BAD NEWS - Velvet Strain Survives 1.75 PPM Copper!

[4FordFamily]

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

No need to apologize for participating, this is a discussion.

 

[Lasse]

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

Never ever in the around 20 000 bags that I or my friend have open.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Mortie31]

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 Reid success, which is much easier in smaller batches. We have done things larger scale which has been admittedly devastating for the aforementioned reasons. We have many healthy and disease 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.

Yes but to what end? what’s the point of killing dozens to keep a hundred it’s an unacceptable mortality rate and a mindset I simply don’t get. I question myself if a single fish dies yet you sound so cavalier about your experimenting and seem to regard it as being important.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

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.

First - your 14 day QT system did not work.... If it had you wouldn't have had velvet in the fish afterwards..... (whether it was resistance or something else)
Second I never mentioned non-QT - you're making a false argument.
Third (no offense) if you have recommendations on an international thread with your method of QT - and then post changes to that based on your opinion rather than data - I'm sorry I think its inappropriate.
Fourth - no you suggested a change 1.75 vs 2 ppm copper - which you couldn't really defend.

And believe me - I'm not a big fan of QT - or not QT - but I am a big fan of evidence. If I were to be honest - im surprised that before you changed your method you didnt have more science behind that recommendation. If you want to put out a theory - it seems you should be prepared to defend it - for the betterment of everyone - including myself.

I wasnt picking anything apart - from the start I tried to convey that I was trying to match what you were seeing with science. After looking - for hours - it doesnt match (in my opinion).

 

[MnFish1]

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.

If you dont mind - step back a couple steps - earlier you were complimenting my research - now youre laughing at me.
If I were to ascribe to your logic - I could say @Paul B says the exact opposite.

Which one of you is correct? Both have 'living proof'. Again - lets keep the discussion ego - free - which seems to be difficult.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

@HotRocks & @4FordFamily
Please don't take what I have written as an insult or rebuff to your valiant efforts to save fish that should have never been shipped in the first place! I never have seen fish in this condition even in the last shipment I observed from QM in a local store. That said it is time to cut ties to your sources and find another source! If you are buying from this source you are only extending the inevitable result for the source...a closed business! Go ahead and put them out of their misery and fund someone else more worthy of your efforts!

In all fairness I would never order a fish from an online source I have not inspected with a personal visit.

 

[4FordFamily]

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.

Your day of research is useful, and your contribution appreciated. I didn’t come here to prove anything. I’m not selling a product. I’m certain if you read any substantive post of mine here that I’ve repratedly mentioned that I’m not a researcher, scientist, or marine biologist. I’m not here to prove anything. I’m perfectly fine with your day of research trumping years of research and experience collectively from the fish disease team here. Heck, some of them may disagree with me/others of us. There is no harm in that at all.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

You might be right - if only we knew how many LFS/wholesalers actually do this - and again - as I researched and posted earlier today - there is a bit of evidence that if you keep copper levels lower - in a lower salinity its much more effective .... Perhaps thats the rationale... IDK

 

[MnFish1]

Your day of research is useful, and your contribution appreciated. I didn’t come here to prove anything. I’m not selling a product. I’m certain if you read any substantive post of mine here that I’ve repratedly mentioned that I’m not a researcher, scientist, or marine biologist. I’m not here to prove anything. I’m perfectly fine with your day of research trumping years of research and experience collectively from the fish disease team here. Heck, some of them may disagree with me/others of us. There is no harm in that at all.

Except - I think we can all agree - if copper is 'damaging, immunosuppressive', if someone comes onto an international forum suggesting to increase their QT Dose x percent - it may cause more damage than good. Its not about who is right and who is wrong - IMHO - its premature based on 2 shipments to change the dosage based on what I'm reading. Most people will only read the headlines - not the back and forth. Look at the title of the thread - based on what you've read - is it totally accurate?

 

[HotRocks]

First - your 14 day QT system did not work.... If it had you wouldn't have had velvet in the fish afterwards..... (whether it was resistance or something else)
Second I never mentioned non-QT - you're making a false argument.
Third (no offense) if you have recommendations on an international thread with your method of QT - and then post changes to that based on your opinion rather than data - I'm sorry I think its inappropriate.
Fourth - no you suggested a change 1.75 vs 2 ppm copper - which you couldn't really defend.

And believe me - I'm not a big fan of QT - or not QT - but I am a big fan of evidence. If I were to be honest - im surprised that before you changed your method you didnt have more science behind that recommendation. If you want to put out a theory - it seems you should be prepared to defend it - for the betterment of everyone - including myself.

I wasnt picking anything apart - from the start I tried to convey that I was trying to match what you were seeing with science. After looking - for hours - it doesnt match (in my opinion).

I'm not a scientist I don't claim to be one. I'm not a MB I don't claim to be one. I am a hobbyist who enjoys treating sick fish and giving them happy healthy lives instead of letting them end up dead.

I'm here for fun. That's all. I also didn't have intentions of sparking further debate.

I was not directing the comments QT/non QT debate towards you. My apologies if you took it that way.

So you sat and looked at a computer screen all day in a snowstorm and you have "proof as to what happened"?

Or at some point you tried to repeat the process and it failed? I'm confused.

 

[HotRocks]

You might be right - if only we knew how many LFS/wholesalers actually do this - and again - as I researched and posted earlier today - there is a bit of evidence that if you keep copper levels lower - in a lower salinity its much more effective .... Perhaps thats the rationale... IDK

I run all QTs at 1.018 SG. So I don't know how much lower they are talking because true hypo for treating flukes or ich would be all the way down to 1.009

 

[Gareth elliott]

Slightly off topic, what is your rodi and mixing setup? That is an awful lot of tanks [emoji23]

I usually rely on ttm but i also do not have nearly the same amount of fish you do, just imagining the water change needs of the qt tanks you listed in this thread [emoji23]

 

[HotRocks]

@HotRocks & @4FordFamily
Please don't take what I have written as an insult or rebuff to your valiant efforts to save fish that should have never been shipped in the first place! I never have seen fish in this condition even in the last shipment I observed from QM in a local store. That said it is time to cut ties to your sources and find another source! If you are buying from this source you are only extending the inevitable result for the source...a closed business! Go ahead and put them out of their misery and fund someone else more worthy of your efforts!

In all fairness I would never order a fish from an online source I have not inspected with a personal visit.

Hey @Lowell Lemon none taken buddy. We have nothing to gain here other than trying to help people which is why we choose to share both the good and the bad.

I am dedicated to this site and the great membership, if that means I have to take some criticism that's ok.

Appreciate the sentiment and kind words.

Oh, and that was the last time I ever ordered from that retailer after receiving a MI in the condition above.

I just wanted to see what @Lasse had to say about what he'd do with that fish? I wouldn't dare expose my DT to that. His methods are sump acclimation. If I did that it would wipe my tank and I am well aware. My fish and tank are parasite free so it would get ugly quickly.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm not a scientist I don't claim to be one. I'm not a MB I don't claim to be one. I am a hobbyist who enjoys treating sick fish and giving them happy healthy lives instead of letting them end up dead.

I'm here for fun. That's all. I also didn't have intentions of sparking further debate.

I was not directing the comments QT/non QT debate towards you. My apologies if you took it that way.

So you sat and looked at a computer screen all day in a snowstorm and you have "proof as to what happened"?

Or at some point you tried to repeat the process and it failed? I'm confused.

I'm saying there has NEVER been a scientific report of copper resistant velvet (except for the one I found from 2001 - which I posted and was a bit unclear. So given that (from what I have seen) - and I questioned 3 marine biologists - awaiting a reply which may change my opinion). If you have found one this is groundbreaking - its not a matter of increasing copper from 1.75 to 2. Its major (if its true - props to you). I never said I had 'proof' of anything. I said the likelihood is that this is not (contrary to the headline) that velvet is resistant to 1.75 copper (which is contrary to every reference I found).

I hope that eased you're confusion.

BTW - I take this as a bit insulting: So you sat and looked at a computer screen all day in a snowstorm and you have "proof as to what happened"?

If I said - so you took 2 shipments and concluded there is resistant velvet out there that everyone has to change their QT protocol as 'proof' what would you say?

 

[HotRocks]

Except - I think we can all agree - if copper is 'damaging, immunosuppressive', if someone comes onto an international forum suggesting to increase their QT Dose x percent - it may cause more damage than good. Its not about who is right and who is wrong - IMHO - its premature based on 2 shipments to change the dosage based on what I'm reading. Most people will only read the headlines - not the back and forth. Look at the title of the thread - based on what you've read - is it totally accurate?

Well the manufacturer recommends 2.5ppm. Is it safe to say that it's ok to recommend treating up to that concentration?

I'm not saying one way or the other is right or wrong.

 

[4FordFamily]

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.

.05, it’s consitently testing easily within this margin, as we have a formula used for dosing copper per gallon and it consistently reads results within that margin of error, and with several different copper checkers (prior to the formula). This is a good question which I did consider, however.

 

[HotRocks]

I'm saying there has NEVER been a scientific report of copper resistant velvet (except for the one I found from 2001 - which I posted and was a bit unclear. So given that (from what I have seen) - and I questioned 3 marine biologists - awaiting a reply which may change my opinion). If you have found one this is groundbreaking - its not a matter of increasing copper from 1.75 to 2. Its major (if its true - props to you). I never said I had 'proof' of anything. I said the likelihood is that this is not (contrary to the headline) that velvet is resistant to 1.75 copper (which is contrary to every reference I found).

I hope that eased you're confusion.

BTW - I take this as a bit insulting: So you sat and looked at a computer screen all day in a snowstorm and you have "proof as to what happened"?

If I said - so you took 2 shipments and concluded there is resistant velvet out there that everyone has to change their QT protocol as 'proof' what would you say?

I'm sorry you took that as an insult, you stated in a previous post you proved that it didn't work. Didn't know what you mean. I'm not here to prove anything. I'm here for FUN and the for the passion of the hobby and helping others. You are being pretty harsh yourself to which I take no offense. You can pm me if you'd like. I'm not trying to make it personally insulting just a discussion.

You are missing the point I HAVE NOTHING to gain here. I'm not selling snake oil, I'm not paid to be here. I'm not going to sit back and get hammered on without a response.

 

[4FordFamily]

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

With all due respect when you find that supplier that ships to the states without these issues please pass this information along.

 

[MnFish1]

I run all QTs at 1.018 SG. So I don't know how much lower they are talking because true hypo for treating flukes or ich would be all the way down to 1.009

thats a good point - im not sure most people knew this...

 

[4FordFamily]

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 ....

I didn’t think I was making anything personal. I’ve been wondering why this has become personal, myself, on many occasions in reading your replies. I’m saying point blank you’ve cited zero experience doing anything relevant to this discussion other than apparently some casual reading today of some research. I’m not attacking you, nor really even your position, just observing your rebuttal is based in less experience, research, and anecdote. I’ve repeatedly told you that you may be right. I don’t believe so, that’s my opinion.