..:, I' CE.E 1

(I 0 1 2013)

THEME:NIGERIAN AGRICULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

•THE WAY FORWARD

~t .. f}

~ 26th - 30th August, 2013

~ditedg'~: Omotesho O.A., Adewumi M.O., Ogunlade I., FawoleO.B.,8abatunde R•.O., Ayinde O.E. and Muhammad-lawai A.

Copyright 2013: Farm Management Association of Nigeria (F AMA )

All right reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, store in a retriever system ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical,photocopying recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing from the FarmManagement Association of Nigeria (FAMAN).

ISBN: 978 2607-002

Published By:F"ARM MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (FAMAN)

Printed By:

q[-<.1fl••

~ /

V-....- .

SOFOIVID 08035437277

2

A

Pro

Dr.

Mal

Mall

Dr. J

Dr.P

Dr. .I.

Dr. S.

MuLl1,

Umar

Profl.

Ruth J

Dr. U.A

-- ---- - -- ---- -----<--~ ----- -- -- ---- --- --

ECONOMIC ANALYS[S OF FISH FARMING IN IJEBU -EAST LOCALGOVERNMENT AREA OF OGUN STATE, NIGERIA

Vaughan I 0, Olaide o. G, Afolabi o. I, and Oladeinde K. BDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management,

Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, NigeriaCorrespondence: olawalea lo@yahoo.com.

ABSTRACTEconomic information on the feasibiliry of fish farming is an important determinant in promoting thecommercialization of the enterprise. In view of this, this study was undertaken to analyse the economic feasibility orfish farming in ljebu-East Local Government Area of Ogun State, Nigeria. Data were obtained from 80 respondentsusing multistage sampling technique and analyzed using descriptive statistics, budgetary technique. as well asmultiple regression models. The result revealed that 72.5% of the fish farmers are males with the mean age of ~Iyears which reveals that most of them arc in their active stage of life; 38.8% are members of a cooperative society.Majority (72.5%) or the farmers finance their fish farming enterprise from personal savings, I O~o throughcooperative support while only 2.5% has access to bank loans. The average stocking rate of the fish farmers is 2-170fingerlings per cycle which depicts that the farmers are producing at a medium scale. Analysis of cost and returnsshowed that an average total cost of N231 ,205.75 was incurred by fish farmers while average total revenue ofN-I53.56275 was realized with a gross margin of N227,517.15 and a net income of N222,357.00 per 1000fingerlings in the production cycle. Fish farming was found to be profitable with the rate of return on investment of0.96. The Cobb - Douglas functional [arm (AdjRc=0.976&F=143.68) revealed that revenue from fish wassignificantly explained by stocking density, cost of fixed input, cost of feed, labour, cost of lime and cost orlingcrlings. Conclusively. fish production in the study area is economically rewarding and profitable. The studyhowever recommends that fish farmers in the study area should increase their pond size, feed, lime and fingerling;and decrease the use offertilizer and labour for them to maximize revenue. I

INTRODUCTIONAquaculture or fish farming is the practice of rearing,growing or producing fish in a managed watersystem. Fish farming is often the term used byAmerican Catfish Producers (Meade. 1989) It is animportant and integral component or agriculturalproduction. According to the World Fish Center(2009). aquaculture is the world's fastest growingfood production sub-sector, growing at an annual rateof 8.9% since 1970. Land otherwise not suitable forany other form of agriculture can be used for fishfarming (aquaculture), such as Iadama irrigated areas,swamps. spent land, borrow pits etc. There areprincipally two main sources of protein which arefrom the animal and plant origin. Animal proteinwhich is the major source of protein for the populacein Nigeria has been in short supply due to the highcost of feed, slow growth, draught. incidence ofdiseases, and high perishability of animal proteinsources. Animal protein sources include egg, milk.poultry meat, mutton, fish, shrimps. crayfish and soon .. Of all these sources, fish appears to be the mostaffordable and available. Therefore, the role of fishand other aquatic products in the food basket ofaverage Nigerians cannot be overemphasized. Inaddition to the fact that aquatic products are readily

