Something is VERY wrong with my fish

Humblefish · Aug 20, 2015

@Paul B I stand corrected! I guess excess mucous buildup is what causes heavy breathing when parasites/worms invade the gills, and the fish can die due to asphyxiation if the "invaders" are too many in number.

Paul B · Aug 21, 2015

No reason to stand corrected. You can sit, but you are also partially correct. Although fish excrete slime from everywhere, they also excrete it in their gills. But I am sure even with the slime immunity, many parasites are present in the gills and even if they are dead, dying, on vacation or bored, I am sure they are taking up space that would normally be used for oxygen transfer. Fish need all the space they have for that because air has something like 10,000 parts of oxygen per million and water carries like 6 PPM of oxygen so fish are living on the edge anyway. Anything that disrupts their oxygen exchange can be fatal or cause them extreme discomfort sort of like Rap music does for me.

Breakthecycle2 · Aug 21, 2015

I need some more help here. Its been said a few times here, that API Ammonia test kits will give you a false positive..correct? It tested at 1PPM today, but the fish seemed to be OK. My Seachem ammonia badge also is not yellow, indicating safe. It is always grayish. I am doing 10-30 gallon water changes every day. I added Dr Tims "live" bacteria as well.

Breakthecycle2 · Aug 21, 2015

Breakthecycle2 said:
I need some more help here. Its been said a few times here, that API Ammonia test kits will give you a false positive..correct? It tested at 1PPM today, but the fish seemed to be OK. My Seachem ammonia badge also is not yellow, indicating safe. It is always grayish. I am doing 10-30 gallon water changes every day. I added Dr Tims "live" bacteria as well.

Anyone?

Humblefish · Aug 21, 2015

Breakthecycle2 said:
I need some more help here. Its been said a few times here, that API Ammonia test kits will give you a false positive..correct? It tested at 1PPM today, but the fish seemed to be OK. My Seachem ammonia badge also is not yellow, indicating safe. It is always grayish. I am doing 10-30 gallon water changes every day. I added Dr Tims "live" bacteria as well.

You've got to put a white light either directly over or directly behind the Seachem ammonia alert badge to see it's true color.

Lowell Lemon · Aug 22, 2015

Humblefish said:
A UV has its time & place, but IMO not in a fish disease emergency situation. The UV can possibly prevent the emergency from ever happening in the first place, but that only applies to certain diseases i.e. ich, bacterial infections, etc. However, once the number of parasites have gotten out of hand, no UV, ozone, diatom filter, etc. is going to save you. Certainly not from Marine Velvet Disease. And everything about this thread just screams of the disease in play here being velvet. True, there is no way to be sure without a culture sample which can then be scope ID'd. Diagnosing fish diseases over the Internet will always be guess work, and very often the end user is never 100% sure when they treat. But what's the alternative? UV sterilizers have been used on marine aquariums, with varying degrees of success, for at least the past 20-25 years that I am aware of. I've owned several. And IME; they can be useful in certain situations... but a UV is not the "silver bullet" fix-all you are making it out to be. If it was, 20+ years later, it would be considered necessary equipment for every home saltwater aquarium.

I never claimed U.V. was a "silver bullet" neither is broad sperctrum medication "perscribed" by anecdotal evidence a "silver bullett". As I have watched this thread I have seen a confusion of treatment modalities suggested only to discover that oops...now the fish may have another problem. Those are just possible indications of the problem and more investigation is necessary to prevent death due to improper medication or treatment selection. How many fish died since the thread started due to improper treatment selection? No one will ever know. I have been around the hobby and industry for about 45 years. Just because a peice of equipment is not on every aquarium does not diminish its worth or effectiveness. There are many types of equipment used for many different reasons.

