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

[tmz]

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.

No,I'm not assuming a skimmer is the best way to keep NO3 and PO4 low. That's a ridiculous position. Never said such a thing ;those are your words not mine. Summarizing my posts in this thread that way is dismissive . Perhaps you didn't have time to read them , misunderstood them or perhaps you just don't know what skimmers do and don't do and don't care to know.

I have run my system without skimming or very little for a long period of time . Years in fact. It's just much better with it in terms overall coral health ,color, diversity,lack of nuisance algae, possible feeding levels and many other ways with skimming as one part of the puzzle.
I said I would not personally run an sps tank without one; not that it couldn't or shouldn't be tried . I have tried it the past with some success but not close to current levels with skimming. I still would like to see some detailed examples oflong trem sps tanks simmerless.

I have one for a tank similar to yours but it's not an sps tank either.


I still keep and observe a 65 gallon tank separate from the main system without a skimmer .It has lps , soft corals and gorgonians and zoanthidae and a few monti frags and does well enough.Might do better with some skimming; might not, but it's ok so far after about 2yrs even with only pc lighting.
Certainly large well lit lopposite photo period macro algae refugia can help both oxygen dpeletion and nutrient export but don't deal with organic export ,the algae produces it. i use one of those too.
Skimmers don't remove inorganic nutrients ie NO3 and PO4 ( as I stated earlier, so why would you attribute that notion to me is puzzling). Skimmers remove organics(POM and DOM),primarily amphipathic ones ;I explained that earlier too. Granulated activated carbon removes more of the hydophobic ones like humic acids and does a better job at removing organics than skimming overall. . I do not beleive heavy skimming or any skimming is necessary or best for all tanks and said so but skimming is helpful for sps tanks particularly when organic carbon dosing and healthy feeding is part of the regimen. So, personally I would not run an sps dominant tank without one .

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.

That's right and applies to most things in life and the universe including reef tanks. So?
Learning is a continuing process and I learn from what others do but it doesn't preclude or diminish my own thoughts and experience,review of how things work and don't or personal preference. A discussion of what skimmers do and don't vs other systems( if there were other systems presented, which there weren't) is a natural follow on for someone who want's information as opposed to argument.



"Always best" was never the premise of this thread and certainly not a position I take on very many things, least of all skimming.
The premise of this thread was skimmers are benficial in FO tanks,see post #1.

, but it was highjacked a bit by an apparent anti skimmer agenda which I think is poorly conceived and has been presented without much substance via sniping of sorts. Really, what affirmative points have been presented about skimmerless systems. What methods specifically are used? How do they work? How long have they held up? . None of that has been offered.

So I apologize Gary for conitnuing down the detour but it seems a response is warranted.

Many of the methods used to reduce NO3 involve organic dosing , or sulfur and associated bacterial activity which depletes O2 and raises CO2. . Even those dependent on algae produce organics.Skimmers are vital in systems for exporting bacteria for aeration .

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.

So, the reason there are no available examples to examine here and now of thriving colorful sps tanks without skimmers is because everyone who has one uses a skimmer? Huh? I've seen many discussions on RC over the years about skimmer vs skimmerless. Why would RC in particular rule out skimmerless tanks? Not sure what your getting at but it seems derisive either to RCor to me assuming I haven't read elsewhere . So far no facts just attacks. The folks I talk to don't dismiss ideas and varying approaches they embrace them , challenge them and examine them to determine their worth and wring out any morsels of true information they can find.
I'm sure it's possible to run an sps tank without a skimmer but as a practical matter what's the point ? Folks can't really make an assesment on that question without some detail of what skimmerless systems include and examples which no one has provided.

There is no link for the tank you noted and it is self described as a zeovit system tank with skimming . Essentially a place for bacteria to grow, not unlike other orgnanic carbon dosing approaches. SPS tanks without skimming may be out there but you haven'tpreseted one yet and crtainly offer no system detail.

