The Other Way to Run a Reef Tank (no Quarantine)

[Thales]

I asked you which are the 5 facts I posted that I have witnessed in my tank are anecdotal you seem relucatant to answer, fine we shall move on as I don't wish to play games with you.

What I and many more observe in our tanks happen time and time again as to why now that could be anecdotal reasons given but not what we witness time and time again. If a fish is introduced with itch and that itch is no longer on the fish after a period, recovers fully and other fish in the tank show no signs of it is that not a fact.

Dude. Just link me to the post you want me to comment on. I’m not playing games, I just want to be sure I am responding to what you want me to respond to. There are a lot of posts in this thread.

 

[MnFish1]

I asked you which are the 5 facts I posted that I have witnessed in my tank are anecdotal you seem relucatant to answer, fine we shall move on as I don't wish to play games with you.

What I and many more observe in our tanks happen time and time again as to why now that could be anecdotal reasons given but not what we witness time and time again. If a fish is introduced with itch and that itch is no longer on the fish after a period, recovers fully and other fish in the tank show no signs of it is that not a fact.

@atoll - he means the post where you posted the 5 facts - he doesnt know what facts you're talking about.

 

[atoll]

As an old timer keeping marines for more years than probably the average age on here the only FACTS that really matter to me are that there are enough people keeping marines that don't QT and their fish don't get real sick and die from diseases and the likes of ick that others do keeping fish by QTing them. We have fish that live long lives and spawn and don't get the sicknesses others suffer with FACT. We have introduced fish with the likes of ich and yet other fish don't catch it FACT. Fish introduced with ich quickly recover from it FACT. The only thing I can reasonably attribute to this amazing succes is the way we keep our fish healthy. I don't even fully understand that when I have introduced Royal grammas (I have 4) that the new one has spots and scratches against the rocks and sand but 36 hours later is free of them FACT. I don't use UV as I don't care for it FACT. I did try UV many years ago but it seems to make my tank too free of the kind of things my fish can fight off themselves. I believe mother nature has it right so I try as best I can to follow her teachings as best I can and it works for me and quite a few others. I have a friend here in the UK who thinks the same and practices similar to how I keep my reef with the same success. Immunity appears to be the key. Like Paul I wouldn't tell anybody how to go about keeping marines well at least not like I and a few more I know do.

@Thales the above post contains the 5 things I stated as witnessing as facts in my aquarium to which you say are anecdotal. I just don't know what is anecdotal about what I witness time and time again. Thanks.

 

[MnFish1]

OK - here is my tongue in cheek article (supporting quarantine) - its completely just to illustrate what some of us are saying here. What I want to know is - if you @atoll or @Jay Norris etc read this article how would you respond. Would it be 'well its his method - its fine' or would it be different.

The benefits of quarantine as compared to a natural reef:

I keep my fish in a nearly sterile environment and have been doing so for 15 years. I keep all kinds of difficult fish. None of them have died. To maintain sterility - I keep them in plain glass aquaria - which were sterilized before they fish are put in. I feel them irradiated flake food from the best company in the world. Every day the fish come to the tank and greet me in the morning. I'm just waiting for the day that they decide to serve me eggs Benedict! Let me explain below the reasons for my success (mind you - I'm not recommending that anyone else do this)

First my quarantine method:

1. I dip each fish in freshwater when I get them from the LFS - because freshwater has been shown to increase feeding behavior
2. I add copper for a 6 week period to a sterile quarantine. Its been shown astrologically - that 6 weeks is best for the fish. Copper has also been shown to help immunity (not that my fish need it)
3. I feed the same excellent quality flake food twice daily. The flakes contain T cells. Since T cells boost immunity this also helps the fish resist any disease.
4. I use UV and Ozone continuously. I do this because Ozone can help sterilize the water - but it also boosts immunity - because ozone in the water interacts with the flake food I feed with the T cells - and the ozone binds to the T cells and brings oxygen directly into the fish's gills and kills any parasites that might linger there or in the spleen.

I won't go any further and I'm not writing this to 'bash' or criticize Paul. Im trying to illustrate - there is a difference between the 'method' - which some people would defend - and the rationale behind the method. This was just done to illustrate what some of us are trying to point out - and also the difference between anecdote, fact, cause and effect.. The examples also are obviously completely ludicrous on purpose.

 

[Thales]

What I and many more observe in our tanks happen time and time again as to why now that could be anecdotal reasons given but not what we witness time and time again. If a fish is introduced with itch and that itch is no longer on the fish after a period, recovers fully and other fish in the tank show no signs of it is that not a fact.

@Thales the above post contains the 5 things I stated as witnessing as facts in my aquarium to which you say are anecdotal. I just don't know what is anecdotal about what I witness time and time again. Thanks.

thanks! I have work in the lab for a bit but will respond ASAP. Did you have time to look at the article I linked?

 

[Mortie31]

Yeah, this kind of thread is how misinformation continues to spread.

I lost a tank to crytocaryons and another to velvet. I learned the hard way. Since following proper quarantine procedures, I haven't lost a single fish in my display tanks.

It takes just one single fish not yet displaying symptoms of cyrpto, velvet, brook, or one of hundreds of other diseases to contaminate and kill everything in your display. Once there you cannot feed away ich or velvet. This has been scientifically documented numerous times. If you are very lucky, your fish might build up a temporary immunity to cryptocaryons.

With the way fish are captured, stocked together, shipped together then stocked together for wholesale and then finally shipped to your lfs, the fish we buy are contaminated and exposed to do many different pathogens and diseases.

Knowing all that we know about how fish are so exposed between the ocean and our homes, and knowing that proper quarantining of new fish prevents these diseases from reaching our display tanks, why would anyone risk the health of their fish by not quarantining?

It makes absolutely zero sense. None.

People act like fish never die from disease or parasites in the wild, when nothing can be further from the truth. They do. Alot do. Anyone who's grown up along any coastline and was an angler out on the water alot knows the truth. You catch fish that sometimes have more worms than flesh, and wonder how they are alive. You see outbreaks of things kill fish buy the thousands at times.

Yes, some things in this are correct, like biodiversity and proper nutrition, but to build these fairytale theories on them is too much.

I've been at this 35 years. I believe you have been increasing lucky more than anything else. One day you will unfortunately add a fish with ich or velvet or some other pathogen, and will lose most of, if not all of, the fish in your tank. I hope you don't, and hope your luck continues, but like any method depending on luck (which this really does), eventually your luck will run out.

Aways quarantine, always.

Have you read the entire thread, or just jumped in at the end? As Paul and others contributors have said several times, they have introduced fish with known disease into there tanks, and it has not spread throughout the tank and in most cases the introduced fish has survived... this thread is a good debate some of which I agree with, other bits not, but at least I read it and show respect the OP (who was asked to write it) and the other contributors and am not blindly commenting in a most unhelpful way..

 

[Mortie31]

All of them are anecdote. We may be having a misunderstanding about what anecdote is. I wrote this for just that reason, I hope it is helpful

http://packedhead.net/2014/skeptical-reefkeeping-x-the-power-of-anecdote/

This is a great article, and thought provoking, trouble is I cannot think of many claims in our hobby that have ever been proven with any sort of acceptable probability, actually struggling to think of any, most don’t have any kind of statistical methodology let alone high probability CI and virtually all are over 2 short a time scale and with two few samples and comparators....
So what are we left with? Believe nothing... try nothing... buy nothing..

 

[Thales]

This is a great article, and thought provoking, trouble is I cannot think of many claims in our hobby that have ever been proven with any sort of acceptable probability, actually struggling to think of any, most don’t have any kind of statistical methodology let alone high probability CI and virtually all are over 2 short a time scale and with two few samples and comparators....
So what are we left with? Believe nothing... try nothing... buy nothing..

I think that is covered in the how to make anecdote better section of the article.
It also isn’t about proof, rather about evidence. The more compelling the evidence the better, and there is a huge spectrum between bad anecdote and peer reviewed replicated studies.

 

[MnFish1]

As an old timer keeping marines for more years than probably the average age on here the only FACTS that really matter to me are that there are enough people keeping marines that don't QT and their fish don't get real sick and die from diseases and the likes of ick that others do keeping fish by QTing them. We have fish that live long lives and spawn and don't get the sicknesses others suffer with FACT. We have introduced fish with the likes of ich and yet other fish don't catch it FACT. Fish introduced with ich quickly recover from it FACT. The only thing I can reasonably attribute to this amazing succes is the way we keep our fish healthy. I don't even fully understand that when I have introduced Royal grammas (I have 4) that the new one has spots and scratches against the rocks and sand but 36 hours later is free of them FACT. I don't use UV as I don't care for it FACT. I did try UV many years ago but it seems to make my tank too free of the kind of things my fish can fight off themselves. I believe mother nature has it right so I try as best I can to follow her teachings as best I can and it works for me and quite a few others. I have a friend here in the UK who thinks the same and practices similar to how I keep my reef with the same success. Immunity appears to be the key. Like Paul I wouldn't tell anybody how to go about keeping marines well at least not like I and a few more I know do.

Ive told you more than once that you have a beautiful tank. I also have no doubt that each of your facts above are true. I have a bit of a question/problem with "Immunity appears to be the key."

The issue is that 'immunity' is an extremely general term. I could literally write out 5 sentences with totally different meanings that would be encompassed in 'immunity is the key'. Is almost like saying 'saltwater is the key to marine aquarium'.

There is good information out there that suggests that the immune system of fish is enhanced by good nutrition, low stress. There is NO information that suggests that adding mud from Florida to a tank containing coral/fish/invertebrates from Indonesia) does anything for 'immunity' or biodiversity. There is NO information that suggests feeding parasites or bacteria increases specific immunity to those bacteria/parasites (unless they are gastrointestinal infections). There is information (from fish farms) that giving specific (key word specific) bacteria benefits growth and immunity in hatchlings/young fish etc.

My issue with this thread is errors within the article and errors in the responses that are glossed over. You and others just keep posting facts about your own method/tank. It is impossible to 'prove' every part of reefkeeping scientifically. It is far more art than science. That said - when there is science that contradicts a method - or the rationale behind a method - I think that should be respected as well - not ignored.

 

[MnFish1]

By using live rock, sand and NSW, you do your best to bring whatever is found in the ocean to your tank as much as you can.

This leads me to conclude that it's something inside your tanks that prevents the fish from succumbing to illness and not an especially boosted immune system.

The fact that you are able to put sick fish in your tanks and it gets better very quickly also leads me to the same conclusion.

One problem with this thinking is that there are different bacteria, parasites, from tide pool to tide pool let alone between cold water oceans and warm water reefs - the Red Sea vs Florida, etc. So there is no way to induce immunity to a parasite found only near Christmas Island by adding water from Miami. No matter how many times you do it. I agree with you

 

[atoll]

I have problems with a lot of science and what they say is correct in that often what is stated as a fact today is challenged and contradicted tomorrow. Fact becomes yesterday's fact replaced by a new fact born out by science once again.
As a hobbyist I try things new and observe for a while if it appears to work fine if not I might tweak it, sometimes but not so often I dump the idea. How I keep my tank and animals has been tweaked improved up over many years EG making my own foods for some time then adding childrens liquid vitamins later changing to fish oils which I have settled on now for quite a few years. Same with lighting and filtration. My aquarium is my laboratory.

 

[Ardeus]

I see no way of finding out exactly what's going on in these old tanks.

On the other hand, it seems that their paths are not that hard to follow.

So even without understanding exactly what's going on (therefore the science behind it becomes less useful than anectodal knowledge), the results they get make it very worthwhile learning what they do.

Knowing genetics doesn't help much the process of making babies, but anecdotal knowledge and instinct do.

 

[MnFish1]

I see no way of finding out exactly what's going on in these old tanks.

On the other hand, it seems that their paths are not that hard to follow.

So even without understanding exactly what's going on (therefore the science behind it becomes less useful than anectodal knowledge), the results they get make it very worthwhile learning what they do.

Knowing genetics doesn't help much the process of making babies, but anecdotal knowledge does.

You're right - there is no way to tell. Its funny another poster said that only an experienced aquarist should try to follow the path - you say its not hard.

Perhaps even the science behind it is not important - that said - when science is used to 'bolster' or 'prop up' a method - and the science quoted is either wrong or misunderstood in an article - My feeling is that it should be corrected. Do you see the difference?

 

[Jay Norris]

You and some others here are trying to suggest (or outright say) that this is a debate about 'methods' or 'Paul'. Its not. The funny thing - in ny posts here and elsewhere - I have often complimented @PaulB and @atoll on their beautiful tanks and success.

What I don't see here - is you - for example responding to my post about the factual scientific errors used to describe the success of this 'method' - which Paul also calls 'lack of a method'. I don't see you or atoll or Paul himself responding to the interchangeable use of the words pathogen and parasite - or the varying definitions of the words 'immune' and 'quarantine'. I never see you or atoll respond when I suggest that publishing an article on the most respected reefing site (I think) containing the words - paraphrased - I dont check parameters they don't matter with no real explanation or rationale I think thats 'odd'.

I never said @PaulB tells people this is the only way to 'run a tank'.

This is my "method". (tell me where Paul and I differ that much)

I dont QT (meaning - I dont quarantine fish before putting them in my display tank)
I dont use medication
I dont overstock my tank
I keep the tank clean but I have various areas with algae, I do not remove all detritus.
I feed excellent flake and Frozen foods.
I use a skimmer and carbon. No Ozone No UV

I do not buy fish often - and when I do its from the same local fish store that has the fish in with inverts (ie. no copper - and I usually watch them for some time before buying them).

Ok, thanks for your repost, this totally clarifies everything, Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks.

 

[Jay Norris]

OK - here is my tongue in cheek article (supporting quarantine) - its completely just to illustrate what some of us are saying here. What I want to know is - if you @atoll or @Jay Norris etc read this article how would you respond. Would it be 'well its his method - its fine' or would it be different.

The benefits of quarantine as compared to a natural reef:

I keep my fish in a nearly sterile environment and have been doing so for 15 years. I keep all kinds of difficult fish. None of them have died. To maintain sterility - I keep them in plain glass aquaria - which were sterilized before they fish are put in. I feel them irradiated flake food from the best company in the world. Every day the fish come to the tank and greet me in the morning. I'm just waiting for the day that they decide to serve me eggs Benedict! Let me explain below the reasons for my success (mind you - I'm not recommending that anyone else do this)

First my quarantine method:

1. I dip each fish in freshwater when I get them from the LFS - because freshwater has been shown to increase feeding behavior
2. I add copper for a 6 week period to a sterile quarantine. Its been shown astrologically - that 6 weeks is best for the fish. Copper has also been shown to help immunity (not that my fish need it)
3. I feed the same excellent quality flake food twice daily. The flakes contain T cells. Since T cells boost immunity this also helps the fish resist any disease.
4. I use UV and Ozone continuously. I do this because Ozone can help sterilize the water - but it also boosts immunity - because ozone in the water interacts with the flake food I feed with the T cells - and the ozone binds to the T cells and brings oxygen directly into the fish's gills and kills any parasites that might linger there or in the spleen.

I won't go any further and I'm not writing this to 'bash' or criticize Paul. Im trying to illustrate - there is a difference between the 'method' - which some people would defend - and the rationale behind the method. This was just done to illustrate what some of us are trying to point out - and also the difference between anecdote, fact, cause and effect.. The examples also are obviously completely ludicrous on purpose.

I already responded about quarantining, their is nothing wrong with quarantining your fish, in fact it's a very good thing for most aquarist, I just chose another way of introducing my fish to my tank. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Thales]

@Thales the above post contains the 5 things I stated as witnessing as facts in my aquarium to which you say are anecdotal. I just don't know what is anecdotal about what I witness time and time again. Thanks.

Thanks!

We have fish that live long lives and spawn and don't get the sicknesses others suffer with FACT.

This is a story about what you saw. There are no records documenting, and memory is incredibly fallible. The fish may have subclinical infections. So, anecdote.

We have introduced fish with the likes of ich and yet other fish don't catch it FACT.

That you didn't see, could be subclinical. Again, this is a story about what you saw without documentation of any sort, and memory is fallible, so anecdote.

Fish introduced with ich quickly recover from it FACT.

Again, this is a story about what you saw without documentation of any sort, and memory is fallible. The fish could be subclinical.

I don't even fully understand that when I have introduced Royal grammas (I have 4) that the new one has spots and scratches against the rocks and sand but 36 hours later is free of them FACT.

Again, a story that you observed, with no documentation, so anecdote. And, this falls in line exactly with the lifecycle of the parasite, and is why so many nutty things are attributed to its cure.

I don't use UV as I don't care for it FACT.

Sure, this one seems facty.

There is nothing wrong with anecdote. Anecdote is great, but has its pitfalls. Adding 'FACT' to stuff in an attempt to make it more meaty doesn't actually make it more meaty.
Also, we aren't interested in fact, we are interested in evidence, of which anecdote is a kind.


I hope this makes sense. I am off to answer your post about science now, that may help to further clear things up.

 

[Thales]

I have problems with a lot of science and what they say is correct in that often what is stated as a fact today is challenged and contradicted tomorrow. Fact becomes yesterday's fact replaced by a new fact born out by science once again.
As a hobbyist I try things new and observe for a while if it appears to work fine if not I might tweak it, sometimes but not so often I dump the idea. How I keep my tank and animals has been tweaked improved up over many years EG making my own foods for some time then adding childrens liquid vitamins later changing to fish oils which I have settled on now for quite a few years. Same with lighting and filtration. My aquarium is my laboratory.

You just described your process of trial and error, and abandoning things you think are no longer true - this is exactly what science does, and exactly the same kind of process you dismissed about science in the first paragraph. They are the same kind of process!

Science is only settled until there is new compelling evidence to examine to make us change our minds. There are no unchangable, unchallangable facts. The more compelling the evidence for a particular idea is, the stronger the new evidence needed to change our minds.

Science is not about "This is the way it is, and it will be like this forever". We try new things, learn new things, and change how we understand the world around us when the evidence is compelling. In very much the same way you have made decisions about your tank.

Does that make sense?

 

[MnFish1]

I already responded about quarantining, their is nothing wrong with quarantining your fish, in fact it's a very good thing for most aquarist, I just chose another way of introducing my fish to my tank. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Lol it was kind a joke article it was not about the pros and cons of quarantine it was an example of using bad logic to justify doing something that may or may not be right

 

[Ardeus]

You're right - there is no way to tell. Its funny another poster said that only an experienced aquarist should try to follow the path - you say its not hard.

Perhaps even the science behind it is not important - that said - when science is used to 'bolster' or 'prop up' a method - and the science quoted is either wrong or misunderstood in an article - My feeling is that it should be corrected. Do you see the difference?

I think it's expected that anyone will try to understand why this method works using science. If there are errors in the reasoning they should be pointed out.

These eventual errors don't affect the validity of the method. Too much of this discussion has been focused on "Why?" when it would be much more useful to know the "How?".

If there is a more clear path, I am sure lots of people will try it out, because no one is questioning the results.

After more people adopt this method and adapt it, more hints will surface to help in the search of the explanation on why it works.

Who knows, maybe it can even be put in a bottle in the future.

In the end, it's a matter of choosing a path that suits your personality.

 

[Thales]

This is a great article, and thought provoking, trouble is I cannot think of many claims in our hobby that have ever been proven with any sort of acceptable probability, actually struggling to think of any, most don’t have any kind of statistical methodology let alone high probability CI and virtually all are over 2 short a time scale and with two few samples and comparators....
So what are we left with? Believe nothing... try nothing... buy nothing..

Thanks!
We know a bunch of stuff. We know that interceptor kills red bugs - which started as an idea, and which Dustin Dortin did a bunch of work with to support. We know successful treatments for ich. We know LED's provide light that corals can use to grow. We know that cleaner shrimp do not eat ich. We know that you don't need a DSB for denitrification. These have a lot of data behind them, some even peer reviewed.

The thing that I try to get people to do when they are trying to decide what to do, 'what are we left with' is to see when anecdote is mistakenly converted to fact BEFORE they decide to try something. They may still decide to try it, and that is fine.