Surviving ICK and going fallow?

[alprazo]

I've had Ich in my tank since I added live rock and inverts. I've removed all fish from the rock and treated with hypo and then copper. - More then once. I have left the DT fish free for months and at one point two years only to add the fish and have them visit the cleaner shrimp station within weeks. I have gone to extremes and have given up on an ich free tank. Ich is an obligate parasite and cannot live without fish - not IME.

That said, every new fish spends 2 months in a QT process that includes treatment with a one time fresh water/formalin dip, followed by Cu + Prazi and minocycline - not necessarily in that order and plan to continue to do so. To my dismay, I've have had intestinal worms survive this process.

Unfortunately we cannot sterilize our fish without killing them.

 

[Hookup]

I agree there are proven methods to keep ICK from ever entering our systems. QT everything for min 6weeks, and treat fish during that same period. However, to do that effectively is expensive. Compared to the chance that ICK kills some of us take the chance route.

Immunity to a parasite results -
"due to the complexities of parasite life cycles and the success of parasites in evading the immune response, immune reactions against the parasite often do not parallel protective immunity, and immunity does not imply lack of disease" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/l208477368xn1q86/

"immunity is also the basis for some aquarists advocating that if a fish gets sick, to just maintain pristine water quality, feed a superb diet, and to allow the fish's own immune system to do the job. While it is possible that this could work, natural immunity is not totally foolproof." - Steven Pro http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-10/sp/feature/index.php

I know Steven Frequents RC, given the extensive research he has done I'm hoping he can weight in. I re-read this above article, which is excellent, but it is not 100% clear, for me the thick-headed-one. It seems that immunity does occur naturally, and can create 100% ICK-free fish, which through theory, would break the ICK cycle. But that is a long chain of possible, if and maybe...

 

[Paul B]

I am going to state something that I know many people will disagree with. I personally feel that fish are much healthier if they are exposed to ich and then become cured.
I know the theory that many people follow and it is a very good practice for all tanks only a few years old. You should quarantine everything. But after some years, and I don't know how many but for me it may have been ten years, the fish do not succomb to ich. I really don't know if it is an immune response like some authors state or if the paracite itself weakens over time but I do think that fish that are exposed to ich, they get cured are forever healthier. I could be wrong but most of my fish live long enough to die from either an accident of old age. If you read many of the posts on here you will find a lot of sick fish. I think it is the means that we are keeping them. Too many tanks look much too sterile to me. The sea is far from sterile. If you look at my tank the first thing you may say is, "Is he kidding"
My tank is far from pristine looking, I am not looking for pristine which is easy, I am looking for health. Health comes from being able to fight off infection. We ourselves are inoculated against many agents and we become immune to them. I feel that if our fish are never exposed to anything, they they will never be as healthy as a fish that had an infection. The only problem is that most fish in newer tanks which is just about everyone here, will have a problem keeping the animals alive if they get ich.
I really don't know the answer as I am not the God of ich but I am fairly sure I battled it far longer than anyone here.
Eventually, it is no longer a problem but that eventuallity may be years.
I also feel many tanks are too sterile, I feel ASW is not the greatest thing since wall paper, and I feel (but I don't have an answer) that too many tanks are just too clean.
I spent a year in the jungles in Viet Nam and most of the time I was miserable. I am sure that if I were not vaccinated for just about everything, I would have croaked in a week. The native people there live just fine with no medicine what so ever.
Fish can build up a resistance just as we can and if they do not get that chance, they will always be at rish of something.
Again, I am not saying to dump fish into your tank without quarantining them as you will most likely kill everything.
I really don't know the answer but as I said, I lost many fish in the beginning.
I believe it is a combination of using a portion of NSW and the age of the set up itself. Eventually we will figure out the exact means to keep an ich free tank, we just have to keep learning.
Don't forget, I did NOT say to throw fish in there without quaranting. Eventually, after ten years or so you probably can and we will no doubt know the secret. :smokin:

I will just like to add that I personally have not lost a fish to ich in probably 20 years or more, I do add all sorts of "things" from the sea from water to rocks to plants to inverts and fish.
My fish usually live out what I would consider a normal lifespan which in many fish is 10 to 15 years. Usually before that I have some sort of accident with a heater or a chemical or something that kills some animals before their time but never once in the last 20 years or so have I lost a fish from ich. I certainly am not the God of ick and am only stating my limited observations to try to learn more about this pain in the A-- -- paracite.
I do however feel that once a fish is exposed, ity is better off for the experience. (if it lives of course)

