Living With Ich... any advice?

[tmz]

Gill Buckett. You seem to be playing a game of picayune semantics and trying to be pedantic to give an illusion of higher knowledge but it's not working for you since you don't even present enough information to be obfuscatory or tangential; just nonsensical , unduly argumentative and irritating. Let's play 20 questions type posts and a snarky attitude don't go very far. It's unfortunate since folks who are interested in caring for the fish they keep might loose sight of proper husbandry with all the jibberish and personal attack. If you have a specific point make a clear statement and back it up.If you don't have a specific point don't post just to satisfy some aggressive inclination at the expense of others. Poking at others and engaging in personal attack justs irritates folks ; wastes everyone's time and detracts from the learning nature of the discussion..

On the subject of living with ich. Ich kills.

Once cryptocaryon irritans is in a tank it will stay there for a long time as long as there are fish to host theronts. Many fish will die from the ich itself in the first or second or third wave whether they are well fed or not ;some fish may survive and some of them will develop partial immunity to the strain to which they were exposed but some theronts will host unseen even in these survivors' tender tissues of the gills and ,nose and mouth.A single one can produce hundreds during each short life cylce which will kill new specimens and often introducing new specimens or other mild stress events spark an outbreak which can overwhelm even the partially immune fish.

There is a simple choice. One can choose to keep a tank with ich in it which will persist for years and kill many fish or quarantine and treat all infected fish and new specimens and treat an infected tank by leaving it fishless for 72 days. Best,imo, is to qt and treat prophylactically from the get go to keep it out of a new system.

Quarantine ,needn't be large or complicated or stressful . Ammonia is the big issue but easily managed . Personally, I qt all new specimens and treat them prophylactically via tank transfer.

 

[FrEsHaZzBuRu]

Possible six line case

Possible six line case

I have a six line wrasse that may have ich, but i'm not too sure. I've noticed once in a while a possible spec on it's tail, but it also looks like it may just be a small spec of debris from the water because there is some coming from my power head every now and then that looks similar.

Anyhow, I just wanted to know if I end up taking the fish out, would I have to take out my 2 spot goby into the QT too? Or would it be ok to leave just he goby in the DT?

 

[tmz]

I also find it odd that the recommendation of QT is not fully disclosed. To truly keep ick out of ones tank you must QT all new comers, this includes snails and corals, this would require an entire reef ready QT for frags and hermit crabs ext. IMO most people can not nor will they do this, so telling them they MUST QT all their fish because they see a spot or two only puts their fish at risk with no long term benefit.

My real concern is not that people recommend QT, because I believe it is the appropriate course of action if done properly. I am concerned about the miss information presented in order to bully people into taking your point of view, this leads to an undo haste and results in an improper QT. People should be presented with the facts and the real risks on BOTH sides so that they can make an informed decision.

That's better except for the impugning the motives of others by suggesting they are bullies or soehow deliberately not disclosing information.

Regarding corals,snails,etc. It is as most things are possible a cyst could find it's way in on one of these sepcimens or the rock it's attached too. But the normal chain of custody for these specimens makes the chances very very slim. Unless,perhaps, they came from an infested tank and went right into your tank the likelyhood of infecting a tank with cryptocaryon irritans when adding an ivertebrate or rock are remote. The parasites usually leave the fish at night and settle on surfaces adjacent to where the fish sleeps The cyst usually remain viable for about 28 days. The longest recorded viability is 72 days in cold water.So by the time a wild specimen gets to your tank continued viability of any cyst that may by remote chance have settled there is likely long over. Brushing off surfaces with a tooth brush may be useful if you are concerned. Adding unquarantined fish on the other hand fish carrries a high risk.

I'm sorry you have ich in your tank. I've been there. Tried lot's of ways to cope, uvs, garlic, etc. Argued ad nauseum to protect my sense that I was doing the correct thing. I ws scared to move the fish anddidn't want to take the tank down to do so. Doesn't work. Lot's of us have been there.. The passion to stop ich comes from witnessing the terrible carnage in the hobby it causes not from a need for pedantry. The science on it is very clear . Maybe in a tank over several years the strain will expire if no new strains are introduced. Maybe it won't. Studies on that are inconclusive. So whatever course you choose , good luck to you and your fish and best wishes for a beautiful aquarium

QT and treatment can be as brief as 12 days with tank transfer( 3 days per tank). QT doesn't need to be complicated. New water a seeded sponge ,ammonia monitoring, some ammonia detoxifier ,granulated activaed carbon in a small filter, a bit of heat,light feeding ,bare bottom, pvc resting spots ,some surface agitation. Really no risk at all with just a little forethought and attention to detail.

 

[tmz]

Wrasses create a web of mucous when they sleep . Sometimes they bury in the sand . You may be seeing debris. A single spot with no other symptoms probably isn't ich.

