Although I have read similar, the logic of this makes no sense to me. If the resident fish were truly immune, then logically the ich parasite would die out in the same way it would if the tank were fishless - 72 days, give or take - yet it does not. If it is even true that ich dies out over a longer period of time (I've not observed this to be the case) it must be that the fish are immune enough to resist getting overwhelmed by the parasite but not to avoid some level of infection. That a single strain might die out must have something to do with limited genetic pool.
White lesions on royal gramma basslet tail - is it Ich?
- Thread starter jayjay5531
- Start date
Although I have read similar, the logic of this makes no sense to me. If the resident fish were truly immune, then logically the ich parasite would die out in the same way it would if the tank were fishless - 72 days, give or take - yet it does not. If it is even true that ich dies out over a longer period of time (I've not observed this to be the case) it must be that the fish are immune enough to resist getting overwhelmed by the parasite but not to avoid some level of infection. That a single strain might die out must have something to do with limited genetic pool.
Tripod1404
Active member
I think it takes a lot longer than 72 days because fish cannot get a 100% effective immunity against ich. So after each cycle they get somewhat more immune and harder to infect, but not completely immune (similar to malaria). So ich numbers gradually drop over a period of years(s). And since it this depends on the overall health of the immune system of the fish, if the immune system of even a single fish gets weakened for some reason, it can allow the ich population to recover.
So I believe basically it is what you said, their immunity only makes them harder targets, not "un-infectable". This cause the ich populations (that is also genetically constrained) to gradually drop and disappear. But this is why I said this immunity thing is complicated. It might be highly case specific, so one year, 2 years, or longer, or never could be the answer depending on the tank. We know very little about the microscopic makeup of our tanks. Some tanks might have a good population of protozoan predators (like amoebas), protozoan viruses, a large population of filter feeders. All these might determine if it is a complete eradication or a very small but viable population (like in your case).
The only case I observed ich dying out is with my dad's tank. My dad has a 300g tank that he has been keeping for more than 20 years. When I was still living with my parents I remember he had ich. But it eventually disappeared. Now he qt's his fish and no fish, new or old show any spots. It makes me believe at some point, ich disappeared.
Last edited:
jayjay5531
New member
I still haven't administered any treatment. If it's ich then the parasites should have "dropped off" by now right? Should I go ahead and give ich medication just to be safe? But some folks^ think its fungus, bacteria, or flukes lol so I'm not sure which to prioritize.
swiftvision
New member
My purple tang got ick right after I bought her. The LFS said, meh, it's normal, keep your water healthy, add a UV light, and it will be fine and heal on it's own.
It was true, went from COVERED in dots to totally normal in a week. No other fishes have ever got it. I never treated it at all other then step up up my tank cleanings.
swiftvision
New member
I never medicate unless I know what I am trying to control or eliminate.
Most if what I read does not point to Ick. If a fish shows some signs of abnormality, whether physical or behavioral, it is best to remove and put in QT, to lessen the risk, of transmission to others. Once in QT, we can better observe and treat. Generally, as Tripod correctly points out Ick can start in the gills, due to the amount of water passing, but once in the gills, I have noted in the past that eating stops, eyes cloud, respirations are quick and appear difficult, I would have figured if you have a Ick problem that cannot be rectified by the fish itself, it should be showing signs of distress.
Most if what I read does not point to Ick. If a fish shows some signs of abnormality, whether physical or behavioral, it is best to remove and put in QT, to lessen the risk, of transmission to others. Once in QT, we can better observe and treat. Generally, as Tripod correctly points out Ick can start in the gills, due to the amount of water passing, but once in the gills, I have noted in the past that eating stops, eyes cloud, respirations are quick and appear difficult, I would have figured if you have a Ick problem that cannot be rectified by the fish itself, it should be showing signs of distress.
