i run one 24/7. going on 3 years now and not one disease in tank . no ick nada
I've also run tanks that long and longer with and without a UV and honestly disease and parasites haven't been an issue. I believe that has a lot more to do with not adding new fish and plants without proper QT'ing and or even treating. Had I not already owned a UV I wouldn't have bought one for the 220. I run several other tanks and none have UV's. So I think it's just a matter of if you want one or not but you can have a healthy disease and parasite free tank just as easily without one. If someone wants one then get one by all means but can a healthy tank be run without one.... absolutely. It's just a matter of opinion.
With $10,000 with of fish in one tank I will take all the insurance I can get and for the sake of $200 it was worth every cent to me Ick is something I haven't seen since the 80s since using uv Just because you haven't had a problem doesn't me you won't have a problem Nearly every reef tank I know runs a UV and they have for many years why because of the high light output they need and a uv helps to cut down on the green algueYou can't use copper based anything in planted tanks either. I keep a lot of cichlids that often get small wounds and they heal in a tank with excellent water quality. I also didn't say I don't think they don't do anything nor do I feel I need them for insurance but as we have had this discussion before it's not worth going into it again as you've made your opinions loud and clear before. In order for someone to get a feel for something, in this instance UV's, they should hear opinions, which is what they all are, opinions, from those who have used them so they can make a decision for themselves whether it is a piece of equipment they want to use. This isn't a matter of anyone being right or wrong. I started using them on my reef tanks starting in the 80's but never used one on my freshwater tanks since the 70's. I did run them on my ponds for a few years but found my ponds can run just as successfully without them and we have expensive imported koi. So my entire point is you can successfully run a healthy tank without a UV. But if a person thinks they need insurance then there is no reason they shouldn't buy one either. As I said in my first post this is a highly debatable question that you'll get a variety of answers to. Sorry OP that this thread got off target from your original question since you already have a UV on your filter.
I've just received a canister filter with a UV in it. I ordered one without as a) I'm not convinced and b) er, I have one.
The internal uv I have in the tropical fw tank is 24w (might be overkill) as the tank is 150 gal. The filter guide says the canister UV is 5w - the filter says it is rated for marine so 5w seems a bit low?
I don't mind the UV as insurance but I'm not really sold on UV going into canister filters. I know the company will have done their homework but it seems to me the UV requires a certain flow rate and the canister requires a certain flow rate. I don't get the logic, I can only assume someone is asking for them as I really had to be careful not to order one by mistake (but got one anyway it seems, lol).
I'm interested if the logic of running uv inside a canister filter makes sense?
I guess the company has put the UV in the filter to hide it out if the way. Looking at the guide book it looks like the UV is in a separate housing, I assume it self regulates flow but hope to set it up and running on the weekend.