CHAPTER 3

KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS FISH FARMING

3.1 Introduction

This chapter looks at the sources and level of technical awareness between fish and non-fish farmers. The chapter also assesses the problems of taking up fish farming as seen by both non-fish and fish farmers. Fish farmers perceptions of advantages and the most difficult operations in fish farming are also analyzed.

3.2 Sources of information about fish farming

The major source of fish farming information, particularly in NRs III and IV, among both fish and non-fish farmers were extension agents (Table 3.1). In NR II, fish farmers, probably through the Fish Farmers Association, played a more important role in disseminating information among fish farmers than extension agents. NFF households relied on other fish farmers for fish farming information more than fish farmers did, which may indicate that such households had less contact with extension agents than fish farmers. Other sources of information included friends and radio programmes. There was no household which had not heard about fish farming.

The majority of the fish farmers in NRs II and IV had been aware of fish farming for more than two years (Table 3.1). In NR III, the majority of the fish farmers learnt about fish farming in the last two years. A small proportion of non-fish farmers had also been aware about fish farming for a long time, but the majority had learnt about it recently. These differences in time of first awareness probably reflect the timing of extension efforts in each of the survey areas.

Having been made aware of fish farming, farmers sought other farmers' opinions about it. In NR II and III, farmers sought extra advice from nearby fish farmers and extension workers while in NR IV farmers discussed it with their spouses and extension workers (Table 3.1). This probably meant that the proportion of fish farmers in NR IV was less than in NR II and III forcing prospective fish farmers to discuss more with their spouses than other fish farmers.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

3.3 Non-fish farming households

The majority of the farmers, particularly in NR IV, said that they were going to start fish farming. This result probably indicates the perceived potential of aquaculture in different NRs.

NFF households in all NRs were generally aware of fish farming but they did not take it up for several reasons, of which the main ones were the absence of enough land or suitable sites in terms of land and/or access to water. It is interesting that farmers in NRII found the lack of suitable sites with water the biggest constraint to fish farming but the differences are not statistically significant (Table 3.2). The response by farmers in NR III and IV that they did not have enough land to start fish farming is also interesting as in general farmers in these areas had larger plots compared to NRII. Such a response might mean that these farmers were unwilling to allocate land to fish farming or that they felt that they needed a particular type of land, such as that which has a year round water supply. Lack of draft power and labour were not considered by respondents to be major constraints to uptake of fish farming in all NRs.

¹ This question was asked on non fish farmers only.

3.4 Farmer perceptions of fish farming

The main benefit farmers derived from fish farming was for household food. (Table 3.3) The other, minor, advantage was that of getting cash from selling surplus fish. In NRII, a greater proportion of farmers saw fish farming as a means of earning cash than in the other two regions.

Disadvantages existed for some of the farmers, although a higher proportion of the sample in NRII saw no disadvantages to fish farming probably because fish farming is more established in NR II than in either NRs. Predators, both human and animal, are considered a disadvantage by fish farmers in all regions, although it is surprising to see that the majority of farmers in NRIV, cited poachers as a disadvantage compared to NRII and III. Few farmers considered that one of the disadvantages of fish farming was that it was labour intensive.

Although not considered a disadvantage when deciding whether or not to take up fish farming, one of the problems of the activity throughout the survey areas was the presence of otters and other animals. Farmers in NR II said that the main problem with fish farming was otters including other animals and birds. These results might imply that farmers are unable to control the survival rate of fish. The high frequency of reported deaths from poachers and predators might also be caused by poor pond water quality or diseases and parasites in the water. Combined with the difficulty in keeping away predators, survival rates at the time of harvesting would therefore be low.

In NR II, feed was more difficult to access than in the other NRs. Farmers in NR II were likely to have low stocking rates because of low fertility. This result may mean that FFH in NRII had a shortage of inputs to feed fish, or it might mean that they had greater knowledge about the quantities of inputs required than FFH in NRs III and IV. Getting food for the fish was the second main problem for fish farmers in NR II. The problem of otters was still the most pressing but the menace of poachers was the second biggest problem in NR III and IV. Other important problems in NR III was keeping the animals away. It was thought by farmers that fencing was required to protect the ponds from animals looking for water. Lack of water was the second most important problem for farmers in NRIV compared to third and fourth in NR III and II respectively.

Farmers in all NRs noted that by far, the most demanding operation in fish farming was constructing the ponds (Table 3.3). Keeping birds and animals away was the second most demanding task in fish farming in all regions. All the other remaining tasks were relatively less demanding than the above mentioned.

In all regions, the main alternative use for the land where the pond is sited a horticulture plot (garden) and then a shallow well (Table 3.3). Production of vegetables was quite viable, it being a major income earner for farmers, but farmers appeared to be diversifying from gardening towards fish farming. A small proportion of the pond area could not be put to any use and fish farming was an advantage in such instances.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

3.5 Relative advantages of fish farming

Although fish farming is a source of relish for the households, a small majority (50 – 62 percent) of the fish farmers felt that there were other easier methods of sourcing relish (Table 3.4). The importance of other relish sources was less in NRs III and IV. The alternative sources were not adequately recorded in the interviews but the indication seems to imply that vegetables and beans are the main alternative sources of relish. Vegetables and beans are grown in the garden plots and are more available in NR II than in the other NRs.

In Chapter 3, fish farming was not considered as the primary and secondary source of income by fish farmers. Most farmers in all NRs felt that it was easier to sell other products to get cash than to sell fish. This is probably because the current output levels are generally sufficient for own consumption with few farmers selling. Few FFH (20 – 40%) felt that they could raise cash easily from fish farming.

To increase the output of fish, the farmers main view was to increase the number of ponds (Table 3.4). Other alternatives included increasing intensity of feeding and extending the pond size. The reasons why most farmers suggested increasing the number of ponds were not analyzed but field observations and interviews with key informants suggested that feed and fertiliser and good management are problems and it is considered easier to manage several ponds than to manage a single big pond. This result also indicate something about farmer perceptions - that it is better to have 2 ponds than one big pond, or that expanding ponds is difficult.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.