Contemplating a Skimmerless Tank - Page 6

Doug · #51 09-28-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphinus

Well, MY point is (and always was if you "read my posts carefully" see? two can play at this game

) is that skimmerless is certainly an option, because it's not about what equipment you have, but what your nutrient import/export balance is all about. It's a simple producer/consumer scenario. If less goes in, there's less to accumulate. If more goes in, you need to take more out. The goal is equilibrium. A skimmer is but one tool in the arsenal for this goal. There are several others.

I'm sorry but I guess what bothering me here is that over the years I've heard this argument again and again where someone takes a stand and seems to implicate that we should all throw our skimmers away "because they don't use it, and they have success." To turn things around on you a bit, it's the same thing as saying "Because *I* use a skimmer and have success, everyone who doesn't have one should go out and buy one" and that's the very sentiment to which you seem to be objecting.

Never at once disputed success isn't possible, but MY point is that there is value in a properly tuned, good design skimmer.

(True, there are plenty of skimmers out there that may as well not be running for all the good that they do. So there may be some instances where indeed there's no difference to the system whether the skimmer is there or not.)

There was another user on Canreef a few years ago who used to argue this point as well, but what was never advertised was that his tanks were never more than a year old AND he used things like chemical resins. Show me a tank that has run skimmerless for 5 years or more without any kind of overhaul, without any new rock, and without any incident of nutrient buildup, and suddenly the playing field changes a little. Not saying it's not done, it most certainly IS done, but these people have a tank maintenance regime that very likely compensates for the function that a skimmer would otherwise provide.

Ultimately, like with any tool, it serves a function, but of course you should only use that tool if the function it provides is something you beleive has value to you. This applies to anything, be it skimmers, UV, halides, .. whatever.

Peace out.

Excellent post Tony. This brings back the years of heated discussions on another board.

Nothing wrong with running skimmerless, as long as other nutrient export methods are used and then "mentioned", as Daniel did, when saying I run skimmerless, however many seem to forget that part.

Marie, thats an awesome pic. Was that Eric,s tank before the mishap?

marie · #52 09-28-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Excellent post Tony. This brings back the years of heated discussions on another board.

Nothing wrong with running skimmerless, as long as other nutrient export methods are used and then "mentioned", as Daniel did, when saying I run skimmerless, however many seem to forget that part.

Marie, thats an awesome pic. Was that Eric,s tank before the mishap?

Thats what his tank looks like now, after the mishap

Der_Iron_Chef · #53 09-29-2007, 02:39 AM

Wow. Pretty awesome. Hard to argue with *that*

Voxboy · #54 11-12-2007, 12:29 AM

I have been running my system for a little over a year. I do 25% water changes every two weeks. My system is sumpless as well. I AM however going to be adding a skimmer. My biggest fear I guess is an overall system crash....don't know why. My fish are starting to get large and when I see them poop I am amazed how much bigger thier dumps are getting. I will be adding a hang on so Idon't think it will make a big difference either way...maybe help a little. Anyone have a hang on skimmer they want to sell???

Doug · #55 11-12-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voxboy

I have been running my system for a little over a year. I do 25% water changes every two weeks. My system is sumpless as well. I AM however going to be adding a skimmer. My biggest fear I guess is an overall system crash....don't know why. My fish are starting to get large and when I see them poop I am amazed how much bigger thier dumps are getting. I will be adding a hang on so Idon't think it will make a big difference either way...maybe help a little. Anyone have a hang on skimmer they want to sell???

WELCOME TO CANREEF

Doug · #56 11-12-2007, 01:20 PM

and a nice looking aquarium.

Voxboy · #57 11-12-2007, 01:26 PM

Thanks Doug.

Der_Iron_Chef · #58 11-12-2007, 01:27 PM

I agree--looks great! What size tank is that?

Welcome to Canreef!

Voxboy · #59 11-12-2007, 01:35 PM

Thanks Iron Chef. It's a 120g 4x2x2. I guess I should include info in my sig.

ron101 · #60 11-12-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphinus

Well, MY point is (and always was if you "read my posts carefully" see? two can play at this game

) is that skimmerless is certainly an option, because it's not about what equipment you have, but what your nutrient import/export balance is all about. It's a simple producer/consumer scenario. If less goes in, there's less to accumulate. If more goes in, you need to take more out. The goal is equilibrium. A skimmer is but one tool in the arsenal for this goal. There are several others.

I'm sorry but I guess what bothering me here is that over the years I've heard this argument again and again where someone takes a stand and seems to implicate that we should all throw our skimmers away "because they don't use it, and they have success." To turn things around on you a bit, it's the same thing as saying "Because *I* use a skimmer and have success, everyone who doesn't have one should go out and buy one" and that's the very sentiment to which you seem to be objecting.

Never at once disputed success isn't possible, but MY point is that there is value in a properly tuned, good design skimmer.

Agreed. The pro- anti- skimmer debate is just another example of an argument that is more emotional than factual. It is hard to fault the hobbyists though because there is not all that much factual information available and many are not familiar with more 'scientific' methods for reaching accurate conclusions (ie accounting for ALL the variables). They run a skimmer and their tank is doing well so it must be making a positive contribution...

I have never seen a complete study that determined that the skimate from foam fractioning is indeed harmful to reef life (I think Borneman did some work but was it conclusive?) yet we assume it is. Why? Because it looks gross and smells bad to us so it must be bad for reef life?

One variable that I do think is often overlooked is the marketing from the industry. As with most others, consumption is encouraged to increase profit and more/bigger is better (and more expensive). Quality skimmers are expensive in an already expensive hobby.

If I had to set up a new system I would definitely look at avoiding purchasing a skimmer if at all possible by keeping the bioload reasonable and choosing corals that thrive at moderate or higher nutrient levels (ie no sps). This would reduce cost and reduce the possibility of 'equipment overload.'