Do you quarantine?

[MnFish1]

It’s wrong if they don’t present anything other than anecdotal evidence.

If they believe it works for them, that’s great! Can’t argue that. If they say it will work for everyone who follows the method, that’s another thing.

Maybe I'm incorrect - I dont see anything but anecdotal evidence on either side

 

[Murica]

Is cooper and prazi the standard medicine for quarantining?

 

[living_tribunal]

Maybe I'm incorrect - I dont see anything but anecdotal evidence on either side

Not really, we have about 2 decades of research papers on ich. We know exactly how it lives, it's life cycle under various temperatures and gravities, how it dies, etc...

So those who quarantine are just applying the science on what we know. The application in this instance is not anecdotal, and the consistency of the results more or less affirm the science.

 

[DSC reef]

I never quarintine fish since getting in the hobby. Always floated the bag, bought healthy looking fish and it worked out. Have I lost fish, sure. I've also raised fish from juveniles to over 10 years with no issues. I like these discussions until one side starts to criticize the other. Just because I don't quarintine doesn't mean I have anything against someone who does. We all reef our own ways and others should not look down on one if they do things different. Good discussion everyone.

 

[MnFish1]

Not really, we have about 2 decades of research papers on ich. We know exactly how it lives, it's life cycle under various temperatures and gravities, how it dies, etc...

So those who quarantine are just applying the science on what we know. The application in this instance is not anecdotal, and the consistency of the results more or less affirm the science.

There is certainly lots of data about CI and its life cycle. We do not have much more than anecdote about the 'QT process' for other organisms 'as a whole'. Though there are lots of protocols and recommendations. Other than having some kind of biosecurity protocol - and following it religiously, most is anecdote. Zoos and aquaria can't completely agree. For example - In most of the threads here - QT can be anything from observation for a week, observation for 3 months - or treatments with multiple medications. Most of which - is mostly 'anecdote' - or personal preference. At least thats the way I read it.

 

[living_tribunal]

There is certainly lots of data about CI and its life cycle. We do not have much more than anecdote about the 'QT process' for other organisms 'as a whole'. Though there are lots of protocols and recommendations. Other than having some kind of biosecurity protocol - and following it religiously, most is anecdote. Zoos and aquaria can't completely agree. For example - In most of the threads here - QT can be anything from observation for a week, observation for 3 months - or treatments with multiple medications. Most of which - is mostly 'anecdote' - or personal preference. At least thats the way I read it.

Well that is just observation that results in a boolean of whether the fish is likely to have a disease or not. It’s not saying “this is how you prevent death in a reef tank”.

Those who are proponents of proactive treatment do so knowing how the treatments interact to kill or eliminate most of the diseases/pests.


This compares to those who testify that not quarantining and even adding pests increases their fishes immune system. They aren’t telling us how it works, just that it works. One tells you how it works backed by science, the other effectively tells you to trust it.

 

[living_tribunal]

I never quarintine fish since getting in the hobby. Always floated the bag, bought healthy looking fish and it worked out. Have I lost fish, sure. I've also raised fish from juveniles to over 10 years with no issues. I like these discussions until one side starts to criticize the other. Just because I don't quarintine doesn't mean I have anything against someone who does. We all reef our own ways and others should not look down on one if they do things different. Good discussion everyone.

I agree. I don’t have any issues with how anyone runs their reef. It’s up to everyone to evaluate their own risk tolerance and handle things as they see fit.

I only get a little testy when some get doctrinaire against procedures that are confirmed.

 

[Phildago]

Here's my issue, from what I understand once you have ich in your tank it never leaves until you do a 70+ day fallow. So, I observe my fish and as long as they are healthy enough to go in, I drop em in. If they're unhealthy, I treat them.

Once I upgrade to a larger system I will be going fallow with my corals and rock, while treating my fish for anything that they may be harboring. Then I will also quarantine and treat any other new additions to that tank. I learned my lesson for not quarantining my fish in the past, and I won't repeat that mistake

 

[MnFish1]

Well that is just observation that results in a boolean of whether the fish is likely to have a disease or not. It’s not saying “this is how you prevent death in a reef tank”.

Those who are proponents of proactive treatment do so knowing how the treatments interact to kill or eliminate most of the diseases/pests.


This compares to those who testify that not quarantining and even adding pests increases their fishes immune system. They aren’t telling us how it works, just that it works. One tells you how it works backed by science, the other effectively tells you to trust it.

>60 % of people on this site do not prophylactically medicate - and have successful tanks. I would suggest that most people that prophylactically treat do NOT know how those drugs interact (when used together) - in various species. They also do not know all of the potential long-term affects these medications might (or might not) have. IE the science is not complete

Now - dont get me wrong - I'm fully aware that to do such studies would be highly difficult if not impossible. But - to suggest that one side is 'science based' and the other is not - is also not completely true.