Iavailable and relatively cheap, they are not known toI

have any cultural or religious limitations.Fish. no doubt has substantial nutritional, social andfeconomic importance. Fish occupies a uuiqu Iposition in that it is the cheapest source of animalprotein consumed by the average Nigerian.Iaccounting for up to 50% of the total animal proteinlintake (FDF, 2009). Nigeria is regarded as the largesdsingle consumer of fish and fish products in the;African region with a demand estimate of 1.-1ll1illionmetric tons. There is an annual demand gap of at leasli0.7 million metric tons with import making up theshort fall at a cost of almost 0.5 billion US dollars pelyear (Kudi et 0/, 2008) with the food balance sheel;indicating that Nigeria is a protein deficient cOLintl)(Adewunmi, 2006). Among other macro-econonrpolicy issues, this situation impacts negatively on thenation's economy and there is a heavy scare fOilinvestors in fish farming as majority of them do 11111

have access to the demand surplus and economicIfeasibility of the enterprise besicie other prodLictiOflIinformation. It is therefore necessary to look intoIIIIimpediment to fish farming among fanners. ,1veritable way of achieving this is to carry out aneconom ic study of the resource use efficiency infii~farming, to discover the input-output flov i~

Keywords: Fish Farming, Gross Margin, Economic Feasibility, Cobb- Douglas functional form

104

piLitto

DeTh,Go'heakilot\ rcCOI

LuL'II·CS

AI\::theofGOI'I

ljebil.on]«r:llf I II\kth

[)at:lqueststudyfarm ecostscosts)larmrecordSOUI·Cckcpt nSal1lpi1\ILiltiseight)'far fisgovernchosenlkija. I

proportCOI11I11UIarrn crsCOI11mLlwhen:their larsourcedProgranin 20132012 pr:

Jromoting thec feasibility ofso respondentsue, as well aslean age of 41erative society.

10% througharrners is 2470ist and returnstal revenue of'.00 per 1000investment of

'om {ish wase and cost oflie. The studynd fingerlings

not known to

d, social anda unique

.e of animalNigerian,

imal protein.s the largestlucts in thec 1.4 millionip of at leastking up the; dollars perilance sheetient country'O-economicively on they scare forhem do not:l economic

productionook into thefarmers. Aarry out anency in fishIt now in

production, and suggest ways to improve efficientutilization of resources available to farmers. Owingto these, the study specifically described the socio -economic characteristics of fish farmers in the studyarea.determine the cost, revenue and profitability offish production in the study area and to estimate aproduction function to highlight input and outputrelationship in the enterprise.Materials and Methods

Description of the Study AreaThe study was carried out in Ijebu - East LocalGovernment area of Ogun State, Nigeria. It has itsheadquarters at Oghere, a distance of about 22kilometres from Jjebu-Ode. This Local GovernmentArea is bounded in the north by Ijebu NOl1h LocalGovernment of Ogun State, in the east by OdigboLocal Government of Ondo State, in the north andwest by Ijebu-Ode and Odogbolu Local GovernmentAreas of Ogun State, to the south and south west arethe Lekki Lagoon and Epe Local Government Areaof Lagos State and Ogun Waterside LocalGovernment Area of Ogun State to the south east.Ijebu East is located in the tropics between theLongitude 4.10° and 4.167°E and Latitude 6.44° and6.733°N. It has an area of 2,234 km2 and a populationof 110,196 (National Population Census, 2006).Method of Data Collection and Sampl ing Procedure

Data were collected with the aid of structuredquestionnaire administered to fish farmers in thestudy area. Data on general information about the fishfarmers (socio economic characteristics), variouscosts incurred on production (fixed and variablecosts), returns on sales of fish, problems facing thefarm amongst others were elicited from them. Therecords kept by farmers were used as the first levelsource of information and where records were notkept memory recall of fish farmers was relied upon.Sampling ProcedureMultistage sampling was used for selecting a total ofeighty (80) fish farmers. Six towns which are knownfor fish farm ing out of the towns in the localgovernment area were purposively selected. Thechosen towns are: Ijebu-Imusin. Ijebu-Ife, Owu,Ikija. Ogbere, and Itele. Fish farmers were thenproportionately sampled from the six towns (farmcommunities) based on their size (i.e number of fishFarmers). Ten fish farmers were selected from thecommunities except for Ijebu-Imusin and Ijebu-lfewhere fi fteen farmers were selected as a result oftheir large size. The sampling frame for the study wassourced from Ogun State Agricultural DevelopmentProgramme (OGADEP). The survey was conductedin 2013 and the accounting period for the study was2012 production period.

