|
|
|
||||||||
| Portal | PhotoPost Gallery | Register | Blogs | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| View Poll Results: If skimmers didn't exist, which would be your next choice? | |||
| Wet/Dry (trickle) filter |
   
|
12 | 8.51% |
| Fluidized bed filter |
  
|
5 | 3.55% |
| UV sterilizer |
  
|
9 | 6.38% |
| Mechanical filter |
  
|
10 | 7.09% |
| Live rock/sand bed (exclusively) |
  
|
75 | 53.19% |
| Carbon filter |
  
|
14 | 9.93% |
| Other |
|
16 | 11.35% |
| Voters: 141. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#26
02-24-2006, 12:59 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
One thing to keep in mind is what "reef" means to you. I keep primarily SPS, and feel that a skimmer is essential. If I instead kept a tank with zoos and/or softies only, I would have to seriously consider not using a skimmer. I have seen tanks of this type that appear to do better with higher nutrient levels.
We certainly can't argue with Bob about skimmers, he's been not using one for ever and his tanks all do just fine. I use a skimmer and my tank does just fine. So who's right? Both of us. Or neither, depending on how you look at it. To address the topic, if skimmers didn't exist, I'd use ozone, GAC and water changes. And I'd invent skimmers and get rich!!
__________________
Brad 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
