Poll: Do You QT? See where you stack up!

[ca1ore]

If a fish has Ich, they don't really fight it off. They remain infected. Their immune system limits the damage the parasite can do but it is still there feeding on the fish.

A healthy fish will produce a slime coat that allows them to be resistant to varying degrees. I know that I have ich in my system; have had for 5 years now, yet the only fish that has ever shown any symptoms (beyond a few initial spots on newcomers) was my Achilles tang, and he only occasionally. I QT still because there are far worse things than ich.

 

[MnFish1]

There is no immunity involved aside from a resistance to a secondary infection caused by thousands of holes on the victims gills. Ich/velvet are external parasites.

This isn't true - multiple articles describe both antibody and cell mediated immunity to Cryptokaryon. It lasts at least 6 months after exposure (if the fish recovers) and life long if the fish is intermittently exposed. Some fish have been found to have 'partial immunity' some have 'Full immunity'. Fish with partial immunity can become asymptomatic carriers.

Additionally, there are chemical barriers in the slime coat that cause some fish to have a higher resistance to infection.

 

[Brew12]

A healthy fish will produce a slime coat that allows them to be resistant to varying degrees.

Absolutely correct. The fishes immune system releases enzymes (pretty sure they are enzymes anyway) into its slime coat that restrict the parasites ability to feed. This causes less damage to the fish making visible symptoms unlikely. It also limits the number of daughter parasites that are produced each generation.

 

[MnFish1]

If, however, there is only a 1% chance of a fish disease being carried in on a coral, the odds after 3 successive introductions are only 3%. It's about risk. So to say that 'if you're not going quarantine your corals and or inverts, you’re essentially not quarantining at all' is patently false. But, we all do what experience and knowledge instructs us to do.

Right - except - 1. Using your numbers which may over or underestimate the 'real risk', if you put 100 frags each with a 1% chance of carrying infection into a large tank, you have a very high probability of infection. 20 Frags = 20% chance. Thats still pretty high for a lethal infection. If you take live rock from an aquarium with ich (from a LFS or another hobbyist that has had ich in the tank, its likely a much higher than 1% risk. Unless you are getting your corals from vendors with no fish in their tanks for x days - its a risk. I would agree with you that buying a shrimp, for example would be very unlikely to cause an infection. Buying a new piece of live rock or a large coral on a rock from a tank containing fish has a much higher risk. I guess the point is most people dont even think about the possibility - so its a valid topic to discuss (IMHO)

PS - there are quarantine protocols that are 100% effective (at least for ich and velvet) if done correctly.

 

[rich nyc]

what about clams

 

[MnFish1]

what about clams

From the University of FL: (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa164)

A good biosecurity program, developed with the assistance of a fish health specialist, will include quarantine of new fish (Yanong 2009). Quarantine marine plants, invertebrates (including shrimp, clams, corals, live rock), tank substrate, and other materials that may have been exposed to infected fish and/or harbor tomonts (reproductive, encysted stages) before introducing them into a system. Any used equipment or tanks should be properly disinfected prior to reuse. Aerosolization of theronts or other life stages from one tank to another is likely possible, especially if tanks are heavily aerated and air movement is favorable. Aerosolization as a method of spreading parasites has been demonstrated with Ichthyophthirius (Wooster et al. 2001). Source water (e.g., raw seawater) is a potential reservoir.

 

[ca1ore]

Right - except - 1. Using your numbers which may over or underestimate the 'real risk', if you put 100 frags each with a 1% chance of carrying infection into a large tank, you have a very high probability of infection. 20 Frags = 20% chance. Thats still pretty high for a lethal infection. If you take live rock from an aquarium with ich (from a LFS or another hobbyist that has had ich in the tank, its likely a much higher than 1% risk. Unless you are getting your corals from vendors with no fish in their tanks for x days - its a risk. I would agree with you that buying a shrimp, for example would be very unlikely to cause an infection. Buying a new piece of live rock or a large coral on a rock from a tank containing fish has a much higher risk. I guess the point is most people dont even think about the possibility - so its a valid topic to discuss (IMHO)

PS - there are quarantine protocols that are 100% effective (at least for ich and velvet) if done correctly.

Yes, of course, it's math ..... and what you use for assumed % ..... which is a WaG .... who knows. You are right about 100% being possible, but the devil's in the details and I'd bet that the vast majority (read: all) fail to achieve it. For example, you note that study (there was a thread a few years ago n that other site) based on the risk associated with aerosolized ich. The QT should be in a separate room other wise it isn't 100%, and that's just one example.

