ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS OF SMALL SCALE FISH

FARMING IN NIGERIA

DIKE UZOAMAKA CHINEDU

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the

University of Greenwich

for the award of Masters of Science (MSc.) Deegree

Supervised by

John Linton

August 2014

DECLARATION

I certify that this work has not been accepted in substance for any degree, and is not

concurrently being submitted for any degree other than that of MSc Agriculture for

Sustainable Development being studied at the University of Greenwich. I also declare

that this work is the result of my own investigations except where otherwise identified

by references and that I have not plagiarised the work of others.

I hereby give consent for my thesis to be available for photocopy and inter-library loan.

Signed……………………… (Candidate) Signed……………………. (Supervisor)

Date………………………… Date………………………..

ACKNOWLELEDGEMENT

My sincere gratitude goes to the Almighty God who gave me the strength and wisdom I

required to make this work a success. My appreciation also goes to my loving parent

who sustained me financially all through my study at the University, and my one and

only sister, Ijeoma Dike who have being there for me in times of need

I am equally grateful to my project supervisor, John Linton who provided me with all

the information I required to successfully complete this project and also David

Grzywacz, who assisted in perfecting my work

I wish to thank all the academic and non-academic staff of the Natural Resource

Institute in the University of Greenwich. Your hard work would always be remembered.

i

ABSTRACT

Research carried out in Nigeria provides compelling evidence of failures of the

country’s agricultural sector to maximize aquaculture potentials to increase fish

production for the growing populace. However, understanding of the limiting

factors of fish farming and constraints faced by the farmers and retailers remains

limited. Furthermore, it is suspected that there are restrictions faced in various

stages of fish production and marketing. However, studies that look intensively

at the strength, weakness, opportunity and threat (SWOT) analysis on the

aquaculture value chain to identify these constraints are limited.

The aim of this study was to identify the strength and limitations of fish farming

in Nigeria and develop ideas to improve fish productivity to meet the increasing

demand for fish. To achieve this, a SWOT analysis that focused on the

stakeholders (fish farmers, retailers and consumers) in the fish production and

marketing chain was carried out.

The results showed that the primary constraint faced by fish farmers is the cost

of setting up and maintaining a fish farm. Other constraints were limited land,

inadequate quality feed, poaching, limited quantity of fingerlings, poor

electricity supply and marketing. Some of the constraints faced by fish retailers

were the transport costs and in some cases deterioration of fish due to poor

electricity supply. In this study, it was observed that consumers did not consider

the price of fish as a constraint and were willing to pay more for fish because of

its health benefits.

This study demonstrates that there is a strong potential for growth in the

aquaculture sector if more efforts are made to address the constraints faced by

the stakeholders in fish farming.

CONTENTS

ii

Table of ContentsACKNOWLELEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. i

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... ii

CONTENTS................................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................vi

List of Figures............................................................................................................................viii

ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................................... ix

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Issues of global fisheries..............................................................................................1

1.2 Project Aim...................................................................................................................4

1.3 Project Rationale..........................................................................................................4

1.4 Project Objectives........................................................................................................4

2. Background of study............................................................................................................6

2.1 Literature review..........................................................................................................6

2.2 Global Aquaculture Production....................................................................................8

2.2.1 Aquaculture development in Egypt....................................................................10

2.3 Nigerian Fisheries.......................................................................................................12

2.3.1 Demand and supply challenges of Nigerian fisheries.........................................13

2.3.2 Aquaculture as an alternative for increased fish production.............................14

2.3.3 Fish farming in Nigeria.......................................................................................17

2.3.4 Potentials of aquaculture in Nigeria...................................................................19

2.4 Constraints of Aquaculture in Nigeria........................................................................20

2.4.1 Lack of fish fingerlings........................................................................................21

2.4.2 Access to fish feed..............................................................................................21

2.4.3 High Cost of input and Lack of credit facility......................................................22

2.4.4 Poor access to land............................................................................................22

2.4.5 Poor extension service.......................................................................................22

2.5 Improvement in Nigeria’s aquaculture sector............................................................23

2.6 Aquaculture transformation agenda in Nigeria..........................................................24

2.7 Strategy......................................................................................................................26

3.0 Methodology..................................................................................................................27

3.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................27

3.2 Research approach.....................................................................................................27

3.3 Selection of participants.............................................................................................28

iii

3.3.1 Fish farmers........................................................................................................28

3.3.2 Fish sellers..........................................................................................................30

3.3.3 Fish consumers..................................................................................................32

3.4 Instrumentation.........................................................................................................34

3.4.1 Structure of questions for fish farmers..............................................................35

3.4.2 Structure of questions for fish sellers.................................................................35

3.4.3 Structure of questions for fish consumers.........................................................36

3.5 Data Collection...........................................................................................................36

3.6 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................36

4.0 Results............................................................................................................................38

4.1. BACKGROUND OF FISH FARMERS...................................................................................38

4.1.1. Gender distribution of fish farmers in Nigeria..........................................................38

4.1.2. Educational background of fish farmers in Nigeria..................................................39

4.1.3. Professional experience of fish farmers in Nigeria...................................................40

4.1.4. Skill acquisition of fish farmers in Nigeria................................................................42

4.2. Capital and infrastructures available to fish farmers in Nigeria......................................43

4.2.1. Land ownership........................................................................................................43

4.2.2. Ponds and water supply...........................................................................................44

4.2.3. The effect of fish feed on the growth of fish............................................................46

4.3. Constraints faced by fish farmers in Nigeria...................................................................49

4.4. FISH CONSUMERS...........................................................................................................50

4.5. FISH RETAILERS...............................................................................................................53

5.0 Discussion......................................................................................................................56

5.1 Production.................................................................................................................56

5.1.1 Gender inequality...............................................................................................56

5.1.2 Education...........................................................................................................56

5.1.3 Experience/skill acquisition................................................................................57

5.1.4 Land....................................................................................................................57

5.1.5 Pond and Water supply......................................................................................57

5.1.6 Fish feeding........................................................................................................58

5.1.7 Constraints in fish farming.................................................................................59

5.2 Marketing...................................................................................................................59

5.3 Consumption..............................................................................................................60

5.4 Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) Analysis.................................61

iv

5.4.1 Strength.............................................................................................................61

5.4.2 Weakness...........................................................................................................62

5.4.3 Opportunity........................................................................................................62

5.5 Possible Solutions......................................................................................................62

5.5.1 Female participation..........................................................................................62

5.5.2 Land availability..................................................................................................63

5.5.3 Cost of quality fish feed......................................................................................63

5.5.4 High cost of aquaculture input:..........................................................................63

5.6 Limitations.................................................................................................................64

5.7 Conclusion..................................................................................................................64

5.8 Future work................................................................................................................64

References.................................................................................................................................66

Appendix 1.................................................................................................................................77

Appendix 2.................................................................................................................................78

Appendix 3.................................................................................................................................79

Appendix 4.................................................................................................................................88

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: World fisheries and aquaculture production and utilization………………7

Table 2.1: Aquaculture production in Asia……………………………………………9

Table 2.3: Top 10 Fish producers in Africa…………………………………………..10

Table 2.4: Nigeria fish production and Import value for 2009……………………….14

Table 2.2: Fish production in Nigeria in Metric ton………………………………….15

Table 2.3: Annual recorded imports of smoked fish from Africa into the UKfrom 1995 to 1999…………………………………………………………………….24

Table2.7: Aquaculture transformation agenda against constraints in aquaculture sector………………………………………………………………………………25-26

Table 3.1: Selected geographical location for fish farmers…………………………………..29

Table 3.2: Selected geographical location for fish sellers……………………………………31

Table 3.3: Selected geographical location for fish sellers……………………………………..33

Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics of gender distribution of fish farmers in Nigeria……………38

Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics of educational background of fish farmers in Nigeria……….39

Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics of the number of years of professional experience of fish farmers in Nigeria……………………………………………………………………………...41

Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics showing the methods of acquiring aquaculture skills by fish farmers in Nigeria………………………………………………………………………………42

Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics showing land ownership status of fish farmers in Nigeria……43

Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics showing the sizes of lands used by fish farmers in Nigeria…..44

Table 4.7: Descriptive statistics showing the types of ponds used by fish farmers in Nigeria…45

Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics showing the sources of water supply for fish farmers in Nigeria………………………………………………………………………………………….45

Table 4.9: Descriptive statistics showing knowledge of water re-circulatory system (WRS)….45

Table 4.10: Cross tabulation showing the use of water re-circulatory system (WRS) and quantity of harvest per stock…………………………………………………………………………….46

vi

Table 4.11: Descriptive statistics showing the constraints in use of water re-circulatory system (WRS)…………………………………………………………………………………………46

Table 4.12: Descriptive statistics showing the type of feeds used by fish farmers……………47

Table 4.13: Cross tabulation showing the frequency of feeding and period of maturity of fingerlings……………………………………………………………………………………...47

Table 4.14: Descriptive statistics showing the sizes of fishes harvested by fish farmers……...48

Table 4.15: Descriptive statistics showing the types of fish cultivated by fish farmers……….48

Table 4.16: Descriptive statistics showing the sources of fingerlings cultivated by fish farmers........................................................................................................................................48

Table 4.17: Descriptive statistics showing the constraints faced by fish farmers in Nigeria…..49

Table 4.18: Descriptive statistics showing customers preferences for fish and meat………..…51

Table 4.19: Cross tabulation showing customers earnings and preferences for fish and

Meat…………………………………………………………………………………………….51

Table 4.20: Cross tabulation showing customers reasons for preference of fish and meat……..51

Table 4.21: Descriptive statistics showing customers favourite type of fish…………………...52

Table 4.22: Descriptive statistics showing customers preference for local or imported fish…...52

Table 4.23: Cross tabulation showing customers views on imported fish………………………52

Table 4.24: Descriptive statistics showing the types of fishes sold by retailers…………………53

Table 4.25: Descriptive statistics showing monthly sales of fishes by retailers……………...…54

Table 4.26: Descriptive statistics showing retailers who purchase from farms…………………54

Table 4.27: Descriptive statistics showing retailers who require transport to sell fishes…….….54

Table 4.28: Descriptive statistics showing frequency of fish deterioration………………………………………………………………………….…………55

vii

Table 4.29: cross tabulation showing retailers views on imported fish……………………….…55

List of Figures

Figure1.1: Marine capture excluding anchoveta ………………………………..2

Figure 1.1: Global production of seafood, 1970-2008……………………….......2

Figure 2.1: World fish consumption from 2006-2011…………………………...7

Figure 2.2: Global aquaculture production by region…………………………..8

Figure 2.3: Total fisheries production/production by sources in Egypt………..11

Figure 2.4: Artisanal fisheries production fom 1995-2007…………………….16

Figure 2.5: Aquaculture production from 1995-2007………………………….16

Figure 2.6: Distribution of fish farms in Nigeria………………………………17

Figure 2.7: Important cultured fish species in Nigeria………………………....18

Figure 2.8: Map of Nigeria showing surface area of major water bodies……...20

Figure 3.1: Map of Nigeria showing location of the selected fish farmers…….30

Figure 3.2: Map of Nigeria showing location of the selected fish sellers…...…32

Figure 3.3: Map of Nigeria showing location of the selected fish consumers....34

Figure 4.1: Pie chart of gender distribution of fish farmers in Nigeria…………39

Figure 4.2: Pie chart of educational status of fish farmers in Nigeria…………..40

Figure 4.3: Bar chart showing the number of years of professional experience

of fish farmers in Nigeria…………………………………………………….…41

Figure 4.4: Pie chart showing methods of acquiring aquaculture skills by fish

farmers in Nigeria………………………………………………….……………42

Figure 4.5: Pie chart showing methods of acquiring aquaculture skills by fish

farmers in Nigeria ………………………………………………………….……50

viii

ABBREVIATIONS

AVCTIG Agricultural Value Chain Transformation Implementation Group

CBN Central Bank of Nigeria

FDF Federal Department of Fisheries

FCWC Fishery Committee for the West Central Gulf of Guinea

FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

FMAWR Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GAFRD General Authorities for Fish Resources Development

GDP Gross Domestic Profit

PIND Partnership Initiatives in Niger Delta

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Science

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USD United States Dollar

WRS Water Re-Circulatory System

ix

1. Introduction

1.1 Issues of global fisheries

Fish provides about 2.9 billion people around the world with almost 20 percent of their

individual animal protein intake and 6.4 percent of all proteins consumed (Halwart,

2013). The growing demand for fish has put pressure on wild resources which has

resulted in widespread over-fishing (Giuliani et al., 2004). Although, Srinivasan et al,

(2010) demonstrated a decline in global fish catch due to overfishing, Mathiesen’s

(2012) analysis of capture fisheries production from 2004 to 2010 showed no

significant decline in capture fisheries (see fig 1.1). However, there is a need for an

increase in fish production to meet the growing demands for fish (see fig 2.1)

The little potential for growth in wild stock has led to a situation where fish farming1

has become increasingly attractive as an alternative means to provide fish. While wild

capture has remained stagnant at around 90 million tonnes since 1988 (see fig 1.2),

aquaculture1 production has shown increased growth of 6.3% annually, from 34.6

million tonnes in 2001 to 59.9 million tonnes in 2010 (Mathiesen, 2012; Queiroz,

2013). Judging from Mathiesen’s statistics on World fisheries and aquaculture

production (see table 2.1); the reason for the steady increase in total fish production is

as a result of the contributions from aquaculture. With the rapid growth rate in

aquaculture production as observed in fig 1.2, there are possibilities of aquaculture

production overtaking capture production.

1 In this report, fish farming and aquaculture would be used interchangeably

1

Figure1.1: marine capture excluding anchoveta (source: Mathiesen, 2012)

Figure 1.2: global production of seafood, 1970-2008 (source: FAO cited in Asche, 2010)

2

Asia accounts for almost 89% of total fish produced from aquaculture globally while

Africa, America, Europe and Oceania accounts for 1.8%, 4.6%, 4.4% and 0.3%

respectively (see fig 2.2 and Appendix 1) (Mathiesen, 2012; Bostock et al., 2010 ). This

makes Asia the highest aquaculture producer amongst the continents followed by

America while Africa ranks the second lowest producer after Oceania.

Egypt is ranked as the highest aquaculture producer in Africa followed by Nigeria. In

2010, Egypt produced about 919,585 tonnes of fish, which accounts for 71.38% of total

aquaculture production in Africa while Nigeria produced 200,535 tonnes of fish, which

accounts for 15.57% of total aquaculture production in Africa (see Appendix 2)

(Mathiesen, 2012).

There are different reports on Nigeria’s total fish production. According to

Oyakhilomen and Zibah (2013), the total fish production in Nigeria is around 780,000

metric tons a year while Clement (2013) and Ele et al., (2013) estimated an annual

production quantity of 600,000 metric tons and 500,000 metric tons respectively.

However, the total fish production in Nigeria is barely enough to sustain local fish

demands which are about 2.66 million tons per year (Oyakhilomen & Zibah 2013;

Clement, 2013). The insufficiency of Nigeria’s local fish production has resulted in its

reliance on fish importation as a means of sustaining fish demands which exceeds its

local production (Forest, 2010; National Bureau of Statistics, 2010). The Federal

Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (2009) stated that Nigeria spends 594.4

million USD on fish importation. In 2007, Fish imports rose from 646,484 metric

tonnes in 2006 to 739,666 metric tonnes in 2007. In 2008, fish imports increased to

937,428 metric tonnes and there was a further increase to 946,851 tonnes in 2009

(National Bureau of Statistics 2010). Nigeria’s strategic objective is to develop

production from the fisheries and aquaculture value chains to a level where it is less

reliant on imports (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD),

2011).

A critical look at data from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources

(2009) shows that domestic fish production has shown an upward trend in output due to

the success of aquaculture (see table 2.5). Although aquaculture production in Nigeria

has been successful, its present output of 20,500 tonnes per annum is believed to fall

below its potential output of 656,815 tonnes per annum (Oyakhilomen and Zibah,

3

2013). Nigeria should be able to achieve sufficient fish output with its extensive

mangrove ecosystem (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2005 cited in Oluwemimo

and Damilola, 2013) and its vast inland water surface (Kudi et al., 2008).

Apart from producing enough fish to meet demands, aquaculture can generate

employment for the unemployed youths and enhance the socio-economic status of

farmers in Nigeria (Oluwemimo and Damilola, 2013). In a study conducted by Forest in

2010, the potential for the aquaculture sector to create about 70,000 jobs per year was

demonstrated. If the aquaculture sector is improved, it can save the cost of fish

importation which would be profitable to the economy.

This study will examine the success factors and constraints in the Nigerian aquaculture

value chain. This study would also relate to the key factors that either limit or enhance

the growth of the aquaculture sector with possible solutions for its growth.

1.2 Project Aim

The specific aims of this project are to:

Identify the strength and limitations of fish farming in Nigeria

Develop useful ideas for improving fish productivity to meet the increasing fish

demands in Nigeria through fish farming

1.3 Project Rationale

Nigeria's population has been on the increase, and so has the demand for fish. Nigeria

has spent over 594.4 million USD on fish importation, failing to fully utilise its

aquaculture potentials in increasing its fish production.

If Nigeria's fisheries’ potentials are fully developed, fish yields can increase.

Furthermore, if the limiting factors of fish farming are fully identified and corrective

measures are developed and applied accordingly, there would be a significant

improvement in fish production.

1.4 Project Objectives

This project seeks to identify the strength and limitations of small scale fish farming,

using a value chain approach. This approach would analyse the various stages involved

in the production and marketing of fish in Nigeria. There would be a focus on all the

key actors in fish production and marketing.

4

A strength, weakness, opportunity and threat (SWOT) analysis would be performed on

the aquaculture value chain to identify the constraints in fish production (fish farming)

and supply. The results from the analysis would determine the possible solutions to the

limitations

5

2. Background of study

2.1 Literature review

There is a perception that fish is a rich food for the poor (Béné and Heck, 2005). This

notion which has been used in several fish literatures is supported for two reasons.

Firstly, fish is highly nutritious and the fact that it contains quality protein and essential

nutrients (calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc, vitamin A, vitamin B12, vitamin D),

including fatty acids such as eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, which

the body can hardly produce (Craig and Helfrich, 2002) is less controversial. Secondly,

fish serves as an affordable source of animal protein for poor households in developing

countries (Béné and Heck, 2005). Fish is not only well consumed in developing

countries, it is also consumed globally. This essential aquatic product provides about

2.9 billion people around the world with almost 20 percent of their individual protein

intake and 6.4 percent of all proteins consumed (Halwart, 2013). Because of the health

benefits associated with fish consumption, it is recommended that at least 2 servings of

fatty fish and fish oil supplements should be consumed weekly as part of a healthy diet

(American Heart Association, 2010).

The open-access nature of fisheries as well as the increased global demand for fish has

put pressure on wild resources through overfishing. The FAO stated that overfishing

threatens wild fish stock and classified most wild fisheries as either fully exploited or

over exploited (Mathiesen, 2012). Despite warnings over the impact of overfishing in

the 1970s and 1980s, the fishing industry executives gave consent for the use of more

powerful boats, larger nets and sonar to locate fishes electronically (Globalchange,

2014). Although, Srinivasan et al, (2010) is of the opinion that there is a decline in wild

capture due to overfishing, research carried out by FAO showed that wild fish capture is

in a stagnant state (see fig 1.2).

The demand for fish doubled from 45 million tons to 91 million tons between 1973 and

1997 (Delgado, 2003) and in 2011, fish consumption went as high as 131 million tons

(Mathiesen, 2012).

Table 1 and Fig 3 below shows a yearly increase in fish production and consumption.

6

Table 2.1: World fisheries and aquaculture production and utilization

Source: Mathiesen, 2012

2006 2006.5 2007 2007.5 2008 2008.5 2009 2009.5 2010 2010.5 2011105

110

115

120

125

130

135

Year

Con

sum

ptio

n (M

illio

n To

nnes

)

Figure 2.1: world fish consumption from 2006-2011 (adapted and modified from Mathiesen, 2012)

Judging from Mathiesen’s (2012) analysis (see table 2.1 and fig 2.1), the growing

demands for fish has always been met despite the almost stagnant condition of wild

capture fisheries. This shows that total fish production has been on a constant increase

from 2006 to 2011 due to contributions from aquaculture

7

Edwards and Demaine (1997) defined aquaculture as the farming of aquatic organisms

which includes fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming, in context of the

definition refers to all forms of intervention such as regular stocking, feeding and

protection applied in the rearing process to enhance production

2.2 Global Aquaculture ProductionAquaculture is gaining popularity as an alternative means of fish supply, most

especially in Africa where the cost of other alternative source of animal protein (beef,

mutton, chicken) are high and catches from capture fisheries are stagnant (Béné and

Heck 2005). The inadequacy of capture fisheries to satisfy the increasing fish demands

has made the importance of aquaculture as an alternative source for fish more

prominent.

Aquaculture is recognized globally as a fast growing sector within agriculture and food

production (Zwirn, 2002). In 2007, Aquaculture supplied 43% of all aquatic animal

food consumed globally and the yield is anticipated to further increase to sustain future

demands (Bostock et al., 2010). A research study conducted by World fish centre

(2009) demonstrated an annual growth rate of 8.9% in aquaculture since 1970, Zwirn

(2002) gave a slightly higher estimate of 10%. However, the improvement in

aquaculture production is clear from both estimates.

Aquaculture, despite its achievements in terms of expansion and growth has not been

able to record an equal level of success globally. The Asian-Pacific region has shown

more dominance in aquaculture production and accounts for almost 90% of aquaculture

fish produced globally (Bostock et al., 2010)

(a) Aquaculture by quantity 2008 (excluding aquatic plants)

(b) Aquaculture by value 2008 (excluding aquatic plants)

Figure 2.2: Global aquaculture production by region (Bostock et al., 2010)

8

More than half of Asia’s aquaculture production comes from China (Mathiesen, 2012).

In 2010, China produced 36,734,215 tonnes of fish which is 61.40% of global

aquaculture production while the remaining 27.70% were produced in other parts of

Asia (Mathiesen, 2012). Table 2 below shows the distribution of aquaculture production

in Asia.

Table 2.4: aquaculture production in Asia

Countries 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2010

Asia (excluding China and Near East)

40.30% 47.20% 32.70

%

21.10% 26.10% 27.20%

China 29.80% 28.00% 49.60

%

66.40% 62.40% 61.40%

Near East 0.00% 0.30% 0.30% 0.20% 0.40% 0.50%

Adapted and modified from Mathiesen, 2012

China’s success in aquaculture is as a result of the proactive policy set by the

government on aquaculture development and also the liberalization of fish production

and trade (Shuping, 2005).

Aquaculture is a source of income for the increasing population in China. In 2003, the

aquaculture sector in China employed an estimate of 4.3 million people in full-time jobs

and about 6 million people in part-time jobs (Shuping, 2005)

Aquaculture production in Africa when compared to most regions of the world has

shown less development (Ayoola, 2010). According to Mathiesen’s (2012) data on

regional aquaculture for 2010, Africa after Oceania which accounts for 0.30% of global

aquaculture production is the second lowest aquaculture producer. Africa accounts for

2.20% (1,288,320 tonnes) of all aquaculture production globally while America and

Europe accounts for 4.30% (2,576,428 tonnes) and 4.20% (2,523,179 tonnes)

respectively (See Appendix 1)

9

Despite the poor aquaculture productivity In Africa, there is evidence of sustained

growth of Aquaculture in some African countries such as Egypt, Nigeria, Uganda,

Kenya, Zambia, Ghana, Madagascar, Tunisia, Malawi and South Africa (Mathiesen,

2012). Egypt is the largest aquaculture producer in Africa and accounts for 71.38%

(919,585 tonnes) of all aquaculture production in Africa followed by Nigeria which

accounts for 15.57% (200,535 tonnes) (Mathiesen, 2012). The large productivity

margin between Egypt and Nigeria shows the level of success Egypt has achieved in its

aquaculture sector, making Egypt a better model for Nigeria to emulate.

Table 2.3: Top 10 Fish producers in Africa

Africa Tonnes Percentage (%)

Egypt 919,583 71.38

Nigeria 200,535 15.57

Uganda 95,000 7.37

Kenya 12,154 0.94

Zambia 10,290 0.80

Ghana 10,200 0.79

Madagascar 6,886 0.53

Tunisia 5,424 0.42

Malawi 3,163 0.25

South Africa 3,133 0.24

Other 21,950 1.70

Total 1,288,320 100

Adapted and modified from Mathiesen, 2012

2.2.1 Aquaculture development in EgyptAquaculture began to show a remarkable increase in Egypt’s total fisheries production

from the year 1998 when it accounted for 24% of total fish production and increased to

61% in 2006 (Nassr-Alla, 2008; El Gamal, 2001). In 1988, aquaculture production

accounted for 18% of total fish production in Egypt until new measures were taken

around 1998 towards its improvement (Nassr-Alla, 2008).

10

Figure 2.3: Total fisheries production/production by sources in Egypt (Source: Nassr-Alla, 2008)

The growth of aquaculture in Egypt has been as a result of several factors such as;

availability of ideal aquaculture site, institutional support, availability of fish feed and

farmers enlightenment programme/extension service (Jamu et al., 2012; Nassr-Alla,

2008).

In 1967, the Aswan High Dam was established in Egypt (Brock, 2008). The Dam

helped in controlling the Nile river water flow and reduced the size of the northern

lakes. This left large areas of unused land around the lakes. These free land areas being

close to the lake and drainage canal going to the lakes were ideal for aquaculture

hence the concentration of most fish farms in delta regions around Northern lakes

(Nassr-Alla, 2008)

Fish farmers in Egypt before 1998, depended fully on state hatcheries and natural

resources for tilapia seeds (Nassr-Alla, 2008). These state hatcheries were unable to

meet the needs of fish farmers and the water bodies had a mixture of unwanted tilapia

strains in them which were unfavourable for farmers (Nassr-Alla, 2008). In 1997, the

General Authorities for Fish Resources Development (GAFRD) facilitated the

establishment of private hatcheries (Rothuis et al., 2013; Jamu et al., 2012). This

11

enabled easy acquisition of tilapia seeds and farmers stocking their farms at the right

time.

In the mid-nineties, private feed mills in Egypt began to produce pressed feed and in

2001 extruded feed were locally produced (Nassr-Alla, 2008). This increased the

availability of fish feed and enabled farmers enhance their stocking rate which

consequently increased fish production quantity (Nassr-Alla, 2008).

The GAFRD created an opportunity for Egyptian fish farmers to be enlightened on

aquaculture practice through the establishment of fish farms to demonstrate good

aquaculture techniques to fish farmers (Nassr-Alla, 2008). Technical staffs were made

available at GAFRD fish farms to educate local fish farmers on the processes to

improve fish yield.

More organisations (Egyptian Agribusiness Association, Social Fund for Development

and Multi-Sector Support Program) also combined effort with GAFRD to educate fish

farmers through training courses. These courses helped to broaden the knowledge of

Egyptian fish farmers on proper fish farm management (Nassr-Alla, 2008).

2.3 Nigerian Fisheries

The Nigerian fishery sector is made up of two categories which are capture fisheries

and aquaculture (Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013). The capture fisheries accounts for

majority of the total fish supply in Nigeria. According to statistics from the Federal

Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (2009), capture fisheries accounts for

80% (780,704 tonnes) of Nigeria’s total fish production while aquaculture accounts for

the remaining 20% (152,796 tonnes) (see table 2.5). The capture fishery sector is further

divided into two categories namely; artisanal fishing and industrial fishing

(Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013)

Artisanal fishing is the most common fish production practice in Nigeria and it employs

about half a million Nigerians due to its low capital outlay (Kareem et al., 2012).

Artisanal fishing is characterized by its use of poorly developed fishing equipment and

inability to expand (Anyanwu et al., 2009) but in spite of this, artisanal fishing accounts

for majority of total fish production in capture fisheries. Artisanal fisheries accounts for

more than 85% of total fish production in Nigeria (Kudi et al., 2008; Federal

12

Department of Fisheries, 2007) while the industrial fisheries according to Bada and

Rahji (2010a), fluctuates within a minimum of 5.0% and maximum of 13.9%

Industrial fishing unlike artisanal fishing in Nigeria deals with the use of advanced

technology in fishing and operates on a large scale through the use of large fishing

vessels (Falaye, 2008). However, it accounts for less of total fish production in capture

fisheries. The reason for this is likely due to its high capital requirement which could

possibly be a deterring factor to prospective fishers or investors.

The Nigerian fishery sub-sector compared to other sectors in Agriculture such as

livestock production, has recorded the fastest growth rate (Kudi et al., 2008) hence it

has been regarded as one of the most important sectors in Nigeria (Alabi and Gladys,

2010; Partnership Initiatives in Niger Delta, 2011). According to the Central Bank of

Nigeria’s report, the fishery sub-sector’s contribution to Nigeria’s GDP increased from

₦76.76 billion2 in 1991 to ₦162.61 billion in 2005 (CBN Report, 2005 cited in Kudi et

al., 2008) and its contribution further increased to about $1 billion in 2009 (Federal

Department of Fisheries report, 2009).

2.3.1 Demand and supply challenges of Nigerian fisheries

Nigeria’s population has been on the increases and so has the demand for fish. A large

teaming number of Nigeria’s population rely on fish as a source of protein

(Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013) and according to Adekoya and Miller (2004), fish and

fish products make up about 60% of total protein intake of Nigerian adults. Nigeria has

been regarded as the largest consumer of fish in Africa and among the largest

consumers in the world (Emmanuel et al., 2014).

While the annual fish demand in Nigeria is estimated to be around 2.66 million tonnes

(Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013) and forecasted to increase as population grows (FDF,

2008), Nigeria’s total fish production is estimated to be around 780,000 tonnes

(Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013) leaving a demand and supply gap of about 1.8 million

tonnes. In order to meet demands, Nigeria imports an estimate of about 750,000 tonnes

of fish annually (Oota, 2012 cited in Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013; Bada and Rahji,

2010b) which cost over $600 million (United States Agency for International

Development, 2010). Although Grema et al (2011) clearly stated that Nigeria is the

2 $ 1 (USD) was equal to ₦ 162.14 around 29th of August 2014

13

highest importer of fish globally; the FAO fact sheet (2008) never included Nigeria

among the top 5 (Japan, USA, Spain, France and Italy) global importers of fish.

Table 2.4: Nigeria fish production and Import value for 2009

Source: PIND, 2011

2.3.2 Aquaculture as an alternative for increased fish production

Statistics from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR)

(2009) (see table 2.5) and Onyeri (2011) shows that the capture fisheries are in a

stagnant / declining state and this is likely due to overexploitation of wild resources

(Akankali and Jamabo, 2011) and an effect of climate change on fisheries. Mustapha

(2013) stated that, Nigeria’s vulnerability to the negative impacts of climate change

(rise in annual temperature, declining rainfall and changes in rainfall season) could have

an effect on its aquatic ecosystem and fish production. Mustapha (2013) went further to

demonstrate the possibility of fish population in Africa and Asia, falling by 50% with

over 20% of fish species going extinct over the next century.

14

Table 2.5: Fish production in Nigeria in Metric ton

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Production/TonnesCapture fisheries 523,189 552,315 530,419 541,368 627,908

Aquaculture 56,355 84,533 85,087 143,207 152,796

Total 579,544 636,848 615,507 684,575 780,704

Production %Capture fisheries 90% 87% 86% 79% 80%

Aquaculture 10% 13% 14% 21% 20%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Adapted and modified from Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources

(2009)

Considering the shortage in Nigeria’s fish supply and the increasing population, it is

obvious that capture fisheries is inadequate in meeting Nigeria’s fish need, hence the

need for an alternative source of fish.

To maintain the required per caput fish consumption level of 13kg per year, Nigeria

needs to produce about 2 million tonnes of fish (Jacob and Olubukola, 2012) and the

best way this can be achieved (Kudi et al., 2008., Jacob and Olubukola,

2012.,Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013) is through intensive fish farming.

Fish farming has proven its reliability as a means of sustaining Nigeria’s fish demands

by its almost continuous growth (see fig 2.5) as against the nearly stagnant condition of

wild fisheries as shown in table 2.5. Aquaculture growth in Nigeria has increased by

almost 43% from its initial base of 16,119 metric tons in 1995 to 85,087 metric tons in

2009 (PIND, 2011; FMAWR, 2009).

15

Figure 2.4: Artisanal fisheries production fom 1995-2007 (Source: PIND, 2011)

Figure 2.5: Aquaculture production from 1995-2007 (Source: PIND, 2011)

16

2.3.3 Fish farming in Nigeria

The history of aquaculture in Nigeria dates back to 1951 when the first attempt on

tilapia fish culture was made in a small experimental station at Onikan, Lagos (Ugoala,

2014). Following the disappointing result of the initial tilapia fish culture, a pilot fish

farm was established at Panyam, Plateau state for the culture of Carp fish species

(Cyprinus carpio) (Ugoala, 2014). After its establishment, the carp fish farm, served as

a central training and extension centre for fish farming in Nigeria (Anetekhai et al.,

2004) and its success led to the establishment of more fish farms in areas such as

Buguma in Rivers state, Abagana in Anambara state and the Agodi garden farm in

Ibadan (Ugoala, 2014).

Data from 2003 shows that Nigeria has about 2,642 fish farms out of which 100 are

state owned (United Nations Development Programme, 2013). Most fish companies in

Nigeria are Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) while larger firms are rare (UNDP

2013).

17

Figure 2.6: Distribution of fish farms in Nigeria (Source: Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Project (2004) cited in Abdullah (2007)

Although the fish species mainly cultured in Nigeria are tilapia, cat fish and carp, the cat fish are the most cultured species. The cat fish are highly preferred for culture due to their highly resilient nature and ability to survive in poor water quality (Ugoala, 2014).

18

Figure 2.7: Important cultured fish species in Nigeria (Source: Atanda, 2007)

Fish farming has recorded a tremendous level of growth in Nigeria over the years.

Although it’s total production (152,796 tonnes) (FMAWR, 2009) is lower than that of

capture fisheries, it has a higher growth rate in contrast to capture fisheries (see fig 2.4

and fig 2.5). According to Adeogun et al, (2012), Aquaculture is the fastest growing

food producing sector in Nigeria, surpassing both livestock and capture fisheries

production. Aquaculture in Nigeria is mainly dominated by men while women carry out

more of the processing activities such as filleting, drying, smoking, gutting, scaling and

deboning (UNDP, 2013). Aquaculture practice is driven by social and economic

objectives (nutrition, income and employment) and is currently viewed as an activity

that would more likely help in limiting the rate of fish importation which is a

disadvantage to the Nigerian economy (Emmanuel et al., 2014). Considering the

shortfall in fish supply against its high demand, the idea of fish farming is an attractive

investment alternative that can guarantee a ready and stable market.

19

2.3.4 Potentials of aquaculture in Nigeria

The aquaculture sector in Nigeria has not been fully explored considering its production

and marketing potentials. In a review by Olomola (1991), Nigeria only makes use of a

small proportion of its potential aquaculture resources. Despite Nigeria’s massive

brackish and fresh water fishing grounds, only less than 1.0% of its fresh water grounds

and 0.05% of its brackish water grounds are being utilized for aquaculture in the

production of an average of 20,500 tonnes of fish per annum (Oyakhilomen and Zibah,

2013) . This represents only 3.12% of its expected potential of about 656,815 tonnes per

annum (Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013). Considering Nigeria’s land area that spans up

to 923,768 square kilometres and coast line length of 853Km, in addition to its

abundant underground water, vast network of inland waters (rivers, flood plains, natural

and man-made lakes, reservoirs) (Kudi et al., 2008) and increased annual rainfall of

1,778 millimetres (mm), 4318 mm and 1270mm in the western, eastern and central

regions respectively (Fishery Committee for the West Central Gulf of Guinea (FCWC),

2010), there are enough resources to help Nigeria meet or exceed its annual fish

demand if fully utilized.

20

Figure 2.8: Map of Nigeria showing surface area of major water bodies (Source: Ita et al. (1985) cited in Bossche and Bernacsek (1990)

2.4 Constraints of Aquaculture in Nigeria

Fish farming in Nigeria falls below productive expectation due to several constraining

factors which includes; high cost of input, Lack of credit facilities, lack of fish seeds

and fingerlings, inadequate fish feed, poor access to land, poor extension service,

inadequate water supply, disease, poor management skills and theft (Emmanuel et al.,

2014; Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013; Bada and Rahji, 2010a; Kudi et al., 2008).

Various research studies (Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013; Bada and Rahji, 2010a) have

shown that the most important constraint Nigerian fish farmers face are; the scarcity of

fingerlings and high cost of fish feed.

21

Kudi et al., (2008) carried out a survey on 450 fish farmers from two local government

areas (Chikun and Kaduna South) in Kaduna and discovered that most fish farmers

experience problems of high input cost and diseases in fish. However, only few of the

respondents (4.6%) complained about lack of fingerlings and feed. This happens to

contradict with reports from other literatures (Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2013; Bada and

Rahji, 2010a; Emmanuel et al., 2014) where fingerlings and feed supply were stated as

a major constraint amongst Nigerian fish farmers. However, Adewumi and Olaleye

(2011) reported that inadequate seed for stocking and feed availability used to be major

problems, but efforts being made to ensure their availability is becoming successful.

2.4.1 Lack of fish fingerlings

Poor supply of fish fingerlings is a major constraint to Nigerian Fish farmers

(Emmanuel et al., 2014) and many fish farms in the country have been abandoned due

to lack of fish seeds (George et al., 2010). While the total fingerling production and

supply from all sources (wild sources and hatchery) was less than 50 million in 2007,

the annual fingerling requirement in Nigeria is not less than 500 million (Bondad-

Reantaso, 2007).

The scarcity of fish fingerlings and lack of functioning hatcheries in Nigeria has

resulted in most fish farmers travelling a long distance to source for fish seeds or

scouting in open waters for seeds (UNDP, 2013). Some fish hatcheries often exploit

fish farmers by selling advanced fry as fingerlings which eventually result in stunted

growth and poor survival rate of fish (Emmanuel et al., 2014).

2.4.2 Access to fish feed

One of the most important requirements in fish culturing is the provision of quality feed

in sufficient amount. Fish feed in Nigeria is limited in supply due to lack of feed

producers (Bada and Rahji, 2010a).

Although several research have been done to improve the quality of fish feed

production (Faturoti and Akinbote, 1986; Falaye 1988; Ayinla 1988; Omitoyin 1995

and Olukunle and Falaye 1998), Nigeria still produces insufficient amount of feed

(Agboola, 2011). According to UNDP (2013) about 25,000 to 30,000 MT per ha of low

quality fish feed are used up in Nigerian fish farms while it imports about 6,000 MT of

high quality fish feed yearly. Due to inadequate feed production in the nation, most fish

22

farmers rely on imported fish feeds which are expensive and this has increased their

production cost while adversely affecting their profit margin (Bada and Rahji, 2010a).

2.4.3 High Cost of input and Lack of credit facility

Nigerian fish farmers are challenged by the high cost of fish farming inputs such as

fingerlings, feeds and fertilizer as well as the cost of labour and excavation service (Ele

et al., 2013; Ofuoku et al., 2006). This is a limitation to the expansion of fish farming in

the nation (Ofuoku et al., 2006) as aspiring small-scale fish producers are dissuaded by

the high cost of input (PIND, 2011).

The problem of high cost of input has also resulted in an increase in the price of fish,

which have limited the growth opportunity of the sector despite high fish demands

(PIND, 2011). The issue of high cost of input can also be related to the findings of

Adeokun and Opele (2004) where it was stated that majority of the women fishers in

Ogun state complained about the high cost of fish farming input.

Most peasant fish farmers have failed to expand their productivity level due insufficient

capital to offset the high cost of fish farming input (Ofuoku et al., 2006). Despite their

capacity to help, financial institutions are less willing to grant loans to fish farmers due

to their inability to present tangible collateral (Agboola, 2011). The high interest rate

demanded by most financial institutions has discouraged fish farmers from acquiring

loans (Agboola, 2011).

2.4.4 Poor access to land

Land availability is one of the major limiting factors to fish farming investment in

Nigeria (Jamu and Ayinla, 2003). According to Solomon and Kerere (2013), 71.2% of

fish farmers in Lagos, Nigeria, are of the opinion that land acquisition is a major

challenge to their occupation. To support this view, Ugwuba and Chukwuji (2010)

stated that one of the constraints of fish farming in the eastern part of Nigeria is land

availability.

The problem of land availability has resulted in farmers cultivating a marginal portion

of land which can hardly yield substantial amount of fish (Adedeji and Okocha, 2011).

2.4.5 Poor extension service

The level of enlightenment on the technical principles involved in fish farming is poor

amongst fish farmers in Nigeria (Inoni, 2007). According to Victoria et al., (2014) the

23

lack of technical skills involved in fish farming was ranked as the highest constraint

amongst 102 respondents in Kwara state, Nigeria.

Due to the poor circulation of innovative ideas on fish farming, fish farmers rely on

obsolete and less productive methods of fish farming. The knowledge of water quality

management as well as disease management is important to fish farmers. Unfortunately,

there is a limitation in the spread of these ideas amongst Nigerian fish farmers due to

poor extension service (Victoria et al., 2014).

A research survey conducted by Solomon and Kerere (2013) on the knowledge level of

fish farmers in Lagos, Nigeria, showed that 69.5% of fish farmers who participated in

the study claimed that they had no extension contacts. This finding was supported by

Adesoji (2009) and Akinbile (2003) who demonstrated in their research study that fish

farmers in Osun and Lagos state respectively, had low extension contacts.

2.5 Improvement in Nigeria’s aquaculture sector

In spite of the constraining factors faced in the aquaculture sector, there have been

records supporting aquaculture improvement in Nigeria. Catfish production (80% of

aquaculture production) has largely being increasing (Adewumi and Olaleye, 2011).

The increase in catfish production has been as a result of the growing interest in catfish

farming (Williams et al., 2008). An evidence that shows the interest in catfish farming

can be found in the report of Miller and Atanda (2007) where it was stated that about

175 cooperative fish farmers established over 200 concrete fish tanks for catfish

farming in an area known as “fish farming village” in Ijebu-Ode, Nigeria.

