BAD NEWS - Velvet Strain Survives 1.75 PPM Copper!

[GoatmealJones]

Just like antibiotic resistance, over treatment will inevitably result in the evolution of resistant microbes unfortunately.

 

[Wildreefs]

But - you reignited the discussion lol..... You cant admit you might be wrong with your protocol. - and in fact you might be right. IDK - but - to automatically dismiss anyone who might question your god-like opinion - is at best intellectually dishonest - at worst - dishonest.

There is no evidence that you've presented that there is a velvet strain that survives 1.7ppm copper but dies at 2 ppm (I believe - unless you've changed it again) your target. Its just anecdote. There are at least a couple reports out there where velvet are resistant to 2.7 copper - so what is your recommendation based on - your protocol - its merely luck. and good luck you've had - until you lost a bunch of fish and couldn't explain it. Try google next time.

I am by no means an expert, just someone making a low wage trying to do the right thing for fish health and for the sake of my small wallet.

I’ve read a lot and try to exercise common sense.

To think low copper usage results in resistant ich i can’t buy. We don’t catch fish, treat with low copper, and place back in ocean to be recaught, reexposed to low so on and so forth. I remember a gentleman named leebca discussing this a while back, that adaptations can’t occur from a one time exposure, in lfs to hobbyist tank. Copper treatment doesn’t go in the oceans for years.

What more likely happens is it allows fish to fight them off somewhat at bay, until they are in clean unmedicated water, where it can take off.

In my reading so far this year, in a matter of 4 months (120 days ), I’ve read from humble that the formalin I wasn’t using, which was on the list as acceptable forms , mardel products, was in deed no good. Now I am reading that the long time recommended 1.75 copper isn’t enough for ich velvet.

I can see why so many aren’t disgruntled with qt, hard enough to have it setup properly for any fish substantially bigger than most wrasses or small gangs, but some of the info out there is far from concrete and forever changing.

Imagine wanting to do the right thing, read the most trusted of info out there, out the time, effort and money into, only to find out the instructions they followed is no longer valid.

In regards to an earlier post , about sea chem suggesting too high of copper can lead to resistance, that makes zero sense. Like saying 150 degree dishwasher will kill bacteria, but 170 will not. I can also say cupramine is imho , not good at all. I once ran it at .5, for 90 days, no fish added after or in use, and had ich return after removal.

I also witnessed a spiny box puffer, shake and die within second of adding the first half dose seachem recommended the first day. Never lost anything with copper power.

Not here’s to bash cupramine, simply stating that the company who makes it,’has a product that is wicked in side effects, and perhaps more worrisome, didn’t work as advertised.

As far as 14 days VS 21 for velvet, if we are really debating that, that more or less suggests we don’t know the life cycle as good as we think we do

With that in mind, assuming we do know the cycle, Ford wouldn’t be correct in his desire to go higher than 1.75, which is closer to the manufacture instructions about using 2.5 to begin with .

Which maybe the direction to go in, creep
Closer to the 2.5 recommended number. I have been using 2.0 by default, and I know of a few lfs, Hannah checked, with 2.5 or higher , with no ill effects. Including fish such as wrasses, blended, centropogy angels and eels.

Rather than put blame on procedure and who said what, and citing outdated references, use what’s in front of you. If endich suggest 2.5, why did we fall back to 1.75.

I don’t think length of time is at question here, but strength. Perhaps there’s a subspecies of velvet, that barely tolerated the 1.75, but succumbs higher, which was destined all along, not engineered or manipulated by user causing resistance.

You me other point I’d like to make, although I am running 2.0 copper, I still have green algae, which never grew when even with far less copper in the water.

End of day, rather than quote and bicker over who said what when, why not use what manufactures suggest, and not reinvent the wheel. Let the companies who make these products test and try what works, and change accordingly, rather than the hobbyists do it for them .

They have to be reading these posts, you would think they would chime i with lab funding and gill scrapings

 

[DucatiGtr]

Sorry I am not understanding your query, sorry!

But I don’t really trust color charts, lots of human error, at least for me! Tough to read!

I’m
Using cupramine, numbers make sense now, thank you

 

[Wildreefs]

Just like antibiotic resistance, over treatment will inevitably result in the evolution of resistant microbes unfortunately.

I don’t believe for a second that could happen in the span of weeks or months they are in captivity. The ich or velvet, doesn’t get sub therapeutically treated, allowed to morph and adapt, the places back in the ocean to relive it and eventually Over time become resistant. I could see if we were treating the oceans with it, for years, and when they come to lfs the exposure to copper is null and void

 

[GoatmealJones]

The short generation time of microbes as well as their ability to evolve quickly via horizontal transfer of plasmids, along with the application of a selective pressure (copper) leaves this as, perhaps unlikely, but not impossible. Every microbe comes from a pre existing microbe, and people have been treating with copper for some time now. Cross contamination is simply not avoidable.

 

[MnFish1]

I’ve said I could be wrong literally since the first post. Alright though.

The first post’s conclusion (footnote):

Right so when people question you - rather than gather evidence contrary to that - you go in different directions. I'm not the one with the published Chenoprophylactic method - you are - and apparently its not working...

 

[MnFish1]

I am by no means an expert, just someone making a low wage trying to do the right thing for fish health and for the sake of my small wallet.

I’ve read a lot and try to exercise common sense.

To think low copper usage results in resistant ich i can’t buy. We don’t catch fish, treat with low copper, and place back in ocean to be recaught, reexposed to low so on and so forth. I remember a gentleman named leebca discussing this a while back, that adaptations can’t occur from a one time exposure, in lfs to hobbyist tank. Copper treatment doesn’t go in the oceans for years.

What more likely happens is it allows fish to fight them off somewhat at bay, until they are in clean unmedicated water, where it can take off.

In my reading so far this year, in a matter of 4 months (120 days ), I’ve read from humble that the formalin I wasn’t using, which was on the list as acceptable forms , mardel products, was in deed no good. Now I am reading that the long time recommended 1.75 copper isn’t enough for ich velvet.

I can see why so many aren’t disgruntled with qt, hard enough to have it setup properly for any fish substantially bigger than most wrasses or small gangs, but some of the info out there is far from concrete and forever changing.

Imagine wanting to do the right thing, read the most trusted of info out there, out the time, effort and money into, only to find out the instructions they followed is no longer valid.

In regards to an earlier post , about sea chem suggesting too high of copper can lead to resistance, that makes zero sense. Like saying 150 degree dishwasher will kill bacteria, but 170 will not. I can also say cupramine is imho , not good at all. I once ran it at .5, for 90 days, no fish added after or in use, and had ich return after removal.

I also witnessed a spiny box puffer, shake and die within second of adding the first half dose seachem recommended the first day. Never lost anything with copper power.

Not here’s to bash cupramine, simply stating that the company who makes it,’has a product that is wicked in side effects, and perhaps more worrisome, didn’t work as advertised.

As far as 14 days VS 21 for velvet, if we are really debating that, that more or less suggests we don’t know the life cycle as good as we think we do

With that in mind, assuming we do know the cycle, Ford wouldn’t be correct in his desire to go higher than 1.75, which is closer to the manufacture instructions about using 2.5 to begin with .

Which maybe the direction to go in, creep
Closer to the 2.5 recommended number. I have been using 2.0 by default, and I know of a few lfs, Hannah checked, with 2.5 or higher , with no ill effects. Including fish such as wrasses, blended, centropogy angels and eels.

Rather than put blame on procedure and who said what, and citing outdated references, use what’s in front of you. If endich suggest 2.5, why did we fall back to 1.75.

I don’t think length of time is at question here, but strength. Perhaps there’s a subspecies of velvet, that barely tolerated the 1.75, but succumbs higher, which was destined all along, not engineered or manipulated by user causing resistance.

You me other point I’d like to make, although I am running 2.0 copper, I still have green algae, which never grew when even with far less copper in the water.

End of day, rather than quote and bicker over who said what when, why not use what manufactures suggest, and not reinvent the wheel. Let the companies who make these products test and try what works, and change accordingly, rather than the hobbyists do it for them .

They have to be reading these posts, you would think they would chime i with lab funding and gill scrapings

I agree. there is no evidence to use 1.75 or 2.00. Just a persons choice -that didnt work... once.

 

[Trickman2]

I’ve said I could be wrong literally since the first post. Alright though.

The first post’s conclusion (footnote):

I am following along and have been watching the thread. I do feel we all still have a lot to learn.
I will say Humblefish and Ford family do come off as arrogant and we are right attitude at times. With that said they are trying to help the community with their experiences.
Mnfish1 is trying to help and bring things to the table. We all have the same goal and we all can be a little more humble. The goal should be to work together.

 

[Sarah24!]

