1. 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

2. 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………………………..

3. i
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.

4. ii
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.

5. iii
CONTENTS
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLELEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................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 Nigerianfisheries...................................... 13
2.3.2 Aquaculture as an alternative for increased fish production........................... 14
2.3.3 Fishfarming inNigeria................................................................................. 17
2.3.4 Potentials of aquaculture inNigeria.............................................................. 20
2.4 Constraints of Aquaculture in Nigeria................................................................... 21
2.4.1 Lack of fish fingerlings.................................................................................. 22
2.4.2 Access tofish feed....................................................................................... 22
2.4.3 High Cost of input and Lack of creditfacility.................................................. 23
2.4.4 Poor access toland...................................................................................... 23
2.4.5 Poor extension service................................................................................. 23
2.5 Improvementin Nigeria’s aquaculture sector....................................................... 24
2.6 Aquaculture transformation agenda in Nigeria ..................................................... 25
2.7 Strategy ............................................................................................................. 27
3.0 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 28
3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 28

6. iv
3.2 Research approach ............................................................................................. 28
3.3 Selection of participants...................................................................................... 29
3.3.1 Fishfarmers ................................................................................................ 29
3.3.2 Fish sellers.................................................................................................. 31
3.3.3 Fish consumers........................................................................................... 33
3.4 Instrumentation.................................................................................................. 35
3.4.1 Structure of questionsfor fish farmers.......................................................... 36
3.4.2 Structure of questionsfor fish sellers............................................................ 36
3.4.3 Structure of questionsfor fish consumers..................................................... 37
3.5 Data Collection................................................................................................... 37
3.6 Data Analysis...................................................................................................... 37
4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 39
4.1. BACKGROUND OF FISH FARMERS ............................................................................. 39
4.1.1. Gender distribution of fish farmersin Nigeria ..................................................... 39
4.1.2. Educational background of fishfarmers in Nigeria............................................... 40
4.1.3. Professional experience of fish farmersin Nigeria............................................... 41
4.1.4. Skill acquisition of fishfarmers in Nigeria............................................................ 43
4.2. Capital andinfrastructures available to fish farmersin Nigeria................................... 44
4.2.1. Land ownership ................................................................................................ 44
4.2.2. Ponds and water supply..................................................................................... 45
4.2.3. The effect of fish feed on the growth of fish........................................................ 47
4.3. Constraints faced by fish farmersin Nigeria .............................................................. 50
4.4. FISH CONSUMERS.................................................................................................... 51
4.5. FISH RETAILERS ....................................................................................................... 54
5.0 Discussion.............................................................................................................. 57
5.1 Production ......................................................................................................... 57
5.1.1 Gender inequality........................................................................................ 57
5.1.2 Education.................................................................................................... 57
5.1.3 Experience/skill acquisition.......................................................................... 58
5.1.4 Land ........................................................................................................... 58
5.1.5 Pond and Water supply................................................................................ 58
5.1.6 Fishfeeding................................................................................................. 59
5.1.7 Constraintsin fish farming............................................................................ 60
5.2 Marketing.......................................................................................................... 60

7. v
5.3 Consumption...................................................................................................... 61
5.4 Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) Analysis.............................. 62
5.4.1 Strength...................................................................................................... 62
5.4.2 Weakness................................................................................................... 63
5.4.3 Opportunity ................................................................................................ 63
5.5 Possible Solutions............................................................................................... 64
5.5.1 Female participation.................................................................................... 64
5.5.2 Land availability........................................................................................... 64
5.5.3 Cost of quality fish feed ............................................................................... 64
5.5.4 High cost of aquaculture input:..................................................................... 65
5.6 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 65
5.7 Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 65
5.8 Future work........................................................................................................ 65
References........................................................................................................................ 67
Appendix 1.............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 2........................................................................................................................ 79
Appendix 3........................................................................................................................ 80
Appendix 4........................................................................................................................ 89

8. vi
LISTOF 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 UK
from 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

9. vii
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

10. viii
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

11. ix
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

12. 1
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 farmingand aquaculturewould be used interchangeably

13. 2
Figure1.1: marine capture excluding anchoveta (source: Mathiesen, 2012)
Figure 1.2: global production of seafood, 1970-2008 (source: FAO cited in Asche,
2010)

14. 3
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,

15. 4
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.

16. 5
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

17. 6
2. Background ofstudy
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.

18. 7
Table 2.1: World fisheries and aquaculture production and utilization
Source: Mathiesen, 2012
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
112
114
116
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Consumption(MillionTonnes)
Year

19. 8
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 Production
Aquaculture 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)

20. 9
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)

21. 10
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 Egypt
Aquaculture 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).

22. 11
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

23. 12
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

24. 13
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

25. 14
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.

26. 15
Table 2.5: Fish production in Nigeria in Metric ton
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Production/Tonnes
Capture 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).

27. 16
Figure 2.4: Artisanal fisheries production fom 1995-2007 (Source: PIND, 2011)
Figure 2.5: Aquaculture production from 1995-2007 (Source: PIND, 2011)

28. 17
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).

29. 18
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).

30. 19
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.

31. 20
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.

32. 21
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.

33. 22
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

34. 23
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

35. 24
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

36. 25
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

37. 26
 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

38. 27
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)

39. 28
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.

40. 29
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
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

41. 30
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.
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

42. 31
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.

43. 32
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

44. 33
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.

45. 34
Table 3.3: Selected geographical location for fish sellers
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

46. 35
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

47. 36
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.

48. 37
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

49. 38
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.

50. 39
4.0 Results
This 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 FARMERS
Fish 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 Percent
Male
30 90.9 90.9
Female 3 9.1 100.0
Total 33 100.0

51. 40
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 Percent
Secondary 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

52. 41
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.

53. 42
Table 4.3: descriptive statistics of the number of years of professional experience
of fish farmers in Nigeria
Years of experience Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent
Less 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

54. 43
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 Percent
School 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
Fig 4.4: PIE CHART SHOWING METHODS OF ACQUIRING
AQUACULTURE SKILLS BY FISH FARMERS IN NIGERIA

55. 44
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
Answers Frequency Percent (%) Valid Percent (%)
Cumulative Percent
(%)
Valid Yes 25 75.8 78.1 78.1
No 7 21.2 21.9 100.0
Total 32 97.0 100.0
Missing 1 3.0
Total 33 100.0

56. 45
TABLE 4.6: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS SHOWING THE SIZES OF LANDS
USED BY FISH FARMERS IN NIGERIA
Land Size Frequency Percent (%) Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Less than 0.5 acre
17 51.5 58.6 58.6
0.5 to 1 acre 8 24.2 27.6 86.2
1.6 to 2 acre 3 9.1 10.3 96.6
Above 2 acre 1 3.0 3.4 100.0
Total 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
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.

57. 46
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
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

58. 47
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)
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.

59. 48
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 15.4
Foreign feed 2 6.1 7.7 23.1
Local and
foreign feed
20 60.6 76.9 100.0
Total 26 78.8 100.0
Missing 7 21.2
Total 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 maturity
Total2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months and above
Twice daily 0 1 2 11 14
Thrice daily 2 1 1 10 14
More than thrice
daily
0 0 1 1 2
Total
2 2 4 22 30

60. 49
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 77.3
700g to 899g 4 12.1 18.2 95.5
900g to 999g 1 3.0 4.5 100.0
Total 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.
Type Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)
Catfish 25 75.8 75.8
Catfish and Tilapia 8 24.2 100.0
Total 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

61. 50
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
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
fingerlings
3 9.1 100.0
Total 33 100.0

62. 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.

63. 52
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
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

64. 53
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.
Type
Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)
Imported fish 11 36.7 36.7
Local fish 19 63.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0
TABLE 4.23: CROSS TABULATION SHOWING CUSTOMERS VIEWS ON
IMPORTED FISH
Questions Strongly
disagree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
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 3.3 23.3 13.3 40.0 20.0

65. 54
more expensive
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.
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

66. 55
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
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
Answer Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)
Yes 11 55.0 55.0
No 9 45.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0

67. 56
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
are bigger in
size
15.8 26.3 52.6 5.3 0

68. 57
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,
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.

69. 58
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.
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

70. 59
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
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

71. 60
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
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

72. 61
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.
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.