A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[Brew12]

I did not mean to suggest that it contradicted anything you said. I said what you said 'understated' the strength of immunity as compared to the data in that paper. Specifically - you said fish are designed to live with parasites - yet in the quoted study - at 3 month after exposure - there was NO CI on the fish (in that particular study) - was merely pointing out - that there can be complete immunity to CI (not disagreeing with you). In contrast to the other poster(s) that suggested that immunity is always only 'partial'.

PS - I do agree with you - that fish are designed to live with low levels of parasites - But even in the wild 20- >50 percent of fish have NO parasites attached to them (according to some studies) - other suggest its much more rare - is this immunity - or luck?

It would be interesting to see how common parasites in general are. I've seen studies similar to the ones you've discussed about specific types of parasites such as CI. How does that change if we were to look for internal parasites, flukes, CI, Velvet, Uronema, Brook, and harmful bacteria? I don't know if a study along those lines has been performed but I would be shocked if the percentage of fish with "none of the above" was much above 20%.

 

[ngoodermuth]

Maybe I only view them that way because I have only purchased one and it is still alive. I can't say that about other types...

See, my only attempt at keeping one was in my first tank(newb). I was also trying (unsuccessfully) to keep a wild colony of green goniopora, and a very large sun coral colony alive too.

The gorg (which was non-photosynthetic, the photosynthetic ones weren’t available in my area at the time) slowly died, as did the Goni. Despite target feeding both. The sun coral did ok for a while, I would cover it with a bottle and spot-feed it several times a day without worrying about fish stealing the food.

Then, as you might expect the algae started to take over the tank with all the feeding. I had to cut back the feeding dramatically, and the sun coral started to recede also.

My tank was not mature enough, and I was not experienced enough to manage the input and output of nutrients to keep those particular corals. I can just see my same mistake on repeat if it’s regularly suggested to newbs to fill their tanks with gorgs and other heavily reliant filter-feeders.

BUT, I’ve not tried the photosynthetic ones so they could be completely different. I’ve also not tried another recently, now that I have more experience, so my own failure could maybe be a little less likely now with more and more captive specimens being sold.

I know gonis were considered “expert only” when I first started, and now you can buy all different colors of them and most seem fairly hardy.

 

[Brew12]

BUT, I’ve not tried the photosynthetic ones so they could be completely different. I’ve also not tried another recently, now that I have more experience, so my own failure could maybe be a little less likely now with more and more captive specimens being sold.

I cheated and got a photosynthetic one. They must be much easier to keep but I also run my tank a bit dirtier. The person I got it from ended up losing their colony when they tried to keep "cleaner" water. This may be a case where the dirtier new tanks may be more appropriate than more mature tanks with lower water nutrient levels.

But, I'm a coral lover, not a coral expert. I'm sure we can enlist someone much more knowledgeable than I to help figure this part out if it looks promising!

 

[ngoodermuth]

This talk has me wondering though... do NPS tanks have ich/velvet outbreaks like the typical mixed reef? I know they are kind of few and far between... but might be worth putting up the question to those who do, or have run NPS tanks before... if they’ve ever had issues with parasites?

Considering NPS corals are the very efficient filter feeders that they are.

 

[Cyricdark]

See, my only attempt at keeping one was in my first tank(newb). I was also trying (unsuccessfully) to keep a wild colony of green goniopora, and a very large sun coral colony alive too.

The gorg (which was non-photosynthetic, the photosynthetic ones weren’t available in my area at the time) slowly died, as did the Goni. Despite target feeding both. The sun coral did ok for a while, I would cover it with a bottle and spot-feed it several times a day without worrying about fish stealing the food.

Then, as you might expect the algae started to take over the tank with all the feeding. I had to cut back the feeding dramatically, and the sun coral started to recede also.

My tank was not mature enough, and I was not experienced enough to manage the input and output of nutrients to keep those particular corals. I can just see my same mistake on repeat if it’s regularly suggested to newbs to fill their tanks with gorgs and other heavily reliant filter-feeders.

BUT, I’ve not tried the photosynthetic ones so they could be completely different. I’ve also not tried another recently, now that I have more experience, so my own failure could maybe be a little less likely now with more and more captive specimens being sold.

I know gonis were considered “expert only” when I first started, and now you can buy all different colors of them and most seem fairly hardy.

I've got a couple photosynthetic gorgonians in my tank that I've had for quite a while now that are thriving but I've also tried to keep a couple that just died and I have no idea why but they were supposed to be photosynthetic as well. The ones that I've kept successfully are a branching variety kind of looks like a fern and they like a ton of flow and about 250 par minimum so kind of like most acropora really. The ones that died were more like thick stalks that maybe Fork once or twice and had much thicker branches than the fern like ones I have. So I'm really not sure how appropriate for people new to the Hobby they would be.

 

[WVNed]

I have an logical problem with all of this.
For the sake of argument lets say i have kept fish 10 years and never had a disease outbreak.
With those same fish
If I did QT for those 10 years I could claim QT is effective when in fact it did nothing.
I could be a big proponent of it when in fact it did nothing.

In fact it is more like 35 years since I have had Ick and it was in freshwater tanks.

This is the conundrum that has stopped me from ever starting QT. I have saved myself a lot of time and trouble.
I balance that with the thought that every time I add something to the tank I may be nuking it. But that feeling is from being on the internet and not anything from my tank.

I feel there are enough of us that don't do anything to prevent disease yet don't have any that it indicates there must be something missing from our knowledge base about keeping fish healthy. I have no idea what it is. It must be something simple because I don't do anything out of the ordinary.

I do have 4 gorgonians now though. I agree that I don't think they are easy too keep. It took a lot of tweaking to get them to be happy and not have goo all over themselves all the time.

Come here you dirty parasites

 

[Brew12]

I have an logical problem with all of this.
For the sake of argument lets say i have kept fish 10 years and never had a disease outbreak.
With those same fish
If I did QT for those 10 years I could claim QT is effective when in fact it did nothing.
I could be a big proponent of it when in fact it did nothing.

I agree, and this is why I don't look at the discussion as if more or fewer fish could be saved one way over the other. There is no way to know. I've seen display tanks almost completely wiped out from those who practice prophylactic QT and those who don't.

I feel there are enough of us that don't do anything to prevent disease yet don't have any that it indicates there must be something missing from our knowledge base about keeping fish healthy. I have no idea what it is. It must be something simple because I don't do anything out of the ordinary.

And I appreciate you joining this discussion for exactly this reason. Are you doing something, simple or not, that is preventing you from having your tank wiped? Are you lucky? The more we can learn and document from people like you the better imo!

 

[MnFish1]

It would be interesting to see how common parasites in general are. I've seen studies similar to the ones you've discussed about specific types of parasites such as CI. How does that change if we were to look for internal parasites, flukes, CI, Velvet, Uronema, Brook, and harmful bacteria? I don't know if a study along those lines has been performed but I would be shocked if the percentage of fish with "none of the above" was much above 20%.

Glad you asked lol.

This is not strictly about 'fish' - but there are some sections that discuss them - for example in the European eel 84 percent had at least 1 parasite present.
Below is a paragraph from the paper. And may suggest that contrary to what many people believe (that there is no real affect of parasites in the wild) that parasites are more 'dangerous' than we assume - but bottom line (according to this paper) - is that 'we just don't know'.
https://was-research.org/paper/parasite-load-disease-wild-animals/

Host factors
Looking for visual evidence of infection seems straightforward but isn’t a reliable clue that an animal is sick or not. For one thing, animals can conceal symptoms. Some social animals decrease sickness behavior when trying to mate, do parental care, or compete with conspecifics. The reduction in behavior doesn’t necessarily imply that the host has recovered. Since many disease symptoms are adaptive to reducing disease, e.g. fevers, this concealing behavior is costly and can increase the chance of being harmed by the parasite (Lopes, 2014).

Searching for sick or dead animals also isn’t reliable for accurate counts – many sick animals, especially fish, are more likely to be eaten before they die (except in rare cases, like mass die-offs) (Lester, 1984). They are also likely to be eaten by predators or scavengers shortly after they die. Other animals hide when sick. As such, it’s easy to misrepresent a parasite’s effect on mortality or morbidity.

 

[HomeSlizzice]

I agree, and this is why I don't look at the discussion as if more or fewer fish could be saved one way over the other. There is no way to know. I've seen display tanks almost completely wiped out from those who practice prophylactic QT and those who don't.


And I appreciate you joining this discussion for exactly this reason. Are you doing something, simple or not, that is preventing you from having your tank wiped? Are you lucky? The more we can learn and document from people like you the better imo!

For what it's worth, I know Ali at Amazing Aquariums & Reefs ( https://reefbuilders.com/2018/02/12/ultimate-video-tour-of-amazing-aquariums-reefs/ ) does not quarantine anything. I know he's had a tank wiped out by velvet, but he still doesn't QT. His tanks and fish all look healthy and has several displays that are worth envy.

 

[najer]

Great article, I read it a few days ago and walked away!

As I was tagged in, England (the one by Europe) here!
I have never had a fish disease and don't qt fish, my tank is a bit different, sort of less is more.
We have a different (in general) supply chain here, after leaving the exporter fish that go in my tank will be getting their third and final move hopefully.
Wholesaler - lfs - me.
The wholesaler / importer is about 3 miles from me, I have no chance of gaining access so please don't ask, my lfs is about 5 miles away!
I float the bag the fish came in in the tank and acclimate into the bag and then the bag gets up ended into the tank and the fish swim out! Really, that is how much I trust my lfs!

Stress, I don't understand the qt thing, why bath your fish in different toxins and poisons?

However you do it try and and do it in the least stressful way. (Ban all picks of fish in hands, way to extra stress your fish!)

Oh and yes I do run Sochting Oxydators, I would never run a tank without them!

 

[MnFish1]

I have an logical problem with all of this.
For the sake of argument lets say i have kept fish 10 years and never had a disease outbreak.
With those same fish
If I did QT for those 10 years I could claim QT is effective when in fact it did nothing.
I could be a big proponent of it when in fact it did nothing.

In fact it is more like 35 years since I have had Ick and it was in freshwater tanks.

This is the conundrum that has stopped me from ever starting QT. I have saved myself a lot of time and trouble.
I balance that with the thought that every time I add something to the tank I may be nuking it. But that feeling is from being on the internet and not anything from my tank.

I feel there are enough of us that don't do anything to prevent disease yet don't have any that it indicates there must be something missing from our knowledge base about keeping fish healthy. I have no idea what it is. It must be something simple because I don't do anything out of the ordinary.

I do have 4 gorgonians now though. I agree that I don't think they are easy too keep. It took a lot of tweaking to get them to be happy and not have goo all over themselves all the time.

Come here you dirty parasites

I think this hits the nail on the head. I do not QT per se but Im really really really careful about where I get my fish. And I observe them in the store (ask them to save the fish for me) for at least 2 weeks or so - but at least its not in as stressful a situation as in a small tank in my house. (I think this is why I have fewer problems). Sometimes the 'cheapest' fish is not the 'best fish'. Have not had an outbreak of 'anything' except when I broke my rule and ordered from a cheaper online venue. (I no longer do that). I never do freshwater dips, never dip coral, etc - and I've never had any of the plagues that many report.

I also wonder if part of it is we hear about all the problems - but the people who generally do well - don't post every time they add a fish without QT. Yet every time someone sees a spot on a fish they post on the disease forum - does this give a bit of confirmation bias that the problem is bigger than implied?

My only other comment - I do think there is value to a biosecurity type program - if there wasn't zoos and aquaria would not waste probably millions of dollars/year establishing one.

 

[HomeSlizzice]

It would be interesting to see how common parasites in general are. I've seen studies similar to the ones you've discussed about specific types of parasites such as CI. How does that change if we were to look for internal parasites, flukes, CI, Velvet, Uronema, Brook, and harmful bacteria? I don't know if a study along those lines has been performed but I would be shocked if the percentage of fish with "none of the above" was much above 20%.

I also think not solely focusing on Ich (like several pages of discussion on this thread essentially did), and trying to find the most effective methods focused on the general health and wellness of our fish against all major/common diseases. If Ich was our only concern, then everyone would just do TTM and call it a day. That's why I laid out all of the info and possibilities in my two long posts on page 13.

 

[MnFish1]

It would be interesting to see how common parasites in general are. I've seen studies similar to the ones you've discussed about specific types of parasites such as CI. How does that change if we were to look for internal parasites, flukes, CI, Velvet, Uronema, Brook, and harmful bacteria? I don't know if a study along those lines has been performed but I would be shocked if the percentage of fish with "none of the above" was much above 20%.

BTW - my 'opinion' would be that at least after reading that article that many more fish die of parasites before they are ever counted (i.e. its the healthier or more immune fish that are caught - though one could make the opposite case also (i.e. they are caught because they are sick)).

I really dont understand why if people that QT do so because of the 'high amount of low does copper' - and they feel that allows small numbers of parasites to remain on the fish) if the best solution is to not use vendors that use low dose copper? If no one bought their fish - they would stop using it. Or?

 

[MnFish1]

I also think not solely focusing on Ich (like several pages of discussion on this thread essentially did), and trying to find the most effective methods focused on the general health and wellness of our fish against all major/common diseases. If Ich was our only concern, then everyone would just do TTM and call it a day. That's why I laid out all of the info and possibilities in my two long posts on page 13.

