Based on major harvests recorded by the Fish Scouts, the semi-commercial farmers produce on an average 3.1 kg/are/year as compared to subsistence farmers who averaged 3.6 kg/are. But if the comparison is based on farmers' own statements and includes intermittent harvesting, the semi-commercial group reaches an annual production of 5.1 kg/are while subsistence farmers remain at 3.6 kg/are. Of the 10 most “successful” farmers judged by production achievements, eight belonged to the semi-commercial group and two to the subsistence group.
For this analysis, the interviewed farmers are divided according to origin of ponds and classified as “expanding” and “non-expanding”.
The 23 interviewed farmers were grouped as follows :-
| CATEGORY | NUMBER OF FARMERS |
| Non-expanding | 3 |
| Expanding with subsidies | 4 |
| Expanding by own means | 16 |
The three farmers who have retained or reduced the original number of ponds are compared with the two expanding groups. In the first of the expanding groups, the farmers have expanded using project subsidies, and in the second by using their own means.
Table 1 presents differences in performance between the three groups. The number and size of the ponds in the sample have been measured by the author in the field. Production figures derive from the Fish Scouts' records of major harvests from 1st June 1988 to 1st June 1989.
Table 1: Production and pond size for non-expanding/expanding farmers
| Non-expanding farmers (3) | Expanding through subsides (4) | Expanding by own means (16) | |
| No. of ponds per farmer | 2.3 | 3.5 | 3.6 |
| Average pond size (m2) | 447 | 332 | 328 |
| Average farm size (m2) | 895 | 1165 | 1158 |
| Production (kg) per farm and year (major harvests) | 3.58 | 25.63 | 52.11 |
| Production (kg/are) | 0.4 | 2.2 | 4.5 |
It seems clear that the farmers who have expanded perform better than those who did not expand, and those who expanded through their own resources are doing better than farmers whose additional ponds materialized through subsidies.
The non-expanding group shows a poor performance. Of the nine ponds observed in this group, one was cut out of production and two were nearly abandoned although still yielding some fish through intermittent harvesting.
It is hardly surprising that it is the farmers achieving the highest yields who chose to expand their farms. What perhaps is of more interest, however, is to find out who are the farmers successful in fish farming. A note of caution is needed because of the small sample of farmers examined. This study is primarily based on informal and qualitative data, and the foundation for statistical analysis is thin. Nevertheless, the study seems to confirm what was indicated by the 1988 ALCOM fish farming survey -- that fish farmers in general are the better off farmers. This conclusion is even more valid for farmers who choose to expand their fish farms.
There appears to be a connection between semi-commercial farming and expansion of fish farms by use of one's own resources. Of those farmers who expanded their fish farms using their own means, 63% were found to practise semi-commercial farming and 37% were subsistence-oriented. Semi-commercial farmers as a group have expanded their farms by their own means in 77% of all cases, whereas subsistence-oriented farmers have done so in 60%.
The nine ponds found to be non-operational in the sample are rather evenly distributed between the two groups: five belong to subsistence farmers and four to semi-commercial farmers.
Of the four farmers found to construct ponds at the time of the study, three were semi-commercial and one subsistence-oriented.
It appears as if semi-commercial farmers in general and on an average display a somewhat higher production and are more likely than subsistence farmers to expand their activities.
New ponds added to existing subsidized ones tend to be smaller (on average 230m2 as compared to 384m2). Moreover, additional ponds seem to give their owners problems more often than those which were dug initially through subsidies. Of 18 ponds constructed by farmers' own means, 42% (8 out of 18) were found non-operational (dry, overgrown, collapsed dykes, etc.). Of 34 subsidized ponds for the same farmers, however, only one (3%) was not in operation, although several were in bad shape and likely to cease operation in the near future.
The small size of added ponds may indicate that farmers face difficulties in raising funds or labour for construction. Returns in general from their fish farms may also be modest, thereby motivating farmers to dig small ponds only. Once there, these smaller ponds are not maintained as well as the first ponds.
The fact that 16 out of 23 interviewed farmers expanded on their own may indicate success in an approach based on subsidies as development “trigger”. However, expansion in nearly all cases took place within the first or at the most, the second year after the farmers received their first subsidized ponds. A possible explanation is that good initial harvests fuelled motivation to dig more ponds. Expectations, however, could not be satisfied in the long run and as production started to decline the new smaller ponds were the ones to be affected. Four farmers expressed optimism about the future in that they were presently constructing three new ponds and one small dam.
