A discussion on immunity

[Brew12]

According to the Eradication-istas, any level of parasites is Bad™. You're starting to type like "one of us"!

I've always supported going one route or the other. For the way most people maintain their tanks, any level of parasites are bad.

Fish can remain carriers for up to/around 6 months and they will release parasites at a low rate during this time.

I'm not sure where you get this from. All of the research I have seen says they will likely remain carriers indefinitely. If a fish isn't exposed to a parasite for 6 months it will quickly lose its immunity to it.

I think if anyone took the time to list 10 or 20 things that Paul does differently than they do and picked just a few to emulate, they'd see an improvement in their fish vs just "standard practice".

The problem is that they have to pick the right things, not just a few things. This is where most people will get in trouble. Paul does a lot more than use live food and reduce stress. Anyone trying to mimic him by only using those methods isn't going to have long term success.

I think there is more than one way to pull it off but they all revolve around a few key points.

Good nutrition - Proper feeding is definitely required, and like Paul says, there are many options.

Exposure to parasites - It is important to make sure you are always introducing parasites into your system to keep them immune.

System stability - If you can't keep your system stable, the fish will be under stress and this method will not work.

Parasite limitation - Something external to the fish is required to limit parasite populations during the development of the immunity and during any stress events that may occur. It could be ozone, UV, diatomaceous earth filter, or maybe even his reverse undergravel filter.

Proper stocking - The environment the fish is in, tank size, and the compatibility with tank mates is important in reducing stress


If you can do these things I feel there is a great chance of having success. The problem is when people don't want to do all of these things.

 

[Paul B]

I feel the most important thing to do is to feed whole foods like clams or worms and those foods should be as fresh as possible to guarantee that the fish are getting live bacteria and parasites from the guts of those creatures every day. The rest of that stuff is important but not as important as the proper nutrition which is not always something you can buy at a LFS.
Fish are not like us. We can live a long, somewhat healthy life on potato chips and beer as much of America lives on. A lousy diet does not impact our immune system as much as it does with fish. We also don't use much of our calories producing slime or eggs. Most women do not have babies every couple of weeks and most of their babies are not a third of the Mother's weight. Our babies are also not mostly made out of fish oil.
A fishes diet is more important in fish than us. As soon as you start feeding primarily things like dry foods and pellets, fish stop spawning and their immunity goes away. I am not talking about clownfish as they will spawn even if they eat cardboard with a picture of a Pizza on it.
We can spawn if we spent the year eating happy meals and pretzels.
We also are not constantly inundated with parasites that get into our eyes and lungs as fish are.
Humans, even after many years in captivity in horrendous conditions have a functioning immune system. If they did not, there would be no prisoners to free. Just look at how many Jews we rescued from prison after WW2 or how many Viet Nam POWs came home. Of course, unfortunately many died from starvation or beatings but not from a problem with their immunity.
Fish don't fare well if you treat them badly for a few months and feed the wrong food.

 

[Brew12]

I feel the most important thing to do is to feed whole foods like clams or worms and those foods should be as fresh as possible to guarantee that the fish are getting live bacteria and parasites from the guts of those creatures every day. The rest of that stuff is important but not as important as the proper nutrition which is not always something you can buy at a LFS.

Proper nutrition is probably the most important thing any hobbyist can do regardless of if they QT or not.

 

[mcarroll]

I've always supported going one route or the other.

I don't think the Eradication'istas do though. That's what I mean.

I'm not sure where you get this from.

The literature on Ich! Where else? It's contained in IFAS's guide on Ich, for example, and it's been covered here...from a few to several times at this stage.

I've posted that guide at least 7 times this year alone.....not counting PM's.

The problem is that they have to pick the right things, not just a few things. This is where most people will get in trouble.

It admittedly speculation to think about what someone will or wont' do, but I don't agree. If someone's going to make a list like I proposed and pick their few favorites to improve conditions, you'd contend that – out of 10 or 20 options that they themselves have hand-picked – they would pick wild mud, parasite-ridden fish and broken glass?

I give people more credit than that....folks know how to learn from a teacher at an early age. This is nothing more than that. (Unless all you learned from your teacher was how to smoke cigarettes, over-eat and dress poorly....in that case, you'd have more to worry about!)

 

[mcarroll]

Just wasn't sure how big a role the mesh played since I haven't actually made one myself yet. Getting there....I did manage to get my hatchery set bcak up and went through a batch just to dust off the cobwebs and see what else I need to make it work smoothly. Just need more time to test the hatchery some more and to build the feeder.

I may end up switching to something else if my little Barnacle Blennies don't recognize the next batch of nauplii. (Maybe I'd switch to copepod nauplii?) The next batch will be from the Great Salt Lake, which is supposed to have larger babies than the San Fancisco Bay type I hatched first. We'll see if they are "larger" enough to get on the fishes' radar!

(Corals and everyone else definitely had been enjoying the nauplii from the first batch, BTW....just not the fish.)

 

[Brew12]

The literature on Ich! Where else?

You aren't quoting your reference properly.

"Fish that survive a Cryptocaryon infection develop immunity, which can prevent significant disease for up to 6 months (Burgess 1992; Burgess and Matthews 1995). However, these survivors may act as carriers and provide a reservoir for future outbreaks (Colorni and Burgess 1997)."

It does not state they will act as carriers for 6 months, only that the immunity can prevent significant disease for up to 6 months.

It admittedly speculation to think about what someone will or wont' do, but I don't agree. If someone's going to make a list like I proposed and pick their few favorites to improve conditions, you'd contend that – out of 10 or 20 options that they themselves have hand-picked – they would pick wild mud, parasite-ridden fish and broken glass?

They may not pick those, but if they don't pick either Ozone, UV Filters or Diatomaceous Earth filters (and possibly reverse flow UG filter) then they are missing a critical element. Unless they have one from this list I wouldn't recommend against QT.

 

[mcarroll]

Exposure to parasites - It is important to make sure you are always introducing parasites into your system to keep them immune.

I don't disagree, but it's not clear what "introducing parasites" has to mean in reality to achieve the desired effect. Will something less work? (Yes.)

First, It's important to clarify that you're specifically addressing adaptive immunity on this point.

The ability of the immune system to target a specific pathogen with a specific response, right? As important as this is, it is a small part of the immune system and not what will handle most encounters with pathogens. You can't design a whole defense around deterring a small percentage of the attacks!

Thankfully, innate immunity does the bulk of the work.

Also thankfully, feeding, and slime and 90% of the important factors we are able to weight in on, relate to innate immunity. So as Paul has said so many times, feeding is important. Live when possible. Probiotic when that's all you can muster.

The nutrient content of the diet can boost (or hinder) the immune system. But the "biotic" content has it's own effects directly on the immune system vs the pathogens we love to hate.

Second, even similar or related organisms can provide the needed immune exposure to cue the immune system (don't think I saved/remember the article on this one.....google scholar)....so it's not clear that full pathogenic exposure is necessary to provoke an increased immune response that would handle a pathogenic encounter. Full adaptive immunity isn't always required....in fact most of the time it is not. Of course you want it fully functional when it is required.

If anyone hasn't already read Paul's Fish Health Through Slime thread, please do so now.

 

[mcarroll]

It does not state they will act as carriers for 6 months, only that the immunity can prevent significant disease for up to 6 months.

It's been a while since I actually read those source (and similar ones) so tell me if I'm wrong after you take a look – I believe there was some context and additional complexity to it that maybe doesn't come out overtly in their quotes – but if I remember correctly those sources state that carrier status more-or-less coincides with immune status.

Even on the surface, your interpretation is questionable to me.

In order, the quotes say that Ich survivors...

...will be immune; maybe for 6 months
...may act as a reservoir for outbreaks​

To me that distinguishes "immune" from "cured". Cured is (I think) what you call post-immunity – when there are no more pathogens left to be immune from nor to act as a reservoir.

It also distinguishes "immune" from "contagious" and shows that there are definitely degrees of immunity – immunity is part of the fish's healing process, not necessarily a sign of "cure".

(I was showing you "where I get this from" because you asked, BTW. I wasn't just snapping quotes at you. Let me know what you think after you take a look. PM if you want.)

 

[Brew12]

Thankfully, innate immunity does the bulk of the work.

Having a strong innate immunity is very important and it does do the bulk of the work. It isn't enough to protect the fish. It has developed as a way to give the fish time for its adaptive immunity to take over.

If proper nutrition was all it took to develop an immunity to something like Crytpo (Ich) then scientists would use this method as it would be easy. Instead they all rely on introducing the parasite to a fish and then taking some action to reduce the exposure of the fish to the parasite. They use many different methods to do this but none of them rely on proper nutrition.

 

[Brew12]

It's been a while since I actually read those source (and similar ones) so tell me if I'm wrong after you take a look – I believe there was some context and additional complexity to it that maybe doesn't come out overtly in their quotes – but if I remember correctly those sources state that carrier status more-or-less coincides with immune status.

Even on the surface, your interpretation is questionable to me.

In order, the quotes say that Ich survivors...

...will be immune; maybe for 6 months
...may act as a reservoir for outbreaks​

To me that distinguishes "immune" from "cured". Cured is (I think) what you call post-immunity – when there are no more pathogens left to be immune from nor to act as a reservoir.

It also distinguishes "immune" from "contagious" and shows that there are definitely degrees of immunity – immunity is part of the fish's healing process, not necessarily a sign of "cure".

(I was showing you "where I get this from" because you asked, BTW. I wasn't just snapping quotes at you. Let me know what you think after you take a look. PM if you want.)

I believe it is the Burgess study that shows a fish will lose immunity if not exposed to a parasite for 6 months.

I'll have to find the study that shows fish will support some parasites indefinitely but at such low levels as to not be a health concern.

 

[Paul B]

I don't know if the immunity lasts for 6 months but it doesn't matter because the majority of parasites on the fish do not die, they fall, off and reproduce. Then of course they try to re-infect the fish. That doesn't happen because the fish is immune and the act of trying to re-infect it boosts the immunity. The immunity I assume would keep getting stronger to match the number of parasites there are. So by that assumption, if it is correct, fish in our tanks with a larger number of parasites than the sea should have better immunity than fish in the sea.

 

[Brew12]

I don't know if the immunity lasts for 6 months but it doesn't matter because the majority of parasites on the fish do not die, they fall, off and reproduce. Then of course they try to re-infect the fish. That doesn't happen because the fish is immune and the act of trying to re-infect it boosts the immunity. The immunity I assume would keep getting stronger to match the number of parasites there are. So by that assumption, if it is correct, fish in our tanks with a larger number of parasites than the sea should have better immunity than fish in the sea.

This is pretty much it. Yes, odds are a fish in a system like yours has a much stronger adaptive immunity to parasites because it is constantly subjected to them.

 

[mcarroll]

Having a strong innate immunity is very important and it does do the bulk of the work. It isn't enough to protect the fish.

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself. What work do you think the innate system is doing?

If proper nutrition was all it took to develop an immunity to something like Crytpo

"an immunity" is the gotcha....we're conflating adaptive and innate systems. Proper food – including nutrition and all – is indeed all it takes to have a competent innate immune system. The latest example I've read was that fish that were fed LAB-enhanced feed were able to kick cilliate infections just by innate responses...pretty sure I was reading about uronema at the time.

I believe it is the Burgess study that shows a fish will lose immunity if not exposed to a parasite for 6 months.

I'll have to find the study that shows fish will support some parasites indefinitely but at such low levels as to not be a health concern.

In post #515 I was saying that you had just described the essential pattern for Ich, so up to now that's all we've been talking about.

I do know different strains of Ich can even be wildly different than the general and specific numbers cited. (E.g. the 76 Days thing...if only ich could read) Velvet and other diseases would be expected to have their own peculiar profiles.

For example, I think I have heard of long term velvet resistence in the SRAC guide on it I like:
SRAC 4705: Amyloodinium ocellatum, an Important Parasite of Cultured Marine Fish

 

[Brew12]

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself. What work do you think the innate system is doing?

No contradiction. The innate system is important in that it allows the fish to survive long enough to develop its adaptive immunity. A fish with a great innate immunity will still be killed by Ich and Velvet if present in large enough numbers.

Proper food – including nutrition and all – is indeed all it takes to have a competent innate immune system.

Yes, this is why the system will not work without a competent innate immune system. However, it is still necessary to have another component to mitigate parasite levels until the adaptive system has time to adjust. In the ocean, currents are constantly washing away some amount of the parasites. In an aquarium, it takes something like ozone or a UV filter to replicate that effect.

In post #515 I was saying that you had just described the essential pattern for Ich, so up to now that's all we've been talking about.

Immunity has been proven to be effective with Crypto, Velvet, Black Ich, some bacterial infections and also some internal parasites. No reason to limit it just to Crypto.

 

[mcarroll]

No contradiction. The innate system is important in that it allows the fish to survive long enough to develop its adaptive immunity. A fish with a great innate immunity will still be killed by Ich and Velvet if present in large enough numbers.

I still don't know what you think the innate system is doing "while we wait". Did you read Paul's fish slime thread? The entire innate system is rife with lethal and inhibitory anti-pathogenic compounds.

Think of the innate system as a can of gasoline. Think of the adaptive system as a sniper.

The fish can use either against their targets. If you have him equipped with a gas can the size of a nursing bottle, then he'll get just about that much use out of it. (Even at that, most folks have poked a hole in the nursing bottle...easy to do better than this once we know how.)

Keeping with the analogy, Paul's fish don't mess with a nursing bottle, they drive around in a gas truck, thanks to the awesome feeding routines, and with a sniper turret on top which is fully armed thanks to his wild mud and sick fish.

I'd love to know how much action the sniper really gets. (I am pretty sure they are actually able to measure this in a lab nowadays....even at the aquaculture level I think.....know any fish doctors @Paul B?)

Yes, this is why the system will not work without a competent innate immune system. However, it is still necessary to have another component to mitigate parasite levels until the adaptive system has time to adjust. In the ocean, currents are constantly washing away some amount of the parasites. In an aquarium, it takes something like ozone or a UV filter to replicate that effect.

I look at it like their adaptive immune system is slow because, like you said, they usually don't have to weather wave after wave of parasites...one wave, done. They, and the ocean, have both moved on. No need to call the army unless the assault persists for some time....and only then then is when the big gun comes out. It supposed to be rare, but it's still something they were built for.

(Not all, evenly though...amazingly, even differences in fish color (among many other things) can indicate some difference in their immune capability. I think I read that red fish have greater immune capability and blue have greater reproductive ability. Red is literally an extra store of carotenoids, which are fuel to the immune system. Blue literally attracts more mates. IIRC they were looking at Hippo tangs and Clownfish as their examples.)

I don't think this complicates the fact that the immune system works like it does and needs to be supported. That's all we're saying here.

Why bother saying it? Lots of reasons....mostly all the same reasons I used when I was in retail. It's the info people need to have long term success with their fish.

Some wellness recommendations we read on here and elsewhere don't account for the immune system, or even outright deny its role. Putting an apparently healthy fish prophylactically into a 10 Gallon PVC-decorated QT for 3+ months with copper would be one stereotypic version of this recommendation which illustrates most of the bad points a recommendation can have. The only way to make it worse is to make the example fish a Tang.

Following these kinds of recommendations can reduce or even eliminate a healthy fish's whole immune system. (Forget about losing some specific immunity...least of its problems.)

Usually this recommendation is given to a newbie who has no idea....then even if the QT routine they've been assigned "works" they go on abusing the poor fish with (e.g.) flake food, bad roommates or cramped quarters, etc. Maybe all of the above. Without the fishkeeper having more information on what supports the immune system and what compromises it, the conclusion on those fish hasn't been changed by QT, just delayed a little.

Immunity has been proven to be effective with Crypto, Velvet, Black Ich, some bacterial infections and also some internal parasites. No reason to limit it just to Crypto.

I was only saying that Ich was the specific example we had been talking about up to now....the conversation was not incomplete or limited is all I meant.

And I don't think the general theme is limited. Paul's actions on his fish's behalf seem to work against everything.

(Which is a telling sign of gas can work more than sniper work! )

And on one last note for Ich.

I'll say I'm surprised that we haven't heard of anyone on here tracking down an Ich vaccination for their prized fish. They supposedly exist (they're written about in the literature), just not in an economically viable form for fish farmers. That market wants it to cost pennies per dose and they need it in a form that can practically dose thousands or millions of fish at once.

We have no such requirements.

I think I could name six people in the hobby that, if they could, would spend $100 per fish to get their fish vaccinated vs Ich.

 

[Paul B]

I would assume that if a fishes immunity lasts for 6 months, you would have to give that fish the vaccine every 6 months. The fish may not like that and have you ever injected a fish? Sometimes the act of injecting the fish almost kills it. The needle hole gets raised and red and sometimes infected because we are by passing the fishes main defense, it's slime. . Also, in humans we try to inject into the bloodstream or fat depending on what we are injecting. Fish have no fat, only oil and forget about finding a vein on a clown gobi. Just a thought

 

[Brew12]

I still don't know what you think the innate system is doing "while we wait". Did you read Paul's fish slime thread? The entire innate system is rife with lethal and inhibitory anti-pathogenic compounds.

I have never seen a scientific study done that says the innate system is all that is required. On the contrary, none of the studies I have seen rely on this and use supplemental methods to support the innate immune system. If it were as simple as needing only the innate system, why isn't that what scientists rely on?

I look at it like their adaptive immune system is slow because, like you said, they usually don't have to weather wave after wave of parasites...one wave, done.

Actually, the adaptive immune system is slow because of issue with hormones/amino acids. I won't claim to understand the science behind it but fish have sacrificed a faster acting adaptive system in exchange for high reproductive rates.

don't think this complicates the fact that the immune system works like it does and needs to be supported. That's all we're saying here.

The innate immune system does need to be supported. However, if you aren't running ozone, UV, or diatomaceous earth filter, it needs to be supported by solid QT procedures. In a recirculating water system, study after study shows that the innate system is not enough.

 

[Brew12]

I would assume that if a fishes immunity lasts for 6 months, you would have to give that fish the vaccine every 6 months. The fish may not like that and have you ever injected a fish? Sometimes the act of injecting the fish almost kills it. The needle hole gets raised and red and sometimes infected because we are by passing the fishes main defense, it's slime. . Also, in humans we try to inject into the bloodstream or fat depending on what we are injecting. Fish have no fat, only oil and forget about finding a vein on a clown gobi. Just a thought

That is one challenge with vaccinations in fish. The vaccination itself may not be cost prohibitive but it requires boosters to be given on a regular basis since the immunity is fairly quickly lost, unlike in mammals.

 

[mcarroll]

I have never seen a scientific study done that says the innate system is all that is required. On the contrary, none of the studies I have seen rely on this and use supplemental methods to support the innate immune system. If it were as simple as needing only the innate system, why isn't that what scientists rely on?


Actually, the adaptive immune system is slow because of issue with hormones/amino acids. I won't claim to understand the science behind it but fish have sacrificed a faster acting adaptive system in exchange for high reproductive rates.


The innate immune system does need to be supported. However, if you aren't running ozone, UV, or diatomaceous earth filter, it needs to be supported by solid QT procedures. In a recirculating water system, study after study shows that the innate system is not enough.

It's funny in a way to see one "side" say that QT is not enough.

And then it's funny in a way to see the other say that supporting the immune system is not enough.

Doesn't the disagreement part feel a bit contrived? It does to me. There's no actual disagreement in there.

However...immunity, feed quality, stress in general all routinely get ignored or get short shrift – even when someone does go to the trouble of QT'ing. Even when they've come here asking for help.

That is not an argument against QT. At all.

The anti-QT thing is something the "QT side" made up out of nothing as far as I can tell. It derails or prevents discussions on immunity and health on a regular basis, I'll give em that. I don't know what else it's for.

The Actual Disagreement
Well, you can show me where healthy slime isn't lethal to pathogens. Until then, that's sort of a disagreement. Did you read Paul's thread on slime that I linked? I'm pretty sure he has some sources on there. You've said a couple times now, in a round about way, that slime can't kill pathogens. It can.

I located that uronema article I mentioned in the meantime too since at least for now "we're disagreeing" or whatever.

I'm sure once again you must have thought that I made that one up too....or misinterpreted it....or....whatever that old saw is you're playing.

This is a google scholar search which I mentioned earlier, but didn't link....will link it for you now:
uronema LAB immunity

Link #1 for me, but you know how Google reorders results for folks! So peruse the list of results for general interest! I'm still reading myself, but uronema seem like an interesting critter!

 

[mcarroll]

It boggles my mind that there are so many parasite threads. I just don't get it. If you quarantine, there should be no parasites and if you use my method "correctly" there should be no parasite problems.
I do get it with people who, for some reason want to feed flakes and pellets, they will always have problems no matter what they do. But almost everyone else can feed correctly if they wanted to. Just because they sell fish food in stores and it comes nicely packaged with healthy looking angelfish and tangs on the box doesn't mean we have to just feed that. Stuff in a bait store, supermarket or fish market is sometimes better, it is always cheaper and it has the bacteria in it that fish need. But what do I know?

Ditto.