Columnaris and GH

[kagome]

I thought you guys would find this interesting.

I was reading over Carl's article about columnaris. It emphasizes the need for GH in the aquarium for the treatment of columnaris. So, I was poking around the internet and found this article:

agresearchmag.ars.usda.gov/2015/jun/fish/

It references two studies that had to do with columnaris treatment in commercially farmed channel catfish. Essentially, it states that the USDA was conducting research on columnaris treatment protocols since this is such a destructive bacterial infection on commercial fish farms. They tested the same treatment at facilities in Mississippi and Arkansas. The treatment was really effective in Mississippi but not in Arkansas. They looked into why this was happening and the differences were the GH and dissolved organics (tannins in this case) of the water. The Mississippi facility has really soft water with tannins and the Arkansas facility has really hard water with no tannins. So they ran the Arkansas water through a deionization unit. They then got the same results that the Mississippi facility had.

Here's the abstract from the studies:

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848614005079

I tried to find the full study but could only dig up the abstract, which was super annoying.

Basically, they're saying that if you remove the GH then the bacteria can't adhere to the fish as readily so it aids in preventing and treating the infection. I thought I would bring it up since this is in direct contradiction to Carl's article (not trying to be snarky, just thought it was an interesting topic of discussion).

Here's the really frustrating part of not being able to view the whole study. It says that they used an ion exchange unit. But what kind? Is it a unit that uses sodium ion exchange? Potassium?

Since the Mississippi facility has water with a lot of tannins in it, they also tried filtering out the tannins with activated carbon to see if this is what helped the columnaris treatment. They concluded it was the lack of GH, not the tannins, that helped the fish.

Also, this study mentioned, "Chowdhury and Wakabayashi determined that calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium ions all are important for long-term survival of F. columnare in water."

Again, I could only find the abstract for Chowdhury and Wakabayashi's study:

agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=BD9025377

Basically, they're saying that dissolved ions like salt, calcium and magnesium help columnaris live absent a host.

Now, I'm not in any way advocating the removal of essential electrolytes like salt, calcium and magnesium, but I still found the points pretty darn interesting. Especially since they replicated the results between the Mississippi and Arkansas facilities.

[Snapper]

Interesting study.

The water softening unit they used was "WS-10 cartridge, Pentair Residential Filtration" which looks like it uses sodium
waterpurification.pentair.com/Files/KnowledgeBase/ItemDownload/en/310082-pentek-wsseries-rev-d-my15.pdf

SNARC in Arkansas and WARU in Mississippi

Methods (Key points)
- All tests were conducted at SNARC (so the same fish were used with the same diet). Water was transported from the WARU facility.
- Experiment 1: gave high dose bacteria in regular SNARC and WARU water
- Experiment 2: lower dose bacteria in four waters: "un-altered SNARC water, ion-exchange-filtered SNARC water, un-altered WARU water, and activated-carbon-filtered WARU water."
- In both experiments, 5 separate tanks were used in each type of water, each containing 10 fingerlings in 10L aerated water. 50% WC daily
- "Treatment effects were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05"

[devonjohnsgard]

Carl and I have talked about this article.... our problem.... no details. How much?... Carl agreed there could be a problem with higher mineral amounts say above 500ppm, even more so with more sensitive fish like Catfish, but that's not the point Carl makes in his articles. The idea is to have a constant supply of the minerals. Not have a high amount. And time dosing with water changes, so the exhausted mineral is removed and the electrolyte is replenished.

[Carl]

I've read these studies some time ago, and in fact have them in my further reading section of the Columnaris article.

Here is an excerpt from my article addressing this:
"Redox balance is related to GH (although if all positively charges ions are lost from calcium and other minerals that make up GH, you can still have a higher GH of say 300 ppm and still have a poor Redox Balance).
But the point I want to make is that websites such as Wikipedia and many others are dead wrong to imply that "The bacteria can persist in water for up to 32 days when the hardness is 50 ppm or more" is a causative factor for Columnaris.

While Columnaris Bacterium certainly utilize these minerals, so do fish. So to make the strange leap of thought to state any GH over 50 can lead to Columnaris (over 400 ppm might be a problem and definitely over 500 ppm is a problem). This is simply bad science, not to mention proves a lack of practical experience on the part of authors of these articles.
The fact is 50 ppm is a very low GH, even for many soft water fish and more importantly these minerals are essential for correct osmoregulation and a supplier of essential positive electrolytes necessary for fish immunity that Redox research has proven.

It is noteworthy that a higher GH plays an important role in adhesion of Columnaris by reducing surface potential and repulsive forces (both positive and negative depending upon levels). HOWEVER the importance in mineral Cations in CORRECT AMOUNTS plays an even bigger role in osmoregulation and lowering oxidative stress which is needed by fish to repel a bacterial infection.
So for an aquarium keeper to attempt to lower minerals and positive mineral ions is misguided at best unless GH numbers are "off the chart".