For example - those that say fish can become immune to CI - is in fact based 'in science'. Those that say feeding highly nutritious foods and having a low stress enviroment helps the fishes immune system is based 'in science'.

Some of the QT methods promoted on this site are based on personal experience (they go against mainstream QT protocols) - some of the non-QT methods promoted are based on personal experience (they go against mainstream QT protocols - and seem to have NO basis except personal experience. But there is certainly science on both sides (I think)

 

[Paul B]

I voted that I just drop them in, but I am staying far away from this thread as am to old for the arguments.
I think it's great whatever you want to do.

 

[living_tribunal]

I voted that I just drop them in, but I am staying far away from this thread as am to old for the arguments.
I think it's great whatever you want to do.

I don’t see things the way you do but your tank is older than I am and you’re a bit of a bad a**

Paul B is the father of laissez-faire reefing. Dubbing this now.

 

[seahorsemaster]

I feel like people are very passionate about quarantine vs no quarantine... so i made a poll! (Probably tons of other quarantine polls out there)

I generally do hyposaline quarantine for fish and have never had a problem with ich.

 

[Daniel@R2R Verified Admin]

Good discussion!

 

[biecacka]

I do not quarantine. Never have. At this stage it’s mostly smaller community type fish I’m adding to the tank.
HOWEVER, I will say this. I want to set up a small tank going forward, not because I’ve had issues in my tank or anything. But with the new LA policies and the unsuccessful fish I’ve had from them lately I think it will benefit everyone involved. For example, about a month ago I ordered fish from them and 2 came to me dead. The others floated in their bags and acclimated and put in the tank. 1 week later I cannot find one single fish from that order. Lesson, if I quarantined them then they would have died in a 10 gallon tank with a few pieces of pvc instead of a 240 gallon with hundreds of pounds of rock.
my thought at least....


corey

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Well that is just observation that results in a boolean of whether the fish is likely to have a disease or not. It’s not saying “this is how you prevent death in a reef tank”.

Those who are proponents of proactive treatment do so knowing how the treatments interact to kill or eliminate most of the diseases/pests.


This compares to those who testify that not quarantining and even adding pests increases their fishes immune system. They aren’t telling us how it works, just that it works. One tells you how it works backed by science, the other effectively tells you to trust it.

There seems to be plenty of literature on effective means of treating for external parasites, but very little in regards to the actual immune response to them. The primary reason stems for that is due to the demands of aquaculture, where crowded and sometimes compromised environmental conditions mandate a medical response to parasite control. Our reef tanks (hopefully) aren’t really comparable to aquaculture and even aquarium fish wholesale operations.

Fish have several mechanisms for dealing with protozoan infestation, but I’m having trouble finding exactly how this works with external protozoans. My understanding of Cryptocaryon is that the primary cause of mortality is infestation of the gill epithelium, making gas and salt exchange difficult. However, due to the thin epithelium and high vascularization of the gills, there appears to be the best opportunity for the immune response to be employed in that area.

Fish have a number of different mechanisms for dealing with protozoan parasites. Most are internal (antibodies, macrophages), but the immune response will also block attachment to host cells and, if the antibodies can access certain regions of the parasite cell, can mess up its functions.

Long winded way of saying, it’s a little more detailed than just ‘trust it’

 

[living_tribunal]

There seems to be plenty of literature on effective means of treating for external parasites, but very little in regards to the actual immune response to them. The primary reason stems for that is due to the demands of aquaculture, where crowded and sometimes compromised environmental conditions mandate a medical response to parasite control. Our reef tanks (hopefully) aren’t really comparable to aquaculture and even aquarium fish wholesale operations.

Fish have several mechanisms for dealing with protozoan infestation, but I’m having trouble finding exactly how this works with external protozoans. My understanding of Cryptocaryon is that the primary cause of mortality is infestation of the gill epithelium, making gas and salt exchange difficult. However, due to the thin epithelium and high vascularization of the gills, there appears to be the best opportunity for the immune response to be employed in that area.

Fish have a number of different mechanisms for dealing with protozoan parasites. Most are internal (antibodies, macrophages), but the immune response will also block attachment to host cells and, if the antibodies can access certain regions of the parasite cell, can mess up its functions.

Long winded way of saying, it’s a little more detailed than just ‘trust it’

Except the problem is fish don’t develop immune responses to ich like this.

There is only some research reported on how this specific immunity works with the most recent article stating it only lasts 5-6 months after which re-infection is possible.

Considering we don’t have the hard coated science to reliably and consistently provide our fish some kind of immunity, say like we do ourselves and the flu, then qt is the safer option.

