dark horge
01-30-2003, 10:52 PM
Recent Discussions have moved me to weigh in on garlic as a tool in managing cryptocaryosis ("Marine ich") in ornamental marine fishes.
An old article I wrote is often trotted out in such discussions:
Garlic in the Marine Aquarium:How it may work against Marine Ich (http://www.geocities.com/horge1218/garlic.html)
Diallyl thiosulfinate activity against Cryptocaryon irritans infestations of marine fish
The important thing for garlic-users to keep in mind are the limitations inherent to the article:
1) there are no clinical studies within a marine context available for citation BY ANYONE
2) the discussion was largely limited to allicin's efficacy
3) the discussion was largely limited to possible effects on the afflicted fish
4) the article sought to foster discussion, rather than end it
On the other hand...
The important thing for garlic-doubters to keep in mind is that while it is fine to DESIRE clinical proof of a thing, this very hobby really runs on the fuel of UNscientific presumption.
For example, there is no clinical proof of the efficacy of Live Rock that fuels its popular acceptance. It works, but then .... where's the data to show hypothetical doubters that it works? There are certainly lots of failures in setting up a reeftank using Live Rock, to spur a reinvestigation
;)
For scientific-types (and the many wannabes: the butchers, the bakers, the candlestick-makers ), it would be a wicked neat trick just to strictly define what constitutes Live Rock (which cryptic and/or sessile species are relevant or irrelevant? If you restrict relevant fauna to nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria, then it isn't really Live Rock, is it? Hell, even with Hovanec's revealing little assay we can't even tell with surety what species of bacteria are responsible for nit/denit!) and thence run whatever trials one wishes.
Back in the day, there were solid grounds to suspect that Live Rock (whatever that term includes) works, and then later there was the weight of popular experience that it seemed to work.
That's all the validation there was and is so far: I know of no clinical trial to support its use. Interestingly, both garlic and Live Rock usage comes to the hobby from the Far East, and both without more credible basis than traditional use. However, there are three critical differences between these two innnovations:
1) Garlic has not yet acquired across-the-board acceptance in the hobby (against cryptocaryosis, at least).
2) Unlike Live Rock, garlic is easier to define in terms of its components, and thus seems easier to subject to both scientific inquiry and therefore to DEMANDS for scientific inquiry
3) Garlic is NOT native to the marine environment, which further increases desire for validation via scientific inquiry.
While it was not the focus of the old article, gastrointestinal parasites in marine fish have already been shown to be susceptible to garlic treatment. (If you want clinical citations, I can try to list them though it will take some rummaging around my library ---alternately you can use Google to find them. IIRC one of them was Teng et al 1983)
Where am I headed with the above?
If garlic consumption (and the quantities involved in farmed marine fish are surprising) by fish afflicted with intestinal parasites does NOT lead to severe haemic/hepatic damage to the fish, then it is unlikely that garlic similarly-administered as feed, this time against cryptocaryosis (marine ich), will cause that sort of damage.
So, if garlic consumption already yields the benefit of freeing the gastrointestinal tract of pests, and is already in popular use (at least in Asiatic aquaria), and isn't killing fish, then what's the problem with trying garlic vs. cryptocaryosis?
There are two often-touted concerns:
1) If garlic isn't effective against cryptocaryosis, then more than frustrated hope is being foisted on the hobbyist. "Ich-dead" fish are soon to follow.
2) There is the risk of negative impact on other residents of the reef aquarium (since garlic's appeal is easy, in-display treatment).
The first concern mostly applies if the hobbyist is reprehensibly casual to begin with. The hobbyist is expected to do research ---and therfore uncover and assess more than one possible option vs. any disease. If a disclaimer such as
"only hyposalinity and copper have been proven effective against marine ich,
so you can try garlic but you've been warned"
is what doubters crave, then I lustily lend my voice to such a disclaimer ...though a stick in the mud might also demand clinical trials for hypo and copper before proclaiming them 'proven' , since there still are cases of disappointment with either.
;)
The second concern is exceedingly difficult to address. I suspect that only popular, informal and repeated experience will tell us if there is any merit there, much as as was the case for/against Live Rock. Each tank is different, and so will the effects upon it due to garlic be.
There are numerous, credible reports of success with garlic, and that is enough to warrant discussion.
It should be so easy to set up semi-formal trials for garlic, if we do not bother with isolating the active ingredient. If we can agree that fresh garlic deserves first dibs at trial, then the raw material is cheap, the subject fish can be quite affordable, and the disease is rather easy to obtain. With some luck, if garlic pans out as a treatment, you could then arrive at a workable protocol.
What then? As with hyposalinity and even copper ---there still will always be perceived failures at cure via garlic, ascribable to poor adherence to protocol during and especially AFTER treatment.
Garlic, like many other would-be and 'proven' cures for cryptocaryosis, will likely be tested only through the hard grind of general, informal, hobbyist trial and experience over years. To expect otherwise ignores the half-century pattern of behavior (madness, mostly) on the part of our hobby.
The old article at least pointed towards oral administration at a time when broadcast of garlic was deemed equally acceptable. It also offered some grounded bases for ANY perceived effectiveness in garlic.
Small steps, surely.
