How many QT new or sick fish for ich?

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

just post a link to the thread where he talks about it. I checked 35 webpages, about 1/2 of them from marine biologists and I coulden't find any longer. I remembered hearing about 3 months years ago but that was just some one posting what he did in a thread so I can't back that up.

Steve

Marine Biologist generally do not have the answer to this...My older brother is a marine biologist and would know less about ich than we do most likely. Its not something they deal with. I just meant the one who gave the info was one and is well respected. It was not his study though.

Like I said before, Im not going to waste my time looking. If it is important to you go ahead and look. I don't keep links. I have seen the study and IMO it was very well controlled and conducted. I offered the advice and no one wants to believe it (fair enough and I understand...I mean it would not be a good news), to be honest, I don't care. I though it would be nice to share but I actually wish I had just been quiet about it...no I don't have the links/facts but I know what I saw and thought it was good for other to know. When I heard ich can live longer without a host it answered a lot of questions I had and made a lot of sense. I hear too many people QTing for 6-8 weeks and still having ich in the tank. I hypo'd my poor fish for 8 weeks at 1.008 and then kept them in QT for another 3 weeks to make sure the ich was gone. Put them back in the display and added nothing new. Two weeks later they had ich again. You tell me where it came from?!? Two possibilities and both are very possible. Either this strain of ich was able to adjust and live in hypo (very possible) or it lived without a host for 11 weeks in my tank. I went looking for answers on RC and found that study where ich had lived almost 3 months without a host. Made total sense at that point. Not all strains of ich can do this and there are quite a few.

My problem with most of the advice given on all these ich websites/pages like the link above is that its all based on a few studies done in the 90's with little known about the parasite and ONE species of fish. You guys are all over me for proof and that is fair but maybe go ahead and actually look at how that study was conducted. Look at which strain of ich was used and how. It was not the best study to be honest and yet all kind of literature is based on it.

I already did give one link showing how ich has adapted and evolved. Why would it not be evolving? No different from any other parasite...they adapt very well.

Wasn't here for an argument though so I am going to stay away from this...