ridetheducati
20 and Over Club
Skimmers are just toys. Thats why I got an A250.
Beckett vs. Needlewheel skimmers
- Thread starter alwest45
- Start date
Skimmers are just toys. Thats why I got an A250.
RichConley
New member
I gotta disagree Hahn. Theres plenty of evidense that reduced nitrates and phosphates benefit corals. Theres also plenty of evidence that my skimmer cup is full of phosphates and nitrates.
Thats good enough for me.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Oh yeah? There are many biologists that disagree on this. First, nitrates and phosphates arent directly removed by skimming, only some compounds that either lead to them or contain certain amounts of them, but Randy even hits on this quite well. And, at that, most of the nitrates and phosphates that our reefs produce get taken in by fauna and the LR itself as 'chemical food'. Fact is, most people just have too many fish and critters in their tanks, so we have to compensate for this with skimming and phosban reactors. But there is plenty evidence out there that suggests that even though nitrate and phosphate is bad if left to build up, its part of the eco-system, and food for something. DSBs and plenums are evidence that skimmers are not needed to keep these levels in check, but rather recycle them through the system. The function of LR is to keep nitrate in check, and I think that has more of an impact on nitrates than skimmers do. That being said... skimmers have never been proven to be a benefit, only that they remove organics, which nobody can prove is a good or bad thing. I think skimmers are more of a band-aid that many reefers think they need because they dont want to practice good husbandry of the tank's biological contents, ie: they want to cram it all in. But several biologists have suggested that skimmers might just be robbing food from bacteria, fauna, and corals in the tank.
JC VT
New member
Another important issue has to do with the inhibition of calcification by phosphate and phosphate-containing organics. Phosphate is known to inhibit the precipitation of calcium carbonate from seawater.19, 20, 21 Phosphate also decreases calcification in corals, such as Pocillopora damicornis22 and entire patch reefs23 . This inhibition is likely related to the presence of phosphate in the ECF and on the growing crystal surface. Exactly how the phosphate gets in isn’t well understood. Nevertheless, the next time you are worried about phosphate levels in your tank, you can think of calcification inhibition in the ECF in addition to the driving of unwanted algae in your tank.
Note that it says phosphates AND phosphate-containing organics.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/apr2002/chem.htm
Which brings us back to the dodged question I posed twice: if you're leaving all this detritus in the system, which type of corals are you trying to feed/keep?
Note that it says phosphates AND phosphate-containing organics.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/apr2002/chem.htm
Which brings us back to the dodged question I posed twice: if you're leaving all this detritus in the system, which type of corals are you trying to feed/keep?
JC VT
New member
Long term phosphate $(2 \mu M)$ and nitrogen $20 \mu M urea+ ammonium)$ enrichment of a patch reef at One Tree Island, Great Barrier Reef, caused >50% suppression of reef calcification. This is attributed primarily to the phosphate. It is suggested that this effect is involved, together wiht algal competition and the more usually accepted depression of temperature, in reducing the growth rate of reefs adjacent to upwellings.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0024-3590(197909)24%3A5%3C935%3AEOENAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0
Oh yeah? There are many biologists that disagree on this.
Which ones? The ones I referenced seemed to agree that nitrates/phosphates are bad for stony corals.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0024-3590(197909)24%3A5%3C935%3AEOENAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0
Oh yeah? There are many biologists that disagree on this.
Which ones? The ones I referenced seemed to agree that nitrates/phosphates are bad for stony corals.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Okay, first of all, we need to set things straight. Skimmers DO NOT directly remove nitrates and phosphates, so to argue that skimmers are proven good because they remove these compounds isnt a valid argument... its wrong. If Randy's article is what you want to go by here, then you will see he even says the same thing. The basis of the idea that skimmers arent proven is that if a protein skimmer is taken off of a reef, there are still plenty of other mechanisms in the tank to deal with nitrate and phosphate... because they are there in the first place dealing with all of the other phosphates and nitrates your tank produces.
AND, although high levels of phosphates and nitrates are bad for all inverts (except some like clams), trace levels are used as nutrients. Heck, you know this, even copper is used as a trace element. Removing a skimmer from a system does not mean that your phosphate and nitrate levels are going to rise, as is proven by all those reefs out there that are running without a skimmer.
Now, the argument that has been brought up by the likes of Schimek, Bornemann, Riddle, etc. is that the proteins that we remove would otherwise be consumed by the fauna in the tank... recycled into the eco-system. These proteins are NOT nitrates and phosphates (they may contain them, or break down into them to some degree, but they are not equal to phosphates and nitrates themselves). Randy explained that there are many other proteins that a skimmer cant get out, but that they arent that bad anyways because they get consumed by the bacteria in the tank. What, you think that these bacteria wont eat the rest as well?
So cite all of the articles you want on how phosphates and nitrates are bad for corals, I dont disagree with you, but what you are saying that A+B=P, when that is just not true.
Here: Ill put the burden of proof on you this time. Show me something that proves that protein skimmers are the only way that a reef aquarium can deal with nitrates and phosphates.
Randy says "On the other hand, skimming almost certainly removes many micro- and even macroorganisms from the water column that might otherwise become food for a tank's inhabitants (as well as the organic molecules that might be food - like proteins). It is not clear how large an impact this has, but it certainly depends upon the type of inhabitant that is being considered and the skimmer's efficiency."
Also "Most highly polar organics will not be removed by skimming. Simple sugars, acetate, oxalate, methyl alcohol, choline, citrate, etc. will remain behind. They simply are not sufficiently attracted to an air water interface. Most charged species are, in fact, repelled from the air/water interface, so they are not collected. Fortunately, many of these highly polar organic materials are readily metabolized by bacteria and other organisms, so they do not continually build up in marine aquaria."
And "In general, nitrite, nitrate and phosphate will not be directly skimmed out of seawater because they do not adsorb onto air water interfaces."
AND, although high levels of phosphates and nitrates are bad for all inverts (except some like clams), trace levels are used as nutrients. Heck, you know this, even copper is used as a trace element. Removing a skimmer from a system does not mean that your phosphate and nitrate levels are going to rise, as is proven by all those reefs out there that are running without a skimmer.
Now, the argument that has been brought up by the likes of Schimek, Bornemann, Riddle, etc. is that the proteins that we remove would otherwise be consumed by the fauna in the tank... recycled into the eco-system. These proteins are NOT nitrates and phosphates (they may contain them, or break down into them to some degree, but they are not equal to phosphates and nitrates themselves). Randy explained that there are many other proteins that a skimmer cant get out, but that they arent that bad anyways because they get consumed by the bacteria in the tank. What, you think that these bacteria wont eat the rest as well?
So cite all of the articles you want on how phosphates and nitrates are bad for corals, I dont disagree with you, but what you are saying that A+B=P, when that is just not true.
Here: Ill put the burden of proof on you this time. Show me something that proves that protein skimmers are the only way that a reef aquarium can deal with nitrates and phosphates.
Randy says "On the other hand, skimming almost certainly removes many micro- and even macroorganisms from the water column that might otherwise become food for a tank's inhabitants (as well as the organic molecules that might be food - like proteins). It is not clear how large an impact this has, but it certainly depends upon the type of inhabitant that is being considered and the skimmer's efficiency."
Also "Most highly polar organics will not be removed by skimming. Simple sugars, acetate, oxalate, methyl alcohol, choline, citrate, etc. will remain behind. They simply are not sufficiently attracted to an air water interface. Most charged species are, in fact, repelled from the air/water interface, so they are not collected. Fortunately, many of these highly polar organic materials are readily metabolized by bacteria and other organisms, so they do not continually build up in marine aquaria."
And "In general, nitrite, nitrate and phosphate will not be directly skimmed out of seawater because they do not adsorb onto air water interfaces."
Last edited:
JC VT
New member
No one said that nitrite/ammonia/nitrate/phosphate will be directly skimmed out. I believe that Pi can be off gassed, but even that point is slightly irrelevant.
The point of a protein skimmer is to remove organics before they decompose into phosphate and nitrate. Which are proven to inhibit calcification.
And you keep ignoring that detritus consumers produce their own detritus. And all the while, bacteria are working on any detritus/food in the system, liberating p and nitrate as it goes.
