ick and uv

[poormanisme]

I was wondering why my favorite lfs never ever has any fish with ick, so I asked the owner and he showed me a few of the UV filters that he runs on his central system. When i thought about it, i guess it makes sense that the light would microwave any free floating ick. So that made me wonder about putting a uv on my quarinteen tank. Does anybody do this? or am i just thinking entirely too much about my fish these days, lol.

[mogurnda]

I have used it on a marine tank, and it worked on a raging infestation. It would be good in a Q tank, unless you're treating with any drugs that are sensitive to UV. As far as I can tell, the key parameters are:
1) Enough turnover to be sure all the parasites pass through in a reasonable time.
2) Enough wattage to kill
3) Enough dwell time in the unit to kill what goes through.
I did those calculations years ago for a 20, and ended up with a 16 watt unit with 250 gph going through it. I think. I'll check tonight.

[JSchmidt]

It would probably be instructive to do some research on the life cycle of freshwater ick. The Skeptical Aquarist has a very thorough, yet easy to read, discussion of ick and its treatment. See http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/docs/health/ich.shtml.

I don't believe that UV by itself will be a very effective treatment for ick, as the parasite has limited time in its lifecycle as a free swimming creature.

Salt additions and raising temperatures are a fairly effective and benign way to treat ick (also discussed at the Skeptical Aquarist).

A UV unit most likely won't cause you any problems, but it won't really solve many, either. (I say this reluctantly, as a lover of gadgets, but it's true...)

Jim

[mogurnda]

I would disagree. If there is enough turnover through the UV unit, the free-swimming tomites will be reduced to essentially zero, and ultimately the life cycle will be broken. Regardless of the duration of the stage, if the UV unit is always on, it will prevent re-infection.
Now, is this the best way to approach the problem? I don't know. Probably a good adjunct to other treatments like elevated temperature. All I can say is that it worked very well for me with a similar dinoflagellate.

[JSchmidt]

UV is pretty rarely at the top of the list of recommended cures for ick, for the same reason micron filters aren't. They can't ever completely filter all the water of the free-swimming tomites. Since the free-swimming stage is when the parasite is most vulnerable, it's much more effective to treat the whole tank simultaneously (with salt or commercial preparations) because you'll be hitting all the free-swimmers, unlike UV (or micron filtering) which will only thin out the population. It only takes one tomite to adhere to a fish, drop off and then hatch a whole raft of new tomites, so the UV method is much more likely to result in ongoing ick infections than the salt-and-heat or malachite green-formalin methods.

Jim

[mogurnda]

You've worn me out. When I posted, I knew I was in the minority. But I had done my homework on the ability of UV to kill cryptocaryon a few years back, found it to be effective, and thought I'd pass on my experience.

[JSchmidt]

For some infections, UV is really effective. I bought a unit several years ago to treat/control a mycobacterial infection. UV was helpful because the microbe existed primarily as a free swimmer and because the drug treatments involved heavy-duty antibiotics (that likely wouldn't be 100% effective anyway) that likely would have been hard on the fish.

For ick, though, there are better, cheaper options.

Cheers,
Jim

[beviking]

Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but free-swimming tomites in a tank wouldn't be competely eliminated just by the simple fact that the inflow would not suck up all of them. As we know, it only takes one tomite to infect a fish and start the whole process over.

[OrionGirl]

For a quarantine tank, UV can be useful. It will treat a variety of problems successfully, though you have to be diligent in checking fish for signs of some ailments that are not often in the water column. Many diseases are passed via contact with the infected fish, and the UV will not affect these at all.

For show tanks, I think UV causes more problems than it remedies, since it can decimate the microfauna population and beneficial free floating bacteria. Without these critters working for you, nutrient abundance can lead to non-beneficial bacteria blooms, and algae blooms.

[mogurnda]

Here's the idea: If enough of your tank volume is going through the UV often enough, all of those tomites that just emerged will go right on through and be dead. It's going on all the time, so the likelihood of escape is low.
It is clear that people think it won't work. However, it did in my case, unless you believe in divine intervention.
Would I do it again? I don't know. I haven't seen ich in my tanks in years, and hope to avoid it. I agree with Jim, though, that there are cheaper ways that are effective.
On the other hand, running a UV system in a QT tank has advantages. Protozoa, bacteria and fungal spores that come in with the fish will be greatly reduced, presumably reducing the probability and magnitude of infections occurring in the vulnerable fish.

[OrionGirl]

I agree, mogurnda, my concern is that people will assume that since the UV is running, there's no way the ich could still be within the fish, and then introduce ich to the main tank after quarantining for too short a time period (ie, less than 4 weeks). It's not the UV's fault, it's basically a user error. UV will eliminate ich, but you have to run it for more than the standard 4 week treatment period to be sure. Since many people can't manage to use a standard treatment for the full course, I don't see them waiting even longer with a UV unit. If anything, I see them using it for a shorter time period!

