Nope! Though I do maintain a splash guard around my QT tanks.
tank in fallow next to non-infected system
- Thread starter jonesdeini
- Start date
Nope! Though I do maintain a splash guard around my QT tanks.
Spar
New member
man, i learned my lesson (hopefully with no ill effect) this morning. I have a crazy infested fish right now in TTM. While moving him over to the first transfer tank he started flipping around flinging water all across the room.... fairly confident a few drops made it into my DT sump :headwalls:
From now on, i will not only have a splash guard on my QT, I will use a towel as a shield for the few seconds it takes to move them from one tank to the next.
... at least most of the water went into my eyes and shirt ... although i feel like I need to be TTM'ed myself now just in case!
:lol: particularly if you find yourself scratching on the furniture .....
CHSUB
"Certified Hobby Expert"
no, ick will not be transfer from one tank to another through evaporation. that does not make any sense.
Spar
New member
I think most people thought that too up until a couple days ago. There is a new sticky at the top of the fish disease forum that provides research proving this does happen.
CHSUB
"Certified Hobby Expert"
evaporation doesn't transfer a single NaCl molecule. no way ick is hitching a ride....it's laughable, if that's what the sticky says, delete it.
The more I think about it, the more I think the risk is greatest if you are using an air stone in QT. I use one when I do TT, and water is all around the outside of the tank due to the "mist" from bubbles breaking the surface. In my main QT, where I use a powerhead & HOB filter, this doesn't happen. So I assume the splashing from a HOB filter is "safer" than an air stone defusing.
And since only theronts can be transmitted via aerosol, shouldn't the risk be greatly reduced if you are already using chemical treatment to eradicate those in QT?
I have no scientific evidence to back any of this up... Just thinking out loud...
And since only theronts can be transmitted via aerosol, shouldn't the risk be greatly reduced if you are already using chemical treatment to eradicate those in QT?
I have no scientific evidence to back any of this up... Just thinking out loud...
hogfanreefer
Active member
Seems like if you're doing tank transfer and empty the old tank immediately after transfer there shouldn't be any theronts should there? I mean aren't what we're doing with TT is eliminating that stage in the life cycle?
I moved my tank transfer tanks in separate rooms because of this. Can't be too careful.
Sorry, but that is not correct. Many studies of ich and velvet. use Google Scholar.
Right. It is not during Tank transfer that the risk occurs, it is situating a tank that has ich next to one that does not.
Lack of ability to grasp a concept does not translate to the concept being false.
CHSUB
"Certified Hobby Expert"
evaporation of water tranfers parasites in the gaseous water vapor from one area to another....thank you, and i will move on.
It's aerosols from breaking bubbles, splashing, etc. 
Since no one is running any kind of absolutely static fish holding system where evaporation would be the only factor, no need to consider evaporation. There will be some form of splashing, bubbles, etc. in any dynamic system used to hold fish
Since no one is running any kind of absolutely static fish holding system where evaporation would be the only factor, no need to consider evaporation. There will be some form of splashing, bubbles, etc. in any dynamic system used to hold fish
hogfanreefer
Active member
It's aerosols from breaking bubbles, splashing, etc.
Good point! However the study cited above did show transmission in STATIC tanks over a foot away!
Here's a link to the paper, Aerosol dispersal of the fish pathogen, Amyloodinium ocellatum, for those that might want to read it. Note, for purposes of the experiment, static and dynamic refer to airflow in the room. Aerosol was created via airstone or a "modified aerosol dispersing apparatus". I would like to point out I've personally seen and dealt with infectious spread consistent with the dynamic airflow reported in this paper, under conditions typical of any inhabited room with either AC or forced hot air system that could be found in the average house, store, or lab.
Ok, billsreef, snorvich... I've got a question for you.
We've established that the only stage of ich that can go "airborne" are free swimming theronts. Correct?
So, being theronts are what chemical treatments target, would a QT medicated with copper or CP be at risk of aerosol transmission from a DT going fallow that was infested with ich or velvet?
We've established that the only stage of ich that can go "airborne" are free swimming theronts. Correct?
So, being theronts are what chemical treatments target, would a QT medicated with copper or CP be at risk of aerosol transmission from a DT going fallow that was infested with ich or velvet?
IMO, that is going to depend on the exposure time of that theront to the medication...i.e. is it dead by the time it makes it's way to that other non medicated tank. So there might still be some risk. I'm not aware of any studies to that degree, and my experiences with such called for drastic no chances taken measures, so haven't tried that scenario out for myself
Thank you both for your replies. 
I have a friend who went fallow for ich, and QT'd all his fish & treated with CP. Everything was fine until today he noticed ich back on the fish. Two weeks ago he started running carbon to remove CP from the water (after 30 days of treatment). The only way I can figure his fish got reinfected is the DT is less than 2 feet away from his QT. The medication must have been eradicating the theronts transmitted, but once the medication was removed...
Assuming theronts were transmitted via aerosol from the DT to the QT, once the medication was removed from the water and they were able to "reach" and reinfect the fish... Is it possible theronts from the "next generation" have already been transmitted via aerosol from the QT back to the DT now, and he needs to restart his 72 day fallow period (after he moves the QT)?
I'm also wondering if chemicals such as copper or CP can be transmitted via aerosol from the QT to a DT.
Thoughts, gentleman?
I have a friend who went fallow for ich, and QT'd all his fish & treated with CP. Everything was fine until today he noticed ich back on the fish. Two weeks ago he started running carbon to remove CP from the water (after 30 days of treatment). The only way I can figure his fish got reinfected is the DT is less than 2 feet away from his QT. The medication must have been eradicating the theronts transmitted, but once the medication was removed...
Assuming theronts were transmitted via aerosol from the DT to the QT, once the medication was removed from the water and they were able to "reach" and reinfect the fish... Is it possible theronts from the "next generation" have already been transmitted via aerosol from the QT back to the DT now, and he needs to restart his 72 day fallow period (after he moves the QT)?
I'm also wondering if chemicals such as copper or CP can be transmitted via aerosol from the QT to a DT.
Thoughts, gentleman?
