It's all @Paul B's fault... my journey to an immune reef (hopefully!)

[Gweeds1980]

Its too bad we as humans can't be exposed to cancer and aids to help build our immunities ... QT is the way go.

They can... Mine were. I had one outbreak of velvet, on a heniochus butterfly, documented in this thread. He pulled through with no treatment, just food. No other fish was affected at all. If its as virulent a killer as we are all led to believe, I can't see it being luck that my other fish didn't get infested too.

As with ich, as long as a fish can survive an outbreak, immunity is gained to that strain. As long as they are exposed again in the next 6 months, immunity is maintained.

 

[Gweeds1980]

Its too bad we as humans can't be exposed to cancer and aids to help build our immunities ... QT is the way go.

Also I think it's fair to say there is very little comparison of velvet (ciliate parasite) with cancer (uncontrolled division of abnormal cells) or AIDS (immunodeficiency virus).

 

[Kmsutows]

My thoughts....
@Paul B 's way is much the same concept as used in the medical field with the human body.
If your children aren't exposed to viruses and such, they will be more susceptible to get very sick later in life from that same virus they weren't exposed to earlier.
Our body needs to develop resistance to what we are exposed to in order to progress to the next one we will be exposed to and so on....

Exactly, a vaccine does this by using dead or close to dead virus etc... Paul does it by using Ozone etc. Just like I use UV for. It doesnt kill everything but allows the fish to fight it on it's own.

 

[Kmsutows]

They can... Mine were. I had one outbreak of velvet, on a heniochus butterfly, documented in this thread. He pulled through with no treatment, just food. No other fish was affected at all. If its as virulent a killer as we are all led to believe, I can't see it being luck that my other fish didn't get infested too.

As with ich, as long as a fish can survive an outbreak, immunity is gained to that strain. As long as they are exposed again in the next 6 months, immunity is maintained.

Where did you get 6 months from?

 

[Gweeds1980]

Where did you get 6 months from?

The 6 months refers to ich... Got that from @Humblefish... I believe its in a study somewhere that ich immunity starts to diminish after 6 months of non exposure.

 

[Brew12]

The 6 months refers to ich... Got that from @Humblefish... I believe its in a study somewhere that ich immunity starts to diminish after 6 months of non exposure.

It was in this study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1050464885700435
Unfortunately, this isn't a link to the full study.

 

[Humblefish]

Full study: https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10026.1/2632/PETER JOHN BURGESS.PDF?sequence=1

 

[Paul B]

Quote:
AND IMMUNE RESPONSE IN THE MULLET CHELON LABROSUS (RISSO, 1826)

Yep. I remember that study in 1826.

 

[Humblefish]

Quote: Protection persisted for six months after infection and appeared specific to C.irritans.

So, what happens after six months?? And this temporary immunity doesn't help protect against velvet, brook, uronema, etc.

Good morning, Paul!

 

[Paul B]

Good Morning to you old friend.

 

[scriptmonkey]

Man when I see the word immune and Paul B in a thread, you know it will be a lively one.

Its too bad we as humans can't be exposed to cancer and aids to help build our immunities ... QT is the way go.

Think an example that might be more fair is influenza.


While folks might not agree with this methods\principles, not sure how people can argue with the results. While I am not a Paul B disciple, I am trying out some of the principles he is advocating and my fish are doing OK.

 

[MnFish1]

They can... Mine were. I had one outbreak of velvet, on a heniochus butterfly, documented in this thread. He pulled through with no treatment, just food. No other fish was affected at all. If its as virulent a killer as we are all led to believe, I can't see it being luck that my other fish didn't get infested too.

As with ich, as long as a fish can survive an outbreak, immunity is gained to that strain. As long as they are exposed again in the next 6 months, immunity is maintained.

One problem is that the immunity to velvet is much less well studied than CI. There is no doubt that fish can survive velvet on their own especially given the concentration they have been exposed to. So it is multifactorial. It isn't just related to 'feeding well'. Its also ozone, UV, water flow, the underlying immunity to 'whatever' when purchased, etc. Also certain types of fish are less susceptible to velvet than others.

@Gweeds1980 If velvet weren't a virulent killer why would so many people go through weeks/months of QT processes. Why does every major zoo in the country? Again I'm not arguing or suggesting that people should or should not QT. But - in a closed system' with lets say no ozone, UV, a high concentration of fish - it can be a very deadly parasite. In your specific case - your heniochus looks like it has velvet. IMHO its not for sure. With all due respect - the exception does not prove the rule.

 

[MnFish1]

Quote: Protection persisted for six months after infection and appeared specific to C.irritans.

So, what happens after six months?? And this temporary immunity doesn't help protect against velvet, brook, uronema, etc.

Good morning, Paul!

Actually - I think you're misinterpreting this study a bit. The immunity does not stop at 6 months. Its just that the last group of fish that they studied were sacrificed at 6 months. Immunity after 6 months was never tested. So - the take home should be 'immunity lasts at least 6 months'. That said - in this study - they did note that immunity was less at 6 months than the middle time-point. So it is clear that the immunity was decreasing. Whether the immunity at lets say a year is down to zero or not is unknown. Here is the table containing the data. As you can see - the last time measured was 6 months. Its interesting to note that even at 6 months, the difference in amount of trophonts released was significantly lower (11 vs 272) in the 'immune' and 'control groups respectively.

