Overlapping quarantine period for wet items?

[andy01748]

Can I add new non-fish 'wet items' to 'wet items' already in fishless quarantine without resetting the 72 day clock? Seems as long as at the end of a specific item's 72 days, I isolate that item I want to transfer to the DT from the other items added later, say for a day (the life expectancy for an infective theront) there should be no danger of transferring ich to the DT? Is my logic flawed?

I currently have some macroalgae already in QT, and want to add some snails to the fishless QT, but not if I have to reset the clock on the macroalgae.

 

[Deinonych]

Once you add anything to the QT, the clock starts over. This applies to both fish QT and invert QT.

 

[andy01748]

Once you add anything to the QT, the clock starts over. This applies to both fish QT and invert QT.

But if the danger are cysts attached to the item being QTd, I don't understand why the clock needs to restart for that item, as long as at time of transfer post 72 days, any water transferred is free of theronts.

 

[snorvich]

Once you add anything to the QT, the clock starts over. This applies to both fish QT and invert QT.

This.

 

[snorvich]

But if the danger are cysts attached to the item being QTd, I don't understand why the clock needs to restart for that item, as long as at time of transfer post 72 days, any water transferred is free of theronts.

The front end of the life cycle is highly deterministic; when theronts emerge is not deterministic and is the largest variable in the cryptocaryon irritans life cycle.

 

[andy01748]

The front end of the life cycle is highly deterministic; when theronts emerge is not deterministic and is the largest variable in the cryptocaryon irritans life cycle.

Agreed, hence the 72 days from start to end of QT for any specific item, because it can take up to this many days.

 

[snorvich]

Agreed, hence the 72 days from start to end of QT for any specific item, because it can take up to this many days.

Which is why the 72 day clock restarts when anything is added to quarantine.

 

[andy01748]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. One QTs wet items because they may contain cysts. If the cyst hatches (produces theronts) and no host (fish) is present, the cycle is broken. If an item has been in a fishless environment for 72 days, no new cysts could have formed on that item, irregardless if other items with cysts were added in the meantime. I still don't see the flaw in my logic.

 

[jbvdhp]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. One QTs wet items because they may contain cysts. If the cyst hatches (produces theronts) and no host (fish) is present, the cycle is broken. If an item has been in a fishless environment for 72 days, no new cysts could have formed on that item, irregardless if other items with cysts were added in the meantime. I still don't see the flaw in my logic.

What if you introduced something where a cyst just HAPPENED to encyst THAT day or the day before that, and this one happens to be one that won't excyst until day 70, or rarely, 72?

Interestingly, I just read an article that stated at a temp of approx 50 deg F, ich laid dormant for 4-5 MONTHS. Uh oh...

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa164

"A more recent study demonstrated that two life stages of one strain of Cryptocaryon (trophonts, i.e., the feeding stage during which the parasite can be found on the fish, and tomonts) survived dormant for 4–5 months at 12°C (53.6°F), and, after the water temperature increased to 27°C (80.6°F), developed and infected fish (Dan et al. 2009)."

Under the Biology header

 

[andy01748]

What if you introduced something where a cyst just HAPPENED to encyst THAT day or the day before that, and this one happens to be one that won't excyst until day 70, or rarely, 72?

Per your reference:

"The theront's infectivity is highest early in its life. By 6"“8 hours after it leaves the cyst, its infectivity is greatly reduced (Burgess 1992; Yoshinaga and Dickerson 1994; Colorni and Burgess 1997; Dan et al. 2009), although a non-infective theront may still be able to move for up to 48 hours."

Here is my logic in an example:

Snail A has been in QT for 72 days. We assume all cysts on Snail A have hatched at this point, with the theronts from cysts from Snail A all dead within 48 hours, as they have no fish host.

Snail B was added sometime after Snail A. Worst case, on Snail A's day 72, a cyst hatches from Snail B, releasing theronts into the QT water.

At this point in time, Snail A with associated QT tank water happens to be transferred to its own QT with live theronts in the water, and Snail A is kept by itself for 48 hours (no longer in same system as Snail B). My assumption is any theronts in Snail A's short term QT water will be dead as there is no fish host.

After 48 hours, Snail A can be transferred to the DT because:

1) It has no cysts left on it (because it has been in fishless QT for 72 days)
2) There are no infective theronts in any QT water that would be transferred (because theronts won't survive beyond 48 hrs without a fish host)

 

[jbvdhp]

^makes sense.

I see your point now. So the second qt is the intermediate before transfer into dt right?

 

[andy01748]

^makes sense.

I see your point now. So the second qt is the intermediate before transfer into dt right?

Right. Just to make sure no infective theronts are transferred. For someone with a new system it's frustrating to have to keep resetting the clock trying to add items to my DT. If I don't have to, I'd rather not, and don't want to maintain multiple QT tanks. Just want to confirm my logic isn't flawed.

 

[jbvdhp]

Right. Just to make sure no infective theronts are transferred. For someone with a new system it's frustrating to have to keep resetting the clock trying to add items to my DT. If I don't have to, I'd rather not, and don't want to maintain multiple QT tanks. Just want to confirm my logic isn't flawed.

Playin devil's advocate here.. what if a cyst somehow fell off theoretical snail B and lands on snail A? And then Snail A goes into DT?

MAN I HATE ICH, let's put it that way. If ich had a mother, I'd slap ich and it's mother.

 

[andy01748]

Playin devil's advocate here.. what if a cyst somehow fell off theoretical snail B and lands on snail A? And then Snail A goes into DT?



MAN I HATE ICH, let's put it that way. If ich had a mother, I'd slap ich and it's mother.

Well anythings theoretically possible. However, if they were that easily moveable you could just rinse your wet items off! Probably more of a chance of a cyst hatching past 72 days, but it's impossible to reduce risk to zero.

 

[Deinonych]

I understand your logic now...makes sense. Personally, I would still restart the clock with any new addition, but I'm super paranoid about Cryptocaryon.

 

[andy01748]

I understand your logic now...makes sense. Personally, I would still restart the clock with any new addition, but I'm super paranoid about Cryptocaryon.

Thanks for taking time to reconsider your original prescriptive response. Like most courses of action, it comes down to balancing risk versus reward. The reward is I get to add items to my sparse DT sooner, without incurring significant additional risk. "Super paranoid" is just reducing additional incremental risk (no matter how small).