Does ich or Doesn't ich exist in all aquaria?

[FISH WHISPERER]

The concept of ich laying dormant for an extended period of time (beyond what science has previously taught us) is new to me. Certainly, I wouldn't argue that if it was found to be true. I will, without resentment, take my place in line and say "I was wrong," about my previous studies/knowledge of the parasite.

As I alluded to earlier, there are many other types of parasites - Amyloodinia being one of them which is probably indistinguishable for most hobbyists. I know we are concentrating on the "ich" parasite, but we can't responsibly discuss the potential of its eradication without including other threats. For our "observations" to really be worth anything as a "non-biologist" hobbyist, we would really have to be able to tell the difference. Unfortunately, most can not. I wouldn't take a place of authority, myself, on the subject. I'll bet I couldn't tell the difference without a period of clinical observation, by which time we can all probably agree would be too late, without treatment. I really think that marine velvet gets overlooked as a possibility, and thus many mis-diagnosed cases are made.

I do know that beta-site testers of Kick Ich noted that the dosage had to be increased "50% to 150%" for freshwater ich, as compared to the standard dosage recommended for saltwater ich. I certainly think there's some serious resistance worth considering there.

It will be interesting to see if there is substance to the theory of C.irritans engaging us with a new insight as to its lifecycle potential. I'm still of a school of thought that even the more stubborn strains can't go without a host for more than two months.

From what I understand about ich, it is a subdermal parasite, and has no further need than to burrow and reside between the dermal skin layers. This is what employs some folks to use the strategy of "skin shedding" techniques (or as I feel, "fish-burning"). I cannot deny them their reports of success, even though that's not a course of action I feel is necessary, or even worth the increased health risk to the fish.

Matt, you are pointedly on the mark about the typical hobbyist's diligence in effective quarantine. I always say most folks return to "confident purchases" even after 5 years of diligent quarantining. That's the truth of the matter, and we know it.

I suppose it has to do with letting our guard down; not experiencing ich can lead a person to not regarding it seriously. I won't ever have the opinion of dealing with ich as a "part" of my keeping a reef. But there's no argument from me, as you've given me my "window" of elimination, even if it is in the -10% category!

I know we're just guestimating that percentage, but I'm not about to argue even that figure, because so often folks are adding to their systems. I think we're all in agreement that quarantine is so important. Perhaps I'm in an extreme category, but with the well-documented success of hyposalinity - I can't imagine not carefully following a routine of application (Terry has done such a selfless job of making the process understandable) at the 1 month portion of a 2 month quarantine.

I'm of that (apparently limited

) school of thought that will always scrutinize and (so far) eliminate the possibility of the parasite before even thinking of jeapordizing the health of systems I've had for so long. I also am fortunate enough to have the ability to test. I will always be "that one person" who is ardently supporting the use of Kick Ich - because certainly some folks have got to deal with massive outbreaks sometimes, and they have no Q-tanks, and must deal with it in-tank. Well, I won't agree with the "must" part, but it is indeed a reality that they won't establish a treatment tank. So, at least desiring to help establish a treatment that is not harmful to a biological filtration system, or inverts - I did some extensive testing with the Kick Ich. Again, my goal in the beginning was not to actually test it's effectiveness against the parasite - but to test the claims of being "reef safe." I did some intense dosage on some extremely established filtration systems - and nary a decrease in the bacterial facilities therein.

It was only in my later stages of dinking around that I actually bought some fish with ich and tested. True, the 50% reported success rates, but I'll bet that even more than 50% don't come close to completing the directioned dosage. I found I could interrupt one stage successfully, only to cease treatment and have a new stage "hatch." The product only treats the free-swimming stage, or tomites, and I think not everybody really understands quite how/what they're treating for. You know, white spots... Buy what the store sells... Read the "dosage" amounts... and quit treating when the fish appear better.

I'm sure of it.

One really has to hunker down and complete the headache of a completely instructioned routine of treating with this product. It's not a "dump and hope" solution. But I think it's one of the best things going for someone who flat out isn't going to tear their reef apart to treat. Again, this is only at the "infected tank" stage. You will note that I have a strong disposition to never allowing this opportunity to occur.

There's no argument from any accepted authorities that ich can indeed be eliminated from a closed-system, so I believe (ironically, I thought so in the last thread, too!) that we are all on the same basic page.

The only curiousity which I have at this point, is with Frank - on a hair-splitting "word" question. Is it metronidazoles that is the active ingredient in Kick Ich? I thought it was nitroimidazoles, but perhaps this compound includes the named metronidazoles? I am far from being the chemist, so the question is again based on curiosity. At least we are in agreement on the "idazoles" part.

