Ich won't kill fish?!
- Thread starter r.bergonia19
- Start date
- Tagged users None
@tthouston, you've made the point on this thread and others that you believe you need to cycle a QT, got it.
A cycled QT in no way guarantees that the tank will not experience an ammonia spike/cycle.
Cycling a QT or not cycling a QT both have their benefits and downfall. It's not either or, there is more than one to accomplish the goal.
It would support your case if you could use more current links than 2012 if you're going to defend your point and exclude all other methods.
@McMullen, I would love to see that paper I will make an attempt to hunt is down. While I do not post that no denitrifying exist in the water column I suggest that not enough denitrifying is present to adequately seed a tank in a timely manner. Thanks for the tip.
Last edited:
My original post (copy & pasted below) can be found here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/fallow-periods-going-fishless.190324/#post-2495321
76 days fallow expands upon the 1997 Colorni and Burgess study, which discovered a strain of ich where it took 72 days for all the theronts to be released from a group of tomonts. In all previous studies, 35 days had been the longest recorded time.
Please be advised the fallow period for Ich (Cryptocaryon irritans) has been adjusted to now be 76 days. Based upon new calculations (see below):
Let's do the math and tweak the fallow period for ich using the parasite's known life cycle & worst case scenario:
- Let's say a trophont drops off the last fish you catch before going fallow. We know that the protomont can only crawl around 18 hours max before beginning the encysting process. The process itself takes no longer than 12 hours until it has hardened around what is now called a tomont. 18+12=30 hours, but I'm just gonna call it 2 days to err on the side of caution.
- The longest known time period it took for theronts (free swimmers) to be released from a group of tomonts is 72 days. However, I want to make it clear that this 72 days has only been encountered once; one study involving a single strain of ich. In most other studies, 7-14 days has been "the norm" for theront release.
- Once released from it's tomont, a theront must find a fish host to attach to within 48 hours (2 days) or it dies. Thus ending ich's presence in your fallow tank. Although in actuality, a theront's infectivity is greatly reduced just 6 - 8 hours after it leaves the cyst. It's non-infective after just 8 hours, but still able to move for up to 48 hours. So again, to err on the side of caution, we're gonna say 2 days for this "final phase" of it's life cycle.
ritter6788
Coral Fraud Private Eye
Good info. I just never heard anyone say it had to be 76 days exact until this thread. I've treated for ich several times over the years and could never wait longer than 2 weeks.
This is just forward some INFORMATION OF "Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water" in the link show below. I don't need to create the other post for discuss, this is just FYI only if you are curious about bacteria in the saltwater. I will copy and paste some of main point only, you can read them all in the link.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
3.1 Baseline bacteria counts
The initial experimental foray in reef tank water bacteria enumeration was focused on establishing baselines for bacteria populations under different husbandry regimes. Later, these baselines will be used as comparison points in experiments where the system is perturbed, either by carbon dosing or by mechanical filtration (skimming, GAC). Much prior effort in the area of bacteria counting from authentic reef water has led to an expansive body of work. A few representative examples are documented in Table 1, where bacterial counts from reef water in Hawaii, Micronesia, Key Largo, and the Northern Line Islands all converge on a span of bacteria populations in the 500K - 1500K/mL range or so. The counts from the Northern Line Islands, Ponape Island, and Key Largo were derived from epifluorescence microscopy measurements, whereas the Kaneohe Bay data were acquired via flow cytometry. In addition, we sampled water from a mangrove estuary in the Florida Keys, and not surprisingly, this highly sedimented shoreline water exhibited a bacterial population (3300-4400K/mL) much higher than those observed in the more pristine reef waters. These values serve as standards for comparison to aquarium water, and they will help address the question, "Are our reef tanks similar to, or different than, an authentic reef with respect to water column bacterial populations?"
A second series of bacterial counts focused on control water samples of various origins. These data represent low-end standards that delineate the limits of our counting technique. For example, every experimental run was accompanied by an RO/DI/0.2 um filtered water blank to ensure that the flow cytometry instrument itself was not a source of bacterial contamination. It did not seem to matter whether these samples were treated with formaldehyde preservative or not; similar counts were obtained in both cases. Overall, these "sterile" water blanks typically displayed counts in the 1000 - 5000 bacteria/mL range; occasionally, values as high as 10000 bacteria/mL were observed. Since bacteria counts of authentic aquarium or marine water samples were 1-2 orders-of-magnitude greater than these blank values, we concluded that instrument contamination was not likely to increase the measured bacteria counts in any significant way. Both Aquafina bottled water and the RO/DI water produced in the 175-gallon aquarium make-up water system were almost sterile: < 1500 bacteria/mL. State College Pennsylvania tap water, on the other hand, did carry a modest bacterial load; 27K/mL.
The surveyed reef aquariums divided into two distinct sets of husbandry protocols; aggressive and passive (see Fig. 6 for pictures of these aquariums). The aggressive husbandry practices included protein skimming, GAC filtration, and regular water changes in an active effort to scrub the water of nutrients. The passive approach did not involve any of these procedures. Interestingly, the aquaria subjected to passive husbandry exhibited bacterial counts that fell within the range seen on authentic reefs; 200 - 1000K/mL. On the other hand, the tanks that "benefited" from careful attention to nutrient removal protocols displayed bacteria/mL counts that fell far short of these numbers; only 90-140K/mL. In addition to monitoring water column bacteria counts, the TOC (Total Organic Carbon, see Feldman, 2008) levels were examined as well. Not surprisingly, the tanks with "unpurified" water exhibited TOC levels greater than those seen with the skimmed/GAC-filtered tanks. The "purified" aquaria's TOC levels fall within the typical TOC range seen on authentic, healthy reefs (Feldman, 2008); the passively husbandry tanks were 2-3x higher.
The observation that, at least among this small set of aquaria examined, the water within the skimmed/filtered tanks had only ~ 1/10th of the population of bacteria that the unskimmed/unfiltered tanks had was a real surprise. It speaks to one aspect of aquarium husbandry in which a perhaps important parameter (?), water column bacteria counts from authentic and healthy reefs, is not reproduced at all effectively in these home aquaria. Sensitive corals, like Acropora, do not thrive in the high-bacteria-count/high-TOC-level tanks examined, although soft corals do well (see pictures). On the other hand, SPS corals do well in the low-bacteria-count/low-TOC-level tanks (Fig. 6). These observations raise a number of questions, chief among them perhaps are, (1) "Do water column bacteria counts have any relevance to the short-term or long-term prospects for maintaining SPS in captive aquaria?", and (2) "What is the relationship between TOC and water column bacteria population?" The former question, whereas perhaps more interesting, remains unanswered. The latter question (TOC vs. bacteria population), which bears on the topic of carbon dosing, will be addressed below.
Table 1. Bacterial counts from authentic marine water, various control samples, and several reef tanks.
Look the table in the link
The reef aquariums that were monitored for their bacterial populations:
Figure 6a. KSF 175 gallon reef tank
Figure 6b. SJ 500 gallon reef tank
Figure 6c. SJ 55 gallon reef tank
Figure 6d. SJ 29 gallon reef tank
The bacteria/mL counts for the aquaria described in Table 1 reflect single-time-point measurements, and it is possible that hourly, daily, or other fluctuations in bacterial populations have been missed. These modulations in bacterial populations might result from the light on/off cycle, food additions, pH swings, etc. In order to probe this point, a few week-in-the-life longitudinal studies were conducted on both the 175-gallon reef tank and the 55-gallon reef tank. The first experiment covered 5 days of typical aquarium life, with the skimmer deliberately off for the first three days, the UV sterilizer on, and the GAC and GFO filters on, Fig. 7. Over the course of this experiment, the water column bacteria population fluctuated between ~ 95K and 115K bacteria/mL, a ~ 20% spread in values. The skimmer was turned off at t = 0, and the count rose steeply over the next 12 hours, and then declined to the starting point at the 2-day mark. At that point, a gradual rise to the maximum recorded value, 115K/mL occurred. Turning the skimmer back on at the 3.5-day mark may have slowed the rate of this increase slightly, but the data are not compelling on this point.
It is temping to attribute the initial steep rise to a presumed corresponding increase in the carbon source TOC, since the TOC-removing skimmer was turned off at t = 0. During this growth phase, nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients as well as C would be stripped from the water column also. In this interpretation, the subsequent decline in bacteria population at the 12-hour mark might reflect a depletion of these N and P nutrients required for bacteria population growth; that is, perhaps the initial growth spurt might reflect an increase in C concentration (skimmer off) in a C-limiting bacterial growth regime, and the subsequent decline at 12 hours might indicate a switch over to a N and/or P limited growth regime. This hypothesis dovetails nicely with the Carbon Dosing ideas described earlier. However, it is important to appreciate that simply observing the expected result of a hypothesis does not validate that hypothesis - the strongest conclusion that legitimately can be offered is simply that the data is consistent with the predictions of the hypothesis. Other interpretations of the bacteria population data in Fig. 7 cannot be excluded at this point. Furthermore, the "rebound" in bacterial growth after 2 days is more difficult to interpret without some further knowledge about commensurate C, N, and P levels in the tank. A more controlled experimental plan to monitor bacteria population change contemporaneously with C and N concentration measurements might settle this issue; this experiment will be discussed shortly.
