The Other Way to Run a Reef Tank (no Quarantine)

[AbnormalReefer]

Hi Paul,

I love the idea, however, does it work with all fish and with all pathogens/diseases? I’m willing to bet that this’d work with fish less prone to diseases like ich such as wrasses and dragonets, maybe even some of the hardier tangs!

However, I wonder if this’ll work with, say..... Acanthurus tangs, which are known for being delicate compared to, for example, Zebrasoma tangs.

I definitely have ich myself in my display tank. I also have some sort of flatworm, but not the colorful, parasitic type. I am currently QT’ing a foxface and a naso tang. My goal with QT is not necessarily stop ich entirely anymore, but mainly to deal with more serious/secondary infections that I don’t want. Such an example is velvet. I’m somewhat skeptical that good feeding and exposure will help a fish fight off a disease known for killing fish within 24 hours.

Thanks for your time everyone!

 

[MnFish1]

Yeah, the 2 lbs of dirt is not meant literally.
Twisting terms around like “sterile” is getting confusing. Think everyone gets what the 2 lbs of dirt means, and what PaulB is sharing. Things like claiming hi nitrates is the reason for his success is weird, since most would say higher nitrates will and does have the opposite effect on fish’s well being. Which only proves further he’s onto something

@theMeat ----- Sterile has a definition. It means bacteria and parasite free (or dead). So - I'm not sure why thats confusing. However, when @PaulB says that leaving a tank fallow means and QTing the fish "will leave them with no 'immunity'" to me thats 'confusing' (and factually incorrect).

I guess my point about the nitrate wasn't clear. Its well know (as you mentioned) - that high nitrates tend to inhibit all kinds of marine life - invertebrates, etc - yet Paul has claimed (I believe) to have had nitrates as high as 160...... I do not believe that high nitrate actually inhibits CI or velvet. The point was - saying that it 'might inhibit CI or velvet' is just as likely as Pauls claiming that he is feeding 'pathogens' (his words) in his foods - and that is maintaining fish immunity.

PS It was clear that the 2 lbs of dirt was not literal.

 

[fishybizzness]

Well - I hope you're not talking about me - Regarding Paul's methods - I said nothing but positive things about his methods, I even praised his storytelling abilities. I have only said - I think Paul sometimes uses terms like immune and QT - in ways that are not standard - and lead to confusion, and that I think that any good quality fish food pellet, dry, frozen etc will do just as well as worms or frozen clams if one is trying to build an 'immune tank'. (whatever an immune tank is).

One factual thing that I disagree with - and there is no way Im incorrect in this - is that there is no such thing as a fish that 'is immune to everything' as Paul claims to have. It is scientifically impossible.

I was actually making a general statement. I apologize if you think that I was referring to you.

 

[Paul B]

AbnormalReefer I don't purposefully buy fish that I feel won't get ich or anything else. I just don't care about diseases because they are not an issue for me. I have had numerous tangs, French Angels, Moorish Idols and now have a copperband. You can see the fish I kept in the 70s in one of my posts above where I posted some of my log book. My last hippo tang died maybe 5 or 6 years ago after about 10 or 12 years but he was never sick. He may have jumped out, I don't even remember. But the 3 shrimpfish I recently had were definitely covered in parasites as was the clown gobi I recently got and still have. I believe Queen Anthius get ich and I have 3 of them. I gave away my foxface a while ago because he bored me. He was also never sick. I just like smaller, interesting fish like bluestripe pipefish etc.
I don't have an acanthurus tang because as I have said, I find tangs and angels boring and I am over them. When I started in the hobby I had plenty of them, but I am past that as they are also to common. I also find them very stupid fish with little personality as all schooling fish are. They just follow the pack with little mind of their own and because of that, they are not inquisitive or interesting, just beautiful. I went for beautiful when I married my wife. But she is also smart and interesting which is the same I look for in a fish.
I want flashlight fish, pinecone fish, clingfish etc.
I have some tangs ordered just for this thread but I am not sure what will come in. It could be anything but I am sure whatever it is, people will say, it is not enough of an ich magnet.

