Skimmerless

[MorningDew]

I am curious as to what Kevin and you folks think about maintaining SPS in a skimmerless system, that has no fuge or DSB but just LR. I know it can be done but what advantages/disadvantages could this type of system provide. I assume careful monitoring of organics must be the main priority, along with carbon and gfo. I know skimmers make keeping SPS easier but do we get too caught up in it being an absolute essential piece of equipment and can a SPS dominate systems thrive without one?

Anybody having success growing and maintaining SPS color on a skimmerless system? speak up, let's hear your opinion on the subject and you doubters...tell us why you think it can't be done?

 

[kevinpo]

The only advantages I can think of are less equipment to service and you don't have to clean the skimmer every few days. The size of the system also makes a big difference regarding cost between a skimmer and cost of salt for water changes. In a 125 gallon system for example salt cost for the first year would almost equal the cost of a new skimmer (about $300). With a skimmer salt would be about $90 per year. After the second year even with a skimmer salt cost would rise to about $125 because of the fish and coral growth. On the other hand at the end of the second year you would certainly have saved money/labor using a skimmer. It can be a PITA to mix salt every week which can result in skipping water changes. On a smaller system the costs would be much less and the labor too.

I ran a 125 gallon with a 40 gallon sump for about 2 years without a skimmer. I changed 18 gallons a week. It was an SPS dominated tank and the color and growth were exceptional. Because of the quantities of salt I buy (by the pallet) the cost was not as great but still a bit more labor than cleaning a skimmer. I keep 100 gallons or so of salt water on hand at all times so I wasn't mixing 18 gallons each week.
I also run ozone on most of my tanks and a skimmer makes a nice place to inject it Here are a few pictures of that tank.

So to sum it up it really boils down to costs and time/labor not so much performance.

Regards,
Kevin

 

[MorningDew]

Kevin,
with the 125g skimmerless system you ran, you essentially just did religious wc's to maintain N03 and P04 levels correct? Do you think that skimmers can strip the water column of microfauna that could be eaten by corals and other invertebrates? Did you ever battle nuisance algae in that skimmerless system. Also, since you have had experience running a skimmerless system, what kind of advice can you give somebody who either A) cannot afford a skimmer or B) just doesn't have the room to add one, such as myself who has a nano 24g...Thanks for your input Kev

 

[kevinpo]

Yes that is correct. Nitrate was zero and no algae were present.

No, I do not believe you can over skim a tank.

The only alga that I ever saw that I considered a nuisance was coralline. For some reason that tank would grow coralline algae the size of a pea in a week. I hate scrapping coralline

For small tanks (30 gallons or less) water changes are acceptable without much cost. It is very difficult to have an SPS tank that small due to the growth rate of most SPS. With careful selection and patience however there are ones that grow quite slowly and they are often the most colorful.

IMO for small high light SPS tanks lighting verses temperature control and water flow is more important/difficult than a skimmer.

Regards,
Kevin

 

[MorningDew]

Thanks for the input Kev

any suggestions for slow growing sps for a small high light tank?

 

[kevinpo]

any suggestions for slow growing sps for a small high light tank?

M. danae
A. tortuosa (Oregon Blue Tort)
A. chesterfieldensis
A. loripes
A. horrida
A. humulis
Are a few of my favorites off the top of my head

Regards,
Kevin

 

[MorningDew]

Thanks Kev

 

[servo]

This was my skimmerless tank that I ran in the late 90's/early 00's

 

[Elmo18]

I second the vote for A. chesterfieldensis. IME, this species of acropora grows much slower than the A. tortuosa. In two years, mine grew only 3".

Best,
Ilham

 

[Frankie]

I second the vote for A. chesterfieldensis. IME, this species of acropora grows much slower than the A. tortuosa. In two years, mine grew only 3".

Best,
Ilham

Nah, that coral didn't grow Ilham, I think you just grew 3" shorter in the two years....