QT or not to QT

dismayed

New member
So I have a 24 gallon that has been set up almost a year now, and have recently set up a 90 gallon tank. It is probably still several weeks out from cycling completely.

In the meantime I've been thinking a lot about the fish I want to introduce and how I want to introduce them.

Eventually I am going to use the 24 gallon as my QT tank I believe, but for the initial fish introduction can anyone see any benefit to using a QT tank? The main tank has no fish in it at all.

Thanks.
 
Hmmm,

dead fish, dead corals/inverts...or
QT and very little chance of killing everything

dead fish, dead corals/inverts...or
QT and very little chance of killing everything

To me it seems pretty easy to figure that out.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11588261#post11588261 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Freed
Hmmm,

dead fish, dead corals/inverts...or
QT and very little chance of killing everything

dead fish, dead corals/inverts...or
QT and very little chance of killing everything

To me it seems pretty easy to figure that out.

You read the part about my brand new tank being completely empty right now right?

So quarantine everything together and the entire QT tank dies vs. put everything in the main tank since this is the first batch and everything dies in the main tank was the question. I plan on implementing a QT after the main tank is established but was trying to decide if it is worth it for the initial introduction into an empty tank.

Thanks for the person who mentioned the ick egg-laying thing, I have not heard that before. That is something to consider.
 
I would QT, I'm stuck having to ketch all my fish and remove to qt( not a good thing) Have you had any ick out breaks in the 24? if so when?
less than 6 months? go to the diseases form and check it out. lot's of killer info over there.

If you are not introducing any new fish and you NEVER had an out break or any fish that showed sighs of ick then it may be ok.
I would read out on our attacker.
Cope
 
If your just upgrading to a larger system and were not having trouble in the old system then I wouldn't bother with the QT on the existing livestock. I would however QT any new additions.
 
QT everything.

I got a ball of cheato with flatworms and though I have no PROOF, ich eggs.

A 10 gal tank is 9.99. Get a cheap hob filter, small heater, and an air pump. Oh...and some seachem prime or something like that.

Pick up some pieces of PVC or joints / elbow pieces for the new stuff to swim around in.

Consider if your first fish have ich... In the QT, you can just start treating. In your display, you have to catch them first - and then make SURE your display tank is free of ich eggs before putting them back in. Much easier to QT.
 
If you put a fish in the new display that has a disease, you are now looking at about 8 weeks to allow the disease to run its cycle and die off without a host.

If you are planning to have anything other than fish, you will not want to treat disease in your display tank.

If you care about your fish, quarantine them before the display tank.
 
Re: QT or not to QT

If the tank has no fish, no need to quarantine the first one. The life of the fish might be an indicator of the tanks status. New additions after that, yes.
 
Re: Re: QT or not to QT

Re: Re: QT or not to QT

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11591838#post11591838 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cloak
If the tank has no fish, no need to quarantine the first one. The life of the fish might be an indicator of the tanks status. New additions after that, yes.

How do you come to this conclusion? Is the first fish added to the system automatically exempt from having Ich in some weird law of physiology?

Even the first fish can infect a new tank.
 
Re: Re: Re: QT or not to QT

Re: Re: Re: QT or not to QT

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11592213#post11592213 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by spike78
How do you come to this conclusion? Is the first fish added to the system automatically exempt from having Ich in some weird law of physiology?

Even the first fish can infect a new tank.

I think you might be thinking to much.

I would much rather put a sick fish in a thriving reef then a tank that is half the size with a bunch of chemicals.

I've seen them heal.

First fish, right?

Maybe an indicator of what you are doing right, or wrong.

Ick and phyto might have something in common.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking too much? What? Surely we wouldn't want anyone who actually thinks about their answers to post here! That might give internet forums a bad name!

The very last thing I would want to do is put a sick fish in a thriving reef tank, even if he is the first fish. Once Ich is in your tank, even if the fish heals, it's pretty much in there until you allow the tank to go fallow for an extended period of time, and that isn't even 100%. Why risk the lives of all of your livestock purely because you can't wait an extra month for QT?

If the first fish you throw in your tank has Ich, there is limited value of quarantining follow-on livestock as the very minute you put them in the display, you expose them to the parasite. It doesn't make good ethical or financial sense.
 
I agree with spike. You want to keep the spores from sick fish from your display tank. Thinking is a bad thing?
 
QT everything. Anything you put into your main tank can bring in nasties. Fish, rock, corals... QT everything.
 
Why would you purchase a sick fish in the first place? If it was healthy and becomes sick, maybe something is haywire in the environment you are trying to provide. A tank right next to a door that is constantly slamming shut. Who knows. I agree with the process, but sometimes is seems as if your taking the live out of the rock.

JMO.
 
I agree QT everything. I was living in a dream world and haveing my success with no QT until I purchased one more fish and brought a nasty case of ich to my tank. Lost a few fish and one expensive hybrid powder blue tang. my 2 cents
 
Back
Top