How Do You Feel About UV Sterilizers

[NoSchwag]

It looks clean like mine.

 

[G-money]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968722#post6968722 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Travis L. Stevens
"Let me start out by saying that I'm going to bet you like your DSB? "
Only for the variety of life really.

And IMO, that's the only reason to like it.


"Organic phosphate is not broken down into nothing in your tank."

Of course not. But doesn't algae take phosphate, nitrate, and other chemicals to grow and then expels nitrogen gas as a waste?

No, anerobic bacteria do that with nitrate. Otherwise, P and N are basically fertilizer. :lol:

I'm not 100% sure what a "biomass" is in this situation.

Biomass is anything living in your system. The primary players here are bacteria and planktonic algae. The first thing one needs to understand about aquatic environments is that bacteria run the show. In every way. Use them to your advantage. You want your tank to cater to bacterial growth over algae growth because bacteria are easier to remove. Keep your nutrients from sinking and you're tipping the scales in favor of bacteria. They can use/process/assimilate everything faster than anything. If it stays largely in the water column, it isn't going to feed nuisance algae and it's not going to have very much chance to accumulate in the system. This may also be a benefit of using UV, in that the resultant smaller organic molecules may indeed be easier for bacteria to use.

Speculating here, but I would assume something other than algae might be using it and not necessarily the UV which I think you're hinting at.

Again, bacteria. As bacterial growth increases, their need for phosphate increases, since it's an integral part of their structure. If you can continually export bacteria or have it consumed in the system (corals eat it, detritivores eat it), it will keep replenishing itself.

"Conversely, where does it go when it's allowed to settle into the sand?"

Why, eventually back into the system of course. Right? But then it would just filter through as food for something else.

Yeah, but you can't control what gets it if it's percolating back into the water from your filthy sandbed. :lol: Keep it in suspension where algae can't use it as effectively.

As for your phosphate questions and sand stirring and all that, I'd encourage some searching on the site here. More than one tank crash has been the result of stirring a DSB.

Would a proper and adequate clean up crew and selection of herbivores take unwanted macro algae out of the picture and leave that extra phosphate tied up in bacteria and planktonic algae?

It sure helps. Basically, they are making your detritus/uneaten food more easily suspended and processed by things other than algae. If someone already has an algae problem, there are very few animals (short of a Naso tang ) that will fix a well-entrenched algae problem.

***I'm a wet skimmer myself, but for the sake of knowledge how big is too big of a particle to make it difficult to pull out

No idea. I regularly skim things visible to the naked eye. This may be a result of after-skimmming association, though.

***They don't? What do they eat? I may have been mislead by the masses. I know that they highly depend on their replationship with their zooxanthallae algae, but SPS have a polyps for a reason don't they?

zooplankton, bacteria, dissolved organics. Very few stony corals are known to feed on phyto.

This is a tough one to decide on. Basically, sacrifice coral growth for food for others? It almost seems like Phosphates are being given a near completely bad wrap. There has to be something phosphates are good for besides algal growth

Phosphate is not bad at all. Excessive phosphate is always bad.

 

[G-money]

Thanks NoSchwag!

There are much more current pics on my site.

 

[NoSchwag]

No idea. I regularly skim things visible to the naked eye. This may be a result of after-skimmming association, though.

like this???

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6968827#post6968827 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by NoSchwag
Were you using a becket type skimmer?

Venturi. Because of the water level fluctuation, the actual height that the bubbles had to reach to get to the top varied with time/evaporation. I had it to where the sump was full, it was wet skimmate and as it depleted it just turned into wet skimming. If it isn't obvious, I don't have an auto top off unless I ask my wife to fill the sump :lmao:

No, anerobic bacteria do that with nitrate. Otherwise, P and N are basically fertilizer. :lol:

Then isn't that the point of a properly kept DSB? (Here I go again; venturing into dangerous territory) And if P and N are basically fertilizers, then algae does use phosphates. Right?

Biomass is anything living in your system. The primary players here are bacteria and planktonic algae. The first thing one needs to understand about aquatic environments is that bacteria run the show. In every way. Use them to your advantage. You want your tank to cater to bacterial growth over algae growth because bacteria are easier to remove. Keep your nutrients from sinking and you're tipping the scales in favor of bacteria. They can use/process/assimilate everything faster than anything. If it stays largely in the water column, it isn't going to feed nuisance algae and it's not going to have very much chance to accumulate in the system. This may also be a benefit of using UV, in that the resultant smaller organic molecules may indeed be easier for bacteria to use.

That is a great reasoning behind a UV then. And thank you for sharing. But can't you just harvest the biomass (that's what I thought you meant) of bacteria and planktonic algae with a water change and kill two birds with one stone. I won't go indepth on the second "stone". We all know the usual benefits of waterchanges. Also, wouldn't the harvesting of your macro algae also help remove P?

As for your phosphate questions and sand stirring and all that, I'd encourage some searching on the site here. More than one tank crash has been the result of stirring a DSB.

