FEEDING AND REARING FISHES. 
301 
The tront reared at tlie three hatcheries where the Neosho method of feeding is 
followed, uamelj^, Neosho, Mo,, Wytheville, Va., and IMamiaoth Spring’, Ark., are not 
surpassed by any in the United States or in Euroi)e. Only at the Mexican hatcheries, 
Avhere the cheap labor and peculiar conditions enable them to collect and supply the 
natural food in sufficient quantities, are larger trout grown in the same period of time. 
In 1893 the method was adopted by Mr. F. N. Clark, superintendent of the Michigan 
stations of the U. S. Fish Commission. 
Stubborn as are the facts which have been presented, the mixed diet for trout has 
been covertly attacked on the ground that trout, from the nature of their teeth, are 
carnivorous, and that it is contrary to nature to supply the domesticated trout with 
other than a purely flesh diet. If our knowledge of dentition ever reaches any degree 
of exactness it will show exceptions to the general law which will refute such idle 
talk. It is a fact well known to all careful observers that — 
All our oommou fresh- water fishes eat vegetable matter. All of them seem to be fond of mulberries 
and elderberries. Chubs, perch, eels, cats, carp (.suckers) eat all grains and the meal thereof, whether 
whole or ground. I believe that all of the rodentia are at times flesh-eaters. Ilerbivora often eat 
flesh. Horses, mules, and cattle eat dry fish- scrap freely. In the case of fishes which scarcely chew, 
the dentition does not impede a change from one sort of diet to another. The lines which separate 
between flesh-eaters and vegetable-feeders are scarcely so hard and fast as are generally thought. — (Dr. 
M. G. Ellzey, ex-commissioner of fisheries of Virginia.) 
The dentition argument against the mixed diet for domesticated trout is as 
reasonable as that of the so-called school of vegetarians, who declare that because our 
teeth resemble those of the vegetable-feeding apes more than any other animals our 
most appropriate food is the fruits of the earth. I have before stated that the trout 
we feed in our ponds are domesticated animals; that tlie jackal and the wolf are 
carnivorous, but the domesticated dog sickens and dies when restricted to the only 
food acceptable to his ancient progenitors. It is strange and unaccountable that the 
average lish-culturist will persist in basing all his arguments for the determination of 
the food for fishes under domestication upon the known habits and i)references of the 
fish in a wild or natural state. All data relating to the habits and food of fishes in 
natux'e are of tlie highest value to the fish-culturist in determining the best conditions 
for stocking streams, but they have no direct bearing upon what should constitute 
their food under domestication. 
Dr. James A. Henshall presented at the twentieth meeting of the American Fish- 
eries Society (Washington, D. (J., May, 1891) a paper on The Teeth of Fishes as a 
Guide to their Food Habits. In the closing portion of this papier he says: 
Thus, l)y observing the character and position of the teeth of fishes we have a sure and certain 
indication of the character of their food, that is, of their principal and natural food. Of course, 
there will be exceptions, but they only prove the rule. An herbivorous fish will occasionally swallow 
animal food, while a carnivorous fish will sometimes swallow vegetable matter. » * * They should 
be judged, however, by what they feed on mostly and habitually when situated so that they can 
exercise their choice in the matter, for change of environment may involve a change of diet. 
The last sentence of this quotation strilces the keynote of a mixed diet for trout 
under domestication. Dr. Henshall Avould have come nearer to the facts had he said 
that a change of environment (and it is a wide change from nature to domestication) 
frequently demands a change of diet. 
In Forest and Stream for November 18, 1893, over the signature of Mr. A. N. 
Cheney, is the following statement: 