I'll look for the other one noted but can someone post one with details of the system used .
I'm always interested in the different ways people do things and of course examining the details before hypothesizing or accepting testimonials.

So show me a system that has produced colorful and healthy sps and other corals for 3 or more years without skimming and give me some details on how it does so and I and others may have a chance to learn something.

 

[tmz]

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

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

you said:

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Organics and the nutrients from them will likely be higher in a skimerless tank,especially one without granulated activated carbon. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
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.)

Yep I said that but not unfortunately.Perhaps not clearly enough.
Organics and the nutrients they hold including organically bound nitrogen and phosphorous and organic carbon are exported by skimming and or gac before they degrade to inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous. Skimmers export mostly ampipathic and some hydrophobic types of organics and gac mostly hydrophobic types and some ampipathic. Thus, those two methods export organic nitrogen and phosphorous before it becomes inorganic( NO3,PO4 species) .
Skimmers and GAC do not export the inorganic forms(NO3, PO4 species ) Algae,sponges, bacteria andothrotganismscan as tehy metabolize inorganic nitrogen and inorganic phosphate , both of which are harmful to corals in excess. When the incorporate them the inorganics are again bound to carbon as anew organic compound.

When algae is harvested there is a removal of the nitrogen and phosphorous bound in their tissues. So, it's the same as skimming and gac or even more so ,right?

No, not to pick on you Nate, but unfortunately, you forgot about the organic carbon.

Algae including those in refugia or scrubbers as well as other photsynthetic organisms produce organic compounds containing organic carbon among other things and add it to the water as algal exudate ,coral slime, spawn etc. They don't export organic carbon( the 3rd nutient) but add to it as they create organic carbon(ultimately DOM) via photsynthesis from water light and CO2.. So using them does not lessen the need for export methods for organic carbon it increases it. Here's a study on the harmful effects of TOC( total organic carbon ) on corals,FYI:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3

Since that study was done much experience has been gained with organic cabon dosing to enhance heterotrophic bacteria levels via organic carbon dosing for nutrient export and food. During these applcations it is very clear that skimmers are quite effective at exporting bacterial organics. IMO, using both skimming and gac is a prudent course when dosing organics in particular.

 

[DEEP BLUE SIX]

So show me a system that has produced colorful and healthy sps and other corals for 3 or more years without skimming and give me some details on how it does so and I and others may have a chance to learn something.

Yes. That would be excellent. So, anyone else- please give us some more detailed examples if possible. I would like to learn more. I always need to learn.

 

[Flanders]

Tom, I sincerely apologize for putting words in your mouth. However, please don't characterize my comments as "attacks" or "sniping." That is not fair.

My only agenda is to gain a better understanding about what is happening in our reef aquariums, and why. I am here to learn and you know a lot. I think this has been a good discussion so far.

I am not going to spend any more time trying to dig up examples of top notch aquariums that are skimmerless. I don't have time, perhaps others do. We have posted a couple of examples.

Regarding DOC, I would suggest that everyone read this article if you have not already done so.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature

particularly:

An interesting and perhaps unanticipated observation is that only 34% of this solid skimmate material can be assigned to "organic carbon", TOC. Thus, 2/3 of the solid, water-insoluble part of the skimmate is not TOC, but rather inorganic material that may (or may not) have biogenic origins. If a substantial amount of this inorganic material does come from the shells of plankton, then it stands to reason that a large part of the detected organic material (TOC) probably constitutes the "guts" of these organisms. Thus, perhaps not that much of the TOC removed by skimming is actually free-floating organic molecules. One caveat on this interpretation, of course, is the fact that ~ 90% of the crude original skimmate was washed away with water. Perhaps that water-soluble fraction contained significant quantities of dissolved organic carbon, which would be undetected by the above analysis.

and

One of the surprising observations to emerge from the original skimmer performance studies is that only approximately 20 - 35% of the measurable TOC in aquarium water is removed by skimming. That observation might now seem a little less surprising when viewed in the context of the skimmate component analysis. Thus, only ~ 29 % (25% from the solid + 4% from the liquid) of the skimmate removed by the H&S 200 skimmer from authentic reef tank water over the course of a week can be assigned to organic material. So, skimming does not remove all that much of the TOC present in aquarium water, and the skimmate does not contain all that much TOC.