 

[Dino]

Gill Buckett. You seem to be playing a game of picayune semantics and trying to be pedantic to give an illusion of higher knowledge but it's not working for you since you don't even present enough information to be obfuscatory or tangential; just nonsensical , unduly argumentative and irritating. Let's play 20 questions type posts and a snarky attitude don't go very far. It's unfortunate since folks who are interested in caring for the fish they keep might loose sight of proper husbandry with all the jibberish and personal attack. If you have a specific point make a clear statement and back it up.If you don't have a specific point don't post just to satisfy some aggressive inclination at the expense of others. Poking at others and engaging in personal attack justs irritates folks ; wastes everyone's time and detracts from the learning nature of the discussion..

This is most excellent advice that I don't think I could have said as well.

 

[MrTuskfish]

If ich and fish are alive in the same tank, the ich is going to multiply. Although the timeline may have a lot of variables; its inevitable. Every once in a while, some fish seem to develop some TEMPORARY immunity, although I think even these fish are always carrying some ich somewhere. people then use these fish as an example of how ich can be "managed". I've followed a few of these myths, and there are never any follow-up accounts of long-term success. IMO, failure to use a QT, and then telling others that "managing" (rather than eradicating) parasites is some of the worst possible advice we can give. Craig's list is full of equipment from frustrated hobbyists who though they could control parasites indefinitely. Countless dead fish long the way too.

 

[MrTuskfish]

My hippo tang has white spots for about 3 weeks. I'm setting up my qt now. My question is why don't my other fish have it? My fish list:
Firefish
3 chromis
Christmas wrasse
Sailfin Tang
Potter's angel
My blue tang
Orange spotted rabbit fish

I'm having trouble catching my blue tang that is why I haven't put him in yet. I'm going to keep the blue tang out for 9 weeks.

The tank is the most ich-prone and your other fish will get it too if you don't treat properly. Please start a new thread for help, this one isn't going to give you the help you need.

 

[MrTuskfish]

I have a six line wrasse that may have ich, but i'm not too sure. I've noticed once in a while a possible spec on it's tail, but it also looks like it may just be a small spec of debris from the water because there is some coming from my power head every now and then that looks similar.

Anyhow, I just wanted to know if I end up taking the fish out, would I have to take out my 2 spot goby into the QT too? Or would it be ok to leave just he goby in the DT?

Please see my post above.

 

[b0bab0ey]

I currently have Ick in my 125, and it has been there for over two years. Currently only the blue tang shows signs of it (2 or 3 spots). I keep my fish well fed and unstressed other than that I do nothing, I do feed garlic but in no way do I think it is a miracle cure. When I recently added a new fish (flame angle) I had another bloom by that I mean 20 or so spots on the blue tang and 3 or 4 spots on other fish which usually show no sign of it. I didn't panic and try to throw together a QT, instead I waited it out lost no fish and now it is once again under control.

I did loose three fish about a year ago to the ick but I truly believe that a poorly executed QT could have wiped out ALL of my fish. I recognize that having multiple QTs set up and running at all times would be far better then what I have, however for many this is unpracticle so instead people go out and get a ten gallon tank mix some fresh salt water up and kill their fish. Then Mr. Tuskfish tells them it was the Ick in the gills of an otherwise healthy fish which caused them to die overnight. I believe that the only reliable way to rid a tank of ick is to go fallow, however I do not believe that ick is a death sentence or even has to be an irritant, my fish never scratch on the rocks or breath heavily.

I guess from my POV why go through the headaches and hassle of fighting Ich for over 2 years, when going fallow for 9 weeks solves the problem. I guess I'm more of a "get it over with" and "one and done" kinda guy. I hate problems/issues that drag on and on. Losing three fish would have been more than enough incentive for me to realize I needed to do something about this problem.

I also find it odd that the recommendation of QT is not fully disclosed. To truly keep ick out of ones tank you must QT all new comers, this includes snails and corals, this would require an entire reef ready QT for frags and hermit crabs ext. IMO most people can not nor will they do this, so telling them they MUST QT all their fish because they see a spot or two only puts their fish at risk with no long term benefit.

My real concern is not that people recommend QT, because I believe it is the appropriate course of action if done properly. I am concerned about the miss information presented in order to bully people into taking your point of view, this leads to an undo haste and results in an improper QT. People should be presented with the facts and the real risks on BOTH sides so that they can make an informed decision.

How do you suggest one QTs?

I'm guessing you have issues with small QT tanks or QT'ing bare bottom without any biological filtration to break down ammonia. I, myself, have advocated using an u/g filter in a QT tank, as I did that for years. The only two downsides is keeping it cycled (when not in use) and crushed coral will absorb some meds, esp copper. So, you have to test and re-dose to maintain your copper level. I recently switched over to bare bottom w/an AquaClear HOB filter w/a sponge seeded from my DT (like MrTuskfish advocates) and have had 0 ammonia issues. He's made a believer out of me.

