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)

-------