UV sterilizer

toneB · Dec 19, 2015

Do u recommend it for a 220 reef tank ??

reesed5 · Dec 19, 2015

For me, UV sterilizers are not necessary, although they do help. They will help clean up algae. For your 220 gallon tank, I would recommend it. It will prevent a lot of outbreaks in the long run.

Randy Holmes-Farley · Dec 19, 2015

I prefer to not have one.

I use organic carbon dosing to drive bacterial growth, and I do not want a UV just killing them.

saltyfilmfolks · Dec 19, 2015

Are there cases where you and Todd would recommend one?

Randy Holmes-Farley · Dec 19, 2015

saltyfilmfolks said:
Are there cases where you and Todd would recommend one?

If I were to keep fish that were especially prone to bacterial infections, such as Seahorses, I might.

saltyfilmfolks · Dec 19, 2015

As always. Thanks for the insight.

Humblefish · Dec 19, 2015

Randy Holmes-Farley said:
If I were to keep fish that were especially prone to bacterial infections, such as Seahorses, I might.

^^Agree!

UVs are only really useful for eradicating harmful bacteria and algae spores.

saltyfilmfolks · Dec 20, 2015

Yes. A thought would be if during a large cyano outbreak to bring it on line with a canister filter containing floss to kill off the active cyano sheets while slowly lowering the Po and removing their source.
so to speak. Provide comfort to the patient (astheticly) while slowly lowering The Po and slowly removing the source especially in the case of binding to rock and sand.
Thoughts?
Seems more reasonable than the popular method of siphoning and. blowing it off into the system and Dumping GFO in.

BeardedReeferLLC · Dec 20, 2015

I personally have not used one or wanted to use one on my systems at home. But when we have 150g+ with plenty of fish stocked especially tangs that are more acceptable to diseases and what not it wouldn't hurt running one.

Lesley · Dec 20, 2015

I never used to run a UV. Suffered some losses when I accidently introduced ICH into the tank, and have the dreaded tangs.

I wouldn't run a tank without one now, I run one 24/7 I cant say ive noticed a huge improvement in water clarity or algea(ive always had very little algea anyway) but when adding a new fish I am positive it has helped me try to manage the ICH in my tank.

I am unfortuatley unable to catch and QT all my stock, so I must live with it now. The UV has been a god send.

Waters · Dec 20, 2015

I also use one and would not run another tank without one. Won't eliminate problems but keeps a lot of things in check.

constantflow · Dec 20, 2015

To people who use them...how often do you change the bulbs?

twilliard · Dec 20, 2015

I believe they have their place in certain situations for the sterilization of the above mentioned things.
However typically by the time a UV needs to be fired up it is too late the problem is already at hand.
I think there is a lot of opinion on the implementation of UV but not a lot of facts (written article's) to help support the decision to put one in use.
For instance, phytoplankton. Free swimming. What is the detrimental effects of UV on something we are working hard to introduce because of heavy skimming.
I would need more facts before adding UV

klesel · Dec 20, 2015

I run them they are just little insurance I think they help with some stuff but most of the time people don't run them the right way far as flow to do good . and I change my bulb every 9 month

mrtian97 · Dec 20, 2015

I am also installing one now, mainly to control ich, unfortunately I don't have qt, and have couple tangs (which is healthy now) but I introduced 1 blue jaw trigger that developed ich 2nd day (seems the ich getting less) but he still not eating

3dees · Dec 20, 2015

sorry, but uv will not control ich. they can be of some use, but I would spend my money on something that would work. mrtian97, spending the money on qt instead of a uv would in my opinion, be a better option.

Humblefish · Dec 20, 2015

3dees said:
sorry, but uv will not control ich. they can be of some use, but I would spend my money on something that would work. mrtian97, spending the money on qt instead of a uv would in my opinion, be a better option.

So long as the flow running through it is slow enough and the lamp is good, a UV will zap just about anything that passes thru it - good or bad. Including ich theronts aka the free swimmers. The thing is the flow rate of most UVs has to be so slow for protozoa eradication, thus making it grossly inefficient.

Lesley · Dec 20, 2015

constantflow said:
To people who use them...how often do you change the bulbs?

Follow manufacturers recommendations. My Debary bulb last for 12,000 hrs so about 10 months. Other brands have only 8,000hrs. So research the one your going to buy.

Lesley · Dec 20, 2015

Humblefish said:
So long as the flow running through it is slow enough and the lamp is good, a UV will zap just about anything that passes thru it - good or bad. Including ich theronts aka the free swimmers. The thing is the flow rate of most UVs has to be so slow for protozoa eradication, thus making it grossly inefficient.

Very true, that's why is very important to follow manufacturers instructions. My one is up to 2600lt/hr for algae control and 600lt/hr for free floating. So when adding new fish I drop flow but the rest of the time I run the faster flow according to their recommendations.

Lesley · Dec 20, 2015

3dees said:
sorry, but uv will not control ich. they can be of some use, but I would spend my money on something that would work. mrtian97, spending the money on qt instead of a uv would in my opinion, be a better option.

Totally get what your saying, but in some circumstances QT is not possible. I would need a 6-7 foot tank for QT and have you ever tried to catch fish out of a 400g set up. The stress of the catch far out weighs me managing It instead. Not ideal at all, but unfortunately only option I have at this stage.