even a 'fish only' will benefit from running a skimmer

[tmz]

Heres; a thread on CO2 scrubbers, fyi:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1889552&highlight=co2+scrubber

 

[der_wille_zur_macht]

I hope to be able to add more to this discussion when the system I'm working on is complete. It will be unusual.

Hurry up and finish already!

 

[Flanders]

Hurry up and finish already!

Working on it! Had a scary moment when I cracked the tank drilling out the closed loop intake... Lots of bad words were said. Luckily I was able to handily bore the hole out around the crack to the next size. Took hours. /end thread hijack

 

[tmz]

Pods aren't the only part of the natural food chain. I almost never find any in my skimmate anyway. Bet some larvae and such bubbles out though.

Nonetheless, amped up feeding can more than offset any of these losses, particularly when feeding phtyoplankton. Pods are near the top of th food chain in a reef tank. Bacteria count too and skimmers reduce planktonic bacteria which provide benefits : binding bad stuff(nutrients, excess metals),making it bioavalabe, and exportable as organics; and, supporting the food chain at it's base.. So on a reef tank skimmed heavily some accounting for bacteria levels is prudent,imo..

Gary's post though is abut FO tanks.
I don't see any downside for skimmers there. As far as I know fish won't eat bacterio plankton or many of the small microfualna the bacteria feed.. Not very concerned about free metal binding/ export via bacterial metabolism in a fish only tank either ,since fish do ok with low levels of metals unlike corals. IMO, a skimmer can be quite useful on a FO tank as can GAC for water clarity and organics removal and gives you a big aerator too.

 

[tmz]

There are a lot of tools available to achieve desired water conditions. A skimmer is just one of those tools. It is by no means "necessary," even for SPS tanks.

I would also want to define sensitive species. Are we including dietary requirements? Seems a skimmer could be detrimental to live food populations.

Not necessary but very helpful as a practical matter for an sps tank. Personally, I wouldn't run mine without one. I'd like to see atop notch sps tank without one. PErhaps they're out there but I haven't seen them.


If the end result of using the skimmer is fewer nutrients in the aquarium, assuming at least some of those nutrients could be used as food, even if you're feeding more, the end result is still fewer nutrients.

Not all nutrients are the same flavor. Degraded inorganic nutrients like PO4 and NO3 are not helpful at high levels contributing to: coral browning, overdriven zooxanthelae,nuisance algae , calcification inhibition for stony corals,cyanobacteria, etal, and excess dissolved organic matter (DOM) which is harmful to corals.
Keeping bioavalible nurients( orangics, small particulates,etc) available while at the same time exporting the "bad stuff" can provide an environment with a continuous food supply and pristine water. Skimming is a big asset in this effort and then there are pluses in aeration and ph management to boot.

 

[Flanders]

If you are working from the assumption that running a skimmer is the only and/or best way to keep NO3 and P04 at low levels, then we will have to agree to disagree, because there are other ways of accomplishing this goal. I don't know what is best, and I don't think any are necessarily best. Just different.

But the fact is, a skimmer indiscriminately exports the "bad stuff" and the "good stuff." Perhaps there are other ways to export the bad while leaving more of the good. As long as people would never run their tanks without a skimmer, people will never learn what is possible without a skimmer.

Here is a photo of my last tank. Never skimmed. Chaeto refugium, light stocking. Not an example of a top notch sps tank by any means, but those are out there as well.

 

[Willistein]

http://************.com/2011/01/04/sreef-stunning-skimmerless-reef-tank-marko-haga/

I would say the premise of this thread is not 100% accurate. I've found that it's very difficult to say with a great degree of certainty that anything we know about reef tanks is always true. To say running a skimmer will ALWAYS benefit ANY tank is probably not true.

 

[Flanders]

Also, I would suggest that the main reason it's hard to find top notch sps tanks that do not use skimmers is that it is a commonly held but not necessarily true belief that you must use a skimmer to have a top notch sps tank. Particularly on RC. Most people take the "I'd never do it" stance.

