Thoughts on ich

[Paul B]

BTW, I also recall you talking to me in the past about having an ich outbreak in your tank a couple of years ago

Bill I may have said I noticed some spots on a few fish a few years ago that left in a day or so. I know there is ich (or some other paracites in there and ocassionally I will see a spot or two, especialy if a fish is dying from something else, but that is not an outbreak. I feel an outbreak is when all the fish get it and some die from it. I have not had a fish die from a paracite in maybe 30 years or so.
Ich, if it is present would be mostly either on the fish or in the substrait and it may not come in the water I collect but it must surely come in on the rocks and mud I collect. I collect amphipods by swishing porous rocks in a bucket of salt water. Then I dump this in my reef. God knows what is in that soup, but it never harms anything.
As I said I buy many fish because when they get to large I give them away, I am sure in all the years I have been doing this I have added numerous paracites. I am also sure that if I let my water get to cold for a while I would lose the tank from ich. It is in there and it doesn't bother anything so there must be something either keeping the paracites in a weakened state or keeping the fish in a strong state. I don't have an explanation but wouldn't it be a great piece of knowledge if we knew this?
How many fish die in this hobby from ich? Maybe half of them.
Not real good even though most people quarantine.:facepalm:

I am lumping all catagories of paracites together in this thread because for this discussion, it is the same outcome, none of them seem to infect some tanks for whatever reason while they are devastating in other seemingly healthy well taken care of tanks.

 

[FoxInSox]

"The first is that the genetic diversity of the parasite has met its end causing its own destruction.'

could you explane this more? also i found your use of the word "sans" quite remarkable. the things you learn on RC!

Sure, There needs to be variation in reproduction or homozygosity occurs. All DNA is flawed in one manner or another. Randomization and mutation through evolution will create new variations for survival or quash old ones through successive generations of offspring. Every time something breeds, new DNA is added keeping variations present and reducing the chance of coming across recessive traits that hinder the organism.

So....if we keep Crypt I. in a linear environment where it has little to no ability to add diversity to its genetics, it will eventually breed itself into extinction through making poor traits dominant meaning that the original traits needed for survival become recessive/marginalized.

The same thing happens in people with examples being in movies like "The Hills Have Eyes" etc.

Make sense?

"Ich" is colloquial..

Understood, but it's still incorrect. It's similar to referring to all donkeys as mules or vice-versa. Since we are aware of the difference of the organism in aquaria by virtue of the fact that it's in discussion it doesn't make sense to call it something else. Also, people without knowledge of the issue may misconstrue it as something it's not.

I really don't think you understand my worries. I quarantine ALL my fish; but often not as long as some suggest. I have sometimes premedicated, and sometimes not, I go back an forth in the more than 30 years I have been keeping marine aquaria. Many species are quite sensitive to copper and some authors advise against using it with dwarf angels and butterflies. There have even been reports of adverse side effects in the natural fauna in the guts of tangs. So while it IS an effective cure; some of us would like to avoid it when we can. Again, I read the advanced aquarist articles the year they came out. But there has since been a great deal of conversation, even in the human realm, about whether ecosystems are better off completely without pathogens. As Paul says, it seems as though low level infections actually strengthen the immune system. I believe this to be true with humans, frogs, fish, corals elephants, etc.

Well first off quarantining fish doesn't mean you prophylatically use Copper in any form. If your angel in quarantine makes it two weeks and shows no signs of any parasitic infection, you are likely good to go in regards to Crypto I. due to the biological necessity of the organism. I mentioned earlier that I prefer to use Hyposalinity as a prophylactic measure during all quarantining processes. I've found this to be 100% effective for my fish.

A problem here is that anecdotal conjecture does not equate to science or fact. Low grade infections don't strengthen the immune system, the body adapts to that particular infection. Becoming vaccinated against Polio doesn't equate to being immune to Rubella or any manner of Rhinoviruses. Also exposure to a disease can result in secondary diseases or wasting issues. AIDS patients for example don't die due to AIDS, they die from post-secondary infections due to severely compromised immune systems.

