A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[Paul B]

Very good article by the way.
I am not against observation either but I also think it is not needed unless you get a fish that is in the process of getting last rites.
But I am totally against propalactic (I can't spell that) treatment because just about all of those treatments are poisons, especially copper and the fish is already stressed. Many of those treatments would kill or at least reduce the gut bacteria of the fish and "all" the new research tells us that gut bacteria is what keeps our fish healthy and it is very important to the immune system just as it is in us. There is a reason we feel lousy after we take a full regiment of antibiotics and why doctors are reluctant to dose us with those any more.

Fresh water is also very stressful for a fish because they are osmotic regulated creatures and the salt level inside the fish is an important parameter just as it is in us. But we have to eat salt if we want it. A fishes skin is semi porous and the fish gains or loses salt through it's skin and even more so through it's gills. Fresh water will seriously upset this delicate balance and I am sure the fish is looking for some Alka Seltzer after that. I realize it is only for a few minutes to kill flukes, but I "think" it would be very stressful, especially because many times the fish will lay on the bottom praying for death after that.

I also don't believe flukes are a big deal because in all my years I have never seen a fish die from them and I never tried to remove them. They seem to get bored in a tank and fall off the fish anyway with no stress to the fish that I know of.

After being in the hobby a few years I learned that the best most natural way is to get the fish very healthy by using food with live bacteria in them and the fishes immune system will take care of the fish as it does in the sea.

I added about 7 fish in the last year, one spotted box fish last week. They all ate right away and whatever spots they had, just disappeared.

 

[Lasse]

I´m sorry - I forgot your aquaria in the last post. I have done an edit now

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MaccaPopEye]

Would you treat your child using chemotherapy without a diagnosis of cancer? This is much closer to what we are doing by treating fish with copper. We know it harms the person/fish but the goal is to destroy the cancer/parasite while hoping the person/fish survives. Do you give your child a heavy round of antibiotics before letting them play in public for the first time if they aren't showing any symptoms of illness? If we did this we would have an even larger problem with resistant strains of bacteria evolving. I feel these examples are more applicable to how some hobbyists, including myself, treat fish.

Thank you Brew12, I have seen the argument that not prophylactically quarantining is akin to anti-vaxing before but while I know it's not a fair comparison I haven't been able to think of one that is actually fair but this is spot on.

This actually doesn’t surprise me, I’ve seen zebrasoma suggested as one of the “hardier” tangs when it comes to CI tolerance and ich-management systems.

Acanthurus and hippo tangs on the other hand, are often less-so.

I have heard the same, interestingly my hippo tang was one of only 2 fish (the other being a black cardinal) that survived my initial velvet outbreak.

Oddly enough, I'm pretty certain the velvet that made it's way into my previous system (I did not QT then ) actually came from fish from a fellow hobbyist who's tank I saw and looked healthy so..go figure.

I would really like to get away from treating with copper though, just because of it's toxic effect overall.

It is very possible that your friends tank has velvet in it and his fish are similar to mine (and many others). My tank is certainly not anything nice to look at (hectic algae issues ) but "mature" wise it is very healthy and you wouldn't know just by looking at it that I have CI and velvet present in the system, yet it is something that I make sure to warn people about when they take anything from my tank, but I have yet to hear about anyone locally who has had issues with something from my tank (it's a very small community).

 

[Brew12]

It’s funny that you reference it here, because it found really limited immunity response with most of the fish continuing to be infected by ich to some degree.

As previously established, the immunity does not eradicate the parasites, it only reduces the numbers to a point where the fish is much more likely to survive.

They found that the immunity didn’t carry over to even related infections, much less general immune response.

Of course not. Again, as previously established the innate and adaptive immune systems are almost completely separate in a fish. The adaptive immune system is extremely selective. I suggest you read the first two links I sent you again.

So, to me it proves that the fish weren’t stronger in a general sense.

Are you trying to suggest that this study did not show survival rates among the immune fish didn't increase substantially when compared to the niave fish?

Whatever limited immunity the fish acquired also disappeared after a few months.

