..........

HARVESTING AND PRODUCTION CF
BAIT mags m poms

Thai: for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE

Sheléon Berfram Heciges
i951

fig“

I
C
+

-_._'._-—I ”ML.- --——- —

I Y ; h I, ‘ ‘ . - ‘I' _ im ifimwmfimml ‘
.' " .-2“~";i :"TT‘d- ' " 00848 2753* 1} .
r .1 . ‘35. Egg/fig”; . ' -—~v——r-—-—" .

I 31293

 

 

 

.- I
This is to certify that the

thesis entitled '

“Harvesting and Production of Bait

" Fishes 1n Ponds"

_ presented by ‘ :-

. Sheldon B. Hedges
' ‘ has been accepted towards fulfillment '

I i of the requirements for v.

_._,__,__ll 5 degree him _

 

 

 

i I ,
‘ Date Kay 15 O 1951.
s, L
3 0-169 . i"
1' _______,_i I

 

Major-W I

 

 

HARVESTING LhD IHODUCTION OE BnIT EISHES IN PONDS

BY

bEElDON exams; mpg 13,3
W

A THESIS

Submitted to the school of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fullfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Zoology

1951

' r‘ :.r'-j ' -~ ‘ t 77')- -,_'r~g~ -fr*."‘r‘}r1
:A/hlsU . .Lnlnkrmlnlv lb

The author wishes to extend his sincere appreciation
to Dr. Robert C. Ball, Department of Zoology, Michigan
State College, who directed this study and whose suggest-
ions and guidance were always available. Special thanks
are also due to the Institute for Fisheries Research,
Michigan Department of Conservation, for the opportunity
which made this study possible and for the use of data
from their files.

Gratitude is extended to Dr. Don Hayne, Department
of Zoology, Kichigan State College, for his advice in the
interpretation of the data and to the personnel of the
Hastings State Fish Hatchery for assistance in parts of

the field work.

I. lETmODDCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. DESCRIPTION OF IONDS USED . . . . . .
lII. FEHTILIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. AQUATIC VhCaTaTION . . . . . . . . . .
V. LIFE HISTORY’AND SPAENING OBSERVITIONS

Eathead ninnow . . . . . . . . . . .
Golden Shiner . . . . . . . . . . .
Northern creek Chub . . . . . . . .
White Sucker . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI 0 (317107. {TE}; .‘LIED PILODUCi-tlqu o o o o o o o 0

Bond 2 Fathead hinnow . . . . . . .
Pond A White Sucker . . . . . . . .
rond 5 Golden Shiner . . . . . . . .
rond 6 Greek chub . . . . . . . . .

VII. VALUE OF FISH EhODUCED . . . . . . . .
VIII. mAHVJSTInG-MSTHODS . . . . . . . . . .

Seines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Drainable ronds . . . . . . . . . .
Lift or Drop hets . . . . . . . . .
Class Traps . . . . . . . . . . . .

Use Of Glass wraps In Eonds . . .
rectors Affecting Glass Traps . .

Time of day . . . . . . . . . .
baiting of traps . . . . . . .
Lee of decoys . . . . . . . . .
wurbidity of the water . . . .
Deep and shallow sets . . . . .
selectivity of the traps . . .
barometric pressure . . . . . .

.{o BIDS-ODDIUN o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Page

10

IO
15
17
19

22
26
27
31
31

36

37
39
#0
Al

#4
50

5O
51
51
52
52
53

‘I"

59

A.

XI.

SUMVLHY .

LI 11;”?in

‘1
V

' I

r.

T ‘

ill)

'1'

INTRODUCTION

In recent years the Conservation Department has received
many complaints from.minnow dealers (Carbine, 1940) pertain-
ing to the apparent decline in numbers of minnows in Michigan
lakes and streams. This decline of minnows is economically
important to the bait dealer and has been looked upon with
apprehension by the sportsman and biologist alike. To the
sportsman it means a decrease in the availability of good
bait minnows and the value of the minnows as food for the
game species is recognized. in the future there will be a
still greater demand for bait minnows to satisfy the increas-
ing number of fisherman and a further diminishing of the nat-
ural supply. hecently michigan altered its minnow regulations
so that only certain designated streams may be seined by com-
mercial minnow dealers and certain designated trout and non-
trout streams were Opened to removal of minnows by use of
glass traps only.

{At the time these regulations were put into effect the
Institute for EiSheries Research undertook the problem of
determining the feasibility of raising minnows in farm-type
ponds. As a result of experiments it was found that many of
our native minnows that are commonly used for bait can be
successfully raised in farm-type ponds and as a result the

bait dealer can reduce his transportation costs and have the

minnows available when the demand is highest. thus by pond
rearing of bait minnows, the demands of the fisherman for
these would in part be met and some of the pressure would be
removed from our natural waters.

One of the greatest problems that presents itself to the
operator of minnow ponds is the harvest of these fish from
the ponds. Experiments on methods of harvesting were conduct-
ed during the summers of 1949 and 1950. Several methods for
removal of bait minnows from.farm-type ponds were investigated

and the data on these are presented here.

DESCRIPTION OF FUNDS USED

The ponds used in this experiment are located at the
Hastings state Fish hatchery in southwestern Michigan. The
ponds were formerly used for the production of bass and blue-
gills. Bonds 2,A,5, and 6 (Figure l) were used in this exper-
iment. ‘All the ponds are artificial and can be drained. The
water supply comes from several springs located about one-
forth mile from the hatchery by a small creek. It is piped
to a reservoir so that a constant supply is on hand. The in-
let to the reservoir and the outlet to the ponds are screened
to prohibit the entrance of unwanted fish. The water level
in the ponds was maintained at the maximum level and very lit-
tle water was lost by evaporation and seepage. The ponds are
uniform in depth, each having a maximum depth of six to seven
feet at the drain. The bottoms of all the ponds are soft due

to sediment and softening of the bottom soil by seepage.

.omm: muqom on» yo Empmmm mmmqflwao cow

.mammsm Hops; .qOprooa mdflaonm mammopwfl nmflh oomph mmqflpmwfi .H onsmfih

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“N

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
. t O
l Hahn 0 O
.23 .3. .8- .8. O O u u c
. I -
.é. . . :xnmm
83.. a“.
3:933 - «up!
0 . .2 0‘ Illg . .
o \\
\ 43v... i .
Q d .u "fiy‘x . ‘
000... I'll $5. 0 out
. sancm llull . O . .. O O
x003 «0 III .
3600 0+ h-Qaflw ghoon uuunun nu¢w< o. v 0:
tech .0 50.5 I J. . N 02 - 3 t I
300". trots . to . .
@2022: I "m .. . a. n
2.3%. w 4%"... ..,,,. . . ......
3.03; o ..... O
«3.09 .0395 :I .... u "nun u» 9
aficoa uo mums—”v.0 TIIO .... 353.6 33¢ to
_m 5 an... 0 .02 v .02 3.3:. t.
OZuOu'. \. x n .02 a
a...»
s not: ~._ at uncut u C
9 O. .02 0.02 v 38..
.
. 3.3.26
m . an“... I...
m. I
m a . 3.54 a; 2- nflanud e lllllllllllll
m m. .02 \l
m \
m o . . . \
H. 35.00““. \ >¢wb wIwU
m . n n \
\
s
v0. at}... :6 fl 0801 gfll
o b
m.
ZO_F<>ameOU uO FZwEquQwO Z<O.IU_ .2
>552: 1w; megm mosz<I - N 11
g

‘

EERTILIZATION

The ponds were fertilized throughout the early part of
the season to increase the available fish food organisms.
According to bwingle and Smith (l9h2) an algae bloom is des-
ired that will reduce the visibility to 1.5 feet. This cloud-
iness controlled the higher aquatic plants in the ponds of
Smith and swingle (l9hl) by eliminating the light. Eliminat-
ion of the higher plants is important in the fall draining
Operations since many of the fish will become trapped in the
plants. Commercial fertilizer having a 10-6-4 analysis was
distributed over the pond by broadcasting and pouring from
a boat into the shallow areas as the boat moved along.

Ponds 2 and 5 received early applications of 100 pounds
each When the ponds were filled on May 17. On June It when
daily observation were begun, the bottoms were visible in
all the ponds. Pond 5 received another application of 100
pounds on June 16 and subsequent observations showed some
increase in filamentous algae but no reduction in visibility.

