CHAPTER 4

FISH FARMING PRACTICES

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the general practices of fish farming in NRs II, III and IV. The purpose of this chapter is to assess the differences in the farming practices followed by fish farmers in different natural regions.

4.2 Objectives of fish farming

Farmers viewed domestic consumption as the most important objective of starting fish farming (Table 4.1). Getting cash was a secondary objective and this was more frequent only in NR II than in the other NRs. Such a strategy implies that fish farming has little impact on household income but has the potential of improving household food security. These results confirm the results on income sources described in Chapter 3 which showed that fish farming was not considered a major income source for all fish farmers.

4.3 Siting of fish ponds

Good siting of fish ponds is critical for ease of construction, protection of fish against predators, continuous fish farming and integration with the overall farming system. Table 4.1 shows that fish farmers selected suitable pond sites with these factors in mind. In NR II, access to a year round water supply or site within the garden were the most important factor farmers considered. In NRIII, one third of farmers considered soil type to be the most important factor; this was also the most commonly stated main reason in NRIV as well. Soils with good water retention capacity are important in ensuring continuity in fish farming throughout the year. It is interesting to note that in NRIV, where one would expect that water availability would be the most important factor determining the selection of pond sites, it was only the most common second factor.

It is important to note here that the majority of the ponds in NR II were shallow wells initially. Farmers extended these shallow wells and stocked them with fish. This means that most of the ponds were to be found near or in a garden. The location of the gardens made them the best site because they were close to rivers, dams and other places where the water table was relatively high.

Although extension agents often assist farmers in siting their fish ponds, the frequency with which this was done appears low but farmers noted that they sought such advice from extension agents. Another factor farmers considered when siting their pond was the gradient of the slope, indicating that they were aware of the importance of this.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

4.4 Pond construction and stocking

Farmers in all NRs started constructing fish ponds about two decades ago, but the majority of the ponds (about three quarters) were constructed in the last decade, particularly during 1989 and 1990 (Table 4.2). The apparent upsurge in construction was probably a result of increased extension efforts during this period. By June, 1991, a large proportion of fish ponds had been constructed.

When constructing fish ponds, most farmers in all NRs used picks and shovels. Such a method is very labour intensive. An alternative method was to hire a dam scoop from the AGRITEX Extension Worker, but there was a small number of dams scoops available for hire and none at all in NR IV. Use of a dam scoop reduced the labour requirements but it was only suited to those farmers who had access to draft power. Draft power was, therefore, not limiting pond construction at the moment since most FFH used picks and shovels.

Most pond sizes in NR II and IV were below the size recommended by Agritex i.e. 200m² (Table 4.2). About a third of the farmers in NR III seem to have adopted the extension recommendation for pond area while in the other NRs, farmers had not followed the recommended practice. It is likely that the majority of the ponds which were constructed more than five years ago were bound to be small because these were shallow wells converted into ponds. A relatively large significant proportion of the ponds in NR II are relatively big i.e. are 400m² because of the easier access to suitable sites in NR II than in other NRs. Generally, larger ponds offer more efficient use of land and water and lower construction costs, although the survey did not investigate if this was the reason for farmers having large ponds.

Stocking of most ponds has taken place over the last two years. 1991 has been a particularly busy stocking year. Farmers notably complained of unavailability of fingerlings to stock their ponds. Results in Table 4.2 show that about two thirds of the farmers in all NRs had to wait for a year or more to get fingerlings. This may have led to farmers sourcing fingerlings from local dams and rivers. During the survey period, about twenty percent of the ponds were not stocked in all NRs.

4.5 Sources and types of fingerlings

The major source of fingerlings in NR II and IV were extension agents (Table 4.3). Extension workers, in conjunction with the Fisheries Unit, Harare, distributed fingerlings to farmers at no cost to the farmer. In all NRs particularly in NR III, farmers sourced their fingerlings primarily from other fish farmers who retained babyfish after complete harvests (Table 4.8). Data on fingerling prices was not collected with sufficient accuracy, but the indications were that farmers purchased fingerlings from neighbouring fish farmers at a cost of three to five cents per fingerling. Other alternative sources of fingerlings, particularly in NRs III and IV were local rivers and dams.

Extension agents distributed tilapia fingerlings but farmers could not tell the species. It is not known whether these were the species that farmers preferred. Extension agents gave the same size of fingerlings to all farmers.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

The majority of the farmers in all regions had no problems in obtaining fingerlings but of those farmers who did have problems, the major problem was that extension workers took a very long time to deliver the fingerlings. Results on the time lag between pond construction and stocking in Table 4.2 confirm this. AGRITEX experienced problems when distributing fingerlings to farmers.

