CHAPTER 2

CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH FARMING AND NON FISH FARMING HOUSEHOLDS

2.1 Introduction

This section presents the results of the household interviews carried out with fish farming (FF) and non-fish farming (NFF) households. The purpose of collecting this data was to determine differences, if any, between the socio-economic characteristics of these two household types within each natural region. For the survey, a household was defined as that composed of family members related to the household head who live together and collectively make decisions for feeding budgeting and other essentials of living.

2.2 Household composition

The results of the survey on household composition are given in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. As Table 2.1 shows, differences in the average size of FF and NFF households were not statistically significant except in NR III. Apart from NR IV, FFH were, on average, larger. There was no statistically significant difference between the ages of household heads either except in NR III, where heads of FFH were significantly older. The sample population contained very few female headed FFH and NFFH, thus no reliable statistical analysis could be applied. ¹ Although FFH had a higher average number of dependents ² than NFFH in NR III, there was no difference in other NRs.

A comparison was made between the number of adult male and female members of the household who were residing on the farm full-time, part-time or were non-resident. The results of these comparisons across natural regions are shown in Table 2.2. Non resident members were important to provide an indication of income salaries.

¹ The following number de jure and de facto female headed households were included in the sample:

² Dependents include children under 16 years and adults over 65 years of age.

FFH had one extra full time labourer but this difference was only significant in NR III where FFH had more full-time and part-time adult males than NFFH and in NR II where FFH had one more full-time adult female. A comparison of this type is useful as it is often assumed that FFH have greater access to labour which can be used in fish farming. In addition, the absence of male labour can be a constraint to pond construction and other, strong physical tasks.

Note: Sample Size in Brackets()

1. Due to data problems, the average number of full time male adults cannot be presented.

2.3 Socio-economic characteristics of household head

Table 2.3 shows that there appeared to be no difference in terms of education between fish farmers in different Natural Regions except that in NR III a lower proportion (33%) of the farmers had obtained some secondary education compared with other NRs. The differences between FFH and NFFH education were small and there was no consistent pattern across NRs.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

The frequency of different main and secondary occupations of household heads is shown in Tables 2.4 and 2.5. The main occupations are field crop and horticultural farming. Fish farmers appeared to attach more importance to horticultural production than non-fish farmers in all regions except NR IV. Field cropping still dominates the secondary economic activities of household heads but horticultural farming is also important (Figure 2.2). Most farmers in NR III and IV engage in horticultural production after harvesting field crops, thus, they view horticultural as a seasonal activity.

Fish farming is not considered as a primary activity of household heads by any of the interviewed households in all regions and very few farmers considered fish farming as a secondary activity. This result implies that fish farming is considered as one of perhaps, many of the less economically important on-farm activities.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

2.4 Main household income sources

The main sources of income for the household differ between FFH and NFFH in all regions as shown in Tables 2.6 to 2.8. In all these regions, income from horticulture was a more important source of income than for NFF households. In NRII, horticulture is of much greater importance for fish farming households compared to NFF households in the region, and compared with all other households surveyed across regions. As NR II is most favoured for horticulture this is no surprise; however, the difference between FFH and NFFH is important. Cropping is the most common main source of income for NFF households in this region, whilst only 29% of FF say that it is their main source of income. Because fish pond water can be used for irrigation purposes, many fish farming households are already involved in horticulture when they decide to take up fish farming, particularly in NRII.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

In NRIII, crop farming is the main source of income for all households. 17% of FFH claimed horticulture was their most important source, but only 5% of NFFH did so, a pattern consistent with the findings in NR II. Petty trading and salaried employment featured more often for NFFH. In NRIV, the results are similar to those of NRIII. This is consistent with other studies such as that by Rohrbach (1989) which found out that crop production offered the largest source of farm income in Mangwende (NR II) and Chivi (NR IV). Results of studies done by Stanning (1987) and Chopak (1990) also support the findings of Rohrbach).

Results on the second source of income for households, indicates that horticulture remains important for both FFH and NFFH in all regions. In NRII, cropping was stated by the greatest proportion of FF respondents as being the second most important source of income whilst in NRIII horticulture was the most commonly stated second source of income for both FFH and NFFH. In NRIV, a dry region, it is interesting to see the importance of horticulture as an income source. This may indicate the bias of the survey - FFH can only be found near good water sources, which means that these are also sites most suitable for horticulture as well. This bias is also true with NFFH as they were selected in the same wards as fish farmers, and thus probably had access to similar land and water sources.

Results on the third main source of household income are also interesting as shown in Figure 2.8. Here, horticulture is much more frequently stated by NFFH than FFH in NRs II and IV. In NRIII and IV, livestock are more important as a source of income for NFFH than FFH. This could be because NFF households only have access to land which is relatively more suitable for livestock than fish farming. These results confirm the results of studies by Stanning (1987), Rohrbach (1989), Chopak (1989) show that non crop and non-farm income sources (remittances, livestock sales and other off-farm activities) are important secondary sources of income in the areas studied.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

Overall, only 8% of all FFH mentioned fish farming as one of their three main sources of income, suggesting that fish farming is a subsistence activity which currently does not contribute to household incomes by any significant amount. However, results of the AGRITEX Fisheries Unit National Fish Farming Census indicate that when they started, thirty percent of FFH were influenced by a desire to sell fish.

2.5 Land ownership and usage

2.5.1 Size of Land Holdings

FFH had larger farm sizes and cropping area than non-fish farmers in all NRs (Table 2.9) suggesting that these households tend to be economically better-off than NFFH. Stanning (1987), in a study of Hurungwe (NR III) found the average field area to be 3.9 hectares. The landholding in Hurungwe appears, possibly due to differences in measurement. In Table 2.9, landholding includes homestead and garden area.

Differences in the size of the garden plots between FFH and NFFH households were significant. FFH in all NRs had larger garden plots than NFFH.

These results strongly support the results on sources of income, indicating that FFH have more horticultural production output than NFFH. Thus, it appears that involvement in horticultural production is related to the uptake of fish farming.

Access to land was different among fish farmers in different NRs. Although farmers in NR III had the largest land holdings and farmers in NRII had the least land holding, these differences were insignificant. Farmers in NRII had the biggest garden plots and farmers in NR IV have the smallest garden plots. Suitable sites for gardens are limited in drier regions and this may also be true for suitable pond sites.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

2.5.2 Farm Production

The results of the survey of farm production are presented in Tables 2.10 to 2.12. Although households were asked questions regarding all their crops, the following analysis discusses only selected crops. These were selected because they were the most important crops grown in the districts surveyed as described in Chapter 2.

There were insignificant differences in the average maize produced and sold (Table 2.9) between FF and NFF households. The differences in production in different NRs can be attributed to the poorer rainfall amounts and distribution in NRIV and parts of NRIII. Nearly all farmers produced maize but not all farmers sold a surplus; the proportion of maize sellers between FFH and NFFH did not differ significantly.

Differences in sunflower production and sales between FF and NFF households were insignificant.

While more than half of the farmers produced groundnuts, only a third of the farmers sold groundnuts and the proportions were high only in NR III. Groundnut was the second widely grown crop, particularly in NR III and IV. A larger proportion of FFH produced groundnuts than NFFH in all regions.

There were no significant differences between FFH and NFFH in terms of production and sales of finger millet and roundnuts. These were minor crops in the farming areas. Finger millet was produced by more than a third of farmers in all categories and a very small proportion of farmers in all regions except in NRs III sold finger millet. Roundnuts were the third widely grown crop in NR III and IV but sunflower was in NR II. More farmers in NR II produced and sold sunflower than farmers in other regions.

Overall, differences in farm production between FFH and NFFH were centred around maize and groundnut production and sales, with the FFH producing more than the latter.

Although FFH sold more horticultural products in terms of value than NFFH, the differences had little significance in all NRs. These results are inconsistent with other findings, where FFH had significantly larger size horticultural plots than NFFH.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

2.6 Livestock ownership

2.6.1 Cattle

Cattle ownership in terms of numbers owned was not different between FFH and NFFH in all regions except in NR III where FFH owned significantly more cattle than NFFH as shown in Table 2.13. This implies that access to manure is not different for FF and NFF households. The proportion of non-cattle owners was higher among NFF households in all NRs except NR II. Cattle ownership among fish farmers in different regions were also not different.

¹ Draft animals included both oxen and donkeys.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1999.

