QT - Why it sometimes fails?

[MnFish1]

I would like to hear from people who 'Quarantine' their fish - not from those who do not use this method. This is not designed to determine what percent of people use QT methods - but rather those who do - what percentage have had a failure....

Lets discuss the reasons why it is 'great' - and the reasons you might have had where your quarantine methods fail. Note in the poll - I tried to put in the various definitions of quarantine - so if yours is not there - comment below - or comment below for any reason. THE MAIN QUESTION FOR THIS POLL (COMMENT WISE) - IS IF YOUR QT METHOD FAILED - WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY? Thanks.

BTW - I allow people to make multiple choices - in case people have tried multiple methods.

 

[Big G]

Bump

 

[Antics]

I use TTM + prazi/metro+ observation. I haven't ever had issues with a fish after making it through. But I have lost fish after the fact due to aggression or lack of appetite specifically with anthias.

 

[saltyhog]

At some point in time I've used all of those QT procedures. Knock on wood I've not had any failures. I've lost fish during QT but never had a fish get a disease post QT.

My very first fish were observed in a cycled QT for 12 weeks. I had them for years.

I did TTM followed by observation and treatment for parasites/flukes for a long time until Velvet started getting more and more common.

I've used CP with good results but some fish don't tolerate it and biofilter issues are a big negative.

Copper was a disaster for me years ago when test kits for copper were terrible. My recent experiences have been great though since using Copper Power and a Hanna checker for testing.

 

[ca1ore]

I only do observation QT, unless something pops up then I treat. The ‘secret’ for me is to keep fish under observation for a full two months. I have not knowingly had anything get through QT. I do have ich in my system though, because when I restarted in the hobby back in 2013 with a tank off Craigslist I did not QT that original batch since they were symptom free. So maybe that’s a fail LOL.

It’s not clear to me that blasting with a cocktail of meds leads to a better mean outcome than extended observation.

 

[MaccaPopEye]

I would also like to hear from those who use TTM only, are you worried about velvet at all? Do you do anything in addition to TTM for velvet?

 

[Xanthurum]

I have never had a QT "fail" but I have had disease get into my display but every time it was due to my negligence. When I knowingly broke my QT protocols for one dumb reason or another.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I'm curious as to what you are qualifying as a "failure"? Is failure losing a fish, or only deemed a failure if your fish shows disease after QT? I would assume the latter, but want to be sure I'm correct.

 

[CindyKz]

I'm curious as to what you are qualifying as a "failure"? Is failure losing a fish, or only deemed a failure if your fish shows disease after QT? I would assume the latter, but want to be sure I'm correct.

I was wondering the same thing. I have lost fish during quarantine but never a sign of disease once they get through. If a death may have been the result of the quarantine process rather than disease I consider that failure as well.

 

[SkiCatTX]

I have used CP once so far with a pair of clowns and that went fine. It's my first and only fish QT, so not much of a sample. I plan to continue in the future.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I was wondering the same thing. I have lost fish during quarantine but never a sign of disease once they get through. If a death may have been the result of the quarantine process rather than disease I consider that failure as well.

Agreed. If it's the result of QT, then death would be failure, but if death was going to happen either way, but happened in QT rather than the DT, then that actually might be considered a success of sorts. And that makes it a little harder to define.

 

[MaccaPopEye]

Agreed. If it's the result of QT, then death would be failure, but if death was going to happen either way, but happened in QT rather than the DT, then that actually might be considered a success of sorts. And that makes it a little harder to define.

I don't QT but I would consider that to be a fair definition.

If a fish shows signs of disease in QT and then dies despite your efforts then I wouldn't call it a failure.

If a fish either gets into the tank with a disease or appears healthy and shows no signs of disease but dies in QT then I would call that a failure.

 

[MnFish1]

I have never had a QT "fail" but I have had disease get into my display but every time it was due to my negligence. When I knowingly broke my QT protocols for one dumb reason or another.

what did you do wrong - it may help someone else?

 

[MnFish1]

If a fish shows signs of disease in QT and then dies despite your efforts then I wouldn't call it a failure.

If a fish either gets into the tank with a disease or appears healthy and shows no signs of disease but dies in QT then I would call that a failure.

I think its a little different - if a fish starts out with disease (like in the bag) and then dies in QT I wouldn't think that was a failure. However - if a fish starts out looking 'normal' and develops a disease in QT that is a QT failure (IMHO)

 

[MnFish1]

Interesting that TTM is the only one that 'has never failed' according to the survey. Thats interesting because unless done a little differently than often done (ie. more often) velvet should be getting through.

All other methods have had at least some failures. Some people have mentioned that their failure might have been methods - It would be interesting to see some of the reasons you think you failed. Perhaps I should have defined what 'failed' meant in the start of the poll?

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I think its a little different - if a fish starts out with disease (like in the bag) and then dies in QT I wouldn't think that was a failure. However - if a fish starts out looking 'normal' and develops a disease in QT that is a QT failure (IMHO)

See, I would disagree on this because disease isn't always readily visible right out of the bag, but that doesn't mean the fish isn't already sick.

 

[MnFish1]

See, I would disagree on this because disease isn't always readily visible right out of the bag, but that doesn't mean the fish isn't already sick.

Well - just to play devils advocate - . IMHO - the reason that we QT is to be sure that fish with no visible disease are not put into our display tank. So - if a fish with no sign of disease gets a disease while being treated to me (almost by definition) is a failure of QT. That said - It was also a success - because the sick fish didn't make it into your display. (as you already mentioned).

I guess conversely - if a fish develops a disease after no QT (i.e. it wasnt visible when put in the tank) then you could argue that (as long as other fish don't catch the disease) - that that was not a failure of 'non-QT' (I think it is).

BTW the reason I'm belaboring this is that its being discussed on another thread - and your comments make a lot of sense

 

[Xanthurum]

Specifically the last time I moved fish to the display prior to them finishing copper treatment simply because they were not doing well. I knew the fish had ich, it had been about a week since I last saw any spots but I knew it needed more time. I made the decision to help the fish, I led with my heart not my brain. The fish in the DT were healthy enough that it wasnt much of an issue but I would see ich spots from time to time and eventually the decision was made to go fallow. The worst part is the fish that struggled in QT didnt make it despite my efforts. I should have just left them in QT, I usually dont mind when I lose a fish during QT that's what it's for but this was a rather expensive pair of Angel's so I made a bad choice.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

IMHO - the reason that we QT is to be sure that fish with no visible disease are not put into our display tank.

Agreed. The point of QT (or at least 1 point of it) is to protect the fish in the DT from getting disease from new tank inhabitants.

So - if a fish with no sign of disease gets a disease while being treated to me (almost by definition) is a failure of QT.

This is the point I think we primarily disagree on. In a closed system, there's almost no way for a fish with no visible disease when entering QT but later manifesting a disease to have been truly disease free when it entered QT. The reason is that a QT (like all aquariums) is a closed system, and disease cannot just "be present" in those closed systems. It has to be introduced. Assuming a sterile QT was the environment into which the fish was introduced, there's no way for the disease to get there without it having come in after QT was started (presumably with the visibly healthy fish). Now, there are some exceptions to this rule (i.e. infection caused by injury, etc.). So, I would generally presume that a fish that manifests a disease in QT--even if it appeared healthy when introduced--already had that disease when entering QT.

Hmmm...as I'm typing this, I'm also thinking it's worth mentioning that the possibility of some kind of injury/infection could potentially result from misuse of meds or methods in QT. Perhaps this is more along the lines of what you're thinking of?

That said - It was also a success - because the sick fish didn't make it into your display. (as you already mentioned).

Yes. Although, if the loss is the result of a misuse of QT, I would consider that a failure (albeit a failure of a particular user rather than a failure of QT practice in general). However, in general, if the purpose for QT is to keep communicable disease out of the DT, I would agree with there being some margin of success in the scenario.

I guess conversely - if a fish develops a disease after no QT (i.e. it wasnt visible when put in the tank) then you could argue that (as long as other fish don't catch the disease) - that that was not a failure of 'non-QT' (I think it is).

Sure. I think this is true depending on what disease we're talking about. For example, many parasites may only be visible on a fish that is particularly susceptible, but that doesn't mean other fish don't also have it. However, if the other fish are truly disease free, that makes sense.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

It may help to know that my perspective on this is influenced by my own experience. Several years ago, I had a 180-gallon reef with 20ish thriving fish. I placed an order for a wrasse trio...these were meant to be my last additions. They arrived looking healthy. I acclimated them and added them to the DT. Over the next 2 weeks or so, I lost all but 3 fish due to velvet that apparently had been introduced along with the wrasses.

Now, I wish I could say that I have been a perfect practitioner of QT since that time. I have not. However, I do believe QT is the best practice, and having been through a massive loss, I can honestly say that I am most comfortable QTing new fish because IME the loss of 3 fish in QT would have been far preferable to the loss of 20 fish in my DT.