Beckett vs. Needlewheel skimmers
- Thread starter alwest45
- Start date
RichConley
New member
It was an Iwaki 70, the skimmer was an no name brand, I honestly dont remember what. The design was the same as the better becketts though, just without all the bells and whistles.
I really don't know the ready-made skimmers at all so I don't know if any use a venturi now. I tested the OR2700NW with and without the venturi and before and after that pump, and a Mag3 and Mag5 the same ways before settling on what works best for me-Mag3 after the Kent venturi (I bored it out a little).
When I consider the fact that most of these combinations worked pretty well I tend to doubt that a Beckett is so much better than a venturi that Becketts are all that should be used, just that Becketts are what companies want to use. Similar for NW. Company's try to convince consumers that their product is different from the competition, and that the difference(s) are worthwhile.
You do raise a good point, and that is, all the talk about the hardware tends overshadow the fact that more than one method will work really well, and attempts to objectively evaluate that would be useful for us.
The skimmate I get looks more like coffee than tea, and the volume is quite a bit more than the amount of food I put in the tank. Not sure if I'm getting out all I could but all seems good.
Zephrant
Premium Member
Al- The test was just a Beckett plumbed with 1" line direct from the test tank, held at about 2' above the water level of the test tank (timed filling of a bucket was used for the GPH measurements). The biggest difference is that the test used larger air valves, tubes and flow meters. Since a Beckett needs to be restricted to run well, the 68 SCFH number is not "usable". In my testing, around 45 SCFH per Beckett has shown the best results. I don't have any numbers to give you describing why that works best, just my observations on my own systems over the last several years (however confirmed with many conversations with others running Becketts).
At first glance, your numbers look right- The perceived large performance imbalance in favor of the Beckett is countered somewhat by the aforementioned shorter dwell time. I think it comes back to the "gets lots out in one pass" vs. "gets less out per pass, but makes more passes". I suspect that if we could map the real "skimmer performance curve", we would see that it has a series of humps in it and you'd find top of the line skimmer styles at each high-point in the chart.
Rich- There is a series of mistakes a novice skimmer builder can make that can really ruin performance. I suspect you might be pleasantly surprised if you got to play with a current production model.
Warren- I can't speak for the other people, but in my case I could build any design that I wanted to for my own use. I chose Becketts because I felt they offered the best balance of performance vs. cost. A "Beckett" is just another venturi type, but happens to be optimized for lots of air intake from ambient conditions, under relatively low water pressure. There is nothing magic about them, it is just a very well designed device.
Again, I don't think there will ever be one answer to these questions- The leading skimmer types are "leading" because they all work well. If I had more money than time (and didn't want to DIY my own equipment), I'd have no problem running a Deltec, BK or other top of the line needle wheel skimmer on my own system.
At first glance, your numbers look right- The perceived large performance imbalance in favor of the Beckett is countered somewhat by the aforementioned shorter dwell time. I think it comes back to the "gets lots out in one pass" vs. "gets less out per pass, but makes more passes". I suspect that if we could map the real "skimmer performance curve", we would see that it has a series of humps in it and you'd find top of the line skimmer styles at each high-point in the chart.
Rich- There is a series of mistakes a novice skimmer builder can make that can really ruin performance. I suspect you might be pleasantly surprised if you got to play with a current production model.
Warren- I can't speak for the other people, but in my case I could build any design that I wanted to for my own use. I chose Becketts because I felt they offered the best balance of performance vs. cost. A "Beckett" is just another venturi type, but happens to be optimized for lots of air intake from ambient conditions, under relatively low water pressure. There is nothing magic about them, it is just a very well designed device.
Again, I don't think there will ever be one answer to these questions- The leading skimmer types are "leading" because they all work well. If I had more money than time (and didn't want to DIY my own equipment), I'd have no problem running a Deltec, BK or other top of the line needle wheel skimmer on my own system.
Roland Jacques
Premium Member
Alwest, your figures up top are not correct because their not base on the correct info. You can spend a lot of time trying to get the right info, but even then, it is not going to be very helpful in comparing different skimmer. If you just wanted to compare 2 identical skimmers then your air info COULD be very helpful in determining performance. But even then more air may impact foam stability and be counter productive in some ways.
I understand its can be confusing, looking at Recric skimmer when you have Becketts & In sump skimmers in your mind. That is one of the areas you messed up with your numbers. You are trying to make them harder than what they are (I did the same thing when I first started looking at them). Think of a recirc pump as just a "Airstone connected to an airpumps†the water flow is not relevant to any thing at all. Except unwanted extra skimmer turbulence. That is why some of your best skimmers Bubble king, Bubble master, and it looks that even Barr use turbulence diffusers to eliminate extra skimmer turbulence. The idea NW recic pump would not need any water movement at all. (Basically a maintenance free airstone)
The main goal of the recirc skimmer was and is to “slow down flow†(they really mean increasing contact time). The main reason people buy add on sections for becketts skimmers is to “increasing contact timeâ€Â. The main reason people buy larger body skimmers is to “increasing contact timeâ€Â. To think that “increasing contact time†(slowing down flow in NW) is not a plus is to ignore all of that. There are other factors that you can also conceder lots of them some are just theories. I got to say theirs probably more that we don’t know about skimming than what we do know. So we just compare and test better results = better results. Why? Like the ORP with the DD skimmers being higher than NW. Why does a Tunze with know dwell time work so good.
If you really want it figure out on paper what will give you best performance “hit numbers†will be the most helpful thing you could mathamaticlly figure out IMO. Much more than just air.
You are trying to put skimmer performance in a box. Unfortunately I don’t think this can’t be done with math and known factors. Allot comes from trial and error. Observation, isolating and testing, of piece parts and compete units give you probably some of the best info... testing using identical water is one of the best ways to get a handle on performance of skimmers.
Be warned, you are seeking a lot of skimmer info that’s great, but the long term effect can wreak havoc on your life. Your garage could end up looking like some kind of mad mans lab. You may just start buying skimmers just so you can test them. You may find yourself collecting skimmate from LFS… just to use it to test new ideas, ventures, pumps, impellers… without live changing varyeiables. not to mention the wife factor.
I understand its can be confusing, looking at Recric skimmer when you have Becketts & In sump skimmers in your mind. That is one of the areas you messed up with your numbers. You are trying to make them harder than what they are (I did the same thing when I first started looking at them). Think of a recirc pump as just a "Airstone connected to an airpumps†the water flow is not relevant to any thing at all. Except unwanted extra skimmer turbulence. That is why some of your best skimmers Bubble king, Bubble master, and it looks that even Barr use turbulence diffusers to eliminate extra skimmer turbulence. The idea NW recic pump would not need any water movement at all. (Basically a maintenance free airstone)
The main goal of the recirc skimmer was and is to “slow down flow†(they really mean increasing contact time). The main reason people buy add on sections for becketts skimmers is to “increasing contact timeâ€Â. The main reason people buy larger body skimmers is to “increasing contact timeâ€Â. To think that “increasing contact time†(slowing down flow in NW) is not a plus is to ignore all of that. There are other factors that you can also conceder lots of them some are just theories. I got to say theirs probably more that we don’t know about skimming than what we do know. So we just compare and test better results = better results. Why? Like the ORP with the DD skimmers being higher than NW. Why does a Tunze with know dwell time work so good.
If you really want it figure out on paper what will give you best performance “hit numbers†will be the most helpful thing you could mathamaticlly figure out IMO. Much more than just air.
You are trying to put skimmer performance in a box. Unfortunately I don’t think this can’t be done with math and known factors. Allot comes from trial and error. Observation, isolating and testing, of piece parts and compete units give you probably some of the best info... testing using identical water is one of the best ways to get a handle on performance of skimmers.
Be warned, you are seeking a lot of skimmer info that’s great, but the long term effect can wreak havoc on your life. Your garage could end up looking like some kind of mad mans lab. You may just start buying skimmers just so you can test them. You may find yourself collecting skimmate from LFS… just to use it to test new ideas, ventures, pumps, impellers… without live changing varyeiables. not to mention the wife factor.
Roland, thanks for the details (and the pm). If I understand your point it's that recirc skimmers not not effectively increase contact time (talking about needlewheel skimmers here) but allow you more effective control over water flow through the skimmer (giving you independent control of airflow and waterflow). That was very helpful and I get it. What I don't understand is why slowing water flow through the skimmer is inherently better. The water inside the skimmer is "cleaner" than the water in my tank since it's already been partially skimmed. By slowing the water flow through the skimmer I am continuing to try and "clean" progressively cleaner water (the longer it stays inside the skimmer) and the water in my tank (the dirtiest water) is still sitting there and not getting any bubble treatment. If I understand you point it seems I can increase the performance on the RC500 I'm planning by switching from an Eheim 1260 to a 1250 feeder pump or even to a 1048. I understand how that will improve the water inside the skimmer but shouldn't I be trying to process the water sitting in my tank that looks like it needs processing more than the water sitting inside my skimmer?
The other point I don't understand now is the part about getting the "Stubborn" molecules out of the water. If recirc does not increase contact time, then how does it help with removing "stubborn" molecules? Or were you just suggesting that it's the contact time alone and recirc has nothing to do with improving removing the "stubborn" molecules.
If anyone has any pointers to papers or research about these elusive "stubborn" molecules I would appreciate a reference. I had heard that Escobal talked about them but it sounds like Zephrant has put that rumor to rest. Any other references?
This is harder than I thought it would be.
Al
The other point I don't understand now is the part about getting the "Stubborn" molecules out of the water. If recirc does not increase contact time, then how does it help with removing "stubborn" molecules? Or were you just suggesting that it's the contact time alone and recirc has nothing to do with improving removing the "stubborn" molecules.
If anyone has any pointers to papers or research about these elusive "stubborn" molecules I would appreciate a reference. I had heard that Escobal talked about them but it sounds like Zephrant has put that rumor to rest. Any other references?
This is harder than I thought it would be.
Al
RichConley
New member
Al, I guess this statement is the real point of contention here. If the skimmer can handle the load, the above really isnt all that true. Yes, there is a difference, but its so miniscule as to not make a difference, IMO.
From what I understand about the "stubborn molecules," basically, skimmers remove molecules that have both a hydrophobic and hydrophilic end. These molecues align themselves so that the hydrophobic end is against the bubble, and the hydrohilic is against the water. As you start getting more complicated molecules, it takes longer for them to spin, and realign themselves and stick to the bubbles.
In high flow skimmers, there just isnt time for that to happen.
Now, the question is, does that matter? Or are we looking at a situation where that complex molecule is goign to get broken up/eaten by bacteria, and then get skimmed out with the bacteria, or be easier to skim? I dont know.
Roland Jacques
Premium Member
Last edited:
Roland Jacques
Premium Member
"sounds like Zephrant has put that rumor to rest."
Oh I see, you were reefering to the recommended 2 times a hour turnover rate. good point sorry i missed that. I would agree with Zeph, it is kind of applied very commonly with skimmers without consideration the many skimmers performance variables and abillitys.
What is the name of that book?
Oh I see, you were reefering to the recommended 2 times a hour turnover rate. good point sorry i missed that. I would agree with Zeph, it is kind of applied very commonly with skimmers without consideration the many skimmers performance variables and abillitys.
What is the name of that book?
Last edited:
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
That is exactly the opposite of the 'low flow' sump method that is used by many. You dont need high sump turnover, in fact it can work against you. A surface skimmer is for skimming just that... the surface water, to feed it to the skimmer. You can use a filter on a closed loop just as well if not better though to trap detritus.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Well, I dont have many detritus problems, or phosphates, and all my tanks are 'low flow sumps'. I use sand cleaning critters, and even though the overflow isnt running like a toilet flushing with a 200watt pump, the in tank circulation is 40-75x turnover...enough to keep whatever it is in suspension long enough to get caught eventually.