The point of a protein skimmer is to remove organics before they decompose into phosphate and nitrate. Which are proven to inhibit calcification.
And you keep ignoring that detritus consumers produce their own detritus. And all the while, bacteria are working on any detritus/food in the system, liberating p and nitrate as it goes.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Okay, so like I said, the ball is in your court this time. Prove to me that protein skimmers are the only way that a reef aquarium can deal with nitrates and phosphates. Im not saying that they dont remove things that might be related to phosphate and nitrate production, but that skimming isnt needed to deal with these chemicals.
And detritus eventually gets converted to inorganic molecules eventually through denitrification, if not filtered out through some other means. There are plenty of other methods out there besides the 'Berlin'. Jaubert, Eco (refugium), DSB... that dont require skimmers to deal with phosphates and nitrates (and all the other nutrients that we worry about).
As an alternative to a skimmer & LR system, someone could simply run a filter sock on their drain to trap particles, then a wet-dry to convert all of the waste to nitrate, and then a sulphur reactor to remove the nitrate. Any phosphate could be dealt with by using a phosban reactor, and any additional chemicals that might otherwise yellow the water could be taken out with carbon. There... no need for a skimmer.
And detritus eventually gets converted to inorganic molecules eventually through denitrification, if not filtered out through some other means. There are plenty of other methods out there besides the 'Berlin'. Jaubert, Eco (refugium), DSB... that dont require skimmers to deal with phosphates and nitrates (and all the other nutrients that we worry about).
As an alternative to a skimmer & LR system, someone could simply run a filter sock on their drain to trap particles, then a wet-dry to convert all of the waste to nitrate, and then a sulphur reactor to remove the nitrate. Any phosphate could be dealt with by using a phosban reactor, and any additional chemicals that might otherwise yellow the water could be taken out with carbon. There... no need for a skimmer.
JC VT
New member
someone could simply run a filter sock on their drain to trap particles, then a wet-dry to convert all of the waste to nitrate, and then a sulphur reactor to remove the nitrate. Any phosphate could be dealt with by using a phosban reactor, and any additional chemicals that might otherwise yellow the water could be taken out with carbon. There... no need for a skimmer.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
And why not just spend the money on a skimmer? ROTFL! Your method is way more complicated and expensive. Not to mention the times when equipment fails, user error intervenes, the additives that carbon and phosban add TO the water and the simple fact that you're using 40 bandaids instead of not running with scissors.
And no you do not need a skimmer; just siphon detritus daily.
But I'm lazy, and I'd rather get most of the organics out with a simple piece of equipment.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
And why not just spend the money on a skimmer? ROTFL! Your method is way more complicated and expensive. Not to mention the times when equipment fails, user error intervenes, the additives that carbon and phosban add TO the water and the simple fact that you're using 40 bandaids instead of not running with scissors.
And no you do not need a skimmer; just siphon detritus daily.
But I'm lazy, and I'd rather get most of the organics out with a simple piece of equipment.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
What do you mean way more complicated and expensive? Its just canisters of media. A filter sock is what... $5-10. A wetdry, sponge, bio-ball stack, etc is pretty easy to make, and cheap... you can just use coarse gravel as a medium, or $30 in bio-bale. Most people even with skimmers still run phosphate removers, so that should tell you something about how effective skimmers are in the first place. Dripping kalk is a more effective method of binding and removing phosphate than a skimmer. The only complicated part of the alternative method I came up with is the sulpher reactor... something you can make for $100. It also deals with ALL the phosphates and nitrates, eliminating the natural method all together. Its not a band-aid at all, and it deals with all of the phosphates and nitrates... not just the ones that a skimmer can gather with air bubbles. No less reliable or complicated than a skimmer (and much cheaper), which isnt anything compared to the X-factor involved with more natural methods that are proven to work (Leng Sy, Jaubert, etc). I think you just cant wrap your head around the idea that skimmers arent necessary for a successful reef.
You want a simple system... fine... just do weekly 20% water changes. That eliminates most of the equipment you think you need all together.