Only in the absence of the parasite. As you commented in the first post I quoted, immunity doesn't eradicate the parasite. As long as the parasite is still present, the immunity will be preserved.

I also think you seem to be missing the point that a fish that has survived a substantial disease is more likely to be weaker and have associated infections.

I keep hearing this, but I have never seen a study that supports it. Can you cite a source?

 

[Brew12]

One thing that was mentioned at some point and kind of stuck with me, is newly hatched baby brine. Supposedly, they eat velvet dinospores like bacon and eggs. I found that interesting considering PaulB feeds baby brine shrimp daily for his mandarins and pipefish.

See? I am willing to have this conversation... just not ready to go full on immune tank mode lol

This is a new one for me. I had no idea that this was possible!

 

[Brew12]

Thank you very much for the excellent posts!

That allows larval parasitic organisms to sink and concentrate in that vector of the tank floor for easy extraction.) where tomites and other larval pests drop to the bottom of the glass every day gets siphoned systematically (slow but systematic siphoning of the entire floor) removes the overwhelming majority of pests and gets pathogen numbers down to the low natural levels (like in the wild) that a fish's natural immunity can fend off the rest. Just a daily siphon for 8+ days. QT still needs to be 2 weeks bare minimum to see if other illnesses (viruses, bacterial infections) get expressed. IMO 4 weeks is the true bare minimum for QT."

Your goal is to just get the numbers down so low that the natural immunity of your fishes fends off the rest.

I found this to be very interesting by itself. Recommending the QT process not be used to eliminate the parasite, but only to allow the fish to build immunity without being overwhelmed. Great stuff!

 

[Brew12]

Very good article by the way.

Thank you Paul, I appreciate that! And thanks for stopping by!

 

[Paul Sands]

As previously established, the immunity does not eradicate the parasites, it only reduces the numbers to a point where the fish is much more likely to survive.

I hope that most people want something more than fish that are just “likely to survive”. I also think that we should be striving for better husbandry practices than fish just surviving while being continually reinfected with smaller amounts of ich.

Yesterday you falsely claimed that any pathogen added to an aquarium makes the fish stronger. Today you finally admitted what everyone else already knew, that fish in aquariums with ich are just surviving it.

 

[Brew12]

I hope that most people want something more than fish that are just “likely to survive”. I also think that we should be striving for better husbandry practices than fish just surviving while being continually reinfected with smaller amounts of ich.

Yesterday you falsely claimed that any pathogen added to an aquarium makes the fish stronger. Today you finally admitted what everyone else already knew, that fish in aquariums with ich are just surviving it.

No, I correctly claimed that any fish exposed to a pathogen that survives will be stronger. And that is true. Fish are designed to survive and thrive with low levels of parasites in their system. This is how they exist in the wild. Or do you not feel that the ocean is a proper place for these fish to live?

I'm still waiting for any study you can produce that a fish is weakened after having their immune system challenged by surviving an exposure. Or that an immune fish is more likely to develop a bacteria infection from a parasite. While I'm confident you cannot produce these, I can produce evidence that copper does weaken a fish.

https://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/fisher...n-Marine-Aquaculture-and-Aquarium-Systems.pdf
"Copper will damage a number of organs and systems, including the gills, liver, kidney, immune system, and nervous system (Cardeilhac and Whitaker 1988). Gills appear to be the most affected organ during acute toxicity, and will become blunt and thickened and lose ability to regulate body fluid ion concentrations. Copper also suppresses immune system function, and can affect the lateral line of fish."

 

[WVNed]

I really wonder how many of you have children that are sick all of the time because you keep them too clean.

 

[Brew12]

Hey @ngoodermuth I found this that you might be interested in regarding your post on what a new reefer should do where they don't have much coral yet... maybe Gorgonians can be the answer!

They are relatively easy to keep, and in addition to eating parasites through water filtering they may also offer anti-bacterial properties!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1xdqLPXPkjr0nxcwBmqqmWc/filming-self-medicating-dolphins
"Studies on gorgonians have proven that they are covered in a mucus layer that contains anti-microbial properties. Therefore when the dolphins run through the gorgonian it is likely this mucus will be applied to their body, which in turn, could potentially protect them from infection."

