keeping sg low all the time. good idea?
Lee Labelle
ich. the goal is to bring the sg down to 1.010 and keep it there for
about a month to eliminate the parasites. my question is if you kept the
sg at the low level all the time wouldn't you create an atmosphere where
ich could not survive? or would this be too much stress for the fish
leading to other problems? thanx for your time.lee
deflizard
I greatly doubt if the trigger would survive that long at that SG. Most
treatment for the erradiction of Ick empoly a multi-prong treatment
attack. Gradual lowering of salinity is good, providing you do not go so
low as to stress your fish. Going to approx 1.017 should be sufficient,
but gradually! Some aquarists advocate raising the water temp to 84°F
or more, which speeds up the life-cycle of the parasite, however,
without an anti-parasitic agent in the water, the higher temp. with the
lowered salinity simply stresses the fish even more. Judging from your
plan of attack, you are attempting to control this parasite in a tank
without invertebrates, as, at this lowered SG, everything else,
including your biological filter will suffer, ammonia levels will rise,
and probably kill the fish before the parasite does!
One has to consider all the ramifications of treatment, as in more cases
than not, our actions kill the fish, not the parasites! If you have, or
ever plan to have a reef set-up, I suggest you set up a quarantine tank,
and treat the fish (I assume you only have one fish, the trigger) with
Mardel Labs Copper Safe, following instructions to the letter (which
means dosage is based on real net gallonage of the tank being used for
treatment, not some gross advertised capacity, as this is critical with
all copper medications. Now, setting up that quarantine tank is not
that simple, because you have to have an established biological filter.
You simply don't realize the importance of zero tolerance for ammonia
and nitrite, and lower levels of nitrate, and how they impact a fish's
immune system! Assuming you have that quarantine tank, all ready to go,
etc. I would maintain the normal, regular temperature and salinity that
the fish has been established in, and treating with CopperSafe,
carefully monitoring the recommended dosage level on a continuous basis
(at least checking copper levels every 8 hours) with a chelated copper
test kit (I use Kordon's High Level Chelated Copper test kit). Chelated
copper has a way of dissapating itself initially, so multiple dosages
are necessary, until a therapeutic level is reached and maintained.
Now, if yours is a FO aquarium, and you do not EVER wish to convert it
to a reef tank, then I would simply do the copper treatment in the main
tank, follow all directions, and leave salinity and temps. alone. As you
can tell, I feel its far more important to maintain and bolster's the
fish's immune defenses, minimize any changes in water parameters, which
de-stabilize the tank. In my numerous battles with Ick, in particular,
the treatment I have presented, has been 100% effective in erradicating
the parasite! I do maintain a therapeutic copper level for one month,
and allow the slow dissapation of copper levels to occur naturally,
after that. After approx. 6 weeks, I start doing regular water changes,
which further reduces copper levels. In all honesty, I have NEVER had a
re-occurance of infection, following my regimen!
regards.
Group: rec.aquaria.marine.misc Date: Wed, Sep 1, 1999, 12:48am (PDT+3)
From: liquid...@webtv.net (Lee Labelle) keeping sg low all the
time. good idea?
Lee Labelle
the parasite. the sg must be lowered over the course of a couple of days
to 1.010 and remain at that level for 30 days time. the ph is then
controlled by buffers since the low sg does also lower the ph. as far as
treating with copper. i do have inverts. they have been put into another
tank along with my live rock, but since you can never fully eliminate
copper from the treated tank substrate i'm afraid that it would kill my
hermits. plus i would just as soon stay away from chemicals unless it is
absolutly necesary. once again thanx for your reply.lee.
deflizard
salinity! Yours may just be the first one. I hope your fish, whatever is
left in the tank, and bio-filter survive. There are some supposedly
'reef safe' treatments for Ick. In your case, I would quarantine the
fish, treat them (him) there , and just leave the main tank 'fish free'
for two months, which, without a host, the parasite will simply die off.
Whatever you do, LOL!
Group: rec.aquaria.marine.misc Date: Wed, Sep 1, 1999, 7:02pm (PDT+3)
From: liquid...@webtv.net (Lee Labelle) Re: keeping sg low all the
time. good idea?
Lee Labelle
you know if this method works at the end of the month. take care. lee
Steve Wolfe
> ich. the goal is to bring the sg down to 1.010 and keep it there for
> about a month to eliminate the parasites.
good luck. It won't work... I've seen ick live for months in
salinities just about as low as yours. Hyposaline water doesn't kill
them. Shoot, even a freshwater dip doesn't kill them, it just makes the
little things fall off. Put them back in saltwater, they're fine...
> my question is if you kept the
> sg at the low level all the time wouldn't you create an atmosphere where
> ich could not survive? or would this be too much stress for the fish
> leading to other problems? thanx for your time.lee
Get the salinity back to where it should be. Feed your fish well. Do
water changes. Minimize your temperature swings, and make sure that
your temperature is where it should be (say, 80-82). Get a few cleaner
shrimp. If necessary, get a cleaner wrasse. Reduce anything stressing
the fish. Things will go wonderfully.
steve
--
---------------------------------------
Domain name for replies is "inconnect".
---------------------------------------
Lee Labelle
a host in the environment won't the ich continue to live and multiply?
although cleaner shrimp may get the parasites off the fish, what about
the substrate and free floating ones. i think the parasites will
continue to multiply and even though the fish my show no visible signs
of the parasite at the slightest opportunity the parasite could
overwhelm the fish with a huge outbreak. i think this is why people
continue to have outbreaks in their tanks, because they never irradicate
the problem in the first place. just my .02 worth.
Lee Labelle
month to completely kill off the 3 stages of ich. and thats either with
an empty tank, chemical treatment, or hyposalinity. there's a good
chance that the parasite continues to breed and multiply in your tank
and although your fish are showing no visible signs of it now if there
is the slightest stress put on your fish the parasite will again gain
the upper hand and you will have a bigger outbreak than your previous
one. take care. lee.
deflizard
problem is that cysts can remain inactive up to and over six weeks, as
the feeling is, there is more than one sub-species of C. irritans.
Successful erradication of the parasite is to simply break its life
cycle, and strengthen the immune system of the hosts (fish) while
providing some relief from the parasites still attached that will
multiply. You can only kill the parasite in its free-swimming stage.
