PLEASE STOP USING TTM-IT'S BARBARIC

[Bouncingsoul39]

At the risk of starting a war, please see thread title.

TTM is, in my not so humble opinion, one of the worst things to hit the hobby in my 20+ years doing it. Why do people love it? In my opinion, it comes down to two things:

1) I call it the **** (online vendor) effect. Back in the day, they invented 14 day guarantees. That shifts the financial burden of QTing from customer to supplier. In short, people don't so much care, or at least don't feel the $ pinch, of QT losses. Trading QT losses for safer display makes economic sense with guarantee. But it's barbaric. We have an obligation to do what we can to assure the survival of the fish we purchase.
2) People love to brag/post about their prowess in the hobby. Hey look, we have this new QT protocol and my fish came through it great. And thus it spreads. People are MUCH MUCH less likely to post-man I"m an idiot. I tried this new method and killed a bunch of fish. Don't make the same mistake I did.

Why do I think TTM is horrible:

1) Fish when shipped, or even moved from store to home, are by definition highly stressed. You're now taking this stressed fish and putting it in a way too small, totally uncycled, often unfiltered tank. It violates every tenet the hobby was built on.
2) Letting a new fish repeatedly go through a tank cycle, and fighting against it with water changes and TT is super stressful on already stressed fish. Sure, some fish survive it, but way too many don't.
3) repeatedly catching and moving new arrivals from tank to tank also highly stressful
4) I understand the biology of TTM and in theory it is very effective in treating ich. Since all parasites have different life cycles, it is ONLY effective against ich, and ignores all other issues. Why focus QT attention on a single problem, when there are lots of potential issues, all of which will be made worse by having super stressed out fish.
5) Ich is the easiest issue to deal with in QT. If you see it, a quick course of cupramine is 100% effective, MUCH MUCH cheaper and easier, and much much much much much less stressful on fish than TTM.

I absolutely 100% do not see any sense in TTM

Better to have a proper QT tank, observe new arrivals and treat as necessary.

Michael

Thanks for posting this and speaking out against a common practice that I've always considered a bad one. People really go overboard trying to re-invent the wheel in this hobby and this is a classic example. Folks, chelated copper or ionic copper works just fine and have been used with success for decades and is still used today by aquarium professionals. Also, people taking a shotgun approach to QT where they throw the kitchen sink at a weakened fish without consideration to the individual fishes needs.

 

[Humblefish]

With all due respect - not sure what the waterborne vs airborne thing has to do with it and even in water, viruses, bacteria and parasites also have different likelihood's of spreading to another fish. Livestock, for example, held in close quarters have high rates of infection transmission. Additionally, just because most public aquariums do it doesn't make it the right thing to do for the home reefer. My guess is that public aquariums have magnitudes more fish coming in and out of their facility.

Parasite free swimmers actively seek out fish to infect in a closed-off environment, whereas most human illnesses are spread via accidental or intimate contact. You put a fish with parasites or worms in a tank, and only fish with acquired immunity will not be infected (but the parasites are still going to try.) A dozen people sit in a waiting room with someone with a cold or flu virus, and odds are you won't be infected unless you are sitting nearby or touch something they have touched.

Public aquariums do deal with a higher volume of fish, but just one fish is housed in several different tanks before making its way to you. At the collector/wholesale level, these tanks are interconnected with systems containing hundreds (or even thousands) of other fish; so whatever disease one has, they all have exposure to.

If someone does not have 20-30 minutes every day to spend looking at their fish (quarantined or not) they should probably not have a reef tank. Likewise - the same of more needs to spent monitoring each fish in the display tank to be certain there are no problems using your logic.

Can you guarantee that you have 20-30 minutes of free time every single day to watch your fish? Most people I know juggle work, school, travel, kids, sports/extracurricular, cooking/cleaning, doctor appointments, etc. and don't know how much free time they'll have one day to the next.

It is too bad there aren't 'fish veterinarians' to prevent some of the misuse.

They're around, but typically only in large cities and cost prohibitive for most hobbyists to use. Thus, fish disease forums like this exist. Is it only acceptable to use medications if a licensed professional advises it?

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

Waterborne diseases are much more likely to be spread than airborne diseases. This is why curators of most public aquariums prophylactically medicate all incoming fish. Oftentimes at a completely different facility to avoid aerosol transmission, cross contamination, etc.

This. I work at the National Aquarium in Baltimore. While I can't say what our QT procedure is for new fish, I can say that we take disease prevention very seriously. We have separate siphons, nets, squeegees, hoses and scrubbers for every single system, full stop. Before something wet goes from one tank to another, it gets an overnight bleach bath. We have UV sterilizers on every single system that's over a few hundred gallons or so. And I mean every system. We have a system were we chill our saltwater supply for our cold-water tanks. This system is essentially a few 350g plastic reservoirs hooked up to a heat exchanger. Nothing living has ever, or will ever, go into it. Yet, we still have a UV sterilizer on the system to prevent the spread of pathogens.

I'm not saying that one should or should not prophylactically medicate marine ornamental fish. Nor am I arguing in favor of UV sterilizers. I am simply agreeing with @Humblefish : disease management in water is incredibly challenging. Comparing airborne and waterborne pathogens is not at all apples-to-apples.

 

[azbigjohn]

I appreciate the dialog here about quarantining.

I have to confess to being new to the QT game in general, but after learning my lessons, I now do it religiously. So far, I have only done the 30-day coppersafe routine, following the recommendations of both @Humblefish and @melypr1985. I especially appreciate the post done to explain which QT method works best with each fish.

NO fish will go into my tank without a QT again; my schedule simply prevents the daily time to observe a "held" fish every day for signs of infection without prophylactic treatment.

I agree with your points about TTM as far as tank size; I have seen folks who use 2 five gallon buckets...

That being said, if I have a fish that is intolerant of copper or coppersafe, (I have not been able to source CP) I will use TTM (as responsibly as I can) or I will not get the fish...

Once again, @NYAquatic, I always appreciate intelligent discussion of anything reef-related! I also appreciate your stock husbandry, which I hear is excellent! (we are on other sides of the US, so I have not ordered from you...yet)

 

[Humblefish]

Thanks for posting this and speaking out against a common practice that I've always considered a bad one. People really go overboard trying to re-invent the wheel in this hobby and this is a classic example. Folks, chelated copper or ionic copper works just fine and have been used with success for decades and is still used today by aquarium professionals. Also, people taking a shotgun approach to QT where they throw the kitchen sink at a weakened fish without consideration to the individual fishes needs.

Not reinventing the wheel, but we should always be looking for a better way of doing things. In this case, TTM is a non-medicated approach to treating at least what used to be the most common parasite found in marine fish. If we never looked for new ways, we would still be using penicillin to treat all infections.

 

[MnFish1]

They're around, but typically only in large cities and cost prohibitive for most hobbyists to use. Thus, fish disease forums like this exist. Is it only acceptable to use medications if a licensed professional advises it?

Right I know. Btw I agree with the rest Of the stuff you wrote. As to the other question. Antibiotic resistance is a huge problem. So I was surprised to see some antibiotics being used without clear diagnosis on several of the disease threads here. I think using fluconazole for algae in a fish tank is crazy from a public health standpoint. Though it may work. I think going forward there will be more and more regulation of antibiotics and antifungals. To answer your question,yes. I think it would be best that medications used to treat human disease be available only under the prescription of a licensed professional. I mean you wouldn’t order kanamycin for your dog. My wife would not order fluconazole for a yeast infection she self diagnosed. Why should aquariasts

 

[Mindi]

good to read...I tried it once very carefully following instructions and killed my fish. Bought a 20 gallon tank and cheap hang on filter, cheap heater, bits of PVC pipe...set up a "proper" QT and havent lost a fish in 3 years since. I week rest, 1 week cupramine, i week paraguard and into the DT. The problem with my ttm would have been something i did wrong, but thats my point

 

[MnFish1]

Ok so actually reading all of this stuff. From a scientific standpoint TTM seems ‘not proven’. I mean the others aren’t proven either but at least dipping fish in xyz for x time has calculable risks benefits. My guess is and it’s a guess is that doing nothing is statistically not different than any of the methods. That said living beings deserve thto benefit of the doubt

 

[4FordFamily]

With all due respect - not sure what the waterborne vs airborne thing has to do with it and even in water, viruses, bacteria and parasites also have different likelihood's of spreading to another fish. Livestock, for example, held in close quarters have high rates of infection transmission. Additionally, just because most public aquariums do it doesn't make it the right thing to do for the home reefer. My guess is that public aquariums have magnitudes more fish coming in and out of their facility.

