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

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Bacteria eats / consumes nutrients then dies. Something needs to remove the dead bacteria or it just reintroduces the stuff it ate back into circulation. Skimmers (I believe, but may have a false belief) consume the bacteria in the form of skimmate which then actually removes the nitrate / phosphate consumption.

That said, it could explain why my nitrates are 20 and my phosphates are .05. Well imbalanced.

The turf scrubber alone cannot keep up with my nitrate / phosphate generation of my tank. I vodka dose to increase bacteria load to process the amount of food and fish waste the tank generates. What is left behind is nutrient rich water for my corals, that keep the corals well fed as well.

I dose based on my testing results. I test each week and determine if things are stable or increasing from the previous week. If they are increasing then I raise my vodka dosing by a ml per day. Then retest. So far, I'm stable around 15 -16 ml per day.

I'm not sure those are particularly imbalanced from a desirable level (IMO), nor do I see a reason to blame skimming.

There are all sorts of processes in reef tanks that use N or P but not both. Imbalances are a part of life in a reef tank that we must deal with. Skimmers are not a main cause of them, however.

 

[Treefer32]

Since this is the basis of your argument, I would disagree, since I dont know how you came up with this statistic. Everyone runs a different skimmer, I run a skimmer rated for triple my tank size, a clean or dirty skimmer also affects efficiency.......

You are correct that nothing is removed from what is not in the water column, thats why strong flow is so super important in our tanks. The skimmer efficiency will be dependant on how strong a flow is in a tank. So , you cant just make up a number and apply it to everyone. these are just a few variables but I can come up with many more.

I'm not saying you cant have a successful tank without a skimmer, I just question the basis of your information

I like your statement of flow. I've noticed huge improvement in my water quality by increasing my flow in my display. I have 4 gyre pumps 2 on each side opposite each other running around 80% during the day and 40 % at night with a 1 hour nutrient export in the morning at 100%. The skimmer sometimes does no export, but when those gyres are at 100% my skimmer is producing soap suds. Huge bubbles of skimmate going into the cup. I get thick sludge that literally looks like compressed fish poop.

When the gyres slow down, the skimmer seems to flatten out and not produce as much. I also run 2 MP40s around 70% pushing water from the back to the front. Between my 2400 gph from my return pump, the 4 gyres rated between 5,000 and 6000 gph at 100% and the 2 MP40s rated at 5000 gph at 100%. I probably have around 25,000 -32,000 gph or between 74 and 94 x flowrate based on 340 gallon display volume. Which, the volume of water, is less than that due to rocks and sand. So, probably closer to 83 times flow rate.

Keeping things suspended in the water column and flowing to the sump to run through the roller mat then the skimmer, exports stuff so I don't have to do water changes. I do a 40% water change every 6 months just to maintain balance of trace elements and give the fish new water to swim in for a day.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Bacteria eats / consumes nutrients then dies. Something needs to remove the dead bacteria or it just reintroduces the stuff it ate back into circulation. Skimmers (I believe, but may have a false belief) consume the bacteria in the form of skimmate which then actually removes the nitrate / phosphate consumption.

That said, it could explain why my nitrates are 20 and my phosphates are .05. Well imbalanced.

The turf scrubber alone cannot keep up with my nitrate / phosphate generation of my tank. I vodka dose to increase bacteria load to process the amount of food and fish waste the tank generates. What is left behind is nutrient rich water for my corals, that keep the corals well fed as well.

I dose based on my testing results. I test each week and determine if things are stable or increasing from the previous week. If they are increasing then I raise my vodka dosing by a ml per day. Then retest. So far, I'm stable around 15 -16 ml per day.

Skimmate is what ends up in the cup. Bacteria are attached on organics, if those organics are exported, the bacteria attached to it are also exported. Because most bacteria are specialized feeders ( producing enzymes suitable for braking down a typical compound) and a skimmer is very selective about what kind or organic compounds ( polar, hydrophobic) are removed, also the export of live bacteria is very selective. Other organisms may be exported carried out on the foam instead of being skimmed.

