FACULTY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF BIO-PHYSICAL AND GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCES

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN FISHERIES AND WATER RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT

FACTORS AFFECTINGAQUACULTURE PRODUCTIONINUGANDA, GULU DISTRICT

BY: OLOYA LAWRENCE KABILA

BU/UG/2016/104

A RESEARCH DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF
SCIENCE IN FISHERIES AND WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OF BUSITEMA
UNIVERSITY

JUNE 2019

1
 DECLARATION
I OLOYA LAWRENCE KABILA do confirm that this dissertation is my original work. And it
has not been submitted to any University or any other institution of higher learning by any other
person for assessment. I therefore take full responsibility for any errors that may arise in this
work as a result of omission or otherwise.

Signature;

……………………………………………….

OLOYA LAWRENCE KABILA

BU/UG/2016/104
Date: ………………………………………………………..

2
 APPROVAL
This serves to certify that the study titled “Factors affecting aquaculture in Uganda Gulu
district” has been done under my supervision and is now ready for submission to the Faculty of
Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences under the Department of Geo-Information, Earth
Observation and Physical Land Resources of Busitema University.

Busitema University Academic supervisor

Signature;

………………………………………………………………..

Ms. KAGOYA ESTHER

Date: ………………………………………………………………..

3
 DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this report to my entire family including my mother; Mrs. Acan
Christine, father;Mr Obwona Jackson, brothers and sisters for their unremitting care and support
physically, emotionally and financially during my research period.

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my gratitude to the Almighty God for enabling me complete this dissertation
successfully.
A special appreciation also goes to my parents, sisters and brothers for the continuous care and
support rendered to me during the research period.
I would like to acknowledge my research supervisor Ms. Kagoya Esther for her unceasing
guidance and encouragement during the study period.
Lastly to all the St. Michael Catholic Community Members, NUSA family, course mates, friends
and all my lecturers for the continuous courage which steered me to conduct my research with a
lot of vigour.
May the Almighty God safeguard, bless and provide all your needs according to his riches in
Glory.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION.............................................................................................................................2
APPROVAL....................................................................................................................................3
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................................4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................5
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................6
LISTS OF ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................9
LISTS OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................10
LISTS OF TABLES......................................................................................................................11
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................12
CHAPTER ONE............................................................................................................................13
1.0 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................13
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT.............................................................................................14
1.3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................15
1.3.1 General objective...........................................................................................................15
1.3.2 Specific objectives.........................................................................................................15
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS..................................................................................................15
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.....................................................................................15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................17
2.1 Aquaculture in Uganda........................................................................................................17
2.2 FISH SPECIES FARMEDAND NATUREOF PONDS USED..........................................18
2.2.1 Fish species farmed.......................................................................................................18
2.2.2 NATUREOF PONDS....................................................................................................19
2.3 GENERAL POND MANAGEMENT.................................................................................20
2.3.1 Pond liming...................................................................................................................20
2.3.2 Pond fertilization...........................................................................................................20
2.3.3 Pond stocking................................................................................................................21
2.3.4 Fish Feeding..................................................................................................................21
2.3.5 Health and predator control...........................................................................................22
2.3.6 Water quality monitoring..............................................................................................23
2.4. POND FISH PRODUCTION.............................................................................................23
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................26
6
 3.1 Study area.............................................................................................................................26
3.2.1 Sample size....................................................................................................................27
3.2.2 Sampling procedure.......................................................................................................27
3.3 Data collection methods and data types...............................................................................27
3.3.1 Data collection methods................................................................................................27
3.4 Data types.............................................................................................................................28
3.5 Research design....................................................................................................................28
3.6Study population...................................................................................................................28
3.7 Data validity and reliability of the data collection tools......................................................28
3.8 Data processing and analysis...............................................................................................28
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS.................................29
4.1. Biographic data of the respondents.....................................................................................29
4.1.1 Gender of the respondents.............................................................................................29
4.1.2 Age of the respondents..................................................................................................30
4.1.3 Education level of the respondents................................................................................30
4.1.4 Marital status of the respondents...................................................................................31
4.1.5 Employment status of the respondents..........................................................................32
4.2 Fish species farmed and fish ponds used.............................................................................32
4.2.1 Fish species farmed.......................................................................................................32
4.2.2 Types of ponds used......................................................................................................33
4.3 Pond management practices carried out and fish productivity............................................34
4.3.1 Comparison between pond liming and fish productivity..............................................34
4.3.2 Pond fertilization...........................................................................................................34
4.4 Fish productivity per pond...................................................................................................35
4.3.3 Water quality monitoring..............................................................................................37
4.3.4 Predator control.............................................................................................................37
4.3.5 Fish feeding and fish output..........................................................................................38
4.3.6 Training on fish farming and fish output.......................................................................38
4.4.1 Relationship between methods of fish farming and fish output........................................39
4.4.2 Record keeping..............................................................................................................39
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................40
5.1 DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS..............................................................40
7
 General information...................................................................................................................40
Fish species and ponds used.......................................................................................................40
Management practices and fish productivity.............................................................................41
Pond liming............................................................................................................................41
Pond fertilization....................................................................................................................42
Water quality monitoring.......................................................................................................42
Predator control methods........................................................................................................42
Fish feeding............................................................................................................................43
Training..................................................................................................................................43
5.2 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................44
5.3 Recommendations................................................................................................................44
5.4 Areas for further research....................................................................................................45
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................................46
APPENDIX 1: THE RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................46
APPENDIX 2: The research budget..........................................................................................49
APPENDIX 3: The research work plan.....................................................................................49
References;....................................................................................................................................51

8
 LISTS OF ACRONYMS
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

USD United States of America Dollars

KARDC Kajjansi Aquaculture Research and Development Centre

ESP Expanding Social protection Program

pH Potential Hydrogen

MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries

CAO Chief Administrative Officer

NaFIRRI National Fisheries Resources Research Institute

LVHD Low-Volume High Density

9
 LISTS OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sub-counties in Gulu......................................................................................................14
Figure 2: Gender of the respondents..............................................................................................17
Figure 3: Age of the respondents...................................................................................................18
Figure 4: Education level of the respondents................................................................................18
Figure 5: Marital status of the respondents....................................................................................19
Figure 6: Employment status of the respondents...........................................................................20
Figure 7: Fish species farmed........................................................................................................20
Figure 8: Types of fish ponds used................................................................................................21
Figure 9: Pond liming and Clarias gariepinus productivity..........................................................22
Figure 10: Pond liming and Oreochromis niloticus productivity..................................................22
Figure 11: Fish productivity per pond...........................................................................................23
Figure 12: Pond fertilization and Clarias gariepinus productivity...............................................24
Figure 13: Pond fertilization and Oreochromis niloticus productivity..........................................24
Figure 14: Fish feeding and productivity.......................................................................................26
Figure 15: Training on fish farming and productivity...................................................................27

10
 LISTS OF TABLES
Table 1: Percentage of fish farmers who fertilize and those who do not fertilize their ponds......26
Table 2: Water quality monitoring and fish productivity..............................................................28
Table 3: Predator control methods and fish productivity..............................................................28
Table 4: Fish productivity and methods of farming used..............................................................31
Table 5: Fish productivity and Record keeping.............................................................................31

11
 ABSTRACT
Aquaculture production is the fastest growing food sector in the world accounting for about 50%
of the total fish supply with capture fisheries production being stagnant since 1980’s.Gulu
district however is faced with low fish supply coupled with increasing poverty, this has led to
high malnutrition levels evidenced in children, pregnant and lactating women and the elderly.
This study focused on factors affecting aquaculture production in Gulu District located in
Northern Uganda. A descriptive research design employing sets of structured and semi-
structured questionnaires and participant observations were used to collect information from 60
fish farmers in Gulu district using simple random sampling, convenience sampling and snowball
sampling techniques. Data collected was entered using Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) and analyzed using both Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft
Excel to generate outputs for examining the factors affecting pond fish production using level 2
analysis and cross tabulation.
The research findings indicate that most of the fish farmers were men (86.67%), besides most of
them were above 45 years (40.00%), and majority attained primary level of education (50.00%),
furthermore most of them were married (85.00%) and the highest percentage was unemployed
(80.00%). The study revealed that Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and Catfish (Clarias
gariepinus) are the only farmed fish species in Gulu and that most fish farmers use earthen pond
(98.33%). The study found out that pond liming (36.7%), pond fertilization (45.1%), water
quality monitoring (33.3%), predator control (18.3%) and fish feeding (100%) were the major
fish pond management practices carried out by fish farmers in Gulu. Fish production is affected
by poor pond management practices and that most fish farmers who did not employ pond
management practices encountered low fish productivity. It is therefore recommended that
fingerlings, fish pond lime and fertilizers should frequently be distributed to fish farmers. In
addition, farmers should be trained, monitored and provided with technical expertise by
extension workers.

