Ich Size Question - Sump as QT?

[NeuroDoc]

I have done a bunch of reading recently on ich, and one question I can't seem to find an answer is how large are the trophozoites, trophonts, and tomites?

Here's why I ask; what do you all think?

If I run a 100 micron filter sock and the little buggers are larger than 100 microns, then theoretically, I should be able to keep them out of my sump/refugium. And, theoretically, could use the refugium for QT.

 

[james734]

Nope.. not sure the exact size of them but if they're in the display they will be in the sump. Also if one fish is infected you will not be able to treat with Hypo or a Copper based med. Once in the tank the tank must be fallow for a min. of 6 weeks prefer 8 weeks. Not going to argue the use of UV or not but there has been some debate if even UV can kill it. If UV cannot kill it I wouldn't think trapping in 100 micron filter sock is going to do it either.

Just gotta set up a QT. It's the only way to treat ich. I have a 30G that just runs out in the garage with a HOB filter. I drop some food in it now and then to keep the bacteria alive. It's always up and ready. I learned my lessen with Ich and won't do that again.

 

[ronj]

in theory, it sounds interesting, but i wouldn't attempt it either...i'm not sure how large or small they are, but what if the sock came loose, the micron size was too big...it would be a very big risk and most likely wouldn't work, but it does sound interesting in theory.

 

[james734]

I agree Ron, It's a interesting theory but I think it would have some sort comings or not be very effective at all.

 

[steve-s]

As they excyst the tomont, they are as small as 25 micron. The problem with this theory, the use of UV's and the like is the parasite has to actually travel through these traps to actually have any effect. It's just far too unreliable.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Brenden]

Steve he is not trying to trap them he is just wanting to keep them out of the fuge. My question to him is why though? If your "plans" are to use the fuge as a QT and keep the ich out how are you going to treat? You accomplish nothing. You can not hypo or add copper because it will also affect the main because you are still circulating the water.

 

[NeuroDoc]

Theoretically, it would not be for treatment, just for isolation prior to placing the fish in the main tank. The problem with this theory obviously would be that the new fish would introduce ich into the sump/refugium and then it doesn't matter.

I tend to fall into the camp that believes that all tanks have ich, whether or not the fish get it. If the parasite is ubiquitous in the ocean then we are fooling ourselves if we think we can keep it out of our tanks. I was just thinking out loud about how I might keep it out of my refugium.

 

[Meche]

Am I not reading this right or have you all missed the obvious? :?:

You would put the theoritical filter sock over the intake of the return pump. You wouldn't want to keep ich out of your fuge, you would want to keep it in!

 

[steve-s]

Theoretically, it would not be for treatment, just for isolation prior to placing the fish in the main tank. The problem with this theory obviously would be that the new fish would introduce ich into the sump/refugium and then it doesn't matter.

As Brenden said, what's the point? If you can't treat the animal that is placed there it is not an effective tool. You risk much and gain little if anything.

I tend to fall into the camp that believes that all tanks have ich, whether or not the fish get it. If the parasite is ubiquitous in the ocean then we are fooling ourselves if we think we can keep it out of our tanks. I was just thinking out loud about how I might keep it out of my refugium.

Sorry, that is just sheer nonsense. If you do not introduce a parasite then there won't be one, plain and simple. They are not apart of the fish's biology and therefore a foreign introduction. Parasites (especially C. irritans) can be prevented and eliminted.

Cheers
Steve

 

[NeuroDoc]

Sorry, that is just sheer nonsense. If you do not introduce a parasite then there won't be one, plain and simple. They are not apart of the fish's biology and therefore a foreign introduction. Parasites (especially C. irritans) can be prevented and eliminted.

Cheers
Steve

How do you know that you have eliminated all the parasites from a fish, even after 6-8 weeks of QT? C. irritans is ubiquitous in the ocean. Can you be certain that just because a fish doesn't show spots that it is free of the parasite? Most fish are not immune, and a few parasites in the gills may never be noticed, and the life cycle can certainly continue in a QT tank.

