The Effects of Fish Pond Establishment on Social conditions of farmers in Ardal County, Chaharmahal Bakhtiary: Iran
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences.
Available online at www.ijagcs.com
IJACS/2013/5-16/1745-1751
ISSN 2227-670X ©2013 IJACS Journal
The Effects of Fish Pond Establishment on Social
conditions of farmers in Ardal County,
Chaharmahal Bakhtiary: Iran
Alireza Ansari-ardali1, Shapoor Zarifian2, Mehdi Rahimian3, Yaser Mohammadi4,
Seyed Abolhasan Sadati5
1. Ph.D. Student of Agricultural Extension and DevelopmentDepartment, Tabriz University
2. Associate Professor of Agricultural Extension and Development Department, Tabriz University
3, 4, 5. Ph.D. Students of Agricultural Development, Economic and Development faculty, University of
Tehran
Corresponding author: Alireza Ansari-ardali
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this research was examining the effects of fish ponds
establishment of Ardal County in Chaharmahal Bakhtiary province.Population of the study
consisted of 171 fish farming units. By Using Cochran formula, 75 units were selected
assample size with random sampling research method. Data were collected through a
questionnaire, which its reliability was confirmed by Cronbach alpha coefficient that was above
73%. Also the validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by Opinions of fishery department
Experts at Tehran University and the experts of fishery organization in Chaharmahal Bakhtiary
province and finally the data were analyzed using SPSS software. The results showed that all
of farmers were men and the majorities were illiterate. Priority determination results also
showed that the increasing of the training courses in field of Fish farming and participation of
farmers in these courseswere considered as the most important effects. According to factor
analysis results, social effects were categorized in four groups (Four Improvement)
respectively their importance consisted of "life quality improvement", "culture improvement and
migration decrease", "welfare improvement and social security" and "awareness increase and
farmers participation improvement" that the life quality improvement was recognized as the
most important social effect of fish ponds establishment. Therefore it is recommended that in
high potentially regions in Water resources in Chaharmahal province increase the fish pond
establishment because there are benefits more than agronomy or horticulture in this province.
Key words: fish farming, social effects, life quality improvement, Ardal County.
INTRODUCTION
The speed of world's population increasing, procedure of nutrition production enhancementand
Agricultural production distribution system are indicative of this fact that the needed nutritionof world’s
people will provide difficultly in future (Moeininan, 2006). As it is estimated, 10 millions of the world people
die yearly because of mal nutrition and starvation (Santanam et al., 2005). In recent years, marine sources
and hunting of marines, were one of the main sources of providing food for the human,Forozanfar (2006)
reported seas and oceans are capable of producing of 240 million tons of fish, from this amount we should
know that 80 million tons are dedicated to reproductive supplies and 80 million tons are dedicated as
nutrients of other fish, so human can just rely on the remaining 80 million tons of fishes which exist in seas.
It is not expected that the marine sources can provide the continualprotein needs (Santanam et al., 2005)
in fact the possibility of supply increasing foredible marine products from seas isalmost low, So the
increasing of demand for the marine foods must be provided from the fish farming in ponds (Salehi,
2002).“According to Tavasoli (2008), aquaculture is the maintenance and farming of the aquaticsin
controlled situations". But for FAO (2001) isthe farming of marine animates such as: fish, mollusks,
crustacean, lizard, crocodile, turtle, amphibian, water plants (FAO, 2001). Fish farming is the main form of
aquaculture, while other forms of farmingcan be placed in mariculture district. Fish farming is commercial
fish growing and farming in ponds and closed environments, in order to provide food or food products
(Wikipedia, 2007). The statistics show that among food producingunits, fish farming has the highest grow,Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (16), 1745-1751, 2013
as the production through fish farming ponds in the world has increased fromlower than3 million tons in
1950 to 47.8 million tons in 2005. It should be mentioned that the total fish supply of the world in 2005 was
141.6 million tons, which 93.8 million tons was related to supply trough hunting but 47.8 million tons was
supplied through fish farming ponds (FAO, 2006). Based on the estimation fish production as food will