On a side note, it would be wonderful if more fish stores did a more effective job of selling healthy fish. I believe it is possible (of course, with more effort on their part), and there are treatments out there that some are using. Many collectors are doing site-gathering treatments of Hydroplex, and I'm all for any sort of treatment that might be proactive without affecting the fish.

Also, we must not forget that there is the growing development of captive bred fish. Although extremely limited, it does offer a huge "safety net" for folks that really are seeking the most "foolproof" system possible. Keith, over at Eco Vital does probably one of the best wholesale operations I've personally witnessed. You want healthy fish? Look him up! He has certified captive breds, and his wild-caughts are CF, and are quarantined. Still, all it takes is one "returned" fish from a customer who deals with multiple stores, and an unwitting salesperson who might dump an at-risk fish into a tank full of quarantined fish... well, everyone here knows that scenario of ich introduction/progression all to well. Also, I know one store that gets some of Keith's fish, but also has a mix of "instantly" added imports. Sadly, all of Keith's work and prep goes "down the drain" so to speak.

I think John's analogy to Tiger Woods is not only humourous, but a rather astute observation as far as being "equivalent." For the best discussion, I would agree that freshwater references to ich aren't really appropriate. I believe there is no question as to extremely different properties - and we should eliminate as many sources of confusion as possible.

 

[LeoR]

Monty:

I haven't worked much with freshwater, but that's where most scientific studies are done (because of food fish hatcheries).
So, we have to take what's out there and make the best of it.

I don't think that anyone has showed that Ich cannot remain dormant for a long time.
The above references claim Ich can (in whatever form) remain under the skin, but there is no time limit specified.

Obviously, to study the longevity of Ich under the skin one would have to have a lot of time on his hands, plus buckets of fish to cut up every day, and still get a less than perfect result because of changing water conditions and fish specimen differences.

Another reason is that it is more difficult to prove the negative -- just because someone didn't see Ich in the tank that does not prove it is not there, right.
One would have to explore every nook and cranny, every piece of sand, gravel and rock under the microscope.
One would also need to cut up all invertebrates because to Ich they are just another form of substrate.
This would take a lot of time and effort, and still be less than 100% certain.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

So, when a study says "We didn't notice any dormant Ich after 35 days so we assume 35 days is the upper limit" you can just take it on faith, or you can remain skeptical until a solid proof arrives.

The bottom line: there is no scientific proof that Ich cannot remain dormant after 35 days (or any other number).

LeoR

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: LeoR ]</p>

 

[Terry B]

Ah but there is proof that ich does not lay dormant for an indefinate period. As a matter of fact dormant doesn't even apply here IMO. The tomont stage (reproductive stage off of the fish) is not dormant at all but producing a couple of hundred tomites (infective stage prior to release from the tomont). The longest documented period that Cryptocaryon (tomont stage) has been found to survive without a host is 72 days. This does not mean that it is still capable of finding and infecting a suitable host after such an extended period.
The following is a snippet from one of my articles.

"The time that is required for tomonts to release theronts can vary considerably taking from 3 to 72 days with the peak between 4 and 8 days. This may be a strategy for survival. However, when excysting takes more than two weeks the number of theronts and their ability to infect is greatly reduced (Colorni, 1992)."
As the time frame expands the tomites become less and less viable. It is also a known fact that Cryptocaryon irritans do not feed on anything other than fish (they have no alternate food).
Then we have a basic diference between the life cycles of freshwater ick and saltwater ich. It was once believed that both have a three-phase life cycle. Here is another snippet from one of my articles.

"Cryptocaryon irritans has a direct (does not require an intermediate host) four-phase life cycle with it’s life cycle usually lasting one to two weeks. The phoront is actually a part of the trophont stage after contact with a host and attachment begins. The phoronts then quickly become trophonts, which is the parasitic or feeding stage. This is the stage that you recognize as white spots on the fish. After this comes the protomont stage when the mature “trophont” leaves the host and sheds its cilia. The protomont then adheres to the substrate and encysts. The tomont is the encysted stage in which daughter cells (tomites) are formed, growing the population geometrically. Then we have the theront or free-swimming, infective stage prior to attachment and feeding. The theront must find a host or it dies within 24 hours."

However, I must say that I am not totally closed to the idea that ich can remain on the fish and yet reproduce. I must also say that this would be the exception rather than the rule. I believe that if it occurs it is only in a small percentage of cysts. This is really just another reason that the recommended treatment period is three weeks when the typical life cycle is much shorter. In the event that trophonts were to become encased in the mucus and skin then it could delay the cycle a bit, therefore the need for an extended therapy of three weeks+. If trophonts were somehow able to become protomonts and then tomonts while still attached to the host fish it would not effect the tomonts ability to excyst (hatch) in a salinity of 16ppt or less. This means in practical terms that the treatment and duration would remain the same. It wouldn't matter if the tomont was in the sand, on the rock or on the fish it still could not hatch when treated with hyposalinity and the life cycle would be effectively broken.
Terry B

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Terry B ]</p>

 

[LeoR]

Monty:

Also, we all know that:

-- Ich in the encysted stage is impervious to treatment (short of nuking the tank).

