Tangs will not sty alive, any ideas
- Thread starter ChrisKirkland
- Start date
i have to disagree with all who said copper is bad for tangs internal that just not right imo and experience in this hobby for past 10 yrs i have treated every single fish i have had including many tangs a nurse shark which is not tolerate copper well along with multiple angels that are said to not tolerate copper with great success this is one thing about rc that upsets me.... people just kinda go with one persons flow anyways thats MO
marie
Member
There is no doubt that copper can be toxic to fish (it can be toxic to humans too) but sometimes it has to be used because its the only thing that will work...as in the case of marine velvet (and in my case it was used on a tang and the tang survived)
I don't think it should be used as a prophylactic but if there is nothing else that will work then yes copper is a better option then watching a fish die
SlowCobra
New member
Well do some actual research and then shower us with your knowledge.
Just because you have managed to get away with doing something does not make it right. Are you a marine biologist? Have you studied the internal effects of Copper on all the different species?I have been in this hobby since the 80's does that make me smarter than anyone else, no. Have I taken the time to actually research species of fish and what works and doesn't work, yes.
Your last statement is basically you trying to convince everyone else that your way is the correct way and that everyone else, including the scientific community, is wrong.
ChrisKirkland
Reef and Coral Fanatic
The effects of copper in general will make me never treat any fish with it unless it is the only thing left. Anyone else know of any other treatment for new arrivals that they have used successfully?
SlowCobra
New member
Generally don't actually treat for anything unless it is visible. QT typically is there to put the fish for a couple weeks to make sure nothing pops up on them. If something does happen, research it and treat appropriately. If they develop ich, do a hypo treatment. Unfortunately approximately 90% of all tanks have ich even if we never see it on any fish. The ich can hide in the gills and we don't realize it.
The 10% of tanks that are marine STD free either have no fish or they have let their tank stay fallow for at least 6 weeks and have performed a hypo treatment on ALL fish be it new additions or old ones that have been there for a while.
And even more bad news is that there are several hypo resistant strains of ich that have been discovered.
I am a firm believer in hypo. It works > 99% of the time if it is done correctly. It is time consuming but it is almost always the least stressful on the fish.
Texastravis
New member
SlowCobra that sounds a bit harsh and a bit rude. He said HIS OPINION on the matter. He is not claiming to be an expert but he is letting people know on the success he has had with using copper and has not noticed much harmful reactions to him using copper on his fish. Yes ick articles state that there "can" be dmg done to the fish but a lot of people in using cupramine have noticed no internal dmg on there fish. The majority of all ich articles that discuss the internal effects of Cu are referring to the older methods of strait harmful Cu, not the safer Cupramine. Cu also has its advantages in treating not only ick but other forms of parasites (unlike Hypo) Just take a look at Mari's fat geezer of an achilles. I see no internal problems. Heck I have read how feedin predator fish freesh water fish can cause internal liver problems but mine were eating it for yeears and no effects. My lionfish went from 4" to 13" show size on goldfish! but thats another debatable matter.
And yes he is right about people "going with the flow". Some people (a vast majority) post answers to questions that they have only heard of or read about. And have perhaps never used, done, or had any experience with the topic.
Most of the time first hand experience is better than theoretical/just reading on the topic. Most marine ick articles do state that copper has its bad side effects. This is largly due to people reporting about there bad experiences with copper. What some people fail to look at are its great advantages and great success rate it has had. In the times that I have used copper it has been very successful. I also know very big reefers with gorgous fish that have all been through copper with NO ill efffects.
"IMO" the large amount of bad reports of the use of copper involve people that were too lazy to keep copper lvls in check, dosed too much copper, dosed to little copper, had there fish under copper treatment for far too long (I dont recommend much more than 3-4 weeks max) or perhaps the fish died because the disease wasnt caught in time or bad water conditions with poor oxygen lvls.
Copper and Hypo are really the only 2 proven solutions to ick. Copper has the advantage of being easier to use and kills ick much faster than hyposalinity. Hypo is however considered "less" stressful but is much more of a "pain" and requires a fish to be in a tank that is too small for them for a longer than necessary. Also if hypo is not done right, or you didnt leave fish in hypo long enough a lot of times small particles of ick can survive through the treatment (several reports of this, but again perhaps not left in long enough). Then the fish gets placed into the DT and contaminates everything you worked for, an ick free DT.
