Information about life-expectancy, household size, gender of head of household, and education for the population of the Northern Province is given in Annex 1. Below this information is compared with that obtained during the survey.
The respondents varied in age from 22 to 87; the average age was 46 at the time of the survey. The average life-expectancy for men is 46.5 in rural areas of the Northern Province. This means that even accounting for a high infant mortality, respondents as a group seem well set to achieve an average life longer than that normal for men in the Northern Region. Only four of the respondents were women, too low a number to make meaningful comparisons with the total population.
The reported average household size for the Northern Province is 4.8 (in 1980). Even if this has increased (assuming decreased infant mortality rates since 1980) the respondents had markedly larger households. They averaged 9, with 3 as the minimum and 22 as the maximum number provided.
In rural areas of the Northern Province one in every three households (37.2%) was headed by a woman in 1980. Of the interviewed households only 4 (or 5%) were headed by women. Part of the reason for this considerable difference is found in the method of selecting households to be interviewed. However this is unlikely to explain the whole difference. Women-headed households, as a rule, are less frequently involved in fish culture than male-headed households.
In 1980 about 42% of the Zambian population had not received any formal education. In the Northern Province some 65% of women heads of households had no formal education. The comparable figure for male-headed household was 33%. Of the male respondents and head of households only 10% state that they neither read nor write their mother tongue. The survey indicates that about this fraction corresponds to those who actually have had no schooling. In the Northern Province about one in every 10 boys goes on to secondary education (that is go to school beyond the age of 14). Amongst respondents, the mean school leaving age was 18. Thus, both the frequency and the extent of education is considerably higher among respondents than among the population as a whole.
Four aspects of respondents behaviour will be described, (i) decision making; (ii) contacts made in relation to fish farming; (iii) perceived disapprovals and other restraints; and (iv) perceived support from other groups.
(i) Decision making
Heads of households reported that they will decide, alternatively decided, about fish culture on behalf of the household. However they simultaneously consider themselves to be the sole decision maker in the household with regard to matters affecting the fish ponds.
(ii) Contacts made
Tilapia farming has made respondents contact government staff and other fish culturists. They have not come in contact with fish traders; sales are exclusively to consumers.
Prior to constructing ponds a majority of farmers have consulted with government staff or with other farmers, and almost half have had someone visit the proposed site to express an opinion on its suitability. The respondents affirm that these contacts have served them inasmuch that they have obtained considerable know-how on the culture activity. During pond construction two farmers out of three have been in contact with the Department of Fisheries for advice. Other government staff have been consulted on other issues. Once the culture was started farmers consulted both government staff and other farmers for aid in problem solving.
(iii) Perceived disapprovals and other constraints
Neighbours or family do not normally disapprove of fish farming in the Northern Province. Those 21 respondents who were judged to have the physical resources required to start were all unaware of any potential disapproval. Of the practising (46) and former (22) only six reported that they were aware of such attitudes and only two thought they were important. No head of household reported any restraint imposed on the manner in which the harvested tilapia may be used.
Many respondents thought they needed permission of the local office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives before starting fish farming. Very few of the respondents felt they needed approval of traditional village based authorities.
(iv) Perceived support
Government staff and other aquaculturists are the two groups that are thought of as able to provide assistance by the respondents. However, many consider they have not obtained adequate assistance. Amongst practising fish farmers 43% felt that they were not able to obtain useful advice. Amongst the eleven farmers who had abandoned but tried to resume the activity, eight considered that government (mostly other staff than Department of Fisheries), had not been able to give them useful assistance.
Information about employment and land use in the Northern Province is compared with corresponding information about households responding to the survey. (See Annex 1 for data on the Northern Province).
In Northern Province overall population density is reported to be 5 inhabitants/square kilometre. The corresponding figure for arable land is 9. Land actually cultivated is reported to have been 0.54 hectares per household in 1980.
In the Northern Province 10% of the labour force is employed in the formal sector. Amongst respondents about one in three had at one time or another held a salaried employment. These figures do not contradict the hypothesis that respondents generally had been more exposed to wage employment than the work force as a whole.
