skimmers, what are they and, more importantly, WHY.

[nereefpat]

Essential amino acids don't contain P, but proteins can be phosphorylated.

Also, let's keep in mind skimmers don't just remove proteins. Many organic molecules would be removed. anything hydrophobic like phospholipids would be removed. Amphipathic molecules like fatty acids or nucleotides could be removed too. So there are many molecules containing P that can be skimmed.

 

[NS Mike D]

None replied if my understanding is correct or not.

I don't think it's so much as the ocean cleaning itself as it's we using the phenomenon to benefit the small enclosed systems in our tanks. No one is dropping mega tons of mysys shrimp on top of the reefs three times a day.


The crude that washes up on the beach is consumed by the life that lives on the tides. Which iff course will die and flush back into the ocean with the everything else. I'm sure the land (and air) animals that live a bit inland but feast on the shore move some further back, but that too will eventually makes its may into streams, and so on

 

[NS Mike D]

^

Well that means mostly the filtration is done marine plants and algae, isn't it?

None may drop tons of Mysis shrimp thrice a day in ocean but you have to admit hundreds of marine organisms die each day in the ocean.

IMO, we need to filter and export because we cannot re-cycle the way nature does, nor does nature dislike algae the way we do.

 

[Sk8r]

Here, after some searching, is a fairly technical article written by a chemist and hobbyist that explains WHAT it removes and why. The nitrate/phosphate reference is in here.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php

 

[jayball]

^

Well that means mostly the filtration is done marine plants and algae, isn't it?

None may drop tons of Mysis shrimp thrice a day in ocean but you have to admit hundreds of marine organisms die each day in the ocean.

Yes and they are scavenged and recycled into plant matter that makes its way back into the food chain. Their biomass was already there.

it is easy to set up a self sustaining system when you have 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 (rough) gallons to play with.

 

[Sk8r]

I think the skimming article might cover both sides of that question.

 

[jayball]

The total mass on earth is constant, that's true in any case. There are also systems without any skimmer, how are they maintaining those?

No one said this is the only way of doing things. You seem to be poking holes in an argument that no one is making. The total mass of earth being a constant is absolutely irrelevant in this case.

The fact is that we maintain a closed ecosystem that we dump nutrients into every day. If you do not export those nutrients they will build up. You can do this through an ATS, microalgae, a skimmer, and other ways.

A skimmer happens to be a good way to do it.

 

[jayball]

Total mass on earth is constant - not irrelevant because of your comment 'the biomass was already there'. Imagine how much population has increased in last 10 years, biomass was there to be handled by nature hence we are alive.

I am not poking any holes anywhere, I just need to know should I invest in skimmer beside ats.

There are many that run ATS only systems and many that combine the two. If you want a debate on if you should buy one then you should start a thread that outlines the details of your system, what your ATS is sized for, and the eventual goals for your aquarium. Alternatively you can go to the advanced topics forum and post in the ATS sticky to see it will be sufficient.

 

[Sk8r]

The article (unless I am scrambling two with similar content) points out that some algaes absorb similar things, including metals, which skimmers also remove. Both could be effective, either separately, or in combination. If excessive, it is the algae that would suffer worst. If your run a turf system and it isn't doing enough, then the next step would be a good skimmer.

As a note, some lps tanks are so hungry they sop up a great deal of everything, but if one service your skimmer is doing in the particular instance of your tank is lowering your metals content, they might eventually suffer from the lack of skimming.

 

[Sk8r]

I personally prefer PolyPad, the color changes of which let me know what it's pulling, if i'm curious, but carbon is efficient and for constant use, way, way cheaper.

 

[NS Mike D]

But the guys who are maintaining tanks without skimmers (using large ATS), they are re-cycling the nutrients almost the way nature does? Difference is we clean cups of skimmers weekly, they clean algae off the scrubber weekly/bi weekly?

It is not a debate please, just a discussion.

with an ATS, the algae locks up the nutrients until they are scraped into the garbage. I am not aware of any intentional recycling with an ATS


Many ways to skin a cat and no silver bullet. Lock up as much nutrients as possible via re-cycling, but since we add nutrients every day, export is needed.

 

[NS Mike D]

Total mass on earth is constant - not irrelevant because of your comment 'the biomass was already there'. Imagine how much population has increased in last 10 years, biomass was there to be handled by nature hence we are alive.

I am not poking any holes anywhere, I just need to know should I invest in skimmer beside ats.

IMO, only if your ATS isn't sufficient. I am not a fan of adding equipment for the sake of adding equipment. I added my skinner (nano) because the refugium couldn't get the N&P down to where I wanted them. I like ATS. from what I read in that ATS thread, they appear to be very efficient.

 

[araelto]

Love the foamy beach analogy, been using that to explain skimmers to folks forever!!

 

[CStrickland]

^

Well that means mostly the filtration is done marine plants and algae, isn't it?

None may drop tons of Mysis shrimp thrice a day in ocean but you have to admit hundreds of marine organisms die each day in the ocean.

No, most of the filtration is not done by marine plants.

As I understand the question you are asking generally where phosphate goes in the ocean. This can be confusing when we talk about nutrients as a general category, but then treat their removal as a single process. Like, in our tanks nitrogen and phosphorus both source from food, and fuel algae. So we tend to perceive them as the same problem. In this thread, amino acids have also been added as a culprit. But these compounds all behave very differently. They go different places, using very different routes. When thinking of a skimmer, I think it's better to consider all of the waste as organic poop. That's what skimmers remove, because it makes good bubbles. The poop has phos, nitrogen, and amino acids in it. Some poop is good for some coral, too much is bad for coral and grows ugly algae. Some critters like to eat it, and some are picky about whether it is in its turd form or has already decomposed into separate pieces of nitrate and phos.

I would say think of your skimmer as your toilet. No matter what you eat, you can eventually get that waste out of your house using this technology. If you instead tried to poop on your floor and grow all different grasses and trees in the pile, and pour charcoal in it, and purchase worms to aid in the decomposition, you could theoretically eat just enough to poop exactly the amount that your gross ant farm could manage. Your toilet-less house would be a perfect system, a replication of nature. But you'd need a really really big house and we tend to pack fish into our tanks.

One of the things that makes the ocean different from a tank is the way that calcium structures can capture phosphate. Sooner or later all of that grimey beach sand will make its way out by typhoon or hurricane or slow deposition to the deep ocean pits where it will return to the earths core as magma and travel up to form new mountains. When it does, the phos that bound to it will fertilize coconut trees in Tahiti. This cycle does not occur in our tanks because it requires millennia.