Skimmerless....

[MCsaxmaster]

Eric (or anyone that has ever run a skimmerless tank),

I'm going to be transferring my 29 gal. over to a 50 gal. breeder starting this week. I've got a couple hundred pounds of oolitic sand and plan to have a 4-5 inch bed. I plan to use some of the sand from the 29 (oh so many worms and bugs ) as well as some live sand from Billsreef (I hear he has good stuff). As far as water flow I was planning to use (I already have them) four maxijet 1200's. I have a pretty good hang-on skimmer on the 29 that I could certainly use, but I would really like to try a skimmerless tank. I've been very seriously considering this for awhile, and a trip to Inland Aquatics last month has really pushed me over the edge

The fish load (at least initially) will consist of a pair of Bangaii cardinals. The corals I will be transferring are: a Caulastrea, a Turbinaria, a Lobophyllia, a couple Montipora, a Stylophora, a Pavona, a Favites (I think--maybe Platygyra), and a Tubastrea. Unfortunately I lost a couple Acropora over the summer and one of the Montipora and the Favites bleached pretty bad (AC broke while I was away ) though they seem to be doing very well. The Montipora seems fully recovered and the Favites is almost there.

Anyway, I was wondering if you had any thoughts or input? I realize that this system really requires one to move slowly and carefully--perhaps more so than a skimmed tank (no safety net) and that I really need to be atuned to this tank. Any advice would be great though.

Cheers,

-Chris

 

[sherm71tank]

There are so many benefits to using a skimmer I cant figure out why would you want to go skimmerless? Not being rude here I just dont understand.

 

[EricHugo]

Because if you have ever run a successful skimmerless tank, you would be able to figure it out easily and apply the same argument...that there are so many benefits to not using a skimmer, that one can't figure out why you would want to use one.

If water quality remains high, why would you want to strip the water column of the already low levels of particulates and plankton that are present, given it is one of the major shortcomings of closed systems?

Chris, I'm glad you saw IA - I assume it still looks good, huh? I also really appreciate it when people visit and are able to see what is happening in those tanks. They are not typical "display" systems that pop your eyes out, but they are more like real reefs than almost anywhere else and far more resilient, too.

SO, my advice to you would be to get the sand and rock and a lot of "spiking" of the sand. I might tend to get some new rock, maybe some aquacultured pieces, too, to maximize diversity and really get the substrates crawling. Feed well (phytoplankton, and particulates (golden pearls type stuff), do water changes if required over the first six months to deal with the nutrients from feeding while the substrates get cranked up. Lots of herbivory, mostly as snails. And, stock with a lot of coral after it is stable, even if it is coral you don't neccesarily want down the road. Things like digitata, Pavona, etc. I would limit soft corals or things that have lots of secondary metabolites unless you have a little carbon area built into the tank. Then, when the tank is ripping after about a year and you are getting it stocked the way you want, make sure to use a lot of live foods like artemia nauplii. I think you'll be really really happy with the way it turns out.

 

[sherm71tank]

Because if you have ever run a successful skimmerless tank, you would be able to figure it out easily and apply the same argument...that there are so many benefits to not using a skimmer, that one can't figure out why you would want to use one.

If water quality remains high, why would you want to strip the water column of the already low levels of particulates and plankton that are present, given it is one of the major shortcomings of closed systems?

:idea: Well when you put it that way it makes perfect sense! Actually I guess I have been obsessed with keeping the water clean and incorporating the largest and most powerful skimmer I can get under my tank and hadnt thought about over skimming or filtering out useful life forms in the process. Something to think about though. Thanks!

 

[Frizz]

I think that it depends on how much time that you have to devote to maintenace. I am a busy & somewhat neglectful person when it comes to fish tank maintenance. I was running an old, not very good skimmer for many years. Then the sucker finally broke & we were not running a skimmer for a little over a year. The tank eventually got pretty disgusting. I will admit that during this time we also needed new lighting which could certainly have added to the problem big time.
Anyway, this March, we did some much needed hardware replacement, going from a wet/dry to plain sump with a kick-*** skimmer, changed out the defective lighting as well & the tank has never looked better (once we got past the big changeover-shock curve). This is the first time in 12 years that I have not had to fight hair algae. It is also the longest that I have ever been able to keep turbo snails alive.
I was skeptical about this type of set up at first but unable to do the hardware changeover myself. I had wanted to stick with a skimmerless wet/dry system (but one that didn't leak) & replace old defective lighting but the guy who did it showed me his own very impressive reef & I caved in. Haven't been sorry but it was quite a worry at first & the changeover did not go smoothly at all due, I believe to a large combination of sudden changes.
This is a 125 ga reef that used to have only 3 small fish. I now have 7 fish.
The biggest change in my maintenance is that I feed much more often & tend to be more concerned with variety than I used to be. Still, if you are the type of person who is willing to do frequent water changes (unlike us) you have much less reason for skimming & I can certainly imagine the benefits. Your decision should also be made according to what you are planning to keep in it.
I am NOT keeping any difficult animals in this tank. We had a gonioporia which in spite of my best efforts was very obviously starving to death & is now enroute to someone more able to properly care for it. The rest of the tank is BT anemone, shrooms, zoos, bubble coral, frog spawn & non sessile inverts.

 

[smallaussiereef]

I have a 20 g built inside a television where i decided to go skimmerless fro room reasons....... i have an air operated ug 2 small powerheads for circulation and it is dooing fine... no toxicity problems what so ever.. i think it is about 4 months old....for pics view my gallery........ just my say....although i am planning a larger tank which will be skimmed........ but why not give it a go....i am proud that i have done something that alot of ppl told me i couldn't do.l.. so why not..

 

[DonJasper]

Re: Skimmerless....

As far as water flow I was planning to use (I already have them) four maxijet 1200's.

I'd suggest you consider converting those things to DIY ' Trunze stream type' powerhead. The trick is to find small cheap RC boat propellers. A local hobby shop less them for like $1.50 each. My gallery has pics of my first successful attempts using 3/16 rigid tubing to extend the axel. I don't do this anymore. I've had pretty good luck sticking the prop to one end of the impellor axel, and just letting the impellor sit inside the powerhead body. Nothing but the magnetism of the powerhead keeping the impellor pulling itself out of the body.

Thereââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s a thread in the DIY section that offers variations on the above theme. (Covering the propeller etc).

Impellor pumps - like typical powerheads - are a rather harsh way to move water around. I've only just started by "impellor pump"/skimmer less experiment. Two weeks - so far so good :rolleye1:

 

[EricHugo]

Frizz: you make some good points especially as far as time constraints go. Skimmers are powerful water purification devices and good safety nets, and should be used in the majority of tank situations, especially if the aquarist is not comfortable with their skills and knowledge level. In your case, the twenty year old wet-dry concept was your Achilles heel. Skimmerless tanks do not necessarily mean a lot of water changes, and I rarely change water with them. The expansion of the Eco-system style commmercially available systems is testimony to the use of biological efficiency, although I am not a fan of them for reasons other than the principles which are sound.

 

[scotty1234]

I set up a 20 long specifically for a reef tank that has no filtration/skimmer at all to see how it would do and everything has done more than excellent in it. I don't have a major load from fish either though but I did add two turbo snails for help cleaning the rocks and in about a months time I now have approximately 40-50. Most are juveniles and very small. I also have had to frag the Xenia three times in about four months because it starts to cover up the other corals. I do have skimmers on my other tanks that have fish but have really been considering taking them off after seeing how much better the skimmerless tank does than the tanks with skimmer. I'm guessing it is because the water is not being stripped by the skimming. I also do a 20% water change every other week. You do have a 'lot' bigger tank and more load but why not try it, just be consistent with your water changes and you will probably be surprised.

 

[Frizz]

> In your case, the twenty year old wet-dry concept was your Achilles heel.

Had you seen what was going on hardware-wise you would might think that it was the least of my problems.

>Skimmerless tanks do not necessarily mean a lot of water changes, and I rarely change water with them.

I find this intrigueing. What do you consider "rarely"?

>The expansion of the Eco-system style commmercially available systems is testimony to the use of biological efficiency, although I am not a fan of them for reasons other than the principles which are sound.

If you would care to explain further, I would be very interested in your thoughts.
Frizz

 

[Mishri]

I know my LFS runs a skimmerless display they've had up for about 10 years.. mostly star polyps, frogspawn, zoos, some clams, leathers.. few other things.. has no sump or fuge either.. just about 1/2" sand bed, LR and lotsa water movement.. they do a 5 gal water change monthly on it and its about 100 gals.. they showed me a test on it, 0 ammonia, 0 nitrite, 0 nitrate.. so i suppose its very affective...

