20G of Chaetomorpha vs. Skimmer

[BeanAnimal]

It is based on the comment that without a skimmer your tank will crash in the long run. Since several people have not used skimmers for years I would say this statement if false. Myth busted.

IME with not using skimmers I have had good succsess.

Yes, but you need some type of export for the compounds that would otherwise be skimmed out. There are certainly other methods of export, but in general most require skimming. Most of the "experts" in the field are all on record as saying that skimming is the favored means of export.

The nutrients are exported through the use of macro alagaes mostly. Some of the nitrates are consumed by the bacteria in the rock (the rock was treated in a way to maximize this with a prolonged cooking period followed by being fed with pure ammonia and vodka to stimulate the anaerobic growth). Of course some amount is also absorbed by the corals and used for growth but if I understand correctly it is minimal.

The macro alone is not capable of exporting what a skimmer would export. Water changes will help, but dilution and removal are two different balls of wax. And many who subscibe to similar methods also subscribe to frequent "rock cooking". That is a means of export

Apparently with the amounts and types of algaes I am using in conjunction with the other natural elements in the tank, there is nothing for it to pull. It does pull some but not enough to have to empty the collection cup more then once a month, even then it is not full.

I would submit that the skimmer is not set up properly or capable of skimming the tougher (more soluble) compounds.

Refugium sizes...

That was my point. Steve Tyree appears to contend that much larger refugia are needed to accommodate the volume of export needed. It was in juxtaposition to your listed sizes. Just food for thought.

You said it not me. I wouldn't say handful of macro, my refugiums are prtty much a thick green forest. I also keep some macro in the tank which you can see in the pictures. It's in the tank cuz I think it is pretty to look at. I pruin the macro pretty regularly. Couple handfuls a week. It grows back without worry. It is why I prefer the faster growing species of macro like prolifera and taxifloria to the more commonly used chaetomorpha. JMO

And that was my point. Most of us have just that, a modest refugium with a mud or similar substrate and we MUST do water changes and skim to keep the water quality in check. I also prune my macro regularly and still must do water changes and skim heavily on a 75G display.

Thank you for your kind reply. Your opinions are surely valued. Some of us may see things very differently... but in the end (as you mention) we are all after the same thing. While I may not agree with the methodology, I do take you at your word that you maintain thriving systems.

Enjoy!

 

[wshive]

I think this is an issue of different philosophies. There's no question that a skimmer is probably the most effective single piece of filtration equipment you can use. Perhaps most important is its role as a FAIL SAFE. Should something large die while you're away, it's probably your best safeguard against a tank crash. (For the record, I am currently using one for this very reason.)

At the same time, skimmers use additional electricity, generate noise, and heat that, for many of us, require chillers to then take out. These inherent costs can take a toll, both intially and operationally. And there is something to be said about the natural, GREENER, approach, esp w/ global warming these days. Personally, I run a relatively low power setup of which I already cringe at the extra electricity I'm using (probably an average of 220w, 24/7).

From my own experience:

I have a 180 FOWLR w/ a 60g sump. Very light on the LR, about 100lbs. I just recently set up my skimmer, but for the six months before, I was going completely skimmerless. It was a completely natural set up, no bio balls, carbon, reactors, nothing, except for chaeto for nutrient export. My stocking list was/is:

6" Naso tang
6" Dog-faced puffer
5" Sohal tang
5" Blue-Throat trigger
4" Blue-Faced angel
4" Blue-spotted grouper
14" Snowflake eel

Somewhere in those six months, I had traded in a large niger trigger for the naso tang, but other than that, those were the fish I had. Every day, I fed four or five (yes, lots) tablespoons of a mixture of Formula 1, 2, and Spectrum pellets as well as a cube of Formual 1 or 2 every other day for the grouper (though he does eat pellets). I also offered a fair amount of nori every day for the tangs.

I tested every month or so and at no time did my tests read positive for ammonia, nitrites, or nitrates. I also had minimal cyano and hair algae growth. So with essentially 100lbs. of LR and chaeto as nutrient export, and that's it, I ran a pretty clean tank with 0's across the board for six months.

My point is that with testing, you can set up an effective low energy, non-equipment intensive, SKIMMERLESS tank. You obviously have to be aware that it is more susceptible to a crash, but in terms of daily filtration, a relatively little amount of LR with properly set up fuge for macro nutrient export is all that is needed to keep an appropriately stocked tank operating within normal parameters. I don't believe my tank set up in this way would have crashed in the long run if I were to maintain my stocking levels. (Obviously in my case some of the fish in my stocking list can get quite large but then I would consider my tank heavily stocked, thus inappropriate for this "greener" method.) Also, remember this... A well skimmed tank is removing organics before they have time to break down and cycle. It won't have anywhere near the population of bacteria a skimmerless tank will have, so in this sense, a skimmerless tank is far better at cycling through waste than the same tank running with a skimmer.

 

[BeanAnimal]

And there is something to be said about the natural, GREENER, approach, esp w/ global warming these days.

Umm the natural "greener" thing to do would be to shut down the whole system... Global Warming... bah! If it is the truth, then we all need to shut down our aquariums!

 

[kysard1]

Think about this:

You can run a tank for months, years even without a skimmer and not crash.

You can put a skimmer on that tank for a week, then dump the skimmate back into the tank and the tank will crash.

Why? Because a skimmer largely is removing/killing beneficial then it rots in the collection cup.

