It's one thing to tell people you think is best practice. It is quite another to tell people something based on a study that is not being used correctly. Not that hard to see, not sure why you're so upset about that. Yeah I've been here a few months, but I've had saltwater fish for decades.
I will come back with the final results. It has been 14 days since my 30 day copper treatment has ended. My lionfish has no whitespots to speak of. Although I cannot say for sure he is 100 percent ich free. He has shedded his mucus layer a few times so I am reluctant to say he is ich free. Also put a starfish in after 10 days quarantine because he started to die in quarantine. Ich may be back in the tank already but I will publish my results in a month or so.
Okay, I can admit when I am wrong. This is indeed a paper that has recommendations for our aquarium's temperature ranges, which could serve us better than a paper talking about a different temperature. I sincerely apologize, because yeah, you might be very right. Although interestingly, the suggestion of a maximum of 11 weeks is actually beyond 72 days, but that was not your point. Your point was 72 days was based on a study that has been superseded, and indeed that is true.
I believe the 11 weeks is longer because can it take 72 days to be a free swimmer, so a little extra time is needed. If you find any relevant information. I may have been slightly aggressive when I mad the original post. But I was just frustrated by the information I was reading. My main goal was making sure I am not missing something before I pit the rock and cuc back in with my prized lionfish.
and its yet another to come in ranting about something being bad data/misinformation etc, but not providing any documentation to the contrary, or providing other data based suggestions. May I suggest a means of preventing expected backlash is to provide details/evidence to back up your contrarian statements? I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right, but what you mostly have done is just call it a stupid guideline, and that's all, it benefits no one that much. Every link to any discussion/research that backs you up was provided by someone else.
I understand your frustration, it can be hard at times, especially in this hobby. At the same time, antagonizing others can make things worse and just cause things to head down the wrong road, as you noticed. I fully understand it was not your intention, and understand from both points of view (heck, I was caught up in it as well, which was very bad, and I can't apologize enough for it). Hopefully next time you would be able to cast aside the frustration when you make your original post, so that everyone can better understand where you are coming from (and also have supporting evidence like the study Tim Fish linked) and we can enter into a more civil discussion from the get go.
The 72 days does come from a source not relevant to reefing. Nobody has been able to deny that so far. It is not exactly fair to get attacked for noticing that, I've read enough of these to see it coming. Not sure why I have to follow that conclusion up with the right answer. Although a pretty good answer was found in the discussion.
The study you posted shows 3-6 weeks and specifically cites normal aquarium temp for that period. Then says 7-11 weeks in certain circumstances. The paper talks about the 72 day study earlier in the paper. This lines up with certain circumstances needing 11 weeks. But anyway 3-6 weeks under normal circumstances in 75 degree plus water. You want to go fallow for 11 weeks, do it by all means. But don't tell people it's necessary without having a relevant study backing up the claim. And a study done in 68 degree water is not relevant when it has been documented clearly that ichs life cycle slows down with cold water.
Cannot bear to spend the time necessary reading though this entire thread, so let me offer a few observations. 72 days is the generally accepted period of time its takes to eliminate ich from a tank by keeping it fallow (fish free). Has nothing to do with the amount of time it takes to actively treat an infection. You appear to be conflating two unrelated things.
We are talking fallow, that is what everybody says 72 days is. I have issued not 1 single opinion. I merely am stating that this length of time that everybody recommends is because of a study in cold water that is not relevant to our tanks. Yet it is preached as gospel. Unless new reasoning comes to light, this 72 days is based off of non relevant data. This is NOT an opinion, it is an observation. The 72 day claim that is a "standard", is misleading because of the reasoning of why it became the standard.
Copper is not only done in a hospital environment. I have always done it in the main display but I don't keep coral. The copper poisons your tank forever argument is for another day but that is another topic I have found the information on forums to be incorrect on as I have done it many times. If ich lasted for months in a cyst, it should have reared its head after treatment, which has never happened in my experience.
I am not arguing the 45 days you spoke of. Yes I have done 30 days of copper, also done 14 days. Ich can come back after 72 days fallow without it being in a cyst for that long. It could easily have been that the fish did not completely rid the ich during treatment because of many factors, then popped back up. That is more likely but impossible to say.