We know exactly how to prevent it from entering our tank (in 99% of cases). There is so much science backing this regarding the relationship between copper and theronts.

I’m not knocking those that don’t qt, everyone reefs their own way. I’m knocking those who try and convince newcomers that not quarantining is the safer option. That’s dangerous and irresponsible.

 

[PicassoDan]

I've been doing this a long time, and lost too many fish in the beginning to ich, etc. About 7 or 8 years ago I started doing the Tank Transfer Method (TTM) which others have mentioned. I've never lost a single fish during the TTM process (20+ fish). Granted, I don't do difficult fish... Also 100% success at keeping ich out of the tank. During the TTM timeframe, I observe and can medicate if necessary for flukes, etc. It does take time and patience, but I don't get the $ reason for not doing it:

TTM cost:
two 20 gallon long tanks $40
two heaters $60 (never hurts to have backup heaters anyways)
Dumping 10 gallons of water 5 times $15
Two cheap powerheads $40
Total = $155

So, for the cost of one really nice fish, I never lose fish anymore.
Its a no-brainer.

 

[CindyKz]

>60 % of people on this site do not prophylactically medicate - and have successful tanks. I would suggest that most people that prophylactically treat do NOT know how those drugs interact (when used together) - in various species. They also do not know all of the potential long-term affects these medications might (or might not) have. IE the science is not complete

There is certainly lots of data about CI and its life cycle. We do not have much more than anecdote about the 'QT process' for other organisms 'as a whole'. Though there are lots of protocols and recommendations. Other than having some kind of biosecurity protocol - and following it religiously, most is anecdote. Zoos and aquaria can't completely agree. For example - In most of the threads here - QT can be anything from observation for a week, observation for 3 months - or treatments with multiple medications. Most of which - is mostly 'anecdote' - or personal preference. At least thats the way I read it.

Looks like we need a few more polls or a stats tracker.
One for how many ppl QT with/without meds and if they had any outbreaks in the main tank.
And one for how many people that don't QT, and have had any outbreaks in the main tank.

We know that certain treatments "should" work based on the information we have about various parasites and their susceptibility to individual treatments. Some our collective knowledge is very much science based, for example there are multiple papers published regarding tank transfer method for CI. What we don't know is whether various quarantine methods are effective overall, what are they effective against, and are we actually increasing mortality with multiple drugs, sterile tanks, and so on. I frequently see polls asking for peoples' methods, but few that request outcome data.

I would LOVE it if we could do a detailed poll and crunch the numbers - what people are doing AND their success/mortality rates. Maybe then we could finally see correlations (keeping in mind that correlation does not equal causation!) Being based on R2R members' self report it wouldn't be highly scientific, but it would be more than we have currently and a place to start. We have a diverse population to draw from.

 

[living_tribunal]

We know that certain treatments "should" work based on the information we have about various parasites and their susceptibility to individual treatments. Some our collective knowledge is very much science based, for example there are multiple papers published regarding tank transfer method for CI. What we don't know is whether various quarantine methods are effective overall, what are they effective against, and are we actually increasing mortality with multiple drugs, sterile tanks, and so on. I frequently see polls asking for peoples' methods, but few that request outcome data.

I would LOVE it if we could do a detailed poll and crunch the numbers - what people are doing AND their success/mortality rates. Maybe then we could finally see correlations (keeping in mind that correlation does not equal causation!) Being based on R2R members' self report it wouldn't be highly scientific, but it would be more than we have currently and a place to start. We have a diverse population to draw from.

Well we do know many of these items as the quarantine protocols were developed from research published on what we are trying to prevent. We also have a substantial amount of data of a plethora of treatments on numerous parasites and diseases.

The hardest thing to quantify for a study on mortality rates is whether the fish died from the medication itself or user error/external factors. Isolating this variable is most likely impossible with anecdotal report.

 

[MnFish1]

Well we do know many of these items as the quarantine protocols were developed from research published on what we are trying to prevent. We also have a substantial amount of data of a plethora of treatments on numerous parasites and diseases.

The hardest thing to quantify for a study on mortality rates is whether the fish died from the medication itself or user error/external factors. Isolating this variable is most likely impossible with anecdotal report.

I've said before - (and some disagree) that any death in QT shoudl be considered a 'failure' - because (assuming the fish didnt' have a disease) - if the fish had been placed in the tank - they wouldn't have 'died'. So this means - if a person 'overdoses' copper, or ammonia levels are high, etc - and it causes mortality - that shoudl be counted.

To me the fundamental question is 'if I take a fish - is it more likely to survive with QT (non-medicated) QT (medicated) or doing nothing. Likewise - lets say a person that doesnt do any kind of QT drops a fish into their tank - and all of those fish die - they shoudl also be counted as failures.