Is it feasible to remove the skimmer? Could it solve the decades-long problem of nutrient accumulation?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What is considered " optimal" ?

In the context of the statement where I used that word above, I was talking about O2 concentration and pH (CO2 concentration).

There may be different optima for different organisms, but I'd be surprised if less than 100% O2 saturation leads to more optimal health than does 100%.

I'd also be surprised if pH below 8.0 is optimal for any calcifying organism.

If you think otherwise, and prefer low O2 or low pH, then perhaps more aeration is not useful for your purposes.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I also think modern day "artificial" live rock has much less capacity than natural live rock in terms of porosity. I don't believe artificial live rock can have the nitrogen handling capacity of real live rock. So if you had artificial live rock, then the withdrawal symptoms would probably take longer. Or maybe it would have never been enough if your consumer bioload (fish) was too high.

I believe the filtration capacity of " live rock" is mainly based on the periphyton growing on it. Why artificial rock may not have the same capacity in terms of nitrogen handling capacity? Does this not depend on the way such rock is grazed? A reason to use a biofilter for stable and manageable nutrient management.

Removing the skimmer will make more growth possible, needing more space. Why would real live rock be able to provide more space for growth as artificial rock. Denitrification within the pores? Will the water exchange rate within deep pores of overgrown rock have any importance in relation to the total denitrification capacity of a nitrifying biofilm which can reach up to 16% of the nitrate produced within the film?

 

[ReeferSamster]

I'd also be surprised if pH below 8.0 is optimal for any calcifying organism.

BRS TV did a hobby level 'scientific' study on optimal pH. You guys probably saw it already, its an old video, but they found pH of 8.3 grows corals better than lower pH.



They also did the same for alkalinity and calc



I'm wary of product reviews from BRS (they might have their own bias behind the scenes, not that its all bad, they are a business after all and need to generate revenue), but some of their videos are very informative.

 

[ReeferSamster]

I believe the filtration capacity of " live rock" is mainly based on the periphyton growing on it. Why artificial rock may not have the same capacity in terms of nitrogen handling capacity?

Its not about what grows ON the live rock, whats important is whats INSIDE the live rock and the porosity and capacity to have more life within. Its not just about the outside surface.

After years of my humble experience in the reefing world, towards the end of my 40breeder gallon years, when manmade rock started getting popular and having experimented with man make "marco rocks" or "reefsavers rock", my opinion is 100% sure natural live rock such as Fiji, have more porosity and that no matter how many micro pores are randomly created inside manmade rock, it will never best mother nature and the rocks that might be hundreds of years old of piled countless skeletons and natural calcification in terms of biological capacity.

I saw this video recently, and although the study does have flaws, it does show that manmade rock have less porosity and just more dense solid inside the fake liverock. ITs not a perfect study admittedly, but it attempts to answer the question of biological capacity of manmade vs natural rock and shows fiji has the most surface area inside the rock. The nitrogen bricks do a pretty good job and come close though. Check it out. Go to 10:00 in the video if you want to skip the intro and head right into the comparison.




It makes me sad that the younger generation of reefers will find it hard to source REAL natural live rock. I remember when they were selling fiji live rocks at $4 bucks per pound! Now its illegal.

I think Haiti and the caribbeans are the only viable place nowadays to source real live rock. I have no experience with it so I'm not sure about its porosity.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

BRS TV did a hobby level 'scientific' study on optimal pH. You guys probably saw it already, its an old video, but they found pH of 8.3 grows corals better than lower pH.



They also did the same for alkalinity and calc



I'm wary of product reviews from BRS (they might have their own bias behind the scenes, not that its all bad, they are a business after all and need to generate revenue), but some of their videos are very informative.

Yes, all studies (that I have seen) show that higher pH is never worse and often better for faster calcification (skeletal growth) of hard corals than is lower pH.

 

[ReeferSamster]

Yes, all studies (that I have seen) show that higher pH is never worse and often better for faster calcification (skeletal growth) of hard corals than is lower pH.

