The coronavirus (2019-nCoV) was first reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on December 31, 2019 (WHO, 2020) which results a very serious infectious disease known as COVID-19 (Wang et al., 2020). The nature of this disease varies from other viral diseases, and it quickly spread in more than 210 countries and territories (Siche, 2020). The primary global health problem that is interfering with human life worldwide and affecting societys normal development is COVID-19 (Burnet and White, 1972; Anwar et al., 2020). During this time, many countries are adopting different kinds of preventive measures such as mandatory lockdowns, social distancing, online business, work at home, and many types of restrictions applied in local and international travel (Loayza, 2020; Keshky et al., 2020; Rafiquzzaman, 2020; Nicola et al., 2020).

The COVID-19 crisis also had an impact on the fisheries and aquaculture food systems economy, both directly and indirectly (Loayza, 2020; Amjath- Babu et al., 2020). Fish and fish products are food products that are traded extensively both globally and regionally all over the world (Belton et al., 2018) which have been significantly impacted by the usual supply chains disruption (Glauber et al., 2020). The crisis had a severe effect on the fisheries sector in Asian countries, which are major producers of fish and fishery products, as well as major suppliers of fish to the global market which eventually resulted in delayed marketing (Amjath-Babu et al., 2020). The restriction measures have prevented fishermen from going out to the sources for fishing operations (Kaewnuratchadasorn et al., 2020; Abedin et al., 2020).

Bangladesh also faced various challenges due to the adverse effects of COVID-19 on its resources. As of August 1, 2021, the nation had 1,264,328 COVID-19 positive cases confirmed, 1,093,266 recovered cases, and 20,916 total deaths (Sunny et al., 2020). Bangladesh has confirmed 269,095 laboratory tested COVID-19 positive patients as of August 2020. Bangladesh reported 3557 (1.32%) deaths from 18 March 2020 until August 13, 2020. 

The recovered patients in Bangladesh were 154,871 (57.55%) from COVID-19 and available patients under treatment 41.12% (110,667) until 13 August 2020 (Dey et al., 2020). During COVID-19, Bangladesh government also imposed a lockdown which had an immense impact on everyone. Aquaculture being the second largest exporting section in Bangladesh also disrupted with fish production due to transportation restrictions which eventually impacted the trade, labor, feed and medicine costs. The implications of COVID-19 also had direct impacts on fish farmers, retailers and stakeholders (Sarafat, 2020; Samad et al., 2022). 

Although a few research works regarding the fisheries value chain and livelihood status of farmers during COVID restriction have been performed in Bangladesh, however, there is no specific report available on the impacts of COVID-19 on the fish market in Dinajpur district, Bangladesh. Therefore, this study focused on the different villages and fish markets of three upazilas in the Dinajpur district to investigate the effect of COVID-19 on fish farmers and retailers with special emphasis on fish production, market situation and economic viability. This study will help to draw attention to policymakers to provide support to aquaculture producers to mitigate the negative impacts of COVID-19.

Selection of the study area

The study area included three Upazilas of Dinajpur district in Bangladesh including Sadar, Birol, and Chirirbandor (Fig. 1). These were selected because they contribute substantially to freshwater aqua-culture production. The study area also included different types of big fish markets including Bahadur bazar, Railbazar, Pachbari bazar, Ambari bazar in Dinajpur district where all types of fishes are available. The survey was conducted for six months from January to June 2023 to collect the data from the selected farmers and retailers in the study area.

Target groups

To get the expected achievement from the study, hundred (100) questionnaires were prepared (50 questionnaires were for fish farmers and the other 50 questionnaires were for retailers) during the experiment. The target groups included fish farmers who are involved in fish farming and retailers who work in fish markets in the study area.

Data Collection

A set of preliminary questionnaires was prepared for face-to-face interviews. The questionnaire was divided into mainly two sections after making necessary corrections and modifications. In the first section, data were collected from farmers and in the second section, data were collected from retailers. 

All types of questions were related to pre-and post-COVID-19 conditions and also keeping the objectives of the study in mind. Numerous quali-tative techniques, including oral history, key informant interviews with informed individuals, and individual interviews were used to gather the data. 

Data processing and analysis

After data collection, questionnaire data were edited and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Primary analysis such as descriptive, graphs etc. was carried out using Microsoft Excel. Results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). 

The data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows version 20, IBM and subject to Shapiro-Wilks and Levenes test for confirming normality and homogeneity of variances respectively. Student t-test was performed to determine the differences between pre- and post-COVID-19 impacts at a 5% level of significance.

