To UV or not to UV, that is the question

[jpontier212]

I recently had an aquatic holocaust happen and all my little guys were taken out by brook. I have been planning to get a uv sterilizer for my new 75 gallon but i can't help but think that if it's killing the harmful bacteria then it's also killing the beneficial as well. I'm looking for pro's and cons from the experts. #reefsquad#

 

[mgoesma]

I personal have one on my 90G. BRS has a video about UV that made me decide to use one.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I'm no expert. But I believe the common wisdom is the vast majority of benificial bacteria is housed in the rock and sand. So the addition ov uv wouldn't make much of an impact. This is from my standard redressing sand a conversation with Randy some time ago.
The easy test would be there would be a noticeable increase in nitrates. Also tunicates and sponge growth may stall. But from user feedback theres not often a noticeable difference.

 

[Humblefish]

What are you hoping to accomplish by running a UV? Answer that, and I can tell you whether or not it's worthwhile for you to buy one.

 

[CodyRVA]

Assuming you're looking to add one due to fish/coral disease/ailment... I would setup a quality QT before ever considering a UV.

 

[jpontier212]

What are you hoping to accomplish by running a UV? Answer that, and I can tell you whether or not it's worthwhile for you to buy one.

The reason is that i'm trying to minimize the possibility of fish diseases in my new aquarium. I just had brook level my old one. I know that uv won't totally do away with certain diseases but if it can minimize it without depleting my beneficial bacteria then i believe it's worth it. At least that's what I'm trying to figure out

 

[Humblefish]

The reason is that i'm trying to minimize the possibility of fish diseases in my new aquarium. I just had brook level my old one. I know that uv won't totally do away with certain diseases but if it can minimize it without depleting my beneficial bacteria then i believe it's worth it. At least that's what I'm trying to figure out

To be fair & honest, a UV will zap some of the free swimming parasites in the water column. So, it might help better manage the presence of ich. It's also useful for preventing bacterial infections from spreading, controlling some algae issues (by killing the spores) and helps greatly with water clarity.

But "surface parasites" such as brook & velvet are so numerous that it won't help much with that. If you put an un-QT'd fish with brook or velvet in your DT it's still gonna wipe everything out, with or without a UV. A UV also won't help with flukes, intestinal worms, Uronema, etc. A quality QT as mentioned by @CodyRVA is the best way to deal with diseases.

 

[nbagnardi]

To be fair & honest, a UV will zap some of the free swimming parasites in the water column. So, it might help better manage the presence of ich. It's also useful for preventing bacterial infections from spreading, controlling some algae issues (by killing the spores) and helps greatly with water clarity.

But "surface parasites" such as brook & velvet are so numerous that it won't help much with that. If you put an un-QT'd fish with brook or velvet in your DT it's still gonna wipe everything out, with or without a UV. A UV also won't help with flukes, intestinal worms, Uronema, etc. A quality QT as mentioned by @CodyRVA is the best way to deal with diseases.

does your ich management verse eradication write up apply to brooklynella as well? as far as the fallow times?

 

[mgoesma]

In my opinion it cant hurt. I have seen no evidence that it will hurt other than your wallet.

 

[CodyRVA]

In my opinion it cant hurt. I have seen no evidence that it will hurt other than your wallet.

Why add equipment for the sake of adding it? If it doesn't serve a verifiable purpose then it shouldn't be there, but that's my 2 cents.

 

[mcarroll]

UV isn't a horrible option if budget is no object, but it's expensive to do right for your purposes. I think it's a better fit for commercial scenarios where new livestock will always be coming into the system. You system still be mostly stable over time, so the benefits should be less.

Beyond this, I'd only add that all methods listed so far are not foolproof and there doesn't seem to be any advantage to thinking otherwise.

The alternative – stocking slowly so the fish you add have time to get healthy – might be the most successful strategy. But not due to any genius on my part – just because it gives the fish time for their immune system to recover from all the trauma and stress induced by being repeatedly handling and constant handling.

There's no magic number for "slow", but I usually recommend that people wait one or more months between livestock additions.

Adding too many fish too quickly allows none of them to heal and may even compound any existing issues (even ones you haven't had time to catch yet) so you end up with a tank of weak fish along with whatever disease they could bump into on the way to your tank. Definitely not the goal.

Also important is that your skills never had a chance to develop either if you stock a tank up in the firs month or two.

So after all (even with dip, QT, TTM, et al) what you get it a tank of weak fish being kept alive by a newbie. It doesn't take much to upset that apple cart.

I think this applies most strongly to fish, but also to pretty much any organism you'd think to put in your tank.

@Paul B has said quite a bit on this front.....highly recommend his book.

 

[jpontier212]

To be fair & honest, a UV will zap some of the free swimming parasites in the water column. So, it might help better manage the presence of ich. It's also useful for preventing bacterial infections from spreading, controlling some algae issues (by killing the spores) and helps greatly with water clarity.