Judging from a report made by Ansen (2003). An observation can be made that

aquaculture production in Nigeria has been successful. According to Ansen’s (2003)

report, the bulk of smoked fish imported into the United Kingdom came from Ghana,

Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire and Cameroon. Nigeria exported only Catfish, Tilapia and

Heterotis to the United Kingdom

Table 2.6 below was extracted from Ansen’s (2003) report to show the recorded

imports of smoked fish from Nigeria into the United Kingdom from 1995 to 1999

24

Table 2.6: Annual recorded imports of smoked fish from Africa into the UK from 1995 to 1999

Source: Abacus Data Services cited in Ansen (2003)

2.6 Aquaculture transformation agenda in Nigeria

The Federal Ministry of Agriculture in 2011 established an agricultural transformation

agenda with the motive of developing the agricultural sector and attaining national food

security (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), 2011).

One of its areas of focus was on the fishery sub- sector.

The Agricultural Value Chain Transformation Implementation Group (AVCTIG)

formed part of the implementation body (FMARD, 2011). The AVCTIG considered

intensive aquaculture as a better area of focus to bridge the wide chasm between the

high fish demand and limited production (FMARD, 2011).

The action plan made towards the development of aquaculture value chain has the

following aims and objectives

Improving quality standard and enforcing them along every area of the value

chain through appropriate regulation

Developing the aquaculture marketing chain

Minimizing the quantity of fish/aquaculture product imported

Boosting productivity to over 1 million MT in 5 years

Generating a source of foreign exchange from export of aquaculture products

25

Allowing small scale fish farmers participate in the value chain

Uniting fish farmers to serve fish processing and packaging plants

Educating fish farmers with the objective of encouraging specialization

(UNDP, 2013; FMARD, 2011)

The expected results of its action plan are as follows;

Production of 1.25 billion fish seeds in a year

Production of 400,000MT of fish feed in a year

Production of 250,000MT of fish yearly

Creation of 100,000 jobs in a year (for the next 5 years)

(FMARD, 2011)

Table2.7: Aquaculture transformation agenda against constraints in aquaculture sector

Problems Agenda

Lack of fish feed

Fish feed production would be developed using

locally available technology.

Fish feed production would be commercialized

to promote competition.

Lack of aquaculture site

Federally owned dams and water bodies would

be fully utilized for fish production.

Poor water supply

Constant power supply would be provided as a

means of supporting the adoption of water re-

circulatory system as a means of improving

commercial fish production

Improvements would be made on fish

processing, preservation and certification

technologies with the aim of increasing fish

26

Fish

preservation/marketing

acceptability and marketing

Fresh fish storage and marketing centres would

be provided through appropriate tax incentives

Fresh fish transportation and marketing system

would be developed nationwide through

appropriate tax incentives.

Adapted and modified from FMARD (2011)

2.7 Strategy

In order to achieve the aforementioned goals, a strategy was developed to increase

production and activities within the value chain through full maximization of existing

infrastructure (FMARD, 2011). For example, the sites for aquaculture production would

be doubled from 60,000 ha to 120,000 ha producing a maximum of 18 tons per hectare;

Water re-circulatory systems (WRS) along with other intensive systems having the

capacity to produce 40 tons of fish per hectare would be established and used either

separately or as a combination. However, these strategies are fully dependent on the

level of coordination and support the Government provides (FMARD, 2011)

27

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Several research studies carried out in Nigeria have shown that the demand for fish in

Nigeria outweighs its supply. The increasing demand for fish has put pressure on wild

resources which has resulted in widespread over-fishing. For this reason, fish farming

has become an alternative means to provide fish for the growing populace. Nigeria

spends millions of dollars on fish importation and the country’s strategic objective is to

develop production from the fisheries and aquaculture value chains to a level where it is

less reliant on imports. Apart from producing enough fish to meet demands, aquaculture

can generate employment and enhance the socio-economic status of farmers in Nigeria.

This study will examine the constraints in the Nigerian aquaculture value chain, identify

the strength and limitations of fish farming in Nigeria and develop useful ideas for

improving fish productivity to meet the increasing fish demands in Nigeria through fish

farming. This Chapter presents the methods that were used to test the research questions

and is grouped into five sections which are;

Research approach

Selection of participants

Instrumentation

Data collection

Data analysis

3.2 Research approach

Considering the aim of the research, a value chain analysis approach was adopted. This

approach focused on the three main stakeholders in the fish marketing chain who are

the fish farmers, fish sellers and fish consumers

The value chain approach was considered suitable for the purpose of this research due

to its diagnostic characteristics. Although fish production plays a major role in the fish

marketing chain, its success largely depends on consumer’s satisfaction. The value

chain analysis was useful in revealing the strength and weakness of the fish distribution

chain from the fish farm, through the retailers, to the final consumers.

Due to the type of research study that was carried out, the research method used was

descriptive. Descriptive methods were used because it provided the opportunity to use

28

both quantitative and qualitative data to answer the research questions. The

disadvantage of this research method is that the subjects may not have been completely

truthful.

3.3 Selection of participants

A representative sample size of thirty-three (33) fish farmers, twenty (20) fish sellers

and thirty (30) fish consumers were used for the research. The participants (fish

farmers, fish retailers and fish consumers) in this research study were selected because

of the major roles they play in the fish marketing chain.

Although the research required a large sample size, a smaller sample size was used

because of difficulties faced in recruiting study participants. Most eligible subjects were

unwilling to provide information about their businesses for fear of scam and data theft.

Others were worried about how the data would be used and possible issues with the

Nigerian tax office. Eligible fish farmers and traders in Nigeria were recruited through

an internet directory (vconnect.com) while eligible fish consumers were recruited

through random sampling of the population.

Study participants were sampled from the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria which are

South East, South West, South South, North Central, North West and North East. This

was done so that the 36 states in Nigeria were fairly represented in the research.

However, it is important to mention that the number of participants residing in each of

the geopolitical zones and states were uneven and limited to the number of fish

farmers/fish retailers available on the internet directory and the number of fish

farmers/fish retailers that responded to phone calls.

Randomization was done by drawing pieces of paper containing the names of eligible

participants from a bag. This was done to prevent bias and to ensure that the eligible

subjects had equal probabilities of being selected for the study.

3.3.1 Fish farmers

A total of 33 fish farmers were selected from 13 states within the geopolitical zones in

Nigeria. Fish farmers were also randomly selected from these states. The participants

were both male and female fish farmers. Table 3.1 shows the six geopolitical zones and

the 13 randomly selected states where the 33 fish farmers were selected and fig 3.1

shows the location of the 13 states on a map of Nigeria.

29

Table 3.1: Selected geographical location for fish farmers

S/

N

Geographical Location Participants

South East

1 Abia State 3

2 Ebonyi State 1

South West

3 Lagos State 8

4 Oyo State 1

South South

5 Bayelsa State 2

6 Delta Sate 1

7 Rivers State 3

North Central

8 Abuja (Federal Capital Territory) 2

9 Benue State 1

10 Kogi State 4

North West

11 Kaduna State 5

12 Sokoto State 1

North East

13 Borno State 1

Total 33

30

Fig 3.1: Map of Nigeria showing location of the selected fish farmers (Source: imap

builder)

3.3.2 Fish sellers

A total of 20 fish retailers were contacted from 11 states which were randomly selected

from the geopolitical zones in Nigeria. Amongst the 20 fish retailers randomly selected,

9 were fish restaurant owners while 11 were fish traders. The participants included both

male and female sellers.

Although information from fish sellers were from two different sources (restaurants and

fish traders), they were both merged during analysis due to their small population size.

31

Table 3.2 shows the 6 geopolitical zones and the 11 randomly selected states where the

survey was carried out and Fig 3.2 shows the location of the 11 selected states on a map

of Nigeria.

Table 3.2: Selected geographical location for fish sellers

S/

N

Geographical Location Participants

South East

1 Abia State 1

South West

2 Lagos state 4

South South

3 Bayelsa State 1

4 Cross-River State 4

5 Rivers State 1

North Central

6 Abuja (Federal Capital Territory) 1

7 Plateau State 1

8 Kogi State 4

North West

9 Kaduna State 1

10 Sokoto State 1

North East

11 Bauchi State 1

Total 20

32

Fig 3.2: Map of Nigeria showing location of the selected fish sellers

3.3.3 Fish consumers

A total of 30 fish consumers were contacted from 18 states around the geopolitical

zones. Although the selections of participants were random, efforts were made to ensure

that each eligible participant had equal opportunity of being selected for this research

study. Furthermore, the representative samples used were fairly even. Examples of the

individual categories of focus were; male, female, married, single, employed and

unemployed.

Table 3.3 shows the 18 states and the number of participants from each state. Fig 3.3

shows the location of the 18 states on a map of Nigeria.

Table 3.3: Selected geographical location for fish sellers

33

S/

N

Geographical Location Participants

South East

1 Abia 1

2 Ebonyi 1

3 Enugu 1

4 Imo 1

South West

5 Lagos 4

6 Ondo 2

South South

7 Akwaibom 1

8 Bayelsa 3

9 Delta 2

10 Edo 1

11 Rivers 3

North Central

12 Kwara 1

13 Niger 2

14 Plateau 1

15 Abuja (Federal Capital Territory) 2

North West

16 Zamfara 1

North East

17 Borno 2

18 Yobe 1

Total 30

34

Fig 3.3: Map of Nigeria showing location of the selected fish consumers

3.4 Instrumentation

The research made use of secondary and primary data. Secondary data were obtained

from past research work on fisheries in Nigeria. Some of which included data from the

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and water resources, Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) and the Department of Fisheries in the Federal Ministry of

Agriculture and Rural Development. Primary data were obtained through administering

survey questionnaire.

The survey questionnaire used for the study was structured in simple words to allow

easy understanding. It was also structured to be concise considering the fact that most

participants (Fish farmers and traders) might be busy with business activity during the

35

interview. The questions asked in the questionnaire were mostly close-ended questions.

This was to enable easy data comparison and interpretation. However, some open-

ended questions were asked on occasions where more information was required and

where it was necessary not to influence or limit the opinions of the respondents. The

questionnaires were customized for fish farmers, fish sellers and fish consumers.

Samples of all questioners used for the survey can be found in the appendix of this

report

3.4.1 Structure of questions for fish farmers

The questions administered to fish farmers were structured in 2 main sections which

included socioeconomic status of respondent and fish production. The section that

addressed the status of respondents was meant to give information on the level of

experience gained by the fish farmers as well as the level of investment they have made

towards fish farming. The information retrieved from this section was helpful in

looking at the relationship between the socioeconomic status of the farmers and the

constraints they faced while conducting their aquaculture business.

The section addressing the production of respondents was structured to provide relevant

information on the method of production, type of production, requirement for

production, problems in production and level of production. The questions asked in this

section provided answers that were helpful in analysing the issues affecting fish

production.

3.4.2 Structure of questions for fish sellers

The questions administered to fish sellers were structured in 2 sections which included

marketing and respondent’s opinion. The questions relating to marketing helped to

analyse the economic situation of the local fish market compared to the imported fish

market. It also asked questions that helped in revealing the level of fish demands and

constraints faced in fish supply.

The second section was centred on respondent’s opinion and was structured to reveal

the perception of fish sellers towards the fish production and marketing sector.

Collective opinions from this section were useful in analysing customer’s reaction

towards imported, cultured and captured fish. This helped in creating an awareness of

what consumers require from the fish production sector and suggesting ideas to improve

the aquaculture sector.

36

3.4.3 Structure of questions for fish consumers

The questions administered to fish consumers were structured in 3 sections which

included respondent’s status, respondent’s preference and respondent’s opinion. The

first section provided information that revealed the income levels of participants and

their fish preferences. The questions asked aimed to examine the relationship between

fish preferences, level of demand and income. The last section dealt with consumers;

opinions and provided answers that were helpful in analysing the general perceptions of

fish consumers towards the aquaculture sector in relation to fish marketing, fish quality

and fish availability.

3.5 Data Collection

The method of data collection employed for the study was through phone interviews.

This method was chosen as the best option after considering the location of the target

population and time limitations. Although this method of data collection limited the

number of samples realised for this study, it provided more quality information because

the questions were clearly explained to the respondents and the problem of filling in

wrong answers due to poorly understood questions was not an issue. However, some

respondents failed to fully answer all questions due to haste and discomfort with the

questions. Unanswered questions were recorded as zero (0) to ensure an accurate

recorded data.

Most of the calls were made during the early hours of the day when it was perceived

that most respondents were more relaxed and less distracted by customers. Before the

interview, the respondents were properly briefed on the purpose of the research. They

were also informed about their rights to pull out from the interview or ignore any

question at will.

3.6 Data Analysis

The data obtained from the respondents were analysed using Statistical Package for the

Social Science (SPSS). SPSS was used due to its specificity in analysing statistical data

and the varieties of analytical methods it presents.

The data obtained were checked closely for spurious data using visual examination.

This was done to increase the validity of the results and to ensure the results are

37

generalizable. The SPSS validation menu was used to ensure that the data met

predefined rules of the software package.

At the end of the validation process, it was discovered that there were missing data.

Missing data were replaced with “0”. This had no effect on the authenticity of results

retrieved.

38

4.0 ResultsThis chapter presents the results of the analyses and primarily shows the constraints of

fish farming in Nigeria. It also looks at challenges faced by fish farmers, retailers and

consumers in farming, sales and purchase of fish respectively.

4.1. BACKGROUND OF FISH FARMERSFish farmers were selected from 13 states of the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria. The

participants were interviewed extensively to get information on their educational,

financial and professional background to look at whether socio-economic backgrounds

determines the ability of a fish farmer to thrive in the aquaculture business

4.1.1. Gender distribution of fish farmers in Nigeria

Thirty three fish farmers were recruited to participate in this study. The graphical

representation of the gender distribution of fish farmers were presented in a pie chart

(Fig 4.1). From the pie chart and distribution statistics table (Table 4.1), 90.9% of fish

farmers are males while 9.1% of fish farmers are females.

TABLE 4.1: Descriptive statistics of gender distribution of fish farmers in Nigeria

Gender Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative PercentMale 30 90.9 90.9

Female 3 9.1 100.0Total 33 100.0

39

Fig 4.1: Pie chart of gender distribution of fish farmers in Nigeria

4.1.2. Educational background of fish farmers in Nigeria

The table and pie chart below (Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2) show the summary of the

educational status and background of fish farmers in Nigeria. The graph and table

shows that 87.9% of farmers are graduates from tertiary institutions, 9.1% are high

school graduates while 3% have no formal education.

Table 4.2: descriptive statistics of educational background of fish farmers in Nigeria

Educational status Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative PercentSecondary education 3 9.1 9.1

Tertiary education 29 87.9 97.0

Non formal education 1 3.0 100.0

Total 33 100.0

40

Fig 4.2: pie chart of educational status of fish farmers in Nigeria

4.1.3. Professional experience of fish farmers in Nigeria

The numbers of years of professional experience of fish farmers in Nigeria were

displayed graphically as a bar chart in Figure 4.3. Table 4.3 also displayed this as a

percentage. From the table and bar chart below, it is observed that most of the fish

farmers in Nigeria have between one and ten years of professional experience in

aquaculture. 39.4% of participants have between one and five years’ experience, 36.4%

of farmers have between six to ten years of experience and 12.1% have over sixteen

years of experience in aquaculture. On the other hand 6.1% of farmers have less than

one year of experience and 6.1% have eleven to fifteen years of experience.

41

Table 4.3: descriptive statistics of the number of years of professional experience of fish farmers in Nigeria

Years of experience Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative PercentLess than a year 2 6.1 6.1

1 to 5 years 13 39.4 45.5

6 to 10 years 12 36.4 81.8

11 to 15 years 2 6.1 87.9

16 years and above 4 12.1 100.0

Total 33 100.0

Figure 4.3: bar chart showing the number of years of professional experience of fish farmers in Nigeria

42

4.1.4. Skill acquisition of fish farmers in Nigeria

The fish farmers were interviewed to find out how they acquired technical skills in

aquaculture. Their responses were presented in form of a pie chart (Figure 4.4) and a

descriptive table showing their responses as percentages was displayed in Table 4.4.

From the table and bar chart below, majority of the participants (33.3%) acquired

technical skills through personal research and the least number of farmers (15.2%)

acquired skills by seeking advice from friends and relatives. 24.2% of farmers learnt

about aquaculture through formal education while 27.3% acquired their skills by

attending and participating in seminars.

Table 4.4: descriptive statistics showing the methods of acquiring aquaculture skills by fish farmers in Nigeria

Methods Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative PercentSchool 8 24.2 24.2

Personal research 11 33.3 57.6

Friends and relative 5 15.2 72.7

Seminars 9 27.3 100.0

Total 33 100.0

43

Fig 4.4: PIE CHART SHOWING METHODS OF ACQUIRING AQUACULTURE SKILLS BY FISH FARMERS IN NIGERIA

4.2. Capital and infrastructures available to fish farmers in Nigeria

Participants in this study were interviewed to find out the capital and infrastructures

available to them for aquaculture practices. They were asked questions on size of lands,

water supply, source of feeds and fingerlings. The results are presented below in form

of tables and charts.

4.2.1. Land ownership

From the tables (Table 4.5 and Table 4.6) below one participant did not provide

information on land ownership and four participants did not provide information on the

size of land in use. The tables show that 75.8% of farmers own the land they use for fish

farming while 21.2% rent the land they use.

Secondly, 51.5% of participants use a land that is less than 0.5 acres in size for

aquaculture, 24.2% use a land with a size between 0.5 and 1 acre, 9.1% use a land with

a size between 1.6 and 2 acres and 3.0% use a land with a size greater than 2 acres.

TABLE 4.5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING LAND OWNERSHIP STATUS OF FISH FARMERS IN NIGERIA

44

Answers Frequency Percent (%) Valid Percent (%)Cumulative Percent

(%)Valid Yes 25 75.8 78.1 78.1

No 7 21.2 21.9 100.0Total 32 97.0 100.0

Missing 1 3.0Total 33 100.0

TABLE 4.6: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE SIZES OF LANDS USED BY FISH FARMERS IN NIGERIA

Land Size Frequency Percent (%) Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid Less than 0.5 acre 17 51.5 58.6 58.6

0.5 to 1 acre 8 24.2 27.6 86.21.6 to 2 acre 3 9.1 10.3 96.6Above 2 acre 1 3.0 3.4 100.0Total 29 87.9 100.0

Missing 4 12.1

Total 33 100.0

4.2.2. Ponds and water supply

The main source of water used by the fish farmers were either river or borehole

although some fish farmers made use of both sources. The water supply provided water

for use in ponds for aquaculture. Table 4.7 shows that 60.6% of farmers use concrete

45

ponds, 15.2% use earthen ponds, 12.1% use plastic tanks, 12.1% use both concrete and

earthen ponds.

In Table 4.8, about 87.9% of the fish farmers made use of water from boreholes, 9.1%

made use of water from river and 3.0% of the fish famers made use of water from both

sources. Secondly, 63.3% of respondents stated that they were aware of water re-

circulatory system (WRS) however only 16% of them made use of it in their fish farms

(Table 4.9). 53.8% of fish farmers stated that inadequate power supply is their reason

for not using the WRS while 30.8% gave difficulty to maintain as a reason for not using

the system. 15.4% of farmers complained that the WRS was expensive to install (Table

4.11).

A cross tabulated result (Table 4.10) between water re-circulation usage and quantity

of harvested fish revealed that none of the fish farmers using water re-circulatory

system, harvested less than 1 metric ton of fish per stock.

TABLE 4.7: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE TYPES OF PONDS USED BY FISH FARMERS IN NIGERIA

Pond type Frequency Percent (%)Cumulative Percent

(%)Concrete pond 20 60.6 60.6

Earthen pond 5 15.2 75.8

Plastic tank 4 12.1 87.9

Concrete and Earthen 4 12.1 100.0

Total 33 100.0

TABLE 4.8: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY FOR FISH FARMERS IN NIGERIA

46

Source Frequency

Percent

(%) Cumulative Percent (%)

River 3 9.1 9.1

Borehole 29 87.9 97.0

River and borehole 1 3.0 100.0

Total 33 100.0

TABLE 4.9: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING KNOWLEDGE OF WATER RE-CIRCULATORY SYSTEM (WRS)

Answer Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Yes 21 63.6 63.6

No 12 36.4 100.0

Total 33 100.0

TABLE 4.10: CROSS TABULATION SHOWING THE USE OF WATER RE-CIRCULATORY SYSTEM (WRS) AND QUANTITY OF HARVEST PER STOCK

Using

WRS

Quantity of harvest per stock

Total

Less than 1 metric

ton

1 to 2 metric

ton

2.1 to 3 metric

ton

4.1 metric ton and

above

Yes 0 1 1 3 5

No 5 3 2 3 13

Total 5 4 3 6 18

TABLE 4.11: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE CONSTRAINTS IN USE OF WATER RE-CIRCULATORY SYSTEM (WRS)

47

Constraint Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Inadequate power supply 7 53.8 53.8

Difficult to maintain 4 30.8 84.6

Expensive to install 2 15.4 100.0

Total 13 100.0

20

4.2.3. The effect of fish feed on the growth of fish

Table 4.12 shows 15.4% of farmers use only locally produced fish feeds, 7.7% of fish

farmers only make use of foreign produced and imported fish feeds while 76.9% of

farmers made use of both foreign and locally produced fish feeds. The frequency of

feeding was cross tabulated with the time of fingerling maturity (Table 4.13). This cross

tabulation table shows that the frequency of feeding was not directly proportional to the

time taken for the fingerlings to reach maturity. Majority of the fingerlings matured

after five months. After maturity, Table 4.14 shows that 77.7% of farmers harvested

fishes that weigh between 500 to 699g each, 18.2% of farmers’ harvested fishes that

weigh between 700 and 899g and 4.5% harvest fishes that weigh between 900 and

999g.

Table 4.15 shows that catfish is the major fish produced by fish farmers. It accounts for

75.8% of fish cultivated by respondents. However, 24.2% of farmers produce both

catfish and tilapia. Furthermore, 57.6% of farmers’ source fingerlings from local

hatcheries, 33.3% have private hatcheries while 9.1% of farmers have personal

hatcheries but obtain some fingerlings from local traders.

TABLE 4.12: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE TYPE OF FEEDS USED BY FISH FARMERS.

Type of fed Frequency Percent (%)Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Local feed 4 12.1 15.4 15.4Foreign feed 2 6.1 7.7 23.1Local and foreign feed

20 60.6 76.9 100.0

48

Total 26 78.8 100.0Missing 7 21.2Total 33 100.0

TABLE 4.13: CROSS TABULATION SHOWING THE FREQUENCY OF FEEDING AND PERIOD OF MATURITY OF FINGERLINGS.

Frequency of feeding

Time of fingerling maturityTotal2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months and above

Twice daily 0 1 2 11 14Thrice daily 2 1 1 10 14More than thrice daily

0 0 1 1 2

Total

2 2 4 22 30

TABLE 4.14: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE SIZES OF FISHES HARVESTED BY FISH FARMERS.

Size Frequency Percent (%) Valid Percent (%)Cumulative Percent (%)

Valid 500g to 699g 17 51.5 77.3 77.3700g to 899g 4 12.1 18.2 95.5900g to 999g 1 3.0 4.5 100.0Total 22 66.7 100.0

Missing 11 33.3

Total 33 100.0

TABLE 4.15: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE TYPES OF FISH CULTIVATED BY FISH FARMERS.

49

Type Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)Catfish 25 75.8 75.8Catfish and Tilapia 8 24.2 100.0Total 33 100.0

TABLE 4.16: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE SOURCES OF FINGERLINGS CULTIVATED BY FISH FARMERS.

Source Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Local hatcheries 19 57.6 57.6

Personal hatchery 11 33.3 90.9

Local traders and personal hatchery 3 9.1 100.0

Total 33 100.0

4.3. Constraints faced by fish farmers in Nigeria

The table and chart below (Table 4.17 and Figure 4.3) show the major constraints the

fish farmers face in aquaculture. These constraints include flooding, limited land, lack

of quality feed, inadequate electricity, poaching, poor marketing, high input cost and

lack of quality fingerlings. 48.5% of the fish farmers stated high cost of input is a

challenge, 12.1 % of fish farmers’ stated limited land and lack of quality feed is a

constraint while 9.1% of the fish farmers stated poaching is a constraint. A few of the

fish farmers stated flooding (3%), inadequate electricity (3%) and marketing (3%) are

constraints.

TABLE 4.17: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE CONSTRAINTS FACED BY FISH FARMERS IN NIGERIA.

Constraint Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent

Flooding 1 3.0 3.0

Limited land 4 12.1 15.2

50

Quality feed 4 12.1 27.3

Electricity 1 3.0 30.3

Poaching 3 9.1 39.4

Marketing 1 3.0 42.4

High input cost 16 48.5 90.9

Quality

fingerlings3 9.1 100.0

Total 33 100.0

51

FIG 4.5: PIE CHART SHOWING METHODS OF ACQUIRING AQUACULTURE SKILLS BY FISH FARMERS IN NIGERIA

4.4. FISH CONSUMERS

The tables below show that consumers prefer fish to meat. About 63.3% of consumers

showed a preference of fish over meat (Table 4.18). A cross tabulation (Table 4.19) was

done to compare the relationship between consumers earnings and choice of fish or

meat. 2 out of 3 of the respondents who earned less than #20,000 preferred fish to meat,

3 out of 4 consumers who earned between #20,000 and #40,000 preferred fish to meat

and 6 out of 11 respondents who earned above #80,000 preferred fish to meat.

Secondly, Table 4.20 showed that 14 out of 19 consumers who participated in the study

preferred fish for health reasons. However, 9 out of 12 consumers admitted that meat

tastes better than fish.

A descriptive statistics on Table 4.21 showing customers favourite type of fish showed

that 43.3% of consumers preferred Catfish, 20% preferred Tilapia fish, 16.7% preferred

Croaker fish and 20% preferred Titus fish. Table 4.22 shows 63.3% of consumers

preferred local fish while 36.7% of consumers preferred imported fish.

TABLE 4.18: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING CUSTOMERS PREFERENCES FOR FISH AND MEAT.

Preference Frequency Percent (%)Cumulative Percent

Fish 19 63.3 63.3

Meat 11 36.7 100.0

Total 30 100.0

TABLE 4.19: CROSS TABULATION SHOWING CUSTOMERS EARNINGS AND PREFERENCES FOR FISH AND MEAT.

Preference

Earnings

Total

Less than

#20,000

#20,000 to

#40,000

#41,000 to

#60,000

#61,000 to

#80,000

Above

#80,000

Fish 2 3 0 2 6 13

52

Meat 1 1 1 1 5 9

Total 3 4 1 3 11 22

TABLE 4.20: CROSS TABULATION SHOWING CUSTOMERS REASONS FOR PREFERENCE OF FISH AND MEAT

Reason for preference

Choice

TotalFish Meat

Taste better 3 9 12

Affordable 2 2 4

Health reason 14 0 14

Total 19 11 30

TABLE 4.21: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING CUSTOMERS FAVOURITE TYPE OF FISH.

Type Frequency Percent (%)

Cumulative Percent

(%)

Catfish 13 43.3 43.3

Tilapia 6 20.0 63.3

Croaker 5 16.7 80.0

Titus 6 20.0 100.0

Total 30 100.0

TABLE 4.22: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING CUSTOMERS PREFERENCE FOR LOCAL OR IMPORTED FISH.

TypeFrequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Imported fish 11 36.7 36.7

Local fish 19 63.3 100.0

Total 30 100.0

53

TABLE 4.23: CROSS TABULATION SHOWING CUSTOMERS VIEWS ON IMPORTED FISH

Questions Strongly

disagree

(%)

Disagre

e (%)

Neither

agree nor

disagree (%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly agree

(%)

Imported fish

tastes better than

local fish

20 33.3 30 3.3 13.3

Imported fish are

more available

16.7 36.7 23.3 16.7 6.7

Imported fish are

more expensive

3.3 23.3 13.3 40.0 20.0

Imported fish are

bigger than

cultured fish

6.7 30.0 40.0 20.0 3.3

4.5. FISH RETAILERS

Table 4.24 shows that 35% of retailers purchase imported fishes, 50% of retailers

purchase farmed fishes and 15% of retailers purchase captured fish. Furthermore, Table

4.25 shows that 75% of fish farmers sell less than 2 metric tons of fish and 25% of fish

farmers sell above 2.1 metric tons of fish a month.

