A discussion on immunity

[mcarroll]

How long does it take to get my fish immune? Is this something I can do 30 mins after I drop the sick fish in my DT?

I think we'd all like to know, so I presume you're being rhetorical.

Paul's fish remain "immune" to ich and velvet because they are continuously exposed to it.

Once again we're focusing on one aspect of the immune function. We've reviewed this complication in this thread before – we're basically using vague terminology. Conflating secondary immunity and innate immunity as well as ignoring one or the other in various parts of the discussion.

While Paul's fish are likely to be exposed to any given microbe (maybe every given microbe when fresh seawater is added!) and develop secondary immunity, that's not the whole story.

Paul's fish have functional resistance mechanisms and those are mostly innate and very related to food and stress.

 

[4FordFamily]

I guess another takeaway in my opinion is that this isn't a right or wrong debate there's credence perhaps to all of it and depending on your experience, time and money available to devote, and your stock list you might emplore varying degrees of both sides of this discussion successfully.

 

[Brew12]

Paul's fish have functional resistance mechanisms and those are mostly innate and very related to food and stress.

I have seen 2 studies that state fish have no innate immunity to parasites like ich. That is why they lose their immunity after 6 months of non exposure. Paul's fish are very healthy because of his practices and this gives them a better chance of surviving to develop an immunity, but that is different than having an innate immunity.

 

[Brew12]

I guess another takeaway in my opinion is that this isn't a right or wrong debate there's credence perhaps to all of it and depending on your experience, time and money available to devote, and your stock list you might emplore varying degrees of both sides of this discussion successfully.

Or maybe it's that both are right and the real problem is that too many people don't do everything necessary to properly do either of them?

 

[4FordFamily]

Or maybe it's that both are right and the real problem is that too many people don't do everything necessary to properly do either of them?

Yeah I agree with that entirely. I guess in some cases simple observation might work, although in essence what you're really performing is a form of ich management because many species won't show symptoms of ich for months if ever but are still carriers.

But your point is correct, half hazardly doing either of these things is likely to lead to failure as well.

 

[mcarroll]

Running a system without QT

Nobody talking about immunity is talking about skipping QT per se.

We are talking about sensible QT that doesn't do more harm than good. (And acknowledging that both good and bad QT's are possible.)

I have seen 2 studies that state fish have no innate immunity to parasites like ich.

Innate immunity of fish (overview)
Lactic acid bacteria vs. pathogens in the gastrointestinal tract of fish: A review

There was also a post on HLP's (histone like proteins) a while back in the thread. There are others.

Check out mcarroll's Favorite Fish Links for some more selection, including the HLP link.

Paul's piece Fish Health Through Slime has some great stuff.

 

[Brew12]

Nobody talking about immunity is talking about skipping QT per se.

We are talking about sensible QT that doesn't do more harm than good. (And acknowledging that both good and bad QT's are possible.)



Innate immunity of fish (overview)
Lactic acid bacteria vs. pathogens in the gastrointestinal tract of fish: A review

There was also a post on HLP's (histone like proteins) a while back in the thread. There are others.

Check out mcarroll's Favorite Fish Links for some more selection, including the HLP link.

Paul's piece Fish Health Through Slime has some great stuff.

Oops, I need to correct that statement, what I said is not what I meant. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I typed that. I should have stated that exposure to a parasite doesn't impact the innate immunity of a fish. It's overall health most certainly does. The innate response will be just as strong in a healthy fish not exposed to parasites as it is in fish that are continuously exposed.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I guess another takeaway in my opinion is that this isn't a right or wrong debate there's credence perhaps to all of it and depending on your experience, time and money available to devote, and your stock list you might emplore varying degrees of both sides of this discussion successfully.

yup.
thank you.
and thus the value of discussion, and observing(hearing) the discussion.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Nobody talking about immunity is talking about skipping QT per se.

exactly.
thank you.

 

[mcarroll]

The innate response will be just as strong in a healthy fish not exposed to parasites as it is in fish that are continuously exposed.

Right on. If this weren't true, then not only would there be no fish, there might be no animals at all.

Even invertebrates have to deal with parasites and the innate system is the ticket. I think I read that the arthropods are considered the most successful example of the innate immune system.

 

[mcarroll]

And I think I've made this point before....while the secondary immune system is cool, the innate is really cool. (The secondary depends on it, for one thing!)

If you don't know what "complement" is, go look it up. (Search the thread or Wikiopedia or Google Scholar...all have good answers in this case.)

My eyballs were popping out with "Wow!" by the time I was done reading.

I mean real-deal amazing stuff.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I should have stated that exposure to a parasite doesn't impact the innate immunity of a fish.

what would happen if you never skinned your knee or got bit by a mosquito. or sat in new grass.

 

[Brew12]

Right on. If this weren't true, then not only would there be no fish, there might be no animals at all.

Even invertebrates have to deal with parasites and the innate system is the ticket. I think I read that the arthropods are considered the most successful example of the innate immune system.

And where I intended to go with it is that there is little value to the innate immune system to purposely exposing the fish to parasites or diseases.

There is value in allowing their adaptive system to adapt to parasites like ich as I've said before. The reason I encourage people to use QT is that if your fish has a compromised innate immune system you can still have a healthy happy fish if you prophylactically treat it. If you took a fish with a compromised immune system and put it in PaulB's tank, it is pretty much doomed.
That is why I think Paul has an excellent system, but it is only for experienced hobbyists. We should all follow (most of) his nutrition practices but the rest of the way he does things isn't for everyone.

 

[Brew12]

what would happen if you never skinned your knee or got bit by a mosquito. or sat in new grass.

I'm not a fish so the question is irrelevant in this topic. I can be exposed to a vaccine as a child and it will protect me for life. A fish given a vaccine is only protected for around 6 months.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

And where I intended to go with it is that there is little value to the innate immune system to purposely exposing the fish to parasites or diseases.

no you miss the point. its accepting that they may one day so keep feeding as healthy as you can. dont walk around in constant fear that you have to qt your snails and chato.
you would be Howie mandell if you did that every day.

 

[melypr1985]

dont walk around in constant fear that you have to qt your snails and chato.

Snails? Yes Cheato? No - just rinse it in a bucket and place in the tank Now i exit this thread again..... quietly..... you didn't see me here

 

[mcarroll]

If you took a fish with a compromised immune system and put it in PaulB's tank, it is pretty much doomed.

Even that's not totally true.....and I'm not sure I can remember which reference this was from.

Maybe "Ontogeny..." again.....so I'm paraphrasing, but they kept sterile fish and then introduced them to normal fish and the sterile ones adopted the normal fishes' immunity....leucocytes or whatever. (And I'm being vague/conflating there because I don't remember enough of the reference...:mad

So going into a healthy tank full of healthy fish should be a recipe for success.

We just need more folks with healthy tanks full of healthy fish.

Instead of underfed, overcrowded tanks being the norm, we need to collectively switch to well-fed, lightly-stocked tanks being the norm. Particularly for beginners.

Why shouldn't spawning your one or two fish be considered the ultimate marque of success?

Instead a simple demonstration of a tank full of fish is generally considered the epitome....something anyone with a pile of money can do in an afternoon or a month without learning much of anything.

Somehow QT and copper are supposed to make up for this?

No....QT and copper have their place, but we need to do better than that, IMO.

(And here we are, trying!)

 

[Brew12]

no you miss the point. its accepting that they may one day so keep feeding as healthy as you can. dont walk around in constant fear that you have to qt your snails and chato.
you would be Howie mandell if you did that every day.

I'm not sure why you can't keep feeding them as healthy as possible and still prophylactically treat them in QT. These are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Brew12]

Even that's not totally true.....and I'm not sure I can remember which reference this was from.

Maybe "Ontogeny..." again.....so I'm paraphrasing, but they kept sterile fish and then introduced them to normal fish and the sterile ones adopted the normal fishes' immunity....leucocytes or whatever. (And I'm being vague/conflating there because I don't remember enough of the reference...:mad

So going into a healthy tank full of healthy fish should be a recipe for success.

We just need more folks with healthy tanks full of healthy fish.

Instead of underfed, overcrowded tanks being the norm, we need to collectively switch to well-fed, lightly-stocked tanks being the norm. Particularly for beginners.

Why shouldn't spawning your one or two fish be considered the ultimate marque of success?

Instead a simple demonstration of a tank full of fish is generally considered the epitome....something anyone with a pile of money can do in an afternoon or a month without learning much of anything.

Somehow QT and copper are supposed to make up for this?

No....QT and copper have their place, but we need to do better than that, IMO.

(And here we are, trying!)

I agree with almost everything you say. I just can't advocate that new reefers purposely expose their fish to ich and velvet in order to build up it's acquired immunity. That seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
You can have a lightly stocked well fed tank with spawning fish that aren't exposed to ich and velvet.

There is a value to exposing fish to these parasites for a very experienced reefer. I don't see it being a wise course for the majority of the people in this hobby.

 

[jenreefer]

I have been following this thread and have almost posted my thoughts several times. This subject is just way too complex to be boiled down to just immunity. There are so many factors that have not even been considered as possible reasons for Paul's success with his fish. In order to come to a valid conclusion, there would have to be a ton more research on this topic. I do not believe that the two sides are mutually exclusive. I believe that most reefers do not feed their fish correctly. They either starve them or feed foods that do not meet the nutritional needs of the fish they keep. Too many times, especially with new hobbyists, they are fighting nutrient build up because they do not fully understand how to properly export nutrients from their tank. And how many times have I read on here that people overfeed their fish. Hogwash. For any animal to be healthy they have to be fed properly. Every animal's diet is different. Cats need taurine in their diet or they develop heart disease. How many years of research was involved in finally discovering this. How many cats died of heart disease before we knew.
What if a well fed fish produces a better slime coat, therefor making them more able to defend themselves from parasites? Does this mean that they are immune? No it means they have a thicker slime coat. More good bacteria in any animal is beneficial because the animals system uses good bacteria as a means of proper digestion of the foods they eat. When the good bacteria are low, the bad bacteria have room to outcompete and overwhelm the animal's system. When this happens, the food is not properly digested and absorbed. Again, this is not immunity, but part the animal's internal ecosystem. Just like any ecosystem, if it gets out of balance, an overgrowth of an unwanted or detrimental pathogen can take hold and begin to cause disease.

So what is immunity? It is the cells in the body that are produced specifically to attack recognized pathogens or "alien/unrecognized" tissue/cells and rid the body of them. It does this through the cells in the bloodstream called white blood cells. They come in the form of neutrophils and macrophages. There are some other specialized cells, but these are the main ones. When they recognize a bacteria, virus, parasite, etc, they go to work to try to rid the body of these unwanted and dangerous organismes. Even a foreign body, like a splinter under the skin will set into motion a reaction in the body. What happens? The area around the splinter gets red and painful, then if not removed, eventually the area produces pus. Pus is White blood cells like neutrophils and macrophages that come in and surround the splinter in an attempt to protect the body from it. Eventually, if left to it's own devices, the pus pocket ruptures and the splinter and pus come out of the body. When a fish gets a parasite that embeds in the flesh, under the scales, the body sends cells to try to rid the body of the parasite. Many will be expelled , but in high enough numbers, the number of lesions on the fish overwhelm the body's ability to expel them, the fish will use excess energy trying to rid itself of these parasites. During this time, many of these parasites will successfully drop off and encyst in the tank to move to the next part of the life cycle. Even if the fish is still eating, it will not be enough nutrition to keep up with the needs. The fish's system will not be able to heal the lesions as fast as the parasite is causing them, then infection sets in and the battle is lost. This leads to the conclusion that as long as the number of parasites in the water column remains at a manageable level, the fish "should" be able to continually deal with them. So what would keep this number low? Very healthy fish who are able to expel the parasite from their tissues successfully before it is ready to drop off and encyst somewhere in the tank and complete its lifecycle? That would seem to make sense. Why could they successfully do this? Immunity? Breaking the lifecycle by sending white blood cells to the site of the embedded parasite to kill or expel it from the body before it is ready, maybe? Heavy slime coat that prevents the parasite from attaching to the fish? maybe? The reason Paul can drop new fish in the tank and them not get sick is because the level of parasites in his tank is already low due to whatever mechanism is at work to keep the parasite from successfully completing its life cycle.
How did he get his tank this way? Years of keeping fish that for whatever reason are able to keep the parasite from completing its life cycle. Very few hobbyists will be able to achieve this. It would be great if there were a formula that we could all follow to get to where Paul is. We would first have to understand how he got here. Is it all in the worms? Is it something in the water he adds to his tank? No one knows, not even Paul. I wish we did. I wish we had a repeatable model to guide us down this road. We do not. I do not have the answer. My fish are well fed with a variety of foods, but I do not feed live black worms. I had one fish break with Velvet in a tank of 8 fish. No other fish ever showed evidence of Velvet, even after moving them all to QT. I probably could have left them in the DT and treated the one sick fish and been fine. In fact, in hindsight, I noticed damage to his mouth after moving him to QT, leading me to believe that he injured himself right after entering the DT and probably became weakened.
I honestly felt like removing them all to smaller tanks and treating was the right course. I will always feel that way. We bring these animals into our homes and it is our responsibility to do our best to do right by them. We each must decide what that means. To me, it means making sure I address any and all issues to my best ability. I will always feed small meals throughout the day. You cannot feed one huge meal and get the same results in my opinion. Too much food is not consumed and ends up fouling the tank, causing nutrient spikes, etc. I will always treat when I see evidence of a disease in my tank. This is my idea of being a responsible hobbyist. When Paul is able to bottle his success and sell it, he will make a bundle. I personally would love to see this.

In closing, a great Dr. and great friend told me when I was in Veterinary school a very sobering and I believe true statement. He said "Before you go and start feeling all important, just remember, 80% of the animals you treat will get better, no matter how you choose to treat them, and the other 20% will die, no matter how you choose to treat them."
I have never forgotten this and it keeps me sane when those around me are losing their heads.