No skimmer system

[Reefdaddy1]

Mike thats all good with what your saying, and the relam of understanding going Skimmerless is by far less known then skimmer addicts. Saying that there is allot to be said for DSB and Fuges running skimmerless systems. I have personaly run Skimmerless system and some observations I have seen I beleive warrant some consideration. In comparison to my Skimmed tanks there is an obvious growth disparity between the 2, with the skimmerless units having far more growth then my skimmed units. Can this be attributed to the Life being put back in to the tank ie Trace elements? And if so, Then why Skim them out? I fond this thread fasinating really . The obvious difference in Philophy is encouraging.

I just think that There allot more to learn then people give cradit for. We all know here flow rates are pretty well standard. Calcium is another standard that I think has pretty well stablized, But I think there is lack of knowledge on the Fuge that May make the Skimmer obsolete. I know there a few out there that have studied it to no ends. But I think there is huge Knowledge upswing so to speak, that is comming with Fuge and Skimmerless, systems. I know its been hanging around for years and many have tried and failed. But I really fell there is something comming on the horizon that is shock the house with this Hobby. Leng Wey is one guy that already making a mint on his skimmerless system. But hey I only been doing this for 12 years, What do I know LOL

 

[DonW]

There seem to be a few people that are real advocates of the refugium. Does anyone have any real advice on how to set one up. Luke did post a pick of a small chaeto ball. I really dont think that little bit of chaeto would make much of a difference other than housing pods and other critters. How much chaeto/water does it really take to make a real, hard working refugium. Ive really only seen one that was stuffed, all the rest have had tiny almost worthless amounts of macro.

Don

 

[moortim]

Thanks Mike for the corrections to my earlier post. I left a lot out because I was running out of time to type. I agree with everything and I am glad for all the information.

Reefdaddy, I agree with you on the fact that there is not that much information available yet on skimmerless systems but it is growing. I also agree with an earlier comment that it is hard to want to try something new like this with so much at stake in a tank. There may come a time when we don't use skimmers anymore but I can't see that becoming mainstream for a long time. At least not untill we understand how to make it work better. This is a great discussion and I think my knowledge on the subject has at least doubled so thanks to all for the input.
The best part I think I have gathered from this is that there are plenty of success stories from both sides of the spectrum so whichever way I decide to go can be a good choice. Funny enough that even those who don't use a skimmer seem to have one standing by just in case.....................

 

[Krish]

Defintely a great and informative thread Tim...And you were worried about arguments

 

[wave98]

You have to look to the whole system Luke , its kind of hard to explain, heres an example.
You start with a fresh Sand substraight that is newly seeded with bacteria. As food and detritus land on the bed the bacteria begin to bloom to the level of food available.

Ahem ?

And what's wrong with the statement about where buildups would go, I left out bacteria maybe ? Luke doesn't have a skimmer Mike, so then where do they go ?

> Barry

 

[wave98]

Like I said earlier if I have missed anything here or misunderstood something please let me know. I am definitely understanding this subject better and am just trying to pull truth out of oppinions.

I think you are understanding perfectly Tim.

Some people just want to ressurect the BB VS DSB war again, because they are sure that there is nothing else to do in Reef Keeping.

Exactly how long have you used nothing but chaeto in your tanks? No problem algaes yet...but wait...nobody escapes that altogehter...You have a DSB, right? I didn't see much detritus either when I had a DSB...where do you suppose it's going? It has nothing to do with the chaeto at all...

No Actually Luke has a RUGF with coarse CC, you seem to have "missed" that hey Mike ?

A "small" chaeto ball, hey Don ? :lol: :lol:

Old dogs with no tricks

> Barry

 

[mojoreef]

Ok lets take this to the next step.
I do believe that refugiums with algae and sediment do allow for some net gain uptake of both N and P. I also do believe that they produce and/or provide an ammount of natural filterers and even some biproduct food. So really they are OK, they do have some draw backs, but as long as folks understand them going into it, its all good by me.
Ok so lets move on a bit. Corals can be basically divided into two catagories (not to scientific, but good enough for now) These catagories basically deal with tissue ammount. 1=those that have a bunch and 2= those that dont have to much. SPS type corals has a thin (2 cell layers thick) and say softies, gorg's and LPS that have a bunch.
The more tissue a coral has the more nutrients it requires, thus the more it absorbs and captures. Corals with very little tissue go the opposite direction.
SOoooooooooo if what we all have in common is wanting to have the ultimate enviroment for our corals to thrive in. How do we incorporate the information we have accumulated in this thread???

Barry I lost ya bit their, are you saying where does all the nutrients? or are you refering to detritus??


Mike

 

[mojoreef]

Hey Barry I tell ya what. Feel free to post and be constructive to the thread. If you wish to poke and push like you just did in your last post, then....go away.


Mike

 

[moortim]

Let me see if I understand you Mike.
You are saying that depending on what type of corals you keep you would want more or less stuff to be removed from the water via whatever system you are using? So for sps you would want to have less nutrients in the water than for lps or soft corals? By "nutrients" I mean whatever you are feeding that the corals would eat. So would that have an impact on how much to skim the tank?

Tim

 

[Reefdaddy1]

I think Mike makes a good point on what you keep, My skimmerless tanks are most Softies, Where i do have my Skimmers (most of them) are SPS. But where I seen defenite increase in growth was on 2 55 gal , One skimmed one Fuge, The desparity was rather shocking. So maybe Mikes point has credance. Because of the result, certain SPS show browning and decoloration, when asking experts I knew at the time, they stated there was overabudance of Nutrients in the tank and the only to brighten them up was to skim. Now looking back on it Mikes comments make total sense.

 

[wave98]

Sorry Mojo, It gets frustrating to hear the same old stuff over and over. The point is that When Luke started promoting his Chaeto only, it was based on his RUGF tank with large Crushed Coral, and that keeps being ignored. Posts about the evils of DSB just don't appropriately apply.

You said I lost you.

This is really not a fair appraisal Mike, when you know that Luke is running a RUGF through coarse substrate. Luke is not running Anaerobic, so these buildups are being either taken up by live rock, animals, or chaeto, OR building up in the water to whatever levels they are controlled by water changes.

This was your response:

I wasnt talking about Lukes system Barry Even if I was I dont think I could buy "these buildups are being either taken up by live rock, animals, or chaeto, OR building up in the water" kinda of concept anyway.

I was explaining that if the nutrients and compounds are not taken up elsewhere, they will end up in the water column, and that it will take time to see the result of a buildup in the water column for some of these compounds.

Lukes tank has not run all that long, and more time will help to show the merit of his system, IF the water column is not turning "sour "in time".

Is that better ?

> Barry

 

[wave98]

SOoooooooooo if what we all have in common is wanting to have the ultimate enviroment for our corals to thrive in. How do we incorporate the information we have accumulated in this thread???

It has been fairly common knowledge for a good while now that environment for keeping Softies is considerably different than that which is optimum for SPS.

Soooooooo, when we have these discussions about filtration systems, the intended animal types need to be identified. Keeping both types in the same tank can be done to some degree, but it is a VERY MUCH finer line.

On the skimmer-fuge issue I like Tim's approach with a little of both, especially if you are trying to keep the wider range of bio-tope.

> Barry

 

[DonW]

A "small" chaeto ball, hey Don ? :lol: :lol:

Old dogs with no tricks

> Barry

Yes, very small for a refugium that is supposed to be filtering an entire tank. I could almost justify the possibility a skimmerless sps system if Luke's fuge was completely packed with thriving macro. I really doubt that the small amounts of macro we see really does much of anything. Unless of course you just want a refugium as a place to provide refuge for small critters that would otherwise be lunch.

Don

 

[wave98]

I think it looks like quite a lot considering the size of his tank and his fairly low bio-load. It is really a matter of how much can be exported, and how often.

If it is keeping his P and N values down, then why do you think he needs more ?

> Barry

 

[mojoreef]

it was based on his RUGF tank with large Crushed Coral, and that keeps being ignored. Posts about the evils of DSB just don't appropriately apply.

Again my comments were not based on his tank or setup, you can go skimmerless in almost any situation of filtration, even differing degrees of skimmerless.

Moortim

You are saying that depending on what type of corals you keep you would want more or less stuff to be removed from the water via whatever system you are using?

Always! nutrients are foods (for algae, bacteria and so on). Would you feed a 2 inch fish the same as a 12 inch fish?? Corals vary quite a bit when it comes to their nutrient requirements. A sps type coral is only 2% biomass of the whole corals (as in break off a branch and only 2% is living tissue) where as lps can go up to 70% and sofies close to 95%. So their requirements are really varied. Then you need to check on their sources of food. Corals with zoox get a good deal of their requirements internally, corals with out zoox need to get it all from external sources.

Reefdaddy it gets alot deeper when discussing zoox population dencities, but for all intensive purposes zoox are algae, fertilizing them will make them grow, as they grow their dominate pigments (green and yellow) come to the forefront.

As with all systems of filtration thier are always going to be pros and cons, well not so much that as cause and effects. You can run any system but you need to be aware of that systems limitations and so on. An example
If you wish to run a skimmerless system, you are more likly doing it to create more divercity in lower forms of critters, doing for binding nutrients is just not effective unless you export those critters and I dont think many folks do that. The benefit of these critters is the possibility of producing an internal food source. With that system comes some of the risks as mentioned prior, if you know these symptoms and keep an eye out for them you have a better chance at sucess. If a reefer comes int any system with out knowing these things their going to fail. Simple stuff.


MIke

 

[moortim]

Always! nutrients are foods (for algae, bacteria and so on). Would you feed a 2 inch fish the same as a 12 inch fish??

You know, when I read this part I kind of thought "Duh.......". I'm glad I cleared that up for myself.

Thanks Mike.

Tim

 

[TheBart]

----- and the relam of understanding going Skimmerless is by far less known then skimmer addicts. Saying that there is allot to be said for DSB and Fuges running skimmerless systems. ---

---Some people just want to ressurect the BB VS DSB war again, ---

I didn't fight in that war, but if I go just Fuge again (highly likely, with the skimmer for backup), would it be best to do DSB, UGF/plenum (hi-flo or slo-flo), or CC only/mud plus CC for the Fuge? Any experience that would indicate better performance on one or the other for a general purpose Fuge only reef?

 

[wrightme43]

Just for the sake of a idea.
I think the idea of a skimmer removing the phytoplankton as valid.
I also think that the idea of fuge only filter is lacking, as is a skimmer only system.
What do you all think of the idea, of a very slow supply to a skimmer, and a very slow supply to a seperate fuge.
I know that ballancing the flow would be difficult, the two systems would have to have a ballance tube so that if flow patterns changed over time any build up would feed the other system.
Or a overflow split into two supply pipes, then one to each area, sump and skimmer, then each flowing to a third gathering area and return pump. The skimmer would get to see the water for a long time. The fuge would get to see the water for a long time.
Its just a idea, its a thought for taking the best of both systems, and trying to minimize the downsides of both systems.
What do youall think?

 

[mojoreef]

So just a question here, but has their been any study, or simular showing how bad a skimmer is for a reef tank??
I would also like to see some systems that have been skimmerless for a long period, I cant remember any off the top off my head?


Mike

 

[Krish]

So just a question here, but has their been any study, or simular showing how bad a skimmer is for a reef tank??
I would also like to see some systems that have been skimmerless for a long period, I cant remember any off the top off my head?


Mike

Don't worry Mike...That beast of an air skimmer you got will never have to be put to rest! One of these days I'll trade you a Bahamian vacation for you to build me one of those puppies! I don't think skimmers will be going anywhere anytime soon...Atleast not on any of my systems...I'm not sold on having a setup without one yet