EPA-600/2-83-0I9
March 1983
AN EVALUATION OF FILTER FEEDING FISHES FOR
REMOVING EXCESSIVE NUTRIENTS AND ALGAE
FROM WASTEWATER
fay
Scott Henderson
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
Lonoke, Arkansas 72086
CR805453
Project Officer
William R, Duffer
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
{Please read Iriitrucnotts on the reverse before completing!
I, «6POST -\-c.
EPA-600/2-83-019
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
* 19333^
fl 7S, £ AND SUBTITLE
AN EVALUATION OF FILTER FEEDING FISHES FOR REMOVING
EXCESSIVE NUTRIENTS AND ALGAE FROM WASTEWATER
5, REPORT DATE
Harr. h 1 "
6, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORlSI
I, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION R€PORT NO.
9, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT MO,
11 CONtRACT/GRANT NO,
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Enviornmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Fi rial J ; 1
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
ABSTRACT
The feasibility of utilizing finfish for the removal and recycling of excessive
nutrients and algae from wastewater was investigated. The silver carp (H.ypopthal-
ralehthyes molitrix) and the bighead carp (Arlstichthyes nobilis) were chosen due to
their specifically adapted filter feeding mechanism. An existing wastewater treatment
plant with six lagoons served as the project site. No attempt was made to alter or
influence the waste load normally received by the lagoons.
The presence of the fish had a beneficial effect on the aquatic system. In all,
14 water quality parameters along with selected heavy metals, pesticides, pathogenic
bacteria, and viruses were monitored during the project. Analysis of the data shows
that the presence of the fish improves the treatment capability of the conventional
lagoon system. There are tradeoffs to be made among some parameters and some liabiliti
resulting from the presence of the fish. All are within acceptable limits and tip
the scales in favor of the benefits gained. In the final analysis, the real determinir
factor in deciding to use a finfish-aquaculture-treatment system is the capability of
using the more than 7,200 kg/ha annual production of fish as a revenue producer.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a, DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFItOS/OPEN EMOED TERMS
c, COSAT1 field/Croup
Wastewater treatment
Aquaculture
Carp
Lagoons
fish farming
Sewage treatment
Oxidation ponds
98F
68 D
18. DISTRIBUTION Ar£M6NT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (TftlJ Reporr}
UNCLASSIFIED
21, NO, OF PA ' -
7U
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
- J
CCA Form 1120 \ lt-73)
-------
DISCLAIMER
Although the research described in this article has been funded wholly
or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency through
cooperative agreement number R8G5453 to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,
it has not been subjected to the Agency's required peer and policy review
ard therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no
otficial endorsement should be inferred.
ii
(
-------
FOREWORD
EPA is charged by Congress to protect the Nation's land, air, and water
systems. Under a mandate of national environmental laws focused on air and
water quality, solid waste management and the control of toxic substances,
pesticides, noise, and radiation, the Agency strives to formulate and imple-
ment actions which lead to a compatible balance between, human activities and
the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. In partial re-
sponse to these mandates, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Ma, Oklahoma, is charged with the mission to manage research programs: to
investigate the nature, transport, fate, and management of pollutants in ground
wato develop and demonstrate technologies for treating wastewater with
soils and other natural systems; to control pollution from irrigated crop and
animal production agricultural activities; and to develop and demonstrate
cost-effective land treatment systems for the environmentally safe disposal of
solid and hazardous wastes.
Evaluation of an aquatic treatment process utilizing filter-feeding
finfish indicates that such systems are effective for removal of pollutants
from municipal wastewater. The experimental system had a very high rate of
annual finfish production. Such high yields appear economically attractive,
provided acceptable methods can be developed to utilize the product.
Clinton W. Hall, Director
Robert S, Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
PREFACE
The passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public
Law 92-500) generated considerable interest arid concern for the development
of wastewater treatment methods that would meet the more stringent standards
at a reasonable cost. The emphasis on reuse of wastewater and the recycling
of nutrients Into useful products brought about a new look at old biological
treatment methods. The biological production capability of nutrient laden
wastewaters is obvious. However, directing this energy arid raw materials
into useful products has proven difficult.
Often the emphasis has been on developing new products and uses for the
mostly invertebrate species that grow naturally in wastewaters. With an
already growing demand and a decreasing world supply of fish and fisheries
products, many investigators have attempted to rear fish in wastewaters.
This has been largely unsuccessful in the United States due to the lack of a
native species with a hign production capability utilizing primary production
from ponds or lagoons as a food source. The importation of the silver and
bignead carp into Arkansas in 1973 by a private concern provided the
opportunity for experimentation with fish species uniquely adapted for the
job.
Out of a concern for premature and widespread release of these exotic
species, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission began a program to evaluate
the possible beneficial uses as well as the dangers of these fish. From
observations in hatchery ponds, it quickly became evident that they possessed
certain characteristics that could be useful under a number of circumstances.
After a review of the state's wastewater treatment facilities, an existing
six lagoon facility was located at the Benton Services Center and a
cooperative agreement for use of the ponds for testing fish production and
water quality improvement was reached.
Initial interest in the silver and bigheed carp resulted from an
extensive amount of literature reporting the many characteristics they
possess that make them a seemingly ideal fish for culture. A fish that could
be added to native species in Arkansas' large fish farming industry to
increase production was an attractive possibi1ity. It became apparent that
these filter feeders had quite an impact on water quality and this became an
increasing!v important subject of subsequent studies. All preliminary work
corroborated reports In the literature concerning production and growtn rate
potential of these fish. By the time this project was designed and
implemented, the major emphasis was on the use of these fish to improve the
quality of wastewater. This was somewhat unique in that all previous work
had been concerned with the optimum nutrient loads to add to ponds to maximize
production. The ability of the fish to withstand heavy wastewater loads and
their concomitant impact on water quality is relatively unexplored territory.
i v
-------
ABSTRACT
This study was instituted to determine the feasibility of utilizing
certain species of finfish for the removal and recycling of excessive
nutrients and algae from wastewater. The silver carp, Hypopthalmichthyes
n.o 1itrix, and the bighead carp, Aristichthyes nobilis, were chosen as the
centriT"species due to their specificaTiyadapted fTTter feeding mechanism.
An existing wastewater treatment system with 8 lagoons served as the project
site. Since the results from previous controlled field trials were available,
this project utilized the entire facility as a pilot scale system. No attempt
was made to alter or influence the daily waste load normally received by the
lagoons.
It can be said unequivocally that the presence of the fish had a
beneficial effect on the aquatic system. Because of the many variables
involved in such a dynamic, stressed ecosystem it is difficult, if not
impossible, to quantify a direct relationship between the standing crop of
fish and any one water quality parameter. In all, fourteen water quality
parameters along with selected heavy metals, pesticides, pathogenic bacteria,
and viruses were monitored during the project.
Analysis of the data shows that the presence of the fish improves the
treatment capability of the conventional lagoon system. There are trade-offs
to be made among some parameters arid some liabilities resulting from the
presence of the fish. All are within acceptable limits and, when considered,
still tip the scales in favor of the benefits gained. In the final analysis,
the real determining factor in deciding whether to use a finfish-aquaculture-
treatment system is the capability of using the more than 7,200 kg/ha annual
production of fish as a revenue producer to sufficiently offset or pay for
water treatment costs.
This report was submitted to fulfill the terms of a cooperative
agreement between the Arkansas Game and Fish Coirmission and the U. S,
Environmental Protection Agency, This report covers the period from November
1, 137? to September 30, 1381 with fielawork being completed as of December
31, 1980.
v
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer.......................................................... ii
Forward............................................................i ii
Preface.............................................................iv
Abstract. v
Fi gures. vi i
Tables............................................................viii
1. Introduction. 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 3
3. Silver and Bighead Carps......................................4
4. Project Site Description......................................8
5. Materials and Methods 9
Water Qua! ity 9
Other Contaminants. 11
Toxic Substances,................................... 11
Biological Contaminants............................. 11
6. Results and Discussion....................................... 12
Water Qual 1 ty 12
Toxic Substances. 13
Biological Contaminants................................. 13
Fish Production.16
Economic Considerations................................. 18
Design Considerations. IS
Bibliography........................................................21
Appendices
!. Water Qual ity 24
II. Pesticides and Heavy Ketals.................................43
III. Biological Contaminants.....................................48
IV. Fish Production 59
vi
(
-------
FIGURES
Number Pace
1 Silver Carp... 5
2 Bighead Carp,...,,,.,..,,,......,...,.,.,.,,..,,,...,.,.,,,...,... 8
3 Gill Rakers, Silver Carp 7
4 Gill Rakers, Bighead Carp 7
5 Schematic of ponds and flow pattern...,,,,.....,.....,,,,....,,... 10
Appendix I
1 Water Temperature, 29
2 Air Temperature, 30
3 Turbidity. 31
4 01 ssol vea Oxygen 32
5 BODc, 33
6 pH 34
7 Carbon Dioxide 35
8 Total Suspended Solids 36
9 NH3-NH4. 37
10 N02-N. 38
11 DO3-N 39
12 P04. 40
13 Fecal Col ifonr, 41
14 Total Plankton Organisms 42
Appendix III
1 Concentration of indicator bacteria Irs water 53
2 Concentration of indicator bacteria in sediment.........,..,.,.,.. 54
vi i
-------
TABLES
{¦lumber Page
Appendix I
1 Strength of Raw Wastewai \....................................... 25
2 Strength of Inf 1 uent S ttfi ucnt - Pond 1 25
3 Strength of Influent & Effluent - Pond 2,,.,..,,....,............. 28
4 Strength of Influent & Effluent - Pond 3 26
5 Strength of Influent S Effluent - Pond 4 27
6 Strength of Influent § Effluent - Pond 5 27
7 Strength of Influent & Effluent - Pond 6 28
Appendix II
1 Pesticide Levels in Water Samples..........,..,..,,.,.,..,,....... 44
2 Pesticide Levels in Fish Flesh Sarrples 45
3 PCS & Heavy Metal Levels in Water Samples 48
4 PCB & Heavy Metal levels in Fish Flesh Samples.................... 47
Appendix III
1 Concentrations of FC & PS in Sut & Skin Tissue 43
2 Correlations Between Bacteria Levels in Fish and
in Water or Sediment. 50
3 Concentrations of PC & FS in Fish Flesh........................... 51
4 Samples Yielding Viral Plaque Forming Units....................... 52
A1 Bacterial Concentrations in Pond Hater............................ 55
AZ Bacterial Concentrations in Pond Sediment 55
A3 Bacterial Concentrations in Fish Digestive Tract,................. 57
A4 Bacterial Concentrations in Fish Skin.,.......".................... 53
Appendix IV
1 Stocking Rate Oata 60
2 Growth of Silver and Bigheads in Pond 3 60
3 Growth of Si 1 ver and Bigheads in Pond 4 61
4 Growth of Silver and Bigheads in Pond 5 81
5 Growth of Silver and Bigheads in Pond 6........................... 62
vi i i
(
-------
\
INTRODUCTION
Fertilization of fish ponds has long been recognized by the fish
culturist as a method of increasing production. The production of finfishes
as a method of reducing fertility is a relatively new approach that has been
stimulated by the increasing need for effective, low cost treatment of
wastewater by small municipalities. The initial emphasis on this and other
"alternative" strategies as opposed to conventional methods was largely a
result of more stringent effluent guidelines and the high cost of construction
and operation of conventional plants. It seems, however, that the even more
recent realization of the need to conserve energy sources and to recycle what
has previously been discarded as a troublesome waste product has provided tite
impetus for exploring new technologies. Also, even the remote possibility of
producing a useful and/or valuable product from wastewater treatment demands
attention.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission1s interest in this project evolved
from the importation into the state of two species of Chinese carps by a
private fish farmer. The silver carp and bighead carp were brought into
Arkansas in 1973 with initial interest resulting from the fact that they were
unknown, exotic species and the possibility of these low trophic level filter
feeders being a beneficial addition to fish production ponds. Conversations
with Or. S, Y, Lin who did pioneering work with the Chinese carp species in
Taiwan and a visit to the Quail Creek Sewage Treatment Project in Oklahoma
during 1973-74 led to the current interest in wastewater aquaculture.
The fact that many finftsh species ranging from the lowly esteemed
common carp, Cyprinis carpio, to the prize sport fish the nuskellunge, Esox
masquinonqy, have -n produced in wastewater ponds attests to the variety of
species amenable to production in nutrient rich wastewaters under specific
conditions. The fact that X pounds of fish are produced without supplemental
feeding obviously shows that in one fashion or another, energy and nutrients
are transformed into the very stable form of fish flesh. This is the
reasoning behind one of the basic tenets of fish culture and management i.e.,
that within certain limits the natural productive capacity of a given body of
water is increased by increasing available nutrients. The fish culturist may
draw on a rather large body of available literature resulting from research
and practical experience in determining the proper type and amounts of
fertilizer to add to the culture pond,
lf» on the other hand, the objective is to utilize available nutrients,
little is known about the effectiveness of fir.fish in general or of any
particular species. Common sense dictates that those fishes that have adaoted
1
-------
to feeding at the lower trophic levels would be most efficient at converting
nutrients. Therefore, those that are able to feed on trie primary productivity,
the herbivores, should be considered the most likely candidates for achieving
the objective of nutrient utilization. A group of fishes known as the Chinese
carps, in particular the silver carp, meets this criterion and is the key
species in this study.
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The addition of silver and bighead carp to a lagoon wastewater
treatment system increases the efficiency of that system. Depending on
climatic and other operational conditions, the inclusion of these natu
filters can increase treatment by as much as 25-30:'. From a practical
standpoint, this could decrease the amount of land area needed or improve the
quality of water leaving the facility or both. When used as the sole method
of treatment, an aquaculture system using silver carp is limited in capability-
Properly designed and operated, the system could provide advanced secondary
treatment and consistently meet discharge requirements of 10 ppm BOD5 and
20 ppm total suspended solids. Though nutrient removal is improved and both
total phosphates and nitrogen levels were decreased by more than 901 in this
system, total removal would require such a lengthy retention time as to be
impractical. However, where treatment level requirements do not exceed the
capability of the system, finfish aquaculture in wastewater lagoons is a
viable and reasonable method of upgrading treatment and recycling wastes into
a stable and useful form.
By making the assumption that they are properly designed and operated
and comparing other similar sized Arkansas municipal treatment plants using
lagoon systems, it can be seen that this finfish system out performed other
conventional plants by 30-50% in the critical areas of BODg and TSS. !
this is obviously a rather loose comparison, it is also obvious that nn
could be gained by utilizing this method in Arkansas alone.
Aquaculture treatment systems are competitive with other convention 1
methods from a cost effectiveness standpoint at the present time. Re; ig
wastes into useful products is certainly the ultimate goal of waste disposal.
This method achieves that goal in theory since fishery products have a high
demand. In fact, product utilization ranges from being limited to impossible.
The development of quality control standards to allow the use of fish products
grown in wastewater is the most pressing need. If that could be accomplished,
there is little doubt that a treatment system that could potentially produce
a profit would be available.
Aquaculture as a method of wastewater treatment has been shown to work in
a variety of ways within inherent limits. There are many applications where
this system of treatment is acceptable and the design criteria only needs
refining. So long as the fish production from such a process is considered a
liability rather than an asset, pursuing further development Is rather
pointless. The perplexing problem of how to safely and effectively use these
recycled products deserves the greatest attention at the present time.
3
-------
SILVER AND BIGHEAD CARPS
The silver and bighead carp are native to the Amur River basin along the
Slno-Soviet border {figure 1 & 2}. Stocks of tnese fish have been propagated
by the Arkansas Game arid Fish Commission since 1973 for use In this and other
research projects. Both are filter feeding fishes that feed on free-floating
or free-swimming planktonic organisms throughout their life. These fishes are
capable of reaching a size of 13-23 kg (40-50 lbs.) in four to five years.
The silver carp exhibits certain characteristics that make it more
desirable for this type of program than native filter feeding species. The
specially adapted gill rakers that have evolved as the filter for this species
are somewhat unique and are very efficient at filtering extremely small
particles from the water that passes through them. The gill rakers of the
silver carp are similar to a sponge-like plate and are capable of removing
particles as small as four microns in size {Figure 3). The diet of the silver
carp is composed primarily of pnytcplanktor. The gill rakers of the bighead
are filaments that widen at the distal end and overlap to form a more or less
solid filtering surface (Figure 4), The filter of the bighead is comparable
to many native filter feeders and is riot as efficient at removing the smaller
particles as is the silver carp. The majority of the bigheads diet consists
of zooplankton and the larger phytoplankton species. Both the silver and the
bighead are capable of rapid growth, are not particularly susceptible to
common fish diseases, and are capable of withstanding relatively low dissolved
oxygen levels. For these reasons mentioned above, it is believed by the
author that the silver carp should be the central species in a finfish
treatment system. The bighead has certain desirable attributes but could be
replaced by other native fishes.
The bighead and the silver carp are members of the Cyprinid family.
Their food consists of a microscopic organisms that are free-floating and
free-swimming. They are particularly adapted to this type of feeding because
of their very specially adapted gill rakers which are capable of filtering
large volumes of water and thereby concentrating tremendous numbers of
microscopic organisms that serve as their only food. Due to this specialized
feeding mechanism, their natural habitat is in fertile bodies of water which
support large populations of planktonic organisms. More specifically, they
occupy open water in the zone of light penetration where their food is the
most abundant. Literature reports members of these species as large as 40-60
pounds although a 10-20 pound adult would be much more common.
The silver carp is a deep-bodied, laterally compressed fish. Typical of
the minnow family, ft has no spires in the fins. Not so typical of this
group, however, is the fact that the scales are extremely small, salinonid-1 ike.
The silver carp is counter-shaded from olivaceous above to silver below the
-------
riGURE 1. SILVLR CARP
-------
FIGURE 2. BIG1IEAD CARP
-------
FIGURE 3. GILL RAKERS, SILVER CARP
7
-------
lateral line. The mouth is relatively large and contains no teeth. The eyes
are located extremely forward along the mid-line of the fish's body and
project somewhat downward. The silver carp has a smooth keel that runs from
the base of the caudal fin forward to the isthmus.
The upper size limit of organisms found in the gut is thought to be (at
least partially) a result of the action of the pharyngeal teeth and not
necessarily the inability of the silver to ingest larger organisms. Both the
silvers and the bigheads have been observed to carry out a sort of
back-flushing of their filter by shutting the opercular openings and blowing
water, clouded with particles, from their mouth. Whether this is an actual
rejection of certain organisms either by species or size is not known.
The gill rakers of the bighead are more similar to some native species
{shad, paddlefish, etc.). They are comprised of individual filaments rather
than being a solid plate as in the silver. At their point of attachment to
the gill arch, the filaments are spaced 75-100 microns apart. As they extend
outward from their point of attachment, they widen and overlap so that there
is no space between them.
PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
The wastewater treatment plant of the Benton Services Center was chosen
as the site for the study. The primary reasons for its selection were the
multiple ponds available, the capability of controlling the pattern of flow
through the system, and state ownership which provides greater cooperation
and control in operation of the plant.
The Benton Services Center is under the direction of the Arkansas
Department of Human Services, The center provides both mental and alcohol
rehabilitation programs, a nursing home facility, and serves as a work
release center for the Arkansas Department of Corrections. While numbers
vary, there are approximately 1,000 persons residing at the center full time.
