Kazima, J.

Kumagai, S.

Matiya, G.G.

English

Aquatic Commons

2ffitcJttct1g pirirm oi1 hr em f iviIi'wi
G.G. Matiya , S. Kumagai and J. (azh a
Aquaculture and I isherics Science Department, Bunda College, 1'.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi
.\SLTet
1 sherics :onunue to play a signiflcaur role in the lii.' ol many \ialau ians despite havmg eXp'neI;cLd cnn-ar—
able decline in the l990s. The (leclule in catches his made the prices of ish to go up.. \. studs to invettgaic
Ihetors that iuiluenee prices of fish u as conducted i Lilongwe. Saliiiii. Kasuogu and i' Ichinji di,trcts m the
'cuital Rc'ion of Mala i. Thirteen markets were '. isited every week thr a period of three months .uanst
--
t)ciober 2001 ).A structured questionnaire u jIb o1eii—ended queStions as used. i'sin uiiultiple reccssioi
analysis u a ibund that species t pe. weight. lbrn of preservation and Inari'ci tyc inilueicc th tic
lish more than the other ariabics. The re',ults suacst that fkh iradiug in urban market. can be d iniic and
e. size and form of preservation pla\ an itaportant role in determining the prices.
Key words: l'kheries. Market. Prices
Introduction
The fish stocks of Malawian waters are, undoubt-
edly among the most important natural resources of
Malawi (Bulirani, et al., 1999). Fish forms 70% of all
animal proteins consumed (Balarin, 1987), but the per
capita fish consumption has gone down from 14.7 Kg
to 7.0 Kg in the 1990s (GOM, 1998). Consequently,
the prices of fish have gone up over the years. In
competitive economy, prices are signals of communi-
cation between producers and consumers. They guide
and regulate production and consumption decisions
(Begg, 1984).
Prices of fish have been reported to vary considera-
bly by season as well as throughout the country. For
example, in the interior markets, prices are affected
by the seasonal competition from other sources of
animal protein while in locations along the lake-
shores, as well as the two largest urban centres, Blan-
tyre and Lilongwe, wholesale prices are lower than
elsewhere, particularly the hinterland markets of the
northern region (ICLARM and GTZ, 1991).
Studies on fish prices were conducted in the south-
ern and northern regions hence little has been done in
the central region of Malawi (Brummet 2000). Hence
this study was conducted to determine how the price
of fish was influenced by market type (whether rural
or urban), form of preservation, species of fish, dis-
tance to the market and distance to the main city in
the central region of Malawi.
Methodology
The study was carried out in four districts Malawi
including Lilongwe, Kasungu, Salima and Mchinji.
Both primary and secondary sources of data were
23
used. The primary sources included informal dis-
cussions with experts and key informants like tech-
nical assistants from Fisheries Department and city
or town councils. In addition, a total of 223 respon-
dents (consumers) in 13 markets were interviewed
for a period of three months between August and
October, 2001.
Stratified random sampling technique was used to
identify the respondents. Two strata , based on lo-
cation and number of traders (Brummet 2000) were
made of market: rural and urban markets. Msangu
Market in Salima, Chigwirizano, Nathenje and
Chimbiya markets formed the rural market stratum
while Lilongwe old town market, Area 13 and Area
3 markets in Lilongwe, Salima, Kasungu and
Mchinji district markets formed the urban market
stratum.
In both formal and structured questionnaires,
information was collected on the species of fish
that demands higher prices, the size of fish that
people prefer and distance of market (in km) from
the landing site.
Multiple regression was run to determine the ex-
tent to which the independent variables (described
below) influenced the price of fish on the market
(dependent variable). The model was specified as
follows:
Y f(F,S,DL,Dm,M,L)
Where: Y = price of fish
F = form of preservation
S = species group
DL — distance (in kilometers) from
Issue No: 2, Nov 2003
Lilongwe
D, =distance (in kilometers) of each market
from the landing site
M = market type
L = length of fish
Each variable is briefly discussed below:
Dependent variable V (Price of fish)
This is the response variable. It was incorporated
into the model as a continuous variable in Malawi
Kwacha (MK) per Kg.
Form of preservation (F)
Fish is preserved in different forms and may fetch
different prices depending on consumer preferences
and taste. Fish may be sun-dried, smoked or frozen.
Processing attracts extra cost to retailers but may also
add value to fish. In the model, 0 = fresh, 1 = sun-
dried and 3 smoked. It was hypothesized that
smoked fish would be more expensive than fresh or
sun dried fish because of the added cost of labor and
energy.
Species group (5)
Type of fish was considered to influence its price.
Some species may be preferred more than others.
Distance from Lilongwe (DL)
Lilongwe is the capital city of Malawi and hence
the population of the working class is high. This was
considered as increasing the buying power of the con-
sumers may. As fish that is sold in Lilongwe comes
from as far as Mangochi, Nkhotakota and Salima on
Lake Malawi, it was expected that fish from further
places would cost more than fish from areas close to
Lilongwe.
Distance of market from the landing site (Dm)
Fish is perishable and if it is to be sold in good con-
dition, it must be taken to the market within the
shortest time period or it must be preserved. Since
preservation adds costs it was considered that trad-
ers are prompted to sell their fish at the nearest
market to avoid deterioration of quality, which
would influence price of fish. Therefore distance of
