Economic feasibility of Roopchand (Pacu, Piaractus brachypomus) farming in HDPE lined farm ponds in Belagavi district

Introduction

Belagavi district located in the northwestern part of Karnataka, shares its boundaries with the Western Ghats alongside Maharashtra and Goa. This advantageous geographical positioning has endowed the district with rich water resources, including eight rivers, four major reservoirs, and more than 300 natural tanks. A welldeveloped canal network further strengthens Belagavi's irrigation status as one of Karnataka's most water-abundant districts (Karnataka District Census Handbook, Belagavi; censusindia.gov.in) [7] . In last decade, Belagavi district has witnessed a remarkable rise in the establishment of HDPE-lined farm ponds. These ponds are primarily designed to store water for critical irrigation, supporting both agricultural, horticultural, animal husbandry and allied activities. The initiatives have been implemented under various schemes such as the Krishi Bhagya Scheme, the National Horticulture Mission, and MNREGA. In addition, many progressive farmers in rainfed areas have independently invested in constructing larger farm ponds to ensure irrigation facility to their agriculture needs (Adarsha et al., 2025) [5] . The scale of development is significant. Till date more than 22,000 such structures have been established across the district. The size of farm ponds is ranging from 200 square meters to as large as 8,000 square meters. Beyond irrigation, these ponds have unlocked new livelihood opportunities like fish farming. Many farmers are now diversifying their income streams by adopting fish farming practices with different fish species, thereby ensuring more sustainable and profitable farming systems (Yang et al., 2024) [12] . These HDPE-lined farm ponds in Belagavi district, primarily designed for water storage and irrigation, are increasingly being used for aquaculture. Farmers commonly stock Catla, Rohu, and Common carp in these ponds. However, limited soil-water interaction and frequent water withdrawals reduce primary productivity and hinder plankton growth, leading to lower fish yields (Smith et al., 1938) [10] . Despite these challenges, the easy availability of carp seed locally sustains their dominance in farm pond aquaculture. Roopchand is a native of Amazon and Orinoco River basins of South America and belongs to the family: Serrasalmidae; order Characiformes. The fish has been cultivated in many countries around the globe namely including Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Central America, Vietnam, www.extensionjournal.com Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh and China. Notably, Roopchand is often mischaracterized as a carnivorous fish. However, it is primarily a herbivore and, at times, an omnivore. In its early life stages, it feeds mainly on plankton. As it matures, the diet broadens to include a mix of plant and animal matter, but in adulthood, the species is predominantly vegetarian, preferring leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds. (Sipauba et al., 1999) [9] . The culture of pacu (Piaractus brachypomus) in India commenced around 2005, and since then, the species has gained considerable popularity among farmers owing to its rapid growth rate. Despite this, concerns have been raised regarding its ecological implications and overall impact on pond production systems. To address these uncertainties, the National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB) supported a study entitled "Risk and Benefit Assessment of an Illegally Introduced Fish Species, Pacu (Piaractus brachypomus)". This investigation was carried out by ICAR-National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources (NBFGR), Lucknow, across three major states where pacu culture is prominent-Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and West Bengal and findings were used for guidelines (Guidelines for culture of Pacu, 2024). ICAR-BIRDS Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Belagavi-1 has introduced Roophand fish farming in 2020-21 at HDPE lined farm ponds which are basically confined waterbodies and safe to introduce considering there is no threats to native biodiversity. Fish seeds are sourced from Kolkata and Chhattisgarh. Pelleted feeding was practiced for the culture. Due to attractive body colour, good meat quality and faster growth, Roopchand farming has taken rapid expansion in the district. In this study, economic feasibility of Roopchand in farm ponds were studied in comparison with Carps. The study aims to support farmers in making informed decisions by identifying and prioritizing suitable candidate fish species for farm pond aquaculture.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted among farmers from 12 taluks of Belagavi district, Karnataka. Only HDPE-lined farm ponds with an area exceeding 400 m² were considered for inclusion. A total of 72 farmers participated in the study, consisting of 36 carp farmers and 36 Roopchand farmers. Since the total number of pangasius farmers in the district is fewer than 40, the sample size was fixed at 36, following the Krejcie and Morgan sample size determination formula. An equal number of carp farmers were selected as a control group for comparison. Primary data were collected directly from respondents through personal interviews using a structured schedule. The interview schedule was prepared in alignment with the objectives of the study, focusing on two main aspects: (i) the socio-economic background of the respondents, and (ii) the economic feasibility of farm pond aquaculture. Socio-economic information collected from the respondents was analyzed using tabular presentation and descriptive statistics. Production parameters, including yield, cost of production (segregated into fixed and variable costs), and returns, were estimated on a per-acre basis. Economic feasibility of farm pond aquaculture was assessed through standard financial indicators such as break-even analysis, payback period (PBP), net present value (NPV), benefit-cost ratio (B:C ratio), and internal rate of return (IRR). To evaluate the resilience of the enterprise under fluctuating market conditions, sensitivity analysis was performed by simulating a 10% increase in feed cost and a 10% reduction in fish market price.

