In the case of Cupramine, right off the back of the bottle! Agree that lower doses are wise for more sensitive fish like Dwarf Angels, but 0.5 mg/l works fine for most fish I have treated.
questions on good copper based medication, quarantine questions
- Thread starter Art13
- Start date
In the case of Cupramine, right off the back of the bottle! Agree that lower doses are wise for more sensitive fish like Dwarf Angels, but 0.5 mg/l works fine for most fish I have treated.
vitz
New member
it's a typical (sadly) misinformation piece of kaka from a 'manufacturer'. if people are following that recommendation it's no surprise to me how many people have difficulty treating ich successfully.
if i wanted any of my fish to enjoy a good long life, i'd NEVER go that high w/copper, after treating thousands of fish w/it at .14-18, and seeing what usually happens at higher doses. i'd say .5 runs a risk of blood poisoning or organ damage
i can't iterate enough how .14-.18 is plenty high to do what's needed, and upping the Cu doesn't make the ich cycle break any faster
I believe it has to do with it being a buffered active copper and whatever is involved in bonding or charging the ions (i'm not a scientist in the least bit here) but that might be the reason for the higher dosing, i'm not going to guess on the science behind it though. It might be like chelated copper where the does is 1.5-2ppm because of the makeup. again, i'm getting these numbers for dosing off the bottle they came in.
vitz
New member
that's a slight misunderstanding
:the reason why the idjit companies tell you to use a higher dose is because the chelate is supposedly 'safer' (allows more room for error at slightly higher doses, because not all of the copper ions in a chelate are 'free', i.e. able to affect anything/not bound chemically to another substance).
even w/a chelate, it's the same level needed to kill ich-.14-.18 of free copper ion
adding a higher dose because some yahoo tells you to do so on a label is an unnecessary risk based on a clown's 'advice', in my book.i'll get my recommendations from actual biologists/parasitologists and other actual scientists. not companies who's sole motivation is to sell you something
vitz
New member
not ONE of those links directly leads to any article by this 'lee birch' saying what you're saying. the 1st link doesn't even work, the others are to a hobby forum.
i'll challenge you, at this juncture, to provide any SCIENTIFIC evidence based on actual FACTS, to back up everything you've said on this thread. NOT some hobbyists parroting misinformation relayed to them by other hobbyists-that doesn't qualify, heh
i've already provided mine
vitz
New member
maybe you can invite mr. birch to chime in on this thread, as a backup to what you're claiming he's saying. (i'm aware of his credentials after googling his bio). i'll wager he'll point out that you have a lot of misunderstanding about ich, if he truly knows his stuff. i'll happily consider anything he has to say about my statements on every ich thread i've participated in here, and would appreciate a knowledgable dialogue.
My mistake I guess that link is broken. Here is the article, it was the first one I linked to in my first post. http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/fish-diseases-treatments/52236-curing-fish-marine-ich.html and here is the copper treatment directions http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums...ents/23130-copper-treatment-use-problems.html
Here is Lee's bio http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/fish-diseases-treatments/45723-lees-bio-k-leebca.html
This is where my information comes from so I don't have anything else to link to. After going through your link I can see that there's more than one way to skin a cat and your way may indeed be better because of the lower dosage being more gentle on the fish. I've only used the Cupramine at 0.4 dosage and thought that less would not be sufficient to kill the parasite because of the instructions and Lee's article.
Here is Lee's bio http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/fish-diseases-treatments/45723-lees-bio-k-leebca.html
This is where my information comes from so I don't have anything else to link to. After going through your link I can see that there's more than one way to skin a cat and your way may indeed be better because of the lower dosage being more gentle on the fish. I've only used the Cupramine at 0.4 dosage and thought that less would not be sufficient to kill the parasite because of the instructions and Lee's article.
Last edited:
maybe you can invite mr. birch to chime in on this thread, as a backup to what you're claiming he's saying. (i'm aware of his credentials after googling his bio). i'll wager he'll point out that you have a lot of misunderstanding about ich, if he truly knows his stuff. i'll happily consider anything he has to say about my statements on every ich thread i've participated in here, and would appreciate a knowledgable dialogue.
Unfortunately he has left the country and has said that he won't be coming back on the forums.
Here is the part about copper being poison
"DON'T USE COPPER UNLESS NEEDED
I seem to be get a cyclic surge in hobbyists wanting prophylactically treat their fishes. Every so many months a group of hobbyists thinks they invented a new approach to the Marine Ich and Marine Velvet problem. Yeah, right! NOT! On the surface, it seems fine. However, shame on me for not making it more clear about why this shouldln't be done.
Copper is a poison. It just so happens that at low levels it kills the parasite before it kills the fish. It does harm to the fish. It will shorten it's lifespan. Most 'old' hobbyists are aware of the struggle of getting fish that we NOT collected using cyanide. At some places on the planet, cyanide solution is squirted on the fish in its hiding place in the wild. The fish is left unconscious for a time. It regains consciousness to find itself in a plastic bag on its way to a collection point where and, when enough are gathered, will be exported to another part of the world.
However, cyanide is a poison, and like copper it will shorten the lifespan of the fish. Some of the cyanide collected fishes live for a few days, some a few months or even a couple of years. But, the fish was poisoned and will live a shortened captive life. This is what copper does, but when controlled, does this to a lesser extent.
A fundamental mandate in veterinary circles is: "Do no harm." It is what vets live by. If hobbyists would be willing to do the same, then they would not use copper or ANY treatment method on fishes which do not need treatment, except in three cases noted in my posts: All need to be de-wormed; Anemonefishes need to be treated for Brook (if wild-caught or in contact with wild-caught fishes); and certain Tangs need to be treated with copper since they are so highly likely to be carrying one or both of the two most prevalent parasites known in the hobby."
"DON'T USE COPPER UNLESS NEEDED
I seem to be get a cyclic surge in hobbyists wanting prophylactically treat their fishes. Every so many months a group of hobbyists thinks they invented a new approach to the Marine Ich and Marine Velvet problem. Yeah, right! NOT! On the surface, it seems fine. However, shame on me for not making it more clear about why this shouldln't be done.
Copper is a poison. It just so happens that at low levels it kills the parasite before it kills the fish. It does harm to the fish. It will shorten it's lifespan. Most 'old' hobbyists are aware of the struggle of getting fish that we NOT collected using cyanide. At some places on the planet, cyanide solution is squirted on the fish in its hiding place in the wild. The fish is left unconscious for a time. It regains consciousness to find itself in a plastic bag on its way to a collection point where and, when enough are gathered, will be exported to another part of the world.
However, cyanide is a poison, and like copper it will shorten the lifespan of the fish. Some of the cyanide collected fishes live for a few days, some a few months or even a couple of years. But, the fish was poisoned and will live a shortened captive life. This is what copper does, but when controlled, does this to a lesser extent.
A fundamental mandate in veterinary circles is: "Do no harm." It is what vets live by. If hobbyists would be willing to do the same, then they would not use copper or ANY treatment method on fishes which do not need treatment, except in three cases noted in my posts: All need to be de-wormed; Anemonefishes need to be treated for Brook (if wild-caught or in contact with wild-caught fishes); and certain Tangs need to be treated with copper since they are so highly likely to be carrying one or both of the two most prevalent parasites known in the hobby."
vitz
New member
the 1st bolded part is OPINION, not fact, as far as treating w/ .14-.18 ppm of copper
the 2nd bolded part is a bogus and incorrect comparison between two completely different chemicals. what happens w/ CYANIDE is irrelevant to COPPER. kinda makes him look stupid, too.
did you know that apples contain formaldehyde?!!!! i don't see anyone dying from eating apples
lee birch doesn't know as much about copper treatment in the real world scenario as i think he thinks he does.
again, there is NO evidence establishing that PROPER use of copper for a few months affects marine ornamental fish's life span, in the real world.
i wonder how many studies mr birch has done to establish/back up his opinion.and how many fish he's kept/treated under what circumstances. so far, his fact base is a tad disappointing, and you're spreading a whole crock of stuff that simply ain't true
i hope some long term hobbyists who have treated fish w/copper and had them live long lives will chime in here. i know there are plenty, heh.
i've treated fish of my own w/copper at .14-.18 ppm w/absolutely NO negative results, as have many others-birch's admonitions simply don't hold water.
i'd go on and on, but i hope you get my drift w/the above
vitz
New member
i think both of you might benefit from the link i posted earlier. read it-you might learn how to properly nearly eliminate ich from your hobby life, and also learn why the advice you've been given is a whole lotta b.s.
fwiw-anytime anyone, including me, makes some type of assertion, look up the actual facts yourself. be a critical thinker. but use actual factual data to judge if other's 'dogma' is actually correct. i'm backed up by decades of research by many many ichthyologists, parasitologists, and marine biologists who've dedicated their careers to figuring ich out. weigh birch's statements against the scientific community's CONSENSUS. lemme know what you find
(and this is nothing personal, hope you don't take it that way).
vitz
New member
i think both of you might benefit from the link i posted earlier. read it-you might learn how to properly nearly eliminate ich from your hobby life, and also learn why the advice you've been given is a whole lotta b.s.
fwiw-anytime anyone, including me, makes some type of assertion, look up the actual facts yourself. be a critical thinker. but use actual factual data to judge if other's 'dogma' is actually correct. i'm backed up by decades of research by many many ichthyologists, parasitologists, and marine biologists who've dedicated their careers to figuring ich out. weigh birch's statements against the scientific community's CONSENSUS. lemme know what you find
(and this is nothing personal, hope you don't take it that way).
No I don't take it personally, I'm glad to learn something new. I've already eliminated ich from my hobby life using his articles. I treated all of my fish and went through a fallow period and every new fish I've got since then has been in qt for 6-8 weeks and treated if there was any sign of disease. I will study your link and try using that method next time I have a fish that needs treatment so I will be able to compare the 2 methods.
Similar threads
