Can We Change This?

[poopsydrew]

Hi all,

I am not really one to complain but I feel that this thread really needs to be changed some: Ich Thread

Seeing as so many people come here for great info (including myself as a new fishkeeper), I really think all info such as pinned and closed threads such as the link above should have accurate information.

I feel LL's comment, that ich exist in every tank in inaccurate as there are numerous studies and reports that it does not One can pull up may threads here that illustrate that there is NO proven dormant cycle in the parasite of discussion. I certainly mean no disrepsect LL, but everytime I see that it bothers me a little bit, especially because its closed and pinned for all to see. If you would like me to provide some scientific studies or papers I can do that as well.

Does anyone else feel the same way about that thread and its contents? Your Thoughts?


Drew

Edit- for my terrible grammar and spelling.

 

[Lateral Line]

I have unpinned it. It was pinned because I had several PM's asking for me to do so.

I also have read much about Ich, and have also a stack of papers around somewwhere. There are, however, some simple easy observations that most aquarists that have been around for years will know to be true. You do not need to introduce new fish/plants/whatever into a tank to have an Ich outbreak. A tank that has been running stably for years can suddenly have an Ich outbreak if say a heater goes down or some other event triggers a lapse in the immune system of the fish.

You may well be able to produce papers which cannot prove a dormant stage exists, but the above example illustrates that either there is a constant low level of infestation being held in check by the immune system, or something is periodically breaking out. I want that explained - and the usual "well it must have been re-introduced somehow" type arguments just don't cut it for me. Shift the blame onto a careless aquarust - easy. Too many coincidences.

I look forward to reading your superior article.

As for being pinned for all to see, it is clear from the amount of duplication, that few read pinned topics anyway!

 

[Arfie]

There are, however, some simple easy observations that most aquarists that have been around for years will know to be true.

And many learned people knew the earth was flat until it was proved otherwise You seem to be confusing the word know with believe and in the absence of proof which you find satisfactory, of the alternative, you are perpetuating your belief as fact

Arfie

 

[andywg]

I also have read much about Ich, and have also a stack of papers around somewwhere. There are, however, some simple easy observations that most aquarists that have been around for years will know to be true. You do not need to introduce new fish/plants/whatever into a tank to have an Ich outbreak. A tank that has been running stably for years can suddenly have an Ich outbreak if say a heater goes down or some other event triggers a lapse in the immune system of the fish.

You may well be able to produce papers which cannot prove a dormant stage exists, but the above example illustrates that either there is a constant low level of infestation being held in check by the immune system, or something is periodically breaking out.

That is covered by an underlying infection (which you note) where the pathogen is actually living its life fully but the fish are keeping it check. Ich can form on the gills of fish, few of us check the inside of the gill openings to see if there are any ich present.

I want that explained - and the usual "well it must have been re-introduced somehow" type arguments just don't cut it for me. Shift the blame onto a careless aquarust - easy. Too many coincidences.

But let's look it another way, science has looked into it many many times (ich greatly affects fish farming for food and sport, so it has had a fair amount of money thrown at researching it) and not once has there ever been evidence found that ich has a dormant stage. If there was one it would likely have been found (such as with marine ich Cryptocaryon irritans). Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary? No.

One also needs to look at the treatment of previous ich outbreaks. Did the aquarist carry on treating for the entire time of a lifecycle (11-14 days, maybe more) after they saw the last spot on their fish? Did they just treat with salt baths (thus practically ensuring that the ich parasite remains in the tank)?

As for being pinned for all to see, it is clear from the amount of duplication, that few read pinned topics anyway!

So that is an excuse not to have correct information in our pinned topics? I'm sorry, but I don't agree. At the end of the day, by having a pinned topic stating ich has a dormant stage we are going against all scientific evidence and findings. I do not like the idea of us ignoring science just because our own personal (but evidentially unsupported) beliefs do not agree.

By all means comment that many people seem to have recurring ich, but don't invent a whole new life cycle for a pathogen just to make it fit with what you think happens.

 

[CFC]

Let us all remember fishkeeping isnt a science, you can apply the rules of science to it if you like but fish and all the life in aquariums are creatures of nature and there are many things in nature that science just cannot fully explain.