If someone does not have 20-30 minutes every day to spend looking at their fish (quarantined or not) they should probably not have a reef tank. Likewise - the same of more needs to spent monitoring each fish in the display tank to be certain there are no problems using your logic.

Lastly, and most importantly (IMHO) the most barbaric thing is people using medications designed for humans (metronidazole, fluconazole, cipro, kanamycin) for non-diagnosed illnesses. Using these indiscriminately (fluconazole for algae control) is irresponsible and dangerous if fungal resistance becomes an issue. It is too bad there aren't 'fish veterinarians' to prevent some of the misuse.

Rest assured it's a safe assumption the fish is carrying ich, velvet, flukes, or brook. Perhaps more than one. This because of the sheer volume of fish moving in and out of each system. It's completely cost ineffective not to do things this way, but it creates conditions by which nearly 100% of fish will carry parasites.

If you'd like to read more about this subject matter, here's an article on just that topic.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/lfs-fish-“treatment”-the-“sudden”-need-for-quarantine.308400/

 

[Amoo]

I believe that we do the best QT/treatment possible, as do a number of other vendors.
would I trust anyone's fish to go into a reef without QT? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
To QT a fish, you need to use whatever protocol to observe/treat/medicate, for figure 30 days minimum. Without adding any new fish to that system.
Imagine how many fish a retailer sells in 30 days, and how many separate systems would be needed.
It's impossible.
You can keep a fish in QT for a year. AS long as you keep adding new fish to system it is not properly QTd.

Before I comment furth do you have a link to your treatment protocol. I'm sorry I looked on your website and it didn't slap me in the face as I was clicking around.

 

[Antics]

Rest assured it's a safe assumption the fish is carrying ich, velvet, flukes, or brook. Perhaps more than one. This because of the sheer volume of fish moving in and out of each system. It's completely cost ineffective not to do things this way, but it creates conditions by which nearly 100% of fish will carry parasites.

If you'd like to learn more about this subject matter, here's an article on just that topic.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/lfs-fish-“treatment”-the-“sudden”-need-for-quarantine.308400/

This is a great article and really stresses that people need to take responsibility for their aquariums and pets. In my opinion unless you can absolutely trust the source of a fish you should ALWAYS assume the worst. If you're wrong, oh well. If you blindly believe that a fish is perfectly healthy because the LFS got it two days ago and its already eating... good luck.

 

[Forsaken77]

I didn't even think people did TTM anymore. I think what he's concerned about as a retailer, is inexperienced people doing this the wrong way. On YouTube there's a video of a guy using 5 gallon buckets.

But using meds incorrectly for a certain species can be just as problematic with an inexperienced person.

With Wrasses, I use 1 tank, make sure it has a small amount of aragonite sand in the corner (because not burrowing can be just as stressful), and go slow with the meds and test constantly with any fish in QT.

But I don't think a TTM should even be done for new fish. Only on fish with a confirmed case of ich, if you happen to have an issue using meds. I find it pointless when prophylactically treating new arrivals. Not to mention it's a ton more work.

 

[4FordFamily]

This is a great article and really stresses that people need to take responsibility for their aquariums and pets. In my opinion unless you can absolutely trust the source of a fish you should ALWAYS assume the worst. If you're wrong, oh well. If you blindly believe that a fish is perfectly healthy because the LFS got it two days ago and its already eating... good luck.

Agree. Also, for what it's worth, my second favorite vendor after @NYAquatic is Divers Den.

I've received fish with velvet, ich, flukes, infections, and other ailments from divers den as well. Perhaps fewer than other vendors, but I'd quarantine properly every single fish even from sources like this. Just my .02.

 

[Amoo]

Lastly, and most importantly (IMHO) the most barbaric thing is people using medications designed for humans (metronidazole, fluconazole, cipro, kanamycin) for non-diagnosed illnesses. Using these indiscriminately (fluconazole for algae control) is irresponsible and dangerous if fungal resistance becomes an issue. It is too bad there aren't 'fish veterinarians' to prevent some of the misuse.

Sadly regardless of which Vet school you go to if somebody decides to become an Exotics Vet may have got some exposure AFTER vet school and maybe they did a little in their intern/externships but the reality is, there isn't enough information out there on these topics to even review it for one semester. The curriculum just doesn't exist. You have a better chance of having a larger understanding of all of this IF you are a hobbyist yourself or a marine biologist.

 

[Sleepydoc]

@NYAquatic Thanks for clearing that up. I would agree with mdbannister in the whole tone.
...
I just don't see the point in completely dumpstering the whole method when the problem you have with it is HOW people are doing it.

This. There are many people who quarantine in too small of a tank. Or who add fish to an uncycled quarantine tank. Or who don't dose copper properly, yet the OP is not deriding these practices as barbaric. I have a 120 gallon display and a 29 gallon QT. I'm dealing with a velvet outbreak and have a hippo tang, a pajama cardinal, a file fish and a diamond goby in my QT. I also had 2 clowns there before they died. I'm sure the OP would call me a barbarian, but the choice was leaving my fish in the DT to likely die or move them all to the QT and try to save them.

A few folks have mentioned using water from their display in the TTM process. Assuming that one's display is disease-free, that ought to provide "mature" water, which is no doubt better than fresh-mixed - but it's not the same thing as a "cycled tank". The bacteria that consume ammonia don't live in the water, they were left behind in the liverock. When the fish in TTM produce ammonia, there will be no bacteria to convert it to nitrite/nitrate.

Correct, but it does at least provide more 'seed' bacteria than freshly mixed salt water. I personally keep a (new) filter sponge for my QT HOB filter in the sump of my DT, so I have a ready-cycled filtration system. Still not the same but it helps, at least.

Ok so actually reading all of this stuff. From a scientific standpoint TTM seems ‘not proven’. I mean the others aren’t proven either but at least dipping fish in xyz for x time has calculable risks benefits. My guess is and it’s a guess is that doing nothing is statistically not different than any of the methods. That said living beings deserve thto benefit of the doubt

Actually, TTM is pretty well proven and accepted from a scientific standpoint. From his subsequent posts, I think the OP takes issue with the application rather than the method itself.

 

[Amoo]

Agree. Also, for what it's worth, my second favorite vendor after @NYAquatic is Divers Den.

I've received fish with velvet, ich, flukes, infections, and other ailments from divers den as well. Perhaps fewer than other vendors, but I'd quarantine properly every single fish even from sources like this. Just my .02.

I agree with you Triple F. My overarching point in what I was making was kind of like this:

If somebody was going to give you a million dollars if you could buy let's say a blue tang from any retailer available to us without any change in anybody's current protocol and you had to dump it in your tank after arrival. If nobody in the system showed any signs of infection for 72 days you get the million bucks, which vendor do you choose?

That's the reason I just asked NYAquatic his QT procedue and why I don't mind paying extra for DD stuff because of how much they do. What's another $20 off a fish if it wipes your whole system?

 

[Humblefish]

So I was surprised to see some antibiotics being used without clear diagnosis on several of the disease threads here.

Unfortunately, the only way to properly diagnose a bacterial infection is with a skin scrape/scope ID. And then identify the correct antibiotic(s) which will successfully target the offending bacterium you are seeing under the microscope. Not so practical for this setting.

So, we have to just shoot from the hip and make our best guess sometimes. Less than ideal, but I've seen enough bacterial infections to tell the difference between ones a fish's natural immune system might be able to handle without help vs. ones where the fish will die without the aid of antibiotics. We just have to hope the antibiotics we are prescribing are wide spectrum enough to cover it. No perfect solutions.

