Head and Lateral Line Erosion Survey

[Anonymous]

Interesting stuff!

 

[Anonymous]

O.K. seamaiden, you asked for it!

Yep! I have some ideas as to why we can reverse the lesions when we move fish back and forth. Take a deep breath and get ready for a long read:

The only thing I've been able to demonstrate for certain as a causative agent has been activated carbon, but there are probably other abiotic factors. Although I do not believe it to be the case, I still need to rule out that the carbon isn't removing some essential compound. I still feel that the carbon connection is through some issue with the dust. I have two definitive cases in my records: one was moving a fish in and out of a tank filtered with carbon caused the HLLE to come and go. I did this multiple times. In another case, the fish stayed in the tank and I added carbon filtration, then the HLLE began. When I removed the carbon (and changed the water and the substrate) the HLLE went away. Combine this with a multitude of records I have where tanks exposed to carbon had a history of HLLE and those that never saw carbon did not. We had one 900 gallon tank that was a "HLLE factory", when we tore it down, replaced the substrate and stopped using carbon, the problem never returned. My favorite case was where we had a 500 gallon display that never had HLLE, and suddenly it developed with nothing changed. I told my staff, oh crud, that sure blows a huge hole in my idea. Sheepishly, one of the aquarists tells me, uhh - the tank was a little yellowish, so I added a bag of carbon to the filter a few weeks ago (grin).

I have on case in my records from another aquarium - they filled one of their rapid sand filters with carbon (not a good idea). The carbon basically got blasted into dust and pumped out into a huge exhibit. The fish in this system actually died from the HLLE, it was so severe. However, all the sharks and other fish that don't develop HLLE survived. I don't think I can use that case in my study because they really don't want to have their error published in a report. There are two other public aquariums who have seen this carbon connection and proved it to their own satisfaction. There are many more aquariums who suspect it, but haven't seen proof in their own tanks (yet). There are some public aquariums that don't routinely see HLLE, but they have flow-through systems (Like Monterey). That doesn't prove the carbon connection, but it doesn't disprove it either.

So why public aquariums and carbon and not so much carbon and home aquarists? I have a strong hunch it has to do with the type and grade of carbon used. I always bought the cheap dusty stuff, many other aquariums do also, Hobbyists tend to by smaller amounts, of higher grade. I've never had pelleted carbon cause this problem. One additional point - foam fractionators remove POC, carbon dust is the epitomy of POC, I still can use carbon in my reef systems with impunity.
Simply removing carbon from an affected tank will not resolve the problems, the dust is in the gravel, or in the sump. In some cases, the HLLE scarring has been in place for so long, the lesions never resolve no matter what is done to the fish (not including Regranex - I can't comment on that because I've not used it)

We know now that it ISN'T a disease caused by other organisms, and IMO, while a better diet can improve or even eliminate the symptoms, I have not seen proof that a moderately poor diet can actually cause it. A horribly defficient diet can, but then the mechanism could be different, such as collegen break-down or some such.

One problem I have is why carbon dust and not other dusts such as DE powder or the stuff that comes off crushed coral gravel? I also do not rule out other causes, but I do not believe in the "general stress" idea. Nobody has measured stress hormones in these fish to even know if they are being stressed - they just assume that captive fish must be stressed. For over 20 years, I have been collecting fish respiration rates as a relative means to determine their stress levels (we know stressed fish breath more rapidly). I won't go into all the details here, but I closed the study out when time after time, as I collected data from fish in the wild, their respiration rates were always higher than in captive fish (and yes, I took into account water temperature, fish size and species differences). So - if wild fish are more physically stressed by that measure, why no HLLE there? (Except one photo I've seen of a black longnose tang with it in the wild).

Whew!


Jay

were ALL of the environmental parameters the same in the 'non-carbon' system ?

i've had occasion to have carbon pellets sucked into various system's pump baskets quite a few times, that houses multiple species of fish, with not ONE case of 'hlle' triggered-including a quarantine system that had water looking like SOOT from carbon dust-housing multiple species of dwarf angels, large angels, tangs, butterflies

so how can carbon be a 'PROVEN' trigger ?

i truly think you're making cause/effect judgements without following the basic rules of establishing cause and effect through process of elimination of ALL of the variables

there's a HUGE difference between an observable 'symptom', and an actual 'disease'

i've seen thousands of fish with 'hlle' that never had exposure to carbon, either prior, or during, the onset of the 'symptom'

most, if not all, cases of 'hlle' (at least MO fish) are caused by ONE particular environmental parameter being incorrect, based on what i've seen/tested

again, i've seen entire shipments of tangs develop 'hlle' rapidly (within 72 hrs), and after changing one ENVIRONMENTAL parameter, watched it all go away

once that parameter was adressed properly-not one instance occured for all following shipments

no tank transfer, no system transfer, NO carbon dust involved

how many thousands of flames were exposed to carbon dust w/proper control groups, under identically parametered systems, to establish that carbon dust is a definite, PROVEN cause of 'hlle' ?

