This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Cons DOF HH Tr

= = = =

Constrain for Tilapia culture and Tilapia farming business Department of Fisheries, Thailand Tilapia fish farmer household Training content

i

INTRODUCTION

Tilapia is becoming the important culture freshwater specie with the large amount of production and 1 2 still demand is increasing . Many strategies have been developed under the national policy in 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 are considered 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 semiintensive 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 that enable 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 2

National statistic report of Fishery Information Technology Centre, Department of Fisheries, Thailand (Thai version)

Report of Tilapia workshop organized by the DOF, Thailand at Chaingrai Province (Thai version) 1

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

2

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 building fish 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.

3

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. marginally useful/strongly required = 1 and not useful = 0). Perception refers 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. Interviewing Tilapia fish farmer 4 . moderately = 2.Data obtained were analysed using the statistic package JMP versio 8 (Trail version) and MS Office Excel 2007. Training needs score was computes by cumulating the total respondents score and frequency shared for all training contents. Results summarised for descriptive involved frequencies. percentage and mean of perception of training material requirement. Training need refer mainly to training information and content to produce the training material support the implement training programs.

It is also noted that omen has highly involved in tilapia culture. The most common stocking rate was 2 between 00 20 ind/m . G EN ERAL INF ORMATI ON OF INTER VIEW GR O UP Age group of respondents ere varies from young to high age and mostly in a group of mid-age et een and years (figure . Tilapia farm is mainly small-scale. especially for cage culture. The range of stocking rate was from ind/m up to high stocking rate of average 2 -25 gram. ew Tilapia farmer have just engaged in Tilapia culture business influenced by more than perception on good opportunity for income generate at the time of high demand of domestic fish market. ata obtained showed the range of experience was between year and up to years. f total respondents.RE ULT The ey i ed t t ill t te the li i t ti i Til i lt e ti e i A t ong in order to hel h determining rea of interest for the needs on training and ilding etter experience in Tilapia farming. especially cage culture. enerally. i gure 2 more than 20 ind/m . ulture period for tilapia in earthen pond is around one year. age culturist normally carries on -3 crops per year ( % of total cage culturist respondents). Si e at first stocked is normally around 2 inch or around 20 showed distribution of stocking rate class for tilapia cage culture. The cycle of crop for cage culture found high frequency. respondents ere female fish farmer ( . Interesting point raised about basic knowledge of Tilapia cult re techni ues is available but u the risk of crop successfulness is still being a big constrain for Tilapia culture and business. and 5 missing data i sh farmers have good experience although they have just engaged in Tilapia culture as the information of culture techni ues is passing farm to farm included the farmer visiting from various groups of private and government sectors. constrains in or difficulty in Tilapia culture and farming. The number of cage owned of average cages with the range from to cages per . The most commonly used in Angthong Province is 3x3 m. training needs to improve culture and organisation for Tilapia fish farmer. The observation and informal discussion among fish farmers found omen fish farmer appreciated to tilapia culture. age si e varies from 3x3 m to x5 m. % . crop period take around months. Stocking rate found high of 2 2 ind/m (n 32). 5 % 0 & 3 11 ) 5 # ) 0 ! ) & 3 " 2 4 ( ' 6 0 i gure istribution of age group of respondents CDF Plot Note: 2 = 21-30 years 3 = 31-40 years 4 = 41-50 years 5 = 51-60 years 6 = more than 60 year $ © © ¢ ¢ £ £ ¥ ¥¦ ¢ ¢¥ ¦ ¦ " !! © ©§ ¦ ¨ £¡ § § ¢ ¦ ¢ # ££ ¦ ¦¥ ' " ! ¤£ ¡ ¢ 7 998 % % . The respondents experience in tilapia culture summarised of average years. The two major culture practices of Tilapia are pond and cage. any of them shared that cage culture could made them better live and help generated good income. esult from the survey divided into parts of general information. It is accepted as a suitable economic activity for oman fish farmer.

Figure 2 Distribution of Stocking rate for Tilapia cage culture practice CDF Plot 32 Note: 1 = 60 80 ind. @ BA 6 ./m2 4 = > 120 ind./m2 The production from cage culture reported of fluctuation due to many factor of uncontrollable factors like environment and pollution and farm management./m2 3 = 101 120 ind./m2 2 = 81 100 ind. Data obtained of production varied from 5001.000 gram.000 per cage per crop of the marketable si e from 500 -1.

low frequency on constrain for farmer organisation (Cons7) performed from this survey. sale manager of big agro-industrial cooperation named Charoen Pokphan group Co. marketing and market price included farm certification found of no obstacle. Figure 2 showed attitude on obstacle factors encountered to Tilapia fish farmer which referred to environment and farm management included organisation and information. fish farmers provided addition information that many of them joined informal fish farmer group in order to increase power in marketing system and support each other for loan. f a total respondent. knowledge. The information related to culture technique. the limitation raised by fish farmer the issue of fish farmer institution was the sustain of the group and connection among difference fish farmer groups to share. etc. Farm is normally visited regularly by the middle-man. Clearly showed risk of Tilapia farming caused by environment and disease and these two factors are widely accepted as the major constrains. During conducted the survey. Additionally. By the way. The limitation in term of information was mainly for technical support to prevent and manage for fish disease. information. ost of the fish farmer¶s attitude was communication among fish farmers and the connection between fish farmer and private sector and/or government agency is good. experience and information related to Tilapia culture and farming. Tilapia fish farmers are mainly small-scale and their ability in explore new market is very limited. The personal attitude of Tilapia fish farmer found quite positive to the need of establishment of Tilapia farmer group. material. any Tilapia fish farmer has less ability in negotiate to better price of product. 19 fish farmersperformed the opinion that low price of production can cause of the failure to attain profitability. i mitation of Tilapia market (Cons4) was also not high prioritised by respondents. The summarised frequency presented score ranking of each aspect. especially for Tilapia cage culturist. The situation of demand gradually increased due to the potential of exportation and domestic demand increasing where as supply is still limited is forcing market expansion.CO NST RAINS IN TILAPIA C ULTURE AND FARMIN G BU SIN ES S The determination on difficulty or constrains in Tilapia culture and Tilapia farming business has summrised from all respondents. The limitation raised for tilapia market was the lack of experience in build up market. 7 F F F E I C D H G . Personal perception was almost focusing on the risk to raise successfulness crop. Access to information (Cons3) found does not being high prioritised as well as market issue. especially for exportation.ltd or known as ³CP´ of other fish feed company and fisheries extension officer. Const 1_Environment Const2_Disease Const3_AccInformation Const4_TilapiaMkt Const5_Price Const _FishSeed Const7_FForganisation Const _Gover Figure 3 Frequency chart of attitude on constrains for Tilapia culture and farming business Price was also prioritised although the rank of important limitation factor to Tilapia farming was below environmental and fish disease factors. ost of fish farmers shared the personal opinions for good opportunity to expanse scale of production to serve market demand. Therefore. most of the famers understand that fish farmer organisation could perhaps help building up abilityin price negotiation.