I too would like it explained how ICH breaks out in an established tank with no new additions years after the last time the parasite was present? The truth is there must be some level of infection within the tank which is not known to the aquarist and is just waiting for the trigger it needs to go epidemic.

 

[andywg]

Let us all remember fishkeeping isnt a science, you can apply the rules of science to it if you like but fish and all the life in aquariums are creatures of nature and there are many things in nature that science just cannot fully explain.

I too would like it explained how ICH breaks out in an established tank with no new additions years after the last time the parasite was present? The truth is there must be some level of infection within the tank which is not known to the aquarist and is just waiting for the trigger it needs to go epidemic.

But that is not a dormant stage. That is a low level infection. Even in ideal laboratory conditions as little as 25% of Cryptocaryon irrtans will find a host, the rest dying before hosting, so even though the pathogen splits into many new cells, they will not all host. I would expect Ich, with its somewhat similar life cycle, to exhibit similar tendencies.

Science cannot fully explain how a new outbreak comes in after so long without any contamination (though without scientific control conditions, how do we know it is truly without contamination?). Science has shown that to date, no evidence of any dormant stage exists. If there was one, then it is pretty likely it would have become evidenced by now. I find it hard to believe that extensive studies in labs and fish farms have no evidence yet we experience them so often in our hobby tanks.

The best fitting answer at the moment is that a low level infection persists whereby the life cycle is continuing (because the last bout of treatment was not fully eradicated) but at a level unnoticed by the keeper. Let's be honest, who out of any of us can inspect the insides of the gills of our fish? Very few.

When you have someone who studied ich for their Ph.D (Peter Burgess) stating in a respected fishkeeping magazine (Practical Fishkeeping, November 2001) that the notion of ich being present in all aquariums is rubbish, I don't think we make our forum look very good by stating the opposite in a pinned thread.

I think the problem here is older members approaching this in an unscientific way. They have observed something in the aquarium, made one or few assumptions (well I treated for it previously properly; I am sure I didn't contaminate it; it must have a dormant stage) and set their minds. They now want proof that their hypothesis is wrong, rather than accepting that on the basis of evidence their hypothesis is less likely than another hypothesis.

Look at it this way, a quick google scholar search on Ichthyophthirius multifiliis brings up 1,200 papers. That is a lot of experiments. You would think that if ich can at any time enter a dormant stage, it would have occurred and been noticed in one of those papers. The fact that it does not suggests that it is very unlikely that it will happen. One cannot say for definite that it will not because proving such a negative is impossible.

What basis do we truly have to say there is a dormant stage? That people who keep fish have noticed that some time after an infection they have another outbreak. They cannot prove any of the circumstances surrounding the outbreak (such as how effectively the last one was dealt with) and are making assumptions based on anecdotal evidence.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Does anyone here actually know how long ich can live without a host? If it can live for long periods of time without a host, then this would be considered a dormant phase of the parasites life and explain why established tanks which have had no new fish additions for years can suddenly get ich outbreaks.

Personally, i don't doubt that ich is present in low levels many tanks as would completely explain a lot of weird cases of ich coming about in tanks in the above example etc. It might not be present in all aquariums, but that doesn't mean that it isn't present in a fair few.

 

[andywg]

Does anyone here actually know how long ich can live without a host? If it can live for long periods of time without a host, then this would be considered a dormant phase of the parasites life and explain why established tanks which have had no new fish additions for years can suddenly get ich outbreaks.

Personally, i don't doubt that ich is present in low levels many tanks as would completely explain a lot of weird cases of ich coming about in tanks in the above example etc. It might not be present in all aquariums, but that doesn't mean that it isn't present in a fair few.

"The life cycle takes 12-16 days to complete, depending on the temperature, and the tomite stage lasts for only three days." From here.

So within 3 weeks of no hosts the parasite will die out at tropical temperatures.

 

[Lateral Line]

As I said above, the piece was unpinned earlier, so the ongoing angst is somewhat superfluous.

Rather then taking an unscientific approach, I read various sources, collated papers from several universities and presented a number of different scenarios, adding that there were others.

The Burgess piece claims there is no long term infection, yet like pretty much everywhere else, does not cover the outbreaks in established tanks phenomenen. In the mid 90's, I had 3 tanks in the house. They had stable, small populations, (planted tank understocking), of Rasboras, Barbs and Characins. Excess plants were being taken out. Nothing was added for months probably years at times, it wasn't necessary, yet there could be an outbreak if something went wrong.

When I asked how this could be the case to the School of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University, the response was the amazingly scientific, "well, you must have introduced it somehow".

Incidently, it was the same group that are doing the work on immunisation against Ich, start browsing from here if interested.

I love the accusations by google "experts" of unscientific approach. Some of these people have never seen the inside of a university!

 

[Bignose]

LL, please read "Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet and ichthyophthiriosis in freshwater teleosts" by R.A. Matthews, in ADVANCES IN PARASITOLOGY Vol 59, 2005. It is a review paper all about ich. For those that don't know, a review paper is a scientific paper that doesn't include any new information, but rather reviews the literature to date and summarizes all the pertinent information. They are exceptionally useful because they serve as a great signpost of what is known at different points in time, and also they are great for listing many of the references where the original research is reported.

To wit, the Matthews paper is 82 pages long, and cites 289 papers. This is the largest collection of all the information known about ich to date. There is no mention of a dormant stage at all. You would think that if any of the previous 289 papers about ich had discovered a dormant stage, that would have been covered in this review paper.

I don't know how many more times various papers need to be cited to show that ich's supposed dormant stage just doesn't exist.

The pinned thread was still excellent about dealing with treatment and how to handle the situation. It just has one little inaccuracy that should be changed.

 

[andywg]

Rather then taking an unscientific approach, I read various sources, collated papers from several universities and presented a number of different scenarios, adding that there were others.

But you have no evidence to support your statement. You have a situation that occurred and you don't know the cause. Your current claim seems to be that there must be a dormant stage because you haven't seen a detailed explanation of something you have witnessed, regardless of the of the lack of any evidence (or prospect of such evidence) being found.

The Burgess piece claims there is no long term infection, yet like pretty much everywhere else, does not cover the outbreaks in established tanks phenomenen.

Could that be because it is not well known? Science never claims to have the answer for everything and refrains from making assertions when there is no evidence to back up said assertions. Could it also be because it is ultimately down to the treatment of the fish by the keeper at the end of it? The ich has to be introduced at some time. The low level infection hypothesis fits better with current understanding as some fish are more resilient to ich than others, so can survive with few signs of carrying a very low level infection. The complete lack of an observed dormant stage at any time in scientific studies indicates it is not very likely to exist.

I love the accusations by google "experts" of unscientific approach. Some of these people have never seen the inside of a university!

And just what is scientific about having no evidence to back up a claim but stating that you don't believe people who are reviewing scientific papers, or writing them? In scientific terms your statement can be defeated instantly by the question "What controlled repeatable experiments or tests support your assertion that ich has a dormant stage"?

Must one see the inside of a university to understand a scientific approach? Last I saw Science is taught as a dedicated subject to UK children from ages 11 upwards. The scientific principle of repeatable, controlled experiments is hammered in throughout the education process when designing and evaluating experiments.

 

[Lateral Line]

Your current claim seems to be that there must be a dormant stage because you haven't seen a detailed explanation of something you have witnessed, regardless of the of the lack of any evidence (or prospect of such evidence) being found.

If you go back and read the original piece, you will note that I presented a number of scenarios, and suggested thet there were others. One of those I highlighted was a continual low level infection managed by the immune system of the host. In your earlier post in this thread you acknowledge that fact, now you seem to have decided what I think.

The low level infection hypothesis

... which I'd suggested...

fish are more resilient to ich than others

... and can be made more so, follow links I made in an earlier post...

The complete lack of an observed dormant stage at any time in scientific studies indicates it is not very likely to exist.

... maybe not, however...

"well, you must have introduced it somehow".

... the words "cop out" occur to me. You see, that does not fit the hypothesis that they'd promulgated, and rather than investigating it, in the correct scientific manner, they "cop out" and just write it off as "yet another" errant observation that didn't quite fit. If you push other notable institutions with the same basic question, invariably, it gets back to that. That is not the scientific process.