If one removes the skimmer for better nutrient management, in an attempt to remove the cause of the disease instead needing medication for battling the symptoms of the disease, by adding medication with known and unknown side effects, one must provide other and better means of nutrient export ( algae filter, AAM ?)

An algae scrubber consumes inorganic nutrients and CO2 from the water. Vodka dosing does the same thing a lot faster, producing CO2, supporting high heterotrophic growth rates. If they have to compete, the algae scrubber will not win the battle for nutrients.

Increasing the daily dose of vodka 1 ml ( +- 5%) = steeling nutrients from your algae scrubber. How do you know the algae filter is not able to remove all produced inorganic nutrients, having the space and time needed?

To assimilate 1 gram (1000mg) of nitrogen, bacteria need about 15.17g/141.16 = 0.107 liters of vodka 40% or 107 ml and about 8.07 gram bacterial protein is produced, this if all essential nutrients are unlimited available.( ref: MB vodka ethanol Anthias 2020.) To be able to remove 20 ppm nitrate using vodka about 2ppm phosphate is needed and all other essential nutrients ( if not skimmed out)
Using up +- 15-16 ml vodka daily about 1gram of nitrogen is recycled weekly. ( equal to about 25 gram food containing 35% protein) Vodka dosing does not remove a thing, the nitrogen and phosphorus is not exported. Most will be recycled. It only helps if the food addition is matched. and or produced protein is exported. A good skimmer may export about 35% which means +- 65 % is left behind and of which some will have to be exported by other means ( harvesting) to keep the bio-load within acceptable limits.

Nitrogen management starts with the protein content of the food added. High protein feed will produce a lot of nitrogen. Combining a skimmer and high protein food to feed fish = nitrogen overproduction.

Also an algae scrubber will remove a lot of bacteria and other organisms when the algae are harvested and of which can be reused as a food source for filter feeders. The difference is that one is able to manage the import and export, which is not the case using a skimmer.

It is about making choices for the best.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If one removes the skimmer for better nutrient management,

Still not hearing any rationale for that premise.

What exactly is better without a skimmer than with one?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

​

​

The skimmer is considered to be "indispensable" and its use in reef aquariums is common. The known drawbacks are generally accepted. However, the skimmer is not “the solution”. The limited efficiency in the removal of TOC, the selective removal of biomass (bacteria), DOC and waste materials, requires additional and/or different solutions. The long-term use is questioned because of the selectivity in the removal between species and strains of bacteria. One species is removed and the other is not, which gives species the opportunity to evolve and adapt in the small closed environment and other species do not. Which species? Are pathogens removed to the same extent as prebiotes and probiotics? To counteract the selective evolution and development of some pathogens, caused by the selective removal of living biomass specific to skimmers, the supplied or already treated water can be subjected to UV radiation by means of one or more UV lamps.ref: MB eiwitafschuimer CMF de Haes 2021)

Unbalanced nutrient export making it impossible to reuse and remove most nitrogen staying behind, making it impossible to use balanced nutrient export methods . Nitrogen may build up in the system. Growth abnormalities and deficiency diseases may be provoked due to the high nitrogen availability and limited availability of other essentials which may be removed constantly. Causing growth surges and uncontrollable outbreaks of unwanted growth when necessary essential nutrients become sufficiently available.
The real removal efficiency is unknown and for this reason difficult to manage and to correct.

Does this have to do with doomsday thinking? When the day comes, few will make the link to the use of a skimmer any more than people see the connection with nitrate build-up.

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

Yes and Yes, but not without providing better, balanced, and easily manageable nutrient export.

This presupposes the use of a biofilter.

 

[jda]

Nobody has every said that the skimmer in indispensable... only that it does a set of jobs that needs to otherwise happen if you don't have a skimmer. In the end, most find that a skimmer does all of these jobs as well as anything. It is a good idea for most.

People have talked for the three+ decades that I have been doing this about how removing a skimmer could be super great, yet, in the end, we are where we were when begun... somethings needs to do the jobs.

I anxiously await your long-term success without a skimmer and will be watching with a gusto since I love to see and learn new things. I expect to see what we already know - failure for one reason or another, or success similar to all of the others that don't use a skimmer with a previously known way to get the jobs done.

I still think that proposing these questions as solutions is dangerous to people who won't know the difference, but I suppose that I have expressed this sentiment enough.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

​

The skimmer is considered to be "indispensable" and its use in reef aquariums is common. The known drawbacks are generally accepted.

I guess I'm missing the knowledge that everyone else has.

What do you believe is a drawback of a skimmer?

Cost is the only one I know of.

Everything else you list is either simple speculation or, IMO, incorrect.

What evidence do you have that nutrient export is unbalanced, and what does that even mean?

Many nutrient control methods are truly unbalanced. Denitrification and phosphate binders are two clear examples.

Nitrogen "MAY" build up in the system. Sure, and so may phosphate. I used a skimmer and still used GFO. Why? Because phosphate was present at higher levels than I wanted. Not nitrate. How could that be with a skimmer causing excess N over P? How? It obviously did not in my case.

"Growth abnormalities and deficiency diseases may be provoked due to the high nitrogen availability and limited availability of other essentials which may be removed constantly."

Do you have any actual evidence of this wild claim that pertains to a skimmed reef aquarium?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The whole bacteria selectivity argument is pure speculation.

Assuming it happens to a significant degree, it's as likely to be beneficial as detrimental, and lots of processes we have select for specific bacterial species. From what media surfaces we use to what foods we feed to what organics we dose or remove to whether we filter out detritus.

If and when you have evidence that skimming causes bacteria "problems" then we can discuss what those problems are and what they mean. Right now, there's nothing to support the premise that I am aware of that skimming causes problematic shifts in bacterial populations.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

The whole bacteria selectivity argument is pure speculation.

Assuming it happens to a significant degree, it's as likely to be beneficial as detrimental, and lots of processes we have select for specific bacterial species. From what media surfaces we use to what foods we feed to what organics we dose or remove to whether we filter out detritus.

If and when you have evidence that skimming causes bacteria "problems" then we can discuss what those problems are and what they mean. Right now, there's nothing to support the premise that I am aware of that skimming causes problematic shifts in bacterial populations.

The whole bacteria selectivity argument is pure speculation.
Do the arguments have no meaning of existence?

This is about real concerns of the researchers who made the studies and which needs more research. We need evidence and research to determine the degree of risk because it is known it may happen. Because we do not have that evidence using UV in combination with the skimmer will reduce the risk and concern about impacting the evolution of some pathogens to zero . I do not speculate on the fact it may NOT happen.
Skimmers are used in marine aquaria since the sixties, one may expect the risk is very limited, but that is pure speculation.


This treat is about the skimmer being responsible for creating an increasing nutrient unbalance and being responsible for nitrate to accumulate.

 

[jda]

I cannot type this any more, so this is the last time... your tank is in bad shape if nitrate is accumulating beyond control. Who care about nitrate? Some live rock and a sandbed can take care of nearly all the nitrate that you can throw at it. Nitrate is the least of the worry here. The anoxic bacteria will destroy it like it is their only job...

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The whole bacteria selectivity argument is pure speculation.
Do the arguments have no meaning of existence?

This is about real concerns of the researchers who made the studies and which needs more research. We need evidence and research to determine the degree of risk because it is known it may happen. Because we do not have that evidence using UV in combination with the skimmer will reduce the risk and concern about impacting the evolution of some pathogens to zero . I do not speculate on the fact it may NOT happen.
Skimmers are used in marine aquaria since the sixties, one may expect the risk is very limited, but that is pure speculation.


This treat is about the skimmer being responsible for creating an increasing nutrient unbalance and being responsible for nitrate to accumulate.

The bacteria ideas are interesting speculation that might result in a plus to the tank, a negative to the tank, or neither.

The same is true of lots of other processes that impact bacteria.

I agree that more research could be interesting. But it must be more than simply looking at bacteria. It must look at the tank overall and whether a typical reefer would say it has improved or declined, or neither. Otherwise, its like dosing barium and claiming it is beneficial if it maintains natural levels, without any regard to whether it has actual effects on the tank overall.

Not sure where you are getting your info, but I see no reason or evidence that skimmers cause a rise in nitrate.

 

[Treefer32]

All I have seen is my experience first hand. I did it with my 340 gallon tank. I took off my ginormous skimmer because it caused me so many headaches. It would flood my floors because i had it drained to a bucket and just go nuts one day and not produce anything the next. On top of that, did I mention it was so ginormous I could hardly get it out of my sump because when full of water it was hard to bend and lift. It's hard to clean, it's a pain in the butt. So, I took the skimmer off for four months. Just focused on routine water changes and the scrubber. Within 2-3 months I had corals starting to die. The tank didn't look clean or healthy despite large water changes. I lost a beautiful colony of alveopora and a few other corals that were more sensitive to water conditions. I lost 8-10 heads of my large duncan colony the rest wouldn't open and were dying off.

I admitted defeat and put the skimmer back in and this time with an optical sensor that shuts the skimmer off when the skimmate bucket is full. I haven't had a flood since and the tank has improved significantly! My duncans have almost fully recovered with the heads that were dead there's only 3-4 that haven't grown back in.

I don't know the science behind what's in skimmate other than my fish poop alot and what comes out of the skimmer looks like poop. LOL.

And I know that vodka dosing competes with algae scrubbers. However, I generate nitrates faster than I grow algae with my current scrubber. I probably need two or three scrubbers. Since I don't want to spend days cleaning algae scrubbers I vodka dose to supplement what the scrubber can't do. Even with vodka dosing, the scrubber, and the skimmer my nitrates are still 30. I did a 40% water change and reduced nitrates from 35 to 23 (Hana High range nitrate checker). I tested 2 weeks after the water change and nitrates are now 30, phosphates rose from .05 to .1.

I'm dosing 16-18 ml of vodka per day. Running my algae scrubber 24/7 and there's more than enough nutrients for both to work. I've got my display full of rock and additional rock in my sump. I would guess around 160 lbs of rock in the display and I did 160 pounds of sand.

Taking my skimmer off nearly decimated my corals. I didn't realize how much it was doing when it was online. I would love to have some better less costly filtration. In the hobby arena I just don't think we're there yet. We haven't fully replicated nature's capabilities yet. And when I look at the foam generated by skimmers. The ocean does the same thing with waves. Produces skimmate and that foam gets washed ashore eventually. Exporting heavy nutrients from the vast oceans, which then becomes fertilizer for plants and vegetation.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

The bacteria ideas are interesting speculation that might result in a plus to the tank, a negative to the tank, or neither.

The same is true of lots of other processes that impact bacteria.

I agree that more research could be interesting. But it must be more than simply looking at bacteria. It must look at the tank overall and whether a typical reefer would say it has improved or declined, or neither. Otherwise, its like dosing barium and claiming it is beneficial if it maintains natural levels, without any regard to whether it has actual effects on the tank overall.

Not sure where you are getting your info, but I see no reason or evidence that skimmers cause a rise in nitrate.

I take note it is your opinion there is no reason or evidence that skimmers causes nitrogen availability to increase in an aquarium.

The use of skimmers is questioned because of it's possible influence on evolution and development of pathogens in small closed environments. Present Research is about the risks involved using skimmers in closed marine aquaculture systems for human consumption.

To exclude any risk for the development of new diseases and of possible influence on the evolution of pathogens by selective removal, or in other words, selective advantage, the treated water can be sterilized using germicidal lamps.

At the moment the question to be answered is whether such high performance UV unit should be placed before or after the skimmer to obtain the best result.

The use of a skimmer then becomes an expensive undertaking, to be weighed against the benefits and the other possibilities to obtain the same or better result.

