BB update & UV question

[MGB]

I'm planning on getting my 160 gal set up this summer, primarily for sps's. After much reading on this website I think I'm convinced to go BB, I have a 50 gal BB that's been running for about 4 months and has been doing great, however it mainly contains realitively hardier corals.

My question is how do BB users feel about thier systems after they've matured 1 year +, are there any noticable problems or pitfalls being encountered. I know some people are reluctant to post about problems with BB, because of the "I told you so" crowd, however it would be beneficial to many, if not the majority, to know how BB tanks are progressing.

My other question is, UV or not. Again I've been going backwards and forwards on this one, is there any concensus out there. Are the benefits really making that much of a difference on peoples tanks, or is it just another case of "more bells and whistles" the better.

Any thoughts appriciated. MGB

[Weatherman]

I’m very happy with my 180g bare-bottom tank. The sand bed was removed on April 1, 2005.

In spite of having what would be considered an under-powered skimmer for a 180 (I use a EuroReef ES5-3), I’ve never had measurable levels of nitrate in the tank. The cutting board gets covered in coralline fairly quickly so it soon takes on a mottled appearance. With three 6100 Tunze Streams and a loose rock structure, there’s plenty of flow to keep light detritus in suspension. About the only thing I have to siphon out are little piles of sand created by my urchins.

If I ever had problems with elevated nitrate I might consider using a remote sand bed, but I’d never put sand in the main display again. It was a miserable 14-hour ordeal for both me and my critters the day the sand bed was removed.

The tank has survived a couple of close calls since going bare-bottom. Water was stagnant for five hours as Hurricane Wilma blew through, and it was supercharged with nutrients when I had a simultaneous urchin, snail and clam spawn over the Thanksgiving weekend last year. No significant impact was noted from either event.


As for UV, if I had a large, dynamic fish population I might use it. Otherwise, no.

[G-money]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7259328#post7259328 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MGB
My question is how do BB users feel about thier systems after they've matured 1 year +, are there any noticable problems or pitfalls being encountered.

I would say that my tank only improved with age. I still went through a minor bubble algae plague for about the first year, but now I'm at the 20 month point and couldn't imagine being more satisfied.


My other question is, UV or not. Again I've been going backwards and forwards on this one, is there any concensus out there. Are the benefits really making that much of a difference on peoples tanks, or is it just another case of "more bells and whistles" the better.

I think UV is not a must-have. But it is a useful tool and I don't regret adding one to my tank. Not necessary though, but if you already have all the other essential equipment you want, a quality UV is a good "next have". But if there's a "better skimmer" you want or more Tunzes or a closed loop or something, it's more important IMO to have the lighting, skimming and water movement desired first. UV comes just about last.

[shelburn61]

A lot of BB people are having problems with nutrient deficiency and intense light bleaching their corals, but I don't think this is a reason not to go BB unless you like sand. Any method will work as long as you do it right and know how to avoid the pitfalls.

I don't think I will ever put a DSB in the display, but I like having an ssb and I think sand has some benefits. Just my take.

Everything I have read indicates you would be better off with ozone than UV if water quality is your goal.

[MiddletonMark]

I went BB in late June 2004, now a couple months away from two years.

IMO, the first 9-12 months of the system settling into BB were a learning process, getting BB working right, figuring the proper feeding/maintenance for my equip/tank/livestock to get things nutrient poor, but well fed. After about a year, IMO, the tank really took off for 6 months. Things were stable, I was devoted to the tank - and I couldn't be happier with growth/color.

Recently I've slacked a bit on maintenance, skimmer cleaning, and have fed heavier - and while the corals do well, IMO I can tell I haven't been as devoted [minor algae growth on a few places for the first time in over a year] - still quite happy with growth/color/results ... and know why that's appeared [laziness ... less w/c, less skimmer/injector cleaning, etc].

Having said all that - once the tank got `long-term stable' with BB it has been a rewarding system to run IMO. Overall color has been quite good, tank maintenance fairly easy, and with few problems.

I also feel like I've been pretty lucky overall, and perhaps have avoided potential problems accidentally. Wouldn't be the first time.

As for UV - it's a useful tool, like mentioned. I'd also rank it below good light/flow/skimming/etc ... useful, but not mandatory.

[REEF-DADDY]

I can say this for UV:

I've added over 20 non QT'd fish to my tank. (I only keep about 10, I lost the first group in a catastrphoic crash). I've also added about 8 non QT'd fish to my fathers tank. Non one parasite or algea issue in either tank. We both run large UV's 114w on my 280 and 36w on his 90. Before UV I always had ich, could not shake it. I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans as far as the corals are concerned but I would never run a tank without one.

P.S. I am not advocating that you don't QT. IME fish do better in the water quality of my display vice a small QT tank.

[tony13]

REEF-DADDY
Which UV are you using and which ones you recommend.

[REEF-DADDY]

I use the aqua UV with wiper, the wiper is important because they have to be clean to work. If you have to take it apart once a month I doubt it will happen often. Emperor also makes good units but I had a hard time justifying the extra money. The real key is getting one big enough. 60-80 watts would be great for a 160.

[raynist]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7262559#post7262559 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tony13
REEF-DADDY
Which UV are you using and which ones you recommend.

I run 2 UV's on my 180, both of them 25w. I have had no ich since. I don't think they help the corals though.

BTW Tony, nice Shiba, looks just like my female.

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/90957Buki.JPG

---Ray

[tony13]

raynist, very cute. How old is she? Ours is just over a year, there's nothing that compares to the personality of the Shiba Inu. Here's our's crashed out after playing hard.
Oh yea about the UV, Do you think a single 25w or 40w would help out. They get expensive after that and I think I would go with ozone then.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c307/tonyhibert13/IMG_1182.jpg

[raynist]

She is going to be 9 next week. The male in my avatar is 8. There are a couple more pics in my gallery.

I have 50w in my 180. I think a 40w would have been sufficient.

I have had ick problems in the past.

--Ray

[tony13]

Those pictures just make me smile. We kicked around the idea of getting another, it would have to be a female because to males would fight?? The one is the king of the house how bad is having two?

[raynist]

I could not imagine only having one. They play so well together, nonstop when they were younger. They sleep next to each other all the time. The male rules the house although the female will kick his but when it comes to food. It is so much fun to watch them chasing/wrestling with each other.

We bought the male from a breeder and someone gave the female to us.

--Ray

[asnatlas]

What about Ozone ?? From what I read they both do "about" the same thing... I am in the process of setting up a 600gal display (850gal total) that will be using ozone rather then UV...

[REEF-DADDY]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7266152#post7266152 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by asnatlas
What about Ozone ?? From what I read they both do "about" the same thing... I am in the process of setting up a 600gal display (850gal total) that will be using ozone rather then UV...

From what I've read it seems that it would take alot of ozone to kill ich and the like, a bit more than most of us like to use for water clarity. I guess if you run it 24/7 to really push orp it would work to some extent. My next adventure is going to be ozone, but theres a ton of research to do.......

[glassbox-design]

IIRC with UV's there is also the benefit of orthophosphate.

there are some discussions on here on the breakdown/changing of po4.

eric&&flint