 

[EricHugo]

Depends on the tank, but once every six months or so and usually because the corals were looking less vibrant, not due to water quality issues in terms of nutrients.

 

[EricHugo]

Oh...and explain what further?

 

[scotty1234]

I change 20% weekly but thats just because I like doing it not because the water quality has been comprimised. The water doesn't evaporate as quickly in the skimmerless tank as it does in the other tanks I have set up either.

 

[MCsaxmaster]

Eric,

I've got a few more questions and would like to continue this, but I've got nothing but 15+ hour days this week. I'll be back after the weekend.

Cheers,

-Chris

 

[davejnz]

I have been considering pulling the plug on my lightly skimmed,highly fed 40gal .The amount of infauna in this tank is incredible,especially comparing to my 30gal highly skimmed tank.
Eric,is the reason for adding lots of corals to help uptake the higher nutrients of a skimmerless system?My tank is only moderately/lightly stocked right now so after it reaches full capacity i think i'm gonna pull the plug.Would corals that obtain nutrition through absorption such as Nemenzophyllia be a valuable addition to a system like this?

 

[MiddletonMark]

Interesting idea Dave. Mind if I join you?

My 40 has a bakpak in the sump that fills the cup every couple weeks or more. Pretty much a waste of energy, for how well I don't keep it up. As the tank is doing great, I don't mess with the system It's been generally very low stocked with fish, and does well with little interaction, water changing, or more than visual inspection ... since maybe December. My two tanks already two different methods, and this 40 has been more of an experiment than my 58.

As I'm setting up a 60 Agrimaster in the basement to store my various cured 50+# of LR in tubs now + start a dedicated propagation tank ... it is nice to know that I have a whole empty, but viable tank as security blanket for either of my experiments. Both have `old' corals in them, precious cargo indeed.

But given the little skimming that's going on in that tank ... maybe it's time to pull the plug + see. I've always tried to run the two tanks based on slightly different methods, as they were meant to grow different types of corals.

 

[thackray]

MiddletownMark,

I was following the recent DSB debate over on Randyââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s forum. What are your thoughts relative to DSBââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s in a skimmer-less system?

Phil

 

[MiddletonMark]

I'd lean that direction. Have a refugium that's booming in that tank with one ... main tank actually has a mostly thin layer of substrate with a few areas [brain] that are thicker.

I think in deciding how to run any coral-centric system, one should focus on what corals you are keeping. Given they have different tolerances and thrive in different environments ... the system should be set up with these things in mind. I follow different methods for my softie/etc tank than my Acro-centric one. Maybe I could run them all on the same system, but what's the fun with that?

It was a propagation tank that got overgrown until I had to recognize it was a tank in it's own right. Thank god she's the one who got me into this

 

[EricHugo]

Chris:

take your time - I'm swamped, too.

Dave: All corals to my knowledge take up dissolved nutrients. The answer is that if you want to uptake any produced waste from excretion and respiration, there are lots of things that do it...bacteria, algae, and most of the sessile inverts (sponges, corals, worms,, etc.). People always talk about "high bioloads", but for the most part (except fish and a few other things), the things we keep in our tanks are tightly coupled to photosynthetic production, uptake waste material as direct absorption or scavenging, and all work very well togther to actually decrease nutrients. The trick is to limit those most efficienct like algae. So, lots of coral and grazers, and there will not be an algae issue, and the community more than takes up and processes whatever waste is there. The imports to unskimmed tanks can be reduced, too, since there is by necessity and ramped up populations, less demand for nturients being exported by other means (i.e. fractionation). My biggest concern with unskimmed has always been allelopathy, and I use carbon for that. Besides that, skimmers are mostly pulling out food....and although skimmate is nasty and foul, its bacteria, algae, uneaten food, mucus and feces, mainly, and this is all a good food source for most things in the tank.

FWIW, I do not think it a good idea to try and do this without the sand. Actually, I don't think its a good idea to do any tank without the sand unless there are good reasons, and I think all the recent DSB debate is a crock...but, hey, what do I know?