Skimmerless: who's doing it? pros and cons

[Fredfish]

The origin of these species is not known with certainity, but a good case can be made that the SiO2 stems from the shells of diatoms. The CaCO3 might be derived from other planktonic microbes bearing calcium carbonate shells, or might come from calcium reactor effluent. To the extent that the solid skimmate consists of microflora, then some proportion of the insoluble organic material removed by skimming would then simply be the organic components (the "guts") of these microflora.

To even start to determine what the impact of skimming on micro fauna might be we would need to move from "making a good case" to certainty. Then one would have to set up tanks and replicates to look at the effects of organism removal via skimate on tank populations.

 

[Imperator_]

So if skimmers remove micro fauna and copepods and other critters.... Wouldn't placing the skimmer "before" the refugium rather than after, minimize the micro fauna that gets skimmed? I have seen many a tank set up with flow configurations from DT--refugium-sump-skimmer-DT. The refugium should be last in this configuration.

 

[Subsea]

The most compelling reason to skim is not the science of chemistry or biology. It is the science of psychology and the attitude of the operator. I like natural systems, they work for me. Skimmers work as well. I see beauty in the science. After 44 years of reefkeeping, I have learned more about the science of reefkeeping in two weeks on this thread.
I have no doubt, I have stepped on toes. If this were a beginners forum, I would not have pushed the envelope in this discussion.
As in all things, I seek to learn.
Patrick

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, people should be careful about interpreting skimming and TOC.

Since TOC is comprised of both individual molecules, aggregates of molecules, and whole organisms (if it is not filtered first), to say that skimming only removes X percent of TOC ignores the fact that it might remove ALL of some types and leave ALL of certain other types behind.

 

[tmz]

I lke macro refugia but they don't reduce TOC . They add orgnics that need to be accounted for in some way.


That would be true, only if, I did not harvest macro algae from the refugium.
Patrick

Not exactly,think about exudates. They use phosynthesis to produce organic C some of it is spent in exuded organic material.

 

[Aquarist007]

So if skimmers remove micro fauna and copepods and other critters.... Wouldn't placing the skimmer "before" the refugium rather than after, minimize the micro fauna that gets skimmed? I have seen many a tank set up with flow configurations from DT--refugium-sump-skimmer-DT. The refugium should be last in this configuration.

Exactly my question and as we speak I am re routing my fuge drain
Line so it dumps right beside the return bulkhead

 

[Aquarist007]

FWIW, people should be careful about interpreting skimming and TOC.

Since TOC is comprised of both individual molecules, aggregates of molecules, and whole organisms (if it is not filtered first), to say that skimming only removes X percent of TOC ignores the fact that it might remove ALL of some types and leave ALL of certain other types behind.

Won't that still reflect in a overall lowering of the TOC

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Won't that still reflect in a overall lowering of the TOC

Yes, but we care about some molecules (like toxins) and not so much about others (which may have almost no effect on anything).

Removing every toxin from a reef aquarium might have hardly any noticeable effect on TOC, but could be a huge benefit for the aquarium, and removing the remainder may not be beneficial at all (just speaking theoretically, of course).

 

[Aquarist007]

The most compelling reason to skim is not the science of chemistry or biology. It is the science of psychology and the attitude of the operator. I like natural systems, they work for me. Skimmers work as well.
Patrick

Tks for taking the time to post those great ideas. This is a first for me too. First time I have been too busy reading to post.:
Rather then an attitude I feel its more of matter of communication and education

And of course marketing. How many suppliers are going to give up the sale of a skimmer on an install?

 

[Subsea]

Not exactly,think about exudates. They use phosynthesis to produce organic C some of it is spent in exuded organic material.

Initially, after a brief search, I read your post and a talk by Albert Thiel. It seemed that skimming and GAC would equally deal with the suspended portion in the water column. The hypothesis being that it was undesirable.

Then I read in Reef Aquarium V 3, pg 182 under "Marine algae and trace element availability":

"One of the benefits of growing algae in an aquarium is that the algae release dissolved organic compounds that act as chealotors, binding to elements and compounds in the water. They even release exudate that include polysaccharides, complex organic nitrogenous matter, viatamines and phenolic compounds. Some of the dissolved organic matter contributes to the water staining in near shore habitats and in recirculating aquariums. In the natural enviroment, some of the exudates aggregate to form large organic particles in the water column, part of the material known as marine snow".

This does not sound like a bad thing to me. As I learn more, I realize the complexity of these differrent nutrient pathways.
Patrick

 

[Imperator_]

So in the end, this question remains; to skim or not to skim?

 

[Fredfish]

So in the end, this question remains; to skim or not to skim?

And the answer is sure...

 

[Imperator_]

And the answer is sure...

