The Closed, Pinned Ich Topic

[mikev]

Interesting Mike, where was this published?

Did I say it was?

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)

They were in tanks all right.

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

By a factor not connected to Ich.

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.

I have described what I've seen happening myself; I was on one of the ends.
"How many times" == two (actually I've said this already).

Incidentally, there is almost no hard science, good or bad, as far as aquarium fish goes; there are observations and likelihoods. What comes closest to science here is the study by U.of Florida which does not provide a definitive answer to the question of full ich eradication.

 

[andywg]

As it happens, I have a pretty good experimental proof of the low-grade infection theory.
A shipment of fish has been divided into two parts and placed in two separate locations (not tanks -- locations a few miles apart).

They were in tanks all right.

Do you see my confusion here?

By a factor not connected to Ich.

how though?

I have described what I've seen happening myself; I was on one of the ends.
"How many times" == two (actually I've said this already).

hth

This does not seem "good experimental proof" at all. You witnessed something happening once (in two locations) and have hypothesised. Good experimental evidence would have been to repeat the experiment a number of times to eliminate the possibility of outside influences on the experiment. Then it will normally be published to allow others in the scientific community to review it (peer review) to ensure the author of the experiment's findings has not missed out anything in drawing conclusions.

From what I can gather, you had two batches of fish that both caught ich a few days after mysteriously losing their immune system. How can you be sure that ich was not introduced at some time leading up to that point, or that there was no ich in the water after treatment (did you take a number of water samples for a nubmer of days to be sure of this)?

It may well be that there is a low lying infection, but if there is it is likely to be in cold water where the lifecycel is slowed down, so the life stage feeding on the fish will take longer (and if it is on the gills then it can survive for some time without being noticed) rather than there being some mysterious dormant stage just waiting for the chance to strike.

 

[mikev]

I see your point about the tanks; what I said indeed could be misunderstood. To make it clear: tanks located miles away from each other.

Now, you should not be viewing this report as a scientific proof -- it is not presented as such and was not meant to be. There is currently no scientific proof one way or another, and the U.of Florida study I mentioned before is very careful not to talk about elimination of ich but rather of putting it under control.

What I saw and stated is a sufficient argument for me. There is no intention on my part to repeat this since what happened was not intended and led to massive fish death at the end; however, if you do seek scientific truth, you are welcome to duplicate this yourself.

I will address a couple of points: the temp was high enough (mid-70s) for a fast ich cycle. Most certainly, I'm not eliminating the possibility of some dormant ich in the water. At the beginning of this incident both batches of fish were treated for ich (full course, preventively, after observing that there are no symptomes.). So these possibilities should be excluded.

There is, however, one real hole in my argument: ich could have been introduced later in one way: as a water change. At this time I simply don't know if chlorine fully kills ich. But interestingly enough, if it turns out that tap water may reintroduce ich, it does not change the situation much: we still realistically are living in a low-level infection situation.

 

[Bignose]

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.

Yes, this is something I have often pointed out, that fish may be asymptomatic carriers of the parasite. Many, many people stop treatment after the white spots come off, which we all know is wrong. Not only just treating for at least a few days after, I always try to tell people to treat for a week or even 10 days or so. I think to be sure, you have to treat for several life cycles. If even one ich lives, it will come back someday... someday leading to these "ever present" discussions like this one. I see people on here telling one another that quarantine for 10 days or 2 weeks is enough. Concerning ich, a fish may not show symptoms for 3 weeks or more. Proper quarantine is probably on the order of a month. But, just like medicating long enough, what percentage of fishkeepers actually quarantine long enough?

Speaking of which, I would like to know how long did you treat, mikev, and with what medication? 1 dose? 1 dose every day? 2 half doses twice a day? etc.

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

bloozoo, I don't feel this is true at all. Science, in its purest form, is independent of observer, and there is an answer to this question. Perhaps it has not been studied enough to be definitively answered, but there is an answer completely independent of one's own belief. Belief has nothing to do with science.

 

[Bloo]

I am a very strong advocate for treating a full course of meds exactly as described - and that's what I've always done.

Bignose, that last comment was directed at those who purely believe one thing based on their own experience and will believe nothing else. Quite rightly so, as they've perhaps not experienced or witnessed it. I speak from my experience and hence my my own deductions from the observations I've made over many years and many many tanks.

And I tend to agree with "Perhaps it has not been studied enough to be definitively answered".

 

[mikev]

Speaking of which, I would like to know how long did you treat, mikev, and with what medication? 1 dose? 1 dose every day? 2 half doses twice a day? etc.

IchGuard, half dose, 5 days.

This is generally sufficient to fully cure a visible ich infection (did it several times), and in this case there were no ich signs at the beginning at all.

 

[Bignose]

Speaking of which, I would like to know how long did you treat, mikev, and with what medication? 1 dose? 1 dose every day? 2 half doses twice a day? etc.

IchGuard, half dose, 5 days.

This may not be 100% of the problem, but this is not a good practice. Why only use a half dose? By using medicine at half dose, you tend to spare the most resistant organisms, precisely the ones you want to get rid of in the first place. In effect, you culture resistant strains, for which now the medication when you do need it will be less effective. Also, you said visible, but certainly that does not guarantee that 100% eradication. I would also argue that 5 days, especially at half doses, there is a decent chance that at least one ich organism survived that medication cycle.

 

[Bloo]

Have to say I would tend to agree. And never half dose anything - unless I know the medication is not supposed to be used at that strength for that fish (for instance many full strength medications cannot be used with bettas etc.).

Ps: do you know what the other person dosed ? Exactly the same ?

 

[mikev]

Speaking of which, I would like to know how long did you treat, mikev, and with what medication? 1 dose? 1 dose every day? 2 half doses twice a day? etc.

IchGuard, half dose, 5 days.

This may not be 100% of the problem, but this is not a good practice. Why only use a half dose?

Because the full dose would have killed the fish. (Not Bettas, but exactly what Bloozoo2 meant).

Specifically, IchGuard is not to be used with Small OR Scaleless fish. In my case, it was both. However, it is actually more effective and safe in half-dose than the weakened meds like IchGuard-II.

(I am very familiar with this med and used it a number of times myself and helping others. There was no error here.)

Besides, even if one thinks that the original treatment was a total failure, we still have the real issue: survival of ich for twenty days.

The other site used UV, not meds.

 

[mikev]

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

because old wives live for so long!

Even with ICH?

 

[Mr. Blenny]

First, it is possible there was no white spot in the tank at all, and the new fish introduced it. Possible, but I suggest unlikely.

if unlikely, then how the heck would the parasite have originally been introduced into the closed system?

agreed the sticky on this topic should either be removed or edited to remove unscientifically based opinions.
the most generated myth regarding this parasite is stuck to the top of this forum..lmao...

 

[OohFeeshy]

Another point- when you say their immune system had 'broken down', what do you mean exactly? Did they suddenly loose all white blood cells or something? And how do you test for that?

 

[Mr. Blenny]

more likely an observed assumption based on the aquarist seeing signs of the parasite and attributing the infestation to some type of perceived stressor. i.e. the temp in the tank dropped 2 deg overnight...
the fish must have stressed, compromising it's immune system resulting in the parasite continuing on with its lifecycle:

HUH?