Other than daytime and around-the-clock patient care personnel, the center
maintains its own water treatment plant, fire station, laundry, food services
departments and a rather large maintenance and grounds staff. There are also
several residences for staff members located on the grounds. There are, in
all, approximately 1,000 full time employees at the center with some
contributing to the wastewater load during working hours six days per week
and others around-the-clock.
Other than the collective individual wastes, the biggest contributors of
wastewater to the system are the laundry and food services. The laundry is in
operation six days per week supplying the needs of the entire Benton facility
and food services prepares three meals per day for all residents and at least
one for every employee. The character of the raw wastewater is fairly typical
of that produced by small municipalities with no major industrial users.
The physical facilities of the wastewater treatment plant include (1)
a bar screen and grinder for reducing the size of larger debris entering the
system, {2} a clarifier, {3} an aerobic digester (this is a converted
8
-------
anaerobic system providing mechanical aeration to the solids from the
clarifier, majority of the water enters the lagoons from the clarifier), and
six oxidation ponds with a total surface area of 10,2 ha (24 acres). The
average daily flow of wastewater into the system is 1,711 m3/day (0,45 M6D),
the average organic load is 444 kg (97? lbs.) of BOD5 per day, and 208.6 kg
(459 lbs.} of suspended solids per day.
Minor alterations in the existing facility were made prior to stocking
the fish and instituting routine water quality monitoring. The existing six
ponds were dewatered, sludge buildup was removed and the ponds regraded to
their original contour with some minor changes to facilitate the harvest of
the fish. All ponds average 1,2-1.3 m in depth with the bottoms being graded
to the deepest point of approximately 2 m. The flow pattern was arranged so
the wastewater flows through each of the six ponds in series with the ponds
numbered one-six in the order they receive the wastewater (Figure 5), All
wastewater entering the plant is lifted by pumping into Pond 1 where it
travels by gravity flow - drop in elevation of approximately 0.76 m (2.5 ft.)
- to the surface discharge from Pond 6.
By utilizing the existing piping system, the water flows into each of
the ponds at the midpoint of one levee and out an adjacent side. To prevent
short-circuiting and provide maximum retention time, baffles were constructed
diagonally, three-quarters of the distance across each of the ponds. The
influent flow rate of 1,711 nr/day (0.45 MDG) allows for a residence time for
the water in the entire six pond system of 72 days. The individual ponds are
approximately equal in size (range from 1,55-1.8 ha) with a retention time of
about 12 days per pond. Four recording flow meters have been installed
across the six ponds. One is placed in a six inch Parshall Flume measuring
influent, two are placed at the outfall of Ponds 2 and 4, and the last at the
end of the system recording effluent flow.
All wastewater flows directly into Pond 1 and then serially through the
remaining ponds. Ponds 1 and 2 serve as stabilization and plankton culture
ponds and were not stocked with fish. The remaining four ponds were stocked
with fish as follows:
Pond 3 (1.55 ha) - 20,270 silver carp (41 g each)
4,103 bignead carp (32 g each}
Pond 4 (1.8 ha) - 12,198 silver carp (41 g each}
2,052 bighead carp (32 g each)
Pond 5 {1.67 ha) - 12,070 silver carp (41 g each}
2,052 bighead carp (32 g each)
Pond 6 {1.56 ha) - 8,100 silver carp (41 g each)
600 bighead carp (32 g each)
600 channel catfish (300 g each)
100 buffalofish {1.6 kg each)
40 grass carp (0,5 leg each)
9
-------
FIGURE 5, FLOW PATTERN THROUGH PONDS; PONDS 3, 4, 5, AMD 6 STOCKED WITH
FISH
Irtf luertt
POIMD 6
1.56 ha
I
l
V
POND 5
1.67 ha
m
i
i_
Effluent
10
-------
MATERIALS AND METHODS
WATER QUALITY
During the full two year sampling period for this study, one liter grab
samples were taken from the effluent of each of the six ponds. During 1979,
samples were taken weekly and in 1980 sampling was done monthly. All
sampling was done between 6:00 a.m. and noon. All sampling and testing was
done according to APHA Standard Methods. Water quality analysis was
performed by the Arkansas State Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
at their lab in Little Rock. Parameters measured during the project were:
Recording flow meters were installed at the influent of the plant and at the
outfall of Ponds 2, 4, and 6 for flow data and loading rate calculations,
OTHER CONTAMINANTS
Toxic Substances
Due to the need to utilize the fish produced in this treatment system to
provide economic return as well as to maintain an expanding population for
optimum treatment efficiency, those contaminants considered most likely to be
present were monitored. APHA Standard Methods were used for all testing.
Samples were taken of both water and fish flesh and delivered to American
Interplex, an independent testing laboratory, and analyzed for:
Air Temperature
Water Temperature
Carbon Dioxide
Dissolved Oxygen
B0D5
Turbidity
Amonia
Nitrite - Nitrogen
Nitrate - Nitrogen
pH
Total Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Fecal Coliform
Plankton Enumeration
Pesticide Scan
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Mirex
DDT (and derivlties)
Toxaphene
Kepone
PCB
Metal Scan
Lead
Copper
Cadmium
Mercury
Arsenic
11
-------
Biological Contaminants
Bacteriology, Samples of fish gut and skin were blended in a Stomacher
400 (Dynatech Laboratores. Inc.) with 10 ml of 0.1 M phosphate-buffered
saline (PBS) per gram of fish tissue. Initially, samples of fish muscle were
processed, but due to the low levels of bacteria in the flesh, later samples
were blended in only 5 ml of PBS per gram of flesh.
Water samples were tested for fecal coliforras and fecal streptococci
using the membrane filter technique. Sediment samples were mixed with 0,01 M
PBS for 5 min and immediately assayed for fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci,
and salmonella spp. using multiple tube techniques, Dulcitol selenite broth
was used for initial enrichment of salmonella followed by streaking on
brilliant green agar arid identification by biochemical and serological tests.
Lactose broth was used as the initial enrichment medium for fecal
coliforms. Cultures showing gas production within 48 hours were transferred to
EC broth and incubated at 44,5°C, Gas production in EC broth within 24 hours
was considered a positive test for fecal coliforms.
Azide dextrose broth was used to enrich for fecal streptococci. Inocula
from tubes showing turbidity within 48 hours were streaked onto PSE agar plates.
Formation of black colonies indicative of escul in hydrolysis was interpreted
as a positive test for fecal streptococci.
Virology, Samples of fish flesh, skin, or guts were blended in 0.05 M
glycine, pH 9.5, using a stomacher. Each 100 ml of homogenate was mixed with
10 ml of a 1% solution of Cat-Floe and centrifuged at 2,500 rpm for 30 min to
clarify the suspension. The supernatant was decanted into a dialysis bag and
hydroextracted overnight at 4 C. The contents of the dialysis bag were
resusper.ded in 3% beef extract, pH 10.
All concentrates were clarified by centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 30
minutes and by filtration through positively charged (Zeta-plus type SOS)
filters. They were then treated with antibiotics prior to assay.
Samples were inoculated onto monolayers of buffalo green monkey kidney
(BGM) cells in 75 cm^ tissue culture flasks. After a 1.5 hour adsorption
period, the sample was withdrawn and saved, and the bottle was rinsed with
PBS to reduce cytotoxicity. An agar overlay containing neutral red was
applied and the bottles were incubated at 37 C. Plaques that appeared on the
monolayer were picked and inoculated into l-oz BGM tissue culture bottles to
confirm them as viral.
Twenty-liter samples of pond water were collected in a stainless steel
pressure vessel. The samples were prefiltered, if necessary, through a 142-um
diameter 3,0-micro nominal pore size fiberglass (FiIterite) filter. The
sample was adjusted to pH 3.5 with 1 N H.CI, arid A1C1 was added to a final
concentration of 0.005 H. The sample was then filtered throuqh a 3.0 to
12
-------
0,45-micro Filterite series. Both filter and prefliter were eluted with 50 ml
of 3% beef extract at pH 10. This elute was concentrated to a final volume
of 8-12 ml by hydroextraction.
Sediment samples were mixed with 300 ml of 3% beef extract for each 100 g
of sediment. This mixture was centrifuged at 1 ,500 rpm for 10 minutes. The
supernatant was adjusted to pH 3.5 with 1 M glycine, pH 1.5. The floe that
formed was sedimented by centrifugation and the sediinented material was eluted
with Q. 05 M glycine at pH 9.5.
13
-------
WATER QUALITY
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The wastewater entering the plant had an average BOD5 of 251,4 mg/1 and
a suspended solids concentration averaging 97 mg/1, The loading rate for the
initial pond was 234.5 kg/ha/day of BOD5 and 78.3 kg/ha/day of TSS. When this
loading rate is applied to the total surface area of all six ponds, the load
rate for the entire facility is 42,06 kg/ha/day of BOO and 14.2 kg/ha/day of
TSS, During the two year project period, the system has reduced the BOD5 by
96.01% and the TSS by 78.222. Also, the effluent has been within the criteria
established for secondary wastewater treatment and many parameters were at
levels associated with advanced secondary treatment, ft complete listing of
effluent quality is presented In tabular and graphic form in Appendix I.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
With the exception of the metals, copper and mercury, all samples have
contained less than the standard detection limits or have been negative. In
no instance has any sample contained the listed contaminants at levels above
action guidelines established by the FDA or the Arkansas Department of Health
(Appendix II).
BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
With either direct or indirect human consumption being the ultimate use
of the fish, special consideration was given to human health hazards by a
more intense sampling for pathogenic bacteria and viruses as well as the
typically used indicator organisms. During the first year of the study,
samples of both water and fish flesh were screened by American Interplex for
salmonella, shigella, staphylococcus, edwarcsiella, and clostidium. None of
the true human pathogens were detected. This first year sampling program was
considered limited and the methods used were suspect. ' During 1980, the
sampling was expanded to include enteric viruses as well as bacteria and
samples of individual tissue types from the fish along with water and sediment
samples. This work was contracted to the Baylor University College of
Medicine and performed by Thoraas Hejkal.
Viruses and pathogenic bacteria which are present in domestic sewage
present a potential health hazard to consumers of organisms grown in
wastewater ponds. Vaughn and Rytber conducted studies in a model aquaeulture
system which used treated sewage as a nutrient supplement for primary
production and found enhancement of bacteriophage survival by growing algae.
Laboratory studies have shown that viruses may be accumulated by bottom-feeding
14
-------
fish which eat contarninated worms. Recent studies have been conducted by
Buras which indicate that fish grown in ponds containing wastewater accumulate
fecal bacteria and that above a threshold concentration of about 10*
bacteria/ml detectable levels of bacteria penetrate into the muscle tissue.
Knowledge of the levels of bacteria and viruses which accumulate in fish
grown in wastewater ponds and the relationship to levels in wastewater, pond
tvater, or sediment is necessary to evaluate the public health risk.
Therefore, studies were performed to determine the levels of bacteria and
viruses in the water, sediment, and fish in the Benton lagoon treatment
system. , .. .
Appendix III, Figure 1 illustrates the decrease in concentration of
bacteria in water going from the influent to Pond 6, There was a total
decrease of at least 2.5 logiq (99.71) for fecal coliforms {FC) and a total
decrease of 2,3 log^Q {99.5%J for fecal streptococci (FS), based on the
average concentration in each pond. The decrease was not substantially
different from pond to pond. There was an average 2,6-fold decrease per
pond for FC and an average 2.4-fold decrease per pond for FS.
Bacterial concentrations in the sediments followed a different pattern
than in the overlying waters (Appendix III, Figure 2). There was a
substantial decrease in FC from Pond 2 sediments to Pond 6 sediments. A
cumulative decrease of 2.7 logjj was observed for FC. This represents an
average 4,7-fold decrease per pond for FC in the sediments of the last four
ponds.
The concentration of FS in the pond sediments decreased by only 0,4 login
from Pond 2 to Pond 6. The decrease of FS in the sediments from pond to pond
was substantially less than the decrease of FS in the water.
The concentrations of FC and FS in the fish guts were on the averagp
greater than in the surrounding water and sediment (Appendix III, Table 1;
Figures 1 and 2). Mean concentrations of FC and FS on the fish skin were
lower than in the gut. Mean concentrations of both FC and FS in the gut were
correlated with concentrations of FS on the skin with r = 0.607 and 0.825,
respectively. There was an average 1.5-fold decrease in the levels of FC and
FS in the fish from Pond 4 to Pond 6 (p< 0.14).
The concentrations of FC in the gut and of FS in the gut and skin were
correlated with the concentration of FS in the water (Appendix III, Table 2),
Concentrations of FC in the water and sediment and FS in the sediment were
not significantly correlated with bacterial levels in the fish. Concentrations
in the three types of fish tissue were generally correlated with each other as
were concentrations of FC correlated with concentrations of FS in most types
of samples (correlation coefficients not shown).
Appendix 111, Table 3 shows the levels of bacteria which were detected in
the fish flesh. Two methods were used for sampling the fish muscle. The
samples in August and September were taken by a normal fillet procedure using
a decontaminated fillet knife. Samples taken during these two months yielded
15
-------
sporadically high levels of FC and FS in the muscle tissue, probably due to
contamination by bacteria from the fish skin. Beginning in October all
muscle samples were taken aseptically to avoid contamination from the skin.
Three of nine samples of muscle ti-ssue obtained from October through December
were positive for either FC or FS at low levels. Complete bacteriological
data are tabulated in the Appendix.
Salmonella spp. was detected in 2 of 4 influent samples at levels of 0.4
and 2.3 MPN {most probable number)/100 ml using dulcitol selenite enrichment.
Salmonella spp. was also isolated from a single water sample from Pond 2 in
December. No salmonella was isolated from any of the other pond water,
sediment, or fish samples.
Six of the 90 samples tested for enteric viruses yielded at least 1 PFU
(plaque-forming unit) on the BGM monolayers (Appendix III, Table 4}. Three
of five influent samples were positive at low levels. Only a portion of each
influent sample was tested for virus because of the necessity of dilution to
reduce toxicity of these concentrates. The concentrations based on the
number of plaques counted ranged from 7.5 to 20 PFU/1iter.
Two of 15 sediment samples and one water sample from Pond 2 also yielded
1-2 PFU per sample of 500 g or 20 liters.
A single PFU has detected in the water concentrate from Pond 2 in
December. All other pond water samples were negative for virus. No viruses
were detected in any of the 45 fish samples processed.
Attempts were made to isolate and identify the virus from each plaque.
The plaques recorded in Appendix III, Table 4 produced CPE when inoculated
onto BGM monolayers under liquid overlay. However, attempts at additional
passages and identification were unsuccessful. Thus, although the original
plaques were virus-like, it is possible that they were caused by nonviral
agents.
The sewage entering the Benton fish ponds was atypical from a
virological standpoint. The levels of virus in the sewage were much lower
than would be expected for untreated sewage from a larger and more diverse
community. For example, concentrations in raw sewage from treatment plants in
St. Petersburg, Florida, averaged 90 PFU/1iter and a- larger treatment
plant in Tampa, Florida,, concentrations of over 2,000 PFU/1iter were found.
The sewage entering the Benton ponds had an average concentration of < 3
PFU/1iter for the 5 samples tested.
The low levels of virus in the sewage in this study can be attributed to
the population from which the sewage is derived. The population consists of
approximately 1,000 persons residing full-time at the Benton Services Center
with an additional 1,000 full-time employees. Infants and young children
contribute most of the enteric virus to the wastewater of any given
community, since they are the most susceptible age group to infection by these
viruses. The lack of infants and young children in the population at the
Benton Services Center explains the low levels of enteric viruses in the
16
f
-------
sewage from the center. Additionally, half of the population contributing to
the waste load are enployees who do not live at the Center, These persons
would be less likely to come to work if they had an enteric viral infection
and therefore would not be likely to contribute to the viral contamination of
the wastewater.
Because of the low levels of virus found in the influent, the results
cannot be extrapolated to make conclusions or predictions about the survival
and transport of viruses in other fish pond systems that may have a much
higher input of viruses. The lack of virus isolates from the fish and pond
water in this study does not preclude the possibility of viruses surviving in
the fish ponds and being accumulated by the fish if the initial levels of
virus were higher. In fact, since relatively high levels of FC and FS were
found in the ponds and fish, it is likely that viruses would also be present
if the input rate were higher, since viruses generally survive inactivation
processes better than do indicator bacteria.
There was little decrease in FS levels in the sediments going from Pond
2 to Pond 8. This is in contrast to the consistent decline in FC in sediment
and both FC and FS in pond water. This could be due to extended survival or
growth of FS in the sediments.
The levels of bacteria in the fish did not decrease substantially from
Pond 4 to Pond 6. The concentrations of bacteria in the gut were highly
correlated with the concentrations on the skin and showed some correlation
with the levels of bacteria in the water. However, the results did not
support the use of water or sediment bacterial levels as good predictors of
bacterial levels in the fish. These results indicate that if indicator
bacteria,, and presumably pathogens, are present in the water column the silver
carp and bighead carp are capable of accumulating them in their digestive
tract at levels as high or higher than the levels in the water.
Since the muscle tissue is the critical portion of the fish if It is to
be used for human consumption, bacterial levels in the fish muscle ware a
major concern. Even when levels of bacteria exceeded 1CP/10Q g in the fish
guts, very little penetrated into the fish muscle tissue. However, when the
muscle tissue was sampled using normal filet procedures, contamination of the
muscle occurred in 8 of 12 samples. The conclusion is that while the fish do
not accumulate bacteria in the muscle tissue, contamination of the muscle
tissue during processing is difficult to avoid.
Aquaculture-wastewater treatment systems are potentially valuable
alternatives to conventional sewage treatment plants. This study shows that
while concentrations of indicator microorganisms are reduced by as much as
99.7% they are not eliminated by the fish ponds. Significantly, neither do
conventional activated sludge or trickling filter processes eliminate
indicator organisms or pathogens. It is clear that fish or other organisms
raised in wastewater have a high probability of becoming contaminated with
bacteria and viruses and appropriate cautions need to be taken when these
organisms are harvested and utilized for human or animal consumption.
17
-------
However, the public health risk from a microbiological viewpoint may be no
greater under these carefully controlled conditions than the risk from the
uncontrolled harvesting of fish from waters that are contaminated by
effluents from conventional sewage treatment plants.
FISH PRODUCTION
To monitor the growth rate of the fish within the system, monthly samples
were taken throughout the growing season and individual fish weighed, measured,
and returned to the pond. It was difficult to obtain adequate samples of
species other than the silver carp due to relatively low stocking densities
and the inefficiency of sampling techniques in the 1.5-1.8 hectare ponds.
Ice cover and inactivity of all species also hindered sampling during winter
months. As a result, some growth rate projections were made to fill in gaps
in the actual sampling data. . . ...
Ponds 1 and 2 were considered to be plankton culture ponds necessary to
accept the initial stock of the BOD loads arid stabilize dissolved oxygen
levels. Fish were stocked in Ponds 3, 4, 5, and 6, Other than the initial
regrading of the pond bottoms to facilitate harvesting, no supplemental
aeration or fresh water was provided to any of the fish ponds. All were left
in series accepting the full flow volume and waste load as it passed through
the plant. As long as the entire system functioned normally, all four of the
fish ponds maintained adequate water quality for survival and growth.
As would be expected, the serial arrangement of the ponds provided
increasingly better water quality in each successive pond. Pond 3 was
extremely fertile with a heavy plankton bloom and typically minimum dissolved
oxygen levels. Pond 4 exhibited wide fluctuations in DO levels and other
water quality parameters began to stabilize. Ponds 5 and 6 remained in near
optimum conditions for pond fish culture throughout the project period.
