Fish consumption pattern and nutritional awareness among the population of Samastipur district of Bihar, India

Introduction

India is the second-largest fish producer in the world, with total production exceeding 17 million tons in recent years. Inland aquaculture, particularly of Indian major carps (Rohu, Catla, Mrigal), dominates freshwater production. National per capita fish consumption has risen from about 4.9 kg in 2005 to around 8.89-12 kg recently, driven by increased production, rising incomes, and urbanization. However, significant regional disparities persist. Eastern states show higher fish-eating populations, yet Bihar lags with per capita availability/consumption hovering around 9.5 kg despite substantial growth in production (from ~4.32 lakh tons a decade ago to over 9.5 lakh tons in 2024-25). Samastipur district lies in the heart of the Mithila region, bounded by rivers and featuring extensive wetlands, ponds, and chaurs (floodplains) that support both capture and culture fisheries.

The district has hundreds of water bodies suitable for fish farming, and government schemes under PMMSY (Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana) have promoted pond development and fish seed production. Agriculture remains the mainstay for over 80% of the population, but fisheries offer a high-return supplementary or alternative livelihood, especially for small and marginal farmers and women selfhelp groups. Nutritionally, fish is superior to many terrestrial animal proteins due to its amino acid profile, digestibility, and micronutrient density. Omega-3 fatty acids support neurodevelopment in children and reduce inflammation. Regular consumption is linked to lower risks of stunting, anemia, and metabolic disorders. In Bihar, where undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies (iron, vitamin A, iodine) are prevalent, increasing fish intake could contribute meaningfully to public health goals under Poshan Abhiyaan and National Nutrition Mission. Despite potential, several constraints limit consumption: low awareness of specific health benefits beyond "fish is good for health," price volatility, poor post-harvest infrastructure leading to spoilage, seasonal supply fluctuations (monsoon vs. lean periods), and cultural/religious factors such as fasting days common in Hindu households. Studies in neighboring districts (e.g., Sitamarhi) and other parts of Bihar indicate that while a majority of non-vegetarians consume fish, frequency is often weekly or occasional rather than daily, and detailed nutritional knowledge is limited. This study aims to: (1) assess the socio-demographic profile and dietary habits of the population in Samastipur; (2) document fish consumption frequency, quantity, and preferred species; (3) evaluate awareness levels regarding nutritional benefits of fish; (4) identify factors influencing consumption patterns; and (5) suggest policy and community-level interventions. By focusing on Samastipur, the research fills a localized evidence gap and provides actionable insights for district-level fisheries and nutrition planning.

Catla

Rohu (Labeo rohita) Mrigal (Cirrhinus mrigala).

Materials and Methods

2.1 Study Area: Samastipur district (25.85°N to 26.40°N, 85.35°E to 86.00°E), Bihar, India. It has a predominantly rural character with fertile alluvial soil and numerous ponds/tanks (estimated water spread area supporting aquaculture potential). Major markets include Samastipur town fish market, Dalsinghsarai, and weekly hats in rural blocks.

Study Design:

Descriptive cross-sectional survey with mixed methods (quantitative questionnaire + qualitative observations).

Sample Size and

Sampling: 150 respondents (aged 18-65 years) from urban and rural areas. Sampling combined convenience and purposive stratification to include diverse groups: students (30%), homemakers (25%), farmers (20%), professionals/service (15%), and fish traders/vendors (10%). Gender balance was attempted (approx. 55% male, 45% female).

Data Collection Tool:

A pre-tested structured questionnaire in Hindi/English (Google Forms for literate respondents; interviewer-administered for others). Sections covered: socio-demographics, vegetarian/non-vegetarian status, fish consumption frequency (daily/weekly/occasional/rare), average quantity per serving, preferred species, sources of fish, reasons for consumption/non-consumption, and knowledge of nutritional benefits (open-ended and Likert-style questions on protein, omega-3, brain health, heart health, immunity, child growth, anemia prevention). Field visits (July 2024-February 2026) included market surveys for species availability, price trends, and hygiene practices. Informed verbal/written consent was obtained; anonymity and confidentiality were maintained. Ethical approval was assumed from the institutional review process.

Data Analysis:

Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using descriptive statistics (percentages, means, frequencies). Cross-tabulations explored associations between socio-economic variables and consumption patterns. Qualitative responses were thematically summarized. Results are presented in tables and figures. Limitations include convenience sampling (reduced generalizability) and potential recall or social desirability bias in self-reported data.

Results

Socio-Demographic and Dietary Profile

Out of 150 respondents, 62% were male and 38% female. Age distribution: 18-30 years (42%), 31-45 (35%), 46-65 (23%). Education levels varied: 28% graduates/postgraduates, 45% up to higher secondary, 27% below. Occupationally, farming and labor dominated in rural areas. Monthly household income: < ₹15,000 (38%), ₹15,000-30,000 (42%), > ₹30,000 (20%). 76% identified as non-vegetarian. Among non-vegetarians, 71% reported consuming fish, making it a preferred animal protein source alongside chicken, mutton, and eggs in many households.

Fish Consumption Pattern

Sources of Fish:

 Local markets/hats: 74%  Household/community ponds: 18%

 Mobile vendors or distant wholesale: 8% Seasonal variation was notable: higher consumption during winter (better quality and availability) and lower during heavy monsoon or major fasting periods (e.g., Chaturmas, Navratri, or specific community observances).

Preferred Fish Species

Nutritional Awareness

Awareness levels:  General knowledge that "fish is a good source of protein": 88%  Benefits for brain/cognitive development (omega-3/DHA): 82%  Cardiovascular/heart health benefits: 48%  Support for immunity and overall micronutrients: 41%  Role in preventing anemia/child growth: 55% Many respondents associated fish mainly with taste and "strength" rather than specific micronutrients. Awareness was higher among educated and urban respondents and those exposed to health messaging via ASHAs or Anganwadi workers.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Fish is culturally valued and regularly consumed in Samastipur district, with Rohu and Catla as top preferences. However, consumption is mostly weekly or occasional, and nutritional awareness, while present at a basic level, lacks depth regarding comprehensive health benefits. The district's aquatic resources provide a strong foundation for scaling production and consumption.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all survey participants, local fish farmers, and market traders for their cooperation. Support from fisheries department officials is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Dubey, Raj. Fish consumption pattern in Sitamarhi. International Journal of Experimental Research and Review; 2025.
2. WorldFish Center. Enhancing nutrition through fish consumption in Bihar. 2024.
3. Food and Agriculture Organization, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Fish consumption statistics. 2024.
4. Department of Fisheries, Government of Bihar. Annual report 2024-25. Bihar: Government of Bihar; 2025.
5. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India. Census of India 2011. New Delhi: Government of India; 2011.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization. Cultured aquatic species information programme [Internet]. Rome: FAO Fisheries Division; 2020 [cited 2026 Apr 30]. Available from: https://www.fao.org
7. ICAR-Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture. Freshwater aquaculture in India: status and prospects. Bhubaneswar: ICAR-CIFA; 2019.
8. Jayaram KC. The freshwater fishes of the Indian region. 2nd ed. Delhi: Narendra Publishing House; 2010.
9. Gupta S, Banerjee S. Indigenous freshwater fishes: A potential resource for rural development. Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries. 2014;2(1):1-8.
10. Sarkar UK, Pathak AK, Lakra WS. Conservation of freshwater fish resources of India: New approaches, assessment and challenges. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008;17(10):2495-2511.