Is a Protein skimmer really necessary? - Page 2

Jeremy Blaze · #26 07/21/2006, 12:30 PM

Here is my new skimmerless tank

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...hreadid=814800

easye123 · #27 07/21/2006, 12:32 PM

See i new people out there believe that if u attend to ur tank like caring for a baby for a 29g it would not be A MUST HAVE dry good.

of course it would help a lot i know that but .. if i have a sump/refugium and have only 3 fish and about 7 corals ... with a good cleanup crew and weekley 20 percent WC i think i should be fine.

thanx for everyones two cents...... some people on here believe there are rules for this hobby and their really isnt.. obviously somethings could be consider rules but .... yall know what i mean..

RichConley · #28 07/21/2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquabucket
The problem is what many consider to be a light bio-load in regard to fish in many cases such as mine are still pushing the recommended limits based on number and size of fish per gallon and available surface area for oxygen exchange. Right now I have 5 fish bringing in a total length of 12" in a 40 gallon breeder. Based on bench marks like the 1" per 5 gallon rule I am overstocked and should have 60 gallons of water for all these small fish. This does not even account for the 30-40lbs of LR in my tank. The fact is many hobbyists choose to overstock and rely on a skimmer to get away with it.

12" of fish is heavy fishload in a 40 breeder?

I'm up to almost 40" of fish in my 58, and still no measurable nitrates/phosphates. SKimmers roxor.

RichConley · #29 07/21/2006, 12:45 PM

Easye, whats your reason for not wanting a skimmer? Is it a cost issue?

At 6 gallons a week, the extra waterchanges will cost more than a decent skimmer in less than a year (probably about 2 buckets of salt and the associated RO)

RichConley · #30 07/21/2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquabucket
That just it ~ that brown sludge has concentrations of food and other organisms that can be benificial to many things we keep. Since my system is skimmerless I have no need to feed my corals, gorgonians, clams, etc... My macro algae helps break down the rest. Again its all about achieving a certain balance and concentrating more on whats going on inside your tank and not what accumulates in a skimmer cup.

My tank is heavily skimmed, and I Have no need to feed those things either. The fish are there for that.

Bluemorningwind · #31 07/21/2006, 12:48 PM

Large systems probably force the use of a skimmer.

If you have a system that allows dilution to be sufficient to maintain healthy livestock, then a skimmer is only a bonus that provides a very useful buffer.

Not needed on smaller systems, but always a worthy addition, I think.

marinelife · #32 07/21/2006, 01:41 PM

I have a large system, I have a 180 reef, 100 refuge, 300 tank with fish and live rock and some coral frags. No skimmer is working out better than with a skimmer

Aquabucket · #33 07/21/2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
12" of fish is heavy fishload in a 40 breeder?

I'm up to almost 40" of fish in my 58, and still no measurable nitrates/phosphates. SKimmers roxor.

You must be proud of yourself!

Care to post any pics?

RichConley · #34 07/21/2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquabucket
You must be proud of yourself!

Care to post any pics?

No, this isnt about measuring "who's tank is longer"

Its about a simple fact: Yes, you can keep a tank fine without a skimmer, but it limits what you can do for bioload. I could probably keep more fish, but its starting to become a territory issue, and not a bioload issue.

physicslord · #35 07/21/2006, 02:23 PM

I just feel like this is an analogy to the argument against skimmers:

I could cook everthing on a wood stove instead of a gas one. I could even cook gourmet meals on a wood stove. Gotta chop the wood, but hey, that's just an extra few hours a week. Plus there are a lot of benefits to cooking with wood. The food gets smoked a little and tastes better.

So how come almost no one cooks on a wood stove anymore? Why, because who wants to cook on a wood stove when there's a gas stove. It's just so much easier.

Aquabucket · #36 07/21/2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
No, this isnt about measuring "who's tank is longer"

Its about a simple fact: Yes, you can keep a tank fine without a skimmer, but it limits what you can do for bioload. I could probably keep more fish, but its starting to become a territory issue, and not a bioload issue.

Of course it limits bioload and that's been mentioned before you jumped in. Its too bad you don't have any pics though!

Aquabucket · #37 07/21/2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by physicslord
I just feel like this is an analogy to the argument against skimmers:

I could cook everthing on a wood stove instead of a gas one. I could even cook gourmet meals on a wood stove. Gotta chop the wood, but hey, that's just an extra few hours a week. Plus there are a lot of benefits to cooking with wood. The food gets smoked a little and tastes better.

So how come almost no one cooks on a wood stove anymore? Why, because who wants to cook on a wood stove when there's a gas stove. It's just so much easier.

That's pretty amusing but hardly a realistic analogy IMO.

RichConley · #38 07/21/2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquabucket
That's pretty amusing but hardly a realistic analogy IMO.

I think its quite realistic.

I could keep my tank without a skimmer. But I'd have to do more waterchanges, do more siphoning, and generally spend more time. Its doable, but its frankly, a waste of my time.

RichConley · #39 07/21/2006, 02:43 PM

Aquabucket, we both agree that you can keep a skimmerless tank fine.

I just think theyre more work, and they walk a finer line. Suggesting to a newbie that he can do it is a disservice. Newbies are better off with skimmers.

When you start figuring your stuff out, then you make the decision on it.

scumonkey · #40 07/21/2006, 03:08 PM

http://www.reefvideos.com/reefshowcase_04_content.html
3rd one down on the left...Andreas 72 gal skimmerless tank!

twon8 · #41 07/21/2006, 03:41 PM

is regular exercise necesarry? no, but it will keep you in better shape and help keep you healthy. I think a skimmer is the same way, it will keep your tank healthier, allowing you to feed more, thus making fish healthier and happier.