Figure 7. Bacteria/mL counts from a 175-gallon reef tank (See Fig. 6) over the course of 5 days. The tank was fed 3-4 times/day (PE mysis shrimp, Hikari mysis shrimp, flake food, and pellet food) during the "on" part of the daily lighting cycle.
One concerning point in the experiment described in Fig. 7 involves the role that the UV sterilizer might play in influencing bacterial levels; Are we killing significant numbers of bacteria by UV treatment, thus suppressing population growth? The UV sterilizer in use is a 57W flow-through model from Aqua Ultraviolet. In order to probe this question, we re-ran the "week-in-the-life" experiment with the UV sterilizer off, but the skimmer on continuously, Fig. 8. The observed bacteria/mL values over the course of 5 days fluctuated between 60K and 90K (~ 50% change) for this particular time period. Thus, there did not appear to be any significant bacteria population increase in the water column when the UV sterilizer was off, and it is probably safe to conclude that the UV sterilizer does not have a significant effect on the bacteria population levels in the tank's water column.
Figure 8. Testing the influence of UV sterilization on bacterial populations in the water of a 175-gallon reef tank. The feeding regimen described with Fig. 7 was used in this experiment as well.
A final "week-in-the-life" experiment was conducted on the 55-gallon tank lacking any active filtration, Fig. 9. In addition, this tank had been treated daily with vodka as a carbon source for 6 months prior to water removal. This vodka addition started after the original bacteria population reading reported in Table 1 was taken. Since there was no active bacteria removal mechanism (i.e., skimming), it was not clear, a priori, how the bacteria population might change compared to the pre-vodka value of 590±70 K/mL. In fact, the bacteria population clearly had risen to a significantly higher level than observed in the pre-vodka time period, and now it hovered around 1500-2500K/mL. Once again, significant (~ 60% !) fluctuations in bacteria/mL counts over time appear to be the norm, at least for the two aquaria examined.
Figure 9. Bacteria/mL counts from a 55-gallon reef tank (See Fig. 6) over the course of 5 days. No protein skimming or GAC filtration was employed on this tank. The tank was fed frozen mysis shrimp daily. In addition, a vodka dosing regime of 4 mL of 80 proof/day (= 3 ppm of C/day) was in place for 6 months.
Overall, the major conclusions from these preliminary studies on baseline bacteria counts are
1. Actively purified aquaria have water column bacteria populations that are approximately 1/10th those of authentic healthy reefs.
2. Unpurified aquaria have water column bacteria populations that are approximately the same as those of authentic healthy reefs.
3. UV sterilization does not significantly influence aquarium water column bacteria populations.
4. There is substantial fluctuation (20-50%) in the measured water column bacteria populations over a several-day time scale in aquaria.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
3.1 Baseline bacteria counts
The initial experimental foray in reef tank water bacteria enumeration was focused on establishing baselines for bacteria populations under different husbandry regimes. Later, these baselines will be used as comparison points in experiments where the system is perturbed, either by carbon dosing or by mechanical filtration (skimming, GAC). Much prior effort in the area of bacteria counting from authentic reef water has led to an expansive body of work. A few representative examples are documented in Table 1, where bacterial counts from reef water in Hawaii, Micronesia, Key Largo, and the Northern Line Islands all converge on a span of bacteria populations in the 500K - 1500K/mL range or so. The counts from the Northern Line Islands, Ponape Island, and Key Largo were derived from epifluorescence microscopy measurements, whereas the Kaneohe Bay data were acquired via flow cytometry. In addition, we sampled water from a mangrove estuary in the Florida Keys, and not surprisingly, this highly sedimented shoreline water exhibited a bacterial population (3300-4400K/mL) much higher than those observed in the more pristine reef waters. These values serve as standards for comparison to aquarium water, and they will help address the question, "Are our reef tanks similar to, or different than, an authentic reef with respect to water column bacterial populations?"