Randy, you don't know me, and we've probably conversed once or twice a million years ago on Reef Central ( I think I asked a question about my alkalinity), but I feel like I've known you for a very very long time when I started to really get into reefing, lurking in Reef Central's chemistry forums, gobbling up your wisdom on reef chemistry and reading all your articles in the ReefKeeping digital magazine. I've literally read all your articles through the years. I'm a big fan. In the world of this obsessive hobby of reefkeeping, your name is familiar to me as much as Dr Mac from Pacific Aquaculture, or Walt Smith when he sent me uncured Fiji rocks a long time ago.

I remember racing my little beat up, old Honda Accord to the airport to pickup the fiji rocks with 10 Instant Ocean buckets filled with aged, but fresh saltwater and battery powered air pumps all over my car and even in my trunk! If I was pulled over by the police, I'm sure I would have looked very suspicious.
I remember ripping out the rocks from the boxes in the parking lot of the airport and dumping them into the buckets and I was so excited. In my young noobie mind, I thought I had to preserve as much life as possible! I saw cute little crabs in the newspaper wrappings and bottom of the box, in amazement that they were still alive. I spent 20 minutes trying to save as many as I could and gathered them into the buckets with the rocks. I was just still a noob back then and didn't know any better. SMH/LOL.

Sorry, I just got nostalgic when I glanced over at those rocks right now in my Reefer 350 tank. The glass of wine makes it worse. LOL

Ah. Those were the good ole days. If I mail you a piece of live rock, would you engrave your autograph on it so I can put it in my reeftank?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I remember racing my little beat up, old Honda Accord to the airport to pickup the fiji rocks with 10 Instant Ocean buckets filled with aged, but fresh saltwater and battery powered air pumps all over my car and even in my trunk! If I was pulled over by the police, I'm sure I would have looked very suspicious.

Thanks! I don't want to derail the thread, but they were good old days. I had a similar experience getting my wild Florida live rock from TBS at the airport in 1992. My boss though it was so ridiculous that I was getting something called live rock that he gave me the afternoon off to pick it up. lol

 

[jassermd]

So, I figured I'd share my experience to see what folks think...
I've had my 280g DT + 40g both plumbed to a 40 g sump for 18+ months.
I've had a skimmer since day 1 of tank set up and it runs 24/7. Also have a refugium. In addition, I have carbon and purigen in the socks. I perform weekly water changes to keep nutrients in check.
I struggle to keep nitrates below 25 (range 20-25 for last 4 months, tested 2x week).
With 500gm rowaphos running in GFO reactor, phosphates stay between .05-.12.

I had to stop the skimmer for prazi treatment. Tested nitrates and phosphates before I took skimmer offline: nitrate 23.5, phos 0.12.
Did a 50g water change (my normal water change volume, and historically nitrates after w/c is 18-20).
This is where it gets weird (no w/c other than the one before adding prazi)... 5 days after removing the skimmer, I tested my nitrates and phosphates. To my surprise, nitrates were 13 and phos was .05.
I can't for the life of me figure out why nitrates dropped like that when the skimmer was offline the entire time. I feed heavy and that hasn't changed.
Given the thread, I thought I would share my experience. Still trying to figure this one out...

 

[ReeferSamster]

This is where it gets weird (no w/c other than the one before adding prazi)... 5 days after removing the skimmer, I tested my nitrates and phosphates. To my surprise, nitrates were 13 and phos was .05.
Given the thread, I thought I would share my experience. Still trying to figure this one out...

Well. Call me an ole timer, but that's a lot of variables there. It takes me a little longer to process things now. You know, old age and stuff...

Carbon, GFO, Skimmer. To me, that just seems a lot of testing and stressing. The only thing we have in common is the refugium.

I'm just throwing my 2 cents out there. I have no certification in "Reefing". I have no certification in anything other than computer science, and even that has been outdated. ( 'what the heck is VR? Ok. I guess I should try it out, lest I become one of those ole grandpas that ask their kids on how to get on the internet when physical interaction via computer mouse are obsolete, when my hair turns completely white... I strongly recommend the Oculus Headset if you want to dabble, but don't fall for Facebook's Zuckerschmurgs Libra mumbo jumbo. There's so much more to blockchain then that centralized crap...I mean, whats the point of blockchain solving the Byzantine General math problem of a trustless system?? Facebook centralizes its own 'blockchain?' Only sheeple fall for that crap...)

Sorry for digressing, I find that I do that a lot as I age, as well as being long winded....-Oh crap. Sorry. I'll try to be brief now.

So where were we? Oh right. The point was your nitrates decreased when you removed your skimmer?

Well, we need to start with the variables. I'm assuming there were no other changes to any other variables when you did this test. Hmm... (*Strokes long white gandalf beard..*)

Well. Assuming there are NO other variables that you changed. May I ask you, if you tested again? Maybe it was user error. (*wink* Its one of the things I've learned from nerding out on all of Randy's articles)

I find that if the results of a test are something other than expected, then my next course of action would be to test again. Just to make sure. If you did, and you are sure your test kits are accurate and calibrated, then I would check for any other variables. You know, K.I.S.S. DId you do a recent water change?

I'm asking in all honesty, and not being condescending. ( You know how youngin's are all keyboard samurais these days...) Because honestly, if you had a skimmer for a length of time, and it was a factor within your equation of nutrient export, then logically if you removed it, then nutrients would increase. So logically, I can't see how that happened, other than an act of God.

 

[jassermd]

Well. Call me an ole timer, but that's a lot of variables there. It takes me a little longer to process things now. You know, old age and stuff...

Carbon, GFO, Skimmer. To me, that just seems a lot of testing and stressing. The only thing we have in common is the refugium.

I'm just throwing my 2 cents out there. I have no certification in "Reefing". I have no certification in anything other than computer science, and even that has been outdated. ( 'what the heck is VR? Ok. I guess I should try it out, lest I become one of those ole grandpas that ask their kids on how to get on the internet when physical interaction via computer mouse are obsolete, when my hair turns completely white... I strongly recommend the Oculus Headset if you want to dabble, but don't fall for Facebook's Libra mumbo jumbo. There's so much more to blockchain than that centralized crap...I mean, whats the point of blockchain solving the Byzantine General math problem of a trustless system?? Facebook centralizes its own 'blockchain?' Only sheeple fall for that crap...)

Sorry for digressing, I find that I do that a lot as I age, as well as being long winded....-Oh crap. Sorry. I'll try to be brief now.

So where were we? Oh right. The point was your nitrates decreased when you removed your skimmer?

Well, we need to start with the variables. I'm assuming there were no other changes to any other variables when you did this test. Hmm... (*Strokes long white gandalf beard..*)

Well. Assuming there are NO other variables that you changed. May I ask you, if you tested again? Maybe it was user error.

I find that if the results of a test are something other than expected, then my next course of action would be to test again. Just to make sure.

If you did, and you are sure your test kits are accurate and calibrated, then I would check for any other variables. DId you do a recent water change?

Truly appreciate your comments!
Yes, I retested. I use Hanna testers for everything other than what the Trident tests regularly, and I even double check those.
I try my best to only change one variable at a time, but in this case, to your point, there were several variables.
Removing carbon, purigen and polyfilter all play into the equation... however, each are meant clear the water.
That said, the only significant variable was removing the skimmer. It's surprising that the nitrate in particular dropped, when the skimmer is meant to help reduce.
One thing I noticed and anticipated is the drop in pH . My skimmer pulls air from outside, and since removing, the pH dropped from 8.1 to 7.8, all while my alk has stayed stable at 8.5-9. No explanation other than removing skimmer.
I'm planning on retesting again tomorrow before a w/c to re-dose prazi... can't wait to see what the nitrate and phos are now...

 

[ReeferSamster]

Truly appreciate your comments!
I try my best to only change one variable at a time, but in this case, to your point, there were several variables.
Removing carbon, purigen and polyfilter all play into the equation... however, each are meant clear the water.
That said, the only significant variable was removing the skimmer. It's surprising that the nitrate in particular dropped, when the skimmer is meant to help reduce.

Well, there are your other variables other than the removal of the skimmer.

Whats the volume of all of your carbon, purigen and polyfilter stuff that you removed when you removed the skimmer? Have they been there so long as to become nitrate makers? You know, if you leave those things in there so long, they start making bacteria that process the nitrogen cycle, which eventually end up as nitrate. The surface area of all of those things are greater than multiple football fields worth!

That's all I can think of for now. Process of elimination, remove all the variables. Its just my 2 cents. I'm not an expert. Just a guy with alot of rocks that I hold dear for almost half my life.

EDIT:

If I were you, carbon, purigen, polyfilter are bandaids to good ole fashioned water changes.The less the variables, the easier your solution. Make the water changes facilitated or automated. But all these gadgets are no replacement for auto changes.

Yea, I know these Justin Bieber Believers (Beliebers?) will argue about no water changes and ICP testing schmesting stuff. But I'm just getting old....

 

[Rollman]

Between the recent topics of no water changes and no skimmers, seems like folks are looking for the easy reefing way. Im curious how these tanks will look long term, my guess is poor. More than one way to reef but any large sps tank, skims, changes water and knows the types of acros they have. I am lucky and have friends with large tanks so I know what goes into it. Not looking to ruin my coral investment

 

[ReeferSamster]

Between the recent topics of no water changes and no skimmers, seems like folks are looking for the easy reefing way.

HEY!
(*Becomes Keyboard Samurai with a middle-aged reefer insecurity*)

If you noticed from this old geezer, the recent photo of my current little world vs my video of 8 years ago as evidence, I have never used a protein skimmer, GFO, Purgien, nor Carbon in over 20 years of reefing! Well, maybe in my earlier years as a noob. I DO believe in water changes, however. Created a contraption that exports and imports water with a twist of a wrist.

(*Troll suit ON!*)
My fishes and clam are probably older than your tank! (*internet rage roar*)
My liverock are older than your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate!!
(Spaceballs? Anyone remember Spaceballs? ;Dead)

Oh. my Willie the Cobberband is nearing his old age. I just feel it...
I jest. Just having some fun

 

[X-37B]

I just setup an 18" cubed aio nano.
I used live rock from my 45 frag system and my 30g fuge.
I will be running it skimmerless.
3 baskets in the back with 2 filled with Eheim sunstrate pro and 1 with matrix.
I am running a small amount of floss in the overflow basket and a bag of Rox.
May need a small amount of gfo at some point.
All acros from my current system.

I am a die hard skimmer guy so this will be interesting from my point of view.

 

[Rollman]

HEY!
(*Becomes Keyboard Samurai with a middle-aged reefer insecurity*)

If you noticed from this old geezer, the recent photo of my current little world vs my video of 8 years ago as evidence, I have never used a protein skimmer, GFO, Purgien, nor Carbon in over 20 years of reefing! Well, maybe in my earlier years as a noob. I DO believe in water changes, however. Created a contraption that exports and imports water with a twist of a wrist.

(*Troll suit ON!*)
My fishes and clam are probably older than your tank! (*internet rage roar*)
My liverock are older than your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate!!
(Spaceballs? Anyone remember Spaceballs? ;Dead)

Oh. my Willie the Cobberband is nearing his old age. I just feel it...
I jest. Just having some fun

This suggests my point, its a great looking softee tank. SPS dominate is a whole different sport, everyones mileage varies. Proud of you old man, however, the one sps I can spot at the bottom looks bleached tank is a beauty friend

 

[ReeferSamster]

I will be running it skimmerless.
I am running a small amount of floss in the overflow basket and a bag of Rox.
May need a small amount of gfo at some point.
I am a die hard skimmer guy so this will be interesting from my point of view.

Hey man, if you are going to go skinny dipping why keep the socks on?

If you're going skimmerless, I dare you to try no gfo and no rox!
Definitely no gfo. Rox, maybe for when you want less yellowing of the water when you get too lazy for water changes or notice excessive coral warfare.

Carbon less so, but IMO, GFO is a bandaid for poor husbandry. Either not enough water changes or too much feeding. Unless you have NPS corals or your wife is secretly sabotaging you (;Greedy), someone explain to me why their phosphate levels are elevated to the necessity of chemical export, except for a heavy hand at feeding time.

 

[ReeferSamster]

This suggests my point, its a great looking softee tank. SPS dominate is a whole different sport, everyones mileage varies. Proud of you old man, however, the one sps I can spot at the bottom looks bleached tank is a beauty friend

Check out the photo below and you can see where you assume too much. Marko and I both concur on the term "Low-tech tank" He's skimmerless. You can see more of his reef in the link below.

"My experiences have been very positive. The setup is now very plain and natural, and it needs only a little maintenance. Corals and fishes look just magnificent. I will never go back to that classical high tech setup I used to have." -Marko

Can I see your tank? What's your knowledge and experience with SPS tanks? Is it as nice as Marko's for you to have such a confident statement?

http://haaga.aqua-web.org/

BTW: I don't have any SPS in the bottom. Clean your glasses. I only have the one frag on top middle first photo, and only as a canary in the mine as a metric to alk calc levels in addition to coralline hues. Call it subjective, but I like movement and flow in a reeftank, hence my mixed reef. Art is subjective my friend.

dang good troll suit I put on. Effective against youngins.

 

[X-37B]

Hey man, if you are going to go skinny dipping why keep the socks on?

If you're going skimmerless, I dare you to try no gfo and no rox!
Definitely no gfo. Rox, maybe for when you want less yellowing of the water when you get too lazy for water changes or notice excessive coral warfare.

Carbon less so, but IMO, GFO is a bandaid for poor husbandry. Either not enough water changes or too much feeding. Unless you have NPS corals or your wife is secretly sabotaging you (;Greedy), someone explain to me why their phosphate levels are elevated to the necessity of chemical export, except for a heavy hand at feeding time. I don't understand why anyone uses gfo.

Im not running socks. Just a 3"x3"x1" piece of filter floss.
Rox carbon is just a small bag maybe 2-3 tablespoons.
I run Rox in all my systems.
In my 120 I practice heavy in/out.
I like what skimmers remove and mine is way over sized.
My 120 has 17 fish and I feed heavy at 8+ cubes a day.
I now have a 30g fuge and plan to eliminate gfo. My po4 runs .05 and the small amount of gfo I run went 40 days before I took it out and was still .05.
Now running no gfo.

So my nano will get WC when needed to keep po4 in check.

I only do 10% a month on my 120 and 45 frag system.

This works for me and has for many years.
My current 120.

 

[ReeferSamster]

Im not running socks. Just a 3"x3"x1" piece of filter floss.
Rox carbon is just a small bag maybe 2-3 tablespoons.
I run Rox in all my systems.
In my 120 I practice heavy in/out.
I like what skimmers remove and mine is way over sized.
My 120 has 17 fish and I feed heavy at 8+ cubes a day.
I now have a 30g fuge and plan to eliminate gfo. My po4 runs .05 and the small amount of gfo I run went 40 days before I took it out and was still .05.
Now running no gfo.

So my nano will get WC when needed to keep po4 in check.

I only do 10% a month on my 120 and 45 frag system.

This works for me and has for many years.
My current 120.

Beautiful!

Marko's SPS tank has no skimmer. If he can do it! Anyone can!

 

[X-37B]

Beautiful!

Marko's SPS tank has no skimmer. If he can do it! Anyone can!

Thats my plan on my nano.