Most of the retailers (60%) do not require transport to sell their fishes as consumers

meet them at their places of business while 40% of retailers have to travel to various

locations to sell their fishes. Table 4.28 shows that fishes are well preserved in Nigeria.

50% of retailers say that their fishes deteriorate less often while 20% of retailers face a

challenge where their fishes deteriorate rapidly.

TABLE 4.24: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE TYPES OF FISHES SOLD BY RETAILERS.

54

Type Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Imported fish 7 35.0 35.0

Farmed fish 10 50.0 85.0

Captured fish 3 15.0 100.0

Total 20 100.0

TABLE 4.25: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING MONTHLY SALES OF FISHES BY RETAILERS

Quantity Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Less than 1 metric ton 8 40.0 40.0

1.1 metric tons to 2 metric tons 7 35.0 75.0

2.1 metric tons to 3 metric tons 1 5.0 80.0

Above 4.1 metric tons 4 20.0 100.0

Total 20 100.0

TABLE 4.26: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING RETAILERS WHO PURCHASE FROM FARMS

55

Answer Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Yes 11 55.0 55.0

No 9 45.0 100.0

Total 20 100.0

TABLE 4.27: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING RETAILERS WHO REQUIRE TRANSPORT TO SELL FISHES

Answer Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Yes 8 40.0 40.0

No 12 60.0 100.0

Total 20 100.0

TABLE 4.28: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING FREQUENCY OF FISH DETERIORATION

Event Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent

More often 4 20.0 20.0

Often 6 30.0 50.0

Less often 10 50.0 100.0

Total 20 100.0

TABLE 4.29: CROSS TABULATION SHOWING RETAILERS VIEWS ON IMPORTED FISH

Questions Strongly disagree (%)

Disagree (%)

Neither Agree nor disagree (%)

Agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)

Imported fish are more available

31.6 15.8 31.6 15.8 5.3

Imported fish are more expensive

16.7 33.3 22.2 11.1 16.7

Imported fish 15.8 26.3 52.6 5.3 0

56

are bigger in size

5.0 Discussion

5.1 Production

5.1.1 Gender inequality

Results obtained from respondents showed that male dominance is an important issue in

the Nigerian aquaculture sector. In table 4.1, over 90% of fish farmers were male. This

result was validated by the findings of Nwosu and Onyeneke (2013), Adewuyi et al.,

(2010) and Ofuoku et al. (2008) where it was reported that majority of fish farmers are

male. The reason for the poor participation of female in the Nigerian aquaculture sector

was pointed out in Nwabueze’s (2010) report, where it stated that cultural and societal

issues like lack of gender sensitive policies and programmes by government, negligence

of gender roles in the aquaculture sector and poor land ownership amongst females

have been a constraint to female participation in aquaculture.

The success of aquaculture in countries such as China, Thailand and Vietnam can be

linked to the major roles played by women in their aquaculture sector (Barman, 2001;

Mathiesen, 2012). Therefore, promoting female participation in the Nigerian

aquaculture sector can help in improving productivity.

5.1.2 Education

The result revealed in table 4.2 showed that a majority (87.9%) of the fish farmers were

well educated. However, there was a contradictory report by Adedeji and Okocha’s

(2011) who explained that the poor level of interaction between fish farmers and

extension agents in Nigeria was due to poor level of education. On the other hand,

57

Ogboma (2010) in a report that dealt with the accessibility of agricultural information

by fish farmers in the Niger delta region of Nigeria, stated that majority of the fish

farmers interviewed were educated. Olaoye et al (2011) also validated this statement by

demonstrating that 78.9% of fish farmers in Ogun state, Nigeria had tertiary education.

From the results it can be assumed that most fish farmers in Nigeria are educated.

Education is a key factor in shaping perception of farmers (Adebayo and Adeyemi,

2000) hence education can be regarded as an existing strength in the Nigerian

aquaculture sector.

5.1.3 Experience/skill acquisition

The level of professional experience of fish farmers as shown in table 4.3 is an

indication that fish farming has only been recently embraced in Nigeria and supports

the result of the study carried out by Oyakhilomen and Zibah (2013) which stated the

infancy of Nigeria’s aquaculture sector. Olaoye et al (2011) had a similar outcome in a

research carried out on fish farming in Ogun state. The result of the study showed that

50% of the fish farmers had between 1 to 5 years of experience while 41% had 6 to 10

years of experience.

5.1.4 Land

Table 4.5 shows that most (75.8%) of the fish farmers own the land they use for fish

farming. This is an indication of the level of independence existing among the fish

farmers. The fact that the fish farmers own the land they use for fish farming means

they can afford to embrace innovative structural ideas without fear of land eviction. The

freedom to manipulate pond structure to suit preference can be a motivation for these

farmers to remain in business.

Despite the access to land, the result in table 4.6 shows a constraint in the size of land

available for fish farming. The result revealed that over 51% of the fish farmers work

on land less than 0.5 acre, which is supportive of Adedeji and Okocha’s (2011)

statement concerning the marginal land size Nigerian fish farmers’ use.

In a study conducted by Keremah and Esquire (2014), small scale fish farming in

Nigeria was shown to operate within the range of 0.02 and 0.20ha for earthen ponds or

25 and 40m2 for concrete ponds. Therefore this study demonstrates that most fish

farmers in Nigeria operate on a small scale.

58

5.1.5 Pond and Water supply

In table 4.7, it is seen that most fish farmers (60.6%) made use of concrete ponds. This

is similar to the findings of Keremah and Esquire (2014), where the common practice of

culturing fish in concrete tank was observed. The use of concrete ponds by fish farmers

can be seen as a means of coping with the land insufficiency in Nigeria. According to

Keremah and Esquire (2014), concrete ponds can yield more fish on small land size.

Although earthen ponds are more suitable for catfish production (Adebayo and Adesoji,

2008), no significant difference have been noted in its level of productivity compared to

concrete ponds (Ugwuba and Okoh 2010). Therefore, the use of concrete pond cannot

be regarded as an important limitation to fish productivity

From the result in table 4.8, majority of fish farmers made use of water from boreholes.

This means that there is an increased cost of production of fish because of inadequate

power supply and the cost of using alternative fuel source to provide power to the

borehole. On the other hand, a study conducted by Kudi et al (2008) and Akinwole et al

(2014) showed that boreholes accounted for only 2.27% and 6.7% respectively, as a

source of water for fish farmers in Kaduna and Oyo state respectively. During the

period of the research, there were no valid facts to explain the reason behind these

disparities.

Results shown in table 4.9 revealed that most (63.6%) of the fish farmers are aware of

water re-circulatory system but are unable to make use of it mainly due to inadequate

power supply (table 4.11). The use of water re-circulatory system proved effective in

increasing the fish output of the few fish farmers who used it. Table 4.10 showed that 3

out of the 5 fish farmers who made use of it harvested fish quantities worth 4.1 metric

tons and above.

From the response of the respondents, inadequate power supply was a constraint to the

adoption of the use of water re-circulatory systems which according to Agenuma

(2013), is effective in reducing water requirements of ponds, maintaining water quality

and minimizing land requirements.

5.1.6 Fish feeding

Most of the fish farmers (60.6%) made use of a combination of local and foreign feeds

(table 4.12). Although local feeds are more affordable, they lack quality compared to

foreign feeds. Agenuma (2013) listed the disadvantages of local feeds. He mentioned

59

that local feeds have low digestibility and majority of them sink to the bottom of pond,

which is bad for the maintenance of water quality. From the result in table 4.12, it is

obvious that fish farmers combine both foreign and local feeds to gain some element of

quality feeding at a reduced cost

The frequency of feeding was cross tabulated with the time of fingerling maturity but

no clear evidence was obtained to support the fact stated by Silva and Anderson (1995)

that the growth rate of fish is proportional to the quantity of feed it consumes. Majority

of the fish farmers (22 respondents) including those who feed from twice to more than

twice daily stated that their fish were fully matured for harvest after 5 months. The

disparity in results could be due to the quality/brand of feeds the fish farmers used.

5.1.7 Constraints in fish farming

Results from table 4.17 pointed out that the main constraint experienced by fish farmers

was the high cost of input. This findings were similar to that of Ele et al (2013) where it

was demonstrated that the high cost of input was a major challenge for fish farmers in

Cross river state. Inadequate quality feed and land availability was shown to be the

second most common constraint to fish farmers. The problem of land availability and

quality fish feed had earlier been mentioned as a constraint in table 4.6 and table 4.12

respectively and their frequency in table 4.17 emphasizes their importance as

constraints to fish farmers.

Inadequate quality fingerlings were among the least important constraint to fish

farmers. From table 4.16, it was observed that a significant number of fish farmers

produce their fingerlings. The result in table 4.16 supports Kudi et al’s (2008) report

where it was stated that fish farmers in Chikun and Kaduna South complained less

(4.6%) about fingerlings and inadequate feed.

Flooding, electricity and marketing were the least of the problems raised by the fish

farmers. The fact that flooding was least mentioned as a constraint implies that most of

the fish farmers have devised effective means of controlling flood in their fish farms.

With the increased use of boreholes as a means of water supply (table 4.8) and the

complaints about inadequate power supply as a limitation to the use of WRS by most

fish farmers, it would have been assumed that lack of electricity would be among the

important constraints mentioned. Hence the result in table 4.17 could imply that fish

60

farmers have devised more effective methods of managing water supply using less

electricity.

5.2 Marketing

According to the result from table 4.24, farmed fish accounted for half of the fish sold

by fish retailers. This is an indication of growth in aquaculture production and

marketing. It also indicates that the proposed plan by the Nigerian federal government

to cut fish importation by 25% per year through the introduction of import quotas by the

year 2014 (Nzeka, 2014), has already taken effect in limiting the level of foreign fish

importation.

The result of the actions taken by the Nigerian federal government to reduce fish

importation has obviously been a motivation for Nigerian fish farmers to increase

productivity to meet fish demands which according to table 4.25, is on the high side.

The cut in fish importation has also been a step towards solving the problem of

unemployment in Nigeria.

Results from table 4.26 shows that more than half of fish retailers purchased their fish

directly from fish farms. This result is an evidence that fish farming in Nigeria is

becoming popular considering the fact that most fish retailers can easily locate fish

farms. This also indicates that the distribution of fish farms in Nigeria is gradually

increasing. The result in table 4.26 is a strength to the aquaculture marketing chain

considering its short distributive chain and the close contact existing between fish

farmers and consumers which allows easy flow of information between both parties

through the retailers.

Most of the fish farmers (60%) (Table 4.27) do not require transportation to sell their

fishes. This could imply that fish retailers are well distributed in Nigeria hence less

need for transportation to satisfy wants. The reduced need for fish transportation to

consumers can be related to the minimal case of fish deterioration by retailers as shown

in table 4.28. The reduced case of fish deterioration is also an indication that fish

demand is high considering the fact that they are purchased quickly before

deterioration.

61

5.3 Consumption

Table 4.18 shows that fish is preferred to meat by consumers. Table 4.19 further proves

that the preference of fish to meat is not based on its affordability rather; it was proven

in table 4.20 that the major reason for preference of fish over meat was based on its

health benefit. The health benefit of fish as stated by (Craig and Helfrich, 2002) is an

indication of genuineness in the result shown in table 4.20. The preference of fish over

meat should be capitalized on by Nigerian fish farmers as a motivation to increase

productivity.

The result shown in table 4.21 revealed that catfish is preferred amongst fish

consumers and considering its level of production (as shown in table 4.15), it is obvious

that the demands for catfish might be among the factors influencing an increased

interest in catfish farming in Nigeria.

Table 4.21 also indicates a nearly equal preference of Tilapia, Croaker and Titus fish

amongst consumers. However, table 4.15 and 4.21 failed to acknowledge the

production and consumption of carp fish, which was included as one of the fish mainly

produced in Nigeria after Catfish and Tilapia (Ugoala, 2014).

The information retrieved from fish consumers as shown in table 4.23 was based on

personal opinion on issues related to taste, availability, cost and size of imported fish

over local fish. Although a significant amount of the respondents neither agreed nor

disagreed with facts stated, Majority of the respondents were against the fact that

imported fish tastes better and are more available compared to local fish. A majority of

the respondent also agreed with the fact that imported fish are more expensive and

disagreed with the fact that imported fish are bigger in size.

The results obtained from the 5 points likert scale as shown in table 4.23, conflicts with

the findings of Oyewole and Amosu (2012) where it was stated that frozen fish

(imported fish) is preferred in the south-west part of Nigeria due to its availability and

affordability. It also contradicted the fact that local fish tastes better as it stated that

consumers claimed catfish is too soft and sometimes nauseating. Oyewole and Amosu’s

(2012) findings was also validated by the report of Nzeka (2014) where it was stated

that catfish cost about $2.50 per kilogram while imported fish cost less at 60 cents per

kilogram. Hence the obtained result in table 4.23 can questioned.

62

5.4 Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) Analysis

After analysing the results obtained from the research, several factors were pointed out

as either being limiting or beneficial to fish farming in Nigeria. These factors were

discussed according to the strength, weakness and opportunity they offer. However, no

threat was observed.

5.4.1 Strength

Results from obtained showed that most of the fish farmers in Nigeria are educated.

Education is an important factor in agricultural development. According to Weir (1999)

the ability of famers to understand information or calculate input quantities

appropriately may be enhanced by education. Education can also influence the attitudes

and beliefs of farmers to adopt innovative ideas (Appleton and Balihuta, 1996)

5.4.2 Weakness

It was discovered that female participation in fish farming was poor. Women are

believed to have the ability to facilitate economic, environmental and social

development (United Nations Women, 2011) and their participation in the aquaculture

sector is capable of causing improvement.

The report pointed out that majority of the fish farms operated on a small scale due to

insufficient land space. Although most of the fish farmers managed to produce enough

amount of fish from marginal portions of land.

Although the fish farmers had access to both local and foreign feeds, they stated that the

local feeds are not of good quality and the foreign feeds are expensive. Hence most fish

farmers made use of both (foreign and local). The lack of quality feed produced locally

can be pointed out as a weakness and a limitation to proper feeding of cultured fish.

