Do you quarantine?

[living_tribunal]

I dont see the relationship of this study to what we were discussing - except to show how toxic copper can be if not properly dosed. This also was only short-term mortality.

If you read the study, they noted throughout that no mortalities were noticed past that time. Fish at this point have acclimated their gills to the cu so it’s unlikely that the rates would have been high.

 

[kaylshouse15]

I never did and have learnt my lesson with i ch in my display tank ! Currently setting up a QT to put my fish in.

 

[MnFish1]

The chances of someone dying from a tragic car accident are astronomically low yet we still take drivers ed, pay for insurance, and wear a seat belt.

Just to make it crystal clear - im not advocating not QT'ing - I don't think Cindy is either - just saying - I would be interested in seeing the all-cause mortality in prophylactically medicated fish vs non medicated. Is that so horrible?

Btw - neither the drunk driving analogy or the one above (to me) make sense. Just like we dont ROUTINELY give people chemotherapy in case they get cancer - or antibiotics in case they get an infection (except malaria and other rare things - but that has been well studied - and its clear that the risk/benefit is in favor of prophylaxis.

 

[CindyKz]

Here you go:

Cite: https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/10/breeder

Yes, this a study on survivabiliy of angelfish and dottybacks in increasing levels of copper (note that the survival rates are only 48 hours, and mortality starts increasing at 0.1 mg Cu/l. ) They are only studying a single variable - copper. Not an entire quarantine "protocol". Not the ability of the reefer (who is likely not a professional scientist) to manage it correctly. And they aren't comparing it to anything else - ie other protocols.

To sum up, this article does not study whether a Copper quarantine protocol results in positive or better outcomes (ie no dead fish) for the average reefer with the average life, when compared to other protocols.

I am asking an entirely different set of questions.

 

[CindyKz]

Just to make it crystal clear - im not advocating not QT'ing - I don't think Cindy is either - just saying - I would be interested in seeing the all-cause mortality in prophylactically medicated fish vs non medicated. Is that so horrible?

Yes, this exactly. In real word scenarios, which would include sterile QT environments for many reefers.

 

[living_tribunal]

I dont see the relationship of this study to what we were discussing - except to show how toxic copper can be if not properly dosed. This also was only short-term mortality.

Yes, this a study on survivabiliy of angelfish and dottybacks in increasing levels of copper (note that the survival rates are only 48 hours, and mortality starts increasing at 0.1 mg Cu/l. ) They are only studying a single variable - copper. Not an entire quarantine "protocol". Not the ability of the reefer (who is likely not a professional scientist) to manage it correctly. And they aren't comparing it to anything else - ie other protocols.

To sum up, this article does not study whether a Copper quarantine protocol results in positive or better outcomes (ie no dead fish) for the average reefer with the average life, when compared to other protocols.

I am asking an entirely different set of questions.

They ran another test that run 6 days and noted there were no observed mortalities past that time.

What variables do you want to test for to determine survivability of fish under medicated quarantine vs not?

It’s not hard to make reasonable inferences of variables impactfulness past copper toxicity, the main deterrent of anti at proponents

 

[living_tribunal]

Yes, this a study on survivabiliy of angelfish and dottybacks in increasing levels of copper (note that the survival rates are only 48 hours, and mortality starts increasing at 0.1 mg Cu/l. ) They are only studying a single variable - copper. Not an entire quarantine "protocol". Not the ability of the reefer (who is likely not a professional scientist) to manage it correctly. And they aren't comparing it to anything else - ie other protocols.

To sum up, this article does not study whether a Copper quarantine protocol results in positive or better outcomes (ie no dead fish) for the average reefer with the average life, when compared to other protocols.

I am asking an entirely different set of questions.

The only protocol you have to really manage are copper levels, everything else are variables you have to manage for every reef tank.

 

[CindyKz]

They ran another test that run 6 days and noted there were no observed mortalities past that time.

What variables do you want to test for to determine survivability of fish under medicated quarantine vs not?

It’s not hard to make reasonable inferences of variables impactfulness past copper toxicity, the main deterrent of anti at proponents

I'm not sure where you are seeing that - I read 25% mortality by day 6 for the highest treatment group.

But it's moot. They were studying specific species using equipment not available to most hobbyists - a fact that the authors even point out in the Discussion. I seriously question whether this study can be generalized to the home hobbyist (I don't believe it can). And yes, inferences can be made, although when it comes to variables like the question of stress added by a sterile QT and the reefers ability to manage one quarantine method vs. another in the setting of daily life I would call those inferences "assumptions". I'm suggesting we move past the inferences to trying to draw correlations between methods and outcomes, then compare.

To answer your question, I don't think we could tease out individual variables using an online survey. We could look at the outcomes of people using various methods, which is what I've suggested all along.

 

[MnFish1]

They ran another test that run 6 days and noted there were no observed mortalities past that time.

What variables do you want to test for to determine survivability of fish under medicated quarantine vs not?

It’s not hard to make reasonable inferences of variables impactfulness past copper toxicity, the main deterrent of anti at proponents

The only protocol you gave to really manage are copper levels, everything else are variables you have to manage for every reef tank.

I didn't say I wanted to compare any more variables - I said - comparing 'all cause' mortality lets say over a year.

When you say the only protocol one needs to manage are 'copper levels' you are forgetting about oxygen levels, ammonia levels, and the multiple other medications that some people recommend using - and their possible interactions.

I guess I look at it this way - we have pharmacists that mix up and dose intravenous drugs, for example - because there is such a possibility of error. Yet - we are suggesting that the average person manage using copper in an aquarium - where there may be no disease at all in the first place.

So the reason I'm asking the question is that 1) there is a lot of data out there that suggests that copper is an immunosuppressant 2) there is data out there that copper can cause other organ injury - that may come up later. 3) There is evidence that if a fish has CI - which many feel is a 'non-issue' (not sure I agree with that) - that they are at a significantly higher risk of secondary bacteria infection after copper treatment (requiring use of yet another antiobitic) - that needs to be managed.

Once again - None of what I'm saying above is meant to suggest that QT is 'wrong' or 'shouldn't be done'

 

[living_tribunal]

Just to make it crystal clear - im not advocating not QT'ing - I don't think Cindy is either - just saying - I would be interested in seeing the all-cause mortality in prophylactically medicated fish vs non medicated. Is that so horrible?

Btw - neither the drunk driving analogy or the one above (to me) make sense. Just like we dont ROUTINELY give people chemotherapy in case they get cancer - or antibiotics in case they get an infection (except malaria and other rare things - but that has been well studied - and its clear that the risk/benefit is in favor of prophylaxis.

Fair but there will be hundreds of parallels for either case.

The gist is we, humans, proactively setup precautions that come with a human and monetary cost, in order to safeguard rare disasters. For many, a proper qt is worth the investment to ensure our livestock stays safe.

As a tank grows, so does the monetary and emotional cost of the livestock. Spending 5-10 minutes a day for maintenance and $50 on equipment to ensure the chances of disaster are very small is worth it.

So I think we’re arguing separate things here. I’m saying, specifically, that if you administer a proper quarantine, and take the 5 minutes a day to ensure everything is running well, your chances of having ich entering your tank and killing your livestock is significantly than plop and drop.

I am not saying that this is the case for everyone as I don’t want to waste time on measuring how well someone can follow guidelines. I’m simply comparing the efficacy of a well ran quarantine vs plop and drop on death of livestock.

 

[living_tribunal]

I didn't say I wanted to compare any more variables - I said - comparing 'all cause' mortality lets say over a year.

When you say the only protocol one needs to manage are 'copper levels' you are forgetting about oxygen levels, ammonia levels, and the multiple other medications that some people recommend using - and their possible interactions.

I guess I look at it this way - we have pharmacists that mix up and dose intravenous drugs, for example - because there is such a possibility of error. Yet - we are suggesting that the average person manage using copper in an aquarium - where there may be no disease at all in the first place.

So the reason I'm asking the question is that 1) there is a lot of data out there that suggests that copper is an immunosuppressant 2) there is data out there that copper can cause other organ injury - that may come up later. 3) There is evidence that if a fish has CI - which many feel is a 'non-issue' (not sure I agree with that) - that they are at a significantly higher risk of secondary bacteria infection after copper treatment (requiring use of yet another antiobitic) - that needs to be managed.

Once again - None of what I'm saying above is meant to suggest that QT is 'wrong' or 'shouldn't be done'

I said only variable aside from variables you already have to manage...

 

[living_tribunal]

I'm not sure where you are seeing that - I read 25% mortality by day 6 for the highest treatment group.

But it's moot. They were studying specific species using equipment not available to most hobbyists - a fact that the authors even point out in the Discussion. I seriously question whether this study can be generalized to the home hobbyist (I don't believe it can). And yes, inferences can be made, although when it comes to variables like the question of stress added by a sterile QT and the reefers ability to manage one quarantine method vs. another in the setting of daily life I would call those inferences "assumptions". I'm suggesting we move past the inferences to trying to draw correlations between methods and outcomes, then compare.