Group: rec.aquaria.marine.misc Date: Thu, Sep 2, 1999, 11:21am (PDT+3)
From: liquid...@webtv.net (Lee Labelle) Re: keeping sg low all the
time. good idea?
home...@aol.com
Lee contacted me and asked if I would contribute to the discussion
here. I wrote an article for the July issue of FAMA covering the
treatment of Cryptocaryon irritans (Ich) with hyposalinity at a
specific gravity of 1.010. I consulted Dr. Edward Noga the professor of
aquatic medicine at North Carolina State University and he reviewed the
article for me before it was published by FAMA. Dr. Noga is considered
by many to be the leading fish veterinarian in the United States.
There are only two proven reliable treatment (many less reliable)for
Cryptocaryon in a captive enviroment. These are the tried and true
method of copper treatment (preferably Cupramine) or Hyposalinity at
1.010 or even 1.009. I would be interested in reading any definative
studies that conclude that cleaner wrasse or cleaner shrimp are
dependable cures for this infection IN AQUARIUMS. Yes, I understand
that cleaners do eat some types of parasites on fish, but an aquarium
is hardly a natural enviroment and I have seem more badly infected
tanks that contain cleaners than I want to think about. I am not saying
that cleaners cannot help.
Keep in mind that noone makes a sale when you use hyposalinity. No
drugs are used and nobody is going to make a profit selling
hyposalinity. I can tell you it works by breaking the cycle of
reinfection because the cysts cannot hatch (excyst)at 1.010. They have
been shown to hatch at levels above 16ppt (SG of 1.011. I can also tell
you that they use this method for curing Cryptocaryon at the Instant
Ocean Hatcheries. This method works beautifully, but the only drawback
is that it cannot be used with inverts or live rock.
Regards,
Terry Bartelme
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
deflizard
further stressing out the fish's well being and possibly damaging its
organic functions and immune system. If your only objective is killing
the parasite, without regards to the long term survivability of your
fish, then that's a different matter, however, the objective is to
erradicate the parasite, while subjecting the fish to the LEAST amount
of stress or damage. Many years ago, after having many losses from C.
irritans infections, without any success, using many methods of
recommended treatments, including hyposalinity, pure copper, malachite
green and formalin concoctions, I had read all the research and
investigations done by aquarists at the Shedd Aquarium, in regards to C.
irritans. With the development and refinement of effective
prophylactic treatment using long term chelated copper baths, they were
able to exact successful erradication, with the least amount of losses,
and compete control in their display tanks. The results of these
investigations led to the development of CoppeSafe by Mardel Labs
working in conjunction with the Shedd Aquarium. There have been reports
of failures using chelated coppers for treatment, or its ineffictivity,
however, in my experience using CopperSafe innumerable times (mine is
not a scientific study) and following the recommendations for length of
use, judicious monitoring of an effective copper level, following
proscribed directions, erradication has been successful 100% of the
time. In fact, after befriending my LFS owner, whose tanks were
developing many cases of C. irritans (his were single tanks individually
filtered, rather than a 'system') I suggested to him using CopperSafe as
I have used it, and he had complete success in erradicating the
parasite, plus the additional benefit of also successfully treating
Amlyoodinium spp. infections as well. This is not intended as an
endorsement for CopperSafe, however, it is my experience and my LFS's as
the most effective treatment and the least injurious. Of course,
CopperSafe, like all other copper treatments cannot be used in an
aquarium where inverts are, or will be housed, as all caveats do apply.
Group: rec.aquaria.marine.misc Date: Fri, Sep 3, 1999, 5:07am (PDT+7)
From: home...@aol.com Re: keeping sg low all the time. good idea?
deflizard
water, and probably close to 50 years over-all (salt and fresh) efficacy
of some methodology, as referenced as it might get, is inconclusive,
especially in light of my experiences, that after subjecting MY fish to
hyposalinity, they DIED! (and I do have a laboratory grade calibrated
hydrometer, and I did go to 1.010 BTW) Now that's good enough for me to
abandon this methodology! If you can make some assurances (as not even a
Doctor of Medicine of the guaranteed efficacy of ANY TREATMENT), and
predictive success rates based on conrolled studies, using many
subjects, and controls, then a point can be made for the scientific
validity of any method. I can unequivocally state that treating my
outbreaks of C. irritans (and I know what it looks like) with chelated
copper, at the proscribed dosage, careful monitoring, and maintaining an
ideal environment, has yielded, at least for me 100% erradication.
Other people's experiences may be different than mine, so be it!
Publishing anything in FAMA is not the GOD ALL END of fish cures!
Citing refernces from people mainly conducting research primarily tied
and funded by the domestic fish industry and then extrapolating data to
include the ornamental reef fish industry, is a bit stretching it, in my
book. Unless you can give me a list of species, their individual
susceptibility to parasites, their individual tolerance to hyposalinity,
species by species, the success rates that can be predicted and some
sort of assurance, based on large number studies, that the success rate
is tenable, and reasonable, I would just consider this as one more
methodology, that comes up from time to time and shows no more REAL
curative potential, than the other methodologies put forth! Every
treatment methodology put forth does have risk involved, and when my
experiences has shown ME, personally that the risk outweighs the
benefit, I move on to something that shows ME better results with the
least amount of mortality! No, I haven't documented my cases, nor can I
cite references supporting my POV, but I can put forth a far more
sensible methodology, that in fact has been supported and proven
effective by aquarists working at the Shedd Aquarium, amongst others, in
fact, who have tried hyposalinity, with less than desireous results. The
greater need for anything new or novel, unfortunately, has to be fueled
by some economic advantage, to gain the attention of worldwide and
esteemed collegues of fish parasitology. I doubt if the ornamental fish
industry (even now under attack from certain conservation organizations)
could really muster the kind of monetary support necessary to find and
fund supportive research. I am not saying your methodology is not
without merit, I just feel that mortality rates with such a radical
approach are going to be much higher, than lets say mortality rates from
other treatment programs, and that hyposalinity by itself, cannot assure
any greater rates of long term success. If you have supportive data
from scientists working directly with coral reef fishes, in public
aquariums, where widespread use of long term hyposalinity, (not just
freshwater baths) has shown to be the most promising idea set forth for
the control of ornamental fish parasites, I personally, and I am sure
many other aquarists would certainly, 'perk up their ears'. One more
point, the majority of inquiries in this and other NG's are primarily
newbies, who totally lack the experience or expertise in fish husbandry,
and, as a result of circumstances generally beyond their control, come
up with cases of epidemic parasitic infestations, generally far in the
advanced stages, before recognition is made. I don't think I would
suggest a treatment mode that further 'stresses' their wards and
disrupts the stability of their tanks.
