Quarantine Procedures: What's the Scoop?

[reedman]

One more question for you Steve

Since I am not concerned with PO4 (and not so much with NO3) can I just use tap water in a fish QT setup? I would think this would work fine and would make it easier (for me anyway) to do the regular water changes needed in a QT.

Thanks again for all the info...I'm learning a bunch.

 

[steve-s]

You can, really depends on your TDS out of the tap. A few possible concerns there being obviously chlorine, chloramines and metals. If allowing the water to age a few days, that eliminates the chlorine but metals and chloramines will remain unchecked. The chloramines will take about 7-10 days to dissapate naturally. Otherwise, both can be eliminated simpley by running through a canister with carbon. Be wary of using dechlor products, if using copper meds, you run the risk of rendering it useless or worse still breaking the bonds of chelate/amine types which reduce it to it's basic form. It will poison the fish.

Cheers
Steve

 

[steve-s]

I should also caution on fluoride additives some cities use in their water supply. Some will have naturally ocurring trace amounts but are usually not a concern. Fluorides do not dissapate so if added by the city, it should be included in the "need to use carbon" list. The biggest issue there being fluorides will destroy the biofilter. It's basically a bacterialcide in that regard and has a strong attraction to organics in general.

Cheers
Steve

 

[reedman]

perfect! Thanks Steve!

 

[alison]

Its best to use filtered water from the store or a home filter. If you have a water softener, that could spell disaster. a carbon insert will improve warter quality greatly. It is best to avoid or keep meds to a minimum.

 

[moortim]

Ok my turn to pick Steve's brain. After a new fish goes through quarantine and is being prepared to go to the main tank should there be any kind of light acclimation to the brighter lights? I know you said earlier that the light should be left off as much as possible, or does that mainly apply to sick fish? I just know that if I was kept in the dark and then placed under hundreds of watts of metal halide light it would be a little rough, is this a problem with fish?

Tim

 

[4251cpd]

All QT fascism jokes aside. Mike brings up a valid point that all these problems occur in nature. It is not something that is specific problem to marine tanks. If the problem was as prolific as you argue, would'nt there be no fish on the reef? I can confidently argue that there are millions upon billions of parasites located on an area such as the Great Barrier reef. If they were to host on any healthy fish, invert etc. the marine animal population would've been lost many,many years ago. QTing is a great practice to screen out already dieased livestock for a three-fold purpose: 1. Not to infect the tank and crashing the tank from the possible death. 2. To give a weakened fish a chance to gain it's health back and not give any of the nasties that already inhabit your tank a reason to eat. 3. To use medication and reduce stress of a sick fish to give it's body a chance to fight off the disease. If you look at human medicine, the drugs used to combat disease does not usually attack the disease directly but causes a response in our own immune system to use its resources to fight the specific pathogen or what have you. As Mike said these nasties may lay dormant for longer then anyone may realize and certain conditions need to be met for them to look for a host. If you have healthy livestock, they should be able to fight the buggers off. I find the benefits of using lr/ls and the good hitchers far outweigh the negatives. Good food, supplementing vitamins, and limiting stress will keep all of charges healthy and capable of fending off disease. Its unrealistic to have a "bubble boy" environmet if our purpose is to have a reef tank. Our sessile inverts have barely been studied and we are learning new things every year that is brand new or trashes previous theories. We cure new LR to be added to an established tank in hopes any die off will not cause a crash in our display, is it QTing? Yes, but that is an added benefit, not our immediate goal. Yes, QTing is a great practice at limiting problems but realistically it's only a corner and not not the whole triangle. Thanks for the vent, Mike.

 

[MikeS]

Actually Mike, pretty much all of what your refering to above is bacterial or algae related. I won't argue with you on the point that good husbandry is the best means to prevent it. In 99.9% of the case, the potential will always exist. Proper care of the system and it's animals will almost always stem the issue or tip the balance in the animals favor.

I guess my biggest (strongest?) point is in regards to parasites. No amount of "display tank" husbandry can prevent/cure what feeds off the animals you place in the tank. All parasites have either a direct or indirect lifecycle in which at some point interacts with those animals. This is not restricted solely to fish as you already know. I'm sure you'll admit that even in an SPS only tank, there more than red bugs to be concerned about. In fact, in a genus/species dominated tank the risk of such pests should be even more a concern. Fish aside, if you introduce a dietary specific parasite to a potential buffet, you risk more than your average garden reefer.

Cheers
Steve

good points all Steve...I agree...and I also agree that good QT procedeures are a plus in minimizing the risk....my QT practices admittedly may be a bit lazy, but IME a healthy tank to start with is just as important as QT procedeures, in order to minimize problems...

MikeS

 

[steve-s]

Ok my turn to pick Steve's brain. After a new fish goes through quarantine and is being prepared to go to the main tank should there be any kind of light acclimation to the brighter lights? I know you said earlier that the light should be left off as much as possible, or does that mainly apply to sick fish? I just know that if I was kept in the dark and then placed under hundreds of watts of metal halide light it would be a little rough, is this a problem with fish?

A very good point, yes! Light shock can affect fish and cause a fair amount of initial stress. It would be a good idea to start the fish off in the QT before moving to the main. It can definately be a big concern with a heavily lit tank. Fluorecents are much less a concern depending on depth and what actually used. The fish will still experience some disorientation once transfered but it will be reduced. i would also suggest matching the photoperiod of the QT with the main for some sort of normalcy.

Cheers
Steve

 

[steve-s]

All QT fascism jokes aside. Mike brings up a valid point that all these problems occur in nature. It is not something that is specific problem to marine tanks. If the problem was as prolific as you argue, would'nt there be no fish on the reef? I can confidently argue that there are millions upon billions of parasites located on an area such as the Great Barrier reef. If they were to host on any healthy fish, invert etc. the marine animal population would've been lost many,many years ago.

You line of thinking is pretty much dead wrong here. I mean no offence but your comparing a very very large body of water to a box of water. Parasites in the ocean do not confine themselves to the fish. A majority leave the fish in order to complete the reproductive stage of their lifecycle. They go in one dierction the fish in another. In a glass box, your fish doesn't have this option and parsite density increases with each new life cycle.

Bacterial infections are a different ball game altogether. Stress, diet and water conditions are the main concerns. Both in the ocean and in our tanks. One obviously being infinately better than the other and not subject to the whim of the maintenance schedule of it's kepper

If you look at human medicine, the drugs used to combat disease does not usually attack the disease directly but causes a response in our own immune system to use its resources to fight the specific pathogen or what have you.

Depends on what your treating. It's not really that simple. In fact, a majority of meds do not target the organism itself trying to kill it directly but rather indirectly through interfering with the reproductive/replicative process.

As Mike said these nasties may lay dormant for longer then anyone may realize and certain conditions need to be met for them to look for a host. If you have healthy livestock, they should be able to fight the buggers off.

I ask again, what nasties? It's a pretty veige descriptor and impossible to answer.

I find the benefits of using lr/ls and the good hitchers far outweigh the negatives. Good food, supplementing vitamins, and limiting stress will keep all of charges healthy and capable of fending off disease.

Bacterial possibley, parasitic I sincerely disagree with.

Its unrealistic to have a "bubble boy" environmet if our purpose is to have a reef tank.

That makes no sense I'm afraid.

Thanks for the vent, Mike.

Sorry Mike, that wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. Until some miracle med is found that fights/prevents all the potential problems captive aquarium livestock may encounter, quarantining is now and will be the corner stone of good husbandry. Since I don't see that happening in my lifetime, I'll keep stressing it's importance.

Cheers
Steve

 

[MikeS]

Bacterial possibley, parasitic I sincerely disagree with.

I'd imagine this is actually a really dynamic and complex situation. Many different factors can lead up to an outbreak, or prevent one.

I'll argee that exposure is the the ultimate limiting factor here, but I think condition/health of the fish and tank play a huge role also. There is plenty of evidence out there that suggests that weak or stressed fish are more susecptible to parasitic infections than healthy ones. Looking at my own tanks in the past, I have seen exactly that. Yellow tangs are one of my favorite specimens...in my old FO days I battled the dreaded black spots on many of them...but I haven't done so in well over 10 years since I gave more attention to good water quality and proper diet for the fish.

As for exposure...I agree 100% that it's wise to take precautions to aviod indroducing elevated populations of active parasites to the tank. QT is one of the best way to do this. I do however feel that with the fact that many of these parasites can live in a cyst stage for long periods of time, avoiding exposure long term is really next to impossible. They are going to end up in the tank sooner or later, no matter what.

MikeS

 

[steve-s]

As for exposure...I agree 100% that it's wise to take precautions to aviod indroducing elevated populations of active parasites to the tank. QT is one of the best way to do this. I do however feel that with the fact that many of these parasites can live in a cyst stage for long periods of time, avoiding exposure long term is really next to impossible. They are going to end up in the tank sooner or later, no matter what.

I don't want you to think I'm beating a dead horse here but your refering to a very rare posssibility. It also depends on what parasite is carried in. More commonly, the move and adjustment to a new environment spurs parasites into a heightend sate of reproduction/activity, not dormancy. It's more likely for a parasite that has been in a tank for some time to have longer dormant periods than one that has undergone a change in it's environment. What you suggest is more than possible but a very low probability.

Cheers
Steve

 

[moortim]

Your line of thinking is pretty much dead wrong here.

Bacterial possibley, parasitic I sincerely disagree with.


That makes no sense I'm afraid.

Steve, I love your way with words! I sometimes wish I could be as direct as you and not offend people .

 

[steve-s]

:lol: :lol:

Trust me, I've offended people plenty. The only problem is, it's never usually my intension.

Cheers
Steve

 

[MikeS]

great topic...

well...some parasites like Paravortex (black spot) can survive for at least months without a host, living in the substrate, rock, ect. So unless everything that may have been exposed to it is QT'd and treated initially, it's safe to assume that it's going to find its way into the tank sooner or later, maybe deep in some LR. Terry Bartelme has some good articles on Advanced Aquarist concerning QT practices and such....and I'm sure he is more well versed in parasite vectors than I am...should we move this thread to his forum and get his take on all of this?

MikeS

 

[steve-s]

Paravortex's life cycle is about 10-14 days so a normal QT period of 4 weeks would eliminate that issue.

As far as moving the thread, I don't see this as being a fish specific topic so unless mojoreef or MtnDewMan have an issue, it can stay.

Cheers
Steve

 

[MikeS]

Paravortex's life cycle is about 10-14 days so a normal QT period of 4 weeks would eliminate that issue.

hmmm...I've read lots that suggest this parasite can last a lot longer than that without a host...

As far as moving the thread, I don't see this as being a fish specific topic so unless mojoreef or MtnDewMan have an issue, it can stay.

Cheers
Steve

Agreed....perhaps we can ask Terry to come in and give us his views on it and maybe some specific data on parasite lifecycles...

MikeS

 

[Maxx]

For an invert QT, you would really need to either leave one running all the time or preplan all purchases. Which in all honesty is the best practice. Since there is little or no waste rpoduction from a majority of these critters, nitrate is much less an issue and easily controlled via weekly or twice weekly water changes. I love small Nano's for this. I keep a 5.5 mini running on a shelf all the time for this. Works out fine and is little or no maintenance. The size of the tank would need to be adjusted for the average size of items being purchased but for the most part a small 5-10 gallon is plenty. I leave a group of sexy shrimp in there between QT additions to keep it cleaned up.

Cheers
Steve

Steve,
In the case of invert parasites with a longer incubation time, (ie 1-2 weeks) that will lay eggs in a variety of places (ie, Acro Eating Flatworms) how do you suggest QTing?

The AEFW's will lay eggs anywhere, not just on corals, but on substrate and glass as well. To my knowledge, there isnt a treatment that will affect the eggs at all, so the only way to really effectively eradicate them is to do a series of dips in iodine or levamisole in attempt to break the lifecycle of these *^%&^$ beasts. How can this be accomplished in an established QT tank w/o wiping out the biofilter. How effective would the treatments be if you simply treated the corals in a dip and replaced them back into the potentially infected tank?

The average lifecycle for the AEFW's is 14 days from eggs to larvae and they are very tiny in their larval stage. Alledgedly, they can reproduce almost immediately from hatching if they have a food source. W/O a food source, they will starve in 5-7 days, (Similar to redbugs). So leaving the QT tank fallow for a month or two would effectively eradicate any leftover eggs or parasites.

Also, I've heard several references of treating for ich outbreaks in new fish by changing tanks every three days. John buys a blue tang and puts it in QT. While in QT, the tang comes down with Ich. John immediately sets up two other QT tanks and ensures water parameters are the same as the tank the tang is currently in. Once the other two QT tanks are stabilized, John places the tang into the 2nd tank, and then sterilizes the 1st tank and lets it dry for 3 days. After 3 days John sets up the 1st tank back up, (ensures water parameters are the same as the other two tanks), moves the tang to the 3rd tank, and breaks down and sterilizes the 2nd tank. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Alledgedly, this type oif treatment will break the lifecycle of the ich parasite.
What are your thoughts on this?


Nick

 

[steve-s]

Yes, the three day transfer method works quite well for crypt infestations. Basically the fish is transfered to a new QT every third day for a total of four transfers. The previous QT is torn down and steralized (bleached) and/or air dried and then reset up.

Oddly enough, as I was reading the beginning of this last post, it's exactly what I was thinking might work for the type of parasite you've mentioned above. Although it may not be the safest for some coral species in regards to stress. The only exception of the above method being you would need to dip the coral between transfers to ensure the hatched parasites are not transfered as well. If possible, also examined with a magnifying glass for eggs. Given the life cycle you've indicated, the timing of the dip/transfer would be crucial and need to be timed appropriately. There would be a downfall though, corals do not do well with this kind of constant moving and re acclimation. The more sensitive the species, the less likely it should be attempted.

Thinking out loud here but I would not think that Levamisole (nematode dewormer) would be as advantageous as Praziquantel for this particular application/parasite. Levamisole may retard the biofilter but it should not destroy it completely and Praziquantel shouldn't affect the biofilter really much at all. Neither will affect the eggs though.

Cheers
Steve

 

[NaH2O]

I need to do some catch-up reading, but wanted to make a comment regarding the Levamisole. It was pointed out in the book "The Reef Aquarium, Volume Three", page 651

While Levamisole very quickly and reliably kills the red flatworm, treatments for the Acropora eating flatworm seem to be less effective with time, suggesting that this flatworm has some ability to develop resistance to the treatment (Rob Brynda, pers. comm.).

So, my concern is with continued use of Levamisole as a dip/treatment, we will start to see strains that are resistant. Another comment made in the book, is that Levamisole does not harm corals in short dips, however, the longer, lower dose treatments did cause some corals to react in a negative way (same book, page 651). It is also recommended to use carbon after the treatment, as well as a series of water changes. Would Praziquantel cause issues with coral health, or need similar treatment follow-up (water changes & carbon)? I'm not aware of anyone trying Praziquantel as a method against this parasite. The thing that really really sucks with SPS, is their susceptibility to stress. Bouncing the coral (SPS) into different dips, from one environment to the next, might just do the coral in, IMO. I'm not saying it wouldn't be worth the risk, especially if you are about to infect a well established SPS system.