Bristles as nutrient removal?

[frantz]

I think I read on this forum that someone used xenia for nutrient removal but they all died and it spiked the tank. It got me thinking, could we make a trap for bristles but use them as an intentional nutrient removal? any reason it wouldn't work?

 

[mvm]

Why trap them? Not sure I follow...

 

[frantz]

trap and remove. not to eliminate them completely but to take out a percentage of them. I figure they poop too, so taking out living ones will help.

 

[mvm]

Excess nutrients=too many bristle worms. If you didn't have excess nutrients, you wouldn't have to worry about removing them.

Edit: And IMO, xenia will not work for nutrient removal either.

 

[frantz]

yes, but if you do have excess nutrients... isn't it sorta the same as macro algae just worms?

 

[rdnelson]

If you have excess nutrients the number of worms will increase which will reduce the nutrient level. Once the level starts to subside, so will the number of worms. The bigger question is why is the nutrient level so high? JMO

Frantz;763201 wrote: yes, but if you do have excess nutrients... isn't it sorta the same as macro algae just worms?

 

[frantz]

<span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: Verdana">I agree with all statements but as nutrient levels go down and worm populations go down then that means worms are rotting in the tank, which is bad. Its not that I personally am having problems but its actually the premise you stated, if there are extra nutrients then the population goes up. So it stands if I have stable nutrients then I'll have stable worm population. If I remove some of that population then I will be taking out their bio-load (nutrient value) and new worms will grow to fill the opportunity. As I remove them the cycle continues. Does that make sense or am I missing something obvious you both are trying to say and my thick head is missing?</span></span>
<span style="font-family: Calibri"><span style="font-size: 13px"></span></span>

 

[miami dolfan]

My nutrients must be sky high then because the worms come out of the woodworks when I feed my fish. There are a bunch of them.

 

[rdnelson]

Frantz;763271 wrote: <span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: Verdana">I agree with all statements but as nutrient levels go down and worm populations go down then that means worms are rotting in the tank, which is bad. Its not that I personally am having problems but its actually the premise you stated, if there are extra nutrients then the population goes up. So it stands if I have stable nutrients then I'll have stable worm population. If I remove some of that population then I will be taking out their bio-load (nutrient value) and new worms will grow to fill the opportunity. As I remove them the cycle continues. Does that make sense or am I missing something obvious you both are trying to say and my thick head is missing?</span></span>

I understand what you are saying however, as the worms die off, the clean up crew should take care of them. Either way, the nutrients have not left the tank. They are just in a different form. Yes, removing the worms may remove some of that but in my opinion a more efficient way is through water changes. Ultimately though, overfeeding is almost always the culprit. So, feeding enough to keep healthy livestock while not having excess food left over is by far the most efficient means of maintaining nutrient levels. JMHO

 

[frantz]

Fair point on efficiency. But once the trap cost is covered it would be a free way to expand the process. I certianly wouldn't want to cut back on water changes in lue of trapping worms. Right now I just pull the big ones out and put em in RDSB so there is no change in nutrient levels. Anyone know any good studies on worm growth? Any aspiring college kids looking for a term paper topic? Or should I go buy another 10g tank and scale to see how fast they grow (-=