overskimming ha!!

[LFS_worker]

I am going to try to test the theory of overskimming is bad ...

I just installed an aerofoamer 830 being fed with a MAG 24 seen here
http://www.reefconcepts.com/products/skimmers/800series/

and an asm G-3... with the recirc MOD we will see how things are doing in a week and 2 weeks .... I wont be able to post pics ( i cant resize them acurately and I get frustrated)


anyone have any ideas what I should be keeping an eye on? what the major threats are? the tank is a 75g perfecto with a 30g sump... some LPS, some SPS.

Thanks for looking
Brian

 

[Clouded]

The usual stuff... polyps not extending, fading of color...The LPS will probably be very unhappy with this.

 

[LFS_worker]

cool thanks

Ill keep my eyes posted I just picked up some xenia I figure this will be the first coral to be affected... For now ... pulsing great...

Some one shot me some cool links for posting pics... thanks deaminmel...

Brian

 

[dreaminmel]

:thumbsup:

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7867349#post7867349 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Clouded
The usual stuff... polyps not extending, fading of color...The LPS will probably be very unhappy with this.

Don't count on it.
Although not a true scientific experiment (no control) it will be interesting to hear/see the results of this.
Since this aquarium is going to be "overskimmed" it will be possible to feed the LPS a larger quantity of good food (such as cyclopeeze) and oxygen levels will be supersaturated. A larger bioload should be possible. Light penetration should increase. SPS (Acropora in particular) should benefit from "overskimming".

Micro and macroalgae might suffer, however.

 

[Clouded]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7874708#post7874708 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Gary Majchrzak
Don't count on it.
Although not a true scientific experiment (no control) it will be interesting to hear/see the results of this.
Since this aquarium is going to be "overskimmed" it will be possible to feed the LPS a larger quantity of good food (such as cyclopeeze) and oxygen levels will be supersaturated. A larger bioload should be possible. Light penetration should increase. SPS (Acropora in particular) should benefit from "overskimming".

Micro and macroalgae might suffer, however.

All he said was that he was going to overskim...not feed anything differently...if he changes anything besides skimming accurate results can not be had...so if he changes nothing and LPS are not getting any more food, then yes they may become unhappy...also not everyone spot feeds their LPS, so if that is not done and the water becomes less "dirty" which tends to make LPS unhappy....

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7876091#post7876091 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Clouded
All he said was that he was going to overskim...not feed anything differently...if he changes anything besides skimming accurate results can not be had...so if he changes nothing and LPS are not getting any more food, then yes they may become unhappy...also not everyone spot feeds their LPS, so if that is not done and the water becomes less "dirty" which tends to make LPS unhappy....

As I posted, that's exactly why this is not a "true" scientific experiment. If skimming allows you to feed a coral healthy foods more often, why wouldn't you?
There are other variables as well. Will lighting intensity be held at a constant? (I doubt it.) If "overskimming" results in brighter lighting due to increased water clarity certain corals might show a negative reaction (at least initially).
There are a lot of variables to this kind of thing, but most reef building corals appreciate a clean, well oxygenated and well lit environment as opposed to a "dirty" one.

 

[LFS_worker]

I am actually planning to fead very little for now... Im more concerned about the xenia and they seem to be pulsing alot more sence the addition of the XL skimmer.

I realize this cannot be the be-all and end-all of overskimming discussions but I hav eheard so manny stories with no proof or links.. I would love to have 2 identical systems one with mediocre skimming and one being "overskimmed" but seeing where I work that may be kinda difficult to do.

as of 72 hrs into the test run all is going fantastic all corals look well the xenia are pulsing great, I must admit the 72 hr mark is kinda off a little bit ... it took me about 2 hrs to get the skimmer level correct.

Thanks for the input from everyone... any more pointers are appreciated.. Ill try to post some pics later on tonight.

Brian

 

[Clouded]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7876337#post7876337 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Gary Majchrzak
As I posted, that's exactly why this is not a "true" scientific experiment. If skimming allows you to feed a coral healthy foods more often, why wouldn't you?
There are other variables as well. Will lighting intensity be held at a constant? (I doubt it.) If "overskimming" results in brighter lighting due to increased water clarity certain corals might show a negative reaction (at least initially).
There are a lot of variables to this kind of thing, but most reef building corals appreciate a clean, well oxygenated and well lit environment as opposed to a "dirty" one.

