How long do you QT?

[steve-s]

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?

Teleost = boney fish, so I am not saying that all fish are susceptible. I am saying that all teleost fish are susceptible. What fish you where warned against I have no idea but to stay clear of them for that reason seems a bit rash IMO. If QT'd for an appropriate amount of time and properly treated if necessary with an effective proven remedy and proper methodology, there is no foundation for that line of thinking. The only one exception possibley being Synchiropus sp. and the like.

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?

First and foremost it's a parasite, not a pathogen. All fish will become infested sooner or later if left in an infested tank without treatment. If you plan on leaving a fish in an infested environment simpley because they are suggested as being highly resistant, you will most likely end up disapointed. Aquired immunity in teleosts means they will have had to come in contact with a rather high theront count and survived. Usually more than once. The risk in assuming that a particular species is safer than another is far from the truth.

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.

It must infest a fish to complete it's lifecycle, yes.

It's equally obvious that the pathogen has to be PRESENT to cause infection,

Agreed in terms of a parasite yes, not a pathogen.

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?

As I said, an infested fish is just that, infested. If adding a healthy uninfested fish to a QT it will remain uninfested, period. If a parasite presents itself, then that fish transported it in and was therfore already infested so again the species makes no difference. To suggest that a fish that has a higher or lower natural immunity for fending of the parasitic infestation doesn't matter one way or the other.

Cheers
Steve

 

[datto]

pathogen: a disease causing organism.

white spot/itch: an organism.

I MAY BE WRONG but isnt a fish which has died from white spot considered to have died from a disease causing parasite. its my understanding that in some cases itch attacks the host and weakens the hosts immune system, allowing other secondary diseases to attack. is this not a disease causing organism? hense my use of the word pathogen.

 

[datto]

it seems steve may agree.... fom another post thats what it seems like...????

The parasite itself is not what usually kills the fish. It's the suffocating and damaging effect it has on the gills and in some cases SECONDARY INFECTIONS caused by it's burrowing into the skin. It makes it pretty hard not to know it's there if the infestation is at a level high enough to kill the fish.

INFECTIONS are caused by? things like bacterial infections.... BACTERIA is that a disease causing organism???? a pathogen.

so white spot/itch according to steve allows secondary PATHOGENS to attack the host.. so could i not argue that steve agrees that itch is a disease causing organism???

im confused :?

 

[flanque]

I have many thoughts on this, but not enough time at the moment to respond. I will attend to this thread tomorrow.

 

[midiman]

As I said, an infested fish is just that, infested. If adding a healthy uninfested fish to a QT it will remain uninfested, period. If a parasite presents itself, then that fish transported it in and was therfore already infested so again the species makes no difference. To suggest that a fish that has a higher or lower natural immunity for fending of the parasitic infestation doesn't matter one way or the other.

OK, I have your point. Of course I don't disagree with it, but it rests at least in part on a SEMANTIC distinction between the words "infest" and "infect". I think the common usage has us using the word "infect" to cover both (similar to how most seem to use 1.023 as the "salinity" of water, when it fact is is not salinity but specific gravity)

OF course it is also inarguably true that ich has to be brought in by an infested fish (I'll use that term from now on ) or perhaps in the water in the fish bag, and that it doesn't matter which fish brings it IN to the QT.

I still think that the issue of degrees of SUSCEPTIBILITY is not resolved. However, I think I'm satisfied with my own level of understannding of this topic to move on. I'll use QT because it simply makes sense to do so. The way I've been doing it is this: if no white spots or other problems emerge in 10 days in water with slightly lowered salinity (to ease fish stress), I schedule entry day into the main tank for 1 week from that point. In that time, I can slowly raise salinity to normal and continue to observe the fish. If there are white spots in that time period, well, then I have the infestation and have to do the full blown treatment.

So my min QT is 17 days. If no white spots are present in that time, I'm pretty confident that there is no ich. Would a longer period help? If I ever get ich in my main tank using this technique, I'll let you know.

 

[steve-s]

so white spot/itch according to steve allows secondary PATHOGENS to attack the host.. so could i not argue that steve agrees that itch is a disease causing organism???

im confused :?

You could look at it that way and I could very well be wrong. My understanding is that the parasite is the catalyst that opens doors for bacteria and fungal infections which are the pathogens. The parasite doesn't actually produce them.

Is there a PHD in the house? 8O

Cheers
Steve

 

[steve-s]

So my min QT is 17 days. If no white spots are present in that time, I'm pretty confident that there is no ich. Would a longer period help? If I ever get ich in my main tank using this technique, I'll let you know.

Given the time the parasite can encyst and multiply (up to one month) and the time it takes for the spots to be visible on the fish (up to 5 days), it would be a high probability that an infested fish is being introduced to the main sysstem. You won't know your wrong until it happens to you which would be very unfortunate but since you seem quite firm in your belief, I'll leave you to it. I only hope that you study the proven science behind what has been said to you and consider what's more important. Your belief, or the facts that have been proven time nd time again.

