ALCOM Field Document No. 25

Rice-Cum-Fish Trials in Luapula Province, Zambia CONTENTS

Henrik Nilsson
Socio-economist (APO)
ALCOM

and Dominique Blariaux
Agronomist (APO)
ALCOM

Funding Agencies:

SWEDISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BELGIAN ADMINISTRATION FOR DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION

Executing Agency:

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Harare, Zimbabwe, January 1994

PREFACE

This paper documents the conduct, the methodology and the results of rice-cum-fish farming trials carried out in Luapula Province, Zambia, during the rainy season 1992–93. Seven farmers took part in the trials, which were carried out by ALCOM in co-operation with the ARPT (Adaptive Research Planning Team), the Rice Team of the Department of Agriculture, Luapula, and the Department of Fisheries, Luapula.

The paper analyses the economic viability of rice-cum-fish farming by comparing the results with those of rice-only farming.

ALCOM is a regional aquaculture and fisheries programme of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Based in Harare, Zimbabwe, it covers all the member-countries of SADC (Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe).

The aim of ALCOM is to assist member-countries improve the living standards of rural populations through the practice of aquaculture. Toward this end, pilot activities are conducted in member-countries to demonstrate new techniques, technologies or methodologies. Successes achieved, ideas derived, lessons learnt, are applied on a wider scale by member-governments.

ALCOM is funded by Sweden and Belgium. Its preparatory phase began in 1986, and its first implementation phase in 1990.

Hyperlinks to non-FAO Internet sites do not imply any official endorsement of or responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at these locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. The sole purpose of links to non-FAO sites is to indicate further information available on related topics.

This electronic document has been scanned using optical character recognition (OCR) software. FAO declines all responsibility for any discrepancies that may exist between the present document and its original printed version.

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

1.   INTRODUCTION
1.1   Advantages of rice-cum-fish farming
1.2   Purpose of the rice-cum-fish trials in Luapula Province
1.3   Characteristics of the agro-climatic zone in Luapula Province

2.   METHODOLOGY

3.   RESULTS
3.1   Rice production
3.2   Fish production
3.3   Economic viability of rice-cum-fish farming

4.   CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

MAPS AND FIGURES

Temperatures and rainfall by month, Mansa

Map of Luapula Province, Zambia

TABLES

1.   Rice yield from the two types of fields

2.   Management of and fish yield from the rice-cum-fish field

3.   Net return to land and household labour assuming that household labour has the value of hired labour (Chembe only).

4.   Net return to land and household labour where the value of household labour equals 0 (Chembe only).

APPENDICES

1.   Rice and fish trials management forms
I.   Initial form
II.   Monitoring form
III.   Final form

2.   Prices of various inputs and crops in connection to the rice-cum-fish trials

SUMMARY

An integrated farming system, consisting of both rice and fish culture, offers the following advantages: an improved land use because of two crops instead of one; higher rice yield; an improved cash flow; a flexible farming system; a better diet for the farmer and his family; and a spreading of biological and economical risks.

However, this activity faces a number of constraints, especially in Southern Africa where neither aquaculture nor rice production has a long tradition. These are: adverse environmental conditions for fish growth; shifting agriculture; labour shortage; lack of interest in fish farming; competition from capture fisheries in fish markets; social attitudes; possible health hazards; lack of knowledge on factors necessary to sustain aquaculture development; and the fact that an integrated farming system is more complex than a single system.

ALCOM carried out rice-cum-fish trials in Luapula Province, Zambia, during the rainy season 1992/93. Seven farmers in three villages took part in the trials, which were conducted in collaboration with the Adaptive Research Planning Team (ARPT), the Rice Team under the Department of Agriculture, Luapula Province, and the Provincial Department of Fisheries.

The rice variety, Supa, was grown for 6½ to 7½ months; the fish Tilapia rendalli and Oreochromis macrochir were stocked at 50 fingerlings per 100 m² and were given a growth season of 4½ months.

The rice harvest from the rice-cum-fish field shows an average yield that is 11% higher than that from the rice-only field. The yield, however, is still considerably lower than yields from similar systems in Asia.

The average fish yield was 196 kg/ha; the same level as that recorded in rice-cum-fish farming in the Philippines and Madagascar.

The trials do not show rice-cum-fish production to be profitable or economically viable as the net return to land and the net return to labour are lower than for rice-only production. This result holds good even when the initial costs of pond construction are excluded. Another set of calculations is made when the value of household labour is assumed to have no opportunity cost; still rice-cum-fish production continues to be economically inferior to rice production. Only in a scenario where both assumptions are made is the net return on land the same for the two production systems.

The main reason for these negative results seems to be the amount of labour spent managing the fish production, especially feeding. In theory, this should require only a little additional work while the farmer attends to other farm tasks. One possible explanation put forward for the high labour content is the methodology applied for the monitoring of the trials, which might not have yielded reliable data.

Another reason for the negative results is that the value of the fingerlings produced was not estimated and therefore not included in the economic evaluation.

Despite the negative results, the trial farmers are keen on continuing with rice-cum-fish farming, as they are convinced about its benefits. Perhaps the farmers' motives are not entirely economic -- an assumption that may be worth investigating.