reach 150 million tons by 2030 and if this increasing process continues up to 2020, fish farming will
surpass fish hunting (Fosupit and Franz, 2006). Although aquaculture has old antecedent of about
thousands of years (Stickney, 1994; Pillay, 1990 & 1994) in a country like china, its antecedent is about
2700 BC (Paighan, 2005). But it is rather considered to be new in most of the countries like Iran (Nash,
1995&1997; Jolly and Clonts, 1993; Salehi, 1999). Howeverfish ponds in potential regions of Iran are
increasing, but the average of per capita consumption of the marines in Iran is only 7 kilograms, while inthe
world this average is about 16.5 kilograms (Toloe, 2008). In Chaharmahal Bakhtiary province for good
naturalconditions, aquaculture had a significantprogress in recent years. Since in this province, two big
rivers (Karoon and Zayanderood) exist, it is considered to be potential regions for farming cold water
fishes. The existence of 1439 springs, 459 Qantas, 3194 Wells, 22 rivers and 2 important lagoons are
indications that allow Chaharmahal Bakhtiary province to be recognized as the most important producer of
cold water fish in Iran up to the end of 2007. Total production of cold water fishes in Iran was 56447 tons in
2007 that share of Chaharmahal province was10043 tons which is 18% of the total amount of fish
production.From the existing 263 fish farming units of this province, 171 units are placed in Ardal County
(Agricultural Organization of Chaharmahal Bakhtiary Province, 2007). Establishment ofaforementioned
nits during recent years was able to create considerable effects on social status of the inhabitants of this
County directly or indirectly. Several studies on establishment of fish pond have been done and they are
necessary to be mentioned for this investigation. Here we can cite the following cases of investigation:
Frankic and Hershner (2003) recognized following effects as social effects of aquatic farming: Increasing
household food supply and nutrition improvement, Improving water resource and nutrient, management at
household or community levels, Reducing pressure on fishery resources if done sustainably, Improving
and enhancing habitats, Stimulates research and technology development and Increase education and
environmental awareness. Also Edward (2000) concluded that Aquaculture positive social and
environmental benefits make it an attractive entry point to improve the livelihoods of the poor in rural
development programming. It can enable society to alleviate under nutrition and elimination of poverty.
Totally the social effects of aquaculture in rural poor people life can be categorized in two groups of direct
and indirect benefits:
Direct benefits
Food of high nutritional value, especially for vulnerable groups such as pregnant and lactating
women, infants and pre-school children.
Own enterprise employment, including for women and children.
Indirect benefits
Increased availability of fish in local rural and urban markets, which may bring prices down.
Employment on larger farms, in seed supply networks, market chains and manufacture/repair functions.
Increased farm sustainability through:
Establishment of ponds which also serve as small-scale, on-farm reservoirs
rice/fish culture as a component of integrated pest management.
In an investigation carried out in Africa Brumment et al (2008) showed that fish farming when be
supported by governmental policies, can lead to increase food security. This was further confirmed by
other studies (Minh duc, 2007; Dugan et al, 2006;Yang Yu Feng et al, 2004;Ahmed and Lorica, 2002).
Engle (2008) also claim that Mariculture can be an important contributor to food security and provide
important health and nutritional benefits. However Negative social impacts can occur if the poor and
landless lose access to coastal resources as marculture grows. According to results of Goswami and
Sathiadhas (2000) in Assam, the community fish farming program has played a significant role in
improving the socio-economic status of the villagers and Seminars and workshops are organized to create
awareness about fish culture and to develop human resources. FAO also emphasis that aquaculture has
an important role in food provision, income, employment, currency obtaining and rural expansion (FAO,
2000).The main problem in Ardal County can be explained that it seems fish pond establishment has a
many social effects that lead to improvement of better life quality because this region has high potential
such as water resources but many of their people don’t have awareness about these benefits and prefer to
doing other work that lead to waste of water resources so the main objective of this research was
recognizing social effects of fish farming ponds establishment and Suitable strategies for improvement of
these effects.