2.6.2 Draft Power

One of the hypotheses to be tested by the study was that availability of draft power to assist fish pond construction was a constraint to the development of fish farming. The survey results show that access/ownership to draft power was significantly different among FFH and NFHH (Table 2.13). FFH had more draft power than NFFH in all NRs except NR IV. Farmers in NR IV had more draft power than farmers in NRs II and III possibly because cropped areas were larger in the former than in the latter. Rohrbach (1988) found that 38 percent of the household sample, did not have enough draft power to field a team of two draft animals.

2.6.3 Small Stock

Table 2.13 also shows that ownership of small stock like goats was not significantly different between FFH and NFFH in all NRs. However, the proportion of goat owners was higher among fish farmers than non-fish farmers in all NRs except in NR II and more fish farmers in NR IV owned goats than fish farmers in NR II. This again is due to the availability of more grasslands in NR IV than in NRs II and III.

Ownership of chickens was also not significantly different between FF and NFF in terms of numbers owned and the proportion of owners in the two household types.

2.7 Equipment ownership

The study has hypothesised that availability of equipment might also be a constraint to the development of fish farming. The results of the study are presented in Table 2.14.

2.7.1 Ploughs and Cultivators

Most households in all NRs owned at least a plough. Ownership of ploughs between FFH and NFFH was different except in NR IV. In NR II, in particular, FFH owned more ploughs than NFFH probably because FFH had better access to draft power than NFFH.

In NR II and III, ownership of cultivators was higher among FFH than NFHH, but in NR IV, there were no differences. Cultivators were more common among FFH in NR II and III than in NR IV.

2.7.2 Scotch carts and Wheelbarrows

The majority of fish farmers in NR II and III owned scotch-carts but the larger proportion of NFHH in these NRs did not own a scotch-cart probably because they were economically (draft power and capital) weaker than FFH. Scotch-carts are the main mode of on-farm and farm to market transport. In NR IV, there was no difference in ownership of scotch-carts and a small proportion of both groups did not own one.

Wheelbarrows are an alternative form of load transport and particularly useful during pond construction. A greater proportion of fish farmers owned wheelbarrows than non-fish farmers in all NRs. More fish farmers in NR IV owned wheelbarrows than fish farmers in the other NRs.

2.7.3 Picks

Picks were commonly owned by both FFH and NFHH in all NRs. The only differences arose in terms of the number owned. A higher proportion of FFH owned more than one pick in all NRs. One possible explanation is that FFH are wealthier and another is that the type of agricultural activity FFH undertake require more of this kind of equipment.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

2.7.4 Fishing Nets

Ownership of fishing nets requires written permission in the form of a permit from the Department of National Parks. Both FFH and NFHH were reluctant to answer this question for fear of being arrested; although some farmers said they had the skill to both make and use nets. Therefore the ownership of fishing nets is possibly understated.

2.8 Input purchasing behaviour

Differences in input purchasing behaviour of FFH and NFHH has significance for aquaculture extension because it provides an indicator as to the ability and familiarity of farmers on the use of purchased inputs to enhance production. Fish farmers purchased more stockfeeds than non-fish farmers in all NRs except in NR II as seen in Table 2.15. As NRII is a region where greater emphasis is placed on crop production and less on livestock, this result for NR II is not surprising. FFH also spent more on purchases of crop chemicals than NFFH perhaps indicating that they are better able to afford such purchases.

FFH purchased more fertiliser than NFHH but the differences were not statistically significant. Fish farmers in NR II purchased more fertiliser than fish farmers in other NRs. A possible reason is that fertiliser is more available and more profitable to use in NR II than in the other NRs but results were not statistically significant.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

2.9 Utilization of livestock manure

In order to assess the use of inputs in fish farming and more generally, in the farming system, information on current uses of manure was collected. Such information provides a useful indicator as the priority fish farming is given in terms of use of manure. The results are presented in Tables 2.15 to 2.20. The figures/tables show how FFH and NFFH use manure from different livestock types.

The bulk of cattle manure was used on field crops by both FFH and NFFH in all NRs except for FHH in NRII. The major secondary use of cattle manure was for use in horticultural plots. Both FFH and NFFH attached second priority to using manure on horticultural crops. Fish farmers applied the remaining part of cattle manure in fish ponds but lower priority was placed in NRs III and IV for this. This is likely to be because more manure is needed for crops as the soils are poorer in these regions compared to NRII.

