# Considering a UV Sterilizer...



## snakeman1989 (Jul 22, 2010)

So, I've recently discovered that my fish tend to suffer from mycobacteriosis after reading an article by diana walstad. It sounds like a UV sterilizer helps prevent the disease from spreading.

http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/00388mycoarticle.pdf

I lost all my rainbows (2 different species) a couple years ago and other fish as well over time. I would like to prevent this from happening again!

Here's what I have for the tank:
-48g bowfront
-sand/soil/gravel mixture w/ the intention of growing more plants
-eheim 2217 canister filter 
-sponge filter
-finnex 36" led fixture (coming soon)

I've been looking at sterilizers and I want one that connects to my canister filter unless the submerged ones are superior in some way.

Can anyone shed some more light on this subject? Or even suggest a specific UV Sterilizer? I don't want to go too cheap with one, but something under $100 would be perfect for a low wattage unit.

Thank you


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

A inline UV will have too much flow for it to be effective in the ways you want it to be, not to mention most everything else too. It's all about dwell time, the water being exposed to the light. Generally lower the GPH the better. 

Here's a pretty good article thats always updated, this being as of yesterday.

http://americanaquariumproducts.com/AquariumUVSterilization.html


----------



## gus6464 (Dec 19, 2011)

I would say go with the aquatop in tank pumps but they have doubled in price over the last couple of months. Whatever you go for make sure it's at the lowest setting though as you want very low flow for the UV to do it's job properly.


----------



## FreshPuff (Oct 31, 2011)

Hey snakeman1989-

I have been using the Green Killing Machine 9watt version for about 2 years now and it's still going strong. It has a low flow rate so it does a great job with killing pathogens. It is also rated for up to a 50gallon aquarium. I payed $50.00 for it at Petsmart. I would definitely consider this product for your needs:red_mouth I would run the uv-sterilizer for a week and make sure to keep your aquarium clean. I forgot to mention, giving your fish a well rounded diet helps their immune system significantly. 
Best of luck with everything!


----------



## gus6464 (Dec 19, 2011)

FreshPuff said:


> Hey snakeman1989-
> 
> I have been using the Green Killing Machine 9watt version for about 2 years now and it's still going strong. It has a low flow rate so it does a great job with killing pathogens. It is also rated for up to a 50gallon aquarium. I payed $50.00 for it at Petsmart. I would definitely consider this product for your needs:red_mouth I would run the uv-sterilizer for a week and make sure to keep your aquarium clean. I forgot to mention, giving your fish a well rounded diet helps their immune system significantly.
> Best of luck with everything!


Petco has it right now for $40 and looks interesting. Does it have adjustable flow?


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

I'm not going to get into the full details within this post but offer a guide link. The myco issue you are dealing with and what D.W. has put forward in the linked write up while on topic contain gaps on the full detail of really dealing with it. Fish don't gain immunity as one point researchers at UF will disagree with. 

AquaUV 15w units will work great to aid in limiting problems but after months of reading research and with the aid of several doctors working in the field I suggest you clean your system and restart. Otherwise you'll never be clear of the original problem. 

Consider reading this:
http://www.angelfish.net/VBulletin/showthread.php?t=30800


----------



## snakeman1989 (Jul 22, 2010)

Just read some of the info on the angelfish forum... Now I truly do not know what to do. My tank is currently sitting empty in the basement, but sterilizing everything including substrate, already established sponge/canister filters, and plants sounds like a nightmare. Nor does it sound like it would be quick.

I must say that I do feed my fish a varied diet often. 
I do know that the UV Sterilizer will only help prevent the bacteria from spreading even in a clean, established tank. That's what I'm going for. I know I cannot treat the fish and completely get rid of the problem.

I am wary of the Green Killing Machine since online reviews tell of it shorting out or being very difficult to clean. I can get one for $40, which might not be a bad start. I plan on having the tank setup for a long time though, so I'd rather have a unit that may be more expensive but cheaper to replace specific parts.

Has anyone had luck with the Turbo Twist sterilizers??


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

Yeah, i bought the turbo twist right after it came out over a decade ago, and still use it. I use the 9 watt paired with a rio pump at the moment. I also use a aquanetics 18 watt on a 180 gal.


----------



## discuspaul (Jul 27, 2010)

I've used the 9 watt JBJ Submariner UV for several years in my 75 gal, and have been very satisfied with it's operation. Stand-alone unit, compact, easy to clean/change UV bulb. A great piece of equipment.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

If you're looking for a UV take Wkndracer's advice and go with an Aqua UV. They're an item where you get what you pay for.


----------



## snakeman1989 (Jul 22, 2010)

So I looked for the JBJ and found a SunSun filter that looks exactly the same. 

http://www.amazon.com/SunSun-JUP-01-Sterilizer-Submersible-Filter/dp/B008ADUVWQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1371081283&sr=8-2&keywords=jbj+submariner+uv+sterilizer

Looked at the Aqua UV as well and that might be my first choice.
The turbo twist ones sound like they would work just fine, but I'm not so sure about Coralife products anymore. I've had two t5 fixtures that keep blowing bulbs, which I've replaced and they subsequently burned out within a shorter period of time.


----------



## Black Hills Tj (Jul 19, 2008)

Jeff5614 said:


> If you're looking for a UV take Wkndracer's advice and go with an Aqua UV. They're an item where you get what you pay for.


 
This. I have an Aqua UV HOB run by a minijet


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

snakeman1989 said:


> I lost all my rainbows (2 different species) a couple years ago and other fish as well over time. I would like to prevent this from happening again!


Connection problems caused me to lose a detailed reply (hate that )!
If this system has remained wet even without fish at any point the threat myco is still just that,,, a threat. (not opinion but fact)
If you don’t break the system down and completely (and correctly) disinfect it please respect the hobby by treating it as a closed loop system. A closed loop system in this context meaning that anything that goes into this tank doesn’t come back out to be shared with anyone else. No fish returned to a pet store, traded or sold. No plants or trimmings sold or given to another hobbyist. Even heaters, filters, hose, rocks and nets, anything that’s splashed water in a myco tank needs to be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected before it can see use anywhere else or it needs to land in a trash can. 
Whenever you are done working in the tank wash with hot water and a good soap followed by wetting the exposed skin with greater than 70% rubbing alcohol for roughly 1 minute. Unless your immune system is compromised the risks are extremely low aquatic myco will transfer but it is still considered a risk within the medical profession. Mycobacteriosis is the worst threat to our hobby I’ve encountered to date. AND the most misunderstood. (Ignore 99% of what you read reported on the web)


----------



## snakeman1989 (Jul 22, 2010)

At this point, the tank has been taken down and dried twice within the past 2 months. I had to tear it down before due to a leak and before I moved. It's sitting in my basement now dried up.

The gravel has been washed and sits dried already, but I'm going to use mostly new substrate when I set it up again. The existing gravel I use, if at all, I will probably boil it or rinse it with hot water and vinegar possibly.

I've always thoroughly washed my hands after working in my tanks, however I usually work on multiple tanks simultaneously and don't wash my hands in between tanks. That is a problem!

Are there any other good, recent sources I could look at about the Myco problem? I really want to understand fully what's going on, especially if it is very prevalent in tanks.

I will keep in mind the closed-loop system. In theory, does drying any possibly affected items (such as rocks, nets, filters) effectively kill any of the bacteria? I would assume since it is an aquatic bacteria, that drying everything out would destroy any aquatic bacteria unless they go into some sort of dormant stage.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

snakeman1989 said:


> Are there any other good, recent sources I could look at about the Myco problem? I really want to understand fully what's going on, especially if it is very prevalent in tanks.


What we are talking about is "micro", "itty bitty" bacteria and it's tough as nails so no, dried out for a week or a year I wouldn't sleep good at night without further cleaning knowing what I've learned since being confronted with a known exposure last year. Myco is everywhere in many forms but a few are problem makers, those are the focus point.

The reason traditional bleach treatments won't work is because myco has a cell wall that is very resistant to oxidation. Coated with biofilm it can survive dry a very long time. The only points covered in my thread on TAFF II (in my posts) are fact based. I do have more presently and need to update but no time to do it. The links contained in that thread are the most current in public release. How do I know that? I've met and currently receive guidance from the following people regarding anything I post about myco:

Dr. B. D. Petty, DVM. (Primary)
Aquaculture Extension Large Animal Clinical Sciences, CVM
Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, SFRC
University of Florida. 

Dr. Thomas B. Waltzek 
Department of Infectious Diseases and Pathology 
College of Veterinary Medicine 

Dacelin St. Martin, MD, FAAP
Board Certified In Pediatrics
Board Certified Internal Medicine​Board Certified in Sleep Medicine
Specially Trained in Anti-Aging

Dr. St Martin published the following:
Mycobacterium Marinum in Connecticut.
Report of four Cases Connecticut Medicine Journal 2003; 67(2): 333-335

Emerging Significance of Mycobacterium Avium-Complex Infection in an Inner City Hospital.
Journal of Connecticut State Medical Society (Connecticut Medicine) June 2002, Volume 66, number 6, Page 323-330 

Also presenter on the following: 
Trends and Clinical Significance of Acid Fast Bacilli Isolates at a US teaching hospital.
Presented at ACP/ASIM 2000 Spring Session Connecticut Chapter. 
Also Presented at Science Symposium 2000 at Bridgeport Hospital.

Mycobacterium Marinum Disease: A Case series Report and Literature Review. Presented at ACP/ASIM 2000 Spring Session Connecticut Chapter. 
Also presented At Science Symposium 2000 At Bridgeport Hospital.

*I have complete faith in the information I am being provided and posting for reveiw.*


----------



## FlyingShawn (Mar 4, 2011)

It's a very long thread and I haven't had time to update it in a very long time, but about a year and a half ago I went through a _Myco_ outbreak in my 52gal. After confirming that it was _Myco_ with a vet and doing a huge amount of research (much of it with wkndracer's help!), I decided to do a full tear-down and heavy duty sterilization protocol on all my tanks, including euthanizing about 250 fish (mostly guppies that had gone nuts breeding in one of them).

However, there were a few fish that I just couldn't bring myself to kill, so I staggered my tear-down process in order to convert my 20gal into what I call a "permanent quarantine" tank (same thought process of the "closed loop" system mentioned earlier). No new fish go in and no plants or fish come out (except when I discard trimmings), I have dedicated buckets, syphon hoses, etc for that tank, and I always sterilize my hands and arms with 70% isopropyl alcohol after coming into contact with the tank (not just the water, the entire tank) so as not to risk cross-contaminating with my "clean" systems. The tank also has a 18w UV unit (typically rated for up to 100gal tanks) to help minimize their risk. When the fish in there die off, I'll go through the full sterilization protocol on that tank before setting it up again.

It's now been over a year since setting up the 20gal quarantine and the fish inside (including a few Rainbows, who are considered especially susceptible to _Myco_) are all healthy and show no signs of infection, so I definitely feel it was worth the effort to set up the tank to keep them around.

My 52gal is still sitting dry due to some setbacks in the start-up process (I had previously grown HC emersed before starting it and wanted to do so again, but it hasn't been working for me) and other tasks taking priority from being able to work on it.

As much as it pains me to say this: please consider my experience and others' and consider a full sterilization protocol (_Myco_ can encapsulate itself, so my understanding is your tank could sit dry for years without killing it). Failing that, PLEASE follow the advice above and consider this tank (and any others that could have been cross-contaminated) as closed-loop systems to keep from spreading this to anyone else in the hobby!

Here is the thread about my experience with _Myco_:
UPDATE: IT'S FISH TB. ...Help me diagnose this disease that's killing my fish


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

FlyingShawn said:


> However, there were a few fish that I just couldn't bring myself to kill, so I staggered my tear-down process in order to convert my 20gal into what I call a "permanent quarantine" tank (same thought process of the "closed loop" system mentioned earlier). No new fish go in and no plants or fish come out (except when I discard trimmings), I have dedicated buckets, syphon hoses, etc for that tank, and I always sterilize my hands and arms with 70% isopropyl alcohol after coming into contact with the tank (not just the water, the entire tank) so as not to risk cross-contaminating with my "clean" systems. The tank also has a 18w UV unit (typically rated for up to 100gal tanks) to help minimize their risk.


Diana Walstad mentioned in her article (Mycobacteriosis−--the Stealth Disease) that adding a UV to an existing tank with MB outbreak stopped the fish death and those fish with symptoms actually recovered.

I wonder whether a tear-down is really necessary.


----------



## FlyingShawn (Mar 4, 2011)

zdnet said:


> Diana Walstad mentioned in her article (Mycobacteriosis−--the Stealth Disease) that adding a UV to an existing tank with MB outbreak stopped the fish death and those fish with symptoms actually recovered.
> 
> I wonder whether a tear-down is really necessary.


The result of my research, which I believe is also consistent with Walstad's conclusions, is that a UV unit has the potential to reduce the levels of _Myco_ enough to help prevent further infections, but cannot actually eliminate it or reduce it to what are considered "normal" background levels because _Myco_ lives predominantly in the biofilm of the tank and UV units are only effective on free-floating material. My choice to put an over-sized UV unit on the "permanent quarantine" tank was a direct result of that article and it seems to have helped my fish stay healthy, but it would be highly irresponsible of me to consider them anything but carriers.

Believe me, the sterilization of my system has cost me a significant amount of money and countless hours of my time (there's a reason some people give up on the hobby altogether after a _Myco_ outbreak!), so I explored every possible option to avoid a tear-down! 

Ultimately though, I decided that I had to do the sterilization if for no other reason than to protect my own health; _Myco_ can cause a nasty infection in humans and requires tuberculosis antibiotics to treat. The risk simply isn't worth it (not to mention the loss of enjoyment of the hobby by not being able to sell/trade/ROAK any plants/fish/equipment to the community), so I had to conclude that my options were either a tear-down or to give up altogether.

I'm truly sorry, I really wish I had a less-grim option to give you, but I can only share the results of my experience and offer you the encouragement that hindsight has left me feeling that I did the right thing by tearing everything down.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

FlyingShawn said:


> The result of my research, which I believe is also consistent with Walstad's conclusions, is that a UV unit has the potential to reduce the levels of _Myco_ enough to help prevent further infections, but cannot actually eliminate it or reduce it to what are considered "normal" background levels because _Myco_ lives predominantly in the biofilm of the tank and UV units are only effective on free-floating material. My choice to put an over-sized UV unit on the "permanent quarantine" tank was a direct result of that article and it seems to have helped my fish stay healthy, but it would be highly irresponsible of me to consider them anything but carriers.


Mycobacteria are relatively common environmental bacteria. They have been isolated from drinking water supplies, swimming pools, coastal waters, and aquaculture facilities.

Bettas, gouramis, tetras, brabs, danios, koi, goldfish, and angelfish are more prone to the infection. 

Plus the fact that early infection has no sign.

I therefore treat all fish as carriers.


----------



## FlyingShawn (Mar 4, 2011)

zdnet said:


> Mycobacteria are relatively common environmental bacteria. They have been isolated from drinking water supplies, swimming pools, coastal waters, and aquaculture facilities.
> 
> Bettas, gouramis, tetras, brabs, danios, koi, goldfish, and angelfish are more prone to the infection.
> 
> ...


That's exactly what I was referring to by "'normal' background levels:" most aquariums do house small amounts of _Myco_. Typically it's not a hazard to our fish unless something depresses their immune system enough to become infected (in my case, it was stress from being in a tank that was extremely overcrowded because I had been overeager in buying fish for a larger tank that wasn't yet ready for them). Once that infection happens, the _Myco_ population explodes because the infected fish spreads it to the whole tank.

Since _Myco_ is so hardy and lives in the biofilm of the tank, my understanding is that removing the infected fish and using a UV unit can help limit the potential for infection of the rest of the fish, but the _Myco_ population in the tank will still remain significantly elevated over those "normal" background levels. As a result, anything transferred out of the tank has a much higher likelihood of infecting other tanks (especially those without a sufficiently-powerful UV unit) and thus the tank still needs to be quarantined despite not having any actively infected inhabitants.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

This seems to be what happens every time myco surfaces in a string :icon_sad:. zdnet's first posted link is from 2002 (older science) and opinion. Not totally without merit but research in the field of myco is a hot button topic for research related to the farming of food fish. The information developed in current studies and trials is constantly updating. It's hard for many to catch the pertinent and screen out the junk information changed and updated by further research.

A national fish medication supplier actually claims in print that Kanamycin Sulfate will cure animals infected with resistant strains of tuberculosis. Laboratory study has PROVEN without question that Kanamycin Sulfate has no effect on infecting myco strains of primary concern. No reduction in existing granulomas or describable reduction in the spread. (Also please note as stated in the opening of the second link scientific opinion is now that fish don't contract tuberculosis (TB)).

The second link (SRAC) that is included in zdnet's post is very pointed in it's accuracy of information. On a note that many will miss reading this, contained within that second linked report by Ruth Francis Floyd is credit contained for the researcher kind enough to accept me as a client, Dr. B. D. Petty, DVM. Aquaculture Extension Large Animal Clinical Sciences, CVM Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, SFRC. Doc is currently overseeing the Gainesville extension Department of Infectious Diseases and Pathology Laboratory directed by Dr. Thomas B. Waltzek, that's the information source I trust. The U.S. leading institute in this research field is none other than University of Florida.

It takes a lot of reading to debunk misconceptions about Mycobacteriosis. Yet to meet another hobbyist that bothers to dig deep enough not to be confused on one point or another. Shawn has spent the time I think.

UV use DOES NOT and CAN NOT eliminate myco from a system nor can you cure infected individuals. Granulomas formed within the organs grow and multiply slowly crowding out healthy cells reducing organ function then more often then not secondaries take out the critter. I'm not a fan of dismissing the severity of myco simply by saying it's everywhere and leaving it at that. Mycobacteria is indeed everywhere true enough and every time you take a breath of air you inhale it. Saying that doesn't change the fact that specific strains are problematic and while not easily or cheaply achieved they can be avoided completely with best case probability using the proper protocols. Steve Rybicki proudly maintains a myco free facility. You can have fish that have never been exposed to any virulent pathogens or parasites but they don't come from the LFS. Hobbyists and hobby breeders can screen stock and sample new arrivals. As a hobbyist you can monitor for the presence of myco in a system population. Find a local Vet, not all will examine fish but they are out there in practice. Most will charge around $125.00 to necropsy and examine 3 fish. Establish a relationship with a trained vet and the costs can be even less. It's not much different than the annual exam costs for your family dog. 

Learn to necropsy fish and use a microscope.

Current science is still that once a positive is noted the system must become closed loop or the complete depopulation and a complete cleaning protocol executed. I have no doubt based on public attitude that a day not far off is coming when myco will be epidemic within the U.S. ornamental market. (thinking it's closer than most believe already) 
Did I get my tank myco from the LFS? _*No!*_ (certain of the source)
It arrived here from the Northern States not a Florida commercially farmed fish. It came from a well respected up and coming hobby breeder. One who refusing to this day to accept the fact he 'gifted' it to me. Ignores the science and positive test results. He won't even look at his stock, is still producing myco contaminated fish, still sharing and spreading it 
It won't leave here is all I can say. My out of pocket is already beyond what most would bother with yet I want more of an answer than what I have now. I breed and tank raise angelfish and ansistrus. Led by my relationship with Dr. Petty my quarantine protocols are growing ever more stringent and my stock is surveyed and sampled. Having 24 tanks currently I take the myco threat seriously. 

(sorry for the jack OP)

UV use is part of the formula to avoid it but not a cure.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

FlyingShawn said:


> That's exactly what I was referring to by "'normal' background levels:" most aquariums do house small amounts of _Myco_. Typically it's not a hazard to our fish unless something depresses their immune system enough to become infected (in my case, it was stress from being in a tank that was extremely overcrowded because I had been overeager in buying fish for a larger tank that wasn't yet ready for them). Once that infection happens, the _Myco_ population explodes because the infected fish spreads it to the whole tank.
> 
> Since _Myco_ is so hardy and lives in the biofilm of the tank, my understanding is that removing the infected fish and using a UV unit can help limit the potential for infection of the rest of the fish, but the _Myco_ population in the tank will still remain significantly elevated over those "normal" background levels. As a result, anything transferred out of the tank has a much higher likelihood of infecting other tanks (especially those without a sufficiently-powerful UV unit) and thus the tank still needs to be quarantined despite not having any actively infected inhabitants.


The reading materials provided to me and questions I've asked lead my understanding to be that yes mycobacteria is in all environments *but* that's not to say the infective strains are present. BIG distinction between those two statements. A key point I think not to get confused on. Whether inhabitants are actively expressing symptom or not after a single positive a population and system is to be considered contaminated and it's a done deal without further debate. Contain and maintain if you choose but don't share.


----------



## FlyingShawn (Mar 4, 2011)

wkndracer said:


> The reading materials provided to me and questions I've asked lead my understanding to be that yes mycobacteria is in all environments *but* that's not to say the infective strains are present. BIG distinction between those two statements. A key point I think not to get confused on.


You're likely a lot more up to date on the latest research than I am. My understanding has been that infectious strains are a part of those normal background levels, but that _Myco_ as a whole tends to compete relatively poorly with other organisms for resources in the tank, so it isn't able to grow beyond those background levels unless it's able to obtain a "foothold" situation in a weakened fish.

Then, even if that fish is removed as soon as it starts to display symptoms, it has already served as an incubator and the _Myco_ population is well above background levels. Even then, despite still competing relatively poorly against other organisms, it still does well enough to maintain those higher population levels (which might help explain how UV has been helpful on infected tanks: it's not able to reduce the _Myco_ population or cure anything that has been infected, but may help maintain the higher water quality needed to keep fish healthy enough to not succumb to it). 

Like I said, that may just be an outdated theory and your comment about the infectious strains not being present may be the latest information. Regardless, the end result is the same and I completely agree with your conclusion below:



wkndracer said:


> Whether inhabitants are actively expressing symptom or not after a single positive a population and system is to be considered contaminated and it's a done deal without further debate. Contain and maintain if you choose but don't share.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

Hey Shawn,

Probably millions of variations and again it's everywhere so yes all tanks have myco of some form in them and probably lots of it. Identified strains so far all appear to be like any other form of life being uniquely different in some way or another. I'd have to go back and read through all the links in my TAFF II thread or those I added toward the end of yours but at least three studies in the research papers state a developed strain needs a transmission method to enter a new environment so it's not simply waiting in the background for a weak fish. Finding myco in one group of ponds or tanks fish farms restart just those effected and use isolation protocols not to transmit this crap. If it's simply everywhere cross contamination wouldn't hold the same noted concerns. (in the best practice papers)

What landed here was PCR tested as 99.5% for M. marinum and M. ulcerans.

Included in the fish already surveyed from my other tanks were much older fish. A four year old DD angelfish and a second generation in house two year old zebra angelfish from yet another tanking system. All told when the testing was done nothing showed any sign of granulomas except the new introduction group. Those still remaining here are still isolated. For my own information I want to explore the vertical transmission possibility is why I've kept a couple.
Using methods similar to the zebra fish protocols I want to see if fry will be clean starting out.
Just last Monday I took two more fish up to the lab for a third survey. One being a fish placed in with the suspect group late last December. It confirmed horizontal transmission in that six months. The amount of internal damage was staggering to look at it through the scope. The second fish showed damage in the gonads, not a good sign hoping against vertical transmission. Still waiting on the report and PCR testing. If infectious bacterial strains were simply resident everywhere waiting for a host (which Doc says it isn't) there would have been more positives from my other tanks especially in the much older fish tested.

:fish:


----------



## FlyingShawn (Mar 4, 2011)

wkndracer said:


> Hey Shawn,
> 
> Probably millions of variations and again it's everywhere so yes all tanks have myco of some form in them and probably lots of it. Identified strains so far all appear to be like any other form of life being uniquely different in some way or another. I'd have to go back and read through all the links in my TAFF II thread or those I added toward the end of yours but at least three studies in the research papers state a developed strain needs a transmission method to enter a new environment so it's not simply waiting in the background for a weak fish. Finding myco in one group of ponds or tanks fish farms restart just those effected and use isolation protocols not to transmit this crap. If it's simply everywhere cross contamination wouldn't hold the same noted concerns. (in the best practice papers)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the update on the latest research and your own experiments! 

My apologies to the OP for the thread jack, but hopefully this will at least get you off to a running start on your own research.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

wkndracer said:


> zdnet's first posted link is from 2002 (older science) and opinion. Not totally without merit but research in the field of myco is a hot button topic for research related to the farming of food fish.


Are you suggesting that some of what is in the 2002 publication are no longer valid?




wkndracer said:


> UV use DOES NOT and CAN NOT eliminate myco from a system nor can you cure infected individuals.


As stated in Diana's article, UV did allow her infected fish to recover. It also stopped the spread of the disease. This is a very important consideration for people like the OP who is contemplating having a UV sterilizer.




wkndracer said:


> You can have fish that have never been exposed to any virulent pathogens or parasites but they don't come from the LFS.


IOW, if you have to get fish from a LFS, you should treat all fish as carriers. Don't let the FALSE sense of security (that comes with sterilizing your tank) fool you into lowering your guard.

Better yet, unless you are dealing with a source that you are absolutely sure that their fish have not been exposed, treat all the fish as carriers.




wkndracer said:


> Hobbyists and hobby breeders can screen stock and sample new arrivals. As a hobbyist you can monitor for the presence of myco in a system population. Find a local Vet, not all will examine fish but they are out there in practice. Most will charge around $125.00 to necropsy and examine 3 fish. Establish a relationship with a trained vet and the costs can be even less. It's not much different than the annual exam costs for your family dog.


Let's not forget animal life. Necropsy costs the life of a fish while a family dog comes out alive after the annual exam. Since necropsy requires killing the involved fish, I don't think it is reasonable to expect hobbyists (not breeders) to subject their fish to that kind of treatment, be it by a local vet or not. Most people who keep fish are animal lovers. They do not like to kill a healthy looking animal, let alone doing it just for monitoring.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

zdnet said:


> Are you suggesting that some of what is in the 2002 publication are no longer valid?


I'm stating (not suggesting) that the research data has been expanded and some of the speculation has been removed by that further research. Prefect example from your quote and the links is Gourami disease thought for years to be myco but now research has it as a virus.

From the 2002 linked work in no particular order:
_"Mycobacteriosis in fish is a disease caused by *certain bacterial species within the genus* Mycobacterium."_ 
Not all, certain bacterial species are threat concerns so it's all in how you interpret what you read.

_"Many of the organisms in this group occur naturally in the aquatic environment. __One report compared the prevalence of selected species"_
Not all, again certain micro-bacterial species.

_"Three species believed to account for most incidences of mycobacterial disease in fish"_
Now expanded to over twenty commonly found pathogenic strains including the crap I received that’s not on the list but is included in later papers.

_"When present in a population, infection rates can vary from 10% to 100%."_
Infection rates are projected as much higher on the low end in most all the studies now.

While 60-85% alcohol is mentioned as effective against myco what’s needed to achieve any value using in it? 
(not mentioned at all) (It’s sixty seconds wet contact time with 70 – 91%)

_"Little is known about the factors that influence the frequency and distribution of this pathogenic organism."
_Greatly refined and expanded data on transmission is now available. 
Not to lose sight of what should be important points it's actually not a single pathogenic organism so don't take any one sentence as literal. The topic is about a genus composed of individual bacterial strains that thrive within vastly different temperature and environmental conditions. Temperatures that will kill one form of myco will allow another to thrive. Not all micro bacteria are threats. See the leaf but not the tree? Ignore the snake in the tree? Are all snakes dangerous? 
Do you really want to cloud the severity of the issue? You'll not get that from me. If you do bother please make special note every time you pass over the words; can, may, should, might, potential because they all point out speculation or 'best guess' for us layman. 

What in specific value, treatments or protocols is gained reading the 2002 Paper? 
The information is greatly expanded in detail in the second work and linked with practices of genuine value for dealing with myco. Still covers the basic information but ties it with the practical.


zdnet said:


> As stated in Diana's article, UV did allow her infected fish to recover. It also stopped the spread of the disease. This is a very important consideration for people like the OP who is contemplating having a UV sterilizer.


That's not what I read. UV use would improve the water quality but allow infected fish to recover from the infective bacteria? Secondaries and symptoms maybe. But how exactly would it be possible that it has any effect on the already infested? That literally flies in the face of all the science. It's clearly stated in all valid publications once infective myco is within an animal or system there is no cure. (false hope) Using UV might improve redox and reduce bacteria counts in the water column sure. Lacing years of study facts in with speculative statements to infer UV use effects any cure of myco infection on effected animals as you do pulling the statement from the overall information is false. Stating UV use halts transmission is complete crap flying in the face of the proven science. 
_
"Results from the UV sterilizers were unexpected and amazing. Fish deaths stopped. A couple fish with symptoms actually recovered. *Whether the UV sterilizers were killing the bacteria responsible for MB or were killing pathogens causing secondary infections was irrelevant to me.* My fish were getting better!" _

Reading that full report ultimately she reports additional problems and loss on the new fish as 80% overall.
Confusing best management practices, exclusion and control protocols is a mistake. What she wrote and your referring to is mostly speculative. At best a management practice. Threat myco remained within that system, within the fish. It continued at a slower infection rate to be transmitted within the population. 


zdnet said:


> IOW, if you have to get fish from a LFS, you should treat all fish as carriers. Don't let the FALSE sense of security (that comes with sterilizing your tank) fool you into lowering your guard.


Exactly what is the "FALSE sense of security (that comes with sterilizing your tank)"? Entry quarantine protocols. Myco topic and even aside from it quarantine is still the first line defense. Every tank can be a 'clean' tank until contamination occurs. Yes I indeed have high expectations that my tested tanks are clear of it. That expectation is based on the best practices that are in place here. Based on the current science.


zdnet said:


> Better yet, unless you are dealing with a source that you are absolutely sure that their fish have not been exposed, treat all the fish as carriers.


No argument here on having concerns and exercising commonsense. Living should include learning.


zdnet said:


> Let's not forget animal life. Necropsy costs the life of a fish while a family dog comes out alive after the annual exam. Since necropsy requires killing the involved fish, I don't think it is reasonable to expect hobbyists (not breeders) to subject their fish to that kind of treatment, be it by a local vet or not. Most people who keep fish are animal lovers. They do not like to kill a healthy looking animal, let alone doing it just for monitoring.


Yes lets not forget the animals.
Enjoying our hobby we are mixing and matching. We create the exposure threats.
We humans are transporting animals globally. Animals that had no means of migrating from one population or geographical location to another to the extent of the modern day. Well beyond anything nature could do in a thousand years. Simply put it in a box and put the box on a plane. Transmitting things along with those animals globally that had no means of migrating from one population or geographical location to another. Again well beyond anything nature could do in a thousand years. Put it in a box and put the box on a plane.

Quarantine protocols.

Be responsible for your choices. Where does responsibility end? When a cute little fish gets to big do you pitch it into the local pond? This thread started with the OP saying he lost fish to what he believes to be myco related, do you want plants or animals from this system or fish from Diana's UV tank? Once infective myco is identified in a system or population the steps taken in maintenance and handling should be changed.

snakeman, I hopes some of this discussion helps further your understanding.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

I will not clean this thread up again without issuing suspensions.

GIVE THE CHILDISH BICKERING A REST!

There is NO reason members of our lovely forum cannot have a dialogue without disrespecting others and belittling them.

Remember, this is a family-friendly forum frequented by children. Set a positive, friendly example at all times.


----------



## FlyingShawn (Mar 4, 2011)

It seems that some of the confusion may stem from differing understandings of the word "recovery" as it pertains to Walstad's UV experiment:
--Wkndracer seems to have been approaching it from an understanding that UV was being alleged to have the _potential_ to "cure" the fish ("cure" being the elimination of _Myco_ from the infected fish and tank so that it is no longer a threat).
--Zdnet seems to have understood it as improving the health of the tank by potentially slowing or stopping the spread of _Myco_, reducing the symptoms of infected fish, or improving their general health such that secondary infections weren't accelerating the decline of the fish (or any combination of the above).

Friends, I know the above are vastly over-generalized summaries of your positions, but please run with it for the moment since my point is that we're using differing definitions and further nuance isn't really required for the conclusion I'm headed towards. For the purposes of this reply, I'm going to use "cure" to mean my generalization of wkndracer's definition and "recovery" or "improved health" to mean my generalization of zdnet's definition.

With that understanding, let's consider how we should understand Walstad's experiment and results. Walstad's paper represents a non-scientific experiment, since it was neither run with parallel control tests nor repeat-ability studies. Also, to my knowledge, although it was published, it was not "peer reviewed" in the traditional academic sense. _This is NOT to say that her results are invalid, incorrect, or uninformative, just that they are not to be viewed as conclusive or authoritative_. It would be more correct to understand her conclusions as "informed speculation backed by personal experience." Walstad did do her homework, seems to have had a good grasp of the available data of the time on _Myco_, and her conclusions are logical given the results she experienced, just so long as we can all agree that those conclusions did _not_ include curing the disease from the infected tank (as evidenced by the return of symptoms and deaths after the UV was removed).

What does this all mean for us? Well, in my case, this is the reason I chose to add an oversized UV unit to the permanent quarantine tank I mentioned earlier. I don't have any illusions that the tank is free of _Myco_, that the inhabitants are not infected, or that I am not in danger of infection if broken skin comes into contact with the water. I created this tank to allow these fish to live out their lives (whether dying by _Myco_, other secondary diseases, or best case: old age) rather than being euthanized a year ago with the rest of my stock. Therefore, I added the UV with the hope that it might improve their health and extend their lifespans so I can enjoy them longer.

I believe this is the only light in which we can understand Walstad's article, and even then only with the caveat that using UV only *might* have these results, since there has not been sufficient scientific experimentation to say whether it will or won't with confidence. I have great respect for her and her work, so I have chosen to believe that this chance has enough potential to justify making the investment in UV for my permanent quarantine tank.

*Regardless, let's go back to where I started: by clarifying definitions, we can see that we all agree that UV does NOT "cure" Myco from infected systems.

As a result, considering the hazards that Myco poses to human health and animal life, we must come to the conclusion that anything short of a cure simply isn't good enough. Therefore, when faced with a confirmed Myco infection, the responsible aquarist has only two options: sterilization or "closed loop" status.*

Setting aside the ethics of necropsy as a preemptive diagnostic method (since that discussion is related to prevention, not what to do once a tank is known to be infected), it must also be pointed out that sharing _anything_ from an infected tank, even with warnings given, is disrespectful of animal life since it would contribute to the spread of the disease (to say nothing of how it puts other hobbyists at risk!).

To the OP, since your tank has already been torn down, please look at the thread about my experience to learn more about the sterilization protocols I used. The ultra-quick summary is that I used a very-high strength (1:10 or stronger) bleach solution, scrubbing to remove biofilm, followed by a >1min soak in 70% isopropyl alcohol for everything non-porous (basically everything but the substrate) and used very high temperatures (~400 for 4+ hours in small batches to make sure it cooked thoroughly) in the oven for the substrate, lava rocks, and driftwood. Boiling water is not hot enough to kill _Myco_. I think the post might have been one of those deleted, but wkndracer also had some good information about strengths and contact times for isopropyl alcohol. I strongly suggest you consider adopting these methods (or better ones if you can find them) on the tank and all your equipment. 

Also, since there's a risk of cross-contamination from before the tear-down, you have some difficult choices to make about any tanks you still have set up. UV can be a part of the choice to go closed-loop, but only with the knowledge that it isn't a cure or a substitute for using best practices to protect you and your household.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

well said


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

*Last Tag*

Based on how this thread developed for me interest ended on 6/15/13.
This will be my final post to it.

Shawn, if you have no objections I think we should move the discussion over to your old thread and I'll cross post what matters there. (your call, let me know here or in PM)

In post#24 I mentioned taking more fish to the lab. I just received the path report and I'm posting it in it's entirety.

Brief background;
These fish arrived here mid year last year as specialty dime size angelfish. Showed little or no outward sign of defect and were roughly 1yr old. Myco was confirmed within the eight fish I received last December after only two losses to wasting and a third failing when tested. The full report was completed in the first quarter of 2013. I still had maintained four fish in a 90g closed loop tank hoping to confirm vertical transmission. 
Identifying three as male and one female I had the two secondary males surveyed.

Path. Report;
Report Status: Preliminary 0	Final 1

Fish A = Blue smoke; fish B = “glitter”

Fish A had 2 ulcerations approximately 5 mm in diameter on either side of the body and erythema and swelling of the base of the right pectoral fin. A scraping of one of the ulcers revealed a poorly organized granuloma and numerous white blood cells. Gill and fin biopsies were unremarkable.
Gross findings at necropsy revealed the lower intestine distended with fluid, though no parasites were observed microscopically. Numerous trichomonads were observed in an anterior feces-filled section of intestine. Numerous granulomas were observed in anterior kidney, spleen, and posterior kidney. The liver contained lipid droplets. No gonadal tissue was identified. Spleen and anterior kidney were cultured on tryptic soya agar (TSA) with 5% sheep blood, but no growth occurred.
Histopathology results: Skin-A moderate to severe inflammatory reaction including macrophages and lymphocytes was observed in the dermis, sometimes extending into the muscles, in the region of the ulcers.
Pectoral fin-inflammatory reaction including lymphocytes and macrophages.
Gill-mild to moderate telangiectasia, occasional hyperplasia and fusion; several lamellae enveloped in extensive inflammatory response including macrophages; extensive inflammatory reaction in branchial arch, including many macrophages and one granuloma.
Intestine-extensive eosinophilic granular cells (EGCs) in submucosa, infrequent foci of lymphocytes.
Liver- mild hepatic lipidosis.
Posterior kidney-extensive severe granulomatous disease acid-fast positive beaded rods observed; numerous hyaline droplets in ~50% tubular epithelium. 
Anterior kidney- extensive severe granulomatous disease, approximately 75% of tissue is granulomas; acid-fast positive beaded rods observed.
Spleen- extensive severe granulomatous disease, approximately 90% of tissue is granulomas; occasional acid-fast positive beaded rods observed.
Brain-no significant findings.
Heart-very large coalescing granulomatous structure in ventricle; occasional beaded acid-fast positive rods observed.

