EPA-660/2-74-046
MAY 1974
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Paunch Manure as a Feed Supplement
in Channel Catfish Farming
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D,C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, eqtdpment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and -non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environasental quality
standards.
-------
EPA-660/2-74-046
May 1974
PAUNCH MANURE AS A FEED
SUPPLEMENT IN CHANNEL CATFISH FARMING
by
Robert C. Summerfelt, Ph.D.
Oklahoma Cooperative Fishery Research Unit
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
and
S. C. Yin
Treatment and Control Research Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
Project R800746 (12060 HVQ)
Program Element 1BB037
Project Officer
S. C. Yin
Treatment and Control Research Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.60
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
Part A of this report examines the feasibility of using dried paunch
at 10, 20 and 30% levels in sinking, pelleted feed for pond-rearing of
yearling channel catfish to market-size, and at a 10% level in a float-
ing, extruded pelleted feed for cage-culture of yearling catfish.
Part B describes the effects of fish culture, using standard feeds and
paunch-containing feeds, on water quality of fish ponds. Measurements
of fifteen chemical parameters and fecal coliform counts are reported.
Regardless of feed type, pond-reared fish grew faster than the cage-
reared fish. There was no significant difference in final weights
attained by pond-reared fish given standard, and 10 and 20% paunch
feeds but fish given 30% paunch were significantly smaller. In pond
culture, feed costs per kg of catfish produced were essentially equal
using the standard commercial sinking feed and sinking feed containing
10 and 20% paunch, but costs were greater using sinking feed with 30%
paunch. In cage culture, the floating feed with 10% paunch was 22%
more expensive per kg of fish flesh produced than a commercial cage
culture ration. Neither pond nor cage culture caused deterioration in
water quality in any of the ponds to any appreciable degree during one
growing season of 24 weeks, and there were few significant differences
in water quality in both pond and cage culture between the ponds in
which commercial feeds were used and those in which paunch-containing
feeds were used.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
EPA Review Notice ii
Abstract ±±±
List of Figures v
List of Tables vii
Acknowledgments xii
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
Part A—Fish Growth and Production Using Dried Paunch 4
III Introduction 5
IV Methods 11
V Results and Discussion 23
Part B—Water Quality Changes With Fish Culture 71
VI Introduction 72
VII Sampling and Analytical Procedures 73
VIII Results, Statistical Analyses and Discussion 76
IX References 99
X Appendix A—Water Quality Data of Ponds 106
iv
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Experimental fish, ponds used in pond (5-16) and cage
culture (2 and 3) experiments. The tabular inset
describes the experimental design. The cages used
in ponds 2 and 3 are shown with I ] 13.
2 Relationship between observed yield (kg/0.1 ha X 10)
of channel catfish from 0.1 ha ponds and percentage
of paunch in the feed 32
3 Comparative growth of pond-reared channel catfish,
18 May to 2 November 1972, for five experimental
treatments, A point represents the mean of two
replicates of each treatment 35
4 Linearity of pond-reared channel catfish growth
(fish weights are solid circles) for fish fed standard
sinking feed, and weekly observations on water tempera-
ture (open circles), 18 May-2 November. In the regres-
sion the X variable is the sampling day of the total
growth interval, £ is the estimate of mean body weight
for the same day 36
5 Growth comparison of cage-reared channel catfish
fed commercial floating feed and a floating feed
containing 10% paunch. 43
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
6 Growth comparison of pond-reared and cage-reared
channel catfish fed commercial floating and com-
mercial sinking feeds, respectively 47
7 Biochemical oxygen demand in pond 8 and pond 14 77
8 Kjeldahl nitrogen in pond 8 and pond 14 78
9 Biochemical oxygen demand in pond 9 and pond 12 79
10 Kjeldahl nitrogen in pond 9 and pond 12 80
11 Biochemical oxygen demand in pond 12 and pond 14 81
12 Kjeldahl nitrogen in pond 12 and pond 14 82
vi
-------
TABLES
No. ' Page
1 Composition (%) of dehydrated paunch 7
2 Means (X) and ranges in.crude protein in samples of
several feed ingredients 9
3 Morphometry and volume of ponds used in fish cultural
experiments 12
4 Water budget (m ) by pond'number for filling, replacement
of evaporative and seepage losses, and contribution of
rain to the total water budget for six, 28-day intervals
and for the total 168 days of the experiment 14
5 Composition (%) of commercial catfish feeds, sinking
feeds containing by weight 10-30% paunch, and a floating
feed containing 10% paunch 16
6 Number of fish stocked (18 May) and estimates, based
on total mortality rates, of number of fish present at
each sampling date (t -t_) for pond-reared channel
catfish 24
7 Number of fish stocked (18 May) and number of fish
present at each sampling date for cage-reared channel
catfish 26
vii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
8 Yield of channel catfish on 2 November from 0.1 ha
ponds and amount of feed added during the 168-day
growing season 28
9 Analysis of variance of difference in treatment
mean condition factor (K-), length and weight of
pond-reared (TRTS 1-5) and cage-reared (TRTS 6+7)
channel catfish between 18 May and 2 November 34
10 Analysis of differences in treatment mean lengths
and weights of pond-reared channel catfish fed a
standard sinking feed (std) and sinking feeds
containing 10, 20 and 30% dried paunch 38
11 Analysis of variance of differences in treatment
means of length, weight, and condition factor
between 5 October and 2 November for each treatment 40
12 Analysis of variance of differences from 15 June
through 2 November in treatment mean lengths, weights
and condition factor for cage-reared channel catfish
fed standard (SF) feed or 10% O?FIO) paunch-substituted,
floating feed 41
viii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
13 Summary of analysis of variance of differences in
treatment means of length, weight and condition
factor of pond-reared channel catfish fed standard
sinking (SFst
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No.
17 Channel catfish feed conversion factor (S factors)
under pond and cage culture systems for research
and commercial projects
18 Comparative feed costs to produce channel catfish
using the standard feeds and feeds with various
levels of paunch 57
19 Matrix of correlation coefficients for 14 chemical
variables, water temperature, number of fecal coli-
forms, and the water budget over six, 28-day inter-
vals (periods 1-6) for pond 6, no fish and no feed 60
20 Matrix of correlatioia coefficients for 14 chemical5
variables, water temperature, number of fecal coli-
forms, and the water budget over six, 28-day inter-
vals (periods 1-6) for pond 10, no fish and no feed 61
21 Relationship between channel catfish growth ('Aw)i
mean biomass (I) and net production (P ), water
quality and other parameters in six, 28-day inter-
vals (18 May to 2 November) for ponds 9 and 12
where fish were given a standard commercial feed 65
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
22 Relationship between channel catfish growth (Aw),
mean biomass (B), net production (F ), water
quality and other parameters in six, 28-day inter-
vals (18 May to 2 November) for ponds 8 and 14
where the fish were given a feed containing 30%
paunch 66
23 Disposition of ponds 75
24 Comparison of distributions in pond 6 and pond 10 85
25 Comparison of distributions in pond 8 and pond 14 86
26 Comparison of distributions in pond 9 and pond 12 87
27 Comparison of distributions in two time periods 89
28 Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance 91
29 Comparison of distributions in pond 8 and pond 9 92
30 Comparison of distributions, in pond 2 and pond 3 93
xi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The proposal for EPA was co-authored by R. C. Summerfelt and A. K.
Andrews. The latter participated during the pond construction but due
to other commitments withdrew from participating once the study com-
menced. L. G. Hart, with the assistance of Philip Keasling, was in
charge of daily feeding and taking samples of fish length and weight;
and R. C. Suramerfelt wrote Part A of the final report; Bill Fisher of
4
the University Architect's Office prepared the blueprints and speci-
fications for pond construction. The Division of Fish Hatcheries,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife provided the experimental fish.
The chemical analyses given in Part B, with the exception of the four
parameters which were measured at the pond sites, were performed at
the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory by Mr. Michael
Cook, Physical Science Technician. The original idea of utilizing
paunch manure as a feed supplement in catfish farming was conceived by
Mr. S. C. Yin, who also performed the bacteriological analyses and
wrote Part B of the report. Mr. Jim Kingery, Mathematical Statistician,
was solely responsible for the statistical analyses and the interpre-
tations of the chemical and bacteriological data in Part B. This pro-
ject would not have been possible without the encouragement and assis-
tance of Mr. Jack Witherow, who was Chief of the Agricultural Wastes
Section at RSKERL at the time that the project was approved by EPA.
The technical consultations provided by Messrs. Dave Peters and John
Matthews in the planning stages of the project are also gratefully
acknowledged.
xii
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
It is feasible to use dehydrated paunch as a feed constitutent in for-
mulated feeds for pond-rearing channel catfish. Levels of 10 to 20%
paunch can be used without producing a significant reduction in growth
compared to fish reared on a typical commercial feed. Economically,
however, levels of paunch in excess of 20% may increase the feed costs
per kg of fish flesh produced. Thus, feed containing up to 20% paunch
was as economical as a commercial feed for pond-rearing of channel cat-
fish. For cage culture, however, paunch at 10% substitution level
would not produce a desirable economic return. The fish harvest
obtained in the present study averaged 1219 kg/ha which was typical
for commercial production. At this density only declining fall water
temperature but none of the water quality parameters limited growth or
production. At production levels typical of average commercial catfish
farming, there was no evidence indicating accumulation of metabolic
wastes during the course of one growing season.
Under the experimental conditions of the present study, which endea*-
vored to simulate typical catfish fanning techniques, both pond and
cage culture caused deterioration in water quality compared to ponds
without fish, but nei$ier of the two culture methods had impaired the
water quality in general to any appreciable degree in one growing season.
Moreover, there was no significant difference in water quality between
ponds using a typical commercial feed and a feed containing dehydrated
-------
paunch. At similar densities, there was no difference in water
quality between ponds using cage- and pond-rearing techniques.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has shown the feasibility of using dehydrated paunch as a
feed constitutent in formulated feeds for pond-rearing of channel cat-
fish. The objective of future nutritional studies with paunch should
concentrate on the suitability of paunch as a complete feed for fishes
less fastidious in nutritional requirement than the channel catfish.
It seems likely that the potential of aquaculture as a means for pro-
i
viding a low cost protein source will be dependent on successful use
of waste products. In principle, paunch should be applicable as a
feed constituent or a complete feed for pond-rearing of Tilapia spp
and carp (Cyprinus carpio), which are world-wide more important food
fish than channel catfish. Moreover, finely ground, unpelletized
dehydrated paunch seems to have excellent qualities as a complete feed
for several bait minnows.
Water quality parameters in the present study were not limiting growth
where average yield was 1219 kg/ha. Water quality studies in static
warmwater fish culture need to be concentrated on static pond systems
at maximum production densities of 2000-2500 kg/ha when metabolic
products limit further increases in density.
-------
PART A
FISH GROWTH AND PRODUCTION USING DRIED PAUNCH
-------
SECTION ma
INTRODUCTION
The rumen contents of cattle, referred to as paunch manure, or simply
paunch, contains a mixture of gastric juices, microbial flora and the
remains of the partially digested food. At the abattoir, the wet
weight of the rumen contents ranges from 18-27 kg per animal (Steffen
1969). In 1970, commercial abattoirs killed 35.02 million cattle (U.S.
Dept. Agri. 1971) producing 630-945 million kilograms of wet paunch.
Yin et al. (1972) showed that long-term BOD of these materials exceeds
100,000 mg/1. Baumann's (1971) analyses indicated 59.1% of the total
BOD of paunch was from the liquid portion and 40.9% was from solid
portion. High total BOD and high solids content (13.3%) combine to
make paunch a potent water pollutant with high treatment costs. The
mixture of blood, paunch and other abattoir waste waters easily over-
load municipal treatment systems. Field burial has also been expen-
sive, and because of its offensive odor difficulties even arise in
hauling fresh paunch to a burial site. Thus, endeavors to find viable
alternatives to disposal or conventional treatment were needed.
Dried paunch is nearly odorless and suitable for reuse as an ingredient
for animal feeds (Goodrich and Meiske 1969). Bauraann (1971 and 1972)
described the feasibility of dehydrating paunch to 7% moisture content
with gas-fired dryers at the largest U.S. slaughterhouse, located near
aThis section was written by R. C. Summerfelt.
-------
Council Bluffs, Iowa. The kill capacity of this facility was 250
animals per hour (Baumann 1971); in one 6-month period, 1 January
1971 to 30 June 1971, 184,720 head (avg. weight of 494 kg) were killed
in 135 days. This slaughter produced 4.5 million kg of wet paunch with
an average wet weight of 24.5 kg per animal. Seventy-five per cent of
the total paunch output of this facility was dehydrated (7% moisture
content) to an average of 3.85 kg dried weight per animal (Baumann
1971). Dehydrating costs were $8.62 per metric ton.
Studies by Baumann (1971) showed that sales of dried blood were greater
than total dehydration costs for both blood and paunch. In 1972,
however, dehydrated paunch had a limited market in cattle feeding
trials and as a soil conditioner. Marketability of dried (dehydrated)
paunch, and eliminating it from slaughterhouse wastes, requires eco-
nomic incentives that facilitate reuse rather than disposal. If dehy-
drated paunch allows formulation of lower cost animal feeds, then the
animal feed market may transform paunch from an expensive waste treat-
ment problem to a financial gain for the meat-packing industry.
Dehydrated to about 6.2-6.8% moisture, dried paunch contains 12.7-15.3%
protein and other desirable food ingredients (Table 1). Variation in
composition and food value of dried paunch (Table 1) depends on the
drying process and what the cattle were fed before slaughter. High
variability in composition of feed stuffs causes problems in quality
control in formulated feeds; however, the observed variability of pro-
tein in paunch is less than that of many common feed stuffs used in
formulating animal feeds (Schoeff 1963). Paunch derived from "finished"
-------
Table 1. Composition (%) of dehydrated paunch.
Component
Moisture
Protein
Fat
Carbohydrate
Crude fiber
Ash
Calcium
P2°5
Calories KC/G
X*
4.
14.
1.
-
39.
8.
0,
0.
1.
Beef land Intl. ('70)c
0
4
5
0
4
79
67
73
*
6
12
3
40
26
7
0
1
&
.8
.7
.1
.8
.2
.2
.59
.47
-
*
17
12
3
39
26
7
0
1
1
.1
.2
.2
.2
.1
.1
.59
.47
-
X
6
13
3
56
19
6
0
0
2 X3 '
.5 6.2
.4 14.1
.3
.2
.7 21.3
9 —
.28
.63
-
-d
6.
15.
4.
49.
18.
7.
0.
0.
4.
4
3
0
0
9
2
63
60
24
National Research Council, Committee on Animal Nutrition
(1964:12).
Baumann (1972) based on 60-90 determinations of each
parameter.
*•» •
Beefland data were diverse: X^ was based on 30 samples
with 60 determinations, and X2 was based on single pooled
sample and one determination; X3 was the mean of four
-daily composite samples.
Single determination of random sample from 15-ton batch
lot used for formulating fish feed in present study.
-------
cattle, i.e., those on high protein formulated feeds on feed lots are
expected to be less variable. Paunch has a protein content greater
than the maximum range for maize and most grain sorghums, about equal
to the average for oats, slightly less than dehydrated alfalfa, but
substantially lower than that in the high protein meals like cotton-
seed and soybean meals (Table 2). The vitamin content of dehydrated
paunch, performed by WARF Institute, Inc. for Beefland International
(personal communication), indicates the following vitamin levels in
pooled, dehydrated paunch: Vitamin A (retinol), 1377 IU/kg; Vitamin D
(calciferol), 10.4 IU/kg; Vitamin E (tocopherol) 13.2 IU/kg; Vitamin
B-L (thiamine), 3.5-4.4 mg/kg; Vitamin B2 (riboflavin), 9-9 mg/kg; and
Vitamin B.^ (cob lamin), 0.61 mcg/gm. These vitamin levels are above
average compared with many common feedstuffs (National Research Council-
Committee on Animal Nutrition 1964).
Part A of this report examines the feasibility of using dried paunch
at 10, 20 and 30% levels in feed for pond-rearing yearling channel cat-
fish to market-size (0.6 kg), and at 10 and 20% levels for cage-culture
of yearling catfish.
The pollution potential of large fish cultural program could have a
decided effect on the water quality and aquatic life of the receiving
aquatic environment. Hinshaw (1973) reported on alterations in quality
of water passing through six trout hatcheries, but there is a sparsity
of literature on effects of warmwater fish cultural production on water
quality in earthen ponds. Part B describes the effects of pond fish
culture using standard feeds and paunch-containing feeds on water
-------
Table 2. Means (X) and ranges in crude pro-
tein in samples of several feed ingredients.
Ingredient
Maize
, yellow dent
Sorghum, grain
Oats,
Dehyd
white
rated paunch
xa
8.
11.
12.
13.
8
3
5
7
7.
6.
9.
12
Range
0
0
1
*
- 10.
- 12.
- 15.
2 -15.
9
0
5
3
Alfalfa, aerial part,
dehydrated and ground 17.4 13.7 - 20.8
Cottonseed meal, solvent
extracted 32.9 28.5-35.0
Soybean meal, solvent
extracted 45.8 42.0-47.4
from National Research Council, Com-
mittee on Animal Nutrition (1964); the as
fed category, not on dry weight basis.
Ranges from Schoeff (1963)
°Mean and range of values in Table 1, present
report.
-------
quality of fish ponds. In all, one physical, one bacteriological, and
fifteen chemical parameters were measured.
10
-------
SECTION IV
METHODS
Twelve 0.1 ha earthen ponds (pond numbers 5-16) were constructed for
the purpose of conducting the pond experiments. Two 0.4 ha ponds (pond
numbers 2 and 3), already present, were used for the cage culture
phases. Pond morphometry is described in Table 3. The ponds, located
adjacent to Lake Carl Blackwell (Figure 1), were supplied with water
by gravity flow from the lake by a 51 cm main line through the base of
the dam, The main line also supplied water to the municipal water
i /-
treatment plant of Stillwater. An accounting was made of the total
water budget for each pond based on water added to fill the ponds, to
replace evaporative and seepage losses, and water input from rainfall
and runoff from the pond's watershed (Table 4). The water volume used
for filling was determined from pond dimensions; volume added to
replace seepage and evaporative losses was determined prior to refill-
ing from measurements of the decline in vertical height of the water
surface. Rainfall was obtained from measurements of the Outdoor
Hydraulics Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Their guage was located about 400 m north of our pond
area.
Feeding experiments were designed to simulate open pond and cage cultural
systems used in commercial channel catfish production. For the pond
cultural system, fish were stocked in 10 (0.1 ha) ponds. Feeds used
were a commercial feed, and the same feed formula containing by weight
11
-------
Table 3. Morphometry and volume of ponds used in
fish cultural experiments.
Characteristic
Length - m
Width - m
2
Water surface area - m
2
Watershed area - m
Average depth - m
3
Water volume - m
Cage culture
pond numbers
2 and 3
84.14
58.23
4,899
1,336
1.15
5,634
Pond culture
pond numbers
5 through 16
54.42
18.60
1,012
511a
0.83
840
aThis was the mean of all 12 ponds; it was larger for
ponds located on the ends of the rows.
12
-------
TREATMENT
POND CULTURE
NO FEED
STD. FEED
10% PAUNCH
20% PAUNCH
30% PAUNCH
CAGE CULTURE
STD. FEED
10% PAUNCH
CAGE NO.
31,32,33
21,22,23
A-MAINTENANCE BUILDING
AND LABORATORY
Figure 1. Experimental fish ponds used in pond (5-16) and cage cul-
ture (2 and 3) experiments. The tabular inset describes the experi-
mental design. The cages used in ponds 2 and 3 are shown with [ ]•
13
-------
Table 4. Water budget (m3) by pond number for filling, replacement of evapo-
rative and seepage losses, atl(j contribution of rain to the total water budget
for six, 28-day intervals and for the total 168 days of the experiment.
10
11
12
13
15
.,
16
Totals
Volume for filling 5634
Period 1: May
Replacement
Rain
Total
Period 2: June
Replacement
Rain
Total
Period 3: July
Replacement
Rain
Total
Period 4: Au^.
Replacement
Rain
Total
Period 5: Sept.
Replacement
Rain
Total
Period 6: Oct.
Replacement
Rain
Total '
GRAND TOTALS
18- June 15
-
-
-
15-July 13
336
851
1187
13- Aug. 10
1369
62
1431
10-Sept. 7
5649
543
6192
7-Oct: 5
5663
358
4021
5-Nov. 2
752
925
1677
20142
V
5634
4999
210
5209
1863
851
2714
4034
62
4096
2479
543
3022
2479
358
2837
3108
925
4033
275145
840
1(196
50
1246
247
210
457
900
12
912
419
136
555
419
86
505
370
234
604
5119
840
394
50
444
247
210
457
148
12
160
247
136
383
247
86
333
148
234
382
2999
840
419
50
469
99
210
309
358
12
370
247
136
383
247
86
333
345
234
579
3283
840
764
50
814
555
210
765
99
12
111
136
136
272
136
86
222
99
234
333
3357
840
419
50
469
99
210
309
456
12
468
321
136
457
321
86
407
370
234
604
3554
840
234
50
284
703
210
913
1024
12
1036
493
13£
629
493
86
579
407
234
641
4922
840
690
50
740
444
210
654
1345
12
1357
752
136
888
752
86
838
234
234
468
5785
840
86
50
136
197
210
407
296
•=12
308
111
136
247
111
86
197
173
234
407
2542
840
86
50
136
99
210
309
333
12
345
0
136
1'36
0
86
86
,
111
234
345
2197
840
86
50
136
247
210
457
629
12
641
259
136
395
259
86
345
284
234
518
3332
840
86
50
136
3,33
210
543
432
12
444
234
136
370
234
86
320
0
234
234
.2887
840 21348
283 9742
50 810
333 10552
308 5777
210 4222
518 9999
358 11781
12 268
370 12049
296 11643
136 2718
432 14361
296 9657
86 1748
382 11405
123 6524
234 4658
357 11182
3232 90896
a 2 7
Surface area of ponds 2 and 3 were 4899 m , 5 through 16 were 1012.m .
Pond 2 was filled prior to period 1, but drained during period 1 when
the water became anoxic, then refilled prior to the start of period 2.
-------
10, 20 and 30% dried paunch. The formulation of feeds containing
paunch was designed to make them approximately isonitrogenous (equal
levels of protein) and isocaloric (equal energy) (Table 5). Variabil-
ity shown is due to inequalities in commercial batch lot processing.
Fish were fed six of seven days of each of the 24 weeks of the study;
the daily ration was given in one or two daily feedings.
Two types of floating feeds were used in the cage culture system, a
commercial feed and a feed formulated to contain 10% paunch (Table 5).
We originally planned to use floating feeds containing 20% and 30%
paunch, as in the open pond experiments, but the vendor refused to
proceed further because of a highly objectionable "manure" odor produced
when the 10% paunch-fed mixture was mixed with water during the preparation
of the expanded pellets.
The size and number of fingerlings needed for stocking the ponds were
planned to simulate average commercial yield (kg/ha) while obtaining
an "ideal" market size fish within a 168-day growing season. Consid-
eration of these objectives require some perspectives on what is an
average yield and "ideal" market size fish. Bardach et al. (1972:180)
reported 900 kg/ha as an average annual yield for the catfish farming
region which Greenfield (1972:Figure 1) illustrated as an area of the
lower Mississippi delta. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
(1970:38-40) state that the "best" stocking density is 3705 yearling
channel catfish per hectare when one desires a final average size of
about 454 grams. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (1970) reported
an average annual yield .for average and excellent management to be
15
-------
Table 5. Composition (%) of commercial catfish feeds, sinking feeds
containing by weight 10-30% paunch, and a floating feed containing
10% paunch.
^ •- '-•--"- -1- " " ' ' -T.-T-- - -».--• --1- IT-I I 1 r---un-niii--i--i..._ •___'-- _.._.-' ]...'. _ - _
Floating feeds Sinking feeds
Ingredient Commercial 10% Commercial 10% 20% 30%
Protein, Kjeldahl 38.6 38.7 32.2 34.9 33.5 33.1
Fat, ether extract 3.3 3.1 4.6 3.7 3.7 3.7
Fiber 5.8 5.1 7.9 8.3 10.2 10.7
Calcium 1.22 1.32 0.42 0.53 0.57 0.67
Phosphorus 0.93 1.13 0.98 0.85 0.75 0.73
Calories, KC/G 4.16 4.25 4.15 4.28 4.34 4.32
16
-------
1,422 to 1,706 kg/ha, respectively. Meyer (1969) reported 2,038 kg/ha
as the "upper limit" of production in static water ponds. The "ideal"
size channel catfish for the processing plant is said to be 568 grams
(1.25 Ibs) (Greenfield 1972:20).
The numerical density chosen for stocking the ponds in this study was
260/0.1 ha pond (2600/ha). This density was considered maximum commen-
surate with use of 70 gram fish and the basic objective of a yield of
about 1422 kg and a final average weight of 568 grams. Assuming mor-
tality over the growing season to be about 4%, the number of fish
stocked in each pond included 10 fish more than expected to survive the
period of study.
The cage culture system was simulated by mooring three cages to "T"-
shaped piers in 0.4 ha ponds (ponds 2 and 3, Figure 1). The cages were
0.91 m tall, by 0.91 m wide, and 1.37 m long. The cage frames were con-
structed of 38 mm wide aluminum angle of 12 mm thickness; brass bolts
were used to attach 12.7 x 25.4 mm mesh wire to the frame. The mesh was
vinyl-coated, 16 gauge welded wire. The cage had a hinged lid covered
with welded wire mesh and 0.2 mm thick aluminum sheeting to provide
shade, because an opaque cover is essential to obtain good growth and
high survival from channel catfish (Schmittou 1970, Lewis 1969). The
cages were buoyed with blocks of cellular polystyrene attached to the out-
side of the cage. The blocks were positioned to maintain 10 cm of free-
board between the level of water and the top of the cage. This design was
3
used to obtain a submerged depth of 0.81 m and a water volume of 1.0 m ,
Cages were tethered to a pier at a water depth of 1.8 m which allowed
17
-------
about 1 meter between the bottom of the cage and the pond bottom.
O
Fish were stocked in cages with 1.0 m submerged cage volume at a
density suitable for commercial production. Lewis (1970) suggested a
stocking density of 200/yd3, i.e., 260 m3. Collins (1970b) described
a commercial cage culture system used on an Arkansas reservoir which
o
employed cages containing a volume of 3.18 m (calculated from Collin's
report) which was stocked with 1000 channel catfish, i.e., 315 catfish/
m3. Using a range in stocking densities of 300, 400 and 500 fish per
3
meter , Schmittou (1970) obtained the lowest conversion factor in cages
stocked at 300/m3. Eley et al. (1972) said 289 fish/m3 (1000 in a
3
cage 3.456 m ) of cage volume was "customary practice" in the southern
United States. However, previous citations show that no specific num-
ber can be regarded as best and numbers used by researchers and corn*
mercial fish culturists are highly variable.
In the present study, 345 fish were stocked in each cage. This density
was mid-range the densities reported in various experimental works
although somewhat greater than what might be considered customary in
3
commercial practice. With three 1 m cages in each 0.49 ha pond
stocked with about 345 fish per cage, specific densities were 2112/ha
compared with 2600/ha in the pond culture.
Efforts to simulate commercial production of the desired yield and
"ideal" average size were hampered by delays in construction and the
starting date for the growth experiments. Thus, fish were stocked in
18
-------
mid-May rather than mid-April. In an attempt to extend the season,
feeding was continued until 2 November; however, after 15 October water
temperatures were generally too low (< 15°C) for growth and in most
ponds, there was no significant difference between mean size on 15
October and 2 November.
Fish were stocked in the ponds and cages 16-18 May and the first
growth interval was started with the feeding of fish on 18 May. Six
growth intervals were planned to allow fitting the growth curve and to
examine the relationship between changes in water quality and fish
growth. Prior to stocking, the fish were counted into holding tanks
and a sample of 25 anesthetized fish was taken to obtain lengths and
weights. Fish were anesthetized in a container containing 30-50 ppm
quinaldine. We commenced feeding 18 May (t_), on that date and every
28 days thereafter, 25 fish were seined from the ponds, or dipped from
cages to obtain lengths and weights: (t™) 15 June, (t») 13 June, (t,)
10 August, (t_) 7 September, (tfi) 5 October, and (t?) 2 November 1972.
Net production (P ) was computed for the entire 168 days for each of
six growth intervals: (1) 18 May - 15 June, (2) 15 June - 13 July,
(3) 13 July - 10 August, (4) 10 August - 7 September, (5) 7 September -
5 October, and (6) 5 October - 2 November 1972. Net production (Pfl)
was calculated as per example for period 1, P = l^-B^, where N^. •
estimate of population number at time t. and w » the average weight of
the individuals in the population at time t-. Samples of 25 fish,
weighed and measured prior to stocking and also sampled at 28-day
19
-------
intervals were used to obtain w, for each collection date (t^tj).
Population N was obtained by total count on 18 May (t^) and again 2
November (t?) when the ponds were drained. For the other dates (tg...
t,.), N was estimated by calculations based on estimates of average
daily mortality derived from an assumption of a linear rate for mortal-
ity over 168 days.
Two conversion factors, the S and C factors, are measures of the
efficiency with which fish convert feed to fish flesh (Swingle 1958).
These conversion factors are defined as follows:
kg of feed added , _ kg of feed added
kg gain of fish » anfl ' = adjusted kg gain of fish'
The adjusted weight gain for the C factor is the observed gain minus
the gain expected without supplementary feed. The gain expected with-
out feeding was estimated by concurrent observations of channel catfish
growth in two ponds (pond numbers 11 and 15) which were not given
supplemental feed. These fish were stocked at the same time and were
of the same initial size as the groups receiving supplemental feed.
Weight gains of the fish in ponds 11 and 15 had to be derived from
natural foods; their weight gain was averaged and used to estimate the
adjusted gain to compute the C factor for fish in the other ponds.
Less commonly calculated than the S factor, the C factor is a better
expression of the ability of a feed to provide for fish growth. The
C factor provides a better comparison of feed conversion between pond
and cage culture because fish in cages, like fish reared in raceways,
are unable to obtain any significant amount of natural food (Schmlttou
20
-------
1969, 1970; Lewis 1970).
In both pond and cage cultural systems each feed type was considered
a treatment and each treatment was replicated. In the pond culture,
two replicates were used for each treatment and for the cage culture
three cages replicated each treatment (Figure 1). The procedures of
analysis of variance were used to determine significance of difference
in length and weight of each treatment mean for each growth period.
The hypothesis tested was that of no difference in fish size between
treatments. Interaction, i.e., difference between replicates for the
same treatment was never obtained. The F statistic was derived as the
quotient obtained by dividing the among treatment (feed type) mean
square by the within treatment error mean square. The latter was the
mean square derived from the replicate difference. The pond experi-
ment was analyzed separately from the cage experiment except where
differences were explicitly examined. The degrees of freedom for the
F statistic in the pond experiments were 3 and 4 for the numerator
and denominator mean squares respectively; the d.f. for the cage cul-
ture experiments were 1 and 4. In the pond experiments, when a signi-
ficant F was obtained (P<«10), the Duncan's new multiple range test
(Steel and Torrie 1960) was used to determine which of the four treat-
ment means (standard feed, feed with 10, 20 or 30% paunch) were signi-
ficantly (P<.05) different from each other.
In addition to the water quality parameters reported by Yin in Part B,
six days each, week we measured dissolved oxygen and temperature in each
21
-------
pond at the surface and near the bottom, between 0900 and 1000 hours.
22
-------
SECTION V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Mortality
Stocking density in pond culture was planned for a survival of 250
fish per 0.1 ha pond, assuming a 4% total mortality. The observed
numerical density after 168 days averaged 249.1 and the total mortality
*
was 4.18%, excluding pond 12 where poaching was a problem (Table 6).
By inspection of the results (Table 6), mortality of stocked fish in
the ponds (as opposed to cage-reared fish) for the 168 days of the
experiment apparently was a random variable and not related to feed
type. The lowest mortality was observed in the two ponds where fish
received feed with 30% paunch; highest mortality was in the two ponds
where the fish received no feed.
The 4.18% observed mortality over all ponds was lower than the 7%
contemplated for commercial production analysis assuming good manage-
ment (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 1970:17). Total mortality of less
than 1% has been obtained in experimental pond culture of channel cat-
fish (Deyoe and Tiemeier 1973), but this is exceptional, even in experi-
mental ponds. Simco and Cross (1966) reported an average of 5%
mortality in 41 experimental ponds over four years. Morris (1972)
reported 9.8% mortality over three years in a Missouri Department of
Conservation fish culture facility. Thus, mortality of yearling cat-
fish may typically fall between 1-5% in research ponds and 7-10% in
the less carefully controlled circumstances commonplace in private or
23
-------
ro
Table 6. Number of fish stocked (18 May) and estimates, based on total mortality
rates, of number of fish present at each sampling date (t--t_) for pond-reared
catfish.
Ponds
11
15
Std. feed
9
12
10% paunch
13
16
20% paunch
5
7
30% paunch
8
14
Total3 2
Hay
18
260.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
260.00
,340.00
Percent mortality
between 28-day 0
sampling intervals
June
15
257.67
255.99
259.00
258.17
259.17
258.50
256.17
258. 67
259.50
259.00
2,323.67
.70 0.
July
13
255.33
251.99
258.00
256.33
258.33
257.00
252.33
257.33
259.00
258.00
2,307.31
70 0.
Aug.
10
252.«J9
247.99
257.00
237.49
257.49
255.50
248.49
255.99
258.50
257.00
2,290.95 2
71 0.
Sept.
7
250.65
243.99
256.00
235.65
256.65
254.00
244.65
254.65
258.00
256.00
,274.59 2
71 0.
Oct.
5
248.32
239.98
255.00
233.82
255.82
252.50
240.82
253.32
257.50
255.00
,258.26 2
71 0.
Nov.
2
246.00
236.00
254.00
215.00
255.00
251.00
237.00
252.00
257.00
254.00
,242.00
72
Mortality
% Fish/day
5.38
9.23
2.30.
17.30b
1.92
3.46
8.84
3.07
1.15
2.30
4.18°
0.083
0.143
0.036.
0.268b
0.030
0.054
0.137
0.048
0.018
0.036
0.066
a
Column totals do not include pond 12 where 34 fish were taken by poachers.
High values due to poaching; when excluding poaching, total mortality was 4.23%
and mortality rate was 0,066 fish/day.
-------
state pond culture.
To calculate the amount of feed to offer fish in each pond or cage
during any Interval Between the taking of sample weights, the biomass
(B ) present was estimated from B -fi w , where S. = estimate of the
*• t t t t
number of fish present and $ » mean weight. For t- and t_, N was
obtained by total count, but for t2...tg, N had to be estimated by
assuming a uniform rate of mortality with time (Tables 6 and 7).. Over
all ponds this rate was 0.065 fish per day for 168 days (Table 6).
A complete fish kill occurred 1 June in pond 2 of the cage culture
experiments (cages 21-23) 13 days after stocking (Table 7). Mortality
resulted from anoxic conditions incurred because of decomposition of
terrestrial vegetation present in the ponds when they were flooded.
Cages 21-23 were restocked on 13 June and the experiment restarted.
Anoxic conditions reoccurred in ponds 2 and 3 in late September caus-
ing a high mortality in several cages between the 7 September and 5
October sample dates. At this time anoxic conditions were due to BOD
created by a massive growth of aquatic vegetation, mostly Najas and
Chara. This weed problem and the resultant BOD might have been pre-
vented by using herbicides prior to development of heavy plant growth.
Herbicides were not considered because of apprehension that they would
have constituted an extraneous variable affecting water quality. As a
_-'r
result of the September mortality, surviving fish from cages 31, 32
and 33 in pond 3 were used to restock two cages (32 and 33) at the
original stocking density; likewise, survivors of the three cages in
pond 2 were used to make up new populations for two cages (22 and 23).
25
-------
K>
O\
Table 7. Number of fish stocked (18 May) and number of fish present at each
sampling date for cage-reared channel catfish.
Cages *
.Standard feed
31
32
33
,102 paunch
21
22
23
lay
336
333
346
345a
345*
345*
Total 1015f
Percent mortality
between sampling
intervals
0.
June
15
335
333
345
349J
349b
lolsf
20608
20* 0.
June
29
335
333
345
349
349
348
2059
05 0.
July
13
335
333
345
348
349
348
2058
05 0.
July
27
335
333
345
348
349
348
2058
00 0.
Aug.
10
335
333
345
348
349
348
2058
on o.
Aug.
24
335
333
343
348
349
348
2056
10
Sept.
7
335
333C
342
348d
349*
348d
1372h
2055s
0.05 0.
Oct.
5
94e
332
340
217e
349
348
1369h
22k 0.
Nov.
2
_
332
340
_
349
348
1369h
00k
Mortality
2
.0031
.003
.017
.0031
.000
.003
Fish/day
.0091
.006
.036
.0091
.000
.006
"All fish died 19 May.
Replacement fish placed in cages 13 June.
°Eleven fish died 18 September and were replaced with 11 fish from cage 31
on 5 October.
Fifty-one fish from cage 22 and 11 fish from cage 23 died on 20 September
and were replaced with fish from cage 21 on 25 September.
A
Cage not included in project after 7 September due to massive mortalities.
f e
Includes cages 31, 32 and 33. slnclude all cages.
Includes cages 22, 23, 32 and 33, Based on values to 7 September.
1 k_
J Based on values from cages 31, 32 and 33, Based-on:.yalues from cages 22,
23, 32 and 331
-------
Mortality estimates for the cage-reared fish 13 June to 7 September
were 0.3 to 1.7% smaller than mortality for pond-reared fish. There
was no indication of differential mortality related to feed type.
The observed mortality in the cages as a result of the respiratory
demand by the large mass of aquatic plants does lend support to obser-
vations which show that caged* catfish are more susceptible to low DO
than pond^reared fish as the latter have access to more pond surface
area per fish than the fish confined to cages (Lewis 1970, 1971;
Schmittou 1970). Moreover, where the catfish were allowed access to
the substrate, problems with aquatic plants did not occur.