I for one am loving what the skimmer is doing to my system. My pH problems seem to be fixed and my corals look better than ever. I think the skimmer definitely does add a great amount of aeration to our systems. On the other hand, I am a little worried that my micro fauna and Copepoda might get a little diminished or skimmed out. I have reconfigured my system so my refugium feeds back into the display in order to make it easier for more little critters to survive. As far as TOC removal, IMHO, I don't think that any one method is necessarily the "best". I think that a combination of GAC, a refugium with Macro algae and a DSB, and a good skimmer, is possibly the most "effective" way of export. Having said that, I don't think that a combination of all these methods or any specific one of these methods is necessarily the "best" way for all systems. The reality is that every system is different, and what works for some systems doesn't work for others.( But this is not to be mistaken with " what works for some folks doesnt work for others"). There are so many variables in place that affect our little ecosystems, without mentioning the fact that the level of knowledge/experience/husbandry methods- is main limiting factor in home aquaria. It is our endless inquisitive desire for knowledge what propels us foward in search of the best way to take care of our little ecosystems. The key is to learn to keep an open mind, as the hobby continues to evolve and we continue to learn new ways of keeping our systems thriving, we also have learn to adopt new ideas and accept different concepts. In the end, it is the aquarist himself who has to figure out what works best for his system, and that in turn makes the aquarist the "best" method of export. We just have to keep an open mind, let's not be the "limiting factor" :thumbsup:

 

[Aquarist007]

Yes, but we care about some molecules (like toxins) and not so much about others (which may have almost no effect on anything).

Removing every toxin from a reef aquarium might have hardly any noticeable effect on TOC, but could be a huge benefit for the aquarium, and removing the remainder may not be beneficial at all (just speaking theoretically, of course).

I understand tks
If we are worried about removing toxins would not running gac be a better choice then a skimmer?

 

[Aquarist007]

Initially, after a brief search, I read your post and a talk by Albert Thiel. It seemed that skimming and GAC would equally deal with the suspended portion in the water column. The hypothesis being that it was undesirable.

Then I read in Reef Aquarium V 3, pg 182 under "Marine algae and trace element availability":

"One of the benefits of growing algae in an aquarium is that the algae release dissolved organic compounds that act as chealotors, binding to elements and compounds in the water. They even release exudate that include polysaccharides, complex organic nitrogenous matter, viatamines and phenolic compounds. Some of the dissolved organic matter contributes to the water staining in near shore habitats and in recirculating aquariums. In the natural enviroment, some of the exudates aggregate to form large organic particles in the water column, part of the material known as marine snow".

This does not sound like a bad thing to me. As I learn more, I realize the complexity of these differrent nutrient pathways.
Patrick

I would think that would depend on one's filtration system. And in a lot of cases with a poorly setup system very detrimental

 

[Fredfish]

I for one am loving what the skimmer is doing to my system. My pH problems seem to be fixed and my corals look better than ever. I think the skimmer definitely does add a great amount of aeration to our systems. On the other hand, I am a little worried that my micro fauna and Copepoda might get a little diminished or skimmed out. I have reconfigured my system so my refugium feeds back into the display in order to make it easier for more little critters to survive. As far as TOC removal, IMHO, I don't think that any one method is necessarily the "best". I think that a combination of GAC, a refugium with Macro algae and a DSB, and a good skimmer, is possibly the most "effective" way of export. Having said that, I don't think that a combination of all these methods or any specific one of these methods is necessarily the "best" way for all systems. The reality is that every system is different, and what works for some systems doesn't work for others.( But this is not to be mistaken with " what works for some folks doesnt work for others"). There are so many variables in place that affect our little ecosystems, without mentioning the fact that the level of knowledge/experience/husbandry methods- is main limiting factor in home aquaria. It is our endless inquisitive desire for knowledge what propels us foward in search of the best way to take care of our little ecosystems. The key is to learn to keep an open mind, as the hobby continues to evolve and we continue to learn new ways of keeping our systems thriving, we also have learn to adopt new ideas and accept different concepts. In the end, it is the aquarist himself who has to figure out what works best for his system, and that in turn makes the aquarist the "best" method of export. We just have to keep an open mind, let's not be the "limiting factor" :thumbsup:

Agreed, particularly about keeping an open mind. There is always more than one way to get to the results you want.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I understand tks
If we are worried about removing toxins would not running gac be a better choice then a skimmer?

I don't know as I've never seen a comparison for removal of any specific molecule. It's certainly possible.

However, I expect both is better than either alone, and I use both.

 

[Subsea]

I would think that would depend on one's filtration system. And in a lot of cases with a poorly setup system very detrimental

Scotty,
With a poorly set up system, many things will cause it to fail. All in its time.

Filtration covers more than half the book of Reef Aquarium V 3. The more basic question is "what are the goals of the reef keeper". Many new or perspective hobiest do not wish to be burdened with expensive & complex protocols. They want to enjoy the wonderful underwater world of Jaques Cousteau. Natural filtration satisfies those goals with minimum cost upfront and ongoing.

As I see it, the enthusiasm for advanced techniques is a stumbling block for those that merely want to enjoy a healthy ecosystem in their home or at work at a minimum of expense and effort. On most hobiest forums, the term "old school" is equated to inferior. In looking at the science of advanced techniques, I see several things driving these techniques. The desire to load up a tank with every gorgeous creature in the ocean is the most obvious unhealthy goal. To rush the bioload before the establishment of diverse bacteria at the bottom of the food chain is another unhealthy goal. As in all things it is a Question of Balance.

When I made my first post on this thread, your comment was very insightful. I choose simple livestock because they adapt and flourish. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. To your point about your contract maintenance buisness and the often disrespectful behavior of patrons in a restaurant either tapping on the glass or dumping junk in the tank. Of course you want to use every tool in the business to provide for the health of the tank. UV sterilizers, protein skimmers with ozone, GAC and GFO come to mind.

The goal of the keeper of the captive reef determines the filtration methodology. The long term success is a testimony to their choices. I said long term success because I hear all to often on hobby forums, "my tank never looked better" a week after installing a piece of equipment. New tank syndrome, old tank syndrome, HLLE syndrome are bad testimony to improper choices in filtration methodology and husbandry.

As in all things, I seek to learn.
Viva la difference.
Patrick

 

[Paul B]

On most hobiest forums, the term "old school" is equated to inferior.

That is true. My tank is as old school as it can get so it must be extreamly inferior. :hmm4:
I use a reverse UG filter, can't get any more old school than that. Unless you add my use of Clorox to puify NSW or my adding mud from the sea. I am surprised my tank didn't crash this morning just from it's old schoollyness. :crazy1:

I love old school because to me that means the aquarist has figured out how to let nature do almost all of the work for free with no dosers, controllers, reactors quarantine tanks, hospital tanks, medications, or test kits. Those things all have their purpose but eventually you advance past all that and just end up with a bullet proof, almost no maintenance, very healthy, (that means everything is spawning and everything is also only dying of old age) pretty nice looking tank that never has to be on a disease forum. :wave:
But Hey, What do I know. :wave:

A man with unlimited enthusiasm can acomplish almost anything

 

[Aquarist007]

Scotty,
With a poorly set up system, many things will cause it to fail. All in its time.

Filtration covers more than half the book of Reef Aquarium V 3. The more basic question is "what are the goals of the reef keeper". Many new or perspective hobiest do not wish to be burdened with expensive & complex protocols. They want to enjoy the wonderful underwater world of Jaques Cousteau. Natural filtration satisfies those goals with minimum cost upfront and ongoing.

As I see it, the enthusiasm for advanced techniques is a stumbling block for those that merely want to enjoy a healthy ecosystem in their home or at work at a minimum of expense and effort. On most hobiest forums, the term "old school" is equated to inferior. In looking at the science of advanced techniques, I see several things driving these techniques. The desire to load up a tank with every gorgeous creature in the ocean is the most obvious unhealthy goal. To rush the bioload before the establishment of diverse bacteria at the bottom of the food chain is another unhealthy goal. As in all things it is a Question of Balance.

When I made my first post on this thread, your comment was very insightful. I choose simple livestock because they adapt and flourish. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. To your point about your contract maintenance buisness and the often disrespectful behavior of patrons in a restaurant either tapping on the glass or dumping junk in the tank. Of course you want to use every tool in the business to provide for the health of the tank. UV sterilizers, protein skimmers with ozone, GAC and GFO come to mind.

The goal of the keeper of the captive reef determines the filtration methodology. The long term success is a testimony to their choices. I said long term success because I hear all to often on hobby forums, "my tank never looked better" a week after installing a piece of equipment. New tank syndrome, old tank syndrome, HLLE syndrome are bad testimony to improper choices in filtration methodology and husbandry.

As in all things, I seek to learn.
Viva la difference.
Patrick

Insightful not but thanks
I am a hands on learner and teacher.
I admire Randy because he always gets me to ask more questions then he gives me answers... Sign of a great teacher IMO.
I appreciate being able to post in great threads with you, Tom Randy and Jonathan to name a few

TOC.....I know what it consists of but
Is it good or bad in our system
Carbon dosing and gac increase it.. Then why do we run a skimmer and gac to reduce it
This is a real quandary to me gac....adds and takes away at the same time?
How do we know we have too much of it?