How long should I wait to add new fish after ich has cleared up?

[finneganswake]

I've had a problem with ich in the last month or so. I don't have a quarantine tank, and even if I did, the rockwork in my tank has too many caves for it to be feasible to remove every fish (I practiced on the thought that if I could do it, I'd go ahead and get the quarantine tank--the only fish that I could get ahold of was the very slow-moving lionfish; everything else darted into the caves and wouldn't come back out, and I'm not going to tear down my tank over this, as the corals are the stars and the fish are just the supporting cast.) I treated it with some non-copper medication, and it did clear up. I'd been wanting to add a new tang to the tank, so a few days after it cleared up, I bought one. The ich came back in a couple of days. At first I suspected my LFS, as the first outbreak occured right after I put a new fish in the tank, but he has copper running constantly in all of his containment tanks (other than the coral and invert tanks, of course). I mentioned what was going on to one of the people at fragfarmer, and he said that every tank that he's seen eventually goes through an ich cycle, and that once the tank builds up resistance, it's rare to see it bloom again. Has anyone ever heard this before, because it's news to me? If this is the case, I'm assuming that what caused the outbreak both times was probably the stress of having a new fish in the tank and the decreased resistance this can cause.

Anyway, my main question is this--how long should I wait after I see the last ich spot before adding new fish, as I'm guessing that the parasites may hang out in the water for a little while after they disappear from the fish, assuming the whole resistance idea is correct, which it could be, as the fish that were in the tank before I added the new tang didn't get it as badly the second time.

[alten78]

Your ST should lay fallow for at least 6 weeks to get rid of any ich hanging around in the tank, without taking all your fish out from my experience you will not get rid of it.

Your 50g tank is much much too small to keep a tang in, it may look big but tangs need alot of swimming room.

[finneganswake]

I only get baby tangs, and my LFS has a trade-in policy for store credit, so if they get too big, I just switch for another.

[alten78]

sounds like they should be paying you for raising their kids...errrr fish

[finneganswake]

Yeah, I'll run that by them

[hwynboy]

couple things to note....first off there is a lot of really good information based on scientifc facts on this problem in the hobby and going through ich in every tank is not one of them. Ich is an obligate parasite that NEEDS a host to live. Here is some good information regarding ich please read up.

http://www.petsforum.com/personal/tr...marineich.html


I would also say that putting a tang in a 50g tank could be a trigger for ich which may be present in your fish. The best thing to do is leave your tank fishless for 6-8 weeks. That is the way to cure the problem. Anything else (copper aside) is just a band aid and it will rear it's ugly head again later. Good Luck it is not a fun thing to go through. I have been there.

[Coolboy]

I would wait at least a month.

[finneganswake]

Originally posted by hwynboy
first off there is a lot of really good information based on scientifc facts on this problem in the hobby and going through ich in every tank is not one of them

Good point, but from a purely anecdotal standpoint, do you know anyone who's managed to keep a tank for any significant amount of time without getting ich? I have quite a few casual acquaintances who run either local or nationwide reef stores, and they all agree that anyone who claims they've never had ich or cyanobacteria are just insecure and afraid to admit it. This would lead at least some credence to the idea that there may be an ich cycle; just think about it, there was no nitrogen cycle (well, there was, but nobody in the aquarium hobby knew about it) thirty years ago when we thought that water changes killed fish.

I would also say that putting a tang in a 50g tank could be a trigger for ich which may be present in your fish

This actually did cross my mind--I was thinking that tangs are much more susceptible to ich, and possibly there was a stress factor involved due to there being another surgeonfish in the tank, although it's a palette blue and therefor not really competition in the food department (I know a couple of jaws may be dropping here, but palette blues, better known as "That Dory fish from Finding Nemo" are atypical surgeonfish and primarily eat plankton, not algae.) The size of the tank itself didn't really cross my mind, as I only keep baby tangs in the tank and trade them in when they get too large.

[guitarfish]

I'll chime in. Ich is indeed a parasite like hywnboy said. It's invisible to us (what you see on the fish is actually a cyst, not the parasite itself - a technicality), but under a microscope it's easily identified (and creepy looking).

The life cycle is usually 21 days, give or take some depending on temperature. This is why many people think it's gone, or that the treatment they used worked. Even if one does nothing, it will fall off the fish and appear to be gone...only to show up again.

Unfortunately, removing the fish and treating in a separate tank with copper or hyposalinity (my preference) is pretty much the scientifically proven treatment that works all the time. (I've had to do this, I know exactly what you mean about the rocks - I've never been able to put my tank back together the same way). All the other remedies - and there are dozens - are anecdotal.

If you want to read more, the links below are exhaustive.

ATJ's Marine Ich Reference

See the series by Terry Bartelme for a more in depth discussion, including possible treatments.

News from the Warfront with Cryptocaryon irritans - 1 of 5
News from the Warfront with Cryptocaryon irritans - 2 of 5
News from the Warfront with Cryptocaryon irritans - 3 of 5
News from the Warfront with Cryptocaryon irritans - 4 of 5
News from the Warfront with Cryptocaryon irritans - 5 of 5

[finneganswake]

I'm not saying that it's not a parasite, that much I know, I'm just wondering (I do this a lot, sometimes I throw out hypotheses that I'm sure are bound to be incorrect, guess it was that minor in philosophy) if there may be some sort of resistance cycle where older tanks may be less apt to get ich and we just chalk it up to being a result of "experience." Just something to ponder.

What do you consider hyposalinity? Mine runs constant at 1.026, which a lot of people think is high, and this hasn't kept ich out.

[finneganswake]

Guitarfish--I just hopped on to the first link you provided, and this is almost exactly what I was getting at--

Acquired immunity occurs when the response is specific to the invading organism, which is recognised directly or through antigens (Dickerson and Clarke, 1996). Colorni (1987) first suggested that marine fish could acquire some immunity to C. irritans by surviving several infections. Burgess and Matthews (1995) demonstrated acquired immunity in the thick-lipped mullet, Chelon labrosus. They found that 82% of fish that had been previously exposed to high levels of theronts were immune to a secondary exposure.

[finneganswake]

Oh, by the way, before I sound like an idiot, I just noticed you said HYPO-salinity, so disregard my question about whether my 1.026 is HYPER-salinity.

[guitarfish]

Hi finneganswake. I with you on the hypotheses...the acquired immunity has always puzzled me. Personally, I have very strict QT rules - if it's "wet" - snails, rock, corals, even macroalgae - it gets QT'd. Ich can't infect those things, but it can be in the water, and it can encyst on snail shells or rock. I am this way because of the loss of some favorite fish, killed by the little bastads.

[handapanda]

i think you will be best off emptying your tank of fish and leaving it that way for 6 weeks. and you should qt every new fish for at least 4 weeks (that's if there are no signs of illness during that period). i know it's a pain in the @#$, but i learned the hard way that it's the best way to prevent massive losses.

[hwynboy]

Originally posted by finneganswake
Good point, but from a purely anecdotal standpoint, do you know anyone who's managed to keep a tank for any significant amount of time without getting ich?

My main display tank has not had any ich outbreaks at all for over two years, which is when I started using a STRICT quarantine procedure. I like to think it is a result of hard work, and trial and error. I have lost numerous fish to ICH also and it has killed off my whole tank. My most recent additions about a year ago were from a very reputable clown breeder, and they also got 8 weeks in QT. It's not rocket science, but it is much more work than the casual aquarist is willing to go through as evidenced by this board.

Does this mean that if you QT you cant get ICH? Before 3 weeks ago I would have said YOU BET! But I recently had an Ich outbreak on my FO tank. Why I don't know. I have always QT'd that tank inhabitants as well. So up until then I have had no problems for over 2 years. The last thing I put in the tank was well over a year and change ago. The only thing I can think of is that someone had Ich and built up an immunity to it, over time and stress it caused it to fester and manifest. I have all the inhabitants in QT right now and the tank is fishless for going on two weeks.

So I don't think Ich is apparent in every tank, I just think that even in QT for 8 weeks a fish can have it and not feel stressed to trigger it. Later when stressed, it can pop up. This is just my opinion.

I think the way to tell for sure is to QT everything that comes in with hyposalinity so if there is ICH even not shown the parasite will not be able to survive the QT period. I have discussed this with ATJ in the past and he agrees.

So far after 3 weeks my emperor (which was the only fish showing signs of ICH at the time) is clean of ICH visibly and is eating well and not sluggish anymore. So I hope at the end of this treatment all is well and everyone gets to go back home. So far so good.

[finneganswake]

I think your last post proves my point--you've obviously taken a lot of time to keep ich out, and it still got into your tank. So again, I'll ask the question--do you know anyone who hasn't had an outbreak?

And it's a little insulting to call people who don't quarantine "casual aquarists." Although I've only been keeping reef tanks for a little under 2 years, I've been keeping aquariums for close to 30 years. I probably spend about 4 to 5 hours a week on my reef tank, it's just that the majority of this time is spent on the corals, which I've had a lot of success with. I will never risk stressing one of my corals by breaking down the rockwork to treat a fish with ich--they just aren't the priority in a reef tank.

[guitarfish]

At the most basic level, we know that ich has to be introduced. Either it comes in on a fish, or attached/encysted on something else.

My main tank went through a period of 7 weeks where it was fallow (no fish). Since ich requires a host, and none were there, any ich in the tank had to have died. That's been proven by others already.

Presently my main tank is ich free. The fish in it all went through hyposalinity. From this point forward, anything I add will have to go through QT first.

As long as this process is adhered to, there shouldn't be any way for the parasite to make it into the display.

hwynboy didn't say that people who don't QT "casual aquarists". He said, "[QT] is much more work than the casual aquarist is willing to go through." There's a difference. I think it's an accurate comment, not meant to disparage.

Keep in mind, hwynboy said he QT'd fish, but they could have had something he missed. If he did hyposalinity while in QT, that would probably have solved that.