Fertilizers are rarely used by subsistence and semi-commercial farmers. Artificial fertilizers are either not available or beyond the means of the majority of the farmers. Even when available it is never used for fish culture.
Manure is available to most households, but in small quantities, from the few goats and chickens roaming free around the homesteads (cattle owners being the obvious exception). There is no well-established tradition of using manure for crops and in spite of the low quantities available, it often remains uncollected. What little is utilized is collected from the night quarters of the animals. Occasionally, children are sent out to collect droppings around the homestead.
There appears to be little competition in general over the limited quantities available. Some manure is used for vegetable gardening in the dry season. In the case of fish farmers, most of it goes into fish ponds. Since several fish farmers have realised the need to fertilize their ponds, they supplement their own scarce resources with manure from neighbours and friends -- sometimes given free, sometimes bartered, sometimes bought. Even then, the amounts are very modest, rarely exceeding a few kg a week per pond.
There is a clear seasonal variation in the use of manure, with most manure being applied during the dry season. Several fish farmers reported stopping fertilizing ponds at the onset of the rains, and vegetables were only occasionally found to be manured during this time. One reason may be that manure is easier to collect and handle when it stays dry in the dry season and there is plenty of labour to attend to the task. Secondly, there seems to be a lack of knowledge and tradition of using fertilizers. Soil fertility in the present farming system is ensured through shifting cultivation. In the rainy season the traditional cultivation of staple crops gets the highest priority, with little attention paid to alternatives. Yet another reason may be a scarcity of labour during the rains to attend to tasks like fertilizing fish ponds.
As a consequence, the bulk of manure applied to fish ponds is administered not during the period when the fish grow (the warm, rainy season) but during the cold, dry season.
Fisheries officers said that farmers refrained from using manure in their ponds for fear of the fish eating the droppings. This statement could be confirmed in one case only. To what extent such beliefs really inhibit or limit the use of manure in fish ponds is difficult to say, as quantities available are so small. Such beliefs, however, may again illustrate the fact that manure in general is rarely used in the farming system and knowledge about its application is lacking.
No integrated fish farming (with ducks for example) was found. Attempts had been made to integrate Peking ducks and rabbits with fish, but failed. Plausible reasons are that ponds are some distance away from homesteads making control of theft and predation difficult. Rearing of Peking ducks also requires inputs in terms of feed, incubators, etc., which are not available on-farm and which few farmers can afford.
Shortages of fertilizer appear to be more aggravated among subsistence-oriented farmers. Those who said they use no fertilizer at all (3) were all subsistence farmers. Of the eight farmers judged to use most fertilizers, six were semi-commercial and two subsistence. There is reason to believe that semi-commercial farmers have better manured ponds either directly by possessing more animals or indirectly by obtaining manure from neighbours and friends.
There is little scope for improvement in the fertilization of fish ponds based on animal manure within the present farming systems. Positive effects may come about by increased application of manure in the rainy season, but again improvements are limited by the quantities of fertilizers available. Fertilization through composting may have some potential, but requires knowledge of the practice. Integration of ducks and other animals with fish farming has little potential unless such attempts can be founded on local inputs.
It was not possible to detect significant differences in the kind, amount and frequency of feeding between the two types of farmers. Apart from hybrid maize (maize bran), the crops grown for fish feed (and for staple food) are identical in the two groups. Semi-commercial farmers were found to cultivate on an average 7.8 different crops and subsistence farmers 6.7 (vegetables treated as one crop).
The fish feed above all is green cassava leaves, followed by sweet potato leaves, pumpkin leaves, cabbage, rape, cassava husks, maize bran, weeds and, to a limited extent, household leftovers. The fish is given the same crops or vegetables as are the main relishes of the households. No farmers obtained feed from outside the farm.
Nearly all farmers were found to soak cassava in their ponds. When ready, the tubers are peeled at the pond side and the peels returned to the pond. This is the one feed which is present throughout the year. The soaking of cassava in ponds illustrates the integration of fish culture with other activities and the use of household wastes for fish rearing.
Although surplus vegetables are given to the fish, there is no obvious integration between fish farming and vegetable cultivation. Rarely is mud from fish ponds used to fertilize gardens, and vegetables are only occasionally grown in the immediate vicinity of the ponds.
During the rainy season, vegetables are most often cultivated in the cassava fields, and in the dry season, closer to water which may or may not be where the ponds are. Fish farming has hardly generated an increase in vegetable cultivation, and vegetables given to the fish are few and modest in quantity. Fish ponds do not help irrigate gardens, nor do streams help feed ponds.
One farmer was found to grow a plant (local name, Kanseki, a kind of ochra) in the pond, which he claimed served both as feed for the fish and as relish for the family.
Household leftovers are given to the fish in small quantities and infrequently. There are not many leftovers and they are traditionally given to farm animals.
A striking feature is the seasonal variation of feed availability and application. During the rains, feed is abundant. Leaves, vegetables and other greens are collected in sacks, mainly in conjunction with farm work, and brought to the homestead and the ponds at the end of the day. The collected leaves and greens are divided between relishes, fish feed and sometimes animal feed. Feeding of the fish takes place almost daily, the only limiting factor being the time it takes to collect the leaves and give them to the fish.
As the dry season develops, the feeding changes in character. Vegetables are fed less and less. Leaves, particularly cassava leaves, still provide the bulk of the feed, but quantities dwindle considerably and so does the frequency of feeding. Eventually, some farmers remain with cassava peels as the only feed for a period before the rains.
June to September is the period identified by farmers as the time of the year when it is most difficult to find relish. As the main relishes -- cassava leaves, sweet potato leaves, pumpkin leaves and vegetables -- also constitute the bulk of the fish feed, competition develops over their use.
Some farmers supplement the meagre feeding during the dry season with termites and ants. More important, during this time though, is probably the supplementary feeding of maize bran. Semi-commercial maize growers have an advantage over other farmers. The hybrid maize growers and fish farmers in Kanongesha, for example, have their maize ground locally after harvest in May-June, and consequently at the start of the dry season have a good stock of supplementary fish feed, which especially subsistence farmers (or growers of local maize varieties) are lacking. Local maize is not generally ground but consumed as green cobs.
The farmers stated lack of feed as the foremost reason to low productivity. The solution to the problem, as the farmers saw it, was to bring in feed from outside. Such feed was identified as maize bran by farmers other than the maize growers. No farmers, however, were met who purchased any kind of feed in order to alleviate the scarcities of the dry season.
The farming techniques used by both types of farmers are similar (hoe and axe shifting cultivation), with one clear exception. All fish farmers interviewed in chief Kanongesha cultivated maize using modern farming techniques supplied through a mission co-operative (tractor ploughing, artificial fertilizing). This circumstance has little direct relevance for fish farming other than some maize bran being used as fish feed. Cash cropping in the rest of the district is done with the same tools and techniques as subsistence farming.
Fish farming takes place under similar conditions, using the same labour intensive techniques and basic tools as described above. Within this framework, however, there is some variation. Semi-commercial farmers, more often than subsistence farmers, possess additional tools such as slashers, shovels and wheelbarrows and may hire other people to use such tools in agriculture. Lack of access to proper tools like slashers was often stated as a constraint to pond maintenance by farmers. There is a difference in labour input in clearing pond sites with slashers as compared to hoes, or digging ponds or repairing farrows with access to shovels and wheelbarrows.
Looking at pond maintenance, some farmers lacking slashers burnt the grass around the ponds at the peak of the dry season. During the rains, however, access to slashers makes a difference in preventing overgrowth at the pond site.
Farmers are self-sufficient in fingerlings, partly by necessity (as official supply of fish seed is inadequate), partly to avoid cash expenses of fingerlings (should they be available). Fingerlings may be bartered with, or purchased from, other fish farmers. In most cases, the fish originally stocked in the ponds are the ones remaining there for several years.
Household composition determines available labour both in general and with respect to gender-fixed tasks. Both the semi-commercial and the subsistence farmers have on an average about the same number of adults living in their extended family households (7.8 and 7.4 respectively), male and female about equally divided (there is, however, considerable variation between different households).
Labour is the single most crucial factor that determines the area under cultivation and, consequently, the level of production within farming systems founded on labour intensive shifting and cultivation practices. Household members constitute the bulk of labour in subsistence as well as in semi-commercial farming activities -- and in fish pond operations. In addition, labour from outside may be hired temporarily.
The busiest period in agriculture is November to February (the rainy season). All farmers are occupied with ridging, moulding and planting of cassava and other staples. Tree cutting and land preparation are another peak period. They take place at the onset of the dry season (tree cutting) and in August/September with burning and preparation of the land for cultivation. These are traditionally predominantly male activities. Cassava and other staple crops are cultivated by women, although frequently assisted by men in making cassava moulds.
