RD.

And for anyone curious enough, my juvie fish can viewed in the following link. http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?568639-Large-Spot-or-Small-Spot

Thanks Jorg. Problem is from what I have seen of Harold's polleni sold/bred in the past, they appeared to be sp. East Coast (small spot) and Harold listed them simply as paratilapia polleni "small spot". The ones sold at the Edmonton auction, at least the one I ended up with is not sp. East Coast. This is from a 2008 thread on AA, male was from Harold, female from Gold's, both look to be sp. East Coast, or at least a small spot variant. http://i48.servimg.com/u/f48/12/28/73/20/dscn0010.jpg and his facebook listing from June ...... https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=133162793556328&id=132215710317703&stream_ref=10

Thanks, but Bill & Irene have no idea what variant or species this is, beyond what I know. They originally purchased my fish along with some siblings at the Edmonton auction, but they were simply sold as Paratilapia polleni. I need to find the original breeder/vendor who placed them into the auction in Edmonton.

Someone sold a group of juvenile Paratilapia polleni at the last Edmonton auction - does anyone here recall who the breeder/vendor was of those fish? I'm attempting to track down the geographical variant of these fish. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

A bent or curved spine may possibly be a mycobacteria infection, commonly referred to as fish tuberculosis. The following discussion may help. http://www.rainbowfish.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2389

Some good solid info from Dr. Ruth Francis-Floyd from the U of FL, basically a compilation of her papers from over the years. I would challenge a few statements in that article, such as "The only treatment available for hexamitiasis is metronidazole", which certainly is no longer the case. http://albertaaquatica.com/index.php?showtopic=29679 While what is stated with regards to Flavobacterium columnarae (Flexibacter columnaris) is true, the most recent work in this area has shown that chloramphenicol, erythromycin, furazolidone, kanamycin, lincomycin, nalidixic acid, oxytetracycline and streptomycin are all confirmed as being effective at treating this disease. The problem with Flavobacterium columnare is that there are several different strains of this bacteria, so while one form or method of treatment may work for one person, for the next it may already be too late to even begin treatment. Age of the fish, overall immune function, overall environmental conditions, stage of the infection, etc-etc, also all play a role in how a sick fish will react to medication & potential recovery. The biggest problem with any fish disease is that sans a proper diagnosis from a qualified vet, a lot of this becomes total guess work. I'm not big at using meds in a shotgun approach, but sometimes you can only do the best with what little info you have available. Any type of bacterial infection that is an "unknown" is always best treated with meds that will cover both gram pos & gram negative as often times what actually kills the fish is when a secondary infection sets in from the stress caused from the primary infection. Hence the reason why one should never focus on just the primary infection, as in Columnaris being a gram negative bacteria. The reality is that no one can just eye ball a few pics on a fish forum & be absolute in their diagnosis, including me. Most of Dr. Ruth's work is in dealing with large commercial fish farms, so the treatments aren't always in laymens terms, or using products that the average hobbyist can easily access. Some of it is also a little outdated. For anyone looking for what is IMO the best reference with regards disease and treatments for ornamental aquarium species of fish I would strongly recommend - Fish Disease: diagnosis and treatment, by Dr. Edward J. Noga. You can access a lot of the info in his book via google, or you can pony up the $100+ for a copy of the revised edition. Either way a good link Jay, thanks for posting it.