Pond 2,4, and 6 each received 100 pounds of fertilizer
on June 20. The bottom of pond 6 remained visible and a def-
inite increase in filamentous algae was noted. The visibility
decreased in ponds 2 and h following this application and both
ponds remained cloudy, but the visibility did not dr0p below

three feet. Consequently another application of 100 pounds

was made to all the ponds on July 7. No reaction was observed
and the bottom remained visible in ponds 5 and 6. Ponds 2
and A remained cloudy but no bloom was attained.

In an attempt to get a bloom.started, 300 pounds of
fertilizer was added to each pond on July 10. Ponds 5 and 6
remained clear and ponds 2 and 4 continued to clear up. By
July 18 the water was clear enough in all of the ponds so
that the bottoms were clearly visible. mo more fertilizer
was added and no further reduction in visibility was attained
in ponds h,5, or 6 for the remainder of the season.

After clearing so that the bottom was visible, pond 2
clouded up and the visibility decreased to 2.5 feet on July 27
and then the pond gradually cleared up as the season progressed.
The greatest reduction in visibility occurred during the warm-
est weather and the water cleared up for a short time during
a cold period (Figure lI) on July 20.

Although the ponds did not attain the desired bloom con-
dition at any time throughout the season, the writer feels
that the fertilization did have the desired effect of increas-
ing the production in the ponds. The production compares very
well with the figures published by uobie, et a1 (l9h8) for this
region. Also the higher plants were reduced to some extent in
ponds 2 and 5 and there was no interference from plants in
draining. In comparison, pond 6, in which the bottom was vis-
ible all season, had a heavy growth of plants and there may

have been some loss of fish on draining due to this condition.

.mmmdpmammaop popes haflmw mmwam>w .HH madmah

 

kmzwsd
on. c.

>43:
2

EN

.mzaa
3

 

 

_ —

 

 

llllllllllllllllllllJLL

on

«N

(a

on

an

cm

 

.0.
z.

aim»

 

 

Chemical analysis of the water for dissolved oxygen,
carbon dioxide, and alkalinity determinations were made
at two week intervals in all of the ponds. A.Kemmerer
water sampler was used to obtain water samples and water
analysis was carried out by the methods outlined in "Stand-
ard methods for the Examination of water and Sewage". Dobie
(19473) points out that there is a danger of oxygen deplet-
ion upon fertilization but these determinations did not rev-

eal any condition that would be detrimental to fish life.

AQUATIC VEuaTATlCN

.Although the dominant plants in the ponds were various
species of Potamoggton and ghagg, there were many minor spec-
ies that were specific to certain ponds. The bottom of pond
2 was nearly covered with.gh§£g.§p; and a heavy growth of
Vallisnaria spiralis developed in the north end toward the
latter part of the season. The edge of the pond was clear,
the primary plants being grasses and sedges. The bottom of
pond A was also covered with.gha£g'which necessitated some
channeling and stacking during harvesting to allow the fish
(suckers) to free themselves. some filamentous algae was
present on the bottom.of the pond. Pond 5 had some Potamogg-
ton pectinatus scattered throughout and a heavy growth of
filamentous algae developed on the plants. The east and west
sides of the pond were bordered by trees and cattails were
encroaching on the south end. The cattails were completely
removed by cutting below the waterline early in the summer.
Pond 6 had the heaviest growth of vegetation of any of the
ponds under consideration. several species of Potamogeton
were present as well as neterantheraudgpig. A heavy growth
of filamentous algae deveIOped and persisted throughout the

latter part of the season.

LIFE HISTORY AND SPAWNING OBSERVATIONS

Spawning observations on the fathead minnow (Pimephales
_;h_promelas) in pond 2 and the golden shiner (Notemigonus

crysoleucas auratus) in pond 5 were maintained throughout the

 

season. A.more complete record was possible on the fathead
due to the fact that their activities were more easily obser-
ved. The observations were made to verify information already
available and to establish spawning seasons, egg counts, etc.
for this region. The four fish used in these experiments are
shown in Figure III.
Fathead minnow
Pimephales 2;.promelas (RafineSque)

The fathead minnow is used as a bait minnow in minne-
sota, Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent in michigan. It is
a small minnow and never exceeds 3.5 inches in length, the
males being somewhat larger than the females. it meets many
of the qualifications of a bait species for propagation by
'being extremely tolerant to handling and holding, having an
extended spawning season, and having a rapid growth rate.
The fathead minnow is especially adapted for pond culture and
thrives under cultivation. It feeds mainly on phytoplankton,
but also takes z00plankton and insect larvae. The eggs are
attached to the underside of objects in the water and guarded

by the male. several females may use the same nesting site.

figure lII. The four types of bait fishes used in the

harvesting and production experiments.

 

 

\fATHEAD MINNow

   

\ .\\I..-'k) g;? ,V |
V r_
l.‘ ‘

  
 
 
 
      
 

 

,N..
«.1...

 
  
  
 
 
   
  

. O
3

    

-. -3 .

M

-0-
w.*-. ; .‘ .‘

WHITE SUCKER

~\ .

O .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NORTHERN GREEK cHus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lnjtlylnltmlnuiyn n?” 111m Tiling] ”Inllmlnrnnmnun
[IT'al'Tel- al '4l 5] "a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l2

Pond 2 was stocked on may 17 at the rate of 1000 breeders
per acre. To facilitate spawning and to insure a maximum pro-
duction in the pond (Dobie, et al, 19h8), a series of spawn-
ing boards were placed in the water around the edge of the
pond on may 20. The boards were approximately two by three
feet in size and were anchored in depths of water ranging
from one to three feet. On June lh all of the boards had one
or more nests of eggs on them (Figure IV) and fry ranging
from one-half to one inch were observed on the surface. some
of the nesting sites used were the vertical sides of drain
boxes, in crevices under a cement walkway, on the bottom of
a boat, and under branches on the bottom. The males could
be seen patrolling the nest and it appeared as if the rugose
area actually touched the eggs, but this could not be defin-
itely determined. Those boards that were anchored in deep
water away from shore usually had more nests than those closer
to shore. Consequently, on June 21 ten boards were reanchored
in water one to two feet deep. On June 22 these boards were
rechecked and all of them had eggs on the undersides. As a
rule the eggs are laid in a single layer, but in some cases
the eggs were piled two and even three deep.

Egg counts were made to determine the average number of
eggs per nest. Seven nests were measured and the results

obtained are shown in Table I.

.Uamon mqfldawmm so mmmm aoqcfla camspwh .>H onswflh

 

. . :- 3,» .11
~NW‘LW...;¢‘

7...

 

1h

TABLE I

EGG COUNTS OF FATHEAD NESTS

 

 

Nest No. Size Square Inches No. of Eggs
1 h.x 6 2h 12,124
2 A‘X h 16 8,096
3 3.; 3 9 h.527
h 5 X 3 15 7,590
5 h L,5 20 10,120
b 3.4 3 9 h.527
7 31K 3 9 h,527

 

Average number per nest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,387

average number per square inch . . . . . . . . . . . 506

It will be noticed that there was wide variation in the
size of the nests. This is due to the continual addition of
eggs to the nests. when first observed the nests were approx-
imately three inches square and the nests would then become
larger due to the addition of eggs. A nest would thus contain
eggs in different stages of developement.

Incubation time of the eggs was determined. nggs spaw-
ned on June 22 had reached the eyed stage by June 26 and hat-
ching had commenced. The water temperature averaged 250 C.
during this period. Thus the incubation period for fathead
eggs was five days for this area.

The fatheads continued to use the spawning boards until

July 18. At that time a notable decrease in spawning activities

15

was noticed and many boards were void of eggs. for several
days no eggs appeared on the boards. During this same period
the air temperature remained below normal (Figure II). Per-
haps this cool weather was the cause of the early cessation
of spawning activities. with rising water temperatures some
spawning resumed and on July 25 one board of 15 had eggs on
it. fathead eggs were present until august It and from then

on no eggs were found.

Golden Shiner
Notemigonus chrysoleucas auratus (Rafinesque}

The golden shiner has a thin and flat body from side to
side and is deep from tOp to bottom. The adults are golden
in color and the scales are loose and easily visible. It can
be recognized most easily by its deeply forked tail and great-
ly curving lateral line. it is larger than the fathead min-
now and reaches a maximum size of 10 inches. it is a desir-
able bait species due to its brilliant color, but the young
fish are not very hardy during the warmer months. If great
care is not taken in handling, many scales will be removed.
Consequently, difficulty is encountered in holding unless the
fish are adequately treated to prevent fungus infection.

The golden shiner will thrive in small ponds and is a
preferred bait fish in Spite of its weakness in warm weather.

It is readily taken by game fish and reaches a sufficient

16

size for bass and pike. The growth rate is fairly rapid and
the young will reach three inches in the fall of the first
year (COOper, 1935). The eggs are adhesive and are scattered
over filamentous algae and higher plants.

The brood stock was introduced into the pond on may 17
and consisted of A50 fish (321 per acre). on June 1h when
daily observation were begun there were many fry around the
edges and on the surface of the pond. The sizes of the fry
observed ranged from one—forth to three-forths of an inch
with the majority being lessvthan one-half an inch. On June
22 there were fry visible over the entire surface of the
pond. A check was made on the various types of plants in the
pond for eggs and a few eggs were found on some filamentous
algae in water about two feet deep but these were widely scat-
tered.

An attempt was made to induce the fish to spawn on an
artificially made spawning mat constructed of willow branches
woven together to form a mat so that egg counts and incubat-
ion periods could be determined. The fish did not use the
mat and after several weeks the attempt was abandoned. Rec-
ently hatched fry were continually visible in the pond and
on July 6 some fry had reached the size of 1.5 inches. On
August 29 very small fry were on the surface and larger young

of the year were feeding actively on them.

17

Northern Creek Chub
Semotilus a; atromoculatus (hitchell)

 

 

The northern creek chub is one of the most desirable
bait species in use in Michigan. it is a preferred bait for
bass and pike fishing and is highly sought after by both
fisherman and bait dealers. The creek chub is one of the
largest native michigan.minnows, the males often reaching a
total length of 10 inches. The fish is stocky and only sligh-
tly compressed laterally. The scales number 55-70 along the
lateral line and are relatively small, especially anteriorly.
The creek chub is an olive color above the lateral line and
_silvery or grey below. The breeding males develop horny tub-
ercles and become colored with brilliant hues of blue, purple,
orange, and gold on the body and fins (Dobie, et al 1948).

The mouth is terminal and large and the maxillary has very
small barbels on each side. A characteristic often used in
field identification is the pronounced black spot on the ant-
erior edge of the dorsal fin.

-The creek chub occurs throughout the central and eastern
parts of the United States. In Michigan the creek chub occurs
abundantly in small, clear brooks. its habitat is similar to
that of trout but it is not found in the very cold streams and
seldom occurs in lakes.

The creek chub spawns from.the latter part of April to

July when the water temperature reaches approximately 600 F.

18

(Langlois, 1937). The male builds a nest in gravel bottomed
streams, usually at the head of rapids. The completed nest

is a ridge of gravel about one foot wide and two or three
inches deep and extends from one to eighteen feet in length.
The nest is constructed in line with the current. Several
females may visit the nest at different intervals. Each is

met by the male and the spawning act is carried out. The male
wraps himself around the female and thrusts her into a vertical
upright position, holding her in place with the aid of the nup-
tial tubercles on the head, tail, and fins. when the fish

are in this position the eggs and milt are released. The spent
female then drifts downstream but soon swims away while the
male covers the eggs and guards the nest. The fry hatch in

the gravel and work their way free. They feed on microscopic
crustaceans and other small aquatic organisms.

The Fish Division of the michigan Department of Conser-
vation has distributed chub fry to bait dealers during the past
few years for propagation in farm-type ponds. In order to enc-
ourage artificial propagation of this bait species, the Depart-
ment of Conservation has undertaken the gathering and hatching
of the creek chub eggs since this process demands certain fac-
ilities and equipment that the average bait dealer can not pro;
vide. The fry are then sold to bait dealers for stocking in
private ponds. The creek chubs that were propagated at the

Hastings Hatchery were obtained from this source. Pond 6

19

(0.4 acre) was stocked with 30,000 fry on nay 28.

white sucker
Catostomus c. commersonnii (Lacepede)

 

 

Although the suckers are not a member of the minnow fam-
ily (Cyprinidae) they are commonly used for bait and decoys
and are-closely related to the true minnows. The suckers are
fishes with cycloid scales and a ventral, protrusible mouth
with fleshy, sucking lips. The scales are coarse near the
tail and become smaller near the head.

The white sucker is widely distributed in the Cnited
States, occurring in the eastern states from Canada to Geor-
gia. This fish is primarily a bottom feeder and thrives under
a variety of conditions, but prefers clear water in lakes and
streams. -

Like the creek chub, the white sucker Spawns in streams
early in the spring. The white sucker will spawn in lakes
where there are no inlets or outlets, but a swift stream with
a gravel bottom is preferred. The eggs are scattered freely
in the current. The incubation period is from five to seven
days depending on the water temperature. The white sucker will
feed on practically anything that appears in the water and is
thought to be selective in its feeding habits (Dobie, et. a1.
1948) during different stages.

The white sucker is widely used in michigan as a bait

fish and is a common decoy for pike during the winter months.

20

Under the present regulations on the taking of bait fishes

in Michigan it is difficult for the bait dealers to obtain
suckers during the fishing season. As white suckers do not
spawn successfully in small ponds the Fish Division of the
Michigan Department of Conservation nets suckers in the spring
and removes the eggs. The eggs are then hatched and distrib-
uted as fry to bait dealers at a nominal cost. The white
suckers used in this work on propagation were obtained from

this source. Pond 4 was stocked with 70,000 fry on may 28.

21

.meaaaawe flame ea

mmoa 0p one oaanHw>w pod wpwc opmagaoo*

 

 

 

 

.maa. naeo
m.easa H.msm mme.ma m.mam emma oeo.me gmmnu e.o e
.mnodcmnm. quflnn
o.wma m.ae oom.ma *a.mm ems Ham ameaoe a.a m
Ahnmv HmModn
o.mae m.mmm eon.so s.mmm ads ooo.ooa eoaaoo 5.0 a
.mnodoonmq Soqcfla
m.mmm m.mem msm.amm m.mam ooe oooa eamapwa o.a a
Hammmm memeOnB mmmpad: meqsom chow new chow new
mchom ca cpwu mmflomgm mmwoaow ddom
chow whoa mom coaposwonm Houfiafipnmm quMoopm

Mom msaw>

 

 

Ommd 3H WMfl30943 waHBmffl

HmB 94 mfimmHm Bme ho ZOHBQ

N mqmde

Dmomm GZquQOZOo 484a

GROWTH AND PhCDUCTION

The growth rate Of bait minnows in a pond is dependent
on the amount of food that is available and the number of
fish that are utilizing this food. Since the bait dealer is
interested in a maximum growth and production of salable fish,
the pond must not be overcrowded and at the same time the pond
must be made to produce as many salaule fish as possible.
Bait dealers commonly divide bait fishes into three catagories
depending on the size and use of the fish as bait. The fish
are commonly classified as perch, bass, and pike size minnows.
The minimum size bait fish that is offered for sale is 1.5
inches and for the purpose of this study a salable fish is
considered to be 1.5 inches or more in size.
In order to produce a maximum number of salable fish the
minnow pond Operator is interested in controlling the number
of fish that are in the pond. in stocking a pond with brood
stock, the number must be determined from previous trials.
when fry are used to stock a pond the number can be more pos-
itively controlled, but a loss of 35 to 50 per cent of the fry
can be expected so this must be taken into consideration before
introducing the fry into the pond. The actual number of fish
that a pond can successfully support is dependent on the type

of fish used, the natural fertility of the pond, the geographical

23

location and many other factors. Consequently no figures on
stocking are universally applicable and can only act as a
guide for the beginning operator. mxperience will be gained
that will enable the Operator to successfully estimate the
stocking rates and production that can be expected from the
ponds that he is operating.

Samples of fish from each pond were collected weekly
for growth studies. The growth curves shown in Figures V, VI,
VII, and VIII are based on the mean lengths of the weekly sam-
ples and all measurements were total lengths and were rounded
off to the nearest tenth of an inch. An attempt was made to
measure fish of the same age but some error was induced in the
golden shiner and fathead curves due to the dilution of the
samples by younger fish. As this error would tend to reduce
the growth rate, it will not interfere with the use of the
charts. These charts are useful in estimating the length of
time necessary for the fish to reach a salable size and to pre-

dict when harvesting operations can begin.

 

FIGURE V. GROWTH RATE OF FATHEAD MINNOVIS

 

 

SIZE (I00 DAYS)
IN
INCHE -
3.0-
2.0—
L—
LO"
b
I— I
x
/
1 4 1 L I 1 l 1 1J 1 1 1 1 J
I 8 I5 23 3O 7 I4 2| 2B 4 II I8 25
JUNE JULY AUGU3T

 

 

 

FIGURE VI. GROWTH RATE OF GOLDEN SHINERS
SIZE (I00 DAYSI
IN

IN ONE
3.0 "’

p
p-

p

2.0 1-

I.0 '-

 

 

 

1/‘11_|___L_L11nl114§___|_J
I 8 I5 23 3O 7 I4 2| 28 4 II I 25

JUNE JULY AUGUST '

 

 

 

 

FIGURE VII. .GROWTI'I RATE OF WHITE SUGKERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN
INCHES
3.0-
L.
2.0-
LG-
I
.— l
I
I
'- /
I
- I
If I I I I l l I l I I I l I I
I 8 I5 23 30 7 I4 2| 28 4 II IS 25
JUNE JULY AUGUST
FIGURE VIII. GROWTH RATE OF GREEK OHUBS
SIZE I96 DAYS)
IN
INCHES
3.0—
2.0-
LO“-
I"
I{ I I I I I I l I I l I 1 LJ
I 8 I5 23 30 7 I4 2I 28 4 II IS 25
JUNE JULY AUGUST

 

 

26

Pond 2 - Fathead kinnow

The brood stock of fathead minnows in pond 2 was introd-
uced into the pond on Kay 17, 1950. These fish were obtained
from a stock of fatheads that were over-wintered in the ponds
at the Hastings Hatchery. The males could be readily distin-
guished from the females by their black head and the nuptial
tuburcles. A total of 1000 fish were used for brood stock,
consisting of about one-third males and two-thirds females.
All of these fish were mature and in good condition. Spawn-
ing evidently began in May as fry were visible during the lat-
ter part of the month and when daily observations were begun
on June 14 many fry were visible over the entire surface of
the pond, ranging in size from one-half to one inch. By the
latter part of July there were salable size fish in the pond
(Figure V) and harvesting operations were started. Between
July 20 and August 30 a total of 53 pounds (26,790) of salable
fish were removed from the pond.

The pond was completely drained on beptember 5 and 159.2
pounds (22h,585) of fish were removed and of these 13 per cent
or 29, 202 were salable fish. There was some loss in draining
in the smaller sizes of fish, but the losses were neglegible
in the larger sizes. Thus a total of 251,375 fish were pro-
duced in the pond and of these 22.2 per cent or 55,992 fish

were of a salable size (Table II). Figure IX shows a frequency

27

distribution of the fathead minnow pOpulation at the time the
pond was drained.

The L,rowth rate shown in figure V and the production shown
in Table II that were obtained compare favorably with those
published by Dobie, et al (l9h8) which included a summary of
the available information on fathead minnow production in nich-

igan, ginnesota, and wisconsin.

fond A - hhite Sucker

adult suckers were collected and the eggs stripped and
hatched in hatching jars at wolf lake Hatchery. The fry were
about one week old when they were stocked in the pond at the
rate of 100,000 per acre on May 28, 1950. On June It the fry
were visible in the shallow areas in large schools. As the fry
increased in size they were not as readily visible and became
more difficult to observe as the season progressed. weekly
samples were being taken during this time and it was exceed-
ingly difficult to take enough suckers for a sample. Although
the fish were difficult to see it appeared as though the pond
was overstocked as the shallow areas appeared pock marked each
morning and the growth of the fish taken in the weekly samples
was not as good as could be expected.

Harvesting Operations were begun on July 26 when the fish
averaged two inches in length (Figure VII). it this time the

fish were variable in size ranging from 1.7 to 2.8 inches and

.maoqqfla Ummgpmw Mo soapsnflapmfiu moqmdwmag mequ .MH madmflh

 

muxoz_

Ihoqu J<h0h

9&

L L Li #1

L Li

L

 

 

o_.
N.
I
o.
0.

ON
J<h0h
no I

29

it was apparent the growth rate was not uniform throughout the
population in the pond. the fish had oversize heads and small
bodies which also was interpreted as an indication that the
pond had more fish in it then it could properly support. .A
total of 13.8 pounds (h,842) of salable fish were removed bet-
ween July 26 and September 1.

The pond was completely drained on beptember h and 16h.9
pounds or 40,311 fish were removed. All of these fish were
considered salable as perch minnows, but very few were of suf-
ficient size to sell as bass minnows. since suckers are not
commonly used as perch minnows it would probably be best in
cases where they are not of salable size in time for the late
summer market to leave the fish in the pond until the follow-
ing spring when a higher percentage could be sold as bass size
minnows and a higher price could be obtained. The fish would
have to be removed early enough in the spring, however, so
that the pond could be used again that year. The increase in
value of the fish after a second season in the pond would be
offset by the additional loss in numbers over the second sea-
son and the loss of a second crop that the pond could have
produced.

A return of oh.5 per cent of the original stocking of
70,000 was obtained. figure X shows a length frequency dist-
ribution of the population of suckers that was present at the

time the ponds were drained.

.manosm 33; .Ho soapsnfiapmfiw hodmdwmfi.” upmumn .N 933%

n6

 

mmroz_

Ihosz JdkOk

o.n

0.N

 

 

4

 

 

O.

N.

#—

0.

ON
J<h0h
no I

31

Pond 5 - Golden Shiner

The pond was stocked on May 17, 1950 with A50 golden shin-
ers that were obtained from a stock of fish that had been over-
wintered in the ponds at the hastings Hatchery. The brood stock
ranged in size from three to six inches and they were in good
condition. Before the pond was stocked several of the fish
were checked and were found to be mature. The females were
gravid and no spawning had begun. Spawning evidently began
shortly after the pond was stocked as fry were observed within
two weeks. By June 1h there were many fry on the surface of
the pond ranging in size from one-quarter to three-quarters of
an inch.

The first harvesting operations started on July 2a and by
August 30 a total of h6.h pounds (18,007) of salable golden
shiners were removed from the pond.

The data for the final fall harvest of golden shiners are
not available due to a complete loss in draining. This loss
was due to structural failure in the drain box. There were,
however, many salable golden shiners in the pond and it is
believed that the production would have approached that which

was obtained in pond 2.

Pond 6 - Creek Chub

Adult creek chubs were injected with pituitary extract

(Bacon, 1951) and the eggs stripped and hatched in hatching

32

jars. The fry were approximately one week old when they were
introduced into the pond. On May 28, 1950, 30,000 fry (75,000
per acre) were stocked in the pond. By June 14 the chubs were
easily observed in the pond as they were concentrated around
the water inlet.

erowth of the chubs was fairly rapid (Figure VIII) and
harvesting Operations were begun on August 10 when the fish
averaged over two inches in length. By August 16 a total of
10.3 pounds (1822) salable fish were removed.

The pond was completely drained on September 5 and a total
of 115 pounds (15,640) of fish were removed. A total product-
ion of 17,462 fish were harvested which is a 58.2 per cent
return of the original stocking of 30,000 fry. n length fre-
quency distribution of the chub population that was present at

the time of draining is shown in figure XI.

.mndno Momao no soapspfinpmfle zodmswmpy mpmdmg .Ha mhdwflm

 

mmzoz_z_IFOZMJ thOk
96 06 A?» 9& 0d

1 O.

1 N.

1C.

10.

La.

1 thOk
no.$

 

 

VALUE of rIsH EfiOUUUmD

The value of the fish shown in Table 2 was computed from
the market price of bait minnows in southwestern nichigan at
the time the fish were being harvested. The prices remained
fairly stable in the area as a whole, but they were subject
to change depending on the demand and availability. The ave-
rage prices are shown in Table 3, along with the use and size
ranges of the various fish. The retail value of the fish was

approximately twice the wholesale price.

TABLE 3

sIZE names 530 VALUJ tr BAIT FIBHBS

 

 

Type fish Use Size In Inches Value

Wholesale Retail

 

Fathead hinnow Perch 1.5 0 1a ea. 0 2¢ ea.
Golden Shiner Perch 1.5 - 2.5 Q l¢ ea. a 2¢ ea.
Bass 2.5 - 4.0 ; 2¢ ea. 0 h¢ ea.
bike 4 u 5¢ ea. a10¢ ea.
Creek Chub Perch l - 2 Q 1¢ ea. 0 2¢ ea.
Bass 2 - 4 u 2¢ ea. 6 4¢ ea.
bucker Perch 1 - 2.5 3 l¢ ea. a 2¢ ea.
‘Bass 2.5 - 4 a 2¢ ea. a 4¢ ea.
Pike 4 - 6 a 5¢ ea. QlO¢ ea.
Decoy 6 a 5¢-30¢ aloe-60¢

 

35

The retail price of perch minnows was two dozen for
25 cents and was considered to be below a fair trade price
by most of the bait dealers surveyed. The price of good
perch minnows was kept down by the lake emerald shiners
votropis atherinoides (RafineSque) that were made available
to the retail dealers by wholesale truckers from the Great
Lakes area near huskegon. most dealers do not like to sell
emerald shiners during the warm summer months as they do not
live well in minnow buckets nor remain alive long on the hook
in the warm.water of the inland lakes. The bait minnows that
were native to the warm lakes and streams were very difficult
to obtain and consequently it was felt that they should bring
a higher price.

There was a ready market for the fish produced at the
prices indicated in Table 3 and the bait dealers indicated
that there were shortages in all size classes. Bass and pike
sizes are most difficult to obtain in the early part of the

fishing season when the demand is at its peak.

36

hAJVESTiHG thHODS

The harvest of the bait minnows from the pond may begin
as soon as a sufficient number of the fish reach a salable
size. All of the types of fish under consideration could be
used for perch minnows if the Operator desired. However, the
golden shiner and fathead minnow are commonly used as perch
minnows since the chubs and suckers bring a better price if
allowed to reach a bass or pike size before being sold. Har-
vesting operations can begin about the first of August as a
sufficient number of the fish will be of a salable size. “it
is believed that a greater production will be attained if some
of the minnows are removed as soon as they reach a salable
size, thus making more food available for those fish remaining
in the pond. is the larger fish are removed the smaller fish
should grow more rapidly due to the increase in food supply
formerly utilized by the larger fish (Beckman, 1940).

The method of harvesting the fish that the operator uses
will depend on many factors. The size and depth of the pond,
the type of bottom material, the amount of vegetation, and
the s10pe of the bottom are all important factors that must
be taken into consideration. The number of fish desired, the
equipment that is available, and the labor force at hand are

also important in the selection of the method to be used.

37

There are four methods that are commonly used by fish
culturists in removing fish from ponds. The use of seines,
lift nets, and drainable ponds are old and well established
methods in hatchery Operations, but little use of glass traps
has been made for this purpose. Consequently the use of glass
traps in ponds has been treated more extensively since prelimin—
ary investigations have indicated that they may be an efficient,

low cost method Of harvesting bait minnows from ponds.

Seines

In many localities the bait dealer will have to use nat-
ural ponds for the production of minnows. The eXpense in the
construction of ponds is high and the location and water sup-
ply for artificial ponds are not always available. Under these
conditions a complete harvest is difficult, but seines can be
used to get as complete a recovery as possible. beines are
also useful in drainable ponds when removal of the water from
the ponds is not desired.

When large numbers of minnows are desired at the same time
and adequate manpower is available, long hauls with a large
seine are quite effective. The entire pond can thus be covered
and a large percentage of the salable fish removed. Many ponds,
however, are too deep to seine or have too soft a bottom for
proper footing. Other obstacles such as tree stumps or aquatic
plants may confront the operator and another method must be

used. There are also certain disadvantages to this method that

cannot be overcome. A seine may injure the salable fish thus
making them susceptible to fungus and other diseases, and at
the same time many of the younger fish are destroyed. hamage
to the fish may be reduced if the seine is landed on a firm
shore and then bagged to keep the fish in the water. Under no
circumstances should the fish be lifted from the water while
in the seine as the weight of the fish on one another will
injure or kill many fish. After bagging the net in the water
it can be moved to deeper water where the fish can be removed
by a dip net into a floating live box or sorter. The size of
the net must be adapted for the size of the area to be seined
and the mesh size is dependent on the size and type of fish
that are being removed. A 200 foot seine would be best suited
for a 1-2 acre pond but a shorter seine may be usedif the pond
is partially drained or the dimensions of the pond are such
that a shorter seine is more effective. A one-forth inch mesh
seine should be used if only salable fish are desired as many
of the young fish will be allowed to escape unharmed.

The universal effectiveness of a seine should not be over-
estimated, however, as Often filamentous algae or higher veget-
ation will restrict or even prevent seining in a pond that is
otherwise well suited to its use. The filamentous algae are
picked up by the seine making it very difficult to haul through
the water and those fish that are taken become hopelessly entang-
led in the algae and when recovered they are greatly weakened or

even dead. When thick beds of Chara or other higher plants are

39

present the seine will tend to roll or be stopped completely
by the plants, thus making it ineffective. Although there are
many disadvantages to the use of a seine, it is a very effect-
ive method of removing fish when in the hands of a competent

crew under suitable conditions.

Drainable Ponds

A pond should have a drain to allow the Operator to remove
all of the water and fish if so desired. hdminster (1947)
indicates that a drain is highly desirable in a pond for har-
vesting, removal Of silt, or removing unwanted fish pOpulations.
Bchaeperclaus (1933) Points out that non-drainable ponds are
less productive and less profitable than drainable ponds. Cer-
tain states have laws requiring that all ponds constructed be
equipped with a drain pipe (Lawrence, 1949). If a pond is to
be constructed for the purpose of raising bait minnows on a
commercial scale a drainage system should be included. Com-
plete removal of all the fish could then be accomplished in
the spring or fall if so desired. In conjunction with a drain
a concrete catch basin should be constructed that will allow
concentration of the fish where they can be readily removed.
The catch basin is either constructed in the pond at the base
Of the drain or outside of the pond. The catch basin outside
of the pond is preferable since a certain amount of sediment
will be stirred up in the catch basin in the pond that will

interfere with the removal of the fish. Many ponds, although

40

they are drainable, do not have a catch basin and the fish
must be removed when the water level is reduced. Under these
circumstances a seine Lould be effective since the fish are
(concentrated, but this procedure entails more labor than is

necessary in ponds having a catch basin.

Lift 0r Drop Nets

Lift or drOp nets as they are sometimes called are fre-
quently used in removing minnows from lakes and streams. They
are usually Square in design and form a pocket in which the
fish are trapped when the net is lifted directly upwards
(Figure XII). The nets which range in size from three square
feet upwards are spread by four supporting arms. The nets are
used by fisherman for obtaining bait and they are often used
by commercial fish dealers Operating farm-type ponds in which
large numbers of fish are being raised by artificial feeding.
Under these conditions when a large number of fish are concent-
rated in the pond the lift seines are very effective. Feeding
is generally accomplished by scattering the food around the
shoreline. The fish become accustomed to this and gather in
great numbers when the food is scattered over the water. Con-
sequently, the lift nets can be set near the shore and when the
fish have become accustomed to its presence food is scattered
over the net. When a large number of fish concentrate over the
net it can be raised suddenly with the use of a tripod and

lever.

41

The lift net did not prove too successful in ponds in
which natural food is being utilized by the fish. a limited
number of fish can be maintained by natural food and conseq-
uently the fish are not as numerous and they are not further
concentrated as they would be by artificial food. If lift
nets are to be used some artificial feeding or baiting of the
nets is necessary and this must be done Often enough to accus-
tom the fish to the food so that they can be concentrated when
desired. Baiting of the nets can be accomplished by placing
bread or crackers in the net to lure the fish over the net.

The effectiveness of this type of net was determined with-
out feeding and the results were very poor. The golden shiners
would gather in the water when any commotion was made, but when
the net was lifted they would scatter and would not be taken.
There is a time lag between the time the net starts to move
upward and the time the line is pulled due to the spring in
the spreading arms and many of the fish that do come over the
trap move quickly away in time to avoid the net. A lift net
would be more efficient in very shallow water such as in lakes
where the minnows are kept close in to shore by the activities
Of other fish preying on them but in ponds they tend to range

in deeper water.

Glass Traps

Glass traps have been used for years by fishermen and

minnow dealers as a means of removing minnows from streams.

Figure XII. Sketch of lift net to show construction

and position when in use.

 

 

0)}

,v
0

U

a .

E 3
a

I:

o

u

 

     
     

.‘g . ‘ \‘ o
- 0‘ -. . ‘~ \ ‘ Q.
O 0' v f ' , \‘
\‘t.3.o;.:.'o;.';¢:;...¢ . .0 ., “$.39,

.. . o. . O ‘ .. . \
“"330: . x ‘:..‘o“-

s o - /
\o‘.:..,‘.“. .ol Z

 

 

43

It is generally agreed among commercial minnow dealers that
many more minnows of desirable size can be caught by glass

traps than by seining (Yoder, l9h8). Observations on the use

of glass traps in trout streams were made by Carbine (l9hh)

when he had the Opportunity to observe the use of glass traps

by an established minnow dealer. At this time the removal of
minnows from trout waters was prohibited. Further experiments
were carried out by washburn (1945) to determine if the use of
these traps by bait dealers on trout waters would have any effect
on the trout. as very few trout were taken in the glass traps
he recommended that certain trout streams be opened for the tak-
ing of minnows by glass traps only for personal use and commer-
cial purposes. consequently certain trout streams were Opened
to the use of glass traps in l9h8.

During this time the State was conducting experiments on
the artificial propagation of bait minnows in farm-type ponds.
Since one of the major problems of operating a pond is the har-
vest of the fish, the use of glass traps was suggested for this
purpose. Consequently, glass trapping experiments were cond-
ucted during the summers of l9h9 and 1950 to determine the use-
fulness of glass traps in farm-type ponds. Although it is gener-
ally thought that a current of water moving through the traps is
essential in their use it was found that minnows could be suc-
cessfully trapped in ponds.

The glass traps used in these experiments are of standard

design (Figure XIII) and are commonly used by fisherman and

44

bait dealers. They have a cylindrical shape with an overall
length of 13 inches and a circumference of 23 inches. There
is a funnel type opening of 1 1/8 inches centrally located

in one end of the trap and a swivel type door perforated with
holes on the other end. This type of door allows easy and
rapid removal of the trapped fish. There are wire traps on
the market that are similar in design to the glass traps at

a lower price, but the cost of the glass trap is more than
compensated for by its advantages. The glass trap can be
lifted from the water without the water draining completely
from the trap (Figure LIV) and there are no sharp edges on

the inside of the trap that will injure the fish. If the min-
nows are to be held for any length of time it is important
that they be uninjured. The wire traps, however, drain com-
pletely when lifted from the water and the fish are injured by

the weight of the other fish.

Use of ulass Traps in Ponds

Preliminary experiments were begun in l9h9 on the use of
glass traps in ponds. In order to determine the number of
traps that could be used in a trap line the Optimum length of
each set had to be determined. A total of ll traps were used
to establish the Optimum trap inspection time. The experiment
was set up to compare the catch of many short sets with one
long set over the same period of time. The pond in which the

traps were set contained golden shiners. Under the conditions

 

.mpquHHoQNo mqflpmopnmm QH vows may» :6me mmwam .Ho 093..

.HHHa mwsmaa

 

 

.mwhp 2H amass.) Momma maocadu mafiaonm mmemOpogm $5.4 0.33%

 

47

of this experiment where counting the fish was necessary a
maximum of ll traps could be adequately handled in a trap line.
The traps were all baited with nowena dog food and the fish
were removed every 15 minutes for a period of one hour. The
traps were then rebaited and reset and inspected at the end

of one hour. The data obtained are shown in Table h.

TABLE h
COhPARlSON OF CATCH OF GLASS TKAPS SET FOR

SHORT AND LONG IthaViLs

W

Traps Lifted At 15 min. Intervals Catch Per Trangour

 

 

 

 

Trap Four Lifts Oneiiift

'I II III IV Per Hour Per Hour
1 o 121 ‘118 62 301 67
2 150 111 6c 37 358 84
3 0 ‘92 71 108 271 0
A 176 6A 64 91 395 121
5 0 17 21 138 176 116
6 121 o 132 113 366 22
7 97 3 29 100 229 130
8 o 116 18 0 13A 147
9 o 135 127 16 278 11A
10 0 o 113 0 113 31
11 21 67 68 3 159 76
Ave. 5A 57 75 70 253 82

 

This experiment indicated that several lifts of the trap
produced more minnows than one lift over the same period of

time.

48

In 1950 the experiments were expanded to include methods
of trapping other species of fish under varying pond condit-
ions. short sets proved effective in trapping fathead minnows
and creek chubs, but longer sets were found to be essential
in trapping suckers. Twelve glass traps were used in the ponds
in the latter part of the summer when the early young had reach-
ed a salable size. The number of traps that could be used in
a short lift schedule would vary with the size of the pond and
proximity of the sets but from 10 to 15 traps is all that could
be adequately handled. In trapping suckers a set Of from 60 to
90 minutes was found to be necessary and consequently more traps
would have to be used in trapping suckers to remove large num-
bers. Special consideration was given to trapping suckers as
the first attempts were unsuccessful. A method of pushing the
trap down into the sand so that the Opening of the trap would
be level with the bottom of the pond was devised. This method
of setting the trap along with a long set was necessary to trap
the suckers. is the suckers moved along the bottom of the pond
in search of food they would enter the trap quite readily When
the Opening of the funnel was on a level with the bottom of
the pond. The suckers were much more cautious than any of the
other fish and thus the longer set was necessary as they took
longer to approach the traps after they were set.

The 12 glass traps were all baited and set in the water
around the edge of the pond at intervals of about ten feet and

care was taken to insure that the opening in the funnel of the

A9

trap was clear. The traps were then lifted at regular inter-
vals and those traps that produced were reset in the same place
and those that did not produce were moved closer to those traps
that were taking minnows. Usually at the end of these trap-
ping periods the traps would be grouped in one or two product-
ive areas. is the fish were removed from the traps they were
placed in a bucket and moved to a floating sorting box. This
sorting box was constructed of a wooden frame with quarter

inch hardware cloth on the sides and bottom. The quarter inch
mesh retained the salable fish and allowed the smaller fish to
escape unharmed. The fish were left in the sorter for ten min-
utes and the remaining salable fish were placed in a screened
holding box that was placed in the pond. at the end of the
trapping period the number of salable fish per pound was deter-
mined and the remaining fish were weighed to determine the total
number of fish trapped. The results of the trapping are shown

in Table 5.

1.1318 5

RESULTS OF GLASS TRAPPING

 

E _-
__:—— ‘-—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Trap Total whole- Salable Fish

Pond Type Fish Hours salable sale Per Trap Hour

Fish Value ‘IIKumber Value

2 Fathead #15.5 26,790 133.85 63.2 31.6

A Sucker 368.0 h,8h2 24.20 13.2 6.5

5 Golden 392.5 18,007 90.02 h5.8 22.9
Shiner

6 Creek 204.0 3,955 79.10 l9.h 38.8

Chub

 

50

The return per unit of effort (catch per trap hour)
varies with the type of fish being trapped. The average
value per trap hour for the four types Of fish under con-
sideration is 25 cents per trap and on the basis of 12 traps
in the trap line would be three dollars per hour. These fig-
ures are based on wholesale prices and would be doubled if
the fish were sold at retail prices. The variability shown in
the catch per trap hour indicates that there is a difference

in the susceptibility of the fish to the traps.

