I can't believe I am posting another thread on Ich!!

which threads are you talking about cap? waters write up on ich seems inline with this, i did not see anywhere that he stated ich lays dormant in the fishes gills, or dormant at all. Like i said before ask someone to prove it, back it up. They can't, because it's a myth, ich does not lay dormant, and is 100% preventable.

You seem to be fixating on the one myth that I quoted. I moved on from that in the light of all the effort you have gone to posting the quality stuff by Lee etc.
I think his statement of all ich is not necessarily ich at all can explain alot of fellow hobbyists attitude and treatments of the disease.

I have read alot on RC of material that does not coincide with Lee's work other then the particular recent case I dealt with but see no point in dredging it all up for debate.
My movitation for starting this thread was not to debate with you or Lee's findings, rather get some quality information out in the open rather then buried in the original posters thread.

I am still hoping that some of the really experienced reefers that I have invited to this thread will still weigh in here :)
 
Mostly good info, but I have a few issues with the original post. Mainly the claim that healthy fish are infected just as easily as weak or stressed fish. The author then contradicts themselves just a few lines down saying that the addition of a new fish can induce stress and make them more susceptible to it? They also said untrue for "it goes away on it's own", but in the beginning said that after 10-11 life cycles it becomes ineffective.


thank you for joining in Lobster of Justice

Have you had experience with it going away on its own or healthy fish fighting it off.
While you were posting I was posting with the statement that was made---all ich might not really be ich--and thus we are fooled that "ich went away on its own when it really wasn't ich to begin with.

What bothers me is I have introduced a fish or two to a tank and then possible signs of ich showing up---white dots on the fins etc---only to find it disappear permanently and not appear on any of the other fish in the tank
 
If I understand correctly there is also evidence the the "original" strain of ich has a fixed life span of less than one year. If so this may explain why some people had ich, but managed to keep their fish otherwise healthy and subsequently had no further outbreaks. This is good to know because if ich is introduced via inverts or corals and we have healthy live stock we may not need to catch and treat the fish in all cases.
 
Mostly good info, but I have a few issues with the original post. Mainly the claim that healthy fish are infected just as easily as weak or stressed fish. The author then contradicts themselves just a few lines down saying that the addition of a new fish can induce stress and make them more susceptible to it? They also said untrue for "it goes away on it's own", but in the beginning said that after 10-11 life cycles it becomes ineffective.

i think what he means is, healthy fish can still have ich, while a healthy fish can build a temp immunity, the addition of new fish causes stress which weakens fish immune system. also i believe the findings that have been made is that ich can wear itself out, as long as no new strains of the parasite are introduced. which can take 10-11 months.
 
You seem to be fixating on the one myth that I quoted. I moved on from that in the light of all the effort you have gone to posting the quality stuff by Lee etc.
I think his statement of all ich is not necessarily ich at all can explain alot of fellow hobbyists attitude and treatments of the disease.

I have read alot on RC of material that does not coincide with Lee's work other then the particular recent case I dealt with but see no point in dredging it all up for debate.
My movitation for starting this thread was not to debate with you or Lee's findings, rather get some quality information out in the open rather then buried in the original posters thread.

I am still hoping that some of the really experienced reefers that I have invited to this thread will still weigh in here :)

it's just that one myth had me curious of course. I have not seen any threads here that lays it out, that does not coincide with what lee has put down. Not saying they don't exist, i just have not seen any. On a flip side there is alot of documentation and research done, that seems to be spot on with Lee. it's all out there, just search for it. And i appreciate you putting down lee's work for others to see, I am pretty shocked RC does not have something like this stickied in the disease and treatment.
 
While Lee's piece is mostly correct, there are a few clarifications that need to be made.

2. Only time a human can see this parasite with the naked eye is when it is ‘pregnant’ on the fish and has formed a white nodule. (The white spot is about the size of a grain of table salt or sugar).
It's important to note that even when the parasite is on the fish, it's at the lower end of what you can resolve with your naked eye. If you have good eyesight and it's on a dark colored fish, you might be able to see the parasite itself. The white spots typically associated with the disease are not the parasite itself, but the displaced tissue around where the parasite is embedded. As Lee mentions later on, getting rid of the white spots does not cure the disease.

14. INTERESTING FIND: If no new MI is introduce into an infected aquarium, the MI already there continues to cycle through multiple generations until about 10 to 11 months when the MI has ‘worn itself out’ and becomes less infective. A tank can be free of an MI infestation if it is never exposed to new MI parasites for over 11 months.
This study has been pointed out twice in this thread now, bit it's important to not that it was only one study using one method. Other researchers have maintained viable cultures for longer using different methods. While Burgess and Matthews' work is noteworthy an may very well be correct that pure lines die out after 10-11 months, this hasn't been independently confirmed. If you don't add anything new to the tank for 10-11 months, there's a good chance any ich will have died off, but it's not something hobbyists should bet on.

3. No fish, no matter how good its defense is, can stop being infected. A healthy fish will and can be equally infected as a sick or stressed fish...

4. A weak, stressed, or sick fish will die sooner than a healthy fish, but is no more likely to get infected than the healthy fish.
Actually in the studies on immunity, no parasites were found in examinations of a few fish following challenge with the parasite. That suggests that some fish may in fact have completely stopped the parasite from infecting. Also, it's known that the immune system can be suppressed by stress or illness, so it's not accurate to say that a sick fish is no more likely to be infected than an otherwise healthy one, which he goes on to say later.

I think the point Lee was trying to make in #3 though was that making sure fish are otherwise healthy will not guarantee that they can fight off the parasite or that they won't get it as badly if they do get it. That part is true. #4 is one of the few places I think he's gone way beyond what's reasonably inferred from the literature.

An immune fish doesn’t remain immune. Separated from the disease for months, the once immune fish can become MI infected.
While some authors have suggested that this is a possiblity, I haven't seen any studies showing it to be true. The only studies I know of that looked at how long immunity was maintained showed that it was still effective at least 6 months following initial infection. They didn't test it on any longer periods of time to see if there is some point at which it's lost.

It goes away on its own. Untrue.
I think the point he's making here is that in most cases, even after the spots disappear after the initial infection, the parasite hasn't been eradicated. Even fish with immunity still usually harbor a few or the parasites, so you're unlikely to see white spots even though the parasite it still there. However, as I mentioned earlier, there have been some cases where pathology exams failed to turn up any parasites after the second challenge, so in some cases the ich may in fact have gone away on its own- but only for that fish. Any other fish that haven't developed total immunity may still be infected.

13. If the MI can't always be detected, then why bother with a quarantine procedure? In the confines of a small quarantine and being there for no less than 6 weeks, the MI parasite will make itself known because the fish is weakened and the fish can't get away from being re-infected by multiplying MI parasites. In other words, the quarantine procedure instigates a 'bloom' of the parasite which will make it visible to the aquarist.
This is a matter of conjecture, and personally I disagree with it. Fish that have already developed immunity (say at the LFS) are still likely to harbor small numbers of parasites, which may not be visible. Even a small number of them can reproduce to become thousands of theronts within a single cycle, BUT even under ideal conditions (for the parasite), with naive fish in small, isolated tanks, only 5-20% of theronts successfully infect a host. With a potential host that already has partial immunity, Burgess and Matthews showed that success drops to about 0.05%, so there's no reason to assume that you will get a "bloom." For example, Burgess and Matthews found that fish that had been exposed to only 200 theronts before only hosted an average of 13 parasites after their second exposure. Other work shows that a single tomont can produces at most, 1030 theronts (only about 200-300 max for most strains). That means that even if you assume the lowest level of immunity and the maximum number of theronts from one tomont, those 13 parasites give you about 7 on the next cycle- a decline in numbers, not a bloom. You have to weaken the fish enough to double the success rate of infection just to keep a stable number of parasites. The potential problem comes when you then add that fish to the tank where there are fish who have never been exposed to ich before or may have lost their immunity over time.
 
thank you for joining in Lobster of Justice

Have you had experience with it going away on its own or healthy fish fighting it off.
While you were posting I was posting with the statement that was made---all ich might not really be ich--and thus we are fooled that "ich went away on its own when it really wasn't ich to begin with.

What bothers me is I have introduced a fish or two to a tank and then possible signs of ich showing up---white dots on the fins etc---only to find it disappear permanently and not appear on any of the other fish in the tank

Well, I dont have experience with it completely going away... but if it disappears to my eyes and only pops up when temperature spikes or I add a new fish... thats gone enough for me. Might be in my tank, but it doesnt seem to be bothering the fish and seems to be largely avoidable by eliminating stressors.
 
While Lee's piece is mostly correct, there are a few clarifications that need to be made.


It's important to note that even when the parasite is on the fish, it's at the lower end of what you can resolve with your naked eye. If you have good eyesight and it's on a dark colored fish, you might be able to see the parasite itself. The white spots typically associated with the disease are not the parasite itself, but the displaced tissue around where the parasite is embedded. As Lee mentions later on, getting rid of the white spots does not cure the disease.


This study has been pointed out twice in this thread now, bit it's important to not that it was only one study using one method. Other researchers have maintained viable cultures for longer using different methods. While Burgess and Matthews' work is noteworthy an may very well be correct that pure lines die out after 10-11 months, this hasn't been independently confirmed. If you don't add anything new to the tank for 10-11 months, there's a good chance any ich will have died off, but it's not something hobbyists should bet on.


Actually in the studies on immunity, no parasites were found in examinations of a few fish following challenge with the parasite. That suggests that some fish may in fact have completely stopped the parasite from infecting. Also, it's known that the immune system can be suppressed by stress or illness, so it's not accurate to say that a sick fish is no more likely to be infected than an otherwise healthy one, which he goes on to say later.

I think the point Lee was trying to make in #3 though was that making sure fish are otherwise healthy will not guarantee that they can fight off the parasite or that they won't get it as badly if they do get it. That part is true. #4 is one of the few places I think he's gone way beyond what's reasonably inferred from the literature.


While some authors have suggested that this is a possiblity, I haven't seen any studies showing it to be true. The only studies I know of that looked at how long immunity was maintained showed that it was still effective at least 6 months following initial infection. They didn't test it on any longer periods of time to see if there is some point at which it's lost.


I think the point he's making here is that in most cases, even after the spots disappear after the initial infection, the parasite hasn't been eradicated. Even fish with immunity still usually harbor a few or the parasites, so you're unlikely to see white spots even though the parasite it still there. However, as I mentioned earlier, there have been some cases where pathology exams failed to turn up any parasites after the second challenge, so in some cases the ich may in fact have gone away on its own- but only for that fish. Any other fish that haven't developed total immunity may still be infected.


This is a matter of conjecture, and personally I disagree with it. Fish that have already developed immunity (say at the LFS) are still likely to harbor small numbers of parasites, which may not be visible. Even a small number of them can reproduce to become thousands of theronts within a single cycle, BUT even under ideal conditions (for the parasite), with naive fish in small, isolated tanks, only 5-20% of theronts successfully infect a host. With a potential host that already has partial immunity, Burgess and Matthews showed that success drops to about 0.05%, so there's no reason to assume that you will get a "bloom." For example, Burgess and Matthews found that fish that had been exposed to only 200 theronts before only hosted an average of 13 parasites after their second exposure. Other work shows that a single tomont can produces at most, 1030 theronts (only about 200-300 max for most strains). That means that even if you assume the lowest level of immunity and the maximum number of theronts from one tomont, those 13 parasites give you about 7 on the next cycle- a decline in numbers, not a bloom. You have to weaken the fish enough to double the success rate of infection just to keep a stable number of parasites. The potential problem comes when you then add that fish to the tank where there are fish who have never been exposed to ich before or may have lost their immunity over time.

I take it as, seeing the white dot, is the only time you can see the parasite meaning the infection. i dont believe anybody has the vision to see the parasite in the free swimming cycle, only after it has fed on the fish can we visually see it.

as far as the immunity goes:

Fish that have survived a challenge with Cryptocaryon irritans can develop some level of acquired immunity for up to six months (Burgess & Mathews, 1995b). Some fish will not develop any protection or acquired immunity. Fish maintain immunity by the presence of the parasite without evidence of pathological lesions. However, many fish are not completely protected and can sustain a low level infection (Colorni & Burgess, 1997). This may account for outbreaks at a later date since the parasite was not eliminated from the system. Stress can diminish the fish's immunity, enabling the parasite population to increase, resulting in a renewed outbreak (Colorni & Burgess, 1997). Immunity or partial immunity may also explain why some of the inconsistently effective treatments previously mentioned appear to work at times.

could you show us where the studies you are referring too?

and for #4 :

Cryptocaryon irritans tomonts have an asynchronous excystment (hatching) time of 3 to 28 days (Colorni, 1985). The longest recorded period of time for tomonts to hatch is 72 days (Colorni & Burgess, 1997).

not arguing, i just like to have facts that have back-up through research that has been done.
 
