Your idea sounds intriguing. I assume when you say Fish TB, you mean
Mycobacteria marinum.
That's because it would be almost impossible to regulate ordinary
Mycobacteria (that is, species of Mycobacteria other than M. marinum).
However, M. marinum is a whole different ballgame. I'm surprised
that some of the people that have been infected (especially those
that have lost fingers, etc) haven't taken legal action.
There are several genetic tests (PCR, etc) that can reliably
differentiate M. marinum from ordinary Mycobacteria. It seems
reasonable to screen breeders and aquarium stores for Mycobacteria
marinum.
Selling fish infected with M. marinum endangers public health; its a
situation that begs for government regulation.
Just my two cents.
Diana
--- In r_m_l at yahoogroups.com, "Harro Hieronimus"
<harro.hieronimus at t...> wrote:
> A realistic scenario here in Germany is that mycobacteriosis could
be
> made a disease which has to be announced officially. At present
only one
> disease must be announced, a virus induced spring disease in carps.
The
> next one will be KHV (Koi herpes virus) maybe this or next year. If
you
> have to announce fish tb, too, all fish will have to come into
> quarantine until they are tb free or have to be euthanized. That
would
> be the end of normal aquarism and most of all be disastrous for East
> Asian and other breeders which have a tb contamination close to 100
%.
> And of course for the shop keepers which have to close their
aquarium
> department until all fish are tb free.
>
>
>
> Regards Harro
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: r_m_l at yahoogroups.com [r_m_l at yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von
> Tom Ray
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2005 19:28
> An: r_m_l at yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [RML] Re: Mycobacteriosis/stress/antibiotics
>
>
>
> 2 thots:
>
> 1) Resistant bacteria strains has been one of my historical concerns
> about treating any fish with antiboitics.
> a) However, I am hearing and reading from a number of "importers"
> (into aquaria) of wild-caught fish (anabantids, cichlids, etc.)
about
> their use of various "pre-introduction" treatment protocols, some of
> which include the use of antibiotics.
> b) From my college lab days (over 20 years ago), I think that I
> recall we had a "pre-introduction" quarantine, assay (or battery of
> testing) and potential treatment(s) protocol for all newly arrived
lab
> animals. I've also heard of humane societies and animal control
> shelters having a similar "pre-introduction" routine for determining
> whether to even try and keep the animal in lieu of euthanasia (sp?)
> (more than the 24-48 hrs. needed to evaluate their overall health).
>
> 2) As a point of clarification, I was not suggesting any general use
> of antibioitics in any general aquaria (display, keeping, etc.).
> Rather, I was suggesting adopting (or adapting) something along the
> lines of the lab quarantine/test/treat routine for the home
collector/
> hobbiest since one cannot be sure of the purity of their source(s).
I
> was reasoning that such treatment could be an appropriate additional
> profilactic measure against the 1st two of Diana's 4 factors
> influenceing Mycobacteriosis.
>
> Nevertheless, I concede that such local (home) containment
strategies
> should likely still lead to resistant Mycobacteria strains, and thus
> could still be ineffective because of others' general application/
> (mis)use of antibiotics. So a "big issue" question remains, "What
> will happen to the hobby when virulent and resistant Mycobacteria
> strains escape back out of the local environment and into the trade
> channels / environment without regard to application (use or misuse)
> of antibiotics?"
>
> Diana raises an interesting possible outcome from citing the example
> of the guppy. Species adaptation/adapability may be a key (and the
> 5th) factor (not listed).
>
> Practically speaking, hobbyists will become (and probably already
are)
> another attack vector, and a largely unmitigated one at that. So
> again, the question arises as to how does the hobbiest protect their
> local tanks and fish against such unreliable (or potential attack)
> sources? The answer I think that I hear we are driving towards is
> "egg sale/ trade/ exchange only."
>
> Taking it to the "worst case" end for fish sale/ trade/ exchange
> practice (and thus logically abandoning the practical), instead of
> species preservationists we may be (or become) the drivers of
species
> adaptation and/or even extinction. And, again, the only answer
that I
> think I am hearing will preclude either of these two unquantifiable
> and perhaps unqualifiable negative outcomes (aka "risk impacts") is
> "egg sale/ trade/ exchange only," eh? It maybe overkill, but it
will
> reduce the risk exposure (likelihood, accessibility and severity).
>
> --TommyBoy
>
> --- In r_m_l at yahoogroups.com, "Harro Hieronimus"
> <harro.hieronimus at t...> wrote:
> > To say it clearly and support your view: Never – NEVER use
antibiotics
> > in aquaria. The only thing is that you create resistant stocks and
> that
> > fish tb may become a real serious thread.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards Harro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: r_m_l at yahoogroups.com [r_m_l at yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag
> von
> > blueredorganic
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 17:30
> > An: r_m_l at yahoogroups.com
> > Betreff: [RML] Mycobacteriosis/stress/antibiotics
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Tom,
> >
> > Sorry, I wish a 10 day treatment with antibiotics would rid
> > Rainbowfish of Mycobacteria marinum. If so, believe me, we would
> > have heard about it by now! I was only speculating that it might
> > reduce the total number of Mycobacteria in the tank, the ones
that
> > could re-infect the fish. Its might control total numbers of
> > pathogen; it won't eradicate them.
> >
> > I wouldn't put much stock in any antibiotics. Antibiotics won't
kill
> > the bacteria that's already holed up in the fish's organs and
> > tissues. Mycobacteria marinum (like the Mycobacteria that cause
lung
> > tuberculosis) hide from the immune system within the macrophages
> > themselves, plus they have a waxy coating that makes them very
> > resistant to all chemical treatments. That's why hobbyists that
get
> > the M. marinum disease (still a relatively rare occurence) have
to be
> > treated with powerful antibiotic combinations for many months.
> >
> > One correction to yesterday's letter. The scientific reference
for
> > M. marinum disease spreading from aquaculture fish to wild fish
in
> > Red Sea was: Diamant A et al. 2000. Mycobacteriosis in wild
> > rabbitfish Siganus rivulatus associated with cage farmng in the
Gulf
> > of Eilat, Red Sea. Diseases Aquatic Organ 39: 211-219.
> >
> > Stress (from whatever factor) always increases the likelihood of
> > disease. The factors influenceing Mycobacteriosis (infections
from
> > M. marinum) in Rainbowfish are:
> >
> > 1. Introduction of a virulent pathogen (e.g., M. marinum) into
the
> > tank
> > 2. Numbers of the pathogen
> > 3. Stressed fish
> > 4. Strength of the fish's immunune system
> >
> >
> > Rainbowfish (unlike guppies) haven't been in the hobby long
enough to
> > develop (genitically speaking) much immunity to a powerful
pathogen
> > like M. marinumn.
> >
> > I started keeping Rainbowfish in 1987. Those first fish (in
heavily
> > planted tank) went through two years with no filtration. They
did
> > fine through hot summers and many months without water changes
and 90
> > ppm nitrate levels (Hey, it was a dry summer and my well kept
going
> > dry). The fish thrived and there were no deaths (except a couple
> > jumping out of tank).
> >
> > It is only now since the apparent introduction of a virulent
pathogen
> > (most likely M. marinum in April 2004) that all my lovely fish
are
> > on "life support".
> >
> > I hope that my sad experience will warn others to be very careful
in
> > purchasing Rainbowfish.
> >
> > Unless you're buying from a seller that can guarantee the fish
don't
> > carry M. marinum, my advice would be to buy eggs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >