PlanetCatfish.com

I thought I would share a technique that I have been using with success in my pleco fry tanks.
I use a thin layer of sand in all my tanks rather than bare bottoms. One of the problems I find in raising pleco fry is balancing the food supply with that of fry consumption. I never have mastered that but what I have discovered is that a population of the black worms can be established in my fry tanks that seems to help consume uneaten foods and helping to stave off undesirable water quality degradation.

I raise mainly more carnivorous species and my primary food for them is earth worm sticks. Even the youngest pleco fry like this food but it does have the draw back that uneaten portions can settle into the substrate where it can contribute to fouling the rearing tanks. The black worms quickly establish a breeding colony and soon live throughout the substrate. They eat the food missed by the fry.
The established black worm colonies are fed on by my breeders and if the number of worms seems excessive adding a few Corydoras can bring down the numbers although they will not eliminate all the black worms. I think living black worms actually help create a more complex and healthier ecological conditions than a set up that is free of black worms. Just a little food for thought, no pun intended.

Maybe some of you who share my lazy man's approach to fish breeding and rearing can find black worms as scavengers useful as well as I do.

I use a thin layer of sand in all my tanks rather than bare bottoms.

Just to clarify...you use this thin layer even with the blackworms in the substrate?
If so, how do you think the blackworms would fare in an aquarium with deeper sand(say 11/2 to 2")...would they live throughout or in the upper layers of the sand

Interesting...simpler but along the same lines as saltwater reef tanks where all the little critters are allowed to grow making it easier to keep some species of fish that would not thrive otherwise.
Birger

I find that black worms that are missed by my fish do the same thing in regular aquarium gravel. I never thought that they were acting as scavengers cleaning my tank and I didn't know that they were reproducing! Thanx for the post Larry. I will leave them in there from now on.
Josh

one of the fish stores i go to has those worms in the sand, you can see them all living in there and the fish eating on them as they go by. It s very interesting but I guess obviously it's good for them? I don''t know if I could deal with worms living in my tanks. I think I would freak out and break it down.

Maybe it's best if I don't know if they are already in there, in case one of you were going to advise me of that.

well i guess you could do that.
Usually we use the red kinds here in breeding and selling rooms.
Always wondered can shrimp be used too like the white pearl?
or will they eat the fry? And couldn't you use tubifex instead.
Tubifex are red bloodworms who live in clear waters or so i was told.

Having once been a Tubifex collector and distributor in the PNW before the EPA force the upstream cattle feed lot bar their effluents from reaching the stream, I have a lot of experience with using them. They grew in incredibly dense mats in silt bars of the cold water polluted stream I collected them from. However, those that escaped being eaten would become established in a tropical fish aquarium substrate and reproduce. So they are quite adaptable.

One of the reasons I limit the thickness of my breeding/grow out substrates to less than 1/4 inch or ~7 cm is to make them more accessible to the fish as food. I prefer to keep a thin layer of substrate to bare bottom set ups. This small amount of substrate does not complicate keeping the aquarium as clean as a bare bottom and fry survival seems better than in bare bottom tanks. This is especially true of Catfish larvae. Discus are especially fond of sifting the sand to expose and eat the worms. My discus spend many hours doing little more than searching for that rare worm tidbit. At the risk of anthropomorphism, I believe they enjoy the hard earned worm more than the freely available worms fed from a feeder. A number of Corydoras can pretty much decimate their population of a thin substrate but most of the fish I raise still feed on those worms they find but are not able to eliminate them.
I do find them desirable for the same reason reef tank keepers promote ecological diversity. I think they aid in keeping the substrate a little cleaner, provide greater ecological diversity and are constantly available as fish food albeit, the fish may have to work harder for them. I see this as a plus since it provides fish with natural hunting opportunities and supplemental feedings between main feedings. If the substrate is much thicker then few worms are eaten; certainly not enough to be threatened with extinction.

Of course should some medication or other toxic substances such as excessive salt addition can kill the worms and that decaying biomass can foul an aquarium very quickly.

I am aware that many fish keepers are not fond of seeing worms living in their aquarium substrate but I do think they can do more good than harm. I guess if one finds worms too revolting then it is best to avoid their use because some always escape and become established. If you don't see them normally but use them, you will see that you have many worms surviving whenever you hydro vacuum your substrate.

I agree with you 100% that it's prob the greatest thing for them and for the tank itself. And it was cool to watch the fish at the store trying to get at them.

Hello,
do I understand that right? The black worms live in the sandground an there stay some alive? That would bie interesting. Can you say the latin name of that worms? Because the wordly translation in German has a very different sense Thanx

Ciao
Christian

Ill wrote:well i guess you could do that.
Usually we use the red kinds here in breeding and selling rooms.
Always wondered can shrimp be used too like the white pearl?
or will they eat the fry? And couldn't you use tubifex instead.
Tubifex are red bloodworms who live in clear waters or so i was told.

I think I covered the Tubifex well in my previous post. I consider them interchangeable as far as being useful substrate scavengers.
I have colonies of Red Cherry shrimp living in the majority of my tanks. I keep them for both their interesting behavior and to add more ecological diversity to my aquariums. Shrimp do not replace worms but are complimentary. I haven't kept and bred Pearl shrimp yet but I believe they make the same contributions to their aquariums. Larger cherry shrimp do eat some black worms but not in excess of the worms' reproduction rate. I have some cherry shrimp with all my catfish spp and they seem to have no adverse effects in Apistogramma or discus breeding aquariums. I define adverse consequences as being predacious upon the eggs, larvae or fry of the species I raise the most of. I would not allow shrimp in a breeding tank set up for egg scatterers like most Tetras or Cyprinids. Shrimp will definitely eat those eggs, larvae and fry. Shrimp larvae are always a welcome snack for some lucky fish. It often amazes me how the shrimp are able to reproduce faster than their larvae are eaten. Of course, every tank is different and they thrive better with some fish than they do with others.
I am getting a starter colony of of Crystal Red Shrimp next month. Keeping and breeding fresh water invertebrates is a fun hobby on its own merits. I have bred and raised large numbers of the Common Ghost Glass Shrimp native to the SE USA. They are much better predators. They eat one whole black worm like a spaghetti noodle. Don't keep these with your valuable fry. Otherwise they make a great addition to a community tank of peaceful fish.
There has been an explosion of interesting new shrimp species to our hobby recently. Many are extremely colorful. I consider all Cardinia and Neocardinia spp fish safe. They are helpful in cleaning algae growth from fine plant leaves which are too small for plecos or Otocinclus type catfish to reach effectively but they won't overcome conditions perfect for excessive algal growth.
In short, the addition of different invertebrate is more likely to enhance an aquarium than cause a detrimental effect.
The latest introduction is a snail that eats snails. I see them for sale in NA for the first time from http://www.belowwater.com
It will be extremely interesting whether these snails are truly effective snail eaters and that they themselves stay under control once their prey is gone. Lots to learn about fresh water invertebrates as aquarium subjects.

The scientific name for the California Black Worm is Lumbriculus variegatus.
Note this is the same genus to which the common earth worm belongs.
Their resemblance to Tubifex is coincidental. Tubifex do best in heaivly organic polluted waters. Black worms do best in cleaner waters but are detritivores like earth worms and need organic food sources. I would not describ a black worm breeding operation as exactly clean but their is a difference between sewage laden water and run off from a trout hatchery, a common adjunct to black worm breeding on a commercial scale.

apistomaster wrote:The scientific name for the California Black Worm is Lumbriculus variegatus.
Note this is the same genus to which the common earth worm belongs..

Thank you Larry,
I found an advice from black worm to Lumbriculus in google, but that definition there was the earth worm. That confused me a little.

Ciao
Christian

Good stuff Larry, I am a massive fan for letting anything live in my tanks, the more stuff the better it gives the fishys a much better life closer to nature so to speak. My ultimate goal would be to have a tank that is it's own eco-system where I do not have to put any food in there for them but I think that is just a pipe dream.
Matt

I've been searching google and found this thread. maybe y'all can help me. I got a bag of live black worm at a fish convention/auction that I was at last March. I fed the last bit of them a few weeks ago to my pair of black veil angelfish. This morning I decided to switch out their sponge filter for a larger one, putting the smaller one from their tank into my newly swimming angel fry. I rinsed the sponge out, but when I put it in the tank, found worms, little baby ones all through out the sponge. Not a big deal to me, but I'm wondering if first the worms will hurt my angelfry. The worms are larger than the fry! lol and will they cut down the sponge's filtration because they are living in it?
Thank you thank you!
Sarah (aka Penycat)

pennycat,
The worms coming out of the sponges are more likely a species of scavenger nematode worms and not baby black worms.
They can free swim in water like tiny light colored threads. Fish do not eat them much if at all. I have half of my sponge filters run by power heads. They are plugged into the same power bar so when I change water I can switch them all off. If I forget to turn them back on within an hour or so these worms begin leaving the sponges due to lack of oxygen. They end up back inside the sponges after the power heads have been switched back on. I use two large sponge filters per tank; run by a power head and the other by airlift.

