INVESTIGATIONS IN FISH CONTROL

39. Effects of Antlmycln A on 

Tissue Respiration of 

Rainbow Trout and Channel Catfish

40. A Resume on Field Applications 

of Antlmycln A to Control Fish

United States Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
INVESTIGATIONS IN FISH CONTROL

Investigations in Fish Control, published by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, include reports on the results of work at the Bureau's Fish Control Laboratories at 

La Crosse, Wis., and Warm Springs, Ga., and reports of other studies related to that work. 

Though each report is regarded as a separate publication, several may be issued under a 

single cover, for economy.

Current reports in this series are 

(Reports 1 and 2 are in one cover.)

1. Laboratories and Methods for Screening Fish-Control Chemicals, by Robert E. Lennon and 

Charles R. Walker. 1964. 15 p.

2. Preliminary Observations on the Toxicity of Antimycin A to Fish and Other Aquatic Animals, by Charles R. Walker, Robert E. Lennon, and Bernard L. Berger. 1964. 18 p.

(Reports 3 through 8 are in one cover.)

3. Minimum Lethal Levels of Toxaphene as a Piscicide in North Dakota Lakes, by Dale L. 

Henegar. 1966. 16 p.

4. Effects of Toxaphene on Plankton and Aquatic Invertebrates in North Dakota Lakes, by 

Robert G. Needham. 1966. 16 p.

5. Growth Rates of Yellow Perch in Two North Dakota Lakes After Population Reduction with 

Toxaphene, by Donald C. Warnick. 1966. 9 p.

6. Mortality of Some Species of Fish to Toxaphene at Three Temperatures, by Mahmoud Ahmed 

Mahdi. 1966. 10 p.

7. Treatment of East Bay, Alger County, Michigan, with Toxaphene for Control of Sea Lampreys, by William E. Gaylord and Bernard R. Smith. 1966. 7 p.

8. Effects of Toxaphene on Fishes and Bottom Fauna of Big Kitoi Creek, Afognak Island, 

Alaska, by William R. Meehan and William L. Sheridan. 1966. 9 p.

(Reports 9 through 11 are in one cover.)

9. Relation of Chemical Structure to Fish Toxicity in Nitrosalicylanilides and Related Compounds, by Charles R. Walker, Roland J. Starkey, and Leif L. Marking. 1966. 12 p.

10. Evaluation of jj.jj'-DDT as a Reference Toxicant in Bioassays, by Leif L. Marking.

1966. 10 p.

11. Evaluation of an Electronic Method of Measuring Hematocrits of Fish, by Richard A. 

Schoettger and Arnold M. Julin. 1966. 11 p.

(Reports 12 through 17 are in one cover.)

12. Toxicity of MS-222 to Selected Fishes, by Leif L. Marking. 1967. 10 p.

13. Efficacy of MS-222 as an Anesthetic on Four Salmonids, by Richard A. Schoettger and 

Arnold M. Julin. 1967. 15 p.

14. Method for Determining MS-222 Residues in Fish, by Charles R. Walker and Richard A. 

Schoettger. 1967. 10 p.

15. Residues of MS-222 in Four Salmonids Following Anesthesia, by Charles R. Walker and 

Richard A. Schoettger. 1967. 11 p.

16. Annotated Bibliography on MS-222, by Richard A. Schoettger. 1967. 15 p.

17. MS-222 as an Anesthetic for Channel Catfish: Its Toxicity, Efficacy, and Muscle Residues, 

by Richard A. Schoettger, Charles R. Walker, Leif L. Marking, and Arnold M. Julin.

1967. 14 p.

(Reports 18 through 21 are in one cover.)

18. Toxicity of 22 Therapeutic Compounds to Six Fishes, by Wayne A. Willford. 1967. 10 p.

19. Toxicity of Bayer 73 to Fish, by Leif L. Marking and James W. Hogan. 1967. 13 p.

20. Toxicity of Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) to Fish, by Wayne A. Willford. 1967. 8 p.

21. Labor-Saving Devices for Bioassay Laboratories, by Robert J. Hesselberg and Ralph M. 

Burress. 1967. 8 p.

Fish Control Laboratories .

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

U.S. Department of the Interior

P. 0. Box 862

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Continued on inside back cover 
INVESTIGATIONS IN FISH CONTROL

39. Effects of Antimycin A on Tissue Respiration 

of Rainbow Trout and Channel Catfish

By Richard A. Schoettger and Gerald E. Svendsen

40. A Resume on Field Applications 

of Antimycin A to Control Fish

By Robert E. Lennon and Bernard L. Berger

United States Department of the Interior, Walter J. Hickel, Secretary

Leslie L. Glasgow, Assistant Secretary for

Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Marine Resources

Fish and Wildlife Service, Charles H. Meacham, Commissioner

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, John S. Gottschalk, Director

Washington, D.C. May 1970

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 35 cents
IN THIS COVER

Pages

Effects of Antimycin A on Tissue Respiration of Rainbow Trout 

and Channel Catfish, by Richard A. Schoettger and Gerald E. 

Svendsen. .................................... 1-10

A Resume on Field Applications of Antimycin A to Control Fish,

by Robert E. Lennon and Bernard L. Berger. ............ 1-19

ii
INVESTIGATIONS IN FISH CONTROL

39. Effects of Antimycin A on 

Tissue Respiration of 

Rainbow Trout and Channel Catfish

By Richard A. Schoettger and Gerald E. Svendsen

United States Department of the Interior, Walter J. Hickel, Secretary

Leslie L. Glasgow, Assistant Secretary for

Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Marine Resources

Fish and Wfldlife Service, Charles H. Meacham, Commissioner

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wfldlife, John S. Gottschalk, Director

Washington, D.C. May 1970
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...................................... 3

Methods and materials............................. 4

In vitro studies............................... 4

In vivo studies ............................... 4

Results ....................................... 5

Discussion. .................................... 5

Summary. ..................................... 8

References. .................................... 9
EFFECTS OF ANTIMYCIN A ON TISSUE RESPIRATION 

OF RAINBOW TROUT AND CHANNEL CATFISH

By Richard A. Schoettger, Fishery Biologist

Bureau of Sport Fisheries an^i Wildlife 

Fish Control Laboratory, La Crosse, Wisconsin

and Gerald E. Svendsen 

Viterbo College, La Crosse, Wisconsin

ABSTRACT. Effects of antimycin A on respiration of liver, kidney, 

brain, and gill of rainbow trout and channel catfish were measured in 

vivo and in vitro. In vitro, brain was most resistant to the toxicant, followed by liver and kidney. Brain was more sensitive in vivo than in vitro; 

liver and kidney were less sensitive in vivo than in vitro. Untreated trout 

tissues had higher rates of respiration than did catfish tissues. Liver had 

the greatest oxygen consumption of all tissues.

Early investigations on the mode of action 

of antimycin A in animals showed it to be an 

inhibitor of respiration. Ahmad et al. (1949) 

and Ahmad, Schneider, and Strong (1950) 

established antimycin A as a potent inhibitor 

of succinate oxidation in rats. Strong (1958) 

states that antimycin A is a powerful and 

selective inhibitor of electron transport in 

oxidative phosphorylation. Rieske and Zaugg 

(1962) found almost complete inhibition of 

Complex III, or reduced coenzyme Q-cytochrome £ reductase, by antimycin A, and determined that the antimycin-sensitive site is 

the segment of the respiratory chain which 

contains cytochrome l)_and c^. Hepatic aldehyde oxidase is the only enzyme not in the 

electron transport chain that has thus far 

been shown to be inhibited by antimycin A 

(Rajagopalan, Fridovich, and Handler, 1962). 

Derse and Strong (1963) suggest that its mode 

of action in fish is also inhibition of respiration. Later, Hiltebran (1965 and 1967) showed 

that antimycin inhibits succinate and alphaketoglutarate oxidation in liver mitochondria 

of bluegills.

Walker, Lennon, and Berger (1964) and 

Berger * found that the toxicity of antimycin A 

varies among fishes. The families of trouts, 

perches, and herrings are most susceptible. 

The pikes, sunfishes, suckers, and cyprinids 

are of intermediate susceptibility, and the 

freshwater catfishes, gars, and bowfins least 

sensitive. Bioassays have shown that channel 

catfish are approximately 20 times as resistant to antimycin A poisoning as rainbow 

trout (Walker, Lennon, and Berger, 1964). 

Although the biochemical mode of action is 

relatively well defined, the tissue or organ 

sites of action in fish are not established. 

Also, whether the sensitivities of trout and 

catfish tissues to antimycin A are sufficiently 

different in vitro as well as in vivo to account 

for species selectivity has not been determined. The present study attempts to determine the tissue response of a sensitive species, the rainbow trout (Salrno gairdneri),

1 Personal communication from Bernard L. Berger, 

Chemist, Fish Control Laboratory, U.S. Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife, La Crosse, Wis.
Investigations in Fish Control 39: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

and a highly resistant species, the channel 

catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), to antimycin A 

in vitro and in vivo.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The rainbow trout used in these investigations ranged from 10.6 to 12.2 inches in 

length and from 200 to 300 grams in weight 

and were obtained from the National Fish 

Hatchery, Manchester, Iowa, and from Peterson Trout Farm, Peterson, Minn. Channel 

catfish were trapped from the Mississippi 

River by the National Fish Hatcheries at 

Guttenberg and Fairport, Iowa, and Genoa, 

Wis. They ranged from 11 to 13 inches in 

length and from 138 to 312 grams in weight. 

Both species were maintained in the laboratory as described by Hunn, Schoettger, and 

Whealdon (1968). Before use, all fish were 

acclimated to laboratory conditions in reconstituted water at 12° C. according to the 

methods of Lennon and Walker (1964).

Antimycin A, 98-percent active ingredient, 

was obtained from Ay erst Laboratories, New 

York, N.Y. Stock solutions for in vitro studies 

were prepared by dissolving antimycin A in 

sufficient 95-percent ethanol and diluting to 

volume with 50-percent ethanol. The stocks 

for in vivo tests were prepared by dissolving 

antimycin A in appropriate amounts of 100- 

percent acetone so that aliquots added to the 

test media did not exceed 1 milliliter per 

liter.

In vitro studies

The fish were killed by severing the spinal 

cord behind the head. Livers, kidneys, and 

brains were removed, and a small sample 

excised for determination of dry weight. The 

remainder was weighed, mixed with reaction 

medium, and hemogenized in a teflon homogenizer. The final homogenate consisted of one 

part tissue (wet weight) to seven parts reaction medium. The reaction medium of Anthony 

and Munro (1964) was modified to contain 

0.25M sucrose, 0.04M magnesium chloride, 

0.02M potassium chloride, and 0.004M EDTA 

(tetrasodium salt). This medium gave the

most consistent and highest metabolic rates, 

for the tissues involved, of all media tested.

Two ml of each homogenate were placed in 

a standard single-arm reaction vessel with 

0.2 ml of 10-percent potassium hydroxide 

absorbed on filter paper in the center well. 

One to 10 microliters of antimycin stock were 

added to the homogenate already in the vessels, depending on the desired concentration. 

Earlier, we determined that these amounts of 

ethanol had no effect on respiration or readings. The vessels were then placed on the 

manometers of a Warburg apparatus and 

equilibrated for 15 minutes at 25° C. Air 

served as the gaseous medium. No more than 

10 minutes elapsed between tissue dissection 

and the start of equilibration.

After equilibration, the manometers were 

closed, and measurements were made according to the methods of Umbreit, Burris, 

and Stauffer (1964). Respiration rates were 

determined as milliliters of oxygen uptake 

for 1 hour per milligram dry weight of tissue 

(QC^ =02 uptake per hour per mg dry weight). 

Two reaction vessels, one with untreated 

homogenate and another with reaction 

medium, served as controls during manometric determinations. Each experiment was 

replicated four or nine times, and the mean 

and standard deviation computed by standard 

methods. Analysis of variance and the method 

of least significant differences were used to 

determine whether antimycin A had caused a 

significant reduction (0.05 level of significance) in respiration of treated tissues compared with control values.

In vivo studies

Polyethylene tanks containing 45 liters of 

reconstituted water at 12° C. were used for 

in vivo exposures of trout and catfish to 

antimycin A. One fish was placed in each 

tank and exposed to the toxicant for 4 hours. 

