Introduction

Global aquaculture production has been increasing over the last few decades and in 2012 it reached 66.6 million tonnes of food fish (FAO, 2014). While the world food fish production increased at an average annual rate of 6.2% from 2002 to 2012, Africa experienced a relatively higher rate of 11.7% (FAO, 2014).

The contribution of inland aquaculture to total farmed food fish production has increased from 50% in 1980 to 63% in 2012 (FAO, 2014). Aquaculture production systems can be classified based on the scale (size) and/or intensity (Machena and Moehl, 2001). Small-scale aquaculture production systems are extensive/semi-intensive systems that are usually integrated with other agricultural enterprises (Machena and Moehl, 2001). Smallholder pond aquaculture falls within the category of small-scale aquaculture.

The rapid growth of aquaculture in developing countries is hampered by several factors (Beveridge et al., 2010). According to Beveridge et al. (2013) there are two sets of barriers, namely those that can be attributed to aquaculture development policies and those arising from a lack of policy coherence for development (PCD). With respect to Sub-Saharan Africa, the major constraints to increased output from aquaculture are inadequate infrastructure, ineffective or non-existent policies, poor extension support and unavailability of inputs such as fish seed, fish feed and access to credit (Machena and Moehl, 2001).

In Africa, aquaculture production in 2012 was estimated at 1,485,367 tonnes which was about 2.23% of world total production (RMCA, 2015). A study to determine the value of African fisheries was conducted by de Graaf and Garibaldi (2014). They concluded that even though aquaculture was still developing on the continent, it already contributed US$ 3 billion per year. In terms of employment creation, the fisheries sector was reported to employ 12.3 million people with only 7.5% of this total being employed in the aquaculture sub-sector (de Graaf and Garibaldi, 2014). The majority of those employed in the sector are men, and women constitute only 27.3% and out of this total, only 4% are aquaculture workers (de Graaf and Garibaldi, 2014).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 22% of protein intake is from fish (World Farmers’ Organisation). In 2012, aquaculture production in Sub-Saharan Africa was estimated at 454 691 tonnes, and this was 0.68% of world total production (RMCA, 2015). The mean yield from smallholder ponds in Sub-Saharan Africa was estimated at 500kg/ha/year, with considerable variation from less than 100kg/ha/year to more than 10 000 kg/ha/year (Machena and Moehl, 2001).

The average per capita fish consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa was about 8.9kg (Mapfumo, 2015); a figure which is much lower than the 2012 world per capita consumption of 19.2kg (FAO, 2014).

Zimbabwe is a member of the Southern African Development Community, (SADC). The importance of aquaculture within the SADC region is well recognised and hence SADC has developed a Regional Aquaculture Strategy and Action Plan (RASAP), whose overall objective is “to increase the contribution by aquaculture to local, national and regional economic growth and trade.” (SADC, 2016).

Aquaculture production in Zimbabwe was estimated to be 10 600 tonnes in 2014 (FAO, 2016). In Zimbabwe, smallholder aquaculture is synonymous with smallholder fish farming since currently it involves only the culturing of food fish. The most commonly cultured fish species is the exotic Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Some culturing of the exotic Rainbow Trout (Onchorynchus mykiss) is done in the Nyanga area of the Eastern Highlands.

According to the FAO (2016), per capita fish consumption in Zimbabwe was estimated at about 2.2kg in 2010.

Livelihood diversification is a common strategy used by rural households (Ellis, 1998; 1999; Neves and du Toit, 2013).

It is recognized that smallholder fish farming is important in improving nutrition (Prein and Ahmed, 2000; Beveridge et al., 2010), increasing household income (Dalsgaard and Oficial, 1997; Jacobi, 2013; Haque and Dey, 2017) as well as improving food security (Prein and Ahmed, 2000; Ahmed and Lorica, 2002; Beveridge et al., 2013; Haque and Dey, 2017).

In the last few years, there has been increased interest in smallholder fish farming in Zimbabwe which has resulted in the implementation of various initiatives in different parts of the country. As smallholder fish farming gains momentum, it is important to document the role of smallholder fish farming in supporting rural households' livelihoods diversification, income, dietary diversity and food security.

The current study therefore sought to contribute to knowledge on the role of smallholder freshwater aquaculture in supporting rural households' livelihoods diversification, income, dietary diversity and food security in Zimbabwe, using a Case study approach.