Factors Affecting Glass Traps

Time of day. Attempts were made to trap the fish at all
hours of the day to determine the most productive time. It
was found that the fish trapped best during the sunlight hours.
Results were greatest when the sun was high and the trap was
well illuminated. As the sun started to go down and shadows
were cast across the pond the traps would produce fewer fish.
As complete darkness approached fewer and fewer fish were taken
until no fish were being trapped.

Trapping was conducted on the four species of fish under
consideration after darkness fell and the results were neglig-
ible. The fish were observed by artificial light and little
activity was seen. Many fish were sighted, but they were all
quiet and did not move about.

The results of early morning and'evening trapping were
fairly good, but the catch did not compare with the.mid—day

results when the sun was high in the sky. Evidently the

51

sunlight was the controlling factor since the catch was not

as good on overcast days as it was on clear days.

Baiting of traps. The use of some kind of bait was found

 

to be essential for high production of minnows from the glass
traps. Several types of baits were tried in the traps includ-
ing dog food (Rowena), bread, soda crackers, graham crackers,
and cereals. All of these baits were effective in luring min-
nows into the traps, but of the baits soda crackers were found
'to be most effective. It appeared as if this was due to the
brilliant whiteness of the cracker in the sunlight and to the
flavor of the cracker. Other shiny objects such as metal were
tried, but these did not attract the fish as well as an edible
bait. There was some indication that the salt on the cracker
or some other soluble ingredient was important as the bait had
to be renewed each time the trap was set for best results
although there was Often crackers remaining in the trap.

Fish can be attracted to the trapping area by scattering
food on the water over the traps. This method works particul-
arly well with creek chubs because they feed readily on the

surface of the water and tend to swim in a school in the pond.

Use of decoys. It was found in comparing decoyed and non-

 

decoyed traps that decoys were not necessary in the pond trap-
ping. Due to the large numbers of fish present in the ponds
some fish would enter the traps almost immediately and conse-

quently decoys were not necessary. It appeared as if the

52

activity of the fish around the trap was more important than
the presence of fish in the trap. The fish converged in large
numbers on one or two traps even when there were many traps

in the same area. when some fish found their way into the trap

the others would follow without hesitating at the Opening.

Turbidity of the water. There was some indication that
the turbidity of the water influenced the trapping results.
When the ponds were cloudy due to fertilization or when the
water was roiled on windy days the catch was not as high as
it was on days when the water was clear. on dull days the
reduction in visibility in the water was more apparent and
the catch was low. If glass traps are to be used for her-
vesting a pond, care should be taken in fertilizing so that
the visibility in the water is not reduced to a point where
trapping results are affected. If, however, another method of
harvesting the fish is available the bloom should be encour-
raged as the plankton algae is an important link in the food

chain of fishes (Swingle and Smith, 1938).

Deep and shallow sets. In comparing the catch between
deep and shallow water it was noted that slightly larger fish
were taken from the deeper sets. This was offset, however,
by the many disadvantages of the deeper sets. The funnel open-
ing of the trap was difficult to keep clear in the deeper water
as the trap often settled into the weeds. On some occasions,

depending on the visibility in the pond, the traps would

53

disappear from View before reaching the bottom. The traps

had to be set from a boat which was subject to wind action

and thus the set was difficult to make by one man. In View

of these difficulties the production of the traps was impaired
and deep sets produced fewer fish. Shallow water sets, how-
ever, could be set by wading in the water and the funnel could
be cleared by careful setting of the trap. Even in clear areas
in deep water the traps usually produced fewer fish. The brood
stock was small compared to the young-of-the-year fish present
and the young fish were concentrated around the shore areas.

In circumstances where the traps are being used in natural
ponds where there are many adult fish deep sets may be war-
ranted, but in drainable ponds where the production is on a

yearly basis they are not necessary.

Selectivity of the traps. The ponds in which the glass
trapping experiments were carried out had either young-Of-the-
year fish only or young-Of-the-year fish plus the brood stock.
Since the number of brood stock was relatively few the majority
of the fish being trapped were young fish and only occasionally
would any of the brood stock show up in the traps. ,Although
the fathead minnows and golden shiners have a prolonged spawn-
ing season and small fish were present it was noted that the
majority of the fish trapped were of the larger size classes.
It is suggested that this size selectivity of the traps was due
to differences in feeding habits or behavior Of the fish at

various ages. About 75 percent of the fish that were taken in

5A

the traps were retained by a sorting box constructed of one-
quarter inch hardware cloth and were of a salable size. Only

13 percent of the fathead minnows were salable upon final drain-
ing of the pond and removal Of all the fish. Thus it is shown
that the glass traps take the larger minnows in a prOportion

far greater than their abundance in the pond.

Interference of other aquatic organisms was negligible
throughout the early part of the trapping season. By August 21,
however, the tadpoles had increased in size and numbers to a
point where they were definitely a nuisance. Up to this time
the tadpoles that had been entering the traps could be easily
picked by hand from the sorting box. By the latter part of
August there were so many tadpoles entering the traps that they
had to be removed by the use of a one-half inch sorting box.
This abundance of tadpoles in the pond suggested the use of a
fish in the pond that would utilize the tadpoles without inter-
fering with the minnow production. Perhaps the bullhead would
serve this purpose and at the same time be a source of food for
human comsumption. ndult bullheads were used during the summer
of l9h9 in ponds with minnows and the tadpoles were not abund-
ant and minnow production was high.” much difficulty was encount-
ered, however, in harvesting due to the interference of the young
bullheads in the traps and the sorting that was necessary when
the fish were mixed together. If there was a legal market for
young bullheads as bait they could be sold, but the present laws

prohibit their use.

55

Barometric pressure. Barometric pressure has long been
thought to influence fishing results (Hazzard, 1950). A
recording barometer was in operation at the Hastings Hatchery
during the time the trapping Operations were conducted. These
records were used to determine if there was any correlation
between trapping results and barometric pressure trends. Upon
comparison of the catch per trap per hour with the barometer
trend it was found that all daytime trapping was done on a
steady or falling barometer. This could be used in comparison
of the catch on a steady and unsteady barometer. 0n the basis
of the inconclusive evidence presented in Table 6 it appears
.as if the fish trapped more readily on a steady barometer. The
total average of the catch per trap hour of all trapping sup-
ports this conclusion and the average catch of fathead minnows
shows a greater correlation than the other species. The inter-
action between the various types of fish and the trend of the
barometer is not taken into consideration, although it is recog-
nized that there is a difference in susceptibility of the fish
to the traps. The data, although inconclusive, are presented
since it appears that barometric pressure affects the results

of trapping for minnows.

TABIE 6
CO'rhYELATION OF Biiiblfroiii 111‘th“ CiL’i‘GH 013‘ I:-IILT£IU".~JS IN 111191138.

hiatumho 1&1‘111110111161' 0111'01'1 r1311. Elan: HULK.

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type Of Fish Barometer Trend
Falling Steady
Fathead 57.1
Fathead 95.6
Fathead ' hh.5
Fathead 25.9
ive. ‘ 35.2 76.3
Sucker 7.3
Sucker 7.3
Sucker 12.3
Ave. 9.0
Shiner 29.0
Shiner h0.5
Shiner 37.2
Shiner 52.8
Ave. 38.8 40.9
Chubs 11.6
Chubs 14.9
Ave. 11.6 lh.9

 

 

Total ave. 23.7 A4.0

 

57

DISCUSSION

'The artificial propagation of bait fishes can be a profit-
able and successful way of meeting the increasing demands of
fisherman for good bait minnows. The four species of fish
raised at the hastings hatchery during the summer of 1950 give
additional evidence that a large crOp of bait minnows can be
produced quite successfully in small ponds. Certain fishes
sdch as the golden shiner and fathead minnow are well adapted
to small ponds. They will spawn quite successfully and large
numbers Of marketable bait fishes will be produced the first
season. The rate of growth is rapid enough to insure a rea-
sonable number Of salable fish by August of the firSt summer.
0ther fish, such as the creek chub and white sucker, will not
spawn successfully in small ponds since they normally spawn in
small swift streams. If fry can be obtained from another source
they can be successfully raised in small ponds with a minimum
Of effort. In Lichigan, fry are made available to bait dealers
by the Fish Division of the Department of Conservation at a
nominal cost. This initial cost is more than compensated for
by the value of the fish upon final harvest. after 96 days
the chubs averaged three inches in size and would have brought
a good price on the market as bass size minnows.