Statistical analysis

The statistical significance of the of the profitability among Carps and Roopchand were studied by testing following hypothesis.

(H₀):

The mean profitability of Roopchand farming is equal to that of Carp farming in lined farm ponds (H₁): The mean profitability of Roopchand farming is greater than that of Carp farming in lined farm ponds To evaluate the profitability difference between Roopchand and Carp farming, an independent samples t-test (Welch's ttest) was performed.

Results & Discussion

The economic aspects of fish farming in HDPE-lined farm ponds in Belagavi district were analysed in conjunction with the socio-economic profile of the respondents. This approach provided insights into the farmers' capacities, resources, constraints, and overall potential in farm pond aquaculture. Table No.1 presents the key socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, including age distribution, family size and composition, educational status, landholding patterns and resource availability.

A. Age Group

More than half of the respondents (55.56%) were young (≤40 years), while the remaining were equally distributed between middle-aged and older groups (22.23% each). This indicates that fish farming in farm ponds is largely adopted by younger farmers, especially in adaption of new technologies and breeds like Roopchand for aquaculture.

B. Family Size

Most households were large (54.17%), followed by medium-sized (43.06%), while only 2.78% had small families. The predominance of larger families suggests greater availability of family labour, which can support aquaculture day-to-day activities.

C. Family Composition

Children accounted for the largest share of household members (40.88%), followed by females (30.71%) and males (28.41%). This structure indicates higher dependency ratios, though it also reflects potential future labour force for aquaculture.

D. Family Members in Agriculture and allied activities

Male members (38.33%) contributed most to agricultural and allied activities, followed by females (34.87%) and children (26.80%). The active involvement of women highlights their significant role in supporting farm-based livelihoods.

E. Education

Half of the respondents (50%) were graduates, 23.60% had completed high school, while only 1.39% were illiterate. This comparatively high educational level suggests strong potential for adoption of scientific aquaculture practices.

F. Occupation

Agriculture was the primary occupation for 93.06% of respondents, with only 6.94% combining it with subsidiary activities. The dominance of farming as the main livelihood indicates high dependency on agriculture-based income streams of respondent farmers.

G. Land Holdings

Around 30.56% were large farmers (>10 ac), while 29.17% were small, 26.39% medium, and 13.89% marginal farmers.

The balanced distribution shows participation from all landholding groups. The large farmers were slightly more interested in adaption of aquaculture as they are rich in resources.

H. Source of Irrigation

Open wells (52.38%) were the most common irrigation source, followed by bore wells (29.67%) and canals/streams/rivers (17.95%). This reliance on groundwater highlights both the importance of farm ponds as supplementary water sources and the need for sustainable water management. It is important to note that majority of the respondent farmers having more than one source of irrigation as fish farming demands for frequent water exchanges.

Economic Performance of Fish Farming in HDPE-Lined Farm Ponds

The economics of production were assessed through analysis of cost of production, returns, and overall economic feasibility. The cost structure for carp and Roopchand culture is presented in The total cost of Roopchand farming in farm ponds was estimated at ₹3,59,369.60 per acre, of which variable costs accounted for the major share (83.06%), while fixed costs contributed 16.94%. Among the variable expenses, feed cost was the dominant component (₹1,83,661.19), representing 51.11% of the total cost, followed by seed cost (10.94%) and labour charges (7.43%) and interest on working capital (5.43%). Other variable expenditures such as fertilizers, lime and medicines, transportation, and marketing together formed a relatively small proportion of the total. On the fixed cost side, depreciation of farm assets (8.10%) and rental value of land (7.02%) were the major contributors, while land revenue and interest on fixed capital accounted for minimal parts. The high proportion of feed and seed costs within the variable component highlights the input-intensive nature of Roopchand aquaculture. This cost structure suggests that profitability is highly sensitive to fluctuations in feed price and seed availability, both of www.extensionjournal.com which are not locally available.

Returns from fish farming in farm ponds

The comparative economic analysis of carp and Roopchand farming in farm ponds revealed clear differences in cost structure and profitability (Table No.4). The total cost of cultivation was substantially higher for Roopchand (₹3,59,369.60/acre) compared to carps (₹1,74,498.79/acre). However, this higher investment was offset by superior yield performance, with Roopchand producing 5.70 tonnes per acre against 2.45 tonnes for carps. Despite a slightly lower market price per tonne for Roopchand (₹88,472.3) compared to carps (₹89,388.9), the greater volume of harvest translated into higher gross returns. Gross returns from Roopchand farming (₹5,25,314.81/acre) were more than double those of carp culture (₹2,36,419.61/acre). Consequently, net returns were markedly higher in Roopchand (₹1,65,945.28/acre) compared to carps (₹61,920.82/acre). The return per rupee of expenditure also favoured Roopchand (0.46) over carp farming (0.35), indicating greater economic efficiency. These findings suggest that although Roopchand culture is more cost-intensive, it offers higher profitability and better returns on investment, thereby presenting itself as a more viable candidate species for farm pond aquaculture.

Economic feasibility study

The economic feasibility of farming Carps and Roopchand was evaluated using multiple financial indicators over a 4year time frame at a 12% discount rate (Table No The economic feasibility of carp and Roopchand culture in farm ponds was evaluated using multiple financial indicators over a four-year period at a 12% discount rate (Table 5). The payback period analysis revealed that Roopchand farming recovered the initial investment more rapidly (2.17 years) compared to carp farming (2.82 years), indicating a shorter risk exposure. A similar observation was reported by Beg et al. (2024) [1] , where species with higher growth rates achieved quicker capital recovery. Break-even output was estimated at [6] , who emphasized that species with better feed efficiency, such as Roopchand, are more resilient to rising feed prices.

Impact of 10% Decrease in Fish Market Price

In contrast, a 10% decline in fish market price exerted a stronger impact on profitability. Both carp and Roopchand farming exhibited negative NPVs (-₹1,05,838.36 and -₹72,339.27, respectively), reflecting significant vulnerability to revenue shocks. However, roopchand demonstrated relatively greater resilience, with a higher B:C ratio (1.1276) compared to carp (1.0085). This suggests that while both systems are sensitive to market downturns, roopchand culture offers a comparatively stronger buffer against reduced returns. Similar observations were reported by Sonvanee et al. (2021) [11] , who noted that species with higher yield potential and stronger consumer demand are less affected by market price fluctuations.

Results of Statistical Analysis

The mean profitability of carp farming was ₹61,920.8 per acre with a standard deviation of ₹58,565.9, indicating relatively lower and more variable returns. In contrast, Roopchand farming showed a substantially higher mean profitability of ₹165,945.2 per acre with a standard deviation of ₹85,714.4, reflecting both greater profitability and wider variability among farmers. An independent samples t-test (Welch's t-test) was performed to compare the profitability of carp and Roopchand farming in HDPE-lined farm ponds. The analysis revealed a highly significant difference between the two systems (t = -6.01, p < 0.001). The mean profitability of Roopchand farming (₹165,945.2/acre) was markedly higher than that of carp farming (₹61,920.8/acre). These findings lead to the rejection of the null hypothesis (H₀), confirming that Roopchand culture generates significantly greater economic returns compared to carp culture under the studied conditions.

Conclusion

HDPE-lined farm ponds provide an alternative environment for aquaculture, enabling farmers to generate subsidiary income from existing water resources. Species selection emerged as a critical determinant of economic performance. The greater depth and frequent water exchange in these ponds limit plankton productivity, thereby reducing the yield potential of carps. In contrast, species such as Roopchand, which readily utilize artificial feeds, are better suited to these conditions. The comparative economic analysis clearly demonstrates that Roopchand culture offers a more viable and profitable option for farm pond aquaculture than carp farming. The findings of this study highlight the economic potential of utilizing HDPE-lined farm ponds for fish farming in Belagavi district. Stocking of appropriately sized fingerlings, biomass-based feeding protocols and proper water quality management are essential to enhance yield and profitability. Hence, it is important that farmer should be trained on best aquaculture practices by central and state agencies. Establishing dedicated Roopchand hatcheries under the State Department of Fisheries would further strengthen seed availability and support farmer adoption. A focused and systematic approach to farm pond aquaculture can substantially contribute to improving fish production and rural livelihoods in the Belagavi region.

References

1. Beg MM, Roy SM, Moulick S, Mandal B, Kim T, Mal BC. Economic feasibility study of organic and conventional fish farming systems of Indian major carps. Sci Rep. 2024 Mar 25;14(1):7001. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56432-4. PMID: 38523153; PMCID: PMC10961320.
2. Fernanda D, Fonseca T, Bueno G, Valenti W. Economic feasibility of intensification of Macrobrachium rosenbergii hatchery. Aquaculture Research. 2018;49:3769-3776. doi: 10.1111/are.13844.
3. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Guidelines for culture of Pacu (Piaractus brachypomus). 2024.
4. Adarsha HS, Chethan N, Mehtre DA, Patil DN. Exploring the potential of inland fisheries in Belagavi District, Karnataka, India: A review of status and constraints. J Exp Agric Int. 2025;47(7):99-106. doi: 10.9734/jeai/2025/v47i73550.
5. Nath KD, Saikia N, et al. Comparative growth performance of Indian major carps and exotic carps in a pond polyculture system (Assam)-growth and production evaluation. Environment & Ecology. 2017;35(4A):2922-2925.