The concentrations of antimycin A tested 

ranged between 3 and 80 parts per billion. 

Controls were exposed to corresponding concentrations of acetone solvent. The behavioral 

responses of the fish during exposure were 

recorded, and after 4 hours the fish were
Schoettger and Svendsen: Effects of Antimycin A on Tissue Respiration

killed and the tissues processed as in the in 

vitro experiments. The respiration of gill 

tissue was measured only in vivo. Two gill 

bars with filaments were removed from exposed fish, weighed, and placed in 2 ml of 

reaction medium. Gill respiration was measured as oxygen uptake per hour per mg wet 

weight of gill.

RESULTS

Among untreated control fish, the tissues of 

rainbow trout generally had higher rates of 

respiration than those of channel catfish at 

25° C. (tables 1 and 2). This might be expected since Beamish (1964) has shown that 

at 20° C. the respiration of brook trout is approximately double that of brown bullheads. 

Oxygen consumption was greatest in liver 

tissue, followed by brain and kidney. The low 

rates of oxygen uptake by gill tissue (table 3) 

are not comparable to those of other tissues 

because they are based on wet weight.

The in vitro effect of antimycin A on the 

rate of oxygen uptake by tissues of rainbow 

trout and channel catfish appears more consistent between species than between tissues 

of the same species. Concentrations of 5 ppb 

or more of antimycin A cause a statistically 

significant inhibition of kidney respiration in 

both trout and catfish, while 10 ppb and 20 

ppb interfere significantly with liver respiration (table 1). The brains of both species were 

approximately 4 to 8 times as resistant to the 

toxicant as liver. A concentration of 80 ppb 

lowered oxygen uptake of trout brain by 54 

percent and of catfish brain by 33 percent. 

Although the major differences are between 

tissues, the degree of inhibition in catfish 

liver and brain is somewhat less than in 

trout. This suggests that tissues of the former species may be more resistant to antimycin A.

Rainbow trout and channel catfish were 

exposed to antimycin A in water to determine 

whether the concentrations of toxicant inhibiting tissue respiration in vitro also inhibited the respiratory rates of these tissues 

in vivo. The fish were exposed to different 

concentrations of the toxicant for 4 hours at 

12°C. During this exposure, no observable 

effects were detected at concentrations of 3 ppb

on trout or 10 ppb on catfish. However, at 

5 ppb the trout began surfacing after 1 to 2 

hours, then settled to the bottom in a state of 

sedation. A similar reaction occurred in catfish within 1 hour at concentrations of 20 

and 40 ppb. At 4 hours the trout had lost 

equilibrium and were lying on their sides, 

but opercular movements continued. Trout 

exposed to 10 ppb and catfish to 80 ppb 

showed symptoms of antimycin pensioning 

within 30 minutes and were moribund at 4 

hours.

The metabolic rates of liver, kidney, brain, 

and gill of the above fish were measured at 

25° C. In three instances, liver and kidney of 

trout and brain of catfish, the inhibition of 

respiration in vivo was similar to that in 

vitro (tables 1 and 2). The most striking differences between in vitro and in vivo effects 

of antimycin A were in the brain of trout and 

the liver and kidney of catfish. The concentrations causing significant inhibition in trout 

brain were 80 ppb in vitro compared with 10 

ppb in vivo, whereas the in vitro concentrations for catfish liver and kidney were fourfold those in vivo. Gill and kidney tissue have 

approximately the same sensitivity to antimycin A in vivo, but the gills of catfish are 

between 4 and 8 times as resistant as those 

of trout (table 3).

DISCUSSION

The sensitivities in vitro of rainbow trout 

and channel catfish tissues to antimycin A are 

not sufficiently dissimilar to account for differences in its toxic effect on these fishes in 

the order of magnitude reported by Walker, 

Lennon, and Berger (1964), but our in vivo 

tests confirm the relatively high resistance of 

channel catfish. Thus, antimycin A is either 

poorly absorbed or is more readily deactivated or metabolized by catfish.

Differential rates of absorption may be 

linked to variations in gill structure. Steen 

and Berg (1966) noted significant differences 

between the gill structures of active fishes 

such as brown trout (Salmo trutta) and European perch (Perca fluviatilis). and relatively 

inactive species like the brown bullhead 

(Ameriurus nebulosus) and eel (Anquilla
Investigations in Fish Control 39: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

Table 1.--In vitro effect of antimycin A on the respiration of three tissues of rainbow trout and channel

catfish at 25°C.

Species, tissue, and 

concentration of antimycin

Number

of 

fish

Oxygen uptake in /ul. of 0 2 per mg dry weight per hour

Mean 

rate

Standard 

deviation (+)

Change

from

control

Percent 

change

Significant 

0.05 level

Rainbow trout: 

liver:

Control.......................... 10

3 ppb......................... 10

5 ppb......................... 10

10 ppb......................... 10

20 ppb......................... 10

Kidney:

Control.......................... 10

3 ppb......................... 10

5 ppb......................... 10

10 ppb......................... 10

20 ppb......................... 10

Brain:

Control.......................... 5

5 ppb......................... 5

10 ppb......................... 5

20 ppb......................... 5

40 ppb......................... 5

80 ppb......................... 5

Channel catfish: 

liver:

Control.......................... 5

5 ppb......................... 5

10 ppb......................... 5

20 ppb......................... 5

Kidney:

Control.......................... 5

5 ppb......................... 5

10 ppb......................... 5

20 ppb......................... 5

Brain:

Control.......................... 5

20 ppb......................... 5

40 ppb......................... 5

80 ppb........................... 5

3.26

3.24

3.26

1.32

1.04

2.12

2.18

1.54

0.68

0.45

2.51

2.51

2.40

2.41

2.38

1.16

1.81

1.66

1.83

0.97

1.44

1.04

0.43

0.27

1.51

1.65

1.47

1.01

0.28

0.42

0.24

0.10

0.24

0.25

0.15

0.11

0.12

0.10

0.21

0.07

0.26

0.11

0.18

0.34

0.05

0.15

0.24

0.15

0.32

0.15

0.09

0.09

0.48

0.81

0.14

0.21

-0.02 

0

-1.94

-2.22

+0.06

-0.58

-1.44

-1.67

0

-0.11

-0.10

-0.13

-1.35

-0.15 

+0.02

-0.84

-0.40

-1.01

-1.17

+0.14

-0.04

-0.50

0

0

59

68

3

27

68

79

0

4

4

5

54

1

46

28

70

81

8

3

33

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes

No 

No 

Yes

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

No 

No 

Yes

vulgaris). They found that the lamellae on 

gills of inactive fish were fewer in number 

and thicker than those of the active fish. They 

calculated the diffusion distance, or distance 

between blood and water, in bullheads as approximately three times that in trout. Further, the investigations of Steen and Kruysse 

(1964) indicated that a circulatory shunt system is present in the gill lamellae of marine 

and freshwater teleosts. Of the freshwater 

forms they studied, including rainbow trout 

and the catfish (Silurus glanis), the system 

was most highly developed in Silurus. Adrenaline caused blood to circulate through the 

lamellae, but in the presence of acetylcholine 

blood passed through a central compartment 

directly between afferent and efferent arteries. Therefore, the resistance of catfish 

to antimycin A may be related to a welldeveloped shunt system which is enhanced by 

the antimetabolic action of antimycin A, and 

to a thicker gill epithelium.

The in vivo and in vitro effects of antimycin 

A are more nearly alike in rainbow trout than 

in channel catfish. However, the greater sensitivity of trout brain in vivo may reflect 

secondary physiological effects of antimycin 

which are related to the biochemical actions 

described by Rieske (1967). Hunn* found that 

0.2 mg per kg body weight of antimycin A 

injected intraperitoneally into carp reduced 

urine flows, but the urine contained elevated 

amounts of sodium, potassium, calcium, and

2 Personal communication from Dr. Joseph B.Hunn, 

Fishery Biologist, Fish Control Laboratory, U.S. 

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, La Crosse, 

Wis.
Schoettger and Svendsen: Effects of Antimycin A on Tissue Respiration

TABLE 2. In vivo effect of antimycin A on the respiration of three tissues of rainbow trout and channel

catfish at 25°C.

[Oxygen consumption was measured at 25°C., tissues collected from fish which were exposed to antimycin A at 12 C.l

Species, tissue, and 

concentration of antimycin

Number

of 

fish

Oxygen uptake in pi. of 0 2 per mg dry weight per hour

Mean 

rate

Standard 

deviation (±)

Change

from

control

Percent 

change

Significant 

0.05 level

Rainbow trout: 

Liver:

Control.......................... 10

3 ppb......................... 10

5 ppb......................... 10

10 ppb......................... 10

Kidney:

Control.......................... 10

3 ppb..:...................... 10

5 ppb......................... 10

10 ppb......................... 10

Brain:

Control.......................... 5

3 ppb......................... 5

5 ppb......................... 5

10 ppb......................... 5

Channel catfish: 

Liver:

Control.......................... 5

10 ppb......................... 5

20 ppb......................... 5

40 ppb......................... 5

80 ppb......................... 5

Kidney:

Control.......................... 5

10 ppb......................... 5

20 ppb......................... 5

40 ppb......................... 5

80 ppb......................... 5

Brain:

Control.......................... 5

10 ppb......................... 5

20 ppb......................... 5

40 ppb......................... 5

80 ppb......................... 5

4.12

3.81

3.96

0.76

2.37

2.16

2.02

0.84

2.36

2.42

2.42

0.65

1.62

1.53

1.74

1.65

1.30

1.11

1.23

0.76

0.75

0.56

1.77

1.50

1.57

1.49

0.78

0.39

0.28

0.26

0.32

0.16

0.17

0.47

0.39

0.18

0.06

0.25

0.25

0.32

0.44

0.27

0.12

0.28

0.61

0.17

0.16

0.20

0.19

0.14

0.15

0.27

0.17

0.12

-0.31

-0.16

-3.36

-0.21

-0.35

-1.53

40.06 

40.06 

-1.71

-0.09

-0.12

-0.03

-0.32

+0.12

-0.35

-0.36

-0.55

-0.07 

0

-0.08

-0.79

7

4

82

9

15

64

2

2

72

6

7

2

20

10

31

32

49

4

0

5

50

Mb 

Mb 

Yes

Mb

Yes

Yes

No 

No 

Yes

No 

No 

No 

Yes

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

No 

No 

No 

Yes

magnesium. Schoettger and Svendsen (1968) 

indicate that antimycin A disrupts the acidbase balance in rainbow trout and channel 

catfish. A concentration of 2 ppb reduced the 

total carbon dioxide content of trout blood 

from 26 to 9 volumes percent during a 6-hour 

exposure. The blood pH in these fish dropped 

from 7.4 to 6.9, and lactate increased from an 

average of 43 to 184 mg percent. Similar 

changes occurred in channel catfish exposed 

to 80 ppb for 3 hours. In later unpublished 

studies, we observed that the effects of antimycin A on acid-base balance in catfish were 

less acute until just before death. This may 

account for the apparently greater anesthetic 

effect of antimycin A on trout.

The brain tissue of mammals also appears 

resistant to antimycin A. According to a review by Rieske (1967), the toxicant is a potent 

in vitro inhibitor of succinate oxidation in rat 

heart, kidney, brain, muscle, spleen, thymus, 

lung, and tumor. However, inhibition is proportional to enzyme activity in the tissue. 

Tissues with low succinate oxidase titer, such 

as spleen, lung, and thymus, were strongly 

inhibited in vivo. Those with high titers, such 

as heart, brain, and muscle, were barely affected. Liver was an exception, with a high 

titer and strong inhibition. The in vivo resistance of rat brain to antimycin A was 

explained on the basis of the blood-brain 

barrier. Thus, the contrasting resistances of 

trout and catfish brain in vivo may reflect the 

influence of hematological changes induced in 

trout by relatively low concentrations of 

antimycin A.
8 Investigations in Fish Control 39: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

TABLE 3. In vivo effect of antinycin A on the respiration of gill tissue of rainbow trout and channel

catfish at 25°C. 

[Oxygen consumption was measured at 25°C., tissues collected from fish which were exposed to antimycin A at 12°C.]

Species and concentration 

of antimycin

Number 

of 

fish

Oxygen uptake in nl. of 0 2 per mg wet weight per hour

Mean 

rate

Standard 

deviation (±)

Change 

from 

control

Percent 

change

Significant 

0.05 level

Rainbow tout:

Control. ..................

3 ppb..................

10 ppb..................

Channel catfish:

Control. .................

10 ppb.................

20 ppb.................

40 ppb.................

80 ppb.................

....... 10

....... 10

....... 10

....... 10

....... 5

....... 5

....... 5

....... 5

....... 5

0.125

0.126

0.094

0.015

0.099

0.094

0.087

0.062

0.036

0.019

0.009

0.034

0.008

0.027

0.022

0.022

0.022

0.011

+0.001

-0.031

-0.110

-0.005

-0.022

-0.037

-0.063

1

25

88

5

12

37

64

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Catfishes are apparently able to exclude, 

detoxify, or otherwise accommodate antimycin. Resistance by exclusion was discussed 

earlier. However, Fitter and Strong (1966) 

indicated that the more resistant carp 

(Cyprinus carpio) survived longer and took up 

more tritium-labelled antimycin A internally 

than the more susceptible rainbow trout. If a 

portion of the radioactive residue in carp was 

intact antimycin, it must therefore be absorbed, but possibly at different rates since 

the carp survived much longer. Conceivably, 

limited uptake coupled with detoxication contributes to catfish resistance.

Rieske et al. (1967) demonstrated that 

Complex III of the mitochondrial respiratory 

chain is irreversibly inhibited in vitro by 

antimycin A. Yet, in a review of antimycin A, 

Rieske (1967) records other investigations 

which show that the succinate oxidase systems 

of rat liver, lung, and spleen inhibited in vivo 

by sublethal doses recover completely within 

2 to 4 hours. Serum albumin was found to bind 

antimycin A and was implicated as the factor 

responsible for reactivation of succinate 

oxidase. The in vivo reactivation of respiration may result from transfer of antimycin A 

from the inhibited site to serum albumin and 

its subsequent excretion or inactivation after 

disassociation from albumin. Liver was the 

only tissue capable of chemically inactivating 

antimycin A in vitro. He explains this apparent discrepancy in the reversibility of 

antimycin A inhibition on the basis of a possible low requirement of active Complex III

to support a maximal rate of succinate oxidation. So a relatively small reactivation of this 

complex may be sufficient to support full 

succinate oxidase activity.

To date, there has been no indication of a 

bypass of antimycin A-inhibited components 

in vertebrates which could contribute to the 

resistance of catfishes. Takemori and King 

(1964) report the reversal of antimycininhibited succinate cytochrome c. reductase 

from rat heart muscle by coenzyme Qt. 

Antimycin A and coenzyme Q 2 appear competitive with regard to inhibition and reactivation respectively (Rieske, 1967), and 

this precludes a mechanism of reactivation 

involving an electronic bypass. However, 

Cheah (1967) reported a branched electron 

transport system in the cestode Moniezia 

expansa which might serve as a bypass when 

the normal antimycin-sensitive site was inhibited. Whether such a bypass less sensitive 

site or alternate pathway exists in catfishes 

has yet to be elucidated. Comparative investigations of biochemical and physiological 

mechanisms and their relation to rates of 

uptake and detoxication are essential to an 

understanding of resistance in fishes and the 

concurrent development of fish-control 

agents.

SUMMARY

The effects of antimycin A poisoning on 

oxygen consumption in tissues of a sensitive
Schoettger and Svendsen: Effects of Antimycin A on Tissue Respiration 9

species, rainbow trout, and a resistant species, channel catfish, were measured by 

means of a Warburg respirometer. Oxygen 

consumption was measured from gill exposed 

to antimycin A in vivo, and from liver, kidney, 

and brain exposed both in vivo and in vitro, 

at various concentrations of the toxicant.

Untreated trout tissues generally had 

higher rates of respiration than those of catfish at 25° C. Oxygen consumption was 

greatest in liver, followed by brain and kidney. In vitro effects of antimycin A were 

more consistent between species than tissues. 

Brain is four to eight times as resistant to 

the toxicant as liver in both species.

Trout exposed in vivo to 10 ppb and catfish 

to 80 ppb of antimycin A showed signs of 

poisoning within 30 minutes and were moribund after 4 hours at 12° C. Inhibition of liver 

and kidney of trout and brain of catfish in 

vivo was similar to that in vitro. However, 

trout brain was eight times as sensitive in 

vivo, whereas catfish liver and kidney were 

about one-fourth as sensitive. Catfish gill 

tissue was over four times as resistant than 

trout.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, K., F. M. Bumpusr B. R. Dunshee, and F. M. 

Strong.

1949. Antimycin antibiotics. Federation Proceedings, vol. 8. p. 178-179.

Ahmad, K., H. G. Schneider, and F. M. Strong.

1950. Studies on the biological action of antimycin. 

Archives of Biochemistry, vol. 28, p. 281-284.

"Anthony, Adam, and Donald W. Munro.

1964. Cellular energetics in liver and kidney homogenates of carp (Cyprinus carpio). Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 

vol. 38, p. 84-89.

Beamish, F. W. H.

1964. Respiration of fishes with special emphasis 

on standard oxygen consumption; II, Influence of 

weight and temperature on respiration of several 

species. Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 42, 

p. 177-188.

Cheah. K. S.

1967. The oxidase systems of Moniezia expansa 

(Cestoda). Journal of Comparative Biochemistry 

and Physiology, vol. 23, p. 277-302.

Derse, Philip H., and F. M. Strong.

1963. Toxicity of antimycin to fish. Nature, vol. 

200, no. 4906, p. 600-601.

Hiltebran, Robert C.

1965. Oxidation of succinate by bluegill liver 

mitochondria. Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Science, vol. 58, no. 3, p. 176-182.

1967. Oxidation of alpha-ketoglutarate by bluegill 

liver mitochondria. Transactions of the Illinois 

Academy of Science, vol. 60, no. 3, p. 244-249.

Hunn, Joseph B., Richard A. Schoettger, andEverettW. 

Whealdon.

1968. Observations on the handling and maintenance of bioassay fish. The Progressive FishCulturist, vol. 30, no. 3, p. 164-167.

Lennon, Robert E., and Charles R. Walker.

1964. Laboratories and methods for screening 

fish-control chemicals. U.S. Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife, Investigations in Fish 

Control No. 1, (Bureau Circular 185). 15 p.

Rajagopalan, K. V., I. Fridovich, and P. Handler.

1962. Hepatic aldehyde oxidase. Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 237, p. 922-925.

Rieske, John S.

1967. Antimycin A. Volume 1. Mechanisms of action, p. 542-584. In Antibiotics, Editors David 

Gottlieb and Paul D. Shaw. Springer-Verlag, 

Berlin.

Rieske. J. S., and W. S. Zaugg.

1962. The inhibition by antimycin A of the cleavage of one of the complexes of the respiratory 

chain. Biochemistry and Biophysics Research 

Communications, vol. 8, p. 421-431.

Rieske, John S., Harold Baum. C. D. Stoner, and S. H. 

Lipton.

1967. On the antimycin-sensitive clearage of complex III of the mitochondria! respiratory chain. 

Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 242, no. 

21, p. 4854-4866.

Ritter, P. O., and F. M. Strong.

1966. Residues in tissues of fish killed by antimycin. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 

vol. 14, no. 4, p. 403-407.

Schoettger, Richard A^ and Gerald E. Svendsen.

1968. Physiology of toxicants, p. 121. In Progress 

in Sport Fishery Research. 1967. U.S. Bureau 

of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Resource Publication 64.

Steen. Johan B., and A. Kruysse.

1964. The respiratory function of teleostean gills. 

Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, vol. 12, p. 127-142.
10 Investigations in Fish Control 39: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

Steen J. B.t and T. Berg.

1966. The gills of two species of haemoglobin-free 

fishes compared to those of other teleosts 

with a note on severe anaemia in an eel. J ournal 

of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 

vol. 18. p. 517-526.

Strong. F. M.

1958. Topics in microbial chemistry. Antimycin, 

Coenzyme A, Kinetin and Kinins. John Wiley & 

Sons. New York. 166 p.

Takemori. S.. and T. E. King.

1964. Coenzyme Q: reversal of inhibition of succinate cytochrome _c. reductase by lipophilic 

compounds. Science, vol. 144. p. 852.

Umbreit. W. W.. R. H. Burris. and J. F. Stauffer.

1964. Manometric techniques. Burgress Publishing Company. Minneapolis. Minn. 305 p.

Walker, Charles R., Robert E. Lennon. and Bernard L. 

Berger.

1964. Preliminary observations on the toxicity of 

antimycin A to fish and other aquatic animals. 

U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Investigations in Fish Control No. 2 (Bureau 

Circular 186). 18 p.
INVESTIGATIONS IN FISH CONTROL

4O. A Resume on Field Applications 

of Antimycin A to Control Fish

By Robert E. Lennon and Bernard L. Berger

United States Department of the Interior, Walter J. Hickel, Secretary

Leslie L. Glasgow, Assistant Secretary for

Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Marine Resources

Fish and Wildlife Service \ Charles H. Meacham, Commissioner

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, John S. Gottschalk, Director

Washington, D.C. May 1970
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract. ....................................... 3

Field trials...................................... 4

Antimycin in fresh and salt waters ................... 4

Antimycin in acid water. .......................... 5

Antimycin in alkaline water ........................ 5

Antimycin in cold and warm waters................... 7

Nonrepellency of antimycin ........................ 7

Antimycin in partial reclamations. ................... n

Antimycin as a selective toxicant .................... 11

Formulations of antimycin............................ 12

Detoxification of antimycin. ........................... 13

Recommendations for use of antimycin or other fish control agents. 14 

Tables

Table 1. List of fishes. .......................... 4

Table 2. Location of field applications ................ 6

Table 3. Applications as a general toxicant. ............ 8

Table 4. Applications as a selective toxicant. ........... 10

Table 5. Guidelines for selecting concentrations ......... 16

References ...................................... 17
A RESUME ON FIELD APPLICATIONS 

OF ANTIMYCIN A TO CONTROL FISH

By Robert E. Lennon, Fishery Biologist

and Bernard L. Berger, Chemist

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

Fish Control Laboratory, La Crosse, Wisconsin

ABSTRACT. Antimycin A, a fish toxicant, has had more than 50 applications to control fish in the field. It has been used for partial reclamations, and as a general or selective toxicant. It is effective against fish in 

fresh and marine waters, in acid and alkaline waters, in cold and warm 

waters, and in flowing and static waters. The formulations contribute no 

color or odor to water and. do not repel fish. The toxic action, respiratory 

inhibition, is irreversible in most fishes. Fish-killing concentrations are 

harmless to most aquatic invertebrates and to higher vertebrates. Highlights of the field applications are presented.

The newest tool in fish management is 

antimycin A, an antibiotic produced by molds 

of the genus Streptomyces. Scientists at the 

University of Wisconsin isolated it in 1945 

and thereafter tested it for years against 

fungi which destroy crops. During experiments in 1963, the potential of antimycin A 

as a fish toxicant was recognized. A use 

patent was obtained by the Wisconsin Alumni 

Research Foundation.

The antibiotic was tested exhaustively by 

the Bureau's Fish Control Laboratories 

against many species of fish in waters of 

diverse qualities. Concurrently, private 

laboratories investigated its toxicity to mice, 

rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, lambs, quails, 

pigeons, chickens, pheasants, and mallard 

ducks.

Antimycin is a powerful fish toxicant 

because minute quantities inhibit the transport 

of electrons at a very specific site in the respiratory system. The amounts of antimycin 

which kill fish are harmless to mammals and 

birds.

Antimycin is effective against fish, eggs to 

adults, in fresh and salt water, in acid and 

alkaline water, in clear and turbid water, and 

in cold and warm water. The toxic action on 

most species is irreversible. It evokes no 

spectacular response from fish. They die 

slowly and exhibit no frenzied activity. The 

toxicant contributes no odor or color to the 

water, and it seems to be undetected by fish. 

It therefore does not repel fish, which is 

a very important advantage in reclaiming 

lakes and streams.

Although stable when dry, antimycin is 

nonpersistent and degrades rapidly in water. 

It is susceptible to detoxification by small 

quantities of potassium permanganate.

Several formulations of antimycin were 

employed in experiments in the laboratory 

and field. A liquid formulation was used in 

most of the laboratory trials and in streams. 

Three dry formulations called Fintrol-5, 

Fintrol-15, and Fintrol-30 were tested in the 

laboratory and in lakes and ponds. These novel 

preparations consist of antimycin coated on 

sand particles in such a way that the toxicant
Investigations in Fish Control 40: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

is released into the water as the sand sinks 

to the bottom. Fintrol-5 gives up its antimycin evenly within the first 5 feet of depth, 

Fintrol-15 within 15 feet, and Fintrol-30 

within 30 feet of depth.

The Governments of the United States and 

Canada registered antimycin A as a fish toxicant in 1966, based on the far reaching research which demonstrates that it is effective on fish but relatively harmless to water 

weeds, aquatic insects, frogs, salamanders, 

turtles, mammals, and birds. Ayerst Laboratories has obtained registration of Fintrol-5, 

a shallow-water formulation of antimycin on 

sand. Liquid and deep-water formulations will 

become available to fishery managers in the 

near future.

FIELD TRIALS

A review of more than 50 applications of 

antimycin in lakes and streams in 19 States and 

in Canada and Guatemala indicates that it is 

advantageously flexible as well as effective 

against fish in a variety of uses and situations 

(tables 1-4). This summary highlights only 

a few of its potentials; ingenuity of fish managers may disclose other uses of the antibiotic.

Two basic criteria are involved in a lethal 

dose of toxicant: the concentration in water, 

expressed here in parts per billion (ppb), and 

the duration of exposure of fish to the toxicant. 

Although frequently overlooked, exposure is 

critical and must be correlated with concentration to obtain a lethal dose. Axiomatically, 

a low concentration must be accompanied by 

a long exposure to achieve a lethal dose. Conversely, a high concentration plus short exposure may equal a lethal dose. These relations 

must be observed with greater care when 

applying a toxicant to flowing waters.

Antimycin in fresh and salt waters

Most experimentation with antimycin was 

in fresh water and against freshwater fishes. 

Results are presented in later sections.

TABLE 1. List of fishes exposed to antimycin

Abbreviation

Am Brk Ly 

Am EL 

Am St 

An 

At 3n

Be Sh 

Bf 

Bf Ifr 

Bg SnFh 

Bk B1H3

Blk Cr 

Brk Sb 

Brk Ss 

Brk Tr 

Bl CtFh

Bl Sk 

Bm Bf 

Bn DC 

Bn M» 

Bn Sh

Br B1H3 

Br Tr 

Bt RdHs 

Ch CtFh 

Chm

Ch PI 

Cm Jk 

Cm Sh 

Cn MIMw 

Co Sm

Cp 

Cr Cb 

Ct Tr 

Dy Vn Tr 

Fh CtFh

Fh M* 

Fl Fh 

Fl SnFh 

Ft Dr 

Fw Dm

Gd Sh 

Gf 

Gr Cp 

Gr PI 

Gr SnFh

Gz 3d 

Jfy SnFh 

la Dr 

Jh Dr 

Jk

Kk Sm 

Le SnFh 

Lk Cb Sk 

Lk Tr 

Lm Bs

Ln DC 

Ln Gr 

Ln KLFh 

Ln Sh 

Ln Sk

Is Sk 

Mq Fh 

Mt Sp 

No Hg Sk 

No Pk

Common name

American brook lamprey 

American eel 

American smelt 

Anchovies 

Atlantic salmon

Blackchin shiner 

Bowfin 

Buffalo hybrid 

Bluegill sunfish 

Black bullhead

Black crappie 

Brook stickleback 

Brook s livers ide 

Brook trout 

Blue catfish

Bridgelip sucker 

Bigmouth buffalo 

Blacknose dace 

Bluntnose minnow 

Blacknose shiner

Grown bullhead 

Brown trout 

Blacktail redhorse 

Channel catfish 

Chiselmouth

Chain pickerel 

Chiselmouth jack 

Common shiner 

Central mudminnow 

Coho salmon

Carp 

Creek chub 

Cutthroat trout 

Dolly Varden 

Flathead catfish

Fathead minnow 

Fallfish 

Flier sunfish 

Fantail darter 

Freshwater drum

Golden shiner 

Goldfish 

Grass carp 

Grass pickerel 

Green sunfish

Gizzard shad 

Ifcrbrid sunfish 

Iowa darter 

Johnny darter 

Jacks

Kokanee salmon 

Longear sunfish 

Lake chub sucker 

Lake trout 

Largemouth bass

Longnose dace 

Longnose gar 

Longnose killf ish 

Longnose shiner 

Longnose sucker

Largescale sucker 

Mosquito fish 

Mottled sculpin 

Northern hog sucker 

Northern pike

Scientific name

Lampetra lamottei

Anguilla rostrata

Osmerus mordax

Eograulidae family 

Salmo salar

Notropis heterodon

Amia calva

Lepomis macrochirus 

Ictalurus melas

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Eucalia inconstans

Labidesthes sicculus 

Salvelinus fontinalis

Ictalurus furcatus 

Catostomus columbianus

Ictiobus cyprinellus 

Rhinichthys atratulus

Pimephales notatus 

Notropis heterolepis

Ictalurus nebulosus

Salmo trutta

Mbxostoma poecllurum

Ictalurus punctatus 

Acrocheilus alutaceus

B30X niger 

Coregonus oregonus 

Notropis cornutus

Umbra lirai

Oncorhynchus kisutch

Cyprinus .carpio 

Semotilus atromaculatus

Salmo clarki

Salvelinus malma 

Pylodictus olivaris

Pimephales promelas

Semotilus corporalis

Centrarchus macropterus

Etheostoma flabellare 

Aplodinotus grunniens

Notemigonus crysoleucas

Carassius auratus

Ctenopharyngoden idellus

Esox americanus vermiculatus

Lepomis cyannellus

Dorosoma cepedianum

Etheostoma exile

Etheostoma nigrum 

Carangidae family

Oncorhynchus nerka

Lepomis megalotis 

Erimyzon sucetta

Salvelinus namaycush 

Micropterus salmoides

Hhinichthys cataractae

Lepisosteus osseus

Fundulus similis

Notropis longirostris

Catostomus catostomus 

Catostomus macrocheilus

Gambusia affinis

Cottus bairdi

Hypentelium nigricans 

Esox lucius
Lennon and Berger: Field Applications of Antlmycin A to Control Fish

TABLE 1. List of fishes exposed to antimycin Continued

Abbreviation

No Hb DC 

No HdHs 

No SqFh 

Os Sf 

»

Pd Fh 

Pm 

Pp 

Ps SnFh 

Hb SnFh

Rb Tr 

Re SnFh 

Hk Bs 

Rs Sh 

S CtEh

3n Bf 

Stn Bs 

Sh MB 

Sh TpMw 

Sn Gr

S Ly 

So Hb DC 

Sp Gr 

Sp SnFh 

Sp Sk

Spt 

St Hr 

Tl Sh 

Tp 

Tp Mt

Tr Sp 

1W Sh 

We 

Win Bs 

Wt Bs

Wt Cr 

Wt CtFh 

Wt Sk

YW sum

Yw Ph

Common name

Northern redbelly dace 

Northern redhorse 

Northern squawf ish 

Orangespotted sunfish 

Quillback

Paddlefish 

Peamouth 

Pompano 

PumptLnseed 

Redbreast sunfish

Rainbow trout 

Redear sunfish 

Bock bass 

Reds id e shiner 

Sea catfish

Smallmouth buffalo 

Smallmouth bass 

Sheepshead minnow 

Starhead topminnow 

Shortnose gar

Sea lamprey 

Southern redbelly dace 

Spotted gar 

Spotted sunfish 

Spotted sucker

Spot 

Stoneroller 

Taillight shiner 

Tilapia 

Tadpole madtom

Torrent sculpin 

Weed shiner 

Walleye 

Warmouth bass 

White bass

White crappie 

White catfish 

White sucker 

Yellow bullhead 

Yellow perch

Scientific name

Ghrosoous eos 

Uoxostoma macrolepidotum

Ptychocheilus oregonensis

Lepomis humilis 

Carpiodes cyprinus

Polyodon spathula 

Ifcrlocheilus caurinus 

Carangidae family 

Lepomis gibbosus 

Lepomis auritus

Salmo gairdneri

Lepomis nticrolophus

Ambloplites rupestris 

Richardsonius balteatus

Galeichthys fells 

Ictiobus bubalus

ULcropterus doloodeui 

Qyprinodon variegatus 

Fundulus notti

Lepisosteus platostomus

Petromyzon marinus

Ghrosomus erythrogaster

Lepisosteus oculatus

Lepomis punctatus 

MLnytrema melanops

Leiostonus xanthurus

Campostoma nnnmaliiin

Notropis maculatus

Tilapia mossambica

Noturus gyrinus 

Cottus rhotheus

Notropis texanus

Stizostedion vitreum vitreum

Chaenobryttus gulosus

Roccus chrysops

Pomoxis annularis

Ictalurus catus

Catostomus commersoni 

Ictalurus natalis

Perca f lavescens

The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has 

exposed marine fish to antimycin at the Biological Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Fla. and in 

a tidal basin near Fort Desoto, Fla. Thirtyeight species in the basin received a 6-hour a 

tidal cycle exposure to 7 ppb of antimycin. 

It killed the more sensitive species such as 

anchovies, triggerfish, flounders, and rays. 

The more resistant catfishes, common jack, 

and redfish did not all succumb during this 

brief exposure.

Antimycin in acid water

Antimycin persists longer in acid water 

than in alkaline water, and the application 

rate may be reduced.

The acid-water trials included trout ponds 

in northern New Hampshire and Quebec and 

panfish ponds in northern Wisconsin and 

Georgia. In New Hampshire, 1 ppb of antimycin 

eliminated 12 species of fish from a pond 

within 72 hours. Those killed included Atlantic salmon, chain pickerel, minnows, white 

sucker, pumpkinseeds, largemouth bass, and 

yellow perch. A few bluegills and smallmouth 

bass and all brown bullheads survived. In 

another pond, 12 ppb quickly killed all species 

except bullheads within 48 hours, the antimycin persisting for 2 weeks at toxic level.

In Quebec, 5 ppb of antimycin eradicated 

13 species from Beauty Lake. The principal 

target fish in this 44-acre brook-trout lake 

were northern pike, minnows, suckers, 

pumpkinseeds, and yellow perch.

The trials in acid waters in eastern U.S. 

also confirmed the results of tests in the 

laboratory, demonstrating that catfishes, 

such as bullheads, are not harmed by small 

concentrations of antimycin. The complete 

survival of catfishes was thus expected in 

subsequent field trials which involved less 

than 25 ppb of antimycin.

Antimycin in alkaline water

Most field applications of antimycin have 

been in alkaline waters which ranged from 

pH 7.0 to 9.3. They confirmed that the toxicant is pH-sensitive, with the more rapid 

degradation occurring at higher pH's. Whereas 

rapid degradation can be exploited to great 

advantage in many situations where there are 

multiple uses of the lakes or streams, the 

duration of exposure to an effective concentration of toxicant must be calculated carefully to secure a lethal result on the target 

fish. In general greater concentrations of 

toxicant are required at pH 8.5 or higher to 

offset rapid degradation.

In 35-acre Lake Katrine near Madison, 

Wis., 7.5 ppb of antimycin caused a complete 

kill of carp and fathead minnows at pH 8.2 

and 56° F. In 63-acre Parker Lake, Wis.,
Investigations in Fish Control 40: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

TABLE 2. Sites of field applications with data on water quality

Trial

1......

2-**.... 

5......

6-8.... 

9-11...

12-13.. 

14. ....

15.....

16. ....

17-18. . 

19.....

20.....

21.....

22.....

23.....

24

25.....

26.....

27-29.. 

3O

31.....

32.....

33..,..

34

35.....

36. ....

