To UV or Not to UV? To filter or Not to filter

[Codiene53]

Have a 55 gal. reef. Mainly hard corals and mushrooms mixed. In storage I have a small in line UV unit. Should I hook it up or not? So confused. Will it make a real difference?
Should I filter the reef water with filter pads or just use circulation and let the debris settle naturally? My reef water looks continuously dusty with that Sea Swirl always stirring up the dust!
:)

[SPasse]

Codiene53,

There are varying opinions on these issues.

1 My personal approach is to avoid any form of mechanical filtration whatsoever. Mechanical filters trap detritus and suspend in a moving column of water, where it essentially “rots�, being broken down bacterial action.
My current system approach is to utilize detrivores as “higher order� processors of detritus, which removes “energy� from it and produces less intermediate “nuisance algae fuels� this occurs in the refugium, which act as a settling pond, and in the DSB in the main tank. I still occasionally use carbon to remove organics that would otherwise tint the water green. I talk about my approach in detail, on my WEB site. This approach keeps the water clear without any filtration material, including pre-filters.

2 On the subject of UV and Ozone, I am in the Dr. Ron camp, and believe these forms of “filtration� to counterproductive in a reef tank environment.

Regards,

Scott

[DrBCP]

I am a huge fan of UV and will not set up a reef tank without one that is oversize for the job. It has kept my tanks free from disease for years. A UV will basically kill anything that continuously circulates in your water by preventing it's reproduction (technically, it mutates an organism's DNA, either causing it's death or preventing replication/reproduction). This is why it prevents algae growth. On the other hand, many reefers don't like it because it prevents small organisms, protozoans or what not, from living in the water.

[Bomber]

I always get tickled when these UV threads come up. Seems all the PhD's in the hobby would never leave home with out it.

Wonder why that is?? :lol:

I am a huge fan of UV and will not set up a reef tank without one that is oversize for the job.

DITTO, only I prefer to think of it as the right size for the job.

Jerel

[Paul B]

I have a reverse undergravel (state of the art in 1974) and a large homemade skimmer I also use ozone but only because I received it as a gift and I do not believe you need it. I think a UV is a waste of electricity unless it is in an outdoor pond. Without a filter and after thirty years I still do not have much muck settling out on the bottom. I can't remove the undergravel if I wanted to because the rock is entirely covered with coraline algae and hard and soft corals that have been growing all those years. If you have fine dust a lot I would diatom the water once to remove it but do not use it too often.

[SPasse]

Well…

Perhaps not all of the Doctors…

http://archive.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=30265&highlight=UV

Regards,

Scott

[DrBCP]

It sounds like those that have been posting for a while have seen this discussion to many times. Since I'm a newby to the arena, I'll continue on. <p>
I agree with all of the quotes posted by ravenmore in the other thread. I think of it this way; there may be some beneficial live plankton floating in tanks that corals will consume to grow and be healthy. At the same time, without a UV, any number of parasites, bacteria and other disease causing microbes will be free to multiply in your water. Reef tanks are pretty small systems compared to oceans where pathogens and algae in the water can float out to sea. I'd rather be on the safe side and kill the good with the bad with a UV. My corals still thrive with dead plankton and other food that I put in the water. How is one to fight a disease that gets out of control in a reef tank. I'd rather have a system that prevents water born pathogens. The last thing I want to put in my tank is more chemicals, a.k.a medicines. And as a bonus, is reduces algae growth!

[150reef]

I have had a 150 gal reef for 3 years now. First two years I used a UV light....Coral did well, no disease problems and best of all no algea what so ever...After two years I decided to remove the UV filter as recommended by some of the people on this sight. The UV has now been off for about a year now....No change in my coral growth...Still no disease problems, but tons of algea of all kinds, hair, and different color slime algeas on everything....Needless to say I am thinking of going back to a UV......

[gregt]

Still no disease problems, but tons of algea of all kinds, hair, and different color slime algeas on everything....Needless to say I am thinking of going back to a UV......

UV can help out with these things as well, although they aren't a panacea. They are useful for so many reasons.

Scott,

I would be hesitant to dismiss the thoughts of a Dr. of Marine <b>Pathology</b> (with no connections to the hobby industry other than being a hobbiest) when it comes to a UV debate.

[150reef]

Originally posted by gregt


UV can help out with these things as well, although they aren't a panacea. They are useful for so many reasons.

Scott,

I would be hesitant to dismiss the thoughts of a Dr. of Marine <b>Pathology</b> (with no connections to the hobby industry other than being a hobbiest) when it comes to a UV debate.




UV help out....Come on I went from a tank setup for two years with no algea, to an algea factory with out the UV so it does more than help out in my experience, it pretty much kills it all, well at least for me it did anyway.....Anyone else?

[gregt]

Whoa, calm down. I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing. I just put an upper limit on your thought is all. UV is not going to prevent algae growth completely, but it will help minimize it. Your experience could simply be due to a slow buildup of nutrients in your rock and sand until your algae had a good basis to grow on. The fact that you removed the UV was probably a catalyst and certainly didn't help any, but I suspect you would have had experience some problems eventually even with the UV.