 

[Hookup]

Interesting Paul. And I do agree with the concept of building a fishes immune system is better than not. Its just we do not have the massive power of the ocean itself as support. Rather the opposite, our systems are microscopic in comparison and sit in precarious balance. Imagine taking a few drops of paint-thinner and putting it into a sump... Then estimate how much paint-thinner it would take to cause the same effect to a similar size chunk of the ocean-reef. The reef would recover in a few months to a year... The aquarium? Ocean = Omnipotent, aquariums = [insert whatever the opposite of Omnipotent is... haha]

I agree the sea looks far from sterile, and if you put a fish-tank around any given section of it you'd be surprised, if not disgusted, but when compared to the massive size of the ocean and the distribution power of currents, waves, etc, the ocean as a whole is far more sterile than anything we can replicate. I seriously doubt that if you took a 4foot x 2foot x2foot chunk (120gal) of the ocean floor and water, and put it into your house it would sustain...

My point is we cannot replicate the diluting power of the ocean & currents. We just do not have the means. Running a system clean-and-sterile is our current methods of trying to replace this massive power the volume of water has in the ocean.

In doing so, we likely remove too much of the "good stuff" along with some of the bad-stuff... And that circles back to your point about giving your inhabitants something to "fight/survive" to make them stronger, or possibly weaker.

All of this to say, that is interesting discussion, but way off-topic... LOL. and I love to off-topic. I'm continuing to read / research this concept of ICK immunity and I can defiantly say that so far the following are facts (see my above for reference links)
1) fish can become immune, meaning the cycle of ICK is broken, the parasites cannot host on/in the fish (Colorni, 1987 and Colorni & Burgess, 1997)
2) immunity lasts for up to 6months (Colorni, 1987 and Colorni & Burgess, 1997)
3) ICK w/o a host cannot live for more than 8 weeks (many)
4) it is possible for a tank to go fallow because all fish become fully immune (My assertion & conclusion based upon 1, 2 & 3)
5) the odds of this happening in practice are slim, however they increase when you have long-running tanks with no change. i.e. mulit-year systems that you have not possibly introduced new ICK/new ICK strains. (My assertion)
6) fish can live a LONG AND HAPPY life with ICK in the tank. (My assertion)

As of this point, I'm going to continue to not-worry about the ICK on my fish, and continue to provide the best possible living conditions in terms of water-quality, hiding-spaces, and food. The strong will survive, the weak will perish. This is not neglect (to me) but quite the opposite, almost down to some form of natural selection....

Just because I can run a tank ICK free, doesn't mean I have to... or want to.

 

[RBU1]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14122945#post14122945 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Hookup


As of this point, I'm going to continue to not-worry about the ICK on my fish, and continue to provide the best possible living conditions in terms of water-quality, hiding-spaces, and food. The strong will survive, the weak will perish. This is not neglect (to me) but quite the opposite, almost down to some form of natural selection....

Just because I can run a tank ICK free, doesn't mean I have to... or want to.

AMEN!!!!!!

 

[tmz]

A few thoughts:
The question posed by the thread starter is wether or not ich will ever expire on it's own in a tank with only "immune" fish.

Burgess and Matthews ran a series of studies on crytocaryon irritans,(marine ich in the mid nineties) concerning life cycle ,treatments, etc. . One set up involved culturing strains of ich and infesting fish. They fed the ich tanks new non immune fish( most fish in the sea do not have ich) every life cycle. Once a fish became infested ,they removed it and treated it and provided a new host.
Among their findings is that approximately 80% of severely infested fish develop a level of immunity at least for a period of time. They also noted that after 34 life cycles, over a period of approximately 11 months, the ich perished even in the presence of new hosts. They attributed this to cell aging in the single strain.It's only one study and I haven't been able to find anything else to suggest that there is a need for sexual reproduction to insure a strain's survival indefinitely.But it does seem to be possible at least with the strain they were studying.

A level of immunity does not imply complete immunity . The more vulnerable tissues of the mouth . nostrils and gills will probably continue to harbor some number of parasites indefinitely even though you can't see them. They may breakout and attack newly added fish or in response to stress.

If you have had ich in a tank and have not kept it without fish ( immune or not) for at least six weeks it is prudent in my opinion to expose new acquisitions to water from the tank during the qaurantine period. This will allow you treat an outbreak on the new fish without out risking an outbreak in your display which could even affect "immune" fish. This may also be a way to give the new fish some level of immunity.

 

[Paul B]

Among their findings is that approximately 80% of severely infested fish develop a level of immunity at least for a period of time. They also noted that after 34 life cycles, over a period of approximately 11 months, the ich perished even in the presence of new hosts.

I remember when they came out with that study and I have read Burgess book. I can't say I disagree with any of their findings, not being a researcher myself. But I don't think their study went far enough. Besides that study of the paracite going through 34 life cycles and dying, I believe that even when new strains of ich are introduced, the fish exhibits some form of immunity.
There is no way my fish would live 10-12-or 18 years in a tank full of paracites if they were not in fact immune.
They are not totally immune as I occasionally do see a paracite here and there. But for some reason, it never becomes a plague.
I think there is something we are missing, has to be, or I would have no fish in my tank.

This fireclown has been in here for about 15-18 years (I forgot)
He occasionally gets a spot. When a fish is about to die from some other cause like for instance getting caught in a powerhead or jumping out it will invariably get covered in paracites before it dies. It has been happening in my tank for years but something is keeping these killers away from the fish for the many years that it is in the tank. I really don't know if it is better to keep ich out of the tank completely or to get the fish in such a state of health that the paracites do not bother them. I obviousely go for the latter and I could not run my tank any other way with all the NSW I use and animals I add from the sea.
I personally feel that our animals will be healthier if they can be exposed to an agent like ich and somehow become immune.
But like I mentioned, if your fish are not in breeding condition, they will die very fast from these paracites.
Feeding flakes or feeding the same foods all the time will not do it.

 

[tmz]

I do not agree,agreeab;y, that fish should be exposed to ich as a health measure.I have 6 year old fish that survived ich. I still believe they would be better off woithout it and may harbor the parasite and potentially infect any new additions.

 

[Posidion]

At this point iI feel compelled to quarintine for you Paul. I went back and read the whole thread, and absolutely have to believe that a non infected fish is better than an infected one. To say that a fish which has been intenionally infected and then cured will fare better in the big picture dosent make sense. I suppose that i could be equated to giving a child a vacine for some common diease, but it is not a vacine. It would actuallly be the diease, and said child might not fully recover ever. I fail to see how this could be better that a fish which was never infected.??

 

[Hookup]

Think of chickenpox. Much better to get the chickenpox at a very young age, than as an adult where it can cause death. Maybe?

 

[Posidion]

Would it still not be better to never get chicken pox at all? I see what your saying, with the presumed resistance period, but how much resistance is there and how long does it actually last? All im saying is it's best never to get sick.

 

[Paul B]

Posidion, many people feel as you do and that is not necessarilly wrong. It is just the way we run our tanks. As I said, I do use NSW, rock, plants and animals from the sea all the time and I collect fresh food there also so quarantining all of that stuff would really be a hassle.
My fish seem to live to their normal lifespan and many of them are breeding. Some have lived to 18 years old, ich and all.
Ich is a normal occurance in the sea as I feel most if not all fish carry it. I feel that it is better to keep your fish in a state of health where ich does not bother them than to try to keep this paracite out of the tank.
That fireclown in the above picture I posted occasionally shows a spot. He has been nesting for many years and is as healthy as a fish in the sea.
I need my fish in that state of health because of all the, shall we say, unusual things I collect in the sea and put in the tank.
I would never say that my methods are the only way to go, they are the way I go and my tank is the oldest one here. That by no means is to sugggest that it is the only way to go but I feel from my experience that if a fish can live 18 years or so in a tank with killer paracites and not seem to be adversely affected, there must be something going on.
Like I said, most tanks will not be a lucky as mine and most fish will die if infected. I really don't know what is in my tank that seems to protect the fish from this paracite but as I said it was not like that for the first many years when I would lose everything all the time.
I would imagine that if I started a new tank with new water I would have to run it a different way. I also have a theory that it could have something to do with the NSW I collect in NY.
I do not like having all ASW and I think it causes many problems.
A couple of years ago I invited anyone here to give me an ich infected fish and I would put it in my tank to show that the other fish will not become infected. No one gave me one but I wanted to prove that something is going on and if I could figure it out it would be a great help for the hobby.
My tank is not and never was supposed to be a showpiece. It is there for me to learn. For many years it was much nicer looking and appeared in a few magazine articles, now I am more interested in learning but there are so few tanks out there over ten years old that knowlege is hard to come by. There are also so many rumors that keep circulating. Many people laugh at my reverse UG filter, which is fine but invariably no one here has a tank longer. It is like ich, much of what we know is rumors that keep getting perpetuated.
I know the research that has gone into ich and some of it I think is flawed, otherwize my tank would not be here.
There is a lot we don't know about the paracite and the salt water hobby has been around since 1971. Most that is written about ich is true but a large part of it is missing.
It is a very easy disease to cure, the cure is guaranteed but the knowlege we have about it's life cycle is incomplete.
I am sure we will eventually find a way to eliminate (or live with it)
But for now it is best to quarantine.
Have a great day.
paul

