Q for everyone are you FOR or AGAINST QT

[Soren]

I'm sorry, I just can't stay silent on this... after reading some of the things in this thread I just can't shake the feeling that this is bordering on animal abuse.

If this were a dog, and someone said to me: "Yeah, I just leave the fleas or worms on the dog because that's what happens in nature and its fine because I feed them a healthy diet"... there would NOT be a polite conversation after that, I would call the cops.

Can anyone with ACTUAL scientific knowledge explain how it's NOT animal abuse to passively allow a pet to have PARASITES and encourage others to follow suit?

EDIT: I'm a little frustrated about this, added worms

I don't think anyone intentionally leaves parasites just because of "nature", it is more a question about how parasite damage is prevented. There seem to be, broadly, 2 methods: medication or natural immunity.

My opinion is that the analogy to a dog is not complete.
The scientific research for dogs seems much more thorough due to much higher commonality as a pet. The medications for parasites are much more effective with much lower risk to the health of the dog. Dogs are also more similar in traits to humans than fish are, so I assume there is more relevant research that applies to both humans and dogs than to both humans and fish, benefitting the dog more than the fish through extensive human health research. These are general statements, so I'd have to search for back-up to this argument, though I am quite confident that statistics show more dog owners than fish owners, both today and historically.

For fish, there are so many more parameters that can have drastic impacts that are not properly understood or completely controllable due to the nature of living in water and being more dissimilar to humans than a dog is. I'm pretty confident that anyone is more likely to find a local vet that can help keep your dog healthy than to find a local vet versed in marine fish care (I'm sure this depends on locality, so this may be an over-generalization? I'll leave that to the reader to decide). How many people keep a community of dogs? How common is it to have a disease come through dogs that just kills them all unless immediate action is taken? How likely is it that dogs have more natural immunity to the most likely pathogens than fish? I don't know for sure, but I think treating a dog and treating a fish are vastly different considerations, not from a humanity perspective (I think both should be cared for by the best of our abilities) but from the consideration of the methods available and statistical probability of success.

I have too many words to say on this that may just confuse the issue, so I will leave it at this:
All of us should care for our pets to the best of our abilities. For fish, I think there is merit to both improving natural immunity and to using medication when necessary. In order to determine a personal plan, I need to try to understand the details and nuance of the different methodologies of those who have proven success.

 

[Schraufabagel]

I'm neither, nor am I undecided. I think QT is definitely best practice, but it is not a practice I have implemented. I don't intend to add any more livestock for the foreseeable future, so should any disease arise in my fish down the line, it would not at that point have been preventable by quarantine first. If I do add more fish at some point (should one die or something), there's a higher chance I would quarantine then to protect the existing stock.

^^ +1 I have a seeded sponge in my media basket too in case I need to setup a QT for any diseased fish

 

[HuduVudu]

@Paul B immunity is not an on/off switch. It is the ability to fight disease, but it does NOT guarantee the immune response will win. Ask a doctor.

And if you read any of what Paul has said you would know he doesn't say that. You are strawmanning his position to fit your own delusion. Imagine an immune system with no disease to fight. What do you think might happen then?

Let me also just say @Paul B I don't think you are committing animal abuse, and I don't dislike you at all, I find your perspective interesting. I just love animals and I don't want them to be harmed.

So insulting him and everyone here that doesn't QT and threatening them with violence is your way of being nice? If you love animals then do something that helps them and stop yelling at people that are ostensibly on your side. If you think that non-QTers want their animals to come to harm you need to snap out of the crazy you have fallen into.

I also don't want people who aren't in our hobby to see this stuff and draw the wrong conclusions.

So you are going to censor every opinion you don't like? You are going to make everyone live like you do? People like you are always the same.

 

[flourishofmediocrity]

I don't think anyone intentionally leaves parasites just because of "nature", it is more a question about how parasite damage is prevented. There seem to be, broadly, 2 methods: medication or natural immunity.

My opinion is that the analogy to a dog is not complete.
The scientific research for dogs seems much more thorough due to much higher commonality as a pet. The medications for parasites are much more effective with much lower risk to the health of the dog. Dogs are also more similar in traits to humans than fish are, so I assume there is more relevant research that applies to both humans and dogs than to both humans and fish, benefitting the dog more than the fish through extensive human health research. These are general statements, so I'd have to search for back-up to this argument, though I am quite confident that statistics show more dog owners than fish owners, both today and historically.