home...@aol.com
Like I mentioned before I consulted with the leading fish
veterinarian in the country when I wrote this article. If that does not
mean anything to you I don't know what to say. You are making a false
assumption about hyposalinity causing stress or having any negitive
long term effects from using it as a therapy. I have an upcoming series
that will probably be in Aquarium Frontiers (still working out the
details with the publisher)on understanding and controlling stress in
fish that may be helpful for understanding the influence of salinity
related to the Immune system and response. Perhaps you would benefit
from reading the article I wrote in the July issue of FAMA. I site
several references and sites including scientific journals to support
my statments concerning hyposalinity therapy. Just one would be by
DR.Cheung concluding that boney marine fish can be kept indefinatetly
at 16 ppt (and even lower) salinity (SG 1.011). Several hatcheries now
use lower salinities to promote growth and improve the survival rates
of fry. I have personally kept marine fish for months at a SG of 1.010
without any apparent ill effects. I can
support my views on hyposalinity with references if you like. I think
you could benefit yourself to investigate my claims closely. As far as
your having tried hyposalinity to treat Ich in the past and not
succeeding, I seriously doubt you used a low enough salinity for a long
enough period. Most people think of hyposalinity as a SG of about 1.017
which is still far too high to be consistantly effective. If you used
the correct mehtod and did not succeed then I suggest you merely
misidentified the pathogen to begin with. There are other parasites or
conditions that can cause white spots on fish and not every type of
parasite is subject to the effects of hyposalinity. However, when
talking specifically about Cryptocaryon irritans hyposalinity at 1.010
SG or a salinity of 15 ppt< is very effective. BTW, this subject was
covered at MACNA 1998.
Cheers,
home...@aol.com
To begin with I don't question your honesty, but your results when
using hyposaslinity at 1.010 SG are completely unique! I have been
keeping marine aquariums since 1973 so I am certainly not a newbie. I
will suggest again that you check the scientific references I site in
the articles. You make a false assunption when you assume that the
studies where not done on fish in inclosed systems. The recommended
term of treatment is a minimum of three weeks. If you want a reference
try the book "Fish Disease Diagnosis and Treatment" by DR. Edward Noga.
He is the professor of Aquatic Medicine, Department of Companion Animal
and Special Species Medicine, North Carolina State University, College
of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh, North Carolina. This is only one of
many referneces.
If you would like to hear the opinions of lots of people that have
used hyposalinity at 1.010 and even 1.009 to cure Cryptocaryon irritans
then I suggest you visit the Aqualink reef message board at
www.aqualink.com. I assure you that you will find numerous rave reviews
and an extremely high success rate reported! I have been advising
people there for close to a year to use this method for treating Ich.
Before you pooh pooh the concept with very little understanding you
should check the references and ask the people on aqualink because you
are in for a large surprise!
deflizard
others I had known, including several LFS's, could not understand the
extremely high mortality rates of reef fishes. I experienced then, what
the reputation that followed, keeping marine aquariums was all about.
However, I unlike many others I had known, could not be dissuaded from
the challenge. I started doing my own research in the literature of the
time, which was scant indeed. To top it all off, besides sudden
mortalities, without any real causative agent, there was also protozoan
and bacterial infections to deal with! As I gradually moved from FW to
SW, I saw the value of quarantine (it was never really stressed) and
started the practice of isolation of newly acquired fish, keen
observation, and a experimental treatment regimen, whenever any disease
appeared. At this point I had 7 aquariums. I tried to follow as many
recommendations as I could find in the literature, concerning treatment
procedures, including malachite green formulations, copper sulfate,
formalin, tetracycline, AND hyposalinity, in varing degrees. At the same
time, the ugly truth about the use of cyanide, especially, as most of
the fish currently were exported from the Phillipines, started appearing
in magazine articles. Ahah! a bright light went off! That's why my fish
were dying within a month, in spite of all my efforts to maintain the
conditions of my aquariums in terms of water, parameters, filtration,
etc. I started being extremely particular about the fish I was
considering purchasing, investigating their origins, methods of
collection, going to wholesalers when possible, and whenever I received
vague or dishonest responses from my inquiries, I simply stopped any
further purchases, from these sources. Let me tell you, that although
this was close to twenty years ago, a great deal of MONEY was spent, and
effort went into the acquisition of my experience and knowledge. I have
come away with several very strong conclusions from my experiences. IME
and IMO very few cases of bacterial infections, in spite of our best
efforts, are cureable! That's because the fish's immune system had been
compromised from the stress of capture, changes in water composition,
transfers, etc. and we simply lack the skills and knowledge of dealing
with methodology in restoring a fish's immune system AND fighting
bacterial infections. Secondly, because of the tenacity and virulity of
protozoan infections in closed systems, which has been very well
documented, and because of its frequency, duration, and outcomes, more
attention has been paid to this one aspect in this hobby. IME as it
pertains mainly to keeping fish, my investigations and research had
brought me to ONE methodology which has had, at least for me, 100%
success in erradicating protozoan infections, the use of long term
chelated copper baths and lowered salinithy in the order of 1.017 to
1.019. with a minimum of fish mortalities. (you have heard of the
operation being successful, but the patient died!) I also found
research papers (long gone and removed from many archives) about the
struggle that public aquariums, here and in Europe, had in dealing with
protozoan infections in their display aquariums, despite the use of
quarantine and varying degress of hyposalinity, plus the useage of
various medications and copper sulfate, without a great deal of success.
It was when I found some papers about research being done at the Shedd
Aquarium, concerning the use of copper, its quick disappation and
absorption by calcerous compounds, and the efforts made to find a way to
keep it in solution, and maintain a constant level sufficient to
erradicate the protozoan outbreaks without killing the fish, that
sparked my interest in the usage of chelated copper. If you could find
the research, it makes fascinataing reading. In a nutshell, a research
scientist, working for the federal government, on problems in the usage
of copper in erradicating algae from water channels, had stumbled
accross a method of chelating copper, allowing it to maintain its
potency and thus, a successful methodology was discovered in the control
of algae. This discovery was published in some journal involving water
management, however, no disclosure was made as to the 'secret' of
chelating copper. Individuals working in the aquaculture fields, had run
across this article, and in an attempt to discover this 'secret' which
would be a great boon to many oher industries, had discovered that this
individual had quit his job, patented the chelating process, and sold
the patent to a commercial company involved in water management, and
even went to work for them as a highly paid consultant! It took another
10 years for researchers working on disease management, to finally
'discover' this methodology, which BTW was mainly done at the Shedd
Aquarium and a fledgling chemical company known as Mardel Labs. Thus
CopperSafe was born! In my long and suffering experiences, I have come
to ONE conclusion, there is no ONE methodology that is remotely
effective, if it has the slightest capacity to further 'stress' any fish
under attack from any disease, protozoan or otherwise. IMO subjecting
fish to hyposalinity, and then declaring that this methodology is
benign, is highly laughable, and borders on recklessness, in its
advocacy. I would be more inclined to support a methodology that
preserves the 'natural' state of a organism's homeostacitiy. Placing ANY
organism in a completely unnatural and potentially injurious condition
makes no sense at all! You might absolutely kill the protozoans with
hyposalinity, but where is the data that supports the facts that the
fish's internal organs, immune systems, or life spans are NOT affected
by this treatment! I also noticed that in the articles referenced to,
the data 'purporting' to support this methodology, is already almost 15
years old! And no subsequent promulgation or advocacy by any responsible
person in the ornamental reef fish industry, whether working in the
commercial fields or in the public aquarium sector, or university
biology research areas, has come forth to support this. You do have the
right to advocate what you feel might be of benefit, however, there is
an old caveat which I remember, which is, above all else, do no HARM!
LOL and regards.
Group: rec.aquaria.marine.misc Date: Sat, Sep 4, 1999, 3:14pm (PDT+7)
From: home...@aol.com Re: keeping sg low all the time. good idea?
home...@aol.com
I can appreciate your history as an aquarist. I started in the same
era and had some similar experiences. I did enjoy reading about yours.
I first began my investigation of hyposalinity as a treatment for
Cryptocaryon about the time you started in the hobby. This is not a new
or unfamiliar subject to me. You will find I am very well informed on
the subject. Now to your comments which I found to be rude and in
themselves irresponsible:
>>>IMO subjecting fish to hyposalinity, and then declaring that this
>>>methodology is benign, is
>>>highly laughable, and borders on recklessness, in its advocacy.
What borders on reckless is calling a scientifically proven
effective method laughable! Ignorance is No excuse. I have provided you
with the information needed to find the references as well as how to
contact plenty of people that have experience using hyposalinity at
1.010 or 1.009 (15 ppt or less). After all this you seem to choose to
wallow in your ignorance of this therapy rather than read the
references and check with people that have used it. You would call Dr.
Noga’s methods reckless? I suppose since he is only the leading fish
DVM in the USA and the professor of Aquatic Medicine at what is
probably the best veterinary college (NCSU) he should take your refute
seriously? After all you have been a hobbyist for 23 years! You
obviously don’t understand who he is! Why haven’t you gone to Aqualink
and asked people about their experience with this treatment?
>>>I would be more inclined to support a methodology that preserves the
>>>'natural' state of a organism's homeostacitiy.
Here is a quote from the article
“While temperature, oxygen, and pH readings should closely replicate
those found in natural seawater, specific gravity can be another story.
Many fish survive the harsh marine environment despite high
concentration of salts, rather than BECAUSE of them. Marine fish expend
a great deal of energy excreting salt in an effort to maintain their
internal salinity levels far below what is found in the surrounding
environment. These fish are hypotonic and have an internal salinity of
approximately 11 ppt (specific gravity of about 1.008). Lowering
salinity levels allows for higher dissolved oxygen content and reduces
the osmotic pressure upon the fish. Some marine fish breeders have
applied the advantages of lower salinity levels in raising marine fry
because of the reduced amounts of energy that are required for
osmoregulation.”
Stress can disturb the normal physiological equilibrium or
homeostasis of the animal by forcing a reallocation of energy within
its system. With a little better understanding of the physiology of
fish and osmoregulation you would see that a lower salinity can be used
to free up energy some of that energy for other bodily functions
including immune function.
>>>Placing ANY organism in a completely unnatural and potentially
>>>injurious condition makes no sense at all!
IMO, when used correctly hyposalinity is safer and more effective
than copper treatment. This would be supported by the fact that Dr.
Noga and other fish veterinarians NO LONGER consider copper the
treatment of choice for Cryptocaryon irritans. Talk about being
outdated! Lowering the osmotic gradient between the internal fluids of
the fish and the surrounding water is an established means to lower
stress for a limited period of time by reducing the amount of energy
required for osmoregulation. This principal can be applied by adding
some salt to freshwater or lowering the salinity of saltwater. This
principal is used to greatly improve survival rates when transporting
Blue Gill.
I don’t want to get of the subject of hyposalinity, but I could say
a great deal about your comments about antibiotics and chelated copper.
>>>You might absolutely kill the protozoans with hyposalinity, but
>>>where is the data that supports the facts that the fish's
>>>internal organs, immune systems, or life spans are NOT >>>affected
>>>by this treatment!
Actually Dr. Cheung and other concluded that boney marine fish can be
kept indefinitely at 16 ppt salinity (approximately a specific gravity
of 1.011). I am not advocating keeping fish at this SG permanently only
making a point about using it as a treatment. I am afraid you are the
one that has no evidence here. Where is the evidence to support your
contention?
>>>I also noticed that in the articles referenced to, the data
>>>'purporting' to support this methodology, is already almost 15 years
old!
Some of the references are old, but that hardly makes them invalid.
However, you failed to read the more recent references given at the end
of the article.
1. Kollman, R. SeaScope. Aquarium Systems, Inc., Spring 1998.
2. Noga, Edward J. Fish Disease Diagnosis and Treatment. Mosby-Year
Book, Inc. 1996.
3. Wilkerson, J. Clownfishes: A Guide to Their Captive Care, Breeding
& Natural History. Microcosm Ltd. 1998.
I hope these are recent enough for you!
>>>And no subsequent promulgation or advocacy by any responsible person
>>>in the ornamental reef fish industry, whether working in the
>>>commercial fields or in the public aquarium sector, or university
>>>biology research areas, has come forth to support this.
Wrong again! Perhaps you have heard of Instant Ocean Hatcheries (and
their salt “Instant Ocean). Maybe you don’t know who Tom Frakes is at
Instant Ocean is. As far as someone advocating it that works in the
commercial field or at a university. I assure you that a professor of
Aquatic Medicine (Dr Noga) knows a bit more about fish disease than
what you will find in the biology department. I have had long
conversations with Tom Frakes about this as well as Ron Shimek and
others. Maybe you know them? This method was also promoted at the 1998
MACNA conference. Dr. Rob Hildreth (not sure of spelling of this name)
addressed it in his presentation. I have much more I could say, but
this should suffice for any open-minded individuals.
