Skimmerless Systems "Say I"

[loosbrew]

I hat ethis arguement, time and time again for the past 10 year sI have been involved in this crap ... I've seen tanks look incredible with or without skimmers. Its a tool, if you choose to use it is up to you. Just understand what it does, and take it from there. I personally like a nutrient richer environment, I have had success with it. My LTA and all ofmy corals grow fast enough, plus I'm not loking to break any world records on growth. That being said, I do run a skimmer for aeration in my current 55 gal reef (an old paragon homemade jobby), but I also have DSB in both the 29g sump and the main tank. The sump is at about 6-7" and the main tank about 4 of SD. Do I have algea..yes...do I care...no...I'm just looking to keep my animals happy, and so far I still own my very first coral ever purchased, a sarco, 11 years ago at ace pet shop in flushing NY. Still have my first anemone, LTA for about ten years along with the 10 yo tomatoe clown...etc etc...I have propagted many corals in my day and gave them all to friends, including favites and heck, my old FOWDSB spawned some wierd jelly fish looking things one year a few years after I put in a bunch of RI beach sand from ft wetherul.

Skimmers are optional, but a very useful tool nonetheless.

Luis

 

[HippieSmell]

Wow, way to resurrect a dinosaur highlands. I'm going skimmerless, and I don't bring it up very often because I'm tired of getting flamed for it. It depends on what you want to keep. I personally want to keep a lot of filter feeders, so the extra organics will help.

 

[Rikko]

I run a 65 with a Prizm.. I figure that's about as close to skimmerless as you can get.

 

[Silencer]

Pardon me if i stir things up here. This kind of thread scares me as bad advice.

Why? I think the whole 'skimmerless' fad is a great feel-good spin on nutrient export.

So correct me where I'm wrong here, but I believe I'm right on target. (Go figure )

'Skimmerless' is merely referring to a system in which no skimmer is used for nutrient export. My unsubstantiated opinion is that the only really successful long term skimmerless reef systems esentially export excess nutrients by pruning/removing macroalgae. (And an 'Ecosystem' or 'ATS' is essentially only that.)

Is there any proof, and I do mean an impartial non-anecdotal analysis, that the mere elimination of a skimmer HELPS anything (other than infauna, which a refugium can provide, and is perhaps more focused on providing better.)

I submit, for your discussion, that the skimmerless fad is nothing but folks embracing the fact that they have limited their nutrient export tools, and that the ones that fail, are ones in which their macroalgae pruning is insufficient to keep up with their export needs.

I'm interested in why we should encourage folks to limit the tools in their arsenal. All those critters in the sand bed's need Oxygen too. Are we forgetting a skimmer's role in adding Oxygen to water? Or how it can remove excess CO2 from a Calcium Reactor, or help keep PH higher?

I'm all for the natural approach. We should include it in our strategy. But these glass boxes of water are a long way from being oceans. Think of skimmers simulating the froth of the waves.

Just my opinion. Now, I'll don my Kevlar suit.

Skimmerless is hardly a fad. As has already been pointed out, if anything, skimmers are the fad. It's only a matter of time before some new filtration system is invented and everybody switches over to that. As far as I'm concerned skimmers are generally good. I do feel there is a very important point to consider about a skimmerless system however. What's the harm in trying without one?

Think about it, seriously. You can always add a skimmer at a later date if and when you need one. What's the harm in trying without one? It has already been proven that you can run a successful reef tank without a skimmer so obviously it can be done, and it certainly doesn't cost anything to try. There isn't really even any risk involved either. As long as you properly plan and maintain your tank you will not have any sudden shifts in the health of your tank so there will be plenty of time to buy one if you absolutely need to. You have much to gain and nothing to lose by trying so why not?

That's how I'm doing my tank. It will be a 180g reef with a 125g refugium. I will not be starting with a skimmer or any filtration other than live rock, sand and macro algae in the fuge. If things work out than great, I've saved myself hundreds of dollars and kept my tank simple and straightforward. If things become difficult to maintain and the health of the tank is heading downhill I will simply add the skimmer that so many people recommend. It won't hurt me to try so I'll give it a shot and see how it works out.

 

[smallaussiereef]

Imo i think a tank can be run either way successfully just to show you how simple it can be i have posted and old pic of my TV tank this pic was taken when tank was about 4-5months old it is now over a year old with no problems what so ever......... as for filtration it uses a plenum with an air uplift tube and untill recently had 2 tiny 300lph powerheads now has one 300 and one 600 due to pump failure...... the tank is approx 20 g........ i will try to find time to take a curent pic and post.....

 

[tritontr21]

I un hooked my skimmer after a fight with red algae and hair algae and my tank looks wonderfull and all creatures are doing fine. im going to continue to run with out it for a while and see what happens. less heat with the extra pump not running as well.

 

[Northside Reef]

well lets see some pictures of these skimmerless reefs.

 

[Mr.Yuk]

Have any of you successfully [long-term] kept a RBTA in a skimmerless aquarium setup?

I only ask because I have a thriving 75G ecosystem for 3 years, but for some reason the RBTAs dont do well.

 

[xcreonx]

My 180g doesn't have a skimmer. It's been up for 2 years and no issues. I have a big fuge with lots of macros and I do 40 gallon waterchanges every month or so. My bioload is small and I feed sparingly.
<img src="http://goodmorningheartache.com/newtank/tank34.jpg">
I do have a few corals that seem to like the more nutrient-rich water. Also i have some non-photosynthetic corals and nverts that are doing very well.

Just a side note, I do have some SPS corals that grow like there's no tomorrow.

So skimmerless can be done if you put the time in other areas like water changes and monitoring your fishload / feeding.

 

[Cody Ray]

I decided to bump this back up, it deserves to be discussed again.

 

[HippieSmell]

This is the thread that will not die. That being said, my new tank has a big beckett on it. My old skimmerless 58 gallon (skimmerless, then a seaclone, so essentially skimmerless the whole time) was doing great for a year. It did begin developing a red flatworm problem in the fuge that was probably due to lack of inadequate flow. It had a bunch of worms, sponges, tunicates, and some mollusks in the rock (barnacles I was told), and everything was growing really well. However, my sand was disgusting and I didn't keep up with water changes, so I was probably not far away from some major problems. All in all, I think my new 120 with a big skimmer and high flow is a more stable system (even though my barnacles died from lack of food I'm assuming).