Notices of: Raising Bait Fishes

Dobie, John; Meehean, O. Lloyd; Snieszko, S. F.; Washburn, George N.

doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1956)18[148:nobf]2.0.co;2

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tolerance densities of the fish populations in this study were compared with the suggested rearing densities for fathead minnows under intensive fish culture in ponds. Data presented by Dobie et al (1956) and Flickinger (1971) were used to develop the following argument. The optimum stocking density of fathead minnow fry into ponds is 100000-300000 fish/04 ha (1 acre), with the maximum suggested for commercial farming being 600 000 fish/0.4 ha.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of population density and feeding rate on the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)

Smith

Schreck

Maughan

1978

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juvenile fathead minnows (Pimephalespromelus) were stocked in tanks at different densities and different ration levels, in two experiments, to determine effects on final population density, growth and fecundity. Length and weight of fish increased with increased food availability. Egg size was exponentially related to growth and perhaps directly to ration level. High population density appeared to limit growth and gamete development regardless of food abundance. Additionally, water volume appeared to limit numbers (tolerance density) of fish which can be supported in a specific volume of water.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of population density and feeding rate on the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)

Smith

Schreck

Maughan

1978

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other species have been characterized as feeding on "bottom ooze" (Raney, 1939;Starrett, 1950;Whitaker, 1977;Smith, 1979), which was described as composed of mainly diatoms and accompanied by the presence of fine sand and mud (Starrett, 1950). The food habits of H. hankinsoni differed somewhat from H. amarus in that the former species diet included phytoplankton, zooplankton, aquatic insects, surface drift, and plants (Dobie et al, 1956) and mosquito larvae were also reported in the diet of H. hankinsoni (Copes, 1975). Forbes and Richardson (1920) Whitaker (1977) reported that H. nuchalis consumed benthic sand, silt, detritus, algae, diatoms, insect parts, and fungal matter.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Hybognathus Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology of the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Cyprinidae: Hybognathus amarus) Inferred from Specimens Collected in 1874

Cowley

Shirey

Hatch

2006

Reviews in Fisheries Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) was historically an abundant and widespread species in the Rio Grande Basin. Its decline to endangered status had many probable causes and has spanned more than a century. Specimens of H. amarus collected in July 1874 at San Ildefonso, near Santa Fe, New Mexico, allowed a retrospective assessment of the ecology and morphology of the species and the environmental conditions of the Rio Grande in areas foraged by these minnows. Analysis of diatoms from the gut showed that H. amarus foraged mainly in nutrient-enriched areas on mud substrates in 1874 and to lesser extents on periphyton associated with plant, sand, and rock substrates. Gut contents included a considerable amount of fine-grained sediment and a wide variety of organic materials including detritus, pine pollen, cyanobacteria, algae, and diatoms. Scale annuli showed that H. amarus was once a relatively long-lived minnow; all age classes from 1 to 5 were present in 1874. The presence of multiple individuals of several ages suggested that annual survival rates were high historically and that the species may be iteroparous, rather than short-lived and semelparous as widely held. The morphology of H. amarus from a captive stock in 2003 was consistent with the morphology of the 1874 specimens.

show abstract

“…Goldfish propagation methods likely served as the inspiration for later use of such mats for golden shiners, and for tank hatching of eggs Hedges (1951): Tested a woven bundle of willow branches as a spawning mat, but it was not used by fish Prather et al (1953): Golden shiners naturally spawned on "weeds, trash, and filamentous algae." Mats described for goldfish spawning appear similar to those described by Anderson (1947) and were made of Spanish moss, wood excelsior, grass, or similar material sandwiched between chicken wire, inside a wooden frame, of 2.5-to 5-cm thick Dobie et al (1956): Golden shiner brood ponds should have "masses of filamentous algae" to serve as substrate for eggs. Fry transfer was described as a way to stock ponds.…”

Section: Current Commercial Culturementioning

confidence: 94%

“…Golden shiners were reported to also like the new spawning substrate Johnson and Davis (1977): The "egg transfer" method used mats (0.6 × 1.2 m) of Spanish moss between two sheets of welded wire, or grass-like synthetic materials within various frames. In the "fry transfer" method, in contrast to Dobie et al (1956), the fry were juveniles. Young fish of a "suitable size," around 0.6 g (800 fish/lb), would be captured and moved Giudice et al (1981): Spawning mats were used for both goldfish and golden shiners.…”

Section: Current Commercial Culturementioning

confidence: 99%

A Fish of Weedy Waters: Golden Shiner Biology and Culture

Stone

Kelly

Roy

2016

J World Aquaculture Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas, is a major bait and forage fish species in the USA. Farmers produce millions of golden shiners annually that are distributed live, many across state boundaries. Native over much of the eastern and central USA, this species is often present but rarely abundant in natural systems, as fish density is apparently controlled by predation rather than by food resources. Aquaculture of the golden shiner is a century‐old practice and culture methods have evolved over time, resulting in today's farm‐raised, certified specific pathogen– and aquatic nuisance species–free baitfish. Federal and state agencies and universities have a long history of developing culture methods and promoting baitfish culture to replace the indiscriminate and wasteful harvest of fish from natural waters. Despite advances in culture methods and the advantages of a farm‐raised species produced under controlled and biosecure conditions, golden shiner farming is only marginally profitable and remaining farmers survive on farm equity and increased market share from others exiting the business. Ironically, increasing regulations and restrictions leading to a reduction in the supply of farm‐raised baitfish could drive anglers back to harvesting bait from natural waters, the very concern that initiated government support for baitfish culture a century ago.

show abstract

Notices of: Raising Bait Fishes

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Effect of population density and feeding rate on the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)

Effect of population density and feeding rate on the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)

Ecology of the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Cyprinidae: Hybognathus amarus) Inferred from Specimens Collected in 1874

A Fish of Weedy Waters: Golden Shiner Biology and Culture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About