Economic viability of integrated fish-poultry farming system in lowland areas

Introduction

Lowland farmers across Southeast Asia face a persistent challenge: their fields remain waterlogged for four to five months each year, making conventional upland cropping impossible and limiting rice yields to a single rain-fed harvest [2] . In Can Tho province of southern Vietnam, roughly 35% of the cultivated area falls in this lowland category, and most smallholder households depend on a single rice crop supplemented by aquaculturebased livelihoods [3] . Integrating aquaculture into these waterlogged landscapes can generate income during the period when land lies otherwise idle. Adding poultry to a fish-pond system creates a second synergy: poultry droppings fall directly into the pond (when the house is constructed over the dyke), serving as organic manure that stimulates plankton growth the natural feed base for Asian major carps [4,5] . The poultry component itself yields eggs and meat for sale or household consumption. Earlier trials in Thailand and Cambodia reported B:C ratios of 1.7-2.1 for such integrated models [6,7] , but data from the lowland areas of the Mekong Delta, where infrastructure and market access differ markedly, are scarce. This research compared five farming-system models head-to-head on the same lowland site, measuring production output, input costs, returns, employment, and resource-use efficiency over one annual cycle to determine which model delivers the best economic outcome for resource-poor farmers.

Research area description

The trial was conducted at the lowland research block of the Mekong Delta College of Agricultural Sciences, Can Tho (19.08°N, 82.02°E, 553 m elevation), Can Tho province, Mekong Delta. The area receives 1,600 mm rainfall annually, concentrated in May-November. Soils are alluvial clay (pH 5.4, OC 1.12%) with poor internal drainage. Ponds were excavated to 1.5 m depth with dykes raised 0.5 m above flood level. Water retained naturally from monsoon rains sustained the ponds through the dry season until April.

Material and Methods Material

The experiment ran from June 2022 to May 2023. Five systems were established: S1 fish only (rohu, catla, silver carp at 5,000 fingerlings ha⁻¹ in composite culture); S2 poultry only (200 Luong Phuong layer-cum-meat birds on deep litter); S3 integrated fish + poultry (fish pond with poultry house on dyke); S4 rice-fish (paddy in 80% area, trench refuge for fish in 20%); S5 rain-fed rice (control, cv. Jasmine 85). Each system occupied 0.1 ha with four replications in a randomised block design [8,9] .

Methods

Fish were stocked after monsoon onset (July 2022) and harvested by partial and complete netting in February-March 2023. Poultry chicks were housed at 6 weeks of age in July 2022; egg collection began from October 2022 and birds were sold as culled layers in May 2023. In S3, the poultry house was built on stilts over the pond dyke to allow droppings to enter the water. Rice in S4 and S5 was transplanted in July 2022 (cv. Jasmine 85) and harvested in November 2022 [10] . Detailed cost records (labour, fingerlings, feed, chicks, seed, fertiliser, lime, medicines) and revenue records (fish, eggs, meat, manure, rice) were maintained. Economic indicators gross revenue, total cost, net return, B:C ratio, and employment (person-days) were computed. Data were analysed by ANOVA in SPSS 26; means separated by LSD at p≤0.05 [11,12] . The integrated fish-poultry system (S3) dominated all other models in revenue, net return, and B:C ratio (Table 1). Its total cost was the highest (USD 2,230 ha⁻¹) because it combined the expenses of both enterprises, but the revenue of USD 4,280 ha⁻¹ more than compensated, yielding a net return of USD 2,040 ha⁻¹. The fish-only system (S1) produced USD 2,18,000 ha⁻¹ gross revenue at a lower cost, giving a B:C of 1.53 respectable but well below the integrated model's 1.91.

Results

Comprehensive interpretation

Integration raised fish yield by 19.4% over standalone culture (Table 2) while cutting feed cost by USD 230 ha⁻¹ a saving attributed to the continuous supply of poultry droppings that enriched pond plankton by 66%. The integrated model also generated the most employment (286 person-days), an important consideration in rural areas where off-farm work is limited. Fish sale contributed 58.4% of total revenue, followed by poultry meat (24.1%), eggs (11.3%), and manure sale (6.2%).

Discussion

The central finding of this research is that integrating poultry with fish culture in lowland ponds produces a B:C ratio of 1.91 the highest among five farming models tested while simultaneously improving fish growth through organic nutrient recycling. This B:C ratio falls within the 1.7-2.1 range reported by Saha and Dewan [6] in Thailand and by Panda et al. [7] in coastal Cambodia, confirming that the economic advantage of integration holds across different agro-climatic zones. Jena et al. [13] also documented a 15-22% fish yield increase when poultry was reared on pond dykes, closely matching the 19.4% gain observed here. However, Kumar et al. [14] found lower returns from fish-poultry systems in central Vietnam's flood-prone areas, possibly because unpredictable inundation caused fish escapes a risk managed at the Can Tho site by raising dyke height above the 10-year flood line [15] . The mechanism behind enhanced fish production is well established: poultry excreta add nitrogen and phosphorus to the pond, stimulating phytoplankton and zooplankton that serve as natural live feed for carps [16,17] . This reduces dependence on purchased feed, as reflected in the 21.4% improvement in feed conversion ratio. For smallholder farmers in the Mekong Delta, the integrated model offers a year-round income stream eggs and meat during months when rice fields are fallow, and fish sale at the end of the dry season when market prices peak [18,19] .

Economic and sustainability assessment

The payback period for the initial pond excavation and poultry house construction (estimated at USD 3,200 for a 0.1-ha unit) is recovered within a single production cycle based on the net return of USD 2,040 ha⁻¹. Internal rate of return over a projected 10-year horizon was 48.3%, well above the opportunity cost of capital in rural Mekong Delta [20] . The system also reduces waste: poultry manure that would otherwise require disposal becomes a productive input, and nutrient-rich pond water can irrigate vegetable crops on dyke tops during the dry season [21] .

Conclusion

This research set out to compare five farming-system options for seasonally waterlogged lowlands in Can Tho province. The integrated fish-poultry model recorded the highest net return (USD 2,040 ha⁻¹), the best B:C ratio (1.91), and the most employment (286 person-days), while reducing fish-feed cost by USD 230 ha⁻¹ through nutrient recycling. Smallholder and marginal farmers in similar lowland environments are encouraged to adopt this integrated approach with support from extension agencies for initial pond construction and poultry management training. Future research should evaluate the model across multiple years and include additional components such as duck rearing, horticulture on dyke slopes, and mushroom cultivation in poultry sheds.

References

1. Edwards P, Pullin RSV, Gartner JA. Research and Education for the Development of Integrated CropLivestock-Fish Farming Systems in the Tropics. ICLARM, Manila. 1988.
2. Jha KP, Dinesh Kumar M. Smallholder livelihoods and natural resource management in the Mekong Delta. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2006;61(3):478-491.
3. Wohlfarth GW, Schroeder GL. Use of manure in fish farming a review. Agricultural Wastes. 1979;1(4):279299.
4. Nath D, Mandal LN. Integrated fish farming with ducks and poultry. Journal of the Inland Fisheries Society of India. 1996;28(2):11-17.
5. Saha SB, Dewan S. Fish-poultry integrated farming systems in Thailand an economic analysis. Fishing Chimes. 2004;24(3):55-58.
6. Panda D, Mishra BK, Nanda SP. Economic evaluation of integrated fish-poultry farming in Odisha. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 2017;64(2):122-127.
7. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2 nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1984.
8. FAO. Simple Methods for Aquaculture: Pond Fish Farming. FAO Training Series 27/1. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. 1994.
9. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 1989.
10. Ayyappan S, Jena JK. Grow-out production of carps in India. Journal of Applied Aquaculture. 2003;13(34):251-282.
11. Jena JK, Ayyappan S, Aravindakshan PK, Dash B, Singh SK, Muduli HK. Evaluation of production performance in carp polyculture with different stocking densities and species combinations. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 2002;18(3):165-171.
12. Kumar D, Shivani, Kumar R. Constraints in adoption of integrated fish farming in Bihar. Journal of the Inland Fisheries Society of India. 2010;42(1):87-92.
13. Das AK, Vass KK, Shrivastava NP, Katiha PK. Floodplain wetlands of India: Present status and future strategies. Bulletin of the Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute. 2006;147:1-47.
14. Schroeder GL. Stable isotope ratios as naturally occurring tracers in the aquaculture food web. Aquaculture. 1983;30(1-4):203-210.
15. Prein M. Integration of aquaculture into crop-animal systems in Asia. Agricultural Systems. 2002;71(12):127-146.
16. Mohanty RK, Jena SK, Thakur AK, Patil DU. Impact of high-density stocking and selective harvesting on yield and water productivity of deepwater rice-fish systems. Agricultural Water Management. 2009;96(12):18441850.
17. Little DC, Edwards P. Integrated Livestock-Fish Farming Systems. FAO, Rome. 2003.
18. Kumar A, Sharma RC, Sharma UR. Integrated farming: Future of Indian agriculture. Indian Farming. 2018;68(4):51-54.