45 Day Fallow periods

[aquakj]

I recently did 45 days and felt it was a little too soon since I kept reading everyone recommending 76 days....but I took my chances and added my fish who were transferring from a smaller tank...everything went well no ich anymore happy fish... until I rushed a QT process on a tang and just broke out in ich but I do feel that the 45 days is good enough.

 

[Anthony Scholfield]

The trouble with TTM is that it doesn’t control metazoan parasites at all. Without careful application, the extra handling is problematic. The timing is set up for textbook cases of Cryptocaryon, and there is suspicion that it doesn’t always work for Amyloodinium.

Copper + an antihelmenthic is a more sure thing.

Jay

Hey Jay couple questions.......i like to learn

What do you mean by metazoan parasites? Are these different than ICH (cryptocaryon)? My comment was directly related to cryptocaryon. Copper may do quite well for other things.

Could you please better explain what you mean by carful application and problematic handling? I agree copper has less handling of course but I believe the application needs to be just as carful to work correctly for cryptocaryon, I believe even more careful because you need to maintain specific levels for an extended period of time while relying on a test kit. It’s my suspicion copper isn’t always effective for cryptocaryon. I’m sure you’ve read more ICH threads than me but it seems there are more “i used copper and still have ICH” than “i did TTM and still have ICH”

Once again maybe I’m misunderstanding but amyloodinium is similar but a whole different animal....velvet right?

Thanks!

 

[Jay Hemdal Verified Community Expert]

Hey Jay couple questions.......i like to learn

What do you mean by metazoan parasites? Are these different than ICH (cryptocaryon)? My comment was directly related to cryptocaryon. Copper may do quite well for other things.

Could you please better explain what you mean by carful application and problematic handling? I agree copper has less handling of course but I believe the application needs to be just as carful to work correctly for cryptocaryon, I believe even more careful because you need to maintain specific levels for an extended period of time while relying on a test kit. It’s my suspicion copper isn’t always effective for cryptocaryon. I’m sure you’ve read more ICH threads than me but it seems there are more “i used copper and still have ICH” than “i did TTM and still have ICH”

Once again maybe I’m misunderstanding but amyloodinium is similar but a whole different animal....velvet right?

Thanks!

Sorry, metazoan is just a technical term for multicellular life, so worms, arthropods, etc.

For TTM, a number of people's fish are damaged by the process - either the frequent netting and moving, or people not realizing how fast ammonia can build up in the containers. In terms of stability and freedom from stress it would go: DT > QT >TTM containers.

Timing with TTM is so critical, and people sometimes make mistakes. I also have a strong suspicion that Amyloodinium (velvet) tomonts may ride through on the fish's gills, and never actually drop off of the fish, so TTM doesn't screen them. I have no proof of this, but I think it is likely.

Problems with copper revolve mostly around people starting too late, running lower than normal doses, taking way to long to achieve a full dose and improper testing (API test kit is difficult to use for example). I haven't seen true copper toxicity myself in literally thousands of fishes I've treated in the two decades since I stopped using copper/citric acid mixes. I have seen some issues with organically bound coppers not acting fast enough to treat acute protozoan infections - lets say the fish are within 24 hours of death, but the copper is going to take 72 hours to effect a cure....that isn't going to end well. Not sure TTM would save them either though.

Jay

 

[NeptuneSpear2011]

The presumption is that the copper would be treated in a separate tank, and no treatment for the infected tank that all of the fish came out of. If you treat your main tank with copper at full strength for 30 days, there is no need to have it go fallow.

Jay

I guess what your saying is it would kill all the bacteria in the tank including the

 

[TerraFerma]

I wouldn’t go as far to say that copper is completely ineffective but i would say that the margin for error is greater when using copper. I believe more people should know this about using copper and be more educated about TTM. With TTM you out run the parasites cycle on the fish so there is no worry about if your copper treatment killed it. I never recommend copper when people ask about treating ICH, always TTM.

Copper works fabulously when done correctly. But there is very often user error. A lot of folks run it below the manufacturer's stated concentration - no surprise those folks don't have 100% success. The color coded test kits are a pain and tend you make you run over the recommend concentration which can be hard on fish. The Hannah copper test is about as good as it gets but if your vials are old you won't get the most accurate readings.