12
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 BACKGROUND
Aquaculture contributes more than 30% of fish for human consumption and continues to grow
faster than other major food production sectors, (FAO, 2016).With capture fishery production
relatively stagnant since the late 1980s, aquaculture accounts for about 50% increase in fish
supply(Vella, 2017,Funge-Smith, et al, 2018). This has contributed to poverty alleviation, food
security and social well-being, in many developing countries (Mwangi, 2008).
It is estimated that at least an additional 40 million tonnes of aquatic food will be required by
2030 to maintain the current per capita fish consumption, (Hambrey, 2017).
According to FAO 2008, Aquaculture in Uganda started in 1941 with the introduction of carp
into the country after official proposal by the colonial authorities which led to the establishment
of Kajjansi Fish Experimental Station in 1947.
In 2005, Uganda recorded up to 15000 tonnes of fish from aquaculture, including production
from small-scale fish farmers, emerging commercial fish farmers and stocked community water
reservoirs and minor lakes. A total of about 25000 ponds and about 13,900 farmers are involved
in pond fish production across the country(Andrew, 2016).
Uganda’s farmers are engaged in aquaculture through use of various production facilities that
rangefrom ponds, cages, reservoirs and tanks. In Uganda many fish farmers had adopted pond
culture because of its simplicity, relatively low labor and energy requirements, (Halwart, &Moel,
2006).However, there are also other forms of fish culture including cage culture which has just
started especially by the emerging commercial fish farmers due to a number of advantages over
pond culture systems for example no land ownership required, easy handling, high survival rate
of fish under good management, among others (Beveridge, 2004).
Previously 99% of the farmers, commonly known as subsistence fish farmers, had ponds ranging
from 50m² to 200m². With the drive to commercialize aquaculture, production efforts to increase
the pond surface have resulted in a current average of 500 m² per pond. Farmers at this level
have adopted the use of high technology and inputs such as quality fish seeds, feeds and the
feeding technology. The feeds, however, are still usually made on-farm (FAO. 2005).
Ponds are estimated at 25,000 covering 10,000 hectares in Uganda. Organized pond production
systems such as in well serviced aquaculture parks are being encouraged by the government for
increased fish production, (Department of Fisheries Resources, 2005, 2013).There are very few
fish farmers using tanks in Uganda (FAO 2014), and these are mainly carried out in their
13
backyards. Farmers are hesitant to engage in completely intensive rearing due to a number of
factors that include: expensive materials and high end technology required in fish farming.
Gulu district is located in Northern Uganda where aquaculture is promoted in pursuit of poverty
eradication and improving food security. Aquaculture in Gulu is basically pond based since the
district is not naturally endowed with large water bodies to support cage culture in spite being
piloted on River Aswa (Omara, 2018). A total of 130 Fish Farmers with 378 production units
(ponds) of total surface area of 86,420 Square meters, of which about 95% are subsistence with
Nile tilapia(Oreochromis niloticus) and African Catfish(Clariasgariepinus), being the main
culture species are estimated in Gulu (Omara, 2018).
Despite the critical role played by aquaculture sector in Uganda, the venture is faced with various
challenges and constraints which include; limited access to financial services and markets;
inadequate access to skills and technology; insecurity of land tenure; poor access to
infrastructure; and inadequate business knowhow (Abila, 2003).

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Pond fish farming in Gulu has suffered low fish productivity (Andrew 2016), leading to reduced
fish supply in addition to having a few existing water bodies that communities depend on. Fish
protein is an important dietary requirement, however, a notable increase in the rate of
malnutrition due to protein deficiency especially among children (< 5 years), elderly, lactating
and pregnant mothers has been observed in Gulu(FAO, 2011). This is being attributed to the
inadequate fish supply in the district coupled with increased poverty (FAO, 2011).
Low pond fish productivity has been attributed to a number of factors such as poor extension
services, the size of the pond, predation, cultural background, inadequate supply of certified
quality seed fingerlings and feed, and poor site selection(Mwenesi, 2016). Additionally,
flooding, siltation of ponds, lack of access to credit , low pond management practices such as
feeding, stocking, water quality control, technology restraints, poor extension services among
others have been reported as obstacles to aquaculture(Kumar, Biradar, Ananthan, & Debnath,
2013).Such challenges created bias among farmers since the venture is perceived as a non-
profitable economic activity that is not worthy investing. Profitable fish farming greatly
contributes to poverty reduction through providing employment, fish and fish products are a
source of food and nutritional security to the communities. Nevertheless, knowledge and
information on productive fish farming is still scanty in Gulu District.

14
 Basing on the above facts, the study focused on the factors affecting aquaculture production in
Gulu to generate information to guide fisheries managers of Gulu district.

1.3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1.3.1 General objective

To examine the factors affecting aquaculture production in Gulu District

1.3.2 Specific objectives

I. To examine the nature of fish ponds used by fish farmers in Gulu district.
II. To identify the cultured fish species
III. To examine the general pond management practices being carried out by the fish farmers
in Gulu district.
IV. To estimate pond fish production per fish farmer cycle in Gulu district.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

I. What is the nature of fish ponds used by farmers?
II. What are the cultured fish species in Gulu?
III. What are the general pond management practices being carried out by fish farmers in Gulu
district?
IV. What is the production per fish pond per cycle in Gulu?

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study investigated the factors affecting aquaculture production in Gulu. Information
generated is important to address the challenges faced by fish farmers in Gulu that are
responsible for the low fish production that needs to be addressed by both the farmers and the
managers in the fisheries sector. The study suggested recommendations for enhancing fish
production in pond culture systems.

15
1.6. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Independent variable Dependent variable

Fish species and nature of

pond

Nile tilapia (Oreochromis

niloticus), African catfish
(Clarias gariepinus) and others,
earthen and concrete ponds
Fish production

Pond management practices

Liming, fertilization, stocking,

feeding, fish health and
predator control and water
quality management.

16
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Aquaculture in Uganda

Aquaculture in Uganda started in the early 1941with the establishment of Kajjansi experimental
station and was mainly practiced in ponds. In the late 1960s, fish farming in Uganda reached a
peak with an approximation of 11 000 fish ponds operating at that time (Rutaisire et al., 2009;
Balarin, 1985 as cited by Rutaisire et al., 2017). Due to political instability in the 1980s,
aquaculture production significantly declined since fish farmers left the ponds (Rutaisire et al.,
2017).

By 2011, over 750 cages, 100 aquaculture tanks, and 2500 fish ponds were in existence in the
entire country, owned by either groups or individuals (MAAIF, 2012). Annually, earthly ponds
were estimated at 25 000 fish ponds covering 10 000 hectares and producing 100 000 tonnes of
fish (MAAIF, 2012). The LVHD cages of 8 m 3 with stocking rate of 200-400 fingerlings/m 3 is
the currently used technology that is expected to have extremely higher outputs than pond
production (Rutaisire et al., 2017). Additionally, over 50 hatcheries are estimated to be operating,
supplying and distributing seeds to other farmers in the country (MAAIF, 2012).

