Cost-benefit analysis Report

on
Rice Fish Integration Farm Practice

Prepared by: EMERTA Project Rice Sector Team with Collaboration of Regional Livestock Office

BAHIR DAR, ETHIOPIA

FEBRUARY 2023
 1. Background
In the past years, MEDA/EMERTA rice sector has been testing and scaling up different
innovative and improved practices to contribute to women and men by increasing their income
level. Therefore, in 2022, MEDA/EMERTAproject implemented the practice of rice-fish
integration farm with the collaboration of the Livestock Agency and its subordinates at the
kebele level. Thus, as a pilot program, the project started this innovative practice at 3 model
farmers’ farmlands at Fogera woreda Quhar Michael Kebele.
Training on the rice & fish integration practice has provided for selected farmers with respective
DAs. And, after the practice implemented at selected farmers’ farmland, the project has
conducted an experience-sharing event to scale up these farming practices. The experience
sharing participants were pulled from the regional livestock bureau, regional agriculture bureau,
South Gondar and respective woredas’ responsible stakeholders, and potential model farmers
from 3 project intervention woredas.

I.1. Objective of the study

To know the Cost benefit of the rice fish integration farm practice and to use the practice
learnings and findings for further scale-up.

I.2. Methodology of the study

The project conducted a cost-benefit analysis between the control site (farmland without fish)
and the pilot site (farmland with fish). Thus, the rice sector developed a standard questionnaire
and a data entry form, then the three farmers are interviewed, data collected and analyzed using
excel worksheet.

I.3. Assumptions Applied

 Labor cost for excavating the fishpond is not considered, since it is a one-time cost, not
appearing again in every season.
 All costs incurred other than excavation cost is considered in the study for check and pilot
plots.
 All costs and revenues are interpreted in terms of ETB (Ethiopian Birr).

Page 1 of 12
 All prices are considered on the current market price situation (Table fish, Fingerling, paddy
rice, straw, labor, and others).
I.4. Data Entry Form/Assessment Questionnaire
Rice Fish Integration Farm Practice
1. All about the cost
1.1. Fingerling ____________________
1.1.1. Fingerling in kg _______________________
1.1.2. Cost of fingerling per kg _________________
Total fingerling cost in ETB (1.1.1. *1.1.2.) ________________________
1.2. Fish feeding _____________________
1.2.1. Fish feed in kg _______________________
1.2.2. Cost of fish feed per kg _________________
Total fish feed cost in ETB (1.2.1. *1.2.2.) _______________________
1.3. Weeding Cost
1.3.1. The number of labors which are not being employed ____________________
1.3.2. A labor cost per day ___________________________
Saved cost by not employing labor (1.3.1*1.3.2) __________________
1.4. Artificial fertilizer
1.4.1. Uria _______________________________________
1.4.2. DAP _______________________________________
Total Fertilizer usage Sum (1.4.1*1.4.2) ______________________________
1.5. Other cost scaring birds _____________________________
1.6. Total Cost in ETB _________________________
2. All about the benefits from sales and others
2.1. Revenue from sales of table size fish ______________
2.1.1. Table size fish in kg _____________
2.1.2. Table size fish price per kg _________
Total sales from table size fish in ETB (2.1.1. * 2.1.2) ___________
2.2. Revenue from the sales of fingerling __________

Page 2 of 12
 2.2.1. Fingerling in kg ___________
2.2.2. Fingerling price per kg _______
Total Revenue for Fingerling (2.2.1*2.2.2) _________
2.3. Fingerling at the Pond (Estimation)
2.3.1. Fingerling in kg ___________
2.3.2. Fingerling price per kg _______
Total Revenue for Fingerling (2.3.1*2.3.2) _________
2.4. Fish Consumed at Home
2.4.1. Fingerling in kg ___________
2.4.2. Fingerling price per kg _______
Total Revenue for Fingerling (2.4.1*2.4.2) _________
2.5. Production surpasses (from demonstration plough land)
2.5.1. Surpasses in kg ______________
2.5.2. Current paddy rice per kg __________
Total Surpasses Production price (2.5.1*2.5.2) ___________
2.6. Straw (with expert judgment/professional estimation) __________________
2.7. Total Revenue __________________________
2.8. Revenue Minus Cost ____________
2.9. General Analysis Narration Report
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________.

Thank You!

I.5. Data analysis

Data analysis have been conducted for three farmers individually, and here under analyzed in
tabular form and are summarized at the final.