043 0 0.000 1 0.447 33 0.000 1 0.021 0 0.979 45 0.021 2 0.021 1 0.000 0 0.085 4 0.426 0 0.064 1 0. it is not clear for the factors affect on difference perception between male and female.000 0 0. there was not many fish farmers faced the problem of low quality seed.149 4 0.000 3 0. These three limiting factors showed the obstacles in Tilapia culture and farming business mainly came from uncontrollable factors of natural physical surrounding and management related to marketing system.277 18 0.043 3 0.021 3 0.021 2 0.000 0 0.957 6 Ranked 1 2 5 6 3 4 6 F armer institution rank_Cons8 Cost (feed) Gender role and their attitude regarding the factors affect Tilapia culture and Tilapia farming business summarised in table 2.000 0 0. six items show high percentage of male respondents.000 1 0.085 1 0.085 1 0.021 1 0.021 0 0. However.064 12 0.255 2 0. three constrains on environment.000 Not ranked (0) 4 0.064 0 0.021 0 0.000 5 0 0. 8 . disease and price were shared of high frequency which can perform the attitude of represented Tilapia fish farmers in factors affect to Tilapia culture and farming business.000 6 0 0.064 1 0.851 40 0.000 4 0 0.000 1 0.The context of seed quality (Cons6) had been raised during conducted interview survey. Additional analysis on share frequency (table 1).000 2 0. However.851 21 0.021 3 4 0. Of all eight constrains. Male fish farmer tented to accept on all factors as the limitation to culture practice and production.702 46 0.021 2 13 0. The problem raise on seed quality was the ability and experience of Tilapia fish farmer to examine the quality in term of percent of male from sex-reversed process and the strain hybrid fish.043 3 0. Table 1 Share frequency of contains in Tilapia culture and farming business n=49 Freq Share of Constrains rank_Cons1 Environment rank_Cons2 Fish disease rank_Cons3 Limit to information rank_Cons4 Access to market rank_Cons5 Price rank_Cons6 Seed quality rank_Cons7 1 26 0.000 0 0. Although the situation of Tilapia marketing is good with extremely increasing in demand but the ability in negotiation of fish price is still limit for the fish farmers.085 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.085 40 0.000 0 0.064 4 0.021 3 0.383 1 0.553 20 0.021 1 0.043 7 0.

06 6.44 34.24 22.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 of Constrains Gender 1 Number of respondents response by score ranked 2 3 4 5 6 Cumulative percent of acceptation of respondents 38.24 6.78 53.04 Not ranked (0) rank_Cons1 rank_Cons2 rank_Cons3 rank_Cons4 rank_Cons5 rank_Cons6 rank_Cons7 rank_Cons8 f m f m f m f m f m f m f m f m 10 17 10 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 6 6 7 11 0 2 1 1 3 6 2 2 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 3 1 2 6 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 18 22 18 22 10 11 16 19 21 27 18 22 9 .78 53.20 18.69 10.04 2.04 2.06 38.36 0 2.12 12.12 12.

Tr11_Seed Tr12_InntensiveCul Tr13_Feed Tr14_Harvest Tr15_Farming Technique Tr16_CloseSyst Tr17_Strain Tr21_DiseaseMgt Tr22_Env&Dis Fis Tr23_CauseDis Tr24_DisDetail disease Tr25_ChemcalUsed Tr26_FMgtPrev Tr31_AccCulTech Tr32_AccEnvInf Tr33_AccChem Access to Tr34_AccPrice information Tr35_AccNigo Tr36_AccCert Tr37_AccIntMkt Tr41_FFInstitute Fis Tr42_ProposalD Tr43_StrenGroup farmer Tr44_ConflictMgt institution Tr45_Leadership Tr46_DrilGovm Tr51_OthSppCul Tr52_Insurance Other Tr53_Others Tilapia cultu e tec ique Figure 4 Frequency chart of perception of all respondents on requirement t training contents o From the above figure summarised frequency of the training topics. Data obtained on the usefulness and requirement of each of the topic to help Tilapia fish farmer to improve culture and business. Additionally for fish harvesting. Q P P P TS R S S N = 49 10 . Simple analysis of training needs is computing in frequency of 49 tilapia fish farmer responses and percent by score ranked to training topics. fish disease. percent of total respondents. disease manageme and disease symptom responded of high score and nt. feed and feeding and harvesting management. Intensive culture techniques. Table 2 showed three topics of the cause of Tilapia disease.RESULT OF TRAINING NEEDS TRAINING NEEDS CONTENTS Four main heading of culture technique.7. The context of Tilapia culture techniques. the content of fish disease showed high perception to the knowledge and information needed. information and fish farmer o rganisation which consist of 25 topics/contents and additional 3 other topics have been summarised in order to illustrate the need of training material for Tilapia fish farmers. it was raised as the issue to maintain good production and price which the fish farmers could gain better profitability. The fish disease heading for all topics has got high responses. many fish farmers interested in four content of seed production process or Tilapia s hatcheries.7 and 1. 3. Figure 4 showed the perception on training needs from frequency of score rated for each of the training topic from all respondents. accounted for 5. The interesting point found from the survey is Tilapia fish farmer had negative attitude on farm management to prevent from fish disease.

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.5. fish farmer institution had been scored more of the moderately requirement of training material. Although fish farmers have quite good experience in Tilapia culture and well communication with the outsiders. Chi-square test on percent of training topic scored and gender was applied. disease and chemical are still needed.5 and 69. etc. From table 2. conflict management (Tr 44). technical aspects ((Tr 31) found high frequency of respondents compared to information on price and certification.4 percent of total respondents. About other three topics which had been raised by some fish farmers during conducted interview survey were another species culture technique. The regularly farm visiting by the field extension office to inspect production process can build up understand the certification system of food fish. 11 . high frequency of response fish farmers of 87. The result clearly indicates gender role didn¶t generate difference perception on information need regarding training topics. Many fish farmer informed the detail information about certification system is well delivery to fish farmer through various channels such as the middle man. strengthening leadership of the member (Tr 45) have high response of 77. the issue of information on new technology and knowledge on culture aspects. 73. In consideration to the topics of information required. In comparison with the need on technical aspects like culture and disease management.Many of them mentioned of the effort spent for management on fish health and farming system. The activities under farmer organisation included developing proposal for credit and loan (Tr 44). Access t information is strong required for Tilapia fish farmer. 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). sale manager from feed and chemical company. field extension officer. This might be because there is an uncontrollable physical factor for cage culture practice. crop insurance seed quality control.7 percent of total samples agreed upon the need to understand on good functioning and networking of Tilapia fish farmer. Age group is significantly affected to the need of training contents.

53 2.65 97.04 (1) 2.55 (36) 73.02 1.00 0.16 12.92 2.20 16.29 2.22 59.24 2.06 32.33 18.76 (38) 77.04 2.45 2.53 24.04 14.04 16.33 22.55 (32) 77.06 46.69 32.04 97.00 30.18 53.12 8.39 (31) 63.59 (23) 46.65 48.47 (34) 69.20 8.04 22.65 51.16 4.08 2.04 0.37 26.41 22.24 22. N = 49 Responses content Percent of respondent by score Number and % response need training % response not need 0 Mean 3 2 1 Tr11_Seed Tr12_InntensiveCul Tr13_Feed Tr14_Harvest Tr15_Farming Technique Tr16_CloseSyst Tr17_Strain Tr21_DiseaseMgt Tr22_Env&Dis Tr23_CauseDis Tr24_DisDetail Tr25_Chemcal sed Tr26_FMgtPrev Access to information Tr31_AccCulTech Tr32_AccEnvInf Tr33_AccChem Tr34_AccPrice Tr35_AccNigo Tr36_AccCert Tr37_AccIntMkt Fish farmer institution Tr41_FFInstitute Tr42_ProposalD Tr43_StrenGroup Tr44_ConflictMgt Tr45_Leadership Tr46_DrilGovm 40.96 97.45 28.06 53.71 (41) 83.39 0.06 8.24 18.86 1.29 1.45 14.29 16.49 26.33 8. 1 = marginally needed = 1 and 0 = not important and no requirement for training f d ed b c b Fs ds s U ` YX Y X W a ` U Y Y X W V U T c c l sp c s Tl p cul ur 53.06 2.37 16.53 38.29 16.46 (37) 75.53 30.96 0.33 14.73 18.33 8.45 22.98 2.06 0.22 (32)65.00 1.00 2.49 36.78 34.00 0.16 0.16 10.06 0.24 8.49 Sc tr Sc tr Sc tr Note: yx w vu t qs r gqi gqp ihg O rc s 2.00 51 52 53 level of score 3 = extremely needed.45 20.98 1.37 1.96 97.45 26.47 1.55 1.57 22.37 28.Table 2 Perception of training needs regarding content of aquaculture and management summarised in percent of respondents and mean score.10 30.04 32.33 12.47 (30) 61.63 0.00 0.53 16.82 55.24 10.00 0.04 (40) 81.29 24.41 12.34 (1) 2.94 24.04 2.96 (43) 87.04 0.31 (33) 67.04 (1) 2.35 59.37 2.16 20.20 22.04 0.45 2.04 (1) 2. 2 = moderately needed.57 14.00 (32) 77.49 32.73 0.67 (36) 73.51 (36) 73.65 36.61 36.37 22.29 20.39 61.04 2.02 57.02 26.73 95.93 (33) 67.53 0.06 67.06 1.45 14.27 (2) 4.00 2.20 12.96 1.24 2.14 24.33 16.16 22.37 6.24 2.29 26.96 97.35 (25) 51.00 2.06 (1) 2.08 4.98 2.41 53.47 18.18 69.06 12 .63 (38) 77.04 10.45 22.57 0.55 (36) 73.00 0.54 (42) 85.61 18.45 26.00 0.67 (38) 77.04 2.02 1.00 10.61 14.12 1.08 12.55 (39) 79.

Gender role 13 .The analysis Data obtained indicated age of respondents and topics of training need is significantly difference among different age groups.

3. 14 . etc. 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. They want the problem to be solved properly so that they can continue Tilapia culture. Result clearly determined age affect to the response on training needs. 2. the development of training material must concern to the issue of age and especially the material will be develop should consider of age. 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.DISCUSSION 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. Therefore. In the view of promoting gender policy to put women to boost rural economy. The perception of The fish farmers. 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. The high age group seemed to have low interest to all training programme and information. 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. Most of the women are willing to get to know new technologies included disease control practice.

APPENDIX 1 Interview form 15 .

57 26 53.52 46.0000 Prob(train14=1) is different across Gender 49 16 .65 42.97 82.8433 m 5 10.41 43.06 10 20.86 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail 28 57.53 56.8435 0.00 17.55 1 21 42.260 0.59 1 21 42.86 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail 28 57.11 76.00 23.14 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.81 5 10.01947497 ChiSquare 0.41 0 16 32.55 21.55 1 21 42.90 57.86 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail 28 57.69 53.86 10 20.039 0.57 38 77.0001 Prob>ChiSq 0.45 0 16 32.7082 Prob(train12=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.0000 Prob(train11=1) is different across Gender 49 Gender By train12 Count Total % Col % Row % f Tests N 49 DF 1 -LogLike 0.14 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.65 42.8433 m 5 10.0007 Prob>ChiSq 0.5549 Prob(train12=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.57 38 77.38 15 30.45 0 16 32.19 22 44.81 6 12.14 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.89 78.5549 Prob(train11=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.90 57.12990765 ChiSquare 0.262 RSquare (U) 0.48 47.20 50.20 45.6450 Prob(train14=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.89 78.6102 0.43 11 22.24 54.43 23 46.8080 Prob(train13=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.5813 Prob(train14=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.61 57.4353 Prob(train13=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.8435 0.9341 21 42.14 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.94 58.11 76.007 0.007 RSquare (U) 0.65 41.81 6 12.45 23.19 23 46.24 54.45 23.03 76.039 RSquare (U) 0.43 11 22.7256 Prob(train13=1) is different across Gender 49 Gender By train14 Count Total % Col % Row % f Tests N 49 DF 1 -LogLike 0.31 52.0007 Prob>ChiSq 0.19 22 44.6089 m 5 10.00341377 ChiSquare 0.0052 Prob>ChiSq 0.9341 0.20 45.62 13 26.86 m 11 22.0000 Prob(train12=1) is different across Gender 49 Gender By train13 Count Total % Col % Row % f Tests N 49 DF 1 -LogLike 0.APPENDIX 2 Gender By train11 Count Total % Col % Row % f 0 1 Tests N 49 DF 1 -LogLike 0.039 0.039 RSquare (U) 0.20 50.94 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail 28 57.55 21.45 42.01947497 ChiSquare 0.7082 Prob(train11=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.14 39 79.

8433 m 5 10.0519 Prob>ChiSq 0.90 57.86 28 57.75 100.00 42.0786 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 4 8.00 3.00 42.8435 0.89 78.20 45.35 1 Gender By train16 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.86 9 18.5714 Prob(train16=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.00565859 ChiSquare 0.0000 Prob(train17=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.16 25.05 5 10.5549 Prob(train22=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.00 42.00 19.0000 Prob(train21=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.86 0.86 43.14 57.43 48 97.44 19.49 75.56741518 ChiSquare 1.57 1 49 2.00 1 28 2.04 1 Gender By train21 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 1.766 RSquare (U) 0.05 12 24.00 3.69 42.65 57.56 17.0002 Prob>ChiSq 0.14 100.50 80.48 57.2867 0.50 82.52 80.55 21 42.25 96.16 44.86 0.9824 Prob(train15=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.6864 Prob(train21=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.00 0.135 0.011 RSquare (U) 0.55 21.96 0 0 21 0.3816 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 21 42.63 1 Gender By train22 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.0000 Prob(train17=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.039 RSquare (U) 0.81 6 12.0000 Prob(train22=1) is different across Gender 49 17 .43 11 22.7082 Prob(train22=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.00 27 55.45 23.14 48.0731 0.14 100.6064317 ChiSquare 3.24 54.14 33 49 67.14 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.5714 Prob(train17=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.04 57.3816 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 21 42.25 96.86 16 32.45 16 32.19 22 44.65 0 17 21 34.56741518 ChiSquare 1.5999 Prob(train21=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.04 1 Gender By train17 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 1.2867 0.20 55.1162 Prob>ChiSq 0.86 43.69 42.37 0 17 21 34.9153 0.86 42.135 0.0007 Prob>ChiSq 0.0720 Prob(train15=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.00 27 55.96 0 0 21 0.766 RSquare (U) 0.213 3.75 100.9152 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 4 8.039 0.65 42.1162 Prob>ChiSq 0.57 1 49 2.94 57.95 23 28 46.04 57.093 RSquare (U) 0.14 40 49 81.011 0.00 0.10 56.00 1 28 2.86 51.1241 Prob(train15=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.57 38 77.10 56.11 76.95 16 28 32.43 48 97.01947497 ChiSquare 0.0000 Prob(train16=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.Count Total % Col % Row % f 0 1 Gender By train15 Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 1.0000 Prob(train16=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.

