UV Filter - To Use or Not to Use

[grandrapids9]

Hi, I am thinking o putting an UV filter on my new 90 gal setup, what are your thoughts, is it beneficial or not. The setup will be a heavily planted tank with a sand bottom. Also the one I am looking at is the AquaMedic 9w - any opinions on that or any other recommendations.

[Yassmeena]

Hi, I am thinking o putting an UV filter on my new 90 gal setup, what are your thoughts, is it beneficial or not. The setup will be a heavily planted tank with a sand bottom. Also the one I am looking at is the AquaMedic 9w - any opinions on that or any other recommendations.

Hey grandrapids,

I just came across one of earlier threads that discussed Michigan sand. I'm in Michigan too.

About the UV filter - does that damage the healthy bacteria in the filter?

I'm about to buy some of Al's BH which only comes in bulk. If you are interested in buying some, please send me a PM! :D

[Graham]

An UV will have no affect on anything that does not travel by it; so bio-film bacteria are not affected.

9watts may or may not affect pathogentic bacteria flowing it. I doubt that with typical flows rates it would have any affect on larger parasites.

You may also find that it has an affect on plant fertilizers if you're adding them.

IMO save your $$$

G

[trebor69]

An UV will have no affect on anything that does not travel by it; so bio-film bacteria are not affected.

9watts may or may not affect pathogentic bacteria flowing it. I doubt that with typical flows rates it would have any affect on larger parasites.

You may also find that it has an affect on plant fertilizers if you're adding them.

IMO save your $$
G

that makes sense

but I've always wondered....do UVs prohibit or hinder the spread/multiplication of bio-film bacteria ?

[Yassmeena]

that makes sense

but I've always wondered....do UVs prohibit or hinder the spread/multiplication of bio-film bacteria ?

Right, one of the other concerns is that if you do not use a UV that effectively kills all bacteria, then you are selecting for the survival and expansion of resistant strains which may be more pathogenic and difficult to treat in the case of infection.

[Patr1ck]

that makes sense

but I've always wondered....do UVs prohibit or hinder the spread/multiplication of bio-film bacteria ?

It would kill the ones floating in the water column, thus allowing the excess food(ammonia,nitrite) to feed the ones attached to objects in your tank and filter causing them to multiply and make up for the ones that die off because of the uv. I have uv on my 90. I use an 18 watt turbo twist.:)

P

[TankWatcher]

I have a 25watt, but I wish I had gone higher.

[Graham]

A UV does not make bacteria stronger or develop a resistant strain, if the unit isn't strong enough Then the organism simple isn't affected.

It takes X amount of exposure to kill/disrupt cell structure in certain organisms. That power is called Micro Watt Seconds. It's a combination of flow and exposure...the higher the wattage and the lower the flow, the higher expousre.

If the dwell time/flow is too long then the organism is reproducing faster than you're killing it.

As an example, From Dr Erik Johnson's book, it takes about 34,000mws to kill single cell algae and simple bacteria. It takes 50,000 to kill Ick and 240,000 to kill Chilodinella.

Then the kicker is that a lot of parasites never leave their host and go swimming around. They are in the substrate or on organic matter, even passed off to another fish via direct contact. These would never be affected by a UV.

As to bacteria, unless you have a very large UV so that you're actually sterilizing your water, ...is that a good thing, how does a fish develop an immune system to nothing?.... a typical unit wouldn't drop the CFU's all that much.

As to nitrifiers...there are very few in the water column. These bacteria are sessile and build thier matrix on top of each other. A UV is of no concern to them

IMO UV's are a waste of money for anything but green water algae control

[mmorris]

I bought a UV because I had been told that my water company does not add chlorine to the water. I should have called the company first. I'm donating it to my local fish club auction that is coming up soon. I just can't see the point of using it.

[GrillMaster]

IMO UV's are a waste of money for anything but green water algae control

I agree...

[Darrell Ward]

A total waste of money. If you have green water, or a bacteria problem, correct the problem, don't put a "band-aid" on it by using UV.

[Mello]

how do you get rid off green water? is it safe to use Algone?

[Graham]

The simplest and easiest way to get rid of green water is use an UV. It's what they do best in this hobby.

[KDodds]

I think these things are probably used more on the marine side of the aquarium hobby than anywhere else. There are people on both sides of the proverbial fence, pro and con. Granted, the ones on the con side usually have more experience (and better "luck") than those on the pro side. IME, UV strerilizers are little more than the same old snake oil products. Does the UV actually kill anything? I'm sure it does. Does it do so with enough efficiency to make a difference? I'm sure, from experience, that it does not. If in doubt, read and think. The guard around the tube in every UV sterilizer needs to be cleaned of biofilm on a regular basis. This biofilm contains some living matter, and closest to the position where no living matter should be living. Further, the effluent end of the UV tubing can present an equal amount of algae and/or biofilm as the in flow end. Hardly an indication that anything "beneficial", or anything effective at all, is going on. Now, this is from a singular experience on a seahorse tank with a "top of the line" sterilizer, but I've spoken to others of similar experience and ability who've tried them and pretty much have the same assessments. If the goal is to clarify the water and you MUST go high tech, an ozonizer is a much better (but more dangerous) option. Otherwise, it's much better to get back to the basics and solve the problem in those fundamental ways.

[Graham]

Dobbs there is no life forms or bio-film living next to the UV bulb. That would be the one area for sure where anything alive would be getting maxinium MWS expousre. What you're seeing is typical fines and mineral build up from the UV expousre.

Hobbyist don't think they work because in most cases they don't understand what they do, they size them too small, they flow water through them too quick or too slow.

UV's on affect what flows by them so there would be nothing unusual for algae to be grwoing at the dis-harge end of the system

Good husbandry will keep bacteria levels low, most Hobbyist UV's are not capable of killing parasites, see my post above, so that shouldn't enter into it. They are great at clearing green water and that's all they should be used for in thehobby.

No question that O3 looks after everything...the problem is most hobbyist don't know what they're doing with it either and end up killing thier fish with it:(

G

[KDodds]

First, let me say that your condescending tone and what I can only see as an intentional misspelling of my name are insulting, to say the least.

Second, let me say that I am not your average hobbyist. I have been keeping fish for more than 30 years, from marine to fresh, from reefs to breeding. I have and continue to administrate other boards, as well as write freelance for TFH. If I say a thing, it is not a casual "off the cuff" tale. I know for a fact that living organisms can exist on UV sleeves because I have examined scrapings of the biofilm. Perhaps these organisms are "microshaded" or "microprotected" by other buildups, but they exist nonetheless. In my case the product was installed as specified, and actually oversized.

Third, if UV only have an affect upon what flows through, and they kill effectively what does pass through, how can you have living algae on the output end?

Fourth, "most hobbyists" using ozonizers are doing so in marine, primarily reef, tanks and I have yet to see a report of a total wipeout of a tank that did not include the hobbyist completely disregarding installation and maintenance instructions for the unit.

[Graham]

Sorry I misspelled your name but but get over yourself, there was no insult intended.

Now since you've added your experience I'll add mine..48 years of keeping fish; fresh, marine and reef, both as a retailer and a hobbyist. When I say something it also isn't off the cuff .......

If you understood a UV, you know or should know, that it takes exposure expressed as MWS to affect an organism. It also takes a clean bulb and not one that's been in use for ages. Some organisms won't be affected at all due to the fact the a bulb is a low wattage or the flow/exposure/MWS is too fast.

The only organisms that have the potential to be affected by a UV are what flows by it,,,that you're suggesting that a fluke or hair algae or anything else that never gets to flow through the unit should be affected shows a lack of understanding.

Some fertilizers and chems are affected by UV so that may affect plant growth or their effectiveness. But it has nothing to do with them just being in the same tank that has a unit installed on it.

G

[KDodds]

If you understood a UV, you know or should know, that it takes exposure expressed as MWS to affect an organism. It also takes a clean bulb and not one that's been in use for ages. Some organisms won't be affected at all due to the fact the a bulb is a low wattage or the flow/exposure/MWS is too fast.

Okay, let's jsut say there is a person in this thread for whom "getting over oneself is an issue, and, budy, it ain't me. "If I understood UV", I would be correct in my original assessment that UV are not magic bullets, and that they do not kill anything that does not pass through them and, indeed, that they do not kill everything that passes through them either. You're not the only one privy to this knowledge, nor are you the only one privy to the knowledge of proper care and operation of a UV unit. I'll state again that I operated the one I am speaking about above according to specs (or better, actually, since I replaced the lamp more frequently than required).


The only organisms that have the potential to be affected by a UV are what flows by it,,,that you're suggesting that a fluke or hair algae or anything else that never gets to flow through the unit should be affected shows a lack of understanding.

And the fact that I have repeatedly stated that there can be algae growing directly AFTER the effluent from the unit, within a sealed tube proves a) that algae can and does live not only through the unit but clearly in direct proximity to continued indirect exposure and that b) the seeding cells MUST have come through the sterilizer. Perhaps lack of understanding is not the problem. Perhaps the problem is your inability (or unwillingness) to read what is written rather than getting your hackles up and urinating on every tree, bush, and blade of grass in the room.


Some fertilizers and chems are affected by UV so that may affect plant growth or their effectiveness. But it has nothing to do with them just being in the same tank that has a unit installed on it.

And here, I have absolutely no clue to what you're referring since I've mentioned higher plants, fertilizers, and chemicals not at all.

Though some swear by them, UV sterilizers are neither necessary nor worth the money and effort required. You will, if you research, find that most more experienced hobbyists, especially those working in the marine area, concur. Simple maintenance goes a much longer way towards insuring a healthy tank.

[Graham]

Dodds I really think that you need to go back and read what I wrote in Post #3 and post #8, you obviously haven't.

Alage has been around since the beginning of time, it grows in every spot on earth ...I run 2- 40watt Aquas on my holding tanks for my koi for greenwater control and they do not grow anything inside the housing,but with in a foot or so in the hose there is algae growing...nothing unusual about that. Like I stated not everything gets ''nuked'' each and everytime. That an algae spore made it through.................:bandana: Maybe if I was runing sterilizer sized units like a Water Dept does that might be different story.

You also obviously missed my point about the ferts and chems...

:rolleyes:

[KDodds]

Oh goodie, then we're agreed, UVs are minimally effective in very specific cases only if used to exacting details. Well, except for teh part about living cells growing on the sleeve... but then, try it some time, examine the film you remove and see if you find any life in it. Betcha you do... ;)

[Mello]

I dont have a uv sterilizer yet. But could I get rid off the green water by just waterchanges? I have some anubias plants and I feed juvies in the tank. There will be a lot of waste going to my tank because Im feeding them 5-7 times a day for them to grow. Should I lessen the way I feed them to get this green water to clear? Lessen the lighting time? for the anubias?

[KDodds]

Anubia are notoriously slow growers and so really won't do much to eliminate or lessen nutrient accumulation. If this is your purpose for plants being in there, you might want to think about something that grows a little more quickly (which will uptake and bind nutrients in biomass). Water changes are probably the easiest, most efficient, and reliabel means of clearing green water provided a) there is not a huge nutrient sink (i.e. an old filter with a lot of accumulated detritus) and b) the source water is not the source of nutrient contamination. I definitely would not reduce feeding on any juvenile fish. IMO, they should be fed as much as they will eat and provided with as much space as possible, with few exceptions. Reducing lighting might be an option but it will not solve nutrient accumulation problems. These are solved only through reduction of input or increase in removal. It is important to recognize that UV sterilization does not reduce nutrient accumulation. In fact, by killing some living organisms, it re-releases previously bound nutrients back into the water column. This is one reason why, sometimes, you see green water "solved" (especially in ponds) by a UVS, only to be replaced by hair/beard algae problems.

FWIW, if this is a juvenile grow out tank and not a display tank, I've foundin the past that cichlid juvies do VERY well in tanks overgrown with BBA. It works like ATSs (Algal Turf Scrubbers) used (primarily) in marine aquaria.

