Fish immune to disease?

[Paul B]

Explain then, how the life expectancy (for humans) in 1500 was 35-40 years and now its double that? Likewise, the extinction of the dinosaurs, etc was 'Mother Nature'.

MN we went through this many times. And you know I feel people's immunity was much better in the 1500s then it is now. Today we don't rely much on immunity we rely on sterilization, medications, doctors and hospitals all of which were non existent in the 1500s. I am sure most of us, including myself has had something that would have killed us. Even an abscessed tooth could kill you in the 1500s. The flu, measles, and forget infections which killed most of those people from being speared or just severely cutting themselves while hunting for dinner.

I had an uncle that died from being run over by a horse and buggy. The accident didn't kill him, it was lockjaw or what we call today tetanus. Antibiotics would have saved him today.

They got poisoned from water and stung from insects. Some of the Pharaohs who were well taken care of lived into their 90s and that was 2,000 years ago.

When we had whaling ships 200 years ago they used to bring many more people then needed because some of them would die while killing whales.
Their lives were not spent sitting at computers and going to supermarkets for dinner. Life then was very dangerous. Thats why people died.

If you took a modern human and put him in the 1500s he probably wouldn't live a week. Our immunity just isn't up to it.
Eating raw food and putrid water did a lot of people in.

 

[MnFish1]

As for Cryptocaryon resistance, the 6 months apply only if the parasite is no longer present. The immunity will persist as long as Cryptocaryon is present in the system to trigger an immune response.

There is really no good data on how long immunity lasts for cryptocaryon. The study you cited only lasted 6 months, and at 6 months there was still a large percentage of immune fish. So - Cryptokaryon immunity may last for ever - or it may last for 6 months.

Fish in the sea are exposed to everything because the sea is well mixed so a fish would have some kind of immunity from ich, velvet, flukes and even intestinal worms.

Fish in the sea are exposed to everything that is in their area. Its well known that there are different strains of CI and immunity to one does not confer immunity to all strains. For example fish from the Atlantic may not be immune to CI from the pacific. So when we mix fish from various parts of the world, there is no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests they are immune to 'everything'

 

[MnFish1]

MN we went through this many times. And you know I feel people's immunity was much better in the 1500s then it is now. Today we don't rely much on immunity we rely on sterilization, medications, doctors and hospitals all of which were non existent in the 1500s. I am sure most of us, including myself has had something that would have killed us. Even an abscessed tooth could kill you in the 1500s. The flu, measles, and forget infections which killed most of those people from being speared or just severely cutting themselves while hunting for dinner.

I had an uncle that died from being run over by a horse and buggy. The accident didn't kill him, it was lockjaw or what we call today tetanus. Antibiotics would have saved him today.

They got poisoned from water and stung from insects. Some of the Pharaohs who were well taken care of lived into their 90s and that was 2,000 years ago.

When we had whaling ships 200 years ago they used to bring many more people then needed because some of them would die while killing whales.
Their lives were not spent sitting at computers and going to supermarkets for dinner. Life then was very dangerous. Thats why people died.

If you took a modern human and put him in the 1500s he probably wouldn't live a week. Our immunity just isn't up to it.
Eating raw food and putrid water did a lot of people in.

The point was simple: I disagreed with Atolls statement that 'Mother Nature' is 'best'. Your statement above is contradictory. On the one hand you say a modern human wouldn't live a week because our immunity isn't up to it (paraphrased) - the next line says eating raw food and putrid water did a lot of people in. If their immunity was so 'great', why did putrid water and raw food do them in? The bottom line is 'the result'. Humans have, of course, caused environmental problems, etc.

 

[atoll]

This is kind of funny. What was the life expectancy in 1500. What is the life expectancy in 2021?

Fish have both innate and humoral immunity. Re-exposure to the parasite can help this persist. Seems like the most important thing is the underlying health of the fish (i.e. well fed, low stress, low stocking density). I personally use a common sense approach. Buy fish from reputable stores. Observe the fish (i..e have them hold it if they will for a week or 2). I do not buy fish from the internet. I do not quarantine (But the store I buy the fish from does). I have not had any disease, etc using this approach.

In relation to nature obviously I would have thought and not human life expectancy.

 

[Paul B]

Just like I advocate for fish, immunity will be severely weakened without the proper food and living conditions. A human living in filth, eating dried, rotten food, while living in the rain, cold and snow will have a weakened but better immune system. So will fish.
I am not going through that again.

 

[Lasse]

Of cause I ment the mortality rate during the treatment. I thought that was clear - otherwise I have to blame my bad english.

