Does UV light help in treatment of Ich?
- Thread starter Rav-65
- Start date
mrmadlones
New member
so tankslave thanks alot so how long will you wait until you put real fishes in your tank i just bought a 9watt coralife sterilizer and i have it on the tank now so how long will you wait to put real fishes in there and is a 9watt sterilizer enough for my 55gal please help me out and thanks alot tankslave ......manny
flyingfish85
New member
What happened to spirited debate? The chatter has become rather petty and I'm surprised to see it. To his credit, ATJ answers thousands of questions and backs them up with factual documentation and practical experience. Bomber obviously has clinical experience in addition to a Doctorate. To see others point fingers that ATJ's word means nothing because he's not a marine biologist and ATJ shoot pointed barbs is disheartening. It's a proverbial pis*ing contest that should be saved for the import car board.
my 2 cents
my 2 cents
broncomike
New member
Bomber/SAT/Tank Slave...
I recently hooked up a UV unit in my tank. I have it running on a regular air pump. What is the best way to run a UV unit? You mentioned running it on its own pump; meaning a Maxi Jet, etc? How do you set this up exactly? Thanks for EVERYBODY'S time and experiences on this topic.
I recently hooked up a UV unit in my tank. I have it running on a regular air pump. What is the best way to run a UV unit? You mentioned running it on its own pump; meaning a Maxi Jet, etc? How do you set this up exactly? Thanks for EVERYBODY'S time and experiences on this topic.
SAT
Premium Member
Unfortunately, Bomber has chosen to disengage. I think some further dialog would have been useful.
Here's my take on it. First off, I think it helps to understand that the bulk of the UV market for aquatic use is for clarifying the water and slowing the spread of algae. The manufacturers recommend a size primarily on that basis. You don't need a big UV unit to kill most bacteria and algal spores. So, if you're looking to buy a UV unit for killing parasites, you need to spend a lot more money than you might have first thought.
UV can only kill parasites that pass through it. The real debate here is the likelihood that enough of the parasites will pass through the unit to make a substantial difference. UV may also have benefits not related to fish diease, but I think that debate belongs in a different thread.
If you have followed Bomber's other posts, you might know that he has been a consistent advocate of both UV and the bare bottom, high current, "don't let the detritus settle" approach to reefkeeping. In his tank, it's plausible that parasites have only a small chance of finding a host before the UV kills them. While I have nothing against Bomber's approach to reefkeeping, I think relatively few hobbyist tanks are run that way. Mine certainly isn't. The fine sand Dr. Ron recommends for a DSB would remain permanently in suspension if placed in his tank (but let's leave the pro/con DSB debate for another thread... it's been done).
The literature suggests that Ich parasites fall off the fish at night and attach to a location close to where the fish sleeps. Assuming the fish sleeps close to the same place a few nights later, he will be close to where the parasites hatch. If the water flow is slow in that area, the free swimming parasites will have a pretty good opportunity to catch that same fish before it gets swept away. So, what kind of water current do you have down near the bottom?
Brooklynella appears to be different, but the literature I have doesn't explain it very well. Apparently a single bath can be effective against Brooklynella, implying not a lot of activity off the fish. However, even if it's not effective at curing an individual fish, it's plausible that UV could prevent or slow the spread between fish.
If you consider UV to be part of a multi-layer disease management system, I think it has a place. That system should include strict quarantine, availability of a hospital tank when necessary, diet, and maintenance of high water quality. The expectation I would set for UV is that it will slow down the spread of parasites and may prevent a fish from being infested at lethal levels. Its effectiveness will vary considerably depending on the flow rate and the topology of the aquarium. I would not expect it to eradicate parasite populations... you'll need to depend on the fish's immune system or some some other treatment protocol for that.
Here's my take on it. First off, I think it helps to understand that the bulk of the UV market for aquatic use is for clarifying the water and slowing the spread of algae. The manufacturers recommend a size primarily on that basis. You don't need a big UV unit to kill most bacteria and algal spores. So, if you're looking to buy a UV unit for killing parasites, you need to spend a lot more money than you might have first thought.
UV can only kill parasites that pass through it. The real debate here is the likelihood that enough of the parasites will pass through the unit to make a substantial difference. UV may also have benefits not related to fish diease, but I think that debate belongs in a different thread.
If you have followed Bomber's other posts, you might know that he has been a consistent advocate of both UV and the bare bottom, high current, "don't let the detritus settle" approach to reefkeeping. In his tank, it's plausible that parasites have only a small chance of finding a host before the UV kills them. While I have nothing against Bomber's approach to reefkeeping, I think relatively few hobbyist tanks are run that way. Mine certainly isn't. The fine sand Dr. Ron recommends for a DSB would remain permanently in suspension if placed in his tank (but let's leave the pro/con DSB debate for another thread... it's been done).
