Ich in mature tank

DeniseAndy · Dec 27, 2015

"Ich goes away on its own. MOSTLY FALSE. So long as fish are present, ich continues its life cycle for almost 4 years (on average). If another fish is introduced with ich, the new strain restarts the 4 year clock. The only way to eradicate ich from your tank is to go fallow for 72 days and quarantine all livestock moving forward!"
"Certain fish are immune to ich. SOMEWHAT TRUE. There is both “disease masking” and "temporary immunity" to consider. Any fish coming from a tank dosed with a non-therapeutic level of copper may not show symptoms of ich for up to 1 month after being removed from it. Fish that enjoy "temporary immunity" are much rarer. These fish are still carriers (so, they can infect other fish), but they themselves may not show symptoms for up to 6 months. It is thought that these fish have histone-like proteins in their mucus and skin that kill trophonts. All of the above also applies to Marine velvet disease (Amyloodinium). Fortunately, these threats can be eliminated by prophylactically treating with either copper or Chloroquine phosphate.

Ich can survive almost indefinitely without seeing any body spots or just a spot or two, because it often resides in the gills. TRUE." from Humblefish post Understanding Ich

I have a question that not many have been able to really state the answer to. I know tons of studies show it and I hear things from non-scientific backgrounds say some answers, but I am hoping those of you doing more detailed studies can help answer this question.

My current 210g has been up and running continuously for almost 6 years. When my tank was very new (few months), I added a pair of yellow clown gobies. Now, these guys were not qted (no comments please

) Soon they showed the tell tale signs of ich. They were almost covered in little white dots. The only other fish at the time were a kole tang and lawnmower blenny.
I did not remove them (as how would I in a 210g tank with corals and such (from a old system). I fed well and hoped for the best.
Well, the best happened as the lawnmower blenny never had signs. The tang never showed more than a spot or two and the clown gobies lived another 3 years happily reproducing regularly.

I have never again added a fish without qt. I have never again experienced any signs of ich on any fish added since. My only living fish from that original 4 is my kole tang that is big, beautiful and happy. The tank has never gone fallow!

Is ich still in my system?

This is just curiosity as I will not change anything due to the answer. I have heard differing opinions as to whether ich is still present.

Humblefish · Dec 27, 2015

DeniseAndy said:
Is ich still in my system?

If it has been 5+ years since the clown gobies with ich were introduced and no other ich infested fish have been added since, then congratulations you may have very well "outlasted" ich's lifespan.

However, the 4 years (discussed above) is just the average lifespan on your garden variety strain of ich. A given strain will die out after 100 generations or so. Given the average life cycle of ich is 2 weeks, this is how I came up with 4 years. Of course, ich could survive longer (or less) in your tank dependent upon which strain was introduced by the clown gobies. The strain discovered by Colorni and Burgess in 1997, for example, takes up to 72 days for all the theronts to be released from their tomonts. So that particular strain could theoretically survive over 20+ years in a DT if you never went fallow.

What I take from your experience is it's never too late to start QT'ing your fish, even if you know you've already introduced ich. If for no other reason than to keep "tank killers" like velvet out of your tank. That disease is not usually manageable like ich sometimes is.

DeniseAndy · Dec 28, 2015

Thanks Humblefish. I figured you would have a great answer.
I agree with the never too late to qt. I have stopped brook from entering using qt and helped many fish adjust to captive life such as anthias, wrasses, jawfish, and others.

I guess we will see at the 20 year mark how everything is doing.

robert · Dec 28, 2015

DeniseAndy said:
"Ich goes away on its own. MOSTLY FALSE. So long as fish are present, ich continues its life cycle for almost 4 years (on average). If another fish is introduced with ich, the new strain restarts the 4 year clock. The only way to eradicate ich from your tank is to go fallow for 72 days and quarantine all livestock moving forward!"
"Certain fish are immune to ich. SOMEWHAT TRUE. There is both “disease masking” and "temporary immunity" to consider. Any fish coming from a tank dosed with a non-therapeutic level of copper may not show symptoms of ich for up to 1 month after being removed from it. Fish that enjoy "temporary immunity" are much rarer. These fish are still carriers (so, they can infect other fish), but they themselves may not show symptoms for up to 6 months. It is thought that these fish have histone-like proteins in their mucus and skin that kill trophonts. All of the above also applies to Marine velvet disease (Amyloodinium). Fortunately, these threats can be eliminated by prophylactically treating with either copper or Chloroquine phosphate.

I have a question that not many have been able to really state the answer to. I know tons of studies show it and I hear things from non-scientific backgrounds say some answers, but I am hoping those of you doing more detailed studies can help answer this question.

