Questions for Jerel

[TroyF]

One day (not now) we need to start a thread on UV's, RTN, bacterial levels, good and bad bacteria, how critters can actually feed, etc. I think it just depends on which school of thought you're coming from. The only place I hear negative things about UVs in on the hobby boards.

If you don't feel up to tackling this just ignore it.

I'm confused on this issue. Removing unwanted bacteria and parasites from our water makes perfect sense to me but then having healthy plankton and bacteria in our tank and water also makes sense to me. With so much emphasis put on having a healthy biotope complete with food chain I would have thought removing part of the chain would effect life throughout the tank. However, your tank illustrates an excellent example of a tank with UV. So what gives? How can animals that produce planktonic larvae proliferate in a tank with UV? Do animals that produce planktonic larvae actually proliferate in any tank with all the skimming and pumps we have. In your opinion what are the pros and cons of running a tank with UV? Do you feed your corals and if so what and how much? Does a UV effect the life in a sandbed?

I know there are differing opinions on this (and just about every other thing in this hobby), but I'm interested in your opinion.

Thanks Jerel.


:spook:

[Spanky]

Troy,
In a minute you'll realize why I opted the career choices that I did. Instead of teaching.

In closed systems you can in no way mimic nature. At best what you are trying to do is create a system of checks and balances that will allow you to maintain the animals/plants that you are trying to keep. You just don't have the dilution factor available to you. There are many things that can happen to throw off any one little part of the equation.
Yes there have been many on site bacteria level studies. However, these studies don't differentiate between good and bad, and unfortunately in closed systems the bad will always seem to dominate and cause you problems.

That said, animals have many different ways of feeding, some are just more efficient and beneficial to the animal than others. More bang for the buck.

UV will only affect the life actually floating around in the water (it will also oxidize some organics). So there is no way it can affect your sand bed.

Oops, got to run for now.
Quickly, we feed blender mush, have plenty of flow, and wouldn't run a system without one.
More later
Jerel

Chris, Mike, Horge, jump in here.

[Wrasse Man]

I am glad to see that I am not the only one who remembered that statement. I was thinking of bringing this up to Jerel today as well.

I am definately interested in seeing what comes of this thread. From day one of keeping reefs I was told 'UV is bad, it kills the free-floating critters that your corals feed on'. Then I find out that landescaper is using one that is probably fired by a dedicated hydro-electric plant, as well as 3 skimmers (if I recall correctly).
I did a search on another board using the term UV. I found that many people are very adament against it. One of the coral farmers from around the midwest said something to the effect that the only people who use UV are the ones who rip apart wild acro heads and call it aquaculture. Having had discussions with Jerel about many different topics, I wouldn't place him in this catagory.

I guess what I am saying is that historicaly this has been a pretty hot topic, and I would ask everyone to keep an open mind.

I don't want to put any pressure on Jerel to come up with another doctoral thesis, but I am very interested in hearing what he and others have to say.

See what happens when I have a candy bar for breakfast?

[Spanky]

OK guys

I've called out the troups.

This subject and all it involves, bacterial levels, feeding pathways, dissolved organics, virus, closed systems, etc
Is very involved.

More later,
Jerel

[gregt]

The arguments I've heard against UV have always been what's been mentioned above. That a sterilized environment is not good for the coral.

I've also heard that UV (especially in the amounts that Jerel uses) can kill phytoplankton, which are benefical food sources, and also are a source of waste when they die.

That is the basis of my not using UV, but it's not based on scientific data, just kind of a common sense approach that it seems like we don't want too sterile of an environment....

HTH,
Greg

[nisom88]

I was reading an interesting article (can't remember where) that was discussing the effect of pumps and powerheads on bacteria and phytoplankton. This article claimed that the impellers do a whole lot of damage to these free-floating organisms, perhaps not as much as UV, but that in order to truly support a population of free-floating organisms it is necessary to use piston-style pumps that lack impellers. Makes sense, I guess, but I can't imagine that impellers would do half the damage that UV's do. I don't know, I can see both sides of the argument, but it is obviously possible to succeed with UV looking at Jerel's tank.

[Junkzoo]

i use a UV on my FO,but not on my reef. i don't turn off my skimmer after adding phyto.myself and others do things partly from what we heard / read/ learned,and partly based on what we believe is correct. Jerel is a perfect example of having great success by doing what he believes to work .(i still think he takes a empty 10 gallon tank on a reef and sets it over the reef and takes a picture thru it ,heh heh )

Jerel's train runs on a track further out than Flaglers!LMAO
(a conch would know what that means )
sorry , Jerel all the pups have been spoken for,mebbe next time!LOL

Jeff (a conch in a prior life )

[SPC]

You mean Flaglers before 1929 or was it 32?
It seems to me what Jerel is saying is that he feeds heavy with a mush and therefore dosen't need the bacteria or plankton for his corals health. The amount of plankton that a closed system sees would be minimal and in fact is not enough to have a thriving tank by itself. The amount of damage that can be done by bad bacteria outweighs the benefit of the good. Now have I got that all screwed up?
Steve

[Spanky]

Ok, let's see. I've got about a 1/2 hr right now (I think I'll need a week) ROTFL
A open discussion is a whole lot better.

