Do you agree with Paul B's method (no QT) ?

[User1]

Here is another take on it from a parents perspective. Do you give your child antibiotics daily? Do you give them when they are healthy and not sick? Do you give your child antibiotics after they are born? Short answer is no, we don't. We give them immunization shots over time (not going down the rat hole of if you should, shouldn't). There are also studies with regards to breast feeding and its benefits just like there are studies with what happens when children pick up bubble gum off the street and eat it. Or use the hand rails, or runny nose, playing, washing, not washing hands, etc.

My point is that children build up immunity as they grow up similar to doctors and nurses and other hospital works get immunity working in the office day to day. I see a fish tank similar and I believe that is how it is working in Paul's and others tanks. They build up over time as both "tank" and "fish" age. It also has a lot to do with what they feed.

They work hand in hand and this wouldn't be the case for someone who doesn't follow the basic principal. Of course collectors, expensive systems, fish, and public aquarium do have difference practices so this thread does not apply to those systems...

 

[S2G]

Being an ignorant lucky fibber who has disavowed the last vestiges of science is working really well for me.
I don't know why I would do anything different.

Cool I saw that same pic in a frame at Walmart

Nice tank

 

[reefproaquatics]

With regards to immunity can we please all agree that germs and bacteria are different from both internal and external parasites?

 

[TaylorPilot]

With regards to immunity can we please all agree that germs and bacteria are different from both internal and external parasites?

I was going to ask this, but figured I was missing something obvious and didn't want to look like an idiot...I was thinking, it doesn't matter what kind of dog food I feed my dog, he wont be immune to heartworms...I have to kill them with drugs...which are usually hard on his system, just like copper...

 

[Mortie31]

While there are theronts that are more resistant to copper such as AR1 and AR5, they still die pretty quickly. Not only that, but copper still does a very good job of immobilizing theronts while they are still inside the tomont.

I do worry resistance could continue to get stronger which is why I'm a proponent of a hybrid copper & tank transfer treatment.

And what do you mean the 'cost of their immune system'? Sure, copper will temporarily suppress their immune system. They will soon be in a tank with all kinds of bacteria and other things except for flukes, velvet, brook, ich, etc. Their immune systems will be fine.

The first chart, a, is the AR1 strain average lifetime after being released from the tomont under various alkolinities. The second chart, b, is AR5.

I think your misunderstand me, I’m not questioning the life cycle of parasites or efficacy of copper or cp, what I do question is the immunosuppressant and organ accumulation that happens and something you all seem to dismiss. There is no evidence that says a fishes immune system recovers to the same levels as a fish that has never been exposed. The same can be said for organ accumulation.

 

[MnFish1]

With regards to immunity can we please all agree that germs and bacteria are different from both internal and external parasites?

No - depending on exactly what you mean? Bacteria, viruses and fungi - AND some parasites have both T cell and B cell (antibody) related immune responses - some more than others - but again - it depends on what point you are trying to make

 

[Mortie31]

Why is it that all proponents of quarantine seem to think that those of us who choose to not quarantine haven’t looked into this as much as you have, we are not loose cannons who do this lightheartedly, Or are looking for a quick or easy way to do things, i take every decision I make regarding my tank as seriously as you do, if not more so, just because we choose different methods to achieve this long term success doesn’t mean we are wrong... I will spend hours choosing and observing fish, I will drive hours to buy a fish from a reputable supplier and I spend hours weekly reading these threads and look at the argument from all sides, I research biodiversity in pest and algae control to ensure all of my bases are covered, and I have sufficient numbers and diversity to control them... do you all who are advocating chemoquarantine as being the only way to go long term do this and go to such lengths? And look at all options? Especially around animal selection, I’m not a loud mouth yahoo I take this all very seriously..

 

[Squidward]

Why is it that all proponents of quarantine seem to think that those of us who choose to not quarantine haven’t looked into this as much as you have, we are not loose cannons who do this lightheartedly, Or are looking for a quick or easy way to do things, i take every decision I make regarding my tank as seriously as you do, if not more so, just because we choose different methods to achieve this long term success doesn’t mean we are wrong... I will spend hours choosing and observing fish, I will drive hours to buy a fish from a reputable supplier and I spend hours weekly reading these threads and look at the argument from all sides, I research biodiversity in pest and algae control to ensure all of my bases are covered, and I have sufficient numbers and diversity to control them... do you all who are advocating chemoquarantine as being the only way to go long term do this and go to such lengths? And look at all options? Especially around animal selection, I’m not a loud mouth yahoo I take this all very seriously..

I prefer to do TTM. No copper is involved. I promote qurantine cause I don't want other hobbyists to face the consequences of not quarantining. I just don't like hearing bad info passed around like "just feed garlic", "use this ich attack bottle", "I just dump the fish in without a care". Some of these people who does this says it in an arrogant way which irks me that's all.

 

[MnFish1]

I was going to ask this, but figured I was missing something obvious and didn't want to look like an idiot...I was thinking, it doesn't matter what kind of dog food I feed my dog, he wont be immune to heartworms...I have to kill them with drugs...which are usually hard on his system, just like copper...

But - if your dog got toxoplasmosis (a parasite - a protozoa - like CI and velvet) - your immune system acts the same way it would with similar bacteria fungi or viruses and likely the dog would have no symptoms. So - in many respects, the response to parasites and bacteria etc - is exactly the same.

For example some parasites infect certain animals - but are 'killed by the immune system' when they are ingested by humans. (or they act differently than they do in animals) - look at tapeworms in pigs vs a pig tapeworm in a human for example

 

[TaylorPilot]

But - if your dog got toxoplasmosis (a parasite - a protozoa - like CI and velvet) - your immune system acts the same way it would with similar bacteria fungi or viruses and likely the dog would have no symptoms. So - in many respects, the response to parasites and bacteria etc - is exactly the

That makes sense. Like I said, I don't really know anything about it and didn't want to ask something obvious.

 

[MnFish1]

That makes sense. Like I said, I don't really know anything about it and didn't want to ask something obvious.

There's no such thing as a stupid question. I was wondering what the point of the statement was - if it was that 'fish cannot be immune to parasites(or become immune to parasites - thats incorrect)

 

[Punchanello]

Most people are pretty tribal about methods. My method is awesome yours is wrong.

It's more a case of my method is based on an observable, repeatable and tested approach and the other is based on my own personal anecdotal experience.

Full disclosure: I don't quarantine to the level that I would call best practice. I quarantine everything but I take different approaches depending on a number of factors including how the fish presents, the species and other things. I take precautions with introducing coral but certainly not what I would call best practice.

I have lost too many fish in my view in quarantine particularly early on, but I lost more dumping them in a DT (whatever process or precautions I used that were not actual QT) . I now rarely lose any. Quarantine is difficult at first, can be expensive and is certainly slow.

I would certainly love to believe I can get the same results not quarantining. It would save me time, money and a guilty conscience.

 

[MnFish1]

It's more a case of my method is based on an observable, repeatable and tested approach and the other is based on my own personal anecdotal experience.

Though im a big proponent of stating - there must be something behind QT since almost every zoo/aquarium in the country uses one -I would say:

1. There are so many definitions and protocols - not to mention how they are implemented - of QT - its difficult to say that anything has been 'observable, repeatable and tested' - most of what you're hearing here is anecdotal personal experience.

2. The key metric to me is 'how many fish die using a QT method vs how many fish die using QT with medication vs how many fish die with merely. dropping them in the tank'. As well as the life expectancy of the fish with each method. If you have the answer to that question - I'd like to see it.

3. Note -Im not on one side or the other - but - In having read hundreds of posts on this topic the main reason people 'now QT' is that they did 'fine with no QT until I bought fish xxxx and then my entire tank died of velvet'. Does this make sense - years of good experience vs 1. episode of velvet? Unless you know the answer to question 2 there is no reason to start QT based on one bad experience. I on the other hand would look at where ande how I was buying my fish

 

[Punchanello]

1. There are so many definitions and protocols - not to mention how they are implemented - of QT - its difficult to say that anything has been 'observable, repeatable and tested' - most of what you're hearing here is anecdotal personal experience.

