How to start this hobby and maintain it, inexpensively and with minimal work

[ca1ore]

Again, it is only what works for me and several other seasoned veterans. There are plenty of others with much experience who, like you, QT vigorously. Eventually though, you will see that it happens. And when the parasite DOES make it in to your system, it will wipe out everything. This will leave those of you in this camp even more firmly planted in your belief that these parasites are nearly always fatal. In reality though, they had no defense as a result of what was well-intentioned fish husbandry, IMO.

Ha ha, OK, looks like we've got 'seasoned veterans' on both sides of the aisle. I'd suggest you are making a couple of erroneous assumptions about what I may or may not think (you know what they say about assumptions). Ironically, I'm actually somewhere in the middle on this debate as I do have a mild ich strain in my tank; I QT because at the end of the day ich can be managed and is certainly not always fatal, but I really don't want velvet, brook or uronema (just to name a few) which may not be manageable. All I can tell you is that in the last 10 years of keeping reef tanks my fish losses are far lower than in the first 15 years. OK, I'm a better reefkeeper now than I was, but I think an effective (though not perfect, I grant you) quarantine has been central to that success (I don't lose fish to the QT process in the main). Lastly, I find the 'exposure' argument to be a rather weak one. If I keep a healthy, previously quarantined community of fish, and a parasite is inadvertently introduced, then there's an opportunity for them to be 'exposed' and begin to develop said immunity (if indeed that's really the case). How is that any different than plopping a fish into an already infected environment?

But, at the end of the day, we each do what we think is best and multiple approaches can be made to work, with inherent pros and cons.

 

[twon8]

It really just takes a minute to mix a BRS 2 part solution... if the name of the game is getting started as cheaply as possible, that's a good way to save some cash

Agreed. It takes about as much time to order it from amazon as mixing it up yourself does

 

[Zer0.]

Agreed. It takes about as much time to order it from amazon as mixing it up yourself does

Yup, fill with RODI, put in X scoops, shake, let set over night you got your 2 part. litterally 5 min. to mix up.

 

[30g]

It's like buying a used sports car. You have no idea how the previous person used and cared for the car. Same goes for a lot of aquarium stuff. I'd rather buy new and know that all the wear and tear is coming from me and I can get the full manufacturer warranty.

I'd say that's comparing apples to oranges. You can look at a tank full of water and see if it's leaking, if the skimmer works, etc. It's not like an engine and chassis with 3,000 parts hidden away. And a warranty isn't needed either if you spent $800 on a complete setup instead of $3,500. Oops, skimmer broke after two months....go buy a new one and you're still way ahead. I bought my 75 gallon system complete with an extra skimmer for $400 with nothing missing and about $200 worth of fish.

 

[3FordFamily]

Ha ha, OK, looks like we've got 'seasoned veterans' on both sides of the aisle. I'd suggest you are making a couple of erroneous assumptions about what I may or may not think (you know what they say about assumptions). Ironically, I'm actually somewhere in the middle on this debate as I do have a mild ich strain in my tank; I QT because at the end of the day ich can be managed and is certainly not always fatal, but I really don't want velvet, brook or uronema (just to name a few) which may not be manageable. All I can tell you is that in the last 10 years of keeping reef tanks my fish losses are far lower than in the first 15 years. OK, I'm a better reefkeeper now than I was, but I think an effective (though not perfect, I grant you) quarantine has been central to that success (I don't lose fish to the QT process in the main). Lastly, I find the 'exposure' argument to be a rather weak one. If I keep a healthy, previously quarantined community of fish, and a parasite is inadvertently introduced, then there's an opportunity for them to be 'exposed' and begin to develop said immunity (if indeed that's really the case). How is that any different than plopping a fish into an already infected environment?

But, at the end of the day, we each do what we think is best and multiple approaches can be made to work, with inherent pros and cons.

Did you miss where I said some other experienced individuals qt regularly?

And the reason the exposure argument is in no way a weak argument, at least in my opinion is the difference of continued exposure. Each time I buy a tang, angel, and potentially other fish - i reintroduce other parasites in to my tank. I've had ich, velvet, and brook in my various DT's and never ran fallow. Most fish pulled through. The key is repeated exposure. I forget where I read the study but I believe it stated that most fish retain immunities for 6 months or so (give or take a margin of error of a couple months) if they're in an environment devoid of parasites. Without exposure (like repeated vaccines), they will lose the immunity. Thus, I contend, that a group of fish that has been kept from parasites for a period of say a year or more, will be like shooting fish in a barrel for the first parasite that reaches them.

But yes, everyone does what works for them. I in no way intended to offend you with the aforementioned assumptions. I was attempting (perhaps poorly) to illustrate a point.

 

[Eric45]

If by two part, you're talking about alk and calc, there are much cheaper ways to go. I use pool chemicals and buy in bulk -- 50 or 100 lbs of each...lasts a long time.

 

[3FordFamily]

Agreed. It takes about as much time to order it from amazon as mixing it up yourself does

I doubt that it takes 5-10 seconds.

But I will have to research how to do this.

This still doesn't introduce other essential elements that my amazon-bought two part solution does, however.

 

[3FordFamily]

If by two part, you're talking about alk and calc, there are much cheaper ways to go. I use pool chemicals and buy in bulk -- 50 or 100 lbs of each...lasts a long time.

I had not even thought of that avenue -- I didn't realize alk and calc made any difference in the pool industry (although I have literally zero experience there)

 

[saf1]

I respect your experience, but I think telling someone that this hobby can require little work and be inexpensive is setting them up for failure. If you're not ready to spend significant money (relative to other similar hobbies) and ready to put in significant time until you have 11 years of experience and have figured many things out, you're going to be disappointed. That's my opinion anyway.

Money
Time
Patience

IMO, these three are the pillars with which you need to start. Of course there are always exceptions, but I think this is a safe generalization.

Maybe not, but you can design it in and plan accordingly. Those two things alone will reduce cost. The hobby is expensive but it doesn't mean you have to pay it in order to be successful. Just plan accordingly. Don't be impulsive. Have patience. And most of all, don't try to keep up with the Jones.


Let others pave the way and pay the premium. Read, research, and you can do just about anything in this hobby outside trying to keep the exotic fish and/or corals. Some equipment and products can be bought used. Others you can DIY. So many options on the table.

 

[itzonlithai]

Immunity to a parasite stays in your immune system for life, not through continued exposure. At least that's how it works for the most part for humans.

 

[dogface 13]

craigslist is a great way to get cheaper stuffer. Also agree with simple lights i use the same and grow everything. U can also replace dosing with frequent water changes with premium salts and I think you still maintain good growth. overall good post though!

 

[3FordFamily]

Immunity to a parasite stays in your immune system for life, not through continued exposure. At least that's how it works for the most part for humans.

I will try to dig up the research papers I read. Essentially, it explained that devoid of a reason to maintain an immunity to something, it will pass.

The analogy I used was annual vaccinations for many things, when I read it for myself. I will see if I can drum it up again.

 

[3FordFamily]

craigslist is a great way to get cheaper stuffer. Also agree with simple lights i use the same and grow everything. U can also replace dosing with frequent water changes with premium salts and I think you still maintain good growth. overall good post though!

thanks much!

 

[3FordFamily]

The first paragraph here mentions the 6 months immunity: This is NOT what I read but says a few things the other study did in the first few paragraphs:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-10/sp/feature/index.htm

The study I read was actually about velvet, not ich but said that it applied to brook, velvet and ich.

Still searching. I didn't save it because I really only cared for my use (selfish).

 

[ca1ore]

you miss where I said some other experienced individuals qt regularly?

Does "OK, looks like we've got 'seasoned veterans' on both sides of the aisle" suggest that? Doesn't to me.