77 19.039 RSquare (U) 0.0000 Prob(train25=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.95 19 38.89 78.46 23.4120 0.19 22 28 44.54 28.82 57.14 57.0191 Prob>ChiSq 0.29 0 17 21 34.54 85.02 57.2436 Prob(train31=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.00 14.4845 Prob(train26=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.86 42.86 28 57.081 1.056 RSquare (U) 0.86 36 73.86 40.4094 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 4 8.7553 Prob(train26=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.3368 Prob(train23=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.14 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.0045 Prob>ChiSq 0.0167 Prob>ChiSq 0.54063979 ChiSquare 1.44 76.16 50.29 42 49 85.53 17 34.7102 Prob(train24=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.69 42.45 0 16 21 32.01947497 ChiSquare 0.65 42.95 24 28 48.8914 Prob(train23=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.4427 Prob(train23=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.3477 Prob(train31=1) is different across Gender 49 18 .52 89.47 1 Gender By train31 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.14 13 26.56 71.45 23.16 30.7087 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 5 10.29 8 16.7078 0.05 4 8.43 36 49 73.14 19.24 54.8435 0.Count Total % Col % Row % f 0 1 Gender By train23 Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.78 52.86 44.19 20 28 40.0007 Prob>ChiSq 0.16 57.7990 Prob(train24=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.673 0.141 0.9138 Prob(train31=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.07026062 ChiSquare 0.11 76.55 1 Gender By train26 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.14 55.33 61.71 41 49 83.23 32.3042 m 4 8.140 RSquare (U) 0.20 45.95 25 28 51.48 80.05 9 18.7082 Prob(train25=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.039 0.12 42.69 42.09878373 ChiSquare 0.78 67.199 RSquare (U) 0.7564 Prob(train26=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.37 69.57 38 49 77.22 80.90 57.47 21 42.2984 0.55 21.81 8 16.71 1 Gender By train24 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.86 41.33 0 17 21 34.57 13 26.00 19.6567 0.16 50.8433 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 5 10.67 1 Gender By train25 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.5549 Prob(train25=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.14 58.46 80.69 47.0025 Prob>ChiSq 0.198 0.681 RSquare (U) 0.14 59.33653890 ChiSquare 0.05 3 6.98 57.65 42.71 7 14.43 11 22.6554 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 4 8.53 0 16 21 32.81 6 12.4727 Prob(train24=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.20 38.86 10.

90 20 40.9744 Prob(train35=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.00 17 34.4827 0.0815449 ChiSquare 2.62 7 14.14 60.0080 Prob>ChiSq 0.53 0 17 21 34.710 RSquare (U) 0.29 30 49 61.86 57.33 50.86 28 57.77 19.6116 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 9 18.29 9 18.71 19 38.71 19 28 38.00 64.7682 Prob(train34=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 1.18 25.65 13 26.00 32 49 65.9138 Prob(train33=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.Count Total % Col % Row % f 0 1 Gender By train32 Tests N 49 DF 1 -LogLike 1.57 16 32.69 42.49 42.00 38.16 30.49 0 18 21 36.73 57.00 57.31 1 Gender By train36 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.86 48.53 39.14 51.86 47.9649 Prob(train32=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.41 58.00 14.12 25.43 33 67.22 1 Gender By train35 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.37 47.00 32.37 69.14 52.78 57.65 85.05 9 18.24637983 ChiSquare 0.707 2.33 50.22 80.1339 Prob(train35=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.37 42.14 13 26.495 RSquare (U) 0.493 0.14 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.0039 Prob>ChiSq 0.0397 Prob>ChiSq 0.69 0 11 21 22.3533626 ChiSquare 2.1414 0.257 0.12867864 ChiSquare 0.54063979 ChiSquare 1.78 0 12 21 24.86 40.45 42.39 61.163 2.95 19 28 38.63 35.78 67.3477 Prob(train33=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.1347 Prob(train32=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.4152 Prob(train34=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.7894 Prob(train34=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.82 47.069 RSquare (U) 0.10 8 16.6119 0.61 71.37 75.38 52.0999 0.258 RSquare (U) 0.73 42.35 67.0191 Prob>ChiSq 0.14 65.51 1 Gender By train33 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.78 57.86 37 49 75.47 1 Gender By train34 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.3042 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 4 8.86 34.14 12 24.2436 Prob(train33=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.00 28.1503 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 3 6.63 75.35 21 42.0428 Prob>ChiSq 0.5474 Prob(train36=1) is different across Gender 49 19 .081 1.8440 Prob(train36=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.38 21 28 42.2984 0.82 60.86 10 20.29 41.14 18 28 36.0997 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 10 20.3449 Prob(train36=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.0899 Prob(train35=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.4817 m 8 16.86 36 49 73.41 52.1918 Prob(train32=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.23 32.056 RSquare (U) 0.

813 0.86 28 57.7369 Prob(train42=1) is different across Gender DF 1 -LogLike 0.0004 Prob>ChiSq 0.86 44.56 71.82 57.12352159 ChiSquare 0.4820 Prob(train41=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.38 14 28 28.41 41.47 1 Gender By train44 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.00 24 48.141 0.86 44.57 58.027 0.61 16 32.54 28.19 18 36.67 35.00 25 49 51.00 11 22.33 23.14 56.0135 Prob>ChiSq 0.46 23.3672 0.7087 Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail m Count Total % Col % Row % f 5 10.86 44.7078 0.244 RSquare (U) 0.3709 m 5 10.98 57.14 55.7981 Prob(train42=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.64 25.6746 Prob(train37=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.8689 0.00 52.29 34 69.12943968 ChiSquare 0.06 76.76 1 Gender By train42 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.8690 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 10 20.33 50.67 14.98 0 11 21 22.40663797 ChiSquare 0.0047 Prob>ChiSq 0.29 6 12.20 38.24 0 19 21 38.65 47.14 55.69 42.73 52.140 RSquare (U) 0.6212 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 4 8.4451 Prob(train42=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.027 RSquare (U) 0.74 80.801 RSquare (U) 0.02 1 Gender By train41 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.94 64.65 42.00 50.41 66.67 47.5327 Prob(train44=1) is different across Gender 49 20 .95 21 28 42.259 0.19 20 28 40.00 38 49 77.2823 Prob(train44=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.247 0.86 57.44 76.86 44.45 0 17 21 34.16 36.39 21 42.08 33.8255 Prob(train41=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.16 66.19 90.45 42.81 8 16.53 0 16 21 32.5493 Prob(train37=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.6109 0.0071 Prob>ChiSq 0.0000 Prob(train37=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.81 10 20.57 57.55 1 Gender By train43 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.33 9.57 13 26.6884 Prob(train41=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.14 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.4845 Prob(train43=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.36 19.6192 0.07026062 ChiSquare 0.14 55.01361374 ChiSquare 0.26 75.8872 Prob(train44=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.48 24 28 48.7553 Prob(train43=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.52 4 8.253 RSquare (U) 0.7564 Prob(train43=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.05 7 14.71 43 49 87.81 85.71 15 30.Count Total % Col % Row % f 0 1 Gender By train37 Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.62 14 28.78 42.29 63.33 61.6148 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 2 4.0025 Prob>ChiSq 0.20 33.43 36 49 73.