 

[ReeferSamster]

After taking one look or smell at what a skimmer pulls out of the water, I don't know how anyone could run a tank without one.

After 20 years of reefing with 4 reeftank upgrades later I've don't know why I would ever run a tank with one.

I only have 3 types of equipment in my tank: Produce light. Move water. Heat water. Beyond that, my little world takes care of itself.

Don't mean to argue, I think you can have a successful tank with a skimmer or without a skimmer.
The same ~100lbs of live rock from Fiji, Pukani, Vanatu as when I first started 20 years ago, although I do see that the live rocks have gotten much smaller through the years of erosion.

In contrast, my live rock have gotten smaller, but my tanks have gotten bigger.

 

[HuduVudu]

All I have seen is my experience first hand. I did it with my 340 gallon tank. I took off my ginormous skimmer because it caused me so many headaches. It would flood my floors because i had it drained to a bucket and just go nuts one day and not produce anything the next. On top of that, did I mention it was so ginormous I could hardly get it out of my sump because when full of water it was hard to bend and lift. It's hard to clean, it's a pain in the butt. So, I took the skimmer off for four months. Just focused on routine water changes and the scrubber. Within 2-3 months I had corals starting to die. The tank didn't look clean or healthy despite large water changes. I lost a beautiful colony of alveopora and a few other corals that were more sensitive to water conditions. I lost 8-10 heads of my large duncan colony the rest wouldn't open and were dying off.

I admitted defeat and put the skimmer back in and this time with an optical sensor that shuts the skimmer off when the skimmate bucket is full. I haven't had a flood since and the tank has improved significantly! My duncans have almost fully recovered with the heads that were dead there's only 3-4 that haven't grown back in.

I don't know the science behind what's in skimmate other than my fish poop alot and what comes out of the skimmer looks like poop. LOL.

And I know that vodka dosing competes with algae scrubbers. However, I generate nitrates faster than I grow algae with my current scrubber. I probably need two or three scrubbers. Since I don't want to spend days cleaning algae scrubbers I vodka dose to supplement what the scrubber can't do. Even with vodka dosing, the scrubber, and the skimmer my nitrates are still 30. I did a 40% water change and reduced nitrates from 35 to 23 (Hana High range nitrate checker). I tested 2 weeks after the water change and nitrates are now 30, phosphates rose from .05 to .1.

I'm dosing 16-18 ml of vodka per day. Running my algae scrubber 24/7 and there's more than enough nutrients for both to work. I've got my display full of rock and additional rock in my sump. I would guess around 160 lbs of rock in the display and I did 160 pounds of sand.

Taking my skimmer off nearly decimated my corals. I didn't realize how much it was doing when it was online. I would love to have some better less costly filtration. In the hobby arena I just don't think we're there yet. We haven't fully replicated nature's capabilities yet. And when I look at the foam generated by skimmers. The ocean does the same thing with waves. Produces skimmate and that foam gets washed ashore eventually. Exporting heavy nutrients from the vast oceans, which then becomes fertilizer for plants and vegetation.

I definitely feel your pain here. Your observation is certianly unassailable.

I would like to offer a glimpse into a different world. I have 20 long connected 45 gallons in a bin, let's call it a sump. My nitrates are usually near zero, I dose to add other metals (currently calcium) and the nitrate that is a part of the metal dosing gets quickly consumed. Perhaps there was something else at play when you removed the skimmer. If you area vodka dosing you are definitely supposed to be a using a skimmer. Maybe there is another reason that you can't get nitrate reduction. I have two small plenums and I suppose that these are accounting for my nitrate reduction, but there should be some anaerobic areas that could do this. I am kind of meandering, and I am definitely not suggesting you remove the skimmer again, but maybe there is something else more at play that would allow you to remove the skimmer.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Food is added to feed fish.