>>>You do have the right to advocate what you feel might be of benefit,
>>>however, there is an old >>>caveat which I remember, which is, above
>>>all else, do no HARM! LOL and regards.
Actually, the only harm that may be done here is if anyone else reading
this adapts your apparent bury your head in the sand and don’t confuse
me with the facts attitude. I will not attempt to force you to look at
the evidence, you have the right to your opinion. My hope is that
others will examine it. So far it looks as if this discussion is
heavily one sided. I have provided names, sited references, and
suggested where you could easily find people that have experience with
this therapy. You have offered nothing of the kind to support your POV.
Regards,
deflizard
evolution, and development, you and your colleagues have been able to
alter fish physiology, chemistry and biology by hyposalinity in a mere
15 years, or so. Sounds like you've really found a breakthrough in
'curing' and controlling all the plagues that visit all unsuspecting
aquarists. Absolutely, the next time my $150 Annularis Angel (retail
value) comes down with Ick, I am going to lower the SG, watch and wait,
and if by chance, the poor creature dies, because he didn't know that I
had made life so much easier for him, will you re-imburse me??????
While your at it, why don't you really advocate that we should keep all
our fish at a SG of 1.010, because, as you have stated forth, they shall
all be much better off, and work much less to maintain their bodily
functions, while increasing immunity response, lengthening thier
respective lifespans, and eliminating all fish pathogens in one fell
swoop. Of course, how do you propose to control alkalinity, pH,
hardness, trace element concentrations, mineral content,etc.etc. All the
time you were advocating hyposalinity, as a means of control of C.
irritans, I had no idea that lurking in the background was a scientific
model for new methodology in maintaining fish in aquaria, and thus
replacing sea water composition, as is known today! That should be
great news, not only to amateur aquarists, but to public aquariums, fish
wholesalers, and fish dealers, who obviously spend a great deal of money
on artificial salt water mixes. Obviously, manufacturers of SW mixes are
not going to like this one bit! Attention reefkeepers, this does not
concern you, so pay no attention to this discussion, unless you are
going to separate your fish from your reef set-ups! I guess I just
didn't recognise that we are on the threshold of a new era in fish
keeping, where hyposalinity in any degree is now the 'new' order of fish
science! Gee, with the weight of all those college degrees, of those
learned gentlemen, I should stand in total AWE! Next thing coming out
will be the pronouncement that they have discovered the secret of life
and created an artificial fish! BTW the cites about lower salinity in
transporting fish will surely make all Blue Gill owners very happy!
Actually you sound just like many crack-pots, who refute the wisdom and
empirical data of the aggregated experiences of hundreds if not
thousands of aquarists, and have proclaimed that they indeed know better
than the forces of nature that have created life as it exists today. BTW
what's a boney fish? Are there fish that are not 'boney'?
Group: rec.aquaria.marine.misc Date: Sun, Sep 5, 1999, 3:49am (PDT+7)
From: home...@aol.com Re: keeping sg low all the time. good idea?
home...@aol.com
Well, it is obvious from your “hysterical diatribe about a totally
unrelated subject” that you realize you are in over your head here. My
kids try to change the subject like that when they have lost an
argument. In my last post I said, “Lowering the osmotic gradient
between the internal fluids of the fish and the surrounding water is an
reducing the amount of energy required for osmoregulation.” I also
said, “Actually Dr. Cheung and other concluded that boney marine fish
can be kept indefinitely at 16 ppt salinity (approximately a specific
permanently only making a point about using it as a treatment.” I would
like you to quote where I said we changed the physiology of fish! My
comments have been and continue to be about the validity of
hyposalinity as a therapy to cure Crytocaryon irritans infections not
on a permanent basis. Like any other treatment, it must be used
correctly to be effective; in this case the salinity must be kept at a
low enough level for a long enough period of time without allowing it
to rise. A salinity of 15 ppt or less is necessary for a period of a
minimum of three weeks. This would translate to using a Specific
Gravity of about 1.010 to 1.009 depending on the temperature of the
water because temperature influences the SG but does not change the
salinity. BTW, sharks and rays are not boney fish. Sharks and Rays have
an entirely different osmoregulation strategy and along with
invertebrates cannot be treated with hyposalinity.
Terry D. Bartelme
Steve Wolfe
HomeReef, a couple of things that you have totally missed (or seem to
have missed):
1) Mentioning that you wrote for FAMA around here won't get you any
respect. Most folks around here don't have a high opinion of the
credibility of information presented in it. I never understood why
until I read it.
2) Ultra-low salinities may kill ick - but are also sure to negatively
affect other invertebrates. And without the myriad of detrivores that
make a tank a more complete ecosystem, you're just asking for trouble.
I have never understood why so many people go to all of the trouble to
find new and improved cures for ick. The methods that have done mother
nature well for several million years still work just fine today. Low
stress, and a few cleaners. I've seen far too many tanks rid of ick too
easily using those techniques to even want to investigate others...
steve
> Terry Bartelme
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
home...@aol.com
Steve Wolfe <telomere@see_signature.com> wrote:
>
> HomeReef, a couple of things that you have totally missed (or seem
to
> have missed):
>
> 1) Mentioning that you wrote for FAMA around here won't get you any
> respect. Most folks around here don't have a high opinion of the
> credibility of information presented in it. I never understood why
> until I read it.
I also write for Marine Fish Monthly, SeaScope and should appear in
Aquarium Frontiers in the near future and have been keeping marine
aquariums since 1973 gives me less credibility that someone that has
not done these things? I don't ask anyone to accept my opinion on its
own, I give ample references to check for yourself.
>
> 2) Ultra-low salinities may kill ick - but are also sure to
negatively
> affect other invertebrates. And without the myriad of detrivores that
> make a tank a more complete ecosystem, you're just asking for trouble.
first post in this thread I said, "This method works beautifully, but
the only drawback is that it cannot be used with inverts or live rock."
Maybe if you took the trouble to read the article BEFORE you knock it
you would find I defined how it can be used. Treating fish should be
carried out in quarantine.
> I have never understood why so many people go to all of the trouble
to
> find new and improved cures for ick. The methods that have done
mother
> nature well for several million years still work just fine today. Low
> stress, and a few cleaners. I've seen far too many tanks rid of ick
too
> easily using those techniques to even want to investigate others...
on its own, using cleaners in not a reliable method for curing Ich in
an aquarium. I am well aware that cleaners do eat some parasites, but I
have seen many aquariums wiped out with Ich that contained both cleaner
shrimp and cleaner wrasse. I have also consulted with a lot of well
known people in the hobby in person about the subject of Ich.
