|
<br />
<br />.ter National
<br />
<br />COMMUNICA nONS
<br />
<br />29
<br />
<br />Percent
<br />survival
<br />
<br />Johnson, J. E., and J. N. Rinne. ] 982. The endangered
<br />species act and southwestern fishes. Fisheries (Be-
<br />thesda) 7(4):2-8.
<br />Joseph, T. W., J. A. Sinning, R. J. Behnke, and P. B.
<br />Holden. 1977. An evaluation of the status, life
<br />history, and habitat requirements of endangered and
<br />threatened fishes of the upper Colorado River sys-
<br />tem. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Energy
<br />and Land Use Team, Fort Collins, Colorado.
<br />Marsh, P. C. 1985. Effect of incubation temperature
<br />on survival of embryos of native Colorado River
<br />fishes. Southwestern Naturalist 30: 129-140.
<br />Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona
<br />Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.
<br />
<br />27.7
<br />34.8
<br />36.0
<br />
<br />85.8
<br />99.7
<br />
<br />i and cause
<br />, photosyn-
<br />sh food be-
<br />fast growth
<br />=>iper et al.
<br />~ond flood-
<br />Jm repopu-
<br />d of plank-
<br />
<br />The Progressive Fish-Cullurisl 51 :29-33, 1989
<br />
<br />Piper, R. G., I. B. McElwain, L. E. Orme, J. P. Mc-
<br />Craren, L. G. Fowler, and J. R. Leonard. 1982.
<br />Fish hatchery management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
<br />Service, Washington, D.C.
<br />Toney, D. P. 1974. Observations on the propagation
<br />and rearing of two endangered species in a hatchery
<br />environment. Proceedings of the Annual Confer-
<br />ence Western Association of Game and Fish Com-
<br />missioners 54:252-259.
<br />U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980. Federal Reg-
<br />ister 45(99):33768-33781.
<br />USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1978. Col-
<br />orado squawfish recovery plan. Colorado River
<br />Fishes Recovery Team, Salt Lake City, Utah.
<br />
<br />Intraperitoneal Injection and Hyperosmotic Infiltration for
<br />Administering Antibiotic to Largemouth Bass
<br />
<br />1 will prob-
<br />restore the
<br />far suggests
<br />squawfish
<br />e Colorado
<br />chis endan-
<br />
<br />ELIZABETH A. CAMPBELL I AND
<br />DAVID L. JOHNSON
<br />
<br />Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Management
<br />School of Natural Resources
<br />The Ohio State University
<br />Columbus. Ohio 43210, USA
<br />
<br />n, Joe Ow-
<br />~ assistance
<br />
<br />Abstract. - Hyperosmotic infiltration (HI) is a proce-
<br />dure developed for fish vaccination. We used the meth-
<br />od instead to administer an antibiotic (tetracycline) to
<br />largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and compared
<br />its effectiveness to that of intraperitoneal (IP) injection.
<br />Effectiveness of both methods was also compared to that
<br />of a control treatment consisting of fish that received no
<br />antibiotic. The survival offish injected IP (53.3%) for 7
<br />d following bacterial injection (6 d following antibiotic
<br />treatment) was significantly greater (P < 0.00 I) than that
<br />of fish in either the HI (16.4%) or the control (3.3%)
<br />groups. Although the percentage of HI survivors was
<br />higher than the percentage of control survivors, the dif-
<br />ference was not significant (P = 0.110). The effectiveness
<br />of HI in the administration of antibiotics to fish may be
<br />improved through the use of a follow-up treatment or a
<br />chemical surfactant.
<br />
<br />Endangered
<br />orado River
<br />perative Ex-
<br />} Ilins.
<br />and S. Con-
<br />'rica endan-
<br />] 979. Fish-
<br />
<br />ture of Col-
<br />.'e Fish-Cul-
<br />
<br />::If hatchery-
<br />e Fish-Cul-
<br />
<br />Many antibiotics, such as chloramphenicol and
<br />oxytetracycline, have been used by fish culturists
<br />to control or treat bacterial infections in fish. An-
<br />tibiotics are commonly administered to fish in one
<br />of three ways: (1) intraperitoneal (IP) injection, (2)
<br />
<br />history and
<br />wfish. Pages
<br />. and C. A.
<br />,lorado Riv-
<br />~n Fisheries
<br />.1aryland.
<br />
<br />I Present address: Center for Limnology, University
<br />of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA.
<br />
<br />incorporation into food, or (3) addition to tank
<br />water (Brown and Gratzek 1980). None of these
<br />methods, however, is entirely satisfactory.
<br />Intraperitoneal injection has been used as a
<br />standard method for fish vaccination as well as
<br />for antibiotic treatment. Nevertheless, the method
<br />is generally costly, time-consuming, stressful to
<br />fish, and not easily applicable to fish of small size
<br />(Antipa and Amend 1977).
<br />The mixing of antibiotics with commercially
<br />prepared food is a method used most often to treat
<br />salmonid and ictalurid fishes. Because all indi-
<br />viduals do not eat the same amount of food, it is
<br />impossible to standardize dosages. The method
<br />may also be precluded when fish become anorectic
<br />due to disease (Gratzek 1983) or because some
<br />species, such as largemouth bass (Micropterus sa/-
<br />moides), are frequently fed only live prey (Piper
<br />et a1. 1982).
<br />The addition of antibiotics to tank water has
<br />been used to successfully treat external symptoms
<br />of bacterial fish infections including some forms
<br />of columnaris and bacterial gill diseases (Lewis
<br />1980; Piper et al. 1982). However, antibiotics have
<br />also been added to tank water on the assumption
<br />either that they reduce bacterial numbers (John-
<br />son 1979) and thus help prevent the lowering of
<br />dissolved oxygen concentrations, or that they are
<br />absorbed by fish and are thus therapeutic (Brown
<br />and Gratzek 1980). Johnson (1979) found that an-
<br />tibiotics such as nitrofurazone and oxytetracycline
<br />
|