Okay, thank you for the answer! That's good to know. They won't hurt my angel fry right? Or should I put it back in with the older ones, but you said they won't get eaten, so really I just need to get rid of them right?

If we are talking about the same little nematodes that come out of my sponges when the flow is off then all you need to do is keep them running and make water changes as you would normally. These nematode worms are scavnger which eat the crude inside the sponge filters. If you look at the squeezings from a sponge filter under a microscope you with see a diverse community of microorganisms, Protozoans, nematodes, Oligochate worms and rotifers. There are billions of bacteria but these are only visible under very high power using an oil immersion objective lense. Most of these are the nitrifying bacterial and facultive aerobic bacteria which all consume the material drawn into the sponge and are all part of what make sponge filters good biological filters.

Pennycat,
You can't get rid of them. If you use sponge filters, then they will always be present. If you see them free swimming at times other than when a filter is not running then it indicates you are over feeding. Do a thorough vacuuming of the substrate and replace with fresh conditioned water(ie: Prime to remove chlorine compounds from tap water.) Start feeding more judiciously. They are annoying but not harful creatures.

grokefish wrote:Good stuff Larry, I am a massive fan for letting anything live in my tanks, the more stuff the better it gives the fishys a much better life closer to nature so to speak. My ultimate goal would be to have a tank that is it's own eco-system where I do not have to put any food in there for them but I think that is just a pipe dream.
Matt

Hi Matt,
So am I. (Except Hydra) I think a diversified ecology in an aquarium is a healthier system. I know for a fact, that fry survival is better in an aquarium that is well established and receives regular water changes.

It would be possible to establish a self sustaining ecology in an aquariums but not with just any fish. It would take a fair sized tank containing a few small fish. Much more understocked than any typical display or fry rearing aquarium. Water changes would remain a necessity. The types of fish I think would lend themselves well to such a set up would be Celestial Danios or one of the dwarf Corydoras or Aspidoras spp.
I think a 40 gal breeder or 50 gal would be about the smallest size tank that this would work. The number of fish would probably be not more than six. One "problem" with such a set up is that these few fish will almost certainly reproduce and soon, you would have too many fish to be self sustaining.

The types of fish I think would lend themselves well to such a set up would be Celestial Danios or one of the dwarf Corydoras or Aspidoras spp.

Some of the small Killi species or even otocinclus may do well in such a mini-ecosystem

Birger

Interesting use of black worms.

I use Walstad tanks (layer of soil) and whilst the 40,000+ species of bacteria and fungi in the soil breaks down food, etc., I think some of these worms would help aerate the upper level better and provide some extra food for my fish.

But being in the UK, I can not find anyone who has them!

If anyone reading this lives in the UK and has some could they email me?
I'd love to try a starter culture.

hi guys ,
as i also searched for a german name...i found the "Glanzwurm" here you can see some nice pics (in german sorry )

http://www.zierfischforum.at/artikel/oligochaeten.html

i think for some tanks it might me interesting...they grow up to 10cm quite big...for a little worm that should ccontrole my fry's food

farid

quatermass wrote:

I use Walstad tanks (layer of soil) and whilst the 40,000+ species of bacteria and fungi in the soil breaks down food, etc., I think some of these worms would help aerate the upper level better and provide some extra food for my fish.

That would be one way of making a mini-ecosystem. Some walstad tanks have been running for years with just top ups. But as Larry pointed out, you definitely don't want serious offspring unless your plants could keep up with the extra nutrients. Sooner or later, something would give without natural plant death of annuals (becomes fertilizer), "seasonal rains" or a predator passing by.
Also Walstad tanks required sunlight so real algae fanatics would have plenty to sustain them as long as the plants didn't rob all the nutrients from the algae BUT.. what would an omnivorous or carnivorous fish do?

Didn't a water treatment plant in Bear Lake use this method to get potable drinking water? I'll see if I can hunt that down. I know there was snails and plants and well, um, poo but I don't know about fish.

