UV sterilizers in a different light

[sirreal63]

Ich is a weird thing, in almost 10 years with saltwater fish I have had only one fish with Ich, and it appeared the first day of QT. I have taken down, sold all fish, moved numerous times and set up the tank again with all new fish and no Ich. No hypo, no copper or chemicals have ever been used with a fish under my care. I understand people have issues with it, but why? What is different in some of our thanks than in others? I am beginning to think Paul B is onto something, well fed and healthy fish do not succumb to it. I feel for you Cap'n, if I were in charge of people's tanks and the fish were getting sick I would be looking for answers too. I agree with Mr. Tusk fish, I have never read anything not providing by someone with a monetary stake in UV that showed any effectiveness against Ich. I have never ran UV, never had any reason to. When it comes to Coralife, they have made a lot of money with poorly made, over priced entry level equipment, I would be very surprised if ey have actually done anything cutting edge.

 

[Englishmatt]

I use UV. I believe in UV. I had ICH, purchased UV...one week later it was 100% gone. Enough proof for me. It's been running 24x7 since and I have no ich or algae issue, at all. That being said, I do keep up with my husbandry meticulously.

I'm not sure how anyone in a reef tank can have a fallow tank for 9 weeks? There is no way in hell I could catch all the fish in my tank with all the rock work and caves.

I couldn't break it all down either due to all the coral connections.

Not sure I understand the arguement that UV kills all the good stuff in the water column. I mean, it's dealing with organisms and it kills organisms....not trace elements or break down organic bonds.

Any way.... I'm +1 for a good UV experience.

Matt.

 

[Reefahholic]

Sirreal63, I know the exact reason why you have had such good luck at maintaining an ICH free tank.

You don't buy your fish at petco.

Ich is a weird thing, in almost 10 years with saltwater fish I have had only one fish with Ich, and it appeared the first day of QT. I have taken down, sold all fish, moved numerous times and set up the tank again with all new fish and no Ich. No hypo, no copper or chemicals have ever been used with a fish under my care. I understand people have issues with it, but why? What is different in some of our thanks than in others? I am beginning to think Paul B is onto something, well fed and healthy fish do not succumb to it. I feel for you Cap'n, if I were in charge of people's tanks and the fish were getting sick I would be looking for answers too. I agree with Mr. Tusk fish, I have never read anything not providing by someone with a monetary stake in UV that showed any effectiveness against Ich. I have never ran UV, never had any reason to. When it comes to Coralife, they have made a lot of money with poorly made, over priced entry level equipment, I would be very surprised if ey have actually done anything cutting edge.

 

[Reefahholic]

I think it's very simple. QT ALL FISH for a minimum of 4-6 weeks.

If the ICH still gets in......TANK TEAR DOWN. Leave DT fishless for weeks until you're sure it's dead. Leave the fish in hypo till it's 100% dead.

Start the tank up again. No problems!

Keeping it out is the only way.

I do believe it's a very wise idea to get the best UV on the market. I just don't think it's possible to get every single ICH spore through the UV. They could be in the sand, rock, plumbing, filter sock, return pump filter, etc.

I'm anal about diseases though, I can't and won't live with ICH in my tank. I'll tear it down and wait months if I have to. To me, peace of mind is well worth the wait and effort. JMO

 

[Reefahholic]

I maintain around 30 tanks a week in my business. There have been a number of cases where ich and other parasites have started to take their toll on the fish. I have tried to treat it in tank with various medications unusuccessfully.
(I am aware that the fish need to be qt'ed and treated with copper and or hyposalination but in these cases it has been impossible to catch the fish)

In the last six months Coralife came out with a new uv sterilizer that has a larger body and a 36 watt uv light.

I have found in each case that running this unit for a number of month seems to irradicate the problems of ich and oodenium(marine velvet).
I believe that the uv sterilizer removes the ich when it leaves its host for the second stage and or when the second stage erupts into the third stage and the parasites are waterborne. So over a few months the ich is irradicated and the fish have had time to become healthy enough to not be in peril from it.

Of course I welcome any discussion on this as I might not be on track of something or spot on which can save alot of disaster from my other clients.

capn_hylinur,

Which UV are you talking about. Is it the new Turbo-Twist UV Sterilizers.
12X, 36 Watt (mfg #15602), CD-76420, $151.99

What is the price of the one your talking about?

