Betta Fish Care  
Go Back   Betta Fish and Betta Fish Care > Betta Fish Diseases and Emergencies
Check out the eBook Betta Fish Care Made Easy
betta fish
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-22-2014, 06:50 PM   #501 
Bikeridinguckgirl14
Member
 
Bikeridinguckgirl14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Either Philadelphia or Pittsburg pa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiara1125 View Post
A LOT of bettas in my local Meijer and Walmart are looking like this. They tend to get tumors afterwards. I don't believe it's graphite disease, but I've never bought a betta that was "infected" to observe it. Please watch him closely and update!
It's my aunts fish that she had for a year, last time I saw him at Christmas he didn't have it
Bikeridinguckgirl14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 07:16 PM   #502 
daniella3d
Member
 
daniella3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Ok, I came upon this article and I am a bit skeptical. Can a simple UV sterilizer help cure this disease???? What do you think?

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...BlXM1lMVWjyP1g
daniella3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 05:00 AM   #503 
TheBlur
Member
 
TheBlur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Southern California
Hey guys, this isn't my fish but a fellow poster on here was asking about their fish's tail... does this look like graphite disease to you? I sure hope not...


http://www.bettafish.com/showthread.php?t=400682
TheBlur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 10:53 AM   #504 
LittleBlueFishlets
Member
 
LittleBlueFishlets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Hi Daniella,

I just wrote a long post, which BF then promptly ate.... *Sigh*

UV light is effective at inactivating many types of bacteria, including some species of Mycobacterium. (A few types of Myco, such as M. avium, are more resistant to UV light.)

The UV sterilizer that she's using is meant to inactivate bacteria in the water. This will reduce the number of Mycobacterium spp, especially since Myco is a slower-growing type of bacteria. However, UV sterilizers are relatively expensive, so most people won't invest in them.

Also, it won't "cure" infected fish, since the infection is often internal. (Myco often infects the internal organs. Granulomas are often seen on the organs during necropsy.) So the UV light may help reduce the concentration of Myco in the water, which can slow down the rate of infection in healthy (uninfected) fish. But it won't inactive the internal bacteria already inside an infected fish.

Here are some good articles:

Inactivation of Mycobacterium avium Complex by UV Irradiation - Has some graphs showing the concentration of M. avium at different UV dosages. As the UV dosage increases, the concentration of M. avium declines.

Efficacy of Ultraviolet Irradiation in Controlling the Spread of Tuberculosis - This study was done at a hospital. When UVGI was used, there was an 83-98% reduction in the amount of some species of Myco. However, effectiveness was related to the relative humidity of the air. At higher humidity levels, UV was less effective.

(Dear BF: please don't eat my post again! This one is a lot shorter, so maybe you'll be happier with it.)

P.S. Thank you for posting a link to that article. I hadn't read it before!

Last edited by LittleBlueFishlets; 05-23-2014 at 10:55 AM.
LittleBlueFishlets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 04:45 PM   #505 
daniella3d
Member
 
daniella3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Yes I know, but did you read the article? She or he claim that the UV cured the disease even in the infected fish. That's why I said I am skeptical about it. How can it cure something internal?

Seem that it was really the mycobacterium as it was identified in her fish, but then how can infected fish regain health because of a UV? She claims that the UV helped take care of other pathogen in the tank so the fish could have enough immunity to actualy fight the mycobacter, or something like that.

Do you beleive it could be true?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBlueFishlets View Post
Hi Daniella,

I just wrote a long post, which BF then promptly ate.... *Sigh*

UV light is effective at inactivating many types of bacteria, including some species of Mycobacterium. (A few types of Myco, such as M. avium, are more resistant to UV light.)

The UV sterilizer that she's using is meant to inactivate bacteria in the water. This will reduce the number of Mycobacterium spp, especially since Myco is a slower-growing type of bacteria. However, UV sterilizers are relatively expensive, so most people won't invest in them.

Also, it won't "cure" infected fish, since the infection is often internal. (Myco often infects the internal organs. Granulomas are often seen on the organs during necropsy.) So the UV light may help reduce the concentration of Myco in the water, which can slow down the rate of infection in healthy (uninfected) fish. But it won't inactive the internal bacteria already inside an infected fish.

Here are some good articles:

Inactivation of Mycobacterium avium Complex by UV Irradiation - Has some graphs showing the concentration of M. avium at different UV dosages. As the UV dosage increases, the concentration of M. avium declines.

Efficacy of Ultraviolet Irradiation in Controlling the Spread of Tuberculosis - This study was done at a hospital. When UVGI was used, there was an 83-98% reduction in the amount of some species of Myco. However, effectiveness was related to the relative humidity of the air. At higher humidity levels, UV was less effective.

(Dear BF: please don't eat my post again! This one is a lot shorter, so maybe you'll be happier with it.)

P.S. Thank you for posting a link to that article. I hadn't read it before!
daniella3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 10:52 PM   #506 
LittleBlueFishlets
Member
 
LittleBlueFishlets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Yes, I read the article....

