A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[MnFish1]

For me it is clear that you can have disease free fish and aquariums but you never can talk about pathogen free fish and aquariums because the vast majority of fish-pathogens are opportunistic pathogens (I prefer to use the word facultative pathogens). Some sources mention figures as high as 90 – 95 %

Take this scenario - a new tank. Dry rock/sand. Captive bred clown/ other fish. Where would the pathogens come from? (Rhetorical question).
The problem is that even based on the recent poll - only 20% or less of people quarantine fish/coral (and unfortunately, quarantine was not defined). so - I tend to agree with you - there is no such thing as a parasite/pathogen free aquarium. Whether the fish are able to be 'free' or not - IDK.

 

[MnFish1]

Odds are the LFS receive the fish from the same wholesalers that people online use here in the states. I know my LFS gets most of their stock from Quality Marine, which is also where people who order through Live Aquaria get their fish from.

Isn't a pathogen still a pathogen to a potentially susceptible host even if it handled by it's immune system? When the immune system fails the pathogen becomes a disease, right? I might have to go through and read it again...

There are lots of wholesalers in the country - I dont know why they would all be buying from Quality marine. http://www.segrestfarms.com is supposedly the largest in the country (according to their website).

In any case - answering the question a pathogen is always a pathogen(which to me means an organism capable of causing disease). When the immune system fails or is overwhelmed or whatever you want to call it - then there is a disease caused by the pathogen.

For another example. MRSA (methicillin resistant staph aureus) the supposedly deadly bug - is in many health care providers noses. Its a pathogen - but its not causing disease.

 

[Paul B]

Then what constitutes a susceptible host?

Yes a susceptible host would be something that is not immune. Drugged, starved or overly quarantined fish would be susceptible hosts.

@Paul B and @Lasse have I surmised this correctly in my naive non scientist way or missed something?

Almost none of us are scientists so I think you have it right.

HOWEVER. in the case above - If I have been vaccinated against typhoid - I will likely not get the 'DISEASE' typhoid fever even if exposed.

Likewise - if a fish is 'immune' to oodinium cilates they will not get the disease 'velvet'

This is true and the basis for my entire theory.
I would say it is nearly impossible to believe my fish are not immune from just about everything since they have not ever been sick in decades. It seems very un likely to me that I have never introduced a disease, I will even say impossible. 2 weeks ago I threw in a hippo tang with no fanfare. I didn't actually throw it in, but work with me. He is supposed to be some kind of ich magnet, but even though he had some spots when I got him, he is totally free of them now. That is what happens to all my fish and why I, and many others see disease as a non issue, nothing to be concerned with no matter how bad the LFS or how sick the fish are in the same tank with the one I want. I don't want to eliminate any parasites, bacteria or any other pathogen. Remember the saying, What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. That is true in fish as long as you feed correctly.

 

[Brew12]

There are lots of wholesalers in the country - I dont know why they would all be buying from Quality marine. http://www.segrestfarms.com is supposedly the largest in the country (according to their website).

I'm not sure where "all" LFS's are buying from, only the ones close to me. Looks like none of them use segrestfarms.com. The only places within 40 miles of me that they list are Petco and Petsmart.

In any case - answering the question a pathogen is always a pathogen(which to me means an organism capable of causing disease). When the immune system fails or is overwhelmed or whatever you want to call it - then there is a disease caused by the pathogen.

That was my understanding too. The only thing a susceptible host has to do with it is the potential to be harmed by it. CI would not be a pathogen to me but it would be to any marine fish regardless of the status of its immune system.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

This conversation has looped around to where we started with the fact that fish live in a microbial soup called sea water and have adaptive mechanisms via multiple communities of microbes that are both commensal and given the opportunity pathogenic. I have experienced this in a very costly fashion and have written about it before. As a result I turned from the attempt of a "clean room" fish to replication of I have the natural environment for success. Yes the use of UV and ozone might not seem natural but does mimic the effect of filter feeders in the ocean as well as the effect of UV and ozone from sunlight. Wave action in fact produces foam like a protein skimmer so there is another possible intervention that works due to nature. We also experience multiple benefits via the use of refugiums and macro algae. This is nothing new and something the Europeans used for years before America "discovered" reef aquariums. I have texts from Germany from over 30 years ago that show the benefits of some of the ideas I just mentioned. Americans are relatively new to the reef game. We just seem to have lots of money to throw at the latest gadget.

In my opinion the area of research that is most needed for success in all forms of biology is the relationship of the various microbial communities and how they benefit the host. I will never live long enough to pursue the study to make any difference to anyone in this area. That said we should all look much closer at the interdependence between these microbial communities for the answers and resist the desire to use antibiotics as our first line of biosecurity.

 

[Lasse]

Let me take an example - in our gut and intestines - we have many kilos of bacteria that’s during most circumstances not are pathogenic for us – as long as they stay in our gut. However – if many of them comes out in the body cavities outside the digestive tract – you will be dead rather fast.

I´m sure that if you are unlucky – a marine ich parasite could penetrate your skin and start feeding on your body fluids. but you will not get the disease because you – if you not are in the water for a week or so - will not be reinfected of hundred of new parasites

A bacterium named Mycobacterium marinum is a bacteria that in fish can form a disease named fish tuberculosis but can also be pathogenic for us. You will often find this bacterium in captive fish, showing no disease and people that handle these systems can sometimes show up symptoms of a disease – but other – working in the same system – will not.

The most common facultative marine bacteria are from different genera’s, mostly pseudomonas, Vibrio and myxobacteria. Normally – they are not pathogenic, but circumstances can make them be pathogenic and cause disease. – Vibriosis is a known marine disease. Circumstances can be the amount of bacteria present.

As an example – I have worked with Clarias (a freshwater catfish genera) in recirculated fish farms. This is built on the cleaning capacity of many different bacteria, among them Flavobacterium spp. However, we notice if the water quality get down (e.g. to many particles) we get outbreak of – probably - columnaris disease. The way to defeat this was to improve water quality and take away all infected fish we saw.

What I think is very difficult for us to understand is that a beneficial (commensal) microbe can change to be pathogenic (cause a disease) if the connection between host and guest get lost. Sorry for a long quote below – but I think that this is the best explanation I have seen - from this link

What about the bacteria that normally inhabit our gut without causing disease - the so-called commensal bacteria: how does the immune system distinguish these bacteria from pathogens?
The immune system does not distinguish between pathogens and commensals. In fact, the question of whether pathogenicity is a microbial trait and the question of whether hosts distinguish so-called pathogens from non-pathogens have the same answer: pathogenicity is an outcome of host-microbe interaction and is thus inextricably linked to characteristics of the host as well as those of the microbe. Rather than distinguishing commensals from pathogens/non-pathogens, the immune system of healthy hosts actually depends on these microbes. Commensals (also called the microbiota) are acquired by infection soon after birth, after which they establish residence in mucosal niches where they replicate, and there is increasing evidence that the microbiota play a crucial role in the development of the immune system and that the immune response to the bacteria in mucosal niches helps maintain barriers to invasion on surfaces exposed to potentially harmful microorganisms. The commensal bacteria themselves do no harm, provided that the immune system and mucosal barriers remain normal and intact. The immune system provides a large variety of tools - cells and molecules - that recognize, react to and control microbial growth and invasion, often in a manner that does not result in host damage or disease, and when this happens, there is no readout. In this instance, the immune system might be thought to have distinguished a pathogen from a non-pathogen, but in fact, it simply controls microbial growth and/or invasion in a manner that does not translate into microbial pathogenicity.

In a situation where there is host damage or disease, there are two possibilities: either the immune system did not contain or control the microbe and the microbe caused host damage, or the host immune response to the microbe caused damage or disease, whether the microbe was controlled, or contained, or not. Thus, the immune system does not discriminate between microbes; it reacts to them, albeit differently depending on characteristics of the host and characteristics of the microbe, with the response defining an outcome that reflects the behavior of host and microbial factors.

This is true for parasites and virus too and it is basically what @Paul B have preached for many years and been subjected to much criticism from self-declared pundits. I hope that this excerpt from your own National Center for Biotechnology will give Paul some credits

Very short - if a microbe will be pathogenic or not (pathogenic = cause disease or dissorder) depends on the interaction between the guest and the host

I think this will answer @MnFish1 question below too because you will have with microbes of different types as fast as you introduce other living organisms

Take this scenario - a new tank. Dry rock/sand. Captive bred clown/ other fish. Where would the pathogens come from? (Rhetorical question).

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Let me take an example - in our gut and intestines - we have many kilos of bacteria that’s during most circumstances not are pathogenic for us – as long as they stay in our gut. However – if many of them comes out in the body cavities outside the digestive tract – you will be dead rather fast.

I´m sure that if you are unlucky – a marine ich parasite could penetrate your skin and start feeding on your body fluids. but you will not get the disease because you – if you not are in the water for a week or so - will not be reinfected of hundred of new parasites

A bacterium named Mycobacterium marinum is a bacteria that in fish can form a disease named fish tuberculosis but can also be pathogenic for us. You will often find this bacterium in captive fish, showing no disease and people that handle these systems can sometimes show up symptoms of a disease – but other – working in the same system – will not.

The most common facultative marine bacteria are from different genera’s, mostly pseudomonas, Vibrio and myxobacteria. Normally – they are not pathogenic, but circumstances can make them be pathogenic and cause disease. – Vibriosis is a known marine disease. Circumstances can be the amount of bacteria present.

As an example – I have worked with Clarias (a freshwater catfish genera) in recirculated fish farms. This is built on the cleaning capacity of many different bacteria, among them Flavobacterium spp. However, we notice if the water quality get down (e.g. to many particles) we get outbreak of – probably - columnaris disease. The way to defeat this was to improve water quality and take away all infected fish we saw.

What I think is very difficult for us to understand is that a beneficial (commensal) microbe can change to be pathogenic (cause a disease) if the connection between host and guest get lost. Sorry for a long quote below – but I think that this is the best explanation I have seen - from this link


This is true for parasites and virus too and it is basically what @Paul B have preached for many years and been subjected to much criticism from self-declared pundits. I hope that this excerpt from your own National Center for Biotechnology will give Paul some credits

Very short - if a microbe will be pathogenic or not (pathogenic = cause disease or dissorder) depends on the interaction between the guest and the host

I think this will answer @MnFish1 question below too because you will have with microbes of different types as fast as you introduce other living organisms



Sincerely Lasse

You're taking my question a bit out of context - I was never suggesting that its possible to keep a tank 'sterile' in fact I was suggesting the opposite. However, someone made the comment that it would be impossible to keep parasites out of an aquarium - and I gave that as an example. Where for example would CI or velvet come from. Unlike Paul has said - and numerous others - that keeping fish in qt keeps them in a 'sterile' environment - there are always bacteria - I have said that from the very start. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point though. I think we agree.

 

[Lasse]

I´m sure we agree but if you QT with the whole cocktail of chemical prophylactic remedies often recommended at R2R - you not only create a sterile environment - you also create a sterile fish (there will be no microbes left in the mucus or gut at all) IMO.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Paul B]

Unlike Paul has said - and numerous others - that keeping fish in qt keeps them in a 'sterile' environment - there are always bacteria

It may not be sterile but it doesn't have disease causing bacteria and parasites that IMO are needed to keep the animal immune from such things.
For that, the easiest way to get those things into our fish is to feed something from the wild that has not been sterilized or frozen into the next ice age. Something like gut bacteria from live or freshly frozen shell fish.

Much of the frozen foods we can buy commercially says on the label, "irradiated to kill harmful microorganisms" . This, to me is a no no.

I hope that this excerpt from your own National Center for Biotechnology will give Paul some credits

I don't take credit, but cash is fine.

 

[MnFish1]

I´m sure we agree but if you QT with the whole cocktail of chemical prophylactic remedies often recommended at R2R - you not only create a sterile environment - you also create a sterile fish (there will be no microbes left in the mucus or gut at all) IMO.

Sincerely Lasse

There will always be some that survive (after all there are bacteria resistant to all known antibiotics right now in India) - but yes - if you use flagyl (metronidazole), kanamycin, etc etc etc etc you are going to kill almost all of the 'good and bad' bacteria. That said - to use your example - in the Human GI tract - before people have bone marrow transplants - they commonly have their GI tracts sterilized before wiping out their immune system (they used to do this for gut surgery also until they found it did more harm than good). So - the bacteria do 'come back'. But - yes we agree.

 

[MnFish1]

It may not be sterile but it doesn't have disease causing bacteria and parasites that IMO are needed to keep the animal immune from such things.

I wasn't disagreeing with you either Paul .... you're correct if you take those parasites out of a tank - if the fish are exposed again years later - they may have significant problems. However if those fish are never exposed to CI again for example - (somehow) - they will do 'fine'. The problem is that its likely that either by error, failed QT or something else - they may very well be re-exposed.

 

[Lasse]

(they used to do this for gut surgery also until they found it did more harm than good).

After 7 of gut surgery - first 1969 - last in February this year - I know this in my backbone

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Paul B]

I wasn't disagreeing with you either Paul

I didn't think you were.

Lasse, could you please translate this for me. It looks like Klingon.

After 7 of gut surgery - first 1969 - last in February this year - I know this in my backbone

Sincerely Lasse

​

 

[HawaiianReef]

Here is a fantastic link

Sincerely Lasse

THANKS!!!
I saved this to my homepage and I need to print it out!
Awsome Info

 

[Lasse]

Since 1969 I have had 7 gut surgery - the last this February. I have learned the thing MnFish1 talk about with sterile GI tracts the hard way. It is so well known that it is in my backbone - not need a brain to remember, It is 01:35 here

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Mastiffsrule]

Since 1969 I have had 7 gut surgery - the last this February. I have learned the thing MnFish1 talk about with sterile GI tracts the hard way. It is so well known that it is in my backbone - not need a brain to remember, It is 01:35 here

Sincerely Lasse

Hi @Lasse . Hope you are well tonight. Sorry about the gut surgery. I cant imagine going thru 7. I went thru 1 where stuff was yanked out. Can’t imagine 7, and you had 1 recently. Hope your ok. I’d rather have a broken 3 broken ribs than go thru it again.

Anyway. I have a question for all. Since I never really knew what qt was until about 2012 or so, I am somewhat lost. Forgive me if my question are not relevant at this point in the thread.

Isn’t the QT really a waste of time over the long run? Would not the same immunity be achieved QT or not with proper diet and housing over the long run. Does exposure to a pathogen previously survived play a factor? Basically 6 months down the road all things equal would the QT and non QT survival rate be the same. QT really only means survived the transfer to DT. My take is buy a fish with no signs of disease, get them into a low stress environment and feed and that would take place of the QT.

My 3 tangs recently survived an ICH outbreak due to their previous exposure to the disease and their feeding. Can I say which played more of a part, no. But within 2 weeks clean bill of health and no QT

Anyway, a fish that is strong is more likely to survive than a sterile one. If I put the most high tech alarm on my house (sterile environment) but someone still managed to get in, if I am ready (immune) they would still get a beat down. If in a sterile environment (alarm on,y) assuming the alarm will handle all, I run to the panic room like a scary cat or I get the beat down

Hope I made sense. thanks again to all.

(This post took 25 min to do and way over my limit of characters) have mercy

 

[MnFish1]

After 7 of gut surgery - first 1969 - last in February this year - I know this in my backbone

Sincerely Lasse

you have me beat - but only by 2

 

[Lasse]

you have me beat - but only by 2

Three of them was acute volvulus - so I´m familar with metronidazole too

Sincerelyy Lasse

 

[Paul B]

Isn’t the QT really a waste of time over the long run? Would not the same immunity be achieved QT or not with proper diet and housing over the long run.

Mastiffsrule, quarantine doesn't make the fish achieve immunity, it's just the opposite. Quarantining (for a long time) removes most immunity from fish, depending on how long and if medications were used.

After 7 of gut surgery - first 1969 - last in February this year - I know this in my backbone

Sincerely Lasse

I am getting gas reading about all this gut surgery.

 

[MnFish1]

Three of them was acute volvulus - so I´m familar with metronidazole too

Sincerelyy Lasse

Me too lol