Swcc, I read the thread. Iit's old and much ofthe information just isn't current. There have been many studies and articles since 2004. Much of what is stated by Bomber is just inaccurate or misleading, AGain if ou like uv ther is no reason not to use it unless you favor more natural organics and microfuana but tanks can run fine with uv. It does clearthe water.
Here are some examples of difficulties I have with the information in the thread:
For example:
Most folks who have tried starboard no longer use it. The glass in a bare bottom fills with coraline just as well and there is no worry about dead space between the starboard and the bottom glass.
An 80 w uv on a 450 tank is not very large.
2 hours of halide lighting for sps is well woefully insufficient.,imo.
Allowing sg to drift from 1.025 to 1.023 as a result of wet skimming without a precise timely replacement strategyas hedoes could be tragic.
The tank was very young ,less than a year old. No long term report is available as the thread died.
The tank was subjected to heavy detritus vacuuming which could account for much of the claimed but unmeasured nutrient control.
Post # 436
SPS don't really care that much about that much flow
They certainly do for polyp stimulation, to bring food to them and for oxygen to name a few reasons.
Post# 531
ammonium, phosphate, etc is removed by skimming.
If you mean macro, like algae scrubbers, that is actually a poor way of removing nutrients. Not only do all algae leak, they are not able to use it all.
No, skimming does not remove ammonia or inorganic phosphate. It removes amphipathic molecules. Neither of those two have that quality.
Macro algae and turf algae use nitrogen and phosphorous. That's pretty common knowledge. They are limited by a lack of it.
Post #636
UV will do everything that ozone will do without the risk of burning your tank up.
Well maybe it will and maybe it won't since there is no data on oxidant production but if it's large enough it can do just as much damage as ozone. In fact the rational for uv effecting redox and organics is that it will produce oxidants ,primarily ozone.
Post# 707
I don't store a lot of organics/detritus in this system that would drive Mg consumption. So it takes a long time for Mg to drop.
So no, I don't worry about it.That makes no sense,. Magnesium is consumed by organisms in many ways and some is taken up in calcification/ skeletogenisis . Coraline use alot too. the lack of organics and detritus do not mean magnesium is not being used and depleted. Finally there is this:
I'm running the UV for several reasons. For instance, Jay was here a few weeks ago and we went out and collected a whole harem of neons - disease control. All of the coral chemical warfare chemicals are highly sensitive to UV and photo-degrade almost instantly. Most organically bound phosphates are also highly reactive to UV, UV breaks them into ortho-phosphates and they can then be blown off by the skimmer. Water clarity - it's like there's no water in the tank. And a few other reasons too.
It's not effective in fish disease control in recirculating systems.
I've never seen any evidence that it is particularly effective against allelopathic compounds. There are so many organics of different types it is hard to beileve which ones break down more readily in response to different stimulants is known beyond of courseteh obvius removal of yellowing compunds with uv or gac or ozone.
Orthophospahte is inorganic phosphate aka PO4 species. Skimmers do not remove it.
Again in fairness ,these posts are over 8 years old and many articles and studies on organics, magnesium, uv, skimming et alia have been made available since then.
<table id="post5558838" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px solid #FFFFFF; border-top: 0px; border-bottom: 0px" width="175">
</td><td class="alt1" id="td_post_5558838" style="border-right: 1px solid #FFFFFF">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