For fish, there are so many more parameters that can have drastic impacts that are not properly understood or completely controllable due to the nature of living in water and being more dissimilar to humans than a dog is. I'm pretty confident that anyone is more likely to find a local vet that can help keep your dog healthy than to find a local vet versed in marine fish care (I'm sure this depends on locality, so this may be an over-generalization? I'll leave that to the reader to decide). How many people keep a community of dogs? How common is it to have a disease come through dogs that just kills them all unless immediate action is taken? How likely is it that dogs have more natural immunity to the most likely pathogens than fish? I don't know for sure, but I think treating a dog and treating a fish are vastly different considerations, not from a humanity perspective (I think both should be cared for by the best of our abilities) but from the consideration of the methods available and statistical probability of success.

I have too many words to say on this that may just confuse the issue, so I will leave it at this:
All of us should care for our pets to the best of our abilities. For fish, I think there is merit to both improving natural immunity and to using medication when necessary. In order to determine a personal plan, I need to try to understand the details and nuance of the different methodologies of those who have proven success.

I completely agree and you're right about the difficulty of treating fish.

The thing that bothers me (and maybe it is just my perception) is the assertion that parasites are somehow "good" for the fish, and allowing the fish to be exposed to a deadly parasite as a means of creating immunity should not be accepted as a general practice.

 

[N.Sreefer]

It's not an on/off switch because having immunity does not eliminate exposure, or the ability of the pathogen to do what it is going to do. A pathogen can still affect an organism that is immune to it, and can even overwhelm and kill a host that has immunity. Immunity is a numbers game. It's the immune system vs. the invading pathogen and if the pathogen has way more numbers than the immune system of the organism, the pathogen will likely win even if the organism is "immune".

EDIT: just to give an example, we as humans are constantly exposed to millions of pathogens all the time, but our immune system fights them off when they are in low numbers, but sometimes we are exposed to large numbers of pathogens all at once and our immune systems are overwhelmed and that's when we get sick.

That is very oversimplified theres much more at play than that. If what your saying is true why do inactivated virus vaccines work? We continue to be exposed but polio for example doesn't exist in the U.S.A anymore, not for 30 years. Also theres 40 billion viruses per liter of seawater not all are pathogens and not all are on fish. So lets say 1% are pathogenic and 1% of the pathogens affect fish that's still 10million viruses per liter.

 

[HuduVudu]

It's not an on/off switch because having immunity does not eliminate exposure,

So what happens when all exposure is eliminated? If you can eliminate all exposure why have an immune system?

It's not an on/off switch because having immunity does not eliminate exposure, or the ability of the pathogen to do what it is going to do

I think you need to look up the definition of immunity. That is why creatures have immune systems. If never exposed to pathogens why have an immune system.

A pathogen can still affect an organism that is immune to it, and can even overwhelm and kill a host that has immunity. Immunity is a numbers game

If this is the case everyone would be dead. And no "the science(TM)" doesn't support this. Immunity is not a numbers game, the immune system is. It is a race between the immune systems ability to recognize and correct the pathogen and the pathogens ability to get a foothold in the host.

It's the immune system vs. the invading pathogen and if the pathogen has way more numbers than the immune system of the organism, the pathogen will likely win even if the organism is "immune".

Numbers don't matter. What matters is how quickly can produce anti-pathogens to deal with it. This means that nutriention and overall health play a huge roll.

just to give an example, we as humans are constantly exposed to millions of pathogens all the time, but our immune system fights them off when they are in low numbers,

No, it fights them off when the numbers are high, because we have evolved to have multiple ways to fight pathogens.

but sometimes we are exposed to large numbers of pathogens all at once and our immune systems are overwhelmed and that's when we get sick.

We get sick because there is something impeding our immune response. Seriously this is all documented science.

I really hope you never get any sort of power in your life. That would be a very bad thing.

 

[flourishofmediocrity]

That is very oversimplified theres much more at play than that. If what your saying is true why do inactivated virus vaccines work? We continue to be exposed but polio for example doesn't exist in the U.S.A anymore, not for 30 years. Also theres 40 billion viruses per liter of seawater not all are pathogens and not all are on fish. So lets say 1% are pathogenic and 1% of the pathogens affect fish that's still 10million viruses per liter.

What I am saying is; it sounds to me that the perception is once a fish is immune, it is no longer in any danger from parasites and this is simply not true.

 

[HuduVudu]

The thing that bothers me (and maybe it is just my perception) is the assertion that parasites are somehow "good" for the fish, and allowing the fish to be exposed to a deadly parasite as a means of creating immunity should not be accepted as a general practice.