So what, exactly, does skimming do? On the subject of water remediation; the most conservative, permissible (but not compelling!) answer is that skimming removes lots of (living or dead? unknown) microorganisms that populate the aquarium water, and in so doing removes the (organic) carbon, phosphorus, and nitrogen that comprise their biochemical makeup. In addition, dissolved organic compounds may also be removed, but the data do not support the proposition that these dissolved organic species constitute a major amount of the total organics removed. In addition to these water purification functions, skimmers serve to oxygenate the water and facilitate gas exchange in general, which are useful activities independent of organic waste removal.

To me this article raises more questions than it answers, but IF protein skimmers mainly remove carbon that is organically bound in the cells of tiny living organisms, bacteria/plankton/etc., rather than dissolved organics, and these animals would otherwise eventually be broken down into nitrates, phosphates, and C02 by the denitrification processes, it makes me want to constantly search for ways to accomplish this same goal of low nutrients in the aquarium without removing those organisms (i.e. some combination of algae growth and activated carbon use), because these organisms may actually be beneficial. That's where I'm coming from.

 

[der_wille_zur_macht]

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread at this point, because I don't think it's going in a useful direction any more and I don't think anyone is really understanding what Fritz or I are trying to say. Before I take off, I'd like to try to take one more attempt at making my (our?) point.

My only agenda is to gain a better understanding about what is happening in our reef aquariums, and why.

Same here. I'm not interested in "attacking" skimmer use, and I'm not here to try to talk anyone out of using a skimmer. As I said earlier, I definitely have more questions than I have answers. By asking these questions, I'm not trying to prove anything - just trying to get answers that are often not easy to get. All I'm really trying to do is make the following points:

• the end is more important than the means
• over time, our understanding of how different means allow us to achieve a given set of end goals is going to change
• there are always going to be multiple means that achieve a given set of goals

This set of beliefs often leads me to question the typical approaches the hobby takes to solving problems. Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone their chosen approach is "wrong" - I would certainly never try to propose my own approach as the only successful approach. At the same time, I'd hope other people would be open to the potential that their approach isn't the only successful approach.

That's it.

 

[tmz]

I've read article a while ago but just re read it .

20 to35% TOC is not insginificant. I'd expect that since not all of the compounds are amphipathic or hydrophobic.

However,I'm a bit skeptical of the findings and the quality of the analyses in this Feldman article.

I have some qualms, so , I'll note those and move on to the larger hypothesis you posed a little later :

The tank in the study used GAC which would compete for some of the mildly hydropobic compounds with the skimmer. Without GAC the levels of TOC may have been higher . All in all I think gac pulls more TOC than skimming.

UV was also employed which kills baterio plankton .I think UV would change the organization of organics in the water so a sample without UV would have been very helpful. Further I'm not sure dead bacteria are as labile as live ones or as miscible either. They may settle down on surfaces faster than live ones and be less skimmable as a result for example. The dead ones are certainly not consuming anything inorganic but likely contributing to the inorganic mix as they degrade.

90% of the crude skimmate was washed away before testing. Who knows if that was proportionately the same as the remaining sample in content .

Ok but still this study indiates TOC is removed at significant levels .

I have some things to do off line but I'll get back a little later.

 

[Gravesj1s]

Dwzm-Flanders,

Just in case you didnt know or that it maybe of some use .Feldman also, did some work on carbon removal it maybe worth looking up.

Just as well, Shimek also did a skimate analysis that maybe worth looking up.

-Steve

 

[tmz]

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread at this point, because I don't think it's going in a useful direction any more and I don't think anyone is really understanding what Fritz or I are trying to say. Before I take off, I'd like to try to take one more attempt at making my (our?) point.



Same here. I'm not interested in "attacking" skimmer use, and I'm not here to try to talk anyone out of using a skimmer. As I said earlier, I definitely have more questions than I have answers. By asking these questions, I'm not trying to prove anything - just trying to get answers that are often not easy to get. All I'm really trying to do is make the following points:

• the end is more important than the means
• over time, our understanding of how different means allow us to achieve a given set of end goals is going to change
• there are always going to be multiple means that achieve a given set of goals

This set of beliefs often leads me to question the typical approaches the hobby takes to solving problems. Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone their chosen approach is "wrong" - I would certainly never try to propose my own approach as the only successful approach. At the same time, I'd hope other people would be open to the potential that their approach isn't the only successful approach.

That's it.

I'm sorry you are dropping out you're contributions to this and other discussions are thoughtful and pithy and I enjoy our discsussions.

The implict charcterization of an unwillingness to accept alternative approaches and conitinuous improvements just isn't my way and I don't think I've given a reason to think so.

I'll take a position in a debate and defend it though for the sake of getting information out which is really all I've done here. But when the discussion gets to character rather than facts as information , I can usually tell the differeence and respond accordingly. I total reject the characterization that I beleive only one way is th best way. It just isn't so. Perhaps no one intended that; I know I didn't.

Regarding the quote you posted from another post of mine in an older thread it was only posted in part and the full post as well as the other one gives a clear view of my openess of mind on the issue of skimmers: So for the sake of clarity ,here it is in it's entirety:

"Organics and the nutrients from them will likely be higher in a skimerless tank,especially one without granulated activated carbon. Some corals and most nuisance algaes do well with higher organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous to a point; others don't.
Xenia, cataphylia, nemenzophylia,balstomossa,anthelia and discoma are examples of corals that might do well with higher nutrient water. Some corals come from turbid and/ or deeper waters where PO4 and NO3 can be many times higher than the more pristine high reef water where acropora and many other sps thrive. "

Here is another post of mine from that thread:


"I run a 65 gallon tank without skimming with four fish , lot's of leathers , mushrooms and xenia . I use a canister filter with a little gfo and granualted activated carbon on this aquarium. These particular corals do better growthwise ,ime, in this tank than they do in my mixed reef system which is heavily skimmed and heavily stocked with sps/lps,etc. "

I don't know of ways to export organics and particualrly organaic carbon other than adsorbents like GAC ,skimming or GAC in combiantion with ozone. If there are others I would liket tohear more about them.

 

[mr86mister]

This may have been stated and I probably missed it. On higher bio-load systems I believe that skimmers are a must! The proper skimmer is another thing. Just because a skimmer "says" it's rated up to a certain gallon range doesn't mean it's the right skimmer for you!!

 

[johno4]

All this skimmer talk has made me get my skimmer back online. So what if my wife says it to loud, thats what the wine is for

 

[tmz]

To me this article raises more questions than it answers, but IF protein skimmers mainly remove carbon that is organically bound in the cells of tiny living organisms, bacteria/plankton/etc., rather than dissolved organics, and these animals would otherwise eventually be broken down into nitrates, phosphates, and C02 by the denitrification processes, it makes me want to constantly search for ways to accomplish this same goal of low nutrients in the aquarium without removing those organisms (i.e. some combination of algae growth and activated carbon use), because these organisms may actually be beneficial. That's where I'm coming from.

Flanders, Thankyou for laying that out.

I get that and would agree if I believed the organics would hang around long enough in bio available forms to be used up by the organisms in the tank but I don't believe they do . The evidence and my experience seems to point away from that scenario given that nitrate and inorganic phosphate buildups are very common in reef tanks indicative of degradation of at least some the organics to inorganic forms.
Further much of the organic material shifts and changes ending up as refractrory substances like fulvic and humic acids which most bacteria can't even use.
Bio avaliable organic carbon shortages are commonly thought to contribute to NO3 and PO4 buildup as bacteria don't have enough C to proliferate in large enough numbers to use the N and P. Thus , organic carbon dosing methods are employed by growing numbers of aqaurists.