Hello,

I have been reading this thread and was curious that maybe it’s the same strain (unless we have compared the dna), but it’s been noted in a scientific paper that it acts differently depending on species of fish. As of the reading I have done (so far quiet extensive) I’m still trying to find if we have scientifically been able to determine if it’s a single strain or if There are actually several. It is a parasite that obviously hosts on fish, but example retro virus some have been known to change and mutate their rna, where antiviral drugs are ineffective. We also know that it belongs to main family of Blastodinipyceae and where there are only two forms which are Amyloodinium and piscinoodinium (sourced from levy and Noga 2005). In these two forms they photosynthetic as well as free swimming and actually serve as food source to other planktivourouse organisms. When comparing these two together we know that Amyloodinium is the only version that causes diseases in marine fish.
recent genetic studies suggest that A. ocellatum isolates from diverse geographic origins and from different species of fish are all the same species (Levy et al., 2007), although some morphologic studies by others have suggested that multiple species might exist (Landsberg et al., 1994). When 4fordfsmily and hotrocks conducted there study it is possible they could have had a different strain that morphed. But to be certain their would have to be studied conducted to see if the genetic codes match. It was also noted that other authors have also observed differences in environmental tolerance, especially with regard to the range of salinity tolerated (typically greater in estuarine isolates). While Levy et al. (2007) acknowledged that there were “behav- ioral” differences between the five isolates they studied, genetically they all belonged to a single species. However, these researchers did not rule out the possibility that there could be subspecies or “strains” of A. ocellatum.

This has come to show that even with the knowledge we have now, we simply do not entirely understand this disease and the simple fact that it can survive a very wide range of conditions. According to Landsberg “Adverse conditions, such as suboptimal temperature or drug treatment, may stop tomont divisions but do not kill the parasite if the temper- ature or drug concentration is nonlethal to fish. The life cycle often may resume when the environment becomes more hospitable. This proves further that this disease can lay dormant in its conditions or per say anything wet. When conditions improve it can reactive and start its life cycle again. Another scary aspect that was note by
Oestmann and Lewis (1996) made the serendipitous observation that magnesium may affect the survival of
A. ocellatum in recirculating systems. Tomonts produced by trophonts cultured in vitro in magnesium-deficient salt water appeared normal but did not divide. The researchers speculated that it may be possible to inhibit the tomont’s reproduction with artificial sea water. It is not unusual
for public aquaria to make their own salt mixes, so this strategy may be worthy of further investigation.

If this is has been further tested for those of us who always have a normal magnesium level let’s say 1390 for sps, it could mean the reason it is surviving the copper dosing. It would be interesting to see that if a qt tank was set up, if we were able to determine what the magnesium deficiency was if the copper would kill it at a lower dose, and of course If the species of fish we are treating can manage it.

I am definitely following along because it would be nice to find away to actually eradicate this parasite. I still am reading several different scientific articles (see sources listed), but it has been extremely difficult to find something actually current like 2015 to present on this subject.

 

[4FordFamily]

There are definitely a lot of unknowns. One reason less copper has been used is that it’s tough in fish. There were so few people experimenting with it large scale, and so few ways to reliably test levels, and a myriad of other factors at play. The higher levels utilized were due to testing error, we believed. This was “supported” by the research stating that 1.5PPM was therapeutic.

Although it’s certainly possible that the life cycle of the parasite is different than studied, I feel more confident in this answer than anything else. Before we did our “research” (really just implemented and slightly changed what Humblefish did based on his observations), Humblefish had been testing things for years. He did it commercially.

But I also agree we still have a lot to learn, and a conundrum - in the interim we would still like happy, healthy fish. I would love for others to experiment more, collaborate with this community, and have more breakthroughs. Knowledge is power and we all win as we gain more. We are still at it, next batch will be done soon. We will let you know how it pans out.

Our first batch at 2.0-2.25 PPM for 14 days is now thriving in my wall tank.

 

[MnFish1]

There are definitely a lot of unknowns. One reason less copper has been used is that it’s tough in fish. There were so few people experimenting with it large scale, and so few ways to reliably test levels, and a myriad of other factors at play. The higher levels utilized were due to testing error, we believed. This was “supported” by the research stating that 1.5PPM was therapeutic.

Although it’s certainly possible that the life cycle of the parasite is different than studied, I feel more confident in this answer than anything else. Before we did our “research” (really just implemented and slightly changed what Humblefish did based on his observations), Humblefish had been testing things for years. He did it commercially.

