SURVEY OF AQUACULTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN KANO METROPOLIS

SURVEY OF AQUACULTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN KANO METROPOLIS BY YUNANA WOJE - ENG/17/AGE/00319 ALIYU UMAR AGBO - ENG/17/AGE/00317 UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO, NIGERIA MAY, 2024 SURVEY OF AQUACULTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN KANO METROPOLIS BY YUNANA WOJE ENG/17/AGE/00319 ALIYU UMAR AGBO ENG/17/AGE/00318 FINAL YEAR PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FACULTY OF EGINEERING BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO INPARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING DEGREE IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINERING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ENGR. M. M. BELLO DECLARATION We declare that the work in this project titled ‘SURVEY OF AQUACULTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN KANO METROPOLIS’ was conducted by us in the Department of Agricultural Engineering under the supervision of Engr. Dr. M.M Bello. The information derived from the literature has been dully acknowledged in the text and a list of references has been provided. Signature: ……………………. Name: Yunana Woje Reg. No.: ENG/17/AGE/00319 Date: …………………………. Signature: ……………………. Name: Aliyu Umar Agbo Reg. No: ENG/17/AGE/00317 Date: …………………………. CERTIFICATION This project titled “SURVEY OF AQUACULTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN KANO METROPOLIS”. By Yunana Woje (ENG/17/AGE/00319) and Aliyu Umar Agbo (ENG/17/AGE/00317) meets the regulations governing the award of the degree of B.ENG Agricultural and Environmental Engineering of Bayero University, Kano and is approved for its contribution to knowledge and literacy presentation. Signature: ………………………… ……………………………… Engr. Dr. M. M. Bello Date (Project Supervisor) Signature: ………………………… ……………………………… Engr. Dr. M.N Yahya Date (Project Coordinator) Signature: ………………………… ……………………………… Engr. Dr. S.K. Shittu Date (Head of Department) Signature: ………………………… ……………………………… Engr. Prof. Date (External Examiner) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We give all glory to the Almighty for life and the opportunity to be among those who concluded their undergraduate studies. Our special appreciation goes to our project supervisor, Engr. Dr. M. M. Bello, for his guidance, and our level coordinator, Engr. Asst. Prof. M. M. Maina, for his advice and contribution, which made this project a success. Our appreciation also goes to the Head of Department, Engr. Asst. Prof. S. K. Shittu, Dr. M. I. Attanda, and all staff of the Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering. May God Almighty continue to bless you. We extend special gratitude to our parents for their unlimited support and for being there for us from the beginning to the end of this journey. Only God can reward you. DEDICATION We extend our heartfelt gratitude to our parents for their unwavering support, sacrifices, and encouragement throughout our academic journey, which served as a constant source of motivation and bolstered our confidence. Additionally, we acknowledge the boundless mercy and blessings bestowed upon us by the Divine Creator, which have guided and sustained us through every step of this endeavor. ABSTRACT This study assessed aquaculture waste management practices in selected fish farms within the Kano metropolis area, comprising eight local government areas (LGAs). A survey involving 60 participants was conducted to gather information on water sources, effluent discharge methods, effluent utilization for crop production, awareness of environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and challenges faced in managing aquaculture wastes. Additionally, wastewater samples were collected from representative farms for physicochemical analysis. The survey results revealed that 68.3% of farmers sourced water from boreholes, while 31.7% used tap water. Regarding effluent discharge, 56.7% directly discharged into drainage systems, 35% treated before discharging, and 8.3% employed other methods. Furthermore, 73.3% of farmers utilized effluents for crop production, indicating an understanding of the organic content's benefits for agriculture. However, 68.3% were unaware of the environmental impacts of aquaculture practices, highlighting the need for increased awareness. The physicochemical analysis showed that the water sources generally met the recommended standards for pH and electrical conductivity (EC), except for Gwale LGA, which exhibited a high EC of 4850 μS/cm. The effluent samples displayed variations in pH and EC levels, potentially due to the addition of chemicals by some farmers. The study concluded that while aquaculture effluents are suitable for crop production in terms of pH and EC, certain crops may have specific tolerance levels. Recommendations include raising awareness, providing support for proper aquaculture practices, conducting regular physicochemical analyses, and applying effluents to crops with appropriate pH and EC tolerance. TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ii CERTIFICATION iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv DEDICATION v ABSTRACT vi TABLE OF CONTENTS vii LIST OF TABLES x CHAPTER ONE 1 1.0INTRODUCTION 1 1.1Background 1 1.2Statement of problem 3 1.3General Objective 3 1.4Justification of Studies 4 1.5Scope and Limitations 4 CHAPTER TWO 5 2.0LITERATURE REVIEW 5 2.1.Challenges in Aquaculture Waste Management 5 2.2Policy and Regulatory Framework 6 2.3Current State of Aquaculture in Nigeria 6 2.4Types and Characteristics of Aquaculture Waste 6 2.5Environmental Impact of Aquaculture Waste: 7 CHAPTER THREE 9 3.0MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY 9 3.1Study Area 9 3.2Materials 9 3.3Assessment of aquaculture effluent management 9 3.4Analysis of physicochemical parameters of aquaculture effluents 10 CHAPTER FOUR 11 4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 11 4.1Result of Field Survey 11 4.1.1Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents 11 4.1.2Local Government 12 4.1.3Size of Production (number of fish) 13 