BAD NEWS - Velvet Strain Survives 1.75 PPM Copper!

[Lasse]

The question is not QT or not QT. The question is - should you use prophylactic treatment or not. You can QT without that - thats good for me - and treat if you see any upcomming disease - that´s good for me too.

I just wanted to see what @Lasse had to say about what he'd do with that fish? I wouldn't dare expose my DT to that. His methods are sump acclimation. If I did that it would wipe my tank and I am well aware. My fish and tank are parasite free so it would get ugly quickly.

A fish like that had never been set into my tank so the question is unfair. I do not put fish with signs of disease in my tank. Never ever said that. But I have never ever get a fair looking fish to get sick when it is introduced this way either. I supose you get the fish in that condition.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

I'm sorry you took that as an insult, you stated in a previous post you proved that it didn't work. Didn't know what you mean. I'm not here to prove anything. I'm here for FUN and the for the passion of the hobby and helping others. You are being pretty harsh yourself to which I take no offense. You can pm me if you'd like.

You are missing the point I HAVE NOTHING to gain here. I'm not selling snake oil, I'm not paid to be here. I'm not going to sit back and get hammered on without a response.

Neither do i..... I dont get points for discussing this with you - and I never said you were - I was trying to contribute to the general discussion. It could be the QT protocol has a hole. If it does - I would hope you would want to plug it. Believe me - I Have learned more about velvet than I ever care to learn again - I'm not a squad member - but I'm also not here just to blow you out of the water - I trust you guys. I was trying only to help you - as compared to what you said - trying to make me look 'smart'. I just happen to have a science/research background so I look for the logic/reasons for what is posted. So - if my main point is - you needn't change from 1.75 to 2.oo ppm for copper based on this experience for the vast majority of cases - is it so off base? If I said - thats too small a change - you really need to go to 2.5 ppm copper or you need to go to 1.75 for 30 days vs 14 - is that a problem - frankly - based on what I've read - it could be either..


I apologize if I seemed to monopolize the thread with'research' when you guys have had the experience - and I mean that sincerely. I know you are only recommending what you see is right. Please forgive me if I questioned too much... In the scientific world - its the questioning that creates process. Its the acceptance that creates problems (IMO). But I apologize if I did so...

 

[Thales]

Again as many say here @Thales. the person suggesting the issue/proof is responsible for proving it - not the people questioning it.

Two important notes on this -

1) The person making the claim is responsible for providing evidence to support that claim. The word proof is too definitive, and really only applies in mathematical proofs, while evidence is more expansive and practical.
2) This is a building block of logic and critical thinking and science, nothing I made up. It is not an unfair burden on the person making the claim, rather a minimum responsibility.

And, I have not read the thread.

 

[4FordFamily]

@HotRocks & @4FordFamily
Please don't take what I have written as an insult or rebuff to your valiant efforts to save fish that should have never been shipped in the first place! I never have seen fish in this condition even in the last shipment I observed from QM in a local store. That said it is time to cut ties to your sources and find another source! If you are buying from this source you are only extending the inevitable result for the source...a closed business! Go ahead and put them out of their misery and fund someone else more worthy of your efforts!

In all fairness I would never order a fish from an online source I have not inspected with a personal visit.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen this from all three that we use. I’m not vilifying anyone. Don’t misunderstand, that’s not typical, but it’s also not uncommon. I agree it’s unacceptable. 5 years ago I’d never have imagined something like that would be shipped to me from anywhere.

 

[MnFish1]

I didn’t think I was making anything personal. I’ve been wondering why this has become personal, myself, on many occasions in reading your replies. I’m saying point blank you’ve cited zero experience doing anything relevant to this discussion other than apparently some casual reading today of some research. I’m not attacking you, nor really even your position, just observing your rebuttal is based in less experience, research, and anecdote. I’ve repeatedly told you that you may be right. I don’t believe so, that’s my opinion.

