Do you quarantine?

Do you quarantine?

  • Yes, no medicine

  • No, just drop em in.

  • No, but I observe fish prior to putting them in and do my best to maintain a healthy environment

  • Yes, with medicine.


Results are only viewable after voting.

PicassoDan

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
231
Reaction score
187
Location
Rochester, NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
To me the fundamental question is 'if I take a fish - is it more likely to survive with QT (non-medicated) QT (medicated) or doing nothing.

In general, for most fish (>99%), I think this question has been more than answered.

I say for most fish, because I suppose there may be some very delicate fish that would have a hard time in the less than ideal QT environment. Seems like this should account for <1% of reef fish in the hobby.
 

living_tribunal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
12,164
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I've said before - (and some disagree) that any death in QT shoudl be considered a 'failure' - because (assuming the fish didnt' have a disease) - if the fish had been placed in the tank - they wouldn't have 'died'. So this means - if a person 'overdoses' copper, or ammonia levels are high, etc - and it causes mortality - that shoudl be counted.

To me the fundamental question is 'if I take a fish - is it more likely to survive with QT (non-medicated) QT (medicated) or doing nothing. Likewise - lets say a person that doesnt do any kind of QT drops a fish into their tank - and all of those fish die - they shoudl also be counted as failures.

Placing the blame on quarantine when the fish would have died wherever it was moved to, or someone does not follow proper procedure, is not an accurate way to tally this.

Do we say a specific car is unsafe when a user drives drunk? Do we blame a pharmaceutical company when someone takes more pain medication than they were prescribed?

No.

Those have no bearing on the efficacy, or overall success rate, of a proper quarantine.

And to your last statement, of course! Because the main test were performing here is a proper medicated quarantine vs simply adding a fish to a tank. Medicated quarantine requires proper measurement and testing among other variables, adding a fish to a tank just requires acclimation and then plop.
 

CindyKz

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,872
Reaction score
2,040
Location
Greenfield, WI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well we do know many of these items as the quarantine protocols were developed from research published on what we are trying to prevent. We also have a substantial amount of data of a plethora of treatments on numerous parasites and diseases.

The hardest thing to quantify for a study on mortality rates is whether the fish died from the medication itself or user error/external factors. Isolating this variable is most likely impossible with anecdotal report.

My point exactly - the protocols were developed based on research regarding the parasites/diseases. That is NOT the same as outcome data based on whether the fish lived or died (or whatever a successful vs. unsuccessful outcome is determined to be. 30 day mortality ? )

I don't suggest that we try to determine what the fish died from. For our purposes is doesn't matter, because what we could try to determine (roughly) is the likelihood of the the average R2R member with the average amount of knowledge being successful/unsuccesful with a given protocol.


I've said before - (and some disagree) that any death in QT shoudl be considered a 'failure' - because (assuming the fish didnt' have a disease) - if the fish had been placed in the tank - they wouldn't have 'died'. So this means - if a person 'overdoses' copper, or ammonia levels are high, etc - and it causes mortality - that shoudl be counted.

To me the fundamental question is 'if I take a fish - is it more likely to survive with QT (non-medicated) QT (medicated) or doing nothing. Likewise - lets say a person that doesnt do any kind of QT drops a fish into their tank - and all of those fish die - they shoudl also be counted as failures.

I agree, and it's a great question. In my mind, end survival rates are the goal. I imagine many would consider a "pest free" tank the goal, and that's great too.
 

living_tribunal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
12,164
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I've said before - (and some disagree) that any death in QT shoudl be considered a 'failure' - because (assuming the fish didnt' have a disease) - if the fish had been placed in the tank - they wouldn't have 'died'. So this means - if a person 'overdoses' copper, or ammonia levels are high, etc - and it causes mortality - that shoudl be counted.

To me the fundamental question is 'if I take a fish - is it more likely to survive with QT (non-medicated) QT (medicated) or doing nothing. Likewise - lets say a person that doesnt do any kind of QT drops a fish into their tank - and all of those fish die - they shoudl also be counted as failures.


