- Joined
- May 24, 2020
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 133
- What state or country do you live in
- Georgia
Just set up my first real reef tank (105g DT peninsula) and I had a question regarding experiences with not quarantining inverts & corals. A few quick facts: my DT recently cycled and my QT (20g long) is in the process of cycling and should be done in a couple of weeks. I will quarantine 100% of my fish with a combination of hyposalinity, Cupramine and PraziPro. And I plan on dipping my corals in a high-quality iodine dip solution prior to introducing into the DT. I will purchase all of my livestock through a LFS that runs copper and hyposalinity through their fish system and the husband & wife owners are meticulous in their presentation and overall cleanliness of all of their critters, corals and fish.
My question relates to the actual risk one is exposed to by not quarantining inverts and corals. I fully recognize that no amount of preventative protocols can make a tank absolutely bulletproof, but if you had to throw out an educated guess what percentage of devastating tank breakouts (velvet, ich, etc.) would you say are the result of not QT'ing fish vs. not QT'ing inverts/corals? Said another way, if the general thought is that a reefer runs a 5% chance (I'm making this up) of introducing a nasty into their tank through a dipped coral, then that might be a risk that they are willing to take. As opposed to the general rule of thumb that if you do not QT fish it is just a matter of time.
I just think that when some of the more experienced contributors who run multiple tanks, with dedicated fish rooms, etc. recommend QT'ing everything (which, I get it, is 100% the best approach) they might not appreciate the space, cost and time limitations of the average reefer who is looking to enjoy the hobby the best they can. I have read so many threads on this incredible website about quarantining in general and it's great to know all of the options to best ensure a disease-free tank, but just curious if there are thoughts regarding the relative risks associated with only QT'ing fish.
My question relates to the actual risk one is exposed to by not quarantining inverts and corals. I fully recognize that no amount of preventative protocols can make a tank absolutely bulletproof, but if you had to throw out an educated guess what percentage of devastating tank breakouts (velvet, ich, etc.) would you say are the result of not QT'ing fish vs. not QT'ing inverts/corals? Said another way, if the general thought is that a reefer runs a 5% chance (I'm making this up) of introducing a nasty into their tank through a dipped coral, then that might be a risk that they are willing to take. As opposed to the general rule of thumb that if you do not QT fish it is just a matter of time.
I just think that when some of the more experienced contributors who run multiple tanks, with dedicated fish rooms, etc. recommend QT'ing everything (which, I get it, is 100% the best approach) they might not appreciate the space, cost and time limitations of the average reefer who is looking to enjoy the hobby the best they can. I have read so many threads on this incredible website about quarantining in general and it's great to know all of the options to best ensure a disease-free tank, but just curious if there are thoughts regarding the relative risks associated with only QT'ing fish.


