I’m not sure I buy the 72 day ich claim.

[Azedenkae]

Also I have no issue with any of these people, they are not being paid to help us. But when I see reasoning being used without real evidence based on bad information, I'm going to speak up. A lot of bad aquarium advice out there. Just doing my part to call it out. They have plenty of great advice.

I don't think it is bad information. I think it is relevant information. It is information that was actually helpful in determining how long one might need to quarantine for. I don't think anyone said it is definitely 75 days or whatever it is, but it is or at least was the best point of reference. That does not make it a bad source of information.

If that's the case pretty much all scientific research, because to always have something that fits perfectly in whatever scenario one is in is very difficult, so there has to be inferences.

Like for example, how long can nitrifiers go when ammonia starved? Well there are plenty of papers that examined this for various nitrifying species, but do we know this applies for certain for all of our aquariums? No, because most of us don't even know what nitrifying species we even have in our aquariums. Does that make all those research on ammonia starvation a bad reference point? No. We understand it might not perfectly apply, but it is still a good point of reference.

Same can potentially be applied to plenty of other situations, like say with corals. There might be a species that we are interested in keeping, and there might be some papers into how they respond to say lighting or flow or whatever, but is not fully in line with our aquarium situations. Again, are they bad sources of references? No, because they are still in some way informative.

If it is able to contribute in some form to informing a decision, then to me that is not a bad source. It is real evidence, real information, and the inference makes sense.

 

[Courtney Aldrich]

This topic is extensively discussed in this thread: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/45-day-fallow-periods.805213/
I encourage you to read, but to summarize Jay recommends a 45 day fallow period. I provided published articles showing the tomont stage is only 13 days maximum at 35 ppt salinity and 80 F.

 

[Billldg]

Here's the thing, bacteria and virus are the best at adapting. Some strains may...and maybe most...will work for the 45 day treatment route, while others may not. Two people who I respect greatly, and listen too, @HotRocks, and @4FordFamily have found strains of Ick that were not killed by the 1.75 level of copper power, thus, raising the level to 2.0 plus. I also respect @Jay Hemdal as this is his field of study and such. To say this way or that way is the only way that will work is being very narrow minded, as their are so many factors that come into play. This is in no way saying that one way or the other is better, its just saying that you have to choose which route you want to go and stick with it. If you choose the 45 day route because it is simply shorter, then it may not be the way to go for anyone.

Remember, a Reef tank has never been a sprint, its a marathon. Treating fish ailments is the same.

 

[smokin'reefer]

The info as I interpreted it was 6 week fallow period. As the op said it is more common to be told the 72 day repeated to most people when they ask for advice. If you read into it you see the reasoning of the one study that showed the aforementioned results.
Personal expierience:
I followed my tank for the six weeks.
Threw in a Black Molly to test and came out clean.
Fresh batch of fish coppered for 3 weeks. Observed for one are all very healthy in main tank.

I myself am actually pleased the op brought this misconception to light.
Thank you.

 

[LegendaryCG]

Tangs need a minimum tank size of at least... sorry, wrong argument thread....

10 miles, not 9.5, 10! And absolutely don’t do 11 coz that’s way too big.

 

[Soren]

It seems like this argument can run awfully close to the RO/DI vs. tap water argument...
Research should be done to determine experimental data for different considerations. Application of that research is the decision of the individual.

It is not correct to say that a fallow period must always be 72 days, since it is almost guaranteed that the exact length of time until the last parasite dies from lack of food is certainly variable. This is not measurable for the typical reef-keeper, though, so a guideline is needed for safety. It would be quite disappointing to a beginner to keep a tank fallow for 45 days only to find a reintroduction of a parasite (if some somehow did survive that long) and the need for another fallow period if trying to eradicate it. This is why I think most say a 72-day fallow period, since it is more likely to achieve the results with minimal risk. Nobody should say a 72-day period is required, but it could still be a good suggestion to help ensure results. It is just the safer recommendation to help limit risk.

Much the same, when arguing tap water vs RO/DI water (let's just use the example without starting up the same argument over again, please), some tap water is acceptable, but the constituents are not consistent between locations. Hence, doing your own research and testing may lead to acceptable use of tap water that is of sufficient quality, but it should not be broadly recommended to everyone as a viable option. RO/DI water is the most consistent baseline to help eliminate variables, much like a longer fallow period helps ensure the desired results. The safer recommendation is to caution against tap water and suggest the use of RO/DI water, much the same as it being safer to recommend a fallow period that exceeds the absolute necessary time (which is very difficult to measure precisely) rather than to recommend a fallow period that has more risk of falling short of killing all of the parasite and allowing more possibility for reintroduction.

Now, if the premise here is about the relevance of the study that was done at 68°F, it seems simple enough to do more studies at other temperature ranges to have a better understanding of what is actually happening under different circumstances. I do not think that study is irrelevant, but it could be less relevant than studies done at the same conditions as a reef in question (though there are a lot of factors in reefs that might have some bearing, far more than just temperature). It seems that recommending longer fallow periods is a better way to limit risk of failure, while more studies at different temperatures would be helpful in making an informed decision.

In the end, it is still up to each individual to research and make decisions for a personal reef.
As was mentioned by others here, some reefers do not quarantine at all, so you can decide to quarantine as long as you think necessary. The main thing, in my opinion, is to take personal responsibility for research and decisions and not blame failures on others.

 

[Azedenkae]

It seems like this argument can run awfully close to the RO/DI vs. tap water argument...
Research should be done to determine experimental data for different considerations. Application of that research is the decision of the individual.

It is not correct to say that a fallow period must always be 72 days, since it is almost guaranteed that the exact length of time until the last parasite dies from lack of food is certainly variable. This is not measurable for the typical reef-keeper, though, so a guideline is needed for safety. It would be quite disappointing to a beginner to keep a tank fallow for 45 days only to find a reintroduction of a parasite (if some somehow did survive that long) and the need for another fallow period if trying to eradicate it. This is why I think most say a 72-day fallow period, since it is more likely to achieve the results with minimal risk. Nobody should say a 72-day period is required, but it could still be a good suggestion to help ensure results. It is just the safer recommendation to help limit risk.

Much the same, when arguing tap water vs RO/DI water (let's just use the example without starting up the same argument over again, please), some tap water is acceptable, but the constituents are not consistent between locations. Hence, doing your own research and testing may lead to acceptable use of tap water that is of sufficient quality, but it should not be broadly recommended to everyone as a viable option. RO/DI water is the most consistent baseline to help eliminate variables, much like a longer fallow period helps ensure the desired results. The safer recommendation is to caution against tap water and suggest the use of RO/DI water, much the same as it being safer to recommend a fallow period that exceeds the absolute necessary time (which is very difficult to measure precisely) rather than to recommend a fallow period that has more risk of falling short of killing all of the parasite and allowing more possibility for reintroduction.

Now, if the premise here is about the relevance of the study that was done at 68°F, it seems simple enough to do more studies at other temperature ranges to have a better understanding of what is actually happening under different circumstances. I do not think that study is irrelevant, but it could be less relevant than studies done at the same conditions as a reef in question (though there are a lot of factors in reefs that might have some bearing, far more than just temperature). It seems that recommending longer fallow periods is a better way to limit risk of failure, while more studies at different temperatures would be helpful in making an informed decision.

In the end, it is still up to each individual to research and make decisions for a personal reef.
As was mentioned by others here, some reefers do not quarantine at all, so you can decide to quarantine as long as you think necessary. The main thing, in my opinion, is to take personal responsibility for research and decisions and not blame failures on others.

Thanks for this, you phrased my thoughts far better than I did.

 

[Soren]

Thanks for this, you phrased my thoughts far better than I did.

I must admit that reading through other responses (yours included) helped frame my thoughts...

I like that this discussion brings the length of fallow period into question and into possible light of more research, but I do not think the discussion should be about bashing a recommendation of a 72-day (75? what is the right number?) fallow period broadly or generally to someone who may not do his/her own research.

Ideally, the longer fallow period should be generally recommended, since most people will think it too long and will hopefully do more specific research into their own reef conditions to see if there are alternative options. If the longer period is just applied, it leaves a better chance for achieving desired results. If not, more research can help improve the understanding of different aspects of reefing. We should be very thankful for those who do continued studies on these considerations and can give up-to-date and more-precisely-relevant information for those who are willing to search for it and seek to understand the details for themselves how it applies rather than looking for the simple one-question/one-answer/problem-solved results that seem highly sought-after but very uncommon in this hobby.

 

[secret_reefer337]

In everyday life there are always two sides (even more sometimes). If a reefer is confident enough to do 45 days then do it. I believe the 72 days have a better blanket of security for possible re-infection. It is not a must, but it is truly up to the reefer to do what he believe is best for his tank and fish.