In May of 1980 after the system had been operational for 14 years, a
delivery line collapsed necessitating the flow of the total raw waste load
directly into Pond 2 until repairs could be made. In the six weeks required
for these repairs, the already marginal water quality in Pond 3 deterioriatad
until a total oxygen depletion and fish kill oh July 1» 1380. Recovery of the
fish from Pond 3 after the kill showed that the original stocking biomass of
374,8 kg/ha had increased to 7,165.1 kg/ha in the 18 months the fish had been
in the pond. One unexplained occurrence in Pond 3 was the appearance of a
fleshy growth around the mouth of the fish during the prolonged periods of
stress that were prevalent just before the kill. No causative agent for this
abnormality has been identified either from a specific disease organism or
related uniquely to this species of Chinese carp. Similar growths on
bullheads grown in sewage plant effluent have been reported.
Pond 4 was intermediate in water quality between Pond 3 and Ponds 5 and
6. Though there were wide fluctuations, the fish were never in real danger
since all critically low oxygen levels were of the transient early morning
18
-------
type. The plant breakdown and resulting short-circuiting of the water also
had a visual impact on Pond 4, The period of decreased retention time greatly
added to the fertility in Pond 4, In essence, Pond 4 became Pond 3 during
that period of time. The diminished water quality coupled with extremely hot,
dry late summer weather and a period of cloudy days resulted in a major fish
kill occurring in this pond on September 4, 1980, A total of 7,691,3 kg/ha of
silver carp were removed from Pond 4 as a result of this kill. This is a
considerable production in the 21 months since initial stocking with 40.6
kg/ha, A negligible few hundred pounds of surviving fish were harvested from
Pond 4 at the time the entire project was terminated in January, 1981.
Ponds 5 and 6 were the only ones with all the fish surviving the full 24
month project period. Water quality remained good and no problems with the
survival and growth of the fish were noted. In January of 1981, all ponds
were drained and totally harvested. Pond 5 production amounted to 7,634,4
kg/ha of silver carp and 1,510.4 kg/ha of bighead carp. Pond 6, with the
lower stocking rate and nutrient load, contained 4,454.7 kg/ha of silver carp
and 589 kg/ha of bighead carp. Including all species of fish stocked in
Pond 6 to utilize the variety of food types available, a total of 6,303.1
kg/ha were'harvested. Stocking, and harvest data for all species and all ponds
is listed in Appendix IV.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
This type finfish wastewater treatment system has shown the capability
of upgrading the effluent of conventionally designed and operated lagoon
treatment plants. However, the level of treatment is somewhat limited
compared with other types of advanced treatment systems. Only when the fisn
produced from recycling the waste can be utilized, can the true advantages of
this method of treatment be realized. If a true profit or even supplemental
income to offset treatment costs can be generated, the production of fish
becomes a more attractive treatment method or a viable addition to more
advanced treatment practices.
According to EPA Report 600/2-76-293 entitled Economic Assessment of
Wastewater Aquaculture Treatment Systems by Upton Henderson and Frank Wort,
only when finfish aquaculture was not capable of meeting water quality
objectives was it deemed not to be cost effective when compared to
conventional systems. The report went further to state that aquaculture
wastewater treatment alternatives appear to be economically attractive
regardless of the market for products provided water quality goals are met.
Although there are several possibilities and likely many useful fishery
products yet to be developed, it appears that the long and the short of the
present market lies with the sale of these fish products as a food item or by
processing it into fish meal for use as a fertilizer or animal feed
supplement. It should be understood that in present day fresh water pond
aquaculture the greatest overhead costs are land, feed, fertilizer, and water.
By utilizing this syste-nof wastewater aquaculture, these costs would be bor>:2
19
-------
by the primary function of water treatment. By accepting this and making some
other rather basic assumptions within the framework of present markets, some
rather cursory economic projections can be made.
Silver and bighead carp from a preliminary hatchery study were rendered
into fish meal which assayed at a crude protein content of a minimum 55-57S,
This is compared to 62% crude protein for Menhaden meal considered the best
product now available. Oil and fat content were not considered. There was an
estimated 181 return of meal from fresh fish by weight. Current market prices
for pure fish meal, FOB little Rock, vary from $400-500 per ton in bulk
quantities depending on season and harvest source. Based on a price of 7-9
cents per kg (3-4 cents per lb.) for live fish and an annual production rate of
approximately 5,000 kg/ha as demonstrated in this study, a gross return of
$350-$450 per ha/yr could be realized by processing the fish in this way.
If, on the other hand, human health considerations could be mollified and
the product sold for direct human consumption the economic picture could he
quite different. Hatchery reared silver and bighead carp have been tested
organoleptics!ly for two different methods of preparation. As a fresh fish
fillet product, the silver carp has a white, lightly oily meat that is
excellent in a variety of preparations with the subjective taste test
yielding comments ranging from excellent flavor to barely acceptable.
However, the problem is boniness. The silver carp has many small floating
bones that do not increase in size proportionately as the fish grows. This is
a major problem for American tastes even with larger sized fish.
In an effort to overcome the boniness problem, Dr. Dale Ammerman, a
marketing specialist with Mississippi State University, is conducting a
nationwide marketing and acceptance survey with a canned silver carp product
similar to salmon or tuna. The canning process makes the small bones V
unnoticeable and the heat involved could overcome some of the health effects
problems. The survey is presently in progress and preliminary results are
promising. With a 30% return to date, 67% of those responding have rated the
flavor in the satisfactory-excellent range, color was rated satisfactory by
653, and appearance and texture was considered too soft by 601. The problem
with texture is thought to be a processing and packaging problem that could be
solved rather easily. A somewhat surprising result of the survey is that
almost 60S of those participating have indicated they would purchase the
canned product at prices higher than $2,00 per pound, some as high as $3.00
per pound can.
If the fish were marketed in either manner {fresh or canned), a
conservative in the round price of 55-65 cents per kg would be reasonable.
The gross amount return based on these assumptions and the demonstrated
production potential would be $2,750-$3,250 per ha per year. Whatever the
market, any income realized would certainly be welcomed to offset treatment
costs.
20
-------
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
In general, the factors involved in the selection, design, and
construction of a firtfish wastewater treatment system are tne same as those
historically used for conventional aerobic lagoon treatment plants. Prime
consideration should be given to climate, availability of land area, and the
treatment level desired or necessary. The results of this study have shown
that the addition of controlled stocking of certain species and numbers of
fish can increase the efficiency of lagoon treatment. Therefore, in
instances where conventional lagoon design criteria indicate the system would
be marginal either due to space or treatment level, the incorporation of
finfish into the design could make this the method of choice.
Since the fish must survive to do the job, the most obvious criteria is
that the wastewater contain no contaminants lethal to the organism. This
could limit use to specific circumstances or, more likely, require in-nouse
removal of these substances prior to treatment. Because of the flexibility
needed to insure proper operation, a finfish treatment system requires a
multiple lagoon design with generally a serial flow pattern. The initial
impact of the BOD load from raw wastewater must be lessened by some method
prior to entering the pond containing fish. Short-term peaks in loading rate
are no major problem but generally the concentration of BOQ5 entering the
first pond containing fish should be no more than 50 ppm annual average.
There must be the capability of draining each pond individually for
maintenance and harvest of the fish while allowing continued operation of
the plant. Typical pond construction is applicable with the probable need
for a more carefully graded bottom with a catch basin to facilitate harvest
of the fish. Little effect on water quality is seen until the standing crop
of fish reaches 1,000 kg/ha. Also, larger numbers of smaller, younger fish
..are more efficient than fewer larger fish even though biomass may be the same.
A method of harvest and replacement of the fish should be established to
maintain a total standing crop between 1,000-5,000 kg/ha at all times and
have a high percentage of small growing fish. Harvest and restocking should
be done annually to provide maximum fish production or should be done at •
least every three years to prevent decreased water treatment capability.
Plant maintenance and operation would be essentially the same as
conventional lagoon treatment systems. Proper management would certainly
increase treatment efficiency, but with fish present, the system still
maintains the favorable characteristic of having low technology and manpower
needs to function suitably. If the plant is not adequately sized or fish
production is of prime concern, then closer supervision would be required.
As with any other system, if it is operated at full capacity in a stressed
situation, closer management is needed.
There is nothing magical about a finfish -system. All the uncontrollable
variables of any biological treatment system are still in effect and must be
considered. Aquaculture technology and the stabilizing influence of the fish
on the phytoplankton populations in nutrient rich ponds actually adds another
21
-------
method of control, not another factor to increase the variability. The
ultimate criteria is the usefulness of the fish product resulting from this
treatment process. As long as water treatment remains the primary concern,
the design considerations are mostly the same as conventional lagoon plants.
As the utilization of the fishery products resulting from recycling the
nutrients becomes more important, then many other factors affecting
construction and operation must be considered.
(
22
{
-------
*
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, George H. arid Larry Dennis. Report on Pilot Aquaculture System Using
Domestic Wastewaters for Rearing Pacific Salmon Smolts. In:
Wastewater Use in the Production of Food and Fiber - Proceedings, EPA
Tecnnology Series",' £PA-660/2-74-041, pp 162-198, 1974.
Buras, N. Final Report IDRC Project, Israel, 1380.
Buck, D, H.» R. J, 8aur, and C. R. Rose. Experiments in the Recycling of
1 Swine Manure Using a Polyculture of Asian and North American Fishes.
In: Agriculture and Energy, New York, Academic Press, Inc., 1377.
Chiang, Han, Studies on Feeding and Protein DigestabU ity of Silver Carp.
Joint Commission of Rural Reconstruction. Fisheries Series No. II,
1970.
Coleman, Mark S., J. P. Henderson, H. G. Chichester, and R. L. Carpenter.
