PLEASE STOP USING TTM-IT'S BARBARIC

[Amoo]

Sure, we definitely should. But the better way needs to actually be better. TTM is a ton of work, stressful for both the fish and the person. It's debatable on whether or not TTM is any better than copper for ich. Your point about Penicillin is apples to oranges. It was a revolutionary medicine that fell out of favor because many strains of bacteria have become resistant to it do to over use, people are allergic to it and because big pharma is always pushing new drugs. None of that applies here.

If the push for more and more aquaculture continues, this could change very drastically very quickly in regards to resistance.

 

[saltyhog]

TTM is not "a ton of work" at least to me. Look at my video on the first page of this thread and list the behavioral signs of "stress" that are present.

As for the penicillin question, it is about 70 years old. It's remarkable that there are any bacteria still sensitive to it. If we get 10 years before significant resistance develop with new antibiotics we are happy. Big pharmacy doesn't give a flip about penicillin or any other oral antibiotic. There hasn't been a new one in a long, long time and almost all antibiotics used orally these days are generic.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Sure, we definitely should. But the better way needs to actually be better. TTM is a ton of work, stressful for both the fish and the person. It's debatable on whether or not TTM is any better than copper for ich.

All of these points are conjecture. People who prefer TTM obviously don't see it as "a ton of work" (or if they do, they've deemed it to be advantageous over other methods). The "stress" issue has already been addressed, but let's revisit it for a sec... to make this statement, you'd need some objective standard for measuring "stress" and would need to compare the methods discussed here (TTM vs. Copper...oddly enough hypo hasn't been mentioned much, but should also be considered). I don't believe this has ever been done. Many of us believe that if done correctly, copper treatment (placing a fish in a substance known to be toxic) may be more stressful to the fish than TTM (moving the fish to a new tank where no toxic substances are present in any of the procedure). TTM utilizes known scientific data about the ich lifecycle in order to remove it from the fish. Given that some ich strains are known to be resistant to copper, TTM seems like it would be more effective.

 

[NewSaltWaterGuy]

I think this is one of those, Never-ending discussions or debates... ;Dead

but at least its a good read. ;Bookworm

 

[Bouncingsoul39]

All of these points are conjecture. People who prefer TTM obviously don't see it as "a ton of work" (or if they do, they've deemed it to be advantageous over other methods). The "stress" issue has already been addressed, but let's revisit it for a sec... to make this statement, you'd need some objective standard for measuring "stress" and would need to compare the methods discussed here (TTM vs. Copper...oddly enough hypo hasn't been mentioned much, but should also be considered). I don't believe this has ever been done. Many of us believe that if done correctly, copper treatment (placing a fish in a substance known to be toxic) may be more stressful to the fish than TTM (moving the fish to a new tank where no toxic substances are present in any of the procedure). TTM utilizes known scientific data about the ich lifecycle in order to remove it from the fish wile some fish are immune to copper. Given that some ich strains are known to be resistant to copper, TTM seems like it would be more effective.

Can you please link a scientific, peer reviewed paper that proves the existence of copper resistant Marine Ich? I can't find one and I honestly don't believe that is a real thing. I think the real thing is people not following instructions on the copper package and other variable where the copper level was not maintained at the established therapeutic level. Also, there are no fish that are immune to copper, but there are fish that will be killed by copper. Those are the ones you don't want to treat with it.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Can you please link a scientific, peer reviewed paper that proves the existence of copper resistant Marine Ich? I can't find one and I honestly don't believe that is a real thing. I think the real thing is people not following instructions on the copper package and other variable where the copper level was not maintained at the established therapeutic level.

I don't know of any scientific papers that address this (it's unlikely there would be much research on this), but the sheer number of experienced aquarists who use copper effectively only to discover at some point with a particular batch of ich that it isn't being killed by the same regimen as had previously worked with them following the same recommended instructions/procedure that they always have, leads me to believe that by sample size alone, it doesn't make sense to blame it all on user error.

Also, there are no fish that are immune to copper, but there are fish that will be killed by copper. Those are the ones you don't want to treat with it.

Yep. That's definitely a typo. I actually wrote the correction to it in the next sentence, but apparently failed to delete the mistake. It's what I get for writing on R2R before having coffee.

 

[Brew12]

From Fishvet.com - When we took skin scrapings from these fish that had been healthy for more than a year we found evidence of trophonts under the skin. Evidently these had not found it necessary to reproduce & leave the fish, as no sign of disease had occurred over a long period of time.

It is unlikely that they stayed on the fish the entire time. Fish can build an immunity to marine Ich. The trophonts cannot feed as effectively and reproduce in much lower numbers but they still follow the same 3 to 7 day time line. Keep in mind that you don't actually see the Ich parasite on the fish, what you are seeing is the mucus excretion on the site where the parasite is. If the parasite isn't feeding effectively, there is no visible excretion on the outside of the fish.
The downside is that if the fish experiences a stressor that weakens its immune system it will start showing symptoms again.

 

[Brew12]

it doesn't make sense to blame it all on user error.

I blame it on the user.
Actually, I blame it more on the copper test set and poor manufacturers instructions. Coppersafe still recommends a therapuetic level of 0.15ppm to 0.2ppm on their website. Their directions have you dose to 1.17ppm by their own admission. Most recommendations are to maintain it at 1.5ppm to 2ppm to be effective. I've spent dozens of hours just trying to figure out how to use this one product including several long email strings with Fritz and I am still confused. Combine this with just how difficult hobbyist level test kits are to use and it is easy to see how user error could come into play.

However, I have an unscientific theory too.....

I don't know of any scientific papers that address this (it's unlikely there would be much research on this), but the sheer number of experienced aquarists who use copper effectively only to discover at some point with a particular batch of ich that it isn't being killed by the same regimen as had previously worked with them following the same recommended instructions/procedure that they always have

I have a theory on what is happening and it isn't that the theronts are no longer responding to copper treatment. We know that Crypto is most easily killed in the theront stage while it is looking for a fish. We also know that it can take up to 72 days for the theront to be released. Most recommendations are to treat with copper for 30 days. There is scientific evidence that long exposure (3+ weeks) will also impact the tomont. As more and more LFS's keep low levels of copper in their systems I believe we are seeing strains of crypto whose tomonts are not impacted enough by copper. When we pull the copper out of the system after 30 days, any tomonts that hatch following the treatment may still be viable.

Edit: This is why I recommend treating in copper for 12-14 days and transferring to a new tank. The one transfer I can handle. I'm too lazy for TTM and I know this takes care of Velvet, too.

 

[Humblefish]

Can you please link a scientific, peer reviewed paper that proves the existence of copper resistant Marine Ich? I can't find one and I honestly don't believe that is a real thing. I think the real thing is people not following instructions on the copper package and other variable where the copper level was not maintained at the established therapeutic level. Also, there are no fish that are immune to copper, but there are fish that will be killed by copper. Those are the ones you don't want to treat with it.

No studies (that I am aware of), but this is just common sense. It is well documented how bacteria can develop resistance when antibiotics are improperly applied. Is it not logical to conclude that parasites could develop resistance to copper (or CP) if continuously exposed to a subtherapeutic/sublethal level? This practice is common with collectors, wholesalers and LFS. Because it keeps the parasites at bay without the harmful side effects.

 

[MnFish1]

Now let's stop and think about what we both know here. I think we both know just knocking out Ich in the free swimming stage will do literally NOTHING to prevent the reinfection and you will need to continue to buy their product they are selling to keep treating as reinfections occur, because we both know they will.

As to the effectiveness of the product and re-infection I don't know (I didn't mention the product - so I'm don't know why you brought it up). It would likely be at least a 3 week process - whether that would be long enough to allow any infected fish to improve enough to survive and obtain immunity to any ich remaining I dont know.

I only put the quote from fishvet.com's article on ich because it was well researched and the fact that researchers found subclinical dormant ich in fish that had been 'healthy' for a year only by doing skin scrapings. They reference all of the Burgess articles from 1994 and beyond. Another article (below) confirms this - and has a lot of interesting facts/recommendations for this parasite. This article also discusses TTM.

What they are describing on fishvet.com is not how veterinary medicine works and further proves the point that if this site is even run by a vet (which they may have one on staff, but I'd be surprised), this isn't how we maintain and run our practices. It's not only non-ethical, but illegal.

Looking into it, the ingredient is 5-Nitroimidazole - which is used in other 'anti-ich' products as well. I think your claim that they are doing something non-ethical and illegal is an irresponsible statement. Again - I have no pro or con statements to make about the company or their products - I only quoted what I thought was a well researched writeup on Ich - and how it can remain dormant in fish for extended periods.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FA/FA16400.pdf

 

[Bouncingsoul39]

Is it not logical to conclude that parasites could develop resistance to copper (or CP) if continuously exposed to a subtherapeutic/sublethal level?

What you just said is that ich can become immune when exposed to levels of copper below the established therapeutic level. So you just proved my point. But you don't have any proof of that either. Look, I prefer science guys, if something isn't backed up by some real research, scientific data, then I'm not buying it. "Common sense isn't common." A handful of forum posts doesn't constitute any significant sample size and without anything to back it up, it's just a theory.
I don't follow the logic that because a bacteria can become resistant to an antibiotic that a parasite could become resistant to heavy metal poisoning. It's not the same thing.

Also, wholesalers, which I've worked at for years, use Copper not "because it keeps parasites at bay". They use it because it is a proven effective treatment that kills ich. They also use Prazi because that is a proven effective treatment for flukes.

 

[Amoo]

I think your claim that they are doing something non-ethical and illegal is an irresponsible statement.

Please note this distinction because it is very important and you're misunderstanding what I am saying. What I am saying was if an actual veterinarian was operating like that it would be unethical and illegal. This has nothing to do with a website that happens to have vet in their name.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

As to the effectiveness of the product and re-infection I don't know (I didn't mention the product - so I'm don't know why you brought it up). It would likely be at least a 3 week process - whether that would be long enough to allow any infected fish to improve enough to survive and obtain immunity to any ich remaining I dont know.

I only put the quote from fishvet.com's article on ich because it was well researched and the fact that researchers found subclinical dormant ich in fish that had been 'healthy' for a year only by doing skin scrapings. They reference all of the Burgess articles from 1994 and beyond. Another article (below) confirms this - and has a lot of interesting facts/recommendations for this parasite. This article also discusses TTM.



Looking into it, the ingredient is 5-Nitroimidazole - which is used in other 'anti-ich' products as well. I think your claim that they are doing something non-ethical and illegal is an irresponsible statement. Again - I have no pro or con statements to make about the company or their products - I only quoted what I thought was a well researched writeup on Ich - and how it can remain dormant in fish for extended periods.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FA/FA16400.pdf

I would be very doubtful of such research. The fish "appearing healthy" has nothing to do with whether or not there is ich going through the lifecycle in the tank. @Brew12 gave solid explanation of this in his answer to this above, but it's worth restating that apparently "healthy" fish doesn't mean ich isn't present, and there's no research (that I'm aware of) that would demonstrate ich not going through its lifecycle. The issue is immunity in the fish not variance in the behavior of the parasite.

 

[MnFish1]

I would be very doubtful of such research. The fish "appearing healthy" has nothing to do with whether or not there is ich going through the lifecycle in the tank. @Brew12 gave solid explanation of this in his answer to this above, but it's worth restating that apparently "healthy" fish doesn't mean ich isn't present, and there's no research (that I'm aware of) that would demonstrate ich not going through its lifecycle. The issue is immunity in the fish not variance in the behavior of the parasite.

This is from the PDF I posted above - from the University of Florida (great article covering Cryptocaryon)

Fish that survive a Cryptocaryon infection develop immunity, which can prevent significant disease for up to 6 months (Burgess 1992; Burgess and Matthews 1995). However, these survivors may act as carriers and provide a reservoir for future outbreaks (Colorni and Burgess 1997).

Also - I understand the points above that you made - they are also discussed in the article I quoted. I should have included the whole paragraph.

This is the remainder of the quote:
A special observation: The writer has observed with some of his co-workers on many occasions, that Crytocaryon irritans often breaks out under the following conditions. The Hobbyist will have a tank with several specimens all of which are free of any signs of the parasite. A new fish will be introduced & the following day, "white spots" will be observed in a great many cases, NOT on the new introduction, but on one of established inhabitants. This happened so often so years ago, that we made some experiments on apparently "disease free fish" (specifically Powder Blue Tangs and Yellow tangs). When we took skin scrapings from these fish that had been healthy for more than a year we found evidence of trophonts under the skin. Evidently these had not found it necessary to reproduce & leave the fish, as no sign of disease had occurred over a long period of time."

 

[blkhwkz]

What you just said is that ich can become immune when exposed to levels of copper below the established therapeutic level. So you just proved my point. But you don't have any proof of that either. Look, I prefer science guys, if something isn't backed up by some real research, scientific data, then I'm not buying it. "Common sense isn't common." A handful of forum posts doesn't constitute any significant sample size and without anything to back it up, it's just a theory.
I don't follow the logic that because a bacteria can become resistant to an antibiotic that a parasite could become resistant to heavy metal poisoning. It's not the same thing.

Also, wholesalers, which I've worked at for years, use Copper not "because it keeps parasites at bay". They use it because it is a proven effective treatment that kills ich. They also use Prazi because that is a proven effective treatment for flukes.

Humble said it is common practice for collectors, wholesalers, and LFS to use subtherapeutic levels of copper to keep parasites at bay. Which is a true statement. I would love to get some fish from the wholesalers you work at that run the proper amounts of copper, tested daily, and quarantine properly before sending fish to the LFS. Amazing that these fish treated properly with copper and prazi still show up to the LFS still in shipping bags with flukes, ich, or velvet so often. We all know it is not cost effective and they turn over fish constantly so the fish are not being exposed to the right levels of copper for a long enough period to "kill ich."

