Ich and treatment in our tanks! You too can be Ich free!

[cameron]

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Well, it seems the jury is in, and I am in the vast minority.

All I can say is that through my education and training in biology and wildlife, some of the conclusions being assumed are not correct in my train of thought. Boiling it down to brass tacks- if hyposalinity is so therapuetic, what cant these fish tolerate it long term?

Wild animals that are not kept in natural environments are prime candidates for problems due to stress. What your argument is, is that the benefits outweight the drawbacks. This is entirely your decision. But, please stop claiming that hyposalinity doesn't have any negative effect on marine fish! If you really think this true- leave your fish in hypo for 2, 3, 4 months. Wait- this is problematic? Do you want to know why? Because the hyposalinity is aggravating to the systems of marine fish, but in your cases, the period was not significant enough to cause permanent, disabling, or fatal problems.

Heres is a better analogy- smoking is harmful to your health. It causes diseases that will kill you. But one cigarette probably wont, right? It probably wont even cause a blip on the health radar. But does that mean it's harmless? No. It was just a tiny speck that probably wont ever play a role in your life, but it doesn't mean it aint harmful.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

jmaneyapanda;31302 wrote: Because the hyposalinity is aggravating to the systems of marine fish, but in your cases, the period was not significant enough to cause permanent, disabling, or fatal problems.

Exactly my point, the term of care in hypo is so short that the "period was not significant enough to cause permanent, disabling, or fatal problems." Thanks for summing it up better then I could. Heck, the use of Metronidazole incorrectly or in the wrong amounts like most people do has more long term effects then Hypo does, IMHO.

Heres is a better analogy- smoking is harmful to your health. It causes diseases that will kill you. But one cigarette probably wont, right? It probably wont even cause a blip on the health radar. But does that mean it's harmless? No. It was just a tiny speck that probably wont ever play a role in your life, but it doesn't mean it aint harmful.

If I could give my fish a cigarette one time to prevent Ich in my tank, DONE!!! Light him up sparky!!! People take ginsing and gaurana root and omaga-3 and all sorts of compounds in daily life to prevent future problems. Is that wrong? I think not.

Listen, I am going to put this to rest once and for all. I am making a change to my thread.
"You should be running your QT at Hypo in most cases for your best chance to stive off Ich infections. If you choose not to, you MUST take a slide, scrape the coat of your fish and view it under a microscope to make sure that no ich shows up that was not visable to the naked eye. Note mutiple scrapings might be needed. Or Method three, you must QT not for 30 days but for 60 days."

If you agree to do that Jmaney, everytime you bring in a new fish to your system, I will agree to make that change and stand by that statement!

 

[cameron]

jmaneyapanda;31302 wrote: Boiling it down to brass tacks- if hyposalinity is so therapuetic, what cant these fish tolerate it long term?

Just because something is harmful in the long term doesn't mean it is hurtful for short durations. Case in point is a hypobaric chamber for humans. A couple weeks in there will work wonders on your ability to heal. Too long and you will die.

jmaneyapanda;31302 wrote: What your argument is, is that the benefits outweight the drawbacks. This is entirely your decision. But, please stop claiming that hyposalinity doesn't have any negative effect on marine fish! If you really think this true- leave your fish in hypo for 2, 3, 4 months. Wait- this is problematic? Do you want to know why? Because the hyposalinity is aggravating to the systems of marine fish, but in your cases, the period was not significant enough to cause permanent, disabling, or fatal problems.

I would argue that you should stop telling people that it is harmful to the fish. You have no proof that short QT periods are harmful to the fish. You can't ask us to stop telling people there are no harmful effects when you can't actually produce any known harmful effects.

jmaneyapanda;31302 wrote: Heres is a better analogy- smoking is harmful to your health. It causes diseases that will kill you. But one cigarette probably wont, right? It probably wont even cause a blip on the health radar. But does that mean it's harmless? No. It was just a tiny speck that probably wont ever play a role in your life, but it doesn't mean it aint harmful.

