The surveys give the following picture of tilapia culture in rural Zambia:
Farmers want to earn an income from fish ponds, and try to maximize the cash balance resulting from pond culture. Thus raising tilapia in ponds, like crop-growing or livestock raising, is an economic activity which many farmers treat as a commercial activity.
Growing tilapia in ponds is just one more activity for farmers, not the activity. The farmer, when he ventures into pond culture of tilapia, does not let that affect his other agricultural or livestock activities; he is, in fact, spreading his risks.
Most farmers produce small quantities of tilapia. The activity is extensive (few kg of fish per square metre of pond surface) and all ponds are not in use. About 1 in 5 were found abandoned at the time of the surveys.
Productivity is low (in the region of 5 kgs/are/year) and the use of existing ponds is below maximum. Production can be expected to grow at less than 10% per year under economic conditions similar to those prevailing in 1988.
It does not seem to be possible to predict, at the time a farmer is considering whether or not to raise tilapia in ponds, if he is going to be successful. No characteristic, or group of characteristics, was identified as essential for success. A major part of the explanation is probably the low level of technology now employed in combination with the low returns required under present economic conditions.
Neither negative environmental effects nor social constraints are obstacles to culture of fish in ponds.
The survey methodology proved unsuitable for obtaining detailed and precise quantitative data on effort and yield, but did provide reasonable information on other characteristics of the fish farming activity and about the fish farmer.
Each of the surveys demonstrates that raising tilapia in ponds is an economic activity. For most farmers this economic activity is also commercial. It is commercial in that they sell a part of the tilapia produced (76% of practising farmers).
Fish culture is clearly undertaken for the purpose of increasing household income. 98% of practising farmers and 93% of potential farmers state this to be the case (Northwestern and Luapula Provinces). Income is earned as tilapia is consumed or sold. Other purposes for engaging in fish culture are entirely subsidiary in nature and can be forgotten by the public planner and international aid official.
The farmer treats fish farming as he treats any other agricultural or livestock activity. For 9 out 10 of those interviewed it is one more agricultural activity, no more. This should not be surprising as raising fish in ponds requires water, land, labour and preferably fertilizer and/or feed. Thus, it competes for these resources with crop growing and livestock raising.
Farmers are careful when they venture into fish culture. They avoid reducing the magnitude of the agricultural activities they already engage in. In the Northwestern and Luapula provinces this is the case for 92% of those who already have ventured into fish farming and for 82% of those classified as potential fish farmers. Given the frequently low overall agricultural production of the household (in part because it is difficult to dispose of surpluses), any reduction in production will reduce the standard of living of the household. That standard is very low. It is thus understandable that a new and unproven activity is not allowed to interfere with those the farmer already is familiar with.
The average household sells from four to six farm products. In addition a majority of the households has at least one off-farm source of income. In Luapula some households (11%) reported revenues from tilapia sales as one of the major sources of cash. Generally though, it is not the most important source of cash.
Obtaining quantitative information about effort and yield proved difficult. The following figures are estimates of orders of magnitude, no more. However, the situation appears to be uniform in the three provinces surveyed.
Production is low. The combined total for the three provinces is estimated to be of the order of 100 to 120 metric tons per year. This is an insignificant amount in the national context. FAO reports Zambia's yearly fish production to be of the order of 68000 metric tons.
The production is low from the households' standpoint as well. For almost all families the supply of pond-raised tilapia is less than 10 kg per person and year. There are no a priori reasons why this amount could not be eaten in the household: the average world supply (of fish for human consumption) is about 12 kgs per person and year. However, it appears that in most rural households only half, or less, of what is produced in ponds, is actually consumed by household members. The reason for not consuming all that is produced is economic: the household is better off, overall, if some of the pond-raised tilapia is sold or bartered.
Also, productivity is low. The concept of productivity used here is that normally used in aquaculture: kg per (pond surface) area and year. The surveys show productivity generally to be less than 5 kgs/are/year. With the use of compost it should be possible to obtain between 20 and 30 kg are/year, with intensive use of animal manures, 50 kg or more.
There are probably several reasons for the low productivity. They have to do with the relatively ample supply of land and water and the comparatively scarce supply of feed and fertilizer.
Manures, compost and fertilizers have alternative uses, and therefore are not all used in fish ponds. To use them all would be sub-optimal. However, as land and water are often plentiful in the three Provinces concerned, it makes sense for farmers to use much of both. This combination - relative shortage of feed/fertilizer and ample supply of land and water - leads to an extensive technology. As such it is unlikely to be much different from the factor combinations the farmer uses to raise livestock and grow crops.
It is difficult to predict the rate of expansion or contraction in production during years to come. This is in part because there are opposing trends; but it is mainly because of the unpredictability of economic policies towards agriculture. These are all-important also for the future of fish culture.
The opposing tendencies are: on the one hand some farmers take ponds out of production, and, on the other, some build more ponds. Most farmers with ponds in use, in fact maintain that at one time or another they will build more ponds. However, few of those who take ponds out of production are likely to resume using them. Most of these ponds need major repairs to be able to keep water. Farmers seem reluctant or unable to carry these out, and the public sector has few resources to place at their disposal.
Thus, the rate of growth of national output of pond grown tilapia was judged unlikely to exceed 10 % per year at the time of the surveys. However, if national agricultural policies are amended to stimulate growth of small-holder agriculture, the rate of growth in fish farming may rise as well.
During the surveys, a successful fish farmer was defined as one who was exploiting his fish pond(s). The surveys show that there are no simple procedures to identify, beforehand, the farmer who will become successful at farming tilapia in ponds.
This is not surprising. Once the pond has been constructed demands are low. Few resources and no exceptional personal characteristics are required to be able to maintain fish in ponds. The fish are not manipulated or otherwise treated. The essential tasks are to provide fertilizer/feed when available, and to ensure the permanence of water in ponds. This low effort demands only low yields in return. Consequently, as long as no major repair is needed the activity is continued.
However, most farmers who have fish in ponds are socially, and possibly also economically, better off than the average rural farmer. This reflects the fact that this group tends to be more open to new ideas and to approach the public sector for assistance in trying them out, than others.