Secondly - Its likely that immunity to velvet and other parasites works the same way - it just hasn't been as well studied as with CI. One problem with velvet is that its life cycle is much shorter than CI

 

[MnFish1]

Quote:
AND IMMUNE RESPONSE IN THE MULLET CHELON LABROSUS (RISSO, 1826)

Yep. I remember that study in 1826.

And @PaulB I'm sure you realize that the reference to Cryptokaryon (Brown 1951) and the mullet Chelon Labrosis (Risso, 1826) are references to the papers that first described the existence of those organisms (i.e CI 1951, and Mullet 1826). This paper which has been cited numerous times and has been the genesis of most of what we think about CI was published in 1992.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

And @PaulB I'm sure you realize that the reference to Cryptokaryon (Brown 1951) and the mullet Chelon Labrosis (Risso, 1826) are references to the papers that first described the existence of those organisms (i.e CI 1951, and Mullet 1826). This paper which has been cited numerous times and has been the genesis of most of what we think about CI was published in 1992.

Way to go and ruin all the fun of speculation by presenting science! Have a great day all!

By the way this tread has some legs but there is another that has already gone over 630 pages. This one has a ways to go yet!

 

[MnFish1]

Here is a quote from another article: from 1997 - Initially they are talking about the 1992 article and the 6 month time period (they say up to because there was no group after 6 months). the interesting part to me is that they state that many fish did not develop complete immunity:

They demonstrated the development of acquired immunity following challenge with theronts, which lasted for up to 6 months. However, many fish were not completely protected and produced a few trophonts upon challenge. This might explain renewed outbreaks of C. irritans at very long intervals of time: Fish which survive the initial outbreak will develop a certain degree of protection and sustain small numbers of trophonts, thereby enabling the parasite to cycle at low levels in the aquarium. Any event which subsequently diminishes the Fish's immunity, such as physiological stress due to adverse environmental conditions or the introduction of non-immune fish to the aquarium, could enable the parasite population to increase rapidly, causing a renewed outbreak of cryptocaryonosis. A similar association between acquired immunity and epidemics has been described
for. I. multfiliis. (Dickerson and Dawe, 1995).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018360323287

 

[MnFish1]

Way to go and ruin all the fun of speculation by presenting science! Have a great day all!

By the way this tread has some legs but there is another that has already gone over 630 pages. This one has a ways to go yet!

Well - I wasn't sure if he was kidding or not - and I myself wondered why in the titles in articles about CI it always says Cryptokaryon irritant, 1951 Brown, etc - its because CI was described by Brown in 1951 - I thought it was interesting

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Here is a quote from another article: from 1997 - Initially they are talking about the 1992 article and the 6 month time period (they say up to because there was no group after 6 month). the interesting part to me is that they state that many fish did not develop complete immunity:

They demonstrated the development of acquired immunity following challenge with theronts, which lasted for up to 6 months. However, many fish were not completely protected and produced a few trophonts upon challenge. This might explain renewed outbreaks of C. irritans at very long intervals of time: Fish which survive the initial outbreak will develop a certain degree of protection and sustain small numbers of trophonts, thereby enabling the parasite to cycle at low levels in the aquarium. Any event which subsequently diminishes theFish's immunity, such as physiological stress due to adverse environmental conditions or the introduction of non-immune Æsh to the aquarium, could enable the parasite population to increase rapidly, causing a renewed outbreak of cryptocaryonosis. A similar association between acquired immunity and epidemics has been described
for. I. multfiliis. (Dickerson and Dawe, 1995).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018360323287

This is why I love other filtration methods to lower the population of possible parasites. I have noticed that more mature reef tanks with lots of filter feeders seem to work well in this respect. It is possible that a period of UV or other means while the tank community is maturing could limit the tank wipe outs I see on this forum. It seems a lot of those tanks are started with dry rock that has been nuked and bacteria in a bottle. Just a coincidence or is it related to the need for greater biological diversity before introduction of fish?

 

[Humblefish]

This is why I love other filtration methods to lower the population of possible parasites. I have noticed that more mature reef tanks with lots of filter feeders seem to work well in this respect. It is possible that a period of UV or other means while the tank community is maturing could limit the tank wipe outs I see on this forum. It seems a lot of those tanks are started with dry rock that has been nuked and bacteria in a bottle. Just a coincidence or is it related to the need for greater biological diversity before introduction of fish?

It is very possible that bacteria “gnaw on” / damage tomonts, but what guarantees are there that will be enough in a closed system? Same applies to a UV and other methods for filtering out free swimmers. I don’t doubt these various management techniques work for some, but you take the risk that someday you may introduce a pathogen into your aquarium which will overwhelm your defenses.

 

[Paul B]

And @PaulB I'm sure you realize that the reference to Cryptokaryon (Brown 1951) and the mullet Chelon Labrosis (Risso, 1826) are references to the papers that first described the existence of those organisms (i.e CI 1951, and Mullet 1826). This paper which has been cited numerous times and has been the genesis of most of what we think about CI was published in 1992.

I remember when Burgess did those studies. I disagreed with some of his work as I disagree with it now.
But I am an electrician.