4.1.4Types of fish 13 4.1.5Sources of Water 14 4.1.6Types of pond 15 4.1.7Number of pond(s) 15 4.1.8Size of pond(s) in terms of quantity of water 16 4.1.9Duration of the water pond before discharge 16 4.1.10Criteria for changing the water 17 4.1.11Method of discharge 18 4.1.12Do you utilize the effluent for crop production 19 4.1.13Are you aware of the environmental impact of aquaculture practices 20 4.1.14what measures do you take to mitigate negative environmental effects 20 4.1What challenges are you facing in managing aquaculture wastes 21 4.2Characteristics of effluent (EC& pH) 23 4.2.1Ungogo Local Government 23 4.2.2Fagge Local Government 24 4.2.3Dala Local Government 25 4.2.4Kumbotso local Government 25 4.2.5Kano Municipal Local Government 26 4.2.6Nasarawa Local Government 26 4.2.7Gwale Local Government 27 4.2.8Tarauni Local Government 28 CHAPTER FIVE 29 5.0SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 29 5.1Summary 29 5.2Conclusion 29 5.3Recommendations 30 References: 31 Appendices 33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No Tittle Page Figure 4.1 Age Distribution 11 Figure 4.2 Gender Distribution 12 Figure 4.3 Distribution of Fish Farms by Local Government Area 11 Figure 4.4 Production Size of Fish Farms 13 Figure 4.5 Distribution of types of Fish 14 Figure 4.6 Water Sources 14 Figure 4.7 Types of Ponds 15 Figure 4.8 Number of Ponds 16 Figure 4.9 Pond size 16 Figure 4.10 Duration of the pond water before discharge 17 Figure 4.11 Criteria for changing the water 18 Figure 4.12 Method of discharge 19 Figure 4.13 Discharge Method 19 Figure 4.14 Responses from farmers 20 Figure 4.15 Measure to mitigate the impact of aquaculture effluent 21 Figure 4.16 Challenges faced 22 LIST OF TABLES Table No Title Page Table 4.1 Measures taken to mitigate negative environmental effects 20 Table 4.2 Challenges faced in managing aquaculture wastes 22 Table 4.3 Characteristics of effluent (EC& pH) 23 CHAPTER ONE 1.0INTRODUCTION 1.1Background Aquatic foods are contributing significantly more than ever before to food security, nutrition, and businesses. Significant growth in aquaculture has driven global fisheries and aquaculture production to record levels. Aquatic foods make an increasingly critical contribution to food security and nutrition in the 21st century. According to The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), published in June 2022. Global consumption of aquatic foods (excluding algae) has increased at an average annual rate of 3.0 percent since 1961 – almost twice the rate of annual world population growth – and now stands at 20.2 kg per capita, more than double the quantity consumed in the 1960s. Over 157 million tons, or 89 percent of aquatic animal production, were used for direct human consumption in 2020, a slightly higher volume than in 2018, despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aquatic foods accounted for around 17 percent of the animal proteins consumed globally in 2019, compared with 23 percent in lower-middle-income countries and more than 50 percent in parts of Asia and Africa. Asian countries were the source of 70 percent of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture production in 2020, followed by countries in the Americas, Europe, Africa and Oceania. China remained the top fisheries producer, followed by Indonesia, Peru, the Russian Federation, the United States, India and Vietnam. The African contribution to world aquaculture production is still insignificant (∼2.7%), albeit significantly increasing with larger-scale investments in Egypt, Nigeria, Uganda and Ghana producing substantial quantities of fish (Cai et al., 2017; FAO, 2018). More needs to be done to feed the world’s growing population while enhancing the sustainability of stocks and fragile ecosystems and protecting lives and livelihoods in the long term, according to the authors. FAO promotes "Blue Transformation," a visionary strategy for meeting the twin challenges of food security and environmental sustainability while ensuring equitable outcomes and gender equality. Aquaculture production in Nigeria has witnessed a steady increase, growing from 25,720 metric tons in 2003 to 1,123,999 metric tons in 2017 (Akinwumi et al., 2021). The Nigerian government has identified aquaculture as a key sector for economic diversification and food security, setting a target to achieve 3.5 million metric tons of aquaculture production by 2030 (FGN, 2020). The current fish demand consumption in Nigeria stands at 1.4 million metric tons (Onyekuru, 2019), to satisfy the dietary requirement of its citizens but the total aggregate domestic fish supply from all sources (capture and culture fisheries) is less than 0.7 million metric tons per annum. Nigeria has to import about 0.7 million metric tons of fish valued at about $500 million annually to augment the shortfall. Increasing aquaculture production is clearly to meet this demand but despite this, demand for fish consumption exceeded the supply thereby making Nigeria one of the major importers of fish. This massive importation of frozen fish in the country has ranked Nigeria the largest importer of frozen fish in Africa (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD, 2012). The rise in demand for fish has also caused a rise in the production of fish which will in turn lead to high waste production. The impact of the wastewater on the surrounding depends strongly on the constituent of the wastewater, and the method of practice most especially the mechanism put in place for the discharge of the wastewater. There have been some local practices in Kano in which the wastewater is applied to the farmland and sometimes in the surroundings with poor drainage. These practices could have wider implications on the environment and thus, sustainable solutions are needed to manage aquaculture effluents. However, this is only possible when the information about the current status of aquaculture effluent management and handling is available. This work is aimed at assessing the aquaculture effluent generation and management in fish farms in Kano State. 1.2Statement of problem The generation of aquaculture wastes has increased in the past few years due to the demand for fish, which has increased the level of fish production. The intensive fish production poses a threat to the environment and agricultural practices at large. In Kano State, many people have ventured into aquaculture farming, leading to increased waste generation. Information on the impact of these wastes on the environment, and also the constituents of the wastes is important to make a helpful decision on developing a sustainable management system. Previous studies have been reported on aquaculture effluent generation and treatment in Nigeria (e.g. Adewumi and Ogunbanjo (2021); Ajani, et al. (2017); Adewale, et al. (2019); Ogunleyeet al. (2019)). However, these studies were conducted in other parts of the country, particularly the Southwest. In Kano State, the status of aquaculture waste generation and management is largely unreported. This has created a knowledge gap on the sustainability of aquaculture production, including the potential utilization of the generated wastes. Therefore, this research is aimed at bridging the gap in knowledge by assessing aquaculture effluent generation and management in Kano State. 1.3General Objective To assess the aquaculture waste management in selected fish farms in Kano Metropolis. Specific Objectives i.To conduct a survey on the aquaculture waste generation, handling, and disposal used by farms in Kano Metropolitan Local Governments ii.To evaluate the physiochemical properties of the aquaculture effluents and their suitability as irrigation water 1.4Justification of Studies Information obtained at the end of this research can serve as a guideline for interested stakeholders such as Governmental Organizations and NGOs. And can also serve as a basis for improvement for other researchers. Information obtained also can serve as economic gain in terms of agriculture by providing helpful information to farmers on how to use aquaculture waste. 1.5Scope and Limitations This project will be limited to selected farms within the Kano Metropolis and the information will focus on the generation and handling of wastes by the farms. The assessment of the physicochemical properties will focus on parameters that are relevant to environmental health and the potential use of aquaculture effluents as irrigation water. CHAPTER TWO 2.0LITERATURE REVIEW Aquaculture is the cultivation of aquatic organisms such as fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants, under controlled conditions. It involves the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of these organisms in environments like fish farms or aquatic nurseries. Aquaculture plays a crucial role in meeting the growing demand for seafood and alleviating pressure on wild fish populations. The aquaculture industry is one of the emerging industries that has drawn the attention of many investors and since then has remained as a rapidly growing industry in Nigeria due to the high demand for aquaculture products (fish), contributing significantly to the national economy. Effective management of aquaculture effluents is crucial to maintain water quality, prevent disease outbreaks, and ensure the sustainability of aquaculture operations (Nguyen et al., 2020). However, the management of aquaculture waste has been an issue of concern due to environmental challenges that demand quick attention. This literature review aims to provide insights into existing knowledge on aquaculture waste management in Nigeria, identifying key issues, innovative solutions, and gaps that the proposed project aims to address. 2.1.Challenges in Aquaculture Waste Management: Aquaculture waste management encounters several challenges: i.Lack of infrastructure: The lack of proper infrastructure poses a significant challenge in aquaculture waste management. In many cases, inadequate facilities for waste treatment and disposal hinder the industry's ability to effectively manage and mitigate environmental impacts. Developing robust infrastructure is crucial to support sustainable aquaculture practices and minimize the ecological footprint of waste discharge. ii.Limited awareness: Limited awareness is another challenge in aquaculture waste management. Insufficient knowledge among aqua culturists, regulators, and local communities about the potential environmental impacts of improper waste disposal can hinder the adoption of effective waste management practices. Enhancing education and outreach programs to raise awareness about sustainable practices is essential for promoting responsible aquaculture and minimizing ecological risks associated with waste. Adewumi and Ogunbanjo (2021) identify challenges such as limited awareness, inadequate infrastructure, and policy gaps hindering effective aquaculture waste management in Nigeria. Addressing these challenges is paramount for the success of waste management initiatives. 2.2Policy and Regulatory Framework: Establishing a comprehensive and effective policy and regulatory framework is crucial in addressing challenges in aquaculture waste management. Inconsistencies or gaps in regulations can hinder the enforcement of proper waste disposal practices. Developing clear, science-based guidelines and ensuring their consistent implementation are essential for promoting sustainable aquaculture and minimizing environmental impacts. Ogunleyeet al. (2019) stress the importance of a robust policy and regulatory framework for governing aquaculture waste management. Analyzing existing policies in Nigeria and drawing lessons from other countries can guide the development of effective regulations. 2.3Current State of Aquaculture in Nigeria: Research by Ogunlade and Olaseinde (2019) underscores the exponential growth of aquaculture in Nigeria, highlighting its economic importance and potential for food security. This growth, however, has led to an increased generation of waste, necessitating careful management strategies. 2.4Types and Characteristics of Aquaculture Waste: Aquaculture waste can be categorized into various types, each with its characteristics. Some common types include: i.Organic Waste Source: Fish feces, uneaten feed, and decaying organic matter. Characteristics: Contains nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, contributing to water quality issues. ii.Suspended Solids Source: Particulate matter from uneaten feed and organic debris. Characteristics: Can lead to sedimentation, reducing light penetration and affecting benthic habitats. iii.Chemical Residues Source: Pesticides, antibiotics, and other chemicals used in aquaculture. Characteristics: May pose risks to aquatic ecosystems and human health if not properly managed. iv.Dissolved Gases Source: Degradation of organic matter and uneaten feed. Characteristics: Elevated levels of gases like ammonia and carbon dioxide can harm aquatic organisms. v.Pathogens Source: Bacterial and viral agents from infected aquaculture species. Characteristics: Can spread diseases among cultured organisms and potentially impact wild populations. Ajani et al. (2017) categorize aquaculture waste into uneaten feed, fecal matter, and other organic residues. Understanding the composition and characteristics of these wastes is vital for developing effective waste management approaches. Various treatment technologies, including biological treatment, physical treatment, and chemical treatment, have been explored for the management of aquaculture effluents (Badiola et al., 2018). 2.5Environmental Impact of Aquaculture Waste: Aquaculture waste can have various environmental impacts, including: i.Water Quality Degradation: Excessive nutrients from waste, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, can lead to nutrient enrichment, causing algal blooms and oxygen depletion. ii.Habitat Degradation: Sedimentation resulting from particulate matter in waste can smother benthic habitats, affecting the overall health of aquatic ecosystems. iii.Disease Transmission: Poor waste management may contribute to the spread of diseases among aquaculture species, impacting both farmed and wild populations. iv.Chemical Pollution: Chemical residues from aquaculture activities, such as antibiotics and pesticides, can enter water bodies, potentially harming non-target organisms and affecting ecosystem balance. v.Altered Nutrient Cycling: High nutrient inputs can disrupt natural nutrient cycling in aquatic ecosystems, leading to imbalances and affecting the overall biodiversity. vi.Impact on Wild Populations: Escaped farmed species and diseases can negatively impact wild populations through competition for resources or the introduction of novel pathogens. Studies by Olatunde et al. (2018) emphasize the negative environmental consequences of inadequately managed aquaculture waste, including water pollution, eutrophication, and habitat degradation. Sustainable waste management practices are crucial to mitigate these impacts. CHAPTER THREE 3.0MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY 3.1Study Area The study was conducted within the Kano metropolis which comprises of the following local government areas, Dala, Fagge, Gwale, Kano Municipal, Nasarawa, Tarauni, and two pre-urban local governments (Kumbotso and Ungogo). With a total population of 4,648,400 people, it is populated and full of industrial activities. Kano state lies between latitude 100 33’ and 12 37N of the equator and latitude 70 43’N and 90 35’N of Greenwich. It has a total land area of 20135km and is bordered by Katsina state to the northwest, Jigawa state to the northeast and Bauchi and Kaduna state to the south. The state has a low rainfall with an annual rainfall of 696.4mm. The state lies in the Sudan savanna region with dry and rainy seasons. 3.2Materials The equipment used included: i.Burettes, 50ml or 25ml capacity ii.Erlenmeyer flask iii.Pipette, 10ml capacity iv.Automatic pipette v.Glass-electrode pH meter vi.Sample Bottles vii.Safety Gear 3.3Assessment of aquaculture effluent management The aquaculture effluents management practices were assessed, a survey was conducted across selected fish farms in the metropolitan local government of Kano State. A structured questionnaire was designed and used to collect information from the fish farms. The questionnaire covered relevant information about farm size, types of fish grown, sources of water, waste generation, waste handling, and disposal. In addition to the questionnaires, aquaculture effluents were collected from representative farms for the determination of the physicochemical properties of the effluents. 3.4Analysis of physicochemical parameters of aquaculture effluents The aquaculture effluents collected from the representative farms were taken to the laboratory for analysis. The laboratory analysis was conducted at the Laboratory of the Centre for Dryland Agriculture (CDA) at Bayero University, Kano. Physicochemical parameters such as pH, and electrical conductivity (EC) were conducted All analyses were performed according to the Standard. CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1Result of Field Survey This section discusses the results obtained from responses to the questionnaires issued to the fish farmers in the study area. The total participants are 60 and a sample of the questionnaire is provided in the appendix. 4.1.1Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents The demographic data characteristics shows that out of 60 fish famers, 83.3% of fish farmers are within the age of 18-30 years, 10% of the fish farmers are within 31-43 years, while 5% of fish farmers are within the age of 44-56years and 1.7% are within the age of 57years and above. The response also shows that 63.3% of fish farmers are male while 31.7% are female. Figure 4.1 Age Distribution Figure 4.2 Gender Distribution 4.1.2Local Government The responses from the survey of the 60 participants shows that across the eight local Government areas, Gwale has 18.3% of fish farms, Fagge has 8.3% of fish farms, Tauroni has 5% of fish farms, Nasarawa has 21.7% of fish farms, Dala has 6.7% of fish farms, Kumbotso has 11.7% of fish farms, while Ungogo has 11.7% also of fish farms and Kano Municipal has 16.7% of fish farms. This can also tell us that the fish farms are located base on the demand of fish which means places with high fish