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

[MnFish1]

I worked at 3 ornamental fish farms, Area water gardens, Southwest Florida tropical, Old World Exotics, all of them only treated sick fish to prevent loss. Absolutely no preemptive treatment as a quarantine method.

Fine - Why? Sorry to me reading this doesnt make sense - except to prevent loss why else would you treat? I never suggested treating in a QT TANK - in fact as I've said at least 10 x - I dont QT fish before I drop them in my tank - so what does this have to do with me?

 

[soflmuddin]

That is a bit of a sneaky argument. On the one had sure, but really, robust scientific information has gone through all kinds of testing before it is presented.

So how many studies have been done on a powder blue tangs immune system or are we just grouping all saltwater fish in one group. If so why not consider how shark's immune system can cure their cancer.

 

[MnFish1]

So how many studies have been done on a powder blue tangs immune system or are we just grouping all saltwater fish in one group. If so why not consider how shark's immune system can cure their cancer.

The point is (if I can answer before @Thales ) from my perspective - is that Paul is presenting his ideas AS IF they were scientifically verified - with numerous issues that are not proven - to bolster the method he uses. The thing you mention above has nothing to do with the factual mis-statements in the article. You're bringing up totally new issues. I mean - you could have also asked how many studies have been done on powder blue tangs with yellow borders on their dorsal fin between 2 and 6 months of age. Either way - neither study detracts from the point that the article in the OP contains numerous factual errors - that could mislead many people into doing things that are completely wrong.

 

[soflmuddin]

The point is (if I can answer before @Thales ) from my perspective - is that Paul is presenting his ideas AS IF they were scientifically verified - with numerous issues that are not proven - to bolster the method he uses. The thing you mention above has nothing to do with the factual mis-statements in the article. You're bringing up totally new issues. I mean - you could have also asked how many studies have been done on powder blue tangs with yellow borders on their dorsal fin between 2 and 6 months of age. Either way - neither study detracts from the point that the article in the OP contains numerous factual errors - that could mislead many people into doing things that are completely wrong.

Wrong because your "science" says so? There are many that use some version of Paul's technic. Yeah, there are parts that maybe reminiscent of the football player that doesn't wash his jersey but I don't see them to be any real risk to the fish. So what is the big deal?

 

[theMeat]

Not clear where you're going here - but it doesn't matter. There are numerous factual errors (based on Current knowledge) in the article being discussed- I have mentioned them. I will repeat myself one more time. Its not a debate about what you are doing vs what xxxxxxx is doing. Its about the article - which defends 'your' (as you say above) method - with factually incorrect information.

I mentioned Lincoln because @Humblefish said Paul had been keeping tanks since the time of Lincoln - and I was implying that science and medical knowledge had progressed quite a bit since that period. I'm sorry I didnt clarify it more obviously.

Whether you know more than me on either front isn't the issue. The issue is what is true - what is not true (as of our current knowledge). And I kind of resent your blood sugar comment - because a glass of juice would be much more effective than a ham sandwich

You’ll have to excuse me if I didn’t read past the first sentence of this post. I enjoy reefing because I find it relaxing. I come on r2r to shot the breeze with fellow reefers. What you and some others have tried to turn this thread into is a shame

 

[Humblefish]

So long as its nothing offensive or threatening, anybody can start a thread on anything they want! There are threads out there outlining how to use ginger to clear your tank of ich. It's up to the reader to decide for themselves what's believable and what's dismissible.

 

[soflmuddin]

So long as its nothing offensive or threatening, anybody can start a thread on anything they want! There are threads out there outlining how to use ginger to clear your tank of ich. It's up to the reader to decide for themselves what's believable and what's dismissible.

I bought into that once. It appeared to work. Then I realized it was that I was feeding the fish more that was helping.

 

[Humblefish]

I bought into that once. It appeared to work. Then I realized it was that I was feeding the fish more that was helping.

We learn by doing.

 

[MnFish1]

Wrong because your "science" says so? There are many that use some version of Paul's technic. Yeah, there are parts that maybe reminiscent of the football player that doesn't wash his jersey but I don't see them to be any real risk to the fish. So what is the big deal?

I glad you Said this - for a couple reasons. firstly - this is getting boring repeating the same things over and over without people reading what's being written. Secondly because it should remind us all - what is the purpose of this website?

Lets take the second part first. I dont know whether @Paul B s method causes harm or not - but - there is a reason that every (zoo) aquarium in the world follows some kind of QT program. So - We can all pretend that funny jokes and cheerful banter make a method that is as good or better than those organizations or we can question it. My personal belief is that in the hands of the average person both QT and Pauls methods are likely to doom fish - because (as proven here) most people have no clue how parasites, nutrition, immunology, etc work in real life.

The first part - its not 'my science' its science lol. If you think what I'm saying are 'my ideas' no thats wrong - so its not my science. But - Like people that believe that vaccines are bad - and other types of anecdotal 'stuff' on the internet - I would humbly suggest to R2R - which is considered to be one of (if not the best) sites for reefing - that - If someone proposes to post an article - I would suggest that someone (with knowledge) read and make sure It serves a broad audience, is properly referenced as to scientific papers - or else is clearly marked as 'opinion' - ie editorial. The problem here - is that so many things that are false are presented as 'fact'. . If someone wants to post something - go for it - but an article (to me) should have a higher level of editing/validation that was was posted in the OP. The fact that in 2019 we are sitting here debating who likes whom better as compared to the science supporting same tells a lot. Anyone can write an article. NOTE - before the death threats - I'm not flaming Paul, criticizing Paul, suggesting QT or not QT - Just read the words written.

