How long do you QT?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Phyl

Aquarium Advice Addict
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
2,111
Location
NJ
For those of you who DO QT, how long do you keep your fish QTd for? What is the "proper" length of time for QT? I'm in my second week of QT for PeTie and am trying to figure out when his release date should be. I'm anxious, but trying so hard to be cautious! I have yet to have a fish that I can manage to keep in QT for more than 2 weeks so far. I've been lucky, I know.
 
I think the general rule is the longer the better, however 2 weeks seems sufficient to me, i would personally go for 3 or 4 tho,

if PeTie has not shown any signs of abnormalities, he most likely wont. its been 2 weeks alone in the qt

You know ive even heard of ppl who keep their new fish in qt for a few months
 
Personally, I can not wait to get the last fish in mine. I hate to QT with the passion! I have a few more I want to add and then I am done. I think I will stop there and add nothing more (even corals) except snails after that. That way I can be done with QT hopefully for a long long while. Optomistic view I know, but thats my plan!
 
I know QT is good. But, i don't QT new fish any more. Just acclimate the fish in the main and drop it right in. All of my fish and corals are doing just fine. Whats the secret? None. I guess running skimmer and UV 24/7 in the main tank keeps everything healthy.
 
If I remember the free floating phase of ich can be 21 days so I would say do that to be sure you wont get an outbreak later on. I have been doing 4 weeks and all has been good except my patience.
 
4 weeks is the best. Most ailments will show themselves within this time. 2 weeks is not long enough, the lifecycle of some parasites is as long as 3 weeks or more.
 
I know QT is good. But, i don't QT new fish any more. Just acclimate the fish in the main and drop it right in. All of my fish and corals are doing just fine. Whats the secret? None. I guess running skimmer and UV 24/7 in the main tank keeps everything healthy.

And quite a bit of luck.
 
i agree as a general rule i stick to at least 4 weeks, however i do strongly believe that the length of time in QT depends on the species of fish, origin, distance travelled etc. QT time in my opinion is species specific!

I know QT is good. But, i don't QT new fish any more. Just acclimate the fish in the main and drop it right in. All of my fish and corals are doing just fine. Whats the secret? None. I guess running skimmer and UV 24/7 in the main tank keeps everything healthy.

the fish you have recently added without QT... are they more hardy species? drop something like a moorish idol, achilles tang or juv pinnatus batfish in without QT i think you may find you have problems, i think the mortality rate would be high... it all comes down to species NOT luck! and if it does survive well you are one lucky person.
 
RMPD109 said:
If I remember the free floating phase of ich can be 21 days so I would say do that to be sure you wont get an outbreak later on. I have been doing 4 weeks and all has been good except my patience.
Actually the free swimming stage of most parasites is very short lived, some don't even have one. It's the reproductive stage that's typically the longest. The reason for recommending the 4 week time frame is the accumulation timewise of each stage. Since it's not possible to tell what's happening at any given time without a microscope, the only alternative is to allow the fish to remain solo untill the full lifecycle of a parasite is lived out if that makes sense.

Cheers
Steve
 
datto said:
i do strongly believe that the length of time in QT depends on the species of fish, origin, distance travelled etc. QT time in my opinion is species specific!
Not true. It makes no difference in most cases what the species is in regards to teleosts. Parasites have a very well studied life cycle for the most part and the species of the fish has no impact on that time frame. Some are more easily infested than others but the life cycle itself is not altered by it in any real sense. You can't manipulate mother nature to any noticable degree either. At least not without consequences.

Cheers
Steve
 
You can't manipulate mother nature to any noticable degree either

With one possible exception mentioned only for technical reasons, i.e., you wouldn't really want to do this: life cycles of parasites can be impacted by TEMPERATURE. A frequently used technique in FRESHWATER ich treatment is elevated temperature, which shortens the life cycle of ich considerably. I'm not sure how high you'd want to raise the temp of your QT tank, though, especially if you are using a lower SG as an aid in there.
 
I'm not sure how high you'd want to raise the temp of your QT tank, though, especially if you are using a lower SG as an aid in there.
Not recommended. Raises the stress level and would speed up the life cycle causing a faster demise of the fish.
Also not needed if a treatment plan is already implemented, not useful at all in treating SW fish.
 
midiman said:
You can't manipulate mother nature to any noticable degree either

With one possible exception mentioned only for technical reasons, i.e., you wouldn't really want to do this: life cycles of parasites can be impacted by TEMPERATURE. A frequently used technique in FRESHWATER ich treatment is elevated temperature, which shortens the life cycle of ich considerably. I'm not sure how high you'd want to raise the temp of your QT tank, though, especially if you are using a lower SG as an aid in there.
You left out this part.... :wink:
steve-s said:
At least not without consequences.
As Quarryshark mentioned it speeds up the lifecycle of the parasite. The optimal temperature that Cryptocaryon multiplies is actually 86° so you are risking further problems. It does absolutely nothing to interupt the life cycle either. The rise in temperature also affects the ph of the fish's blood hampering it's natural (albeit limited) immune response against the parasite and leaving it more susceptible to secondary infection. It truely causes more problems than it solves in the grand scheme of things.

Cheers
Steve
 
Not true. It makes no difference in most cases what the species is

hey, altought steve strongly feels that what i stated is not true, i still believe that it is species specific, not because of the length of the pathogen life cycle, i mean each and every species and individual fish to some degree has a different level of disease tolerance. meaning i feel that certain species would be better to stay in QT longer so that they have ample time to buid up a stong immune system before you expose them to the stressful time when adding them into your main tank where it will more than likley fall victim to bulling by exsisting tank inhabitants.. you "could" put it sraight into your main tank after buying the fish from your LFS but the amount of stress put on the fish would be far less if you only had to have it out of a tank for a short period of time. EVERY species fish has a different disease risk thats why government bodies like in australia (AQIS) carry out disease risk assesments and from this determine how long the each fish species must stay under QT by law, im not sure if there is something similar in the US.

either way im still going to use my QT tank :D my fish deserve the best chance of survival.
 
Reading the posts of datto and steve, I think that I understand the merit in both of their arguments. Because it is certainly true that the pathogen doesn't "know" which fish it's infecting, it cannot be said that the disease is "species specific" in that sense. However, is also true that different species have differing capacities to resist infection, meaning that the likelihood of becoming infected relates at least in part to the species.

So while the disease can POTENTIALLY affect all species (not species specific), it's ABILITY to infect depends at least in part on the species of host (depends on the species).

Peace in the valley?
 
You have both misunderstood what I was trying to convey. I'm saying the minumum QT time should be no less than 4 weeks. If you feel there is merit in a longer QT time, I have absolutely no arguement against it.

midiman said:
However, is also true that different species have differing capacities to resist infection, meaning that the likelihood of becoming infected relates at least in part to the species.
Please do not confuse "infest" with "infect". In regards to parasitic infestations, it's either there or it's not, no amount of stress or other influences outside of another fish addition will change that. So the species of teleost is irrelevent. Infections on the otherhand are a completely different matter altogether. :wink:

Cheers
Steve
 
Well, I'm afraid it might all be a mute point. We went away this weekend and while we were gone the fish has seemed to take on some spotting. UGH! Just after we first got him he looked like he may have had a couple of spots on him. They were gone the next day and I attributed it to sediment (my yellow gets "sand" on him from time to time and I thought maybe dust from the rock that's in there with him) and now he looks really spotted. It has been a week since the last spots were seen. I'll start a new thread in the sick fish forum with pics.
 
Please do not confuse "infest" with "infect". In regards to parasitic infestations, it's either there or it's not, no amount of stress or other influences outside of another fish addition will change that. So the species of teleost is irrelevent. Infections on the otherhand are a completely different matter altogether


I'm not clear what YOU are trying to say. :? Are you saying that ALL teleosts (i.e. "fish") are equally susceptible to infection by ich? If that is your point, why am I reading so many warnings against acquiring certain fish because they are more prone to ich?

My point (and I think datto's as well) is that the mere PRESENCE of pathogens in the system is not sufficient to guarantee that ALL fish will become infected. Some fish are more resistant than others. Are you saying that this is not the case?

Of course it is obvious that the life cycle of the pathogen ITSELF is independent of the fish species it infects, but the life cycle cannot be completed WITHOUT infection. I hesitate to speak for datto, but I think that's what he meant by ich being "species specific". It's equally obvious that the pathogen has to be PRESENT to cause infection, but if certain fish can resist better than others, why is it inaccurate to characterize infection as "species specific" in this more narrow sense? Certainly "species related" isn't far off the mark, is it?
 
QT is not about if a certain fish is more resistant to an outbreak than another. The FACT remains that all fish are potential hosts for a parasitic outbreak and can bring such an outbreak into a system, be it from the wild or an already infected system and it can be a nightmare.
Just because a fish is more (or less) prone to becoming symptomatic is a mute point in the overall picture. The point is that one does not want to introduce such a outbreak into their display tank. Just because a certain fish is more resistant to a disease does not mean that other fish within a system cannot become symptomatic once a trophont is introduced. It is much easier to isolate each animal for an observation peroid and treat (if it becomes appropriate) in a controlled QT setting than it is to treat an entire system after the parasite is introduced in our closed systems.
Its easy to debate how one fish is more prone, or another is less prone to infestation, but once someone goes through the experience of treating an entire system for something like this basically because they lacked the desire to qt properly. Its amazing how they change their tune.
We have seen it many times and many of us have experienced it....no fun :| .
 
Back
Top Bottom