Many things in this hobby are through sheer observation or trial and error. Parasites for the most part are not one of them. They are well documented and studied.

Cheers
Steve

 

[midiman]

You won't know your wrong until it happens to you which would be very unfortunate but since you seem quite firm in your belief, I'll leave you to it.

I'm not really firm in my belief about QT length, and I tend to agree with you more than it appears from my posts, perhaps. (One tends to get better info by playing the Devil's Advocate, I've learned). For me, it's more of a managed, calculated risk factor with my new tank and still only two fish.

I'll be more cautious with subsequent entries than I was with the earlier ones, since I have the room for a QT and my main tank is now looking pretty good.

In addition (and in closing, finally!! ), I read over on reef central that a hyposalinity treatment of 14 days is sufficient to kill ich, so, at least according to that study, the 30 day rule is not absolute.

Thanks for your consistent patience and thoroughness in your responses to this and other issues raised by all of us on this board. It is much appreciated.

 

[quarryshark]

I read over on reef central that a hyposalinity treatment of 14 days is sufficient to kill ich, so, at least according to that study, the 30 day rule is not absolute.

Don't see any reason to shorten the treatment period. The main tank need a fallow period of at least 6 weeks anyway. The life cycle also is frequently longer than 14 day.
I have used hypo several times, it causes absolutely no stress in the fish whatsoever. In fact it seems like there are more and more cases of recurrence with shorter treatment periods. I would err on the side of caution and choose the longer period. Why take the chance on reinfestation?

 

[steve-s]

I read over on reef central that a hyposalinity treatment of 14 days is sufficient to kill ich, so, at least according to that study, the 30 day rule is not absolute.

If you come across that thread, please post a link. I would very much like to read that as I highly disagree with it. Hyposalinity mainly attacks the tomont stage so there is a possibility the tomont could be erraddicated in that short of a span. It is however not recommended due to the mainy stages and conditions both fish and parasite where at when treatment level (16 ppt) was eventually reached.

Cheers
Steve

 

[midiman]

If you come across that thread, please post a link. I would very much like to read that as I highly disagree with it.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-08/sp/

Scroll down to treatment option #4.

 

[revhtree]

Now I am not the expert, but the low salinity would not effect ich any parasite that was incrusted in/on the fish. Therefore the ich would have to become free swimming before the 14 day period would begin. Therefore, saying 14days could not be a completly true statment. Maybe 14 days after it becomes free swimming.

 

[steve-s]

Actually hyposalinity targets the reproductive stage thereby preventing re-infection. Considering the resistance of the little blighters, I would not consider 2 weeks long enough to be 100% sure of erradicating the parasite. 3 weeks is the suggested minumum but 4 being the prefered treatment term after the 16 ppt is reached.

I would also suggest that this is the lowest reported value when tested, not the norm. Kinda misleading if you ask me.

Cheers
Steve

 

[flanque]

From my experience there are certainly various species which are typically more susceptable than othes to infections, but that would depend on the infection as well. You can take for instance whitespot / ick and say blue tangs. I have spoken to many LFS and have seen many aquariums where the hobbiest is running not only RO water, but UV sterilisers and tripple sulpha and whitespot still infects blue tangs, all the while other fish in the tank seemingly do not have any signs of it.

I had whitespot in my tank and it completely annihilated my annularis angel, but never touched, seemingly, my red blenny, clowns or fire gobies. This was after a month of infection, and about a fortnight of follow-up treatment. Further, my temperature was raised up by two-three degrees from about 24C to 27C. On hotter days the temperature went up to 29-30C, with interesting effects on the corals - they improved their overall appearence and "livelyness".

Whitespot / ick to my knowledge is a parasite, so it must be introduced into the aquarium before there can be an outbreak. I have read and heard that it can even lay dormant, however I do not know if this is true. It does seem a little odd for a 30-day life cycle parasite.

In terms of a QT, I would probably leave all my fish in for 45 days as some infections may not "come to life" for a while. Having said that, if I have seen a fish in a LFS for a while and it still exists after a couple of weeks and it doesn't have any obvious issues, then I feel confident that it is a good candidate for a stronge fish. Not being purchased isn't a means to being a bad fish -- nobody who likes it may have seem it yet. In such instances I would probably QT it for a fortnight and evaluate the situation. If it seems strong without and obvious problems, and I have a need for the QT tank, I would put it into the main tank.

Even your water changes can introduce disease. Unless you UV or RO it beforehand, you run a more than even chance of getting a disease, but that is the nature of the hobby.

Of coarse all of the above assumes I have a QT tank, which I don't. I just temperature acclimate them for 30 minutes, then add a cup of water to the bag from the main tank every 20 minutes for another hour. From there I drain the water from the bag into the sink and let the fish slide out of the bag into the tank. No hands, no nets. I add some stress coat to the water and some bacterial suppliments and monitor the fish.

So far my only deaths have been one from whitespot, and one from being pestered by a stronger fish.

Bottom line is for me, getting disease in your main tank is just as much luck as it is careful preparation. You can QT a fish for weeks and still get an outbreak if whatever the disease is is laying dormant.

 

[steve-s]

I have spoken to many LFS and have seen many aquariums where the hobbiest is running not only RO water, but UV sterilisers and tripple sulpha and whitespot still infects blue tangs, all the while other fish in the tank seemingly do not have any signs of it.

UV's are hit and miss at best unless on a very slow GPH and high enough wattage. C. irritans is actually quite hard to kill in this fashion, especially depending on the holding tank size and how often new fish are added. RO water for the most part won't have anything to do with it. Triple sulfa is an antibiotic and has no affect on it at all.

Of coarse all of the above assumes I have a QT tank, which I don't.

Bottom line is for me, getting disease in your main tank is just as much luck as it is careful preparation. You can QT a fish for weeks and still get an outbreak if whatever the disease is is laying dormant.

How can you possibley make any claims in regard to what a QT can do if you don't use one. As far as a disease entering the main tank after a proper period your absolutely correct but it's not an issue of dormancy, it's added after the fact or a condition due to water quality or feeding. Having a parasite enter the main is always a risk but if the fish is properly QT'd for the appropriate amount of time and treated if necessary, the fish added won't be the cause.

Cheers
Steve

 

[midiman]

Steve-s is of course 100% correct in his presentation of this topic, and I think that we all should seriously consider what he is saying. I, for one, never meant to sound like I was ARGUING with him, but that in the spectrum between recklessness and total security, I probably lie in the upper (most secure) third when it comes to introducing new fish. The method that I use will NOT guarantee that my tank won't get infected, but I am comfortable (earlier I used the word "confident", which was perhaps too strong a choice) with the risk level, considering my methods and the life cycle of the parasite (for example, while dormant individuals MAY persist for 30 days, most of them will not, etc.)

If I ever get ich in my tank, I will curse up and down (don't worry Steve, not on this board ), but one thing's for sure: I won't be able to blame Steve-s for it.

 

[midiman]

Steve-s is of course 100% correct in his presentation of this topic, and I think that we all should seriously consider what he is saying. I, for one, never meant to sound like I was ARGUING with him, but that in the spectrum between recklessness and total security, I probably lie in the upper (most secure) third when it comes to introducing new fish. The method that I use will NOT guarantee that my tank won't get infected, but I am comfortable (earlier I used the word "confident", which was perhaps too strong a choice) with the risk level, considering my methods and the life cycle of the parasite (for example, while dormant individuals MAY persist for 30 days, most of them will not, etc.)

If I ever get ich in my tank, I will curse up and down (don't worry Steve, not on this board ), but one thing's for sure: I won't be able to blame Steve-s for it.

 

[flanque]

steve-s, tripple sulpha is designed to treat whitespot. Read the packaging. I used it and it nuked my whitespot. Argue as you may, the bottom line on tripple sulpha is that for me it worked and is meant to treat this problem. I know MANY others that have used it to treat whitespot as well.

I can comment on QT from what I have learnt from dealing with other people and their experiences. People do not have to own something to know about it. Experience comes in many forms, not just one's own living space.

I disagree with your claim that UV are hit and miss. If you set it up correctly, they work, and these people did do that.

 

[quarryshark]

tripple sulpha is designed to treat whitespot. Read the packaging. I used it and it nuked my whitespot. Argue as you may, the bottom line on tripple sulpha is that for me it worked and is meant to treat this problem.

Sorry, but it is an antibiotic and will have no effect on the parasite itself. May help with a secondary infection....
http://www.thatpetplace.com/Product...ations/T1/F62+1044+0038/EDP/833/Itemdy00.aspx
Perhaps whet you thought was ich, was maybe a bacteria or fungal infection.
Think of the parasite as an invert (really it is). If a med that you are dumping in your display tank is strong enough to kill it, that med would also be strong enough to kill your corals and mobile inverts. So the "reef and/or invert safe" claim shows that a med is not a good parasite killing med. It it were, you would have a total tank wipeout to go along with it. Ask someone that has dumped copper into a display tank, its a mess.

I can comment on QT from what I have learnt from dealing with other people and their experiences. People do not have to own something to know about it. Experience comes in many forms, not just one's own living space.

I encourage you to spend some time reading this site's sick fish forum. Or read through the multiple pages of Fenner's forum. It's a recurring theme that the lack of a proper qt period is asking for a disaster.
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/cryptfaqs5.htm
The staff on this forum will always defend the use of qt. Some of us and many members of this forum have been there and done (or not done) that and many have paid a big price.

 

[midiman]

steve-s, tripple sulpha is designed to treat whitespot

It may be that what you are describing as "white spot" is not marine ich. Marine ich is not caused by bacteria, so antibiotics won't work against it. They may work against secondary infections brought on by ich, but not against the protozoan itself.