A discussion on immunity

mcarroll · Dec 25, 2015

Personally I keep two small simple fish (translates: easy care) - I love my barnacle blennies. They have a 50 gallon SPS reef all to themselves-they couldn't be more at home.

I have been casually looking at microscopes though anticipating keeping larger fish someday.

Any tips on selecting or using a microscope would be awesome.

So far it seems that even the cheapest student scope would be adequate - a lot more money would have to be spent to do better. Having a USB scope seems like a good idea, and there are super-cheap options out there, but I have yet to read of anybody using one. Any thoughts on this would also be appreciated.

I'd even appreciate just a blow-by-blow of how you get the fish sample to the microscope in a useful form.

Paul B · Dec 26, 2015

Ed, I have an antique microscope that is about 100 years old. My wife got it for me years ago at an antique store. I love the thing and unlike some things a cheaper microscope may actually be better. We are not trying to look at really tiny things like the brains of politicians. We mostly want to see parasites and torn gill filaments. You can almost see these things with your un aided eyes or even a jeweler's loupe which I use much more than my microscope. Much of the price of a microscope has to do with it's capacity to magnify but as I said we are not looking for viruses or even bacteria. My microscope is so old and tarnished that I can't even read the resolution on the lowest setting but I think it is around 40 or 60 Which I think is just a little better than a jeweler's loupe. I never use the higher resolution as I am not a researcher or bacteriologist. I can clearly see parasites, torn gills and the growth lines on scales. I can also see the internal organs of blackworms and see the diapers on new born brine shrimp. That is as close as I need to get and all the resolution I need. I am not an expert on microscopes or anything else, except maybe Santa Claus so I am not sure what the best resolution would be but for under $100.00 you can get a decent enough microscope for what we are looking at. I would look for a used one because the only part we need undamaged is the lens and it doesn't matter to much what the rest of the thing looks like as all that brass, and silver is just for show. But as I said, get a jeweler's loupe first as you can use that on a living fish in a net and is very useful and really cheap.
To get "fish parts" to a slide first I open the fish up with a scalpel or razor blade and using a tweezers I hold a section of the part and cut a small part off to lay on the slide. I also have a dowell like a pencil with a needle sticking out that I use to position the specimen on the slide. If you want to look through the specimen you need a really thin slice. You can see through gill filiments with no preparation as they are thin enough. But if you want to see a thick piece of something you need to re-posision the light to shine on the top of the specimen rather than through it as is normally done. Parasites on skin are very easy to see if you position a strong light such as an LED flashlight right near the specimen on the slide as the parasites will be seen in 3 dimentions when you do this but will be seen flat if you shine a light through them. This "almost" hatched clown gobi is seen through my antique microscope with the flashlight to the side which is why it looks like it has some dimensions. That fish was as large as this ----->.<-------- and you can see him clearly at the lowest magnification. I took the picture through the lens so it appears in a circle because my microscope and camera was not designed to do this.

My microscope is in the brown wooden box to the far left of my workbench just left of the lamp.

Paul B · Jan 13, 2016

That is my antique microscope to the left of my (very cool) water cooled LED algae scrubber light under construction.

mcarroll · Jan 13, 2016

Does that thing have a spot for a candle as the light source under the stage???

Paul B · Jan 13, 2016

Are you Jealous?

Paul B · Apr 23, 2016

[QUOTE="omykiss001, post: 2633506, member: 47136
While it's great a couple members of your family made it into their 90's this is not an example of the population at large. You quote cavemen who lived to on average a ripe old age of 30, even into the 1800's the average lifespan of humans was only into their 40's to early 50's, whereas today it's now close to 80 so if your theory held much water we would see more mortality at younger ages today than 100 years ago and that's just not what the population as a whole is doing. Sanitation not living in our own fecal matter coupled with better overall hygiene and advances in medicine is what is pushing the longevity curve out to the organisms potential so that intrinsic disease such as cancer and cardiovascular disease are the major killers. Where even back in the 30s, before any antibiotics and few vaccines infectious disease took the majority of lives, most didn't live long enough for these intrinsic diseases to be major sources of mortality and morbidity. Our immune systems are remarkable and can battle diseases, the pathogens are also evolving new ways to get around the armor.
My 0.02[/QUOTE]

Now that Christmas has been over for 4 months I would like to get back to this. Not that I am an expert or anything but I have another theory. (I have theories about everything) It is probably true that cavemen lived into their 30s (I am not sure if we found their birth certificates, social security cards or AARP cards) but remember that we are "assuming" that our fish are cared for better than Neanderthals. Cave men, had a hard life and I am not sure how many of them died of bacterial, or parasite infections. Remember they had that Saber Tooth Tiger thing going on along with a few other things like when they wanted a hamburger, they had to take down a woolly mammoth with a stick, a rock and maybe a can of RC Cola. Their cave heating system consisted of cuddling up with a hairy female Neanderthal who probably came into his possession because she was rejected from the Maury Povitch show, shopped in Walmart or he ate her mate who most likely had rickets. They broke their bones often and chiropractors were hard to get an appointment with so they often died of either bone complications or the fact that they couldn't wrestle an emu to the ground or even walk to the deli. Think of how many times you had a tooth infection. We can go to a dentist (if we are wealthy) but some tooth infections will kill you. Almost everything will kill you if you are living on a savanna surrounded by lions, bears and Liberals. They also had wars, mostly because some tribes had all ugly women and others were composed of Supermodel cave babes and everyone wanted one of those. They had wars for everything, probably because they had nothing else to do except look for Mastodons for lunch.
I would also assume those people often either starved or froze to death so we can't really relate their lifespans to our fish who hopefully won't starve or freeze.
There are records of some wealthy Egyptians living into their 90s. Those lucky people had access to a steady food supply and an army at their disposal to protect them from enemies.
Anyway, that is my theory as to why early humans didn't live very long because I think their immune system functioned pretty well.

Diesel · Apr 23, 2016

^^^^ Cave Men Lives Matter ^^^^^
I can see that P.B came out of hibernation, glad to see you around again, can't wait that the water will warm-up and you will be up and going/diving again.

Paul B · Apr 23, 2016

I can't wait either and will be diving very soon.

edinphilly · May 14, 2016

Paul all I can say is Wow! We've communicated in your thread on the "other" forum where open discourse isn't the norm. I've read your book and loved it and am reskimming it now.

I just upgraded to a 75 with a large sump from a 29 standard and I want to get it further on the path to immunity and I have a couple questions...

I feed Larry's mostly with dried food for when my wife feeds. I'd like to feed live but don't have the time or space to keep cultures etc. What's the middle ground? Easier but still worthwhile?

I'm in sales and travel for work. I could easily collect mud/sand/pods from many areas mostly the DelMarVa peninsula. I'm not worried about introducing "disease" but I do worry about pests. Like a tiny unseen crab that hides in my tank and turns into a 6 inch Maryland Blue that eats everything one night... what are your thoughts and how do I avoid?

Lastly I want to experience spawning fish but I tend not to get pairs. I have a bristletooth tang, gold stripe maroon, flame angel, and green spotted puffer. What would you recommend as a pair to add that would be good as a beginner fish (when it comes to spawning) that will do okay with my current fish?

Thanks and so glad I've found the threads on this forum!!!

-Ed

Paul B · May 14, 2016

Clams are IMO the best food. Larry's food is also good as I have used it. Clams are much cheaper. I freeze them and shave off paper thin pieces. Larry's food is now supposed to be loaded with probiotics which would be a good thing. Fish need live bacteria besides good food. I would get live bacteria into the fish almost every night. I use live worms but I realize many people can't or won't do that. I am not sure how important the worms are because I never ran my tank without them so they could be quite important. If you could collect some mud, I would do that also. As for Maryland crabs, I wouldn't worry about them. By the time they got large enough to do any harm, you would see them and could trap them.

edinphilly · May 15, 2016

Paul B said:
Clams are IMO the best food. Larry's food is also good as I have used it. Clams are much cheaper. I freeze them and shave off paper thin pieces. Larry's food is now supposed to be loaded with probiotics which would be a good thing. Fish need live bacteria besides good food. I would get live bacteria into the fish almost every night. I use live worms but I realize many people can't or won't do that. I am not sure how important the worms are because I never ran my tank without them so they could be quite important. If you could collect some mud, I would do that also. As for Maryland crabs, I wouldn't worry about them. By the time they got large enough to do any harm, you would see them and could trap them.

Thanks! Do you feed Nori or any seaweed/veggies?

Paul B · May 16, 2016

No, but I don't have any tangs. I just find them boring after keeping them for so long. The only tangs I like are hippo's and this is the first time in decades I don't have one. I may get another one some day as they are cute. I do have a little algae in my tank so he could eat that. I like a little algae, it means all is well. I have a long spined urchin in there for years, they could share a meal.

Paul B · Jul 29, 2016

It's been a year since I started this thread. (I just found it by accident). It seems my fish are still immune even after so far this summer adding fresh mud twice from the Long Island Sound and also added a couple of fish and corals along with 978 amphipods (approximately) from the same mud flat. No disease yet but last week I did notice a couple of spots on the tail of one of my yellow wrasses. I consider that a good thing as the spots are now gone and that fish, as well as all the 25 or so others did not exhibit anything (As I knew they would not) Those few parasites tried to grab a meal on the tail of a fish and probably at least had lunch. IMO, the fishes immune system either killed those parasites, or they completed their life cycle and went off to college or tried, unsuccessfully to grab onto another fish. That is what immunity is all about. Total immunity may not totally prevent a stray parasite to infect a fish but it will ward off that parasite, kill it or weaken it so that it could no longer dance. Either way, I don't have to worry about it. This is where I collected. I didn't see any parasites and the place looked as sterile as an operating room so I figured, What the heck.

shoelaceike · Jul 29, 2016

Here's a good experiment. Take one of your fish and place him in a tank with a known velvet outbreak..... continue feeding live foods and see what happens.

saltyfilmfolks · Jul 29, 2016

shoelaceike said:
Here's a good experiment. Take one of your fish and place him in a tank with a known velvet outbreak..... continue feeding live foods and see what happens.

He already did that.
Like 22 years ago.

shoelaceike · Jul 29, 2016

I'm really curious....my tank has ich and my fish seem perfectly healthy. The question is if the immune system is fighting it completely off or is it living out of sight.

The reason to test with velvet and not ich is that most fish seem to fight ich quite well....at least to where it can't be seen.

Paul B · Jul 30, 2016

Shoelaceike, thank you for posting. But like Saltyfilmworks said, I have added velvet to my tank dozens of times. I have no idea how many fish I bought in the last 45 years but it must be in the hundreds. I am sure a portion of those fish had velvet and I never quarantined so I would imagine that parasite is in my tank someplace. I still have my log books from the 70s and 80s and I had an awful lot of fish. They all died from something, maybe velvet, ich, crypto, getting eaten, electrocuted or jumping out. My fish now, and for the last 35 or so years are immune. So far anyway. I am sure ich, velvet and every other disease is in my tank. I want them there as that is what keeps my fish immune. If we turn your idea around and take a velvet infected fish and put it in a tank that was quarantined for 72 days, feed live foods and see what happens. I know what would happen and I think you do too.

Daniel@R2R · Jul 30, 2016

Paul B said:
Shoelaceike, thank you for posting. But like Saltyfilmworks said, I have added velvet to my tank dozens of times. I have no idea how many fish I bought in the last 45 years but it must be in the hundreds. I am sure a portion of those fish had velvet and I never quarantined so I would imagine that parasite is in my tank someplace. I still have my log books from the 70s and 80s and I had an awful lot of fish. They all died from something, maybe velvet, ich, crypto, getting eaten, electrocuted or jumping out. My fish now, and for the last 35 or so years are immune. So far anyway. I am sure ich, velvet and every other disease is in my tank. I want them there as that is what keeps my fish immune. If we turn your idea around and take a velvet infected fish and put it in a tank that was quarantined for 72 days, feed live foods and see what happens. I know what would happen and I think you do too.

I'm slightly confused by this. It seems you're saying that they MAY have been exposed to velvet (you're assuming it based on volume of fish entering your tank without QT, but you've not knowingly put a fish infected with velvet in the reef). If I am correct, then it seems that all that can be claimed from that assumption is that they MAY be immune.

Paul B · Jul 30, 2016

Mdbannister, that is correct. But in 45 years of putting fish in my reef from every store in New York and collecting mud, seaweeds amphipods, shrimp, crabs and wild fish that all go in my tank, It would be very odd if I had not put velvet in my tank. O few years ago I asked anyone on these forums if they would like to put some kind of infected fish in my tank for an experiment. No one came forward. (I also realize that would be stupid so I don't ask that anymore) but that is how sure I am that my fish are immune. I get some fish very cheap, or for free because they look like they will die any minute. They sometimes die and sometimes live, but never infect another fish in my tank. If my fish "seem" to be immune for over 3 decades, how many years would it take for it to be taken as fact? Scientific studies only last a couple of months, this study has been going on for many years.
This is a five gallon bucket of mud and amphipods that I dump in my tank once or twice a year. I collect this stuff in New York. What do you think would happen if you dumped this in a tank that was quarantined for 72 days?

4FordFamily · Jul 30, 2016

Paul B said:
Mdbannister, that is correct. But in 45 years of putting fish in my reef from every store in New York and collecting mud, seaweeds amphipods, shrimp, crabs and wild fish that all go in my tank, It would be very odd if I had not put velvet in my tank. O few years ago I asked anyone on these forums if they would like to put some kind of infected fish in my tank for an experiment. No one came forward. (I also realize that would be stupid so I don't ask that anymore) but that is how sure I am that my fish are immune. I get some fish very cheap, or for free because they look like they will die any minute. They sometimes die and sometimes live, but never infect another fish in my tank. If my fish "seem" to be immune for over 3 decades, how many years would it take for it to be taken as fact? Scientific studies only last a couple of months, this study has been going on for many years.
This is a five gallon bucket of mud and amphipods that I dump in my tank once or twice a year. I collect this stuff in New York. What do you think would happen if you dumped this in a tank that was quarantined for 72 days?

Why not go to your local Petco and get just about any tang, it's almost guaranteed to have velvet!