 

[ca1ore]

Many people say quarantining fish is overkill for the same reason you say its overkill to QT inverts/coral. That doesn't make their (or your) logic correct.

Nor yours ...... end of the day we each accept a level of risk and design our systems accordingly.

 

[Labridaedicted]

Man.... qt threads always get so heated...

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, of course, it's math ..... and what you use for assumed % ..... which is a WaG .... who knows. You are right about 100% being possible, but the devil's in the details and I'd bet that the vast majority (read: all) fail to achieve it. For example, you note that study (there was a thread a few years ago n that other site) based on the risk associated with aerosolized ich. The QT should be in a separate room other wise it isn't 100%, and that's just one example.

Nor yours ...... end of the day we each accept a level of risk and design our systems accordingly.

Just to be clear - I wasn't trying to say you were 'wrong' in what you do personally. After all - I have no QT system at all at home - I rely on my supplier (which many would say is completely stupid). I was just pointing out that most experts recommend QTing everything, a concept you seemed to disagree with. You asked for 'evidence' and I provided 2 links that recommended it - no more no less.

The interesting thing is - despite what 'experts recommend', only a small number of people here are doing proper quarantine procedures - and seem to have reef tanks (or an unlimited budget for fish dying all the time) - which begs the question what really is necessary? I guess it goes back to the old question - if you were offered a bag of 10 pieces of gold, and if you picked the wrong one it would kill you - would you take the risk. Ive lost over 1000$ in fish within 2 days from Velvet - it was not pleasant - and it followed adding a new piece of rock from a local store 'who had just got it in from a customer'. (my stupidity and I no longer go to that store)

 

[iemsparticus]

Part of the discussion is also whether a person's 'quarantine' system includes empiric treatment for the problems you are talking about above. For example, Fish can have ich or velvet and be asymptomatic. If you just monitor them for a week - what are you really accomplishing? Bacterial and fungal infections that might be found on new fish are not usually 'contagious' to other fish in a display tank (those bacteria are already in the tank anyway). Worms - you may or may not see just by observation. Seems to me the MAIN goal of quarantine is avoiding ich velvet and other parasitic infections.

As to coral - I think there is some evidence (at least its posted often here) that bacterial infections on coral CAN spread to other healthy tissue/specimens - so seems like that would be a reason to quarantine coral.

As to 'live rock' this would perhaps be the most likely cause for an ich outbreak - without leaving that rock 'fallow' for 76 days. (By live rock, I mean live rock that has been in a fish containing aquarium) not in a cycling bin.

If you dose Prazi, you kill Flukes without needing to observe... Prophylactic treatment of flukes is a big part of many QT protocols, and shouldn’t be overlooked... and inverts don’t bring it in.

Again... saying “ich and velvet are the two main reasons to QT fish” is an oversimplification, and therefore not a great basis for an argument.

Nobody is saying that you aren’t reintroducing risk if you don’t QT everything wet that goes in the DT... but to state that this practice basically equates to not QTing fish at all is just to simplistic... it’s untrue.

 

[MnFish1]

If you dose Prazi, you kill Flukes without needing to observe... Prophylactic treatment of flukes is a big part of many QT protocols, and shouldn’t be overlooked... and inverts don’t bring it in.

Again... saying “ich and velvet are the two main reasons to QT fish” is an oversimplification, and therefore not a great basis for an argument.

Nobody is saying that you aren’t reintroducing risk if you don’t QT everything wet that goes in the DT... but to state that this practice basically equates to not QTing fish at all is just to simplistic... it’s untrue.

Is it? Do flukes only enter a tank on a fish (thats an honest question - I dont know) - seems plausible. The point was that many people dont treat with 'anything' let alone prazipro during quarantine. So - if you just plop a fish into a tank for 2 weeks and say - all good - put it in the display - IMHO - that is as good as not quarantine at all.

In one post I stated - a QT tank - with prophylactic treatment - is a lot different than just 'watching' something in a tank.

Just curious - what percent of fish bought at various sources have 'flukes'. I have never seen them. Thats not a sarcastic comment btw - I have literally never seen them. Ichk yes, Velvet, yes - with disastrous consequences. Are Flukes as morbid as velvet?