Once they had stocked their ponds, fish farmers, particularly in NR II, experienced problems. The major problem was of low survival rate after stocking. Fingerlings died soon after stocking possibly due to poor transport. This was more serious in NR III and IV than in NR II.

4.6 Decision making and implementation of fish farming operations

Most decisions on feeding, fertilising and harvesting were made by the household head who may be male or female rarely by spouses (Table 4.4). Spouses and other family members were not decision makers in pond management. Decision making wives had their husbands working away from the farm or decided jointly with their husbands. Extension agents were of assistance only when it came to deciding on when to harvest, but their role was minor.

The actual implementation of the decisions was the responsibility of the spouses and the rest of the family (Table 4.4). The male household head participated less in feeding and fertilising operations but more in harvesting in NR IV. In NR II and III, the male head participated less in harvesting and more in feeding and fertilising but he was in overall command of all decisions. Extension agents assisted farmers in harvesting since the agents provided farmers with seine nets, although in the majority of households both the household head and their spouse carried out harvesting.

Although the women were less involved in decision making, they were very active in implementing the decisions made by their husbands. Day to day management was also undertaken by other family members.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

4.7 Feeding fish and fertilising fish ponds

Table 4.5 provides results on the feeding practices of farmers. In NR II, the most important feed type during the rainy season was kitchen scraps. This is followed by beer wastes. During the dry season, the type of feeds were not changed but beer wastes were used more frequently than kitchen scraps. Generally the frequency of beer brewing increases during the dry season since it is a slack period in the agricultural season. Other feeds used by farmers in NR II used were crushed grain or mill sweepings and vegetables. The importance of the less frequently used feeds did not change when the season changed.

The feed types used by farmers in NR III, were the same as in NR II for all seasons, but maize products and vegetables were more important in NR III than in NR II during the dry season. In NR IV, beer wastes was the major food during the rainy seasons. During the dry period season, fish were fed mostly on vegetables and then beer wastes.

Kitchen scraps and maize products were less frequently used in all seasons by farmers in NR IV. The relative intensity of using a particular feed reflects its availability. This result probably implies that farmers in NR IV had relatively less access to maize products for fish.

¹ Added to this are mill sweepings and crushed grain.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

Results in Chapter 2 showed that farmers used chicken manure primarily for fertilising fish ponds and scantily made use of the other types of manure. The majority of farmers were aware of this practice except for a few in all NRs (Table 4.5). More farmers in NRs III and IV applied manure more frequently than farmers in NR II. This is probably because farmers in NR II owned less animal stock and therefore had less access to manure. Unless farmers compensate for low fertilisation with supplementary feeding, productivity is likely to be low because of low fertility.

Table 4.6 shows that a majority of the farmers were not aware of making compost for fish. The proportions of farmers ignorant about this practice was overestimated because some of these farmers were in the habit of throwing rubbish in the pond and making compost unknowingly. Farmers perceived compost as a feed rather than a fertiliser.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991

4.8 Intermittent and complete harvesting

Nearly all farmers intermittently harvested their ponds in order to obtain relish for a meal (Table 4.7). The common method of intermittent harvesting was with hook and line. Other farmers used baskets to trap the fish (Table 4.8). Intermittent harvesting was commonly performed by family members, mostly children, in all NRs. Complete harvesting was performed by the majority in NR II and IV, but the opposite was true in NR III. Farmers appeared to prefer intermittent harvesting to complete harvesting (although the majority of farmers had not performed a complete harvest) because the latter method was flexible and in line with their objective of farming fish so that they continuously get fish to eat. The common size of fish harvested were the size of a hand in all regions. Farmers in NR III and IV also caught middle finger sized fish.

The majority of the farmers in NR II and III used Agritex's seine nets to harvest their fish. This usually required the presence of the extension worker to train the farmers and also because the net was property of Agritex. Farmers in NR II and III also borrowed their friends nets in order to perform a complete harvest. To do a complete harvest, farmers in NR IV relied equally on Agritex, other farmers and their own nets. Other farmers who failed to get access to a net in NR IV, drained the ponds in order to harvest the fish. After a complete harvest, it was common for farmers to keep fingerlings to restock the pond but a few farmers did not.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991.

Source: Socio-Economic and Marketing Survey, 1991