But I also agree we still have a lot to learn, and a conundrum - in the interim we would still like happy, healthy fish. I would love for others to experiment more, collaborate with this community, and have more breakthroughs. Knowledge is power and we all win as we gain more. We are still at it, next batch will be done soon. We will let you know how it pans out.

Our first batch at 2.0-2.25 PPM for 14 days is now thriving in my wall tank.

FYI - When I called to ask their professional experience - and when I contacted the marine biologist who published the ONLY data thus far on copper resistance it was to help you - not criticise you (or anyone else).

The point being that there has been resistant velvet out there at much higher levels than 2.25 since at least 2011.

In almost every treatment protocol I have read-from University of Florida, from zoos, etc-they all recommend at least a 14 day treatment. The reason I looked up this information was to help people with QT rather than just 'argue'.

In regards to an earlier post , about sea chem suggesting too high of copper can lead to resistance, that makes zero sense. Like saying 150 degree dishwasher will kill bacteria, but 170 will not. I can also say cupramine is imho , not good at all. I once ran it at .5, for 90 days, no fish added after or in use, and had ich return after removal.

Well - it actually does. The way it works is that lets say 'copper level 2.7'. the tank is not cleaned between multiple fish changes (as in an LFS) - most of the velvet will be killed eventually in those tanks a resistant strain can develop - and it will be resistant to the higher level. And will eventually kill everything. This is reported in the literature, its reported by at least one forum member here (whose LFS keeps the copper level at 2.7) - and its been reported by Seachem- who postulate this is the mechanism for high level copper resistance.

As to low-dose copper causing resistance its a theory. But - for resistance - usually - the 'bug' will become resistant to the dose used - i.e.lets say you have copper at .1. Some CI will be killed most will survive- so there isn't that much evolutionary pressure (since most all of the CI survives- there's not likely to be one specific resistant strain. With High dose - the only survivors left are resistant to therapeutic or even higher copper levels.

As far as 14 days VS 21 for velvet, if we are really debating that, that more or less suggests we don’t know the life cycle as good as we think we do

With that in mind, assuming we do know the cycle, Ford wouldn’t be correct in his desire to go higher than 1.75, which is closer to the manufacture instructions about using 2.5 to begin with

Most protocols say treat at least 3 weeks (with disease) - And - thats the point - we may not know the life cycle as well as we think we do.

 

[4FordFamily]

FYI - When I called to ask their professional experience - and when I contacted the marine biologist who published the ONLY data thus far on copper resistance it was to help you - not criticise you (or anyone else).

The point being that there has been resistant velvet out there at much higher levels than 2.25 since at least 2011.

In almost every treatment protocol I have read-from University of Florida, from zoos, etc-they all recommend at least a 14 day treatment. The reason I looked up this information was to help people with QT rather than just 'argue'.


Well - it actually does. The way it works is that lets say 'copper level 2.7'. the tank is not cleaned between multiple fish changes (as in an LFS) - most of the velvet will be killed eventually in those tanks a resistant strain can develop - and it will be resistant to the higher level. And will eventually kill everything. This is reported in the literature, its reported by at least one forum member here (whose LFS keeps the copper level at 2.7) - and its been reported by Seachem- who postulate this is the mechanism for high level copper resistance.





Most protocols say treat at least 3 weeks (with disease) - And - thats the point - we may not know the life cycle as well as we think we do.

I appreciate your help. I said repeatedly you may be correct. My experience and that of those with far more than me was that 1.75 worked just fine. Humblefish has combed through research for decades on the matter, so that’s where I deferred and still do. I could be wrong, the point I’m making is I’ve said from the beginning that’s possible. But I also know first hand how rough higher levels of copper are. The happy medium is what we are looking for. I hope that makes sense, I’m challenged a lot it doesn’t bother me.

For what it’s worth — we’ve gone to Mardel, Fritz, Seachem many times for help and explanations and it seems almost always incorrect per researchers. Some of the stuff Humblefish uncovered was unbelievably incorrect. I’m sure many there know what they’re doing but fritz said there was no issue with QC with coppersafe and well, the testing of others here and our own with Hanna proved that’s false...

 

[4FordFamily]

I added to the post above, it took forever to post my phone isn’t cooperating.

 

[MnFish1]

I added to the post above, it took forever to post my phone isn’t cooperating.

Well one thing that would be helpful - would (to me) have a central 'repository' of sorts with some of the incorrect information. As to the manufacturers - I agree. I will say - that the person I talked to at Seachem seemed very knowledgable-and had mentioned that she had spoken to someone about resistant velvet some time ago.