The high cost of fish farming input was pointed out as a major problem by fish farmers.

High cost of fish farming input may not only have an effect on fish farmers’ ability to

expand but might also be a deterring factor to prospective fish farmers.

5.4.3 Opportunity

The cut in foreign fish importation is an opportunity for fish farmers to make more

profit from satisfying the populations’ fish wants. The limitation on fish importation has

reduced the competition between local and foreign fish market. However, this might

63

become a huge responsibility for fish farmers considering the amount of consumers to

be satisfied

The preference most consumers have for fish over meat is an opportunity for fish

farmers to meet more fish demands. According to the report, fish is mostly preferred for

its health benefit hence it demands is less dependent on cost

5.5 Possible Solutions

5.5.1 Female participation.The government can encourage female participation in fish farming through the

following ways;

By Implementing policies that are supportive of gender equality

By making financial incentives available for female fish farmers. Financial incentives can be granted to female fish farmers in the form of; tax credits, production payments, trust funds or low cost loans

By creating awareness amongst the males, which includes husbands and fathers, on the benefits of female participation in agricultural activities such as fish farming

By encouraging the establishment of cooperatives amongst female fish farmers.

By allowing women occupy legislative positions and allowing their equal participation in decision making processes

5.5.2 Land availability

The government can help to solve the problem of land insufficiency amongst fish

farmers, through the following ways;

By reducing the cost of land acquisition in areas suitable for fish farming.

By leasing lands to fish farmers and prospective fish farmers, requiring financial assistance.

5.5.3 Cost of quality fish feed

The government can ensure the availability of quality feed through the following ways

64

By supporting and encouraging private companies in setting up feed production

sites

By supporting more research project aimed towards the production of quality

feed

By limiting importation of foreign feeds into local market to encourage and

protect the investment of local producers and investors

5.5.4 High cost of aquaculture input:

The problem of high cost of fish farming input can be solved by the government in the

following ways

By enabling subsidized marketing of fish farming input

By granting sufficient loan to fish farmers in need of financial support

5.6 Limitations

Descriptive methods were used for the data collection method and some of the study

participants were not entirely truthful because of scepticism, mistrust and fear of

reprisals from the tax office. Furthermore, the sample size was too small to provide a

more conclusive result. This is because of the difficulties faced in recruiting study

participants as most eligible subjects were unwilling to provide information about their

businesses for fear of data theft and scam.

5.7 ConclusionThe results of the study show that the constraints faced by fish farmers are cost of

setting up and maintaining a fish farm, limited land, inadequate quality feed, poaching,

limited quantity of fingerlings, poor electricity supply and marketing. Some of the

constraints faced by fish retailers were the transport costs and deterioration of fish. This

study was unable to demonstrate that the high price of fish influenced the preference of

fish by consumers.

There is a huge market for fish in Nigeria and there is a strong potential for growth in

the aquaculture sector if the government can make more effort to address the constraints

faced by the stakeholders in fish farming. A tailored assistance package that is specific

65

to farmers in different geopolitical zones of Nigeria should be created to help improve

fish production and supply to the growing populace.

5.8 Future work

The geopolitical zones in Nigeria were not well represented in this study because of the

difficulties faced in recruiting participants. Further studies with a larger sample size that

includes all key players in the aquaculture production and marketing should be carried

out to provide a more conclusive result. A larger sample size will bring to light more

constraints that are faced by fish farmers, retailers and consumers and help to strengthen

the aquaculture industry in Nigeria.

Further analysis needs to be done to compare the constraints faced by the fish farmers

and retailers in different geopolitical zones in Nigeria. For example water supply is not

a limiting factor in the southern part of the county because there are rivers, lakes and

ponds available. On the other hand the northern part of the country is land-locked and

artificial ponds need to be created for fish farming. Comparing the constraints faced by

farmers in different geopolitical zones would enable the government to create a

tailored-package to assist farmers and retailers in improving their businesses.

66

References

Abdullah, A.Y. (2007). Evaluation of Fish Farming Potentials in Nigeria: An Approach

through the use in Geographic Information System (GIS). PhD Thesis, University of

Abuja.

Adebayo I, A and Adesoji S, A (2008). Comparative Assessment of the Profit Margin

of Catfish Reared in Concrete Tank and Earthen Pond. African J. of Agric. Res., 3(10),

pp.677-680.

Adebayo, K. and Adeyemi, E. T. (2000). “Key issues in the sustainability of farmers’

groups in Ogun State”. Paper presented at the 6th Annual conference of the Agricultural

Extension Society of Nigeria held at the University of Ibadan, Ibadan,

Nigeria

Adedeji, O. and Okocha, R. (2011). Constraint to aquaculture development in Nigeria

and way forward. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 7(7), pp.1133-1140.

Adekoya, B. B. and Miller, J.W. (2004). Fish cage culture potential in Nigeria-an

overview. National cultures. Agriculture Focus, 1(5)

Adelakun, K; Ogundiwin, D; Ajagbe, S and Ijagbemi A. (no date). Sustainable

Aquaculture Practice: A Profitable Venture in Nigeria. Available:

http://eprints.ibu.edu.ba/1255/1/13.%20Sustainable%20Aquaculture%20Practise%20A

%20Profitable%20Venture%20In%20Nigeria.pdf. Last accessed 28th May 2014.

67

Adeogun, O.A; Alimi, T and Adeyemo, R. (2012). Status, cost and profitability of

aquaculture enterprises in Nigeria: implications for food security. International Journal

of Agricultural Sciences. 2 (1), pp59-66.

Adeokun, O.A. and Opele, A.I. (2004). Constraints to women’s adoption of innovations

in artisanal fisheries in water side area of Ogun State. The Ogun Journal of Agricultural

Sciences. 3 (1), pp121-134.

Adesoji, S.A. (2009). Assessment of Fish Farming Management Practices in Osun

State, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis in Department of Agricultural Extension and

Rural Development, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.

Adewumi, A. A and Olaleye, V. F. (2011). Catfish culture in Nigeria: Progress,

prospects and problems. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(6), pp1281-1285.

Adewuyi, S; Phillip, B; Ayinde, I and Akerele, D. (2010). Analysis of profitability of

fish farming in Ogun state, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology. 31 (3), pp179-184.

Agboola, W. (2011). Improving Fish farming Productivity towards Achieving Food

Security in Osun State, Nigeria. A Socioeconomic Analysis. Annals of Biological

Research, 2(3)

Agenuma, A. (2013). Catfish Aquaculture Industry Assessment in Nigeria. Interafrican

Bureau for Animal Resources.

Akankali, J. and Jamabo, N. (2011). A Review of Some Factors Militating Against

Sustainable Artisanal Fisheries Development in Niger Delta, Nigeria. Asian Journal of

Agricultural Sciences, 3(5), pp.369-377.

Akinbile, L.A. (2003). Farmers Perception of Effectiveness of Fisheries Extension

Services in Nigeria. Journal of Extension Services. 19(1), pp.7-30.

Akinwole, A. O; Bankole, A. F; Dauda, A. B and Ayanlere, S. V. (2014). Farming

Facilities and Operation in Ibarapa Area of Oyo State. European International Journal

of Applied Science and Technology. 1 (2), pp85-94

Alabi, A and Gladys, O. (2010). Effect of Trade and Agricultural Policies on Fish Trade

and Production in Nigeria. International Institute of Fisheries Economics & Trade,

Montpellier Proceedings, pp.1-11.

68

American Heart Association. (2010). Fish and Omega-3 Fatty Acids. Available:

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/

Fish-and-Omega-3-Fatty-Acids_UCM_303248_Article.jsp. Last accessed 12th Feb

2014.

Anetekhai, M; Akin-Oriola, G; Aderinola, O. and Akintola, S. (2004). Steps ahead for

aquaculture development in Sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Nigeria. Aquaculture,

239(1), pp.237-248.

Ansen, W. (2003). A study of the trade in Smoked-Dried Fish from West Africa to the

United Kingdom.

Anyanwu, D; Mkpadpo, M. and Ohaka, C. (2009). Economic analysis of artisanal

fishing at River Niger Onitsha, Anambra State, Nigeria. Agro-Science, 8(3).

Appleton, S and Balihuta, A. (1996). Education and agricultural productivity: evidence

from Uganda. Journal of International Development, 8(3), pp415-444.

Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Project (AIFP), (2005). Overview of Fisheries in

Nigeria. Newsletter of the Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Project of the National

Special Task Force for Food Security in Nigeria, Technical Note No. 16, June.

Asche, F. (2010). Green Growth in Fisheries and Aquaculture Production and Trade.

Atanda, A.N. (2007). Freshwater fish seed resources in Nigeria, pp. 361-380. In: M.G.

Bondad-Reantaso. Assessment of freshwater fish seed resources for sustainable

aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 501. Rome, FAO. 628p.

Ayinla, O.A. (1988). Nutrition and reproductive performance of the African catfish

(Burchell1822). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Ayoola, S. (2010). Sustainable fish production in Africa. African Journal of Food

Agriculture Nutrition and Development, 10(5).

Bada, T. and Rahji, M. (2010a). Market Delineation Study of the Fish Market in

Nigeria: An Application of Co-integration Analysis. Journal of Agricultural Science

(1916-9752), 2(3).

Bada, T. and Rahji, M. (2010b). Frozen Fish Markets and Marketing Problems in

Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science (1916-9752), 2(3).

69

Bardach, J.E; Ryther, J.H. and McLarney, W.O. (1972) Aquaculture: The Farming and

Husbandry of Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Wiley-Interscience, New York.

Barman, k (2001). "Women in Small-Scale Aquaculture in North-West Bangladesh."

Gender, Technology and Development. 267. no. 5 (2001).

http://hinari-gw.who.int/whalecomgtd.sagepub.com/whalecom0/content/

5/2/267.full.pdf html (accessed August 26, 2014).

Béné, C and Heck, S. (2005). Fish and Food Security in Africa. World Fish Center

Quarterly. 28 (3), pp8-13.

Bene, C; Neiland; Jolley, T; Ovie, S; Sule, O; Ladu, B; Mindjimba, K; Belal, E;

Tiotsop, F; Baba, M; Dara, L; Zakara, A and Quensiere, J.( 2003). Inland fisheries,

poverty, and rural livelihoods in the Lake Chad Basin. Journal of Asian and African

Studies, 38 (1), pp. 17-51.

Bondad-Reantaso, M.G. (2007). Assessment of freshwater fish seed resources for

sustainable aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 501. Rome: FAO

Bossche, J.P and Bernacsek, G.M. (1990). Country Files: Nigeria. In: Source book for

inland fishery resources of Africa. Rome: FAO.

Bostock, J; McAndrew, B; Richards, R; Jauncey, K; Telfer, T; Lorenzen, K; Little, D;

Ross, L; Handisyde, N; Gatward, I. and others, (2010). Aquaculture: global status and

trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

365(1554), pp.2897-2912.

Brock, J. (2008). Damming the Nile: The Awan High Dam. Student Papers in Geology.

Clement, A.R. (2013). Vulnerability of Fisheries Livelihood in the Coastal Area of the

Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences. 5 (2),

pp152-158

Craig, S. and Helfrich, L. A. (2002). Understanding fish nutrition, feeds, and feeding.

Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Publication, pp420-256.

70

Delgado, C. L. (2003). Outlook for fish to 2020. Washington, D.C. International Food

Policy Research Institute.

Edwards, P. and Demaine, H. (1997). Rural aquaculture: overview and framework for

country reviews. RAP Publication (FAO).

Emmanuel, O; Chinenye, A; Oluwatobi, A and Kolawole, P. (2014). Review of

Aquaculture Production and Management in Nigeria. American Journal of

Experimental Agriculture 4 (10), pp1138-1151.

Emoyan, O. (2008). The oil and gas industry and the Niger Delta: Implications for the

environment. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 12(3).

El Gamal, A. (2001). Status and development trends of aquaculture in the Near East.

Ele, I; Ibok, W; Anita-Obong, A; Okon, E and Udoh, S. (2013). Economic Analysis of

Fish Farming in Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria. Greener Journal of Agricultural

Sciences. 3 (7), pp542-549.

Falaye, A. (2008). Illegal Unreported Unregulated (IUU) Fishing in West Africa

(Nigeria & Ghana). Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd, London.

Falaye, A.E. (1988). Utilization of Cocoa husk in the nutrition of Tilapia (O. Niloticus)

(Trewavas). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Faturoti, E. O. and Akinbote, R.E. (1986). Growth responses and nutrient utilization of

Oreochromisniloticus fed varying levels of dietary Cassava peel. Nigerian Journal of

Applied Fisheries and Hydrobiology (1): pp47-55

Federal Department of Fisheries (FDF), (2009).Nigeria national aquaculture strategy.

Assisted by FAO, Formally Approved by Government.

Federal Department of Fisheries, (2008). Fisheries Statistics of Nigeria; Projected

human population; fish demand and supply in Nigeria, 2000 – 2015.

Federal Department of Fisheries (FDF), 2007. Fisheries Statistics of Nigeria

71

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), (2011).

Agricultural Transformation Agenda: We will grow Nigeria's Agricultural Sector, pp1-

90.

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (2009). National Aquaculture:

Strategy for Nigeria, pp1-26

Fishery Committee for the West Central Gulf of Guinea (FCWC), (2010). Nigeria's

aquaculture feasibility analysis report: Current situation of aquaculture in Nigeria.

Available: http://www.fcwc-fish.org/component/content/article/100-en/publications/

news-from-the-region/92-nigerias-aquaculture-feasibility-analysis-report. Last accessed

27th May 2014.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2008). FACT SHEET: The international

fish trade and world fisheries. Available:

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000850/en/fishtradefacts08b.pdf. Last

accessed 26th Jun 2014

Forest, G. (2010). Best Management Practices for Fish Farming Package of Practices

(POP) for Fish Farming USAID Markets Programme in Nigeria March 2010.

Freduah, G. (2008). Poverty mitigation and Wealth creation through artisanal fisheries

in Dzemeni area at Volta Lake, Ghana. The University of Bergen.

Gabriel, U; Akinrotimi, O; Bekibele, D; Onunkwo, D and Anyanwu, P. (2007). Locally

produced fish feed: potentials for aquaculture development in sub-Saharan Africa.

African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2 (7), pp287-295.

George, F; Olaoye, O; Akande, O; and Oghobase, R. (2010). Determinants of

aquaculture fish seed production and development in Ogun State, Nigeria. Sustainable

Development in Africa. 12(8), pp23.

Giuliani, G; De Bono, A; Kluser, S. and Peduzzi, P. (2004). Overfishing, a major threat

to the global marine ecology.

72

Globalchange. (2014). Status of the World's Fisheries. Available:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/fisheries/

fisheries.html. Last accessed 13th Feb 2014.

Goulding, L and Kamel, M. (2013). Institutional, Policy and Regulatory Framework for

Sustainable Development of the Egyptian Aquaculture Sector. The World Fish Center

Grema, H; Geidam, Y. and Egwu, G. (2011). Fish production in Nigeria: An update.

Nigerian Veterinary Journal, 32(3).

Halwart, M. (2013). Valuing aquatic biodiversity in agricultural landscapes.

Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and

Food Security. Routledge/Earthscan, pp.88-108.

Inoni, E. (2007). Allocative efficiency in pond fish production in Delta State, Nigeria:

A production function approach. Agricultural Tropicae Et Subtropica. 40 (4), pp127-

134.

Jacob, O. and Olubukola, O. (2012). Economic analysis of fish hatchery operations in

Ogun State, Nigeria. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture, 4(4), pp.63-70

Jamu, D; Chapotera, M and Chinsinga, B. (2012). Synthesis of aquaculture policy and

development approaches in Africa. World Fish.

Jamu, D.M. and Ayinla, A.O. (2003): Potential for the development of agriculture in

Africa. NAGA 26: 9 –13

Kareem, R; Idowu, E; Ayinde, I; Badmus, M. and others, (2012). Economic Efficiency

of Freshwater Artisanal Fisheries in Ijebu Waterside of Ogun State, Nigeria. Global

Journal of Science Frontier Research, 12(11-D).

Keremah, R and Esquire J. (2014). Comparative Assessment of Growth Performance

and Economics of Production of Clarias gariepinus Fingerlings in Ponds and Tanks.

Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 4 (2), pp34-38.

Kudi, T., Bako, F. and Atala, T. (2008). Economics of fish production in Kaduna State,

Nigeria. ARPN Journal on Agricultural and Biological Science, 3, pp.17-21.

73

Ling, S.W. (1977). Aquaculture in Southeast Asia: A Historical Overview. University of

Washington Press, Seattle.

Mathiesen A.M (2012). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Miller, J and Atanda, T (2007). Fish-farming village. A Model for Replication from

Nigeria. Unpublished Technical Note. Retrieved from www.sarnissa.org 21 January,

2014, pp.4

Mustapha, M. (2013). Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Artisanal Fisheries of

Nigeria. Journal of Earth Science and Climate Change, 4, pp.130.

Nassr-Alla, A. (2008). Egyptian aquaculture Status, Constraints and Outlook. Centre

International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Mediterraneennes (CIHEAM), pp1-8.

National Bureau of Statistics (2010). The Review of Nigerian Economy 2010. FCT,

Abuja: National Bureau of Statistics, pp1-58.

Nwabueze, A. A. (2010). The role of women in sustainable aquacultural Development

in Delta State. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12(5), pp284-293.

Nwosu, C. S and Onyeneke, R. U. (2013). Effect of Productive Inputs of Pond Fish

Production on the Output of Fish in Owerri Agricultural Zone of Imo State, Nigeria.

Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural Science, 2(1), pp023-028.

Nzeka, U. (2014). Global Agricultural Information Network Report: Nigeria Introduces

Import Quota on Fish. Available: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN

%20Publications/Nigeria%20Introduces%20Import%20Quota%20on

%20Fish_Lagos_Nigeria_1-16-2014.pdf. Last accessed 6th August 2014.

Ofuoku, A. U; Emah, G. N and Itedjere, B. E. (2008). Information utilization among

rural fish farmers in central agricultural zone of Delta State, Nigeria. World Journal of

Agricultural Sciences, 4(5), pp558-564

Ofuoku, A; Ugbomech, G; Uzokwe, U. and Ideh, V. (2006). Constraints to small scale

fish farming in Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 4

(3/4), pp. 288.

74

Ogboma, M. U. (2010). Access to agricultural information by fish farmers in Niger

Delta region of Nigeria.

Olaoye, O; Ashaolu,O; Idowu,A; Akintayo,I and Talabi, J. (2011). Determinants of

Demand for Ogun State Agricultural and Multipurpose Credit Agency (OSAMCA)

Loans among fish farmers in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development

in Africa. 13 (4)

Olukunle, A.O and Falaye, A.E. (1998). Use of Sesame seed cake as replacement for

fish meal in diets of catfish (Clariasgariepinus (Burchell, 1822)). Applied Tropical

Agriculture 3(2) pp86-91

Omitoyin, B.O. (1995). Utilization of poultry by products (Feather and offal) in the

diets of African catfish (Clariasgariepinus (Burchell, 1822)). Ph.D Thesis, University of

Ibadan, Nigeria

Onwurah, I; Ogugua, V; Onyike, N; Ochonogor, A. and Otitoju, O. (2007). Crude oil

spills in the environment, effects and some innovative clean-up biotechnologies.

University of Tehran.

Oladipo, I. and Bankole, S. (2013). Nutritional and microbial quality of fresh and dried

Clarias gariepinus and Oreochromis niloticus

Olomola, A.S. (1991). Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture in Nigeria: A Comparative

Analysis. ARSSRN, Winrock International, USA.

Oluwemimo, O and Damilola, A. (2013). Socio-economic and policy issues

determining sustainable fish farming in Nigeria. International Journal of Livestock

Production. 4 (1), pp1-8.

Onyeri, N. (2011). Nigeria Panorama Report II. Country Stat for Sub-Saharan Africa,

pp1-66.

Oyakhilomen, O. and Zibah, R. (2013). Fishery Production and Economic Growth in

Nigeria: Pathway for Sustainable Economic Development. Journal of Sustainable

Development in Africa, 15(2).

75

Partnership Initiatives in Niger Delta (PIND). (2011). A Report on Aquaculture Value

Chain Analysis in the Niger Delta, pp. 1-60.

Queiroz, J. (2013). The Economics and Politics of Fisheries and Aquaculture in Brazil,

pp1-19.

Rothuis, A; Duijn, A; Roem, A; Ouwehand, A; Pijl, W and Rurangwa, E. (2013).

Aquaculture business opportunities in Egypt. Wageningen UR (University and Research

centre), LEI report 2013-039, IMARES report C091/13.

Shuping, C. (2005). National Aquaculture Sector Overview Fact Sheet: China.

Available: http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_china/en. Last accessed 23rd

June 2014.

Solomon, A and Kerere, F. (2013). Assessment of the knowledge level of fishers and

fish farmers in Lagos State, Nigeria. International Journal of Knowledge, Innovation

and Entrepreneurship. 1 (1), pp41-56.

Srinivasan, U., Cheung, R and Sumaila, U (2010). Overfishing Trends and the Global

Food Crisis. Washington, D.C: PEW Environmental Group, pp1-4.

Stickney, R. R. and Treece, G. D. (2012). History of aquaculture. Aquaculture

Production Systems, pp15.

Ugoala, E. (2014). Aquaculture Research Issues, Opportunities and Current Priorities in

Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences. 9 (1), pp25-39.

Ugwuba, C.O and Chukwuji, C.O. (2010). The Economics of Catfish Production in

Anambra State, Nigeria: A Profit Function Approach. Journal of Agriculture and Social

Sciences, 6(4), pp105-109.

Ugwumba, C. O and Okoh, R. N. (2010). African crariid catfish farming in concrete

and earthen ponds: A comparative profitability analysis. Journal of Fisheries

International, 5(1), pp14-18.

United Nation Development Programme. (2013). Nigerian Agribusiness Supplier

Development Programme, pp1-33

76

United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). (2012). UNFPA Nigeria 6th

Country Programme Evaluation, pp1-110.

United Nations Women. (2011). Role of Women in Rural Development, Food

Production and Poverty Eradication. Available: http://www.unwomen.org/co/news/in-

focus/rural-women-food-poverty. Last accessed 20th Aug 2014.

United States Agency for International Development, (2010). Best Management

Practices for Fish Farmers in Nigeria. USAID Markets Programme: Nigeria. pp. 1 – 38.

Victoria, A; Bamidele, F and Motunrayo, O. (2014). Baseline Survey of Smallholder

Fish Farming Enterprise in Moro Local Government, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of

Agriculture and Veterinary Science. 7 (1), pp41-45.

Weir, S. (1999). The effects of education on farmer productivity in rural Ethiopia (No.

WPS/1999-07).

Williams, S. B; Olaosebikan, B. D; Adeleke, A. O and Fagbenro, O. A. (2008). Status

of African catfish farming in Nigeria. In Proceedings of a Workshop on the

Development of a Genetic Improvement Program for African Catfish Clarias

gariepinus pp. 49.

Zwirn, M. (2002). Aquaculture in Egypt: Improving food security and resolving

resource allocation conflicts. The Journal of Environment & Development, 11(2),

pp.129-148.

77

Appendix 1Aquaculture production by region: Quantity and percentage of world total

production

78

Source: Mathiesen, 2012

Appendix 2Top ten regional and world aquaculture producers in 2010

79

Source: Mathiesen, 2012

Appendix 3

Questionnaire Survey for Fish Farmers

80

Section 1: Socioeconomic status of respondents

1. Gender

Male Female

2. What is your level of education?

Primary education Secondary education Tertiary education

Non formal education

3. How long have you been in fish farming?

Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years

16 years and above

4. How did you acquire your skills in fish farming?

School Apprenticeship Personal research Friends and relative

Seminars Other, please specify

5. Is your fish farm located in your land?

Yes No

6. What is the size of land you use for fish farming?

Less than 0.5 acre 0.5-1 acre 1.1-1.5acre 1.6-2 acre Above 2 acre

81

Section 2: Production

7. Select the type of pond you use in fish farming

Concrete pond Earthen pond Plastic tank Other, please specify

8. Mention the species of fish you produce

……………………………………………

9. How do you source your fingerlings?

From water bodies Traders Personal Hatchery Other, please

specify

10. How far do you have to travel to source for fingerlings?

Less than 0.9 miles 1- 10 miles 11-20 miles Above 21 miles

11. What type of feed do you use for your fish?

Local feed Foreign feed Both Other, please specify

12. Foreign feed are more expensive compared to local feed

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly agree

82

13. Foreign feed are more effective compared to local feed

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly agree

14. How do you source for fish feed?

Traders Personal formulation Both

15. How far do you have to travel to source for feed?

Less than 0.9 miles 1- 10 miles 11-20 miles Above 21 miles

16. How much do you spend on fish feed in a month?

Less than ₦20,000 ₦20,000-₦40,000 ₦41,000-₦60,000 ₦61,000-

₦80,000 Above ₦81,000

17. How often do you feed the fish?

Once daily Twice daily Thrice daily More than thrice daily

18. What is the main source of water used in your fish farm?

River Borehole River and borehole Other, please specify

19. Do you know about water re-circulatory system?

Yes No

83

20. Do you make use of water re-circulatory system in your fish farm?

Yes No

21. If “yes”, are you finding it easy to manage?

Yes No

22. If “No” Why don’t you make use of a water re-circulatory system?

Lack of electricity Difficult to maintain Expensive to install

Other, please specify

23. How long does it take your fingerlings to mature to a harvestable size?

1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months and above

24. What is the average size of your fish after harvest?

Less than 1kg 1 to 2 kg 3 to 4 kg 5 to 6 kg Above 7 kg

25. What is the average amount of fish you harvest per stock?

Less than 1 metric ton 1 to 2 metric ton 2.1 metric ton - 3metric ton

3.1 metric ton - 4 metric ton 4.1 metric ton and above

26. State the challenges you face in fish farming from the most important to the least

important

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Questionnaire Survey for Fish Retailers

Section 1: Socioeconomic status of respondents

84

1. Gender

Male Female

2. What is your educational level?

Primary education Secondary education Tertiary education

Non formal education

Section 2: Marketing

3. What type of fish do you sell?

Imported fish Farmed fish Captured fish

4. Mention the species of fish you sell

…………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………...

5. Do you buy your fish directly from fish farms?

Yes No

6. Do you require transportation to market your fish?

Yes No

7. How do you preserve your fish?

Freezing Drying Smoking Fresh in water

8. How much fish do you sell in a month?

Less than 1 metric ton 1.1 to 2 metric tons 2.1 to 3 metric tons

3.1 to 4 metric tons Above 4.1 metric tons

85

9. How often do your fish deteriorate?

More often Often Less often

Section 3: Respondents opinion

10. Imported fish are more available compared to locally produced fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

11. Imported fish are more expensive compared to locally produced fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

12. Imported fish are more bigger compared to locally produced fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

Questionnaire Survey for Fish Consumers

86

Section 1: Socioeconomic status of respondents

1. Gender

Male Female

2. Are you married?

Yes No

3. Are you employed?

Yes No

4. If “yes”, how much do you earn in a month?

Less than #20,000 #20,000 - #40,000 #41,000 - #60,000

#61,000 - #80,000 Above #80,000

Section 2: Respondents preference

5. Which do you prefer?

Fish Meat

6. Which is the reason for your preference?

Taste better Affordable Health reason others, please specify

7. How often do you consume fish in a meal?

Once in 3 meals Twice in 3 meals Every meal Varies

8 Which is your favourite type of fish?

Catfish Tilapia fish Croaker Titus

Others, please specify

87

10. Which do you prefer?

Imported fish Local Fish Both

Section 3: Respondents opinion

13. Imported fish tastes better than local fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

14. Imported fish are more available compared to local fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

15. Imported fish are more expensive compared to local fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

16. Imported fish are more sizable compared to local fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

17. Captured fish tastes better than cultured fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

18. Captured fish are more available compared to cultured fish

88

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

19. Captured fish are more expensive compared to cultured fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

20. Captured fish are more sizable compared to cultured fish

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Strongly disagree

Appendix 4Aquaculture value chain map

89

Source: UNDP (2013)

90