Cage culture: an initiative to work with the hard core poor

Dr. Harvey Demaine

Extension and Training Adviser
Kazi Gias Uddin
Introduction Monitoring and Evaluation Officer

Since 2002, GNAEP has been attempting to diversify its activities to try to offer
alternative livelihoods to poorer households through aquaculture. In this respect
piloting trials were started with rice prawn culture in 2002 and a number of other
alternatives are being tested out with small farmers. Cage culture is one of the
alternative aquaculture systems seen as suitable for disadvantaged women within the
project area.

Before GNAEP started cage culture in Chatkhil and Ramgonj upazilas, CARE
Bangladesh had promoted cage culture jointly with a
local NGO, “Gandhi Ashram” in a different area of
Chatkhil. One of these cage culture trials was in Taltala
village of Panchgaon union where the farmer set up
cages in a roadside canal. However the farmer did not
continue the culture after the withdrawal of support by
CARE Bangladesh and Gandhi Ashram. This cage was
made with iron, which is costly. For this reason other
nearby farmers did not show interest to adopt cage
culture.

Under the GNAEP in 2003, the Aquaculture Officers of Chatkhil and Ramgonj upazilas
visited different areas regarded as having potential for cage culture and talked with the
farmers about how to build a low cost cage, the benefits of cage culture and the
technical support they would receive from the Project. The farmers showed interest to
work with the GNAEP and eventually 20 farmers in Chatkhil and 8 farmers in Ramgonj
were selected for cage culture.

Farmers’ profile

A total of 28 farmers carried out cage culture in 2003 with the support from GNAEP,
20 in Chatkhil and 8 in Ramgonj. In Chatkhil all 20 farmers were female, all of them
largely engaged in domestic work. The farmers from Ramgonj were rather different;
out of 8 farmers, 6 were day labourers, one of them
female, and two others were a beggar and a ‘gypsy’ (a
person with no permanent residence/living in boat).
Out of 20 farmers in Chatkhil, 16 had no agricultural
land, the remaining 4 farmers having a land holding
averaging 84 decimals (3,360 m2). In Ramgonj out of
8 farmers, 3 farmers had no agricultural land and the
average land holding of the remaining 5 farmers was
130 decimal (5,600 m2). The average family size was
5 members in Ramgonj and 6 in Chatkhil. The annual
household income of the farmers in Chatkhil was Taka 23,866 and in Ramgonj Taka
22,625. None of the farmers had their own pond; out of 28 farmers, 24 farmers had a
share of a multiple-ownership pond, but 4 farmers had no pond of their own (either
single or multiple ownership).

In general, the only source of fish for family consumption for all households was to buy
in the market, although a few caught small amounts of fish from open water.

Installation of cages

Chatkhil Upazila

A total of 22 cages were installed by the 20 female farmers in Chatkhil. Out of these 22
cages, 10 women installed 11 cages (1 cu.m. each cage) in a 36 decimal pond and 8
women installed 9 cages in another 31 decimal pond. Another farmer who had no pond
of her own installed the cages in the canal nearby her house. The two ponds used were
owned by 13 households and 18 households, respectively. Lack of coordination among
the owners had meant that these two ponds had not been cultured for a long period. The
ponds were used for bathing, washing and others household uses.

Ramgonj Upazila

Eight farmers installed 18 cages (1 cu.m. each cage) in Ramgonj Upazila. Out of these
18 cages, 13 were installed in 5 different multiple-ownership ponds and 5 cages
installed in a canal. In Ramgonj 5 households had more than one cage and one farmer
had two systems, 3 cages in a pond and 2 cages in a canal.

Record keeping, data Collection and analysis:

To keep the record of expenditure and harvest on cage culture, every farmer was
supplied one GNAEP record-keeping book. With the assistance from Aquaculture
Officer and Field Monitor the farmers kept records of inputs and outputs.

At the end of the production cycle, GNAEP’s Field Monitor collected the necessary
information from the record book and also interviewed the farmers using a structured
format. Out of 40 cages, information was properly recorded in the record-keeping book
for 33 cages. The cost benefit analysis of cage culture that follows is based on the
information from these 33 cages.

