CRUSTACEA AS FOOD FOR YOUNG FISH. 21 



fish (trout and saiblino;) were kept in small compartments and 

 gradually admitted to larger ones. Connected with these were small 

 shallow "ponds of stagnating Avater, full of aquatic plants. These 

 were for raising crustaceans as food for the young fish. They re- 

 ceiA'ed their water from the same " canal " that supplied the larger 

 fish pond, and from these food reservoirs the crustaceans were ad- 

 mitted to the compartments of young fish through " subterreanean 

 wooden pipes " which could be closed. Thus, it was claimed, the 

 young fish at the inland establishment were raised on exactly the 

 same food as they eat in open waters. Mr. Fruwirth believed that 

 the feeding of young trout and saibling with good and sufficient 

 food, from the moment they lost the umbilical sac until the time 

 when they could be fed on meat or fish, was really the point on which 

 their rational culture depended, so crustacean food was supplied in 

 unusually large quantities up to the end of the first year, after which 

 he began feeding with horse meat. 



Probably induced by the reported European success in crustacean 

 culture, various fish-culturists in this country advocated a similar 

 practice, and the subject was discussed at various meetings of the 

 American Fisheries Society. During one of these discussions Mather 

 (1897), having followed in his experiments, as he supposed, the 

 methods employed at Gremaz and having met with unsatisfaqtory 

 results, was skeptical regarding the practicability of crustacean cul- 

 ture in this country, where the yearling trout were raised in far 

 greater numbers than in Europe. In discussing Mather's adverse state- 

 ments, Mr. Thompson (Mather, 1897) stated that he had thousands 

 of that year's trout from one-half to 2 inches long, and yearlings 

 weighing from one-fourth to one-half pound, which had received no 

 artificial food whatever, but had fed on crustaceans raised in a series 

 of small natural ponds. Mr. Fairbanks (Mather, 1897), also dis- 

 cussing the subject, said that he had some 20 fine spring- feci, sidehill 

 ponds, varying in size from 100 to 300 feet in length and 50 to 75 

 feet in width; also some smaller than these, about 100 feet in di- 

 ameter. These ponds were planted with water plants and stocked 

 with crustaceans. Into each of these stocked ponds 50,000 good, 

 healthy fry were placed and never fed, touched, or looked at until 

 they were yearlings. Some often grew to 6 inches in length. This 

 he called a practical success, which was repeated year after year. 



Embody (1911), in the introduction to his report upon his investi- 

 gation of certain crustaceans, states that the studies were begun with 

 the ultimate purpose of securing sufficient data to show the practi- 

 cability or impracticability of propagating amphipods as food for 

 fishes, and in the case of the former to determine which species would 

 lend themselves most readily to such procedure. Embody's studies 

 resulted in important determination of the distribution, habits, and 

 life histories of four species of amphipods occurring in the region 

 under investigation. While nothing definite regarding the prac- 

 ticability or impracticability of the culture of these forms is stated, 

 that it would be practicable is perhaps implied in the last paragraph 

 of his summary, in which he says : 



From its large size, rapid growth, and greatest reproductive capacity it is 

 evident tliat G. frisciatus is likely to give the best results if propagated as food 

 for fishes inhabiting the more open, quiet, and moderately warm waters. 



