I too was just hit with Velvet after not worrying about QT for 15 years. It wiped out almost all the fish in my 230 gallon tank...4 tangs, copperband butterfly, pyramid butterfly, clowns, 2 angels, cardinal, mandarin goby...I had one of the fish for 12 years. I had to remove all my rock to catch the surviving fish and put them into a QT tank. Now I need to put everything back together. You can be sure that I will QT every new fish I add to the tank. I don't want to go through this again. I feel so bad for all the fish I lost.
still lost on quarantine protocol
- Thread starter Supertanker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Lowell Lemon
2500 Club Member
If you are not going to QT at least use a proper UV-C set up. Research it first to understand what I mean by proper...enough kill power to prevent the protozoa and bacterial levels from getting to a level that can become pathogenic.
If not using UV-C and if buying from an unknown source at least have a stable observation system running with a mature biological filter. Have the medications you think you might need before buying the fish and have an empty tank ready for treatment if necessary. By the time you add up all the extras you might have purchased the UV-C and had some money left over!
If not using UV-C and if buying from an unknown source at least have a stable observation system running with a mature biological filter. Have the medications you think you might need before buying the fish and have an empty tank ready for treatment if necessary. By the time you add up all the extras you might have purchased the UV-C and had some money left over!
Last edited:
Mortie31
Valuable Member
You don’t happen to have links to these papers at all? Thanks Paul
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 11,262
- Reaction score
- 30,666
- Location
- Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
- What state or country do you live in
- Other International
It is risk assessment too. I had some ideas to set up a second tank but with the same sump as I use today. But adding a proper UV-C to the return pump going to both aquaria. But today with a very mature aquaria with lot of hungry mouths I have left that thinking. I have a lot of cardinals that´s are rather sensitive to stress and bacterial diseases and I had some sign of affected fish. Two died but – it did not spread at all to the healthy fishes. As you I not believe in total immune fish (even if I think that @Paul B is right to emphasis the good with natural bacteria in the water and guts) – because if the number of attackers is large enough – no one is immune. My strategy is more to limit the numbers of potential pathogens and to limit their living space with diversity. I want hitchhikers, lot of them. 99 % of them are good in ways that you can´t think about. To take away them – just because there is a risk that you get something that you think is a pest is just madness IMO.
But for sure – there is a risk, but it is also a risk that my grandchildren put something in my aquaria, that we get a power cut when I ´m out traveling or whatever. I think that my aquarium is very balanced at the moment – my oldest pipefish is nearly 2 years in my care and the youngest around 7 months.
Would I have a fish only with a lot of tangs and butterflies – I probably should have an observation QT – but I´m not sure – cause I know a lot of people here that manage their tangs very good – but wait with the more sensitive species till the aquaria is mature. However – I would run a proper UV-C with tangs. For me – it means the types that TMC have – low pressure mercury bulbs.
Sincerely Lasse
MnFish1
10K Club member
Here are a couple - I couldn't find the specific paragraph from when I was reading the other day.
https://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/fisher...n-Marine-Aquaculture-and-Aquarium-Systems.pdf
Chronic copper exposure will also adversely affect fish health. Sublethal and toxic levels of copper damage gills and other tissues
of fish, and also are known to depress the immune system. Because of all these concerns, it is important to understand how copper works and how copper availability is affected by the environment in which it is used (Cardeilhac and Whitaker 1988).
Cardeilhac, P.T. and B.R. Whitaker. 1988. Copper treat- ments: uses and precautions. In Tropical fish Medicine. Stoskopf, M.K., ed. The Veterinary Clinics of NorthAmerica: Small Animal Practice 18(2): 435–448.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13273-018-0032-2
These results indicate that Cu2+ concentrations of 30 and 40 μg/L can induce an acute toxic oxidative stress and decrease the immune response in red seabream in aquarium conditions.
