After making their purchases, the sampling team conducted simple interviews to help Ž
. explain price data. Questions asked of fish buyers and retailers were the following:
Ž .
Ø What size of fish do you normally buy sell ? Ž
. Ø What size of fish do you prefer to buy sell ?
Ž .
Ø What species of fish do you normally buy sell ? Ž
. Ø What species of fish do you prefer to buy sell ?
Ž .
Ž .
Ø Conditional Why buy sell fish you do not prefer?
Ž . Ž .
Multiple regression was used to relate fish price P to market type M , fish species Ž .
Ž . Ž .
group S , state of preservation F , total length L , distance of the market from the Ž
. Ž .
fishery D and distance of the market from Blantyre B according to the following relationship:
P s f M,S,F,L,D,B .
Ž .
Ž Dummy variables were assigned to nominal data state of preservation, fish species
. group and market type . To confirm results for nominal data, differences between
market type, fish species group, and state of preservation were also compared with ANOVA, followed by either Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test or Student’s t-test.
Ž .
Zar, 1974 . All statistical methods produced similar results.
3. Results
Ž .
Ž . Multiple regression Table 2 of fish price against market type M , fish species
Ž . Ž .
Ž . group S , form of preservation F , total length L , distance of market from the fishery
Ž .
Ž . D and distance of the market from Blantyre B yielded the following:
P s 163.80 y 0.23M y 0.17S y 0.28F q 0.08 L q 0.17D y 0.10 B r
2
s 0.444; SE s 37.94; P - 0.0001 .
Ž .
Average prices for different species groups and preserved forms in different markets Ž
are presented in Table 3. Overall, prices disregarding species group and state of .
Ž .
preservation were significantly higher P - 0.05 in urban than rural markets. In urban markets, the average price for fish regardless of preservation state or species group was
MK 138.77 per kg dry matter. In rural markets, the average price was MK 88.05. Apparent differences in price of the various species groups were found to be
Ž .
statistically insignificant P - 0.05 . Over the course of data analysis, it was realized that the type of fish is confounded with size and preservation state. Smaller fish tended
to be sun-dried. Silurids and larger fish, if processed, tended to be smoked. This Ž
. observation is consistent with those of other observers Gilberg, 1966; Mdaihli, 1992 .
Cyprinids in Southern Malawi are either riverine or, if lacustrine, make annual Ž
spawning migrations up rivers during the rainy season these data were collected just .
prior to the onset of the rains . All of the cyprinids purchased were found in Liwonde or Zomba, the only markets located adjacent to a cyprinid fishery. No fresh catfish were
observed in urban markets.
Table 2 Ž
. Summary of the regression of market price per unit dry matter against type of market urbanrrural, M ,
Ž . Ž .
Ž . species group S , state of preservation F , the fish’s total length L , distance of the market from the capture
Ž .
Ž . fishery D , and distance of the market from Blantyre B
Variable Regression coefficient
Standard error Significance
Y-intercept 163.80
37.94 0.000
M y0.23
15.02 0.041
S y0.17
5.60 0.121
F y0.28
0.12 0.018
L y0.08
0.11 0.494
D 0.17
0.21 0.415
B y0.10
0.23 0.682
Ž .
Over all species groups, average price for fresh fish in rural markets MK 126.16 Ž
. Ž
. was significantly P - 0.05 higher than for preserved forms MK 59.97 . Fresh fish
Ž were, however, relatively rare in rural markets 55 of purchases were for either dried
. or smoked fish, whereas 87 of purchases in urban markets were for fresh fish . Fresh
fish in rural markets tended to be from a near-by fishery, while species from farther away were preserved. In urban markets, most fish were being sold fresh, regardless of
Ž .
origin, and there was no significant difference P - 0.05 among preservation forms.
There were no differences between prices of dried or smoked fish within markets or species group.
Ž .
On a dry weight basis, there was no statistically significant P - 0.05 premium paid Ž
. for larger fish in any market Fig. 1 . Fish were sold strictly by weight with a 100-g fish
Ž .
being of equal value to four 25-g fish within a species and preservation category . Minimum market size of all species was found to be very small, about 10 cm.
Multiple regression of price against the distance of the market from the fishery and distance of the market from Blantyre identified neither of these parameters as statisti-
Ž .
cally significant P - 0.05 .
Table 3 Ž
. Average prices MK per kg dry matter for different species groups and preserved forms in urban and rural
markets in Southern Malawi. Ž
F s fresh, DrSsdried or smoked lumped as no significant differences were identified between smoked and .
Ž .
dried forms . There were no significant P -0.05 differences between species groups. Average price in urban Ž
. Ž
. Ž
. markets MK 138.77 was significantly P -0.05 higher than in rural markets MK 88.05 . In rural markets,
Ž .
Ž .
Ž average price for fresh fish MK 126.16 was significantly P -0.05 higher than for preserved forms MK
. Ž
. 59.97 . There were no significant differences between preservation states in urban markets P -0.05 .
Cichlids Silurids
Cyprinids Others
F DrS
F DrS
F DrS
F DrS
Urban 173
160 nra
96 71
148 102
100 Rural
158 59
75 86
nra nra
129 45
Fig. 1. Scatter plot of fish price against fish length in Southern Malawian markets.
Responses to the informal questionnaire revealed that most consumers preferred Ž
. larger fish but normally purchased smaller fish because of lack of cash 74 . Of
Ž .
interviewed consumers, 15 actually preferred smaller fish or smaller species . Only 11 were purchasing the fish they actually preferred. Consumer responses were similar
in urban and rural markets. Retailers were mixed with different strategies being employed for urban and rural markets. In urban markets, 41 of retailers claimed they
were selling fish they did not prefer because of lack of availability of other species and sizes at the fish landing sites or at local wholesale outlets. The balance was focused on
dried or smoked forms because of ease of transport and storage. In rural markets, 78 of retailers were purposely bringing smaller and smoked or dried fish to market because
Ž .
they were easier to transport, store and sell to poor consumers . Some retailers, 15, were purchasing and reselling fish they did not prefer due to cash-flow problems, while
a small number of retailers, 7 said they were selling what was available from the fishery.
4. Discussion