The OP had sent me a PM about his fish and I thought that my response might be worth sharing here. Many of the man made designer type fish come with poor/weak genetics, which is probably what those people meant. I went through the same type of thing as you recently with a red severum. Beautiful fish, growing well etc, but he had this skin/fungus type ailment that he just couldn't shake. I tried the same meds as you, Kanaplex in the tank water, Paraguard dips, salt, water changes almost daily, for 4 or 5 months. The water in his 90 gallon was so clean I could almost drink out of it! I finally gave up and did the sensible thing, put the fish down. Honestly some of the super bugs out there are next to impossible to get rid of, and sometimes if its a viral thing the fish may never shake it, while other fish in the same tank are fine. You could try medicated food but I honestly doubt that it would help. You might be interested in reading this. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23294440 and this, from one of the researchers involved with that paper. Fancy fish could harbor dangerous bacteria by Rose Eveleth February 6, 2013 Around the world, private collectors and businesses maintain beautiful fish tanks stocked with colorful corals, speedy little cichlids and stately angelfish. But a hidden danger lurks: many fish that wind up in aquariums carry antibiotic-resistant bacteria that could pose a threat not just to a billion-dollar industry but to human health. A recent study published in the Journal of Fish Diseases measured 32 different ornamental fish that entered the port in Portland, Ore., from places such as Colombia, Singapore and Florida. The specimen were found to carry 64 different bacterial colonies, and many were resistant to antibiotics to varying degrees. The bottom line: not only were the fish more susceptible to infection, but their bacteria harbored genes that could make them immune to drugs - genes they can pass along. Resistance to antibiotics can develop in a number of ways, but the most common culprit is overtreatment, a practice commonly used when fish are transported. The chain of events is pretty easy to follow. The majority of ornamental fish start their lives in Asia and other exotic locations and are shipped all across the globe. Those trips aren’t a walk in the park for the animals, says Luiz Bermudez, a microbiologist at Oregon State University, and one of the researchers on the study. “It’s stressful even if we humans get in an airplane and fly for 14 hours,” he says, “so when a fish gets to a destination, many times the fish presents with a kind of stress-related disease.” To prevent stocks from going belly-up before they reach their destination, many importers often proactively treat their catch with antibiotics. That, says Bermudez, is a big driver of the antibiotic resistance his team found in the study. How antibiotic resistance spreads It’s not just fish who might be in trouble, either. That’s because a resistant bacterial strain can pass its resistance to another species, Bermudez says. So, in theory, an antibiotic-resistant fish bacteria could transfer the set of genes that confer that resistance to a bacteria that infects humans, Bermudez says. That means a human bacteria that was formerly felled by certain antibiotics would suddenly become immune to them. Complicating matters is the fact that many antibiotics used to fight fish bacteria are the same ones widely used on humans. Among the antibiotics that the fish bacteria were best at warding off is Tetracycline, a drug used to treat everything from acne to rosacea to cholera in humans. Up to 77 percent of the studied specimens were resistant to this drug. While it is unlikely that these bacteria will be transmitted from fish to humans, both fish owners and importers should be extra careful. “If you’re going to clean a fish tank, you should be aware that there is a possibility that you’re going to get some infection,” he says. Aside from the health implications, antibiotic resistance could be a drain on the bottom line for aquarium suppliers. The global market for ornamental fish is worth an estimated $15 billion each year. The world spends $900 million a year alone on just the live fish - a figure that has grown an average of 14 percent each year for the past 25 years. Should certain fish become entirely resistant to the antibiotics that help them survive, the industry could suffer a huge economic blow totaling millions of dollars. Bermudez says the ornamental fish industry isn’t deaf to the dangers of antibiotic resistance. It has already made some changes based on his team’s research - such as treating fish less frequently with antibiotics unless necessary and figuring out how to ship them more safely. But the industry deals with 6,000-plus species of fish, shipping from more than 100 countries, and most countries have no specific regulations regarding antibiotic use. So while individual suppliers might do their part to cut back on antibiotics, many are likely to continue preemptively treating their stocks to avoid disease. There are still some open questions for researchers studying this antibiotic resistance. For example, Bermudez wants to understand whether or not the bacterial community of imported fish changes after a few weeks at a facility in the United States. Perhaps, he says, importers could eliminate fish with these resistant strains before they are transported to fish tanks across the country, preventing the resistance from spreading For fish and humans alike, the vicious cycle of antibiotic resistance should be a serious concern. That’s because the fewer antibiotics that work to fight a particular disease, the more likely it is to have a negative impact on the population. The more resistant genes that exist, the more likely other bacteria are to become resistant. The longer suppliers rely on antibiotics to broadly safeguard stocks, the more likely they are to develop resistance. “So now we’re facing a kind of a crisis situation in the case of humans and animals, that many times we don’t have antibiotics or we only have one antibiotic that can be used to kill the microorganisms that’s causing the infection, and that’s a serious problem,” Bermudez says.

Glad that I could help, David. As previously mentioned Safe/Prime contain hydrosulphide salts, which act as a reducing agent. That's why it reacts with chlorine compounds, which are oxidising agents. If there are no chlorine compounds left in your aquarium water it will find something else to reduce, such as O2. If O2 levels are reduced enough it can cause osmoregulatory stress in fish, as well as in bio bacteria. That may, or may not have contributed to causing a mini cycle in your tank. Safe is a very effective and IMO very "safe" product, if used acordingly.