But until someone is prepared to fund and/or slog out the science (large trials and possibly thence an investigation into proper protocol), I'm happy to let the hobby's madness grind out the rest of the way to the answers.
;)
An old article I wrote is often trotted out in such discussions:
Garlic in the Marine Aquarium:How it may work against Marine Ich (http://www.geocities.com/horge1218/garlic.html)
Diallyl thiosulfinate activity against Cryptocaryon irritans infestations of marine fish
The important thing for garlic-users to keep in mind are the limitations inherent to the article:
1) there are no clinical studies within a marine context available for citation BY ANYONE
2) the discussion was largely limited to allicin's efficacy
3) the discussion was largely limited to possible effects on the afflicted fish
4) the article sought to foster discussion, rather than end it
On the other hand...
The important thing for garlic-doubters to keep in mind is that while it is fine to DESIRE clinical proof of a thing, this very hobby really runs on the fuel of UNscientific presumption.
For example, there is no clinical proof of the efficacy of Live Rock that fuels its popular acceptance. It works, but then .... where's the data to show hypothetical doubters that it works? There are certainly lots of failures in setting up a reeftank using Live Rock, to spur a reinvestigation
;)
For scientific-types (and the many wannabes: the butchers, the bakers, the candlestick-makers ), it would be a wicked neat trick just to strictly define what constitutes Live Rock (which cryptic and/or sessile species are relevant or irrelevant? If you restrict relevant fauna to nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria, then it isn't really Live Rock, is it? Hell, even with Hovanec's revealing little assay we can't even tell with surety what species of bacteria are responsible for nit/denit!) and thence run whatever trials one wishes.
Back in the day, there were solid grounds to suspect that Live Rock (whatever that term includes) works, and then later there was the weight of popular experience that it seemed to work.
That's all the validation there was and is so far: I know of no clinical trial to support its use. Interestingly, both garlic and Live Rock usage comes to the hobby from the Far East, and both without more credible basis than traditional use. However, there are three critical differences between these two innnovations:
1) Garlic has not yet acquired across-the-board acceptance in the hobby (against cryptocaryosis, at least).
2) Unlike Live Rock, garlic is easier to define in terms of its components, and thus seems easier to subject to both scientific inquiry and therefore to DEMANDS for scientific inquiry
3) Garlic is NOT native to the marine environment, which further increases desire for validation via scientific inquiry.
While it was not the focus of the old article, gastrointestinal parasites in marine fish have already been shown to be susceptible to garlic treatment. (If you want clinical citations, I can try to list them though it will take some rummaging around my library ---alternately you can use Google to find them. IIRC one of them was Teng et al 1983)
Where am I headed with the above?
If garlic consumption (and the quantities involved in farmed marine fish are surprising) by fish afflicted with intestinal parasites does NOT lead to severe haemic/hepatic damage to the fish, then it is unlikely that garlic similarly-administered as feed, this time against cryptocaryosis (marine ich), will cause that sort of damage.
So, if garlic consumption already yields the benefit of freeing the gastrointestinal tract of pests, and is already in popular use (at least in Asiatic aquaria), and isn't killing fish, then what's the problem with trying garlic vs. cryptocaryosis?
There are two often-touted concerns:
1) If garlic isn't effective against cryptocaryosis, then more than frustrated hope is being foisted on the hobbyist. "Ich-dead" fish are soon to follow.
2) There is the risk of negative impact on other residents of the reef aquarium (since garlic's appeal is easy, in-display treatment).
The first concern mostly applies if the hobbyist is reprehensibly casual to begin with. The hobbyist is expected to do research ---and therfore uncover and assess more than one possible option vs. any disease. If a disclaimer such as
"only hyposalinity and copper have been proven effective against marine ich,
so you can try garlic but you've been warned"
is what doubters crave, then I lustily lend my voice to such a disclaimer ...though a stick in the mud might also demand clinical trials for hypo and copper before proclaiming them 'proven' , since there still are cases of disappointment with either.
;)
The second concern is exceedingly difficult to address. I suspect that only popular, informal and repeated experience will tell us if there is any merit there, much as as was the case for/against Live Rock. Each tank is different, and so will the effects upon it due to garlic be.
There are numerous, credible reports of success with garlic, and that is enough to warrant discussion.
It should be so easy to set up semi-formal trials for garlic, if we do not bother with isolating the active ingredient. If we can agree that fresh garlic deserves first dibs at trial, then the raw material is cheap, the subject fish can be quite affordable, and the disease is rather easy to obtain. With some luck, if garlic pans out as a treatment, you could then arrive at a workable protocol.
What then? As with hyposalinity and even copper ---there still will always be perceived failures at cure via garlic, ascribable to poor adherence to protocol during and especially AFTER treatment.
Garlic, like many other would-be and 'proven' cures for cryptocaryosis, will likely be tested only through the hard grind of general, informal, hobbyist trial and experience over years. To expect otherwise ignores the half-century pattern of behavior (madness, mostly) on the part of our hobby.
The old article at least pointed towards oral administration at a time when broadcast of garlic was deemed equally acceptable. It also offered some grounded bases for ANY perceived effectiveness in garlic.
Small steps, surely.
But until someone is prepared to fund and/or slog out the science (large trials and possibly thence an investigation into proper protocol), I'm happy to let the hobby's madness grind out the rest of the way to the answers.
;)