How many fish could be saved?

[revhtree]

There are many preventative measures we can take to improve the life span of the fish we keep in our aquariums. That being said fish are going to get sick.

If we were to properly "treat" each fish that gets sick, shows signs of disease, quits eating, etc. what do you think would be the percentage of how many could be saved?

I know it's impossible to really say but what do you think? 90% 75% 50% 10%?

I think that many people often don't try to save a fish because they don't believe that they hold much of a chance to recover. If we can change that mindset we can change the percentage of how many fish are saved.

I also think that along with a change of thinking people must get educated on how to identify and treat fish disease as best as possible.

I would like you to vote on the percent that you think and make a comment!

 

[revhtree]

@Humblefish would like to hear from you and others on this.

 

[ebushrow]

If we had a definitive guide for diseases and how to treat them I would say at least 50% and possibly 75%....@Humblefish has written some really good information on the diseases and how to treat them, however, for new hobbyists (especially) it is hard to tell the difference between many diseases and not to mention there is not a truly broad spectrum antibiotic. A photo guide of what diseases look like and how to treat them would be incredible! But I am not sure if you meant just Qt'ing and treating once a disease was present...or prophylactic treatment..

 

[Tahoe61]

Preventing new tank syndrome by allowing a tank to age before each addition, stocking appropriately for the size of the tank, stocking fish that have similar characteristics, such as aggression These simple husbandry aspects would not treat active disease but I am certain it would have a huge impact on the mortality rate as it relates to those fish that succumb to disease.

Edit: I voted for 50%.

 

[stevo01]

With the current methods i vote 70-80 percent.

 

[Humblefish]

If we had a definitive guide for diseases and how to treat them I would say at least 50% and possibly 75%....@Humblefish has written some really good information on the diseases and how to treat them, however, for new hobbyists (especially) it is hard to tell the difference between many diseases and not to mention there is not a truly broad spectrum antibiotic. A photo guide of what diseases look like and how to treat them would be incredible! But I am not sure if you meant just Qt'ing and treating once a disease was present...or prophylactic treatment..

There is this excellent resource for the time being: http://chucksaddiction.thefishestate.net/disease.html

We're working on a disease photo guide of our own.

 

[Brew12]

Preventing new tank syndrome by allowing a tank to age before each addition, stocking appropriately for the size of the tank, stocking fish that have similar characteristics, such as aggression These simple husbandry aspects would not treat active disease but I am certain it would have a huge impact on the mortality rate as it relates to those fish that succumb to disease.

Edit: I voted for 50%.

I would add proper nutrition to this list.

A solid QT protocol on the front end is a great start. Proper stocking, nutrition and husbandry is the insurance policy that helps keep your fish safe if you make a mistake on your QT and something gets through.

 

[azbigjohn]

I think with unlimited resources and equipment, we could probably get upwards of 80%.

Sdaly, most hobbyists are not marine biologists, and do not have the resources of a public aquarium, so I would think with excellent advice, diagnostics and treatment protocols, the a 70% success rate is definitely achievable.

 

[Humblefish]

Experience also counts for a lot when it comes to diagnosing fish diseases. I drive people nuts when they walk into a LFS with me because all I see is ich, velvet, flukes, etc. as a walk from tank to tank. I don't mean to be rude and I do my best to keep my voice low, but I just can't help myself. It's like an obsession.

 

[shrimped]

I would say it depends how fast you notice a sick fish and what kind of fish it is. I've recovered many fish such as Firefish and Ruby Dragonet just by simple frozen foods soaked in garlic and good water quality. But other fish such as Sunburst Anthias just wouldn't cooperate with me even though he only had like one white spot visible.

 

[Frop]

I don't have a lot of experience with saltwater but I was throwing in the idea of QTing freshwater. I know there is a higher save rate if you know what you're doing. Sadly I'm still new to this. For that I put 80-90 can be saved.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Experience also counts for a lot when it comes to diagnosing fish diseases. I drive people nuts when they walk into a LFS with me because all I see is ich, velvet, flukes, etc. as a walk from tank to tank. I don't mean to be rude and I do my best to keep my voice low, but I just can't help myself. It's like an obsession.

I would love to go fish shopping with you. I think that would be an eye-opening experience.

 

[Rick.45cal]

Experience also counts for a lot when it comes to diagnosing fish diseases. I drive people nuts when they walk into a LFS with me because all I see is ich, velvet, flukes, etc. as a walk from tank to tank. I don't mean to be rude and I do my best to keep my voice low, but I just can't help myself. It's like an obsession.

That's a game I have always played since I worked in a LFS as a young man. I have a whole set of my own rules (in my head). I don't break them either. My buddy that goes with me just looks at me and I tell him if it's ok. . If the answer is "no" he gets an explaination of why later, when we aren't in the store or within ear shot of anyone. Fish dieseases/reef pests/eggs/nuisance algae/poor husbandry practices/poor employee knowledge/bad recommendations... all things are fair game in my book!

