why I advocate what I do on this forum

[snorvich]

While ThRoewer and I, and perhaps many more of you read the marine biology literature, be it with Google Scholar, Noga, Spotte, or whatever, where ThRoewer and I differ is practicality.

Having worked this forum for ten years now, I have subjectively found that at most half of aquarists on this board quarantine. Of those that do quarantine, perhaps half of those at most, do it effectively.

I have never advocated for copper for several reasons:

+ aquarist error is just too easy to make (duration, concentration maintenance)
+ it does not treat all parasites
+ it is bad for fish

I also do not advocate hyposalinity for two reasons:

+ it is very difficult to do correctly (instrument error, concentration error)
+ it only treats cryptocaryon irritans (most but not all strains)

So, what do I advocate and why?

I advocate TTM (see sticky) to eliminate ich from the picture, ideally with formalin dips in between cycles and prazipro twice one week apart.

I try to sell some sort of doable quarantine process but not one that most people will never follow. Sure there is a gold standard marine biologist protocol, but it will never sell to the vast majority of folks here. If we are doing a literature review discussion, that is one thing, but if we are trying to create successful aquarists, it needs to be practical and not too labor intensive.

 

[blkg35]

Steve, I have started implementing your qt protocol. TTM with formalin dip in between. Then 2 rounds of prazi 5 days apart.
Is there any species of fish you would skip the formalin dip on, such as wrasse?

Thank you for all the information you provide all of us.

 

[snorvich]

Steve, I have started implementing your qt protocol. TTM with formalin dip in between. Then 2 rounds of prazi 5 days apart.
Is there any species of fish you would skip the formalin dip on, such as wrasse?

Thank you for all the information you provide all of us.

No species that I am aware of would contraindicate a formalin dip. However, I have never kept seahorses, sharks, or rays. When i kept eels, I did not do a formalin dip or tank transfer, simply five weeks of observation.

 

[HumbleFish]

I advocate TTM (see sticky) to eliminate ich from the picture, ideally with formalin dips in between cycles and prazipro twice one week apart.

I cannot understand advocating prophylactic use of formalin (a known carcinogen), but to avoid copper. Don't get me wrong, I understand formalin has it's usefulness. But it just seems like both are necessary evils and that "it is bad for fish" applies to both chemicals as well.

 

[ThRoewer]

I cannot understand advocating prophylactic use of formalin (a known carcinogen), but to avoid copper. Don't get me wrong, I understand formalin has it's usefulness. But it just seems like both are necessary evils and that "it is bad for fish" applies to both chemicals as well.

A short formalin dip is much less harmful than a brook, velvet or uronema infection. I lost a lot of clownfish to brook before implementing formalin dips. Other fish I lost in the past to uronema or velvet could have been saved with a simple dip.
I also suspect that half the claimed losses to ich here are actually rather due to velvet or brook.

Also there is a difference between a 45 minute short term exposure vs. soaking a fish for several weeks or even months in a toxin at barely tolerable levels. A toxin that btw is also diminishing its immune system.

Against copper further speaks that it is only a reliable treatment against ich, which of all protozoan parasites is the only one treated easily by non-toxic means: Tank Transfers or hyposalinity (whatever floats your boat or you are more comfortable with) or both (in case of the Taiwanese low salinity strains).

The things formalin is used against (velvet, brook, uronema, trichodina,...) have no such easy and rather gentle treatment options. And they can kill so fast that you hardly have time to react.
Velvet may be treated with CP, but pipefish, seahorses, wrasses and possibly other fish can't tolerate it.
For all the other parasites formalin is pretty much the only reliable treatment or prevention option.

There are many things classified as carcinogens (some you eat or inhale daily), but first off those ratings are primarily for humans or mammals.
Secondly and more important, most carcinogens require rather long term or repeated exposure. (FYI: in the US formaldehyde is still allowed to be used in hardwood plywood, particle board, and medium density fiberboard - all stuff you find in your home)
Third, all other medications that may actually be effective require longer exposure and have usually more severe side effects.

I try to limit it to one prophylactic bath per fish, unless they show symptoms of an infection that requires further treatment. So far no fish actually needed a repeat treatment.

In the end, giving your new fish a prophylactic formalin dip is the lesser of many evils, and advocating against it or scaring people from doing it may actually cost more fish lives than the possible cancer those fish may develop 10 or 20 years later.

 

[snorvich]

A short formalin dip is much less harmful than a brook, velvet or uronema infection. I lost a lot of clownfish to brook before implementing formalin dips. Other fish I lost in the past to uronema or velvet could have been saved with a simple dip.
I also suspect that half the claimed losses to ich here are actually rather due to velvet or brook.

Also there is a difference between a 45 minute short term exposure vs. soaking a fish for several weeks or even months in a toxin at barely tolerable levels. A toxin that btw is also diminishing its immune system.

Against copper further speaks that it is only a reliable treatment against ich, which of all protozoan parasites is the only one treated easily by non-toxic means: Tank Transfers or hyposalinity (whatever floats your boat or you are more comfortable with) or both (in case of the Taiwanese low salinity strains).

The things formalin is used against (velvet, brook, uronema, trichodina,...) have no such easy and rather gentle treatment options. And they can kill so fast that you hardly have time to react.
Velvet may be treated with CP, but pipefish, seahorses, wrasses and possibly other fish can't tolerate it.
For all the other parasites formalin is pretty much the only reliable treatment or prevention option.

There are many things classified as carcinogens (some you eat or inhale daily), but first off those ratings are primarily for humans or mammals.
Secondly and more important, most carcinogens require rather long term or repeated exposure. (FYI: in the US formaldehyde is still allowed to be used in hardwood plywood, particle board, and medium density fiberboard - all stuff you find in your home)
Third, all other medications that may actually be effective require longer exposure and have usually more severe side effects.

I try to limit it to one prophylactic bath per fish, unless they show symptoms of an infection that requires further treatment. So far no fish actually needed a repeat treatment.

In the end, giving your new fish a prophylactic formalin dip is the lesser of many evils, and advocating against it or scaring people from doing it may actually cost more fish lives than the possible cancer those fish may develop 10 or 20 years later.

On this, we are in complete agreement. CP by the way, is excellent for velvet, but is useful primarily once velvet is recognized and by that time it may already be too late.

 

[snorvich]

I also suspect that half the claimed losses to ich here are actually rather due to velvet or brook.

That has been my experience as well

Also there is a difference between a 45 minute short term exposure vs. soaking a fish for several weeks or even months in a toxin at barely tolerable levels. A toxin that btw is also diminishing its immune system.

and kidney damage

Against copper further speaks that it is only a reliable treatment against ich,

Depending on concentration control and duration, it is only semi reliable.

The things formalin is used against (velvet, brook, uronema, trichodina,...) have no such easy and rather gentle treatment options. And they can kill so fast that you hardly have time to react.

Agreed. By the time visual symptoms present, it may already be too late.


I try to limit it to one prophylactic bath per fish, unless they show symptoms of an infection that requires further treatment. So far no fish actually needed a repeat treatment.

And a reminder the fish must come out and placed in clean water, not the original transport water.

 

[tassod]

In the case of velvet, it sounds like as hobbyists, we hardly stand a chance of treating this disease even in a QT environment. If it is almost always "too late" once symptoms are seen, what is the point? Has anyone here actually cured a fish of velvet using recommended treatments once you have seen symptoms? If so, please explain what treatment you used and how long it took to cure the fish. I am (again) somewhat going through what i believe is a velvet outbreak. Even though I treated all incoming fish with a formalin dip followed by a methalyne blue dip. CP has not worked for me in the past so right now I am treating all remaining fish with Coppersafe.

 

[snorvich]

In the case of velvet, it sounds like as hobbyists, we hardly stand a chance of treating this disease even in a QT environment. If it is almost always "too late" once symptoms are seen, what is the point? Has anyone here actually cured a fish of velvet using recommended treatments once you have seen symptoms? If so, please explain what treatment you used and how long it took to cure the fish. I am (again) somewhat going through what i believe is a velvet outbreak. Even though I treated all incoming fish with a formalin dip followed by a methalyne blue dip. CP has not worked for me in the past so right now I am treating all remaining fish with Coppersafe.

CP is the recommended treatment for velvet (assuming you have a source for good CP and do not treat in the display tank). A formalin dip is the best prevention mechanism.

 

[HumbleFish]

A short formalin dip is much less harmful than a brook, velvet or uronema infection. I lost a lot of clownfish to brook before implementing formalin dips. Other fish I lost in the past to uronema or velvet could have been saved with a simple dip.

Have you tried using acriflavine in lieu of formalin? A LFS I advise has had pretty good success using it to treat clownfish with brook, and I've used it in a bath solution to treat several fish with velvet (followed up by CP treatment.) For awhile I was testing both formalin & acriflavine on batches of fish with velvet (there's a Petco just down the road ), and my success rate was much higher when using acriflavine as the bath component (everything else was the same.) Sometimes when using formalin the fish would stop eating 3-4 days later and ultimately perish.