 

[AquaLifeStudio]

I'm aware of the studies and my first hand experiences and Im happy to stick to recommending a 76 day fallow period. Sure, it might be overkill but I'd rather be safe than sorry. It's going to really suck if the shorter period doesnt clear the tank of Crypto and you have to start over again after reinfecting your fish population.

Now, I've treated fish with Copper for a bare minimum of 10 days but 14 days or longer is preferred.

You're free to try what works for others or you can blaze your own trail, just don't blame anybody except yourself if you make mistakes along the way. Failure comes first, success comes sometime later.

 

[Lionfish hunter]

I don't think it is bad information. I think it is relevant information. It is information that was actually helpful in determining how long one might need to quarantine for. I don't think anyone said it is definitely 75 days or whatever it is, but it is or at least was the best point of reference. That does not make it a bad source of information.

If that's the case pretty much all scientific research, because to always have something that fits perfectly in whatever scenario one is in is very difficult, so there has to be inferences.

Like for example, how long can nitrifiers go when ammonia starved? Well there are plenty of papers that examined this for various nitrifying species, but do we know this applies for certain for all of our aquariums? No, because most of us don't even know what nitrifying species we even have in our aquariums. Does that make all those research on ammonia starvation a bad reference point? No. We understand it might not perfectly apply, but it is still a good point of reference.

Same can potentially be applied to plenty of other situations, like say with corals. There might be a species that we are interested in keeping, and there might be some papers into how they respond to say lighting or flow or whatever, but is not fully in line with our aquarium situations. Again, are they bad sources of references? No, because they are still in some way informative.

If it is able to contribute in some form to informing a decision, then to me that is not a bad source. It is real evidence, real information, and the inference makes sense.

It is bad information. Ich clearly develops slower in colder temperatures. It makes sense and has been studied. So a study that says ich takes 72 days in 68 degree water should 1 million percent not be used as a guideline for the vast majority of tanks at 78 degrees.

 

[Lionfish hunter]

The info as I interpreted it was 6 week fallow period. As the op said it is more common to be told the 72 day repeated to most people when they ask for advice. If you read into it you see the reasoning of the one study that showed the aforementioned results.
Personal expierience:
I followed my tank for the six weeks.
Threw in a Black Molly to test and came out clean.
Fresh batch of fish coppered for 3 weeks. Observed for one are all very healthy in main tank.

I myself am actually pleased the op brought this misconception to light.
Thank you.

Thank you. I knew there would be a lot of backlash. There are many people on this forum that have spent their entire lives quarantining for 75 days and recommending people to do the same. It doesn't mean that the reasoning is being used correctly.

 

[Timfish]

I started posting this paper (which I believe is the main one supporting the reasoning of a 77 day fallow or quarantine) years ago largely in response to some wildly variable and speculative number of weeks systems were supposed to remain empty of fish to be 100% sure all tomonts had released all it tomites. FWIW I hold fish for a minimum of a month although with my experiences over the years I prefer to hold all animals from systems I'm not familiar with for 3 months or longer. When scientists and researchers use phrases like "Even for a specific strain and fish host, the life cycle may vary by weeks or months" or "unpredictability of tomont development" there is an element of guessing involved and it's going to be up to each individual aquarist's own risk/reward equation to determine if or how long to quarantine their animals. I'm also pretty sure we've developed variants that survive longer but are less virulent, when I started my mainenance business in the mid 90s getting ick was the kiss of death for most if not all the fish in a display system, now it's rare to loose many fish at all when I have to deal with it even though I'm using the same method of remediation.

 

[Azedenkae]

It is bad information. Ich clearly develops slower in colder temperatures. It makes sense and has been studied. So a study that says ich takes 72 days in 68 degree water should 1 million percent not be used as a guideline for the vast majority of tanks at 78 degrees.

Hm, how many time have I responded to this now...

Let me try again. Ich absolutely develops slower in colder temperatures. And so ich wont take 72 days to die out at 78 degrees. But absent of clear data showing exactly how many days less than 72 days all variants of ich we may face in the hobby at 78 degree take to be dead or whatever, then all we know is it will be some time less than 72. Could be 50, could be 30, could be 10. By the way I am just throwing out numbers, I am not sure what number of days exactly people have tested things out. But yeah, when people cannot access any better data, then it makes sense to go with what is the most conservative. And that makes the study a great point of reference, until something else comes along to absolutely render it irrelevant to us. Only then, if someone still rely on that study even though there are clearly better ones, then yes, that is bad information. Right now though, it is good information because it comes with the right caveats to ensure people understand why it is done.

I mean, you clearly understood that this is a precaution more than anything, right? That 72 days or whatever the number of days is is the maximum, because we don't know how many days it is exactly less than 72. So absent of that, the only way to be 100% sure, or at least as close to sure as possible, that one is pass a known ich period, even if everyone knows it should be less than that.

I mean, if you can specify exactly how many days it should be at 78 degrees, awesome. Otherwise, the only options are, okay we just gonna quarantine for a vague number of days because we don't even know how many days it last, could be ten could be 1000, or, here we have this paper that says 72 days or whatever it is at 68 degrees, so we know it is less than that at 78 degrees, but we don't know exactly how much, so let's go with 72 days to be sure.

 

[RobB'z Reef]

Other people can do 72 days, I've said that is perfectly fine. But it is not okay to tell people to wait 72 days because of a study done under conditions completely different to what we keep our tanks at. That is the definition of bad information. DO NOT TELL PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE OF INCORRECT REASONING.

 

[Azedenkae]

Actually, on that note.

@Lionfish hunter We have this one study saying 72 days at 68 degrees, now we need to know how many days at 78 degrees. Let's say I agree that 72 days or whatever is bad advice. Okay, then how many days would you recommend someone quarantine for to make sure they don't introduce ich into their main display?

 

[Lionfish hunter]

I started posting this paper (which I believe is the main one supporting the reasoning of a 77 day fallow or quarantine) years ago largely in response to some wildly variable and speculative number of weeks systems were supposed to remain empty of fish to be 100% sure all tomonts had released all it tomites. FWIW I hold fish for a minimum of a month although with my experiences over the years I prefer to hold all animals from systems I'm not familiar with for 3 months or longer. When scientists and researchers use phrases like "Even for a specific strain and fish host, the life cycle may vary by weeks or months" or "unpredictability of tomont development" there is an element of guessing involved and it's going to be up to each individual aquarist's own risk/reward equation to determine if or how long to quarantine their animals. I'm also pretty sure we've developed variants that survive longer but are less virulent, when I started my mainenance business in the mid 90s getting ick was the kiss of death for most if not all the fish in a display system, now it's rare to loose many fish at all when I have to deal with it even though I'm using the same method of remediation.

Yes I have read this paper. It says quarantine for 3-6 weeks is advised and under certain circumstances 7-11 weeks. It cites the study with 72 days in 68 degree water earlier in the paper. The 11 week maximum quarantine lines up perfectly with the 72 day study. So 7-11 weeks under certain circumstances, they are saying those circumstances are from the 72 day study with the 68 degree water from that study. To be clear, it does not seem they recommend 7-11 weeks under normal 78 degree water circumstances.

 

[Lionfish hunter]

Actually, on that note.

@Lionfish hunter We have this one study saying 72 days at 68 degrees, now we need to know how many days at 78 degrees. Let's say I agree that 72 days or whatever is bad advice. Okay, then how many days would you recommend someone quarantine for to make sure they don't introduce ich into their main display?

3-6 weeks from the paper cited in the above paper from Tim Fish. Also please read my response to Tim Fish on the 7-11 week quarantine under certain conditions.

 

[Lionfish hunter]

The 3-6 weeks also lines up with everything we think we know about the lifecyle of ich.

 

[AquaLifeStudio]

Thank you. I knew there would be a lot of backlash. There are many people on this forum that have spent their entire lives quarantining for 75 days and recommending people to do the same. It doesn't mean that the reasoning is being used correctly.

You're going to receive "backlash" when you come here and tell us that we are wrong in our opinions and practices.

You can interpret the data and case studies all you want but you are no more "right" than others who have loads of experience and continue to do what clearly works for them.

There are very few absolutes in this hobby and until there is a way to test a tank for a parasite's presence, it's still guess work.

You've been here a couple of months and we are all guests on this platform, here to share ideas and experiences. We shouldn't be going around telling others they have bad information.


Go ahead and stop your fallow period right this very second, add your fish to the tank that previously housed your Crpyto and then report honestly to us on what happens within the next 2 weeks, the next few months. Be sure that your fish are stressed out to weaken them which would allow the parasites to take hold, if present. If you have no indications of Crypto then you have your own experience that a fallow period of 40 some days worked FOR YOU. That may not be a repeatable occurrence for others. They're your fish, lives that you are there to protect and consider valuable, correct?


I'm building a business based on tried and true quarantine practices and even I know I can't guarantee a 100% success rate at 76 days but I'm good with an estimated 99% efficacy rate.

Have an open mind, dude.

-Dan