http://www.pebblescience.org/pdfs/2012-December/16 June 2012_FINAL_ Effects of Copper on Fish.pdf
Toxic effects of Cu are classified as “acute“ or lethal and “chronic” where sublethal exposures result in reduced growth, immune response, reproduction and/or survival. Adverse effects have been demonstrated on various fish “receptors” including gills, olfactory receptors, and lateral line cilia and scientists are now learning more about how Cu affects fish DNA and molecules. Copper is known to reduce fish resistance to diseases; it disrupts migration (i.e., fishes avoid copper-contaminated spawning grounds); alters swimming; causes oxidative damage; impairs respiration; disrupts osmoregulation structure and pathology of kidneys, liver, gills, and other stem cells; impacts mechanoreceptors of lateral line canals; impairs functions of olfactory organs and brain; is associated with changes in behavior, blood chemistry, enzyme activities, corticosteroid metabolism and gene transcription and expression
(Table 2; Hodson et al. 1979, Knittel, 1981, Rougier et al. 1994, Eisler 2000, Craig et al. 2010, Tierney et al. 2010)
Mortie31
Valuable Member
Thankyou so much for taking the time to do this
MnFish1
10K Club member
@Mortie31 here are a couple quotes as well:
1. Can the presence of inorganics/metals (focusing particularly on aluminium, copper, chromium and zinc) suppress the immune system of marine organisms?
Yes. There is literature evidence that all named metals but also other metals, organic chemicals and other stress factors can suppress the function of the immune system in a wide range of marine organisms. Further, in the aquatic environment, metals and organic chemicals are not present as individual compounds but mixture effects need to be taken into account.
All species reviewed have different levels of immunocompetence. Invertebrates mainly have innate, nonspecific response, while fish have all functionalities of innate and adaptive (acquired) response, which is more targeted, albeit in an evolutionary older state than mammals. Finfish have a highly developed immune system, while the immune system of sharks is more primitive. Thus the cellular effects of metals and organic chemicals have a degree of (dis)similarity in different species that is related to the degree of (dis)similarity of the immune functions.
2. What concentrations and exposure period are required in order to cause immunosuppression and/or decreased resistance to parasites and diseases?
There is no clear-cut answer to this question. Suppression of molecular immune responses may occur without reduced disease resistance. Many parameters related to immune function can be measured but there is no one single endpoint that can be associated with a well functioning immune system. Effects on the immune system are dependent on species, time, concentration and environmental factors. At low exposure levels, stimulatory effects may also occur but at higher exposure levels, mainly immunosuppressive effects are observed. Sometimes suppression is followed by recovery or even stimulation. Overall immune response is multifactorial and influenced by a combination of environmental factors and species-specific traits.
3. Can the presence of inorganics/metals (focusing particularly on aluminium, copper, chromium and zinc) increase the susceptibility of organisms to opportunistic parasites and diseases?
Yes. There is quite extensive evidence from aquaculture research and practice on the relationship between immunosuppression and susceptibility to pathogens and parasites, be the cause of immunosuppression chemical induction or other stressors. In wildlife, the evidence is more anecdotal or epidemiological, i.e., in many (but not all) cases, higher levels of chemical pollutants are found in animals affected by various parasites and diseases. Some examples from the literature are reviewed in this report.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ure_review/links/555b59d408aec5ac22322bd0.pdf
1. Can the presence of inorganics/metals (focusing particularly on aluminium, copper, chromium and zinc) suppress the immune system of marine organisms?
Yes. There is literature evidence that all named metals but also other metals, organic chemicals and other stress factors can suppress the function of the immune system in a wide range of marine organisms. Further, in the aquatic environment, metals and organic chemicals are not present as individual compounds but mixture effects need to be taken into account.
All species reviewed have different levels of immunocompetence. Invertebrates mainly have innate, nonspecific response, while fish have all functionalities of innate and adaptive (acquired) response, which is more targeted, albeit in an evolutionary older state than mammals. Finfish have a highly developed immune system, while the immune system of sharks is more primitive. Thus the cellular effects of metals and organic chemicals have a degree of (dis)similarity in different species that is related to the degree of (dis)similarity of the immune functions.
2. What concentrations and exposure period are required in order to cause immunosuppression and/or decreased resistance to parasites and diseases?
There is no clear-cut answer to this question. Suppression of molecular immune responses may occur without reduced disease resistance. Many parameters related to immune function can be measured but there is no one single endpoint that can be associated with a well functioning immune system. Effects on the immune system are dependent on species, time, concentration and environmental factors. At low exposure levels, stimulatory effects may also occur but at higher exposure levels, mainly immunosuppressive effects are observed. Sometimes suppression is followed by recovery or even stimulation. Overall immune response is multifactorial and influenced by a combination of environmental factors and species-specific traits.
3. Can the presence of inorganics/metals (focusing particularly on aluminium, copper, chromium and zinc) increase the susceptibility of organisms to opportunistic parasites and diseases?