I've yet to try acriflavine on uronema so I cannot say whether or not it works on that.

 

[snorvich]

Have you tried using acriflavine in lieu of formalin? A LFS I advise has had pretty good success using it to treat clownfish with brook, and I've used it in a bath solution to treat several fish with velvet (followed up by CP treatment.) For awhile I was testing both formalin & acriflavine on batches of fish with velvet (there's a Petco just down the road ), and my success rate was much higher when using acriflavine as the bath component (everything else was the same.) Sometimes when using formalin the fish would stop eating 3-4 days later and ultimately perish.

I've yet to try acriflavine on uronema so I cannot say whether or not it works on that.

From Steven Pro:

"Acriflavin does work against some bacterial, fungal, and parasitic infections (Noga, 2000). I even found reference to Acriflavin at a concentration of 6 ppm working against reproduction in tomonts (Paperna, 1984). That is the plus side. The downside is it is reportedly not as effective as other agents against any kind of infection, be it bacterial, fungal, or parasitic (Noga, 2000). It also discolors the water, which is particularly problematic in a reef tank with photosynthetic organisms requiring light to produce energy, and it can be toxic to some fish (Gratzek et al, 1992). Its potential toxicity to some fish does not bode well for its use in a complex ecosystem such as a mature reef aquarium. Along with that, its broad-spectrum nature (i.e., it can kill some bacteria, fungi, and parasites) concerns me with its use in a reef display.

 

[ThRoewer]

On this, we are in complete agreement. CP by the way, is excellent for velvet, but is useful primarily once velvet is recognized and by that time it may already be too late.

I think we agree on more than you think, I just like to list a few more options if there are. Also each method has its limitations and possible failure points, even TTM. It is important to know and acknowledge those.

I also prefer to take a closer critical look at research papers - they all are flawed in one way or the other due to their need to restrict things. But how you ask a question already determins the kind of answer you are getting. This applies especially to the immunity research on ich and other protozoan parasites. The findings are good, but not necessarily all including. So I never take their findings straight as the word of god but rather also compare it to my own observations and those of others here. And that indicates to me that most, if not all fish are capable of acquiring full immunity given that they are fit and in a low stress environment. The last point is the key here - low stress environment! Unfortunately too many hobbyists go more by which fish they want and not by which fish they actually can keep (I've been guilty of that myself). Also too many do not even try to adjust to the most basic needs of the fish.
So it is no surprise to me that many are in a constant battles with ich while others have no issues at all despite even forgoing quarantine (though forgoing quarantine is one thing I would never advocate).
I would also not advocate to a novice to let their fish fight it out with ich, but rather prevent ich from getting into their system.

Have you tried using acriflavine in lieu of formalin? A LFS I advise has had pretty good success using it to treat clownfish with brook, and I've used it in a bath solution to treat several fish with velvet (followed up by CP treatment.) For awhile I was testing both formalin & acriflavine on batches of fish with velvet (there's a Petco just down the road ), and my success rate was much higher when using acriflavine as the bath component (everything else was the same.) Sometimes when using formalin the fish would stop eating 3-4 days later and ultimately perish.

I've yet to try acriflavine on uronema so I cannot say whether or not it works on that.

All these diseases don't give you time to experiment. If a cure isn't working right away you usually have no time to switch methods.
That's why I rather stick to what is known to be effective and treat against these prophylactic.
Doing a short term formalin bath is just to easy to skip it and take a chance.
I've done it with juvenile Regal angels, tiny pipefish and everything else I have and so far none showed even signs of serious discomfort.
Also, as far as I can tell none of the fish stopped eating due to the formalin.

I will give Acriflavine a try, but found also reports that it failed in some cases.

The way formalin works is more blunt, but for that reason also more effective against all parasites that are on the skin (it doesn't treat ich because it is protected under the skin).

In the case of velvet, it sounds like as hobbyists, we hardly stand a chance of treating this disease even in a QT environment. If it is almost always "too late" once symptoms are seen, what is the point? Has anyone here actually cured a fish of velvet using recommended treatments once you have seen symptoms? If so, please explain what treatment you used and how long it took to cure the fish. I am (again) somewhat going through what i believe is a velvet outbreak. Even though I treated all incoming fish with a formalin dip followed by a methalyne blue dip. CP has not worked for me in the past so right now I am treating all remaining fish with Coppersafe.

Because velvet is so deadly and by the time you see it the fish is already on death's doorstep, I do a preventive formalin dip with every new fish before it goes from the bag/acclimatization container into the clean QT (=tank transfer after dip).

CP, while effective against velvet, may fail due to a variety of reasons:
- product too old
- bacteria in the tank break it down into ineffective byproducts (don't use bacterial starters with CP)
- decays under light and especially UV influence
- there is no easy hobbyist test method, so you don't know if your dosage is still right after a few hours or days
+ some fish just can't handle it and others may react negatively to long term exposure.

Copper is dicey against velvet. It may suppress it or even kill it if the dosage is right. But there are strains of velvet that have adapted to tolerate copper at doses that would kill fish. It stands to reason that due to the widespread low dose copper use in the supply chain, those copper resistant strains are likely to be just there.

Methylene Blue or Malachite Green also have side effects and are far less effective than formalin.

Almost all alternatives to formalin I'm aware off are less certain and would require rather long term exposure of the medication to the fish = more risk of log term damage.

One also needs to keep in mind that fish are only one way to get those parasites into your tank. Corals, inverts, rocks,... anything wet can bring them in as well. And all those can't be dipped.

 

[tassod]

Because velvet is so deadly and by the time you see it the fish is already on death's doorstep, I do a preventive formalin dip with every new fish before it goes from the bag/acclimatization container into the clean QT (=tank transfer after dip).

Thats the problem, my formalin dips did not prevent it and when i saw the symptoms, it was too late...so really if you ask me, we have no real defense against velvet.

 

[tassod]

No corals or inverts or anything else added that did not get a formalin dip

 

[ThRoewer]

Are you sure it was velvet?

Also, if the fish has more than a light infection, a series of baths and transfers will be required. One single bath is just general precaution, actual treatment requires daily dips for a minimum of 5 days.

BTW: I wouldn't buy any fish from a system where one or more fish show signs of velvet, brook or uronema. The risks are just too great.

 

[tassod]

It's mind boggling, all fish that have gone in looked healthy and eating. No visible signs at all so there was no reason for multiple dips over time. I'm not an expert so I'm only speculating its velvet.

 

[Dmorty217]

It's mind boggling, all fish that have gone in looked healthy and eating. No visible signs at all so there was no reason for multiple dips over time. I'm not an expert so I'm only speculating its velvet.

This brings back a bad memory from 3 weeks ago... This isn't reassuring to hear you say you think you have velvet after all the steps you took to make sure the tank was disease free. Are you running the UV still? I know everyone seems to think the are useless against disease and a undersized/poorly built one I would agree with that. There are some interesting articles on UV-C sterilization and one thing I do know is that none of us would ever get a fish from QM if they didn't have a oversized UV sterilizer since all fish would die before ever being shipped back out.

 

[bat21]

So, one formalin bath before one of the tank transfers?

Trying to plan my prophylactic QT procedures. How does this look:

Day 1-2: Let fish recover from shipping, start eating.
Day 3: First TT + First round of Prazi
Day 6: Second TT
Day 9: Formalin Bath + Third Transfer
Day 12: Fourth TT + Second round of Prazi
Day 15: Final Transfer into QT

Anything missing or off at all?

 

[tassod]

This brings back a bad memory from 3 weeks ago... This isn't reassuring to hear you say you think you have velvet after all the steps you took to make sure the tank was disease free. Are you running the UV still? I know everyone seems to think the are useless against disease and a undersized/poorly built one I would agree with that. There are some interesting articles on UV-C sterilization and one thing I do know is that none of us would ever get a fish from QM if they didn't have a oversized UV sterilizer since all fish would die before ever being shipped back out.

I was running a Aqua UV 57w that is plumbed to have 100% of my return go through it. It is turned off right now since i am running copper. You would think that it would help but i guess i was wrong. How long before a fish with velvet dies before seeing a first symptom? First symptoms i ever noticed on my fish was my harlequin tusk flashing/scratching and that was 2.5 weeks ago and he is still alive but i had a Majestic and an Anularis angel just die within a week of each other and now i have a Lunula trigger looking like he's next.

 

[snorvich]

It's mind boggling, all fish that have gone in looked healthy and eating. No visible signs at all so there was no reason for multiple dips over time. I'm not an expert so I'm only speculating its velvet.

if they came from a source running a low level of copper, their is a masking effect such that they do not exhibit velvet, brook, or uronema for about 5 weeks.