Most fish we keep, as in high majority, will survive medicated qt if medication levels are proper, tank size is proper, and all externalities held ceteris paribus.
 

living_tribunal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
12,164
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
My point exactly - the protocols were developed based on research regarding the parasites/diseases. That is NOT the same as outcome data based on whether the fish lived or died (or whatever a successful vs. unsuccessful outcome is determined to be. 30 day mortality ? )

I don't suggest that we try to determine what the fish died from. For our purposes is doesn't matter, because what we could try to determine (roughly) is the likelihood of the the average R2R member with the average amount of knowledge being successful/unsuccesful with a given protocol.




I agree, and it's a great question. In my mind, end survival rates are the goal. I imagine many would consider a "pest free" tank the goal, and that's great too.


Well my concern is this; a user attempts quarantine, adds in incorrect ml depending on the type of copper they choose, fish dies, and then becomes another person ranting that therapeutic copper levels for fish are unsafe and quarantine isn’t worth it.

Every fish I’ve qted, my lfs qted, yada yada has been fine holding externalities aside. This is anecdotal but the research on mortality rates for fish from therapeutic copper levels is not.
 

CindyKz

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,872
Reaction score
2,040
Location
Greenfield, WI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
In general, for most fish (>99%), I think this question has been more than answered.

I've never seen any study or publication that answers this question. Only anecdotal evidence on this and other forums. If you have one, would you please share?


Placing the blame on quarantine when the fish would have died wherever it was moved to, or someone does not follow proper procedure, is not an accurate way to tally this.

Do we say a specific car is unsafe when a user drives drunk? Do we blame a pharmaceutical company when someone takes more pain medication than they were prescribed?

No.

Those have no bearing on the efficacy, or overall success rate, of a proper quarantine.

And to your last statement, of course! Because the main test were performing here is a proper medicated quarantine vs simply adding a fish to a tank. Medicated quarantine requires proper measurement and testing among other variables, adding a fish to a tank just requires acclimation and then plop.

The idea is not to place blame on the quarantine method. The question is whether a given quarantine method has the desired outcome for the average reefer, mistakes and procedural errors included. As previously discussed, "medicated quarantine" is just one of several methods in use. Not everyone would agree that "medicated" = "proper".


And actually yes, there are many people out there blaming Big Pharma for the current opioid crisis. But that's another discussion.
 

CindyKz

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,872
Reaction score
2,040
Location
Greenfield, WI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well my concern is this; a user attempts quarantine, adds in incorrect ml depending on the type of copper they choose, fish dies, and then becomes another person ranting that therapeutic copper levels for fish are unsafe and quarantine isn’t worth it.

Every fish I’ve qted, my lfs qted, yada yada has been fine holding externalities aside. This is anecdotal but the research on mortality rates for fish from therapeutic copper levels is not.

That is the whole point - perhaps not all reefers are able to maintain therapeutic copper for whatever reasons - work, family life, not enough space, whatever. So while copper might have the highest efficacy against CI, the method of using copper may not give the best outcomes for most reefers.

ETA: I only used copper as an example. There are many "protocols" out there that could be questioned. The question isn't "what medication kills xyz pest". The question is "which protocols give the desired outcomes for most reefers"?
 

LovesDogs_CatsRokay

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
2,028
Location
St. Louis, MO
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There should be an option for I used to but don’t anymore. After a lot of thought I have stopped QTing because of QT related deaths. I bought a few fish from a reputable person who sells already QT’ed fish. They all died shortly after entering my tank. Everyone else at the time including corals and inverts had been properly QTed so I thought my tank was relatively free of parasites. I really don’t know what happened to them. After that I bought a yellow tang from my LFS that looked very healthy but he seemed pretty stressed in a sterile qt and died after about a week. No obvious signs of disease. So after a lot of thought I went back to the lfs got another tang that was from the same shipment as the first and in the same water. Took him home and “dropped him in”. It’s been over a month. No one has gotten sick and the tang is very plump and healthy looking as are his 9 tank mates.

I think that everyone has to do what feels right to them. For some people that’s QT but others not. There are a lot of other things that can go wrong and wipe out a tank besides illnesses and unfortunately those things happen sometimes.