Both methods are great with hypo taking more time and bing more expensive but sometimes "less" streessful. My new system of QTing fish consists of placing them under copper for 3 weeks. If during this 3 weeks the fish seems stressful, lack of eat, weak, lathargic, etc I will immediately do a water change and resort to hypo. My fish however have yet to "freak" out. My achilles tang actually did not fair well in Hypo so i slowly brought salinity back up and treated with copper and he did fine there after (this was some time ago).
Do your own research on this highly debatable matter and come up with the method that suits you best but in the end your experience will eventually come up with the ultimate solution to your question. If you experience success with Cu then by god use it. If you experience success with hypo, use it. Both ways work but I believe copper out weighs hypo in that its easier, kills ick faster, and requires fish to be in small QT for shorter amt of time. In my opinion if a fish "dies" due to copper it wasnt going to live anyways.
Good luck with treating your fish and hopefully an ich free DT is in sight!
And yes he is right about people "going with the flow". Some people (a vast majority) post answers to questions that they have only heard of or read about. And have perhaps never used, done, or had any experience with the topic.
Most of the time first hand experience is better than theoretical/just reading on the topic. Most marine ick articles do state that copper has its bad side effects. This is largly due to people reporting about there bad experiences with copper. What some people fail to look at are its great advantages and great success rate it has had. In the times that I have used copper it has been very successful. I also know very big reefers with gorgous fish that have all been through copper with NO ill efffects.
"IMO" the large amount of bad reports of the use of copper involve people that were too lazy to keep copper lvls in check, dosed too much copper, dosed to little copper, had there fish under copper treatment for far too long (I dont recommend much more than 3-4 weeks max) or perhaps the fish died because the disease wasnt caught in time or bad water conditions with poor oxygen lvls.
Copper and Hypo are really the only 2 proven solutions to ick. Copper has the advantage of being easier to use and kills ick much faster than hyposalinity. Hypo is however considered "less" stressful but is much more of a "pain" and requires a fish to be in a tank that is too small for them for a longer than necessary. Also if hypo is not done right, or you didnt leave fish in hypo long enough a lot of times small particles of ick can survive through the treatment (several reports of this, but again perhaps not left in long enough). Then the fish gets placed into the DT and contaminates everything you worked for, an ick free DT.
Both methods are great with hypo taking more time and bing more expensive but sometimes "less" streessful. My new system of QTing fish consists of placing them under copper for 3 weeks. If during this 3 weeks the fish seems stressful, lack of eat, weak, lathargic, etc I will immediately do a water change and resort to hypo. My fish however have yet to "freak" out. My achilles tang actually did not fair well in Hypo so i slowly brought salinity back up and treated with copper and he did fine there after (this was some time ago).
Do your own research on this highly debatable matter and come up with the method that suits you best but in the end your experience will eventually come up with the ultimate solution to your question. If you experience success with Cu then by god use it. If you experience success with hypo, use it. Both ways work but I believe copper out weighs hypo in that its easier, kills ick faster, and requires fish to be in small QT for shorter amt of time. In my opinion if a fish "dies" due to copper it wasnt going to live anyways.
Good luck with treating your fish and hopefully an ich free DT is in sight!
Texastravis
New member
"Generally don't actually treat for anything unless it is visible."
I strongly disagree with this statement. If your goal is an ick free DT (which it should be) then treat any and all fish. Small strands of ick, velvet, fluke, etc can hide within the fishes gills, blend in with its color, etc. If ick isnt "visible" doesnt mean that there is no ick. Take all precautions and it will pay off in the end.
Hypo does work 99% ON ICH of time but like you said, IF DONE CORRECTLY. I have seen even callobrated refractometers be off just enough on the salinity to make hypo fail. I have used hypo on about 50% of my fish and Cu on the other 50% both work, both are great. Also realize the when doing hypo you MUST do frequent water changes. Hypo kills bacteria which cannot break down your ammonia and nitrite which causes extreme harm and stress to the fish so MAKE SURE YOU DO THE WATER CHANGES. But if using hypo you will have to treat the fish with some type of chemical after hypo to take care of any fluke or velvet or other strand of ick that cannot be killed through hypo. Keeep in mind that statistically more fish die from fluke and velvet than ick.
What I recommend:
CUPRAMINE WITH PRAZIPRO- garanteed to work if fish doesnt stress from Cu
PRAZIPRO WITH HYPO- not 100% ( but very close). cost more money and time on water changes and salt costs. much more time but less stressful.
