Is UV actually viable for parasite management?

[BeanAnimal]

so sorry to come back again on this, but repeating yourself doesn't actually provide the clarification I was hoping for. I still don't understand: why does low flow make your argument work? why is it important for 100% of the water to go through the UV in order for the other side's argument to work? stuff in suspension doesn't stay touching the same water molecules at all times so I still genuinely don't understand why this is so important

It’s all good. I don’t mind clarifying, but you are attributing a position to me that I did not take. That is understandable given the length of the posts and the number of separate claims being addressed.

I am not arguing that UV doesn’t work. My argument is against Allen4K’s absolute framing and the misapplied model being used to support it. Nothing else.

I did not claim that flow and settling are mutually exclusive. I explicitly said that reduced flow can allow detritus to settle while water continues to move through the area.

The either/or framing came from Allen4K. He explicitly argued that my logic would hold only if the words “nearly” and “less” were replaced with “zero.” I flatly rejected that framing. Non-uniform flow breaks his uniform-mixing assumption without flow ever reaching zero. I did not say that flow cannot reach zero. He said that it had to reach zero for my argument to hold.

When I said his arguments were opposing, I was referring to how he was using them, not claiming that the underlying physical conditions could not coexist. He used the fact that flow carried detritus into an area as proof that everything eventually cycles through, while treating the detritus remaining there as irrelevant to the evidence that the flow is non-uniform. I explicitly said that flow can continue through the area while remaining too low to keep the detritus suspended.

You are arguing against an exclusivity that I rejected, not one that I asserted.

In short, Allen built a stack of absolute claims over several posts. He argued that 100% of the water passes through the UV after enough passes, framed that against the pelagic window, and treated it as support for the implied conclusion that 100% of the theronts would therefore pass through as well.

Nothing he presented establishes that in a real aquarium. Those claims were each addressed in my prior post.

 

[commod0re]

It’s all good. I don’t mind clarifying, but you are attributing a position to me that I did not take. That is understandable given the length of the posts and the number of separate claims being addressed.

I am not arguing that UV doesn’t work. My argument is against Allen4K’s absolute framing and the misapplied model being used to support it. Nothing else.

I did not claim that flow and settling are mutually exclusive. I explicitly said that reduced flow can allow detritus to settle while water continues to move through the area.

The either/or framing came from Allen4K. He explicitly argued that my logic would hold only if the words “nearly” and “less” were replaced with “zero.” I flatly rejected that framing. Non-uniform flow breaks his uniform-mixing assumption without flow ever reaching zero. I did not say that flow cannot reach zero. He said that it had to reach zero for my argument to hold.

When I said his arguments were opposing, I was referring to how he was using them, not claiming that the underlying physical conditions could not coexist. He used the fact that flow carried detritus into an area as proof that everything eventually cycles through, while treating the detritus remaining there as irrelevant to the evidence that the flow is non-uniform. I explicitly said that flow can continue through the area while remaining too low to keep the detritus suspended.

You are arguing against an exclusivity that I rejected, not one that I asserted.

In short, Allen built a stack of absolute claims over several posts. He argued that 100% of the water passes through the UV after enough passes, framed that against the pelagic window, and treated it as support for the implied conclusion that 100% of the theronts would therefore pass through as well.

Nothing he presented establishes that in a real aquarium. Those claims were each addressed in my prior post.

Ahh I see, thank you for clarifying that helps immensely and things make a lot more sense now. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I’m not actually trying to argue anything, I didn’t mean it to sound that way, I’m really just here trying to figure out if adding a UV to my system would be a materially useful layer or not. It seems like it might? Which is not super satisfying but I guess it is what it is

 

[BeanAnimal]

Ahh I see, thank you for clarifying that helps immensely and things make a lot more sense now. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me

Thank you for the questions.

They forced me to reread my own post and the posts I was responding to, to see whether I needed to retract something or had misunderstood you or the person I was debating. They also forced me to better articulate my point, which means I did not do a good job the first time around.

 

[fish_collector]

I don't care for UV because I don't want the cost of bulb replacement every 6 months.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I didn’t have one for decades and only purchased one to combat the start of a dinoflagellate outbreak. I leave it plumbed in but never run it. It is there in case I decide to or ever have another outbreak.

 

[Freenow54]

Ahh I see, thank you for clarifying that helps immensely and things make a lot more sense now. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I’m not actually trying to argue anything, I didn’t mean it to sound that way, I’m really just here trying to figure out if adding a UV to my system would be a materially useful layer or not. It seems like it might? Which is not super satisfying but I guess it is what it is

If I was in the situation I think that I would. Controlling it is better than walking away. That said I was daydreaming about the possibility of isolating the fish to one side of the tank, and using 3 Ds Printing's hand held UV . I have no idea what length of time that would take. Besides the UV you have taken away the food source as well. So two things come to mind . The length of the life cycle . Would they ceases to exist after one ? The second is will the UV damage the natural bacteria we need .

 

[Freenow54]

I didn’t have one for decades and only purchased one to combat the start of a dinoflagellate outbreak. I leave it plumbed in but never run it. It is there in case I decide to or ever have another outbreak.

I have 3D's handheld UV on standby . Like a nuclear device that you hope you never will ever need

 

[Freenow54]

I don't care for UV because I don't want the cost of bulb replacement every 6 months.

I have found very cheap UV-C bulb replacement's . However you don't have to run it constantly only when you need it . As an example I have one on my RO and its only on when it runs

 

[Freenow54]

Thank you for the questions.

They forced me to reread my own post and the posts I was responding to, to see whether I needed to retract something or had misunderstood you or the person I was debating. They also forced me to better articulate my point, which means I did not do a good job the first time around.

I am truly grateful that you chose to respond . Please do not go back into your shell. I wanted you to speak up quite a while ago. Not to try to change allen's mind but for othrs who might want to expand their knowledge. You know I don't mind being corrected or educated. I have no credentials to fall back on, my experience is low because I have not had to go through some of these stages ,so you and others are my fall guys .

 

[Freenow54]

What many hobbyist consider "radical" is the proven steps to do you best to protect your fish.


Did you complete a proper quarantine of every fish, rock, sand, CUC, coral…the entire system…everything wet?

Did you eliminate all sources of stress…acclimation, temperature fluctuations, ph fluctuations…?

Are the fish receiving proper nutrition?

Are you managing tank aggression?

I have had very poor experience trying QT . I killed a watchman Goby. It is hard to try again since I am not the type to repeat my mistakes expecting different results. It is something else that I am reading about, asking questions to others searching for articles here and other places . Which you told me researching is wasting my time . So be it.
That said I decided to roll the dice , and put 7 fish in at once 6 of which would stay small .hoping none carried anything . The aggression happened right away with a lyretail chasing 2 others ( lyretails) out of the Tank. All was good until My Tang Vlamingi ) now about 7 inches long and4 top to bottom, started growing . I made a bad choice on buying it because I only asked my LFS owner , and made a bad assumption from my about 65 years experience where fish usually only grow to a given environment. IE no research. It killed 2 more . I killed one by feeding expired flake food even though frozen . Parameters are good water changes every week. Dose trace minerals . Am not even though I want to add more fish because of above. Also don't want to introduce ich or anything else. So successful? NO Trying ? Listening to Experienced people ? Yes

 

[Freenow54]

What does that mean?

Do you believe reef2reef frowns on challenging certain people?

I know with certainty I DO NOT frown on standing up for ideas that you believe and standing by it as many times as you want.

That is what I do and what I expect others to do (if they want to).

I have been straight up scolded by a " director " if you will for being argumentative , and not being " understanding " enough to guide people gently through their issues . That is how it was phrased. My comment was just meant to be humorous I enjoy watching you and Paul go back and forth neither going to budge , and the points you both make are good for me. As It makes me think. I used to make stupid comments on those threads, but stopped You see? That is how I got in trouble before . I do not have the status you have to avoid criticism . I did not say you have a negative opinion regarding a good debate. What I do know is that the scolding occurred during a discussion with you. You have helped me fix a real problem in the past. One that could have harmed me and others regarding my RO. I don't expect you to remember , but hold you in high regard even though it is difficult to follow , understand your findings / statements , as my education is not in your field

 

[Ryan - Serious Reefs]

Thank you for taking the time to put together this detailed response. A big part of my frustration actually is that I see opposing opinions from people I do respect and especially as things get heated it can still be difficult to tell who is really right because not everything said makes sense to me, often in ways where I can’t tell if it’s wrong or just worded in a way that isn’t clicking for me

Anyway you may find it surprising to hear this but I actually find that expanded story compelling because it reveals that actually this was a first-hand experience and even if it wasn’t part of some kind of scientific experiment that is still a lot more likely to be reliable. I assume that means you guys took no additional measures to address the ich on that fish? Do you have any idea how a UV filter would offer such relief to that fish? I’m inclined to believe you, even if you can’t explain these things, because the proof in the pudding is in the eating, I’m just trying to absorb as much information as I can

E: i read the BRS article about the lifecycle of ich and I think that made the mechanism for UV helping there make sense to me. Thanks again this is very helpful

Everything we do in reefing is a scientific experiment. :).

We took no additional measures. My theory for how the UV provided relief to the fish is fairly simple.

• The trophonts we could see feeding on the powder blue tang would fall off within roughly a week. During that time new theronts would then hatch and enter their free-swimming stage and reinfect the fish.
• Once it was turned back on the 50-watt high-output UV was processing approximately 260 gallons per hour on a system with around 200 gallons of actual water volume. It stands to reason that a large percentage of the newly hatched, free-swimming theronts would pass through the UV and be sterilized within their first hour of swimming. The percentage that remained free-swimming for 12–48 hours without passing through the UV would presumably be exceptionally low.
• Those sterilized theronts can still attach to a fish and feed for another week. However, once they fell off, their life cycle would end because they are sterlized and no longer be capable of reproducing.
• It therefore stands to reason that, after roughly 10 days of sterilization efforts, the total parasite load in the tank would be dramatically reduced and provide relief to the fish.
• This would likely only work if the outbreak were caught very early, while the fish could still survive another 10 days without being overwhelmed by the parasite.
• The theory is predicated on acting immediately after seeing the first signs of ich, not waiting until the outbreak reaches its final stages. That is probably the rare part. Most people would not see a few spots, overnight a UV sterilizer, and install it the following day. They would research, wait, and watch. By the time they acted to a progressing problem, this approach would no longer work. In our case, all we had to do was turn the UV on, which allowed us to act immediately.
• However, if this theory holds true, it also means that having a UV sterilizer on the tank from the beginning would have likely prevented the entire situation. That really gets to the heart of the “is it worth it?” question.

There are, of course, several alternative explanations for why this powder blue tang showed visible signs of ich and then appeared to recover without other intervention. All of them are ultimately educated guesses and my suggestion above would be considered blasphemy in most circles.

But if I had to make my guess between the fish like a powder blue resolving the problem on its own that quickly vs. the UV rapidly lowering the parasite load, the latter seems far more likely reason the fish survived, didn't go on to overwhelm other fish, and all of them doing well for years.

The challenge with reefing is that so much of what we do is based on applied, plausible theory, while relatively little is supported by definitive proof. I am not even sure how someone would go about proving the explanation above. There would also be very little incentive for an accredited researcher to replicate the experiment, subject it to peer review, and establish a reliable conclusion. Even then, the results would likely still be disputed by those who favor a different plausible theory.

In the end, you sometimes just have to break the cycle of analysis paralysis, act on what you believe is most likely, and see what happens. :)

 

[rtparty]

How is this even a question or debate at this point?

Is the sun actually a viable way for getting a sunburn???

 

[Ryan - Serious Reefs]

How is this even a question or debate at this point?

Is the sun actually a viable way for getting a sunburn???

The UV debate is almost political in nature because it is tied to broader, deeply held philosophies: natural methods versus reliance on technology versus zoological-level eradication. These philosophies tend to dictate a wide array of beliefs.

Outside of that. Imagine how much crow any side of the debate would have to eat if they were forced to admit they were wrong. Some people are above that and would genuinely welcome learning something new, but those people tend to be fairly rare birds :)

 

[tanginamo.reefer]

Depending on size of UV. However I supplement dosing H2o2 and have had good results with the health of my Tangs since starting it as the fish have not had outbreaks of Ich since.

 

[commod0re]

Everything we do in reefing is a scientific experiment. :).

We took no additional measures. My theory for how the UV provided relief to the fish is fairly simple.