 

[Paul Sands]

No, I correctly claimed that any fish exposed to a pathogen that survives will be stronger. And that is true. Fish are designed to survive and thrive with low levels of parasites in their system. This is how they exist in the wild. Or do you not feel that the ocean is a proper place for these fish to live?

I'm still waiting for any study you can produce that a fish is weakened after having their immune system challenged by surviving an exposure. Or that an immune fish is more likely to develop a bacteria infection from a parasite. While I'm confident you cannot produce these, I can produce evidence that copper does weaken a fish.

https://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/fisher...n-Marine-Aquaculture-and-Aquarium-Systems.pdf
"Copper will damage a number of organs and systems, including the gills, liver, kidney, immune system, and nervous system (Cardeilhac and Whitaker 1988). Gills appear to be the most affected organ during acute toxicity, and will become blunt and thickened and lose ability to regulate body fluid ion concentrations. Copper also suppresses immune system function, and can affect the lateral line of fish."

Please show me where I’ve advocated for the use of copper. I’ve never once suggested that.

Fish were not designed to do anything. They have evolved. Throwing ich infested fish into a system doesn’t make ANY OF them stronger. They just survive. They are still infected with ich, they just don’t show it.

It takes 14 days of TTM to eradicate ich from a fish. No chemicals. New water every three days. Arguably the best water conditions the fish is likely to ever experience in captivity.

With it being so easy to eliminate ich in our systems, why exactly are you advocating for hobbyists to infect their tanks with pathogens and infect their fish with a disease that they have to deal with for years, if not their entire lives?

 

[Brew12]

Throwing ich infested fish into a system doesn’t make ANY OF them stronger. They just survive.

This is in direct opposition of the science I have shown you. Do you have any studies to back this up? I have probably read hundreds of studies and papers on fish health and immunity and I can't recall this claim being supported a single time.

It takes 14 days of TTM to eradicate ich from a fish. No chemicals. New water every three days. Arguably the best water conditions the fish is likely to ever experience in captivity.

That works for a single specific pathogen and can be modified to help eliminate a 2nd one in velvet. How about the other ones like internal parasites, flukes, Uronema and Brook?

 

[drstardust]

Hey @ngoodermuth I found this that you might be interested in regarding your post on what a new reefer should do where they don't have much coral yet... maybe Gorgonians can be the answer!

They are relatively easy to keep, and in addition to eating parasites through water filtering they may also offer anti-bacterial properties!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1xdqLPXPkjr0nxcwBmqqmWc/filming-self-medicating-dolphins
"Studies on gorgonians have proven that they are covered in a mucus layer that contains anti-microbial properties. Therefore when the dolphins run through the gorgonian it is likely this mucus will be applied to their body, which in turn, could potentially protect them from infection."

Well I’ll be! This may be something worth trying

 

[Brew12]

Well I’ll be! This may be something worth trying

I need to find the time and energy to try and split out some of these discussions into separate threads and make them stickies so they don't get lost. I can't help but wonder how many ideas have been shared but lost when we could have been building on them and sharing experiences related to them.

 

[ngoodermuth]

Hey @ngoodermuth I found this that you might be interested in regarding your post on what a new reefer should do where they don't have much coral yet... maybe Gorgonians can be the answer!

They are relatively easy to keep, and in addition to eating parasites through water filtering they may also offer anti-bacterial properties!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1xdqLPXPkjr0nxcwBmqqmWc/filming-self-medicating-dolphins
"Studies on gorgonians have proven that they are covered in a mucus layer that contains anti-microbial properties. Therefore when the dolphins run through the gorgonian it is likely this mucus will be applied to their body, which in turn, could potentially protect them from infection."

That’s interesting for sure. I love reading about these relationships in the wild.

I’m not sure I would consider gorgonians “easy” though. I think they can be a bit temperamental, and the particulate feeding requirements (at least for the non-photosynthetic varieties) can be problematic in a newer tank. Not established enough to provide a good source on it’s own, and too many “added” foods can perpetuate the “uglies” phase that new tanks go through.

I’ll be honest, didn’t read the entire link yet... but is it a specific species of gorgonian discussed? Or any of them in general?

 

[MnFish1]

In a way - my aquaria contradict that - over 40 fishes in 90 gallon but I am a low feeder and I have small fish chosen with a lot of concern.

I didnt say 'every' tank.

Yesterday you falsely claimed that any pathogen added to an aquarium makes the fish stronger. Today you finally admitted what everyone else already knew, that fish in aquariums with ich are just surviving it.

And at least 3 people including myself have proven that your statement is incorrect.

No, I correctly claimed that any fish exposed to a pathogen that survives will be stronger. And that is true. Fish are designed to survive and thrive with low levels of parasites in their system. This is how they exist in the wild. Or do you not feel that the ocean is a proper place for these fish to live?

I am not sure this is completely correct (i.e. it understates immunity a bit). From what I've read yes - its absolutely true that a fish that survives a pathogen will have a much stronger immune response against that pathogen. SOME fish CAN become carriers - i.e. have low levels of infection - but most of them have no evidence of CI - at all - when they are 'immune'. Then perhaps after 6-7 months after an infection - they may pick up a couple tomonts - which then re-boosts their immune response - they fall off - and then they are immune again.

Here are some quotes from the study:
Mullet, which are euryhaline, were acclimated from native saline conditions (S.G. 1.004) to full seawater (SW, S.G. 1.024) over a period of two weeks, (Though they intially were caught in a lower saline water).

Very low parasite levels (%PEI S 0.'2%), indicating a high. degree of sustained immune protection, were observed in fish held for up to 3 months, with full protection being recorded in 60% at 1.5 months and 100% at 3 months. For the 2 fish held for 6 months, a relatively lower level of immune protection was apparent, with higher numbers of parasites being sustained following challenge as compared with fish held up to 3 months, and with neither fish showing full protection.

The degree of acquired immunity to C.irritans was positively related here to the number and size of exposures. Establishment of partial protection in mullet following a single exposure level of only 500 theronts suggests the existence of a critical lower threshold to elicit a protective response for this pathogen.

 

[Brew12]

I’m not sure I would consider gorgonians “easy” though.

Maybe I only view them that way because I have only purchased one and it is still alive. I can't say that about other types...

I’ll be honest, didn’t read the entire link yet... but is it a specific species of gorgonian discussed? Or any of them in general?

Not much in that link, but I've been digging into it and it seems like almost every gorgonian offers some antibacterial/antimicrobial properties. Some work better than others, and some marine bacteria are almost unaffected based on what I've seen.
On a side note... I also saw where they are trying to use gorgonian extracts as a natural anti fouling agent. ;Wideyed

 

[Brew12]

I am not sure this is completely correct (i.e. it understates immunity a bit). From what I've read yes - its absolutely true that a fish that survives a pathogen will have a much stronger immune response against that pathogen. SOME fish CAN become carriers - i.e. have low levels of infection - but most of them have no evidence of CI - at all - when they are 'immune'. Then perhaps after 6-7 months after an infection - they may pick up a couple tomonts - which then re-boosts their immune response - they fall off - and then they are immune again.

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything that I said.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything that I said.

I did not mean to suggest that it contradicted anything you said. I said what you said 'understated' the strength of immunity as compared to the data in that paper. Specifically - you said fish are designed to live with parasites - yet in the quoted study - at 3 month after exposure - there was NO CI on the fish (in that particular study) - was merely pointing out - that there can be complete immunity to CI (not disagreeing with you). In contrast to the other poster(s) that suggested that immunity is always only 'partial'.

PS - I do agree with you - that fish are designed to live with low levels of parasites - But even in the wild 20- >50 percent of fish have NO parasites attached to them (according to some studies) - other suggest its much more rare - is this immunity - or luck?