Aquaculture as a Means to Achieve Effluent Standards. In: Wastewater
Use in the Production of Food and Fiber - Proceedings, EPA Technology
"Series, EPA-660/2-74-G4T7 pp. 199-212, 1974.
( Davis, N. E. "Stabilization Ponds." Chapter 16, Manual of Wastewater
Operations, Texas Water Utilities Association. 1971.
Enswiler, B. S., C. J. Pierson, and A. H. Kotula, Stomaching vs. Blending,
Food Technology 31:40-42, 1977.
Farrah, S. R., C. P. Gerba, C. Wall is, and J. L. Mel nick. Concentration of
Viruses from Large Volumes of Tap Water Using Pleated Membrane filters,
Appl. Environ. Microbiol, 31:221-226, 1376.
Hejkal, T. W., F. M. Wellings, A. L. Lewis, and P. A. Larock. 1381.
Distribution of Viruses Associated with Particles in Wastewater, Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 41:628-634.
Henderson, S. Utilization of Silver and Bighead Carp for Water Quality
Improvement, Proceedings of Symposium on Aquaculture for Wastewater
Treatment, EPA^4To?9-80-OO6, pp. 309-350, 1979. ~~
Henderson S. An Evaluation of the filter Feeding fishes, Silver and Bighead
Carp, for Water Quality Improvement. In: R, 0, Srr.itherman, L, She!ton,
John Grover, Eds. Culture of Exotic Fishes Symposium - proceedings.
Fish Culture Section, AFS, pp. 121-136, 1973.
(
23
-------
Katzenelson, E., B, Fattal» and T. Hostovesky. 1976. Organic F1occulation:
An Efficient Second-Step Concentration Method for the Detection of
Viruses in Tap Water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 32:633-739.
Kogan, A, V. The Daily Food Consumption and Feeding Pattern of the Bream in
Tsimlyansk Reservoir. Voprosy Ikhtiologii, Volume 3, No. 2, 1963.
Krupauer, V. The Use of Herbivorous Fishes for Ameliorative Purposes in
Central and Eastern Europe. Proc. European Heed Res. Corm., 3rd
International Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, 1971.
Lin, S. Y. Biological Control of Eutrophication in Sewage Lagoons. Project
Proposal Submitted to City of Lonoke, AR., 1973.
Ludwig, et al. "Algae Symbioses in Oxidation Ponds." Sewage and Industrial
Waters, 23, 11. 1951.
McHarg, Ian L. "Biological Alternatives to Water Pollution." Chapter I,
Biological Control of Water Pollution. 1376.
Metcalf, T. G. 1975. Final Report, GI 38976: RANN Program, National Science
Foundation.
Omarov, M. 0. The Daily Food Consumption of the Silver Carp. Journal of
Ichthyology, Vol. 10 (3), 1970.
Opuszynski, K. Carp Polyculture With Plant Feeding Fish. Bulletin
De l" Acadamie Polonaise Des Sciences, Vol. XVI No. II, 1968.
Patrick, Ruth. "Overview of Aquatic Ecosystems." Chapter 6, Biological
Control of Water Pollution. 1976.
Ramani, Roy. "Design Criteria for Polishing Ponds." pp. 159-170, Ponds as a
Wastewater Treatment Alternative^ Water Resources Symposium No. 9, 1978.
Ryther, J. H. "Aquaculture in China." Qceanus, 22, 1979.
Ryther, J. H. Waste Recycling in Warm Water Aquaculture in the United States.
Proceedings of Symposium on Aquaculture in Wastewater, Pretoria, S. ..
Africa, 1980. In press.
Scarpino, P. V., G. Berg, S. L. Chang, D. Dahling, and M. Lucas. 1972. A
Comparative Study of the Inactivation of Viruses in Water by Chlorine.
Mater Res. 6:959-965.
Shuval, H. I., A. Thompsons B. Fattal, S. Cymbalista, and Y. Wiener. 1971.
natural Virus Inactivation Processes in Seawater, pp. 429-452. Proc.
Natl. Specialty Conf. Disinfection. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., New York, N.Y.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th ed. 1975.
American Public Health Association, Inc., New York.
24
-------
Vaughn, J. M. and J. H. Rytner. 1974. Bacteriophage Survival Patterns in a
Teritiary Sewage Treatment-Aquaculture Model System. Aquaculture
4:399-406,
Walker, William R. and E. Cox. Legal Constraints on the Use of Wastewater
for the Production of Food and Fiber. In: Wastewater Use in the
Production of Food and Fiber - Proceedings, EPA Technology Series,
EPA-66G/2-74-Q41, pp. 330-343, 1974,
Wolverton, B. C. and R. C. McDonald. Water Hyacinths for Upgrading Sewage
Lagoons to Meet Advanced Wastewater Standards, NASA Technical Memorandum
TM-X-72729, Washington, D.C., 1976.
25
-------
APPENDIX I
WATER QUALITY
Parameters Monitored
Water Temperature
Air Temperature
Turbidity
Dissolved Oxygen
BOD5
pH
C02
Total Suspended Solids
ICC
N-NOo
P04
Fecal Coll form
Plankton
Units Reported
P"
F°
FTU
mg/1
mg/I
standard units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
No,/]00 ml
Total No,/I
28
-------
APPENDIX I
TABLE 1. STRENGTH OF RAM WASTEWATER ENTERING THE TREATMENT PLANT RECORDED
AS THE MEAN VALUE FOR THE PROJECT PERIOD,
Parameter Mean Value
BOO 5 251.35
Total Suspended Solids 97,11
Turbidity 31.0
pH 6,46
NH3-NH4 24,24
Phos-Total 22,5
APPEfffilX I
TABLE 2, STRENGTH OF INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT FOR POND NO. 1 RECORDED AS THE
MEAN VALUE FOR THE PROJECT PERIOD.
Parameter
Influent
Effluent
H2O Temp
61.593
Air Temp
57,285
Turbidity
31.0
39,862
00
2.077
BOD5
251.348
62.646
PH
6.465
7,596
C02
33.877
TSS
97.111
80.800
NH3-NH4
24.24
6,221
N02
0.020
NO3
0.018
PO4
22,5
3.919
Fee. Col
26663? „
Plankton
3.8x10s
% inc./dec. % inc./dec.
Through Pond Through System
28.58
Same
-75.07
Same
17.49
Same
-16.796
Same
-74.33
Same
-82.58
Same
27
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLE 3, STRENGTH OF INFLUENT AMD EFFLUENT FOR POND NO. 2 RECORDED AS THE
MEAN VALUE FOR THE PROJECT PERIOD,
% Inc./dec.
% irtc./dec.
Parameter
Irifl oent
Effluent
Throuqh Pond
Throuqh System
H20 Temp
61.593
61.206
-0,82
Air Temp
57.285
58.410
1.96
Turbidity
39,852
22.352
-43,92
-27.89
DO
2.07?
2.618
26.04
8OD5
62.646
30.570
-51.2
-87.8
PH
7.536
7.951
4.67
C02
33.877
20.376
-39,85
TSS
80.800
46.940
-41.9
-51.66
N.H 3-NH4
6,221
4.956
-20.33
-79.55
M02
0.020
0.048
140'.
NQ3
0.018
0.026
44,44
PO4
3.319
2,954
-24,6
-86.8
Fee. Col
266697 n
3.8x10
15414.2 q
2.36x10
-94.22
Plankton
-37.83
APPENDIX I
TABLE 4, STRENGTH OF INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT FOR POND NO. 3 RECORDED AS MEAN
VALUE FOR THE PROJECT PERIOD,
% inc./dec.
¥ inc./dec.
Parameter
Influent
Effl uertt
Throuqh Pond
Throuqh System
HjO Temp
61.206
61.706
0.81
Air Temp
58.410
57.351
-1,8
Turbidity
22.352
16,078
-28.05
-48.13
DO
2.618
8.874
139.17
BOP5
30.570
24.135
-21.05
-90.39
r»H
7,951
8.367
5.23
23.41
LU2
20.375
9.102
-55.32
TSS
46.940
47.050
0.23
-51.5
NH3-NH4
4.356
3.215
-35.12
-86.73
N02
0.048
0.071
47,3
NO3
0.026
0.071
173,07
P04
2.354
2.572
-12.93
-88.56
Fee. Col
15414.78 p
2.36x10
1514.78 a
3,5x10
-90.17
PI ankton
48,30
28
-------
APPENDIX I
TABLE 5. STRENGTH OF INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT FOR POND NO. 4 RECORDED AS MEAN
VALUE FOR TOE PROJECT PERIOD.
Parameter
Influent
Effluent
% inc./dec.
Through Pond
% Inc./dec.
Through System
HjjO Temp
Air Temp
Turbidity
DO
BOD5
pH
C02
TSS
NH3-NH4
no2
no3
P04
Fee, Col
Plankton
81.706
57.351
18,078
6.874
24.135
8.367
9.102
47,050
3,215
0.071
0.071
2.572
1514.78 _
3.5x10
61.741
57,909
12.138
5.678
14.810
8.185
9.469
25.440
2.422
0.172
0.138
2.331
509.102 0
1.3x10s
0.05
. 0,97
-24.5
-17.39
-38.63
-2.17
4.03
-45.92
-24.66
142.25
94.36
-9.37
-66.39
-82,85
-60.84
-94,10
26.6
-73.8
-90.01
-89.64
APPENDIX I
TABLE 6. STRENGTH OF INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT FOR POND NO. 5 RECORDED AS MEAN
VALUE FOR THE PROJECT PERIOD.
Parameter
Influent
Effl uent
% Inc./dec.
Through Pond
% inc./dec.
Through System
HgO Temp
Air Temp
Turbidity
DO
BODc
PH
co?
TSS
NHrNHa
no;
NQo
P04
Fee. Col
Plankton
61.741
57.909
12.138
5.678
14.810
8.185
9.469
25.440
2.422
0.172
0.138
2.331
509.102
1.3x10
8
62.137
58.321
8.333
8.915
10.754
8.185
6.693
21.182
1.125
0.076
0.381
1,980
52.283 .
1.25x10
0,64
0.71
-31.34
21.78
-27.38
0
-29,31
-16.85
-53.55
-55,8
176
-15.05
-89.73
- 3.84
-73.11
-35.72
26.60
-78,22
-95.35
-91.2
29
-------
APPENDIX I
TABLE 7, STRENGTH OF INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT FOR POND NO, 6 RECORDED AS MEAN
VALUE OF THE PROJECT PERIOD.
Influent
Effluent*
% inc./dec.
Through Pond
% Inc./dec
Through 5y
62,137
61.965
-0,27
58,321
58.163
-0.27
8.333
8,375
0,54
-72.98
6,915
7.435
7.52
10,754
10.027
-6.76
-96.01
8.185
8,270
1.03
27,91
6.693
8,734
0.61
21.152
20,559
-2,30
-78.82
1.125
1.251
11,2
-94.83
0.076
0.032
21.05
0,381
0.326
-14,43
1.980
1,961
-0.95
-91,28
52,283
68.474 „
30.96
1.25x10®
1.23x10s
-1.6
Parameter
HgO Temp
Air Temp
TurMdi ty
DO
BOOg
PH
CO?
TSS
HH3-NH4
NO?
N03
PO4
fee. Col
Plankton
~Final plant effluent
**% improvement of final discharge
30
-------
APPENDIX I - -- -
Figure 1, Mater Temperature vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken line
represents best fit for the two year sampling period.
fey
T.
X
<
ll.
0.
r
UJ
<
3:
O
O
o
o
eo
:J7ri
LSM-
- J
J 1 r 1 '1 1 A ' H 1 J ' J ' \ ' S
SAHPL f DAIF
START I Nf. OATF 78'I 2/6
-------
APPENDIX I : ...
figure 2. Air temperature vs. time-for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken line
represents best fit for the two .yuar saropl 1r>o period.
$
X
<
Q
71
<
fg
o
o
o
J-1-J I
UiiiJL
START I Mf. OA 1 f ?S/12/b
SAMPL F DAIf
-------
APPENDIX I
Figure 3, Turbidity vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken line represents
best fit for the two year sampling period.
i 1 P 1 H 1 A ' M 1 J ^ ^ h
'"'TAR f 5 NO 0 A T f" 7&/I2/6
SAHPL F DAIF.
-------
APPENDIX 1
Figure 4, Dissolved oxygen vs. time Tor final effluent from Denton Services Center treatment plant. Broken line
represents best fit for the two year sampling period.
SAMPl F DA F i
STAR! 1 Nf. DATF ?S '12/6
< $
-------
APPENDIX I
figure 5. BODc vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken line represents
best fit for the two year sampling period,
I
$
liSM.
'¦ibl
/
j 1 F 1 A 1 J J 1 A
f I Nf> DAIF 78/12/6
j N D
j.. j | _j.
J 1 F M A M J J A
iAMPLP DATE
-------
APPENDIX I
figure 6. pit vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken line represents
best fit for the two year sampling period.
¦j
v/
&
\.m.,
Ue.U
\
X
a
o
O
O
O
ST ART 1 MC; OAIF. 78/12/6
j ' F ' M ' A ' M ' J 1 J ' A 1 S ' 0 ' N 1 D
SAHPl F DATE.
r|T+_!;rl~A~,"'M","j1 j"t"A~hi"hrl >rhr
H—
-------
APPENDIX 1
Figure 7. Carbon dioxide vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken line
represents best fit for the two year sampling period.
Ui L
$
o
CM
O
O
ui
o
o
o
J I J^V
-------
appendix I
Figure 8. Total suspended solids vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken
line represents best fit for the two year sampling period.
1 Qfirt
l/l
O
m
m
xs
c
m
CL
m
3
m
+*
D
80
70
60
50
H 40
30 —
20
10
J F M A M J J A S
I I i I I H I I i I I i I I | li
S 0 N D J F H • ¦ A' H J . 0 A S 0 N u
-------
APPENDIX I J.. - ""X;
Figure 9. NH3-NH4 vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant,
represents best fft for the two year sampling period.
Broken Una
Hi
X
Ct
<
I- -
o
V
X
~
r»
O
to
a
o
LZUL
& fv
A
j
M J J A ' S 0 N*
i aao
U.SftL.
./
*1 ;r+~
STARTING OAT F 78/12/6
GAMP I F DATE'.
-------
APPENDIX I -r— -- ^
i " W"*"
figure 10. N0?-N vs. tine for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken Hue
represents best fit for the two year sampling period.
CD
<
^ 5
"3L
I
<\S
Q
O
O
1MSL
J F M A M J J A S*Q N D
&JLdLJbJt» — - f<&
•=p }._
1 I r—A'—r—A -t-fc « i
\~c ¦ f m-t~t -rxn-T f- rt
J 1 f 1 M
1 1 J 1 J ' A ' S ! 0 ' M ' 0
ST ART 1 NT; DA IF 75/12/6
SAMPIF DA IF.
-------
APPENDIX I .. i " " . • *
. ^ .-v-r ^ »,, „ f. ,
Figure if.- NO3-N vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken line
¦" represents best fit for the two year sampling period.
S"art 1no
iAMPLf date:
-------
Figure 12, PO^-Total vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken line
^ represents best fit for the two year sampling period.
usi
»-
1'
H 1 h
H~ ' ~i" h
FfB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SET OC1 MOV DEC JAM FEB MAR APR HAY JUH Jul AUG SEP 3C1
5AMPLF OATf.
START ! NG OATF. 79/1 /I 7
-------
APPENDIX J
figure 13. Fecal Col I form vs. time for final effluent .from Benton Services Center treatment plant. Broken
„ line represents best fit for the two year sampling period.
Ff.O MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Sf.P OU
samplf date
STARTING DATE 79/1 /I 7
-------
APPENDIX I,.
«y * k.
Figure 14. Total plankton organism vs. time for final effluent from Benton Services Center treatment plant.
Broken line represents best fit for the two year sampling period.
^—bkH
Wziv
> SSSL
I
H — \
FFB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT MOV DEC JAN FFB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
SAMPLF DATE
STAR11NG DATE 70/1 /I 7
-------
APPENDIX II
PESTICIDES AND HEAVY METALS
Parameters Monitored
Units Reported
Aldrin
ppb
Di el dri n
ppb
Endrln
ppb
M1 rex
ppb
DOT and derivatives
' PPb
Toxaphene
ppb
Kepone
ppb
PCB
ppb
Lead
ppm
Copper
ppm
Cadmi um
ppm
Mercury
ppm
Arsenic
ppm
45
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLE 1. MEASURED LEVELS OF SELECTED PESTICIDES FROM WATER SAMPLES TAKEN AT
VARIOUS SITES IN THE SYSTEM DURING THE PROJECT PERIOD.
Sample
s - j: Date Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin Hi rex DDT Toxaphene Kepone
Influent 11-78 <1,0 <1,0 <1,0 <1,0 <1,0 <1.0 <20,0
it 3^79 11 rt 11 11 si 11 11
6-79
9-73
12-79
9-80
ii ii ii sr H it n
II 1$ II it it u is
si is ii ii it i! it
is ii if ti ii ii n
Pond 2 9-80 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <20.0
Pond 3 3-79 <1.0 <1,0 <1,0 <1.0 <1,0 <1.0 <20,0
9-79
ii n
Pond 4 3-79 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 *<1.0 ^20.0
n 6-79 H lt n 11 11 11 11
ii 12*79 " ii ii i® ii ii it
ii 3™80 11 " |f !s 11 n M
Pond 5 6-79 <1.0 <,1.0 <1.0 -<1.0 <1.0 ^1.0 <20.0
9-79
II II II II II II II
Pond 6 3-79 <1,0 <1,0 <1.0 <1.0 <1,0 <1,0 <20.0
ii 6-73 " " " " " " "
ti 12-79 " " 11 11 11 " "
3-80 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1,0 <1.0 <20,0
Detection Limit 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 20.0
46
*•
(
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLE 2. MEASURED LEVELS OF SELECTED PESTICIDES TAKEN FROM FISH FLESH
SAMPLES FROM VARIOUS SITES IN THE SYSTEM DURING THE PROJECT PERIOD.
Sample site Date Aldrln Dieldrin Endrin Mi rex DDT Toxaphene Kepone
Composite of 11-78 <0.1 <0.1 <.0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0,1 <0.1
fish prior
to stocking
Pond 3 3-79 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
6-73
9-79
it
Pond 4 12-73 <0,1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
ii 9-80 11 '* m » it u n
Pond 5 6-79 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0,1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
ii 12-79 " " " " H » ii
9-80
H
Pond 6 3-79 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
it 12-79 " " " " " 11 "
" 9-80 " " " " " " "
Detection Limit 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Acceptable Limit 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.3
for edible fish
portions
47
-------
APPENDIX 11
TABLE 3, MEASURED LEVELS Of PCB AND SELECTED METALS FROM WATER SAMPLES
TAKEN AT VARIOUS SITES IN THE SYSTEM DURING THE PROJECT PERIOD.
Sample site Date
PCB
Lead
Copper
Cadmium
Mercury
Arsenic
Influent
11-73
<1.0
<0,05
0.017
<0.002
0.001
<0.002
11
3-79
II
91
0.024
st
0.0007
11
ir
6-79
;g
;r
0.017
it
0.0006
H
y
9-79
n
0.15
0.23
M
0.0157
0.013
M
12-79
n
<0,05
0.021
II
0.0017
0.002
SI
9-80
if
II
< 0.01
S!
0.0022
II
Pond 2
9-80
<1.0
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.0005
<0.002
Pond 3
3-79
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLE 4. MEASURED LEVELS OF PCS ANO SELECTED METALS FROM FISH FLESH SAMPLES
FROM VARIOUS SITES IU THE SYSTEM DURING THE PROJECT PERIOD.
Sample site
Date
PCB
Lead
Copper
Cadmium
Mercury
Arsenic
Composite of
11-78
<0.1
0.57
0.77
0.049
0.063
<0.02
fish prior
to stocking
Pond 3
3-79
<0,1
<0.5
2.37
<0.02
0.45
<0.02
n
6-79
H
it
0.54
11
0.079
ll
¦ I
9-79
IS
0.60
ss
0.64
M
Pond 4
12-79
<0.1
1.7
30.0
<0.02
0,099
^0.02
li
9-30
II
-C0.5
,0.3
li
<•0.01
ll
Pond 5
6-79
<0.1
<0.5
0.61
"Z 0,02
0.131
<10,02
u
3-79
ii
1?
1.12
li
0.77
H
tt
«9-80
II
11
0.68
IS
0.044
II
Pond 6
3-79
mi
<0,5
1.55
<0.02
0.263
^0.02
n
12-79
ii
»
0.67
II
1,3
M
ii
9-80
Si
ii
0.31
II
0.061
H
Detection Limits
0.1
0.5
0.01
,0.02
0.01
0.02
Acceptable Limit
5.0
—
n/a
1.3-3.0
0.5
10-20
for edible fish
portion
43
-------
APPENDIX III
BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
Parameters monitored in water, sediment, fish skin, fish gut, fish flesh
{edible portion).
fetal Coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Enteric Viruses
i
50
-------
APPENDIX III
TABLE 1. Average concentrations of fecal coliforms {FC) and fecal
streptococci (FS) in fish gut and skin.
Average concentration (log 7100 g)
Gut Skin Gut SkTn
Pond 4 3,0? 2 . 00 4 . 3 6 3 . 57;
Pond 5 3.01 2.43 4.03 3.47
Pond 6 2.73 2,21 3.75 2.95
51
-------
APPENDIX III
TABLE 2. Correlations between bacterial ievels in
fish and in water or sediment
/sriable
FC water
FC sediment
FS water
F5 sediment
f-C gut
0.559
0.097
0.712*
-0.251
PC skin
0,019
-0.«3
-0.029
-0.217
FC flesh
0.357
0.003
0.330
0.099
f S gut
0.307
0.230
0.6f>6*
-0.236
FS skin
0.363
0.525
0.691*
0.370
FS flesh
0A55
0.537 ¦
0.375
0.630*
~Significant at p < 0.05.
52
-------
APPENDIX III
TABLE 3. Concentrations of FC and F5 in fish flesh
Month
MPN/100 e fish flesh
Pond 4
Pond 5
Pond 6
FC
FS
FC
FS
FC
FS
Aug.*
<30
1M
<30
IM
40
S60
Sept.*
230
SO
430
22,000
<30
<60
Oct,
<11
25
<11
<11
<6,6
15
Nov,
n
<11
<11
<11
<11
<11
Dec.
<11
<15
<11
<15
<11
<15
* August and September samples were taken by a normal filet procedure with
possible contamination from the skin. All other flesh samples were taken
aseptically.
53
-------
APPENDIX III
TABLE >k List of samples which yielded plaque-forming
units (PFU} on ceil monolayers
Sample
Month
Total PFU
counted*
Estimated
concentration**
Influent
Aug.
5
20 PFU/liter
Influent
Nov,
3
15 PFU/liter
Influent
Dec.
2
7,5 PFU/liter
Pond 2
sediment
Sept.
2
2 PFU/.500 g
Pond k
sediment
Nov.
' i
1 PFU/500 g
Pond 2 water
Dec.
1
0.05 PFU/liter
* Unidentified.
*~ Dilution factors varied for Influent samples.
54
-------
APPENDIX III
6.0
_ 5.0
4.0
3.0
o
CD
P—I
-------
APPENDIX III
Table A2. Bacterial concentrations in pond sediment
MPN/100 g sediment
Pond 2 Pond % Pond 6
Month
PC
FS
FC
FS
FC
FS
Aug.
92,000
MO,000
!,SCQ
^80,000
<600
1S6,000
•sept.
2,300
4,300
90
<600
30
1,860
Oct.
24,000
1,500
3S0
9,300
90
1,110
Nov,
M0Q
ff00
70
1,500
<30
150
Dec,
__
_
—
—
—
58
-------
APPENDIX III
Table A3. Bacterial concentrations in fish digestive tract
MPN/iOO a fish tissue
Fond £f Pond 5 Pond 6
Month
FC
FS
FC
F5
FC
FS
'Vug.
2,MO
>_ 48,000
200
> 48,000
<30
1,860
Sept.
11,000
220,000
>24,000
ISO,000
>2^,000
40,000
Oct.
9,300
139,000
15,000
43,000
2,TOO
93,000
Nov.
300
150,000
230
I, WO
430
7,500
Dec.
<30
<30
70
110
60
110
(
59
-------
APPEflDIX 111
Table A#. Bacterial concentrations in fish skin
MPN/iOQg fish skin
Pond $ Pond 5 Pond 6
Month
PC
FS
FC
FS
. FC
PS
Aug.
M
9,200
230
1,860
230
Moo
Sept.
930
M00
ft,600
> #80,000
70
000
Oct.
W
2#,000
<30
930
1,500
2,400
.Nov.
230
2#,000
1,500
9,300
150
430
dec.
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
30
60
-------
APPENDIX IV
FISH PRODUCTION
61
-------
APPENDIX IV
TABLE 1. INITIAL STOCKING RATES FOR PONDS 3-8 WITH SILVER AND B1SHEAD CARP.
ALL PONDS WERE STOCKED DURING NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1978. INITIAL
STOCKING WEIGHTS AND NUMBERS ARE RECORDED AS OF JANUARY, 1379 AFTER
EVALUATING POST STOCKING MORTALITY.
Av. length
(crnj
Av, weight
No. of fish
per hectare
Total weight
a I weigr
(mzml
Pond 3 (1.55 ha)
Silver Carp 13.8
Bighead Carp 14,5
Pond 4 (1,8 ha)
Silver Carp
Bighead Carp
8.6
14.5
Pond 5 (1,67 ha}
Silver Carp 17,0
Bighead Carp - 14.5
Pond 6 (1.56 ha)
Silver Carp 17,0
Bighead Carp 14.5
28.5
31.8
6.0
31.8
40.8
31.8
40.3
31.8
13,150
2,503
6,777
1,140
7,186
1,229
5,192
385
374.S
84.2
40.6
36.2
293.2
39.1
210.6
12.24
TABLE 2. GROWTH OF SILVER AND BIGHEAD CARPS IN POND 3 DURING PROJECT PERIOD.
Time from Silver carp, standing
stocking crop (kq/ha)
Bighead carp, standing
crop (kg/ha)
Date
Jan. „ 1379
March, 1979
June, 1979
Sept., 1979
Dec., 1979
March, 1980
June, 1980
0
3 mos.
6 mos.
9 mos.
12 mos.
15 mos.
18 mos.
374.8
546.0
1,650.0
4,252.7
4,610.0
5,909.6
7,164.1*
34.2
1,196.4
2,386.4*
* Total fish k111 occurred, pond not restocked.
62
-------
APPENDIX IV
TABLE 3. GROWTH OF SILVER AND BIGHEAD CARPS IN POND 4 DURING PROJECT PERIOD.
— time from Silver carp, standing Bighead carp, standing
Date
stocking
crop (kq/ha)
crop (kg/ha)
Jan., 1979
0
40.6
36.2
March, 1979
3 mos.
1,360.0
June, 1979
6 ITOS.
2,297.4
493.2
Sept., 1979
9 mos.
4,650.0
Dec., 1979
12 mos.
6,250.0
March, 1980
15 mos.
7,107.6
771.1
June, 1980
18 mos.
7,514.0
Aug., 1980
21 mos.
7,691.9*
931.6
* Total fish kill occurred, pond not restocked.
TABLE 4. GROWTH OF SILVER AND BIGHEAD CARPS IN POND 5 DURING PROJECT PERIOD.
Time from Silver carp, standing 8ighead carp, standing
Date
stocking
crop (kg/ha)
crop (kq/ha)
Jan., 1979
0
293.2
39.1
March, 1979
3 mos.
900.0
June, 1979
6 mos.
1,871.9
Sept., 1979
9 mos.
4,098.9
425.6
Dec., 1979
12 mos.
4,650.0
March, 1980
15 mos.
5,350.5
560.0
June, 1980
18 mos.
6,075.0
Sept., 1980
21 mos.
7 ,260.0
Dec., 1980
24 mos.
7,634.4
1,510.4
63
-------
APPENDIX IV
TABLE 5. GROWTH OF SILVER AND BIGHEAO CARPS IN POND 6 DURING PROJECT PERIOD.
Date
Time from Silver carp, standing
stocking crop (kg/ha)
Bighead carp, standing
crop (kg/ha)
Jan., 1979
March, 1979
June, 1979
. Sept., 1979
Dec., 1979
March, 1980
June, 1980
Sept., 1980
Dec., 1980
3 mos.
6 mos.
9 mos.
12 mos.
15 mos.
18 mos.
21 mos.
24 mos.
0
210.6
1,029.6
1,745.0
2,480.5
2,475.0
3,441.3
3,650.5
4,255.0
4,454.7*
248.2
589.0
12.24
15.4
* Channel catfish, grass carp, and sroal lmouth buffalo were also initially
stocked in Pond 6. Due to low stocking rates," difficulty of sampling, etc.,
no interim growth estimates were made. Also, the buffalo spawned during the
spring of 1979 further complicating matters. At harvest, the final standing
crop for each species was found to be: channel catfish = 832 kg/ha,
buffalo = 562 kg/ha, grass carp = 262 kg/ha.
(
54
------- |