Poll: Do You QT? See where you stack up!

[iemsparticus]

Apparently, the generally attested view (according to the poll on this website - which I would hope would be people that are considered 'above average' in this hobby) is that quarantine is not necessary - since the majority do not do it. So?

OK - you are right - it is hyperbole to say that not quarantining inverts/coral/rock is the 'same' as not quarantining fish. I only say that because I dont have the statistics to refute it - though - the word 'hyperbole' is a little strong. I will say this - if you believe that quarantining fish is 'worthwhile', while at the same time you feel that not quarantining other possibilities is reasonable, you are going against scientific recommendations - and you will be burned someday.

And please - stop saying things I haven't said. I said - a Shrimp is not likely to transmit Ich a piece of Live rock Is more likely. Again the point here is not to say anyone is 'right or wrong'. the point is to educate people that some of these lethal diseases can be transmitted if you don't quarantine properly (or buy from sources that quarantine properly).

IMHO - you have no data to prove your point that fish unquarantined are less/more likely to transmit a 'problem' to your tank that live rock. If y ou do - please post it.

By the way - if you are unlucky enough to have ich.velvet enter your tank on a non-fish, it doesn't matter - you're still screwed. If you were wearing a shoulder belt alone - rather than a lap belt alone you would be screwed as well. I could post any number of similar analogies (like the seat belt one you did) but it doesn't matter - if you get ich/vevet in your tank because you weren't careful - you are srewed.

I don’t disagree.

I will never disagree that it is more risky to only QT fishes, and not EVERYTHING wet. Literally the only thing I disagree with is the notion that QTing fish only equates to not QTing anything at all... I found that statement (not only made by you, btw) hyperbolic... and you agree with me that it is.

You are correct that I have no scientific data to state that a fish is more likely a carrier of ich or velvet than an invert... I am basing my statements, as I have said multiple times, on what is commonly purported by experts such as @Humblefish.

As far as LR is concerned... yeah... LR needs to be cured before being added, and curing it for 76 days solves the issue. I have no clue what the widely held view is as to what the chances of cysts being on LR verses a fish being infected... but as you can cure LR in a trash can in your garage, I’m not sure I’ve personally heard any decent reasons for not doing it.

 

[ca1ore]

I think this is an excellent discussion, even if I find myself in both agreement and disagreement. Doing QT for fish but not QT for inverts is not the same as not doing QT at all. That IS a patently absurd statement. I do agree, however, that not also doing QT for inverts does introduce additional risk (both as an incidental carrier of a fish disease and directly infected). But as I attempted to show mathematically earlier, it's far less likely IME, thus I choose not to do it. Absent any data, anecdotes will have to,suffice.

 

[MnFish1]

I don’t disagree.

I will never disagree that it is more risky to only QT fishes, and not EVERYTHING wet. Literally the only thing I disagree with is the notion that QTing fish only equates to not QTing anything at all... I found that statement (not only made by you, btw) hyperbolic... and you agree with me that it is.

You are correct that I have no scientific data to state that a fish is more likely a carrier of ich or velvet than an invert... I am basing my statements, as I have said multiple times, on what is commonly purported by experts such as @Humblefish.

As far as LR is concerned... yeah... LR needs to be cured before being added, and curing it for 76 days solves the issue. I have no clue what the widely held view is as to what the chances of cysts being on LR verses a fish being infected... but as you can cure LR in a trash can in your garage, I’m not sure I’ve personally heard any decent reasons for not doing it.

There is a difference between 'curing' live rock and quarantining live rock. Curing live rock often happens in a bin - in the dark with a pump - allowing everything to die off. I was talking about taking live rock from one tank to another - which many people assume is 'ok'. It is not. It needs to be put in a lit aquarium to keep the stuff alive thats on it - for a period (pick the days you like) to decrease the risk of ich/etc transmission

 

[MnFish1]

I think this is an excellent discussion, even if I find myself in both agreement and disagreement. Doing QT for fish but not QT for inverts is not the same as not doing QT at all. That IS a patently absurd statement. I do agree, however, that not also doing QT for inverts does introduce additional risk (both as an incidental carrier of a fish disease and directly infected). But as I attempted to show mathematically earlier, it's far less likely IME, thus I choose not to do it. Absent any data, anecdotes will have to,suffice.