This is a horrible comparison. Smoking has virtually no positive advantages and it works on the premise that you actually know damage is being done to the fish.

Hypo is a very safe way to eliminate known and unknown parasites on a fish. You have no proof that the statement I have read is untrue. Even if you are right and there is some damage done to the fist, you have no proof the fish can't heal from it. Even if there is a larger risk than is known to the fish, you have no proof that the risk of hypo is greater than killing of the parasites on the fish. If this was a court, your case would be thrown out for lack of evidence.

 

[cameron]

Xyzpdq0121;31319 wrote: Listen, I am going to put this to rest once and for all. I am making a change to my thread.
"You should be running your QT at Hypo in most cases for your best chance to stive off Ich infections. If you choose not to, you MUST take a slide, scrape the coat of your fish and view it under a microscope to make sure that no ich shows up that was not visable to the naked eye. Note mutiple scrapings might be needed. Or Method three, you must QT not for 30 days but for 60 days."

I can't agree to that because hypo kills more than ick. If it was just ick, you would still have a strong case, but there are black spot parasites, gill parasites and a host of other nasty critters hypo takes care of as well.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

Cameron;31343 wrote: I can't agree to that because hypo kills more than ick. If it was just ick, you would still have a strong case, but there are black spot parasites, gill parasites and a host of other nasty critters hypo takes care of as well.

True but the nature of the thread was Ich... So I have kept it in that context. I will write other prevention Wikis later and address that stuff then!

 

[jefft]

The one benefit of smoking is that as long as people do I see no effect on my retirement check coming from Reynolds American Tobacco Corp every month. lol

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Cameron;31341 wrote: Just because something is harmful in the long term doesn't mean it is hurtful for short durations. Case in point is a hypobaric chamber for humans. A couple weeks in there will work wonders on your ability to heal. Too long and you will die.

I would argue that you should stop telling people that it is harmful to the fish. You have no proof that short QT periods are harmful to the fish. You can't ask us to stop telling people there are no harmful effects when you can't actually produce any known harmful effects.

This is a horrible comparison. Smoking has virtually no positive advantages and it works on the premise that you actually know damage is being done to the fish.

Hypo is a very safe way to eliminate known and unknown parasites on a fish. You have no proof that the statement I have read is untrue. Even if you are right and there is some damage done to the fist, you have no proof the fish can't heal from it. Even if there is a larger risk than is known to the fish, you have no proof that the risk of hypo is greater than killing of the parasites on the fish. If this was a court, your case would be thrown out for lack of evidence.

Hah! We will <u>really</u> have to agree to disagree. I am not trying to be argumentative at all, but I really believe in what I am saying, so it is tough for me to just let it slide. I really think you are misinterpreting the nature of...nature. Things that are hurtful in the long term, are hurtful in the short term- its just whether it's on a noticeable scale. I cannot think of ANY ailment that an organism suffers from that is totally neutral until a certain long term point, and then becomes lethal. All are progressively harmful, but the early stages are simply unnoticed.

Cameron, here is my proof that hyposalinity has negative effects- if you leave your fish in it, it will die. Death is a pretty severe consequence, dont you think? Do you think there is a certain specific point at which hypo turns from totally therapuetic (and poetntially beneficial), to all the sudden detrimental and fatal? Why? and How? How can the fishes excretory systems compensate and operate equally, if not even better, and then suddenly fail? This is my only argument. How can it be good and bad so definitively in a relatively short space? Do I think short term hypo is fatal?Absolutely not! Do I think it negatively impairs the fish? I really do. Can the fish recover from it? More than likely! I have NEVER discounted and laid claim aginst this!

I actually think the smoking analogy is far better than any other mentioned. The vaccination, antibiotics, and other analogies aree really not applicable, as they apply to auto-immune reactions, not environmental treatments. The body will react to certain pathogens in certain ways, this we know. How does this apply to manipuilating the environment to eliminate an environmnetal disturbance? SMoking has no advantage? Then why does everybody do it? They get a pleasure advantage from it. Even if they know it's bad, they do it because it makes them feel good. At any rate, the time scale was the point I was trying to prove. But at any rate, to avoid further confusion, lets avoid analogies, if you would like.

Now, let me say this again, so everyone can understand hat I am saying- Hypo is a very safe way to treat pathogens. I agree!! Everyone hear that? I AGREE! I never said it wasn't safe, or necessary, or beneficial. The point I have made from the get go has been, I see no necessity in treating every fish with hypo, regardless of symptoms, because it will negatively impact (stress) a potentially otherwise healthy. I have treated some of my fish with hypo, and would do it again. But I have also not treated every fish I have, because some showed no symptoms of pathogen, and I felt they were under enough stress as is, without placing them into an additionally unecessarily unnatural environment.

 

[FutureInterest]

I think your point is clear, well spoken, and has been consistent throughout your posts. I doubt very many of us though have the expertise to determine what pathogens or parasites are infesting a fish by simple observation and visual cues. As such I'm starting to believe that treating your incoming fish with a heavy hand has benefits that outweigh the negatives. Yes there are negatives, which is a valid point that you have raised and it requires consideration. Especially for the newly initiated to this hobby, the benefits of hypo+QT for all incoming fish probably outweighs the negatives.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

OK, let me put it one last way and then I am out of this conversation for good. When I went to MEPS to take my tests to join the armed forces back in college they tested me for all sorts of physical abilities and gave me a whole bunch of shots. They did not know what I could have but they were making sure that they were controlling the worst of it. They did not want some sort of disease to be spread in such close contact with others!

Another good example. If you are thrown in jail, be it for a weekend or a lifetime, you are given shots and de-liced before you enter general population. This is to control the spread of illness and parasites within the prision population. Do they check you to see if you have lice? No! Do QT you to watch to make sure you have nothing? NO! They treat you for everything iin case of the worse thing.

Now, I still so not know to this day what the crap the armed forces put into my body. I do remember that I did not feel too well for a few days afterwards.


In your honor Jmaney, I am going to test your theory. I am going to take my 10G that is laying around and go buy a chromis in the next few days. (If I can get my hands on one or two more small tanks I will do it with three chromis. ) One I will run one at 1.021 The other I will run ar 1.017 and the other I will run at 1.010. (If I can only use mine then I will run it at 1.017, if that is alright by you.) I will leave all three fish in all three environments and give you a month by month on if there have been any ill effects. How many months do you think it will be till that fish is dead? I bet you three live chromis it is longer then 3 months! (I would go longer but I do not feel like running three stupid tanks longer then that!)

 

[cameron]

jmaneyapanda;31381 wrote: Hah! We will <u>really</u> have to agree to disagree. I am not trying to be argumentative at all, but I really believe in what I am saying, so it is tough for me to just let it slide. I really think you are misinterpreting the nature of...nature. Things that are hurtful in the long term, are hurtful in the short term- its just whether it's on a noticeable scale. I cannot think of ANY ailment that an organism suffers from that is totally neutral until a certain long term point, and then becomes lethal. All are progressively harmful, but the early stages are simply unnoticed.

So in my example of a hyperbaric chamber, you are saying people shouldn't do it? I mean it will kill you eventually and it does pose some risk, but most people come out way better off than when they went in. You are basically saying any unnatural state should be avoided, but an aquarium is already an unnatural state. We can't replicate all the buffers that the ocean provides so some precautions aren't a bad thing. We are at the same impass again. Hypo-salinity is proven to remove parasites from a fish. No proof exists that there are any long term problems associated with the treatment. It is proven that parasites on a fish can kill that fish and can infect and kill other fish. Removing these parasites using a treatment that is known to work and has no provable harmful effect is IMO good sense. Using Brandons previous example, you wouldn't get a vaccine for smallpox, malaria, etc. These all pose a risk and are unnatural, but the risk is greatly outweighed by the reward.

jmaneyapanda;31381 wrote: Cameron, here is my proof that hyposalinity has negative effects- if you leave your fish in it, it will die. Death is a pretty severe consequence, dont you think? Do you think there is a certain specific point at which hypo turns from totally therapuetic (and poetntially beneficial), to all the sudden detrimental and fatal? Why? and How? How can the fishes excretory systems compensate and operate equally, if not even better, and then suddenly fail? This is my only argument. How can it be good and bad so definitively in a relatively short space? Do I think short term hypo is fatal?Absolutely not! Do I think it negatively impairs the fish? I really do. Can the fish recover from it? More than likely! I have NEVER discounted and laid claim aginst this!

By this token people should never dive... it is killing them. I call shinanigans! Some light reading and PROOF on my end... where is yours:

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif;">Marine teleost fish typically adjust to hyposaline conditions quite readily. An article in Drum and Croaker reported on thirty-two species of marine teleost fish maintained in a Specific Gravity of 1.010 for six to twelve weeks (Goodlett & Ichinotsubo, 1997). One study was performed using thirteen species of marine fish (Wu & Woo, 1983). Another was performed using Emperor angelfish Pomacanthus imperator.</em> The angelfish were kept in salinities as low as 7ppt for 30 days without any apparent ill effects (Woo & Chung, 1995). While marine teleost fish adjust rapidly to salinities lower than natural seawater, the transition back from hyposaline conditions to NSW levels must take place slowly over several days. Fish with a different osmoregulatory strategy such as sharks and rayfish cannot withstand hyposaline conditions.</span><span style="font-family: Verdana;">

</span>

another reference:

Ancient seawater concentration was believed to be much lower (404mm) than that found today (1123mm) (Spaargaren, 1979). It is likely that future coral reef inhabitants evolved in an environment that was much less saline than present day seas (Moyle, & Cech, 1982). This may account for the ability of marine teleost fish to readily adapt to hyposaline conditions.

Article after article backs up hypo as a valid treatment. Time and time again it works. Expert after expert backs it up. You feel, you think... If someone else took that stand against you, you would be all over them with where is the data. You got no data to back up your claim. None. Your only working arguement is that if you put a fish in a tank for some undermined time in hypo it will eventually die. You don't even have a specific example of a test someone performed.

I actually think the smoking analogy is far better than any other mentioned. The vaccination, antibiotics, and other analogies aree really not applicable, as they apply to auto-immune reactions, not environmental treatments. The body will react to certain pathogens in certain ways, this we know. How does this apply to manipuilating the environment to eliminate an environmnetal disturbance? SMoking has no advantage? Then why does everybody do it? They get a pleasure advantage from it.

"pleasure advantage"... holy crap you are reaching. I can't even respond to that... "pleasure advantage"... come on Panda you are better than that.

Now, let me say this again, so everyone can understand hat I am saying- Hypo is a very safe way to treat pathogens. I agree!! Everyone hear that? I AGREE! I never said it wasn't safe, or necessary, or beneficial. The point I have made from the get go has been, I see no necessity in treating every fish with hypo, regardless of symptoms, because it will negatively impact (stress) a potentially otherwise healthy. I have treated some of my fish with hypo, and would do it again. But I have also not treated every fish I have, because some showed no symptoms of pathogen, and I felt they were under enough stress as is, without placing them into an additionally unecessarily unnatural environment.

Yep and my point still stands. Few of us are marine biologists or fish vets. Few of us know every parasite that can infest our fish. Few can find black spot disease on a dark fish or gill disease. Virtually every fish you buy has been in tanks that are carrying some pretty nasty parasites. Personally, I believe that hypo is a safe treatment for fish and rids incoming fish of parasites that I have little knowledge of. This preventative action helps protect my other fish. If I were an expert, I might have a different opinion but IMO what I am advocating will help insure that the established aquarium is safer in the end. It MIGHT be more stressful to the fish, it MIGHT be more harmful to the fish, but it is safer for the established aquarium.

I am willing to bet that most incoming zoos QT animals and vaccinate the hell out of them before they put them in with other animals. I might be wrong and they just throw them in without any preventative medicine, but I doubt it. You would probably know better than I.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Cameron, I hope you are not getting bent out of shape- this is not my intention. We have spirited discussions here, but I hope you are not getting aggarvated. I would rather stop discussing it, rather than irritate a fellow thinker.

I did not comment on your pressure chamber refernce, because I am unfamiliar with it. I do plan to see what I can find about it though, as quite honestly, that is the best analogous comparison that has been presented. By he way, is it hyperbaric, or hypobaric, you have mentioned both?

Yes, aquariums are inherently unnatrual, but we strive for them to be as natural as possible, both for aesthetics, and the health of the fish, correct? When we have the choice and options, we always chosse to go more natural, right? Ie- live rock, water chemistry close to natural levels, etc. That is what we are mimicking, right?

Vaccinations aren't good examples to use. Vaccinnations are used to "prepare" the body for exposure. From that point on, the body is on its own. No outside influence. Hyposalinity is a maniuplation of the environment to control an environmnetal pathogen (parasite). The fish plays no part in it- except surviving. As I said- I think you have a better comparison in the pressure chamber, because this mimics our situation a bit closer.

You know what, you are absolutely right about one thing- I have no data proof whatsoever, aside from personal observation and experinece, and Lord knows thats what I decry. So, I am at fault for that, you got me. I do know that marine fish do not live long term in hyposalinity. I cannot scientifically, empirically provide data for this. All I can say is that the only variable I saw in these cases was hyposalinity, and I saw a lot of fish death, and a lot of HLLE.

Again, Cameron, plaese understand- I am not saying Hypo is an invalid treatment. I am not saying fish cannot tolerate it. I am merely opining that it is a stress on the fish.

Those references you quoted are great, but here is the flaw I find in both (at least in debunking my theory)- both of them are short term exposures, and neither (at least outwardly) have any degree of scale in assessment. By this, it appears it is very black and white. What does "adapt" and "withstand" mean in these referneces? Does it mean survive? Or thrive? Or what? Perhaps the entire article clears this up, but this shows toleration, but doesnt show lack of impairment.

Now, to what know for sure- animals insitutions do quarantine. ANd perhaps they vaccinate (but as I opined earlier, I dont think this is pertinent). But do they start treatment for any potential problems because the animal "might" have it, and "might" spread it to the collection? No. That is what quarantine and assessment are for. The reason such are not prophylactically treated is because of the ancillary stress it subsequently causes.

Here is my suggestion, in retrospect- for those that do treat with hyposalinity as routine, you do not really quarantine at all, but instead immediately start a safe, broad spectrum treatment.

Overall, here, I hope you guys realize I am really closer to the same side as you than you perhaps think. It appears the only difference in opinion we have is when to start hypo treatment. I prefer to do so when I know there is a problem to be treated. It seems as if you guys do because there may be a problem that you dont know about.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

I suggest it as a preventive because not every reefer knows what to look for in a fish with Ich or black spot or some other bug. I know animal institutions have highly trained people doing their quarantine and assessment. You would nopt put an intern on that job and trust that they did not miss a problem. Panda, I bet you know how to spot problems better then the average reefer. Look at the questions that we get on the subject of Ich though... Seriously. In the past three months we have had two people try to utilize copper in their display tanks... We have had many others ask elementry questions about what it is and what to do about it. Many of those people are looking for the easy way out, I have only found one that has done the "right" thing and started a QT with hypo and is running the tank Fallow. I have said from the start, I do not think that most reefers are as good at fish pathology as you are. In writing an thread for the masses, I have to think about the amount of Ich that people might let slip by because they do not know what to look for vs. the amount of Ich that can be prevented with Hypo. I have to recommend 4-6 week QT in Hypo knowing that 3 weeks is most likely long enough because I know about 50% of the people that read what I wrote are going to jump the gun on removing their fish from QT. So take what I said with a grain of salt and don't apply it to your practice. I agree, you are most likely advanced enough in your experience to make that decision on your own, but I do not think that a noob should be making that decision. For get the noob part, I do not think most people, experienced or not are able to make that decision. Look at the amount of Ich in the LFS tanks. Look at the amount of Ich that I have seen in member tanks. I preventable parasite could be whipped out like small pox if everybody wised up. But it never will be so at least we can do what we can do to protect our own tanks and fish that are in our care.

