still lost on quarantine protocol

[BeejReef]

Hello all. So I'm new, of course, which means ignorant. I've researched a lot. I have a new 125ga tank that is just about cycled so I'm nearing time to get some livestock. I was bummed at ReefAPalooza seeing so much attractive livestock, such great prices, yet having to hold off. I'm just lost on the step-by-step on quarantining/dipping, etc. I can't seem to find consistent/consensus timelines or protocols. Here's want I want to do in the DT: softies, zoanthids, maybe one LPS, and a couple clownfish, maybe one other fish but I don't know what. Not sure on what clean-up crew to have, really not a fan of snails for some reason, too. But I'm looking at this thing but don't know where to start. Say I buy a leather and some zoanthids first...what do I do with them to get them in the DT, and how long will it take? It's weird because I started out so confident but now I'm suddenly thinking...how do I get there?

Best of luck to you. IMHO, the best part of the hobby is that there is no "answer." I wonder how many people would persist in the hobby if there was one bottle of bacteria starter, a standard light, and a wet filter, and a bottle of "fish cure". Too easy.. lol.

If anyone were to go the most cautious aproach, they wouldn't have a fish in their DT tank until close to a year... a 4 mo cycle for the DT, 4 mo cycle for an observational QT, setting up a hospital tank, a near 3 mo qt for fish, CUC, corals. I think I forgot a month or two of curing your rock! Almost everyone will make some compromises. Some risks may be necessary. What's better, a risk of disease from new CUC or having your whole tank choked out by algae... or the constant instability of ripping it down and cleaning by hand. No good answer.

You seem to have very humble ambitions regarding livestock, but also have a big enough tank where a plague would be a lot of work.
If you're serious about "a couple of clownfish and maybe one other fish" (depending on what that "one other fish" is, a full on, prophelactic QT COULD be overboard. Clowns are from the Damsel family, are very hardy, and have a thick slime coat. If your one other fish is a one-spot foxface, which is also a tank, you might risk dropping them in and hoping for the best. I don't know the odds, but they'd be strongly in your favor. Are you really going to stop there though? That's a lot of tank for three fish.

I mean, you put two fish into your DT. They're going to be healthy or sick, respond to, or die during treatment whether the glass cage is called a DT or a QT. The risk/reward calculation changes as you have more healthy and thriving fish at risk.

 

[MnFish1]

I have spent the whole afternoon in order to find the source - the real source - for the statement of up to 72 days dormant period for tomonts of salt water ich


The closest I com is this text from an article from 1992 It looks like this is the holy gral where all of this about 72 day come from


In that article - there is references (in bold). The only reference that I can not check is the one Colorni 1992. It is his thesis - named
Biology, pathogenesis and ultrastructure of the holotrich ciliate Cryptocaryon irritans Brown 1951, a parasite of marine ®sh. PhD thesis, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. In the other references - there is not any investigations that says 72 day. (most od them is with as PDF here - check by yourself. I´m interested to see in which temperature this 72 days test was done - there is a lot of indications that the temperature is important. as I see it now - there is no evidences for the 72 days fallow period in our aquaria at all. The real period could be both shorter or longer in our temperatures.


Sincerely Lasse

This is correct - it was one study - and it was only in 1 tank. the mean was 1-2 weeks - the longest 10 weeks (72 days) at 24-27C. BTW it was very few that lasted that long

 

[ddrueckh]

Question - what happened (i.e. how did it get in the tank?)

I added 4 more fish from my LFS...without quarantine. I was almost completely stocked.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

The problem with this discussion is that there is very little science to support a very emotional response to continued fish loss. There are as many points of failure as there are hobbiest and fish store owners.

If possible people should get their advise from those who have handled thousands of fish for a living not just a few to a couple of hundred. If I remember correctly Lasse has worked in aquaculture, public aquariums, and assisted his friend who is a local fish store owner and transhipper of fish and inverts. With all that experience one gets an idea of what works and what does not. System design on the store side is a major factor in fish health and success. Design is important in the hobbiest aquarium as well.

Prophylaxis is a shot gun approach that exposes fish to problems they never face in the wild! The ones that survive prophylaxis are lucky and stubborn in my experience.

I killed way more fish with prophylactic treatment than any other method ever! As a result I no longer use this method nor do I recommend it to anyone who does not have long term experience with the protocols necessary to provide success. It is much more difficult to achieve success than observation in a proper aquarium set up before transfer to the main display. That is a quarantine method I can agree with and used with great success for customers in the past. Treatment only when a disease is properly diagnosed.

The statement that @FrancineJ has made about the transport conditions the fish face is the reason for high failure rates among hobbiest and store owners. The majority of store owners and hobbiest are not equipped to handle the various protocols necessary to acclimate and return the fish to proper water conditions before they are dumped into chemical and antibiotic baths that in fact may kill off the natural flora and fauna that is necessary to keep the fish alive! Fish live in a bacterial and virus soup we call sea water but are for the most part healthy. To understand why you have to understand the environment the fish come from and duplicate that as much as possible. The higher the success rate the lower the cost per fish so that should be a goal as well. No fish store ever survived by being known as the place to buy dead and dying fish! The claim that everyone uses the same low level of copper just so they can move the fish out the door is pure fantasy! If everyone had the kind of success reported here their would be no fish stores period.

No matter what method you use some fish will die just like they do in the wild. It is our responsibility to reduce those numbers by the best methods that provides the greatest chance of survival. To achieve that the method needs to be simple and repeatable by the greatest number of people. Prophylactic treatment is the most difficult with many moving parts that allows for the greatest possible chance for failure in my experience. Every time you increase the difficulty you increase the number of possible points of failure. The knife edge of keeping the fish alive in water conditions that do not favor proper biological filtration only further complicates the stability necessary to keep the fish alive. Same can be said for tissue toxicity and damage to the fish via copper and other chemical means. This should be a concern in this discussion as well. I have seen too many fish killed in QT on this forum than I should see if it was the best method and easy to reproduce. This continued revamping of protocols tells you there is a problem with the protocol in the first place! This is just wholesale experimentation without any proper controls in place to assure continued success or develop any coherent method for the masses. Some success is therefore unreliable and unrepeatable to a large number of users.

 

[MnFish1]

The problem with this discussion is that there is very little science to support a very emotional response to continued fish loss. There are as many points of failure as there are hobbiest and fish store owners.

If possible people should get their advise from those who have handled thousands of fish for a living not just a few to a couple of hundred. If I remember correctly Lasse has worked in aquaculture, public aquariums, and assisted his friend who is a local fish store owner and transhipper of fish and inverts. With all that experience one gets an idea of what works and what does not. System design on the store side is a major factor in fish health and success. Design is important in the hobbiest aquarium as well.

Prophylaxis is a shot gun approach that exposes fish to problems they never face in the wild! The ones that survive prophylaxis are lucky and stubborn in my experience.

I killed way more fish with prophylactic treatment than any other method ever! As a result I no longer use this method nor do I recommend it to anyone who does not have long term experience with the protocols necessary to provide success. It is much more difficult to achieve success than observation in a proper aquarium set up before transfer to the main display. That is a quarantine method I can agree with and used with great success for customers in the past. Treatment only when a disease is properly diagnosed.

The statement that @FrancineJ has made about the transport conditions the fish face is the reason for high failure rates among hobbiest and store owners. The majority of store owners and hobbiest are not equipped to handle the various protocols necessary to acclimate and return the fish to proper water conditions before they are dumped into chemical and antibiotic baths that in fact may kill off the natural flora and fauna that is necessary to keep the fish alive! Fish live in a bacterial and virus soup we call sea water but are for the most part healthy. To understand why you have to understand the environment the fish come from and duplicate that as much as possible. The higher the success rate the lower the cost per fish so that should be a goal as well. No fish store ever survived by being known as the place to buy dead and dying fish! The claim that everyone uses the same low level of copper just so they can move the fish out the door is pure fantasy! If everyone had the kind of success reported here their would be no fish stores period.