1746Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (16), 1745-1751, 2013
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study used a survey design for data collection. The study area consisted of Ardal County in
Chaharmahal Bakhtiary Province, one of the Western provinces of Iran where a leading province in
Aquaculture production in Iran is. Statistical population was 171 units of fish ponds which 75 units using
Cochran formula by random sampling were selected as sample. Data were collected using questionnaire
which its validity was confirmed by fishery department in Tehran University Experts and fishery
organization experts in Chaharmahal province. Reliability of questionnaire also was confirmed by
calculating Cronbach alphacoefficientfor social effects scale of fish farming ponds establishment which was
above%73 and means acceptable reliability. The data was analyzedusing SPSS software. It should be
mentioned that for providing scale of social effects fish farming ponds establishment, after investigating
past research and consult with experts and observation of region status, this scale that was composed of
13 variables (social effects) codified and developed and was given to the fish farmers. The scale was
based on Likert’s spectrum and farmers express their view points about the intensity of each effect from
very low (1) to very high (5). Priority determination wascarried outusing coefficient of variation (CV) as
every effect had a high importance for the respondents had a lower coefficient of variation. So the social
effects was sort from low to high respectively that was representative importance from high to low.
RESULTS
Socio-economic characteristics of fish farmers
The survey result of the individual and social characteristics of fish farming in Ardal County
showed that the majority of farmers (about 45.3%) are in middle aged class (40 to 50 ages) with the
average of 43 years and all of them were men (100%). Most of the farmers (about 29.3%) were illiterate.
Although (about 13.3%) of them had junior college degree and (about 10. 7%) were bachelor and above.
The results showed that fish farming was the main job forabout 37.7% of fish farmers and secondary job
for the rest ( about 62.3%)of farmers. The average monthly income of farmers before and after the
establishment of fish pond was $260 and $510respectively. The size of the fish pound is between 400 to
2000 m2 and the average of their size was 723 m2 that most of them (about 78%) were lower than 800 m2.
The average number of practitioners in each of these units was about 2 persons and the minimum and
maximum ofpractitioners was 1 to 5 personsrespectively. Most of the fish farmers constructed their
fishponds (about 72%) through bank credits,about 25.3% of all the fish farmers constructed their units by
using their personal capital and the remaining (about 2/7%) constructed their units by using these two
types of capitals of their exploiting units. Water provision source of most of the fish farmers (about 64%)
was a mixture of well and shaft andabout 36% of the total number of fish farmers provide their needed
water from rivers. Most of the fish farmers (about 61.3%) sell their produced fishes through dealers and the
remaining fish farmers sell their fishes through shopkeepers (about 26.7%) and direct supply (about 12%)
to consumers. The productive capacity of these units vacillates between 1 to 10 tons and the average
production of every unit is 4.04 tons. That most of them (about 90.7%) produced lower than 6 tons. The
feed of the fish in most of the units (about 82.6%) was provided through markets freely and the remaining
units were given to the fish farmers through cooperatives. About the way of receiving Information offish
ponds problems in all before, current and after productionstages, the majority of the fish farmers (about
72%) received their necessary information through agricultural organization and the remaining fish farmers
obtained their necessary information through scientific magazines, radio and TV, other fish farmers, private
consult centers, and other informational sources. In finally that all of the fish farmers are not supported by
any syndicate.
The priority determination of fish ponds social effects from farmer’s point of view
According to priority determination of social effects in Table 1, at the first farmers believed that
establishment offish ponds lead to increase of training courses about fish farming and then increase the
participation of people in thesecourses, so these two effects be up priority. After these effects, fish ponds
lead to increase of the young people's interest about fish farming and farmers believed that this effects is
the third priority effect and the fourth effect is the inhabitant's nutrition improvement and decrease of
migration to other cities is the fifth priority effect that farmers has mentioned. So it can be said that from
farmer’s point of view, the five most important effects are respectively about educational and awareness,
interesting and willing, nutrition improvement and stability in Ardal County. The other social effects are
mentioned from high to low priority in Table 1.
