The Lake Basin Region covers the watershed of Lake Victoria and extends from the Uganda border in the north to the Tanzania border to the south. The area extends to the Rift Valley in the east and the Lake shore forms the boundary in the west,
The TCP project concentrated the field days in 13 areas (see Figure 1). These areas are characterized by a relatively high concentration of existing fish farmers, good climatic conditions, and a high potential for expansion. Many other areas of Western Kenya are also highly suitable for fish farming development. Only these areas were chosen due to constraints of time, financial resources, and a lack of personnel.
In each area, a rough circle with a radius of 15 km was drawn on a map. The size of the territory was made with the consideration that this would be about the maximum distance that a farmer would travel to attend a field day. All fish farmers located within this circle were considered as a group.
In the 2 months before the field days began, a survey was made of the practising fish farmers in the targeted areas. Extension officers who had been working in the selected areas were asked to compile a list of all existing fish farmers within the 15 km radius. Information was gathered on the size and numbers of ponds, manuring and feeding practices, whether or not compost was used in the ponds, if records were kept, and the years of fish farming experience. The farmers were then asked what were their principle constraints or problems in fish farming. The guidelines for this exercise stated that the actual responses from the farmer should be used. This was done to judge the level of knowledge of the farmer on the subject of fish farming, and to find out what the farmer perceived as his own constraints. The information was then entered on a data base and analyzed.
The objective of this exercise were to find the specific problems common to many farmers. These could be addressed in the field days that followed. From discussions with the staff doing the survey, it was obvious that there were misconceptions held by many farmers about fish farming and the biology and physiology of fish In general. The most important aspects were also addressed in the following field days.
The first field day of the series was organized by inviting all the fish farmers in the targeted area to a particular farm. At that venue, the dates and location for the next field day were decided by consensus between the farmers and the extension officers. Only one specific topic was demonstrated and discussed in each field day. Initially, 2 field days per month were held in each area. Time was a limiting factor, and in the last 2 months the number of field days was increased to 3 a month. As far as possible, field days were held at a farm where the specific topic of the day was already being practiced or could easily be demonstrated. This is most important, the topic or principle being taught should be in actual practice at another farm in the region with similar conditions.
Extension officers used, as much as possible, equipment and materials borrowed from the farmer who hosted the field day. Officers intentionally avoided bringing in more elaborate project equipment and materials such as fish transport cans, dip nets or fancy seine nets, weighing scales, thermometers, and oxygen or pH meters. This can easily lead the farmers to believe that fish farming is more complicated than it actually is and that such equipment is necessary for success while it is not.
If necessary, posters were made in the local language and diagrams or drawings from books were copied on large sheets of paper. The emphasis was hands-on training and physical participation of the farmers. Dialogue between the farmers themselves and between the extension officers was encouraged; the officers were told to ask as many questions as they answered. During each session, the extension officers would ask the participants a few questions on topics of previous field days to help tie ail the information together. Field days were designed to last no more than 2 hours. Two or 3 extension officers were present at each field day, This allowed as much contact between farmers and qualified officers as possible during the short time. Most farmers arrived at the venue on foot or bicycle. A bottle of soda and a piece of bread were offered to the participants as refreshment. A minimum of 5 and a maximum of 12 field days were held in each area.
The subjects presented in the field days were based on the problems identified in the initial survey. Again the general objective was to improve production techniques in existing ponds. With each topic, an outline of the subject giving the essential elements was written by senior project staff and given to the extension officers several days before the field day for personal study, The extension officers were then free to expand and elaborate from this common base of information, The notes proved to be pas ocularly helpful to the staff. The following gives a brief description of each field day topic and why each subject was chosen. Some of these topics are particular to the socio-economic situation in Western Kenya and may not necessarily form the priorities for other areas.
2.4.1 Manuring the Fish Pond
Responses from the initial survey and discussions with farmers and extension staff showed that many farmers do not understand the value of heavily manuring a fish pond in Western Kenya, the livestock industry is reasonably we!i developed and many farmers have dairy or beef cattle, chickens, sheep and goats, Actual manuring practices vary considerably, but very few farmers were adding enough manure to boost fish production beyond a minimum. There are also a few areas where there is a total misconception about adding manure to a pond; some farmers believe that manure is harmful to fish.
2.4.2 Compost in a Fish Pond
About ha!f of the farms surveyed had a compost crib built in the pond. Many of these cribs were under-utilized, The course emphasized that this is a supplement, not a replacement, for heavy manuring.
2.4.3 Pond Repair and Maintenance
Water depth is a major problem, older ponds have not been maintained and many ponds are very shallow (less than 20 cm). This leads to excessive environmental stress on the fish and predation. Some farmers believe that an infestation of rooted water weeds in a pond is good as this supplies shelter and food for the fish, In fact the fish do not eat the weeds, it lowers primary production which means less algae which the fish do eat, and creates less than optimum environmental conditions for the fish.