What does this experiment tell us ?

 

[BeanAnimal]

It tells us very little.

You can live for years at 480 pounds.
If I do liposuction and take all the fat out, leave it on the counter and let it rot, feeding it to you will kill you. What does this epxeriment tell us?

 

[kysard1]

if a skimmer was only removing pollutants adding the skimmate back wouldn't hurt the tank. It would just put the tank back to where it was a week prior w/out the skimmer.

This experiment proves that the skimmer is removing plankton. Which if left in the water column is a safe holding form of "nutrients".

Why is a natural reef so nutrient poor as measureable NO3 and Phos? Its all tied up in plankton.

Take 50 gallons of pristine water from the great barrier reef and run it thru a BK skimmer. You will get a cups full of skimmate as the skimmer breaks down the plankton.

 

[BeanAnimal]

1) Who in the world said the skimmer was only removing pollutants?

2) Even if it did ONLY remove pollutants, they could still react with one another when concentrated in the collection cup. Pollutants can still oxidize in the air and can still rot. So NO taking them out and pouring them in are certainly not the same thing.

3) The experiment proves nothing.

4) Your tank and a natural reef are two very different things. Don't be fooled by thinking they are the same. The worlds oceans are a much larger nutrient sink than the rock and "mud" in your tank.. .plankton or no plankton. The worlds oceans and your tank are very different in many aspects.

5) Who said that "pristine water" from the ocean did not contain organics or living organisms and would therefore produce no skimmate?

I am not sure what point you are tying to make, but your kind of off in left field... Skimmers are a very valid and efficient means of nutrient export. They have pros and cons. You MUST export nutrients from your system somehow. Period.

And peeing takes water out of your system, not just toxins.

Your example is not relevant with regard to the conversation.

Nobody said that a skimmer ONLY removes bad things. The point is that it DOES remove a LOT of the BAD stuff.

 

[kysard1]

Heaven forbid anyone question the Berlin Method on RC.

Look my argument is the water of the Great Barrier Reef is our goal. If a skimmer would pull "stuff" out of that water there is room for improvement.

Skimmers are a necessary evil with todays technology, nothing more. One day hopefully we will be able to do better.

 

[BeanAnimal]

There is no problem at all questioning the berlin method. You did not pose a question or an alternative. You simply stated:

IF YOU DONT SKIM THE SYSTEM WILL SURVIVE LONGER THAN IF YOU DO SKIM AND POUR THE SKIMMATE BACK INTO THE TANK.

You used that logic to portray the skimmer as a bad thing and a skimmerless system as a good thing. OK So far so good, we will take your logic at face value. The question is, what is the alternative?

We import a LOT of nutrients into our small system. Our systems are only a tiny fraction of the ecosystem we are trying to mimic. We must deal with the buildup of those nutrients to keep our water clean enough to support healthy life.

Are you sure that the water of the great barrier reef is the goal? Remember we don't have the ocean in a glass cube, we have something that barely resembles PART of the ocean

 

[kysard1]

Yes my 25 year goal with reef keeping is to duplicate the great barrier reef as much as possible. I hope there are advancements beyond the Berlin Method by then.


The OPer is setting up an LPS/Softie tank.

I ran an LPS/Softie tank without a skimmer for years with no skimmer and a large refugium. Growth and health was incredible, got better when I removed the skimmer.

I just can't understand why someone would want to fool with a skimmer for softies.

I agree for SPS there isn't a good alternative, but why complicate things if it isn't needed?

 

[BeanAnimal]

You still have to export the nutrients somehow. Water changes, carbon, mechanical filtration, plenums, etc, can all be used in conjunction with or as an alternative to skimming. Each has pros and cons and is more or less applicable to certain situations. In other words, you must export enough waste to keep the water healthy.

Your gaol may be "the great barrier reef" but as I mentioned, your tank is NOT the great barrier reef. So the water chemistry and components do not match, nor do they need to The reality is that our little habitats are vastly different ecosystems than the oceans. We have much different chemical and physical properties and things just don't behave the same.

The most basic example is the fact that certain species just don't live in captivity, even if we mimic their real habitat in every way that we can think of.

You tank getting "better" without a skimmer is pure anecdote. My LPS/softie dominated tank got MUCH better when I added a skimmer. That too is anecdote

 

[davidryder]

There are several folks here at RC not using a skimmer, including myself. Keep your flow high, bioload low, and macro population high. It doesn't work for every setup but IME/O a skimmer isn't always necessary.

 

[rishma]

Because a skimmer largely is removing/killing beneficial then it rots in the collection cup.

I can certainly appreciate those arguments that say a skimmer is not necessary. Nutrient export is necessary and there are many ways to accomplish it. I have seen some great skimmerless tanks (but never had one myself).

However, I totally object to the nonsense stated above. Are you implying that your tank is teeming with plankton that a skimmer would remove and thereby harm the tank? Surely not.

It is true that real reefs/oceans are largely nutrient banked, significantly by plankton. This is not the case in our tiny tanks. Is there some plankton? Sure! but we are not talking about the Great Barrier. If your tank is nutient banked, you are just waiting for a crash.

It tells us very little.

You can live for years at 480 pounds.
If I do liposuction and take all the fat out, leave it on the counter and let it rot, feeding it to you will kill you. What does this epxeriment tell us

:lol: :lol: :lol: