It's all @Paul B's fault... my journey to an immune reef (hopefully!)

[Paul B]

Send me one.

 

[MnFish1]

I use no mechanics filtration and I don't believe in using UV. I used UV many years ago but disregarded it for the methods etc I use now. Do my Oxydators destroy parasites I am not so sure. I do however the assist the fish by making them breath more easily and improve the water quality enormously which can be proven. Very little peroxide enters the aquarium water directly and what does quickly reacts with organics etc in the water. Maybe there is a direct affect on parasites and diseases as well. The use of Oxydator's can be considered similar to using ozonizers. I did stop using ozonizers when I discovered Oxydator's all those years ago and have never looked back.

they look interesting - and im sure there's not a lot of data out there about parasites and their use. Curious - and im sorry - im sure its posted somewhere on the forum - can you describe briefly what you use for your tank in the way of tank ----> return pump (i.e. everything in between)??

 

[MnFish1]

Send me one.

Congrats on the move. Glad everything made it. Still no answer to my question from anyone (you or atoll) - which is a question anyone who wants to use your method would/should ask.

If you take 10 tank raised non-immune clownfish and put them into your (supposedly velvet and CI filled tank - which I highly doubt) - why would you suggest the survival rate would be better than taking those same fish and putting them into a non-velvet/CI containing tank. Ie. What immediate benefit (besides lower parasite numbers because of UV/Ozone/Oxygentators, etc) would be present in your tank as compared to another one. My guess is that the parasite levels in the supposed 'Immune tanks' are negligent or non-existent - therefore the disease doesn't spread - its the only hypothesis that makes any common sense. There is lots of data out there on the mortality of CI on non-immune fish. for anyone to claim that they can just drop fish into a tank with CI and or velvet and they have (as some have claimed here) 100 % success - either they are ignoring failures - or there is no disease in their tanks. Again - tanks aren't 'Immune'. Fish are ( or aren't)

 

[jasonrusso]

I love this thread. For some reason there are people who feel the need to discredit it. Why don't they start their own thread with their own methods if they work so well.

All scientific discovery was/is based on hypothesis that was formed by observation. If Paul, Gweeds, Attol have tanks and methods that work for them and have been working for some time, who are you to come along and tell them that they are wrong??

I personally don't practice their methods, but I am intrigued. I get frustrated when the "usual suspects" come along and write long posts thinking that they are making an important point.

 

[MnFish1]

And I think it's totally reckless to ruin the immunity of your fish so that they will always be susceptible to diseases. ".

This is correct - but - Paul - unless your are a microbiologist/Immunologist, there is no proof that the 'Immunity of fish is ruined'. Thats your idea - based on your experience. But it is not backed by science, at all. Immunity does not just disappear because of a copper treatment - nor does it reappear based on New England mud.

Look at it this way - when a kid gets a tetanus shot at age 5 and steps on a proverbial rusty nail at age 10, the immune system remembers and (hopefully) will kill the tetanus germ. Again - I have no complaint/argument/Issue with any method you use. I have a big issue with how you seem to show cause/effect between the things you do and your results.

 

[MnFish1]

I love this thread. For some reason there are people who feel the need to discredit it. Why don't they start their own thread with their own methods if they work so well.

All scientific discovery was/is based on hypothesis that was formed by observation. If Paul, Gweeds, Attol have tanks and methods that work for them and have been working for some time, who are you to come along and tell them that they are wrong??

I personally don't practice their methods, but I am intrigued. I get frustrated when the "usual suspects" come along and write long posts thinking that they are making an important point.

I get frustrated when you take posts out of context to make an invalid point. Ignoring what the 'usual suspects' are saying and instead pretending that those 'usual suspects' are saying something horrible. I also get frustrated when people like you suggest that anyone is 'discrediting' this thread. I request only the rationale behind the method.

and Jason - if you were paying attention to the last 54 pages of the thread - you would know that:

1. I dont quarantine fish.
2. I have never dosed copper or a medication for ich or velvet.
3. I do not feed live or make my own food
4. I live inland - so have no access to mud.

Yet still my fish tend to do ok. Im just trying to figure out what the real magic bullet is here - especially for Atolls beautiful tank. If you can't hand that - perhaps you should start your own thread. And if tis wasn't directed at me - all good - but since you didn't take the time to quote the posts with with you have 'problems' and you didn't name the 'usual suspects' and since I posted a lot today - I assume its me.

 

[jasonrusso]

I get frustrated when you take posts out of context to make an invalid point. Ignoring what the 'usual suspects' are saying and instead pretending that those 'usual suspects' are saying something horrible. I also get frustrated when people like you suggest that anyone is 'discrediting' this thread. I request only the rationale behind the method.

and Jason - if you were paying attention to the last 54 pages of the thread - you would know that:

1. I dont quarantine fish.
2. I have never dosed copper or a medication for ich or velvet.
3. I do not feed live or make my own food
4. I live inland - so have no access to mud.

