PlanetCatfish.com

Hey that wasn't hate mail...

...I merely expressed the fact that I disagree with the use of ANY antibiotic for the treatment of a fish. And a willingness to discuss the reasons why OFF FORUM, in PM. If you would like, I could post my reasoning here.

Sincerely,
Paul E. Turley

hi,

It's been a long time since I've used anything but salt or heat for fish, or methylene blue for eggs... That said... If there is a drug that can be used to treat a fish reasonably, I'm all for using it. Proper use of drugs can be quite effective in stopping illnesses, and I don't think any should be bad-mouthed. I'm stongly against the popular broad range, stab in the dark at something that's not necessarily there method many exporters use, as it doesn't do any good in most cases, and in many cases either weakens the fish or causes the treatment resistant strains that you speak of. Responsible treatment by intelligent persons can be quite safe, in my opinion. Granted, of course, I'm neither a pharmacologist, a microbiologist, or a an organic chemist... But till we can pull one in I'd say my opinion matters as much as any other ;)

Rob, sorry to hear about your fish...

S. Allen & others, a few recent PM thoughts (from me between Barbie and I) on the use of Antibiotics in an aquarium.

Simple fact of the matter is that there is NO PROPER dosing for a aquarium, or for aquarium fish! Labeled dosage on the packaging is not supported by scientific testing to determine residual bacterial activity in the tank. NOTE: There is NO REGULATORY body that governs, (restricts, recommends, tests, requires specific validation protocols/standards for, etc., etc., etc.) the use of antibiotics in Aquarium fish.

TWO: By having no means of constantly regulating the dosing of the antibiotic in the water, by having no way of measuring it's rate of degradation or metabolism by organisms in the aquarium, you are exposing the bacteria in the aquarium to ever decreasing dosing of the antimicrobial agent. This is exactly how a resistant strain is developed in the lab... A large dose at first to weed out the susceptible, then a sustained exposure over time to continue to act as a selective pressure.

AND; Antibiotics that show a primary effectiveness against one type of bacteria (IE: Gram negative bacillus, and not coccus) can and do act as selective pressures in the Cocci-type bacteria (or spirochetes, or gram positive, or... ... OK, well you get my drift.). Then, given that bacterial conjugation (passing plasmid DNA between cells)of resistance factors is not a type specific activity and occurs between broadly differing strains and types of bacteria, YES, you are building a better bug by the use of antibiotics in aquarium fish.

Don't waste the most effective resource have is fighting HUMAN infections for a FISH! As aquarists, it really is NEVER justified.

My backround is a follows: BS in Biology, emphasis on Molecular Biology, I spent two years working in a Molecular Bio. lab using recombinant DNA techniques, including using certain types of Antibiotic resistance as a clonal selective agent. (Typically spliced in, but occasionally cultured in.) It is an amazingly simple thing to accomplish. Keep in mind, you are dealing with organisms with a generational time of often less than 1 hour! Adaptation to a selective pressure can and does occur very rapidly!

Sincerely,
Paul E. Turley

This is all true, but given that we are awash in antibiotics in everything from the food we eat to the soap we wash our hands with, not using antibiotics on aquarium fish is more of a personal statement than a practical means of reducing bacterial antibiotic resistance.

That's not of course to put down the statement.

Dinyar

pturley wrote:
Don't waste the most effective resource have is fighting HUMAN infections for a FISH! As aquarists, it really is NEVER justified.

pturley wrote:
My backround is a follows: BS in Biology, emphasis on Molecular Biology, I spent two years working in a Molecular Bio. lab using recombinant DNA techniques, including using certain types of Antibiotic resistance as a clonal selective agent. (Typically spliced in, but occasionally cultured in.) It is an amazingly simple thing to accomplish. Keep in mind, you are dealing with organisms with a generational time of often less than 1 hour! Adaptation to a selective pressure can and does occur very rapidly!

Sincerely,
Paul E. Turley


Typical scientist full of trivia, and with terrible grammar.

Paul E. Turley wrote:
the most effective resource we have

Firstly, people such as you amaze me. Why is it ok to use broadspectrum antibiotics on humans, and not on 'fish'? Are fish not worthy of science? Surely a person such as you is more dangerous when "YOU" tinker with "LIFE" both culturing and splice. The simple fact is more lethal strains of bacteria are created in Laboratories and sterile environments via genetic manipulation then those occurring in nature. Your converse argument will be that "no, in the natural environment there are more sources of lethal bacteria". That argument fails every time, due to the simple fact that exposure creates resistance. Now the majority of humans are not exposed to the types created in laboratories and hospitals, both are wonderful sources of "SUPERBUGS" which is probably what you are trying to hint at.