According to your logic Louis Pastuer was a very very bad person.

Your position is insane and the more you expound on it the worse it looks.

I love how you won't take any critisism. You are thin skinned and hyperbolic because you have attacked people and now that you are getting blow back you don't like it. You should have been less hyperbolic and threatening maybe you could have learned something.

 

[HuduVudu]

What I am saying is; it sounds to me that the perception is once a fish is immune, it is no longer in any danger from parasites and this is simply not true.

Correct even by your own logic it needs exposure to low levels of pathogens to maintain immunity. Hmmmm ... sounds shockingly similar to what Paul is saying.

 

[N.Sreefer]

What I am saying is; it sounds to me that the perception is once a fish is immune, it is no longer in any danger from parasites and this is simply not true.

That is not true but it is also not true that you can run a marine system without using dry or liquid salt alot of those pathogens survive desiccation even for literal millions of years so how is it possible to avoid exposure? I would rather my fish have some measure of immunity as I see no way to truly avoid exposure. Unless we start blasting saltmix with gamma radiation before using it.

 

[flourishofmediocrity]

That is not true but it is also not true that you can run a marine system without using dry or liquid salt alot of those pathogens survive desiccation even for literal millions of years so how is it possible to avoid exposure? I would rather my fish have some measure of immunity as I see no way to truly avoid exposure. Unless we start blasting saltmix with gamma radiation before using it.

Maybe you missed it, but on page 17 of this thread Paul said:

I am also a little frustrated that you think immune fish have parasites.

How do you interpret that sentence? To me that infers he believes that once immune, fish no longer have parasites.

 

[Soren]

I completely agree and you're right about the difficulty of treating fish.

The thing that bothers me (and maybe it is just my perception) is the assertion that parasites are somehow "good" for the fish, and allowing the fish to be exposed to a deadly parasite as a means of creating immunity should not be accepted as a general practice.

I think it is a misinterpretation of what those like Paul B have said (though Paul has said it directly, usually somewhat tongue-in-cheek).
This is coming from a very limited and inexperienced view of health, but I think immunity is established from overcoming a pathogen and only lasts for a time after exposure in the case of many pathogens.

Let me attempt to summarize my view of the two sides of this discussion that seem to have arisen.

For those who do not QT, I believe they are advocating for natural immunity through slight pathogen inoculation on a recurring basis, sort of like the intent of a vaccine. By establishing the whole system to a level of maturity that incorporates many methods of disease control, the level of pathogens is kept low enough to not overwhelm the fish while also allowing for natural immunity to be bolstered by slight recurring "boosters" from naturally-occurring low levels of pathogens. This way, the fish will be more resistant to pathogens in general. This method allows some of the disease control to occur naturally to account for some potential care-taker error or lack of education.
The risk of this method, as I see it, is a new pathogen to which there is no/limited immunity that overwhelms all of the fish. That risk seems to be much less likely in a well-established system, which is a key element in the "No QT" position, if I interpret correctly.

For those who do QT and advocate to always do so, I believe they are advocating the removal of pathogens to limit exposure altogether. By medicating prophylactically, the level of pathogens in a system is limited as much as possible so the fish do not need immunity. Since the pathogens are limited/eliminated, I think two things occur: 1. Natural immunity is not as strong since the "vaccinations/boosters" are not there, so immunity is not needed by the fish, and 2. The control of the disease becomes the responsibility of the care taker directly, synthetically.
The risk of this method is, I think, that the system becomes "too clean" and natural immunity is lessened to the point that many different pathogens have opportunity to cause problems that were otherwise "naturally" suppressed. There is also a distinct risk of allowing surviving pathogens to become genetically resistant to medication over time, rendering old methods less effective/useless.

It seems that QT systems in particular, due to their unnatural and less-mature condition, are very susceptible to pathogens of unexpected types and to misdiagnosis of a pathogen and subsequent mistreatment that can result in more catastrophic results due to higher stress/lower immunity. This is why I think many people struggle to effectively QT, with or without medication, and why there is inherent risk to the process.
Prophylactic medication may help limit initial pathogens but may increase issues later on if immunity is lower.

One example I think of, though I have not researched it much yet, is the seeming increase in allergies in people today more than before. It is possible that we just did not diagnose them years earlier due to lack of research and knowledge, but it is also possible that today's living conditions being "too clean" have lead to lower general immunity in humans and more need for continual medication. I'll have to do more research into this.