Unless you are advocating Cu or hyposalinity for all QT, even if they are healthy appearing. That is the only way I see for ensuring that ich is eliminated and never enters your tank.

Consider if you will, the following:

Your colon is full of e. coli, but you don't get sick unless you eat contaminated food, or by some other process that allows the e. coli to spread elsewhere in your body (like a ruputured appendix, knife wound, diverticulitis, etc.). Why should fish and ich be any different? Ich lives in fish is small levels, but doesn't affect them until they are stressed and their general health drops. It's why fish in the ocean don't die from Ich, but do in our aquariums.

Can you point to any studies that show that fish, particularly tangs, are generally free from ich when taken from the ocean? This would require, as I understand things, microscopic examination of fin and gill scrapings to be performed. And if those studies were to show this, then the need for a QT would be eliminated.

I am open to having my opinions changed, but it takes more than dogmatic statements to do so.

Thanks.

 

[steve-s]

C. irritans is ubiquitous in the ocean.

I'll address this first. Nice word but wrong usage. Salt would be ubiquitous, C. irritans is an obligate parasite so where there are no fish, there is no parasite. It's impossible.

How do you know that you have eliminated all the parasites from a fish, even after 6-8 weeks of QT?

Ich lives in fish is small levels, but doesn't affect them until they are stressed and their general health drops.

Read these two sentences you posted and ask yourself the same question... Does it make sense that the odds are in favor of the parasite remaining "stable" for lack of a better phrase? From collection to holding, to transport, to transfer station, to LFS, to Qt to your tank? No, the odds are stacked against that being the norm. Is it possible most definately yes, but that was not what I responded to in your post and I think you know that. The assertation that fish are always infested with C. irritans is fundamentally flawed given what is known about the parasite so far.

In all honesty though, the answer here....

Unless you are advocating Cu or hyposalinity for all QT, even if they are healthy appearing. That is the only way I see for ensuring that ich is eliminated and never enters your tank.

You are completely correct in terms of adding fish. Unless prophilactically treating the fish you cannot be sure. It is actually become more common/popular to treat the fish with hyposalinity once other problems that may conflict with the treatment are discounted/eliminated. When it comes to anything else, yes you can be 100% sure. The parasite must have a fish host so the isolation time away from fish will eliminate the problem 99.99% of the time.

Why should fish and ich be any different? Ich lives in fish is small levels, but doesn't affect them until they are stressed and their general health drops. It's why fish in the ocean don't die from Ich, but do in our aquariums.

I'll stick to the subject matter, I know little of human biology!
Your being led by a misconception here. Only a small percentage of animals collected are infested. By and large the greatest portion of infested animals occurs between the "capture to aquarium" phase of their journey. C. irritans in particular is an obligate parasite but must leave the fish for it to reproduce. How can this parsite permanently infest a fish in the wild if it must leave the host in order to complete it's lifecycle? In the ocean the fish simply swims away, in our tanks it has nowhere to go. As the theront density increases in an aquarium, the more easily/faster fish become infested.

Can you point to any studies that show that fish, particularly tangs, are generally free from ich when taken from the ocean? This would require, as I understand things, microscopic examination of fin and gill scrapings to be performed. And if those studies were to show this, then the need for a QT would be eliminated.

That information is freely available on the web if using the right search terms..
wild occurrences of cryptocaryon irritans

As I noted above, it's once the fish is kept in a captive environment that the rate of infestation increases. In the wild, the fish is easily rid of the problem. If you read up on aquired immunity and why many fish succumb so easily to the parasite you understand why the tang statement you've made makes little sense.

but it takes more than dogmatic statements to do so.

Please choose your words a little more prudently, I am neither religious or arrogant. Many thanks in future for that consideration.
I'm not here to fight with you or belittle you (anyone) so please keep the personal agenda out of it and stick strictly with the science of the topic.

Cheers
Steve

 

[NeuroDoc]

I'll address this first. Nice word but wrong usage. Salt would be ubiquitous, C. irritans is an obligate parasite so where there are no fish, there is no parasite. It's impossible.

