A "Natural" Reef? (Skimmerless w/ Macro)

[Vampyroteuthis]

Hello All,

I've been doing research for my first reef tank for about 6 months now, absorbing as much info as I possibly can, and have just finally started ordering parts for my new tank build. This is my first post on the forums, but I felt the subject may be better suited for the general discussion area than the 'New to the Hobby' section, since it's apparently not a typical type of build.

I had started planning a standard reef setup using a 55 gallon DT with a 20 gallon long sump (w/ the typical skimmer/refugium design). However, after a couple months of researching and planning, one of the things I noticed is that very few people had plants or macro algae in their display tanks, which is something that I had wanted to do since day one. It just seemed wrong to me that the majority of the plant life should be exiled to the refugium rather than integrated into the main display tank. So I started looking for other possibilities...

I have since discovered that there are of course some reefers out there who do incorporate macro into their main tanks, and quite successfully at that (including some of the locals here in the Plant & Macro forum). Additionally it seemed to me initially that having a quality protein skimmer was pretty much mandatory for a thriving reef, but I have since learned that there are also a number of people who maintain beautiful, thriving tanks without one.

This has given me new inspiration to attempt what I have wanted to do all along: create an environment that is closer to a natural ecosystem by using more plant life and less machinery. Basically I'd like to grow a moderate amount of macro in the display tank and skip the sump/skimmer/refugium entirely.

Just to add some additional details:
- Thinking of starting with 40-50 lbs live rock (don't want it too crowded, leaving some extra room for macro growth)
- Aragonite live sand, not DSB but maybe a little extra depth for macro roots
- T5 lighting
- Will be starting with "easy" corals, no SPS, being mindful of possible coral vs. macro wars
- Light livestock, just CUC and a few smaller fish (clown, royal gramma, goby/pistol shrimp pair, etc)


I would love some feedback on this idea from anyone who'd care to comment. Do any of you have experience with a tank like this, or know someone who has? Any advice, recommendations, things to be aware of? Please feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.

Thanks

(Added disclaimer: This is by no means just an attempt to cut costs, it's all about the concept of creating a more realistic enclosed ecosystem.)

 

[psteeleb]

there is a LFS in our area that runs a skimmerless system

and everyone run salt tanks without skimmers back in the 70s, we didnt have the higher ntensity lighting back then so you couldn't keep corals

so it's entirely posible it's just a mater of waste processing, a skimmer can make up for a lot of live rock, sand and just pure water volume. jsut keep you larger consumers/waste generators to a minimum

 

[Logzor]

I would plan on having a sump anyways, you'll still need a heater and other equipment to run your aquarium. Having that stuff hanging in the display just looks bad. This gives you the option to add a refugium and skimmer at a later point, if your macro display does not end up working out.

You can definitely run you aquarium without a skimmer, you'll just have to be mindful of your fish load and how much you're feeding.

I think the most tricky part will be competition between your macroalgae and more efficient/aggressive filamentous algae, bubble algae, and cyanobacteria.

I also suspect you may need to run lower degree kelvin bulbs, which isn't exactly the sexiest look to an aquarium.

I would keep doing research until you find a tank that is very similar to what you are trying to achieve. Get as much feedback as possible from that person.

 

[bigmikey]

+1 on using a sump anyways. Plenty of people go skimmerless its just keeping up on your water changes and other maintenance issues. You kinda need to be on point with it. Thats what keeps those tanks successful. Good luck hope it works for you. Keep on researching as well.

 

[Vampyroteuthis]

Thanks for the input guys, I will definitely still be doing more research before I'm actually ready to start the tank, but just wanted to try to get some feedback on it while putting my final plan together.

The sump is still an option, I haven't ruled it out entirely, but just felt that it may not really be necessary (aside from hiding the heater and maybe an ATO). Logzor has a good point about being able to add on later, but by that same logic could I not just add the sump itself in the future if needed? Although it would definitely be easier to do it at the start... still undecided on this one.

Water changes should not be an issue, I plan on diligently doing them as needed (about to order an RODI system from BRS). It seems that most people say to do them more frequently when running skimmerless, but on the other hand people with macro-heavy tanks seem to do them less frequently (due to maintaining lower nitrate levels I suppose?). Regardless, I plan to just keep a close eye on water conditions and do them as often as necessary.

The lighting details are one area that I definitely need more research on. From what I have read so far it seems like just a matter of finding a good mix for both corals and macro. I've seen several that use a mix of ATI Blue Plus/Aquablue Specials and Giesemann Midday, but I'll gladly accept any advice as far as lighting goes.


Just as a reference, one of the tanks that inspired me is tektite's:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1954203

He's got a beautiful tank that that's similar to what I want to do - skimmerless reef with corals, macro, and just a few fish for a light bioload. He does have a sump for his still...

 

[Arkayology]

Just use an algae turf scrubber if you want to go skimmerless.

 

[frankpayne32]

A lot of people incorrectly assume that skimming is unnatural. Similar processes do occur in the ocean. That would be like saying using a powerhead is unnatural even though wave motion does occur in the ocean. I've run tanks with and without skimmers and have seen many examples of each. The better looking tanks always run skimmers. It is definitely possible to forgo one but your water quality will almost assuredly be less than if you had one. I love your idea about doing both corals and macro algae as this is what you see in the ocean and there are a handful of amazing tanks out there that do both. Just be prepared to prune the algae religiously, not that that's a bad thing. There are some really beautiful macros out there that will help keep your water cleaner, with or without a skimmer. I also definitely recommend a sump. It seems like more work in the initial setup but it will make maintenance easier and your tank less cluttered.

 

[Wannabe29]

I'm still in the process of getting my tank set up but, I think you might be playing with fire when it comes to macros...especially if this is your first tank. One of the reasons that macros don't out compete corals on a reef is that there are huge numbers of grazers to help keep the reef clean. Another reason might be that corals in the wild grow much faster than corals in home aquariums. Watch "Blue Planet," that Discovery Channel series about the ocean. They have an episode in the series dedicated to reef systems. I think I remember hearing something to the effect that SPS corals in the wild can put on more than a foot of outward growth a year. Whatever the number was, it was amazing to hear it, given the rates that people here report in their tanks.

What's the point of that? Combine the constant grazing with pretty high levels of coral growth and you get a situation where macro algae are out competed for light. Plus, the ocean dilutes all of those compounds necessary for algae growth.

Now, put the algae in a tank without constant grazing pressure and slow-growing corals PLUS a more concentrated source of nutrients and you have a recipe for a system that's going to need a LOT of work to keep it up and running.

Again...I'm not talking from experience. I'm just thinking in terms of what I know (or think I know) about the ocean and what goes on in an aquarium. I'm sure it can be done. I can't imagine it being an easy thing to do, though.

Personally, I'm going with a skimmer and no macro in the DT. I just don't want to deal with the potential of my tank being overrun by an algae that I thought looked cool when it was in the spot I expected it to stay.

 

[frankpayne32]

I'm still in the process of getting my tank set up but, I think you might be playing with fire when it comes to macros...especially if this is your first tank. One of the reasons that macros don't out compete corals on a reef is that there are huge numbers of grazers to help keep the reef clean. Another reason might be that corals in the wild grow much faster than corals in home aquariums. Watch "Blue Planet," that Discovery Channel series about the ocean. They have an episode in the series dedicated to reef systems. I think I remember hearing something to the effect that SPS corals in the wild can put on more than a foot of outward growth a year. Whatever the number was, it was amazing to hear it, given the rates that people here report in their tanks.

What's the point of that? Combine the constant grazing with pretty high levels of coral growth and you get a situation where macro algae are out competed for light. Plus, the ocean dilutes all of those compounds necessary for algae growth.

Now, put the algae in a tank without constant grazing pressure and slow-growing corals PLUS a more concentrated source of nutrients and you have a recipe for a system that's going to need a LOT of work to keep it up and running.

Again...I'm not talking from experience. I'm just thinking in terms of what I know (or think I know) about the ocean and what goes on in an aquarium. I'm sure it can be done. I can't imagine it being an easy thing to do, though.

Personally, I'm going with a skimmer and no macro in the DT. I just don't want to deal with the potential of my tank being overrun by an algae that I thought looked cool when it was in the spot I expected it to stay.

You've got some good points but they're not completely accurate. A lot of people do report those levels of growth in their corals in captivity. My monti cap easily grows 1" a month (a foot a year) if not slightly more. But, more importantly, coral reefs would be more accurately called "algae reefs" as the algal biomass is greater than the corals. But you are right that the algae is kept in check by grazers. But this is easily accomplished in captivity too. My display has no visible algae besides coralline. Now if I removed all the grazers (snails, tangs, etc.) I know that wouldn't be the case. People have accomplished what the OP hopes to and some have done it beautifully. Pruning the macros will just be needed and I think it would more easily be accomplished with a skimmer and various other filtration methods.

 

[Vampyroteuthis]

Thanks for contributing guys, I'm happy to get as many comments as possible as I really just wanted to pick your collective brains as far as this idea goes. I really would like to make this tank happen but also want to educate myself as much as possible beforehand since I know it is likely going to be trickier than a "cookie-cutter" setup.

It's not so much that I think of skimming as 'unnatural', if you think about it really keeping any type of tank at all is an exercise in sustaining a technically artificial environment. I just like the idea of a more complete 'circle-of-life' kind of ecosystem, where the macro is able to benefit from the excess nutrients in the water rather than just sucking everything out with a skimmer. I'm also hoping to grow a healthy in-tank pod population, really just wanting to maximize the biodiversity as much as possible, rather than just having a "show tank" for corals (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I am well aware that this will involve regular periodic trimming to keep the macros in check, which also becomes a primary method of nutrient export as well. And I plan on only keeping macros that will be easier to keep a handle on as far as that goes (the only Caluerpa I'm even considering so far is the Prolifera, which looks nice and seems to be relatively safe as far as 'sexual' outbreaks go).

I did briefly look into the algae turf scrubbers, but I think that's a little more hardcore than I want to get into, at least for now. Everyone seems to be saying to keep the sump so far, so I may still do that (with fuge only).

Again, thanks for the comments guys, feel free to keep them coming.

 

[frankpayne32]

It's not so much that I think of skimming as 'unnatural', if you think about it really keeping any type of tank at all is an exercise in sustaining a technically artificial environment. I just like the idea of a more complete 'circle-of-life' kind of ecosystem, where the macro is able to benefit from the excess nutrients in the water rather than just sucking everything out with a skimmer. I'm also hoping to grow a healthy in-tank pod population, really just wanting to maximize the biodiversity as much as possible, rather than just having a "show tank" for corals (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I hear ya, but those are some common misconceptions. First, unless you get a super high end expensive skimmer you will almost definitely have enough nutrients to grow macros, with or without a skimmer. Second, a lot of people that choose not to use skimmers claim that it limits their biodiversity like you are worried about by destroying pods, etc. The vast majority of the pods and other critters in your tank are not free swimming but generally stick to rock, sand, and algae. So while you may lose the odd pod to the skimmer it won't affect your biodiversity any more than a return or circulation pump. I'm not trying to push a skimmer on you too much though. I think you could be successful with or without it. I just think you're tank will be cleaner and less maintenance with one.

 

[Reefahholic]

With the technology we have, why go sump and skimmerless?

That's like buying a car without seats and tires. Not ideal at all.

Good luck though, not trying to be negative, but don't understand. Skimmers and sumps are great things that make life in the saltwater world a lot easier!

 

[thegrun]

One of the other advantages of using a skimmer is increased oxygen in the water and higher Ph.

 

[Vampyroteuthis]

I have nothing against technology per se, I actually work in the IT industry so I'm a professional technology geek by trade. I don't plan on scrimping on any of the components that I do buy, I'm just still not 100% sold on the skimmer. My BRS RODI unit has shippied, and I'm probably going to order my Apex controller tonight

It's just that in all of my research thus far I have gotten the impression that protein skimmers are most essential for environments where maintaining pristine water is critical. If I were going for an SPS tank with tons of flow and super-polished and aerated water, then I would absolutely get a skimmer. Perhaps that is a misconception as well, and I'm sure having a skimmer will give you cleaner water in any scenario, but for what I'm wanting to do I'm just not convinced that it's necessary. I do still intend to closely monitor water quality and keep up with PWC's, etc.

For lack of a better term, I guess what I had in mind is a little bit more of a 'dirtier' tank (relatively speaking, of course). Maybe more of a tidal-reef-lagoon type of environment, nutrient-rich and crawling with critters, more moderate water flow, and with extra macro presence.