In any case, I can say that every time I've followed good QT practices, I've never had ich in my display. Only when I've been lazy or stupid have I introduced it.

[hwynboy]

Originally posted by finneganswake
I think your last post proves my point--you've obviously taken a lot of time to keep ich out, and it still got into your tank. So again, I'll ask the question--do you know anyone who hasn't had an outbreak?

Ich is alive and well in the wild and very common. The difference is that they dont get to epidemic proportions with the millions of miles of ocean...in our small boxes they have no where else to go. So fish in the wild have this parasite...so when we collect them to put them into our tanks we usually transfer it.

[/i]
And it's a little insulting to call people who don't quarantine "casual aquarists." [/QUOTE]

Im not calling you a casual aquarist..Im saying most casual aquarists dont take the time to research their purchases and want a nemo in their tank. Go to y9our LFS and hang out for an hour Im sure you will be able to identify whom I am speaking of.

[/i]
I I will never risk stressing one of my corals by breaking down the rockwork to treat a fish with ich--they just aren't the priority in a reef tank. [/QUOTE]

This is sad. Firstly I have broken down an SPS reef tank twice to catch fish because of an ICH outbreak. Neither time did I lose any corals, this has no logic. Secondly if a fish's health is not a priority in your tank please do not purchase them. That is truely a waste of life.

[Shooter7]

I had what I believe was an Ich outbreak in my 26gal tank and very quickly lost 3 fish due to not QT'ing a new arrival, I believe. Prior to that all were happy and healthy. My two survivors are in a separate tank now as the main tank sits fallow. I am following the advice of an article I was referred to stating that hyposalinity treatment should be at 1.09. I'm wondering if, for future additions to my display, the QT tank for them should also be that low at all times or is there a slightly different level of "hypo" I should have it at for them?

[hwynboy]

Originally posted by guitarfish

hwynboy didn't say that people who don't QT "casual aquarists". He said, "[QT] is much more work than the casual aquarist is willing to go through." There's a difference. I think it's an accurate comment, not meant to disparage

absolutely correct.



Keep in mind, hwynboy said he QT'd fish, but they could have had something he missed. If he did hyposalinity while in QT, that would probably have solved that[/QUOTE]

exactly, which is something I just did for a yellow tang I added to my main display that has been over 2 years no ich.


In any case, I can say that every time I've followed good QT practices, I've never had ich in my display. Only when I've been lazy or stupid have I introduced it. [/QUOTE]

Im in the same boat.

[hwynboy]

Originally posted by Shooter7
I had what I believe was an Ich outbreak in my 26gal tank and very quickly lost 3 fish due to not QT'ing a new arrival, I believe. Prior to that all were happy and healthy. My two survivors are in a separate tank now as the main tank sits fallow. I am following the advice of an article I was referred to stating that hyposalinity treatment should be at 1.09. I'm wondering if, for future additions to my display, the QT tank for them should also be that low at all times or is there a slightly different level of "hypo" I should have it at for them?

This is what I have recently discovered. I believe a QT for new fish should be kept at 1.009 to keep the parasite from being able to survive. Thereby not transferring that parasite into your main display. Good Luck.

[Shooter7]

Thanks...and thanks for correcting, I meant 1.009.

[finneganswake]

This is sad. Firstly I have broken down an SPS reef tank twice to catch fish because of an ICH outbreak. Neither time did I lose any corals, this has no logic.

Here's the logic--removing the live rock exposes sponge life to air, which will kill the sponges and potentially foul the water. If your corals are attached to the live rock, as mine are, you're exposing them to air; maybe this isn't a major stress, but I doubt if it's something they like, and I have a lot of delicate corals. Unless your live rock is made out of Legos, you're rearranging the aquascape, which will alter the water flow and the amount of light the corals get; again, maybe not a major stress, but I don't take chances.

Secondly if a fish's health is not a priority in your tank please do not purchase them. That is truely a waste of life.

What do you say to the majority of reefers who underfeed their fish to the point of anorexia in order to keep the nutrient levels low enough for their corals to thrive? Should these people also stop keeping fish? I don't underfeed, I try to do everything possible to keep my fish healthy, I just don't have the room for a QT tank in my crowded apartment. Just because I prize my corals more than my fish doesn't mean I try to waste their lives. God, some people on this board can be judgmental.

[hwynboy]

I respectfully disagree with your thinking. Great thing about America is people can have different beliefs about the same things without being persecuted. So rather than have a pi$$ing match about analogies and metaphors suffice to say I will go with scientific studies and I will treat my fish with the best of care that I can provide. You sir are free to do with your tank as you wish. I wash my hands of this thread having said that.

Good luck to you and your fish. =\

[finneganswake]

I'm not trying to persecute you--I actually think that you are in the right about the best way to deal with this, but again, it's not much of an option for me, since you can only get so big of an apartment in Los Angeles without selling your firstborn child. I could easily afford a 400 gallon tank, but I don't have the room for it, which is why I only have a 50 gallon, and why I don't have a QT tank. Trust me, I'd love to have one, but I don't think that it's fair to say that I don't care about my fish because I don't have one.