Oh, I've read up on that stuff and Hydrogen Sulfide and so on. But what if a regular, localized small stirring routine was implemented from the start. Like one week or two weeks, we stick our gloved ( ) hands in the tank and just move the sand on the right side, and then the next time it comes to stir the sand we disturb the left side. This way there really isn't a buildup and it would help mimic the disturbances that happen during storms, rock avalanches, etc. I guess this is slowly vearing off topic as well.

It sure helps. Basically, they are making your detritus/uneaten food more easily suspended and processed by things other than algae. If someone already has an algae problem, there are very few animals (short of a Naso tang ) that will fix a well-entrenched algae problem.

Definitely true. Now, should the more advanced aquarist be pushing a new hobbyist in the proper delicate selection of a clean up crew and not just getting 100 blue legs and 100 astreas?

 

[NoSchwag]

Oh, I've read up on that stuff and Hydrogen Sulfide and so on. But what if a regular, localized small stirring routine was implemented from the start. Like one week or two weeks, we stick our gloved ( ) hands in the tank and just move the sand on the right side, and then the next time it comes to stir the sand we disturb the left side. This way there really isn't a buildup and it would help mimic the disturbances that happen during storms, rock avalanches, etc. I guess this is slowly vearing off topic as well.

I hear that a ton of official certh snails (<1") is the best thing in the world for a DSB. They cell cerths that are bigger than 1", but you don't want those.

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

I would think that a natural disturbance is far better, but some people with a DSB FOWLR, might need an extra hand. No pun intended. This also leads to my comment about steering new hobbyists in the right direction on a clean up crew choice. Instead of focusing on rocks and algae, maybe we need to include substrate and organics as well since most new people only hear a hermit/snail side of it. When there is also a growing trend of hermit free or near hermit free clean up crews.

 

[G-money]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969080#post6969080 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Travis L. Stevens
Then isn't that the point of a properly kept DSB? (Here I go again; venturing into dangerous territory) And if P and N are basically fertilizers, then algae does use phosphates. Right?

Yes. I hope you didn't gather that I was saying algae doesn't use P and N. Those are their main nutes. The problem with letting it sit in your tank and having algae process it is that, sure, some of it will be used by whatever macro you have in your system/refuge to harvest, but microalgae (the category defined in the aquarium world as nuisance algae) is much more efficient than macro at using it. I take it you have yet to experience a microalgae plague? I had Bryopsis in my first DSB tank that lasted the entire 3 years the tank was up. The only thing that kept it from growing over corals was my fingers.

Think surface area to mass ratios. It's a big reason why bacteria are more efficient than microalgae, why micros are better than macros, etc - in general, of course. Anyone who keeps stony corals does not want a reservoir of phosphate sitting in their tank. And just because you can't test it doesn't mean it isn't there. The problem with DSBs (IMO) is that you can't control what it does with nutrients....blah blah.....I won't diverge on this anymore. Sorry.

But can't you just harvest the biomass (that's what I thought you meant) of bacteria and planktonic algae with a water change and kill two birds with one stone. I won't go indepth on the second "stone". We all know the usual benefits of waterchanges. Also, wouldn't the harvesting of your macro algae also help remove P?

Sure, you can change your water, but even though my skimmer is not likely processing eveything it can on the first pass, what it pulls out is much more concentrated than what would be found in a water change. That is, unless your water change includes a very targeted siphoning of detritus.

Also, water changes IMO may have as many negatives as positives - especially if done on a large scale and with artificial seawater. First, you're decreasing the immediate stabilty of the tank unless your replacement water is exactly the same as your tank water. Not likely. Also, many salt mixes are way higher than NSW in metal composition. That's not good IMO and is the number one reason I don't worry about removing "traces" in my skimmate. I change about 3-5% per 7-10 days and only because it's when I siphon the areas of my tank where some settling occurs. If I had no detritus building up, I would change the water even less. That's my personal decision and I would never give advice on what someone should do regarding water changes. You have to know your system and what water changes do for (or to) your system.

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969268#post6969268 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by G-money

Yes. I hope you didn't gather that I was saying algae doesn't use P and N. Those are their main nutes. The problem with letting it sit in your tank and having algae process it is that, sure, some of it will be used by whatever macro you have in your system/refuge to harvest, but microalgae (the category defined in the aquarium world as nuisance algae) is much more efficient than macro at using it. I take it you have yet to experience a microalgae plague? I had Bryopsis in my first DSB tank that lasted the entire 3 years the tank was up. The only thing that kept it from growing over corals was my fingers.

Oh yes, I have had more than may fair share of various blooms in one year's time. One Bacterial, 2 Planktonic Algae, 1 "Hair" algae, and the worst one was the "Red Turf Algae" bloom. Of course there was cyanobacteria issues back in the day just like most beginners encounter.

Just to clear up any confusion. I would consider "Macro" alge as being any growth form from Valonia and Bryopsis to Caulerpa and Chaetomorpha to Halimeda and Coralline. "Micro" algae to me is "film" algae that covers the glass to phytoplankton.

