ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION IN EDO STATE

ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION IN EDO STATE ABSTRACT Okonji, V. A. and Osayi, S. E. Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Benin, Benin City. Email: okovica@yahoo.com or vicokonji@uinben.edu, GSM: 08056072837 The current status of aquaculture production in Edo state was investigated collected using well-constructed questionnaire. The data was collected from 50% of registered fish farmers in the purposively selected eight Local government areas from the three agro ecological zones of Edo state, namely (Egor, Ikpobaokha,Oredo) for Edo south, (Etsako central, Etsako west, Owan east) for Edo North, (Esan South East, Esan North East) for Edo Central selection was based on the prevalence of fish farm in the area. A total of eight local government areas and eighty eight (88) fish farms were used for the study. It was discovered that clariid catfishes and tilapia were the only fish species cultured ( 90% and 9.1% respectively). The average quantity of fish produced in the study area per annum were 337,000kg and 19,000kg per annum for clariid catfish and tilapia respectively. Monoculture, semi-intensive aquaculture and stocking density of 5-10 fish per m 2 was adopted by majority of the farmers. The result showed that family type and years of farming experience significantly affected quantity of fish produced (P= 0.001 and 0.003) respectively. The result also indicated that production tends to increase with years of experience, availability of labour, and educational qualification. The sector in Edo state is still in small scale and currently faced with the problem of high cost of feed, inadequate funds and poor power supply limiting intensive culture system INTRODUCTION The growth of a country s population is usually accompanied by increase in the demand for human basic necessities of life such as food, water, and shelter as it is the case with the unrestricted increase in the demand for protein rich food items especially of animal origin (Ugwumba and Chukwuji, 2010). Never before have people consumed so much fish or depended so greatly on the sector for their well-being because it is cheaper than other protein sources (FAO, 2014). In 2012, aquaculture recorded all-time production high and now provides almost half of all fish for human food. If responsibly developed and practiced, aquaculture can generate lasting benefits for global food security and economic growth (FAO, 2014). In Nigeria, the current demand for fish is about four times the level of local production. Aquaculture, an aspect of fisheries is an integral part of agriculture which was found to have the capacity to increase the country s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and can solve the unemployment problem for our teeming youths if adequately managed (Emmanuel et al., 2014). The farming of fish is the most common form of aquaculture. It involves raising fish commercially in tanks, ponds, or ocean enclosures, usually for food. In Nigeria, the most important fish species used in fish farming are Tilapia, clariid catfishes and carp. Aquaculture in the country was undergoing a slow process of development occasioned by the dearth of qualified personnel and poor awareness. However with the upsurge of population in the country which inadvertently led to increase in protein demand, the need for aquaculture development becomes obvious as it is seen as a veritable option that can complement the protein requirements of the teeming populace. For proper development, progress, and good aquaculture management, aquaculture data must be collected. It is essential for the management that the most appropriate and accurate information for management of the fishery is continuously collected and processed. In aquaculture, reliable and accurate information is crucial because only well informed decision makers can make good decisions. This will ensure proper planning, high production rate and consequently bridge the wide gap between fish demand and supply in the country. The aim of this study was to evaluate the aquaculture production in Edo State, and the specific objectives of the study were to determine the socio economic characteristics of fish farmers, identify the species and quantity of fish produced, determine fish culture system and scale of fish culture, and identify limitations of aquaculture production in Edo State. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted in Edo state. The state was divided into three senatorial zones (Edo central, Edo north, Edo south) and eighteen local government areas. It has diverse vegetation ranging from mangrove forest through the lowland rainforest and savannah zones in the north (Adeosun et al., 2009). The area is suitable for aquaculture due to the abundant natural resources. The target population for this study consisted of registered fish farms in selected agro-ecological zone of Edo state. The registered fish farms consisted of those farmers registered with the Department of Fisheries of the Edo state Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. A multi-stage sampling technique was used for this study. The first stage involved stratifying the state into the three recognized agro ecological zones vis (i) Edo south, (ii) Edo central and (iii) Edo north based on Agricultural Development NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 2, 2016 37

Programme (ADP) delineation. The second stage involved a purposive selection (based on the high prevalence of fish farms in the area) of 50% of the Local Government Area (LGA) in each zone for the study. Stage 3: At the third stage 50% of the registered fish farms in each LGA selected as provided by the ministry of Agriculture and Natural resources were selected. Selection was based on purposive sampling of functional and existing farms. A total of 88 randomly sampled respondents were selected for the study. Data was collected through administration of well-structured questionnaire to the fish farmers. The following data were collected: age distribution of farmers, sex distribution of farmers, farmers experience, and species of fish cultured, size/number of ponds, quantity of species produced/cultured, limitations encountered by farmers, type of feed and feeding method employed. The data collected was analyzed using SPSS version 15. Descriptive statistics such as means, percentages and charts were used to illustrate trends. Also t- test was used to compare production among LGA. Regression analysis was used to test the relationship between socio-economic characteristics against fish yield or production. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Age distribution of respondents The result on age distribution (Table 1) showed that 65.9% of fish farmers in the study area are 45years and below. This implied that fish farming is practiced by the young people in their very active and youthful age with the energy, zeal and ability to work. Egbufor et al. (2012) reported that the average age of 33years involve in fish farmer suggests young able bodied men who are largely and actively involved in fish farming. The chi square (χ 2 ) value indicated that there was no significant difference in the occurrence of the age distribution of respondents (χ 2 = 0.104) and the pattern of distribution is uniform in all the local government area. Education of respondents The results in Table 2 indicated that 80.7 % of fish farmers had tertiary education, 9.1% are secondary school holders, 2.3% primary school holders while 8.0% had no formal education and they are basically from Esan south east (63.6%). This implied that aquaculture is mainly practiced by educated people. This result is similar to the findings of Ifejika et al., 2013 who reported that 82.8% of farmers were found to be graduates of various degrees. The chi square value showed that there was no significant difference in the educational status of respondents in the local government area (χ 2 = 0.58) thus the distribution is similar in the study area. Table 1: Age distribution of respondents Age(yrs) Egor Oredo IKP ESE ENE OWE ETC ETW X χ 2 18-25yrs 0% 7.4% 3.8% 0% 0% 0% 25,0% 0% 4.5% 26-35yrs 50.0% 44.4% 34.6% 9.1% 0% 0% 0% 50.0% 34.1% 0.104 36-45yrs 28.6% 14.8% 30.8% 54.5% 0% 33.3% 25.0% 0% 27.3% 46-55yrs 7.1% 11.1% 7.7% 27.3% 0% 0% 50% 0% 12,5% >55yrs 14.3% 22.2% 23.1% 9.1% 100% 66.7% 0% 50% 21.6% Table 2.Educational status of respondents Edu status Egor Oredo IKP ESE ENE OWE ETC ETW X χ 2 No formal education 0% 0% 0% 63.6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8.0% Pry sch 0% 3.7% 0% 9.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.3% 0.58 Sec sch 14.3% 0% 7.7% 27.3% 0% 33.3% 0% 0% 9.1% Tertiary 85.7% 96.3% 92.3% 0% 100% 66.7% 100% 100% 80.7% Management practices in the study area (species of fish cultured) The result on fish species cultured (Table 3) showed that clariid catfish are mainly cultured by farmers (90.9%) while the culture of both clariid catfish and tilapia recorded a grand mean of 9.1% This may be attributed to the desirable qualities of clariid catfishes for culture which includes, hardiness, acceptability, resistance to pest and disease, high acceptance by consumers, higher sales price, high growth and survival. This agrees with Emmanuel et al. (2014) and Atanda, (2007) who stated that in terms of importance and acceptability Clariid catfish (80%), and tilapia (14%), are top most on the list. The chi square value showed no difference (i.e. the response is similar in the study area) Thus the major fish species under culture is the Clariid cat fish. Intensity of culture The result on intensity of fish culture (Table 4) indicated that 81.8% of fish farmers practice semi-intensive aquaculture, 10.2% practiced extensive aquaculture, and 8.0% practiced intensive aquaculture. The dominant use of semi-intensive aquaculture maybe due to the relatively moderate inputs required and it is economical. This result disagrees with Ideba et al. (2013) who stated that 100% of farmers in the study area practiced intensive NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 2, 2016 38