-- Ich under the skin, in any stage, is impervious to treatment (short of killing the fish).

So, while quarantine is useful, the belief that it prevents all Ich infections is not science but wishful thinking.

On the other hand, it is well established that the fish immune system, like other immune systems, has evolved specifically for the purpose (and is capable) of handling most infections and other diseases under normal circumstances.

When I get a chance I'll expand on this.

LeoR

 

[Terry B]

LeoR quoted:
"the life cycle and morphological similarities evident between I. multifiliis and C. irritans are an example of convergent evolution." [1]

Don't you think it would be more honest to quote the entire abstract? Here it is in context.

DAO 22:39-43 (1995)

ABSTRACT: Comparison of partial sequences of the 18S rRNA gene of the parasitic ciliates Cryptocaryon irritans and Ichthyophthirius multifiliis confirmed that these taxa are not as closely related as was first thought. Phylogenetic trees generated from sequence data grouped I. multifiliis with 3 species of Tetrahymena, supporting the existing taxonomic classification of these 2 genera together in the Order Hymenostomatida, Class Oligohymenophora. In contrast, C. irritans was grouped with Colpoda inflata (Class Colpodea) supporting the theory that the life cycle and morphological similarities evident between I. multifiliis and C. irritans are an example of convergent evolution."
DAO 22:39-43 (1995)

BTW, here is a more complete definition of latent than was previosuly offered.


Main Entry: 1la·tent
Pronunciation: 'lA-t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin latent-, latens, from present participle of latEre to lie hidden; akin to Greek lanthanein to escape notice
Date: 15th century
: present and capable of becoming though not now visible, obvious, or active <a latent infection>
- la·tent·ly adverb
synonyms LATENT, DORMANT, QUIESCENT, POTENTIAL mean not now showing signs of activity or existence. LATENT applies to a power or quality that has not yet come forth but may emerge and develop <a latent desire for success>. DORMANT suggests the inactivity of something (as a feeling or power) as though sleeping <their passion had lain dormant>. QUIESCENT suggests a usually temporary cessation of activity <the disease was quiescent>. POTENTIAL applies to what does not yet have existence or effect but is likely soon to have <a potential disaster>.

Terry B

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Terry B ]</p>

 

[LeoR]

billsreef:

Agreed that our tanks are far from "normal circumstances".

We don't have the luxury of the fish food industry to finance study on every aspect, so we have to improvise and leech all usable info from them.

Water chemistry and gadgets are discussed here daily and at length.
That's why I'm incessantly harping about food, which is even more important but is talked about much less.

Most seem to take food for granted.
True, flakes and frozen food help keep many creatures alive, at least for a while.

But their mere survival does not mean that they are in a tip-top shape. And the immune system cannot function properly unless our prisoners get all the ingredients they need.

For proof, just look at the survival rate of coral-feeding butterflies. They may eat flake and frozen and everything else, but most of them still quickly perish.

And no quarantine or medical treatment will change that.

LeoR

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: LeoR ]</p>

 

[Terry B]

Are there any references to support the contention that feeding fish a good diet makes them immune or is a treatment for ich?
Terry B

 

[Mouse]

Well i can tell you now that ifa human is well fed with a varied diet, then yes their immune system will benefit. I see no difference in why that would not be so in fish. That's why i feel a varied diet is important in many ways. And not just variation in what they eat, but also variation in the state of food i.e. Live, frozen and formulated.

I have had this debate before, and it ended up quite heated. I still feel that ICK can be dormant in systems provided the conditions to bruminate such a desease are provided. Weather its dormant in substrates or fish i wouldn't like to guess at. But i still think that effective quarintene is the best solution by far.

 

[Chucker]

Terry, I don't know if you saw my request in the previous thread before it was closed. Could you please provide a Lit Cited for your threads on the other board. Things like "(Colorni, 1992)" don't really don't really help much for those who would like to dig a little deeper. Thanks in advance!

 

[jamesw]

Terry B said:

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

Are there any references to support the contention that feeding fish a good diet makes them immune or is a treatment for ich?

Terry, Is this a serious question? To me this question is like saying: Are there any references to show that a good diet helps fend off parasites?

Of course there are!!! About 100 million! Is it necessary to post all 100 million references here in order for 99.99% of the people reading this to accept the fact that a good diet helps an organism fend off parasites.

You also said "makes them immune or is a treatment for ich." I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that proper diet can make a fish immune to ANYTHING. Is proper diet a "treatment" though? Of course it is.