 

[tmz]

Uvs kill whatever passes thought them that is small enough to receive a lethal dose of uv radiation . They need to be large to kill free swimming ich since it' a protoist and relatively large vs bacteria or algae. They also need to exchange the water fast enough to move them through in significant numbers. Such a unit would generate some heat too.
It does not irradicate ich. Perhaps some temporary density reduction occurs if a large unit is used but the survivors will pick up the pace of reproduction over time ,ie equilibriate to conditions.. Fish exposed to ich that manage to survive the first or second infection sometimes develop partial immunity to the particular strain. This is often attributed to one miracle cure or another but it isn't so. As for fish strength ; ich is an equal opportunity killer ,often taking healthy fish. Even when fish survive an initial infestation and develop a partial immunity to a particular strain for a time , the ich will persist in softer tissue, nostrils, gills ,mouth unseen in these fish at a subclinical level but the tank still has ich waiting to pounce on a newcomer or to breakout in a relatively minor stress event, overwhelming even the partially immune fish..

Not all tanks have ich. It can be avoided with quarantine and pre treatment. I prefer the tank transfer method for all new fish ;no exception to qt. Many folks choose not to follow quarantine procedures; i didn't years ago andalmost alwaysover time ichwill come into the tank with an unquarantinee fish. As a result of no qaurantine and effective pretreatment folks are making a choice to eventually keep a tank with ich in it which includes: loosing specimens and spending lot's of time chasing reef safe treatments that don't exist. Then more time trying to manage a tank with ich in it with uv, garlic, extra food , close temp monitoring etc, and removing deadish promptly when you can find them.
The significant carnage in this hobby can be significantly reduced by proper acclimation, qt and treatment routines. Without them the tank will almost always be a lot less than fish keeper want's it to be.

I'm not aware of any research Coralife has done. Where is it? They do list common wattage and dwell time requirements to kill certain size organisms if that's what you mean but those are not unique research that goes to supporting uv as a disease control device. It simply isn't .

I'm surprised you're pushing this Scott ,years ago when I was a uv user you were on the other side of it. I know you've read the posts by Greenbean and others . This parasite has been very well studied because of it's threat to fish farms . Uv works fo disease in single pass sytems but in ot recirculaing sytems like an aquarium systems. It cn help keep clear water.
After using them for several years it became clear to me that they were of little to no value in disease control. Often , folks daly with them to put off the necessary steps: Fish out to quarantine and treatment , tank fishless for 72 days. Simple and effective but labor intensive and tedious.

Oh maybe I'll try it again. I can't ;don't have any ich in any of the tanks .

Here is one I'm thinking of trying on a new 10 gallon tank I'm planning:

http://www.qrbiz.com/product/1147949/UV-sterilizer.html

 

[tmz]

BTW: the unit in the link list a flow rate of 600T(tons) per hour. Each ton is equal to 239.5 US gallons . So that unit moves around 144,00 gallons per hour. It's probably big enough to kill a cyrptocaryon parasite passing through it but won't kill one on the substrate or on a fish.

 

[nuclearheli]

But if you apply simple statistics to the situation it does seem possible that you are killing off the ich over long periods of time where eventually the population is small enough, less likely to find a host, and more likely to be killed by the UV, and eventually the population will approach and possibly reach zero.

Maybe. But the ich is constantly reproducing. This discussion has been going on for many years. If UV COULD eliminate ich, a mfg certainly would have a good scientific study proving the value of their UV unit. Every publication I've ever seen says the opposite. Many factors can reduce ich populations, making it appear its gone. Then, it reappears. Usually at the worst possible time. Until there is more than just anecdotal evidence, I'll stick with the science: a fallow tank is the only way to eliminate ich permanently.