Preventive measures like properly quarantining are much more effective.
Regards,
Terry Bartelme
Steve Wolfe
> >>>methodology is benign, is
> >>>highly laughable, and borders on recklessness, in its advocacy.
>
> What borders on reckless is calling a scientifically proven
> effective method laughable!
No, what is truly "reckless" is finding a cure for ick that also has
the effect of ridding your tank of invertebrate detrivores, and stating
that it is "benign". Fish aren't the only thing in the sea, or in our
tanks. Anyone who ignores the importance of invertebrates in our
aquariums is either incredibly short-sighted, extremely ignorant, or
just hasn't thought things through.
> You would call Dr.
> Noga’s methods reckless? I suppose since he is only the leading fish
> DVM in the USA and the professor of Aquatic Medicine at what is
> probably the best veterinary college (NCSU) he should take your refute
> seriously?
You never seem to use the word "invertebrate". If all I wanted were
a few fish in a sterile tank, where I had to vacuum the sand every week,
and do lots of water changes, I suppose his method would work. But some
of us strive for something more.
> Actually Dr. Cheung and other concluded that boney marine fish can be
> kept indefinitely at 16 ppt salinity
Really? Well, let's see here. If he honestly expects that statement
to be accepted by the scientific community, then he should show that
he's done double-blind test with several groups of fish, to see if they
lived to their normal life spans. Considering that most marine fish
have life spans of over 10 years (some upwards of 40), then I really,
really doubt that he's been able to do that, now has he?
> I have had long
> conversations with Tom Frakes about this as well as Ron Shimek and
> others. Maybe you know them?
And just what did Ron have to say? Considering his statement "Some
mollusks, crustaceans and most fish kept at low salinities die of kidney
failure — it just takes them longer. A fish that dies in a couple of
years in a aquarium may have had the potential to live more than 20
years had the salinity been appropriate.", I doubt that it was anything
positive.
It'll be interesting to see how your aquarium frontiers article turns
out.
steve
home...@aol.com
I wish to respond to your comments.
>>>No, what is truly "reckless" is finding a cure for ick that also has
the effect of ridding your tank of invertebrate >>>detrivores, and
stating that it is "benign". Fish aren't the only thing in the sea, or
in our tanks. Anyone who >>>ignores the importance of invertebrates in
our aquariums is either incredibly short-sighted, extremely ignorant,
>>>or just hasn't thought things through.
To begin with, perhaps you where shortsighted or is it nearsighted
when reading my posts. Maybe you where the one that didn’t think things
through here. I clearly stated in my first post in this thread, “This
method works beautifully, but the only drawback is that it cannot be
used with inverts or live rock.” Who advocates using hyposalinity at
this level with inverts? Can you quote where I advocated this?
>>>You never seem to use the word "invertebrate". If all I wanted were
a few fish in a sterile tank, where I had to >>>vacuum the sand every
week, and do lots of water changes, I suppose his method would work.
But some of us >>>strive for something more.
Looks like you missed when I said, “Sharks and Rays have an entirely
different osmoregulation strategy and along with invertebrates cannot
be treated with hyposalinity.” I think that is the word invertebrate
again!
>>> Really? Well, let's see here. If he honestly expects that statement
to be accepted by the scientific community, >>>then he should show that
he's done double-blind test with several groups of fish, to see if they
lived to their >>>normal life spans. Considering that most marine fish
have life spans of over 10 years (some upwards of 40), >>>then I
really, really doubt that he's been able to do that, now has he?
Dr Cheung’s work was published in scientific journals and reviewed
by his peers, are you his peer?
>>>And just what did Ron have to say? Considering his statement "Some
mollusks, crustaceans and most fish >>>kept at low salinities die of
kidney failure — it just takes them longer.
Ron and I had a few drinks together when we talked about this. His
statement as it pertains to invertebrates is true. Most inverts are
osmoconformers not osmoregulators like boney marine fish.
>>> A fish that dies in a couple of years in a aquarium may have had
the potential to live more than 20 years had the >>>salinity been
appropriate.", I doubt that it was anything positive.
Anything Ron had to say here was based solely on a miscommunication
(He misunderstood someone). This was cleared up and Ron retracted his
statement that was based on a miscommunication. Ron has NO PROBLEM with
hyposalinity being used to treat a Cryptocaryon infection in fish.
Since treating the infection is the use I advocate, we have no
difference of opinion here. Ron does have some reservations about
keeping reef fish at this salinity permanently, as do I. As I said in
an earlier post in this thread, “My comments have been and continue to
be about the validity of hyposalinity as a therapy to cure Crytocaryon
irritans infections not on a permanent basis.”
>>>It'll be interesting to see how your aquarium frontiers article
turns out.
The upcoming articles are about controlling stress not treating Ich.
Regards,
Terry Bartelme
--
Steve Wolfe
> when reading my posts. Maybe you where the one that didn’t think things
> through here. I clearly stated in my first post in this thread, “This
> method works beautifully, but the only drawback is that it cannot be
> used with inverts or live rock.” Who advocates using hyposalinity at
> this level with inverts? Can you quote where I advocated this?
Nope, I apologize.
> >>>And just what did Ron have to say? Considering his statement "Some
> mollusks, crustaceans and most fish >>>kept at low salinities die of
> kidney failure — it just takes them longer.
>
> Ron and I had a few drinks together when we talked about this. His
> statement as it pertains to invertebrates is true. Most inverts are
> osmoconformers not osmoregulators like boney marine fish.
Actually, his statement pretty specifically says "fish"....
> >>> A fish that dies in a couple of years in a aquarium may have had
> the potential to live more than 20 years had the >>>salinity been
> appropriate.", I doubt that it was anything positive.
>
> Anything Ron had to say here was based solely on a miscommunication
> (He misunderstood someone). This was cleared up and Ron retracted his
> statement that was based on a miscommunication. Ron has NO PROBLEM with
> hyposalinity being used to treat a Cryptocaryon infection in fish.
Hmmm... sounds interesting. Having read quite a bit of his material,
and communicated personally with him, I haven't heard him retract it,
but for the time being, I'll take your word for it.
> >>>It'll be interesting to see how your aquarium frontiers article
> turns out.