Farmer-related information

Farm size

Farmers in the study area have different sizes of farms for fish culture. Farm size is categorized into four types based on the sizes. This study found that 70% of farmers have farms within 1-100 decimal, followed by 15% within 101-200 decimal, 7.50% within 201-300 decimal and 7.50% within 301-400 decimal (Table 1). A study of different areas found that fish species are cultured in different sizes of farm such as small within 34.28 decimal, medium within 93.65 decimal and large farm size within 142.50 decimal (Aktar et al., 2018). In a study, Roy et al. (2002) found that the majority of fish farmers (57%) had a culture area of up to 5 hectares, followed by 25% with farms of between 5 and 10 ha and about 18% with farms larger than 10 ha. Therefore, the farm size varies according to the region.

Cultured species

Farmers in the study area cultured different species including pangas, tilapia, carp, and catfishes. The percentage of cultured different types of species varies pre- and post-COVID-19 conditions. However, the study revealed that 67.5% of the farmers cultured pangas pre-COVID-19 which increased to 80% post-COVID-19. Similarly, tilapia culture increased from 72.5% to 82.5%; carp 87.5% to 100% and catfishes from 62.5% to 70% pre-and post-COVID-19 respectively (Table 2). Mandal et al. (2021) reported that during the pandemic, common fish found in urban markets included pabda catfish, pangas, tilapia, Indian major carps, shrimp/ prawns, and climbing perch and 10-20% of respondents reported that tilapia and Indian main carp were unavailable during COVID. 

Labor engagement

Farmers stated that they needed different types of labor for fish farming including permanent labor, seasonal labor, and non-aquaculture labor. The percentage of labor requirements has decreased post-COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19. In the study area, farmers mainly employed seasonal labor about 6.55% in pre-Covid-19, though the percentage decreased to 5.05% in post-Covid-19. For permanent labor, the percentage also decreased from 2.93% to 2.31%, and for non-aquaculture labor, the percentage decreased from 3.2% to 1.63% pre- and post-COVID-19 respectively (Table 3). Similarly (Hasan et al., 2021) reported that farmers reduced the number of laborers due to COVID restrictions from 209 to 149 in the Mymensingh district of Bangladesh. This indicated that COVID-19 restrictions were subjected to unemployment in the aquaculture sector. On the other hand, Bhanja et al. (2023) reported that over 50% of fish workers were migrants and not available locally because most of them went to their home states and lost their jobs. The authors stated that before COVID-19, there was 18% of labor worked in the farm while it reduced to 10% after COVID. 

Labor cost

Labor cost and the number of labors also play a significant role in successful fish production. The labor cost in the study area was also impacted by COVID-19. The highest increase was seen for seasonal labor where the cost rose significantly post-COVID-19 by 39% (BDT 191.25 per day; P<0.001). In addition, a small but significant increase in labor cost was also found for permanent labor (BDT 87.50 per day; P<0.001) where an increase of 17% in labor payment occurred. Similarly, there was a significant increase of about 31% in the unit labor cost for non-aquaculture labor (BDT 61.25 per day; P<0.001) (Table 4). Hassan et al. (2021) reported that the daily average labor cost decreased by more than 10%. They found the largest reduction for non-technical personnel, whose costs decreased dramatically by 16.4%. Conversely, a somewhat noteworthy reduction in labor expenses was noted for seasonal employees, with an 11.4% drop in costs. 

Feed costs

All farmers in the study area experienced an increase in feed costs due to COVID-19. The results represented significantly increased production costs per kg of BDT 22.93 (P<0.001), 21.09 (P<0.001), 22.22 (P<0.001), and 21.71 (P<0.001) for pangas, tilapia, carp, and catfish production respectively. On average the feed costs were increased to 45% for pangas, 41% for tilapia, 43% for carp, and 42% for catfishes (Table 5). In accordance with our study, Hassan et al. (2021) surveyed that the COVID-19 pandemic increased feed costs for almost all farms. The feed cost increases for tilapia were 7.43% on average, pangas were 6.70%, other catfish were 8.25%, and carps were 11.3%. Alam et al. (2023) found that there was a spike in the prices of key fish feeds, including BDT 45, BDT 35, BDT 30 and BDT 22 per kg for rice break, khail, and wheat dust, respectively due to the epidemic. The prices of feed increase may be due to a lack of raw materials.  

