Keeping and Breeding Ancistrus L144

This is one of the “prettier” ancistrus, if one can use “pretty” to describe a fish. Their golden colour appears to be a plus when it comes to the aquarium hobby. Known by a variety of common names, L144s are not easy to come by. It is generally believed that L144 is a xanthic (amelanistic) form of ancistrus however it has not been formally described as yet. This fish was available in the market for a long time as “ancistrus temminckii” which is how a number of websites / hobbyists still refer to it..

Our original colony L144 Ancistrus

We got our original colony 7 years ago; the colony consisted of two males and five females. The fish were placed in a 360 litres Juwel tank together with a number of other L-number catfish who were growing up and were left in peace to get to know their new home and tank mates. Ancistrus are usually great settlers (with one or two notable exceptions) and these were no exception to the rule. They soon found a territory and they learned quickly who to avoid and when to get out for food.  We would say that in this particular tank, given their other tank mates, they were slightly more reserved and careful than our other Ancistrus. Having said that, they were eating well and growing well. A year later, following a big water change after a long summer holiday during which there have been no water changes in the tank, the dominant male spawned. Since then the colony kept spawning like clockwork: the dominant male would start off in late September, followed by the second male (around mid-October) and they would both spawn four to five times until the end of March, when spawning activity would get suspended for a while.

In the years that followed there have been a number of changes in our tanks. The colony was kept together but they moved home on a couple of occasions. This did not seem to deter the spawning activity at all. Having said that, great care was taken not to move the fish immediately before or after the spawning period. On the whole, the tanks we moved them in had a lot of things in common, namely:

• The flow was slow – medium (1-3 times per hour)
• The water was soft and neutral (KH >1, gH: 2-3, pH: 7)
• The temperature was 26°C – 28°C
• The lighting was subdued (we mainly used a combination of moon light lamps which ensured the fish in the tank were visible); the lighting period was 8 hours daily, though there was ambient light in the room for more than that.
• Aeration was excellent
• The tank was furnished with bogwood and clay/ slate caves; the substrate was sand or aquarium rounded gravel.
• The tank maintenance consisted of a 60% weekly water change; the new water was at the same temperature as the tank water. In addition, filter sponges were cleaned every two weeks.

Diet

The fish were on a mixed diet; a mixture of aquarium pellets, including vegetable tablets, was offered to them on a daily basis while fresh vegetables were also offered every two days. However, it is impossible to tell what the L144s preferred to eat at the time as they shared the tank with other Loricariids. Once they moved to their own, dedicated tank, they were placed on a vegetable diet enriched with animal protein (staple and frozen) twice weekly.

The group had their last spawn of the season in mid – March 2006. George was really taken by the wrigglers so during our August trip to Greece we took 10 of the youngsters with us. The fish, which measured approximately 3-4 cm TL at the time, travelled fine inside a 2 lit. Coca cola bottle, which had been thoroughly cleaned previously. On our arrival we placed the fish in a 100 lit. tank. And here starts the interesting part of the story.

Aquarium

The tank which was about to host the young fish was full of algae and snails. By full we mean that the water capacity of the tank was reduced by at least 30% due to the algae that existed in it and which looked like a thick bed of sea weed. This was considered as potentially life threatening. The algae was quite long  at places and it was likely that the young fish were not strong enough to go through it; they could get entangled in it and suffocate! After giving the tank a thorough clean, which involved trimming the algae as much as possible), we eventually placed the 4 month old juveniles in their new home. We immediately lost sight of them as the glass was still a non-transparent green wall.

This tank was radically different to the tanks we have previously kept our L144. More specifically:

• The flow was slow – medium (1-3 times per hour),
• The water was medium hard and slightly alkaline (KH 8,, gH 10, pH: 7.8),
• The temperature was 28oC-33oC (the summer in Athens the temperature fluctuates during the day and can rise up to over 40oC, which means that the water temperature of small tanks fluctuates accordingly,
• There was strong lighting over the tank; the lighting period was 12 hours daily, with minimum ambient light during the lights off period,
• Aeration was excellent,
• The tank was furnished with bogwood and a clay pot; the substrate was thoroughly washed marine sand (from a beach) and a living layer of some thousand snails,
  The tank maintenance consisted of a 100% weekly water change with cooler water (during summer) and water of the same temperature as the tank water (during winter). No additives were used. Filter sponges were cleaned every couple of months though the pre-filters were cleaned when the flow appeared to be visibly minimized.

However unsightly this tank was, the water was immaculate. The algae absorbed the nitrates, the snails ate the leftovers. In short, the tank was a mini (100 lit) -‘biotope’ for the young fish.

Due to the algae covered glass we got used to the idea that we would not be seeing the L144s for a while. Imagine our surprise when, a week later, we saw two of them grazing on the glass. This may sound as an exaggeration but it is not: the fish we saw had gained a good centimetre (in a week) and they had the loveliest velvety golden colour imaginable. There was no comparison between that colour and the pale yellow colour they were upon their arrival. Not surprisingly, one of the sides of the tank was almost clean; the algae had gone.

We kept feeding sparingly, mainly to ensure that the fish had access to animal protein. We never saw the fish touching the food we offered though; all the youngsters were permanently on the glass and the pieces of wood grazing. The strong lights over the tank did not seem to bother them at all. Below is a short video clip taken at a later time, after the third spawn of the second colony. The larger juveniles (about four months old) can be seen grazing on the tank furniture while younger fry are on the glass and the pump. The video was taken during lights on; the size of the fish is easily comparable to that of the father, who appears towards the end of the clip heading towards his cave.

In the period leading up to this new colony spawning, the juvenile L144s got to share their tank with different tank mates. In October 2006, a group of 30 ex-Cichlasoma pearsei  fry were added in the tank and stayed there till December, when they were placed in a dedicated 200L tank of their own. At the beginning of December 2006, a group of 35 Paratilapia sp. “Andapa” juveniles joined the tank with the L144. These juveniles were overfed to cut down on aggression. As a result the water of the tank was always borderline; a generous amount of algae was still growing everywhere and a biofilm was visible on all glass planes and ornaments.

In the meantime, our ‘peaceful’ colony of fish was not that peaceful any more.  The dominant male declared open season on another male in the colony; this male was forced to leave the tank without our assistance. We found him one day happily inhabiting one of the tanks at the bottom row of the rack. It appears that he was forced to jump out of his tank by the dominant male. By pure luck he fell inside a tank (as opposed to the floor). The forced departure of this male appeared to do the trick; the dominant male returned to the clay pot , which was placed in the middle of the tank under pieces of mopani wood and things appeared to settle.

Overfeeding the young Paratilapias led eventually to bacteria blooms. We performed some really large water changes at the beginning of January and then decided to move some of the Paratilapias to another tank. On January 10, while moving the bogwood in the tank to allow us to net the cichlids, we raised the clay pot which was at the centre of the tank to be used as a shelter for the L144s. To our surprise, the pot was inhabited by the male L144 guarding a clutch of eggs. This pot was not what we would describe as an ‘ideal’ cave; it is the usual ornament one sees in an LFS, which has a large opening on one of its sides to appear broken. This opening was placed face down  when prepared the tank for the catfish but  when we lifted the pot the egg ball fell in the tank. We left it there as we thought it got damaged; the eggs were fungused by  the next day. Strangely enough, the cichlids did not eat them,  an observation which we later confirmed when the same happened in another tank housing young Paratilapia sp. ‘Andapa’ and  breeding Panaques.

Though we were not trying to ‘trigger’ a spawn, what happened in the tank is precisely what we do when we want to encourage our Ancistrus to spawn. The water was allowed to go slightly off, the tank was overfed and large water changes with slightly cooler water followed for 3-4 consecutive days. It appeared that this was one of the times that breeding took place because the conditions were favourable, though not intended.

A few days later, we decided to remove all the cichlids and give the L144 another chance to breed. On the 1st of March 2007 the water parameters were as follows:

• Temperature = 29 C
• KH= 8
• GH= 9
• pH=7.6
• NH3, NO2: 0
• NO3: about 25 ppm

Between January and March the male remained in his cave, which was surrounded by females. However, it was pretty clear he was not in the mood for breeding: females who attempted to enter the cave were chased away. There was one particular female which the male seriously objected to, so much so that we had to remove her from the tank for her own safety. We placed this fish in the same tank as the previously ousted male. Approximately three weeks later, on the 24th of March 2007, we noticed the male fanning eggs. We kept a close eye on the cave; the first fry were seen, attached to the cave’s walls, on the 1st of April 2007. The next day we saw some of the fry outside the cave.

Though there was plenty of food in the tank (algae) we decided not to take risks with the fry. We added an Eheim automatic feeder specifically for them. The feeder dispersed Jade 100% spirulina powder (Salt Lake Inc., USA) four times daily, at 9 am, 12 noon, 3 pm and 7 pm. The total amount of Spirulina was four teaspoonfuls daily. One month later we stopped the early evening feeding session and replaced it with a late night one (10pm) during which we offered 20 spirulina tablets.  The tablets were spread over the entire surface of the water so fish residing in different parts of the tank would get a chance to eat. Fifteen percent of the water was changed on a daily basis during the first month with water of the same temperature, pH, GH and KH values. This was increased to approximately 20% thereafter. During this time the adults in the tank were fed in accordance with their regular routine.

The increased feeding sessions meant that filtration should also be increased. We added one more Eheim 2311 Classic filter to the one that was already on duty and we cleaned both of them every other week as they were getting clogged (powder food tends to get everywhere). The inlets of the filters were covered with Eheim pre-filter foams to avoid the fry getting inside the filter (which they appear to enjoy doing). Air was supplied by a Resun LP-100 air blower, delivering a total of 9.000 L/hour of which 1/10th (900 L/hour) was dispersed in this tank via a 50 x 25 x 25 mm diffuser made by Hobby DOHSE Aquaristik KG. In this tank,  the young  L144s reached a size of 2.4-2.6 cm (1 inch) within a month after the eggs were laid.

In a subsequent spawn, three months later, we noticed three females waiting outside the male’s cave. Again, our male refused one by blocking the entrance every time she attempted to get inside. We felt she was getting in the way of a successful spawn taking place as she was quite insistent thus disrupting the activities of the other females and the male, so we moved this one too to the tank with the other male.  A couple of days later the male was fanning eggs. Within a day from the time the eggs were laid  we noticed him ‘kicking out’ some eggs (most of which were not fertilised); the remaining eggs were kept in the cave. We collected the relatively small portion of the rejected part of the egg ball in a tea cup and placed it in a separate tank for artificial hatching on the  16th of April 2007. The first eggs hatched on the 18th of April 2007. On the 23rd of April we noticed the first wrigglers in the main tank too.

Artificial hatching L144

It is worth noting a couple of things about the artificial hatching. We placed the eggs in a Liquifry Fresh Flow breeding unit (Interpet Ltd., UK) connected to a Schego M2K3 air pump (Schemel & Goetz GmbH & Co KG, Gernmany) delivering 350 L/hour. The tank, in which the breeding unit was placed, had been empty for about 3 weeks and had no decoration. We added 40 ml / 103 lit of Interpet Liquisil General Tonic  (instead of the recommended  25 ml / 125 lit), which appeared to keep fungus at bay, given the large number of unfertilised eggs. All the fertilised eggs hatched, so we ended up with 15 fry in this tank. On the two occasions we used it (both for catfish spawns) we did not find this type of breeding unit easy to work with or functional. The suction cups were too weak to keep it in place, which is a guarantee for mishaps. Further, the air bubble which was formed at the top of the unit was constantly displacing the cover; soon enough all the wrigglers were crawling all over the tank.

Fourty five days after the eggs were laid (41 days after hatching) the fish measured a good 35 mm in length and looked like miniatures of the adults. With regards to growth rate there was no difference between the fry in the main tank (guarded and taken care of by the father) and those artificially raised. In both groups there were large and considerably smaller individuals.

We left the fry in the main tank for quite a while; during this time the male spawned a number of times.  Survival rates have been excellent despite the relatively small space available to the fish. Each spawn yielded 120-150 fry. With the exception of the dominant male’s behaviour towards the rival male and the two females we did not notice any other kind of intra-specific aggression. By the time the first batch of fry were six months old we started re-homing them. We have heard, since, from other hobbyists, that these fry have also bred when they were about 9-10 months too.

In the meantime our second male started spawning too. An observation worth reporting is that the second male is a more prolific spawner than the first one, whom we consider to be the dominant male of the initial colony. We have observed the same phenomenon in other colonies of catfish and cichlids. Namely, the fish which appears to be the dominant male is not a good – or the most prolific – spawner. It would be interesting to hear other hobbyists’ experiences on this.

Conclusion

We will conclude this report by briefly touching on an issue regarding L144 fry. Occasionally breeders of this fish have reported that some of the fry have a brown blotch on some part of their body. This has been attributed to genetics. In short, Datz reports that  a single xanthic  male was exported from Paraguay. It is subsequently argued by hobbyists that this, being the only wild caught individual ever exported, was crossed with a brown colour female. The xanthic females from this brood were back-crossed to fix the mutation. It is believed that the brown blotch appearing on some fry is due to the colour of the female of the original pair. (1)

We are a bit sceptical about this argument and feel we should point out a couple of things. Datz does not record every export from South America; extensive as it may be, it only records what has been reported. The fact that Datz reports one individual exported does not mean that other such individuals never existed or never got exported. In fact, the very existence of one fish should indicate that others such as this managed to survive in the wild. To believe that the only amelanistic fish which survived in the wild was actually captured and exported is a bit far fetched.

Xanthic forms do appear in the wild. Their chances of survival are indeed lower than these that normal fish would have but “lower” does not mean “none”.  For instance, suppose that a xanthic form is in danger in the wild as it is more visible by predators because it does not blend well in the background. This means that an amelanistic individual (xanthic form) is more likely to die young as opposed to a normal individual. This might lead to the extinction of the phenotype but the genotype would still be present in heterologous individuals. Which in turn means that xanthic fry can be born (in the wild or in captivity) if such heterologous individuals breed. Furthermore, if a xanthic individual is removed from its natural environment (i.e. where it was born) at a young age and is reared in a protected environment (e.g. home aquarium) it will survive fine. The mutation is natural and very well fixed, so there is no apparent reason why a pair of these fish would produce different colour fry. In other words, if one xanthic specimen is bred with another specimen of its kind the mutation is homologous for all the fry – therefore no other colours should appear.

The argument that the brown blotch is the outcome of the partial re-expression of the brown allele in the fry (due to the original cross breeding of a xanthic form with a normal form) is a conjecture. If this was the case, the fry should be totally brown rather than having only one brown blotch. This is due to the fact that the brown colour is the expression of the dominant allele which, if expressed, should ‘silence’ the recessive one (in this case the yellow). The appearance of the brown blotch could equally well indicate a second point mutation, some kind of trophic deficiency or other environmental factors which would lead to a phenotypic change. In lots of other genera / species kept in captivity it has been observed that after a series of successful spawns in the aquarium the original, wild caught pair, produces fry with “deformities”. These could include colour deformities. We have personal experience of this with wild caught Neolamprologus brichardi and several wild caught haplochromine species from Lake Victoria. We have observed deformities including hatched backs, fading of colour even complete absence of a particular hue from the fry. This may be an acquired phenotype. In other words, the evidence in hand does not justify linking the appearance of the brown blotch to a genetic change.

From a genetics point of view, it is extremely difficult to assign a phenotype to a specific genotype and the simplistic approach that is occasionally followed when hobbyists try to explain the appearance or disappearance of a trait is definitely inappropriate and usually leads to wrong conclusions. In this case the justification is solely based on Mendel’s laws which are extremely accurate whenever a trait is encoded by one single gene (e.g. albinism) but do not hold true if the particular phenotype is the result of the co-expression of a number of genes, while in some cases we have a co-expression of both alleles encoding for the same trait. Which (if any) gene(s) are silenced in a process is being investigated by science; it is advisable to wait till a theory is proven and then try to reach conclusions.

For the record our original pairs has been spawning for 6 years now and we have not seen any brown blotches on the fry to-date, including the F2 and F3, which proves that the mutation is very well fixed.

Images by the authors.
Compilation of the opening photo by Frank Panis.
Source: MCH Portal