Skimmerless: who's doing it? pros and cons

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy,

Please read post #227, 228 and 230. These post outline how I treated an ich infestation brought in by an infected Blue Tank to my 12 year old reef tank, this past Christmas. As Paul points out, the fishes immune system could have cured the infestation. Also, all the other fish in this tank could have this same immunity because of healthy immune systems. What cured the ich? There is little doubt in my mind that the fishes immunity system cured the ich. However, during the first 28 days, after I noted the external symptoms on the Blue Tang, other fish showed scratching there sides and accelerated respiration rates at the gills. In my estimation, moving these fish would have created more stress and compromised immune systems. I believe in using all tools available. I treated the infectious stage of the parasite with UV, that was 9 months ago.

Twice in my tank without a UV, ich came in with a new fish. Several fish then got it. I did nothing special and in a month or two, all visible signs were gone. I think that is not uncommon for a generally healthy tank. If I had fed them garlic or added a UV or fed them Cheerios, I might have concluded that those things helped get rid of it. Luckily, I did nothing, so I had no need to try to decipher what worked and what didn't.

 

[tmz]

I believe in using all tools available. I treated the infectious stage of the parasite with UV, that was 9 months ago.

In light of skewed bacteria populations being a potential problem in the long term health of reef aquariums, I discontinued the use of UV two days ago

Uv or skimming may or may not skew bacterial popualtions as the Penn state article suggests. Hard to say, given variables like: in how fast some bacteria grow vs others; some split in hours; some take weeks; some put out spores;some don't.Some may spend more time in benthos ; some in plankatonic modes.Then diversity in bacteria itself may or may not be a significant positive or negative.

I believe in using all tools available. I treated the infectious stage of the parasite with UV, that was 9 months ago.

That infectious stage may still be there hosting in small numbers in partially immune fish.

 

[Aquarist007]

Twice in my tank without a UV, ich came in with a new fish. Several fish then got it. I did nothing special and in a month or two, all visible signs were gone. I think that is not uncommon for a generally healthy tank. If I had fed them garlic or added a UV or fed them Cheerios, I might have concluded that those things helped get rid of it. Luckily, I did nothing, so I had no need to try to decipher what worked and what didn't.

Randy, on a healthy tank it made no difference. However in situations where the tank is not healthy and or under constant stress do you not feel it might help control the population of ich.
I don't believe it rids the ich nor has any one here says it did..it just kills some of the population down

 

[Aquarist007]

I believe in using all tools available. I treated the infectious stage of the parasite with UV, that was 9 months ago.

In light of skewed bacteria populations being a potential problem in the long term health of reef aquariums, I discontinued the use of UV two days ago

Uv or skimming may or may not skew bacterial popualtions as the Penn state article suggests. Hard to say, given variables like: in how fast some bacteria grow vs others; some split in hours; some take weeks; some put out spores;some don't.Some may spend more time in benthos ; some in plankatonic modes.Then diversity in bacteria itself may or may not be a significant positive or negative.

I believe our main concern is not the heterotrophs and the bacteria in symbiotic relationships with coral. I think all would agree that these strains don't exist in the water column but in or under the protection of biofilms.
My concern is the bacteria ect that is in the water column that perform useful functions
I've looked extensively on the net but with no luck. Do you have a reference to the affect of uv and or skimming on these organisms?

I believe in using all tools available. I treated the infectious stage of the parasite with UV, that was 9 months ago.

That infectious stage may still be there hosting in small numbers in partially immune fish.

We are in agreement on this point

 

[tmz]

I believe our main concern is not the heterotrophs and the bacteria in symbiotic relationships with coral. I think all would agree that these strains don't exist in the water column but in or under the protection of biofilms.
Although primarily benthic ,I think they do contribute to bacteria plankton in some phases. Biofilm included. As I recall the Peen state article suggests increasing heterotrophc bacteria via organic carbon dosing may also reduce other types of bacteria in a potent ially harmful way. I've not seen anything to support that notion though in terms of an actual study or anecdotal experience nor anything to support the idea that bacterial diversity if it was affected would be a bad thing or a good thing.

