Current Quarantine Protocol

[Jay Hemdal]

Hello,
I have 3 questions. When you say to start copper after the last prazipro dose how long do you wait aftee adding thw prazi pro? Since you said not to do copper and prazipro together I guess I'm wondering how long it takes for the prazipro to be gone.

Why aren't antibacterials given empirically? Is there an antibacterial you would recommend if someone were to do that?

Lastly, my one fish is in an uncycled qt. Just finished copper and I added the prazi. I usually have to change the water once daily or every other day. Just wondering how that affects the prazi dose? Does it take only 24hrs to absorb into the fish or does it tale the full 7 days?

Sorry, I’m traveling and on my phone so I can’t open the Q file easily - but copper should be dosed before prazi. You just need to drop the copper to about 1 ppm before starting the prazi.

I never dose antibiotics without strong indications that there is a bacterial infection going on - dosing as a preventative leads to resistance and possible side effects.

Ah, the method I presented should only be used in a cycled/established quarantine system. That said, if you’re fine with doing that many water changes, just do a change at least 24 hours after each prazi addition, it breaks down that fast anyway.

Jay

 

[alicia24]

Sorry, I’m traveling and on my phone so I can’t open the Q file easily - but copper should be dosed before prazi. You just need to drop the copper to about 1 ppm before starting the prazi.

I never dose antibiotics without strong indications that there is a bacterial infection going on - dosing as a preventative leads to resistance and possible side effects.

Ah, the method I presented should only be used in a cycled/established quarantine system. That said, if you’re fine with doing that many water changes, just do a change at least 24 hours after each prazi addition, it breaks down that fast anyway.

Jay

Thank you!!! For the first question I meant how you said its optional to start copper again after prazi pro if desired. Which from the other answer it sounds like waiting 24hrs or so after that lost prazi pro dose it would be safe to do copper again for the 10 days then move the fish to dt?

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Thank you!!! For the first question I meant how you said its optional to start copper again after prazi pro if desired. Which from the other answer it sounds like waiting 24hrs or so after that lost prazi pro dose it would be safe to do copper again for the 10 days then move the fish to dt?

Yes, that second copper treatment is something many public aquariums do. I don’t think you need to run that for 10 days though, maybe 72 hours. I would wait 36 hours after the second dose of prazi before redosing the copper.
Jay

 

[alabella1]

Yes, that second copper treatment is something many public aquariums do. I don’t think you need to run that for 10 days though, maybe 72 hours. I would wait 36 hours after the second dose of prazi before redosing the copper.
Jay

After the second dose of prazi or did you mean third?

 

[Jay Hemdal]

After the second dose of prazi or did you mean third?

The third prazi dose is actually optional, for people who want to be extra cautious.

Jay

 

[aquaestions]

I pretty much wanted to stop reading when I saw this: "I’ve tried what I’m about to describe on two separate aquarium systems and it worked flawlessly both times." A sample size of two is simply not enough to base any conclusions on!

In reading this further (and trying to avoid all the ads) it became apparent that they are promoting using an Oxydator. There are some people here on R2R that support this process and can give you better information about it than this article.

Jay

Why would you dismiss my article based on the fact that I've "only" done it twice? That's a pretty narrow way of thinking given there are people here parroting stuff that they've never done.

Would you prefer that I've done it 100 times so that my personal experience has statistical significance? That's absurd at best. Show me a study that examines treating Ich in ornamental reef tanks in particular. Show me a scientific hypothesis from a reputable source on how it should be done best in such an environment.

No such thing.

We should not rely only on outside authority but also have the ability to connect the dots and use logic. I've cited multiple studies in my article that support my results and methodology. Like, literally multiple.

The reason I tried this method in the first place was that I've read MULTIPLE success reports of other people. Clearly, you did not read the full article, as if you did, you'd see I address the "anecdotal experience" nonsense going around in these forums which effectively stalls the progress of the hobby. Relying on scientific studies is good, but claiming that they're the only authority on a subject is naive at best. People with actual experience in the hobby should be the authority and not some government-sponsored study pushing whatever agenda.

If anyone is interested I can address the numerous issues with manipulative statistics, centralization of narratives in scientific studies, and the corruption that plague what we call science nowadays, no problem. Speaking of sample size in that context shows you're unaware of those. I'm not even going to address the fallacy you rely on, being unaware of the difference between "falsification" and "verification" in the context of affirming a hypothesis and turning it into a working theory. Something well-known since the 1930s.

Anyway, let me address how I "promote" using an Oxydator, according to you. If a product is the solution to a problem and you're talking about the solution, are you really promoting the product? Your logic kind of breaks there. For full transparency: The link to the Oxydator in the article is an affiliate one, and I make that clear with the affiliate disclosure right beneath the article's title. However, people here talking about their experience with Ich management also link to Oxydators. So how come you are implying I'm promoting something that's evidently part of the solution for the given problem (Ich management in a display reef tank)?

And finally, you make the inexplicable claim: people here can give the user better info about the Oxydator method than me in my article. Where's the logic behind this exactly? What if what I wrote in the article was BASED on what people here have written on the subject? What if my experience with this topic was indeed inspired by people in this forum? If you had read the article instead of trying to diss it based on your inexplicable biases you'd know that was the case.

P.S. - And if your comment about the ads on my website was an attempt to somehow imply it's just some commercial junk that only seeks to make money, let me tell you that writing extensively on such complex topics and also having the experience to back that up is very resource-intense. Time is a resource. Would you prefer a world where every site had a paywall? Yeah, I thought so. Maybe stop posting in R2R if you consider this a sign of low-quality info - I mean, they also have ad sponsorships, and so on. To those who are unaware - if there were no ads on websites the amount of "free" content on the internet would be close to 0. No book was ever written for free. Even the Bible costs money.

 

[hexcolor reef]

Bookmarked

 

[threebuoys]

Why would you dismiss my article based on the fact that I've "only" done it twice? That's a pretty narrow way of thinking given there are people here parroting stuff that they've never done.

Would you prefer that I've done it 100 times so that my personal experience has statistical significance? That's absurd at best. Show me a study that examines treating Ich in ornamental reef tanks in particular. Show me a scientific hypothesis from a reputable source on how it should be done best in such an environment.

No such thing.

We should not rely only on outside authority but also have the ability to connect the dots and use logic. I've cited multiple studies in my article that support my results and methodology. Like, literally multiple.

The reason I tried this method in the first place was that I've read MULTIPLE success reports of other people. Clearly, you did not read the full article, as if you did, you'd see I address the "anecdotal experience" nonsense going around in these forums which effectively stalls the progress of the hobby. Relying on scientific studies is good, but claiming that they're the only authority on a subject is naive at best. People with actual experience in the hobby should be the authority and not some government-sponsored study pushing whatever agenda.

If anyone is interested I can address the numerous issues with manipulative statistics, centralization of narratives in scientific studies, and the corruption that plague what we call science nowadays, no problem. Speaking of sample size in that context shows you're unaware of those. I'm not even going to address the fallacy you rely on, being unaware of the difference between "falsification" and "verification" in the context of affirming a hypothesis and turning it into a working theory. Something well-known since the 1930s.

Anyway, let me address how I "promote" using an Oxydator, according to you. If a product is the solution to a problem and you're talking about the solution, are you really promoting the product? Your logic kind of breaks there. For full transparency: The link to the Oxydator in the article is an affiliate one, and I make that clear with the affiliate disclosure right beneath the article's title. However, people here talking about their experience with Ich management also link to Oxydators. So how come you are implying I'm promoting something that's evidently part of the solution for the given problem (Ich management in a display reef tank)?

And finally, you make the inexplicable claim: people here can give the user better info about the Oxydator method than me in my article. Where's the logic behind this exactly? What if what I wrote in the article was BASED on what people here have written on the subject? What if my experience with this topic was indeed inspired by people in this forum? If you had read the article instead of trying to diss it based on your inexplicable biases you'd know that was the case.

P.S. - And if your comment about the ads on my website was an attempt to somehow imply it's just some commercial junk that only seeks to make money, let me tell you that writing extensively on such complex topics and also having the experience to back that up is very resource-intense. Time is a resource. Would you prefer a world where every site had a paywall? Yeah, I thought so. Maybe stop posting in R2R if you consider this a sign of low-quality info - I mean, they also have ad sponsorships, and so on. To those who are unaware - if there were no ads on websites the amount of "free" content on the internet would be close to 0. No book was ever written for free. Even the Bible costs money.

WOW,

You've must have had a really bad week.

 

[aquaestions]

WOW,

You've must have had a really bad week.

Defending myself against baseless claims implies that?

Thank you for your meaningful contribution to the convo btw...

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Why would you dismiss my article based on the fact that I've "only" done it twice? That's a pretty narrow way of thinking given there are people here parroting stuff that they've never done.

Would you prefer that I've done it 100 times so that my personal experience has statistical significance? That's absurd at best. Show me a study that examines treating Ich in ornamental reef tanks in particular. Show me a scientific hypothesis from a reputable source on how it should be done best in such an environment.

No such thing.

We should not rely only on outside authority but also have the ability to connect the dots and use logic. I've cited multiple studies in my article that support my results and methodology. Like, literally multiple.

The reason I tried this method in the first place was that I've read MULTIPLE success reports of other people. Clearly, you did not read the full article, as if you did, you'd see I address the "anecdotal experience" nonsense going around in these forums which effectively stalls the progress of the hobby. Relying on scientific studies is good, but claiming that they're the only authority on a subject is naive at best. People with actual experience in the hobby should be the authority and not some government-sponsored study pushing whatever agenda.

If anyone is interested I can address the numerous issues with manipulative statistics, centralization of narratives in scientific studies, and the corruption that plague what we call science nowadays, no problem. Speaking of sample size in that context shows you're unaware of those. I'm not even going to address the fallacy you rely on, being unaware of the difference between "falsification" and "verification" in the context of affirming a hypothesis and turning it into a working theory. Something well-known since the 1930s.

Anyway, let me address how I "promote" using an Oxydator, according to you. If a product is the solution to a problem and you're talking about the solution, are you really promoting the product? Your logic kind of breaks there. For full transparency: The link to the Oxydator in the article is an affiliate one, and I make that clear with the affiliate disclosure right beneath the article's title. However, people here talking about their experience with Ich management also link to Oxydators. So how come you are implying I'm promoting something that's evidently part of the solution for the given problem (Ich management in a display reef tank)?

And finally, you make the inexplicable claim: people here can give the user better info about the Oxydator method than me in my article. Where's the logic behind this exactly? What if what I wrote in the article was BASED on what people here have written on the subject? What if my experience with this topic was indeed inspired by people in this forum? If you had read the article instead of trying to diss it based on your inexplicable biases you'd know that was the case.

P.S. - And if your comment about the ads on my website was an attempt to somehow imply it's just some commercial junk that only seeks to make money, let me tell you that writing extensively on such complex topics and also having the experience to back that up is very resource-intense. Time is a resource. Would you prefer a world where every site had a paywall? Yeah, I thought so. Maybe stop posting in R2R if you consider this a sign of low-quality info - I mean, they also have ad sponsorships, and so on. To those who are unaware - if there were no ads on websites the amount of "free" content on the internet would be close to 0. No book was ever written for free. Even the Bible costs money.

Sorry, but degree of experience DOES have a bearing on an idea that you are then promoting for other people to use in treating their fish. Trying something twice is not a valid data set. At most, you could write it up as a “case history”.

There are ways to overcome a lack of personal experience. Can you reference Oxydators in the literature at least? I cannot, and I have literally every English language fish disease book in my collection.

As I said, there are some people here on R2R that have used Oxydators extensively. I suggested that the OP check with them.

Jay

P.S., weren’t you the person promoting brass/copper sheeting to control ich? Do you still think that is a viable method? If so, I think you need to be more critical about your acceptance of viable fish disease methods.

 

[aquaestions]

Sorry, but degree of experience DOES have a bearing on an idea that you are then promoting for other people to use in treating their fish. Trying something twice is not a valid data set. At most, you could write it up as a “case history”.

Well, if you want to talk about sample size my friend and I, and the hundreds of people who have had success with protozoan parasite management have probably saved thousands of fish in total.

Pretty decent sample, I'd say.

There are whole communities revolving around using Oxydators in Europe. I wouldn't call that a lack of personal experience given that I'm not new to aquaria and QT tanks for that matter.

And I'm sorry but I'll say it - QT tanks are only good to see if a new fish from the store has a disease going on because fish stores run low dosages of copper in their display tanks.

However, QT tanks are completely unreliable for preventing these diseases from transferring to your main display tank. The practice proves it.

Why do you think so many QT tank protocols fail?

Why do you think the subject should be discussed and updated over and over again, and it's still super difficult to find long-term success?

Why do you think there are people like Paul B who did not even bother to quarantine fish while having a 50-year-old reef tank?

Point me to someone religiously executing QT protocols with a tank that has not crashed in 50 years from some parasitic infection...

There are ways to overcome a lack of personal experience. Can you reference Oxydators in the literature at least? I cannot, and I have literally every English language fish disease book in my collection.

First of all, it seems you still haven't read my article. I cite multiple studies in there which suggest oxidizers can be effective in treating protozoan parasites (including marine Velvet).

There were also studies I did not cite, that point to this.

Obviously, if a study shows that oxidizers kill the Throphont and Theront stages of Ich and Velvet one could use their brain and connect the dots that this could be done in home aquaria.

No need for a cohort, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study specifically examining treating Ich with an oxidizer in ornamental fish in home conditions, right?

Secondly, it's short-sighted to think that something is true only if it's present in a book.

This is the "perceived authority" fallacy and it's super easy to manipulate info through it.

Literally every discovery in history ever was first a hypothesis based on personal observations.

There's a whole mathematics book proving that 1 + 1 equals 2, but do you think our ancestors did not deduct that fact based on their observations?

You put 1 apple in the basket, then you put another one in there, and you end up with two apples in the basket!

The "but it's not in the books on my shelf" type of thinking is what stalls progress in the hobby.

Observing, hypothesizing, and testing are what brings progress.

I don't know why people are so keen on being told what to think instead of learning how to think.

Truly hurts people in situations like having to deal with Ich and Velvet.

Furthermore, the "show me a book that says it" argument stumbles upon the verification fallacy.

I highly recommend you read some on verification versus falsification and how that impacts science.

If you do, you'll begin to understand how science works, I promise!

P.S., weren’t you the person promoting brass/copper sheeting to control ich? Do you still think that is a viable method? If so, I think you need to be more critical about your acceptance of viable fish disease methods.

I'm not the person "promoting" it - I was the person who first wrote about it as a possible treatment based on a research study conducted in 2019.

I mean, if you're a fan of the scientific approach you'd approve since "it's in the books", right?

Or could that be cognitive dissonance on your part? Or you are trying to, again, diss an article you did not read?

And allow me to correct you since it's important - that was an Ich eradication method, not an Ich control method.

Big difference there, and people who've dealt with Ich know that.

And yes you could say it's potentially a viable option if you want to get rid of the parasites once and for all and stop flushing money for expensive marine species and their upkeep down the drain each following outbreak.

I do, however, prefer Ich control, not Ich eradication since the control method is easy to execute, spares your corals and other inverts, it's relatively cheap, and evidently has a good success rate.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Well, if you want to talk about sample size my friend and I, and the hundreds of people who have had success with protozoan parasite management have probably saved thousands of fish in total.

Pretty decent sample, I'd say.

There are whole communities revolving around using Oxydators in Europe. I wouldn't call that a lack of personal experience given that I'm not new to aquaria and QT tanks for that matter.

And I'm sorry but I'll say it - QT tanks are only good to see if a new fish from the store has a disease going on because fish stores run low dosages of copper in their display tanks.

However, QT tanks are completely unreliable for preventing these diseases from transferring to your main display tank. The practice proves it.

Why do you think so many QT tank protocols fail?

Why do you think the subject should be discussed and updated over and over again, and it's still super difficult to find long-term success?

Why do you think there are people like Paul B who did not even bother to quarantine fish while having a 50-year-old reef tank?

Point me to someone religiously executing QT protocols with a tank that has not crashed in 50 years from some parasitic infection...



First of all, it seems you still haven't read my article. I cite multiple studies in there which suggest oxidizers can be effective in treating protozoan parasites (including marine Velvet).

There were also studies I did not cite, that point to this.

Obviously, if a study shows that oxidizers kill the Throphont and Theront stages of Ich and Velvet one could use their brain and connect the dots that this could be done in home aquaria.

No need for a cohort, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study specifically examining treating Ich with an oxidizer in ornamental fish in home conditions, right?

Secondly, it's short-sighted to think that something is true only if it's present in a book.

This is the "perceived authority" fallacy and it's super easy to manipulate info through it.

Literally every discovery in history ever was first a hypothesis based on personal observations.

There's a whole mathematics book proving that 1 + 1 equals 2, but do you think our ancestors did not deduct that fact based on their observations?

You put 1 apple in the basket, then you put another one in there, and you end up with two apples in the basket!

The "but it's not in the books on my shelf" type of thinking is what stalls progress in the hobby.

Observing, hypothesizing, and testing are what brings progress.

I don't know why people are so keen on being told what to think instead of learning how to think.

Truly hurts people in situations like having to deal with Ich and Velvet.

Furthermore, the "show me a book that says it" argument stumbles upon the verification fallacy.

I highly recommend you read some on verification versus falsification and how that impacts science.

If you do, you'll begin to understand how science works, I promise!


I'm not the person "promoting" it - I was the person who first wrote about it as a possible treatment based on a research study conducted in 2019.

I mean, if you're a fan of the scientific approach you'd approve since "it's in the books", right?

Or could that be cognitive dissonance on your part? Or you are trying to, again, diss an article you did not read?

And allow me to correct you since it's important - that was an Ich eradication method, not an Ich control method.

Big difference there, and people who've dealt with Ich know that.

And yes you could say it's potentially a viable option if you want to get rid of the parasites once and for all and stop flushing money for expensive marine species and their upkeep down the drain each following outbreak.

I do, however, prefer Ich control, not Ich eradication since the control method is easy to execute, spares your corals and other inverts, it's relatively cheap, and evidently has a good success rate.

So - this thread is specifically about our current quarantine protocol. Oxydators are not a part of that, nor were they designed to fill that role. Please feel free to start a thread on discussing those devices as a maintenance tool in aquariums.

I would urge you to consider that the Dunning-Kruger effect may be in play there though.


Jay

 

[Superlightman]

Question after one week in cuppramine the l'hepathus wich was sick is swimming again and eating but today I saw that he had white spots, how is this possible in the cupper? Is it ich, velvet..?

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Question after one week in cuppramine the l'hepathus wich was sick is swimming again and eating but today I saw that he had white spots, how is this possible in the cupper? Is it ich, velvet..?

That does look like ich still. What is the current dose of Cupramine and what test kit are you using?

Jay

 

[Superlightman]

I use the Hanna checker copper LR it shows me 485 this evening and 465 yesterday,my goal is to reach 500 as in the cuppramine it is written 0,5mg/l the days befor I was between 200-300,i struggled as the copper went done a few times, probably the stones that take it.
But I have to say this Ich is very strong before the week of cupper the fish became 2 fresh water bath, a few days in the esha products that contains ethacrindinlactat, copper, methyorange, proflavin, I added also the praziquantel 3 times and he was 5 days in the rally reef!

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I use the Hanna checker copper LR it shows me 485 this evening and 465 yesterday,my goal is to reach 500 as in the cuppramine it is written 0,5mg/l the days befor I was between 200-300,i struggled as the copper went done a few times, probably the stones that take it.
But I have to say this Ich is very strong before the week of cupper the fish became 2 fresh water bath, a few days in the esha products that contains ethacrindinlactat, copper, methyorange, proflavin, I added also the praziquantel 3 times and he was 5 days in the rally reef!

Copper dosing is tricky - for Cupramine, you need to be right at 0.50 to 0.55 ppm. Any time you were down at 0.2 to 0.30 wouldn't be of any benefit. There is partial benefit if you get about 0.40....but it sounds to me that you have not reached optimum dosing yet.

Jay

 

[K9Fish]

Jay,

I have just finished the QT protocols for my first batch of NEW fish post velvet outbreak. They have been added to my DT with the fish that survived the velvet that had already been through treatment and the fallow period.

My question is; I want to keep my QT tank up and running and ready for the next few fish to go through the QT process. What should I do now post copper/Prazi, etc to prepare (clean,etc) the tank for the next batch of fish?

Thanks for all you do.

 

[threebuoys]

Jay,

I have just finished the QT protocols for my first batch of NEW fish post velvet outbreak. They have been added to my DT with the fish that survived the velvet that had already been through treatment and the fallow period.

My question is; I want to keep my QT tank up and running and ready for the next few fish to go through the QT process. What should I do now post copper/Prazi, etc to prepare (clean,etc) the tank for the next batch of fish?

Thanks for all you do.

The best thing to do will be to maintain the water quality and keep the filtration active. If you have a sponge filter available, keep it in your sump so it will be ready when you put more fish in the QT.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Jay,

I have just finished the QT protocols for my first batch of NEW fish post velvet outbreak. They have been added to my DT with the fish that survived the velvet that had already been through treatment and the fallow period.

My question is; I want to keep my QT tank up and running and ready for the next few fish to go through the QT process. What should I do now post copper/Prazi, etc to prepare (clean,etc) the tank for the next batch of fish?

Thanks for all you do.

You don't actually need to clean/sterilize your QT. Anything that could still be in that tank is now in your DT when you moved the fish over.

Having a stable QT ready to go is important. As @threebuoys said, keeping a sponge filter in your DT can be used. If you are expecting to get new fish in soon, you can "ghost feed" your QT to keep the bacteria alive and active until then.

Jay

 

[Superlightman]

Copper dosing is tricky - for Cupramine, you need to be right at 0.50 to 0.55 ppm. Any time you were down at 0.2 to 0.30 wouldn't be of any benefit. There is partial benefit if you get about 0.40....but it sounds to me that you have not reached optimum dosing yet.

Jay

I stay on 0,5 today, and he had more than yesterday... will see the next days. There are some white spots that are resistant to copper? Would it be ok if I had rally reef to the copper treatment, as rally reef seemed to have helped the fishes prior?