To make a long story short I have a 120 reef which was recently 75% wiped out,due to ich or similar parasite that cause the tell tale white spots on the fish. I NEVER want to go through this again (after years of having zero problems with infection i slacked on my 2wk quarantine protocol) and I am willing to do whatever it takes to make sure it doesnt happen again. For starters, should I completely get rid of anthing I cant sterilize (aside from corals) including substrate and live rock or can I honestly trust a fallow period following the recommended amount of time? I am willing to completely start over and do my best to MAKE SURE I never introduce any parasites into the aquarium (using AT LEAST a 2 wk quarantine with fish) or can I really trust in the fallow period and that the supposed rumor/myth that crypt lays fallow until it recognizes weakness in fish doesn't exists?
Ich: Lay Fallow or Sterilize
- Thread starter atp0726
- Start date
I have spent more time than I care to admit reading about Ich and the treatments for it. I have read all the stuff on wetwebmedia and the stickies on here.
I don't know that I trust the fallow period to be a way to rid the tank of ich. It seems that so many have tried it for 6,8 and even 10 weeks, yet upon reintroducing their fish back to the tank they develop white spots.
This supposedly happens even after the fish have been treated with hypo or copper in a QT tank the whole time the display tank was running fallow.
Do you know that it was in fact a fish that infected your tank or did some parameter go out of whack which caused the other fish to be easily overcome by the parasite?
I don't know that I trust the fallow period to be a way to rid the tank of ich. It seems that so many have tried it for 6,8 and even 10 weeks, yet upon reintroducing their fish back to the tank they develop white spots.
This supposedly happens even after the fish have been treated with hypo or copper in a QT tank the whole time the display tank was running fallow.
Do you know that it was in fact a fish that infected your tank or did some parameter go out of whack which caused the other fish to be easily overcome by the parasite?
MrTuskfish
Team RC
Steve's sticky on the fallow period for ich really addresses the difficulty of achieving 100% kill-rate on ich. (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2041951) Achieving 100% of anything is extremely difficult. 100%, 100% of the time is probably impossible; no matter what your goal. (Does that make sense?) This subject has been discussed a lot lately and ich may be reappearing, when everything we know, says it shouldn't. I'm sure not criticizing anyone; but I'm convinced that most ich re-infestations are due to some type of error on our (the hobbyist's) part. Hypo or copper are extremely effective and quite simple. However, there is no room for error. And there are so many areas in, either treatment, that are subject to human error. Refractometer calibration, inaccurate test kits, improper copper testing timetables, hypo periods of slightly higher SG due to evaporation, copper absorption by rock or substrate, not enough fallow time, not enough copper or hypo time, etc, etc. Again, not being critical, I can see how all the info would drive anyone nuts; but the 2 weeks QT time, mentioned in the original post, is nowhere near long enough. It would be a shame to go through a sterilization process, only to re-introduce ich because a fish wasn't in QT long enough. Of course; the answer to all this is to QT everything from day one. I know this is never going to happen; but never pass up an opportunity to mention it.
As always, MrTuskfish writes a cogent explanation. I too am not being critical as I see no value in doing so. I am, however, quite passionate about trying to help people be successful in this hobby and to keep a healthy tank that is parasite free. It is difficult to occasionally see opportunities for fish health that are not seized upon since many people drop out of the hobby because they simply tire of fighting parasites.
Snorvich and MrTuskfish have far more experience than I and having read many of their posts on other threads I appreciate their contributions. Thank you for such amazing firsthand experience. I agree that all of the things MrT outlines that can go wrong during treatment, likely contribute to true well intentioned aquarist from reintroducing ich back into the display.
I have been lucky and my 90 gallon reef tank has never displayed ich on any of the fish. I try to be diligent with husbandry and QT all purchases. It is now fully stocked with a 30 gallon sump and a 40 gallon fuge.
However, I set up a 180 gallon FOWLR tank on Dec 1 and it has a 55 gallon sump, packed with aged LR. I did initially QT all new fish and then a trusted friend gave me a banded butterfly fish that was in his tank for 1.5 years.
Knowing these fish are easy to stress I broke my rule and added it to my tank. Within 24 hours it was dead, from either stress or it was already on its way out because it started having cloudy eyes within 8 hours of adding it. Was it new tank syndrome? It could have been, even though all parameters were normal.
Then a few of my fish showed ich for a few days and it went away. Likely the ich dropped off to go to the substrate to become Tomonts (?)
So my tank has been running for several weeks with no issues other than my 6" long Magnificent Foxface shows ich spots in the am (from sleeping in the same spot and allowing the parasite to re attach, no doubt). It clears up by mid day and he looks fine and eats like crazy.
So I consulted with my local fish club (www.carolinafishtalk.com) and fellow reefers to decide wether to move all my fish to a QT (which I would have to buy a tank big enough) or leave them as is and feed garlic and vitamins.
The general contentious was that ich was something most members had from time to time and "managed" it. Is this optimal, of course not..... Most advised that the stress of moving all the fish to QT would do more harm than good. A lot of the members had "ich free" tanks for months, then when they added a new fish (after a QT period) they would see ich for a couple of days and then it went away.
My fish are:
3" Blue Spot Toby
4" Blue Reef Chromis
6" Mag Foxface
4" Yellow Tang
3" Humu Trigger
So far all of the fish have never displayed ich, except the fox face. I have the dedication to put all the fish in a QT and let the tank go fallow, but I think it would stress the heck out of them. I think that the tank being new contributed to the ich cropping up and now that its stabilized it will be less of a problem.
I know many don't see the efficacy of a UV unit, but I am running a 57 watt AQUA UV unit at 280 GPH turnover rate. Knowing the facts about ich and how it reproduces would lead one to believe that UV has no use. However, I read many posts and reviews of experienced fish keepers who said once they started running UV they had much less instances of ich and fish losses. When I started this hobby I tried to find a baseline to goto for info and I rely on Bob Fenner and his web site for a lot of information. He is an advocate of UV.
I just hope to feed my fish quality food, nori soaked in garlic and add selcon 2x a week and see if all the fish remain healthy. If I see more fish getting ich then I will likely have to buy a 40 gallon tank and QT them while the tank runs fallow.
I have been lucky and my 90 gallon reef tank has never displayed ich on any of the fish. I try to be diligent with husbandry and QT all purchases. It is now fully stocked with a 30 gallon sump and a 40 gallon fuge.
However, I set up a 180 gallon FOWLR tank on Dec 1 and it has a 55 gallon sump, packed with aged LR. I did initially QT all new fish and then a trusted friend gave me a banded butterfly fish that was in his tank for 1.5 years.
Knowing these fish are easy to stress I broke my rule and added it to my tank. Within 24 hours it was dead, from either stress or it was already on its way out because it started having cloudy eyes within 8 hours of adding it. Was it new tank syndrome? It could have been, even though all parameters were normal.
Then a few of my fish showed ich for a few days and it went away. Likely the ich dropped off to go to the substrate to become Tomonts (?)
So my tank has been running for several weeks with no issues other than my 6" long Magnificent Foxface shows ich spots in the am (from sleeping in the same spot and allowing the parasite to re attach, no doubt). It clears up by mid day and he looks fine and eats like crazy.
So I consulted with my local fish club (www.carolinafishtalk.com) and fellow reefers to decide wether to move all my fish to a QT (which I would have to buy a tank big enough) or leave them as is and feed garlic and vitamins.
The general contentious was that ich was something most members had from time to time and "managed" it. Is this optimal, of course not..... Most advised that the stress of moving all the fish to QT would do more harm than good. A lot of the members had "ich free" tanks for months, then when they added a new fish (after a QT period) they would see ich for a couple of days and then it went away.
My fish are:
3" Blue Spot Toby
4" Blue Reef Chromis
6" Mag Foxface
4" Yellow Tang
3" Humu Trigger
So far all of the fish have never displayed ich, except the fox face. I have the dedication to put all the fish in a QT and let the tank go fallow, but I think it would stress the heck out of them. I think that the tank being new contributed to the ich cropping up and now that its stabilized it will be less of a problem.
I know many don't see the efficacy of a UV unit, but I am running a 57 watt AQUA UV unit at 280 GPH turnover rate. Knowing the facts about ich and how it reproduces would lead one to believe that UV has no use. However, I read many posts and reviews of experienced fish keepers who said once they started running UV they had much less instances of ich and fish losses. When I started this hobby I tried to find a baseline to goto for info and I rely on Bob Fenner and his web site for a lot of information. He is an advocate of UV.
I just hope to feed my fish quality food, nori soaked in garlic and add selcon 2x a week and see if all the fish remain healthy. If I see more fish getting ich then I will likely have to buy a 40 gallon tank and QT them while the tank runs fallow.
Last edited:
Thank you everyone for your help, I really appreciate it! To elaborate by what I mean by "start over" I have been contemplating downsizing my system from 120 to a 60 cube. In this case do you recommend I use new substrate (coral sand, reefugium sand, etc) or after Norvich's fallow recommendation I would be safe using at least the refugium DSB in the new system? I am already planning on using base rock for the rockscaping due to the elaborate rockscape I have in mind.
MrTuskfish
Team RC
You've done a lot of research and came to an informed decision. IMO & IME; that's the key to this hobby. However; I can't help but mention that this forum has seen countless accounts of ''managed ich" tanks that suddenly resulted in huge ich explosions and lots of dead fish. Managing ich may work for you, and I hope it does. Remember, all it probably takes is one major stressor to lower a fish's natural defenses to ich. The ich are always there are ready to take advantage of the situation.
Also; I hope you aren't giving the impression that Fenner endorses UV as a cure for ich; I know of no one who does. I believe that Fenner does suggest that UV can be useful as part of an over-all filtration system. UV is a good water clarifier and kills a lot of pathogens; but only a very small helper in the battle against ich. From what I've read, he is quite clear on this. UV cannot cure or prevent ich. As always, the bottom-line is to QT everything and then enjoy the hobby; without any ich concerns at all.
Bob Fenner says that UV and ozone are useful (I use low level of ozone on all my tanks) but are not curative. All my published recommendations are aimed at achieving a parasite free environment and are, in some cases more conservative than Bob Fenner's. (although I do read other peoples work on the subject) As an example he says a 4 week fallow period is sufficient, whereas I say a 9 week fallow period is desirable. And there are more, but I am not criticizing any one else's recommendations. I do not feel that managing parasites will be long term successful; I strive for years of success rather than months of success.
MrTuskfish
Team RC
Exactly. sadly, almost every ich-caused tank wipe-out started with an "ich managed" tank. We have enough unknowns and variables in our hobby, I prefer to deal with the "knowns" when I can.
I think most suggest 8-10 weeks.
MrTuskfish
Team RC
I agree. Ich, and possibly other parasites, can easily last longer than 21 days before becoming visible. Read Snorvich's excellent sticky on ich fallow periods at the top of this forum section.
Apparently it can remain invisible (to us) indefinitely if the trophonts are in the gills instead of on the skin.
Any reference for the above statement?
Well, if the initial stages may not be visible for the 8-10 week QT period then that's just as bad as forgoing QT. And if a newly acquired fish already has Ich and has had it for some time, wouldn't the initial stages be less likely to show themselves if his immune system is strong? I've read many posts on here about folks going months (or even years) before seeing Ich for the very first time, even though nothing wet had been added for months. Some can be chalked up to mistakes/ignorance but certainly not all. So, if Ich can sometimes go undetected by the human eye for months, prophylactically treating for it in QT is one's best defense IMO. Still not 100% but it gets you a little closer.
Different folks have different levels of observational experience. Ich, velvet, and brook are readily observable through fish behavior. All will certainly present visibly during 9 weeks of observation. That is where, I for one, go for initial evaluation. I am certainly not suggesting not to prophylactically treat fish in quarantine as long as it is done correctly. If it you do not do it correctly, it is worse than simple observation for 9 weeks.
MrTuskfish
Team RC
Aw, isn't there something easier than all that great informational reading?:headwally:
Similar threads