1292 0.722 1.3214 Prob(train46=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.1894 0.361 RSquare (U) 0.0000 Prob(train51=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.04 21 42.14 100.68 100.135 0.01361374 ChiSquare 0.00 3.04 1 Gender By train53 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.14 58.14 54.00 0.0000 Prob(train53=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.96 0 1 21 2.67 95.1162 Prob>ChiSq 0.2867 0.10 56.96 0 0 21 0.16 66.76 0 28 0.86 0.33 100.82 41.86122036 ChiSquare 1.33 100.0000 Prob(train37=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.564 RSquare (U) 0.86 47 95.00 1 28 2.302 1.84 60.43 48 97.69 57.027 RSquare (U) 0.25 96.56741518 ChiSquare 1.0004 Prob>ChiSq 0.766 RSquare (U) 0.14 58.1894 0.4286 Prob(train52=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 0.04 100.00 1 2.29 18 36.Count Total % Col % Row % f 0 1 Gender By train45 Tests N 49 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail DF 1 -LogLike 1.00 4.00 48 97.57 42.04 42.1510410 ChiSquare 2.00 57.67 17 28 34.6746 Prob(train37=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.027 0.89 33.00 0.00 48 97.361 RSquare (U) 0.8690 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 21 42.76 0 0.0000 Prob(train51=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.0000 Prob(train52=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 0.08 57.0000 Prob(train46=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.00 0.2433 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 20 40.14 2 49 4.86 44.00 4.32 92.722 1.14 100.45 61.8689 0.67 95.27 1 Gender By train46 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 1.33 11 22.4286 Prob(train53=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 1.24 28 57.00 0.00 27 55.57 1 49 2.75 100.82 41.11 39.3816 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 21 42.14 0.92 0 0 21 0.2111 m Count Total % Col % Row % f 7 14.00 0.4286 Prob(train52=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 1.00 26 53.86 45.86 28 57.04 1 Gender By train52 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 1.14 Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.1378 Prob>ChiSq 0.73 0 14 21 28.29 38.08 1 Gender By train51 Test Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right 2-Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis 0.96 1 2.04 57.1764 Prob>ChiSq 0.00 2 28 4.1764 Prob>ChiSq 0.86122036 ChiSquare 1.00 42.00 42.86 100.71 31 49 63.2433 m 20 40.5000 Prob(train46=1) is different across Gender Tests N 49 DF 1 -LogLike 0.4286 Prob(train53=1) is different across Gender 49 21 .86 43.24 28 57.5714 Prob(train51=1) is greater for Gender=m than f 1.5493 Prob(train37=1) is greater for Gender=f than m 0.06 55.86 0.00 1 49 2.00 7.

22 .

0343* | }| erm Intercept[0] Age Estimate Std Error ChiS are Prob>ChiS -4.0186* 0.1004 44 Parameter Estimates 23 erm Intercept[0] Age Estimate Std Error ChiS are Prob>ChiS -4.0097* 0.0479* Model Difference Full educed LogLi elihood 2.18 0.7033624 5.918373 0.78 0.582235 kj i lkji h e gf e d W o le Model est k n m m o Logi i i of A EN 2 i ge iS e P ob>ChiS 7.292141 Whole Model est ~ Logi i i of i ge ChiS are Prob>ChiS 4.08540925 0.052930 22.0129* i l Model Difference Full educed LogLi eli ood 3.64551907 0.0952 u Model Difference Full educed LogLi elihood 1.3869057 2.0049* .91 0.775528 22.47842 0.959187 19.4367036 6.239210 20.0816 wvu ts Whole Model est y r p q z x x { Logi i i of i ge i erm Intercept[0] Age Estim te Std Error ChiS re Prob>ChiS -5.60 0.516613 20.292141 ChiS re Prob>ChiS 3.6860702 1.7729953 1.4055424 3.Analysis on training topic and age group 1 S quare (U) Observations (or Sum gts) Converged by Gradient 0.0680 44 P rameter Estimates 1 S quare (U) Observations (or Sum gts) Converged by Gradient 0.033226 0.0089305 1.8113457 6.8021305 0.9686493 8.54 0.623048 23.1679 44 P meter Estim tes 1 S quare (U) Observations (or Sum gts) Converged by Gradient 0.0034* 1.69 0.