37. ....

38. ....

Date

10/63

9/64 

9/64

9/64 

3/65

5/65 

a/f,K

10/65

10/65

12/65 

2/66

5/66

5/66

7/66

7/66

8/66

o/e^f.

8/66

8/66

Q/fLfL

10/66

10/66

10/66

11/66

1Qfi7

5/67

6/67

6/67

Temp 

Location *"* or erature volume /Op \

Research pond, Delafield, Wis. 0.75 a. 65

Hatchery poods, NFH, Berlin, N.H. 

Pond No. 1 0.45 a. -ft. 53 

Pond No. 2 1.16 a.-ft. 53 

Pond No. 3 0.55 a.-ft. 53

Pond, Fort Benning, Ga. 0.23 a. 83

Hatchery ponds, NFH, Cape Vincent, N.Y. 

Pond No. 1 1.0 a. 53 

Pond No. 2 1.0 a. 53 

Pond No. 3 1.0 a.* 53

Research ponds, Stuttgart, Ark. 

Pond No. 1 0.25 a. 63 

Pond No. 2 0.25 a. 63 

Pond No. 3 0.25 a. 63

Natural ponds, NWR, Valentine, Nebr. 

Pond No. 1 1.8 a. 65 

Pond No. 2 0.5 a. 70

Sidie Hollow Greek, Viroqua, Wis. 1.8 cfs. 53

Veteran's Memorial Pond, West Salem, 5.0 a. 56

Wis.

Research ponds, Stuttgart, Ark. 

Pond No. 1 22 a. 53 

Pond No. 2 0.25 a. 50

Lake Atitlan, Guatemala 2.5 a. 72

Katrine Lake, Madison, Wis. 34 a. 63

Alto Greek, Fox Lake, Wis. 4.9 cfs. 60

Drew Creek, Fox Lake, Wis. 7.2 cfs. 60

Perch Lake, Wis. ~ 74

Harriet Lake, Wis. 76

Farm ponds, 

Pond No. 1 0.94 a. 82 

Pond No. 2 1.26 a. 86 

Pond No. 3 1.17 a. 86

Millet River, Plymouth, Wis. 10.2 cfs. 70

Barney Lake, Madison, Wis. 35 a. 56

Beauty Lake, Quebec 50 a. 60

Rathbone Creek, Cataract, Wis. 10.7 cfs. 48

Catfish rearing ponds, Leland, Miss. 10-15 a. 78

Hard- AlkapH ness linity 

(ppm) (ppm)

8.5 213 210

7.0 10 14 

7.2 10 13 

7.2 10 15

6.9 9 12

8.1 153 110 

7.9 159 118 

8.1 155 118

8.0 59 79 

8.1 58 74 

8.2 55 75

8.4 107 155 

7-9 142 258

8.3 240

7.8 223 188

7-7 237 184

8.6 112 110 

8.6 120 110

7.7 163

8.5 26

8.4 32 25

7.7 hard

7.8 hard

5.2 4

neutral soft

8.5 20 22 

8.5 20 19 

8.5 14 20

8.3 210

8.2 -- 35

8.2 197

7.0 60 75

7.5 24

7.2

7.5

8.3

high 50
Lennon and Berger: Field Applications of Antimycin A to Control Fish

TABLE 2. Sites of field applications with data on water quality Continued

Trial

39.....

40.....

41. ....

42. ....

43.....

44

45. ....

46. ....

47. ....

48.....

49. ....

6O

51.....

52.....

Date

£ /gjrj

rj /fjrj

8/67

o/ffi

9/67

9/67

Q//-r»

9/67

9/67

10/67

10/67

10/67

HO/67

10/67

. Temp- Area or ^^ ^ Location _, erature volume (0p> _ j

Westfield Creek, Westfield, Wis. 22 cfs. 77

Delbert Gnegy Pond, Oakland, Itt. 0.43 a. 65

Golf Course Pond, Shaw Air Force 3.9 a. 79

Base, S.C. 

Tarrant Lake, Cambria, Wis. 0.5 a. -ft. 50

Wis.

Rehabilitation, Sumter, Oreg.

Barney Lake, Uadison, Wis. 34 a. 57

Whitewater Lake, NWR, Valentine, Hebr. 490 a. 62

Hard- AlkapH ness linity 

(ppm) (ppm)

8.8 -- 170

8.3

8.0

8.6 80

7.2 15 16

7.7 -- 270

7.5

8.0 53 19

TDS 

7.3 15 14

7.9 __ 260

7.6 soft

7.0

8.7 35

9.3 204 310

10 ppb wiped out carp, pumpkinseed, bluegill, 

and yellow perch at pH 8.2 and 48°. The application of 10 ppb of toxicant in 34-acre Barney 

Lake, Madison, Wis., killed all carp at pH 8.7 

and 57°. On the other hand, 7.3 ppb of antimycin in Whitewater Lake, Valentine, Nebr., 

at pH 9.3 degraded before most of the carp 

and other fish had sufficient exposure to kill 

them. Bioassays indicated that 12 to 15 ppb of 

toxicant were needed to produce a kill at the 

high pH.

Antimycin in cold and warm waters

In general, the response of fish to antimycin 

is slower in cold water than in warm water 

because of reduced metabolic activity. Thus, 

to insure adequate duration of exposure before 

degradation of the compound, a higher concentration of antimycin may be required when 

temperatures are below 50° F.

The performance of antimycin in cold water 

was observed best in simulated field tests in

1/100-acre pools at the Fish Control Laboratory, La Crosse, Wis. Brown trout, carp, 

bluegills, and largemouth bass were killed by 

5 ppb within 2 to 7 days at pH 7.4 to 8.2 and 

38° to 42° F. Other tests under ice in 1,000- 

gallon vinyl pools demonstrated that antimycin 

at 5 ppb killed rainbow trout, brown trout, 

small carp, bluegills, and longear sunfish. 

Survivors included large goldfish, large carp, 

fathead minnows, and pumkinseeds. Thus, 

a greater concentration of toxicant would have 

been needed to kill all fish. Other things being 

equal, lower concentrations of toxicant and 

more rapid response of fish can be expected 

in water over 60° F.

Nonrepellency of antimycin

The formulations of antimycin coated on 

sand cause no color or odor when applied to 

water. Fish make no attempt to avoid contact 

with treated water a great advantage when 

reclaiming springfed lakes and barrier-free 

streams.
8 Investigations in Fish Control 40: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

TABLE 3. Results with antimycin as a general toxicant

Trial 

site Objective Species 

(refer to table l)

Antimycin 

(ppb)

Formulation Results (kill)

pH below 7.5 temp. 60 F. or above

5...... Determine effect on

species present

33..... Eradicate northern pike 

and stunted sunfish

55..... Determine effect of low 

concentration on species 

present

53...".. Determine effect of low 

concentration on species 

present

pH below 7.5 temp, below 60°F.

54..... Determine effect of low 

concentration on species 

present

2-4.... Determine effect on 

species present

GrPl, QdSh, LnSh, TISh, MqF, BkSb, AmEl,

FISf, RbSf, GrSf, OsSf

RbTr, BkTr, AmSt, NoPk, GdSh, BcSh, BnSh,

WISh, BISk, BICtF, WtB, SmBs, JhDr

GzSd, GrPl, GdSh, BtRdH, AmEL, FISf, BgSf, 

ReSf, VftCr

ChPl, TLSh, ShTpMw, BgSf, ReSf, SpSf, 

LmBs, BrSs

0.6 Technical Total except bluegill,

wannouth, and catfishes.

5.0 Fintrol Total except bullheads. 

5, 15, 30 

& liquid

0.9 Liquid Total on GzSd; partial on 

all other species.

0.4 Liquid Partial on all species.

ChPl, LkChSk, AmEL, BgSf, ReSf, LmBs, WtCr 1.5 Liquid Partial on all species.

RbTr, AtSm, BrTr, BkTr, ChPl, QdSh, CmSh, 

NoSqF, RsSh, CrCb, BISk, BICtF, WtB, FISf, 

PsSf, OsSf, SmBs

34.... Eradicate white sucker 

pH 7.5-8.5 temp, above 60 F.

9-11... Determine effect on 

species present

AmBkLy, BkTr, Cnlfllfa, BISk, Shlbr, HjrbSf

0.13 Fintrol Total only on common 

shiner.

1.22 Fintrol Total except bluegill,

largemouth bass, and brown 

bullhead.

12.1 Fintrol Total except brown bullhead.

7.5 Fintrol-5 99 percent. 

& liquid

45..., . Determine effect on 

species present

Eradicate carp from a 

stream

12..... Eradicate all fish

13..... Eradicate all fish

19..... Eradicate largemouth bass 

from a grebe sanctuary

PH 7.5-8.5 temp, below 60°F.

6-8.... Determine effect on 

species present

HbTr, Cp, QdSh, LkCbSk, NoqgSk, SmBf, BkBh, 5.0 

MlF, AmEL, FISf, OsSf, LeSf

" 7.5 

" 10.0

SpGr, Bf, GzSd, Chm, Cp, F1F, BISk, LkCbSk, 5.0 

NoHflH, WtCtF, BkBh, MqF, AmEL, WtB, FISf, 

OsSf, SmBs

Fintrol-5 Total except catfishes and 

wannouth.

CnMn, NoPk, Cp, GdSh, RsSh, BISk, LnKf, 

AmEl, FISf, OsSf, LeSf

NoPk, Cp, Bnlte, SCtF, AmEl, FISf, OsSf, 

BgSf, SmBs

NoPk, Cp, BnMw, SCtF, FISf, OsSf, SmBs 

OsSf, LeSf

7.5 

10.0

Fintrol-5 

Fintrol-5 

Fintrol-5

Fintrol-5 

& liquid

Total except catfishes. 

Total except catfishes.

Total except spotted gar, 

channel catfish, and bullheads.

99 percent.

Fintrol-5 Total except northern pike, 

bullhead, largemouth bass, 

and black crappie.

10.0 Fintrol-5 

10.0 Fintrol-5

Total except black bullhead.

Total on largemouth bass 

and black crappie.

Bf, HbTr, BrTr, BkTr, Chm, Cp, GdSh, BISk, 1.0 Fintrol Total only on trouts, minBlCtF, ShTpM, LnKf, AmEL, WtB, FISf, PsSf, 

LeSf, SmBs, LgBs, laDr

Eradicate white and longnose suckers

Eradicate carp

KkSm, CITr, HbTr, BrTr, BkTr, SoRbD, 

BISk

Cp

nows, and white sucker.

3.1 Fintrol Total except bowfin, bullheads, pumpkinseed, and 

largemouth bass.

10.0 Fintrol Total except bowfin and 

bullheads.

3.5 Fintrol-5 65 percent. 

& liquid

5.0 Fintrol-5 Total.
Lennon and Berger: Field Applications of Antimycin A to Control Fish

TABLE 3. Results with antimycin as a general toxicant Continued

Trial 

site Objective Species 

(refer to table 1)

Antimycin 

(ppb)

Formulation Results (kill)

pH 7.5-8.5 temp, below 60 F. Continued

49..... Eradicate squawfish, suck- CmJk, HbTr, BkTr, DyVnTr, Em, NoSqF, BnD, 

ers, shiners LnD, YwPh

15..... Eradicate total except 

catfish

RbTr, BrTr, CnMdMm, NoPk, Cp, QdSh, BnMw, 

BISk, SCtF, BkBh, AmEl, WtB, FISf

16..... Eradicate all fish from BkTr, BnMw, RsSh, ReSf 

hatchery water supply

22..... Eradicate carp in stream Bf, CnMdMm, NoPk, Cp, NoSqF, BnD, BISk,

ShMw, FISf

23..... Eradicate carp in stream Cp

31..... Eradicate carp

32..... Eradicate all fish

14...... Eradicate all fish

Cp, BnMw

RbTr, Cp, WtB, FISf, SmBs

RbTr, BrTr, StRr, NoSqF, BnD, RsSh, BISk, 

LsSk, ShMw, IfybSf, JhDr

44..... Eradicate carp and black Cp, SCtF 

bullhead

pH above 8.5 temp. 60 F. or above

52..... Eradicate carp ChPl, LsSk, ChCtF

1...... Delineate effect on

species present

AmBkLy, Bf, HbTr, NoPk, Gf, Cp, BISk, 

SCtF, WtCtF, AmEl, VftB, FISf, GrSf, OsSf, 

LeSf, SmBs, LmBs, laDr

39..... Eradicate carp and white AmBkLy, RbTr, Cp, WSh, BnMw, NoSqF, RsSh,

sucker

pH above 8.5 temp, below 60 F.

17..... Eradicate all fish

18..... Eradicate all fish 

51..... Eradicate carp

BISk, ShMw, WtB, FISf, OsSf, SpSf, IfybSf, 

JnDr

Pf, GzSd, Gf, Cp, NoHgSk, BtHdH, SCtF, 

WtCtF, BkBh, YwBh, BrBh, ChCtF, MqF, AmEl, 

RkB, FISf, OsSf, LeSf

Pf, Cp, GdSh, LkCbSk, NoHgSk, BkBh, MqF, 

AmEl, RkB, FISf, OsSf

Cp

7.5 Fintrol-5 Total on target species.

10.0 Fintrol-5 Total except channel catfish 

and bullheads.

10.0 Fintrol-5 Total. 

10.0 Fintrol Total

& liquid

10.0 Fintrol 

& liquid

7.5 Fintrol-5

10.0 Fintrol

5, 10, 15

99 percent.

Total. 

Total.

15.0 Technical Total.

150.0 Fintrol Total. 

& liquid

7.3 Fintrol-5 

10.0 Technical

10.0 Fintrol 

& liquid

10.0 Fintrol-5

Small kill.

Total except longnose gar, 

bowfin, and black bullhead.

99 percent.

Total except for 7 species 

of catfish.

10.0 Fintrol-5 Total on scale fish.

10.0 Fintrol Total. 

& liquid

The clear and colorless water of Lake 

Creek Lake at Saratoga, Wyo., NFH afforded 

a fine opportunity to test the nonrepellency of 

antimycin. The 1.8-acre lake is entirely 

spring fed, and its discharge of 3 cfs supplies 

the hatchery with water. Our objective was to 

rid the lake of fish which might serve as vectors for diseases. Previous attempts with 

chlorine and rotenone failed to eradicate the 

fish because they fled into bottom springs and 

other springs beneath undercut banks.

The spring flow affected exchange of water 

in the basin of the lake every 27 hours: thus 

maintenance of adequate exposure to a toxicant was most critical. Therefore, we maintained at least 10 ppb of antimycin in the lake 

for a minimum of 8 hours. A seed spreader 

achieved even distribution of the sand formulation which sank readily into the bottom 

springs.

The fish were clearly seen to exhibit no 

alarm or tendency to escape from the treated 

water. We first observed toxic effects 2 hours 

after applying antimycin: Dense schools of 

large northern creek chubs began to break up 

and seemed to lose their orientation with 

respect to schooling. None sought relief in 

spring flows, and most were dead within 

24 hours.
10 Investigations in Fish Control 40: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

TABLE 4. Results with antimycin as a selective toxicant

Trial 

site Objective Species 

(refer to table 1)

Antimycin 

(ppb)

Formulation Results (kill)

pH below 7.5 temp. 60 F. or above

24..... Eradicate yellow perch 

and small bluegill

NoPk, VHSh, SCtF, LnKf, FISf, PsSf 1.0-2.0 Fintrol-5 Total on yellow perch and 

partial on bluegill.

25..... Eradicate yellow perch NoPk, GdSh, WdSh, SCtF, LnKf, PsSf 0.5 Fintrol-5 Total on yellow perch.

26..... Eradicate yellow perch NoPk, OdSh, WdSh, SCtF, LnKf, PsSf 0.5 Fintrol-5 Total on yellow perch.

47..... ThinniT^g sunfish in bass- GdSh, BICtF, BkBh, FhCtF, BkSb, RkB, FISf, 0.4-1.0 Fintrol-5 0.4 to 0.6 ppb gave 

bluegill pond RbSf, OsSf, BgSf excellent control.

35..... Eradicate scale fish from CmSh, BkBh, FhCtF, AmEL, OsSf 3.0 Fintrol-5 Total on scalefishes. 

catfish pond

5O..... Eradicate scale fish from GdSh, BkBh, »*iF, FISf, OeSf 3.6 Fintrol-5 Total except channel catcatfish pond fish, bullhead, and

gambusia.

pH 7.5-8.5 temp, above 60°F.

21..... Kill carp eggs in pond Cp 4.0 Fintrol-5 Total on eggs in area.

37..... Eradicate adult carp in Cp, FISf, OsSf, LeSf 50.0 Fintrol-5 Partial control. 

spawning bays

36..... Eradicate scale fish from GdSh, AmEl, FISf, OsSf 5.0 Fintrol-5 Total on golden shiner,

catfish pond bass, bluegill, and green

sunfish.

43..... Eradicate scale fish from BkBh, FISf 5.0 Fintrol-5 Total on bluegills. 

catfish pond

41...... Eradicate minnows from HbTr, SoRbD, GdSh, BnSh, WdSh, NoSqF, 5.0 Fintrol-5, Total on minnows.

trout lake BISk, ShMw -15

pH above 8.5 temp. 60 F. or above

20..... Kill carp eggs Cp 2.0 Technical Partial kill on eggs.

38..... Eradicate scale fish from GdSh, BkBh, AmEl 4.0 Fintrol-5 Total on scalefish. 

catfish pond

27-29.. Eradicate scale fish from GdSh, »*iF, AmEL, FISf 5.0 Fintrol-5 99 percent scalefish. 

catfish pond

" " 7.5 Fintrol-5 99 percent scalefish.

" " 10.0 Fintrol-5 Total on scalefish.

42..... Eradicate stunted sunfish BkBh, YwBh 7.5 Fintrol-5 Total.

40..... Reduce gizzard shad in GzSd, AmEl 1.5-6.5 Fintrol Reduced population. 

spot treatments ppm & liquid

Brook trout in the lake ranging from onethird ounce to 6.6 pounds, easily observed 

throughout the reclamation, began to die 

3 hours after exposure. None attempted to 

escape from the lake via the outlet or to 

move into the springs. Numerous fathead 

minnows and the small numbers of Iowa darters responded similarly to the creek chubs 

and brook tr6ut. Antimycin killed all the fish 

and was flushed from the basin by spring 

flows within 48 hours.

Westfield Creek in south-central Wisconsin 

also provided an opportunity to observe the

behavior of fish under exposure to antimycin. 

Here the principal target fish was carp, a species particularly adept at escaping exposure 

to toxicants which contain repelling ingredients. We treated a 3.5-mile portion of 

Westfield Creek which had an average flow of 

17.2 cfs, pH 8.8, total alkalinity of 170 ppm, 

and a temperature of 77° F. The water was 

clear and colorless, and had an average 

velocity of 0.5 feet per second. Antimycin 

in liquid formulation was maintained at 

10 ppb for 10 hours by drip stations and 

spray pumps throughout the 3.5 miles of 

stream.
Lennon and Berger; Field Applications of Antimycin A to Control Fish 11

None of the numerous fish present attempted 

to avoid contact with the toxicant by fleeing 

downstream. Rather, fish gradually drifted 

downstream hours later when the antimycin 

had rendered them incapable of maintaining 

positions in the current. Fantail and johnny 

darters began to drift downstream and to die 

within 2 hours, followed soon by fathead and 

bluntnose minnows and blacknose dace, and 

later by common shiners, creek chubs, white 

suckers, bluegills, pumpkinseeds, and largemouth bass. Distressed and dying carp by the 

thousands began to drift involuntarily downstream after 8 hours. Brook lampreys and 

slimy sculpins were the last species to 

exhibit distress and die.

Most of the carp were dead within 24 hours. 

The few living specimens, all in distress, 

perished within 48 hours. None recovered 

from the toxicant, although it had flushed out 

of the stream hours before. Intensive electrofishing on 1.5 miles of the stream a week 

later failed to turn up any carp, suckers, or 

panfish. A few small minnows, a brook stickleback, and several brook lampreys were the 

only living fish found. The reclamation was 

an unqualified success.

Antimycin in partial reclamations

Antimycin is better suited to partial reclamation of lakes than any toxicant heretofore 

available. Its advantages here are (1) the lack 

of repellency and (2) the effectiveness on all 

life stages of fish, eggs through adults.

Two soft-water, high-pH lakes near Madison, Wis., were used in early experiments. 

Treatments of shoreline spawning areas and 

a bay in Lake Barney with 2 ppb of antimycin 

failed to kill all carp eggs. But concurrently 

the treatment of a spawning bay in nearby 

Lake Katrine with 4 ppb of antimycin resulted 

in complete mortality of carp eggs. Eggs in 

control areas of the lake hatched, and fry 

were easily collected; only dead eggs were 

found in the treated bay, and no fry could be 

collected.

Large numbers of carp congregated on 

spawning sites in Backbone Lake in Iowa 

were exposed to 50 ppb of antimycin. We 

assumed that this concentration would be

lethal to both adults and spawn if they remained 

exposed for 8 hours or more. The staked sites 

ranged from a fourth of an acre to 5 acres In 

area, and the toxicant was applied at night 

while fish were moving into the spawning 

areas. Within hours after the application, 

a brief but violent storm brought 2 inches of 

rain and the lake rose 3 inches in level, 

causing a dilution of toxicant and cessation of 

spawning activity. The trial demonstrated, 

however, that carp on the spawning sites or 

moving into them were not repelled by the 

antimycin, and many succumbed.

Another approach to partial reclamation 

was made in a 22-acre lake at the Fish Farming Experimental Station at Stuttgart, Ark. 

Here we wanted to reduce large numbers of 

gizzard shad which at times congregated at 

the inlet to the pond, but without harming the 

channel catfish in the pond. The first treatment involved a 6-minute titration of 50 cc of 

liquid antimycin into the 140-gpm inlet flow. 

The shad dispersed after 1.5 minutes, but 

they had already sustained a lethal exposure 

and large numbers died. Two days later a 

1.5-minute titration of 50 cc of toxicant in the 

same flow killed large numbers of shad which 

had migrated into the vicinity of the inlet. 

A third application with 100 cc of antimycin 

was made 2 days later to kill a new congregation of shad, and on this occasion some 

green sunfish perished. The treatments were 

effective and economical in reducing the 

numbers of gizzard shad without harming 

channel catfish.

McGrath Lake in northern Wisconsin 

afforded an opportunity to attempt partial 

control of stunted panfish. The lake had a 

pH of 5.2, total hardness of 4 ppm, and a temperature of 70° F. Antimycin applied to one of 

the well-defined bays at 1 ppb killed all of 

the stunted yellow perch and 50 percent of 

the stunted bluegills. Another bay received 

2 ppb of the toxicant, and all perch and bluegills were eliminated.

Antimycin as a selective toxicant

Fish species differ in their sensitivity to 

antimycin, thus offering an opportunity in 

many situations to practice selective control of target fish. Stunted yellow perch, for
12 Investigations in Fish Control 40: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

example, were the targets for selective kills 

in Harriet and Perch lakes in northern Wisconsin. The waters of both lakes at the time 

were soft, acid, and warm. As intended, antimycin at 0.5 ppb killed all of the stunted 

perch without harm to northern pike, bluntnose minnows, bullheads, largemouth bass, 

and smallmouth bass.

Worthwhile reductions of overabundant 

minnows, sunfish, and crappies have also 

been accomplished in soft-water farm ponds 

in Georgia with no significant harm to largemouth bass. Applications of antimycin ranging 

from 0.4 to 0.8 ppb were most successful in 

ponds of 1 to 9 acres.

A typical operation involved a 2.5-acre 

bass-bluegill pond in which we needed to 

reduce the numbers of overabundant bluegills, 

golden shiners, and crappies with minimum 

damage to the largemouth bass. Only 0.4 ppb 

of antimycin applied to the 75° F. water killed 

127 pounds of golden shiners, 172 pounds of 

stunted bluegills, 22 pounds of fingerling 

crappies, and only 7 pounds of fingerling bass. 

No adult bass and crappies were killed. Moreover, subsequent reproduction by adult bass 

exposed to sublethal concentrations of toxicant 

was not impaired.

Antimycin's greatest potential as a selective 

toxicant possibly lies in the removal of scalefish from catfish waters. Minnows and sunfish, for example, infest many catfish production ponds in southeast and southcentral 

States, consuming large quantities of catfish 

rations, carrying diseases which affect the 

welfare of catfish, and necessitating costly 

sorting of scalefish and catfish at harvest.

Experiments at a catfish farm in Mississippi 

showed the benefits of reducing or eliminating 

abundant scalefish from production ponds. The 

ponds ranged from 0.9 to 1.4 acres, and averaged 120 pounds per acre of golden shiners 

and green sunfish. Ten ppb of antimycin killed 

at least 99 percent of the scalefish, despite 

high pH levels. No catfish perished. At harvest, treated ponds contained more and larger 

catfish than untreated ponds. The improved 

yield of catfish per acre averaged 330 pounds 

more in treated than in untreated ponds.

An excellent demonstration of selective 

poisoning was done by the Bureau's Division 

of Fishery Services on Victory Lake, Fort 

Benning, Ga. Elimination of scale fish from 

the 26-acre lake would permit effective management of channel catfish on a fed basis. 

Antimycin in liquid and sand formulations 

was used: 3.6 ppb in the lake proper and 

10 ppb for brief periods in tributary streams 

and springs. This killed more than 5,200 

pounds of scalefish, or 210 pounds per acre, 

comprising 60 pounds of chub suckers, 

33 pounds of golden shiners, 55 pounds of 

bluegills and warmouth, and 19 pounds of 

largemouth bass. The small concentration 

had no effect on mosquitofish. Only one channel catfish and one bullhead were killed. 

Subsequent netting disclosed channel catfish 

up to 4.5 pounds and bullheads in good condition but no other species except mosquitofish. The job was a success, and intensive 

management of the catfish was begun soon 

after.

FORMULATIONS OF ANTIMYCIN

Handy formulations have been developed 

with antimycin without noxious or repelling 

carriers. The liquid formulation of antimycin 

is easily distributed in shallow waters and 

streams with spray apparatus or drip equipment. The dry formulations consist of antimycin coated on 40-mesh sand and designed 

for shallow ponds and littoral zones of lakes. 

Fintrol-5 is a preparation which releases the 

antimycin evenly within the first 5 feet of 

depth as the sand sinks to the bottom. It is 

handily distributed by seed spreaders mounted 

on boats or helicopters. Its advantage over 

liquid toxicant is that the granules do not 

stick to emergent or shoreline vegetation, but 

bounce off into the water. Moreover, the sand 

penetrates beds of submerged vegetation and 

better distributes the toxicant.

Fintrol-15 formulation is designed to 

release the toxicant into the water within the 

first 15 feet of depth. The selective removal 

of minnows from Pleasant Lake in Minnesota 

serves as an example of the usefulness of 

Fintrol-15 in deeper, thermally-stratified 

water. This lake, 80 feet deep, is managed
Lennon and Berger: Field Applications of Antimycin A to Control Fish 13

for rainbow trout, but in recent years redbelly 

dace, bluntnose minnows, fathead minnows, 

blacknose shiners, and golden shiners had 

become abundant and heavily infested with 

parasites. The application was made to take 

advantage of the fact that the minnows prefer 

the upper layer of warm water in summer 

whereas the trout remain in the deep colder 

layers. When the lake was well stratified in 

late summer, the upper layer of water the 

epilimnion was approximately 15 feet thick. 

This layer was treated with Fintrol-15 and 

the shallower water along shore with Fintrol-5 

to attain 5 ppb of antimycin in this upper 

stratum of warm water. As far as could be 

determined by trapping, netting, and SCUBA 

diving, the minnows were eliminated from the 

lake. There was a minor kill of rainbow trout 

which were presumed to have moved into the 

epilimnion to feed. Thus, treatment of the 

epilimnion of Pleasant Lake at the time of 

maximum thermal stratification was effective, 

practical, and much more economical than 

treating the entire body of water.

Fintrol-30 releases its antimycin within 

the first 30 feet of depth as the sand carrier 

sinks to the bottom. Its performance in penetrating to depths in thermally stratified water 

to reach target fish was observed in Beauty 

Lake in Quebec. The objective was to remove 

northern pike, minnows, white suckers, pumpkinseeds, and yellow perch to restore native 

brook trout in the 44-acre lake.

Beauty Lake has a maximum depth of 

42 feet, and much of the lake exceeds 20 feet 

in depth the shorelines are steep. Total 

treatment of the basin was necessary because 

the target species may have been distributed through a wide range of depths. We 

applied 5 ppb of antimycin as Fintrol-30 

by boat to obtain as even a distribution as 

possible.

Fintrol-30 effectively released its antimycin 

in the deeper waters of the thermocline and 

was apparent within 2 hours after application. 

Large numbers of dead and dying American 

smelt rose to the surface of the lake. This 

species customarily inhabits the deeper, 

colder waters; indeed, its presence in Beauty

Lake had never before been detected by fishery managers. Moreover, no live fish other 

than brown bullheads were taken during posttreatment netting in the lake. The operation 

was entirely successful in eradicating target 

fish.

Among these formulations, Fintrol-5 is 

registered and available to fishery managers. 

Fintrol-liquid, Fintrol-15, and Fintrol-30 

may soon have registered labels. Other formulations may be developed, depending on the 

needs of fishery managers. A delayed-release 

formulation on sand one which would release 

its toxicant only after the sand has sunk to 

the bottom-might be useful for control of 

lampreys, bullheads, and other bottomdwelling fish.

DETOXIFICATION OF ANTIMYCIN

Laboratory and field tests confirmed that 

potassium permanganate can detoxify antimycin in water. The amount of permanganate 

depends on the concentration of toxicant, but 

the quantities, in general, are modest. However, we cannot recommend use of potassium 

where water is to be used for domestic or 

agricultural purposes or where fish are to be 

consumed by man because it has not been 

registered for this use by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture.

The reclamation of Rathbone Creek at 

Cataract, Wis., required detoxification of 

antimycin. Several miles of the small, trout 

stream were treated with sufficient antimycin 

to maintain a concentration of 7.5 ppb for 

at least 8 hours in order to eliminate populations of minnows and suckers. Cataract 

Pond, a small impoundment, was the downstream limit of reclamation. It had been 

drained to low level before the treatment and 

refilled during treatment. Refilling only 

18 hours before antimycin-laden water reached 

the spillway of the dam, the pond was treated 

with 2 ppm of potassium permanganate. The 

detoxification was quick and complete as 

shown by the fact that effluent water did not 

harm rainbow trout in live cages 500 feet 

downstream from Cataract Pond.
14 Investigations in Fish Control 40; Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE OF 

ANTIMYCIN OR OTHER FISH 

CONTROL AGENTS

The following considerations are essential 

to the successful reclamation of static or 

flowing waters.

I. Define the problem in full detail.

A. What is the cause of the problem? 

B. What are the effects?

C. Is the problem temporary or longterm?

IL Assess the fish populations involved or 

present by netting, trapping, electrofishing, or creel census.

IIL Define the target species and their pertinent characteristics.

IV. Evaluate all possible approaches to a 

solution of the problem; include cost 

benefit ratios.

A. Biological or environmental controls. 

B. Chemical controls:

1. General toxicant.

2. Selective toxicant.

3. Total reclamation.

4. Partial reclamation.

C. Other controls electrical, mechanical:

1. Electrical or mechanical weirs, 

barriers.

2. Dams, fishways.

D. Integrated controls combinations of 

A, B, and C.

V. Select a control.

A. Consider its specificity to the target 

fish and life stages involved.

B. Consider possible side effects on 

other fish, aquatic life, and environment.

C. Consider effects or influences on 

multiple uses of the water.

If a chemical control is selected, the following additional considerations are advised. 

They apply to any of the registered fish 

toxicants. See table 5 for recommended concentrations.

I. Make several determinations of the following, preferably in both warm and cold seasons:

Item Lake Stream

A. General

characteristics:

1. Area .........................................surface acres...............................surface acres.

2. Depth........................................av., contours................................av., contours.

3. Volume......................................acre-feet......,..............................acre-feet.

4. Flows........................................current pattern.............................c.f.s.

5. Velocity.....................................ft./sec. .......................................ft. /sec.
Lennon and Berger: Field Applications of Antimycin A to Control Fish 15

Item Lake Stream

6. Bottom:

Littoral..............................type...........................................type.

Profundal...........................type...........................................type.

7. Tributaries...............................streams, springs..........................streams, springs.

8. Gradient................................... ...........................................ft./mi.

9. Pool grade................................ ...........................................type, frequency.

10. Riffle grade.............................. ...........................................type, frequency.

11. Vegetation................................type, species...............................type, species.

12. Basin, channel...........................open, occluded.............................open, occluded.

13. Configuration............................map, photograph...........................map, photograph.

B. Water

characteristics;

1. Chemistry................................pH.............................................pH.

Do.....................................dissolved oxygen..........................dissolved oxygen.

Do.....................................carbon dioxide.............................carbon dioxide.

Do.....................................total alkalinity.............................total alkalinity.

Do.....................................CO8 alkalinity..............................CCfc alkalinity.

Do.....................................HCO8 alkalinity............................HCO, alkalinity.

Do.....................................total hardness..............................total hardness.

2. Resistance................................ohms..........................................ohms.

conductance...........................mhos..........................................mhos.

3. Temperature.............................°F., °C. .....................................°F., °C.

4. Color ......................................type...........................................type.

5. Turbidity.................................type, density...............................type, density.

6. Pollution..................................type, source................................type, source.
16 Investigations in Fish Control 40: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

TABLE 5. Guidelines for selecting concentrations of antinycin to control freshwater fish

pH below 7.5

Water Above 60° Water Below 60°

pH 7.5-8.5

Water Above 60° Water Below 60°

pH above 8.5

Water Above 60° Water Below 60°

Sensitive fish1 :

Fintrol-5 in pounds per

Resistant fish2 :

Fintrol-5 in pounds per

5.0

0.5

1.4

15

1.5

4.1

7.5

0.75

2.0

20

2.0

5.5

7.5

0.75

2.0

20

2.0

5.5

10.0

1.0

2.8

25

2.5

6.9

10.0

1.0

2.8

25

2.5

6.9

10.0

1.0

2.8

25

2.5

6.9

1 Species such as gizzard shad, trout, pike, carp, minnows, suckers, sticklebacks, white bass, sunfish, perch, freshwater drum, 

and sculpins.

2 Gar, bowfin, goldfish.

II. Correlate all data on target fish, on the 

lake or stream, and on water characteristics 

to aid in 

A. Selection of toxicant, formulation, and 

concentration for 

1. Total or partial reclamation.

2. General or selective control.

B. Selection of season and time for best 

application of control, with regard to 

1. Favorable temperature for chemical activity.

2. Favorable water chemistry for 

chemical activity.

3. Minimum conflicting uses of water.

4. Minimum interference by aquatic 

vegetation.

5. Limited vs. general distribution of 

target fish spawning congregations; 

preferred distribution in thermallystratified water and life stages 

involved.

6. Favorable logistics to remote 

waters.

C. Selection of method for most effective 

distribution of toxicant (the distribution 

must be well planned, organized, and 

executed without interruption):

1. By hand time, labor, costs.

2. By boat time, labor, costs.

3. By aircraft time, labor, costs.

D. Consider auxiliary tools to enhance 

effectiveness or economy of toxicant, 

e.g. 

1. Reduce interfering aquatic vegetation by prior application of 

herbicide.

2. Reduce turbidity with a flocculating 

material.

3. Manipulate water levels to concentrate fish, reduce water volume.

4. Modify the pH and chemistry of 

the water.

III. Confirm selection of toxicant, the formulation, and concentration for desired activity 

against target fish by lakeside or streamside 

bioassays, as follows;

A. Several concentrations of toxicant and 

durations of exposure which bracket 

the proposed application rate must be 

tested in the bioassays.
Lennon and Berger: Field Applications of Antimycin A to Control Fish 17

B. The water in the bioassays must be 

from the target lake or stream.

C. Temperatures in the bioassays must 

be representative of the target lake 

or stream.