That being said I plan on upgrading my tank from a 75 to a 300 gallon in a year or two. When that happens I am considering an observation tank for all new additions to help avoid fast killers like velvet. We’ll see though. If I do, it won’t be a sterile tank. It will be a stress free environment with live rock and good food and no medicine until a need for it is seen. I also think I will make sure to have more than one fish in observation at a time because being alone seems to add to the stress.
 

PicassoDan

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
231
Reaction score
187
Location
Rochester, NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I've never seen any study or publication that answers this question. Only anecdotal evidence on this and other forums. If you have one, would you please share?
I haven't found actual scientific data supporting this, only relying on my own and others' anecdotal evidence. I also haven't seen any scientific evidence supporting the reverse theory; that no QT has lower mortality. There really isn't a lot of hard science in this hobby to begin with.
In the absence of scientific data, anecdotal evidence is better than nothing.
 
Last edited:

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
In general, for most fish (>99%), I think this question has been more than answered.

I say for most fish, because I suppose there may be some very delicate fish that would have a hard time in the less than ideal QT environment. Seems like this should account for <1% of reef fish in the hobby.

I maybe wasn't making myself clear - What I meant was - if you take 100 fish - and say divide them into 2 groups - and send them out to hobbyists 1 group does Nothing but drop them in the tank and the other does medicated QT - I'm saying I would cause death of all causes to compare which method does 'best' as compared to only death due to disease lets say after a year. At the end of the day - all I care about is a live fish in my tank.

As I said in my post - some people disagree with this 'method' - preferring to only call a death in the QT group if it is lets say due to an infection. The problem (In my opinion) - is that it doesn't tank into account 'healthy fish' that might have died from the 'medication' - either in the short - or especially longer term. Again - its not a debate - just an opinion
 

CindyKz

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,872
Reaction score
2,040
Location
Greenfield, WI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I haven't found actual scientific data supporting this, only relying on my own and others' anecdotal evidence. I also haven't seen any scientific evidence supporting the reverse theory; that no QT has lower mortality.
In the absence of scientific data, anecdotal evidence is better than nothing.


Anecdotal evidence IS better than nothing - which is why I suggest we try to organize some of the evidence, add some outcomes to it and start to draw preliminary conclusions.

In the meantime though, based on this survey less than 1/2 of reefers use any quarantine method at all, and there are no outcomes to match with it. I don't think I've seen a survey regarding quarantine outcomes or mortality on this forum. So, I don't believe the question of survivability with vs. without quarantine has come anywhere close to being answered.
 

living_tribunal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
12,164
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
That is the whole point - perhaps not all reefers are able to maintain therapeutic copper for whatever reasons - work, family life, not enough space, whatever. So while copper might have the highest efficacy against CI, the method of using copper may not give the best outcomes for most reefers.

ETA: I only used copper as an example. There are many "protocols" out there that could be questioned. The question isn't "what medication kills xyz pest". The question is "which protocols give the desired outcomes for most reefers"?

Well then quarantine may not be best for them but it only takes a few minutes of maintenance each day. That’s chump change to ensure my tank stays free of ich.
 

living_tribunal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
12,164
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Anecdotal evidence IS better than nothing - which is why I suggest we try to organize some of the evidence, add some outcomes to it and start to draw preliminary conclusions.

In the meantime though, based on this survey less than 1/2 of reefers use any quarantine method at all, and there are no outcomes to match with it. I don't think I've seen a survey regarding quarantine outcomes or mortality on this forum. So, I don't believe the question of survivability with vs. without quarantine has come anywhere close to being answered.

Who says we have nothing? We have data on survivabikity...
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Placing the blame on quarantine when the fish would have died wherever it was moved to, or someone does not follow proper procedure, is not an accurate way to tally this.

Do we say a specific car is unsafe when a user drives drunk? Do we blame a pharmaceutical company when someone takes more pain medication than they were prescribed?

No.

Those have no bearing on the efficacy, or overall success rate, of a proper quarantine.

And to your last statement, of course! Because the main test were performing here is a proper medicated quarantine vs simply adding a fish to a tank. Medicated quarantine requires proper measurement and testing among other variables, adding a fish to a tank just requires acclimation and then plop.

I wasn't making the case for or against QT or just dumping a fish in the tank. But - If I have a different opinion - doesnt mean I'm necessarily right (or that you are) - its an opinion.

The point I was making was NOT - if you took 100 fish with CI and QT'd half and dumped half in a tank what would happen (in that case - disease related deaths should be counted - because you're TREATING the disease.

The question is 100 'healthy looking fish' QT half with medication and half dump in the tank. That takes into account the potential toxicity of the medication in addition to any possible disease present.

When you look at the fact that (for whatever reason) >60 percent of people do not medicate their fish - it means that either they have a lot of dead fish - OR - the need for medicated QT is perhaps (key work perhaps) overstated.
 
Last edited:

living_tribunal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
12,164
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I haven't found actual scientific data supporting this, only relying on my own and others' anecdotal evidence. I also haven't seen any scientific evidence supporting the reverse theory; that no QT has lower mortality. There really isn't a lot of hard science in this hobby to begin with.
In the absence of scientific data, anecdotal evidence is better than nothing.


Here you go:

499D928F-6F40-4D23-B721-9E8E24B96AE8.png
2F067DCB-71DF-4922-8C7E-78FC39D46B35.png


Cite: https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/10/breeder
 

CindyKz

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
1,872
Reaction score
2,040
Location
Greenfield, WI
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Who says we have nothing? We have data on survivabikity...

Where is it? Can I see it? I'm serious, because I rarely see people posting outcomes on their methods. Obviously Humblefish does, but he has a lot of experience (so I hear) and hardly counts as the "average" reefer. This is an assumption, but it seems he would be less likely to make mistakes with procedure than the average person.


I wasn't making the case for or against QT or just dumping a fish in the tank. But - iI have a different opinion - doesnt mean I'm necessarily right (or that you are) - its an opinion.

The point I was making was NOT - if you took 100 fish with CI and QT'd half and dumped half in a tank what would happen (in that case - disease related deaths should be counted - because you're TREATING the disease.

The question is 100 'healthy looking fish' QT half with medication and half dump in the tank. That takes into account the potential toxicity of the medication in addition to any possible disease present.

When you look at the fact that (for whatever reason) >60 percent of people do not medicate their fish - it means that either they have a lot of dead fish - OR - the need for medicated QT is perhaps (key work perhaps) overstated.


The only case I'm making is for us to ask the questions. There are plenty of "do you QT polls" and some even differentiate types of QT. I'd love to add that information to outcomes (ie mortality) and see what the numbers say.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0

living_tribunal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
12,164
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I wasn't making the case for or against QT or just dumping a fish in the tank. But - If I have a different opinion - doesnt mean I'm necessarily right (or that you are) - its an opinion.

The point I was making was NOT - if you took 100 fish with CI and QT'd half and dumped half in a tank what would happen (in that case - disease related deaths should be counted - because you're TREATING the disease.

The question is 100 'healthy looking fish' QT half with medication and half dump in the tank. That takes into account the potential toxicity of the medication in addition to any possible disease present.

When you look at the fact that (for whatever reason) >60 percent of people do not medicate their fish - it means that either they have a lot of dead fish - OR - the need for medicated QT is perhaps (key work perhaps) overstated.

The chances of someone dying from a tragic car accident are astronomically low yet we still take drivers ed, pay for insurance, and wear a seat belt.
 

living_tribunal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
12,164
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Where is it? Can I see it? I'm serious, because I rarely see people posting outcomes on their methods. Obviously Humblefish does, but he has a lot of experience (so I hear) and hardly counts as the "average" reefer. This is an assumption, but it seems he would be less likely to make mistakes with procedure than the average person.





The only case I'm making is for us to ask the questions. There are plenty of "do you QT polls" and some even differentiate types of QT. I'd love to add that information to outcomes (ie mortality) and see what the numbers say.
Just posted it for you.
 
Back
Top