A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[MnFish1]

I wouldn't call that an immunity. It's a resistance at best.

Im curious (not in a mean way - but genuine curiosity) - do you have an agenda? I don't get it - Its easy - just google - there are numerous articles discussing cryptocaryon immunity in fish - both specific - and generalized. Its not a question or a myth or anything thats debated. Fish have specific immunity to pathogens - including CI and velvet. It may be partial - it may be full - it may not last for ever - but it most certainly exists.

http://www.jimmunol.org/content/200/1_Supplement/53.19

 

[MnFish1]

I don’t think I misunderstood. There’s an implication in your reply that captive bred fish would have less developed immunity and I don’t think there’s any evidence for that. Yes there is specific immunity in fish and people and other organisms but it’s by and large a “byproduct” of the innate immunity, in other words cells fight pathogens and by getting sufficient exposure the response becomes quicker and more effective. A healthy fish will be able to fight off many of the same pathogens and gain similar immunity in a closed loop system.

A newly born fish in the ocean isn’t instantly inoculated against all bacteria or pathogens in its surrounding any better than a captive bred one. At least there’s no evidence for something like that.

There’s also no evidence of widespread immunity to crypto or amyloodinum in nature. Both of the parasites being ancient and very much thriving. Both usually cause very mild infections in otherwise healthy fish in the ocean (higher virulence would’ve been evolutionary counterproductive). One of the key reasons why vaccines against crypto have failed is the fact that at low exposures fish don’t seem to gain adequate lasting immunity. You can google this.

Here is my hypothesis - you're incorrect - otherwise fish wouldn't have evolved to have specific immunity. A newly born fish in the ocean - actually has maternal antibody in their yolk sac (you can google that - its not a hypothesis). This means that larval fish also have some specific immunity even at 'birth'. How would one determine whether there is 'widespread immunity to CI or velvet in nature' - I mean how have you determined that there is not. You cant use evolution on one hand to say higher virulence would be evolutionary counter productive - and that specific immunity doesnt play much of a role - but then ignore the fact that specific immunity did in fact evolve (Its present)

The fact is - that in the article mentioned previously - there were obviously wild fish with severe CI - not trivial infections and its clear that not all fish died - so according to Burgess - if a fish survives CI - they have immunity (specific) that lasts at least 6 months. There is your evidence. Granted -its not a sampling of Antibody to CI in 100 areas around the world but its evidence.

BTW - the other evidence is that People take fish out of the ocean - and even when exposed to CI - they dont contract the disease - this is thought to be because wild fish that have been exposed to CI at least have some immunity - and some full immunity.

I agree 100 % with you that a healthy fish is much less likely to develop CI than a sick one. BUT - in a closed environment - with active CI - the concentrations of infectious particles can be thousands of times higher than 'in the ocean' - so a fish 'with no immunity in the ocean' - will do better IMHO (healthy fish) in the ocean than a tank with an active CI infection. There is certainly scientific evidence that provided with enough CI (ie. a high enough concentration) - threes almost 100% mortality (in a tank).

BTW - take the average clownfish nest of a thousand larvae. How do you know that the ones that 'survived' - which is a very very small percent of the hatch - aren't the ones the didnt succumb to CI (thats a hypothesis - not a published fact).

As of right now there’s no reliable evidence that captive bred fish will fare any worse than wild caught ones ( in our tanks) when it comes pathogens.

But its common sense that this would be the case (thats a hypothesis)

 

[Paul Sands]

Im curious (not in a mean way - but genuine curiosity) - do you have an agenda? I don't get it - Its easy - just google - there are numerous articles discussing cryptocaryon immunity in fish - both specific - and generalized. Its not a question or a myth or anything thats debated. Fish have specific immunity to pathogens - including CI and velvet. It may be partial - it may be full - it may not last for ever - but it most certainly exists.

