Socio-economic status and level of biosecurity practice of catfish farmers in Delta North Agricultural Zone, Delta State, Nigeria

Agatha Arimiche Nwabueze ^a* , Albert Ukaro Ofuoku ^b

^a*Department of Animal Science and Fisheries, Delta State University, Asaba Campus, Asaba, Nigeria. Corresponding author's email address: aanwabueze@gmail.com

^bDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Delta State University, Asaba Campus, Asaba, Nigeria.

Keywords:Biosecurity measures, Catfish, Farmers, Delta North, Nigeria

ARTICLE HISTORY: Received: 13-Mar-2020, Accepted: 27-Jul-2020, Online available: 26-Aug-2020

Contribution/ Originality

This study has shown that the level of biosecurity practice of catfish farmers in Delta North Agricultural Zone of Nigeria is poor. Though the farmers understand the importance of producing healthy aquaculture fish, minimal biosecurity practice was carried out. There is a need for a specific legal biosecurity framework for the practice of aquaculture in the area to forestall any future incidence of disease outbreaks.

1. INTRODUCTION

Fish is important to humans and animals as food, source of protein and for the generation of income by man. Intensive fish culture in the tropics has introduced stress due to overcrowding, poor water quality and general lack of knowledge of fish farming occasioned by the entry of unskilled personnel into fish culture practices (Pulkkinen et al., 2010). Stress has been reported to be a major cause of disease outbreaks in fish ponds (Gabriel and Akinrotimi, 2011; Raman et al., 2013). Fish diseases of protozoal (Martins et al., 2015, Okoye et al., 2016, Rakesh et al., 2018, Ogbu et al., 2019), helminth (Onyedineke et al., 2010, Onyishi and Aguzie, 2018), bacterial (Sudheesh et al., 2012, Adeyemo, 2013, Wamala et al., 2018, Kousar et al., 2019), fungal (Melaku et al., 2017, Idowu et al., 2017, Patel et al., 2018) and viral (Ozturk and Attinok, 2014) origins have been reported in many tropical fish ponds. Management of fish diseases has, therefore, become an issue of great concern, particularly to rural fish farmers with little or no skills in fish farming. Outbreaks of fish diseases have resulted in fish kills and economic losses, cumulating in reduced fish production (Okaeme et al., 1987; Hossain et al., 2011; Pridgeon and Klesius, 2012; Oladele et al., 2015; Kousar et al., 2019). The ability to curtail, contain and eradicate diseases of fish when they occur will depend on several factors bordering on biosecurity measures put in place and the extent of compliance with these measures.

Biosecurity has been defined as a strategic and integrated approach for the analyses and management of relevant health and environmental risks to human, animal and plant lives (Hawkes and Ruel, 2006). This approach is based on legal and regulatory frameworks for the protection of life forms. It has become a necessity to protect cultured fish stock from possible negative impacts resulting from the introduction, spread of animal diseases and management risks in aquaculture production facilities (Pena et al., 2018). With biosecurity measures in place, the risks to health and life can be prevented, controlled, or eradicated as well as reduce the economic impacts of disease (Pena et al., 2018). In aquaculture, biosecurity consists of practices that minimize the risk of introducing and spreading the infectious disease to animals, susceptible species, and other cultural sites (Banrie, 2013).

There is less information on the legal framework regarding the biosecurity of fish farms in the study area. Legislation on biosecurity of fish farms is either not available or non-existence. The entrance of unskilled personnel into the aquaculture industry due to unemployment and food fish security issues has prompted the need to assess the practice of biosecurity amongst catfish farmers in Delta North Agricultural Zone of Delta State, Nigeria, to recommend appropriate measures for improved fish health and prevention of disease outbreak.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study area

Delta State, located in Niger Delta, Southern Nigeria consists of three agricultural zones by the Niger Delta State Agricultural Development Programme (DTADP), namely: Delta North, Delta Central and Delta South Agricultural Zones. Delta State is situated between longitude 5^o00' and 6^o 45' East and latitude 5^o00' and 6^o30' North (Figure 1). Delta North is made up of nine Local Government Areas (LGAs): Oshimili South, Oshimili North, Aniocha South, Aniocha North, Ndokwa East, Ndokwa West, Ika South, Ika North East and Ukwuani. The population of Delta North Agricultural zone was 1,236,840 persons by the National Population Commission (2006). The inhabitants of the area have diverse occupations such as farming, fishing, trading and secular jobs.