As for targeting the surface, you should talk with the guys who do calfo style overflows for this very reason (and Calfo himself). The idea is this... proteins and oils build up at the surface of the tank. So if you target this area, and process it as best you can, you will be getting more with less. Low flow sumps have been shown to increase skimming efficiency with this. See, with a 'high-flow sump' you take in alot of the other water in the tank. This water is not as concentrated with proteins and oils as the top layer. And if you think that one or two passes through the skimmer is all you need, think again. Recirculating skimmers with 1000gph of mixing pumps can run only 200-300gph in throughput... to process that water over and over, getting out more. The ideal setup is a low flow overflow with the drain leading right into a recirculating skimmer where the water gets processed multiple times before returning to the tank. With a high-flow sump, the protein rich water is mixed with the other water, and all sent to the sump where most of it never even gets to go through the skimmer (a skimmer that prolly has less throughput than the sump some times... thats a waste)... simply passing by by and getting mixed back into the general volume... back to square one where it has to reach the surface again. So with a high-flow sump you need an even bigger skimmer to grab those organics because you have made it that much harder for the skimmer to get them. This might be great news for 'skimmer-heads' like Spazz (thats a compliment BTW), and Barr so he can sell a bigger skimmer, but its really overkill.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=550482
As for targeting the surface, you should talk with the guys who do calfo style overflows for this very reason (and Calfo himself). The idea is this... proteins and oils build up at the surface of the tank. So if you target this area, and process it as best you can, you will be getting more with less. Low flow sumps have been shown to increase skimming efficiency with this. See, with a 'high-flow sump' you take in alot of the other water in the tank. This water is not as concentrated with proteins and oils as the top layer. And if you think that one or two passes through the skimmer is all you need, think again. Recirculating skimmers with 1000gph of mixing pumps can run only 200-300gph in throughput... to process that water over and over, getting out more. The ideal setup is a low flow overflow with the drain leading right into a recirculating skimmer where the water gets processed multiple times before returning to the tank. With a high-flow sump, the protein rich water is mixed with the other water, and all sent to the sump where most of it never even gets to go through the skimmer (a skimmer that prolly has less throughput than the sump some times... thats a waste)... simply passing by by and getting mixed back into the general volume... back to square one where it has to reach the surface again. So with a high-flow sump you need an even bigger skimmer to grab those organics because you have made it that much harder for the skimmer to get them. This might be great news for 'skimmer-heads' like Spazz (thats a compliment BTW), and Barr so he can sell a bigger skimmer, but its really overkill.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=550482
Roland Jacques
Premium Member
Man i missed something somewhere 2 xs a day =99%
thanks Zephrant ill go back & figure it out.Hahn, now that's a great point. And it is right on point. Good link, thanks. I find myself stuck in old school thinking on that and i need to get with this info. You kind of have to look at insump skimmers a little differently when your sump flow is much lower than the skimmer's. I can see where in sump skimmers like Tunze, Euro Reef, Bubble Master... would work much better in the that situation.
Last edited:
Zephrant
Premium Member
Hahn- I'll have to go check that thread, I've not yet seen any evidence of this idea and it is counter-intuitive.
Many of us don't have a sump only to feed the skimmer. My sump also has a large biological filter in it- Lots of eel grass, mushrooms and other stuff that pulls nutrients out of the water. (And the idea that these critters need some kind of "slow flow" to pull nutrients out of the water was debunked by Calfo long ago.)
So while only 1/2 the sump water goes in to the skimmer, the rest goes though the biological filter and is returned to the tank.
A "Calfo" overflow (basically a long overflow the length of the tank) is not needed if you have good sump flow. Look at your tank surface- if you have scum on it, fix it. If you don't, you have more than enough overflow to remove the surface layer. It really is that simple. Running a full back overflow then running a big sump pump is overkill. Not that it harms anything, but it is not buying you any "better" surface skimming.
Once the scum is off of the surface water, any more water being removed can be from the surface or any other level, it is all the same in our tanks.
That setup is fine if you have a small sump, and slow flow though it. For people that use their sumps for detritus traps, mechanical filtration, or biological filtration, slow flow is not as efficient.
For reference, I'm calling "slow flow" about 300gph on a 200g tank (1 to 1.5x tank volume per hour). Where high-flow would be in the 5-10x tank volume per hour.
I can't agree with that one Hahn. Nothing is harder- diluting the proteins does not make each molecule less likely to adhere to a bubble.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Well I have an MRC-2 with an Iwaki MD55RLT. It's a little noisy, eats a lot of juice, and requires more maintenance than other skimmers. However, it processes about 900 gph, which isn't too useful in a sump with 200 gph going through it, but my sump is about 900 gph, so it matches nicely. Plus, it cost me $450. A NW that can perform as well as the MRC-2 would be a couple hundred more IME, plus the actual unit is a solid piece of equipment. Some of those NW though, they get this nice cappuccino froth, which really pulls out the DO. My beckett can't get the super fine froth, but it skims out inch long bristle worms. My favorite feature of the beckett is to be able to set it to ultra wet and skim out 5 gallons for a water change. You'll never get a NW to do that. All in all I love the beckett, but a Bubble King would stomp it for 10X the money. JMO
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Not at a molecular level, but it does mean that for a given size skimmer, you just lowered the exposure time and therefore the amount of skimmate it can remove in one pass. Its the concentration that you are messing with here. A low flow overflow uses the tank's surface kind of like a 'pre-filter' for organics that are attracted to it. Dont get me wrong, if you took that 1.5-2x the tank capacity suggestion for a recirc skimmer and upped it by 5x, so for a 200g tank, you would have 1500-2000gph going through the overflow, you could then increase the capacity of the skimmer to handle 1500-2000 gph of throughput and have the same thing... but then you are talking one HUUUUGE recirc/countercurrent skimmer.... 1500-2000gph would make something like a 6-8' tall 12-18" diameter recirc skimmer... which is often the case it seems. Reefers are running more through their sump, with less time for a skimmer to process the water, so they end up buying massive skimmers to compensate. I would say that running a low flow sump/overflow with a recirc skimmer should halve the size of the skimmer you need because you are making it that much more effective.
But hey, the proof is in the results. Many European reefers set up their systems like this, and many here on RC who have tried it have reported increases in quality and amounts of skimmate from their skimmers, even non-recirculating models, simply because even a single pass skimmer, if set up with its own sump section, ends up recycling the water multiple times if its throughput is 600gph and the sump is only passing 200gph.
I compare it to reading a book. Imagine you can read a book in 2 hours and get 100% of it. Great. Now, imagine you only have 10-20 minutes to read that same book front to back... how much are you going to get out of it? How many times are you going to have to read it for 10 minutes before it starts to make sense? Going back, trying to rethink everything and remember where you were. I suppose you could argue 'whats the big deal?', if it takes me one try for 2 hours, or 8 times at 15 minutes a pop? Well, its still speed reading. Escobal and others suggest a 2 minute dwell time to extract some of the tougher to attract proteins. Just like reading the book... speed reading still means you arent as thorough and there are going to be some areas that you will skip no matter how many times you read that book front to back because its too short of a time. Add to this the overflow then... this is like reading a book, but knowing where all the good parts are that really count. You can read those areas alone and be done reading in an hour.
At least, thats my take on it.
JC VT
New member
Proteins and oils naturally rise and build up at the surface of the aquarium.
Protein skimmers take advantage of this interaction. Which do you think hold more protein/oils... the surface scum or a chunk of fish poop/detritus? If you had a choice, which would you choose to get out first? And it's not like you sacrifice surface skimming with higher sump turnover. Most people, regardless of sump flow, have overflows that take water from the surface.
If you think that getting more water through the skimmer improves its efficiency
Always effective before efficient. No one doubts that darker skimmate is more concentrated and therefore more 'efficient'. If I scrape the mold off of old bread and harvest it, it's more 'efficient', but I'd rather throw the whole moldy loaf out.
I think wet skimming gets more out, it just looks less efficient because the 'stuff' (detritus, uneaten food, snail poop) hasn't decomposed yet (kinda like partially molded bread). I think the dark stuff is stuff that has already decomposed.
JMO...
Protein skimmers take advantage of this interaction. Which do you think hold more protein/oils... the surface scum or a chunk of fish poop/detritus? If you had a choice, which would you choose to get out first? And it's not like you sacrifice surface skimming with higher sump turnover. Most people, regardless of sump flow, have overflows that take water from the surface.
If you think that getting more water through the skimmer improves its efficiency
Always effective before efficient. No one doubts that darker skimmate is more concentrated and therefore more 'efficient'. If I scrape the mold off of old bread and harvest it, it's more 'efficient', but I'd rather throw the whole moldy loaf out.
I think wet skimming gets more out, it just looks less efficient because the 'stuff' (detritus, uneaten food, snail poop) hasn't decomposed yet (kinda like partially molded bread). I think the dark stuff is stuff that has already decomposed.
JMO...
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Okay, I should have added: what if the skimmate was darker AND in the same volume or greater? To me, wetter skimmate doesnt mean much if it only contains as much as the smaller amount of dark skimmate. Its just more water.
When I converted one tank from a 1000gph overflow to 200, the skimmer still made as much gunk, it just was coffee compared to tea.
I dont know that lighter or darker skimmate means anything with regards to how decomposed the skimmate is though. Not that I have an opinion either way (well, just that darker means alot of other things besides how old the poop is), but one could argue that the older the poop/protein is, the lighter it would be because bacteria would have a longer time to start processing it and breaking it down into less harmful compounds. Its like saying Milorganite is worse than raw sewage because its been around longer. I can back that up by citing the nitrogen cycle and tanks that dont use skimmers as evidence. The longer the waste is in the system, the less harmful it becomes due to bacteria... so to say that dark skimmate is just that... I dont agree. If you take that old pooh, sediments, mulm, and detritus and stir it up, then you would expect more dark skimmate to be produced... but every time I 'stir up the crap' in my tanks, the skimmate is anything but dark.
