A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[MnFish1]

This actually doesn’t surprise me, I’ve seen zebrasoma suggested as one of the “hardier” tangs when it comes to CI tolerance and ich-management systems.

Acanthurus and hippo tangs on the other hand, are often less-so.

The funny thing was not that it was one of the lower prevalence/incidence of tangs - it was the lowest incidence of all of the fish that they found.

 

[Brew12]

Inexperienced non-QT users might not employ the necessary techniques to help keep parasite numbers below catastrophic. Also, newer tanks won’t have the mature coral colonies and various filter feeders that more established tanks do. Everyone has to “start” somewhere, so where do you start without mass fish deaths? And you can’t grow large coral colonies without fish, at least not at the “beginner” level.

Agreed. And I don't know. But I want to find out. We know some species are much more tolerant of parasites than others. Do we recommend starting with clown fish and maybe some wrasses while the tank matures? What other fish may do better in a starting tank? Is there actually a benefit of having a zoa garden or large GSP patch? Would a small herd of Peppermint Shrimp help protect against flukes?

No idea... but I want to find out.

 

[drstardust]

Honestly, at this point, I'm not even sure what the proper way to QT is. Recent experience has shown that 1.75ppm may not longer be proper. When do we treat with antibiotics? It used to be that you would do that later in the treatment but then fish deaths due to Uronema have driven us to using Metroplex earlier in the process. The people who I feel are the most experienced and well qualified at performing prophylactic QT have all had substantial fish deaths recently. The goal post on how to get sensitive fish through QT is constantly moving. I have no idea how to define a proper QT process outside of a healthy fish coming through the back end.

This is a good point, but for starters we can describe it as QT in which fish death isn't due to the standard use of QT medications or with disease, but rather with user error. Can this be difficult to prove sometimes? You bet. So yes, it's a bit of a cluster. And yes, proper QT is a moving target, but that does not negate the very concept of QT if it can be done with consistent success, IMO. If consistent success cannot be replicated by experienced users, then we truly are stuck.

 

[Cyricdark]

Ahh, see this is interesting to me. Two different experiences and I have to say my experience is much more similar to @MnFish1 in that in all the fish I've brought in to stock my tank only one has shown any sign of disease for me. I do treat with copper, but not immediately, such that I would think disease would have a chance to rear it's head if it were present. Granted, it was velvet that showed up, so if I had not QT'd I'd likely have wiped out my entire display again. And that's why I keep QT'ing and treating.

Oddly enough, I'm pretty certain the velvet that made it's way into my previous system (I did not QT then ) actually came from fish from a fellow hobbyist who's tank I saw and looked healthy so..go figure.

I would really like to get away from treating with copper though, just because of it's toxic effect overall.

I much prefer chloroquine phosphate it seems to be much less harsh on the fish than copper but research it there's some fish that can't tolerate it

 

[MnFish1]

Another quick comment @Brew12 - (I dont know where you are - in Canada or US) - but I would think that it will be far less likely that a law will be passed forbidding fish medication here than in Canada - at least at this point. Though - look at the Hawaii ban, etc. IDK. I would HOPE - and BTW - the major focus of the Canada law was NOT fish hobbyists - it was beef and/or pork, etc farmers that would walk down to their local hardware store and get an injection of xxx antibiotic for mastitis, etc. I have to say - I think some of the recommendations on this forum using broad spectrum antibiotics (kanamycin, erythromycin, cipro for anemones, fluconazole for algae etc - thought helpful in aquaria - may be (a small) part of a significant problem.

 

[MnFish1]

This is a good point, but for starters we can describe it as QT in which fish death isn't due to the standard use of QT medications or with disease, but rather with user error. Can this be difficult to prove sometimes? You bet. So yes, it's a bit of a cluster. And yes, proper QT is a moving target, but that does not negate the very concept of QT if it can be done with consistent success, IMO. If consistent success cannot be replicated by experienced users, then we truly are stuck.

What does QT mean? What does 'proper QT mean' does it mean observation or prophylactic treatment?
In this case - the 'resistant velvet at 1.75 ppm' - are we sure this is the case? I know this is heresy - but the protocol used in the 'resistant velvet' case goes against the available science (because - rightly so they were trying to reduce the total exposure to copper for the fish) - they were burned. I do not think this is an emergency situation. The only reported incidence (in science) resistance to copper was in an LFS at the level was 2.7 - the only way they could fix the problem was Chloroquine. So - if this was really resistance - changing from 1.75 to 2 ppm seems unlikely to be reasonable.

 

[Paul Sands]

I would encourage you to read this study. It focuses on the role of gut bacteria/probiotics and it's role in fish health, but I think it answers some of your questions.
https://academic.oup.com/femspd/article/52/2/145/551234
This study does a nice job in explaining some differences between fish and mammal immune systems and why they don't make good comparisons.
https://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/0/602.pdf

Curious if you’ve actually read and digested these? The first study isn’t even related to the diseases being discussed. If we want to talk about putting probiotics in the aquarium, it might be useful.

I’d say the second study is a 50/50 split between how a fish immune’s system is different/similar to mammals. Even the title uses the word “crossroads”. There is quite a bit of information in it. I’m not seeing anything that specifically relates to why a fish would get “stronger” after its survived the serious diseases being discussed. Is there a specific section that you feel proves your hypothesis?

 

[Cyricdark]

Another quick comment @Brew12 - (I dont know where you are - in Canada or US) - but I would think that it will be far less likely that a law will be passed forbidding fish medication here than in Canada - at least at this point. Though - look at the Hawaii ban, etc. IDK. I would HOPE - and BTW - the major focus of the Canada law was NOT fish hobbyists - it was beef and/or pork, etc farmers that would walk down to their local hardware store and get an injection of xxx antibiotic for mastitis, etc. I have to say - I think some of the recommendations on this forum using broad spectrum antibiotics (kanamycin, erythromycin, cipro for anemones, fluconazole for algae etc - thought helpful in aquaria - may be (a small) part of a significant problem.

Is fluconazole an antibiotic? I always thought it was an antifungal agent

 

[drstardust]

What does QT mean? What does 'proper QT mean' does it mean observation or prophylactic treatment?
In this case - the 'resistant velvet at 1.75 ppm' - are we sure this is the case? I know this is heresy - but the protocol used in the 'resistant velvet' case goes against the available science (because - rightly so they were trying to reduce the total exposure to copper for the fish) - they were burned. I do not think this is an emergency situation. The only reported incidence (in science) resistance to copper was in an LFS at the level was 2.7 - the only way they could fix the problem was Chloroquine. So - if this was really resistance - changing from 1.75 to 2 ppm seems unlikely to be reasonable.

For what we can call "ideal QT," I would refer to a prophylactic treatment in which the treatment isn't worse than the (possible) disease, if you will. Meaning as close as possible to 100% at eradicating disease with as close as possible to 100% lack of death due to the process itself. We can define current best practice of "proper QT" as what I said above, a QT with prophylactic medication that doesn't cause fish death by user error. Again, it can be hard to ascertain how often user error leads to QT failure.
IMO we need more data regarding the possibility of a copper resistant strain of velvet, but intuitively I agree that it's believable. Anecdotes are only anecdotes, however, and many variables could be at play that we don't know about.

 

[drstardust]

Is fluconazole an antibiotic? I always thought it was an antifungal agent

It is an antifungal, yes. The term antibiotic is typically reserved for an agent that acts against bacteria, but some people use it more generally when the term "antimicrobial" would be more technically appropriate.

 

[MnFish1]

Curious if you’ve actually read and digested these? The first study isn’t even related to the diseases being discussed. If we want to talk about putting probiotics in the aquarium, it might be useful.

I’d say the second study is a 50/50 split between how a fish immune’s system is different/similar to mammals. Even the title uses the word “crossroads”. There is quite a bit of information in it. I’m not seeing anything that specifically relates to why a fish would get “stronger” after its survived the serious diseases being discussed. Is there a specific section that you feel proves your hypothesis?

Well - I was a disbeliever in this as well - firstly - second - your quote didnt work so its hard to tell what you're talking about - but in fish farming - which is quite similar to the closed confines of aquaria (like we keep) there is a good deal of evidence that probiotics have an influence especially in larvae.....

Why do you keep asking if people have read studies? There are not a lot (if any) 'studies' published as to what to do 'in our tanks' - instead - we try to pull information from other sources - ie fish farming, etc - to use to determine what MIGHT be helpful. You may want to ask LRS - why they use probiotics in their frozen foods. They must have a reason.

As to the getting stronger - you are mixing up things. Its the immune system - not the 'fish' - ie the muscles are not getting stronger - the brain is not getting stronger - its the immune system. So - with respect - when you ask a question it helps to be specific. And this question has already been answered.

 

[MnFish1]

It is an antifungal, yes. The term antibiotic is typically reserved for an agent that acts against bacteria, but some people use it more generally when the term "antimicrobial" would be more technically appropriate.

Diflucan belongs to a group of medicines called azole antibiotics. It works by preventing the growth of the fungal and yeast organisms causing your infection. Diflucan contains the active ingredient fluconazole: ... Diflucan oral suspension contains 35 mL bottle containing 50mg fluconazole/5mL.

