.1176.19

21

42.86

m 612.2454.55

21.43

2244.9057.89

78.57

2857.14

1122.45

3877.55

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 5

10.2038.4623.81

16

32.6544.4476.19

21

42.86

m 816.3361.54

28.57

2040.8255.56

71.43

2857.14

1326.53

3673.47

49

CountTotal %Col %

Row %


f 48.16

30.7719.05

1734.6947.2280.95

2142.86

m 918.3769.2332.14

1938.7852.7867.86

2857.14

1326.53

3673.47

49


49 1 0.09878373 0.0045


Pearson 0.199 0.6554

Fisher's Exact

Test





49 1 0.54063979 0.0191



Fisher's ExactTest




49 1 0.33653890 0.0167


Fisher's ExactTest




49 1 0.01947497 0.0007


Fisher's ExactTest




49 1 0.07026062 0.0025


Pearson 0.140 0.7087

Fisher's Exact

Test



2-Tail 0.7553 Prob train26=1 is different across Gender


20/41

19

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 3

6.1225.0014.29

18

36.7348.6585.71

21

42.86

m 9

18.3775.0032.14

19

38.7851.3567.86

28

57.14

1224.49

3775.51

49



f 48.16

30.7719.05

1734.6947.2280.95

2142.86

m 918.37

69.2332.14

1938.78

52.7867.86

2857.14

1326.53 3673.47 49



f 918.3747.3742.86

1224.4940.0057.14

2142.86

m 1020.4152.63

35.71

1836.7360.00

64.29

2857.14

19

38.78

30

61.22

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 10

20.4158.8247.62

11

22.4534.3852.38

21

42.86

m 714.2941.18

25.00

2142.8665.63

75.00

2857.14

1734.69

3265.31

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 8

16.3350.0038.10

13

26.5339.3961.90

21

42.86

m 816.3350.00

28.57

2040.8260.61

71.43

2857.14

1632.65

3367.35

49


49 1 0.24637983 0.0080



Fisher's ExactTest





49 1 1.0815449 0.0397


Fisher's ExactTest Prob Alternative Hypothesis



49 1 0.54063979 0.0191


Pearson 1.056 0.3042

Fisher's Exact

Test





49 1 0.12867864 0.0039


Fisher's ExactTest



Tests



Fisher's ExactTest



Right 0.0899 Prob(train35=1) is greater for Gender=m than f2-Tail 0.1339 Prob(train35=1) is dif ferent across Gender


21/41

20

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 10

20.4141.6747.62

11

22.4544.0052.38

21

42.86

m 14

28.5758.3350.00

14

28.5756.0050.00

28

57.14

2448.98

2551.02

49



f 24.08

33.339.52

1938.7844.1990.48

2142.86

m 48.16

66.6714.29

2448.98

55.8185.71

2857.14

612.24 4387.76 49



f 48.16

36.3619.05

1734.6944.7480.95

2142.86

m 714.2963.64

25.00

2142.8655.26

75.00

2857.14

11

22.45

38

77.55

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 5

10.2038.4623.81

16

32.6544.4476.19

21

42.86

m 816.3361.54

28.57

2040.8255.56

71.43

2857.14

1326.53

3673.47

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 5

10.2033.3323.81

16

32.6547.0676.19

21

42.86

m 1020.4166.67

35.71

1836.7352.94

64.29

2857.14

1530.61

3469.39

49


49 1 0.40663797 0.0135



Fisher's Exact

Test





49 1 0.01361374 0.0004


Fisher's ExactTest


Left 0.5493 Prob(train37=1) is greater for Gender=f than mRight 0.6746 Prob(train37=1) is greater for Gender=m than f2-Tail 1.0000 Prob(train37=1) is dif ferent across Gender


49 1 0.12943968 0.0071


Pearson 0.253 0.6148

Fisher's Exact

Test





49 1 0.12352159 0.0047


Fisher's ExactTest


Left 0.4451 Prob(train42=1) is greater for Gender=f than mRight 0.7981 Prob(train42=1) is greater for Gender=m than f2-Tail 0.7369 Prob train42=1 is different across Gender


49 1 0.07026062 0.0025


Pearson 0.140 0.7087

Fisher's Exact

Test





22/41

21

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 7

14.2938.8933.33

14

28.5745.1666.67

21

42.86

m 11

22.4561.1139.29

17

34.6954.8460.71

28

57.14

1836.73

3163.27

49



f 2142.8644.68

100.00

00.000.000.00

2142.86

m 2653.06

55.3292.86

24.08

100.007.14

2857.14

4795.92 24.08 49



f 2142.8643.75

100.00

00.000.000.00

2142.86

m 2755.1056.25

96.43

12.04

100.00

3.57

2857.14

48

97.96

1

2.04

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 20

40.8241.6795.24

1

2.04100.00

4.76

21

42.86

m 2857.1458.33

100.00

00.000.00

0.00

2857.14

4897.96

12.04

49

CountTotal %

Col %Row %


f 20

40.8241.6795.24

1

2.04100.00

4.76

21

42.86

m 2857.1458.33

100.00

00.000.00

0.00

2857.14

4897.96

12.04

49


49 1 1.1510410 0.1378


Fisher's ExactTest




49 1 0.86122036 0.1764


Fisher's ExactTest




49 1 0.01361374 0.0004


Fisher's ExactTest





49 1 0.56741518 0.1162


Pearson 0.766 0.3816

Fisher's Exact

Test




Tests




Fisher's ExactTest





23/41

22


24/41

23

A

EN

2

Analysison training topicandagegroup

Logi

i

i

of

i

ge

Logi

i

i

of

i

ge

Logi

i

i

of

i

ge

W

ole Model

estModel LogLi

eli

ood

iS j

k

le P

lob>ChiS

Difference 3.959187 1 7.918373 0.0049*Full 19.623048

meduced 23.582235

m Square (U) 0.1679Observations (orSum

n

gts) 44ConvergedbyGradient

P

meterEstim

tesoerm Estim

k

te Std Error ChiS j

k

re Prob>ChiS

Intercept[0] -5.7729953 1.9686493 8.60 0.0034*Age 1.08540925 0.4367036 6.18 0.0129*

Whole Model

estModel LogLi

elihood

ChiS

re Prob>ChiS

Difference 1.516613 1 3.033226 0.0816Full 20.775528

educed 22.292141

Square (U) 0.0680

Observations (orSum


Pz

rameterEstimates{erm Estimate Std Error ChiS

| }are Prob>ChiS

|

Intercept[0] -4.0089305 1.7033624 5.54 0.0186*

Age 0.64551907 0.3869057 2.78 0.0952

Whole Model~

estModel LogLi

elihood

ChiS

are Prob>ChiS

Difference 2.239210 1 4.47842 0.0343*Full 20.052930

educed 22.292141

Square (U) 0.1004

Observations (orSum

gts) 44

ConvergedbyGradient

ParameterEstimateserm Estimate Std Error ChiS

are Prob>ChiS

Intercept[0] -4.6860702 1.8113457 6.69 0.0097*Age 0.8021305 0.4055424 3.91 0.0479*


25/41

24

Logisti

itoftrai

ge

Whole Model

est

Model

LogLi

elihood

ChiS

are Prob>ChiS

Difference 2.137892 1 4.275783 0.0387*Full 28.360584

educed 30.498476

Square (U) 0.0701

Observations (orSum

gts) 44

ConvergedbyGradient

ParameterEstimateserm Estimate Std Error ChiS

are Prob>ChiS

Intercept[0] -2.4805461 1.305989 3.61 0.0575Age 0.63556503 0.3255596 3.81 0.0509

Logisti

itoftrai

ge

Whole Model

estModel

LogLi

elihood

ChiS

are Prob>ChiS

Difference 1.417237 1 2.834474 0.0923Full 23.325509

educed 24.742746

Whole Model

estModel

LogLi

elihood

ChiS

are Prob>ChiS

Difference 2.239210 1 4.47842 0.0343*Full 20.052930

educed 22.292141

Square (U) 0.1004

Observations (orSum


ParameterEstimates

erm Estimate Std Error ChiS

are Prob>ChiS

Intercept[0] -4.6860702 1.8113457 6.69 0.0097*Age 0.8021305 0.4055424 3.91 0.0479*


26/41


27/41

26

Whole odel Test

odel -LogLikelihood DF ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq

Difference 0.0038874 1 0.007775 0.9297Full 4.7688515Reduced 4.7727389

RSquare (U) 0.0008Observations (or Sum Wgts) 44

Converged by Gradient

Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] 4.09859896 3.992727 1.05 0.3046 Age -0.0853443 0.9661295 0.01 0.9296

Logistic Fit of train21 By Age

Whole odel Test





Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] -5.4881529 2.2004627 6.22 0.0126* Age 0.86077498 0.4762209 3.27 0.0707


28/41

27


Whole

odel Test

odel -LogLikelihood DF ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqDifference 1.712992 1 3.425984 0.0642

Full 17.566018Reduced 19.279010



Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] -4.8555573 1.977452 6.03 0.0141*

Age 0.76360091 0.4365379 3.06 0.0803


Whole

odel Test

odel -LogLikelihood DF ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqDifference 2.858559 1 5.717119 0.0168*Full 14.666954

Reduced 17.525513



29/41

28


Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] -6.6181659 2.4595716 7.24 0.0071* Age 1.10741563 0.5200045 4.54 0.0332*


Whole odel Test


Difference 2.858559 1 5.717119 0.0168*Full 14.666954Reduced 17.525513






30/41

29

Whole odel Test


Full 19.263892Reduced 20.862130

RSquare (U) 0.0766

Observations (or Sum Wgts) 44




Whole

odel Test


Full 20.775528Reduced 22.292141





31/41

30


Whole

odel Test


Full 20.338525Reduced 20.862130



Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] -3.0640419 1.6401071 3.49 0.0617

Age 0.3860903 0.3818788 1.02 0.3120


Whole

odel Test

odel -LogLikelihood DF ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqDifference 2.575939 1 5.151879 0.0232*Full 16.703071

Reduced 19.279010



32/41

31




Whole odel Test-








33/41

32

Whole odel Test


Full 26.866659Reduced 28.232012

RSquare (U) 0.0484





Whole

odel Test


Full 25.333595Reduced 26.706399





34/41


35/41

34


Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] -1.9149099 1.2536766 2.33 0.1267 Age 0.4167422 0.3066846 1.85 0.1742


Whole odel Test








36/41

35

Whole odel Test

odel -LogLikelihood DF ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqDifference 5.986305 1 11.97261 0.0005*

Full 14.875825Reduced 20.862130

RSquare (U) 0.2869





Whole

odel Test


Full 19.623048Reduced 23.582235





37/41

36


Whole

odel Test


Full 19.856425Reduced 24.742746



Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] -6.1269673 2.0029817 9.36 0.0022*

Age 1.20141476 0.4469618 7.23 0.0072*


Whole

odel Test

odel -LogLikelihood DF ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqDifference 0.897374 1 1.794747 0.1803Full 27.334638

Reduced 28.232012



38/41

37


Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] -2.3165907 1.3244035 3.06 0.0803 Age 0.41671135 0.317793 1.72 0.1898


Whole odel Test








39/41

38

Whole odel Test


Full 4.3369428Reduced 4.7727389

RSquare (U) 0.0913



Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] 0.18028267 3.8867788 0.00 0.9630 Age 1.04416779 1.2395651 0.71 0.3996


Whole

odel Test


Full 4.7688515Reduced 4.7727389





40/41

39


Whole

odel Test


Full 4.7688515Reduced 4.7727389



Parameter EstimatesTerm Estimate Std Error ChiSquare Prob>ChiSqIntercept[0] 4.09859896 3.992727 1.05 0.3046

Age -0.0853443 0.9661295 0.01 0.9296


41/41

REFERENCE

F.A.O(1992) Planning for effective training: A guide to curriculum development. Rome, F.A.Opublisher.

Fishery Information Technology Centre . (2007) Fisheries statistics of Thailand 2005. Department

of Fisheries, Technical Report No 6/2005, Bangkok, Thailand. 91 pages.

Working File_Tilapia Training Need

Documents