Quote:
Originally Posted by ron101
This used to be my philosophy as well until a couple weeks ago. Having had trust in the quality of livestock from my usual retailer, I added a new fish straight to my reef after a moderate acclimation (~20-30 mins). The new addition has long since expired and 3 out of my 5 fish are critically ill with ich and velvet (one is already MIA).
IMO if a fish has already spent 3-4 weeks at the retailer and looks healthy then I think the risk of a system wide outbreak is much lower than with new arrivals. Of course you may be relying on the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of store staff info as to how long the specimen has been there.
As everyone knows, this hobby is not inexpensive and maintaining separate QT and hospital systems can be highly impractical. However, I think that every decision making process should include a 'general risk assessment' as well as asking the question 'to what degree am I willing to risk a major wipeout.' In my case, depending on the final outcome, I will be taking a serious look as to whether I will be continuing with this hobby. Caveat Emptor.
|
An excellent cautionary tale that should give pause to anyone. I agree that it comes largely down to a cost/benefit analysis. The vast majority of stuff you add to the tank won't cause any ill effects whatsoever. It's that one in a hundred that causes the trouble. I think of QT as insurance - you DON'T get insurance because of what will PROBABLY happen, you get insurance for what is UNLIKELY to happen. Whether it is worth the time and effort to buy the policy depends on the state/value of your tank and its inhabitants, the origin/type/state of the livestock you intend to add and your ability to establish a QT for the period of time required.