Another Ick question...

[fishman]

ok guys. I have had my tank up and running for about 2 years with no ick. I turned on the lights this morning and saw that my regal has 2 spots on him that are under the skin. I assume its ick.
My question is will it hurt to treat ALL of the fish in a QT even though they dont show signs? Secondly, I have 4 small fish (1 tang about 2 inches long, 1 perc, 1 damsel, 1 velvet dottieback.), will this be to much for a 20 gallon QT?
Lastly, I spoke to a guy at a LFS that is very large in this area and his theory is ick is always in a tank and you can never get rid of it. Its either in the fish or water. He said he has had a tank for 2 years and has added nothing in over a year and found ick on his fish the other morning for no reason. Plus I was reading the posts and saw where Revtree has batteled this for a long time. Im beginning to wonder if this theory isnt right?
I dont want to QT my fish unless I have to. Should I wait to see if the tang developes any more spots before putting him in QT along with the others?
Thanks

 

[Phyl]

When was the last time *anything* was added to your tank? Based on the links that I read provided by QS (on the sick fish forum) Ick has to have a host to survive and it would go to the host if present. Could it have possibly come in on water from either coral, inverts or rock not kept in a fishless system at the supplier?

As far as the QT, I'm in the process of building an overflow system to hook my 20g QT into a 30g garbage can so that in the event of a crisis I can have my fish in 50g of water rather than 20. I'd rather be safe than sorry where it comes to the lives of so many fish.

A bump under the skin? I thought Marine Ick presented as a white thing ON the fish?

 

[RMPD109]

QS gave me a link today about ick and it was described as cysts under the skin. I too always read "on" the skin so I did not properly identify it and lost two clowns. I would QT the fish just in case

http://www.petsforum.com/personal/trevor-jones/marineich.html

 

[quarryshark]

Can you grab us a pic?

 

[fishman]

Well the bumps have gone way down and you can barely see them. This is what happened to the regal when I first brough it home and it went into the QT tank. It was fine for about a week then noticed 2-4 bumps on it...next morning it was covered with it. When the bumps are raised, it looks like it is ON the skin but as they fade during the day, it regresses to under the skin. Its for sure Ick...bad for me.
Also I added some coral frags a day or so ago but thought I was careful in getting no water from the bag in my tank.

 

[quarryshark]

It was fine for about a week then noticed 2-4 bumps on it...next morning it was covered with it. When the bumps are raised, it looks like it is ON the skin but as they fade during the day, it regresses to under the skin. Its for sure Ick...bad for me.

Sounds like it, sorry to say.

 

[xahx]

if your water is fine, then it may have been a temperature change that caused stress. or salinity change.

Give it a good squeeze of stress zyme! cant add enough of that stuff!

 

[quarryshark]

if your water is fine, then it may have been a temperature change that caused stress. or salinity change.

It may worsen an ich outbreak, but the parasite has to first be in a system for an out break to happen.

 

[steve-s]

Also I added some coral frags a day or so ago but thought I was careful in getting no water from the bag in my tank.

Adding water isn't all that relavent. The cysts can be carried in from any hard surfaced materials. If there where any fish in the coral tank you purchased from or connected to the same system, C. irritans can be carried in quite easily.

Cheers
Steve

 

[fishman]

Well Im keeping my fingers crossed...so far the 3 bumps are not there and no more this morning. Im still not convinced that Ick isnt in the fish as well as the water in all tanks. I think the right conditions are what spur it into action. I am being told by numerous fish stores here that have been around a long time in my area that this is the case. So far I have seen nothing on the board that convinces me otherwise. i see people doing Qt tanks as well as taking ick fish from the main and putting them in QT tanks multiple times to have to keep sending them to the QT a few weeks/months later. I have also read books to show different opinions as well. You would think that as many years as the hobby has been around that there would be a conclusive study on this subject...I dont want to appear aurumentative but very frustrating to think there is no conclusive study on this.

 

[quarryshark]

Well Im keeping my fingers crossed...so far the 3 bumps are not there and no more this morning.

Unfortunately ich goes through a lifecycle, keep a close eye.

I think the right conditions are what spur it into action. I am being told by numerous fish stores here that have been around a long time in my area that this is the case.

Don't forget, they are in the business to sell fish, not scare people away. Have to consider motives here a bit.
There have also been many people that have effected a cure, when the treatment is done correctly.

You would think that as many years as the hobby has been around that there would be a conclusive study on this subject...I dont want to appear aurumentative but very frustrating to think there is no conclusive study on this.

There have been, but there is a lot of junk meds out there with their miracle cures that are being marketed by companies with a lot of punch in this hobby. "Some" of the LFS make money from these "quick fixes and of course want to sell them. People like a quick, easy cure and unfortunately doing it right is not the easiest way.

