The Other Way to Run a Reef Tank (no Quarantine)

[Paul B]

I was next to Mick Jagger a few times and he ain't no Male Model. His wife though is a 20 something Super Model. I wonder why.

 

[Lasse]

Eureka! No wonder you guys have such lively reefs that are high on oxygen.

As a somewhat similar analogy, I orally injest small amounts of hydrogen peroxide each day. Just started with very low doses. The doctors at the VA are very skeptical about me doing this. I trust my pretty witch doctor.

I know vets that when they have been biten by different animals just put some 10 % H2O2 on the wound - nothing survive that. H2O2 is a strong active radical killing the most it come in contact with - please eat a lot of lemmons, oranges and othe C-vitamin rich products if you use that !!


But it is a part of the bodies defence system. The internal content of out macrophages is H2O2. They engulf the pathogen and destroy it with peroxide. The active substance in fish macrophages is H2O2 too – the only difference is that – in case of a wound – they release their peroxide directly out on the flesh. This is the reason why wounds on fishes grow very fast. It is similar to my friends’ habit to take peroxide on wounds, but the fishes are smarter than him. They call in cells that contain melanin - release that in the wound and, hence deactivate the active radicals. Melanin is the black pigment you get when the suns UV lights create active radicals at your skin – similar effect. This is also the explanation why fish often get black spots there they have been wounded. You can often seen this in fishes that dig in the sand – small black spots around the mouth - the reason for the rumour about Malawi cichlids carrying a black spot disease.

The full bus theory is my own expression I think - comming up when I try to explain this for children at the age of 5 - 6 years - but I have heard similar explanation

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Paul,
Quit making me laugh. My ribs hurt.

And I have a fresh surgical scar from the chest down to the umbilical - can´t laugh either

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Subsea]

:

Yes but the shipping from Germany is 3 times as much, I also have to deal with potential Customs issues and the length of time to get it. All in all it is not even a contest once the total price is considered.

The American supplier is $45 Us dollars ($60 Canadian) and he is backordered. I would have bought from him a month ago if he had them, then I somehow found "Hung" 2 days ago.

I just paid him for a Oxydator D with 2 extra catalysts. He is shipping it out tomorrow morning all goes well and I should have it sometime mid next week. I already have 35% food grade H2O2 I bought last month for dosing to spot treat derbesia. I stopped after my corals did not appreciate the direct dosing.

I will start using 1 catalyst for my 75 gallon tank and up it to 2 if things go well.

I never realized how caustic 35% H2O2 was. Human skin is no problem to oxidize.

How does one control / regulate Oxydators operation around reef tank parameter?.

I am strongly considering DO meters in macro production growout tanks.

 

[Subsea]

And I have a fresh surgical scar from the chest down to the umbilical - can´t laugh either

Sincerely Lasse

Open heart?

 

[MnFish1]

I have never heard “full bus” theory. I like it. As a Master Gardner, I weed out undesirables so that desirables reign. When the Garden is new, there are many weeds.

We've discussed it several times here - The full bus theory also goes against the idea that its a good idea to keep adding more and more bacteria to a tank. In a 'mature tank' - the bus is indeed full. If you keep adding more bacteria - 1 of 2 things will happen - old bacteria will be taken over by 'new bacteria' or the new bacteria will just die off.

 

[MnFish1]

You are talking about evolution – we are talking about the wonderful short-term solution that the evolution has given us – the adjustable and specific defence system – the acquired immunity. It is the ultimate defence system both for us and fishes. However – it needs a prior contact with the pathogen in order to be active. The system read the pathogen and start to develop specific antibodies just for that pathogen.

Moreover – fish lives where bacteria and other microorganisms evolved – water. Therefore – because of time – fishes have evolved very effective defence systems that is not specific to certain pathogens. These systems are very effective in their environment, but they probably need a lot of energy in order to work in an effective way.

@Lasse I think some of this makes sense. However, humans evolved and have a very involved immune system (as you know). When I was growing up - most kids got measles - and developed immunity (which fades over time - and requires vaccination).

The problem - as you stated - is that some kids that got measles died from it. Some people that got the vaccine died from the vaccine - its just that the risks of the vaccine are less than getting the disease itself.

The same thing happens in fish. The one's that have been exposed in the wild will have some immunity (some of the fish in the wild will have also died of CI/velvet, etc). But once they have survived their first bout of CI for example - they will be much less likely to get a second infection (whether they are fed fish guts, flake food or t bone steaks).