I would use hypo if I was treating several fish in one hospital tank (75-100 gallons) but would use Cu if I had say one or 2 fish in a 10-30 gallon. salinity can flactuate too much in smaller tanks.
Again, GL
I strongly disagree with this statement. If your goal is an ick free DT (which it should be) then treat any and all fish. Small strands of ick, velvet, fluke, etc can hide within the fishes gills, blend in with its color, etc. If ick isnt "visible" doesnt mean that there is no ick. Take all precautions and it will pay off in the end.
Hypo does work 99% ON ICH of time but like you said, IF DONE CORRECTLY. I have seen even callobrated refractometers be off just enough on the salinity to make hypo fail. I have used hypo on about 50% of my fish and Cu on the other 50% both work, both are great. Also realize the when doing hypo you MUST do frequent water changes. Hypo kills bacteria which cannot break down your ammonia and nitrite which causes extreme harm and stress to the fish so MAKE SURE YOU DO THE WATER CHANGES. But if using hypo you will have to treat the fish with some type of chemical after hypo to take care of any fluke or velvet or other strand of ick that cannot be killed through hypo. Keeep in mind that statistically more fish die from fluke and velvet than ick.
What I recommend:
CUPRAMINE WITH PRAZIPRO- garanteed to work if fish doesnt stress from Cu
PRAZIPRO WITH HYPO- not 100% ( but very close). cost more money and time on water changes and salt costs. much more time but less stressful.
I would use hypo if I was treating several fish in one hospital tank (75-100 gallons) but would use Cu if I had say one or 2 fish in a 10-30 gallon. salinity can flactuate too much in smaller tanks.
Again, GL
SlowCobra
New member
Disagree all you want. Would you want to be treated for Cancer even though you don't have it? How about brain surgery despite not having a tumor or traumatic injury? Essentially that is what you are saying to do with the fish. The stress of shipping and being in a QT tank with no where for the ich to drop off and multiple will almost always show up in an outbreak. Obviously I am just harsh and have no real world experience so I will leave it to you the self appointed expert of the aquatic world and Reef Central.
Once again I will refer you to findings by Marine Biologists, you know those people that have devoted their lives to trying to understand and save the oceans but what do they know, right?
To be truly successful in this hobby you need to partake in reading real world studies and other literature that is out there. RC is a great resource if you can pick through who knows what they are talking about and who takes it personal that someone won't do it their way.
just dave
11th in '11
I have no interest in getting into a debate but instead will say that many renowned authors recommend the use of copper based treatments . The problem, generally, is not with the drug/ chemical/ treatment used but with our own lack of understanding of the uses / problems/ side effect/ dangers...etc. of them. In short the uneducated user of the product is usually to blame but like with most things we find it easier to blame something other 'n ourselves. I have been in the marine ornamental business since 1995 and deal with many drugs and chemicals on an almost daily basis. I learned early that the blame game gets you nowhere and information and results are what we should be after. I have acquired a small library on the treatment of fish and the use of drugs and chemicals used in the treatment of fish. I am not advocating the use of copper or any drug/ chemical without first understanding the risks. Most if not all of the treatments available have risks that can even be fatal when misused. Copper treatments come in many different forms and the type used has its own particular limitations and risks. As an example Cupramine, which was mentioned above, can become many times more toxic if used in the presence of a UV sterilizer ( the directions tell you to turn it off if present) and ozone units, aldehydes, and some dechlorinators ( not on the bottle the last time I looked.)
Three books that I have used frequently are "AQUARIOLOGY (Master Volume) The science of fish health management" by Dr. John B. Gratzek.
Diseases in marine aquarium fish -causes-symptoms-treatment" by Dr. Gerald Bassleer.
"Handbook of drugs and chemicals used in the treatment of fish diseases -A manual of fish pharmacology and materia medica" by Nelson Herwig
For the average aquarist I would recommend sticking with what works for you but to keep an open mind and realize that some of the failures you may have had may have been of your own doing and not the fault of the product used. I would also recommend looking at these links.
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-08/sp/index.php
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-10/sp/feature/index.php
Dr. Gerald Bassleer (°1954) received his Masters in Biology at the University of Antwerp in 1977.
He became a Doctor in Fish Pathology & Fish Health Management after studies at the following institutions:
- the faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Maracay (Venezuela)
- the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Georgia (USA)
- the Unit of Aquatic Pathobiology at the University of Stirling (Scotland)
- the Unit Biology of Fish at the University of Hohenheim (Germany)
Dr. Gerald Bassleer has 28 years of experience at 5 different wholesalers in 4 different countries: Belgium, USA, The Netherlands and Germany.
He has an international reputation through his management skills at Aquaria Antwerp in Belgium (1977 - 1981), Ruinemans Aquarium in the Netherlands (1985 - 1991); O'Hare Tropical/Chicago (1981-1985) and Aquarium Glaser in Germany (1992-1995)
He is the author of 2 well known books on fish diseases.
He writes for several magazines and he's an advisor & member of OFI (Ornamental Fish International Organization for the aquatic trade).
Dr. John B. Gratzek received a bachelor of science degree in biology and chemistry at St. Mary's College in Minnesota. He was awarded the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree from the University of Minnesota in 1956 and a PhD. In the study of animal virology from the University of Wisconsin in 1961. He headed the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Georgia. He is the past president of the American College of Veterinary Microbiologists and the International Association for Aquatic Animal Medicine, and served on the aquaculture committee of the American Association of Animal Health.
Three books that I have used frequently are "AQUARIOLOGY (Master Volume) The science of fish health management" by Dr. John B. Gratzek.
Diseases in marine aquarium fish -causes-symptoms-treatment" by Dr. Gerald Bassleer.
"Handbook of drugs and chemicals used in the treatment of fish diseases -A manual of fish pharmacology and materia medica" by Nelson Herwig
For the average aquarist I would recommend sticking with what works for you but to keep an open mind and realize that some of the failures you may have had may have been of your own doing and not the fault of the product used. I would also recommend looking at these links.
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-08/sp/index.php
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-10/sp/feature/index.php
Dr. Gerald Bassleer (°1954) received his Masters in Biology at the University of Antwerp in 1977.
He became a Doctor in Fish Pathology & Fish Health Management after studies at the following institutions:
- the faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Maracay (Venezuela)
- the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Georgia (USA)
- the Unit of Aquatic Pathobiology at the University of Stirling (Scotland)
- the Unit Biology of Fish at the University of Hohenheim (Germany)
Dr. Gerald Bassleer has 28 years of experience at 5 different wholesalers in 4 different countries: Belgium, USA, The Netherlands and Germany.
He has an international reputation through his management skills at Aquaria Antwerp in Belgium (1977 - 1981), Ruinemans Aquarium in the Netherlands (1985 - 1991); O'Hare Tropical/Chicago (1981-1985) and Aquarium Glaser in Germany (1992-1995)
He is the author of 2 well known books on fish diseases.
He writes for several magazines and he's an advisor & member of OFI (Ornamental Fish International Organization for the aquatic trade).
Dr. John B. Gratzek received a bachelor of science degree in biology and chemistry at St. Mary's College in Minnesota. He was awarded the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree from the University of Minnesota in 1956 and a PhD. In the study of animal virology from the University of Wisconsin in 1961. He headed the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Georgia. He is the past president of the American College of Veterinary Microbiologists and the International Association for Aquatic Animal Medicine, and served on the aquaculture committee of the American Association of Animal Health.
Texastravis
New member
SlowCobra. Why you compare ick on fish to cancer on humans ill never know! Brain surgeries % of success is much lower than the %succes of Cu and Hypo! If I had to go into brain surgery so they could put something in my head that would 100% PREVENT me from ever getting it then I would
Would I want to be treated for cancer even though I didnt have it? Well if cancer was contagious to other people like ick is to fish then YES I WOULD, or I would at least understand why they were taking preventative measures! Another reason why is because its better to treat a fish with a very small, near invisible case of ick than it is to wait for the fish to get worse and be near death to start treatment. It is better to treat a fish (while healthy) to prevent a problem than treat a fish that has the problem! Same for cancer, if the doctor wanted to open me up to see if I had a tumor because he couldnt tell by just visibly looking at me then open me up and get rid of it now and prevent it from coming back rather than wait for the dang thing to be the size of a watermelon thus complicating the problem and decreasing my chance for survival. But like i said, comparing ick to cancer is rediculous but have it your way.
QUOTE: "I will leave it to you the self appointed expert of the aquatic world and Reef Central."