each market from the landing site was determined.
Market type (M)
Since markets were stratified into urban and rural
the analysis tried to establish whether there were
significant differences between price of fish in ur-
ban and rural markets.
Weight/Length of fish (W, L)
It was expected that the bigger the size of fish the
higher would be the price of the fish. However
some species of fish, especially the smaller ones,
are sold in heaps. Dry weight of fish was computed
in order to compare the sizes of fish.
Estimation of the model
A bivariate (Chi-squared) analysis was carried
out to determine how each of the explanatory vari-
ables relates to the dependent variable. This analy-
sis was also carried out to find out if the influence
of each of the variable separately, was significant.
A correlation analysis was made to determine if
the explanatory variables did correlate to each
other. A variable that was highly correlated to the
other was dropped to avoid the problem of multi-
collinearity. Weight and length were highly corre-
lated (0.7) and were hence used separately.
Results
Results from regression analysis showed that spe-
cies type, weight, form of preservation and market
type have a significant influence on the prices of
fish (Table 1).
Table 1: Multiple regression coefficients of the factors influencing prices of fish
Variable X1 Coefficient S,E, t-value
Constant 2 18.983 24.452 0.000
Species S 11.917 1.966 0.000
Weight W -0.111 0.027 0.000
Preservation F 17.970 7.432 0.017
Distance from Lilongwe DL -5.66E05 0.133 1.000
Distance from landing site D,, -4.74E02 0.054 0.379
Market type M -43.145 13.413 0.002
24
Aq&ur-Fish Tech, Rep. Isrre No: 2, Nov 2003
Discussion
Overall, average prices of fish in urban market
were significantly higher (P<0.05) than prices of fis
in rural areas. In urban markets the price of fish was
MK233.07/kg compared to price of fish in rural mar-
kets , which was MK2 10.19/kg. The results may re-
flect (lie demand and supply or purchasing power of
consumers (Ciilberg 1966). The consumers in urban
areas may have higher purchasing power because
they are mostly working class or business people and
therefore have higher income than the rural people
who are mostly subsistence farmers. Similar result
were reported by Brummet (2000).
In urban markets, type of species and weight had
significant influence on the price while type of spe-
cies, weight and form of preservation were important
for rural markets. In both rural and urban markets
fresh fish was preferred, but smoked fish constituted
about 44% of the total fish purchased, with fresh fish,
sun-dried and boiled and sun-dried constituted about
26%, 27% and 3% respectively.
An interview with key informants and consumers
revealed that certain species have high demand than
others. About 80% of the consumers indicated that
they preferred cichlids e.g. Ghambo, to cyprinids.
Ghambo was specifically mentioned to be the most
preferred fish. Weyl (1999) has reported that the
beach price of Chambo (Oreochromis spp), Mpasa
(Opsaridiurn microlepis, other tilapia and Sanjika
(Opsaridiuin microcephalus) were higher than Kam-
pango (Bagrus meridionalis), Ntchila (Labeo mesops,
Usipa (Engraulicypris sardella), Utaka
opadichrornis spp) and Miamba (catfishL Utaka
was consumed in largest proportions because it was
cheap and readily available. This was so because it
was cheap and readily available.
In addition, results of the study show that smaller
species such as Usipa (Engraulicypris sardella)
fetched higher prices per kilogramme (dry weight
basis) than bigger species like catfish or Bo,nbe. The
small size fish are sold by basket or pile and a con-
25
umer with low income can afford to buy the
smount sufficient for his family. Bigger-sized fish
$pecies are sold by piece, which is often much
more expensive than its equivalent amount of
ma1l-sized fish species. For example, Mpasa
Opsaridium microlepis) was selling at MK342.30/
kg while a heap or pile (usually about 1 kg) of
Uipa (Engraulicypris sarde1la) or Utaka
(topadichromis spp) would cost MK2O. This
niakes it impossible for low-income households to
buy the bigger-sized pieces of fish. However, in the
final analysis, retailers selling small fish would
malce more profit than those selling big fish be-
cause there was no proportionality in the weight
and price. Nonetheless, this depended on the type
of fish species. For example, Usipa is more costly
than Utaka (Copadichromis spp) implying that
even within the smaller species some are more ex-
pensive than others.
In the study Mpasa (Opsaridium microlepis had
the highest price while Mcheni (Ramphochromis
spp) and chisawasawa (Lethrinops spp) had the
lowest price of MK173.76 and MK18O.14!kg, re-
spectively. This suggests that consumers have a
certain liking for some species and hence species
type has a significant influence on the price.
References
Weyl O.L.F. 1999. Artisanal Fishery Catch Assess-
ment for the SouthEast Arm of Lake Malawi.
1994-98. Technical Report No. 2
ECLARM and GTZ 1991. The context of Small
scale aquaculture development.
Government of Malawi, 1999. Fish Stocks and
Fisheries of Malawian Waters. Fisheries Re-
search Unit, Resource Report, 1999.
Brumnret R. 2000. Factors influencing fish prices
in Southern Malawi. Aquaculture Journal: El-
sevier Kohis R. and Uhl J. (1982) Marketing of
Agricultural Products. Sixth edition. London:
Mac millan Publishing Co. Inc.



Factors influencing prices of fish in central region of Malawi

http://aquaticcommons.org/1396/1/AquaFish_2_%2823-25%29.pdf

Factors influencing prices of fish in central region of Malawi

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons