Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
notice that I posted NOT to include skimmate that was residing in the collection cup.
Wet Skimmate Water Changes?
- Thread starter JMBoehling
- Start date
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
apples and oranges.
5 hours of skimming is 5 hours of skimming.
Removing 5 hours of wet skimmed water to do a water change is much different than removing the same amount of "regular" old water from the aquarium and running the skimmer "dry" for those 5 hours. Simply put: it works!
d0ughb0y
Active member
I don't think it will be the same, as the amount of air involved is greatly decreased when you wet skim. I'm sure you know the principle of skimming requires air. At a minimum I will agree for the sake of argument that it can be the same, but you can never say the wet skim will have more organics than the regular water plus the normal skim.
The principle is really flawed if you consider Bilk's agrument.
You're saying it works is like saying you drive to work backwards and you get there everyday. Sure that is true, but based on Bilks argument as an analogy, it is a silly way to get there, as there are many more tanks that look nice that don't do wet skim. so it cannot be attributed to wet skim water change alone. in fact, I'd say your good husbandry is the reason for your nice tank, and you can have just as nice a tank even if you do normal water change.
The principle is really flawed if you consider Bilk's agrument.
You're saying it works is like saying you drive to work backwards and you get there everyday. Sure that is true, but based on Bilks argument as an analogy, it is a silly way to get there, as there are many more tanks that look nice that don't do wet skim. so it cannot be attributed to wet skim water change alone. in fact, I'd say your good husbandry is the reason for your nice tank, and you can have just as nice a tank even if you do normal water change.
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
bottom line in layman's terms:
bottom line in layman's terms:
removing 5 gallons of wet skimmed water is more efficient at removing organics from a system than removing 5 gallons of water from the display aquarium (for a water change).
But why not opt for more bang for the buck?
bottom line in layman's terms:
removing 5 gallons of wet skimmed water is more efficient at removing organics from a system than removing 5 gallons of water from the display aquarium (for a water change).
thanks and I agree
But why not opt for more bang for the buck?
Perhaps it was lost earlier in this thread, or maybe it was just in different threads, but part of the reasoning behind wet skimming is that it removes more organic matter than dry skimming for the same amount of time.
While I agree there is no data to bear on this issue, the reasoning is sound.
If you create a foam, then you drain it to some extent, more draining to form a dryer foam will also cause some loss in organic matter in that drained water. The only question is how large the effect is. Is it a 50% difference, or a 0.1% difference in total removed organic matter. We just do not know.
While I agree there is no data to bear on this issue, the reasoning is sound.
If you create a foam, then you drain it to some extent, more draining to form a dryer foam will also cause some loss in organic matter in that drained water. The only question is how large the effect is. Is it a 50% difference, or a 0.1% difference in total removed organic matter. We just do not know.
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
thanks for reminding us of this, Randy.
I've been doing wet skim water changes for several years now after over a decade of performing "regular" water changes. I wish I could quantify the amount of organics removed by both methods but it's beyond my means.
In any case, it makes sense that 5 gallons of wet skimmate might contain more organics than 5 gallons of "regular" aquarium water.
The wet skimmate is certainly darker and more foamy than regular aquarium water!
I've been doing wet skim water changes for several years now after over a decade of performing "regular" water changes. I wish I could quantify the amount of organics removed by both methods but it's beyond my means.
In any case, it makes sense that 5 gallons of wet skimmate might contain more organics than 5 gallons of "regular" aquarium water.
The wet skimmate is certainly darker and more foamy than regular aquarium water!
Bilk
New member
Not arguing the point that wet skimmed water has more organics than just removing water from the system. I believe the skimmer under normal skimming will remove the same amount if not more during the same duration of time needed to wet skim. Wet skimming also requires one to change the settings on the skimmer. Then you have to dial it back in again. I just don't see the benefit other than getting a cleaner skimmer after the water change is finished. But that's jmo.
Last edited:
Wouldn't the increased amount of organics skimmed out w/ wet skim over dry have to be greater than the amount of organics in the water changed w/ "regular water change?
I say worse case you have at least equal amts. of organics skimmed AND the added benefit of having to clean the skimmer less!
This method makes sense to me.
I say worse case you have at least equal amts. of organics skimmed AND the added benefit of having to clean the skimmer less!
This method makes sense to me.
I believe the skimmer under normal skimming will remove the same amount if not more during the same duration of time needed to wet skim.
Sure, one could try to set the skimmer to not function as well, but if all you do is allow the same foam (and perhaps that is where we disagree) to drain more before collecting it, I cannot see any way the organic material could be less under wet skimming.