The majority of hobbiest have little understanding of the pressures of working with large shippments of live fish moving all over the world. Wholesalers are at the forefront of the technology in many cases. The reason is simple ecomonics. A reputation for selling dead or dying fish is not a business model they want to embrace. The same can be said for a successful long term local fish store. Many have developed habits and systems that work for them and lower their mortality rates. In a large percentage the U.V. Sterilizer plays an important role. Most of the wholesalers do have better quality central filtration systems that employ U.V. Sterilizers as a successful measure in preventing outbreaks. Just because every hobbyist does not have one does not make them of little worth. Do you think the wholesalers and fish stores use them just for fun? They use them and sell them because they are effective in their business. So effective they can track definitive declines in mortality in their systems from the times before the U.V. Sterilizers were employed. The bottom line is the bottom line for a wholesaler or retailer. They cannot afford losses over a small percentage or they will be out of business. In the long term you cannot buy a good reputation you have to earn it. Using the proper equipment in any business makes for a better outcome.
U.V. Sterilizers should be calculated to provide at least 45,000 Microwatts Seconds/CM² or greater to be effective in quarantine and holding systems. The contact area and dwell time is very important in preventing problems in mixed fish populations. Making sure the bulbs are replaced every 6 months and cleaning the quartz sleeves (not all U.V. have quartz sleeves but they provide the best function) is also necessary to accomplish the greatest benefit from the product. Keeping the turbitiy down in the water helps to enhance the "kill" rate in the U.V. Sterilizer as well. So mechanical and chemical prefiltration can enhance the "kill" effectiveness.
Just medicating willy nilly has never worked for me. In my own experience I killed more fish by prophylactic medication than I ever saved. Until I understood the largest group of causative organisms and designed systems to combat the problem I continued to experience unacceptable losses. I have maintained many systems over the years from single filtered to multiple unit centrally filtered systems. Not all of them had U.V. but in systems where fish were coming and going on a regular basis I had properly designed U.V. with very little problems. My customers had the same results. A stable home system is only stable until the last infected fish arrives. During run in and development of a stable fish population it is wise to use U.V. if you have no quarantine system.

Humblefish · Aug 22, 2015

Lowell Lemon said:
How many fish died since the thread started due to improper treatment selection?

I think even the OP will admit at this point that the fish died due to his constant wavering.

Lowell Lemon said:
The majority of hobbiest have little understanding of the pressures of working with large shippments of live fish moving all over the world. Wholesalers are at the forefront of the technology in many cases. The reason is simple ecomonics. A reputation for selling dead or dying fish is not a business model they want to embrace. The same can be said for a successful long term local fish store. Many have developed habits and systems that work for them and lower their mortality rates. In a large percentage the U.V. Sterilizer plays an important role. Most of the wholesalers do have better quality central filtration systems that employ U.V. Sterilizers as a successful measure in preventing outbreaks. Just because every hobbyist does not have one does not make them of little worth. Do you think the wholesalers and fish stores use them just for fun? They use them and sell them because they are effective in their business. So effective they can track definitive declines in mortality in their systems from the times before the U.V. Sterilizers were employed. The bottom line is the bottom line for a wholesaler or retailer. They cannot afford losses over a small percentage or they will be out of business. In the long term you cannot buy a good reputation you have to earn it. Using the proper equipment in any business makes for a better outcome.

Most LFS are fish flippers pure & simple. Their goal is to get the fish sold ASAP before it dies. Some are more responsible and use a variety of means to control disease; including using dips upon receiving new fish, running a UV or running copper in their retail systems. But the discovery of aerosol transmission has pretty much negated the benefits of plumbing a UV into a common return line, as most LFS aquaria sit in close proximity to one another. Still useful for eliminating free swimmers, however.

Most LFS I have advised make all their money with the maintenance side of the business. The retail side almost always loses money.

I don't know about the big box chains, however. I only advise mom & pops.

Lowell Lemon said:
In my own experience I killed more fish by prophylactic medication than I ever saved. Until I understood the largest group of causative organisms and designed systems to combat the problem I continued to experience unacceptable losses. I have maintained many systems over the years from single filtered to multiple unit centrally filtered systems. Not all of them had U.V. but in systems where fish were coming and going on a regular basis I had properly designed U.V. with very little problems. My customers had the same results. A stable home system is only stable until the last infected fish arrives. During run in and development of a stable fish population it is wise to use U.V. if you have no quarantine system.