 

[MnFish1]

You’ll have to excuse me if I didn’t read past the first sentence of this post. I enjoy reefing because I find it relaxing. I come on r2r to shot the breeze with fellow reefers. What you and some others have tried to turn this thread into is a shame

Sorry - at least you will only have to read the first sentence this time.

 

[MnFish1]

So long as its nothing offensive or threatening, anybody can start a thread on anything they want! There are threads out there outlining how to use ginger to clear your tank of ich. It's up to the reader to decide for themselves what's believable and what's dismissible.

I applaud this - anyone should be able to start a thread. IMHO (and obviously its just that) - an Article should be more vetted than someone that start a thread.

 

[Humblefish]

I applaud this - anyone should be able to start a thread. IMHO (and obviously its just that) - an Article should be more vetted than someone that start a thread.

Consider this article to be an editorial.

 

[MnFish1]

Consider this article to be an editorial.

Awesome - I was suggesting a separate section. (editorials vs articles). but I did laugh at that for a second Unless you want to intercede into every article and clarify it

 

[soflmuddin]

I glad you Said this - for a couple reasons. firstly - this is getting boring repeating the same things over and over without people reading what's being written. Secondly because it should remind us all - what is the purpose of this website?

Lets take the second part first. I dont know whether @Paul B s method causes harm or not - but - there is a reason that every (zoo) aquarium in the world follows some kind of QT program. So - We can all pretend that funny jokes and cheerful banter make a method that is as good or better than those organizations or we can question it. My personal belief is that in the hands of the average person both QT and Pauls methods are likely to doom fish - because (as proven here) most people have no clue how parasites, nutrition, immunology, etc work in real life.

The first part - its not 'my science' its science lol. If you think what I'm saying are 'my ideas' no thats wrong - so its not my science. But - Like people that believe that vaccines are bad - and other types of anecdotal 'stuff' on the internet - I would humbly suggest to R2R - which is considered to be one of (if not the best) sites for reefing - that - If someone proposes to post an article - I would suggest that someone (with knowledge) read and make sure It serves a broad audience, is properly referenced as to scientific papers - or else is clearly marked as 'opinion' - ie editorial. The problem here - is that so many things that are false are presented as 'fact'. . If someone wants to post something - go for it - but an article (to me) should have a higher level of editing/validation that was was posted in the OP. The fact that in 2019 we are sitting here debating who likes whom better as compared to the science supporting same tells a lot. Anyone can write an article. NOTE - before the death threats - I'm not flaming Paul, criticizing Paul, suggesting QT or not QT - Just read the words written.

In my opinion nitrates over 100 in a fowlr tank isn't a concern but your opinion is that it is. You may get more in this site that agree with you but without a truly credible long term study isn't it still just opinions.

I tested my nitrates tonight and they are >50ppm.

 

[theMeat]

Sorry - at least you will only have to read the first sentence this time.

Thanks for that, but you again missed the point.

 

[MnFish1]

In my opinion nitrates over 100 in a fowlr tank isn't a concern but your opinion is that it is. You may get more in this site that agree with you but without a truly credible long term study isn't it still just opinions.

I tested my nitrates tonight and they are >50ppm.

Not gonna get tugged into it again - I've posted he issues I have with the article - you can look for the post - if you find value in it - great - if not great. FWIW the OP does not have a FOWLR tank - so I have no clue why you said that. But - whatever. Good luck going forward.

 

[MnFish1]

Thanks for that, but you again missed the point.

I guess I could say the same - Good luck going forward.

 

[atoll]

Curious - what do you base this on. I mean how would you determine if a fish died months later because it was caught with cyanide vs another cause in the tank. What is the rationale that his happens (except in rare cases)?

I have never had a fish die months later the only one I was suspicious about was that it may well have died to being cyanide caught within weeks and never fed it exhibited the symptoms of being drug caught. Like any potential diagnosis I researched it as I was suspicious of it's death. I am not 100% certain in was drug caught but I had another specimen bought a few months earlier that is still alive and thriving today.
The fish in question is a multibar dwarf angel and I have a video of them on my YouTube channel.

 

[Thales]

So how many studies have been done on a powder blue tangs immune system or are we just grouping all saltwater fish in one group. If so why not consider how shark's immune system can cure their cancer.

I think these are new ideas and dont have much to do with my response to your post, so I am unclear how to respond.

 

[MnFish1]

I have never had a fish die months later the only one I was suspicious about was that it may well have died to being cyanide caught within weeks and never fed it exhibited the symptoms of being drug caught. Like any potential diagnosis I researched it as I was suspicious of it's death. I am not 100% certain in was drug caught but I had another specimen bought a few months earlier that is still alive and thriving today.
The fish in question is a multibar dwarf angel and I have a video of them on my YouTube channel.

Whether it seems like we've butted heads before - btw - I have to say - I value your experience.