 

[Willistein]

OK, what's the deal? I can't link to other reef related sites? Man RC feels like a black hole sometimes.

OK, go to your favorite search engine and look for Marko Haaga's amazing skimmerless tank. It's just one that I know of.

 

[Flanders]

Also Krzysztof Tryc. Not going bother trying to post a photo but check out his tank and read this quote:

“Before starting zeovit method I tried various other methods and technologies and never had real trouble with keeping low level of NO3 or PO4 regardless of the way of tank running. I even tried for a year a skimmerless system with Miracle mud and Chaetomorpha in refuge. Although it worked for me I’ve decided to come back to the previous solution, i.e. with a skimmer."

 

[DEEP BLUE SIX]

Very Nice.

With Chaeto Refugium and key note on this specifically: "light stocking",
I can see this working (especially with water changes).

But the fact is (IMO), I think (I know) many people learned a lot about the differences of not skimming and skimming. From years of many early hobbyists "NOT skimming" because of lack of product or DIYs. Except many early experimenters who had some that paled in comparison to todays modern skimmers.

Many people for years had experience with reefs- NO skimming. Or FO. The results in the modern age, have proven to improve reef keeping in comparison and actual coral husbandry in the home aquarium as opposed to never having a skimmer. There are a great many things we "keep" now because of these advances, that had poorer survival rates in days gone by.. of course that does not "all" have to do with just skimming.. but it's certainly a part of it.

The Skimmer DOES pull "indescriminantly" for the most part. Agreed there.

BUT NO skimmer removes "EVERYTHING" in a system to a point where it would "devoid" the system of all things good or bad.. it helps reduction.
Systems that are heavily fed are interum helped by this... but I also think that there is NO way a skimmer would do so much- as to damage a closed box eco-system.. by removal of "too much" of something.

Otherwise, Skimming would not have taken off so well and improved Reef Systems overall for the most part for the last 10-15 years- as opposed to the older days. But just my PO.

I'm not a Chemist or reef biologist or a leading hobbyist known for being published. But It's nice to see at least- those with experience(in the majorities around the hobby) who can explain things in more detail as well as more eloquently see it much the same way: That Skimming is way too much of a benefit to consider it, a bad thing in comparison.

 

[der_wille_zur_macht]

According to the article linked earlier in this thread regarding skimmers removing bacteria, Sanjay Joshi runs several of his aquariums without skimmers.

And not to pick on Tom, but from this thread:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2018134

you said:

Organics and the nutrients from them will likely be higher in a skimerless tank,especially one without granulated activated carbon.

You do mention GAC, but unfortunately I think this commonly-held belief ignores the possibility for nutrients to be handled via other methods (turf scrubber, macro algae, etc.)

Likely, nutrients and organics in a tank with a skimmer will be lower than nutrients and organics in the same exact tank without a skimmer (and no other changes to equipment or approach). BUT, what happens when you "replace" the skimmer with other methods of nutrient export, aeration, and/or organic capture?

Not to sound like a broken record here, but I really think the most important thing is to concentrate on are the functions you need to perform on a tank (aeration, nutrient export, removal of organics, whatever) - those are the important things to be concerned about. Versus, assuming that a specific piece of equipment that happens to accomplish these functions is the "important thing" to be concerned about. A skimmer is not required to maintain a successful low-nutrient tank in order to support nutrient-sensitive livestock. What's required is maintaining low nutrients, and a skimmer is not the only (or, always, the best) way to do that.

As Fritz said, unless we divorce functions from equipment and allow ourselves to explore other equipment/methods that might accomplish those same functions, the hobby will never go anywhere.

 

[der_wille_zur_macht]

but I also think that there is NO way a skimmer would do so much- as to damage a closed box eco-system.. by removal of "too much" of something.

Per the article I posted earlier in the thread, tanks with skimmers typically have ten times fewer bacteria in the water column than natural reefs, and tanks without skimmers typically have levels matching natural reefs.