Those in the Northern Province who farm fish do it to obtain fish to eat and fish to sell. It is an activity which transforms the resources (labour, land, animals and plants) available to the farmer into products and services needed by the farmers and their households to sustain life. Therefore the activity can be analysed in economic terms. The extent of the activity, like the manner in which it is being conducted, will be better understood if recourse is also taken to other branches of the social sciences. The consequences and manifestations of this process of reasoning will be discussed below under the following headings: (i) rewards (or results) expected, (ii) risks taken in obtaining those rewards, and, (iii) resources committed to fish farming.
(i) Rewards, or results, from fish farming
The observer may want to discuss the results of fish farming under the headings of fish to eat, fish to trade, and employment. For the fish farmer the relevant aspects are food and cash for the household. He does not see more work (increased employment) as a benefit in itself.
Those who were considering starting fish farming at the time of the survey saw it as bringing food and cash as a result of an additional workload for the household. That addition was generally not expected to reduce work on other activities. As almost all of the concerned households already purchased tilapia the fish farming would not cause much change to consumption habits, rather a reduction in expenditures on fish.
Amongst active and former fish farmers (68 respondents) there are those (one in four) who at the time of deciding to culture tilapia did so conscious that it would mean a change of fish eating habits in their respective households. The general expectation had been that the fish culture activity would not reduce production elsewhere on the farm, but would mean an increased workload. Also in this group buying of fish (including tilapia) was common and it can be concluded that the volume of those purchases went down once culture started.
Those who practise fish culture at the time of the interview (46) see it as an opportunity to produce food for the household and to trade. One in five do not consider it as a possibility to trade, but rather as one of providing food only. In no instance does the household labour spend more than one quarter of available time on fish ponds. Amongst practising farmers there are some (about 1 in 7) who do not consume tilapia, but for as many as 43%, more than half the fish they consume come from the fish ponds.
Those who abandoned pond culture of tilapia did so more out of inability than out of dissatisfaction. The inability seems generally to be linked to deficient ponds; in almost all cases major repairs were required to restart culture.
Summary
For most people tilapia from ponds is equal to cash, either in the form of reduced purchases or because the household has an additional item to sell. Work for the culture of fish will mostly be additional to that already applied in the household and is in no instance mentioned as a positive aspect of the activity. The general impression is that fish culture once started, in the Northern Province, provides the rewards expected at the initiation of the activity.
(ii) Risks
The survey provided information on the degree of risk that the fish farmers consider is linked to the culture of tilapia in ponds. It has done so in two ways. First, by asking respondents to make an outright comparison with their major agricultural crop, and, second, by soliciting information, in some detail, on the share of resources employed in aquaculture, their alternatives and on the amount of borrowing that respondents engage in because of their involvement with tilapia farming.
Farmers do not consider pond culture of tilapia to be especially risky. This judgement, however, does not lead them into risking their economic base in order to engage in it.
Amongst potential fish farmers less than 1 in 7 considered tilapia farming to be more risky than to engage in the culture of the main agricultural crop. In the group of practising and former farmers (68) this proportion is reported to have been 1 in 4 at the time they decided to engage in fish farming.
Potential fish farmers know relatively little about what fish farming actually involves, although they generally know of neighbours with ponds and claim an intention to engage in the activity. About half of them feel they do not have sufficient knowledge to actually make it a success. This attitude is consistent with farmers holding the view that (i) pond culture of tilapia actually produces tilapia (at a level of effort that is worthwhhile) and (ii) the tasks involved are easy to master. Therefore, as long as the initial effort is reasonable, the farmer will engage in it.
Neither potential fish farmers nor those now or previously engaged were willing to involve more than a small share of their total resources in the venture. In fact it seemed that they would not reduce any other productive activities in order to start fish farming. The inputs to be used in both start-up and running of the activity are already owned or produced by 90% of the farmers. Only exceptionally were resources intended for, or actually used to, purchase inputs or hire labour for use in fish culture. Equally seldom (2 out of 68) did farmers borrow in order to construct their ponds. Those now considering pond culture of tilapia seem more inclined to borrow.
The manner in which farmers intend to, and actually do engage resources at their disposal in fish culture, indicates that they are not taking any risks with regard to their existing sources of food and cash. These sources reported to vary between five and six, are not intended to be affected by the decision to culture tilapia in ponds. This, of course, is only possible if, at the time the initial decision was taken, there were “spare” resources available. While, given the extent of land per household in the Northern Province, this is possible with regard to land, is it realistic also for water? The survey does not report on total availability of water or on its other uses, so no reply can be given on the basis of the survey. However, one might conclude that the only risk taken is that of wasted time and effort by household members.
But how does this tally with the affirmation, made repeatedly, that the resources intended for, or actually used in fish culture have alternative uses? As might be expected fingerlings are often reported as having no alternative use. The same is true for feed, which is not so surprising given the small number of livestock in Northern Province. While it is reported that labour intended for, or actually used in, fish culture, could be engaged in production of crops or livestock for sale, it is said - by practising fish farmers - that it would not be useful in growing crops/livestock for home consumption.
The risk taken could then be interpreted to be that of losing a “low revenue” crop, and that culture of crops/livestock for home consumption would be of little extra benefit. Tilapia farming would thus not be a threat to the existing nutritional situation.
It might also be concluded that there is no tendency whatsoever towards specialization. Rather the farmer is entering a new field of activity without leaving any other: he is diversifying.
(iii) Resources
The information from the survey indicates that cash is a scarce resource: most actions/intentions aim towards maximizing inflows (or savings) and minimizing outflows.
With regard to labour, land, and water, the information points to underutilization. In fact, it is difficult to reconcile the situation, as described above under “risks”, unless there are unused labour, land and water resources. Unless there are, it is of course not possible to enter into fish culture, expecting simultaneously to maintain other productive activities on the farm at unchanged levels.
Why would there be unused resources which could otherwise be used in production of crops/livestock for home consumption or sale? Rewards from using them are too low is the trite answer. However, one fact about pond culture reinforces this view. Pond farming usually cannot start without considerable effort on fashioning the pond (only 10 out of 68 surveyed were built entirely by contracted labour). Thereafter the effort is small. Thus, venturing into that effort having a rather nebulous view about the result indicates that known crop/livestock production alternatives must be quite uninteresting. The consequences of this is that if one day the ex-farm price for any of the crop/livestock products changes considerably, the construction of new ponds may decline. However, unless the economically attractive crop is a big user of water, existing ponds are likely to continue to produce.
In Northern Province farmers considering raising fish in ponds do not spend much time considering alternative procedures for doing so, or the environmental consequences of having tilapia in ponds and feeding the. The issue of “how” to raise tilapia is subsidiary; that is the methods used to raise fish are decided by the availability of inputs (without recourse to purchase) and, equally important, the access to buyers. The survey yields some information about the procedures adopted by those who culture tilapia in ponds in the Northern Province. They are summarized below.
Pollution or other environmental consequences of tilapia farming were not raised by any of the respondents as a limiting factor for their pursuit of tilapia farming. However, the information collected during the survey permits some reflections on the possible magnitude of environmental effects. They will be discussed briefly below.
The procedures used are not uniform among farmers. However, the majority (of the order of 3 in 4) of those who are practising fish farmers, or who have had fish in ponds, use the procedures outlined below.
| Species: | mixed tilapia (all farmers) |
| Facilities: | ponds (all farmers) |
| Water source: | rivers/streams or springs |
| Feed: | (i) crop residuals, leaves, household leftovers |
| (ii) manure, feed and fertilizer are used to the extent they are available to household | |
| Harvesting: | frequent, intermittent, small quantities each time (not batch harvesting) |
| Fingerlings: | after initial stocking the tilapia reproduce in ponds |
Tilapia farming in ponds could adversely affect the natural environment through: pollution (in ponds, or downstream), introduction of fish diseases, or through effects on vegetation cover.