 

[iemsparticus]

Is it? Do flukes only enter a tank on a fish (thats an honest question - I dont know) - seems plausible. The point was that many people dont treat with 'anything' let alone prazipro during quarantine. So - if you just plop a fish into a tank for 2 weeks and say - all good - put it in the display - IMHO - that is as good as not quarantine at all.

In one post I stated - a QT tank - with prophylactic treatment - is a lot different than just 'watching' something in a tank.

Just curious - what percent of fish bought at various sources have 'flukes'. I have never seen them. Thats not a sarcastic comment btw - I have literally never seen them. Ichk yes, Velvet, yes - with disastrous consequences. Are Flukes as morbid as velvet?

Just because some people quarantine fish for 2 weeks and then they go to the DT doesn’t mean that’s the way everyone does it... and it’s certainly not what is widely accepted as best practice as far as QTing a fish.

That is the first time I have heard that being your point... possibly I missed it (this thread is expanding fast!), and I agree with you that said method of QT isn’t very useful in preventing disease from getting in your DT. It’s useful for other things, like getting the fish used to your water, food, etc... but for disease prevention, of course not.

What I was responding to were the following claims made on this thread:
1) QTing fish and not inverts is equivalent to not QTing anything... this is hyperbole
2) The MAIN point of QTing fishes is to prevent ich and velvet from getting into your DT... this is an oversimplification.

 

[MnFish1]

That is the first time I have heard that being your point... possibly I missed it (this thread is expanding fast!), and I agree with you that said method of QT isn’t very useful in preventing disease from getting in your DT. It’s useful for other things, like getting the fish used to your water, food, etc... but for disease prevention, of course not. What I was responding to were the following claims made on this thread:
1) QTing fish and not inverts is equivalent to not QTing anything... this is hyperbole
2) The MAIN point of QTing fishes is to prevent ich and velvet from getting into your DT... this is an oversimplification.

This was my second post on the thread: >>Im surprised because (unless you have a fish only tank) if you dont QT invertebrates/coral etc, youre basically not quarantining - so 89% of users here are not quarantining. Though - if you get your corals from a frag tank with no fish for >76 days - its essentially getting 'quarantined' stuff - but my guess is that this is not common.<<. (I didnt quote my first post because it didnt have anything to do with the topic)

So - point 1 - I dont think it is hyperbole. Experts recommend quarantining 'everything'. You might know more than they do - I do not - its not my opinion - its how aquariums and other large institutions 'do it'. Don't blame me for the science. If you plop a piece of live rock in your tank from somewhere - and your fish are wiped out - its not hyperbole. The justification that people use here to QT fish is that only 1 can cause a problem - well its the same with other fomites - though perhaps less likely. Unless you know that the tank from which you got your coral had no ich infested fish for 76 days, you are playing Russian roulette. If you put live rock from another tank (same caveat) you are playing Russian roulette. It may be less likely than if you dropped a carrier or infected fish - but why take chances? Neither you (nor I) nor anyone knows the individual risk from placing a non-fish in your tank without quarantine would be. Why chance it? Again - the likelyhood that any fish.invert/coral/rock/shrimp dropped into an aquarium will cause a disaster is low. Yet everyone "quarantines" with Fish.

Point 2 - It is an oversimplification. But - those are the 2 things that will kill all of your fish (among other protozoans) - bacteria will not, fungi will not). Unless you have other data. If a fish has an obvious wound infection in the bag, I would not put it in my display tank, for example. I can see - though - where you could see this was an oversimplification.

 

[thejuice24]

So I am newer to the hobby about 14 months and QT everything would be my number 1 advice to anyone starting the hobby. From Ick, Velvet, Flukes, Internal Parasites, to unwanted hitch hikers, bubble algae and bryopsis... QT people QT QT QT.... been there done that!

 

[Forsaken77]

We have never and more than likely never will QT. We are of the belief that sometimes QTing fish can do more harm than good.

If we, as people, kept ourselves in a completely sterile environment, the moment we were introduced to a disease we would have no built up immune system to fight it and more than likely would quickly succumb. I see this in my own life. As a bank teller, I encounter who knows what germs on a daily basis (cash has got to be one of the dirtiest things ever!) but I firmly believe it is that constant contact with germs that keeps me healthy. I get sick maybe once a year, and usually just a cold.

I feel that we are essentially handicapping our fish from being able to fight off a disease on their own when we QT. Now, I totally understand why some choose to QT, but we choose not to.