I'm just here to learn and share what I'm observing in the discussion...

 

[N.Sreefer]

Maybe you missed it, but on page 17 of this thread Paul said:

I am also a little frustrated that you think immune fish have parasites.

How do you interpret that sentence? To me that infers he believes that once immune, fish no longer have parasites.

(Redacted paul responded explaining)

If you believe his fish still had parasites how can you explain the longevity and fecundity of his fish? Blind luck for longer than most of us have been alive?

A note: I don't want to be mistaken as being argumentative here, however debate can be a good way of learning from others.

 

[Lyss]

Hey hey, dogs and cats are domesticated — fish are wild animals. It is already argued by peta that just the act of capturing and keeping fish in any way is animal abuse. I think this thread has gone way off course, and I think it’s a shame that folks can’t see that no one is telling anyone to do things their way. Heck, if anything, the way being promoted is QT and that’s laid out in full in the forum stickies and actively advocated for by Jay. I don’t know about others but I’m super interested in what Paul has to say even if I am not going to exactly emulate it. Just saying.

 

[Paul B]

What I am saying is; it sounds to me that the perception is once a fish is immune, it is no longer in any danger from parasites and this is simply not true.

it is just my perception) is the assertion that parasites are somehow "good" for the fish, and allowing the fish to be exposed to a deadly parasite as a means of creating immunity should not be accepted as a general practice.

Parasites are not only good for fish, they are essential. Just like we get Covid, Polio and flu shots. We can probably stay away from those things, but why do we want to. I like to travel and some of the places I go have diseases.

Flourishofmediocrity, you are missing the entire discussion of immunity. My family has been in the sea food business since the Roman empire and I have seen the insides of an ocean full of fish.

They all carry parasites and most of them also have worms. All fish in the sea have some parasites. The fish don't care as the infection is so low as to not even have the fish feel them. But those couple of parasites (that evolved along with the fish) is enough to keep that fish immune and parasites will never get to epidemic proportions.

Fish in the sea eat parasites in their prey with every meal. The parasites and bacteria are processed in the fishes kidney which has a different function in fish than us.
The kidney is the main organ in a fish that help the fish know what type of immunity the fish needs.

In an immune tank like "all" old healthy tanks are there are a few parasites. I know I have them as I dump in sea water and all sorts of stuff from the sea as well as any fish I want from an LFS, parasites and all.

Remember there are no old, healthy quarantined tanks. Why not? Think about that.

Those parasites (which I have been adding for 50 years) only survive in very small numbers. Probably smaller then their numbers in the sea. They barely survive by occasionally getting a little blood or slime from a fish but they can't hardly reproduce due to the fishes immunity just like in the sea.

When one of my fish dies of old age. (And just about all of them do) I sometimes do a necropsy where I dissect the fish. Gills, internal organs and all. I have yet, in all these years found even one parasite on a gill or any place else.

New fish from a LFS will have many parasites all over their gill filaments.
Have you ever taken one of your fish apart? Thats the only way to know if it has parasites.

My fish have none.

Quarantined or medicated fish will also have no parasites. That is also the reason they have no immunity to them. If you keep your tank running for 20 or 30 years do you think you will get a parasite in there? I bet you will, even if you quarantine all your rock and coral for 72 days as even that has been found to not kill all parasites.

I linked a scientific article on here showing the need for "ectoparasites" and how the fishes immune system recognizes them and adds anti parasite compounds to it's slime.

By the way, that is the reason fish have slime. It is full of those substances but only if the fish is occasionally in contact with at least one parasite.

So "no" my friend. My fish do not have blood sucking parasites. Not even the 30 year olds.

By the way. Do your fish only die of old age? Are they spawning? Have they ever died of a disease?

If not, I may have to call the Police for animal cruelty.

 

[N.Sreefer]

Parasites are not only good for fish, they are essential. Just like we get Covid, Polio and flu shots. We can probably stay away from those things, but why do we want to. I like to travel and some of the places I go have diseases.

Flourishofmediocrity, you are missing the entire discussion of immunity. My family has been in the sea food business since the Roman empire and I have seen the insides of an ocean full of fish.

They all carry parasites and most of them also have worms. All fish in the sea have some parasites. The fish don't care as the infection is so low as to not even have the fish feel them. But those couple of parasites (that evolved along with the fish) is enough to keep that fish immune and parasites will never get to epidemic proportions.

Fish in the sea eat parasites in their prey with every meal. The parasites and bacteria are processed in the fishes kidney which has a different function in fish than us.
The kidney is the main organ in a fish that help the fish know what type of immunity the fish needs.

In an immune tank like "all" old healthy tanks are there are a few parasites. I know I have them as I dump in sea water and all sorts of stuff from the sea as well as any fish I want from an LFS, parasites and all.

Remember there are no old, healthy quarantined tanks. Why not? Think about that.

Those parasites (which I have been adding for 50 years) only survive in very small numbers. Probably smaller then their numbers in the sea. They barely survive by occasionally getting a little blood or slime from a fish but they can't hardly reproduce due to the fishes immunity just like in the sea.

When one of my fish dies of old age. (And just about all of them do) I sometimes do a necropsy where I dissect the fish. Gills, internal organs and all. I have yet, in all these years found even one parasite on a gill or any place else.

New fish from a LFS will have many parasites all over their gill filaments.
Have you ever taken one of your fish apart? Thats the only way to know if it has parasites.

My fish have none.

Quarantined or medicated fish will also have no parasites. That is also the reason they have no immunity to them. If you keep your tank running for 20 or 30 years do you think you will get a parasite in there? I bet you will, even if you quarantine all your rock and coral for 72 days as even that has been found to not kill all parasites.

I linked a scientific article on here showing the need for "ectoparasites" and how the fishes immune system recognizes them and adds anti parasite compounds to it's slime.

By the way, that is the reason fish have slime. It is full of those substances but only if the fish is occasionally in contact with at least one parasite.

So "no" my friend. My fish do not have blood sucking parasites. Not even the 30 year olds.

By the way. Do your fish only die of old age? Are they spawning? Have they ever died of a disease?

If not, I may have to call the Police for animal cruelty.

I'm sure you get this all the time but I have to say it, thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience with all of us.

 

[3429810]

Hey hey, dogs and cats are domesticated — fish are wild animals. It is already argued by peta that just the act of capturing and keeping fish in any way is animal abuse. I think this thread has gone way off course, and I think it’s a shame that folks can’t see that no one is telling anyone to do things their way. Heck, if anything, the way being promoted is QT and that’s laid out in full in the forum stickies and actively advocated for by Jay. I don’t know about others but I’m super interested in what Paul has to say even if I am not going to exactly emulate it. Just saying.

There is only one person here who is actively taking this thread off course. The rest of it seems like good debate and like you I’m interested in Paul’s approach/teachings even if I don’t plan to implement no qt into my system. Lots of good points from both sides and honestly it really seems like it comes down to how much risk are you willing to take in the early days of the tank to build up and immunity in the long run. Personally I am for qt and after my experience with the gramma I’m not going to risk it especially since I won’t be adding to many more fish but Paul clearly has the experience and has put it to practice so I don’t think anyone should be discounting that.

 

[Lyss]

There is only one person here who is actively taking this thread off course. The rest of it seems like good debate and like you I’m interested in Paul’s approach/teachings even if I don’t plan to implement no qt into my system. Lots of good points from both sides and honestly it really seems like it comes down to how much risk are you willing to take in the early days of the tank to build up and immunity in the long run. Personally I am for qt and after my experience with the gramma I’m not going to risk it especially since I won’t be adding to many more fish but Paul clearly has the experience and has put it to practice so I don’t think anyone should be discounting that.

Yeah, it’s been a few folks over the past few days who seem to want to pop in and start a fight w/o fully engaging with what’s been said previously or develop a clear understanding of what others mean when they describe their methods. The animal abuse accusation and continued comparison of wild (but perhaps tamed) animals to domesticated ones made me annoyed.

 

[flourishofmediocrity]

Yeah, it’s been a few folks over the past few days who seem to want to pop in and start a fight w/o fully engaging with what’s been said previously or develop a clear understanding of what others mean when they describe their methods. The animal abuse accusation and continued comparison of wild (but perhaps tamed) animals to domesticated ones made me annoyed.

I made a point to say to Paul directly that I do not think he is committing animal abuse. I understand you think it's a fight, but this is a method being put forth and it should be scrutinized. I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone to be censored, right?

 

[Lyss]

I made a point to say to Paul directly that I do not think he is committing animal abuse. I understand you think it's a fight, but this is a method being put forth and it should be scrutinized. I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone to be censored, right?

I’m not going to engage with this sort of thing beyond this response, b/c your approach here really comes across as seeking to battle.