Ok, semantics here. How much actually exists where there are fish?

Read these two sentences you posted and ask yourself the same question... Does it make sense that the odds are in favor of the parasite remaining "stable" for lack of a better phrase? From collection to holding, to transport, to transfer station, to LFS, to Qt to your tank? No, the odds are stacked against that being the norm. Is it possible most definately yes, but that was not what I responded to in your post and I think you know that. The assertation that fish are always infested with C. irritans is fundamentally flawed given what is known about the parasite so far.

It absolutely does make sense. The parasite doesn't have to remain "stable" in one fish. It just contaminates the whole process, and as long as fish are around it continues to live. It has to remain "stable" in the system. And if an infected fish ends up in my QT tank, observation alone does not ensure that it is infection free.

Successful parasites in the wild do not kill their hosts, and very rarely make them particularly sick. It is a basic fact of parasitology. The goal of the parasite (as with all organisms on this planet) is to reproduce. Reproduction is cut short if the host dies or develops immunity. A better evolutionary plan is to effect a low-level infection that allows the life cycle to continue. This is how virtually all parasites operate.

It all boils down to the question I asked earlier; what is the true incidence of infection free fish that are wild caught?

You are completely correct in terms of adding fish. Unless prophilactically treating the fish you cannot be sure. It is actually become more common/popular to treat the fish with hyposalinity once other problems that may conflict with the treatment are discounted/eliminated. When it comes to anything else, yes you can be 100% sure. The parasite must have a fish host so the isolation time away from fish will eliminate the problem 99.99% of the time.

This I understand. If one believes that C. irritans can truly be eliminated, then logically one must believe in all QT of fish being in hyposalinity or other forms of treatment. And thanks to your links below, through which I understand the life cycle better, I would no longer argue that ich can't be eliminated. But it does require the treatment, and not just observation, in QT.

I'll stick to the subject matter, I know little of human biology!
Your being led by a misconception here. Only a small percentage of animals collected are infested. By and large the greatest portion of infested animals occurs between the "capture to aquarium" phase of their journey. C. irritans in particular is an obligate parasite but must leave the fish for it to reproduce. How can this parsite permanently infest a fish in the wild if it must leave the host in order to complete it's lifecycle? In the ocean the fish simply swims away, in our tanks it has nowhere to go. As the theront density increases in an aquarium, the more easily/faster fish become infested.


That information is freely available on the web if using the right search terms..
wild occurrences of cryptocaryon irritans

I looked at many of the links that your link to google presents, including the Terry Bartelme series in Advanced Aquarist. I see the assertion a lot, that very few fish are infected, but I don't see proof. "Show me the Money"

It's my turn to ask you to read your statement and see if it really makes sense. If it were really the case that only a small percentage are infected, then we should expect C. irritans to go extinct, for the reason you state; the fish simply swims away and is infection free. It is an obligate parasite and needs a fish host. But yet everything I have read indicates that it is actually adapting and expanding into areas not previously seen.

You ask "How can this parsite permanently infest a fish in the wild if it must leave the host in order to complete it's lifecycle?" It appears that you are thinking of the life cycle too narrowly, as if it is one organism at a time that infects the fish. A low-level, clinically silent (i.e. doesn't cause disease or death) infection would consist of many organisms, all in different stages of developement. So some trophonts may be ready to exit the host today, while others may not drop off for a week. Now if there are theronts around where the fish is swiming, some may attach tomorrow, and some in 3 days (recently hatched from a tomont on that day). All of this allows a continual, low-level presence in the host. It's not as if the life-cycle is synchronized for all the organisms that arise from the same or different tomonts.

It all really depends on the population of C. irritans where the fish tend to be. So, I would ask for more data. What evidence is there that these organisms are, or are not, ubiquitous in areas where fish tend to be (rather than the whole ocean). Just the basic facts of it's life cycle argue for its ubiquitousness. Given the fact that theronts rapidly lose their ability to infect, in order for any fish to get infected the theronts would have to exist in very large amounts. The ocean is a big place and large numbers are needed to increase the odds of a theront and fish actually meeting.

As I noted above, it's once the fish is kept in a captive environment that the rate of infestation increases. In the wild, the fish is easily rid of the problem. If you read up on aquired immunity and why many fish succumb so easily to the parasite you understand why the tang statement you've made makes little sense.

I agree with the basics of this statement, but not because the fish "rid" themselves of the problem. It's because they are not heavily infected in the ocean. It's why the disease is deadly in the aquarium and not in the ocean. Just simply a matter of "infectious load." As you state above, our aquariums keep the fish in contact with a higher concentration of trophonts than would be present in the ocean.

Please choose your words a little more prudently, I am neither religious or arrogant. Many thanks in future for that consideration.
I'm not here to fight with you or belittle you (anyone) so please keep the personal agenda out of it and stick strictly with the science of the topic.

Cheers
Steve

I apologize. But I'm not sure what you expect when you begin a statement with "Sorry, that is just sheer nonsense." That is the height of arrogance. And the use of the term dogma has nothing to do with religion.

I am happy to stick strictly with the science of the topic, and believe that the questions and thoughts posted above are valid. They may not be accurate, and that I can live with when presented with proof.

 

[steve-s]

It absolutely does make sense. The parasite doesn't have to remain "stable" in one fish. It just contaminates the whole process, and as long as fish are around it continues to live. It has to remain "stable" in the system. And if an infected fish ends up in my QT tank, observation alone does not ensure that it is infection free.

Absolutely correct and already answered. Let's stick to the main disagreement. Argueing this point by point is going to see this thread degrade into chaos which I think neither of us would desire.

It boils down to your assertation that all fish are infested with C. irritans at least to some small degree and they cannot be remedied of that fact. Your statement previously....

I tend to fall into the camp that believes that all tanks have ich, whether or not the fish get it. If the parasite is ubiquitous in the ocean then we are fooling ourselves if we think we can keep it out of our tanks.

So all the minor points of "personal beliefs" aside I'll ask you straight out. It really comes down to the one question/point anyway....

Have you proven that fish cannot be cured of Cryptocaryon irritans?


Cheers
Steve

 

[NeuroDoc]

I think that if you read my previous post, you will see that I now believe that ich can be eliminated, in aquaria, but it requires actually treating the fish during QT, and that observation is not enough, because you cannot rule-out that the fish has a sub-clinical infection.

So let me rephrase my original statement.

I believe that most tanks have ich, whether or not the fish have visible signs. If the parasite is ubiquitous in the ocean, as I believe it is, then we are fooling ourselves if we think we can keep it out of our tanks without great diligence and effort.

Here are my reasons:

There is no proof, that I am aware of, that shows only a small number of fish have the parasites in them. Knowing the basics of parasitology, I think that the numbers are higher than what most people state, and that it is not a "small percent" of fish that are infected. It is more likely that a large percentage of fish have sub-clinical infections.

I have been unable to find any clear data that would further elucidate exactly what makes fish susceptible to an overwhelming infection that causes severe illness or death. Is it stress? Is it diet? Terry Bartelme has stated that "Healthy fish that are not unduly stressed are susceptible to infection upon exposure to this pathogen," but perhaps the stress of being in an aquarium is all it takes for some fish. Clearly we have all seen tanks were ich breaks out and only some of the fish have it, while on others there are no spots to be seen. Why?

Therefore, a fish in QT could certainly have a subclinical infection, that allows the parasite to continue its life-cycle in the QT tank, in relatively small numbers. And then it gets transferred to the main tank to infect the fish there, and await some trigger that causes an outbreak.

-----------------------

Now let me ask you a question.

If there isn't some truth in this, why do you state that a tank needs to be fallow to ensure that it is rid of ich? If you don't believe in sub-clinical infections, then we should be able to just remove the fish with visible signs of infection and let the fish that never showed signs alone while the parasite became extinct in the tank.