Harvesting Operations can begin whenever a sufficient num-
ber of the fish reach a salable size. There is no reason to

believe that removal of the salable fish from the ponds early

58

in the season will be detrimental to the total production at
the end of the season. On the contrary, their removal should
increase the overall production of salable fish since the lim-
iting factor in most cases is the amount of food that is avail-
able to the fish. The available food organisms can be control-
led to a certain extent by prOper management of the ponds. The
use of fertilizer in pond management for increasing the food
organisms is well established (Ball, l9h9). Artificial feeding
can also be used to increase the total production of fish from
the ponds.

Throughout most of hichigan there is a constant demand
for bait fishes and at the present time all indications sug-
gest a ready market at profitable prices for all of the fish
produced. The production of bait fishes in ponds would be
advantageous to bait dealers since it would insure them of a
constant supply that is readily available. at the present time
minnow dealers often travel hundreds of miles to obtain fish
and extensive holding and transporting facilities must be avail-
able. Large losses are sustained by the minnow dealers that
sometimes reach 80 per cent of the fish they handle (Dobie,
l9h7b). Thus a waste in fish and effort on the part of the
bait dealer arise.

In pond operation, however, the fish can be harvested as
they are needed and a faster turnover between dealer and fish-
erman would result. Thus the fish would be in better condition
when sold and a much higher return on the number of fish handled

would be experienced. sales would probably be increased

59

considerably since fisherman often travel many miles to obtain
bait and a dealer who could be depended on for good bait would
get a high prOportion of the business.

The method used in the removal of the fish from the ponds
will depend on many factors such as the type of bottom, depth
of'the pond, the aquatic vegetation and other obstacles, and
the labor force available. In early harvest of the fish seines,
lift nets, and glass traps are available. Of these methods
the glass traps are the most flexible and have proven an effect-
ive way to remove fish from ponds. The glass traps can be used
in any kind of pond and can be Operated effectively and inex-
pensively by one man. Both natural and artificial ponds can be
used for bait fish production. Artificial ponds are usually
constructed with a drain which enables the operator to complet-
ely harvest the fish in the pond in the fall of the year. If
natural ponds are used all of the fish in the pond should be
eliminated before stocking the pond with bait minnows. The
presence of even a few carnivorous fish in the pond would red-
uce the number of marketable fish that the pond can produce.

A large seine would have to be used to harvest the fish in the
fall of the year and repeated hauls with the seine would be nec-
essary to remove as many fish as possible. A complete harvest
would be impractical because the cost for the effort involved

would exceed the return.

h.

_ ""r " _u' .— 2‘.
D bl...L‘.‘ii-L.L”LY

Fathead minnows, golden shiners, northern creek chubs,
and white suckers were propagated at the Hastings btate
fish hatchery in southwestern Michigan during the sum-

mer of 1950.

All of the ponds used were fertilized during the early
part of the season to increase the fish food organisms.
A high production of bait fishes was obtained from the

ponds and the growth rate of the fishes was good.

The market prices of the fish that were produced were
determined by interviewing several bait dealers in the
Hastings area. The demand for bait minnows was fairly
steady and the prices were stable in the area as a
whole, but they are subject to change depending on the

demand and availability.

The value of the fish as bait minnows was high enough
to insure an adequate return for the cost and effort
involved.

Several methods for harvesting the fish from the ponds
were investigated. These methods included the use of
seines, drainable ponds, lift nets, and glass traps.
The first three methods are old and well established in

hatchery operations, but little use of glass traps has

been made for this purpose.

Long hauls with a seine that is large enough to cover
much of the area of the pond are effective in removing
fish from a pond. many factors such as vegetation,
depth, and type of bottom restrict the use of a seine,
however, and the universal effectiveness of a seine

should not be overestimated.

If a pond is to be constructed the addition of a drain

is highly reCOmmended. Drainable ponds are more pro-
ductive and thus more profitable than non-drainable ponds.
natural ponds can be used for the production of bait min-
nows, but the lack of a means to remove the water inter-

feres with the prOper management of the pond.

hift nets are used by many commercial fish hatcheries
where large numbers of fish are being raised by artif-
icial feeding in limited areas. Under these conditions
lift nets are very effective as the fish can be highly
concentrated in the ponds. In ponds where the fish are
utilizing natural food the lift net did not prove too

successful.

The glass traps proved effective in trapping fish in ponds.
They can be used successfully in many types of ponds, are
economical to Operate, and can be operated by one man. It
was possible to remove an average of 5,056 salable fathead
minnows in an eight hour day throughout the latter part

of the season.

10.

62

Many factors influence the catch of minnows in the traps.
The traps should be fished during the mid-day hours and
baited with a cereal bait for maximum results. Many
short sets are more productive than one long set over the
same period of time. A maximum of 15 traps in a trap
line can be successfully operated by one man on a short

lift schedule.

LITmRaTURE CITED

hmerican Public Health Association
1946 standard methods for the examination of water
and sewage. Am. Pub. health Assoc., hew York
9th. ed., 286 pp.

Bacon, Edward H.
1951 Experimental use of carp pituitary in the pro-
duction of fish. Unpublished M. A. thesis.
hichigan State College, 60 numb. leaves.

Ball, Robert C.
1949 EXperimental use of fertilizer in the production
of fiSh-food organisms and fish. Lich. State
0011., agr. ixp. 5ta., Tech. Bull. 210, 28 pp.

seckman, William C.
l940 Increased growth rate of rock bass, Ambloplites
rupestris (fiafinesquel, following reduction in
the density of the population. Trans. Am. Fish.
500., l9u0, 70, 143-148.

 

carbine, 1:01.}.

l9u0 Lichigan Minnow dealers. nichigan Department
Conservation, I.F.R. (Umgublished) deport ho.
627. /
l9hh Observations on the use of glass minnow traps

in marginal trout streams in Oakland and hacomb
counties. Mich. Dept. Cons., I.F.k. (Umpublished)
Report No. 916.

Cooper, Gerald P.
1935 Some results of forage fish investigations in
hichigan. Trans. Am. Tish. boc., Vol. 65,
pp. 132-142.

Dobie, John

l947a Artificial vs. natural minnow ponds. Uons. Vols,
July-Aug.
l9h7b Handling and holding of minnows. Uons. Vol.,

l‘-.OVo-.UeCO , pp. 34-360

64

Dobie, J.R., O.L. Meehean, G.N. Uashburn
1948 Propogation of minnows and other bait species
U.S. Dept. Int., F. and h.S., Cir. 12.

Edminster, Frank C.
1947 Fish ponds for the farm. Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York.

Hazzard, Albert o.
1950 Theories can't catch trout. Outdoor Life,
Vol. 106: No. 4, Oct. 1950, pp. 30-31.

Langlois, T.H.
1937 Bait Culturists Guide. Ohio Dept. of Agr.
Bull. ho. 137, Div. of Cons.

Lawrence, J.M.
1949 Construction of farm fish ponds. Circ. 30. 95,
Agr. EXp. 8tat., Ala. Poly. lnst., nuburn, Ala.

Schaeperclaus, Wilhelm Translated By F. hund.
1933 Textbook of pond culture. U.S. Dept. Int.,
3. and 4.8., fishery leaflet 311.

Smith, s.v. and H.S. Swingle
1941 The use of fertilizer for controlling several
submerged aquatic plants in ponds. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 71: 94-101.

bwingle, H.S. and h.V. Smith
1938 Fertilizers for increasing the natural food for
fish ponds. Trans. Am. fish. 500., 68: 126-135.

------- and - - — - - -
1942 Management of farm fish ponds. Ala. hgr. Exp.
Uta., Bull. 254, 23 pp.

Washburn, George N.
1945 Experimental use of glass minnow traps in
certain hichigan trout streams. Mich. Dept.
Cons., I.F.h. (Unpublished) Report ho. 984.

Yoder, C. Troy
1948 The use of glass minnow traps in trout streams.
Mich. Dept. Cons., 1.F.h. (Unpublished) Report
No. 1173.

I .. 11...... a. 34...... 2.1..- .J 2a.aggrifigsarigtggmgihaAmiga

 

 

“mm

 

”Milli“

2758