Aquarist007
New member
Give it up Patrick you're not going to change is mind :lolspin:
Skimmerless: who's doing it? pros and cons
- Thread starter rick12
- Start date
Give it up Patrick you're not going to change is mind :lolspin:
Theronts are the free swimming infectious stage of Cryptocaryon. They are most vulnerable to treatment during this stage which last from 3-7 days of their life cycle. Increased population densities at this stage would increase their mathematical probability to infect fish. Appropiate UV sterilization rates will kill the parasite.
Has anyone every shown in an appropriate study that a UV reduces the chance of ich in a reef aquarium, or speeds its removal?
Has anyone every shown in an appropriate study that a UV reduces the chance of ich in a reef aquarium, or speeds its removal?
My experience with using UV to treat ich in a 12 year old established tank would not be considered a scientific study. There is plenty of documentation that shows appropiate killing rates of UV for the ich parasite. My post was addressed to the statement "do little for parasite control". It seemed to me to be dismissive and considered the point irelavent. The dead theronts would not consider it irelavent.
In my 12 year old tank which has never seen cooper nor ich, the parasite was introduced with a shipment of Blue Tangs this past Christmas. These fish were guaranteed to have been quarantined for the Ich parasite. Three out of five fish died within two weeks of the shipment. I was reimbursed for all fish. I will not list the name of the shipper who I consider to be reputable and from whom I would purchase fish again. I was faced with removing all fish from this tank and allow the tank to go fallow for 6 months or to reduce the salinity to levels that would also threaten the multiple nutrient pathways which I strive to build up. I did neither. I choose to use UV sterilization to reduce the densities of the free swimming infectious stage of the ich parasite. I simultaneously increased my feeding schedule and the use of garlic to promote immune system health. That was 9 months ago. Does that qualify as a scientific study? No it does not. But I would not dismiss UV sterilization as irelavent as an aid in ich control.
Considering numerous links and articles listed on different hobby websites, going fallow by removing all fish would seem to be the most logical choice if I did not want to adversely effect biological filtration. In my 40 years of reefkeeping, I have dealt with ich twice. The second time was on a large system with had seen nothing introduced into it for 18 months. Hard to believe for an addicted hobiest. Work conditions had changed from 28 on & 28 off. I had little time for my hobby thus no addittions. Due to a power failure causing a stress event, I witnessed ich on numerous fish. With this event, I can not agree with the accepted notion that dormant stage of the parasite is 12 weeks.
I live and learn.
Patrick
In my 12 year old tank which has never seen cooper nor ich, the parasite was introduced with a shipment of Blue Tangs this past Christmas. These fish were guaranteed to have been quarantined for the Ich parasite. Three out of five fish died within two weeks of the shipment. I was reimbursed for all fish. I will not list the name of the shipper who I consider to be reputable and from whom I would purchase fish again. I was faced with removing all fish from this tank and allow the tank to go fallow for 6 months or to reduce the salinity to levels that would also threaten the multiple nutrient pathways which I strive to build up. I did neither. I choose to use UV sterilization to reduce the densities of the free swimming infectious stage of the ich parasite. I simultaneously increased my feeding schedule and the use of garlic to promote immune system health. That was 9 months ago. Does that qualify as a scientific study? No it does not. But I would not dismiss UV sterilization as irelavent as an aid in ich control.
Considering numerous links and articles listed on different hobby websites, going fallow by removing all fish would seem to be the most logical choice if I did not want to adversely effect biological filtration. In my 40 years of reefkeeping, I have dealt with ich twice. The second time was on a large system with had seen nothing introduced into it for 18 months. Hard to believe for an addicted hobiest. Work conditions had changed from 28 on & 28 off. I had little time for my hobby thus no addittions. Due to a power failure causing a stress event, I witnessed ich on numerous fish. With this event, I can not agree with the accepted notion that dormant stage of the parasite is 12 weeks.
I live and learn.
Patrick
In the second outbreak of Ich 20 years ago, I reduced the salinity to a SpG of 1.010 for 2 months. This broke the ich life cycle as well as my biological filter. Considering extensive efforts on my part to build up diversity of micro fauna and fana I will not use that treatment again in a display tank. My wife humored my fixation with achieving biodiversity as money left the budget. In one case after receiving a diversity package from IPSF, she made me laugh at myself as I investigated the different bags of diversity. After turning off lights in the room, bags were placed against white backgrounds with a small light source in front then in back of the bag. Next a white background with the same alternating lights in front and back.
