wrote in message
...
Snip:
The idea is not to kill all the parasites, actually that is not really
possible anyway. It is to drop the level and slow em down to where the
fish can
fight the disease themselves while providing as pristine water conditions
as
possible. both formalin and PP will do this and be gone in 4-12 hours.
Ingrid

Agreed, but they are certainly more stressful on the fish, who are already
stressed, than using .3% salt for salt sensitive organisms!

That being said, I use PP and formalin when indicated, without issue.

Greg




..

wrote in message
...
there is no downside to keeping a low salt concentration in the pond.
some places
are lucky in that the water naturally has a low salt solution, so it is
always
important to check the water supply for salt levels BEFORE adding more
salt.
Ingrid

That depends on whether you are talking low levels found naturally, or
higher levels made artificially.

I agree you should always check levels of any agent before adding it to the
water!

Take a trip down memory lane to this previous posting:

From: "Gregory Young"
Subject: To salt or not to salt...
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2002 21:31 PM

wrote in message
...
The point is moot. I never use salt as a medication. I would never
recommend
elevated salt levels as a medication either. I use potassium permanganate
for
everything except ich, and then I use a formalin based medication. Since
Jo Ann
found that 10% peroxide (v/v) kills gyros and dacs as a 10 second dip, I
will use
that for those diseases.

Actually, I don't disagree with the approach you make in the above
statements.. although I don't think any of us should be encouraging folks
without some training to use an oxidant like PP, I would hope!!

I just treated an individual in the ED 2 weeks ago that was using it for
some type of septic cleaning (something I have not seen it used for in the
past), who had some of the powder, or as he described it "dust" get into his
left eye (he was wearing reg. glasses, not safety, nor did he have resp
precautions, although he did have skin precautions).

He told me as a sewage treatment engineer he "was an expert" in using PP..
yeah right, an "expert"...

Despite IMMEDIATE rinse by the patient, and subsequent direct irrigation by
myself, with over 2 liters of saline with normalization of his eye's pH, the
damage is continuing to progress.
I heard from the ophthalmologist I referred him to yesterday, that his
visual loss is progressing. How much he will lose, only time will tell, and
it will take months to fully appreciate the loss..
Unfortunately with caustics, damage continues despite surface
neutralization.

So, a word of caution to those planning to use this:

(yes I use it, and in fact just received another 5 gallons dry for use on my
"pond calls"... I never, ever,, mix it into solution outside, where there's
any chance that a stray breeze can aerosolize the PP)

: you must know exactly what you are doing, and use respiratory, eye and
skin precautions at all times!!

The cost of all my Koi (4 figures) is no where near the cost of either one
of my eyes, nor should it be yours.

I use a variety of agents, depending on the etiology:

Parasites:
Chilodinella: .6% salt or Malachite green/formalin
Costia: salt
Ich: Malachite green/formalin
Epistylus: salt
Trich: PP or Malachite green/formalin or .6% salt
Argulus: Malachite green/formalin or dimilin, etc.
Ergasilus: Dylox only
Gill & Skin flukes: PP is 1st choice or Chloramine-T
Hexamita, Protoopalina, Sironucleaus & Trichomanas: Metronidazole (PP or
H2O2 won't work on any of these)

Bacteria:

I use ONLY antibiotic injection therapy, as:

1) dumping antibiotics into the pond encourages drug resistant disease
strains, that have been shown in the medical literature to transfer drug
resistance to fish handlers (commercial usually)
A classic example is drug resistant Mycobacteria; "fish handlers disease";
etc.
It is bad husbandry, as it effects our environment!

2) Even baths of diseased fish in an antibiotic containing tank (much less
alone pond exposure) don't get significant levels into fish tissue to allow
them to combat disease, so baths don't have anywhere near as high of a
success rate as injections.

3) Antibiotic feeds require the diseased fish to eat enough, to get
significant plasma and tissue levels. When any organism is sick, appetite is
usually one of the first things to go, as we all know from personal
experience I am sure!, so...

4) I do injection of antibiotics only!

You can argue SQ (SC) vs IP injection. I prefer the latter which has higher
sustained plasma and tissue levels, but I know the anatomy, and won't wind
up puncturing the gut. SQ (SC) is less risky in lesser trained hands.

For people that are not trained/comfortable with the above get your local
fish experienced vet/ other experienced fish handler to work with a vet for
antibiotic administration.

My fish come from people use salt in their growing on ponds. I will
continue to use
salt (0.1%) as support and a 3% dip to strip off the slime coat.
But mostly, I am going to make sure to maintain high water quality, use
the highest
quality food, use proper quarantine procedures for new fish and plants,
keep
"wildlife" outta my ponds and keep stress levels low so I dont have to
treat my fish
with ANYTHING.

Again we agree almost 100% there (except for the .1% and stripping of the
slime coat comments)

0.1% salt in the water is specifically for maintaining a healthy
immune system since it turns over the slime coat which has secreted
antibodies and
other anti-microbial proteins in it.

Although the slime coat has been shown to have IgA antibodies in it, just
like human and mammalian nasal secretions, there have been no studies to
date, that I, or my fish knowledgeable vet. colleagues are aware of, that
have shown ANY benefit in disease resistance by their presence. (which is
the same for humans. Why IgA is secreted therefore is as yet unknown,
although there are lots of theories)

The slime coat is a secretory function of fish, and its production increases
in response to stressors of multiple types (infections, osmotic changes,
noxious chemicals, irritants, etc to name just a few).

Some of the thickest slimes coats I have seen over the years are in diseased
fish, so I would not want to equate a thick coat to a healthy fish!

Fish without a functional immune system cannot be cured with any kind of
medication.
The purpose of medications is to lower the number of pathogens and then
the host
immune system deals with what is left.


I agree with that statement 100%.

If people read my original posting, they would notice I replied with dosing,
etc of salt, as well as type of salt, etc to use.

I was being objective in my answer. As part of that answer, I stated a major
reason not to use routine salt as well.

If you never use salt to treat, but rather want to use stronger
drugs/oxidants, (which you and I know stress the already diseased and
stressed fish much more than a salt bath), then the encouragement of disease
resistance organisms is of less import.

I can not tell you the number of burned gills I have seen on necropsy by the
use of PP in ponds, based on "calculated volumes" of the ponds.
(Now there might be another salt indication, using salt addition, with known
quantity of salt, measuring pre and post addition salt levels in the water
to calculate the actual pond system gallons (including pumps, pipes,
filters, etc, etc)).

When people talk about the benefits of salt, and start quoting references
that talk about protection against nitrites (which is true), etc, that
hedges the real issue.

The real issue is that salt is debated (emotionally usually), because there
are still NO data (and read this answer fully please) that prove ROUTINE
salt use has ANY proven benefit in ornamental fish (Koi and Goldfish)
management, outside of 1) disease treatment and 2) protection (which should
be temporary) against nitrite toxicity.

Furthermore, the latter should only be relevant in a cycling pond, as the
presence of nitrites in cycled ponds, indicate a problem that needs
(immediate usually) correction, instead of merely masking it by the presence
of added salt that will help the fish tolerate a higher nitrite level, for a
longer period of time.

Ingrid

happy ponding,
Greg





Now back to the present..
Happy ponding,
Greg

Ingrid:
You are mixing up serum and secretory antibodies
In the serum are found numerous antibodies, IgM (acute), IgG (convalescent),
etc, etc
In the secretory coat ('slimelayer") are PRIMARILY IgA
There are no studies that I have seen that show the role of secretory
antibodies in living cold water ornamental fish.. none. They have been in
vitro tests, which have generated many hypotheses, which have not been
confirmed to date, hence the continuing discussions on this topic.
This is very similar to the argument of the potential benefits of IgA found
in nasal secretions in many mammals, including man, as I told you last time
we discussed this topic (see older post I referenced below ).
You have commented on the thickness of the slime coat, not I. I have
continually stated the slime coat is simply secreted in response to
stressors/irritants and its thickness bears no direct relation to the health
of the fish in question. None.

wrote in message
...
It has nothing to do with creating a THICK slime coat. Low levels of salt
stimulate
the slime coat and it "turns over", it doesnt thicken the slime coat.

Actually many irritants cause increased secretion, which thicken the coat.
It is a non-specific repsonse. As fish become more stressed, they are less
motile, and have less opportunity to lose the increasing slimelayer.

Really high levels strip the slime coat.

Strip it.. is that what you are endeavoring to do when you treat with higher
salt levels? By your logic, you are now removing the antibodies and proteins
you refer to as a protective benefit??!!??

The antibody produced by fish is secretory IgM, NOT IgA.

Nope, IgA is the primary antibody in the slime layer, not IgM

" Detection of specific antibodies in the serum of animals is recognized
as a useful
indicator of previous exposure to pathogens.

Serum of course, but we were talking secretory, not serum
Let's not mix apples with oranges

* ADL produces probes (AquaMab-F) to enable the detection of IgM by
ELISA in a
range of fish species used in aquaculture.

Of course this is on serum samples, and refers to aquaculture. (raising
fresh water game fish, etc)

Snip

Under laboratory conditions
fish can be routinely immunized by exposure to controlled numbers of
parasites.

That's interesting. It would seem the parasites in the lab would have to be
inhibited from multiplying to maintain that "controlled" number.

Snip again

antibodies from immune fish immobilize free-swimming theronts
in vitro (IN THE LAB .. me), suggesting (THIS IS THE HYPOTHESIS .. me)
several potential antibody-mediated mechanisms of protection.
For instance, antibodies in mucus could block penetration of theronts into
the
epithelium of the skin and gills.

I certainly hope this hypothesis will be found true. It would save stressing
our fish with the chemicals/antibiotics we currently use!

Snip again

IgM is the most primitive type of antibody. But fish also have been found
to produce
anti-micriobial proteins,

Actually IgM is an immediate antibody response in most living organisms,
with IgG representing long term response and immunity.

http://www.cvm.ncsu.edu/cbs/noga_ed.htm
Ingrid


Another trip down memory lane:
From: "Gregory Young"
Subject: Adding salt to pond
Date: Monday, August 20, 2001 21:15 PM

Hi all:
See my thoughts below:
wrote in message
...
This summer a friend was having hellatious problems with domestic koi she
bought for resale. I found a heavy load of trichodina and gyros in
different batches from different places. After a single treatment with
salt and potassium permanganate, both were gone. This koi were raised in
ponds with salt.

I don't disagree with that. My point was that salt resistant protozoans have
now been identified, as stated below, coming from ponds from Japan in which
the fish were constantly exposed to low level salt. That demonstrates
selection of salt resistant protozoa. As you stated you successfully treated
them with BOTH salt and Potassium permanganate. You may have been able to
just treat with salt, but there's no way of knowing that now.
I hope I didn't convey ALL trich are salt resistant, some may still not be,
but an significantly increasing percentage are.

The Goldfish Guru treats ich (on fish from China that use salt in their
ponds) with salt and increased temps only.
I still think the main benefit of low levels of salt (0.1%) is in
stimulating the slime coat, causing it to "turn over". Fish dont have
much
in the way of antibodies, but the ones they do are secretory and they have
other "anti-microbial" proteins secreted into their slime coat as well.
As
the slime coat is turned over, more antibiotic and anti-microbial proteins
are secreted. High salt is used to strip the slime coat off, removing
most of the parasites with the slime and exposing the rest to the
medications long enough to kill them. If the slime coat is not removed,
it
protects the parasites from the medication.

Salt kills the protozoans and crustaceans osmotically, independent of the
slime coat.
Many over the years, and on the internet newsgroups have maintained the
slime coat protects the fish from disease, which as I stated below was the
way I was originally trained.
Current teaching no longer holds that tenant to be true. Its true role is
still disputed by some, so I will not say it IS this, or NOT that, nor
should anyone else, until the definitive answer stands the test of challenge
studies, and time.

35 years after my training, and people are still arguing about it in the
academics centers, which tells me we still really don't know its function.
My personal opinion is that its role probably has several functions, some of
more import than others.

The FDA cannot "approve" ANYTHING it hasn't studied. When the FDA says
something is of low priority, it means it is so benign that it isn't worth
studying.

I partially agree. Many substances are not tested by the FDA, not due to
their potential for adverse reactions, but rather the lack of funding
available to the FDA.
A good example is the whole family of herbal remedies people are using these
days. Many problems are now occurring with a number of these, including
fatal adverse reactions (seen esp. in people on "prescription" and over the
counter medication). The FDA has not made an effort to review those due to
the above constraints, and probably won't until there are, sadly, enough
adverse reactions (ie. fatalities) to warrant the review. (a cost benefit
issue)

Dr. Floyd makes it clear: "Finally, a light solution of 0.01 to 0.2
percent salt may be used as a permanent treatment in recirculating
systems."

I don't argue that fact for recirc. systems. I have read that treatise. The
issues there are different from water gardens, that was the point I was
attempting to make.

While the slime coat may aid in "drag" I doubt whether this is a primary
reason for its evolution. Mammals that have returned to the sea have no
need of slime coats and porpoises, those mammals that swim after and catch
slimey fish, have no need of a slime coat as they have the full and
complete internal immunity of all mammals. Come to think of it, I dont
think sharks (other fast predators) have slime coats either.

They don't, but none the less, current thinking in marine biology by a
number of researchers favors the drag concept, as they believe the slime
coat role in immunity is not significant.

A human corollary is our own nasal secretions, which secrete IgA antibodies.
With infection/irritation, the secretion of these increase significantly.
Yet in upper respiratory infection, this secretion is discouraged by the
"ENT/allergist experts" who use decongestants, as they:
1) believe these surface antibodies play a very insignificant role,
2) feel congestion increases the risk of bacterial overgrowth by blocking
drainage, and
3) want their patients to feel better (less callbacks). They do this even
for people they don't prescribe antibiotics to. (Fortunately even the ENT
surgeons have come on board with the risks of over prescription of
antibiotics for what now is understood as self limited sinusitis disease.)

INgrid

Nice discussion Ingrid.

I hope others don't misconstrue this discussion, as anything other than a
difference of views.

From what I have read elsewhere in this newsgroup, people can get very upset
when others disagree with the viewpoints of those they hold in high regard.
That may be a natural reaction, but that has been shown to hold back new
discoveries.

I will conclude saying we all have to keep open minds, because the gospel
(at least the scientific one) has had its dogma, (those things that "we know
as fact"), changed on more than one occasion!

Happy ponding,
Greg




"Gregory Young" wrote:
Eliminating the single cell protozoans? That used to be true, but just
like
in humans, indiscriminate use (prophylactic) has turned the tables on us.
Is there no downside to routine salt administration as some of you claim?
I
say there is, and here are 2 examples:
Trichodina and Costia, which are both commonly found ciliated protozoa
that
can cause fatal infection to our finned friends, that USED to be
eliminated
by salt concentrations of 0.3%, now have been shown to be resistant to
levels of 0.6%, or higher!
" While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use
of
salt in aquatic animals, FDA considers the use of salt in aquaculture to
be
of low regulatory priority".
That is self explanatory.
"Concentrations of 0.1 to 0.3 percent may be used to enhance mucus
production and osmoregulation in freshwater fish DURING HANDLING AND
TRANSPORT". (my emphasis)
Also, I must comment on the slime coat. Many fresh water fish folks seem
convinced that the slime coat, (which by the way is stimulated
(increased)
by many factors (ie disease, irritants ie salt, and osmotic changes, etc)
is
there to protect the fish from parasites/bacteria.

That was the predominant thought back in the 60's and 70's when I
trained,
but now many reputable biologists (marine and otherwise) feel its
function
may be more a function of physics rather than physiology
this coat decreases surface resistance of the fish, (due to its
lipophilic
nature) as it navigates through the water.
This is something divers and racing bicyclists employ when then put on
their
"skins". They understand the drag coefficient, which is obviously much
more
of a factor in water, than in air.
NO ONE has all the answers as to the functioning of the slime coat.

That last statement still is holding true today.. maybe in the near future
we will have the answers we seek..

Happy ponding
Greg

a couple treatments with PP or formalin is not all that harsh. 0.3% can be harsh if
the problem with the fish is fried gills. cant even do a salt dip on a fish with
fried gills. In all cases, following up with pristine water, excellent aeration and
good food is going to make it possible for the fish to fight off the infestation.
Ingrid

"Gregory Young" wrote:
Agreed, but they are certainly more stressful on the fish, who are already
stressed, than using .3% salt for salt sensitive organisms!

That being said, I use PP and formalin when indicated, without issue.

Greg




.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

If the gills are "fried" PP will certainly push the fish over the edge.
I have seen too many damaged gills, following "routine" PP treatments, even
using less than 4ppm, (which allegedly is not considered a high dose,
allowing for moderate organics) to agree that salt may be as damaging.
I have used 0.6% salt for salt resistant trich, and subsequent gill
biopsies have been normal.
BTW, I responded to your IgM vs IgA post yesterday, and spent some time
writing the rational supporting my comments. It was posted according to
Outlook on my pc, but I don't see it.
I see that I will have to rewrite the whole darn thing later this week when
time allows.
I really am not happy with Microsoft Outlook and newsgroups...
Happy ponding all,
Greg


wrote in message
...
a couple treatments with PP or formalin is not all that harsh. 0.3% can
be harsh if
the problem with the fish is fried gills. cant even do a salt dip on a
fish with
fried gills. In all cases, following up with pristine water, excellent
aeration and
good food is going to make it possible for the fish to fight off the
infestation.
Ingrid

"Gregory Young" wrote:
Agreed, but they are certainly more stressful on the fish, who are
already
stressed, than using .3% salt for salt sensitive organisms!

That being said, I use PP and formalin when indicated, without issue.

Greg




.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Gregory:
Your immunology class in med school talked about human immunology. We are not
talking about human immunology, we are talking fish. They dont have IgA, IgG, IgE.
If you dont want to believe me (despite the fact that I am an immunologist), then
read Stoskopf (pp. 150-159) or the primary literature. In different fish there are
monomeric, tetrameric and pentameric forms of IgM like antibody and it is serum
antibody AND it is secreted. It is IgM by virtue of its mu heavy chain, not because
it is cell bound.
"Despite the absence of IgG in fish, protective humoral responses occur. In general,
IgM is more efficient than IgG in complement activation, opsonization, neutralization
of viruses, and aggutination. (Tizard, 1987) ... In teleosts, antigen-specific
antibodies occur in the mucus as IgM (St. Louis-Cormier et al. 1984; Lobb, 1987)" "
Fish mucus has been found to contain natural antibodies, lysozyme, and
bacteriolysins".
Now, recent literature are renaming some of the antibodies, "i" and D. "Antibodies
found in
secretory fluids are macroglobulins and it is suspected that they may derive from
serum exudation. " http://contra.biology.und.ac.za/comp/chapter5g.htm
http://www.vet.uga.edu/mmb/dickerson/research.html
"Model of antibody mediated cutaneous immunity against Ichthyophthirius.
Theronts (shown at top) bore through mucus and invade the epithelium of immune fish.
Antibodies in the skin and/or mucus bind to the surface immobilization antigens on
the parasite, causing either immobilization and cell death (at high antibody
concentrations), or exit from the host (at antibody concentrations that are
subthreshold for immobilization). The source of antibodies present at the surface of
the fish is conjectural. They may rise locally from lymphocytes within the skin, or
be produced elsewhere and enter the epithelium through some, as yet, unidentified
pathway."
Ingrid

"Gregory Young" wrote:
Ingrid:
You are mixing up serum and secretory antibodies
In the serum are found numerous antibodies, IgM (acute), IgG (convalescent),
etc, etc
In the secretory coat ('slimelayer") are PRIMARILY IgA
There are no studies that I have seen that show the role of secretory
antibodies in living cold water ornamental fish.. none. They have been in
vitro tests, which have generated many hypotheses, which have not been
confirmed to date, hence the continuing discussions on this topic.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

There are complete idiots out there in the world. People who do the most assinine
things on earth and sooner or later they end up in some emergency room as a result of
their total lack of regard of written instructions or any number of cautions.
A normal careful adult (the PORG) OTOH is going to be able to handle PP with no
problem at all. In fact I just mixed up a batch today for a friend and she got some
from a plumbing supply and it is sort of pellets not a powder. I advise people to
read the instructions here
http://users.megapathdsl.net/~solo/p....htm#POTASSIUM
before making up a batch. A stock solution is essential. Nobody should be
broadcasting PP over a pond, that is when both the human and fish are in danger. I
would bet that people with dead koi from PP have been dumping dry PP into their
ponds.
The antibody produced by fish is secretory IgM, NOT IgA.
" Detection of specific antibodies in the serum of animals is recognized as a useful
indicator of previous exposure to pathogens.
* ADL produces probes (AquaMab-F) to enable the detection of IgM by ELISA in a
range of fish species used in aquaculture. This is extremely useful for broodstock
health testing. It also provides tools for monitoring the immune response in fish
following vaccination and therefore will assist in the development of vaccines in the
future as the more fish species are cultured and new diseases emerge."
http://www.aquaticdiagnostics.com/detection2.htm
"Although infection with Ichthyophthirius multifiliis is often lethal, some fish
recover and develop resistance to subsequent infection. Under laboratory conditions
fish can be routinely immunized by exposure to controlled numbers of parasites. The
existence of acquired immunity against Ich provides the opportunity for the
development of protective vaccines. In addition, studies of the protective immune
response against Ich provide a useful model for the elucidation of the mechanisms by
which fish respond to pathogens which infect through epithelial surfaces.
Serum and mucus antibodies from immune fish immobilize free-swimming theronts
in vitro , suggesting several potential antibody-mediated mechanisms of protection.
For instance, antibodies in mucus could block penetration of theronts into the
epithelium of the skin and gills. Because immobilization can be readily observed in
the laboratory and fits a number of different models of potential mechanisms of
immunity, considerable effort in this laboratory has been dedicated to identifying
the target antigens responsible for this phenomenon, with the ultimate goal of
developing a subunit vaccine."
http://www.vet.uga.edu/mmb/dickerson/research.html
IgM is the most primitive type of antibody. But fish also have been found to produce
anti-micriobial proteins, http://www.cvm.ncsu.edu/cbs/noga_ed.htm
There is no data about use of salt prophylactically you are willing to accept. Rod
Farlee has posted all kinds of data, the fact that koi breeders use it, and Jo Ann's
teacher Dr. Ruth Floyd who advocates using salt .. not to mention that Jo Ann
advocates its use. And she most certainly is an expert. Ingrid


"Gregory Young" wrote:
although I don't think any of us should be encouraging folks
without some training to use an oxidant like PP, I would hope!!
I just treated an individual in the ED 2 weeks ago
Although the slime coat has been shown to have IgA antibodies in it,
I can not tell you the number of burned gills I have seen on necropsy by the
use of PP in ponds, based on "calculated volumes" of the ponds.
because there
are still NO data (and read this answer fully please) that prove ROUTINE
salt use has ANY proven benefit in ornamental fish (Koi and Goldfish)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Ingrid:
The immunology I was relaying came not from my medical school Immunology,
but rather my Marine biology Microbiology/Immunology studies back in the
70's.
I have since then taken additional training, and have had the chance to talk
to fish knowledgeable vets. I don't claim to have all the answers on fish,
but I do know where to get information when I need it.
2 of the best I resources I would refer you to are DVMs. Eric Johnson, and
Sandra Yosha (also a PhD).
All secretory antibodies, as I am sure you are aware, derive from plasma
sources, in fish as well as mammals. To quote your reference below:
"Antibodies found in secretory fluids are macroglobulins and it is suspected
that they may derive from serum exudation". Again, "suspected", not
confirmed.
I will try to get some references on more recent fish immunological studies
to refer you to, which are much more recent than our previous training
(yours and mine), and the references you quoted (late 80's), (which BTW I do
appreciate your taking the time to do), that confirm the presence of the
immunoglobulins.
I trust my above vet. resources. They have far more training (more recent
than my marine bio anyway) than I. If I had more time, I would certainly be
able to search out and pull each article, but I have a full plate these
days.
I will see what Eric has.
If you think believe it's IgM, and I IgA, that we won't apparently settle
here today. I think however you should agree that there are no studies, to
date, that confirm (not suggest.. there have been previous studies
suggesting yeah as well as nea) there is any protective role of
immunoglobulins in the fish slime coat.
My training you are quite right was dealing with human physiology and
immunology (plus the marine bio. I just referenced). I am quite sure your
immunology was human based also, and not fish.
The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I doubt your immunological
training or abilities, any more than your disagreeing with me on medical
issues (ie proper use of antibiotics, safety of certain chemicals, heat
illness, etc) means you doubt mine. At least that is my assumption.
Greg
PS I will try and resurrect some of our discussions from last year, once
again. Will see if Outlook works this time!


wrote in message
...
Gregory:
Your immunology class in med school talked about human immunology. We are
not
talking about human immunology, we are talking fish. They dont have IgA,
IgG, IgE.
If you dont want to believe me (despite the fact that I am an
immunologist), then
read Stoskopf (pp. 150-159) or the primary literature. In different fish
there are
monomeric, tetrameric and pentameric forms of IgM like antibody and it is
serum
antibody AND it is secreted. It is IgM by virtue of its mu heavy chain,
not because
it is cell bound.
"Despite the absence of IgG in fish, protective humoral responses occur.
In general,
IgM is more efficient than IgG in complement activation, opsonization,
neutralization
of viruses, and aggutination. (Tizard, 1987) ... In teleosts,
antigen-specific
antibodies occur in the mucus as IgM (St. Louis-Cormier et al. 1984; Lobb,
1987)" "
Fish mucus has been found to contain natural antibodies, lysozyme, and
bacteriolysins".
Now, recent literature are renaming some of the antibodies, "i" and D.
"Antibodies
found in
secretory fluids are macroglobulins and it is suspected that they may
derive from
serum exudation. " http://contra.biology.und.ac.za/comp/chapter5g.htm
http://www.vet.uga.edu/mmb/dickerson/research.html
"Model of antibody mediated cutaneous immunity against Ichthyophthirius.
Theronts (shown at top) bore through mucus and invade the epithelium of
immune fish.
Antibodies in the skin and/or mucus bind to the surface immobilization
antigens on
the parasite, causing either immobilization and cell death (at high
antibody
concentrations), or exit from the host (at antibody concentrations that
are
subthreshold for immobilization). The source of antibodies present at the
surface of
the fish is conjectural. They may rise locally from lymphocytes within the
skin, or
be produced elsewhere and enter the epithelium through some, as yet,
unidentified
pathway."
Ingrid

"Gregory Young" wrote:
Ingrid:
You are mixing up serum and secretory antibodies
In the serum are found numerous antibodies, IgM (acute), IgG
(convalescent),
etc, etc
In the secretory coat ('slimelayer") are PRIMARILY IgA
There are no studies that I have seen that show the role of secretory
antibodies in living cold water ornamental fish.. none. They have been in
vitro tests, which have generated many hypotheses, which have not been
confirmed to date, hence the continuing discussions on this topic.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

--


wrote in message
...
There are complete idiots out there in the world. People who do the most
assinine
things on earth and sooner or later they end up in some emergency room as
a result of
their total lack of regard of written instructions or any number of
cautions.
A normal careful adult (the PORG) OTOH is going to be able to handle PP
with no
problem at all. In fact I just mixed up a batch today for a friend and she
got some
from a plumbing supply and it is sort of pellets not a powder. I advise
people to
read the instructions here

http://users.megapathdsl.net/~solo/p....htm#POTASSIUM
before making up a batch. A stock solution is essential. Nobody should
be
broadcasting PP over a pond, that is when both the human and fish are in
danger. I
would bet that people with dead koi from PP have been dumping dry PP into
their
ponds.

Here is my response, from previous discussions:
From: "Gregory Young"
Subject: To salt or not to sallt...
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2002 21:31 PM

wrote in message
...
The point is moot. I never use salt as a medication. I would never
recommend
elevated salt levels as a medication either. I use potassium permanganate
for
everything except ich, and then I use a formalin based medication. Since
Jo Ann
found that 10% peroxide (v/v) kills gyros and dacs as a 10 second dip, I
will use
that for those diseases.

Actually, I don't disagree with the approach you make in the above
statements.. although I don't think any of us should be encouraging folks
without some training to use an oxidant like PP, I would hope!!

I just treated an individual in the ED 2 weeks ago that was using it for
some type of septic cleaning (something I have not seen it used for in the
past), who had some of the powder, or as he described it "dust" get into his
left eye (he was wearing reg. glasses, not safety, nor did he have resp
precautions, although he did have skin precautions).

He told me as a sewage treatment engineer he "was an expert" in using PP..
yeah right, an "expert"...

Despite IMMEDIATE rinse by the patient, and subsequent direct irrigation by
myself, with over 2 liters of saline with normalization of his eye's pH, the
damage is continuing to progress.
I heard from the opthalomologist I referred him to yesterday, that his
visual loss is progressing. How much he will lose, only time will tell, and
it will take months to fully appreciate the loss..
Unfortunately with caustics, damage continues despite surface
neutralization.

So, a word of caution to those planning to use this:

(yes I use it, and in fact just received another 5 gallons dry for use on my
"pond calls"... I never, ever, ever, mix it into solution outside, where
there's any chance that a stray breeze can aerosolize the PP)

: you must know exactly what you are doing, and use respiratory, eye and
skin precautions at all times!!

The cost of all my Koi (4 figures) is no where near the cost of either one
of my eyes, nor should it be yours.

I use a variety of agents, depending on the etiology:

Parasites:
Chilodinella: .6% salt or Malachite green/formalin
Costia: salt
Ich: Malachite green/formalin
Epistylus: salt
Trich: PP or Malachite green/formalin or .6% salt
Argulus: Malachite green/formalin or dimilin, etc.
Ergasilus: Dylox only
Gill & Skin flukes: PP is 1st choice or Chloramine-T
Hexamita, Protoopalina, Sironucleaus & Trichomanas: Metronidazole (PP or
H2O2 won't work on any of these)

Bacteria:

I use ONLY antibiotic injection therapy, as:

1) dumping antibiotics into the pond encourages drug resistant disease
strains, that have been shown in the medical literature to transfer drug
resistance to fish handlers (commercial usually)
A classic example is drug resistant Mycobacteria; "fish handlers disease";
etc.
It is bad husbandry, as it effects our environment!

2) Even baths of diseased fish in an antibiotic containing tank (much less
alone pond exposure) don't get significant levels into fish tissue to allow
them to combate disease, so baths don't have anywhere near as high of a
success rate as injections.

3) Antibiotic feeds require the diseased fish to eat enough, to get
significant plasma and tissue levels. When any organism is sick, appetite is
usually one of the first things to go, as we all know from personal
experience I am sure!, so...

4) I do injection of antibiotics only!

You can argue SQ (SC) vs IP injection. I prefer the latter which has higher
sustained plasma and tissue levels, but I know the anatomy, and won't wind
up puncturing the gut. SQ (SC) is less risky in lesser trained hands.

For people that are not trained/comfortable with the above get your local
fish experienced vet/ other experienced fish handler to work with a vet for
antibiotic adminstration.

My fish come from people use salt in their growing on ponds. I will
continue to use
salt (0.1%) as support and a 3% dip to strip off the slime coat.
But mostly, I am going to make sure to maintain high water quality, use
the highest
quality food, use proper quarantine procedures for new fish and plants,
keep
"wildlife" outta my ponds and keep stress levels low so I dont have to
treat my fish
with ANYTHING.

Again we agree almost 100% there (except for the .1% and stripping of the
slime coat comments)

0.1% salt in the water is specifically for maintaining a healthy
immune system since it turns over the slime coat which has secreted
antibodies and
other anti-microbial proteins in it.

Althought the slime coat has been shown to have IgA antibodies in it, just
like human and mammalian nasal secretions, there have been no studies to
date, that I, or my fish knowledgeable vet. colleagues are aware of, that
have shown ANY benefit in disease resistance by their presence. (which is
the same for humans. Why IgA is secreted therefore is as yet unknown,
although there are lots of theories)

The slime coat is a secretory function of fish, and its production increases
in response to stressors of multiple types (infections, osmotic changes,
noxious chemicals, irritants, etc to name just a few).

Some of the thickest slimes coats I have seen over the years are in diseased
fish, so I would not want to equate a thick coat to a healthy fish!

Fish without a functional immune system cannot be cured with any kind of
medication.
The purpose of medications is to lower the number of pathogens and then
the host
immune system deals with what is left.


I agree with that statement 100%.

If people read my original posting, they would notice I replied with dosing,
etc of salt, as well as type of salt, etc to use.

I was being objective in my answer. As part of that answer, I stated a major
reason not to use routine salt as well.

If you never use salt to treat, but rather want to use stronger
drugs/oxidants, (which you and I know stress the already diseased and
stressed fish much more than a salt bath), then the encouragement of disease
resistance organisms is of less import.

I can not tell you the number of burned gills I have seen on necropsy by the
use of PP in ponds, based on "calculated volumes" of the ponds.
(Now there might be another salt indication, using salt addition, with known
quantity of salt, measuring pre and post addition salt levels in the water
to calculate the actual pond system gallons (including pumps, pipes,
filters, etc, etc)).

When people talk about the benefits of salt, and start quoting references
that talk about protection against nitrites (which is true), etc, that
hedges the real issue.

The real issue is that salt is debated (emotionally usually), because there
are still NO data (and read this answer fully please) that prove routine
salt use has any proven benefit in ornamental fish (Koi and Goldfish)
management, outside of 1) disease treatment and 2) protection (which should
be temporary) against nitrite toxicity.

Furthermore, the latter should only be relevant in a cycling pond, as the
presence of nitrites in cycled ponds, indicate a problem that needs
(immediate usually) correction, instead of merely masking it by the presence
of added salt that will help the fish tolerate a higher nitrite level, for a
longer period of time.

Ingrid

happy ponding,
Greg





I will respond to the rest of your statements in the next posting
Greg

Will try to reply again. Apparently pasting in previous posts doesn't get
posted../.
see below
Greg


wrote in message
...
There are complete idiots out there in the world. People who do the most
assinine
things on earth and sooner or later they end up in some emergency room as
a result of
their total lack of regard of written instructions or any number of
cautions.
A normal careful adult (the PORG) OTOH is going to be able to handle PP
with no
problem at all. In fact I just mixed up a batch today for a friend and she
got some
from a plumbing supply and it is sort of pellets not a powder. I advise
people to
read the instructions here

http://users.megapathdsl.net/~solo/p....htm#POTASSIUM
before making up a batch. A stock solution is essential. Nobody should
be
broadcasting PP over a pond, that is when both the human and fish are in
danger. I
would bet that people with dead koi from PP have been dumping dry PP into
their
ponds.

