I suppose it would be better to define what I meant by risk, by this I mean risk that parasites enter the display tank. To me this is why I quarantine, its far less about protecting the fish in QT than it is about insuring the health of the display stock, hence the debate about aerosol transfer. Surely with tank transfer there is always a risk that parasites enter the display since the water they have been in has not been treated to kill off said parasites. I don't see logically how this could ever be considered less risky than a fish that's been exposed to water that has been prophylactically treated to kill pathogens. I get how the TT method works and can be very effective , I just don't get the rhetoric that it's lower risk than the pro-active treatment of QT water.
To quarantine or not
- Thread starter Rcook9
- Start date
CHSUB
"Certified Hobby Expert"
most, if not all, public Aquariums and zoos still use copper. what you are getting here is opinion from hobbyists. Right or wrong, imo, TTM is most appropriate for us; and it has never failed me.
Deinonych
New member
Because you are breaking the life cycle of the parasite. If there are no tomonts (cysts) formed, it is impossible for the fish to be reinfected. If TTM is performed correctly (move every 72 hours, sterilize all equipment between transfers), there is virtually zero chance you will transfer any parasites into the DT. The key is to follow the protocol precisely.
With copper, you are taking a calculated risk that you have killed all infective stages. For example, if you have a strain of ich that excysts after 30 days, treating with copper for 30 days will not eliminate that strain as it will release infective theronts after the treatment has concluded. Furthermore, fish can still be carrying the disease without showing symptoms (subclinical infection).
The life cycle (among other important details) can be reviewed here: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa164
ThRoewer
New member
Most public aquariums are quite a bit behind. They do what their SOP says which was likely written many, many years ago. Institutions and big corporations are usually relying rather on the old and "proven" methods. Rich Ross of the Steinhardt Aquarium told us that it took him quite a while to convince the management to stop poisoning fish prophylactic. He advocates a combination of TTM and Hyposalinity.
BTW: for TTM I would always prefer 4 sets of equipment over having to sterilize everything during TTM.
Hmm, so what you are saying is that diseases can be carried sub clinically by fish in medicated water but there is less risk of this happening in none medicated water? Sorry but I'm afraid that doesn't hold water ( pun intended). Neither method is risk free and my position isn't that copper or quinine or whatever is better than TTM, its just that to define it as the least risky cannot be backed up by anything scientific.
You should do whatever floats your boat.
CHSUB
"Certified Hobby Expert"
i agree.
kmbyrnes
New member
I will agree the 'risk' of disease transmission for various methods has not been studied scientifically.
However, I hope you will agree that for ich prevention there is less risk to fish health in an un-medicated TTM process vs. hyposalinty vs. copper.
The latter 2 methods involve long term exposure to an environment that is alien to them.
I invite you to spend 2 weeks atop a mountain ( similar to hypo ) or around a sulfur hot spring ( similar to copper ). You may not die, but you will certainly be very uncomfortable.
Deinonych
New member
I'm not saying that fish can carry the disease in medicated water. If there are infective stages present, and the correct dosage is maintained, the infective stages will be killed. It is important to note that copper ONLY kills the free-swimming stages. It does not kill the feeding (protected by the fish's epithelium) or encysted (protected by a hard shell) stages. So, there is a greater chance of copper failing because the free-swimming stage can emerge from the cysts anywhere from 3-72 days after it drops off the fish.
If you understand the parasite's life cycle, then it becomes perfectly clear why TTM works better than chemical methods. It's a scientific fact that the feeding stages (trophonts) remain on the fish for 3-7 days. They then drop off the fish and form cysts (tomonts). These cysts can release new infective stages in as little as three days. TTM prevents the infective stage from ever attacking fish, as the fish has been moved to a new, clean aquarium after 72 hours (i.e. with no cysts or infective stages).
Last edited:
ThRoewer
New member
Hyposalinity is not that alien to fish. It is for sure not a major stressor but rather a major stress relief.
The comparison with being on a mountain top (=low oxygen) is just dead wrong - it's actually the other way around: less salty water has a significantly higher solubility for oxygen than regular saltwater which makes it easier for the fish to breathe.
Also in regular saltwater the fish has to spend a significant amount of energy to pump out salt from the water he has to drink all day for osmoregulation.
Therapeutic hyposalinity is just a tad saltier than the fish's blood and so he has to spend only little energy to maintain his fluid levels.
I certainly understand the theory behind fallowing for 72 days, TTM and quarantine etc but in reality it is very difficult to execute or execute correctly in a hobbyist home. So I have never quarantined. I put fish in an observation tank for a couple of days and they go into the DT. Of course I will not put a visible sick fish in the DT. There are quite a few occasions when the new fish developed ich symptons a few days after introduced into the DT but it was never fatal. They just recovered after a week or two. I have never seen the existing inhabitants affected nor have lost a single fish due to ich. I think it's because 1. the tank stress level is very low. 2. The existing fish are very healthy.
Just keep the record straight I did lose a powder brown tang a few years back when I first started for mysterious reasons a few weeks after introducing into the DT but that's before I know better.
Just keep the record straight I did lose a powder brown tang a few years back when I first started for mysterious reasons a few weeks after introducing into the DT but that's before I know better.
Last edited:
Deinonych
New member
I don't understand this statement. I have a full-time, professional job working 50+ hours a week, a family and all the responsibilities that go with that. All 12 of my fish have been through a thorough quarantine, including TTM, without difficulty or major impact to my daily life. I don't find proper quarantine of new acquisitions difficult whatsoever, and I do not consider myself an expert in this hobby.
The fact that you have performed QT and your fish are all healthy and disease-free does not prove that you have performed QT correctly. The fact that you're one of the few who take special care for their fish might have contributed to your success but not QT or TTM. On the other hand the fact that a lot of people fallowed their tanks and performed TTM but still have an ich outbreak proves that the TTM and QT are difficult to execute correctly. I see these posts all the time in the disease forum.
Deinonych
New member
How so, exactly? Would would "prove" that QT was executed correctly, aside from healthy, disease-free fish?
I see them from time to time as well. However, there is no way to quantify WHY their TTM/QT/fallow protocol failed without direct observation. Did they not sterilize the equipment between transfers? Did they cross contaminate? Did they wait too long between transfers? There are a number of variables that contribute to a failed QT. It doesn't mean that QT is pointless, it just shows that humans are fallible.
Clearly you feel that QT is not necessary, and you are welcome to hold that position. You didn't answer my question about why QT is too difficult to execute, though.
ilikefish34
New member
"The fact that you have performed QT and your fish are all healthy and disease-free does not prove that you have performed QT correctly"
I got turned on to the TTM before getting my 210 gallon going last year... my very first three fish to go into the QT were two Royal Grammas and one Yellow Tang. All fish looked nice and healthy. This being my first time doing it, and getting the fish a day apart, I did my first transfer a day late and they all had ich on that fourth morning. From that point on, I followed the TTM to the letter and watched as the the ich fell off and never came back. After the TTM they were put into a 50 gallon observation tank for another 6 weeks before going into the DT as healthy fish.
What is indisputable is that one or more of those fish brought ich from the LFS to my QT tank despite not having visible signs--could've been in their gills or in the water from the bag. Had I only observed them for a couple of days, which is about the same thing as saying I saw them looking good for two days in the store before purchasing (like horseplay), then I would have added the ich to the DT with my very first purchase since it didn't show up until the fourth morning.
I too have a full time job and take care of my son before and after work so I understand the that it can be difficult to fit in but finding the right routine to minimize how long it takes is well worth it.
TTM for example, I have three sets of buckets (each set is a different color per it's use) and three sets of equipment and have combined DT water changes to coincide with the transfers--it costs more to do but costs much less than losing my entire livestock. DI water is made up with salt mixed in and brought up to temperature ahead of time (continuously) and I also don't purchase fish if I'm going to be out of town for any part of the QT process and sometimes do a transfer on the second day if I know that I won't be able to get to it in the 72 hour window--planning is essential and it takes little to no time to do the actual transfers.
I didn't QT my fish several years ago and had two bad crashes about a three years apart that were likely due to velvet/brook. Had I observed the infested fish long enough, along with a little formalin, then perhaps I would still have many of them. Considering the money lost from dead fish and time it took to replace them, if I had been going through the proper QT process from then until now, then it would have actually been cheaper and less time consuming.
I believe the lesson to be learned is to not half azz the QT process and not try to skimp by with less; if you need six buckets don't use six of the same color--go to lowes and get three gray ones and home depot to get 3 orange ones (I have four orange that only touch water from my DI or DI mix, four gray only touch water from my DT, four white that only touch water and equipment from my QT or OT along with separate siphon hoses for each tank) and continue that dedication throughout the entire regimen to avoid cross contamination and making simple mistakes that are the cause of failure.
Don't forget about education as well. It was mentioned, by horseplay, about the failures of QT by many but that is anecdotal evidence at best. Those same people may have performed the QT protocol flawlessly for their fish but lacked the understanding of how they could introduce ich, velvet and other uglies by not taking the proper preventative measures when adding shrimp, snails and other inverts. A lot of it comes down to doing the homework.
In the end of my QT protocol I have lost an hour or two every week or so but have infinitely increased my peace of mind.
I got turned on to the TTM before getting my 210 gallon going last year... my very first three fish to go into the QT were two Royal Grammas and one Yellow Tang. All fish looked nice and healthy. This being my first time doing it, and getting the fish a day apart, I did my first transfer a day late and they all had ich on that fourth morning. From that point on, I followed the TTM to the letter and watched as the the ich fell off and never came back. After the TTM they were put into a 50 gallon observation tank for another 6 weeks before going into the DT as healthy fish.
What is indisputable is that one or more of those fish brought ich from the LFS to my QT tank despite not having visible signs--could've been in their gills or in the water from the bag. Had I only observed them for a couple of days, which is about the same thing as saying I saw them looking good for two days in the store before purchasing (like horseplay), then I would have added the ich to the DT with my very first purchase since it didn't show up until the fourth morning.