Pharmaceutical costs

This result revealed that the farmers payment for pharmaceuticals was increased post-COVID-19 to continue their culture for all types of culture species in the study area. The significant increase in pharmaceutical costs was BDT 10.53 per kg for pangas (P<0.001), BDT 10.94 per kg for tilapia (P<0.001), BDT 11.02 per kg for carp (P<0.001), and BDT 10.45 per kg for catfishes (P<0.001). The percent change of pharmaceutical costs had very little difference between the culture species. The results depicted 31% for tilapia and carp whereas it was 30% for pangas and catfishes (Table 6).  Similar results were reported by Hassan et al. (2021) and they found it was 15.4% (BDT 3061 per hectare), for pangas, 6.87% (BDT 1600/hectare) for tilapia, 8.17% (BDT 3538/hectare) for carp, and 6.92% for other catfish (BDT 3286/hectare). 

 Price of fishes

The results showed that the price of all types of cultured species has significantly increased post-COVID-19 (Table 7). The biggest significant increase was observed for catfishes which rose by 72% and equated to a mean difference of BDT 288/kg (P<0.001).  Similarly, the mean price of carp and tilapia significantly increased following COVID restrictions by BDT 101.72/kg (P<0.001) and BDT 71.15/kg (P<0.001) respectively. This represented the percent change in the price of carp and tilapia was 52% and 59% respectively.  However, a small margin was found for pangas compared to other fish species, and the price was increased by 68% equated to BDT 68.6/kg (P<0.001) (Table 7). Mitra et al. (2022) revealed that the cost of many cultivated and catch fish species, including pangas, bayeem, boal, shoil, ayr, and taki, dramatically decreased during COVID-19, whereas the price of catla, mrigal, common carp, mola, tengra, and shing increased. Bhanja et al. (2023) reported that during COVID, the farm gate price of carp and catfish increased by 20-40% in Bihar, West Bengal, and Assam. Transport restrictions resulted in a complete cessation of fish supplies from other states, which drove up fish prices by 25–40% compared to the pre-lockdown era. Similarly, Alam et al. (2023) reported that silver carp, common carp, grass carp, and tilapia fish were sold at the farm gate for BDT 80, BDT 130, BDT 150, and BDT 100 per kilogram prior to the pandemic. Following COVID-19, the rates per kg were BDT 80, BDT 125, BDT 140, BDT 120, and BDT 90, in that order. Mandal et al. (2021) observed that about 28% of respondents stated that fish prices had reduced in some locations during the pandemic, whereas roughly 72% of respondents stated that fish prices had climbed throughout the epidemic. The mean costs per kg for pangas, tilapia, rohu, and catla were 3.2, 3.34, 1.48, and 1.5 USD respectively.

Retailer-related information

Input cost 

The result showed that the purchasing cost of all types of cultured species by retailers has significantly increased post-COVID-19. The cost of fish purchased has increased for pangas BDT 43.38/kg (P<0.001) on an average of 40% post-COVID-19. On the other hand, retailers purchased tilapia with a significantly increase amount of BDT 48.38/kg (P<0.001) on average 39%, carps with BDT 70.75/kg (P<0.001) on average 33%, and catfishes with BDT 118.25/kg (P<0.001) on average 32% post-COVID-19 (Table 8). 

The worldwide pandemic COVID-19 has affected the economy of almost every country particularly developing countries like Bangladesh. COVID-19 had a severe impact on the fish farmers and personnel related to aquaculture and fish markets in Bangladesh, putting them down below the poverty or even extreme poverty level. This study reveals the status of market prices of cultured fish species pre- and post-COVID-19. Our study found that the cost to run aquaculture activities including feed costs, pharmaceutical costs and labor costs increased after COVID-19 in the study area which ultimately narrowed down the profit margin of farmers and retailers. As a result, farmers and retailers are planning to switch their professions. Therefore, government and non-government organizations should come forward to take the necessary steps to combat the negative effects of COVID-19 in the aquaculture sector.

The research was conducted in accordance with the Ethics Committee of Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur, Bangladesh.

A.M.J. Data collection, Analysis, and interpretation of results, and Manuscript preparation; F.R.N. Data collection, Manuscript writing, and review; M.K.A. Data collection, Manuscript writing and review; M.N.A. Study conception and design, Manuscript review N.G. Study conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of results, Manuscript writing and review.

The authors would like to thank the local fish farmers and retailers for their logistical assistance, as well as the Department of Aquaculture at Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology Uni-versity, Dinajpur, Bangladesh. The authors are also thankful to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Bangladesh for providing the National Science and Technology (NST) Fellowship to Afsana Mimi Jeba.

The authors declare that there is no potential conflict of interest.