No, I don't believe that the UV light "cured" the Myco-infected fish. I also didn't see anyplace that she made this claim, either.... Can you point out the specific location(s) where she claims that UV light cures an infected fish?

My interpretation is that she believes the UV light:
a) killed the Myco so her uninfected fish remained uninfected, and
b) killed off other pathogens, thereby preventing a secondary infection. And since there was no secondary infection, the fish's immune system was able to control the Myco - allowing it to remain healthy (at least for a longer than it would have been otherwise).

IMO, this is kind of like HIV leading to AIDS. It's often not the AIDS that kills the patient, it's a secondary disease that sets in when the body's immune system starts to fail. If the patient is able to avoid a secondary infection, he/she will live longer. And if the patient manages the condition, say by taking the appropriate medications, he/she will live longer too.... But the HIV infection doesn't go away. It's just that the patient lives longer, or is healthier for a longer period of time.

Myco causes a wasting disease. It gradually spreads throughout the internal organs. As the immune system fights it, the fish becomes prone to secondary infection. So if you can kill off the other pathogens, you may be able to keep the fish from getting sick with something else (and then dying as a result). But there is no way to "cure" the Myco. All you can do is minimize stressors (such as contact with other pathogens). If you do that, then the fish can probably live longer. But it's not "cured." It still has a Mycobacterial infection.

In the article, she writes: "My own experience suggests that mildly infected fish can control their disease to some extent." (p3) And she includes a footnote that says: "In human tuberculosis, only 10% of humans infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis ever develop TB." (p4)

By "control," I believe she means that the fish doesn't display an active infection.

But I didn't see anyplace where she says that an infected fish can cure itself. In fact, she says: "There is no cure for MB and none on the horizon. Quarantining and good fish husbandry (Table 4) are probably more effective than trying to eradicate EM, which are part of any fish’s normal environment."

She writes that she "manages" the disease. To me, this is far different from "curing" it. In the closing photo, she shows a tank that had a Myco outbreak, and writes: "All survived the 2005 MB outbreak, but some seem to have a shortened lifespan. In 2010, I euthanized two fish that had developed hunchbacks or become emaciated. Many fish that were born shortly after the 2004 outbreak continue to do well as of 2013."

So again, there is no mention of curing it, only of managing it.

I do feel it's an excellent article. I'm surprised it didn't come up in my internet searches. So thank you again for posting the link

Last edited by LittleBlueFishlets; 05-23-2014 at 10:56 PM.
LittleBlueFishlets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 11:36 PM   #507 
daniella3d
Member
 
daniella3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Yes you are right about everything. I had misunderstood the meaning of managing the disease. What was surprising to me is that she was only using a 8 watt UV, so I guess that with bacterias, even such bacteria with waxy body, a UV is really effective in killing it and preventing it from contaminating other fish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBlueFishlets View Post
Yes, I read the article....

No, I don't believe that the UV light "cured" the Myco-infected fish. I also didn't see anyplace that she made this claim, either.... Can you point out the specific location(s) where she claims that UV light cures an infected fish?

My interpretation is that she believes the UV light:
a) killed the Myco so her uninfected fish remained uninfected, and
b) killed off other pathogens, thereby preventing a secondary infection. And since there was no secondary infection, the fish's immune system was able to control the Myco - allowing it to remain healthy (at least for a longer than it would have been otherwise).
daniella3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 11:59 PM   #508 
LittleBlueFishlets
Member
 
LittleBlueFishlets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
It's more important that the light be the correct wavelength (frequency).

Shorter wavelength (higher frequency) light, such as UV light, has a high amount of energy. This is true even when the intensity (amplitude) of the light is low.

So UV light even when dim, has a higher amount of energy than much brighter long wavelength light (such as red or infrared light).

(This is an aspect of the photoelectric effect, which was determined by Albert Einstein and Max Planck. Interestingly, Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and not his better know Theory of Relativity.... But I digress.... )
LittleBlueFishlets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2014, 06:13 AM   #509 
daniella3d
Member
 
daniella3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
At some point I just thought that UV sterilizer were a gimmink and not really efficient but now that I see this article, I see it could be really helpfull especially in a drip system like mine where I have 20 fish connected.

I installed a 55 watt UV last week and it will stay there 24/7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBlueFishlets View Post
It's more important that the light be the correct wavelength (frequency).

Shorter wavelength (higher frequency) light, such as UV light, has a high amount of energy. This is true even when the intensity (amplitude) of the light is low.

So UV light even when dim, has a higher amount of energy than much brighter long wavelength light (such as red or infrared light).

(This is an aspect of the photoelectric effect, which was determined by Albert Einstein and Max Planck. Interestingly, Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and not his better know Theory of Relativity.... But I digress.... )
daniella3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 05:07 PM   #510 
kphillips0899
Member
 
kphillips0899's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
will be getting this asap. Better safe than sorry when dealing with lives :)

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/fish-s...ps/c/3578/4393
kphillips0899 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Signs of boredum? yumekon Betta Fish Care 15 12-01-2011 05:59 PM
Betta not eating, but no visible signs of disease JorgeBurrito Betta Fish Diseases and Emergencies 6 09-05-2010 05:26 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.