Another issue is the tendency to save money by purchasing the minimum size UV--which means you don't have the volume pumping through there needed to get all the tomites. I've seen that on SW tanks a lot--a buddy here in town ran a UV (on his reef--:rolleyes: ), but the UV was rated for a 50 gallon tank--and his tank was a 125. End result? It didn't work. The tangs still had ich all the time, he killed off everything the filter feeders ate, and had sky rocketing nitrates.

[RTR]

I side with Jim on this one. There are multiple publications on UV flow and water mixing in the main tank, and to me it appears that UV would be the ideal way to set up a subclinical or chronic invisible infection. NIMFT.

[beviking]

Nice explanation OrionGirl! Agree 100%. And then there is the vision of the tomite being sucked toward the inlet to be destroyed by the uv...but then...uh oh, there's a fish in the way!

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by RTR
I side with Jim on this one. There are multiple publications on UV flow and water mixing in the main tank, and to me it appears that UV would be the ideal way to set up a subclinical or chronic invisible infection. NIMFT. Chronic invisible infection of what...? Ich?
I don't see the reasoning behind using a UV sterilizer (properly..), to be a bad for an aquarium. I understand they are not absolutely needed, but have read lots on the benefits of having 'cleaner' water by using them. Keeping in mind 'regular' water changes are necessary too.

[mogurnda]

RTR and 80gJoe
You both allude to a lot of written material. Can I get a little of it? For example, if I had a ballpark figure of mixing rates, I could do some calculations to get an idea of whether my assumptions about turnover are at all valid.

[poormanisme]

its nice to see two opposing views voiced with such civility(not always seen on message boards). So thanks to all who have responded so far.:) the original reason that i asked the lfs owner about ick was because every time i bought a clown loach from any other place my tank had an ick explosion, however when i purchased from him, all went well. So can one deduce that the uv had some effect on the health of the loaches or is it mearly a coincidence. I havent the slightest idea, but i now only get my fish from the "uv lfs".;)

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by mogurnda
.....a lot of written material. Can I get a little of it? For example, if I had a ballpark figure of mixing rates, I could do some calculations to get an idea of whether my assumptions about turnover are at all valid. There was a well written, and 'to the point' article in Dr. Foster Smiths catalog, and some on the internet. I don't have the past issue of the catalog, but my strong opinion is, proper use of a UV Sterilizer works.
I've been told I don't need a Diatom Filter if I have a UV Sterilizer - I got both anyway just for the fish. :) Got clean water....or, is that cleaner water? I do believe the good micro'animals' are still in the water column, or my attempt at aquaria would be a failure, or not quite as good as what it appears - IMO.. :)

[RTR]

The best reference, or the most comprehensive, would be "Aquatic Systems Engineering: Devices and How They Function", by P R Escobal, 1996, ISBN: 1-888381-05-1.

And Joe, if your infusorians are surviving, would that not imply that the tomites of Ich could as well?

And, yes, Ich outbreaks occur in long-established tanks because they harbor subclinical infections of Ich (generally resticted to the gills), which the fish can fight when not stressed; then when stressed (chilled, exposed to ammonia/nitrite, have a new fish or group of fish added to the tank with competion for food and territory, etc.) they get an outbreak. This gave rise to the myth that there is a dormant form of Ich, which is not the case.

[mogurnda]

The best reference, or the most comprehensive, would be "Aquatic Systems Engineering: Devices and How They Function", by P R Escobal, 1996, ISBN: 1-888381-05-1. I'll have a look. My interest would only be for a qt tank, with little to interfere with the flow, and where bad microbes are most likely to reside. Regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of UV on a display tank, more gizmos=more headaches IMO.

[SamsonNY]

OrionGirl,
I hate to disagree with you, but, the research I did before I got the U.V. led me to believe that the beneficial bacteria would not be free floating (mainly on the bioballs, filter pads, substrate, decor, etc) and the main reason I got the U.V. was to combat the bacterial / algae blooms that I was getting (which the U.V. took care of perfectly).
Just my $.02.
:)

[JSchmidt]

Actually, I think O-girl was referring to the many other benefical microorganisms (besides the nitrifiers) that inhabit our aquaria.

You're correct in your statement that the nitrifiers mostly reside on surfaces, but they're just a small fraction of the microbes that contribute to the health of a tank.

Jim

[RTR]

Nitrification bacteria are quite firmly attached. But they are only two species of the hundreds that operate in your tank. There are many bacterial types in operation that may be considered beneficial other than the nitrifiction bacteria.

OOPs, did not read p2 with Jim's post before replying, duplicate effort.

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by RTR
...And Joe, if your infusorians are surviving, would that not imply that the tomites of Ich could as well? .... So.. that means you are against using a UV Sterilizer?

My opinion is that at least cutting down on "bacteria" means cleaner water - which is good.. IMO.. Proper use of the device is useful.

I'm not sure of what you are saying.. Certainly there would be no UV Sterilizers on the market if there were not beneficial.

[125gJoe]

Properly used UV Sterilizers should help maintain cleaner water -- and healthier fish.

But, I will retract that statement if I'm proven wrong.

[RTR]

Sorry Joe, but you appear to misunderstand that the grand majority of bacteria and other microscopic life in the tank is highly beneficial to the setup. If there is an excess of nutrients and you get cloudy water - either bacterial or algal - UV will clear it, granted. But if the underlying cause is not corrected (the excess nutrients), then either a different form of cloudiness or comparable imbalance issue will arise to take its place, utilizing the same excess. New tank, or immature tanks, commonly suffer some overgrowths of some forms before they mature, but as they mature those fade. Maturity in a tank means that the various suppoprt staff of infusorians and microbes come into balance. Persistant cloudiness is a setup or hobbyist problem - insufficient or improper filtration or maintenance thereof, insufficient water changes, improper feeding (quantity or type), excessive plant nutrient addition, etc. the UV fix for these is a quick-fix which works, but which does nothing for the underlying issue, just forces it into another form. Aquaria are not biologically "clean". They are complex micro-ecologies which take some time to stablize, but once stable they should not appear cloudy or dirty, and should not require UV to give them that appearance. UV should not be chronically required for healthy fish either, any more than are antibiotics (for either fish or humans)

I am not at all anti-UV, I just feel that folks should know what they are doing.

On the Ich parasite, I qustion the value of the UV treatment, as the parasite spends only a fraction of its cycle as a free-swimming tomite. Very few hobby units are scaled or powered to handle that sort of bug. Removing many or even most of the parasites without eradicating them completely is exactly setting up subclincal infections. Yes, it is possible to set for single-pass kill, but without the system being fully engineered for this, it is still iffy. There are easier and cheaper and surer treatments.

HTH

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by RTR
Sorry Joe, but ...... If there is an excess of nutrients and you get cloudy water - either bacterial or algal - UV will clear it, ... ........... Persistant cloudiness is a setup or hobbyist problem - insufficient or improper filtration or maintenance thereof, insufficient water changes, ...... Aquaria are not biologically "clean". .........

I am not at all anti-UV, I just feel that folks should know what they are doing.

...HTH
I understand UV St. is not the normal "treatment" of bacteria excesses. There can be a Perfect Balance, one of which I always strive for - can't seem to acheive, or I may just rely on water changes only since I have attained perfect balance with that alone..

I still feel a properly cycled UV St. can only help most aquariasts, rather than harm..

As well as the occasional use of a Diatom filter (Vortex) will only benefit - rather than hurt the water column of the average aquarist.

But, then again, I could be proven wrong... Or, do human inventions really do help the micro-environments like the aquarium?

[RTR]

"Bacterial excess" does not or should not happen in a mature tank. If it occurs there, it is a symptom of an underlying condition or problem. It is always better to treat the condition than to treat the symptom. If you treat only the symptom, either the same or an equivalent symptom will replace the symptom treated, because nothing has been done beyond cosmetic treatment which does not remove the underlying cause. If you remove the underlying condition, there will be no symptom to be handled.

In immature tanks, UV is great for a quick fix of a transient cloudiness if such is required, but these phases usually pass on their own without any treatment as he tank matures - if they ever occur at all. Diatom filtration would do the same, and would at least get the offending biomass out of the tank.

I do think diatom polished water looks great, but I do know it is artificial and not what an aquarium really looks like other than temporarily. If you prefer and demand that look, certainly you can get it and even keep it - increase your mechanical filtration, rinse it frequently, and include a HOT Magnum with the micron filtration sleeve 24/7. Trade the sleeve out weekly, alternating working and cleaning the fine filter pads. You will have the diatom look all the time. You can even add the UV 24/7 if desired, but you can get the look without it. Just don't kid yourself that this is the appearence of natural waters with anywhere near comparable fish loads.

As for either diatom or UV being a benefit to the average hobbyist, my personal opinion is that more water changes and/or better and better maintained filtration will achieve comparable ends much more cheaply and effectively. But that is personal opinion and experience and everyone has to go with what appears to be best for them- this is a pragmatic hobby.

[125gJoe]

Originally posted by RTR
........ Just don't kid yourself that this is the appearence of natural waters with anywhere near comparable fish loads.

As for either diatom or UV being a benefit to the average hobbyist, my personal opinion is that more water changes... ...- this is a pragmatic hobby. I agree with that!
My Discus tank most likely should have a much darker and tannin look. I should be adding lots of peat and I think it's called "Blackwater Extract" or "Instant Amazon" to get a more natural look. But I prefer a clear aquarium. I do add some peat, but in smaller amounts..

Before guests arrive --- it's possible it's Vortex time.. On ocassion! :D

[SamsonNY]

Originally posted by 80gJoe
But I prefer a clear aquarium.


I certainly agree with that.

I honestly don't know much about the other beneficial bacterial organisms that are killed by the U.V. (which must be free-floating) but, I do know that my fish are thriving (bonus for them) and my tank is now always crystal clear ("required" bonus for me).

[RTR]

BTW Joe, my commonest diatom use is before (non-hobby) guests arrive. I don't bother for fish folk, they know and recognize immediately what has been done. So you are not alone. ;)

Second commonest use is when replanting part of a tank.

[125gJoe]

RTR, how about right after a water change?