As soon as you have introduce a prophylactic treatment to one or another group - you can´t - IMO - say nothing about the source of death without an obduction. Because that many of the substances involved in prophylactic treatment can show the same damage as cyanide - there is not more than possible indications that catching with cyanide still occur.

Why are short supply chains important for public aquaria? That rather clear why - you know the history of the fish - you know if the fish was treated with that or that chemical 2 or 3 weeks ago. If the fish already is treated with copper and so on.

it is different with us that buy from a LFS. Here in Sweden - it is a rather healthy supply chain because there is few - if none - that have prophylactic treatment for the imports. In the US - there you can have a supply chain in many steps - you can´t now the history of the fish. Let us start with the export facility in the producing countries - some of them use Copper and some other drugs before the fish will be exported. Let us say that this fish have been stored with low copper concentrations for a while - exported to a facility in the receiving country - - there it will be treated with copper and hyposalinity - the fish goes to the LFS - stil som copper in the water and to the aquarist - and the protocol say - treat with high amount of copper. All of this happens in a time range of a month or two. IMO - that fish will die regardless if it is captured by cyanide or not.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

I have no objection to Paul, Atoll and Lasse's methods. If it works for you - go for it. I disagree with the logic behind some of the statements.

First, if you read the multiple polls (On R2R) of the number of people that quarantine AT ALL, let alone prophylactic treatment, the majority of people do NOT QT. So I guess I don't see this as an extremely 'novel' approach.

Second, It seems obvious to me that the 'fish disease forum' has pictures of sick fish. Is that a function of their underlying condition (health), how they were collected, etc? It does not seem to be common sense to suggest that you can take a fish in extremely poor condition, drop it into a 'natural' tank - and that immediately that fish is going to thrive and recover (which has been implied here)

Third, Looking at the fish disease forum, how many of those fish were 'Quarantined/treated' vs. just 'dumped in the tank'. My GUESS would be that most fish posted there were NOT quarantined - just judging by the number of people that start their posts with 'I didn't quarantine and now I have xxxx'. It is simply not logical (unless I'm missing something in the 'method') how a fish immediately becomes immune by being placed in a 'natural tank'. There has to be a piece of the puzzle missing, whether its fish selection, fish condition when put in the tank, etc. I'm certainly not saying anyone is 'lying', but - most people have problems with fish when they are first purchased, and putting them in a 'natural' tank to me will not make a great difference for days to weeks perhaps. Yet it is said that there are no deaths.

Fourth, the number of people with '50 year old tanks' is not to me a testimony to 'a method' as much it is a testimony to the aquarist. The logic that the age of a tank means anything escapes me. If it was so 'easy' there would be hundreds of 50 year old tanks. I see 1. Asking repetitively for 'all of the QT tanks that are 50 years old' does not seem logical for the same reason.

Fifth, IMHO there is no such thing as 'complete immunity to everything'. If there were - we would see it in other species. Zoos around the world would not waste probably millions of dollars and effort quarantining everything - they would just feed everything well. People that eat a 'healthy' diet wouldn't get Covid and many other illnesses.

 

[ThRoewer]

There is really no good data on how long immunity lasts for cryptocaryon. The study you cited only lasted 6 months, and at 6 months there was still a large percentage of immune fish. So - Cryptokaryon immunity may last for ever - or it may last for 6 months.

I tend to agree that fish who had encountered Cryptocaryon or similar parasites before will have a level of immunity in the future. For how long that lasts without parasites present, nobody knows at this point. The 6 months is what you get slapped with by many who just read the abstracts but not the whole study or who don't understand the nitty gritty details. A fish in a system with a simmering Cryptocaryon infection will definitely maintain an immune response.
But important is also to understand that immunity isn't absolute and only as good as the fish's overall health and "happiness". Immunity helps the fish to fight off (i.e. kill) most Cryptocaryon parasites that try to settle on it and limits the damage the few who succeeded in settlement. But even a fish that looks healthy may carry a small number of Cryptocaryon parasites and infect a system where the fish have no immunity.
And a fish that gets stressed enough will have a diminished immune response and may get sick. That is one of the reasons why you often see flare-ups after adding a new fish or some major change to the tank.
Also, even with immunity, a fish may get overwhelmed and sick if tossed into a system with a free raging Cryptocaryon infection.
It is also noteworthy that Cryptocaryon in a system with largely immune fish will get weaker and less infective over time simply because its ability to feed and gain strength is impeded. And after a couple of months to a year without new additions (rock, inverts, coral, fish,...) that could replenish the parasites genepool, bring in a new and fitter strain, or provide non-immune fish to feed on, Cryptocaryon may just die out.

All the above explains why some have Cryptocaryon go away on its own after a while. I had that plenty of times without doing anything.

This is also something to keep in mind when someone tried peddling a miracle cure, garlic, reef safe remedies,... anything that isn't proven to actually kill the parasite. The results would likely be the same with or without those.

 

[atoll]

The point was simple: I disagreed with Atolls statement that 'Mother Nature' is

The point was simple: I disagreed with Atolls statement that 'Mother Nature' is 'best'.

Of course you can disagree, it's your prerogative . However show me a tank that has fish better than how mother nature looks after them. Tell me which aquarists have better methods than mother nature. Fish that grow bigger and better than in their natural environment. Mother nature has had many millions of years to perfect her ways and does not administer drugs to keep them healthy QT or anything else. She also is able to breed any fish and provide for them. The list goes on. My proof of mother natures ability is there for all to see, she provides everything, man has only scratched the surface of what she can do and in many respects has challenged her with his pollution, over fishing and destruction of her environment.

 

[MnFish1]

It is also noteworthy that Cryptocaryon in a system with largely immune fish will get weaker and less infective over time simply because its ability to feed and gain strength is impeded. And after a couple of months to a year without new additions (rock, inverts, coral, fish,...) that could replenish the parasites genepool, bring in a new and fitter strain, or provide non-immune fish to feed on, Cryptocaryon may just die out.

All the above explains why some have Cryptocaryon go away on its own after a while. I had that plenty of times without doing anything.

This is also something to keep in mind when someone tried peddling a miracle cure, garlic, reef safe remedies,... anything that isn't proven to actually kill the parasite. The results would likely be the same with or without those.

Im glad you mentioned this - agree completely - "they" - the evil scientists - say that after 10-11 generations - it does just die out.

 

[Lasse]

I suppose it will be easier in the future to tell if there is any parasites present in an aquarium before it cause a disease. As I understand - @AquaBiomics is developing their ability to screen a water sample for rest genes from multicellular organisms as well. Please correct me if I have misunderstand this

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Of course you can disagree, it's your prerogative . However show me a tank that has fish better than how mother nature looks after them. Tell me which aquarists have better methods than mother nature. Fish that grow bigger and better than in their natural environment. Mother nature has had many millions of years to perfect her ways and does not administer drugs to keep them healthy QT or anything else. She also is able to breed any fish and provide for them. The list goes on. My proof of mother natures ability is there for all to see, she provides everything, man has only scratched the surface of what she can do and in many respects has challenged her with his pollution, over fishing and destruction of her environment.

Hmmm I cant tell if this is a serious question. And maybe I misunderstood the meaning of your original post. I would make this comment though. You're right - Mother Nature - whatever that is - would not give antibiotics to a fish if it got nipped by another fish and got an infection, or if it was unlucky enough to get CI (due to stress, etc etc). That fish would likely be eaten by something bigger. Thats why you don't see 'sick fish' on the reef - they have been eaten. BTW - another interesting question comes to mind - are the fish that are 'stupid enough' to be caught for the aquarium trade - slower, etc than the ones that stay in the ocean? IDK. There are a lot of permutations of this. In any case - the fact is for every fish swimming on the reef, thousands (or tens of thousands) have died as food for other fish, etc.

I've asked this of several people who are into the natural tank methods - but - I'm curious of your opinion.. No one has had an answer. If you take a tank raised fish - and put it into a 'natural tank' - which supposedly has parasites, etc etc. What will happen? The theory I've heard is that 'only fish taken from the sea are good - because they are immune to everything'.

 

[ThRoewer]

Im glad you mentioned this - agree completely - "they" - the evil scientists - say that after 10-11 generations - it does just die out.

I had that actually happen. Didn't add fish or coral for about a year and the Cryptocarion that was in my system before was gone. Even the serious stress of moving the tank and having everyone sit cold at 18°C for a night due to a pump failure didn't cause an outbreak (a few small fish froze to death though and the sump tank got cooked).

 

[MnFish1]

I suppose it will be easier in the future to tell if there is any parasites present in an aquarium before it cause a disease. As I understand - @AquaBiomics is developing their ability to screen a water sample for rest genes from multicellular organisms as well. Please correct me if I have misunderstand this

Sincerely Lasse

I though of the same thing - and yes - I believe they are doing that

 

[Paul B]

It does not seem to be common sense to suggest that you can take a fish in extremely poor condition, drop it into a 'natural' tank - and that immediately that fish is going to thrive and recover (which has been implied here)

No one that I know implied that. I just said I put in 2 sick cardinals last week and I have not seen them and I presume they died.