 

[atoll]

The same repetitive questions and comments keep being made on Paul's thread I am sure he must get a little fed up answering them, he certainly has a lot of patience that's for sure. The only tang most people would consider an itch magnet I have kept is a regal but it grew too big for me so moved it on and Iike Paul I find them, tangs, boring fish. I have a regal angel a multibar angel both considered difficult fish (I don't) and Royal grammas which are itch magnets apparently. I don't have a problem with itch but I am certain it lurks there frustrated waiting an opportunity to strike but after all these years I have learnt not to hold my breath.

 

[MnFish1]

Either you agree with Paul B's methods (or lack of a method) or you don't. I don't ever recall hearing Paul tell anyone to follow his method of keeping a tank. I have also never seen any post of Paul asking for advice on aquarium issues or aquarium keeping. It seems to me that most people accept Paul for what he is, a very good storyteller and probably the most successful aquarist in the country. A few people refuse to accept his success and repeatedly try to discredit him and his methods. I am truly one of the believers in his methods. I keep an aquarium that reflects what I see when I go snorkeling. I want it to be as natural as possible. I use sand from the ocean, live rock and nsw. I regularly add ocean caught ghost shrimp mycid shrimp and feed fresh food with local caught mahi roe added. I've had my share of ups and downs but so have most people with a new tank less than 2 years old. All Paul has stated in this thread is "another" way of keeping a reef tank , not the only way.

I personally have no problem per se with @PaulB's methods. The problem I have is some of the logic behind the method. Its a free country - everyone can do whatever they want. In the article (and thats what this area is for - to discuss the article - not necessarily agree with 100% of it) there are IMO factual errors concerning parasites and immunology.

But fish have been around almost as long as those things and they evolved long ago to live in harmony with all of them.

Parasites job is to not kill their host - but use them for whatever 'function' they need from the host and go on reproducing. That said - no animal/fish lives in harmony 'with all of them'. Some will die from them. Even some healthy organisms will die from them. There is no method that can prevent 'all deaths'

But all fish are infected in a store and even in the sea.

Some stores (I know of at least 2 here) QT and treat every fish in their store - thus 'all fish' are may not be infected in a store. In the sea there are good data as to the percentage of fish that are 'infected' with CI (by gill and skin biopsy) and it is never 100% - and it often varies by season. Just adding a fish to your tank doesn't guarantee CI, velvet or anything other parasite is present.

Fish eat parasites with every meal and those parasites are processed in the fishes kidney among other places and that causes the fish to exude antiparisitic and antibacterial properties in their slime. They constantly do this and it keeps parasites and bacteria from killing the fish even though some parasites will get through to sample some fish flesh.

The way that fish become immune to CI, velvet, etc is not by 'eating it' (at least not that I have seen). In any case is not because they eat something and it goes through the kidney - the kidney in the fish is not connected to the intestinal system. Firstly - Fish become immune to CI when it burrows through the slime coat (breaks through the local immune system) and burrows into the skin. Fish do have an area in their gut that contains immune tissue - but lets think about it - if everything that went into the fish's mouth and went through this 'immune area' caused the fish to be 'immune' to it that would be a problem (i.e. every fish that ate fish would become immune to itself) - the only way immunity happens (and there is immune tissue in the kidney, gut and several other areas in fish.) is when the fish is actually infected with the parasite.

. STATEMENT 1: I gradually learned that bacteria and parasites would not kill my fish as long as I didn't medicate them. STATEMENT 2. When I added a fish it normally would get spots and sometimes die.

Those 2 sentences are contradictory.

If you quarantine fish, there will be nothing for the fish to become immune to and any slight infection will crash the tank.

Perhaps - but not all wild fish are 'immune' to CI, and if the future of reef keeping (which some predict) is going to be tank raised fish(which will not be immune to CI or velvet) this will be a problem.

If you have a tank full of quarantined fish, I am not sure how you could get those fish immune because that quarantining may have destroyed the immune system of those fish. It would be a long process because the fish would have to be infected, and then cured for them to become immune and you may lose some fish.