Why you try to be rude to a fellow hobbyist I will again never understand. I stated IMO and that im no expert. I gave my opinion just like others have on this thread but yet you tell them to stop claiming they are experts and leave everything up to biologists. You are being rediculous and thank god there isnt more people like you on RC. RC is a place to state your opinion on the matter and why its your opinion. They reply to these threads to help people, not get smart elic replies claiming they are experts. If anyone "thinks they know it all" its you. You have yet to state your opinion but rather come off as what you say is a fact.
QUOTE: "Once again I will refer you to findings by Marine Biologists, you know those people that have devoted their lives to trying to understand and save the oceans but what do they know, right?"
The key word is OCEANS, they rarely study aquarium life (which is what we are discussing, an aquarium disease). Did I say that marine biologists were wrong? NO I didnt. I just stated that through experience, the effects of Cu are some what minor or perhaps never noticable at all. I agree that Cu can have bad side effects and have seen them first hand.
Most enthused hobbyists (such as a lg amt of people and RC team) know much more about the aquarium hobby than Marine Biologists. Marine biologists study the ocean and its features, no the aquarium. Some do partake in the study of perhaps captive life and fish diseases for instance. Like I said before "IMO IMO IMO!" Experience outways the theoretical maybes put forth by biologists. A reef central team member that spends most of his time replying and reading threads in the fish disease columns will truly know the statistics on Cu effects on fish through experience and trial and error rather than a biologist who says "this could dmg the fish internally". Most marine biologists dont back up there theories with tests anyways.
Dont get me wrong, im absolutely not dogging marine biologists and their studies but rather trying to show you that saltwater hobbyists arnt ignorantly stupid and inferrior to biologists. But in no way should a statement from a biologist be superior than a statement from a hobbyist. Dont place them on a pedestol. Hobbyists have also spent their lives studying on the marine aquarium, biologist or not.
Would I want to be treated for cancer even though I didnt have it? Well if cancer was contagious to other people like ick is to fish then YES I WOULD, or I would at least understand why they were taking preventative measures! Another reason why is because its better to treat a fish with a very small, near invisible case of ick than it is to wait for the fish to get worse and be near death to start treatment. It is better to treat a fish (while healthy) to prevent a problem than treat a fish that has the problem! Same for cancer, if the doctor wanted to open me up to see if I had a tumor because he couldnt tell by just visibly looking at me then open me up and get rid of it now and prevent it from coming back rather than wait for the dang thing to be the size of a watermelon thus complicating the problem and decreasing my chance for survival. But like i said, comparing ick to cancer is rediculous but have it your way.
QUOTE: "I will leave it to you the self appointed expert of the aquatic world and Reef Central."
Why you try to be rude to a fellow hobbyist I will again never understand. I stated IMO and that im no expert. I gave my opinion just like others have on this thread but yet you tell them to stop claiming they are experts and leave everything up to biologists. You are being rediculous and thank god there isnt more people like you on RC. RC is a place to state your opinion on the matter and why its your opinion. They reply to these threads to help people, not get smart elic replies claiming they are experts. If anyone "thinks they know it all" its you. You have yet to state your opinion but rather come off as what you say is a fact.
QUOTE: "Once again I will refer you to findings by Marine Biologists, you know those people that have devoted their lives to trying to understand and save the oceans but what do they know, right?"
The key word is OCEANS, they rarely study aquarium life (which is what we are discussing, an aquarium disease). Did I say that marine biologists were wrong? NO I didnt. I just stated that through experience, the effects of Cu are some what minor or perhaps never noticable at all. I agree that Cu can have bad side effects and have seen them first hand.
Most enthused hobbyists (such as a lg amt of people and RC team) know much more about the aquarium hobby than Marine Biologists. Marine biologists study the ocean and its features, no the aquarium. Some do partake in the study of perhaps captive life and fish diseases for instance. Like I said before "IMO IMO IMO!" Experience outways the theoretical maybes put forth by biologists. A reef central team member that spends most of his time replying and reading threads in the fish disease columns will truly know the statistics on Cu effects on fish through experience and trial and error rather than a biologist who says "this could dmg the fish internally". Most marine biologists dont back up there theories with tests anyways.
