Ich Treatment

[tiger15]

I am copying the abstract of the paper and highlighted two unexpected findings:

Abstract
In response to producer reports of poor efficacy using published treatments against Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (ich) infestations of channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, we initiated a preliminary study to see which of the compounds that are permissible in food-fish aquaculture were efficacious under what we judged to be ideal laboratory conditions. We planned to use the results of this work as a basis for further study in the field. In our studies we used fingerling catfish in glass aquariums with stable water quality and daily treatments in both static and flow-through water systems. In some experiments, infested fish and healthy fish were stocked together so that the ability of the treatment to eliminate preexisting infestations could be examined separately from the treatment's ability to block transmission. Malachite green and methylene blue were used as positive controls, and untreated fish were used as the negative control for efficacy. Treatments with sodium chloride, hydrogen peroxide, potassium permanganate, elevated temperatures, chloramine-T, povidone iodine, and high flow rates were ineffective under all conditions and concentrations tested. Alternate-day treatments with formalin at 25 and 50 mg/L in static water or 100 mg/L in flow-through water aquariums were not effective at eliminating infestations or preventing fish-to-fish transmission. Daily treatments with 50 mg/L formalin in static water or 100 mg/L formalin in flow-through water aquariums were toxic to channel catfish. Formalin at 25 mg/L in static water aquariums was effective at eliminating infestations and reducing fish-to-fish transmission when used as a daily treatment. Copper sulfate was effective in blocking the infestation of healthy fish, but it did not eliminate established infestations on channel catfish, even after 20 daily treatments under static conditions. Malachite green and methylene blue eliminated established infestations on fish, whereas copper only prevented transmission; this suggests that the dyes are able to penetrate deeply or act systemically, allowing them to kill subcutaneous stages of ich. Further field trials were not pursued because none of the legal or economically viable treatments showed efficacy under presumably ideal laboratory conditions.

 

[duanes]

I have found any salt (NaCl) treatment with a concentration under 3ppt to be ineffective.
SO when someone says use 1 tsp per gallon, I usually figure the fish are going to be dead soon.
The last tome I create for ick, I used a little over 3 lbs of salt to every 100 gallons of tank water.
Here is a shot from the start of treatment.

and the same fish around 2 weeks later.

 

[tiger15]

I have found any salt (NaCl) treatment with a concentration under 3ppt to be ineffective.
SO when someone says use 1 tsp per gallon, I usually figure the fish are going to be dead soon.

Agree. The traditional dosing rate of 1 tsp NaCL per gallon is ineffective. Even at 3ppt (3000 ppm), the test data showed 100% mortality. Apparently, the traditional NaCL treatment only worked by preventing the spread of ich, and hardy fish recover on their own immunity. Vulnerable fish like CL have no luck with salt.

The test data showed that Malachite Green and Methylene Blue are most effective, and surprisingly these dyes can kill existing ich on fish. I have never used Methylene Blue, but have successfully cure CL with Malachite Green using half dosage daily and frequent large WC over two week treatment. It's important to continue treatment even the symptoms are not visible, as ich can hide inside the mouth and gills of fish.

 

[squint]

You can view the full papers for free if you go to the scientific paper pirate site sci-hub.tw and enter the DOIs:

10.1111/j.1365-2761.1983.tb00062.x
10.1577/1548-8454(2001)063<0293:TFIIIC>2.0.CO;2

And more interesting ich treatment articles:

10.1017/S0031182011001867
10.1007/s00436-016-4972-y

UV bulbs in smaller, cheaper units may last 6 months or less but the T5 bulbs in the now pricey Aqua Ultraviolet and Emperor Aquatics sterilizers last 18 months before replacement is required. I ran UV from the very start (around 2000-2001) until around 2013 when my last ballast burned out. The last new fish was added in 2012. The early years were fairly typical. I would visit all the LFS regularly and bring home new fish every few weeks. I never deliberately QTed fish. They'd sometimes go into grow out tanks but I made no effort at biosecurity. Nevertheless, I never had an ich outbreak. I think I saw a spot on my Oscars once in awhile and sometimes a fish would flash but it always went away.

My suggestion would be to either leave UV on all the time or at least a few weeks after the last plant, animal, or object capable of carrying ich was acquired. An additional benefit and argument for leaving it on 24/7 is that UV will often give you crystal clear water.

I've had some of my clowns for 15 years and consider them priceless. Sure, you could buy another large clown for a few hundred dollars but it's not the same as having a fish you grew up from a little baby over a decade ago. You also can't put a price on not having to live in fear of another ich outbreak.

I'd consider Aqua Ultraviolet, Emperor Aquatics, and TMC Vectons though I only have experience with Aqua UV. They seem to have doubled in price or more since I bought them so they're less appealing now. Their units were designed for pond use so they potted their ballasts which makes them very water resistant but also prone to overheating. My 57W ballasts didn't last very long. They have "NEMA" options which use watertight enclosures instead of potting. Those should be much less likely to overheat and the ballasts are user-replaceable.

 

[tiger15]

Bear in mind that UV only kill ich larvae in the water passing though the unit, but won't kill existing ich on fish. So UV works the same way as salt and copper by controlling the spread and reinfection of ich. If vulnerable fish lke CL is heavily infected, UV treatment is likely too late to be effective. Certainly, if you turn on the UV 24/7, ich will never break out as no one is dump enough to throw in a heavily infected fish.

I will be interested in getting a mobile UV unit such as this for emergency ich treatment. The unit is complete with its own pump so it can be moved from tank to tank for short term use. The price is cheaper than buying a couple bottles of MG and administration is as simple as plugging in and wait. Unlike chemical remedies, there is no side effect on fish except for plants as UV can destroy micro nutrients but it can easily be mitigated by over dosing.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01824RDN...t=&hvlocphy=9003773&hvtargid=pla-357116787330

The one thing I need to research is whether the unit is powerful enough to do the work on my X gallon of water.

 

[tiger15]

I've had some of my clowns for 15 years and consider them priceless. Sure, you could buy another large clown for a few hundred dollars but it's not the same as having a fish you grew up from a little baby over a decade ago. You also can't put a price on not having to live in fear of another ich outbreak.

Yes, I lost my priceless CLs that I had kept over a decade which at one time were the oldest fish in my tank and had survived three other ich infections with MG treatment, but the last time I had to go on vacation and couldn't save them. If I had the UV unit, they will still be around.