How to make Cheato trustworthy?

[MondoBongo]

so here's my take:

72 days (or longer) is absolutely ideal.

but QT isn't about risk prevention, it's about risk mitigation. so shorter QT times, while not ideal, are still better than nothing.

i tend to be very strict about my QT protocols. but i also recognize that many people may not have the time/space/desire to be so stringent. in those cases, there's still value in some QT over none.

 

[neilp2006]

CoralRX dip and 16 days for chaeto is all you need

72 days is 4 days too short anyway, so that's not even right either . If your water had a 72 day tomont in it, you'll be transferring a bunch of ich free-swimmers that we're just released. Starve them out for 2 days, wait 2 more for insurance= 76 days


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neilp2006]

There's no value in any QT unless it's done right 72 days is still in the danger zone. 76, or none at all.

I'm remembering why I go to R2R more nowadays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heritage]

Arguing over ich :eek2:

 

[MondoBongo]

There's no value in any QT unless it's done right 72 days is still in the danger zone. 76, or none at all.

I'm remembering why I go to clay-boa more nowadays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i wouldn't say no value.

like i said, it's a calculate risk. the longer you wait, the better your probability is.

i always like to tout the non-medical benefits of QT periods as well. there's something to be said for getting to know a fish, and letting them time to get to know you, how/what you feed, etc...

 

[mhurley]

I’ve removed a few posts and one person.
I’ll presume that we are going to continue with a fruitful conversation?

 

[neilp2006]

How to make Cheato trustworthy?

You know what, thanks for removing the offending posts, but he's just going to go and act like that again any time he sees me post.

I offered QTing guidance specific to the question asked, and as current as you possibly can in this hobby. I gave advice based on a lot of work by a number of highly skilled aquaculturists, and what I got in return was offensive posts about my "˜size' and disparaging remarks about my education.

He asked me "˜what makes you an expert' and got hostile when I responded with my education level that is 100% relevant to the posts I made, and started name calling when I asked him the same question back.

Instead of removing, why not ban? His posts in the health section are low yield and full of misinfo anyway, so what the harm ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cprdnick]

I don't comment much because I hate humans (cant imagine why), but I'd like to second neil's motion.

Also, so it doesn't sound like I'm thread jacking...

I found value in this thread, and truly didn't know there was an ich concern beyond fish introduction.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[mhurley]

.

Instead of removing, why not ban?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you misunderstood my post. A person has been removed from the board in addition to posts being removed from this thread.

 

[neilp2006]

I think you misunderstood my post. A person has been removed from the board in addition to posts being removed from this thread.

I did misunderstand, and for that I apologize.

Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk