Running Skimmerless

[Treefer32]

I'm running a 350 gallon mixed reef skimmerless for about 4 months now. Tank's been operational for almost 3 years. I run an algae turf scrubber and 200 micron filter socks, along with a 25 micron Nu-Clear Cannister filter. 6 weeks ago my phosphates showed up as .56 on an ICP test. No other heavy metals. The only other thing it found was zero trace elements. I have since switched to Reef Crystals from standard IO salt as well. I doubled the lighting duration on my turf scrubber and run purigen in my cannister filter. I dose Red Sea A, B, C, and D trace elements once a week (around 10 ml each.) I use Red Sea AB+ in my home made frozen fish food that disperses into the water column when fish are fed. I only have around 15 fish right now, some of them 3-4 of them in the 6-10" range. Fish are healthy and corals are growing, I have gotten my phosphates down from .56 to .07 ppm (testing with Hana ULR phosphate checker).

PH is running from 8.2 to 8.4 and alk 8.4 to 9. Salinity at 1.026 with recently calibrated refrac.

With that said I get bright lime green growing on the glass within 3-4 hours. The side panels of the glass will be solid - not see through within 24 hours. The front glass, which I try to clean daily will be not quite as solid as the side panels within 10 -12 hours. I'm running skimmerless right now. I need to repair my skimmer. I'm torn on the effectiveness of skimmers. Do they pull out as much good as bad stuff?


However, I'm seeing that skimmers help remove larger particles that become phosphates before they can be consumed by algae?

Looking for the science, is repairing and placing my skimmer and losing my filter socks worth the trade off?? I don't have enough room in my sump to run both. The skimmer I have is huge. 12" in diameter. It barely fits in my 75 gallon sump.

I'm torn on whether the skimmer would help with the algae on the glass?

 

[Spare time]

I would keep the socks and just change them out more. You can get them in bulk and throw them in a washer machine. The canister filter may be collecting food and if not cleaned frequently can be a box full of rotting food.


Skimmers do work well, but you probably don't need one.

 

[mdb_talon]

Skimmers are pretty much a foolproof way to reduce the amount of nitrates/phosphates that end up in your tank....it removes the crap before they break down into nutrients.

Lots of people run effective tanks without a skimmer i am not arguing it is absolutely necessary, but it certainly makes nutrient management easier.

 

[HuduVudu]

I have no skimmer and my nitrates are zero and phosphates are .1. I pay no attention to either of these values because when I test them they are always the same. I really think these values are overrated and are payed way too much attention.

The green slime algae happens. Algae is good when there is competition and that algae is usually a good sign of a healthy tank. I wouldn't put the skimmer back on unless you are running into gas exchange issues. Especially since you have so many other things on your tank for nutrient "management". I find that the skimmers are indiscriminate and pull everything out of the tank good and bad.

My two cents.

 

[mdb_talon]

Algae is good when there is competition and that algae is usually a good sign of a healthy tank

Generally speaking i am not someone who thinks algae is a bad thing. He is talking about growth that blocks out viewing through the glass in a single day. Even if healthy (dont think it is in that case) it makes sense to want to address it...assuming you like viewing the inside of the tank.

 

[Jekyl]

Skimmer will help the situation. Also can't forget about the gas exchange aspect. Ever thought of down sizing the skimmer? Would it fit?

 

[Treefer32]

Skimmer will help the situation. Also can't forget about the gas exchange aspect. Ever thought of down sizing the skimmer? Would it fit?

Downsizing would be an option, though the higher capacity, smaller footprint skimmers, of course are on the higher end.. An 8" diameter would be ideal, would fit perfectly. Wasn't sure if the algae on the glass in under a day should be normal. Seems like in the past it was 2-3 days a light coating, then 4-5 days visibility was impaired. It's a great food source for my lawnmower and starry blennies... They each take a side of the tank and chomp at the fresh algae. Fun to watch and see much of the algae dissipate into their bellies...

 

[Viking_Reefing]

yes, a skimmer would most likely help. They also have other benefits outside of nutrient export.
In my opinion there’s no reason not to run a skimmer outside a few very specific scenarios that aren’t applicable to most reefers.

 

[DxMarinefish]

I have run on ATS and skimless from 2007.
I now run two ATS.
I do have a skimmer now (from late last year) but purely for gas exchange via my C02 scrubber but the skimmate just goes back into the tank. With people at home the ph was staying at 8.1 which is too low for my tank inhabitants.
I clean my tank acrylic twice weekly (Sunday and Wednesday). I do see some light green/brown patches but nothing to ruin the view.


I don’t test for nitrates/phosphate anymore because they always remain 0/0.1, and I feed 4-5 times a day, each feeding time it 3-4 cubes equivalent so my ATS are more than effective at giving me stability. It’s a mixed reef and I have 18 fish.

I put in a UVC steriliser late last year and this improved the clarity and reduces the need to clean the tank.

you may want to consider a UV, if you don’t already have one.

