Q for everyone are you FOR or AGAINST QT

[N.Sreefer]

I wouldnt say the fish has changed at all, its the enviroment we keep it in. we mimic the ocean but I dont believe it will be the exact same, as its only (in my case) a 75g box of water.

I agree there's big differences but the aquarium doesn't have near the same number of pathogens floating around why put the fish through qt when its going into an environment with less pathogens? Wouldn't it make more sense to lower stress levels and put it in as natural an environment as possible? If fish in captivity do not acquire immunity as well then how does anyone who uses NSW keep an aquarium?

 

[flourishofmediocrity]

It dosent exist in our tanks and hasn't for longer than I care to remember. So what do you want us to say? Our replies are based on our experiences along with some possibilities as to why that maybe. We aren't marine biologists just hobbyists with many years keeping marine aquatic.

Your experience is obviously very valuable to the community, and should be part of the conversation. I'm glad some people don't have to worry about parasites, but that's a solution for you. We need a solution for the rest of us.

Part of the problem that QT may prevent is someone buying the cheapest fish they can find and it kills everything in their tank. There may be new people that read something on here and their takeaway that they just don't need to even think about fish disease. I think everyone agrees that there is risk when someone just buys the cheapest fish and tosses it into their DT, and it is destructive to the hobby to just pretend like this problem doesn't exist. I'm not saying this is being said directly here, but it could be read that way.

I'm also not saying QT is the only answer, or even that QT is for sure 100% the best answer, but it is the best answer we have right now with some caveats.

That's why my first post on this thread was that the question should not be about if you are 'for or against' QT, but rather do you care enough about the animals you keep to try to prevent something bad from happening? That could just be careful sourcing of livestock without QT, but some people would like to try to do it themselves, and if we could just get past the obvious fallacies maybe we could start to improve the situation for everyone.

Quarantine is: don't put the bad thing in your tank. If you don't put the fish with the bad thing in your tank, you have successfully not put a bad thing in your tank. I honestly don't know how much simpler to put it.

 

[Lyss]

Why do a number of folks want to censor others talking about how they didn’t QT and their many-yr-old tanks remaining disease-free? I honestly think normal ppl, newcomers or not, are able to read all sides of a debate and make their own decision based on all the available information. I still would personally come away from this that I’m gonna QT if/when I ever get that pink-streaked wrasse to round out my tank.

But I take a lot of info from these other discussions as well, in terms of caring for fish and developing the microbiome in my tank. Maybe when it is 20 years old or whatever I won’t need to worry half as much about QT — but I’m not there yet.

My point is really that we can’t control other ppl, and we shouldn’t censor conversations about long-time reefers not using QT b/c it *might* influence someone else in a way we don’t like. This is not the way to gain influence.

 

[HuduVudu]

"Each liter of seawater on this planet is home to about 100 billion viral particles, adding up to about a nonillion (in the U.S., that's 1 followed by 30 zeros) worldwide"

Fish are exposed to plenty in the ocean with the line of thought your presenting they should all be dead because problem x exists. I bet if you compare the viral load in a reef tank it would be alot less. The dilution thing others have mentioned really doesn't apply when every liter of seawater contain all those viruses not all of which (most don't) infect fish but come on 100 billion. The only way to explain live fish swimming in the ocean is acquisition of immunity by those fish. Same thing in an aquarium using NSW.

I have access to the gulf, and it is actually now pretty close to me. I figured out that it would be a lot cheaper for me to pick up water for water changes when I went to the beach. I don't do anything to the water when I bring it back just do the water change and then I am done.

Fish are still alive.

 

[HuduVudu]

I'm glad some people don't have to worry about parasites, but that's a solution for you. We need a solution for the rest of us.

We all have to worry about parasites ... ALL OF US. That is not where the debate is centered. It is centered on how we will approach the fact that we have to worry about parasites.

This is tribal thinking. You are us and we are you.

Part of the problem that QT may prevent is someone buying the cheapest fish they can find and it kills everything in their tank.

QT will not prevent someone buying the cheapest fish. @Paul B does this all of the time. QT I am sure won't stop him. This is not a debate on impulse control it is a debate about how to handle disease and death.

There may be new people that read something on here and their takeaway that they just don't need to even think about fish disease.

If that is their take away do you think you are going to change their minds. Do you really think that a person that cares so little about their creatures that they wouldn't have a process or a plan, wake up one day and think OMG I need to do that. Not likely. Those people need to fail and they need to feel the pain so that they can be reminded that what they are doing is not working.

I'm also not saying QT is the only answer, or even that QT is for sure 100% the best answer, but it is the best answer we have right now with some caveats.

It is good that you have found a path that is viable for you. This is hugely important. It is also very important that you let other people that have viable paths speak too. They are not wrong, they just approach things different. If they are failing then call them out.