Goat manure is mostly used for horticultural crops by both FFH and NFFH and to a lesser extent, field crops in NRII and NRIII. The remaining manure would then be used for fish farming, where applicable. In NRIV, the application of goat manure is divided fairly equally between crops and horticulture, with a small amount allocated to fish ponds in the case of FFH.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

The bulk of chicken manure is used for horticultural crops by both FFH and NFFH in all NRs. After these requirements, FFH placed second priority on fish farming but NFFH applied the remaining chicken manure on field crops. Fish farmers in NR IV attached relatively low priority to applying chicken manure in ponds.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

2.10 Water sources for irrigation

Obviously, both irrigation and fish farming require access to a good and regular water supply, without which development would be unlikely sustainable. One of the criteria defining a Natural Region is minimum rainfall. NRs III and IV have lower rainfalls than NRII and drought does occur much more frequently in NRIV. This means that fish farming development, whatever the other constraints will be ultimately be restricted to areas in those NRs which have a good supply of water. Table 2.22 shows that generally, FFH had better access to water sources than NFFH. FFH relied on ponds and shallow wells but NFHH primarily used shallow wells. Ownership status of shallow wells was not different between the two household types. The majority of the shallow wells were owned by individual households except in NR IV. Individual ownership of shallow wells among NFFH indicate that the potential to start fish farming exists in NR II for these households. Individual potential appears less so in NR IV because the majority of the shallow wells are owned by the community.

NFFH had a higher proportion of their shallow wells supplying low volumes of water than FFH. One possible reason for this is that NFFH did not have adequate control over shallow wells since the majority of the wells were communally owned. Volumes of water available in shallow wells began to decrease after the end of the rainy season, in April. The proportion of shallow wells which dried up was higher among NFFH than FFH. NFFH had less access to shallow wells than fish farmers. Wells dried up before the beginning of the rainy season, in October.

In NR III and IV, NFHH had no access to dam water unlike FFH. More FFH in NR III used river water than NFHH did. In NR IV, NFFH relied more on river water than FFH. FFH appear to have more of their horticultural gardens close to dams and rivers than NFFH, particularly in NR III. NFFH also rely more on water pumps and boreholes than FFH as shown in Table 2.21.

Although dam levels were reduced after the rains, few dams actually dried up. Dams in NR II and IV did not dry up but streams frequently dried up in all NRs. Pumps and boreholes were more reliable sources of water because few boreholes and pumps had their water output reduced. Pumping the water from boreholes and pumps is more strenuous than using shallow wells.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

2.11 Female headed households

The number of female headed households in the sample was very small which makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions from the data. The proportion of female-headed FFH (30%) was higher in NR II than in other NRs (20%). The variation is possibly due to the proximity to large urban centres like Harare. The extent of male-head absenteeism is typical of these areas and are consistent with results in similar studies, for example, Rohrbach, (1988).

Table 2.23 shows the demographic characteristics of male-headed, de-facto female-headed, and de-jure female-headed fish farming households. Those FF families with a male head, had larger families but the differences were not statistically significant. De-facto female headed households had significantly fewer full-time adult male labour force in all NRs. A de-facto female headed household would likely have problems in expanding fish farming because of a potential labour constraint. The defacto female head was significantly younger than the other household heads, particularly male heads.

As Table 2.24 indicates, male headed households had larger average land holdings than female headed households. As a result female headed households cropped smaller areas. The size of garden plots was bigger for male headed households than female headed households.

Male headed households owned more cattle and had more draft power than non-male headed households. (Table 2.24) De-jure female-headed households, in particular, owned few cattle. More non-male headed households did not own cattle. Ownership of goats and chicken were not different among the three categories.

Comparisons between the de-jure and the de-facto female-headed fish farming households are impossible because of the small sample size but comparisons between male-headed and female headed FFHs had shown that the former generally had more labour and land than the latter.

The total sample size of female-headed NFFHs was too low to permit rigorous analysis of the socio-economic differences between them and female headed FFH. The proportions of female headed NFFH in the three NRs ranged between 20 – 30 percent of the total NFFH sample.

¹ Minimum adult age is considered to be 16 years.
² Dependents are children under 16 and the elderly (over 65).

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.