LIke I said and he has now said...he will not be changing anything...
Maybe you have not done expeirements in school...but yes all he should change is skimming more, or else it would be no good. So to your why wouldn't you feed more if you are skiming more, well then that defeats the whole pruprose of trying to see if over skimming harms things.

You can have to clean of water, if everything is pulled out then the corals have nothing to live off of, so you need to find a balance of clean water but still have things in there to support coral life...

 

[manderx]

the aerofoamer is an amazing skimmer, i think it's the best beckett out there with it's swirling action. but a mag24 isn't going to push it hard enough to consider it overskimming imo. all you are likely to do is pull everything that's easily skimmable and then both skimmers will idle waiting for a fish to poop, i don't think either will really dig all that deep and get harder-to-skim substances. then the aerofoamer will probably get most of the new poop first since it has such a higher throughput.

and 'overskimming' is a very vague term. do you mean pulling out so much organic waste that there aren't enough downstream nutrients for uptake, or do you mean certain other usually-difficult-to-skim-out substances that may or may not be part of the food in->poop out chain get skimmed out?

i'm running a deltec 902 on a 50g tank at the moment till my new one is setup. the skimmer does not produce much, it just sits there waiting for a critical mass foam head to form which never really does, even though i have tried to give it enough to skim by overfeeding like crazy at times. corals all look a bit anemic, some have good color, others are blah. some growth but nothing real. i actually took it off 4 weeks ago, and most things noticably perked up for the first week. then things slumped, probably because i'm not running the lights very much because heat builds up too fast without the extra water volume i had back then with the sump+skimmer. and i took my calcium reactor offline and have been very bad about supplementing alk and calcium. this does make me wish i had gotten a much smaller skimmer, since it will be rather oversized even on the next tank.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7876337#post7876337 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Gary Majchrzak
There are other variables as well. Will lighting intensity be held at a constant? (I doubt it.) If "overskimming" results in brighter lighting due to increased water clarity certain corals might show a negative reaction (at least initially).

Gary, a while back someone did some tests on aquarium water using DI water (or ozonized salt, something very clean basically) and some aquarium water that was visibly yellowed, and found that at typical aquarium depths, there was little to no difference in lighting intensity. The real difference comes in the fact that the corals NEED less light in a lower nutrient environment.

I'm gonna try to find the tests.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7877535#post7877535 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Clouded
LIke I said and he has now said...he will not be changing anything...
Maybe you have not done expeirements in school...but yes all he should change is skimming more, or else it would be no good. So to your why wouldn't you feed more if you are skiming more, well then that defeats the whole pruprose of trying to see if over skimming harms things.
You can have to clean of water, if everything is pulled out then the corals have nothing to live off of, so you need to find a balance of clean water but still have things in there to support coral life...

Do you know what a control is?
Do you really believe "overskimming" (in quotes because the term is suspect) creates an environment where corals have nothing to "live off of"?
A true experiment cannot be done without a control.
Things will be changing without a control.
If you simply add more skimming to any aquarium it's not a true experiment. The result you end up with is called an anecdotal observation.
What I'm trying to get you to understand is the fact that (without a control) there are too many variables to call this an experiment.
A few last examples (out of many) unseen variables:
The Mag 24 powering the additional skimmer Brian is using will undoubtedly raise the temperature of the system by a few degrees. This might cause corals to have a negative reaction- especially if it pushes aquarium temps into the high 80's.
If he unplugs the calcium reactor and shortens the photoperiod because the heat builds up it affects the "experiment".
I won't waste any more time on the definitions of experiment and anecdotal observation.
The threads in this forum amaze me lately.

FWIW By chance I ended up with a Mag 24 on my Aerofoamer 830 clone for several months. (It wasn't the pump I wanted on the skimmer.) It can push an 830 almost (but not quite) to it's fullest potential. The GenX PCX40 that I have now is a better match for the skimmer.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7878554#post7878554 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Gary, a while back someone did some tests on aquarium water using DI water (or ozonized salt, something very clean basically) and some aquarium water that was visibly yellowed, and found that at typical aquarium depths, there was little to no difference in lighting intensity. The real difference comes in the fact that the corals NEED less light in a lower nutrient environment.
I'm gonna try to find the tests.

Corals NEED less light in a lower nutrient environment?
Did you word this correctly, Rich?