>
> The upcoming articles are about controlling stress not treating Ich.
It actually sounds like it *is* about treating ich - by controlling
stress, and letting your fish live a little healthier, you're making a
very good step towards controlling ich. I'm looking forward to the
article.
Steve Wolfe
> > respect. Most folks around here don't have a high opinion of the
> > credibility of information presented in it. I never understood why
> > until I read it.
> Perhaps some don't respect anything in print!
Actually, these days, that's about the safest way to go. It seems
like just about any loony with a theory can get in print. (No, I'm not
referring to you or any of your articles). After seeing first-hand the
kind of dated information that makes up the majority of FAMA, I
understand why so many people purchase it solely for the advertisements
(which are pretty good). Your article may have been the best they've
ever published, the best ever published in the world - but saying that
you were published in FAMA isn't the best way to get credibility. : )
> I suppose the fact that
> I also write for Marine Fish Monthly, SeaScope and should appear in
> Aquarium Frontiers in the near future and have been keeping marine
> aquariums since 1973 gives me less credibility that someone that has
> not done these things?
I didn't mention any of those things, now did I? If you want me to
expound on my view of each of them, I can, but you're the one who
brought them up.
> The short answer here is that although Ich does occasionally go away
> on its own, using cleaners in not a reliable method for curing Ich in
> an aquarium.
Really? I've seen a single cleaner wrasse turn a massive-infested
90-gallon tank into a very slightly-infested tank in a matter of 2
days...
But it sounds like you are speaking of completely eradicating ich for
good. Well, if that's what you want, then copper or other drastic
measures (possibly the hypolsalinity method) are the only choices. But
then again, any time you add a new fish, rock, or anything else, you've
always got to go through it again. : )
After having seen I-don't-know-how-many tanks that are completely
ick-free to the eye with just keeping stress low and a cleaner or two,
cleaners seem a very viable option to me - but again, if you have
stressed-out, unhealthy fish, even the cleaners aren't going to do much
for you. : )
> I am well aware that cleaners do eat some parasites, but I
> have seen many aquariums wiped out with Ich that contained both cleaner
> shrimp and cleaner wrasse.
Were you able to determine with 100% accuracy that it was the ick?
In my personaly experience (not as vast as yours, but not negligible,
either), I've never seen a fish death that could absolutely, positively
be said to be solely from ick. Parasites aren't the same thing as
predators, and assuming otherwise healthy and well-fed fish, I have seen
fish (like a blue tang that seemed to get ick just for fun) live for
over half a year with such massive infestations that it literally looked
like you'd rolled the thing in sugar.
I just can't believe after seeing so many fish live for so long with
such massive infestations that ick is lethal... I'm not saying that
this is the case with you, but pretty much every time "ick" turned out
to be the culprit, the people weren't dealing with cryptocaryon at all,
but amyloodinium or other beasts.
Incidentally, with all of those massively infected fish, once the
stressors were removed, and cleaners were added, things were dandy
within a week or two. I've never seen it fail. : ) I've also
recommended it to many people, and invariably, they've all had it work
out wonderfully once they figured out what was stressing the fish.
> I have also consulted with a lot of well
> known people in the hobby in person about the subject of Ich.
This is not an attack on you or on any of your colleagues - but
confusing "well known" with "credible" would be a serious mistake for
anyone, whether it be in this hobby or otherwise. I'm not saying that
they are mutually exclusive, or that they don't often go together - but
determining credibility on basis of fame or popular recognition is just
plain foolhardy. To narrow it down to marine biology, well, it's a
field that's just too new, too broad, and too unexplored - I don't think
you'll find a single well-known person in the field who hasn't said at
least a few things that weren't entirely true... and usually they've
said more than a few. Again, I'm not saying that they can't be trusted
in general, or that they're wicked, evil people - just two things:
1) Fame or recognition isn't *necessarily* credibility
2) Each assertion should be viewed independantly.
home...@aol.com
> > The short answer here is that although Ich does occasionally go
away
> > on its own, using cleaners in not a reliable method for curing Ich
in
> > an aquarium.
>
> Really? I've seen a single cleaner wrasse turn a massive-infested
> 90-gallon tank into a very slightly-infested tank in a matter of 2
> days...
TO begin with Ich cannot be cured in a matter of two days. The life
cycle is much longer than that and all three stages must be gone before
the parasite has been cleared. It would not be an exaggeration to say I
have advised a few hundred people over the years about treating Ich. I
have seen an awful lot of cases both in private, and commercial
aquaria. I couldn't begin to tell you how many times I have seen
cleaners fail to control an outbreak. Cleaner Wrasse become infected
and die themselves. In a case of a small number of parasites I think
they can help. I have also seen a lot of people declare their fish were
over Ich only for it to come back in a short time, usually worse than
before. It is part of the natural life cycle of this parasite to fall
off the fish. Sometimes this fools people into thinking the infection
is gone. I am not saying cleaners are worthless, just that the
conditions are very different in an aquarium verses the wild. IMO,
cleaners don't usually work in this situation.
> But it sounds like you are speaking of completely eradicating ich
for
> good. Well, if that's what you want, then copper or other drastic
> measures (possibly the hypolsalinity method) are the only choices.
But
> then again, any time you add a new fish, rock, or anything else,
you've
> always got to go through it again. : )
There is no need to purchase new rock, etc. if the treatment is carried
out in a seperate tank and the display is left without fish for a
minimum of thirty days to allow the parasite to die out from a lack of
food source (ie.fish). The preferable thing is to properly quarantine
and avoid infecting the dislpay to begin with.
> After having seen I-don't-know-how-many tanks that are completely
> ick-free to the eye with just keeping stress low and a cleaner or two,
> cleaners seem a very viable option to me - but again, if you have
> stressed-out, unhealthy fish, even the cleaners aren't going to do
much
> for you. : )
Yes, tanks that appear Ich free may have a low level of infection. It
could be possible for a cleaner to help in this circumstance. The
problem is you are walking a tight rope and as soon as something
happens that stresses out the fish, or you add to the density of the
population of parasites in the tank things can go downhill quickly.
Under these circumstances I do not find cleaners are usually very
effective for controlling the problem in aquariums.
>
> > I am well aware that cleaners do eat some parasites, but I
> > have seen many aquariums wiped out with Ich that contained both
cleaner
> > shrimp and cleaner wrasse.
>
> Were you able to determine with 100% accuracy that it was the ick?
> In my personaly experience (not as vast as yours, but not negligible,
> either),
Well, I know what it looks like under a microscope.
