Back into it!

[jtroutt19]

I unfortunately had to put this hobby on hold 5 years ago when I purchased my house. I had a really nice 75gal with canopy. Neptune controller. The thing was prolly my favorite thing I’ve ever owned.

Fast forward to now and by the end of the year I will have another one. I see some things have changed in the few years I’ve been away. Seems the hobby in my area has dwindled a little bit.

I have a perfect spot in the house where i can plumb everything into my garage. Wife told me the only way i can do one is if i stock it with fish and some bigger fish. I was excited when she said this cause now thats basically permission for a 125 or larger!!

I see some are running without skimmers these days. How did that come to pass? Anyway super excited to be jumping back in. Figured i would come say hi.

 

[Dustin07]

My 40g tank I ran with basically zero filtration. just a lot of rock, good lights, and water flow. When I moved up to the 425 liter it came with a skimmer, reef mat, and macro reactor. that sprung a leak, so now I have a Mariner 100 (about 130gallons total). I'm running 2 nero power heads in the tank, then two exit tubes from the return pump giving me basically 4 points of "flow" in the main tank. The sump has 2 socks. I'm not using the macro reactor, I do have a skimmer in it, but I'm on the fence to as whether or not I actually need it. Generally, this tank is similar to my last one now with very little filteration but a good amount of rock and flow.

I was super coral heavy before and my wife was the one who kept wanting to add more and more fish. I'm glad I listened to her because the bioload was great for the corals and the activity of the fish really made the tank come alive!

 

[griss]

Welcome back. @Timfish can provide a ton on knowledge on running skimmerless.

 

[Timfish]

It came to pass because originally no one used skimmers. Lee Chin Eng had corals grwoing and clowns spawning with just air pumps and he pointed out that corals are the filtrtation. Research has since supported this concept showing they have a high demand for nitrogen and phosphorus. Unfortunately assumptions were made and promulated that ignored what was actually happening in reefs in the wild. The insistance on reducing PO4 to very low levels being one that killed a lot of corals as they have a high demand and in the wild upwelling supplies them with up to .3 mg/l, indeed, looking at teh distribution of PO4 in the oceans there's a diffusion gradient with the lowest levels not where there's phytoplankton in the open ocean but where there's coral sucking it up. Also ignored was the roles of particulate phosphorus and dissolved organic phosphorus and how they might compensate if PO4 levels are low.

What I find concerning about the continued use of skimmers is the greater understanding we now have of the importance of having proper microbial balance to maintain the health of organisms and ecosystems. Skimmers can only selectively remove those microbes that have hydrophobic qualities leaving those that have hydrophillic properties. This constant selective removal might have some short term benefit by reducing overall microbial counts but with all the research showing disrupted microbiomes have long term problems ranging from chronic to acute I see skimmers as bane to sustainability.

 

[jtroutt19]

It came to pass because originally no one used skimmers. Lee Chin Eng had corals grwoing and clowns spawning with just air pumps and he pointed out that corals are the filtrtation. Research has since supported this concept showing they have a high demand for nitrogen and phosphorus. Unfortunately assumptions were made and promulated that ignored what was actually happening in reefs in the wild. The insistance on reducing PO4 to very low levels being one that killed a lot of corals as they have a high demand and in the wild upwelling supplies them with up to .3 mg/l, indeed, looking at teh distribution of PO4 in the oceans there's a diffusion gradient with the lowest levels not where there's phytoplankton in the open ocean but where there's coral sucking it up. Also ignored was the roles of particulate phosphorus and dissolved organic phosphorus and how they might compensate if PO4 levels are low.

What I find concerning about the continued use of skimmers is the greater understanding we now have of the importance of having proper microbial balance to maintain the health of organisms and ecosystems. Skimmers can only selectively remove those microbes that have hydrophobic qualities leaving those that have hydrophillic properties. This constant selective removal might have some short term benefit by reducing overall microbial counts but with all the research showing disrupted microbiomes have long term problems ranging from chronic to acute I see skimmers as bane to sustainability.

Interesting, makes sense as well. I always used a skimmer because i was told you had to use a skimmer.

Does all this apply to sps tanks as well? I always read that sps tanks need super clean water. Are people keeping sps heavy tanks with no skimmer? All this could explain why i am seeing large amount of used skimmers for sale.

 

[griss]

Interesting, makes sense as well. I always used a skimmer because i was told you had to use a skimmer.

Does all this apply to sps tanks as well? I always read that sps tanks need super clean water. Are people keeping sps heavy tanks with no skimmer? All this could explain why i am seeing large amount of used skimmers for sale.

A LOT has changed. Back in the early 90s when I first started keeping SPS, we strove to achieve ZERO nitrates and phosphates. These days, we've learned (As Timfish stated) that SPS actually need those nutrients. I actually add nitrate to my tank (40 breeder with SPS) at a rate of 2ml per day. Others add phosphates but, because of my feeding habits, I don't need to add phosphate.

Here's a handy chart with the what is recommended these days.