BAD NEWS - Velvet Strain Survives 1.75 PPM Copper!

[puffy127]

There is also a paper somewhere that @Brew12 had the link to at one time that shows evidence of tomont damage in prolonged copper which would explain why 30 days is a long enough duration in copper but not for a fallow period.

@Brew12 Is this true? Do you have a link? I remember some Paperna papers we were looking at, but nothing was definitive.

 

[MnFish1]

The large difference is you have zero personal experience. So for you to say it's "wrong" is a very bold statement.

I encourage you to set up a QT and "test" your theory. You can pick up velvet fish about anywhere. Or order them online.

Keep in mind the 1.75ppm worked for hundreds of fish at 14 days.

Then the ones that it didn't work for recently were only back in copper at a higher concentration for 14 days and it cleared them. So how is it "wrong"?

Completely disproving your statement.

The problem is is it the level (1.75) or the duration (14 days)? If you look at the science - they say copper should be used a MINIUMUM of 10-14 days. You guys decided to use 14 days - and got nailed. You then increased the dose to 2-2.5 and that worked - so that supposedly 'proves' that the problem was the dose. IMHO - the problem is you didnt try 1.75 at a longer duration - nor - were I in your shoes expect you to do so if I had hundreds/thousands of dollars of fish to lose.

That said - I also wouldn't be posting on this forum that you've found a resistant strain of velvet (even with the disclaiming comments you made in the OP) - even you both can read the reactions from the first couple posters (*that suggested basically that the apocalypse was about to reign down on all of us).

Apologetically I find the OP irresponsible. There is no reason for me to set up a QT to disprove your theory. You're the one with the theory - either you prove it - or dont prove it - but It's not for everyone else to prove what you're saying. You say there is a resistant strain of velvet - you prove it if you desire - with all due respect for your knowledge and work - you havent done so.

 

[4FordFamily]

The problem is is it the level (1.75) or the duration (14 days)? If you look at the science - they say copper should be used a MINIUMUM of 10-14 days. You guys decided to use 14 days - and got nailed. You then increased the dose to 2-2.5 and that worked - so that supposedly 'proves' that the problem was the dose. IMHO - the problem is you didnt try 1.75 at a longer duration - nor - were I in your shoes expect you to do so if I had hundreds/thousands of dollars of fish to lose.

That said - I also wouldn't be posting on this forum that you've found a resistant strain of velvet (even with the disclaiming comments you made in the OP) - even you both can read the reactions from the first couple posters (*that suggested basically that the apocalypse was about to reign down on all of us).

Apologetically I find the OP irresponsible. There is no reason for me to set up a QT to disprove your theory. You're the one with the theory - either you prove it - or dont prove it - but It's not for everyone else to prove what you're saying. You say there is a resistant strain of velvet - you prove it if you desire - with all due respect for your knowledge and work - you havent done so.

Again, everyone here gets it. We understand you don’t agree and find me irresponsible.

ENOUGH. If you can’t keep a civil discussion (enough mention of badges and personal attacks on our characters or any other user of R2R) and beating a dead horse for 6 pages I will thread ban you.

We can agree to disagree. I can’t understand why that’s difficult for you. Per your own words you’ve never even treated a fish with copper or quarantined a fish.

 

[drstardust]

I really don't think their observation is any less credible than any other anecdotal observation made by any reef hobbyist ever. We don't do controlled experiments, so of course some other factor(s) may have been responsible for these results. However, warning the community of such a possibility is valuable in and of itself.

 

[MnFish1]

I don't think he was saying move on as in you shouldn't have posted. Only that it is time to move on and you should both agree to disagree.


I'm curious as to what you have experienced that makes you feel that they are wrong?

I not only feel that they are right, but I have been predicting that this would happen for quite awhile now. It is one reason why I believe it is important to push for methods of keeping fish that doesn't rely on medications.
When LFS's and wholesalers are keeping fish in low levels of copper, low enough to kill the weaker strains but not strong enough to kill all of the parasites, it is inevitable that resistant strains of these parasites will be developed. The first expected evidence of this happening is higher and higher levels of copper being needed to eradicate the parasites. Eventually, it will get to the point where fish can no longer survive the treatment.

Even if they are wrong, which is possible, it is inevitable that it will eventually happen. And this is exactly what we would expect to happen when it does.

When an organism 'gains' resistance to an antibiotic - an anti parasitic, etc - it becomes resistant for the most part many times higher than the usual dose - ie. if a staph bacteria is resistant t to penicillin - increasing the dose from 250 mg 4 times a day to 500 mg 4 times /day is very very very unlikely to be affective. In this case the posters are recommending an increase in dose from 1.75 t o 2.00 copper. This by itself does not make sense in the real 'pharmacology' world.

I agree with you that at some point there may be resistant parasites (to copper, etc) - but as of yet - in the published literature - there are no examples (except the one poster that I mentioned a couple weeks ago - and it wasnt clear what their point was). So - if indeed they have discovered resistant parasites to 1.75 copper that are sensitive to 2 copper that would be an amazing find.

No offense - the fact that you have been predicting it doesnt mean that it has happened - if it had - IMHO it would require far higher than a 15 percent increase in dosage to 'fix it'. In other words - If they had said - there MIGHT be copper resistant velvet out there - use CP instead - that makes scientific and common sense. Saying (again my opinion) - there IS copper resistant velvet out there so we're increasing our dose from 1.75 to 2 - makes no sense. Again no offense to the OP.

Again - if you're saying - its inevitable - then perhaps their whole protocol makes no sense. Perhaps the recommendation should have been to change the QT protocol to chloroquine?

 

[MnFish1]

Again, everyone here gets it. We understand you don’t agree and find me irresponsible.

ENOUGH. If you can’t keep a civil discussion (enough mention of badges and personal attacks on our characters or any other user of R2R) and beating a dead horse for 6 pages I will thread ban you.

We can agree to disagree. I can’t understand why that’s difficult for you. You’ve never even treated a fish with copper or quarantined a fish.

I have treated fish before with copper and I have QT'd fish. I don't do so currently - so I dont get your comments. As to badges - I merely said if you have badges - you should be better prepared to defend your proposals in my opinion. Go ahead ban me. my life will go on - you're the one that looks silly imho..... but yes - we agree to disagree. Its hard though - not to respond when you're saying 'stop talking' and @hot rocks and @Brew12 are asking questions.

 

[WWIII]

I wonder if 2 periods of 14 days in 1.75ppm copper would have killed off the last of the parasites? That wouldn't really make sense, but I assume it's a possiblity?

I'm more interested and appreciative that this was reported so that maybe someone won't run fish through copper for 14 days and then throw them into the display tank. Although this has never been reccomended in any of the protocols, I still think people do it thinking 14 days, the parasite is gone. If nothing else maybe this report will convince some to put fish in observation clean qt after a 14 day copper treatment, like has been suggested in all of the protocols here on R2R and by our excellent fish disease members!

 

[4FordFamily]

I have treated fish before with copper and I have QT'd fish. I don't do so currently - so I dont get your comments. As to badges - I merely said if you have badges - you should be better prepared to defend your proposals in my opinion. Go ahead ban me. my life will go on - you're the one that looks silly imho..... but yes - we agree to disagree. Its hard though - not to respond when you're saying 'stop talking' and @hot rocks and @Brew12 are asking questions.

Keep the conversation civil, and cover new ground— that’s all I want. You can disagree with me.

Your opinion and my opinion have been stated neither are scientific facts. People can make their own decisions.

I’ve looked silly before and this won’t be the last time I look silly I am sure!

 

[drstardust]

I'm more interested and appreciative that this was reported so that maybe someone won't run fish through copper for 14 days and then throw them into the display tank. Although this has never been reccomended in any of the protocols, I still think people do it thinking 14 days, the parasite is gone. If nothing else maybe this report will convince some to put fish in observation clean qt after a 14 day copper treatment, like has been suggested in all of the protocols here on R2R and by our excellent fish disease members!

Excellent point!

 

[MnFish1]

Keep the conversation civil, and cover new ground— that’s all I want. You can disagree with me.

Your opinion and my opinion have been stated neither are scientific facts. People can make their own decisions.

I’ve looked silly before and this won’t be the last time I look silly I am sure!

There is no fight here... As well you know. Here is some new information - based on your results - if you're correct - and as I said before you may well be - I would dump copper as a QT vehicle completely in favor of chloroquine. This is partly the reason I'm pressing you guys for clarification. I could be 100% wrong - but I dont see bumping the dose from 1.75 -->2 as being enough of a change if there is resistant velvet. its not about 'me vs you'. Its about us figuring out the most common sense QT method. . Hopefully that enough of a friendly end to the discussion on my part...

 

[drstardust]

if you're correct - and as I said before you may well be - I would dump copper as a QT vehicle completely in favor of chloroquine.

This could be the beginning of heading in that direction. I hope not, but we shall see, since some fish don't handle CP well.

 

[HotRocks]

The problem is is it the level (1.75) or the duration (14 days)? If you look at the science - they say copper should be used a MINIUMUM of 10-14 days. You guys decided to use 14 days - and got nailed. You then increased the dose to 2-2.5 and that worked - so that supposedly 'proves' that the problem was the dose. IMHO - the problem is you didnt try 1.75 at a longer duration - nor - were I in your shoes expect you to do so if I had hundreds/thousands of dollars of fish to lose.

That said - I also wouldn't be posting on this forum that you've found a resistant strain of velvet (even with the disclaiming comments you made in the OP) - even you both can read the reactions from the first couple posters (*that suggested basically that the apocalypse was about to reign down on all of us).

Apologetically I find the OP irresponsible. There is no reason for me to set up a QT to disprove your theory. You're the one with the theory - either you prove it - or dont prove it - but It's not for everyone else to prove what you're saying. You say there is a resistant strain of velvet - you prove it if you desire - with all due respect for your knowledge and work - you havent done so.

I find your claims irresponsible.

How else do you want me to prove it??????????????????????????????????????????????????

I've said it till I'm irritated. I proved it by Retreating the fish for only 14 days above 2.0ppm. What else do you need?

 

[Dolelo96]

Velvet wiped out my tank September 2018. Velvet the disease terrifies me. The title of this thread, not so much. I appreciate any and all information on this topic and am perfectly capable of forming my own conclusions. I value the opinions of these people. They voluntarily spend countless hours helping people they don’t even know. If I had paid attention to all the info they had gathered, I may still have a healthy tank full of fish.

 

[drstardust]

I find your claims irresponsible.

How else do you want me to prove it??????????????????????????????????????????????????

I've said it till I'm irritated. I proved it by Retreating the fish for only 14 days above 2.0ppm. What else do you need?

You mean you can't create a parallel universe in which you would have treated the fish for 14 more days at 1.75ppm??????

(Just trying to smooth things out with some humor )

 

[MnFish1]

I find your claims irresponsible.

How else do you want me to prove it??????????????????????????????????????????????????

I've said it till I'm irritated. I proved it by Retreating the fish for only 14 days above 2.0ppm. What else do you need?

I've answered it. Again - as I said before (and a couple of others have asked as well) - what would have happened if you had put the fish back in at 1.75? You dont know. And as I also said - If I were you I may have also increased the dose - thinking perhaps 1.75was not enough - because I wouldn't have wanted to lose a ton of fish. I also said that the literature on QT is 10-14 days MINIMUM for velvet - and that based on that information - you guys are kind of pressing it to avoid higher exposure to copper (with which I also said I agreed).

However - the fact that you decided to use 2-2.5 - doesnt mean that 1.75 for 14-28 days would not have worked. Im not sure why youre irritated - I've repeated the same thing 3 times and you're not paying attention - or am I miscommunicating"?

I really dont get your misunderstanding. ?

 

[HotRocks]

You mean you can't create a parallel universe in which you would have treated the fish for 14 more days at 1.75ppm??????

(Just trying to smooth things out with some humor )

The entire point is I know treating fish in copper for 30 days works. However if it survives 1.75ppm for 14 days it can survive it for 30 days.

I have successfully treated fish both in 14 days and 30 days at 1.75ppm.

He just can't seem to grasp the fact that 14 days north of 2.0ppm worked when 1.75ppm didn't.

 

[MnFish1]

The entire point is I know treating fish in copper for 30 days works. However if it survives 1.75ppm for 14 days it can survive it for 30 days.

I have successfully treated fish both in 14 days and 30 days at 1.75ppm.

He just can't seem to grasp the fact that 14 days north of 2.0ppm worked when 1.75ppm didn't.

LOL - dont paraphrase what I can grasp and what I cant. The error in the testing for copper is such that there is not much difference between 1.75 and 2. we covered this weeks ago. There is also lots of data out there that suggests that the higher the dose of copper the higher the rick for long term damage to the fish. The thread also implies that there is 'resistant velvet' out there - which hasn't been shown.

So all 'he' (I) is saying is that perhaps a longer dose of copper at 1.75 (which is recommended by most biosecurity protocols) - despite the opinion here - (ie longer than 14 days) would have resulted in a better outcome. And that - if there is resistant velvet out there - that rather than increasing the dose of copper - a better solution MAY be the use of chloroquine.

I understand that the only 'correct' answer here is what the experts say - because they have QT'd hundreds of fish - losing (who knows ) how many (note thats not an insult - you guys have said you've lost many fish using your methods just recently) so - to question the method - I dont think is completely out of the ball park.

 

[MnFish1]

The entire point is I know treating fish in copper for 30 days works. However if it survives 1.75ppm for 14 days it can survive it for 30 days.

BTW this is the first time I've heard this - I had thought until now - that you had success with 1.75 for 14 days - I never knew that you had failures at 30 days with 1.75 . If thats the case you're right this is a totally ridiculous discussion - and maybe I missed it - but I dont recall ever hearing this before (that you treated fish at 1.75 for 30 days - and then they developed velvet). Note - this would not be the same as treating for 14 days - having a failure and then treating for 14 more days - but rather 30 straight days - If I missed something - that was posted previously that suggested this - I humbly apologize.

 

[Brew12]

When an organism 'gains' resistance to an antibiotic - an anti parasitic, etc - it becomes resistant for the most part many times higher than the usual dose - ie. if a staph bacteria is resistant t to penicillin - increasing the dose from 250 mg 4 times a day to 500 mg 4 times /day is very very very unlikely to be affective. In this case the posters are recommending an increase in dose from 1.75 t o 2.00 copper. This by itself does not make sense in the real 'pharmacology' world.

It is also unlikely that a 250mg treatment 4 times a day in a 150 pound person would work but not work in a treatment for a person who weighted 200 pounds even though there would be a significant difference in effective dose. We know through scientific testing that 1.75ppm is (or arguably has been) effective but a 25% reduction from that is not. I feel the difference is the exposure time. When you are treating with antibiotics for 10 to 14 or more days the bacteria is exposed the entire time. When treating a parasite with copper your window of exposure can be as little as a few minutes.

No offense - the fact that you have been predicting it doesnt mean that it has happened - if it had - IMHO it would require far higher than a 15 percent increase in dosage to 'fix it'. In other words - If they had said - there MIGHT be copper resistant velvet out there - use CP instead - that makes scientific and common sense. Saying (again my opinion) - there IS copper resistant velvet out there so we're increasing our dose from 1.75 to 2 - makes no sense. Again no offense to the OP.

I would agree it would have been better to say that there MIGHT be a copper resistant strain but I would call it word lawyering since they backed up that phrase with their experience. Those comments made it clear it was personal experience and opinion and not scientifically proven fact. Had they made that comment, unsupported in a scientific journal, I would agree it was inappropriate. I would argue that getting the word out quickly was more important than worrying about misleading someone that a thorough scientific study was conducted.

Again - if you're saying - its inevitable - then perhaps their whole protocol makes no sense. Perhaps the recommendation should have been to change the QT protocol to chloroquine?

It is absolutely inevitable that copper resistant strains evolve, just like every antibiotic will eventually become worthless which is why new ones must continuously be developed. This does not mean that using antibiotics as a treatment protocol doesn't make sense.
As for CP, it has plenty of problems with it also. Plenty of work needs to be, and is being, done to see if a reliable manner of using it can be developed for hobbyists.
But, this entire concept is why I support all of the effort people put in to trying to find ways around all of the treatments currently in use. The hobby and it's challenges are constantly changing and the more possible paths we can go down and share information on the better imo.

 

[Mortie31]

It is absolutely inevitable that copper resistant strains evolve,

If this is true, then why is copper still being advocated for prophylactic treatment? surely people should be using it as sparingly as possible and only on confirmed diagnosis of disease. The antibiotic example you give is a prime example of it, overuse in the wrong indications have led to resistance and now were desperately trying to resolve this with lots of education about only using it when therapeutically indicated... surely the ethical stance for R2R and @HotRocks @4FordFamily to start taking, is to reserve copper purely for treatment...