275783 Prob>ChiS 0.417237 23.61 3.63556503 Std Error 1.305989 0.498476 Whole Model est ChiS are 4.8021305 0.0509 Model Difference Full educed LogLi elihood 2.8113457 6.0923 erm Intercept[0] Age S quare (U) Observations (or Sum gts) 0.0387* erm Intercept[0] Age Estimate Std Error ChiS are Prob>ChiS -4.137892 28.052930 22.0343* .834474 Prob>ChiS 0.47842 0.360584 30.4805461 0.0575 0.292141 Whole Model est Logisti it of trai ge ChiS are Prob>ChiS 4.3255596 ChiS are 3.0701 44 Estimate -2.1004 44 Parameter Estimates 1 Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates 1 24 Model Difference Full educed LogLi elihood 1.325509 24.6860702 1.0479* Model Difference Full educed LogLi elihood 2.0097* 0.81 Prob>ChiS 0.91 0.239210 20.1 S quare (U) Observations (or Sum gts) Converged by Gradient 0.742746 Whole Model est Logisti it of trai ge ChiS are 2.4055424 3.69 0.

1047 Logistic Fit of train16 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate 4.4504953 0.9297 0.7727389 DF 1 ChiSquare 0.3046 0.RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) 0.007775 Prob>ChiSq 0.0008 44 25 .3571762 ChiSquare 5.01 2.9296 Logistic Fit of train17 By Age hole odel Test -LogLikelihood 0.09859896 -0.0252* 0.992727 0.0853443 Std Error 3.5410307 0.0038874 4.9661295 ChiSquare 1.63 Prob>ChiSq 0.0573 44 Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -3.57951397 Std Error 1.05 0.7688515 4.01 Prob>ChiSq 0.

01 Prob>ChiSq 0.9661295 ChiSquare 1.9297 ¡ ¡ 0.05 0.0038874 4.3046 0.0707 Whole Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 0.0126* 0.992727 0.756156 Prob>ChiSq 0.4881529 0.0008 44 odel Test -LogLikelihood 1.2004627 0.0853443 Std Error 3.0526 0.9296 Logistic Fit of train21 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -5.878078 15.7727389 DF 1 ChiSquare 0.1072 44 26 .7688515 4.09859896 -0.86077498 Std Error 2.525513 DF 1 ChiSquare 3.odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate 4.647435 17.22 3.27 Prob>ChiSq 0.4762209 ChiSquare 6.007775 Prob>ChiSq 0.

0642 £ £ 0.8555573 0.0141* 0.712992 17.0889 44 odel Test -LogLikelihood 2.425984 Prob>ChiSq 0.4365379 ChiSquare 6.06 Prob>ChiSq 0.76360091 Std Error 1.03 3.0803 Logistic Fit of train23 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) ¢ Whole ¢ Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 1.977452 0.858559 14.717119 Prob>ChiSq 0.0168* 0.566018 19.666954 17.279010 DF 1 ChiSquare 3.525513 DF 1 ChiSquare 5.1631 44 27 .Logistic Fit of train22 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -4.

6181659 1.54 Prob>ChiSq 0.0168* ¥ 0.0071* 0.5200045 ChiSquare 7.666954 17.24 4.10741563 Std Error 2.0071* 0.54 Prob>ChiSq 0.0332* Logistic Fit of train25 By Age ¤ Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 2.Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -6.525513 DF 1 ChiSquare 5.1631 44 28 .4595716 0.6181659 1.10741563 Std Error 2.5200045 ChiSquare 7.4595716 0.24 4.0332* Logistic Fit of train24 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -6.858559 14.717119 Prob>ChiSq 0.

775528 22.0766 44 odel Test -LogLikelihood 1.4082112 ChiSquare 5.79 2.7033624 0.64551907 Std Error 1.90 Prob>ChiSq 0.0161* 0.196476 Prob>ChiSq 0.3818448 0.598238 19.78 Prob>ChiSq 0.0738 § © 0.820375 0.0952 ¨ Whole ¦ Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 1.292141 DF 1 ChiSquare 3.odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -4.263892 20.3869057 ChiSquare 5.69541571 Std Error 1.54 2.862130 DF 1 ChiSquare 3.0816 0.033226 Prob>ChiSq 0.0680 44 29 .0186* 0.516613 20.0885 Logistic Fit of train26 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -4.0089305 0.

0232* 0.49 1.523604 20.02 Prob>ChiSq 0.1336 44 30 .3120 Logistic Fit of train32 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) ª Whole ª Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 0.338525 20.0251 44 odel Test -LogLikelihood 2.151879 Prob>ChiSq 0.575939 16.862130 DF 1 ChiSquare 1.0617 0.047209 Prob>ChiSq 0.6401071 0.3062 « « 0.3860903 Std Error 1.3818788 ChiSquare 3.Logistic Fit of train31 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -3.703071 19.0640419 0.279010 DF 1 ChiSquare 5.

8113457 0.0343* 0.239210 20.6860702 0.8021305 Std Error 1.4669906 ChiSquare 7.96686056 Std Error 2.0479* Logistic Fit of train34 By Age ¬ Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 2.1004 44 31 .7648405 0.052930 22.0384* Logistic Fit of train33 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -4.47842 Prob>ChiSq 0.0075* 0.69 3.14 4.91 Prob>ChiSq 0.292141 DF 1 ChiSquare 4.29 Prob>ChiSq 0.1576598 0.0097* 0.4055424 ChiSquare 6.Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -5.

0339* 0.54113402 Std Error 1.745608 Prob>ChiSq 0.0975 0.730706 Prob>ChiSq 0.3255824 ChiSquare 4.02 2.866659 28.1102 Logistic Fit of train35 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -3.4355534 0.372804 25.1094 ° Whole ® Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 1.0450* 0.706399 DF 1 ChiSquare 2.364353 0.0984 ¯ ± 0.0455794 0.232012 DF 1 ChiSquare 2.50 2.365353 26.0484 44 odel Test -LogLikelihood 1.0514 44 32 .55 Prob>ChiSq 0.56 Prob>ChiSq 0.333595 26.7356587 0.odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -2.3380266 ChiSquare 4.52008167 Std Error 1.

2334861 0.0322 44 33 .0292* 0.779198 Prob>ChiSq 0.938923 Prob>ChiSq 0.59 Prob>ChiSq 0.1076 Logistic Fit of train37 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) ² Whole ² Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 1.4829946 0.969461 29.75 2.389599 24.55769695 Std Error 1.0539 44 odel Test -LogLikelihood 0.0955 ³ ³ 0.392316 25.3465891 ChiSquare 4.118646 30.1638 0.781915 DF 1 ChiSquare 2.088108 DF 1 ChiSquare 1.Logistic Fit of train36 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -3.

78 Prob>ChiSq 0.78109552 Std Error 3.33 1.834419 10.4167422 Std Error 1.46 5.0019* µ 0.0162* Logistic Fit of train42 By Age ´ Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 4.85 Prob>ChiSq 0.3103 44 34 .578250 DF 1 ChiSquare 9.3066846 ChiSquare 2.7409897 ChiSquare 7.1742 Logistic Fit of train41 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -10.743831 15.2536766 0.1267 0.Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -1.9149099 0.668839 Prob>ChiSq 0.0063* 0.11716 1.7034779 0.

986305 14.60955407 Std Error 2.0023* 0.9686493 0.5891656 ChiSquare 9.odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -8.918373 Prob>ChiSq 0.959187 19.46 Prob>ChiSq 0.2869 44 odel Test -LogLikelihood 3.97261 Prob>ChiSq 0.0049* 0.0063* Logistic Fit of train43 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -5.5243748 1.0005* · ¹ 0.1679 44 35 .7729953 1.875825 20.60 6.623048 23.33 7.4367036 ChiSquare 8.0129* ¸ Whole ¶ Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 5.862130 DF 1 ChiSquare 11.18 Prob>ChiSq 0.582235 DF 1 ChiSquare 7.0034* 0.7904912 0.08540925 Std Error 1.

334638 28.0029817 0.1803 0.4469618 ChiSquare 9.897374 27.0022* 0.1269673 1.0072* Logistic Fit of train45 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) º Whole º Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 4.232012 DF 1 ChiSquare 1.0018* » » 0.23 Prob>ChiSq 0.742746 DF 1 ChiSquare 9.1975 44 odel Test -LogLikelihood 0.886321 19.20141476 Std Error 2.Logistic Fit of train44 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -6.36 7.856425 24.0318 44 36 .772643 Prob>ChiSq 0.794747 Prob>ChiSq 0.

3165907 0.0955 0.72 Prob>ChiSq 0.7116786 ChiSquare 2.0412 44 37 .1359256 DF 1 ChiSquare 0.06 1.0803 0.2615502 0.5709193 Std Error 3.1898 Logistic Fit of train46 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate 5.3244035 0.4224 Logistic Fit of train51 By Age ¼ Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 0.4132 ½ 0.317793 ChiSquare 3.669622 Prob>ChiSq 0.Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate -2.64 Prob>ChiSq 0.41671135 Std Error 1.78 0.8011144 8.3348112 7.43725673 -0.

05 0.7727389 DF 1 ChiSquare 0.09859896 -0.8867788 1.0008 44 38 .0038874 4.7688515 4.01 Prob>ChiSq 0.9296 À Whole ¾ Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 0.3996 Logistic Fit of train52 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate 4.992727 0.871592 Prob>ChiSq 0.4357961 4.007775 Prob>ChiSq 0.18028267 1.2395651 ChiSquare 0.3505 ¿ Á 0.00 0.7727389 DF 1 ChiSquare 0.3369428 4.0913 44 odel Test -LogLikelihood 0.odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate 0.9297 0.71 Prob>ChiSq 0.04416779 Std Error 3.0853443 Std Error 3.3046 0.9661295 ChiSquare 1.9630 0.

007775 Prob>ChiSq 0.0008 44 39 .7688515 4.9296 Â Whole odel Test -LogLikelihood 0.0038874 4.0853443 Std Error 3.01 Prob>ChiSq 0.9661295 ChiSquare 1.3046 0.9297 Ã 0.Logistic Fit of train53 By Age odel Difference Full Reduced RSquare (U) Observations (or Sum Wgts) Converged by Gradient Parameter Estimates Term Intercept[0] Age Estimate 4.05 0.09859896 -0.7727389 DF 1 ChiSquare 0.992727 0.

Fishery Information Technology Centre . Rome.O publisher.REFERENCE F. 91 pages.A. F. Department of Fisheries. 40 . (2007) Fisheries statistics of Thailand 2005. Technical Report No 6/2005. Bangkok. Thailand.O (1992) Planning for effective training: A guide to curriculum development.A.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Code of Practice Perch Product Standard
- Fish (1).pdf
- 12010030
- AIN Baseline Survey Report 2013
- Fresh Water Fish
- Effects of Dissolved Oxygen and Fish Size on Nile Tilapia,
- Breeding Guppies
- Carp Hatchery
- Fishery Value Chain Combodia
- Sick Striper Article
- Caring for Angel Fish
- Fish Market in Negeria
- Goldfish Care
- ΝΗΡΕΑΣ Company Presentation
- 2007 12 Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption
- Practical methods of improving health & performance in Pangasius culture in Vietnam
- Free From School Rahul Alvarez
- Free from School by Rahul Alvares
- Keeping Hawaii Seafood Safe to Eat
- 1996 Rickettsial Infection in Fish. Fryer
- Fish Anatomy Pictures
- Evoluton of Aquaponics NoPW
- Fish Dissection
- Farm to School
- Chordates and Fishes.htm
- Omodara Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare
- 24._fishes.ppt
- ST_5730_2016_ADD_6_EN
- ACIAR - Postlarval Lobster Capture and Grow
- Disease Trasmitted From Fish to Human
- Working File_Tilapia Training Need