Steve,
Are you always so arrogant and condescending? I am not trying to bust your chops, but to understand the reasoning behind the advice you have given in this, and many other threads.
This discussion started with a hypothesis I had about using my refugium for initial observation of a fish, as it related to ich, and only ich. You jumped in with a response to one of my statements, calling it sheer nonsense.
The whole discussion has revolved around ich, not other parasites or bacteria. I asked for some sort of proof as to your statements, and you could provide none. I even modified my original statement to make it more palatable for you.
You even asked me to stick to the science of the topic. I feel that I have done so, asking valid questions, based upon the life cycle of ich. I completely understand it, and I have a good understanding of general parasitology and bacteriology. Yet, rather than answer my questions with facts or science, pointing out where my understanding of the life cycle of
C. irritans may be incorrect, you accuse me of absurdity. Ultimately, your position boiled down to dogmatic statements of "I believe" and "I think" and "I am confident."
I would like to keep this conversation civil, but you make it very difficult.
Returning to civil discourse, I have the following questions.
I don't understand why QT fish for 4 weeks based upon the life cycle of ich, unless it is purely to catch the rare case of clinically-silent infection. Trophonts exist on the fish for 3-7 days before exiting to form protomonts and tomonts. So unless the fish are sub-clinically shedding protomonts without showing signs of infection, 7 days seems a reasonable amount of time to ensure they don't have ich (i.e. to see the trophont on the fish). That is what prompted my question as to how often you see an infection after a week of QT, as it would give some indication to the frequency of sub-clinical infections.
Four weeks of QT for non-fish, wet additions, makes perfect sense, because tomonts can exist up to that long (at typical tank temps) before maturing to trophonts. Although, according to Bartelme, they have significantly diminished infectiousness after two weeks.
If it is to catch sub-clinical infections, aren't there other QT possibilities? Couldn't one just keep two QT tanks, and transfer the fish between them each day, drying the empty tank to eliminate the tomonts? All the trophonts would have matured off the fish, and there would be no chance of re-infection. I realize that this is not ideal, and would cause some increased stress on the fish, but you could then guarantee no ich after 7 days.
Are there any other illness, viral, bacterial, or parasitological, that require QT longer than a week, making this whole issue moot? I always thought that ich was the primary (not only) reason QT is recommended.