I too have a full time job and take care of my son before and after work so I understand the that it can be difficult to fit in but finding the right routine to minimize how long it takes is well worth it.
TTM for example, I have three sets of buckets (each set is a different color per it's use) and three sets of equipment and have combined DT water changes to coincide with the transfers--it costs more to do but costs much less than losing my entire livestock. DI water is made up with salt mixed in and brought up to temperature ahead of time (continuously) and I also don't purchase fish if I'm going to be out of town for any part of the QT process and sometimes do a transfer on the second day if I know that I won't be able to get to it in the 72 hour window--planning is essential and it takes little to no time to do the actual transfers.
I didn't QT my fish several years ago and had two bad crashes about a three years apart that were likely due to velvet/brook. Had I observed the infested fish long enough, along with a little formalin, then perhaps I would still have many of them. Considering the money lost from dead fish and time it took to replace them, if I had been going through the proper QT process from then until now, then it would have actually been cheaper and less time consuming.
I believe the lesson to be learned is to not half azz the QT process and not try to skimp by with less; if you need six buckets don't use six of the same color--go to lowes and get three gray ones and home depot to get 3 orange ones (I have four orange that only touch water from my DI or DI mix, four gray only touch water from my DT, four white that only touch water and equipment from my QT or OT along with separate siphon hoses for each tank) and continue that dedication throughout the entire regimen to avoid cross contamination and making simple mistakes that are the cause of failure.
Don't forget about education as well. It was mentioned, by horseplay, about the failures of QT by many but that is anecdotal evidence at best. Those same people may have performed the QT protocol flawlessly for their fish but lacked the understanding of how they could introduce ich, velvet and other uglies by not taking the proper preventative measures when adding shrimp, snails and other inverts. A lot of it comes down to doing the homework.
In the end of my QT protocol I have lost an hour or two every week or so but have infinitely increased my peace of mind.
CHSUB
"Certified Hobby Expert"
when i first started reading your post, i agreed and presumed you were quite astute; unfortunately i kept reading!
You wrote, "The fact that you have performed QT and your fish are all healthy and disease-free does not prove that you have performed QT correctly." and i agree 100%, as maybe the fish were health in the first place or some other factors contributed to a disease-free, healthy DT. However, you didn't apply the same logic to your next statement, "the fact that a lot of people fallowed their tanks and performed TTM but still have an ich outbreak proves that the TTM and QT are difficult to execute correctly". I disagree 100% here as this is proof of nothing, maybe the only people that write about their failures are "dummies" that can't execute anything correctly?QT just makes sense, imo, proof isn't needed!
The fairly frequent occurrences of ich following QT/TTM as seen in the fish disease forum seems quite surprising to me as I do believe the theory is very logical and sound. Because of this contradiction I concluded that the QT/TTM is difficult to perform correctly in practice. Again logically make sense to me. The success of this practice requires elimination of every single spore of ich parasite. One would have to QT corals/inverts for a long period of time as well and this at least for me is quite difficult. I buy/trade corals fairly frequently (every couple of weeks).
And there are downside to QT/TTM that are not mentioned when these practices are recommended. For example fish can be pretty stressed in a small tank. A small tang can be quite stressed in a 20L QT tank and I see a lot of people's idea of QT tank is a 10g with a piece of PVC. A lot of fish have died in QT but would otherwise survive in DT. A fish in a completely ich free environment might lose immunity after a certain period of time.
Just clarify here I do observe new fish in an isolation tank for a week or so. Salinity is match over this period. This is the practice I recommend if someone asked.
And there are downside to QT/TTM that are not mentioned when these practices are recommended. For example fish can be pretty stressed in a small tank. A small tang can be quite stressed in a 20L QT tank and I see a lot of people's idea of QT tank is a 10g with a piece of PVC. A lot of fish have died in QT but would otherwise survive in DT. A fish in a completely ich free environment might lose immunity after a certain period of time.
Just clarify here I do observe new fish in an isolation tank for a week or so. Salinity is match over this period. This is the practice I recommend if someone asked.
I'm all for quarantining all new fish (and, after a recent outbreak of montipora eating nudibranchs, quarantining coral as well). I use prazipro, then chloroquine phosphate. I lost two flasher wrasses that were doing really well until I added the chloroquine (which I added slowly with a drip during a water change). Both times the fish gradually became lethargic and then died. With the second fish when I started to notice the lethargy I did a 50% water change and within a couple of days he was swimming around and eating again. However, when I slowly brought the dose back up to the full level he once again appeared lethargic but died. I was so bummed. I did some more research and found out that some wrasses, flashers in particular, don't do well with chloroquine. The problem is, I've heard that they do even worse with copper. Has anyone had similar experience? Are there any other methods that would work so I can avoid either copper or chloroquine?
ttm preceded by a formalin bath
ThRoewer
New member
I would recommend to use 4 sets of equipment for TTM whenever possible. Pumps, heaters and 5 to 20 gallon tanks (clear plastic bins will work fine too) are not prohibitively expensive and reduce the chances of sterilization oversights significantly.
Similar threads
