Does the science in this article hold up?

[AdoraBelle Dearheart]

For a long time, I couldn't get water soluble nematode treatments. I had to use dog dewormers, til they came under veterinary prescription too. The local vets say they have not studied fish, so they would consider it unprofessional to prescribe for them. That's a quandary, but I'm a little over an hour north of Maine and there, I can gets meds. There's a Tractor Supply place that makes me think American tractors must have 40 foot tapeworms.

I won't buy antibiotics out of principle, but dewormers? Yeah.
I can also get water soluble nematode treatments now.

But what I did was take a little white flashed fish and hit it with the stick blender. I'd add some baby food veggies and some meds, and freeze it. Then I'd thaw tiny chunks and do a 3 week course, which did the job very well. No fish died, and no Camallanus or Capillaria seemed to survive.

I'm certain that every fish that comes from the wild has worms. But I think there's a balance internally, just as there is with us if we're healthy and get run of the mill tapeworms and such. For farmed fish, I think the crowding means they are exposed to parasite loads their immune systems can't control. And so we get sick fish, in many cases. I've noticed that when I get wild caught Asian fish, I often need to treat them. I think it's because they are delivered to the farms/exporters to go on the lists, and they pick up a parasite load in the holding tanks. It's easily dealt with.

South American and African exporters don't usually have breeding farms, but exclusively wild stock.

Anecdotes - not science. But it is very easy and quick (if messy) to make medicated foods.

I've been mentally torn about the issue of medicating in quarantine too, especially when getting fish from a "rescue" tank, that likely came from a store/farmed abroad, or fish I've bought myself from a store.

I usually QT for a month, but especially with livebearers, I've been worming using the eSHa meds since I've personally found them to be effective, and not wanting to re-introduce worms into my main tanks after working so hard to eradicate them, and of course the cost of medicating the larger tanks. But I wonder about recommending that to other hobbyists, and it doesn't really fit in with my usual hope of using the minimal amount of chemicals and products in my hobby.

 

[MaloK]

I do like the idea of adding into food so it's targeting the fish, and have seen other recommendations for soaking the medicated foods in just a little garlic juice, to make them more appealing to the fish.

My concern would be whether all of the fish would take in enough of the medication, or even whether it's possible to overdose an individual fish with a medication?

As an example, if you were trying to eradicate camallanus worms in a tank packed with colony breeding guppies of varying ages/sizes, how could you be sure all of the fish had taken in enough of the mediation to eradicate the worms, and not be facing another breakout in a few months?

I remember him dosing the tank numerous times over a month or so. He never talked about overdose but underdose was what he feared the most.

A couple days after the initial hit, the fish literally debloated at once and literally pooped their guts clean. The bottom of the tank looked like a bowl of spaghetti.

He pulled out the gravel vac and looked at me with a big smile and said "It's Working !"

We were stupefied how he saved the tank and asked him where did he get that trick ?

He simply replied " I tried something."

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Phew- had to stop reading this thread. A lot I do not agree with at all. But I will limit my comments to the ilnk to Aquariumscinece.org. Since i have read the most science on cycling related issues I figured the way to determine whther this ste was likely mostly BS or if it was Poetry. So I started reading 2. Aquarium Cycling .

The fist paragraph says, "“Cycling” is the term used in the aquarium hobby for the process which grows colonies of something called “beneficial bacteria”. These bacteria convert toxic fish pee (ammonia) to a relatively innocuous compound called nitrate. Growing these colonies normally takes 4 to 10 weeks." This omits that plants can also perform cycling chores and better and faster tha n the microorganisms can. And nobody should need 10 weeks to cycle a tank even with no plants. The sverage should be in the range 5-6 weeks, i.ee. 25-42 days. Some can see it in 4 weeks and some may need 7. Finally, fish pee is very dilute as the fish need to eliminate a lot of water. But fish also exhale ammonia.

Here is a quick quote from a paper:

Abstract​

Ammonia is produced in the liver and excreted as NH3 by diffusion across the gills. Elevated ammonia results in an increase in gill ventilation, perhaps via stimulation of gill oxygen chemo-receptors. Acidification of the water around the fish by carbon dioxide and acid excretion enhances ammonia excretion and constitutes “environmental ammonia detoxification”. Fish have difficulties in excreting ammonia in alkaline water or high concentrations of environmental ammonia, or when out of water.

paper here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S156990480600139X

The second thing I ran into was this: "“Cycling” in the aquarium can be a very simple topic or it can be a very complex topic. “Cycling” tends to confuse beginners because there are hundreds of ways to successfully cycle an aquarium." And there are nowhere near 20 ways to cyle a tank let alone 100 or 100s. Basically, one needs two things to hand ammonia in a tank. The first are the right microorganisms (Bacteria and Archaea) and second are live plants which also host the bacteria (they may ost archaea as well but I have not read that is the case). And the way to get those organisms is either to seed them or else to add ammonia to get them to colonize. There are a few ways to get plants, buy them, propagate them, get them from other hobbyists about covers that. So clearly quote is absurd and has no science behind it.

I know there is no need to be confused, just read the fishless cycling article here. it is almost impossible to mess up and it is pretty simple, if I don;'t say so myself.

The the simple method offered is perhaps one of the least effective ways to cycle a tank one can use. Most people feed their fish, none feed their filter as far as i know. Flake food makes a mess of a tank and because the organic content is so low it makes little ammonia.

And then where does a city person find cow manure or dirt? Not that I would ever put either in a tank. The bacteria normally in fresh water are not the same ones as are found in soil for the most part. It has to do with how they reproduce. The nirtifying bacteria do not form spores. They reproduce by dividing. Spores can last a very long time in soil waiting for lacking nutrients to return. And most new fish keepers do not yet know other experienced keepers who might give the something from a cycled tank to help jump start a cycle.

And soil can have pesticides, pond mud can have nasties etc. Really?

When I hit the chart on The many Ways to Cycle and Aquarium I stopped reading. I would say anybody who listens to this stuff is in for a rocky time. If he cannot do the basics, how can he do the harder stuff. I consider the cycling information to be a disaster. But what do I know?

 

[AdoraBelle Dearheart]

Phew- had to stop reading this thread. A lot I do not agree with at all.

*Snipped all the brilliant, and yet annoyed in an ever so classy way observations made wonderfully clear by @TwoTankAmin "

When I hit the chart on The many Ways to Cycle and Aquarium I stopped reading. I would say anybody who listens to this stuff is in for a rocky time. If he cannot do the basics, how can he do the harder stuff. I consider the cycling information to be a disaster. But what do I know?

That settles the matter for me! Throwing that site out as a resource!

Since you literally wrote the threads and helped make the forum, and as anyone reading your history here can tell, no one can doubt that you know what you're talking about when it comes to cycling! And the entirely valid point that it's a blog, and if he doesn't get the basics, then nothing else can be relied upon.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Well, I did not read what he said about white stringy poop trailing behind a fish. No question it is a digestive issue. But if it is caused by worms or by parasites I cannot say. When I see a fish with it that won't go away, I usually try treating with Metronidazole treated food. For Camallanus I use Levamisol HCL and for wasting disease I have Flubendazole. I do not use Fendendazole because it is not absorbed through the gills or skin of the fish and must be fed.

 

[Ichthys]

TwoTankAmin is right in this case. AquariumScience is one man’s take on keeping fish, obviously ‘self-taught’ and for the most part ignoring proven science and inventing his own conclusions, a lot of which are incorrect all over his site.

“This is a website dedicated to freshwater aquariums. It is based on SCIENCE AND LOGIC, not on parroted internet “advice”, anecdotal “It worked great for me“, or the marketing hype of some profit-driven marketer.”

The site is the exact opposite of this opening statement. It’s all about “it worked for me” using his own brand of flawed logic.

 

[GaryE]

Ah, I only read the stringy poop part. I thought that was what was being queried.

I never read stuff on cycling. I skip those parts!

 

[Essjay]

That site has information - or misinformation - on many subjects not just cycling and diseases.

 

[GaryE]

There will never again be ichthyologists picking up short contracts on the side to verify the accuracy of hobby publications. We now publish ourselves, with no independent gatekeepers to catch us out if we make mistakes, or if we just straight out lie. If you can bluster or be aggressive, you win the info fight. You may be lying, deluded, following a dogma or looking for attention, but that isn't the issue.
Every aquarium hobby site has this massive flaw. The science sites still have standards, but they are not designed for easy access. Seriously Fish seems to have an old school approach and I respect that. But really, we've had nicely written articles posted on the forum where all the info was just wrong, and the authors were overconfident aquarists just starting out. People write ungrounded, badly researched nonsense opinions, and put the words 'science' or 'article' on them.
Joseph Stalin is reputed to have said that paper would put up with anything written on it, and the same is true of our paperless aquarium culture.

We live with it. On the internet, a 12 year old and a 70 year old Ichthyologist are all just names, usually fake ones.

 

[Colin_T]

Ah, I only read the stringy poop part. I thought that was what was being queried.

I never read stuff on cycling. I skip those parts!

The article is about stringy white poop in fish but others have expanded on the website and are now talking about other aspects of the website, which don't have anything to do with the original post.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

The owner/author made claims about the site.

This is a website dedicated to freshwater aquariums. It is based on SCIENCE AND LOGIC, not on parroted internet “advice”, anecdotal “It worked great for me“, or the marketing hype of some profit-driven marketer.

This did not stand up on the section I read. As I said I chose it because I am fairly well versed in the science surrounding it.

He wrote:

There are literally hundreds of ways to successfully “cycle” an aquarium.

So I am happy for anybody to help me pout with a list of half that many. Because I can break it down to fewer than 10 basic ways.
1. Fishless adding ammonia in some way. Stock fully when done.
2. Fishless with seeding of bacteria in some way and adding ammonia. Stock fully when done.
3. Fishess using some amount of live plants and dosing and testing. Depending on the results:
A. Add fish gradually
B. Add full stocking
C. Add ammonia to complete the cycle and add a full load of fish.
7. Fishless by cycling filters and when they are cycled, add one or more to a tank.
8. Use fish to cycle. I never suggest this method especially to new fish keepers.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

The owner/author made claims about the site. They did not stand up on the section I read. As I said I chose it because I am fairly well versed in the science surrounding it.

So, in fairness I took a look at the white poop stuff. I do not think he has a clue about wasting disease. I agree that an occasional episode of white poop especially with some dark parts is not an issue. But when there are no dark parts and that white stingy poop [ersists, there is for sure a problem.

And that is where the challenge begins. Is it worms, parasites infection or a combo. And the next most important issue is whether the fish is eating or not. Hi recommends administering meds in food which won't work when the fish is not eating.

Btw, one of the four things he mentions must be seen in combination with stringy white poop:

One shouldn’t try to diagnose a fish as having anything wrong with it if it ONLY has clear or white poop. Wait till another symptom appears. Six out of the seven fish shown in this article which have white stringy poop have no associated symptoms and are probably just fine (one has Malawi bloat). These other associated symptoms include:

• It isn’t eating
• It is spitting it’s food out
• It has a swollen belly (“bloat” or “dropsy”)
• It has a hollow belly (“wasting disease”)

And then he writes:

All these symptoms in conjunction with white poop indicate inflamed intestines, i.e. an intestinal infection by “internal parasites”, “worms”, or bacteria. They require treatment in the food and ONLY in the food.

I do not know how for force feed a fish which is not eating, do you?

Next, I have dealt with wasting disease, it is way beyonf white stringy poop. I learned how to deal with it here and I use Flubendazole as a result.

This is the sale part of the site for meds and where I buy some of mine:
http://www.inkmkr.com/Fish/ItemsForSale.html

On the above page will be this link which is why I use the above med :
http://www.inkmkr.com/Fish/FlubendazoleArticle.pdf

The is the home page for the above:
http://www.inkmkr.com/Fish/

So, I cannot sat I was impressed by the article at the heart of this thread in terms of its staements. I prefer to listen to Charles Harrison (PhD Physical Chemsitry, Texas Christian Univ.) whose site the above is.

About​

Developer, formulator, owner and chemist for AtLasta Specialty Ink, Inc, and National Laser & Ink Jet Cartridge Service ( http://www.inkforyourprinter.com)

Specialties: Tropical fish parasite & disease management, care and maintenance of aquariums & tropical fish. http://www.inkmkr.com/Fish/

Owner and trainer of GCH CH Winbucks Mosaic Wheel D'Fortune UDX4 OM6 HSAd (Ferris), Cardigan Welsh Corgi. Owned, bred, trained and shown #Cardigans since 1978

Member, past BOT Chairman, BOT member American Killifish Association (#AKA)

Council member, Grand Master Supreme Breeder Award recipient, #MASI Member of the Year 2010, Webmaster Missouri Aquarium Society, Inc.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/charleshharrison

I tried finding science about fish having diarrhea, but all I could find dealt with fish causing diarrhea in humans.

 

[noahm]

We live with it. On the internet, a 12 year old and a 70 year old Ichthyologist are all just names, usually fake ones.

I'd like to make a general comment about the state of science, especially as it relates to things like fishkeeping. There aren't enough PhDs out there to try and focus on this and that in a hobby this large with so many variables. Some of the older hobbyists have far more experience and have watched so many "standards" come and go all backed by "science" and "scientists". Some are both scientist and hobbyist. Many many many scientists still do not understand proper DoE or it is just too complex to execute and still keep finicky critters alive.

This does not mean that they shouldn't be trusted. Quite the contrary, they have some inherit credibility. That said, whether hobbyist or scientist, it should never just be dismissed "because source". There are tidbits of gold in random reddit threads, and three-post forum threads that can't be found anywhere else in the world and they might save a person lots of grief.

This is a little anecdote I had with scientists (I am a scientist and engineer btw). You can google pretty easily that some pupfish somewhere is the fish that can live in the hottest water. However, there is a hot pool in Oregon that is runoff from geothermal overflow into a pond. Decades ago, mosquito fish were introduced by fish and wildlife to the pond as a breeding experiment because it stays warm. There is a channel about 10 feet long and a foot wide where the discharge comes from the pipe and cools down before hitting the pond.

I was down there one day looking at the discharge pipe and there were mosquitofish right there in about 4 inches of water -- the kind of water that makes mirages it is so hot. I stuck my hand in and it burned. I went home and got a candy thermometer and got a reading of 150F right where the fish were swimming (I realize this isn't extremely accurate). If you scooped one out, it died instantly from thermal shock. Is that science? No, but I know it is higher than 105, so I reached out to several icthyologists at various universities nearby and offered to take them there. Guess what? No takers--crazy talk.

Scientists are just people, and people can sometimes science as well or better than scientists.

 

[GaryE]

@noahm I'm not a scientist either, and all I can contribute is observations. I believe ordinary people can contribute a lot, and have always wanted to be like Darwin's pigeon fanciers.
But you are noahm and I'm GaryE and we could be anyone. We could have zero knowledge and experience, or a world of it. We can write anything we want online, and if we can carry off the confidence, we can become well followed people.
I was in a forum where a fairly new aquarist PMed me with questions almost daily - good beginner questions. Within a year, he was a major youtube star. I still don't think he knew what he pretended, but the guy could sell wild guppies in Trinidad. That's the new reality, and when you look at some of the past, print stars, maybe it was always so.
Something I appreciate about scientists is how many there are, as it is a process of weeding out mistakes. I hope that never stops. I've spoken with a few taxonomists over the years, most of whom had begun working before DNA was a tool. They were excited about the changes and corrections to their work being made by younger colleagues. That's how it should work.
People being people, it doesn't always happen.