A Hypocrites View on Not Using Quarantine

[MnFish1]

Ich is a parasite. Velvet is a parasite. Flukes are parasites. All these have symptoms that most people would see as negative: torn fins, cloudy eyes, excess mucus, etc. Even when fish become partially immune, they are still being affected by the parasites. If they are living in an aquarium that is infected, they will constantly be infected by the parasites. They may have resulting infections. Some fish may develop a stronger immunity, but some fish may develop very little. You have no idea how being constantly infected may affect their health and behavior versus if they weren’t.

You're simply wrong.

 

[Brew12]

Ich is a parasite. Velvet is a parasite. Flukes are parasites. All these have symptoms that most people would see as negative: torn fins, cloudy eyes, excess mucus, etc. Even when fish become partially immune, they are still being affected by the parasites. If they are living in an aquarium that is infected, they will constantly be infected by the parasites. They may have resulting infections. Some fish may develop a stronger immunity, but some fish may develop very little. You have no idea how being constantly infected may affect their health and behavior versus if they weren’t.

An immune fish will show no symptoms. The only way to know if a fish that has ich or velvet immunity has a parasite is to do a biopsy.

And I do have an idea how being constantly infect may affect their health. It's been studied. I shared some of them with you. Do you have any studies that show an immune fish will have a negative health impact with a low level parasite infection? Obviously not because that would be contrary to every other scientific study. If it existed, you would have shared it. Instead of relying on science you are relying on the way you feel DESPITE what the science says.

 

[Brew12]

Many fish don’t develop resistance to ich or velvet either. They just die. Apparently they are “healthier” that way.

And a fish that dies from copper exposure is healthier for not having parasites, too, right?

 

[WVNed]

Well this thread has certainly brought the froth to the lips, so to speak.

 

[bluprntguy]

This is why I don't feel you are being honest with this discussion. How is going from an almost 100% mortality rate to an over 95% survival rate based on different studies a "slight resistance".

I don't know where you pulled the numbers, but an almost 100% mortality rate sounds like a bad thing to do to your tank. The studies show that the majority of the fish continue to be infected by ich. That's why I called it a "slight resistance". You keep calling it "immunity" when they aren't fully immune. I could call your argument dishonest too.

The only way to know this is if you treat your fish in a sterile tank and never add anything to it. Plenty of people have accidentally added parasites into their systems and lost everything.

TTM for new fish, all new inverts go in quarantine for 76 days (includes snails, corals, pods and hermits). Did I miss something? We already established that frozen food is safe despite what some people here insanely claimed.

 

[Paul Sands]

And a fish that dies from copper exposure is healthier for not having parasites, too, right?

You just quoted an “almost 100%” mortality rate from ich. I’m guessing that copper is a wee bit safer for my fish given those stats.

But no, I use CP. I’m sure we went over this yesterday. It’s much easier and safer for the fish.

 

[MnFish1]

I don't know where you pulled the numbers, but an almost 100% mortality rate sounds like a bad thing to do to your tank. The studies show that the majority of the fish continue to be infected by ich. That's why I called it a "slight resistance". You keep calling it "immunity" when they aren't fully immune. I could call your argument dishonest too.



TTM for new fish, all new inverts go in quarantine for 76 days (includes snails, corals, pods and hermits). Did I miss something? We already established that frozen food is safe despite what some people here insanely claimed.

Honestly - you need to start quoting studies - and stop questioning over and over and over and over and over - not to be offensive - but - the study thats quoted is for immune fish. Its common knowledge. To ask a question - does TTM prevent aeromonas? does TTM the way its practiced currently prevent velvet? Brookynella? viruses? Flukes? Have you read the threads criticizing TTM as 'inhumane' and 'insane'? Apparently not. So - it seems there is a difference of opinion. Unfortunately - except for 'questions' - no one has heard your opinion - only your comments as to the insanity of others here. To me - this is not a good plan. PLEASE STOP USING TTM-IT'S BARBARIC | REEF2REEF Saltwater and Reef ...https://www.reef2reef.com › ... › Fish Disease Treatment and Diagnosis

 

[MnFish1]

I don't know where you pulled the numbers, but an almost 100% mortality rate sounds like a bad thing to do to your tank. The studies show that the majority of the fish continue to be infected by ich. That's why I called it a "slight resistance". You keep calling it "immunity" when they aren't fully immune. I could call your argument dishonest too.



TTM for new fish, all new inverts go in quarantine for 76 days (includes snails, corals, pods and hermits). Did I miss something? We already established that frozen food is safe despite what some people here insanely claimed.

Honestly - you need to start quoting studies - and stop questioning over and over and over and over and over - not to be offensive - but - the study thats quoted is for immune fish. Its common knowledge. To ask a question - does TTM prevent aeromonas? does TTM the way its practiced currently prevent velvet? Brookynella? viruses? Flukes? Have you read the threads criticizing TTM as 'inhumane' and 'insane'? Apparently not. So - it seems there is a difference of opinion. Unfortunately - except for 'questions' - no one has heard your opinion - only your comments as to the insanity of others here. To me - this is not a good plan. PLEASE STOP USING TTM-IT'S BARBARIC | REEF2REEF Saltwater and Reef ...https://www.reef2reef.com › ... › Fish Disease Treatment and Diagnosis

 

[MnFish1]

The studies show that the majority of the fish continue to be infected by ich. That's why I called it a "slight resistance".

What studies? What does 'infected by ich' mean?

 

[Brew12]

I don't know where you pulled the numbers, but an almost 100% mortality rate sounds like a bad thing to do to your tank. The studies show that the majority of the fish continue to be infected by ich. That's why I called it a "slight resistance". You keep calling it "immunity" when they aren't fully immune. I could call your argument dishonest too.

Scientists and biologists call it an immunity, that is good enough for me. It's pretty obvious at this point that you have no respect for science so I'm not surprised you don't like the term.
Or do you want to try and find a paper where a scientists or biologist argues that it isn't an immunity? No? That's what I thought. And yet another example of you creating a false argument. You create these false terms that only you use and try to use them to form an argument.

TTM for new fish, all new inverts go in quarantine for 76 days (includes snails, corals, pods and hermits). Did I miss something? We already established that frozen food is safe despite what some people here insanely claimed.

It isn't perfect. We now know that 76 days may not be enough depending on different factors, such as oxygen levels. It also assumes no human error. What do you maintain your QT tanks O2 levels at?

 

[Paul Sands]

Honestly - you need to start quoting studies - and stop questioning over and over and over and over and over - not to be offensive - but - the study thats quoted is for immune fish. Its common knowledge. To ask a question - does TTM prevent aeromonas? does TTM the way its practiced currently prevent velvet? Brookynella? viruses? Flukes? Have you read the threads criticizing TTM as 'inhumane' and 'insane'? Apparently not. So - it seems there is a difference of opinion. Unfortunately - except for 'questions' - no one has heard your opinion - only your comments as to the insanity of others here. To me - this is not a good plan. PLEASE STOP USING TTM-IT'S BARBARIC | REEF2REEF Saltwater and Reef ...https://www.reef2reef.com › ... › Fish Disease Treatment and Diagnosis

The study has already be quoted. Scroll back if you must. He’s right. The fish continued to be infected with ich.

Yes, there are a whole other host of diseases. We’ve already established that a fish having partial immunity to ich doesn’t help them fight off another disease. If he’s trying to protect his tank from ich, the methods cited will work.

TTM is barbaric? ROFL.

 

[Brew12]

You just quoted an “almost 100%” mortality rate from ich. I’m guessing that copper is a wee bit safer for my fish given those stats.

But no, I use CP. I’m sure we went over this yesterday. It’s much easier and safer for the fish.

It's an almost 100% mortality rate for fish without methods to control parasite levels, which is what we are discussing. When parasite levels are controlled it can lead to a much higher success level than anyone I know has using QT.

How do you measure CP levels? Why do you feel it is safer for the fish? CP is well documented to cause harm to fish. Did you know light breaks down CP and that it likely doesn't stay in your tank for more than a week? Or that it can be absorbed by plastics? You can't use CP on all fish, either. Hippo tangs and anthias are very sensitive to it and are unlikely to survive treatment.

 

[Brew12]

The study has already be quoted. Scroll back if you must. He’s right. The fish continued to be infected with ich.

Yes, there are a whole other host of diseases. We’ve already established that a fish having partial immunity to ich doesn’t help them fight off another disease. If he’s trying to protect his tank from ich, the methods cited will work.

TTM is barbaric? ROFL.

I should add that there is a reason that many experts in the field are moving away from CP. It fails too many times. Hydrogen Peroxide is the more recent focus now that CP has proven unreliable.

 

[MnFish1]

The study has already be quoted. Scroll back if you must. He’s right. The fish continued to be infected with ich.

Yes, there are a whole other host of diseases. We’ve already established that a fish having partial immunity to ich doesn’t help them fight off another disease. If he’s trying to protect his tank from ich, the methods cited will work.

TTM is barbaric? ROFL.

I quoted another persons opinion. IN that thread I disagreed with that opinion. so rather than hahahaha ing - perhaps you should read that person's rationale. The point was that everyone has an opinion. At 3 months - the fish exposed to CI had complete immunity. they did were not still infected. You should perhaps read the study - I've read it and posted about it for at least a year. In any case - the question remains - why do you persist in just asking questions rather than posing solutions to the original question?

 

[bluprntguy]

Scientists and biologists call it an immunity, that is good enough for me. It's pretty obvious at this point that you have no respect for science so I'm not surprised you don't like the term.
Or do you want to try and find a paper where a scientists or biologist argues that it isn't an immunity? No? That's what I thought. And yet another example of you creating a false argument. You create these false terms that only you use and try to use them to form an argument.

I'm not creating false terms. I'm using words that most hobbyists would probably say more accurately describe the situation. Most people think immune = 100% protected. I get that from a medical perspective, immunity just means a resistance of some degree, which is why I wrote partial resistance. I guess since you are now down to arguing about semantics instead of substance we both agree that fish continue to be infected by ich when they are "immune" or "partially resistant".

It isn't perfect. We now know that 76 days may not be enough depending on different factors, such as oxygen levels. It also assumes no human error. What do you maintain your QT tanks O2 levels at?

I don't test QT O2 levels. If you'd like to come do that, I'll happily PM my address. I'm following Humblefish's quarantine recommendations ATM. My QT tanks are as far away from my DT as they can possibly be. I'm done adding fish, so for the moment I'd suspect the chances of ich riding in on coral, making it through QT and being introduced to my tank is as close to approaching zero as possible.

 

[WVNed]

I have assumed I have diseases in my tank because I do nothing to prevent them from coming in. I don't actually know that it is true. I have never seen any.

Others assume they don't because they go through herculean efforts to keep them out. How do they know that it worked. Well they never see any.

We have had the same result. We have proved nothing. Just assumed a lot.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm not creating false terms. I'm using words that most hobbyists would probably say more accurately describe the situation. Most people think immune = 100% protected. I get that from a medical perspective, immunity just means a resistance of some degree, which is why I wrote partial resistance. I guess since you are now down to arguing about semantics instead of substance we both agree that fish continue to be infected by ich when they are "immune" or "partially resistant".

Just in this paragraph you've created 'false terms'. Firstly - you dont know what 'most people' think 'immune means'. Secondly you change from 'immunity just means resistance of some degree' to 'partial resistance'. you then leap to fish continue to be infected by ich (which is really cryptocaryon not ich) when they are 'immune' or 'partially resistant' - pretending that those to phrases are equivalent because you decided they are.

There is a vast difference between 'immune' and 'partially resistant' first of all.
Secondly - the studies quoted here - stated that fish that were immune did not have ANY (0) tormonts on them at the 3 month point - so - they weren't partially 'immune' or 'resistant'.
Thirdly The thing you seem to get hung up on is this: if 100 fish are exposed to CI - not every one of them will become immune. BUT - those that do become immune - are immune. not partially immune or partially restitant or whatever term you want to use. This at least according to the studies supplied. Not every fish that gets CI will live. Some will Die. Some will be partially immune - some will be 'immune'.

Semantics aside - none of this 'debate' has anything to do with the OP. So again - what's your solution to the problem?

 

[Paul Sands]

I should add that there is a reason that many experts in the field are moving away from CP. It fails too many times. Hydrogen Peroxide is the more recent focus now that CP has proven unreliable.

Everything old is new again. Peroxide was the thing like decades ago.

Not sure why people have problems with CP. Maybe poor quality CP. I always have a co-worker write a script when I need it.

 

[Brew12]

I'm not creating false terms. I'm using words that most hobbyists would probably say more accurately describe the situation. Most people think immune = 100% protected. I get that from a medical perspective, immunity just means a resistance of some degree, which is why I wrote partial resistance. I guess since you are now down to arguing about semantics instead of substance we both agree that fish continue to be infected by ich when they are "immune" or "partially resistant".


I don't test QT O2 levels. If you'd like to come do that, I'll happily PM my address. I'm following Humblefish's quarantine recommendations ATM. My QT tanks are as far away from my DT as they can possibly be. I'm done adding fish, so for the moment I'd suspect the chances of ich riding in on coral, making it through QT and being introduced to my tank is as close to approaching zero as possible.

So you are going to accuse me of being incorrect based on your perspective of what "most hobbyists would probably say" over what scientists and biologists do say?

Have you talked to Humblefish lately? Are you aware that he is working with a marine biologist to write a paper showing that CP isn't effective the way it has been recommended to be used? Or that he is now actively pursuing H2O2 in place of CP and copper because of the issues he has encountered while starting up Humblefish Aquatics? He, Hotrocks and 4fordfamily work harder than anyone I know to stay ahead of the fish disease curve and they are struggling. Recommendations from a year ago no longer work.
I pretty much follow Hotrocks newest recommendations which are an upgrade to what Humblefish came up with and that he worked with Humblefish to develop. I have no expectations that a failure in those practices is not only possible, but probable. They have even warned people that they have had velvet get past the normal 1.75ppm chelated copper recommendation.

You could be running a system with ich or velvet in it and not even know it.

As for O2 levels, it has been shown that low levels of O2 can allow ich to cyst for years before hatching. It is now suspected that this is why fallow periods routinely fail to clear ich. If you aren't measuring O2 you cannot be sure that 76 days is enough.

 

[MnFish1]

I have assumed I have diseases in my tank because I do nothing to prevent them from coming in. I don't actually know that it is true. I have never seen any.

Others assume they don't because they go through herculean efforts to keep them out. How do they know that it worked. Well they never see any.

We have had the same result. We have proved nothing. Just assumed a lot.

My guess is that you dont have any - I have argued this with @Paul B for a couple years. But - what do I know

 

[Brew12]

Everything old is new again. Peroxide was the thing like decades ago.

Not sure why people have problems with CP. Maybe poor quality CP. I always have a co-worker write a script when I need it.

Wait until Humblefish releases his paper on the problem with CP. I think it will open your eyes.