+1 If anything, CP is more effective against velvet than anything else. According to everything I've read.
New ich treatment idea
- Thread starter nothingfishy
- Start date
+1 If anything, CP is more effective against velvet than anything else. According to everything I've read.
For various reasons, CP is the treatment of choice for velvet. The marine biology literature confirms this.
wooden_reefer
New member
I now tend to think that an antimalarial drug might just work against both ich and velvet. I may well be outdated on this.
I will try to dig out the books and re-read what the authors said, the dosage used.
Deinonych
New member
If you can get a copy, Noga's Fish Disease and Treatment is the quintessential reference IMO. You'll find chloroquine referenced as a treatment for both Amyloodinium and Cryptocaryon listed there. I've found the book to be indispensable for fish diagnosis and treatment (coupled with this forum, of course).
Last edited:
Paul B
Premium Member
I am surprised no one mentioned diatom filtration which would remove any free swimming ich. Of course it would have to be used with some other form of treatment which I would rather not get into as I am to old school. But I do use a diatom filter and don't know how some of you guys keep a tank long term without one.
Hmm, so you're saying a diatom filter works the same as a UV? I've used them in the past on FW tanks, but never SW.
I guess I should have said... Hmm, so you're saying a diatom filter removes free swimming ich, similar to how some believe a UV does?
Last edited:
So how do you get 100% of the water through it during the contagious part of the ich life cycle??
Paul B
Premium Member
I didn't say you could. All I said is that a diatom filter would remove free swimming ich.
UV does not remove anything but it "may" kill some ich, although I doubt it. Diatom powder has pores in it much smaller than any parasite and it will remove any parasites. It is still on the fish but it must come off the fish when it reproduces and the diatom will then remove it before it re-infects the fish. But Steve, as you know, I believe fish should not get ich in the first place. :beer:
It's ich management. It keeps the number of theronts down to a level most fishes natural immune systems can cope with or "manage". UV accomplishes the same thing.
wooden_reefer
New member
The diatom filter when properly charged is effective in filtering out a large percentage of ich.
I have stated so in other threads a couple of times.
The df can only delay the eradication of ich because the fish will remain in a state of light infestation, as in the ocean.
The limited advantage is that the df allows better acclimation before eradication of ich.
Some fish has gone thru great ordeal before reaching our qt.
Sometimes it is better to allow recovery and long enough resumption of proper diet before drug treatment.
The df is also a pita because it needs to be recharged often a few to ten days max
I have stated so in other threads a couple of times.
The df can only delay the eradication of ich because the fish will remain in a state of light infestation, as in the ocean.
The limited advantage is that the df allows better acclimation before eradication of ich.
Some fish has gone thru great ordeal before reaching our qt.
Sometimes it is better to allow recovery and long enough resumption of proper diet before drug treatment.
The df is also a pita because it needs to be recharged often a few to ten days max
Last edited:
wooden_reefer
New member
For a uv to kill a significant number of ich, it has to be very large.
Uv sized to vastly reduce waterborne bacteria will not kill a significant number of waterborne ich.
A small UV that is "finely tuned" still nets the same results. By finely tuned I mean slow enough flow running through a bulb that is changed out every 6 months. And since neither small or large will ever accomplish 100% eradication, the best you can hope for with a UV is the overall number of nasties stay down to a manageable level.
In a weird sort of way, running a UV somewhat replicates nature - since parasites are always present in the ocean, but usually at manageable levels for the fish to deal with. But even still, the ocean contains a gazillion gallons of water diluting those diseases from the fish. A healthy immune system can keep up with that. No "glass box" - no matter how large or how many parasite zapping apparatuses - can afford fish the same level of protection that mother nature provides. Which IMO is why it is imperative to QT; to avoid introducing any rapid spreading diseases into your tiny glass box.
Last edited:
wooden_reefer
New member
I agree that a tank is a pathogenically closed system.
In a batch operation (not thru put) where there is generation of pathogen, any uv or mechanical could keep pathogens in the water very low, but not zero.
I have used 8w uv in ten gallion and 15w in 30 gal QT setup at ideal (slow) flow rate. Ich infestations were not contained significantly.
wooden_reefer
New member
wooden_reefer
New member
Sometimes eradication needs to be delayed to after accilimation.
Often most urgent is nutrition and recovery from the ordeal of collection and transport.
There are SOS posts in this section alone about fish not enduring the addition poor nutrition during TT. fish often don't eat well after being handled.
As one who frequents and contributes to this forum over many years, I can assure you that the number of SOS from TT failures is small and even then may not be a function of tank transfer. Handling does not have to be stressful for fish. We just have to agree to disagree.
Similar threads