 

[MnFish1]

For what we can call "ideal QT," I would refer to a prophylactic treatment in which the treatment isn't worse than the (possible) disease, if you will. Meaning as close as possible to 100% at eradicating disease with as close as possible to 100% lack of death due to the process itself. We can define current best practice of "proper QT" as what I said above, a QT with prophylactic medication that doesn't cause fish death by user error. Again, it can be hard to ascertain how often user error leads to QT failure.
IMO we need more data regarding the possibility of a copper resistant strain of velvet, but intuitively I agree that it's believable. Anecdotes are only anecdotes, however, and many variables could be at play that we don't know about.

But when you say 'QT' some people mean that to mean (as is the usual definition) keeping the new fish, etc. separate from the DT. It does not imply or suggest that you are treating with a medication. This is not a criticism. Its just a matter of wording - and its a matter of wording that causes most of the arguments with regards to QT - VS QT with prophylactic medication (i.e chemoprophylaxis) - as @Lasse suggested

 

[drstardust]

Diflucan belongs to a group of medicines called azole antibiotics. It works by preventing the growth of the fungal and yeast organisms causing your infection. Diflucan contains the active ingredient fluconazole: ... Diflucan oral suspension contains 35 mL bottle containing 50mg fluconazole/5mL.

Yes, though azole antifungals (or antimycotics) would be more appropriate Again, antibiotics is sometimes used to describe all antimicrobials, though is not preferred.

 

[Lasse]

For ich, scientific studies have shown that freezing food at -10 for 7 days destroys all stages. It's in one of the studies linked somewhere in this insane thread if you wanted to check it out.

If you refer to the scientific studies show this or that – please attach the actual link – otherwise the statement is not worth anything. There is done very little of this – especially according to tomonts. I have not found anything that support me or you. I would love to read what you refer to. However I found this interesting thing from according velvet

Do not feed live or frozen food items that may be infected with amyloodinium.

from this reference.

The post from LRS on R2R indicated that their protocol was driven by requirements from public aquariums to insure the frozen food was free of diseases.

It happens to be that way that I have been working in public aquariums for more than 18 years and is well informed about the protocoll used in public aquariums in Sweden. The ban of using not frozen food is not because of fear for velvet or marine ich. It is other parasites that do not have dormant stages that´s of concern and there it is well known and documented that deep freezing is effective. About effectiviness against velvet or marine ich and especially their dormant stage nobody knows - so please link to your source that freezing food at -10 (C or F ?) for 7 days destroy all stages of ich (saltwater ich)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

IMO we need more data regarding the possibility of a copper resistant strain of velvet, but intuitively I agree that it's believable. Anecdotes are only anecdotes, however, and many variables could be at play that we don't know about.

Its certainly believable - its already been reported that velvet has been resistant to copper up to 2.7 ppm. Why is it an emergency now (I believe it was in either 2001 or 2011) either way. What I dont believe is that changing a protocol from 1.75 to 2 ppm will 'fix' copper resistance. So - either the original posters were incorrect in their assessment that they had resistant velvet - or they are incorrect that a change from 1.75 to 2 will affect it. (again heresy alert since they are reefsquad members)

 

[drstardust]

But when you say 'QT' some people mean that to mean (as is the usual definition) keeping the new fish, etc. separate from the DT. It does not imply or suggest that you are treating with a medication. This is not a criticism. Its just a matter of wording - and its a matter of wording that causes most of the arguments with regards to QT - VS QT with prophylactic medication (i.e chemoprophylaxis) - as @Lasse suggested

Yes. Hence if we want to create such distinctions without confusion, we should come up with specific terminology for each option. Chemoprophylaxis is fine, but not a term usually used in the hobby. That's what we can do though, say chemoprophylaxis vs observational quarantine. Open to other suggestions for terminology if you have them.

 

[MnFish1]

By the way - im learning a lot from this thread - those that think its one side against another - I feel are mistaken. We're all trying to figure out the best methods

 

[MnFish1]

Yes. Hence if we want to create such distinctions without confusion, we should come up with specific terminology for each option. Chemoprophylaxis is fine, but not a term usually used in the hobby. That's what we can do though, say chemoprophylaxis vs observational quarantine. Open to other suggestions for terminology if you have them.

I have no preference - and whatever we say here is unlikely to be widely used in the hobby or even on this site. I just think its important when saying QT is this or that - that one define what one means by QT.

 

[MnFish1]

Is fluconazole an antibiotic? I always thought it was an antifungal agent

BTW - I think your comment in the context of what I said is somewhat snarky - which is fine with me. - it might not be the usual for this forum. You took one word out of a post - to criticize - ignoring the rest. But - In fact - Fluconazole is both an antibiotic, an anti fungal, an antimycotic and probably several other definitions. But what was your point actually?