C. irritans life cycle and hypo

[tangaeric]

Dear Terry,
I just read an article by Dr. Harry W. Dickerson on treatment of C. irritans in aquaria (http://www.breeders-registry.gen.ca....umr/******.htm) in which he mentions that part of the life cycle of the parasite is to attach itself to the host fish as a trophont for a period of growth until maturity of 5-7 days after which it disattaches itself and leaves the host. The tomont, after swimming in the water colum until it attaches itself to some substrate where it will encysts, the subdivide for a period of 3-28 days after which it will hatch into several free swimming tomites.
The editors note at the end of the article summarises that in their lab experiments they found that cysts exposed to hyposalinity of SG 1.011 or less for a period of 48 hours or more do not produce live tomonts.
Now, considering that the best place for a fish to be, other than in its natural environment in the sea, is to be in a display tank rather than in a quarantene tank where the level of stress is likely to be higher than in the simulated natural environment of a display (although it might not always be true), ideally a quarantene period would be as short as possible in order to get the fish into the display. For example, a powder blue tang that can be a difficult feeder is more likely to feed well in a display tank than in a quarantene tank (in my experience so far). Also, maintaining good water quality for extended periods of time in a quarantene tank where one could be administering treatments, has been difficult for me when compared to my display tank.
Therefore, since I've been unable to access any of your published papers on the subject, could you indicate, based on your research, at which stage hyposalinity affects the and breaks the life cycle of C. irritans?
Based on the above referenced paper by Dr. Dickerson, one could theorize that if a fish entering quarantene is carrying the parasite, it would be carrying it in the trophont stage, which would, according to the referenced research, only last 5-7 days before it disattaches itself from the fish and encysts somewhere in the quarantene tank. Based on the same study one could then assume that if the cysts formed after a maximum of 7 days after the quarantened fish are exposed to hyposalinity of SG 1.009 remain exposed to the hypo for more than 48 hours, then no live tomites would hatch, meaning that the fish could then not get re-infected. Based on these theories, hypo quarantene tanks for C. irritans would only need to run in hypo for a maximum of, say, 12 days (to be on the safe side) instead of the minimum 21 days you recommend.
Could you comment on this theory?
Thanks,
Eric
P.S. I have a new quarantene cycle running with a better setup of a 1200L plastic tank for the fish, a 1200L tank acting as a sump with a trickle carbon/sand filter running in the sump. I cycled the tank for 15 days before putting any fish in there and it seems to be working alot better than the previous cycles. Thanks for all the past advice

 

[hnf2k]

and terry, when you respond. respond in a language that i can understand. anyone wanna translate what he said? im curious to know the answer.

 

[beth]

You are assuming that trophonts attach to the fish all at the same time, and that all will detach at the same time, which is very unlikely. Also, you are assuming that you can see all the ich that is attached, and would, therefore, know when the parasites were no longer attached, which is, also, not the case. The 3 wks in hypo address these variables to a high degree of accuracy for effective treatment. Less than that increases risk of reinfection. And, what if your fish does not have ich until, say, wk 2 in QT?? With your suggestion, it would be too late, the fish would be in the main tank by then. Additionally, QT is not designed to just address potential ich. There are many fish diseases that need to be considered during the quarantine period.
Also, the purpose of QT is to reduce stress, not add to it. The fact that a fish is alone in a tank that has optimum water conditions and will be receiving “intensive care” type attention from the hobbyist are all pluses in maximizing acclimation to the main tank. A lone fish in a QT does not have to compete with other fish for food or territory—resulting in reduced stress. And, particularly, a fish that come in with an illness can benefit from not having to compete with other fish. Viewed in this light, you can see why the QT should not be viewed as yet another fish stressor, but, rather, a serene sanctuary where fish will be given an opportunity to recover from the resent ordeals of capture and where the hobbyist will have amble opportunity to address the fish’s health needs prior to introducing the fish into a new home.