[Bomber]

Woops

I didn't say that right at all. I didn't mean PhD's in the hobby like - have something to gain, earn a income related to the hobby, are in the hobby business.
I meant people that have PhD's and are just hobbyists at home and earn their living doing something else.
PhD's in the aqua/mari-culture business, now that's something else entirely. ;)

Sorry for the confusion.

[150reef]

Sorry greg, I did not mean to come off so harsh. I understand what your saying....A good test for the UV will be when I put it back on my tank and see what happens....If the algea dies again then I know the UV really works well for killing un wanted algea...If it only kills some of the algea then I know that you are right in that it could be a build up nutrients that caused some of the growth...It was just to coincidental in that two weeks after I removed the U.V my glass became covered in a green film slime...Then over time moved to my live rock and then hair algea began shortly after that....Didn't take but a month....

As for the corals, again removing the UV has not in any way made my corals grow any faster, look any brighter than with the UV.....

[JRF]

Hi,
About UV, is there some kind of standard as to what wattage UV to use per tank size??
Thanks
JRF

[Bomber]

JRF

Here's (http://archive.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=69304&highlight=UV) a recent thread that will answer your questions.

HTH
Jerel

[SPasse]

Greg,

“I would be hesitant to dismiss the thoughts of a Dr. of Marine Pathology (with no connections to the hobby industry other than being a hobbyist) when it comes to a UV debate.�

I am not dismissing anyone’s thoughts.

There are two “camps� (with learned people) on this issue and I just personally, believe UV and ozone to be unnecessary and counterproductive, and if UV Ozone is a necessary component of your system, to prevent disease, there is some underling stress factor that should be dealt with. In my systems, I go out of my way to promote live plankton, not to kill it.

This is also not a technology aversion issue, I have probably owned and used, at on time, every high tech gadget one can obtain, Including UV sterilizers, ozone and redox controllers. I am an engineer, I like gadgets.

This is an area were hobbyists just agree to disagree.

Regards,

Scott

[tang named junkyard]

The UV was the best thing I put in my tank. It cleared up a major ich outbreak in 48 hours, made my fish look bright and made my water crystal clear and it put a serious dent in green algae growth. Im sold on it. I dont have it on right now but I keep it ready for anything that looks wierd.

[gregt]

if UV Ozone is a necessary component of your system, to prevent disease, there is some underling stress factor that should be dealt with.

Scott, I agree.

However, there are a lot of other good reasons to use UV, not discounting the fact that occasionally, <b>any</b> system, no matter how well maintained can have problems which may lead to the fast decline and possibility of disease. I find the levels of bacteria in a tank to be much more alarming without a UV (even if the tank is healthy) than the loss of a small amount of planktonic life that, IMO, a small (less than 100,000 gallons) closed system can't support anyway. (I'd be glad to clarifiy that statement if someone is interesed)

Additionally, as has been pointed out in this thread, disease prevention is far from the only benefit UV provides.

[150reef]

Greg, I agree with you!! I have proved in my system, that using a UV 24 hrs a day VS not using a UV had no affect on any corals in my tank. Now I have left my tank for a year with out a UV, maybe this is not a long enough peroid of time to let all those "beneficial things" to grow and reproduce in my tank but thus far, the only thing not having a UV has done for me is bring algea, lots of green stuff....

[Reefs_Rock]

To All

My two cents worth.

Remember, UV kills/alters, ie, renders incapable of reproduction, ONLY the critters that pass through the UV. These critters are capable of motion/locomotion. So, it's possible/probable that some remain in the water column long enough to breed and bare young.

What UV does is to keep the population from getting out of hand and becoming a nuisance.

Therefore, I raise my hand high :beer: infavor of UV.

As to sizing, it depends on aquarium size and pump gph. I always go one size larger than the manufacture recommends. Why? Because I want to be double sure to kill the little nasty buggers. :uzi: :bigeyes: After all some are capable of killing my prize fish. Also, by going to the next size larger, I feel I get a longer kill rate and bulb life than the recommended nine months to one year the manufactures recommend between changes.

Anyway, that's how UV has worked for me for the past thirty odd years since I've used them.

[anthem]

In using a UV, to be "sure to kill the little nasty buggers. After all some are capable of killing my prize fish", will take anywhere from 3x to 6x the manufacturer specs. By doubling it, you're relying on passes to hopefully get multiple cracks at it to kill it. Most manufacturer specs at 15K uw-sec/cm2, some at 30 uw-sec/cm2. For killing those 'little nasty buggers' (usually protozoa), it usually takes 90k uw-sec/cm2.

Ed

[Codiene53]

From the replies....it looks like I'll be hooking up my UV sterilizer to the reef this weekend: Many benefits, little downside.
Also I will not use any filter pads. Water is clearer today. Maybe the debris is settling out.
While I'm at it, is it possible for one to have too much light over their 55 gal. reef(48" long rectangle)? I have 4: 110 VHO's(2 actinic and 2 50-50's), one: 10,000K 175 watt Ushio and 2: 30w actinic PC's. I run the VHO's for 10 hrs, the MH for 3 hrs, and the 30 w PC for 12 hrs. Staggering the light intensity for a dawn to dusk effect. They are about 7'' above the water line. It's pretty bright in there in the middle of the day! Beautiful blue, showing off the florescence in the evening.
:)

[150reef]

The more light the better!!!! Sounds like you have a great light setup to me.....You might consider leaving the halide on for a longer peroid of time, corals love them.....

[Frick-n-Frags]

What is wrong with your setup initially to make you want to throw more hardware at your tank?
If it ain't broke...........???????
(sounds like a great light setup too, hell no that isn't too much light :) )

Also, why would you, after it is becoming common knowledge that stoney corals eat microscopic sized meat, want to filter out/UV destroy bacteria covered particulate and all the spawns, etc that provide the "animal" matter for your hard corals?

If the UV is going to leave most of the plankton in the water, then it would leave most of the pathenogens in the water too. I think it is more all-or-none.

As previously mentioned, it would seem that
UV is just another fix for an underlying imbalance like too much algae food or too concentrated animals and poor quality water which opens the door for disease to these stressed animals. UV shouldn't be needed. Are you having problems?

Proof? I don't feed or filter my system much (once a month some DT's and some finely powdered flake food, that's it, even for the fish)and I have many stoney corals growing(including a lot of Acros), not super fast, but growing, and have had some of them for a long time already(4 years+) and they obviously are getting what they need.
I have tried to match the bio-load to the size of water and the energy/nutrient input and use natural algae filtration for binding and export. I even lost the skimmer because I could see the green phyto in the skimmer scum.

IMO, biodiversity is a key to a stable reef and garbage algae doesn't grow if the conditions are not right for it to grow (ie clean water). UV is for smoking crypt in hopelessly doomed FO tanks, not for maintaining micro-fauna in a reef( which I believe is part of the food pyramid in a reef). Thirty years ago humanity was almost totally ignorant of just what the heck was going on in the ocean regarding coral. Lee Chin Eng was the only person barking up the right tree back then, no UV or ozone either. (Ozone shreds organic molecules)

So there's the other set of opinions :D

[gregt]

Corals can't chase live planktonic animals
Feeding provides "microscopic" (F-n-F's choice of terms in this case) food with more consistancy
Feeding provides "microsopic" food that doesn't run away like live food does (heck of a lot easier for the coral to catch it)
<b>A small system cannot support a planktonic food chain</b>


Planktonic animals have very short life spans. They exist to do one thing. Reproduce. They do that one thing very well. They will reproduce very quickly until they exceed the support provided by our small systems and then......they all die out. Leaving you with the same thing you would have in a UV system (Except you also have a soup of bacteria as well). Then, the populations will once again mutiply feeding on the nutrients release by the dead ancestors repeating the cycle. This cycle does not provide the best, consistent food supply, IMO. I can provide the same thing by feeding and using heavy filtration without ever having the large amounts of nutrients in my tank, and while experiencing the other benefits of UV that have already been discussed.

We are looking for stable systems, not roller coasters. Unless you have a huge system (or open system) that can support (and therefore supply to the coral) large amounts of planktonic life, it's not as great an as it sounds.

[Reefs_Rock]

gregt

Hey, you da man. Couldn't have said it better. No wonder you're a moderator.

[150reef]

Well put greg, I wanted to reply to "Frick-n-frags" post put did not exactly know how to put it...."Frick" says he has many stony corals growing at a moderate pace, and gives some of his success to "not using a UV"....Well I tried it both ways, with a UV for two years, and now with-out one for a year, and let me tell you my corals growth did not change...They still grow at about the same pace and have the same color....Well except for the slime algae that gets built up on them once and a while now with-out the UV....I have found that most of the success I have had is due to good strong lighting.....

Again much of the UV debate is opinions like others have said on this post, but I am speaking from experience and facts not opinion....Until you have tried a reef tank or a reef/fish tank both with a UV and with out a UV for a long period of time, I don't think you can justify any opinions......

[Bomber]

Lee Chin Eng was the only person barking up the right tree back then

LMAO
Lee was a marine livestock dealer who found a way to promote his "live stone" and "live sand" business by marketing his natural way of running a reef aquarium. He didn't invent this way of maintaining closed systems. It's the way we were doing it long before he ever came along.

AND, even funnier. Do you guys realize that one of the first documented studies published on spawning and rearing of hard corals in closed systems, was published in 1916. That's right, actually spawning and rearing of corals from planula to settlement to several years of growth. BTW this was going on a good ten years before the papers were published too.

[Paul B]

About Lee Chin Eng. don't forget that his tanks were outside in the sun in the tropics, he used only natural water and food and when something died, he walked ten feet to the ocean and replaced it.

[badash]

i have a 40watt double pass uv on my 65 gallon it can be used up to 500 gal tank i didn't make mine inline though i use a rio3100 pump with the uv. the pump is at the very top of the tank behind liverock to hide it and all the water that gets pumped out goes through the overflow and i have never seen any signs of ik ever! and as far as feeding plankton all you have to do is unplug it!;)