Skimmerless: who's doing it? pros and cons

[Plantbrain]

We need a better link as that one is to your computer.

Yea.....that might help:


http://moreinfo.flaquarium.org/husb...nces/Coral Microbiology/Kline et al. 2006.pdf

It's a decent paper for the topic at hand.

Probably, but not as much (meaning less for bacteria) and perhaps not all as benign since of those are yellow, some may be toxins etc.

Well you could also argue if you have more types of DOC, that might provide for a more diversified and robust bacterial cycling community. Is diversity better or worse also in terms of the bacterial community and corals? Is a source of labile, semi labile and recalcitrant DOC's better/best? I do not know.
I can remove it with Activated carbon and see if there's correlation, others with skimmerless systems could also compare. If you have a lot of aquarist saying yes, better coral growth, health etc with AC usage, some consensus, we might be tempted to generalize and say so. I'd go along with that.

Those that do the reduced carbon dosing, do they see an increase in skimmate after/with dosing?

Many folks that run macro loaded refugiums do not get much skimmate.
I didn't and those I spoke with did not, but that may or may not mean much.

 

[tmz]

Folks that dose vinegar and booze.............they are adding reduced carbon to help amplify the strong reduced carbon limitation on bacteria.........would not algae leaching provide the same reduced carbon source?

Seems so.

I think the compounds from algae exudates include more refractory,alellopathic and discoloring compounds than the relatively simple short pathway to acetate that occurs with vodka or vinegar.

Yes ,I do get more and thicker skimmate. The heterotrophic bacteria seem to fit the amphipathic profiule for harvest by skimming well. Less bacteial activity on refractory organics from algae exudate may be why you see less with macro algae .

This study examining the nature of algae exudate vs coral mucous may be of interest:



http://www.nova.edu/ncri/11icrs/proceedings/files/m25-10.pdf


This is from it:

... Algae-derived POM may have a distinctive refractory character......which prevents rapid degradation and leads ultimately to blockage of coral sands..

 

[Plantbrain]

Folks that dose vinegar and booze.............they are adding reduced carbon to help amplify the strong reduced carbon limitation on bacteria.........would not algae leaching provide the same reduced carbon source?

Seems so.

I think the compounds from algae exudates include more refractory,alellopathic and discoloring compounds than the relatively simple short pathway to acetate that occurs with vodka or vinegar.

Would a more diversified pool of DOC not also provide a more diversified bacterial community? Are simple bacterial communities better for coral than say a more diversified bacterial community? Would a more diversified bacterial community also translate up the trophic chain and provide a more diversified or larger population of microninvertebrates?

That's sort of what the statement would imply ultimately, simpler bacterial communities => "better" for coral cultivation.


Another question: would not these same arguments in favor of skimmer based system versus a refugium and macro algae not also apply to.... ATS's? Microalgae also leach a good deal of photosynthate among other leachates.


I'm hardly convinced about allelopathy in intact aquatic systems, extracts/mashed up macro algae are very different than live systems.
A simple control of adding activated carbon can be used to remove those compounds.

Fairly easy for aquarist to test for that who have macro refugiums.

I'm weighing the benefits and management. I'm curious as to what can and cannot be ruled out as a cause.

Are the following accurate observations?
Well run refugiums/ATS systems with nice healthy corals.
Well run skimmer systems with nice healthy corals.

I've seen examples of both. How much evidence is there for support that these more complex compounds are bad, not preferred for coral reefs tanks?

Skimmers seem more simple in terms of what is actually done to the system. Thus more predicable.

 

[tmz]

I don't think in terms of skimming vs macro or turf algae . They are complimentary in my view. Algae produces organics;some are alellopathic,some are refractory,some discolor the water ; skimmers and gac remove some of them.High TOC can be harmful to some corals.
I haven't seen any evidence or reasoned hypothesis of benefit from so called bacterial diversity or evidence that any significant amount would occur as a result of more humic and fulvic compounds or other refractory organics or other components of algae exudates.

 

[Aquarist007]

Yea.....that might help:


http://moreinfo.flaquarium.org/husb...nces/Coral Microbiology/Kline et al. 2006.pdf

It's a decent paper for the topic at hand.



Well you could also argue if you have more types of DOC, that might provide for a more diversified and robust bacterial cycling community. Is diversity better or worse also in terms of the bacterial community and corals? Is a source of labile, semi labile and recalcitrant DOC's better/best? I do not know.
I can remove it with Activated carbon and see if there's correlation, others with skimmerless systems could also compare. If you have a lot of aquarist saying yes, better coral growth, health etc with AC usage, some consensus, we might be tempted to generalize and say so. I'd go along with that.

My meagre understanding( but increasing exponentially) of skimming is that it is TOC that increases skimming rather then a greater variety of DOC?

 

[Aquarist007]

I like the Refugiums and macros/plants more than a skimmer. I find them more interesting from a biology standpoint. And if I did not like biology, well, I likely should not be an aquarist

That said, I've added Ca(NO3)2 2x a week and extra food for the shrimp/cleaning crew. About 3 ppm per dose. It's all been removed for a number of weeks now.

I think I'll modify the sump some and see how things do. I think the macros will grow better, thus handle more input from the main tank. SPS frags seem to be doing well.

I have phased out the inorganic dosing for N since adding the SPS and feeding things more. So far, so good, but thanks for giving me an idea how to improve things more.