You ask if I wouldnt rather remove detritus before it decomposes in the display. Well... why should I? Is there some reason why I should remove detritus? Like you said... at the worst, I can just siphon it out anyways. Is there something out there that proves that detritus, if left to decompose, continues change into phosphates and nitrates (which the reactors take care of anyways). Thats pretty much impossible, FWIW, as there is only so much phosphate and nitrate that a given volume of organic matter can produce, and after that its pretty much inert. Macro algae, plenums, DSBs... Sorry, but I fail to see the point of your argument for skimmers being essential parts of a reef aquarium.
You want a simple system... fine... just do weekly 20% water changes. That eliminates most of the equipment you think you need all together.
You ask if I wouldnt rather remove detritus before it decomposes in the display. Well... why should I? Is there some reason why I should remove detritus? Like you said... at the worst, I can just siphon it out anyways. Is there something out there that proves that detritus, if left to decompose, continues change into phosphates and nitrates (which the reactors take care of anyways). Thats pretty much impossible, FWIW, as there is only so much phosphate and nitrate that a given volume of organic matter can produce, and after that its pretty much inert. Macro algae, plenums, DSBs... Sorry, but I fail to see the point of your argument for skimmers being essential parts of a reef aquarium.
Last edited:
sherm71tank
Premium Member
JC VT, don't you feel like you are beating your head against a wall? He can't win and is just trying to add as much b.s. to the discussion as possible in an attempt to make it seem like he is right and knows it all. Thats just my opinion though.
JC VT
New member
Its not a band-aid at all
It is. It deals with nitrates/phosphates after they have been liberated.
I think you just cant wrap your head around the idea that skimmers arent necessary for a successful reef.
:lol:
Good point Sherm
Hahn, you're a smart guy so I'm going to have to assume you're just doing this on purpose. Unless you have something new/constructive to add to this thread, I'm outta here :bum:
It is. It deals with nitrates/phosphates after they have been liberated.
I think you just cant wrap your head around the idea that skimmers arent necessary for a successful reef.
:lol:
Good point Sherm
Hahn, you're a smart guy so I'm going to have to assume you're just doing this on purpose. Unless you have something new/constructive to add to this thread, I'm outta here :bum:
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Something constructive, what... like paying attention to those individuals who have written books on the subject?!?! Its not about winning or losing, but I think its absurd to ask for 'scientific proof' of half the things done in this hobby, let alone what makes a recirculating skimmer outperform a single-pass. I have seen it with my own eyes, and I can set up the exact same experiment again and again to prove it, just like many others have seen it, and skimmer mfg's build it. To discount Escobal seems deconstructive to me unless you have some proof that he is wrong. FWIW, most biologists and aquarists subscribe to his formulas with great success, so just because you cant talk to him directly, and you dont like what he had to say for some reason, it seems like a poor excuse to discount it. Id say that there is more to suggest that he is right than he is wrong... yet you still want your proof.
Of course its on purpose. You are arguing credentials of people to assert that their expert opinions are not valid. You discount information that is staring you right in the face because you cant accept it as proof unless its stamped by the NIS. Well, FYI, there is little to nothing in this hobby that has that level of science behind it, so Im shocked that you are even able to decide that skimmers are beneficial for keeping a reef tank. There is little evidence out there to support the claim. Perhaps if you started a thread titled 'is there any evidence that a skimmer is needed or beneficial' you might see how much is out there to suggest that skimmers arent even that big of a deal. Consider that most proteins and organics in the water a skimmer cant even touch, many tanks with skimmers still need phosban reactors, and denitrification is better achieved through live rick and sand than through a skimmer... what exactly does a skimmer remove that is so harmful? Well, I didnt bother to challenge the biologists who said it, but there is the opinion out there that skimmers do just as much harm as good. That perhaps its an 'industry scam', much like wet-dry filters were, so that people spend more money on equipment. The proof that I can give is that there are plenty of non-berlin (as in, skimmerless) reef systems out there that are very pretty and maintain low nutrient levels. So to argue that you want 'science' to back everything up is a bit absurd... if that was the case, then how did you end up setting up your reef tank in the first place? Did someone provide you with proof that the lights you bought would grow the corals you wanted? Did someone have to prove to you that the Live Rock would do something? Little is proven in this hobby. I think that your requirement for 'proof' is therefore unfair, and in a way, its your tactic to 'win', because you can claim there is 'no proof'. Well, my point is, there is no proof of anything one way or another as far as most things in skimming go. So that pretty much ends the conversation right there. THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANYTHING. I seriouisly doubt my neon goby will eat my cleaner shrimp, but I have no proof that it wont, so I cant say that it wont, can I?