A second series of bacterial counts focused on control water samples of various origins. These data represent low-end standards that delineate the limits of our counting technique. For example, every experimental run was accompanied by an RO/DI/0.2 um filtered water blank to ensure that the flow cytometry instrument itself was not a source of bacterial contamination. It did not seem to matter whether these samples were treated with formaldehyde preservative or not; similar counts were obtained in both cases. Overall, these "sterile" water blanks typically displayed counts in the 1000 - 5000 bacteria/mL range; occasionally, values as high as 10000 bacteria/mL were observed. Since bacteria counts of authentic aquarium or marine water samples were 1-2 orders-of-magnitude greater than these blank values, we concluded that instrument contamination was not likely to increase the measured bacteria counts in any significant way. Both Aquafina bottled water and the RO/DI water produced in the 175-gallon aquarium make-up water system were almost sterile: < 1500 bacteria/mL. State College Pennsylvania tap water, on the other hand, did carry a modest bacterial load; 27K/mL.
The surveyed reef aquariums divided into two distinct sets of husbandry protocols; aggressive and passive (see Fig. 6 for pictures of these aquariums). The aggressive husbandry practices included protein skimming, GAC filtration, and regular water changes in an active effort to scrub the water of nutrients. The passive approach did not involve any of these procedures. Interestingly, the aquaria subjected to passive husbandry exhibited bacterial counts that fell within the range seen on authentic reefs; 200 - 1000K/mL. On the other hand, the tanks that "benefited" from careful attention to nutrient removal protocols displayed bacteria/mL counts that fell far short of these numbers; only 90-140K/mL. In addition to monitoring water column bacteria counts, the TOC (Total Organic Carbon, see Feldman, 2008) levels were examined as well. Not surprisingly, the tanks with "unpurified" water exhibited TOC levels greater than those seen with the skimmed/GAC-filtered tanks. The "purified" aquaria's TOC levels fall within the typical TOC range seen on authentic, healthy reefs (Feldman, 2008); the passively husbandry tanks were 2-3x higher.
The observation that, at least among this small set of aquaria examined, the water within the skimmed/filtered tanks had only ~ 1/10th of the population of bacteria that the unskimmed/unfiltered tanks had was a real surprise. It speaks to one aspect of aquarium husbandry in which a perhaps important parameter (?), water column bacteria counts from authentic and healthy reefs, is not reproduced at all effectively in these home aquaria. Sensitive corals, like Acropora, do not thrive in the high-bacteria-count/high-TOC-level tanks examined, although soft corals do well (see pictures). On the other hand, SPS corals do well in the low-bacteria-count/low-TOC-level tanks (Fig. 6). These observations raise a number of questions, chief among them perhaps are, (1) "Do water column bacteria counts have any relevance to the short-term or long-term prospects for maintaining SPS in captive aquaria?", and (2) "What is the relationship between TOC and water column bacteria population?" The former question, whereas perhaps more interesting, remains unanswered. The latter question (TOC vs. bacteria population), which bears on the topic of carbon dosing, will be addressed below.
Table 1. Bacterial counts from authentic marine water, various control samples, and several reef tanks.
Look the table in the link
The reef aquariums that were monitored for their bacterial populations:
Figure 6a. KSF 175 gallon reef tank
Figure 6b. SJ 500 gallon reef tank
Figure 6c. SJ 55 gallon reef tank
Figure 6d. SJ 29 gallon reef tank
The bacteria/mL counts for the aquaria described in Table 1 reflect single-time-point measurements, and it is possible that hourly, daily, or other fluctuations in bacterial populations have been missed. These modulations in bacterial populations might result from the light on/off cycle, food additions, pH swings, etc. In order to probe this point, a few week-in-the-life longitudinal studies were conducted on both the 175-gallon reef tank and the 55-gallon reef tank. The first experiment covered 5 days of typical aquarium life, with the skimmer deliberately off for the first three days, the UV sterilizer on, and the GAC and GFO filters on, Fig. 7. Over the course of this experiment, the water column bacteria population fluctuated between ~ 95K and 115K bacteria/mL, a ~ 20% spread in values. The skimmer was turned off at t = 0, and the count rose steeply over the next 12 hours, and then declined to the starting point at the 2-day mark. At that point, a gradual rise to the maximum recorded value, 115K/mL occurred. Turning the skimmer back on at the 3.5-day mark may have slowed the rate of this increase slightly, but the data are not compelling on this point.