system because the major motive is to make profit. The chi square value shows that the results obtain are a representation of the whole study area. Table 3: Cultured fish species in study area Species cultured Egor Oredo IKP ESE ENE OWE ETC ETW X χ 2 Clariid cat fish 100% 92.6% 100% 54.4% 100% 100% 75.0% 100% 90.9% 0.087 Clariid cat fish and tilapia 0% 7.4% 0% 45.5% 0% 0% 25.0% 0% 9.1% LGS: IKP = Ikopba okha, ESE = Esan South East, ENE = Esan North East, OWE= Owan East, ETC = Etsako Central, ETW = Etsako West. Table 4: Level of involvement in study area Level of involvement Egor Oredo IKP ESE ENE OWE ETC ETW X χ 2 Intensive 0% 11.1% 11.5% 0% 0% 0% 25.0% 0% 8.0% Semi-intensive 100% 88.9% 84.6% 36.4% 100% 66.7% 75.0% 100% 81.8% 0.166 Extensive 0% 0% 3.8% 63.6% 0% 33.3% 0% 0% 10.2% Number of facilities owned The result (Table5) showed that 63.6% of fish farmers have 1-5 culture facility, 21.6% has between 6-10 culture facility, 6.8% has between 11-15 culture facility and 8.0% has >15% culture facility. This result showed that aquaculture production in the study area is dominated by farmers with few production facilities. This may account for the low production rate because of the small scale practice. This is similar to the findings of Adeogun et al. 2007 who reported that 55.4% of fish farmers had between 1-10 production facilities. It also agrees with Aphunu and Nwabeze, 2012 who reported that 73.8% had culture facility of between1and 5. Thus aquaculture production in the study area is characterized by low production inputs. Concrete tank was the most predominantly used culture facility in the study area with the grand mean of 52.3%, plastic tank was 2.3%, tarpaulin, 9.1%, combination of earthen and concrete tanks 2.3%, concrete and plastic tank 15.9%, concrete and tarpaulin 3.4%, Others 1.1%. The prevalence of concrete tanks in the study area may be due to the non-availability of suitable soil type with sufficient clay particles for pond construction with poor water retention capacity of the available soil in the study area. This is similar to the findings of Adeogun et al. 2007 who reported that the use of concrete tanks was the most widely adopted (62.5%) due to its durability, ease of management and pollution control. The chi square value shows that the results reported in this study is a representation of the whole study area. Thus the distribution pattern of culture facilities is similar in the study area. Table 5: Number of production facilities owned Number of culture Egor Oredo IKP ESE ENE OWE ETC ETW X χ 2 facilities owned 1-5 50.0% 59.3% 65.4% 81.8% 100% 100% 50.0% 50.0% 63.6% 6-10 35.7% 22.2% 26.9% 9.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 21.6% 0.525 11-15 7.1% 11.1% 7.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.8% > 15 7.1% 7.4% 0% 9.1% 0% 0% 50.0% 50.0% 8.0 % Quantity of fish produced The result (Fig. 1) showed that the average quantity of tilapia produced in the study area per annum is 19,000 kg per farmer while clariid catfish was 337,000 kg per farmer. The dominance of clariid catfish could be because of the acceptability of catfish in the study area as the dominant culture species, low number and size of culture facility and the stocking density (semi intensive). Thus the moderate quantity of fish produced/space may be as a result of the small number of production facilities, small size of production facility and low capital out lay all associated with small scale fish culture. Cost of feed The result in (Table 6) showed that majority of the farmers in the study area (56.6%) spend an average of N4501- N5000 per bag of feed. Compared to the locally/farm made feed. This appears to be very expensive with over 40% more costly than local feed. This often results in high cost of production and low returns. General limitations of the fish farmers in study area The result (Table 7) showed that important limitations were lack of capital, high cost of fish feed, and poor power supply. The non-important limitations were poor quality fish seed, fish disease and control, lack of production record/data, poor marketing of aquaculture products while inadequate information is a moderate limitation. This agrees with Chukwuji 2013 who reported lack of finance, high cost of inputs as the most severe limitations. NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 2, 2016 39

Problem of finance was compounded by high cost of input particularly feed. The result agreed with Ideba et al. 2013 who reported that major constraints include cost of input and finance. Table 6: Cost of feed per bag (Naira N) Cost of feed Egor Oredo IKP ESE ENE OWE ETC ETW X N 4000-4500 14.3% 14.8% 0% 50% 0% 100% 25.0% 0% 15.7% N 4501-5000 50.0% 63.0% 61.5% 50% 100% 0% 50% 50% 56.6% N 5501-5500 28.6% 14.8% 38.5% 0% 0% 0% 25.0% 50% 24.1% N 5501-6000 0% 3.