Edit: Found it but it's Bear River not Bear Lake and they do have fish in their wastewater treatment plant. Maybe it is possible to downsize it. I'd be quite a challenge! Here's the link:http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp ... river.html
Don't think you'd need the UV filter because no human stuff is going in and no human will drink the water.

L number Banana wrote:
Also Walstad tanks required sunlight so real algae fanatics would have plenty to sustain them as long as the plants didn't rob all the nutrients from the algae

Since when do they? None of mine do. One of mine is a 25L has a 11W bulb overhead and it has Riccia amongst other growing well in it!
The 4 Galaxy fish eat the wild Cyclops that grow in it.
I adjust the lighton time to suit and the 4 Dwarf Otos in it love the algae that builds up on the gravel and back wall.
It has zero ammonia, zero nitrite and zero nitrate. I add 5ml of nitrate solution twice a week.
It's only been up for 5 months now. Next year I may have to add CO2 supplement as in Walstad tanks the Carbonates don't last longer that ~12 months.

L number Banana wrote: BUT.. what would an omnivorous or carnivorous fish do?

You'd feed them?

L number Banana wrote: Didn't a water treatment plant in Bear Lake use this method to get potable drinking water? I'll see if I can hunt that down. I know there was snails and plants and well, um, poo but I don't know about fish.

Edit: Found it but it's Bear River not Bear Lake and they do have fish in their wastewater treatment plant. Maybe it is possible to downsize it. I'd be quite a challenge! Here's the link:http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/eppp ... river.html
Don't think you'd need the UV filter because no human stuff is going in and no human will drink the water.

Nice.
I think I've heard of several projects doing this. Wasn't there an American totally self-contained sealed project several years ago that tried this?

I've got a large Dragon-eye goldfish (10" SL) in a Walstad-like tank (it has very few plants) and a tiny overhead bulb just to show off the fish and it breaks down its waste very well indeed.
I use a Eheim external filter with one tray of Matrix (by Seachem) in it to dramatically increase the amount of bacteria it can hold against using a normal bead or sponge media. It saved me having to buy a larger filter too.

I doubt I'll ever put together a non-soil tank ever again after all the advantages it has over a typical aquarium.

L number Banana wrote:
Also Walstad tanks required sunlight so real algae fanatics would have plenty to sustain them as long as the plants didn't rob all the nutrients from the algae

quatermass wrote: Since when do they?

I went el naturel by the book (sunlight, no filter, no heater, just a box) but I do realize that some walstad style tanks can be high tech/low tech etc. Mine were absolute low tech. My new one will use sunlight only as well. It's easy to control and free
Maybe I didn't word that algae part so well, I didn't mean to imply that el natural tanks have algae problems! I'm well aware that when they're in balance, they never have algae problems, I meant the algae fanatic FISH are happy because you can feed them in a closed mini-ecosystem without changing your balance. Nature makes just enough to keep the fish full and the plants keep the algae from getting noticeable

L number Banana wrote:BUT.. what would an omnivorous or carnivorous fish do?

quatermass wrote: You'd feed them?

I was thinking of a CLOSED system - self sustaining etc - no intervention from me - that would be cool to watch. Maybe the blackworms would solve that problem. Did something like that with pond water once but again, once the algae was gone, the plants got too big and began to look a little nutrient deprived after a few months - maybe I should have left it longer and let the plant decay become food too.
Cool experiment for schools to do, there's lots going on in the mud!

I doubt I'll ever put together a non-soil tank ever again after all the advantages it has over a typical aquarium.

Unless you get digging catfish - I'm too chicken to put them in a soil tank, It may be fine, don't know. The peatmoss in some recommended soils would make a few catfish very happy I think. Blackwater fish. Haven't tried that yet.

These "all natural, closed systems" make fun projects but that is how they should be regarded. They really are not practical for anyone trying to produce fish through breeding nor are they practical for a typical community tank most people keep.
Remember the various Biosphere projects that were simulated closed earth-like biosphere systems designed as an approach to making a self sufficient biosphere for off world colonies? Failures, every one of them. Soil bacteria used up O2 and produced CO2 and only supplemental outside O2 supply allowed them to remain inside as long as the experimenters did. The stakes for keeping a few fish and plants aren't nearly as high but they still contain the key elements of ultimately failing not withstanding Ms. Walsted's methods.

Not going there I'm being very very good.