UV and Vinegar dosing

rob safron

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
607
Reaction score
378
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There seems to be a lot for and against using UV with carbon dosing. I trust R2R and this forum for input before I move foreword adding one. Purpose would be an additional layer of protection to ward off disease.
 

mta_morrow

Of course I have room for 1 more fish!
View Badges
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
7,234
Reaction score
29,675
Location
Sumter, SC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
following along and I use NoPox now, but switching to vinegar when the bottle runs out. And I run UV.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
67,148
Reaction score
63,499
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't think there's a perfect answer. I personally never chose a UV because I didn't want to kill bacteria in the water. I wanted them to either stay in the water as food, or be skimmed out whole. Killing them will cause then to die and spill their guts before being skimme dout. That seems undesirable to me, but I can't prove it is a problem. Over time you may select for more benthic (growing on the bottom) and less planktonic (suspended in the water) bacteria. I do not know if that is good or bad.

In general, I think if you feel a UV is desirable for your system due to disease issues, then I'd go for it. I'm just not sure how needed/useful that effect is.
 
OP
OP
rob safron

rob safron

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
607
Reaction score
378
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Yes probably should have given more of the back story. Just went through another velvet outbreak in a second tank. I do QT (don’t medicate unless indicated) have not added new fish for 3 year and bam, velvet. Either it was there, held at bay or introduced on some coral added. If these fish went 3 years healthy I’m just wondering if UV could have helped in this situation. I’m now debating tearing out rock, catching fish to go fallow or not. But if I did I would hate to go through that hassel just to have it accidently introduced again.
 

mitch91175

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
2,831
Reaction score
2,194
Location
Rowlett, TX
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't think there's a perfect answer. I personally never chose a UV because I didn't want to kill bacteria in the water. I wanted them to either stay in the water as food, or be skimmed out whole. Killing them will cause then to die and spill their guts before being skimme dout. That seems undesirable to me, but I can't prove it is a problem. Over time you may select for more benthic (growing on the bottom) and less planktonic (suspended in the water) bacteria. I do not know if that is good or bad.

In general, I think if you feel a UV is desirable for your system due to disease issues, then I'd go for it. I'm just not sure how needed/useful that effect is.

Hey Randy do you think it is a fair assessment to say that even if you do run UV that you won’t have every drop of water in your aquarium run through it that will eliminate all bacteria that free float in you water column? I run a UV and carbon dose and do not see any ill effects from doing both.
 

piranhaman00

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
4,875
Reaction score
4,828
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Bump.

Want to start carbon dosing but will not turn off UV. Will carbon dosing be for nil? Im assuming the bacteria can populate elsehwere besides water column no?
 

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,655
Reaction score
7,142
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There seems to be a lot for and against using UV with carbon dosing. I trust R2R and this forum for input before I move foreword adding one. Purpose would be an additional layer of protection to ward off disease.
Great question! This is one of the big debates. Where does the important bacterial metabolism occur in an aquarium: in the water column, in biofilms on aquarium surfaces or some of both.

UV devices are effective when the organism you want to kill is in the water, but less effective if it lives attached to surfaces and only enters the water column to migrate to a new location. For example, UV does not destroy the bio filter that performs nitrogen cycling (food -> NH3 -> NO2 -> NO3 -> N2). Also, I think it is comonly accepted that substrate contains much more bacteria than the water column. This might be why you never hear about a UV device crashing an aquarium.

Leave the UV in while you carbon dose. If you get up 1 mL vinegar/gallon and don’t see bacteria growth in your system, you might then consider shutting off the UV.
 

piranhaman00

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
4,875
Reaction score
4,828
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I know how UV works lol but I’d carbon dosing increases bacterial populations found in the water column it’s counter productive. My question is where are these bacteria found?
 

Graffiti Spot

Cat and coral maker
View Badges
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
4,320
Reaction score
3,676
Location
Florida’s west side
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I had a friend who used to run a big uv sterilizer and use Biopellets and his tank was very nice! I never tested his water but it looked clean with no algae. If it came down to it I would try to introduce a sterilizer but I would only use it for short times until I could prove to myself it wasn’t causing the bacteria from the carbon source to die.
 

Being sticky and staying connected: Have you used any reef-safe glue?

  • I have used reef safe glue.

    Votes: 125 88.7%
  • I haven’t used reef safe glue, but plan to in the future.

    Votes: 8 5.7%
  • I have no interest in using reef safe glue.

    Votes: 5 3.5%
  • Other.

    Votes: 3 2.1%
Back
Top