 

[tangaeric]

Dear Beth,
Thanks for your response and insight. In answer to your first paragraph, I think I might have not been very clear about what I meant. I get the impression, from your first paragraph, that you understood two weeks of QT in saltwater salinity? However, what I meant is 12-15 days of QT in hypo at SG 1.009. This means that actual quarantene might be longer if you take into account a couple of days prior to hypo to drop the salinity and 2-5 days after the hypo to raise the salinity back to display level. So, the actual QT would be about 20 days. It is only the hypo that is 12-15 days.
Furthermore, concerning that first paragraph, the only assumptions that I am making is that when I subject a fish to hypo of 1.009, from that moment on I can start counting days of hypo treatment. This means that from that moment on, based on Dr. Dickerson's report, I can start counting the maximum amount of days a trophont can remain attached to a fish irrespective of whether the parasite is visible or not at that stage. The life cycle clearly states that the trophont stage lasts up to a maxium of 7 days (according to Dr. Dickerson and this is what I am putting up for discussion too). So, it does not matter whether a trophont is in day 1 or 6 of growth, or somewhere inbetween; on the 8th day I can assume that if Dr. Dickerson is correct, the trophont will have left the fish. Once it does that, the only remaining risk of reinfection of that fish is if a tomite swims and attaches itself to it. But, this risk is removed by the fact that if hypo continues another 2-4 days past days 8, then the cysts that will hatch the tomites will be subjected to the hypo for over 48 hours which, according to the referenced study means that the cycts will not hatch any live tomites. Therefore, no live tomites means no chance of reinfection of the fish. Therefore, according to the study, a total of 12-15 days in hypo of SG 1.009 should be enough to guarantee an ick-free fish. Or am I seeing it wrong?
I am not disputing anything and especially not the fact that adding extra days to the hypo period is wise and will take into account any unexpected factors. I am simply asking what is the critical time during which we can expect that a fish in hypo of 14ppt will be rid of ick for good. And I am asking that because keeping a fish in QT is a little more complicated than in a display tank. I know Terry has written many papers concerning the subject, which I have been unable to access even though I requested help on this site on how to access them. Therefore, I would like to have his opinion - based on his research - on my question
Concerning your second paragraph, I agree that a QT situation may be what a fish need to recover from the stress it has encountered on its way there. However, we all buy/catch fish to place them in our display tanks, where I feel that it will eventually be more 'comfortable' and at home than in a QT tank. I feel that a QT tank is absolutely necessary and am comfortable with it, having worked hard using past mistakes to have an effective QT setup. I am also the first to advocate keeping a fish in there as long as possible in order to remove all doubt of reinfection. Believe me, trying to catch a dieseased fish in my 2000gal tank is not easy and certainly not much fun. However, I would like to agree on what is the critical period for ick in hypo.
Hope this clarifies things a bit

 

[tangaeric]

Beth, any comments? Terry, are you there? I have some additional thoughts on this but would like to hold them until you have come up with your opinions based on your research.

 

[beth]

Well, I was waiting to see if Terry would respond.

 

[tangaeric]

Beth,
Labda Terry hayupo! In Kiswahili that means,'maybe he's not around.'
I dunno, should I go ahead with my further thoughts? I really would like to see what Terry's research on hypo and ****** before I go ahead and ask for further opinions. Is there any way that maybe you could forward me a link to some of his research?
Thanks,
Eric

 

[tangaeric]

Beth,
I just did a search on the net for more info on C. irritans and found pretty much what we already know. I was unable to access the site that houses the article of Colorni, A. of 1987 who seems to have done some well respected research on hypo and ******. Most of the research by others quote his/her work.
Overall my impression is that according to the various research, the general tendency is to agree that the possible 'critical time' for ****** reinfection risk to be removed is after 10 days of hypo at 14ppt or less. I also read the findings on a french site that used hypo effectively to quarantene fish and microscopically found no evidence of fish infection by the ****** parasite after 10 days or more of hypo treatment of 14ppt or less. On the other hand, their control tanks showed the ****** parasite after microscopic examination of gills and flesh.
Pretty interesting. I would like to see the work of Terry and eventually Colorni though before I make up my mind.
Later,
Eric

 

[beth]

Terry actually posted some info on ich and life cycle, etc., when he first came to the BB. It was titled, Hyposalinity, I believe. Try doing a serach on some of his older posts [from last summer].
I saw Terry here yesturday, so he is around. I don't know his email.

 

[tangaeric]

Hi Beth,
Hope you had a good weekend. I will do a search on this forum to see what I can find of Terry's research.
If you see Terry again, can you put in a good word for this thread ? I would really like to have his input too.
I wonder why he is not responding?
Thanks for all,
Eric

 

[beth]

I'll post an alert for him and stick it to the top.

 

[tangaeric]

Thanks Beth, much appreciated. I'll let you know if I find any of his research papers.
Eric

 

[tangaeric]

Dear Terry,
Thank's so much for your reply. It really means alot to me. In principle I am quarantening and going to quarantene all new fish in hypo for 21 days or more, counting the hypo days from the first day at SG of 1.009. As you know the full overall qurantene period will extend to about 27 days when including the days required to bring a tank to a SG of 1.009 and those after the 21 days of hypo to bring the tank back up to the SG of the display tank.
I have downloaded the two part article you wrote in FAMA magazine this year and will read it thoroughly. I might have a few more questions later on your articles if you don't mind. Unfortunately I have not been able to access Dr. Coloni's research in 1985 and 1987. However, the question I have now for you is concerning the article I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. In the article, the editor's note, quoting Dr. Coloni's work on the subject, states that cysts exporsed to hyposalinity of less than a SG of 1.010 do not hatch any live tomites. Wouldn't that mean that any cysts, no matter when they hatch, exposed to a salinity of 14ppt or less will not hatch any live tomites? Or was the editor making a wrong interpretation of data from Dr. Coloni's research?
The reason I am asking this is to try to be as certain as possible of the risks involved in performing hypo as a prevention for C. irritans infection on quarantened fish for the most critical stage where the parasites' life cycle is broken and infection removed. Ideally anyone going to a LFS would like to buy fish that are free of ich. On an earlier thread on another forum (about.com) I asked the question why fish suppliers didn't do something from their end to prevent ich infection so that the hobbyist didn't have to spend so much money of fish only to find, with most of the time drastic consequences, that they are infected with the parasite? One of the answers I got was that it was a logistical nightmare and expensive, and thus probably not feasible, for suppliers, preferably the collectors or importers, to keep batches of fish in quarantene for 21 days or more to make certain that the fish they ship are ich free.
I think that if one LFS advertised it sold ich-free fish while providing any potential hobbyist with an informative pamphlet on the quarantene process and preventive treatment their fish have undergone so as to make such a statement (that their fish are .....% certain ich free), that such a LFS would have a huge advantage over other LFS that would sell fish handled in the current conventional methods. So, here where it get's critical........is it possible for a collector to quarantene fish for a critical period of say.....12-15 days in hypo (+the added acclimation days) and obtain a really good success rate, say 99%, of C. irritans removal from their fish so as to make such a statement? This is where my earlier question on the effects of hypo on the cysts becomes critical because if the hypo can effectively be administered in 12-15 days instead of 21 days, then the whole hypo treatment/prevention method may become more feasible for collectors to perform prior to shipping their fish all over the world. Clearly the isolation of such fish from other fish which have not been treated in this manner prior to shipping would be a must for the whole thing to work all the way up to the hobbyist. But imagine if it could be financially and logistically feasible, wouldn't that be a great thing for all hobbyists, even at a modest added cost of the fish due to the added costs of holding fish for such an extended time prior to shipping?
If one collector can do it, convince an importer to isolate his/her (the collector's) from those of other collectors, and have a LFS that will do the same, then the whole supply chain to the hobbyist could ensure a 99% (any less would not be enough) ich-free fish to the hobbyist, then all other collectors and importers would have no choice over time to do the same.
My family in exported fish from Kenya in East Africa for 35 years and our ex-customers from both Europe and the US are pushing me to start doing so again (I am currently in the artisan seafood business here in Tanzania and thus logistically well prepared to do so). However, before doing so I've, as you know, been setting up my 200gal reef tank through which I encountered the ich problem apart from many others. In seeking assistance on this and other forums on how to combat the problem I realized it is a huge problem for hobbyists, all of who are not really set up to quarantene their fish for such extended periods of time. I am in the process of designing a setup to hold batches of fish individually by species for the 'proposed' 12-15 days in hypo simply to see how economically feasible it would be, and if it is, well that would certainly potentially change things.
I know, it is all very idealistic, but what do you think?
I look forward to your input.......
Eric

 

[john f]

