DOTW - Skimming
- Thread starter Witfull
- Start date
NaH2O
Contributing Member
I believe someone asked about mangroves....here is some information: Mangroves in the Reef Aquarium
Brucey
Well-Known Member
I run a relativley light bio-load with a skimmer rated for twice my tank size and it still pulls about an 1" skum a week. I can't imagine dumping the muck back into the tank and letting the natural filtartion take it out. IMO, a skimmer is an absolute must but i do turn mine off for 1 day a week when i feed the corals and then i just leave them to it.
I once had an anenome go through a PH and the skimmer pulled 3 capfulls (approx 10 gallons) of skum in 24 hours. I lost half my live stock but saved the rest. Without the skimmer I'm pretty sure i would have lost the lot.
Brucey
I once had an anenome go through a PH and the skimmer pulled 3 capfulls (approx 10 gallons) of skum in 24 hours. I lost half my live stock but saved the rest. Without the skimmer I'm pretty sure i would have lost the lot.
Brucey
middletonmark
Member
I skim both of my tanks because I'd rather have the nutrients removed than left around to be `dealt with'. Enough will be remaining. But I'm most focused on my SPS tank, which looks best when water has low dissolved nutrients IME.
Depends on the inhabitants, though. Comparatively, I don't skim my softie tank as much, and while there's algae there, it seems some of the inhabitants benefit from more dissolved nutrients.
Depends on the inhabitants, though. Comparatively, I don't skim my softie tank as much, and while there's algae there, it seems some of the inhabitants benefit from more dissolved nutrients.
Curtswearing
Active Member
Yes but you will get even slower growth out of them than you would if they were growing alone. The caulerpa will outcompete them. You must also never allow the leaves to fall into the sump or all of the nasties will go right back into the water column.
Your post answered some of these questionsl already. Different types of skimmers approach the same issues of bubble surface area in different ways. Some are very tall so that the bubbles are in contact with the water column longer. Others are made to fit into fish cabinets so they attempt to have more tiny bubbles to increase surface area. More surface area means more DOC's are being removed.
Let's face it. We want our glass boxes filled with water to be attractive. To prevent nuisance algaes and cyano's and provide clean water for our corals and fish, it's important to export our nutrients well. A protein skimmer removes wastes BEFORE they break down into D.O.C.'s. Obviously some of the solid wastes are going to be missed so we will have DOC's in a skimmed tank as well. Luckily a protein skimmer has the ability to remove these as well which has been discussed.
DOC' can also be removed with various macroalgaes. As many of you know, I have an ecosystem fuge but I will not run it without a skimmer like Leng Sy recommends. As a result, I feel I have the right to comment on both. It does very well as a backup in my mind but there is no way on God's green earth I will run my tank with it as anything other than an additional as opposed to a primary type of filtration.
I agree with Leng Sy that people shouldn't use them with the "safe" macroalgaes. I have reasons for my beliefs....many of them are as a result of my side-hobby in Bonsai but most of them are as a result of the movie The Karate Kid. To paraphrase, Mr. Miyagi said the following.....
Karate Yes....fine
Karate No....fine
Karate halfway....squish
To put this in reefing terms.....
Export with macroalgae Yes....fine
Export with macroalgae No....fine
Export halfway with macroalgae....squish
I can't speak for other people's tanks but I find that the "safe" or "halfway" macro's really don't accomplish very many positive things but still subject the tank to the same negatives that ANY macroalgae does.....TOXINS. ANY critter that is sessile needs to either camoflauge itself for protection against predators or repel predators or reproduce with abandon. Macroalgae's can't camoflauge themselves so they use toxins to repel predators.
For a short time I ran Chaetomorpha linum as well as caulerpa in my fuge. I liked the fact that the amphipods liked the spaghetti mac so much but it BARELY GREW. If it's not growing by leaps and bounds in our nutrient-laden boxes of water, it's useless IMO for an export mechanism.
Toxins in Halimeda Defense for Macroalgaes
Witfull
Well-Known Member
yes mark some creatures do require more nutrients, Borneman is going to be experimenting with elegance corals to see if they require a higher nitrient levels, lagoonal setting rather than forereef, this may be true as well for gonipora.
another question... can water be overstripped by skimming?
another question... can water be overstripped by skimming?
Curtswearing
Active Member
There might be a few lagoonal species like goniopora or elegance that might benefit from higher nutrients.
However, in my book we don't have the ability to overskim the typical reef tank. They are enclosed systems and don't have the ability to do what is done in the ocean....namely have currents that remove the waste products from the reef. Corals need very few nutrients to obtain their required nitrogen and they are intolerant of liquid forms of it (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate) and other dissolved organic compounds. Obviously they need additional nutrients but they have the ability to extract dissolved bio-available N from the water at low ambient levels, and also they capture and consume microscopic prey (zooplankton not phytoplankton) as well as bacteria and particles of edible detritus that come into contact with their mucus layer.
Knowing that they are intolerant of DOC's and liquid forms of Nitrogen indicates to me that we cannot overskim with our current technology.
However, in my book we don't have the ability to overskim the typical reef tank. They are enclosed systems and don't have the ability to do what is done in the ocean....namely have currents that remove the waste products from the reef. Corals need very few nutrients to obtain their required nitrogen and they are intolerant of liquid forms of it (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate) and other dissolved organic compounds. Obviously they need additional nutrients but they have the ability to extract dissolved bio-available N from the water at low ambient levels, and also they capture and consume microscopic prey (zooplankton not phytoplankton) as well as bacteria and particles of edible detritus that come into contact with their mucus layer.
Knowing that they are intolerant of DOC's and liquid forms of Nitrogen indicates to me that we cannot overskim with our current technology.
addict
Well-Known Member
Well, I guess the nitpick is alright.... but...
The one little thing you missed (which I guess not a lot of people are aware of) is the little '~' character, which is shorthand for 'around' or 'near'... so... keeping that in mind, re-read my post again...
Looks like I'll start having to write that out longhand...
Curtswearing
Active Member
^
jks1
Member
I agree with Boomer, with regular water changes with a quality salt trace elements will be replaced. Can we work skimmer maint into this thread? Maint will definately improve the performance of a skimmer. I clean the collection cup and auto-whaste container of mine every ~ 2 days, (that was for you RA!) and clean the skimmer column ~ once a week- or more if I think it needs it. I can always see the performance difference after a good cleaning.
Reef Geek
Reefus Geekus
Wow John, that seems like a pretty frequent (and busy) cleaning schedule. I am not saying it is good or bad but except for dumping out the skimate I have not cleaned my skimmer for at least 5 or 6 months.
And I agree, with bi-weekly 15%-20% water changes plenty of trace elements are reintroduced into the system.
And I also agree that our tanks cannot be over-skimmed. "The solution to pollution is dillution" But inbetween dillutions there is nothing like a good skimmer.
Hey Dave, don't let the old man get on you too bad. One day we will also have the good fortune of retiring, and doing nothing but sitting here nit-picking everyone's posts.
And I agree, with bi-weekly 15%-20% water changes plenty of trace elements are reintroduced into the system.
And I also agree that our tanks cannot be over-skimmed. "The solution to pollution is dillution" But inbetween dillutions there is nothing like a good skimmer.
Hey Dave, don't let the old man get on you too bad. One day we will also have the good fortune of retiring, and doing nothing but sitting here nit-picking everyone's posts.
BigReepher
Active Member
I've been skimmerless for a year with no problems. Consequently, I've also kept my bioload low. I wouldn't have a high bioload without a skimmer. I'm a fan of the recirculating skimmers, the idealology behind them is that some of the water in the contact chamber gets skimmed multiple times, thus yielding a cleaner water. They basically increase bubble to DOC contact time in a smaller package. You don't see many here in the states, but they are common in Europe.
Curtswearing
Active Member
BigReefer.
Like your recirculating skimmer post where the same water is skimmed multiple times, I know of someone who has compartmentalized his sump. He uses a powerhead and tubing to take a portion of the water that was just skimmed from a later compartment to send it back to the protein skimmer compartment to be skimmed again. That way a portion of the water that might have been stripped of (made up numbers here BTW) 25% of it's DOC's gets sent back to the skimmer for another processing instead of mixing with the water in the display tank. Maybe now the second time through, it has been stripped of 40% of nutrients. Lather....rinse.....repeat.
Can anyone see any benefit or problem with this setup?
Like your recirculating skimmer post where the same water is skimmed multiple times, I know of someone who has compartmentalized his sump. He uses a powerhead and tubing to take a portion of the water that was just skimmed from a later compartment to send it back to the protein skimmer compartment to be skimmed again. That way a portion of the water that might have been stripped of (made up numbers here BTW) 25% of it's DOC's gets sent back to the skimmer for another processing instead of mixing with the water in the display tank. Maybe now the second time through, it has been stripped of 40% of nutrients. Lather....rinse.....repeat.
Can anyone see any benefit or problem with this setup?
Scooterman
Active Member
I you remove the polution before it becomes a problem, dillution isn't necessary the answer.
HAP
Member
IMO skimming is essential for a confined system in order to remove the bio load. The greeen nasty crap my Turbo Flotor pulls out every 2-3 days is a positive indication that without skimming the fish would be swiming in s**t before too long.
Besides, nature herself skims the oceans through the turbulent action of waves against the shore. You know its not nice to fool Mother Nature....
Besides, nature herself skims the oceans through the turbulent action of waves against the shore. You know its not nice to fool Mother Nature....
middletonmark
Member
Yeah, that is a great catchy phrase ... but the solution to pollution truly is never letting the stuff get in there. Or quick removal.
And somehow `a good tool to minimize pollution, is dilution' just doesn't have the same ring