Figure 1: The study area, Delta North, Nigeria

2.2. Selection of fish farms and locations

A multi-stage sampling procedure was used to draw samples for the study. In the first stage, eight LGAs out of the nine in Delta North Agricultural Zone were purposively selected based on the presence of water bodies like River Niger, River Adofi, and some streams which encourage fish farming activities in the areas and also to the presence of fish farms in the areas. In the second stage, a simple random sampling technique was used to select sixteen fish farmers from the eight LGAs amounting to one hundred and twenty-eight catfish farmers. The sixteen catfish farmers were selected purposively from the different communities in the LGAs based on the presence of fish farms in the areas. It was discovered that not all the catfish farmers in the area were registered with the State Department of Fisheries. The study, therefore, involved both registered and un-registered fish farmers. About 0.01% of the population of the area of study were catfish farmers.

2.3. Interview and visits to fish farms

Primary data for the study was obtained from fish farmers using a structured questionnaire. The fish farmers were also interviewed and assisted in ascertaining that the questionnaire was filled correctly. Out of 128 catfish farmers interviewed, questionnaires from 115 respondents were used due to unresponsiveness and inadequate information supplied by the farmers. Information of fish farm activities for the last one year obtained were on: pond preparation - PP, source of water supply - SW; source of fry/fingerlings - SF, disinfection of facility - DF, quarantine of fry/fingerlings before stocking - QF , fingerling disinfection - FD, correct feeding practices - CF, type of feed (conventional or non-conventional) - TF, feed storage methods - FS, probiotics application to feed - PA, good husbandry practices - GH, water quality management - WQ, organic inclusions into pond other than fish feed - OI, proper fish handling - HF, routine observations - RO, access restrictions to visits - AR, provision of mobile foot bath - FB, biosecurity awareness - BA, hand washing - HW, provision of shower for workers to bath - SW, environmental management/ disposal of effluent - EM, working with veterinary personnel - WV, professional pathogen management - PM, notify government agency of any outbreak - NG, stocking densities - SD, history of vaccination- HV, disposal of dead fish - DD, record keeping of disease - RD, practice of integrated farming - IF, wildlife visits to farm (e.g. rodents, frogs/toads, snails, snakes) - WV and fencing of facility- FN. These gave rise to 31 independent biosecurity variables, including control variables.

In contrast, the level of biosecurity practice is the dependent variable. The 31 biosecurity variables were adapted to suit the area of study and the Nigerian environment from the works of Banrie (2013) and Fasanmi et al. (2016). Other information obtained was on socio-economic variables such as gender, age, marital status, family size, level of education, experience on the job, level of inputs, level of output and other sources of income. The survey was conducted between January and April 2019.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Descriptive analysis was used to describe the socio-economic variables (Objective 1). The method was used to describe the variables of gender, age, marital status, family size, level of education, fishing experience, input, output and other sources of income. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the variable factors affecting the level of biosecurity practice of catfish farmers in the area of study (Objective 2). The farmers' expression on biosecurity variables were dichotomous because fish farmers were to answer whether or not they practiced biosecurity measures in their fish farms. Dichotomous data were subjected to logistic multiple regression model by first stating the regression model implicitly in an equation form as:

Where:
Y = dependent variable (level of biosecurity practice - %)
X = independent variables
e = Random Error
(Udoh and Nyienakuna, 2008).

Three functional forms of the model, linear, semi-log, and double-log functions, as used by Almeida et al. (2001), were used for the analysis. The one with the best fit was used as the lead function based on having the highest value of the coefficient of multiple determination, the highest number of significant variables and conformity to a priori expectations. The level of biosecurity practice was inputted as the dependent variable while the variables were taken as the independent variables with the practice of biosecurity measure (Yes) and the non-practice of biosecurity measures (No) recoded as 0 and 1 respectively. The self-rated level of biosecurity practices by the fish farmers was scored at four levels (Objective 3). The scoring method used was based on the modified qualitative scoring by Pagani et al. (2008). The 31 variables of biosecurity measures were scored as follows:

Level 1: non to very poor practice, 0 - 25%
Level 2: very poor to poor practice, 26 - 50%
Level 3: poor to good practice, 51 -75%
Level 4: good to very good practice, 76 - 100%

Any variable to be scored as 'being practiced,' has a score of "4", and for statistical analysis, all scores below "4" that is (1-3) were recorded to 0, while scores greater or equal to "4" was assigned a score of 1.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The socio-economic characteristics of catfish farmers in the study area are presented in Table 1. Out of 115 catfish farmers, 79.1 % were males, while 20.9 % were females. The domination of men in fisheries activities has been reported (Brummett et al., 2010; Olaoye et al., 2013). Inoni et al. (2017) also reported that men were more abundant in catfish farming since women have limited access to productive resources, external inputs, and information. More of the fish farmers were between 41 and 50 years of age. The average age of fish farmers was 45 years, with the youngest being 28 years and the oldest 72 years with 54.8 % having a secondary level of education. It confirms the findings of Ayotunde and Oniah (2012), which reported that a large number of fisherfolks were educated, and this portends a better future for catfish production.

Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of catfish farmers

Source: Field survey, 2019
Note: ?370.00 to $1

The respondents were found to be within the productive and economic active age. According to earlier reports, this active age is beneficial for the improvement of livelihood for families (Okeowo et al., 2015). The level of education was observed to impact positively on the respondents, as shown in the level of biosecurity awareness. The high level of education is expected to contribute significantly to decision making by the fish farmers, which becomes an advantage in terms of achieving sustainability in aquaculture. A major percentage, 90.4 % of the fish farmers, were married. The majority of fish farmers have been reported to be married and, by this, have a cherished level of responsibility (Oladoja et al., 2008). This shows that the marriage institution is still appreciated as a sign of the economic responsibilities of the respondents (Ayotunde and Oniah, 2012). An average family size of 6 was observed in this study, thus indicating that family members may be involved in fish farming activities to reduce the cost of labour and increase productivity. Fifty-three (46.1 %) of the respondent had between 6 and 10 years of experience on the job with a mean of 7.8 years. This number of years of experience on the job is beneficial for fish farming in the area of study, since farmers with less number of years of experience may be discouraged when they encounter many risks in the early days of fish farming business (Olaoye et al., 2013). The respondents with more experience are also more likely to be able to forecast the market situation in which they may sell their products at higher prices. The input level shows that 65.2 % expended between N60,000 and N100,000 with a mean of N83,362.33 while output in the form of income was N132,476.19 with 53.9 % of the farmers earning between N110,000 and N150,000. Most of the fish farmers (54.8 %) had other sources of income, such as crop farming and poultry. This result is in agreement with earlier findings, which stated that fish farming business is profitable according to the level of investment and variable cost minimization (Adewuyi et al., 2010; Kassali et al., 2011).

Table 2: Results of multiple regression analysis

Source: Field survey, 2019 * Significant at P < 0.05

Results show that the model used was a good fit, implying that 63 % of the levels of biosecurity practice resulted from the independent variables. The multiple regression coefficients for stocking density, source of fish seed, organic inclusions, workers shower, access restrictions, the record of fish disease and pathogen management were highly significant (P < 0.05). It implies that these variables are important factors influencing the practice of biosecurity measures in the study area. The coefficients for the source of water supply, stocking density, good husbandry practice, provision of mobile footbath, biosecurity awareness and fencing of the farm were positive, indicating that increases in the magnitude of these variables may bring about increases in the level of biosecurity practice. A large number of negative coefficients of independent variables were observed, implying that increases in the magnitude of these variables may lead to a reduction in the level of biosecurity practice amongst catfish farmers in the area. It calls for a more serious effort in enforcing and monitoring the practice of biosecurity in catfish farms in the area of study, particularly regarding stocking density, source of fish seed, organic inclusions, workers shower, access restrictions, the record of fish disease and pathogen management. Control variables used were inputted as part of the independent variables. The contribution of each factor, including the control variables, was minimal. Hence ruling out any bias in the model used.

The level of biosecurity practice was rated as 2 with scores from 26 -50 % (very poor to poor) in all LGAs (Figure 2). Most of the fish farms visited practiced intensive fish culture; fish was therefore predisposed to diseases due to stress resulting from bad husbandry practices, particularly having to do with organic inclusions to water, which may have led to poor water quality. Poor water quality resulting from incorrect feeding with excess organic waste deposition in water was a major probable predisposing factor in most of the fish farms (Pann, 2009). Optimum fish production has been reported to be dependent on the physical, chemical and biological qualities of water for successful pond management (Bhatnagar and Devi, 2013).

Figure 2: Level of biosecurity practices by catfish farmers in LGAs

This study also observed that the practice of biosecurity measures was not an important issue among catfish farmers. Most of the farmers preferred non-professional option for the treatment of fish diseases. It has been reported that some fish ponds in some of the areas of study are not free of pathogenic agents (Nwabueze, 2012). Improper or insufficient dosage and treatment of fish diseases could lead to the danger of toxicity, which could cause damage to organs and hinder organ functions as well as introducing the risk of bacteria developing resistance (Young, 2003). Although Anetekhai (2013) reported that outbreaks of fish diseases had not been a major concern in Nigeria, the incidence of mortality of fries of about 2 - 4 weeks was observed across the country, with the true cause of the disease not fully known. It shows that there is a need to put biosecurity checks in place and to monitor compliance to forestall any future fish disease outbreaks. D'Andrea (2005) observed that there was no specific legal framework for inland fish farming in Nigeria, apart from the inland fisheries decree of 1992, which had a single provision empowering the Minister in charge of fisheries matters to determine whether the set up of enclosures such as pens and cages should be subject to a license fee. Currently, there is no specific legal definition or framework for the practice of aquaculture in Nigeria.

4. CONCLUSION

A poor level of practice of biosecurity was observed in the study area. Though most of the farmers were aware of the importance of maintaining a healthy fish production system, the practice of biosecurity in the fish farms by catfish farmers was not an important issue in fish production. Proper and professional conduct in the aquaculture industry is a necessity for the management of fish farms to forestall any outbreaks of fish diseases in the area. Also, a legal framework of international standards to regulate and monitor the level of practice of biosecurity amongst catfish farmers in the aquaculture industry should be put in place. It will go a long way to preventing any future consequences of negligence in aquaculture practices in the area of study.

4.1. The implication for sustainable aquaculture development

The poor level of biosecurity practice is not beneficial for the production of healthy fish, particularly in the event of a future disease outbreak. For sustainable aquacultural development, therefore, the practice of biosecurity measures are necessary for catfish farms. Guidelines for these measures are to be formulated and supported by appropriate legislation to ensure compliance. It will improve the production of healthy fish and a healthier environment to enhance food security for humanity.

References

Adewuyi, S. A., Phillip, B. B., Ayinde, I. A., & Akerele, D. (2010). Analysis of profitability of fish farming in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 31(3), 179-184. doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2010.11906313.

Adeyemo, A. O. (2013). Effective fish health management strategy in Nigeria: A review. International Journal of Plant and Animal Sciences, 1(1), 01-04.

Almeida, O. J., McGrath, D., Arima, E., & Ruffino, M. L. (2001). Production analysis of commercial fishing in the lower Amazon. Journal of Fisheries Management and Ecology, 8, 198-214.

Anetekhai, M. A. (2013). Catfish aquaculture industry assessment in Nigeria. African Union- Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources, Pp84.

Ayotunde, E. O., & Oniah, M. O. (2012). The socio-economic status of artisanal fishers in Cross River, Cross River State, Nigeria. World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences, 4(6), 672-678. doi: 10.5829/idosi.wjfms.2012.04.06.668.

Banrie (2013). Biosecurity in Aquaculture, Part 1: An Overview. The Fish Site. Fact Sheet by Southern Regional Aquaculture Center (SRAC).

Bhatnagar, A., & Devi, P. (2013). Water quality guidelines for the management of fish ponds. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3(6), 1980-2009.

Brummett, R. E., Youaleu, J. L. Tiani, N. A., & Kenmegne, M. (2010). Women's traditional fishery and alternative aquatic resource livelihood strategies in the southern Cameroonian rainforest. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 17, 221-230.

D'Andrea, A. (2005). National aquaculture legislation overview, Nigeria, national aquaculture legislation overview (NALO) Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome. Pp1-5.

Fasanmi, O. G., Ahmed, S. S., Oladele-Bukola, M. O., El-Tahawy, A. S., Elbestawy, A. R., & Fasina, F. O. (2016). An evaluation of biosecurity compliance levels and assessment of risk factors for highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 infection of live-bird-markets, Nigeria and Egypt. Acta Tropica, 164, 321-328.

Gabriel, U. U., & Akinrotimi, O. A. (2011). Management of Stress in Fish for SustainableAquaculture Development, Researcher, 3(4), 28-38.

Hawkes, C., & Ruel, M. (2007). The links between agriculture and health: an intersectoral opportunity to improve the health and livelihood of the poor. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(12), 984-990. doi: 10.1590/S0042-96862006001200015.

Hossain, M. K., Islam, K, T., Hossain, M. D., & Rahman, M. H. (2011). Environmental Impact Assessment of Fish Diseases on Fish Production. Journal of Science Foundation, 9(1&2), 125-131.

Idowu, T. A., Adedeji, H. A., & Sogbesan, O. A. (2017). Fish disease and health Management in aquaculture production. International Journal of Environment and Agricultural Science, 1(1:002), 1-6.

Inoni, O. E., Ekokotu, P. A., & Idoge, D. E. (2017). Factors Influencing Participation in Homestead Catfish Production in Delta State, Nigeria. Acta Argiculturae Slovenica, 110(1), 21-28. doi: 10.14720/aas.2017.110.1.3.

Kassali, R., Baruwa, O. I., & Mariama, B. M. (2011).Economics of fish production and marketing in urban areas of Tillabery and Niamey in Niger republic. International Journal of Agricultural & Rural Development, 4(2), 65-71.

Kousar, R., Shafi, N., Andleeb, S., Mazhar, Ali, N., Akhtar, T., & Khalid, S. (2019). Assessment and incidence of fish associated bacterial pathogens at hatcheries of Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 80(3), 607-614. doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.217435.

Martins, M. L., Cardoso, L., Marchiori, N., & Benites de Padua, B. (2015). Protozoan infections in farmed fish from Brazil: diagnosis and pathogenesis. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Parasitology, Jaboticabal, 24(1), 1-20. dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1984-29612015013.

Melaku, H., Lakew, M., Alemayehu, E., Alemayehu, W., & Chane, M. (2017). Isolation and identification of pathogenic fungus from African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) eggs and adults in National Fishery and Aquatic life research centre hatchery, Ethiopia. Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal, 8(3), 1-5. DOI; 10.417212150-3508.1000213.

National Population Commission (NPC) (2006). Human population figures of census in Nigeria (dataset), Abuja. Nigeria.

Nwabueze, A. A. (2012). Diseases status of clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) and some fish ponds in Asaba, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 15(3), 1216-1222.

Ogbu, U. M., Okorafor, U. P., Unigwe, C. R., & Odah, S. I. (2019). Prevalence of common protozoan parasites of African Catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Burchell,1822) from three selected fish ponds in Ibadan north local government area, Oyo State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 12(3 Ser.III), 26-30.

Okaeme, A. N., & Obiekezie, A. I., & Ogbondeminu, F. S. (1987). The economic impact of diseases and parasitic problems in freshwater fish production. In: 5th Annual Conference of the Fisheries Society of Nigeria (FISON), 22-25 Sep 1986, Ilorin, Nigeria, pp. 368-374.

Okeowo, T. A., Bolarinwa, J. B., & Ibrahim, D. (2015). Socio economic analysis of artisanal fishing and dominant fish species in lagoon waters of Epe and Badagry areas of Lagos State. International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry, 2, 38-35.

Okoye, U. O. Ndupuh, E. E., & Adeleye, S. A. (2016). A Survey on endo-parasites of Clarias gariepinus in some selected fish farms in Owerri West Local Government Area of Imo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 4(5), 624-631.

Oladele, O. O., Olarinmoye, A. O. Ntiwunka, U. G., & Akintomide, T. O. (2015). Survey of Bacterial isolates from cases of fish diseases outbreaks and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern. Nigerian Journal of Fisheries, 12(2), 901-906.

Oladoja, M. A., Adedoyin, S. E., & Adeokun, O. A. (2008). Training needs of fisher folks on fishing technologies. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment Science and Technology, 6(1), 195-198.

Olaoye, O. J., Ashley, D. S. S., Fakoya, E. O., Ikeweinwe, N. B., Alegbeleye, W. O., Ashadu, F. O., & Adelaja, O. A. (2013). Assessment of socio - economic analysis of fish farming in Oyo state, Nigeria. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, Agriculture and Veterinary, 13(9), 45-55.

Onyedineke, N. E., Obi, U., Ofoegbu, P. U., & Ukogo, I. (2010). Helminth parasites of some freshwater fish from River Niger at Illushi, Edo State, Nigeria. Journal of American Science, 6(3), 16-21.

Onyishi, G. C., & Aguzie, I. O. N. (2018). Survey of helminth parasites of fish in Ebonyi River at Eha-Amufu, Enugu State, Nigeria. Animal Research International, 15(3), 3112-3119.

Ozturk, R. C., & Altinok, I. (2014). Bacterial and Viral fish diseases in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 14, 275-297. DOI: 10.4194/1303-2712-v14_1_30.

Pagani, P., Abimiku, Y. J. E., & Emeke-Okolie, W. (2008). Assessment of the Nigerian Poultry Market Chain to Improve Biosecurity FAO. Rome, Italy. www.fao.org/3a-ak778epdf.

Pann, J. M. (2009). A comparison of several water quality indices. Water Pollution Control Fed, 48(5), 957-958.

Patel, A. S., Patel, S. J., Bariya, A. R., Pata, B. A., & Ghodasara, S. N. (2018). Fungal diseases of fish: A Review. Open Access Journal of Veterinary Science and Research, 3(3), 1-5.

Pena, L, Somga, J., & Baliao, D. (2018). Biosecurity in Aquaculture: Philippines. Stakeholder Consultation on progressive management pathway (PMP) to Improve Aquaculture Biosecurity. World Bank Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Pp 43.

Pridgeon, J. W., & Klesius, P. H. (2012). Major bacterial diseases in aquaculture and their vaccine development. CAB Reviews, 7(48), 1- 16. doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20127048.

Pulkkinen, K., Suomalainen, L. R., Read, A. F., Ebert, D., Rintamaki, P., & Valtonen, E. T. (2010). Intensive fish farming and the evolution of pathogen virulence: the case of columnaris disease in Finland. The Royal Society, Proceeding B, 277, 593-600. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1659.

Rakesh, R., Ansari, E., & Baskar, K. (2018). Investigations on protozoan infection in Cirrhinus mrigala. ACTA Scientific Microbiology, 1(8), 23-28.

Raman, R. P., Prakash, C., Makesh, M., & Pawar, N. A. (2013). Environmental stress mediated diseases of fish: an overview. In: Advances in Fish Research. Edited by U. C. Goswami, Volume V: 141-158. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi, India.

Sudheesh, P. S., Al-Ghabshi, A., Al-Mazrooei, N., & Al-Habsi, S. (2012). Comparative pathogenomics of bacteria causing infectious diseases in fish. International Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 1-16. doi.org/10.1155/2012/457264.

Udoh, A. J., & Nyienakwuna, M. G. (2008) Examining socio economic characteristics and adoption trend of artisanal fishers of Akwa Ibom state in West Africa. Journal of Agriculture and Social Sciences, 4, 141-146.

Wamala, S. P., Muginba, K. K., Mutuloki, S., Evenson, O., Mdegela, R., Byarugaba, D. K., & Sorum, H. (2018). Occurrence and antibiotic susceptibility of fish bacteria isolated from Oreochromis niloticus (Nile Tilapia) and Clarias gariepinus (African catfish) in Uganda. Review of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 21(6), 1-10.

Young, R. P. E. (2003). Use of antibiotics in ornamental fish aquaculture. University of Florida, IFAS Extension, EDIS, Circular 84 FA 084.