 

[tmz]

I couldn't quarantine if I wanted to as my practices of adding mud and amphipods from the sea would not allow me to do that.

Why not?The chances of a viable cyst being in that mix from a tidal pool is ,IMO, infintesimaly small compared to the chances of bringing it in with a fish that moved through the usual congregate closed sytem exposure common in the hobby. Infected fish don't gather or bed down where you gather mud ,I assume,

 

[Aquarist007]

I believe our main concern is not the heterotrophs and the bacteria in symbiotic relationships with coral. I think all would agree that these strains don't exist in the water column but in or under the protection of biofilms.
Although primarily benthic ,I think they do contribute to bacteria plankton in some phases. Biofilm included. As I recall the Peen state article suggests increasing heterotrophc bacteria via organic carbon dosing may also reduce other types of bacteria in a potent ially harmful way. I've not seen anything to support that notion though in terms of an actual study or anecdotal experience nor anything to support the idea that bacterial diversity if it was affected would be a bad thing or a good thing.

I agree with you and am also trying to find someone that will give more information on the subject
Since the thread is on skimming maybe the skimmer is actually essential to maintaining the equilibrium of the system by removing extra heterotrophs that are produced via carbon dosing.

 

[Aquarist007]

I have never tried Miracle Mud as I collect my own Miracle Mud right here for free.

Pink shorts:eek2::eek2 :
That' going to scare off the majority of pods in there but happy hunting

 

[Paul B]

Thats a bathing suit and it's orange. But even if it was pink, I am man enough to get away with it.

Infected fish don't gather or bed down where you gather mud ,I assume,

I don't know but I do know that almost all wild fish carry some paracites, and the fish in that tide pool are very wild and I can tell by the Macarana music that comes from there at night.
I take eels, flounders, shrimp and anything else I find interesting from there and throw them in my tank. A few days ago I netter a bunch of tiny fish for food. The fish are still smiling. No ich yet.

 

[wildman926]

I bet it is the hat... :lol2:

I have never tried Miracle Mud as I collect my own Miracle Mud right here for free.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy, on a healthy tank it made no difference. However in situations where the tank is not healthy and or under constant stress do you not feel it might help control the population of ich.
I don't believe it rids the ich nor has any one here says it did..it just kills some of the population down

I don't know how helpful it is. It may be, I just do not know. That's why it would be nice to see such a study.

 

[Aquarist007]

I bet it is the hat... :lol2:

I passed my iPad over to my wife. She said the shorts were pink lol

 

[AcroporAddict]

I have always wondered what the effect, if any, there would be on the ich life cycle in a bare bottom tank with high flow? Without a substrate to seek shelter in, would the cysts be more susceptible to tumbling and/or staying in the water column, possibly getting either skimmed out or caught in carbon media. Would strong flow in the tank make it harder for the free swimming theronts to attach to fish as well? If high flow BB tanks do keep the cysts/theronts circulating in the water column, and you use micron socks, can the cysts/theronts get caught and mechanically filtered out? I am not sure what the diameter of a cyst or a swimming theront is?

The questions come in reference to my bare bottom 465, which has about 50,000 peak gph in-tank flow, strong skimming, 100 micron filtration, GFO/GAC filtration, and a 150 watt UV with proper dwell time to kill protozoa.

 

[Subsea]

Scotty,
I consider Miracle Mud another name for snake oil. I bought my 75G tank used with a 2 year old mud filter. I was told it was Miracle Mud. It is crawling with worms and stuff. I have added nothing to it in 12 years and it has gotten slightly deeper and is spongy to the touch. I consider it a detritus sink. In speaking to the owner of a maintenance company that services tanks with mud filters, he indicated that they are full of iron. IMO, they do not supply the diversity of bacteria that we are talking about. Considering that dosing with iron is relatively simple, I never saw a need to purchase Miracle Mud. Twenty years ago, it was not unusual for hobby club members to bring a pound of live sand/mud to their meetings and mix it in a bucket for a diversity bug gumbo. The obvious problem with that would be cross contamination of undesirables. I am like Paul in the sense that I do not quarantine. I have not found anything that I could not get rid off. If ich is in my tank, the fish don't know it and they are fat and sassy. Considering marine algae on the space shuttle, ich may be on the man in the moon.
Patrick

 

[tmz]

But Tom very respectfully that is just your experience and you justifiably so, are a very influential guy on this site. Thus your personal experience and Randy's etc over trumpets my experience with it( even though I have personal experiences with over ten tanks)and those of others that have more practical experience then you and I combined but maybe dealing with only one system like yourself.

For clarity.You don't know what I do or don't do . I don't make a habit of bragging on my system or the things I do. But since you misrepresented it I have no choice but to correct it. I run 10 of my own tanks on 3 different systems some with skimming ;some not. There are also various refugia. The aquariums are pleasing to me and others. The general health and vibrancy of of the various organisms in them are good. I also provide hands on help to others in our local club as well as to local fish stores and to at least a dozen of the service guys in the area. I do these things as a hobbyist; not as a business and to learn and share. This does not entitle me to any special autority in my posts. They stand on their own.Folks are free to choose what they find useful or not.

but implied is that unless a person with degrees after his name states it is so then people with a lot of earned respect on here won't take the presented view and as a result a lot of what very experienced reefers say is not given the merit it should in this hobby.


I have no idea what that means. Education and academic achievement warrant repsect but not blind obedience IMO if that's what you mean. The folks I know with those degrees are usually very open to useful anecdote and thought when it's presented as such and the information they have provided over the years is enormously helpful to me.

a lot of those very very experienced reefers are or have been turned off by this and just don't bother tocontribute on here....

Who are they? Turned of by what? Why would a serious hobbyist be put off by honest discussion fact finding and knowlege?

As for "influence"; I doubt I have any. My experience is my experience, I'll continue to report it accurately as I can and maintain rigor without rancor as best as I can. If it's different than someone else' ; so be it. Folks can decide for themselves what makes sense for them.

I won't tolerate personal attacks on my integrity or motives and will always respond to them accordingly.

 

[tmz]

I have always wondered what the effect, if any, there would be on the ich life cycle in a bare bottom tank with high flow? Without a substrate to seek shelter in, would the cysts be more susceptible to tumbling and/or staying in the water column, possibly getting either skimmed out or caught in carbon media. Would strong flow in the tank make it harder for the free swimming theronts to attach to fish as well? If high flow BB tanks do keep the cysts/theronts circulating in the water column, and you use micron socks, can the cysts/theronts get caught and mechanically filtered out? I am not sure what the diameter of a cyst or a swimming theront is?

The questions come in reference to my bare bottom 465, which has about 50,000 peak gph in-tank flow, strong skimming, 100 micron filtration, GFO/GAC filtration, and a 150 watt UV with proper dwell time to kill protozoa.

Don't know whether or not fast flow helps. Usually the parasites leave the fish at night and encyst in or near it's usual sleeping area. This article gives alot of information including size:

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa164

From it:

"....Yoshinaga and Dickerson (1994) observed, in laboratory studies, that theronts were released only between the hours of 2:00 am and 9:00 am, even in total darkness; some suggest this strategy increases the chance for theronts to find a host, as many fish may be resting or closer to substrate during this time period.....

Trophonts can range in size from about 48 x 27 µm (~1/20 x 1/40 of a mm) to 452 x 360 µm (~1/2 x 1/3 mm) (1 µm = 1 micron; 1,000 microns = 1 millimeter)......



Tomonts range in size from 94.5 x 170 µm (~ 1/10 mm x 1/6 mm) to 252 x 441 µm (~1/4 x 1/2 mm). The tomont of one strain of Cryptocaryon was 210 x 763 μm (~1/5 x 3/4 mm)......

Theronts of one strain were 20"“30 x 50"“70 µm (Colorni 1985), but size will vary depending upon strain, host species, and temperature...."

 

[tmz]

Randy what would it take to make it clear to you as a fellow hobbyist. Not as biochemist...or at least say it can be effective in certain situations.


Personally I have found uv sterilization more than 5 % useful in very stressful situations for eg restaurant lobbies.

