Go ahead and use sand in QT

Shooter6

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
2,453
Reaction score
1,280
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So as long as you maintain the therapeutic levels and are testing with a Hanna checker for instance, you should be good?
There is no test kit for cp ( chloroquine phosphate).
Your confusing cp for copper.
Bacteria will degrade other meds to, copper is a metal, really a poison so probably wont be effected as much
 

Jay Hemdal

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
25,873
Reaction score
25,654
Location
Dundee, MI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There is no test kit for cp ( chloroquine phosphate).
Your confusing cp for copper.
Bacteria will degrade other meds to, copper is a metal, really a poison so probably wont be effected as much

That is currently an issue here: CP can stand for Copper Power or Chloroquine Phosphate.

You can measure chloroquine with a UV spectrophotometer.

Jay
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
1,715
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Chelated copper is chelated copper. I can't prove this, but Coppersafe & Copper Power are probably MFG by the same chemical company. They just slap different labels on the bottles. However, Endich apparently does a better job of QC. ;)

But 1.5 - 2.0 ppm is the established therapeutic range for ALL chelated copper. Has been for 40+ years I've been doing this. Copper Power recommends 2.5 because they know most fish can tolerate it being overdosed. Might not be a bad idea if this copper resistant velvet is a real thing. Which it might be (or soon will be), because most of the big wholesalers are now keeping their fish in 1.0 ppm Copper Power. Thanks wholesalers! This is kinda how antibiotic resistant superbugs got started... :mad:
Sorry to bring up an old thread but the copper resistant issue why I’m going to experiment with filtering out the theronts vs using copper. I suspect that using 0.5 micron filtration might work. Theory is not 100% eradication of ich/velvet but enough that levels are low enough to build up an immunity in the host.

Performed this on my boa collection in 08 by injecting a cocktail of pathogens in low enough levels to build up immunity which resulted in finally resolving a upper respiratory infection in my collection.

Test were samples of all adults were sent to a lab for identification and then the cocktail was created and immunization was conducted over several weeks by increasing the dosage of infection.

I’ve read where fish can become immune to ich/velvet from repeated exposures at small levels of infection not strong enough to kill them.

Perhaps if this is feasible then moving away from certain therapeutics and cresting resistance through the fish’s immune system might benefit the industry. At a minimum, would make QT easier in that copper doesn’t need to be administered.
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
1,715
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Meant to say below 0.05 microns. Not exactly sure what micron filtration needed to remove theronts. I am looking into Ultrafiltration a plausible solution.
 

Jay Hemdal

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
25,873
Reaction score
25,654
Location
Dundee, MI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Meant to say below 0.05 microns. Not exactly sure what micron filtration needed to remove theronts. I am looking into Ultrafiltration a plausible solution.
Theronts are roughly 30 x 60 microns.

I tried “cold sterilization” one time, down to 0.05 microns, but even with prefiltering, the filter material clogged after a few hundred ml were produced.

Generally, 10 micron is the sweet spot for removing protozoans. Be aware though that people have tried this technique since at least the late 1960’s and it just does not stop active infections. It is either from the dwell time, or possibly that the parasites can reproduce on the fish themselves and don’t need to enter the water column
Jay
 

flagg37

Custom stair builder - TreeofLifeStairs.com
View Badges
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
950
Reaction score
1,119
Location
Denver area
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Sorry to bring up an old thread but the copper resistant issue why I’m going to experiment with filtering out the theronts vs using copper. I suspect that using 0.5 micron filtration might work. Theory is not 100% eradication of ich/velvet but enough that levels are low enough to build up an immunity in the host.

Performed this on my boa collection in 08 by injecting a cocktail of pathogens in low enough levels to build up immunity which resulted in finally resolving a upper respiratory infection in my collection.

Test were samples of all adults were sent to a lab for identification and then the cocktail was created and immunization was conducted over several weeks by increasing the dosage of infection.

I’ve read where fish can become immune to ich/velvet from repeated exposures at small levels of infection not strong enough to kill them.

Perhaps if this is feasible then moving away from certain therapeutics and cresting resistance through the fish’s immune system might benefit the industry. At a minimum, would make QT easier in that copper doesn’t need to be administered.
This reminds me of how to build up an immunity to iocane powder.
 

drawman

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 27, 2016
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
3,613
Location
Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So as long as you maintain the therapeutic levels and are testing with a Hanna checker for instance, you should be good?

There is no test kit for cp ( chloroquine phosphate).
Your confusing cp for copper.
Bacteria will degrade other meds to, copper is a metal, really a poison so probably wont be effected as much
@Shooter6 has it right. This wouldn't effect copper but many other meds can't be tested.
 

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
1,715
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Theronts are roughly 30 x 60 microns.

I tried “cold sterilization” one time, down to 0.05 microns, but even with prefiltering, the filter material clogged after a few hundred ml were produced.

Generally, 10 micron is the sweet spot for removing protozoans. Be aware though that people have tried this technique since at least the late 1960’s and it just does not stop active infections. It is either from the dwell time, or possibly that the parasites can reproduce on the fish themselves and don’t need to enter the water column
Jay
Specific to ich/velvet or any other pathogen with a free swimming stage then wouldn't it be effective? Goal being to immunize based on small exposures vs eradication which isn't practical.

Was considering multiple prefilter stages to trap the bulk before coming into contact with a 0.20 um final filter. if 10 micron absolute is sufficient then perhaps 500, 250, 100, 50, 25 then 10 might not clog as quickly as well as prefiltering prior to the 500 with a biological compartment to break down detritus. Have to believe that if we can add enough sleves along the path then this might be feasible. I know there are larger 20x4.5 big blue canister that would allow longer intervals between changes. As well as higher flow rates. Perhaps just a pipe dream but I'd rather not bother with copper.
 
Last edited:

GARRIGA

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
1,715
Location
South Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This reminds me of how to build up an immunity to iocane powder.
Antivenom created based on small exposures. Seems most anything that can kill you can be faught by improving one's immunity. How super bugs came to be in hospitals. Although, within limits. Not sure one can ever become immune to radiation but I'm assuming fish can become immune to ich/velvet at small dosages and do so in nature.
 

Reefing threads: Do you wear gear from reef brands?

  • I wear reef gear everywhere.

    Votes: 20 13.7%
  • I wear reef gear primarily at fish events and my LFS.

    Votes: 10 6.8%
  • I wear reef gear primarily for water changes and tank maintenance.

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • I wear reef gear primarily to relax where I live.

    Votes: 22 15.1%
  • I don’t wear gear from reef brands.

    Votes: 83 56.8%
  • Other.

    Votes: 10 6.8%
Back
Top