Exactly what happened in your tank is beyond me, far too many variables involved for anyone to really know when just sitting on the sidelines. I do not know what the exact results are under various conditions, and tanks, when overdosing with Safe - but I have (read) and personally seen massive fish die offs from overdoses of Seachem Prime. I'm guessing that's why they state 'Do Not Overdose!" on the label of Safe. A 1/2 teaspoon of Safe, per 40 or 50 gallons of tap water, was an overdose. There is no arguing that fact. Having said that I have no idea whether that overdose of Safe caused your problem, or not. Calgary also treats with chlorine, carbon & UV, and nowhere near 4ppm chlorine is coming out of anyones tap, especially at this time of the year. Even during spring run off I doubt that anyone in AB will ever see residual disinfectant levels of 4ppm. For 2012 Calgary has Free Chlorine residual listed as: 0.84-1.42 http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Pages/Drinking-water/Annual-water-quality-report/Water-Quality-Parameters.aspx I believe that most pool outlets sell chlorine test kits, but I cant vouch for any one particular brand. Sorry that I couldn't have been more help.

I don't know what your chlorine/chloramine levels are, but here in Red Deer they are 2ppm, or 2 mg/l. (chloramine) Seachem states; Chlorine: use 5 g (1 tsp.*) to each 1625 L (450 gallons*) of tap water (removes 4 ppm). Chloramine: use 5 g (1 tsp.*) to each 1250 L (300 gallons*) of tap water (removes 4 ppm). Ammonia: use 5 g (1 tsp.*) to each 400 L (100 gallons*) of tap water (removes 4 ppm). Do not overdose! So as an example, if one's tap water has a level of 2ppm chlorine, half a teaspoon will treat approx 450 gallons of tap water. At 2ppm of chloramine, half a teaspoon would treat 300+ gallons of tap water. Even at 4ppm you would have been overdosing @ 1/2 tsp per 100 gallons, and I'm quite certain that the chlorine or chlormine level in Cochrane is far below 4ppm. From what I can gather Cochrane uses chlorine and UV for disinfecting their water, so I would attempt to find out what level of chlorine they typically use throughout the year (lowest-highest) and then base your level of Safe on the high range. You could also test your tap water for chlorine residual. Here's a link to the town contact info. http://www.cochrane.ca/municipal/toc/webcms.nsf/AllDoc/155CA75D9AD6A36C872576FE0075A25F?OpenDocument FYI - Safe and Prime are made up from the same type of hydrosulphide salts, the only difference is that Safe is in a dry form, which is much more concentrated. Prime has water and a stabilizing agent added to the salts, that's basically the only chemical difference between the two. Your problem could possibly be from an overdose of Safe, or an overdose coupled with the Flourish Excel. I honestly have no idea. I've been using Safe for years without any issues.

Ditto to what others have stated. In fact, many tanks (including larger ones) are transported this way from the manufacturer.

Hey Spencer, that's great news!

I concur with Don, and I believe that Jay nailed it. IMO what you are dealing with is one of the nastiest bacterias out there, Flavobacterium columnare (Flexibacter columnaris). I recently posted the folowing on another forum. Characterization of four Flavobacterium columnare (Flexibacter columnaris) strains isolated from tropical fish. Decostere A, Haesebrouck F, Devriese LA. SourceLaboratory of Veterinary Bacteriology and Mycology, University of Gent, Merelbeke, Belgium. The following are confirmed drugs of choice for this disease ...... chloramphenicol, erythromycin, furazolidone, kanamycin, lincomycin, nalidixic acid, oxytetracycline and streptomycin. The problem with Flavobacterium columnare is that there are several different strains of this bacteria, so while one form or method of treatment may work for one person, for the next it may already be too late to even begin treatment. While there are a number of different medications beyond erythormycin that are proven to work against Flavobacterium columnare, the study (and medication) that I previously posted is probably the most detailed work that has been performed to date, by actual accredited "published" researchers in this field. Annemie Decostere is one of the lead researchers in the world on this subject, has been published several times, and been referenced scores of times in numerous papers on this particular disease. The following paper, also co-authored by Decostere, was published just this year. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2F1297-9716-44-27.pdf Hope that helps.

http://www.cyphos.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15649

If your water company uses chloramine they will typically be treating at near the same strength as the rest of the year. In Edmonton & Red Deer that would be 2 mg/l, (2ppm). While the water takes on a slightly offensive odor this time of year it is due to the chemical reaction with organics, not just because of an increase in disinfectant. One can use a bit extra Prime/Safe to treat any additional chlorine residuals during spring run off, but there's really no need to double dose. From the RDC Q&A ..........

Those pike are wicked, Jorg. Wish that I had a free tank for a pair.

Hagen test kit will give a false positive when testing for free ammonia (NH3) when one is using products such as Seachem Prime.