The advocation going on from you and Paul based on what I've are homeopathic remedies which are poor substitutes for disease prevention/treatment and are problematic for the field as a whole.

Regarding the Pathogen vs Parasite context, the former typically causes a disease such as Malaria or E.Coli while the latter uses the organism it's parasitizing for its own proliferation. Pathogenesis however is how the organism reproduces which is likely where the term is coming into play. One could argue that the parasite en masse on a host could be considered a disease due to the overall deleterious effect on the host, however it's a stretch when compared to actual pathogens like Plasmodium Vivax, etc.

Reading the references it's referring to a similar organism that is a pathogen (Diamant A, Issar G, Colorni A, Paperna I: A pathogenic Cryptocaryon -like ciliate from the Mediterranean Sea. Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 1991, 11 (3) : 122–124.).

 

[Paul B]

The advocation going on from you and Paul based on what I've are homeopathic remedies which are poor substitutes for disease prevention/treatment and are problematic for the field as a whole

Then how do you explain the lack of fish deaths to paracites of any kind in many tanks over many, many years?

I am not advocating anything, I offered no cures, no preventative measures, no homeopathic remedies, only questions.

 

[billsreef]

Then how do you explain the lack of fish deaths to paracites of any kind in many tanks over many, many years?

I am not advocating anything, I offered no cures, no preventative measures, no homeopathic remedies, only questions.

Just because a hobbyist does not see a parasite, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Even with doing a necropsy. Most parasites flee the host as soon as the host dies, after all they are parasites and not scavengers. Best way to examine a fish for parasites is to examine a live (freshly euthanized) fish, skin scrapings, fin clips, gill clips, etc. Even then, an expert in marine parasites might miss things on the first go around, only to find them while reviewing photographs taking under a microscope, or from having histology done. There is also a huge difference in quality of the microscope image between what a hobbyist is likely to be using, and research grade high end microscope costing thousands of dollars or more.

 

[Paul B]

Reading the references it's referring to a similar organism that is a pathogen (Diamant A, Issar G, Colorni A, Paperna I: A pathogenic Cryptocaryon -like ciliate from the Mediterranean Sea. Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 1991, 11 (3) : 122–124.).

These reserchers are studying these pathogens in a laboratory setting for a few weeks or months. I am not saying they are wrong or their methods are wrong, but in a hobby setting practical experience holds more weight. I can prove, in a laboratory that ich will kill fish, no question about that, I can also prove that copper or hypo will kill ich, no big whop there. I can follow the life cycle of any paracite. What I can not prove in a laboratory is that a fish can live in ich infected water for 20 years and not be "visably" harmed by the paracite. It can eat and reproduce and it's young can also grow up in the same tank. I can "not" tell if the fishes immune system is better off or worse by the presence of a paracite.
But the fact remains that "some" fish in "Some" tanks can live for 20 years or more right alongside paracites in the same tank with new paracites added from different areas even different oceans and multiple LFSs for decades.
I can not quote from scientific papers but I have been reading all I can find for the past almost 60 years that I have been doing this. I am not a researcher, biologist or scientist but I have practical experience dealing with this far longer than "most" but not all scientists and I am keeping the fish mentioned some of them over 18 years with no ich problems.
Again I am not suggesting in any way that I know why this occurs or does not occur. I am asking for suggestions as to "why".
I definately know how to cure ich. I can cure it in a day, it is simple and I have treated it in huge wholesalers systems, numerous stores and my reef.
When the hobby started in 1971 I was there dealing with paracites and I learned mostlyby trial and error how to cure it.
By the way, if there was no copper, there would be no salt water fish hobby.
That is just an opinion, don't jump on me for it. (but it's also a fact:lol2
As for articles by researchers I have one thing tosay.
I have written many articles and have submitted many essays to magazines in paper and online. Every single thing I have ever submitted was published.
I have no credentials, no degrees, no laboratory but everything was published.
I could be right out of a mental institution and have no idea what I am talking about but that was never asked. Just because you read it in a book, online or a magazine does not make it correct.

References: (Me, Sept 2012)

 

[Paul B]

Just because a hobbyist does not see a parasite, doesn't mean it wasn't there

Bill, I was out on the North fork yesterday and didn't see you, does that mean you were not there? :smokin:

Anyway, I did look for you, I was the guy in the water at Iron Pier beach collecting water. It was full of dead seaweed by the way and I am bleaching it. ( I have not bleached my water in many years but I remember having good success with it so It is just an experiment)

About the paracites being there, I know they are there. But they don't seem to be doing anything important, if they are doing anything at all.

 

[Paul B]

Remember guys (and girls) I am not argueing anything. I want to learn as much as anyone else does, but these things act on my mind and I have not heard any theories as to why this happens. It's just a discussion of ideas.

 

[srusso]

Just because a hobbyist does not see a parasite, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Even with doing a necropsy. Most parasites flee the host as soon as the host dies, after all they are parasites and not scavengers. Best way to examine a fish for parasites is to examine a live (freshly euthanized) fish, skin scrapings, fin clips, gill clips, etc. Even then, an expert in marine parasites might miss things on the first go around, only to find them while reviewing photographs taking under a microscope, or from having histology done. There is also a huge difference in quality of the microscope image between what a hobbyist is likely to be using, and research grade high end microscope costing thousands of dollars or more.

:worried:
So the best way to check if a fish has ich is to kill it then quickly check?! Talk about tossing the baby out with the bath water!! This is just the way science thinks. So sure, when looking at a huge body of water, and taking one fish of thousands out to do a test like you describe... sure... and without even knowing for sure, I'll bet most fish are found has some small infection... right Bill?

Lets take a realistic approach to how a hobbyist would do this!!

Got to go, need to check if this horse has parasites... :deadhorse:

 

[srusso]

About the paracites being there, I know they are there. But they don't seem to be doing anything important, if they are doing anything at all.

SO TRUE!!! WHY DON'T PEOPLE GET IT!!! :spin2:

 

[Paul B]

So the best way to check if a fish has ich is to kill it then quickly check?!

Actually this gobi pictured I had for about 12 years, his mate died and he went a few months later, (as I said I don't know how long gobi's live but I feel they died of old age)
Anyway he hung on for a couple of days just laying around barely breathing. No spots or torn fins, no eratic breathing or wierd swimming, just dying. Just before he died I euthenized him by putting him in the freezer. In maybe 30 minutes he was dead and I checked hig gills under a microscope using minimal power. The gills were completely free of any type of paracite, cuts, inflamation, everything. They were feathery, healthy looking and in perfect condition. No sign of paracitic activity.
I wrote a thread about it you can search it on here.

SO TRUE!!! WHY DON'T PEOPLE GET IT!!!

I think they get it but are not sure how and maybe don't believe it. I am also sure a percentage of them feel I am lying and my fish are dying every few hours with biblical proportion plagues of ich and I am just replacing them. :lol2:
I am very wealthy and can afford to buy fish everyday :fun5:

I don't remember when this picture was taken but I think it was over 10 years ago. I don't know, give or take 5 years.

Tat same fireclown is still in here today as shown in this recent picture. That fish which I bought 18 years ago as a juvinile is breeding and happy as a Lark.

I also notice him here when my reef had a huge hair algae cycle. I don't remember what caused this, it was probably one of my experiments but this has not happened in many years. He was there then also.

 

[billsreef]

Bill, I was out on the North fork yesterday and didn't see you, does that mean you were not there? :smokin:

Anyway, I did look for you, I was the guy in the water at Iron Pier beach collecting water. It was full of dead seaweed by the way and I am bleaching it. ( I have not bleached my water in many years but I remember having good success with it so It is just an experiment)

About the paracites being there, I know they are there. But they don't seem to be doing anything important, if they are doing anything at all.

I've been mostly in Miami the past year, managing the facilities for a university marine science program

Good clean water at Iron Pier Beach, so long as the Northville oil terminal hasn't had any 0pps moments like they used to back in the 70's. I'm going to play devil's advocate here....How do you know there are parasites present in the water you collected there? If you caught a bunch of fish there, I would certainly expect you to find some parasitic copepods, argulus, and some flukes (not the fish ). However, I'd also expect you to be able to filter thousands of gallons of water from that location all day long, without finding so much as one of those parasites in the water column.

BTW the bleach thing was recommended by Martin Moe way back in the day

:worried:
So the best way to check if a fish has ich is to kill it then quickly check?! Talk about tossing the baby out with the bath water!! This is just the way science thinks. So sure, when looking at a huge body of water, and taking one fish of thousands out to do a test like you describe... sure... and without even knowing for sure, I'll bet most fish are found has some small infection... right Bill?

Lets take a realistic approach to how a hobbyist would do this!!

Got to go, need to check if this horse has parasites... :deadhorse:

You need to actually read what I was writing and what it was in response to

At no point was I saying hobbyist need to go killing all there fish to do a major work up. I was simply explaining why it is not only possible, but also expected, that a hobbyist could examine a dead fish and not find any parasites...leading to a false conclusion about the presence of parasites.

 

[Paul B]

How do you know there are parasites present in the water you collected there? If you caught a bunch of fish there, I would certainly expect you to find some parasitic copepods, argulus, and some flukes (not the fish ).

Bill, Miami, Nice. I am going to Pompano beach in a few weeks to check on a factory there that is building something for me.

How do you know there are parasites present in the water you collected there?

I don't.
But in the maybe 5,000 gallons of water I have collected so far, I would imagine at least a few paracites should be present. And as I said I do sometimes add "Flukes" (the fish kind) flounders, eels, minnows and any small fish I feel are interesting until it gets large.
I also collect this time of the year, tropical fish that most likely have paracites. I collect them in the Atlantic and they are burrfish, butterflies, trumpetfish, big eyes, lookdowns etc. I have also always done this with no problems.

BTW the bleach thing was recommended by Martin Moe way back in the day

It was recommended way before Moe by Robert Straughn. Thats who I heard it from.
I think Moe and I started in the hobby at the same time and we bred salt water fish the same year, something like 72 or so

 

[ReefTeacher]

what is ich/crypt

what is ich/crypt

I think Paul has brought up an interesting point and perhaps we should make a distinction between ich and crypt. Crypt is a well identified cilliate. But fish often suffer similar symptoms, i.e. white spots and flashing, which may or may not be crypt. Only a scrape and microscope can really determine that. So many people use "ich" to describe the range of symptoms which is more often than not caused by the parasite (pathogen?) Cryptocaryon irritans.

Let's take for example, my Achilles tang. It is labeled and "ich magnet" by some. I have not had him too long, but I notice every grain of sand, every tiny abrasion looks like a white dot BECAUSE HE IS A BLACK FISH! I really don't think he is THAT much more susceptible to crypt than other tangs...but he shows spots from time to time. I do not worry at all because I see no flashing or heavy breathing....also his fins and eyes are clear which in my experience means it is not crypt. Bob Fenner is of the opinion that there may be other cilliates that appear on the skin of fish from time to time and cause similar symptoms. Because they are cilliates, they respond to similar treatments and we lump them all as "ich"

Could this be the confusion? Is is possible that crypt is overdiagnosed and some of the less deleterious conditions respond well to the voodoo of herbs and chicken soup? Or more precisebly, the fish respond well when afflicted with these conditions and given a little TLC. I have not touched my mircroscope in years....it sits in a corner and my eyes have grown older. Please don't say I have to get it out!:headwally:

 

[Mrs. Music]

ReefTeacher, you make an interesting point. A thank you to those keeping a civil key board.

 

[Paul B]

ReefTeacher, you make an interesting point. A thank you to those keeping a civil key board.

Yes, I am surprised that no one is calling me a fish baby killer yet. I know many people are thinking it.
I just got back from my boat and I did a little collecting. A mooring buoy I was tied to had about a 6" thick covering of barnacles on it and it was loaded with amphipods so I scraped off a bunch and brought them home. I ended up throwing them all out because it was mostly tiny crabs and worms. Too much junk to sift through for the small number of amphipods present. Ick would have the best thing on that buoy. :hmm3:

 

[souperman]

When a fish dies when infected with crypt, what is it that actually does the deed? Is it secondary infections form the countless lesions? Does the fish just wear down from being fed upon and eventually overwhelmed? Can it be suffocation from the inflammation in the gills as a result of them being attacked?

If we could pinpoint this it may lead to some answers? Maybe a healthy, well fed fish with a thick slim coat can deal with the parasite feeding off of them until they developed some sort of immunity? I think a lot of fish are under-fed to begin with in order to maintain water quality. When a undernourished fish is attacked by the parasite it lacks the reserves it needs and quickly succumbs after a few cycles.

 

[ReefTeacher]

Paul,

I am so envious of your location.....I did live in NYC for 20 years, but it was hard to collect amphipods in the flat iron district. What I wouldn't give to live near City Island!

 

[billsreef]

When a fish dies when infected with crypt, what is it that actually does the deed? Is it secondary infections form the countless lesions? Does the fish just wear down from being fed upon and eventually overwhelmed? Can it be suffocation from the inflammation in the gills as a result of them being attacked?

It's all of the above to varying degrees on a case by case basis.

 

[Paul B]

Thats true, with Crypt the body and fins are affected first and not so much in the gills. Eventually the gills become infiltrated with the organism blocking oxygen transport. But the fins will also deteriorates and secondary infections will also weaken the fish. So it kills the fish from a few ways.
Crypt is a much larger organism than oodinium and easily seen.

When the fish is infected with oodinium the paracites are smaller and dust like. The fish will always breath faster and the fish may dart around in circles. The gills are eventualy blocked causing the rapid breathing and if you find the fish lying on the bottom it is at a point of no return and it is terminal. That entire process can take 4 days.

For oodinium of crypt I have always used a combination of copper and quinicrine hydrocloride. It always works, no problem but this thread is not about cure and it will become all arguements if it were as they always do. Many people have different cures, these cures are only my opinions from my curing them for many years.
This is about why some fish never get "either" organism or is they get it, why they don't succuum to it.

About ich, oodinium, crypt, flukes etc. As I said we used to call all paracites ich, then oodinium, then back to ich etc. Ich was a term brought over from freshwater fish because us old timers all had fresh water fish and then salt water fish. There was no name for the paracite in the beginning that we knew so we called everything ich. In freshwater it is really ichthyophthirius multifilis which is white spot disease in freshwater. I still mix them up because I grew up with it and I am old. But I still cure all of them with copper and quinicrine. It works because these things are all invertabrates, tiny invertabrates and copper kills invertabrates at a slower rate than it kills fish.
The quinicrine works better on crypt but in conjunction with copper, it can't fail.
Again just my opinions and I am not the God of paracitic infections so I am sure I am wrong on everything. :lol:

 

[billsreef]

Some good diving in Pompano

Thats true, with Crypt the body and fins are affected first and not so much in the gills. Eventually the gills become infiltrated with the organism blocking oxygen transport. But the fins will also deteriorates and secondary infections will also weaken the fish. So it kills the fish from a few ways.
Crypt is a much larger organism than oodinium and easily seen.

Don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you, but most protozoal infections (including Crypt) do start in the gills and gill cavities where we mere humans don't even see any signs of it...might not even be a severe enough infestation to cause observable symptoms, aka the old sub clinical infection. It doesn't typically appear on the body and fins until it's getting to more advanced stages...in other words an overwhelming number of hungry little theronts in the tank looking for a host. At the point one is seeing those characteristic white spots, it is safe to say that the fish as already been dealing with a round or more of infection, without the aquarist being aware of it.

Size wise, Crypt trophonts (the stage feeding on the fish) can vary widely depending on strain. Sizes range from 48 x 27 µm (considerably smaller than Amyloodinium) to 452 x 360 µm (fairly large). In any case, still much smaller than any human is seeing with the naked eye, and requiring a decent microscope to see. The characteristic spots seen on the fish are simply skin eruptions from damage done by the parasite, not the parasite itself.