That's why my first post on this thread was that the question should not be about if you are 'for or against' QT, but rather do you care enough about the animals you keep to try to prevent something bad from happening?

Why yes, yes I do care about Dozer, Gilly and Mr. Rogers enough to keep something bad from happening to them.

Quarantine is: don't put the bad thing in your tank. If you don't put the fish with the bad thing in your tank, you have successfully not put a bad thing in your tank. I honestly don't know how much simpler to put it.

I don't think that is much simpler than that. Unfortunately that isn't what the debate is about.

The debate centers around whether the fish, coral, CUC etc ... you just put in your tank has the bad thing even though you did some stuff that you feel reasonably comfortable with assuming removed said bad thing.

 

[HuduVudu]

My point is really that we can’t control other ppl, and we shouldn’t censor conversations about long-time reefers not using QT b/c it *might* influence someone else in a way we don’t like. This is not the way to gain influence.

+1

 

[MnFish1]

Like the title states are you for or against QT procedures on new fish?

Interesting - though a lot of people say they are 'for it' - they don't do it. Including myself

 

[HuduVudu]

2. Well, I didn't have that problem, therefore it doesn't exist.

You have made a HUGE assumption here. It is both unfair and wrong.

I have seen ALL of the problems that people on these forums complain about. I feel pretty comfortable that many of the people that are posting have seen these also. I also feel pretty comfortable saying that others believe that the problem exists.

The point of contention is how to fix it.

Assuming there *is* another path that doesn't involve quarantine but instead bolstering the natural immunity of the livestock in the existing system, there is not information for that path that is obvious for this problem other than a few people on this forum making those claims.

The reason that few make these claims is because they are shoo'ed off and attacked constantly. These discussions become very heated because many many people think that they have solutions, and that may be true for the short time (less than 5 years) that they have been doing it. They want to share their great secret. This is fine but if someone else comes along and says something contrary they get mad. They then gang up with other like minded individuals to drive the interloper out. This is not the way of someone who is comfortable in their method.

As I've said earlier, quarantine is a process that has existed for 1000's of years, and there are experts here in these forums and elsewhere that advocate for using it in the marine aquarium hobby under certain conditions.

There are a lot of "experts" in this world, but each and every one of them is falliable and will get it wrong. It is better not to be an expert because then you can learn when you get things wrong.

 

[bmkid1997]

I agree there's big differences but the aquarium doesn't have near the same number of pathogens floating around why put the fish through qt when its going into an environment with less pathogens? Wouldn't it make more sense to lower stress levels and put it in as natural an environment as possible? If fish in captivity do not acquire immunity as well then how does anyone who uses NSW keep an aquarium?

it doesnt have as much pathogens but theres also less water volume.. it goes hand in hand. The goal is as natural an environment as possible (and many i imagine dont use NSW), but we have no idea where these fish have been/came from during transport / holding.

 

[Sean_B]

amid the divide of "To QT or Not To QT" seems an uninterrupted, never ending, discussion of subjectiveness.

There are objective concepts that both participants in this debate can agree on seemingly. One, and perhaps most importantly being a fish's Natural Immunity. I don't understand why this is not a critical practice with every single person keeping fish?

Can anyone explain to me why there is not as much conversation, research and documented protocols on producing what I would humbly deem a healthy fish? The conversation does not have to delegitimize medicines, that is not what I'm asking. There just seems to be very little interest when it comes to natural immunities, almost as if they don't exist?

just trying to gather as much information as I can.......................

 

[MnFish1]

I do not do quarantine - I buy fish from a store that does an observation and treat when needed - which is the 'correct' method. But - when asked the poll - I said - yes - because if someone wants to do it - great.

It is kind of too bad that the definition of what you wanted to ask wasn't in the post. To me there is a huge difference between observation and prophylactic medication often with multiple agents.

 

[HuduVudu]

Can anyone explain to me why there is not as much conversation, research and documented protocols on producing what I would humbly deem a healthy fish?

Because it is harder to quantify. It also means that many people with very large vested interests in the current way of thinking would lose. They won't do that.

 

[HuduVudu]

it doesnt have as much pathogens but theres also less water volume.. it goes hand in hand. The goal is as natural an environment as possible (and many i imagine dont use NSW), but we have no idea where these fish have been/came from during transport / holding.

You would have to ask yourself following this logic why so many people have the stocking levels that they do.

 

[N.Sreefer]

I do not do quarantine - I buy fish from a store that does an observation and treat when needed - which is the 'correct' method. But - when asked the poll - I said - yes - because if someone wants to do it - great.

It is kind of too bad that the definition of what you wanted to ask wasn't in the post. To me there is a huge difference between observation and prophylactic medication often with multiple agents.

On page one I laid out what I was asking QT being the separation of fish to treat or observe so observational QT counts. There's a big difference but I was posting this poll to see how many people Qt observational or medicated. I'm undecided but see good arguments for both sides.

 

[flourishofmediocrity]

amid the divide of "To QT or Not To QT" seems an uninterrupted, never ending, discussion of subjectiveness.

There are objective concepts that both participants in this debate can agree on seemingly. One, and perhaps most importantly being a fish's Natural Immunity. I don't understand why this is not a critical practice with every single person keeping fish?

Can anyone explain to me why there is not as much conversation, research and documented protocols on producing what I would humbly deem a healthy fish? The conversation does not have to delegitimize medicines, that is not what I'm asking. There just seems to be very little interest when it comes to natural immunities, almost as if they don't exist?

just trying to gather as much information as I can.......................

There should absolutely be more conversation around general fish health specifically for the purpose of resisting disease. The question is how do you do that successfully and to such a degree that QT is not needed? If the answer is "have a reef tank that has been running for 20 years" then that kind of limits what new people can do.

Also, how do you bolster the immunity of a fish you just brought home? Because sometimes what happens is a new fish is introduced that is stressed and is carrying a parasite and something happens that stresses the fish to the point that the parasite population explodes and overwhelms the immunity of all the fish in the tank. In the wild, the fish can just swim away, or the parasite is carried away by the current and dilutes the problem. In our tanks, the effect can be magnified way past what a healthy fish can withstand.

 

[Sean_B]

Because it is harder to quantify. It also means that many people with very large vested interests in the current way of thinking would lose. They won't do that.

I get it. Undoubtedly, the profuse amount of disease threads still don't create a definitive measure either way to suggest all fish keepers long and/or short term results.

 

[Feet4Fish]

My pet peeve is the term QT…. What does it mean?
There is definitely a spectrum…


prophylactically and empirically blitzing fish with meds all the way down to observation only.

Personally I would only do the most aggressive approach if I had any doubt about the integrity of the fish’s supply chain. Fortunately over last eighteen years I have vetted enough source that for the majority of the times I feel comfortable with primarily observation (4 weeks min) with two rounds of prazipro for flukes +\- two weeks medicated food.

 

[Sean_B]

There should absolutely be more conversation around general fish health specifically for the purpose of resisting disease. The question is how do you do that successfully and to such a degree that QT is not needed? If the answer is "have a reef tank that has been running for 20 years" then that kind of limits what new people can do.

Also, how do you bolster the immunity of a fish you just brought home? Because sometimes what happens is a new fish is introduced that is stressed and is carrying a parasite and something happens that stresses the fish to the point that the parasite population explodes and overwhelms the immunity of all the fish in the tank. In the wild, the fish can just swim away, or the parasite is carried away by the current and dilutes the problem. In our tanks, the effect can be magnified way past what a healthy fish can withstand.

why does it have to coexist with "No QT"?
as someone trying hard to make sense of the recognized impartial concepts, it seems as though there are an abundance of variables, very important variables, that do not get the same attention as the few convictions that get beat to death thread after thread.

 

[MnFish1]

On page one I laid out what I was asking QT being the separation of fish to treat or observe so observational QT counts. There's a big difference but I was posting this poll to see how many people Qt observational or medicated. I'm undecided but see good arguments for both sides.

I guess I was not completely clear. Sorry - I meant more a long the lines of 'Do you quarantine or Not' - in reading the responses - a lot of people 'agree' with it - but not many 'do' it. If you look at the numbers - it seems like 61 percent of people do QT. Not sure thats true.

 

[flourishofmediocrity]

My pet peeve is the term QT…. What does it mean?
There is definitely a spectrum…


prophylactically and empirically blitzing fish with meds all the way down to observation only.

Personally I would only do the most aggressive approach if I had any doubt about the integrity of the fish’s supply chain. Fortunately over last eighteen years I have vetted enough source that for the majority of the times I feel comfortable with primarily observation (4 weeks min) with two rounds of prazipro for flukes +\- two weeks medicated food.

This is definitely a problem that seems unique to these forums. Quarantine only means to isolate something from the rest of something for a period of time. Diagnosing and treating diseases often go hand in hand with QT, but technically is not a part of QT.

I also suspect a small portion of hesitancy is related to the space, cost, and effort associated with QT but is what is needed for JUST the QT part.

why does it have to coexist with "No QT"?
as someone trying hard to make sense of the recognized impartial concepts, it seems as though there are an abundance of variables, very important variables, that do not get the same attention as the few convictions that get beat to death thread after thread.

I don't think QT and immunity are mutually exclusive. What are the other variables that need more attention?