Preparation of land and cassava moulds is considered the hardest and the most tiring task. These are also the tasks for which supplementary labour is exchanged with relatives and friends and for which piece workers are hired by almost every household in return for either cash or food. Semi-commercial farmers also hire labour for a number of other tasks (planting, weeding, harvesting, etc.).
Fish was found to be a common mode of payment for piecework in agriculture by nearly all fish farmers. About 20% of the fish from major harvests were used for that purpose, a “plate of fish” being equivalent to one day's work in the fields.
Labour is never hired or exchanged for the regular or daily operation of fish ponds. Only for pond construction and harvesting may workers from outside the household be engaged. Assistance with harvesting is paid for in fish (“a small plate”).
When looking at pond management from the perspective of how tasks are divided within the household, fish farming resembles the cultivation of subsistence food crops.
Operation of fish ponds is primarily the responsibility of the registered owners of household. As with food crops, assistance with fish ponds is often rendered by other members of the extended family (for example the collection of feed) and just as staple foods are regularly shared through “eating from the same pot”, harvests from fish ponds are shared among all members of the extended family household.
The busiest time in agriculture (the rainy season) coincides with the period when the fish are growing and when there is the most supply of fish feed. Everybody in the household assists in the collection and application of fish feed during this time, although women and children perform most of the tasks.
As fish feeds are also the main relishes of the household, collection of fish feed is not a new task, but part of an already established activity. What is new is the extra quantity needed and the time required to carry it to the ponds. Collection of greens is normally done at the end of each day's farmwork and is said to take 15 to 30 minutes. Feeding the fish ponds takes another 15 to 45 minutes, depending on the distance to the ponds from the fields and the homestead. Only rarely are the fish ponds in the vicinity of the homesteads.
Most households say it is difficult to provide proper care to the ponds during the rainy season, and to some extent also during the land preparation in August/September. What this means is that while women and children manage to ensure un-interrupted feeding of ponds, manuring suffers towards the end of the dry season following land preparation and the agriculture tasks during the rains.
One reason may be scarcity of labour during this time; another reason may be that fertilizers usually remain unutilized during the rains.
Maintenance and grass cutting around the ponds are other tasks that suffer during the rains. If ponds overflow, or the walls crack, repair work normally has to wait until the dry season.
Semi-commercial farmers have an indirect advantage through their ability to hire labour during peak periods, taking some pressure off the household members.
Subsistence farmers appear to be tied to agricultural work in the rainy season, either attending to their own fields, or working as hired labourers for cash or food on other people's farms.
On the other hand, cash cropping may generate labour scarcities during other periods. The maize growers in Kanongesha for example, more or less abandoned their ponds to attend to maize harvests. During the harvest, the majority of the adults moved to their maize farms some distance away from their permanent homesteads.
The difference between the two types of farmers with respect to labour available to operate fish ponds, should not, however, be exaggerated. Labour constraints, if and when they occur, are more related to the number of people present in the household, than to the indirect effects of what type of farming system is practised or to households' ability to hire external workers. This is because ponds are managed exclusively with household labour, while hired labour is restricted to carrying out agricultural tasks of a subsistence or semi-commercial nature.
There are, however, more pronounced differences related to gender. While male fish farmers say that growing fish has not increased their workload or interfered with other activities, their wives often paint a different picture. Fish farming seems to have increased women's workload without reducing the burden of other activities. This is particularly so during the rainy season. Says one farmer's wife: “Although I am tired when returning from the fields, I cannot rest; I have to walk to the ponds to feed the fish”. The bulk of labour with respect to pond operation may in fact be supplied by women (and children), adding this to their other chores. However, none of the women who complained about the increased workload, considered their efforts to be in vain. They believed that the returns motivated the extra effort.
Repair and maintenance work on the ponds is carried out during the dry season. If such work involves digging (for example, farrows) this is normally done by men. Slashing and clearing of grass around the ponds may be done by both women and men.
Intermittent harvesting, when done with hook and line, is carried out by children (boys), mostly during the rainy season, as the fish are more “on the bite” during that time. Women may occasionally harvest intermittently with baskets.
