The Closed, Pinned Ich Topic

[andywg]

Just read through it and noticed Lateral Line talking about Ich being present in almost every tank and how the parasite enters a "dormant" stage.

Peter Burgess who studied Ichthyophthirius multifiliis for his Ph.d at Plymouth University refers to the dormant stage as an old wive's tale and the fact that Ich is present in every tank as "utter rubbish" (Nov 2001 issue of PFK).

All good science supports this view, as detailed in these two links (IMO the best information on the web about the pathogen).

http/www.skepticalaquarist.com/docs/health/ich.shtml

http/www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/ich.php

Any chance of a correction on that thread, as it is pinned and giving incorrect information (and improvements are not possible by us mortals as it is locked)?

Cheers

Andy

 

[Bloo]

Andy, I still have an issue with Ich outbreaks where nothing was added to the tank for several months - at all. Plants, rocks whatever you name it. How do you explain that one ? (I've seen this a number of times over hot summers, warm weather - where toxins build up a lot quicker and oxygen is lower, one fish tank only so nothing transfer from one to another).

And why are some fish effected and others not - immunity ? (this question does not relate to "is Ich alwys present" - but rather another Ich related question).

And why quite often if a new fish is introduced (without quarantine) other fish in the tank get Ich, but the new fish doesn't. Only to return to the lfs a few weeks later and see the rest of the same stock as the carrier fish - entirely unaffected. Surely there would be *some* signs of distress ?

http/www.skepticalaquarist.com/docs/health/ich.shtml[/url]

mmm, just found this from the above website:

Acquired resistance to Ich. When Ich strikes, often there will be some fishes in the community that won't be affected. Recently, research at Cornell is confirming the long-held hunch of many aquarists that, once an individual fish has been cured of Ich, it has acquired some level of immunity (see the "Defenses/Immunity" page in this folder).

So immunity indeed it seems.

 

[andywg]

I can't answer all the questions, I am repeating that said by a Ph.d in ich, who I tend to believe on account of him having far more information available than you or I.

Ich can be moved in water on your hands if you are looking after more than one tank, it can take a while for an outbreak to be noticed. Can you really see every square inch of all your fish all the time (including the gills) to be sure they don't have any ich?

Some do have greater resistance to it, as with anything.

The new fish could have it on its gills inside and the new fish could get it on the outside, thus appearing to you that the old fish have caught it.

Why is it that when people do scientific experiments and come to a conclusion based on evidence, people always try and defeat it because it doesn't fit in with what they have been told/led to believe?

EDIT-

How does immunity affect whether it is in the tanks all the time? I could be immune to TB, doesn't mean I am always carrying it.

 

[Bloo]

Andy, those are questions I have from observations I've made over 20 odd years (I haven't been "told" or "lead to believe" anything. I only believe that which have enough proof for - and not only one sided either). I think I have every right to question things I can't find answers for. Until I find them (scientific report or not) I will remain on the fence.

Edit: I'm not trying to be "difficult" - I like nothing more than to learn something new but in some cases I'm not satisfied with certain information and will continue to question until I am. Scientific reports are written all the time, and equally as many to disprove those written already. Please note that these comments are not directed at the links you provided. I'm only saying......

 

[Bignose]

This seems to come up in clusters. I just had a long drawn out conversation on another forum about exactly this. Anyway, I did another perusal of the scientific literature, (since 2001 was not recent enough for some people) and here is a review article about Ich.

Matthews, R.A. "Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet and ichthyophthiriosis in freshwater teleosts" in Advances in Parasitology vol 59, 2005, p 159-241 is (from the paper's own abstract) "a comprehensive overview of the biology of the parasite, covering the free-living and parasitic stages in the life cycle, host-parasite interactions, and the immune response of host and immune evasion strategies by the parasite." No mention of a dormant stage whatsoever.

Unless there is a new strain out there (which may be being studied right now, and papers will start coming out in the next year or so), there is no mention whatsoever of a dormant stage. How could these researchers keep getting this wrong for so long?

This is not to say that everything is known about ich. The review paper above and a previous paper by the same author indicates that there may even be a sexual phase to the organism. This has been questioned about since at least the 1960's, and nothing definitive on that question yet.

There is a question about how the water treatment plants handle their water. If fish are living in some of the treatment parts, ich may be able to continue its life cycle. If the water is kept cold, its life cycle is measured in weeks instead of days.

Here is what is really interesting, from skeptical's page itself. There are strains that don't have to break off the fish to continue its life cycle, strains viable above 90 deg F, and so. I guess it would not be impossible ich has developed a dormant stage, but at this time, there seems to be no mention of it in the modern scientific literature.

 

[Bloo]

Thanks Bignose.

I pulled out an Interpet "Guide to fish Health" that comes in their range of medications.
Now for the influencing factors they give 3 possibilities or combinations of (not exclusively one or the other):
1 - Poor Water quality
2 - Fluctuating water temperature
3 - Introduction of a non quarantined fish

Now interesting to note the order they put this in. Also interesting to note that on point number 3 it does not mention if this is a fish already carrying Ich or not (presumably yes).

But what I also find interesting, is that the first 2 points are the same as my own observations mentioned in my first post in this thread. Decreased water quality and fluctuating temperature.

I think we also just need to ask a few people with bettas who often struggle with Ich - and funny enough, they deal with 2 of those first points on a very regular basis. (Small bowls/tanks, unstable water and waste easily builds up and becomes toxic, and fluctuating water temperature).

I find it hard to believe that a well recognised brand such a Interpet did not base their medication on scientific research or would provide incorrect information.
Now that's not to say that nothing ever changes and that they were right all along.

But I do question this and think I will take this forward with Interpet and perhaps a few other companies as well and see what they have to say about it.

 

[mikev]

I'm with Blozoo2 on this. I've seen too many cases where the most likely explanation is the permanent presense of ich in tank or on the fish, not a new infection.

However, I'm not certain if the word dormant is the right one. More likely what is going on is low-level infection on the fish which may not be noticeable or harmful, but allows ich to reproduce in minimal quantities. The fish immune system keeps it in check. If the immune system is damaged or depressed, you get an outbreak.

One way to see this effect is to take a clown loach and lower the temperature to say 50F for an hour, the chances of an ich breakout are very large. An ammonia poisoning is another powerful trigger (seen this), nitrites may be too (cannot confirm this one), and the bad quality of water in general is a related factor.

 

[andywg]

I don't mean to be funny, but there is a wealth of scientific opinion that points to ich not being present in every tank and it not having any dormant stage, yet everyone just ignores this and says "I had an outbreak and hadn't done anything" without it being under any scientific controls to be a valid experiement and everyone sides there.

Why do old wive's tales persist for so long?

It would have to be brought in on something. I would bet a fair amount that ich will not be found in chlorinated tap water. It cannot be present in all tanks unless it is present in all water.

 

[pica_nuttalli]

andy, you have a knack for picking out agressive ways of saying neutral things.

i support the low-grade infection idea. it makes more sense for ich to have a semi-dormant phase inside of a fish than it does for ich to lie dormant in a tank.

some speculation:
--if ich is lying dormant in an empty tank, but doesn't spring to life when fish are added, why would poor general water quality wake it? seems like it would need a more specific trigger.

--it seems that a parasite which constantly infects a host at a low-level would be better able to perpetuate its genes than one which sits around "hibernating" for months at a time. generally the genetic morph which does the most reproducing can do the most adapting and is the best at surviving.

--we know that ich has two free-floating stages: the squishy floating stage (not conducive to hibernation) and a shelled, cyst-like stage. while the latter sounds like a good candidate for dormancy, its actually a reproductive stage which undergoes a certain amount of cell-division before exploding. the results? more squishy things looking for a host. since the squishy things can't feed and aren't very well protected from their environments, they probably aren't good at sitting around indefinitely waiting on a host.

--HOWEVER, the stuck-on-a-fish stage sounds pretty cozy--plenty of food and protection. there's also no internal deadlines, allowing this stage to stretch out almost indefinitely. thus the stuck-on-a-fish stage is the better candidate for a "dormant" phase.

 

[The-Wolf]

Why do old wive's tales persist for so long?

because old wives live for so long!

I have nothing to add to this thread but to say I'm loving it!

 

[andywg]

Your point about the stage living on the fish is all very well pica, but if that were the case, it would have been noted by both scientists and aquarists, as the life stage on the fish is the time it grows large enough to be seen by the naked eye. This isn't the sort of thing that scientists in controlled experiments looking for the pathogen are likely to miss.

I shall repeat, All scientific data to date shows there is no dormant stage in the life cycle of ich.

To hypothesise on such a thing would be as pointless as to hypothesise on a new subspecies of South American Red Tail Catfish which only grows to 6".

And you know Wolf, you may just have it there...

 

[pica_nuttalli]

To hypothesise on such a thing would be as pointless as to hypothesise on a new subspecies of South American Red Tail Catfish which only grows to 6".

i've heard about that: the "fetal" morph

oh, i'm not contesting your information. i just thought that i'd provide some "logical" transitions between the old experiences and the new explanation.

 

[mikev]

As it happens, I have a pretty good experimental proof of the low-grade infection theory.

I will give the general outline without specifics.

A shipment of fish has been divided into two parts and placed in two separate locations (not tanks -- locations a few miles apart). Both parts were treated for ich (even if there were no signs of it or reasons to think that ich may be present); the treatment was good enough to eliminate all ich in the water. The immune systems of fish were broken due to an unforeseen factor (not connected to ich). In both cases, there was an ich outbreak in about 20 days (4 days apart).

This was an unintended experiment with very tragic results, and the fact that it was reproduced makes it sufficiently conclusive.

 

[Bloo]

Very interesting mikev.

I fully support the very low (unnoticeable to human eye) presence of Ich in a tank. Low enough for the "immune" fish not to be affected and result in full blown ich. Or a carrier fish to even go through quarantine and then introduced into the tank which may result in an Ich outbreak.

At the end of the day, each to the own belief and experience.

 

[andywg]

As it happens, I have a pretty good experimental proof of the low-grade infection theory.

I will give the general outline without specifics.

A shipment of fish has been divided into two parts and placed in two separate locations (not tanks -- locations a few miles apart). Both parts were treated for ich (even if there were no signs of it or reasons to think that ich may be present); the treatment was good enough to eliminate all ich in the water. The immune systems of fish were broken due to an unforeseen factor (not connected to ich). In both cases, there was an ich outbreak in about 20 days (4 days apart).

This was an unintended experiment with very tragic results, and the fact that it was reproduced makes it sufficiently conclusive.

Interesting Mike, where was this published?

A few questions I would have:

If the fish were not in tanks, what were they in, and were they at all exposed to outside influences? (a lake, a pond etc)

How were the immune systems of the fish "broken"?

How many times was the experiment repeated, and what was the control?

I'm not saying that didn't happen, but with what you have posted there leaves a huge amount of extra blanks to be filled in before it can be though of as good science.