I commend you for your forward looking thoughts.
Two big problems I see............
#1 Convincing the wholesaler to seperate your stock from every one elses stock........This would be an almost impossible task.
#2 Convincing the lousy LFS to to the same. These guys (as well as the wholesalers) are really in the business of selling fish ASAP before they die in their tanks. They really DO NOT care if you get a fish with Ick........better you get it than they get it.
When I am financially able I will set up a LFS and offer Ick free fish that have been hypo'd for 3 wees prior to sale. I have thought ALOT about it. The main problems I will have are customers buying fish from other retailers, getting Ick, and then blaming it on my stock.
Also, keep in mind the LFS would have to quarantine all live rock and corals for 3 weeks or so as well.
John

 

[krusk]

TangaEric
You can do it. The whole salers and LFS can also saperate your fish in their tank.
If they are MAC certified whole salers and MAC certified LFS.
MAC : Marine Aquarium Council
http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/

 

[beth]

How would a LFS hypo all incoming fish? I don't really see this as a viable operation for people in business. Think about it. My LFS gets in new stock 1x wk. Lets say he gets in 30 new fish today and he places these fish in QT. Now some fish are lionfish, and some are clownfish. Some are gobies, some are eels. Are all these fish going into the same QT/hypo tank? I don’t think so. How many QT's will the LFS have to set up to hypo all these fish with various needs and compatibility issues?
Lets say the LFS does go thru this. Next wk, the LFS get 30 more new fish. Where are these fish going to go? In to new tanks to be hypo-ed?? Not likely. But they can’t go in to the tanks with fish that have been in hypo for the past wk.
But, lets say the LFS actually sets up about 30 tanks to hypo new shipments of fish received 1x a wk. There's a price tag attached to LFS’s keeping all these fish for at least a month. Not to mention all the water change outs necessary for hypo. Is a LFS going to fork out the extra expense for this? No. But if the LFS does, is he going to eat the cost? No. How much more are hobbyists willing to pay for a fish that’s been hypo-ed? Double?
Hobbyist must get in to the mindset that QT is their responsibility. An essential component of being a marine aquarist. No hobbyists would balk at the necessity of providing filtration for their systems, so why is QT considered an "unnecessary" evil? Ultimately hobbyists must take the responsibility to take care of their fish and their tanks. This starts with QT. This is the first and necessary step to being successful in this hobby.

 

[krusk]

Do you need to have 1 tank per fish when you are doing hypo?
Hyposalinity effects the life cycle of C. irritans at the tomont stage. Tomonts cannot excyst (hatch) in a salinity of 16ppt<.
You do not need 30 tanks to Hypo 30 fishes
If you have 10 fishes in your aquarium. And they have ICH,
Do you have to get 10 different tanks to treat the fishes?
What wrong with doing hypo in the main tank than (assumed that you do not have any inverts) ?
And what is the point of doing Hypo in the maintank?
yes, quarantine is the hoppiest reposibility. If you are doing hypo for 21 days in the quarantine tank 3,4(give and take on number) fishes in the quaratine tank will have the same therapy.
1 fish per quaratine tank for 3 weeks is advised if you are NOT doing hypo.
This will also apply in the Whole sale business.
Terry, please correct me, if this is wrong.

 

[tangaeric]

Beth, nice to see your post again on this thread, and John and Krusk, thanks for your ideas.
Beth, I tend to agree with Krusk; you are right to say that the hobbyist should quarantene all fish so as to ensure fish health, but the point is that us hobbyists have no choice but to do so because collectors - and in my opinion not LFS - do not take responsibility to do so. In my opinion, responsible collectors of aquarium fish should quarantene all fish in hypo for the critical period it takes to ensure a minimum of 99% probability of C. irritans-free fish. They are the best equipped to do so. At the same time, responsible LFSs should also be responsible fish traders and only buy from collectors who can certify ich free fish. In turn, well informed hobbyists should then play their responsible role and only buy from LFSs that sell only ich-free certified fish.
So, in essence, everybody has a role to play in ensuring that a responsible trade of these beautiful animals is carried out. At the moment fish are also expensive because there are considerable losses in importer's and LFSs holding tanks. After having seen the magnitude of the problem on this site and others like it, there are also alot of very disappointed uninformed hobbyists spending alot of money to set up the tanks of their dreams only to have them wiped out by the disease.
Collectors are the perpetrators of the trade. It is where all the fish originate from. There are many throughout the world that practice very environmentally unfriendly fish collection practices, using poison, breaking coral and rock to remove fish from their natural hiding places, and collecting indiscriminately. Take the seafood industry for example where processors need to be certified with a HACCP system before they can supply seafood for human consumption. There needs to be some certification system for the aquarium fish trade. In this day and age we cannot continue irrisponsibly to collect and ship fish knowing that most likely they will succumb to ick due to the inability of LFS to quarantene them properly or the ignorance of hobbyists.
I believe, and I'm working on the calculations, that the added cost to a hobbyist due to a collector quarantening fish in hypo before shipping will be minimal when comparing it to the cost of replacing fish in aquariums devastated by ick, both at the LFS and hobbyist level. A collector shipping tangs, butterflies, clowns, lions and angels, for example, could quarantene fish by species in the same tanks. Thus a tank of only tangs coul be easily treated in hypo before shipping. The cost for a LFS doing the same would be much greater than those for a collector doing so, and it is most likely that a LFS would not have the space to do so.
To conclude, if the collector treats all fish in hypo, then there is no need for either the LFS or the hobbyist to do so, just as long as all fish from that collector are kept separate with no risk of contact with fish from other collectors that are shipping untreated fish. The overall cost to the hobbyist bying the fish would probably be less considering there would be less losses in holding tanks along the way and in the aquariums at home. I believe it can be done and like I said, in this day and age where we, as human beings, have such a high level of information concerning the environment and condition of the planet, should enforce a responsible trade of these beautiful animals through a certification system.
However, before going ahead we must look back to the beginning of this thread and agree scientifically as to what is the critical time where the ick life cycle can be broken with a minimum of 99% probability, while keeping in mind that the longer the quarantene time the higher the costs! I am not proposing that shortcuts be taken, but that a scientifically proven and agreed upon method of quarantening fish in hypo for a critical time that will ensure a 99% probability of ick-free fish be established. Once that is done then we can quantify the added costs, if any, to the collector and eventually the hobbyist.
Eric

 

[itchy]

Ok, One second here....I think the only way for a LFS to do hypo on a fish is if ALL their display tanks were to be kept in Hypo. Otherwise do you think that this set up would eventually cost the consumer more money? Meaning if they had 2 sets of tanks for all fish...there is more money involved. Not that this is a big concern but could happen.
Next, Say for instance that you or I went in this LFS and bought a particuar fish that had been kept in 1.009 salinty and then put it into our tank with a higher salinty.This alone could cause stress or even worse death. Now I am not saying that all people should not quaranteen but there are still people in this hobby that are not aware of Hypo therapy.
Therefore I think that we, the consumer, should be the responsible party and quaranteen our fish once purchased. Another plus here is the fact that netting and travel can be as of much stress to the fish and allow it to become prone to diseases and parasites. So even if the LFS used hypo there would still be no sure fire way of preventing this except on the consumers end. The only thing I see Hypo doing for the LFS is saving them money by not losing some many fish to diseases, but if that LFS is losing more money on disease riddin fish than they are making they should choose another way of living.
I guess I can understand way consumers would like to see hypo used in the LFS but I do not think it is realistic.
Oh well just my opinion !!!!! My husband and I are self employeed and I know how cost goes and what it can do to your business and your supply. Think about the cost handed down to the consumer!!
Thanks,
Robyn

 

[krusk]

I think I can understand where are you coming from
Next, Say for instance that you or I went in this LFS and bought a particuar fish that had been kept in 1.009 salinty and then put it into our tank with a higher salinty.
First, if the fish is in quarnatine system, they should not for sale. If we concer about the MAC certification
but there are still people in this hobby that are not aware of Hypo therapy.
agreed, that's why the certified fish is heatlthy and ICH free before they get into hopyist who do not aware of hypo. This will keep the lost of our animal down and $$$
Therefore I think that we, the consumer, should be the responsible party and quaranteen our fish once purchased.
again agreed, we do it any way even the fish is heathy for other purposes, train to accept our food etc.
There are many LFS out there doing quarantine.