SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Marine Science and Technology Bulletin / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 2

Investigation of microworms (Panagrellus redivivus) as an alternative live feed for Pethia conchonius larvae

Fikri Çağlar Yücel(Mediterranean Fisheries Research Production and Training Institute, Kepez Unit, Döşemealtı, Antalya 07192, Türkiye)0009-0001-7761-3927
Mehmet Özbaş(Akdeniz University, Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Aquaculture, Antalya, Türkiye)0000-0001-6277-1095
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings reveal that applying a co-feeding protocol of microworms and 150–300 µm granular feed from day 15 onwards in P. conchonius larvae can provide higher growth performance and remove the need for continued Artemia feeding beyond day fifteen.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study evaluates the growth performance and survival rate of Pethia conchonius (Hamilton 1822) larvae fed microworms (Panagrellus redivivus, Linné 1767) compared with Artemia salina nauplii and granular feed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Fifteen-day old larvae that had completed yolk-sac absorption and an initial Artemia-based prefeeding period (initial mean weight: 0.010 g; mean length: 0.657 cm) were randomly divided into four groups (A. salina nauplii (Group A; control), P. redivivus (Group M), granular feed (Group Y), and P. redivivus + granular feed (Group M+Y).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings reveal that applying a co-feeding protocol of microworms and 150–300 µm granular feed from day 15 onwards in P. conchonius larvae can provide higher growth performance and remove the need for continued Artemia feeding beyond day fifteen.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Co-feeding · Nematoda · Rose barb

Abstract

This study evaluates the growth performance and survival rate of Pethia conchonius (Hamilton 1822) larvae fed microworms (Panagrellus redivivus, Linné 1767) compared with Artemia salina nauplii and granular feed. Fifteen-day old larvae that had completed yolk-sac absorption and an initial Artemia-based prefeeding period (initial mean weight: 0.010 g; mean length: 0.657 cm) were randomly divided into four groups (A. salina nauplii (Group A; control), P. redivivus (Group M), granular feed (Group Y), and P. redivivus + granular feed (Group M+Y). Each group was designed with three replicates; live body weight, total length, specific growth rate (SGR), and condition factor were measured at 9-day intervals for a 36-day feeding period. At the end of the experiment, the survival rate remained above 95% in all groups; no statistically significant differences were found between the groups (p > 0.05). The highest live weight was obtained in Group M+Y (0.0948 ± 0.001 g); this value was higher than in the artemia control group (0.0748 ± 0.001 g). Length growth also followed a parallel pattern; Group M+Y reached the highest total length with 1.424 ± 0.008 cm. In the first nine days, Group M+Y and Group A exhibited statistically equivalent SGR (10.171 ± 0.259 and 10.354 ± 0.456 %/day, respectively; p > 0.05); from day 18 onwards, Group M+Y surpassed all other groups. The difference between Group M and Group Y did not maintain its statistical significance throughout the experiment (p > 0.05). These findings reveal that applying a co-feeding protocol of microworms and 150–300 µm granular feed from day 15 onwards in P. conchonius larvae can provide higher growth performance and remove the need for continued Artemia feeding beyond day fifteen. P. redivivus is recommended as a low-cost and sustainable live-feed alternative for the post-larval stage of ornamental fish.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yücel, F. Ç., Özbaş, M. (2026). Investigation of microworms (Panagrellus redivivus) as an alternative live feed for Pethia conchonius larvae. Marine Science and Technology Bulletin, Volume: 15 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.33714/masteb.1954251

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Anonymous. (2026). Aquaculture facilities (as of 21 January 2026) [Data set]. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Retrieved June 10, 2026, from https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/BSGM/Belgeler/Icerikler/Su%20Ürünleri%20Yetiştiriciliği/Su-Urunleri-Tesisleri.pdf
  2. APHA (American Public Health Association). (2017). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (23rd ed.). American Public Health Association.
  3. Bhattacharya, H., Zhang, S. C., & Wang, Y. J. (2005). Embryonic development of the rosy barb Puntius conchonius Hamilton 1822 (Cyprinidae). Tropical Zoology, 18, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03946975.2005.10531212
  4. Biedenbach, J. M., Smith, L. L., Thomsen, T. K., & Lawrence, A. L. (1989). Use of the nematode Panagrellus redivivus as an Artemia replacement in a larval penaeid diet. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 20(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.1989.tb00525.x
  5. Çağlar, E., & Kaya, Y. (2014). Akvaryumculuk sektöründe halk akvaryumları: Gelişimi, misyonu ve sorunları. In I. Ulusal akvaryum balıkçılığı ve sorunları çalıştayı bildiriler kitabı (pp. 35–41). Akdeniz Üniversitesi.
  6. Cahu, C., & Zambonino Infante, J. (2001). Substitution of live food by formulated diets in marine fish larvae. Aquaculture, 200(1–2), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00699-8
  7. Çelik, İ., Çelik, P., & Şahin, T. (2014). Akvaryum sektörünün mevcut durumu, sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. In I. Ulusal akvaryum balıkçılığı ve sorunları çalıştayı bildiriler kitabı (pp. 11–19). Akdeniz Üniversitesi.
  8. Couto, M. V. S., Sousa, N. C., Abe, H. A., Dias, J. A. R., Meneses, J. O., Paixão, P. E. G., Cunha, F. S., Ramos, F. M., Maria, A. N., Carneiro, P. C. F., & Fujimoto, R. Y. (2018). Effects of live feed containing Panagrellus redivivus and water depth on growth of Betta splendens larvae. Aquaculture Research, 49(8), 2671–2675. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13727
  9. Crane, D. P., Ogle, D. H., & Shoup, D. E. (2020). Use and misuse of a common growth metric: Guidance for appropriately calculating and reporting specific growth rate. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(3), 1542–1547. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12396
  10. Dabrowski, K. (1984). Influence of initial weight during the change from live to compound feed on the survival and growth of four cyprinids. Aquaculture, 40(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(84)90213-8
  11. Dabrowski, K., & Glogowski, J. (1977). Studies on the proteolytic enzymes of invertebrates constituting fish food. Hydrobiologia, 52(2–3), 171–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00036440
  12. Epram, E., Ediyanto, E., & Dhewantara, Y. L. (2022). Substitusi penggunaan nauplius Artemia dengan microworm (Panagrellus redivivus) terhadap kelangsungan hidup larva ikan cupang (Betta sp.) [Substitution of Nauplius artemia with microworm (Panagrellus redivivus) towards the survival of betta fish larvae (Betta sp.)]. Jurnal Ilmiah Satya Minabahari, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.53676/jism.v7i1.129
  13. Focken, U., Schlechtriem, C., von Wuthenau, M., García-Ortega, A., Puello-Cruz, A., & Becker, K. (2006). Panagrellus redivivus mass produced on solid media as live food for Litopenaeus vannamei larvae. Aquaculture Research, 37(14), 1429–1436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2006.01578.x
  14. Ho, S. C. L., Chan, J. C. F., Lee, W. H., Sung, Y. H., & Liew, J. H. (2025). Highlighting the species diversity, pricing trends, and conservation concerns in a major ornamental fish hub [Preprint]. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.20.639396
  15. Kaiser, H., Endemann, F., & Paulet, T. G. (2003). A comparison of artificial and natural foods and their combinations in the rearing of goldfish, Carassius auratus (L.). Aquaculture Research, 34(11), 943-950. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.2003.00948.x
  16. Karaçulha, A., & Aral, O. (2011). Akvaryum balık yemi ile bazı canlı yemlerin Poecilia reticulata balıklarının büyüme parametrelerine etkileri. Journal of FisheriesSciences.com, 5(1), 26–34.
  17. Kolesnik, N., Simón, M., Marenkov, O., & Nesterenko, O. (2019). The cultivation of the nematodes Panagrellus, Turbatrix (Anguillula) and Rhabditis for using in fish feeding. Ribogospodarsʹka Nauka Ukraïni, 3(49), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.15407/fsu2019.02.016
  18. Kumlu, M., & Fletcher, D. J. (1997). The nematode Panagrellus redivivus as an alternative live feed for larval Penaeus indicus. Israeli Journal of Aquaculture–Bamidgeh, 49(1), 12–18.
  19. Kumlu, M., Fletcher, D. J., & Fisher, C. M. (1998). Larval pigmentation, survival and growth of Penaeus indicus fed the nematode Panagrellus redivivus enriched with astaxanthin and various lipids. Aquaculture Nutrition, 4(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2095.1998.00071.x
  20. Lahnsteiner, F., Lahnsteiner, E., & Duenser, A. (2023). Suitability of different live feed for first feeding of freshwater fish larvae. Aquaculture Journal, 3(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.3390/aquacj3020010
  21. Lal, J., Biswas, P., Singh, S. K., Debbarma, R., Deb, S., Yadav, N. K., Patel, A. B., & Meena, D. K. (2023). Effects of dietary aromatase inhibitors on masculinization of rosy barb (Pethia conchonius): Evidence from growth, coloration and gonado-physiological changes. PLOS ONE, 18(11), e0287934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287934
  22. Lavens, P., & Sorgeloos, P. (Eds.). (1996). Manual on the production and use of live food for aquaculture (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 361). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  23. Lim, L. C., Dhert, P., & Sorgeloos, P. (2003). Recent developments in the application of live feeds in the freshwater ornamental fish culture. Aquaculture, 227(1–4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00512-X
  24. Lindholm-Lehto, P. C. (2023). Water quality monitoring in recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries, 3(1), 113-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/aff2.102
  25. Lipscomb, T. N., Patterson, J. T., Wood, A. L., Watson, C. A., & DiMaggio, M. A. (2020). Larval growth, survival, and partial budget analysis related to replacing Artemia in larval culture of six freshwater ornamental fishes. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 51(5), 1132–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12707
  26. Lugert, V., Thaller, G., Tetens, J., Schulz, C., & Krieter, J. (2016). A review on fish growth calculation: Multiple functions in fish production and their specific application. Reviews in Aquaculture, 8(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12071
  27. Malla, S., & Banik, S. (2015). Production and application of live food organisms for freshwater ornamental fish larviculture. Advances in Bioresearch, 6(1), 159–167.
  28. Pan, Y.-J., Dahms, H.-U., Hwang, J.-S., & Souissi, S. (2022). Recent trends in live feeds for marine larviculture: A mini review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 864165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.864165
  29. Peh, J. H., & Azra, M. N. (2025). A global review of ornamental fish and shellfish research. Aquaculture, 596(Part I), 741719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.741719
  30. Peykaran Mana, N., Vahabzadeh, H., Seidgar, M., Hafezieh, M., & Pourali, H. R. (2014). Proximate composition and fatty acids profiles of Artemia cysts and nauplii from different geographical regions of Iran. Iranian Journal of Fisheries Sciences, 13(3), 761–775.
  31. Ramee, S. W., Lipscomb, T. N., & DiMaggio, M. A. (2019). Microworm culture for use in freshwater ornamental aquaculture. EDIS, 2019(2), FA214. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-fa214-2019
  32. Ramee, S. W., Lipscomb, T. N., & DiMaggio, M. A. (2020). Effects of 17α-methyltestosterone feeding and immersion on masculinization of rosy barbs Pethia conchonius and dwarf gouramis Trichogaster lalius. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 51(6), 1341–1353. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12703
  33. Ricci, M., Fifi, A. P., Ragni, A., Schlechtriem, C., & Focken, U. (2003). Development of a low-cost technology for mass production of the free-living nematode Panagrellus redivivus as an alternative live food for first feeding fish larvae. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 60(5), 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-002-1178-2
  34. Sales, J. (2011). First feeding of freshwater fish larvae with live feed versus compound diets: A meta-analysis. Aquaculture International, 19(6), 1217–1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-011-9424-1
  35. Sautter, J., Kaiser, H., Focken, U., & Becker, K. (2007). Panagrellus redivivus (Linné) as a live food organism in the early rearing of the catfish Synodontis petricola (Matthes). Aquaculture Research, 38(6), 653–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01714.x
  36. Schlechtriem, C., Ricci, M., Focken, U., & Becker, K. (2004a). Mass produced nematodes Panagrellus redivivus as live food for rearing carp larvae: Preliminary results. Aquaculture Research, 35(6), 547–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2004.01049.x
  37. Schlechtriem, C., Ricci, M., Focken, U., & Becker, K. (2004b). The suitability of the free-living nematode Panagrellus redivivus as live food for first-feeding fish larvae. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 20(3), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2004.00542.x
  38. Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S., & Eliceiri, K. W. (2012). NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods, 9(7), 671–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089
  39. Sommer, N. P., Martins, M. A., Rezende, P. C., Seiffert, W. Q., Seychelles, L. H., Aragão, C., & Vieira, F. B. (2024). Nematodes can substitute Artemia in a co-feeding regime for Pacific white shrimp post-larvae reared in a biofloc nursery system. Animals, 14(18), 2679. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182679
  40. Sorgeloos, P., Dhert, P., & Candreva, P. (2001). Use of the brine shrimp Artemia spp. in marine fish larviculture. Aquaculture, 200(1–2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00698-6
  41. Thorarensen, H., Kubiriza, G. K., & Imsland, A. K. (2015). Experimental design and statistical analyses of fish growth studies. Aquaculture, 448, 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.05.018
  42. Tillner, R., Assheuer, T., Rennert, B., Trubiroha, A., Clemmesen, C., & Wuertz, S. (2015). Evaluation of an improved RNA/DNA quantification method in a common carp (Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus 1758) larval feeding trial with Artemia, two nematodes (Panagrellus redivivus Linnaeus 1758, Panagrolaimus sp. Fuchs 1930) and dry feed. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 31(3), 466–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12715
  43. Tosun, D. D., Çiftçi Türetken, P. S., & Tosun, Ş. Y. (2015). Larva beslenmesinde kullanılan mikrokurtların (Panagrellus redivivus) besin kompozisyonlarının araştırılması [Nutritional value determination of microworms (Panagrellus redivivus) for the larval first feeding of fish]. Aquatic Sciences and Engineering, 30(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.18864/iujfas.09568
  44. Uribe, E., Archundia, M., & Luna-Figueroa, J. (2018). The effect of live food on the coloration and growth in guppy fish, Poecilia reticulata. Agricultural Sciences, 9(2), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2018.92013
  45. War, M., Altaff, K., & Haniffa, M. A. (2011). Growth and survival of larval snakehead Channa striatus (Bloch, 1793) fed different live feed organisms. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 11(4), 523–528. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v11_4_05
  46. Yanar, M., Çalım Akray, Ç., Evliyaoğlu, E., & Erçen, Z. (2019). Lepistes ve Japon balığı larvalarının beslenmesinde Artemia sp.’ye alternatif olarak mikrokapsül yemin kullanılması [The use of micro capsulated feed as alternative to Artemia sp. in the food of guppy and goldfish larvae]. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(10), 1575–1580. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v7i10.1575-1580.2611