The flaws I see in the discussion (which I haven't seen anyone address yet) - 1. People claim to have had 'no fish losses' - But if they add a fish to an 'immune' tank - and the fish happens to not be immune to all of the parasites in the tank, a certain number of them will die(and a certain number will gain immunity) - take tank raised clowns for example. 2. There are lots of people that don't quarantine (I think there was a poll and very few people actually do it - or if they do - do it correctly) So those people by definition should have 'immune fish'. Lots of those people feed 'good foods' - and yet they have wipe outs. So what are the reasons they have problems and others do not?

I think it relates to

1. Stocking density (when I see the pictures of you're beautiful tanks - there are a lot of corals - and few fish. The fewer the fish - the fewer the parasites (and the less likely a given parasite will find a host'
2. Lots of filter feeders.
3. Possibly some of the filtration (for example the reverse UG Filter may indeed prevent encystment), oxydators, UV, ozone, filtration.
4. High flow (which can also prevent encystment.

 

[Rybren]

We've discussed it several times here - The full bus theory also goes against the idea that its a good idea to keep adding more and more bacteria to a tank. In a 'mature tank' - the bus is indeed full. If you keep adding more bacteria - 1 of 2 things will happen - old bacteria will be taken over by 'new bacteria' or the new bacteria will just die off.

Why is there not a 3rd option - the new and old bacteria co-exist?

 

[sde1500]

Why is there not a 3rd option - the new and old bacteria co-exist?

I would guess there is a limited carrying capacity in any given tank for any new organism, right down to bacteria. I would think it would actually be some manner of co-existence, with some die off of both old and new, and the most suited for the environment our tanks provide surviving.

 

[Rybren]

That would be my thought as well, which is why I questioned the comment that essentially only one strain will survive. It doesn't makes sense to me, but nature can be strange and I'm certainly not an expert.

 

[MnFish1]

Why is there not a 3rd option - the new and old bacteria co-exist?

If you mean lets say there are xxx total bacteria in a tank - and you add the same number of bacteria yyy - could it happen that in the end there would be 1/2 xxx and 1/2 yyy - In theory that could happen. In most studies it does not - the reason being that the environment in the tank has evolved to the point where everything is full (on the bus) - and new bacteria have a much more difficult taking hold. Likewise - if they can take hold - because of how quickly bacteria reproduce - they often take over the spot of the other bacteria which are 'weaker'.

 

[Stigigemla]

It is 8 years or so since I used copper the last time. I still have in my store but I have no use of it. I use a lot of UVC in my quarintine (3 turnover per hour and clean bottom - no sand). 8 days in that normally take care of ich and velvet.
After that time I move over the fish to the selling tanks. When I see Ich or velvet on fish they get 8 days quarantine after the last sign of it. I believe I have seen Ich 2 times in the shop but it is possible I transferred it with my hands or a net. It is only to take all the fishes back to the quarantine and let them heal there.
Form the customers that I am the only shop for buying fish I believe its only one that has had ich in this time. (I didnt quarantine tube worms. I know they dont carry Ich but apparently the water did).

The positive fish with not using copper is that the fishes are in a better condition when I sell them.
Copper is poisoning fishes too - just not as bad as it is for the parasites. And I am totally convinced thats a point why it goes so well for my customers too.

I believe all medicines are poison. Of course much more for the reason of the illness but most of them affect people too.
It is 40 years now since I was home ill but I have hade colds and influenza but they dont matter me so much that I have a reason to stay in bed. Being a teacher there is about 2 colds and 1 influenza each year in the school. Calicivirus has been going around a few times too but never affected me.
So my advice is clear: Never use a medicine without knowing why and there is no other solution.

 

[MnFish1]

That would be my thought as well, which is why I questioned the comment that essentially only one strain will survive. It doesn't makes sense to me, but nature can be strange and I'm certainly not an expert.

By the way - the key is not that 'only one strain of bacteria will survive'. In my post I said in a well matured tank (meaning that all the space is taken up by the organisms that do best wherever they are growing. There are probably several thousands if not more bacteria strains living in an aquarium. Its just that adding 'more' is not likely to help add biodiversity to the tank in the end

 

[Scott Campbell]

[QUOTE="Subsea, post: 5701562, member: 103573"

It’s as relevant as my 25 year mature tank. It’s as relevant as Paul’s 48 year old tank. Neither one of us quarantine.

