BAD NEWS - Velvet Strain Survives 1.75 PPM Copper!

[MnFish1]

We've ordered from three different wholesalers for both batches, and I venture to guess they supply about 75% of marine fish. I don't want to name any names, but we haven't isolated it to anywhere. You could be right, however.

Just want to suggest - that having 3 different wholesalers simultaneously develop resistant strains (strain) of velvet would be highly unlikely - unless multiple other people were reporting the same thing at the same time. It suggests that perhaps there was an error in copper dosage or some other cross contamination? I know you guys are careful - but the fact that this hasn't happened before - (in any of the research I have seen - as I said except 1 poster session from 2011) but now has occurred from 3 different places makes some kind of problem with your QT process more likely (or?).

 

[MnFish1]

Easier to copy and paste so if read already in the other thread disregard [emoji23]

Food for thought, given the current view of dinoflagellate evolution is that they were protists that engulfed bacteria and added their dna to themselves, theoretically how they gained photosynthesis. Could a modern day velvet organism also gain copper tolerance through heterotrophic channels of Cu-utilizing proteins, like HAH1. Given the reproduction rates, and the positive reinforcement to this particular adaptation in a copper quarantine, would the hobby be able to unknowingly create said strain.

There are also multiple examples of bacteria developing resistance to copper. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316130951.htm

 

[4FordFamily]

Just want to suggest - that having 3 different wholesalers simultaneously develop resistant strains (strain) of velvet would be highly unlikely - unless multiple other people were reporting the same thing at the same time. It suggests that perhaps there was an error in copper dosage or some other cross contamination? I know you guys are careful - but the fact that this hasn't happened before - (in any of the research I have seen - as I said except 1 poster session from 2011) but now has occurred from 3 different places makes some kind of problem with your QT process more likely (or?).

I cannot prove anything, but you cannot find someone more thorough and anal than @HotRocks. Hanna checker is pretty accurate.

It hasn't occurred from 3 different places, I am saying each of the two batches of fish were sourced from 3 locations. In essence, I cannot isolate which source brought such strain of velvet. It may only be one, it may be all of them, I cannot know because we haven't isolated it and cannot because we didn't buy from only one source. Perhaps my communication was unclear on that, so I apologize for that.

The reason others haven't run in to it is how few hobbyists quarantine ~200+ fish in a year? The odds are against us at such scale, obviously.

I cannot rule out that we are just completely incompetent, and as I said in the original post this hasn't been "confirmed" by science, solely anecdote. People can make their own choices as to whether or not to heed my warning. My job was to get it out there, I am not funding or performing any scientific research, nor do I have the time/expertise/resources to do so.

 

[absowry]

After 14 day. Velvet has a 48 hour life cycle, as best we know. So in the case of velvet I wouldn't think the timeline all that important - but we are repeatedly learning. That timeline is more for ich (crypt).

Would it be possible to nuke the tank with copper, say 2-2.5 or 3ppm for 48-60 hours and then lower the copper back down to safer levels for the remainder of the 14 day period? This (in theory) would not give velvet a chance to survive the copper, but my help to bolster the survivability of the quarantine process from secondary infections or just copper sensitivity.

 

[Big G]

According to Noga, while the free swimming "dinospore is susceptible to chemotherapy (Paperna, 1984; Lawler, 1980), but trophonts and tomonts are resistant, making eradication difficult. For example, tomonts tolerate copper concentrations that are over 10 times the levels that are toxic to dinospores (Paperna, 1984). Even tomonts inhibited from dividing can often resume dividing when returned to untreated water (Paperna et al., 1981)."

And then Noga states "The most widely used treatment is copper (Bower, 1983; Cardeilhac & Whitaker, 1988), which will control outbreaks, but some parasites may remain latent on the fish (C.E. Bower, Unpublished Data).

Had not paid much attention to this ^^^ (red for emphasis) from Noga until now. Is he suggesting that fish may have tomonts encysted on the fish that may outlast and make it past copper? Yikes!

 

[MnFish1]

I cannot prove anything, but you cannot find someone more thorough and anal than @HotRocks. Hanna checker is pretty accurate.

I have no doubts as to how good you both are. And I mentioned that in my post.

It hasn't occurred from 3 different places, I am saying each of the two batches of fish were sourced from 3 locations. In essence, I cannot isolate which source brought such strain of velvet. It may only be one, it may be all of them, I cannot know because we haven't isolated it and cannot because we didn't buy from only one source. Perhaps my communication was unclear on that, so I apologize for that.

This clarifies a lot - but also brings up another question - Am I understanding correctly - that you received several batches of fish (3) from different wholesalers - and then QT'ed them together in copper (or your usual method)? - and then all of the fish got velvet? And this happened 2x? Or is that you got fish from 3 different wholesalers and then QT'd them (the 3 batches) separately and they all got velvet in Copper (Im guessing this is NOT how you did it). BTW - if you did do it that way - it might be helpful to separate fish from different sources when QT'ing - again - I'm not criticising - just asking - because the details are unclear.

The reason others haven't run in to it is how few hobbyists quarantine ~200+ fish in a year? The odds are against us at such scale, obviously.

Im imagining (as you suggest) that whatever resistance occurred did not happen in your tank - rather was present in the velvet originally - so - it seems that it would be more widespread than just your system (if a resistant strain had developed) - lots of people use copper.

I cannot rule out that we are just completely incompetent, and as I said in the original post this hasn't been "confirmed" by science, solely anecdote. People can make their own choices as to whether or not to heed my warning. My job was to get it out there, I am not funding or performing any scientific research, nor do I have the time/expertise/resources to do so.

This is a little strong... I never even vaguely hinted you were completely incompetent (or incompetent at all). Nor did I suggest that you do a scientific study or fund one. However when I look at the big picture - as you said you've done QT hundreds of times and this problem happened 2 times. There is really no literature (except that one poster - that is not visible online at all) that suggests that copper resistance has occurred in amyloodinium. So - I was only suggesting that it may have been something else.

PS - I believe I also said thanks for all of your hard work on this.... So - none of what I'm saying relates to your work or methods or is an any way personal.

 

[MnFish1]

According to Noga, while the free swimming "dinospore is susceptible to chemotherapy (Paperna, 1984; Lawler, 1980), but trophonts and tomonts are resistant, making eradication difficult. For example, tomonts tolerate copper concentrations that are over 10 times the levels that are toxic to dinospores (Paperna, 1984). Even tomonts inhibited from dividing can often resume dividing when returned to untreated water (Paperna et al., 1981)."

And then Noga states "The most widely used treatment is copper (Bower, 1983; Cardeilhac & Whitaker, 1988), which will control outbreaks, but some parasites may remain latent on the fish (C.E. Bower, Unpublished Data).

Had not paid much attention to this ^^^ (red for emphasis) from Noga until now. Is he suggesting that fish may have tomonts encysted on the fish that may outlast and make it past copper? Yikes!

This is possible according to what I read. Supposedly also can happen with CI - which is unlikely in both cases. Numerous sources that I read concerning the use of Copper suggest that you may need multiple treatments though - after 24 hours - most of the parasites living on the fish have left - and if the fish is transferred to another tank - sometimes only the 24 hour treatment is needed.

 

[shred5]

Formalin is a viable option. More harsh than copper. Copper is still the best treatment option IMO. We just need to increase the level we are treating at based on this recent chain of events.

A bath or directly in quarantine? I have used it for Brook on clowns in the past as a bath only? I have not had Brook in so long I do not even know the proper treatment anymore for it.

Yea we have one LFS that started using therapeutic levels of copper on a big chunk of their tanks for less sensitive species. What is weird is I have never seen anything that says they do either.

There are allot of sick fish all of a sudden... I wont even touch a blue/green chromis right now.
Only thing I can think of is with Hawaii shutting down these fish are coming from places with lesser facilities and are not providing as good care for these fish.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

@4FordFamily & @HotRocks
I guess this only confirms some of my concerns with prophylactic treatment of fish.

First, all fish in the wild have or are exposed to paracites and bacteria every moment of every day. Second, the use of chemicals and antibiotics without clear identification of the causative organisms leads to the rise of possible resistant organisms that do not occur in nature. The absolute worst outcome would be for those organisms to develop and make it back into the surrounding oceans.

I am more than a little concerned with the unsubstantiated claim that this is the result of the distribution chain in its entirety. You assume that copper is used commonly along the chain and that may or may not be the case. I have personally toured some of the largest facilities in the world and would never make such a claim.

Without clear protocols you run the risk of increasing the problem not decreasing the problem. MERSA is a clear indication of the problem in the human population. The reckless use of chemicals and drugs leads to these results.

Copper is an immunosuppressive chemical for the fish and as a result it is possible that the protocol is in fact favoring the disease and not the fish.

Let's not let this become a cautionary tale that results in the rise of more resistant organisms in the world. We need better methodology than a protocol based on assumptions. I believe we disadvantage the fish by the use of chemical and drug treatments that may kill the very flora and fauna the helps them to remain healthy in their natural environment.

 

[AcanthurusRex]

Unlikely to make it back to the wild since most people at the end of the distribution change will simply lose all the livestock and the parasite will die.
What sterilization procedure did you observe while touring this facility? Should be obvious since to be effective the system would need to be sterilized often, ideally after every shipment.
I am making the assumption that sub-therapeutic levels of copper are used to suppress the parasite until the problem is passed on the hobbyist. Unless proven otherwise this it is my responsibility to prevent my long-lived livestock from getting subjected to life-threatening disease in my un-natural box of water. Neither of these diseases is a threat in the wild.

 

[ReefWithCare]

Maybe Copper Power's instructions to go to 2.5PPM that most of thought was crazy to do is what we should be aiming at. I've seen toxic results when hitting 3.0+ PPM (thanks Fritz for your crappy QC btws), but I've been in 2.25 and in the low 2s when correcting the overdosage and the fish were fine.

 

[HotRocks]

@4FordFamily & @HotRocks
I guess this only confirms some of my concerns with prophylactic treatment of fish.

First, all fish in the wild have or are exposed to paracites and bacteria every moment of every day. Second, the use of chemicals and antibiotics without clear identification of the causative organisms leads to the rise of possible resistant organisms that do not occur in nature. The absolute worst outcome would be for those organisms to develop and make it back into the surrounding oceans.

I am more than a little concerned with the unsubstantiated claim that this is the result of the distribution chain in its entirety. You assume that copper is used commonly along the chain and that may or may not be the case. I have personally toured some of the largest facilities in the world and would never make such a claim.

Without clear protocols you run the risk of increasing the problem not decreasing the problem. MERSA is a clear indication of the problem in the human population. The reckless use of chemicals and drugs leads to these results.

Copper is an immunosuppressive chemical for the fish and as a result it is possible that the protocol is in fact favoring the disease and not the fish.

Let's not let this become a cautionary tale that results in the rise of more resistant organisms in the world. We need better methodology than a protocol based on assumptions. I believe we disadvantage the fish by the use of chemical and drug treatments that may kill the very flora and fauna the helps them to remain healthy in their natural environment.

I'm certainly not claiming anyone is doing anything. You are definitely entitled to your opinion.

I won't be changing my way of prophylactic treatment anytime soon. We receive very large orders anytime we are treating a batch 40-60+ fish. I can't even tell you when the last batch of fish I received that all of the fish were healthy and didn't have symptoms. I have seen bacterial issues, velvet afflictions, and Uronema symptoms on fish right out of the bag. So yes I will continue to chemically treat any fish that will be staying with me long term. It's not worth risking my entire DT population.

 

[MnFish1]

@4FordFamily & @HotRocks
I guess this only confirms some of my concerns with prophylactic treatment of fish.

First, all fish in the wild have or are exposed to paracites and bacteria every moment of every day. Second, the use of chemicals and antibiotics without clear identification of the causative organisms leads to the rise of possible resistant organisms that do not occur in nature. The absolute worst outcome would be for those organisms to develop and make it back into the surrounding oceans.

I am more than a little concerned with the unsubstantiated claim that this is the result of the distribution chain in its entirety. You assume that copper is used commonly along the chain and that may or may not be the case. I have personally toured some of the largest facilities in the world and would never make such a claim.

Without clear protocols you run the risk of increasing the problem not decreasing the problem. MERSA is a clear indication of the problem in the human population. The reckless use of chemicals and drugs leads to these results.

Copper is an immunosuppressive chemical for the fish and as a result it is possible that the protocol is in fact favoring the disease and not the fish.

Let's not let this become a cautionary tale that results in the rise of more resistant organisms in the world. We need better methodology than a protocol based on assumptions. I believe we disadvantage the fish by the use of chemical and drug treatments that may kill the very flora and fauna the helps them to remain healthy in their natural environment.

There are plenty of protocols for QT (many published articles - and many 'biosecurity protocols' from aquaria and zoos around the world). No problem with your post above - but what specifically do you think they did incorrectly? Am I understanding correctly?:
1. They did not identify the precise pathogen?
2. They are using a protocol that is 'incorrect'?
3. The fish they had may have had subclinical amyloodinium - which was then caused to 'bloom' because the immune system was damaged by copper?

I have been looking at research on this parasite all day just because its interesting. I contacted the authors of the one poster about 'resistance to copper' have not heard back - but interestingly - the title is: Copper Resistant Amyloodininosis and Possible Immunosuppression in Marine Fish.

RuthEllen Klinger, Ruth Francis-Floyd and Allen RiggsUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL


Here is another article suggesting that lower salinity allows lower copper levels to be affective. https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/dao/v129/n1/p41-51

 

[4FordFamily]

Would it be possible to nuke the tank with copper, say 2-2.5 or 3ppm for 48-60 hours and then lower the copper back down to safer levels for the remainder of the 14 day period? This (in theory) would not give velvet a chance to survive the copper, but my help to bolster the survivability of the quarantine process from secondary infections or just copper sensitivity.

Theoretically it would help, haven't tested it. Based on the post below, who knows, however.

I have no doubts as to how good you both are. And I mentioned that in my post.



This clarifies a lot - but also brings up another question - Am I understanding correctly - that you received several batches of fish (3) from different wholesalers - and then QT'ed them together in copper (or your usual method)? - and then all of the fish got velvet? And this happened 2x? Or is that you got fish from 3 different wholesalers and then QT'd them (the 3 batches) separately and they all got velvet in Copper (Im guessing this is NOT how you did it). BTW - if you did do it that way - it might be helpful to separate fish from different sources when QT'ing - again - I'm not criticising - just asking - because the details are unclear.



Im imagining (as you suggest) that whatever resistance occurred did not happen in your tank - rather was present in the velvet originally - so - it seems that it would be more widespread than just your system (if a resistant strain had developed) - lots of people use copper.



This is a little strong... I never even vaguely hinted you were completely incompetent (or incompetent at all). Nor did I suggest that you do a scientific study or fund one. However when I look at the big picture - as you said you've done QT hundreds of times and this problem happened 2 times. There is really no literature (except that one poster - that is not visible online at all) that suggests that copper resistance has occurred in amyloodinium. So - I was only suggesting that it may have been something else.

PS - I believe I also said thanks for all of your hard work on this.... So - none of what I'm saying relates to your work or methods or is an any way personal.

I am sorry if you thought I was taking it personally, I am not at all. Sorry if you felt that tone from me. I was simply stating things as I see them. I would assume this is more wide spread than just my system.

To answer your first question, we didn't split quarantine batches by source, rather species/aggression. So they were mixed in to a 55 gallon, a 40 gallon, another 125 gallon, and a 20 gallon. Yet another 125 gallon is the observation tank where they are combined post-treatment. In short, fish were dispersed from various sources, making me unable to isolate the source.

A bath or directly in quarantine? I have used it for Brook on clowns in the past as a bath only? I have not had Brook in so long I do not even know the proper treatment anymore for it.

Yea we have one LFS that started using therapeutic levels of copper on a big chunk of their tanks for less sensitive species. What is weird is I have never seen anything that says they do either.

There are allot of sick fish all of a sudden... I wont even touch a blue/green chromis right now.
Only thing I can think of is with Hawaii shutting down these fish are coming from places with lesser facilities and are not providing as good care for these fish.

The Hawaii example is one of my hypothesis as well. If you're a collector of fish, or a distributor in the region -- if you go to work each week wondering if you'll be allowed to continue said job next week, it's unlikely you or any "executive" making the business decision would invest much in that operation. As cold as it is, it doesn't make a lot of business sense to drop thousands of dollars of capital investment in to anything, or R&D to fix said problem. It is far more likely, in my opinion, that these distributors across the world would begin to cut corners MORE and find ways to INCREASE margins by cutting corners in response, so that they can make more money while they can. This is a likely unintended consequence of all of the bad press and government action in this industry. Regardless of where you stand on it, it's difficult to justify spending more money for something you aren't sure you'll be able to use tomorrow. Fish lives will naturally be secondary to these individuals feeding their families. We can say it's cold, and perhaps it is, but that's reality.

It's not news that many LFS use copper in their systems, I can think of four local LFS that did, and the one I worked at 12 years ago did as well. I hear rumors that facilities utilize copper to keep losses down, which makes perfect sense based on how fish can suddenly arrive sick and die within days. The timelines all line up with the life cycle of various parasites.

In addition, copper doesn't work with brook -- or at least it won't eradicate it, standalone. Metroplex is what we use for this.

 

[MnFish1]

@Lowell Lemon @HotRocks
@4FordFamily
FYI - I was able to find the full text of the presentation on Velvet resistance to Copper - the full text is below. My take home - there may have been resistance to copper in their tanks (by velvet ) - BUT - when they tried to reproduce the experiment after cleaning the tanks (they were using a high dose copper solution) - they found that all the fish died within 48 hours - but the cause was a bacteria infection - as compared to the protozoa.

Copper Resistant Amyloodininosis and Possible Immunosuppression in Marine Fish

RuthEllen Klinger, Ruth Francis-Floyd and Allen RiggsUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Amyloodiniosis can be a devastating parasitic disease for captive marine fish, infecting many species (Noga and Levy, 1995). Within 48 hours, 100% mortalities are known to occur. Like the ciliated protozoan, Cryptocaryon multifilliis, the dinoflagellateAmyloodinium ocellatum has a complex life cycle. Therefore, treatment is difficult; only the dinospore stage is affected by chemotherapy. Prolonged immersion with copper has been the treatment of choice (Cardeilhac and Whitaker, 1988).

Over the last year, a retailer has submitted multiple marine reef species to our University of Florida Fish Diagnostic Laboratory. On three separate visits, heavy infestations ofAmyloodinium ocellatum were observed on the gills, skin, and fins. All incoming fish are exposed to a ten-minute freshwater dip, followed by a 250 ppm formalin dip before being placed into the store’s 1400 gallon (multi-aquaria) display system. This system is also equipped with 250 Watt UV sterilizer, protein skimmer, two biofiltration systems, and kept at maintenance level of chelated copper of 2.0 – 2.5 ppm.

A recommendation was given on each occasion to treat the entire system with the antimalarial drug, Chloroquine diphosphate (Lewis, et al, 1988; Noga, 1996) at a dosage of 10 ppm. Fish appeared to respond quickly and a recheck on survivors three to five days post treatment were Amyloodinium-free.

The resistance of Amyloodinium to a constant copper level was a concern. Although the copper was in the chelated form, measurements of free copper levels were also 2.0 – 2.5 ppm, a ten-fold increase over the recommended 0.1 – 0.2 ppm levels. Since copper has been indicated as a immunosuppressant in fish (O’Neill, 1981; Anderson et al, 1989; Zelikoff, 1993; Austin et al, 1999), our laboratory was concerned that the retailer’s fish may becoming immunosuppressive from present copper levels, making them susceptible to Amyloodinium. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the ten-fold level of copper may have played a role in another outbreak in the same facility. After a complete breakdown and restart of the system, with a fresh dose of 2.5 ppm chelated copper, acute mortalities occurred within 48 hours of introduction of new fish. The etiologic agent in that case was the bacteria, Aeromonas salmonicida. It was suggested to remove the copper with a 100% water change and activated carbon. Fish examined five days later were clean from parasites and bacterial infection.

Because of the complexity of chelated copper and the unknown efficacy (Noga and Levy, 1995, and in this case), we recommended the standard 0.1 – 0.2 ppm free copper maintenance level and ultraviolet sterilization for the retailer’s system. Further studies with chelated copper, immunosuppression, and infectious agents will need to be addressed.

 

[shred5]

The difference is fish in the ocean are going about there everyday life. Fish that come in to the hobby are kept in little containers and bags etc in close quarters with fish they would not normally be next too... They are shipped and thrown packed into small tank at retailers etc. They are really stressed out and are not resistant to diseases at this point. They need our help in some cases or they will die.

 

[4FordFamily]

@4FordFamily & @HotRocks
I guess this only confirms some of my concerns with prophylactic treatment of fish.

First, all fish in the wild have or are exposed to parasites and bacteria every moment of every day. Second, the use of chemicals and antibiotics without clear identification of the causative organisms leads to the rise of possible resistant organisms that do not occur in nature. The absolute worst outcome would be for those organisms to develop and make it back into the surrounding oceans.

I am more than a little concerned with the unsubstantiated claim that this is the result of the distribution chain in its entirety. You assume that copper is used commonly along the chain and that may or may not be the case. I have personally toured some of the largest facilities in the world and would never make such a claim.

Without clear protocols you run the risk of increasing the problem not decreasing the problem. MERSA is a clear indication of the problem in the human population. The reckless use of chemicals and drugs leads to these results.

Copper is an immunosuppressive chemical for the fish and as a result it is possible that the protocol is in fact favoring the disease and not the fish.

Let's not let this become a cautionary tale that results in the rise of more resistant organisms in the world. We need better methodology than a protocol based on assumptions. I believe we disadvantage the fish by the use of chemical and drug treatments that may kill the very flora and fauna the helps them to remain healthy in their natural environment.

1) I share many of your concerns about using medications and 100% agree that this could be leading to the issue we have now. What I'd love is an alternative. My issue is that we don't really have a viable alternative, in my viewpoint. When someone shows me how to keep a group of acanthurus tangs and other expert-level fish (that are not wrasses for example) without prophetically treating for increasingly common parasites, I will be quite happy to investigate it and perhaps utilize it. You and anyone else are free to discount my viewpoints of the necessity of prophylactic treatment, but I've yet to have any substantiated evidence of "parasite maintenance" or another prevention alternative working long-term with the types of fish I wish to keep.

It's unfortunate and also a concern of mine that this is some degree, reactionary, rather than proactive. Prophylactically treating for things I see on every batch seems like common sense, but it's really more of necessity, in my viewpoint. I'd love for that not to be the case. I actually probably dislike it as much or more than you, given the direct financial consequences and also the stress/labor involved with carrying these action out. But IMO, it doesn't add any value for one to say "I don't like this" --- well so what? What do we do about it then? What is the course of action we take instead? I'd like to see the results of whatever that action is.

Our prophylactic treatment system yields many difficult and expert-level fish that are quite susceptible to parasites living well without worry/concern/trouble post-treatment. As unfortunate as it is, I am most concerned with my existing stock. If I kill a fish before it goes to my tank with prophylactic treatment, that's unfortunate. Far less unfortunate than if I killed my tanks full of fish. In my view, they are my primary concern and it is my job first to ensure that they are safe.

2) I don't know how many fish you've received/purchased in the past few years, but for us it is hundreds. Parasite issues are more prevalent than ever. Anecdotal as it is, it can also be seen here in the fish disease forum. I encourage you to participate and peruse it frequently. This is where I spend 90% of my time.

3) With the sheer number of fish going through the systems at the distribution level, the odds of them not having every parasite imaginable are relatively low, unless they have some method undiscovered by us to keep them out. I don't see how this would be economically feasible and many don't house fish long enough to rid the fish anyhow, or even be aware of said parasites.

4) I haven't toured any facilities, I have tested LFS water and been told that they use it. Others here can speak to their own experience, but the evidence seems clear to me that the distribution system is utilizing copper. Not only does it make financial sense, the symptoms of the animals we receive indicate this is a likelihood as well. With certainty I cannot claim anything definitively. But I cannot fault them, even if I am correct, either. If I had that many fish in systems for any amount of time I'd probably make the same executive decision in the short-run. I am not sure what alternative there is to keep velvet from spreading and killing which can take 2-4 days with so many fish sharing a system of water, a lesson I've learned the hard way several times.

If you choose not to buy in to, support, or agree with all or part of my viewpoints, that's fully within your rights. As I have said, I've not funded or performed any real scientific research and this is solely our accounts of our anecdotal "evidence". Everyone is free to make their own choices, and I encourage and appreciate your discourse. I haven't taken anything you've said personally, but wish to keep this productive and helpful to other members of R2R. If my method of doing so isn't to your liking, I welcome you or anyone else to fund, outline, and participate on this great community in a way that helps. I would like nothing more than for "our" methods to be completely unnecessary and outdated.

 

[MnFish1]

@Lowell Lemon @HotRocks@4FordFamily
FYI - I was able to find the full text of the presentation on Velvet resistance to Copper - the full text is below. My take home - there may have been resistance to copper in their tanks (by velvet ) - BUT - when they tried to reproduce the experiment after cleaning the tanks (they were using a high dose copper solution) - they found that all the fish died within 48 hours - but the cause was a bacteria infection - as compared to the protozoa.

Copper Resistant Amyloodininosis and Possible Immunosuppression in Marine Fish

RuthEllen Klinger, Ruth Francis-Floyd and Allen RiggsUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Amyloodiniosis can be a devastating parasitic disease for captive marine fish, infecting many species (Noga and Levy, 1995). Within 48 hours, 100% mortalities are known to occur. Like the ciliated protozoan, Cryptocaryon multifilliis, the dinoflagellateAmyloodinium ocellatum has a complex life cycle. Therefore, treatment is difficult; only the dinospore stage is affected by chemotherapy. Prolonged immersion with copper has been the treatment of choice (Cardeilhac and Whitaker, 1988).

Over the last year, a retailer has submitted multiple marine reef species to our University of Florida Fish Diagnostic Laboratory. On three separate visits, heavy infestations ofAmyloodinium ocellatum were observed on the gills, skin, and fins. All incoming fish are exposed to a ten-minute freshwater dip, followed by a 250 ppm formalin dip before being placed into the store’s 1400 gallon (multi-aquaria) display system. This system is also equipped with 250 Watt UV sterilizer, protein skimmer, two biofiltration systems, and kept at maintenance level of chelated copper of 2.0 – 2.5 ppm.

A recommendation was given on each occasion to treat the entire system with the antimalarial drug, Chloroquine diphosphate (Lewis, et al, 1988; Noga, 1996) at a dosage of 10 ppm. Fish appeared to respond quickly and a recheck on survivors three to five days post treatment were Amyloodinium-free.

The resistance of Amyloodinium to a constant copper level was a concern. Although the copper was in the chelated form, measurements of free copper levels were also 2.0 – 2.5 ppm, a ten-fold increase over the recommended 0.1 – 0.2 ppm levels. Since copper has been indicated as a immunosuppressant in fish (O’Neill, 1981; Anderson et al, 1989; Zelikoff, 1993; Austin et al, 1999), our laboratory was concerned that the retailer’s fish may becoming immunosuppressive from present copper levels, making them susceptible to Amyloodinium. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the ten-fold level of copper may have played a role in another outbreak in the same facility. After a complete breakdown and restart of the system, with a fresh dose of 2.5 ppm chelated copper, acute mortalities occurred within 48 hours of introduction of new fish. The etiologic agent in that case was the bacteria, Aeromonas salmonicida. It was suggested to remove the copper with a 100% water change and activated carbon. Fish examined five days later were clean from parasites and bacterial infection.

Because of the complexity of chelated copper and the unknown efficacy (Noga and Levy, 1995, and in this case), we recommended the standard 0.1 – 0.2 ppm free copper maintenance level and ultraviolet sterilization for the retailer’s system. Further studies with chelated copper, immunosuppression, and infectious agents will need to be addressed.

@4FordFamily what this article/presentation suggests - is rather than increasing the copper level using Chloroquine might be better if you suspect copper resistance. When I first read this article - I thought - it must be copper resistance because when they removed the copper chloroquine resulted in survival. But one problem chloroquine also can kill bacteria. So it's interesting.

 

[HotRocks]

There are plenty of protocols for QT (many published articles - and many 'biosecurity protocols' from aquaria and zoos around the world). No problem with your post above - but what specifically do you think they did incorrectly? Am I understanding correctly?:
1. They did not identify the precise pathogen?
2. They are using a protocol that is 'incorrect'?
3. The fish they had may have had subclinical amyloodinium - which was then caused to 'bloom' because the immune system was damaged by copper?

I have been looking at research on this parasite all day just because its interesting. I contacted the authors of the one poster about 'resistance to copper' have not heard back - but interestingly - the title is: Copper Resistant Amyloodininosis and Possible Immunosuppression in Marine Fish.

RuthEllen Klinger, Ruth Francis-Floyd and Allen RiggsUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL


Here is another article suggesting that lower salinity allows lower copper levels to be affective. https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/dao/v129/n1/p41-51

Interested to see what you hear back. I admire your attentiveness to these types of threads. Your participation and research is much appreciated!

 

[shred5]

The Hawaii example is one of my hypothesis as well. If you're a collector of fish, or a distributor in the region -- if you go to work each week wondering if you'll be allowed to continue said job next week, it's unlikely you or any "executive" making the business decision would invest much in that operation. As cold as it is, it doesn't make a lot of business sense to drop thousands of dollars of capital investment in to anything, or R&D to fix said problem. It is far more likely, in my opinion, that these distributors across the world would begin to cut corners MORE and find ways to INCREASE margins by cutting corners in response, so that they can make more money while they can. This is a likely unintended consequence of all of the bad press and government action in this industry. Regardless of where you stand on it, it's difficult to justify spending more money for something you aren't sure you'll be able to use tomorrow. Fish lives will naturally be secondary to these individuals feeding their families. We can say it's cold, and perhaps it is, but that's reality.

It's not news that many LFS use copper in their systems, I can think of four local LFS that did, and the one I worked at 12 years ago did as well. I hear rumors that facilities utilize copper to keep losses down, which makes perfect sense based on how fish can suddenly arrive sick and die within days. The timelines all line up with the life cycle of various parasites.

In addition, copper doesn't work with brook -- or at least it won't eradicate it, standalone. Metroplex is what we use for this.

There is that too... I was thinking more along the lines that the fish are now coming farther and from lesser facilities now that Hawaii fish have pretty much stopped coming in. . I mean we have to be relying more on fish from like the Philippines which are known for lesser quality and questionable collecting processes. I have also heard that the amount of Indo fish is down because they used to ship both coral and fish. Without coral less fish are being brought in.

That said I see Walt actually did not close up shop now. He has shifted more from coral to shipping fish.

Yea this local Fish store used copper a long time ago in their system but I think they had stopped for a long time. I stopped going to the store for a long time because they would do stuff like have 15 or 20 yellow tangs in a 55 gallon and all starving.
I stopped in their a few months ago and they told me that one of their systems now uses copper at a lower dosage. I forget what he said. It just is weird they do not have a sign saying there is copper in their system so people do not dump them in with inverts.
Anyway the place has cleaned up some and seems to be trying a little more.

No doubt though who want to invest anything nowadays on these unstable islands. Same thing with breeding facilities.