The reason is that by far most of the research is on CI as compared to Uronema (i.e. I couldn't find anything about Uronema in wild marine fish - or brookynella) - but I'm trying to find some... There is a little more on velvet - but again most of it relates to fish farming.

 

[HomeSlizzice]

The reason is that by far most of the research is on CI as compared to Uronema (i.e. I couldn't find anything about Uronema in wild marine fish - or brookynella) - but I'm trying to find some... There is a little more on velvet - but again most of it relates to fish farming.

I agree. I also understand why Ich is mostly discussed; its because Ich is the most studied.

I do think looking at what they do for disease prevention in fish farming is probably out best bet though. The fish are in a captive environment, breeding, and can't have crazy hard chemicals used on them because they will be consumed later on. I think that mostly fills a niche we are looking for when needing info.

 

[Brew12]

I really dont understand why if people that QT do so because of the 'high amount of low does copper' - and they feel that allows small numbers of parasites to remain on the fish) if the best solution is to not use vendors that use low dose copper? If no one bought their fish - they would stop using it. Or?

I don't think this is the reason people do or do not QT. Only that the prevalence can, and seems to be, increasing the possibility that copper will no longer be a viable treatment. As for why still shop there? Some people have no choice if they don't want to mail order. Others may not know. The only reason my LFS started posting that their systems contain copper is because people were using Prime with drip acclimation and it was killing the fish. Now I know to look for inverts with their fish. No inverts = copper for the most part.

 

[MnFish1]

As far as releasing pathogens, again, wrong. Most pathogens would eventually kill fish.......fact!

Interesting - there is at least one report where they were extremely surprised to find cryptocaryon in tide pools near the Scripps Institute:

Wilkie & Gordin (1969) found C, irritans infections on wild opaleye Girella nigncans from tidal pools near Scripps Institute of Oceanography, California, USA, but indicated that these infections may have been introduced by aquar- ium effluent from the Institute

 

[MnFish1]

I don't think this is the reason people do or do not QT. Only that the prevalence can, and seems to be, increasing the possibility that copper will no longer be a viable treatment. As for why still shop there? Some people have no choice if they don't want to mail order. Others may not know. The only reason my LFS started posting that their systems contain copper is because people were using Prime with drip acclimation and it was killing the fish. Now I know to look for inverts with their fish. No inverts = copper for the most part.

Yes - my comment made a jump. I thought one of the 'pushes' for more QT now was the much higher parasite burden in the supply chain - which was due to low dose copper. At your LFS was it 'therapeutic copper' or 'low dose copper' - Curious - if you know the level? or did you ask whether was some kind of 'industry rationale' with some proof behind it - or is it done 'just because' others say to do it. PS - I only RARELY buy fish that aren't in tanks with inverts for this reason just to be safe.

 

[Brew12]

Yes - my comment made a jump. I thought one of the 'pushes' for more QT now was the much higher parasite burden in the supply chain - which was due to low dose copper. At your LFS was it 'therapeutic copper' or 'low dose copper' - Curious - if you know the level? or did you ask whether was some kind of 'industry rationale' with some proof behind it - or is it done 'just because' others say to do it. PS - I only RARELY buy fish that aren't in tanks with inverts for this reason just to be safe.

The higher parasite burden is what pushed the stores to going this route imo. The copper should reduce the total number of parasites present (killing off the weaker ones) but won't eliminate any strains at the levels I've seen used. My LFS uses around 0.1ppm cupramine, so not close therapeutic. The lower dose is used to allow more copper sensitive fish to be kept in the system without impacting coloration or feeding habits. If they kept therapeutic levels it would also limit how long they could keep the fish.
As for how it started? My guess is one store gave it a try and felt like it helped reduce mortality rates and it spread. I can't imagine any scientific support to such a bad practice.

 

[Paul Sands]

This is in direct opposition of the science I have shown you. Do you have any studies to back this up? I have probably read hundreds of studies and papers on fish health and immunity and I can't recall this claim being supported a single time.

It’s actually consistent with everything that you’ve posted. The study from 1995 that you posted shows that most fish exposed to ich continued to be infected with ich, just at lower levels. It also clearly states IN THE SUMMARY that the fish exposed to ich did not have any additional resistance to other diseases. They also didn’t even have any additional resistance to a specific disease that the researchers felt was similar to ich and that they clearly expected to see additional resistance due to the similarities. The researchers found NO ADDITIONAL RESISTANCE to any disease from being exposed to ich.

If you are getting anything else from that research, you are ignoring what they researchers found and what they wrote in plain English as the SUMMARY OF THEIR FINDINGS.