 

[MnFish1]

Please note this distinction because it is very important and you're misunderstanding what I am saying. What I am saying was if an actual veterinarian was operating like that it would be unethical and illegal. This has nothing to do with a website that happens to have vet in their name.

You're right - I am misunderstanding your point. You implied that 'No-Ich' - their product was designed in a manner to keep people buying it because the product affected only free-swimming organisms i.e. that it was ineffective (and I think you're incorrect). I guess I assumed that if you felt that a veterinarian selling this product would be 'unethical/illegal', that it would also apply to a company doing the same thing. But this is off topic.

 

[Humblefish]

What you just said is that ich can become immune when exposed to levels of copper below the established therapeutic level.

No, what I said is that any parasite can become resistant to any chemical meant to eradicate it, if continuously exposed to said chemical at a sublethal level. Immunity is a completely different thing, as that involves a fish's natural immune system developing resistance to a pathogen.

Also, wholesalers, which I've worked at for years, use Copper not "because it keeps parasites at bay". They use it because it is a proven effective treatment that kills ich. They also use Prazi because that is a proven effective treatment for flukes.

Does the wholesaler you work for test the Cu level in every system, each & every day? Do they leave the fish in therapeutic copper long enough to eradicate all parasites? What about mandarins, seahorses and other copper intolerant species? Do they test and treat for prazi resistant worms?

What about clownfish with brook or chromis with uronema, two diseases copper will not fully eradicate? Do you dose antibiotics for bacterial infections???

 

[Amoo]

You're right - I am misunderstanding your point. You implied that 'No-Ich' - their product was designed in a manner to keep people buying it because the product affected only free-swimming organisms i.e. that it was ineffective (and I think you're incorrect). I guess I assumed that if you felt that a veterinarian selling this product would be 'unethical/illegal', that it would also apply to a company doing the same thing. But this is off topic.

Ironically enough the article you posted proves that it has to be ineffective, because even if the fish gains temporary immunity after the first two treatments, that doesn't mean the parasite is gone and can often be found on the fish as it is now a carrier. So legitimately it does not rid your system of ich, it simply treat the free swimming stages, leaving you likely to have to redose every time you add anything to the system and hope also that the carrier fish hasn't lost too much of it's "immunity" due to the new outbreak that it doesn't become susceptible again. It by it's very nature is no more than an ich management tool, but certainly not a cure. If it was I'm pretty sure we'd all be using it and dumping it in our tanks in droves seeing as how it's reef and invert safe.

 

[Scarybo]

I've been in and out of this hobby for over 15 years. There has been a constant debate during that time. How , why , and the best method to QT. Let's be honest, when most hobbyist start they dont want to QT their fish. Who wants to set up an tank then wait to add fish. Hobbyist usually look at QT after the inevitable disease wipes out their tank. Then we start to hear the complaints about proper methods or medication. Most information we know today is from long term dedicated hobbyists. There is no money in fish diseases. Even the companies that provide the medicine we use today do minimal research of their own. So most hobbyist learn how to treat and diagnose disease from more experience hobbyists. Not the best method but it is all we have at this point. Copper has been around for awhile and hobbyist have had the most experience with it's use. The problem with copper is it is toxic. It is more toxic to the parasites than the fish at the levels we use, but it is still a poison. Many people use TTM to avoid exposing their fish to the toxic effects of copper. I would consider TTM if velvet wasnt so prevalent. At this time I would recommend all to treat fish as if infected. I do however have a hard time equating TTM to being more stressful then copper. I despise moving (family traveled constantly when I was young) but if I had to choose between staying 30 days in a home infected with mold or I had to move every 3 days during the mold remediation process. Pack my bags. I'm moving. Poison or new tank every 3 days. It's an easy choice for me as to which is less stressful.

 

[MnFish1]

Ironically enough the article you posted proves that it has to be ineffective, because even if the fish gains temporary immunity after the first two treatments, that doesn't mean the parasite is gone and can often be found on the fish as it is now a carrier. So legitimately it does not rid your system of ich, it simply treat the free swimming stages, leaving you likely to have to redose every time you add anything to the system and hope also that the carrier fish hasn't lost too much of it's "immunity" due to the new outbreak that it doesn't become susceptible again. It by it's very nature is no more than an ich management tool, but certainly not a cure. If it was I'm pretty sure we'd all be using it and dumping it in our tanks in droves seeing as how it's reef and invert safe.

Told you 2 times - I am not and haven't advocating the product. I never called it a 'cure'. I never said the parasite is 'gone'. What I said was your linking the words unethical and illegal in the same post you were criticizing a product was irresponsible. I still think that.