I already responded to another post that I think answered this - but I'll try again. Bluntly. having a 500 gallon and 180 gallon aquarium does not qualify you to pretend that you have 'real experience'. Before you bristle at this let me explain:

1. Other people have different suppliers than you do
2. Other people may order different fish than you do.
3. Other people may have a larger or smaller tank - or different QT protocol than you.

I would ask you - which opinion of mine do you disagree with - and why? My only opinion was that you have not discovered resistant velvet that is not treated with 1.75 ppm - but is treated with 2.0 ppm. There is no more than that. And - I hope we're discussing this as friends as compared to an animosity

 

[HotRocks]

Neither do i..... I dont get points for discussing this with you - and I never said you were - I was trying to contribute to the general discussion. It could be the QT protocol has a hole. If it does - I would hope you would want to plug it. Believe me - I Have learned more about velvet than I ever care to learn again - I'm not a squad member - but I'm also not here just to blow you out of the water - I trust you guys. I was trying only to help you - as compared to what you said - trying to make me look 'smart'. I just happen to have a science/research background so I look for the logic/reasons for what is posted. So - if my main point is - you needn't change from 1.75 to 2.oo ppm for copper based on this experience for the vast majority of cases - is it so off base? If I said - thats too small a change - you really need to go to 2.5 ppm copper or you need to go to 1.75 for 30 days vs 14 - is that a problem - frankly - based on what I've read - it could be either..


I apologize if I seemed to monopolize the thread with'research' when you guys have had the experience - and I mean that sincerely. I know you are only recommending what you see is right. Please forgive me if I questioned too much... In the scientific world - its the questioning that creates process. Its the acceptance that creates problems (IMO). But I apologize if I did so...

We are good, no worries. There is no public capital here though to make that clear from another post. It's our own personal money and we do this for fun and to torture ourselves I guess LOL.

I understand what you are saying the research you did today indicates a prolonged timeframe with the 1.75ppm may be the best solution.

I'm not completely on board with that here is why. The first time this happened (which we thought was from a batch of fish that were treated with CP and combined into the same observation tank of fish that were treated with copper), once velvet was discovered the fish were then moved to a new tank and treated at 2.25ppm and then moved to a sterile tank after 14 days and the velvet was completely clear.

The 1.75ppm for another 21-28 days may have provided the same result.

By the way this second batch that this occurred with are actually moving out if 2.25ppm tomorrow so in the next 7-10 days I can tell you if it worked a second time.

 

[MnFish1]

BTW - the goal here is to try to determine - is there copper resistant velvet in the main supply chains - if so what to do about it - or is that thesis incorrect. Its not a trivial debate IMHO. At this point - based on science - I dont know (but its unlilkely) - based on the reports from @HotRocks and @4FordFamily maybe. Thats all im trying to tease out here - its not anything more or less.

 

[MnFish1]

We are good, no worries. There is no public capital here though to make that clear from another post. It's our own personal money and we do this for fun and to torture ourselves I guess LOL.

I understand what you are saying the research you did today indicates a prolonged timeframe with the 1.75ppm may be the best solution.

I'm not completely on board with that here is why. The first time this happened (which we thought was from a batch of fish that were treated with CP and combined into the same observation tank of fish that were treated with copper), once velvet was discovered the fish were then moved to a new tank and treated at 2.25ppm and then moved to a sterile tank after 14 days and the velvet was completely clear.

The 1.75ppm for another 21-28 days may have provided the same result.

By the way this second batch that this occurred with are actually moving out if 2.25ppm tomorrow so in the next 7-10 days I can tell you if it worked a second time.

That will be interesting - thanks.

 

[MnFish1]

We are good, no worries. There is no public capital here though to make that clear from another post. It's our own personal money and we do this for fun and to torture ourselves I guess LOL.

I understand what you are saying the research you did today indicates a prolonged timeframe with the 1.75ppm may be the best solution.

I'm not completely on board with that here is why. The first time this happened (which we thought was from a batch of fish that were treated with CP and combined into the same observation tank of fish that were treated with copper), once velvet was discovered the fish were then moved to a new tank and treated at 2.25ppm and then moved to a sterile tank after 14 days and the velvet was completely clear.

The 1.75ppm for another 21-28 days may have provided the same result.

By the way this second batch that this occurred with are actually moving out if 2.25ppm tomorrow so in the next 7-10 days I can tell you if it worked a second time.

Its hard to understand (sorry) - but - if you had taken the fish (once velvet was rediscovered) - and treated them with 1.75 for another 2 weeks - (instead of 2.25) what would have happened - answer we dont know - unless im misunderstanding? With the risk of starting something again - why not then recommend 2.25 as the recommended dose for QT? instead of 2.00

 

[ngoodermuth]

I’m going to say this as gently as possible... because I value everyone here [emoji12]

I think the conversation is moving from constructive and informative, to argumentative. I loved reading the research excerpts and first hand accounts, so if you guys dig up more papers/ articles or feel inclined to share links or personal experiences- I’m all for it!

Otherwise, I think going back and forth with the same opposing views over and over is taking away from the actual value of the thread.

Again, respectfully speaking... just trying to keep it friendly and helpful around here haha [emoji1362]

Personally, I don’t think there is any way to prove or disprove the theory presented here short of controlled lab testing. But, we are just humble hobbyists trying to help each other out...

There truly isn’t a huge difference between treating with 1.75 vs. 2.0, other than it gives you a bit more of a buffer in case the copper level does drop or fluctuate for whatever reason. Whether or not the velvet is actually resistant might be debatable, but the recommendation is not unreasonable considering it is still lower than what the manufacturer recommends... and therefore still an acceptable recommendation, and less invasive for the fish than the manufacturer suggested 2.5. So, little disadvantage and could possibly help other hobbyists?

I think maybe we agree to disagree on the point of resistance. Agree to disagree on the debate of prophylactic vs observational QT. And maybe just let the recommendation be what it is, a recommendation from a couple of experienced hobbyists to group of others, with good intent?

Just my opinion, of course!

 

[MnFish1]

I’m going to say this as gently as possible... because I value everyone here [emoji12]

I think the conversation is moving from constructive and informative, to argumentative. I loved reading the research excerpts and first hand accounts, so if you guys dig up more papers/ articles or feel inclined to share links or personal experiences- I’m all for it!

Otherwise, I think going back and forth with the same opposing views over and over is taking away from the actual value of the thread.

Again, respectfully speaking... just trying to keep it friendly and helpful around here haha [emoji1362]

Personally, I don’t think there is any way to prove or disprove the theory presented here short of controlled lab testing. But, we are just humble hobbyists trying to help each other out...

There truly isn’t a huge difference between treating with 1.75 vs. 2.0, other than it gives you a bit more of a buffer in case the copper level does drop or fluctuate for whatever reason. Whether or not the velvet is actually resistant might be debatable, but the recommendation is not unreasonable considering it is still lower than what the manufacturer recommends... and therefore still an acceptable recommendation, and less invasive for the fish than the manufacturer suggested 2.5. So, little disadvantage and could possibly help other hobbyists?

I think maybe we agree to disagree on the point of resistance. Agree to disagree on the debate of prophylactic vs observational QT. And maybe just let the recommendation be what it is, a recommendation from a couple of experienced hobbyists to group of others, with good intent?

Just my opinion, of course!

This makes sense. There is no doubt about their intent. I appreciate most if not all of their posts in all the threads I look at. I (never using copper) was not aware that their recommendations were lower than the manufacturers. Certainly no one has the resources here to do controlled experiments (though I'm surprised that some of the people that market products dont produce more).

I will say this - AND I MAY BE TOTALLY OFF BASE - When Someone posts as a member 'the reef squad' - to me it holds more value than if its me. LOL.. Meaning - if someone with that 'title' posts something - they should be open to more 'aggressive' questioning than the average person. If I'm wrong in these thoughts - I would appreciate the correction - either by PM or here directly.

 

[MnFish1]

I think maybe we agree to disagree on the point of resistance. Agree to disagree on the debate of prophylactic vs observational QT. And maybe just let the recommendation be what it is, a recommendation from a couple of experienced hobbyists to group of others, with good intent?

Sorry - I forgot to mention this - If there is velvet resistant to Copper - being provided by major suppliers - this is a huge deal - and is the only reason I responded to the thread - trying to either prove or disprove it. This is HUGE. And - I dont think its solved by changing a copper level from 1.75 to 2. There has never been reported - a strain of velvet resistant to copper at these levels. It would be like me saying - hey - I have a cleaner shrimp that is living in 1.75 ppm copper and is doing well. Its not trivial. Though its seemed to become a trivial point here. SO - on that point - I respectfully disagree

 

[HotRocks]

Its hard to understand (sorry) - but - if you had taken the fish (once velvet was rediscovered) - and treated them with 1.75 for another 2 weeks - (instead of 2.25) what would have happened - answer we dont know - unless im misunderstanding? With the risk of starting something again - why not then recommend 2.25 as the recommended dose for QT? instead of 2.00

Keep in mind these fish were in non medicated tanks post copper when this happened. So the AO had time to cycle. So a repeat of 14 days at 1.75ppm would be the exact treatment they had already recieved. Which is what you are saying needs extended correct? Based on the research? So wouldn't you need another 21-28 days? Since you are essentially starting at square one.

I'm sorry it's confusing.

First time this happens:
All fish arrived at same time.
55 gallon tank being treated with CP at 60mg/g and a 125 gallon being treated with 1.75ppm copper. Admittedly it was the first time I had ever used CP.

All of those fish were combined into another 125g observation tank. Then velvet was roaring by day 5 post treatment. Assumed it was the CP that let it through. Since I have treated fish in copper at 1.75 several times with success.

By the way I have CP samples of that tank water at a lab being tested for concentration. At the time the assumption was made that CP was the issue.

Those fish were all moved to @4FordFamily's house and placed in a Clean QT and treated for 14 days at 2.25ppm. I don't know that that level was intentional or not. I moved the fish back to a clean tank while he was away traveling. Tested the water. Hanna checker etc etc. Fish all clear of velvet.

The second time.
Fish treated in copper at 1.75ppm. for 14 days moved to clean tank and velvet was roaring again within a few days post copper.

Meanwhile I have 3 other tanks full of fish in copper at 1.75ppm, bump them up to 2.0ppm for an additional 14 days and they have just been transferred out within the last few days and are clear so far.

 

[MnFish1]

Keep in mind these fish were in non medicated tanks post copper when this happened. So the AO had time to cycle. So a repeat of 14 days at 1.75ppm would be the exact treatment they had already recieved. Which is what you are saying needs extended correct? Based on the research? So wouldn't you need another 21-28 days? Since you are essentially starting at square one.

I'm sorry it's confusing.

First time this happens:
All fish arrived at same time.
55 gallon tank being treated with CP at 60mg/g and a 125 gallon being treated with 1.75ppm copper. Admittedly it was the first time I had ever used CP.

All of those fish were combined into another 125g observation tank. Then velvet was roaring by day 5 post treatment. Assumed it was the CP that let it through. Since I have treated fish in copper at 1.75 several times with success.

By the way I have CP samples of that tank water at a lab being tested for concentration. At the time the assumption was made that CP was the issue.

Those fish were all moved to @4FordFamily's house and placed in a Clean QT and treated for 14 days at 2.25ppm. I don't know that that level was intentional or not. I moved the fish back to a clean tank while he was away traveling. Tested the water. Hanna checker etc etc. Fish all clear of velvet.

The second time.
Fish treated in copper at 1.75ppm. for 14 days moved to clean tank and velvet was roaring again within a few days post copper.

Meanwhile I have 3 other tanks full of fish in copper at 1.75ppm, bump them up to 2.0ppm for an additional 14 days and they have just been transferred out within the last few days and are clear so far.

This is excellent - again the goal is not 'who is right' - its 'what is going on'. I dont have resources to test these things like you do - and if I could give you 10000 likes I would. I dont want to come across as the naysayer l0l. And I think you're onto something. The only thing I didnt understand was changing from 1.75 ro 2 made a difference. Hopefully you can take that into account in your further work - and realize its a really small change if there was actually resistance - and then try to figure out whats going on (which may be resistance) - but IMHO not. Im hoping that the scientists ive messaged will answer their opinion. IN any case your problem is interesting - and needs to be explained.

 

[MnFish1]

Keep in mind these fish were in non medicated tanks post copper when this happened. So the AO had time to cycle. So a repeat of 14 days at 1.75ppm would be the exact treatment they had already recieved. Which is what you are saying needs extended correct? Based on the research? So wouldn't you need another 21-28 days? Since you are essentially starting at square one.

I'm sorry it's confusing.

First time this happens:
All fish arrived at same time.
55 gallon tank being treated with CP at 60mg/g and a 125 gallon being treated with 1.75ppm copper. Admittedly it was the first time I had ever used CP.

All of those fish were combined into another 125g observation tank. Then velvet was roaring by day 5 post treatment. Assumed it was the CP that let it through. Since I have treated fish in copper at 1.75 several times with success.

By the way I have CP samples of that tank water at a lab being tested for concentration. At the time the assumption was made that CP was the issue.

Those fish were all moved to @4FordFamily's house and placed in a Clean QT and treated for 14 days at 2.25ppm. I don't know that that level was intentional or not. I moved the fish back to a clean tank while he was away traveling. Tested the water. Hanna checker etc etc. Fish all clear of velvet.

The second time.
Fish treated in copper at 1.75ppm. for 14 days moved to clean tank and velvet was roaring again within a few days post copper.

Meanwhile I have 3 other tanks full of fish in copper at 1.75ppm, bump them up to 2.0ppm for an additional 14 days and they have just been transferred out within the last few days and are clear so far.

BTW - I didnt answer your specific question.....
But - yes - the question would be - if the fish (which supposedly still had AO) were treated longer than 14 days - as compared to being put into a clean tank would that have made a difference yes..

 

[HotRocks]

This is excellent - again the goal is not 'who is right' - its 'what is going on'. I dont have resources to test these things like you do - and if I could give you 10000 likes I would. I dont want to come across as the naysayer l0l. And I think you're onto something. The only thing I didnt understand was changing from 1.75 ro 2 made a difference. Hopefully you can take that into account in your further work - and realize its a really small change if there was actually resistance - and then try to figure out whats going on (which may be resistance) - but IMHO not. Im hoping that the scientists ive messaged will answer their opinion. IN any case your problem is interesting - and needs to be explained.

I hope they reply to your questions as well.

Keep you posted!

 

[4FordFamily]

I’m going to say this as gently as possible... because I value everyone here [emoji12]

I think the conversation is moving from constructive and informative, to argumentative. I loved reading the research excerpts and first hand accounts, so if you guys dig up more papers/ articles or feel inclined to share links or personal experiences- I’m all for it!

Otherwise, I think going back and forth with the same opposing views over and over is taking away from the actual value of the thread.

Again, respectfully speaking... just trying to keep it friendly and helpful around here haha [emoji1362]

Personally, I don’t think there is any way to prove or disprove the theory presented here short of controlled lab testing. But, we are just humble hobbyists trying to help each other out...

There truly isn’t a huge difference between treating with 1.75 vs. 2.0, other than it gives you a bit more of a buffer in case the copper level does drop or fluctuate for whatever reason. Whether or not the velvet is actually resistant might be debatable, but the recommendation is not unreasonable considering it is still lower than what the manufacturer recommends... and therefore still an acceptable recommendation, and less invasive for the fish than the manufacturer suggested 2.5. So, little disadvantage and could possibly help other hobbyists?

I think maybe we agree to disagree on the point of resistance. Agree to disagree on the debate of prophylactic vs observational QT. And maybe just let the recommendation be what it is, a recommendation from a couple of experienced hobbyists to group of others, with good intent?

Just my opinion, of course!

Well put, as always. I stopped contributing for this reason. It wasn’t productive.

I (never using copper) was not aware that their recommendations were lower than the manufacturers.

You didn’t stumble in to that in all of your research? .

The first part of that sentence kind of speaks volumes, wouldn’t you think?

Regarding your squad comment and badges — I didn’t get those badges by simply reading on the Internet. It was hours weeks years of experience and translating that in to helping others here on this forum. We should be held to a high regard. Let’s not forget the motive/end.

This is not a job, I have a full-time career. I volunteer here. I have many responsibilities at and outside of work. I have a family, two kids. I’m not here selling products. I don’t have time for unproductive debates. I intended to inform people that our protocol in my opinion needed a revision.

It’s OK to agree to disagree, something I attempted perhaps a dozen times. Eventually, I just stopped responding. It’s not that I don’t appreciate you, but the point I tried to make this entire time is contained in the quote from you above. There’s a reason my degrees didn’t translate to real experience — books and reality are sometimes different. All of the management classes, developing nations economic courses, and any other classes I took were a useful framework but the real world is much more complex and life cannot be captured entirely in pages.

It absolutely blows my mind to re-read that first sentence quoted above. I know you are a stickler for science and facts, but as logical as you are surely you see this point?

Hold me to a higher regard, but don’t expect me perform peer reviewed studies and be a full-time scientist here. If you don’t agree with me, move on. Perhaps I shouldn’t have let this thread go off the rails, I find it hard to believe users will gain anything from our discussion back and forth. You can make your point that you disagree and why and say your piece and I accept your difference of opinion and we move on with our merry lives.

This is a great community, with great people including yourself. I think it’s easy for people to forget that we are all on the same team, passionate about the same hobby, and we are in this together.

All jokes aside, I hope you’ll accept my apologies for getting annoyed with you. There is more to life than being right or wrong.

In the words of my father— “You can be right all the way to divorce court”. In the words of my first sales boss— “You can be right all the way to bankruptcy court”.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Hey @Lowell Lemon none taken buddy. We have nothing to gain here other than trying to help people which is why we choose to share both the good and the bad.

I am dedicated to this site and the great membership, if that means I have to take some criticism that's ok.

Appreciate the sentiment and kind words.

Oh, and that was the last time I ever ordered from that retailer after receiving a MI in the condition above.

I just wanted to see what @Lasse had to say about what he'd do with that fish? I wouldn't dare expose my DT to that. His methods are sump acclimation. If I did that it would wipe my tank and I am well aware. My fish and tank are parasite free so it would get ugly quickly.

Thanks for the kind response. In the business end the protocol is different due to two prevailing conditions. First off it has to be easy to manage and control. Second it has to be easily repeatable with employees of various abilities.

The question asked earlier is relevant to the discussion. The type of system we used in my facility was easy to scale up or down for the individual stores or hobbiest. At the time a company called Aquanetics was in operation and they made excellent System Paks as they called them. One skid mounted system with the main pump, mechanical/chemical filtration, inline heater/chiller, and the correct sized UV to control bacteria and ect. We simply added trickle towers of correct size with or without air injection and a large enough sump to filter all the tanks in the zone. Zones were tropical freshwater, cold water freshwater fish, saltwater fish, saltwater inverts, corals, macro algae and live rock. Often in the back room there might be a couple of QT tanks often used for customers fish treatment. There was often a live rock curing system to take in the live rock due to the higher die off in shipping of sponges and related. Ozone injection into the protein skimmers was an option that some used as well.

Some stores had large plastic tanks for the transhipments that had CO2 injection to lower PH to match the suppressed PH in the bags due to long shipping times from Asia and the Red Sea. All the fish were co-mingled and the CO2 reduced over 24 hours to slowly raise the PH back to normal levels and prevent toxic shock to the fish. This is common in large distributors like QM.

In practice the fish went into the main holding system with dates of arrival for the customers to see. There were as a result fish coming and going all the time. The wise customer would place a hold on the fish for at least two weeks and make sure they were eating and healthy before taking them home. I can hear the horror in your voice from here! What co-mingled old and new arrivals? Yes and at no time did any fish appear like the horror show you gave us on this thread! Correct filtration with UV prevents bacteria and cilliates from reaching pathogenic levels in theory and in practice. I did see a rise in ich in one store when they forgot to change out the UV lamps. New lamps and no fish loss and clear skin and scales on the fish. It worked then and works now in the stores that have correct levels of UVC and other filtration modalities.

Nothing magical when the UVC is sized to the pump and system. Quality Marine still sells TMC UVC sterilizers and they used to have charts for max flow for the best killing power. We just sized the system pump or pumps to the flow necessary for the system and the pump at zero head pressure since the pump was just in front of the UVC before it sent water to the pressure ring that supplied water to all the tanks. Small or large the principals work the same every time.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

@HotRocks & 4FordFamily

You guys are facing huge hurdles with supply. I have had this discussion with @Humblefish as well. I would build you a system and set one up for your QT system if you all were closer! Not saying all your trouble would be over but at least you could concentrate on the sickest fish and observe the others and compare results and mortality rates.

 

[HotRocks]

Thanks for the kind response. In the business end the protocol is different due to two prevailing conditions. First off it has to be easy to manage and control. Second it has to be easily repeatable with employees of various abilities.

The question asked earlier is relevant to the discussion. The type of system we used in my facility was easy to scale up or down for the individual stores or hobbiest. At the time a company called Aquanetics was in operation and they made excellent System Paks as they called them. One skid mounted system with the main pump, mechanical/chemical filtration, inline heater/chiller, and the correct sized UV to control bacteria and ect. We simply added trickle towers of correct size with or without air injection and a large enough sump to filter all the tanks in the zone. Zones were tropical freshwater, cold water freshwater fish, saltwater fish, saltwater inverts, corals, macro algae and live rock. Often in the back room there might be a couple of QT tanks often used for customers fish treatment. There was often a live rock curing system to take in the live rock due to the higher die off in shipping of sponges and related. Ozone injection into the protein skimmers was an option that some used as well.

Some stores had large plastic tanks for the transhipments that had CO2 injection to lower PH to match the suppressed PH in the bags due to long shipping times from Asia and the Red Sea. All the fish were co-mingled and the CO2 reduced over 24 hours to slowly raise the PH back to normal levels and prevent toxic school to the fish. This is common in large distributors like QM.

In practice the fish went into the main holding system with dates of arrival for the customers to see. There were as a result fish coming and going all the time. The wise customer would place a hold on the fish for at least two weeks and make sure they were eating and healthy before taking them home. I can hear the horror in your voice from here! What co-mingled old and new arrivals? Yes and at no time did any fish appear like the horror show you gave us on this thread! Correct filtration with UV prevents bacteria and cilliates from reaching pathogenic levels in theory and in practice. I did see a rise in ich in one store when they forgot to change out the UV lamps. New lamps and no fish loss and clear skin and scales on the fish. It worked then and works now in the stores that have correct levels of UVC and other filtration modalities.

Nothing magical when the UVC is sized to the pump and system. Quality Marine still sells TMC UVC sterilizers and they used to have charts for max flow for the best killing power. We just sized the system pump or pumps to the flow necessary for the system and the pump at zero head pressure since the pump was just in front of the UVC before it sent water to the pressure ring that supplied water to all the tanks. Small or large the principals work the same every time.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. You have definitely given me a much better understanding of the systems I have seen you mention at various times.