[Mello]

ok im going to just stick to waterchanges for now. hopefully water clears up cause its really not looking good in my eyes. thanks for the input.

[KDodds]

Good luck! Just remember, algae is not a problem, but rather a symptom. In fact, algae is a solution, however undesirable aesthetically, to the problem of excess nutrients. ;) If you "solve" an "algae problem" you are simply removing the solution, and best to come up with another solution, quick. ;)

[Graham]

Oh goodie, then we're agreed, UVs are minimally effective in very specific cases only if used to exacting details. Well, except for teh part about living cells growing on the sleeve... but then, try it some time, examine the film you remove and see if you find any life in it. Betcha you do... ;)


Jeeez Isn't it interesting what you learn when you read a whole thread.......I'll have to get my scope out and go to 1000x oil immersion..maybe I'll see a bacteria cell at the very end of the crystal tube.

:bandana:

[brewmaster15]

I've no problem with a lively discussion about UVs here, but I see no reason for this thread to turn into a Personal squabble...

Please take the bickering off the forum.

Thank you,
al

[Wahter]

I dont have a uv sterilizer yet. But could I get rid off the green water by just waterchanges? I have some anubias plants and I feed juvies in the tank. There will be a lot of waste going to my tank because Im feeding them 5-7 times a day for them to grow. Should I lessen the way I feed them to get this green water to clear? Lessen the lighting time? for the anubias?


As mentioned before, depending on what's in your source water, just doing water changes might not clear things up. A few years ago, I had a terrible green water problem and I ended up buying a UV sterilizer, hooked it up to a powerhead and it cleared up the tank in a few days - I had tried several water changes, blacking out the tank (no lights, wrapping the tank to block out external lighting, etc...) and even using Seachem Clarity (flocculating agent); they would work for a few days, then the green water came right back. Only by leaving the UV sterilizer on there for a few weeks, did that work.

Here's a photo of one of my tanks. Talk about your pea soup!

http://forum.simplydiscus.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=40657&stc=1&d=1232765430

Another alternative that also works is a diatom filter. I ran one overnight to clear up another tank and it worked.

Hope that helps!


Walter

[Mello]

Thats what exactly whats happening to my tank rightnow Wahter but not that worst yet. I just bought a uv sterilizer today I can't really stand the green water. If the green water for example clears up do I still leave the UV running 24 hours a day? How long could I leave my lights on in a day to avoid green water?

[hakka_deimos]

While the UV spectrum ranges in wavelengths, the optimum wavelength for sterilization is between 200-280 nanometers. This spectral band is known as UV-C light, or the "germicidal wavelength," because it most effectively kills waterborne algae and microorganisms. At a peak lethal efficiency of 254nm, UV-C light irradiates free floating algae and pathogens at a cellular level, mutating DNA and disrupting an organism’s ability to reproduce.

KILLING DOSE OF UV LIGHT NEEDED
(MICROWATT SECONDS PER SQUARE CENTIMETER)
viruses 15,000
bacteria 15,000-30,000
algae 22,000-30,000
fungi 45,000
protozoa 90,000

just some information for all who care
they kill everything with DNA that floats thru the water with enuf exposure

[Mello]

Its my5th day battling this green water to disappear. I'm happy to say that so far so good. The UV sterilizer definetely is doing its job. The water is clear now with help of waterchanges Im really impress..

[KDodds]

How much are you changing daily?

[Mello]

i change 40% a day since it went green.

[KDodds]

Just an FYI, you can usually clear green water problems with massive (unpolluted source) water changes in a few days to a couple of weeks with or without the use of a UVS. This holds true, IME, in FW, SW or ponds, even ponds with full esxposure. Be careful with cutting short on the changes, don't taper off until the water is clear. And even then, keep an eye out for any return.

[Graham]

I can assure you that you can not clear a pond of green water with water changes, even a 100% wouldn't do it. ...for it to be that easy :rolleyes:...Even clearing an aquarium with water changes is luck more than anything

G

[KDodds]

Actually, been there done that, in two different ponds, one in full sun, one in part sun, neither one used a UV at all. Sorry, your mileage may vary, but mine has proven large scale water changes to be effective all on their own. The most recent time this was performed was last year when I helped open my father-in-laws pond, a 400 or so gallon freeform, self built and designed. He kind of let the leaves accumulate in fall. So, vacuum, 80-90% change, followed by a 50% change a week later, bye bye green water. The use of fast growing plants like Elodea (Egeria, Anacharis) can also help clearing up green water.

[Patr1ck]

Something caused the water to go green in the first place. UV will keep it from returning.

P

[Graham]

Actually, been there done that, in two different ponds, one in full sun, one in part sun, neither one used a UV at all. Sorry, your mileage may vary, but mine has proven large scale water changes to be effective all on their own. The most recent time this was performed was last year when I helped open my father-in-laws pond, a 400 or so gallon freeform, self built and designed. He kind of let the leaves accumulate in fall. So, vacuum, 80-90% change, followed by a 50% change a week later, bye bye green water. The use of fast growing plants like Elodea (Egeria, Anacharis) can also help clearing up green water.

LOL 400 gallons isn't a pond and cleaning out the mulm had more to do with the green water than the water change did. My current interest in the ornamental fish is show koi and my pond is small at 5000 gallons. My winter holding tanks are 750 gallons and 2500 gallons housing 15 koi ranging between 24'' ans 32''....They'd suck your aquarium plants back like a fresh garden salad............. I'm pretty sure of the mileage:D

An UV is a very simple band-aid for a PITA problem

[KDodds]

Have it your way, the other pond I am speaking of, the one in full sun, was a about 25 feet by 15 to 18 feet, 3 to 3 and a hlaf feet deep. I estimated the gallonage to be around 10,000 at the time, but it might have been more. It was also populated with Koi, until the wildlife decided to deplete us of them that is. Anyway, this was my first pond design, some 8 years ago or so, and I had neglected to use netting, so same case scenario, collection of mulm. Although, with a dozen and a half Koi I would not say bio-load was negligible either, even though they did not approach your 2-3 foot monsters. Anyway, sure enough, water change and a vacuum solved the green water. I don't think removing the source of the nutrient pollution is so easily dismissed as it is the same case for any green water problem, seek out and remove the cause, nutrient pollution, that should probably be the ultimate goal. In neither case, though, were UVSs used, which is the topic of discussion here, thus proving the point that they're not necessary, and certainly don't solve the cause of the problem in the first place.

ov10pat, yes, a UV may help to eliminate the return of green water, but without accompanied nutrient management it is very likely that benthic algae will replace the planktonic algae as soon as a spore is introduced in some fashion. If nutrient management alone is employed, both problems (benthic and planktonic forms) can be eliminated without the use of UVS. It is important to qualify that even water changes may not be enough if the source water is also a source of nutrient pollution. Especially in rural areas, seasonal run off and farm run off can contaminate water supplies to the point where performing a water change with straight tap water may actually be worse than just letting the algae bloom out with accompanied manual removal and no water changes.

[MostlyDiscus]

Guessing kill ratio and bulb life... Save your money. Making new friends Graham?

[Graham]

Yup

Keiron at best using your maximium demensions your pond would have been 11781 gallons...that's assuming that it was a square sided level bottomed box in the ground haven't seen one of those yet..............Then by the sounds of it you didn't have any kind of decent filtration, bottom drains etc on it since it needed to be cleaned.

There's no question that if the nutrient source is removed the green water probably won't occur but you take your water change theory to any the koi boards and they'll fall over laughing....as I said before if it was only that easy

Any properly built pond...not a water garden...only uses thier UV's for a short period in the spring. Once thier Bio's are up to full speed then it looks after nutrient.

Benthic is a zone not an algae type...

