4FordFamily
Tang, Angel, and Wrasse Nerd!
View BadgesStaff member
Super Moderator
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
Hospitality Award
INDMAS Member
My Tank Thread
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.
Last edited: