Ich research

[ssavader]

I know that we just finished a thread on the treatment of ich, but snorvich's thread was closed before I could as raise a question on his "myth #3". Is there ANY fish research, not conjecture or anecdote, that might support any non-copper, non-hyposalinity, non-transfer method of treating ich. I ask this because I currently have an outbreak of ich that was initiated by a PBT that went through a full 6 week treatment with copper 3 years ago when I first got him. After a week with a fish trap in the tank, I have succeeded in capturing only those fish not showing any outward signs of this disease. Before tearing my reef apart, I wanted to see if any research has shown if any naturally occurring reef-safe "organic" has proven effective. Also, has anyone succeeded using hyposalinity in their reef without devastating effects?

 

[iamwhatiam52]

no.

 

[wayne in norway]

Chloroquin. I personally would not like to use it in a full blown reef tho', and I'm not sure of whether you can balance 'reefsafe' and 100% effective dosing tho'.

 

[MrTuskfish]

I know that we just finished a thread on the treatment of ich, but snorvich's thread was closed before I could as raise a question on his "myth #3". Is there ANY fish research, not conjecture or anecdote, that might support any non-copper, non-hyposalinity, non-transfer method of treating ich. I ask this because I currently have an outbreak of ich that was initiated by a PBT that went through a full 6 week treatment with copper 3 years ago when I first got him. After a week with a fish trap in the tank, I have succeeded in capturing only those fish not showing any outward signs of this disease. Before tearing my reef apart, I wanted to see if any research has shown if any naturally occurring reef-safe "organic" has proven effective. Also, has anyone succeeded using hyposalinity in their reef without devastating effects?

I have never seen , or heard, of any of the research you're looking for regarding ich treatment myths . If therewas, the "myths" would not be "myths". As to hypo in a reef: it is deadly to all inverts, including corals. I've never even heard of anyone (on this forum, or anywhere else) even trying hypo in a reef. But then if I tried it, I wouldn't admit it either. This is a major part of any instructional piece I've ever seen regarding hypo. I'm afraid there just isn't any easy way for you. QT and treat the fish and leave everything else alone, without fish, for 8-10 weeks. I've torn down a big reef because of ich and that's a big part of the reason I'm so passionate on this subject. When you're done, QT everything and you'll never have to go through this again. I'm sure you've heard that before, but it can't be said often enough.

 

[MrTuskfish]

Chloroquin. I personally would not like to use it in a full blown reef tho', and I'm not sure of whether you can balance 'reefsafe' and 100% effective dosing tho'.

Deadly stuff to corals. Yeah, IMO "reefsafe' and "100%" effective" shouldn't even be on the same page, much less the same ad.

 

[snorvich]

Deadly stuff to corals. Yeah, IMO "reefsafe' and "100%" effective" shouldn't even be on the same page, much less the same ad.

MrTuskfish is correct. When I was doing research on treatments for cryptocaryon irritans and oodinium, which I fear more, I found that Quinine products were the first medications used in many tropical fish ailments -- especially marine fishes. What happened in the USA is that the real good ones became only available by prescription. This is not something most hobbyists could get their hands on.

Now, some off the shelf medications do contain some quinine ingredients in low quantities.

Chloroquine diphosphate was the choice medication for treating Marine Velvet (Amyloodinium ocellatum) which is usually fatal to an entire tank. The downsides of these drugs is that they only affect the parasite in its dinospore phase. This is of significance because copper not only affects the dinospore, but also the tomont division. Thus copper is a better choice for most people for cryptocaryon irritans. Other downsides include the cost and the fact that these drugs are devastating to bacteria (the biological filter will stop, whereas with copper, the biological may continue) and invertebrates (which is very similar to copper). The last downside is that the hobbyist cannot measure the amount of drug in the water, whereas of course, the copper can be controlled by common test kits. For me, this is the absolute constraint that keeps me from considering it even in a tank swap treatment scheme.

As a treatment for the hobbyists' marine life, it has the disadvantages noted above. But as a prophylactic it is very disadvantaged since it can also kill off the norma flora of bacteria inside the fish's digestive track. My viewpoint, while very controversial to some is that one should not treat prophylactically but only observe in quarantine. This causes the fish to lack effective digestion of its food, even leading to death if these bacteria can't recover. It is essential when treating fish to provide their immune system maximal nutrition while providing the parasite itself the most lethal environment.

I can't think of any good reason to use these drugs considering the other medications available. I put this together with my opinion that treating fishes with prophylactic drugs is an unnecessary and undesirable stressor. I do treat all fishes with Prazipro, however.

Of course, this is again likely to cause a storm of disagreement.

