A Socio-Economic Profile of the Rufiji Floodplain and Delta.

Socio-economic profile of Rufiji flood plain and Delta - Vol. 1
Table 30 shows that goat production is a high income earning enterprise giving an average annual net
income of 236,350 Tsh. The results show further that there are no significant differences in the
statistics provided in table 30 across the AEZ.
Cattle production
Only four households out of the sampled 182 undertake cattle production. These households
are from south Delta AEZ.
The average household cattle production per year is five head of cattle. The net value of
production is positive, indicating that cattle production is a viable enterprise in the area (table
31).
Table 31: Statistics of Cattle production by AEZ
AEZ
HH yield
per season
(number).
HH
yield/year
(number)
Amt. used
for hh cons
(number)
Price per
cattle (Tsh)
Annual cost
of
production
Tsh).
Gross value
per year per
hh (Tsh)
Net value
of
production
per year per
hh (Tsh)
Delta South Mean 3.7 5.5 1.00 51666.67 9503.3 185000.0 175496.7
N 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
Std. Dev. 2.8 6.4 0.0 28431.20 11647.10 112583.3 104322.6
Min. 2 1 1 20000 10 75000.0 69000.0
Max. 6 15 1 75000 22500 300000.0 277500.0
Total Mean 3.7 5.5 1.0 51666.7 9503.3 185000.0 175496.7
N 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
Std. Dev. 2.1 6.4 0.0 28431.2 11647.1 112583.3 104322.7
Min. 2 1 1 20000 10 75000.0 69000.0
Max. 6 15 1 75000 22500 300000.0 277500.0
Source: Survey data (2000)
Chicken production
Chickens are important types of livestock in the Rufiji Delta and Flood plain. About 75 (41%)
respondents reported to have participated in chicken production. The overall mean production per
household per year is 57 birds (minimum number is 2 and the maximum number is 500, Table 32).
The highest mean annual production was recorded in South flood plain and the lowest in Delta north.
However there are variations as indicated by the standard deviations.
Across the AEZ four variables were significantly different namely:
• Mean yield of chicken production per household (F=2.28, p=0.05);
• Mean price of chicken (F=2.5 p=0.03);
• Mean gross value of income from chickens (F=3.29, p=0.00), and;
• Mean net value of production per year (F=4.24, p=0.00).
Since mean annual production costs across the AEZ was not statistically different, it follows that the
main factors which have accounted for the differences in net annual income per year per household are
the level of production and prices offered. From the results, we may conclude that to improve chicken
production in the area production constraints and good markets need to be addressed.
32