I have a feeling that indeed we don't understand the life-cycle as well as we think we do.

 

[Brew12]

I’m sure many there know what they’re doing but fritz said there was no issue with QC with coppersafe and well, the testing of others here and our own with Hanna proved that’s false...

That didn't bother me nearly as much as when they acknowledged that their dosing recommendation (0.35ppm) and their dosing instructions (1.16ppm) didn't match. They "only wanted to update it once" so they were waiting to determine what the actual therapeutic level should be prior to changing one or both.
Still makes my jaw drop.
They did finally change the recommended copper dose and currently say it should be 1.5ppm to 2ppm but their dosing instructions still only work out to 1.16ppm. :mad:

 

[4FordFamily]

Well one thing that would be helpful - would (to me) have a central 'repository' of sorts with some of the incorrect information. As to the manufacturers - I agree. I will say - that the person I talked to at Seachem seemed very knowledgable-and had mentioned that she had spoken to someone about resistant velvet some time ago.

I have a feeling that indeed we don't understand the life-cycle as well as we think we do.

Not much research being done, as you can see by the ages of most of the studies. Unfortunate.

 

[HotRocks]

That didn't bother me nearly as much as when they acknowledged that their dosing recommendation (0.35ppm) and their dosing instructions (1.16ppm) didn't match. They "only wanted to update it once" so they were waiting to determine what the actual therapeutic level should be prior to changing one or both.
Still makes my jaw drop.
They did finally change the recommended copper dose and currently say it should be 1.5ppm to 2ppm but their dosing instructions still only work out to 1.16ppm. :mad:

Unless you have the bottle I do! LOL. It's 3.0ppm!!!;Blackeye

 

[MnFish1]

Not much research being done, as you can see by the ages of most of the studies. Unfortunate.

I know the companies have labs - and cultures - but they are not really releasing much information... (though I am still waiting for something from Seachem. The researcher who wrote the velvet paper wrote back - and said she had found no colleagues with other info - but she was still trying...

 

[Sarah24!]

Hello,

As we all have super good points what I’d like to figure out and what has been shown in some of the scientific papers on this said subject that I’m still combing through, marine velvet can be resistant to copper and or any chemical up to where it is lethal to fish. Let’s not forget that yes I’m no expert but marine velvet has also shown it can go into a dormant stage until the ecosystem it is in suits its needs.

I by no means disagree with anyone with what they are saying at all. But yes we do need a category of what’s is correct and incorrect. It would be nice if companies could come up with a dye that would highlight of the parasite was still on said fish. The problem is even though it can lay dormant, it’s still contagious by anything wet. Even in proper qt for 14 days it’s been shown to be resistant and other experts state 30 days. After said 30 days it’s then released in a second qt tank that had normal magnesium and no copper. It has also been shown that it may strive with normal levels of magnesium and that one way to kill it is by having a magnesium deficit system (qt w copper). But it would be nice if a dye was produced where it said parasites still existed it would make them glow. They form a nice hard protective shell. We have dyes to trace digestive tracks blood veins etc in humans, how would this be any different or per say harder? The main point is we know how resilient this is, how does one know they have actually killed it and it’s not in a dormant stage? When you release said fish back into your display it comes out of hibernation.

The issue with some of these chemicals is that this parasite can actually morph. Maybe searchem etc can think outside the box and find a different way to change its dna and reproduction process. Even inhibit the way it attaches to the host fish because it attaches extremely deep. Not to mention it’s behavior changes depending on the type of fish species.

 

[ckalupa]

Well. Unfortunately I can add a failure to this thread also. My DT had gone through a 76 day fallow period (flukes but did the full length fallow). During this time all fish went through a copper period 1.75 to 2.05 max copper for 30 days along with abx (had 76 days to use up in QT). Returned the fish to DT in April. On and off I would see a couple fish start to exhibit a few spots like velvet but they would quickly disappear. On July 3 just as I broke down my QT to make room for a bigger DT, I saw full fledged velvet spots on two fish in the DT (no other wet adds since coming out of fallow.). Immediately re-set the QT up and copper now at 2.25. FW Dipped fish on the way into QT. Now three days into QT and lost my Asian male angel but everyone else surviving. Can’t do CP due to one wrasse. Also added Metroplex and GC just to hit it hard. No flashing nor scratching. That angel did start hanging by the power filter return just before going down though. Nobody else showing symptoms other than the white spots. Appetite good though (using focus with GC on the food). So my QT protocol did not offer success that time or ???.