For those that don’t QT, why not

[C4ctus99]

Thanks for the answer - I would posit/suggest - that many fish that die do not show signs of disease (even if they have one) - i.e. velvet affecting more the gills rather than the skin, flukes, etc. HOWEVER - I fully agree with you that buying new fish is the highest risk of mortality. Its a question I have asked multiple times with no real answer - Is the problem no QT - or is is acclimation.

One died in QT w/copper, one was badly shook around at petco and showed damage immediately after dying, one got the tail end of a lot of dust and stress rearranging rocks after adding it, and the last one was in the tank for 6 days stressed and not eating. Am working to provide ample hiding places and have learned how to feed better since then

 

[MnFish1]

One died in QT w/copper, one was badly shook around at petco and showed damage immediately after dying, one got the tail end of a lot of dust and stress rearranging rocks after adding it, and the last one was in the tank for 6 days stressed and not eating. Am working to provide ample hiding places and have learned how to feed better since then

I understand your philosophy - I will say - I tried your method - and in the long run - I lost about 1K $ of fish in a week

 

[C4ctus99]

I understand your philosophy - I will say - I tried your method - and in the long run - I lost about 1K $ of fish in a week

Not that invested… yet

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Ime, it's just not worth all a "full" QT entails...i "QT" fish to get them eating what i plan on feeding them and to watch for abnormal behavior for a rather short time so i guess I do some kind of "observational QT" but nothing beyond that.

 

[MnFish1]

Ime, it's just not worth all a "full" QT entails...i "QT" fish to get them eating what i plan on feeding them and to watch for abnormal behavior for a rather short time so i guess I do some kind of "observational QT" but nothing beyond that.

I think there are many variables:

1. Many people on this site do not QT at all. Are they wrong?
2. Are they doing something differently? (yes)
3. Are they stocking at a low level (Probably). Do I have proof - no.
4. Do I think adding mud from the North Atlantic protects fish from tropical climes from disease - no.
5. Do I think it's dangerous every time one adds a new fish to an established tank - yes. I would strongly consider 'why'. Especially if from an internet source. JMHO

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I think there are many variables:

1. Many people on this site do not QT at all. Are they wrong?
2. Are they doing something differently? (yes)
3. Are they stocking at a low level (Probably). Do I have proof - no.
4. Do I think adding mud from the North Atlantic protects fish from tropical climes from disease - no.
5. Do I think it's dangerous every time one adds a new fish to an established tank - yes. I would strongly consider 'why'. Especially if from an internet source. JMHO

I'm unsure how to respond since you already answered your questions...i was just offering my 2 bits to the original post

 

[MnFish1]

I'm unsure how to respond since you already answered your questions...i was just offering my 2 bits to the original post

Try to answer the questions

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Try to answer the questions

Ok...
1-no they're not wrong
2-yes, they're doing something differently than QT (not QT)
3-i have no idea what the stocking level of people's tanks are just like you
4-no...i think that's pretty useless personally...
5-yeah, i think they're taking a risk by adding a new fish especially if it's from an internet source as well...risk vs. reward i suppose...they want instant gratification like a majority of people i imagine which is understandable

How do these questions relate to my post though?

 

[MnFish1]

Ok...
1-no they're not wrong
2-yes, they're doing something differently than QT (not QT)
3-i have no idea what the stocking level of people's tanks are just like you
4-no...i think that's pretty useless personally...
5-yeah, i think they're taking a risk by adding a new fish especially if it's from an internet source as well...risk vs. reward i suppose...they want instant gratification like a majority of people i imagine which is understandable

How do these questions relate to my post though?

Thanks agree... See how easy it is?

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Thanks agree... See how easy it is?

Yes, i do indeed see how easy it is to agree with someone. That's something i learned at a very young age actually...

 

[Paul B]

I see my name mentioned a few times in this thread but remember, if you use copper, that is totally different from anything I ever said and I feel we are killing many fish with this thinking. As I always say, our fish should never get sick so there is no need to poison them with copper.

