The first major conclusion is a paradox. While raising tilapia in ponds makes economic sense for the farmer, support to the activity is not feasible from the point of view of the Zambian tax payer.
The next major conclusion is that raising fish in ponds is for the farmer just like any other agricultural activity. This has implications for long-term growth.
Given the economic conditions of the province, production is not likely to grow significantly in absolute terms without assistance. The last major conclusion concerns the importance of small ponds.
The production of tilapia is low. It is low in relation to the total surface area of fish ponds, in relation to the public effort that has been directed at its development and growth, and in relation to the farmers' own efforts. While for most farmers their efforts in raising fish seem to make economic sense, this is less obvious with respect to the Fisheries Department's use of resources in the province. The cost of running two government fish culture stations, including paying for one fish culturist and three full time fish scouts employed for aquaculture, is large in relation to the pond-side value of the 9 tons of tilapias produced per year in the province. In addition, the direct relevance to farmers of the work carried out in fish culture stations is doubtful. The stations lack vehicles. This means that transport of fingerlings and extension visits to farmers are virtually impossible except for those living close to the stations.
The result of the public development effort in fish culture has been accepted by the administration partly because the effort is small in the context of the public development efforts, and partly because little is, or has been, known of the results in terms of fish produced.
The Department of Fisheries needs to decide how it is going to use its resources during the coming years. The strategy can be seen as a mix of its efforts to maintain production in existing ponds by farmers already undertaking fish culture, and the attempt to ensure that new ponds are built and used by present and potential fish culturists.
From the standpoint of the economy of the province, it must seem tempting to assure that ponds not in use are brought into use. However, this cannot be achieved unless vehicles are acquired to distribute fingerlings and transport fish scouts. The costs involved are high and likely to surpass, yearly, the value of the additional 10 tons of fish which might be produced every year. Any effort aimed at increasing the number of fish ponds would run into similar costs.
The decision regarding future Department of Fisheries support to fish farming is political. The authors assume that it will be positive and that it will lead to an attempt to ensure a better cost-benefit ratio in Department of Fisheries activities in support of aquaculture development. The discussion in this chapter and the recommendations in Chapter 8 should be seen in the light of this assumption.
If the political decision is not in favour of fish culture, it would seem essential on the one hand to inform farmers that fingerlings will not be distributed henceforth, and, on the other, to strengthen the basic knowledge of present farmers, in particular as regards use of feed and fertilizers, fingerling production and pond maintenance.
Almost any head of household can undertake farming of tilapia as it is practised. There are no unrealistic demands in the form of need for equipment or capital. When farming is started -- and generally also later - it is not allowed to jeopardize any of the established farm activities. It supplements all the other activities on the farm, with which it integrates well.
It is not worthwhile spending public resources attempting to distinguish any special type of individual (target group of farmers) when introducing fish farming. The crucial issue would seem to be the site and the local circumstances. The site should be correct in two ways: pond construction and water management, and disposal of the fish in a manner interesting to the farmer. However, farming as practised is sub-optimal. The main reason is that the average farmer does not know how best to use the resources available to him. Also, deficient siting and construction of ponds means that water, feed and fertilizers do not result in as much fish as would have been the case in well-built ponds. Insufficient availability of organic fertilizers has also prevented optimum pond utilization.
The fish ponds are managed like other activities on the farm: a commercial activity at a subsistence level. It is commercial in the sense that the farmer generally sells his pond raised tilapia, and frequently also buys fish to eat. It is a subsistence activity in the sense that productivity is low and not all resources available on the farm are used in an optimum manner to enhance the output from the fish ponds.
The farmers are generally content with the quantity of tilapia they produce. As this quantity is frequently small, their satisfaction is surprising. However, it is understandable when seen in the context of the depressed economic situation of the province. This has meant that farmers have not been able to usefully employ land, water and feed (sometimes fertilizer) at their disposal. Therefore they have an incentive to take up any activity which increases their net income (particularly in terms of cash). In their calculations they then place a very low value on their own labour. In practice they are willing to work long hours (e.g. dig a fish pond) for a small return.
Fish farming is accepted in the communities and there does not seem to be any important, or relevant, social pressure for or against the activity.
It is unlikely that farmers on their own will improve the productivity of their ponds. They lack both the knowledge (of protein rich plants suitable as feed/fertilizer, of the importance of genetically sound fish, of appropriate pond construction methods) and the means of transportation (to bring produce to clients and to collect quality fingerlings or broodstock). During the next decade they will not on their own develop the know-how or acquire the capital needed. They need assistance to improve their production. Nevertheless, given the existing underemployment and the weak incentives for cash crop production, fish farming has a role to play. It contributes, albeit modestly, to the economic growth of the rural communities.
Economic growth, when it eventually takes place, may reduce, and for some eliminate, the willingness to work for meagre returns. Economic growth in the province will lead to a fuller utilization of farm based resources. For the farmer this will mean that he no longer needs to accept low returns on his effort (salary per hour worked), and that he will find it in his interest to increase his fish farming activity. The farmer who does not get ample land and water suitable for ponds may let his fish pond fall into disrepair.
