This chapter describes the fish marketing structure in terms of the participants and product range they handle. In addition, survey data is presented describing the range of fish consumed across regions/income groups, preferences among fish types and other meats and the sources from which fish can be acquired.
The fish trade in Zimbabwe for locally produced fish is comprised of the wholesale trade in kapenta (frozen and dried) and the trade in other fish, mainly bream, catfish, bottlenose, tigerfish, labeo, squeakers and trout. Filleted and Frozen bream comprise the bulk of the other fish trade.
Two major wholesalers were interviewed, Cairns Foods and Irvine and Johnson. The retail supermarket chain, Bon Marche/OK supermarkets were also interviewed.
Much of the bream purchased is filleted and then sold to hotels, restaurants and supermarkets in low density (high income) areas. The heads and frames of the fish are sold to butchers in high density (low income) areas in Harare.
6.2.1 Price
For the low income group, wholesalers and retailers agreed that the high price is the major constraint preventing the consumption of more fish. This is obviously related to undersupply. It is thought that the price of fish should be equivalent or lower than the price of chicken.
6.2.2 Tastes
It is considered that 400–500g of fish is enough to feed a family of six. Dried kapenta is currently purchased in the greatest quantities because it is the most readily available. However, sales of frozen kapenta are falling slightly because it is thought that it has become too expensive.
For the high income population, bream fillets from 400–500g fish are preferred , while for the low income population, small whole bream is preferred (120g).
Common carp is not a familiar fish in Zimbabwe and is sometimes sold as Labeo. There is no problem in selling this fish.
Barbel (catfish) is often sold with the head-off to be acceptable to consumers. It is not sold in Matabeleland because there are some taboos concerning its consumption. It is also sold to caterers who make fish steaks out of the fish.
In general people prefer fresh fish, except for kapenta. Amongst the high income population, seafish is preferred.
6.2.3. Sources of Supply
The main source of supply for all locally produced fish is Lake Kariba and some commercial fish farms.
There is a general feeling that there is an unsatisfied demand for fresh water fish amongst the low income population, but price has to fall to make it widely acceptable.
The main source of supply for seafish is from Mozambique and South Africa. A significant quantity of this fish is smuggled in, so it is difficult to assess how much fish is actually imported into the country.
6.2.4 Distribution
Kapenta is the most widely distributed fish, particularly in dried form. Kapenta wholesalers appear to have a well organised transport system and travel to both communal areas and commercial farming areas where kapenta is sold to farm workers. Wholesalers claim that another advantage of kapenta is its shelf life which can last up to a year, thus alleviating the necessity for cold storage facilities.
The distribution of frozen fish mainly takes place through the main supermarket chains, OK, Bon Marche and TM and at shops were freezing facilities are available. Fresh fish distribution is limited from Lake Kariba to Harare. Little fresh fish is distributed any distance as most can be sold in local areas.
6.2.5 Processed Fish
Cairns Foods tried canning bream in tomato sauce but the venture failed because it financially not viable. They decided not to pursue the activity partly for this reason and partly because they feel that there will be greater tinned fish imports (pilchards/sardines) in the future. Imported canned seafood is already generally available in stores and supermarkets.
The following section presents and analyses information by Natural Region from the survey carried out in Masvingo (NRIV), Murehwa (NRII) and Uzumba (NRIII).
6.3.1 Rural fish consumption
In Masvingo, bream, kapenta, sinde and mhumbu are the commonly consumed fish (Table 6.1.). In contrast, in Murehwa, kapenta is the mostly consumed fish followed by bream, whilst sinde and catfish are of lesser importance. Last, in Uzumba, the order is breams, mhumbu, tiger and catfish.
The differences in consumption could be attributed to the fact that Uzumba has numerous small dams from which people and groups fish, and Masvingo has access to dams like Kyle and the river system. Murehwa seems to consume kapenta frequently due to lack of dams from which other fish could be caught and the fact that Murehwa is near Harare and has a well established infrastructure of shops which sell kapenta.
Fish Type | RURAL | ||
Murehwa N=41 | Uzumba N=24 | Masvingo N=71 | |
Bream | 21 | 19 | 12 |
Catfish | 8 | 11 | 7 |
Kapenta | 23 | 10 | 11 |
Sinde | 8 | 4 | 10 |
Mhumbu | 3 | 15 | 8 |
Mburi | 7 | 1 | 0 |
Trout | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Tiger | 7 | 11 | 0 |
Bottlefish | 1 | 3 | 7 |
Others | 22 | 26 | 38 |
Note: The data shows the top four most consumed fish. Others includes mburi, trout, tigerfish, and other fish accounting farless than 3%. Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
In all areas, bream is a common species consumed (Tables 6.2). Other species preferred are mburi in Murehwa, mhumbu in Uzumba and sinde in Masvingo. The two most cited reasons were taste for bream and for mhumbu the fact that the fish was meaty. In Uzumba, availability was a second major reason for liking bream probably because fish is particularly in short supply in this area.
Reason | RURAL | |||||
Murehwa | Uzumba | Masvingo | ||||
Mburi | Bream | Mhumb u | Bream | Bream | Sinde | |
Taste | 25 | 52 | 21 | 47 | 60 | 47 |
Easy to cook | 9 | 19 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 5 |
Meaty | 38 | 7 | 54 | 6 | 19 | 7 |
Big size | 7 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 0 |
Few bones | 21 | 4 | 17 | 0 | 1 | 35 |
Availability | 0 | 14 | 0 | 35 | 9 | 4 |
Small size | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
6.3.2 Urban Fish Consumption
For urban consumers, consumption questions were restricted to preference, rather than general consumption of fish. As a result, the urban component does not have this aspect, hence there is no comparison with the rural fish consumption. However, an attempt has been made to find out in general, without ranking, the fish which are commonly preferred by urban consumers.
Fish type | Urban | |||||||
Murehwa | Masvingo | Chitungwiza | Mabelreign | |||||
1st N=49 | 2nd N=43 | 1st N=50 | 2nd N=50 | 1st N=48 | 2nd N=48 | 1st N=46 | 2nd N=45 | |
Bream | 25 | 30 | 68 | 16 | 58 | 35 | 48 | 18 |
Tiger | 14 | 12 | 4 | 16 | 8 | 38 | 11 | 24 |
Trout | * | * | * | * | 19 | 10 | 4 | 38 |
Bottlefish | 20 | 14 | * | 18 | 6 | 8 | 7 | * |
Kapenta | 4 | 5 | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Catfish | * | * | 10 | 12 | * | * | * | * |
Mhumbu | * | * | * | 12 | * | * | * | * |
Mburi | 18 | 19 | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Sinde | * | * | * | * | 6 | * | * | * |
Silver fish | 4 | 5 | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Kipper fish | * | * | * | * | * | 4 | 15 | 9 |
Sardines | * | * | * | * | * | * | 15 | * |
Bass | * | * | * | 6 | * | * | * | * |
Other | 14 | 4 | 18 | 20 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 10 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
Note: Others include fish where responses were 2 or less percent. 1=most preferred fish; 2 = second most preferred fish.
Table 6.3 shows the results of consumer responses on fish species preference.
Consumers were asked to rank their preferences with the most preferred fish scoring one (1), whist the second most preferred fish scored two (2) (Table 6.3). In all urban areas, bream was the most preferred fish. The second most preferred fish differed with area. In Murehwa, bream is again the second choice indicating the dominance of bream in the consumption patterns. In Masvingo, bottlefish is the second most preferred fish whilst in Chitungwiza it is tiger fish.