I wasn't looking for a pissing contest Ric, I was simply giving Jay a short heads up, one that would save him some $$, time, and a mess in pre-soaking pellets that simply do not require additional vitamin/mineral supplementation. If done incorrectly, pre-soaking pellets with any type of liquid can actually cause vitamins to leach from the pellets. In that case one isn't gaining anything, they're actually reducing the overall nutrient content of the food itself, before it's even in the fishes gut. I also never said that fresh/frozen was the main staple diet of your fish - but for some people it is, that or their fish have to eat live foods (such as other fish), or die in captivity. Most zoos & public aquariums feed frozen fish as the staple diet to their large predatory species, and then supplement with essential vitamins & minerals. Not everyone keeps fish that can be weaned on to commercial flakes & pellets. My point was simply that I am very well versed in Boyd Vitachem, and have used it, and recommended it for certain fish, fed under certain conditions, for many years. I generally recommend it for two main things, 1) - for ascorbic acid content as the vast majority of fish cannot produce or synthesize their own vitamin C hence it must be supplied via the diet, and 2) - for B1 vitamins, to counter the production of enzymes such as thiaminase, which over time reduces B1 level in various frozen fish. The nutrient profile of the Boyd products is not something new to me. As far nutrient loss in commercial foods - again, that wasn't some kind of random generalization, I know exactly what levels of each vitamin/mineral are found in each product at post production levels. FYI - post production means AFTER the food has been processed, and packaged. This info comes from a non-biased 3rd party accredited institution, with the person overseeing the analysis considered by their peers as being an expert in the field of fish nutrition. That person has been published numerous times, in numerous journals. New Life had no part in this study, and wasn't even aware that an an in-depth analysis had taken place of their food until years later when that data was published in a somewhat rather expensive and obscure book. I have personally spoken to the person that oversaw that study, and analysis. This isn't just something I read on the internet, or that the manufacturer whispered in my ear. To suggest that nutrients oxidise so swiftly that "there might not be much left in it after a couple of weeks" is beyond plain ignorant, it's ludicrous. We're not talking about some low cost farm feed made back in the 1960's, or some mystery dog food that was clearly not developed utilizing today's science, or equipment. How quickly fatty acids spoil depends on a number of factors, including how the food is stored once packaged. A food made 2 provinces over could spoil twice as fast as one made overseas. Depends on a LOT of different variables, but needless to say fatty acids in fish food can remain stable for a VERY long time in an unopened container if stored in a cool, dark environment. Ditto to vitamin content. Do you think that fish food companies don't test their food in house, and know exactly what levels are present at ground zero, and later at 6 months, 12 months, and beyond? Think again. I could let my food sit on a shelf for 6 months, and the micro & macro nutrient profiles would beat most other foods on the market as they came fresh off of the assembly line. Don't believe me, hire a non-biased accredited lab. I'll be more than happy to supply the first food to be tested. What you are suggesting, Ric, is that after someone eats 2 oranges, and takes 1,000 mg of Ester-C, that includes an additional 200 mg of citrus bioflavonoids, that it would be sound science if they topped all that off with 18 mg of ascorbic acid, as if by doing so it would make some sort of significant difference to a fish. Huh? BTW - 18 mg is the actual amount of vitamin C found in 1 ounce of Boyd Vitachem - a liquid vitamin supplement that contains 90.1 % water. No one is saying that you don't raise nice fish, Ric, nor is anyone saying that Jay can't dip his pellets in the tears of angels if that's what he chooses to do, I was simply attempting to point out in my original comment why when feeding the food that Jay is currently feeding his angels, supplementing with Vitachem was not going to net him any additional gains. If anyone feels otherwise, that's certainly their prerogative. Jay - my apologies for the derailment of your thread, that was not my intentions when I made my initial comment. I wish you all the best with your new fish, no matter what you feed them!

Ric, It seems that you may have misunderstood my previous comment. I am most certainly not one to question the benefits of vitamin supplementation, in fact I have probably been more outspoken on this subject than any other member of this forum since its very inception. What I said was very specific, that being the level of vitamins/minerals found in Vitachem, are but a tiny fraction of what is found in the food that Jay is already feeding. (NLS) That wasn't some kind of random generalization, I know exactly what levels of each vitamin/mineral are found in each product at post production. In the case of NLS, I even know most of the levels that come from the raw ingredients, as well as the levels that are derived from synthetic sources. The key is ensuring bioavailability to the fish, and seeing as this is largely an unknown with most species a smart manufacturer will cover all bases. I have also personally used, and recommended the use of Boyd Vitachem to many others over the years when feeding fresh/frozen as a main staple to predatory species that simply cannot be converted to dry food. Cheers.

Jay - the level of vitamins/minerals in Vitachem is but a tiny fraction of what is found in the food that you are already feeding. If you see an improvement, it won't be from using Vitachem. Congrats on your new fish.

I'm not exactly a noob, either. But hey, people are free to believe whatever they want, by whomever they want. I wasn't saying that AC's info wasn't valid, I was simply questioning as to exactly how they concluded that Edmonton water contained 1ppm free ammonia, if in fact it even was free ammonia. There's ammonia, and then there's ammonia .........

0.5-1.0 ppm is quite the spread. Imagine if someone asked you what size of tank you were selling, and you told them that it was either a 50 gallon, or a 100 gallon - you weren't sure. Honestly the best way to determine if there is an issue with "free" ammonia in ones system after performing a water change, is to test your tank water immediately after a water change, using a test kit that is designed to test for free ammonia, such as Seachem's MultiTest kit, or their little Ammonia Alert product which costs approx $10 and can be moved from tank to tank if needed. http://www.seachem.c...moniaAlert.html As previously stated: I believe that API's ammonia test kit for freshwater/marine is salicylate based, and the plain freshwater kit is Nessler based. One can determine free ammonia if read immediately from the former, the latter will only read as total ammonia, if one is using reducing agents or ammonia binding agents. This would include Seachem Prime, Seachem Safe, Cloram-X, etc. It would NOT include any water conditioners that are based on sodium thiosulfate, as they will not reduce or bind free ammonia, even if they state that they will remove chloramine. They will not - at best all they will do is break the chlorine/ammonia bond, leaving you with a small ammonia spike after each water change. It's easy to blame the tap water, if you're using a product that was not designed to reduce free ammonia, and your tap water contains ammonia. In other words, if your API test kit is Nessler based, then your readings are for total ammonia (NH3 + NH4), not free ammonia. (NH3) If it is Salicylate based, for free ammonia you must take the reading immediately after mixing. Obviously this will also be affected by not only the type of water conditioner that one uses, but also how much one uses. In Edmonton, you should be treating for 2 mg/l chloramine, which should result in reducing any/all free ammonia that is present in your tap water. HTH

I believe that API's ammonia test kit for freshwater/marine is salicylate based, and the plain freshwater kit is Nessler based. One can determine free ammonia if read immediately from the former, the latter will only read as total ammonia. Either way, I would highly recommend that anyone that is concerned about ammonia levels in their tap water to test their own water with a kit that is specifically made to test for free ammonia, such as Seachem's MultiTest kit, or invest $10 in one of Seachem's Ammonia Alerts.

I never said that they wouldn't use a Seachem MultiTest kit. That doesn't mean that their test results are fool-proof. The sensors must be handled, and read, in a certain manner, and they are only good for approx 12 months. FYI - the exact same sensors used in the MultiTest kit, are used in Seachem's Ammonia Alert - so it's easy enough for anyone that's overly concerned to check their own tap water, or tank water after using Prime, Safe, etc. http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/AmmoniaAlert.html I doubt that EPCOR is going to show free ammonia levels for last week, or any week within this month so there's probably no point in looking. In a water treatment system such as EPCOR's, where mono-chloramine is utilized as the preferred disinfectant, the mix & ratio of chlorine to ammonia is not only very critical, it is monitored 24/7 365 days of the year. In a system using chloramine, free ammonia should always be near zero, ideally below .05 mg/l. In todays modern facilities I personally cannot imagine that 1.0 NH3 would be found at the consumers end. In all my years of dealing with chloramine systems here in AB I have never once experienced such a thing, nor heard of such a thing taking place. For those that are interested in understanding the chloramine process further, including the chlorine to ammonia nitrogen ratio, the following paper that was presented at the Western Canada Water and Wastewater Association in Edmonton, 2007, explains it far better than I ever could. http://www.appliedspectrometry.com/pubpdfs/188%20Edmonton%20Paper.pdf HTH

Jay - the only amount of disinfectant that truly matters, is the level that leaves the plant and ultimately flows out of ones tap, which in RD is on average 2 mg/l chloramine. That level of chloramine coming out of the tap doesn't go up & down due to seasonal fluctuations in turbidity, so there is never any need to increase ones level of water conditioner. What most consumers are actually smelling in the spring is the reaction between organics, and chlorine - not an increase in chlorine. From the City of RD website. Back in the day, when RD was treating the water with chlorine as the main disinfectant, different story. Chlorine levels went sky high in the spring, and during times of heavy rain, and the tap water looked like monkey piss - no way could it be used for drinking water, I could barely stand having a shower in it. But that was 20-30 yrs ago, long before any of the current upgrades took place at our water treatment facility. As far as Edmonton tap water ........... From the EPCOR link previously posted; HTH