You wouldn't be suggesting that someone may actually be trying to create a "SUPERBUG" in the aquarium, a closed environment. I would have thought your training and knowledge would actually have made you aware of using such means.

To be honest, people don't care for snide remarks and arguments. They care for factual information; not doing anything is the easy way out. The idea was to save Dr Zebsâ?? catfish, not tell us why he shouldn't try and save it. The use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in non-sterile environments doesn't create "SUPERBUGS"; unfortunately people do; in their own little "sterile laboratory environments".

I am sorry sir, but your argument is flawed.

In fact with your industry knowledge, perhaps you can suggest something that would in fact help heal the catfish in question.

Doctor Zeb:

Good luck Dr Zeb, I hope you find a cure to your fishâ??s illness.

MC wrote:Typical scientist full of trivia, and with terrible grammar.

Typical cichlid keeper; over aggressive, anti-authority response to controversial post by someone who doesnâ??t share your point of view. Just put that in to get your attention and (hopefully) to demonstrate the point that we really donâ??t need crass stereotyping in this forum.

Anyway, this is an interesting topic no? Iâ??ve come to this a bit late but is the argument basically:

We shouldn't use antibiotics because we can't effectively administer them in aquaria Vs we should do everything we can for fish in our care.

I'll move this off to another topic so we can debate it properly (without further mud slinging please) and so that the poor L. triactis that unwittingly started the discussion can better receive advice.



Jools

P.S. MC, you wouldn't mind putting your location in your profile would you? Even just what state would do.

Well

My delightfully dissolving L091 has just had the full works, including an injection of Antibiotics. The fish was examined, with it's weight calculated, and the correct dose adminstered by a professional.

This in my mind shows that there are restrictions of use in place, and appropriate guidelines to monitor this usage. Whilst improper usage of such drugs can create resistant strains of bacteria, when used correctly they can save a great deal of time, fatalities and surely the spread of such unwanted bacterial infections throughout aquariums.

Surely the biggest arguement should be how the use of such drugs is monitored and regulated, and not whether they should be used. The deciding factor should be by whom and against what criteria are the fish treated.

As I have just found out, there are regulatory bodies such as http://www.fishvet.co.uk who's primary goal is to investigate and audit fish well being in both commercial and domestic sectors. If an industrial style "fish manufacturer" must satisfy these requirements to produce Trout for Safeway, then surely mass importers of aquatic life should be subjected to the same stringent guidelines.

just my ence worth.

rob

When you administer Antibiotics to a person, you are not administering them to the environment but directly to the affected person. When you add antibiotics to the water column, you are exposing the entire bacterial population to the substance. A population, whether target organism (potential causal agent) or not, can develop resistance factors to the antibiotic. This resistance factor can then be spread through bacterial conjugation to any number of other types of bacteria (again, causal agents or not).

Rob,
The concern over antibiotic resistant bacteria isn't out of concern for fish, but that the resistance factor could then be present in human pathogens.
Cases in point; Many cases of tuberculosus in humans (caused by Mycobacterium bacteria, forgot the spelling on the species name) no longer respond to Tetracyclene. Mycobacterium murinum is quite common in aquariums as is the administration of Tetracyclene.
Staphylcoccus aureus, the causative agent in many ear infections no longer responds to Ampicillin, if fact Amp resistance is considered nearly ubiquitous in Staph. bacteria.

BTW: A laboratory cell culture is a CLOSED/controlled environment, an aquarium is not. When I worked in the lab, it wasn't standard procedure to reach my arm into a bacterial culture up to my elbows while drinking a beer. This happens quite often in my fishroom however. MC, get a clue.

Dinyar, we are not "awash" is antibiotics, yes we are exposed to low levels from foods, because the food industry routinely administers (injectables, BTW) to livestock. The soaps and such that have been so popular are anti-microbials (IE: Iodine compounds, Isopropyl alcohol, quaternary ammonia, etc.) and not antibiotics.

Sincerely,
Paul E. Turley

Paul,

Given a fish in a quarantine tank, can it be treated and returned to the main aquarium and the quarantine stipped in such as way as to avoid bacterial transfer? That is, if course, if I have understood correctly that this be the issue. Or, is what we do with our waste water the issue or sticking our hands into the quarantine tank or just the fact that treated fish are moved from aquaria to aquaria and are in contact with other fish in water?