METHOD OF DATA ANALYSISDescriptive statistics, budgetary technique andregression analysis were used to analyse the datacollected for the study.Descriptive statistics such as; mean, median andpercentages were used to describe the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents andconstraints to fish farming in the study area.The budgetary technique involves the cost and returnanalysis. It was used to determine the profitability offish farming in the study area.

Model SpecificationIl = TR- TC (I)TR= PQ (2)

Where:fl = Total Profit (N)TR=Total revenue (N)TC= total Cost (N)P= Unit price of output (N)Q= Total quantity of output (kg)

Multip\e Regression AnalystsMultiple regression analysis was employed tomeasure the amount of change in the output (Y)associated with a unit change in the independentvariables as to determine the socio - economic andproduction factors affecting the output of fish.The Regression ModelThe model is specified as followsY=f(XI, X2, X), X4, x; X6, X7, e)....................................................................... (3)Y = value offish output in Naira.XI = Number of fingerlings stockedX, = cost of fixed inputs in naira.X) = cost of feeds used in naira .X 4 = labour used in fish production in mandays.X s = cost of lime used in naira.X6 = cost of fertilizer in nairaX 7 = cost of fingerlings used in naira.e= Error term.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe result interpreted in this section is based on thefindings from the analysis of the field data. Thediscussions are made in line with the study objectivesand interpreted as follows:Socio -economic Characteristics of Fish FannersKnowledge of the socio-economic characteristics isnecessary as it provides the framework for thediscussion of the results of the study, predicts theresults of the econometric analysis which informs therecommendations that can be made from the study.Table I reveals the distribution of fish farmersaccording to their gender, as evident from the table,

105

Ja~ I~ Distri~~ion of Res~~lents based S>~lGender, Age, Primary OccupatiOJ1~lar~ stat~:_~~llouseh~~Lc~~riablcs _ _ __ _ ____ _ Freq_ll~_n9 P_e~'=.!.llages __ . ~~_I_l _GenderIvla k:FemaleAge 01" Respondentsl.css than 3D] I -10-II - 50

Above 50Primary OccupationFarmingCi vi I ServiceTradersOthersr-.larital StatusSingleMarriedI)i vorcedHousehold Si ze.) and below

majority (72.5'}o) of the fish farmers are males while(27.5°'0) of them arc females. This shows that menare more in fish farming operation in the study areaas the time and cnergy requirement of the enterpriseare more likely to be afforded b) the men. Majority(82.5°0) of the fanners fell into the economicallyactive agc group of 20 - 50 years. The resultcompares Iavourably with Adcwuyi 0.'/ a! (20 I D). Themenu age of the fish farmers is -~I years which revealth.u most of them are in their active stagc. Thislinding is also in agreement with the result of Fakoyaand Dararnola (2008) who reported that the mean age

58

13]D7"--'I-I

-122855

1759-I

]1-I 7Above 7----- ----- - ,---- _._--Source: Field Survey. 2013

-172

Table 2 below reveals the distribution of fish fannersaccording to their years of formal education. 16.]'joor the fish farmers had primary education. and -16.2"0 had secondary education while 37.5~o had post-secondary education. The table reveals that most ofthe fish farmers are not members of a cooperativesociety. These categories of people were observed toconstitute 61.3% while 38.8% of the respondent inthe study area are members of a cooperative society.

of fish farmers in Ogun State of Nigen.i was -12.9years. The table reveals that most of the respondentsare primarily fish farmers and some civil servantswho took fish farming as a secondary occupation tomake ends meet. These two groups constitute 52.5°,and 35.0~0 respectively of the respondents in thestudy area. Majority (73.8%) of the fish farmers illthe study area are married, (21.3"iJ) are single while(-1%) are divorced. Thus. it can be inferred thatmarriage in a way provides access to the use offam i Iy labour in fish farm ing.

72.527.5

16.337.528.717.5 40.80

52.535.06.36.3

21.2n.85.D

38.858.72.5 ____ -1.02 . _

Majority (62.5~0) of the fish farmers do not ~ecrrecords while 37.5% keeps record. It was evident Ihm-13.]°;' of fish farmers had been into fish farming fOi

] years and below. 42.5~o had experience of ~ -1years while 13.8% had farming experience of aboveyears. The result further showed that majoril)(70.0%) of the fish farmers in the study area arttrained in fish farming while (30.0%) did not lInderg,'training

