A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[Lasse]

No, we can't conclude this. I guess you could make that statement seeing the comments in this thread, but there actually is a middle ground, or more accurately, millions of middle grounds as options. That would be things like:

1. Observe all incoming fish for 30 days and treat what you see.
2. Treat what you reasonably can with simple non-drug options like TTM and observe for other issues
3. Treat for the worst issues that we are most likely to see (ich/velvet/flukes would be my top suspects) using the safest medications.

Any of these options can drastically reduce the chances of infecting a tank and improve the health of the fish.

I´m sorry that I express myself in a bad way - I include your three paragraphs in my statement about working with the nature instead of working against it. I fully agree with your three points. And it is true that you can see TT av FWD as prohylactic method s - I will use the term chemical prohylactic treatment in the future

As for food, I trust a previous post on R2R from @Humblefish that freezing kills ich and velvet. The same thread has a post from LRS explaining how they flash freeze their foods to -24F to eliminate the chances of it having parasites. Most people feed their tanks processed or frozen foods or a combination. Foods could introduce bacteria, but I don't see anyone here arguing about trying to prevent bacteria in our tanks. The main things that people are concerned about are the three I listed above and commercially available food isn't a likely source for any of those.

Yes - I´m aware that this is a saying - but can you show any evidences that´s true? It is probably true for many worms and flukes that could be inside fishes and inverrtebrates - but is it true for cysts? According to treat against bacteria – there is some antibacterial drugs included in many chemical prophylactic protocols.

There is a lot of posts here trying to indicate that the ones here that is critical against chemical prophylactic treatments is against all types of QT – that’s not true. The criticism is against all of these use of drugs on fishes without clinical signs of disease. But as I say – if you walk the way that include chemical prophylactic treatment – you must walk that way fully out – otherwise it will be a catastrophe sooner or later. And it will work for some persons - but will it work for me - no way. I´m a former ship yard worker (from the beginning of time) - not a guy used of workplaces that looks like labs. I must find a method that is rustic and allowing mistakes without risk for catastrophic events. Since 2006 (in my home aquaria) I have had ich once – two clowns – they were treated with TT and the tank was treated with a higher dosage of ozone for 2 weeks (a mature tank with many corals) – and yes – there was tangs in that tank. Fish had died – yes – but diseases caused by microorganisms has not kill any of my fishes since I start with SW at home – lucky me? Maybe but someone said – luck is nothing that you get - it's something you deserve

There is a reason you don't see many tanks like that in Europe and I suspect the number we see in Canada will be dropping sharply with the new laws passed there.

That´s not true - tangs are very popular in Europe. My aquaria without Tangs is the odd thing here - most aquaria include 1 or more tangs. But what you maybe do not see very often - is FOLR or FO aquaria.

Somewhere in this thread somebody mention a theory that ich will burn out after 10 – 12 cycles – it means after around 1 year. First time I hear this, but it is non unlikely that it can been seen like that if it is a tank with corals. Why – after one year – most tanks have a very good population of corals (read hungry mouths)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[bluprntguy]

any pathogen you add to the tank will make the survivors stronger by boosting their adaptive immunity.

Do you have any scientific facts to back this statement up? This is a bold, broad statement without any clarifications or limitations. I don't think it's true in most cases and certainly not true in all cases. We aren't talking about your preschool kid getting cold with the sniffles. Most of the diseases being discussed are pathogens that do serious damage to the fish. Do you really think that a fish that battles flukes for an extended period is going to be stronger and not weaker after that? Do people that have survived cancer also have stronger immune systems afterwards?

Outdoor cats live an average of 2-5 years and indoor cats live an average of 17, mostly because indoor cats aren't exposed to diseases. If avoiding pathogens drastically increases the life expectancy and well being of a cat, why exactly do you think it doesn't do the same for fish?

 

[MnFish1]

I re-read a couple of exchanges - and reviewed some more information today in greater detail - so I want to respond to a couple things:

What’s your agenda here? To advocate that people should leave fish in their ich infected tanks so that the fish “build up an immunity”? From my perspective that’s reckless and inhumane, given the research we have and our ability to simply prevent this, and other diseases. And your actions and arguments here just help perpetuate misunderstandings.