I realize this is a hot topic with many opinions and perhaps unconventional but it is at least logical enough to consider. I don't believe that the ich population will pick up the pace of reproduction as stated earlier when their numbers diminish. That implies that ich knows there is a UV source in the plumbing waiting to kill it. I think the entire topic of ich has been over thought and people are giving the ich parasite a little too much credit. IMHO ich is nothing more than another parasite and UV is, by published research, completely effective at killing parasites, given the right size and resident time. The fact is that there is a period of it's life cycle where it exists in the water column. I think we can all agree on that. In my system my UV light is over sized (used for small pools), high wattage and the last item in my return flow back to the tank. 100% of all the return flow goes through the UV cell. I believe that in my tank my return flow through the UV cell is killing more parasites with each pass then are being reproduced in my DT. Therefore over time, perhaps a long time my theory is that the population has been either eliminated or reduced to such a small size that it has had no effect on my tank.

I am not trying to change conventional thinking, just posing a potential alternative. The fact remains that I had ich problems, for a long time. Within a month of putting in the UV system the ich problem went away and I have not seen it since, some 9 months later. Coincidence? maybe. Did the hand full of infected fish develop immunity? maybe. Whatever happened in my tank I like it.

Open minds breed change and discovery. If we didn't think out of the box where would we be. In the 19th century Bayer Pharmaceutical Products offered "Heroin-Hydrochloride" over the counter as a cough suppressor. I am glad people keep searching for new solutions.

 

[MrTuskfish]

Why has the manufacturer in this case improved on their product and offered it at a higher price if they don't feel hobbyists will buy it. They must be going on some encouraging results.

UV is an excellent water clarifier, lots of people us it primarily to kill algae spores. (This is why UV is so popular with pondkeepers). I honestly don't know a single credible source that suggests using UV as a cure for ich. Of course, it helps some. But; it can't possibly intercept every free swimming new parasite that emerges from mother-cysts in the substrate before they find a fish host. I know many folks have decided to live with ich and "manage" it; in that case, I'd use UV too. If my tank's ich disappeared (although almost certainly its temporary.) I'd give credit to the UV too. Or anything else that may have helped. This is why so many folks swear that garlic kills ich. It doesn't. But (IMO & IME) almost all of these "managed ich" tanks eventually have major ich problems. IMO & IME; ich must be wiped out, not managed. QT every fish when new and/or treating all fish in a HT while the DT is fallow for 9+ weeks is the only way to do this.

Again, IMO & IME. Sure, ich can live is some tanks (not all) without major consequences, for considerable time. But, almost always, it will become a huge problem. Anyone who follows the disease section of our forum knows the daily new threads from folks with huge ich problems in their DT. Ich can, and will, wipe out many tanks once thought to be "ich-managed'.
EDIT: I just looked at the F&S site and skimmed the 1st four UV listings. All are carefully worded and none claim to eliminate parasites. "Control" is as close as the come. Control and cure are not the same ; all it takes is one live parasite to keep the ich cycle going. (http://pet-supplies.drsfostersmith....unt=0&wishcount=0&subtotal=0.00&division=fish)

 

[MrTuskfish]

I remember an analogy made several yeas ago by a Chemist (and great SW hobbyist) at a SW aquaculture facility. She had a 55 gal tank with a big HOB filter in her office and compared newly released ich theronts to grains of pepper. Each cyst would release hundreds of theronts/pepper grains from the substrate. Usually at night, where most fish sleep. So far, this is just one cyst, who knows how many there are in total? The pepper rises to find a host, close to the sleeping fish. Then the tank's flow picks up the pepper and it swirls everywhere; where it soon enters every square inch of the tank. Can the HOB filter (similar to any UV intake) possibly get 100% of the pepper before just one grain finds a fish? Now multiply the pepper grains by 100, etc. Just one theront/pepper grain is all it takes to keep the ich cycle going.

A somewhat grade-school comparison; but very accurate.

 

[dzhuo]

UV has been around for a long time and has been studied significantly in various applications due to its popularity. Applications where UV is most effective are used in single pass system as water sterilizer. Unfortunately (even assuming a 100% kill rate all the time), a reef tank is a not a single pass system which render UV relatively ineffective especially as control for bacteria or pathogen spread.

I don't believe that the ich population will pick up the pace of reproduction as stated earlier when their numbers diminish.

Despite what you believe, the data show otherwise.

Pathogen Reduction in Closed Aquaculture Systems by UV Radiation: Fact or Artifact?

Differential equations were used to set a theoretical upper limit for the efficacy of UV radiation in 3 hypothetical aquaculture systems: (a) a plug-flow system, (b) an idealized closed system with no influx of pathogens, and (c) a conventional closed system in which the influx of pathogens is continuous. The equations demonstrate that, in a conventional closed system, the mass of pathogens never reaches zero even if the UV sterilizer is 100 % effective. This suggests that agents such as UV radiation, which do not form persistent residuals, may be incapable of preventing the spread of water-
borne pathogens in systems that are recirculated. Use of UV radiation in aquaculture is most effective in sterilization of raw water supplies and discharges lnto receiving waters, both of which are single-pass applications.

The efficacy of UV irradiation in the microbial disinfection of marine mammal water.

A study was made on the efficacy of a commercial ultraviolet (UV) sterilizer in reducing the number of bacteria and yeasts ina saline, closed-system marine mammal complex. UV irradiation was effective in lowering bacterial counts in the effluent of the unit (greater than 75% reduction), but bacteria in more remote parts of the water system reached levels equal to or greater than pre-UV counts. Yeast reduction was considerably less, and a trend similar to that of the bacteria was observed in remote sections of the water system. It is concluded that UV irradiation is of limited value in the disinfection of marine mammal water. Factors contributing to the poor performance of the sterilizer were the long recycle time of the water and lack of a residual effect.

Ultraviolet light control of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet in a closed fish culture recirculation system

A closed fish culture recirculation system consisting of 36 20-gallon aquaria in series with a rotating plate biofilter, a diatomaceous earth filter, and an ultraviolet (UV) light sterilizer was evaluated for the effectiveness of UV light in preventing spread of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Water from the aquaria, the reservoir, and a valve 29 cm beyond the UV light source was analysed bacteriologically to assess its effectiveness. The spread of I multifiliis from one aquarium to another was controlled with 91 900 μW s/cm8 of UV light. No significant differences in the bacterial counts from the water of the reservoir or the aquaria could be demonstrated when the UV light was either on or off, although a significant difference could be demonstrated between the sterilizer effluent and the reservoir and aquaria.

UV is really not affective as either control or eliminiate ich in a recirculating system.

 

[tmz]

I don't believe that the ich population will pick up the pace of reproduction as stated earlier when their numbers diminish. That implies that ich knows there is a UV source in the plumbing waiting to kill it.

That's absurd. You may have inferred it but I certainly didn't say it or imply it.

Each tomont creates hundreds of tomites .Reduction in density in the water may result in less competition for hosts short term but they're are plenty around. The parasite has a quick life cycle of a couple of weeks with only 1 day spent in the water looking for a host. Just one parasite could produce 200 in 10 days or so and 40,000 by the second genration and 8,000,000 by third.
Parasites and bacteria are opportunistic adjusting their poliferation to consume the available food supply.


Open minds breed change and discovery. If we didn't think out of the box where would we be.

If you like uv it keep using it. Don't dismiss other points of view as closed minded by implication. UVs have been used for a long time. Using one does not bestow the mantra of an out of the box thinker. They have been used before by many. They work very well in single pass applications. I would say you are arguing" in the box" and a very small box at that.Partial sterilization strategies as in a rcirculating system are simply not a substitute for quarantine and preventative treatment.

 

[dzhuo]

Open minds breed change and discovery. If we didn't think out of the box where would we be. In the 19th century Bayer Pharmaceutical Products offered "Heroin-Hydrochloride" over the counter as a cough suppressor. I am glad people keep searching for new solutions.

I like open minds and creativity in general. The problem of your logic applied in this particular discussion is that you are implying UV is an effective mean to control or eliminiate ich which gives other hobbyists a fasle sense of security to bypass QT and other means of more effective and proven prevention technique.

 

[tmz]

dzhuo.

Thanks for the links

 

[JaneG]

UV is an excellent water clarifier, lots of people us it primarily to kill algae spores. (This is why UV is so popular with pondkeepers). I honestly don't know a single credible source that suggests using UV as a cure for ich. Of course, it helps some. But; it can't possibly intercept every free swimming new parasite that emerges from mother-cysts in the substrate before they find a fish host. I know many folks have decided to live with ich and "manage" it; in that case, I'd use UV too. If my tank's ich disappeared (although almost certainly its temporary.) I'd give credit to the UV too. Or anything else that may have helped. This is why so many folks swear that garlic kills ich. It doesn't. But (IMO & IME) almost all of these "managed ich" tanks eventually have major ich problems. IMO & IME; ich must be wiped out, not managed. QT every fish when new and/or treating all fish in a HT while the DT is fallow for 9+ weeks is the only way to do this.

Again, IMO & IME. Sure, ich can live is some tanks (not all) without major consequences, for considerable time. But, almost always, it will become a huge problem. Anyone who follows the disease section of our forum knows the daily new threads from folks with huge ich problems in their DT. Ich can, and will, wipe out many tanks once thought to be "ich-managed'.
EDIT: I just looked at the F&S site and skimmed the 1st four UV listings. All are carefully worded and none claim to eliminate parasites. "Control" is as close as the come. Control and cure are not the same ; all it takes is one live parasite to keep the ich cycle going. (http://pet-supplies.drsfostersmith....unt=0&wishcount=0&subtotal=0.00&division=fish)

I'm sure you're right here, but out of curiosity and the sake of discussion, what would happen in a barebottom system (especially one with some flow pointed downwards)? Considering that the majority of the ich is in the substrate, would UV be of a large benefit if there were none in the first place?

 

[MrTuskfish]

I like open minds and creativity in general. The problem of your logic applied in this particular discussion is that you are implying UV is an effective mean to control or eliminiate ich which gives other hobbyists a fasle sense of security to bypass QT and other means of more effective and proven prevention technique.

The "false sense of security" you mention is exactly why this discussion is so important; especially to new hobbyists. I think its just human nature to look at for the easiest path when confronted with a potential problem. A new hobbyist always sees references to UV, garlic, "reef-safe" ich meds that don't work, etc. At that point, the new hobbyist has never seen ich and its easy to skip all the bother of a QT. After all, can't he just use one of the cures that are always talked about? "Managing" ich is a disaster waiting to happen for even very experienced hobbyists. For newbies, its often a total loss of fish. I'm sure this contributes to the extremely high turnover rate in our hobby.

 

[drdoolittle]

+1 most people talk about how ick life cycle works and what they hear or read. I prefer actual first hand experience from people.

I had a bad ich issue last week, i installed a UV and today. The ick is dramatically less to almost all gone. AND... somehow my tank water looks crystal clear..

I use UV. I believe in UV. I had ICH, purchased UV...one week later it was 100% gone. Enough proof for me. It's been running 24x7 since and I have no ich or algae issue, at all. That being said, I do keep up with my husbandry meticulously.

I'm not sure how anyone in a reef tank can have a fallow tank for 9 weeks? There is no way in hell I could catch all the fish in my tank with all the rock work and caves.

I couldn't break it all down either due to all the coral connections.

Not sure I understand the arguement that UV kills all the good stuff in the water column. I mean, it's dealing with organisms and it kills organisms....not trace elements or break down organic bonds.

Any way.... I'm +1 for a good UV experience.

Matt.

 

[reefsafe]

One of my favorite threads on Ich and why I don't do the fallow tank treatment but get the fish happy and control my parameters the best I can:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=595224

 

[geaux xman]

Reef tank guys are constantly adding wet stuff to their tanks all the time making their tanks much more vulnerable to ich.

All I add is an occasional fish here and there, so QT-ing them is much easier.

Seems like the guys that are always pushing hypo are scared to death of using
cupramine. Maybe a bad 1st experience. Cupramine is a whole lot less work and
a lot more effective IMO. Works for more than just ich as well.

As far as UV, if I had a reef tank, I would use one. Minimum 57w model for a 200g tank.
Not 100% effective, but if it helps, I'm all for it.

 

[MrTuskfish]

I'm sure you're right here, but out of curiosity and the sake of discussion, what would happen in a barebottom system (especially one with some flow pointed downwards)? Considering that the majority of the ich is in the substrate, would UV be of a large benefit if there were none in the first place?

If there isn't any ich in the first place, (use a QT and there won't be), then there isn't anything for the UV to kill. Ich only comes from ich; there's a big myth that says ich just appears out of nowhere when fish are "stressed'. Even in a bare bottom system; ich cysts can live in the LR, filter media, etc.