In contrast, trout is the second in Mabelreign, probably indicating the relative affluence of Mabelreign consumers to the rest of the sample. Kapenta is not a preferred fish in all areas. As in the rural areas, the taste and meatiness were the main reasons people preferred a particular type of fish. (Table 6.4)
Reason for Preferring fish | Urban | |||||||
Murehwa | Masvingo | Chitungwiza | Mabelreign | |||||
Mburi N=17 | Bream N=25 | Bream N=41 | Bottlefi sh N=10 | Bream N=47 | Tiger N=22 | Bream N=30 | Trout N=19 | |
Taste | 35 | 48 | 63 | 53 | 60 | 59 | 53 | 37 |
Meaty | 24 | 28 | 12 | 35 | 0 | 23 | 27 | 26 |
Availability | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 20 | 4 | 10 | 26 |
Cooks easy | 18 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Big size | 5 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
High Quality | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 14 | 7 | 11 |
Variety | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Less bony | 18 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
This section presents a description of the sources of fish in terms of actual sources and preferred sources. This is an initial attempt to identify major channels through which fish reaches the consumer. Sources of fish ranged from gifts, fishing by household members to purchases from different channels (Tables 6.5 and 6.7).
6.4.1 Rural
In all areas, four supply sources were dominant for all types of fish (Table 6.5). These sources were stores/supermarket, hawkers, fishing by hook and line and fisherfolk. For kapenta, stores were the main source of supply.
Actual source | RURAL | |||||
Murehwa | Uzumba | Masvingo | ||||
Kapenta N=111 | Bream N=97 | Bream N=45 | Mhumb u N=35 | Bream N=188 | Kapenta N=167 | |
Fishermen | 1 | 36 | 33 | 3 | 28 | 2 |
Buy from neighbour | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Supermarket | 94 | 20 | 13 | 9 | 16 | 92 |
Hawkers | 2 | 20 | 30 | 32 | 45 | 5 |
Fishing by HH members | 0 | 18 | 20 | 53 | 10 | 3 |
Gift | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
When respondents were asked about where they preferred to buy their fish, the supermarket was the preferred source of fish purchases followed by hawkers (Table 6.6). This is possibly because they can combine fish purchases with other purchases from a supermarket.
Preferred source | RURAL | ||
Murehwa N=66 | Uzumba N=46 | Masvingo N=120 | |
Hawkers | 28 | 30 | 31 |
Stores/Supermarket | 58 | 70 | 52 |
Fishermen | 6 | 0 | 13 |
Other | 8 | 0 | 4 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
6.4.2 Urban
The supermarket was the major source of fish for consumers in all areas, except for mburi in Murehwa which were sourced from fish peddlers (Table 6.7). Mburi is common in the rural dams as opposed to commercial dams, hence generally available through peddlers who source it from fishermen.
6.4.3 Disposal Activities of Fish farmers
The fish farmer survey asked fish farmers how they disposed of their fish. Few fish farmers sold any of the fish they harvested. The number of fish farmers who sold fish from their harvest was about the same for all Natural Regions.
Most of the fish was sold at the pond site. Selling to local people was a second method of disposing their fish. Their main customers were neighbours and other people in the locality.
The major reason given for selling fish was that the farmers would be in need of cash. The second one was that if the farmers had a surplus, then he would sell to the local people. This confirms the results described in Chapters 5 and 6 that the major objective of fish farming is for family consumption. When that is met, then the remainder is sold to raise cash.
Actual source | Urban | |||||||
Murehwa | Masvingo | Chitungwiza | Mabelreign | |||||
Kapenta N=111 | Bream N=97 | Bream N=45 | Mhumbu N=35 | Bream N=188 | Kapenta N=167 | Bream N=30 | Catfish N=21 | |
Supermarket | 58 | 29 | 49 | 12 | 68 | 77 | 77 | 76 |
Fish peddlers | 22 | 59 | 27 | 71 | 23 | 14 | 10 | 19 |
Butchery | 16 | 6 | 22 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 5 |
Fishermen | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Fish market | 4 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
6.5.1 Rural
Despite Kapenta not being a preferred fish, the frequency of kapenta consumption seems to be higher than other fish consumed (Table 6.8). This is followed by bream. The main reason may be that dried kapenta is more available and accessible in rural shops than other types of fish. In the case of bream, this may also point to the fact that most dams in the country are stocked with bream. In Uzumba, a higher proportion of households rarely eat fish, compared to other surveyed areas.
Frequency | RURAL | |||||
Murehwa | Uzumba | Masvingo | ||||
Kapenta N=109 | Bream N=94 | Bream N=45 | Mhumbu N=36 | Bream N=188 | Kapenta N=169 | |
Everyday | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
Twice a week | 29 | 26 | 7 | 6 | 20 | 62 |
Once a week | 17 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Twice a month | 26 | 13 | 24 | 7 | 11 | 4 |
Once a month | 6 | 18 | 13 | 16 | 26 | 7 |
Once in two months | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Once in three months | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Once six months | 4 | 20 | 20 | 18 | 41 | 23 |
Once in a year | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Rarely | 11 | 14 | 32 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
Fish farmers tend to consume fish more frequently than non-fish farmers, except in Murehwa where frequency is almost the same (Table 6.9). In Murehwa, it might be that non-fish farmers have access to kapenta through shops and bream through fish farmers and fishermen. It is also interesting to note that just under half FFH in Masvingo have eaten fish only once during the last six months. This is probably because few ponds have been stocked and the severe drought has limited supplies from both natural sources and fish ponds.
Frequency | RURAL | |||||
Murehwa | Uzumba | Masvingo | ||||
Fish farmer N=41 | Non-fish farmer N=30 | Fish Farmer N=24 | Non-fish farmer N=22 | Fish farmer N=71 | Non-fish farmer N=50 | |
Everyday | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Twice a week | 20 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 19 | 13 |
Once a week | 7 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Twice a month | 16 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 11 | 3 |
Once a month | 6 | 13 | 20 | 5 | 21 | 12 |
Once in two months | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Once in three months | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Once in six months | 22 | 17 | 10 | 21 | 46 | 70 |
Once in a year | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Rarely | 26 | 31 | 48 | 62 | 0 | 0 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
6.5.2 Urban
In all areas, frequency of consumption of all types of fish is very high (Table 6.10). This may reflect the generally high levels of income compared to rural areas and the fact that fish is also relatively more available in the urban areas than rural areas in supermarkets and stores.
Frequency of consumption | Urban | |||||||
Murehwa | Masvingo | Chitungwiza | Mabelreign | |||||
Bream N=25 | Mburi N=17 | Bream N=42 | Bottlefish N=17 | Bream N=47 | Tiger N=22 | Bream N=30 | Trout N=19 | |
Everyday | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Twice a week | 8 | 6 | 32 | 10 | 0 | 23 | 3 | 16 |
Once a week | 4 | 18 | 17 | 0 | 36 | 27 | 24 | 16 |
Twice a month | 24 | 0 | 14 | 30 | 30 | 23 | 31 | 26 |
Once a month | 24 | 29 | 21 | 40 | 26 | 23 | 28 | 16 |
Once in two months | 12 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 11 |
Once in three months | 0 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
Once in six months | 8 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 5 |
Once in a year | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Rarely | 0 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
The results indicate that consumption of fish is not related to during particular occasions. (Table 6.11). The majority of respondents bought and consumed fish at no special time. However, for Chitungwiza and Mabelreign, some consumers consumed fish at the end of the month probably because this was when wages are paid. For Masvingo, twenty percent of the respondents consumed fish during special occasions. Unfortunately the survey did not enquire on the type of occasion when fish is consumed.
Occasion | RURAL | URBAN | |||||
Murehwa N=70 | Uzumba N=45 | Masvingo N=120 | Murehwa N=49 | Masvingo N=50 | Chitungwiza N=50 | Mabelreign N=48 | |
End of Month | 7 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 26 | 15 |
No special time | 81 | 91 | 83 | 78 | 73 | 72 | 83 |
Special occasion | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 21 | 2 | 2 |
When beef unavailable | 3 | 0 | 9 | 8 | 2 | - | - |
Variety | 3 | 2 | 3 | - | 2 | - | - |
When available | 4 | 0 | 0 | 6 | - | - | - |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
This section analyses the preference profile for both rural and urban consumers in terms of whether consumers prefer fish or other types of meat, and whether people have changed their consumption patterns over the years.