I'm not in a position to state what effect that does or does not have on the aquarium's ecosystem, but given the huge importance of bacteria in nearly every biological process, I wouldn't write it off as non-damaging without second thought.

 

[DEEP BLUE SIX]

You do mention GAC, but unfortunately I think this commonly-held belief ignores the possibility for nutrients to be handled via other methods (turf scrubber, macro algae, etc.)

Likely, nutrients and organics in a tank with a skimmer will be lower than nutrients and organics in the same exact tank without a skimmer (and no other changes to equipment or approach). BUT, what happens when you "replace" the skimmer with other methods of nutrient export, aeration, and/or organic capture?

Not to sound like a broken record here, but I really think the most important thing is to concentrate on are the functions you need to perform on a tank (aeration, nutrient export, removal of organics, whatever) - those are the important things to be concerned about. Versus, assuming that a specific piece of equipment that happens to accomplish these functions is the "important thing" to be concerned about. A skimmer is not required to maintain a successful low-nutrient tank in order to support nutrient-sensitive livestock. What's required is maintaining low nutrients, and a skimmer is not the only (or, always, the best) way to do that.

As Fritz said, unless we divorce functions from equipment and allow ourselves to explore other equipment/methods that might accomplish those same functions, the hobby will never go anywhere.

OK, I agree with all this above- basically.
& we should never abandon looking for new ways with things.
If something comes to full fruition that is better.. tested and proven more with time- things will change.

BUT I'm waiting to see that instead of being a tester. Just my choice. I'll jump when it's the clear thing to do. I respect those that are trying alternatives and think people that possibly lead us to better innovations and methods are awesome for this hobby.

Except right now, it's like more research and development on going. Sell it to me someday please.. once it takes off like Skimming once did. Once it's "for sure" a better method.

I think Scrubbing WORKS in some applications- hands down. Except No one has proven it to the industry yet enough to mass it, or that it is superior for various reasons. There is just as much if not MORE doubt about it, than Skimming. Until then, most of us will SKIM in most applications. Until it changes.. if it does.

(As far as non damaging- with skimming, I don't think anyone is "writing it off" without a "second thiought". It's just that the question really is a balance of how much something is beneficial as opposed to it's negative effects) Many things have BOTH. But the benefits really outway the negative in most cases. People tanks- the variety of what they keep in them, and mass success in the hobby world-wide favors skimming in most comparitive results without it.

 

[DEEP BLUE SIX]

Oh, and like many of us- I do use use MAcro algaes as well.
Just not a Turf Scrubber- yet.. (LOL)

 

[Flanders]

But the benefits really outway the negative in most cases. People tanks- the variety of what they keep in them, and mass success in the hobby world-wide favors skimming in most comparitive results without it.

That may be true but it also may not be. Mostly, we simply don't know because there isn't any methodological experimentation going on. I don't mean to pick on anyone but statements like this and "Increased feeding can offset any of these losses" are just assumptions not actually based on any data, or at least any that has been posted.

I find it hard to believe that increased feeding can increase bacterial populations that are being stripped out of the water column by tenfold back to normal levels, based on the data Nate posted. Maybe it can and there is some data to support that. I don't know. But the more these statements get thrown around as fact and not questioned and supported by data or research, the less we all learn.

 

[DEEP BLUE SIX]

One thing is for sure,
It's good the Germans started Skimming originally and the hobby has improved it well beyond what the earlier days were like. So, we have better reefkeeping in part because of that.. More succesful reef keeping. Comparing general advances in the hobby from 70's/80's when almost no one but a scientist or researcher dabbled, to the 90's where more of the first personal home reefs started- to what we have today is quite a leap.

Skimming has brought advances and much success in that respect. That in a general sense- IS A FACT. That there is no integral data here outling specifics, does not mean it's not a fact. Data would be nice. I'm sure someone "could" compile "some" by researching a multitude of variables involved from then to now and what we kept and so on... Whether it's available without a daunting task... for us to see ..

& Not that Skimming is the end of the line. Something is always replaced by the next best thing in practice once it's for sure. But this takes time.

If it is replaced someday, it will not erase the fact that skimming was an excellent invention for it's time. Doing the optimum for it's period.
But I'm still waiting to see this replacement yet..

I think it's true that Algae Scrubbers can work as well- in their infancy still right now... It would be nice to see TRIED, TESTED, and TRUE multi- DATA on those as well. Where is it? It's not there yet. Especially "not enough" to prove for all cases (various tank styles) that it's a "best" replacement for skimming.

Perhaps "it" or "something else", "may" replace skimming for many as a future
hobby main stay.

But arguing about data inconclusive or inadequate is not proving that other methods are better "for sure" than skimming. Or that skimming has it's liabilities worse than other methods.

I'm open to other methods.. their trial and research which usually takes a long time to perfect if it will be. In the meantime, being open to that, I don't think someone else (a proponent) of skimming can be "too" adversily against it either.
Unless their data for other methods comes through as conclusive enough to warrant as a replacement.

The use and research I support and have stated several times previously in this thread. While defending Skimming still as it stands for now as the current best practice.

Keep doing the research- but anotherwords give me something that proves your case- like real data for the alternative that shows it's superior for the same outcomes without the liabilities your worried about with skimming. In all ,fairness, we can both say that for each case.

 

[DEEP BLUE SIX]

That may be true but it also may not be. Mostly, we simply don't know because there isn't any methodological experimentation going on. I don't mean to pick on anyone but statements like this and "Increased feeding can offset any of these losses" are just assumptions not actually based on any data, or at least any that has been posted.

I find it hard to believe that increased feeding can increase bacterial populations that are being stripped out of the water column by tenfold back to normal levels, based on the data Nate posted. Maybe it can and there is some data to support that. I don't know. But the more these statements get thrown around as fact and not questioned and supported by data or research, the less we all learn.

I don't think anyone is stopping you or anyone in the pursuit of newly gained knowledge. I think it's fairly discussed here by all and no one really has the ever important "true" data (real numbers) being referred to for much of what is debated.

But culminations of most peoples bio loads, maintenance and overall experience do match in most of the hobby world plainly seen..in various tank styles without needing data to show every variable. Things are reasonable enough to support statements made by TMZ and Gary based on experience facts(which data is not easy to compile in broadspectrum) but it speaks for itself as what MANY other hobbyists have found around the world and what worked for them.

I read the study (not all yet.. but a bunch) respect those involved too.
Bright people.

However,
I also saw the tanks, but have a problem I don't see how 4-5 tanks is representative of a world of reef tanks and skimmers- all different sizes, bioloads and nutrient import/exports... to say it fit the demographic for the mass of all tanks in the hobby- proving these stats and levels as the "average" for the hobby. Which would make it a more accurate comparitor (for the whole hobby demographic) to the natural reef conditions and bacteria levels. I also don't see how it could tell in my tank or Garys as examples- what are reduction rates were specifically OR how quickly "FEEDING" our tanks would replace or not replace bacterial populations.. The study covers the tanks that were part of it to compare- not a whole hobby demographic. It seems to me, it would be very hard to really compare the whole hobby and what anyones Skimmer "really" does. As far as on their system and how that relates to some averages for home/hobby tanks being skimmed.

It's interesting. But I don't see how it's fully conclusive to prove skimming liabilities as more troublesome than benefits more positive.

 

[Gravesj1s]

Skimmer has the rate of removal time over algae especially if something bizare happened.Perhaps a spawning or power outage might be another to consider where more organics and more bacteria could spell trouble with 02 levels.

Though I will admit in being a huge Adey fan

-Steve

 

[Flanders]

Yes! A skimmer is hugely beneficial to many emergency type situations. And a great thing to have in the system even if not always skimming, just in case. That is a great point, Steve.