 

[G-money]

Sure, let's say microalgae=hair algae then, since that's the growth form of most "dangerous" nuisance algae.

But now we're drifting. Your topic was UV.
Have we gotten you to believe there may be some use for them?
They are not at all essential, but then very few things are in the way of equipment. Light, proper temp, water movement, calcium and bicarbonate...some type of nutrient input is also required - eventually. Everything else really is optional for coral growth, but some folks wouldn't be caught dead without these "options". Take nutrient export. Not required to keep corals, but long term, you're probably going to be in trouble.

 

[NoSchwag]

can I add that if you are not wet skimming with a becket a uv can become very counter productive.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

How does that relate to a UV breaking organo-phosphate bonds?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The phyto takes it up and then is harvested by wet skimming with a becket.

Well, I can't see how one could possibly conclude that even if using a UV drove more skimmate production, that it necessarily has anything to do with breaking C-O-P bonds.

I think if people want to make claims about the observable effects of a UV (more skimmate, less skimmate, less disease, whatever), that's fine and easy to justify.

But tracking it back to a molecular level mechanism without any reason to believe it to be the case seems to stetch credibility.

 

[NoSchwag]

Why would my skimmate be noticibly greener AFTER adding the UV?

First it was cloudy (bacteria?), now it's green.

Atleast the theory can't be proved wrong I guess.

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969453#post6969453 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by G-money
Have we gotten you to believe there may be some use for them?

More so then before when I started the thread. Thank you for the discussion.

Now, I'm probably still not going to run a UV , but that's where a UV discussion will most likely always end. A stalemate.

But, going back to what I first said about UV uses in the commercial side. I would almost consider it mandatory over a recommendation. The risk of introducing a pathogen in a whole system would be too great. But for an established home aquarium, it may not be necessary. Most people are usually done stocking by then anyways.

 

[G-money]

Randy,

Would you agree to the possibility that breaking organic bonds may confer a more "skimmable" conformation of the resulting products?

I agree that I haven't seen any info beyond UV breaking C-C bonds, but there can still be P associated with a given compound and it can be removed. Of course, UV is not required for this.

I guess I would have to say that it might also be possible for a broken C-C bond to result in one or both products no longer being amphipathic and therefore in unskimmable form. Correct?

Back to "my skimmer works better with UV" I guess. :lol:

 

[NoSchwag]

Travis I wouldn't recommend a UV without a skimmer, so you're probably making the right choice.

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969633#post6969633 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by NoSchwag
Travis I wouldn't recommend a UV without a skimmer, so you're probably making the right choice.

I plan on getting my skimmer up and running ASAP regardless of UV.

I might have to get a new beckett

 

[NoSchwag]

Now were talking.. Reef-daddy picked one up and had it tuned in like 3 days.. It took me months.

His is still breaking in though, mine is stable .

 

[G-money]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969619#post6969619 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Travis L. Stevens
Now, I'm probably still not going to run a UV , but that's where a UV discussion will most likely always end. A stalemate.

It all comes back to your philosophy. Believe me, husbandry philosophies don't change easily. I know this first hand because I used to have a different one. I'm much happier now. A person should never agree with an opposing point that is detrimental to their practice - even if it is true. Ah, but once you realize "it's" true, you and your tank are usually better off. I just expect people to know why they're doing what they do with their tanks. Seems obvious, but I never cease to be amazed....

But, going back to what I first said about UV uses in the commercial side. I would almost consider it mandatory over a recommendation. The risk of introducing a pathogen in a whole system would be too great. But for an established home aquarium, it may not be necessary. Most people are usually done stocking by then anyways.

First, who's ever done stocking? :lol:
Second, realize that it's going to take alot more UVs pulling alot more water from multiple areas on a large saltwater system to approach the efficiency of an oversized UV on the average reef tank. Granted, commercial entities are likely doing it solely for disease precautions. Koi hobbyists use it for greenwater problems though and even though they are freshwater and algae will die with faster throughput than parasites and bacteria, I guess that is alot of volume. Algae and freshwater are two factors that allow 'cidal action with more water flowing through them and less UV wattage, though. If you're after saltwater parasites, you have to slow the flow considerably and use more watts of UV.

I have to say that disease was not a big factor in my choice to use a UV. In fact, it wasn't a factor at all. I feel it's safer than ozone and accomplishes the same basic things (and more) without the risk and wonder of proper dosage. In the end, the tank doesn't lie.

 

[Travis L. Stevens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6969730#post6969730 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by G-money

I have to say that disease was not a big factor in my choice to use a UV. In fact, it wasn't a factor at all. I feel it's safer than ozone and accomplishes the same basic things (and more) without the risk and wonder of proper dosage. In the end, the tank doesn't lie.

I've noticed that most reefers that are considering getting a UV usually start thinking about it for the reason of disease and not the UV/Ozone side. Should this be something that should concern an advanced hobbyist interested in the new hobbyist's well being?