Having sick fish is our fault. I am talking communicable diseases, not neurological and similar non communicable things.


It's like when George Washington was dying, his doctors bled him which was the treatment at the time because they didn't know better.
Eventually the medical institution learned and we no longer bleed people.

Some day in the future we will all learn how to keep fish healthy without using the same treatments we used 50 years ago when the hobby started.

Just my opinion as I am not the God of fish

 

[Nemo&Friends]

Im curious - why are you setting up an observation tank if you never lose fish? Where do you source your fish?

I have never lost a fish to disease, and I do not want to give medication if the fish are not sick. I have read on this thread about many horror stories, and decided observation, without drugs in a tank with a little sand, live rocks, and some macro plants should not stress the fish too much.
Also I would like to grow more pods, and I thought I could use that tank as a double purpose. I do have a few snails in it now. I am planning to get pods soon.
So far my fish have all been bought in a local LFS and it is a very good one in my opinion. I have never dared to buy fish on line, and I never bought "expert" level fish either.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I see my name mentioned a few times in this thread but remember, if you use copper, that is totally different from anything I ever said and I feel we are killing many fish with this thinking. As I always say, our fish should never get sick so there is no need to poison them with copper.

Having sick fish is our fault. I am talking communicable diseases, not neurological and similar non communicable things.


It's like when George Washington was dying, his doctors bled him which was the treatment at the time because they didn't know better.
Eventually the medical institution learned and we no longer bleed people.

Some day in the future we will all learn how to keep fish healthy without using the same treatments we used 50 years ago when the hobby started.

Just my opinion as I am not the God of fish

Properly performed copper treatments are far better than trying to ride out an acute illness with no real treatment. What happens is that people call it a “poison” and that makes other people reluctant to use it. Those people then first try all manner of alternative “treatments”, and then, only when their fish are dying do they relent and start copper…..but the fish dies and they say, “yep - copper killed my fish”.

They actually killed the fish by not starting a proper copper or other treatment soon enough.

I’ve used coppersafe on thousands of fish and have not lost any to copper toxicity. Ionic copper is a different situation, quicker to work, but much trickier to use.

Jay

 

[Weeb]

I prefer a quarantine procedure.

I believe more wild-caught ornamental marine fishes are coming through the system with a higher instance of diseases and find a quarantine process helps in a number of ways:
1. Getting a wild-caught fish to eat -- a more focused effort than adding it to a community aquarium to fend for itself;
2. A 14-day copper treatment; and
3. A 3-week observation (or Praziquantel treatment + 2 weeks observation after Prazi treatment).

Have dozens of fishes in my 360g and 180g aquaria, I always protected them.

 

[Short Reefer]

i have not QT any fish since i started the hobby. Somehow i got luck and very small amount of fish didnt make it.

 

[Squidward]

Qurantining fish, corals, and inverts is well worth it. Having an ich free tank is night and day better than managing/always worrying if the next outbreak will be worse, etc. I don't use copper. I only do TTM and prazipro on my fish. I also keep 12 Tangs and none have died since I started my tank in 2019.

 

[Fort Salty]

My "observational qt" procedure has been to watch a fish at the lfs and then dump them in my tank. I have had two fish perish put of seven, both clowns. One jumped out somehow, and one did not seem to acclimate well. I suspect that much of the trouble people have is due to online purchases and the stress of shipping, but I am very new and that is just a suspicion. I have acquired a lot of interesting creatures which I presume came with corals (also from that same lfs) such as pods, brittle star, and a dove snail.

Just like it helps to know where your food comes from, I imagine it helps to know where your fish come from.

I do have a ten gallon tank and some supplies handy in case, but I don't imagine I could do much for a sick fish were it to arise since I am away from home for a large portion of my day. Full profilactic Qt seems like a high demand for an entry level hobbyist. I'm sure having disposable income for several three figure fish would be a different story.

I suppose I will learn from my mistakes as time goes on like we all do. We'll see if that changes my opinion.

FS

 

[Paul B]

I believe more wild-caught ornamental marine fishes are coming through the system with a higher instance of diseases and find a quarantine process helps in a number of ways:

I hear this a lot now and I just don't see it. This year I added (after giving away a large fish) about 8 or 10 small fish all from a very dirty and questionable store. (I brought Humblefish there)

I posted about every one of them. (I have about 40 fish now)

It doesn't matter what, if any diseases the fish have as long as your tank is immune like all long lived, healthy tanks are.
I learned decades ago how to keep fish healthy with no poisons or medications and it is simple.
If not, my tank would have crashed in the 80s. But so far, it is still going with no hint of disease.

WE will soon all learn that our immunity and the fishes immunity comes from the gut. Almost all medications kill gut bacteria thereby reducing immunity which is totally counterproductive.

My ruby red dragonettes spawned yesterday as they constantly do as well as all my paired fish and that is a sign of a healthy, no disease tank.

WE can run our tanks any way we like and as is always said, there are many ways to do this. But I think we complicate it a whole lot when it is actually simple.

Have a great day and we all hope our fish live, disease free forever, whatever we do.




Jay my friend, if I get a fish "on purpose" sometimes for free, that is covered in parasites I may use copper on it. That fish may live or die but when I put it in my tank nothing else has been or will be infected.

My tank is on about 7 forums since forums were invented and paper magazines before that. Never once have I posted about my fish having an infectious disease. Not once. Can anyone with a fully quarantined or medicated tank say that? Why not? Where are all the tanks that were started in the 70s, 80, or even 90s?

How old is the oldest quarantined or medicated "HOME" tank, where all the fish and corals were quarantined, where the corals are dipped. Where the fish are pre drugged before putting in the tank?

If those tanks crashed, why did they crash? What happened to them?

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I prefer a quarantine procedure.

I believe more wild-caught ornamental marine fishes are coming through the system with a higher instance of diseases and find a quarantine process helps in a number of ways:
1. Getting a wild-caught fish to eat -- a more focused effort than adding it to a community aquarium to fend for itself;
2. A 14-day copper treatment; and
3. A 3-week observation (or Praziquantel treatment + 2 weeks observation after Prazi treatment).

Have dozens of fishes in my 360g and 180g aquaria, I always protected them.

I just posted on another thread why the old 14 day copper regimen should not be used:

14 days is just not long enough. Copper does not kill the resting tomonts. When you do a 14 day copper treatment and then pull the copper, there is a good chance that these surviving tomonts will arise and reinfect the fish. 30 days is the minimum time for coppersafe or copper power. For fish with active infections, that is 30 days beyond the date you last saw symptoms.

The 14 days value comes from the old ionic copper products. They are more toxic, so people try to minimize the length of time with those treatments. Even then, the standard was 21 days. With that short of a period, you will however, need to move the fish to a new tank on day 15, while it is still in copper, to try and avoid the resting tomonts.

Jay

 

[MnFish1]

Ok...
1-no they're not wrong
2-yes, they're doing something differently than QT (not QT)
3-i have no idea what the stocking level of people's tanks are just like you
4-no...i think that's pretty useless personally...
5-yeah, i think they're taking a risk by adding a new fish especially if it's from an internet source as well...risk vs. reward i suppose...they want instant gratification like a majority of people i imagine which is understandable

How do these questions relate to my post though?

The questions relate to your post - because in general I was agreeing with you - that you have been successful with observational QT - but that there are many variables that can influence that success - including many that I didn't mention.

I was trying to tease out why some people seem to be successful with observation (or no) QT - whereas others have had multiple tank die-offs. I do not believe it involves 'feeding' simply because there are numerous examples of fish being introduced - and an entire tank being wiped out with a new introduction that appears healthy.

I guess I was trying to stick to the topic of the OP - which was 'to those who don't QT, why not?'. Instead in many cases the answers have been 'This is what I do - not why do I not QT'. I was making a general response - though I quoted your post I was responding in general to the topic.