Running skimmerless

Most corals will "skim" the nutrients out of the water. I bet an 8" Squamosa clam would out skim a 12' skimmer.

LOL!!!!

So.. Let's work out the science behind this. My skimmer exports a quart of waste liquid a day and a pound of waste SOLID a month. Watch the video.

If one clam skimmed and consumed that much, it would increase in size and weight proportionately. So after a year, it would weigh 12lbs heavier ... Not counting the liquid waste adding to it. If it didn't, then that mass was pumped back into the water...= Not skimmed.

I'm a big fan of using animals to export waste.. But that biomass needs to be eventually exported (removed). My sump has been invaded by Xenia and now I have to export them and give them away to local reef keepers for free... That's export.

Am I pulling out a pound a month? No

My ATS export is decent though.
 
My corals are growing exponentially, by the way. I now need to cut away the dead branches that result from their constant infighting and killing of each other. Last weekend, my beautiful monti undata was fried by a massively growing Hollywood stunner. It happened in a few days. One tricolor acro colony is being crushed by an out of control hydnophora. I'm giving away (almost) colonies of monti digitata and the weight of my encrusting monti is potentially threatening to crush the structure I originally put it on.

So... With the amount of export I have, I still have painfully fast growth...

I feed a lot- that's true- but my export tools keep the tank healthy.
 
Oh.. The SPS growth isn't unique. My LPS and softies are also out of control... In the same tank. My frogspawn has split heads over and over. And my green star polyp has started to create platform overhangs to get up over the LPS polyp's without fighting them directly. Then they crush their polyps under their growth... It's insane.
 
LOL!!!!

So.. Let's work out the science behind this. My skimmer exports a quart of waste liquid a day and a pound of waste SOLID a month. Watch the video.

If one clam skimmed and consumed that much, it would increase in size and weight proportionately. So after a year, it would weigh 12lbs heavier ... Not counting the liquid waste adding to it. If it didn't, then that mass was pumped back into the water...= Not skimmed.

I'm a big fan of using animals to export waste.. But that biomass needs to be eventually exported (removed). My sump has been invaded by Xenia and now I have to export them and give them away to local reef keepers for free... That's export.

Am I pulling out a pound a month? No

My ATS export is decent though.

You're assuming that you are skimming all waste. The science by Ken Feldman proved there is very little waste in skimmate. So little in fact that a bag of carbon and the sand/rock in the skimmerless tank performed just as well as the skimmed tanks.

I was involved in a skimmer vs skimmerless acro growout contest. After only 3 months the bubbleheads are conceding....
 
again - not all skimmers are created equal.
again - the composition of the skimmate is a function of the compounds in the water.
again - if you change your water enough, you don't need any export

This is similar to those threads about LEDs not working... just because you don't know how to do it, doesn't mean that the equipment isn't effective. Not all LEDs are created equal... etc.. etc...

Absolutes are dangerous - they usually assume that all your assumptions and opinions are valid and everyone else's facts are faulty... I think "some" skimmerless tanks work great and to each their own.

Show me a real study where two identical setups were run with the same food, flow, lighting, salt, coral frags, etc... and the same water changes... but one had a skimmer with proven effectiveness and the other run without... and make sure to feed enough to get sufficient coral growth (or else a skimmer isn't very effective)... oh, and don't change more than 10% a week max....

If that study shows that, with all other variables being the same, the skimmerless was more effective (delivered more coral growth), I'll take it seriously.

Until then - let's be honest - it's all opinion and isolated examples of one or the other working well.
 
again - not all skimmers are created equal.
again - the composition of the skimmate is a function of the compounds in the water.
again - if you change your water enough, you don't need any export

This is similar to those threads about LEDs not working... just because you don't know how to do it, doesn't mean that the equipment isn't effective. Not all LEDs are created equal... etc.. etc...

Absolutes are dangerous - they usually assume that all your assumptions and opinions are valid and everyone else's facts are faulty... I think "some" skimmerless tanks work great and to each their own.

Show me a real study where two identical setups were run with the same food, flow, lighting, salt, coral frags, etc... and the same water changes... but one had a skimmer with proven effectiveness and the other run without... and make sure to feed enough to get sufficient coral growth (or else a skimmer isn't very effective)... oh, and don't change more than 10% a week max....

If that study shows that, with all other variables being the same, the skimmerless was more effective (delivered more coral growth), I'll take it seriously.

Until then - let's be honest - it's all opinion and isolated examples of one or the other working well.

I thought for sure some skimmer manufacturer was going to refute Feldman's unchallenged findings. So far I've seen none. He did find that all the skimmers tested performed about the same.

So even with an ats, 12' skimmer, and who knows what else, you still need to change 10 plus percent of your water weekly? Obviously your skimmer isn't doing much.
 