. It is simply not logical (unless I'm missing something in the 'method') how a fish immediately becomes immune by being placed in a 'natural tank'.

No one said any fish immediately does anything so yes, you must be missing something.

. Yet it is said that there are no deaths.

No one said there is no deaths. What was said many times is that "No other fish die from the disease the new fish brought in"

Fourth, the number of people with '50 year old tanks' is not to me a testimony to 'a method'

It is to me and it would also be to a scientist. But even if it were not, it is a much better testament than 500 tanks that crash in 2 or 3 years. A 50 year old tank "Implies" that fish can become immune, or be extremely lucky for half a century.
When they test a vaccine they give it to a bunch of people and wait. The longer those people stay safe from that particular disease the more certain the researchers are the vaccine works. If the test subjects were safe for 50 years I am pretty sure the stuff would be on the market.
The Covid vaccine was only tested for a couple of months and they deemed it safe.

e. If it was so 'easy' there would be hundreds of 50 year old tanks. I see 1.

I don't know why either because it is so simple. But there is as you said one fifty year old tank and no 50 year old quarantined tanks. That implies something else doesn't it?

IMHO there is no such thing as 'complete immunity to everything'.

It seems so far there is.

Of course you are missing the whole point as most people do. It is not just foregoing quarantine and drugs. That in itself does not make a natural tank and that in a nutshell is why people have so many disease problems.

 

[atoll]

Hmmm I cant tell if this is a serious question. And maybe I misunderstood the meaning of your original post. I would make this comment though. You're right - Mother Nature - whatever that is - would not give antibiotics to a fish if it got nipped by another fish and got an infection, or if it was unlucky enough to get CI (due to stress, etc etc). That fish would likely be eaten by something bigger. Thats why you don't see 'sick fish' on the reef - they have been eaten. BTW - another interesting question comes to mind - are the fish that are 'stupid enough' to be caught for the aquarium trade - slower, etc than the ones that stay in the ocean? IDK. There are a lot of permutations of this. In any case - the fact is for every fish swimming on the reef, thousands (or tens of thousands) have died as food for other fish, etc.

I've asked this of several people who are into the natural tank methods - but - I'm curious of your opinion.. No one has had an answer. If you take a tank raised fish - and put it into a 'natural tank' - which supposedly has parasites, etc etc. What will happen? The theory I've heard is that 'only fish taken from the sea are good - because they are immune to everything'.

To your question, I don't know the answer only somebody who tried would know or it would just be a theoretical answer. I prefer to talk about my experiences and yes I have introduced fish with itch and maybe other diseases. With itch it's to all intensive purposes gone within 36 hours and no other fish showing any signs of it. I have posted about such with my Royal grammas before.
To your part about sick fish being eaten that is the law of the reef however, when you say sick do you mean fish that grow old and slow down or get caught by a predator or perhaps has an accident. I have only seen fish hunted on the reef. We are talking sick as in parasites. An old fish will become suseptical to I'll health just like humans but won't die of them because as you point out they get eaten before they die. Liver, heart or any organ failure can occure but I would wager itch never killed a fish in the wild. We can argue why that might be.

 

[zalick]

No one that I know implied that. I just said I put in 2 sick cardinals last week and I have not seen them and I presume they died.

I think there is a disconnect happening on all these threads.

The implication seems to be that having a healthy natural tank and not medicating fish beforehand means that newly introduced fish will thrive. Or at least that’s what many readers infer. When the real hypothesis seems to be that when a fish is otherwise healthy and hearty, and then introduced to a natural tank with proper food, it will thrive and build a hearty immune system and make it (immune/resistant) to future parasite exposure.

with the cardinals presumably dying this would indicate the healthy natural tank will not cure an already sick fish. Which begs the question: could those cardinals have survived if treated prior to introduction?

I have no doubt that providing a healthy environment for introducing relatively healthy fish can lead to levels of parasite resistance. However there are certainly cases where a fish is sick prior to introduction and medication will save its life where the healthy tank will not.

 

[Paul B]

No one has had an answer. If you take a tank raised fish - and put it into a 'natural tank' - which supposedly has parasites, etc etc. What will happen? The theory I've heard is that 'only fish taken from the sea are good - because they are immune to everything'.

Actually this has been asked many times and I answered it. If those tank raised fish were in a natural, non quarantined tank eating things like fish eat in the sea with a full compliment of bacteria and parasites, they will be fine.

But if those tank raised fish were raised in a sterile or quarantined tank and they were put in a tank with parasites, they would die.