 

[Clouded]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7879934#post7879934 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Gary Majchrzak
Do you know what a control is?
Do you really believe "overskimming" (in quotes because the term is suspect) creates an environment where corals have nothing to live off of?
A true experiment cannot be done without a control.
Things will be changing without a control.
If you simply add more skimming to any aquarium it's not a true experiment. The result you end up with is called an anecdotal observation.
What I'm trying to get you to understand is the fact that (without a control) there are too many variables to call this an experiment.
A few last examples (out of many) unseen variables:
The Mag 24 powering the additional skimmer Brian is using will undoubtedly raise the temperature of the system by a few degrees. This might cause corals to have a negative reaction- especially if it pushes aquarium temps into the high 80's.
If he unplugs the calcium reactor and shortens the photoperiod because the heat builds up it affects the "experiment".
I won't waste any more time on the definitions of experiment and anecdotal observation.

FWIW By chance I ended up with a Mag 24 on my Aerofoamer 830 clone for several months. (It wasn't the pump I wanted on the skimmer.) It can push an 830 almost (but not quite) to it's fullest potential. The GenX PCX40 that I have now is a better match for the skimmer.

Ok, now you are just bent on proving somebody wrong and that person is me...Yes i understand this will not be a true experiment...but to make it as close to one as possible, nothing but skimming more is the only thing that can be changed...if he feeds more, increases lighting, adds more calcium, whatever...then you will not even have the slightest idea as to if the over skimming is making any sort of change...you keep talking about adding food, different lighting that is not what is going on here...I have explained why your point does not hold water...so I am done arguning with you now...if you want to really read through the posts please do and get back to me... He is not going to change anything but how he skimms to see if the corals react neg. he is not going to change feeding time, amount, or type...or change the lighting pattern, intensity or there would be way to many varibles...so yes with out changing anything but skimming, corals do have a chance to ngo downhill.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

This is a reefing bulletin board.
I'm not bent on proving anyone here wrong.
Education is my main goal. For myself and (perhaps) for others.

I was looking through Reefkeeping Online Magazine's past TOTM's. I've noticed a common denominater: good or great skimming. (Some might call it "overskimming").
Many of the protein skimmers employed in those TOTM's even use ozone for enhanced nutrient export.
Coincidence?

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7878470#post7878470 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by manderx
the aerofoamer is an amazing skimmer, i think it's the best beckett out there with it's swirling action.

Swirling doesn't improve contact time. Changing the rate water enters the skimmer, increasing the length of the skimmer, having the water go in the opposited direction of the bubbles all increase contact time, I'm not sure what swirling does.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

Swirling increases contact time.

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7880648#post7880648 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Gary Majchrzak
Swirling increases contact time.

Why?

The rate of water going into the skimmer doesn't change so how could it increase contact time?

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

With swirling there is lateral as well as horizontal movement of the water/air mixture. (Water/air spins around inside the skimmer as opposed to simply passing vertically through the length of the skimmer.)
The swirling motion results in a greater distance that water being processed by the skimmer must travel. A greater distance to travel equals more contact time.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7880802#post7880802 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Gary Majchrzak
With swirling there is lateral as well as horizontal movement of the water/air mixture. (Water/air spins around inside the skimmer as opposed to simply passing vertically through the length of the skimmer.)
The swirling motion results in a greater distance that water being processed by the skimmer must travel. A greater distance to travel equals more contact time.

No it doesnt.

THe bubbles just travel faster. They still rise at the same rate.

 

[LFS_worker]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7880662#post7880662 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
Why?

The rate of water going into the skimmer doesn't change so how could it increase contact time?

Think of the time that any given bubble is in contact with any drop(s) of water.. my ASM has a contact time of about 2 seconds (guessing) the aerofoamer is somewhere around 10 senconds some go even longer if the proteins are attracted to air then just about the time that one bubble gets to the surface of the asm it pops and releases some of that organic polutant back into the water column. the foamer is a much much better skimmer.. hands down no contest .

TO ALL:your insite and knowledge are a great asset to this forum please lets not take this to a personal level or feel like one is attacking you.

Gary M you are correct the temp went from 81 to 83 with the MAG 24 ... the experiment would already be fudged but I want to see if I will notice any difference still. This is just purely an observation on my uniquely changeing system Please dont stop posting you are extremely inciteful and I have already learned alot from this thread...

Thanks to all

Brian