Macro Algae vs Skimmers

[FlyPenFly]

I'll be setting up a unplumbed shallow cube (20x20x12) this Friday. The plan for this system will be mostly LPS and a very low fish load of just 1 or 2 smaller sized fish. The tank will also have a large variety of macro algae such as HALIMEDA, CYMOPOLIA, GRACILARIA, EUCHEUMA, BOTRYOCLADIA, and HETEREOSIPHONA. Lighting will probably be a full spectrum LED fixture although I may start out on T5. I may also add some pulsating Xenia.

LPS will mostly be open brains, bubbles, duncans, etc.

It will also serve as a SPS quarantine where I can monitor new colonies/frags for red bugs and other pests for a month or two before intruding them to my main system.

Chemical filtration will be provided by a Tunze 3163 (http://www.tunze.com/149.html?&L=1&C=RO&user_tunzeprod_pi1[predid]=-infoxunter065). I will be using Seachem Matrix carbon and Seachem Phosguard as well as possibly Purigen.

I've been debating whether this tank needs a skimmer or not. I would go with a Tunze 9004 since it will match the 3163 and it's best suited for a tank this size and dimensions.

 

[MrHarvard]

The macro algae will probably do the trick along with your chemical filtration for an lps tank. If you were going to be housing sps long term I would say add the skimmer. You have to be careful with the macro, chemical, and skimmer filtration as you can over strip the water and make it to clean for the lps. I would start without it and go from there.

 

[RossTheReefer]

I say that macro is always better. My skimmer has been gathering dust for years now and my system has never been cleaner!

 

[FlyPenFly]

It will be an interesting experiment. I'm going to start off skimmer less and I'm going to monitor my phosphate and nitrate levels to see if the macro algae itself can keep it in the 10ppm for nitrates and under .1ppm for phosphates. (These are the levels I keep in my main system where I have a lot of colorful rapid SPS growth).

I guess if it can achieve that, I don't see the benefit of running a skimmer in this system. I believe the highest bioload will come from feeding the LPS Fauna Marin LPS pellets and half a cube of mysis for the fish in the morning and evening.

 

[wayne in norway]

I've used a number of different macroalgaes in my time and currently run a nano using ust caulerpa and mud. It has no problems keeping nitrate and phosphate down but there are still significant amounts of DOC in the water shown by yellowing. So run some carbon or similar as well.
Chaeto will do the same tho' not as aggressively as caulerpa. I have never used a turf scrubber but I have seen plenty of green turf and hair, and don't doubt that the same yellowing by DOC's is true there as well.

 

[dppitone]

About 10 years ago I was running four 50 gallon rubbermaid stock tank refugiums on a 1200 gallon system and was growing different macros in every square inch of each one. With doing that, it kept the Nitrates below 10 and I didn't need to skim.

The 50 gallon stock tanks are pretty shallow. With a bed of live sand, there was only about 10+ of water depth. So it was a larger ratio of refugium to system size than it appeared. I figured that if fuges were about 1/4 of the entire system, it could be run without skimmers depending on the bio-load. I had a good deal of fish. On a bio-load scale of 1 to 10, 10 being highest, I would've put our load at around 7.

So translating that, I'd guess if you're macro uses 1/4 of the surface area of your tank it should be do-able.

 

[96p993]

the skimmerless option brings up some interesting thoughts...I was always under the impression a skimmer and macro did 2 different things. Skimmer is more for organic solids, macro is more for depleting nitrates, phosphates, etc...By trimming the macro you pull out the negatives stored.

Im guessing the big key will be chemical filtration and consistent water changes to "clean" the water

 

[dppitone]

My understanding is that in skimming, the particles that are removed are the particles that fuel the bacteria cycle, so less nitrates as a bi-product. In contrast, the macros absorb the nitrates that are created. So the former heads then off from being made while the latter removes them after being made.

 

[ca1ore]

I tend to be in the 'skimmer on all tanks, regardless' camp, but you certainly CAN run a tank with heavy macro growth without one - I just wouldn't. I have had a number of tanks with both skimmers and macro fuges, and the skimmer doesn't seem to inhibit macro growth and the alage doesn't seem to diminish skimmate production, so I too see tham as complementary. On my current tank I run both a skimmer and ATS, and the latter has effectively killed off my chaeto.

 

[hart24601]

Although it is a smaller tank my 14 biocube has been running without a skimmer for years now with SPS. I have chaeto in the rear chamber, nitrates are undetectable on salifert test and phosphate is normally 0.00 on hanna checker. I run carbon, purigen and a little gfo too. ATO with vinegar/kalk and waterchange every month or two. SPS outgrows everything in there, and I had to take leathers and some LPS just because they wouldn’t grow. So no, you don’t need one.

 

[JustClownin]

I ran my 75 with softies and LPS with only a fuge. I had only a 5 small fish and didnt over feed, and the corals seemed to do just fine. I didnt have major algae problems and had good growth.

My tank was also nice and silent. Not that way with my 120 though...