Oreochromis niloticus and Clariasgariepinus are the main fish species of aquaculture
importance in Uganda, however, there are other species that are important in particular parts of
the country and they include Cyprinuscarpio, Coptodonzilli, Oreochromis leucostictus (MAAIF,
2012; Cai et al., 2017).

Fish consumption trend in Uganda has been increasing rapidly hence increased demand for fish
due to increasing population, income, urbanization and changing diet (York and Gossard, 2004;
UN, 2017). Uganda’s per capita fish consumption stands at 11.5 kg yet capture fisheries
production is increasingly declining (Rutaisire et al., 2009, 2017). Aquaculture remains the only
alternative to bridge the gap between fish demand and supply in Uganda since there is a notable
decline in capture fisheries production (Rutaisire et al., 2009; FAO, 2017).

Despite the potential for aquaculture production in Uganda, a number of constraints have been
reported facing the industry resulting into enormous losses. Funding of aquaculture practices has
been reported as the most constraint in aquaculture (Kwikiriza et al., 2018). In addition, the
quality and availability of fingerlings and domestically made extruded fish feeds are still a big
challenge. If availed, the good quality feeds and fingerlings are quite expensive for fish farmers.
17
Furthermore, extension information and market for products are limited among fish farmers. In
cage farming, farmers have also reported theft and cage destruction as challenges (Kwikiriza et
al., 2018). Fish farmers are also faced with challenges of fish pathogens that cause up to 60%
mortalities in their fish farms (Walakira et al., 2014).

2.2 FISH SPECIES FARMEDAND NATUREOF PONDS USED

2.2.1 Fish species farmed

2.2.1.1 Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

This is the most farmed fish species in Uganda due to its good quality growth characteristics
such as resistance to disease, tolerance of stress incurred during handling, easy production of fish
seeds and good taste across the country, the only drawback is its prolific reproduction and the
seemingly resultant stuntedness.

2.2.1.2 African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)

The African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) known by its native names of emale (Luganda) and
omel (Luo) has recently overtaken Nile tilapia as the most popular species for aquaculture in
Uganda. Rural farmers have grown fond of it, and there is a growing regional market for this
species. Its main characteristics are its fast growth and ability to literally feed on anything
organic available at household level. The African catfish currently contributes an estimated
60%of aquaculture production in Uganda. The most limiting aspect of the culture of the catfish
in Uganda is the availability of good quality and sufficient fish seed as when required by the
grow-out farmers. This has been largely overcome with support from FAO. Fish seed for African
catfish can easily be produced in quantities demanded by grow-out farmers (Oenga, Mwanja, and
Mushi, 2005).

2.2.1.3 Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)

According to Lawrence, (2002), the third most frequent aquaculture species is the common carp
which was first introduced from Israel in 1941 with the aim of stocking the fingerlings in the
relatively colder waters of Lake Bunyonyi in southwestern Uganda. However, propagation of
this species was only successful in the late 1940s and was first tried out with farmers in the early
1950s in the Buganda region in central Uganda followed by Kigezi in southwestern Uganda. The
common carp did much better than tilapia and was preferred by farmers, but inability to produce
sufficient quantity of fish seed, poor extension and change of focus of the post-independence

18
governments did not favour the expansion of carp aquaculture in Uganda. It is currently
abundant in some parts of the country, but only as a minor component (Aggrey et al, 2002).

2.2.1.4 Other farmed species

Other farmed species include Coptodonzilli and Oreochromis leucostictus. Although the two
species were successfully propagated and distributed, they have not been as successful as Nile
tilapia in fishponds (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 408.) The other species used in aquaculture
but introduced from outside the country are Coptodon rendalli, black bass and trout. These three
were initially very successful, but only Coptodon rendalli can still be found in the natural waters
as it easily reproduces in the wild while black bass and trout need artificial propagation for
recruitment (MAAIF 2004).

2.2.2 NATUREOF PONDS

2.2.2.1 Earthen ponds

Earthen ponds are more commonly used in tropical fish farming and represent the oldest fish
farming facility. A good pond must have a well-designed water supply, easy drainage. This
means a slight slope (0.5 %) of the pond floor from the water inlet to the drainage point, good
water quality pond, good impermeability of the pond as a whole and strength/integrity of the
pond's walls and edges, clay soil quality, access and possibility to work around the pond which
must be accessible to vehicles (tractors/trucks & trailers etc.). Earthen ponds are at risk of
siltation and sedimentation hence affecting fish growth by reducing the quality and quantity of
water (Watanabe, 2002;El & Khattaby, 2006).

2.2.2.2 Concrete ponds

Concrete ponds are used for intensive fish farming; concrete walls/banks eliminate erosion due
to currents caused by mechanical aeration, waves generated by the wind and fish activity
(notably nesting behavior). This type of pond is more expensive to build and, therefore, should
be made profitable by a higher production per volume utilized (Watanabe, 2002)

According to Watanabe 2002, a firmer walling of the concrete ponds reduces maintenance and
re-building costs that will be necessary after a few years of operation. This type of pond is
generally smaller than earthen ponds and may not exceed 1,000 m 2 surface area. The bottom can
also be in concrete but for reasons of construction costs, this is only if the pond size does not
exceed 200 m2. Brick or stone walls must have strong foundations and, if they are built with
bricks or blocks, they must be plastered, in order to avoid the effects of erosion.

19
2.3 GENERAL POND MANAGEMENT
In fish farming, efficient operations and increased production can only be realized if fishponds
are well managed. Pond Management includes liming, fertilizer applications, proper pond
stocking, feeding, water quality maintenance, disease and predator control, and proper
harvesting. It is also important to keep pond records by sampling fish so as to monitor growth
and condition of fish(Kumar et al., 2013).

2.3.1 Pond liming

Pond liming is an effective tool in pond fish production and management; it involves the
occasional addition of lime in to the pond to generally increase the pond pH by raising the level
of acidity. Ponds with very soft, acidic water (less than 20 parts per million total alkalinity) and
with variable pH will not be very productive, may not respond to fertilization, and also decreases
availability of nutrients to phytoplankton hence depriving fish from getting the natural foods
from its environment which stresses fish causing reduction in growth and mortalities in juveniles
hence affecting the yield (William, 2013)

Limestone’s or agricultural lime (CaCO3), Quick lime (CaO), Slaked lime or caustic lime (Ca
(OH2)), Calcium cyanide (CaN2) are the most common types of limes used in fish production.
Hydrated or builder’s lime (calcium hydroxide) is generally not recommended, because it has the
potential to increase pH too quickly, killing the fish (James, 2003).

Liming is always done during pond drying time and the liming material takes several weeks to
months for the full benefit of lime to be noted. It can become ineffective when applied to ponds
with high flow rates (Tucker, 2005).

2.3.2 Pond fertilization

According to a report given in pond construction manual_2016, extensive ponds are fertilized
regularly using either organic fertilizers like chicken, cow, or pig manure, or inorganic fertilizers
like urea, ammonium phosphate, or both, to maintain the plankton population in the pond.

Tucker (2005) said fertilizers can be natural or synthetic substances added to aquaculture ponds
to increase primary productivity (plankton and other natural food organisms). Neglecting or
discontinuing pond fertilization affects fish populations by reducing the food supply and
encourages the growth of filamentous algae and other undesirable aquatic vegetation hence
affecting the water quality which affects the fish output at the end of the production cycle(Rice,
Noble, & Curry, 1999).

