|
|
|
||||||||
| 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 |
|
#51
03-21-2006, 04:54 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
Hello,
I used to run a PM-Bullet 2 on a 40g (incl sump) and can leave it for 2 months if not more without doing any water changes. Now I'm running a 10g without a skimmer and 30% water change weekly and the tank is still not even close to as clean as the one with the skimmer. The loading on the 10g is less per gallon than the 20g system. Running a skimmer as other advantages. These include gas exchange, which also compensate for the daily pH swing somewhat, and cooling. My opinion is that it is perfectly alright to run a skimmerless system, and having a skimmer does not degrade and can only contribute. Titus
__________________
A link to http://www.yahoo.com 
|
|
#52
04-20-2006, 05:17 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Considering I don't currently have a skimmer and am in the market for one, I rely solely on LR/LS and carbon, especially when introducing new corals.
__________________
www.masns.ca/forum
|
Linear Mode