I had "science" at school. We learnt the periodic table, we played with magnets and learnt some simple physics, we learnt to culture Volvox and dissect frogs. You do not need to learn the "scientific process" to pass school, or even six form college level courses. Sure, a good teacher might try to imbue a sense of questioning into the work, but at the end of the day, the exams at the end of the course are dictated by a written syllabus agreed by the examining board. The student is expected to know x, y and z.

At my university at least, the first few weeks were spent de-constructing what we already "knew" about our subjects and opening a 3 year path to produce "off syllabus" results. There is no syllabus, you are shown things, you read things, you have to turn in reasoned arguments, not "the right answer". In many respects, the teaching of science at university level is more akin to the teaching of arts at school, where again, there is not necessarily a "right answer".

In September, I was at the wedding of some friends. About 10 years ago, I was one of his supporters when he defended his PhD thesis at DTU, (Danmarks Teknisk University). We chatted about the old days and he was seriously embarrassed when we started discussing his thesis. You see, things in science, when done correctly, change and move forward.

When things are swept under the carpet, and written off as "experimental error", "a dodgy data point", "instrumentation glitch" or whatever else - there leaves a hole. Sometimes that hole gets big enough for the best names in the field to fall into.

 

[Bignose]

LL, you are definitely right, science is imperfect and there is a significant chance that there may be an as yet unresearched strain of ich that does indeed have a dormant phase. Said dormant phase may be much more common in home aqauria than in the fish farms or in the wild. In the same way, it took until the 1990's until someone, Hovanec, discovered that the cycling bacteria that are common in home aquaria are not the species of bacteria that everyone thought they were.

Nevertheless, there are many researchers who have studied ich, and not a single one of them have ever reported a dormant phase.

The best information we have today is that there is not a dormant phase.

I don't think anyone is saying that the book is closed and finished and that italicized statement is 100% right and it always will be. But, it is the reflection of all of the reported information to date. I searched the database of scientific papers again today, Web of Science, for papers that contain "ich* AND dorm*" There are zero hits. No researcher has ever reported a dormant stage.

The information that should be presented should the best information that we have at this time. Could it end up being wrong? Absolutely! But right now, this very day, the best information we have says that there is no dormant stage in ich.

I'd even support just weakening the phrasing of the statement to something like "While the research to date hasn't described a dormant stage in ich's lifecycle, many fishkeepers have had as yet unexplained breakouts occur. It is unclear if this is a dormant stage, or if ich may have been brought in with the water, or if the fish may have had an asymptomatic low-level infection for many years. Just to be on the safe side, it is probably best to think of every tank as if it had an ich infection, and thusly to have effective ich medications on hand at all times in case a breakout does occur." It is the strength of the statement "Ich exists in every tank." that doesn't leave any wiggle room at all that is objectionable to me. Put some wiggle room into the statement, and I think a lot of people would be a lot happier.

 

[steelhealr]

We should have moved this topic into the Scientific Section. I don't have the 'armamentarium' to do a heavy duty fight on this. I can only add some extrapolations If the outbreak occurs, it makes sense to me that the outbreak could only occur:

• if it was introduced by a new addition to the tank
• that it entered via the air
• if a fish is colonized ( I don't like the 'low level of infection phrase)
• if it exists in the tank

I think that it makes sense that there must be an inhabitant that is colonized. Many of us read about "MRSA" which is a resistant bacterium in humans. Many of us have it in our nares (nose) but are asymptomatic. However, we can transmit to to someone who is susceptible.

Just a thought.

SH

 

[poopsydrew]

This thread has been interesting and very informative to say the least.

Andywg and Bignose have covered everything that I could say in response and much more. IMO, until there is proof of a dormant cycle, then the "exists in every tank comment should be altered"

LL-I never asked for it to be unpinned. I agree it has a great article about how to treat ICH. Like Bignose said, I feel it should just be slightly re-worded thats all. I am unsure why you unpinned it, especially if you feel the way you do, then stand by your post and dont unpin it.

We have had a great discussion and debate here and it was/is a good article that (I and others feel) needed a slight edit. So why unpin it?

SH- You could easily start a new thread in the scientific section referencing this thread via a link, debate and theories would soon follow.

Drew