Pollution from the present form of tilapia farming could possibly occur through too much feeding, leading to eutrophication of the pond (or possibly of another reservoir or river downstream from the pond). The intensity of feeding was not reported on the questionnaire, but visual observations by enumerators of water conditions in ponds almost without exception point in the other direction. A situation of “under-nourishment” of tilapia would also be supported by the fact that it is highly unlikely that feed (essentially household waste) is going to amount to important quantities. Most of the nourishment is probably originating in the algae and minor waterdwelling insects living on the nutrients provided through organic fertilizers. The application of organic fertilizers could not possibly cause pollution in the ponds or down-stream waters (although, if too much, could cause oxygen deficiencies in ponds). In no occasion is medicated feed or other non-natural substances introduced in the ponds.
The survey on practising (46 interviews), former (22) and potential (21) fish farmers provides information on: (i) who the fish farmer is (in sociological and economic terms), (ii) what makes him engage in pond culture of tilapia, (iii) the type of culture he undertakes, and, (iv) his reasons for abandoning the activity. This information in turn permits some conclusions about what are the essential characteristics for new fish farmers in Northern Province.
In the survey the individual who decides whether or not to engage, or cease, fish culture operations is referred to as the fish farmer. The survey revealed that this man usually is also well aware of the activities related to the day to day activities in and around the fish pond.
The fish farmer is a man, head of household and considers himself as the sole decision maker. He is educated, knows how to read and write, and controls between 5 and 10 ha of land and water sufficient for fish farming. Almost all those engaged in the activity maintain that they are not aware of anyone who might have disapproved of their starting fish culture. Nobody intending to start fish farming is aware of any disapprovals. Fish farmers seem to be free to decide both on the use of resources for fish culture and over the use of fish produced.
The strategy of the farmer engaging in fish farming is one of diversification, rather than specialization. This might reflect a desire for increased economic security.
The household headed by the fish farmer participates in a monetary economy. An average of five crop/livestock products are regularly sold. In addition there is at least one other source of cash for the household.
The possibility to use idle resources so that cash is earned, or saved, seems to be the driving force amongst the farmers in Northern Province. All those who engage in the activity claim to do so in order to eat and sell fish. As they generally already eat purchased fish (and frequently tilapia), the result is that purchased tilapia is replaced with that farmed in ponds. This, in turn, reduces household food expenditures and improves the household cash balance.
The aim to reduce expenditures of cash and increase cash income seems to affect also the culture method chosen. Mixed tilapia are stocked in ponds. Feed and fertilizer are applied when available on the farm. Generally these inputs are not purchased. Harvesting is done in an intermittent fashion, that is small quantities are taken at frequent intervals. The pond is not harvested completely and the tilapia reproduce in the ponds. This saves cash as the farmer does not have to buy fingerlings. Selling small quantities to neighbours avoids the effort involved in making arrangements with traders (which in any case probably is difficult given the small volumes of fish involved) and, equally important, permits a higher price than what the trader would offer. For the individual with time on his hands, this seems like a most rational culture and cropping system.
The single most important reason seems to be a physical impossibility to continue, not dissatisfaction with results. The impossibility is most frequently a deficient pond. Lack of fingerlings is also reported.
Farmers build ponds because they have idle resources and see farming as a way to improve the cash flow. Are they then likely to abandon if the opportunities for large incomes were to arrive as a result of improved producer prices for some of the more common crops or livestock products? Given the very limited effort that the present culture system involves, it seems unlikely that the present level of output will be voluntarily reduced. The rate of new ponds will probably decrease as man-hours worked (in other activities) per year and per man increases.
As long as ponds hold water few of the farmers will ask government staff for assistance. When ponds do not hold, or have access to water, they will ask for help. Unfortunately for the farmer help with pond construction and rehabilitation is usually low on the priority list of Departments of Fisheries. Nothing indicates that a batch production system would give better results, seen from the point of view of the fish farmer.
Fish farmer effectiveness might be improved if government undertook the following support measures:
supply of fingerlings of prime stock tilapia
advice to farmers on feeding, fertilizing and water management strategies, using their on-farm supplies; and,
predator control.
The essential criteria of a potentially successful fish farmer in the Northern Province seem to be that he controls the land and water necessary for the pond, and the right to dispose of the resulting product. He is more likely to construct ponds if he controls idle resources than if he does not. Likewise the potential fish farmer should probably look at pond culture of tilapia as a means of diversification; that is, as an activity which will produce a small, rather than a large share of total household income (non-monetary and monetary)