Now please tell us how to eliminate phosphate which water companies add, or how about naturallyoccuring iron levels. Thier always a good source of green water:bandana:

[KDodds]

At best, yes, the maximum dimensions would be around 12,000 gallons. I gave you rough dimensions since this was a free-form pond and there's no way I've saved the schematics from that long ago. As I said, I calculated the gallonage, at the time, knowing full well that the volume, in inches, divided by 231 gives you a close gallonage. As for the other aspects of the pond, they're irrelevant to the point. But, since you brought it up... it incorporated a bog filter, overflow and bottom drain. It also included a water fall and tons of plant life, Sweet Flag, Lobelia, Pickerel Weed, Lilies, Iris, Elodea, Water Lettuce and Water Hyacinth, off the top of my head. The reliance was mostly on botanical filtration as no other filter media (barring mechanical filtration pre-pumps) were used.

A theory is only a theory when it has not been proven. in my case, in my scenarios, in ponds and in tanks, water changes have worked, in conjunction with removing the nutrient source, 100% of the time. I have also recommended this method to others for whom it has worked. I've found no one for whom it has not worked, if they've commited to both the water changes and the removal of the initial problem. Sometimes, this has involved the removal of fish from tanks where the bioload was just too high. Other times, it involved the use of a purer water source than their tap. Sometimes it simply involved switching from one food to another.

I guess my ponds are not properly built then, since I've never used, nor needed to use, UVS.

Benthic algae, forms are algae forms located on or in a substrate. note that substrate is not in reference to gravel or sand (alone),as substrate is used to denote a surface. Thus, BBA living on your driftwood is benthic, bacteria that live in your filter are benthic, etc. Sometimes this is used strictly in reference to the bottom of a body of water, but not always. Algae that live in the water column are planktonic. Whether or not the alga species switches from benthic to planktonic is another matter entirely. Benthic algae can, and do, reproduce in asexual manners that do not limit them to planktonic phases, thus, once they've settled, a UVS will be useless in their eradication since they will never pass through it. I hope this explains the difference betwwen a benthic organism and a planktonic organism enough so that you are able to understand it, Graham. but, if not, let me know and I can probably point you to a few references that will maybe clear it up for you.

Actually, in marine aquaria, algal turf scrubbers are routinely used for the uptake of unwanted nutrients and minerals. These may be growing one or may species of algae, including, but not limited to, Bryopsis, Derbesia, Caulerpa, and Chaetomorpha. These otherwise "nuisance" algae are use in separate containers, called refugia. Although, some marine keepers do intentionally grow Caulerpa spp. (and others) decoratively in aquaria as you would keep a planted tank. This is usually not, however, done in a reef where corals are present. Although I have not tried it, per se, in FW, I suspect similar results could be observed. When I was breeding angelfish, I relied exclusively on BBA for "filtration" and turned out some very healthy fry, very quickly, in an otherwise sparkling aquarium exposed to full sun. Since algae will take up iron and phosphate readily, why not employ them as tools? There are other means of removal, however. If you're talking about source water, simply using an RO, RO/DI or Cati/Ani unit will help to eliminate virtually all impurities. This is easily the best approach since it avoids nutrient introduction entirely (from source water, food is another story). Post introduction, you can try using "phos reactors", which are really only (usually) cylinders holding resins through which tank water passes. Phosphate resins are exhausted pretty quickly, though, so if the problem is large, this could become quite expensive, making the investment in an RO unit more cost effective, even with the 90% waste water produced.

I'm not sure about all water companies, or even mine, but why would iron and phosphate be intentionally added? I am on well water, limestone aquifer, which produces tap water that is 350ppm CaCO3, with anything else being trace, at best. I've had it assayed twice.

[Graham]

I sure don't need any lesson from you....

Water companies add phosphate to thier water supplies to help prevent scaling in the pipes. A lot of pond owners have major problems with green water because of it. The iron is a natural element that leaches into water from wells...I'm also on a well and have iron in it.........

As to your water garden...I know the type of system that you have and it's been suggested on the koi boards ...they're still laughing. A koi pond is very much like keeping discus....see how many around here recommend gravel or plants.

[KDodds]

That's cool, we all take our lessons from where we wish to take them, and some of us learn more than others, everyone's different. But no one's ever too old to learn, nor too full of knowledge to acquire more. ;)

I'm not sure how you'd "know" the "type of system" that I have. FWIW, we've moved since, thus I now longer have the pond. Anyway, you can only know as much about it as I've told you. If you'd like to know more, that's fine, just ask. But, as I said, this pond worked very well, with no real problems other than the first spring's need for draining.

