1948/01/01 by Ralph Hile
Agricultural and Biological Sciences · #Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
paper · doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1945)75[157:somoel]2.0.co;2
Fishery workers in the United States and Canada are unable to think readily in terms of the metric system of weights and measurements. Even long experience does not make it possible to form a clear idea as to the actual size of fish for which lengths and weights are given in metric units, without first converting to the English system. A more general adoption of the English system of weights and measurements in fishery work is recommended. The use of English units exclusively is suggested for articles of a popular or semi-popular nature, but in more formal publications the key information, at least, should be recorded in both systems. In highly technical papers metric units alone may prove satisfactory. Eight standard lengths, the fork length, and two total lengths of fish have been employed in fishery work. Although the standard length, under one or another of its several definitions, has enjoyed the widest use in the past, opinion is well-nigh unanimous today that we should turn to some other measurement. Agreement is lacking, however, as to which length measurement is suited best for uniform adoption. The total length is recommended here for the reason that it is the only measurement that includes all of the fish. This length is defined as the distance from the tip of the head (jaws closed) to the tip of the tail with the lobes compressed so as to give the maximum possible measurement. Problems of standardization are by no means confined to the expression of lengths and weights. A greater uniformity in terminology and procedure would facilitate notably the exchange of information and the ready interpretation of data in almost every phase of fishery work.