farms tends to have high consumption of fish. Figure 4.3 Distribution of Fish Farms by Local Government Area 4.1.3Size of Production (number of fish) From the survey of 60participants, responses received showed that 60% of fish farms are small sizes while 36.7% are medium size farms and while 1.7% are large size fish farms owners. This also shows us that most of the fish farmers are peasant farmers and are into subsistent agriculture, they only have little for sale which also agreed with the claims made earlier by (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD, 2012) which they published that massive importation of frozen fish in the country has ranked Nigeria the largest importer of frozen fish in Africa. Figure 4.4 Production Size of Fish Farms 4.1.4Types of fish From the response of the survey, it shows that 81.7% of fish farmers produce Catfish while 13.3% of fish famers produce Tilapia fish and 5% produce other types of fish. This is because Catfish grow faster than tilapia and other types of fish and people in Kano State are more familiar with Catfish, it is more economical to grow and more profitable when sold. Figure 4.5 Distribution of types of Fish 4.1.5Sources of Water The responses from the survey shows that 68.3% of fish famers source their water from the Ground/Borehole while 31.7% of fish farmers source their water from tap water. The survey also shows us that ground water is available across the eight local government areas and it is safe for fish production which has made fish production effective to a large extent. Figure 4.6 Water Sources 4.1.6Types of pond The responses from the survey shows that 50% of the of fish farmers use tank for fish farming while 18.3% use earthen pond for their fish farming and 28.3% uses concrete pond for fish farming, lastly 3.3% uses other types of pond for fish farming. Most fish famers prefer a tank because it is movable and economical, easy to maintain and can be sold out when not needed. They use it also because some of the farm land are rented for some period time and not own by the famers. Figure 4.7 Types of Ponds 4.1.7Number of pond(s) The responses gotten from the respondents showed that 63.3% of fish farms has less than 5 ponds while 30% of fish farms has within the range of 5-10 ponds and 1.7% of fish farms has more than 10 ponds. This shows that most famers are peasant farmers with little capacity to grow a large number of fish, an interaction was conducted with some of the famers and we were told the smaller ponds size are practiced majorly due to lack of adequate finance. Figure 4.8 Number of Ponds 4.1.8Size of pond(s) in terms of quantity of water The responses showed that 50% of fish farms uses small amount of water while 45% use medium quantity of water and 3.3% uses large quantity of water, this is as a result of the size of ponds and also the capacity of the famer in times of availability of water. Figure 4.9 Pond size 4.1.9Duration of the water pond before discharge Responses show that 65% of fish farmers changes their pond water in less than 2weeks while 31.7% changes their fish pond water within the range of 2-4 weeks. This is because of the safety of the fish and for a healthy growth, this practice is achieved due to the availability of water which is available for famers. 4.10 Duration of the pond water before discharge 4.1.10Criteria for changing the water The responses from the respondent show that 48.3% of fish farmers change their pond water based on color while 41.7% change their pond water based on water duration in the pond and 10% change their water based on other factors. Upon interacting with some of the famers we realize that some of them change their water base on color because of the variation in the quantity of feed given to the fish which affect the amount of waste released inside the water which affect the color of the water also, it is easy to dictate when the water is due for changing by mere seeing the color. While those who change water based on duration do that mostly on instruction given to them and also for adequate water management. Figure 4.11 Criteria for changing the water 4.1.11Method of discharge The responses from the respondents shows that 35% fish farms treat and discharge their waste water while 56.7% fish farms discharge to their waste water directly to the drainage and 8.3% uses other alternatives. On visiting the farms, we learnt that less than less than 10% of the fish farms treat their water before discharge, this is as a result of high cost of treatment plant and high cost of chemicals. Hence most farmers discharge their waste water through drainage which lead to the farms where they grow crops. Figure 4.12 Method of discharge 4.1.12Do you utilize the effluent for crop production The responses show that 73.3% uses aquaculture effluent for crop production while 26.7% does not use aquaculture effluent for crop production. This is because of the high organic content present in the waste water which are useful to the crops, reduces the cost of fertilizer for the famer to grow vegetables. Figure 4.13 Method of discharge 4.1.13Are you aware of the environmental impact of aquaculture practices Responses from respondents showed that 68.3% of fish farmers are not aware of the environmental impact of aquaculture practices while 31.7% are aware of the impact of aquaculture practices. This is because most of the farm managers are not educated and lack adequate knowledge on waste management. Lack of awareness by Government and Non-governmental organizations on the impact of effluent to their environment. Figure 4.14 Responses from farmers 4.1.14what measures do you take to mitigate negative environmental effects The responses from the respondents are shown on the table next page. Table 4.1 Measures taken to mitigate negative environmental effects S/N Measures Number of participants Frequency Percentage 1 None 60 2 3.3% 2 Crop Production 25 41.7% 3 Drainage System 7 11.7% 4 Government rules and regulations 21 35% 5 Water treatment 5 8.3% The table above shows that 3.3% take no measures, 41.7% uses the waste for water crop production as a measure to mitigate the impact on our surrounding, 11.7% uses the drainage system as a measure to mitigate the impact of aquaculture effluent on our environment while 35% of fish farmer claim to obey Government rules and regulations which is false because on our visit to the farms we notice they were majorly using it for agriculture. Figure 4.15 Measure to mitigate the impact of aquaculture effluent 4.1What challenges are you facing in managing aquaculture wastes The statistical table below shows the various responses of respondent on the challenges facing the management of aquaculture waste. Table4.2 Challenges faced in managing aquaculture wastes S/Ns Challenges Frequency Percentage 1 Finance 22 36.7% 2 Bad smell 14 23.3% 3 Drainage System 5 8.3% 4 Lack of treatment facility 8 13.3% 5 Lack of disposable site 6 10% 6 Quantity/volume of waste 5 8.3% The table above shows that 36.7% of the participant encounter financial challenges while 23.3% faces bad smell, 8.3% face drainage system as a challenge, 13.3% encounter lack of treatment facility as a challenge, 10% faces Lack of disposal site as a challenge and 8.3% also faces quantity/volume of waste as a challenge. This is because all above mentioned challenges are indeed difficult to be met with in our present economy and most are financial related. Figure 4.16 Challenges faced 4.2Characteristics of effluent (EC& pH) The table on the next page shows the pH and EC level respectively of various samples collected from some selected fish farms within Kano metropolis. Table 4.3 Characteristics of effluent (EC& pH) S/N Local Government Sample A Sample B Sample C pH EC(µS/cm) pH EC(µS/cm) pH EC(µS/cm) 1 Ungogo 6.33 440 5.62 14420 7.23 1020 2 Fagge 6.01 2640 5.34 2570 6.62 260 3 Dala 6.12 983 6.18 957 6.16 605 4 Kumbotso 6.27 19010 6.29 13220 7.18 885 5 Kanomunicipal 6.64 996 6.51 1001 7.57 2480 6 Nasarawa 5.11 10520 5.00 13580 7.60 1263 7 Gwale 5.08 17550 6.49 1044 6.96 4850 8 Tarauni 6.21 1846 6.27 1326 7.38 835 4.2.1Ungogo Local Government The result as presented in the table above shows us the level of pH and EC from the samples collected from some selected fish farms in Ungogo Local government. Sample C is the sample collected directly from the source of water which shows that the pH result is 7.23 is in line with the standard as recommended by the FAO while the EC as shown in the table 1020µS/cm is also in lined with standard as recommended by FAO, sample C was also gotten from the same farm with sample B but the reason for the drop in pH and an increase in EC is as a result of the application of some chemicals which they kept the name hidden from us and also the duration of the water in the pond. This means that the water is safe for aquaculture production. While looking at sample A and Sample B are water samples collected from two fish farms within the same local government when the fish are already in the pond, the pH for Sample A and B which is6.33 and 5.62 are below the standard of FAO as they recommend a pH level of 6.5 to 9.0 which is best for optimum production. The EC for sample A which is 440µS/cm is in line with FAO standard while that of B which is 14420µS/cm above the standard as they recommend an EC level between 200 to 2000µS/cm for irrigation. 4.2.2Fagge Local Government The result as presented in the table above shows us the level of pH and EC from the samples collected from some selected fish farms in Fagge Local government. Sample C is the sample collected directly from the source of water which shows that the pH result is 6.62 with an EC of 260µS/cm are both in line with the standard as recommended by the FAO, sample C was also gotten from the same farm with sample B but the reason for the drop in pH and an increase in EC is as a result of the application of some chemicals which they kept the name hidden from us and also the duration of the water in the pond. This means that the water is safe for aquaculture production. While looking at the table, sample A and Sample B are water samples collected from two fish farms within the same local government when the fish are already in the pond, the pH for Sample A and B which is 6.01 and 5.34 are below the standard of FAO as they recommend a pH level of 6.5 to 9.0 which is best for optimum production. The EC for sample A and B which is 2640µS/cm and 2570µS/cm are both not in line with FAO standard as they recommend an EC level between 200 to 2000µS/cm for irrigation. 4.2.3Dala Local Government The result as presented in the table above shows us the level of pH and EC from the samples collected from some selected fish farms in Dala Local government. Sample C is the sample collected in the same farm with sample A and is directly from the source of water which shows that the pH result is 6.16 is not in line with the standard as recommended by the FAO while the EC as shown in the table 605µS/cm is in line with standard as recommended by FAO, the reason for the drop in pH and an increase in EC is as a result of the application of some chemicals which they kept the name hidden from us and also the duration of the water in the pond. This means that the water is not safe in terms of pH for aquaculture production. While looking at sample A and Sample B are water samples collected from two fish farms within the same local government when the fish are already in the pond, the pH for Sample A and B which is 6.12 and 6.18 are below the standard of FAO as they recommend a pH level of 6.5 to 9.0 which is best for optimum production. The EC for sample A and B which are 983µS/cm and 957 is in line with FAO standard. 