hyposalinity ich treatment worth the effort?

[somebloke]

I have (2) fairy wrasse and a foxface in a hospital tank because one of them had shown signs of ich. My intention is to treat with hyposalinity. Considerations:

• I have a reliable digital salinity meter. I'm confident about the precision and accuracy of measurements.
  
• Keeping the tank constant at the proper salinity won't be an issue. I have a relatively large hospital tank (55g) and work from home. I check the tank frequently and top off as needed, usually small amounts twice a day.
  
• The fish are doing really well in hypo for the past 3 days at 11.5 ppt.

But...am I wasting my time? I've read there are hypo-resistant strains known to academic research. That fact by itself isn't enough to deter me. There are many rare happenings known to academic research in all sorts of domains. The existence of hypo-resistant strains doesn't really determine the frequency with which hobbyists encounter hypo-resistance. I'm looking for reasonable expectations - I don't need to rule out the theoretic possibility of ich survival.

Any thoughts or opinions are welcome and appreciated.

 

[DLHDesign]

Might need more info on your overall situation in order to make a "worth it" call - are these your only fish? Was ich noticed before or after them being in the DT? How long have you had the fish?

In general, I would not (personally) consider hypo anything better than a tool to use to buy time while waiting for a long-term solution. It just seems to me that if you are going to go through the trouble of QT-ing fish, you would want to know (as best as possible, of course) that you end up with the results you desire. It's certainly possible that a hypo treatment could resolve your ich problem, but how would you feel if you went all the way through that process, and still had ich at the end?

With a 55gal QT tank, TTM isn't really an option. In your situation, I'd look into a copper (or better - chloroquine phosphate) treatment regime. If that's done properly, you are pretty much guaranteed to have ich-free fish - ready to be added to a clean DT (which you would want to have left fallow for 76 days, if needed).

 

[somebloke]

Might need more info on your overall situation in order to make a "worth it" call - are these your only fish? Was ich noticed before or after them being in the DT? How long have you had the fish?

In general, I would not (personally) consider hypo anything better than a tool to use to buy time while waiting for a long-term solution. It just seems to me that if you are going to go through the trouble of QT-ing fish, you would want to know (as best as possible, of course) that you end up with the results you desire. It's certainly possible that a hypo treatment could resolve your ich problem, but how would you feel if you went all the way through that process, and still had ich at the end?

With a 55gal QT tank, TTM isn't really an option. In your situation, I'd look into a copper (or better - chloroquine phosphate) treatment regime. If that's done properly, you are pretty much guaranteed to have ich-free fish - ready to be added to a clean DT (which you would want to have left fallow for 76 days, if needed).

Thanks much for the response!

Here's where I'm at. There are numerous online sources (for instance, http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/6/fish#section-9) that say that marine ich can be successfully treated by keeping fish in sufficiently-low salinity for a sufficient duration. I'm weighing that against reports of more-or-less rare hypo-resistant strains (note: there are reports of copper-resistant strains as well).

It sounds your opinion is that it won't work for any strain.

Have you tried hyposalinity as an ich treatment under well-controlled conditions? What salinity level? How long? What happened? Or is it more of a "gut" feeling?

There's too much anecdotal evidence of harm for me to use CP on wrasse. If I decide against this attempt at hyposalinity, I'll go with chelated copper treatment.

Thanks again for the response. I love these forums

 

[DLHDesign]

It sounds your opinion is that it won't work for any strain.

Not at all; there are certainly reliable reports of hypo working. There are also reliable reports of the opposite, however.

Have you tried hyposalinity as an ich treatment under well-controlled conditions?

No; I exclusively use TTM myself.

The vast majority of my information and knowledge about ich comes from these forums. The best, most concise article of which is here.

 

[somebloke]

Yeah, that article is great. Humblefish also has a brief article about hyposalinity, here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/hyposalinity.247596/. If I'm lucky maybe he'll catch sight of this thread.

So far over the past three days, I'm agitating the hell out of the surface and my pH hasn't dipped below 7.7, so that's one complication averted.

What I'd LOVE to be able to quantify or at least estimate is how likely it is for a hobbyist to encounter one of these hypo-resistant ich strains. I imagine no one knows.

Anyone who hates uncertainty would have to hate this hobby. I think I know what I'm going to do but I'm gonna hold off to see what other responses/opinions surface.

Thanks again

 

[DLHDesign]

@Humblefish; we seem to be quoting you a lot. ;-)

 

[4FordFamily]

The biggest issue I have with hypo, assuming it was 100% effective against ich (and it’s not), is that unfortunately it seems that about half of the people treating “ich” are actually dealing with velvet. Hypo also doesn’t work with velvet.

In addition, wrasse rarely show symptoms of ich, or at least its uncommon, even in a known ich-containing system. They have very thick slime coats, sleep under the sand, or sleep in mucous cocoons. Some do all of the above to some extent. All of these things help them fight off serious parasitic infestations considerably. Some can even live for a year or more in systems with velvet. This is not ethical nor recommended treatment of our scaly fiends, however. Usually by the time a wrasse shows velvet externally, the gills are too far gone to help.

 

[somebloke]

The biggest issue I have with hypo, assuming it was 100% effective against ich (and it’s not), is that unfortunately it seems that about half of the people treating “ich” are actually dealing with velvet. Hypo also doesn’t work with velvet.

In addition, wrasse rarely show symptoms of ich, or at least its uncommon, even in a known ich-containing system. They have very thick slime coats, sleep under the sand, or sleep in mucous cocoons. Some do all of the above to some extent. All of these things help them fight off serious parasitic infestations considerably. Some can even live for a year or more in systems with velvet. This is not ethical nor recommended treatment of our scaly fiends, however. Usually by the time a wrasse shows velvet externally, the gills are too far gone to help.

I'm new to wrasse and appreciate the insights into some of their unique characteristics. Thank-you.

I agree that identification is an critical dimension of disease handling. For my present inquiry, I am isolating the question of how effective a particular treatment, taken in itself, is (or isn't) for a particular disease.