Yield arid Net Production
The biomass of fish present at the time of draining is the commercial
yield which is not equivalent to either gross or net production as
used in the ecological context; however, yield by this definition is
the same as used by other fishery workers (Simco and Cross 1966). In
the present study, yield was obtained as the product of average weight
(w) times population number (N) counted when the ponds were drained
2 November (Table 8). The average yield per ha in the eight ponds
receiving supplemental food was 1219 kg/ha, or 319 kg/ha more than the
average commercial yield in Arkansas (Bardach et al. 1972:180).
Madwell (1971:9) estimated the average 1970 commercial yield of channel
catfish for the entire U.S. at 1345 kg/ha, 10% greater than the aver-
age yield obtained in the present study, although less than the 1467
kg/ha obtained in pond 9. The average yield obtained in the present
study accomplished the objective of obtaining a reasonably close
27
-------
Table 8. Yield of channel catfish on 2 November
from 0.1 ha ponds and amount of feed added during
the 168-day growing season.
Treatment
Pond
Standard feed
£
Avg.
Feed with 10% paunch
13
16
Avg.
Feed with 20% paunch
5
7
Avg.
Feed with 30% paunch
8
14
Avg.
No supplemental feed
11
15
Avg.
Yield/pond
kg
147.60
110.42
129.01
123.96
132.73
128.35
120.25
126.50
123.38
104.16
109.91
107.04
16.78
21.85
19.32
Amount (kg)
Feed added
201.88
215.45
208.66
211.90
223.02
217.46
216.62
190.95
203.79
178.72
187.02
182.87
0
0
0
*Yield times 10 - yield/ha
A 13% loss of fish due to poaching accounts for
the low yield.
28
-------
simulation to yield obtained in commercial production.
The 193.2 kg/ha average yield in the ponds not given supplemental
feeding (ponds 11 and 15) was only 15.7% of the average yield of 1219
kg/ha in the 8 ponds where fish were given supplemental feed. Simco
and Cross (1966) obtained an average yield of 146.8 kg/ha from stock-
ing fingerling catfish in 0.11 ha experimental ponds without supple-
mental feed or fertilizer. On the other hand, the catfish harvest
in ponds 11 and 15 was 9,1 times larger than 21,30 kg/ha average
Standing crop for channel catfish in multispecies populations of
watmwater fishes in Oklahoma farm ponds (Jenkins 1958). Carlander
(1955) calculated a mean channel catfish standing crop of 84.2 kg/ha
from four reports of pond populations in Oklahoma and Texas. Without
supplemental feeding* Walker and Carlander (1970) estimated a channel
catfish yield of 33.7 kg/ha in an apparently eutrophic Iowa farm pond.
They stocked 914, 5.4 g, fish/ha, and obtained 90% survival to a
41,4 g average weight after 119-125-day growth interval. In the
present study, the maximum yield, observed in pond 9, of 1476 kg/ha
was leas than the 2631 kg/ha reported by Swingle (1959), 2483 kg/ha
reported by Simco and Cross (1966), or the 2038 kg/ha "upper limit"
to production in static water ponds reported by Meyer (1969). We did
not seek to obtain maximum yield, however, as it would have required
larger stocking density and probably would have resulted in a smaller
average size at harvest*
The difference between initial and final total weight (B^B.^ of
29
-------
channel catfish is a measure of net production. In ponds 11 and 15,
where a supplemental feed was not given and growth had to be derived
from availability of natural food, net production of channel catfish
for the 168-day interval averaged 2.37 kg/pond or 23.7 kg/ha. This
is much less than the estimated range of 45 to 117 kg/ha for mixed
farm pond fish populations in this area (Whiteside 1973), but mixed
species are expected to better utilize the natural carrying capacity
than a single species (Carlander 1955).
Few observations on net production of channel catfish from natural
food resources were available for comparison. Swingle (1959) obtained
a maximum channel catfish production of 202 kg/ha in fertilized
ponds in Alabama for a 188-day period. Computations from data
given by Walker and Carlander (1970) for a highly eutrophic 6.29 ha
Iowa pond indicate a 28.8 kg/ha net production. Lewis (1971) stated
that channel catfish production on natural foods would be about 102
kg/ha; however, context of Lewis's statement suggests that he was
referring to yield rather than production. Net production in ponds
11 and 15 was 13.1% of the estimated average standing crop (B) where
B was estimated by the formula, B «• (B- + B7)/2. No statistical
test was made of the significance of difference between the mean
yield by treatment. Visual inspection of the difference in yield
between treatments suggested that even though feeds, were approxi-
mately isonitrogenous and isocaloric, there was a negative relationship
between yield and the percentage of dehydrated paunch in the feed
30
-------
(Table 9, Figure 2). To quantify the magnitude of this relationship,
a correlation between yield (the dependent variable) and percentage of
paunch in the feed (the independent variable) was computed using a
transformation of 1 + percent of paunch in the feed to eliminate the
use of 0% for the standard feed. The yield from pond 12 was excluded
because of excessive mortality related to poaching. The correlation
coefficient (r) was -0.94 which is significant (P<0.1), The coeffi-
2
cient of determination (r X 100) indicates that the percentage of
paunch in the feed accounted for 88% of the variability in the yield.
Because the amount of feed given each day was a function of mean size
of the fish, as determined from mean weights of samples taken every
28 days, the total amount of feed added to the ponds was less for fish
with slower growth, as in ponds 8 and 14 where the fish were given the
feed containing 30% paunch. Because slower growing fish were given
less food, the possibility existed that yield would become a function
of total quantity of feed given rather than the kind of feed. The
correlation between yield and the total amount of feed was not signi-
ficant (r - 0.54, P>0.05, df • 5).
it,
Growth
Growth was calculated for each pond from measurements of length and
weight from a sample of 25 fish collected every 28 days. Analysis of
variance (A.OV) of differences in treatment mean length (^ and 1^) and
mean weight (SL and $_) between the initial (t^ and final (t?) sample
dates (18 May - 2 November)showed a significant growth (P<.05) for all
31
-------
1500
1400 -
1300 -
O>
LU
Y = 1457.2 - 12.2X
r = -0.94
1200 —
1100 -
1000 —
0
10 15 20 25
PERCENTAGE OF PAUNCH +1
Figure 2. Relationship between observed yield (kg/ha x 10) of channel
catfish from 0.1 ha ponds and percentage of paunch in the feed.
32
-------
but treatment 1 (Table 9). The latter were fish not receiving any
supplemental feed and their sample mean weights changed little from
beginning to end of the growth experiment (Figure 3).
Excluding fish not receiving supplemental feed, growth curves of pond-
reared fish, expressed as changes in wet weight during the course of
the experiment, appeared sigmoid for all but fish in the treatment
receiving standard feed (Figure 3). Declining water temperature in
October and November is the most probable cause for declining growth
rate, rather than feed type or water quality, but there was an appar-
ent interaction between growth, feed type and water temperature.
Mean growth rate of fish given standard feed (ponds 9 and 12) was
linear throughout the growth interval in spite of declining water
temperatures from mid-September through 2 November (Figure 4). More-
over, pronounced differences in average weight at the termination of
the study between the fish receiving feed containing 30% paunch and
weight of fish in the other treatment indicates that the quality of
the feed acting alone or in concert with temperature also limited
growth. It also reveals that examination for differences in feed
quality must include the full production cycle since differences in
fish growth were small prior to October 5. Hastings (W. H. Hastings,
Fish Farming Experimental Station, Stuttgart, Arkansas: personal
communication) has concluded that growth of catfish at different
temperatures is a function of whether the protein is of animal or
plant origin.
33
-------
Table 9. Analysis of variance of difference in treatment mean
condition factor (K,^), length and weight of pond-reared (TRTS
1-5) and cage-reared (TRTS 6+7) channel catfish between 18 May
and 2 November.
TRT
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7a
Feed Type
(cage or pond No.)
None
(11+15)
Std. sinking
(9+12)
10% paunch
(13+16)
20% paunch
(5+7)
30% paunch
(8+14)
Std. Floating
(31, 32, 33)
10% paunch
(21, 22, 23)
treatment 7 started
difference between
15
Ponds
18 May
KTL °'66
Length
Weight
K
Length
Weight
*TL
Length
Weight
*TL
Length
Weight
*TL
Length
Weight
K__
Length
Weight
K_
Length
Weight
15 June;
(mm)
(g)
(mm)
(g)
(mm)
(g)
(mm)
(g)
(mm)
(g)
Cages
(mm)
(g)
(mm)
(g)
thus,
length, weight
212
65
0.
218
71
0.
212
66
0.
216
71
0.
219
72
0.
202
57
0.
227
82
the
.6
.2
66
.9
.2
67
.8
.4
70
.4
.4
67
.7
.5
66
.0
.7
68
.0
.8
2 Nov. Sign.
0.
227
80
0.
385
547
0.
388
67
.0
.4
94
.6
.4
86
.4
507.4
0.
384
502
0.
367
419
0.
335
360
0.
321
313
analysis
and condition
87
.2
.7
84
.2
.0
97
.5
.2
93
.7
.2
is for
factor
10.
10.
10.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
the
of F
*
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
between
June and 2 November.
34
-------
• COMMERCIAL SINKING FEED
CO
^
cc.
\
h-
X
UJ
z
LU
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
- ° FEED WITH
* FEED WITH
- * FEED WITH
10%
20%
30%
PAUNCH
PAUNCH
PAUNCH * *
* NO SUPPLEMENTAL FEED »
o
_
8
$
III.
MAY JUNE
18 15
1 29
8
A
*
-l-
I
JULY
13
57
*
*
*
0
*
+ 4- +
! i 1 . 1 > I
AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV.
10 7 52
85 113 141 169
Figure 3. Comparative growth of pond-reared channel catfish, 18 May
to 2 November 1972, for five experimental treatments. A point repre-
sents the mean of two replicates of each treatment.
35
-------
x
o
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
2 200
150
100
50
Y = 56.85+ 2.93X. r = 0.998
18
1
June
1
15
June
15
29
June
29
43
July
13
57
July Aug
27 10
71 85
Au9
24
99
Sept
7
113
Sept
21
127
Oct
5
141
Oct
21
155
35 o
30 lu
oc
251
20 2
15 |
10 JS
5
Nov
2
169
Figure 4. Linearity of pond-reared channel catfish growth (fish weights
are solid circles) for fish fed standard sinking feed, and weekly obser-
vations on water temperature (open circles), 18 May-2 November. In the
regression the X variable is the sampling day of the total growth inter-
val, T is the estimate of mean body weight for the same day.
-------
An AOV of the significance of the differences between treatment mean
weights for pond-reared fish for each collection showed no initial
difference in treatment mean weight (Table 10). Thus, the groups were
initially homogeneous, comprised of randomly established strata sub-
divided from a single Initial population. The fish not given supple-
mental feedings were omitted from all statistical analyses after 18
May as they were expected to deviate from the other groups on subse-
quent dates.
For pond-reared fish receiving standard, or 10, 20 and 30% paunch
feeds, differences among treatment means of catfish body weight for
each collection date between 18 May and 7 September were non-
significant (P>,10). On 5 October, the differences among treatment
means of body weight were significant (P<.025), and the Duncan's mul-
tiple range test showed that the group receiving feed containing 30%
dried paunch was significantly smaller than the other groups. When
the ponds were drained (2 November) a similar difference was noted
(the computed F statistic exceeded the tabular F at the 10% level),
and the Duncan's multiple range test, using a 5% level of significance,
again showed that the treatment mean of the fish receiving 30% paunch
was smaller than the other treatments. These findings were basically
duplicated in the analyses of differences among treatment means of
catfish body length except that a significant difference was noted
between several treatments on 15 June which was not observed in subse-
quent periods and therefore may be attributed to sampling error
(Table 10),
37
-------
U)
00.
Table 10. Analysis of differences in treatment mean lengths and weights of pond-reared
channel catfish fed a standard sinking feed (std) and sinking feeds containing 10, 20, and
30% dried paunch. When the significance of the F statistic was <_ 10%, then Duncan's mul-
tiple range test was used to determine the significance of difference between the means.
Where the Duncan's test was applied, any means not underscored by the same line was signi-
ficantly different at the 5% level.
Mean length (mm)
Date
la May
15 June
13 July
10 August
7 September
5 October
2 November
Std.
218.9
252.2
285.5
321.3
349.9
373.2
385.6
10
212.8
246.0
283.3
327.0
355.3
372.4
388.1
20
214.8
247.2
282.9
323.5
349.3
377.5
384.2
30
219.1
240.1
279.8
313.0
343.2
356.4
366.0
Sign, of F
statistic3
NS>10.0
1.0
NS>10.0
NS>10.0
NS>10.0
10.0
10.0
Std.
71.
135.
214.
301.
388.
483.
547.
2
2
8
9
4
2
4
Mean weight (R)
10
66.4
130.6
210.1
320.2
421.0
471.3
507.4
20
71.4
118.8
200.5
296.9
390.0
505.5
502.7
30
72.5
112.7
186.9
262.5
337.0
379.9
419.0
Sign, of F
statistic3
NS>10.0
NS>10.0
NS>10.0
NS>10.0
NS>10.0
2.5
10.0
Percentage points for the distribution of F.
-------
It was shown that final average yield was a linear function of per-
cent of paunch in the diet (Figure 2), but lack of differences in
average weights or lengths at harvest between fish given standard
feed and feed containing 10 and 20% paunch shows that up to 20% level,
paunch did not significantly affect final size of pond-reared fish
over the 168«-4ay growing season.
As noted above, growth rates of pond-reared fish in most treatments
declined between 7 September and 2 November, Mean monthly water
temperature declined between 7 September and 2 November, and the
temperature in the last half of the last growth interval was low enough
to anticipate a reduced growth rate. An analysis of variance showed
that differences in treatment mean lengths and weights between 5 Octo-
ber and 2 November were non-significant with the exception of fish
receiving 30% paunch (Table 11)» The fish from the latter treatment
had a significant increase in body length between the same dates but
not in body weight, Thus, there was a non-significant growth increment
between 5 October and 2 November for all treatments but fish receiving
feed containing 30% paunch.
For cage-reared fish, an analysis of variance of the difference
between two treatment means was computed for each of the 9 sampling
dates (Table 12), The two treatments were started 18 Hay, but a com-
plete fish kill occurred in cages held in pond 2 on 1 June due to an
oxygen depletion caused by decomposition of terrestrial vegetation
present at the time the pond was filled. The cages in pond 2 were
39
-------
-p*
o
Table 11. Analysis of variance of differences in treatment means of length, weight, and condition
factor between 5 October and 2 November for each treatment.
Mean lengths
TRT-feed type
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
None
Std.
10%
20%
30%
Std.
10%
sinking
paunch
paunch
paunch
floating
paunch
Oct. 5
226.2
373.2
372.4
377.5
356.4
335.5
316.6
Nov. 2
225,0
385.6
388.1
384.2
366.0
331.4
321.8
(mm)
Mean weights
Sign, of F
statistic Oct. 5
NSa
NS
NS
NS
10. Ob
NS
NS
PONDS
77.7
483.2
471.3
505.5
379.9
CAGES
384 » 4
302.8
(g)
Condition factor (K_L )
Sign, of F
Nov. 2 statistic Oct. 5
80.4
547.4
507.4
502.7
419.0
360.2
313.2
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.66
0.91
0.90
0.92
0.82
0.96
0.93
Sign, of F
Nov. 2 statistic
0.67
0.94
0.86
0.87
0.84
0.97
0.93
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
- F statistic was non-significant when P>0.10
P<.10 > .05
-------
Table 12. Analysis of variance of differences from 15 June through 2 November in treat-
ment mean lengths, weights and condition factor for cage-reared channel catfish fed
standard (SF) feed or 10% (FF Q) paunch-substituted, floating feed.
Mean lengths
Date
15 June
29 June
13 July
27 July
10 August
24 August
7 September
5 October
2 November
SF
225.2
243.0
253.6
272.6
274.0
295.7
306.1
331.4
335.5
FF
* 10
227.0
237.1
252.2
262.2
268.6
276.2
295.4
316.6
321.8
(mm)
Mean weights (g)
Sign, of F SF
statistic3
NSb
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.5
0.5
5.0
5.0
102.5
129.5
153.6
179.9
188.7
234.0
271.4
360.2
384.4
Mean
FFin Sign, of F SF
statistic3
82.8
111.1
149.6
157.7
171.9
194.2
238.7
302.8
313.2
0.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
5.0
0.5
5.0
5.0
0.88
0.87
0.85
0.89
0.86
0.91
0.91
0.95
0.97
condition factor (Krivr )
FF10
0.68
0.80
0.83
0.89
0.84
0.92
0.90
0.93
0.97
Sign, of F*"
statistic3
0.5
2.5
10.0
NS
10.0
NS
NS
NS
NS
Percentage points for the distribution of F (Snedecor and Cochran 1967, Table A).
Non-significant when P>0.10%
-------
restocked on 13 June and the feeding experiment resumed 15 June. At
this time there was a significant difference between the treatment
mean weights for fish fed the standard feed and the fish fed the feed
with 10% paunch; however, there was no significant difference in the
two treatment means after 14 days of feeding (29 June), or thereafter
until the 24 August when the difference was significant at the 57,
level. At the termination of the study (2 November), the mean weights
of the fish receiving standard feed were 18.5% larger than the fish
fed with feed containing 10% paunch, and the two treatment means of
body weight were significantly different (P<.05) (Figure 5).
Difference in final mean weight of caged fish in the treatment given
the standard feed (335.5 g) and the caged fish given 10% paunch (321.8
g) was significant (Table 12). Because cage-reared channel catfish
are unable to supplement their diet with natural food, deficiencies in
the feed ingredients are more likely to become limiting for them than
for pond-reared fish with similar feed deficiencies.
Comparison of growth of pond- and cage-reared fish was done for
fish in treatments receiving the complementary food type: i.e.,
lengths and weights of the pond-reared fish fed the standard sink-
ing feed were compared with the cage-reared fish fed the standard
floating pellets (Table 13); also, cage-reared fish fed the 10%
paunch feed were compared with the pond-reared fish fed the 10% paunch
feed (Table 14), In comparing the pond-reared fish on standard
sinking feed with the cage-reared fish on standard floating feed, the
calculated F value for the AOV was non-significant on 18 May, but it
42
-------
400
350
300
CJ
I 250
I 200
| 150
< 100
III
S 50
•COMMERCIAL FEED, Y = 41.5 + 2.06 (X) r = 0.990
°FEED WITH 10% PAUNCH, Y = 39.2 +1.72 (X) r = 0.753
MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT.
18 15 13 10 7 5
1 29 57 85 113 141
NOV.
2
169
Figure 5. Growth comparison of cage-reared channel catfish fed com-
mercial floating feed and a floating feed containing 10% paunch.
43
-------
Table 13. Summary of analysis of variance of differences in treatment means of length,
weight and condition factor of pond-reared channel catfish fed standard sinking (SFgtd)
feed compared with cage-reared fish fed standard floating (FF ,) feed.
Mean length (mm)
Date
18 May
15 June
13 July
10 August
7 September
5 October
2 November
std
218.9
252.2
285.5
321.3
349.9
373.2
385.6
Mean weight (g)
FF Sign, of F SF . .
std i.^*. ^. a std
statistic3
202.0
225.2
253.6
274.0
306.1
331.4
335.5
NSb
0.5
2.5
1.0
0.5
5.0
1.0
71.2
135.2
214.8
301.9
388.4
483.2
547.4
FF . Sign, of F
Std statistic3
57.7
102.5
153.6
188.7
271.4
360.2
384.4
NSb
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.5
10.0
1.0
Mean condition factor (K^ '
SF + A
std
0.66
0.82
0.93
0.89
0.89
0.91
0.94
FF ,, Sign, of FiiJ
Std Statistic3
0.66
0.87
0.89
0.86
0.91
0.95
0.97
NSb
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Percentage points for the distribution of F (Snedecor and Cochran 1967, Table A).