I think what I meant is that I can go to posts by @HotRocks and others and I can read their approach and links to research on which they base their approach and I can get the same results following that approach. I can avoid the myths - like ich is always present, I can always see if a fish is health or not, I can rely on exposure to parasites and bacteria that I can neither see or measure let alone name to build immunity, I can use a method which happens to correlate with a period I had no disease and be fine.

I have a particular problem with people finding reassurance in picking a health looking fish. This should certainly be part of anyone's approach QT or not but without QT it is only tea and sympathy. Humans can be infected by influenza 1 to 5 days before demonstrating any symptoms. That's the most likely period for it to be spread. How would fish be any different?

It is seductive to believe I can do less and get the same result despite the available evidence telling me otherwise.

 

[MnFish1]

I think what I meant is that I can go to posts by @HotRocks and others and I can read their approach and links to research on which they base their approach and I can get the same results following that approach. I can avoid the myths - like ich is always present, I can always see if a fish is health or not, I can rely on exposure to parasites and bacteria that I can neither see or measure let alone name to build immunity, I can use a method which happens to correlate with a period I had no disease and be fine.

I have a particular problem with people finding reassurance in picking a health looking fish. This should certainly be part of anyone's approach QT or not but without QT it is only tea and sympathy. Humans can be infected by influenza 1 to 5 days before demonstrating any symptoms. That's the most likely period for it to be spread. How would fish be any different?

It is seductive to believe I can do less and get the same result despite the available evidence telling me otherwise.

I dont disagree with anything you've said - but you didnt answer specifically the question I was asking - and I'm not re-asking it to argue - I'm asking you because I'm interested in your opinion. Namely:

How is the anecdote presented by those that QT any different from the anecdote posted by those that do not? This is the reason why I'm ambivalent about the topic - and see both sides.

Its funny - I just asked Hotrocks to consult in another thread where the user was QTing a tang - and it was dying - cause as of yet unknown - but likely ammonia or oxygen. Most people that favor QT would say - well - thats not a problem with QT - thats a user error. So that death 'doesn't count'. I think differently about it. So - I was asking your opinion especially my question 2.

 

[TaylorPilot]

@MnFish1 why do you think different, that the fish does count? How is the user error causing a death during a QT and different than an error that causes another fish to die. Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't make a protocol bad. I will say that if that same incident is common among everyone, it could either mean the protocol does need to be changed, or perhaps the way we train people how to execute the protocol. You see this a lot in aviation. 99.9% of the time it is human error. Just because someone crashes an airplane, it doesn't necessarily mean there is something wrong with that model. It could be a lot of different things.

As far as your second questions, I think that is only part of the equation. Often a mass die off will foul the water and kill inverts and corals as well. Loosing a fish in QT once a few times a year is a lot less mentally trying than loosing the same stock in 2 days.

 

[Halal Hotdog]

Interesting video on QT and conditioning

 

[Punchanello]

I dont disagree with anything you've said - but you didnt answer specifically the question I was asking - and I'm not re-asking it to argue - I'm asking you because I'm interested in your opinion. Namely:

How is the anecdote presented by those that QT any different from the anecdote posted by those that do not? This is the reason why I'm ambivalent about the topic - and see both sides.

Its funny - I just asked Hotrocks to consult in another thread where the user was QTing a tang - and it was dying - cause as of yet unknown - but likely ammonia or oxygen. Most people that favor QT would say - well - thats not a problem with QT - thats a user error. So that death 'doesn't count'. I think differently about it. So - I was asking your opinion especially my question 2.

Oh no worries. Definitely not disagreeing either.