No matter what method you use some fish will die just like they do in the wild. It is our responsibility to reduce those numbers by the best methods that provides the greatest chance of survival. To achieve that the method needs to be simple and repeatable by the greatest number of people. Prophylactic treatment is the most difficult with many moving parts that allows for the greatest possible chance for failure in my experience. Every time you increase the difficulty you increase the number of possible points of failure. The knife edge of keeping the fish alive in water conditions that do not favor proper biological filtration only further complicates the stability necessary to keep the fish alive. Same can be said for tissue toxicity and damage to the fish via copper and other chemical means. This should be a concern in this discussion as well. I have seen too many fish killed in QT on this forum than I should see if it was the best method and easy to reproduce. This continued revamping of protocols tells you there is a problem with the protocol in the first place! This is just wholesale experimentation without any proper controls in place to assure continued success or develop any coherent method for the masses. Some success is therefore unreliable and unrepeatable to a large number of users.

Yes - however - I had an extremely bad experience - where I ordered 5 fish online. They not only all died - they killed the rest of my fish within weeks (and at the time I was running an 'immune tank'. So there has to be a happy medium. To me that happy medium is QT (to me QT does not necessarily mean 'treat prophylactically'. Frankly - the main reason to me for this is that if there IS a problem (and IMHO thats rare) with a disease in the new fish, you dont have to try to catch them - and catch all of your other fish as well.

Despite claims that 'nearly every fish we buy today has disease' - I don't buy it simply because not that many people QT in the first place (let alone treat prophylactically) - and we don't hear of these disaster stories. Just like claims that 'all LFS use low dose copper' - to me it seems like the reason disease is 'more prevalent' now than 10 years ago - is that there are forums - where everyone that has a fish disease posts it.

 

[MnFish1]

I added 4 more fish from my LFS...without quarantine. I was almost completely stocked.

Curious - did you happen to ask the LFS how long they had the fish in their tanks or whether they were using copper, etc?

Here is another interesting tidbit - One study I read suggested that once a fish is exposed to CI - if they are reinfected at any time - they are likely to have a less virulent disease - UNLESS they are exposed to 'non-immune' fish. I thought they had made a typo for a minute - but I think I realized what they are saying - if non-immune fish are put into a tank they are likely to come down with an infection (velvet, ci, etc whatever the fish in the tank may be immune to) - at this point the numbers explode when the new parasites on the non-immune fish 'hatch'. This sudden huge influx overwhelms the immune system of all the fish - including the 'immune' ones.

And BTW - I'd be interested in @Paul B's opinion on this - as new fish (aquacultured - ie bred in sterile environments may be introduced into 'immune tanks'. He is the expert on this.

 

[Lasse]

Again from @Humblefish from a previous thread, this does seem to support what @FrancineJ was saying about subtherapeutic levels, but I can’t find the actual evidence that humblefish read to come to this conclusion.. taken from this thread
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/h...mask-ich-velvet-symptoms.353243/#post-4386728

Subtherapeutic copper eliminates some of the free swimmers, but not all, so the fish continues to be exposed to them at low levels. The fish's immune system begins to develop immunity/resistance to the parasites the longer it is subjected to sublethal concentrations. However, once copper is removed from the equation the parasites multiply exponentially and that usually overwhelms the fish. But it can sometimes take awhile (or on rare occasions not happen at all) based on just how strong the developed resistance is to the pathogen originally being suppressed.

Back in the day (before reef tanks) many would keep ich/velvet in check simply by running low level copper in their DT. Because of this, diseases weren't the big problem they are today. However, back then fish rarely lived to a ripe old age, and I suspect prolonged copper exposure was at least partly to blame.

It's also important to note that low level copper does not always have a successful outcome when managing ich/velvet - not back then and not today.

IMO this is basically wrong – it will not stand against logical thinking. Let me try to explain my standpoint.

There are 200 free-swimming parasites coming up from the gravel – the water contains a concentration that kill 90 % of the free swimming parasite – 20 will attach to a fish. The immune system manages 19 - 1 grow and go back to the reproduction stage in the gravel – form a tomont – 1 tomonts become up t0 200 new free-swimming parasite looking after a host. Is there any difference between this second stage of free-swimming parasites compared with the ones that start everything? IMO – it is. The parasites that survive the first run was the ones that genetically managed the actual concentration of copper and the fish immune system – the other died. Those that survive is the new genetical base for the cloning in the second tomont – it means that logical – the second swarm should be much more resistant against the actual concentration – not all of them but rather many. This means also that if low concentration of something just will kill a small amount of the parasites – the whole parasite population will very fast move against resistance against that concentration. You will see a fast evolution!! It would probably happen sooner or later but if the subtherapeutic theory is true – and only kill a part - the wholesalers and the LFS should have produce super parasites in their system long, long time ago.


IMO – medicines like copper can´t never work that way that they lower the concentration of parasite so much that the fish can handle the survivors. The Cu concentration is equal in the water volume – every parasite will be hit by the same concentration. The one that die or the one that survive would be due to genetic factors. This differ from UV-C that can lower the concentration of parasites because it is only the ones that pass by the UV-C that will be killed. Can be the same with ozone and peroxide (oxidators) because the killing effect probably not are equal in the water column – when the radical will be formed – the parasite must be there and be hit.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Nathan Milender]

I do not have a strong emotional appeal for you on what you 'have' to do. It's a hobby, what is fun for you? What are you willing to risk? What is going to bum you out so you no longer want to do this hobby?

Coral: I do no QT, I do a visual inspection with removal of things I see as well as a dip. In DT initially go to the bottom where the hermits come running and polish them off.

Fish: I do QT. Start by just getting them in the water. Everybody eating, great. Start chloroquine (there is a pure source on ebay) 2 weeks. Then prazi x 2 doses over 3-4 days. If fish cannot tolerate chlorquine then I use copper. Metro flakes throughout at least one meal a day (some are dinks and will not eat them). Everybody look good? Great, into DT. Something show up, treat on the differential with highest likelihood of success (need medications on hand).

Humblefish has a great article on the ins, outs, and rationales you should read. I would link it if I knew how.

 

[MnFish1]

IMO this is basically wrong – it will not stand against logical thinking. Let me try to explain my standpoint.

There are 200 free-swimming parasites coming up from the gravel – the water contains a concentration that kill 90 % of the free swimming parasite – 20 will attach to a fish. The immune system manages 19 - 1 grow and go back to the reproduction stage in the gravel – form a tomont – 1 tomonts become up t0 200 new free-swimming parasite looking after a host. Is there any difference between this second stage of free-swimming parasites compared with the ones that start everything? IMO – it is. The parasites that survive the first run was the ones that genetically managed the actual concentration of copper and the fish immune system – the other died. Those that survive is the new genetical base for the cloning in the second tomont – it means that logical – the second swarm should be much more resistant against the actual concentration – not all of them but rather many. This means also that if low concentration of something just will kill a small amount of the parasites – the whole parasite population will very fast move against resistance against that concentration. You will see a fast evolution!! It would probably happen sooner or later but if the subtherapeutic theory is true – and only kill a part - the wholesalers and the LFS should have produce super parasites in their system long, long time ago.


IMO – medicines like copper can´t never work that way that they lower the concentration of parasite so much that the fish can handle the survivors. The Cu concentration is equal in the water volume – every parasite will be hit by the same concentration. The one that die or the one that survive would be due to genetic factors. This differ from UV-C that can lower the concentration of parasites because it is only the ones that pass by the UV-C that will be killed. Can be the same with ozone and peroxide (oxidators) because the killing effect probably not are equal in the water column – when the radical will be formed – the parasite must be there and be hit.

Sincerely Lasse

So far none of the people reporting that their LFS uses 'subtheraputic copper' have responded as to 'why' they would do this - maybe some of them that do could call their LFS and get an answer? Since there are so many. This is not a snarky comment - I really want to know what they are attempting to do and why?

 

[Mortie31]

So far none of the people reporting that their LFS uses 'subtheraputic copper' have responded as to 'why' they would do this - maybe some of them that do could call their LFS and get an answer? Since there are so many. This is not a snarky comment - I really want to know what they are attempting to do and why?

My guess is that they don’t actually know why their doing it, as none of us can actually find any evidence to support it, or even a paper on the effect of copper at various concentrations on CI and velvet.. maybe another old reefers tale or “cause I’ve always done it”

 

[Jekyl]

I do not have a strong emotional appeal for you on what you 'have' to do. It's a hobby, what is fun for you? What are you willing to risk? What is going to bum you out so you no longer want to do this hobby?

Coral: I do no QT, I do a visual inspection with removal of things I see as well as a dip. In DT initially go to the bottom where the hermits come running and polish them off.

Fish: I do QT. Start by just getting them in the water. Everybody eating, great. Start chloroquine (there is a pure source on ebay) 2 weeks. Then prazi x 2 doses over 3-4 days. If fish cannot tolerate chlorquine then I use copper. Metro flakes throughout at least one meal a day (some are dinks and will not eat them). Everybody look good? Great, into DT. Something show up, treat on the differential with highest likelihood of success (need medications on hand).

Humblefish has a great article on the ins, outs, and rationales you should read. I would link it if I knew how.

Why treat something that you aren't sure exists? If there was never a problem to begin with you are causing harm instead of good.

 

[Lasse]

I do not parcipate in this discussion because I want everyone to do it the way I do it - far from. I parcipate because there most be highlighted that there are ways to do things that not include methods that in the long run can be fatal for both us, our pets, our hobby and the environment. People must have a chanse to judge by them self which method they use. I have not and I will not use prophylactic chemical treatment of my fish and I rather satisfied with the result I can show up in my build thread. I can use observation QT if I need - in one or another way.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Nathan Milender]

You are assuming that the disease only exists if you can see it. You are also assuming that a pathogen manifests disease the same way every time it infects an organism. Both of these are untrue. Diagnostics for fish are extremely limited. Wild caught fish are often diagnosed via necropsy to determine population disease. This really limits diagnostic capability in pet trade. Once the disease is grossly visible, it is often too late to initiate effective treatment with these animals.

If I had the alternative of only treating where I could prove disease exists that would be ideal. It is simply not reality. If someone develops a test kit for pathogens with reasonably high sensitivity that does not kill the pet I am trying to keep I would use it. For now, this is why I treat the way I do. I use chloroquine to eliminate the most deadly ectoparasites. If the fish has them and has no disease it can still kill other fish in the DT. If the fish has endoparasites (which is my opinion is very likely based on freshwater necropsy sampling I have done) I would rather treat in QT vs the DT as those meds are generally very toxic to the reef. Prazi is an antihelmitic, and while annoying to the water quality, a very low risk treatment. Metronidazole is not a broad spectrum antibiotic. It does well in guts and has good activity against anerobes, usually does not wipe out an entire gut. Even if the endoparasites do not kill the host, most animals seem to do better without them. The other meds are held in reserve for disease manifestations.

Again, this is just my opinion for someone looking for a rationale on how/if to do QT. It is all risk vs benefit. For me, this prophylactic treatment is the ground where I am comfortable for the risk (treatment toxicity) to gain the benefit (relatively pathogen free fish and one less reason for a tank wipeout).

 

[MnFish1]

You are assuming that the disease only exists if you can see it. You are also assuming that a pathogen manifests disease the same way every time it infects an organism. Both of these are untrue. Diagnostics for fish are extremely limited. Wild caught fish are often diagnosed via necropsy to determine population disease. This really limits diagnostic capability in pet trade. Once the disease is grossly visible, it is often too late to initiate effective treatment with these animals.