20
The fertility of the water determines the productivity of a pond. A typical pond supports 45 to
80kg of fish per acre. This production can be doubled or tripled by fertilization since pond
fertilization stimulates the growth of microscopic plants (phytoplankton) and animals
(zooplankton), which comprise the base of the food chain. Pond fertilization can, however, have
negative side effects by creating lethal algal blooms. In addition, the decomposition of dead
algae during summer months can cause low oxygen levels, which may cause fish kills during
extended periods of cloudy weather thus reduces the fish output (Ashley et al 2003).

2.3.3 Pond stocking

Britz 2004 reported that, Fish farmers need a reliable supply of healthy fingerlings to stock grow-
out ponds in order for increased production. Farmers can produce their own fingerlings, purchase
the fingerlings from hatcheries, or use a combination of both options.

A pond that already contains fish generally does not need to be stocked for example for the case
of polyculture system the existing big catfish (shooters) would feed on the fingerlings being
stocked. Also moving fish from the neighbor's pond, or a local lake to a pond, is not
recommended. This is because it can cause fish diseases due to poor pond management practices
probably being employed at the neighbor’s farm and leads to the stocking of wrong fish species
in an environment (FAO 2010).

According to Rouhani &Britz (2004), under monoculture conditions, all the aquaculture species
have different stocking densities; tilapia fry (about 1 g) are stocked into nursery ponds and once
they reach 30g are stocked into grow-out ponds at a Stocking density of usually 1 to 2 fingerlings
per m2. Common carp fry should be stocked at a density of 100-400 fry/m² for 3 to 4 weeks and
catfish in ponds with no water circulation stocked at a density of 10 fingerlings /m2.

Overstocking can result into overcrowding of the fish in a pond thereby resulting into
competition for feeds available this reduces the growth rate and exposes fish to diseases which
affects the output of fish (Kaduna 2005).

2.3.4 Fish Feeding

Fish feeding is one of the pond management practices that have a very great impact on fish
production and it is the significant criteria that fish farmers should be focused on for economical
and sustainable aquaculture(Prabu, et al, 2017)

21
Low fish productivity in ponds is attributed to use of poor quality fish feeds that largely include
locally available materials such as vegetable leaves instead of using the factory manufactured
complete diet fish feed (Atukunda et al, 2018).

According to Aquaculture Research and Development Center_ Kajjansi, 2010,Improper fish

feeding for example by either giving too much feed for the fish, or feeding the fish on feeds of
poor quality causes excess feed dropping into the water as a result of the fish only eating a small
proportion of what is being given. Therefore, the uneaten feed starts rotting (decomposing)in the
pond hence taking up the oxygen that the fish needs for breathing, and produces bad gases such
as ammonia that are poisonous to fish. Under such conditions, the fish gets stressed and stops
eating and in extreme cases the fish dies.

Generally, growth and feed conversion increase with feeding frequency. In indoor, intensive fish
culture systems, fish may be fed as many as 5 times per day in order to maximize growth at
optimum temperatures (Hetch 2006).

According to Craig et al, (2009), many factors affect the feeding rates of fish. These include time
of day, season, water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, and other water quality variables. For
example, feeding fish grown in ponds early in the morning when the lowest dissolved oxygen
levels occur is not advisable.

Most fish farmers feed their fish each day through the broadcasting method (hand) to assure
monitoring that the fish are healthy, feeding vigorously, and exhibiting no problems (Yiadom-
boakye et al, 2008).

2.3.5 Health and predator control

Transmission of fish diseases is a major challenge in increasing fish production from
aquaculture. Diseases often occur when rearing conditions get worse (poor tank/cage
maintenance, pollution incidence, too high stocking densities, among others). A good
maintenance programme will reduce considerably the risks and incidence of disease. The tilapia
species used for fish farming are generally very robust fish but poor sanitary conditions will
inevitably lead to a decrease in productivity with the possibility of mortalities(Negroni, 2013)

The presence of a fish pond in a particular place attracts predators that feed on fish. The common
predators include otters, snakes, tortoises, birds and human (the most dangerous); this can lead to
significant reduction of fish stock in ponds if control measures such as covering ponds with nets

22
or fencing the fish pond area are not followed. This therefore affects fish output since fewer fish
will reach the harvest size (Atekyereza, 2018)

2.3.6 Water quality monitoring

According to Kaduna et al (2005), the quality of water used in the pond is one of the significant
factors affecting fish yield.

Lanre Ogunsina (2014), observed that in the last couple of years, most farmers that operate good
ponds, stocked with the right quantity of fish seeds, still recorded huge losses even though they
fed their fish very well. He said this is due to poor knowledge of fish water chemistry.

Poor water quality characterized by low dissolved oxygen, high and low temperatures, high and
low pH results into reduced growth rate, improper conversion of feeds into body flesh, fish will
be stressed exposing fish to opportunistic infections, fish survival is affected, the periods of
achieving desired weights in fish will be lengthened and finally mortalities (Lucy, 2014).

Water quality may depend on the sources of the water feeding the pond; Potential water sources
for a pond include streams and wells among others. Streams are usually high in dissolved
oxygen, but they also tend to fluctuate rapidly, are a source of silt, and are a potential source of
diseases and wild fish invasions. Wells offer good quality water and can be placed where
convenient, but are expensive to drill and operate (Ashley et al, 2007)

2.4. POND FISH PRODUCTION

Riceet al(1999) reported that, the best fishing ponds have a surface area of at least 1 acre with an
average depth ranging between 6 and 8 feet with a maximum depth not greater than 10 to 12 feet.
Ponds of less than 1 acre are difficult to manage because the fish populations are easily
overharvested. In addition, small, shallow ponds are susceptible to vegetation problems that
usually result in overpopulation of fish. These problems ultimately result in stunted growth of
fish. The fish populations in ponds of less than 1 acre are also adversely affected by drought. The
best management tactic for ponds less than 1 acre is to stock it with a single species of fish. In
Uganda pond fish Production is usually in the range of 5 kg to 10 kg/100 m² (i.e. 500 kg to 1,000
kg per hectare) per annum (FAO 2008).

According to MAAIF (2005), pond size starting from 20m x 25m (500m2) can produce 120 kg of
Tilapia a year. Therefore, the pond size of 20m x 25m can be regarded as the minimum small-
scale commercial size. Larger ponds from 20m x 50m and above are recommended for
commercial fish production. The larger the pond the more commercial it becomes.
23
Globally, the average growth of Oreochromis niloticus is between 0.8 and 1.2 g. per day in good
farming condition (depending on individual size and growing conditions). This estimate
constitutes a prudent average, referring to data for a semi intensive / intensive growing system
for a mixed sex population reared at a suitable temperature (> 25 °C). In these extremely good
situations, some fish farmers can obtain growth of 4 g per day, for fish less than 350 g individual
size under such circumstances (FAO 2009).

Bamba and Assouhan (2000) indicated that a missing link between fish farmers and researchers
and the lack of aquaculture expertise among extension agents highly affected commercial
aquaculture.

Mwangi (2008) had also observed inadequate technical skills by extension staff occasioned by
low staff levels with limited practical aquaculture skills as the main constraint to commercial
aquaculture in Kenya. Ngugi et al (2007) also found that the number of productive ponds
declined in the 1980s, mainly because of inadequate extension services, lack of quality
fingerlings, and insufficient training for extension workers. Most of the farmers had not had
practical exposure on fish farming. The farmers need to be equipped with knowledge on fish
pond management, fish harvesting technology and proper fish handling, value addition and fish
marketing strategies.

According to FAO 2009, Climatic conditions causing floods and droughts are seen as the most
dangerous factors that affects pond fish production. Sometimes, atmospheric conditions can
create additional serious problems; for example, a rapid drop of atmospheric pressure lowers the
water surface tension and therefore causes oxygen depletion in the water.