The specific objectives of the study were to determine annual fish production for 5 years (2012 to 2016), household livelihood options before and after adoption of fish farming, household income after adoption of fish farming. household dietary diversity before and after adoption of fish farming and household food security status before and after adoption of fish farming.

1 Materials and Methods

1.1 Study Area

Kushinga Fish Farming is located at Renco Mine, a large-scale gold mine located in a Masvingo South province in Nyajena Communal lands 75km from the city of Masvingo and 5km north of Bangala Dam. The mine lies on longitude 30^ο 10' East and latitude 20^ο 38' South in the Natural Region V (SRK Zimbabwe, 1995). The area experiences high temperatures ranging from 15⁰ C in July to 40⁰ C in October (SRK Zimbabwe, 1995). Average annual rainfall received in Masvingo province is about 600mm (EMA, 2016). The altitude of Nyajena Communal Lands is 450mm (EMA, 2016) (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Location of Kushinga fish-farming project at Renco Mine

1.2 Sampling design

Purposive sampling was used because the fish farming group had 20 members.

1.3 Data collection and analysis

Data were collected using two methods, namely questionnaires (primary data) and production records (secondary data). Questionnaires were personally administered. The questionnaire had both open-ended questions as well as closed questions. A total of 20 questionnaires were administered. Prior to the interview, each respondent was requested to voluntarily consent to participate in the study, by signing a consent form. Secondary data were obtained from fish farming production records. These data were used in determining total amount of fish harvested and annual gross revenue obtained from fish sales.

1.4 Ethical Considerations

All participants were informed that their participation in the study was voluntary and they had the option to withdraw from the study, at any stage if they so wished. The participants’ written consent to have the study published in a journal was also sought and it was granted.

2 Results

There were 55% male respondents and 45% female respondents. In terms of formal education, 50% of the respondents had attended primary school while the other 50% had attended secondary school. With respect to age-groups, 10% were in the 31-40 years age-group, 35% in the 41-50 and 55% in the 51-60 years age-group.

Table 1 shows the annual amount of fish harvested as well as the method of disposal, since not all fish were sold.

Table 1 Total amount of fish harvested per year and disposal method (Adult fish)

The farmers also practised partial harvesting and hence they did not harvest all the adult fish.

Honoured sharing was a special type of sharing where individuals were given fish at the start of the project or just as an appreciation by fish farming members (for example to representatives of the organizations that were supporting them in terms provision of land for the ponds).

The annual production was 760kg/ha, 452kg/ha, 254kg/ha, 480kg/ha and 560kg/ha in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively.

The annual income for the group is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Annual Income from fish farming (US$) for the group Note: From 2013 to 2016, the sale of fingerlings contributed significantly to overall sales (see Table 2)

The income from the fish farming project was used to start two additional income-generating ventures, namely honey production (apiculture) and a piggery project. In 2015 and 2016, the annual income from the apiculture project was US$267 and US$ 227 respectively. In 2016, the annual income from the piggery project was US$391. The total annual income from all three enterprises (fish, apiculture and piggery) in 2015 and 2016 was US$2,589 and US$1,154 respectively.

The individual members received an annual income of US$22, $42 and US$70 in 2012, 2014 and 2016 respectively. No individual income was received in 2013 and 2015 as all the revenue was invested in the other income-generating projects (apiculture and piggery).

Prior to the adoption of fish farming, 70% of farmers were involved in other projects, but after adoption of the fish farming project the number decreased to 50%.

Prior to the adoption of fish farming, there were several income-generating activities. At least 6 members of the fish farming group were not involved in any projects prior to the adoption of fish farming (Figure 2). Some members had income from salaries. After the adoption of fish farming, some of the respondents continued with previous projects, and all of them were now involved in fish farming as well as horticulture. The horticulture was mainly production of vegetables.

Figure 2 Involvement in other projects before and after adoption of fish farming

Prior to the adoption of fishing farming, the farmers were engaged in a variety of income-generating activities (Table 3). Some of the respondents (30%) reported that they were not involved in any income-generating activities (subsistence farmers).

Table 3 Income sources before and after fish farming

The highest number of respondents reported that poultry-production (mainly chicken) generated the highest income (Table 3). An equal number of respondents reported that their highest income was from fish farming and from employment salary (Table 3). The monthly income from these activities was reported to range between US$250 and US$450 (Table 4). Some respondents opted not to disclose the amount of income they obtained from the highest earning activity.

Table 4 Monthly household income from highest income-source

Figure 3 shows the number of meals that the respondents consumed daily before and after adoption of fish farming. After the adoption of fish farming, the number of respondents who had 3 meals a day increased to 90%.

Figure 3 Number of meals per day before and after fish farming

Before fish farming approximately 45% of the respondents managed to have beef in their diets and 12% fish. However; after adoption of fish farming 26.3% of respondents were now managing to have fish at the same rate as chicken in their diets followed by 25% with beans and lastly beef (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Protein sources in respondents’ diets

A variety of protein sources were utilised by the respondents before and after adoption of fish farming (Figure 4).

The respondents also had several starch sources before and after adoption of fish farming (Table 5). Maize is the most preferred staple starch source among many families in Zimbabwe, and the drought-tolerant small grains such as millet and sorghum are consumed by fewer households. Rice is not usually consumed extensively as it is more expensive than both maize and the small grains. The slight increase in sorghum intake was due to health considerations among some of the respondents.

Table 5 Starch sources in respondents’ diet before and after fish farming

There was a change in household food sufficiency after the adoption of fish farming with an increased number of households having sufficient food (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Household food sufficiency before and after fish farming project

2 Discussion

There were more males than females in the fish farming group. This was because prior to project inception, the criteria for selection of beneficiaries included households that were labour-endowed as well as the inclusion of both men and women. Consequently, although the ideal situation would have been 50% male and 50% female, the achieved percentages (55 and 45) were close to the ideal. In a study of three Districts in Lusaka Province, it was observed that there were more men (87%) involved in small scale fish farming than women (13%) (Mainza and Musuka, 2015).

All the members of the fish-farming group had attained some formal education. This formal education is an important attribute as it meant that all members were both literate and numerate and this would facilitate easy training in aspects of fish-farming such as record-keeping as well as other aspects of fish farm management.

All of the members were between 31 and 60 years old. This meant that the members were all adults who would be able to carry out all tasks related to fish farming. The fish-farmers were either married or widowed with an average family size of 7 members. Therefore, the members all had dependents to support. Consequently, the benefits of adopting fish farming cascaded to all family members.

According to Machena and Moehl (2001), annual yield in Sub-Saharan Africa was 500kg/ha. This means that the fish farming group was able to produce above this mean in 2012 only, while the subsequent years had yields that were lower than the mean.

Phong et al. (2007) also noted that in Asia production was determined by inputs one is willing to put in, thus 1 to 2 tonnes was obtained by those who put low inputs while 2 to 10 tonnes by those with medium inputs. Kushinga fish farming had problems with obtaining inputs as they feed their fish either with commercial feed (fish pellets), when available or residue from “mahewu” (a non-alcoholic home-brewed drink made of thin, slightly fermented maize-meal porridge).

During 2012, the group received support from a local Non-Governmental Organization. This support included both inputs and technical support. In 2013 2014, 2015 and 2016 the group only received technical advice while it had to provide its own inputs in order to ensure sustainability of the fish-farming venture. This change may have contributed to the decline in production.

Several problems were encountered by the farmers. These problems contributed to low production. The major problems were related to lack of finance to buy inputs, unavailability of feed and limited technical expertise among the farmers. Machena and Moehl (2001) also noted that lack of access to credit; poor extension support and unavailability of inputs were major factors that were impeding increased output from aquaculture in the Sub-Saharan region. The farmers did not have any problems with fish seed as they had their own hatchery which they stocked with some of the adults that were not harvested.

Farmers sold fingerlings supplying to other farmers around Zimbabwe. While the annual income at the individual level may appear low, it should be noted that this was additional income that supplemented other income-sources. The farmers did not sell all the fish they harvested, but retained some for sharing so that they could consume in their respective households. The shared fish for domestic consumption also resulted in less expenditure on food items, particularly animal protein sources such as beef.

In 2012, the members shared part of the income from sales and also retained part of it so that they could reinvest in the project. There was no individual income in 2013 because the members re-invested all the income into the project as they were now independent. In 2014, group income from sales of adult fish was low and the highest annual group income was in 2015. The increased annual income in 2015 was because the group sold many fingerlings and this added to their total income from the fish farming project. However, that same year there was no individual income because they reinvested in the project as well starting a piggery project. Higher individual income was shared in 2016. Thus, it can be concluded that the fish farming venture boosted household income. The importance of fish farming in increasing household income has been shown by several workers (Dalsgaard and Oficial, 1997; Jacobi, 2013; Haque and Dey, 2017).