>>I've never seen a fish death that could absolutely, positively
be said to be solely from ick.
Actually, there is some truth to this. It is usually the secondary
bacterial infections caused by the wounds from the Cryptocaryon that
actually kill the fish. This is similar to when a cancer patient
actually dies from pnemonia when they have no resistance left. Did they
die from cancer or pnemonia? They would not have come down with
pnemonia in the last days of their life if the cancer had not weakened
them completely first.
Parasites aren't the same thing as
> predators, and assuming otherwise healthy and well-fed fish, I have
seen
> fish (like a blue tang that seemed to get ick just for fun) live for
> over half a year with such massive infestations that it literally
looked
> like you'd rolled the thing in sugar.
Cryptocaryon can act in a way that is similar to a preditor in an
aquarium. By this I mean they attack the animal and kill it because
there usually is very little natural balance in an aquarium setting.
This type of parasite is in unnatural enviroment in which balance is
gone. In the wild both the fish and the parasite can survive together.
Almost all fish have internal worms and they are kept in balance not by
the parasite but by the fish's immune system keeping the numbers low
enough for the fish to survive. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be
the case with external parasites.
>
> I just can't believe after seeing so many fish live for so long with
> such massive infestations that ick is lethal... I'm not saying that
> this is the case with you, but pretty much every time "ick" turned out
> to be the culprit, the people weren't dealing with cryptocaryon at
all,
> but amyloodinium or other beasts.
Cryptocaryon irritans are very lethal, and are much more common in
aquariums than Amyloodinium IMO.
> Incidentally, with all of those massively infected fish, once the
> stressors were removed, and cleaners were added, things were dandy
> within a week or two. I've never seen it fail. : ) I've also
> recommended it to many people, and invariably, they've all had it work
> out wonderfully once they figured out what was stressing the fish.
I am happy to hear you have been succesful, many others have not. There
is a long list of treatments, chemicals and methods available for
treating Ich today. The problem is that the vast majority are not
consistantly reliable. Copper (IMO Cupramine is superior to any other
copper-based medications) or hyposalinity (15 ppt or less salinity) are
the only lab tested proven to be consistantly reliable treatments for
Cryptocaryon.
Cheers,
Terry Bartelme
> ---------------------------------------
> Domain name for replies is "inconnect".
> ---------------------------------------
>
home...@aol.com
> > The upcoming articles are about controlling stress not treating
Ich.
>
> It actually sounds like it *is* about treating ich - by controlling
> stress, and letting your fish live a little healthier, you're making a
> very good step towards controlling ich. I'm looking forward to the
> article.
>
> steve
Steve,
Of course you are right, stress is an factor in the health of fish.
Although I didn't intend to relate the two together directly (stress
and Ich) they can go hand in hand. Publishers often don't seem to feel
it is important to notify the author which issue their articles will
appear in. Hopefully, I will know ahead of time so I can let you know.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Terry Bartelme
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> Domain name for replies is "inconnect".
> ---------------------------------------
>
Johnson L. Wu
> and die themselves. In a case of a small number of parasites I think
Indeed. In most cases Ick comes from changes in water quality and
according to my experience the cleaners always stop cleaning, start
secreting excessive mucus to wrap itself, hide in crevices and DIE
of ick FIRST.
> I am happy to hear you have been succesful, many others have not. There
> is a long list of treatments, chemicals and methods available for
> treating Ich today. The problem is that the vast majority are not
> consistantly reliable. Copper (IMO Cupramine is superior to any other
> copper-based medications) or hyposalinity (15 ppt or less salinity) are
> the only lab tested proven to be consistantly reliable treatments for
> Cryptocaryon.
That's why I do NOT believe in live rock.
Live rock = Ick depot due to unknown stability of
whatever the crap is hiding within,
and I simply cannot use my proven 3 tier treatment:
Cupramine + 1.018 + 83F treatment which
has always worked within 2-3 days.
Charles J DeVito
Johnson L. Wu wrote in message <7rfgrq$f...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>That's why I do NOT believe in live rock.
I assure you, it does exist.
Charles J DeVito
Ravenheart Enterprises
rh...@gte.net
Christopher DiChiaro
8 years I've had a few "traditional" FO tanks with no live rock in them and
artificial filtration and experienced a couple of mild cases of ick. For
the past 2 years I've set up a few "natural" tanks (live rock/skimmer as
only filtration) and haven't had a single outbreak of any type of disease in
any of the tanks. I've never had such healthy tanks with such good water
quality. To really put the icing on the cake, these are the easiest tanks
(by far) I've ever cared for. I'd recommend this approach to anyone in this
hobby. That's just my experience with it, but I think it goes to prove that
live rock is not necessarily the culprit of an ich outbreak.
>That's why I do NOT believe in live rock.
Johnson L. Wu
He regularly changes the water but the only reason why the tanks
are lightly populated is that all new fish will die within a week
from ich.
I have 3 FO tanks and all have many fishes in them.
I have managed to keep a Platax pinnatus and
a Pygoplites diacanthus, not to mention a few butterflies,
for over a year.
Perhaps you can say its coincidence or my luck.
Christopher DiChiaro <C...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7rgh6q$nsv$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
Johnson L. Wu
Charles J DeVito <rh...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:U%IC3.6236$ZR2....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
>
> Johnson L. Wu wrote in message <7rfgrq$f...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> >That's why I do NOT believe in live rock.
>
Christopher DiChiaro
culprit for a parasite being introduced into the aquarium or is this the
only example? The reason I ask is because my LFS has a whole store full of
aquariums all full of live rock and his fish never have ich. Probably why
I've never had it in my tank. I was always under the impression that ich
needed a host to survive. If your friend moved all of the fish out of one
tank and let it sit for about two months wouldn't all the ich eventually die
off with no hosts present?
Johnson L. Wu wrote in message <7rh175$8...@journal.concentric.net>...
Johnson L. Wu
do it to 1 of his 2 tanks and see what happens.
I live in CA and I never see any LFS use live rock in
their fish tanks where specimens are kept for sale.
They always have live rock that's isolated in tanks
and are supposedly under curing.
They always tell me that new fish are stressed and
a lot of times they have to use copper to rid them of
ich first.
I do not have live rock, but I have old bowl rock that I never
wash and supposedly they contain a lot of beneficial bacteria.
With my setup I can use copper if necessary without the
risk of killing the *SHIT* that lives in live rock and causing
further destruction with the subsequent ammo spike.