Yes. There is quite extensive evidence from aquaculture research and practice on the relationship between immunosuppression and susceptibility to pathogens and parasites, be the cause of immunosuppression chemical induction or other stressors. In wildlife, the evidence is more anecdotal or epidemiological, i.e., in many (but not all) cases, higher levels of chemical pollutants are found in animals affected by various parasites and diseases. Some examples from the literature are reviewed in this report.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ure_review/links/555b59d408aec5ac22322bd0.pdf
MnFish1
10K Club member
BTW for those on both sides of the QT, Fish stress, Copper no copper debate - I think this is key - though 'in research studies' they can show decreases in SOME immune parameters (after copper use)- it doesnt necessarily translate into clinical problems.
That said - I tend to agree with @Lasse - the fewer chemicals the better.
Last edited:
FrancineJ
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 83
- Location
- Ottawa Ontario
- What state or country do you live in
- Canada
The reason the shops are using sub therapeutic levels of copper is because it keeps their livestock from dying right when it comes in.... straight from the horses mouth.... there have actually been many articles right on here about shops now doing this.... it saves their money.... however then after bringing the fish home it can be susceptible to diseases.... again because it’s only sub therapeutic levels it can “mask” diseases..... there is no benefit to the fish owner to this... only to the shops so they are not losing fish....
FrancineJ
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 83
- Location
- Ottawa Ontario
- What state or country do you live in
- Canada
Yup absolutely they do.... both corals and cuc can be carriers of velvet and you would never know...
But people choose to do it or not....
MnFish1
10K Club member
I know there are many posts here - my question was - whats the science behind it. There is no evidence that a subtheraputic copper level does anything - so why would they do it. The word subtheraputic means it does nothing - or perhaps very little....If you have some evidence - I would really like to see it - because - after 6 hours of searching - I see no evidence that it works. (Note - I'm not saying that retailers dont do it - but only that if they were doing it they would have diseased fish. Ie fish that are dying in their tanks as well)
FrancineJ
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 83
- Location
- Ottawa Ontario
- What state or country do you live in
- Canada
Here is EXACTLY what my post was referring to when I spoke about shops treating their fish with sub therapeutic levels to have us bring our fish home sick....
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/bad-news-velvet-strain-survives-1-75-ppm-copper.583491/
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/bad-news-velvet-strain-survives-1-75-ppm-copper.583491/
FrancineJ
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 83
- Location
- Ottawa Ontario
- What state or country do you live in
- Canada
It’s the cuc that brings the velvet into the tank.... velvet has a life cycle of 72+ days.... therefore if you add a snail that is carrying velvet (it does not effect inverts and corals... they are just carriers) the life cycle can remain in your DT for 72 days....
Have a read up on the life cycle of velvet and ich.... once it has hit your DT you can not put a fish or anything back in it for again around 72 days.... (you can add more cuc and corals but you must then reset the 72 day clock each time) and you won’t know that the snail or coral brought it in until you add your first set of fish....
Last edited:
FrancineJ
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 83
- Location
- Ottawa Ontario
- What state or country do you live in
- Canada
here is some proof.....
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/bad-news-velvet-strain-survives-1-75-ppm-copper.583491/
And unfortunately it’s just one of many articles popping up lately....
And no they would not have diseased fish because they are keeping their fish at just enough of a level of copper of CP again to “mask” diseases....
MnFish1
10K Club member
Ummm.... right - but which retailers sell CUC with fish in them? The one's I buy from do not. So - I would suggest that people that buy CUC from a place that has fish in the tank needs to QT them (I said that before)....
MnFish1
10K Club member
I asked a specific question Francine - it was 'there is lots of anecdote that LFS, etc put subtheraputic copper into their water'. I asked what is the scientific basis for why they would do it? The definition of subtheraputic means that it should not have an effect - or am I misdefining it? Where is the evidence that a subtheraputic dose of copper would 'mask' a diseased fish?
MnFish1
10K Club member
Again - that is a thread that proposes that there is a resistant strain of velvet (that has never been reported before - ever) - My postulate is that there is another reason for it - and even if I'm incorrect - there is no evidence that this resistant strain came from a distributor that used a subtheraputic dose of copper or is there? I saw that as a possible explanation for it - but there was no evidence at all presented that that was the case. I have never seen any evidence that links the 2. In science or here - except people have said it 'might' be the reason. IN fact - it 'might' be the reason - but I'm not so sure its at all 'proven'.