 

[NeptuneSpear2011]

I guess what your saying is it would kill all the bacteria in the tank including the fish

 

[Andrescol87]

Fallow period of 30 days has worked for me. Both for Ich and velvet. The thing is that people sometimes confuses ich /velvet with bacterial infections.



I've seen a steady tendency to call ich to everything related to white dots in fish skin. As long as you can identify properly your problem, you can act consequently.



Bacterial infections can bloom anytime (they have a different source) and doesn't clear as easy as cryptocarion or Oodinium since copper don't affect them as hard as we think.

 

[Andrescol87]

Copper works fabulously when done correctly. But there is very often user error. A lot of folks run it below the manufacturer's stated concentration - no surprise those folks don't have 100% success. The color coded test kits are a pain and tend you make you run over the recommend concentration which can be hard on fish. The Hannah copper test is about as good as it gets but if your vials are old you won't get the most accurate readings.

A horrible mistake is that folks use it with calcareous material in the hospital tanks. You can never get the desired concentration since it binds with copper as soon as it enters the aquarium.

 

[NeptuneSpear2011]

Fallow period of 30 days has worked for me. Both for Ich and velvet. The thing is that people sometimes confuses ich /velvet with bacterial infections.



I've seen a steady tendency to call ich to everything related to white dots in fish skin. As long as you can identify properly your problem, you can act consequently.



Bacterial infections can bloom anytime (they have a different source) and doesn't clear as easy as cryptocarion or Oodinium since copper don't affect them as hard as we think.

Sometimes it's hard to ascertain the difference. Most like myself dont have a QT or enough experience to know the difference between Ich & a bacterial infection, so the knee jerk reaction is ich/velvet......Treat. Wish the UV would kill this crap but it just doesnt. Good reply!!!

 

[Amps Reef Life]

Light plays a role especially with velvet cyst they can live through photosynthesis.

 

[TerraFerma]

A horrible mistake is that folks use it with calcareous material in the hospital tanks. You can never get the desired concentration since it binds with copper as soon as it enters the aquarium.

Very good point. Hard to keep up even if your testing and adding more every day.

 

[Jay Hemdal Verified Community Expert]

Light plays a role especially with velvet cyst they can live through photosynthesis.

Actually, Amyloodinium lacks chloroplasts and isn't photosynthetic. Oodinium, its freshwater counterpart does have chloroplasts.

Jay

 

[KGV]

@Jay Hemdal This is an excellent topic to pick up again. I would like to add two things. As in all measurements, one thing is the mean value, and another critical value is the distribution of observations. The mean may be 76 days, but how wide is the range? I reckon it can be 30 days, ... or 100 days. Who knows.

The other thing is sensitivity of detection. The referenced work likely does not have the sensitivity that todays measurements would have, using for example quantitative PCR and high quality primers. So, at 76 days..., are there absolutely zero cysts left? There can always be that one lucky cyst that makes it back to the DT. So we should remember, we're reducing the probability, but can we be 100% sure? Likely not. And that comes back to the popular discussion: "ich eradication" or "management". I personally think ich is so pervasive that "management" is just the best word for it all. So in other words, if there is no equipment to detect every single cyst, how can you prove that eradication is the correct word?

My guess is that it would cost about 10K $ to get the critical data regarding ich stages updated. But that would only include disposables, and not equipment and labour. So, some valunteer scientist needs to take a 1-year sabbatical and do this.

 

[Jay Hemdal Verified Community Expert]

Statistics is not my forte, but while I understand that as the fallow period is extended, the number of tomonts decreases, I do think it will reach zero. For example, looking at human age tables, fewer and fewer people are in each age class, but it does reach zero around 125 years. In this case, the 76 day figure was reached in a xeric culture at low temperatures. I think that is beyond survivability in a true aquarium.
I agree that PCR studies are needed, especially in regards to studying different strains. Not sure who could fund that though.
Jay

 

[Paul B]

Turns out that the 1997 article written by Colorni and Burgess just references his PhD thesis which isn't available for review. Then, his co-author Burgess was also the editor for the journal that published it - certainly a conflict of interest! This paper then got referenced by Noga 2010 (he lists 72 days).

I think they actually came out with that in the 80s and Axlerod was also involved in it. It made some sense then 40 years ago but those scientists knew nothing or almost nothing about fish immunity and neither did anyone else at the time.

I remember writing to them to discuss the seeming immunity of my fish but I don't remember if I ever got a response and there were very few people in the hobby at the time.

Now we know much more about fish immunity so for me anyway, although it is interesting to know the life cycle of a parasite it is a non issue and something we don't need to know. A Healthy fish has no problem ridding itself of any parasites as that is what they do every day in the sea where they are eating parasites with almost every meal.

Of course if we are not keeping our fish in excellent shape like they would be in a store or wholesaler, medications are needed.
Just my opinion of course. Have fun.

 

[ReefRusty]

This method has been around for a very long time, what is the 2021 method surely there is a new and improved way to do it? Just like the old cycling a tank days have completely changed.

 

[zalick]

... The mean may be 76 days, but how wide is the range? I reckon it can be 30 days, ... or 100 days....

76 days was the most extreme observation, not the mean. Without pulling up the article again I think the mean was around 7 days. So 76 days was certainly many standard deviations away from the mean.

 

[Paul B]

This method has been around for a very long time,

You are correct, I was there and one of the first people to use copper and quarantine. We didn't even have liquid copper then so we used pennies. 20 of them to a gallon.

 

[ReefRusty]

We didn't even have liquid copper then so we used pennies. 20 of them to a gallon.

Wow to to come up with the correct maths on that to say 20/gal i guess in regards to chemistry it has changed a lot.

 

[Courtney Aldrich]

@Jay Hemdal This is an excellent topic to pick up again. I would like to add two things. As in all measurements, one thing is the mean value, and another critical value is the distribution of observations. The mean may be 76 days, but how wide is the range? I reckon it can be 30 days, ... or 100 days. Who knows.

The other thing is sensitivity of detection. The referenced work likely does not have the sensitivity that todays measurements would have, using for example quantitative PCR and high quality primers. So, at 76 days..., are there absolutely zero cysts left? There can always be that one lucky cyst that makes it back to the DT. So we should remember, we're reducing the probability, but can we be 100% sure? Likely not. And that comes back to the popular discussion: "ich eradication" or "management". I personally think ich is so pervasive that "management" is just the best word for it all. So in other words, if there is no equipment to detect every single cyst, how can you prove that eradication is the correct word?

My guess is that it would cost about 10K $ to get the critical data regarding ich stages updated. But that would only include disposables, and not equipment and labour. So, some valunteer scientist needs to take a 1-year sabbatical and do this.

First, let me say I am not an expert and defer 100% to Jay on all fish diseases, treatments and and infective organisms.

The average life cycle for Cryptocaryon irritans is much shorter than most hobbyist believe and strongly depends on the environment. In a QT tank lacking substrate with good oxygen saturation and no anaerobic pockets at 78-80 °F and 35 ppt salinity, Colorni (paper attached) has shown infective parasites will excyst from tomites within 13 days. The classic Colorni study was performed by microscopically examining tomites every day and measuring the released parasites (unfortunately, no numbers of actual tomites were reported in the short research paper, but I can extrapolate from previous studies in their lab that likely hundreds to thousands of tomites were examined, see thesis posted earlier in the thread). Most parasites were released in a few days, but the longest time for release was 13 days under the aforementioned conditions. Many people run their QT tanks at lower salinity (25 ppt) and the cycle is much longer at lower salinities (up to 28 days). So, I think we can safely assume that a 45 day fallow period for a QT tank is a very generous time (Jay mentioned this was also for treating another parasite named Neobenedenia).

In a display tank (DT), I think a longer fallow time may be warranted if tomonts are deposited in an anaerobic environment since the parasite will enter a dormant state that is likely viable for a long period of time (the attached paper shows tomonts will resume development after 1 month without any damage - this was posted in another thread - I apologize to whoever posted this for not crediting you). So, I think in a display tank, it's quite possible that C. irritans could easily survive a 78 day fallow period, if nothing else is done. Obviously, one needs to try to disturb anaerobic environments (i.e. regularly, vacuuming your sand during the fallow period to try to stir up and release dormant tomonts), but it is simply not possible to remove all anaerobic environments (i.e. deep within a live rock or within ceramic media).

If I had a C. irritans breakout in my DT and moved all of my fish to a QT for 78 days, I would rightfully be paranoid about reintroducing fish back into the DT. If a hobbyist is so patient and committed to treat and quarantine their fish for 78 or even 45 days, then I would add a black Molly to the DT as an indicator of residual parasites (see: humblefish quarantine protocols) before reintroducing all of my fish.