Can adding inverts cause disease outbreak?

[BiggestE22]

So although I try to get my snails and reef-safe crabs from tanks at my LFS. It is not always possible since only one large tank is excluded from the rest of the system. I have heard it said that there is a chance that ick and velvet could attack to those invert shells if the fish in the holding tank have been compromised. How concerned would you guys be with that issue?

 

[brandon429]

Can’t wait to see answers, a pressing issue for the hobby

i can’t see how a snail shell is different than live rock as a vector. Lower surface area, less vector, but still they dont show up dry to the new tank I see them as 5% risk vectors apiece.

 

[Gtinnel]

Since any parasites/disease are present in the water than anything wet that you put in the tank can carry it into your tank IMO. I would think there is less of a chance though.

 

[Reefin Aint Easy]

Since any parasites/disease are present in the water than anything wet that you put in the tank can carry it into your tank IMO. I would think there is less of a chance though.

This is the correct answer 100%. Been proven time and time again. Go read Humblefish's website. Like Brandon429 said, you will get a lot of answers on the rights and wrongs of people how they do it and what they suggest, but the bottom line is EVERYTHING should be quarantined before going into your tank because it can carry diseases and parasites etc...

 

[brandon429]

agreed I like to see outcomes in % likelihood as a reflection on years of posted patterns by us all.



I think this constitutes the notion of dirty fallow dirty qt vs clean fallow clean qt

based on prior loss incursions reefers may want to escalate up a level for control, or at least hold dirty until conditions warrant the step up

quick sum:
-option one, no preps, cycle tank add lfs fish see what happens. highest % loss rate possible, wastes fish by the truckload but its delayed losses to month 5-8 we see in patterns here.

-option two, dirty mode. fish are quarantined and tank may or may not be fallowed but new hard scape additions are simply added, corals and cuc/hardscapes from lfs are directly added and their low % vectoring is in play. losses here are markedly below unprepped tanks and the minimum responsibility of any reefer to avoid contributing to massive fish loss.

-option three, clean fallow and qt. the tank was fallowed, and only fallowed hardscape items were added to it. All fish qt. very medically rigid, not fun, has the highest retention rate of any system in reefing though no system is 100%.

 

[brandon429]

as this thread builds I will link it post 1 in my favorite cycling threads. its an important distinction to make among tanks.

 

[lanceinhuntsville]

Can’t wait to see answers, a pressing issue for the hobby

i can’t see how a snail shell is different than live rock as a vector. Lower surface area, less vector, but still they dont show up dry to the new tank I see them as 5% risk vectors apiece.

Coralline algae was introduced to my tank from a snail shell. I’d have to imagine if that can happen, any other parasitic attachment can use the same method of transportation.

 

[BiggestE22]

The funny issue also is that you can’t just leave CUC in a traditional QT tank as they need food although I guess you could add those algae rolls that can by clipped into tank. They then would have to stay integer for 2+ months. Obviously traditional meds like copper cannot be used.

 

[brandon429]

its such a decision between clean and dirty modes.

after reading Pauls material, I personally would select fallowed initial tank before any additions, then qt of any fish though I wouldnt take time myself to do that I'd buy them pre qt

then I'd do dirty coral additions and cuc additions taking the small risk but I'd be feeding Paul B's way, not retail foods. the supermarket hand made approach/beefing up resistance as best as possible.

additionally, my new reef wouldnt be a dry rock bringup it'd be a coralline live rock transfer skip cycle from some other system. I'd never use a dry rock setup because it takes too long to become mature, not that they work bad.

so I'd choose option 2 but it'd be feeding reinforced, and live rock reinforced vs sterile rocks but still able to handle tank waste.

****Now if I had 17K invested in a massive reef tank after winning the lotto, then its option 3 all the way pure medical isolation and support for 100% of the additions made to the tank.

 

[Reefin Aint Easy]

The funny issue also is that you can’t just leave CUC in a traditional QT tank as they need food although I guess you could add those algae rolls that can by clipped into tank. They then would have to stay integer for 2+ months. Obviously traditional meds like copper cannot be used.

Thats correct. You can still feed them in the non medicated QT system and by just having it fallow will kill off any free swimmers and tomonts that could be hitchhiking on the invert.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

So although I try to get my snails and reef-safe crabs from tanks at my LFS. It is not always possible since only one large tank is excluded from the rest of the system. I have heard it said that there is a chance that ick and velvet could attack to those invert shells if the fish in the holding tank have been compromised. How concerned would you guys be with that issue?

I'm very concerned about this issue. Here is a link to an article I recently wrote on the broader subject of biosecurity:

Biosecurity

A short introduction to aquarium biosecurity

www.reef2reef.com

Jay

 

[BiggestE22]

I'm very concerned about this issue. Here is a link to an article I recently wrote on the broader subject of biosecurity:

Biosecurity

A short introduction to aquarium biosecurity

www.reef2reef.com

Jay

Great article. Thank you very much.