I'm not sure how you can equate keeping 3 foot fish, in very large volumes, outside, in temperate environments, with very low flow rates to keeping 8" fish in tropical environments in comparatively much smaller volumes with higher flow rates indoors and then allude that they are each similar to one another but very much different than keeping other fish. Unfortunately, I do not see how that makes very much sense.

There are many different ways to do things and many different ways to acheive success. Some of them may not work for you, but do for others, and vice versa. Our current seahorse tank, for instance, holds 5 H. reidi. The 40g tank is primarily filter by an Eheim 2026, but powerheads are used, as well, to acheive an overall flow of about 10x tank volume per hour. This amount of flow is something that many seahorse oldtimers are aghast at, yet those who are on the cusp of being oldtimers are experimenting and willing to admit that it does work, maybe even better than the "old ways". As well, bare-bottomed tank, sterile environments (meaning overfiltered, bare aquariums) are all old ways of doing things with seahorses. Ours are in a more natural environment, with healthy macroalgae growth, hermits, snails, bristleworms, etc. While our goal is not to breed them, the are already exhibiting courtship behavior, though not fully mature. Just because John Doe was successful 20 or 40 years ago doing things in certain ways does not mean that those are the only ways, or even the best ways, to acheive success. ;)

As an aside, my father-in-laws 400 or so gallon pound houses 3 huge butterflies (~24"), 8 goldfish, and a ton of rosy reds. Would this be my ideal setup? No, but it's not my pond. However, he does need to fish out fry from all three species pretty routinely and really doesn't have any problems at all with green water, not even in spring. Go figure.

[Graham]

keiron This is a discus board and we're getting way off topic ...Quickly though what you're discribing a for a pond is very old tech. It's an anoxic style system put forward by a Dr Kevin Novak. While it does work it's not a system that any good koi keeper would ever use. If you would like to discuss the merit and demerits of it we can take it to a koi board. But it's been well discussed and discarded by all top end koi keepers....nice water garden if you're into water gardens

As to turn over rates ...check out a proper koi pond.

Not sure what seahorses have to do with anything but 5 seahorses in a 40 gallon reef style tank with tons of macroalgae...they wouldn't put enough pressure on the system to even know they were in there...no wonder they're happy.:rolleyes:

As to the bare tank thing...there's some pile of expert around here with BB tanks....are they all wrong

Dobbs when I learn something it's usually from someone that is educated in what they're talking about...not basement hobbyists.

[KDodds]

Actually, only the bog portion of the system has anything to do with anaerobic filtration, but whatever. It's worked for me, it's worked for others, and likely will continue to, regardless of themethods other choose to use.

Apparently you've never kept seahorses as 5 Reid's in a 40 is about reaching conventional acceptable stocking limits. As well, seahorses have very short digestive tracts and need to be fed a lot, and often, and produce a lot of rich waste. IMO, in this type of system, 5 is not pushing it, but others would disagree. Green water is actualy more common in seahorse tanks than in reef or convention marine (non-reef) aquaria as a result.

Actually, I've said nothing about anyone being "right" or "wrong", only that there are different ways to do things and, back to the point at hand, that a UVS unit is not always (if not ever) necessary.

Whatever or wherever you learn, can be from a multi-doctored professor or a homeless beggar. I make no assumptions about what one may know over the other. In this case, I suggest you verify my body of published work before making such a dismissal.

[Graham]

A few articles in TFH.................is there more

[KDodds]

Well, gee, I'm sorry if being a published, peer-reviewed author of any sort isn't enough of a qualification to assure you that you're not speaking to a "basement hobbyist", whatever that means. Please accept my apologies for being well enough respected amongst respected hobbyists, editors, authors, etc., to tackle the issues that I have tackled in my articles. Maybe you should give them a read sometime, or play skeet with the entire issues, either may be equally satisfying for you.

[Elite Aquaria]

You guys have gotten way off topic. For now I am closing this thread.