Jools

Ok I think I've got you. SO the arguement is not for the administering or reasoning behind the treatment, but the fact that the resistant bacteria in the WATER can then become a populated culture outside the aquarium environment. i.e. the fish is cured, I empty the tank contents down the toilet, and the resitant bacteria are then in contact with the environment.

Jools said

can it be treated and returned to the main aquarium and the quarantine stipped in such as way as to avoid bacterial transfer

.

Good question, and on the same lines, can the antibiotic be transfered to the fish's surrounding environment via osmosis, or active transpot, if injected.


rob

Jools,
It's the fact that bacteria of many types and species are ubiquitous in the aquarium and by adding antibiotics to the water column, you are exposing vast populations of bacteria to the antibiotic. In the injectable or ingested form, this exposure is much more limited.
Those that survive this are most likely those that already possess some level of resistance. From there, it is simply a matter of Darwinian selection, those that show the highest resistance are most likely to thrive. This resistance factor is then passed to (common, ubiquitous) potentially pathogenic organisms.

I once (several year's ago) read an editorial from a pharmacologist that was theorizing that it could be hypothetically possible to calculate the approximate number of doses of any given that would be reasonably effective in curing an infection. Allot of the article was strictly theory, however, it made allot of sense. The gist of it is; worldwide, we only have a limited number of doses of a given compound until the bacterial population have adapted to its use. Inappropriate dosing further reduces this number.


Sincerely,
Paul E. Turley

Rob,
To answer your question:

Good question, and on the same lines, can the antibiotic be transfered to the fish's surrounding environment via osmosis, or active transpot, if injected.

Yes it is possible, however the amount of exposure (population of bacteria affected) is significantly limited. To the best of my knowledge, injectable antibiotics given in that form are the only form of antibiotic treatment that have be studied for safety (both of the fish and general public) and efficacy in fishes (driven by the aquacultural industry.)

Sincerely,
Paul E. Turley

pturley wrote:Dinyar, we are not "awash" is antibiotics, yes we are exposed to low levels from foods, because the food industry routinely administers (injectables, BTW) to livestock. The soaps and such that have been so popular are anti-microbials (IE: Iodine compounds, Isopropyl alcohol, quaternary ammonia, etc.) and not antibiotics.

Paul,

I basically agree with your point and was just trying to put it in perspective. Antibiotics ARE widely used in modern society. For example, it is not only injected into livestock but also included in their feed. This happens not for medical reasons but for purely commercial ones, ie, livestock grow faster and put on more weight when routinely dosed with antibiotics. And politicians don't want to piss off agribusiness. Aquarium use has got to be a vanishingly small contributor to the problem of antibiotic resistance.

Personally, I don't use antibiotics on aquarium fish because IME, they don't really help. Except for perhaps a very few narrow applications, there are better ways to address bacterial fish health problems.

I will hold my peace on this subject hereafter.

Dinyar

Dinyar wrote:

Personally, I don't use antibiotics on aquarium fish because IME, they don't really help. Except for perhaps a very few narrow applications, there are better ways to address bacterial fish health problems.

I couldn't agree more. That is actually the other side of my arguements against their use as additives to the water (As they are typically packaged). The fish aren't even likely to take it in, so how exactly would it work? Not saying some don't, just at what cost and how effectively? Injectables are an entirely different matter. however I still don't think it's justified for the life of a fish. That's my opion, I am sure there are many differing one's out there.
And you hit the nail on the head regarding Agribusiness' influence (At least in the U.S. anyways). Many microbiologists attribute a great deal of the the widespread prevalence of Ampacillin resistance to years of it's use (overuse) in livestock. It used to be Ampacillin was the drug of choice for ear infections, it doesn't work anymore in Minnesota or Cleveland. Doctors have to prescribe Zithromax right out of the gate.
I don't know of any widely available antibiotic currently on the market that is safe in infants beyond this. Unless the pharmaceutical industry pulls another trick out of the bag, we may well be at the last line of defense in treating childhood ear infections.

As far as the contribution of Aquarists in Antibiotic resistance, I don't know. I haven't heard of any cases directly attributed to this. However, I do know that the conditions we are creating by adding antibiotics in solution to our aquariums is nearly identical to the Lab protocols for creating resistance intentionally! Only in the lab we started from a monoculture, not a mixed soup of bacterial types. This mixed species bag is actually MORE resilient and more likely to express a resistance factor than a monoculture!

