Skimmerless: who's doing it? pros and cons

I like: skimmers, small routine water changes , macro algae and organic carbon dosing,sponges in crytic refugia and a number of other things . It's not one or the other . They do different things as I have consistently pointed out and can be complimentary. I run skimerless tanks much like those displayed. My sps dominant tanks do much better with skimming. My xenia, capnella, ricordea and a few other species do better with little to no skimming.
 
What is nitrogen fixing Cyanobacteria?

Many of the thousands of species of cyanobacteria and some related diazotrophs uniquely produce an enzyme ( nitrogenase) which can break the strong bond between two N atoms in N2( athmospheric nitrogen about 70% of the athmosphere ) formed in the stars. N2 is useless to living things .
The unbound N can then join with H forming bioavailable nitrogen ( NH3/4 ammonia and ammonium for example). This is how nitrogen becomes available for life which uses it for proteins, dna, ammino acids etc. The process is commonly regerred to as "fixing" nitrogen, it is fixated to hydrogen.
Cyano bacteria form oxygen free areas called heterocysts in their mats wherein the nitrogenase enzyme they produce can work on the very strong bond between the two N atoms as it requires anoxic areas to do so.
In this way nitrogen becomes bioavailable. The life energy from the bond with hydorgen is used by organisms including those in the nitrogen cycle where ammonia oxidizing bacteria free the H and convert it to nitrite(NO2) and then nitrate (NO3) gaining energy and growing in number as they do so.
Then facultative heterotrophic bacteria ,the denitrifiers , use the oxygen from the nitrate when free oxygen is unavialble to them taking nitrate/ NO3 to nitrite/ NO2 and then to N some of which which bonds with N forming N2 which goes back into the athmosphere,unitl cyano bacteria brings it back into the life cycle and round and round it goes making life possible.
 
Tom,

Thank you for the concise summation of the cynobacteria bacteria using the nitrogen cycle. After reading your post and the Wikipedia link that Mark posted, it makes one realize how dependent we are on bacteria for survival. Blue/green cynobacteria are credited with changing Earths early atmosphere from a reducing one to an oxidizing one.

Most of us in the reef hobby experience cynobacteria. Usually we associate it with phosphate, even when there is little to no inorganic phosphate in the water column. Cynobacteria has a unique ability to dissolve calcium phosphate from rocks and substrate, which often forms as a result of limewater additions to maintain alkalinity. Does the nitrogenase enzyme produce lower pH conditions to accomplish this? In tanks which have never seen conditions to warrant calcium phosphate scale, cynobacteria will thrive on the substrate. I assume they are consuming organic phosphate (detritus). Do you have any details to expound on this?
 
Last edited:
Tom,

Thank you for the concise summation of the cynobacteria bacteria using the nitrogen cycle. After reading your post and the Wikipedia link that Mark posted, it makes one realize how dependent we are on bacteria for survival. Blue/green cynobacteria are credited with changing Earths early atmosphere from a reducing one to an oxidizing one.

Most of us in the reef hobby experience cynobacteria. Usually we associate it with phosphate, even when there is little to no inorganic phosphate in the water column. Cynobacteria has a unique ability to dissolve calcium phosphate from rocks and substrate, which often forms as a result of limewater additions to maintain alkalinity. Does the nitrogenase enzyme produce lower pH conditions to accomplish this? In tanks which have never seen conditions to warrant calcium phosphate scale, cynobacteria will thrive on the substrate. I assume they are consuming organic phosphate (detritus). Do you have any details to expound on this?

Ditto for me Tom. As always I appreciate the effort you go to to educate us on how bacteria works in our systems
 
I have had a skimmer running 24/7 for about 40 years and I don't know what my tank would look like without a skimmer, but even though my home made skimmer pulls out about 2 gallons of gook a month, I think the fact that I inject ozone into the thing is even more important than the skimming. But again I don't know because I also have always used ozone. Maybe the combination of ozone and skimming is the answer. I don't know what the question is but I bet that is the answer. :dance:
 
I have had a skimmer running 24/7 for about 40 years and I don't know what my tank would look like without a skimmer, but even though my home made skimmer pulls out about 2 gallons of gook a month, I think the fact that I inject ozone into the thing is even more important than the skimming. But again I don't know because I also have always used ozone. Maybe the combination of ozone and skimming is the answer. I don't know what the question is but I bet that is the answer. :dance:

You also have a very efficient algae scrubber that I'm sure has made a difference;)
 
You also have a very efficient algae scrubber that I'm sure has made a difference
I have a great smile also, but I still have never dated a Supermodel so it is all semantics. :D
 
I have had a skimmer running 24/7 for about 40 years and I don't know what my tank would look like without a skimmer, but even though my home made skimmer pulls out about 2 gallons of gook a month, I think the fact that I inject ozone into the thing is even more important than the skimming. But again I don't know because I also have always used ozone. Maybe the combination of ozone and skimming is the answer. I don't know what the question is but I bet that is the answer. :dance:

Paul,

Your sense of humor has always served you well.
"I don't know what the question is but I bet that is the answer".