To answer your question, I don't think we could tease out individual variables using an online survey. We could look at the outcomes of people using various methods, which is what I've suggested all along.

For the highest treatment group... therapeutic levels are .15-.2 which had 100% survival.

 

[MnFish1]

Fair but there will be hundreds of parallels for either case.

The gist is we, humans, proactively setup precautions that come with a human and monetary cost, in order to safeguard rare disasters. For many, a proper qt is worth the investment to ensure our livestock stays safe.

As a tank grows, so does the monetary and emotional cost of the livestock. Spending 5-10 minutes a day for maintenance and $50 on equipment to ensure the chances of disaster are very small is worth it.

So I think we’re arguing separate things here. I’m saying, specifically, that if you administer a proper quarantine, and take the 5 minutes a day to ensure everything is running well, your chances of having ich entering your tank and killing your livestock is significantly than plop and drop.

I am not saying that this is the case for everyone as I don’t want to waste time on measuring how well someone can follow guidelines. I’m simply comparing the efficacy of a well ran quarantine vs plop and drop on death of livestock.

I agree with everything (except the very last sentence).... What I find interesting (and I think you should as well) - is that the majority of reefers do not QT. Yet many suggest that the supply chain is so contaminated that this SHOULD be impossible.

 

[living_tribunal]

I'm not sure where you are seeing that - I read 25% mortality by day 6 for the highest treatment group.

But it's moot. They were studying specific species using equipment not available to most hobbyists - a fact that the authors even point out in the Discussion. I seriously question whether this study can be generalized to the home hobbyist (I don't believe it can). And yes, inferences can be made, although when it comes to variables like the question of stress added by a sterile QT and the reefers ability to manage one quarantine method vs. another in the setting of daily life I would call those inferences "assumptions". I'm suggesting we move past the inferences to trying to draw correlations between methods and outcomes, then compare.

To answer your question, I don't think we could tease out individual variables using an online survey. We could look at the outcomes of people using various methods, which is what I've suggested all along.

And how is this not applicable to a home reefer? We all gauge the same parameters they did; ph, salinity, temp, the big 3, and copper levels (if you are dosing it).

 

[living_tribunal]

I agree with everything (except the very last sentence).... What I find interesting (and I think you should as well) - is that the majority of reefers do not QT. Yet many suggest that the supply chain is so contaminated that this SHOULD be impossible.

Most people are impatient and are unwilling to spend the time required to achieve lofty goals (not only talking about reefing here, just life in general).

If we are factoring an average person, then yes, I agree, quarantine probably isn’t preferable. You shouldn’t be dosing anything you aren’t willing to research beforehand and actively measure. Regardless of what you’re dosing, that’s a recipe for disaster.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

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.

Definitely agree on those new to reefing always erring on the side of caution, and quarantine procedures are a good way for people just starting out to really get a feel for welfare practices.

To your first point, I think the efficacy of the immune system and B and T cell ‘memory’ is going to be influenced by exposure.

If the immune system is only infrequently exposed to Crypt, for example, then those cells will have come and gone by the time the next exposure occurs.

But what if there is constant exposure? That’s where I’ve gotten to with this. By not taking any measures to prevent the parasite from entering the system, I’m effectively allowing a constant exposure to low levels. It’s true that I don’t have strict scientific evidence to substantiate, but I have hundreds of systems over decades as a sample for the anecdotal evidence, so I would feel comfortable betting money on it.

There are definitely issues I encounter with my tanks, but parasites are at the very bottom of the list.

 

[CindyKz]

The survival of flame angelfish exposed to the 4 levels of copper is shown in Figure 7. In contrast to what was observed in Experiment 1, mortality was not observed until after 5 days of exposure at the highest level (0.20mg/L). After 144h of exposure (day 6), the 0.20mg/L treatment had experienced 25% mortality. No additional mortality was observed for the duration of the experiment. None of the other treatment groups experienced any mortality.

Figure 7. Survival of flame angelfish exposed to copper for 168 hours. Treatment levels were not reached until after 24 hours of dosing (n=8 fish per treatment).

Callan, C.K. & Laidley, C.W. (2008). Breeder's Net: Effects of Copper Exposure on Marine Ornamental Fish Reproduction and Survival. Advanced Aquarist, Vol. VII.

And how is this not applicable to a home reefer? We all gauge the same parameters they did; ph, salinity, temp, the big 3, and copper levels (if you are dosing it).

Take a look at the equipment they used, notably in Experiment 2. Most of us don't have the equipment to have a "continuous exchange of natural sea water". Most reefers I know keep fish other than Flame Angels and dottybacks. Etc. Also, I didn't say it wasn't applicable, I stated that it is not generalizable, meaning it probably couldn't be reproduced at home by the average person.

So I think we’re arguing separate things here. I’m saying, specifically, that if you administer a proper quarantine, and take the 5 minutes a day to ensure everything is running well, your chances of having ich entering your tank and killing your livestock is significantly than plop and drop.

We have been arguing separate things for a while now.

You may be correct about your method and ich , but words like "proper" and "well ran" are vague. My idea of a "proper" quarantine could be radically different than yours. My (and I think MnFish1) stance is that there is more than one positive outcome, and that people use many different methods to get there. For some, a positive outcome might be a tank with known ich but no or low mortality. To some, the risk of death in QT (whether due to reefer error or some other variable) vs. the benefit of a given method might steer them to try something else.

Personally, I think it would be helpful to know which methods result in the lowest mortality while reducing the chances of disease in the DT in the setting of real life.

I have a vague notion of how a survey could be accomplished and I would love to write it, but I don't have the statistical knowledge to interpret the data. If anyone out there is interested, PM me.

Otherwise this has gone woefully far off topic and I'm tapping out.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

The survival of flame angelfish exposed to the 4 levels of copper is shown in Figure 7. In contrast to what was observed in Experiment 1, mortality was not observed until after 5 days of exposure at the highest level (0.20mg/L). After 144h of exposure (day 6), the 0.20mg/L treatment had experienced 25% mortality. No additional mortality was observed for the duration of the experiment. None of the other treatment groups experienced any mortality.

Figure 7. Survival of flame angelfish exposed to copper for 168 hours. Treatment levels were not reached until after 24 hours of dosing (n=8 fish per treatment).

Callan, C.K. & Laidley, C.W. (2008). Breeder's Net: Effects of Copper Exposure on Marine Ornamental Fish Reproduction and Survival. Advanced Aquarist, Vol. VII.





Take a look at the equipment they used, notably in Experiment 2. Most of us don't have the equipment to have a "continuous exchange of natural sea water". Most reefers I know keep fish other than Flame Angels and dottybacks. Etc. Also, I didn't say it wasn't applicable, I stated that it is not generalizable, meaning it probably couldn't be reproduced at home by the average person.




We have been arguing separate things for a while now.

You may be correct about your method and ich , but words like "proper" and "well ran" are vague. My idea of a "proper" quarantine could be radically different than yours. My (and I think MnFish1) stance is that there is more than one positive outcome, and that people use many different methods to get there. For some, a positive outcome might be a tank with known ich but no or low mortality. To some, the risk of death in QT (whether due to reefer error or some other variable) vs. the benefit of a given method might steer them to try something else.

Personally, I think it would be helpful to know which methods result in the lowest mortality while reducing the chances of disease in the DT in the setting of real life.

I have a vague notion of how a survey could be accomplished and I would love to write it, but I don't have the statistical knowledge to interpret the data. If anyone out there is interested, PM me.

Otherwise this has gone woefully far off topic and I'm tapping out.

The stats are easy enough to work out and interpret if you’re able to get some good data

 

[biecacka]

I don’t as I stated earlier. I would if I had the space or was adding fish more prone to disease outbreaks or so. I too would like to see data that shows the advantage of a qt setup. Like if I qt my fish tend to have an ”xx%” rate of living.
i want to set up a qt for safety purposes and to protect myself on fish getting in my tank and dying because they ship poorly or whatnot and them I’m not able to notify the company I bought them from.

corey

 

[Punchanello]

I choose to quarantine. But I fully understand why some people see it as a greater risk than dumping the fish in the DT. Quarantine and treatment is hard. I am confident I can get a healthy fish to my DT 90% of the time and I haven't lost a fish in my DT for over two years now but the the truth is that I killed a bunch of fish to get to that point. So I fully understand why many people give up.

I think the biggest mistake in quarantine is to apply a one size fits all approach. If you do that, you will definitely lose more fish than you save. There are species I will treat prophylacticaly and others I will observe and treat if necessary. I may treat a tang with copper. I prefer TTM for wrasse. Hypo is another good option but not for wrasse. I'll always treat butterflies for flukes and the list goes on and on. All that makes a responsive QT approach expensive, time consuming and a lot to learn.