 

[nhlives]

...That said, every new fish spends 2 months in a QT ...

Wow, I am impressed. I just don't have that kind of patience. But I do still use QT,dip and treat the QT tank for at least a week's observation period and more if needed.

 

[Posidion]

Paul,
Thanx for the insight. I too have survivors from previous plagues. Have bad memories of the unfortunate as well (powder blue tangs). The survivors and the post plague additions are all healthy and regularly exhibit breeding behavior. I think this is why i havent had an out break in 2 or 3 years but i still wouldnt infect a fish intenionaly. As for your situation using NSW i can see how QT would be a mute point. I think we've already learned how live with ick, healty fish is key hereat least in my exp. But there is still lots to learn and im always willing to have my opinions changed in light of new facts.


"SEMPER FISHY"

 

[Paul B]

I am glad we all agree, after all I am not saying to do away with quarantining, if we did, most of us would have no fish.
I am just saying there is more research to be done to learn more about this paracite so we don't lose any more fish.
Believe ma, I have lost my share of expensive fish over the last few decades

 

[Hookup]

Thanks all, this was my first real post in RC, and i took away tonnes from it. Seriously, thanks.

 

[RBU1]

I only wish that some smart person would come up with a reef safe treatment that actually works.

 

[jenglish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14125519#post14125519 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RBU1
I only wish that some smart person would come up with a reef safe treatment that actually works.

I think that this is very unlikely. In fact I doubt anyone is even researching it. From the aquaculturist point of view the non reefsafe methods are fine to use and they don't feel the need to mix fish and inverts. Killing crypto w/o harming all the inverts in a tank is a very tall order and simply isn't worth the money to research IMO.

 

[Hookup]

Since we are just tossing-thoughts... I agree that no-one is likely doing it, but I cannot understand why... A reef-safe ICK treatment would sell for pretty much whatever you wanted.. $100 per treatment even... An average tank has many hundreds of dollars of fish, and compared with the cost/time of QT'ing everything $100 per shot is pretty reasonable... Now, think that every time a hobbiest adds a fish and re-intro's ICK... another $100... For a given tank, over a 5 year life-cycle I would imagine that you might use this ICK-B-GONE about 1/2 dozen times. Say $600 per aquarium... and world-wide there has to be 10,000 to 100,000 tanks, so that's a target audience of 50,000 * $600 = $30 Million dollars.

I'm guessing that the supply and demand either hasn't been properly assessed, or has been and the $$ just aren't there. Maybe it costs $31,000,000 to produce a product.. lol.

 

[jenglish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14126276#post14126276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Hookup
Since we are just tossing-thoughts... I agree that no-one is likely doing it, but I cannot understand why... A reef-safe ICK treatment would sell for pretty much whatever you wanted.. $100 per treatment even... An average tank has many hundreds of dollars of fish, and compared with the cost/time of QT'ing everything $100 per shot is pretty reasonable... Now, think that every time a hobbiest adds a fish and re-intro's ICK... another $100... For a given tank, over a 5 year life-cycle I would imagine that you might use this ICK-B-GONE about 1/2 dozen times. Say $600 per aquarium... and world-wide there has to be 10,000 to 100,000 tanks, so that's a target audience of 50,000 * $600 = $30 Million dollars.

I'm guessing that the supply and demand either hasn't been properly assessed, or has been and the $$ just aren't there. Maybe it costs $31,000,000 to produce a product.. lol.

You just have to remember they are making a good profit selling a great variety of things, many of which do nothing. If you look at all the reef additives and such that do nothing or do the same thing as simple household products you know there is a market for ineffective things I'm not saying I wouldn't love for their to be a reef safe cure I think it is just asking for a very selective killer. Selective killers are harder to come up with.