Input for making cage and stocking

To minimize the cost of cages, according to the GNAEP advice, the farmers collected
black polyethylene net from Bhairab Bazar of Kishoregonj district. The cost of 1 cubic
meter cage was 271 Taka of which 189 Taka was for the net, 82 Taka for bamboo,
labor and empty plastic containers for floating the
cages in the water. Most of the farmers chose to stock
tilapia in their cages, again according to the GNAEP
recommendation. Three farmers stocked common
carp and two farmers stocked silver/bighead carp.
Thai shorputi (silver barb) was also stocked by a few
farmers along with the tilapia. The average stocking
density per cages was 220 fingerlings at a cost of 299

2
Taka. The survival rate of the fingerlings was found to be 94%.

Feeding and rearing

Rice bran, wheat bran and oil cake were mainly applied as feed for the fish. Beside
these inputs, kitchen waste was also used as feed. To ensure optimum use of feed, the
farmers used a feed tray in the cages. The average cost of feed for one (5-6 months)
cycle is Taka 175 per cage.

Production and Income

After 5-6 months an average of 207 individual fish was harvested from each cage. The
average yield per cage was 15.9 kg of which 46% was
used for family consumption. The value of harvested
fish was Taka 1,119 per cage. Total expenditure for
each cage was Taka 745, so the net return from one
cage in one cycle (5-6) month was Taka 374. The cost-
benefit ratio was thus 1: 1.5. The second highest item
(36%) in the production cost of cage culture for first
cycle is cage making/installation. Thus, from the
second cycle, the net return would be Taka 645 i.e. the
cost-benefit ratio will be 1: 2.36.

From the table below, it will be seen that the economic performance of cage culture in
ponds and canals differed. Farmers rearing in canals achieved lower yields and had
slightly higher production costs. Thus, on average they made a net loss on the first
cycle. Yields from cages in pond were 60% higher and the overall return much better.
Many of the multiple ownership ponds used were quite fertile and it may be speculated
that this was responsible for higher yields.

Comparative economic analysis of cages installed in canal and pond.

Description Cage in canal Cage in pond All cages

(n=5) (n=23) (n=28)
A. Expenditure
Net for cage (Tk/Cu.m.) 189 189 189
Bamboo, labor
and empty plastic container 120 74 82
Stocking 280 303 299
Feed 189 172 175
Total A: 778 738 745

Average yield per cage 10.4 17.2 15.9

Gross Return 730 1,203 1,119

Net Return (48) 465 374

3
Case Studies

Although the survey details discussed above are of the 2002-2003 culture season,
GNAEP has supplemented this survey by conducting interviews with women
participants in the cage culture initiative in early 2005, at the end of their second season
of culture. These case studies are concentrated in Daulatpur Village of Panchgaon
Union in Chatkhil Upazila and they describe the case of the cages in multiple
ownership pond system. Two of the ladies entered the activity in 2003, attracting others
in their village to join. The other two case studies thus refer to entrants in the 2004
season. It will be seen that the case studies broadly support the data from the survey.

(a) Momtaz Begum (2003 entrant)

This family of six has no agricultural land and has depended on the husband’s income
as a ricksha van puller. However, they do have access to a 36 decimal pond, jontly
owned by more than 10 households. The pond was not previously cultured because of
the joint ownership problem. Momtaz was on of the households who had received
training from Gandhi Ashram, but had not felt able to approach her husband to invest
because of the high cost of the cages. However, when she learnt that it was possible to
make a net at much lower cost, she discussed it with her husband and they decided to
try it out. They installed two cages in the pond. By early 2005 Momtaz had completed
three cycles of culture (one in 2003, two in 2004). With an investment of Tk 1,700, she
had sold fish totaling Tk 4,500, thus gaining a profit of Tk 2,800. This she has invested
in buying improved species of chicken, making one more cage and buying bamboo and
cane for making household materials.

(b) Rokeya Begum (2003 entrant)

Rokeya has 5 children and, like Momtaz, her family is dependent on the income of her
husband who works as a day laborer. This income has been insufficient to ensure
regular school attendance of her children. Again they have no other resource than the
access to a multiple-ownership pond. Again like Momtaz, she had received a short-
training from Gandhi Ashram, but had been constrained by the high cost. She also
invested in two cages under the GNAEP initiative, stocking tilapia in one and silver
carp in the second. After three cycles, she had produced fish to the value of Tk 5,000,
of which up to Tk1,500 had been consumed by the family. Her husband is now taking
an interest in the system, helping to collect fingerlings and other inputs. He also now
knows how to prepare low-cost cages and from the first cycle profits, the family
invested in a roll of polyethylene net. The husband makes the cages at a cost of Tk200-
250 and sells at Tk350. To date he has sold more than 50 cages and 10 more are on
order.

(c) Ferdous Ara (2004 entrant)

Ferdous was married at an early age to a ricksha puller. Now 43, the couple now has 4
children and find it difficult to make economic ends meet. She also has access to a 31-
decimal jointly-owned pond and, seeing the results of her neighbours, felt she wanted
to try this possibility of adding to family income. In 2004 in the first cycle, she installed

4
one cage and stocked 300 tilapia at a total production cost of Tk650. She began to
harvest after 3 months and achieved a profit of Tk700. She then did a second cycle,
achieving a net return of Tk1,275. Like Momtaz, she has invested in five hybrid
chickens and bamboo and cane for handicrafts.

(d) Jasmin Akhter (2004 entrant)

Jasmin also began culture in 2004 in the same 31 decimal pond. She and her husband
have no land, except for a house plot and he does sharecropping to earn a living. They
have five children, three of school age. She bought a cage from the husband of Mrs
Rokeya and stocked 300 tilapia. After the first cycle of 7 months, she obtained a net
profit of Tk700 from an initial investment of Tk500. She gave the profits to her
husband for his agricultural inputs. From the second cycle she earned another Tk1,300,
which she spent on buying chickens and clothing for her children. She intends to add
two more cages for the 2005 cycle.

Conclusion and recommendations

Cage culture is a good option for poorer households to make use of a problematic
multiple-owner pond, since it does not affect the use of the pond by others. It also
offers an instantly available source of fish for household consumption. Cage culture in
ponds is suitable for female farmers, since it is centered on the homestead.

Returns from a single 1 cu.m. cage does not make a huge contribution to household
annual income, but use of the cage for two cycles a year increases the net return. This is
an important modification introduced by GNAEP staff in 2004. From the case studies,
it will be seen also that the women are investing their modest profits in diversifying
their livelihood options. An increased number of cages could offer a better return and
most women are seeking to expand in this direction. The demand for cages has also
offered a useful extra income to at least one husband of the group.

GNAEP should reconsider the promotion of cage culture in relatively infertile canals
and streams. The cost of feed may undermine the profitability of this system.

Since this study, GNAEC has promoted cage culture to a larger number of households
in the Upazila of northwest Noakhali (Chatkhil, Ramgonj and Raipur), where there are
large numbers of similar ponds. It will be important to monitor this system carefully to
ensure long-term benefits to the farmers.

5
 Annex-1

Greater Noakhali Aquaculture Extension Project

Monitoring & Evaluation Unit
Survey Questionnaire for Cage Farmers
1. Farmers Name: ..…………….……………………………………………………
Parents/Husband Name:…..…………………………………………….………..
Village: ................………... Union .…….................. District .......................……
Age:........... Occupation:……............ Family members:Male ......... Female........
Land Ownership: Homestead:............ Pond: ........... Agriculture land: ………….
Yearly Family Income: .....................................Tk
Source of Family Fish Consumption: a) Pond b) Canal c) Buying from Market
d ) From Cage

2. Where did you install your cage: a) Pond b) Canal

If in the Pond, Water Area: ............ Deci. Owner: ........... Own Share: ...............
Total number of cage in the pond:……………..
Does fish culture continue in the pond? Yes/No
If no why? ............................................................................…………..................
If canal, type of canal: Closed / Stream
Did you face any problem to install cage in the canal:……...……………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
3. Cost of cage culture:
1st time 2nd time
Description Quantity Value (Taka) Quantity Value (Taka)
Cage Making Net
Bamboo/ Wood
Lebour cost
Stoking Tilapia
Species Sarpuite
Bighead
Singe
Others
Feed Cost

6
4. Fish Production
1St Time 2nTime
Description Nos Kg Value Nos Kg Value
(Taka) (Taka)
Consumption
Sell

Name of data collector:

Date: