BAD NEWS - Velvet Strain Survives 1.75 PPM Copper!

[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.

I guess I need to say a couple things in response - I have not just a day's worth of research - nor was I trying to disprove your years of research. I have commented - based on months/years of research on this and other forums (including Pauls). I will say in the end - there is quite a bit of evidence (or at least recommendation) that 14 days of QT is not enough for velvet. I know you're trying a different method - and it seems to work (until it didnt) - but If you look at the science - maybe (that is the key word) - maybe - it will sometimes result in velvet being put into the tank. Even if it works 95% of the time. That doesn't make you bad, or wrong. But there are lots of articles out there that say use copper AT LEAST 2-4 weeks because some (velvet) can survive within the fish longer than expected. Rather than be defensive - it might be good to at least LOOK at that data - and then suggest why it might be wrong (BTW - im not saying either side is correct - I have no clue - im not an expert as ive said before). Just so you know - anything ive said is not to bash you or anyone - its to improve the method.

 

[Reefahholic]

I think it comes down to the life cycle. If you know the known life cycle it should always be able to be eradicated unless there’s a “super strain” as it sounds like that happened here. It’s possible with all the people treating with multiple drugs that this particular strain was able to adapt and overcome.

It’s ok though...we just need to tighten up. Sounds like these guys could escape The Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary.

This is just one strain...probably 1 of 1,000 that wouldn’t have died in that treatment. No worries!

 

[Reefahholic]

Thx @HotRocks, @4FordFamily, @Humblefish, Etc...for letting us know.

 

[MnFish1]

I think it comes down to the life cycle. If you know the known life cycle it should always be able to be eradicated unless there’s a “super strain” as it sounds like that happened here. It’s possible with all the people treating with multiple drugs that this particular strain was able to adapt and overcome.

It’s ok though...we just need to tighten up. Sounds like these guys could escape The Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary.

This is just one strain...probably 1 of 1,000 that wouldn’t have died in that treatment. No worries!

I disagree - there is no evidence for a super strain. I know im out on a limb criticizing the guys - but - there is no evidence whatsoever than velvet has become resistant to copper at x concentration. If it had - there is for sure no evidence that changing the QT from 1.75 to 2.oo will make a difference. My guess (HERESY ALERT) - because well just because - is that there is an error in their protocol - that has just become evident. If you look at the literature - most recommendations for QT are longer than the 14 days recommended (for velvet or CI). Granted - the rationale for 14 days and then a sterile tank for another 14 days MAKES SENSE - as a theory. That said - its a theory - there are multiple reports out there that 14 days minimum for velvet and longer for CI is more appropriate. So - rather than a lightening strike (i.e .there is a resistant strain of velvet (at 1.75) but is killed (at 2) - it seems far more likely that its a hole in the protocol - which is not standard - but (appropriately so) - designed to limit exposure to copper. Fire away.

 

[MnFish1]

I disagree - there is no evidence for a super strain. I know im out on a limb criticizing the guys - but - there is no evidence whatsoever than velvet has become resistant to copper at x concentration. If it had - there is for sure no evidence that changing the QT from 1.75 to 2.oo will make a difference. My guess (HERESY ALERT) - because well just because - is that there is an error in their protocol - that has just become evident. If you look at the literature - most recommendations for QT are longer than the 14 days recommended (for velvet or CI). Granted - the rationale for 14 days and then a sterile tank for another 14 days MAKES SENSE - as a theory. That said - its a theory - there are multiple reports out there that 14 days minimum for velvet and longer for CI is more appropriate. So - rather than a lightening strike (i.e .there is a resistant strain of velvet (at 1.75) but is killed (at 2) - it seems far more likely that its a hole in the protocol - which is not standard - but (appropriately so) - designed to limit exposure to copper. Fire away.

The thing is - statistically - which is more likely - that the protocol is wrong - or that a strain of velvet is now resistant to copper in such a narrow therapeutic window? With no offense to @HotRocks etc - statistically - the issue is the protocol - not the organism. There are no real reports of copper resistant velvet out there - except as I have found. Frankly - I think the title of the thread is misleading - causing fear where its not justified - and irresponsible.

 

[HotRocks]

The thing is - statistically - which is more likely - that the protocol is wrong - or that a strain of velvet is now resistant to copper in such a narrow therapeutic window? With no offense to @HotRocks etc - statistically - the issue is the protocol - not the organism. There are no real reports of copper resistant velvet out there - except as I have found. Frankly - I think the title of the thread is misleading - causing fear where its not justified - and irresponsible.

I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

You admittedly have zero experience with copper. What would explain hundreds of fish I've personally treated with copper that had ich or velvet infestations, ran copper at 1.75ppm and 100% clear after a transfer at 14 days? Then two batches in a row the parasites make it though. Everything thing done exactly the same each time. No changes to process, concentration, duration or anything else...

 

[HotRocks]

I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

You admittedly have zero experience with copper. What would explain hundreds of fish I've personally treated with copper that had ich or velvet infestations, ran copper at 1.75ppm and 100% clear after a transfer at 14 days? Then two batches in a row the parasites make it though. Everything thing done exactly the same each time. No changes to process, concentration, duration or anything else...

And BTW, the fish that the velvet made it through treatment at 1.75ppm were ran back through copper for 14 days @ 2.0-2.50ppm and then transferred out of copper which now remain parasite free. That is why I struggle with the longer duration theory you have. It does not line up with my personal experiences. The higher concentration cleared the affliction..

Also to be clear, all of these fish were out of copper at the 1.75ppm for 5-7 days in a med free tank. The fact the affliction still remained became apparent. Copper was re-dosed in the med free tank. They were kept there for 14 days and then transferred to a new sterile tank. 100% clean post copper at 2.0ppm+.

This has been repeated twice now.

Also in regards to the longer duration at a lower level... The trophont stage of the parasite that is attached to the fish only remains attached for up to 7 days with ich and only a couple days with velvet. So if it's still cycling in copper at 1.75ppm I don't see what benefit a longer duration in the lower concentration provides...

 

[MnFish1]

I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

You admittedly have zero experience with copper. What would explain hundreds of fish I've personally treated with copper that had ich or velvet infestations, ran copper at 1.75ppm and 100% clear after a transfer at 14 days? Then two batches in a row the parasites make it though. Everything thing done exactly the same each time. No changes to process, concentration, duration or anything else...

I would humbly suggest that based on 8 years of microbiology - including a graduate degree that (as I said before) its unlikely that a change from 1.75 to 2 ppm would make a difference if an organism were truly resistant. Nor - except for the article (poster) that I shared with you before - there is no reported (in the world) a copper resistant velvet strain - so the likelihood that you have found one is 'groundbreaking' and thus unlikely. Then there is the fact that you are at the very borderline of the published literature (as to the duration of quarantine/copper treatment) for velvet - you can either recheck the references I posted before or google them yourself.

So - and just to make it clear - all I said was - if I had to choose between a resistant strain of velvet which you guys trumpeted (for unclear reasons) - and another reason why you had a problem - I would choose 'another reason'.

This is not an insult - its not a criticism - except that you unnecessarily (IMHO) panicked a bunch of people into something that (IMHO) iw not at all proven. The fact that you are doing so under the banner of R2R - gives you more authority than the average poster - and as such (IMHO) should have more responsibility to 'prove' what you're saying.

 

[MnFish1]

And BTW, the fish that the velvet made it through treatment at 1.75ppm were ran back through copper for 14 days @ 2.0-2.50ppm and then transferred out of copper which now remain parasite free. That is why I struggle with the longer duration theory you have. It does not line up with my personal experiences. The higher concentration cleared the affliction.

Also in regards to the longer duration at a lower level... The trophont stage of the parasite that is attached to the fish only remains attached for up to 7 days with ich and only a couple days with velvet. So if it's still cycling in copper at 1.75ppm I don't see what benefit a longer duration in the lower concentration provides...

The problem is that you didnt run them through a longer duration with 1.75 and had it fail. BTW - you may very well be correct - there may be a strain of velvet that survives 1.75 ppm but dies at 2.0 ppm copper. Its just that the literature says that 10-14 days (for velvet) and 3-4 week (for CI) is a MINIMUM. You are at the minimum. We have no argument. You are trying a protocol which exposes the fish to les copper (and I applaud you for it). That doesnt mean its a fool proof protocol.

Having said that - perhaps at a higher (2 ppm) concentration you will be more successful. But - that is a far cry from suggesting/saying that there is a 'resistant strain of velvet' out there. Perhaps its just semantics. But - I don't think there is a resistant strain of velvet out there.

 

[HotRocks]

I would humbly suggest that based on 8 years of microbiology - including a graduate degree that (as I said before) its unlikely that a change from 1.75 to 2 ppm would make a difference if an organism were truly resistant. Nor - except for the article (poster) that I shared with you before - there is no reported (in the world) a copper resistant velvet strain - so the likelihood that you have found one is 'groundbreaking' and thus unlikely. Then there is the fact that you are at the very borderline of the published literature (as to the duration of quarantine/copper treatment) for velvet - you can either recheck the references I posted before or google them yourself.

So - and just to make it clear - all I said was - if I had to choose between a resistant strain of velvet which you guys trumpeted (for unclear reasons) - and another reason why you had a problem - I would choose 'another reason'.

This is not an insult - its not a criticism - except that you unnecessarily (IMHO) panicked a bunch of people into something that (IMHO) iw not at all proven. The fact that you are doing so under the banner of R2R - gives you more authority than the average poster - and as such (IMHO) should have more responsibility to 'prove' what you're saying.

I'm not knocking your knowledge. I'm not taking offense. I am simply explaining what happened.

It would be nice to see proof that your claims exist since you tout your microbiology experience. Btw I don't claim to be anything but I hobbyist and I've said that more than once. If you are talking about the duration of copper in a single tank without a transfer then I agree 30 days is entirely necessary.

Most of the copper research studies out there are very outdated.

Are you familiar with the life cycle of marine parasites and the stages that are impacted by copper?

You keep mentioning the R2R banner, I don't get it. VOLUNTEER. That's what that banner means. Here to help people for the betterment of our hobby.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm not knocking your knowledge. I'm not taking offense. I am simply explaining what happened.

It would be nice to see proof that your claims exist since you tout your microbiology experience. Btw I don't claim to be anything but I hobbyist and I've said that more than once. If you are talking about the duration of copper in a single tank without a transfer then I agree 30 days is entirely necessary.

Most of the copper research studies out there are very outdated.

Are you familiar with the life cycle of marine parasites and the stages that are impacted by copper?

You keep mentioning the R2R banner, I don't get it. VOLUNTEER. That's what that banner means. Here to help people for the betterment of our hobby.

Actually - about the banner - What I said is that when you have that banner - it gives you a certain elevation in status - presumably based on your contributions - thus - I (as a casual moronic reader) would tend to believe/trust your posts as compared to a (moron) like me. I have no clue how you get to be a 'banner holder' nor do I care.

What claims do you want proof for? And - I wasnt touting anything - you asked me why I was posting on something when I don't use copper - so lets not confuse the situation - ie you asked me what experience I had to question your opinions.

I agree most of the copper research studies out there are outdated.

Im quite familiar with the life cycle of marine parasites and the stages that are impacted by copper. I was about to make a snarky comment here - but yes I'm well aware lol

Just to throw a question at you....

People here recommend keeping a tank fallow for 76 days. That is based on one study - in which a couple theronts were released at 72 days - as compared to the usual 1-2 weeks. Yet - based on this one study - we now pick 76 days - as 'the golden rule'. Does this make sense? or was it an anomaly? Even though in all likelyhood a fallow period of 4 weeks would likely solve all the problems with CI in our tanks?

IMHO your quarantine procedure stretches (and probably rightly so - to minimize copper exposure) - the published recommendations - just like if I said - 99% of the encysted CI are released within 3 weeks - so a 76 day fallow period is not needed. But then - when CI was in my tank going - oh wow - its resistant to copper/etc. When in reality the issue is that I was playing the odds.

IMHO - again - there is no resistant strain of velvet that is safe at 1.75 and killed at 2.00. Thats my opinion - Just like you have the opposite opinion.

 

[4FordFamily]

OK let’s move on.

No one on this forum that has ever read this thread has even the slightest confusion about your opinion on the matter. Let’s stop repeating the same thing for 6 pages that does no one any good at all.

 

[HotRocks]

Actually - about the banner - What I said is that when you have that banner - it gives you a certain elevation in status - presumably based on your contributions - thus - I (as a casual moronic reader) would tend to believe/trust your posts as compared to a (moron) like me. I have no clue how you get to be a 'banner holder' nor do I care.

What claims do you want proof for? And - I wasnt touting anything - you asked me why I was posting on something when I don't use copper - so lets not confuse the situation - ie you asked me what experience I had to question your opinions.

I agree most of the copper research studies out there are outdated.

Im quite familiar with the life cycle of marine parasites and the stages that are impacted by copper. I was about to make a snarky comment here - but yes I'm well aware lol

Just to throw a question at you....

People here recommend keeping a tank fallow for 76 days. That is based on one study - in which a couple theronts were released at 72 days - as compared to the usual 1-2 weeks. Yet - based on this one study - we now pick 76 days - as 'the golden rule'. Does this make sense? or was it an anomaly? Even though in all likelyhood a fallow period of 4 weeks would likely solve all the problems with CI in our tanks?

IMHO your quarantine procedure stretches (and probably rightly so - to minimize copper exposure) - the published recommendations - just like if I said - 99% of the encysted CI are released within 3 weeks - so a 76 day fallow period is not needed. But then - when CI was in my tank going - oh wow - its resistant to copper/etc. When in reality the issue is that I was playing the odds.

IMHO - again - there is no resistant strain of velvet that is safe at 1.75 and killed at 2.00. Thats my opinion - Just like you have the opposite opinion.

Sure we obviously have differing opinions. Which is completely acceptable.

Banners are given out based on contributions and merit. It is nomination based entirely. I definitely don't think you are any moron poster than me. I do what I do regardless of the badges under my UN. If you think someone should carry a specific banner just hit the report button and nominate them. This post can probably better explain it than I can:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/r...hese-labels-under-everyones-usernames.308346/

So in regards to fallow periods. There is one "old" study on CI that shows the prolonged release of tomites at lower temps etc. So the golden 76 day rule is overcautious, but the safest bet I guess.

Better explained here:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/fallow-periods-going-fishless.190324/

Almost everything you are trying to avoid in a fallow period is no longer a concern after 45 days. It all boils down to the specific aquarists tolerance for risk.

As for copper it only kills the final free swimming tomite or dinospore stage. So a fish in the proper concentration should be 100% parasite free at 7 days. At the longest. Yes, yes parasites are still in the tank but in the encysted tomont stage that releases the tomites. The tomites explode instantly upon release therefore copper shields the fish from reinfection.

This is why you can transfer fish out of fully therapeutic copper and they remain clean.

If the fish are to remain in the same tank the therapuetic level MUST remain for 30 days. Copper concentration can't be lowered.

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

 

[MnFish1]

OK let’s move on.

No one on this forum that has ever read this thread has even the slightest confusion about your opinion on the matter. Let’s stop repeating the same thing for 6 pages that does no one any good at all.

Agreed - Last I read - about 30 minutes ago @HotRocks asked questions - which I answered - so - Unless I'm breaking some rule here - except disagreeing with your opinion - I kind of resent your insinuation. If there is a rule here - which states when @4FordFamily says something thats not debatable - then ok - I'm sorry. If its @HotRocks is the worlds expert in marine disease - and any protocol he comes up with is beyond question - ok. Until then - explain where you get off saying 'move on'. I happen to think you're both wrong. And - when there are lots of people reading the headline that there is resistant velvet (to copper) out there - I think perhaps you both should pay attention to what exactly you're saying - with all due respect.

 

[MnFish1]

Sure we obviously have differing opinions. Which is completely acceptable.

Banners are given out based on contributions and merit. It is nomination based entirely. I definitely don't think you are any moron poster than me. I do what I do regardless of the badges under my UN. If you think someone should carry a specific banner just hit the report button and nominate them. This post can probably better explain it than I can:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/r...hese-labels-under-everyones-usernames.308346/

So in regards to fallow periods. There is one "old" study on CI that shows the prolonged release of tomites at lower temps etc. So the golden 76 day rule is overcautious, but the safest bet I guess.

Better explained here:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/fallow-periods-going-fishless.190324/

Almost everything you are trying to avoid in a fallow period is no longer a concern after 45 days. It all boils down to the specific aquarists tolerance for risk.

As for copper it only kills the final free swimming tomite or dinospore stage. So a fish in the proper concentration should be 100% parasite free at 7 days. At the longest. Yes, yes parasites are still in the tank but in the encysted tomont stage that releases the tomites. The tomites explode instantly upon release therefore copper shields the fish from reinfection.

This is why you can transfer fish out of fully therapeutic copper and they remain clean.

If the fish are to remain in the same tank the therapuetic level MUST remain for 30 days. Copper concentration can't be lowered.

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

I agree with everything you've said above. Its not about arguing here. However - I dont agree that there is a resistant strain of velvet out there. Especially one that lives at 1.75 - and dies at 2.0 copper. To suggest that without expecting questions to me is not responsible.

 

[Heavymman]

OK let’s move on.

No one on this forum that has ever read this thread has even the slightest confusion about your opinion on the matter. Let’s stop repeating the same thing for 6 pages that does no one any good at all.

Move on from what? @MnFish1 is simply arguing a point? This is all test and theory right? Unless there is a bulletproof solution I appreciate everyone’s opinion

 

[HotRocks]

Agreed - Last I read - about 30 minutes ago @HotRocks asked questions - which I answered - so - Unless I'm breaking some rule here - except disagreeing with your opinion - I kind of resent your insinuation. If there is a rule here - which states when @4FordFamily says something thats not debatable - then ok - I'm sorry. If its @HotRocks is the worlds expert in marine disease - and any protocol he comes up with is beyond question - ok. Until then - explain where you get off saying 'move on'. I happen to think you're both wrong. And - when there are lots of people reading the headline that there is resistant velvet (to copper) out there - I think perhaps you both should pay attention to what exactly you're saying - with all due respect.

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

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

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

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

Completely disproving your statement.

 

[Brew12]

Until then - explain where you get off saying 'move on'.

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

I happen to think you're both wrong. And - when there are lots of people reading the headline that there is resistant velvet (to copper) out there - I think perhaps you both should pay attention to what exactly you're saying - with all due respect.

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

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

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

 

[HotRocks]

I agree with everything you've said above. Its not about arguing here. However - I dont agree that there is a resistant strain of velvet out there. Especially one that lives at 1.75 - and dies at 2.0 copper. To suggest that without expecting questions to me is not responsible.

Ok then can you explain this?

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

 

[4FordFamily]

Let me make myself as clear as possible. We are not covering new ground with this thread. Anyone can feel however they want about us, our experience, our suspicions, claims, or anything else.

Six pages of the same thing being posted repeatedly is not productive. I am perfectly fine being challenged, I’ve said my piece, you’ve said yours. We disagree. We can agree to disagree. There’s no harm in that. Let’s move on.