28.09.2015 Views

Research Journal of Economics & Business Studies - RJEBS - The ...

Research Journal of Economics & Business Studies - RJEBS - The ...

Research Journal of Economics & Business Studies - RJEBS - The ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table 1 denotes the infrastructure facilities available in fisher folk’s house. Most <strong>of</strong> the fisher<br />

folk (88.8%) have electric power in their house. About, 80% <strong>of</strong> the fisher folk have television.<br />

Further, it is inferred that 58.5% <strong>of</strong> the fisher folk have mixie. Only 1.1% and 1.8% <strong>of</strong> the fisher folk<br />

have four wheeler and inverter respectively in their house. Further, majority <strong>of</strong> the fisher folk do not<br />

have washing machine in their house. Finally, it is inferred that 2.8% <strong>of</strong> the fisher folk have air<br />

conditioner in their house. It is concluded that majority <strong>of</strong> the fisher folk have electric facility in their<br />

house and followed by television. Very few fisher folk have four wheeler, Air conditioner and inverter<br />

in their house.<br />

DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND CONSUMPTION OF ESSENTIAL FOOD<br />

<strong>The</strong> families’ dietary patterns showed quantitative and qualitative variations over the year,<br />

depending on the fishing seasons. 75% <strong>of</strong> the families spent Rs. 10 to Rs. 20 a day on food; while the<br />

daily income ranged from Rs. 10 to Rs. 30. Fish was the animal protein consumed almost every day by<br />

most families. Milk, meat and fruit were eaten rarely (BOBP, 1997).<br />

Table – 2: Household Size and Consumption <strong>of</strong> Essential Food<br />

Null Hypothesis: <strong>The</strong> household size <strong>of</strong> the respondents does not influence the consumption <strong>of</strong><br />

essential food.<br />

N X F value P value<br />

Vegetables Upto 3 153 2.42 1.080<br />

4 – 6 582 2.46 1.082 .188 .829*<br />

Above 6 191 2.40 1.031<br />

Total 926 2.44 1.071<br />

Fruits Upto 3 153 2.41 1.029<br />

4 – 6 582 2.58 1.105 2.708 .067*<br />

Above 6 191 2.69 1.176<br />

Total 926 2.57 1.110<br />

Meat Upto 3 153 2.85 1.056<br />

4 – 6 582 2.81 1.001 1.841 .159*<br />

Above 6 191 2.97 1.088<br />

Total 926 2.85 1.029<br />

Fish Upto 3 153 1.19 .571<br />

4 – 6 582 1.16 .521 .342 .710*<br />

Above 6 191 1.14 .558<br />

Total 926 1.16 .537<br />

Milk Upto 3 153 1.44 .952<br />

4 – 6 582 1.51 1.022 1.021 .361*<br />

Above 6 191 1.60 1.128<br />

Total 926 1.52 1.034<br />

Quality products Upto 3 153 2.04 1.272<br />

4 – 6 582 2.18 1.394 .956 .385*<br />

Above 6 191 2.25 1.514<br />

Total 926 2.17 1.400<br />

*Significant at 5% level<br />

Table 2 shows the relationship between consumption <strong>of</strong> essential food and household size <strong>of</strong><br />

fisher folk. It indicates that there is no significant relationship in consuming vegetables, fruits, meat,<br />

fish, milk and using quality products among different household sizes <strong>of</strong> fisher folk. Hence, it is<br />

www.theinternationaljournal.org > <strong>RJEBS</strong>: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 136

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!