Of course its on purpose. You are arguing credentials of people to assert that their expert opinions are not valid. You discount information that is staring you right in the face because you cant accept it as proof unless its stamped by the NIS. Well, FYI, there is little to nothing in this hobby that has that level of science behind it, so Im shocked that you are even able to decide that skimmers are beneficial for keeping a reef tank. There is little evidence out there to support the claim. Perhaps if you started a thread titled 'is there any evidence that a skimmer is needed or beneficial' you might see how much is out there to suggest that skimmers arent even that big of a deal. Consider that most proteins and organics in the water a skimmer cant even touch, many tanks with skimmers still need phosban reactors, and denitrification is better achieved through live rick and sand than through a skimmer... what exactly does a skimmer remove that is so harmful? Well, I didnt bother to challenge the biologists who said it, but there is the opinion out there that skimmers do just as much harm as good. That perhaps its an 'industry scam', much like wet-dry filters were, so that people spend more money on equipment. The proof that I can give is that there are plenty of non-berlin (as in, skimmerless) reef systems out there that are very pretty and maintain low nutrient levels. So to argue that you want 'science' to back everything up is a bit absurd... if that was the case, then how did you end up setting up your reef tank in the first place? Did someone provide you with proof that the lights you bought would grow the corals you wanted? Did someone have to prove to you that the Live Rock would do something? Little is proven in this hobby. I think that your requirement for 'proof' is therefore unfair, and in a way, its your tactic to 'win', because you can claim there is 'no proof'. Well, my point is, there is no proof of anything one way or another as far as most things in skimming go. So that pretty much ends the conversation right there. THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANYTHING. I seriouisly doubt my neon goby will eat my cleaner shrimp, but I have no proof that it wont, so I cant say that it wont, can I?
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
What is a 'liberated' nitrate/phosphate? Do you have any scientific data on 'liberated' nitrate and phosphate? Is there any proof out there to suggest that they are harmful or that they arent just easily converted by bacteria anyways into harmless gas via denitrification?
sherm71tank
Premium Member
Good grief Charlie Brown! If I talked to hahn about the benefits of breathing oxygen to survive he would probably try and talk me out of that as well. Only because he knows that I want to of course! :beer:
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
I think there is scientific proof on that though...lol.
C'mon, do you really think Escobal was that wrong? Why do taller skimmers seem to make more skimmate than the same size ones that are shorter? Why do recirc skimmers make more skimmate than single-pass...??? If you own one, you would 'know'.
I mean, come on now... they guy doesnt even have 500 posts, and prolly isnt a biologist or anything, yet he thinks Escobal's suggestion of a 120 minute dwell time is questionable for some reason. Not that Im not open to new 'absurd' thoughts, but thats taking it a little far.
C'mon, do you really think Escobal was that wrong? Why do taller skimmers seem to make more skimmate than the same size ones that are shorter? Why do recirc skimmers make more skimmate than single-pass...??? If you own one, you would 'know'.
I mean, come on now... they guy doesnt even have 500 posts, and prolly isnt a biologist or anything, yet he thinks Escobal's suggestion of a 120 minute dwell time is questionable for some reason. Not that Im not open to new 'absurd' thoughts, but thats taking it a little far.
Last edited:
sherm71tank
Premium Member
I've never suggested he was"wrong", just maybe not entirely "correct" on the dwell time and I strongly feel this depends on the skimmer design and method of bubble generation. There are so many different skimmer designs out there. Down Draft skimmers have the most significant impact on orp of any skimmer I have used, but didn't yield the most skimmate. I've seen tall skimmers make great skimmate and not so great, same with short skimmers. If the single pass is ran with the right pump they perform great. That may be why recircs usually perform better - because they are almost always supplied with the right pump for the body size. I've owned every type of skimmer that's out there as far as I know. They can all work very well if set up properly.
Because someone has a low post count doesn't mean as much to me as what's in the post.
Similar threads