I don't think we disagree, now, in the proper way to care for aquaria. I really do appreciate the discussion, it has help me understand my tank, and all I have been doing wrong.

 

[steve-s]

I think that if you read my previous post, you will see that I now believe that ich can be eliminated,

Good, that was my main goal in involving myself in your thread to begin with.

There is no proof, that I am aware of, that shows only a small number of fish have the parasites in them. Knowing the basics of parasitology, I think that the numbers are higher than what most people state, and that it is not a "small percent" of fish that are infected. It is more likely that a large percentage of fish have sub-clinical infections.

That kind of undertaking would be enormous and costly. I sincerely doubt you ever will find such an indepth study for that reason alone. I would also ask you to at least consider the point I tried to make to you earlier. It's not that many of the wild fish collected are the problem, it's the one (or few) fish that contaminate the rest once added to the collection system. It only takes one to infest hundreds.

I have been unable to find any clear data that would further elucidate exactly what makes fish susceptible to an overwhelming infection that causes severe illness or death. Is it stress? Is it diet? Terry Bartelme has stated that "Healthy fish that are not unduly stressed are susceptible to infection upon exposure to this pathogen," but perhaps the stress of being in an aquarium is all it takes for some fish. Clearly we have all seen tanks were ich breaks out and only some of the fish have it, while on others there are no spots to be seen. Why?

To be honest with you a discussion on this point would be pure speculation and of no conclusive benefit. I don't mean that as a way of side stepping your question but it's an impossible answer to provide actual data for. It would be like saying I can't catch your cold. Why? (and yes I realise it's virus, not a parasite ). For human studies sure, we'll spend the money because there's profit in the result. Except for mariculture, there is not enough profit in it on a "hobby" level.

The simple answer is, don't introduce it in the first place. If you want to be 100% sure you're not, prophylactically treat all fish for it prior to their addition to the main display. Let all non fish life remain fallow for at least 6 weeks before adding them.

Now let me ask you a question.

If there isn't some truth in this, why do you state that a tank needs to be fallow to ensure that it is rid of ich? If you don't believe in sub-clinical infections, then we should be able to just remove the fish with visible signs of infection and let the fish that never showed signs alone while the parasite became extinct in the tank.

I'm not sure I follow the question properly but let's see if this answer works?

As you pointed out yourself earlier, a fish needs to be present for the continued survival of C. irritans. No fish, eventually no parasite. The infested fish is not the only concern though. What you also need to account for is the many stages in which this particular parasite lives off the fish. The most important and longest part of that being when it encysts to divide. That can be a month or sometimes longer. As long as a fish remains untreated/present, it can fuel the process anew. We have no way of determining the level of resistance/immunity for any fish. The only way to truely ensure eradication is 100% is remove and treat any fish present whether it shows clinical signs or not.

Cheers
Steve

 

[NeuroDoc]

I'm not sure I follow the question properly but let's see if this answer works?

As you pointed out yourself earlier, a fish needs to be present for the continued survival of C. irritans. No fish, eventually no parasite. The infested fish is not the only concern though. What you also need to account for is the many stages in which this particular parasite lives off the fish. The most important and longest part of that being when it encysts to divide. That can be a month or sometimes longer. As long as a fish remains untreated/present, it can fuel the process anew. We have no way of determining the level of resistance/immunity for any fish. The only way to truely ensure eradication is 100% is remove and treat any fish present whether it shows clinical signs or not.

Cheers
Steve

Exactly my point. You can never be sure a fish doesn't have a sub-clinical infection, even if it looks completely healthy. That's why QT MUST include treatment if you want to keep ich out of your tank.

 

[NeuroDoc]

So Steve,

Do you treat everything that goes through your QT tank with hyposalinity or copper?

 

[steve-s]

No, I don't think it's necessary. I wouldn't fault anyone that chose to though. Just be mindful that hyposalinity is chosen as the prophilactic option, not copper.

Cheers
Steve

 

[NeuroDoc]

So what do you do with new fish in your QT after you purchase them, just watch them?

 

[steve-s]

Correct!!

Cheers
Steve