Quarantining fish will not destroy the immune system. Immunity to CI gradually decreases after 6 months (no one knows how long it lasts - because the studies that looked at this were stopped at 6 months). Certainly - even with quarantine - the 'immune system' is not destroyed. The 'Innate immune system' - slime, etc is not affected at all.

I did not mention parameters because IMO they are not that important for fish health. Corals, yes, but not fish. My nitrates were 160 for years and I never had a fish die and they continued to spawn.

This statement should cause a question or 2. Parameters may or may not be 'important' for some fish health - but they are certainly important in general. Ammonia is a parameter. pH is a parameter. etc. Im not sure that 'all fish' would do as well as they could with a nitrate of 160. Because a nitrate of 160 MAY mean that there are other chemicals that are undesirable.

 

[mshonk]

Paul is this the same tank that you made the mandarin feeding station and had a bottle in? I remember some of you threads from the reef tank 8ish years ago. At least i am sure they were yours.

 

[MnFish1]

The same repetitive questions and comments keep being made on Paul's thread I am sure he must get a little fed up answering them, he certainly has a lot of patience that's for sure. The only tang most people would consider an itch magnet I have kept is a regal but it grew too big for me so moved it on and Iike Paul I find them, tangs, boring fish. I have a regal angel a multibar angel both considered difficult fish (I don't) and Royal grammas which are itch magnets apparently. I don't have a problem with itch but I am certain it lurks there frustrated waiting an opportunity to strike but after all these years I have learnt not to hold my breath.

I wish you would post some of the repetitive questions - with the answers to those questions - rather than make a general statement. That way it will save Paul from having to answer them again...? Maybe part of the 'problem' is that some of the answers provided don't directly answer the question or - some of the answers generate new discussion topics, ideas - or some of the answers don't match what was said before.

I have read this entire thread - I haven't seen a lot of what you describe. I have asked a lot of questions - here and on other threads - which usually relate to the rationale behind the method - rather than the method itself. I've said it before, ill say it again - I like the article, but as an example - just take the word 'quarantine' (in the title) in the article it suggests that quarantine refers to new fish. Because he also mentions hospital tanks (which I would assume be used when a tank is fallow)... I asked - what is the definition of quarantine - Paul said keeping a fish for 72 days separate from the display. (which many posters assumed to be a tank used for fish kept during a fallow period). So - at least part of the reason for 'questions' is that Paul is not always consistent from article to article or post to post as to what he means by different words.

 

[Paul B]

Paul is this the same tank that you made the mandarin feeding station and had a bottle in? I remember some of you threads from the reef tank 8ish years ago. At least i am sure they were yours.

I moved to this new house 5 months ago and bought a new tank a little bigger. My old tank was over 40 years old and was scratched. It was also built into a wall so I couldn't and didn't want to move it. I had to transfer everything out of that old tank and move it to the new tank 60 miles away in one day which I did. I had to collect some new water because I couldn't carry all my old water. But the bottles and the mandarin station came along with me and the tank.

 

[atoll]

I wish you would post some of the repetitive questions - with the answers to those questions - rather than make a general statement. That way it will save Paul from having to answer them again...? Maybe part of the 'problem' is that some of the answers provided don't directly answer the question or - some of the answers generate new discussion topics, ideas - or some of the answers don't match what was said before.

I have read this entire thread - I haven't seen a lot of what you describe. I have asked a lot of questions - here and on other threads - which usually relate to the rationale behind the method - rather than the method itself. I've said it before, ill say it again - I like the article, but as an example - just take the word 'quarantine' (in the title) in the article it suggests that quarantine refers to new fish. Because he also mentions hospital tanks (which I would assume be used when a tank is fallow)... I asked - what is the definition of quarantine - Paul said keeping a fish for 72 days separate from the display. (which many posters assumed to be a tank used for fish kept during a fallow period). So - at least part of the reason for 'questions' is that Paul is not always consistent from article to article or post to post as to what he means by different words.

Repetitive questions asked in a different way EG delicate/ difficult/ itch magnet/ tangs. Paul's answers are consistent with regards to bacteria and pests IMO. Not just on this thread but others he answers inc his own thread on his tank. However good for him answering each one even if he has to give a similar reply each time. I can ask the same question in many different ways along with question the answer similarly. Has long as Paul is happy to continue to field the same questions then that's up to him, he gets attacked for his methods told he is wrong etc but thr fact is his tank/ fish continue to be healthy and that is what many people tend to be confused about. I and a few others keep our fish in a similar way with similar results. This thread and others show how we believe we do it and there are many of the same/ similar questions all of which get answered even if the answers don't sit well with some.

 

[mshonk]

I moved to this new house 5 months ago and bought a new tank a little bigger. My old tank was over 40 years old and was scratched. It was also built into a wall so I couldn't and didn't want to move it. I had to transfer everything out of that old tank and move it to the new tank 60 miles away in one day which I did. I had to collect some new water because I couldn't carry all my old water. But the bottles and the mandarin station came along with me and the tank.

Nice I thought so. 40 years old!!!

 

[MnFish1]

Repetitive questions asked in a different way EG delicate/ difficult/ itch magnet/ tangs. Paul's answers are consistent with regards to bacteria and pests IMO. Not just on this thread but others he answers inc his own thread on his tank. However good for him answering each one even if he has to give a similar reply each time. I can ask the same question in many different ways along with question the answer similarly. Has long as Paul is happy to continue to field the same questions then that's up to him, he gets attacked for his methods told he is wrong etc but thr fact is his tank/ fish continue to be healthy and that is what many people tend to be confused about. I and a few others keep our fish in a similar way with similar results. This thread and others show how we believe we do it and there are many of the same/ similar questions all of which get answered even if the answers don't sit well with some.

Thanks - I keep my tank the same way as well. With the exception of the nitrate and the live foods. The only reason I'm asking anything is to try to figure out why some people have such a problem with parasites - and others don't - using 2 very different methods. I guess I also have a problem with the idea that 'quarantining is 'bad' - rather than just 'another way to do it thats equivalent.

 

[Paul B]

So - at least part of the reason for 'questions' is that Paul is not always consistent from article to article or post to post as to what he means by different words.

I am not quite consistent because I am not a computer. I may say 72 days and mean 76 days because I don't quarantine so it isn't that important. I use 72 days because that's what Humblefish and most other people say when they go fallow and think that is the magic number needed to kill parasites. I don't know if the parasites count to 72 or 76 and I don't care. I am 70 years old and have PTSD so I may forget things. To me this is a fish site and I am not building space shuttles or curing athletes foot.
Of course nitrates of 160 is not the best thing, and I don't know if it hurt anything or kills parasites. Most of the time my nitrates were 10. The parasites didn't seem to notice.

Quarantining fish will not destroy the immune system.

That is your opinion. Researchers don't know because they don't study it that long and all fish are different. Maybe a clingfish loses it's immunity in 10 minutes. Have you seen studies on them?

You can read all about a fishes immune system here. I have read it a few times and it gives me a headache but I did research this and other articles for my immunity thread and my book. I purposely did not quote the entire thing because it is very complicated so I shortened it a lot by saying much of a fishes immunity comes from it's Head Kidney. Not because the kidney is connected to the digestive system like plumbing, but because the kidney and gut have the same blood supply like we do and the kidney can recognize threats from chemicals in the blood. Now I know you will tear that apart. I also know that the kidney is only one part of the immune system and I don't care. For the purpose of a thread on a "fish site" and not a medical journal I think that is sufficient. How many people agree.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-37652014000301484

 

[Paul B]

Nice I thought so. 40 years old!!!

Yes that is correct. But the tank was started in my first house in 1971, 5 or 6 years earlier and when I moved, I also took that tank with me. It was a 40 gallon tank and when I moved I transferred it all into a 100 gallon tank.
This picture has been up here dozens of times, but since you asked, this was the original 40 gallon tank it was started in.

 

[Jay Norris]

I use to go years ago. No collecting allowed out there so I usually go to the keys.

Yes the same here, to bad because it use to be a good place to collect years ago, but I still go out their to collect my water on windier days.

 

[Jay Norris]

I personally have no problem per se with @PaulB's methods. The problem I have is some of the logic behind the method. Its a free country - everyone can do whatever they want. In the article (and thats what this area is for - to discuss the article - not necessarily agree with 100% of it) there are IMO factual errors concerning parasites and immunology.


Parasites job is to not kill their host - but use them for whatever 'function' they need from the host and go on reproducing. That said - no animal/fish lives in harmony 'with all of them'. Some will die from them. Even some healthy organisms will die from them. There is no method that can prevent 'all deaths'


Some stores (I know of at least 2 here) QT and treat every fish in their store - thus 'all fish' are may not be infected in a store. In the sea there are good data as to the percentage of fish that are 'infected' with CI (by gill and skin biopsy) and it is never 100% - and it often varies by season. Just adding a fish to your tank doesn't guarantee CI, velvet or anything other parasite is present.



The way that fish become immune to CI, velvet, etc is not by 'eating it' (at least not that I have seen). In any case is not because they eat something and it goes through the kidney - the kidney in the fish is not connected to the intestinal system. Firstly - Fish become immune to CI when it burrows through the slime coat (breaks through the local immune system) and burrows into the skin. Fish do have an area in their gut that contains immune tissue - but lets think about it - if everything that went into the fish's mouth and went through this 'immune area' caused the fish to be 'immune' to it that would be a problem (i.e. every fish that ate fish would become immune to itself) - the only way immunity happens (and there is immune tissue in the kidney, gut and several other areas in fish.) is when the fish is actually infected with the parasite.


Those 2 sentences are contradictory.


Perhaps - but not all wild fish are 'immune' to CI, and if the future of reef keeping (which some predict) is going to be tank raised fish(which will not be immune to CI or velvet) this will be a problem.



Quarantining fish will not destroy the immune system. Immunity to CI gradually decreases after 6 months (no one knows how long it lasts - because the studies that looked at this were stopped at 6 months). Certainly - even with quarantine - the 'immune system' is not destroyed. The 'Innate immune system' - slime, etc is not affected at all.



This statement should cause a question or 2. Parameters may or may not be 'important' for some fish health - but they are certainly important in general. Ammonia is a parameter. pH is a parameter. etc. Im not sure that 'all fish' would do as well as they could with a nitrate of 160. Because a nitrate of 160 MAY mean that there are other chemicals that are undesirable.

Hi, this is a good debate between you and Paul, who run their tanks in a different ways, Paul seems to have a method that totally works for him, and you seem to have a system that works for you, so why do you keep debating the same things over and over again, since both methods ae working for the both of you? Neither one of you seems to be forcing your methods on any one else with an aquarium, and this has given a lot of people on this forum an alternative way of quarantining their systems, and both can be good ways to help keep your fish alive, but Paul's way seems to be a little more involved, and requires a little more knowledge of the fish you are trying to keep.

 

[AbnormalReefer]

Hello all,

My apologies if I asked a very repetitive question, and i thank you, Paul, for keeping your patience up. However, it must be understood that it is hard to read 54 pages worth of R2R material!

 

[Paul B]

AbnormalReefer, I would have stopped at page 2.. I tried, but I keep getting pulled in to explain things.

 

[MnFish1]

I am not quite consistent because I am not a computer. I may say 72 days and mean 76 days because I don't quarantine so it isn't that important. I use 72 days because that's what Humblefish and most other people say when they go fallow and think that is the magic number needed to kill parasites. I don't know if the parasites count to 72 or 76 and I don't care. I am 70 years old and have PTSD so I may forget things. To me this is a fish site and I am not building space shuttles or curing athletes foot.
Of course nitrates of 160 is not the best thing, and I don't know if it hurt anything or kills parasites. Most of the time my nitrates were 10. The parasites didn't seem to notice.


That is your opinion. Researchers don't know because they don't study it that long and all fish are different. Maybe a clingfish loses it's immunity in 10 minutes. Have you seen studies on them?

You can read all about a fishes immune system here. I have read it a few times and it gives me a headache but I did research this and other articles for my immunity thread and my book. I purposely did not quote the entire thing because it is very complicated so I shortened it a lot by saying much of a fishes immunity comes from it's Head Kidney. Not because the kidney is connected to the digestive system like plumbing, but because the kidney and gut have the same blood supply like we do and the kidney can recognize threats from chemicals in the blood. Now I know you will tear that apart. I also know that the kidney is only one part of the immune system and I don't care. For the purpose of a thread on a "fish site" and not a medical journal I think that is sufficient. How many people agree.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-37652014000301484

Im sorry @PaulB. 76 days is important - and 76 days is the recommendation. The reason its 76 days - and not 72 days is that the longest surviving CI after being fallow was 76 days. Its not a number picked out of a hat. It is the 'worse case scenario'. For example lets say you said 66 days well so what. What if it was 65 days - well who cares, what if its 64 days - big deal. You could easily get to zero days because each day itself doesn't matter. But the recommendation is 76 days. But I understand it was a typo or whatever.........

What is important to me anyway is the use of terms. Lost all of their immunity (as you say several times) is plain false.They may have lost some of of their immunity to CI or velvet or whatever -but they have not lost all of their 'immune system'. I dont need to quote more studies to prove it - even the article you quote (which I posted on another thread - and the newer one on the review of fish immunity on this one) - states that there is innate immunity and specific (or adaptive immunity).

BTW - I (again) I applaud your efforts to bring information forward to be discussed. No - its not a space shuttle - but if you're a 17 year old high school student starting out and read (in an article on the major Reefing website) the last sentence of your article- parameters dont matter my nitrate has been 160 thats misinformation.

As to your asking people to kind of 'vote' whether its important or not (the things I mentioned) - In the time of Galileo, most of the 'people' would have voted that the earth was flat. You asking how many people think its important makes only a small difference to me - you're the one that said fish eat parasites and become immune that way. If you dont know it - no one forced you to write it in your article. But to the hundreds of people that read that article, and think you're expert (you are an expert) they will read it, repeat it, and do it. And in doing so they would be wrong.

I apologize to each an every member of the forum that feels I've mishandled things I've said here (or insulted @PaulB) - and once again I deeply respect Paul for many reasons beyond this article. Frankly - I'm getting tired as well - arguing fact vs. opinion. I'm also not a 12 year old - have been doing this for 40+ years as well. So there's that. I have learned MANY MANY MANY new things reading here - and discussing here. This part of the forum is about discussing - if people think thats offensive - well - so be it.

 

[MnFish1]

Hi, this is a good debate between you and Paul, who run their tanks in a different ways, Paul seems to have a method that totally works for him, and you seem to have a system that works for you, so why do you keep debating the same things over and over again, since both methods ae working for the both of you? Neither one of you seems to be forcing your methods on any one else with an aquarium, and this has given a lot of people on this forum an alternative way of quarantining their systems, and both can be good ways to help keep your fish alive, but Paul's way seems to be a little more involved, and requires a little more knowledge of the fish you are trying to keep.

Hey Jay - you must not have read what I wrote. There is no debate. Just curious - based on what you've read from what I've written - how is my method different from Pauls? Maybe you should read my first post on this thread (or maybe the second lol) - and then come back and tell me where we differ. And - apologetically, you dont know what kind of fish I keep. So Im not totally sure where you're coming from.

The things im discussing are fact based - for example - . You can't (as far as I'm aware and I'm happy to have anyone tell me differently) feed CI to a fish and have that preserve their immunity to CI - yet thats in the article.

This might sound snarky - but its not meant to be. Maybe people should just post their articles - with their individual methods - and R2R shouldn't have a comment section - that would prevent all of this useless banter?