Relevant is in the eye of the beholder. Viva la difference![/QUOTE]



I have a 32 year old mature tank. Which I suspect only proves that I'm persistent and old.

And if you are arguing that truth is relative - I'm not sure that is any more helpful than the shrimp farm example.

 

[Paul B]

The same thing happens in fish. The one's that have been exposed in the wild will have some immunity (some of the fish in the wild will have also died of CI/velvet, etc). But once they have survived their first bout of CI for example - they will be much less likely to get a second infection (whether they are fed fish guts, flake food or t bone steaks).

I am not sure about the T Bone steaks, but my theory on wild fish is that they were all exposed to all the diseases on the reef. I feel that water is pretty mixed up and the fish are eating other fish, eggs, squid, possibly T Bone steaks so the diseases would have a hard time missing some fish. Kind of like the Black Plague. Most to all of the people in infected towns died. The few that didn't became immune. So if we take a wild fish, I believe it is immune but that immunity is surpressed by the conditions the fish has been in since capture. If we can get that fish in a stable tank and fed it correctly, that immunity will again protect the fish. I am fairly sure that is what happens in my, Atoll, Sub Sea and Lasses tank.
That is all just my theory of course.

Lots of filter feeders.

Sponges may eat parasites, I am not sure.

 

[MnFish1]

I am not sure about the T Bone steaks, but my theory on wild fish is that they were all exposed to all the diseases on the reef. I feel that water is pretty mixed up and the fish are eating other fish, eggs, squid, possibly T Bone steaks so the diseases would have a hard time missing some fish. Kind of like the Black Plague. Most to all of the people in infected towns died. The few that didn't became immune. So if we take a wild fish, I believe it is immune but that immunity is surpressed by the conditions the fish has been in since capture. If we can get that fish in a stable tank and fed it correctly, that immunity will again protect the fish. I am fairly sure that is what happens in my, Atoll, Sub Sea and Lasses tank.
That is all just my theory of course.


Sponges may eat parasites, I am not sure.

I specifically threw in the T bone steaks for your benefit. I understand - what I don't understand is why others have significant problems doing this. With entire tanks being wiped out within a week of adding a new fish (and I'm talking without quarantine). It can 't be just 'shipping stress' because then only the new fish would die. I (sorry) just don't think that feeding parasites, bacteria helps - so I'm kind of discounting that - trying to find other reasons (and this is all my theory as well)

 

[atoll]

I was next to Mick Jagger a few times and he ain't no Male Model. His wife though is a 20 something Super Model. I wonder why.

His dashing good looks anf charm obviously.

 

[atoll]

:



I never realized how caustic 35% H2O2 was. Human skin is no problem to oxidize.

How does one control / regulate Oxydators operation around reef tank parameter?.

I am strongly considering DO meters in macro production growout tanks.

The Oxydator controls itself.

 

[Scott Campbell]

You are talking about evolution – we are talking about the wonderful short-term solution that the evolution has given us – the adjustable and specific defence system – the acquired immunity. It is the ultimate defence system both for us and fishes. However – it needs a prior contact with the pathogen in order to be active. The system read the pathogen and start to develop specific antibodies just for that pathogen.

Moreover – fish lives where bacteria and other microorganisms evolved – water. Therefore – because of time – fishes have evolved very effective defence systems that is not specific to certain pathogens. These systems are very effective in their environment, but they probably need a lot of energy in order to work in an effective way. Stress is the physical response of concentrate everything on a single task – the task that´s seems to be a matter of dead or life. A stress response often shouts off other systems, hence lower the effectiveness of the unspecific defence system – or a prolonged stress make the organism not to react if there is pathogens in the body/suppress them with hormones. When the stress just stops – illness comes.

Once my wife has a very stressful work. Here in Sweden we have 5 weeks payed vacation every year with at least 3 weeks in the summertime. If we plan to travel somewhere during the vacation – she either had to start her vacation 3 days before me, or we have to wait at least 3 days before we could travel – reason – she got ill (often a cold) the first day on the vacation when the stress from here work just disappear. This was year after year.

It is interesting that you take up the evolution and how time can change our genes because this mechanism is an important factor why we can´t continue with the way we handle the problem with many pathogens today – not all but must of them.

IMO – the statement that evolution is time depended is wrong and lead us into wrong thinking.

As normal – I just try to explain this in an easy way – experts that reads this maybe not agree in everything. However – here we go.

It is time depended in one way but not the way we think. It is depended of the rate of the reproductive cycle. In the start of every reproduction cycle – there is a normal rate of gene mutations. During the life cycle – these mutations is tested in reality. If they are a disadvantage during the actual environment – the organism dies – the genes disappear from the organism’s genepool if this happens before the reproduction/dividing. If the mutation does not matter during the actual environment – the mutation will be in the future genepool – if the environment will change during the life cycle – the genepool will be tested again and maybe give another answer.

This means – human will put a changed genepool out at the market after a lot of time and not so many. Let us say that we take a ticket in the gene lottery 1-5 times during our lifetime (70 years)

Now we get back to the microorganisms – the most potent pathogens often have a very fast reproduction/dividing. Virus can have a long “life cycle” but when it is wakening up (in a cell) the reproduction is fast, very fast. The most virulent pathogens maybe take a ticket in the gene lottery every 10 to 15 minutes.

I do not need to say whom will have the best chance for a jackpot

This means that if we invent a method to change the actual organism’s environment in order to kill it – and if it has short reproduction cycle – it will have another resistant genepool rather soon if it is exposed to often. It is not a question if – it is a question of when. We will not be able to extinct a pathogen from the world with external treatment – but we can extinct it from the actual host if we use the method in the right way. Just Google antibiotics and resistant germs - you will get a lot of examples.


However – someone will say – we have extinct some diseases (at least in some geographical areas)

In Sweden today – the measles regards to be extinct. When I grow up – it was rather common, and I had it when I was a child. The measles is the single most deadly illness in the world with a normal death rate of 0.2 % but can be as high as 10%.

In which way have we succeeded to defeat this deadly illness? - The answer to this is the specific adapted immune system. With help of vaccine have we activate a measles specific immune defence.

We do get in measles in Sweden now and then but the vaccine programme protect our children (we have a single payer health system with free vaccination of many child diseases)

What I want to say is that the specific immune system is very important – for us and also for fish even if they seem not so depended as we – but in order to work – it has to be activated of small amount of the pathogen in question.

What´s happen with the specific immune system if we do not tease it much enough? Nowadays – the hygiene hypothesis connected to allergy get increases confidence.

I´m not saying that you should expose your son for diseases, but you should not be afraid to expose him for normal conditions with normal occurrences of pathogens. And please do not use antibacterial products and antibiotics just in case. As you understand I am very much against prophylactic methods – especially with our fishes that normally are adapted to live in a soup of microorganisms. We have a sentence in Swedish that says “vårda ihjäl” – with Google it could be translated into “cherish to death” In Swedish it stands for caring so much that it kill instead

If not broken – do not fix it. The methods we know works should be used only if the natural system does not fix it – otherwise we will be empty in our toolbox when we need it the most

Sincerely Lasse

Lasse

I absolutely agree with all of this. Stress is to be avoided. Exposure to "normal occurrences of pathogens" is generally beneficial. Individuals have the ability to adapt to disease and environmental factors. Tank biodiversity is extremely important. Populations can adapt to disease over time. No debate whatsoever from me.

The thread topic however seems to imply that deliberate exposure to "all known pathogens" is a good strategy for a single fish. This is what Subsea is talking about with regard to shrimp. It seems to be what Paul is advocating. This does not seem wise to me. I have had cancer twice. I don't seem any healthier as a consequence and my best chance of survival moving forward seems to be avoiding cancer a third time. I would not expose myself, my children or my dog to "all known pathogens". A population of individuals may benefit over time from exposure to all known diseases but for a single individual - disease avoidance is the best strategy.

So setting aside "normal" pathogens, "normal" exposure to disease, vaccines and such - would you deliberately expose a single fish to every known disease and pathogen as a strategy to maintain long term health for that fish?

I personally feel it is best to limit disease and pathogen exposure as much as possible. Don't put a lot of fish in the tank, keep lots and lots of filter feeders as consumers of parasites and disease, use top quality food, maintain good water quality, avoid adding diseased fish to the tank, keep stress levels low - that sort of stuff. How quarantine fits in may be a matter of debate. But purposefully exposing fish to disease doesn't seem like a good idea in my opinion.

Scott

 

[Lasse]

Open heart?

Not so serious This last surgery (4/1-19) was because of incisional hernia from a surgery of acute volvulus last spring. But I´m used of it – it was my tenth large surgery but no open heart (yet)

Sincerely Lasse