Availability of labour for pond operation is not a problem, except during the rains. Seen against the rather poor management of most fish farms, this is interpreted to mean that farmers do not allow fish farming to interfere with established agricultural or other activities of subsistence or commercial value. Consequently, labour input into ponds is generally low. Also, women have been more affected than men by the daily operation of ponds. Not because they have given up other activities in favour of growing fish, but because fish ponds have increased their total workload.
Seen against the scarce labour situation in the rainy season, there is little scope for increased labour input in fish farming during this time.
During the dry season, more labour is available. Only a little of the surplus labour during this time appears to be spent on fish culture. Male labour is diverted towards already established off-farm economic activities such as hunting, fishing, honey collection, piecework, labour migration, house building etc. The dry season is also the period when family members socialize, travel to see relatives, arrange marriages and spend time on other social activities.
The fish is taken out by two harvesting methods -- major and intermittent harvesting.
Major harvests normally do not involve a complete harvest of a pond followed by restocking. Some water and fish often remain in the pond and constitute the broodstock for the period up to the next harvest. Alternatively, some fish, often full-grown individuals, may be taken aside and kept in a container. Meanwhile, the pond is drained and all the fish taken out. The pond is then refilled and the reserved fish returned. If the fish farmer has more than one pond, fish from another pond may be used to restock the one completely harvested.
These strategies make farmers independent of fingerlings from outside. Sometimes fingerlings may be exchanged with other fish farmers, or on rare occasions even bought from them. Normally, however, fish farmers are self-reliant with respect to fingerlings.
Major harvests are normally carried out with the assistance and supervision of extension workers (Fish Scouts). The scout brings a seine net to the pond. Family members, neighbours and other fish farmers assemble at the pond site. Some water is taken out of the pond, a few pulls with the seine net, the pond is considered harvested. Men, women and children participate in this task. After the harvest the fish is weighed by the scout and the result recorded.
The period between major harvests is rather long. For all farmers in the study area, an average of 17.3 months passed between the two most recent harvests by the fish scouts.
In the absence of the scout, the farmers may arrange for major harvests using traditional fishing baskets. A group of women form a semi-circle and wade through the water, driving the fish towards a corner of the pond from where the baskets are taken out.
The other harvesting strategy is that of intermittent harvesting. Relatively small amounts of fish are taken out frequently in the period between major harvests. This is a well established and widespread activity, involving nearly all farmers (22 of the 23 farmers acknowledged practising it).
There is considerable variation between households, however, as to the amounts of fish taken out intermittently. For individual households, intermittent harvesting may well exceed the amounts from major harvests. Intermittent harvesting may take place in the same ponds as major harvests (which is most common) or be reserved for ponds set aside for only that kind of fishing. On average, it amounts to about 30% of major harvests or more than 20% of total harvests.
The most common harvesting method is hook and line, mainly by children (and almost exclusively boys) who are either sent by elders (most common) to fish for relish or do so on a more leisurely or ad hoc basis.
Hook and line normally yield 10–20 fish of rather small sizes (not exceeding 50 grams) each time, although quantities vary with demand and the persistence of those fishing. Occasionally, intermittent harvesting is also done by women using baskets. Because this is a more efficient method it is practised less often to avoid depleting the ponds.
There is a seasonal variation as to the quantities of fish taken out by hook and line. More is taken out during the rainy season than in the dry season. The reason stated is that fish are more active during the warm, rainy season and, therefore, easier to catch. Consequently, during the dry season hook and line fishing in ponds does not help relieve the scarcity of relishes. The frequency of intermittent harvesting varies from several times a week to about once a month.
Looking at the two types of farmers in the sample, subsistence farmers as a group practise harvesting to a much greater extent than semi-commercial farmers do. They also consume a higher proportion of the fish taken out at major harvests.
Subsistence farmers rely on cultured fish for food, much more than semi-commercial farmers do. This is clearly indicated by intermittent harvesting, which is exclusively for family consumption. Subsistence farmers remove almost twice as much fish by this method (41% of major harvests) than the semi-commercial farmers (21% of major harvests).
The difference between the two types is less pronounced for major harvests, although the findings indicate that here also subsistence farmers may consume more fish than semi-commercial. For both types of farmers, on average nearly one-third (30%) of major harvests is consumed within the household or given to relatives and friends for the same purpose. The rest is used for sale (30%), paid to people in exchange for farm work in the fields (20%) and for assistance with the harvesting of the fish (20%).