@Lasse called you on using the word 'agenda' - and I just want to point out that I used the term first to another poster prefixed by a comment suggesting I wasnt using it in a pejorative way. So I cant really criticize you about asking me about my agenda. But - what you're saying above is kind of a straw man argument. I am not a big fan of 'immune tanks' - as @Paul B would testify. I'm also not a big fan of prophylactic treatment. My agenda thus - is to point out when people are making statements that may be 'common wisdom' - but not necessarily supported by fact.

Actually it is true. It’s specifically noted in one of the many articles that you linked, but haven’t read. It specifically says that ich continues to infect the fish but that they will stop showing visible symptoms. Why do you want to ignore parts of studies that you simply don’t like?

I re-read some of them for the 5th time over the course of years - I dont see this referenced - it may be that you're using words that are not directly quoted in the paper (Or I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say (i.e the context). Just because a tormont is on a gill doesnt mean that the fish is 'infected'. Of course without a biopsy it would be difficult to 'see' - ie its not visible. If you're trying to say that there may be a white spot or 2 on a fin - but the fish is not flashing or breathing heavy - that is also 'not infected'. But again - for all of out benefit - please point out if its something than those 2 items what I was ignoring.

Quote it specifically - if I quoted something incorrectly - I will - if you're talking about the U of Florida article - that has also been somewhat debunked - but since I have no clue what you're talking about - I cant say.

Edit-I stated that PART of the U of Florida article(http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FA/FA16400.pdf)has been 'debunked' IT HASN'T (its actually one of the best summaries of CI out there) - but there is one paragraph that states based on research from the 1990's that survivors can 'carry CI' - and remain carriers. Suggesting that CI can live on the fish for long periods (and thus would not be killed by copper or TTM). (Fish that survive a Cryptocaryon infection develop immunity, which can prevent significant disease for up to 6 months (Burgess 1992; Burgess and Matthews 1995). However, these survivors may act as carriers and provide a reservoir for future outbreaks (Colorni and Burgess 1997).)

Instead it is now thought that the life cycle continues on immune fish but only a very few torments actually attach - but they continue to fall off at the same rate as in other fish - thus copper or TTM should still work to kill them (this in fish assumed to be 'immune'). The continuous re-exposure also allows for immunity to persist.

 

[bluprntguy]

Yes - I´m aware that this is a saying - but can you show any evidences that´s true? It is probably true for many worms and flukes that could be inside fishes and inverrtebrates - but is it true for cysts? According to treat against bacteria – there is some antibacterial drugs included in many chemical prophylactic protocols.

For ich, scientific studies have shown that freezing food at -10 for 7 days destroys all stages. It's in one of the studies linked somewhere in this insane thread if you wanted to check it out. The post from LRS on R2R indicated that their protocol was driven by requirements from public aquariums to insure the frozen food was free of diseases. Also, all the frozen food that I purchase is from reputable companies and states on the package that it's free of parasites and diseases, probably through deep freeze methods similar to LRS. I've kept numerous aquariums for a few decades, feeding frozen food everyday, and I have never infected my tank with ich or velvet via food. Why do you want to continue to believe that frozen food is a threat despite every evidence to the contrary?

 

[KJoFan]

This is where I feel we have room to improve at R2R. My impression is that we tend to disregard (at best) or condemn (at worst) those who are working to develop those new methods. How many stickies in the fish disease section discuss, in a positive manner, methods of keeping fish healthy without reliance on medications? Less than half? Less than one quarter? Or is it less than one?


I completely agree with this. No fish has gone into my system without treatment and I don't see it happening in the near future, hence my being a hypocrite. I still appreciate all of the work that is being done to continue to advance the hobby through the use of medications and I still try to help people use them. And yet, I look at how much harder it has gotten to get many fish through QT successfully lately and I can't help but worry for the future. What worked 2 years ago is almost completely ineffective now and that is not a good sign.