Dont get me wrong, im absolutely not dogging marine biologists and their studies but rather trying to show you that saltwater hobbyists arnt ignorantly stupid and inferrior to biologists. But in no way should a statement from a biologist be superior than a statement from a hobbyist. Dont place them on a pedestol. Hobbyists have also spent their lives studying on the marine aquarium, biologist or not.
if you werent so ignorant to the fact that you should read before jumping all over me about this in fact i have done plenty of research on everything for this hobby and IN CASE YOU DNT NO WHAT MO MEANS IT MEANS IN MY OPINION (SLOW COBRA) WHICH IT CLEARLY STATES IN MY ABOVE COMMENT this hobby along with alot of athother things in life have alot to do with opinions kinda like politics just cause one marine biologist says it harms internals of fish does not mean its true you your self should do a search on google and read some books and maybe you will educate yourself on this some say it does and others say it wont MO states it wont in my 10 yrs experience..... oh and by the way its preety rediculose when here you are contradicting your self so MO is wrong but yours is right RIGHT LMAO some people really are pretty rediculose....on another note Dr. Gerald Bassleer like mentioned above is a great reference for those of you that like to read about fish diseases and treatments he has a book called "Diseasees in marine aquarium fish its a great reference and guide i beleive that its was only about 15.00 dollars.
Last edited:
Texastravis
New member
"High Five" dones20. I dont think SlowCobra values opinions very well. Seems as though you have to have a degree in marine biology for your opinion to count on the matter?
KrisKirkland: Sry for the debating on your thread! But as a short answer use either Cupramin or Hypo. Both need to be used with Prazipro though IMO to take care of other infections other than ick. Good luck in what you chose and better luck with those tangs! Keep their bellies full of algae!
KrisKirkland: Sry for the debating on your thread! But as a short answer use either Cupramin or Hypo. Both need to be used with Prazipro though IMO to take care of other infections other than ick. Good luck in what you chose and better luck with those tangs! Keep their bellies full of algae!
just dave
11th in '11
Praziquantel (Prazipro) is not an antibiotic or an antibacterial compound. It is used for flukes and such. It could appear to have antibiotic/ antibacterial properties because many of the things it treats for pierce the fish when attaching and leave entry points for secondary infection. Using it will kill the target parasites and those possibly allowing the fishes own immune system to heal the infection and thus seeming that the Praziquantel helped with the infection. Especially since many of the common , in the hobby, parasites it treats for are difficult to see and may go unnoticed.
Texastravis
New member
If you got the time and patience go with Hypo. I do also agree that hypo is better used as a prevention. When buying a fish I would place in QT and immediatly start hypo. If I bought the fish and immediately noticed ick I would use Cupramine to take care of the problem faster.
just dave: Im having a hard time making out what your opinion is on Prazipro. Do you think its worth using as a prevention before placing any and all fish into the DT? I have been using it as a prevention alonf with hypo and Cupramine and yes I use it for the dreaded unnoticable flukes. I have used it in the past with success, but would like to hear some opinions on it from a RC team member.
My goal (and should be all aquarist goals) is a completely ick free, disease free, infectious free DT. Thats why I think that even if a fish doesnt appear ill it should be treated as if it were for prevention for spreading it to the DT. I believe ick, flukes, and velvet. I am quite familiar with ick but not so familiar with flukes and velvet.
just dave: Im having a hard time making out what your opinion is on Prazipro. Do you think its worth using as a prevention before placing any and all fish into the DT? I have been using it as a prevention alonf with hypo and Cupramine and yes I use it for the dreaded unnoticable flukes. I have used it in the past with success, but would like to hear some opinions on it from a RC team member.
My goal (and should be all aquarist goals) is a completely ick free, disease free, infectious free DT. Thats why I think that even if a fish doesnt appear ill it should be treated as if it were for prevention for spreading it to the DT. I believe ick, flukes, and velvet. I am quite familiar with ick but not so familiar with flukes and velvet.
Texastravis
New member
Can prazipo be used at the same time you use Cupramine/hypo or is it best to use before or after the ich treatment?
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
suggestion: try another procedure- look for a healthy Tang that's been eating well at a LFS for a couple of weeks.
eliminate the Clown Tang from consideration- it's a very poor choice for your aquarium.
just dave
11th in '11
I use copper with Praziquantel but I don't use Cupramine. Cupramine is a different type of copper. It is a copper bound to an amine complex and if you use anything with it that acts as a reducing compound "it will reduce the Copper +2 to Copper +1 which is highly toxic at even small doses. "
Similar threads