2.4.4 What Species of Tilapia to Grow
Several farmers stock Tilapia zilli, T. rendalli, O. variabilis, and Halpochromine sp. None do as well as O. niloticus ( = T. nilotica) in ponds in Western Kenya, This field day explained the differences between the species and how to tell them apart. The term “Tilapia” is commonly used throughout Western Kenya to describe any cichlid fish. To avoid unnecessary confusion, the project used the term “Tilapia” instead of Oreochromis.
2.4.5 Clarias gariepinus
The artificial reproduction and culture of the African catfish, C. gariepinus was introduced into Western Kenya in 1994. In Funyula, many farmers had previously been capturing small Clarias sp from the wild and stocking them in ponds with mixed results. There are over 15 species of Claridae in the Lake Victoria drainage. All are very similar in appearance to C. gariepinus, particularly in the juvenile stages. Most of these other species do not grow beyond 30 cm, The course showed how to differentiate the species as well as culture practices.
2.4.6 Oxygen in a Fish Pond
This is considered basic information needed to understand the dynamics of fish production in ponds; the importance of primary production, fish physiology and health, transport of live fish, and the importance of pond maintenance and fertilization in the pond environment.
2.4.7 Record Keeping
Most farmers do not keep adequate records. The course emphasized that this is for the benefit of the farmer himself and how to use records for improving fish production.
2.4.8 Sampling Fish
Few it any farmers sample fish regularly through out the growing cycle, thus there is no way the farmer can tell how the fish are growing, what their condition is, if the ponds are over-population by fingerlings, etc, The course emphasized why sampling is advisable, and locally available materials for sampling.
2.4.9 All-Male Tilapia Culture
The course taught how to determine the sex of tilapia and the benefits of using more males or all males in the culture,
2.4.10 Feeding Fish
Several farmers consider fish to be a “wild animal”, which can fend for itself. The course addressed this widespread misconception among farmers,. The price of agricultural by-products in Western Kenya has increased over 200% in the past few years while the price of fish has remained stable. This has led to a situation where feeding fish as the principle means of increasing production is becoming increasingly less economical. The course emphasized that feeding is a supplement to heavy manuring, and how to maximize the use of the feed.
2.4.11 Good Fish Farming Practices
This course was the final field day held in the series and summarized ail the previous courses,
One major problem identified in the initial survey was the poor siting and construction of the existing fish ponds. The topics of site selection and pond construction were not addressed in this series of field days. Emphasis was made on improving existing ponds instead of constructing new ones; it was most unlikely that fish ponds would be entirely rebuilt by farmers.,
An attendance record was kept for all field days. Many fish ponds in Western Kenya are owned or managed by Women or Youth groups. The group was considered a single entity and even if several members of the group attended a particular field day, the number of members was not counted and only the presence or absence of the group was indicated.
When the series of field days had been completed, a second survey was undertaken to assess the impact. There are two aspects; tangible improvements in management practices, and the increase in the fish farming knowledge level of the rural farmers. A questionnaire/visit form was designed with these two aspects in mind, A standard data collection form was made (see appendix i) and recorded the attendance of each farmer at each specific field day. This portion of the form was filled out before visiting the farmer. A few questions were asked on each topic to see if the farmer had grasped the necessary principles.
A second aspect of the survey was to assess the physical improvements made since the initial survey, such as increasing the water depth by raising the dikes, repairing the dikes to stop leaking, adding a compost crib, and cleaning the water weeds. These could be visually verified and recorded on the form.
A farmer may often answer a question with a response tailored to please the interviewer, for example saying that he manures heavily when he actually does not. The questionnaire thus had entries for the opinion of the interviewer on the veracity of the responses, as well as physical signs of the activity taking place. This is admittedly subjective, but an experienced officer can see physical signs of feeding and manuring, if the fish are properly fed, there is a definite feeding response by the fish; they swim to the area of the pond where the visitor is standing. There may be feed residue on the dikes, wheelbarrow tracks, etc. Manuring can be verified by the presence (or absence) of bits of manure floating in the pond and the obvious fertility of the water,
A team of senior project officers who had not taken part in conducting the field days carried out the impact survey. They were assisted by senior extension officers who had organized field days in another area remote from where the impact survey was made. The composition the survey team for each area was made to avoid favoritism and biased answers, Due to the constraints of mobility and funds, only farmers who had attended at feast 3 field days in the series were visited (in Lurambi, due to the very high attendance rate, only those who had been to 5 or more field days were interviewed). Time was also limited and the impact survey team could only spend 2 or 3 days in each area, visiting as many of the farmers as possible. In each area, at least 2 farmers who had attended less than 3 field days (mostly none at all) were visited and asked the same questions, as we!! as why they had not come to the field days.