• The trophonts we could see feeding on the powder blue tang would fall off within roughly a week. During that time new theronts would then hatch and enter their free-swimming stage and reinfect the fish.
• Once it was turned back on the 50-watt high-output UV was processing approximately 260 gallons per hour on a system with around 200 gallons of actual water volume. It stands to reason that a large percentage of the newly hatched, free-swimming theronts would pass through the UV and be sterilized within their first hour of swimming. The percentage that remained free-swimming for 12–48 hours without passing through the UV would presumably be exceptionally low.
• Those sterilized theronts can still attach to a fish and feed for another week. However, once they fell off, their life cycle would end because they are sterlized and no longer be capable of reproducing.
• It therefore stands to reason that, after roughly 10 days of sterilization efforts, the total parasite load in the tank would be dramatically reduced and provide relief to the fish.
• This would likely only work if the outbreak were caught very early, while the fish could still survive another 10 days without being overwhelmed by the parasite.
• The theory is predicated on acting immediately after seeing the first signs of ich, not waiting until the outbreak reaches its final stages. That is probably the rare part. Most people would not see a few spots, overnight a UV sterilizer, and install it the following day. They would research, wait, and watch. By the time they acted to a progressing problem, this approach would no longer work. In our case, all we had to do was turn the UV on, which allowed us to act immediately.
• However, if this theory holds true, it also means that having a UV sterilizer on the tank from the beginning would have likely prevented the entire situation. That really gets to the heart of the “is it worth it?” question.

There are, of course, several alternative explanations for why this powder blue tang showed visible signs of ich and then appeared to recover without other intervention. All of them are ultimately educated guesses and my suggestion above would be considered blasphemy in most circles.

But if I had to make my guess between the fish like a powder blue resolving the problem on its own that quickly vs. the UV rapidly lowering the parasite load, the latter seems far more likely reason the fish survived, didn't go on to overwhelm other fish, and all of them doing well for years.

The challenge with reefing is that so much of what we do is based on applied, plausible theory, while relatively little is supported by definitive proof. I am not even sure how someone would go about proving the explanation above. There would also be very little incentive for an accredited researcher to replicate the experiment, subject it to peer review, and establish a reliable conclusion. Even then, the results would likely still be disputed by those who favor a different plausible theory.

In the end, you sometimes just have to break the cycle of analysis paralysis, act on what you believe is most likely, and see what happens. :)

Absolutely agree with your final note and this all really helps. I wouldn’t say that I was in “analysis paralysis” but more like “I need someone to talk me through some of the whys so I can understand the basics enough to make a relatively informed decision” and you and BeanAnimal really gave me that so thank you both. I’m now working on picking out a UV filter to add to my system

 

[commod0re]

How is this even a question or debate at this point?

Is the sun actually a viable way for getting a sunburn???

this choice of phrasing makes me think that you take your current level of knowledge and experience for granted and I don’t appreciate the implication made. The main reason some of us have questions because we don’t know the answer.

 

[rtparty]

this choice of phrasing makes me think that you take your current level of knowledge and experience for granted and I don’t appreciate the implication made

The question isn’t geared towards you. It’s geared towards the OP and original question asked.

UV is so widely used and understood by the top water treatment organizations because it works on parasites and other organisms.

Why would our hobby be the one place it isn’t viable?

Is it necessary? Clearly not. Viable? Absolutely. The science is there and has been there for decades at this point

 

[commod0re]

The question isn’t geared towards you. It’s geared towards the OP and original question asked.

UV is so widely used and understood by the top water treatment organizations because it works on parasites and other organisms.

Why would our hobby be the one place it isn’t viable?

Is it necessary? Clearly not. Viable? Absolutely. The science is there and has been there for decades at this point

OK but what makes me and OP so different if we had the same exact question coming in? Why choose to answer honest questions with sarcasm??? It serves no purpose except to make people feel stupid, which adds no value, and I think that’s wrong. The main bit of knowledge I have gained from you is that I had better not ask a question that might be too basic around rtparty or else they’ll make snide comments meant to make people feel bad for not knowing things

To you these things are clear and obvious, that’s not the case for me and probably not OP either. I know nothing about water treatment and barely anything about disease and parasites. This is not universal knowledge

 

[Paul B]

. One Member in particular Paul B stated UV's don't even belong in the reefing hobby.

Actually, Paul never said that. He told me. He doesn't like UV and thinks it's stupid because, first of all, he doesn't think the normal hobby UV sterilizers are powerful enough to kill parasites, but, more importantly, he doesn't want to kill parasites, as that is more in line with people who quarantine or medicate.

He likes parasites and knows they are what are keeping his fish immune. Thats what he said.