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

[MnFish1]

My goal here is (using my experience) to educate people about things that I have researched and reviewed. Most of it I didnt learn in school - I learned it by reading articles - and reefing forums (such as this one). When someone makes a claim that its a good idea to do xxxxxxxx - if I find it interesting - ie something I might want to do - I go to other sources - other sites, scientific articles if there are any, etc. Do I have all the answers - of course not. If I question something - suggest something and I'm wrong -I hope people point it out. What is getting a bit tiresome is being criticized for 'asking the question' in the first place.

Like I've tried to do here - I question the rationale behind something before I change any part of my reefing method. The benefit is that here - I can question the author of the method directly. Somehow those questions have been turned into an idea that I somehow have a vendetta against Paul or his methods (nothing could be further from the truth). I have spent probably hundreds of hours reading about fish immunity, CI, velvet, etc. To benefit my own tank. Im not a marine biologist - but I am a scientist - So I have the benefit of knowing how to find articles and understand (most of them)... Im certainly not an expert like @Thales and Im not an expert like @Paul B,

The way some people respond to posts that are even mildly critical of some of the information in the article rarely address the issue that was raised (by myself and several others) - its always defending @Paul B's method as if that was the issue which to me has never been the case.

IMHO, The purpose is to discuss the article itself -not comparing QT vs Pauls tank. People that think its nit-picking to discuss the facts presented in the article should maybe go read the MULTIPLE threads that debate QT vs other methods. For those of you that don't like the discussion - I will say I have learned a lot reading and discussing this thread - and looking up the rationale for my thoughts. Just re-reading and realizing the vast amount of expertise on this forum has been fantastic.

 

[Paul B]

I was awarded the MASNA Aquarist of the Year in 2014. My work has been covered by main stream press like CORAL magazine, Science Friday, Adam Savage, Fox News. My work at the Steinhart aquarium has been seen by over 10 million people in the last 11 years.

I am very impressed

 

[MnFish1]

Thales, I notice you and MnFish1 have been posting a lot disputing many things I wrote, but neither of you have written an article on here. With all that knowledge you have why not share it in an article so we can all learn.

If I had a topic on which I thought an article would be beneficial I would submit one. One topic I thought about is 10 common myths in reef keeping - but thats another story. Not sure what your point is. It seems a little snarky, maybe i'm being defensive. Frankly, I'm not under he impression that you really want to learn - no offense - if that were the case - there would be some acknowledgement even on the first page of this thread - that some of the issues brought up about your article may have some truth behind them.

I guess I feel several of us are sharing their knowledge - including you - that what the discussion forum under each article is for.

I am very impressed

This is an example of what I was mentioning above - You ASKED Thales why he didnt write articles here - he wrote a paragraph about his site his articles. You take a small snippet of that - and make it seem like he was bragging - when he was just answering your question. Maybe I'm interpreting your comment above (with the smiley face) incorrectly - But this again suggests to me that you're not interested in learning - again maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Frogger]

As I mentioned 300 posts back, That is in my opinion fine. Isolating fish in a low stress, "fully functioning reef tank" is great, but it's not quarantining.
As I also mentioned, for this thread, quarantining means isolating fish in a bare tank for 76 days to eliminate parasites as is what is recommended by many people including (I think) my friend Humblefish. The current "scientific" theory is that the parasites will die out in that time.

"Hogwash". You come up with some arbitrary meaning of your definition of "Quarantine" and then state that you have never met anyone that has long term success with this method of "Quarantine".
Of course not probably because, a) very few people actually follow that method and b) this 76 days to eliminate pests has only been used for the past few years so there is no way anyone can meet your challenge.

 

[Jay Norris]

Hi all, I wish Thales and some of the other better article writers on here would do more post on here as some of their information on this article and others has been very informative, and helpful to me. This article by Paul is a very informative and useful post to me and other aquarist on the website, so the more that join in writing articles like this one the better.

 

[EmdeReef]

When it comes to the notion of acquired immunity by ingestion it just doesn’t hold. Beyond this theory being repeatedly mentioned here there’s been no evidence presented. No matter how much it may make sense, there’s no empirical evidence supporting this in people or animals.

Let’s use a closer, easier to understand example than fish. Dogs!

Dogs can eat foods infected with salmonella and even nastier pathogens without getting sick. This is thanks to their morphology and physiology, short GI tract, very high stomach acidity etc. However that doesn’t make them immune to salmonella and dogs can and do get sick from it. No amount of exposure is likely to make a dog immune long term, at least that’s what available research shows, and thus we have no vaccine for salmonella for dogs or people. Similarly, ich vaccine attempts fail because the acquired immunity lapses after a period of time.

When it comes to marine bacteria and viruses, it is indeed true that there are millions in a drop of water but if you ever get a chance to observe under an electron microscope I think one would call it a carnage rather than any semblance of harmony or balance. Various blooms in the ocean and other issues are often believed to be caused because these microbes get out of balance either on a regular or irregular schedule.

Vast majority of marine viruses are bacteriophage , in simple terms specialized to hunt bacteria. Many of the bacteria found in the ocean water are specialists “not interested” in infecting any large organisms. The link between microbial biodiversity and some sort of perfect balance in a tank is not much more than a dream that may sound logical but in reality doesn’t exist. Also we need to keep in mind that available body of knowledges on closed ecological systems indicates highly limited biodiversity over time regardless of potential introductions of “freshmen” microbes.

 

[Thales]

When it comes to the notion of acquired immunity by ingestion it just doesn’t hold. Beyond this theory being repeatedly mentioned here there’s been no evidence presented. No matter how much it may make sense, there’s no empirical evidence supporting this in people or animals.

Let’s use a closer, easier to understand example than fish. Dogs!

Dogs can eat foods infected with salmonella and even nastier pathogens without getting sick. This is thanks to their morphology and physiology, short GI tract, very high stomach acidity etc. However that doesn’t make them immune to salmonella and dogs can and do get sick from it. No amount of exposure is likely to make a dog immune long term, at least that’s what available research shows, and thus we have no vaccine for salmonella for dogs or people. Similarly, ich vaccine attempts fail because the acquired immunity lapses after a period of time.

When it comes to marine bacteria and viruses, it is indeed true that there are millions in a drop of water but if you ever get a chance to observe under an electron microscope I think one would call it a carnage rather than any semblance of harmony or balance. Various blooms in the ocean and other issues are often believed to be caused because these microbes get out of balance either on a regular or irregular schedule.

Vast majority of marine viruses are bacteriophage , in simple terms specialized to hunt bacteria. Many of the bacteria found in the ocean water are specialists “not interested” in infecting any large organisms. The link between microbial biodiversity and some sort of perfect balance in a tank is not much more than a dream that may sound logical but in reality doesn’t exist. Also we need to keep in mind that available body of knowledges on closed ecological systems indicates highly limited biodiversity over time regardless of potential introductions of “freshmen” microbes.

I would also question it at one of the earlier premises - fish eat fish. Most of the fish we keep don’t have the mouths to eat fish.

 

[MnFish1]

When it comes to the notion of acquired immunity by ingestion it just doesn’t hold. Beyond this theory being repeatedly mentioned here there’s been no evidence presented. No matter how much it may make sense, there’s no empirical evidence supporting this in people or animals.

Let’s use a closer, easier to understand example than fish. Dogs!

Dogs can eat foods infected with salmonella and even nastier pathogens without getting sick. This is thanks to their morphology and physiology, short GI tract, very high stomach acidity etc. However that doesn’t make them immune to salmonella and dogs can and do get sick from it. No amount of exposure is likely to make a dog immune long term, at least that’s what available research shows, and thus we have no vaccine for salmonella for dogs or people. Similarly, ich vaccine attempts fail because the acquired immunity lapses after a period of time.

When it comes to marine bacteria and viruses, it is indeed true that there are millions in a drop of water but if you ever get a chance to observe under an electron microscope I think one would call it a carnage rather than any semblance of harmony or balance. Various blooms in the ocean and other issues are often believed to be caused because these microbes get out of balance either on a regular or irregular schedule.

Vast majority of marine viruses are bacteriophage , in simple terms specialized to hunt bacteria. Many of the bacteria found in the ocean water are specialists “not interested” in infecting any large organisms. The link between microbial biodiversity and some sort of perfect balance in a tank is not much more than a dream that may sound logical but in reality doesn’t exist. Also we need to keep in mind that available body of knowledges on closed ecological systems indicates highly limited biodiversity over time regardless of potential introductions of “freshmen” microbes.

There are vaccines that indeed can be taken orally (like the polio vaccine) - however - polio is an 'enteric' virus - meaning that it can infect through the intestines - thus it makes sense that a vaccine could work that way. A live flu vaccine can be given by inhaling into he nose - but thats because influenza is infective through that route. But as someone else said - you cant induce 'immunity' to head lice by eating lice.

Our tanks - like the ocean - have large numbers of bacteria in them - even when we attempt to keep them sterile.Study after study have shown that bacteria will grow to fill the available niches - quite rapidly actually. When new bacteria etc - as mentioned in the post above - are added - it doesnt increase biodiversity - one of 2 things will happen - the new bacteria will take over the old bacteria - or the old bacteria will not allow the new bacteria to establish themselves. (note this is in a tank thats established) of course - adding bacteria to a new tank may increase biodiversity. Adding it to an established tank is likely to increase nitrates as one or the other population of bacteria dies off.

 

[Frogger]

Paul in 1992 Martin Moe wrote Quarantine is isolating a fish in a 10 to 15 gallon tank with an active biological filter for 2 to 4 weeks.
In 1998 Bob Fenner "The Conscientious Marine Aquarium" wrote A quarantine system is a smaller stripped down version of the Total setup for a minimum of 2 weeks.

Both well respected authors and so called experts at the time.

At the time 20 plus years ago we did not readily have access to the internet and these are just two examples of quarantine (I have dozens of books I can quote from) acceptable protocol during the time frame necessary to meet your success rate of quarantined fish challenge. No one, that I know of, was isolating their fish in a bare tank for 76 days back then.

So I stand by my original statement that yes many people that I know including myself have quarantined fish and had them live a long full life.

 

[MnFish1]

Paul in 1992 Martin Moe wrote Quarantine is isolating a fish in a 10 to 15 gallon tank with an active biological filter for 2 to 4 weeks.
In 1998 Bob Fenner "The Conscientious Marine Aquarium" wrote A quarantine system is a smaller stripped down version of the Total setup for a minimum of 2 weeks.

Both well respected authors and so called experts at the time.

At the time 20 plus years ago we did not readily have access to the internet and these are just two examples of quarantine (I have dozens of books I can quote from) acceptable protocol during the time frame necessary to meet your success rate of quarantined fish challenge. No one, that I know of, was isolating their fish in a bare tank for 76 days back then.

So I stand by my original statement that yes many people that I know including myself have quarantined fish and had them live a long full life.

You may have missed it - but the 76 day quarantine that he 'pulled out of his hat' was in response to a question I asked about the article - namely - there are so many people that use different QT methods, how can you even hope to ask those people to prove their method allows fish to live to old age - when there are so many methods....

At first the quarantine period was 72 days - then changed to 76 days. I was slammed for suggesting that that is not a QT period - but instead the time tanks need to left fallow after a CI 'outbreak'. There has never been an answer to this from @Paul B because - of course no one buys a fish and then keeps it for 76 days (or at least not many - im sure some do) but my guess is that most QT protocols do not count 76 days.

Why bring this up? Because its about the article - and in the article terms aren't defined - and its incomprehensible to (me - as the potential adopter) to figure out what is being compared to what.

 

[EmdeReef]

You may have missed it - but the 76 day quarantine that he 'pulled out of his hat' was in response to a question I asked about the article - namely - there are so many people that use different QT methods, how can you even hope to ask those people to prove their method allows fish to live to old age - when there are so many methods....

At first the quarantine period was 72 days - then changed to 76 days. I was slammed for suggesting that that is not a QT period - but instead the time tanks need to left fallow after a CI 'outbreak'. There has never been an answer to this from @Paul B because - of course no one buys a fish and then keeps it for 76 days (or at least not many - im sure some do) but my guess is that most QT protocols do not count 76 days.

Why bring this up? Because its about the article - and in the article terms aren't defined - and its incomprehensible to (me - as the potential adopter) to figure out what is being compared to what.

The recommended QT period is usually 30 days. Depending on the QT setup and what is being treated medication may not be necessary through the entire period. The 76 days comes from Colorni / Burgess’ study of a strain of ich that took ~74 days to complete the cycle and is a recommendation for running a display tank fallow after ich infection.

 

[MnFish1]

The recommended QT period is usually 30 days. Depending on the QT setup and what is being treated medication may not be necessary through the entire period. The 76 days comes from Colorni / Burgess’ study of a strain of ich that took ~74 days to complete the cycle and is a recommendation for running a display tank fallow after ich infection.

Yes - I was just saying that when pressed for his definition of QT Paul used that data - rather than what most people do for QT - by the way here is an interesting article - If @Paul B had used this as a reference - perhaps it would have been interesting.. For those that dont want to wade through pages - what it suggests is that its possible using DNA from CI - and heat shock proteins - to improve survival after oral administration. Its not the same as the fish eating a live CI protozoan - but it at least supports his concept. Though I dont know if this study has been criticized, etc

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145305X16300982

 

[Ronny Bello]

I too never quarantine but also bought fish with no signs of infection. Had good results and not so good. So basically no quarantine for fish only but quarantine if having corals.

 

[EmdeReef]

Yes - I was just saying that when pressed for his definition of QT Paul used that data - rather than what most people do for QT - by the way here is an interesting article - If @Paul B had used this as a reference - perhaps it would have been interesting.. For those that dont want to wade through pages - what it suggests is that its possible using DNA from CI - and heat shock proteins - to improve survival after oral administration. Its not the same as the fish eating a live CI protozoan - but it at least supports his concept. Though I dont know if this study has been criticized, etc

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145305X16300982

Yeah I understood what you were going at just wanted to add as a reminder.

Agree there is a big difference between ingesting a pathogen and a vaccine.

 

[Frogger]

You may have missed it - but the 76 day quarantine that he 'pulled out of his hat' was in response to a question I asked about the article - namely - there are so many people that use different QT methods, how can you even hope to ask those people to prove their method allows fish to live to old age - when there are so many methods....

I am not disputing anyone's success rate in keeping corals, fish, livestock etc in their tanks. I have learned a lot about Paul', Atoll's posts as alternate ways to keep a reef, there are many many things we agree on.

The only time I am responding is when I believe misleading information is being spread. The statement I have kept fish alive for a full live span using my method but have never met someone who has quarantined their fish having the same success is misleading. I believe it insinuates that you will not have the same success when you quarantine your fish.

What I want to hear is your success stories and how you have accomplished them. I also want to hear what didn't work. Even go as far as coming up with a theory why you believe you have had or hadn't had success. There are too many absolutes being thrown around on this thread when in reality I believe there are very few absolutes in reef/fish keeping.

Unfortunately I have not been able to read all the post on this thread because I have a day job.

 

[Paul B]

"Hogwash".

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Paul B]

(ISRN ImmunologyVolume 2012 (2012), Article ID 853470, 29 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/853470Review ArticleAn Overview of the Immunological Defenses in Fish SkinMaría Ángeles Esteban)

Quote:
According to these authors "probiotic for aquaculture is a live, dead or component of a microbial cell that, when administered via the feed or to the rearing water, benefits the host by improving either disease resistance, health status, growth performance, feed utilisation, stress response or general vigour, which is achieved at least in part via improving the hosts or the environmental microbial balance."The first demonstration that probiotics can protect fishes against surface infections was against Aeromonas bestiarum and Ichthyophthirius multifiliis in rainbow trout [330]. The research on this topic is considered of high priority at present because enriched diets could be used as preventive or curative therapies for farmed fishes. End Quote

 

[MnFish1]

I am not disputing anyone's success rate in keeping corals, fish, livestock etc in their tanks. I have learned a lot about Paul', Atoll's posts as alternate ways to keep a reef, there are many many things we agree on.

The only time I am responding is when I believe misleading information is being spread. The statement I have kept fish alive for a full live span using my method but have never met someone who has quarantined their fish having the same success is misleading. I believe it insinuates that you will not have the same success when you quarantine your fish.

What I want to hear is your success stories and how you have accomplished them. I also want to hear what didn't work. Even go as far as coming up with a theory why you believe you have had or hadn't had success. There are too many absolutes being thrown around on this thread when in reality I believe there are very few absolutes in reef/fish keeping.

Unfortunately I have not been able to read all the post on this thread because I have a day job.

I wasnt disagreeing with you - I have posted my method here several times.
I'll repeat (what I think) has made my tank successful

1. Take @Paul B's method. (I use most of it)
2. Take away the live food - but feed excellent nutritional food based on whats in your tank
3. Get fish from a reputable supplier - healthy etc
4. Use proper hygiene, excellent parameters, filtration, etc
5. I dont add bacteria, sea water, etc. Dont see any evidence as to why its effecive
6. I dont add fish often - when I do - I buy them from an LFS - 15 minutes away already in a copper free environment - which means low stress transport - and I keep a low stocking density
7. I measure parameters more often than @Paul B - but not that often - I find that chasing my tail often leads to more problems than it solves. If something looks wrong in the tank - I act on it.
8. I dont use Ozone, UV. I use a skimmer, carbon and occasional filer socks.

 

[MnFish1]

(ISRN ImmunologyVolume 2012 (2012), Article ID 853470, 29 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/853470Review ArticleAn Overview of the Immunological Defenses in Fish SkinMaría Ángeles Esteban)

Quote:
According to these authors "probiotic for aquaculture is a live, dead or component of a microbial cell that, when administered via the feed or to the rearing water, benefits the host by improving either disease resistance, health status, growth performance, feed utilisation, stress response or general vigour, which is achieved at least in part via improving the hosts or the environmental microbial balance."The first demonstration that probiotics can protect fishes against surface infections was against Aeromonas bestiarum and Ichthyophthirius multifiliis in rainbow trout [330]. The research on this topic is considered of high priority at present because enriched diets could be used as preventive or curative therapies for farmed fishes. End Quote

Yep - we covered this months ago. In fish farming there is information that says using specific probiotics in antibiotic treated fish - or young hatchlings improves growth and a better immune system. This article suggests that placing them in he rearing water may also be helpful. However they are feeding specific strains of bacteria(probiotics) - not just ground up fish guts. In fact I showed you in this thread a reference that stated that 'ground up trash fish' as compared to a 'balanced pellet food' showed significant advantage to a pellet type food. Its an interesting article though - thanks for posting it.

 

[Frogger]

I wasnt disagreeing with you - I have posted my method here several times.
I'll repeat (what I think) has made my tank successful

I know you weren't disagreeing with me, I just used your quote to continue the thought