Cheers
James Wiseman

 

[Terry B]

James,
Actually I believe that the question of if a good diet is all that is needed to prevent or cure ich is what started the debate in the earlier thread. That is eqivelent to claiming that if you feed your dog science diet foods then it will be immune to fleas. Nobody doubts that a good diet is important to health, but it certianly isn't "all that is needed."
Terry B

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Terry B ]</p>

 

[john f]

Very good analogy.

 

[john f]

If you change "will" to "may"

John

 

[Anonymous]

james (or anyone else for that matter),
If there are that many references to show that diet will keep a parasite from attaching to a host, could you give me one? I can't believe that. Heck, as often as I go into the wooods I need to find out about this. I hate picking ticks and it seems to be one of my favorite activities whne I am done hiking or hunting, deending on the time of year. I am serious, I never thought diet could keep a parasite out/off. Heck even if you don't have a reference handy and could give me an example, I could start digging. That really strikes me as interesting.

 

[MattM]

How about if the proposition is re-worded as:

"If a subclinical infection of ich is already present, then good diet (along with a lack of other stessors) will help to keep it subclinical."

Can everyone get behind that one?

From my reading, it seems to be what everyone is saying, but we keep getting hung up on different interpretations of certain words.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: MattM ]</p>

 

[MILPIL2]

BillsReef, Metronidazole is used for a cure for a bunch of protozoal, Nematodal, and Trematodal infestations. This has been used at a concentration of 250mg per 10 gallons, every other day, for 10 days, WITH Hyposalinity, and has been more than helpful for problematic infestations, that have not been cured using commonly known methods. As to Formalite, this is a Formaldehyde solution at 3%, combined with Malchite green. Formalin, is just the Formaldehyde at 3% solution. If you look at fish, that have just come in, and are treated with common medications, you will notice that the other medications stress out the fish much more, which can, and will lead to possible secondary Bacterial infections. These are on fish, recently brought into the U.S., and NOT fish that have been held in a Wholesale system for a few days, at a specific gravity, commonly at 1.014-1.017, depending on which West Coast Wholesaler, you are dealing with. Another factor, is that most of the fish that you do wind up getting from these Wholesalers, have already survived the most difficult parts of their journey already. So when these fish are sent to you, they are in no way, as stressed out, as they would be under "Normal" shipping circumstances. The two indicated Medications, are a lot less toxic than Copper, and so the chances of your fish dying from stress related ailments, is greatly diminished. JN

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by LeoR:
<strong>
The hobbyists need simple advice in simple language to help them keep their fish alive.
[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: LeoR ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks Leo. Me know me sure couldn't understand any complex scientifimical jibber jabber.

RR

 

[LeoR]

Righty:

That's funny.

What's even funnier to me is that most of the scientific sounding gobbledygook found around here seems to come from those I'd never consider good scientists.

LeoR

 

[Terry B]

What’s funny to me is when people that don't provide relevant references despite being continually asked to do so keep blowing smoke and ranting about all the information they have to support their view. Then they ignore any of the relevant references that have been provided because they don‘t support their personal view, but still they ask for more.

“In fact, there are direct references which show how the immune response of fish works to overwhelm and fend off Ich.”

Of course there is an immune response to ich but it is primarily mucus production. Just like a good diet doesn’t make a dog immune to fleas and good diet will likewise NOT make fish immune to ich. Still waiting for all those references on this. Are you going to explain why your idea does not work for dogs?
You did give me a good laugh when you suggested that I will be using anything you have to say as a foundation for any article that I will write. With in excess of 100 published articles I have already provided more information to more hobbyists than you ever will. As far as nutrition in fish goes I do know more than a little about it. As a matter of fact you can check the April issue of FAMA for that.
You are right I can discuss some issues that many hobbyists would not easily comprehend (because they haven't studied it in any depth, not because they are stupid), including stress in fish in great detail. However, I don’t think I have been talking over anyone’s head here. BTW, if you want to talk about all you know about stress I would be happy to get into that. Stress has a much more direct effect on immune function.
Keep pushing the importance of diet, it is a vital part of good fish health management. However, it is not a cure all for diseases. There are some things that have to be dealt with by prevention and if necessary an effective treatment regime. You just simply cannot depend upon diet, water quality and a low stress environment alone. Despite all the best efforts fish can still get sick and when that happens they need to be treated with an effective method. Telling inexperienced hobbyists that they can prevent or cure ich with nutritional foods alone will lead to many people loosing their fish. The immune system is a wonderful thing and it does defend the animal quite well, but not equally well against all pathogens.
Terry B

 

[Marcosreef]

Dumb post. I had to revise it, it was early in the morning. Please continue. I'll be going now.............

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Marcosreef ]</p>