D. Target species from the target lake 

or stream are preferred in the bioassays.

IV. Adjust the type, formulation, and concentration of toxicant and the time of reclamation as indicated by results of the bioassays.

V. Set live cages containing target and 

other indicator species at various sites and 

depths in the target water at least 24 hours 

prior to the reclamation. Check their survival 

just before the reclamation and periodically 

thereafter. Replace dead fish with fresh lots 

of specimens to detect as accurately as possible the persistence and activity of the toxicant. 

A lot of fish must include at least 10 specimens of the same species and size. When a 

fresh lot of the most sensitive species survives 48 hours of exposure in the treated 

water, the toxicant is considered degraded or 

removed from the basin.

VI. Postpone or cancel the reclamation if 

any conditions in the target water or reclamation process have changed significantly 

since the bioassays were made. The risk of 

failure always present becomes too high 

when conditions have changed.

VII. Collect, enumerate, process, and bury 

dead fish promptly.

VIII. Make thorough assessment of the results 

of the reclamation, by 

A. Netting, trapping, electrofishing, or 

SCUBA.

B. Detect and evaluate side effects on 

any aquatic or terrestrial life.

IX. Relate results to objectives. Were the 

objectives attained?

X. Clean up the reclamation site; properly 

dispose of surplus toxicant and empty containers.

XI. Prepare full report of the reclamation 

for files and/or publication.

XII. Prepare and distribute an addendum 

report on the type and success of postreclamation management of the fishery.

REFERENCES

Ayerst Laboratories.

1966. Fintrol (R). A new chemical concept for the 

eradication of rough and stunted freshwater fish. 

Ayerst Laboratories. New York, N.Y. 10 p.

Ayerst Laboratories.

1967. Fintrol in catfish farming eliminates trash 

fish. Ayerst Laboratories, New York, N.Y. 

Up.

Barry, James J. and Richard E. Bass.

1967. Trial application of Antimycin A in three 

hatchery ponds. Department of Natural Resources, Avoca, Ind. 5 p. [Mimeo].

Berger, Bernard L.

1965. An application of Fintrol-5 (antimydn) to 

Veterans Memorial Park Pond. West Salem. 

Wisconsin. Fish Control Laboratory. U.S. Bureau 

of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. La Crosse, Wis., 

November 12: typed. 11 p.

1965. A trial of antimydn A in ponds on the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge. Fish Control Laboratory, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. La Crosse. Wis.. June 8: typed. 6 p.

1966. Field trials of Fintrol-5 at Stuttgart, Arkansas, in December 1965. Fish Control Laboratory, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. La Crosse, Wis.t March 7: typed. 20 p.

1966. Antimycin (Fintrol) as a fish toxicant. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference of the 

Southeastern Game and Fish Commissioners, Tulsa, Oklahoma, October 10-13. 1965. 

p. 300-301.

1966. Reclamation of Lake Creek Lake with 

Fintrol-5 at the National Fish Hatchery, Saratoga, 

Wyoming. Fish Control Laboratory. U.S. Bureau 

of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, La Crosse, Wis.. 

January 13: typed. 13 p.

Berger, Bernard L., Philip A. Gilderhus, and Robert E. 

Lennon

1967. Attempted reclamation of Whltewater Lake, 

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge, Nebraska. 

Fish Control Laboratory, U.S. Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife. La Crosse. Wis., October 25: mimeo, 12 p.
18 Investigations in Fish Control 40: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife

Berger, Bernard L., and Robert E. Lennon.

______. A test of Antimydn A, a fish toxicant, 

in Beauty Lake Quebec, Canada. Canadian Fish 

Culturist. (In press).

Berger, Bernard L^ Robert E. Lemon, and James W. 

Hogan.

1969. Laboratory studies on antimycin A as a fish 

toxicant. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, Investigations in Fish Control No. 26. 

19 p.

Burress, Ralph M.

1968. Antimycin for controlling sunfish populations 

In ponds. Farm Pond Harvest, vol. 1, No. 2, 

p. 11-12-22.

Burress, Ralph KL, and Charles W. Luhning.

1969. Use of antimycin for selective dunning of 

sunfish populations In ponds. U.S. Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Investigations in 

Fish Control No. 28. 10 p.

1969. Field trials of antimycin as a selective toxicant in channel catfish ponds. U.S. Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Investigations in 

Fish Control No. 25, 12 p.

Derse, P. H., and F. M. Strong.

1963. Toxidty of antimycin to fish. Nature, 

vol. 200, No. 4906, p. 600-601.

Gilderhus, Philip A.

1967. Field studies with antimycin in Waterloo 

Creek at Marshall, Wisconsin. Fish Control 

Laboratory, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, La Crosse. Wis., August 16: typed, 3 p.

1966. Summary of the reclamation of Rathbone 

Creek with antimycin. Fish Control Laboratory, 

U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 

La Crosse, Wis., November: typed, 7 p.

1967. The reclamation of Westfield Creek, Marquette County, Wisconsin, using antimycin. Fish 

Control Laboratory, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, La Crosse, Wis., August 30: 

typed, 7 p.

Helms, Don R.

1967. Experimental use of antimycin A to control 

spawning carp in Backbone Lake. Iowa Conservation Commission: typed, 5 p.

Herr, F., E. Greselin, and C. ChappeL

1967. Toxicology studies of antimycin, a fish 

eradicant. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, vol. 96, No. 3, p. 320-326.

Heylin. Mike.

1965. Antimycin kills freshwater fish in partsper-billion dosages. Chemical and Engineering 

News, vol. 43, No. 44, p. 52.

Hogan, James W.

______. Antimycin as a fish toxicant in catfish 

culture. Proceedings of the Twentieth Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and 

Fish Commissioners, Asheville, North Carolina, 

October 24-26, 1966: (In press).

Iowa. State Conservation Commission.

1967. Rough fish and species control Fish Management Quarterly Report, vol. 1, No. 2, p. 21-29.

Lennon, Robert E.

1966. Antimycin as a fish toxicant. Presented at 

96th Annual Meeting, American Fisheries Society, Kansas City, Mo., September 12-14: mimeo 

(Fish Control Laboratory, La Crosse, Wis.), 8 p.

1966. Antimycin - a new fishery tool. Wisconsin 

Conservation Bulletin, vol. 31, No. 2, p. 4-5.

Lennon, Robert EM Bernard L. Berger and Philip A. 

Gilderhus.

1967. A powered spreader for antimycin. Progressive Fish-Culturist, vol. 29, No. 2, 

p. 110-113.

Loeb, H. A.

1964. Some notes concerning the toxicity of Antimycin A to carp and other fish. New York Fish 

and Game Journal, vol. 11, p. 160-161.

Montgomery, Alex B.

1967. Fishery management program, Shaw Air 

Force Base, South Carolina. Summary Report, 

Division of Fishery Services, U.S. Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, October 17: typed, 

3 p.

1967. Fishery management program. Fort Banning. 

Georgia. Progressive Report, Division of Fishery Services, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, October 23: typed, 3 p.

Powers, James E., and Anne LaBastille Bowers. 

1967. Elimination of fish In the Giant Grebe 

Refuge, Lake Atitlan, Guatemala, using the fish 

toxicant, Antimycin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, vol. 96, No. 2, p. 210-213.

Powers, James E., and Edward Schneberger.

1967. Antimycin: Promising in carp control. Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin, vol. 32, No. 2, 

P. 14.

Radonski, Gilbert C.

1967. Antimycin: Useful in perch control? Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin, fol. 32, No. 2, 

p. 15-16.

Ross, Ward.

1966. Carp control research contract. Quarterly 

Progress Reports Nos. 1-3.
Lennon and Berger; Field Applications of Antimycin A to Control Fish 19

Ross, Ward.

1967. Carp control research contract. Quarterly 

Progress Reports, Nos. 4-5. 

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Madison, Wis. mimeos.

Sayre, R. C.

1967. Powder River rehabilitation with Fintrol-5 

and liquid rotenone. Progress Report No. 2, 

Project F-80-R-1, Oregon State Game Commission, December 13: mimeo, 12 pM 17 figs.

1967. Fintrol-5 for fish eradication. Powder River 

rehabilitation. Progress Report, Project 

F-80-R-1, Oregon State Game Commission, 

November l(h mimeo, 5 p., 5 figs.

Schoettger, Richard A., Bernard L. Berger, and Philip 

A. Gilderhus.

1967. Reclamation of Turquoise Lake, Leadville, Colorado. Trip Report, Fish Control 

Laboratory; U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries

and Wildlife, La Crosse, Wisconsin, September: mimeo, 20 p.

Sheridan, John R.

1967. Fishery management program. Fort Detrick, 

Maryland. Progress Report, Division of Fishery 

Services, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, October 26: typed, 5 p.

Vezina, Claude.

1966. Antimycin A, a teleocidal antibiotic. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1966, 

p. 757-766.

Walker, Charles R., Robert E. Lennon, and Bernard L. 

Berger.

1964. Preliminary observations on the toxicity of 

antimycin A to fish and other aquatic animals. 

U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 

Investigations in Fish Control No. 2. (Bureau 

Circular 186). 18 p.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 O - 385-713
(Reports 22 through 24 are in one cover.)

22. Efficacy of Quinaldine as an Anesthetic for Seven Species of Fish, by Richard A. 

Schoettger and Arnold M. Julin. 1969. 10 p.

23. Toxicity of Quinaldine to Selected Fishes, by Leif L. Marking. 1969. 10 p.

24. Quinaldine as an Anesthetic for Brook Trout, Lake Trout, and Atlantic Salmon, by 

David 0. Locke. 1969. 5 p.

(Reports 25 through 28 are in one cover.)

25. Field Trials of Antimycin as a Selective Toxicant in Channel Catfish Ponds, by Ralph M. 

Burress and Charles W. Luhning. 1969. 12 p.

26. Laboratory Studies on Antimycin A as a Fish Toxicant, by Bernard L. Berger, Robert E. 

Lennon, and James W. Hogan. 1969. 19 p.

27. Field Trials of Antimycin A as a Fish Toxicant, by Philip A. Gilderhus and Robert E. 

Lennon. 1969. 21 p.

28. Use of Antimycin for Selective Thinning of Sunfish Populations in Ponds, by Ralph M. 

Burress and Charles W. Luhning. 1969. 10 p.

(Reports 29 through 31 are in one cover.)

29. Efficacy of Methylpentynol as an Anesthetic on Four Salmonids, by Robert M. Rowland 

and Richard A. Schoettger. 1969. 11 p.

30. Toxicity of Methylpentynol to Selected Fishes, by Leif L. Marking. 1969. 7 p.

31. Annotated Bibliography on Methylpentynol, by Gerald E. Svendsen. 1969. 7 p.

(Reports 32 through 34 are in one cover.)

32. Toxicity of Hyamine 3500 to Fish, by James W. Hogan. 1969. 9 p.

33. Voidance Time for 23 Species of Fish, by Thomas H. Lane and Howard M. Jackson. 1969. 9 p,

34. Laboratory Studies on Possible Fish-Collecting Aids With Some Toxicities for the Isomers of Cresol, by Robert M. Rowland. 1969. 10 p.

35. Toxicology of Thiodan in Several Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates, by Richard A. 

Schoettger. 1970. 31 p.

(Reports 36 through 38 are in one cover. In press.)

36. A Method for Rating Chemicals for Potency Against Fish and Other Organisms, by 

Leif L. Marking.

37. Comparative Toxicity of 29 Nitrosalicylanilides and Related Compounds to Eight Species 

of Fish, by Leif L. Marking and Wayne A. Willford.

38. Toxicity of 33NCS (3'-chloro-3-nitrosalicylanilide) to Freshwater Fish and Sea Lampreys, 

by Leif L. Marking, Everett L. King, Charles R. Walker, and John H. Howell.
As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department 

of the Interior has basic responsibilities for water, fish, wildlife, 

mineral, land, park, and recreational resources. Indian and Territorial affairs are other major concerns of this department of 

natural resources.

The Department works to assure the wisest choice in managing 

all our resources so that each shall make its full contribution to 

a better United States now and in the future.

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 

WASHINGTON. D. C. 2O24O

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR