No, the purpose was not achieved. It proved impossible to collect the data needed to establish production levels, which in turn were essential for a diagnosis of the “health” of the fish ponds concerned. As the productivity data were not obtained, the fact that the survey gives useful indications on the nature and extent of both productive and non-productive ponds, is only partially helpful. The estimates of current production, given in the section “analysis and conclusions” in the report on the survey, is based on a productivity estimate which does not originate in the survey.
An analysis of the answers given to questions in the Current Situation and Outlook Survey shows that as soon as questions regarding “production period” and “major harvests” are raised the number of replies falls noticeably. The reason would seem to be that very few farmers make “major harvests” or think in terms of “production period”. The survey established that with only a couple of exceptions all fish-farmers practise intermediate harvesting. The authors conclude that virtually all farmers practise a continuous production system, meaning that the ponds are not drained fully, the tilapia reproduce in the ponds, and fish is taken out in small quantities at frequent intervals.
These factors were negative for the survey as it had been based on the idea that the farmers, at 5–7 month intervals, would drain the ponds and take out all the fish, and, once the ponds filled, they would be stocked with fingerlings. It was assumed that intermediate harvesting would occur, but that it would account only for a minor part of the production, and be intended almost exclusively for home consumption.
In form 3 the sequence of questions is interrupted in a few places by instructions to the enumerators to either continue or to skip to a later question depending on the nature of the answer given to a preceding question. It appears that these instructions have not always been followed. This detracts from the reliability of the accumulated answers given to some questions.
The major modification is to incorporate questions about the continuous culture method in the questionnaires. Those used in the pilot survey should be kept for the few instances where farmers might have a batch culture approach (probably common only in truly commercial farms), and be complemented with new forms. The forms should be designed so that the information obtained gives an estimate of the productivity of the ponds under the continuous culture system. This information is useful for a diagnostic purpose when complemented with estimates of “standard” productivity rates for different types of feed and organic fertilizer combinations.
It would probably also be useful to separate this questionnaire into four sets. Practising and former farmers would each have two sets reflecting their status as either using a batch-culture or a continuous culture method.