My current 210g has been up and running continuously for almost 6 years. When my tank was very new (few months), I added a pair of yellow clown gobies. Now, these guys were not qted (no comments please ) SIch can survive almost indefinitely without seeing any body spots or just a spot or two, because it often resides in the gills. TRUE." from Humblefish post Understanding Ichoon they showed the tell tale signs of ich. They were almost covered in little white dots. The only other fish at the time were a kole tang and lawnmower blenny.
I did not remove them (as how would I in a 210g tank with corals and such (from a old system). I fed well and hoped for the best.
Well, the best happened as the lawnmower blenny never had signs. The tang never showed more than a spot or two and the clown gobies lived another 3 years happily reproducing regularly.

I have never again added a fish without qt. I have never again experienced any signs of ich on any fish added since. My only living fish from that original 4 is my kole tang that is big, beautiful and happy. The tank has never gone fallow!

Is ich still in my system?

This is just curiosity as I will not change anything due to the answer. I have heard differing opinions as to whether ich is still present.

"Ich goes away on its own. MOSTLY FALSE. So long as fish are present, ich continues its life cycle for almost 4 years (on average). If another fish is introduced with ich, the new strain restarts the 4 year clock."

As you as Fact Chrecking and have declared this MOSTLY FALSE - Do you have any citation for this?

Burgess and Matthews (1994) were attempting to maintain a viable population of C. irritans which could be used in later studies. To maintain the parasite populations, they needed host fish in order for the trophonts to feed and continue the life cycle. Each host fish was only used once in a process of serial transition such that none of the hosts would die or develop an immunity. While the procedure worked very well and enabled them to maintain populations for some time, the viability of the populations decreased with time and none of the 7 isolates they used survived more than 34 cycles, around 10 to 11 months. They suggest this is due to senescence and aging in cell lines is well recognised in Ciliophora.

The presence of aging cell lines in C. irritans suggests that an aquarium that has been running for longer than 12 months without any additions is unlikely to have any surviving "Ich" parasites, yet another exception to "Ich" always being present.

Data From PHD thesis:

"Certain fish are immune to ich. SOMEWHAT TRUE...Fish that enjoy "temporary immunity" are much rarer. These fish are still carriers (so, they can infect other fish), but they themselves may not show symptoms for up to 6 months. "

Again, you post as if you've fact checked this by declaring it "SOMEWHAT TRUE" - so again I have to ask - do you have a citation of a published study to share?

To understand the nature of the six month immunity, it is important to look at the actual data and just as importantly understand the methods of the study. Immunity was measured by the number of trophonts relased fro an exposed "immune" fish. If no trophants are released - then no theronts are produced - which begs the question - how exactly do you propose that these "carriers" can infect another fish? Please explain -

The important thing to realize - is that after six months without further exposure - the immunity was diminished but still operating as indicated by the reduched number of trophonts released after a rechallenge. So its after six months that imunity may begin to diminish if no rexposure takes place in that time - Very different that what you are saying.

Again - if you have a source - I would be most appreciative to see it.

Finally you seem to verify the claim "Ich can survive almost indefinitely without seeing any body spots or just a spot or two, because it often resides in the gills. TRUE." from Humblefish post Understanding Ich"

While it is true that ich can reside in the gills out of sight - I have never seen anything that would come close to suggesting that ich "can survive almost indefinately" without going through its normal lifecycle - trophonts still need to drop from the fish, encyst and release theronts to infect another host. While theronts are chemotaxic and can propel themselves at a rate of about 15 feet per hour - they are at the mercy of the currents and do not have the locomotion to selectively target selective structures of the fish. They are actually quite at the mercy of luck to even find a host in the first place.
The internet is a wonderful resource - but it is also an echo chamber where wrong information tends to reverberate from article to article. Maybe I'm guily of this in my post - but at least I can show you the source where my information came from...originally... with data and methods...I assume you can too - since you've taken it upone yourself to declare in BOLD letters whether certain claims are TRUE OR FALSE.

I look forward to being corrected - with citations.

PS - 72 days fallow comes from a cold water study - but it seems details don't matter much.

Humblefish · Dec 29, 2015

@robert I'll address all of your "concerns" as I have time, but first let's discuss the Colorni and Burgess 1997 study which established the "72 day rule".

Excerpt below is taken from here: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa164

The time required for theront development varies. In one study (Colorni and Burgess 1997), theronts emerged from a group of tomonts sometime between 3 and 72 days, with most released from 4 to 8 days after tomont formation.