At the risk of repeating something that's been said already since I haven't read every word of this thread but a couple take aways for me are that so many of us are scared to intro a fish to our display without prophylactic treatment. I am wondering if it's more hype than reality. We're seeing a lot of fear mongering about disease running rampant in the supply chain. I've had many fish coming through my system personally over the past year+ as I've worked on stocking my system. I can't say that I've had many come through with any apparent disease, and I've sourced my fish from several different places. So, part of me wonders, just how prevalent is disease? Or, is it just fear?

I did have velvet take out my entire system prior to my current one in the blink of an eye. This is why I QT now. But, do I QT down to the letter of advice you find in the Fish Disease section? Not always. Am I playing with fire? It feels like it sometimes, but again, the other side of me questions is it just fear talking?

My other thought is related to the cichlid story and resistance to medication. It seems reasonable we're seeing an increase in disease in the supply chain (if we really are) because we're so proactively treating for diseases that probably aren't even present.

So, I suppose I'm a little bit one of those hypocrites too. I'd really like to go without the safety net of prophylactic treatment, because who knows, it might just work out fine. But, there's always the what if? And like so many other hypocrites here, I'm a little paralyzed by the fear of NOT quarantining that I just keep doing it.

In the end, I do think we need to break the cycle of relying so much on these medications as our safety net, because it can lead nowhere good in the long term. As humans we insist on trying to bend mother nature to our will and find a solution to a problem we perceive to have. But, in true human nature, we overdo it, overuse it until it becomes ineffective or we start to realize we're causing more harm than good and try to find a new route. Mother nature knows best and will always win in the end.

 

[MnFish1]

Somewhere in this thread somebody mention a theory that ich will burn out after 10 – 12 cycles – it means after around 1 year. First time I hear this, but it is non unlikely that it can been seen like that if it is a tank with corals. Why – after one year – most tanks have a very good population of corals (read hungry mouths)

This was mentioned (I believe - in this paper (Cryptocaryon irritans(Ciliophora): acquired protective immunity in the thick-lipped mullet,Chelon labrosus).

I believe it was also mentioned in the series of articles in advancedaquarist.com (where it was thought not to be true). Unfortunately I cant get into either source for some reason - but it was definitely 'thought' to be the case - but then found not to be true.

It may also have been on a paper where they were trying to maintain a culture of CI for research - but found that it died out after 11-12 cycles.

 

[MnFish1]

For ich, scientific studies have shown that freezing food at -10 for 7 days destroys all stages.

I think you're correct - but can you show us the scientific studies that show this? I know I posted one about tapeworms and larvae that require freezing at -35 degrees (in fish) for at least 24 hours. Thats why I wonder how LRS gets away with -24 degrees (perhaps it just takes a longer time)?

Do you have any scientific facts to back this statement up? This is a bold, broad statement without any clarifications or limitations. I don't think it's true in most cases and certainly not true in all cases. We aren't talking about your preschool kid getting cold with the sniffles. These are pathogens that do serious damage to the fish. Do you really think that a fish that battles flukes for an extended period is going to be stronger and not weaker after that? Do people that have survived cancer also have stronger immune systems afterwards?

Do you have any scientific facts to back up what you're saying? No offense - you're a bit new here - you ask a lot of questions - but not a lot of evidence behind what you're saying either. I just find it odd that you are mentioning a lot of generalities - but then ask everyone else for specific references. But - Ill attempt to answer your question about @Brew12's statement that if you add a pathogen to a tank - the survivors immune system will be stronger.

This is certainly the case - and its one of the fundamentals of immunology. The key word in his sentence is 'survivors'. If you add CI to a tank of non-immune fish - some will live some will die (this happens in the wild as well - though in all likelihood more will live). The ones that do live - will have specific immunity against CI. Check out the articles from Burgess, Colorni, Matthews, etc - its been discussed at length. Note specific immunity does not mean that if you add an overwhelming dose of CI to a tank that even all the immune fish will survive. It means their immune system is stronger against CI than a 'non-immune' fish.

Again - I will change my wording - what is the theory/purpose for your posts. are you advocating QT, chemoprophylaxis, something else? @Brew12 wrote an excellent article with his point of view. @Lasse and I and others have expressed their point of view. Rather than merely asking questions - and your comments that this is an insane thread and everyone here is basically 'a fool' - I'm interested in what you think about the article.

PS - fish also have a non-specific immune system - that is strengthened with good feeding, water quality, low stress, low stocking, and other things.

 

[drstardust]

I think this is a very important discussion to have. Thanks very much for the article, @Brew12

I am not interested in getting into the weeds of this discussion, as my current stance on quarantine is pretty clear (and I don't think I could state it more eloquently than @ngoodermuth), but I think an important distinction to be made is what we mean by "quarantine deaths." Do we mean fish that go into QT healthy but then actively die because of properly performed prophylactically medicated quarantine? Do we include those who were due to blatant human error (overdosing, not controlling ammonia, etc)? Do we include the "salvage efforts" where someone purchased or procured a very sick fish on purpose with hopes of trying to save it (and usually failing)? Do we include fish that survived the quarantine process but had shortened lifespans because of the medications? How do we even prove this was the case without professional necropsy?
Just some food for thought.

 

[MnFish1]

I think this is a very important discussion to have. Thanks very much for the article, @Brew12

I am not interested in getting into the weeds of this discussion, as my current stance on quarantine is pretty clear (and I don't think I could state it more eloquently than @ngoodermuth), but I think an important distinction to be made is what we mean by "quarantine deaths." Do we mean fish that go into QT healthy but then actively die because of properly performed prophylactically medicated quarantine? Do we include those who were due to blatant human error (overdosing, not controlling ammonia, etc)? Do we include the "salvage efforts" where someone purchased or procured a very sick fish on purpose with hopes of trying to save it (and usually failing)? Do we include fish that survived the quarantine process but had shortened lifespans because of the medications? How do we even prove this was the case without professional necropsy?
Just some food for thought.

You can't prove it without biopsy/ necropsy. If you look at almost every zoo biosecurity protocol they use biopsies and necropsies to design their protocols - and determine 'what' if anything went wrong. IMHO - to answer your food for thought - All deaths that happen in QT should be considered as 'deaths'. Just like all deaths where fish are 'dumped' into a tank without QT are counted as 'deaths'. BTW - the reason I would count 'all deaths' in QT - is that many people have success with no QT - so if someone lets their ammonia go to high, etc - its a death that may not have happened if the QT procedure was not performed.

Again - I'm not a big fan of immune tanks - but @Paul B has mentioned many times dropping fish 'covered in CI' into his tank - and they survived. Its mostly anecdote. Here is another food for thought - do we include the fish whose immune systems are weakened by copper who then die of a bacterial infection 3 weeks later (with no sign of CI or other parasites)?

 

[drstardust]

You can't prove it without biopsy/ necropsy. If you look at almost every zoo biosecurity protocol they use biopsies and necropsies to design their protocols - and determine 'what' if anything went wrong. IMHO - to answer your food for thought - All deaths that happen in QT should be considered as 'deaths'. Just like all deaths where fish are 'dumped' into a tank without QT are counted as 'deaths'. BTW - the reason I would count 'all deaths' in QT - is that many people have success with no QT - so if someone lets their ammonia go to high, etc - its a death that may not have happened if the QT procedure was not performed.

I don't think it should be simplified in such a way. Doing something properly vs. not is a very important distinction. Doing QT incorrectly would unfairly skew the data. Just like, let's say someone didn't QT and dropped a fish directly in their DT. If they did so before the DT was cycled, and the fish died of ammonia poisoning rather than anything having to do with disease, that would not be a fair data point. If a standard dose and duration of copper weakened a fish's immune system and led to bacterial infection, then yes, I believe that should be included.

However, I realize this veered away from the discussion of what do we do if/when our meds are no longer available or no longer work. For that, I do not have an answer. But I agree that starting the discussion is critical.

 

[ngoodermuth]

I think this is a very important discussion to have. Thanks very much for the article, @Brew12

I am not interested in getting into the weeds of this discussion, as my current stance on quarantine is pretty clear (and I don't think I could state it more eloquently than @ngoodermuth), but I think an important distinction to be made is what we mean by "quarantine deaths." Do we mean fish that go into QT healthy but then actively die because of properly performed prophylactically medicated quarantine? Do we include those who were due to blatant human error (overdosing, not controlling ammonia, etc)? Do we include the "salvage efforts" where someone purchased or procured a very sick fish on purpose with hopes of trying to save it (and usually failing)? Do we include fish that survived the quarantine process but had shortened lifespans because of the medications? How do we even prove this was the case without professional necropsy?
Just some food for thought.