But "surface parasites" such as brook & velvet are so numerous that it won't help much with that. If you put an un-QT'd fish with brook or velvet in your DT it's still gonna wipe everything out, with or without a UV. A UV also won't help with flukes, intestinal worms, Uronema, etc. A quality QT as mentioned by @CodyRVA is the best way to deal with diseases.

So in your personal opinion(which i value very much) in my qt, should i run copper, or metro/prazi combo as a preventative for new fishes?

 

[jeremy.gosnell]

The simple rendition, UV sterilizers cannot treat or prevent parasitic outbreaks. Marine parasites go through several life cycles on a UV can only kill parasites that are free swimming and pass through it. This means it can reduce the parasite load within water, but not by enough to prevent or cure an outbreak.

The same holds true for bacteria and while a UV may reduce bacterial populations in the water that passes through it, it cannot rid your tank of good or bad bacteria. It won't have enough of an effect to even measure.

The only real use I've seen for UV sterilizers is in ponds where free floating algae is a common problem. They are very effective at killing off free floating water and clarifying pond water. They are also effective at clarifying bacterial clouding (both in fresh and marine water). That's about it.

Ozone is a much more useful addition to a marine tank (IMHO). Ozone creates crystal clear marine water and also kills parasites more effectively than UV sterilization. However, the same holds true for ozone in that it can only reduce parasite populations, when free-swimming parasites enter the reaction chamber.

 

[CodyRVA]

So in your personal opinion(which i value very much) in my qt, should i run copper, or metro/prazi combo as a preventative for new fishes?

Someone more experienced with treatment should chime in, but when I QT I don't go about it with a universal method in regards to medication. I medicate based on the fish and its symptoms.

If you "always use copper" and you have a fish with a bacterial issue... Coppers only going to add more stress to the fish with no benefits of curing the issue, again just my two cents.

 

[jeremy.gosnell]

So in your personal opinion(which i value very much) in my qt, should i run copper, or metro/prazi combo as a preventative for new fishes?

I wouldn't run any medications as a preventative in QT for new fish. I would keep a hypo-saline QT environment, which is a s.g. of 1.009. This will not only kill of various external parasites (mainly marine ich) but it also reduced stress on the fish, aiding them is osmoregulation. The internal concentration of salt within a fish's tissue is less than in the surrounding water, so as they in-take saltwater they spend energy balancing (regulating) this salt concentration. In hypo-salinity, the lower salt content requires less energy for a fish to balance, therefore reducing stress.

Hypo-salinity does nothing for marine velvet, a common and deadly parasite. It's a parasitic dinoflagellate that can survive in a host of water salinities. Being a dinoflagellate it can also photosynthesize, making it particularly hard to kill. I would keep some Formalin on-hand (pure formalin, not the host of knock off stuff) so that if you notice ich like spots on hypo-QT'd fish, you can pair hyposalinity with formalin which is a very effective velvet treatment.

 

[Humblefish]

does your ich management verse eradication write up apply to brooklynella as well? as far as the fallow times?

Brook (and uronema) are very unpredictable diseases and thus, difficult to manage. I think the problem stems from not enough research being done on these diseases vs. ich & velvet which we fully understand the life cycle. Fallow period for brook is 6 weeks.

So in your personal opinion(which i value very much) in my qt, should i run copper, or metro/prazi combo as a preventative for new fishes?

If you are willing to be patient and only QT a few fish at a time, then IMHO nothing beats TTM: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/tank-transfer-method.192655/

TTM is what I use for my personal collection of fish. I only QT & medicate when treating test subjects with known velvet, brook, uronema, etc.

Whether you choose to use TTM or not, I always advocate prophylactically deworming a fish via Prazipro or API General Cure. Whether or not to use copper as a prophylaxis is a bit more controversial, but most species can handle 30 days of it just fine so long as you slowly raise your Cu level over a period of 4-5 days. I personally prefer chelated copper (Coppersafe) over ionic (Cupramine).

 

[Humblefish]

I wanted to add that I think passive observation in QT is fine IF you have the time & patience to sit in front of the QT every single day for 10-15 mins to observe for symptoms of disease. You are not just looking for obvious physical symptoms of disease, but behavioral ones such as scratching/rubbing, flashing, head twitching, heavy breathing, swimming into the flow of a powerhead, purposely staying out of the light, etc. You need to be an attention to detail type with time on your hands to make this work. People who are non-observant, easily distracted, or just have busy lives would do best to prophylactically medicate IMHO. So, at the end of the day it has more to do with you than the fish.

 

[BoneXriffic]

I would think a uv is unnecessary here.

A good qt would be much more useful.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

I've heard of tank wide bacterial infections of SPS corals. If a UV sterilizer can mitigate the risk of this happening I'm all for it.

 

[riche]

No to hijack the post but I have a question. I have a corallife turbo twist 12x and was thinking of adding it to the new system as Im building it from the ground up. Since I have it already and I would be using it for preventive maintenance, would it be a good thing or am I just spinning my wheels. All fish that will be going in will go thru qt and all corals will be dipped.

Thanks