The key is repeated exposure. I forget where I read the study but I believe it stated that most fish retain immunities for 6 months or so (give or take a margin of error of a couple months) if they're in an environment devoid of parasites. Without exposure (like repeated vaccines), they will lose the immunity. Thus, I contend, that a group of fish that has been kept from parasites for a period of say a year or more, will be like shooting fish in a barrel for the first parasite that reaches them.

The study you refer to, I believe, is annotated in a sticky in the fish disease forum, noting that "Fish that survive a Cryptocaryon infection develop immunity to that particular strain of Cryptocaryon, which can prevent significant disease reoccurrence for up to 6 months (Burgess 1992; Burgess and Matthews 1995). However, these survivors may act as carriers and provide a reservoir for future outbreaks (Colorni and Burgess 1997)." Says nothing about repeat exposures. Bold is my own. Maybe you're an epidemiologist, I certainly am not; but I cannot see much difference between a fish being exposed for the first time to a particular strain as an established., presumably disease-free animal, and one that is put into an infected tank. In both cases the animal is likely to be exposed to the parasite for the first time.

Or, maybe its a function of the population? Just thinking out loud. If you have an 'immune' population, perhaps the parasite pressure from just a single un-exposed fish is less problematic than it would be if the entire population were vulnerable (given the reproduction rate form active infections). Dunno, just speculating.

I don't claim to have 'the' answer (heck its been debated here more time than I care to say), nor am I just trying to be argumentative, just curious to really understand your thinking. Good thread!

 

[3FordFamily]

you miss where I said some other experienced individuals qt regularly?

Does "OK, looks like we've got 'seasoned veterans' on both sides of the aisle" suggest that? Doesn't to me.



The study you refer to, I believe, is annotated in a sticky in the fish disease forum, noting that "Fish that survive a Cryptocaryon infection develop immunity to that particular strain of Cryptocaryon, which can prevent significant disease reoccurrence for up to 6 months (Burgess 1992; Burgess and Matthews 1995). However, these survivors may act as carriers and provide a reservoir for future outbreaks (Colorni and Burgess 1997)." Says nothing about repeat exposures. Bold is my own. Maybe you're an epidemiologist, I certainly am not; but I cannot see much difference between a fish being exposed for the first time to a particular strain as an established., presumably disease-free animal, and one that is put into an infected tank. In both cases the animal is likely to be exposed to the parasite for the first time.

Or, maybe its a function of the population? Just thinking out loud. If you have an 'immune' population, perhaps the parasite pressure from just a single un-exposed fish is less problematic than it would be if the entire population were vulnerable (given the reproduction rate form active infections). Dunno, just speculating.

I don't claim to have 'the' answer (heck its been debated here more time than I care to say), nor am I just trying to be argumentative, just curious to really understand your thinking. Good thread![/QUOTE]

Thanks! Yeah, I am not sure either. What I know, is that I keep several tough to keep fish in setups that I regularly introduce non QT'd additions (at least once every 6 months) and I have no issues with my current residents - parasites can and occasionally do take new additions - but most do fine and build their own immunity with high quality, varied food, good water quality, and good parameters.

I just know what has worked for me for years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yhFjJEKpGY
Change to 720P HD. 50 secs devoted to each tank, roughly.

those are my tanks and all of my fish. Some are tough to keep in properly QT'd fish systems, they thrive with ich, velvet and I had brook a year or two ago. The systems have never gone fallow.

 

[ganjero]

Is this the article from where you are getting the "repetitive exposure" http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-07/sp/feature/index.htm

From it "Remember that in the testing the fishes were repeatedly exposed and then cured by using freshwater dips and copper. And, that it was not until after multiple exposures and subsequent treatments that the immunity finally gave the test subjects full protection"

From the same paragraph " My experience has shown, unfortunately, that not taking a quick, proactive stance with treatment will usually doom your fish"

 

[3FordFamily]

Is this the article from where you are getting the "repetitive exposure" http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-07/sp/feature/index.htm

From it "Remember that in the testing the fishes were repeatedly exposed and then cured by using freshwater dips and copper. And, that it was not until after multiple exposures and subsequent treatments that the immunity finally gave the test subjects full protection"

From the same paragraph " My experience has shown, unfortunately, that not taking a quick, proactive stance with treatment will usually doom your fish"

Yes, that is not the source, it just reaffirms the 6 month timeline.