It's very difficult to focus on the just the biology or just the chemistry ..... Thus the focus should be on biochemistry. Foam fractulation may have a mechanical part to it but by what it pulls out of the water compared to maco alga refugiums it definetly has a superlative effect on the biochemistry of our Maine ecosystems

 

[Plantbrain]

It's very difficult to focus on the just the biology or just the chemistry ..... Thus the focus should be on biochemistry. Foam fractulation may have a mechanical part to it but by what it pulls out of the water compared to maco alga refugiums it definetly has a superlative effect on the biochemistry of our Maine ecosystems

I'm fairly convinced.

My SPS seem to be doing well and have grown some, still have a nice color with the mature refugium/ATI light. I have a nice new Ecotech radion G3 sitting here, so I'll use that puppy the next day or so. I'll dial it to just a tad higher than the ATI's PAR, then slowly adjust over time. I will keep the ATI for another project

I want to use the success with the Refugium as a standard control when I add the wet/dry and then after that for a few weeks, the skimmer and remove the wet/dry. Last thing on the list is weed out all the macros except for a few Cymopolia. Then see how well the skimmer alone does. I hope gain a more holistic view on these various methods in the context of SPS.

I have a Reef Octopus skimmer on hand, plenty of GAC, the wet/dry tower from a smaller sump, so I'm not out anything. I could stand to weed the refugium at some point and use only the species I really like/manageable and fewer weeds.

ATS's, if natural sunlight was available, I'd consider them. But that's not happening this time nor do they interest me aesthetically. I've seen some cool set ups, but........macros frankly I like, not the micros and turf algae.

I'd like to take another look at both skimmers and refugiums. I've done this in the past, but I want to give it another shot. I've done aquariums long enough to know that I may need to try things many times before success happens

Tank is fairly small, so easy to fix and lower risk.
I'll use the experience to do the 70 Gallon and transfer the livestock over to that tank.

Thanks for all the feedback everyone.

 

[tmz]

Good luck and keep us posted on how things go.

 

[Plantbrain]

Here's what's going on now using refugium and the ATI's, a little supplements, water change about 40-50% every 2 weeks.

I'll switch the Radion tomorrow.
Will add a bit more more PAR, 200(ATI) to about 250(ET Radion), then a week later up to 300. I have a few acro's as well.

 

[Fredfish]

Here's what's going on now using refugium and the ATI's, a little supplements, water change about 40-50% every 2 weeks. ...

I would think that such large water changes will have a big impact on water quality, regardless of what other methods you are using.

 

[Aquarist007]

I would think that such large water changes will have a big impact on water quality, regardless of what other methods you are using.

That is where the real dellima is....two weeks of Unskimmed water/ large water change vs skimmed water/very small water change

 

[tmz]

Very nice hydnopora;thanks for the picture.

 

[Fredfish]

That is where the real dellima is....two weeks of Unskimmed water/ large water change vs skimmed water/very small water change

I don't see there being any dilemma. These are just different ways of successfully running a tank.

I think that significant bi-weekly water changes would remove significant amounts of 'stuff', good and bad, from the tank.

 

[AcroporAddict]

If you did large enough water changes, you could probably negate the need for a skimmer entirely. But I don't have the want to spend the coin or the time to do that much that often. I am just of the mind that skimmers are such an easy piece of equipment to use for the benefit they provide, why not use them? Nanos are a different story. I probably would not use a skimmer on anything less than 10-15 gallons.

 

[Jimbo530]

I am no expert but i would say skimmer is not necessary but is helpful. in reality you need nothing more than lighting to eliminate nutrients. but the water volume and lightning required to do this safely for your aquarium is another story. it is simply a matter of if your system can handle the nutrient load or not. most systems can not function without skimmers due to the nature of the systems (compact and beautiful). on the other hand if you start without one and maintain your system responsibly it is not an undo able task. there are always a lot of variables and we can not just say one way is better than another.

 

[Aquarist007]

I don't see there being any dilemma. These are just different ways of successfully running a tank.

I think that significant bi-weekly water changes would remove significant amounts of 'stuff', good and bad, from the tank.

It can become a costly way compared to skimming

 

[tmz]

Routine water changes are more about putting in and balancing major, minor and trace elements than they are about reducing nutrients for most tanks.
Skimmers pull out some organics and push along a little particualte matter and provide aeration.
They do different things with a bit of overlap on nutrient removal.

 

[AcroporAddict]

Routine water changes are more about putting in and balancing major, minor and trace elements than they are about reducing nutrients for most tanks.
Skimmers pull out some organics and push along a little particualte matter and provide aeration.
They do different things with a bit of overlap on nutrient removal.

I agree, and that is the reason I do water changes at 1% per day. But if you do 40-50% WC every two weeks, you will get significant removal of anything in the water column, I would think, organics, traces, nitrates, phosphates, whatever. That is a lot of volume to change out at one time and at that frequency.

 

[Aquarist007]

I agree, and that is the reason I do water changes at 1% per day. But if you do 40-50% WC every two weeks, you will get significant removal of anything in the water column, I would think, organics, traces, nitrates, phosphates, whatever. That is a lot of volume to change out at one time and at that frequency.

I think you should also look at it from the perspective that a lot can build up in the system in two weeks which can significantly affect the ecosystem. More frequent smaller water changes can keep consistency or homeostasis more effectively.

 

[AcroporAddict]

I think you should also look at it from the perspective that a lot can build up in the system in two weeks which can significantly affect the ecosystem. More frequent smaller water changes can keep consistency or homeostasis more effectively.

Totally agree. I was just saying that at that volume and frequency you might not need a skimmer. It would be way too cost prohibitive (salt cost) for me to even think about doing it on my systems because of their volume.

Hehe, even if I did 50% WCs every 2 weeks I would probably still use a skimmer, because why wouldn't you use an easy method to remove organics like a skimmer? As a piece of reef equipment, a skimmer is just too easy and effective to not make use of.