 

[arking_mark]

I'm on the skimmers aren't particularly effective for for filtration, but great for aeration. Skimmate analysis shows they only remove 20-35% of TOC. Whereas, activated carbon will get you 40-60%.

Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?

Department of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. 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.

reefs.com

 

[Dkeller_nc]

However, I'm seeing that skimmers help remove larger particles that become phosphates before they can be consumed by algae?

Looking for the science, is repairing and placing my skimmer and losing my filter socks worth the trade off?? I don't have enough room in my sump to run both. The skimmer I have is huge. 12" in diameter. It barely fits in my 75 gallon sump.

I'm torn on whether the skimmer would help with the algae on the glass?

This is a scientific explanation of what a skimmer does (and doesn't) do that may help you make a decision in your own case.

A protein skimmer is a form of process equipment known as a foam fractionator. This type of equipment is used in many industrial applications, ranging from metal ore processing to wastewater treatment. They work by injecting air into an aqueous solution, and the air allows certain types of molecules called surfactants to attach to the air/water surface, produce a foam, and the device incorporates elements that allows for the separation of this foam that is enriched in surfactants relative to the bulk solution that is then diverted to a separate process stream (in our case, a waste cup). Some entrainment of solid particles also occurs by mechanical rather than chemical physics means.

In a reef tank, there are many different compounds that have surfactant properties; just a few of these are fatty acids, phospholipids, certain kinds of peptides, and proteins. Some of these we consider waste products from the life in the tank, and certain microorganisms can use these waste products as food. Many classes of bacteria can use these substances directly as food, and the waste products of the metabolism of these wastes from are inorganic/organic phosphates and nitrogenous compounds that algae require to grow.

A protein skimmer will only remove surfactants to a certain point - this point is called the Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC), and the precise concentration that constitutes the CMC is different for any particular compound. That is one reason why a protein skimmer will only remove the total organic compounds in a water sample to a certain point (another reason is that not all compounds in water that make up a TOC reading are surfactants). A side effect of a protein skimmer is that it will also remove bacteria in the water by mechanical entrainment in the foam; this has a beneficial effect because life contains nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon, all of which will promote algal growth which as aquarists we consider undesirable.

However, one thing a protein skimmer will not do is directly remove dissolved metallic ions, some of which are micro nutrients that are required by some of the life in our tanks (i.e., trace elements). But these are removed indirectly because many bacteria also require trace elements and incorporate these into their physical form; since a protein skimmer removes these bacteria, the net effect is a gradual depletion of certain trace elements from the tank. Note, however, that the life in one's tank also remove these trace elements from the water column, so these compounds must be replenished by some means. Typically, that's through water changes, though some aquarists that follow the Dutch Synthetic Reefing method replenish these by testing for them and dosing the appropriate amounts to the tank water.

The bottom line is that a protein skimmer will remove nutrients that algae require for growth from the tank water by the mechanisms described above, and for most of us, that removal is extremely helpful as we'd otherwise have to dramatically increase our water change rate to remove the waste products of the desirable life in our tanks. Having said that, it is possible to maintain a tank without a protein skimmer, and in some cases, it may actually be desirable to run a tank without one - an example is a tank that is dominated by non-photosynthetic (NPS) corals that depend on suspended matter for food that would otherwise be removed by traditional protein skimming.

 

[Mr. Mojo Rising]

here is an article worth reading: https://reefs.com/magazine/the-deve...ve-evaluation-of-protein-skimmer-performance/
It states that protein skimmers are not proven by their manufacturers to do what they claim to do.

 

[arking_mark]

Best investment I made was a roller mat. If given a choice in limited space for a sump:
1. Roller Mat for mechanical filtration
2. Refugium - nutrient export and pH
3. Filter media (carbon, GFO, etc...) for other export
4. Skimmer + CO2 scrubber for pH and some filtration (I don't find Skimmers to be particularly effective for filtration as compared to other methods)

 

[josvanmeer]

I don’t see why carbon and gfo are recommended media as an option over a skimmer. These two are way more effective at filtration AND stripping your tank of traces. Bad advice IMO. A skimmer is not that fast in stripping elements and is easily kept up with dosing.

 

[arking_mark]

I don’t see why carbon and gfo are recommended media as an option over a skimmer. These two are way more effective at filtration AND stripping your tank of traces. Bad advice IMO. A skimmer is not that fast in stripping elements and is easily kept up with dosing.

Skimmers are actually limited in what they are able to remove from your tank. So given a choice, depending on what needs to be removed, media is better. For example, my PO4 has gotten too high; add some GFO media. My tank water has become discolored; add some GAC. A sea slug committed suicide in my powerhead and dumped a ton of toxicity into the tank (actually happened to me); add a ton of GAC.

My point is a media reactor or space for media is way more useful than a skimmer.

Skimmers are essential for aeration and in combination with CO2 scrubbers great for maintaining good pH in houses with higher CO2.

 

[Treefer32]

It seems one thing is forgotten. I was trying to wrap my head around aeration as well. How does oxygen make it into my tank so my inhabitants can live happy and healthy lives without a skimmer. I have plenty of surface agitation. 3 powerheads all mounted close to the surface of the tank. Two of which are Gyre FX 350s. But, I know agitation is only part of it. I wondered. I was gone this week for 4 days. No one in the house. The tank's ph rose from an average of 8.2 to 8.3 to 8.3 to 8.48. Bordering on two high. No skimmer... I know dissolved oxygen vs. carbon is part of the formula for PH. I had a reef buddy go check the tank and everyone was great. The biggest thing was that my scrubber was full to the max. Plants provide oxygen too. 4" think clump of gha must oxygenate the water some. I don't know if it's the same amount as a skimmer.

Well, this gives me a lot to think about! I agree running an appropriate sized UV would help and I can run that remotely (not directly in the sump). I have a 25 watt I used to get started due to an algae bloom in the water. But I haven't changed the bulb and 25 watts just wouldn't do much anyways.

 

[arking_mark]

It seems one thing is forgotten. I was trying to wrap my head around aeration as well. How does oxygen make it into my tank so my inhabitants can live happy and healthy lives without a skimmer. I have plenty of surface agitation. 3 powerheads all mounted close to the surface of the tank. Two of which are Gyre FX 350s. But, I know agitation is only part of it. I wondered. I was gone this week for 4 days. No one in the house. The tank's ph rose from an average of 8.2 to 8.3 to 8.3 to 8.48. Bordering on two high. No skimmer... I know dissolved oxygen vs. carbon is part of the formula for PH. I had a reef buddy go check the tank and everyone was great. The biggest thing was that my scrubber was full to the max. Plants provide oxygen too. 4" think clump of gha must oxygenate the water some. I don't know if it's the same amount as a skimmer.

Well, this gives me a lot to think about! I agree running an appropriate sized UV would help and I can run that remotely (not directly in the sump). I have a 25 watt I used to get started due to an algae bloom in the water. But I haven't changed the bulb and 25 watts just wouldn't do much anyways.

My understanding is that surface agitation and a good flow through sump provide sufficient aeration. Many reefers run very successful tanks skimmerless.

 

[josvanmeer]

It seems one thing is forgotten. I was trying to wrap my head around aeration as well. How does oxygen make it into my tank so my inhabitants can live happy and healthy lives without a skimmer. I have plenty of surface agitation. 3 powerheads all mounted close to the surface of the tank. Two of which are Gyre FX 350s. But, I know agitation is only part of it. I wondered. I was gone this week for 4 days. No one in the house. The tank's ph rose from an average of 8.2 to 8.3 to 8.3 to 8.48. Bordering on two high. No skimmer... I know dissolved oxygen vs. carbon is part of the formula for PH. I had a reef buddy go check the tank and everyone was great. The biggest thing was that my scrubber was full to the max. Plants provide oxygen too. 4" think clump of gha must oxygenate the water some. I don't know if it's the same amount as a skimmer.

Well, this gives me a lot to think about! I agree running an appropriate sized UV would help and I can run that remotely (not directly in the sump). I have a 25 watt I used to get started due to an algae bloom in the water. But I haven't changed the bulb and 25 watts just wouldn't do much anyways.

There are literally so many ways in managing nutrients/algae and whatever in a reeftank that everyone has their own formula on their way of dealing with it. For most that means a skimmer, but there are so many other options out there that asking for advise is kind of pointless tbh. I personally run reactors and a fuge. Reactors/UV/Dosing/Skimmer/Fuge/Biopellets/Ozone/Fleece Roller/Algae Scrubber/Algae Reactor etc etc etc. The choice is yours. There is no wrong way of doing things as long as you manage your goal.

 

[X-37B]

I run a filter sock and a skimmer on my 120.
No fuge or algae scrubber.
I also carbon dose manually.
Tank is a 120 thats 21 months old.
I get the green film on the glass and use the flipper every 2-3 days to keep it clean which is normal.
If the film turns white I back off the carbon dosing.
This keeps no3 at 5-10 and po4 runs .04 and .1.
Both are in my desired range.
Lately my po4 has been running .1-.12.
No issues at all but for me it indicates or suggests that I could use a bigger skimmer.
I carbon dose to feed the corals it also keeps my no3 in my desired range of 5-10.
My carbon dose is a blend of vinager, Sugar, and iron.
This 2 days of skim from my 120.
I prefer a skimmer over a fuge or scrubber.
Remember the numbers you get for po4 and no3 are whats left over from your export system.
In other words what your export system does not remove.

 

[Spare time]

I don’t see why carbon and gfo are recommended media as an option over a skimmer. These two are way more effective at filtration AND stripping your tank of traces. Bad advice IMO. A skimmer is not that fast in stripping elements and is easily kept up with dosing.

Carbon is not going to significantly strip a tank of trace elements. It just doesn't seem to cause any issue regarding that in most tanks. I have heard that it does tend to remove trace elements overtime if you use way too much carbon and let it sit in for a while (red sea rep said this but I forget why, there is an interview with a rep that talks about it).