A sideline discussion on Copper and overall benefits/detriments of prophylactic treatment in QT

[Subsea]

That isn't research, that's just an article by Dr. Francis-Floyd. It carries no more weight that my fish disease book does. She doesn't have a strong connection with the home aquarium hobby. She likely has never used an amine-based copper product to treat fish.


Jay

Kudos to your academic credentials that allow you more access to scientific publications.


Why is the article used by both Florida & Texas Corporate Extension Services. I can assure you, that investors would consider those agencies as reputable sources.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Kudos to your academic credentials that allow you more access to scientific publications.


Why is the article used by both Florida & Texas Corporate Extension Services. I can assure you, that investors would consider those agencies as reputable sources.

I've been an online fish disease moderator since the mid-1980's when I was a Sysop for Compuserve's Fishnet. I would suggest that there has been too much drift in this discussion - that is a common direction these discussions can go, but that can be corrected with a restating of the original arguments. I will restate mine:

1) Improving immunity alone, will not cure active disease that is already in a moderate level of parasitic infection. This is because the propagule pressure itself is a major stressor. Immunity plays a more important role in non-parasitic, chronic diseases such as Mycobacterium.

2) Coppersafe, dosed at 2.25 to 2.5 ppm in a stable quarantine tank is an effective and safe treatment against Cryptocaryon and Amyloodinium. It does not cause mortality during or after treatment. Because it is mild, it is also slow to act, and must be dosed before the fish develop severe symptoms. The best defense is a good offense, so a 30 day coppersafe treatment during quarantine is preferred.


Jay

 

[Subsea]

I've been an online fish disease moderator since the mid-1980's when I was a Sysop for Compuserve's Fishnet. I would suggest that there has been too much drift in this discussion - that is a common direction these discussions can go, but that can be corrected with a restating of the original arguments. I will restate mine:

1) Improving immunity alone, will not cure active disease that is already in a moderate level of parasitic infection. This is because the propagule pressure itself is a major stressor. Immunity plays a more important role in non-parasitic, chronic diseases such as Mycobacterium.

2) Coppersafe, dosed at 2.25 to 2.5 ppm in a stable quarantine tank is an effective and safe treatment against Cryptocaryon and Amyloodinium. It does not cause mortality during or after treatment. Because it is mild, it is also slow to act, and must be dosed before the fish develop severe symptoms. The best defense is a good offense, so a 30 day coppersafe treatment during quarantine is preferred.


Jay

My point in this discussion is that hobbiest are treating fish that do not show any infection symptoms. The idea being that all fish go thru quarantine & treatment and there are no invading pathogens in the display tank.

Do I understand correctly the goals of the quarantine camp?

Do 20 year old systems with no invading pathogens exist?

 

[Lasse]

chelated copper in that article:

He does not mention amine based copper or amine chelated copper. ETDA content N but not the amine group - therefore no amine based chemical. Copper citrate do not contain any N at all - no amine copper chemical.

You mention - once again -

There is zero evidence that amine based copper products are toxic to fish,

The only product on the market that say that it is an amine based product is Cupramine. The others that you mention only says that they are chelated. No one can know what you mean with amine based copper medication when no one knows if copper safe or copper power is it or not. They do not state this.

And FYI - there is probably no patents on these products. It has been a registered trade mark ® from Mardel-lab and Sergant´s pet care products for copper safe but Fritz industries seems not have a registered trademark for copper safe - neither a patent

And I do not care if you have been whatever during the last 40 years - IMO - you can´t state what you did in this post before without any evidences - you may say that you have not seen any problems using the product - but as I see it - I can turn your arguing around and say that it is neither zero evidence that amine based copper products are NOT toxic to fish



Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jay Hemdal]

He does not mention amine based copper or amine chelated copper. ETDA content N but not the amine group - therefore no amine based chemical. Copper citrate do not contain any N at all - no amine copper chemical.

You mention - once again -



The only product on the market that say that it is an amine based product is Cupramine. The others that you mention only says that they are chelated. No one can know what you mean with amine based copper medication when no one knows if copper safe or copper power is it or not. They do not state this.

And FYI - there is probably no patents on these products. It has been a registered trade mark ® from Mardel-lab and Sergant´s pet care products for copper safe but Fritz industries seems not have a registered trademark for copper safe - neither a patent

And I do not care if you have been whatever during the last 40 years - IMO - you can´t state what you did in this post before without any evidences - you may say that you have not seen any problems using the product - but as I see it - I can turn your arguing around and say that it is neither zero evidence that amine based copper products are NOT toxic to fish



Sincerely Lasse

Lasse - a simple copper test will show you that Coppersafe and Copper Power are both amine chelated copper products. I have no idea why you are so focused on that.

In terms of empirical evidence, tens of thousands of fish that I've treated with these products show that I am correct.

Why does this matter? I don't care if you use amine based copper products or not, but I must develop and promote the most effective treatments for our fish here. The trouble is, if other people read "copper will kill my fish" and they don't employ it when required, or even delay using it, they will lose fish. That is what I'm trying to avoid here.

Jay

 

[Jay Hemdal]

My point in this discussion is that hobbiest are treating fish that do not show any infection symptoms. The idea being that all fish go thru quarantine & treatment and there are no invading pathogens in the display tank.

Do I understand correctly the goals of the quarantine camp?

Do 20 year old systems with no invading pathogens exist?

Any quarantine process is a compromise between effort and efficacy. Using no quarantine offers no protection. Extensive quarantine offers greater protection, but are very labor intensive. The method we promote here is more middle of the ground. It will eliminate ich, velvet and flukes from new fish. This method is not 100% effective against Brooklynella and Uronema. To add a step that would clear fish of those two issues would require using formalin, and most home aquarists cannot acquire that. The only screening it does for other, rarer problems, is allow to them to express themselves while the fish are being housed separate from your general collection. This group includes bacteria, microsporidians, viral issues and coccidia.

The diseases it does control make up about 80% of the disease-caused death in new fish. It also protects your existing collection from those same diseases.

I have employed various iterations of this method over the years, but in 2013 I began using this final version while quarantining fish for our $25 million aquarium. To date, the fish in those systems are still clear of flukes, ich and velvet. So - not 20 years, but a good solid decade and counting.

Jay

 

[Subsea]

Any quarantine process is a compromise between effort and efficacy. Using no quarantine offers no protection. Extensive quarantine offers greater protection, but are very labor intensive. The method we promote here is more middle of the ground. It will eliminate ich, velvet and flukes from new fish. This method is not 100% effective against Brooklynella and Uronema. To add a step that would clear fish of those two issues would require using formalin, and most home aquarists cannot acquire that. The only screening it does for other, rarer problems, is allow to them to express themselves while the fish are being housed separate from your general collection. This group includes bacteria, microsporidians, viral issues and coccidia.

The diseases it does control make up about 80% of the disease-caused death in new fish. It also protects your existing collection from those same diseases.

I have employed various iterations of this method over the years, but in 2013 I began using this final version while quarantining fish for our $25 million aquarium. To date, the fish in those systems are still clear of flukes, ich and velvet. So - not 20 years, but a good solid decade and counting.

Jay

Jay,
Thank you for your contribution to the hobby. And your professionalism to your craft.

The average hobbiest does more harm than good by haphazardly attempting the scientific protocols you have outlined.

 

[Nemo&Friends]

Iv been told to look at it this way. Same thing as giving someone chemo in case they have cancer.

You do not do chemo to every one in hope to prevent cancer. It is given only to someone with cancer. Copper should be given only to the fish with ich/velvet.

 

[Cichlid Dad]

You do not do chemo to every one in hope to prevent cancer. It is given only to someone with cancer. Copper should be given only to the fish with ich/velvet.

That was my point...........

 

[exnisstech]

Unless parasites like ich are obvious, why would you assume that copper treatment is necessary. Cooper compromises fish immune system and destroys bacteria. In fish, as in people, healthy gut cavity bacteria are your best weapon against pathogens.

At most, I would isolate and observe. Stress is the major contributor to fish morality.

Thanks for your viewpoint Subsea. I'll admit I did not read this entire thread an am not trying to derail it. Just an old guy thinking out loud.
I only even opened it because I have a powder brown tang in QT right now. The fish is beautuful, fat, active and eating everything I toss in the tank. QT was an instant cycle using live rock and seeded sponge from a spare tank and water from a water change.
My thoughts were to eventually treat with copper for 30 days then I thought back on previous experiences with powder blues and powder browns. I have never been able to keep one alive long term. The last one I tried was ran through QT with copper at therapeutic levels for 30 days and within a week of being placed in the DT died of ich while all other fish were fine.
Stress? Very likely and in my gut I can't help but wonder if I did more harm than good by subjecting the fish to 30 days of copper in a tank with white pvc for hiding.
The DT this fish will be going in has been fallowed and all fish treated with copper a couple of years ago. I'm probably going with my gut over mind on this new fish and will do observation only for 30-60 days then in the DT. After loosing many fish to a velvet outbreak I would never just buy a fish, bring it home and drop it in the display. All fish go through a minium 30 days in QT and if they look healthy with zero visible signs of disease I can't help but wonder why treat? I wouldn't take medicine to treat something I may not have just to be cautious.

 

[MnFish1]

I decided to see what scientific researchers in other parts of the world had to say about stress effecting immune system in fish:

Influence of Stress on Immune System of Fish​

Article about immune system stress in fish.
aquafind.com
Influence of Stress on Immune System of Fish
Biraj Bikash Sharma* and Gadadhar Dash
Department of Aquatic Animal Health
Faculty of Fishery Sciences, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences
Kolkata - 700094, West Bengal, India
*Corresponding author: [email protected]


EFFECTS OF STRESS ON PROTECTIVE BARRIERS

Chronic stress leads to lower the ability of the immune system to respond effectively. This stress increases the susceptibility of the fishes to diseases by decreasing their defense ability (both first line, second line and third line).

Affects on the first line of defense:

1. Mucus:

It is a physical barrier that inhibits entry of pathogens. It is also a chemical barrier that contains enzymes (lysozymes) and antibodies (immunoglobulin). Mucus also lubricates the fish and aids in movement and is important for osmoregulation.

How stress affects mucus (1st line of defense)?

• Stress causes chemical changes in the mucus :
  • Upsets the normal electrolyte (sodium, potassium, chloride) balance
  • Which results in excessive uptake of water by freshwater fish and dehydration in saltwater fish
• Handling stress physically removes mucus resulting in decreased chemical protection, osmoregulatory function and lubrication, hence, causing the fish to use more energy. This facilitates pathogens to invade.
• Chemical Stress (i.e. Disease treatment) causes the same as handling stress.

What is unfortunate is that I can't access the original paper for some reason. (EDIT - I was able to open it) I agree that stress is an issue that should be minimized - for multiple reasons. However, there is a difference between 'Chronic stress' (which is mentioned in your first paragraph) and the stress, say, of netting a fish, or treating a disease.

For example - there are many people that (using the logic from your paper above) - that rather than vaccinate for covid, or vaccinate their kids at all should use various other methods. Of course it ignores the history of vaccinations - which clearly shows that they are helpful, though some vaccines can cause significant, even deadly side-effects.

I have seen many of the graphs and papers designed to show the hormonal effects of an acute stress on fish: netting, chasing, etc - the rise in, for example cortisol is very short lived lasting an hour or so after the 'event'. I personally do not see that as 'clinically significant', though it could be considered 'statistically significant'.

I do not know how the authors can say that 'chemical stress (disease treatment) causes the same stress as handling stress. mainly because IMHO - its difficult to try to pick the right measurement tool of stress. Is it cortisol? Behaviour? Epinephrine compounds, etc etc? Do fish who are constantly bullied - lets take a damsel that persistently chases all the other fish in the tank - have a higher likelihood of disease? If the disease is not in the tank after a QT?

PS I don't think @Jay Hemdal is promoting chemical treatments over good husbandry?

 

[Lasse]

In terms of empirical evidence, tens of thousands of fish that I've treated with these products show that I am correct.

You do not really knows if you succeeded in spite of you prophylactic treatment or thanks of that. You believe that it is because of that but there is no double blindtest to show your right. You advocate prophylactic treatment using these compounds words like:

There is zero evidence that amine based copper products are toxic to fish,

You can´t state that only on the amount you have treated unless you do not have a huge amount of data showing how long treated fish had survived, a lot of pathological studies on treated fish and so on.

To date, the fish in those systems are still clear of flukes, ich and velvet.

How do you know that - have you done a eDNA on you water? I have done that on my aquaria - no QT and definitely not prophylactic treatment. No sign of these organisms in my water. But I do not use this as a prove that my method is best.

I have nothing against observing QT but I´m strongly against prophylactic treatment at the hobby level. Use copper treatment if necessary but not "in case off". Not to mention antibiotic developed for human use that is uncontrolled used in the hobby in certain countries.

As a public aquarium - you know where your fishes come from, you know if they are treated before and with what and you have probably a specialised veterinarian knitted to your facilities. You have a experience of observing fish and behavior - you will se directly if things going south. As a hobbyist - you normally know nothing about the fish previous history. You do not know if it was treated in the export facilities, in the import facilities or even in the store. As an hobbyist - you do not have the professionals experience and eye. And so on. Its good that you can recommend drugs that have worked for you - but because you have not seen any backslash - it is not sure that there is no backslashes at all.

Lasse - a simple copper test will show you that Coppersafe and Copper Power are both amine chelated copper products. I have no idea why you are so focused on that.

Interesting to know how a simple copper test can show that?

The trouble is, if other people read "copper will kill my fish" and they don't employ it when required, or even delay using it, they will lose fish. That is what I'm trying to avoid here.

"when required" is the key word. Its easy to argue that in a "sharp" situation (a disease situation) its OK to use things that are potential harmfull - its a a risk-benefit decision . But in a not harmful situation - as a hobbyist - use a potential harmful substance just in case is another question. Again with your statement

There is zero evidence that amine based copper products are toxic to fish,

You say that these products is not harmful to use in a prophylactic way. And IMO - you can´t say that because - these products a clearly harmful to parasites, corals, hermits in the doses that is recommended - why should they not be harmful in a sublethal way for fish? Copper is a known bioaccumulation compound.

Do you know which pathway you "amine chelated copper" have in order to kill parasites. Is it the whole molecule or does ionic copper slowly be released from the product?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

My thoughts were to eventually treat with copper for 30 days then I thought back on previous experiences with powder blues and powder browns. I have never been able to keep one alive long term. The last one I tried was ran through QT with copper at therapeutic levels for 30 days and within a week of being placed in the DT died of ich while all other fish were fine.

I´m sorry to say - its not the first time I have heard that story

I think observation QT should be good and together with some more small fishes. My experiences from both QT and disease tanks is that you have a higher success rate if the fish is not alone. Especially among reef fish that hide at danger.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

You do not really knows if you succeeded in spite of you prophylactic treatment or thanks of that. You believe that it is because of that but there is no double blindtest to show your right. You advocate prophylactic treatment using these compounds words like:


You can´t state that only on the amount you have treated unless you do not have a huge amount of data showing how long treated fish had survived, a lot of pathological studies on treated fish and so on.


How do you know that - have you done a eDNA on you water? I have done that on my aquaria - no QT and definitely not prophylactic treatment. No sign of these organisms in my water. But I do not use this as a prove that my method is best.

I have nothing against observing QT but I´m strongly against prophylactic treatment at the hobby level. Use copper treatment if necessary but not "in case off". Not to mention antibiotic developed for human use that is uncontrolled used in the hobby in certain countries.

As a public aquarium - you know where your fishes come from, you know if they are treated before and with what and you have probably a specialised veterinarian kitted to your facilities. You have a experience of observing fish and behavior - you will se directly if things going south. As a hobbyist - you normally know nothing about the fish previous history. You do not know if it was treated in the export facilities, in the import facilities or even in the store. As an hobbyist - you do not have the professionals experience and eye. And so on. Its good that you can recommend drugs that have worked for you - but because you have not seen any backslash - it is not sure that there is no backslashes at all.


Interesting to know how a simple copper test can show that?


"when required" is the key word. Its easy to argue that in a "sharp" situation (a disease situation) its OK to use things that are potential harmfull - its a a risk-benefit decision . But in a not harmful situation - as a hobbyist - use a potential harmful substance just in case is another question. Again with your statement


You say that these products is not harmful to use in a prophylactic way. And IMO - you can´t say that because - these products a clearly harmful to parasites, corals, hermits in the doses that is recommended - why should they not be harmful in a sublethal way for fish? Copper is a known bioaccumulation compound.

Do you know which pathway you "amine chelated copper" have in order to kill parasites. Is it the whole molecule or does ionic copper slowly be released from the product?

Sincerely Lasse

@Lasse I agree with some of your points. However, based on reading multiple hundreds of threads from people that start like this: "I just ordered xxx fish from yyy, they were fine, now a week later they are dying one after the other, or they all have ich, or now all of the rest of my tank is sick". I have come to the conclusion that seemingly, a large percentage (Don't know if a majority) of fish end up becoming sick - and thus - a prophylactic treatment may be justified? Though there may be potential issues with copper (I have not seen any evidence that there is long-term damage) in general it is a safe treatment if done in the right hands. Thus - do you think it's possible (as others have mentioned previously) - there there is an issue whereby the risk/benefit ratio of QT prophylaxis in the US may be different than Europe? (distance travelled, legalities, etc etc?).

Another point @Subsea nearly every zoo/aquarium, etc in the country (world) has a biosecurity program in place, many of which treat for parasites routinely in a QT situation. We give our dogs and cats tick preventative medications to prevent Lyme disease, and others. Bacteria themselves release antibiotics into the water surrounding themselves to prevent other bacteria from taking over (penicillin - discovered in a fungus, streptomycin, discovered in a bacteria, etc etc). I do not think its entirely correct to argue against using a chemical just because its a 'chemical'?

 

[MnFish1]

I´m sorry to say - its not the first time I have heard that story

I think observation QT should be good and together with some more small fishes. My experiences from both QT and disease tanks is that you have a higher success rate if the fish is not alone. Especially among reef fish that hide at danger.

Sincerely Lasse

By the way - I like your method - and I often recommend it to people who do not want to QT or treat with medications - however isn't this type of evidence (your experience) of the same type of Jays (i.e. his personal observation?). Without being offensive, why believe one over the other?

 

[exnisstech]

I´m sorry to say - its not the first time I have heard that story

I think observation QT should be good and together with some more small fishes. My experiences from both QT and disease tanks is that you have a higher success rate if the fish is not alone. Especially among reef fish that hide at danger.

Sincerely Lasse

I have an orchid dottyback in with the tang also. I have not even had them for a week yet and they already see me as the food God and come out to eat so I have high hopes.

 

[Subsea]

Another point @Subsea nearly every zoo/aquarium, etc in the country (world) has a biosecurity program in place, many of which treat for parasites routinely in a QT situation. We give our dogs and cats tick preventative medications to prevent Lyme disease, and others. Bacteria themselves release antibiotics into the water surrounding themselves to prevent other bacteria from taking over (penicillin - discovered in a fungus, streptomycin, discovered in a bacteria, etc etc). I do not think its entirely correct to argue against using a chemical just because its a 'chemical'?

@MnFish1
I am not against chemicals, I enjoy THC & CBD among other chemicals.

I dose NH4 to feed nitrogen to mature reef systems.

I use H202 extensively for in tank sanitation and as a coral dip.

 

[MnFish1]

Another point @Subsea nearly every zoo/aquarium, etc in the country (world) has a biosecurity program in place, many of which treat for parasites routinely in a QT situation. We give our dogs and cats tick preventative medications to prevent Lyme disease, and others. Bacteria themselves release antibiotics into the water surrounding themselves to prevent other bacteria from taking over (penicillin - discovered in a fungus, streptomycin, discovered in a bacteria, etc etc). I do not think its entirely correct to argue against using a chemical just because its a 'chemical'?

@MnFish1
I am not against chemicals, I enjoy THC & CBD among other chemicals.

I dose NH4 to feed nitrogen to mature reef systems.

I use H202 extensively for in tank sanitation and as a coral dip.

I guess I was wondering about the logic of not using prophylactic quarantine, as compared to THC, etc?

 

[Lasse]

By the way - I like your method - and I often recommend it to people who do not want to QT or treat with medications - however isn't this type of evidence (your experience) of the same type of Jays (i.e. his personal observation?). Without being offensive, why believe one over the other?

I describe my method but I do not say that its the only one - it had worked for me in a mature aquarium - but I´m not sure that it will work everywhere. Yes - it is a personal method and personal experiences. However - my method does not incorporate any chemical treatment "just in case off". The only chemical I use is H2O2 in an oxydator. Especially if there is newcomers. But I wonder which form of open water micro animal that will survive here for a prolonged time?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Subsea]

I just did find this video which focuses on treating fish with H202