 

[cameron]

jmaneyapanda;31433 wrote: Cameron, I hope you are not getting bent out of shape- this is not my intention. We have spirited discussions here, but I hope you are not getting aggarvated. I would rather stop discussing it, rather than irritate a fellow thinker.

I am not bent, just suprised on which side of this issue you fall.

jmaneyapanda;31433 wrote: I did not comment on your pressure chamber refernce, because I am unfamiliar with it. I do plan to see what I can find about it though, as quite honestly, that is the best analogous comparison that has been presented. By he way, is it hyperbaric, or hypobaric, you have mentioned both?

It is hyper... I type fast and get sloppy. It is basically a pressure tank with a high level of oxygen. It is actually kinda what a fish goes through in hyposalinity. The advantages of the hyperbaric is a huge jump in the ability to heal from damage. They are used frequently for burn victims. You spend too long in them though and the oxygen will become toxic. There is also the risk of air entering in the blood stream. Some very rich people use them as they are belived to pro-long life by slowing the aging process.

jmaneyapanda;31433 wrote: Yes, aquariums are inherently unnatrual, but we strive for them to be as natural as possible, both for aesthetics, and the health of the fish, correct? When we have the choice and options, we always chosse to go more natural, right? Ie- live rock, water chemistry close to natural levels, etc. That is what we are mimicking, right?

But we don't have all the buffers the ocean provides so we have to be cautious about what we allow in our tank. There are just some pests that we don't want to get into our tank because we lack the natural predators to get them out. I dip my corals in Pro Coral Cure as well since I know there are lots of little pests that are nuked by this stuff and it presents very little risk to the coral.

jmaneyapanda;31433 wrote: Vaccinations aren't good examples to use. Vaccinnations are used to "prepare" the body for exposure. From that point on, the body is on its own. No outside influence. Hyposalinity is a maniuplation of the environment to control an environmnetal pathogen (parasite). The fish plays no part in it- except surviving.

There are several vacs that are preventative to exposure. I give my dog rabies shots, heartworm, flea/tick drops and a host of other preventative medication. She isn't necessarily exposed to rabies, she is probably exposed to heartworms and you know the environment is full of flea/ticks that coiuld disease her up. None of these are things she currently has and I am sure these vacs do some damage to her, but they prolong her life and in the case of rabies prevent others from being infected. I take aspirin to help stave off heart disease. I don't have heart disease that I know of and I am sure aspirin has several negative effects on my health, but the positive out weighs the negative.

jmaneyapanda;31433 wrote: Those references you quoted are great, but here is the flaw I find in both (at least in debunking my theory)- both of them are short term exposures, and neither (at least outwardly) have any degree of scale in assessment. By this, it appears it is very black and white. What does "adapt" and "withstand" mean in these referneces? Does it mean survive? Or thrive? Or what? Perhaps the entire article clears this up, but this shows toleration, but doesnt show lack of impairment.

I will give you that the experiment isn't a real scientiffic experiement as it didn't have a control and didn't watch the fish over there lifespans, but it is still a good indicator of hypo doing little if any harm to the fish.

jmaneyapanda;31433 wrote: Here is my suggestion, in retrospect- for those that do treat with hyposalinity as routine, you do not really quarantine at all, but instead immediately start a safe, broad spectrum treatment.

It is still a quarantine as we are detaining the fish from entering the aquarium for some set time in order to contain/treat any contagious disease.

jmaneyapanda;31433 wrote: Overall, here, I hope you guys realize I am really closer to the same side as you than you perhaps think. It appears the only difference in opinion we have is when to start hypo treatment. I prefer to do so when I know there is a problem to be treated. It seems as if you guys do because there may be a problem that you dont know about.

I am only harping on this issue because I truly believe the average hobbyist can use this to protect other tank mates. Most hobbyist just don't have the knowledge to successfully spot parasitic infection of fish. In virtually every case a fish that comes out of hypo will be a safer fish to put in the aquarium and poses less risk to the other fish. Lots of people are successful without QT, more are with QT and if you truly want the best protection you can provide to your existing tank mates hypo offers it. It is easy to do, time after time proven safe and I believe my original point stands. If a fish that should do well in hypo doesn't, they were already a sick/weak fish and probably shouldn't be in the average reefkeepers tank.

 

[kwl1763]

jmaneyapanda;31433 wrote:

You know what, you are absolutely right about one thing- I have no data proof whatsoever, aside from personal observation and experinece, and Lord knows thats what I decry. So, I am at fault for that, you got me. I do know that marine fish do not live long term in hyposalinity. I cannot scientifically, empirically provide data for this. All I can say is that the only variable I saw in these cases was hyposalinity, and I saw a lot of fish death, and a lot of HLLE.

Again, Cameron, plaese understand- I am not saying Hypo is an invalid treatment. I am not saying fish cannot tolerate it. I am merely opining that it is a stress on the fish.

Those references you quoted are great, but here is the flaw I find in both (at least in debunking my theory)- both of them are short term exposures, and neither (at least outwardly) have any degree of scale in assessment. By this, it appears it is very black and white. What does "adapt" and "withstand" mean in these referneces? Does it mean survive? Or thrive? Or what? Perhaps the entire article clears this up, but this shows toleration, but doesnt show lack of impairment.

You like to argue given your knowledge and experiences vs. experts. Nothing wrong with that it's just in this case there is absolutely overwhelming evidence and solid scientific experiementation that hypo at reccommended times and salinity levels to have absolutely no detectable negative effects either long or short term.

I find your knowledge helpful and you obviously are more versed in biology then most of us but I also find it terribly academic and theoretical. While this is useful to a point there are praticality arguements that when over many many year something has successfully been used by a significant number of people there is sufficient evidence that your wrong and the only way to "prove" your right is by doing the same in reverse. Find some bad effect and duplicate and replicate it and then you can have something to stand on. Theories are great but they are just that until some action is taken to test them.

I have no problem with you not doing hypo. It's your choice. You know the facts for and choose not to based on the your personal observations and thoughts. Fine. Agree to disagree. You can't however say there are detrimental effects to doing it though. It's just flat misinformation, there are no known/tested negative effects.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

very well. Good luck to you guys, and thank you for letting me present my case.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/martrthyposalfaqs.htm">http://www.wetwebmedia.com/martrthyposalfaqs.htm</a>

What do you guys think of this? Just curious.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

jmaneyapanda;31485 wrote: http://www.wetwebmedia.com/martrthyposalfaqs.htm">http://www.wetwebmedia.com/martrthyposalfaqs.htm</a>

What do you guys think of this? Just curious.[/QUOTE]


I think the posts in there (from the 10 or so that I have read) suggest that hypo is a good thing and overall not harmful. Scott F gives his personal opinion but also recommends garlic as a usable treatment to another poster.

[I]"Well, there are many hobbyists and wholesalers that advocate lowering the specific gravity (to 1.010-1.012) during quarantine because it is thought that this will lessen the possibility or ferocity of (parasitic) illnesses. There certainly seems to be some merit to this process, but I personally do not employ it. I believe that maintaining "normal" specific gravity during quarantine may be a bit less stressful...One less environmental adjustment for a newly-acquired fish to make. Similar to the reasons that I don't use "prophylactic" medication while quarantining fishes. That's just my take on it; certainly NOT the last word on the subject! give it a shot and see if it is ok for you. Best of luck! Regards, Scott F."</em>