There is reduction in fish production due to the use of poor seeds or fingerlings in many of the
countries that practice aquaculture. Research states that the use of improved breeds of fish can
make further significant improvements in production. While some progress has been made in
improving the breeds of temperate fishes such as salmon and trout, tropical fishes have not been
improved until quite recently. Research undertaken by The World Fish Center has resulted in
developing methods for the genetic improvement of tropical finfish, with Nile tilapia as a test
species. The Nile tilapia has shown 80% faster growth after five generations of improvement
(Gupta, 2006).

A major constraint faced by small scale farm households is lack of access to credit from public
sector banks/institutions because of various administrative hurdles and the need for collateral. As

24
has been successfully demonstrated in Bangladesh and elsewhere, easy availability of credit
motivates small farmers to take up new technology and increase production. NGOs have an
important role in making credit accessible to the rural population (Delgado et al, 2003).

25
 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study area

Figure 1: Sub-counties in Gulu where fish farmers are located.

The study was carried out in Acholi sub region, Gulu District. Gulu is located in Northern
Uganda between 30⁰E and 32⁰E longitude and 02⁰N and 04⁰N latitude. Farmers from Palaro,

26
Patiko, Awach, Paicho, Bungatira, Pece, Laroo, Bar-dege, and Layibi sub-counties were
interviewed.

3.2 Sample size and sampling procedure

3.2.1 Sample size

The researcher used Cochran’s formula as below to determine the sample size for the study since
the population of the respondents was known and the level of precision was taken to be 0.1.

Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, e is the level of precision.
Qualitative and quantitative data was collected from the 60 selected participants through
observation and interviews.

3.2.2 Sampling procedure

Both probability and non-probability sampling were used during sampling where for probability
sampling, simple random sampling was used so that every member had an equal chance of
participating in the study and for non-probability sampling, the researcher used convenience
sampling and snowball sampling to get data from the fish farmers.

3.3 Data collection methods and data types

3.3.1 Data collection methods

3.3.1.1 Interviews
Interviews were administered to respondents using a questionnaire by the researcher and some
were self-administered depending on the literacy level of the respondent and factors like level of
willingness to give information (appendix 1-Questionnaire). This was carried out in
consideration with data collection ethical principles.

3.3.1.2 Observation
Field observations were made aiming at collecting data of activities carried out from the various
fish farms. It was applied in order to take note of the other facts not considered in the research
study before for primary data generation.

27
3.4 Data types
The data collected was both qualitative and quantitative in nature. The researcher used both
primary and secondary data during the research.

Primary data was obtained from the surveys which were done in Gulu where the respondents
were located and secondary data was got from internet, journals, newspapers, magazines and
books from the library.

3.5 Research design

The study followed a descriptive research design for the fish farmers in Gulu who were directly
involved in fish pond production.

3.6 Study population

The study population comprised of fish farmers in Gulu district.

3.7 Data validity and reliability of the data collection tools

A pilot study was carried out to test the questionnaire for its efficiency in obtaining data. This
was administered to 10 respondents among the sample population.

3.8 Data processing and analysis

Data was entered in Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and analyzed using both
SPSS and Microsoft Excel to generate outputs in form of tables and graphs.

28
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1. Biographic data of the respondents

4.1.1 Gender of the respondents

Figure 2: gender of the respondents

Findings of the study indicate that pond fish farming in Gulu district is male dominatedOf the
total number of respondents interviewed, 86.67% were male and only 13.33% were female.

29
4.1.2 Age of the respondents

Figure 3: Age of the respondents

Fish farmers in Gulu is dominated by farmersoared45 years and above (40%) followed by those
between18 to 25 years (26.67%), farmers between 36 and 45years contributed only 23.33% of
the sampled respondents and only (10.00%) were between 26-35 years.

4.1.3 Education level of the respondents

Figure 4: Education level of the respondents

Generally, fish farming in Gulu is practiced by people with primary level of education, only 15%
of the respondents did not attain any level of education and 50% attained primary level, 21.67%
attained secondary level and 13.33% attained tertiary level of education.

30
4.1.4 Marital status of the respondents

Figure 5: Marital status of the respondents

In this study only 1.67% of the fish farmers were single. The married farmers dominate fish
farming business in Gulu (85.00%), 6.67% were divorced and 6.67% were widowed.

4.1.5 Employment status of the respondents

Figure 6: Employment status of the respondents

Most of the farmers practicing pond fish farming (80%) were unemployed and the rest were
employed.
31
4.2 Fish species farmed and fish ponds used

4.2.1 Fish species farmed

Figure 7: Fish species farmed

Generally mixed fish farming (81.7%) is practiced by fish farmers in Gulu district followed by
Nile tilapia (11.67%) and lastly African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)(6.67%) farm

4.2.2 Types of ponds used

Figure 8: Types of fish ponds used

The study indicated that most farmers in Gulu (98.33%) use earthen pond and only 1.67% use
concrete pond.

32
4.3 Pond management practices carried out and fish productivity

4.3.1 Pond liming and fish productivity

Figure 9: Pond liming and Clarias gariepinus productivity

Figure 10: Pond liming and Oreochromis niloticus productivity

The study indicated that 30.6% of farmers who did not lime their ponds harvested less quantity
of catfish which was between 20-30kg and 28.0% harvested between 20-30kg of Nile tilapia.
This indicates that many fish farmers who did not carry out pond liming harvested less quantity
of fish per pond (between 20-30kg) as compared to those who carried out pond liming.
33
4.3.2 Pond fertilization

Table 1: Percentage of fish farmers who fertilize and those who do not fertilize their ponds

Frequency Percent

Fertilize 27 45.0
Do not fertilize 33 55.0

The table above indicates that 45.0% of the fish farmers do pond fertilization and 55.0% do not
carry out pond fertilization.

4.4 Fish productivity per pond

Figure 11: Fish productivity per pond

The research results show that 32% of the fish farmers harvested below 20kg of fish per pond,
42% harvested between 20-30kg, 14% harvested between 30-40kg and only 12% harvested 40kg
and above of fish per pond per year. This shows that fish productivity was low since majority of
the fish farmers harvested between 20-30kg.

34
4.3.2.1 Relationship between pond fertilization and fish output

Figure 12: Relationship between pond fertilization and Clarias gariepinus productivity

Figure 13: Relationship between pond fertilization and Oreochromis niloticus productivity

Findings of this study indicated that 24.5% and 22% of farmers who did not fertilize their ponds
harvested less quantity of Clarias gariepinus and Oreochromis niloticus respectively. The

35
productivity of the non-fertilized ponds ranged between 20-30 kg of Clarias gariepinus and
below 20kg of Oreochromis niloticus.

4.3.3 Water quality monitoring

In Gulu, only 33.3% of the fish farmers monitored their water quality. This implies that the
majority of fish farmers in Gulu do not practice water quality monitoring.

Table 2: Relationship between water quality monitoring and fish productivity

Productivity /kg Monitored Not monitored Total

Below 20 2 14 16
20-30 8 13 21
30-40 5 2 7
40 and above 5 1 6
Total 20 30 50

The findings indicate that majority of the fish farmers who did not carry out water quality
monitoring in their ponds experienced low productivity and only 2 out of 20 fish farmers who
monitored water quality harvested below 20kg of fish.

4.3.4 Predator control

Table 3: Relationship between predator control methods and fish productivity

Productivity /Kg Fencing Security personnel Others Total

Below 20 2 1 13 16

20-30 1 7 13 21

30-40 5 0 2 7

40 and above 3 2 1 6

Total 11 10 29 50
The findings show that most of the fish farmers who used other methods of predator control such
as dogs, scare craws, poisoning and slashing the surrounding pond area experienced low fish
productivity which ranged from 30kg and below as compared to those who fenced their ponds.

36
4.3.5 Fish feeding and fish output

40.00%

Productivity (%)
35.00%
Quantity of catfish
30.00%
Quantity of Tilapia
25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
1 2 3 4
Number of times of Fish feeding
Figure 14: Relationship between fish feeding and productivity

The study indicated that fish farmers who fed their fish twice a day harvested higher fish output
for both Clarias gariepinus and Oreochromis niloticus.

4.3.6 Training on fish farming and fish output

Figure 15: Relationship between productivity and training on fish farming

37
The findings of this study indicate that fish farmers who did not get training on fish farming
encountered low fish productivity. None of the fish farmer who did not acquire training
encountered productivity of 30kg and above

4.4 POND FISH PRODUCTION PER FISH FARMER PER YEAR

4.4.1 Relationship between methods of fish farming and fish output

Productivity /kg Monoculture (%) Poly-culture (%) Total (%)

Below 20 18 43 32

20-30 32 50 42

30-40 27 4 14

40 and above 23 4 12

Table 4: Fish productivity and methods of farming used

The research found out that majority of the fish farmers encountered productivity ranging
between 20-30kg under both monoculture and poly-culture methods (32% and 50%
respectively).

4.4.2 Record keeping

Table 5: Fish production and Record keeping

Productivity /Kg Kept records (%) Did not keep records (%) Total (%)

Below 20 4 28 32
20-30 14 28 42
30-40 10 4 14
40 and above 8 4 12
Total (%) 36 64 100

It was found that 64% of the fish farmers did not keep records of their production cycle. This
implies that most of the fish farmers in Gulu district do not keep records of their production
cycle. For this reason the research findings indicated that most of the fish farmers (28%) who did
not keep records experienced low productivity which ranged from 30kg and below.

38
 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS

General information

Findings of the study indicate that pond fish farming in Gulu is male dominated. This is because
of lack of access to credit and land ownership in Gulu by women. In addition, women believe
that fish farming is a masculine activity therefore making it hard for them to engage in pond fish
farming. This is in support with the findings of Nandeesha (2007) who observed more limited
involvement in aquaculture by women due to lack of access to other resources necessary for
engaging in aquaculture and lack of control over the benefits of improved household incomes
hence being regarded as more vulnerable than men in families.

The findings of the study show that pond fish farming in Gulu district is dominated by fish
farmers who are above 45 years. This is because most of the fish ponds in Gulu district were
hereditary that’s to say the elder person in a family takes over the control and ownership of the
pond.

Also the findings indicated that most of the fish farmers in Gulu stopped at primary level of
education. This is due to the higher poverty levels that hinder access to education which force
them to engage in fish farming as the only source of income. This is in support with Tiwari et al
(2008) who argued that longer staying in school increase access to information and chances of
participating in non-farm activities such as office works.

Fish species and ponds used

The research results indicate that Nile tilapia and African catfish are the only farmed fish species
in Gulu. This is because of cheap available feeds for these two species, according to the
respondents, Nile tilapia can feed on the algae growing in the water while African catfish feeds
on organic household substances for example kitchen refuse and have faster rate of growth. This
is in support with the findings of Aggrey et al. (2002); Oenga, Mwanja, and Mushi, (2005) who
observed that Nile tilapia and African catfish are the most farmed fish species in Uganda due to
their good growth rate, resistance to disease, tolerance to stress incurred during handling, and
easy source of feeds by the grow out farmers.

The research findings also indicate that, almost all the fish farmers in Gulu use earthen fish
ponds. This is because farmers argue that the earthen ponds are cheaper to construct than

39
concrete ponds since they do not require extra costs of buying materials such as cement, sand
and bricks in order to make concrete ponds. This is in support of the finding of Watanabe (2002),
who stated that earthen ponds are more commonly used in tropical fish farming since it is less
expensive to build.

Management practices and fish productivity

From Figure 16, it was found out that productivity in Gulu District ranged between 20-30kg per
pond per year for both Oreochromis niloticus and Clarias gariepinus, and these ponds ranged
from 200 to 500m2. This is low compared to reports from MAAIF (2005) that indicted optimal
fish production from pond of the same size at120 kg per year. The low productivity is explained
by various challenges faced by the fish farmers including pond management challenges such as
lack of fingerlings, shortage of feeds and limited equipment such as water quality testing kits and
weighing scales, climate variability evidenced by floods and drought, lack of credit accessibility
and extension services. Mwangi (2008) observed that inadequate technical skills by extension
staff occasioned by low staffing levels with limited practical aquaculture skills are a main
constraint to aquaculture. Gupta and Acosta (2004) also stated that reduction in fish production is
due to the use of poor seeds or fingerlings in many of the countries that practice aquaculture.
According to FAO (2009) report it’s indicated that climatic conditions causing floods and
droughts are seen as the most dangerous factors that affects pond fish production.

Pond liming

FromFigures17 and 18, it’s indicated that many fish farmers who did not carry out pond liming
harvested less quantity of fish per pond (between 20-30kg) as compared to those who carried out
pond liming. Ponds that are not limed are considered to have unfavorable conditions such as
variable pH (very low or very high) which affects fish growth by causing fish stress hence
affecting the physiology of fish in the pond. William (2013) pointed out that, ponds with very
soft, acidic water (less than 20 ppm total alkalinity) and with variable pH are not very
productive, do not respond to fertilization, and reduce availability of nutrients to phytoplankton
hence depriving fish from getting the natural foods from its environment which stresses fish
causing decline in growth and increased mortalities in juveniles hence affecting the fish output.
Rice (2003) argued that Hydrated or builder’s lime (calcium hydroxide) is generally not
recommended, because it has the potential to increase pH too quickly, killing the fish. This is in
line with the study findings which indicated low productivity from limed pond as most of the fish
farmers indicated use of builder’s lime. Also Tucker (2005) pointed out that pond liming can
40
become ineffective when applied to ponds with high flow rates, this supported the findings of the
study that most of the fish farmers in Gulu get their water for fish farming from the streams with
higher flow rates hence making the lime ineffective.

Pond fertilization

From Figure 19 and Figure 14, the research findings indicate that the productivity of the non-
fertilized ponds ranged between 20-30 kg of catfish and below 20kg of Tilapia. this shows that
many fish farmers who did not carry out pond fertilization harvested less quantity of fish per
pond i.e. below 30kg as compared to those who carried out pond fertilization, since unfertilized
ponds provides limited fish foods for species such as Tilapia, which reduces natural foods
availability to fish thereby reducing their rate of growth. Rice, (2003)found out that neglecting or
discontinuing pond fertilization affects fish populations by reducing the food supply which in
turn affects the pond productivity and fish output. The finding is also in support with the findings
of Tucker, (2005) who said fertilizers added to aquaculture ponds increases primary productivity
(plankton and other natural food organisms).

These are also in support with findings of Ashley et al, (2003) who observed that productivity
can be doubled or tripled by fertilization since pond fertilization stimulates the growth of
microscopic plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton), which comprise the base of the
food chain.

Water quality monitoring

The findings (Table 6) indicate that majority of the fish farmers who did not carry out water
quality monitoring in their ponds experienced low productivity. This is because poor quality
water for example water with low dissolved oxygen and decomposing matters reduces the rate of
fish feeding hence affecting fish growth and survival. This is in support with the finding of Lanre
Ogunsina (2014), who observed that, most farmers who operate good ponds, stocked with the
right quantity of fish seeds, still record huge losses even though they fed their fish very well.
This is explained by the poor knowledge of fish water chemistry by these fish farmers. Lucy
towers (2014) stated that poor water quality characterized by low dissolved oxygen, high and
low temperatures, high and low pH results into reduced growth rate, improper conversion of
feeds into body flesh, thus affecting fish survival, the periods of achieving desired weights in fish
will be lengthened and finally leading to mortalities which affect fish output.

41
Kaduna et al (2005) also pointed out that the quality of water used in the pond is one of the
significant factors that can affect fish yield.

Predator control methods

Findings (Table 7) show that most of the fish farmers who used other methods of predator
control such as dogs, scare craws and slashing the surrounding pond area experienced low fish
productivity which ranged from 30kg and below as compared to those who used Fencing. This is
because fencing was found to keep away the major predators (humans and bigger reptiles) hence
reducing the cases of theft of fish by people and eating of fish by the bigger reptiles such as
alligators. This is in comparison with the research conducted by Atekyereza (2018) where he
found out that the common predators include human (the most dangerous), otters, snakes,
tortoises and birds that can lead to significant reduction of fish stock in ponds if control measures
such as fencing the fish pond area are not followed.

Fish feeding

From Figure 20, it is indicated that fish farmers who fed their fish twice a day encounterd higher
productivity for both Nile tilapia and African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). This is in support with
the research carried out by Prabu, (2017) who observed that fish feeding is one of the pond
management practices that have a very great impact on fish production and it is the significant
criteria that fish farmers should be focused on for economical and sustainable aquaculture. Also
according to the report from Aquaculture Research and Development Center_ Kajjansi, (2010), it
is testified that improper fish feeding such as fish over feeding causes excess accumulation of
uneaten feeds which decomposes in the pond hence consuming the oxygen hence resulting into
accumulation of poisonous gases such as ammonia that results into stress in fish and reduced
response to feeding.

Hetch (2006) however noted that growth and feed conversion increase with feeding frequency
where he recommended that in order to maximize growth at optimum temperatures fish may be
fed 5 times per day.

Training

The results of the study (Figure21 ) indicated that fish farmers who did not get training on fish
farming experienced low productivity. This is because these fish farmers could not exercise
better pond management practices for example fish grading, sampling, proper fish stocking
where some fish farmers were found to stock up to 12 fish per square meter and inadequate water
42
quality monitoring among others. This is in support of the findings of Kaduna (2005) who
pointed out that poor pond management such as overstocking can result into overcrowding of the
fish in a pond leading to competition for feeds. Also, Britz (2004) reported that, fish farmers
need a reliable supply of healthy fingerlings to stock grow-out ponds in order to increase fish
production.

Also, in support of the findings of Rouhani &Britz (2004), who noted that under monoculture
conditions, all the aquaculture species have different stocking densities for example tilapia are
stocked into grow-out ponds at 1-2 fish per m 2 and Catfish in ponds with no water circulation
stocked at a density of 10 fingerlings per m2.

5.2 Conclusion

In conclusion, it was found that the major African catfish and Nile tilapia are the major fish
species farmed in Gulu district are African catfish in earthen ponds.
In addition, the research found out that fish farmers in Gulu district to a lesser extent carry out
pond liming, pond fertilization, water quality monitoring, predator control and fish feeding and
also fish sampling and fish grading which they consider minor and a waste of time and resources.
It was found that these management practices are the major factors that affect fish output when
not accomplished or carried out.
The research found that training of fish farmers is so essential in fish production since the harvest
of most of the fish farmers who did not get training on fish farming was below 20kg per pond
and since they have no knowledge about fish farm management. In addition some fish farmers
were harvesting their fish after 12 months, majority were not employing proper fish pond
management practices for example farmers could stock more than 10 fish per square meter,
majority could not weigh their fish after harvest and also could not keep records of their
production., The extension workers therefore should embark seriously on the training of the fish
farmers before establishing their fish farms and also farmers should seek for technical advice and
training from these workers.

Furthermore, the study found out that almost all the fish farmers in Gulu district experienced
challenges in pond fish production (93.3%)which included climate variability, pond management
challenges such as shortage of feeds and lack of water quality testing kits, credit accessibility,
inadequate technical services in terms of extension and other challenges such as lack of nearby
markets.

43
5.3 Recommendations

 The district officials should sensitize women on fish farming as one way of sustaining
their households since it is among the cheap source of food and income.
 The fish farmers should be sensitized and trained on how to raise fish using other fish
farming systems such as tanks to mitigate losses.
 The district officials should provide equipment such as water quality testing kits and
weighing scales to enable fish farmers monitor their water quality regularly and weigh
their fish after harvests.
 The district officials should offer or donate fingerlings, fish pond limes and fertilizers
frequently to the fish farmers as the research revealed that most fish farmers do not lime
and fertilize their ponds.
 There should be extensive technical service provision by the extension workers in terms
of training to fish farmers on how to carry out fish pond management.

5.4 Areas for further research

The following are some areas that need further research;

Further research should be done to compare the efficiency of local feeds and artificial feeds on
fish productivity.

Also research should be done to determine whether fish production depends on the size of the
production unit.

Lastly research should also be done to find out women’s perception towards fish farming since
this study indicated that fish farming in Gulu is dominated by male.

44
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: THE RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

I am OLOYA LAWRENCE KABILA a student of BUSITEMA UNIVERSITY pursuing a

degree in bachelors of Science in Fisheries and Water Resources Management carrying out
research on FACTORSAFFECTING FISH PRODUCTION BY FARMERS IN GULU
DISTRICT. Your involvement in this research is of a great importance because any information
that you will give shall be strictly used for academic purpose that will lead me to qualify for the
award of a degree in Fisheries and Water Resources Management. The answers are highly
confidential and will not be linked back to you. I would greatly appreciate your help in
responding to these questions.

Instruction: Put a Tick ( ) where applicable.

Sub county…………………… Parish…………..……….Village………………………

SECTION A: BIOGRAPHIC DATA OF THE RESPONDENT.

1. Gender
a). Male b). Female
2. Age
a). 18-25years b) 26-35years c). 36-45years d). Above 45 years
3. Education level
a). None b). Primary c). Secondary d). Tertiary
4. Marital status
a). Single b). Married c). Divorced d). Widowed
5. Are you employed in a formal sector?
a). Yes b). No
SECTION B: TYPES OF FISH PONDS AND THE SPECIES CULTURED
6. Which type of fish do you keep?
a). Tilapia b) . Catfish c). Others specify…………………………………………
7. How do you grow them?
a). Separately b). Mixed
9. Where do you get the seeds or fingerlings from?
a). Fellow farmers b).NGOs c).Local Government

45
d). others specify …………………………………………………………………………………

10. Which type of fish pond do you use?

a). Earthen pond b). Concrete pond c). Others specify……………………………

11. Where do you get the water to feed the pond?

a). Stream b). Rain c). Pump d). Well

SECTION C: THE GENERAL POND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

12. Do you lime your pond?
a). Yes b). No
13. Which lime do you use?
...............................................................................................................
14. Do you fertilize your pond?
a). Yes b). No
15. If yes, which type of fertilizer do you use?
a). Organic fertilizer b). Inorganic fertilizer
16. How many fingerlings do you stock per square meter?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
17. What is the total dimension of your pond(s)?
..............................................................................
18. Do you feed your fish?
a). Yes b). No
19. If yes, how often do you feed them?
a). Once a day b). Twice a day c). Thrice a day d) . More than three times
20. Which type of feeds do you use for feeding your fish?
a). Local feeds b). Artificial feeds
21. Which method do you use to feed your fish?
a). Broadcasting b). Use demand feeder c). Use automatic feeder
d). others specify…………………………………………………………………………………
22. Do you monitor your water quality?
a). Yes b). No
23. Who does the water quality monitoring on your farm?
a). Self-monitoring b). Local government workers c). NGOs d). Others
46
24. How do you control predators from your farm?
a). Fencing b). Security personnel c). Dogs d). Strings
e). Others
25. Do you grade your fish?

a). Yes b). No

26. Do you carry out sampling in your pond?

a). Yes b).No

SECTION D: POND FISH PRODUCTION PER FISH FARMER PER YEAR

27. Do you get any training on pond fish farming?

a). Yes b) . No

28. If yes, where do you get the training from?

a). Fellow farmers b) . NGOs c). Local Government d). Others
29. How often do you get the training?
a). Weekly b). Monthly c). Annually
30. Do you keep records of your production cycle?
a). Yes b). No
31. At what age do you harvest your fish?
a). Tilapia………………………b). Catfish ………………………..c). Others…………………
32. Do you weigh your fish after harvesting?
a). Yes b). No
33. If yes, what is the approximate weight that can be obtained for a single fish at harvest?
a). Tilapia ………………...b). Catfish ……………………...c). Others …………………………
34. How many kilograms do you harvest per pond?
a). Tilapia ………………... b). Catfish ……………………...c). Others …………………………

35. How many times do you harvest per year?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………
36. Do you experience any challenge in pond fish farming?
a). Yes b). No
37. If yes, what are they? Rank them starting from the most challenging to the least.

47
 S/NO Challenge(s)
1

38. What do you think should be done to minimize the above challenges?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your participation.

APPENDIX 3: The research work plan

2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019

ACTIVITIES OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY Jun

Topic development

Topic approval

Writing of the research proposal

Approval of the research proposal
Data collection
Data coding
Data entry

Data analysis

Compilation of research report

Approval of the research report
Submission of final research report
book

48
 REFERENCES

Kumar et al. (2013), A study on fish culture management practices in Bharatpur district of
Rajasthan, IndiaKwikiriza, G., Mwesigwa, T., Barekye, A., Abaho, I.,

Aquaculture Research and Development Center, Kajjansi (2010), The importance of quality fish
feed and their proper management in ponds.

Atukunda G, State AE, Molnar J,&Atekyereza P (2018), Aquaculture Development and

Uganda’s Agricultural Extension System: The Case of Fish Farmers in Central and
Northern Regions. J Fish Aqua Dev: JFAD-137. DOI: 10.29011/2577-1493. 100037.

Beveridge, M.C.M. (2004), Cage Aquaculture (3rd edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

Bocek, A. (2009), Water harvesting and aquaculture for rural development. Auburn University,
Alabama. Online. http://www.ag.auburn.edu/fish international//tilap.htm.

Boyd, C. E., J. F. Queiroz, G. N. Whitis, R. Hulcher, P. Oakes, J. Carlisle, D. Odom, Jr., M. M.

Nelson, and W. G. Hemstreet, (2003), Best management practices for channel catfish
farming in Alabama. Special Report 1, Alabama Catfish producers, Montgomery,
Alabama.

Caipang, C., Choo, H., Bai, Z., &Bioflux, H. H.-A., (2015), Undefined. (n.d.). Small-scale
production of biofloc using various carbon sources for the freshwater culture of tilapia,
Oreochromis sp. Cabdirect.Org. Retrieved from
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20153260764

Craig S &Helfrich LA (2013), Understanding fish nutrition, feeds and feeding.

Delgado, C.L., N. Wada, M.W. Rose grant, S. Meijer and M. Ahmed (2003), Fish to 2020:
Supply and demand in changing global markets. World Fish Center Technical Report 62–
226.

Department of Fisheries Resources (2005), National Fisheries Planning Overview 2005,

Department of Fisheries Resources, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and
Fisheries, Entebbe, Uganda.

49
ESA/P/WP/248.[https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/wpp2017_keyfindings.pdf] site
visited on 16March 2018.

FAO (2005), Aquaculture production, 2003. Year book of Fishery Statistics - Vol.96/2. Food and
Agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

FAO (2011), Report of the joint FAO/WHO expert on the risks and benefits of fish consumption.
FAO fisheries and aquaculture Report no 978.

FAO (2013), National Aquaculture Sector Overview Kenya. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_kenya/en

FAO (2018), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 - Meeting the sustainable
development goals. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (2000), The state of world fisheries and aquaculture,
2000. FAO Rome.

Gatward, 1. (2009), Observations from a two-week visit to the 'Source of the Nile tilapia farm in
Uganda, on Lake Victoria. EC FP7 Project, SARNTSSA. 17p.

Gupta, M.V., and B.O. Acosta (2004), From drawing board to dining table: the success story of
GIFT project. Naga 27 (3&4):4-14.

Halwart, M., &Moel J.F. (2006), Cage culture in Africa. Proceedings of the FAO Regional
Technical Expert Workshop, Entebbe, Uganda. 20-23 October 2004. FAO Fisheries
Proceedings NO.6. Rome, FAO. 2006. 104p

Houlihan, D., Bouiard, T. and Jobling, M., (2001). Food Intake in Fish. eds. Iowa State
University Press. Blackwell Science Ltd. 418 pp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulu_District.

Kariuki, M. N. (2013), Strategic Practices for Effective Implementation of Fish Farming

Enterprise Productivity Programme in Kenya: A Case Study of Molo Constituency.
International journal of innovative research and studies, 2 (8), 88-146

Kasozi .N, Rutaisire. J, &Nandi.S, S. J. (2017), A review of Uganda and India’s freshwater
aquaculture : Key practices and experience from each country. A review of Uganda and

50
 India’s freshwater aquaculture : Key practices and experience from each country,
(March). https://doi.org/10.5897/JENE2016.0615

Kifuko, R. (2015), The State of Cage Fish Farming in Uganda : Actors, Enabling environment,
Challenges and Way forward. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(3),
483–488.

Lucy Towers (2014), Water Quality Monitoring and Management for Catfish Ponds

Nandeesha, M. C. (2007), “Asian Experience on Farmer’s Innovation in Freshwater Fish Seed

Production and Nursing and the Role of Women.” In “Assessment of Freshwater Fish
Seed Resources for Sustainable Aquaculture,” FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 501,
Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization.

Ndu N. R. (2006), Fish Farm Layout, Pond Construction, Management and Maintenance-
Hatchery Techniques. A paper presented at the National Workshop on the Principles and
Techniques of Fish Farming organized by Nigerian Agricultural, Cooperative and Rural
Development Bank Kaduna with collaboration of Life Riches Consulting.

Republic of Uganda, (2003), The fish (Aquaculture) Rules, 2003. Statutory Instruments
Supplement to the Uganda Gazette No 52, Volume XCVI. UPP, Entebbe, Uganda. Pp J
125-1 J50.

Rouhani, Q.A. &Britz, P.J. (2004), Contribution of Aquaculture to Rural Livelihoods in South
Africa: A Baseline Study. Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes
University, Grahamstown, South Africa.

Rutaisire, J., CharSo-Karisa, H., Shoko, A. P. and Nyandat, B. (2009), Aquaculture for increased
fish production in East Africa. [Https: //pdfs.semantic scholar.
org/7710/70d31adf37dcea16742862e309b6c73d4945.pdf] site visited on 15 July 2018

Rwaheru Aheisibwe, A., &Mwesige, R. (2018), Prospects of Cage Fish Farming in South
Western Uganda. Agriculture. Forestry and Fisheries, 7(2), 52–57.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20180702.12

Subasinghe, R. (2017), Regional review on status and trends in aquaculture development in Asia-
Pacific – 2015. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1135/5. Rome, FAO.

Tucker(2005), Pond Aeration. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Fact Sheet 3700.
51
UN (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2017),
World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables.
Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248.
[https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/wpp2017_keyfindings.pdf] site visited on
16 March 2018.

Walakira, J., Akoll, P., Engole, M., Sserwadda, M., Nkambo, M., Namulawa, V., Kityo, G.,
Musimbi, F., Abaho, I., Kasigwa, H., Kahwa, D., Naigaga, I., Mbabazi, D., Birungi, J.,
Rutaisire, J. and Majaljia, S. (2014), Common fish diseases and parasites affecting wild
and farmed Tilapia and catfish in Central and Western Uganda. Uganda Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 15(2): 113-125.

Watanabe, W.O., Losordo, T.M., Fitzsimmons, K. & Hanley, F. (2002), Tilapia production
systems in the Americas: technical advances, trends, and challenges. Reviews in Fisheries
Sciences 10(3-4):465-498.

William. A. Warts. (2013), Liming Ponds for Aquaculture Technical Report.

52