Your use of a homemade counter current foam fractionator with ozone injection has added one more similarity in our journey of this hobby/addiction. I used it for 10 years and it served me well.

In no way do my systems rise to the level of your display tanks. I am a "laissez faire" reefkeeper. Your use of live food has allowed you to demonstrate how fish in nature resist infections. I was more than impressed with the article you wrote about adding an ich infested fish to a tank with $20K worth of livestock. The hypothesis you made that when fish are in breeding condition their immune systems are enhanced was well demonstrated. When you further added that during your wife's pregnancy her MS symptoms disappeared, I was awe struck at the statement of fact. With all our scientific knowledge in this twenty first century we have much to learn about the complexities of Mother Nature.

The question about using protein skimmers has no one answer due to the complexity of how processes overlap. As I am not a scientist, I can not fully describe the complex food webs and multiple nutrient pathways that exist in our reef aquariums. I know that these complex food webs are there and I encourage their health. Within these food web, bacteria make everything happen. The use of protein skimmers will skew these populations in both numbers and diversity. Is the long term effect of skewed bacteria populations, due to protein skimming, detrimental in our reef aquarium? I think it is. Even without protein skimming, bacteria populations in our closed systems will become skewed. To offset that, I add diver collected uncured live rock from the Gulf of Mexico. You add amphipods and mud from Long Island Sound.

It is a marvelously complex world that we live in.
Patrick
 
This kind of respect is priceless and I am very happy to be able to participate with reefers like yourself and Paul.
You both have served your country admirably and mankind generally through parting your vast experience to us in this hobby.
I've always felt experience is the best teacher but as I gain experience in this amazing hobby I also believe experience is the best way to teach

I find it interesting that one of you uses a skimmer and one does not. Yet both of you from time to time replenish the micro organisms from the ocean.
Maybe that is the key for either running a skimmer or not?
 
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

This is a link to a Ken Feldman article in Advanced Aquaria 2011 March. The link that Timfish posted did not work for me. The article goes into bacteria counts in reef aquarium. At one point in the article, it was noted that skewed bacteria populations in the slime on coral surfaces proceeded bacteria infections on this coral.
 
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

This is a link to a Ken Feldman article in Advanced Aquaria 2011 March. The link that Timfish posted did not work for me. The article goes into bacteria counts in reef aquarium. At one point in the article, it was noted that skewed bacteria populations in the slime on coral surfaces proceeded bacteria infections on this coral.

Tks from that article
"
4. Conclusions
The preliminary studies described herein document, for the first time, the modulation of water column bacteria population in reef tank water as a consequence of either (a) carbon source addition or (b) mechanical filtration (GAC, skimming). This information bears on the Carbon Dosing hypothesis for nutrient removal in marine aquaria.

Aquaria subjected to active filtration via skimming present water column bacteria populations that are approximately 1/10 of those observed on natural reefs. The consequences of this disparity on the long-term health of the tank's livestock are not known. How do reef tank organisms adapt to such a bacteria-deficient environment? Is the whole food web in an aquarium perturbed, or are there compensatory mechanisms that maintain an appropriate energy transduction through all of the trophic levels? Is "old tank syndrome" related to possible nutritional deficiencies stemming from this bacteria "gap"? Alternatively, could "old tank syndrome" be symptomatic of a gradual decrease of bacterial diversity as a consequence of selective skimmer-based removal of only bubble-susceptible bacteria? At present, it is not possible to go beyond speculation on these points - further research is needed.

On the other hand, our studies have shown that bacterial growth appears to be carbon limited in reef aquarium water. However, there is a demonstrable difference between reef tank water in an active reef tank, and reef tank water removed from the tank. In the latter case, bacteria consumers are largely absent, and so fueling bacteria growth via carbon addition translates to rapid and large increases in bacteria population. In an active reef tank, however, this population increase is not manifest, presumably because active predation keeps the overall level in check. Thus, the highly dynamic nature of bacteria populations in the water column of reef aquaria is highlighted by these studies. From a different perspective, the bacteria population in a reef tank seems to act as a buffer to help dissipate the otherwise potentially serious negative consequences of (inadvertent?) tank pollution via rapid carbon addition, at least perhaps up to a saturation point.

**Finally, mechanical filtration in the form of skimming but not GAC does provide an effective means of bacteria export, at least up to a point. It appears likely that some types of bacteria are indeed "skimmable", but others are not. Thus, skimming inadvertently provides severe (?) evolutionary pressure to skew the tank's resident water column bacteria population to favor the "non-skimmable" cohort.

The bottom line with respect to the carbon dosing hypothesis is clear; the basic tenets of this theory appear to hold up to experimental scrutiny; carbon dosing does increase water column bacteria populations, and skimming does remove some bacteria with their attendant nutrient loads. Thus, the underlying science behind this approach to nutrient export appears valid."

**Important to this thread would be the second to last paragraph.
If this is indeed so then how do we replenish this bacteria without the advantage of adding natural seawater
(Assuming a skimmer is necessary in a particular situation)
 
Bacteria are everything in our tanks and in our lives. We, ourselves could not function without the "correct" bacteria and become sick with the wrong types of bacteria. We are only a cog in the functioning of our tanks to give the bacteria something to make fun of. It is a combination of bacteria, algae, cyano (which is a combination of bacteria and algae) and the tiny animals like tube worms, pods and Godzilla larvae that allow our tanks to function and the right combination of these, if correct, will eliminate most problems. It is not parameters or what re hab facility Lindsey Lohan picks this month, but the combination of life forms that is the key to this hobby. These combinations of life forms grow and stabilize after much internal fighting that we read as parameters. It doesn't happen overnight and can be side tracked if the tank is tweeked in stead of allowing these processes to mature on their own, sort of like Supermodels do. Luck plays an important part because we have little control as to which life forms are introduced as most of them come along with the coral and rocks we buy. Most of us are at the mercy of the shipper and he is at the mercy of the collector as to what organisms will be introduced into our tanks. That is why I shy away from many threads where problems are stated and a multitude of answers will ensue, most of them wrong as I said, much of this depends on what is in- advertantly introduced accidently. The sea contains everything from Columbus dirty laundry to Jimmy Hoffa's ear wax and our tanks do not. Well, mine does, but most do not. I am not saying that we have no control over these processes but much of it is random so there is no set answers and I refuse to give any. Some tanks are a plethora of problems from the start, that is not because the hobbiest is a Nerd. Well sometimes it is, but not always. We don't see bacteria but it covers everything from 1955 Oldsmobiles to Paris Hilton. There are no bare places in our tanks, bacteria is everywhere but it can take years for the correct bacteria to develop in the numbers we need. Many bacteria just sit there painting or doing the Macarania, but they don't help us with anything. Some tanks will never aquire the correct bacteria, I am not sure why but those tanks will always have problems. :headwalls:
I collect bacteria and creatures from the sea so I have an advantage, I am also very good looking :wavehand:
I also believe that keeping a tank to sterile is a bad thing because of many reasons, but I am watching my Grand Daughter Greta now and we are going collecting so I can't get into it. :)

 
... Luck plays an important part because we have little control as to which life forms are introduced as most of them come along with the coral and rocks we buy. Most of us are at the mercy of the shipper and he is at the mercy of the collector as to what organisms will be introduced into our tanks.

... I am not saying that we have no control over these processes but much of it is random so there is no set answers and I refuse to give any...

So true, yet it is not in our nature to accept that things sometimes come down to luck, or lack thereof, or that, for some things, there is no good answer.
 
PaulB is always a hard act to follow...his writing style is so comical
But I did pose a question
**Important to this thread would be the second to last paragraph.
If this is indeed so then how do we replenish this bacteria without the advantage of adding natural seawater
(Assuming a skimmer is necessary in a particular situation)
My thoughts from reading a lot of posts on bacteria supplements that none of them really add a variety of living bacteria to our tanks.
Trying to put the whole thing together here in a paradigm>>>big word here PaulB but you used symantics the other day and I had to go and look it up<<<
If we carbon dose which seems to be the big shift here then we only increase the heterotrophic bacteria in the tank and reduce the nitrates and phosphates...the phosphates if we skim the bacteria out after they have consumed it. If we don't then those phosphate laden bacteria become food for cyano etc.
But the paradox is that we also "might" take other species of bacteria out of the tank that are useful for other processes in the tank. I think these bacteria if hydrophils are very easily taken out of the water column because they are in it more than the denitrifyers who need the protection of a biofilm or less oxygenated area to process nitrates.
So the big question becomes how you replentish or protect those bacteria from being skimmed
Not skimming at all?
Skimming less--reducing the water flow to it
Replentishing the bacteria from skimming--but how?

BTW
I am aware the organic GAC has been shown in studies to take more bacteria and organics out of the water then a skimmer. I have not used it in my tank or any of my tanks since I was having problems with HLLE on my blue tangs.
 