Most fish consumed by the fish farming households, however, does not come from the fish ponds. On an average, about one-third comes from the ponds and two-thirds from outside. The most common source of fish from outside the household is dried fish from local markets or from travelling fish vendors. Dried fish make up more than one-third of all fish from outside the farms. The next most common source is the purchase of fresh fish, in most cases from other fish farmers. Fish farmers and their family members also catch substantial amounts of fish in rivers and streams using hooks (boys), traps (men) and baskets (women) (Fishing baskets were found in nearly every village visited). Small amounts of fish are also regularly received from friends and relatives, occasionally as barter for other food stuffs, normally pounded cassava.
The introduction of fish culture has had two major implications with respect to food and income. One is that consumption of fish has increased totally, the other is that cultured fish has, to some extent, substituted the purchase of fish (thereby reducing cash expenditures) and reduced the amounts of fish caught by household members in rivers and streams.
Fish from one's own ponds is consumed with a frequency ranging from several times weekly to about once a month. Fish from outside, however, is consumed even more often. Most households eat fish from outside more frequently than once a week.
Fish is consumed all the year round. More fish from ponds are consumed in the rainy season. Dried fish, on the other hand, dominate in the dry season when fishing expeditions can be launched and accessible roads enable fish to be transported into the area from fishing grounds in Zambezi and Kabompo.
Apart from fish, bush meat is the most common source of animal protein in the area, especially for farmers living close to the Angolan border. More than half of the respondents said that they eat bush meat more often than once a week.
Farm animals are normally not eaten, but function as a security, as a way of raising cash in times of need. Goats are stated to be eaten “rarely” and chicken somewhat more often. About one-third of the respondents said they eat chicken once in a month, the rest do so less often.
Beef is eaten slightly more often than chicken. When eaten, the meat is normally purchased from some person in the neighbourhood.
Beans and peas are the most common protein-rich vegetable relishes, eaten several times a week by almost every household. Its availability decreases towards the end of the dry season and before the next harvest can be secured.
Insects, such as caterpillars and termites, are also an important source of food although bound to seasonal availability. When in supply, it is a daily or weekly diet for most households. Some farmers stretch out the caterpillar season by drying them.
The daily staple relishes are cassava leaves, sweet potato leaves, pumpkin leaves and vegetables, supplemented by the items described above according to their availability.
Apart from beans and peas, fish is the most common protein-rich relish consumed by the households, and due to its nearly constant availability is considered more important than meat from domestic animals or game.
It does not seem, however, that fish from ponds makes up for the general scarcity of staple green relish during the dry season. Fish consumption appears to take place rather evenly throughout the year.
About one-third of all cultivated fish is sold. Sales take place at the pond site in connection with major harvests. It's sold either in plates or weighed, fetching K5:00–K10:00 per plate of K8:00–K25:00 per kg (June 1989), depending on proximity to “urban” markets. Prices are the highest near Mwinilunga Boma, reaching K20–K25 for a kg of fresh fish.
In the year preceding the study, the interviewed farmers each landed an average weight of approximately 21kg of fish from their farms through major harvests (official recordings). Of this about 7kg was sold. Cash revenues from fish ponds rarely exceeds K100 – K200 a year, although individual farmers may gain considerably more than that.
Semi-commercial farmers generally sell larger portions of fish from major harvests than subsistence farmers (35% as compared to 25%), perhaps due to their harvests being somewhat larger. The proportion of total cash income deriving from fish culture is, on the other hand, higher for subsistence farmers as they lack income from cash cropping.
The fish sold represents a surplus that remains when satisfactory amounts of fish have been reserved for consumption. It seems likely that earning cash is not the most important reason for cultivating fish. As with food staple crops, women are in most cases responsible for the sale of fish from the fish ponds.
Both groups of farmers rely on sale of crops as their most important source of income. Farming incomes are considerably higher for semi-commercial farmers than for subsistence farmers, and although modest in comparison with other areas in Zambia, may reach several thousand kwacha per year. Farm revenues are supplemented by a number of off-farm incomes, important particularly for subsistence farmers. They are piecework, honey collection, beer brewing, hunting and fishing. A few households also receive remittances from family members living and working elsewhere, mainly in the Copperbelt Province.
Cash incomes are not reinvested in the fish farms. Most common expenditures for both groups are supplementary food stuffs, clothing, school fees and crop seeds. More money is spent on the purchase of fish for consumption than is gained from sale of fish from own ponds.
