Ick Problem

[ray4723]

I have a 3 month old 55gal salt tank which has cycled. It seems no matter what fish I put in it they get ick. I have about 40lbs of live rock, 4 anemones, 2 snails and 1 skunk shrimp. I have returned a tang, coral beauty and lost several shrimp. What is going on?

[Atari]

Once the parasite enters the system it won't die off until the aquarium has been left fishless for 4-6 weeks. How long did you wait before new additions?

[quarryshark]

You have the parasite entrenched in your system. It just keep going through its life cycle and attacking you fish. You need to leave the tank void of fish for 6 weeks or so. This will allow the parasite to die off due to lack of hosts. I'm going through it right now. A lot of us have.

[Atari]

Also once you've gone through this fallow period you have to QT all new fish for 4 weeks, whether they show signs of ich or not. Otherwise you will end up introducing the parasite to the tank again.

[dralarms]

Yea, I just got through chasing my fish through 100+ gal tank trying to catch them. That was a pain.

[quarryshark]

Originally Posted by justmy2cents

Yea, I just got through chasing my fish through 100+ gal tank trying to catch them. That was a pain.

You too ? Man, must be something in the water (pun intended).

[dralarms]

Well I made the mistake of listening to my lfs. He had this flame angle for a month of so, beautiful fish, no signs of trama anywhere. Didn't have my QT set up and he said he hadn't added anything for 2 1/2 weeks to the tank. Said I would be fine . Well after a week and a half I noticed a couple white spots. Now my Regal tang looks like somebody is trying to cook him. I mean looks like he has been salted down ready for the frying pan.

[Gauge]

I don't share everyone else's point of view on the issue of QT tanks. I don't believe they are necessary unless you have some livestock that you want to proctect at absolutely all costs. QT tanks are very stressful on fish as they are usually too small and have poor water quality. I don't want to start a debate about it, but that's just my feeling.

I agree with everyone that you should leave your tank empty (of fish) for at least 6 weeks. Lowering your salinity to 1.018 or 1.019 and raising your temperature to 82 degrees would also help as it speeds up the life cycle of the parasite (causing it to die off faster without hosts).

Finally, when you are ready to add a fish, I would highly recommend that you do not add a tang. They are very suseptible to ich. I would recommend something much more hardy, like a clown.

[quarryshark]

Um, sorry I want to protect all my livestock. Clowns can/do get ich too. You should qt everything IMO.
Also, if he values his inverts, he should not drop his spg. The fallow period in itself should do.

[Atari]

Why would you not want to protect your pets? And if he uses a QT then he can add any fish he likes no matter how susceptable they may be. I find it a bit strange that you would be concerned about the stress to one particular fish in the QT and yet the amount of stress that not QT'ing could cause ALL the other livestock doesn't seem important.

I'll gladly go on record and say it's extremely poor practice to not QT all new fish. And I don't think opinion has anything to do with it.

[Gauge]

I feel that QTing a fish will unnecessarily stress the fish out. In my experience with smaller numbers of fish in the show tank, it's less worthwhile to QT the new fish than to add them directly to the main tank.

Basically, this is my experience. QTing is a problem. I've lost fish in QT before, frequently due to water issues or stress from tank size. If I have a 25% chance of losing a fish to QTing but only a 5% chance of losing either of my two fish in the main tank because of adding a new fish directly, I feel that in situations with smaller numbers of fish (or less expensive fish) it's safer for everyone on the whole to avoid QTing.

[Atari]

It would appear that ray4723's experience contradicts your statistics. So far he has 100% problem with adding fish directly.

I still don't agree that any livestock is expendable simply because it didn't cost a lot of money. But I guess that does come down to personal opinion.

[quarryshark]

Originally Posted by Gauge

I feel that QTing a fish will unnecessarily stress the fish out. In my experience with smaller numbers of fish in the show tank, it's less worthwhile to QT the new fish than to add them directly to the main tank.

Basically, this is my experience. QTing is a problem. I've lost fish in QT before, frequently due to water issues or stress from tank size. If I have a 25% chance of losing a fish to QTing but only a 5% chance of losing either of my two fish in the main tank because of adding a new fish directly, I feel that in situations with smaller numbers of fish (or less expensive fish) it's safer for everyone on the whole to avoid QTing.

It only takes one infected fish to infect a whle system.
I would have to disagree with the 5% chance and even of thats correct, why chance infecting the others in the main?
I have (and am now) qt quite a few fish and have yet to loose one to water quality issues. Any fish lost in qt were due to disease. To do a proper qt it takes some work and careful monitoring, but IMO its worth it.

[Gauge]

Atari, you are putting words in my mouth, and I appreciate it none too much. I never said that a fish was expendable. My experience has shown me that if I QT one fish, then I am MORE likely to have a casualty than if I were to not QT a fish. Only when there are large numbers of fish "at risk" in the main tank do is it more worthwhile to QT. If there's a 5% chance of an outbreak in the tank from a new fish and a 25% chance of loss of the new fish to QTing, then only if there are 6 fish is there a better chance of preserving live by QTing. (Of course, these numbers are just for example)

What I was saying is that if someone were to have the same experience as I have had with QTing, and they only had one fish in their tank (which would imply that QTing is more likely to cost a fish than to save one), but the one fish they had was a $300 black tang, then perhaps they would be more likely to take the slightly riskier approach (as I see it) and QT anyway. Neither fish is expendable in such a case.

And, just for clarification, anyone who claims that the cost of a fish in the store doesn't have any effect on how much they value that fish is a bold-faced liar. It probably feels nice to say that you love all your fish equally and unconditionally, but if you gave me the option of losing a $200 Helfrich's firefish that I've had for two months and a $6 green chromis I've had for two years, the chromis is going to have to go.

[quarryshark]

Originally Posted by Gauge

And, just for clarification, anyone who claims that the cost of a fish in the store doesn't have any effect on how much they value that fish is a bold-faced liar. It probably feels nice to say that you love all your fish equally and unconditionally, but if you gave me the option of losing a $200 Helfrich's firefish that I've had for two months and a $6 green chromis I've had for two years, the chromis is going to have to go.

Sorry, I am not a bold face liar and I value all my fish the same. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't choose my pets based on what they cost, nor do I value one over another because one was more expensive. I know some do feel this way, but one should not make a blanket statement like that.

[Atari]

LOL, if you honestly place value on animal life based on how much it put you out of pocket then I'll give this debate a miss. Have a nice day.