Except for through and through ulcerations of the left side of the mouth, Fish B appeared normal. No pathogens were observed on biopsies of skin mucus, gill, and fin. At necropsy the liver of this fish was located in the right coelom, which is highly unusual for this species. Numerous granulomas were observed in spleen, anterior kidney, and light granulomas were present in posterior kidney. Testes was identified, and granulomas were observed within. The intestine appeared normal, but numerous trichomonads were observed. Spleen and anterior kidney were cultured on TSA with 5% sheep blood, and a gram-negative, cytochrome oxidase-positive bacillus (common aquatic environmental bacteria such as Aeromonas, Vibrio, and Pseudomonas and usually opportunistic) grew from both organs. 
Histopathology results: Gill-moderate telangiectasia .
Branchial arch- large focus of inflammatory cells, lymphocytes and macrophages.
Mouth lesion- mild multifocal necrosis, moderate to severe inflammation.
Testes-one granuloma containing necrotic cellular debris and acid-fast positive bacteria.
Liver-one small basophilic focus and associated EGCs; one small granuloma that contains a few acid-fast positive bacteria; one focus of large adipocytes.
Heart- large focus of granulomas in ventricle with small groups of EGCs and three acid-fast positive rods; most of atrium is granulomatous inflammation and numerous EGCs.
Posterior kidney-approximately 40% of tissue is severe extensive granulomatous disease; numerous acid-fast positive bacteria observed; approximately 20% of tubular epithelium effaced by hyaline droplets.
Spleen- approximately 60% of tissue is severe extensive granulomatous disease; numerous acid-fast positive bacteria observed.
Anterior kidney- approximately 50% of tissue is severe extensive granulomatous disease; numerous acid-fast positive bacteria observed. 
Brain-no significant findings.
Intestine-multifocal mild necrosis, occasional small clusters of EGCs; numerous bacteria of various shapes and sizes in the lumen along with plant material.

Acid-fast staining confirmed extensive, severe mycobacteriosis in both fish. We recommend humane euthanasia of remaining angels from this group. Currently, it is unclear if any of the other fish in the system are infected with Mycobacterium. Careful consideration should be given to the disinfection of the system/tank holding these fish.

*Strongly consider what you are doing if you ignore myco after it's confirmed*

Regards to all who have posted in this thread.
OP, plz clean the tank.


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle (Jan 16, 2013)

Well i liked the discussion thus far. Informative


----------



## FlyingShawn (Mar 4, 2011)

wkndracer said:


> Shawn, if you have no objections I think we should move the discussion over to your old thread and I'll cross post what matters there. (your call, let me know here or in PM)


Feel free to cross-post anything you feel would be informative or add to the discussion. The more that thread can be a resource for anyone dealing with this the better!


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

FlyingShawn said:


> --Wkndracer seems to have been approaching it from an understanding that UV was being alleged to have the _potential_ to "cure" the fish ("cure" being the elimination of _Myco_ from the infected fish and tank so that it is no longer a threat).


And who _alleged_ that UV has the potential to cure? Not Diana Walstad's article. Not any postings in this thread. Not anyone here. So why kept arguing that UV is not a cure?


As to myco infection, keep in mind that:

* Myco infection is widespread.

* The bacteria can live in a host for years without any outward sign.

* There is no way of verifying that a fish is indeed free of myco infection without first killing the fish.

* Fish from disinfected eggs have been known to acquire myco infection even when raised under optimal conditions.


Therefore, regardless of how well people have sanitized a tank, the moment new fish are added, the risk of myco infection is back. When the fish are then shared as ones without myco infection, it spreads a false sense of security. That exposes unsuspecting hobbyists who have open wounds on their hands and also a weakened immune systems or chronic medical conditions (such as diabetes or cancer).

Do NOT be fooled into the false sense of security that a sanitized tank with fish from some trusted source is free of myco infection. I treat all fish as carriers. Whenever my hands have open cuts or scrapes, I wear gloves before dipping the hands into a tank. Better be safe than sorry.

UV is a pragmatic way of dealing with the infection risk. It serves as a constant reminder of the risk involved.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

zdnet said:


> And who *_alleged_* that UV has the potential to cure? Not Diana Walstad's article. Not any postings in this thread. Not anyone here. So why kept arguing that UV is not a cure?





zdnet said:


> Diana Walstad mentioned in her article (Mycobacteriosis−--the Stealth Disease) that adding a *UV* to an existing tank with MB outbreak *stopped the fish death* and those *fish with symptoms actually recovered.*
> 
> I wonder whether a tear-down is really necessary.





zdnet said:


> As stated in Diana's article, *UV did allow her infected fish to recover. It also stopped the spread of the disease.* This is a very important consideration for people like the OP who is contemplating having a UV sterilizer.


Indeed,,, why?
Reading the posts as they were presented in this thread you appeared to be inferring it. That's what was addressed at the time of the exchanges in specific reply.

I fail to understand why this argument of semantics must be revisited. Recently suspended I'm assuming based on the argumentative and insulting posting behaviors presented in this same thread (and deleted) why is it the first visited when forum posting privileges are restored? Nothing new here.


----------

