BAD NEWS - Velvet Strain Survives 1.75 PPM Copper!

[4FordFamily]

IMHO - the reason I researched this is because this is really pretty groundbreaking if there (are) documented strains of resistant velvet. Its too bad - as someone suggested that you didn't try to re-treat with 1.75 - because a bit contrary to what you say - the higher levels will probably not effect the attached parasites (i.e. 2.00 vs 1.75) - but a longer time may very well have. I only think this because if the velvet were truly resistant - the vast likelyh0od is that they would not respond to 2 vs 1.75. But very well could respond if the issue were merely the parasites were hanging onto the fish longer than the QT time....

This might suggest that the paper quoted above 'at least 2-3 weeks' treatment is recommended. So - rather than there being resistant velvet out there - I propose that some fish need a longer QT time than your protocol - and thus - when placed into the 14 day - if they do ok - you're all good - but you cant say its 'resistant velvet' just because they develop it after 14 days - and then into the clean tank.

Please tell me if im incorrect - but - my interpretation was not that changing the dose of your protocol from 1.75 to 2 is warranted - but rather stating that even with 1.75 copper for 2 weeks - some fish may slip through (thats why you do the QT the way you do anyway - correct)?

My thoughts are that if velvet can complete it's life cycle several times (or even once) in 14 days in therapeutic copper, it can do the same in 30, probably 60, 120, and perhaps perpetually.

I would love for someone to step up to test these theories. My primary goal is to have healthy fish for my tanks, the research/results are secondary. I could have bought a nice car for what this has cost me already, literally LOL! I am not saying you or anyone are wrong, only my own belief based on my interpretation of the data. The truth is that my protocol came from @Humblefish. I've not researched as extensively as he has, in fact I imagine no one in the U.S. has. I respect his authority on said matters more than anyone, period -- he has told me many times the science that led to his method (which we stole and made small alterations to -- none of which involved the 14 days) and tested slight variations of it. We didn't reinvent the wheel. People are free to extend to 3 weeks, or a month. I just don't think it would matter, personally. If one generation can reproduce, I imagine they can continue for a much longer period of time.

I could be 100% wrong. Perhaps three weeks at 1.75PPM would fix the issue, I have my own doubts but I hope the master chimes in. I'd take anything he says to the bank.

To be frank, there are probably hundreds of thousands of different tests that could be run to test if my claim here is correct. I won't be doing many of them, if any -- but there are many. I am only sharing my interpretation of the data/symptoms based on my own experience/anecdote. I disclaim again, that we are not marine biologists, scientists, nor true researchers. We are just people trying our best to make sense of the fish disease landscape and provide people with meaningful ways to keep parasites out of their display tanks with a specific process, clearly outlined to follow. To this end, as a group we had previously been quite successful it seems. Many seem to benefit from said process. We've discovered it's not 100% effective (but then again, what IS 100% effective in science?), so I/we are providing our interpretation of this information and a suggestion as a result. People are free to read the thread and come up with their own conclusions. I do not have all the answers, but I do have an empty wallet, a lot of experience, and a will to help others as best I can.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

@MnFish1
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?

First of all I am not claiming that the OP has done anything wrong in the process of attempting QT.
1. Precise pathogen identification might improve outcomes via correct treatment so that is a given.
2. Prophylactic treatment as mentioned in the paper you cited immonusuppresses the fish making other agents the possible cause of death. Again in the paper you quoted bacteria became the causative agent.
3. This could be possible since there might exist a relationship between the natural flora and fauna of a fish that prevents this level of infection in the wild. We are all currently behind the curve on natural solutions or prevention in animal and human populations. Read something on the Blue Zones for human populations to see what I mean here. You are the scientist and I am clearly not. I only have experience and observation to support my theories. However, my reading comprehension is a little above average and as such I read widely.

The paper also noted the importance of U.V. in the eventual success of a reset of the system. In many instances I think there is great importance in the correct application of mechanical, biological, ozone, and UV sterelization in a large bioload system like a retail or wholesale holding system. If you look at many collector operations they have pump and dump systems from the surrounding sea water just due to the economic benefit. Some use holding tanks that have large filtration (wet/dry) systems that are backed up by frequent water changes from local water sources. This is the first step in the chain and they often ship to large wholesalers like Quality Marine directly. This is the second step. In the past Quality Marine used wet/dry filtration with mechanical, and large UV sterelization. From there the next step was often the retail store.

I have no current knowledge of Quality Marine's use or non use of copper. In the past they reduced the salinity in the fish only holding systems. I always had the highest level of success personally and as well as for the number of fish stores we converted to systems similar to Quality Marine designs. I never used copper at any level after the use of those type of systems. Just my experience. I did attempt for a number of months or years to overcome losses by prophylactic means and the loss rates were very high! I finally got on a plane and visited the wholesalers in Los Angeles and other ares talking to and observing their practice and success. My loss rates plummeted as a result of proper system design.

I used WSU on one occasion to correctly diagnose fish disease before treatment of one large system. That was necessary to provide science to the customer to assure them that we had indeed solved the problem for them and provide the solution. The solution was an inline chiller and UV sterelization. No more fish losses due to disease. We restocked their display from fish in our holding system that had a similar design without any prophylactic measures, just observation and nutrition. We held their specimens for 30 days before introduction to the display. Disease agent was Tricodina that became pathogenic due to high water temperature and lack of UV to prevent pathogenic levels of the cilliate.

 

[4FordFamily]

Agreed.. Even though I have been in the reef hobby 30 + years and even longer saltwater fish, diseases are my weak point so I appreciate everything all these guys do in this thread.

If I ever meet you guys I owe ya a beer or what ever ya drink...

We appreciate you, but you don't owe us anything. Thanks for the kind words, however.

 

[4FordFamily]

I used WSU on one occasion to correctly diagnose fish disease before treatment of one large system. That was necessary to provide science to the customer to assure them that we had indeed solved the problem for them and provide the solution. The solution was an inline chiller and UV sterelization. No more fish losses due to disease. We restocked their display from fish in our holding system that had a similar design without any prophylactic measures, just observation and nutrition. We held their specimens for 30 days before introduction to the display. Disease agent was Tricodina that became pathogenic due to high water temperature and lack of UV to prevent pathogenic levels of the cilliate.

This is pretty fascinating. I wonder if there is a transferable way to do this in much smaller systems. I hypothesize that our much smaller systems make this several orders of magitude more difficult than large aquaria, but perhaps there is a way to scale this back for use reliably in the hobby. I'd like to think if there was, it would be there. That assumption though is poor and I am always surprised. I'd love more specific anecdotes from many users in say 200 gallon systems long-term with fish like Achilles tangs and powder blue tangs. There has to be a better way.

But until there is, I still have fish to protect and a wish to keep difficult fish.

 

[cancun]

I was following along! Good info! Also interesting article! Thanks @4FordFamily and @HotRocks for all your hard work and sharing your findings with us on fish disease! [emoji16]

 

[Lasse]

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.

Here in Sweden - it is common with direct import of fishes from Indonesia and the Philippines - but never from Hawaii. During the last 10 - 15 years I have been with importing more than 20 000 fishes from SriLanka, Indonesia and Philippines – never ever seen this type of problems that you report in the US. And it has not been any rise in incoming sick fishes the recent years. Now I´m talking about direct imported fishes – not about fishes coming from wholesalers.


But please – take a step back and see what´s happen – now it is 1.75 ppm Cu – what will it be in a year or two? You are fighting organisms that have survive for millions of years during many environmental conditions. They have short reproduction time and the evolution answer fast in different environments – they will sooner or later develop resistance to whatever you put in that not kill the fish. With the strategy you use now – you win some combats, but you will surly lose the war sooner or later. What will you do when the parasite withstands higher concentration of Cu than the fish? Combine the CU with another chemical and think it will work for some years? Yes, it will – for some years – after that you have the same problem again. We have seen this clearly with antibiotics. If the situation is as bad as you say – maybe it is time to avoid the more sensitive species in order not to develop super strains of bacteria/ parasites and other pathogens that will kill even fishes that is not sensitive to the strains that exist today? Someone must ask that question sooner or later.


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Billldg]

@4FordFamily , do you think it survived the 1.75 level of CP or could it have been the fact that 14 days maybe isn't long enough, maybe 30 to 35 days in CP is needed.

 

[4FordFamily]

@4FordFamily , do you think it survived the 1.75 level of CP or could it have been the fact that 14 days maybe isn't long enough, maybe 30 to 35 days in CP is needed.

Unsure for certain but I think it far more likely the copper level due to the very fast life cycle of velvet.

 

[HotRocks]

@4FordFamily , do you think it survived the 1.75 level of CP or could it have been the fact that 14 days maybe isn't long enough, maybe 30 to 35 days in CP is needed.

Well based on previous success, I don't think it was the timeframe. I have treated several batches of fish the same way for 14 days at 1.75ppm (with clear velvet afflictions) and cleared them no problem.

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1
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?

First of all I am not claiming that the OP has done anything wrong in the process of attempting QT.
1. Precise pathogen identification might improve outcomes via correct treatment so that is a given.
2. Prophylactic treatment as mentioned in the paper you cited immonusuppresses the fish making other agents the possible cause of death. Again in the paper you quoted bacteria became the causative agent.
3. This could be possible since there might exist a relationship between the natural flora and fauna of a fish that prevents this level of infection in the wild. We are all currently behind the curve on natural solutions or prevention in animal and human populations. Read something on the Blue Zones for human populations to see what I mean here. You are the scientist and I am clearly not. I only have experience and observation to support my theories. However, my reading comprehension is a little above average and as such I read widely.

The paper also noted the importance of U.V. in the eventual success of a reset of the system. In many instances I think there is great importance in the correct application of mechanical, biological, ozone, and UV sterelization in a large bioload system like a retail or wholesale holding system. If you look at many collector operations they have pump and dump systems from the surrounding sea water just due to the economic benefit. Some use holding tanks that have large filtration (wet/dry) systems that are backed up by frequent water changes from local water sources. This is the first step in the chain and they often ship to large wholesalers like Quality Marine directly. This is the second step. In the past Quality Marine used wet/dry filtration with mechanical, and large UV sterelization. From there the next step was often the retail store.

I have no current knowledge of Quality Marine's use or non use of copper. In the past they reduced the salinity in the fish only holding systems. I always had the highest level of success personally and as well as for the number of fish stores we converted to systems similar to Quality Marine designs. I never used copper at any level after the use of those type of systems. Just my experience. I did attempt for a number of months or years to overcome losses by prophylactic means and the loss rates were very high! I finally got on a plane and visited the wholesalers in Los Angeles and other ares talking to and observing their practice and success. My loss rates plummeted as a result of proper system design.

I used WSU on one occasion to correctly diagnose fish disease before treatment of one large system. That was necessary to provide science to the customer to assure them that we had indeed solved the problem for them and provide the solution. The solution was an inline chiller and UV sterelization. No more fish losses due to disease. We restocked their display from fish in our holding system that had a similar design without any prophylactic measures, just observation and nutrition. We held their specimens for 30 days before introduction to the display. Disease agent was Tricodina that became pathogenic due to high water temperature and lack of UV to prevent pathogenic levels of the cilliate.

I agree completely with this Thanks for the summary

 

[MnFish1]

Here in Sweden - it is common with direct import of fishes from Indonesia and the Philippines - but never from Hawaii. During the last 10 - 15 years I have been with importing more than 20 000 fishes from SriLanka, Indonesia and Philippines – never ever seen this type of problems that you report in the US. And it has not been any rise in incoming sick fishes the recent years. Now I´m talking about direct imported fishes – not about fishes coming from wholesalers.


But please – take a step back and see what´s happen – now it is 1.75 ppm Cu – what will it be in a year or two? You are fighting organisms that have survive for millions of years during many environmental conditions. They have short reproduction time and the evolution answer fast in different environments – they will sooner or later develop resistance to whatever you put in that not kill the fish. With the strategy you use now – you win some combats, but you will surly lose the war sooner or later. What will you do when the parasite withstands higher concentration of Cu than the fish? Combine the CU with another chemical and think it will work for some years? Yes, it will – for some years – after that you have the same problem again. We have seen this clearly with antibiotics. If the situation is as bad as you say – maybe it is time to avoid the more sensitive species in order not to develop super strains of bacteria/ parasites and other pathogens that will kill even fishes that is not sensitive to the strains that exist today? Someone must ask that question sooner or later.


Sincerely Lasse

I think this hits the nail on the head.... My issue with the thread is to immediately change recommendations based on 1 batch or 2 or 3 of fish - as compared to 100's that have come before. I guess - I would ask both of you - I Know the tanks are big - but if you're ordering 200 fish / year - that seems high. I dont get it. The key point after my research - would 1.75 x 30 edays have fixed this 'one time instance'. FWIW - as mentioned before - there is evidence that infected fish with velvet - with 24 hours treatment with adequate copper do well. I also don't recommend this.

I think you've jumped the gun recommending 2 ppm copper - without excluding other possibilities (no offense - JMO). The main evidence is not scientific papers and science mumbo jumbo - its based on your own experience with hundreds/thousands of fish...

 

[Lowell Lemon]

This is pretty fascinating. I wonder if there is a transferable way to do this in much smaller systems. I hypothesize that our much smaller systems make this several orders of magitude more difficult than large aquaria, but perhaps there is a way to scale this back for use reliably in the hobby. I'd like to think if there was, it would be there. That assumption though is poor and I am always surprised. I'd love more specific anecdotes from many users in say 200 gallon systems long-term with fish like Achilles tangs and powder blue tangs. There has to be a better way.

But until there is, I still have fish to protect and a wish to keep difficult fish.

My personal opinion is that proper design is of greater importance in young systems. So a fish only system is much better with a well designed filter system backed by UV and ozone with protein skimming. Quality Marine's past owner Phil Shane was such a help to me as a young guy just starting out in the industry. What he taught me paid dividends for my customers.

In a reef system my opinion is that a mature system with filter feeders,macro algae, corals, and related natural methods may eventually "replace" the need for the other filtration methods long term. This is supported by the long term success of individual tanks featured on this forum that seem very stable and healthy.

At what point do we throw up our hands and look at other ways as a possibility? For me it was economics and reputation. If a large percentage of your fish die what is your reputation worth? In retail or wholesale that is a strong motivation. I honestly don't believe you can sustain losses at the rate many experience without huge fallout in the hobby. I for one could no longer afford to treat my business as a hobby. Things had to change and in a hurry. The equipment and design made all the difference of profitable versus continued losses. I just shared what I learned with those who were interested in better results.

 

[HotRocks]

@MnFish1
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?

First of all I am not claiming that the OP has done anything wrong in the process of attempting QT.
1. Precise pathogen identification might improve outcomes via correct treatment so that is a given.
2. Prophylactic treatment as mentioned in the paper you cited immonusuppresses the fish making other agents the possible cause of death. Again in the paper you quoted bacteria became the causative agent.
3. This could be possible since there might exist a relationship between the natural flora and fauna of a fish that prevents this level of infection in the wild. We are all currently behind the curve on natural solutions or prevention in animal and human populations. Read something on the Blue Zones for human populations to see what I mean here. You are the scientist and I am clearly not. I only have experience and observation to support my theories. However, my reading comprehension is a little above average and as such I read widely.

The paper also noted the importance of U.V. in the eventual success of a reset of the system. In many instances I think there is great importance in the correct application of mechanical, biological, ozone, and UV sterelization in a large bioload system like a retail or wholesale holding system. If you look at many collector operations they have pump and dump systems from the surrounding sea water just due to the economic benefit. Some use holding tanks that have large filtration (wet/dry) systems that are backed up by frequent water changes from local water sources. This is the first step in the chain and they often ship to large wholesalers like Quality Marine directly. This is the second step. In the past Quality Marine used wet/dry filtration with mechanical, and large UV sterelization. From there the next step was often the retail store.

I have no current knowledge of Quality Marine's use or non use of copper. In the past they reduced the salinity in the fish only holding systems. I always had the highest level of success personally and as well as for the number of fish stores we converted to systems similar to Quality Marine designs. I never used copper at any level after the use of those type of systems. Just my experience. I did attempt for a number of months or years to overcome losses by prophylactic means and the loss rates were very high! I finally got on a plane and visited the wholesalers in Los Angeles and other ares talking to and observing their practice and success. My loss rates plummeted as a result of proper system design.

I used WSU on one occasion to correctly diagnose fish disease before treatment of one large system. That was necessary to provide science to the customer to assure them that we had indeed solved the problem for them and provide the solution. The solution was an inline chiller and UV sterelization. No more fish losses due to disease. We restocked their display from fish in our holding system that had a similar design without any prophylactic measures, just observation and nutrition. We held their specimens for 30 days before introduction to the display. Disease agent was Tricodina that became pathogenic due to high water temperature and lack of UV to prevent pathogenic levels of the cilliate.

Lowell very interesting.

Out of curiosity, how many years ago are we talking? I know from previous threads you were in the business at one time.

Is it fair to say as time has gone on things have possibly worsened? I don't have a fair comparison, but the general consensus seems to be that as time goes on these things keep getting worse and worse.

 

[MnFish1]

Unsure for certain but I think it far more likely the copper level due to the very fast life cycle of velvet.

What do you base this on - again no offense - after reading - I think the exact opposite. And - BTW I'm no expert. But it doesnt make sense that 1.75 ppm +- .05 (your test) is that different than 2 ppm +- .05 ppm. It cant work that way....

 

[4FordFamily]

What do you base this on - again no offense - after reading - I think the exact opposite. And - BTW I'm no expert. But it doesnt make sense that 1.75 ppm +- .05 (your test) is that different than 2 ppm +- .05 ppm. It cant work that way....

I’m not sure what you don’t understand. If velvet can survive 1.75 PPM copper enough to reproduce, why would it suddenly stop reproducing at 30 days? 14 days is 5-8 life cycles of velvet roughly.

 

[4FordFamily]

I think this hits the nail on the head.... My issue with the thread is to immediately change recommendations based on 1 batch or 2 or 3 of fish - as compared to 100's that have come before. I guess - I would ask both of you - I Know the tanks are big - but if you're ordering 200 fish / year - that seems high. I dont get it. The key point after my research - would 1.75 x 30 edays have fixed this 'one time instance'. FWIW - as mentioned before - there is evidence that infected fish with velvet - with 24 hours treatment with adequate copper do well. I also don't recommend this.

I think you've jumped the gun recommending 2 ppm copper - without excluding other possibilities (no offense - JMO). The main evidence is not scientific papers and science mumbo jumbo - its based on your own experience with hundreds/thousands of fish...

Again, if you want to test those theories with your own time in capital I would greatly appreciate that. I think that would be very useful to the community. You’re free to disagree with me. No problem.

 

[MnFish1]

Here is a question for @HotRocks, etc. The new 'thing' about your QT process (compared to what is generally recommended) is - is that its 14 days in one tank with copper and then second tank without for 14 days observation. What if the real answer is that it takes 21 days (at least) in copper - you could be lucky, your QT method could be incorrect (ie 14 days is too few). But the vast majority of the time - it works out fine (and that makes sense - the vast majority of the time). But - the literature suggest that 2 weeks is the minimum in copper to QT for velvet - so you did that - you put the fish in another tank - and rarely - they get velvet - My only comment is - that does not suggest that you have a strain of velvet resistant to copper - instead - it suggests you were lucky with your QT protocol - which until now has worked - as it should - but it doesnt at all suggest or say you have a resistant strain of velvet to copper.
Plus you used chelated copper.... which may be less effective - according to the literature.

Note this is not a slam or criticism - but if you're going to come out and 'tell' hobbyists to use x vs y dose of medication - it seems you should have better evidence - or at least a better review of the available data on these things. No offense.

 

[Big G]

It had to remain on the fish.

This ^^^ could be a very important statement.

For example, if the trophont releases from feeding upon the fish . . . and in becoming the tomont encysts inside the gills, not falling away from the fish as the diagrams always portray, but rather remains inside the gills, cocooned in the mucous we have a problem. As Noga pointed out that while in that stage, copper levels would need to be more than 10x higher to kill the parasite. So as long as the fish and the parasites were in the QT at therapeutic, there was no recurrence of the parasites.

So fish moved to a new fresh QT could be "carriers" of the latent (Noga) parasite, free to begin the cycle again.

An examination of the gill tissues before moving to the fresh QT would be of interest.

 

[MnFish1]

I’m not sure what you don’t understand. If velvet can survive 1.75 PPM copper enough to reproduce, why would it suddenly stop reproducing at 30 days? 14 days is 5-8 life cycles of velvet roughly.

The difference between the 2 doses is trivial. given the margin of error of the testing. In the ONLY paper suggesting any resistance to copper it was 10 x the dose you are using now. Its really unlikely that changing from 1.75 to 2 will make a difference. And - if I were recommending a protoco0l for QT as you guys are - I would not base it on 1 example of a problem. I would investigate whatever else besides copper resistance (that has Never Been published) could have caused the problem. - again no offense - but how many people have chimed in - let alone the ones that haven't - that are changing the copper levels based on this. After reading - it makes no sense. Again - no offense - hopefully next time you guys will do your homework and read before writing.

 

[MnFish1]

Again, if you want to test those theories with your own time in capital I would greatly appreciate that. I think that would be very useful to the community. You’re free to disagree with me. No problem.

You're a reefsquad member with a reef excellence award - I hold you to a higher accountability than the average poster. If that hurts you - im sorry. Actually I asked a question - why are you needing to buy hundreds of fish yearly if you have a successful aquarium (even a 500 gallon and 180 gallon and whatever else)..... My conclusion - is your QT protocol MIGHT be incorrect. You just cant see it... for some reason