Immunity is the same thing as a resistance. There are various levels of that resistance/immunity. Unfortunately, to lay people, the word immunity makes it sound like they are protected against infection. That’s not the case here. As has already been stated in the discussion, ich still infects “immune” fish. They just don’t show symptoms. Also, the immunity lasts for less than 6 months. Numerous studies have found that ich continues to infect and re-infect fish in an aquarium for 11 months to 2 years before it burns itself out.

So, what we know from this discussion:

1. Leaving fish exposed to ich in an aquarium means that they might develop an immunity to ich that prevents them from showing symptoms, but they will continue to be infected by ich.

2. The ich will continue to infect the inhabitants of the aquarium for at least 11 months to possibly 2 years before it burns out (depending on what study you believe)

3. The dubious “study” that you linked shows that up to 80% of wild marine fish are infected with significant amounts of visible ich, which would seem to indicate that wild fish don’t develop an “immunity” that prevents them from getting ich as you claim. So either the study is wrong or your hypothesis is wrong. I don’t see how you can continue to argue both sides unless you just like making useless arguments.

 

[MnFish1]

Immunity is the same thing as a resistance. There are various levels of that resistance/immunity. Unfortunately, to lay people, the word immunity makes it sound like they are protected against infection. That’s not the case here. As has already been stated in the discussion, ich still infects “immune” fish. They just don’t show symptoms. Also, the immunity lasts for less than 6 months. Numerous studies have found that ich continues to infect and re-infect fish in an aquarium for 11 months to 2 years before it burns itself out.

So, what we know from this discussion:

1. Leaving fish exposed to ich in an aquarium means that they might develop an immunity to ich that prevents them from showing symptoms, but they will continue to be infected by ich.

2. The ich will continue to infect the inhabitants of the aquarium for at least 11 months to possibly 2 years before it burns out (depending on what study you believe)

3. The dubious “study” that you linked shows that up to 80% of wild marine fish are infected with significant amounts of visible ich, which would seem to indicate that wild fish don’t develop an “immunity” that prevents them from getting ich as you claim. So either the study is wrong or your hypothesis is wrong. I don’t see how you can continue to argue both sides unless you just like making useless arguments.

Firstly - Immunity is a specific thing - its not the same as resistance. Since I'm not a 'lay person' - but a microbiologist/immunologist - I am well aware of the definition. I agree with you that they are 'similar' terms - and in some cases can be used interchangeabley - but they are not the same.
Secondly - you need to define 'infect'. Infection usually implies an infection - i.e. symptoms of a disease. For example there is staph aureus (even MRSA) all over many healthy peoples skin - but they are not 'infected with staph aureus'.
Thirdly - The idea that 'ich burns out' has been refuted numerous times. And is not true.
Fourth - The dubious study has numerous references - has numerous studies that have duplicated the results(perhaps not the exact same percentages, etc) - but its peer reviewed and better than just repeating the mantra that seems to have been repeated for years on various forums.
Fifth - re-read what I wrote - I didnt mean to say that 80 percent of fish were showing signs of severe CI - instead what I was trying to say (contrary to the post to which I was replying) - that up to 80 percent had ICH present. SOME of the fish had extreme cases which ended in mortality events. If I misquoted let me know by PM.
Sixth - I did not say that immunity 'prevented' a fish from having a tormont or 2 on them. However - immunity will prevent their demise. So - there are not 2 arguments here at all... BTW - the other issue is since no one is measuring the 'immunity' - there's no way to know whether the fish with CI - were in the after 6 month period where immunity starts to wane (I believe I said that) - or whether they were 'immune fish' that contradict what I said. My hypothesis - the reason its seasonal - is that as immunity starts to wane - the infection becomes again more prevalent.

Lastly - I didnt direct my response to you - so apologetically - I'm not sure whether its me or you that likes to make 'useless arguments'. But - I guess I can ask you the same question - what is the agenda for slamming research - (which frankly may or may not be wrong) as compared to conventional reefing wisdom - which in many cases has been proven wrong after a time of favorable praise.?

 

[Paul Sands]

Firstly - Immunity is a specific thing - its not the same as resistance. Since I'm not a 'lay person' - but a microbiologist/immunologist - I am well aware of the definition. I agree with you that they are 'similar' terms - and in some cases can be used interchangeabley - but they are not the same.
Secondly - you need to define 'infect'. Infection usually implies an infection - i.e. symptoms of a disease. For example there is staph aureus (even MRSA) all over many healthy peoples skin - but they are not 'infected with staph aureus'.
Thirdly - The idea that 'ich burns out' has been refuted numerous times. And is not true.
Fourth - The dubious study has numerous references - has numerous studies that have duplicated the results(perhaps not the exact same percentages, etc) - but its peer reviewed and better than just repeating the mantra that seems to have been repeated for years on various forums.
Fifth - re-read what I wrote - I didnt mean to say that 80 percent of fish were showing signs of severe CI - instead what I was trying to say (contrary to the post to which I was replying) - that up to 80 percent had ICH present. SOME of the fish had extreme cases which ended in mortality events. If I misquoted let me know by PM.
Sixth - I did not say that immunity 'prevented' a fish from having a tormont or 2 on them. However - immunity will prevent their demise. So - there are not 2 arguments here at all... BTW - the other issue is since no one is measuring the 'immunity' - there's no way to know whether the fish with CI - were in the after 6 month period where immunity starts to wane (I believe I said that) - or whether they were 'immune fish' that contradict what I said. My hypothesis - the reason its seasonal - is that as immunity starts to wane - the infection becomes again more prevalent.

Lastly - I didnt direct my response to you - so apologetically - I'm not sure whether its me or you that likes to make 'useless arguments'. But - I guess I can ask you the same question - what is the agenda for slamming research - (which frankly may or may not be wrong) as compared to conventional reefing wisdom - which in many cases has been proven wrong after a time of favorable praise.?

I’d be more than happy to debate the differences, or lack thereof, between immunity and resistance. But in this case, it doesn’t really matter. The research clearly shows that fish continue to be infected by ich and that they simply stop showing the external symptoms.

This entire thread is a cluster, mostly because of insincere arguments that you are making. What’s your agenda here? To advocate that people should leave fish in their ich infected tanks so that the fish “build up an immunity”? From my perspective that’s reckless and inhumane, given the research we have and our ability to simply prevent this, and other diseases. And your actions and arguments here just help perpetuate misunderstandings.

 

[Ferrell]

Excellent article.
My name is Ferrell and I too am a hypocrite. Lol.
After suffering through a velvet attach without qt anything I’m in the “treat everything” camp. I tried the qt and observe method before adopting @HotRocks method and lost more fish than I care to admit. I haven’t added a fish for over 6 months for fear of disease

 

[MnFish1]

I’d be more than happy to debate the differences, or lack thereof, between immunity and resistance. But in this case, it doesn’t really matter. The research clearly shows that fish continue to be infected by ich and that they simply stop showing the external symptoms.

This entire thread is a cluster, mostly because of insincere arguments that you are making. What’s your agenda here? To advocate that people should leave fish in their ich infected tanks so that the fish “build up an immunity”? From my perspective that’s reckless and inhumane, given the research we have and our ability to simply prevent this, and other diseases. And your actions and arguments here just help perpetuate misunderstandings.

LOL then you aren't reading what im writing. Never advocated anything.
Please feel free to quote the research that fish continue to be infected in the wild - in the 'dubious study' for example they only sampled 2 time periods in a single year - frankly that made it dubious - but - certainly they didnt document that fish a from October developed it the following year.
Everyone knows that CI immunity wanes after a year - so of course fish continue to be infected IF THEY CONTINUE TO BE EXPOSED to it.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'd be interested in what misunderstandings im perpetuating. You can PM me- since you think the thread is a problem. But - since the thread is about the 'hypocrites view of QT practices (paraphrased)' I think its an open discussion - are you posting the same thing to the OP?

