FACULTY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGMENT

A RESEARCH REPORT ON THE ROLE OF AQUACULTURE EXTENSION

SERVICES ON AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION IN KAPYANGA AND MUTERERE
SUB- COUNTY ,BUGIRI DISTRICT

BY HISAMBO EMMANUEL

REG. NUMBER BU/UP/2020/0790

A RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF NATURAL

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE degree ?OF
FISHERIES AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT.

FEBRAURY, 2024.
DECLARATION
I Emmanuel Hisambo declare that to the best of my knowledge this research report is wholly
out of my efforts about tasks that I accomplished during the nine weeks spent during my research
study, and therefore has never been submitted to any institution higher of learning for the award
of any qualification.
APPROVAL

This report has been done under the supervision of:

Sign: …………………………………… Date: ……………………………………….

Dr. John S. Balirwa

DEDICATION
I dedicate this research report to counsel kabasa Miriam Kevin, my family and friends.
Table of contents
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................5
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................8
LIST OF PLATES.......................................................................................................................11
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS....................................................................................13
1.0 CHAPTER ONE....................................................................................................................16
1.1 Background of the study.......................................................................................................16
1.2 Problem Statement................................................................................................................17
1.3 Research Objectives...............................................................................................................17
1.3.1 Main Objective....................................................................................................................17
1.3.2 Specific objectives...............................................................................................................17
1.4 Research Questions................................................................................................................17
1.5 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................................17
1.6 Justification of the study.......................................................................................................18
1.8 Conceptual Framework.........................................................................................................18
2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................20
2.1 Definition of agricultural extension.........................................................................................20
2.2 History of Agricultural extension services delivery in Uganda................................................21
2.3 Role of extensions services.......................................................................................................22
2.4 Challenges faced by extension officers.....................................................................................23
2.5 Promotion and management of the sector...............................................................................24
2.5.1The institutional framework..................................................................................................24
2.5.2 The governing regulations....................................................................................................24
2.5.3 Applied Research, Education and Training..........................................................................24
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................................................26
3.1 Period of the study...............................................................................................................26
3.2 Location of Bugiri district....................................................................................................26
3.3 Location of Kapyanga Sub County......................................................................................26
3.4 Location of Muterere Sub County.......................................................................................26
3.5 Research Design...................................................................................................................27
3.6 Sample size...........................................................................................................................27
3.7 Data analysis........................................................................................................................27
3.8 Data collection methods.......................................................................................................28
3.8.1 Surveys and Questionnaires,.............................................................................................28
3.8.2 Interviews..........................................................................................................................28
3.8.3 Observation.......................................................................................................................28
3.8.4 Document Analysis............................................................................................................28
3.8.5 Remote Sensing and GIS:.................................................................................................28
3.9 limitations............................................................................................................................28
3.9.1 Limited Access and Infrastructure:..................................................................................28
3.9.2 Language Barriers:...........................................................................................................28
3.9.3 Limited Internet and Communication Facilities:..............................................................28
3.9.4 Low Literacy levels:..........................................................................................................28
3.9.5 Limited Resources:...........................................................................................................28
3.9.6 Health and Safety Concerns:............................................................................................28
3.9.7 Seasonal Variations:..........................................................................................................29
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS......................................................31
4.1 Distribution of respondents..............................................................................................31
4.2.1 Age of respondents........................................................................................................32
4.2.2Education levels..............................................................................................................32
4.2.3 Experience of respondents.............................................................................................33
4.2.3.1 Relationship between experience and production......................................................33
Figure 4 Relationship between experience and production...................................................34
4.2.4 Gender...........................................................................................................................34
Figure 6, ict literacy levels.....................................................................................................34
4.3 Extension Workers and Extension Service Delivery........................................................34
Figure 5, gender of respondents..............................................................................................34
4.2.5 ICT literacy...................................................................................................................34
4.3.1 Relationship between distance of farm from sub-county headquarters and frequency of
extension worker visits...........................................................................................................35
Figure 7, relationship between distance and visits.................................................................35
4.3.2 Relationship between extension worker visits and production......................................35
4.4 Expectations from farmers...............................................................................................36
 Figure 8, Relationship between extension worker visits and production...............................36
4.5 major constraint...............................................................................................................37
5.0 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS......................................................................................39
5.1 Age of respondents.......................................................................................................39
5.2 Education levels............................................................................................................39
5.3 Experience of respondents............................................................................................39
5.4 ICT literacy..................................................................................................................39
5.5 gender of respondents..................................................................................................40
5.6 Relationship between extension worker visits and production.....................................40
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendation............................................................................41
6.1 Conclusion................................................................................................................41
6.2 Recommendation......................................................................................................41
Appendices....................................................................................................................................46
Fish farmer QUESTIONNAIRE FORM...................................................................................46
EXTENSION WORKER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM............................................................50
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1, Age of respondents.....................................................................................................................29
4.2.2Education levels Figure 2, Education levels......................................................................................29
Figure 3, respondents experience in aquaculture extension.......................................................................30
Figure 4 Relationship between experience and production........................................................................31
Figure 6, ict literacy levels........................................................................................................................31
Figure 5, gender of respondents...............................................................................................................31
Figure 7, relationship between distance and visits.....................................................................................32
Figure 8, Relationship between extension worker visits and production...................................................33
Figure 9 major constraint...........................................................................................................................34

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 status Status of respondents (farm owners, casual laborers and farm managers) interviewed from
kapyanga Kapyanga sub-county................................................................................................................26
Table 2 parishes Parishes from which respondents were selected and frequencies....................................26
Table 3 status of respondents selected from Muterere sub-county.............................................................26
Table 4, Education levels of extension worker respondents......................................................................27
Table 5, experience of respondents (farm owners, casual laborers and farm managers)............................28

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1Plate 1 fishponds.............................................................................................................................39

Plate 2fish feeding.....................................................................................................................................39
Plate 3 over fertilized fishpond..................................................................................................................39
Plate 4 poor road connectivity...................................................................................................................40
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

etc: And other Similar Things

FAO: Food and Agricultural Organisation

FBSSE: Forest Based Small Scale Enterprises

i.e: That is to say

Km: Kilometer

MoWE: Ministry of WaterandEnvirnment

NAADS: National Agricultural Advisory Services

NARO: National Agricultural Research Organisation

NDP: National Developement Plan

NEMA: National Environment Management Authority

NFA: National Forestry Authority

NGOs: Non Government Organisations

spp: Species
SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UWA: Uganda Wildlife Authority
ABSTRACT
Extension services play a significant role in the development of aquaculture. This study assessed
the status of aquaculture extension services in the sub-counties of kapyanga and Muterere in
Bugiri district found in the Eastern region of Uganda. The study examined the socioeconomic
Characteristics of fish farmers (specifically managers, laborers and owners of fish farms) and
extension worker perceptions. Respondents were selected purposively for this study. The
Findings findings of the study indicate that all of the respondents have access to the extension
services
available and respondent who implemented disseminated information witnessed increased
production. The farmers prioritize feed formulation as their top most need. The study
Concludes concludes that if administered appropriately and designed with the local farmers
needs in consideration, extension services can boost fish farmers’ resilience to available
challenges in the aquaculture sector, enable farmers to adopt best practices and thus maximize
available opportunities thus boosting production.

The Abstract should contain the following statements: issue; problem; what was done,
when, where; results; discussion/implication; conclusion; recommendation all in not more
than 250 words
1.0 CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background of the study

Aquaculture extension services are associated with dissemination of information and knowledge
about various aspects of aquaculture, which include farm management, species selection, disease
management, environmental sustainability, market development, financial, and business
management. In addition, approaches including on-site visits, training workshops,
demonstrations, educational materials and digital platforms are used to deliver to fish farmers.
(Hilkens, 2018).
For farmers to acquire knowledge of new technologies and practices, to improve their current
practices, dissemination of new developments has to be achieved through the provision of an
aquaculture extension service (Suvedi et al., 2017).
However, fish farmers continue to experience obstacles to obtaining adequate access to aquaculture
extension services yet Knowledge has to be transferred to farmers, so that they should be able to
appreciate the value of the skills, provided under extension, for purposes of improving farming
experiences, to be able to have increased yields, for home consumption and sale, this is in line with
statements of(Anderson & Feder, 2004). However, the situation can be different because it will
depend on the perception of farmers about the knowledge that is transferred to them, moreover, an
extension service serves not only to introduce or enforce aquaculture policies but also to report
farmers ‘problems for research purposes.

1.2 Problem Statement

Many aquaculture fish farmers, particularly in rural kapyanga and Muterere sub-counties, face
challenges in adopting efficient and sustainable practices which results into these fish farmers
not maximizing available opportunities in the aquaculture sector, hence limiting overall
aquaculture production and this can be linked to un even provision of extension services to fish
farmers leaving marginalized fish farmers vulnerable. This research aims aimed to at addressing
these gaps by investigating the role of aquaculture extension services in influencing aquaculture
production.
1.3 Research Objectives

1.3.1 Main Objective

The main objective of the study is was to find out the role of aquaculture extension services on
aquaculture production in kapyanga Kapyanga and Muterere sub- counties in Bugiri district.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

1. To assess the frequency of provision of aquaculture extension services to fish farmers in
kapyanga and Muterere sub-counties.
2. To identify the key challenges and barriers faced by aquaculture farmers in accessing
extension services and extension workers during the provision of extension services.
3. To analyze the impact of extension services on the overall productivity and profitability

1.4 Research Questions

1. What is the frequency of provision of aquaculture extension services to fish farmers in
kapyanga and Muterere sub-counties?
2. What are the challenges and barriers faced by aquaculture farmers in accessing extension
services and extension workers during the provision of extension services?
3. What is the impact of extension services on the overall productivity and profitability of
aquaculture farms?

1.5 Significance of the Study

Effective extension services can assist fish farmers in adopting best management practices,
leading to increased productivity and profitability.
Assessing the impact of aquaculture extension services can contribute to the sustainable
development of the aquaculture through identification of areas where farmers require support
and identification of gaps in knowledge or resources.
Understanding the impact of aquaculture extension services provides insights into the
empowerment of fish farmers in Kapyanga and Muterere sub-counties in Bugiri district by
assessing changes in farmers' knowledge, skills, and decision-making abilities resulting from
these services, researchers can determine if farmers are becoming more self-reliant and
capable of making informed choices. Also assessment of the impact of aquaculture extension
services can inform the design and implementation of policies and programs related to fish
farming, by identifying successful approaches and areas for improvement and thus
policymakers can refine their strategies and allocate resources more effectively.

1.6 Justification of the study

As aquaculture is a crucial component of food production and livelihoods in kapyanga and
Muterere sub-counties, Bugiri district and Busoga region at large, understanding the factors that
contribute to its sustainable development is of significant importance.
The study addresses a gap in the existing literature by providing a detailed examination of the
role of aquaculture extension services and their impact on production in kapyanga and Muterere
sub-counties, which is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the status of aquaculture.
The findings will have practical implications for farmers, extension service providers, and
policymakers, offering actionable insights that can lead to improvements in aquaculture practices
and outcomes.
The study contributes to the field of agricultural science by providing empirical evidence on the
effectiveness of extension services in the context of aquaculture, potentially informing similar
studies in other agricultural domains.
The findings can be applicable to various geographical regions, helping to develop strategies that
are adaptable to different cultural, economic, and environmental contexts.

1.8 Conceptual Framework

Independent valuables Dependent valuables

 Aquaculture Production.
 Farmers' Well-being
 Extension Services PRODUCTIVY/
 Farmers PROFITABILITY?
‘Characteristics

Moderating variables

 Farmers' Perceptions
 Access to resources
Conceptual Framework. Source; Helms (1998).
Independent valuables:
Extension Services represent the information, training, and technical assistance provided to
aquaculture farmers while Farmers' Characteristics refers to Socio-economic factors such as
education, income, and experience that may influence the reception and utilization of extension
services.
Processes:
Knowledge Transfer is linked to the flow of information from extension services to farmers,
encompassing training programs, workshops, and educational materials while Adoption adoption
of Recommended Practices is the extent to which farmers implement and integrate the
knowledge and technologies promoted by extension services into their aquaculture practices.
Moderating Variables:
Farmers' Perceptions are the Attitudes attitudes and beliefs of farmers regarding the usefulness,
accessibility, and quality of extension services.
Access to Resources resources can be defined as availability of resources (financial,
technological, etc.) that may facilitate the adoption of recommended aquaculture practices.
Dependent Variables:
Aquaculture Production is are the measurable outcomes of aquaculture activities, including yield,
quality, and overall productivity.
Farmers' Well-being refers to economic and social benefits derived from improved aquaculture
production, such as increased income, food security, and livelihood sustainability.
Positive relationships are expected between the quality and accessibility of extension services
and farmers' perceptions, between farmers' perceptions of extension services and the adoption of
recommended aquaculture practices, and between the adoption of recommended practices and
aquaculture production outcomes.

Key Assumptions:
Effective extension services positively influence farmers' knowledge, perceptions, positive
perceptions lead to increased adoption of recommended practices, and adoption of recommended
practices is associated with improved aquaculture production.
2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definition of agricultural extension

Anderson (2007) defines the terms agricultural extension and advisory services as “the entire set
of organizations that support and facilitate people engaged in agricultural production to solve
problems and to obtain information, skills and technologies to improve their livelihoods”
(Waddington et al, 2010). According to Ottinger, M., Clauss, K., & Kuenzer, C. (2016), the main
training topics from extension officers include:include fish stocking, breeding and harvesting,
pond/production system construction and design; water quality management, pond fertilization
and liming; record-keeping and financial management. However, extension officers less tackle
cooperative group formation and management during training and the emphasis should be on
technology rather than memorization. Various agricultural extension approaches such as
regulatory, advisory, and educational methods have been used to disseminate technologies and
other development programs to the communities (Hakiza et al., 2004; Buyinza et al., 2015).
Extension activities do not stop only in disseminating information and providing explanations,
but counseling is a process that is carried out continuously and takes a long time to bring about
behavioral changes (Safrida et al., 2015). Characteristics of farmers in general tell the need of the
role of extension services to be able to develop their aquaculture business to be better
(Mardikanto, 2009).
2.2 History of Agricultural extension services delivery in Uganda
Uganda has been experiencing major changes in agricultural extension system, which can be
summarized as regulatory from 1920 to 1956, advisory from 1956 to 1971, dormancy from 1972
to 1981, and then various educational emphases from 1982 to 1997. In 1997 as per the Local
Government (LG) Act of 1992, the provision of agricultural extension and other agricultural
support services became the responsibility of local governments (Benin et al, 2011).
The government of Uganda decentralized extension services in expectation that the services will
be closer to the people, and more relevant. Consequently, the provision of agricultural extension
and other agricultural support services became the responsibility of local governments in 1997,
as per the Local Government (LG) Act (Benin et al, 2007).
According to the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1997, local government have
responsibility for liaison with the Central Government, district level policy issues, planning,
coordination, monitoring and implementation of development programmes including those for
agricultural extension.
The decentralization process faced several challenges resulting into a number of market failures.
For instance, extension provision operations were constrained by lack of funds to facilitate the
work of extension agents at the local government level (Sserunkuuma and Pender, 2001).
Therefore, the rationale of recent reforms and reorganization of extension service provision
arrangements was failure of traditional extension approaches to bring about greater productivity
and expansion of agriculture, despite costly government interventions (MAAIF 2000; Mangheni
and Mubangizi, 2007).
The shift towards greater private sector participation in the provision of extension services is also
attributed to the perceived ineffectiveness, irrelevancy and irresponsiveness of public extension
and budgetary constraints (Mangheni and Mubangaizi, 2007). Thus, the publicly financed
privately delivered extension system was adopted in 2001 to rectify past weaknesses related to
rising concerns of efficiency of government-led extension such as the inability of the central
government to handle the complexity of context-specificity required by extension services and
the inability of the government to finance the requisite range of services as well as incorporate
“best” practices in order to make extension delivery more efficient and effective (PMA, 2000).
NAADS was initiated in 2001 in six trailblazing districts (Arua, Kabale, Kibaale, Mukono,
Soroti and Tororo), within which the NAADS program began working in 24 sub-counties.
NAADS rolled out in2002/03 into ten 10 new districts (Bushenyi, Busia, Iganga, Kabarole,
Kapchorwa, Kitgum, Lira, Luwero, Mbarara and Wakiso), in which it covered 46 sub-counties; it
also expanded to 54 additional sub-counties in the trailblazing districts. In 2003/2004 to
2004/2005, NAADS expanded into 13 new districts (Hoima, Kamuli, Mbale, Nakapiripit, Rakai,
Apac, Kanungu, Kumi, Masaka, Moyo, 3 Rukungiri, Yumbe and Bugiri), bringing NAADS
coverage to a total of 29 districts and 280 sub-counties (NAADS Secretariat, 2005; Benin et al,
2007).
Available evidence shows that NAADs has expanded in scale since 2001 and has helped to
strengthen the institutional capacity and human resource skills of many farmers to potentially
demand and manage the delivery of agricultural advisory services (Benin et al, 2007). For
instance, by end of the 2006/07financial year, the NAADS program had been extended to 545
sub-counties (about 83.1% of the total sub counties in Uganda at the time) and about 40,000
farmer groups and 716,000 farmers (representing about20% of the national farming households)
had reportedly received services of the program (NAADS, 2007;2011). The program had
contracted about 1,622 private-sector agencies to provide various specialized services on more
than 40 enterprises, about 2,516 community-based facilitators (CBFs) had been trained to
provide follow-up services and 40,000 farmer groups and 716,000 farmers (representing 20% of
the national farming households) had received services from the program (see Benin et al, 2011).
NAADS was established with the mandate of increasing farmers’ access to information,
knowledge and improved agricultural technologies through the overhaul of the extension
services delivery system from supply-driven to a demand-driven service. Other areas of NAADS
intervention to support farmer productivity and participation in the market included support to
formation of farmer groups and savings and credit cooperatives (Okoboi, 2011).
The provision of agricultural extension services in Uganda under NAADs reflects a change in
extension ideology away from the linear model of “top-down” technology transfer, to extension
methodologies that emphasize information flows, adult learning principles and participation by
stakeholders (Marsh & Pannell, 2000).

2.3 Role of extensions services.

The strong relationship between high agricultural productivity and poverty reduction is wide (see
Datt &Ravallion, 1998; Salami et al, 2010). For instance, agricultural productivity benefit
farmers through increased production, creation of employment opportunities or indirectly,
boosting their relative wages or reducing food prices.
In developing countries, investments in extension services have the potential to improve
agricultural and increase farmers’ incomes (Anderson & Feder, 2004).Extension services or
agents contribute to food security by taking farmers through learning experience to overcome
production problems, act on relevant information in order to attain a high level of satisfaction.
By these extension agents actually influence the innovation and decision-making process in a
direction deemed desirable to enhance farmers’ economic and social status. It is this fact that
enormous investment, funding and policy reforms have been directed into agricultural extension
in many developing countries. Rausser (1992) classifies agricultural policies into groups: those
that correct from market failures, Lower transaction costs, or enhance productivity, and other
policies that result from manipulation by special interest groups.
It is evident that extension services improve farmers' aquaculture productivity and livelihoods if
adequately designed and implemented. This is through improving farm performance and
strengthening ties between farmers, research, agricultural education, and other actors of the
society (Obwanga et al., 2017). Also in accordance with (Anderson & Feder, 2004) Agricultural
extension has long been seen as a key element for enabling farmers to obtain information and
technologies that can improve their livelihoods. Extension service promulgates development
because it provides opportunities for agricultural professionals to make expert contribution in
identifying, adopting and sharing technology in a way suited to diverse ecological and
socioeconomic conditions.

However, many farmers continue to experience Obstacles to obtaining consistent and adequate
access to extension services. For farmers to acquire knowledge of new technologies and practices
to improve their practices, dissemination of new developments has to be achieved through the
provision of an extension service this is in line with (Srivastava and Jaffe1992).
The success of a new technology relies strongly on its dissemination from the source of the
invention to a wide range of potential end-users (Kumar et al., 2018; Obiero et al., 2019). As
governments explore the option of providing farmers with efficient, cost-effective extension
systems, both private and public extension options have been explored (Oladele 2008). It is
widely recognized that a well-functioning extension system is crucial for disseminating
information and promoting adoption of new farming technologies among farmers who otherwise
may lack the knowledge of, and avenues to obtain, new technologies on their own (Suvedi et al.,
2017).
 Skilled extension personnel have to be involved in developing effective extension programs that
identify critical problems and then design appropriate combinations of solutions. These provide
the necessary information, including results of on-farm trials that demonstrate feasibility, and are
essential for the timely transfer of technologies to farmers (Engle, 2017).
As stated by (Aloo et al., 2017; and Obwanga et al., 2018) observed that national funding for
agricultural extension and advisory services remains low and None the less, renewed national,
regional and global interest and commitments provide a momentous opportunity to deliver
services that are farmer-centered, participatory, well-funded, demand-driven and performance-
oriented. In addition, lack of skilled and experienced aquaculture extension services and limited
access to newer information technologies hamper farmer innovation and uptake
of new technologies, innovations and best management practices (TIMPs).
2.4 Challenges faced by extension officers
Obwanga et al. (2017) noted that Extension officers face several problems that deprive fish
farmers of the extension services, and these include insufficient facilitation in terms of transport
and equipment, inadequate training, and inadequate staff also that the aquaculture sector
continues to suffer the challenges of acute shortage of human capacity, an area requiring urgent
attention. The impact evaluation faces a wide range of difficulties including how to control for
factors that influence agricultural outcomes such as agro ecological climate, weather events,
availability and prices of inputs, market access, farmers’ characteristics, and so on. Furthermore,
a number of inherent methodological challenges such as endogenous placement bias, selection
bias, undermine impact evaluation of extension impact and heterogeneity issues related to farm
characteristics (see Birkhaeuser et al, 1991; Owen et al, 2001; Anderson & Feder, 2004; Cerdán-
Infantes et al, 2008; Betz, 2009).
Betz (2009) has noted that previous studies on productivity effects of agricultural extension have
varying results. The mixed results regarding the impact of agricultural extension on productivity
is as a result of how the methodological issues of endogeneity, heterogeneity and measurement
of productivity variable are addressed. Productivity - agriculture extension literature reveals a
number of methodological challenges that make it difficult to make broad generalizations about
the productivity effects of agricultural extension services (Odhiambo & Nyangito, 2003; Betz,
2009; Anderson & Feder, 2004; World Bank, 2011). For example, the available empirical
research on the effect of agricultural extension services, show large positive rates of return to
extension services (Cerdán- Infantes et al, 2008). However, in the absence of random assignment
to treatment and control groups, this methodology is likely to provide biased estimates of causal
effects, due to endogeneity of program participation and the presence of unobservable
characteristics that might determine participation and be correlated with the outcome variable
(see e.g Betz, 2009, Cerdán-Infantes et al, 2008, Dercon et al, 2008, Owen et al, 2001).
Nevertheless, Evenson & Mwabu, (1998) argued that previous studies on extension effects of
farm yields have ignored an important policy issue that farmers may be affected differently by
extension service due to their unobserved personal endowments such as cognitive and physical
abilities.
2.5 Promotion and management of the sector

2.5.1The institutional framework

The Minister of State for Fisheries is directly responsible for the aquaculture sub-sector within
the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. At the next level, the Permanent
Secretary for the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries supervises
administration and accounting for the Department of Fisheries Resources, as well as the other
departments in the Ministry. The Directors of Crop and of Animal Resources form the next level,
and actual administrative control is vested by law in the Commissioner for Fisheries, legally
known as the Chief Fisheries Officer, who heads the Department of Fisheries Resources, and
works directly under the Director, Animal Resources. In addition, an independent Procurement
Unit is responsible for all procurements and disposable public assets within the Ministry.

2.5.2 The governing regulations

The Fish Act (1964), which was reviewed of recent, is the principal Act from which regulations
for aquaculture have been developed. Existing aquaculture regulations include Fish
(Aquaculture) Rules 2003, which regulate aquaculture practices, especially at the commercial
level.

The National Agriculture Research System Act (2005) regulates fisheries and aquaculture
research among other agriculture research areas. This Act breaks the monopoly of public
agriculture research by public institutions and opens it up to other interested competent agencies
and individuals through competitive research grants.
The National Environment Management Authority Statute deals with protection of the
environment and regulates all activities that may impinge on the quality of the environment.

The Water Law spells out the use, access, responsibility of user, conflict resolution in water
resource use and access for all users including aquaculture practitioners.
2.5.3 Applied Research, Education and Training
Research priorities are developed and agreed upon by all stakeholders every three years under
the medium-term framework. The process of identifying and setting the research agenda is
participatory and requires the consent of all key stakeholders through a process dealt with by the
Secretariat of the National Agriculture Research Organization. Until recently, state-sanctioned
research was the remit of the Fisheries Resources Research Institute under the Kajjansi
Aquaculture Research and Development Center. As described in the preceding section, the
National Agriculture Research System Act has resulted in aquaculture research being opened up
to other public or private institutions and individuals such as universities, consultancies and
training institutions with the capability to carry out the required research. The Kajjansi
Aquaculture Research and Development Center remains, however, the core institute for strategic
research in the country. On-farm trials and 'farmer participatory research' have been the norm.
Other organizations and individuals including non-government agencies, universities and
students, farmers interested in understanding and solving issues of commercial aquaculture,
donor agencies and local governments have funded aquaculture research.

