Shut that Skimmer Down! Over skimming your tank.

[granocompany]

I have tree tanks without skimmer:
fish, corals, macro algae,
LPS(40 corals in 90l all grown from one small frag), clam,macro algae,
soft coral, LPS, macros,
all without skimmers and work to me very well, my xenia coral pulsing day and night, green star polyps open at night too. One day I will try SPS but they need very low nutrients sistem, may be some montipora? Is somebody keep SPS without skimmes?

Coral grows on the surface of the glass from one single head after 6 month. I have a lot of single head under the rocks, maybe after sexual reproduction

 

[Damon]

This is my little system. I stared it in October of 2014. I added my first 3 frags in January of 2015. I upgraded the tank in March of 2015(complete break down to two 5 gallon buckets. New sand, etc) , and had to actually break it down in June of 2015 to move it. So I really consider, at this point, the tank/system being approx 9 months old(the upgrade from April as that is when I porches the majority of the frags). I skim continuous, with pellets, so I wet skim. The system/little reef has a long way to go, but it's on its way hopefully..

May 2015:



October 2015:



I have some clips from December 14th,but I have changed things around so I need to shoot some new video and take new pictures. All of the coral was purchased as small frags.. I will try to grab some video and edit it down quickly later this morning. Depends on how premiere acts with me.. [emoji4] [emoji4] [emoji4] [emoji4] [emoji12] [emoji12] [emoji12]

 

[granocompany]

my LPS tank, feeding corals

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

no one has one either.

flawed concept

do you have one where water droplets coalesce?

I'm not going to keep debating the semantics of whether the processes involved in skimming or anything else are chemical or physical processes. We obviously have different definitions of what these words mean, and it is a waste of readers time to focus on it since besides a few scientists that are reading, I'm sure no one cares what either of us call it.

What may be important are the actual things happening in skimming, and I'll continue to discuss those as long as I think it worthwhile to help folks better understand what it is and how it can be best used in a reef aquarium.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Chemistry is a very broad term. And I would agree that like this example of magnetism, foam fractionation is a type of chemical process.
But it is NOT a chemical reaction!
A chemical reaction is a process that leads to the transformation of one set of chemical substances to another.
Magnetism does not chemically change the material. And foam fractionation does not chemically change any of the compounds or other material in the foamate.

I don't disagree that this is a reasonable viewpoint to take, depending on how you choose to define chemical process. Since Russ liked it, we can put this semantic part of the discussion to bed.

For those interested, here's an article that takes this broader view that anything chemical can be called a chemical process and suggests that the teachers who take the more narrow view I do are not best serving their students because it confuses them. Enjoy.

http://sciencequestionswithsurprisi...-process-and-a-physical-process-in-chemistry/

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

On the topic of whether to skim or not, here's my opinion:

1. Skimmers can be useful for increased aeration. It is in my tank, and I'd run it for that reason alone even if that was all it did.

2. Skimmers export organics of various sorts, including organics that are complexed to metals. That can help if you have excess metals, or hurt if any that bind to organics are deficient. The same applies to all organic export methods.

3. Reducing yellowing by removing organics that absorb blue light can help make the tank more attractive and can allow corals to get more light. That may be accomplished by skimming or by other means, but most tanks will benefit from it being done somehow.

4. Skimming can remove whole bacteria, although it doesn't seem to drop the levels of suspended bacteria in the water all that much. Removing bacteria can be good, especially if you are using then for nutrient export when organic carbon dosing. But it can also be a detriment if you want those bacteria to be feeding filter feeders.

5. Skimming can remove organics that are toxic or irritants to other organisms. These might be released by organisms that are competing for space with each other, or from organisms that use them to reduce their palatability to predators and release them when they die or are eaten. These may include cyano, sponges, various fish, some types of micro and macroalgae, etc.

6. Skimmers can remove organics before they breakdown into inorganic nutrients that might help spur problematic algae. There are other ways to control nutrients, but most tanks need a good plan for them.

7. Skimmers may remove medications, which is bad when needing them and good when done with them.

I expect their are others that I am not thinking of right now, but each reefer can review the list of pros and cons and decide for themselves whether they want to skim in their particular tank or not, and if so, how strongly and at what times of day.

I choose to skim 24/7 after having tried going skimmerless for a few months, due mostly to aeration.

 

[cb684]

I would add that skimmers are safety nets. Although it is part of what Randy just said... If for some reason there is an overfeeding event or clams spawning it will likely help to deal with the problem.

 

[Diesel]

On the topic of whether to skim or not, here's my opinion:

1. Skimmers can be useful for increased aeration. It is in my tank, and I'd run it for that reason alone even if that was all it did.

2. Skimmers export organics of various sorts, including organics that are complexed to metals. That can help if you have excess metals, or hurt if any that bind to organics are deficient. The same applies to all organic export methods.

3. Reducing yellowing by removing organics that absorb blue light can help make the tank more attractive and can allow corals to get more light. That may be accomplished by skimming or by other means, but most tanks will benefit from it being done somehow.

4. Skimming can remove whole bacteria, although it doesn't seem to drop the levels of suspended bacteria in the water all that much. Removing bacteria can be good, especially if you are using then for nutrient export when organic carbon dosing. But it can also be a detriment if you want those bacteria to be feeding filter feeders.

5. Skimming can remove organics that are toxic or irritants to other organisms. These might be released by organisms that are competing for space with each other, or from organisms that use them to reduce their palatability to predators and release them when they die or are eaten. These may include cyano, sponges, various fish, some types of micro and macroalgae, etc.

6. Skimmers can remove organics before they breakdown into inorganic nutrients that might help spur problematic algae. There are other ways to control nutrients, but most tanks need a good plan for them.

7. Skimmers may remove medications, which is bad when needing them and good when done with them.

I expect their are others that I am not thinking of right now, but each reefer can review the list of pros and cons and decide for themselves whether they want to skim in their particular tank or not, and if so, how strongly and at what times of day.

I choose to skim 24/7 after having tried going skimmerless for a few months, due mostly to aeration.

This what Todd means in the matter that every hobbyist can read and understand what a skimmer does.
If you run a wet or dry and what kind of process comes with that is up to the user.

This is a other thing hobbyist like to hear " I got Spotligh of the month December 2015 and I DO run a skimmer 24/7"
http://www.reefedition.com/reef-spotlight-202-diesel-tank/

 

[Russ265]

skimmers are a fine tool at an aquarist's disposal. I am not disagreeing with that.

however. your bubbler is more efficient at removing water than a bacteria, doc or medication.

no one turns on their skimmer to get rid of a bacterial bloom. they chuck in carbon.

no one turns on their skimmer to get rid of yellow water

while medications like chemiclean advocate turning off the skimmer during treatment and turning it back on afterward, the medication's halflife has generally run it's course.

coral warfare and the chemicals they spew in the column are not removed by a skimmer. -not in masse like is stated here.

at the end of the day it is a particle suspender. nothing more.

if you feel the need to list the above items as a "win" for a skimmer, you forgot to add that it removes water more effeciently than all. i am not talking about the process of foam fractionation but just the physical skimmer.

keep in mind... less than 30% of the contents of dehydrated skimmate is carbon.
it is horrible at what it does and is indiscriminate.

it also suspends...
phytoplankton,
zooplankton,
and elements corals use.

...but hey. if it gets rid of your yellow water, cleans up bacterial blooms in hours, and parts the sea. have at it.

my only issue was "wet" skimming and how it is passed off as a physical or mechanical process like turning up a pump to get more flow through a filter medium. it is NOT like that at all.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I would add that skimmers are safety nets. Although it is part of what Randy just said... If for some reason there is an overfeeding event or clams spawning it will likely help to deal with the problem.

That's a good point. If they are useful when something bad happens, even if only occasionally, that might still be a reason to run it all the time since you may not be around when that bad thing happens.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

no one turns on their skimmer to get rid of a bacterial bloom. they chuck in carbon.

no one turns on their skimmer to get rid of yellow water

I disagree with much of that post, but I won't continue to debate incorrect statements that are so extreme that they are seemingly just made to get reactions from folks.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

For anyone who might want to understand the differences between physical and chemical reactions (or processes) as I described them for GFO, lanthanum, GAC, etc, someone asked and so there is a new thread on that topic here:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/chemical-v-physical-reactions.228507/

 

[Russ265]

I disagree with much of that post, but I won't continue to debate incorrect statements that are so extreme that they are seemingly just made to get reactions from folks.

i noticed you deleted your gac comment. and yes UV clears blooms too. (better than gac imo)

70% of your skimmate is not carbon

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature

The chemical/elemental composition of skimmate generated by an H&S 200-1260 skimmer on a 175-gallon reef tank over the course of several days or a week had some surprises. Only a minor amount of the skimmate (solid + liquid) could be attributed to organic carbon (TOC); about 29%, and most of that material was not water soluble, i.e., was not dissolved organic carbon. The majority of the recovered skimmate solid, apart from the commons ions of seawater, was CaCO3, MgCO3, and SiO2 - inorganic compounds!

you drew a diagram about skimming wet vs dry and how it removes more doc.

http://www.drtimsaquatics.com/resources/library-presentations/aquarium-hobby/proterin-skimming

With all skimmers, there is a certain amount of maintenance. Too much air pumped into the contact chamber will cause excess foam to be produced, and results in a lot of water being pumped into the collection cup. In this case, the foam is said to be ‘too wet’ meaning there is too much water being removed and too little DOC.

skimmers not being discriminate. eg: phyto, zooplankton and above (elements corals use)

https://www.waldonell.com/reef/reef-articles/what-is-in-your-skimmate/

-lots of pictures


as with foam fractionation, ive already said my piece and anyone can google those simple keywords and correlate it with what you tell the class.

so which part is disinformation?
because i see a of a lot of articles that are contradicting what you are telling everyone. (with documented experiments)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

i noticed you deleted your gac comment. and yes UV clears blooms too. (better than gac imo)

I definitely agree. I would never recommend GAC for a bacterial bloom, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone do so before today.

UV and skimming are the usual recommendati0ns that most people give, along with cutting off the DOC source that the bacteria are consuming.

 

[Russ265]

I definitely agree. I would never recommend GAC for a bacterial bloom, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone do so before today.

UV and skimming are the usual recommendati0ns that most people give, along with cutting off the DOC source that the bacteria are consuming.

right. but the doc is far more efficiently removed by gac than skimming. i was not talking about removing bacteria, but their source of energy.

uv kills bacteria.

as the articles above will state. skimmers are terrible at removing doc.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

So...how about we help @soggytees sum up this thread in a t-shirt.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

so which part is disinformation?
because i see a of a lot of articles that are contradicting what you are telling everyone. (with documented experiments)

Huh?

What parts of the list of things skimmers do is contradicted by published articles?

Are you back on the wet vs dry?

I've never seen any experimental assessment of wet vs dry skimming (I don't think there are any), and I'd love to see one. Nothing you posted in the post directly above this one has any bearing on that.

Obviously, wet skimming has issues, and that is why it is not always done. You need to replace the water and salt that is constantly removed, and many people do not want that hassle. That is a good reason to skim dry.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Sometimes I just like to watch my skimmer make bubbles...bubbles make me happy...

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

right. but the doc is far more efficiently removed by gac than skimming. i was not talking about removing bacteria, but their source of energy.

uv kills bacteria.

as the articles above will state. skimmers are terrible at removing doc.

I think I already agreed hundreds of posts ago that GAC was better at removing DOC. That is one of the few aspects of skimmers where there is some hard evidence, aside from aeration. The fact that GAC removes organics "better" doesn't mean skimming is not useful.

My minivan cannot go as fast as a Ferrari, but it is still useful.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Can we compare wet skim to a wet diaper and dry skim to...well...?