The adoption of fish farming was a livelihood diversification strategy. Prior to the adoption of fish farming, 70% of the respondents were involved in other income-generating activities while 30% were not involved in other income-generating activities. After adoption of fish farming, the number of respondents who were involved in other income-generating activities had decreased by 20%. This was because after adoption of fish farming, some respondents stopped other activities due to time constraints and non-payment for chickens sold on credit. Those who continued with other non-aquaculture income-generating activities did so as they felt that these activities were important sources of income and some of them also provided food for their households.

The fish farming project provided an opportunity for the respondents to either start growing vegetables (for those who had not been doing so) or to expand their horticulture activities (for those who were already producing vegetables).

The highest number of respondents reported that poultry-production (mainly chicken) generated the highest income. An equal number of respondents reported that their highest income was from fish farming and from salaries). Some respondents opted not to disclose the income they obtained from the highest earning activity as they considered it to be confidential.

After the adoption of fish farming, there was an increase in the number of respondents who had 3 meals a day. The added income from fish farming contributed to this increase.

A variety of protein sources were utilized by the respondents before and after adoption of fish farming. After adoption of fish farming, there was a decline in beef consumption but all other protein sources recorded an increase in consumption, with fish having the highest increase. Beef prices, particularly prime beef, are generally higher than all other protein sources. These results show that the adoption of fish farming boosted fish consumption at the household level.

The respondents also had several starch sources before and after adoption of fish farming. Maize is the most preferred staple starch source among many families in Zimbabwe, and the drought-tolerant small grains such as millet and sorghum are consumed by fewer households. Rice is not usually consumed extensively as it is more expensive than both maize and the small grains. The slight increase in sorghum intake was due to health considerations among some of the respondents.

The adoption of fish farming resulted in a decrease in maize consumption and an increase in rice consumption. The respondents reported that they were able to increase their rice intake because of the increased income and locally available protein, particularly fish.

There was a variety of vegetables in the respondents’ diet (Table 6). While the consumption of Ethiopian mustard and Rapeseed decreased after adoption of fish farming, there was an increase in consumption of Brown Mustard, Carrots, Spinach, Cabbage, Pumpkin leaves and Okra. This increased consumption was due to the fact that after the adoption of fish farming, the respondents were now engaged in horticulture and hence they were now able to get these vegetables from their own gardens without having to buy them from the market.

Table 6 Vegetable type found in the respondents’ diets Note: Brassica juncea is also commonly known as commonly known as Chinese mustard, Indian mustard, or leaf mustard; Brassica carinata is also commonly known as Ethiopian rape, or Abyssinian mustard

After adoption of fish farming the standard of living of the respondents was reported to have improved. The major reasons given for the improved standard of living were increased income and access to home-grown vegetables (Table 7).

Table 7 Reasons for reported improved standard of living

There was a change in household food sufficiency after the adoption of fish farming. Prior to the fish farming project, 85% of the respondents were not food-sufficient. After adoption of fish farming, only 5% of the respondents were still not food sufficient, while 95% were now food sufficient. From these results, the adoption of fish farming contributed to increased food sufficiency among the respondents. Other studies have also shown that smallholder fish farming is important in improving food security (Prein and Ahmed, 2000; Ahmed and Lorica, 2002; Haque and Dey, 2017).

The proceeds from fish farming were used to start an apiculture (bee-keeping) project. The group was also able to start a piggery project using the revenue generated from fish farming. However, a major limitation of the piggery project was that the pigs were free-ranging. It is recommended that the farmers seek technical assistance in setting up a proper piggery project so that they can boost their economic returns from pig production.

3 Conclusions

Smallholder pond aquaculture can have several benefits for rural households. These benefits include, increased income, increased capacity to diversify household livelihood strategies (through the introduction of income-generating projects such as apiculture and pig production), increased food security and increased access to cheaper animal protein (fish).

Major constraints to increased production are the high costs of fish feed. Therefore, options for cheaper feed sources using locally available inputs should be explored by relevant stakeholders. After introduction of fish farming, relevant stakeholders should continue to provide technical support over several years in order to strengthen fish farmers’ expertise so as to ensure high levels of production.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the members of the Kushinga Fish farming Group who agreed to participate in this study as well as gave written consent for the publication of these results. We would also like to thank the Renco Mine Superintendent for the support during the study. The background information on the project that was provided by Mr. G. Tongowona of Aquaculture Zimbabwe is also gratefully acknowledged.

Author Contributions

Hawa Mangeni conducted the field work, assisted in revision of the Questionnaire and drafting and revision of the manuscript. Wilson Mhlanga was responsible for conception of the project and design of the project, assisted in the data analysis and interpretation as well as the write-up and revision of the manuscript.

References

Ahmed M., and Lorica M.H., 2002. Improving developing country food security through aquaculture development—lessons from Asia, Food Policy, 27(2): 125-141

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(02)00007-6

Beveridge M.C.M., Phillips M., Dugan P., Brummet R., and Center W., 2010, Barriers to aquaculture development as a pathway to poverty alleviation and food security, In Advancing the Aquaculture Agenda: Workshop Proceedings, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, pp.345-359

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264088726-23-en

Beveridge M.C.M., Thilsted S.H., Phillips M.J., Metian M., Troell M., and Hall S.J., 2013, Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: the role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from the rise of aquaculture, Journal of Fish Biology, 83(4): 1067-1084

https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12187
PMid:24090563 PMCid:PMC4283757

Dalsgaard J.P.T., and Oficial R.T., 1997, A quantitative approach for assessing the productive performance and ecological contributions of smallholder farms, Agricultural Systems, 55(4): 503-533

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00022-X

de Graaf G., and Garibaldi L., 2014, The value of African fisheries, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1093. Rome, FAO. 76 p

Ellis F., 1998, Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification, The Journal of Development Studies, 35(1): 1-38

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389808422553

Ellis F., 1999, Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: evidence and policy implications. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Natural resources perspectives number 40. 10 p

EMA, 2016, Environmental Management Agency. Available online at http://www.ema.co.zw/

FAO, 2014. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome. 223 p

FAO, 2016, Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles. Zimbabwe 2016, Country Profile Fact Sheets, In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Available online at http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/ZWE/en

Haque A.M., and Dey M.M., 2017, Impacts of community-based fish culture in seasonal floodplains on income, food security and employment in Bangladesh, Food Security, 9(1): 25-38

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0629-z

Jacobi N., 2013, Examining the potential of fish farming to improve the livelihoods of farmers in the Lake Victoria Region, Kenya. Masters’ Thesis. University of Akureyri, Iceland.

Machena C., and Moehl J., 2001, Sub-Saharan African aquaculture: regional summary, In Subasinghe R.P., Bueno P., Phillips M.J., Hough C., McGladdery S.E., and Arthur J.R., eds, Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February 2000, pp.341-355.

Mainza R.M., and Musuka C.G., 2015, Extent of small scale fish farming in three districts of Lusaka Province, International Journal of Aquaculture, 5(42): 1-12

Mapfumo B., 2015, Tilapia markets in sub-saharan Africa, Infofish 4^th International Trade and Technical Conference and Exposition on Tilapia, Kuala Lumpur, April 2015.

Neves D., and Du Toit A., 2013, Rural livelihoods in south africa: complexity, vulnerability and differentiation, Journal of Agrarian Change, 13(1): 93-115

https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12009

Prein M., and Ahmed M., 2000, Integration of aquaculture into smallholder farming systems for improved food security and household nutrition, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 21(4): 466-471

https://doi.org/10.1177/156482650002100424

Phong L.T., Udo H.M., van Mensvoort M.E., Bosma R.H., Tri L.Q., Nhan D.K., and van der Zijpp A.J., 2007, Integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam: an analysis of recent trends, Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 4(2): 51-66

RMCA, 2015, Fisheries and Aquaculture in Africa, Royal Museum for Central Africa, Fishbase and Fish Taxonomy Training Session

SADC, 2016, SADC Regional Aquaculture Strategy and Action Plan, 42 p.

SRK Zimbabwe, 1995, Environmental Impact Assessment for Renco Mine. Volume 2. Report 181/1

World Farmers Organisation, 2013, Sub-Saharan Africa: Scaling up smallholder aquaculture for food security