Please don't assume that I don't know how a skimmer works, or how effective they can be. I was using them back in the 90's when I first started in this hobby, on my 135g, and up until 6 weeks ago when I pulled it off line as an experiment to see if I could maintain a reef without one. Yup, I'm doing it with water changes. But changing 5g of water every 2 weeks cannot be compared to the water changes that would be needed on tanks that run 150g or more.
 
. . .My searches have found a few people running skinnerless, but they seem to stop updating. . . .

Just FYI but the two oldest coral farmers in the US, Tropicorum in Detroit and Steve Tyree got rid of their skimmers a couple decades ago.

I quit using skimmers in '97 and haven't regretted it. Here's links to some of my skimmerless tanks:

23 yeqr old system http://youtu.be/KhcRz50cV0s
500 system http://youtu.be/_Uf5IyXvajg
240 filterless system http://youtu.be/-eCQSVdqBQA
17 year old system http://youtu.be/5AnmQXmE8d0
Sump of 17 year old system http://youtu.be/WDj0daKV2B8
Green Slimer Timeline https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyM6Y39iQ8M

Feldman's research has been mentioned and for those interested here are links to his research. He has an intersting and informative series of articles looking at GAC, skimmers and TOC (Total Organic Carbon). (I skip over a lot of the description of how the experimental models were set up.)

Granular Activated Carbon Pt 1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/1/aafeature1
Granular Activated Carbon Pt 2
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/2/aafeature1
Total Organic Carbon Pt 1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3
Total Organic Carbon Pt 2
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2
Protein Skimmer Performance, Pt 1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2
Protein Skimmer Performance, Pt 2
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature
Skimmate Analysis
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature
Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

Feldman's research showing skimmers are not good at removing TOC, also called DOM (Dissolved Organic Matter) got me looking into TOC closer. Unfortunately we as hobbiest cannot test for it but TOC can be divided into POC (Particulate Organic Carbon), about 10%, and DOC (Dissolved Organic Carbon), about 90%. The DOC can be crudely divided into Labile or easily consumed by microbes; Semi-Labile, less easily consumed by microbes and Refractory or very resistant to being broken down or removed. The refractory portion of DOC is roughly 2/3rds the total of DOC. Some of the papers I've found include:

DOC released by corals promotes autotrophic (good) microbes, DOC released by algae promotes heterotrophic (bad) microbes. (We need to think of corals in our systems as autotrophs)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23303369
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719129/

DOC released by algae kills corals, not phosphate or nitrogen
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2006/314/m314p119.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16796574

Sponges "eat" DOC and convert it into DIC (alklainity)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279061640_2013_deGoeij_Science_Sponge_loop
http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14555035/13completethesis.pdf

My own experience over the decades has been small frequent water changes are what's essential to keeping reef aquariums for decades, not skimmers. Now with the science now showing skimmers do not remove a significant portion of DOC, skimmers are likely removing only the labile types of DOC which includes the good types released by corals that promote autotrophic microbes and is food for sponges, and skimmers do alter the microbial populations in systems compared to pristine reefs I'll argue they may be irrelevant or even detrimental to the long term success (as in decades and decades) of reef systems.
 
Did I say that I change my water at 10%?

Water changes do more than remove organics, by the way. But that's a different thread.

The 10% was the limit for the experiment I would consider valid.

As far as why others don't refuse a test... I think most off-the-shelf skimmer's are overpriced toys...

I do know that real skimmer professionals (like those used in freshwater skimming for commercial aquaculture) who use massive industrial size skimmers depend on them to make a profit. Here's an article for the hobby version

http://www.aquaculturemag.com/magaz...skimmers-as-an-option-for-aquaculture-filters
 
As far as using a skimmer, an ATS, and water changes.... Sure. I use all tools at my disposal. I also have unique circumstances since my tank is partially exposed to the elements and I live on a lake. In the summer, my tank consumes massive quantities of insects (I've kept 90% out, but I live on a lake in TX). Without a skimmer, it would suffocate in its own waste and die.

If you're willing to sign up for the liability (put the cash in escrow), and can live with the guilt of a reef wipeout, I'd consider taking it offline... Well, no.. No money can make me intentionally hurt my babies.
 
Did I say that I change my water at 10%?

Water changes do more than remove organics, by the way. But that's a different thread.

The 10% was the limit for the experiment I would consider valid.

As far as why others don't refuse a test... I think most off-the-shelf skimmer's are overpriced toys...