Ok so actually reading all of this stuff. From a scientific standpoint TTM seems ‘not proven’. I mean the others aren’t proven either but at least dipping fish in xyz for x time has calculable risks benefits. My guess is and it’s a guess is that doing nothing is statistically not different than any of the methods. That said living beings deserve thto benefit of the doubt

The lifecycle of Cryptocaryon irritans is pretty well established and understood. The trophont remains on the fish for 3-7 days before dropping off, in each & every study that has been done (a few are listed below.) TTM works because of this 3-7 day window which has been proven from a scientific standpoint.

 

[MnFish1]

Unfortunately, the only way to properly diagnose a bacterial infection is with a skin scrape/scope ID. And then identify the correct antibiotic(s) which will successfully target the offending bacterium you are seeing under the microscope. Not so practical for this setting.

So, we have to just shoot from the hip and make our best guess sometimes. Less than ideal, but I've seen enough bacterial infections to tell the difference between ones a fish's natural immune system might be able to handle without help vs. ones where the fish will die without the aid of antibiotics. We just have to hope the antibiotics we are prescribing are wide spectrum enough to cover it. No perfect solutions.

The lifecycle of Cryptocaryon irritans is pretty well established and understood. The trophont remains on the fish for 3-7 days before dropping off, in each & every study that has been done (a few are listed below.) TTM works because of this 3-7 day window which has been proven from a scientific standpoint.

From Fishvet.com - When we took skin scrapings from these fish that had been healthy for more than a year we found evidence of trophonts under the skin. Evidently these had not found it necessary to reproduce & leave the fish, as no sign of disease had occurred over a long period of time.

I agree that diagnosing a bacterial infection in fish is difficult (i.e. the type) and thus the treatment. I actually dont recall ever using an antibiotic on a fish except long ago - and it did not survive. Im still not sold on using antifungals/antibiotics for algae control.

 

[Amoo]

From Fishvet.com - When we took skin scrapings from these fish that had been healthy for more than a year we found evidence of trophonts under the skin. Evidently these had not found it necessary to reproduce & leave the fish, as no sign of disease had occurred over a long period of time.

I agree that diagnosing a bacterial infection in fish is difficult (i.e. the type) and thus the treatment. I actually dont recall ever using an antibiotic on a fish except long ago - and it did not survive. Im still not sold on using antifungals/antibiotics for algae control.

I think this goes back to both yours and my point about actual vets in the industry, but not in the way you might be thinking. Read through this by the way:

http://fishvet.com/no-ich_faqs.htm

Now let's stop and think about what we both know here. I think we both know just knocking out Ich in the free swimming stage will do literally NOTHING to prevent the reinfection and you will need to continue to buy their product they are selling to keep treating as reinfections occur, because we both know they will.

Now let's step back and take a look at this. I own a vet clinic, we sell heartworm prevention, no secret right. Heartworm prevention is very specific in that most state to give every 30 days not just the same day every month. Let's say you did that and your dog still got heartworms, now this does happen very very rarely from time to time and when it does the product manufacturer pays all treatment costs as well as does home inspections...etc. We have never had it happen in our clinic but it does happen. All that said, if we as a Veterinarian clinic sell you heartworm prevention for your dog, and you dog continuously gets heartworms and you are actually following the product label, does that make a whole lot of sense?

What they are describing on fishvet.com is not how veterinary medicine works and further proves the point that if this site is even run by a vet (which they may have one on staff, but I'd be surprised), this isn't how we maintain and run our practices. It's not only non-ethical, but illegal.

 

[Bouncingsoul39]

Not reinventing the wheel, but we should always be looking for a better way of doing things. In this case, TTM is a non-medicated approach to treating at least what used to be the most common parasite found in marine fish. If we never looked for new ways, we would still be using penicillin to treat all infections.

Sure, we definitely should. But the better way needs to actually be better. TTM is a ton of work, stressful for both the fish and the person. It's debatable on whether or not TTM is any better than copper for ich. Your point about Penicillin is apples to oranges. It was a revolutionary medicine that fell out of favor because many strains of bacteria have become resistant to it do to over use, people are allergic to it and because big pharma is always pushing new drugs. None of that applies here.