 

[MnFish1]

Excellent article.
My name is Ferrell and I too am a hypocrite. Lol.
After suffering through a velvet attach without qt anything I’m in the “treat everything” camp. I tried the qt and observe method before adopting @HotRocks method and lost more fish than I care to admit. I haven’t added a fish for over 6 months for fear of disease

OH me too.. lol

 

[MnFish1]

The research clearly shows that fish continue to be infected by ich and that they simply stop showing the external symptoms.

By the way - this is not true (unless you can provide a reference) - its something thats been debated for a long time - agreed - and part of it may relate to what 'infected' means. Its like the old adage that CI burns out after 11 growth cycles - it simply has proven to be false. there may be some fish that dont show CI on their skin - but its in their gills - but - there is no way to know if those were immune fish or not. (or partial). The data is just not there (on either side) - so my choice - is to look at the data that is there thats done at least under a semblance of science - and use it to try to interpret what we do in our tanks. Is that perfect? no. Does the research on fish done in a tank relate more to our tanks than what happens in the open ocean? I think so. Is it a perfect correlation - no. I think this is the perfect thread to hash out some of these issues - and stop hanging onto dogma from anecdote from years ago. The reason - as @Brew12 has said - the time may come when all of these medications we're using are no longer available - then what???? panic? Or plan and discuss now. Thats my agenda - BTW.

 

[Paul Sands]

By the way - this is not true (unless you can provide a reference) - its something thats been debated for a long time - agreed - and part of it may relate to what 'infected' means. Its like the old adage that CI burns out after 11 growth cycles - it simply has proven to be false. there may be some fish that dont show CI on their skin - but its in their gills - but - there is no way to know if those were immune fish or not. (or partial). The data is just not there (on either side) - so my choice - is to look at the data that is there thats done at least under a semblance of science - and use it to try to interpret what we do in our tanks. Is that perfect? no. Does the research on fish done in a tank relate more to our tanks than what happens in the open ocean? I think so. Is it a perfect correlation - no. I think this is the perfect thread to hash out some of these issues - and stop hanging onto dogma from anecdote from years ago. The reason - as @Brew12 has said - the time may come when all of these medications we're using are no longer available - then what???? panic? Or plan and discuss now. Thats my agenda - BTW.

Actually it is true. It’s specifically noted in one of the many articles that you linked, but haven’t read. It specifically says that ich continues to infect the fish but that they will stop showing visible symptoms. Why do you want to ignore parts of studies that you simply don’t like?

 

[MnFish1]

Actually it is true. It’s specifically noted in one of the many articles that you linked, but haven’t read. It specifically says that ich continues to infect the fish but that they will stop showing visible symptoms. Why do you want to ignore parts of studies that you simply don’t like?

Quote it specifically - if I quoted something incorrectly - I will - if you're talking about the U of Florida article - that has also been somewhat debunked - but since I have no clue what you're talking about - I cant say - since you think the thread is going'off track' - a cluster - which I think is almost a TOS violation for this forum - based on what I've seen - feel free to PM me. Im open to a discussion - if im wrong -im happy to admit it. And by the way the key word is the definition of 'infection' - which means 'disease'. Not a torment on a gill...

 

[Michael Gilbreath]

Nice article been fun reading I have to say been in and out of this hobby for over 20yrs and in that time the one thing that has not changed is there is no way we could get everybody to agree one way or the other there are to many variables. Stress, Tank setups, Filters I could go on but if we all can gain alittle knowledge from this then it was worth the time.

 

[MnFish1]

It's not really a theory, it's definitely a practice in place. They have signs on their display tanks and have warned me when I buy fish. It's not very uncommon and actually, I would say its more widespread than not.

And actually if you have some experience in adjusting copper levels you would know that higher levels leads to fish that look unhealthier and eat less or at all as levels go up.

And if you have epericene with copper you should know that even if they have signs up - it makes no sense.

 

[Lasse]

Actually it is true. It’s specifically noted in one of the many articles that you linked, but haven’t read. It specifically says that ich continues to infect the fish but that they will stop showing visible symptoms. Why do you want to ignore parts of studies that you simply don’t like?

