QT - Why it sometimes fails?

[BeejReef]

Can you define "failure?"

Failure = I ended up introducing a diseased fish to my DT
Failure = The fish died of an illness in QT
Failure = The fish did not survive QT for unknown reasons

 

[reelredfisah]

I have never done QT but have learned my lesson. I have two waterbox 10G cubes now setup and running as my QT system. Just placed an order for fish and will start with my first QT using CP. will see how it goes. My plan is to QT everything going forward.

Following along

 

[Tyler Bullock]

Lets see, I had 3 fish die due to high ammonia. I wasn't doing my water changes enough. I have now done a lot of research and so far I have 6 fish in QT atm. They are in Copper Power and I use a hanna checker. So far...so good.

 

[MaccaPopEye]

It may help to know that my perspective on this is influenced by my own experience. Several years ago, I had a 180-gallon reef with 20ish thriving fish. I placed an order for a wrasse trio...these were meant to be my last additions. They arrived looking healthy. I acclimated them and added them to the DT. Over the next 2 weeks or so, I lost all but 3 fish due to velvet that apparently had been introduced along with the wrasses.

Now, I wish I could say that I have been a perfect practitioner of QT since that time. I have not. However, I do believe QT is the best practice, and having been through a massive loss, I can honestly say that I am most comfortable QTing new fish because IME the loss of 3 fish in QT would have been far preferable to the loss of 20 fish in my DT.

This is interesting, I have a similar story (I didn't have quite as many fish die as you did though) but went a different direction. Funny how that can happen

I also have a 180gal tank and while it has been plagued with algae and coral issues, my fish always appeared to be fat, healthy and thriving (I didn't QT anything). Around 2 years ago I added a Mulleri and a Marginalis butterfly fish and a couple of weeks later they broke out in velvet, one week later all but 2 of my fish were dead from velvet (a dozen fish dead, but my blue tang and black cardinal survived).

I initially believed one of the 2 butterfly fish brought the velvet in and was angry for not QTing anything. But then I wondered how and why 2 fish survived (they both initially broke out in velvet but it went away). So I looked into velvet and I realised that for at least a year, if not much longer, my tangs had been swimming into the flow of power heads a lot, I always just thought they just enjoyed swimming against the current.

So I may have had velvet already in the tank for a year or more with no major issues before then. At first I was still set on going down the QT route but for a number of reasons I decided to try running an "immune" / velvet & ich management tank. So far I have now added 7 fish over the last year and only lost one (which hid under a large rock the second it was added and never came back out again). It's definitely not for everyone but I found the similarities & differences between our stories interesting (didn't mean to derail the thread)

 

[shred5]

I have been the reef/saltwater hobby a long time.
I do not know the exact time lines But I am estimating.
The first 3rd I just threw fish in but I didn't know better back then but I didn't loose much either as a matter of fact I do not remember getting much of anything.
The second 3rd I did observe and it worked pretty good.
I now quarantine everything with methods outlined on this forum.
I am no expert on fish disease at all.

I risked one fish and put it right in my display because the fish was supposed to not do well in Quarantine. Well it turned out to be the biggest mistake I have ever made in the hobby.
Never again.

Something has changed in the hobby too. Fish are coming with more problems than they did many years ago. My LFS has seen it too.
I do not know if some of it is because of Hawaii shutting down and the fish come from farther but look at chromis and some anthias. They are in such bad shape.
I think another part of it is captive bred fish. They are not being subjected to any disease and have no resistance. They get shipped to the LFS and are on the same system as wild caught fish.

I have seen one of the LFS has treatment tanks set aside now and another uses therapeutic copper levels.

 

[Mariette]

Initially, I didn’t qt. 1st 8 fish: no problem. 9th and what was supposed to be final fish: Ich. Most fish didn’t make it.

Then I started qt but only 2-3 weeks. Would qt batches of fish. Total disaster. Velvet made it to Dt once. Flukes wiped out a “batch” in qt another time.

That was all Before I found this forum. Haven’t had a new fish since but will be treating all new additions w copper, then prazi followed by black molly test and 30 days medicine free observation.

I now proudly nominate myself as the most paranoid aquarist on the planet.

 

[SkiCatTX]

I have never done QT but have learned my lesson. I have two waterbox 10G cubes now setup and running as my QT system. Just placed an order for fish and will start with my first QT using CP. will see how it goes. My plan is to QT everything going forward.

Following along

That's totally my setup. been working so far, not for larger fish, but the clowns did fine.

 

[reelredfisah]

That's totally my setup. been working so far, not for larger fish, but the clowns did fine.

I have a 180G in wall that I have restarted and wanting to go with more small fish rather than large one like I had last time so should work fine I hope. Still trying to figure out if I should use the filter socks or not. Fish are on the way now.

