PUBLIC FISH CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1958 



The fish-cultural activities of the States and of the 

 Federal Government have been reported previously^ by Earle (l937) 

 and by Tunison and others (19^9)' What Earle described as "big 

 business" twenty- two years ago has now truly attained such stat- 

 ure. If it were possible to list accurate data for private fish- 

 cultural activities^ there would be substantial additions to the 

 totals. 



Fish culture as practiced by the public agencies is so 

 different in most respects from that of the turn of the century 

 as to be hardly recognizable. Disease control, nutritional 

 requirements, techniques of fish culture, and equipment improvement 

 are far beyond anything dreamed of at that time. But as advances 

 are made, there are opened before us new vistas to be explored: new 

 problems arise and old problems are newly recognized. The ingenuity 

 of the fish culturist is constantly producing contributions to 

 techniques and equipment - labor savers, if you will. The helpf\il 

 pathologist or nutritionist is pointing the way to a better, and 

 cheaper, final product. 



Not so surprising, when one thinks of it, is the fact 

 that here in the hatcheries is one of the few functions of public 

 agencies where a definite product is produced - where it is pos- 

 sible to analyze the production in cost per unit, or effort per 

 pound of fish. In those hatcheries where the simplest of cost- 

 accounting methods are employed it is possible to show, over the 

 years, increased production and improved quality, provided the 

 resiilts of research are available and the hatchery manager has the 

 know-how or the help to apply these findings to his operations. 



The fish culturists of the public agencies can be proud 

 of their achievements within the hatchery. The next chapter, how- 

 ever, is the most important part of the story. Every fish cultur- 

 ist wants his product to contribute to the fisherman's creel. 

 Dependence must be on the management biologist to help in producing 

 for the creel. He should be working with the hatcheiy, stating the 

 species desired, the numbers and size wanted at what time of year. 

 His is the responsibility, not only for determining the extent to 

 which the hatchery fish are being creeled, but also for advising on 

 ways and means of improving the return to the fisherman. Unfortu- 

 nately, insufficient assistance of this kind results in a major 

 weakness of the hatchery program. 



