View Full Version : How many are skimming nanos?

07/26/2001, 05:09 PM
I just want to hear from the rest of you. I have been throwing around the idea of skimming my nano and want to get some input from the rest of you nano nutz.

Christopher Marks
07/26/2001, 06:48 PM
Save yourself the time and money, and never even start. If you are doing your waterchanges, there is no need to skim. And since you will not be skimming, you won't have a need to dose any of the "trace elements" because they are all replenished with the water from the waterchange. Everything you need is in your synthetic salt.

07/26/2001, 11:00 PM
Doing water changes on these little guys is such a doddel, it only takes me 10 minutes to do a 10% water change on my 8 gal. I can even afford the expense and use collected NSW. I believe that using water changes to transport unwanted wastes and import needed trace elements is much more healthier method than using additives and skimming the heck out of your water.

However, after saying that, I believe that if you have a system with very good filtration, ie LDSB, loads of LR and probably a refugium, you could get away with doing less water changes and help out on the depleted trace element side of things with additives.

Lets face it doing water changes does cause stress on our reef inhabitants.

I have made up my mind that I will always go skimmerless but I'm currently modifying my tank to try and increase my biological filtration in the hope of reducing the need to do so many water changes.

Just a personal experience.

Cavil :smokin:

07/27/2001, 09:43 AM
I voted yes, though I currently don't have skimming on my 10 gal. I had a skimmer on my 6 gal, but I've since broken it down and put it on my new 37 gal mini. I've got my eye out for a new skimmer for my 10 gal. though.

Even with the skimmer on my old 6 gal, I still did bi-weekly water changes. The way I like to view the role of a skimmer is two-fold. First, it's a great aerator if nothing else! I don't have to worry about drops in pH at night (not too much anyway) and I don't have to worry as much about surface water agitation, which can be tricky sometimes in a small tank. Second, I see it as a safety net in getting rid of excess nutrients. I understand that skimmers can pull a lot of trace elements out, but I figure if I do regular water changes, those trace elements get replenished.

Anyways, I just think skimmers can't hurt and actually provide more help than not. I also think it's totally feasible to run a tank skimmerless, but I'm not anywhere near an experienced enough reefer to trust my skills without one.

07/27/2001, 10:49 AM
I'm running a Lee's in-tank skimmer in my 12, and a BakPak2 on my 10. I'm sticking with the Lee's for now, since I have a few fish in the 12 gal reef. Might consider skimmerless once I bail out of the eclipse hood, etc.

On the 10, I am definitely sticking with the skimmer, since I have a few heavy-eating fish and non-photosynthetics in there (sea squirt, sun polyps, christmas tree coral), so I am counting on the skimmer & my refugium to export as much of the excess as possible.

07/28/2001, 05:44 PM

Crustaceo Mutoid
07/29/2001, 01:18 PM
I voted yes since it is built into my 13 gallon system and my tank has been setup now for almost 5 years! I do not do weekly water changes because of it. I replenish all key elements that the skimming takes out of the tank with additives. Skimmers also provide a good source of much needed oxygen/gas exchange. And if you leave it on at nights will also help maintain good stable pH levels during a 24 hour period. But I think we all know that there are both sides of the fence here and you can go skimmerless if you want to do the water changes each week. This is where I want to make my point. If waterchanges are so great, then why do public aquariums that sit on the shorelines use skimmers on their reef systems? Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific and Monterey Bay Aquarium each have good sized reef tanks. Aquarium of the Pacific's reef is 4600 gallons! They have the capability to ONLY do water changes if they so desired, but they don't! Ask someone in husbandry to let you peek behind the curtain so to speak and you'll see a 10' tall skimmer cranking away! I think there is something to be learned from that. Whether it is 10 gallons or 10,000 gallons, I will always use a skimmer.

07/29/2001, 08:51 PM
I think the reason those public aquariums DON'T use seawater to do water changes is because they don't want to introduce disease and unwanted organisms into their syetems, not because water changes are so hard to do.

Crustaceo Mutoid
07/29/2001, 10:09 PM
Oh don't get me wrong they do use water changes. In fact they have dedicated lines that run two miles (yes two miles) from the facility out into the ocean. Massive pumps bring in pure sea water to a filter system made up mostly of canister filters filled with sand. This water is used consistently on all the fish only tanks. It is cycled through and then dumped back out in the ocean. The reef tank however, remains a closed system during normal operation. The skimmer I believe is a Sanders Helgoland and it is literally huge. I would have to disagree that the reason they don't use pure sea water in their reef tank is from fear of contaminates because the first thing they do when any of the parameters fall out of line is a 50% water change. And the make up water is 100% pure natural seawater. I'm not making this up. Feel free to email any of the public aquariums husbandry departments and ask them how they run their reef tanks. The skimmer plays a very important role in filtration and they use them for a reason. Like I said there are two sides to this just like everything in life, but as long as they feel a need to use skimmers so will I.