In our 7 years of reef keeping we have had almost every problem you can have in a tank: tank crash, all types of bad algae, unwanted pests, and so on. But, we have never had an outbreak of disease amongst our fish. We have had our fair share of new fish die, but it has never spread to the others. I know that one day it can happen and we could lose all of our fish, but I'd rather risk that than put fish through the added stress of QT. Happy fish = healthy fish! I even have a seahorse tank that is still waiting for seahorses (waiting for $$$) that I will not be setting up a QT tank for (oh, the horror! Lol). We try to make our tanks and the fish's transition as natural as possible. Also, our favorite LFS doesn't do any type of QT on their fish, no copper in system or anything, and we've never lost one of the fish we have gotten from them.

I do, however, ALWAYS dip my corals in Bayer. It doesn't bother the corals at all and quickly kills all of the bad little buggers in hiding. I am still fighting bristle worms and flat worms, ick!

Whether you QT or not, do so intentionally! Don't QT simply because "that is what you are supposed to do", and don't skip QT for mere laziness. Chose the method that you trust the most and do everything you can to make it work!

Some fish do not respond well to certain medications, but that is up to the owner to research before introducing the medications.

As for the " sterile environment " description, I would disagree. You're not keeping the fish in that environment long enough for its natural defenses and immune system to shut down. It's a very brief period. Almost akin to going to the hospital for a short stay. You're not going to lose all of your immunity because you're in a clean environment for a month or so (hypothetically saying hospitals are a clean environment for the sake of argument).

And the all natural approach I can understand, but an aquarium is not the fishs' natural environment. An aquarium will concentrate a disease(s) in a static location. It's not like the fish can swim out of the area if there's disease present. That disease will multiply and multiply, essentially that's basically Thanksgiving dinner for parasites.

I also agree that fish should be happy and less stressed for them to survive longer and have a better life. But even a new fish in my small QT tank ends up thriving in there. It is well fed, no competition, always active, sometimes relieved because you are ridding it of parasites, and you wouldn't even know there are meds in the water based off the fishs' behavior. QT'ing a fish shouldn't stress the fish much (beyond what it would experience otherwise from being sold and traveling around) when done properly

I understand your logic, and that is your choice. I just don't think that logic applies to this situation. Letting nature take care of itself and all that. But this isn't nature, and nature isn't capable of caring for the fish in an aquarium environment... You are.

 

[Forsaken77]

I picked "fish-only" because I have a FOWLR tank. Others with the same setup may have chosen this response for the same reason.

Also, if you say you don't QT because you don't have the time, then you're in the wrong hobby, or chose a bad excuse. An aquarium is nothing but time. Time caring for it, nurturing it, and watching it blossom.

If someone had a dog they picked up off the street, not knowing where its been or what its been around, they would normally take it to the vet to make sure it doesn't have worms, fleas, or isn't sick. And if someone bought a dog, they would have it checked out before bringing it around their other pets. The same applies to fish. It becomes your responsibility once you relieve Mother Nature of her job by buying the fish.

 

[iemsparticus]

So - point 1 - I dont think it is hyperbole. Experts recommend quarantining 'everything'. You might know more than they do - I do not - its not my opinion - its how aquariums and other large institutions 'do it'. Don't blame me for the science. If you plop a piece of live rock in your tank from somewhere - and your fish are wiped out - its not hyperbole. The justification that people use here to QT fish is that only 1 can cause a problem - well its the same with other fomites - though perhaps less likely. Unless you know that the tank from which you got your coral had no ich infested fish for 76 days, you are playing Russian roulette. If you put live rock from another tank (same caveat) you are playing Russian roulette. It may be less likely than if you dropped a carrier or infected fish - but why take chances? Neither you (nor I) nor anyone knows the individual risk from placing a non-fish in your tank without quarantine would be. Why chance it? Again - the likelyhood that any fish.invert/coral/rock/shrimp dropped into an aquarium will cause a disaster is low. Yet everyone "quarantines" with Fish.

Experts agree that you should wear your shoulder strap along with your lap belt when riding in a car, for safety. Does that mean that if you wear your lap belt, but put your shoulder strap behind you, that you basically aren’t wearing a seatbelt? Even with just the lap belt in place, your survivability in case of a car accident is much better than with absolutely nothing. Sure, it does happen that people are eviscerated because the shoulder strap that is behind you pulls upward as it is intended, and can end up slicing your stomach open... however those cases are not common.

It would be hyperbole to say that refraining from wearing your shoulder belt is akin to not wearing a seat belt at all... because you still are more protected than if you wore nothing.

The same is true regarding QTing of fishes and not inverts. It is hyperbole to say that if you do not QT inverts, it is akin to not QTing at all, because even just QTing fish, you are more protected than if you were to do nothing. The percentages of those protections are, as far as I am aware, unknown... but it is widely accepted that fish are far more likely to carry ich and velvet, for example, than an invert.

Are tanks wiped out by an infested piece of live rock? Certainly, as you can attest to. But, the generally held view is that is far more likely to happen with a fish that hasn’t been quarantined than an invert or something else that is wet.

I do not disagree with you that risk is incurred in not QTing everything wet... I disagree with you that QTing fish only completely erases any protection gained, and that it gives me the same probability of being wiped out by velvet that I would get if I went to my local PetCo, purchased a Hippo Tang, and dropped it in my DT the same day.

 

[iemsparticus]

I picked "fish-only" because I have a FOWLR tank. Others with the same setup may have chosen this response for the same reason.

Also, if you say you don't QT because you don't have the time, then you're in the wrong hobby, or chose a bad excuse. An aquarium is nothing but time. Time caring for it, nurturing it, and watching it blossom.

If someone had a dog they picked up off the street, not knowing where its been or what its been around, they would normally take it to the vet to make sure it doesn't have worms, fleas, or isn't sick. And if someone bought a dog, they would have it checked out before bringing it around their other pets. The same applies to fish. It becomes your responsibility once you relieve Mother Nature of her job by buying the fish.

Not having time is a horrible reason... agree completely.

 

[MnFish1]

Experts agree that you should wear your shoulder strap along with your lap belt when riding in a car, for safety. Does that mean that if you wear your lap belt, but put your shoulder strap behind you, that you basically aren’t wearing a seatbelt? Even with just the lap belt in place, your survivability in case of a car accident is much better than with absolutely nothing. Sure, it does happen that people are eviscerated because the shoulder strap that is behind you pulls upward as it is intended, and can end up slicing your stomach open... however those cases are not common.

It would be hyperbole to say that refraining from wearing your shoulder belt is akin to not wearing a seat belt at all... because you still are more protected than if you wore nothing.

The same is true regarding QTing of fishes and not inverts. It is hyperbole to say that if you do not QT inverts, it is akin to not QTing at all, because even just QTing fish, you are more protected than if you were to do nothing. The percentages of those protections are, as far as I am aware, unknown... but it is widely accepted that fish are far more likely to carry ich and velvet, for example, than an invert.

Are tanks wiped out by an infested piece of live rock? Certainly, as you can attest to. But, the generally held view is that is far more likely to happen with a fish that hasn’t been quarantined than an invert or something else that is wet.

I do not disagree with you that risk is incurred in not QTing everything wet... I disagree with you that QTing fish only completely erases any protection gained, and that it gives me the same probability of being wiped out by velvet that I would get if I went to my local PetCo, purchased a Hippo Tang, and dropped it in my DT the same day.

Apparently, the generally attested view (according to the poll on this website - which I would hope would be people that are considered 'above average' in this hobby) is that quarantine is not necessary - since the majority do not do it. So?

OK - you are right - it is hyperbole to say that not quarantining inverts/coral/rock is the 'same' as not quarantining fish. I only say that because I dont have the statistics to refute it - though - the word 'hyperbole' is a little strong. I will say this - if you believe that quarantining fish is 'worthwhile', while at the same time you feel that not quarantining other possibilities is reasonable, you are going against scientific recommendations - and you will be burned someday.

And please - stop saying things I haven't said. I said - a Shrimp is not likely to transmit Ich a piece of Live rock Is more likely. Again the point here is not to say anyone is 'right or wrong'. the point is to educate people that some of these lethal diseases can be transmitted if you don't quarantine properly (or buy from sources that quarantine properly).

IMHO - you have no data to prove your point that fish unquarantined are less/more likely to transmit a 'problem' to your tank that live rock. If y ou do - please post it.

By the way - if you are unlucky enough to have ich.velvet enter your tank on a non-fish, it doesn't matter - you're still screwed. If you were wearing a shoulder belt alone - rather than a lap belt alone you would be screwed as well. I could post any number of similar analogies (like the seat belt one you did) but it doesn't matter - if you get ich/vevet in your tank because you weren't careful - you are srewed.