4.2.4Kumbotso local Government The result as presented in the table above shows us the level of pH and EC from the samples collected from some selected fish farms in Kumbotso Local government. Sample C is collected in the same farm with sample directly from the source of water which shows that the pH result is 7.18 is in line with the standard as recommended by the FAO while the EC as shown in the table 885µS/cm is also in line with standard as recommended by FAO, the reason for the drop in pH and an increase in EC is as a result of the application of some chemicals which they kept the name hidden from us and also the duration of the water in the pond. This means that the water is safe for aquaculture production. While looking at sample A and Sample B are water samples collected from two fish farms within the same local government when the fish are already in the pond, the pH for Sample A and B which is 6.27 and 6.29 are below the standard of FAO as they recommend a pH level of 6.5 to 9.0 which is best for optimum production. The EC for sample A and B which are 19010µS/cm and 13220µScm are not in line with FAO standard as they recommend an EC level between 200 to 2000µS/cm for safe and optimum production. The high EC level is as a result of the prolong stay of water in pond before changing. 4.2.5Kano Municipal Local Government The result as presented in the table above shows us the level of pH and EC from the samples collected from some selected fish farms in Kano Municipal Local government. Sample C is collected directly from the source of water which shows that the pH result is 7.57 is inline with the standard as recommended by the FAO while the EC as shown in the table 2480µS/cm is also in line with standard as recommended by FAO, sample C was also gotten from the same farm with sample B but the reason for the drop in pH and an increase in EC is as a result of the application of some chemicals which they kept the name hidden from us and also the duration of the water in the pond. This means that the water is safe for aquaculture production. While looking at sample A and Sample B are water samples collected from two fish farms within the same local government when the fish are already in the pond, the pH for Sample A and B which is 6.64 and 6.51 are in line with the standard of FAO as they recommend a pH level of 6.5 to 9.0 which is best for optimum production. The EC for sample A and B which are 996µS/cm and 1001 respectively are in line with FAO standard. The reason for the average EC range is because the water on lasted few days in the pond. 4.2.6Nasarawa Local Government The result as presented in the table above shows us the level of pH and EC from the samples collected from some selected fish farms in Nasarawa Local government. Sample C is the sample collected directly from the source of water which shows that the pH result is 7.60 is in line with the standard as recommended by FAO, sample C was also gotten from the same farm with sample B but the reason for the drop in pH and an increase in EC is as a result of the application of some chemicals which they kept the name hidden from us and also the duration of the water in the pond. While the EC as shown in the table 1263µS/cm is also in line with standard as recommended by FAO. This means that the water is safe for aquaculture production. While looking at sample A and Sample B are water samples collected from two fish farms within the same local government when the fish are already in the pond, the pH for Sample A and B which is 5.11 and 5.00 are below the standard of FAO as they recommend a pH level of 6.5 to 9.0 which is best for optimum production. The EC for sample A and B which are 10520µS/cm and 13580 are not in line with FAO standard as they recommend an EC level between 200 to 2000µS/cm for safe and optimum production, one of the reasons is of the duration of water in the pond. 4.2.7Gwale Local Government The result as presented in the table above shows us the level of pH and EC from the samples collected from some selected fish farms in Gwale Local government. Sample C is the sample collected directly from the source of water which shows that the pH result is 6.96 is in line with the standard as recommended by the FAO, while the EC as shown in the table 4850µS/cm is not in line with standard as recommended by FAO, sample C was also collected from the same farm with sample B but the reason for the drop in pH and an increase in EC is as a result of the application of some chemicals which they kept the name hidden from us and also the duration of the water in the pond. While looking at sample A and Sample B are water samples collected from two fish farms within the same local government when the fish are already in the pond, the pH for Sample A which is 5.08 is below the standard while sample B which is 6.49 is in line with the standard of as recommend, a pH level of 6.5 to 9.0 by FAO which is best for optimum production. The EC for sample A which is 17550µS/cm is not in line with FAO standard while that of B which is 1044µS/cm in line with the standard as recommended by FAO, an EC level between 200 to 2000µS/cm for safe and optimum production. The differences in the EC of the two farms are might be as a result of differences in the duration of the water in ponds before discharge. 4.2.8Tarauni Local Government The result as presented in the table above shows us the level of pH and EC from the samples collected from some selected fish farms in Tarauni Local government. Sample C is the sample collected directly from the source of water which shows that the pH result is 7.38 with an EC835µS/cm are both in line with the standard as recommended by the FAO, sample C was also collected from the same farm with sample B but the reason for the drop in pH and an increase in EC is as a result of the application of some chemicals which they kept the name hidden from us and also the duration of the water in the pond. This means that the water is safe for aquaculture production. While looking at sample A and Sample B are water samples collected from two fish farms within the same local government when the fish are already in the pond, the pH for Sample A and B which is 6.21 and 6.27 are below the standard of FAO as they recommend a pH level of 6.5 to 9.0 which is best for optimum production. The EC for sample A and B which are 1846µS/cm and 1326 are in line with FAO as they recommend an EC level between 200 to 2000µS/cm for safe and optimum production. The reason for having a good range of EC is as a result of timely change of water in the pond. CHAPTER FIVE 5.0SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1Summary The study was completed within the Kano metropolitan areas which comprised of the 8 local