I'll vote, I'm going to vote 70-80%. But that comes down to LOTS of real world experience treating/accurately diagnosing a sick marine fish. The guy that owned the store I worked at was brilliant at it. His success rate was probably closer to 95%. (Granted that was over 20 years ago, we deal with much more evolved strains now than we did then. Some very reisitant to treatments, thanks to incomplete irradication via those treatments in our hobby.) He was experienced enough to know what to do when he noticed the symptoms in time. That's often the trick, catching it in time, often a very difficult an near impossible task when your dealing with some internal parasites/ infections. Then taking appropriate immediate action. No matter who you are you can't save them all.

My knowledge of treatment/cures is outdated and only a fraction of what his was/is. Probably need to go hang out in the fish disease forum some more!

 

[Empress]

Here's my two cents without going into detail:

If there's a definite cure for sick fish 98% would make it even before it gets to the hobbyist.
How many people would go thru the trouble of curing a sick fish if they knew how: 40%-50%
How many people would go thru the trouble to cure a sick fish if they didn't know how: 5-10%
How many people would give up on a fish and buy another one: 90-95%
How many people would KILL an otherwise HEALTHY fish due to poor water quality, poor diet, incompatibility issues, etc: 50%-60%.

 

[revhtree]

Keep the comments coming!

 

[melypr1985]

I said 70-80% to take into account the diseases that we don't know enough (or anything) about or are unable to cure. Bacterial infections alone can be difficult and sometimes impossible if not caught in time.

 

[JoshH]

Here's my two cents without going into detail:

If there's a definite cure for sick fish 98% would make it even before it gets to the hobbyist.
How many people would go thru the trouble of curing a sick fish if they knew how: 40%-50%
How many people would go thru the trouble to cure a sick fish if they didn't know how: 5-10%
How many people would give up on a fish and buy another one: 90-95%
How many people would KILL an otherwise HEALTHY fish due to poor water quality, poor diet, incompatibility issues, etc: 50%-60%.

These last two estimations are unfortunately pretty accurate IMO. Being a total newbie to the world of salt water I've spent the better part of 2 years researching and reresearching everything I possibly could. I'm still double and triple checking things and my tank isn't even up and cycling yet. As new people seem to sometimes forget they are at the end of the day, responsible for every living fish, coral etc in our system and it's our duty to ensure we are as educated as possible when it comes to there care. It's no different than getting a new cat or dog. We can form bonds with our tank inhabitants just like you can with any other pet. If newer people took this approach, properly educated themselves and took there time getting set up properly. I feel the survival of fish who do get sick would be MUCH improved.

 

[Danny N]

I'm fairly new to the hobby and haven't had to deal with a sick fish, but I have a hard enough time with a qt for healthy fish. I'm fairly certain that trying to nurse a sick fish back to health in a smaller tank would almost certainly be a 100% death penalty.

 

[FishLover01]

There are many preventative measures we can take to improve the life span of the fish we keep in our aquariums. That being said fish are going to get sick.

If we were to properly "treat" each fish that gets sick, shows signs of disease, quits eating, etc. what do you think would be the percentage of how many could be saved?

I know it's impossible to really say but what do you think? 90% 75% 50% 10%?

I think that many people often don't try to save a fish because they don't believe that they hold much of a chance to recover. If we can change that mindset we can change the percentage of how many fish are saved.

I also think that along with a change of thinking people must get educated on how to identify and treat fish disease as best as possible.

I would like you to vote on the percent that you think and make a comment!

I'd say 90% could be cured without a doubt. The other 10% has short lifespans anyways. If a fish dies before it's average lifespan, then there's a highly likely chance that it could have been diagnosed and cured. The reason for all the deaths are lack of knowledge. I know firsthand that I've had fish and I had no idea what was wrong with them and they ended up passing on to fish heaven. I'm always learning but I don't know it all. Diseases is one area that I can tell a lot of hobbyists and aquarist's are lacking knowledge including myself. I hate to lose a fish and try everything I can to get it to live, but sometimes it's a 50/50 chance that I've even diagnosed correctly. We can't treat what we can't diagnose first. So, 90% most definitely.

 

[GHsaltie]

Experience also counts for a lot when it comes to diagnosing fish diseases. I drive people nuts when they walk into a LFS with me because all I see is ich, velvet, flukes, etc. as a walk from tank to tank. I don't mean to be rude and I do my best to keep my voice low, but I just can't help myself. It's like an obsession.

Hey can I join the party? That sounds like fun! My sisters get annoyed at me as well when I go into a store and start pointing out all the symptoms and disease that I see.
I also voted 70-80%, like @melypr1985 I also agree that there is so much still to be learned about fish disease, and with some things it's that extra time needed to diagnose that can doom the fish.