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.2% >N 6000 7.1% 3.7% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 2.4% Table 7: Limitations encountered by the farmers LIMITATIONS Total responds Mean Remark Lack of capital 153 1.7 IL Poor quality fish seed 222 2.5 NIL High cost of fish feed 147 1.7 IL Fish disease and control 197 2.2 NIL Inadequate information 179 2.0 Moderate Lack of production record/data 216 2.5 NIL Poor marketing of aquaculture products 244 2.7 NIL Others (Power) 58 1.3 IL Cut off Mean = 2; < 2 = Important limitation (IL); >2= Not Important Limitation (NIL) Relationship between Fish Production and socio-economic characteristics of farmers in the study area The result in Table 8 showed that family type, and years of farming experience significantly affect fish production. The result showed that production is positively correlated with family type, family size, source of labour and educational qualification, years of farming experience i.e. production tends to increase with years of farming experience, availability of labour and educational qualification. Thus important socio-economic characteristics that influences quantity of fish produced were educational status, marital status, family type, family size, and source of labour, years of farming experience. Production may be increased with improvement in these areas. Table 8: Statistical test on relationship between fish production and socio-economic characteristics Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero-order Partial Part (Constant) -2.277 1.426-1.597.115 Gender -.072.394 -.019 -.184.855 -.030 -.022 -.018 Age -.189.144 -.166-1.316.192 -.039 -.153 -.132 Educational status.443.260.189 1.703.093.115.197.170 Marital status.414.234.219 1.766.082.142.204.177 Family type 1.309.382.374 3.424.001.286.374.343 Family size.176.280.075.628.532 -.014.074.063 Source of labour.188.299.071.627.532.200.074.063 Years of farming experience.700.231.317 3.030.003.275.336.303 Level of involvement -.187.294 -.066 -.637.526 -.089 -.075 -.064 Sources of capital -.260.218 -.128-1.192.237 -.051 -.139 -.119 a. Dependent Variable= Quantity of Clarias pond Stocked per CONCLUSION The status of aquaculture in Edo state was investigated. The result of the study showed that aquaculture in Edo state is currently in small scale utilizing few production facilities and funds. It is also currently generating low yields of fish due to its small scale nature practiced as semi-intensive culture system centered on monoculture of mainly Clariid catfish using commercial imported feed. It is a mainly dominated with people with tertiary degree NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 2, 2016 40

at their youthful age due to the tedious nature. The sector in Edo state is currently associated with the problem of high cost of feed, in adequate funds and poor power supply limiting the use of intensive culture system. REFERENCES Adeogun, O. A., Ogunbadejo H. K., Ayinla, O. A., Oresegun A., Oguntade, O. R., Tanko and Williams, S. B. 2007. Urban Aquaculture: Producer Perceptions and Practices in Lagos State, Nigeria, Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 2 (1):21-27. Adeosun, F. I., Bemji, M. N., Adekunle, N. O. and Bolarinwa 2009. Edo State Diagnostic Survey Report In: Report of a Diagnostic Survey in Agriculture Conduction in Edo State, Nigeria, 4-13p. Aphunu, A. and Nwabeze, G. O. 2012. Fish Farmers Perception of Climate change impact on fish production in Delta State, Nigeria. Department of Agricultural Extension and Management Delta State Polytechnic, Ozoro. National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries Research, New Bussa, Niger State. Journal of Agricultural Extension 16 (2), December 2012. Atanda, A. N. 2007. Freshwater fish seed resources in Nigeria, pp. 361-380. In: Bondad-Reantaso, M. G. (ed.). Assessment of freshwater fish seed resources for sustainable aquaculture.fao Fisheries Technical Paper.No. 501. Rome, FAO. 628p. Chukwuji, C. O. 2013. Aquaculture, a Component of the Farming Systems among the Fishing Communities in Oil Producing Areas of Delta, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 3(6): 371-377 Egbufor, H. E., Onemolease, E. A. and Erie, A. P. 2012. Capacity development needs and constraints of fish farmers in Edo south agricultural development zone of Edo state, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. 8(4):1 6. Emmanuel, O., Anyadike, C., Forolunsho, G., Okechuckwu, R. and Kolawole, P. 2014. Review of aquaculture production and management in Nigeria, Department of Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. FAO. 2014. Inland Fisheries Resources of Nigeria. Corporate Document repository. Produced by Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Ideba, E. E., Out, W. I., Essien, A. A, Iniobong, E. O. and Ekaette, S. U. 2013. Economic Analysis of Fish Farming in Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Calabar, Calabar. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3(7):542-549. Ifejika, P. I., Uzokwe, U. N. and Oladosu, O. I. 2013. Training Needs of Table Size Fish Farmers Operating in Niger State, Nigeria.National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries Research, Extension and Commercialization Programme, New-Bussa, Niger State, Nigeria. Ugwumba, C. O. A. and Chukwuji, C. O. 2010. The Economics of Catfish Production in Anambra State, Nigeria: A Profit Function Approach. Journal of Agriculture and Social.Science.,6: 105-109 NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 2, 2016 41