I think the death of a fish through lack of oxygen in quarantine does count. I definitely beat myself up about fish in quarantine dying and I always assume it was my fault even it it isn't. It's kind of arrogant to believe I could stave off all kinds of death if I just do it right but there you go.

In regards to your second question, I don't think that is the only critical metric. I also consider potential for flow on deaths vs the death of one fish as important and the longer term quality of life of the fish. Much of this is subject to anecdote as you say. I also think that everything about the effects of copper vs exposure to pathogens and disease in a closed environment has on life expectancy and quality of life are all very much up for debate. We have no idea.

I guess the critical factor for me is that the anecdote presented by experienced reefers who encourage QT and treatment is often supported by actual science, at the very least in part. e.g. we know copper and hypo can kill ich based on studies, we know the ich lifecycle can be broken and how to do it, we know isolation can prevent the spread of disease. I can't say the same about any of the alternative non-QT methods I have seen and quite often they are accompanied by dangerous myths.

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1 why do you think different, that the fish does count? How is the user error causing a death during a QT and different than an error that causes another fish to die. Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't make a protocol bad. I will say that if that same incident is common among everyone, it could either mean the protocol does need to be changed, or perhaps the way we train people how to execute the protocol. You see this a lot in aviation. 99.9% of the time it is human error. Just because someone crashes an airplane, it doesn't necessarily mean there is something wrong with that model. It could be a lot of different things.

As far as your second questions, I think that is only part of the equation. Often a mass die off will foul the water and kill inverts and corals as well. Loosing a fish in QT once a few times a year is a lot less mentally trying than loosing the same stock in 2 days.

Don't want to debate this (QT or no QT) - because you're certainly correct that losing an entire tank in 2 days is more emotionally challenging than losing the same number over a year in QT.

The reason that (I think) human error in QT is the same as a death in the tank with a dropped in fish is because when trying to decide which method (QT/Observation, QT/Medication and No QT) to me the endpoint is: at the end of a year which method results in the best survival. Becasue - many people feel (I think the jury is out) that the chemicals / copper/ antibiotics are both bad for 'the fish' (immune problems) - the environment (resistant bacteria/etc) - and some protocols are poorly designed (which is why there are so many deaths from QT.

To me - the bottom line is if I order 10 fish and drop them in a tank and order another 10 identical fish from the same supplier - if at the end of a period of time 5 are alive in the QT tank and 5 are alive in the no QT tank - I call that equivalent. The fact that (people who recommended QT) are recommending protocols (which may or not be good) to lay people - who are likely to follow them incorrectly, improperly, incompletely - means that by definition one method will have more human error - than just dropping the fish in a tank. In your aviation example - pilots are required to have xxxxx training. Someone reading a fish website on Facebook for example does not

PS - in many countries it (I've heard) it is illegal to even purchase these chemicals that people are suggesting are 'absolutely necessary - without a veterinary prescription. Thats another discussion though. Thanks for discussing

 

[MnFish1]

Oh no worries. Definitely not disagreeing either.

I think the death of a fish through lack of oxygen in quarantine does count. I definitely beat myself up about fish in quarantine dying and I always assume it was my fault even it it isn't. It's kind of arrogant to believe I could stave off all kinds of death if I just do it right but there you go.

In regards to your second question, I don't think that is the only critical metric. I also consider potential for flow on deaths vs the death of one fish as important and the longer term quality of life of the fish. Much of this is subject to anecdote as you say. I also think that everything about the effects of copper vs exposure to pathogens and disease in a closed environment has on life expectancy and quality of life are all very much up for debate. We have no idea.

I guess the critical factor for me is that the anecdote presented by experienced reefers who encourage QT and treatment is often supported by actual science, at the very least in part. e.g. we know copper and hypo can kill ich based on studies, we know the ich lifecycle can be broken and how to do it, we know isolation can prevent the spread of disease. I can't say the same about any of the alternative non-QT methods I have seen and quite often they are accompanied by dangerous myths.

See my other reply that kind of mentions about the oxygen or ammonia thing - that said - I agree with everything you've said - especially the last paragraph.