I don't see anyone pushing one QT method over another on here. They just advocate QT'ing... period. Nobody shut me down when I was offering my opinion and telling others how to QT using an u/g filter. Nothing disheartens a newbie more than watching their entire tank get wiped out to Ich. We all lose when that happens for so many different reasons. So, I think at the end of the day, all of us on here who give out advice are motivated to do so because we want to see newbies grow in knowledge so the hobby itself can grow.

 

[tmz]

Studies note survivors develop partial immunity which may last for an indefinate period to the same strain. How partial it is or isn't depends to some degree on stressors or incentives to the parasites like increased temperature, water q changes and on and on. There is also one study that suggest a single strain may expire without sexual reproduction involving another strain over a long period of time, probably more than a year or two in most cases if at all.

 

[MrTuskfish]

Wow, did you just admit that some fish can be more resistant to Ick than others? Who are you and what did you do with Mr. Tuskfish?

"Resistance' and "immunity" are far from the same thing. A individual fish with some resistance can still carry some unseen and feeding parasites. The host may not be seriously harmed. , but that on e parasite can multiply into enough parasites to endanger every fish in the tank. All it takes is the right stressor, and the "more resistant" fish are no longer resistant at all. I would imagine all the tanks without power for days in the Northeast will lose plenty of fish to ich.

BTW, your childish sarcasm makes it very hard to take you seriously, reflects on your already questionable credibility, serves to help nobody, and is really getting old. I can be a verbally vicious as anyone I know; but don't use this gift on forums where folks are trying to help one another.

 

[Gill_bucket]

"Well, good luck with that strategy." -snorvich

"Maybe it does postpone the inevitable by a day or two.
BTW, How to you train all the "free floating baby ichs" to avoid fish hosts until the UV intake finally gets them?" -mr.tuskfish

You two set the tone not me.

 

[Actnatural]

the point of the uv isnt to eradicate the ich its only to reduce their numbers to give the fish a fighting chance - guess i need to start clarifying that

 

[MrTuskfish]

the point of the uv isnt to eradicate the ich its only to reduce their numbers to give the fish a fighting chance - guess i need to start clarifying that

Very true. But, while I think UV is a great water clarifer, all the stars have to be in alignment for UV to have any real effect on ich. Proper flow, immaculate servicing of bulb & sleeve, etc. Maybe the biggest problem is that fish sleep on the bottom, where the free-swimming ich emerges. But if you have ich and are trying to manage it, every little bit helps. Good luck, i hope you can eradicate the nasty critters.

 

[tmz]

the point of the uv isnt to eradicate the ich its only to reduce their numbers to give the fish a fighting chance - guess i need to start clarifying

Uv would have to be significantly oversized to effect even the cryptocaryon irritans that passed through it. A 36 watt on a 125 won't harm them unless perhaps teh flow through it is very slow and tehn it won't get at many oft hem. They are relatively large and it takes more radiation to harm them than the smaller bacteria. It does ok on bacteria and maybe even algae that pass through . However, those that don't pass through quickly equilibrate ,make up the losses, in the tank. In commercial applications Uvs are used effectively in single pass operations where the sterilized water is not remixed with infested water.

 

[enjetek]

To the op, please just treat your fish with cupramine or any of the other listed methods (which I have not tried). It is cruel to keep them suffering from the effects of the parasites and if you choose to add new fish it may always cause problems. Just imagine one day if you add a new fish and it brings in velvet or some other quick killer. You'd be wishing you had quarantined at that point.

 

[Actnatural]

I see a lot of people saying a UV won't kill free floating ich but can't find any scientific studies proving that. A little help?

Like hi I'm scientist so and so these are my credentials and this is the tests performed. Where is this at?

 

[snorvich]

I see a lot of people saying a UV won't kill ich but can't find any scientific studies proving that. A little help?

Like hi I'm scientist so and so these are my credentials and this is the tests performed. Where is this at?

You could use Google Scholar to search, but initial search yields: this. The real problem is getting the parasite in any of it's life cycle forms through the UV treatment in sufficient quantity to have an impact on reducing the population significantly.

 

[Actnatural]

looks like its 34.95 to read it - I find it hard to believe that studies from 1951 are relevant to today's UV sterilizers - am I crazy ? or is 1951 the name of the study?

Plus I'd hate to buy it for 34.95 only to find no UV testing done

 

[tmz]

There's a a lot out there. A google search and some poking around can get you a bunch of studies to read if you are so inclined. It's just not an effective disease control device for recirculating systems even when it delivers a large enough dose of radiation to kill the targeted organism which in the case of ich would require a significantly oversized uv. Can't hurt other than by killing bacteria and other microfuana that might be beneficial to the food chain in a reef tank. Bacteria are not all bad and some may help metabolize some toxic metals too. If UV is touted as useful for disease control it would be incumbent on the perosn making that claim to prove it's so not the other way around since proving a negative is illogical.