Yet still my fish tend to do ok. Im just trying to figure out what the real magic bullet is here - especially for Atolls beautiful tank. If you can't hand that - perhaps you should start your own thread. And if tis wasn't directed at me - all good - but since you didn't take the time to quote the posts with with you have 'problems' and you didn't name the 'usual suspects' and since I posted a lot today - I assume its me.

Yes, you are one of them. I'm not taking anything out of context. You come onto this thread and constantly challenge the OP and Paul. You ask for science, but you have results. Have you heard the saying "You can't argue with results?" Everything starts with a theory.

GWeeds has said he has put infected fish in his tank, did you miss that because you said you doubt there was ever parasites in the tank.

I also find it odd that people "observe" fish in QT for parasites. Are these the same people that say "just because you don't see symptoms, it doesn't mean they aren't carriers.".

There are so many contradictions in this hobby and on this site. If something works for someone, why can't that be admired? Why does it have to be picked apart because it is different than the way you do it? (this applies to more than just Aquaria these days)

 

[Kmsutows]

Yes, you are one of them. I'm not taking anything out of context. You come onto this thread and constantly challenge the OP and Paul. You ask for science, but you have results. Have you heard the saying "You can't argue with results?" Everything starts with a theory.

GWeeds has said he has put infected fish in his tank, did you miss that because you said you doubt there was ever parasites in the tank.

I also find it odd that people "observe" fish in QT for parasites. Are these the same people that say "just because you don't see symptoms, it doesn't mean they aren't carriers.".

There are so many contradictions in this hobby and on this site. If something works for someone, why can't that be admired? Why does it have to be picked apart because it is different than the way you do it? (this applies to more than just Aquaria these days)

The problem is they fail to acknowledge the mechanical filtration contributing at all to their success when facts show that is the primary source of their success. Instead they like to claim it's their "immunity" that magically exists in their tank. Additionally, when asked about the ozone or oxygenador they claim they only do it for the water clarity but for whatever reason won't acknowledge that those mechanical methods are precisely what is used commercially and is well documented as preventing such parasites.

 

[jasonrusso]

The problem is they fail to acknowledge the mechanical filtration contributing at all to their success when facts show that is the primary source of their success. Instead they like to claim it's their "immunity" that magically exists in their tank.

Yes, that is true. That being said there are several threads on here that say that "the only way to stop parasites is copper, CP, or fallow."

Again, more contradiction. Surely, a rogue velvet parasite or crypt parasite would grab a fish before going through a UV.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, you are one of them. I'm not taking anything out of context. You come onto this thread and constantly challenge the OP and Paul. You ask for science, but you have results. Have you heard the saying "You can't argue with results?" Everything starts with a theory.

GWeeds has said he has put infected fish in his tank, did you miss that because you said you doubt there was ever parasites in the tank.

I also find it odd that people "observe" fish in QT for parasites. Are these the same people that say "just because you don't see symptoms, it doesn't mean they aren't carriers.".

There are so many contradictions in this hobby and on this site. If something works for someone, why can't that be admired? Why does it have to be picked apart because it is different than the way you do it? (this applies to more than just Aquaria these days)

1. Again you apparently haven't read the multiple times TODAY that I have told Atoll (et al) you can't argue with success.
2. You apparently haven't read that Im not arguing with 'success' im asking for the rationale/magic bullet for that success - because each person uses a different 'method' in their tank.
3. You apparently haven't read the posts saying what a beautiful tank Atoll has - and my post congratulating Paul on his successful move.
4. I haven't heard anyone picking anyone apart here (except you picking me apart).
5. I never doubted that there were parasites in Gweeds tank. In fact - despite his reverse quarantine system one of his fish developed velvet (to his surprise) and survived (to his surprise) - though if we were to believe another poster on this thread - we can't be sure that Gweeds fish had velvet at all - since we need a necropsy/biopsy to prove anything with regards to fish disease.

I agree with you that there are many contradictions in this hobby an on this site. My goal is to figure out which of these contradictions to believe/follow and which to ignore. In this case - contrary to your opinion - and I think Paul B and Atoll would agree with me - I have not criticized them personally. I have not convinced them to do something 'my way', I have only asked them to try to explain why they say the things they say. Some of which are directly contrary to science and immunology. Im also trying to figure out the real reason for their success so I can emulate it. Again - not everyone lives on the new England seashore - or has access to the things these people are suggesting are beneficial.

If you want to decide that I have some kind of personal vendetta against anyone here - its not remotely true (Including yourself). Im merely responding in kind. I think its a bit passive aggressive to not quote a post and say 'the usual suspects' without debating the actual points raised - but again - thats just my opinion.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, that is true. That being said there are several threads on here that say that "the only way to stop parasites is copper, CP, or fallow."
Again, more contradiction. Surely, a rogue velvet parasite or crypt parasite would grab a fish before going through a UV.

And which of the 'usual suspects' has said that these threads are correct?

 

[jasonrusso]

And which of the 'usual suspects' has said that these threads are correct?

I said "suspects" because it's not just you.

The quoted post said it was because of mechanical filtration that they had success.

 

[MnFish1]

I said "suspects" because it's not just you.

The quoted post said it was because of mechanical filtration that they had success.

And its pretty clear from the context of the poster that they meant UV/Ozone/Oxydator/mechanical filtration (diatom)....

 

[atoll]

It'll be interesting to see if a UG filter is a requirement... I don't have one and won't be pulling my tank apart to add one. I can't see that it is... I assume that it's just the way Paul B has always had his.

I don't use a UG filter and most who don't experience disease issues don't either.

 

[atoll]

And its pretty clear from the context of the poster that they meant UV/Ozone/Oxydator/mechanical filtration (diatom)....

Do yoi think my Oxydators alone prevent my fish getting sick?

 

[Gareth elliott]

I would agree with those threads to the extent that some form of treatment is necessary to ERADICATE parasites

I do not believe it is the only method to keep healthy fish.

But if the final goal is NO parasites. Some outside intervention is needed.

Look at velvet specifically, not only is it parasitic but photosynthetic as well.

I also do not believe that parasite management has an end goal of eradication. But long term resistance to their effects.

 

[Dogtown]

I’ll say it again, “figures will not lie,” but “liars will figure”. It is our duty, as fellow aquarists, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish.

What exactly is this complete theory or recipe for success? I have yet to see it summarized in one post.
- Filtration method... Paul’s ozone or atoll’s oxidator? Are these required for long term success? If not, how do you know they don’t play a role?
- Feeding regimen... Live foods? Many do that already.
- Fish acclimation method... Dump right in display tank with no Qt/observation/treatment period? Many do that already.
- live bacteria? Many people add live bacteria already.

What are the remaining components behind this theory? What makes it unique other than the filtration?

 

[Gareth elliott]

If i had to guess as to Paul’s major success it would be stress. From reading through many of paul’s posts. He takes long strides to remove as much stress from his system as possible.

Some examples he had 2 CBB at one point, when one was not thriving he sold it. His tank looks like a live reef. He feeds many live foods, trying to replicate their wild feeding patterns.

External stressors are known to be a strong determining factor in the progression of disease in any species.

Next part is all speculation lol
I wonder if tank invertebrate non photosynthetic calorie intake plays a role as well. Both atoll’s and paul’s tank had thriving colonies of corals. How much does this intake replace the need for mechanical filtration. Paul has large briareum colonies that feed similar to mushroom corals.

I would hypothesize they invariably consume some free swimming parasites during non photosynthetic calorie intake. Reducing their portion in a tanks biological mass.

To this end i wonder if new tanks have a more difficult time with parasite management?

 

[atoll]

I’ll say it again, “figures will not lie,” but “liars will figure”. It is our duty, as fellow aquarists, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish.

What exactly is this complete theory or recipe for success? I have yet to see it summarized in one post.
- Filtration method... Paul’s ozone or atoll’s oxidator? Are these required for long term success? If not, how do you know they don’t play a role?
- Feeding regimen... Live foods? Many do that already.
- Fish acclimation method... Dump right in display tank with no Qt/observation/treatment period? Many do that already.
- live bacteria? Many people add live bacteria already.

What are the remaining components behind this theory? What makes it unique other than the filtration?

To repeat myself. I do believe my Oxydator's play a part. I have said it many times and if you read back a few posts you will read it again. IMO it's a combination of things that keeps ny fish disease free and I have repeated it so many times it's quite frankly getting boring to do so. I am sure Paul will feel the same way.

 

[Dogtown]

To repeat myself. I do believe my Oxydator's play a part. I have said it many times and if you read back a few posts you will read it again. IMO it's a combination of things that keeps ny fish disease free and I have repeated it so many times it's quite frankly getting boring to do so. I am sure Paul will feel the same way.

No debate with you on that one. You have credited your filtration method and that isn't really up what is up for debate. Its a matter of stating what the complete combination of items is that are required to achieve the desired outcome of an immune reef actually is. Why not provide a complete bullet list of what you did to achieve your immune reef long term? Please expand and refine the list as you see beneficial for others.

Complete theory or recipe for an immune reef:

- Filtration method... Paul’s Ozone generator or atoll’s Oxidator
- Minimize stress to inhabitants
- Feeding regimen. Clams and other live foods of all types found in nature.
- Live bacteria. Lots of live bacteria.
- QT observation. None.
- Prophylactic medication prior to introduction. None.
- This is a holistic approach. You can't just do some of the above and expect good results.


Gareth elliott, Good point on minimizing stress. We've all seen Atoll and Paul's posts to that point so that is added. thanks