Link to that study?

Immunity does not mean that you do not carrying this pathogen – it means only that you do not get any disease from it. Your immune system can defeat or/and control the attacker by itself. It means that it can exist atypical carriers of the pathogen. However – even an immune fish can get sick of a certain pathogen if the immune system is supressed or the sum of attackers is large enough to defeat the immune system. Compare with an example there you put a nail in your thumb – it hurts but nothing more happens. But if you hit the same thumb with the same nail 1 000 000 – times – it will be no thumb left – you will reach the carrying capacity for needle stick on a thumb.

Now you have to decide what foot you should stand on – If you accept that fish can be atypical carriers of a specific pathogen without symptom – you must accept the immune hypothesis – if you do not accept the immune hypothesis – you can´t accept that atypical carriers can exist

to lay people

that you linked, but haven’t read.

What’s your agenda here?

This means that you

1) put a negative label on a member or indicate that he/she is like that or that
2) write that someone have done or not done a certain thing without prove
3) discredit someone's intentions with a conspiracy theory

As you are a new member to R2R (registred today) I will highlight that this type of comments against a member in a discussion is not very welcommend on R2R. We are a friendly forum thar respect each other - even if we disagree. It also common sense that we - when we make references to science - attach a link in order to let people that want to learn anything can read by themselfs.

By the way. Welcome to R2R

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

We can conclude that it is two major pathways her - to prophylactic treat every things comming into the system and eradicate everything that can become pathogenic from the system or not do that and try to reach a balance in the system. If you chose the first pathway - every newcommer have to be treaten and nothing from the outside can come into the system without a proper treatment. The system will be very labile and you can´t use frozen, fresh food or not gamma radiated dry food.

If you chose the second patway - work with the nature instead of working against it - your options will be more and you can use treatment when its needed. Only my 5 cents

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Brew12]

What’s your agenda here? To advocate that people should leave fish in their ich infected tanks so that the fish “build up an immunity”? From my perspective that’s reckless and inhumane, given the research we have and our ability to simply prevent this, and other diseases. And your actions and arguments here just help perpetuate misunderstandings.

As the writer of this article, I do have an agenda. And yes, this is exactly what it is. I do believe people should leave fish infected with just about everything in their tanks to build up an immunity to it. If we don't get to that point, and in the near future imo, this hobby will not exist. It's hard to argue if something is humane or inhumane so I'll respect your opinion in this manner. I also respect the opinion of those who feel it is inhumane to treat fish with copper, which can damage internal organs of the fish, without confirmation of carrying a parasite. Of course, many people feel that taking a fish from the ocean to keep in a glass box isn't humane, and they are allowed to feel that way also.

How do we help someone in this hobby in Canada that has a fish with a disease now that they can no longer get medications? Most of Europe has been unable to get the basic medications we enjoy in the US for many years, and yet they have found a way to keep healthy fish. In my opinion it isn't possible to ensure a fish is pathogen free when it comes from the ocean. Without medications we cannot remove many of those pathogens from the fish before putting them in our systems. Once the pathogens become resistant to the medications, or the medications are banned (one or the other is inevitable imo) I see no options other than no longer collecting fish or learning how to let the fishes immune system handle the pathogens naturally.

 

[Cyricdark]

We can conclude that it is two major pathways her - to prophylactic treat every things comming into the system and eradicate everything that can become pathogenic from the system or not do that and try to reach a balance in the system. If you chose the first pathway - every newcommer have to be treaten and nothing from the outside can come into the system without a proper treatment. The system will be very labile and you can´t use frozen, fresh food or not gamma radiated dry food.

If you chose the second patway - work with the nature instead of working against it - your options will be more and you can use treatment when its needed. Only my 5 cents

Sincerely Lasse

You forgot the third method which is where I treat either prophylactically or through hyposalinity for 99% of the things that are most likely to wipe out my tank like ich, Brook velvet and flukes and make sure that those things don't enter my system. then when the power goes out when I'm out of town or when heater fails or any other stressor event that will always happen at some point in the life of 99.99% of saltwater tanks I also won't have to deal with an additional problem of having some kind of massive parasite outbreak afterwards because the fish got so stressed during human system dropped. The "natural" method being advocated is a ticking time bomb at some point something will happen in the tank and all those little parasites that you let into the tank are going to explode and you're going to lose way more fish than you would have otherwise if you just did a proper quarantine. Because ultimately the basic premise of your natural method is flawed we cannot replicate the ocean because we can't replicate that sheer amount of water volume, at least the home hobbyist can't. I guess if you're that guy that owns that shopping mall aquarium in Dubai he can probably do your natural method just fine.
I understand that you think prophylactically treating fish is inhumane I disagree I think not properly caring for the inhabitants of my tank is inhumane those are my pets I'm very attached to them I'm not going to do anything puts their lives at risk. I treat with any of three methods and have tanks setup for all three chloroquine phosphate hyposalinity and copper different methods work better for different fish. And yes sometimes the treatment is fatal but most times it's not. But basically what you're advocating is if someone gave me a dog that had rabies I should just throw it in my backyard with my other three dogs and hope that it will naturally be fine, the treatment for rabies is always fatal here in Missouri because it's euthanasia, and I'm still better off to pursue that treatment then throw that dog in the backyard with my other three dogs and then have four dead dogs, just like I'm a head to make sure fish are properly treated in quarantine before going into my main display especially since the treatment for them is most often not fatal.

 

[McPuff]

My experience is the opposite. Putting a fish into quarantine when they arrive gives them a chance to acclimate to new surroundings by themselves without the additional stress of being in a community tank. It also allows you to feed them generously without worrying about water quality issues. Once you have a full tank, quarantining new arrivals helps insure you bring fewer diseases into your display tank and helps protect your existing fish.

When I quarantined my clownfish, I did the tank transfer method. They were completely unfazed by it. By the last tank transfer, they were practically jumping in the container that I used to move them as soon as I put it in the water. I've never lost a fish in quarantine and I've battled both ich and velvet with my previous tank (and have lost fish to both diseases in my display tank).

This is my experience with TTM as well. Super easy and doesn't really seem to stress the fish too much. But...

Mandarins are a tough situation. I want one, and it's one of my wife's favorite fishes. I have a 125 with lots of rock and a sump with a fuge area, and this tank has been running for 7 years and full of pods. But, I don't have a way to qt one. I don't want to starve it while doing TTM. I've read that they don't handle copper well either. It stinks.

I've always wanted a mandarin as well. Doesn't seem like I'll get one because I can't figure out a good way to QT one without worry of starving it. Good news is I have other fish options... or I just don't add anything.

 

[Brew12]

I treat with any of three methods and have tanks setup for all three chloroquine phosphate hyposalinity and copper different methods work better for different fish. And yes sometimes the treatment is fatal but most times it's not. But basically what you're advocating is if someone gave me a dog that had rabies I should just throw it in my backyard with my other three dogs and hope that it will naturally be fine, the treatment for rabies is always fatal here in Missouri because it's euthanasia, and I'm still better off to pursue that treatment then throw that dog in the backyard with my other three dogs and then have four dead dogs, just like I'm a head to make sure fish are properly treated in quarantine before going into my main display especially since the treatment for them is most often not fatal.

Would you support needing to go to a veterinarian to have your fish treated just as you do your dogs? Do you feel most other hobbyists would go and do that? After all, this is now what is required in Canada, even for copper treatments.

 

[ngoodermuth]

I've always wanted a mandarin as well. Doesn't seem like I'll get one because I can't figure out a good way to QT one without worry of starving it. Good news is I have other fish options... or I just don't add anything.

I was lucky, because nutrimar ova was still available when mine was in QT.

Though, she didn’t eat much during the last 14 days with the CP treatment, the rest of the fallow time in QT she ate nutrimar ova like candy... so she was nice and plump going into it.