MaximusUSG · #42 07/21/2006, 03:56 PM

I have a skimmer and it wasn't producing anything. I added a couple air sticks into the bubble changer and it was working like you wouldn't believe. For a couple months it was crazy working. Now I am back to barely nothing. What would cause that? I can't possibly have that clean of water...

marinelife · #43 07/21/2006, 04:10 PM

My fish are big and fat and happy and a skimmer is not causing that. My tank was not healthier when I had the skimmer on it, that is why I took it off

Aquabucket · #44 07/21/2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
Aquabucket, we both agree that you can keep a skimmerless tank fine.

I just think theyre more work, and they walk a finer line. Suggesting to a newbie that he can do it is a disservice. Newbies are better off with skimmers.

When you start figuring your stuff out, then you make the decision on it.

I don't understand why many of you think a skimmerless tank is more work. My tank is quite simple and not much different than a well planted freshwater tank. The main thing that's different with my set-up is my livestock choices and stocking levels and the fact that I actually enjoy doing water changes and cleaning my tank & equipment.

If anyone is walking a fine line its you Rich with that very heavy bio-load of yours. I have seen and heard of systems like yours quite a few times from customers at work. In the long run many of them have failed misserably. Even with a honkin skimmer you run the risk of what I call a "chain reaction failure" ~ one sizable fish dies due to stress from territorial issues, low oxygen levels, or other reasons. This one dead fish causes an ammonia spike, soon another dies and so on and so on ~ with all this literally happening overnight. A honkin' skimmer in this situation does will not save you.

RichConley · #45 07/21/2006, 04:25 PM

AquaBucket, how often do you do water changes? How large? Most of the non skimmer people I know need to do frequent large changes.

As to chain reactions/fish dying,etc, I had a 8" wide bubble tip walk through a tunze a couple weeks ago. There was nothing left. Turned into puree. I didnt lose a single fish or coral. If thats not goin to cause it, a fish dying isnt either.

What I did get was a full cup full of sludge that day.

Aquabucket · #46 07/21/2006, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by twon8
is regular exercise necesarry? no, but it will keep you in better shape and help keep you healthy. I think a skimmer is the same way, it will keep your tank healthier, allowing you to feed more, thus making fish healthier and happier.

Your entitled to your opinion but in no way is your statement factual. My skimmerless tank along with many others have very healthy well fed inhabitants. Even more so than quite a few well skimmed systems that I have seen.

easye123's question posed in this thread has been answered and it seems he is going to be content on going skimmerless. I have confidence that his methods will work just fine in regard to keeping a healthy captive reef without a skimmer and wish him the best of luck!

RichConley · #47 07/21/2006, 04:33 PM

Aquabucket, no where in this thread has it been said that you can't keep a perfectly healhty tank without a skimmer. Its just not as easy.

I would bet that you do a LOT more waterchanges than I do.

Aquabucket · #48 07/21/2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
AquaBucket, how often do you do water changes? How large? Most of the non skimmer people I know need to do frequent large changes.

As to chain reactions/fish dying,etc, I had a 8" wide bubble tip walk through a tunze a couple weeks ago. There was nothing left. Turned into puree. I didnt lose a single fish or coral. If thats not goin to cause it, a fish dying isnt either.

What I did get was a full cup full of sludge that day.

That does not mean it does not happen or can't happen Rich. As far as water changes go I do 10-20% every 2 weeks sometimes more sometimes less. The longest I went with-out a change was 3-4 months though.

McCrary · #49 07/21/2006, 04:36 PM

I think we are forgetting the main issue. A skimmerless tank with a light bioload and water changes that are done more frequently keeps organic material low. A tank with a large skimmer, heavy bioload and less frequent water changes keeps organic material low.

Aquabucket- It doesn't make sense that your tank would do worse with a skimmer. Removing organic materials shouldn't negatively impact your system. If it does, you should be asking yourself why. Also, "chain reaction failure would be more of an issue in a tank without a skimmer and a light bioload. It is a simple ratio: a heavy bioload creates a lot of waste, the skimmer removes that waste. In a light bioload tank the nutrients are removed by natural means and water changes. If a fish dies in the tank with the heavy bioload and skimmer the percentage of nutrients added by the decomposing fish will be marginal compared to the skimmerless system. A "honkin" skimmer in that case would indeed save you.

Aquabucket · #50 07/21/2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TurboSnail8898

Aquabucket- It doesn't make sense that your tank would do worse with a skimmer. Removing organic materials shouldn't negatively impact your system. If it does, you should be asking yourself why. Also, "chain reaction failure would be more of an issue in a tank without a skimmer and a light bioload. It is a simple ratio: a heavy bioload creates a lot of waste, the skimmer removes that waste. In a light bioload tank the nutrients are removed by natural means and water changes. If a fish dies in the tank with the heavy bioload and skimmer the percentage of nutrients added by the decomposing fish will be marginal compared to the skimmerless system. A "honkin" skimmer in that case would indeed save you.

I never said my tank would do worse with a skimmer. I am simply responding to the original poster's question and find myself defending my methods to those who are skeptics. A protein skimmer can only do so much and can not always remove increased ammonia levels due to a decomposing fish in the tank. Only 2 of my fish are 3" or more. If one were to die it would most likely be consumed by my snails and hermits within hours. A larger bodied fish might cause serious problems. Again its all about my stocking levels and choices that determine how I choose to run my system. I also use activated carbon heavily. This adds protection from ammonia spikes and chemical warfare issues from certain corals I choose to keep.