Most were obviously unaffected by the "cold water", so what leads you to believe the theronts that took 72 days were the result of temperature? Do you have a study you care to share? This study deals mostly with encystment: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2761.1979.tb00146.x/abstract

robert · Dec 29, 2015

Colorni and Burgess 1997 was an update in Aquarium Sciences and Conservation, 1: 217–238. I have not read it - but you cited it so please post the relevant section.

"Most were obviously unaffected by the "cold water""

Unaffected?

In your same citation:

The time required for theront development varies. In one study (Colorni and Burgess 1997), theronts emerged from a group of tomonts sometime between 3 and 72 days, with most released from 4 to 8 days after tomont formation. In another study (Diggles and Lester 1996c ), tomite development and theront release occurred, on average, between 5 and 12.1 days after tomont formation, depending upon strain and temperature.

Tomonts range in size from 94.5 x 170 µm (~ 1/10 mm x 1/6 mm) to 252 x 441 µm (~1/4 x 1/2 mm). The tomont of one strain ofCryptocaryon was 210 x 763 μm (~1/5 x 3/4 mm). The encysted tomont undergoes many divisions, producing numerous daughter tomites(approximately 100 to 1000, depending upon strain and temperature [Colorni and Burgess 1997]). These tomites are released as theronts,the free-swimming infective stage.

How long each life stage will need for development will depend upon the fish species affected, the fish's immune status, the strain ofCryptocaryon, and environmental factors including temperature and salinity

Although generally not feasible for large populations, large or complex systems, or weak or debilitated fish, one approach that has been suggested is transfer of affected fish into new, bare bottom tanks every 3 days (Colorni 1987). Tanks are cleaned, disinfected (seeDisinfection below), and dried between moves. This approach reduces or prevents tomont development on the substrates, and subsequent reinfection. Depending upon temperature, fish may need to be moved 3–5 times.

Temperature will also determine whether hyposalinity will control the parasite, with temperatures outside the optimal range (23–30°C) causing greater breakdown of tomonts (Cheung et al. 1979).

One suggested protocol that may have some effectiveness, depending upon temperature and the strain's salinity tolerance, is to maintain water at 15 g/L for 21–30 days (Noga 1996; Kinsler, pers. comm.). Salinity should be reduced gradually by 5 to 10 g/L per day until 15 g/L is reached.

A number of factors determine how severe the disease and mortalities will be and the length of the parasite life cycle. These factors include the strain of Cryptocaryon, the temperature and salinity of the water, the species and age of the fish and their general immune status, previous exposure to the parasite, the number of infective parasites present, and the dissolved oxygen concentration of the water. The life cycle can last from 6–11 weeks, but an average parasite life cycle appears to be 1–2 weeks.

Dan, X.M., X.T. Lin, Y.X Yan, N. Teng, Z.L. Tan, and A.X. Li. 2009. A technique for the preservation of Cryptocaryon irritans at low temperatures. Aquaculture 297: 112–115.

Diggles, B.K. and R.J.G. Lester. 1996b. Influence of Temperature and Host Species on the development of Cryptocaryon irritans. The Journal of Parasitology Vol. 82(1): 45–51.

jetmaker · Dec 29, 2015

I've been in this for 30+ yrs I've had ich in fresh water tanks but never once in saltwater no disease I do always run a uv steralizer but maybe I've just been lucky lol

jetmaker · Dec 29, 2015

Oh by the way I still use metal halides that put out uv to.

Humblefish · Dec 29, 2015

@robert You know full well I cannot copy & paste information which is only available per subscription. That would be copyright infringement. I can only quote information that is "publicly viewable" and provide a link to it.

However, I see nothing in the information you provided which proves temperature has a direct correlation to theront release. You just temperature and temperature a bunch of times.

robert · Dec 29, 2015

Of course - once again you proffer a strawman - no one asked for a reprint - just an excerpt of the relevant section.

Its called "Fair Use" - http://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/copyright.cfm#fairuse_definition and is perfectly legitimate and legal.

What is clear though is you have not read it as otherwise you would simply paraphrase - explaining the specific basis of the 72 fallow period and how you determined it was applicable to the home reef system....

As to the other stated claims, I provided specific data and methods to explain why I took exception to the "fact checker's" assertions - Do you have anything to support them?

Humblefish · Dec 29, 2015

So let's first sort through your issues with the 72 fallow period. As you know, the Colorni and Burgess 1997 study can be found in it's entirety here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018360323287

That is the study which discovered that theronts can take up to 72 to be released/ruptured from their tomonts. Of course, you are attributing this to cooler water temps not normal for a home reef environment. The study itself (from what I remember without rereading it) is not so specific on the matter.

But a quick search on Google Scholar pulled up a different study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627500

At 20 C trophonts stayed on the fish longer, tomonts took longer to excyst, and the resulting theronts were larger than at 25 C.

That's the closest I can find to a direct correlation between temperature and time for tomont encystment, which would lead to a delay in theront release. Of course, every strain of ich is going to be a little different, and I don't think a study exists which covers them all.

So it's best to always plan for worst case scenario IMHO - based upon the available information on hand, which is currently 72 days.

I really don't even understand what your objective is here, except to try to discredit me. What is "robert's fallow period for ich", or do we just hope & pray the diatom filter sucks all the theronts out before they land on a fish?

I believe I read somewhere (no, I don't remember the exact source) that at “reef temperatures" tomonts should take no longer than 28 days to excyst. Of course, don't tell that to all the people who have gone fallow >72 days and ich still comes back. @4FordFamily's experience is a prime example of this.

jetmaker · Dec 30, 2015

Humblr

Humblefish said:
So let's first sort through your issues with the 72 fallow period. As you know, the Colorni and Burgess 1997 study can be found in it's entirety here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018360323287

That is the study which discovered that theronts can take up to 72 to be released/ruptured from their tomonts. Of course, you are attributing this to cooler water temps not normal for a home reef environment. The study itself (from what I remember without rereading it) is not so specific on the matter.

But a quick search on Google Scholar pulled up a different study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627500

That's the closest I can find to a direct correlation between temperature and time for tomont encystment, which would lead to a delay in theront release. Of course, every strain of ich is going to be a little different, and I don't think a study exists which covers them all. So it's best to always plan for worst case scenario IMHO - based upon the available information on hand, which is currently 72 days.

I really don't even understand what your objective is here, except to try to discredit me. What is "robert's fallow period for ich", or do we just hope & pray the diatom filter sucks all the theronts out before they land on a fish? I believe I read somewhere (no, I don't remember the exact source) that at “reef temperatures" tomonts should take no longer than 28 days to excyst. Of course, don't tell that to all the people who have gone fallow >72 days and ich still comes back. @4FordFamily's experience is a prime example of this.

humblefish you need to check in to the stra of bacteria coming out of Malaysia that eats ick out of the dt a

jetmaker · Dec 30, 2015

And the fish

omykiss001 · Dec 30, 2015

robert said:
Of course - once again you proffer a strawman - no one asked for a reprint - just an excerpt of the relevant section.

Its called "Fair Use" - http://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/copyright.cfm#fairuse_definition and is perfectly legitimate and legal.

What is clear though is you have not read it as otherwise you would simply paraphrase - explaining the specific basis of the 72 fallow period and how you determined it was applicable to the home reef system....

As to the other stated claims, I provided specific data and methods to explain why I took exception to the "fact checker's" assertions - Do you have anything to support them?

I think Humblefish was simply giving worst case as documented by the literature to date. Is that average, no 1 month would probably cover more than 90% of known strains, but then again if you get the rare one at 60 days and it kills many or most of your livestock well that pretty much sucks for you. There may also be strains out there that go even longer than 72 days this is just the longest that has been observed and probably puts us way out on the tail of the distribution (i.e little chance of recurring infection). Draw the line wherever you'd like according to what you've cited average life cycle is 10 days so if you go 3 life cycles in time about 1 month fallow would do it, but this is based off this study, and footnote 2 does state that 50% of the cysts have moved to infective state in this time frame. It does not state what the time to 100% excystment is so your reference does not state worst case time nor the variance or standard deviation so it might be calculated based on those numbers.

I think the idea fish can't be carries and asymptomatic does not hold much weight either. In the human world where I'm much more practiced diseases like typhus and HIV are perfect examples of contagious yet asymptomatic diseases.

Regarding ability to hide only in gills, I can at least speak to personal experience and yes it's a N of 1 so I don't claim to be the norm but at least 1 observed occurrence. With my bout of crypto my Kole tang had been acting strange lots of darting and swimming back and forth against the glass then dart through the water. There was no observable disease on the body for a couple of life cycles until the parasite load began to overwhelm the host only then was there observable body infection. In normal and low parasite load infections more than likely some parasites do attempt to infect the body, but the passive immune system on the skin including slime more than likely make this unsuccessful, whereas the gill tissue is probably much more susceptible to this kind of attack by the parasite and probably does little harm to the host under light parasite load, it's probably random where the parasite connects, but only the ones who do make it through the defenses can reproduce. Again this is just postulation based on other knowns of the immune function and population biology theory, I have not looked to see if the studies have been done.

Lastly the studies on immunity show while sort term there is immunity, but it is being lost by 6 months, that's not long term immunity, couple this with the unknowns of anything other than the species in the study. Meaning some species may have much longer immunity and other really never get anything that could be termed immune, and if even 1 in 100 free swimmers are able to attach and complete the lifecycle it can persist in the system and erupt with a stressing event where even the immune fish now have a compromised immune system and are probably now susceptible to reinfection. Much like what we see in humans when we become immune compromised even fungi we would never consider pathogenic become life threatening infections.

I too would like to understand what you are trying inform. Do you think the fallow time is to exaggerated or the study was misinterpreted. Other than stating some studies that don't really make your point regarding temp as the only range specified in your post is well within the range we keep our systems of 23-30 C or 73.4-86 F and it produced a range of 5-12 day s to complete the lifecycle based in this range. This study even states the parasite suffers when outside this range. In the study you have issue where the 72 days is derived with what temp was that conducted under, you did not state this, it would be helpful to provide this value If you think the study is not appropriate to our home systems rather than highlighting the word temp in your citations without stating the relevant values.

4FordFamily · Dec 30, 2015

Robert, as I see frequently, you seem to "cite" the same things and bolden words which in context, do little to progress your rebuttal. It seems you are just quote dumping for credibility, which, is actually a powerful psychological tool and often quite effective. Those who read between the lines though are left puzzled by your assertions.

You seem to still confuse immunity and resistance. Again, I will reiterate that many fish in this hobby can develop a resistance to ich that temporarily mirrors that of an "immunity". I practiced "ich management" as you and many others prescribe for over a decade with some pretty impressive "success". Nonetheless, I killed many fish that may or may not have otherwise died in the absense of simple parasites such as ich.

I hear the argument all the time that "if a fish dies of ich it's because it was weak and would have died anyway" - I used to subscribe to this belief myself.

However, having properly treated incoming fish and prevented infestation on what is now probably 50 individuals (many species of which I was unsuccessful with during my ich management years leading me to change), I've seen significantly better results- even from what appear to be weak, sickly, or thin fish from the start. Remember that these weak fish we "write off" for dead have been put through the ringer before we receive them. They've been collected, housed on a boat for a short time, brought to several facilities throughout the value chain, shipped several times, and then arrive at an LFS as well, all before finally arriving in our tanks. A fish that once had to really only adapt to a few conditions has been exposed to so many different levels of husbandry, water parameters (think of the vast differences here throughout the chain) and copious parasites because of the sheer volume of fish running through these distribution channels and the cost prohibitive nature of properly running each tank fallow or running them 4 weeks with CP or Cupramine between use. They deserve a fighting chance.

The issue with proper disease prevention and quarantine procedures is that they're a lot of work. It requires money and time. People don't want to do it. I get it I was there. But it really does vastly improve the lifespan and percentage of fish that adapt to home life. So while we dismiss some fish and justify our husbandry practices as I did for years, the truth of the matter is that we do not want to spend the money, time, etc. to give them the best shot. It took me ten years to come to grips with the truth.

Copying and pasting the one out of ten studies that loosely (if at all) supports your claim and then word dump does little to aid people's understanding and further the hobby. That was probably unintentional on your part, but understand Humblefish has much experience and knowledge in this realm and wishes only to help others. He does not profit from his suggestions. Unlike many hardcore qt and preventative folks, he acknowledges the fact that indeed sometimes ich management can work, for an unknown amount of time depending on a plethora of factors. Humblefish didn't become the fish disease moderator because he's a moron. I mean maybe he is, but it isn't because he is ignorant in this realm.

We call him Dr Fish for a reason!

His underlying message is this, correct me if I am wrong @Humblefish:

1) ich management can sometimes "work" but it is not as effective as proper prevention and quarantine procedures.

2) with ich management, any stress event can cause the parasite to quickly gain the upper hand and wreak havoc. (Heater failures, equipment releasing DC, power outages, tank moves, new fish additions particularly with high aggression, water parameter swings, accidental chemical overdoses, significant aquascaping changes, etc etc).

3) although some hobbyist may well have good "luck" to varying degrees based on experience, types of fish kept, stability, and many other factors, it is probably not the most ethical husbandry method for most hobbyists and promoting it probably does more harm than good.

4) everyone's experiences can be different, and it is important that we all share experiences, but let's keep debates constructive and relevant.

Let's all take a step back and stop trying to point to someone as wrong and instead focus on how we can advance this hobby for the sake of the animals and the people that practice it because we all share the same passion.