Need help selecting between these two skimmers

[ReeferRuss]

I am working on building my first tank with a sump. I have a 120g tank and a ~40g Sump. I currently have 2 Clowns, 1 Goby, 1 Bleene, 3 other fish, 4 Shrimp, 1 Sea Hare, and about 6 Crabs. I am wanting to get a Powder Blue Tang in the new tank and also maybe a 3-4 other fish.

I am trying to decide between these two Eshopps Skimmers.

ESHOPPS Mid-level X-220 AXIUM Skimmer 200-325gal
ESHOPPS Premier S-200 S-Series Skimmer 120-260gal

I am not sure which is a higher priority. A higher water volume/bio load support or a the higher end skimmer. Any advice on which path to take would be appreciated.

Thanks,

 

[Dmorty217]

A quality skimmer is of highest importance since most all skimmers are over rated compared to what they are actually capable of. I would argue a quality skimmer is more efficient than a lower quality, higher rated skimmer too

 

[hkgar]

Forget those Best available are either MTC or Life Reef
http://www.marinetechnical.com/page19.html

http://lifereef.com/

 

[JUNBUG361]

Do you really need a skimmer, if keeping fish only tank?

 

[zooman72]

Either of the Eshopps skimmers will probably work quite well for your particular aquarium, and the skimmers in question are quite similar (use same pump and dimensions are quite close) and will probably perform the same to be honest. The Premier Line does offer a different bubble plate and easier maintenance (i.e. easier to take apart and clean), plus a different color (blue is better ), and you will have to decide if that warrants a higher price tag...

 

[zooman72]

Do you really need a skimmer, if keeping fish only tank?

Plain and simple - yes...

 

[Dmorty217]

Do you really need a skimmer, if keeping fish only tank?

Yes, how else are you going to remove all the fish waste?

 

[Pandagobyguy]

I do not agree that you need a protein skimmer. If you have fish only tank barebottom you can just siphon out detritus and do water changes. Further, a protien skimmer never removes 100% of detritus. You still have to do water changes because there is still decaying matter in your water.

Water changes are the only thing you "need". Everything else you add to the tank should make the number of times you actually need to do water changes lower (sometimes eliminating their necessity completely). This is effectively what a protein skimmer does. It removes stuff prior to it becoming ammonia>nitrite>nitrate.

That said my recommendation is a turf scrubber. The benefits of having filter which removes nitrate (not just poop), grows copes, and is super easy to clean/maintain are hard to beat. Also its just super interesting (mb im just nerd). And if you dont have coral, the alk and ph change from long run time rly wont matter. The only down side is basically irrelevant to you imo.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[DreadCapn]

I just got my Avast Pegleg working. The build was a pleasure with an incredibly well designed kit. It's already working like a beast and is super quiet. https://www.avastmarine.com/collections/you-built

 

[monkeysee1]

Go with Reef Octopus. And for your size tank, get the 6" Regal 150-INT.
They make the BEST skimmer out there. Hands down. Period.

 

[zooman72]

I do not agree that you need a protein skimmer. If you have fish only tank barebottom you can just siphon out detritus and do water changes. Further, a protien skimmer never removes 100% of detritus. You still have to do water changes because there is still decaying matter in your water.

Water changes are the only thing you "need". Everything else you add to the tank should make the number of times you actually need to do water changes lower (sometimes eliminating their necessity completely). This is effectively what a protein skimmer does. It removes stuff prior to it becoming ammonia>nitrite>nitrate.

That said my recommendation is a turf scrubber. The benefits of having filter which removes nitrate (not just poop), grows copes, and is super easy to clean/maintain are hard to beat. Also its just super interesting (mb im just nerd). And if you dont have coral, the alk and ph change from long run time rly wont matter. The only down side is basically irrelevant to you imo.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

1. Sure, one can do water changes as the sole means of waste removal, but wastes are more than detritus, which makes one wonder if you are aware of how protein skimmers actually function. If one wants to efficiently handle waste removal, partial water changes (especially on a larger aquarium) can be an especially inefficient way to do so (depending on what % is being replaced). They can be much more efficient on a smaller aquarium (i.e. nano sized).

2. Research the methodology and science behind the Triton method, as well as what protein skimmers actually remove before making blanket statements on water changes vs. skimmers.

3. Algae turf scrubbers can be very effective at mitigating nitrate and phosphate, but to claim they are super easy and effective leaves a lot to be desired, not to mention the fact that carbon filtration is usually needed for pigment removal (i.e. yellowing agents). It is also worrisome that you deride the effects of alk and pH in the long term, when both are actually quite important regardless of the aquarium type (i.e. even for a fish only tank) - in fact, many would argue that alk and pH should be kept to "reef levels" for any fish-only marine aquarium. Just because the fish may survive parameters outside the "norm" does not make it advisable to subject them to it.

Go with Reef Octopus. And for your size tank, get the 6" Regal 150-INT.
They make the BEST skimmer out there. Hands down. Period.