Page 3 of 12
 Birhanu Abebe - Cost Benefit Analysis in Between Pilot and Check Plots
Pilot Plot Check Plot
Description of Uni Difference
S. Unit
Expenses and Amou t Amoun (Pilot Plot- Remark
N Unit Total Pric Total
CK Plot)
Revenue nt Pric t
e
e
1 Cost                  
Applied Seedling for both
3 30 90 3 30 90
1.1 Rice Seed Kg plots
Numbe 0.4
2000 900 0 0 0 900  
1.2 Fingerling r 5
1.3 Fish Feed Kg 33.33 56 1866.48 0 0 0 1866.48  
1.4 Weeding                
1.4. #Labou 1st weeding demands more
0 0 0 3 270 810 -810
1 First weeding r labor
1.4. #Labou
2 270 540 2 270 540
2 Second weeding r
1.4. #Labou 3rd weeding demands less
0 0 0 1 270 270 -270
3 Third weeding r labor
1.5 Artificial Fertilizer                
1.5. 36.
3.5 128.8 14 36.8 515.2 -386.4  
1 Urea Kg 8
1.5. 36.
3.5 128.8 7 36.8 257.6 -128.8  
2 NPS Kg 8
3,654. 2,482 1,1 The Pilot Plot's Cost is over
  Cost Total          
08 .80 71.28 than the CK's Plot by 1171.28
2 Revenue                  
Sales from Table Size
14 500 7000 0 0 0 7000  
2.1 Fish Kg
150
3 4500 0 0 0 4500  
2.2 Sales from Fingerling Kg 0
2.3 Fingerling at the Pond kg 3 150 4500 0 0 0 4500 Estimated 

Page 4 of 12
 0
Fish Consumed at
2 500 1000 0 0 0 1000  
2.4 Home Kg
80KG Surpass Production
380 30 11400 300 30 9000 2400 Gained at Pilot Farm Than Ck
2.5 Produced Paddy Rice Kg Plot
40KG Surpass Straw Gained at
190 6 1140 150 6 900 240
2.6 Straw Kg Pilot Plot Than CK plot
The Pilot Plot's Revenue is
29,540. 9,900 19,6
  Revenue Total           over than the CK's Plot by
00 .00 40.00 19,640.00
Profit (Revenue - 25,885. 18,46 The Pilot Plot's profit exceeds
7,417.
           
Cost) 92 8.72 the Check Plot's by 18,468.72
20
Erke Gobeze - Cost Benefit Analysis in Between Pilot and Check Plots
Pilot Plot Check Plot
Description of Difference
S. Unit Unit
Expenses and Amou Amoun (Pilot Plot- Remark
N Unit Pric Total Pric Total
CK Plot)
Revenue nt t
e e
1 Cost                  
1.1 Rice Seed Kg 6.5 30 195 6.5 30 195 Applied Seed Broadcasting
Numb
2000 0.45 900 0 0 0 900  
1.2 Fingerling er
1.3 Fish Feeding Kg 33.33 56 1866.48 0 0 0 1866.48  
1.4 Weeding Labor                
1.4. #Labo 1st weeding & Seed
3 270 810 4 270 1080 -270
1 First weeding ur Broadcasting
1.4. #Labo 2nd weeding & Seed
0 0 0 3 270 810 -810
2 Second weeding ur Broadcasting
1.4. #Labo 3rd weeding & Seed
0 0 0 2 270 540 -540
3 Third weeding ur Broadcasting
1.5 Artificial Fertilizer                
1.5.
3.5 36.8 128.8 14 36.8 515.2 -386.4  
1 Urea Kg

Page 5 of 12
 1.5.
3.5 36.8 128.8 7 36.8 257.6 -128.8  
2 NPS Kg
4,029. 3,397 6 The Pilot Plot's Cost is over
  Cost Total          
08 .80 31.28 than the CK's Plot by 631.28
2 Revenue                  
Sales from Table Size
14 500 7000 0 0 0 7000  
2.1 Fish Kg
150
3 4500 0 0 0 4500  
2.2 Sales from Fingerling Kg 0
150
3 4500 0 0 0 4500 Estimated 
2.3 Fingerling at the Pond kg 0
Fish Consumed at
2 500 1000 0 0 0 1000  
2.4 Home Kg
48KG Surpass Production
336 30 10080 288 30 8640 1440
2.5 Produced Paddy Rice Kg Gained at Pilot Than Ck Plot
24KG Surpass Straw Gained at
168 6 1008 144 6 864 144
2.6 Straw Kg Pilot Plot Than CK plot
The Pilot’s Revenue is over
28,088. 9,504 18,5
  Revenue Total           than the CK's Plot by
00 .00 84.00 18,584.00
24,058. 17,95 The Pilot's profit exceeds the
6,106.
  Profit (Revenue - Cost)          
92 2.72 Check Plot's by 17,952.72
20
Mogninet Gobeze - Cost Benefit Analysis in Between Pilot and Check Plots
Pilot Plot Check Plot
Description of Uni Uni Difference
S.
Expenses and Amou t Amou t (Pilot Plot- Remark
N Unit Total Total
CK Plot)
Revenue nt Pric nt Pric
e e
1 Cost                  
1.1 Rice Seed Kg 6.5 30 195 6.5 30 195 Applied Seed Broadcasting
Numb 0.4
2000 900 0 0 0 900  
1.2 Fingerling er 5

Page 6 of 12
1.3 Fish Feeding Kg 33.33 56 1866.48 0 0 0 1866.48  
1.4 Weeding Labor                
1.4. #Labo 1st weeding & Seed
3 270 810 4 270 1080 -270
1 First weeding ur Broadcasting
1.4. #Labo 2nd weeding & Seed
0 0 0 3 270 810 -810
2 Second weeding ur Broadcasting
1.4. #Labo 3rd weeding & Seed
0 0 0 2 270 540 -540
3 Third weeding ur Broadcasting
1.5 Artificial Fertilizer                
1.5. 36. 36.
3.5 128.8 14 515.2 -386.4  
1 Urea Kg 8 8
1.5. 36. 36.
3.5 128.8 7 257.6 -128.8  
2 NPS Kg 8 8
4,029. 3,397. 631. The Pilot Plot's Cost is over
  Cost Total          
08 80 28 than the CK's Plot by 631.28
2 Revenue                  
Sales from Table Size
12 500 6000 0 0 0 6000  
2.1 Fish Kg
150
3 4500 0 0 0 4500  
2.2 Sales from Fingerling Kg 0
150
3 4500 0 0 0 4500 Estimated 
2.3 Fingerling at the Pond kg 0
Fish Consumed at
2 500 1000 0 0 0 1000  
2.4 Home Kg
The Pilot Plot was sited at the
2.5 Produced Paddy Rice Kg 336 30 10080 336 30 10080 0 wrong direction which is
above of the CK plot.
No difference occurred at
2.6 Straw Kg 168 6 1008 168 6 1008 0
straw side also.
27,088. 11,088. 16,000. The Pilot's Revenue is over than
  Revenue Total           the CK's Plot by 16,000.00
00 00 00
23,058. 7,690. 15,368. The Pilot's profit exceeds the
  Profit (Revenue - Cost)          
92 20 72 Check Plot's by 15,368.72

Page 7 of 12
Page 8 of 12
 Summary of Analysis and Ranking
S. Pilot Plot CK Plot Benefit
Name Rank Basic Factors
N Benefit Benefit Difference

1 Birhan Abebe 25,885.92 7,417.20 18,468.72 1st Seedling Applied

2 Erke Gobeze 24,058.92 6,106.20 17,952.72 2nd Not seedling but seed broadcasting

The CK and the Pilot plots interchangeably

3 Mogninet Gobeze 23,058.92 7,690.20 15,368.72 3rd
misplaced, Seed broadcasting

As we see in the summary analysis in the above table, Birhan Abebe ranked first, Erke Gobeze
ranked second and Mogninet Gobeze ranked third according to their profitability. The analysis
would tell us, some factors affect the farmers' profitability positively and negatively. Those
potential factors are listed below.

I.6. Result and Discussion

 Applying the seedling sowing method is better than broadcasting practice and is a
cause for a product increment. Birhan had 80kg more surpass production, 32 kg
than Erke Gobeze, and 44 kg than Mogninet Gobeze.
 Layout the pilot plot upper catchment of the check plot is found to be not
technical. Since the water flows down, the fertilizers (within the water) due to the
existence of Fish in the pilot plot will flow down to the check plot, and the check
plot will have an opportunity to share the advantages of the pilot plot which is
difficult to know the perfect difference between the two practices. This practice
negatively influenced Mogninte.
 Applying the broadcasting sowing method is found a cause for decreasing the
productivity and profitability of farmers when we compare it to seedling practice
(See the positive factors, to know the benefit of seedlings). So, this practice
affected Erke and Mogninet negatively.

I.7. Finding and Recommendation

Page 9 of 12
 1.7.1. Findings
 The farmers have the experience to prepare fish feed by themselves and could save
money for the fish feed. They will be advantageous for the next time.
 Farmers have got additional income from the integration of farm practices.
 The farmers’ households have benefited from consuming the fish, due to its high
nutritional value content.
 The residual moisture which will be remained after rice harvesting benefits the next crop
or rotational crop.

1.7.2. Recommendation
 Sustainable water supply: The Farmers who implemented the integration farming
practice could not produce the fish throughout the year due to the continuous water
supply shortage. The practice remained limited for only one season. But, if they had
access to water, they might be benefiting from fish sales and corresponding benefits
more than they experienced now. Furthermore, they might save time and labor by not
excavating the fishpond again.
 Protective Materials for Predator birds: The farmers had not effective protective
materials for fish from the birds, and due to that, they invested their time day and night to
protect the fish from the birds. Some protective materials are net, mesh wire fence and
the likes. If they had protective materials, they would not be wasting their time.
 Applying the seedling method: This sowing method is best and be a reason in increment
of the production and uses to maximize the profit.
 The Layout of plots: it is recommended that the check plot should be upper catchment
of the pilot plot always.

To sum up, this practice is found more profitable in terms of holistic benefits, which will be the
additional income source for producers. The farmer could double their income by practicing this
integration farm practices than customary mono farming practices. Also, the farmers can get
nutritional benefits by using fish for meal purposes, in addition to sales outside. The residual
water in the farmland could benefit the other rotational crops. The productivity of the crop could
increase. And, generally, their life lifestyle positively influenced.

I.8. Annex
Page 10 of 12
1.8.1. Data Entry Form (Original)

1.8.2. Data Analysis Worksheet

Thanks!

The End

Page 11 of 12