Well, I dont have experience with it completely going away... but if it disappears to my eyes and only pops up when temperature spikes or I add a new fish... thats gone enough for me. Might be in my tank, but it doesnt seem to be bothering the fish and seems to be largely avoidable by eliminating stressors.

that means it's not gone, and very well could be a ticking time bomb. any kind of stress most likely will cause out breaks, out breaks is stress, stress is the enemy so it just keeps it going. They are your pets, and your choice. But having an ich free tank is a beautiful thing.
 
I am still hoping that some of the really experienced reefers that I have invited to this thread will still weigh in here

I guess my 21 years of experience doesn't count because I wasn't invited:fun2:

Really, to me it's simple, to avoid all the mis-truths simply follow one of the basic protocols....................QT new arrivals. I've been doing this for years & is the main reason I have fish that live many years. Do this & the hobby becomes a lot easier & rewarding.
 
that means it's not gone, and very well could be a ticking time bomb. any kind of stress most likely will cause out breaks, out breaks is stress, stress is the enemy so it just keeps it going. They are your pets, and your choice. But having an ich free tank is a beautiful thing.

I guess...

But to me, some people just take this too seriously. It's an arguement over semantics. It might not be gone, but its just as good as gone. There shouldnt be any stress in the tank anyway. Now that I think about it, I could probably make the argument that a little ich in the tank is good because it alerts you to stressors. Last time I saw some ich pop up I checked my temperature controller and noticed temp was spiking 2* higher than it usually does. Kind of a canary in the coal mine thing...

I guess what I'm saying is IME it's only a problem in conjunction with other problems... in which case those other problems shouldnt be there anyway.

Anyway, off topic, but it was brought up.
 
I am pretty shocked RC does not have something like this stickied in the disease and treatment.

i think fish health should be a main forum on the forum page, at the moment its only visible if you click the on-line community link, and i agree, itch and treatments should be a sticky.
 
with what has been said here it would seem that qt is not enough... since you cant always see the infection the only way to know for sure would be to qt and medicate through one of the proven methods to ensure eradication.

Does anybody qt and medicate everytime to be sure?
 
I guess my 21 years of experience doesn't count because I wasn't invited:fun2:

Really, to me it's simple, to avoid all the mis-truths simply follow one of the basic protocols....................QT new arrivals. I've been doing this for years & is the main reason I have fish that live many years. Do this & the hobby becomes a lot easier & rewarding.


Invited or not its great that you joined in

Yet, I have qt'ed before but in the light of the above information I have had to change the way I observe/ quarantine fish. (I have been chastised before for not making the distinction between observation tank and quaratine tank--the later being a hospital tank where treatments are done :) )

As stated above I now observe/qt corals, live rock etc but in a fishless envirnoment.
 
with what has been said here it would seem that qt is not enough... since you cant always see the infection the only way to know for sure would be to qt and medicate through one of the proven methods to ensure eradication.

Does anybody qt and medicate everytime to be sure?

absolutely.
 
with what has been said here it would seem that qt is not enough... since you cant always see the infection the only way to know for sure would be to qt and medicate through one of the proven methods to ensure eradication.

Does anybody qt and medicate everytime to be sure?

NO, I still see it as a two step process---observation and treatment if necessary. I also believe the fish should be observed separate from other purchases--live rock, inverts, corals.
 
NO, I still see it as a two step process---observation and treatment if necessary. I also believe the fish should be observed separate from other purchases--live rock, inverts, corals.

hey cap, why not observe in hyposalinity? that's what i do, and it does no harm to the fish, but gives you a 99% shot at no ich after missing it due to "immunity"
 
What I can't grasp here yet, is the concept that a fish can carry ich around for awhile undetected(still not sure how long) with the ich not going through its stages and taking over the fish in the tank by shear numbers produced.
I guess I can see it like cancer in some people. They carry the cancer cells for years, go into remission, and the cancer starts up again??
 
Back
Top