Considering my experience with the dormant stage of the parasite, I choose to use UV sterilization to go after the most vulnerable stage of the Ich life cycle. It is not an absolute guarantee to destroying all the parasites. Considering my one experience 20 years ago, I sometimes believe that the bugs will inherit the earth.
So much for the meek inheriting the earth.
Patrick
Considering my experience with the dormant stage of the parasite, I choose to use UV sterilization to go after the most vulnerable stage of the Ich life cycle. It is not an absolute guarantee to destroying all the parasites. Considering my one experience 20 years ago, I sometimes believe that the bugs will inherit the earth.
So much for the meek inheriting the earth.
Patrick
Last edited:
Changing someone's mind is not the point. Addressing the facts is the issue.
I don't wan't to have a long discussion about crytocaryon iiritans and uv here.,since it would be a distraction from the point of the thread but since you worked in a suggestion for uv as a cure for ich twice ,a brief response was needed .
There are plenty of discussions and studies out there on proper treatments for cyrtocaryon irritans and it's life cycle and and the limits of uv in disease control I've been in many of them over the years. Argued for it for a few of those years until it was clear to me , I was chasing windmills.
If one chooses to keep a tank with ich in it in lieu of effective treatment a large uv will kill some theronts but the tank will still have ich .
Suffice to say it is my opinion and experience that uv is not a good way to control or erradicate ich in a closed recirculating system. It does little to control parasites. It is much more effective in killing planktonic bacteria as they take less radiation given their relative size.
Your opinion is your opinion ; it's not a fact.
I don't know if bacteria killed by uv retain nutritional value or not . They do store some nutrients inside the cell which may or may not be depleted. In any case , the dead ones won't multiply or colonize particulate matter which may be eaten . It seems to me overall planktonic bacteria would be less available in the food chain at a given point in time when a uv large enough to deliver lethal radiation to large organisms like protozoans is in use. With a large UV processing through relatively high volumes of water the effect on a variety of micro fauna contributing to the zooplankton and phytoplankton in the tank could be quite limiting , it seems to me.
I don't wan't to have a long discussion about crytocaryon iiritans and uv here.,since it would be a distraction from the point of the thread but since you worked in a suggestion for uv as a cure for ich twice ,a brief response was needed .
There are plenty of discussions and studies out there on proper treatments for cyrtocaryon irritans and it's life cycle and and the limits of uv in disease control I've been in many of them over the years. Argued for it for a few of those years until it was clear to me , I was chasing windmills.
If one chooses to keep a tank with ich in it in lieu of effective treatment a large uv will kill some theronts but the tank will still have ich .
Suffice to say it is my opinion and experience that uv is not a good way to control or erradicate ich in a closed recirculating system. It does little to control parasites. It is much more effective in killing planktonic bacteria as they take less radiation given their relative size.
Your opinion is your opinion ; it's not a fact.
I don't know if bacteria killed by uv retain nutritional value or not . They do store some nutrients inside the cell which may or may not be depleted. In any case , the dead ones won't multiply or colonize particulate matter which may be eaten . It seems to me overall planktonic bacteria would be less available in the food chain at a given point in time when a uv large enough to deliver lethal radiation to large organisms like protozoans is in use. With a large UV processing through relatively high volumes of water the effect on a variety of micro fauna contributing to the zooplankton and phytoplankton in the tank could be quite limiting , it seems to me.
Last edited:
Yes, I agree that the use of UV does not support diversity in bacteria populations. A 40W UV sterilizer with a Mag 7 was used. To have removed all fish would have required removal of all rock. It takes months to settle on desirable aquascaping and I choose not to undo it to remove all fish. Considering my experience with the dormat period of Ich cyst being much longer than the studies you refer to, I have my doubts on some of those hard facts.
In retrospect, in the last 8 months, I have noted some decrease in polyp extension of certain corals and a subtle shift in diversity of micro fauna and fana. My normal response to this shift in diversity would be to get some uncured diver collected live rock and reintroduce it. While I have seen no symptoms of the ich infestation in 8 months, I am not satisfied with the shift that I have observed and in hindsight would remove all fish from an ich infected tank.
Considering the Felderman article on protein skimming having an impact on diversity and density of bacteria populations, one should ask is that good or bad. It is my opinion that it is bad. Using that logic, I have decided to discontinue my use of UV sterilization on my reef tank. For me, the fish are secondary to the invertebrates.
Whatever promotes diversity in bacteria populations of our reef tanks is a good thing. Because protein skimming skews these populations, reintroduction of these required bacteria would be of paramount importance in the long term health of our tanks.
Patrick
In retrospect, in the last 8 months, I have noted some decrease in polyp extension of certain corals and a subtle shift in diversity of micro fauna and fana. My normal response to this shift in diversity would be to get some uncured diver collected live rock and reintroduce it. While I have seen no symptoms of the ich infestation in 8 months, I am not satisfied with the shift that I have observed and in hindsight would remove all fish from an ich infected tank.
Considering the Felderman article on protein skimming having an impact on diversity and density of bacteria populations, one should ask is that good or bad. It is my opinion that it is bad. Using that logic, I have decided to discontinue my use of UV sterilization on my reef tank. For me, the fish are secondary to the invertebrates.
Whatever promotes diversity in bacteria populations of our reef tanks is a good thing. Because protein skimming skews these populations, reintroduction of these required bacteria would be of paramount importance in the long term health of our tanks.
Patrick
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
I can't understand how either uv or skimming can skew the diversity of bacteria
Other then using natural sea water is there no other way to increase the diversity of bacteria in our systems?
Aquarist007
New member
I think one of the characteristics that we quickly develop in this hobby is being pragmatic. Personally through my teaching career and personal businesses that has helped me with people ..students and clients.
Uv sterilizers have worked for me esp in my restaurant tanks were people are always banging the glass and stressing out the fish.
Truthfully I have not had a single case of ich in the last 4 years in my 15 corporate which are all running sterilizers.
I do appreciate the experience and education one gets on here if they keep an open mind...and why I hang out with guys much smarter then me:lol2:
I really don't feel that in this particular case that I need to be pointed to a study that either proves or disproves whether a sterilizer works
I am very concerned what useful bacteria both the skimmer and uv take out however for my own tank and knowledge so a discussion around this point should not detract from the purpose of this thread
Tom I apologize for the flippant comment. I thought I was just being funny but according to my wife I am usually the only one that thinks I am funny
To me the Feldman article links together a number of assumptions and unproven hypothesis in a seemingly logical way but there are too many leaps in the conclusions for my taste to accept his opinion that bacterial popuations are "skewed" by skimming as a fact. Some more precise examples would be helpful.
I would surmise that lots of bacteria come in with foods and livestock; many are airborne too.
So, I don't know if either uv or skimming would "skew" bacterial "diversity".
I do know skimming takes out some bacteria in planktonic modes and uv kills them. Is that good or bad depends on how much and the type of bacteria in terms of it's contributions to the aquarium good or bad and the particualr species ability to split timewise, and take up the slack vs the rigor the export or killing mechanism.Unfortunately, much of all that is unknown,at least to me.
I would note skimmers do provide aertion which is useful when oxygen depleting bacterial activity is occuring at a high rate.
My preference is not to kill bacteria, gererally, but rather to harvest amphipatic types supported by organic carbon dosing along with the nutreints they hold via skimming . There are always enough of those heterotrophs even with heavy skimming ,IME. Wether or not other types lessen in volume from the competition , export or death by uv ; or, become more proliferous from the extra organic C is unknown to me . I have not , however observed any negative effects from the dosing of vokda and vinegar over the years. Cyanobacteria do wane overtime as these hetertrophs seem to outcompete it for other nutrients,IME. Some corals respond well not only to lower nutients but perhaps to the extra food from the higher mass of bacteria in the food web. Zoanthus and goniopora are two examples in my opbservations. If there is a loose strand of bacteria floating about on occasion fish gobble it up. Sponges also prolifertate.
I would surmise that lots of bacteria come in with foods and livestock; many are airborne too.
So, I don't know if either uv or skimming would "skew" bacterial "diversity".
I do know skimming takes out some bacteria in planktonic modes and uv kills them. Is that good or bad depends on how much and the type of bacteria in terms of it's contributions to the aquarium good or bad and the particualr species ability to split timewise, and take up the slack vs the rigor the export or killing mechanism.Unfortunately, much of all that is unknown,at least to me.
I would note skimmers do provide aertion which is useful when oxygen depleting bacterial activity is occuring at a high rate.
My preference is not to kill bacteria, gererally, but rather to harvest amphipatic types supported by organic carbon dosing along with the nutreints they hold via skimming . There are always enough of those heterotrophs even with heavy skimming ,IME. Wether or not other types lessen in volume from the competition , export or death by uv ; or, become more proliferous from the extra organic C is unknown to me . I have not , however observed any negative effects from the dosing of vokda and vinegar over the years. Cyanobacteria do wane overtime as these hetertrophs seem to outcompete it for other nutrients,IME. Some corals respond well not only to lower nutients but perhaps to the extra food from the higher mass of bacteria in the food web. Zoanthus and goniopora are two examples in my opbservations. If there is a loose strand of bacteria floating about on occasion fish gobble it up. Sponges also prolifertate.
Paul B
Premium Member
You can not say that if parasites disappear in a tank that uses UV sterilization then UV sterilization killed the parasites. I don't use UV and introduce fish into my tank all the time regardless if they have ich or not. It is not a concern for me and some of my fish are 24 years old. My fish do not ever exhibit ich or anything else even though I buy fish from all stores, and collect fish, water and mud in the sea. I add mud every few weeks from the sea. The tank has been set up for 43 years and the last time I saw ich was probably 35 years ago. I don't quarantine as I have different opinions on that. All my paired fish are spawning as they are very healthy. Ich just sometimes doesn't bother fish especially if they are in breeding condition UV sterilization or not.
This also does not count for a scientific test.
References:
Me
This also does not count for a scientific test.
References:
Me
Scott,
I'm not saying folks should opr should not use a uv or a skimmer , merely trying to sort out what they do and don't.
I change my mind on issues when I percieve a reason to do so and I'm open to change. In fact I changed my mind on uv long ago from an advocate to a non user except in specialized situations like seahorse fry tanks for bacteria control. There are other examples in my history.
I had also hoped a 39 watt sterilizer on a 40 gallon tank would control hydroids which in their phelagic phase harm fry. It didn't.
I have several units on the shelf but resist the temptation to hook them up and will continue to do so unless and until I perceive a good reason to do so.
Second,
Randy's question is on the mark , appropriate and fair in light of the opinion and anecdote presented with a dangling inference of fact made earlier in the thread. If Uvs were that effective in at controlling ich someone would likely have shown it to be so after all these years. There are a myriad of studies on this parasite and none of which I'm aware support the use of uv in a recirculating system.
Having said that anecdotal observations of and practices helpful provoking thought and insight and are very welcome when presented as such.
I'm not saying folks should opr should not use a uv or a skimmer , merely trying to sort out what they do and don't.
I change my mind on issues when I percieve a reason to do so and I'm open to change. In fact I changed my mind on uv long ago from an advocate to a non user except in specialized situations like seahorse fry tanks for bacteria control. There are other examples in my history.
I had also hoped a 39 watt sterilizer on a 40 gallon tank would control hydroids which in their phelagic phase harm fry. It didn't.
I have several units on the shelf but resist the temptation to hook them up and will continue to do so unless and until I perceive a good reason to do so.
Second,
Randy's question is on the mark , appropriate and fair in light of the opinion and anecdote presented with a dangling inference of fact made earlier in the thread. If Uvs were that effective in at controlling ich someone would likely have shown it to be so after all these years. There are a myriad of studies on this parasite and none of which I'm aware support the use of uv in a recirculating system.
Having said that anecdotal observations of and practices helpful provoking thought and insight and are very welcome when presented as such.
The article of bacteria counts in reef aquarium was composed by four pHd professors, two of which write articles for Reef Central. I did not see the leaps to conclusion you attributed to Feldman's opinion. I did read that he said further studies are required to study the long term effect of the skewed bactetia populations in our reef tanks. The bacteria populations were qualitative numbers listed in charts and tables of the article.
In reviewing the credentials of the four scientist, I saw an early picture of Ken Feldman with Albert Einstein. That type of recognition merits my respect for his credentials.
Tom,
Not knowing much about your background, I am sure your views are well founded. I respect your views as they are. I strive to view new subject matter and learn as I go. We all have opinions for various reasons. At my age, I have changed my views on quite a few things.
Viva la difference,
Patrick
In reviewing the credentials of the four scientist, I saw an early picture of Ken Feldman with Albert Einstein. That type of recognition merits my respect for his credentials.
Tom,
Not knowing much about your background, I am sure your views are well founded. I respect your views as they are. I strive to view new subject matter and learn as I go. We all have opinions for various reasons. At my age, I have changed my views on quite a few things.
Viva la difference,
Patrick
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
Tom, this makes me very nervous. I find your posts to me increasingly condescending and reprimanding. I feel like I have no business discussing anything with you or the other experts on these forums. I have said many times that I do not have the experience or knowledge you have but by participating I learn more effectively then just lurking and reading. I also like to help others.
I will try harder in the future to limit my input and stay out of places I don't belong but I will continue to ask questions as this is my nature.
I will try harder in the future to limit my input and stay out of places I don't belong but I will continue to ask questions as this is my nature.
Patrick,
I think the Penn state work is generally well well done,'I've read the series several times .
I had another article in mind in my critique, probably crossed in my mind from another thread ;sorry for my confusion. I'd blame it on age but that's not really an excuse.