It's a balancing act trying to find the proper dosages and the right medications to prophylactically treat without harming the fish. I've spent the past 2-3 years experimenting with a concoction of medications I feel is 95% inclusive in just a 10 day period. I will outline my new QT treatment protocol once experimentation is complete and I am sure of the results.

Breakthecycle2 · Aug 22, 2015

Humblefish said:
I think even the OP will admit at this point that the fish died due to his constant wavering.

Most LFS are fish flippers pure & simple. Their goal is to get the fish sold ASAP before it dies. Some are more responsible and use a variety of means to control disease; including using dips upon receiving new fish, running a UV or running copper in their retail systems. But the discovery of aerosol transmission has pretty much negated the benefits of plumbing a UV into a common return line, as most LFS aquaria sit in close proximity to one another. Still useful for eliminating free swimmers, however.

Most LFS I have advised make all their money with the maintenance side of the business. The retail side almost always loses money. I don't know about the big box chains, however. I only advise mom & pops.

It's a balancing act trying to find the proper dosages and the right medications to prophylactically treat without harming the fish. I've spent the past 2-3 years experimenting with a concoction of medications I feel is 95% inclusive in just a 10 day period. I will outline my new QT treatment protocol once experimentation is complete and I am sure of the results.

Well, to be honest, I did say that in another thread about the wavering. That being said, I sought outside help from a marine biologist at the Camden Aquarium here in NJ who is best friends with another hobbyist near me. His views, opinions and diagnosis was completely different then this board. So who do I trust? He could not give me a 100% diagnosis because no fish and visible symptoms at the time he was here. I had to show him pictures. Either way his "treatment" plan was to either go hypo salinity or go fishless. His timetable to go fishless was 45-50 days max. So who is right? I respect almost everyone's opinions on here and very much appreciated all suggestions. That being said, its tough to make a final decision when you have 10 people pulling you in 10 directions. That was the only reason why I waited.

Humblefish · Aug 22, 2015

Breakthecycle2 said:
His timetable to go fishless was 45-50 days max. So who is right?

Assuming "worst case scenario" for going fallow, which is ich; then the fallow period should be 72 days. Fallow periods for all other diseases are much shorter, so you'd be covered no matter what.

Why 72 days for ich? Because in one study (Colorni and Burgess 1997), it took up to 72 days for all the theronts to emerge from a group of tomonts. Now encountering that particular strain of ich is probably quite rare, but who knows... perhaps in the future another strain of ich will be discovered with an even longer life cycle.

The Colorni & Burgess study is available for viewing on Google Scholar. It is also mentioned here by Dr. Roy Yanong, VMD: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa164

Breakthecycle2 · Aug 22, 2015

Humblefish said:
Assuming "worst case scenario" for going fallow, which is ich; then the fallow period should be 72 days. Fallow periods for all other diseases are much shorter, so you'd be covered no matter what.

Why 72 days for ich? Because in one study (Colorni and Burgess 1997), it took up to 72 days for all the theronts to emerge from a group of tomonts. Now encountering that particular strain of ich is probably quite rare, but who knows... perhaps in the future another strain of ich will be discovered with an even longer life cycle.

The Colorni & Burgess study is available for viewing on Google Scholar. It is also mentioned here by Dr. Roy Yanong, VMD: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa164

I have never doubted anything you've said to me or to others. I just got so overwhelmed with different opinions. Thank you for that info.

Humblefish · Aug 22, 2015

Breakthecycle2 said:
I have never doubted anything you've said to me or to others. I just got so overwhelmed with different opinions. Thank you for that info.

I can be as wrong as anyone else. For example, until recently I thought no mucous layer existed inside a fish's gills, offering a path of least resistance for ich, velvet, brook, etc. This is false. I'm now trying to figure out exactly why external parasites seem to invade the gills first.

Paul B · Aug 22, 2015

They don't invade the gills first. They invade wherever they come into contact with the fish. When they land on the skin, they don't do much harm to the fish because of the scales. Parasites will not penetrate scales. Of course some fish are scale less, but they also have thicker slime. The parasites that are lucky enough to get into the gills have it made as long as they don't get killed by the antibodies on the gill slime. The gills are a great source of blood and that's what parasites are looking for. That and other good looking parasites that they can hang out with. The spots you see on the skin and tail of a fish are not harming it "much". It's the ones in the gills that take up the room that the fish needs to diffuse oxygen into it's blood.
I doubt parasites have 20/20 vision so they can't steer themselves to different parts of fish. At least I don't think so as I am not a parasite ophthalmologist.

Humblefish · Aug 22, 2015

Paul B said:
They don't invade the gills first.

I have to disagree with this because there are too many times when people practice ich management, and claim to never see evidence of trophonts (i.e. white spots caused by excess mucous buildup) on the skin/fins for months or even years. In the past, I myself have kept tanks where I knew ich was present but never saw any visible physical symptoms. But I would constantly see the fish scratch on rocks/sand, mostly targeting the gill area. And then one day I suffered a 24 hr power loss and there were white dots all over the fish.

I'm having this same conversation on another forum, and below are two theories that have been put forward that make sense to me:

If you want an educated guess:

The infectious stage is water born and water passes through the gills. As such, the contact probability is greater.

Plus the gills are also kind of a filter so the likelihood to catch a parasite there is quite high. Also, despite the protective mucus layer, in order to function as a gas exchanger the skin on the gills is very thin and vulnerable.

Paul B · Aug 23, 2015

Humblefish, I have to disagree with your disagreement. But not fully. It was asked if the gills are targeted first. I don't think parasites know where they are going and just latch on to whatever they bump into that is slimy. I am sure they get filtered through the gills and get stuck there, but not by targeting them, it's just luck. The spots we see on the sides of the fish are constantly sloughing off the fish because that is what the slime is supposed to do. In the delicate feathery gills it is much easier to hang on and if you look at them through a low power microscope you can see why. But either way, it is the gills where the fish have the problem because they are like our lungs and if we had creatures clinging on to most of the surfaces of our lungs, we would also be banging our heads on rocks.

4FordFamily · Aug 23, 2015

Paul B said:
Humblefish, I have to disagree with your disagreement. But not fully. It was asked if the gills are targeted first. I don't think parasites know where they are going and just latch on to whatever they bump into that is slimy. I am sure they get filtered through the gills and get stuck there, but not by targeting them, it's just luck. The spots we see on the sides of the fish are constantly sloughing off the fish because that is what the slime is supposed to do. In the delicate feathery gills it is much easier to hang on and if you look at them through a low power microscope you can see why. But either way, it is the gills where the fish have the problem because they are like our lungs and if we had creatures clinging on to most of the surfaces of our lungs, we would also be banging our heads on rocks.

I tend to bang my head on rocks anyway. It has been an ongoing problem. I am working on it.

Breakthecycle2 · Aug 23, 2015

QT Update: tank is empty for one week. Now I have an issue where some of my SPS are turning white all of a sudden. I have no idea why.

Also in QT, all are eating except my Yellow Scopas Tang. No idea why. He starting to get skinny. I feed Reef Frenzy, mysis, blackworm or Nori every day.

Breakthecycle2 · Aug 24, 2015

Can anyone please give me an info on how to get my tang to eat? He is not and is getting very skinny.

NeuroticAquatics · Aug 24, 2015

I've lost track. What have you tried? Oops, just saw it above...My first thoughts would be garlic soaked nori (purple, green, brown) and live foods. My other thought would be get it away from other fish, if possible, as it could just be spooked being in tight quarters with the other fish.