 

[MnFish1]

Agreed. The point of QT (or at least 1 point of it) is to protect the fish in the DT from getting disease from new tank inhabitants.

This is the point I think we primarily disagree on. In a closed system, there's almost no way for a fish with no visible disease when entering QT but later manifesting a disease to have been truly disease free when it entered QT. The reason is that a QT (like all aquariums) is a closed system, and disease cannot just "be present" in those closed systems. It has to be introduced. Assuming a sterile QT was the environment into which the fish was introduced, there's no way for the disease to get there without it having come in after QT was started (presumably with the visibly healthy fish). Now, there are some exceptions to this rule (i.e. infection caused by injury, etc.). So, I would generally presume that a fish that manifests a disease in QT--even if it appeared healthy when introduced--already had that disease when entering QT.

Hmmm...as I'm typing this, I'm also thinking it's worth mentioning that the possibility of some kind of injury/infection could potentially result from misuse of meds or methods in QT. Perhaps this is more along the lines of what you're thinking of?

Yes. Although, if the loss is the result of a misuse of QT, I would consider that a failure (albeit a failure of a particular user rather than a failure of QT practice in general). However, in general, if the purpose for QT is to keep communicable disease out of the DT, I would agree with there being some margin of success in the scenario.
Sure. I think this is true depending on what disease we're talking about. For example, many parasites may only be visible on a fish that is particularly susceptible, but that doesn't mean other fish don't also have it. However, if the other fish are truly disease free, that makes sense.

I was not expecting this detailed of a response. I have no disagreement with anything you've said. My main point was - and I agree with this statement you made: In a closed system, there's almost no way for a fish with no visible disease when entering QT but later manifesting a disease to have been truly disease free when it entered QT.
We dont disagree here - I think thats true - but its a QT failure. Because - the reason to do QT in the first place (or?) is that fish do have disease that we cant see. (again - we're mixing terms - because - I'm talking about QT with medication - as compared to QT with observation only)...... So perhaps we are talking about different things

 

[MnFish1]

So here is another anecdote - I went to Petco - locally - to do some research for another thread - they had just got a shipment in. The manager of the store told me the process their shipper uses (not sure if its the same for all Petco's). Bought a blue faced angel (about 4 inches) - for a good price - I decided to try it. Its doing fine as are all of my other fish.... Why? If the supply chain is so polluted with disease carrying fish?

Fast forward 2 weeks - I replaced my harlequin tusk (#2) That pushed the (IMHO horrible) red sea cover off my tank - as well as the blue jaw trigger - that also (somehow) was able to push open the cover when trying to jump) - I bought a new cover from clear view lids.... - and re-bought the trigger and Harlequin from My Lfs - added them to the display - no problem.

However the owner of the LFS - whom I trust - had both fish for a month- in a type of QT setup. All fish - tusk trigger and angel are eating - thriving and doing well. I think I'm getting to the stocking density of my tank - so I won't be buying a ton of new fish.

My rec - QT or not - medication or not - know where your fish are coming from and how they have been treated before you buy.....

Note - this is all complete anecdote...

 

[MnFish1]

It may help to know that my perspective on this is influenced by my own experience. Several years ago, I had a 180-gallon reef with 20ish thriving fish. I placed an order for a wrasse trio...these were meant to be my last additions. They arrived looking healthy. I acclimated them and added them to the DT. Over the next 2 weeks or so, I lost all but 3 fish due to velvet that apparently had been introduced along with the wrasses.

Now, I wish I could say that I have been a perfect practitioner of QT since that time. I have not. However, I do believe QT is the best practice, and having been through a massive loss, I can honestly say that I am most comfortable QTing new fish because IME the loss of 3 fish in QT would have been far preferable to the loss of 20 fish in my DT.

I had a similar situation - I ordered from a 'reputable' online vendor. Never again - where did you get your fish from? Just curious (no need to mention the name)

 

[MnFish1]

Initially, I didn’t qt. 1st 8 fish: no problem. 9th and what was supposed to be final fish: Ich. Most fish didn’t make it.

Then I started qt but only 2-3 weeks. Would qt batches of fish. Total disaster. Velvet made it to Dt once. Flukes wiped out a “batch” in qt another time.

That was all Before I found this forum. Haven’t had a new fish since but will be treating all new additions w copper, then prazi followed by black molly test and 30 days medicine free observation.

I now proudly nominate myself as the most paranoid aquarist on the planet.

LOL based on what I've read here - you are not the most paranoid aquarist on the planet. That said - I would forgo the black Molly test. There is some evidence that adding a non-immune fish - to an 'immune tank' - even if there is just a small amount of CI/velvet that is not infecting the 'immune fish' that the amount produced on the Molly can kill the rest - even if they are immune - have been treated.

