So glad I found you guys!!

[jestep]

I don't have any inherent hate for UV but I don't believe in unnecessary components and electrical devices and shotgun style treatments in general. Unnecessary equipment adds further degrees of complexity to a closed system, and they create additional points of failure. Depending on the component this could be a water leak, introducing electricity to the tank, or just destabilizing a system that is accustom to certain conditions that end up changing when the equipment is removed from service.

I do believe that UV reduces the ability for desirable bacteria to spread through the tank just the same as it would prevent algae, bacteria, fungus or other susceptible pathogens from spreading through via water column. Obviously UV isn't going to distinguish between something you want and something you don't want in the tank.

Regardless, I always suggest sticking with what works for you and what you are comfortable with. With a few logical exceptions, there's no right or wrong way to run an aquarium as long as it works for you.

[cwilliams]

I don't have any inherent hate for UV but I don't believe in unnecessary components and electrical devices and shotgun style treatments in general. Unnecessary equipment adds further degrees of complexity to a closed system, and they create additional points of failure. Depending on the component this could be a water leak, introducing electricity to the tank, or just destabilizing a system that is accustom to certain conditions that end up changing when the equipment is removed from service.

I do believe that UV reduces the ability for desirable bacteria to spread through the tank just the same as it would prevent algae, bacteria, fungus or other susceptible pathogens from spreading through via water column. Obviously UV isn't going to distinguish between something you want and something you don't want in the tank.

Regardless, I always suggest sticking with what works for you and what you are comfortable with. With a few logical exceptions, there's no right or wrong way to run an aquarium as long as it works for you.

Very well said..

[Peter Gott]

I'm really glad to hear you figured it out! A bacterial bloom definitely seemed to fit the description you gave.

As far as UV sterilizers go, I believe it really depends on your school of thought when it comes to setting up your reef. Personally, I like to have a lot of plankton in the water column (as much as possible in an aquarium, which is admittedly much less than occurs naturaly) as this approaches a more natural environment, and many of a reef's inhabitants are suspension feeders. This comes with its own share of problems, though; for instance, one shouldn't half@ss this--if you want to have as much plankton in the water column as possible, you're going to have to create the means to get it there, like a deep sand bed, which must be set up and maintained properly to work, and a refugium, which often needs to be supplementarily fed phytoplankton (depending of course on the initial bioload of your system and your feeding schedule) for it to fully function as an actual refugium, and not simply a means of nutrient export via macroalage as refugiums have largely become, where the growth of prey organisms is a side benefit. Another school of thought which is very popular is the (to my mind) highly artificial environment created when stocking as minimally as possible, i.e. beginning with dry rock and dry sand and not having a lot of obligate suspension feeders in the environment, as they are frequently hitchikers anyhow. Note that I said obligate suspension feeders--a lot of our photosynthetic animals are suspension feeders also, but with this minimalist approach, people tend to either semi-starve their coral and let them do most of their feeding from the bacteria growing on the detritus formed from remnants of fish food and poop in the water column along with what is released naturally from their live rock and sand (if they have it) or feed their coral via adding food to the water column periodically and compensating for the resultant spikes in nutrient content by frequent water changes and heavy mechanical and/or chemical filtration. Again, this is not very natural, but of course neither is keeping a tiny piece of a reef in a glass box with electricity producing the photons and water motion that also energize the system. And then there are people who hybridize the two approaches and let what will grow and survive do so to the extent that it is able to on their own intentional additions of food to the water column. And of course this is oversimplified, and based on my own experience and observations in the hobby; most people are actually some combination of the three approaches in different parts. But people who tend to use the latter two approaches more as the framework to approaching their own systems wouldn't have any (or as much) problem with a UV sterilizer; whereas if your system is set up to maximize the amount of planktonic life present, a UV sterilizer would be counter-intuitive.

[cwilliams]

I'm really glad to hear you figured it out! A bacterial bloom definitely seemed to fit the description you gave.

As far as UV sterilizers go, I believe it really depends on your school of thought when it comes to setting up your reef. Personally, I like to have a lot of plankton in the water column (as much as possible in an aquarium, which is admittedly much less than occurs naturaly) as this approaches a more natural environment, and many of a reef's inhabitants are suspension feeders. This comes with its own share of problems, though; for instance, one shouldn't half@ss this--if you want to have as much plankton in the water column as possible, you're going to have to create the means to get it there, like a deep sand bed, which must be set up and maintained properly to work, and a refugium, which often needs to be supplementarily fed phytoplankton (depending of course on the initial bioload of your system and your feeding schedule) for it to fully function as an actual refugium, and not simply a means of nutrient export via macroalage as refugiums have largely become, where the growth of prey organisms is a side benefit. Another school of thought which is very popular is the (to my mind) highly artificial environment created when stocking as minimally as possible, i.e. beginning with dry rock and dry sand and not having a lot of obligate suspension feeders in the environment, as they are frequently hitchikers anyhow. Note that I said obligate suspension feeders--a lot of our photosynthetic animals are suspension feeders also, but with this minimalist approach, people tend to either semi-starve their coral and let them do most of their feeding from the bacteria growing on the detritus formed from remnants of fish food and poop in the water column along with what is released naturally from their live rock and sand (if they have it) or feed their coral via adding food to the water column periodically and compensating for the resultant spikes in nutrient content by frequent water changes and heavy mechanical and/or chemical filtration. Again, this is not very natural, but of course neither is keeping a tiny piece of a reef in a glass box with electricity producing the photons and water motion that also energize the system. And then there are people who hybridize the two approaches and let what will grow and survive do so to the extent that it is able to on their own intentional additions of food to the water column. And of course this is oversimplified, and based on my own experience and observations in the hobby; most people are actually some combination of the three approaches in different parts. But people who tend to use the latter two approaches more as the framework to approaching their own systems wouldn't have any (or as much) problem with a UV sterilizer; whereas if your system is set up to maximize the amount of planktonic life present, a UV sterilizer would be counter-intuitive.

I just don't get why UV sterilizers have such a bad rap according to most..Maybe there's a balance that can be met with using one..