It is temping to attribute the initial steep rise to a presumed corresponding increase in the carbon source TOC, since the TOC-removing skimmer was turned off at t = 0. During this growth phase, nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients as well as C would be stripped from the water column also. In this interpretation, the subsequent decline in bacteria population at the 12-hour mark might reflect a depletion of these N and P nutrients required for bacteria population growth; that is, perhaps the initial growth spurt might reflect an increase in C concentration (skimmer off) in a C-limiting bacterial growth regime, and the subsequent decline at 12 hours might indicate a switch over to a N and/or P limited growth regime. This hypothesis dovetails nicely with the Carbon Dosing ideas described earlier. However, it is important to appreciate that simply observing the expected result of a hypothesis does not validate that hypothesis - the strongest conclusion that legitimately can be offered is simply that the data is consistent with the predictions of the hypothesis. Other interpretations of the bacteria population data in Fig. 7 cannot be excluded at this point. Furthermore, the "rebound" in bacterial growth after 2 days is more difficult to interpret without some further knowledge about commensurate C, N, and P levels in the tank. A more controlled experimental plan to monitor bacteria population change contemporaneously with C and N concentration measurements might settle this issue; this experiment will be discussed shortly.
Figure 7. Bacteria/mL counts from a 175-gallon reef tank (See Fig. 6) over the course of 5 days. The tank was fed 3-4 times/day (PE mysis shrimp, Hikari mysis shrimp, flake food, and pellet food) during the "on" part of the daily lighting cycle.
One concerning point in the experiment described in Fig. 7 involves the role that the UV sterilizer might play in influencing bacterial levels; Are we killing significant numbers of bacteria by UV treatment, thus suppressing population growth? The UV sterilizer in use is a 57W flow-through model from Aqua Ultraviolet. In order to probe this question, we re-ran the "week-in-the-life" experiment with the UV sterilizer off, but the skimmer on continuously, Fig. 8. The observed bacteria/mL values over the course of 5 days fluctuated between 60K and 90K (~ 50% change) for this particular time period. Thus, there did not appear to be any significant bacteria population increase in the water column when the UV sterilizer was off, and it is probably safe to conclude that the UV sterilizer does not have a significant effect on the bacteria population levels in the tank's water column.
Figure 8. Testing the influence of UV sterilization on bacterial populations in the water of a 175-gallon reef tank. The feeding regimen described with Fig. 7 was used in this experiment as well.
A final "week-in-the-life" experiment was conducted on the 55-gallon tank lacking any active filtration, Fig. 9. In addition, this tank had been treated daily with vodka as a carbon source for 6 months prior to water removal. This vodka addition started after the original bacteria population reading reported in Table 1 was taken. Since there was no active bacteria removal mechanism (i.e., skimming), it was not clear, a priori, how the bacteria population might change compared to the pre-vodka value of 590±70 K/mL. In fact, the bacteria population clearly had risen to a significantly higher level than observed in the pre-vodka time period, and now it hovered around 1500-2500K/mL. Once again, significant (~ 60% !) fluctuations in bacteria/mL counts over time appear to be the norm, at least for the two aquaria examined.
Figure 9. Bacteria/mL counts from a 55-gallon reef tank (See Fig. 6) over the course of 5 days. No protein skimming or GAC filtration was employed on this tank. The tank was fed frozen mysis shrimp daily. In addition, a vodka dosing regime of 4 mL of 80 proof/day (= 3 ppm of C/day) was in place for 6 months.
Overall, the major conclusions from these preliminary studies on baseline bacteria counts are
1. Actively purified aquaria have water column bacteria populations that are approximately 1/10th those of authentic healthy reefs.
2. Unpurified aquaria have water column bacteria populations that are approximately the same as those of authentic healthy reefs.
3. UV sterilization does not significantly influence aquarium water column bacteria populations.
4. There is substantial fluctuation (20-50%) in the measured water column bacteria populations over a several-day time scale in aquaria.
I've never doubted the presence of bacteria in the water column. What I do doubt is the significance of those bacteria in the water column for biofiltration in our tanks.
Here's a little experiment to do. Take a well established tank with a set bioload. Set up two more identical tanks and take the rock from the established tank, put it one tank and fill it with freshly mixed salt water. Take the water from the established tank and put an equal amount of dry rock with it in the second tank.
The next day stock both tanks exactly like the initial tank. Which one will have problems with ammonia and which one won't?
Here's a little experiment to do. Take a well established tank with a set bioload. Set up two more identical tanks and take the rock from the established tank, put it one tank and fill it with freshly mixed salt water. Take the water from the established tank and put an equal amount of dry rock with it in the second tank.
The next day stock both tanks exactly like the initial tank. Which one will have problems with ammonia and which one won't?
I have been discuss with the owner of LFS about fresh saltwater and AGED saltwater (established saltwater), are they same?
He told me do experiment if I want, using 2 clean tank and put fresh saltwater in one tank and AGED saltwater in other tank then put fish into both tank then watch which fish will get ill first?
And He told me If both water are same then why you need to keep old water as much as you can when you to upgrade the bigger tank, you can put 200g fresh saltwater into the 200g tank if it is same. I think NO BODY want to do that.
With your experiment between live rock and AGED saltwater is not apple to apple then it is hard to compare. Live rock is way better than aged saltwater.
Last edited:
Not sure where you get any of that.
#1 Everyone that I know of that moves a tank uses new sand and NEW salt water with no ill effects. That alone should tell you where the effective bacterial culture resides. The only reason someone would use old tank water would be because they don't have the capability to make that much water at one time.
#2 Quote "With your experiment between live rock and AGED saltwater is not apple to apple then it is hard to compare. Live rock is way better than aged saltwater."
You just admitted what I'm saying is true (that the truly important portion of our biological filter resides in our live rock and not the tank water). Of course the "aged" saltwater is inferior to live rock. That's really all I said.
#3 You need to get a new LFS.
#1 Everyone that I know of that moves a tank uses new sand and NEW salt water with no ill effects. That alone should tell you where the effective bacterial culture resides. The only reason someone would use old tank water would be because they don't have the capability to make that much water at one time.
#2 Quote "With your experiment between live rock and AGED saltwater is not apple to apple then it is hard to compare. Live rock is way better than aged saltwater."
You just admitted what I'm saying is true (that the truly important portion of our biological filter resides in our live rock and not the tank water). Of course the "aged" saltwater is inferior to live rock. That's really all I said.
#3 You need to get a new LFS.
Some of hard head people did not believe bacteria in saltwater column and I want to prove to them to know YES it does even it doesn't has much but it does. You bring up experiment with live rock and some other put "like"...really they make me laughing.Not sure where you get any of that.
#1 Everyone that I know of that moves a tank uses new sand and NEW salt water with no ill effects. That alone should tell you where the effective bacterial culture resides. The only reason someone would use old tank water would be because they don't have the capability to make that much water at one time.
#2 Quote "With your experiment between live rock and AGED saltwater is not apple to apple then it is hard to compare. Live rock is way better than aged saltwater."
You just admitted what I'm saying is true (that the truly important portion of our biological filter resides in our live rock and not the tank water). Of course the "aged" saltwater is inferior to live rock. That's really all I said.
#3 You need to get a new LFS.
All group just trying to follow put like.....hahahhaha
Robink
2500 Club Member
You can set up a qt tank with new water, put the fish in and control ammonia with water changes. That's what I did. The qt will eventually cycle. You just have to do the water changes to control ammonia until it cycles .
Robink
2500 Club Member
I did. Sick clownfish, set up tank in about an hour with fresh saltwater from LFS, no time to mix. I set that up about 3 months ago, maybe more. Clowns still in there. Used water changes to control ammonia and nitrite as advised by Humblefish and Melpyr. Clowns still there, will be the first ones into new tank. Tank cylcled after approx. one month, give or take.
@tthouston there's a lot of good info on this forum which you have apparently not read. Maybe instead of making comments that you obviously have not researched you should be reading all the information that is available here and that you could learn from.
Best of luck !!
Better to remain quiet than open your mouth and give incorrect information.
Not sure what you are getting at, are you referring to lionfish lairs qt that didn't cycle? I believe her, she has a well established reputation and no reason to lie. She stated she was using multiple antibiotics over a course of time and dealing with very sick fish.
I don't think anyone debates that, in an ideal world, we would cycle a qt before placing livestock in it. However, many times the need arises to set it up in a hurry. Would it be better to allow someone's livestock to die of a disease, like velvet, while waiting for the QT to cycle? In the case of velvet, I would not use display water in order to limit the transfer of the velvet to what is on the fish.
I would suggest to take sometime to learn about this forum, there is not one "approved" solution for each situation. You are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else here. It is up to each reader to determine the path they will take.
Lowell Lemon
2500 Club Member
Did anyone notice that the original poster went silent after the first post? I guess not since you were so intent in making your individual points. Hope they were able to find someone to actually help them and not add more confusion. Hope someone sent them a private message of encouragement. Night all and have a great day tomorrow.