In addition, it attempts to test the hypothesis that Zimbabwe is a nation of beef eaters compared to other animal protein sources. Both rural and urban consumers were asked what they preferred between fish (other than Kapenta) and a selected meat. Kapenta was not included because it was felt that most consumers report Kapenta as a unique product to all other fish.
In all locations, respondents preferred fish than other meats except for chicken and beef in the case of urban consumers (Table 6.12). It seems consumers preferred chicken to fish. This could be a result of the tradition that considers chicken a specialty dish. For urban consumers their behaviour seem to confirm the notion that Zimbabweans are beef eaters probably due to the relative availability of beef in urban areas compared to rural areas. There is not much difference in proportions of consumers who preferred fish over kapenta, except in Mabelreign, where fish is highly preferred over kapenta.
Fish preference over | RURAL | URBAN | |||||
Murehwa N=56 | Uzumba N=36 | Masvingo N=121 | Murehwa N=49 | Masvingo N=50 | Chitungwiza N=50 | Mabelreign N=46 | |
Beef | 68 | 81 | 80 | 4 | 10 | 20 | 22 |
Chicken | 34 | 36 | 31 | 2 | 26 | 42 | 19 |
Pork | 79 | 72 | 80 | - | - | - | - |
Rabbit | 89 | 89 | 84 | 69 | 86 | 72 | 51 |
Dried Kapenta | 93 | 86 | 82 | 50 | 48 | 64 | 83 |
Fresh kapenta | 69 | 74 | 60 | - | - | - | - |
Mice | 88 | 97 | 93 | - | - | - | |
Tinned | 75 | 75 | 86 | 46 | 80 | 68 | 51 |
Sea | - | - | - | 51 | 82 | 74 | 70 |
Frozen | 86 | 72 | 93 | - | - | - | - |
Goat | 82 | 72 | 76 | 55 | 46 | 66 | 62 |
Duck | 88 | 92 | 84 | 81 | 92 | 80 | 88 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991
Consumers were asked whether they were eating more or less fish than five years ago and the reasons for this change. Few respondents, thought they were eating more fish, whilst the majority of respondents in all areas thought they were eating less fish. (Table 6.13). The major reasons given for eating less fish were that fish was in short supply and it was expensive compared to other substitutes. For Chitungwiza and Harare, the major reason was that fish was more expensive than other available substitutes.
Consumers in rural areas that thought they were eating more fish were generally those that had started fish farming. In contrast, those urban consumers eating more fish attributed this to availability and to a lesser extent, price, comparable to other meats.
Reason | RURAL | URBAN | |||||
Murehwa | Uzumba | Masvingo | Murehwa | Masvingo | Chitungwiza | Mabel reign | |
MORE | N=25 | N=19 | N=22 | N=9 | N=2 | N=17 | N=13 |
Started fish farming | 88 | 63 | 91 | - | - | - | - |
Family enlarged | 8 | 5 | 9 | - | - | - | |
Health | 15 | - | 50 | - | |||
Availability | 4 | 7 | 90 | 50 | 71 | 92 | |
Price | 10 | 10 | 29 | 8 | |||
LESS | N=43 | N=23 | N=97 | N=35 | N=48 | N=34 | N=35 |
Short supply | 70 | 78 | 72 | 83 | 54 | 16 | 26 |
Not allowed to fish | 2 | 9 | 3 | - | 2 | - | - |
Expensive | 28 | 13 | 25 | 11 | 44 | 79 | 71 |
Other | 6 | 0 | 5 | 3 |
Source: Socio-economic and Marketing survey, 1991