Possible New Cure for Ick?

Why are these people crucified for only giving up information about their findings and what they had tried?

Don't mistake skeptisim, critique and the desire for evidence for crucifiction.

Almost all the 'easy' fixes for ich are a case of post hoc ergo proctor hoc, a fallicy in argumentation that means 'it happend after, therefore was caused by'. I put product x in my tank, and the ich went away, therefore product x cured the ich. Not good reasoning since mild ich often goes away with no treatment just as readily as it goes away with product x.

I could easily say that water changes clear up cases of ich, since when I have ich, I do a water change and the ich clears up. Not good reasoning either. And, FYI, I have heard this position taken more than a few times.
 
I completely agree with what ATJ has sad above we shouldnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t jump to conclusions and studies should be made. For this ginger and or garlic. So far I use the garlic method to treat fish in my reef tank and it works for me and other people I asked that also use it. This is all I have to go by. The first time I loose a couple fish to ich using this method I will become a little skeptical.

Does any one know of any research that confirms that garlic works or donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t and why?
:cool:
 
I think it's great people are trying alternative treatments for ich. Tomorrow I'm going to try acupuncture.:lol:
Sorry, it's 1am...
 
guitarfish said:
I think it's great people are trying alternative treatments for ich. Tomorrow I'm going to try acupuncture.:lol:
Sorry, it's 1am...

I know you're joking, but a few years ago I watched an hour program (assuming it was Discovery channel) and this chinese lady had a huge tank full of goldfish swimming around with acupuncture needles in them. She had about 20 fish in the tank and at least 3/4 of them were undergoing treatment. The whole program was dedicated to her and her acupuncture techniques for various animals, but they spent a lot of time on the fish.
 
Prevention is better than cure

Prevention is better than cure

Originally posted by [name removed by request]
Ben,

Since I found how to treat Ich in my reef tank successfully I donâ₉„¢t worry about QTâ₉„¢s.

You are continually subjecting your fish to "Ich". That can't be good for their long term health. And while "Ich" is by far the most common ailment, there are others that will devastate the tank. If you introduced Amyloodinium there's a good chance you will lose all your fish in a short space of time and there won't be much you can do about it.

The last time my fish got ich was wen I added a clown tang that had ich, all the fish got ich in my tank. I treated the tank the way I always had when this happens and the ich was gone in three days and never came back, itâ₉„¢s been over three months at this time. The ich is gone it will only come back if itâ₉„¢s introduced by adding another fish with ich..

And without quarantine you run a large risk of reintroducing it with the next fish.

I donâ₉„¢t see a problem with QT ing a fish and treating with hyposalinity.

You only need to treat with hyposalinity if the fish so signs of "Ich". After 6 weeks in quarantine it is almost impossible for the fish to be carrying trophonts and not see a full blown infection.

But if a fish is in a weakened state and already in a reef, this may be too stressful in this situation.

Very true and yet another case for quarantining fish. The period a new fish is in quarantine gives the fish the opportunity to recover from the ordeal of capture and shipping as well as adjust to life in captivity and learn to eat prepared foods without competition from other fish.

Letâ₉„¢s say if some how all your fish in a large reef tank got infected how would you treat this?

You can't treat a large reef tank easily. Better to treat the fish BEFORE they get into the large reef tank so it won't be a problem.

How would you get all the fish out of the tank?

With great difficulty, but it can be done. Of course, it will be stressful to the fish.

What we need is a way to treat the fish in a reef tank that works.

That is what I think everybody wants.


I only agree partially. Certainly that is what people may want, but if people quarantined all new fish before putting them in their reef tanks, there would be little need to treat fish in a reef tank.

Is there a treatment that has been proven to treat ich in a reef tank?

No. As a reef tank comprises a vast array of organisms, it will always be difficult to find something that will be 100% effective (or close to) but will not impact on other organisms in the tank. I hope to be proven wrong on this one day, but I just don't see it happening.

Also has anyone had success treating ich in a reef and not afraid to share their findings?

What if someone has had success treating ich a number of times and just wanted to share what they had found to help someone else trying similar tactics.
Why are these people crucified for only giving up information about their findings and what they had tried?


I am not seeing anyone being crucified in this thread. I see a lot of people advising to exercise caution.

What should be done is to take in all the knowledge that can be gained from all hobbyists that are finding new ways to keep reef aquariums and fish.

This is the way the hobby has become what it is today. I don't see this thread going against this at all.

Thatâ₉„¢s what Reef Central is about.

Hear! Hear!

Itâ₉„¢s not here for someone to be able to say look how smart I am.

I don't think anyone here is trying to say "look how smart I am". People are sharing their experiences and knowledge on both sides of the fence.

Or I am the authority on aquariums and I know everything because you donâ₉„¢t.

I don't think anyone is saying how smart they are.

No one can know every thing.

Very true.

Otherwise they wouldnâ₉„¢t spend all day and night wasting time planted in front of their computers.

They might. There are a great number of people who hang out on RC to share their knowledge and experience. They may not know it all, but they share what they know.

And with any discussion there will be a difference of opinion. It does not mean that one party lacks respect for the other. It does not mean that one party is personally attacking the other. If people strongly believe something (and especially if they can support their side of the discussion) why shouldn't they speak up? That's what discussion is all about. That is how we learn and grow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ATJ,
"
After 6 weeks in quarantine it is almost impossible for the fish to be carrying trophonts and not see a full blown infection."

For the most part you are correct. I would like to point out fish can carry the cryptocaryon at a subclinical level for many months.

This is a cut and paste from an article by Shawn Prescott :

"We found on these fish, which had been free of all problems for more than half a year, that when we did some skin scrapings, that we found evidence of trophonts under the skin. Evidently these had not found it necessary to reproduce & leave the fish, as no sign of disease had occurred over a long period of time

That's why I just assume new additions to be carrying crypto and treat in hyposalinity.



I thought you made some good rebuttals in your post. I am surprised that you cannot be critical of an idea without being branded as close-minded or trying to say " Look how smart I am "





John
 
John,

Do you have the full reference for that paper? I'd like to look it up. All the papers I have insist that the trophonts must leave the fish in order to complete the life cycle.

If it's true that trophonts can stay on the fish indefinitely, it will be impossible to kill C. irritans using the current methods available. Neither copper nor hyposalinity has any affect on trophonts imbeded in the skin or gills of fish. Both kill the tomonts encysted in the substrate.
 
I always get reamed for this but removing the substrate keeps Ich from reaching lethal levels by interrupting the life cycle but nobody believes me. :confused: :rolleye1: :rolleyes:
 
ATJ,

Here is the link to the article: http://www.aquarium.net/0297/0297_2.shtml

The source is not the most reliable IMO but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this particular claim. If he says they did skin scrapings on fish without visible ICH for 6 months I believe him.

You are correct though that hypo or copper only kill the tomont or the theront stages. My guess is that the trophonts they found in those skin scrapings were active. IOW the cryptocaryon was undergoing its full life cycle on the fish. We just don't know if hypo or copper could kill a TOMONT that is on the fish. Perhaps those methods can do just that?



John
 
I've been feeding a slurry mixed with ginger. My achilles started showing ich yesterday and today it's worse. I'm going back to my garlic method until I hear further news of the uses of ginger.
 
Sorry I think I lost my head.

But I want to say why I donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t QT anymore. I have had ich enter my tank after Qt for over 6 weeks with a fish not showing signs of ich twice. I really donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t have the room for a QT tank set up. It is always in the way. So after these two incidents I took the tank down and got my room back. Iââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢m not saying Itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s not important to have a QT tank but for some it may be a problem to have a empty tank up and running for any length of time. What I try to do is only buy tangs that have been at a store for over 5 weeks with no signs of ich and that are already eating. This I know is not the best way because the fish can get Ich at the store or still be infected and not showing signs, but this is all I can do I have had the same amount of luck doing it this way then with a QT tank.

Iââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢m not saying this is better than QT but this is all I can do at the moment.

If I had the room I would set one up but if I do now the boss will kill me. :D
 
Last edited:
ATJ, I've never quarantined my fish. I've gotten lucky. Out of 4.5 years, not a fish developed ich, except for a yellow tang that I introduced in my 55g about 2 months ago. My Blue Atlantic bulled it into a corner for over 2 days, and ich appeared all over the fish, and I figured I'd have to catch it and put it in quarantine.

The next morning I was about to do that and it was dead and being consumed. It was a baby, and I thought it wouldn't be considered a competitor with that tang. I was wrong. Maybe they had to be equal sized.... :rolleyes:

However, your comments about quarantining have me turned around. And to be honest, I think the main reason I liked it is because you can make sure they'll get used to feeding prepared foods without competition. That is such a good point, that I'm on your bandwagon now.

I guess I should be on anyway, to avoid ich, but the food thing is what sold me. :D
 
To me, the experience of turning the light on in the morning and seeing a fish with ich represents total failure on my part. (It also makes my stomach sink to the floor). My first goal as an aquarist is to be to maintain a healthy environment for the fish. Worse, having to get an infected fish out is a real hassle, and then there's still ich in the tank. For me, this whole scenario is to be avoided at all costs.

When I set up my 75g this summer, I will have a 10g QT in the same room, with all the accessories. As new fish are acquired they will go into QT first. Some people actually do hypo as a matter of course on all new fish, though I'm not one of them.