1747Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (16), 1745-1751, 2013
Table 1. The priority determination of fish ponds social effects from farmer’s point of view
Standard
Social Effects of Fish Farming Ponds Establishment Mean CV Priority
Deviation
Training courses about fish farming have been increased 0.604 4.65 0.130 1
Caused the increase of people's participation in training courses 0.625 4.62 0.131 2
The young people's interest about fish farming has been increased 0.639 4.59 0.139 3
Caused the improvement of inhabitant's nourishment according to the development of marines 0.644 4.48 0.144 4
farming
Migration to other cities has been decreased 0.626 4.35 0.144 5
Caused the improvement of life status because of improvement of income status of fish trainers 0.678 4.40 0.154 6
Caused the increase of information and knowledge of the trainers 0.644 4.21 0.158 7
Caused promotion in culture level for using and farming marines among region's inhabitants 0.690 4.36 0.158 8
The welfare of people was increased in relation to before the establishment unit 0.791 4.32 0.183 9
Caused the knowledge enhancement in consumers about fish benefits 0.778 4.17 0.187 10
Caused the improvement in social relationship among farmers 0.805 3.40 0.237 11
Struggle about water sources has decreased 0.924 3.72 0.248 12
Caused the increase in women's participation in fish farming 0.734 0.97 0.765 13
Scale: nothing (0), very low (1), low (2), intermediate (3), high (4), very high (5)
For the purpose of description of social effects amount From the fish farmers point of view, these effects
were divided through interval of standard deviation from mean (ISDM).
A: Min AIntl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (16), 1745-1751, 2013
As results of table 4 show, the effects of fish farming ponds establishment are categorized in four
main factors, that they totally indicate 60.03% of the total variance. The first factor (life quality
improvement) having Eigen value of 1.65, as the most important factor, just by itself indicated 16.55 of total
variance and this shows the importance of this factor. The other factors indicated 15.58, 15.06 and 12.82
percent respectively of total variance bases on existing results; the life quality was specified as the most
important social effect for establishment of fish farming ponds in ArdalCounty. In table (5) the nominated
factors as well as related variables and related factor are mentioned.
Table 5. Specification of effective factors on ponds, variables, and social's factorial intensity
Factor
Factor Name Variables
Load
Caused the improvement of in habitant's nourishment according to the development of
Life quality 0.79
aquaculture.
improvement
Caused the increasing of life quality, because of improvement of income status of fish
0.74
farmers.
Increase of Caused the increase of people's participation in training courses. 0.71
knowledge and Caused the increase of information and knowledge of the fish farmers. 0.66
participation Caused improvement in social relationship among fish farmers. 0.41
Caused the knowledge enhancement in consumers about fish benefits. 0.31
Improvement of social The welfare of people was increased before establishment of unit. 0.76
well faire and social
Struggle about water sources have been decreased. 0.73
security
Progress of culture Migration to around cities has been decreased. 0.76
and decrease of
Caused promotion in using marines and raising them among the region's inhabitants. 0.70
migration
As it is observed in table (5), life quality improvement was the most important social effect of fish
farming ponds establishment in Ardal County. The other factors respectively consist of information and
participation increase, social welfare and social security improvement and culture progress and migration
decrease, extracted from inside the variables.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this research showed that all the fish farmers (100%) are men. The priority
determination of fish farming ponds establishment on social status show that the women's participation in
fish farming is placed on the last priority, from importance point of view. In fact women have no role in fish
farming. Since the ignorance of women's participation in agricultural development planning's, seems to be
illogical, it is necessary to hold operations, such as editing the women's training, investment and support
policies to increase the women's participation in production and fish farming, so that the benefits of this
affair such as income increase and employment, include women's status. According to the research
findings which showed that most of the fish farmers (29.3%) are illiterate, the suitability of given educations
and the learner group should be considered and suitable training methods should be used according to
adult needs. In respect to credit provision sources we can say that Most of the fish farmers (72%) provide
their credits from banks. As Minh Duc (2007) results showed, investment in aquaculture field cause income
increase and reciprocally income increase cause investment increase, too. So it is recommended that the
banks provide the necessary capital for new unit’s establishment and also developing the existing units
and give fish farmer’s necessary facilities especially in first stages of the activity. Also the research findings
showed that most of the fish farmers sale (61.3%) is done through dealers and fish foods of the most of the
fish farmers is provided through market freely so it is suggested that for the purpose of removing the
dealers and providing needed safe food with suitable price (82.6%) the fish farmers should construct a fish
farmers union, that this affair cause income increase and solution of related difficulties. The results showed
that the needed water supply of most of the units (64%) is provided form wells and shafts for this reason,
necessary educations to prevent underground water and under on ground waters to be contaminated
should be offered to fish farmers through cooperative or related government organizations, because
according to sustainable development principles, precision in retaining the resources for future generations
seem to be a considerable problem.
