Bìol. Tvarin, 2018, volume 20, issue 3, pp. 69–76


M. K. Mustapha

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Department of Zoology, University of Ilorin,
University Road, Ilorin, 240003, Nigeria

Good water quality is necessary for artificial cultivation of frogs. There has not been a recommended value for water quality in frog culture.

This study was undertaken to determine the ranges of some water quality parameters for the culture of Hoplobatrachus occipitalis from tadpole stage to full metamorphosis. 180 tadpoles were distributed into 3 tanks each filled with 60 litre water and renewed through a flow-through system. Water quality parameters were measured for 16 weeks during which the tadpoles fully metamorphosed with only about 10 % mortality. Results showed temperature ranged between 24.1 and 27.2 °C, pH 6.8–7.2. Conductivity varied between 240 and 280 µS/cm, Total Dissolved Solids 161–188 mg/l, Alkalinity 225–200 mg/l, Calcium, Magnesium and Total Hardness were in the ranges of 80–100 mg/l, 40–60 mg/l and 120–160 mg/l, respectively. Phosphate and Nitrate varied between 0.3–0.8 and 0.8–1.3 mg/l, respectively. Dissolved oxygen was between 6.2 and 6.9 mg/l, while Ammonia ranged between 0.10 mg/l and 0.22 mg/l. These ranges were good water quality values for the rearing of the species, because of the full metamorphosis of the frog and the low (10 %) mortality rate recorded in 16 weeks. The flow through system which allowed frequent change of water and the ground (borehole) water used for culture helped in achieving the good water quality in the tanks.


  1. Bishop C., Mahony N., Struger J., Ng P., Petit K. E. Anuran development, density, and diversity in relation to agricultural activity in the Holland River watershed, Ontario, Canada (1990–1992). Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 2008, vol. 57, issue 1, pp. 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005988611661
  2. Borges F. F., Amaral L. A., De Stéfani M. V. Characterization of effluents from bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus, Shaw, 1802) grow-out ponds. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia, 2012, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-975X2012005000035
  3. Borges F. F., De Stéfani M. V. Amaral L. A. Quality of the effluents of bullfrog tadpole ponds. Bol. Inst. Pesca, 2014, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 409–417.
  4. Boyer R., Grue C. E. The need for water quality criteria for frogs. Environmental Health Perspectives, 1995, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 352–357. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.95103352
  5. Brasil. Dispõe sobre a classificação dos corpos de água e diretrizes ambientais para o seu enquadramento, bem como estabelece as condições e padrões de lançamento de efluentes, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, 2005, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 58–63. (in Portuguese)
  6. Castro J. C., Pinto A. T. Qualidade da água em tanques de girinos de rã-touro, Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802, cultivados em diferentes densidades de estocagem. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 2000, vol. 29, no. 6, suplemento 1, pp. 1903–1911. (in Portuguese)
  7. Ferreira C. M. A importância da água e sua utilização em ranários comerciais. Panorama da Aquicultura, 2003, vol. 13, no. 79, pp. 15–17. (in Portuguese)
  8. Ferreira C. M., Pimenta A. G. C., Paiva Neto J. S. Introdução à ranicultura. Boletim Técnico do Instituto de Pesca, 2002, vol. 33, p. 15. (in Portuguese)
  9. Flores-Nava A. Bullfrog farming: Comparison of inundated and semi dry ongoing methods. Global Aquaculture Alliance, 2000, vol. 1 no. 1, pp. 52–54.
  10. Flores-Nava A., Vera‐Muñoz P. Growth, metamorphosis and feeding behaviour of Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802 tadpoles at different rearing densities. Aquaculture Research, 1999, vol. 30, issue 5, pp. 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1999.00335.x
  11. Helfrich L. A., Neves R. J., Parkhurst J. Commercial frog farming. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Virginia State University, USA, 2001, p. 4.
  12. Klaver R. W., Peterson C. R., Patla D. A. Influence of water conductivity on amphibian occupancy in the greater yellow stone ecosystem. Western North American Naturalist, 2013, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 184–197. https://doi.org/10.3398/064.073.0208
  13. Mercante C. T. J., Vaz-dos-Santos A. M., Moraes M. A. P., Pereira J. T., Lombardi J. V. Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) farming system: water quality and environmental changes. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia, 2014, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-975X2014000100003
  14. Oza G. M. Ecological effects of the frog’s legs trade. The Environmentalist, 1990, vol. 10, issue 1, pp. 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02239556
  15. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS Statistical Software, V.9.2. 2008. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, North Carolina.
  16. Sipaúba-Tavares L. H., Morais J. C. L., De Stéfani M. V. Comportamento alimentar e qualidade de água em tanques de criação de girinos de rã-touro Lithobates catesbeianus. Acta Scientiarum Animal Science, 2008, vol. 30, pp. 95–101. (in Portuguese)
  17. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. APHA. 22nd ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, 2012.
  18. Tacon A. G. J., Forster I. P. Aquafeeds and the environment: policy implications. Aquaculture, 2003, vol. 226, issue 1–4, pp. 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00476-9
© 2016 Institute of Animal Biology