A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[MnFish1]

I wasn’t referring to your original post/article as to some of the posts that have followed. And I know you have helped in the disease forum regularly.

I’m just wondering, if medications remove a fish’s ability to be “immune” how do we re-introduce those fish to a parasite-rich environment after treatment?

As far as helping people in other countries... I personally try to help them the best I can with whatever they can get ahold of or have available to them. Whether it is copper, hypo-salinity, H202, TTM, etc. In Canada for example, copper is generally still readily available. H202 can possibly used as an alternative to acriflavine or methylene blue, hypo-salinity can treat flukes, the only real issue we are running into is treating aggressive bacterial infections without any available antibiotics.

In this case, they might have to enlist the assistance of a veterinarian. Unfortunately, this is all we can do.

Here is what humble has published so far for using H202 as an antiseptic and against velvet:

https://humble.fish/hydrogen-peroxide/

This article discusses H2O2 - back in 2011: http://agrilife.org/fisheries/files...mportant-Parasite-of-Cultured-Marine-Fish.pdf

They state that a 30 minute bath in 25 ppm lowered mortality considerably - the study only lasted 4 days - and the authors thought that repeated treatment would be required.

 

[Paul Sands]

I agree. The 76 fallow theory is based on 1 study showing that tomonts can exist encysted for at least 76 days (or 72 or whatever). The study does not say that they can´t exist for a longer period.

The study found that most tomonts encysted for around 30 - 45 days. There was one single strain that lasted 72 days. The 76 days fallow period is done out of abundance of caution and is by far the best practice, but the chances of a aquarist finding one single strain of ich that encysts for longer than 76 days is probably roughly equivalent to the chances of me winning $300 million in the powerball lottery.

That said, 76 days is a long time. I’ve had to put it in my calendar before and I’ve made mistakes occasionally and moved fish over sooner than I should have. If you are trying to avoid ich, you definitely need to write it down and keep track and that’s a real chore that most people ignore. I’ve even seen threads where people claim they waited long enough, but you scroll back through to their initial “I have ich” post and show them that it’s only been 60 days or even 30 days, not 76.

 

[MnFish1]

Hot Rocks recommendation for using 2 QT tanks that only requires 14 days of exposure to copper or CP, helps this tremendously. You can do the best you can to keep the bacterial infection at bay for 14 days, transfer to another QT and then hammer the infection alone.

I mentioned this to Seachem the other day - the person there suggested that in their lab 14 days at 1.75 would 'usually' be enough - but that the 14 days will very likely be strains that will need to be treated longer (not necessarily at a higher dose). She also mentioned that over the years they do see that various strains are requiring 'higher' levels to kill. She said that though she hadn't seen any 'resistant' strains in her lab - that they have reports from hobbyists (mainly strains from LFS) due to the fact that they were using 'higher doses' 2.5-3 - at certain times but maybe not consistently (I think im paraphrasing correctly)

 

[ngoodermuth]

This article discusses H2O2 - back in 2011: http://agrilife.org/fisheries/files...mportant-Parasite-of-Cultured-Marine-Fish.pdf

They state that a 30 minute bath in 25 ppm lowered mortality considerably - the study only lasted 4 days - and the authors thought that repeated treatment would be required.

I very much suspect that a combination of H202 and Tank Transfer could be a very good solution where copper is not working or well tolerated.

I’d be interested to see if it can be of any use against uronema and brooklynella as well.

 

[MnFish1]

The study found that most tomonts encysted for around 30 - 45 days. There was one single strain that lasted 72 days. The 76 days fallow period is done out of abundance of caution and is by far the best practice, but the chances of a aquarist finding one single strain of ich that encysts for longer than 76 days is probably roughly equivalent to the chances of me winning $300 million in the powerball lottery.

That said, 76 days is a long time. I’ve had to put it in my calendar before and I’ve made mistakes occasionally and moved fish over sooner than I should have. If you are trying to avoid ich, you definitely need to write it down and keep track and that’s a real chore that most people ignore. I’ve even seen threads where people claim they waited long enough, but you scroll back through to their initial “I have ich” post and show them that it’s only been 60 days or even 30 days, not 76.

You are absolutely correct - except the part about the lottery - there is new information that both at lower temperature and lower oxygen concentration (for example in a sand bed) - that the organisms can remain dormant for longer periods than thought. It was only 1 study as both you and @Lasse say - and 1 tank that had 'a couple' that were still able to produce theronts. But these tanks also had no nooks and crannies that may be somewhat lower in O2. So - there may indeed be many cases where the people 'have waited long enough'.

 

[ngoodermuth]

I mentioned this to Seachem the other day - the person there suggested that in their lab 14 days at 1.75 would 'usually' be enough - but that the 14 days will very likely be strains that will need to be treated longer (not necessarily at a higher dose). She also mentioned that over the years they do see that various strains are requiring 'higher' levels to kill. She said that though she hadn't seen any 'resistant' strains in her lab - that they have reports from hobbyists (mainly strains from LFS) due to the fact that they were using 'higher doses' 2.5-3 - at certain times but maybe not consistently (I think im paraphrasing correctly)

I think user error could play a huge part in the “resistant” strains seen by some hobbyists.

Do they dose water change water before it hits the tank? Or do they add water, and then add copper to “catch up”. This gives a window of opportunity, even if it is a small one.

Are they using and/or reading the test kits correctly? Are the test kits within the expiration date? How often are they testing the levels for absorption/ fluctuations?

 

[KJoFan]

I have probably posted over 20 threads on this and wrote a book. I sometimes yell it from my window. I don't know what else to do. It seems very easy to me and I am no Einstein. :rolleyes:

I’m just wondering, if medications remove a fish’s ability to be “immune” how do we re-introduce those fish to a parasite-rich environment after treatment?

I think @ngoodermuth has probably hit on one of the biggest things for me. I have QT'd my fish up to this point in my current system. Albeit, not perfectly so I would not claim to have a disease free tank by any means. But, say I've created this somewhat artificial environment now by having prophylactically treating my fish for disease, such that they may not have immunity built up, but rather the disease just isn't present to infect them? Then, I go and stop prophylactically treating my fish in QT. I just do a couple week observation and if all is well, in the tank they go.

What if, that fish I just introduced that I didn't medicate is actually carrying a disease it has built up some immunity to and I've just infected all my fish and they all die? I mean, I like to think that my fish are healthy and robust but...are they really?

@Paul B is there a way, in your opinion to transition from the current protocol of prophylactically treating fish before putting them in the DT to not doing so? Remind me, do you advocate even an observation QT, or just direct into the DT if fish is not actively looking ill? I'd love to transition away from prophylactic treatment in QT if possible, as I think in the end you are left with a better/healthier fish, but there's that fear there that you'll destroy your other fish by introducing a disease that hasn't presented itself in that new (maybe immune) fish.

 

[Brew12]

My vet is happy to write prescriptions for my tank meds. I send him links describing how people use various medications, the dose I think I need, and he calls a prescription into the pharmacy or pulls it from his shelf if he has it. He’s even commented before how he enjoys reading about it and finds it fascinating. I’ve done that to get chloroquine phosphate in the past and perhaps fluconazole before it was available. Any vet is likely to do the same. Most of them care about animals enough to take a few minutes to write a prescription for a fish.

I think your experience is the exception, not the rule. The fish disease forum here is full of people who have tried to get CP prescriptions for fish without any luck. Many vets will not write a prescription without seeing the fish.

It’s probably a better practice that people have to go to vets for these medications. They are more likely to get a better product than what we buy at pet stores. Also, I suspect the advice on dosing, timing, and interactions is better from a vet or their staff than from a pet store staff or internet board (ngoodermuth being the clear exception). If people have to go to vets to get these medications the vets offices will become more well versed and able to respond. I actually see this as a likely positive development.

It's a great practice in some ways but I'm sure @ngoodermuth would agree that it is often too late by the time a fish shows symptoms. To have the fish show visible or behavioral symptoms, get it to the vet, get a script filled and get the fish treated does not give a high likelyhood of success. This is what has driven the push to prophylactic treatment in the first place.
What I feel is worth exploring is to see if there are conditions we can create that will allow the fish to naturally fight off the pathogen making the vet visit unnecessary.

 

[Lasse]

Some questions here... was the tank heavily aerated (ie. Did you keep the skimmer running minus the cup, move pumps close the the surface to provide ample agitation, add air stones, etc)

Also, did you check for ammonia? Any time prazipro is recommended for in-tank treatment, it is also warned that tanks with a large bristleworm or feather duster populations can see significant die-off which can be problematic. A water change can be done and carbon added at any time to abort treatment if things look to be stressed or reacting poorly. Anytime you risk an in-tank treatment with anything, it’s a good idea to have enough water mixed up ahead of time to do a substantial water change if the need arises.

I’ve treated my tank with prazipro before, and had exactly zero losses. Cleaner shrimp was fine, all of my acros, fine. And the tank was full of wrasses.

I feel like so many times the medication itself is blamed, when there is something else amiss.

And the other way around when people advocate that all reports about death by medicines is about missusing - because that it has worked for them.

I wish all of you here advocating against QT and the use of medications would please spend a few months on the disease forums. Give your best advice to the folks who are watching their fish die and feel helpless. I hope your advice saves more fish from the brink of death than mine.

Ok, but what do you tell the person that doesn’t have healthy fish? How do you help them? Say “well, I guess you should have had better husbandry skills ... sorry about your luck [emoji52] “

That’s what I want to know. If it is the general consensus that “medicine... BAD” how do we help the person with an active outbreak? Tell them to ride it out and better luck next time? Or do we treat the fish and in your opinion “compromise” their immune system indefinitely? If the medication makes the fish incapable of being reintroduced to the “natural” system, what do we do with it?

In my experience if you treat a fish and put it back in the tank without the proper tank treatment or fallow period... it’s just going to get sick again. Any what happens the next time you add a fish with a parasite? Since the fish you treated is no longer “immune” in your opinion, because of medication used... he will get sick again, right? So should we just let sick fish die?

I’m not assuming that anyone cares less or more than I do, I’m just wondering how you all suggest handling these types of situations without the use of medications if the fish are dying one by one and obviously not able to handle the current parasite load.

This thread is not about QT or not - it is about chemoprophylactic treatmen of fish. And this thread is not about not using medicines when it is need for it. The thread is about not using strong medicines and chemichals just in case of. You are debating something else and try to put these opinions on people that are critical to your way of chemoprophylactic treat fish. You construct a standpoint and put this in our mounths in spite of the fact that you know that no person in this thread and critical against the chemoprphylactic methods have advocate this that I have make bold. IMO - this is very derespectful way to do a debate - put a standpoint into another persons mounth and after that with much of empati fight this. If you want to debate my opions feel free to do it - but do not put opions in my mouuth that I do not have.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I don’t think I need to beat a dead horse that I’m on the same page as you about this whole issue, but to be fair I think the vast majority of people on this thread who are against medication prophylaxis are not against treating a fish with medications if it is actively sick. The focus is how to prevent that from happening in the first place if possible. I guess I could be wrong and can’t speak for everyone, but that’s the sense I’m getting.

You complete right

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Brew12]

The study found that most tomonts encysted for around 30 - 45 days. There was one single strain that lasted 72 days. The 76 days fallow period is done out of abundance of caution and is by far the best practice, but the chances of a aquarist finding one single strain of ich that encysts for longer than 76 days is probably roughly equivalent to the chances of me winning $300 million in the powerball lottery.

That said, 76 days is a long time. I’ve had to put it in my calendar before and I’ve made mistakes occasionally and moved fish over sooner than I should have. If you are trying to avoid ich, you definitely need to write it down and keep track and that’s a real chore that most people ignore. I’ve even seen threads where people claim they waited long enough, but you scroll back through to their initial “I have ich” post and show them that it’s only been 60 days or even 30 days, not 76.

This study shows that they can be suspended in a hypoxic environment. While they only did the testing for a month it opens the possibility for the encysted stage to last many months, if not years.

5. Conclusions
This study has demonstrated the ability of tomonts to become dormant
in a hypoxic environment and to resume development in an oxic
environment at any developmental stage; it has also demonstrated the
potential long-term viability of dormant tomonts in hypoxic environments.
These results indicate that tomonts can accumulate on the
seabed during the summer when it becomes hypoxic. This accumulation
of tomonts may be a key factor for the autumn outbreaks of cryptocaryoniasis
in floating net cages in temperate waters.

 

[Bouncingsoul39]

Some questions here... was the tank heavily aerated (ie. Did you keep the skimmer running minus the cup, move pumps close the the surface to provide ample agitation, add air stones, etc)

Also, did you check for ammonia? Any time prazipro is recommended for in-tank treatment, it is also warned that tanks with a large bristleworm or feather duster populations can see significant die-off which can be problematic. A water change can be done and carbon added at any time to abort treatment if things look to be stressed or reacting poorly. Anytime you risk an in-tank treatment with anything, it’s a good idea to have enough water mixed up ahead of time to do a substantial water change if the need arises.

I’ve treated my tank with prazipro before, and had exactly zero losses. Cleaner shrimp was fine, all of my acros, fine. And the tank was full of wrasses.

I feel like so many times the medication itself is blamed, when there is something else amiss.

I don’t discount the prazi-resistant flukes though. They are definitely an issue right now. And the risks of treating these issue in-tank (like you’ve seen) and having it not work anyway, makes more of a case to QT from the start. Treatment would have been done in a QT, and when it didn’t work - there would be other options.

Hypo-salinity for 5 days will completely eradicate prazi-resistant flukes. As will a 12-hour bath in fenbendazole and transfer to a second, clean QT.

I wish all of you here advocating against QT and the use of medications would please spend a few months on the disease forums. Give your best advice to the folks who are watching their fish die and feel helpless. I hope your advice saves more fish from the brink of death than mine.

Lots of flow including surface agitation. Tank was aerated, skimmer was left on, cup removed. Seachem Prime and Brightwell Microbacter-7 were both dosed every other day for ammonia. There may still have been ammonia present. My limit of spending money on test kits and medications, plus time spent, was reached. I did one 20% water change at 72 hours, a second dose, another 72 hours and then two back to back 20% water changes. Now you've got me thinking I really messed this up. I wasn't willing to test ammonia daily, so you may be right, it's possible it wasn't prazi and was ammonia. Though I did try to mitigate ammonia and did consider it a possible issue.

 

[Brew12]

I’d be interested to see if it can be of any use against uronema and brooklynella as well.

I've seen some promising early tests, but no where near conclusive. Still a lot of testing to be done unless there is more out there than I am aware of.

I think @ngoodermuth has probably hit on one of the biggest things for me. I have QT'd my fish up to this point in my current system. Albeit, not perfectly so I would not claim to have a disease free tank by any means. But, say I've created this somewhat artificial environment now by having prophylactically treating my fish for disease, such that they may not have immunity built up, but rather the disease just isn't present to infect them? Then, I go and stop prophylactically treating my fish in QT. I just do a couple week observation and if all is well, in the tank they go.

This is my biggest fear, also, and why I don't feel I can stop treating prophylactically. I want to have discussions on how best transition a niave fish to becoming an immune fish with as few losses as possible. I'm not there yet, and I know I can't get to that point without help, hence the reason I want to have and expand this discussion and then do as good as possible in capturing it on R2R to make it readily available.

What if, that fish I just introduced that I didn't medicate is actually carrying a disease it has built up some immunity to and I've just infected all my fish and they all die? I mean, I like to think that my fish are healthy and robust but...are they really?

One thing I have been very tempted to do is drop a black molly in my tank and see if it survives. I'm not sure I want to know the answer right now so I haven't done it.

 

[Brew12]

Here is what humble has published so far for using H202 as an antiseptic and against velvet:

Found one that discusses H2O2 and its use on Uronema.
https://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/36/d036p213.pdf

Edit: I have so many links and documents saved I have a hard time remembering everything I have, let alone have an easy time finding it. I need to organize them some day....

 

[Paul B]

Genuinely curious, Paul, how many people do you know who have followed your process to a T and have been successful long term vs not? And if you don’t know of anyone who has emulated this exactly, that’s ok too. It doesn’t take away from your own successes. I’m just wondering.

I only know people on these forums that have fish as everyone else I know already died, is in the process of dying or died and they don't know it yet. But on this forum there are at least two people who use variations of my method. Lasse and Atoll. I think SubSea also. I know 4 or 5 people on other forums that follow my theory. I have spoke at aquarium clubs 4 times to teach my method, which is so easy Nancy Pelosi could do it. :rolleyes: All of the old tanks follow my theory (I think). As I said, except for Humblefish I know of absolutely no old quarantined tanks, do you?

I just went on the disease thread and it is heartbreaking how many fish we are killing with kindness, thinking we are doing something good. 200 years ago we used to "bleed" people to cure them. Even George Washington was bled. That was top notch medical care in those days. Then someone came along who thought outside the box and said, "Like Duh" Most of these people are dying, maybe we should try something else like maybe keeping the blood in the people.
Galallio figured out that the Earth was not the center of the universe. After saying that they banned him from all these forums. He was Ex communicated and jailed. But he was right. Just because something is done by almost everyone, doesn't make it right. I have a reverse undergravel filter that 98.7 % of the people will say can't work in salt water, and yet my tank is the oldest one on here so how bad could it be? :cool:
I dump NSW into my tank every few months and I take it right near the shore along with mud, amphipods, crabs, flounders Godzilla larvae and most people tell me I am playing Russian Roulette, for 48 years so I must be very lucky. I have been waiting for a Supermodel to knock on my door to help with reef maintenance for all that time an so far all I get is people wanting to clean my gutters or reduce my credit card interest. so I can't be too lucky. :confused:

Quarantined fish are always living on the edge and the first parasite that gets in either on a coral, food, seaweed or water will catch whatever it is and those fish are almost impossible to cure as they have no immunity. If you were to cure those fish, whatever little immunity they originally had would be gone. It's a simple thing. Fish are already immune in the sea. Just feed them food with living bacteria in it and do nothing to remove or kill parasites. Either use live worms a couple of times a week, get clams that did not come from a commercial fish food manufacturer or use fresh fish. Or if you are in Idaho, add garden soil. Anything with living bacteria. Use no dry foods or freeze dried perish the thought. Thats the whole system. :D
It seems so simple to me that it must be wrong. :rolleyes:

Remember the boy in the bubble? He probably died because he could not live in the world with the rest of us and always had to be quarantined.

 

[MnFish1]

One thing I have been very tempted to do is drop a black molly in my tank and see if it survives. I'm not sure I want to know the answer right now so I haven't done it.

Based on what I've read about putting non-immune fish into a tank of immune or partly immune - I would not think that would be a good idea

 

[ngoodermuth]

And the other way around when people advocate that all reports about death by medicines is about missusing - because that it has worked for them.







This thread is not about QT or not - it is about chemoprophylactic treatmen of fish. And this thread is not about not using medicines when it is need for it. The thread is about not using strong medicines and chemichals just in case of. Yoy are debating something else and try to put these opinions on people that are critical to your way of chemoprophylactic treat fish. You construct a standpoint and put this in our mounths in spite of the fact that you know that no person in this thread and critical against the chemoprphylactic methods have advocate this that I have make bold. IMO - this is very derespectful way to do a debate - put a standpoint into another persons mounth and after that with much of empati fight this. If you want to debate my opions feel free to do it - but do not put opions in my mouuth that I do not have.

Sincerely Lasse

I’m not meaning to be disrespectful, I just feel like the debates are very much related. What is the difference between treating prophylactically or treating symptomatically in terms of the treated fish’s ability to thrive in a parasite-friendly environment?

If you do not treat ALL of your fish prophylactically, there is a very good chance that parasites will eventually find their way into your display. I’ve seen this myself, multiple times. I’ve added multiple fish that have all had a lengthy 30 day+ observational QT... none symptomatic..and then all of a sudden, one is covered in spots. Then another, and another... and before you know it, you are scrambling to salvage whatever you can while fish die left and right.

So where did the parasites come from? And why didn’t my “un-treated” fish survive the attack? How do you remedy this scenario? How do I treat those fish with symptoms and still have them live harmoniously with the parasites that will inevitably end up in my tank?

I’ve had TWO velvet wipe-outs, in the 8-9 years I’ve been doing this. The only thing that has changed this for me, adopting a prophylactic treatment protocol. Maybe I’m “doing it wrong” but it’s not what’s worked for me... it’s what hasn’t worked for me.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

I have experience with both QT with UVC sterilization, nutrition and observation as the only intervention (with great success). And I have had some limited experience with prophylactic treatment in QT tanks. In my experience prophylactic treatment is very diffucult to manage successfully due to the knife edge of exposure to chemicals and antibiotics that severely inhibit the very organisms that filter the water for the fish. So the fish are not only sickened by the toxins and antibiotics in the water but the water is now more toxic to the fish by release of their own fish waste.

I need to remind you all that in the ~5ml sea water sample taken there are 1 to 5 million bacteria and 5 to 50 million viruses. (Wikipedia is not the best source but there are citations in there for more credible places for you to search on your own.) Saltwater fish have adapted to that environment though various communities of organisms that in fact live on and in the fish. So now you kill some of those communities and the result is disease and death. No one wants to talk about this real science in the attempt to create a "clean" fish that is now ready to live in our much smaller ocean. You are chasing your tails like a crazy dog until you admit their is much more that we don't know than what we do know about disease process in captive fish populations. Fish can manage much of their health through these adaptive mechanisms. Stress of capture and transportation does suppress the fishes normal immune response. They need rest and observation first before deciding what comes next. In the vast majority of cases I believe the fish will return to some level of equalibrium in the captive environment if that environment is stable and mature.

Most of the disease forum is about recently (less than a year) old tanks started with dry nuked rock and various attempts to add bacteria in a bottle along with the fight to control algae of various types. The battle for equalibrium in the system is not even attained and people attempt to add fish. This is one of the reasons for problems on the disease threads in my opinion. We must create the ecosystem first then selectively add the fish later for greater success. We are trying to mimic the natural environment not create a new kind the fish is not adapted too! This is also why we should limit the number and type of fish we keep in that environment. We need to also consider that less is more in terms of the numbers and types of corals and inverts we keep in each tank. Populations that run up against the upper levels of filtration capacity tips the balance toward disease outbreaks even in old tanks.

By the way I may disagree with the use of prophylaxis as the first approach but much good information is being developed by @Humblefish , @HotRocks , @4FordFamily , @Brew12 , and @ngoodermuth in how to treat disease if you encounter it. I just was never successful with that approach and killed more than I saved trying that method. That said these individuals have given me a resource should I ever need to medicate a sick fish and I applaud them for that! In some cases I would prefer to euthanize the fish than to cause it more suffering.

 

[Lasse]

This study shows that they can be suspended in a hypoxic environment. While they only did the testing for a month it opens the possibility for the encysted stage to last many months, if not years.

5. Conclusions
This study has demonstrated the ability of tomonts to become dormant
in a hypoxic environment and to resume development in an oxic
environment at any developmental stage; it has also demonstrated the
potential long-term viability of dormant tomonts in hypoxic environments.
These results indicate that tomonts can accumulate on the
seabed during the summer when it becomes hypoxic. This accumulation
of tomonts may be a key factor for the autumn outbreaks of cryptocaryoniasis
in floating net cages in temperate waters.

Thank you - and as an old submarine guy - you just put a torpedo into the flagship of the chemoprophylactic theory of fighting ich. If you can´t eradicate the parasite in your tank and/or in stones or corals with a fallow period - it is of no use according to Ich.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

By the way I may disagree with the use of prophylaxis as the first approach but much good information is being developed by @Humblefish , @HotRocks , @4FordFamily , @Brew12 , and @ngoodermuth in how to treat disease if you encounter it. I just was never successful with that approach and killed more than I saved trying that method. That said these individuals have given me a resource should I ever need to medicate a sick fish and I applaud them for that! In some cases I would prefer to euthanize the fish than to cause it more suffering.

I can sign that as well

Sincerely Lasse