As far as which I would rather process... fish pooh or oils and proteins... well... This gets into what you expect from your skimmer. If you intend to use your skimmer as a means of blowing hard particles out the top (semi-mechanical filter), then I agree, but that desire goes back to the debates on what skimmers really remove, and if those things should even be removed. There CAN be such a thing as overskimming depending on what your goals are. If you dose phyto and an hour later your skimmate turns green... what just happened? What do you think happened to the phyto your tank has made? Was removing that phyto good or bad? Some would argue that this is good, that total organic extraction 24/7 is better, and the only phyto/rotifers/etc that the tank should get should be from scheduled feedings. I dont agree with this 100%, and see the counterpoint that when you look at what corals feed on, its really the mulm, detritus, proteins, etc (and the phyto and pods that feed on that) removed by skimmers that corals would like to eat. There are those that argue skimmers remove more beneficial things from the water than bad... and being that the natural ocean doesnt have skimmers, I agree. Then again, the ocean doesnt have the high fish concentrations that so many reef tanks do... so I also agree with the pro-skimming POV. The oceans have unlimited amounts of pods that feed on detritus w/o the concentration of predators that our captive reefs have. Skimmers were intended to extract organic chemicals, so if you now use one to remove hard particles... thats up to you. I dont see this within the usual or intended scope of skimmer operation. Besides, fish poop is what my sand sifters need to stay alive, and sooner or later that poop will give off its oils and proteins for the skimmer to capture, leaving the nutrients that my sand dwellers want to have their fun with anyways. I suppose Im not really 'detritus paranoid'.
When I converted one tank from a 1000gph overflow to 200, the skimmer still made as much gunk, it just was coffee compared to tea.
I dont know that lighter or darker skimmate means anything with regards to how decomposed the skimmate is though. Not that I have an opinion either way (well, just that darker means alot of other things besides how old the poop is), but one could argue that the older the poop/protein is, the lighter it would be because bacteria would have a longer time to start processing it and breaking it down into less harmful compounds. Its like saying Milorganite is worse than raw sewage because its been around longer. I can back that up by citing the nitrogen cycle and tanks that dont use skimmers as evidence. The longer the waste is in the system, the less harmful it becomes due to bacteria... so to say that dark skimmate is just that... I dont agree. If you take that old pooh, sediments, mulm, and detritus and stir it up, then you would expect more dark skimmate to be produced... but every time I 'stir up the crap' in my tanks, the skimmate is anything but dark.
As far as which I would rather process... fish pooh or oils and proteins... well... This gets into what you expect from your skimmer. If you intend to use your skimmer as a means of blowing hard particles out the top (semi-mechanical filter), then I agree, but that desire goes back to the debates on what skimmers really remove, and if those things should even be removed. There CAN be such a thing as overskimming depending on what your goals are. If you dose phyto and an hour later your skimmate turns green... what just happened? What do you think happened to the phyto your tank has made? Was removing that phyto good or bad? Some would argue that this is good, that total organic extraction 24/7 is better, and the only phyto/rotifers/etc that the tank should get should be from scheduled feedings. I dont agree with this 100%, and see the counterpoint that when you look at what corals feed on, its really the mulm, detritus, proteins, etc (and the phyto and pods that feed on that) removed by skimmers that corals would like to eat. There are those that argue skimmers remove more beneficial things from the water than bad... and being that the natural ocean doesnt have skimmers, I agree. Then again, the ocean doesnt have the high fish concentrations that so many reef tanks do... so I also agree with the pro-skimming POV. The oceans have unlimited amounts of pods that feed on detritus w/o the concentration of predators that our captive reefs have. Skimmers were intended to extract organic chemicals, so if you now use one to remove hard particles... thats up to you. I dont see this within the usual or intended scope of skimmer operation. Besides, fish poop is what my sand sifters need to stay alive, and sooner or later that poop will give off its oils and proteins for the skimmer to capture, leaving the nutrients that my sand dwellers want to have their fun with anyways. I suppose Im not really 'detritus paranoid'.
Last edited:
Similar threads