Sincerely,
Paul E. Turley

I agree with Dinyar too... like I mentioned, I haven't used them in forever cause salt and massive water changes are my answer to most problems, but... I don't think it's fair to jump on someone for it. If I thought injectable antibiotics would save one of my stingrays when other options would not... I'd do it though...


So paul, what do you think about antibiotics for dogs?

Ok, I now have my clue. It took a while but I got one.

Arguments aside, here is some interesting reading for anyone of interest.

http://catfishnews.com/news/vaccine.htm
http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/fhb/workshops/24/34.htm
http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/fhb/workshops/23/2310.htm
http://www.aquaworldnet.com/dbws/bacterial.htm

Even if Aquarists shouldn't be using BSA in personal aquaria, they will be and are used in commercial fish farms.

So where do we stand?

MC wrote:Even if Aquarists shouldn't be using BSA in personal aquaria, they will be and are used in commercial fish farms.

Commercial fish farms are (or should be) monitored by people who are knowledgeable in aquariculture and fish health care. They are also someone's livelihood, and fish are often maintained (for commercial reasons) in densities that make the possibility of infection and epidemic far greater, hence the acceptability of the use of antibiotics under controlled conditions.
Antibiotics are simply not available to the hobbyist in the UK, and that's the way it should stay. They should stay in the hands of professionals, and to just add an off-the-shelf antibiotic without actually finding out the causative organism is not good aquarium practice, and may well delay correct treatment.
If you buy a fish from an aquarium store that requires treatment then you should perhaps consider whether you should be making impulse purchases in this way, and if you purchase a healthy fish that subsequently develops a bacterial condition you should be looking at your husbandry standards and identifying where the real problem is.
Pete

Coelacanth

If you buy a fish from an aquarium store that requires treatment then you should perhaps consider whether you should be making impulse purchases in this way, and if you purchase a healthy fish that subsequently develops a bacterial condition you should be looking at your husbandry standards and identifying where the real problem is.

I don't necessarily agree with you there. it can often be the case that when a fish is bought from a store there is no evidence of ill health or bacterial infection. When a fish is removed from the wild they usually carry numerous bacteria that can under certain conditions become harmful. When the fish is first captured, it's immunity will be at it's highest, and can therefore cope with initial captivity( in most cases), and transportation, and acclimatisation to the aquatic store. However, when the fish is then moved again to the home aquarium, it must go this stress once again. The chances are the fish's immunity will not be at the optimum level that it was at when it was first captured, and can therefore not fight the bacteria that would under normal circumstances not lead to ill health.

You cannot therefore say that if a fish subsequently "shows" signs of a bacterial infection, that it is an "impulse buy" or that it is purely down to the individuals husbandry!

An indivudual can research a species to ensure it's suitability, and place the seemingly healthy fish in an appropriate environment (as appropriate as a glass box can be), and still be susseptible to bacterial infections!

rob

doctorzeb wrote:I don't necessarily agree with you there.

Having read more thoroughly your post about the treatment used on your fish, then those are exactly the circumstances where I personally consider antibiotics to have been used responsibly and correctly. I don't have any objections against them being used for non-human animals, as long as they are used properly (it's some humans that I don't think deserve them...). My objections are largely against the 'shotgun' approach using antibiotics added directly to the water.
I'm not sure I agree with that suggestion that the immune system of fish will be working at optimum when first captured though. This will all depend on the time of year, the age of the fish, the point in the reproductive cycle, the method of capture etc. etc.
An adult Apisto, for example, captured following it's third period of brood care, will certainly not have an optimal immune system, nor will an adult male Loricariichthys after it's been carrying eggs around for two months, nor will a fish captured during the dry season which may be the only time that collectors are actually able to get this species.
But yes, there will certainly always be fish that in spite of our best efforts are determined to give us something to worry about, and I'm very sorry about the loss of yours. By bringing in a professional you demonstrated the level of care you are prepared to give your fish.
Pete

Hi coelacanth

I see your point, I think I could have worded what I was trying to say better. Basically, by the time a fish is placed in a private aquarium, it's immunity will. (or can be), lower than when it was first taken fromt he wild or involved in the laborous process of transportation. I know what you mean about the "shotgun" approach though, and for that reason, I understand where you are coming from.


rob