@Jay Hemdal What are your average survival rate with that treatment? Do you take fish direct from the exporters or is going through the US commercial fish supply line (i.e is there is a risk for earlier prophylactic treatments?)
I must say - it differ a lot between countries - our vet should never advocate that rough treatment protocol for us - it is only observation and treatment of indicated diseases. That type of prophylactic treatment is against Swedish laws of animal rights - which say that an animal must never be subjected to unnecessary suffering
Sincerely Lasse
Lasse,
Remember, mortality rate is a function of death over time. The mortality rate of ALL of our fish is 100%, given enough time!
I acquire fish with the shortest supply chain possible. I'm one of the developers of a public aquarium supplier reference system that is helping us select the suppliers with the best track records, I also "know" what fish NOT to acquire in order to keep the rate lower. I don't buy fish at the retail level except for my home aquarium. The survival rate depends on the species and the condition of the fish. For this current batch, it is 100% so far. I typically see 100% success for the diseases that this screens for the "big four": Cryptocaryon (haven't lost a fish to this since 2015) Neobenedenia (haven't lost a fish to this since 2005 or so). Amyloodinium (haven't lost a fish to this in 25+ years). Other monogeneans; gill and skin flukes, haven't lost a fish to this in recent memory, perhaps two years? Freshwater fish are not included here. Due to Covid, I didn't acquire many fish in the past 14 months.
We do lose fish to these issues:
Bacterial diseases
Uronema (haven't seen this since 2013 due to my avoiding susceptible species)
Mechanical issues (tankmate aggression, jumping out, etc.)
Viral diseases
Microsporidians
Waiting too long to begin quarantine
Capture with cyanide
Shipping myopathy
Unknown reasons
For these last three causes, I actually have unpublished studies of post-importation mortality rates. I ran one study at a pet store I worked at in the 1980's. The second two studies were run on fish that were donated to us by USFWS, having been confiscated from the recipient. These were fish that I didn't order, but I tried to keep them alive as best I could. They were what is termed "Grade B, SE Asian fishes" - wild clownfish, tiny green chromis, skinny Centropyge angels, fish I always try to avoid, but are really common in pet stores. Here is a synopsis of the results:
In my 1983 study, 61% of a group of suspected cyanide-collected fish died within 30 days of their importation. None of the control fish housed in same the aquarium system died, and only 9.1% of the fish originating from more sustainable areas died (Hawaii, Sri Lanka and Africa). All were in the same water system and treated with Coppersafe and photozone.
A similar test undertaken in 2006 showed that 55% of a group of Philippine and Indonesian fish died within 30 days of importation versus 3.1% of the control fish housed in the same quarantine system. Treatment was copper/citric acid (which I don't use anymore) and prazi.
In a third study, which followed a group of marine fish for 40 days after their arrival, 55.9% of the fish from suspect areas died while only 6.2% of the fish acquired from more sustainable regions and quarantined in the same system (at the same time) died. Many of these fish died from Uronema that I couldn't control. As I recall, the fish were treated with chloroquine and prazi.
I don't have access to the raw data right now, but my recollection is that the sample sizes ranged from 40 to 100 fish in each study.
So - what does this mean? It means that even with a good quarantine protocol in place, the mortality rate of fish in the US commercial supply chain is too high. Buying fish like these and NOT quarantining them adds in the mortality from uncontrolled disease, increasing the mortality rate, but worse yet, extending it to previously healthy fish in your systems.
Jay