 

[fishman]

Well to address your comments...and again just conversation-not diagreeing with you. The fish stores here know me well and they tell me that most of the ick meds are crap and not to buy them but rather if I am going to treat do it with copper. And yes I know ick goes through a cycle. I have read until my eyes are about to fall out. If I treat, it will be in a QT tank and with copper.
Also I did read an article that states that some fish build up an immunity to ick. I think this might have happened with my clown that I have now had for 2+ years. I really dont know for sure he had ick, but had white spots as it were ick off and on for 2 months. Since that (been 2 years ago) I have seen no other symptons.
Also I do have a question that I have not seen addressed. If ick is prevelant, then why dont fish in the ocean ALL die off? is there something to be said for nature taking care of itself? I do beleive that fish can fight off ick just like humans can fight off a cold or disease??? Again, Im keeping an open mind.
Also I will ask as I didnt get a response on my prev question. Are ALL fish from the main QT if one has ick? Why treat a fish that doesnt show symptons? That would be like treating us for cancer when we may/may not have it.

 

[quarryshark]

Also I do have a question that I have not seen addressed. If ick is prevelant, then why dont fish in the ocean ALL die off?

The ocean is not a closed system where the parasites can multiply and overwhelm an animal. Fish still get parasites in the ocean, but they fall off in the trophant stage and the fish swims away. With 4 walls around the area, there is no where for the fish to go. As the parasites cycle and cycle, they come in greater numbers and eventually overwhelm the animal(s).
Sure some fish are less susceptible and some can build up an eventual immunity. The problem is someday when you introduce an new fish that does not have this immunity, that fish could become quickly infected.
I put my entire stock through a treatment for velvet a little over a year ago. I lost 3 fish within 24 hours while trying to set up a big enough qt system to house them all while several of the fish never showed any symptoms.

Are ALL fish from the main QT if one has ick? Why treat a fish that doesnt show symptons? That would be like treating us for cancer when we may/may not have it.

Absolutely need to move them all. Even if a fish does not show symptoms, it can still be a host and allow the parasite to survive. It isn't like cancer, its like a typical parasite. If there is a host for it, it can and most likely will survive and reinfect your fish when you put them back in.
HTH

 

[Phyl]

In theory if it didn't have ick you could probably put it in a second QT. I think the main emphasis is to get all of your fish out of your main so that the parasite starves and dies off.

 

[quarryshark]

The fish stores here know me well and they tell me that most of the ick meds are crap and not to buy them but rather if I am going to treat do it with copper.

BTW, I agree with them 100%.... Or hyposalinity is a good treatment, especially for copper sensative fish like Tangs and such.

 

[fishman]

Well I have put my tang through copper (Seachem) once before so I know he can make it. I dont see to many people having very good luck with the hypo.
As far as setting up a QT....I have one ready to go at all times. All I have to do is get water from my main, get the spounge out of the sump and Im ready. Another reason I do NOT want a lot of fish. Otherwise you have to have a large QT tank which requires more copper, salt, etc...Im at 4 small 4 in a 100 gallon.
What I would like to know is the success rate of people here with doing a full QT of all of their fish AND as well as if there is anyone that their fish showed ick, didnt QT them and then not having issues down the road.
One of my friends said he has had ick in his tank for years and every time he does a water change, his tangs get ick. Also he adds that when he sticks his hands in the tank and does any maint work, they shows signs of ick. But he has never lost any fish to it. He says after a couple of days, the signs go away and the fish are as normal. WHy would this be?
Again Im torn as to wait and see what happens vs throwing all 4 fish in copper for 4-6 weeks plus another 2 just because....thats 8 weeks in a very small tank. AND there is no guarentee that this is long enough. Pretty soon you are doing this over and over as I have seen so many on this board do...again just frustrated there is no cookie cutter way of approaching this.

 

[quarryshark]

I dont see to many people having very good luck with the hypo.

Just wanted to add that hypo is a very good treatment. Have used it myself and it worked fine.
Usually failure comes from inaccurate SPG readings or failure to maintain the treatment level for a long enough period of time.
Cupramine is an excellent choice though.
IMO curing the fish is the easy part, the hard part is getting it out of the main. Its hard to remain patient for the whole 6 weeks.

 

[fishman]

Well if I do this, I will probably do 7 weeks and maybe even 8. Like I said I have seen to many people do the hypo and or do 4-6 weeks and it not work. But you are right they do not probably use the refractometer and use the little arm plastic thing...cant think of the name of it.
Im not that concerned about getting 4 fish out of the main. I know it will take a bit but I will just do a water change, use that water to put some of my LR into and then catch the fish and use the same water for the QT.

 

[quarryshark]

Sorry, I mean't getting the parasite out of the main.
Catching the fish is no fun either, really stressful for both parties.
I agree, the 4-6 week period is not enough. I (at least lately) alway suggest at least 6 weeks.

 

[fishman]

yes I understood you...I guess I see curing the fish as the hard part. Very frustrating to say the least. AND if I do engage in this and treat and leave the tank fallow, then I still have the same problem i will be even more frustrated!