I do know that real skimmer professionals (like those used in freshwater skimming for commercial aquaculture) who use massive industrial size skimmers depend on them to make a profit. Here's an article for the hobby version

http://www.aquaculturemag.com/magaz...skimmers-as-an-option-for-aquaculture-filters

That's not an article, it's an advertisement filled with propaganda and devoid of facts. There's got to be just one article out there documenting the efficiency of a skimmer built for hobbyists. Or maybe there isn't......
 
what is the dirty method . i need to know as i battle dinos occasionally . when i get them i go get another r/o membrane and di resin, would like to try dirty method and save a hundred or so thanx in advance zsu

the "dirty" method is basically not doing water changes, no skimming, no UV, no additives. the idea is that this approach allows other "good" algae to use the newly available "food" to compete against the dinos and eventually kill off the dinos. seems to work for me. i also add phyto and supplement with good algae. search "dinoflaggets" and read the postings...it is HUGE but educational.
 
My point was to educate others that protein skimming is not specific to reef or even just marine systems. They're used on an industrial scale to remove waste in freshwater fish farming

http://m.alibaba.com/product/603077...cations.html?spm=a2706.7835515.0.0.bQTP9a&s=p

You're entitled to your views but the community deserves to know the real scope and scale of the tool you've chosen to exclude.

If you never feed, you don't need a filter, much less a skimmer.
If you makes frequent water changes with a small bioload, you can get away with it.

But in my case, where I have massive import of food and other organics, it's the single most effective export tool to remove them quickly. Likewise, industrial fish farmers don't minimize the food intake of their stock. They need them to gain weight as fast as possible. Their livelihoods depend on this accelerated growth rate. However, with this massive overfeeding, the amount of waste generated by the fish stock would overwhelm the volume that the fish are kept in. They can increase the water volume- but that costs money. They can reduce the feeding or fish, but that loses profit. So the way they balance the extreme bioload with the smallest area and volume is by skimming.

If you think skimming is difficult or inefficient in a small saltwater reef, the challenges in a massive freshwater farm are significantly greater. The power consumption of those beasts is so high that if they can do without the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat.

So, if you have a beta bowl and keep one fish that you feed some pellets once a day, you don't even have to make water changes except once a week (maybe). But if you run a commercial aquaculture tilapia farm, you spend thousands of $ in power to drive massive skimmer's. In this continuum of keeping life in water, we're each at a different point. Just as I wouldn't insist on putting a skimmer on a beta bowl, I wouldn't advise the fish farmer to take down his skimmer's. Depending on an individual's water volume, bioload, and desire for animal growth, they should find their best approach and not assume that the entire continuum should go that way because of their narrow window of data that applies to their tank.

Peace and let's let each find their way rather than take an ultra-dogmatic approach where only one answer works for everyone.
 
You're not citing anything, you're merely posting ADVERTISEMENTS! Do you understand the difference between an AD and research like Feldman provided? I thought we were talking about reef tanks run by hobbyists. Feldman's research stands unchallenged....
 
Yes I do know the difference. I'm not citing research articles- I'm broadening your scope of what people do with skimmers.

I'm also not condescending or hostile in my language. I've been civil in an attempt to share key datapoints that I felt were lacking from the conversation.

In terms of research, I've been equally unsatisfied with what's been published. No one (not even Feldman) has done a good job. The aquarium skimmer manufacturers have done a very poor job of promoting real quantifiable differentiation or knowledge. You real should read this http://wateralchemy.blogspot.com/2014/07/protein-skimmer-sizing-and-application.html?m=1

I would say that unless you're capturing these key variables: volume being processed (as in system size), bioload (animal life), and import (food added to the system), then the data is relatively useless. What applies on one end of the scale doesn't apply at the other.
 
You are also treating my 40b the same as your 600+, or a commercial application. This is obviously not reasonable. You also infer that this method can not work long term. You say we are signing up for the liability. And yet there are many examples of long term success. In my opinion more than just dump luck.
 
I don't think I said that your system in particular needs my 12' skimmer. Did I?

Like I said, my dad kept a tank in the 50s with water changes only. He could never feed like I do (even proportionately). To feed the way I do, I need a skimmer.

My whole point is that skimmer vs skimmerless depends on many variables. If you have a 30gal but feed more than 8oz of fish food a day, I doubt you can do that without a skimmer (not scientific but just using ratios). That's the missing research! The reason the experiments run tend to yield mostly sand is because they're running on very clean water already.

The ocean has massive quantities of suspended food, but it doesn't turn into a waste processing plant's intake because it naturally processes and distributes it (and much of it is alive). In a small reef (my 600gal being small), I can't reproduce that food availability without pumping massive suspensions in the water. To keep the water from fouling, I need to extract any excess after a short window... Then feed again. And repeat. For my system to work, I need a skimmer. If you have the same intake, you too will need an equivalent export.

So the answer (as in many cases) is that "it depends". There's a loading and intake level where skimmerless is not feasible. There's another level where a skimmer is a waste... Defining that continuum and helping different people determine their position on it would be really useful. That would answer the real question of skimmer vs skimmerless.
 
Skimmerless about a year now and my tank looks better than ever. I use a combo of a refugium, GAC, and an ATS. I change about 18 gallons every 3 weeks on the 125 gallon.




 
Back
Top