I think you may have found a different Ken Feldman when checking credentials. The Kenneth S Feldman who participated in writing the series a Penn State got his BS in 1978 and his Phd in chemstry from Stanford in 1984. I think he is a reputable source but probably was a young child or not yet born unless he was a very late bloomer when Albert Einstein died in 1955. Again I think that series of articles is very well reasoned and documented and the team of authors who worked on it made some nice contributions to our understanding. I do not personally agree with all of the conclusions and extrapolations but that's just me.
Be assured I appreciate the observations and insights you share even if I disagree with some points and draw different conclusions. Kicking those things around helps us all learn. it's not at all personal. The more I can hear about the experiences of others the more insights I can develop to continuously improve my understanding and outcomes.Your way is right for you ;my way for me . There is nothing wrong with that.
I think the Penn state work is generally well well done,'I've read the series several times .
I had another article in mind in my critique, probably crossed in my mind from another thread ;sorry for my confusion. I'd blame it on age but that's not really an excuse.
I think you may have found a different Ken Feldman when checking credentials. The Kenneth S Feldman who participated in writing the series a Penn State got his BS in 1978 and his Phd in chemstry from Stanford in 1984. I think he is a reputable source but probably was a young child or not yet born unless he was a very late bloomer when Albert Einstein died in 1955. Again I think that series of articles is very well reasoned and documented and the team of authors who worked on it made some nice contributions to our understanding. I do not personally agree with all of the conclusions and extrapolations but that's just me.
Be assured I appreciate the observations and insights you share even if I disagree with some points and draw different conclusions. Kicking those things around helps us all learn. it's not at all personal. The more I can hear about the experiences of others the more insights I can develop to continuously improve my understanding and outcomes.Your way is right for you ;my way for me . There is nothing wrong with that.
Last edited:
Tom, I find your posts to me increasingly condescending and reprimanding.
That's the only reprimand I've heard to anyone ;you are making it and I resent it.
I made no criticism of your posts,style , or you personally. I did dispute some of the facts and offer contradictory opinion on some issues. No condescension was intended.
I suppose I could have obsequiously dealt with some points or ignored them but that would be patronizing and just isn't me. This wasn't at all personal.I don't know why you seem to wan't to make it so. You and I have known each other for a long time as friends via these exchanges and discussions.I don't consider myself an expert. Though I have studied hard , garnered considerable experience in the hobby over the last 10 years or so and keep some very nice aquariums , I'm still interested in learning improving and sharing.
That's the only reprimand I've heard to anyone ;you are making it and I resent it.
I made no criticism of your posts,style , or you personally. I did dispute some of the facts and offer contradictory opinion on some issues. No condescension was intended.
I suppose I could have obsequiously dealt with some points or ignored them but that would be patronizing and just isn't me. This wasn't at all personal.I don't know why you seem to wan't to make it so. You and I have known each other for a long time as friends via these exchanges and discussions.I don't consider myself an expert. Though I have studied hard , garnered considerable experience in the hobby over the last 10 years or so and keep some very nice aquariums , I'm still interested in learning improving and sharing.
Last edited:
Paul,
You do not need an endorsement from a Supermodel to merit my respect. Your accomplished, unorthodox methods and results are more than sufficient. Actually, that beautiful granddaughter is a Supermodel.
Scotty,
Your first sentence seems out of context considering the Feldman article, that you have quoted, goes into great detail on reduced populations and diversity of bacteria populations. UV sterilization has even more profound effects on these bacteria populations. They are both used extensively in reef aquarium management because they work for their intended purposes. It is the unintended consequences that are the issue of the discussion: skewed bacteria populations and diversity of bacteria. This discussion can be filled along side "Old Tank Syndrome". Because I graduated from Old School University I will list some methods to introduce this diversity. I like Paul do not worry about the pathogens. To coin a country phrase, "let the hair go with the hide". The bugs will work it out on their own. I should acknowledge that I graduated in 1974 from Texas A & M with a BS in Marine Engineering. If you don't like my message, I have supplied you with ammunition to shoot the messenger.
It is not difficult to introduce bacteria biodiversity back into an established tank.
Establish a central tank with this biodiversity and transfer water to your other tanks. This would meditate some of the undesirable hitchhikers associated with bringing in mud and live rock. There are many reputable vendors that sell live mud: IPSF, GARF, TBS to name a few. I like diver collected uncured live rock from the Gulf of Mexico. The added advantage of this is the diversity of micro fauna and fana that often show themselves months after the rock is introduced to the tank. It is also, the only legal way to procure Caribbean Corals that have been banned for collection and sale.
Happy trails,
Patrick
Last edited:
Similar threads