From: "Gregory Young"
Subject: To salt or not to salt...
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2002 21:31 PM

wrote in message
...
The point is moot. I never use salt as a medication. I would never
recommend
elevated salt levels as a medication either. I use potassium permanganate
for
everything except ich, and then I use a formalin based medication. Since
Jo Ann
found that 10% peroxide (v/v) kills gyros and dacs as a 10 second dip, I
will use
that for those diseases.

Actually, I don't disagree with the approach you make in the above
statements.. although I don't think any of us should be encouraging folks
without some training to use an oxidant like PP, I would hope!!

I just treated an individual in the ED 2 weeks ago that was using it for
some type of septic cleaning (something I have not seen it used for in the
past), who had some of the powder, or as he described it "dust" get into his
left eye (he was wearing reg. glasses, not safety, nor did he have resp
precautions, although he did have skin precautions).

He told me as a sewage treatment engineer he "was an expert" in using PP..
yeah right, an "expert"...

Despite IMMEDIATE rinse by the patient, and subsequent direct irrigation by
myself, with over 2 liters of saline with normalization of his eye's pH, the
damage is continuing to progress.
I heard from the ophthalmologist I referred him to yesterday, that his
visual loss is progressing. How much he will lose, only time will tell, and
it will take months to fully appreciate the loss..
Unfortunately with caustics, damage continues despite surface
neutralization.

So, a word of caution to those planning to use this:

(yes I use it, and in fact just received another 5 gallons dry for use on my
"pond calls"... I never, ever, ever, mix it into solution outside, where
there's any chance that a stray breeze can aerosolize the PP)

: you must know exactly what you are doing, and use respiratory, eye and
skin precautions at all times!!

The cost of all my Koi (4 figures) is no where near the cost of either one
of my eyes, nor should it be yours.

I use a variety of agents, depending on the etiology:

Parasites:
Chilodinella: .6% salt or Malachite green/formalin
Costia: salt
Ich: Malachite green/formalin
Epistylus: salt
Trich: PP or Malachite green/formalin or .6% salt
Argulus: Malachite green/formalin or dimilin, etc.
Ergasilus: Dylox only
Gill & Skin flukes: PP is 1st choice or Chloramine-T
Hexamita, Protoopalina, Sironucleaus & Trichomanas: Metronidazole (PP or
H2O2 won't work on any of these)

Bacteria:

I use ONLY antibiotic injection therapy, as:

1) dumping antibiotics into the pond encourages drug resistant disease
strains, that have been shown in the medical literature to transfer drug
resistance to fish handlers (commercial usually)
A classic example is drug resistant Mycobacteria; "fish handlers disease";
etc.
It is bad husbandry, as it effects our environment!

2) Even baths of diseased fish in an antibiotic containing tank (much less
alone pond exposure) don't get significant levels into fish tissue to allow
them to combat disease, so baths don't have anywhere near as high of a
success rate as injections.

3) Antibiotic feeds require the diseased fish to eat enough, to get
significant plasma and tissue levels. When any organism is sick, appetite is
usually one of the first things to go, as we all know from personal
experience I am sure!, so...

4) I do injection of antibiotics only!

You can argue SQ (SC) vs IP injection. I prefer the latter which has higher
sustained plasma and tissue levels, but I know the anatomy, and won't wind
up puncturing the gut. SQ (SC) is less risky in lesser trained hands.

For people that are not trained/comfortable with the above get your local
fish experienced vet/ other experienced fish handler to work with a vet for
antibiotic administration.

My fish come from people use salt in their growing on ponds. I will
continue to use
salt (0.1%) as support and a 3% dip to strip off the slime coat.
But mostly, I am going to make sure to maintain high water quality, use
the highest
quality food, use proper quarantine procedures for new fish and plants,
keep
"wildlife" outta my ponds and keep stress levels low so I dont have to
treat my fish
with ANYTHING.

Again we agree almost 100% there (except for the .1% and stripping of the
slime coat comments)

0.1% salt in the water is specifically for maintaining a healthy
immune system since it turns over the slime coat which has secreted
antibodies and
other anti-microbial proteins in it.

Although the slime coat has been shown to have IgA antibodies in it, just
like human and mammalian nasal secretions, there have been no studies to
date, that I, or my fish knowledgeable vet. colleagues are aware of, that
have shown ANY benefit in disease resistance by their presence. (which is
the same for humans. Why IgA is secreted therefore is as yet unknown,
although there are lots of theories)

The slime coat is a secretory function of fish, and its production increases
in response to stressors of multiple types (infections, osmotic changes,
noxious chemicals, irritants, etc to name just a few).

Some of the thickest slimes coats I have seen over the years are in diseased
fish, so I would not want to equate a thick coat to a healthy fish!

Fish without a functional immune system cannot be cured with any kind of
medication.
The purpose of medications is to lower the number of pathogens and then
the host
immune system deals with what is left.


I agree with that statement 100%.

If people read my original posting, they would notice I replied with dosing,
etc of salt, as well as type of salt, etc to use.

I was being objective in my answer. As part of that answer, I stated a major
reason not to use routine salt as well.

If you never use salt to treat, but rather want to use stronger
drugs/oxidants, (which you and I know stress the already diseased and
stressed fish much more than a salt bath), then the encouragement of disease
resistance organisms is of less import.

I can not tell you the number of burned gills I have seen on necropsy by the
use of PP in ponds, based on "calculated volumes" of the ponds.
(Now there might be another salt indication, using salt addition, with known
quantity of salt, measuring pre and post addition salt levels in the water
to calculate the actual pond system gallons (including pumps, pipes,
filters, etc, etc)).

When people talk about the benefits of salt, and start quoting references
that talk about protection against nitrites (which is true), etc, that
hedges the real issue.

The real issue is that salt is debated (emotionally usually), because there
are still NO data (and read this answer fully please) that prove routine
salt use has any proven benefit in ornamental fish (Koi and Goldfish)
management, outside of 1) disease treatment and 2) protection (which should
be temporary) against nitrite toxicity.

Furthermore, the latter should only be relevant in a cycling pond, as the
presence of nitrites in cycled ponds, indicate a problem that needs
(immediate usually) correction, instead of merely masking it by the presence
of added salt that will help the fish tolerate a higher nitrite level, for a
longer period of time.

Will try posting this. If successful, will reply to rest of your assertions.
Greg

See part 2
Greg


wrote in message
...
Snip..
" Detection of specific antibodies in the serum of animals is recognized
as a useful
indicator of previous exposure to pathogens.
* ADL produces probes (AquaMab-F) to enable the detection of IgM by
ELISA in a
range of fish species used in aquaculture. This is extremely useful for
broodstock
health testing. It also provides tools for monitoring the immune response
in fish
following vaccination and therefore will assist in the development of
vaccines in the
future as the more fish species are cultured and new diseases emerge."

This is a serum test. Immunology in our aquatic friends is not very
different, than in their "more evolved" mammalian counterparts, as I am sure
you are aware.

http://www.aquaticdiagnostics.com/detection2.htm
"Although infection with Ichthyophthirius multifiliis is often lethal,
some fish
recover and develop resistance to subsequent infection. Under laboratory
conditions
fish can be routinely immunized by exposure to controlled numbers of
parasites.

Interesting.. a controlled number of parasites.. it would be nice, out of
the lab, if we could control the number of parasites.

The existence of acquired immunity against Ich provides the opportunity
for the
development of protective vaccines. In addition, studies of the protective
immune
response against Ich provide a useful model for the elucidation of the
mechanisms by
which fish respond to pathogens which infect through epithelial surfaces.

Agreed, just as nasal live attenuated vaccines have now come into vogue to
induce protective SERUM immunoglobulins against influenza. Notice I say
serum. The secreted IgA in the human "slime coat" (known as nasal
secretions) has been shown to be of no protective value. Protection is
offered only by serum immunoglobulins. Sound
familiar?

Serum and mucus antibodies from immune fish immobilize
free-swimming theronts
in vitro , suggesting several potential antibody-mediated mechanisms of
protection.
For instance, antibodies in mucus could block penetration of theronts into
the
epithelium of the skin and gills.

In vitro (in the lab), suggesting (theory), could (hypothesis, not yet
proven). That's my point. Almost 30 years later, after my marine training,
and there still is no proof of immunological protection from the slime coat,
which is what I stated.

Because immobilization can be readily observed in
the laboratory and fits a number of different models of potential
mechanisms of
immunity, considerable effort in this laboratory has been dedicated to
identifying
the target antigens responsible for this phenomenon, with the ultimate
goal of
developing a subunit vaccine."

I hope they do. Without a vaccine, KHV, SVC, etc will be major killers.

IgM is the most primitive type of antibody. But fish also have been found
to produce
anti-micriobial proteins,

As have their mammailian counterparts.

Snip

Will respond to last part in next message.
Greg

"Gregory Young" wrote:
although I don't think any of us should be encouraging folks
without some training to use an oxidant like PP, I would hope!!
I just treated an individual in the ED 2 weeks ago
Although the slime coat has been shown to have IgA antibodies in it,
I can not tell you the number of burned gills I have seen on necropsy by
the
use of PP in ponds, based on "calculated volumes" of the ponds.
because there
are still NO data (and read this answer fully please) that prove ROUTINE
salt use has ANY proven benefit in ornamental fish (Koi and Goldfish)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Here is final part, part 3 of response
Greg


wrote in message
...

Snip:

There is no data about use of salt prophylactically you are willing to
accept. Rod
Farlee has posted all kinds of data, the fact that koi breeders use it,
and Jo Ann's
teacher Dr. Ruth Floyd who advocates using salt .. not to mention that Jo
Ann
advocates its use. And she most certainly is an expert. Ingrid

I have discussed prophylactic salt with Rod, and disagree with him, but only
on that point. He is not here to rebutt me, so I don't wish to dispute him,
except to say the data he quoted was from studies done on aquaculture of
catfish, very different from our ornamental GF/Koi. If Rod/anyone else shows
validated data that continuous prophylactic use of salt has benefits that
outweigh its disadvantages, I will be the first to say I am wrong, and
recommend it to all, in the classes I teach, in my newsgroup posts, etc. I
have presented why I feel it is not a good practice, based on proven fact
(impact on plants, impact on disease resistance). Those are validated.

I do have ample text saved from when he and I discussed this subject, but
again don't want to post a discussion when one of the parties is absent to
comment. That is not fair practice..

Rod is a chemist and certainly has a far better understanding of basic
chemistry than I. I respect his knowledge in that arena.
I teach Physiology however, which as I am sure you know, meters the effects
of the "laws of chemistry" on living organisms and their internal systems,
(among many other things). Living things, fish in this point, do not just
behave like the osmotic membranes we all are familiar with from high
school/college days. They have active systems that modify their interactions
with their environment.
Again there is a debate, as no one has taken the time/effort to
scientfically validate this use of salt in ornamental fish.
I have pointed out numerous drawbacks to it's use, ranging from inhibition
of aquatic plants, to the development of salt tolerant parasites (anectdotal
data agreed, as there are no controlled studies, nor will there be without
funding that is unlikely to occur) since the late 90's, which as it happens
first came in on fish imported from Japan, where the growers maintained .3%
year round salt in their ponds. Strange coincidence?? Maybe, maybe not..

You have referred to Jo Ann in many of your posts. You say she is an expert.
How do you define expert in her case? Is it because of her training?
If so, am I an expert, because of my current practice, my past training in
medical school, or my past training in marine biology?
If based on experience, would I be because I have maintained large (earth
bottom) and ornamental fresh water ponds for the past 20 plus years?
How about if I wrote a book on water gardening/raising Koi?

I will say to all readers here and now I do not claim to be an expert, nor
will I ever make such a claim! I may certainly have more knowledge than
some, but I will have less than others.
Those "experts" I have gotten to know professionally, and otherwise, who are
forthwith, will be the first to tell you how little they really know about
the areas in which they are judged as expert. Science has only begun to
scrape the surface of knowledge this world has to offer. One thing I have
found is that man often fails to improve on what nature provides, sometimes
with his "improvements" having dire consequences.
I took the KHA class offered last year through the Associated Koi Clubs of
America. The class was designed to offer state of the art (current) training
in designing and maintaining an environment for successfully raising and
maintaining healthy cold water ornamental fish. The class also taught
diagnosis and treatment of diseased fish.
I took it because I wanted to benefit from the experience of nationally
known and respected veterans in the field, knowing I would get some
additional pearls of wisdom. The course met my expectations. I went in as a
student, not relaying my previous background to a soul (except now via this
NG Jan knows!), as I felt that would either intimidate my lab mates, or my
role would change more into teaching and less as a student.
The course was designed by folks trained in chemistry, nutrition, disease,
and disease management, to name a few. (including professionals such as MDs,
DVMs, PhDs, etc).
The course is being continuously updated as new data becomes available, and
more than likely will require yearly continuing education, along with
practice, to remain certified.
Are KHAs then considered experts, based on their training?
As most can figure out, I have a problem with that title, (esp. if I am
labelled with it!) I would rather say, based on the experience of someone
who trained as this (theoretical), or has done this for x years (practical),
in the absence of data to the contrary, I would accept their advice, etc.
Greg



"Gregory Young" wrote:
although I don't think any of us should be encouraging folks
without some training to use an oxidant like PP, I would hope!!
I just treated an individual in the ED 2 weeks ago
Although the slime coat has been shown to have IgA antibodies in it,
I can not tell you the number of burned gills I have seen on necropsy by
the
use of PP in ponds, based on "calculated volumes" of the ponds.
because there
are still NO data (and read this answer fully please) that prove ROUTINE
salt use has ANY proven benefit in ornamental fish (Koi and Goldfish)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Altho I have had plenty of course work in human immunology, my research has been in
different kinds of animals. My MS research was on humoral immunity in birds
(aspergillus). My MS advisor was doing research on the immunology of fish at that
time. I started my PhD in the dept of veterinary medicine in Minnesota St. Paul
campus in avian immunology, but found the course work wasnt rigorous enough, the
research limited and the facilities out of date. So I switched over to the med micro
department. I did a rotation in human immunology (MHC) but did my PhD on viral
immunology in mice (macrophage). My post-doc was working on a mouse model system for
multiple sclerosis (T cell immunity).

If doesnt have the heavy chain of IgA it isnt IgA.

When it states that antibodies are secreted into the slime coat, that they have found
other anti-microbial antibodies, when they talk about immunity to ich, of course that
is what they are saying they have found. Parasites are basically ECTOparasites, not
internal where serum antibodies come into play. Ich is on the outside of the fish.
How much clearer can it be "Fish mucus has been found to contain natural antibodies,
lysozyme, and bacteriolysins".

here is the link to fish and shellfish immunology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entre...__jrid20849%5D
Esteve-Gassent MD, Nielsen ME, Amaro C.
The kinetics of antibody production in mucus and serum of European eel (Anguilla
anguilla L.) after vaccination against Vibrio vulnificus: development of a new method
for antibody quantification in skin mucus. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2003
Jul;15(1):51-61.

Zilberg D, Klesius PH.
Quantification of immunoglobulin in the serum and mucus of channel catfish at
different ages and following infection with Edwardsiella ictaluri. Vet Immunol
Immunopathol. 1997 Sep;58(2):171-80.
" Mucus Ig concentrations were highest immediately caudal to gill covers and between
pectoral to anal fins, at concentrations of 0.45 +/- 0.82 and 0.34 +/- 0.67 ng cm-2,
respectively. The concentration of mucus Ig between anal and caudal fins and on the
ventral skin between gill covers and pectoral fin was 0.18 +/- 0.42 and 0.09 +/- 0.14
ng cm-2, respectively. "

Ingrid

"Gregory Young" wrote:
If you think believe it's IgM, and I IgA, that we won't apparently settle
here today. I think however you should agree that there are no studies, to
date, that confirm (not suggest.. there have been previous studies
suggesting yeah as well as nea) there is any protective role of
immunoglobulins in the fish slime coat.
My training you are quite right was dealing with human physiology and
immunology (plus the marine bio. I just referenced). I am quite sure your
immunology was human based also, and not fish.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

"Gregory Young" wrote:
Immunology in our aquatic friends is not very different, than in their "more evolved" mammalian counterparts, as I am sure
you are aware.

.... WOWOWOW... it is VERY much different. Their B cell capability is simple compared
to birds and mammals. They dont have anywhere close to the number of variable and
hypervariable regions, I dont even know if immunoglobulin switching in the heavy
region has been demonstrated nor somatic cell mutation in the hypervariable region in
response to antigen. Fish are low on evolutionary tree for immunology.

Interesting.. a controlled number of parasites.. it would be nice, out of
the lab, if we could control the number of parasites.

...... I dont think you are going to accept any kind of research as being "good
enough" are you? When, may I ask, has Koch's postulates every been demonstrate in
humans? So you cant accept that AIDS is caused by HIV unless the disease has been
isolated in pure culture and humans infected with it? OF COURSE lab research has
validity in the field. But sure as hell if the research was not done first in the
lab under controlled conditions it wouldnt be acceptable to referred journals.

The secreted IgA in the human "slime coat" (known as nasal
secretions) has been shown to be of no protective value. Protection is
offered only by serum immunoglobulins. Sound
familiar?

..... Nasal secretions have absolutely NO relationship to the slime coat in fish.
Nasal secretions (typically a quart a day) are meant to wash the bacteria away. It
is a completely different evolutionary adaptation.

In vitro (in the lab), suggesting (theory), could (hypothesis, not yet
proven). That's my point. Almost 30 years later, after my marine training,
and there still is no proof of immunological protection from the slime coat,
which is what I stated.

.... Like I said, you wont accept any research as valid. The fact is fish DO develop
immunity to ich, which is an ectoparasite.

Because immobilization can be readily observed in
the laboratory and fits a number of different models of potential
mechanisms of immunity

.... and this is how every single human vaccine has been developed. But immunity to
bacteria and parasites is extremely limited, even in immunologically advanced species
like humans. This is why malaria, trypanosomes, TB, strep, staph, etc, etc. are the
last major "predators" of humanity. We have our dry epithelium and normal flora as
the first and best defense against infection thru the skin. The wet epithelium of
our gut sloughs to get rid of the cooties AND has "friendly" colonies to prevent
infection along with mostly non-specific cellular immunity. Vaccines are effective
against many viruses. It just isnt there for bacteria and parasites. Fish are "wet"
epithelium inside and out, and their evolution includes many kinds of secretions into
their slime coat to deal with the onslaught.
Ingrid


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

"Gregory Young" wrote:
Immunology in our aquatic friends is not very different, than in their "more evolved" mammalian counterparts, as I am sure
you are aware.

.... WOWOWOW... it is VERY much different. Their B cell capability is simple compared
to birds and mammals. They dont have anywhere close to the number of variable and
hypervariable regions, I dont even know if immunoglobulin switching in the heavy
region has been demonstrated nor somatic cell mutation in the hypervariable region in
response to antigen. Fish are low on evolutionary tree for immunology.

Interesting.. a controlled number of parasites.. it would be nice, out of
the lab, if we could control the number of parasites.

...... I dont think you are going to accept any kind of research as being "good
enough" are you? When, may I ask, has Koch's postulates every been demonstrate in
humans? So you cant accept that AIDS is caused by HIV unless the disease has been
isolated in pure culture and humans infected with it? OF COURSE lab research has
validity in the field. But sure as hell if the research was not done first in the
lab under controlled conditions it wouldnt be acceptable to referred journals.

The secreted IgA in the human "slime coat" (known as nasal
secretions) has been shown to be of no protective value. Protection is
offered only by serum immunoglobulins. Sound
familiar?

..... Nasal secretions have absolutely NO relationship to the slime coat in fish.
Nasal secretions (typically a quart a day) are meant to wash the bacteria away. It
is a completely different evolutionary adaptation.

In vitro (in the lab), suggesting (theory), could (hypothesis, not yet
proven). That's my point. Almost 30 years later, after my marine training,
and there still is no proof of immunological protection from the slime coat,
which is what I stated.

.... Like I said, you wont accept any research as valid. The fact is fish DO develop
immunity to ich, which is an ectoparasite.

Because immobilization can be readily observed in
the laboratory and fits a number of different models of potential
mechanisms of immunity

.... and this is how every single human vaccine has been developed. But immunity to
bacteria and parasites is extremely limited, even in immunologically advanced species
like humans. This is why malaria, trypanosomes, TB, strep, staph, etc, etc. are the
last major "predators" of humanity. We have our dry epithelium and normal flora as
the first and best defense against infection thru the skin. The wet epithelium of
our gut sloughs to get rid of the cooties AND has "friendly" colonies to prevent
infection along with mostly non-specific cellular immunity. Vaccines are effective
against many viruses. It just isnt there for bacteria and parasites. Fish are "wet"
epithelium inside and out, and their evolution includes many kinds of secretions into
their slime coat to deal with the onslaught.
Ingrid


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.