Then again I may be completely misguided in thinking of it in those terms. I am admittedly a newbie in this field, but that's why I'm here asking for input

At this point I am thinking I'll most likely keep the sump as part of the design, the more I think about it there are only pros and not really any cons, and the general consensus seems to agree so far. Also I imagine I could probably start out skimmerless and see how it goes, and still have the option to add one at any point down the road if I felt like I needed to.

Once again, thanks for the input all. I'd be especially interested in hearing from anyone who has any experience with a tank similar to what I am (perhaps poorly) trying to describe.

 

[chilwil84]

remember to be extra careful with aggressive growing macros like many of the caliperas. many times rocks that have a nice macro growing may have some smaller invasive macros with it.

 

[Vampyroteuthis]

remember to be extra careful with aggressive growing macros like many of the caliperas. many times rocks that have a nice macro growing may have some smaller invasive macros with it.

Yes, i have read a lot of horror stories about Caulerpa, but it seems some varieties are not as prone causing problems as others. I may try some of the Prolifera, it seems to be one of the safer ones...

 

[BlueCorn]

How is skimmerless more "natural?"

Ever watch the foam wash up on the beach?

 

[Vampyroteuthis]

How is skimmerless more "natural?"

Ever watch the foam wash up on the beach?

I live near the coast in Florida, so yes I have seen plenty of foam at the beach

I guess my answer to your question would be that I will be depending more on the macroalgae for nutrient export rather than a skimmer, so focusing more on extra biological filtration as opposed to mechanical?

From what I have read this also seems to encourage a healthy amount of biodiversity in the tank as well (sponges, feather dusters, pods and other "bugs", etc).

 

[dzhuo]

The idea of running a "natural" tank is a very attractive idea on paper. The reality is this approach is simply not realistic and hard to implement (especially if you are new to the hobby). If you have in the hobby long enough, you have seen the DSB evolution. It's more or less base on the similar natural approach where you set up a 6" sandbed, populate it with lots of micro-fungas using live sand, and the sandbed will then maintain your water quality lowering N & P; not to mention the constant supply of live food the sandbed would generate. There are still lots of people using this methodology and have good success but far more people are realizing most of the time it just doesn't work as described. The bottom line is building such a natural system as you described is next to impossible and relying on it as the sole filtration scheme is risky.

I have no idea why people like to encourage sponge, feather dusters, etc to grow as well since they don't "filter" the water at all and are net N & P producers competing for food and space with corals we keep. In terms of filtration capability, sponges for example, are worse than fish.

Having said that, if you are intended to keep only "starter corals" and are willing to devote a large section of your main tank and sump for dense macro algae grow, I think you would have some success.

 

[mrbncal]

^^

A "sponges" food includes bacteria and organic macromolecules, protozoa, unicellular algae, organic detritus, etc. Depending on the species, some larger plankton as well. Some of us grow them because they are cool and we like watching them.

For the OP's topic:
I have no idea why some people choose to spend hundreds of dollars on frags and grow them in a "sterile" looking display tank, but they do it and it makes them happy. I dont really care. This is a hobby. It shouldn't cause stress.

There are so many theories and ideas on how to operate small reef tanks that to choose one and say its the best way is impossible. Someone, somewhere has done it. Just stick to the basics:

Good live rock for your bacterial filtration. Good strong lighting. Good water movement. And, very important, give it time to develop. When a person gets in a rush, that person is setting himself up for failure. The link you showed us in an earlier post from the guy with the skimmerless macro tank is proof enough. Heres another:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1905760

My 75 gallon tank has been skimmerless for about three years now. I started this hobby 11 or 12 years ago. I will never go back to using a skimmer. I have everything from "starter" corals to Acros, LPS, challices, anenomes, different colored sponges, dusters of all types and sizes, tunicates and gorgonians (not a starter coral). Things grow so well I give frags of everything away. And dont let me forget the fish, flasher and leopard wrasses, yellow tang, anthias, clownfish and a blue stripe pipefish that has reached adult size but I have never seen it eat what i feed.

So yes, as you have discovered, a person can have a succesful reef tank without a skimmer. But I would always rather have a sump.

( PS: I dont want to argue, this is just my 2 cents. )