TTM in conjunction with UV

[FarmerTy]

A thought occurred to me as I was contemplating removing all my fish and putting them through TTM while letting my DT run fallow for 72 days.

I have a giant AquaUV 57-watt sterilizer. I was thinking of getting two large 100 gallon tubs to put my whole fish population into and then use the TTM method to rid them of ich. The thought I had though was instead of wasting that much saltwater each time, to just run all transferred water through my UV at a high enough exposure rate, about 336,000 mW/cm2 (extrapolated exposure rate for marine ich derived from freshwater ich studies) to transfer the water from one tub to the other. Studies performed for aquaculture have shown that UV, if run at the correct exposure level, will completely inhibit the transmission of ich from one body of water to the other if the UV was used on all water being transferred.

So I thought to myself, why not just hook up my UV in between and pump water from one tank to the other and then transfer the fish. I can pump until its low enough to catch all fish easily and then I can ditch the last small amount of water left in the first container. I'll bleach and let it dry and repeat the process every 3 days for 10 days. This will also minimize shock for the fish as its essentially the same water, just minus the ich.

I think the main issue is to just observe ammonia levels since the lack of large scale water changes will be diminished. I may just have to use more amquel or prime than I would with the traditional method. Any other angles I may be missing here?

Again, let's assume that the lab studies are 100% accurate that all ich protists will be irradiated by the UV so there is no risk of transfer. I'd rather not get hung on that discussion point on UV as I trust the studies.

 

[melypr1985]

I'd be interested in the results of this, though it doesn't seem like the type of thing that the average hobbyist could pull off. Got a microscope or some way to test your results with some measure of accuracy? I mean besides the usual...."my fish look cured!" type of thing we all usually do. lol

I'll be hanging around to see what bobby's opinion is on it as well.

 

[Sabellafella]

Thats acually a really Good question, i wish everyone followed ttm for ich, ive had about a 98% success rate only loosing 1 fish out if almost 50, never with uv tho deffinitly following along

 

[FarmerTy]

Well, sadly, I don't have a microscope but can get my hands on one. The sadder part is I'm probably the worst real scientist that's ever lived... I get motion sick and using a microscope is out of the question... I was feeling sick within 2 minutes the last time I played with one... so that option is out. Luckily, I was an environmental scientist so I didn't look into much microscopes back in those days.

My true test will be the powder blue tang. He'll get it if there's any bit of ich in that water. That's about as close of a guarantee as I got.

I just didn't like the thought of having to mix 100 gallons of water every 3 days and then just dumping it. Heck, I don't do water changes on my main system either so doing this sounded even more absurd! Okay, I'm just being facetious here.

Another thought, while I'm awaiting using the UV to transfer water from one tub to the other, I can just have it on a recirculating loop and sterilize the tub that currently has the fish in it as well. Just for fun!

 

[melypr1985]

Well, sadly, I don't have a microscope but can get my hands on one. The sadder part is I'm probably the worst real scientist that's ever lived... I get motion sick and using a microscope is out of the question... I was feeling sick within 2 minutes the last time I played with one... so that option is out. Luckily, I was an environmental scientist so I didn't look into much microscopes back in those days.

My true test will be the powder blue tang. He'll get it if there's any bit of ich in that water. That's about as close of a guarantee as I got.

I just didn't like the thought of having to mix 100 gallons of water every 3 days and then just dumping it. Heck, I don't do water changes on my main system either so doing this sounded even more absurd! Okay, I'm just being facetious here.

Another thought, while I'm awaiting using the UV to transfer water from one tub to the other, I can just have it on a recirculating loop and sterilize the tub that currently has the fish in it as well. Just for fun!

Well, I could see where having an "ich magnet" in the tank during and after would be a pretty good indicator of success...

 

[FarmerTy]

It's like having my own equivalent of the sick kid in the group. If there's something out there that he can catch, he'll for sure catch it. So, I'm hoping the same with the powder blue... if there's ich, he'll get it! I know, soft science, but that's the best I got in this scenario.

 

[FarmerTy]

I wonder if this is the perfect excuse to get an achilles too? Bring on all your ich magnets! I need them for a study!

 

[Humblefish]

The only issue I see is whether or not a UV is truly capable of 100% eradication. If just one theront makes it past your UV, TTM will be all for naught. Too great a margin of error for my liking. After further research, I would feel more confident conducting your experimenting using a diatom filter: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/diatom-filter-for-treating-external-parasites.212429/

Also, as I'm sure you already know your UV needs to be run at a slow enough flow rate and the lamp needs to be less than 6 months old to be truly effective.

 

[FarmerTy]

The only issue I see is whether or not a UV is truly capable of 100% eradication. If just one theront makes it past your UV, TTM will be all for naught. Too great a margin of error for my liking. After further research, I would feel more confident conducting your experimenting using a diatom filter: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/diatom-filter-for-treating-external-parasites.212429/

Also, as I'm sure you already know your UV needs to be run at a slow enough flow rate and the lamp needs to be less than 6 months old to be truly effective.

Thank you for your input Humblefish. Your contributions to the fish disease knowledge base over the years is much appreciated!

I plan on running an exposure rate of 336,000 mW/cm2 through my 57-watt Aqua UV sterilizer... that puts me at about 280-300 GPH. Since I'm just moving a set volume and not trying to meet a minimum turnover/hr scenario like what I would in my DT, I may run it even slower just to increase contact time. It wouldn't hurt at least other than slightly warming up the water a bit... but that might help me out now that its winter.

A diatom filter just seems so messy and cumbersome. I'll leave that one to Paul B to experiment with. Haha. I think at that point, I'd probably just do full water changes instead of dealing with the diatom filters.

 

[cmcoker]

I wonder if this would add to the success of your proposed idea. A third container to hold saltwater?

"The theront's infectivity is highest early in its life. By 6–8 hours after it leaves the cyst, its infectivity is greatly reduced (Burgess 1992; Yoshinaga and Dickerson 1994; Colorni and Burgess 1997; Dan et al. 2009), although a non-infective theront may still be able to move for up to 48 hours."

So, with the water we are concerned about the theronts, right?

So my idea would be, tank 1 for 3 days, have tank 2 filled with new water and ready, move fish in there. Pump water from tank 1 to tank 3 via UV, circulate with UV; sterilize tank 1. After 3 days, pump tank 3 back into tank 1, move fish into tank 1. Pump tank 2 water into tank 3 with UV and circulate, sterilize tank 2. repeat until done.

So, basically tank 3 is for processing water with UV between transfers.

What do yall think? Would this decrease risk of something slipping by? Would the UV even be necessary?

I know it adds some equipment, and doubles the water but it's still less than new water every time..

Maybe just something to try if your idea doesn't work for some reason, I dunno.

 

[FarmerTy]

I just had a thought... besides the overall ammonia issue, since the process would be pretty non-intrusive to the fish other than the actual transfer from one tub to the other, I could see myself repeating this process beyond the recommended 12 days total for TTM. Basically, do it a couple extra times over just in case that one theront makes it past the UV. I mean, I do have 72 days to play with here with the fish until my DT has run its course being fallow, might as well get my run out of it.

Either way, this experiment will have to wait until after the holidays. I don't want to deal with all this during the holidays and my fish are only showing acute signs of ich infection.

 

[FarmerTy]

I wonder if this would add to the success of your proposed idea. A third container to hold saltwater?

"The theront's infectivity is highest early in its life. By 6–8 hours after it leaves the cyst, its infectivity is greatly reduced (Burgess 1992; Yoshinaga and Dickerson 1994; Colorni and Burgess 1997; Dan et al. 2009), although a non-infective theront may still be able to move for up to 48 hours."

So, with the water we are concerned about the theronts, right?

So my idea would be, tank 1 for 3 days, have tank 2 filled with new water and ready, move fish in there. Pump water from tank 1 to tank 3 via UV, circulate with UV; sterilize tank 1. After 3 days, pump tank 3 back into tank 1, move fish into tank 1. Pump tank 2 water into tank 3 with UV and circulate, sterilize tank 2. repeat until done.

So, basically tank 3 is for processing water with UV between transfers.

What do yall think? Would this decrease risk of something slipping by? Would the UV even be necessary?

I know it adds some equipment, and doubles the water but it's still less than new water every time..

Maybe just something to try if your idea doesn't work for some reason, I dunno.

I just like the creativity! I'm sure the idea has its own merits and honestly, the amount of salt it saves me might help me pay for the 3rd tub outright. At least I have something to keep afterwards besides processed and used saltwater that's been dumped. I actually have the ability to have 3 tubs in January as I have borrowed one already, I can get my tub I lent out back by then, and I can get a hold of a 3rd one. The biggest issue is really the WAF... wife approval factor. I'm betting it's a negatory there.

 

[Humblefish]

@cmcoker I think you're on to something. If water from the tank transfer aquarium was drained & stored immediately after the fish was transferred, any leftover theronts in that water should be dead before the next transfer were to take place (72 hrs later.) This would occur naturally without even using a UV. However, if any other stage (exs. protomont, tomont) were inadvertently siphoned out then that would be your undoing. :( Tomonts are encysted to surfaces so siphoning from the center of the aquarium and not getting too close to the bottom should alleviate this risk. However, protomonts "crawl around" looking for a surface to stick to so it's entirely possible they could go waterborne if disturbed by water movement.

 

[FarmerTy]

I'm definitely starting to see the benefits of discussing ideas on a national forum versus just my local forum. The brain trust is much bigger on a national scale!

 

[jduck]

In the end is it worth your time to save $60 in salt? Why not just bipass the DI and use strait RO water for refill. Or even just tap water and instant ocean. You could just mix to 1.010 and save on more salt.

 

[FarmerTy]

The $60 wasn't the main concern... it's the time it takes to make 60-80 gallons of water that was my biggest deterrent. I do like the idea of running straight RO instead of DI. I planned on running a lower salinity during the TTM but not looking to run as low as hypo conditions. More food for thought... thank you!

 

[FarmerTy]

Quick question, would I run into any issues putting the fish directly into 1.020 water coming from 1.026 water from the DT? I know you can't go up too quickly in salinity but for some reason I thought you can go immediately to a lower salinity without causing too much osmotic shock.

 

[Humblefish]

Quick question, would I run into any issues putting the fish directly into 1.020 water coming from 1.026 water from the DT? I know you can't go up too quickly in salinity but for some reason I thought you can go immediately to a lower salinity without causing too much osmotic shock.

They are much more tolerant of going down in SG than going up, but I wouldn't expose a fish to that big of a swing either way. IMHO; .002 is the max for instantly going down, .001 for going up.

 

[FarmerTy]

Thank you for the guideline. I was just curious as I drop them into a freshwater bath with no issues so I was wondering do they really even care. I guess the main difference is long-term exposure versus an acute exposure to lower salinity. Thank you Humblefish as always! Your guidance is appreciated!

 

[Humblefish]

Thank you for the guideline. I was just curious as I drop them into a freshwater bath with no issues so I was wondering do they really even care. I guess the main difference is long-term exposure versus an acute exposure to lower salinity. Thank you Humblefish as always! Your guidance is appreciated!

Yes, a 5 min FW dip is usually not enough exposure time to start messing with a fish's equilibrium and damage their fins.