In priority determination of fish farming ponds establishment on social status of fish farmers, the
results showed that increase of training courses and increase of people's participation, in these courses
are examples of the effects that from importance point of view can be put on the first and second priorities
and this show that, establishment of ponds for fish farming could attract the governmental authorities
attention and other official organizations to necessary education and in this case the fish farmers were
supported by these organizations. If fish farming, according to the statements of Brumment et al. (2008),
are supported by government in poor countries it can improve the food security. The offered training by
1749Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (16), 1745-1751, 2013
government organization should be according to educational needs of fish farmers and their literacy level.
The increase of young people's interest in fish farming was one of the next effects that are mentioned by
fish farmers, and it can be said that it is result of holding training courses and employment provision for
young people by fish farming units. Frankis and Hershner (2003) in their studies have reached to the same
result that one of the important effects in aquaculture is increase education and environmental awareness.
The next priority in this study was improvement of the region inhabitant's nourishment in respect of fish
production development. The result of this research and other researches (Ahmad and Lorica, 2002;
Frankic and Hershner; 2003, Yang Yu Feng et al., 2008; Engle, 2008) showed that aquaculture causes
improvement of food security of people especially vulnerable groups such as women, children and old
persons and because of the especial nourishment benefits of marines. They can be used to provide food
security for the poor people also among the other effects of fish farming ponds on social status of fish
farmers, according to the operated priority determination we can mention the life quality improvement of
the fish farmers because of their income increase. The present research findings confirm other findings
researches which are according to this field (Edward, 1996 & 2000; Minh Duc et al., 2007). In factorial
analysis which is operated for the purpose of identification of basic effects (total factors) of fish farming
ponds establishment life quality improvement of the fish farmers was placed at first priority and was
extracted as the first factor. The second extracted factor was nominated as knowledge and participation
increasing of fish farmers as it was mentioned in previous lines, holding of training courses by formal
organizations and people' participation in these teams, caused fish farmer's knowledge and information
increase and also causes improvement of social relationship among themselves by presentation of them in
these courses on the other hand fish farming ponds establishment caused knowledge increase in the
region consumers, about the benefits of fishes. Social welfare improvement as well as culture progress
and decrease of migration, although are placed in next priorities but this point is not because of third and
fourth item, but is more because of high importance of the first and second priorities. However many of
respondents said that progress and welfare of people increased rather than before establishing fish
farming units and in comparison to before, people have move social security and welfare, so that the
increase of welfare in the researched region caused migration decrease of people to other cities among
the obtained results in this research which are gained from categorization of effects rate of fish farming
ponds establishment on social status of fish farmers from their point of view, we can say that most of
trainers (56%) estimated the effects intensity to be partly high and high and they believe that social effects
of fish farming ponds establishment in the region are considerable.
CONCLUSION
The present research findings showed that the effects of fish farming on social life of most of the
people (56%) are estimated to be high, and as it is mentioned before fish farming has an important role in
social life of people, so that in recent years, in regions where aquaculture is as an income source, it
caused social progress of inhabitants. In total we concluded that fish farming pond in Ardal County had
positive social effects such as Nutrition security increase, Social life improvement of people, The people'
awareness about fish farming increase and migration reduction. So with attention to problems and
difficulties such as shortage of fertile lands, lands fragmentation, yield decrease and production difficulties
in agriculture section in Ardal county, it is suggested that government support farmers financially to
motivate them for development of fish farming in regions where has high potential for establishment of fish
ponds.Also with formation of farmer’s union, possibility of development these fish ponds and fish exports
will grow and Ardal people can be advantaged from effects. Agricultural Extension organization also can
with training courses and educational brochures, give clear viewpoint about social and economical benefits
of fish farming to people.
REFERENCES
Agricultural Organization of Chaharmahal Bakhtiary Province.2007. The report of abilities and activities of operational restricts of
agriculture organization in Chaharmahal Bakhtiary province, pp.146-151.
Ahmed M, Lorica MH.2002. “Improving developing country food security through aquaculture development lessons from Asia”,
Journal of Food Policy, 27: 125–141.
Brumment RE, Lazard R, John M. 2008. “African aquaculture: Realizing the potential”, Journal of food policy, 33, 371-385.
Dugan P, Madan MD, Sugunan VV.2006. “Fisheries and water productivity in tropical river basins: Enhancing food security and
livelihoods by managing water for fish”, Journal of Agricultural Water Management 80; 262–275.
Edwards P, Demaine H, Innes-Taylor N, Turongruang D.1996.“Sustainable aquaculture for small scale farmers: need for a balanced
model”, Outlook Agric 25(1), 19–26.
Edwards P.2000. AQUACULTURE, POVERTY IMPACTS AND LIVELIHOODS. Natural Resource perspectives. Number 56, June
2000. 1- 4 P.
Engle Claud R. 2008. Mariculture, Economic and Social Impacts,Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, 2008, Pages 3925-3932.
FAO.2000. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome, Italy. 142 P.
1750Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (16), 1745-1751, 2013
FAO.2006.aqualture in the third millennium online first: http://www.fao.org.DOCREP.003.AB412E.AB412E00.HTM.
Forozanfar A.2006. Free propagation and training of fish, research institute of Iran press- Iran information management, pp.1-2.
Frankic A, Carl H.2003. Sustainable aquaculture: developing the promise of aquaculture. Aquaculture International 11: 517–530,
2003. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Goswami M, Sathiadhas R.2000. Fish Farming Through Community Participation in Assam, Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly, 23(
3).July-September 2000.
http://www.springerlink.com.content.e77512328l010381.?p=7fd8504311494943a6762be0e6fd7739&pi=0
Jolly CM, Clonnts IIA.1993. Economics of Aquaculture. Haworth Press Inc. Binghamton, New York, USA. 319 P.
Josupeit H, Franz N.2006. Aquaculture – Trade, Trends, Standards and Outlooks. FAO Fisheries Department.
Minh Duc N.2007. Economic contribution of fish culture to farm income In Southeast Vietnam, Aquaculture International, online first:
Moeininan MT.2006. The principles of warm waters fish training, Jahad-e-Daneshgahi Institute Press of Isfahan, pp.25-29.
NACA FAO.2001. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Subasinghe, R.P., Bueno, P., Phillips, M.J., Hough, C., McGladdery, S.E., &
Arthur, J.E. (Eds.) Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand. 20-
25 February 2000. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome. 471pp.
Nash CE.1995. Aquaculture sector planning and management. Fishing News Books, London, UK, 310 P.
Nash CE.1997. Iran develops farms skills to meet fishing needs. Fish farming International, 24( 4), 26-28.
Nhan DK, Phong LT, Verdegem MJC, Duong LT, Bosma RH, Little DC.2007. Integrated freshwater aquaculture, crop and livestock
production in the Mekong delta, Vietnam: determinants and the role of the pond. Agric Syst 94(2):445–458.
Peyghan R, Abdolahshaee M.2005. The management of warm water fish farming farmers, fish sanitation and Nutrition, Daryasar
press, pp 11-15, 264.
Pillay TVR.1990. Aquaculture principles and practices. Fishing News Book Ltd., London. UK. 575 P.
Pillay TVR.1994. Aquaculture development: progress and prospects, Fishing News Book Ltd., London. UK. 182 P.
Salehi H.1999. Strategic analyses of carp culture development in Iran, Ph.D. Theses. 328 p.
Salehi H.2002. Investigational needs of marine training economic in Iran. The Iranian journal of scientific fisheries, 11(4), 75-96.
Santanam R, Nesakamaran V, Natarajan P. 2005. Marines training in feresh waters. Translated by Rafiee,GH. TehranUniversity
press, pp.17-18.
Stickney D.1994. Carp processing of aquaculture, Halsted Press, New York, 244 P.
Tavasoli M.2008. The role of water in marine training, the difference between natural environments of marines with their training
environment, the journal of Abziparvar, 6(23), 32-33.
Toloe M.2008. The marine’s role in human's healthy, the journal of Sabzzist, 1(1), 25.
Wikipedia.2009.fish farming Definition, online on the: http://en.wikipedia.org.wiki.Fish_farm
Yu Feng Y, Chun HouL, Xiang Ping N, Ling TD, Ik Kyo Ch. 2004. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries (2004) 14, 1–10.
1751You can also read