 

[snorvich]

no.

Exactly. See above.

 

[MrTuskfish]

MrTuskfish is correct. When I was doing research on treatments for cryptocaryon irritans and oodinium, which I fear more, I found that Quinine products were the first medications used in many tropical fish ailments -- especially marine fishes. What happened in the USA is that the real good ones became only available by prescription. This is not something most hobbyists could get their hands on.

Now, some off the shelf medications do contain some quinine ingredients in low quantities.

Chloroquine diphosphate was the choice medication for treating Marine Velvet (Amyloodinium ocellatum) which is usually fatal to an entire tank. The downsides of these drugs is that they only affect the parasite in its dinospore phase. This is of significance because copper not only affects the dinospore, but also the tomont division. Thus copper is a better choice for most people for cryptocaryon irritans. Other downsides include the cost and the fact that these drugs are devastating to bacteria (the biological filter will stop, whereas with copper, the biological may continue) and invertebrates (which is very similar to copper). The last downside is that the hobbyist cannot measure the amount of drug in the water, whereas of course, the copper can be controlled by common test kits. For me, this is the absolute constraint that keeps me from considering it even in a tank swap treatment scheme.

As a treatment for the hobbyists' marine life, it has the disadvantages noted above. But as a prophylactic it is very disadvantaged since it can also kill off the norma flora of bacteria inside the fish's digestive track. My viewpoint, while very controversial to some is that one should not treat prophylactically but only observe in quarantine. This causes the fish to lack effective digestion of its food, even leading to death if these bacteria can't recover. It is essential when treating fish to provide their immune system maximal nutrition while providing the parasite itself the most lethal environment.

I can't think of any good reason to use these drugs considering the other medications available. I put this together with my opinion that treating fishes with prophylactic drugs is an unnecessary and undesirable stressor. I do treat all fishes with Prazipro, however.

Of course, this is again likely to cause a storm of disagreement.

Odd timing;I was thinking of starting a thread with a title like 'What ever happened to Marine Velvet". It seems that every day, there are more and more posts involving marine ich. I've said, many times, that I had a gut feeling that the ich parasite was often mis-diagnosed. Is it possible that many ich cases are really velvet ? (or Amyloodinium ocellatum, or just plain Odium; as we used to call it. ) For years, prior to buying online, I'd inspect every possible new fish and knew many LFS owners---the topic was velvet, ich was hardly ever mentioned. I remember a very effective velvet drug made by Tetra; "Tetra Oomed", or something like that. It had a purple dye, probably methylene blue, and other ingredients. it was suddenly pulled from the market and I never knew why; very possibly it contained a quinine drug, like those you are discussing. I know Velvet didn't just go away, I wonder what happened? BTW, excellent comparison between copper and quinine drugs. This forum has had a lot of posts about ammonia in QT. With Cupramine, and some pre-planning, this just shouldn't have to be a problem. I'll leave the debate about prophylactic treatment of new fish alone...for now.

 

[Ralph ATL]

6-7 years ago, 6 month old tank had ich, and my yellow tang was near death. some of my fish already died.

I treated my display tank with 2 complete treatments of Ruby Reef's Kick Ich (accelerated doses, so I could keep my skimmer on), and soaked all my food and dried seaweed with Selcon.

I have never has a recurrence of Ich ever again, and I have introduced many fish since. My tang survived (healthy & FAT) until I gave it to a fellow reefer whose tank crashed, and my pair of false percs are still alive today.

FWIW.

 

[LargeAngels]

I was thinking of starting a thread with a title like 'What ever happened to Marine Velvet". It seems that every day, there are more and more posts involving marine ich. I've said, many times, that I had a gut feeling that the ich parasite was often mis-diagnosed. Is it possible that many ich cases are really velvet ?

I would venture to say that velvet is often diagnosed as ich. That is one reason I don't recommend hypo (as it doesn't work on velvet) unless you are certain it is ich. Velvet spreads and kills much quicker than ich.

 

[MrTuskfish]

I would venture to say that velvet is often diagnosed as ich. That is one reason I don't recommend hypo (as it doesn't work on velvet) unless you are certain it is ich. Velvet spreads and kills much quicker than ich.

I agree. Copper is safe & effective, IMO & IME. Almost all fish have been treated with copper somewhere along the way. I agree on the mis-diagnosis too, I'm convinced that many things, even bits of substrate, are mistakenly seen as ich.

 

[ssavader]

Thanks for the great info- very informative, fact based, and clear and concise. I have added two more fish traps to my tank and will be setting quarantine facilities for all of the fish by this weekend. Oh well, say good by t what I felt was a nice reef set-up.