>That a sterilized environment is not good for the coral. <

There's not enough UV's in the world to create that sterile of an environment. What you're actually doing, is bring system levels back down (closer to NSW) and hopefully lowering pathogens and "irritants" at the same time. There are tons of things that can happen in closed systems to increase bacterial, viral, fungal levels and unfortunately most of the these happen without any warning.

>I've also heard that UV (especially in the amounts that Jerel uses) can kill phytoplankton, which are beneficial food sources, and also are a source of waste when they die<

Phytoplankton has been highly overrated in hobby systems. There's just not enough of it and not enough variety. Plus it's like for like, lower levels to begin with gives to lower waste (which is also a food source).

>in order to truly support a population of free-floating organisms it is necessary to use piston-style pumps that lack impellers<

If you can easily feed a higher quality food, why worry about phytoplankton? Imagine how many 3/4 empty shells you would have to eat to get the nutrition you need. When you could have had a steak.

>It seems to me what Jerel is saying is that he feeds heavy with a mush and therefore doesn't need the bacteria or plankton for his corals health. The amount of plankton that a closed system sees would be minimal and in fact is not enough to have a thriving tank by itself. The amount of damage that can be done by bad bacteria outweighs the benefit of the good. Now have I got that all screwed up<

NOPE Whew, thanks Steve.
You're exactly right. Including viral and fungal.
Keep in mind that heavy is also a relative term. It's actually about 1 tsp a day.
I can't imagine how big a refuge you would have to have to produce the amount of nutrition these guys need, if that's your only source of food. Even then particle for particle, they would have to eat so much more.

Jerel

Stuffs a moon jelly down Jeff's shorts.

[Junkzoo]

Jeff grins sheepishly

[Wrasse Man]

Isn't it interesting ow these threads degrade into Jerel abusing someone?
*secretly switches landescaper's coffee to decaf* buhahhah

[galleon]

Posted by Wrasse man

*secretly switches landescaper's coffee to decaf* buhahhah

no, no, no, thats not how you get back at Jerel... (grin)

*while looking at the sky and whistling subtley, Chris sneaks a Portuguese man'o'war tentacle into Jerel's wetsuit, which he so foolishly left hanging out to dry*.

Hey, at least he won't be focusing on seasickness
(big grin).

Yes Jerel, I am going to contribute, just trying to figure out how to word my $0.02 ...anybody got change for a dollar?
hehe,
Chris

[Spanky]

Chris sneaks a Portuguese man'o'war tentacle into Jerel's wetsuit

Funny you should mention that!
Looks like my email is on the fritz for some reason.

Troy, Scott, and all.
Did this answer your questions, or just make room for more?

Jerel

[galleon]

I think one key thing actually lies in how polytrophic corals/anemones are. They can easily and readily consume/catabolize (zooplanktonic) proteins. However, their protein catabolism has evolved to be restrictive in the presence of translocatable lipids and carbohydrates (glucose simplified by a factor of 6). This indicates a distinctive inclination towards the preservation of nitrogen, to which is kept in situ in coral tissue, thus is reutilized by the symbiont for the synthesis of amino acids (the building blocks of protein).

Also this plays on to what others in the hobby have been claiming in terms of feeding and light. Tropical reef corals and company evolved low protein catabolism because they reliably harbor photosynthetic symbionts. They are adapted to use translocatable photosynthetic products as a primary catabolic nutrition source. Therefore, the analogy of inverse lighting to food proportion is one sided in terms of efficiency (which does translate to general metabolic health of the organism in the long term), ie, more light = less food, but more food does not mean less light, due to an adaptive reliance on translocatable photosynthetic products.

Also, due to dilution (lack thereof), demographics, etc. you have a huge margin for stacking up pelagic degenerative components to your water (ie, organics, bacteria, etc, etc) versus what their concentrations and demographics would be in the wild. So it is not worth it, in my opinion, and those of many collegues (nudges Jerel, "wake up, thats your cue to nod") to have a little bit of material the coral *might* consume, yet a lot of other potentially degenerative materials ("a lot" relative to wild reef concentrations, due to dilutions and movements on wild reefs), when you could easily satisfy protein catabolism needs (with the presence of adequete photosynthetic nutrition) via quick feedings (and target feedings to non- symbiont hosting animals) similar to Jerel's.

[Doug1]

Ok I think I am getting this. Its a fairly large(relative) closed system, that emulates a particular biotope(caribean) that is skimmed well and UV sterilized, while at the same time fed easonably well. I really dont have an argument against that, it obviously is working for Jerel, However, before every new reef keeper runs out and tries to duplicate the success he is having, keep in mind that he has a worling knowledge of marine biology, reef ecology, and related disciplines. I doubt this is a method that came to him in a dream one night, and living where he does he has the opportunity to collect alot of his own specimens as I recall.
As I have often repeated there are many ways to accomplish the goal, and even the alleged leading scientists that are involved with the hobby disagree amongst them selves. I know most of the people asking questions are experienced reefers who have a sincere desire to understand the principals involved. That is a major goal of this board, to share knowledge and methodology. It is up to the individual to study and sort thru and decide what will work best for them. Always keep an open mind and strive to improve Unfortunatley there are never any guarentees