Protein skimmer & uv really needed ?

[X-37B]

I ran my 120 for over a year with no water changes from the start.
I now do 10% or 12g's every 2 months. The tank just looks better after the water change, imo.
I ran a small Tunze 9410dc for 1.5 years and now run a 9430dc which is very oversize. I also just run 7" filter socks and some carbon in a bag. Small amount of gfo in a reactor to keep po4 at < 0.1. My nitrates drifted to 20 with the old skimmer and now are <5 with the 9430dc.
I do practice heavy in/out and feed 15 fish 8-10 cubes a day.
I will always run a skimmer iny systems.
I have never ran a uv but having one plumbed inline makes sense for issues that may arrive.
Pic of my system.

 

[Joacub]

I ran my 120 for over a year with no water changes from the start.
I now do 10% or 12g's every 2 months. The tank just looks better after the water change, imo.
I ran a small Tunze 9410dc for 1.5 years and now run a 9430dc which is very oversize. I also just run 7" filter socks and some carbon in a bag. Small amount of gfo in a reactor to keep po4 at < 0.1. My nitrates drifted to 20 with the old skimmer and now are <5 with the 9430dc.
I do practice heavy in/out and feed 15 fish 8-10 cubes a day.
I will always run a skimmer iny systems.
I have never ran a uv but having one plumbed inline makes sense for issues that may arrive.
Pic of my system.

Yep in case you need is a super useful tool, but I’m thinking in have both off until something goes out of control

 

[burningmime]

It doesn't matter where you look, whether it's our own physical and mental health or sustainable farming, healthy microbiomes are essential. Skimmers skew the microbiomes and it's questionable systems, fish and corals can be maintained for the decades or centuries they may be capable of living with skewed microbiomes.

My issue with this line of thinking is how do we know that the microbiome the skimmer produces is unhealthy or skewed? The microbiome with a skimmer and UV will be different than without. However, we have a closed system, not the ocean (and even in the ocean, the microbiome can vary drastically between different locations or even depths within the same reef).

There's a biome that develops if you drop rock, sand, fish, and coral all in and let it ride -- all collected from many places in the world or aquacultured, and having gone through multiple other tanks before yours. There's a different biome that will develop if you run a skimmer and low-flow UV 24/7. The skimmer may allow certain types of bacteria that would otherwise die off to outcompete others. Both the UV and skimmer do the most damage to water borne bacteria -- many of which are photosynthetic -- which allows nonphotosynthetic bacteria (heterotrophic and chemoautotrohic) to compete.

Is the environment with a skimmer more or less healthy than without? And when talking about health, how do we judge that? Fish? Coral? Inverts? Visual appeal? Genetic test? Is an environment free of germs/parasites healthier than an environment full of germs/parasites plus organisms with strong enough immune systems to ward them off? An environment that would allow a tenuis to thrive might be unhealthy for pulsing xenia and vice versa. The environment that leads to the best coloration on certain SPS is known to be different from the environment that leads to the best growth.

I don't want to argue for or against skimmers/UVs. But "unhealthy" and "skewed" are pretty loaded terms that don't really say much without much more qualification.

 

[Joacub]

My issue with this line of thinking is how do we know that the microbiome the skimmer produces is unhealthy or skewed? The microbiome with a skimmer and UV will be different than without. However, we have a closed system, not the ocean (and even in the ocean, the microbiome can vary drastically between different locations or even depths within the same reef).

There's a biome that develops if you drop rock, sand, fish, and coral all in and let it ride -- all collected from many places in the world or aquacultured, and having gone through multiple other tanks before yours. There's a different biome that will develop if you run a skimmer and low-flow UV 24/7. The skimmer may allow certain types of bacteria that would otherwise die off to outcompete others. Both the UV and skimmer do the most damage to water borne bacteria -- many of which are photosynthetic -- which allows nonphotosynthetic bacteria (heterotrophic and chemoautotrohic) to compete.

Is the environment with a skimmer more or less healthy than without? And when talking about health, how do we judge that? Fish? Coral? Inverts? Visual appeal? Genetic test? Is an environment free of germs/parasites healthier than an environment full of germs/parasites plus organisms with strong enough immune systems to ward them off? An environment that would allow a tenuis to thrive might be unhealthy for pulsing xenia and vice versa. The environment that leads to the best coloration on certain SPS is known to be different from the environment that leads to the best growth.

I don't want to argue for or against skimmers/UVs. But "unhealthy" and "skewed" are pretty loaded terms that don't really say much without much more qualification.

So what do you think is better with or without ?

 

[burningmime]

So what do you think is better with or without ?

There are successful long-term reef tanks with both methods. I like my UV and skimmer because it keeps the display visually looking clean, and because I'm a nerd so I have fun tuning them. But my tank is still very new and my last one only managed to grow leathers and aiptasia, so I can't claim success.

My point was just that saying the microbiome without a skimmer is somehow less "skewed" than the one with a skimmer is wrong. The only microbiomes known to grown corals over centuries are in the ocean, and unless you're constantly pumping in and out NSW from near an actual reef, you'll never achieve that in a tank.

 

[Spare time]

I don't run either. They are tools for certain purposes. Both of them would likely negatively affect my tank (I keep filter feeders like large feather dusters and scallops and I do not want to actively remove or kill their foods).

BUT I would like a skimmer for co2 scrubber recirculation. I don't have a scrubber but it would be nice.

 

[Timfish]

My issue with this line of thinking is how do we know that the microbiome the skimmer produces is unhealthy or skewed? The microbiome with a skimmer and UV will be different than without. However, we have a closed system, not the ocean (and even in the ocean, the microbiome can vary drastically between different locations or even depths within the same reef).

There's a biome that develops if you drop rock, sand, fish, and coral all in and let it ride -- all collected from many places in the world or aquacultured, and having gone through multiple other tanks before yours. There's a different biome that will develop if you run a skimmer and low-flow UV 24/7. The skimmer may allow certain types of bacteria that would otherwise die off to outcompete others. Both the UV and skimmer do the most damage to water borne bacteria -- many of which are photosynthetic -- which allows nonphotosynthetic bacteria (heterotrophic and chemoautotrohic) to compete.

Is the environment with a skimmer more or less healthy than without? And when talking about health, how do we judge that? Fish? Coral? Inverts? Visual appeal? Genetic test? Is an environment free of germs/parasites healthier than an environment full of germs/parasites plus organisms with strong enough immune systems to ward them off? An environment that would allow a tenuis to thrive might be unhealthy for pulsing xenia and vice versa. The environment that leads to the best coloration on certain SPS is known to be different from the environment that leads to the best growth.

I don't want to argue for or against skimmers/UVs. But "unhealthy" and "skewed" are pretty loaded terms that don't really say much without much more qualification.

Good questions. But why don't you accept or believe the research presented in the videos I linked? Becasue they've quantified "healthy" and "unhealthy".

. . . My point was just that saying the microbiome without a skimmer is somehow less "skewed" than the one with a skimmer is wrong. . . .

As far as skimmers skewing the microbial numbers in reefs I suggest you pull up Feldman, et al, research on TOC, skimmers and bacterial counts becasue there are significant lower numbers when skimmers are used. (Thier look at UVs influence surprisingly did not alter counts.)

We're a long way from knowing many specifics on the very complex and conflicting roles of microbes in reef systems but to say skimmers remove hydrophobic "stuff" and dooes not remove hydrophilic "stuff" but also does not skew the microbial counts to primarily hydrophilic species doesn't seem rational to me.

 

[burningmime]

Good questions. But why don't you accept or believe the research presented in the videos I linked? Becasue they've quantified "healthy" and "unhealthy".

Didn't watch all of them; if there's one focused on reef tanks you can recommend, I will check it. Other than the MACNA one (which seems focused specifically on nutrient levels), they're all about the ocean and not closed systems, right? The ocean's protein skimmer is the tides, which we don't have in our tanks.

As far as skimmers skewing the microbial numbers in reefs I suggest you pull up Feldman, et al, research on TOC, skimmers and bacterial counts becasue there are significant lower numbers when skimmers are used. (Thier look at UVs influence surprisingly did not alter counts.)

We're a long way from knowing many specifics on the very complex and conflicting roles of microbes in reef systems but to say skimmers remove hydrophobic "stuff" and dooes not remove hydrophilic "stuff" but also does not skew the microbial counts to primarily hydrophilic species doesn't seem rational to me.

Yes, of course skimmers will remove hydrophobic DOCs and reduce water column bacteria. Not arguing that. But remember that what most people are trying to achieve is a beautiful or long-term stable tank to grow coral, fish, and inverts; bacterial populations are there to support those goals, not an end goal in themselves.

If you want an extreme example, take a sample of your tank water and some sand (or ocean water if near an ocean), put it in a bottle, and stick it in the windowsill with no flow or filtration for a few months. It will develop a microbiome naturally on its own. That's not "skewed" by any artificial means. But one sniff and you'll be hard-pressed to say it is healthy or somewhere you'd want to put your fish and coral.

I guess if you want to define "skewed" that way; then sure tanks running a skimmer are skewed towards hydrophilic bacteria and bacteria that can make use of hydrophilic DOCs. Just not convinced that's a bad thing for sustaining marine life in a closed system and doubly so if your goals also include visual appeal (crystal-clear water, good coloration, etc).

 

[Stoney]

Didn't watch all of them; if there's one focused on reef tanks you can recommend, I will check it. Other than the MACNA one (which seems focused specifically on nutrient levels), they're all about the ocean and not closed systems, right? The ocean's protein skimmer is the tides, which we don't have in our tanks.


Yes, of course skimmers will remove hydrophobic DOCs and reduce water column bacteria. Not arguing that. But remember that what most people are trying to achieve is a beautiful or long-term stable tank to grow coral, fish, and inverts; bacterial populations are there to support those goals, not an end goal in themselves.

If you want an extreme example, take a sample of your tank water and some sand (or ocean water if near an ocean), put it in a bottle, and stick it in the windowsill with no flow or filtration for a few months. It will develop a microbiome naturally on its own. That's not "skewed" by any artificial means. But one sniff and you'll be hard-pressed to say it is healthy or somewhere you'd want to put your fish and coral.

I guess if you want to define "skewed" that way; then sure tanks running a skimmer are skewed towards hydrophilic bacteria and bacteria that can make use of hydrophilic DOCs. Just not convinced that's a bad thing for sustaining marine life in a closed system and doubly so if your goals also include visual appeal (crystal-clear water, good coloration, etc).

I dont think anyone is saying all microbiomes without skimmers are healthy. Of course that's not true. But arbitrarily removing the hydrophobic species isnt a good idea when you have no clue which species is doing what. Having said that its probably not that big of a deal considering how long skimmers have been in use.

I'm beginning to think the microbiome in the water column isnt that important aside from feeding. Have you ever seen a coral that didnt do well in newly mixed saltwater? I sure havent, they always seem to love it. I've also read that at least some corals only feed on specific strains of bacteria so the microbiomes we're growing in our tanks likely arent even the right species.