The literature suggests that Ich parasites fall off the fish at night and attach to a location close to where the fish sleeps. Assuming the fish sleeps close to the same place a few nights later, he will be close to where the parasites hatch. If the water flow is slow in that area, the free swimming parasites will have a pretty good opportunity to catch that same fish before it gets swept away. So, what kind of water current do you have down near the bottom?
Brooklynella appears to be different, but the literature I have doesn't explain it very well. Apparently a single bath can be effective against Brooklynella, implying not a lot of activity off the fish. However, even if it's not effective at curing an individual fish, it's plausible that UV could prevent or slow the spread between fish.
If you consider UV to be part of a multi-layer disease management system, I think it has a place. That system should include strict quarantine, availability of a hospital tank when necessary, diet, and maintenance of high water quality. The expectation I would set for UV is that it will slow down the spread of parasites and may prevent a fish from being infested at lethal levels. Its effectiveness will vary considerably depending on the flow rate and the topology of the aquarium. I would not expect it to eradicate parasite populations... you'll need to depend on the fish's immune system or some some other treatment protocol for that.
Steven Pro
New member
Have any of you read "Ultraviolet light control of Ichthyophthiriius multifiliis Fouquet in a closed fish culture recirculation system" by Gratzek et al from Journal of Fish Disease 1983, 6:145-153. While it discusses freshwater Ich, both saltwater and freshwater Ich have a similar mode of reproduction making comparison somewhat useful especially in discussing UV's. Colorni & Burgess also extrapolate from this study in discussing the potential of using UV's to combat Cryptocaryon irritans in their 1997 paper "Cryptocaryon irritans Brown 1951, the cause of 'white spot disease' in marine fish: an update" in Aquarium Sciences and Conservation, 1:217-238.
In the Gratzek experiment 36 20-gallon tanks were hooked up to a central filtrations ystem. Four of those tanks were stocked with infected fish while the rest contained healthy individuals. The healthy fish remained disease free and never had more than 1.33% mortalities, while the infected fish suffered an 82.81% mortality rate. It appears the UV was able to contain the infection, but it did nothing to cure the already sick fish in the infected tanks.
If someone asked me, "I have $200 to spend on disease prevention. What should I buy?" I would tell them catagorically to invest that money in a quarantine tank, no question.
In the Gratzek experiment 36 20-gallon tanks were hooked up to a central filtrations ystem. Four of those tanks were stocked with infected fish while the rest contained healthy individuals. The healthy fish remained disease free and never had more than 1.33% mortalities, while the infected fish suffered an 82.81% mortality rate. It appears the UV was able to contain the infection, but it did nothing to cure the already sick fish in the infected tanks.
If someone asked me, "I have $200 to spend on disease prevention. What should I buy?" I would tell them catagorically to invest that money in a quarantine tank, no question.
Could you tell us the flow rate that Gratzek was using?
Steven Pro
New member
The flow rate was 7.5 gpm and the lamp generated 2,650 uW/cm2 which yielded a dosage of 91,900 uWs/cm2.
SAT
Premium Member
Presumably that's aggregate, right? So assuming the 20G tanks actually held about 16G each, you have an aggregate of 576g, against 450gph, or a bit under one turnover per hour. Bomber suggested 5X turnover. I think it's reasonable to conjecture that 5X flow would yield a different result... but without trying it there's no way to be sure.StevenPro said:
I agree, BTW, that the first $200 should go to a quarantine setup rather than UV. Even if we assume that UV is highly effective against Ich, there's no way it can deal with a host of other possible problems.
tankslave
New member
mrmadlones said:
mrmadlones,
I would wait a couple of weeks, just to be safe. As you've probably read earlier in the thread, some of the various parasites have dormant stages which can remain in your substrate for a few days. When that happened to me, I think I waited for about two weeks till I added any new fish. If you still have some fish in the tank, watch them carefully for any new spots. If they look clean for sometime, then you're probably doing ok. A lot of fish at the local fish shop come home already harboring the parasite and break out withing a few days. Of course a quarantine_tank would take care of this, but few of us have the resources for this. Usually the best you can do is look for fish that have been at the shop for a while and look healthy.
ATJ,
If Brooklynella had no free living stage, how does it spread from fish to fish. Suppose it just jumps from one fish to another, then no, a UV is of no use. You better treat that fish directly. How the average hobbyist will be able to tell the difference, I do not know. So, congratulations, you found one disease for which it a UV is not effective.
You do admit that it does reduce the number of parasites in the system. That is good enough for me. I still wonder if you have ever tried a UV sterilizer yourself, or do they not make any for 240V?
Some might consider me to be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject of Cryptocaryon irritans and other marine fish diseases. I have to agree with ATJ and Steven Pro here. While a powerful UV light is a valuable tool for a multitank system, it is limited in effectiveness for eliminating an infection within a single aquarium. The UV light must be considerably more powerful than what the average aquarist probably uses before it can have much affect on ich. Even then, once the parasite has infected a tank a UV wonรฦรยขรยข"ลกรยฌรยข"ลพรยขt prevent the continuation of its life cycle within that aquarium. When a powerful UV is placed in such a way that all the water must pass through it before entering another aquarium it can prevent the pest from spreading to the next aquarium.
Under the right circumstances, a UV light can be a valuable tool. Unfortunately, most hobbyists do not use the correct flow rate, maintain the UV properly, or have a powerful enough UV sterilizer. A UV is not a substitute for sound quarantine methodology. If you are going to choose between a UV light and a quarantine system then without a doubt go with the quarantine system. If you are treating ich then I have to recommend that the hobbyist use a proven method such as hyposalinity therapy, copper treatment, or the transfer method (if used within certain guidelines).
Terry B
Under the right circumstances, a UV light can be a valuable tool. Unfortunately, most hobbyists do not use the correct flow rate, maintain the UV properly, or have a powerful enough UV sterilizer. A UV is not a substitute for sound quarantine methodology. If you are going to choose between a UV light and a quarantine system then without a doubt go with the quarantine system. If you are treating ich then I have to recommend that the hobbyist use a proven method such as hyposalinity therapy, copper treatment, or the transfer method (if used within certain guidelines).
Terry B
ATJ
Premium Member
ATJ,
If Brooklynella had no free living stage, how does it spread from fish to fish. Suppose it just jumps from one fish to another, then no, a UV is of no use. You better treat that fish directly. How the average hobbyist will be able to tell the difference, I do not know. So, congratulations, you found one disease for which it a UV is not effective.
Yes, it basically moves directly from one fish to another. The only way to avoid Brooklynella, which kills quickly, is via quarantine and then treatment with formalin baths for any infected fish. If you need to quarantine to avoid Brooklynella why not quarantine for everything?
Bacterial infections will be in the same situation. Once a fish gets a bacterial infection, the bacteria will reproduce on the fish and the UV will be of little help.
You do admit that it does reduce the number of parasites in the system. That is good enough for me.
It will reduce the number of parasites if large enough, has the appropriate flow rate and the flow in the tank is high enough that water from every spot in the tank will flow quickly enough to inlet of the sterilizer. The first 2 requirements are quite easy to meet, but the last one, as I have already explained, is not only difficult to meet, there is no way to validate that you have met it. The further you get from ensuring rapid movement to the sterilizer, the less effective the UV will be and the more parasites that will survive.
While good circulation is necessary for a healthy reef tank, there are many species of corals that cannot tolerate very high flow rates and will be damaged by the sort of flow rates necessary to make a sterilizer effective. Perhaps this could be achieved in a bare bottom fish only tank, but would not work very well in a mixed reef tank.
I still wonder if you have ever tried a UV sterilizer yourself, or do they not make any for 240V?
I have never bought a UV sterilizer because I did the research first (as one should do for any purchase) and determined that the cost far outweighed the value. Quarantine is and has been working very well for me, and I see no reason to change from something that works.
oama
Premium Member
Deja Vu
Here's another link to an earlier thread.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=321032&highlight=UV
Generally, UV's when utilized properly are a valuable tool IMO.
Unfortunately, for the typical hobbists here with a Crypto outbreak in their tank, it will not "cure" Crypto. So, if someone tells you that "...to cure Crypto, just put on a UV. They have one and do not have a problem with Crypto." Beware
As in the citation made by StevePro, the infected tanks had an 82.81% mortality rate! The UV did not cure those fish of the FW Ich.
Here's another link to an earlier thread.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=321032&highlight=UV
Generally, UV's when utilized properly are a valuable tool IMO.
Unfortunately, for the typical hobbists here with a Crypto outbreak in their tank, it will not "cure" Crypto. So, if someone tells you that "...to cure Crypto, just put on a UV. They have one and do not have a problem with Crypto." Beware
As in the citation made by StevePro, the infected tanks had an 82.81% mortality rate! The UV did not cure those fish of the FW Ich.
Steven Pro
New member
Did any of you see this thread http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=360060
Similar threads
