For the purpose of this analysis three aspects of subsistence farming in North Western Province are important. First, the combined annual production is low. Second, there are a number of different crops which technically the farmer can produce with the limited resources of his household. Third, output consists of a large number of different agricultural crops and livestock, generally supplemented by a variety of off-farm activities. These alternatives are indicated in the brief description of farming systems given in Chapter 1, paragraph 1.2.1.
As total output is low, farmers consume a large part of the food they produce. This of course means that any alterations to farming practices will almost certainly also affect what and how much they eat, and how much food they must buy with the meagre funds at their disposal. Therefore, when the farmer considers raising tilapia in ponds he is implicitly considering how such an activity will change his use of inputs (land, water, fertilizer, etc.) as well as his income (food or cash available for essential purchases).
Given that most households in the Province live close to the level necessary to sustain life, the farmers cannot afford to take risks which might entail loss of production (and therefore diminishing consumption). The farmers have very limited possibilities to reduce risks or to increase output (production) without also increasing risks. They lack the infrastructure, tools or savings necessary to mitigate the vagaries of nature and there are few if any guaranteed markets for their produce. This is a severe constraint.
In conclusion, farmers in Northwestern Province will accept pond culture of tilapia only if it increases production without making established activities more risky; in fact it should preferably lower their risks.
The stage will be set for analyzing the behaviour of farmers through:
The farmer who grows fish in ponds must provide a site (land area), water, fish (fingerlings), time (labour). Feeds and fertilizers will increase the physical yield (kg/unit of surface area/period of time) but are not absolutely essential. The survey yields the following information.
Information obtained about the share of the land area available to the farmer which he dedicates to (or intends to use in) pond culture, proved to be of little use. The reason is that land to a large extent is virgin land and readily available, and can be assigned to the farmer by the authorities without any hassles.
The large volume of water used in fish farming, as compared to other farm activities, has a bearing on the way water is obtained. The majority of fish ponds are fed from streams or rivers. Therefore most farmers have an almost unlimited source of water at little or no cash expense. Also, as irrigated agriculture is practised only occasionally, the use of water for fish farming does not mean any foregone opportunities for the majority of farmers.
Most households report that a relatively large share of the households' available feed (cassava leaves and household waste mainly) goes into the fish ponds.
The share of fertilizers allocated to ponds is smaller than that of feeds. It generally consists of manure collected from free-ranging animals.
A few households report that more than a quarter of the time available to household members is spent on fish ponds. The collection of feed and fertilizers, as well as walking to and from the ponds are the most time-consuming tasks. It would seem, however, that compared with other farming activities, growing tilapia in ponds takes up relatively little time.
Cash pays for overriding needs like food, clothing and medicines. Its importance to farmers is not lessened by the fact that very few of them buy inputs for fish culture.
On the whole, alternative use of land and water is not an issue for farmers; both are practically unlimited in supply in the areas studied in the North Western Province. This is confirmed by the observation that competition for land or water is non-existent amongst farmers.
The inputs with alternative uses are primarily labour and fertilizers. Fish (fingerlings or brood stock) can be eaten but is seldom sold, and cannot of course be of much importance in farming or raising household animals.
Cassava leaves most frequently used as feed in fish ponds) are reported to be sold in a few odd cases as relish food, and household leftovers are to some extent also fed to chickens. Pigs, normally “big consumers” of household leftovers, are for cultural reasons not kept by the households in the area.
Labour has many alternative uses. They include on-farm and off-farm productive activities as well as leisure. However, the alternatives are probably fewer than they seem to be. Ongoing agricultural activities make demands on labour which the household can avoid only at its peril. The survey reveals that most households, either when they started fish culture or when they considered doing so, did not expect it to lead to more work overall, or disrupt ongoing farming activities.
Fertilizers are probably the input for which the farmer has the most obvious alternatives. He can use them on his garden vegetables or on his staple crop.
We will consider:
For the farmer who wants to engage in fish farming, it is the magnitude of the effort to construct ponds, rather than the risks involved, that seems to dictate a decision. It is difficult to say how far the lack of funds to hire labour for pond construction influences his decision. Maybe he is doubtful that the effort will be sufficiently rewarded in terms of fish. Few potential farmers seem inclined to alter the existing pattern of production in the household; fish farming is an addition to their activities, not a substitute.
The rapid increase in the number of ponds in use in the North Western Province occurred partly because they were largely paid for by ICARA. The farmers felt they would derive some benefit from the fish ponds on their farms; they would be able to harvest some fish, even if little feed or fertilizer were applied to the ponds.
From mid-1988, farmers have faced a different scenario. They can no longer count on subsidies. Thus it is not surprising that potential farmers see lack of funds as the main obstacle to pond construction.
In general, potential farmers are (or were at the time) confident of any access to land through customary or traditional arrangements. The same applies to water. These concessions do not entail any expenditures for farmers. They believe they have sufficient fertilizers and feed on their farms to make it worthwhile to start. Few intend to purchase inputs or hire labour to run fish ponds. Those who do, employ such inputs anyway (as well as labour) in other agricultural activities.
Only one in four potential farmers claims that raising tilapia in ponds is riskier than producing the household's major crop. As the households' major crop is not the most risky one, the majority probably see fish farming as a relatively risk-free activity. “Risk-free” means no major risks that the output will not be attained.
For the Mwinilunga District, this interpretation would seem to be supported by the fact that amongst potential farmers, nine out of 10 feel they know how to grow tilapia in ponds. They regard at least the managerial risks as low, and this in spite of the fact that none have participated in fish culture training courses. Most of them do not seem to know how much fish neighbours produce in their ponds. They seem to argue: “Others do it and keep doing it. It must be a useful activity and not very difficult.”
In the North Western Province farmers who are content with the status quo (they do not intend to expand their ponds or modify the manner in which they culture fish) experience only one major problem: how to best allocate their time and their fertilizers.
In general, they see fish culture as less risky than farmers who have not yet started it: only one in five see it as more risky than raising their major crop.
It is quite apparent both from the replies of respondents and from visual observations during the survey that pond waters are generally not fertile: both feed and fertilizers are deficient. Two of three farmers have attended fish farmer training courses and should be well aware of the beneficial effects of feeding and fertilizing ponds. In fact nine out of 10 farmers claim that they do both, and know how important these two inputs are, yet feed inadequate amounts to their ponds.
There are different reasons for fertilizer shortages: (i) There is none at all. (ii) Fertilizer is available on the farm but is not collected. (iii) What is collected is used only partially or not at all in ponds.
The survey reveals that during parts of the year fertilizers are not available for ponds. Shortages seem likely to occur during peak agricultural seasons. At that time no household members would have time to collect them and place them in ponds. Even if they do, priority is given to crops. The survey, however, does not provide this detailed information.
Farmers appear to give priority to crops in the use of fertilizer. This is consistent with their behaviour as risk avoiders, at least during their first few years as fish farmers. They make only minor modifications to their use of fertilizer on crops -- particularly crops whose response to fertilizer applications they know well.
There may also be another reason for the priority given to crops. The culture period for fish is long (11 months for the average farmer), longer than for most crops. Although fish can be taken out during that period, and is indeed taken out by almost half the farmers, the quantity taken out is relatively small (less than 20% of the total). The longer the culture period, the greater the risk. So it might make sense to the farmer to put his fertilizers into crops.
Amongst the various inputs that farmers allocate to the fish ponds, time (or labour) is administered sparingly. Most households report that they use less than a quarter of the time available on fish ponds. In many cases, the time spent is much less. This is consistent with the general observation that farmers, in spite of their low output, appear to have little leisure.
There are in fact two categories here: those who are building more ponds and those who say they intend to do so some time in the future. The analysis in the survey focused on the former group; those who are actually in the process of expanding.
Farmers who for some time have been growing fish in ponds, and who are constructing more ponds, seem to be living proof of the satisfactory nature of the activity, demonstrating that at least for them, the effort of pond construction has been worthwhile.
The major constraints that farmers face when they decide for or against raising fish in ponds, is that of alternative use of the resources (inputs) available to them. The farmer has to estimate to what extent he will be risking the results of other on-farm and off-farm activities as he starts raising tilapia in ponds. In the North Western Province, the uncertainties with regard to production of fish have diminished as fish culture has expanded; on the other hand, fish farming has not affected the farmers' major crops. Also, during the period, farmers' appreciation of the overall benefits and costs of tilapia culture have sharpened.
There were no indications during the survey that the disposal of tilapia from ponds in any way constituted a constraint on present levels of production.