Consider this:
Bacteria are readily exported by skimming. They seem to fit the amphipathic profile very well. The N and P and C in them leave the tank before degradtion to inorganic forms when they are skimmed . The bacteria in the tank given a consistient food supply quickly take up the slack . Some of them, faculative heterotrophs eagerly consume organic carbon ,nitrate and phosphate and engage in anaerobic activity for NO3 reduction too. Thus, you have a stream of bacteria moving through the tank converting any inorganinc N and P( ie nitrate and phospahte ) hanging around to organically bound forms in the bacterium's bodies which are readily exportable by skimming. The "flavor" of the organic matters . Basic types close to acetate ( such acetic acid and ethonol) seem to work best.

There are millions of types of organics inlcuding some with toxic effects. Allelopathic compunds are one example,organics that breakdown and relaease free metals may be an even more important example.
So I don't like to let them hang around too long if I can intervene. I use a skimmer, gac and even some purigen in an effort to remove them on the main system. Each of these is believed to have an affinity for different "flavors " of organics.( ie,those that are to a higher degree or lessor degree: hydrophobic, hydrophylic or amphipathic).
I also dose ethanol and acetic acid to culture bacteria in the tank for nitrate and phosaphte reduction and export via skimming . The dosing keeps lots of bacteria on surfaces and in the water to support the base of the food web. they proliferate they use up PO4 and NO3 along with organic carbon.
I feed very heavily stocked tanks well and keep over 40 fish and hudreds of corals in them . I use no mechanical filtration . There are always particulate foods in the water. I just looked last night with a flash light and zooplankton were everywhere. The last feeding had been 6 hours earlier. The rock and substrate have lot's of pods and serpent stras too. Polyps on all the sps were fully extended so they were apparently after what was in the water; feeding, perhaps on the bacteria , perhaps on the particules of food ,fish waste or other microfuana floating by. In the morning I checked PO4 and NO3. The levels were .03ppm and .2ppm respectively. It's been this way for over three years so I would not personally change my methods including skimmer use except ver y gradually with small tweaks here and there. I might if new methodologies with a history of long term success emerged. Perhaps you will develop one . I wish you goodl uck with the endeavor and hope you'll keep us posted on howyourtank performs and what you find and learn

Thankyouf or the discussion and for being gracious about our dispute.


Consider this: Bacteria are readily exported by skimming. They seem to fit the amphipathic profile very well. The N and P and C in them leave the tank before degradtion to inorganic forms when they are skimmed . The bacteria in the tank given a consistient food supply quickly take up the slack . Some of them, faculative heterotrophs eagerly consume organic carbon ,nitrate and phosphate and engage in anaerobic activity for NO3 reduction too. Thus you have a stream of bacteria moving through the tank converting any inorganinc N and P( ie nitrate and phospahte ) hanging around to organically bound forms in the bacterium's bodies readily exportable by skimming. The "flavor" of the organic matters . I think and basic types close to acetate in the degradation type ( such acetic acid and ethonol)

 

[tmz]

Dwzm-Flanders,

Just in case you didnt know or that it maybe of some use .Feldman also, did some work on carbon removal it maybe worth looking up.

Just as well, Shimek also did a skimate analysis that maybe worth looking up.

-Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks, I think I've read them but I'll take another look. I think there is also one on GAC out of Penn State, IIRC.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

all the techno talk and links are appreciated

fwiw I was running a FO for years with a skimmer on it... no problems.

took the skimmer offline for a month and the fishes all started develop health problems. It was no concidence. Flame on.

 

[Gravesj1s]

Hi Steve,

Thanks, I think I've read them but I'll take another look. I think there is also one on GAC out of Penn State, IIRC.

Hi,
Yep I was refering to the filtrant carbon,sorry about that guys.Good catch tmz.

-Steve