If I had the alternative of only treating where I could prove disease exists that would be ideal. It is simply not reality. If someone develops a test kit for pathogens with reasonably high sensitivity that does not kill the pet I am trying to keep I would use it. For now, this is why I treat the way I do. I use chloroquine to eliminate the most deadly ectoparasites. If the fish has them and has no disease it can still kill other fish in the DT. If the fish has endoparasites (which is my opinion is very likely based on freshwater necropsy sampling I have done) I would rather treat in QT vs the DT as those meds are generally very toxic to the reef. Prazi is an antihelmitic, and while annoying to the water quality, a very low risk treatment. Metronidazole is not a broad spectrum antibiotic. It does well in guts and has good activity against anerobes, usually does not wipe out an entire gut. Even if the endoparasites do not kill the host, most animals seem to do better without them. The other meds are held in reserve for disease manifestations.

Again, this is just my opinion for someone looking for a rationale on how/if to do QT. It is all risk vs benefit. For me, this prophylactic treatment is the ground where I am comfortable for the risk (treatment toxicity) to gain the benefit (relatively pathogen free fish and one less reason for a tank wipeout).

@Nathan Milender Here is a suggestion - When you say 'you are assuming' - its best to use the 'quote' or 'reply' buttons - because no one knows the 'you' you're referring to?

Nor do you give any evidence as to what you're saying is true: (You say): You are also assuming that a pathogen manifests disease the same way every time it infects an organism. Both of these are untrue..

Im not saying you're wrong -but it might be good to reference what you're saying so strongly?

I would like a reference to this: I use chloroquine to eliminate the most deadly ectoparasites. If the fish has them and has no disease it can still kill other fish in the DT. (perhaps I just dont understand what you're trying to imply/suggest)

Can you shorten this down into 'I use Chloroquine at 'x dose' for x days?' then I use prazipro for x days at x dose'. I do or dont use other things like metronidazole because ...... Im not trying to criticize - but I have no clue what you're recommending in the post above?

 

[Nathan Milender]

@Nathan Milender Here is a suggestion - what you say 'you are assuming' - its best to use the 'quote' or 'reply' buttons - because no one knows the 'you' you're referring to?

Nor do you give any evidence as to what you're saying is true: You are also assuming that a pathogen manifests disease the same way every time it infects an organism. Both of these are untrue..

Im not saying you're wrong -but it might be good to reference what you're saying so strongly?

I would like a reference to this: I use chloroquine to eliminate the most deadly ectoparasites. If the fish has them and has no disease it can still kill other fish in the DT. (perhaps I just dont understand what you're trying to imply/suggest)

Can you shorten this down into 'I use Chloroquine at 'x dose' for x days?' then I use prazipro for x days at x dose'. I do or dont use other things like metronidazole because ...... Im not trying to criticize - but I have no clue what you're recommending in the post above?

If it makes you feel better, I meant to quote, it must have gotten erased. I was replying to Jekyl's recent question.

Evidence on disease manifestation. I treat disease for a living. I have treated a lot of it, just not in non-humans. I often see groups of people infected with the same pathogen and all of them have different signs and symptoms of disease including none. I cannot believe that it is that different in fish. Not the best evidence, but there is not much research available I have been able to find.

Screening is a concept used often in medicine. It is the idea disease and/or pathogens will be tested for and found in asymptomatic individuals and then will provide the opportunity to treat before signs/symptoms manifest. Pathogens do not always equate with disease. Disease is what the individual experiences. The pathogen is just a part of the cause. Eliminating pathogens often eliminates disease.

The rest was just explanations of why I choose the meds I use. I did not think the dosing was all that important as that is listed on most of the containers it comes in.

I am unlikely to find references to quote in this forum. I am totally fine if you want to simply consider me a nutcase lunatic with no references. You should read hublefish's article though, it is the best I have found on this topic and I have been looking.

 

[Jekyl]

However you wouldn't start treating for those diseases without something to make you believe they may exist right? Otherwise a healthy diet and exercise is the standard doctor recommendation. (Devils advocate lol) I love a good debate and I'm learning a ton from this article.

 

[MnFish1]

If it makes you feel better, I meant to quote, it must have gotten erased. I was replying to Jekyl's recent question.

Evidence on disease manifestation. I treat disease for a living. I have treated a lot of it, just not in non-humans. I often see groups of people infected with the same pathogen and all of them have different signs and symptoms of disease including none. I cannot believe that it is that different in fish. Not the best evidence, but there is not much research available I have been able to find.

Screening is a concept used often in medicine. It is the idea disease and/or pathogens will be tested for and found in asymptomatic individuals and then will provide the opportunity to treat before signs/symptoms manifest. Pathogens do not always equate with disease. Disease is what the individual experiences. The pathogen is just a part of the cause. Eliminating pathogens often eliminates disease.

The rest was just explanations of why I choose the meds I use. I did not think the dosing was all that important as that is listed on most of the containers it comes in.

I am unlikely to find references to quote in this forum. I am totally fine if you want to simply consider me a nutcase lunatic with no references. You should read hublefish's article though, it is the best I have found on this topic and I have been looking.

i have read humble fish's article - and am also quite familiar with human disease and microbiology. I never considered you a nutcase lunatic. So please dont put words in my mouth... I would ask a rhetorical question - if you see people with no symptoms - how would you diagnose them with a disease (note I'mnot requesting an answer).

When you talk about screening in medicine - my understanding - on this you can correct me - is that the value of screening depends entirely on the population being screened. For example 20 years ago - it was thought that screening for lung cancer with a chest X-ray was 'valuable' because it found cancer. Then it was shown that that test was of little value in a general population. The problem with 'screening' is that there are false positives and false negatives. In the case we're talking about - screening frankly is a non- issue - unless you are doing gill biopsies?

 

[Jekyl]

Couldn't the screening portion be conducted by better knowing the practices of the livestock suppliers?

 

[Lowell Lemon]

If it makes you feel better, I meant to quote, it must have gotten erased. I was replying to Jekyl's recent question.

Evidence on disease manifestation. I treat disease for a living. I have treated a lot of it, just not in non-humans. I often see groups of people infected with the same pathogen and all of them have different signs and symptoms of disease including none. I cannot believe that it is that different in fish. Not the best evidence, but there is not much research available I have been able to find.

Screening is a concept used often in medicine. It is the idea disease and/or pathogens will be tested for and found in asymptomatic individuals and then will provide the opportunity to treat before signs/symptoms manifest. Pathogens do not always equate with disease. Disease is what the individual experiences. The pathogen is just a part of the cause. Eliminating pathogens often eliminates disease.

The rest was just explanations of why I choose the meds I use. I did not think the dosing was all that important as that is listed on most of the containers it comes in.

I am unlikely to find references to quote in this forum. I am totally fine if you want to simply consider me a nutcase lunatic with no references. You should read hublefish's article though, it is the best I have found on this topic and I have been looking.

Lots of respect for @Humblefish and his attempts to provide counsel for the people that encounter diseased fish. However, very few people on the forum have his success rate due to the complexity of prophylactic treatment of possible fish disease. QT need not be chemical or antibiotics in many situations. Honestly, do you treat people before performing a history, physical and possible tests to arrive at a diagnoses? Fish are able to live in an ecosystem that contains millions of bacteria and viruses per cubic liter and yet do not succomb to disease. It is not as clear cut as using a one size fits all approach to "prevent" pathogens in the aquarium. The notion that one small addition (crab,shrimp,coral) will tip the balance toward full blown disease in an aquarium is just not consistent with the vast majority of experience in the hobby. It is possible that we push the limits of our aquariums by mixing fish and inverts from different oceans around the world with little consideration of the consequences. This may be a major link to the disease problems some experience in the hobby.

 

[MnFish1]

Couldn't the screening portion be conducted by better knowing the practices of the livestock suppliers?

Yes - in the sense of the words of being careful (real world). No in the sense of screening that he was referring to - but as I said im my original post to him - which was not designed as criticism - but rather a question as to what he was trying to say - I'm not sure what he meant.,.