More than 5%. How much more 6% ,90%? How did you find that? What do you mean by useful? Could be any of that range or less but it's not a fact or finding unless you measure it somehow? Otherwise it's anecdotal or just an opinion. Maybe ich can produce more parasites in response to loosing some number to sterilizing techniques like some bacteria can when food is available. Maybe not. Maybe they excyst at night and get to a sleeping host before they get near the uv. maybe a given strain is larger than the radiation dose can handle, I don't know. Do you?

 

[Subsea]

Twice in my tank without a UV, ich came in with a new fish. Several fish then got it. I did nothing special and in a month or two, all visible signs were gone. I think that is not uncommon for a generally healthy tank. If I had fed them garlic or added a UV or fed them Cheerios, I might have concluded that those things helped get rid of it. Luckily, I did nothing, so I had no need to try to decipher what worked and what didn't.

Randy,
Considering Tom's study and hypothesis on ich: ich is still in your tank (unless you did something else with the tank in the above post) and my tank. In reading the different research papers, when events happen, such as ich showing itself after 18 months with no addittions, I question some of the dogma that I see posted.
Patrick

 

[Subsea]

Patrick,

The second time was on a large system with had seen nothing introduced into it for 18 months.....no addittions.
Due to a power failure causing a stress event, I witnessed ich on numerous fish. With this event, I can not agree with the accepted notion that dormant stage of the parasite is 12 weeks.



The tomites ( cysts) remain viable for up to 72 days in cool water; less in warmer water wtiout excysting(hatching) according to one study

This is from another post of mine recently on a thread about ich:

No, I don't recall the specific temperature range in that study(referenece is to the 11 month study) ;somewhere in the high 50F to low 60F range if I recall correctly. I haven't looked at that in a while .

I suspect it varies for different strains of cryptocaryon irritans.

Looking around:

This older study suggests an optimal range for excystment at 30 degrees F,ie 86 degrees C.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...146.x/abstract

This is from it:

The optimum temperature for excystment was 30°C; 50% excysted in 5 days and 100% in 7 days. At 25°C, 60% of the tomites started to excyst on the eighth day, and 70% on the ninth day. At 20°C, 10% started to excyst on the ninth day, reaching 40% on the tenth day. No excystment occurred at 37 and 7°C.

This one suggests excystment("hatching") and theront development are significantly slower at 20C(68F) vs 25C(77C):

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21104554996797


The other phases of the life cycle for crytocaryon(tomos and theronts) do not go dormant per se. The fish previously exposed develop a partial immunity to the strain and usually harbor some parasites unseen in the more vulnerable tissues mouth nostrils and gills until the strain expires which can take a year or two or more without new strains being introduced. In the meantime the parasite is still living in the tank even with lesser or unobservable symptoms showing on the fish.
A stress event can cause an outbreak in fish with partial immunity . Your observations are consistent with these expectations. Leaving the tank fallow for 12 weeks is a very safe bet for insuring all cysts hatch and theronts starve.

Tom,

Partial immunity sounds like a lawyer defending his position. What degree of partial immunity are we talking about? Also, until the strain expires which may take a year or two or more sounds like wiggle room to explain my event after 18 months. The research that I read said 11 months. It occurs to me that we do not know everything about how adaptable this parasite is and probably never will.

I thank you for your dedication to your research. However, I feel that being dogmatic about ones position closes the door to further knowledge.

In light of recent pictures of marine algae in deep space on the exterior of the space station, I say we have more to learn about the science of the universe that we live in.
Patrick

PS; This closes my quest to learn more about the ich parasite. In 44 years of reefkeeping, I have dealt with it twice. I doubt that more facts will come out that we haven't already discussed. Happy reefing. Patrick

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy,
Considering Tom's study and hypothesis on ich: ich is still in your tank (unless you did something else with the tank in the above post) and my tank. In reading the different research papers, when events happen, such as ich showing itself after 18 months with no addittions, I question some of the dogma that I see posted.
Patrick

It may be. I have no way to know. But it is not at any sort of problematic level. That could be true of ever reef tank worldwide. I've never claimed that ever last parasite is gone.