While there is no need for fish farm credits at present (that is to fund farmers who practise fish farming at a subsistence level), that need will arise when a farmer wants to specialize and thus increase farm area, and then must rely on a greater share of purchased inputs. It is unrealistic to expect that he will be able to construct such a farm employing only members of his own household, and finance the purchase of fingerlings, organic fertilizers (or animals for integrated farming) and feed, out of household cash reserves.
The survey revealed that 28% of the fish farmers in the province were constructing fish ponds at the time of the survey. As many as 88% stated their intention to construct ponds sometime in the future. The average number of ponds per fish farmer, 3,17, is fairly high. The mean size of ponds however is small, about 200m2.
In general the fish farmers said that the construction of ponds posed no major problem and could be done with available resources and tools. Potential fish farmers who were interviewed responded that they would only employ members of their households to construct ponds. Most fish farmers said that household labour would be available for pond construction immediately after the harvest of crops. In respect of attitudes to pond construction, the findings in Luapula Province differ from those of the North-Western Province. In the North-Western Province, an internationally funded aid project had provided farmers with funds and tools for pond construction. Second, ponds were generally constructed in clusters relatively far from the homesteads. Third, the average size of the pond is 600m2, three times that prevailing in Luapula Province. Thus, when international aid was discontinued, it should not be a surprise that farmers found pond construction difficult.
Which pond size is in fact appropriate? While most households seem able to construct a pond of 200m2 in between harvest and the rains, this is not so for a 600m2 pond. And, to leave a pond unfinished during the rains might spoil the work. Thus, if a smaller pond also is found to produce as much (per m2) or more than a 600m2 pond, there would seem to be reason to recommend that smaller ponds be constructed.
In the following discussion, small ponds are defined as 200 to 300m2, and large ponds as 600m2. Ponds several thousand m2 in size are significantly different both in construction and management and are not included in the discussion. The same applies to the very small ponds a few square metres in the area.
When examining factors influencing productivity, it is important to consider the difference between the area of an individual pond and the total area of a fish farm. A pond as large as 600m2 may for many farmers be too large not only as a pond, but also as a fish farm. The reason is that the farmer may not have available the feed and the fertilizers required to keep the waters of a 600m2 pond reasonably productive.
The main factors in determining an optimum farm size would seem to be the following:
the soil: leakage, acidity and fertility
source of water: access, quality and quantity
other inputs: the amounts of feed and fertilizer which the farmer has available for use in the pond(s)
the time which household members will have available for pond management
costs of construction per unit area, for different pond sizes
Naturally, if the farmer constructs only one pond, the above factors will determine the size of that pond.
Conventional wisdom is that larger ponds are better than smaller. There are two main arguments for this. First, it is cheaper per m2 to construct a large pond than a small one, and, second, the naturally occurring soil nutrients are better used in a large pond than in a small. However, for a rural fish farmer these benefits are often of little value. He may not be compensated for the extra costs incurred for a large pond through increased production. This is the situation if he has a certain quantity of feed and fertilizers available. If that quantity is optimum for a 200 m2 pond there is little point in going to the extra expense of building a 600 m2 pond. The additional fish he would obtain is marginal and would not compensate the extra construction costs. And, as indicated in previous paragraphs, to complete a 400 to 600m2 pond in one season most likely means that the farmer has to employ labour or machinery. This may result in the cost per m2 being higher for the larger than for the smaller pond.
The harvesting method may be important for the total productivity of a pond. Under normal batch culture methods the feed requirements for tilapia in a 200 m2 pond increase from less than a kilo when the fish are of fry size at the start of the culture period 10 to 15 times this quantity when the fish approach the end of the culture period. A farmer who has access to a constant level of feed (household waste for example) and fertilizers, will then have excess feed at the beginning of the culture period and too little at the end. He may then benefit from using an intermittent harvesting strategy. This strategy consists of harvesting small numbers of fish at regular intervals, possibly as frequently as once a week. By doing this, the farmer may manage to keep the fish bio-mass at a level where it can fully use the quantity of feed available. Overall the farmer will produce more from his pond than if he has to tailor the stocking density to the quantity of feeds he will have available at the end of the culture period.
Relatively little productivity data was obtained during the survey. Some of it, however, supports the correctness of the above analysis: a few farmers with small ponds and practising intermittent harvesting achieved high productivities. Other data did not support the above reasoning. Farmers with many ponds practising intermittent harvesting only report low yields (4.5 kg/are/yr). The authors find no reasons which can explain these low yields in a plausible manner, other than that available quantities of feed and fertilizer do not suffice for the pond areas.
The survey revealed that most farmers have difficulties in obtaining fingerlings. The need for the farmer, or groups of farmers, to produce their own fingerlings is paramount. This is one more argument in favour of small ponds. By having several ponds the farmer can use one as a breeding or storage pond. However, the total pond surface area should continue to be consistent with the maximum permitted by available feed and fertilizer resources. Also, with more than one pond, the possibility of arranging major harvests more frequently increases. So does the likelihood of the farmers obtaining cash whenever needed.