The implication seems to be that having a healthy natural tank and not medicating fish beforehand means that newly introduced fish will thrive. Or at least that’s what many readers infer. When the real hypothesis seems to be that when a fish is otherwise healthy and hearty, and then introduced to a natural tank with proper food, it will thrive and build a hearty immune system and make it (immune/resistant) to future parasite exposure.

Exactly. The new fish may live or die, but it will have no detrimental effects on the existing fish. This is often confused.
Of course if the fish like my cardinals were treated, they may live, I don't know. It all depends on what the fish has and if it has anything else. Not all diseases can be cured in fish or people as it depends on many factors one being how long the fish was sick.

Cancer can be cured if caught early but rarely if left to long.

I have no doubt that providing a healthy environment for introducing relatively healthy fish can lead to levels of parasite resistance.

Yes but many of us have different ideas of what a healthy environment is. Just because a fish is living and not sick doesn't mean it's healthy. Healthy looking people are walking all over the place but many of them have some sort of ailment.

Healthy fish spawn. In the sea there is no such thing as a female fish that doesn't have eggs or it just released them. Fish that are not in excellent health will not fill with eggs making that fish not as healthy as it can be.

A healthy fish also should be immune to parasites as fish in the sea are. The only way to get and stay immune to something is to be exposed to it. Thats also why we will all be getting Covid booster shots as it doesn't last forever. But if we are constantly exposed to Covid, we will stay immune without more vaccine. We will take the vaccine because we don't know if we are exposed.

Fish in an immune tank stay immune because from lack drugs and quarantine, parasites are happily living in our tanks just like in the sea. The few parasites present can not get to epidemic proportions because of the fishes immunity. "I think" those few living parasites can sample some fish flesh and stay alive forever. I said I think because although I have 20/20 vision, I can't see the parasites but being my fish seem to be totally immune that is what has to happen to keep them safe.

I also "assume" new fish I add like my sick cardinals add to the parasite community helping to keep the fish immune.

A quarantined or medicated tank will have no parasites and no immunity. I can't help that it is what it is.

 

[zalick]

Exactly. The new fish may live or die, but it will have no detrimental effects on the existing fish. This is often confused.
Of course if the fish like my cardinals were treated, they may live, I don't know. It all depends on what the fish has and if it has anything else. Not all diseases can be cured in fish or people as it depends on many factors one being how long the fish was sick.

Part of the confusion exists because of posts like the one I quoted below where you state your fish only die of old age. Other posts on the various forums state your fish never die from ich etc. maybe these statements are said tongue in cheek and you really mean “your old fish” or “most” but many people read the word “all” and assume all the fish in your tank, even new fish, are immune to ich or will fight it off. I’ve followed enough of your posts on the various forums over the years to know that some of your fish do indeed die from these parasites but you never have a total tank wipeout like many new reefers experience.

I doubt I could be lucky for that long. I just keep my fish healthy and immune by making sure there are diseases always present. My fish all spawn and only die of old age so I don't have any need of a hospital tank, medications or quarantine.

 

[MnFish1]

To your question, I don't know the answer only somebody who tried would know or it would just be a theoretical answer. I prefer to talk about my experiences and yes I have introduced fish with itch and maybe other diseases. With itch it's to all intensive purposes gone within 36 hours and no other fish showing any signs of it. I have posted about such with my Royal grammas before.
To your part about sick fish being eaten that is the law of the reef however, when you say sick do you mean fish that grow old and slow down or get caught by a predator or perhaps has an accident. I have only seen fish hunted on the reef. We are talking sick as in parasites. An old fish will become suseptical to I'll health just like humans but won't die of them because as you point out they get eaten before they die. Liver, heart or any organ failure can occure but I would wager itch never killed a fish in the wild. We can argue why that might be.

I meant fish sick from parasites (or anything else). Of course not every fish with parasites gets 'sick'. The point was that its impossible to say 'how many' die from parasites - because they are likely eaten before they die. They (I would guess) do not lay down on the bottom of the sand waiting for a scientist to count them. I fully agree - fish can survive parasites. They develop immunity that lasts for a time. The difference here is that some are saying 'QT causes 'suffering' for a fish', or QT 'destroys the immune system', etc etc. Frankly, I think that people that keep 'a natural tank' care as much about their fish than people that quarantine. I don't see the animosity. I also do not see the logic - much like @Brandon 429 mentioned earlier for many of the claims. As I've said before (Many times) - To me there are pieces to the puzzle missing. So - my comments relate to trying to figure out what those pieces might be - as compared to just having 'a debate'.