Pages 2021-4.cdr INTRODUCTION The demand for fish and fishery products is increasing day-by-day. The brackish water fishery resources consist of 75 species, out of which 28 species were iden�fied as commercially important fishes (Harikumar and Rajendran 2007). The annual fish produc�on from brackish water areas of Kerala was es�mated at 3000 tonnesout of total produc�on of 3.93 lakh tonnes in India (NFDB 2017). The State of Kerala is witnessing a rapid increase in brackish water cage farming which not only increases produc�vity but also results in addi�onal income genera�on for the fishing c o m m u n i t y . E ffi c i e n t u � l i z a � o n o f informa�on and technology increases fish produc�on, employment crea�on, and income genera�on. Contribu�ons from different sources and interven�ons by various agencies have made brackish water Research Article Journal of Extension Educa�on Vol. 33 No.4, 2021 DOI: h�ps://doi.org/10.26725/ 1 4 3 6 6699JEE.202 . .3 .6 91- Sources of Informa�on and their Role in Influencing the Decision-Making Process among the Brackish Water Cage Farming Community in Kerala K. V. Unnikrishnan and K. Dinesh ABSTRACT In recent years, the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS) along with the State Fisheries Department has been promo�ng brackish water cage farming by providing extensive online and field-level technical support to the farmers. There are various sources from which farmers gather informa�on for adop�ng cage culture. A study was carried out among the brackish water cage farmers located in different regions of Kerala to iden�fy the significance of various sources of informa�on in adop�ng sustainable cage culture prac�ces. The informa�on pla�orms having various sorts of tools and methodologies are generally categorized into four: print media, visual media, social media, and the tradi�onal type of training programme. All the sources selected for the study are a rich repository of informa�on and insights on the subject under discussion. From the study, it was possible to iden�fy the sources of informa�on according to the magnitude of popularity among various farmers and corela�ng the same with the rate of adop�on of a technology. The maximum number of farmers gathered informa�on through training programme. Least number of farmers with mean score of 208 u�lized print media as a medium to gather informa�on on cage culture. Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Panangad, Kochi, Kerala - 682 506, India. Received : 24-04-2022 Accepted: 24-09-2022 6691 Keywords: Farmers; Information Source; Socio-demographic; Cage culture; Kerala cage farming more profitable. In addi�on to St ate Gove r n m e nt a ge n c i e s , s eve ra l research ins�tutes and departments were also involved in guiding and implemen�ng various brackish water and aquaculture projects. Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) is exclusively focusing on aquaculture research ac�vi�es. Central Ma r i n e F i s h e r i e s Re s e a rc h I n s � t u t e (CMFRI) deals with aquaculture and mariculture research studies. The Central Ins�tute of Brackish water Aquaculture (CIBA) is focused on brackish water aquaculture projects and research ac�vi�es. Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS) contributes by impar�ng educa�on in fisheries and technology. The Na�onal Fisheries Development Board (NFDB), part of the Ministry of Agriculture, is ac�vely providing training in the field of aquaculture and fisheries (De Jong, 2017). I n r e c e n t y e a r s , K U F O S i n a s s o c i a � o n w i t h t h e St a t e fi s h e r i e s Department was involved by providing field-level informa�ve training programs on brackish water cage culture for poten�al farmers and entrepreneurs. The informa�on sourced by the farmers acts as a catalyst for i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c � v i t y a n d i n c o m e genera�on. The informa�on thus acquired enables farmers to take appropriate decisions on adop�ng the right methods of cage farming (Mi�al and Tripathi, 2009). A �me-bound, trustworthy, and quality informa�on source are the important aspects that are required by farmers to meet their needs and expecta�on. The op�mum technology iden�fied can be considered as an eye-opener for the players in cage farming. Hence this study was taken up to iden�fy the sources of informa�on and their role in brackish water cage farming. METHODOLOGY The study was carried out from different brackish water areas located