Non-significant when P>0.10%
-------
Ul
Table 14. Summary of analysis of variance of differences in treatment means of channel
catfish length, weight, and condition factor for pond-reared fish fed a 10% paunch sub-
feed (FF1Q).
x— 10
y
Mean length
Date
15 June
13 July
10 August
7 September
5 October
2 November
SF
246.0
283.3
327.0
355.3
372.4
388.1
^10
227.0
252.2
268.6
295.4
316.6
321.8
(mm)
Sign, of F
Statistic3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.5
Mean weight (g)
SF10
130.6
210.1
320.2
421.0
471.3
507.4
FF1()
82.8
149.6
171.9
238.7
302.8
313.2
Sign, of F
statistic3
0.
5.
0.
0.
0.
2.
5
0
5
5
5
5
Mean
SF10
0.85
0.90
0.90
0.93
0.90
0.86
condition f actor (Iw,)
FF10
0.68
0.89
0.84
0.90
0.93
0.92
Sign, of F
statistic3
0.5
NS
10.0
5.0
NS
NS
Percentage points for the distribution of F (Snedecor and Cochran 1967, Table A).
Non-significant when P>0.10Z
-------
was significant on every date thereafter (Table 13). Thus, in this
study, pond-reared fish fed the standard commercial feed were always
larger than cage*-reared fish fed the standard floating feed. At the
time of draining, the mean weight of ponder eared fish receiving
standard feed (547.4 g) was 42.40% greater than the mean weight of
the cage-reared fish (384.4 g) fed standard cage feed; the difference
was highly significant CP<.01). The large difference in the average
growth rate (slope) between the two groups accounted for the large
t
difference in final size of fish reared by pond and cage methods
(Figure 6).
All differences in mean length and weight of pond-reared and cage-
reared fish fed the feed containing 10% paunch were significant
(P£.05) (Table 14). Thus, regardless of feed type, pond-reared fish
grew much better than cage-reared fish, and the former were signifi-
cantly larger than their counterparts in cages throughout the experi-
mental interval. The slower growth of fish in the cages may be attri-
butable to factors other than feed quality per se as feed conversion
(S factor) was better (i.e., lower) in cages than the ponds (Table 16).
i
Condition Factor
A condition factor (K,^) was computed from length-weight measurements
of 25 fish from each pond on each sample date. Analysis of variance
of differences in treatment means for K_ on 18 May, the commencement
of the study, and the treatment means on 2 November, the termination
of the the study, showed there was a significant increment (P<.005)
46
-------
•CAGE-REARED FISH, (Y) = 42.02 + 2.06X, r = 0.990
oPOND-REARED FISH, (Y) = 56.15 + 2.93X, r = 0.998
MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV.
18 15 13 10 7 5 2
1 29 57 85 113 141 169
Figure 6. Growth comparison of pond-reared and cage-reared
channel catfish fed commercial floating and commercial sinking
feeds, respectively.
47
-------
Table 15. Analysis of differences in condition factor of pond-reared
channel catfish fed the standard sinking feed 0^), feeds containing
10 (X2), 20 (X3), and 30% (X4) dried paunch, compared with condition
factor of fish not given supplemental feed (X,.). When the percentage
points for the computed F was <_ 10%, then Duncan's multiple range test
was used to determine the significance of difference between the means.
Where Duncan's test is applied, any means not underscored by the same
line are significantly different at the 5% level.
Rank Order of Condition Factor Sign, of F
Date 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th statistic (%)
18 May 0.70X, 0.67X. 0.67X. 0.66X_ 0.66X 5.0
J £* H1 J JL
15 June 0.89X4 0.85X2 0.82X1 0.77X3 0.65X5 NS
13 July 0.93X, 0.90X0 0.87X, 0.83X. 0.63X- 1.0
1 2 3 4 5
10 August 0.90X2 0.89%.^ 0.86X3 0.83X, 0.65X_ 0.5
7 September 0.93X2 0.90X3 0.89X]L 0.82X4 0.64X5 0.5
5 October 0.92X3 0.9^ 0.90X2 0.82X4 0.66X5 0.5
2 November 0.94X1 0.87X3 0.86X2 0.84X4 0.67X 0.5
48
-------
In the K^ for all treatment means except the treatment mean of fish
not given any feed (Table 12).
An AOV of the difference among treatment means KL, was done for all
sample dates (Table 15). The computed f was significant (P£.10) for
all But the 15 June collection. The significant difference obtained
at the commencement of the study '(18 May) was attributable to a
Significantly larger treatment mean K^ for fish which were to be fed
30% paunch., Thus, the treatment means were not initially homogeneous,
but the heterogeneity disappeared by the end of the first growth
interval (15 June) when the condition factors of all treatments were
alike. The K__ of fish fed 30% paunch was fourth ranked on all but the
18 May and 15 June samples. Thus, the initially larger IL, of the .group
receiving 30% paunch feed did not result in it having a larger K- on
subsequent sample dates and, in fact, the K__ of fish in the treat-
ment receiving 30% paunch were fourth ranked on all but the first two
sample dates, larger only than fish in the treatment not receiving
supplemental feed (Table 15).
Rankings of the K_. of the other treatments over the five samplings
between 13 July and 2 November were different on each sampling date,
placing in question the importance of the final difference in the K,^
between the fish on standard feed and fish in the treatments receiving
10 and 20% paunch (Table 15). On 2 November, the Duncan's test showed
no difference between the treatment mean K,^ of fish receiving stand-
ard feed and feed with 20% paunch, but there was a difference between
the treatment mean K_ of fish receiving standard feed and treatment
49
-------
means for fish receiving 10 and 30% paunch. On 5 October there was
no difference between treatment means of fish receiving standard feed
and fish given feed with 10 and 20% paunch.
The initial (15 June) treatment -mean condition factor of cage-reared
fish, fed standard feed was significantly larger than the treatment
K_L of cage^reared fish to be fed 10% paunch (Table 11). This initial
difference is attributable to the fact that the fish receiving the
standard feed had been eating for two weeks, whereas the fish to be
used for the 10% paunch, treatment had been held without regular feed-
ings: up to that date. A difference also occurred between the two mean
weights for the same treatments on 15 June (Table 11). The difference
between the condition factor of cage-reared fish in the two treatments
persisted through 10 August but was non-existant thereafter as there
was a non-significant difference in the treatment means for the 24
August through 2 November samples (Table 11).
Although a significant difference was observed in growth In length and
weight of the cage-reared fish on these two treatments from 24 August
through 2 November, the difference in condition factor between the
two treatments on the same dates was non-significant. Although fish
fed standard feed grew faster than fish receiving feed with 10% paunch,
the latter group were equally as robust and not lean for their length.
Channel catfish reared in ponds and fed standard sinking feed grew
faster than the cage^reared catfish on standard floating feed; however,
the difference in mean condition factor between the two treatment
50
-------
means was always non-significant (P>10%) (Table 13), Fish given
sinking feed with 10% paunch grew faster than cage-reared fish given
a floating feed containing 10% paunch, but the difference in K,^
between these two treatments was nonsignificant on the last two
sample dates (Table 14).
feed Conversion
For our pond<-reared fish, the nutritional efficiency of the feeds are
described with. S and C conversion factors (Table 16). The average
weight gain per pond due to natural food production was obtained from
the replicate treatment ponds 11 and 15 where the fish were not given
supplemental feed. The gain attributable to natural foods was 2.37
kg/pond (23.70 kg/ha). This gain was subtracted from total gain per
pond to obtain the adjusted weight gain used in computing the C factor.
The treatment mean S conversion factor of pond-reared fish varied from
1.78 to 2.07 for fish given 20% paunch and fish given 30% paunch,
respectively (Table 16). The difference (0.29) between these treat-
ment means was non-significant ("t" - 1.55, P 0.10, df - 2) using a
HtM test for independent samples with, a pooled variance.
Not shown here are feed conversions (S factor) computed for each growth
interval using estimates of population number derived from assumptions
of average mortality rates (Table 6), These were used along with
average temperatures for the interval to determine the correlation
between temperature and feed conversion. Six of the 14 correlation
coefficients were negative and significant indicating that conversion
51
-------
Table 16. Channel catfish conversion factors of
fish reared in ponds and given a standard com-
mercial feed or feeds containing 10, 20 and 30%
paunch, and conversion factors of cage-reared
fish given a standard feed or feed with 10%
paunch.
Treatment
pond
Std. feed
Fond 9
Fond 12
TRT Avg.
10% paunch
Fond 13
Fond 16
TRT Avg.
20% paunch
Fond 5
Pond 7
TRT Avg.
30% paunch
Fond 8
Pond 14
TRT Avg.
Std. feed
Cage 32
Cage 33
TRT Avg.
10% paunch
Cage 22
Cage 23
TRT Avg.
Feed
added (kg)
201.88
215.45
208.66
211.90
223.02
217.46
216.62
190.52
203.57
178.72
187.02
182.87
153.53
147.08
150.30
124.87
118.04
121.45
TT j t.x. * n \ Conversion factor
Weight gain (kg) — -
Total Adjusted S1 C1
PONDS
128.10
92.87
110.48
105.76
116.38
111.07
101.69
106.94
104.32
84.66
91.71
88.18
CAGES
94.72
139.08
116.90
84.80
75.74
80.27
125.73
90.50
108.12
103.39
114.01
108.70
99.32
104.57
101.94
82.29
89.34
85.82
_
—
-
—
-
—
1.58
2.32
1.89
2.00
1.92
1.92
2.13
1.79
1.78
2.11
2.04
2.07
1.62
1.06
1.28
1.47
1.56
1.51
1.60
2.38
1.93
2.05
1.96
2.00
2.18
1.82
2.00
2.17
2.09
2.13
,_
._
-
_
_
—
See text for explanation.
52
-------
factors were inversely related to water temperature. Feeding when
water temperatures are below 20°C is inefficient and should be only
at the rate sufficient to provide maintenance (Simco and Cross 1966).
Our S factors would be better, therefore lower, had less feed been
given after 5 October when temperatures were less than 20°C (Figure 4).
The C factor for pond-reared fish was always larger than the corre-
sponding S factor (Table 16), reflecting the fact that the S factor
includes some weight gain due to natural foods. As the adjusted
weight gain used in computation of the C factor was the same for all
treatments, the C factor does not increase the accuracy of comparison
among treatment conversion factors for pond-reared fish; however, it
is more accurate to compare the C factor of pond-reared fish to the S
factor of the cage-reared fish as the latter received little natural
food. As often noted by other investigators, cage-reared fish are
totally dependent upon feed provided by the fish culturist (Schmittou
1970). The S conversion factor of eager-reared fish given standard
feed was 1.28, compared with 1.51 for cage-reared fish given floating
feed with 10% paunch; the difference by the "t" test was non-significant
By inspection » the average feed conversion factor (S factor) for the
cage-reared fish was smaller, i.e., better, than the S or C conversion
factor of the pond-reared fish. Assuming no real treatment difference
exists among the treatment mean conversion factors for pond-reared
fish, or between treatment means for cage-reared fish, then a test of
53
-------
the difference in the pooled mean conversion factor of pond- and cage-
reared fish can be made using the conversion factors of each pond
without regard to feed type as independent observations on the per-
formance of pond-reared fish, and the conversion factor of each cage
as independent observations on performance of cage-reared fish. The
mean conversion factor from eight ponds of pond-reared fish was 1.98
compared with 1.42 for four observations of cage-reared fish. The
difference between these group means was significant ("t" = 3.88,
P<.01, df - 10). Although differences among ponds or between cages
were non-significant, the differences between the means of the two
strata were highly significant.
The validity of comparisons of S factors from one fish cultural
facility to the next are questionable as the size of S factor is con-
founded by differences in basic productivity of the ponds (Swingle
1958). Large differences in the S factor obtained from a set of ponds
at one facility to another set of ponds at some other facility would
be anticipated to be as much or more of a function of basic fertility
in the ponds (resulting from differences in age, water supply, and
management history) at it would be due to differences in quality of
the feed. The C factor should be used both for comparing values from
different facilities as well as for comparing conversion from one year
to the next at the same cultural facility, as it reduces effects of
changes in basic productivity with extraneous variables.
At the time of the study our ponds were freshly excavated from the
54
-------
alluvium of the former flood plain of Stillwater Creek. S factors
obtained in the present study for the standard and paunch-containing
feeds were higher than reports by several investigators (Table 17),
but much lower than S factors computed from data on survival, growth
and feed utilization for commercial producers in the Mississippi Delta
(Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 1970).
For cage culture, S factors obtained in the present study are more
comparable to those of others. Caged fish are presumed to receive
little natural food so the S conversion factor of caged fish is a
better performance measure of the feed quality than the S factor in
pond culture. Many other cage culture experiments, however, have used
a commercial trout feed confeaining a 40% protein level, formulated
for raceway culture of trout. The S'factors obtained in the present
cage-culture study was equal to or lower than all but Heman and
Norwat's (1971) observations using a commercial trout feed (Table 18).
The S factor obtained with the 10% paunch feed was lower than most
reports but about equal to findings of Lewis (1969) and 6ollins (1972)
(Table 17).
Feed Costs/kg Fish Produced
Using retail prices of the two commercial feeds for March 1972, esti-
mates of the cost of the paunch-containing feeds, and observed feed
conversion factors, the feed costs per kg of catfish produced were
calculated for each feed type (Table 18). Estimates of the costs
of paunch-containing feeds were provided by the feed company (Daymond
55
-------
Table 17. Channel catfish feed conversion factor (S factors)
voider pond and cage culture systems for research and commercial
projects.
CAGE CULTURE
S
Factor
POND CULTURE
S
Factor
Research projects
Present study-Oklahoma
Standard feed 1.28
Feed with 10% paunch 1.51
Collins (1971)-Arkansas 1.32
Collins (1972)-0klahoma
63-178 mm size group
211 fish/mj1.69
281 fish/m3 1.45
351 flsh/m3 1.51
203-229 mm size group,
211 fish/m^1.51
281 fish/m3 1.46
351 flsh/m3 1.58
Conley (1971)-Iowa 1.2-2.0
Felt (1971)-Nebraska 1.2-1.3
Heman & Norwat (1971)-Missouri
174 fish/m3 0.97
348 flsh/m3 1.11
522 fish/ni 1.11
Lewis (1969)-Illlnols 1.5
Schmlttou (1969)-Alabama 1.25
Schmlttou (19 70}-Alabama
300 flsh/m, 1.26
400 flsh/m, 1.29
500 fish/m3 1.34
Commercial production
Collins (1970)-Texas 1.30
Research projects
Present study-Oklahoma
Standard feed 1.89
Feed with 10% paunch 1.92
Feed with 20% paunch 1.78
Feed with 30% paunch 2.07
Bureau of Sport Fisheries
& Wildlife (1970:39)-
Arkansas 1.3-1.5
Deyoe and Tiemeier (1973)-
Kansas 1.26-1.41
Kelley (1968:67)-Alabama
Avg. for Auburn No. 2
feed 1.70
Meyer (1969)-Arkansas 1.3-2.2
Morris (1972)-Mlssourl
(floating feed)
6,741 fish/ha 0.83
8,988 fish/ha 0.92
11,235 fish/ha 1.06
13,482 fish/ha 1.22
15,729 fish/ha 1.19
17,976 fish/ha 1.23
20,224 fish/ha 1.11
Commercial projects5
Mississippi Delta
(Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi)
With avg. management 3.22
With excellent management 2.67
3.
Computations made from data given by Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries (1970:Tables 2 and 4). The S factors shown under-
estimate the apparent conversion because the initial weight
of fish was not given, therefore, it was not subtracted from
the harvest weight to obtain the weight gain.
56
-------
Table 18. Comparative feed costs to produce channel catfish using
the standard feeds and feeds with various levels of paunch.
a
Conversion
Culture System Cost of feed factor Cost of feed $/kg
feed type $/kg
Pond Culture-Sinking Feed
Standard commercial
Feed with 10% paunch
Feed with 20% paunch
Feed with 30% paunch
Cage Culture-Floating Feed
Standard commercial
Feed with 10% paunch
0.106
0.104
0.115
0.137
0.176
0.178
S C
1.89 1.93
1.92 2.00
1. 78 2.00
2.07 2.13
1.28 -
1.51 -
S C
0.20 0.20
0.20 0.21
0.20 0.23
0.28 0.29
0.22
0.27
^Costs of feed with paunch are based on feed costs and price of
paunch when the study was initiated (March J.972), when paunch was
quoted at $22.05/metric ton. As late as May 1973, paunch was
available at $33.07/metric ton.
57
-------
Shelton, personal communication) using computations of $22.05 per
metric ton, f.o.b. Omaha, as the price of dehydrated paunch. For the
sinking pond feeds, except at the 10% level, the price of paunch-
containing feeds was more than the standard feed and cost of the feed
with 30% paunch was the most expensive. Although dehydrated paunch
costs less than any other feed constituent, at 20% and 30% levels of
paunch, it was substituting for some intermediate priced ingredients,
requiring more of the more expensive high protein (fish and soybean)
meals to maintain the nearly isonitrogenous (i.e., equal protein)
levels. For the cage-culture feed, even the 10% paunch feed costs
more than the standard feed.
The cost of a feed is best measured by the cost per kg of fish flesh
produced rather than the cost of the feed per unit weight of feed
because a higher price feed may give a conversion factor with a
resultant lower cost per unit weight of the fish produced. Using
observed C and S conversion factors and the estimated feed costs, cost
per kg of fish was computed (Table 18). With S conversion factors,
fish production costs were the same ($0.20/kg) with standard, 10 and
20% paunch feeds, whereas with 30% paunch, the costs per kg increased
40% to $0.28/kg. When using the C conversion factor, the costs per
kg of fish produced using standard and 10% paunch feeds were basically
the same ($0.20 and $0.21) allowing for rounding errors, but feed
costs per kg of fish produced were substantially higher for the feed
with 30% paunch. The cost of the 10% paunch floating feed was 22.7%
greater than the standard floating feed.
58
-------
Considering that (1) the 10% paunch feed costs less per pound of feed,
(2) the conversion factors for the 10% paunch feed were basically the
same as obtained with the standard feed, and (3) there was no signi-
ficant difference in final average length or weight between fish
reared on the standard and 10% paunch feeds, it is concluded that as
much as 10% paunch can be incorporated in feed for pond culture of
channel catfish without causing any reduction in survival or growth,
and without an increase in production costs.
Inter-Relationship Among Physicochemical Variables
in the Ponds Without Fish
The relationships, expressed as correlation coefficients, among
temperature, 15 chemical parameters, fecal coliform count, water
volume and period are examined for pond 6 (Table 19) and pond 10
(Table 20) which did not contain channel catfish. Using the Mann-
Whitney non-parametric test, Yin (Part B) found no significant dif-
ference between the median for any of the 15 chemical parameters
between ponds 6 and 10 except for fecal coliforms (Part B, Table 24).
