Comparative analysis of production performance in integrated aquaculture system and single system of production of fish, rice, poultry and pig

In the agricultural sector of the Nigerian economy which employs about 70% of the active labour force, fi sh production occupies a unique position because it is the cheapest source of animal protein consumed by the average Nigerian, accounting for up to 50% of the total animal protein intake [1]. The vast production from capture fi sheries which represent one of the major aspects of fi sh production are now being depleted and labeled as unsustainable in its present state [2]. On the other hand, aquaculture which is a rational production of fi sh under controlled conditions is increasing in its intensifi cation as a Abstract

Citation: Ajani  desirable way of augmenting the fi sh harvest from wild sources [3]. Fish production from aquaculture is therefore considered as the only way of increasing fi sh production as capture from the wild is dwindling by the day. An increase in the population of Nigeria leads to a corresponding increase in demand for fi sh and animal protein. Thus, there is the need for suitable aquaculture systems that can meet the increasing demand for fi sh and other protein food sources; while entrenching maximum and sustainable utilization of the available limited resources with minimal negative impacts on the environment. In view of this, integrated fi sh farming also called integrated agriculture or integrated aquaculture system can guarantee food production increase and profi tability on investment through optimum utilization of resources with minimal wastage [4].
Integrated fi sh farming is a diversifi ed and coordinated way of farming with fi sh as the main target along with other farm produce [4]. The aim of integrated fi sh farming is to create a mutually benefi cial system that will lead to maximization of productivity through optimum resource use [5]. For example, fi sh production can be combined with maize production, in this case, waste water from pond can be used to irrigate the maize plantation, while the maize and its husk after maturity can be used as part of the ingredient for fi sh feed production.
The operation of the two systems in this way makes the system a mutually benefi cial one, with zero waste, more productivity and offer protection to the ecosystem through waste water utilization.
Integrated fi sh culture has been considered an ideal method of land use, which has been practiced in Asia for several centuries [6]. Although signifi cant breakthrough has been achieved in Asia through integrated aquaculture, not much has been achieved in Africa with special reference to Nigeria [6].
In Nigeria, integrated fi sh farming has been reported across Nigerian states in which 50% of fi sh farmers combined poultry, piggery or livestock with fi sh production, while integrated fi sh cum crop production is also on the rise in several states [7]. The form of integration depends on the prevalent environmental conditions, social norms, cultural values and religious factors [8]. For example, in the northern part of Nigeria, fi sh cum pig integration is not advisable because of religions bias towards consumption of pork, fi sh cum rice combination therefore becomes the common practice, meanwhile, the southern part of Nigeria are found to be more prolifi c with the combination of fi sh and poultry or pig with vegetable as the major crop . In order for the country to be self-suffi cient, there is the need for farmers to engage in a result oriented farming system that can guarantee and sustain adequate food security in environmentally friendly manner [8].

The study area
The experiment was conducted on the experimental plot of the Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria, (latitude 7°26'40.35"N and longitude 3°53'58.29" E). The study site is a fragment of the Department fi sh production centre. It consisted of 4 production earthen ponds, a reservoir, a maggot production unit, Pig sty and a pen house with 3-tiers cage consisting of 24 compartments.

Experimental facilities
Poultry house and cage: The poultry house (3.9m by 3.7m) was constructed with fabricated blocks that extend from its foundation to height of 1.2m above the foundation as presented in Plate 1. Wire netting was used to complete the walls of the house to the roof region. A channel pipe extended from the poultry house to the pond such that the excreta of the birds can easily be fl ushed through this channel pipe into the pond. provision was made for a drinker and a feeder for the pigs. The drinking troughs were 0.45m x 0.55m in each of the rooms, while the feeders were 1.05m×0.6m.
Fish ponds: Two fi sh production pond (Pond A: 17m by 11m) and (Pond B: 18m by 13m) with inlet water pipe that collects water from the reservoir tank (25m by 16m) was used for fi sh culture for 12 weeks. Pond A was constructed to receive waste and maggot generated from poultry excreta, while pond B was made to receive waste and maggot produced from pig excreta. An average of 5g (1000 pieces) and 10g (1120 pieces) Clarias gariepinus juvenile was stocked in pond A and B respectively. The area of the ponds that accommodated the cultured fi sh (Plate 4) was between the wall of the rice paddy and the embankment.

Rice bed:
The rice bed/paddy (rectangular in shape) was 12m by 5.5m and 14m by 6.5m in pond A and B respectively, with height 50cm in each of the ponds. The rice bed (Plate 5) was constructed at the centre of the pond such that an allowance of 1.3m width was created between the 4 sides' wall of the bed and the embankment.

Maggot production unit
The maggot production unit consisted of the housing, production bowl and a platform for keeping the bowl. The housing 3m by 3m with height of 4m was made with framework of wood surrounded by wire mesh. It has an interior platform with upper and lower shelves which carries the bowl for production. The upper shelf carries the bowl for attractant, while lower shelf carries the bowl with the fecal materials. Two bowls were placed at the lower shelf each containing fecal materials from poultry and pig respectively. The attractant was used to attract fl ies which eventually lay eggs in them. Samples of the attractant were collected and used to inoculate the fecal materials in the bowls of the lower shelf.

Experimental procedure
Two experimental setups A and B were created. The setup A encompasses the production of fi sh, rice and poultry, while the setup B involves the production of fi sh, rice and pig.

Fish, rice and poultry integration
Fish: One thousand pieces of 5g average of African Catfi sh Juvenile Clarias gariepinus were gotten from a reputable fi sh farm in Ibadan and were stocked with fi ngerlings in pond A. The fi sh were fed 5% body weight with 25% crude protein of formulated diet and 2500g of maggot produced from poultry waste for 12 weeks. After harvesting, the fi sh were smoked to add value before they were sold. During the period of production, growth performance, mortality and cost of fi xed input, variable input and revenue generated from sale of fi sh were documented.
Rice: Rice seeds (WITA 4) which is upland rice was gotten from National Seed Crop Research Centre in Ibadan and were pre-planted in the nursery for 3 weeks after which the seedlings were transferred permanently to the pond. Rice seedling was planted 10cm and 20cm intra and inter spacing respectively on a rectangular rice paddy 10m by 5m at the centre of the pond, and took about 4 months before complete maturation. After, harvesting, the rice seeds were dried, cleaned and processed before they were sold. During the period of production, cost of fi xed input, variable input and revenue generated from sale of rice were recorded. Poultry: Sixty pieces of point of lay (POL) 16 weeks old dominant black breed of layer birds was stocked into the 3-tier cage. The birds were fed with 18% crude protein of grower mash for 4 weeks after which 16% crude protein layers mash was introduced. Vaccination (Lasota, Gumboro e.t.c) and medication (Antibiotics, Vitamins e.t.c) were given as need requires. Production performance data which include; bird weight increase, fecal weight and egg production were recorded on daily basis, while routine management practices were carried out as required.