in the state of Kerala encompassing farmers of various demographic features. A total of 121 beneficiary farmers adop�ng brackish water cage farming from three districts (Ernakulam, Alleppey & Trichur) with different socio-demographic features were considered for the survey. Data were collected as respondents from farmers with the help of pre-specified ques�onnaires and response forms. The respondents included in the study area were from different age g r o u p s a n d d i ff e r e n t e d u c a � o n a l backgrounds. Farmers' responses on the sources of informa�on u�lized by them for prac�cing cage culture were collected. A total of 17 types of informa�on sources that were influencing the farmers in adop�ng brackish water cage culture were iden�fied. The informa�on sources were categorized into four groups based on the nature of the tool u�lized; namely the print media, visual media, social media, and the tradi�onal type of training programmes. The “responses were recorded” by the standard three-point like summated ra�ng scale technique (Likert 1932) viz; always, some�mes, and never respec�vely and were ranked based on the respondent's view. The weighted scores (w) for each response with points 1 to 3 as ra�ngs were thus obtained were mul�plied 6692Journal of Extension Educa�on with the frequency (f) of the respondent to obtain the weighted frequency (wf) which is compounded as weighed cumula�ve frequency distribu�on (cf). The rela�ve frequency (rf) of each informa�on source and its percentage (%) were iden�fied by dividing the frequency of response by the total number of respondents. The rank order was computed for each source iden�fied based on the final weighted frequency scores and compared. Similar rank order was computed for the social demographic c h a r a c t e r i s � c s o f t h e f a r m e r s a n d correlated for its significance in decision making. Sta�s�cal test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the significance o f s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s w i t h maximum u�lized informa�on sources. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The various sources of informa�on u�lized by farmers were ranked based on the frequency distribu�on of different informa�on tools. From this study, it was revealed that the maximum number of farmers preferred to get guidance and support from State Fisheries Department (DoF) by a�ending to the training programs provided under various schemes. Of the four different groups of preference, mobile WhatsApp, YouTube channels, magazines & periodicals, and State Fisheries Department were preferred by most farmers and ranked one respec�vely in each group(Table 1&2). The cumula�ve scores obtained for u�lizing different informa�on sources in this study were 273, 267, and 264 which includes the h i g h e s t s c o r e f o r S t a t e F i s h e r i e s Department training, followed by the internet tools like YouTube channels (visual media) and Whats App groups (social media) re s p e c � v e l y. G a t h e r i n g i n fo r m a � o n through YouTube channels has been i n c r e a s i n g d u e t o t h e e m e r g i n g a d v a n c e m e n t i n c o m m u n i c a � o n technology. The mobile-based extension is a good medium for reaching youth and educated farmers (N�ri et al., 2022).Social and visual media tools act as cross-pla�orm mone�za�on solu�on that connects farmers with relevant content and thus enable interac�ons with the exper�se (Thakur et al., 2017). The best possible coverage of informa�on about farming ac�vi�es would be by the usage of mobile phones and mobile extensions supported by the internet (Joshua et al., 2015). Farmers who feel confident to learn new technology are likely to find the technology easier to use than someone who is not as confident. More farmers preferred to follow the tradi�onal methods of collec�ng informa�on directly from exper�se and resource persons, and the overall mean cumula�ve score among the different informa�on sources also showed the highest preference for u�lizing informa�on from training and technical support. Fewer farmers gather informa�on from the print media with the lowest mean cumula�ve score of 208. This is mainly due to the preferen�al decision of farmers t o w a r d s u � l i z i n g t h e i n t e r n e t pla�orm.Table1 and Table 2 describe the maximum and minimum scores obtained for u s i n g va r i o u s t o o l s a n d m e t h o d s i n gathering informa�on for cage farming. 6693 Sources of Informa�on and their Role in Influencing the Decision-Making Process among the Brackish Water Cage Farming Community in Kerala 6694 Table 1. Informa�on Sources through Various Tools Groups Type of sources W F WF RF (%) CF Rank Social Media Through mobile WhatsApp groups A(3) 33 99 0.27 27.27 099 I ST(2) 77 154 0.64 63.64 253 N(1) 11 11 0.09 09.09 264 Through Google search and links A(3) 24 72 0.19 19.83 072 II ST(2) 80 160 0.66 66.11 232 N(1) 17 17 0.14 14.04 249 Through networks like Facebook, Twitter, etc A(3) - - - - - III ST(2) 58 116 0.48 48.00 116 N(1) 63 63 0.52 52.06 179 Mean cumula�ve score 230 Visual Media Through Television channels A(3) 08 24 0.06 06.61 024 III ST(2) 87 174 0.72 72.00 198 N(1) 26 26 0.21 21.48 224 Through online seminars A(3) 10 30 0.08 08.26 030 II ST(2) 98 196 0.80 80.99 226 N(1) 13 13 0.10 10.74 239 Through YouTube channels A(3) 34 102 0.28 28.09 102 I ST(2) 78 156 0.64 64.46 258 N(1) 09 09 0.07 07.43 267 Through big screens/documentary A(3) - - - - - IV ST(2) 66 132 0.54 54.54 132 N(1) 55 55 0.45 45.45 187 No. of samples 121, A -Always, ST - Some�mes, N -Never, W -Weighed score, F -Frequency, WF -weighed frequency, Rela�ve frequency, ( %) - Percent, CF -Cumula�ve frequency. Mean cumula�ve score 229 Print Media Through local and na�onal newspaper A(3) 11 33 0.09 09.09 033 III ST(2) 61 122 0.50 50.41 155 N(1) 49 49 0.40 40.50 204 Through magazines and periodicals A(3) 4 12 0.03 03.31 012 I ST(2) 97 194 0.80 80.17 206 N(1) 20 20 0.17 16.53 226 Through research papers, ar�cles, and publica�ons A(3) 11 33 0.09 09.09 033 IV ST(2) 41 82 0.33 33.88 115 N(1) 69 69 0.57 57.02 184 Through brochures, pamphlets, notices A(3) 10 33 0.08 08.26 033 II ST(2) 77 154 0.63 63.64 187 N(1) 34 34 0.28 28.09 221 Mean cumula�ve score 208 Journal of Extension Educa�on Group Type of sources W F WF RF (%) CF Rank Training & Technical support Kerala State Fisheries Department A(3) 41 123 0.33 33.88 123 I ST(2) 70 140 0.57 57.85 263 N(1) 10 10 0.08 8.26 273 Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies A(3) 34 102 0.28 28.09 102 III ST(2) 67 134 0.55 55.37 236 N(1) 20 20 0.16 16.53 256 Marine Product Export Development Authority A(3) - - - - - VI ST(2) 53 106 0.43 43.80 106 N(1) 68 68 0.56 56.20 174 Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute A(3) 33 99 0.27 27.27 99 II ST(2) 70 140 0.57 57.85 239 N(1) 18 18 0.14 14.87 257 By agencies or groups A(3) 14 42 0.11 11.57 42 V ST(2) 57 114 0.47 47.10 156 N(1) 50 50 0.41 41.32 206 Information from other farmers. A(3) 44 132 0.36 36.36 132 IV ST(2) 33 66 0.27 27.27 198 N(1) 44 44 0.36 36.36 242 Mean cumula�ve score 234 other Table 2 . Informa�on Sources through Training Programmes 6695 No. of samples 121, A -Always, ST - Some�mes, N -Never, W -Weighed score, F -Frequency, WF -weighed frequency, Rela�ve frequency, ( %) - Percent, CF -Cumula�ve frequency. Among the farming community, s o c i o - d e m o g ra p h i c fe at u re s p l ay a n important role in decision-making to gather informa�on. The informa�on on the availability of seeds are vital for the farmers. Cost effec�ve species selec�on can be adopted by fisher folks on a small scale basis for addi�onal income (Kappen et al., 2018). The present study also revealed that the decisions taken by the farmers to choose a par�cular informa�on source largely depend on socio-demographic features. Maximum number of farmers who gathered informa�on from internet pla�orms were from larger family sizes and with family m e m b e r s h a v i n g h i g h e r e d u c a � o n backgrounds. One of the most important sources of informa�on was through internet Sources of Informa�on and their Role in Influencing the Decision-Making Process among the Brackish Water Cage Farming Community in Kerala pla�orms, especially for more coverage of aquaculture extensions (Pieniak et al., 2013). Moreover, the larger the family size, the more the number of par�cipants in cage culture ac�vi�es and off-field culture management prac�ces. Among the socio- demographic features, the family size and educa�on background of farmers was ranked highest (Rank I & II) when compared to other associated demographic features (Table 3).The educa�on of farmers was posi�vely correlated to decision-making and significant whereas age and designa�on were nega�vely correlated (Nirmalkar et al., 2022). The educa�on and experience gained provided the basic knowledge to understand technical aspects and improve farmers' standards (Unnikrishnan and Dinesh 2020). It can be understood that farmers from larger family sizes with average educa�on status are more likely to gather more informa�on by a�ending the maximum number of training programmes than farmers from smaller family sizes. 6696 Table 3 . Socio-Demographic Features of Cage Farmers Sl. No. Category 1 Age 2 Educa�onal status 3 No. of family members 4 Experience in cage farming 5 (W) F WF RF (%) CF Rank <30 years (1) 33 33 0.27 27.27 33 IV 30-50 years (2) 55 110 0.45 45.45 143 > 50 years (3) 33 99 0.27 27.27 242 Primary School (1) 11 11 0.09 9.09 11 II High School (2) 77 154 0.63 63.64 165 ≥ Graduate (3) 33 99 0.27 27.27 264 Up to 2(1) 11 11 0.09 9.09 11 I 5 and above (2) 44 88 0.36 36.36 99 3 to 4 (3) 66 198 0.54 54.55 297 1 -4 years (1) 33 33 0.27 27.27 33 III 5-10 years (2) 44 88 0.36 36.36 121 >10 years (3) 44 132 0.36 36.36 253 < 1 Lakh (1) 77 77 0.63 63.64 77 V 1 to 5 Lakh (2) 33 66 0.27 27.27 143 > 5 Lakh (3) 11 33 0.09 9.09 176 Average Annual Income No. of samples 121, W-Weighed score in ascending order, F- Frequency, WF-weighed frequency, RF-Rela�ve Frequency, (%) - Percent, CF-Cumula�ve frequency. Sta�s�cal analysis (ANOVA) proved the significance of socio-demographic features and their influence on decision- makingin choosing a source. Farmers' family size and educa�onal background were significant (P<0.05) in choosing the required tool and gathering more informa�on. This coincides with the findings by Furtan ., et al Journal of Extension Educa�on 6697 (1985), about the influence of family size in choosing the type of informa�on tool for gathering informa�on. The efforts in on- farm par�cipa�on and off-farm ac�vi�es were higher among larger families than the families with lesser ac�ve members. Thus, it was established from this study that, a larger family size influences the decision- m a k i n g t o c h o o s e a t o o l t o g a t h e r informa�on for cage farming ac�vi�es. Similar findings were also observed by Mi s h ra a n d Go o d w i n ( 1 9 9 7 ) o n t h e significance of farming community size towards decision-making. According to Reed and Harford (1989), farmers with more family members especially grown-up children tend to work more hours and support more on informa�on for farming ac�vi�es. In this study area, the least number of farmers with a lower annual income (< 1 lakh) did not prefer to use the internet pla�orm to gather informa�on; rather they depended mostly on the field- level guidance and support provided by State Fisheries Department. Though family income is one of the socio-economic requirements of the farming community, they have the least impact on choosing an informa�on tool and were insignificant (P>0.05). This contradicts the finding by Raza ., (2020), where socio-economic et al condi�ons significantly impact the farmers' preference to choose an informa�on tool. The informa�on's on the availability of seeds are vital for the farmers. Cost effec�ve species selec�on can be adopted by fisherfolks on a small-scale basis for addi�onal income (Kappen et al., 2018a). Though there are various constrains faced by cage culture farmers, by organizing b e n e fi c i a r y g r o u p s w i t h i n n o v a � v e promo�onal ac�vi�es the profitability increases (Kappen et al., 2018b). CONCLUSION T h e r e a r e v a r i o u s s o u r c e s o f informa�on, from which farmers gather informa�on for adop�ng cage culture. Socio-demographic elements like age, educa�onal background, number of family members, and family income have greater explanatory power for gaining knowledge as they are directly linked to farmers' a�tudes toward using a par�cular informa�on tool. A�tude may be posi�ve or nega�ve with some physiological objec�ves (Edwards, 1957). Though most farmers follow the tradi�onal methodology of gathering informa�on by a�ending training sessions and seminars, the use of informa�on technology medium is on the rise among the younger genera�ons and entrepreneurs. Also, due to the rapidly emerging informa�on technology, maximum number of farmers tend to move towards the internet pla�orm to gather informa�on. Though the internet pla�orm plays an important role in communica�on, most farmers preferred to gain informa�ve knowledge directly from on-field exper�se Sources of Informa�on and their Role in Influencing the Decision-Making Process among the Brackish Water Cage Farming Community in Kerala 6698 which is one of the tradi�onal methods. The field-level informa�ve training and support provided by various agencies like CMFRI and KUFOS in associa�on with State Government bodies were found to be more effec�ve in increasing the awareness of cage culture protocols, thus maximizing the produc�vity of brackish water cage farming, employment opportuni�es, and livelihood security to fisherfolk. The preference of farmers in u�lizing a par�cular source for g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a � o n n e e d s t o b e ascertained beyond the study area. REFERENCES De Jong, J. (2017). Aquaculture in India. R i j k s d i e n s t v o o r O n d e r n e m e n d Nederland. 1-15. Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of a�tude scale construc�on (No. 04; QA276, E39). Furtan, W. H., Van Kooten, G. C., & Thompson, S. J. (1985). The es�ma�on of off-farm labour supply func�ons in Saskatchewan. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 36(2), 211-220. Harikumar, G., & Rajendran, G. (2007). An overview of Kerala fisheries with par�cular emphasis on aquaculture. Souvenir, Integrated Fisheries Project (IFP), Kochi, India, 1-19. Joshua, N. E., Ojha, S. N., Immanuel, S., & B a b u , S . ( 2 0 1 5 ) . A q u a c u l t u r e informa�on exchange facilita�ng f a r m e r s . I n t e r n a � o n a l J o u r n a l o f Fisheries and Aqua�c Studies 2015; 2(4). Kappen, D. C., Kumar, D., & Divya, N. D. (2018a). Pioneer a�empt on cage culture of giant trevally, Caranxignobilis through farmer par cipatory approach in Thiruthipuram Backwaters, Kochi, Kerala, India. Ambient Science, 5(2), 6-8. Kappen, D. C., Dinesh, K., &Divya, N. D. (2018b). Constraints in the Adop�on of C a g e A q u a c u l t u r e P r a c � c e s i n Ernakulam District, Kerala. Journal of Extension Educa�on, 30(4). Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of a�tudes. Archives of Psychology,22(140), 1-55. Mishra, A. K., & Goodwin, B. K. (1997). Farm income variability and the supply of off-farm labor. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(3), 880-887. Mi�al, S., & Tripathi, G. (2009). Role of mobile phone technology in improving small farm produc�vity. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 22(347- 2016-16874), 451-460. Na�onal Fisheries Development Board (2017), Mission brackish water- 2022, retrieved from h�ps://nfdb.gov.in/ PDF/E%20Publica�ons/6%20Mission%20 Brackishwater-Saline%20 Aquaculture% 202017.pdf. Nirmalkar, C., Lahiri, B., Ghsoh, A., Pal, P., Baidya, S., Shil, B., & Kurmi, R. K. (2022). Perceived knowledge and a�tude of Journal of Extension Educa�on https://nfdb.gov.in/PDF/E%20Publications/6%20Mission%20Brackishwater-Saline%20Aquaculture%202017.pdf https://nfdb.gov.in/PDF/E%20Publications/6%20Mission%20Brackishwater-Saline%20Aquaculture%202017.pdf https://nfdb.gov.in/PDF/E%20Publications/6%20Mission%20Brackishwater-Saline%20Aquaculture%202017.pdf https://nfdb.gov.in/PDF/E%20Publications/6%20Mission%20Brackishwater-Saline%20Aquaculture%202017.pdf https://nfdb.gov.in/PDF/E%20Publications/6%20Mission%20Brackishwater-Saline%20Aquaculture%202017.pdf 6699 fisheries extension professionals on usage of ICTs inTripura. Indian Journal of Extension Educa�on, 58(2), 58-64. N�ri, P., Ragasa, C., Anang, S. A., Kuwornu, J. K., & Torbi, E. N. (2022). Does ICT- b a s e d a q u a c u l t u r e e x t e n s i o n contribute to greater adop�on of good management prac�ces and improved incomes? Evidence from Ghana. Aquaculture, 557, 738350. Pieniak, Z., Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Consumer knowledge and use o f i n f o r m a � o n a b o u t fi s h a n d aquaculture. Food policy, 40, 25-30. Raza, M. H., Khan, G. A., Shahbaz, B., & Saleem, M. F. (2020). Effec�veness of i n fo r m a � o n a n d c o m m u n i c a � o n technologies as informa�on source among farmers in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 57(1). Reed, W. R., & Harford, K. (1989). The marriage premium and compensa�ng wage differen�als. Journal of Popula�on Economics, 2(4), 237-265. Thakur, D., Chander, M., & Sinha, S. K. (2017). A scale to measure the a�tude of farmers towards social media use in agricultural extension. Indian Research Journal of Extension Educa�on, 17(3), 10-15. Unnikrishnan, K. V., & Dinesh, K. (2020). S o c i o - E c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s o f Brackishwater Cage Culture in Kerala. Journal of Extension Educa�on, 32(2), 6500-6507. Sources of Informa�on and their Role in Influencing the Decision-Making Process among the Brackish Water Cage Farming Community in Kerala Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62