R.O. skimmers are comparable to several other brands of mid-level skimmers, and it would be difficult to argue that they are the "best, hands-down, period", and even harder to argue that they are any better than the two Eshopps models noted by the OP...

 

[Pandagobyguy]

1. Sure, one can do water changes as the sole means of waste removal, but wastes are more than detritus, which makes one wonder if you are aware of how protein skimmers actually function. If one wants to efficiently handle waste removal, partial water changes (especially on a larger aquarium) can be an especially inefficient way to do so (depending on what % is being replaced). They can be much more efficient on a smaller aquarium (i.e. nano sized).

2. Research the methodology and science behind the Triton method, as well as what protein skimmers actually remove before making blanket statements on water changes vs. skimmers.

3. Algae turf scrubbers can be very effective at mitigating nitrate and phosphate, but to claim they are super easy and effective leaves a lot to be desired, not to mention the fact that carbon filtration is usually needed for pigment removal (i.e. yellowing agents). It is also worrisome that you deride the effects of alk and pH in the long term, when both are actually quite important regardless of the aquarium type (i.e. even for a fish only tank) - in fact, many would argue that alk and pH should be kept to "reef levels" for any fish-only marine aquarium. Just because the fish may survive parameters outside the "norm" does not make it advisable to subject them to it.



R.O. skimmers are comparable to several other brands of mid-level skimmers, and it would be difficult to argue that they are the "best, hands-down, period", and even harder to argue that they are any better than the two Eshopps models noted by the OP...

when you do look up the triton system you'll notice that the protein skimmer is there to remove organics and act as an overpriced airstone. It fails to remove all wastes and the biological filters remove what is left. This is why the triton method also uses a refugium. It still needs a method to remove nitrate (that is why, done right, you dont need WC). It is also the reason it sometimes need GFO. Just as another way to think about it, one could likewise remove the skimmer and "a skimmer's worth" of fish and the system would still act the same.

In the end (despite what people may think) an ATS is really just a refugium.
So I'm really just suggesting he start with the first stage of the triton method rather than the skimmer. I'm also not suggesting protein skimmers are useless, they just reduce waste material in the water.

But you are right about PH. It should be a concern, i was wrong to suggest it wouldn't be.

I do not run a large enough scrubber to experience any significant changes. Ime it has not been an issue but it obviously is for others.

Also i got worried i was actually missing something.... anyway i googled so here is a source to back up what i say:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gCJAQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw3uroavo0JV1bpuW1jEt4CG



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Pandagobyguy]

Well i guess that links not working but thread is "unanswered questions about triton method sump design" on *********


Edit: wow they wont let me say re ef 2 re ef lololol
Anyway also i agree some ATS designs are bad and to difficult to clean. But if you go custom its as easy as you can make it or just find a good design (as with all technology ever).
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[zooman72]

when you do look up the triton system you'll notice that the protein skimmer is there to remove organics and act as an overpriced airstone. It fails to remove all wastes and the biological filters remove what is left. This is why the triton method also uses a refugium. It still needs a method to remove nitrate (that is why, done right, you dont need WC). It is also the reason it sometimes need GFO. Just as another way to think about it, one could likewise remove the skimmer and "a skimmer's worth" of fish and the system would still act the same.

In the end (despite what people may think) an ATS is really just a refugium.
So I'm really just suggesting he start with the first stage of the triton method rather than the skimmer. I'm also not suggesting protein skimmers are useless, they just reduce waste material in the water.

But you are right about PH. It should be a concern, i was wrong to suggest it wouldn't be.

I do not run a large enough scrubber to experience any significant changes. Ime it has not been an issue but it obviously is for others.

Protein skimmers (and activated carbon) remove a certain percentage of DOC (dissolved organic carbon), but cannot remove a majority of it - discounting what they do remove (~30-35%) is silly (like calling skimmers overpriced airstones). Biological filters don't "remove" anything - they convert nitrogenous wastes products, resulting in nitrate and phosphate still remaining in the aquarium as metabolic waste products.

Since these compounds are harmful at elevated levels, aquarists like to remove them via various methods: skimming, activated carbon, bioremediation/ carbon dosing, algae "farming", and water changes. Water changes tend to remove less wastes than other methods unless they are significantly sized (i.e. 30% or more), which is more laborious and expensive in larger aquariums (but certainly not impossible).

Protein skimmers tend to skim bacteria, which is why carbon dosing works - the bacteria incorporate nitrates and phosphates into living cells, which are then removed via the skimmer. Refugia/ algae "scrubbers" also remove nitrate and phosphate from the water column via algae tissue incorporation - GFO removes phosphate (not nitrates), and wouldn't be necessary in a properly-sized refugium/ scrubber (as noted by those using chaeto reactors for example).

While water changes can and do remove a percentage of waste products, they may be more beneficial as a means of replenishing trace elementsand alkalinity in many systems. The Trition method basically reduces/ eliminates water changes by using the skimmer and refugium to remove DOC from the water column, and replenishing trace elements via dosing (after detailed analysis). It may be worth it in larger volume systems, and less so in smaller systems where water changes are simpler and less expensive.