. you cant make up numbers - and then attempt to use those numbers to prove mathematically that your point is correct. As I said before - you might very well be correct - but you (and I) have no clue whether thats the case. There are too many variables involved. I also think your statement above is 'patently absurd' - without knowing exactly whether your and my definition of that phrase is the same. In any case - I find it 'patently absurd' (which could mean 'possibly not correct ' to 'you're insane') that you say what you say without any scientific data to support your comments

 

[MnFish1]

Again - im not arguing my personal opinion here - its 'expert opinion' that plants/rock/inverts/shrimp/clams and fish should be quarantined. Personally I dont care. Some of you have opinions as to the likelyhood that not quarantining 'stuff' other than fish is reasonable. All I'm doing is providing the scientific recommendation. Don't shoot the messenger - and if @Humblefish or anyone else doesn't agree with the scientific recommendations - all good - he's a smart guy

 

[Wonf]

I'm still a considered a newbie, started almost a year ago. First 3 months in, lost ALL fish twice to ich/velvet/brook... After 10 weeks of going fallow, now I QT religiously. To the point I haven't added any corals or inverts because I don't have a coral/invert QT setup.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a guarantee'd method. I've lost fish from prophylactic copper treatment (which I don't do anymore. Now just Prazi and have copper on hand in case ich shows) and carpet surfing (made an egg crate cover, learned fish can get through the egg crate. Super glued mesh netting on the egg crate, learned a big diamond goby can push through the mesh secured by super glue. Now have the mesh zip tied to egg crate....) but at least when they're done with QT and transferred to the DT, I know the fish in the current DT are safe.
I've added some corals and a shrimp but only because they came from a fellow r2r'er that I trusted didn't have diseases (I know... a gamble I shouldn't have taken but when I met up to get some fish from him, he was literally going to throw away anything I didn't take... So ended up giving a lil more cash to save some fish, a shrimp and corals...).
Just QT and don't regret and learn the hard way like many/most of us have.......

 

[Cali-Saltwater-1st-Timer]

These numbers are quite surprising!

Are they? I think only between 8%-10% of reefers quarantine. If the results were reversed that would be surprising.

 

[CindyKz]

I see the phrase "best practice" thrown around a few times in this thread. Does anyone have a link to a RESEARCHED best practice?

It's been established through research that tomonts can be transferred on rock, coral, inverts - but that doesn't mean that "best practice" involves quarantining all things wet (yes it's an "expert recommendation" = lowest level of evidence). To determine "best practice", I would want to know the likelihood of it actually happening, then balance that against effectiveness of qt, types of qt, etc.

As far as fish are concerned, I'd like to see a comparative study of mortality of fish that go through various types of quarantine - ie with vs. without the common prophylactic treatments. My experience is that I kill more fish with copper/TTM etc than just observation. Others may have different experiences. Fish can carry disease asymptomatically, but how likely are they to do so? AND, how likely is it that they will be able to remain asymptomatic in a 4 or six week small closed system (such as a typical 20 or 40 gal qt tank)?

If anyone has links to the above please share. I don't feel there's enough information to determine "best practice". Maybe it's out there and we aren't accessing it.

 

[Diesel]

Are they? I think only between 8%-10% of reefers quarantine. If the results were reversed that would be surprising.

If you start a new thread with the same question you’ll get a lot higher # imo.
The failure of quarantining fish or corals is in the inexperience of the person it self.
From the time this thread got started till now there was a lot more info to educate the new hobbyist in this hobby to do just the right thing.
Ppl come to say if you don’t it’s a ticking timebomb, maybe true but to me it’s common sense.
Knowing that this hobby will cost $$$ triple on livestock due to the major shutdowns already and what is still to come you want the best for your animals.
Just quarantining is the right thing to do and if you not successful on that pay some one to do so.

 

[WVNed]

For 12 years everything has been bag acclimated in about 30 minutes by transferring water to the bag with a cup and put into the tank including the water they came in. The same way I did freshwater stuff for 25 years before that.
I have stuff from 3 LFS, 2 Petcos, and LA multiple times, both east and west and DD .
Fish, shrimp, inverts, coral and live rock all done the same way.
No disease evident ever.
I have to assume it is there. There is no special place they pick out stuff to send me. It is in the ocean too.
75 gallon tank is now a month old from a tank transfer from a 3 month old 56 gallon tank from a tank transfer from a 6 year old 30 gallon tank from a......
Sorry. Old guy with an old camera.

I see no reason to change what I am doing. It is working for me.

 

[ca1ore]

Interesting that according to the poll data, QT of some kind versus no QT is essentially 50:50. I'm actually surprised that even 50% do QT. I reject, BTW, the notion that those that post here on R2R are necessarily more 'advanced' than those who do not. I know plenty of seasoned reefers that do not participate on the boards and a cursory look here reveals lots of newbies.

In my case, I did no QT of any kind for the first 20 years of reefing; QT of fish only for the last 10. In my case, my ability to build a sizable Fish population (now above 100) has gone much more smoothly since I adopted QT.

 

[WVNed]

Quite obviously it is a case of risk versus reward. The larger a tank you are keeping the greater the risk.
I do not think sticking several fish destined for a 180 gallon tank in a sparse 40 gallon bare bottom with 3 pieces of PVC pipe is a good game plan though.

 

[Cali-Saltwater-1st-Timer]

To quarantine or to not quarantine, that is the question. Such a hot button topic. Very polarizing. There is no "right" or "wrong" way imo! Just a matter of personal preference. Plenty have been successful (and unsuccesful) both ways. To each his own.