When I removed the carbon (and changed the water and the substrate) the HLLE went away.

so THREE major changes were made,two of which have major effects on environmental parameters yet you're convinced it was the carbon ?

The fish in this system actually died from the HLLE, it was so severe. However, all the sharks and other fish that don't develop HLLE survived.

wait a minute ! i thought carbon dust was a PROVEN cause of hlle ! shouldn't all of the fish, ESPECIALLY the sharks, have 'contracted' it ?


it's not carbon dust, bubbeleh

 

[Anonymous]

how many thousands of flames were exposed to carbon dust w/proper control groups, under identically parametered systems, to establish that carbon dust is a definite, PROVEN cause of 'hlle' ?

Everybody who wants to contribute the money to fund this massive (and impossible) undertaking, raise your hand!

 

[Anonymous]

how many thousands of flames were exposed to carbon dust w/proper control groups, under identically parametered systems, to establish that carbon dust is a definite, PROVEN cause of 'hlle' ?

Everybody who wants to contribute the money to fund this massive (and impossible) undertaking, raise your hand!

this is the second time in the same thread you've given a completely childish response to a serious and completely legitimate (or set of) questions ?

i'll counter with the following:

how much data/number of individuals/occurences are necessary to 'prove' a definite cause and effect relationship ?

how do YOU, Matt, explain the exposure of many flames to carbon dust that I'VE witnessed that never came down with any of the SYMPTOMS known as 'hlle' ?

just some food for thought


you surely aren't trying to say that my critical questions and thinking are either invalid or incorrect because of the cost involved in a possible properly done study ? :roll:


again-there are RULES for establishing proofs-without following those rules, any claim of cause and effect is PURELY anecdotal, and not based in scientific or logical reality :idea:

 

[Anonymous]

how much data/number of individuals/occurences are necessary to 'prove' a definite cause and effect relationship ?

Not thousands.

how do YOU, Matt, explain the exposure of many flames to carbon dust that I'VE witnessed that never came down with any of the SYMPTOMS known as 'hlle' ?

Read Jay's post about the carbon again.

I share your skepticism but don't admire the way you stumble over yourself to unleash it upon us.

 

[jhemdal1]

Matt,


You wrote, "I share your skepticism ..."

I've worked with marine aquariums way too long to get tripped up by any obvious (and most obscure) variables. I am fully confident that what we demonstrated here proves that carbon dust can cause HLLE. I'm not saying all carbons causes it, or that it causes it in all fishes, nor am I saying that that carbon is the only cause of HLLE. All I am saying is that I have proven that carbon dust can cause HLLE. Of this, I have no doubt at all. The sample size of this study will be small as I want to keep the collateral damage to the fish at a minimum. The main reason for the study is not to further prove the carbon / HLLE interaction, but to test types of carbon and to completely rule out the idea that carbon may actually be removing something from the water. Histopaths will be run to look for carbon grains in the fish's tissues. I am not looking into species-specific corellations, we will be using a species that has already demonstrated a sensitivity to this.

There is a situation in the medical realm where the proof of disease does not have to be undertaken with huge studies. Many years ago, a researcher asked pregnant women divers to participate in a survey. They cancelled the survey after the first few reports where there were huge fetal health issues. They did not wait until they had 20, 100 or 500 samples, in fact, they didn't do anything further than to tell pregnant women not to dive. Now, if the researchers had NOT seen such devastating results early on, they would have had to test 100 or more women divers, just to be certain that the causation wasn't just very minor.

I ran into the same thing on RC, where people who have not seen this syndrome (for whatever reason, in some cases because they simply didn't look for it) come out and DEMAND that I PROVE my hypothesis further by increasing the sample size to some magical number - funny thing, that number is always higher than my current sample size(grin). Even funnier, is that they challenge my proof with their OWN anectdotes to the contrary - it can't work both ways, where my anecdotes are invalidated by theirs.




Jay

 

[Anonymous]

This leads me to some more questions, first being probably most obvious, <what> are the different sources or methods for making carbon, and what role might those methods or materials make? DE, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't have as much of "The Hand of Man" in its make-up as something such as carbon. Perhaps that's part of the issue. Remember, carbonized (burned) foods have been linked to some cancers, perhaps it's an issue of the chemistry that occurs with such processes. <shrug>

:?: It sounds like you're sort of headed in this direction, yes?

 

[jhemdal1]

seamaiden,

Perhaps - I'm not sure if it is the manufacturing process or the organic source used for the carbon that makes the difference - or maybe both?

The problem is that there are a lot of carbons on the market, and some are just repackaging of the same product. I cannot run all of the different samples, so I think I'm going to choose coconut and bone carbon and just run both of those.

The basic model will be to set up four systems; control, bone carbon, coconut carbon and then both carbons used, but micron-filtered to remove the dust. The latter is to remove the bias that I mentioned where some people maintain that carbon actually removes some compound from the water whihc in turn causes HLLE.

Sure - there is a chance that none of the fish will get HLLE, or that the controls will. If that happens, I'll report on it, but probably not in a peer-reviewed journal (negative hypothesis don't make very interesting reading). And then, we'll still have all the systems to use as quarantine space - so it will be a win-win for us no matter what(grin).


Jay

 

[Anonymous]

Is that selection a "best/worst" of the carbon qualities available? I remember you mentioned that quality products don't seem to show the same incidence rates.

 

[jhemdal1]

seamaiden,

No, "best case" would be well-rinsed (like Chemi-pure) or pelletized carbons, and I just don't see running them based on our meager resources, so it would just be a "worst case" test. I know that the carbon we saw this with was neither pelletized, nor well-rinsed, but since we do not have any samples of it left, there is no way to tell if it was bone or coconut carbon that was used, so we need to test both.


Jay

 

[Anonymous]

...

Hey Jay,

There are so many "truths" in this hobby/industry that are genearlly accepted w/o the lack of rigorous scientific testing. I agree that the demand for scientific evidence is a bit odd, especially if one stops to ponder exactly how such a study would be accomplished! Who wants to dedicate their holding tanks to such a venture? Who wants to pay for the fish that will be unsellable/undisplayable afterwards? Who has the time to take care of it all? I think it's admirable that you're devoting the time and resources to it...I know my boss wouldn't let me!

Can you identify the exact brand of carbon you feel is causing it?

 

[Anonymous]

i'm curious to know how each of us percieves the term 'proven cause' to be defined/mean...


there may be different perceptions/understandings of what the word 'cause' implies, and what the word 'proven' means

for me, "proven" means that under controlled testing, w/all known variables involved (was there any other contaminant present in the carbon ? not likely, but MUST be ruled out, either way ) accounted for, measured, compared to control;s, etc. etc., AND WITH REPEATABLE RESULTS UNDER IDENTICAL MEASURED PARAMATERS in a different location

that 'proves' a cause and effect claim, as i see it (if you can cause something by doing this-than i should also be able to cause it by doing the same thing, if that thing is a 'proven cause' )

'cause' in this context is 'a reason for an action or condition', which, i feel, given the information provided by Jay, still doesn't meet muster as anything other than a hypothesis based on observation


it might be an excellent hypothesis-but it requires A PROOF before anyone, including Jay, can refer to it as a 'proven cause' without being called at worst, irresponsible (due to how it's going to be interpreted among hobby circles-i can just imagine the conversation at a local reef club between two relative noobs corroborating to each other that the fluke wounds in their flame's foreheads and 'head' of their lateral lines was definitely caused by the presently only known 'proven cause'-carbon dust!)

i'm NOT saying that Jay's flames had flukes, or that this PARTICULAR instance of apparent 'hlle' ('apparent because i've seen SOOO many misidentifications between the mysterious 'hlle' and flukes all over the place, from all types of cources, abd because i've seen too widely different a 'growth rate' and form between different hlle instances, both within, and cross, species of fish)wasn't, nor am i saying that in this PARTICULAR case, the carbon wasn't the causative agent-as of now-hasn't been proved, nor eliminated, for this paticular scenario

even the claim of the mysterious 'hlle' being present is prove-able ONLY by histological examination, i've yet to see this done by anyone to the extent most likely needed-it (number of individuals/species/environmental parameters etc ec) - would prob'ly make a fine research project for some phd wannabee somewhere, someday

i shot for being more eloquent this time, w/minimum tripping, and some last minute edits -how'd i do ? :twisted:

 

[Anonymous]

Your tongue must have dried out YEARS ago, vitz. :lol:

 

[jhemdal1]

O.K. Vitz,

I'll bite (ahhhh, I KNOW I'm gonna regret this!).

To me, there is "proven" and there is "scientifically proven". As I used in my previous example, they did not need to "scientifically prove" the idea that SCUBA diving while pregnant was dangerous to the fetus. They did however prove that this is true. It is a proven fact that if I drive my car into a tree, my car (and me) will be damaged. I do not need to scientifically prove this. I might, however, need to scientifically prove the difference in damage at different speeds, or with different vehicles. Another example, Ammonia being toxic to marine fish at certain concentrations is a proven fact, although I have never read any scientific proof of this, I still do not expose fish to this.

Scientific proof to me implies the use of controlled study and statistical method to prove a hypothesis in such a way that others can replicate the study. In some cases this is needed, but not always!

Just plain old "proof", then to me, is understanding causation to be true based on previous valid experience. I say valid, because if people don't have the appropriate knowledge set, they may not be able to properly ascertain causation - as I said, that is NOT something I have a problem with in this case.

So: carbon has been proven to cause HLLE in some fish, and my project will be to scientifically prove what type of carbon causes this problem.


Jay

 

[Anonymous]

thx for your clarification