This is a good point, and while I do see the point that “all deaths are deaths”, lack of experience probably accounts for more deaths than the “experienced” aquarists who QT and the “experienced” aquarists that do not QT, combined.

Inexperienced non-QT users might not employ the necessary techniques to help keep parasite numbers below catastrophic. Also, newer tanks won’t have the mature coral colonies and various filter feeders that more established tanks do. Everyone has to “start” somewhere, so where do you start without mass fish deaths? And you can’t grow large coral colonies without fish, at least not at the “beginner” level.

Where are the numbers that prove that QT deaths, due to inexperience, medications, ammonia, or otherwise... outnumber the mass deaths we see in the disease forum every day? When have we concluded that QT causes more unnecessary deaths than reckless abandonment of QT altogether?

For the record, I have recently done a full breakdown of my success using QT since setting up my current DT. I’ve had 77% success getting fish through QT and into my tank. And, the fish I lost were all but ONE ... fish that are difficult to feed whether you QT or not.

None have had any noticeable side effects from the prophylactic treatments, so far.

My success at keeping fish alive has increased exponentially between adopting a QT regime AND prophylactic treatment schedule.

Not saying it’s the best solution... I wish things were different and it was an option to find fish either locally or online (I’ve been hard pressed to from either) that aren’t riddled with parasites.

 

[Brew12]

That´s not true - tangs are very popular in Europe. My aquaria without Tangs is the odd thing here - most aquaria include 1 or more tangs. But what you maybe do not see very often - is FOLR or FO aquaria.

I think you got the wrong impression from my post. This was the entire section.

I doubt there is much you can do to successfully keep 10 tangs in a 180g tank without full and comprehensive QT measures. There is a reason you don't see many tanks like that in Europe and I suspect the number we see in Canada will be dropping sharply with the new laws passed there.

Maybe they are out there, but my observations have led me to believe that Europeans in general stock their tanks at more reasonable levels. I haven't seen pictures of a 6' tank with 7 to 10 tangs as you see in the US. They could be out there, but if they are I haven't been exposed to them. I do understand that tangs are very common in Europe. It also seems like the Tang police are less active and Europeans are less "shamed" at keeping tangs in smaller systems.

 

[Brew12]

Do you have any scientific facts to back this statement up? This is a bold, broad statement without any clarifications or limitations. I don't think it's true in most cases and certainly not true in all cases.

I would encourage you to read this study. It focuses on the role of gut bacteria/probiotics and it's role in fish health, but I think it answers some of your questions.
https://academic.oup.com/femspd/article/52/2/145/551234
This study does a nice job in explaining some differences between fish and mammal immune systems and why they don't make good comparisons.
https://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/0/602.pdf

 

[Brew12]

I am wondering if it's more hype than reality. We're seeing a lot of fear mongering about disease running rampant in the supply chain. I've had many fish coming through my system personally over the past year+ as I've worked on stocking my system. I can't say that I've had many come through with any apparent disease, and I've sourced my fish from several different places.

I struggle with this myself, but from a slightly different perspective. I don't think that the prevalence of disease in the supply chain is overstated based on my personal experience. What I wonder is if the fish would fight off the diseases present naturally if we would immediately keep them in better conditions and not hit them with toxic medications like copper.

I do want to say I appreciate your entire post. It is very well thought out and articulated.

 

[MnFish1]

This is a good point, and while I do see the point that “all deaths are deaths”, lack of experience probably accounts for more deaths than the “experienced” aquarists who QT and the “experienced” aquarists that do not QT, combined.

Inexperienced non-QT users might not employ the necessary techniques to help keep parasite numbers below catastrophic. Also, newer tanks won’t have the mature coral colonies and various filter feeders that more established tanks do. Everyone has to “start” somewhere, so where do you start without mass fish deaths? And you can’t grow large coral colonies without fish, at least not at the “beginner” level.

Where are the numbers that prove that QT deaths, due to inexperience, medications, ammonia, or otherwise... outnumber the mass deaths we see in the disease forum every day? When have we concluded that QT causes more unnecessary deaths than reckless abandonment of QT altogether?

For the record, I have recently done a full breakdown of my success using QT since setting up my current DT. I’ve had 77% success getting fish through QT and into my tank. And, the fish I lost were all but ONE ... fish that are difficult to feed whether you QT or not.

None have had any noticeable side effects from the prophylactic treatments, so far.

My success at keeping fish alive has increased exponentially between adopting a QT regime AND prophylactic treatment schedule.

Not saying it’s the best solution... I wish things were different and it was an option to find fish either locally or online (I’ve been hard pressed to from either) that aren’t riddled with parasites.

(warning anecdote alert and as usual long-post alert) - I really liked your answer - I guess I (anecdotally) do not buy the fact that the supply chain 'in general' is contaminated - its oft repeated but is it true?. Not that I dont believe that you see lots of fish with parasites - I just dont see them in the market 'here'.

For example - I just bought (as an experiment for lack of a better word) from Petco (I know - I have never been to a Petco before for SW - but it did it researching for another thread) - a blue faced angelfish. There was no copper in the bag (I picked it up directly from the shipper) - there was no evidence of any parasite or disease. The manager of the store - who probably had more experience than I with marine fish went through the shipping process, QT, etc that their shipper did - so I tried it - I put it in the sump for a couple days - it was eating like a pig - and put it into the DT perhaps 3 days later - kind of an abbreviated @Lasse method - its still doing fine - though not quite used to the rest of the fish.

The interesting thing I learned is that Petco doesnt use any copper in their tanks - yet the fish in their tanks rivaled almost all of the LFS that I have seen in this area(I think this is an exceptional rather than 'usual' Petco). FWIW - I went into the store thinking - this will be a disaster - but they had coral frags (growing) a large selection of fish - including tangs that were healthy in water with no copper.

Bottom line - I asked him and at a couple other LFS here - and according to them (total anecdote) there is not a huge use (if at all) of low-dose copper in their supply chain (which may be the reason I dont have problems with observation QT? They only use copper (at the LFS - when fish are diseased - showing sign of illness.

In any case - If you (anyone) is buying from a supplier that uses low dose copper - speak with your wallet and don't do it - seems that is one way to avoid some of these problems in the future. I mean I dont know any let alone all of the answers - but it seems to me that if enough 'reefers' complained to these suppliers that are allegedly doing this - or the LFS thats doing it - it would need to stop - and it would be better for everyone - especially the fish.

As to @drstardust question - and your response - I agree with you. I think there are 2 questions - or maybe 3. 1. What is the mortality of fish coming to our homes (in total) for any reason (and why). 2. What is the mortality of fish using proper chemoprophylaxis vs proper QT vs just dumping the fish in the tank. BTW in this future era I guess I agree with @Lasse - one needs to define what they are doing - QT, Chemoprophylaxis or 'nothing'. 3. How many deaths from whatever method 1, 2, or 3 are due to operator error. JMHO...

BTW - How to get that data - probably impossible.

@ngoodermuth as to your question about what explains the flux of questions on the disease forums - the problem is that for example - as with my fish from Petco - that survived - I didnt go onto the forum (well I guess I did lol) and say - I put fish x into my tank and I didnt have a problem. That MAY be why it seems that there are more people on the disease forum - ie people that dont have problems don't post.

Sorry this was so long

 

[MnFish1]

Maybe they are out there, but my observations have led me to believe that Europeans in general stock their tanks at more reasonable levels.

Stocking levels IMHO are underrated (ie people dont pay attention to them enough). The more fish - the more CI (its just math and science). When you consider that only 5-20% of theronts find a host. BTW - that dubious study from Vietnam that I posted was extremely interesting in one respect that goes against anecdote - Zebrosoma was one of the genera with the LOWEST concentration/prevalence of CI.

 

[ngoodermuth]

Zebrosoma was one of the genera with the LOWEST concentration/prevalence of CI.

This actually doesn’t surprise me, I’ve seen zebrasoma suggested as one of the “hardier” tangs when it comes to CI tolerance and ich-management systems.

Acanthurus and hippo tangs on the other hand, are often less-so.

 

[KJoFan]

I struggle with this myself, but from a slightly different perspective. I don't think that the prevalence of disease in the supply chain is overstated based on my personal experience. What I wonder is if the fish would fight off the diseases present naturally if we would immediately keep them in better conditions and not hit them with toxic medications like copper.

I do want to say I appreciate your entire post. It is very well thought out and articulated.

(warning anecdote alert and as usual long-post alert) - I really liked your answer - I guess I (anecdotally) do not buy the fact that the supply chain 'in general' is contaminated - its oft repeated but is it true?. Not that I dont believe that you see lots of fish with parasites - I just dont see them in the market 'here'.

Ahh, see this is interesting to me. Two different experiences and I have to say my experience is much more similar to @MnFish1 in that in all the fish I've brought in to stock my tank only one has shown any sign of disease for me. I do treat with copper, but not immediately, such that I would think disease would have a chance to rear it's head if it were present. Granted, it was velvet that showed up, so if I had not QT'd I'd likely have wiped out my entire display again. And that's why I keep QT'ing and treating.

Oddly enough, I'm pretty certain the velvet that made it's way into my previous system (I did not QT then ) actually came from fish from a fellow hobbyist who's tank I saw and looked healthy so..go figure.

I would really like to get away from treating with copper though, just because of it's toxic effect overall.

 

[Brew12]

Doing something properly vs. not is a very important distinction. Doing QT incorrectly would unfairly skew the data. Just like, let's say someone didn't QT and dropped a fish directly in their DT. If they did so before the DT was cycled, and the fish died of ammonia poisoning rather than anything having to do with disease, that would not be a fair data point. If a standard dose and duration of copper weakened a fish's immune system and led to bacterial infection, then yes, I believe that should be included.

Honestly, at this point, I'm not even sure what the proper way to QT is. Recent experience has shown that 1.75ppm may not longer be proper. When do we treat with antibiotics? It used to be that you would do that later in the treatment but then fish deaths due to Uronema have driven us to using Metroplex earlier in the process. The people who I feel are the most experienced and well qualified at performing prophylactic QT have all had substantial fish deaths recently. The goal post on how to get sensitive fish through QT is constantly moving. I have no idea how to define a proper QT process outside of a healthy fish coming through the back end.

My success at keeping fish alive has increased exponentially between adopting a QT regime AND prophylactic treatment schedule.

I have nothing to compare it to. I started my first system with 100% QT and although I had a few deaths I did have a good deal of success. Other than with anthias, anyway.

Where are the numbers that prove that QT deaths, due to inexperience, medications, ammonia, or otherwise... outnumber the mass deaths we see in the disease forum every day? When have we concluded that QT causes more unnecessary deaths than reckless abandonment of QT altogether?

It's an unanswerable question which can be interesting to think about but I'm not sure it matters in the long term. The fish disease forum is unlikely to be a good source for that information. It's too small of a slice of the hobby. Typically, it is filled with people new to the hobby or those trying to get started with prophylactic QT methods. They are more likely to have higher death rates than the population in general. And, I know I keep going back to it, but it really doesn't matter when we get to the point that the medications we use are no longer effective and/or available.

 

[Brew12]

Oddly enough, I'm pretty certain the velvet that made it's way into my previous system (I did not QT then ) actually came from fish from a fellow hobbyist who's tank I saw and looked healthy so..go figure.

This is the data I wish we had more of. What did he do differently that allowed him to have velvet in his system with no visible issues that changed with your tank? My entire reason for writing this article was to try and encourage people to gather and share information along these lines. We tend to see a lot of information from a few very experienced hobbyists but there are likely tens of thousands of reef tanks our there with velvet in them that show no symptoms.

I would really like to get away from treating with copper though, just because of it's toxic effect overall.

I would do.. and eventually I think I will. I just want more information and a wider input base to make sure my tank is ready to transition away from the treatments I currently do. I'm not there yet.