The constant in the ammonia generation equation assumes that protein is 16% nitrogen, 80% nitrogen is assimilated by the organism, 80% assimilated nitrogen is excreted, and 90% of nitrogen excreted as TAN + 10% as urea. In addition, the nitrogen in feces and uneaten feed is removed quickly by sedimentation or filtration (EblingEnCo 2006)

About 20% of the nitrogen present in the food can be skimmed directly. I estimate the maximum effective skimming at about 1/3 of that.


If a skimmer removes 35% of TOC and other essential compounds ( once part of the feed not stored by the fish) but leaves behind all the nitrogen already released in the water, that nitrogen will be reused for new growth and anaerobic respiration. This simple approach must lead to nitrogen building up in the system.

One may expect about 16% of produced nitrate may be exported by natural anaerobic respiration ( use of a nitrifying bio -filter)

How new growth will be able to clear the water off all nitrogen released by the fish if part of the essential nutrients added to the system to support growth are constantly removed by the skimmer but not inorganic nitrogen?

Natural denitrification is based on anaerobic remineralization of TOC left by the skimmer, using nutrients once part of the feed, selectively removed by the skimmer.

Using a skimmer for removing the waste products of the fish, finally, what will accumulate? Assuming natural growth is clearing the water.

Most by the fish released nitrogen will be reused for new growth, protein ( 16% nitrogen) produced with nutrients left behind by the skimmer. Each growth cycle ( remineralisation) ammonia is produced, nitrate is formed and partially exported. After a few cycles this way a lot of nitrogen may be exported. Each growth cycle the skimmer will remove some of the essential nutrients needed for new growth, leaving most nitrogen behind.

Without using a skimmer all nutrients not stored in growth are recycled, each cycle nitrogen once part of the feed is exported by natural denitrification. To keep the balance growth must be harvested ( limiting the bioload) and the nitrate production can be managed playing with the protein content of the food added. This assumes each growth cycle enough organic carbon is imported by photoautotrphic growth.

If all nitrogen left behind can not be reused for new growth due to selective removal of other essential nutrients and this nitrogen is not transformed into nitrate, I think one may expect the inevitable, within a few days or within a few months.

Why can nitrate build up slowly in a well lit reefaquarium and not be used up by photoautotrophs which have a free energy source?

How a skimmer may NOT be responsible for creating a nutrient unbalance?

Using AAM a created unbalance is easily corrected or one have to use other but not always harmless correcting aids. But why correct something which can be avoided?

 

[ReeferSamster]

All I have seen is my experience first hand. I did it with my 340 gallon tank. I took off my ginormous skimmer because it caused me so many headaches....

Taking my skimmer off nearly decimated my corals.

In my opinion, since you've had a skimmer, that was a form of nutrient export that your reeftank was accustomed to. The system balance was maintained with the skimmer being part of the equation. Once you took the skimmer OFF, then it threw the balance out of wack. I think if you upped your water changes during this transitional period then eventually the system would have readjusted with the skimmer not being present by increasing nitrogen cycle production in your live rock. But I guess it also depends on your bioload of your biggest consumers: Fish.

As a metaphor, its like the skimmer is a drug and your body builds tolerance to it. Once you remove it, you suffer withdrawal symptoms. But given enough time, the body will get over it.

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.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

After 20 years of reefing with 4 reeftank upgrades later I've don't know why I would ever run a tank with one.

I only have 3 types of equipment in my tank: Produce light. Move water. Heat water. Beyond that, my little world takes care of itself.

Have you ever tracked CO2 (pH) or O2 levels?

Might it presently be "good enough" while not being optimal?

 

[ReeferSamster]

Have you ever tracked CO2 (pH) or O2 levels?

Might it presently be "good enough" while not being optimal?

Randy: Yes. I concur. Everything could always be more optimal. If I really get hardcore. I can get the top of the line protein skimmer. Get a UV sterilizer (about to test one for fun). Get an algae scrubber. Get other gadgets that I'm sure will improve the tank in lots of ways.

But my point is, a skimmer isn't necessary to have a healthy tank. And yes I'm sure its not optimal. Because everything could always be more optimal even in a tank with a protein skimmer. But my tank is "optimal enough" for me. Everyone has that personal standard and ability. If all the inhabitants are healthy, no nuisance algae, and I'm content and in love with my tank, do I need a protein skimmer?

I haven't tested pH or anything else in a long time, with the exception of salinity. I only do when things seem off. I used to do it on a schedule. I probably should do it more often then I have been, but daily life gets me so busy, and you guys know how it goes. But I know my 20 year old liverock. They talk to me. (Some are younger. I remember the last time I got some good uncured Fiji rock which I cured in a rubbermaid was about 6? or 7? years ago.)

My liverock and corals complain to me when something is off. I know how much alk, calc, and mag to dose (approximately) daily and what volume of weekly water changes are needed, due to years of knowing my tanks and I can tell by how much coralline hues slightly purples up or whitens when my alk calc are off. I can see when there are slight accumulations of detritus in the low flow areas and how open certain corals are when i need to get off my lazy butt and do a water change.

I know its probably lazy husbandry too, but I'm sure alot of reefers know what I mean by just getting a "spidey sense" tingle when something is slightly low.

Can my tanks be improved? Sure! But I've settled to a comfortable routine with the equipment that I have, and I'm chopping off frags to trade with my LFS regularly so my corals are healthy. My fish are all healthy,

Here is my tank about 8? or 9? years ago. These are the same fish.


Except for Marty the clownfish passed away last year. He was with me for about 10 years. Leia the royal gramma passed away in 2019 after about 10 years. I recently got the new baby Marty the Clownfish in my photos. He acts exactly like ole Marty.

That big chunky 50 lbs rock and some other pieces, I've had double the age of the video. Do you guys notice how smaller that big piece is now, in my photo in my post above compared to the video? The tank is an old 40B. Now my latest is a Redsea Reefer 350. I'm sure I'll get a bigger tank many years later.

Sorry the video isn't 4K. For some reason, it didn't look so bad when I viewed it back in the old days, but I think the newer monitors (HD/4k make the older videos seem more blocky due to denser pixelation, I think)

Wow. Sorry for all that digression. I just had a trip down memory lane. I'm getting old and long winded. Haha.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

What is considered " optimal" ?

How something may become 'more' optimal?

Optimal for the target organism(s) or optimal for the organisms creating optimal conditions for the target organism(s)?


How does a skimmer contribute to achieving the predefined optimum conditions.? What are the alternatives to obtain the same predefined optimum conditions? What one does need or and has to do to maintain the predefined optimal conditions using the gadget of choice? Maybe one does not need the gadget at all.

I has been shown a top of the line skimmer does not necessarily performs better compared to a basic counter current skimmer from the seventies. The better a skimmer performs, the more it will influence the nutrient balance. What can a top of the line skimmer do better?
Will a skimmer improve system management or the opposite, taking in account other available options?

Good management is not linked to top of the bill hardware and gadgets. One does not need an expensive algae scrubber to grow and harvest algae or and periphyton.

What problems may be created correcting the side effects and battling the messengers of bad basic management , in an attempt to obtain the "optimal" conditions. The shelf's are full with products and gadgets advised to create the "optimal" conditions without doing a thing about the source of the problem.

Basic management starts by knowing what is going in, what is in the food added.
A skimmer causes an imbalance in the availability of essential nutrients introduced with the feed.
The created unbalance then is corrected to obtain " the optimal conditions" based on the messengers.( known parameters)

If the measured nitrogen and or phosphorus reserve is increasing and corals are bleaching, is the bleaching ( survival reaction) caused due to high availability of nitrogen and or phosphate or is the nutrient increase ( not enough growth) the result of what has caused the coral to release its symbiodinium?


Reef bulletin boards all too frequently contain threads that begin “Help! My tank is crashing; my corals are dying, but all of my measurable water parameters are within expected ranges. What's wrong?” (FeldmanEnMaers2008)

Are the expected ranges optimal conditions?