+1 what's more if you have a good culture which you only feed with organic vege scraps then you gutload your wrigglers a good diet. (that is not spoiled or rotten will be good)
Is it safe to feed feeder crickets and compost worms to my cichlids?
- Thread starter cambrew
- Start date
+1 what's more if you have a good culture which you only feed with organic vege scraps then you gutload your wrigglers a good diet. (that is not spoiled or rotten will be good)
There is absolutely no need to feed composting worms fresh vegetables or organic ones.
They actually prefer rotting stuff. I feed mine newspaper, junk mail, coffee grounds...etc.
Not to go down the the nematode road with neut again, the chances of terrestrial nematodes affecting aquatic creatures like fish is much, much lower than aquatic ones. It's hard to find a safer live food than red wigglers, in my experience.
And it's hard to find better fertilizer for your flowers and plants...
Matt
They actually prefer rotting stuff. I feed mine newspaper, junk mail, coffee grounds...etc.
Not to go down the the nematode road with neut again, the chances of terrestrial nematodes affecting aquatic creatures like fish is much, much lower than aquatic ones. It's hard to find a safer live food than red wigglers, in my experience.
And it's hard to find better fertilizer for your flowers and plants...
Matt
btw, what type of wrigglers do you culture?
I have red, and night crawlers, they grow faster from vege and from what I see, compare to newspaper and things like that once you offer vege diet to them they increase their reproduction to 200% whether it's cold or not, well I'm in a tropical country so so so...
also IME, my fish loves the vege loaded earthworms other than then other way around. added flavor maybe?
The wrigglers look more dense and somehow looking better than before, they're kinda pale and squishy, easy to break (I've got a powerful finger grip) that's when I got lazy and just give them newspaper and stuff. (been there)
Yes I forgot, wrigglers can be the cause of bloat when you offer a big one, add some peas in the diet, cause laxatives... offer it in moderation, not unless you got a strictly carnivorous fish. Like a pleco perhaps? 
You don't seem to be understanding what I've said on the subject, but keep trying to turn it into a referendum on the merits of culturing red wigglers or a worms vs. no worms issue. There's no personal theory involved here and I don't need personal vermiculture experience to convince me to accept what I've read from non-hobbyist science sources on the subject of worm pathology, especially as it pertains to wild worms. If you want to argue whether worms can harbor a "variety of parasites and pathogens" that can "include bacteria, fungi, protozoa, rotifers, platyhelminths, mites, parasitic fly larvae, and nematodes" take that up with the some of the scientists who state this. (btw... why do you keep obsessing on nematodes when I keep saying pathogens? My comments on the subject have been on pathogens of all varieties, as noted in my reference, not nematodes exclusively.)
Nowhere above did I say never feed worms, don't culture worms, don't feed cultured worms, or anything of the sort. In fact I said "Culturing your own may be a whole different ball of wax." with reference to pathogens. Regarding collecting and feeding wild earthworms I said the possibility of pathogens was "more than enough to convince me not to go out and randomly dig up earthworms and feed them live to my fish."
Countless times on fish forums, when someone inquires about feeder fish, someone points out potential risks for some sources of feeder fish-- e.g. dirty, overcrowded tanks at pet stores-- and all in the spirit of a reasonable precaution for the sake of the fish. A certain percentage of experienced fishkeepers post cautions about live foods in general. In a similar spirit it doesn't hurt anyone to know that live earthworms, at least from some sources, also have a possibility of risk.
You and a million other fishkeepers may have a clean way of culturing and feeding red wigglers or whatever other worm or cricket, etc. I've never said don't do it because it can't be done safely. That would be like saying don't eat sushi because it can carry pathogens. But I'm not doing that. On the other hand, the fact earthworms can be cultured safely doesn't mean they can't carry pathogens anymore than the fact that sushi can be eaten safely proves it can't carry pathogens.
You seem an intelligent guy and I don't follow why simply pointing this out, or even expressing my own fishkeeping preferences regarding live foods, as I occasionally do, should be causing you such consternation. It's not like the entire fishkeeping community is going to stop culturing, capturing or feeding worms, crickets, or whatever else because they may carry pathogens that may be a risk to your fish because someone on a free speech forum or two occasionally points out that it's simply something to be aware of.
I happen to be an advocate for culturing red wiggler worms and I came about this position honestly, without a profit motive, based on observation and recommendations from experienced hobbyists and through years of personal experience.
Red wiggler worms, in my experience, are a safe, easy-to-culture food that has had many positive results for my fish and my pocketbook....and even the environment (i.e. the amount of trash that my family sends to a landfill).
Seemingly because of internet memes, many hobbyists have the impression that red wigglers...or perhaps all live foods...are a risky proposition.
Posting theoretically possible yet unfounded hypotheses on the risk of nematodes to fish from feeding red wiggler worms seems to reinforce the mistaken impression that some have...and overemphasize risk that - in my years of experience - simply doesn't exist.
Matt
Red wiggler worms, in my experience, are a safe, easy-to-culture food that has had many positive results for my fish and my pocketbook....and even the environment (i.e. the amount of trash that my family sends to a landfill).
Seemingly because of internet memes, many hobbyists have the impression that red wigglers...or perhaps all live foods...are a risky proposition.
Posting theoretically possible yet unfounded hypotheses on the risk of nematodes to fish from feeding red wiggler worms seems to reinforce the mistaken impression that some have...and overemphasize risk that - in my years of experience - simply doesn't exist.
Matt
LOL... are you even reading what I'm writing?
Again (see second paragraph in my last post). Nowhere have I said
In fact, various species of worms can actually clean up dirty soils, toxic wastes, etc., actually making them safer. Properly cultured red wigglers may be the safest food on the planet for man or beast for all I know. But does this make all earthworms safe or make earthworms as potential victims or carriers of pathogens my personal unfounded hypothesis?
...Well, let's see:
Article
Article
(Fish don't normally eat terrestrial earthworms unless we provide them as bait or fish food.)
Article
Later, same article:
I'm not trying to convince you personally of anything, since apparently no effort to present things in a reasonable manner makes a difference to you regarding any other perspective than your own. I'm not trying to prove anything negative about the red wigglers you're feeding your own fish or that anyone else feeds without any issues. In fact, let's assume that your worms are 100% pathogen free. However, that earthworms can carry pathogens is far from my personal, unfounded hypothesis, it's a subject of documented scientific research and it's something anyone can find out for themselves if they want to take the time. If you want to debate this, take it up with Cambridge University Press, Illinois Natural History Survey, or Lander University, which are among the references above, or the additional references cited by those articles, or other such authoritative or scholarly sources as study or report on the subject.
I'm not on some campaign against worms or against live foods, but some people might appreciate knowing that not all earthworms are pathogen free. Simple as that.
neutrino, the data is worth studying ;-)
"fish" are mentioned once in your cited material, but in brief (probably incomplete) searches, I haven't yet found documentation of direct transmission from worms to fish, although "animals & birds" are noted in the quotes you shared.
If this is possible by worms sold for fishing bait, it seems like an overlooked risk by State Fish managements. They do regulate (and will enforce) against introducing captive fish into waterways due to transmittable pathogens.
I fed a considerable amount of fishing worms to my stock in the past too.
Feeding worms gutloaded from a cultured bin containing molds is questionable, IMO.
"fish" are mentioned once in your cited material, but in brief (probably incomplete) searches, I haven't yet found documentation of direct transmission from worms to fish, although "animals & birds" are noted in the quotes you shared.
If this is possible by worms sold for fishing bait, it seems like an overlooked risk by State Fish managements. They do regulate (and will enforce) against introducing captive fish into waterways due to transmittable pathogens.
I fed a considerable amount of fishing worms to my stock in the past too.
Feeding worms gutloaded from a cultured bin containing molds is questionable, IMO.
By far the aquaculture information I've seen on worms as fish feed involves processing them in some way, usually as an ingredient in fish feed, not feeding them live. The processing presumably kills off most pathogens, so that's not the focus of most of that type of material I've read. On the other hand, it's farm or terrestrial animals that would normally consume live worms, not fish, so safety for fish isn't the main focus of a lot of that material, either. But it does get mentioned, as in the instance you noted-- and which I made sure to point out.
Also, from the list of pathogens, parasites, etc. you can find those that can infect both fish and mammals, for example, cestodes (tapeworms). If someone doubts whether any of the worm carried parasites mentioned in the article applies to fish, try looking up capillaria just for starters. In fact, here's an article on it.
I'm just trying to contribute some information that in my opinion is relevant, that's all. Not telling anyone what to do or think and not telling them what to feed or not feed their own fish. If I was on some kind of anti-worm campaign or was trying to scare people or overdramatize things I could have gone a lot further, like linking some really nasty photos that I've seen of dead fish filled with cestodes, nematodes, or the like. All I've said is I've seen people feed worms and never a problem and I know some (personally) who have had problems. Reasonably, if you culture your own earthworms in a controlled environment into which pathogens have not been introduced, you'll have clean earthworms, same as if you raise fish in a controlled environment, free of parasites, you should have parasite free fish. I get that.
But beyond that, in effect I've said here's something about earthworms not everyone knows and at least some might want to know. What anyone else does with this information, aside from trying to spin it as being my personal "theory' or 'unfounded hypothesis', is their perogative.
Matt - when you state 70% protein, you are describing that on a dry matter basis. On an as-is basis, as in fed live, the protein level is but a fraction of that. (see below)
Also keep in mind that the nutrient levels can vary greatly, as the worms nutrient composition will be largely based on the substrate where they live or are grown, and the material that they consume. Protein levels (on a dry matter basis) seem to vary from the low 50's%, to the mid 70's%.
Not to nit pick, but IMO the protein level in most worms that are fed live, shouldn't be an issue unless they are fed in excess, but that applies to all foods really.
Carry on.