106

laFav.YLPriSe,Ie

1\1,YeNoRe,YeNoYe;1

-I

.\h.II'aYe~NoSOLI

Tab

m,urcspto I

rais.wcr,ban]useIanri\laj,

seria was 42.9he respondents

civi I servants. occupation toInstitute 52.5%mdents in the~sh farmers inre single while: in ferred thatto the use of

fousehold size

; do not keepas evident thatsh farming forence of 4 - 7nce of above 7that majority.tudy area areid not undergo

Table 2: Distribution Of Respondents Based On Years of Formal Education, Membershi p of Cooperative Society,FarmInsurance, Records Keeping, Years of Fish Farming, Training in Fish Farming.Variables Frequency Percentages Mean

Yearsof Formal EducationPrimary 13 16.3Secondary 37 46.2Tertiary 30 37.5Membership of CooperativeYes 31 38.8No 49 61.2

Record KeepingYes 30 37.5No 50 62.5Years of Fish farming1-3 35 43.34-7 34 42.5Above 7 11 13.2 r."Training in Fish farmingYes 56 70.0

a 24 30.0Source: Field Survey, 2013

Table 3 below reveals the distribution of fish farmersaccording to the source of land used in fish farming.As shown in the table, majority (46.3%) of the fishfanners made use of rented lands, 26.3% and 28.8%made use of inherited and purchased landrespectively. About 72.5% of the farmers were ableto raise their capital from personal savings, 15%raised their capital from friends and family while 8%were from cooperatives. Only 2.5% had access tobank loans. About 58.8% of the fish farmers madeLise of dug wells as their source of water in fishfarming, 41.2% made use of either river or stream.Majority of the fish farmers (52.5%) made use of

earthen pond while 47.5% made use of concrete pondas their preferred production system. The resultreveals that the average size of pond in the-study areais 169.13m2 with majority of the fish farmers keepingless than 200m2 As shown in the table, most (85.0%)of the brooding stocks are sourced from hatcherywhile 15% is from personal farm. About 75.0% of thefarmers raise between 1501 - 3000 fingerlings, while7.5% rear above 3000 fingerlings with a meanstocking density of 2470 fishes per pond. Majority(82.6%) of the farmers manage about 1 - 3 ponds,14.9% keep 4 - 7 ponds while 2.5% keep over 7ponds.

107

Table 3: Distribution Of Respondents Based On Source of Land, Source of Finance, Source of Water, Type of Pond,Source of Brooding Stock, Stage of Brooding Stock Reared, Stocking Density, Pond Size and Number of Ponds.Variable Frequency Percentages Mean(Std Error)

Source of LandRent 37 46.3Inheritance 21 26.2Purchase 21 27.5Source of FinancePersonal Savings 58 72.5Bank Loan 2 2.0Friends and Family 12 15.0Cooperative 8 10.0Source of WaterDug Wells 47 58.8Ri ver and Stream 33 41.2Type of PondEarthen Pond 42 52.5Concrete Pond 38 47.5Stocking Density1500 and Below 14 17.5150 I - 3000 60 75.0Above 3000 6 7.5Size of Ponds (m2

)

20D and Below 64 80.020 I --400 II 13.8Above 400 5 6.2Source of Brooding StockHatchery 68 85.0Own Farm 12 15.0Number of Ponds1-3 66 82.64-7 12 14.9Above 7 2 2.5Source: Field Survey, 2013

2470 (172.71)

169.13 (13.717)

Cost, Returns and Profitability of Fish FarmingCost incurred in the production of fish is very important so as to determine whether fish production is profitable ornot. Gross J);Iargin and profitability ratio were used to determine the level of profitability of fish production in thestudy area. From the farmers cost structure, 5.14% of the total cost incurred is used for the purchase of fingerlings,17.15% is used to pay wages. The largest cost incurred resulted from the cost of feeding which accounted for74.82% of the total cost incurred. Cost of drugs, lime and fertilizer accounted for 0.42%, 0.16%, and 0.08% of thetotal cost of production respectively. Cost of fixed inputs accounted for 2.23% of the total cost of production. Anaverage farmer earns about NI, J 20,300 from the sale of fish for an average stock of 2470 fishes. The result of theprofitability ratios, i.e return on investment (ROI) value of 1.96 implies that for every NI.OO invested in fishproduction by farmers, a return ofNI.96 and a profit ofNO.96 were obtained in the study area.