Again, as I have said numerous times.

I have fish that are hard to keep with proper QT and treatment procedures, in systems with fish I have never QT'd. My achilles, powder blue tang, red coris wrasse, leopard wrasse, just to name a few. I have not QT'd a fish in 6 years. My fish are thriving. Though anecdotal, it proves that it CAN be done and that the whole treatment of marine parasites as "ebola" is not necessarily true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yhFjJEKpGY

Again, theres my fish and setups. 50 secs devoted to each. 720P HD the video.

I am not saying it's a bad idea (necessarily) to QT all fish. I see it as unnecessary, costly, and has it's negatives just as not QT'ing does. I've done both. I have posted my beliefs on the subject everywhere, (probably in this thread) with several drawbacks (IMO) of QT and treatment.

Just my .02

 

[ganjero]

Yes, that is not the source, it just reaffirms the 6 month timeline.

Again, as I have said numerous times.

I have fish that are hard to keep with proper QT and treatment procedures, in systems with fish I have never QT'd. My achilles, powder blue tang, red coris wrasse, leopard wrasse, just to name a few. I have not QT'd a fish in 6 years. My fish are thriving. Though anecdotal, it proves that it CAN be done and that the whole treatment of marine parasites as "ebola" is not necessarily true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yhFjJEKpGY

Again, theres my fish and setups. 50 secs devoted to each. 720P HD the video.

I am not saying it's a bad idea (necessarily) to QT all fish. I see it as unnecessary, costly, and has it's negatives just as not QT'ing does. I've done both. I have posted my beliefs on the subject everywhere, (probably in this thread) with several drawbacks (IMO) of QT and treatment.

Just my .02

Nice fish selection and your tanks look good. Thanks for sharing

If you have been in the hobby 11 years you should know that nobody really wants to make marine parasites look as bad as "ebola" and that there are many people that never QT.And even though is not an imperative thing to do, the pros of properly QT outweighs the cons.

 

[whiteshark]

Maybe not, but you can design it in and plan accordingly. Those two things alone will reduce cost. The hobby is expensive but it doesn't mean you have to pay it in order to be successful. Just plan accordingly. Don't be impulsive. Have patience. And most of all, don't try to keep up with the Jones.


Let others pave the way and pay the premium. Read, research, and you can do just about anything in this hobby outside trying to keep the exotic fish and/or corals. Some equipment and products can be bought used. Others you can DIY. So many options on the table.

Tons of options that you generally learn about with experience You are correct. You don't need to go top of the line everything to have success, and you can buy used, and you can diy. That's all true. But that's still going to cost you far far more than keeping virtually any other animal. When you look at the closest comparable hobby, freshwater tank keeping, you're looking at many times more $ per gallon if you take all cost saving options. If you tell someone they can do this hobby cheap, they are going to think goldfish bowl or betta tank.

To say you can start it cheaply for minimal effort is like saying "hey this car is super cheap! " Then you look up how much all the options are and you get huge sticker shock. People think of saltwater tanks and see all those fish, corals, anemones, clams, etc., and they want to be able to keep all that stuff. So they start but then realize they need x, y and z to begin to think about keeping get them. Then they realize they can't afford it, become discouraged, and give up.

And that's where the minimal effort part comes in. Research is effort. And you need to research the bejeebus out of this hobby before starting. Suggesting that minimal effort can be put in is again setting up for failure. Sure, with experience comes efficiency, but some things you need to learn by doing and no matter what it's going to require significant effort.