The most significant aquaculture research institution in the country is the Kajjansi Aquaculture
Research and Development Center at Kajjansi in Entebbe. Research and postgraduate work,
degrees, diplomas and certificate training are offered by the Zoology Department at the Faculty
of Science and the Department of Wildlife at the Veterinary Faculty in Makerere University of
Kampala. The Fisheries Training Institute in Entebbe offers opportunities for research and
diplomas and certificate training.
Because agriculture remains a primary growth sector in Uganda, increasing agricultural
productivity remains one of the government’s most important goals. In 2014, agriculture
accounted for approximately 25 percent of Uganda’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
representing more than 40 percent of the country’s exports (MoFPED 2014). To achieve
Uganda’s goal of transforming itself from a low- to an upper middle-income country as
envisioned in Vision 2040, production and productivity enhancement within the sector remains
crucial. Farmers’ access to an efficient, effective extension service remains one of the avenues
for achieving this goal. Moreover, the link between agricultural productivity and extension
services should not be underestimated.
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Period of the study
The study will be carried out for 3 weeks between the months of January and February, 2024
Kapyanga and Muterere sub-counties in Bugiri district in Eastern Uganda.
[3.2] 3.2 Location of Kapyanga and Muterere sub-counties in Bugiri district
Provide a Figure to show the location of the study area

Bugiri district headquarter is located approximately 77 kilometers (48 mi) from kampala city, by
road, with coordinates of 0.55000 Latitude and 33.75000 Longitude. Bugiri District is bordered
by Namutumba District and Butaleja District to the north, Tororo District to the northeast, Busia
District to the east, Namayingo District to the southeast, Mayuge District to the southwest
and Bugweri District to the west (https://bugiri.go.ug/sites).
3.3 Location of Kapyanga Sub County.
Kapyanga is bordered by Iwemba and Nabukalu Sub County to the north, Buwunga Sub County
to the West, Buluguyi Sub County to the East, and Nankoma Sub County to the southwest, with
coordinates of 0.54738° Latitude or 0° 32' 51" north and 33.75617° Longitude or 33° 45' 22"
east. The seven parishes in kapyanga sub-county include Bugiri A, Bugunga, Isagaza, Kiseitaka,
Nakavule, Namukonge and Ndifakulya and 61 villages.
3.4 Location of Muterere Sub County.
Muterere sub-county is by kapyanga sub County to the north, Bulesa sub County to east,
Budhaya sub County to the southeast, Bulidha sub County to the southwest and Nankoma sub
County to the west with coordinates of 0.45442 0 latitude and 33.769520 longitude. Parishes in
Muterere Sub County include Bululu, Kayogera, Kitumba and Muterere.
The land surface is characterized by gentle undulating hills with few higher residual features and
a flat and rolling topographical zone with 90% of its landmass constituting the drainage basins
of Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga. As a result, there are numerous swamps that criss-cross the
road network, making the cost of the road improvement costly. (https://mapcarta.com.)

Kapyanga and Muterere Sub Counties contribute a population of 22.56% to the district
population (NDP, 2017/2018) and have average densities of 486 and 545.4 people per Km 2
respectively, which is determined mainly by land tenure system and development pattern
(https://www.citypopulation).

3.5 Research Design

Purposive sampling is was 'used to select respondents that are most likely to yield appropriate
and useful information' (Kelly, 2010: 317) and is a way of identifying and selecting cases that
will use limited research resources effectively (Palinkas et al., 2015).Purposive sampling is a
technique in which the person conducting the research relies on their judgment to choose the
members who will be part of the study. It is a type of nonprobability sample, and it is referred to
as a judgmental or expert sample. A purposive sample is a non-randomly selected and typically
smaller subset of the population intended to represent it logically. This can be done by
understanding the population’s background by selecting a sample that portrays those variations.
Researchers use sampling methods when they want to access a particular subset of people, where
all the survey participants are selected to fit a specific profile.

Purposive sampling is a random sampling methodology where the sample group is targeted to
have specific attributes. This method can be used in many populations, but it is more effective
with a smaller sample size and a more homogenous population. Sampling is beneficial because
the researcher can pore over all of the data. The researcher can select an accurate and cost-
effective sample by selecting people or points based on their knowledge; it enables the collection
of qualitative response data that produces a more robust understanding of a topic with precise
results, there is no randomness in this sampling method, the sampling method used is highly
accurate and relevant in the context of research, survey, or experiment and targeting project-
oriented demographics becomes easy with purposive samples.

Also the margin of error is low, the selection process is accurate and efficient as they are chosen
based on the appropriate qualities, it is best to use sampling if you want to find averages in data
and using purposive samples can create a substantial result in real-time, as the people have
specific knowledge about the research(https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk).

3.6 Sample size

20 respondents including 18 fish farmers and 2 two extension workers were selected purposively,
and interviewed using questionnaires during the study (Annex ………).

3.7 Data analysis

All analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel (2007) and results presented in the form of
tables and figures.
3.8 Data collection methods

3.8.1 Surveys and Questionnaires:, developed questionnaires were developed to gather

quantitative and qualitative data on the opinions, perceptions, and practices of aquaculture
farmers regarding the effectiveness of extension services (Annex …….).

3.8.2 Interviews:, Conducted interviews with aquaculture extension service providers and
farmers to obtain in-depth qualitative insights into their experiences, challenges, and success.
3.8.3 Observation
Observations of aquaculture practices and extension service activities were used to obtain
valuable qualitative data on the actual implementation of extension services and their influence
on production.

3.8.4 Document Analysis

Documents such as extension service reports, training materials, and official records about the
extension programs were reviewed.

3.8.5 Remote Sensing and GIS:

Remote sensing and Geographic Information System (GIS) tools were helpful to obtain data
about kapyanga and Muterere sub-counties.
3.9 limitations
3.9.1 Limited Access and Infrastructure:
Remote villages lacked proper transportation and infrastructure, making it difficult and
expensive to access the respondents.
3.9.2 Language Barriers:
Different languages were spoken in deep villages, making communication and data collection
more challenging.
3.9.3 Limited Internet and Communication Facilities:
Poor or nonexistent internet connectivity hindered communication and data transfer, and affected
the ability to access and share information.
3.9.4 Low Literacy levels:
Low levels of education and literacy in rural areas limited the participation of farmers in research
activities, affecting the quality and quantity of data collected.
3.9.5 Limited Resources:
Lack of funding, equipment, and technical resources constrained the scope and quality of the
research.
3.9.6 Health and Safety Concerns:
Poor sanitation posed a very challenging situation as I suffered unavoidable stomach upsets from
unhealthy snacking during the surveys. In addition, I was endangered by wildlife such as snakes
and dogs that loitered freely in the fields.
3.9.7 Seasonal Variations:
Seasonal changes, such extreme temperatures, and heavy rains affected the timing and
feasibility of data collection.
 4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Distribution of respondents

STATE HERE HOW MANY FARMERS ARE FOUND IN KAPYANGA AND

MUTERERE SUB-COUNTIES AND HOW MANY WERE RESPONDENTS FROM
EACH!!!! PROVIDE A FIGURE OF WHERE THE FISH FARMERS ARE LOCATED

Table 1. status Status of respondents (farm owners, casual laborers and farm managers)
interviewed from kapyanga Kapyanga sub-county

Status of frequency
respondents
farm owner 3
farm 1
manager
laborer 0
From tableTable 1, . respondents Respondents practicing aquaculture selected from kapyanga
Kapyanga Sub County comprised of three farm owners and one farm manager.

Table 2 parishes from which respondents were selected and frequencies.

parish frequency
of
respondents
Namukonge 1
kirongero 1
Butakanira 1
Nakavule 1

From table 2, sub-counties of Namukonge, kirongero, Butakanira and Nakavule were selected
out of the seven parishes that make up kapyanga sub-county.
Table 3 status of respondents selected from Muterere sub-county.
Status of frequency From table 3, 16 farm owners, 1 farm manager and 1 casual
respondent laborer were the respondents selected from Muterere sub-
county.
farm owner 16
farm manager 1
casual laborer 1

4.2.1 Age of respondents

As shown in Figure1, 8 (39%) of the 20 respondents fall within the age class of more than
35 years with 61% being in the age class of 26-35 and none of the respondents were less
than 25 years

Figure 1, Age of respondents

As shown in figure1, 39% of the respondents fall

age of respondents within the age class of more than 35 years with
61% being in the age class of 26-35 and none of
the respondents were less than 25 years.
18-25
39% 26-35
>35
61%

4.2.2Education levels
Figure 2, Education levels
 The study showed that 44% of the respondents
17% (farm owners, casual laborers and farm managers)
had acquired primary education, 39% secondary
none education and 17% were graduates.
44% primary
secondary
graduate
39%

Table 4, Education levels of extension worker respondents

DEVELOP A TEXT

Education frequency
level
doctorate 0 From table 3, none of the extension workers is a post-
graduate; one is a bachelor’s holder with the other being a
masters 0 diploma holder.
bachelors 1

diploma 1

4.2.3 Experience of respondents

Table 5, experience of respondents (farm owners, casual laborers and farm managers)
experience in frequency Percentage From table 4, 28% of the respondents had
aquaculture(years) (%) practiced aquaculture for 3 years, also
28% for 4 years, 33% for 5 years and 11%
3 5 28
for 7 years.
4 5 28

5 6 33

6 0 0

7 2 11

Total 18 100.00
 Figure 3, respondents
experience in years experience in aquaculture
extension
FISHERIES ASSISTANT

6 As shown in figure 5, extension

workers of kapyanga and
13 EXPERIENCE Muterere sub-counties had six
and thirteen years experience in
KAPYANGA
extension service provision
MUTERERE respectively.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

4.2.3.1 Relationship between experience and production

From figure 6, generally, increasing

9
8
experience in aquaculture practice is
7 linked to increased production;
6 however, production can still lag
5 production ca- with increased experience.
pacity(TONNES)
4
experience in
3 aquaculture(YEARS
2 )
1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Figure 4 Relationship between experience and production

4.2.4 Gender

gender
From figure 7, 70% of the respondents were
male while 30% were female.
30%
MALE
FEMALE

70%

Figure 5, gender of respondents

4.2.5 ICT literacy

 From figure 8, 61%of the respondents showed good ict
skills, while as 28% and 11% had fair and poor ict
11% GOOD skills. Respondents with good ict skills could ably
FAIR interact with gadgets like computers, smart phones and
28% POOR the internet.
61%

Figure 6, ict literacy levels

4.3 Extension Workers and Extension Service Delivery

The dynamics of extension workers to farms are presented in table Table 4. The total number of
extension workers stationed in kapyanga Kapyanga and Muterere sub-counties at the time of this
study (February 2024) stood at two. The extension worker to farmer ratio was 1:5 for kapyanga
Kapyanga and 1:39 for Muterere sub-county. The minimum qualification to be extension service
personnel is at diploma level. The extension service workers visit the farms at least 4 times
during the growing period averaged at 8 months, implying that extension workers on average
met farmers after every two months (Table 3).

Table 3.

parameter frequenc
y

total number of fish farmers in the sub-counties 44

aquaculture extension officers 2

average visits per growing period 4

average growing period(months) 8

average distance (km) from sub-county to farm location 3

extension worker to farmer ratio

 for kapyanga 1:05

for Muterere 1:39

4.3.1 Relationship between distance of farm from sub-county headquarters and frequency
of extension worker visits

Figure 7, relationship between distance and visits

7 From figure 7, generally farmers

6 established near sub-county
5 headquarters experienced more
DISTANCE FROM extensions than farmers located far
4
SUB-COUNTY away from the sub-county head
3 HQ(KM)
FREQUENCY OF
quarters.
2 EXTENSION VISITS
1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
4.3.2 Relationship between
extension worker visits and
production

9 Figure 8 shows that

8 generally, there is a
7 positive correlation
6 between the frequency of
5 FREQUENCY OF EX- extension worker visits and
TENSION VISITS
4 production ca-
production as more visits
3 pacity(TONNES) happen to fuel increased
2 production.
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718

Figure 8, Relationship between extension worker visits and

production
4.4 Expectations from farmers

Table 5??? caption

topic frequency (%) ranks

FEED 11 55 1 The farmers indicated that they expected extension
FORMULATION workers to help them in areas such as; feed
BREEDING 2 10 3 formulation, disease control, breeding, species
DISEASE 4 20 2 selection as well enabling them to identify and
CONTROL exploit available market opportunities. Out of these
SPECIES 1 5 5 topics, the respondents prioritized feed formulation
SELECTION and disease control, as the two most pressing needs
MARKETING 2 10 3 (Table 5).
total 20 100

The ranking of the services required by the 18 respondents (farm owners, casual laborers and
farm managers) is presented in Table 5. From the table, the most pressing service required by the
farmers is about how to produce farm based feed. 55% of the respondents indicated feed
preparation and production as their most important need. This was followed by 20% of the
respondents indicating disease control as their most pressing need. On the other needs required
by the respondents, 10%, 10% and 5% indicated breeding, marketing and species selection
respectively as their most pressing need.

4.5 major constraint

 from figure 9, inadequate funds to
Major constraint support aquaculture practices
stands as the main constraint from
11% the respondents occupying a
percentage of 50, followed by
11% hardships to access and exploit
6% 50% available markets for aquaculture
6% products with 17%, expensive
feeds and inadequacy of skilled
17% labor held a percentage of 11 both,
while expensive seeds and high
mortalities scored 6% and 5%
funds inadequacy inaccessible market respectively.
high mortalities expensive seeds
inadequate skilled labor expensive feeds

Figure 9 major constraint

 5.0 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Age of respondents

Age is an important factor that influences the adoption of new technologies because it is a
primary latent characteristic in adoption decisions, age was found to positively influence
adoption of sorghum in Burkina Faso, Integrated pest management on peanuts in Georgia, and
chemical control of rice stinkbug in Texas as also stated by (Asiedu-Darko E, 2014).
From the study, 61% of the respondents were aged between 26-35 years while 39% were above
35 years of age. Indicating that there are quite a larger proportion of young people engaged in
aquaculture in the sub-counties of kapyanga and Muterere as compared to older groups, youth
population being involved in aquaculture industry is an advantage to the industry as their
technology adoption behaviors are high which is crucial to improvement in aquaculture
production.

COMBINE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.2 Education levels

Education usually creates a favorable attitude for the acceptance of new information. From the
study, 44% of the respondents (farm owners, casual laborers and farm managers) had acquired
primary education, 39% secondary education and 17% were graduates, on that note
the respondents stand a greater chance of being able to assimilate and idealize any new
technology from the extension workers as the rate at which one can assimilate and idealize new
knowledge and technology could depend on the educational level of the individual.
However, none of the extension worker respondents had attained post-graduate education; one of
the individuals had a bachelor’s degree with the other being a diploma holder. This indicated
there could be an information gap amongst extension workers, which can affect the kind of
extension services delivered to farmers. They have to require sufficient knowledge and
experience in their fields to be able to influence changes in behavior, attitudes, and habits of
farmers (Amanah, 2008). The application and selection of counseling methods are also related to
competencies (Haryadi et al. 2014).

5.3 Experience of respondents

Results of the study revealed that aquaculture was still in its infancy stage in the sub-counties of
kapyanga and Muterere, as the highest percentage of the respondents (56%) had less than five
years experience in aquaculture (table5). This provided an insight into the possible causes of the
low adoption levels of disseminated information. Farmers attended training, but not all of them
applied the information because the knowledge and technology is not easy to implement and
requires regular assistance from extension services provided which doesn’t happen overnight.
5.4 ICT literacy

From the study there is a fertile ground for integration of ict into extension service delivery, as
the highest percentage of respondents are ict literate (figure 8). Ict powered information delivery
could solve the constraints of poor transport networks and funds inadequacy thus indirectly
boosting aquaculture production through increased degrees of extension service provision.

5.5 gender of respondents

The percentage of women involved in aquaculture remains low as compared to men (figure7),
which limits the overall productivity as the population in the sub-counties comprised of higher
percentage of female than male. The unexploited work force from the females’ population
created a production gap.

5.6 Relationship between extension worker visits and production

Based on Lee et al. (2019), Good Aquaculture Practices have an important role in increasing
Productivity. A generally positive correlation between extension worker visits and aquaculture
production (figure8) indicated that extension has been a key element for enabling farmers to
obtain information and technologies that improve their livelihoods enabling them to put into
application best management practices which then increases aquaculture production. By this
extension, agents actually influence the innovation and decision-making process in a direction
deemed desirable to enhance farmers’ economic and social status (Ajayi AO, 2013).
 6.0 Conclusion and Recommendation

6.1 Conclusion
In summary aAquaculture, extension has a significant positive influence on aquaculture
production as it enhances the fish farmers’ ability to derive, decode and evaluate useful
information for increasing production as also stated by (Ani AO 1998). If administered
appropriately and designed with the local farmers needs in consideration, extension services can
boost fish farmers’ resilience to available challenges in the aquaculture sector, enable farmers to
adopt best practices and maximize available opportunities thus boosting production.
6.2 Recommendation
In addition, since the respondents are inclined to embracing ict usage, therefore there is a need to
integrate ict ICT into extension service delivery to enhance the delivery of extension services and
the women population should be more attracted into the aquaculture world, this can be through
providing incentives to women groups interested in aquaculture.
 References

1. Adereti FO, Fapojuwo OE, Onasanya AS. Information Utilization on Cocoa production
Techniques by Framers in Oluyole Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria.
European Journal of Social Science. 2006;
2. Agbebi FO. Assessment of the Impact of Extension Services on Fish Farming in Ekiti
State, Nigeria. Asian
3. Alene AD, Manyong VM. The effects of education on agricultural productivity under
traditional and improved technology in northern Nigeria: an endogenous switching
regression analysis. Empir Econ. 2007; 32:141-159. Ani AO, Ogunnika O, Ifah SS.
Relationship betweenSocio-Economic Characteristics of Rural Women
4. Anderson, J. L. (2007). Sustainable aquaculture: What does it mean and how do we get
there. Species and system selection for sustainable aquaculture, 9-18.
5. Ani AO. Assessment of farmers’ extension education needs in Yobe State, Nigeria.
Nigerian J Agric Educ.1998; 1:152-158.
6. Awuor, F. J., Opiyo, M. A., Obiero, K. O., Munguti, J. M., Abwao, J., Nyonje, B. M., ...
& Stappen, G. V. (2021). Aquaculture extension service in Kenya: Farmers and extension
officer’s perspectives. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 13(1),
14-22.
7. Banga, M., Kudeeba Mwanja, R., Namumbya, S., Owani, S. O., Nadiope, E., Tenywa
Mwanja, M., & Mwanja, W. W. (2018). Socio-economic considerations for rural
aquaculture development of Singida tilapia, Oreochromis esculentus (Teleostei:
Cichlidae, Graham 1928) in Uganda, East Africa.
8. BENIN????
9.[8.] Bostock, J., McAndrew, B., Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen, K., ... &
Corner, R. (2010). Aquaculture: global status and trends. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2897-2912.
10. BUYINZA?????
11.[9.] Campbell, B., & Pauly, D. (2013). Mariculture: a global analysis of production trends
since 1950. Marine Policy, 39, 94-100.
12.[10.] Davidson AP, Ahmad M, Ali T. Dilemas of Agricultural Extension in Pakistan:
Food for thought. Agricultural Research and Extension Network, 2001, 116.
13.[11.] FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture,
2012.
14.[12.] Farmers and Their Adoption of Farm Technologies in Southern Ebonyi State.
Nigeria. Int J Agr Biol. 2004; 6(5):802-805.
15. HAKIZA?????
16.[13.] Himanshu KD, Dileep KP. Constraints to women’s involvement in small-scale
aquaculture: an exploratory Study. Int. J Agr Ext. 2014; 02(01):81-88.
17.[14.] Inoni OE. Allocative efficiency in pond fish production in Delta State, Nigeria: A
production function approach. Agric. Tropica Subtropica. 2007; 40:127-134.
18.[15.] Iwama, G. K. (1991). Interactions between aquaculture and the
environment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 21(2), 177-
216.
19.[16.] Lim G. Value chain upgrading: Evidence from the Singaporean aquaculture
industry. Mar. Policy, 2015.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol. 2015.03.016i.
20.[17.] Machila M, Lyne M, Nuthall P. Assessment of an outsourced agricultural extension
service in the Mutasa district of Zimbabwe. J Agric Ext Rural Dev. 2015; 7(5):142-149.
21. MAAIF????
22.[18.] Mgbada JU. Effectiveness of Information sources on improved farming practices to
women farmers in Enugu State, Nigeria. Global Approaches to Extension Practice. 2006;
2(1):67-78.
23.[19.] Moffitt, C. M., & Cajas-Cano, L. (2014). Blue growth: the 2014 FAO state of world
fisheries and aquaculture. Fisheries, 39(11), 552-553.
24.[20.] Nandi JA, Gunn P, Adegboye GA, Barnabas TM. Assessment of Fish Farmers’
Livelihood and Poverty Status in Delta State, Nigeria. Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries. 2014; 3(5):427-433.
25.[21.] Naylor, R. L., Goldburg, R. J., Primavera, J. H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M. C.,
Clay, J., ... & Troell, M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies. Nature, 405(6790), 1017-1024.
26.[22.] Naylor, R. L., Goldburg, R. J., Primavera, J. H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M. C.,
Clay, J., ... & Troell, M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies. Nature, 405(6790), 1017-1024.
27.[23.] Oddsson, G. V. (2020). A definition of aquaculture intensity based on production
functions—the aquaculture production intensity scale (APIS). Water, 12(3), 765.
28.[24.] Ottinger, M., Clauss, K., & Kuenzer, C. (2016). Aquaculture: Relevance,
distribution, impacts and spatial assessments–A review. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 119, 244-266.
29.[25.] Outlook Agric. 2002; 31(4):225-233.
30.[26.] Pauly, D., & Froese, R. (2012). Comments on FAO's State of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, or ‘SOFIA 2010’. Marine Policy, 36(3), 746-752.
31.[27.] Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2017). Comments on FAOs state of world fisheries and
aquaculture (SOFIA 2016). Marine Policy, 77, 176-181.
32.[28.] Rahman, Mirza Ataur, Md Ghulam Mustafa, and Benoy Kumar Barman. "Impacts of
aquaculture extension activities on female fish farmers in different areas of
Bangladesh." Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 39.2 (2011): 213-221.
33.[29.] Rand, J., & Tarp, F. (2009). Impact of an aquaculture extension project in
Bangladesh. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 1(2), 130-146.
34.[30.] Rouhani QA, Britz PJ. Contribution of aquaculture to rural livelihoods in South
Africa: A Baseline Study. 1st Edn. Water Research Commission, Gezina, 2004,
105.ISBN-10:1770051864
35.[31.] Subasinghe, R., Soto, D., & Jia, J. (2009). Global aquaculture and its role in
sustainable development. Reviews in aquaculture, 1(1), 2-9.
36.[32.] Suleiman VR, Hall AJ. Beyond technology dissemination: Reinventing agricultural
extension.
37.[33.] Tacon, A. G. (2020). Trends in global aquaculture and aquafeed production: 2000–
2017. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 28(1), 43-56.
38. SAFRIDA ???????
39.[34.] Thompson, Paul M., A. K. M. Firoz Khan, and Parvin Sultana. "Comparison of
aquaculture extension impacts in Bangladesh." Aquaculture Economics &
Management 10.1 (2006): 15-31.
 Plates

