See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323510901

Backyard Fish Farming: Environmental and Social Concerns, and Safety Nets.

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 3,167

1 author:

Okey Alum-Udensi
Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike
9 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aquatic biodiversity conservation View project

Freshwater Stingrays of West Africa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Okey Alum-Udensi on 02 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INT’L JOURNAL OF AGRIC. AND RURAL DEV. SAAT FUTO 2016

BACKYARD FISH FARMING: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL

CONCERNS, AND SAFETY NETS.

O. Alum-Udensi.
Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources management
Michael Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike, Abia State. Nigeria.
Email: [email protected]

Abstract Better knowledge of the actual consequence

Increasing number of backyard fish farms in of installations of new aquaculture facilities
residential areas and municipalities has and respect of code of good practices are
highlighted some concerns which were necessary to help improve the attractiveness
previously ignored. Poorly managed of fish farming (Dosdat, 2010).Many of the
aquaculture can lead to a string of concerns surrounding fish farming arise
unintended impacts that may endanger from the concentration of fish in intensive
humans and wildlife. This paper take a culture. Waste products, including feces,
review of the environmental and social uneaten food, and dead fish, are flushed
concerns associated with fish farming (often untreated) into the surrounding
activities in residential areas and offers waters where they may add to the
some remedial measures with the belief that contamination of the water supply. Some of
knowledge of the consequence of the well-known potential
installations of new aquaculture facilities environmental problems associated with
and respect of code of good practices are aquaculture include:
necessary to improve the attractiveness of
fish farming in neighborhoods. Medication and chemical inputs:
Keywords: Backyard fish farming, Social Aquaculture like other animal agriculture
concerns, biodiversity. sectors, relies on good management and
proper use of drugs and chemicals to
Introduction combat infectious disease pathogens (Jensen
There has been an increase in fish farming and Greenless, 1997). Use of drugs and
business in recent years. Evidence of this chemicals such as antibiotics, anti-fungus in
growth is the increasing number of backyard aquaculture can have unintended
farms by families. In the last two decades consequences for organisms in aquaculture
Clarias gariepinus has developed into one waste water receiving streams and human
of the most successfully cultured species in consumers of treated fish if these are not
Africa next to tilapias (Ayele, 2015).This well managed. Before its ban, malachite
has brought benefits in animal protein green was popularly used in the control of
supply, employment and wealth creation. fungus in fish hatcheries and fish farms.
However, aquaculture, like crop and animal This was found to have post-use harmful
production in agriculture, may introduce effects. Ill-informed farmers may still be
changes to the environment, generate waste using some unacceptable chemical
and raise environmental and social substances in the treatment of table fish.
concerns. These concerns may arise from Environmental concerns, such as the effects
the modification of natural habitats, of aquaculture chemicals on water and
displacement of wildlife, pollution, and sediment quality(nutrient enrichment,
landscape change (Bjorn, 2001). Poorly loading with organic matter etc.), natural
managed aquaculture can lead to a string of aquatic communities (toxicity, disturbance
unintended impacts that may endanger of community structure and resultant
humans, forests and wildlife. impacts on biodiversity), and effects of
microorganisms such as alteration of

Volume 19(1): 2563-2568, 2016 2563

INT’L JOURNAL OF AGRIC. AND RURAL DEV. SAAT FUTO 2016

microbial communities and the generation today one of the dominant species in the
of drug resistant strains of bacteria region through introduction and fish escape.
(Subasinghe et al., 2000). There is the risk of fish farmers introducing
new and improved fish species into
Disease and parasites: Viruses and backyard farms with little control on
parasites that transfer between farmed and escapes. With porous checks on fish
wild species as well as among farmed imports and weak regulations, genetically
species present a risk to wild populations or modified (GM) fish can easily be introduced
other farms. Fish lice are an example of fish in backyard farms by adventitious farmers
parasite that has the tendency to build up with unpredictable consequences. One of
populations in farmed fish. These could be the biggest ecological risks associated with
easily passed on to wild fish populations GM fish is their likely impacts on the native
through waste water discharge. Turker et population if they escape from aquaculture
al.(2002) observed that catfish pond water facilities (Satimehin and Olufeagba, 2015).
contain0 to 4,220 total coliforms/100mL; 0 Transgenic organisms are capable of
to 736 fecal coliforms/100mL; and 0 to 905 reproduction and they have the potential to
fecal streptococci/100mL. Fecal coliforms establish themselves in the environment as
and streptococci originating from warm persistent populations, or to introduce
blooded animals such as livestock, domestic transgenes into existing populations through
pet and other mammals and birds could pass introgression or other means (Bruggeman,
diseases to humans. Pest and nuisance may 1993). Where they do not spread their
be attracted by backyard fish farming due to genes, transgenic fish could disrupt the
damp and humid conditions around homes. ecology of streams by competing with
native fish for resources (Reichhaerdt,
Introduction and fish escapes: Aquaculture 2000).Non-native species in culture can also
is the principle reason for the introduction adversely impact local resources through
of freshwater fishes into new habitats. hybridization and loss of native stocks,
These introduced species eventually enter predation and competition, transmission of
the natural ecosystem through intentional disease, and changes in habitat.
release or accidental escape. For rmore than
two and half decades, there have been Water demand and feed: Aquaculture
increasing concern about genetic projects in residential areas like backyard
contamination of native fishes by escaped farms require the use of potable freshwater
farm reared fish (Harrel, 2002) Escaped supplies from public water supplies, which
farmed species or intentionally introduced is a major source of domestic water.
species can compete with wild fish and may Generally, this source is only economically
interbreed with local wild stocks of the feasible when the volume of use is relatively
same population, altering the overall pool of small. When volumes are high, there is
genetic diversity. Examples of species increasing pressure on public water
introduction which have altered natural supplies. Some farmers have resorted to
ecosystems include of the introduction of independent water supply by drilling
the Nile perch and Nile tilapia into Lake boreholes. This places pressure on the
Victoria in the 1950s (Moss, 1998) and the groundwater aquifers. Previously few
introduction of the Pacific oyster into the people voiced concerns that aquaculture was
UK in the 1960s. Locally the African either consumptively using water
Arowana (Heterotisniloticus) is an example (Hargreaves et al., 2002) or degrading the
of introduction of species to natural water environment through excessive demand on
bodies through fish escape. aquifers.
H.niloticuswhichwas not naturally found in A major component of fish feed is fishmeal
the River Cross and the Cross River basin is which is sourced from wild caught fish.

Volume 19(1): 2563-2568, 2016 2564

INT’L JOURNAL OF AGRIC. AND RURAL DEV. SAAT FUTO 2016

Increase in fish farming activities has vegetation around homes are major refuge
increased the demand for fishmeal (Enyidi, for wildlife in urban areas and when such
2012) putting additional pressure on already spaces are utilized for aquaculture, local
dwindling wild stocks. Were backyard fish wildlife are displaced.
farms prepare their own fish food; this could Animal welfare: Fish is the second-most
affect cost of feed ingredients as fish, soya common domestically farmedanimal after
beans and maize in local markets. broiler chicken .Fish welfare can suffer in
Wastewater discharge: Waste water an intensely farmed environment where the
discharge from fish farming activities stocking density is too high.
contain high levels of nitrogenous waste and intensive aquaculture practices frequently
suspended organic matter which can lead to expose fish to a range of stressors (e.g. the
eutrophication with its attendant problems stripping of brood fish, handling,
when released into water bodies vaccinations, crowding, grading, starvation,
(Omitoyinet.al, 2008). The buildup of waste treatments, loading and transportation),
in fish farm wastewater comes from waste which do not exist for wild fish (Cooke,
produced by the culture fish, uneaten feed 2016).
and dead fish. In backyard fish farming, Fish welfare concerns may be raised
most of the time, the waste water is pertaining to the farming, transport,
discharged directly into rivers, streams or harvesting and slaughter process by animal
municipal drainage canals. Fish farming rights activists or persons against the captive
waste water may contaminate receiving holding of species.
waters (Nkwocha2014) to various degrees With these concerns, there is the need to
when untreated. Wastewater from backyard ensure that activities in aquaculture are
fish farms could sometimes have offensive carried out professionally to eliminate the
odour in improperly managed farms. The possibility of undesired environmental and
odour is unacceptable and pollutes the social consequences.
environment.
Backyard fish farming Safeguards
Social issues: Disputes and conflicts may Stronger commitment to responsible
arise among neighbors on boundary lines farming is highly needed to reduce the
and right to use of land or access to impacts of fish farming. All stakeholders
resources (Burdge, 1999) or discharge of (farmers, government, consumers and
waste water (Hancock, 1986). Quarrels and general public) must enhance their
fights may result from neighbors over fish knowledge of potential impacts as well as
farming related activity. Backyard the negative social and economic side-
farms have folded up in neighborhoods effects of fish farming activities.
following quarrels and mismanaged If some of the laws and legislation in
disputes. Nigeria that relate to aquaculture are
Communities or religious groups that do not properly followed and enforced, the
eat scale-less fish such as catfish may frown problems associated with fish farming
at the idea of establishing a backyard yard would be reduced. Some of these
fish farm to rear scales fish. include:The Environmental Impact
Land use and biodiversity:Land usechange Assessment Act, The Endangered Species
is an important driver of biodiversity change Act, The Quarantine Act, The River Basin
as natural areas are converted toagriculture Development Authority Act, The
or urban areas (Sala et al. 2000). Clearing of Agricultural Control of importation Act,
land for backyard fish farming may affect The Animal Disease Act, and The Water
other use of the land. Economic crops and Resources Act. Development and
trees may be affected and habitat for improvement of legal and institutional
wildlife may be disturbed. Patches of frameworks will continue, but issues of

Volume 19(1): 2563-2568, 2016 2565

INT’L JOURNAL OF AGRIC. AND RURAL DEV. SAAT FUTO 2016

enforcement and monitoring of compliance risk would go a long way to help in

with environmental regulations, especially prevention of spread of pest and disease.
requirements for EIA and regular To reduce the risk of escape of GM fish,
environmental monitoring, needs to be biological containment is necessary. One
addressed better (Agbagwa, 2014). way of achieving this is through induction
These laws and regulations are not enough. of sterility in transgenic individuals so that
Precautionary approaches are advocated for they cannot breed successfully if they
best aquaculture practices, particularly as escape into the wild (Bruggeman, 1993).
regards the introduction and use of alien
species. Improved husbandry is very Conclusion
important, and better on-farm practices are Conservative water use and minimization of
required, particularly with regard to the waste water volume is key to reduction in
selection and use of feeds and fertilizers, much of the environmental and social
and the safe and effective application of concerns in backyard fish
drugs and chemicals. Very often there are farming.Introduction and inclusion of water
significant opportunities to better manage management facilities such as water
the water resources utilized as well as the treatment units (biological and mechanical
wastes generated. Better use of available treatments) could improvewater reuse,
resources, emphasizing technical and reduce effluent volume and pollution of
economic efficiency, will help improve farm receiving waters including reduced odour.
management. Some other management practices which
Every aquaculture project should have could help include reduced water change
environmental management plan as intervals, fish harvest without pond
modification of natural habitats by fish drainage, non-use of chemicals for fish
farming activities is known to l bring along production
with it changes in micro ecosystem. Efforts andunderground injection control.There is
must be made to reduce the induced impact need to implement proper stocking density
during the construction period. Construction and best management practices to reduce
earth works should as much as possible,be environmental and social concerns.
done in the dry seasons and drainage canals
should be protected from sand fills. Erosion References
and floods control measures must be put in Agbagwa, I. O. 2014. Introduction to
place to control waste water discharge and Environmental Safeguards: A
prevent the pollution and contamination of training manual. West Africa
nearby waters. Agricultural Productivity
Alternative feed ingredients which are not Programme-WAAPP.Pp 76.
consumed directly by humans such as
maggots (Madu and Akilo, 2001), soybean Ayele, T. A. (2015). Growth performance
waste ( Orire and Ozoadibe, 2015), jatropha and survival rate of African catfish
kernel meal (Fakunle et al., 2015), blood larvae Clariasgariepinus (Burchell
meal, poultry by-product meal and others 1822) fed on different types of live
should be considered as replacements for and formulated feeds. Master of
fish feed ingredients in high demand for Science Thesis submitted to
human consumption. University of Natural Resources
Risk of escape of species to ecosystems and Life Science (BOKU), Vienna
could be reduced by inclusion of fish Austria.
screens and simple practices as conducting
draining/ water change at dry spells. Bjorn L. (2001) TheSceptical
Integrated pest management plan that does Environmentalist: Measuring the
not pose significant health or environmental Real State of the World.

Volume 19(1): 2563-2568, 2016 2566

INT’L JOURNAL OF AGRIC. AND RURAL DEV. SAAT FUTO 2016

Cambridge University Press. in the United States. Ed. J. R.

Cambridge. United Kingdom. Tomasso. U.S.
p515. AquacultureSociety. Louisiana,
USA.
Bruggeman,E. P. (1993). Environmental
Safety I ssues for genetically Harrel, R. M. (2002). Genetic Implication of
modified animals. Journal of Escaped and Intentionally-Stocked
Animal Science. 71: 47 – 50. Cultured Fishes.In Aquaculture
and the Environment in the United
Burdge, R. J. 1999.A Community Guide to States. Ed. J. R. Tomasso. U.S.
Social Impact Assessment. rev. ed. Aquaculture Society. Louisiana,
Middleton, Wisconsin: Social USA.
Ecology Press.
Hancock, S.; Margaret S.; and Joan
Cooke, M. (2016).Animal Welfare in L.G.1986. Community Impact
Farmed Fish.Business Benchmark Monitoring Program: Final Report.
on Farmed Animal Atikokan and Toronto, Ontario:
Welfare.Investor Briefing No. 23. The Township of Atikokan and
Ontario Hydro, 25 November
Dosdat A, Le Bris H and Pouliquin H 1986.
(2010) Aquaculture waste and
drugs: Prevention and Jensen, G. L. and Greenless, K. J.
management. CompteRendu l’ (1997).Public Health Issues in
Academie D Agriculturede France Aquaculture. Rev. Sci. Tech.Off.
82. Pp 143 – 154. int. Epiz.,16(2),641-651.

Enyidi, U. D.(2012).Production of feeds for Madu, C. T. and Akilo, K. T. (2001).The

African catfish Clarias gariepinus Use of Live Maggot and Live
using plant proteins.In Jyväskylä Tilapia Fry as unconventional
Studies in Biological and Diets for Juvenile of Catfish,
Environmental Science, (Ed) T. Clariasangularis.In FishNutrition
Marjomäki.Ville Korkiakangas and Fish Feed Technology.Ed.
Publishing Unit, University of Eyo, A. A. Fisheries Society of
JyväskyläPekkaOlsbo, Nigeria (FISON).Apapa, Lagos
Nigeria. 74- 82.
Fakunle, J. O., Alatise, S. P., Effiong, B.
N.andTiamiyu, K. (2015). Effect Moss, B. (1998). Ecology of Fresh Waters:
of Replacing Soybean Meal with Man and Medium, Past to Future.
Graded Levels of Boiled Jatropha 3rd Edition.Blackwell Science Ltd.
Kernel Meal in Diets of Clarias United Kingdom.
gariepinus Fingerlings.
Proceedings of the 29th Annual Nkwocha, E.E.(2014). Environmental
Conference of Fisheriies Society Impact Assessment: Principles and
of Nigeria. Makurdi.24th – 28th Process. Favoured House
November 2014. Pp 353 – 359. Concept.Owerri, Imo State
Nigeria.
Hargreaves, J. A.;Boyd, C. E.;andTucker, C.
S (2002).Water Budget for Omitoyin, B. O.; Fagade, O. E.; Ogunjobi,
Aquaculture Production.In A. A.; Ogbona, J.; Ajani, E. K.;
Aquaculture and the Environment and Oyelade,A. A (2008).

Volume 19(1): 2563-2568, 2016 2567

 INT’L JOURNAL OF AGRIC. AND RURAL DEV. SAAT FUTO 2016

Preliminary Investigation on the

Conversion of Aquaculture Solid Tucker, C. S; Boyd, C. E.; and Hargreaves,
Waste into Single Cell J. A.; (2002).Characterization and
Protein(SCP) from Re-circulatory Management of Effluents from
Slug for Fish Feed. Nigerian Warmwater Aquaculture Ponds.In
Journal of Fisheries. Vol 5(2) 107 Aquaculture and the Environment
– 122. in the United States. Ed. J. R.
Tomasso. U.S.
Orire, A. M. and Ozoadibe, T. N. (2015). AquacultureSociety. Louisiana,
Evaluation of Growth Performance USA.
and Body Composition of Clarias
gariepinus for Graded level Reichhaerdt,T.(2000). Will Souped up
Inclusion of Soybean Waste. salmon sink or swim. Nature 406:
Proceedings of the 29th Annual 10 – 12.
Conference of Fisheriies Society
of Nigeria. Makurdi.24th – 28th
November 2014. Pp 328 – 333.

Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S., Armesto, J.J.,

Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo,
R.,Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke,
L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A.,
Leemans, R.,Lodge, D.M.,
Mooney, H.A., Oesterheld, M.,
Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T.,
Walker,B.H., Walker, M., Wall,
D.H. 2000. Biodiversity – global
biodiversity scenariosfor the year
2100. Science 287 (5459): 1770-
1774.

Satimehin, F. P. D. and Olufeagba, S. O.

(2015).Environmental Impact of
Genetically Modified Fish – A
Review.Procedings of the 29th
Annual Conference of the
Fisheries Society of
Nigeria.Makurdi 2014. 83 – 88.

Subasinghe, R. P.; Barg, U. and Tacon, A.

(2000). Chemicals in Asian
Aquaculture:Need, Usage, Issues
and Challenges. In Use of
Chemicals in Aquaculture in Asia.
(Eds) JR Arthur, J. R; Lavilla-
Pitogo, C. R. and Subasinghe, R.
P.; Proceedings of the Meeting on
the Use of Chemicals in
Aquaculture in Asia.20-22 May
1996; Tigbauan, Iloilo,Philippines.

Volume 19(1): 2563-2568, 2016 2568

View publication stats