What is often missed by those advocating soft water is that the soft water found naturally such as in the Amazon actually has these ESSENTIAL mineral Cations, albeit in low levels (just ask Discus authorities such as Marc Weiss).
HOWEVER often artificial soft water made from RO or DI water often lacks these mineral Cations in the amount needed to aid in fish osmoregulation and for Redox balance. Often rH tests will confirm the unhealthy numbers.
In the end, we have to remember that many pathogens such as Columnaris are often present, but it is building up the fish' immunity and lowering stressors that will be most beneficial, NOT attempting to drive out essential minerals unless truly at very high numbers."

Carl

[kagome]

The lack of details about exactly how high the GH was in the Arkansas facility drove me nuts. Are we talking a dGH of 8 or 30? Poking around, it seems like Arkansas water is just liquid rock, but I still want the actual numbers.

What were the sodium levels of the softened water? Couldn't that very well be the factor?

Also, you can filter out just the tannins with activated carbon but wouldn't the softner take out the tannins and the GH?

What if the tannins also have a beneficial effect? I know that right now they are investigating using Indian almond leaf as an alternative to antibiotics for commercial fish farms in Asia. I know Indian almond leaf has more than just tannins, like flavonoids that add antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties to the action of the tannins. But still, no one seems to be looking at the tannins in and of themselves.

On top of all that, these fish aren't being housed long term. So they're not taking into account the long-term effects of keeping fish in a zero GH environment. The high levels of sodium would lessen osmotic pressure, but eventually, the fish are going to be low on other electrolytes like calcium and magnesium.

This all left me with more questions than answers. I think there are a lot of variables that this is not taking into account.

[Carl]

Excellent points Kagome.
As well thanks for the link Snapper.

I have to admit that I missed that they were using an actual softener, I assumed it was a Pentair RO membrame.

Adding Sodium to the water will definitely change adhesion, more so the lack of GH (just take a shower in sodium softened water)
Long term this is extremely unhealthy for the fish which I have proven many times over.

I thought the article was flawed but useful, but after being made aware by Snapper that this was NOT a RO membrane, but rather part of a water softening system using Sodium I have to now say this study is EXTREMELY flawed.

From: Use of RO, DI, Softwater in Aquariums
"Softened Water; Home/Office Water Softeners Use:

Home (or office) water softeners that employ salt (either sodium chloride or potassium chloride) should NOT be used for supplying aquarium water, as these strip most important minerals all the while increasing sodium to very high and out of balance levels (sodium is only required in trace amounts for most fish). The sodium that is present continues to strip ESSENTIAL calcium and other mineral ions. Running an RO system after a home water softener will not solve the problem of these odium ions.
This can severely affect osmoregulation in fish, especially many fish such as Loaches that normally prefer more soft water.
However these same softwater fish do not prefer soft water containing an unbalanced mineral content that is high in sodium but missing other essential mineral ions, which water from a home softener would be, regardless of whether you add back minerals such as the use of a Wonder shell or not!

The use of soft water from sources that utilize sodium OR EVEN from aquarium conditioners that have sodium bases is that the sodium often drives out the essential mineral cations.
The proof is the ability to maintain a good KH, however an un-naturally low GH often results.
One such test I conducted showed a KH of 200 ppm while the GH was only 20 ppm.

A review of Aquarium Water Conditioners:
Aquarium Conditioners, Information

The result is nearly NON-existent ESSENTIAL calcium, magnesium, and other positive mineral ions.
This can have severe affects on all fish, but is an ESPECIALLY noteworthy problem in Goldfish, Livebearers, and Rift Lake Cichlids!!"

Carl

[Snapper]

Parameter                             SNARC SNARC filtered WARU WARU filtered
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 216.0 224.0 404.0 376.0
Bicarbonatea (mg/L) 264 273 493 459
Calcium (mg/L) 32.54 1.44 1.03 2.36
Chloride (mg/L) 190.46 200.44 314.16 299.03
Conductivity (uS/cm) 1022.0 1033.0 1804.0 1793.0
Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 128.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Magnesium (mg/L) 7.65 0.28 0.30 0.25
pH 8.07 8.20 8.58 8.60
Sodium (mg/L) 129.38 196.39 310.03 401.00
Sulfate (mg/L) 0.00 0.00 0.30 43.60
TOCb (mg/L) 0.18 0.06 3.38 0.00
Turbidity (NTU 's) 0.3 0.3 9.8 0.4

Unfortunately, no rH or ORP. It seems in both case the water softening process added less than 100ppm with WARU waters already high in Na. So this study still seems to have some merit based on a short term scale. How the fish would do on a long term basis would be interesting to know.

Carl when you say in your article "It is noteworthy that a higher GH plays an important role in adhesion of Columnaris by reducing surface potential and repulsive forces (both positive and negative depending upon levels)." do you mean that higher GH improves or reduces columnaris adhesion?

[Snapper]

Parameter	SNARC	SNARC filtered	WARU	WARU filtered
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)	216.0	224.0	404.0	376.0
Bicarbonatea (mg/L)	264	273	493	459
Calcium (mg/L)	32.54	1.44	1.03	2.36
Chloride (mg/L)	190.46	200.44	314.16	299.03
Conductivity (uS/cm)	1022.0	1033.0	1804.0	1793.0
Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)	128.0	4.0	6.0	8.0
Magnesium (mg/L)	7.65	0.28	0.30	0.25
pH	8.07	8.20	8.58	8.60
Sodium (mg/L)	129.38	196.39	310.03	401.00
Sulfate (mg/L)	0.00	0.00	0.30	43.60
TOCb (mg/L)	0.18	0.06	3.38	0.00
Turbidity (NTU 's)	0.3	0.3	9.8	0.4

[Carl]

Nov 30, 2018 18:31:03 GMT -5 Snapper said:

Unfortunately, no rH or ORP. It seems in both case the water softening process added less than 100ppm with WARU waters already high in Na. So this study still seems to have some merit based on a short term scale. How the fish would do on a long term basis would be interesting to know.

Carl when you say in your article "It is noteworthy that a higher GH plays an important role in adhesion of Columnaris by reducing surface potential and repulsive forces (both positive and negative depending upon levels)." do you mean that higher GH improves or reduces columnaris adhesion?

I would agree with short term, but this is why it is even more flawed than I originally thought, because soft water based on sodium ions is highly detrimental to fish (this is NOT natural soft water), and Columnaris and other opportunistic infections "prey" upon stressed fish far more than the adhesion aspect.
Prevention is very important.

As for my quote, this was poorly worded on my part and I changed it the other day after re-reading it myself

Here is my corrected statement:
"It is noteworthy that a higher GH plays an important role in adhesion of Columnaris by reducing surface potential and repulsive forces (both positive and negative depending upon levels). HOWEVER the importance in mineral Cations in CORRECT AMOUNTS plays an even bigger role in osmoregulation and lowering oxidative stress which is needed by fish to repel a bacterial infection.
So for an aquarium keeper to attempt to lower minerals and positive mineral ions is misguided at best unless GH numbers are "off the chart"."

Carl

[devonjohnsgard]

I think since the water softeners used sodium, this discredits the study. Higher salt would kill Columnaris regardless water hardness.

[Snapper]

Dec 1, 2018 12:56:23 GMT -5 devonjohnsgard said:

I think since the water softeners used sodium, this discredits the study. Higher salt would kill Columnaris regardless water hardness.

If increased Na levels killed the columnaris rather than GH then would the <70ppm increase in the SNARC water kill it (from 129ppm to 196ppm)? It makes sense in the WARU waters since it's already naturally high (310 to 40).

[Carl]

Dec 1, 2018 15:13:27 GMT -5 Snapper said:

If increased Na levels killed the columnaris rather than GH then would the <70ppm increase in the SNARC water kill it (from 129ppm to 196ppm)? It makes sense in the WARU waters since it's already naturally high (310 to 40).

I would not say that the increased sodium killed the Columnaris, it simply made adhesion difficult. Higher GH makes adhesion easier according to the study.
But there is much more to repelling Columnaris than just lowering adhesion. Mineral Cations & oxidative stress play a much bigger role.

As per salt, it does indeed kill Columnaris (if it does not kill the fish first), but we cannot compare Na to NaCl anymore than we can compare O2 to O3 (not saying anyone here is making this comparison too, just making a statement)

Carl

[kagome]

I agree that the study is flawed. Yes, they reduced the GH but also introduced more sodium. So they eliminated one variable and then added another.

I think you would need to start with distilled water and then have groups at different GH levels to prove at what point GH affected Columnaris adhesion. Pure distilled would put the fish under stress and so would not be a true test, but if you had one group at a dGH of 5, one at 7 and so on, this would yield more conclusive evidence.

[Carl]

Dec 3, 2018 16:35:15 GMT -5 kagome said:

I agree that the study is flawed. Yes, they reduced the GH but also introduced more sodium. So they eliminated one variable and then added another.

I think you would need to start with distilled water and then have groups at different GH levels to prove at what point GH affected Columnaris adhesion. Pure distilled would put the fish under stress and so would not be a true test, but if you had one group at a dGH of 5, one at 7 and so on, this would yield more conclusive evidence.

EXACTLY! Well stated