Does UV or Diatom Filter benefit fallow period?

[FiddlersReef]

I'm working on setting up a QT so I can put my tank (130 gallon) into a fallow period to eliminate brook/velvet that is killing fish. (No, I wasn't using a QT before. I was old-school, never did it in 30 years, but those days are gone, evidently. I've learned that lesson now.)

I am curious whether installing a UV Sterilizer and running it at the slow-flow pathogen rate, and/or installing a diatom filter that supposedly filters down to 5 microns, would be helpful, or would shorten, the necessary fallow period length?

Lastly, I've never noticed anything resembling Ich in the tank, so I'm not sure if there's a reason to go the full 72 days, or if 45 would be sufficient.

Thanks for any advice. I'm on the QT bandwagon now. This is never going to happen to me again if I can help it.

 

[vetteguy53081]

UV can be an asset in shocking new cysts

 

[threebuoys]

UV and diatom filters will only eliminate parasites that are in the water column. While I advocate the use of UV, I don't think I would count on it to shorten the fallow period. I just think that the probablity that some of the life stages of the parasites never flow thru the sterilizer (or diatom filter for that matter) is too high.

I do not see an advantage to using both a UV sterilizer and a diatom filter. Once you are operational, I think the UV is pretty much turn it on and keep it running until you decide to change the bulb.

Good luck.

 

[FiddlersReef]

UV and diatom filters will only eliminate parasites that are in the water column...

Thanks, sorry I didn't see your reply until today. Fortunately my fallow period has ended now, so it's a moot point for me. But I did end up installing a large 40W UV running at the slow pathogen rate, hoping to give my tank the best shot at long term success.

If nothing else, I love the crystal clear water.