Small-scale farming in Zambia can be generally described as dominated by crop production with low levels of management of livestock. Basic strategies for farming in this sector are diverse, suggesting that there is a primary motive to spread the risk of failure in the production of any one of the farm's subsystems. Capital resources are scarce, particularly in the peripheral, remote regions of the country and, because of the highly labour-intensive nature of the crop production methods, labour is also scarce during critical periods in the growing and harvesting seasons.
The general features of small-scale agriculture production have certain basic implications for the integration of fish-farming into the farming systems of the sector. First, the dominance of crop production means that the main source of local feeds and fertilizers will be vegetable matter. Animal manure is presently available in sufficient quantities to small-scale fish farmers but as the development of integrated fish farming spreads there will be increased competition and reduced availability of the higher quality animal manure.
The predominance of crop production, combined with lack of mechanization in production methods, results in severe labour shortages at certain times of the year. This makes the introduction of intensive livestock management practices difficult. The diversity of the forms of production reflects a basic survival strategy for small-scale farmers, and specialization in one form of production or significantly increased levels of management within such a strategy cannot be expected to develop. When reaching decisions about production strategy, small-scale farmers are not likely to be influenced by the prospect of higher fish yields from more intensive management to the extent that their basic need to follow diverse production patterns will be supplanted.
Similarly, distance from markets and from supplies of external inputs and lack of capital and income, especially for those groups who are either located in remote areas or are resource-poor, require a strategy of low external inputs of feed, seed and fertilizer. This requirement to avoid costly inputs applies equally to fish production as to crop and livestock production.
These features - predominance of crop production, diversity of production strategy and low levels of management, labour constraints and low levels of external inputs - all strongly suggest that pond yields in the small-scale sector will be relatively low. Farmers will need to pursue extensive rather than intensive production methods. It follows that development assistance and support, to be realistic and to have a reasonable chance of achieving positive impact within the sector, must aim at gradual improvements to production and at yields which do not involve attempts to alter the fundamental nature of the farming system. The targets for the support services should be improved pond yields rather than those highest technically possible. Understanding of the reasons underlying the existing systems and practices and the identification of opportunities to improve production and yields through innovative solutions, based on locally available natural and human resources, are needed.
It should be stressed that the general picture of low yield integrated fish-farming does not imply that its development within the small-scale agricultural sector in Zambia would not be a viable proposition. Viability in the sense of commercial profitability and high quantified cash returns, as has been predicted for integrated fish-farming in the commercial agricultural sector 1, cannot be postulated. However, it is clear, even from early, technically naive development efforts in small-scale subsistence-plus agriculture in remote regions of the country, that there are substantial benefits to be gained by the small-scale farmer from integrated fish farming and that production capacity can be established using farmers' own resources, mainly of labour. The following case studies of the development and first production cycles of the ponds of subsistence-plus farmers in a remote part of Eastern Province and in Ndola Rural District illustrate the point:
| Case Study C. | Development of Integrated Fish Farming at Subsistence-plus Farm at Magweru, Eastern Province |
Owner: Mr T. Phiti
Farm size: Less than 5 ha
Farm produce: Maize, vegetables, pigs, chickens, goats. Pond construction and size: Own plus family labour used over a period of two months in the dry season. Earth excavated and removed to pond edges using hand hoes and sacks. Pond situated on land not previously used for farm production. Pond size approximately 100 m2.
Stocking: 200 fingerlings, total cost K 15, July 1988
| Inputs: | Feeding: | approximately 0.5 kg of maize bran from house each day | |
| Manuring: | composted vegetable matter in pond crib. Goat and pig manure collected from other villagers. Total manure applied was 50 kg, costing a total of K 10 | ||
| Harvest: | 14 February 1989. (200 days culture period) Number of fish recovered: 167, 30% over 100 g | ||
| Total yield: | 15.9 kg of which, returned to pond as fingerlings: 3.2 kg | ||
| Harvested fish: | 12.7 kg | ||
| Disposal of harvest: | Gifts to relatives - 1 kg Payment of labour at harvest - 1 kg Family consumption - 2.3 kg Sold - 8.4 kg (income - K 230) | ||
| Summary: | Invested | : 2 months family labour : K 25 for seed and manure : 1 kg of fish for harvest labour | |
| Returns | : K 230 from fish sales : Social benefits from provision of fish to relatives : 2.3 kg of fish eaten by family | ||
Following the first production cycle, the farmer is encouraged to expand his operation and is presently planning to construct a larger pond.
| Case Study D. | Development of Integrated Fish Farming at Subsistence-plus farm at Chinondo, Ndola Rural District |
Owner: Mr Mususuka
Farm size: between 5 and 10 ha
| Farm production: | hybrid maize (4 ha), soya (2 ha), groundnuts (1 ha), local maize (0.5 ha), vegetable garden, guava orchard. Livestock - 2 large and 8 small pigs, 4 oxen, 1 dairy cow, 4 Muscovy ducks and 10 ducklings, 6 Peking ducklings, 3 goats. Pond size 300 m2, constructed using combination of family labour and community (local church) labour scheme, costing total of K 20 | |
| Stocking: | 800 fingerlings (4 kg), costing K 88 | |
| Inputs: | 80 kg pig manure from own farm each week | |
| Harvest*: | After 200 days culture 50 kg harvested using family labour for total of 8 hours | |
| Disposal of harvest*: | Family consumption: 10 kg Sold at roadside market: 36 kg, income K 1 800 | |
| Returned as fingerlings to pond: 4 kg | ||
| Summary: | Invested: | 20 days family labour Community/social investment in church funds K 20 wages |
| Returns: | 10 kg of fish eaten by family K 1 800 from fish sales | |
* Harvest and harvest details are hypothetical
Operations such as those outlined above are obviously viable in the sense that they produce benefits and create sufficient motivation for the farmer to sustain and even expand his production operation. Sufficient benefits are created - these include the benefits of food security and the social benefits of satisfying the commitments of the extended family or wider community. In this sense, integrated fish-farming is a viable development proposition for the small-scale farmer. Such developments also achieve distribution of animal protein to target groups who would be very difficult to reach by other strategies or by concentrating production in other agricultural sectors.
Successful development of integrated farming is thus possible, but its establishment as a viable and sustainable subsystem of small-scale farming will depend on forms of support, especially research and extension which take account of the nature and situation of particular target groups within the small-scale sector.