108

D

TableProduT01~11

Less \Cost CCost CCOSI CCost CCOSIO

Cost o.Total \Gross ILess T,Lund ADepreeDepreeDepree,DcprcciTOlal FiTotal C.Nctlnc(Source:Prolit,lbProlitabReturn cSource:

Rcgres~The Cothe leadexpectatof estill'has F -0.976 \0\

variablevariable.error. TIstocked,at 1% (rfingerl in)agrees w

Table 5: SRl:gressiol

ConstumI'illgcrlingFi:-.eu inpuFeedLabourLimeFertiliEerFinger) illg~R SquareAdjusted RI'Source: FicValues ill p:* signilicCln

'~ $'twU •

· Pond,is.

iblc orin therlings.ed forof the

1Il. Anof then fish

~!21c ·1: Cost ,lI1d ~ctl~rns Structure ofFish rarmin!i: ----= _Production Parameters Amount (I'll) PercentageTotal Revenue 1.120,300Less Variable CostCost or Fingerlings/JuvenileCost or FeedingCost or Drug/Mcdicat ionCost at' LimeCost Of FertilizerCost of LabourTotal Vuriablc CostGross f\ larginLess lotal Fi.\cd CostI uud Acquisition CostDcprcciat ion on GeneratorDeprcciut ion on cts and l looksDepreciation on Measuring ScaleDepreciation on Other EquipmcntsIutul Fixed Cost'l otnl CosrNct lncomc

29367.50427263.252371.25905.62-176.2597948.76558332.63561967.375

8238.621869.5-1196.42358431082.5412745.57571078.10549121.79

Source Field Sun cy. 2013Profituhilitv RatioProfituhility Ratio

Return on lnv cstmcnt 1.96Source: lic ld Sun cv. 2013

Regression analysis for fish productionThe Cobb - Douglas functional form was chosen asthe lead equation because it best agrees with aprioriexpectations with regards to the signs and magnitudesof estimates, The Cobb - Douglas functional formhas F - value of 1-13.67 and highest Adjusted R" of0.976 which showed that 98.3°0 of the dependentvariable is being explained by the independentvariables while 1.7% is unexplained due to randomerror. The coefficients of the number of fingerlingsstocked. cost of feed and cost of lime are significantat 1% (p<O.O I) while the coefficient of the cost offingerlings is significant at S% (p<0.05).This resultagrees with the findings of Adewuyi ct at (10 I 0) and

5.1·174.S2.0.42.0.16.0.0817.15(97.77)

1.·140.340.030.060.36(223)100

that of Awoyerni and Ajiboye (20 II). The more theamount expended on fingerling stocked. lime. feedsand fingerling. the more the amount that will berealized from fish farms in the study area. There istherefore need for fish fanners to purchase more ofthese inputs in order to increase their revenue fromfish production. Similarly, policies that will ensureavailability of these inputs to fish fanners ataffordable price should be put in place. The negativeinfluence of the cost of fixed inputs and labour on therevenue generation from fish farming signifies thatfarmers should reduce the amount spent on fixedinputs and labour used on the farm.

Tabl~): SUllllll:lry of Result of Cobb-Dou~,'_R:...:..:=_c_""!!I:.:·e:::s::.csic::o.:..:n'-A-'-'ccla::..:l~y"'si:::s . _Rl'grl'"iPIl ( llc·fticic·lll" I IlllCliullal l orm-

l.ineur-----( ",,,1:1111

1 illgL'1 IIll!..! ~tllL"kl'd

I i\nl il1!'utIl'l'dI .rhour

I illll'Il·ltililL"hllgLTlill~~

-,1367.15 (-0986)2·126.-11 *** (579:2)--1.()50 (_1.,70)175'1 (7_,3·1)-0.71 <> t-I.II·II)4-1.2-11)""'·· t2.iP I)-2-17() I t-O.51~)16.-12(, (flO, I)\l.'I(,5\l.')(,22Xh.(}2X

Semi -I.ll;: Double Illg-1.1801:7 (-7S8'-1)2426.cll *** (1.700)55935.196 (0813)IISOIlI].J5'*' (4165)-781059.621 *** (-4.306)163212.861 ** (2130)277547089 (1722)159854.·135 (1573)0.9200.88S2S.722

0.965 (0.121)o 171 *** (J.009)-00121 (-0443)0.031'" (7566)-0082 (-1138)0.087*** (2868)0.062 (0965)0.08S·* (2185)0.9830.976143.675

R "qllare\djll,!c'd I{ SLJuareISource Ficld Survey. 2013\'alucs ill parenthesis arc t-v alucs. SignilieClnt levels ofcoefficients arc dcnorcd as

* 'Igllllic;lllt at I (}O" tp- O. I). ** sign: Iicant :It 5° 0 (p. (l.05). ***signi f can t nt 10" (p<O.O I)

109

CONCLlISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe study concludes that majority (72.5%) ofthe fishfarmers are male who are still in their virile age; witha mean age of -~I years. Membership of cooperativesociety is common among them with majority ofthem financing their investments from personalsavings. Farm record keeping is poor among the fishfarmers. The average pond size of the fish fanners is169.138mc implying a small-scale production level.From the farmers' cost-return structure, the largestcost incurred in the enterprise is on feeding whichaccounted tor 74.82% of the total cost incurred. Theenterprise returns a gross margin of N561 ,967.375and profit of N5-19,221.798 for the average 2-170fishes kept. The rate of return on investment of 1.96implies that for everyone naira invested in Fishproduction by fanners, a return of NI.96 and a profitof NO.% were obtained. Fish production in the studyarea is economically rewarding and profitable.

The result showed that the number of fingerlingsstocked (p<O.O I), cost of feed (p<.O.O I), cost of lime(p<O.OI) and the cost of fingerlings (p<0.05) are theinputs significantly intluencing the revenue from fishfarming. The more tile amount expended onlingcrling stocked, lime, feeds, the more the amountthat will be realized from fish farms in the study area.There is therefore need for fish farmers to purchasemore or these inputs in order to increase their revenuefrom fish production. The negative intluence of thecost of fixed inputs and labour on the revenuegeneration from I~sh farm ing sign if es that farmersshould reduce the amount spent on fixed inputs andlabour used on the farm. The major constraints tofishery production in the study area are insufficientcapital. high cost of feed and labour.

Therefore, policies that will ensure availability ofthese inputs to fish farmers at affordable price shouldbe put in place. The government should encouragemore people to invest in it by making inputs used infarming available to farmers at subsidized price andby creating awareness through the use of extensionagents on both television and radio programmes, andthe print media such as the daily newspapers.

-------

REFERENCESAdewuyi S.A, Phillip B.B, Ayinde I.A and Akere!e D(20 I 0). Analysis of Profitability of FishFanning ill O,~IIII Stare. Nigeria. J Hum Ecol, 3 1(3):179- 18-1 .

Akinwandc . .K( 2009): Economic .inalysis OJ" lishProduction in .ibe okuta Metropolis 0/Ogun State. Unpublished B.sc. Dissertation,University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.

.\BSIh..:

Awoyemi, T. T and Ajiboye, A. J (20 II). Analysis ofProfitability of Fish Farming Among Women in OsunState. igeria Journal of Economics and SustainableDevelopment Vol.2, No.4, 20 I ICBN (2009). Central Bank of Nigeria: StatisticalBulletin, 2009

surv,Centalon;markesti 11

resulst lid)

maiLCOilS·

probtrans

Fakoya, E. O. and Daramo la, B. G. (2008) Socio-economic Factors Influencing Fanner's Participationin integrated Fish Farming in Ogun State. ,\'igeriunJournal of Rural Sociology 8( I). 9-17

Federal Department of Fisheries (FDF, 2009):Nigeria National Aquaculture Strategy. Assisted byFAO. Fisheries Statistics or Nigeria. 18p.

INTIMaizmerepractmarkcontiis berood

Kudi, T. M.; Bako F. P. and Atala, T. K. (2008):Economics of Fish Production in Kaduna State.Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN).Journal ofAgricultural and Biological Science. 3(5-6) 17-21.

Meade, 1. W., (1989): Aquaculture Management,published by Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. Pp59- 60.

t1 1'0\\b

clfccre lia:

Okpanefe (2007), Consumption pattern of fish inNigeria. Series 5World Fish Center. 2009. World Fish Medium-TermPlan. 20 I 0-20 12. Reducing Povertyand Hunger by Improving Fisheries and Aquaculture.99 p.

gralll50°1\AcccWe51cuhiIt isandconsi\ lai.worlroastand;lcednuradc\ecsralor t

cultiCO 111 Iunprprod

Olawumi, A.T., Dipeolu, A. O. and Barniro. O. M.(20 10) Economic Analysis of Homestead FishProduction in Ogun State Nigeria. J IIIJlII Ceo I,

31(/) 13-17

110