Sure, one could try to set the skimmer to not function as well, but if all you do is allow the same foam (and perhaps that is where we disagree) to drain more before collecting it, I cannot see any way the organic material could be less under wet skimming.
Bilk
New member
Hi Randy. I guess the essence of what your saying is that we should wet skim over dryer skimming? So if we were able to wet skim 100% of the time, we'd accomplish a better environment? I always believed that longer contact time was necessary to achieve adhesion.
I have only seen a few up close, but even marine aquariums with limitless water sources, seem to be dry skimming. Maybe I'm wrong on this but I think wet skimming just removes more of the good stuff vs that of dry skimming.
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
Bilk- you realize this thread is in regards to using wet skimming to perform water changes, right?
SaltwaterAdict
New member
Seems like a lot of work to do and not sure if you'd really benefit from it. When I do my WCs I like to make them quick and easy. Skimming wet and having to adjust the skimmer and worry about it overflowing and who knows how long it would take to remove 10-20-30 or even 40g would definitely be a stretch! When skimmate collects it takes a long time to accomplish and dialing in the skimmer to skim wet for a short period of time I don't think would do a whole lot. imo
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
IME (much!) wet skimming actually SIMPLIFIES removing water from an aquarium for a water change.
I crank the waste gate on my skimmer closed 1/4 turn and (voila!) 4 hours later 50 gallons of wet skimmate water has been removed from my system.
Pump in 50 gallons of new water. Done.
Very simple.
I crank the waste gate on my skimmer closed 1/4 turn and (voila!) 4 hours later 50 gallons of wet skimmate water has been removed from my system.
Pump in 50 gallons of new water. Done.
Very simple.
SaltwaterAdict
New member
Interesting, thanks for sharing that. Didn't think it was that simple.
One thing, what happens if you forget about the skimmate collection water?:eek1:
SaltwaterAdict
New member
How often do you do a WC like this?
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
my skimmer cup has a drain.
the drain line leads to a waste sink.
fwiw I feed very heavy
the drain line leads to a waste sink.
once every week
fwiw I feed very heavy
Bilk
New member
Yes I understand that. However it would follow that if this method is better for removing waste than dry skimming, why wouldn't this practice be done in places such as coral farms and public aquariums, many of which have limitless water supplies? Many of these places get their water directly from a natural source - generally filtered with a diatom filter bed. This is why I used it as a reference in my prior post.
My assertion is a skimmer will remove the same amount of organics over 5 hours of dry skimming as wet, but certainly that is difficult to quantify. I do however like the idea of using this method for a shorter duration to clean the skimmer and lines, without necessarily 1. dismantling it and 2. removing the aqueous lining already formed on the skimmer chamber and riser tube. Skimmate should begin to form much more quickly doing this. The only problem then is dialing the skimmer back in where as I don't have to do that after a cleaning the way I presently do it now.
Heck I guess I'll give it a try. It certainly can't hurt
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
I still don't think you understand. I dry skim 24/7. I only wet skim for water changes. This entire thread is in regards to wet skim water changes.
Bilk
New member
LOL yes I fully understand that you think it is worthwhile doing this only for water changes, but I used those examples as an argument for it not being worthwhile because 1. your skimmer will pull as much waste in those 4 or 5 hours dry skimming and 2. if wet skimming were indeed better, places with readily available water would always wet skim instead of dry skim. I know what you meant, but I don't think you know what I meant
Not looking to argue or belabor the point. I just don't see the value other than possibly getting the skimmer cleaned and not removing the film that helps skim, which happens if you remove the skimmer and clean it in fresh water. :bounce3:
Yes I understand that. However it would follow that if this method is better for removing waste than dry skimming, why wouldn't this practice be done in places such as coral farms and public aquariums, many of which have limitless water supplies? Many of these places get their water directly from a natural source - generally filtered with a diatom filter bed. This is why I used it as a reference in my prior post.
If you truly have limitless and costless water, there's no need to do anything but continuous high water changes. No need for skimming at all. The fact is, water costs, due to the need to heat it up, filter it, etc.
In any case, it isn't worth a big debate since there is no data to prove it either way. If you don't think it a good idea, don't use the method.
If you truly have limitless and costless water, there's no need to do anything but continuous high water changes. No need for skimming at all. The fact is, water costs, due to the need to heat it up, filter it, etc.
In any case, it isn't worth a big debate since there is no data to prove it either way. If you don't think it a good idea, don't use the method.
Similar threads