Bob is the expert on the site and the rest (or most others now that Steven Pro and Calfo do not write for it) are "advanced" hobbiest. I fail to see anyone of them saying that they have proven that hypo is bad for a fish. One post even saying that someone has kept an angel (i believe) in hypo for 6 months. The advice was not "Pull it, you are killing the fish!". We will know soon enough as I am fixing to go out after work to get the damseld or chromis to test your theory for you.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

BTW: I think cameron's thinking of comparing Hypo to vacinations is spot on. He treats his dog for heartworm, it is a real threat living down here in the south. Polio has ben whiped out because people were treated for it, even without the illness to prevent it because it was a real threat. I have been given shots for illnesses that I do not even know what they are because places in the world I go, it is a real threat. Ich is a real threat, no one can debate that. It would be nice for it to go the way of Small Pox and be whiped out in our hobby. Till that day, it is something that we need to protect against. To spur the debate even further, Brooklynella hostilis </em>is a big problem. I think it is such a real problem that preventative measures might need to be considered in that case as well.

Both cases, it is threat management. Plain and simple!

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Brandon- I was referring to comments like this-

Re: crypto and hyposalinity 8/12/05
Dear Bob,
After reading extensively on hyposalinity and crypt, and, of course, with your help, I am reaching the conclusion that eradication of crypt from the marine system can only be achieved with QT and copper treatment and letting the display lie fallow for two months.
<There are a few other approaches... but none as assuredly successful>
I was somewhat enchanted by Steve Pro's recommendation that hyposalinity is his #1 choice because it is easy on the fish.
<... if only it worked>
I am beginning to realize that there is much controversy re: hyposalinity as a cure, but more often than not, the attestations as to its effectiveness are followed by reports of outbreaks 6-12 months later.
<Or generally much sooner>
I have a 180 g FO tank and I really want to do this right but I only have a 29g and 55g tanks set up as QT, neither of which have been cycled with copper so the addition of copper will disrupt the biological cycle of the tank/filter. What is the best way to treat with copper so as not to disrupt my bio cycle ?
<Minimal doses with a chelated formulation... twice daily testing... Bob Fenner>

and

Bob,
Now that I am convinced that hyposalinity may not achieve long term cure
for the treatment of crypto, I am curious as to why you think it does not.
<Historically it just hasn't... in the vast majority of cases.>

and

<Mmm, how to state this clearly... the low salinity itself will very unlikely result in the outright death of all stages of Cryptocaryon... It may weaken it sufficiently... and along with a lack of ready fish hosts, cause such a loss of vitality that it won't revive unless your fishes are greatly weakened otherwise... but it will NOT kill it>

and

Treating ich/itch...
Having read all I can about itch treatment on your site, I have decided to
try hyposalinity first and fallow my tank for a 8 weeks.
I would however like to know why bob, you don't seem to favour hyposalinity
<Doesn't often "work", too hard on many species, impugned specimens... that is, more stress than it's worth...>
and if so, what then is your preferred method for treating itch in general?
<... this is posted... on WWM. BobF>

I am just asking to get your opinion. I know you admire Fenner, but it seems here that he almost think hypo is a wste of time, and in the last comment, mentiones it stresses the fish too much. I just want your thoughts, no trouble.:up:


Reagrding the vaccinations- you need to be clear on what we're talking about. Hypo doesnt vaccinate the fish. Perhaps you're "vaccinating" your tank (which doesnt sound like a bad catch phrase), but you are in active treatment of fish with hypo. For the fish in hypo, you only preventing re-infection, if anything. But not preventing it from happening again. the heartworm pills we give our dogs prevents them from getting heartworms. Our vaccines prevent us from getting specific illnesses. Is there drawbacks to these- sure! Give a dog with heartworms a heartworm pill- you've got a dead dog. That's why they test before they give you the pills. Vaccines for disease prevention- they may or may not work, and often times, bpopel can become quite coincidentally ill from them. But, do you get the same vaccinations, even if you are not going abroad? Do you get them no matter what? Probably not. This is how I make the analogy. Hypo is a good "vaccination" for your tank when ick is present, but maybe isnt necessary until that point. Just my opinion.