Fish, rice and pig integration
Fish: One thousand one hundred and twenty pieces of 10g average of African catfi sh Juvenile Clarias gariepinus were gotten from a reputable fi sh farm in Ibadan and were stocked in pond B. The fi sh were fed 5% body weight with 25% crude protein of formulated diet and 2500g of maggot produced from pig waste for 12 weeks. After harvesting, the fi sh were smoked to add value before they are sold. During the period of production, growth performance, mortality and cost of fi xed input, variable input and revenue generated from sale of fi sh were documented.
Rice: Rice seeds (WITA 4) which is upland rice was gotten from National Seed Crop Research Centre in Ibadan and were pre-planted in the nursery for 3 weeks after which the seedlings were transferred permanently to the pond. Rice seedling was planted 10cm and 20cm intra and inter spacing respectively on a rectangular rice paddy 12m by 6m at the centre of the pond, and took about 4 months before complete maturation. After, harvesting, the rice seeds were dried, cleaned and processed before they were sold. During the period of production, cost of fi xed input, variable input and revenue generated from sale of rice were recorded.
Pig: 10 units of grower pig were stocked in the sty. They were fed 5% body weight with pig grower feed, this was done in the morning and evening. Seven out of 10 pigs were fattened and sold as pork at the rate sold in the market, while the remaining 3, 2 females and 1 male were kept for reproduction.
During the period of production, cost of fi xed input, variable input and revenue generated from sale of pork were recorded.
In-Depth Interview with Farm Owners of Single System of Fish, Rice, Poultry and Pig Production.
In order to compare between productivity of integrated system and single system of production of fi sh, rice, poultry and pig, Seventeen farms were visited which include fi ve fi sh farms, fi ve poultry farms, fi ve pig production farms and two rice plantations. The farms visited were selected based on their close proximity with the research sites so as to reduce spatial error and error due to the infl uence of climate and weather.
In-depth interview was carried out with owners of farms and production data collected were compared with the data recorded for integrated system under study.

Data analysis
Descriptive statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics such as mean, median, and frequency was used to describe the production performance of the system.

Rice, fi sh and poultry production performance
The production performance of rice, fi sh and poultry were presented in Figures 1-4 and Tables 1-4 respectively.
The average weight of fi sh and poultry birds at 12 weeks was 309.9±1.78g and 2.3±0.93kg respectively. The egg production increases from 0% to 71% from start of egg lay to 3 months of lay, as presented in Figure 4 kilogram of rice was harvested, while 20kg of rice was gotten after the husk was removed. The feed conversion ratio of the fi sh cultured was 1.39 and percentage survivability was 72.6 as shown in Table 4.
Production performance under Rice, Fish and pig were presented in Figures 5-9 and Tables 5-8

Production indices
Field responses from the in-depth interview with farm owners and physical examination of production variables formed the data subjected to comparison with the integrated system. The variables of production of integrated fi sh farming      studied were presented in Table 9 and were compared with the variables of single system of production.

Discussion
Generally, the results of the research fell within the desirable  Production performance: This research employed synergistic approach to unify the production of fi sh, rice cum poultry and fi sh, rice, and pig as a single system of production. The idea behind the synergy was to ensure complete recycling of waste from the system into productive resources for use to enhance production.
The production performance of systems studied which are fi sh, rice cum poultry and fi sh, rice, cum pig was within favourable limits and performed better when compared with production performance of single system of production (Tables this agrees with the range earlier reported by Yaro [10]. The average egg production per day from the integrated system was 42 which give 70% productivity, although this value is lower than the value recorded for single system of production which was 80% productivity, but fall within the range stated to be desirable by [11].

Production indices:
From the comparative studies conducted on IFF and Single production system, it was observed in reference to Table 9 that:  Cost of purchase of feed for fi sh was relatively reduced in IFF when compared with single system of production with similar production capacity as observed in farms where In-depth interview was carried out. This was due  to the inclusion of maggot in the diet of the fi sh cultured under IFF; this assertion has already been confi rmed by the work of Edwards, et al. [12].    Land management was also a major advantage of IFF over single production system. In IFF the size of land needed for production is relatively less than that required for single system of production, this was because the land required to operate IFF in a single location is less than the overall land requirement to operate single production system at different locations, this corroborated the submission of Nnaji, et al. [13], that integrated fi sh farming ensures land management.
 Reduction in the cost of purchase of inorganic fertilizer is also an important aspect of IFF in contrary to single operating system; this follows the result recorded by Vincke [14].
 The level of utilization of fi sh offal, fi sh oil, and rice bran in the feed of fi sh, poultry and pig also is a plus to IFF.