Differences between various chemical parameters in the control ponds
(no fish or feed) versus the experimental ponds (fish and feed) are
examined in Part B of this report.
Water quality relationships in control ponds without fish or enrich-
ment from feeding fish serve as baseline measurements to establish
relationships between chemical variables which can be compared to the
relationships observed in ponds 9 and 12 which received standard feed,
59
-------
Table 19. Matrix of correlation coefficients for 14 chemical variables, water tempera-
ture, number of fecal coliforms, and the water budget over six, 28-day intervals
(periods 1-6) for pond 6, no fish and no feed.3
°c
DO
BOD
COD
TOC
PH
-------
Table 20. Matrix of correlation coefficients for 14 chemical variables, water temperature,
number of fecal coliforms, and the water budget over six, 28-day intervals (periods 1-6)
for pond 10, no fish and no feed.
°c
DO
BOD
COD
IOC
pH
TS
VSS
TSS
HHj-H
N-Total
P-Total
P-Ortho
BOD/COD
COD/TOG
FC
V
Period
°C
-0.05
-0.76
0.64
0.38
0.00
0.02
0.08
-0.06
0.60
0.41
0.61
0.79
-0.67
0.50
DO
-0.05
0.16
-0.18
-0.80
0.84*
-0.45
0.08
-0.71
0.20
0.00
-0.40
-0.57
0.19
0.26
-0.93** 0.05
0.26
-0.74
0.66
0.50
BOD
-0.76
0.16
-0.64
-0.59
0.44
-0.62
-0.67
-0.34
-0.91*
0.10
-0.84*
-0.81
0.79
-0.40
0.82*
-0.25
0.92*
COD
0.64
-0.18
-0.64
0.36
-0.20
0.19
0.37
-0.19
0.60
0.04
0.34
0.56
-0.91*
0.88*
-0.40
0.55
-0.61
IOC
0.38
-0.80
-0.59
0.36
-0.80
0.55
0.23
0.77
0.27
0.18
0.58
0.74
-0.57
-0.13
-0.45
-0.51
-0.84*
pB
0.00
0.84*
0.44
-0.20
-0.80
-0.86*
-0.44
-0.87*
-0.20
0.40
-0.62
-0.58
0.30
0.22
0.10
0.47
0.63
TS
0.02
-0.45
-0.62
0.19
0.55
-0.86*
0.80
0.74
0.55
-0.69
0.74
0.51
-0.32
-0.07
-0.20
-0.11
-0.60
TSS
0.08
0.08
-0.67
0.37
0.23
-0.44
0.80
0.30
0.83*
-0.65
0.50
0.24
-0.51
0.31
-0.19
0.41
-0.46
TSS
-0.06
-0.71
-0,34
-0.19
0.77
-0.87*
0.74
0.30
0.10
-0.21
0.58
0.47
-0.04
-0.60
-0.19
-0.73
-0.54
B- P- r- BOD/
883-8 total Total Ortho COD
0.60 0.41 0.61 0.79 -0.67
0.20 0.00 -0.40 -0.57 0.19
-0.91* 0.10 -0.84* -0.81 0.79
0.60 0.04 0.34 0.56 -0.91*
0.27 0.18 0.58 0.74 -6.57
-0.20 0.40 -0.62 -0.58 0.30
0.55 -0.69 0.74 0.51 -0.32
0.83* -0.65 0.50 0.24 -0.51
0.10 -0.21 0.58 0.47 -0.04
-0.25 0.64 0.51 -0.73
-0.25 -0.30 0.06 -0.14
0.64 -0.30 0.89* -0.42
0.51 0.06 0.89* -0.60
-0.73 -0.14 -0.42 -0.60
0.53 -0.04 0.07 0.20 -0.70
-0.65 -0.31 -0.75 -0.80 0.53
0.55 -0.24 -0.06 -0.12 -0.39
-0.69 -0.07 -0.84* -0.92** 0.78
COD/
TOC
0.50
0.26
-0.40
0.88*
-0.13
0.22
-0.07
0.31
-0.60
0.53
-0.04
0.07
0.20
-0.70
-0.22
0.86*
-0.23
FC
B,0
-0.93** 0.26
0.05
0.82*
-0.40
-0.45
0.10
-0.20
-0.19
-0.19
-0.65
-0.31
-0.75
-0.80
0.53
-0.22
-0.08
0.79
0.66
-0.25
0.55
-0.51
0.47
-0.11
0.41
-0.73
0.55
-0.24
-0.06
-0.12
-0.39
• Q.86*
-0.08
0.08
See Part B for explanation of abbreviations; *P<.05, **P<.01, ***P<.001
-------
and ponds 8 and 14 which received the feed containing 30% paunch.
The null-hypothesis .for testing these correlations was that r was
from a random sample of paired variables having a correlation coef-
ficient of zero. The null-hypothesis was rejected and the calculated
r considered significant when the probability of obtaining a given r
was less than or equal to the P level of 0.05.
The inter-relationships of various physicochemical parameters,
expressed by the correlation coefficients, in the two control ponds
(6 and 10) were the same for some parameters but different for others.
One hazard of obtaining a large number of correlation coefficients
between two parameters is that of obtaining significant correlations
due to chance. From a probabilistic standpoint, therefore, it seems
prudent to consider only those correlations which were significant in
both ponds. The probability of obtaining by chance alone two signifi-
cant correlations for the same parameters in two separate ponds should
be a highly unlikely event (i.e., low probability). Thus, considering
only those correlations between the two same parameters which were
li
significant in both replicates greatly reduces the likelihood of plac-
ing importance on a chance event.
The only parameters which provided significant correlations in both
control ponds were: (1) DO with pH; (2) COD with BOD/COD; (3) COD
with COD/TOC; and (4) TSS and pH. The BOD/COD and COD/TOG relationships
are discounted due to the redundancy of COD in both the dependent and
independent variables. The relationship between pH and DO is apparently
62
-------
due to algal uptake of C02 during photosynthesis. The negative
relationship between TSS and pH appears to be that of a supressing
effect of suspended solids on algal photosynthesis. Thus, as TSS
increases, pH declined due to lack of algal removal of CO and
bicarbonates. The DO in pond 6 declined with increasing TSS as shown
by the significant negative relationship between TSS and DO (r = -0.89),
albeit the correlation between DO and TSS (r • -0.71) in pond 10 was
nonsignificant (P>.05).
Inter-Relationship Between Fish Growth. Fish Biomass and
Fish Production to the Physicochemical Variables
In ponds (numbers 11 and 15) without fertilization or feeding, fish
production (kg/ha) was too limited to make fish farming economical.
Supplemental feeding is needed to increase the carrying capacity
beyond what the pond can provide from its natural fertility. Carry-
ing capacity in static water ponds is still finite, and when limits
to production in static water ponds are reached the environment
becomes polluted from excess feed and metabolic wastes. Meyer (1969)
reported 2,038 kg/ha as the "upper limit" to channel catfish produc-
tion in static water, which is considerably less than maximum spatial
densities obtained in raceway or cage culture.
Water quality analyses conducted during the course of the catfish
growth studies presented an uprecedented opportunity to assess the
potential limitations of water quality factors on fish growth and
production at fish densities commonly employed in commercial catfish
63
-------
culture. Correlations between water quality parameters and fish
growth, average standing biomass of fish and net production are of
foremost importance if the fish culturist is to manipulate water
quality to enhance fish production. Also, the impact on stream water
quality of fish farms effluents requires understanding of the rela-
tionships between standing crop of fish and standard measures of water
quality. Although water quality studies on fish production ponds
have been reported heretofore, the present situation was unprece-
dented in kinds and frequency of measurements of water quality para-
meters measured during the course of the growing season for a typical,
static water, commercial catfish production system.
Fish growth during each of the six growth intervals (t..) 18 May - 15
June; (t^ 15 June - 13 July; (t3) 13 July - 10 August; (t^) 10
August - 7 September; (t_) 7 September - 5 October; (tfi) 5 October -
2 November is the change in mean weight during each interval, for
example for t_, w_ - w_, where w« = weight on 15 June and w. the
weight on 18 May. The relationship between these six measures of
fish growth and monthly means of four weekly measurements of water
temperature, 14 water quality parameters and volume of inflow of water
(rain and supply water) used to maintain level (replace seepage and
evaporation) are examined separately for fish from ponds 9 and 12
(Table 21) where they were given standard feed, and ponds 8 and 14
(Table 22) received sinking feed with 30% paunch. For reasons noted
previously, only those independent variables which gave significant
correlations in both ponds are discussed.
64
-------
Table 21. Relationship between channel catfish growth (Aw), mean bio-
mass (B) and net production (P ), water quality and other parameters in
six, 28-day intervals (18 May to 2 November) for ponds 9 and 12 where
fish were given a standard commercial feed.
ON
tn
Independent Variables
Growth (Aw)
Mean biomass (B)
Net production (Pn)
Temperature (C)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
PH
Total solids (TS)
Volitile suspended solids (VSS)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
NH3-Nitrogen
Nitrogen-Total
Phosphorus-Total
Phosphorus-Ortho
BOD/COD
COD/TOC
Fecal coliforms
Total water
Pond 9
Aw
0.73
0.99***
-0.68
-0.09
-0.02
0.03
-0.17
-0.06
0.73
-0.30
-0.52
-0.72
-0.04
-0.2 A
0.74
0.19
0.09
0.44
0.39
B
0.73
0.65
-0.79
-0.10
-0.40
-0.51
-0.49
-0.02
0.48
-0.53
-0.89*
-0.89*
-0.05
-0.23
0.67
0.5*3
-0.42
0.65
0.55
Pn
0.99***
0.65
-0.63
-0.12
0.00
0.10
-0.17
-0.05
0.78
-0.27
-0.39
-0.67
-0.03
-0.24
0.69
0.08
0.17
0.41
0.28
Aw
-0.26
0.94*
0.79
-0.10
0.25
0.26
0.13
0.14
0'.36
0.36
0.30
0.29
0.11
0.56
0.20
0.37
0.34
-0.47
-0.53
Pond 12
B
-0.26
0.51
-0.66
-0.17
0.20
0.31
0.14
0.09
0.78
0.09
-0.25
0.13
0.58
0.21
0.51
0.19
0.49
0.57
0.27
Pn
0.94*
0.40
-0.28
-0.55
-0.37
-0.33
-0.46
-0.46
0.50
-0.29
-0.77
0.83
-0.16
0.21
-0.10
-0.26
0.13
-0.56
-0.29
*Where p <, 0.050 ?> 0,010
**Where p < 0.010 > 0.001
***Where P < 0.001
-------
a\
Table 22. Relationship between channel catfish growth (Aw), mean biomass (B), net
production (Pn)» water quality and other parameters in six, 28-day intervals (18
May to 2 November) for ponds 8 and 14 where the fish were given a feed containing
30% paunch.
Independent Variables
Growth (Aw)
Mean biomass (w)
Net production (Pn)
Temperature (C)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen deman (COD)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
PH
Total solids (TS)
Volitile suspended solids (VSS)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
NH3-Nitrogen
Nitrogen-total
Phosphorus-Total
Phosphorus-Ortho
BOD/COD
COD/TOC
Fecal coliforms
Total water
>.. t
*Where P < 0.050 > 0.010
Pond 8
Aw
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
20
87*
30
32
40
63
77
01
31
58
83*
21
73
97**
91*
34
35
46
31
**Where
1
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
P <
20
18
68
54
31
10
50
66
97**
06
26
83*
68
00
14
38
37
83*
29
Pn
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.010 >
87*
18
54
57
44
86*
68
37
03
67
98**
24
49
95*
97*
56
67
14
53
0.001
Pond 14
Aw
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
40
50
19
64
59
69
55
36
88*
94**
11
18
64
89*
46
52
62
00
92**
i*llmmm^tfmm^*^m
I
0
-0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
-0
0
0
-0
0
-0
.40
.40
.66
.25
.42
.14
.30
.50
.20
.15
.49
.73
.51
.31
.25
.63
.04
0.91*
0
.17
Pn
0.50
-0.40
0.61
0.25
0.05
0.57
0.09
-0.35
0.63
0.59
0.54
0.73
0.03
0.33
0.62
-0.27
0.88*
-0.66
0.77
• -••— IIIII.M— •^•^MBI--.
-------
Fish Growth (Aw) and Water Quality Parameters
In ponds 9 and 12, where fish received standard sinking feed, the
only significant correlations occurring in both ponds for the same
variable set was between fish growth and net production. Thus, a
high correlation existed between growth per 28-day interval and net
production in the same interval (Table 21), an obvious relationship,
yet not a single significant correlation was obtained between growth
and the water quality parameters. Apparently, in these two ponds,
none of the physicochemical variables became limiting and fish growth
was independent of the range in these chemical variables. In ponds
8 and 14 the only correlation significant in both ponds was between
fish growth and total phosphorus (T-PO^,). This suggests that T-PO^,
in the water was a function of the quantity of paunch-containing
feed given the fish.
Fish Biomass and Water Quality Parameters
There were no significant correlations, duplicated in both ponds 9 and
12, between fish biomass (i.e., standing crop of fish) and the 14
water quality parameters; in ponds 8 and 14, only the positive corre-
lation between fish biomass and number of fecal coliforms was dupli-
cated in both ponds. It seems that fecal coliforms were p_er se_more
specifically associated with the feed than the biomass of fish. There
was no suggestion of a positive correlation between fish metabolites,
such as NH--N or VSS, with fish biomass. To the contrary, in pond 9
NH-'-N was negatively correlated with fish biomass (r » -0.89)»
67
-------
indicating a higher NH^-N concentration at the beginning of the
growing season when fish biomass was minimal. Fish density in this
study was apparently insufficient to cause accumulation of density
dependent metabolites limiting fish growth. Thus, the final den-
sities of fish in ponds 8 and 14, or 9 and 12 were insufficient to
provide a negative feedback affecting growth.
Simco and Cross (1966) observed a negative correlation between average
fish weight and morning-oxygen levels. Their interpretation was that
plankton-biomass developed when standing crop of fish was high, caus-
ing high afternoon oxygen levels from algal photosynthesis, and low
morning-oxygen levels from respiration. They found positive correla-
tions between diurnal change in pH (difference between afternoon and
morning) and average size of catfish in ponds receiving supplemental
feed, an observation supporting the algal-bloom effect resulting from
fertilization in ponds receiving supplemental feed. In the present
study, pH was positively correlated with average biomass in ponds 8
and 14, corroborating findings by Simco and Cross, but our correla-
tions were non-significant and the observations were not verified by
ponds 9 and 12. In the present study, fish biomass was negatively
correlated with DO in ponds 9 and 12, but the correlation was non-
significant (P>,10), and in ponds 8 and 14 the correlation was posi-
tive, but non-significant. Apparently, our ponds did not develop a
sufficient algal bloom to verify the findings of Simco and Cross
(1966), In most ponds studied by Simco and Cross, correlations
between total alkalinity, morning and afternoon, and average weight
68
-------
of catfish were non-significant. Effluents of warmwater fish cul-
tural facilities have been suspected of affecting water quality in
receiving water by reducing dissolved oxygen, increasing temperature,
and adding: BOD, COD, NH3-N, total-N, T-P04 and other fish meta-
bolites and remains of partially decomposed fish feed. DO levels in
ponds with fish (see Appendix) had a higher average DO than ponds
without fish. In pond 10, for example, where fish were given feed
with 30% paunch, the mean DO on 25 days was 8.7241.37 (± standard
deviation) compared with 8.64±1.38 in pond 6, a control pond without
fish or enrichment from fish feed. BOD levels, a commonly used index
of pollution, averaged 1.2210.47 mg/1 in pond 6 (control) and 1.4±0.55
mg/1 in pond 10 (30% paunch); again showing no significant difference
("t" test, P>.10). By comparison, a municipal effluent, after secon-
dary sewage treatment which removes 90% of the settleable solids, would
have a BOD of 22.5 mg/1, and tertiary municipal effluent would have a
BOD of about 2-4 mg/1 (Willoughby, Larsen and Bowen 1972). Thus, the
average BOD load of the pond effluents would be about half that of
municipal sewage receiving tertiary treatment.
Regarding, phosphorous enrichment, the better tertiary-type treatment
processes for sewage, consisting of lime, or alum precipitation, do
not generally remove more than 90% of the typical influent phosphorus
values, leaving effluents with about 1.25 mg/1, assuming 10-15 total
phosphorus in untreated wastewater (Rohlich and Uttormark 1972).
Total phosphorus in one of our control ponds (pond 6), averaged
0.036*0.016 mg/1 (36 ug/1), and in pond 9 and pond 10, where fish were
69
-------
given standard and 30% paunch feeds, total-P averaged 0.088±0.038
and 0.039±0.017 mg/1, respectively.
Thus, consideration of several chemical parameters of water quality
showed that culture ponds receiving either a standard feed or a feed
with 30% paunch had relatively trivial increases above the baseline
levels of ponds without fish, and that effluent concentrations of BOD
or phosphorous from these fish ponds were considerably below that of
municipal effluents receiving tertiary treatment.
Fish Production and Water Quality
There were no significant correlations in either pond 9 or 12 between
fish production and the water quality parameters (Table 21). Where
fish were given feed containing 30% paunch, significant correlations
were obtained between fish production (P ) and several water quality
parameters in one replicate (pond 8), but as these were not verified
in the other replicate (pond 14), correlations may be largely due to
chance. The significant positive correlations in pond 8 between fish
production and COD, TSS and VSS are worth noting; however, they
may be indicative of water quality alterations during intervals of
rapid growth and high production when excess food and greater amounts
of waste products are produced. These positive correlations occurred
in ponds 8 and 14 where the feed contained 30% paunch but not in the
ponds using standard feed.
70
-------
PART B
.WATER QUALITY CHANGES WITH FISH CULTURE
71
-------
SECTION VI*
INTRODUCTION
Analyses of samples of cattle paunch contents, both fresh and dried,
performed at the Environmental Protection Agency's Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma, showed that the
long-term, ultimate biochemical oxygen demand of these materials
exceeds 100,000 mg/1. When paunch is incorporated into fish feed,
therefore, the possibility exists that the paunch in any uneaten feed
left in the water may cause a serious problem, depleting the oxygen
in the water to the extent that it may be detrimental to fish.
Moreover, there is little published information relative to the effects
of intensive catfish culture on water quality in ponds. Thus, it was
decided to monitor the water quality of selected ponds during the
experimental period of this project.
With, commercial catfish farming a rapidly developing industry in this
country, the data obtained will be valuable not only for the evalua-
tion of the practicability of using paunch as a fish feed constituent,
but it would also provide general information relative to the effects
of intensive catfish culture on water quality in ponds.
This section was written by S. C. Yin
72
-------
SECTION VII
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
This portion of the project was a cooperative effort between Oklahoma
State University (O.S.U.) and the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research. Laboratory, Water samples were collected by O.S.U. person-
nel, fixed with aciid or other reagent (s) where necessary, and then
refrigerated immediately. EPA personnel from the Kerr Laboratory in
Ada, Oklahoma, were responsible for transporting the samples to their
laboratory to be analysed, except for pH, dissolved oxygen (DO),
temperature (Temp.) and carbon dioxide (CO-), which were measured at
the site of the ponds by Q.S.U, personnel. The samples were kept in
ice chests en route, and were processed for analyses not more than
thirty hours after collection of the first portions of the composite
samples.
The following parameters were analyzed in the laboratory: biochemical
oxygen demand (5-day)"(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
organic carbon (TOC), ammonia (NHy-N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (T.
Kjeld.-N), nitrite (NO -N), nitrate (M>3-N), total phosphate (T-PO^),
orthophosphate (0-PO,), total solids (TS), total suspended solids
(TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), and fecal coliforms (Fee.
coli.). All chemical analytical procedures were done according to
EPA's manual—methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
1971. Fecal coliform analysis was done by the membrane filter tech-
nique as described in the 13th edition of Standard Methods for the
73
-------
Examination of Water and Wastewater.
During the 24-week period of the experiment, samples were collected
and analyzed once a week. Samples were taken every Wednesday from
the surface of the deep end of each pond, near the feeding site.
Composite samples were prepared by pooling samples collected at 1000,
1400 and 1800 hours. Every fourth week samples were collected at
1000 and 1800 hours and were pooled and labeled day samples; samples
collected at 2200 hours and 0600 hours the following morning were
pooled and labeled night samples.
Ponds included in the water quality studies were numbers 2, 3, 6, 8,
9, 10, 12, and 14 (Table 23).
74
-------
Table 23. Disposition of ponds.
Pond #
6 & 10
8 & 14
9 & 12
2
3
Size of pond
(hectare)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
Type of
culture
*•*
Pond
Pond
Cage
Cage
No. of fish
stocked
in each pond
None
260
260
1013*
1047a
Kind of feed
None
30% paunch in feed
Standard commercial feed
10% paunch in feed
Standard commercial feed
aThe fish were in three cages; approximately equal numbers in each
cage.
75
-------
SECTION VIII
RESULTS, STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION
Data from the water quality analyses are tabulated in Appendix A.
This study was originally planned as a completely randomized design
with subsampling. The choice of this design dictates the use of the
parametric analysis of variance to test the hypothesis of no dif-
ference in water quality due to feed composition used in the various
ponds. Figures 7-12 show the differences in two parameters—BOD and
if;
T.Kjeld.-N—within the following pairs of ponds: 8 and 14, 9 and 12,
and 12 and 14. Considerable differences in BOD and T.Kjeld.-N
occurred within each of the two ponds in each of the two sets of
replicate ponds; i.e., ponds 8 and 14 and ponds 9 and 12. From the
middle of July to the end of the experiment, the water quality of
ponds 12 and 14 exhibited similar trends that were different from
those of the other ponds. These differences could not be explained
by the rainfall and water replacement data (Table 4). Ponds 12 and
14 were located on the east side of the facility, while all the
remaining ponds included in the water quality analyses are on the
west side (Figure 1). Trends in levels of various water quality
parameters in ponds 12 and 14 were different from their respective
replicates on the west side, suggesting that an unknown factor
related to location influenced water quality, which created a
large difference between the replicates. Consequently, it was
76
-------
I
o
o
o
12
10
8
6
Pond 14
I
J_
I
0 37 74 III 149 185 222 259 286
DAYS INTO STUDY BEGINNING 01/01/72 WITH 0 DAY LAG ON POND 14
Figure 7 • Biochemical oxygen demand in pond 8 and pond 14.
77
-------
0>
UJ
•^
X
Pond 14
I I
I
I
J I
I I
0 37 74 III 148 185 222 259 286 333
DAYS INTO STUDY BEGINNING 01/01/72 WITHODAYLAG ON POND 14
Figure 8. Kjeldahl nitrogen in pond 8 and pond 14.
78
-------
9
E
o
o
00
14
12
10
8
Pond 12
Pond 9
0 37 74 Mi 148 185 222 259 296
DAYS INTO STUDY BEGINNING 01/01/72 WITH 0 DAY LAG ON POND 12
Figure 9. Biochemical oxygen demand in pond 9 and pond 12
79
-------
o»
E
z
z
Ul
-9
Pond 12
I
I
_L
I
I
I
I
0 37 74 III 148 185 222 259 296 333
DAYS INTO STUDY BEGINNING 01/01/72 WITH 0 DAY LAG ON POND 12
Figure 10. Kjeldahl nitrogen in pond 9 and pond 12.
80
-------
E
z
o
o
o
16
14
12
10
8
Pond 12
I
_L
_L
_L
I
J_
0 37 74 ill 149 185 222 259 296
DAY INTO STUDY BEGINNING OI/OI/ 72 WITH 0 DAY LAG ON POND 14-
Figure 11. Biochemical oxygen demand in pond 12 and
pond 14.
81
-------
4 —
z
_J
UJ
Pond 12
0 37 74 III 148 185 222 259 296 333
DAYS INTO STUDY BEGINNING 01/01/72 WITH 0 DAY LAG ON POND 14
Figure 12. Kjeldahl nitrogen in pond 12 and pond 14.
82
-------
decided to exclude one replicate pond for each feed composition from
the water quality analyses, and to use non-parametric (distribution
free) techniques to analyze the remaining data (Siegal 1956).
Differences in water quality parameters between treatments were
examined with, the following protocol;:
1. Null hypothesis - There is no difference in water quality
Between treatments.
Alternate hypothesis - The water quality for each treatment
is different, but no a, priori prediction of the direction of
differences can be made,
2. Statistical test - The water quality measurements made on
samples from the two (or three) ponds represent independent
groups of measurements and each parameter is measured on at
least an ordinal scale. For these reasons, the Mann-Whitney
U test was chosen in the two-sample case, while the Kruskal-
Wallis one-way analysis of variance test was selected in the
three-s amp le cas e.
3. Significance level - The critical point for rejection was
set at the 5% level. The region of rejection consists of
all calculated values of the test statistic which are so
large that the probability associated with their occurrence
under the null-hypothesis is less than or equal to the chosen
significance level.
83
-------
Question No. 1
Are there any significant differences in water quality parameters
between ponds treated alike; i.e., pond 6 versus pond 10, pond 8
versus pond 14, and pond 9 versus pond 12?
Answer No. 1
Tables 24, 25, and 26 show the calculated values of Z (Mann-Whitney
test) for each pair of replicate ponds and each of the 17 water
quality parameters.
Pond 6 versus pond 10: Reject the null-hypothesis for fecal coliform
and accept for the rest of the parameters. No tests were made for
N02-N and NO,-N due to insufficient data.
Pond 8 versus pond 14: Reject the null-hypothesis for DO, BOD, COD,
pH, CO., TS, T.Xjeld.-N, TOO, and Fee. coli.; for the remaining para-
meters, the null-hypothesis is accepted. Due to insufficient data,
no test was made on NO--N.
Pond 9 versus pond 12: Reject the null-hypothesis for all parameters
but temp., DO, CO., and Fee. Coli. Again, due to insufficient data,
no tests on NO.-N and NO«-N were made.
There was no significant difference in water quality between control
ponds 6 and 10, with the exception of fecal coliform. Replicate ponds
8 and 14, in which pond culture was practiced and where feed contain-
ing 30% paunch was used, however, showed significant differences in
84
-------
Table 24. Comparisonf of distributions in pond 6 and pond 10.
Pond 6
Variable
^T^«fedM^K
lenp
DO
BOD
COD
pH
co2
TS
VSS
TSS
NH3-N
T.Kjeld-N
T-P04
0-P04
TOG
Fee. coli
Median
26.80
9.10
1,00
24.00
9.00
0.00
284.5
1.00
6.00
0.01
0.60
0.03
0.01
10.00
0.00
Nl
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
27
30
30
25
30
30
Range
22.70
6.00
1.60
74.00
1.20
0.00
128.00
4.50
25.00
0.28
1.10
0.07
0.01
6.50
207.0
Pond 10
Median
26.80
8.70
1.00
24.00
9.00
0.00
284.00
2.00
5.00
0.02
0.60
0.03
0.01
10.00
1.50
N2
31
31
31
31
30
30
31
27
30
30
31
31
27
31
30
Range
24.20
6.60
1.70
60.00
1.50
0.00
215.00
5.00
28.00
0.49
0,90
0.06
0.03
14.00
187.00
Z Value
-0.295
-0.415
-1.401
-0.652
-0.170
0.000
-0.259
-0.091
-0.394
-0.247
-0.142
-0.158
-1.395
-0.378
-0.961
85
-------
Table 25. Comparison of distributions in pond 8 and pond 14.
Pond 8
Variable
Temp
DO
BOD
COD
pH
co2
TS
VSS
TSS
NH3-N
N03-N
T.Kjeld-N
T. PO,
o-po4
TOC
Fee. coll.
Median
26.50
7UO
2.QO
36.00
8.5
0.00
376.00
6.00
19.00
0.06
0.06
1.05
0.08
0.03
14.50
5.50
Nl
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
6
30
30
30
30
30
Range
23.40
7.00
3.00
58.00
0.90
2.00
189.00
13.60
41.00
0.78
0.04
1.00
0.18
0.05
9.00
218.00
Pond 14
Median
26.65
7.85
4.00
44.00
8.70
0.00
352.00
6.50
22.50
0.08
0.04
1.35
0.09
0.03
15.25
16.00
N2
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
8
30
30
30
30
30
Range
24.20
7.40
9.00
66.00
1.10
1.50
169.00
31.00
43.00
0.90
0.03
2.20
0.17
0.05
10.80
432.00
Z Valu
-0.202
-2.093
-2.965
-2.406
-3.270
-2.084
-2.099
-1.427
-1.265
-0.171
15.00*
-2.362
-1.921
-1.375
-2.290
-2.090
*U Value
86
-------
Table 26. Comparison of distributions in pond 9 and pond 12.
Pond 9^
Variable
Temp
DO
BOD
COD
pH
co2
TS
VSS
TSS
NH3-N
T.Kjeld-N
T. PO,
o-po4
TOC
Fee. coli.
Median
26.50
7,20
2.00
32.50
8,50
0.00
331.50
3.00
15.00
0.07
0.90
0.08
0.03
12.00
4.00
Nl
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
28
30
30
Range
23,40
7.20
3.00
66.00
0.80
2.00
150.00
11.90
38.00
0.67
0,60
0.17
0.03
9.50
96.00
Pond 12
Median
26.65
7.50
3.00
45.00
8.60
0.00
374.00
6.00
22.00
0.33
1.60
0.12
0.04
15.50
4.00
N2
30
30
31
31
30
29
31
31
31
30
31
31
31
31
31
Range
23.70
8.30
12.00
63.00
1.30
2.00
181.00
26.30
49.00
1.17
3.20
0.27
0.06
17.00
52.00
Z Value
-0.173
-1.162
-2.598
-3.671
-2.085
-1.035
-2.518
-2.381
-2.377
-2.132
-3.851
-3.632
-3.632
-3.895
-0.530
87
-------
nine of the water quality parameters measured. For ponds 9 and 12,
which were replicate pond cultures where standard commercial feed was
used, there were significant differences in eleven of the water
quality parameters measured. These results indicate and statistically
verify the earlier statement made after visual examination of the
results that there is an extraneous source of variation. Therefore,
it was decided to eliminate ponds 12 and 14 from further analysis.
Pond 10 was also deleted from further consideration because the repli-
cate pond (pond 6) had a greater number of higher medians and would
give a more conservative analysis.
Question No. 2
Are there significant differences between the daytime and nighttime
samples in water quality of all the ponds monitored?
Answer No. 2
Table 27 shows the U or Z values (Mann-Whitney test) for each of the
17 water quality parameters.
Day versus night: Reject the null-hypothesis for temperature and
accept for the remaining parameters.
Question No. 3
Of the three ponds in the pond culture (ponds 6, 8, and 9) which
received different treatments, i.e., without fish or feed, with fish
receiving feed containing 30% paunch, and with fish receiving stan-
dard commercial feed, respectively, is there any significant difference
88
-------
Table 27. Comparison of distributions in two time periods.
Variable
Temp
DO
BOD
COD
pH
co2
TS
VSS
TSS
NH3-N
NO.-N
NO.-N
T.Kjeld.-N
T. PO,
o-po4
TOC
Fee. coli.
Median
26.
8.
2.
32.
8.
0.
307.
3.
12.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
15
45
00
00
80
00
00
00
00
05
04
05
,80
,07
0.03
12.25
3.50
Day
Nl
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
47
3
6
48
48
46
48
48
Nieht
Range
18.
6.
11.
72.
1.
4.
260.
31.
44.
0.
0.
20
30
00
00
50
50
00
00
00
73
07
0.04
2.
0.
0.
,8
,25
,05
12.50
432.00
Median
25.
7.
2.
31.
8.
0.
318.
2.
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
80
50
00
50
75
00
50
00
00
06
04
03
80
08
,03
12.00
3.50
N2
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
45
47
48
3
7
48
48
47
48
48
Range
18.
7.
9.
70.
1.
2.
206.
27.
44.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
50
40
00
00
80
80
00
00
00
78
08
04
80
20
0.05
17.00
324.00
Z Value
-2.180
-1.506
-0.117
-0.803
-1.823
-0.104
-0.718
-0>425
-0.230
-0.579
3.500*
18.500*
-0.129
-0.007
-0.023
-0.227
-0.227
*U Value
89
-------
in water quality that can be attributed to the differences in treat-
ment?
Answer No. 3
Calculated H values (Kruskal-Wallis test) for 15 of the 17 water
quality parameters (Table 28) demand rejecting the null-hypothesis
for all parameters except temperature. Because insufficient data
were obtained for N02~N and NO--N, these two parameters were excluded.
Water quality of pond 6, the control pond with no fish and no feed
added, was significantly better than that of ponds 8 and 9 (Table 28).
A Mann-Whitney test was performed on the data of ponds 8 and 9 to
evaluate the null-hypothesis of no difference in water quality
(Table 29). Again, tests for NO--N and NO.-N were omitted because of
insufficient data. The null-hypothesis is rejected for TS and TOG,
and accepted for the remaining parameters.
Question No. 4
Is there a significant difference in one or more water quality para-
meters between the two ponds in which cage culture was practiced, i.e.,
between ponds 2 and 3?
Answer No. 4
The null-hypothesis is rejected for DO, T.Kjeld.-N, T-PO,, and TOC,
and accepted for the remaining parameters (Table 30 ). As in the
previous tests, NO_~N and NO_"N were omitted because of insufficient
data.
90
-------
Table 28. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance.
Pond 6
Variable
Temp
DO
BOD
COD
pH
co2
TS
VSS
TSS
NH3-N
T.Kjeld.-N
T. PO,
o-po4
TOG
Fee. coli.
Median
26.80
9.10
1.00
24.00
9.00
0.00
284.50
1.00
6.00
0.01
0.06
0.03
0.01
10.00
0.00
Pond 8
Average
N- rank Median
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
27
30
30
25
30
30
47
64
22
32
66
37
22
26
19
29
20
19
18
25
33
26.50
7.10
2.00
36.00
8.50
0.00
376.00
6.00
19.00
0.06
1.05
0.08
0.03
14.50
5.50
Pond 9
Average
N7 - rank Median
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
46
38
60
56
33
49
64
58
61
49
62
57
53
62
52
26
7
2
32
8
0
331
3
15
0
0
0
0
12
4
.50
.20
.00
.50
.50
.00
.50
.00
.00
.07
.90
.08
.03
.00
.00
N3
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
28
30
30
Average
rank H Value
47
38
53
47
36
49
49
49
55
49
53
59
50
48
51
0.03
19.00
39.78
13.83
30.80
9.51
39.62
24.37
47.09
12.60
42.06
44.97
36.57
31.99
10.74
-------
Table 29. Comparison of distributions in pond 8 and pond 9.
Pond 8
Variable
Temp
DO
BOD
COD
pH
co2
TS
VSS
TSS
NH3-N
T.Kjeld.-N
T. PO,
o-po4
TOC
Fee. cbli.
Median
26.
7.
2.
36.
8.
0.
376.
6.
19.
0.
1.
0.
0.
14.
5.
50
10
00
00
50
00
00
00
00
06
05
08
03
50
50
Nl
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
Range
23.
7.
3.
58.
0.
2.
189.
13.
41.
0.
1.
0.
0.
9.
218.
40
00
00
00
90
00
00
60
00
78
00
18
05
00
00
Pond 9
Median
26.
7.
2.
32.
8.
0,
331.
3.
15.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12.
4.
50
20
00
50
50
00
50
00
00
07
90
08
03
00
00
N2
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
28
30
30
Range
23.
7.
3.
66.
0.
2.
150.
11.
38.
,0.
0.
0.
0.
9.
96.
40
20
00
00
80
00
00
90
00
67
60
17
03
50
00
Z Value
-0.183
-0.035
-1.332
-1.335.
-0.512
-0.123
-2.795
-1.497
-1.392
-0.101
-1.943
-0.454
-0.778
-2.347
-0.118
92
-------
Table 30. Comparison of distributions in pond 2 and pond 3.
Pond 2
Variable
Temp
DO
BOD
COD
pH
co2
IS
VSS
TSS
NH3-N
T.Kjeld.-N
T. PO,
o-po4
TOC
Fee. coli.
Median
26.30
7.10
2.00
26.50
9.05
• 0.00
282.50
2.00
5.00
0.03
0.75
0.07
0.03
12.00
1.00
Nl
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
29
30
30
30
31
31
Range
21.50
10.20
7.00
52.00
2.80
12.30
157.00
9.00
43.00
0.27
1.10
0.91
0.05
10.00
15.00
Pond 3
Median
27.00
9.20
2.00
24.00
9.30
0.00
265.00
2.00
4.00
0.03
0.65
0.04
0.01
10.00
0.00
N2
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
27
30
30
Range
22.50
9.30
2.00
55.00
2.20
3.30
137.00
7.00
13.00
0.13
0.40
0.10
0.02
10.00
37.00
Z Value
-0.338
-2.203
-0.319
-0.712
-1.362
-0.719
-1.463
-0.352
-0.937
-0.848
-2.398
-3.824
-5.633
-2.107
-0.828
93
-------
The results of the above statistical analyses can be summed up as
follows;
1. With the exception of fecal coliforms, there was no signi-
ficant difference in water quality between ponds 6 and 10.
This was to be expected, since these are the two control
ponds where no fish was stocked and no feed was put in dur-
ing the experimental period. The fecal coliform parameter
will be discussed in detail later.
2. An extraneous source of variation caused each of the repli-
cates in the two sets of replicate ponds analyzed—^pond 8
versus pond 14?(feed containing 30% paunch in pond culture)
and pond 9 versus pond 12 (standard commercial feed in pond
culture)—to differ significantly from each other in water
quality. Rainfall and water replacement data do not account
for these differences. But since both ponds 12 and 14 were
located on the east side of the facility and since both
t
exhibited identical trends in water quality parameters, it was
concluded that whatever extraneous source(s) of variation
which caused the replicate ponds to differ was related to
the location of the ponds.
3. Of the seventeen water quality parameters measured, tempera-
ture was the only one which showed a significant difference
between the day and night measurements. Water temperatures
were lower at night than during the: day, The fact that no
94
-------
significant difference was detected for DO and CO. between
the two time periods reflects the observation that algal
biomass in the ponds was not excessive.
4. All water quality parameters but temperature were signifi-
cantly different between ponds 6, 8, and 9. The control pond
(pond 6) had the best water quality.
Murphy and Lipper (1970) found that under laboratory tank con-
ditions, channel catfish produced 0.0049 pound of BOD per
pound of live weight daily. Eley et al. (1972) studied the
effects of caged catfish culture on water quality in an Arkan-
sas lake. They found Significantly lower amounts of DO and
N03-N and increases in turbidity, alkalinity, T-PO,, phosphate
phosphorus, organic nitrogen, BOD, and bacteria in the culture
area as compared to other lake areas.
Our findings with static water, pond culture of channel cat-
fish, where fresh water was added only to maintain a con-
stant water level, showed that a deterioration in water
quality did occur when compared to the control pond, but none
of these values deviated from baseline levels in the control
ponds to such a degree as to cause concern. Moreover, water
quality in ponds where the fish were given standard commer-
cial feed or feed containing 30% paunch had not deteriorated
toward the end of the study period as compared to their cor-
responding median values. Thus, it can be concluded that
95
-------
the pond cultures, using either standard commercial feed or
feed containing 30% paunch, had not caused the water quality
in these ponds to be deteriorated to any appreciable degree
in one growing season.
5. Between ponds 8 and 9, i.e., the 30% paunch-containing feed
pond culture and the standard commercial feed pond culture,
respectively, the former had significantly higher TS and
TOG, while the other thirteen parameters were not signifi-
cantly different between the two ponds (Table 29). The
increases for TS and TOG were so minor that they are not
considered meaningful and may be interpreted as having
negligible total effect on water quality.
6. There were no significant differences in eleven water quality
parameters between ponds 2 and 3 (the cage culture ponds),
the only significant differences being that pond 2 (feed
containing 10% paunch) had significantly lower DO and higher
T.Kjeld.-N, T-PO,, and 0-PO,. These four differences cannot
be directly attributed to the effects of the 10% paunch floating
feed used in pond 2, because pond 2 was an old pond in which
vegetation was present at the start of the experiment, and this
pre-existing vegetation undoubtedly had some influence on the
water quality. It can be stated that in cage culture, the use
of a floating pellet feed containing 10% paunch does not appear
to have an adverse effect on most water quality parameters as
compared to the use of a standard commercial floating pellet feed,
96
-------
Also, comparing the median values of all the parameters
of ponds 2 and 3 in Table 30 with those of pond 6 in
Table 28, it can be seen that cage culture of channel
catfish at yields of about 1200 kg/ha, whether feeding
them with standard commercial floating pellet feed or
with floating pellet feed containing 10% paunch, does
not deteriorate the water quality in the pond to any
appreciable degree in one growing season.
The single bacteriological water quality parameter monitored in this
study was fecal coliforms. Geldreich and Clarke (1962) studied the
bacterial pollution indicators of several species of freshwater fish,
including channel catfish. They suggested that the intestinal flora
of fish is related in varying degrees to the level of contamination of
water and food in the environment and presented strong evidence that
there is no permanent coliform or streptococcal flora in the intes-
tinal tract of fish. The decision to include fecal colif orms in this
study was made to determine if catfish culture using either standard
commercial feed or feed containing dried cattle paunch will cause a
change in density of this important bacterial indicator of pollution
in the water of the ponds. Although no fecal coliform analysis was
made on the dried paunch material used in the formulation of the fish
feed, it is not likely that this material was contaminated with fecal
coliforms, because the dehydration temperatures should have greatly
reduced the bacterial flora. Also, in pelletizing the feed, the feed
ingredients had to be moistened with steam before extrusion and being
97
-------
cut into pellets. This steam treatment should also serve to reduce
the bacterial flora in the feed. Thus, it is not expected that the
finished feed pellets would be contaminated with fecal coliforms.
In view of the above^-mentioned knowledge with regard to fecal coli-
forms, it is not likely that thfe highly variable numbers of fecal
coliforms found in the water samples (in one instance as high as
over 400 per 100 ml of water) originated from the paunch, or the feed,
or the fish. Rather, these bacteria presumably came from some other
extraneous source(s) such as insects, wild animals, water fowl and
rainfall runoff water that might have entered the ponds (Geldrich et
al. 1962, Geldrich et al. 1964). Thus, fecal coliform-feed relation-
ships must be termed inconclusive. Nevertheless, it can be assumed
that paunch material in the fish feed did not contribute to any increase
in fecal coliforms in the ponds.
98
-------
SECTION IX
Andrews, J, W., T. Mural and G, Gibbons. 1973. The influence of
dissolved oxygen on the growth of channel catfish. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 102C4):835-837.
Bardach., J. E«, J. H, Ryther and W. 0, McLarney. 1972. Aquaculture:
the farming and husbandry of freshwater and marine organisms. Wiley-
Interscience, New York, N.Y. 868 pp.
Baumann, D. J. 1971. Elimination of water pollution by packinghouse
animal paunch and blood. - Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Pollution Control Research Series, Proj. No. 12060 IDS. 41 pp.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, 1970. A program of research for the
catfish farming industry. U.S. Dept. Commerce, Economic Development
/
Adm., Tech. Assist. Proj. xiii + 216 pp.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1970. Report to the fish
farmers. U.S. Dept. Inter,, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Resource Publ. No, 83. 124 pp.
Carlander, K. D. 1955. The standing crop of fish in lakes. J. Fish.
Res. Bd. Canada 12 (4): 543-^5 70,
Collins, C. M. 1972. Cage culture of channel catfish. Farm Pond
Harvest 6 (3):7-11.
99
-------
Collins, R. A. 1970a. Catfish culture in effluent water. Catfish
Farmer 2(2):7-9 and 11.
Collins, R. A. 1970b. Cage culture of catfish; research and private
enterprise. Catfish Fanner 2(4):12-=-17 and 19.
Collins, R. A. 1971, Cage culture of catfish in reservoir lakes.
Proc. S,E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 24(1970):489-496.
Conley, J. 1971. Present status and potential use of channel catfish
cage culture in Iowa. Pages 188-192 in Proc. North Central Fish
culture-Management Workshop, Iowa Coop. Fishery Unit, Iowa State Univ.,
Ames.
Deyoe, C, W. and 0. T. Tiemeier, 1973. Feed additives fail to
increase catfish growth. Amer. Fish Farmer and World Aquacult. News
4(9):8-10.
Eley, R. L., J. H. Carroll, and D, DeWoody. 1972. Effects of caged
catfish culture on water quality and community metabolism of a lake.
Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 52:10-15.
Feit, D. E. 1971. Results of two studies in the commercial production
of caged channel catfish. Pages 185-187 in Proc. North Central Fish
Culture-Management Workshop, Iowa Coop. Fishery Unit, Iowa State Univ.*
Ames.
Geldreich, E. E,, R. H. Bordner, C. B. Huff, H, F. Clark, and P. W.
Kabler. 1962. Type distribution of coliform bacteria in the feces of
100
-------
warm-blooded animals. JWPCF 34:295-301.
Geldreich, E. E. and N. A. Clarke. 1966. Bacterial pollution indi-
cators in the intestinal tract of freshwater fish. Appl. Microbiol.
14:429-437.
Geldreich, E. E., B, A. Kenner, and P. W. Kabler. 1964. Occurrence
of coliforms, fecal coliforms, and streptococci on vegetation and
insects. Appl, Microbiol. 12:63-69.
• ,_. .„;. . '.;-'?.{',•
Greenfield, J. E. 1969. Economic and business dimension of the cat-
fish farming industry. Pages 23-34 in Proc. 1969 Fish Farming Con-
ference, Texas Agri. Ext, Serv., Texas A & M Univ., College Station.
Greenfield, J. ,E. 1970. Economic arid business dimensions of the
catfish farming industry (Revised January, 1970). Pages 13-29 in
M. W, Cunmings (Chairman), Proc. 1st California Catfish Conference,
Univ, California, Agric. Ext. Serv., Davis.
Greenfield, J, E. 1972. Catfish marketing—1970. Pages 34-39 in
Proc. Missouri Catfish Conference, March 10-11, 1970. Extv.Div.,
Univ. Missouri, Columbia.
Goodrich; R. D. and J. C. Meiske. 1969. The value of dried rumen
contents as a ration ingredient for finishing steers. Res. Rept.
B-124, pp. 31-36,
Heman, HI. and D...H, Norwat. 1971. Rearing channel catfish in wire
cages. Pages 178-180 in Proc. North Central Warmwater Fish Culture-
101
-------
.Management Workshop, Iowa Coop. Fishery Unit, Ames.
Hickling, C. F, 1962. Fish culture. Faber and Faber, London. 295 pp.
Hinshaw, R. N, 1973. Pollution as a result of fish cultural activi-
ties. Environmental Protection Agency, Office Research Monitoring,
Ecological Research Series CEPA<-R3-73-009). 209 pp.
Jenkins, R. M. 1958. The standing crop of fish in Oklahoma ponds.
Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci, 38(1957):157-172.
Kelley, J. 1969. Production of marketable size catfish in ponds.
Pages 66-67 in Proc. 1969 Fish Farming Conference, Texas Agr. Ext.
Serv., Texas A & M Univ., College Station.
Lewis, W. M. 1969. Progress report on the feasibility of feeding-out
channel catfish in cages. Farm Pond Harvest 3(3):4-8.
Lewis, W. M. 1970. Suggestions for raising channel catfish in float-
ing cages. Unpublished multilith report of Fisheries Research Labora-
tory, Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale. 5 pp.
Lewis, W. M. 1971. Use of cage culture in sport fisheries. Pages
183-185 in Proc. North Central Warmwater Fish Culture-Management Work-
shop, Iowa Coop. Fishery Unit, Iowa State Univ., Ames.
Madwell, C, E. 1971. Historical development of catfish: farming.
Pages 7-14 in Production and Marketing Catfish in the Tennessee Valley,
Tennessee Valley Authority, Div. Forestry, Fish and Wildlife
Development, Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
102
-------
Meyer, F. P. 1969. Where do we stand? Pages 8-11 In Proc. 1969 Fish
Farming Conference, Texas Agr. Ext. Serv. , Texas A & M Univ., College
Station .
Morris, A. G. 1972. How many catfish should you stock per acre?
Fish Farming Industries 3C4):18~19 and 26.
Murphy, J, P. and R. I. Lipper. 1970. BOB production of channel cat-
fish.. Prog. Fish-Cult. 32:195-198.
National Research Council — Committee on Animal Nutrition. 1959.
Joint United States^Canadian tables of feed composition (nutritional
data for U.S.A. and Canadian feeds). National Acad. Sci. — National
Research Council, Committee on Animal Nutrition. Publ. No. 659,
Washington, D. C. 80 pp.
National Research Councils-Committee on Animal Nutrition. 1964. Joint
United States-Canadian tables of feed composition (nutritional data
for U.S.A. and Canadian feeds), National Acad. Sci. — National Research
Council, Committee on Animal Nutrition. Publ. 1232, Washington, D. C.
167 pp.
Rasor, C. 1973. 54,000 acres of catfish in 1971. Fish Fanning
Industries 4 (4): 17.
Rohlich, G. A. and P. D. Uttormark. 1972. Wastewater treatment and
eutrophication, Pages 231-243 in G. E. Likens (ed.), Nutrients and
eutrophication : the limittog-nutrient controversy. Special Symposia
Vol. I, Amer. Soc. Limnol. Oceanogr.
103
-------
Schmittou, H. R. 1969. Cage culture of channel catfish. Pages
72^75 in Proc. 1969 Fish Farming Conf., Texas A & M Ext. Serv., Texas
A & M Univ., College Station.
Schmittou, H, R. 1970. Developments in the culture of channel cat-
fish, Ictalttrus purictatua (Rafinesque), in cages suspended in ponds.
Proc. S.E. Assoc, Game and Fish Comm. 23(1969):226-244.
Schoeff, R. ¥. 1963. Improving feed quality through quick protein
tests. Kansas Formula Feed Conf. Abstracts 18:21.
Siegel, S. 1956. Non-parametric statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York,
N.Y. 312 pp.
Simco? B, A. and F. B, Cross. 1966. Factors affecting growth and
production of channel catfish, Ictalurus purictatus. Univ. Kansas
Publ., Mus. Natur. Hist. 17(4):191-256.
Steel, R, G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and procedures of
statistics with special reference to the biological sciences. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York. 481 pp.
Steffen, A. J. 1969. Waste disposal in the meat industry, a compre-
hensive review. In Proc. Meat Indust. Res. Conf., Amer. Meat Inst.
Foundation, Chicago, Illinois,
Swingle, H. S, 1959. Experiments on growing fingerling channel cat-
fish to marketable size in ponds. Proc, S.E. Assoc. Game and Fisft.
Comm. 12 0-958):63-72.
104
-------
U.S, Department of Agriculture. 1971. Agricultural statistics.
U.S. Dept.'Agri., Washington, D, C. 639 pp.
Walker, R. B. and K, D. Carlander. 1970. Effects of population
density upon channel catfish, in enclosures. Proc. Iowa Acad, Sci.
77:97-103.
Wiiteside, B. G. 1967. Population dynamics of fishes in farm ponds
in Payne County, Oklahoma. Ph.D. Dissertation, Okla. State "Univ.,
Stillwater. 62 pp.
Willoughby, H. , H. N. Larsen and J. T. Bowen. 1972. The pollutional
effects of fish hatcheries. Amer. Fishes and U.S..Trout News 17(3):
6, 7, 20 and 21.
Yin, S* C. , R. C. Summerfelt and A. K. Andrews. 1972. Dried paunch
as a feed supplement for channel catfish. Proc. Oklahoma Industrial
Wastes and Advanced Water Conf. 23:75-82.
105
-------
SECTION X
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
WATER QUALITY DATA OF PONDS
106
-------
Date*
5-17
5-24
5-31
6-07
6-14 (D)
6-14 (N)
6-21
6-28
7-05
7-12 (D)
7-12 (N)
7-19
7-26
8-02
8-09 (D)
8-09 (N)
8-16
8-23
8-30
9-06 (D)
9-06 (N)
9-13
9-20
9-27
10-04 (D)
10-04 (N)
10-11
10-18
10-25
11-01 (D)
11-01 (N)
temp
°C
23.5
27.5
25.4
30.1
26.7
26.0
27.0
31.3
26.8
27.5
27.3
29.5
30.8
28.2
26.3
25.5
29.5
28.2
24.0
24.8
25.5
29.8
28.2
25.0
21.8
19.8
23.0
16.8
12.2
11.0
9.8
DO
mg/1
4.8
0.7
2.0
7.9
5.5
5.9
7.8
7.1
10.5
9.2
10.6
10.1
10.7
10.6
6.8
5.8
8.7
5.2
2.8
6.3
6.7
10.4
7.2
3.4
8.4
6.3
5.8
5.1
9.3
10.8
10.9
BOD
mg/1
2
8
6
5
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
COD
mg/1
22
52
56
27
36
30
37
41
45
27
64
20
24
12
36
32
16
24
26
24
20
20
32
33
29
14
12
24
16
20
pH
7.4
7.3
7.9
8.3
7.9
8.1
8.2
8.4
9.3
9.1
10.1
10.1
9.8
9.5
9.1
9.6
8.9
8.6
9.3
9.5
9.8
9.6
8.4
9.1
8.9
9.3
8.6
9.1
9.0
8.9
°°?
11.5
12.3
1.0
4.5
2.8
2.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TS
mg/1
328
331
315
321
318
369
364
323
226
214
244
239
212
240
251
299
285
279
271
285
263
274
294
286
280
270
300
327
247
260
VSS
mg/1
2
10
9
2
4
5
7
3
2
1
2
2
1
4
2
3
1
<1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
2
1
1
TSS
mg/1
6
20
15
5
10
7
8
5
3
4
5
3
10
4
2
6
3
1
•1
1
2
3
10
4
2
44
6
10
3
3
NH.-N NO.-N NO--N
mg/1 mg/1 mg71
0.10 <0.02 <0.02
0.08
0.17
0.23
0.15
0.28 •
0.07
0.07 -
0.05
0.05
o.m
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03 <0.03 <0.03
0.03 <0.03 <0.03
0.05 <-0.03 <0.03
0.02 <0.03 <0.03
0.01 <0.03 <0.03
0.02 <0.03 <0.03
0.02 <0.03 <0.03
0.02 <0.03 <0.03
T. Kjeld.-N T. P04
mg/1 mg/1
0.6
1.6
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.05
0.19
0.18
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0-.07
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.17
0.95
0.05
0.04
0-PO
mg/I
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.03
TOC Fee. coli.
mg/1 #/100 ml
9.0
18.0
18.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
15.5
14.5
19.0
11.5
12.5
10.0
12.5
12.0
9.5
9.5
10.5
11.5
12.5
12.5
10.0
11.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
10.5
12.5
9.0
12.0
0
1
0
1
6
5
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
2
15
0
0
0
0
0
2
11
2
2
1
10
2
4
1
*A11 dates are for year 1972
D • Day
N = Night
-------
Fond 3
O
00
Date
5-17
5-24
5-31
6-07
6-14 (D)
6-14 (N)
6-21
6-28
7-05
7-12 (D)
7-12 (N)
7-19
7-26
8-02
8-09 (D)
8-09 (II)
8-16
8-23
8-30
9-06 (D)
9-06 (N)
9-13
9-20
9-27
10-04
10-04
10-11
10-18
10^25
11-01 (D)
11-01 (N)
(D)
(N)
°C
24.0
27.0
23.9
29.5
27.3
27.0
27.5
32.0
26.5
28.0
27.5
30.0
31.0
29.2
27.0
26.6
30.2
28.2
24.5
26.0
25.8
29.8
28.3
25.0
21.8
20.3
23.3
16.8
11.8
10.3
9.5
DO BOD
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
6.2
5.0
7.0
7.3
8.0
7.0
11.3
10.2
10.8
9.3
10.3
10.4
12.5
13.2
9.8
7.5
11.6
6.0
3.9
10.4
9.2
8.8
6.2
6.9
10.5
6.5
6.9
6.8
11.2
10.7
12.9
:OD
ng/l
18
24
19
32
30
24
39
43
59
59
32
28
6
30
28
32
32
24
28
24
16
4
24
6
24
20
25
20
20
16
pH
7.8
7.9
8.1
8.6
8.2
9.0
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.3
9.9
9.9
9.7
9.4
8.9
9.7
9.3
8.7
9.8
9.7
10.0
9.2
8.6
9.1
9.0
9.5
8.8
9.4
9.3
9.2
CO
mg/l
3.3
2.3
3.3
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IS
mg/1
305
250
292
287
330
308
260
193
239
233
315
241
214
245
243
294
271
260
258
259
254
270
275
290
283
*292
297
320
234
233
vs:
m/i
3
4
0
2
0
3
2
1
4
2
2
2
0
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
2
2
7
3
1
0
TSS NH -N
m/gl mg/1 mg/1
14
9
1
3
5
8
4
2
5
3
3
2
1
4
4
5
4
1
1
1
5
5
7
13
10
5
11
7
3
1
0.14
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.12
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.3.0
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
NO.-N NO,-N T. Kjeld.-N
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
<0.03 <0.03
<0.03 <0.03
<0.03 <0.03
-0.03 <0.03
<0.03 <0.03
<0.03 <0.03
<0.03 <0.03
<0.03 <0.03
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
T.PO
mg/1
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.03
0-PO,
mg/1*
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
<0.01
0.02
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TOC
mg/1
10.0
17.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
14.5
12.5
18.0
12.5
11.8
10.0
9.5
10.0
9.5
9.5
10.0
13.5
11.0
12.0
9.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
9.5
9.0
10.0
8.0
Fee. coli
#/100 ml
0
1
0
1
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
15
0
0
7
37
1
14
3
-------
O
VD
1 WlIU \f
Date
5-17
5-24
5-31
6-07
6-14 (D)
6-14 . (N)
6-21
6-28
7-05
7-12 (D)
7-12 (10
7-19
7-26
8-02
8-09 (D)
8-09 (N)
8-16
8-23
8-30
9-06 (D)
9-06 (10
9-13
9-20
9-27
10-04 (D)
10-04 00
10-11
10-18
10-25
11-01 (D)
11-01 (N)
Temp DO
*C mg/1
23.0
27.5
24.4
30.2
26.8
26.5
26.8
32.0
26.8
27.8
27.3
30.2
31.2
28.8
26.8
25.8
30.2
28.2
23.8
26.0
26.0
30.0
28.3
24.8
22.0
20.8
23.8
16.8
12.0
9.8
9.3
6.5
7.5
8.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
8.4
7.2
8.4
8.0
9.7
9.0
9.8
9.3
9.4
9.1
9.6
7.7
7.1
9.9
9.6
10.2
9.6
9.1
9.9
9.4
6.8
6.9
10.7
11.8
12.5
BOD
mg/1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
0.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
COD
mg/1
20
20
17
28
28
31
37
40
78
55
28
26
20
28
28
35
36
24
23
20
16
4
20
16
20
12
25
16
24
16
pH
8.4
8.3
8.6
8.8
8.4
8.6
8.7
8.5
8.6
8.4
9.0
9.2
9.3
9.2
8.9
9.5
9.2
8.8
9.4
9.4
9.5
9.3
9.1
9.2
9.0
9.4
9.0
9.2
8.9
9.1
C02
mgTl
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TS
mg/1
324
265
298
313
357
351
320
247
26C
282
249
278
245
282
274
332
282
288
288
296
277
274
278
292
287
306
310
312
229
229
VSS
mg/1
2
3
0.5
1
1
1
4
2
4
2
2
3
1
4
4
1
2
1
1
<1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
1
.1
T'-S
mg/1
27
8
2
6
5
7
8
12
8
9
3
8
5
6
7.5
5
9
2
2
2
4
2
4
4
2
3
6
6
8
6
NH.-K NO -N NO,-N
rngTl mgTl mg/1
0.16
0.05
0.13
0.13
0.29
0.15
0.04
0.18
0.21
0.26
0.29
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01 <0.03 <0.03
0.01 <0.03 <0.03
0.02 <0.03 <0.03
0.01 <0.03 <0.03
0.01 <0.03 <0.03
<0.01 <0.03 <0.03
<0.01 <0.03 <0.03
0.01 <0.03 <0.03
T. Kjeld-N T. P04
mg/1 mg/1
0.7
0..'
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.4
1.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.04
0-PO
mg/1
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
TOC
mg/1
10.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
11.0
9.0
10.0
14.5
12.5
14.0
11.0
9.0
9.0
9.5
9.5
9.5
10.0
12.0
10.5
11.5
10.0
9.5
11.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.5
9.0
12.5
8.5
Fee. coll.
I/IOC ml
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
65
207
0
0
6
14
0
0
0
1
18
0
76
22
-------
Pond 8
Date
5-17
5-24
5-31
6-07
6-14 (D)
6-14 (N)
6-21
6-28
7-05
7-12 (D)
7-12 (N)
7-19
7-26
8-02
8-09 (D)
8-09 (N)
8-16
8-23
8-30
9-06 (D)
9-06 (N)
9-13
9-20
9-27
10-04 (D)
10-04 (N)
10-11
10-18
10-25
11-01 (D)
11-01 (N)
Temp
°C
22.9
27.3
25.0
30.3
27.0
26.3
27.2
32.7
27.5
27.0
26.5
30.2
30.8
28.5
26.8
25.8
29.7
28.8
23.3
25.8
25.3
29.3
27.8
25.0
22.0
20.8
23.5
17.3
12.3
10.0
9.3
DO
mg/1
6.4
7.6
6.7
6.6
7.2
6.6
7.6
6.9
8.1
6.2
7.1
8.3
8.3
8.2
6.6
5.5
7.2
6.6
5.2
7.5
6.2
8.0
9.6
6.6.
7.8
6.8
6.1
6.6
8.6
11.0
12.2
BOD
mg/1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
1
2
3
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
COD
mg/1
24
22
22
28
34
43
46
50
40
78
36
38
40
47
40
49
56
36
24
40
20
24
32
37
33
28
37
28
32
28
pH
8.4
7.9
8.5
8.7
8.3 •'
8.3
8.5
8.3
8.3
8.0
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.4
7.9
8.6
8.6
8.1
8.5
8.4
8.6
8.7
8.4
8.6
8.4
8.4
8.6
8.7
a. 6
8.8
C02
tng/1
0.0
1.7
2
1.5
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TS
mg/1
324
266
319
415
405
386
' 362
300
366
373
317
373
378
415
417
455
400
374
218
414
369
407
387
397
366
401
425
422
327
342
vss
mg/1
3
6
0.4
2
1
9
6
6
10
9
11
8
8
13
14
8
5
6
5
5
6
6
5
4
5
6
10
2
1
1
TSS
mg/1
23
12
3
29
24
30
9
20
34
21
16
19
25
38
44
29
36
29
16
18
18
19
18
14
22
15
1-9
11
10
9
NH -N NO -N
mg/1 mg/1
0.41
0.21
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.57
0.07
0.74
0.79
0.56
0.50
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
O.J.3
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.03 <0.03
0.05 <0.03
0.06 <0.03
0.05 <0.03
0.08 <0.03
0.06 <0.03
0.04 <0.03
0.04 <0.03
NO -N T. Kjeld.-N
mg71 mg/1
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
i.o
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.3
<0.03 1.1
0.03 1.1
0.03 1.2
<0.03 1.1
0.04 1.2
0.07' 1.0
0.07 0.8
0.07 0.8
T. PO
mg/1
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.17
0.23
0.1?
0.15
0.09
0.07
O.OR
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.07
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.05
o-po4
mg/1
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
TOG
mg/1
11.5
13.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
15.5
15.0
17.0
15.3
8.5
15.0
14.5
16.5
16.5
17.5
16.5
15.0
15". 0
13.0
14.5
13.5
12.0
13.0
14.5
14.5
11.5
15.0
12.5
Fee. coli
#/ 100ml
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
7
6
2
5
13
14
2
6
14
218
8
4
4
124
6
0
2
4
34
8
118
80
-------
Pond 9
Date
5-17
5-24
5-31
6-07
6-14 (D)
6-14 (N)
6-21
6-28
7-05
7-12 (D)
7-12 (N)
7-19
7-26
8-02
8-09 (D)
8-09 (N)
8-16
8-23
8-30
9-06 (D)
9-06 (N)
9-13
9-20
9-27
10-04 (D)
10-04 (N)
10-11
10-18
10-25
11-01
-------
Pond 10
Date
5-17
5-24
5-31
6-07
6-14 (D)
6-14 (N)
6-21
6-28
7-05
7-12 (D)
7-12 (N)
7-19
7-26
8-02
8-09 (I)}
8-09 (N)
8-16
8-23
8-30
9-06 (D)
9-06 (N)
9-13
9-20
9-27
10-04 (D)
10-04 (N)
10-11
10-18
10-25
11-01 (D)
11-01 (N)
Temp
°C
23.2
27.5
25.6
30.2
27.0
26.8
28.3
33.7
28.0
27.0
26.5
30.2
31.0
29.0
27.8
26.5
30.3
28.7
23.8
26.0
26.0
29.5
27.8
25.0
22.5
20.8
23.7
18.7
13.0
10.8
9.5
DO
mg/1
6.2
7.6
8.0
7.2
8.0
7.9
8.7
7.8
8.4
8.5
10.8
8.7
11.3
10.2
10.1
9.5
9.7
7.4
7.3
9.5
9.8
10.1
9.2
9.3
8.5
8.9
6.7
7.8
10.5
11.2
12.8
BOD
mg/1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
0.3
2
1
COD
mg/1
20
30
20
21
24
28
31
39
37
28
66
32
24
26
32
30
35
36
24
20
20
6
18
24
22
29
16
25
16
20
20
pH
8.4
8.2
9.0
9.0
8.7
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.9
8.8
9.4
9.1
9.5
9.2
8.9
9.7
9.1
8.7
9.1
9.2
9.6
9.3
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.2
9.0
9.0
8.8
9.0
C02
rag/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TS
mg/1
335
334
249
317
342
326
328
292
220
381
296
254
269
322
263
270
312
267
235
166
284
226
255
263
295
287
291
283
327
245
256
vss
mg/1
4
4
5
0.2
1
0
1
4
3
4
5
3
3
3
4
<1
2
<1
<1
1
<1
1
1
1
1
3
2
5
2
1
1
TSS
mg/1
29
24
11
2
11
1
2
6
5
10
6
3
4
4
4
<1
5
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
11
10
6
6
6
7
6
NH -N. NO.-N
mg?l mg/1
0.50
0.24
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.20
0.06.
0.08
0.15
0.12
0^8
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01 <0.03
0.02 <0.03
0.02 <0.03
0.02 <0.03
0.01 <0.03
0.02 <0.03
0.01 <0.03
0.01 <0.03
NO,-N T. Kjeld.-N
mg/1 mg/1
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
<0.03 0.6
<0.03 0.6
<0.03 1.3
<0.03 0.6
<0.03 0.5
<0.03 0.4
<0.03 0.4
<0.03 0.4
X. PO
mg/1 4
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.03
0-P04
mg/r
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.02
TOC
mg/1
8.0
12.0
22.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
10.0
12.0
11.5
11.0
14.0
11.0
9.5
10.0
9.5
10.0
10.0
10.5
13.0
10.5
8.5
8.5
9.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
11.0
10.0
11.0
Fee. coli
#/100ml
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
10
0
1
0
1
0
9
11
43
25
19
1
13
8
20
23
2
15
1
187
108
-------
Pond 12
M
Ul
Date
5-17
5-24
5-31
6-07
6-14 (D)
6-14 GO
6-21
6-28
7-05
J-12 (D)
7-12 (N)
7-19
7-26
8-02
8-09 (D)
8-09 00
8-16
8-23
8-30
9-06 (D)
9-06 (N)
9-13
9-20
9-27
10-04 (D)
10-04 (N)
10-11
10-18
10-25
11-01 (D)
11-01 (N)
Temp
°C
28.0
24.4
30.0
27.0
26.0
28.2
33.2
28.0
27.0
26.5
30.0
30.7
28.0
26.8
26.0
31.2
28.5
23.3
25.8
25.8
29.3
27.7
26.0
22.5
21.0
23.3
17.7
12.8
10.5
9.5
DO
mg/1
7.6
7.2
6.8
7.4
6.8
8.1
6.9
8.4
7.9
8.6
9.2
11.5
8.7
9.1
6.6
11.6
10.5
7.2
8.6
6.1
7.2
3.9
3.6
7.3
6.2
5.4
6.1
8.5
10.7
11.9
BOD
mg/1
.1
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
5
5
1
8
9
10
8
12
13
12'
12
10
9
4
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2-
COD
mg/1
22
24
24
20
34
32
35
45
49
44
78
58
62
55
76
64
83
80
73
66
64
53
44
44
45
45
37
49
33
36
36
pH
8.3
8.1
9.0
8.6
8.3
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.6
8.3
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.4
9.3
9.4
8.8
9.0
8.9
8.7
8.4
8.3
8.7
8.7
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.6
8.8
CO,
<0.1
1.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TS
mg/1
336
346
254
313
426
435
408
350
275
349
41?
350
374
348
374
404
415
314
364
376
380
375
374
381
414
380
361
389
379
301
311
VSS
mg/1
4
5
2
0.7
2
6
8
7
6
11
11
13
19
3
27
27
11
22
24
16
19
16
8
2
2
3
3
6
2
3
2
TSS
mg/1
22
24
18
4
42
45
36
20
20
24
31
15
28
5
36
41
20
53
42
27
36
35
16
16
20
20
10
9
9
22
19
NH -N NO.-N NO,-N
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
0.60
0.43
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.36
0.27
0.09
0.44
0.56
0.63
1.20
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.06
O.OS
0.06
0.40
0.70 0.08 0.03
0.40 0.11 0.04
0.38 0.11 0.03
0.30 <0.03 0.04
0.35 <0,03 0.05
0.40 <0.03 0.08
0.44 0.04 0.06
0.45 0.04 0.06
T. Kjeld.-N T. PO,.
mg/1
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.5
3.2
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.2
2.6
2.1
2.2
1.8
2.0
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.5
mg/1
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.12
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.27
0.32
0.21
0.28
0.16
0.17
0.28
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.20
0.12
0.19
0.11
0.12
0.08
0.18
0.05
0.10
0.10
0-PO
mg/1*
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
TOC
mg/1
9.0
14.0
16.5
12.5
13.0
11.0
12.0
14.0
16.5
16.0
20.0
15.5
19.0
21.0
18.5
25.0
25.0
25.0
26.0
15.5
23.5
18.5
15.0
10.0
15.0
18.0
14.0
16.5
13.5
14.0
13.0
Fee. coll.
#/100 ml
1
0
4
4
2
10
3
8
3
16
5
7
0
0
19
11
46
32
14
0
0
0
28
2
0
4
4
4
0
52
44
-------
Pond 14
Date
5-24
5-31
6-07
6-14 (D)
6-14 (N)
6-21
6-28
7-05
7-12 (D)
7-12 (N)
7-19
7-26
8-02
8-09 (D)
8-09 (N)
8-16
8-23
8-30
9-06 (D)
9-06 (N)
9-13
9-20
9-27
10-04 (D)
10-04 (N)
10-11
10-18
10-25
11-01 (D)
11-01 (N)
Temp
°C
27.7
24.8
30.2
26.8
26.3
27.3
33.2
27.2
27.3
26.5
30.2
31.2
28.3
26.8
25.8
31.0
28.7
23.5
25.0
25.5
29.5
27.7
26.0
22.0
20.5
23.5
16.5
12.8
10.3
9.0
DO
mg/1
7.3
7.5
7.1
7.4
6.7
7.8
6.9
8.0
7.6
8.0
8.7
8.9
8.8
8.5
7.1
10.5
8.6
7.9
9.4
7.5
8.3
6.3
4.9
8.0
7.1
6.1
6.9
9.0
11.2
12.3
BOD
mg/1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
1
6
6
6
5
8
9
9
10
9
7
5
3
5
5
3
4
3
2
3
COD
mg/1
28
20
20
34
32
42
43
54
61
86
48
49
50
54
58
65
80
61
54
52
45
36
40
41
45
35
41
24
28
28
pH
8.4
8.2
9.1
8.7
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.3
8.5
8.4
8.8
8.6
8.7
8.7
8.4
9.2
9.3
9.1
9.3
9.2
9.1
8.8
8.4
8.7
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.8
CO,
mgfl
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TS
mg/1
323
256
325
425
395
400
351
294
353
387
322
382
339
393
386
410
356
331
341
357
330
341
350
363
376
330
372
366
289
309
VSS
mg/1
5
2
1
5
2
6
7
6
11
11
14
17
2
32
19
13
8
17
12
11
12
8
2
5
6
4
10
6
3
3
TSS
mg/1
26
16
2
45
35
33
20
25
24
31
15
32
3
40
37
20
23
39
16
24
33
22
20
21
27
12
16
12
20
19
HH.-N NO,-N NO -N
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
0.38
0.21
0.14
0.26
0.31
0.48
0.07
0.31
0.36
0.47
0.92
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.30 <0.03 0.04
0.08 0.04 0.03
0.10 0.03 0.03
0.04 <0.03 0.04
0.02 <0.03 0.03
0.05 <0.03 0.03
0.09 <0.03 0.05
0.09 <0.03 0.06
T. Kjeld.-N I. PO,
mg/1
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.8
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.2
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
mg/1 "
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.22
0.11
0.13
0.20
0.17
0.12
0.09
0.15
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.07
0-PO.
mg/1*
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.03
TOC
mg/1
15.0
14.0
12.5
11.5
12.5
12.5
13.0
15.5
15.5
17.0
14.0
15.5
18.5
16.3
21.0
20.0
21.0
22.3
20.5
18.5
18.5
15.5
14.0
15.0
14.0
13.5
15.5
12.5
13.8
13.0
Fee. coli
#/100 ml
9
0
0
3
3
1
0
1
16
9
11
6
0
2
22
16
40
174
44
72
28
120
112
96
120
64
164
16
432
324
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
1. Report No.
2:
-?. Accession No.
w
4. Title
PAUNCH MANURE AS A FEED SUPPLEMENT IN CHANNEL CATFISH
FARMING
7. Aathor(s) '
Summerfelt, Robert C. , and Yin, S. C.
5, Report Dfte ' ^:~ '-.
6. • .-••:-. _...'.
8. Purforroirtg Organization
Report Ho,
10, Project No.
9. Organization
Okla. Coop. Fishery Unit
BSFP c
Okla. State University
ft
EPA
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
74820
11. Contract / Grant So.
R800746 (formerly 12060
13, Type of Repot e and
Period Covered
m
, awironmental Protection Ageney
IS. Supplementary Notes
Environmental Protection Agency report number EPA-660/2-74-046, May 1974
16. Abstract -
Part A of this report examines the feasibility of using dried paunch at 10, 20 and 30%
levels in feed for pond-rearing yearling channel catfish to market-size, and at a 10%
level for cage-culture of yearling catfish. Part B describes the effects of fish
culture, using standard feeds and paunch-containing feeds, on water quality of fish
ponds. In all, one physical, one bacteriological, and fifteen chemical parameters
were measured.
Regardless of feed type, pond-reared fish grew faster than the cage-reared fish. There
was no significant difference in final weights attained by fish given standard, and 10
and 20% paunch feeds but fish given 30% paunch were significantly smaller. Feed costs
per kg of catfish produced using the standard commercial sinking feed and sinking feed
containing 10% paunch were essentially equal, but feed costs for making sinking feed
with 10 and 20% paunch were greater than the standard. The costs of making a floating
feed containing 10% paunch for raceway or cage culture of channel catfish were uneco-
nomical. Neither the pond culture nor the cage culture caused deterioration in water
quality in any of the ponds to any appreciable degree in one growing season of 24
weeks, and there was no significant difference in water quality in general between the
ponds in which commercial feeds were used and those in which paunch-containing feeds
were used--this was true in both pond and cage cultures.
17 a. _ Descriptors
Aquaculture, Water pollution, Agriculture wastes, Abatement, Beef cattle, Water
quality
17b. Identifiers
Channel catfish farming, Fish fanning, Fish nutrition, Paunch manure, Abbattoir wastes,
Recycling animal wastes, Slaughterhouse wastes, Food processing wastes
17c. COWRR Field & Group Q5C
18. Availability
i P. Security Class.
fRepottJ-
JO. SeewityCf.ss.
' (Page)
21, If o. of
Pages
• Jta, ,, Pri&e
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 2O24O
Abstractor R. p. Riitmnerfelt 1 Institution Oklahoma State University
WRSIC IO2 (REV. JUNE 1971)
------- |