And - if you do a black Molly test - plan on waiting at least 90 days after doing so - because velvet has been shown to last 65 days - with no symptoms in observational quarantine.

 

[Mariette]

LOL based on what I've read here - you are not the most paranoid aquarist on the planet. That said - I would forgo the black Molly test. There is some evidence that adding a non-immune fish - to an 'immune tank' - even if there is just a small amount of CI/velvet that is not infecting the 'immune fish' that the amount produced on the Molly can kill the rest - even if they are immune - have been treated.

And - if you do a black Molly test - plan on waiting at least 90 days after doing so - because velvet has been shown to last 65 days - with no symptoms in observational quarantine.

Well that’s just great! Molly test - axed
I’m also reading that they can come w prazi resistant intestinal worms. Uhhh..WHAT?!? Maybe I’ll just stick to treatment and observe then. That’s one less step at least

 

[SkiCatTX]

I have a 180G in wall that I have restarted and wanting to go with more small fish rather than large one like I had last time so should work fine I hope. Still trying to figure out if I should use the filter socks or not. Fish are on the way now.

I started out not using the filter socks, but after a while I found a couple uses. One, catching the food after a feeding (since the filter in these is often minor, just either a sponge or small bag of media I didn't want too much left over in the tank), and for holding small bags of media (I put a ChemiPure nano blue pouch in one with corals in it when the water got a little cloudy). Then just rinse them out, or put them in the bleach bucket after tank swap, etc.

 

[MnFish1]

Well that’s just great! Molly test - axed
I’m also reading that they can come w prazi resistant intestinal worms. Uhhh..WHAT?!? Maybe I’ll just stick to treatment and observe then. That’s one less step at least

. there is always something

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I was not expecting this detailed of a response. I have no disagreement with anything you've said. My main point was - and I agree with this statement you made: In a closed system, there's almost no way for a fish with no visible disease when entering QT but later manifesting a disease to have been truly disease free when it entered QT.
We dont disagree here - I think thats true - but its a QT failure. Because - the reason to do QT in the first place (or?) is that fish do have disease that we cant see. (again - we're mixing terms - because - I'm talking about QT with medication - as compared to QT with observation only)...... So perhaps we are talking about different things

I think I get you, and I think we do at least mostly agree. I'm a fan of QT bc as I noted in my anecdote, my main goal is to prevent mass death in my DT. As long as that happens, I feel like QT is the "guard for the door" so to speak that I need it to be. Make sense?

I had a similar situation - I ordered from a 'reputable' online vendor. Never again - where did you get your fish from? Just curious (no need to mention the name)

I'll not mention names, but they are a fairly well-known vendor who is not a sponsor here.

 

[MnFish1]

I think I get you, and I think we do at least mostly agree. I'm a fan of QT bc as I noted in my anecdote, my main goal is to prevent mass death in my DT. As long as that happens, I feel like QT is the "guard for the door" so to speak that I need it to be. Make sense?
I'll not mention names, but they are a fairly well-known vendor who is not a sponsor here.

Yes we agree.

 

[MnFish1]

I think I get you, and I think we do at least mostly agree. I'm a fan of QT bc as I noted in my anecdote, my main goal is to prevent mass death in my DT. As long as that happens, I feel like QT is the "guard for the door" so to speak that I need it to be. Make sense?
I'll not mention names, but they are a fairly well-known vendor who is not a sponsor here.

besides - my motto is usually - always agree with the R2R secret Santa participants

 

[Daniel@R2R]

besides - my motto is usually - always agree with the R2R secret Santa participants

;Hilarious;Hilarious

 

[K7BMG]

Well I purchased a Squareback Anthia on 5-12-19. He had arrived at my LFS on 5-7-19
The tank he was in had two other tankmates, they had flukes. Both fish flashing on the gravel.
The owner of the LFS had or was going to start FW dips.

I bought the Anthia anyway and put him in a 20G QT and full dose of General Cure, now its day three of treatment, tomorrow will be the end of the treatment and I will be doing a 50% WC and add the carbon. I will wait another day and then consider a FW dip.
So far I have not had the best of luck with the QT process, I have tried the observe first and see if signs show up, well that has been a total failure, so now I am going to be proactive and see how that goes.

So far the Anthia has been doing fine, today he has not eaten for the first time, so I am concerned.
Though shy he will come out and swim around, no heavy breathing.
I don't like the no WC bit for four days so the medication does not get diluted, but I worry about ammonia levels.
My Seachem patch is starting to change color.

Back on topic, I have had QT failures 9 fish deaths in total. IMO if they don't make it out of QT then its a fail.
Fault on the other hand is the subjective part and IMO the real question.

QT is the only way to go.