government areas. A survey was carried out within the above-mentioned areas which 60 participants participated, the survey covers questions of concerns such as source of water, method of discharge, use of effluent, awareness of the environmental impact of aquaculture practices, measures taken to mitigate negative environmental effect, challenges faced in managing aquaculture effluent etc. And also, a waste water sample was collected for pH and EC analysis after the survey. Across the 8 local government area the source of water was up to standard except for Gwale that an EC of 4850µs/cm which is above standard as recommended by FAO, all the pH for the water sources are having a good pH level which is in line with FAO. While for the effluent collected there was a lot of variation in pH and EC, due to the salt most fish farmers add to the effluent before discharge in order to kill some bacteria which could harm the fishes. Due the salt most fish farmers do add to the effluent before discharge in other to kill some bacteria which could harm the fishes. The result shows that the effluent is good for agriculture in terms of pH and EC except for some crops with special features, though the result showed a slight deviation among the samples collected as a result of chemicals added by some fish farmers. 5.2Conclusion From the study conducted and the results presented in chapter four, the survey clearly shows that there is an indiscriminate disposal of aquaculture effluent and most fish famers uses aquaculture effluent for crop production in the farm. We were also able to proof that aquaculture effluent are suitable for crop production though certain crops demands certain Ph level and EC level which might not be suitable. 5.3Recommendations Based on the survey responses received and the result analysis for the physiochemical properties the following are recommended. 1.There is a need for awareness on the impact of aquaculture waste to the immediate environment and also on crop production. 2.Support either financially or otherwise should be made by government and NGOs where necessary to ensure adequate practice of aquaculture. 3.The waste water should be discharged in good time depending on the number of fishes and size of pond to avoid high EC level for those who use it for crop production 4.Physiochemical analyses such as pH and EC should be carried out on effluent before discharging it for crop production. 5.Effluent should be applied on crops with high pH and EC tolerance. References: Adewale, A. (2019). Biofilter systems for aquaculture wastewater treatment: Review. Reviews in Aquaculture, 11(2), 378-395. Adewumi, J., & Ogunbanjo, O. (2021). Challenges and prospects of aquaculture waste management in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 14(3), 104-119. Ajani, O., Omitoyin, B., Ajofe, A., & Ogunjobi, A. (2017). Characterization and management of aquaculture effluents: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 200, 60-78. Cai, J., Lovatelli, A., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Cornaz, C., Dabbadie, L., Destoumieux-Garzon, D., ... Wainberg, A. A. (2017). Aquaculture in Africa: A regional review. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, 56, 1-8. FAO. (2018). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018 - Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD). (2012). Agricultural transformation agenda: We will grow Nigeria's agricultural sector. Retrieved from https://fmard.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Agricultural_Transformation_Blue-Print.pdf Ogunlade, T. A., & Olaseinde, T. A. (2019). Contribution of aquaculture to Nigeria's economy: A review. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 44(4), 367-375. Ogunleye, A., Ajani, E. K., & Akinwole, A. O. (2019). Regulatory frameworks for aquaculture in Nigeria: A critical review. Ocean & Coastal Management, 175, 45-52. Olatunde, O., Onada, O., & Ayeloja, A. (2018). Environmental impact of aquaculture: A global review. Environmental Development, 28, 99-113. Onyekuru, N. A. (2019). Aquaculture practices in Nigeria: A review. World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences, 11(1), 55-63. Akinwumi, A. A., Akinwumi, I. O., & Ogundahunsi, O. A. (2021). Analysis of Aquaculture Production in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science and Practice, 6(1), 16-26. Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN). (2020). Nigerian National Aquaculture Strategy. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Abuja, Nigeria. Nguyen, N. T., McDevitt, T. M., & Le, T. X. (2020). Environmental management practices in aquaculture: A study of shrimp farming in South Vietnam. Environmental Management, 66(4), 732-746. Badiola, M., Basuki, F., & Jayanto, B. B. (2018). Aquaculture effluent treatment systems: An overview of critical functional utilities. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 17(4), 661-677. Appendices Appendix: Sample Questionnaire AQUACULTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT SURVEY Questionnaire to know the management practices of aquaculture in some selected fish farms Personal Information: Age: Gender: 1.LGA: 1 Size of production (number of fish) Small [ ] Medium [ ] Large [ ] 2.Type of fish Catfish [ ] Tilapia [ ] Others [ ] 3.Sources of water Tap water [ ] Groundwater (Borehole/well) [ ] River/stream [ ] Others (specify) 4.Type of Pond: Tank [ ] Earthen Pond [ ] Concrete Pond [ ] Others 5.Number of pond(s): Less than 5 [ ] 5-10 [ ] More than 10 [ ] 6.Size of ponds Small [ ] Medium [ ] Large [ ] 7.Duration of the water in the pond before discharge: 1-2 weeks [ ] 2-4 weeks [ ] Above 4 weeks [ ] 8.Criteria for changing the water Color of water [ ] Duration in the pond [ ] Others 9.Method of discharge: Treat and discharge [ ] Direct Discharge to drainage [ ] Others (Please specify) 10.Do you utilize the effluents for crop production Yes [ ] No [ ] 11.Are you aware of the environmental impact of aquaculture practices? Yes [ ] No [ ] 12.What measures do you take to mitigate negative environmental effects? 13.What challenges are you facing in managing aquaculture wastes?