BAD NEWS - Velvet Strain Survives 1.75 PPM Copper!

[HotRocks]

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

@Lasse help me out here. I know you are anti prophylactic treatment. A fish shows up like this... Out of the bag no exaggeration. Actual picture of actual fish received from a well known online vendor (name not mentioned) What would you do with it? Drop it in your DT with 3 acanthurus tangs and feed the heck out of it?

I am just trying to figure out what the solution is for this situation if we aren't to use chemicals...

In case you were wondering that is velvet.

 

[cancun]

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.

IMO it is totally fair to say things have gotten worse over the years. A good point was made about that possibly stemming from the Hawaiian collection/export ban, or another obvious reason is sloppy collection/holding practices from everyone starting at the collection point from the wholesalers down to the LFS. Us as hobbiests are unfortunately left holding the bag with sick or dead fish in the end. It seems they care more about money than the health of the livestock. Which I get the need to make a profit, and we can't control that (unless we leave the hobby altogether), so we as hobbiests need to step up our game I guess. That's why this info and thread is invaluable!

 

[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 answer is as I've said perhaps 2-3 times before - is that resistant organisms are not usually affected by that type of change (i.e. from 1.75 to 2 ppm). On the other hand - as others have said - the length of the dose (i.e. 14 days vs 21 or 28 days) may make a huge difference.... This also goes along with the published literature. It may be that the 14 day QT that you support - isn't adequate 100% of the time. This is IMHO far more likely than resistant velvet (to copper).

You guys are the one with the theory - its not up to me to disprove the theory - its up to you to prove it.....

 

[Lowell Lemon]

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.

I stepped out of the fish life completely in 2004. I was invited into another industry but my company name is still the same. I just switched products and services. I still maintain friendships with many of my past customers and visit their stores often. They still run their systems the same way by all outward appearances and personal conversations. Quality Marine is under different leadership now days and they have changed some equipment designs. I think they have switched to fluidized beds as a biological filter system. I have to wonder if this is not a partial problem versus open trickle towers with high oxygenation in the past?

Just watched a local store open a shipment from QM. I looked at many of the fish in the bag at random and saw nothing out of the ordinary. Questioning the employee he never revealed any higher levels of disease. I would guess about four to five boxes of fish so not a large shippment. Their advantage is close proximity to Los Angeles via airfreight. You can order livestock and get them the next day. Some store owners used to fly down and pick out their orders and fly back with them the next day!

I often purchased LC's of fish, inverts, and live rock at a time. An LC is about 2000lbs in air freaght terms. So I could have 50 plus boxes at a time. I am sure you could smell my truck before you saw me comming! LOL this makes me so nostalgic for the fun of opening all those wonderful boxes of sea life!

So while I hear what you are saying my friends on the West coast still report the same levels of success. Maybe they are just keeping the bad news to themselves but I don't think so. The only way to find out would be to set up a system and take in multiple orders from Los Angeles and see how it goes. I would love to do it but my business currently demands my full attention. QM won't sell to me now unless I set up a retail store anyway since I am persona non grata in the industry now days lol.

 

[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.

BTW - except that at least a couple people ave suggested - based on the science out there - that small amounts of velvet can live on the fish longer than that - and thus - have recommended longer QT times than 14 days (ie. that is the minimum recommended) - hopefully that makes sense.

 

[HotRocks]

The answer is as I've said perhaps 2-3 times before - is that resistant organisms are not usually affected by that type of change (i.e. from 1.75 to 2 ppm). On the other hand - as others have said - the length of the dose (i.e. 14 days vs 21 or 28 days) may make a huge difference.... This also goes along with the published literature. It may be that the 14 day QT that you support - isn't adequate 100% of the time. This is IMHO far more likely than resistant velvet (to copper).

You guys are the one with the theory - its not up to me to disprove the theory - its up to you to prove it.....

Prove or disprove.

It's what's the lesser of two evils? The longer they are in copper the more immune suppression occurs. Fish start bugging out, bacterial infections become much more likely. It's just unfortunate that this is ever evolving and there can't be a concrete "this is the best option".

Mind you across my basement I'm doing the exact same thing with fish from the exact same vendor (separate order) and the fish are clean after 14 days.

 

[Mortie31]

Stocking a 500 gallon tank, and two 180 gallons between us. Also, with all of this "learning" on our end, we have learned hard lessons. The benefit is that we have a lot of experience, the detriment is that these have been unfathomably expensive "research projects".

Sorry but I’m actually very confused as what’s actually going on here, you say your not selling fish but are stocking your tanks, yet you have quarantined 100’s of fish, just how many fish do you have in the 860 gallon tanks? And why are you continuing to quarantine in such numbers? It seems abit of an Ahab quest to prove that you can successfully quarantine and keep sensitive fish like the powder blues. Without knowing your mortality rates from reading several threads it seems high and far higher than seems acceptable to me for your perceived benefit to the hobby. Is it time to stop the experimenting and just enjoy your tanks.. you are both held in very high esteem by the forum for the countless hours you put into advice to others but sometimes the end doesn’t justify the means... but maybe I don’t actually get what your trying to achieve to judge if it’s worth it or not... it seems to me it’s a personal quest to prove you can do something, without questioning why..

 

[lagatbezan]

Thank you to @HotRocks and @4FordFamily for all the effort, information and help that you guys provide on the daily basis here!
I think and hope this could be labeled as one of those instances that proves nothing is 100% and falls into the .01% which unfortunately is bound to happen when you are dealing with a lot of fish in and qt protocols in this scenario. Like someone else mentioned these organisms have survived and adapted for over 5000 years so our treatment methods would have to adapt and change accordingly as well.
@4FordFamily when keeping the copper level at 1.75 constant, what is the error margin of the hanna checker? also could it be that it needs to be calibrated after a while of being used? for example if the unit is off about 10% that would make the tested copper levels at about 1.57 which is could be ineffective. again, a possibility. not sure how accurate our testing equipment really is either.

 

[4FordFamily]

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.

Again, you propose theories that are in your view supported by one paper making loose mention of 2-3 weeks (which is in and of itself, grossly unscientific). Your view about 2.0 vs 1.75 is as arbitrary as your view of my adjustment to the protocol, only you’ve not suppprted your own acclimation with much evidence, not even anecdote, or length of experience.

In other words, having not provided your experience, your own process that you’ve tested in even a remedial capacity, nor any anecdote of direct experience — you continue to say “no offense” and “I appreciate all of your work” but continue to steamroll over what we do.

If people trust your viewpoint here over mine, that harms me in no way. It is, however, seemingly hypocritical and counterproductive.

To reiterate, I would be absolutely ecstatic if you’d bring your own research methods, time, and capital to the bullpen so this team may benefit from it.

 

[MnFish1]

Prove or disprove.

It's what's the lesser of two evils? The longer they are in copper the more immune suppression occurs. Fish start bugging out, bacterial infections become much more likely. It's just unfortunate that this is ever evolving and there can't be a concrete "this is the best option".

Mind you across my basement I'm doing the exact same thing with fish from the exact same vendor (separate order) and the fish are clean after 14 days.

I proved it - your QT system didnt work - for probably multiple reasons. Yet the thread is WARNING - resistant velvet (paraphrased). I think it was a bit irresponsible - though might be true. Again as many say here @Thales. the person suggesting the issue/proof is responsible for proving it - not the people questioning it. This is not meant to be offensive to you... But - maybe your protocol which you've used with success has bit you - meaning that the science says 14 days is too short. This is not meant to be offensive to you. Before I would suggest something that has never happened before (i.e copper resistant velvet) - my first choice would be to examine what I did to cause the problem .... Its as simple as that.

To answer your question - I've already given a couple examples of ways that copper can be more effective (hypo salinity + copper as well as longer vs shorter copper).

At the end - since you are proposing the 'best option' - ie now using 2 ppm vs 1.75 ppm copper - with little evidence (frankly you have 100's of fish that did well with 1.75 - now based on one incident you're changing your protocol) I'm not sure about any of the recommendations.

 

[Mortie31]

@Lasse help me out here. I know you are anti prophylactic treatment. A fish shows up like this... Out of the bag no exaggeration. Actual picture of actual fish received from a well known online vendor (name not mentioned) What would you do with it? Drop it in your DT with 3 acanthurus tangs and feed the heck out of it?

I am just trying to figure out what the solution is for this situation if we aren't to use chemicals...

In case you were wondering that is velvet.

This is the problem with buying fish online, there is no way anyone would buy that fish from a LFS...

 

[Lasse]

@Lasse help me out here. I know you are anti prophylactic treatment. A fish shows up like this... Out of the bag no exaggeration. Actual picture of actual fish received from a well known online vendor (name not mentioned) What would you do with it? Drop it in your DT with 3 acanthurus tangs and feed the heck out of it?

I am just trying to figure out what the solution is for this situation if we aren't to use chemicals...

In case you were wondering that is velvet.

Once again - prophylactic treatment is treatment just in case of... - without any signs of disease. And that´s for me a big No-No Do not fix anything thats not broken.

That fish you show up is sick and have clear signs of disease - of cause you should treat that fish with prober medication in a separate tank. If it come to you in that condition – I would never buy a fish more from that supplier.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Again, you propose theories that are in your view supported by one paper making loose mention of 2-3 weeks (which is in and of itself, grossly unscientific). Your view about 2.0 vs 1.75 is as arbitrary as your view of my adjustment to the protocol, only you’ve not suppprted your own acclimation with much evidence, not even anecdote, or length of experience.

In other words, having not provided your experience, your own process that you’ve tested in even a remedial capacity, nor any anecdote of direct experience — you continue to say “no offense” and “I appreciate all of your work” but continue to steamroll over what we do.

If people trust your viewpoint here over mine, that harms me in no way. It is, however, seemingly hypocritical and counterproductive.

To reiterate, I would be absolutely ecstatic if you’d bring your own research methods, time, and capital to the bullpen so this team may benefit from it.

LOL lets not make it personal.... You have not made your own research methods, time and capital public either (or did I miss it).
I'm only suggesting that changing the copper concentration from 1.75 to 2 is unlikely to make any difference. What are your methods to prove or disprove that? By the way - you can feel free to quote any references that contradict what I said - or promote what you're saying. Im happy to learn - the impression I'm getting is that you are not.

There are 2 options here: 1. Velvet is resistant to a copper concentration of 1.75 ppm. 2. Its something else (which I think you should be more open to). I believe based on a bit of knowledge - #2 is correct. Over time we will know... What we won't know - is whether the mortality of fish kept at 2 vs 1.75 have a higher mortality ....

 

[Lowell Lemon]

@Lasse help me out here. I know you are anti prophylactic treatment. A fish shows up like this... Out of the bag no exaggeration. Actual picture of actual fish received from a well known online vendor (name not mentioned) What would you do with it? Drop it in your DT with 3 acanthurus tangs and feed the heck out of it?

I am just trying to figure out what the solution is for this situation if we aren't to use chemicals...

In case you were wondering that is velvet.

That is not a normal shipment in my experience...wow...so no wonder you are turning to using drugs and sharing them with your fish on occasion! LOL. I think you are already behind the curve on that fish. Did he die? I never received a shipment like that ever! I have never seen a transhippment even look like that! Astounding to say the least. I stocked a 1500 gallon tank with all Hawaiian endemics and never saw one like that! That is just sad. That said the phone lines would melt down if a wholesaler or retailer ever sent me a fish that sad. I would be on the plane the next day to inspect their facility and let them know I was on the way! It would be the end of the road for my business with them. My anger might get me in trouble and a full refund would be in order including the shipping charge.

Sure they are just not sending you their hard cases due to your fish treatment reputation? Wow just wow!

 

[MnFish1]

FWIW - based on the research I've done - I do not think there is resistant velvet out there. I do not see any reason to change any protocol for copper treatment - except that if fish are not responding to copper - change to Chloroquine... Im sorry to have intruded into the discussion

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Once again - prophylactic treatment is treatment just in case of... - without any signs of disease. And that´s for me a big No-No Do not fix anything thats not broken.

That fish you show up is sick and have clear signs of disease - of cause you should treat that fish with prober medication in a separate tank. If it come to you in that condition – I would never buy a fish more from that supplier.

Sincerely Lasse

I have never seen a shipment like that have you Lasse? I would never buy from that source again for sure!

 

[4FordFamily]

Sorry but I’m actually very confused as what’s actually going on here, you say your not selling fish but are stocking your tanks, yet you have quarantined 100’s of fish, just how many fish do you have in the 860 gallon tanks? And why are you continuing to quarantine in such numbers? It seems abit of an Ahab quest to prove that you can successfully quarantine and keep sensitive fish like the powder blues. Without knowing your mortality rates from reading several threads it seems high and far higher than seems acceptable to me for your perceived benefit to the hobby. Is it time to stop the experimenting and just enjoy your tanks.. you are both held in very high esteem by the forum for the countless hours you put into advice to others but sometimes the end doesn’t justify the means... but maybe I don’t actually get what your trying to achieve to judge if it’s worth it or not... it seems to me it’s a personal quest to prove you can do something, without questioning why..

I’m not exactly following. I’ve chronicalled losses from uronema that were previously ignored by many (including us), CP failings from oversight regarding poly pads in quarantine (although it may have actually been copper as well or instead), virulent infections, and now this.

Many here seem to be using the protocol to their success, which is much easier in smaller batches. We have done things larger scale which has been admittedly devastating at times for the aforementioned reasons. We have many healthy and disease-free fish that made it through the protocol, and we amend it as issues arise. Make no qualms about it, this has not been smooth sailing and without loss. The greater the number of fish, the greater the chances of discovering something within the margin of error.

This is largely uncharted territory, and you know what they say about “pioneers”. As I said, my primary motivation in all of the quarantining was to have many healthy fish in our tanks. The research was/is secondary. If you think I spend hours here trying to help others for some personal satisfaction, I suppose I do enjoy helping.

Feel free to disregard any advise provided by me, and assign whatever ulterior motives you wish to me in the process.

 

[MnFish1]

Again, you propose theories that are in your view supported by one paper making loose mention of 2-3 weeks (which is in and of itself, grossly unscientific). Your view about 2.0 vs 1.75 is as arbitrary as your view of my adjustment to the protocol, only you’ve not suppprted your own acclimation with much evidence, not even anecdote, or length of experience.

In other words, having not provided your experience, your own process that you’ve tested in even a remedial capacity, nor any anecdote of direct experience — you continue to say “no offense” and “I appreciate all of your work” but continue to steamroll over what we do.

If people trust your viewpoint here over mine, that harms me in no way. It is, however, seemingly hypocritical and counterproductive.

To reiterate, I would be absolutely ecstatic if you’d bring your own research methods, time, and capital to the bullpen so this team may benefit from it.

By the way - I brought the scientific literature for the last 10-15 years... Granted I didnt spend any money on it - but - in the morning - I thought it was possible for there to be resistant velvet. At this point im 90/10 against - still awaiting the response from the various microbiologists I questioned. But - I would with almost 100% circumstance agree with the person that asked if the 1.75 concentration cured the problem (it wasnt tested so its unknown). But - the fact that it wasn't - doesnt mean 2 is the right answer. Good night

 

[HotRocks]

I proved it - your QT system didnt work - for probably multiple reasons. Yet the thread is WARNING - resistant velvet (paraphrased). I think it was a bit irresponsible - though might be true. Again as many say here @Thales. the person suggesting the issue/proof is responsible for proving it - not the people questioning it. This is not meant to be offensive to you... But - maybe your protocol which you've used with success has bit you - meaning that the science says 14 days is too short. This is not meant to be offensive to you. Before I would suggest something that has never happened before (i.e copper resistant velvet) - my first choice would be to examine what I did to cause the problem .... Its as simple as that.

To answer your question - I've already given a couple examples of ways that copper can be more effective (hypo salinity + copper as well as longer vs shorter copper).

At the end - since you are proposing the 'best option' - ie now using 2 ppm vs 1.75 ppm copper - with little evidence (frankly you have 100's of fish that did well with 1.75 - now based on one incident you're changing your protocol) I'm not sure about any of the recommendations.

I don't know what to do other than laugh at you... You proved what??? LOL

I have living proof that it does work with a tank full of expert level beautiful fish! I don't know that I have ever said it's 100% bulletproof and it's the only way. Nor would I ever make such a bold statement.

We aren't hiding behind a curtain when things go wrong, and only sharing the good. You are getting full disclosure.

As far as the prophylactic treatment vs non QT. It doesn't even come into play here. The velvet was there whether you treat prophylactically or not. Soooooo....

Clearly something slipped here.

I also don't think this thread was created to try to pick something apart. More or less a heads up something might have to be altered for a successful treatment plan moving forward.

BTW everyone I am here to help where I can, that's all.

Oh and I take no offense to any naysayers. I have broad shoulders.

 

[PGT253]

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

IMO, if fish directly imported from ocean, without going through wholesalers and middlemen, the advised 1.5ppm Cu is enough to kill ich/velvet. The problem here is not because hobbyists over-use chemicals trying to kill the parasites that make the parasites more resistant, but it gotta be the exposure to chemicals' sub-therapeutic level at the wholesalers that does. So the answer to your question is IF wholesalers/LFS stop holding fish in chemicals' sub-therapeutic level, there's no chance ich/velvet can become more resistant to said chemicals.