Earlier this summer, two pHD micro biologist from UT visited my facility. One was a department head and the other was curator for the worlds largest micro algae collection. There collection is kept on ice with liquid nitrogen. When doing research on different species, they have found that synthetic salt mixes do not work because it is lacking bacteria. They collect water from GOM and bring to their facility to conduct test.

I have spoken with medical doctors that are of the opinion that our sterilization procedures in hospitals are responsible for some of the more drug resistant bacteria that plague hospitals. It is their opinion that good bacteria are eliminated that would otherwise control the bad bacteria. So much for conventional wisdom.
Patrick
 
Capn, skimming removes an infinitesimal amount of bacteria that will be replenished in a few days. Today I collected some mud and threw it in my tank. I am assuming that I am collecting at least some of the needed bacteria as the age of my tank is kind of proof that I am doing just that. I don't know the answer if you don't live near the sea and can't collect bacteria just like I don't know how people keep many fish without the benefit of live blackworms. I also don't know how people keep pipefish or breed mandarins without hatching brine shrimp every day as I do. The fish don't care that you can't get their food or keep their water parameters stable through the use of the proper bacteria. I can't help it if some things are not available to some people, I am just stating that bacteria should be dosed just like people should be inoculated against certain diseases. Maybe it should be available from the sea, not that stuff they sell in a bottle as I doubt that is live bacteria. Find someone who lives near the shore and have them send you some mud. No, not me as people ask me once a week for mud and I would spend my life at the post office. :worried:
Also many people are afraid of adding paracites. I think that is silly but I have an entirely different idea how to keep fish than many people and am not concerned with paracites or diseases. I have posted many times my thoughts on paracites and you know that I feel fish should not be bothered by such things and it all comes down to food. To eliminate parameter problems, that all comes down to bacteria and no pellets, reactors, or magic spells should be needed. Those things just confuse the bacteria that are really not that smart in the first place. But they know what they are supposed to do and do it very well as long as we stock the tank with them occasionally. :deadhorse:
 
A few thoughts:

If maintaining high bacteria counts is the issue , UV strerilizers recommended somewhere earlier in this thread are very efficient at killing planktonic bacteria that pass through them and do little for parasite control .
Adding organic carbon sources from mud etc. containing degrading matter or directly as acetic acid or ethanol increases the heterotrophic bacteria population.
Skimming removes some from the water column.
The bacteria involved in biofiltration in aquariums are mostly benthic( live on surfaces) so they wouldn't all go out via skimming or passthrough a UV.
 
Last edited:
A few thoughts:

If maintaining high bacteria counts is the issue , UV strerilizers recommended somewhere earlier in this thread are very efficient at killing planktonic bacteria that pass through them and do little for parasite control .
Adding organic carbon sources from mud etc. containing degrading matter or directly as acetic acid or ethanol increases the heterotrophic bacteria population.
Skimming removes some from the water column.
The bacteria involved in biofiltration in aquariums are mostly benthic( live on surfaces) so they wouldn't all go out via skimming or passthrough a UV.

I guess we will always disagree on uv sterilizer controlling parasites:)

How does skimming etc affect the variety of bacteria in the tank for eg thet ones that are in symbiotic relations with coral etc.
I would think that those bacteria would also exist in biofilmsb
This is more of concern to me than the heterotrophs because it's clear how to take of them and use them to our advantage
 
Do little for parasite control

Do little for parasite control

A few thoughts:

If maintaining high bacteria counts is the issue , UV strerilizers recommended somewhere earlier in this thread are very efficient at killing planktonic bacteria that pass through them and do little for parasite control .
Adding organic carbon sources from mud etc. containing degrading matter or directly as acetic acid or ethanol increases the heterotrophic bacteria population.
Skimming removes some from the water column.
The bacteria involved in biofiltration in aquariums are mostly benthic( live on surfaces) so they wouldn't all go out via skimming or passthrough a UV.

Tom,
Theronts are the free swimming infectious stage of Cryptocaryon. They are most vulnerable to treatment during this stage which last from 3-7 days of their life cycle. Increased population densities at this stage would increase their mathematical probability to infect fish. Appropiate UV sterilization rates will kill the parasite. While it is true that not all parasites pass through the sterilizer the statement "Do little to effect the parasite" does not describe the process accurately to me.
The reason that I have continued the use of the sterilizer was control of planktonic bacteria and associated blooms in the water. As in everything, it is a question of balance considering that, in the past, I have added phytoplankton directly to my display. In speaking with a pHD microbiologist about the nutritional values of bacteria effected by UV sterilization, I was given a thumbs up on nutritional value retained. Does that sound accurate to you? His point was that UV ruptured the outer membrane and allowed the nutrition to remain in the water column.
Patrick
 
Last edited:
Back
Top