When you add up the costs of all the different meds people try, QT, and if necessary, hypo, is actually more cost effective in the long run.

Lastly, I'm not always a patient person, but this procedure of QT and hypo has taught me that good results are worth the effort and the investment in time.
 
I don't have recurring ich outbrakes , but
Hypothetically speaking.

If say you do QT all your fish and still one day a fish makes it through QT and infects the tank. Is the tank now prone to small ich outbreaks from time to time?

If so then wouldnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t it make all post QTââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s uneffective on an Ich stand point?



And if this happens what should be done?

Can you totally be 100% positive all the parasites are gone not just dormant in the display tank?

Just a Question.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
If ich is in a tank and there are fish (hosts) present, then the ich can attach to hosts and reproduce. If ich is in a tank and there are NO hosts, eventually all the ich dies off because it has no hosts to attach to. I believe it's somewhere between 3-6 weeks for this to happen. So, using your hypothetical, once ich gets in the main tank, the way to guarantee its removal is to remove all the fish.

This is another reason why I QT - having ich in the main tank is to be avoided at all costs.
 
aquafresh said:
I always get reamed for this but removing the substrate keeps Ich from reaching lethal levels by interrupting the life cycle but nobody believes me. :confused: :rolleye1: :rolleyes:
Jake,

This technique is described by Colorni (1987) and attributed to Aharon Miroz of Coral World, Eilat, Israel. Basically, the tank had a layer of fine sand that was removed and replaced with clean sand on 4 occasions at 3 day intervals. This cleared up the infection.

The main problem with this technique is that in a reef tank, there are so many substrates on which the tomonts can encyst, including live rock. The best we could hope for is a reduction in the number of infecting parasites but not elimination of all parasites. If the procedure was stopped, the population of parasites could reach lethal levels again in one or two cycles.
 
Originally posted by john f
Here is the link to the article: http://www.aquarium.net/0297/0297_2.shtml

The source is not the most reliable IMO but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this particular claim. If he says they did skin scrapings on fish without visible ICH for 6 months I believe him.


I certainly agree that the source does not appear to be very reliable. It appears that Prescott has not even read the list of references in the "Biobliography". (I loath the use of term "Bibliography" for a list of references, but you'd at least think it would be spelled correctly.) His description of hyposalinity treatment clearly shows he has not read Cheung et al (1979) where they show that at a salinity of 16ppt, 90% of isolated trophonts ruptured, no cysts developed normally and no swimming tomites were observed after 25 days.

The plug for his product Ecolibrium also greatly cheapens the whole article, lowering his credibility. If this product really does allow "successful treatment of this scourge, and is harmless to all Invertebrates", why more than 6 years later is everybody not using this product?

I do not find his observation of the skin scrapings to be particularly convincing and is far too vague. Interestingly, a number of authors studying freshwater "Ich" (Ichthyophthirius multifiliis have described reproduction of trophonts on the skin of fish (Bradbury, 1994). While division has not been observed, the number of trophonts increased on a daily basis and infections become noticeable. This has never been observed with C. irritans, other than the vague observation by Prescott et al.

You are correct though that hypo or copper only kill the tomont or the theront stages. My guess is that the trophonts they found in those skin scrapings were active. IOW the cryptocaryon was undergoing its full life cycle on the fish. We just don't know if hypo or copper could kill a TOMONT that is on the fish. Perhaps those methods can do just that?

If the onfish reproduction of C. irritans is anything like that in the related I. multifiliis, there are no tomonts and the trophonts divide directly. It should also be noted that the resistance of trophonts to copper and hyposalinity is attributed to the protection of the fish's epithelium more than direct resistance by the trophont itself.
 
guitarfish said:
If ich is in a tank and there are fish (hosts) present, then the ich can attach to hosts and reproduce. If ich is in a tank and there are NO hosts, eventually all the ich dies off because it has no hosts to attach to. I believe it's somewhere between 3-6 weeks for this to happen. So, using your hypothetical, once ich gets in the main tank, the way to guarantee its removal is to remove all the fish.

This is another reason why I QT - having ich in the main tank is to be avoided at all costs.

Now lets say the fish are kept healthy enough to be able to totally fight off the ich in the display for that 6 weeks or more. With nutrition and perfect water quality. Would this in a sense be just as effective as removing the fish?
And remember I do believe in QT this is a what if.
 
Last edited:
Now lets say the fish are kept healthy enough to be able to totally fight off the ich in the display for that 6 weeks or more. With nutrition and perfect water quality. Would this in a sense be just as effective as removing the fish?

Read Marine Ich, which talks about immunity.
 
Back
Top