Plate 1Plate 1 fishponds

Plate 2. fish Fish feeding

Plate 3 over Over-fertilized fishpond

Plate 4 poor road connectivity
 Appendices

Fish farmer QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

TOPIC: THE ROLE OF AQUACULTURE EXTENSION SERVICES ON FISH
PRODUCTION IN KAPYANGA AND MUTERERE SUB- COUNTIES BUGIRI
DISTRICT

NOTE

1. The information given is only for research purposes and will not be put to any other use.
2. Where boxes are provided, please tick them according to the instructions given.
1.0 BIODATA
1.1 Date of filling this questionnaire…./………/…………
1.2 Status of respondent……………………………………………………………

1.3 Gender of the respondent: male Female

1.4 Age of respondent…...

1.5 What is your Education Level?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
1.7 What is the size of the land on which your project is established?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1.8 What is the topography of the land?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1.9 How is the road connectivity in this area?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.0 KNOWLEDGE ABOUT AQUACULTURE EXTENSION SERVICES

2.1 Have you ever heard about aquaculture extension services?

Yes No

If yes, what is all about?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2.3 Who are the main stakeholders taking part in aquaculture extension?

NGOs

fisheries assistants or officers

2.4 Are you interested in aquaculture extension services?

Yes

No

3.0 IMPORTANCE OF AQUACULTURE EXTENSION SERVICES

3.1 Do you have access to aquaculture extension services?

Yes

No

If yes, how often do you see an extension officer during the growing season………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

If no, why? …………………………………………………………………………………..

3.2What fish species do you culture?.................................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………

3.3 What is your current fish production capacity?

................................................................................................................................................
3.4 How often do you attend workshops relating to aquaculture?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
.
3.5 Which ict devices are most comfortable with?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.6 For how long have you practiced fish farming?

……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………
3.7 .where do you sell your fish?
……………………………………………………………………………………………

3.8 How did you start fish farming?

 …………………………………………………………………………………………….
3.9 How do you access fish seeds?

………………………………………………………………………………………………...

4.0 How do you access fish feeds?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………

4.1 When was aquaculture first introduced in the sub-county?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4.2 What is the total number of fish farmers in the sub-county?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4.3 What is the general trend of aquaculture production in the sub-county?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4.4 What do you regard as constraints during extension service provision?
………………………………………………………………………………………………

End
 EXTENSION WORKER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
TOPIC: THE ROLE OF AQUACULTURE EXTENSION SERVICES ON FISH
PRODUCTION IN KAPYANGA AND MUTERERE SUB- COUNTIES BUGIRI
DISTRICT

NOTE

3. The information given is only for research purposes and will not be put to any other use.
4. Where boxes are provided, please tick them according to the instructions given.
1.0 BIODATA
1.1 Date of filling this questionnaire…./………/…………
1.2 Status of respondent……………………………………………………………

1.3 Gender of the respondent: male Female

1.4 Age of respondent

18-35 36-45 50 and above

1.5 What is your Education Level?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1.6 What languages can you speak?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................

1.7 Where do you meet fish farmers?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.8 What are your means of delivery of extension services to farmers?

………................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................

1.9 What means of transport do you use to reach farmers?

………................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................

1.10 What is the minimum qualification to serve as an extension worker?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.11 What are your qualifications?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.12 How do you access new information and technologies?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.13 For how long have you served as an extension worker?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.14 How many times can you interact with a particular farmer during the growing season?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.15 What extension methods do you use?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.16 Which topic are farmers always most eager to hear about?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.17 When was aquaculture first introduced in the sub-county?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.18 What is the total number of fish farmers in the sub-county?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.19 What is the general trend of aquaculture production in the sub-county?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.20 What do you regard as constraints during extension service provision?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

End thanks