Skimmerless Systems "Say I"

[Reef Maniac]

I have been without a skimmer for about 6 months now, And haven't noticed any adverse effects to speak of. It wasn't by choice either, (I could never get the darn thing to work right).
I also have a refugium, which I was told would act as a good substitution...
1. Do we really need these devices?
2. Why does a system like mine work without one?
3. What is a skimmer actually taking out?
4. Do we really need these devices?
5. Do we really need these devices?
6. Do we really need these devices?

[DC321]

My system is 9 months old, and I have been skimmerless. I was OK until about a mnth ago. I started with the attack of the hair algae.

This time next week, I cannot say I will still be skimmerless.
DC

[Physh1]

Neither my 20 reef or my 7 reef have a skimmer. I believe my more frequent water changes and carbon use keep everything in good check. The largest tank I've run without one is a 40 but I eventually did use one for the algae problems I kept having...

Cameron

[jck]

I started my current tank skimmerless and have been running for about 7 months. Unfortunately, I've started having to battle slime algae and diatoms this past month. Still not sure what's gone wrong...everything seems to check out. :confused:

[Ernie]

We have not used a skimmer for at least 3 years. The tank looks good. We have not had a hair algae problem during that time although we do get the red slime type algae occassionally like many other people.

I discontinued skimming when a piece on the skimmer broke. Due to limited space, and difficulty dealing with the skimmer, I decided to discontinue skimming.

We also haven't had a water change (except when adding new fish and we need to replenish the water used to aclimatize the fish to the water in the tank).

Julien Sprung has a Jauber-style live sand bed system. If I remember correctly, an article in Sea Scope stated that he had not used a skimmer for a while.

I believe that our water may be a little yellowish.

I believe that a person should generally use a skimmer unless there is a good reason for not using it. If you decide not to use one, then make sure that you have a refugium and a good sand bed.

[newreefman1]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
No skimmer. 18 tall with 5 gallon refugium. lit 24x7 and stocked with razor caulerpa and worms/pods etc.
Soon to be moving to a 60 gallon with 29 gallon sump and 5 gallon refugium.


staying skimmerless.

[Ironreef]

IME if you don't have a skimmer to pull out nutrients you need a refugium with caulerpa to pull nutrients out. VALVOLNIA grows when you have excess nutrients. Someting a skimmer can help with. Or caulerpa will do the same. But imo you need on or another. if you have fish. Probally don't need either is you have 1-2 fish and corals but is you stock with fish I would have a skimmer.

[Orm Embar]

I'd say that you may or may not need a skimmer for any given reef tank . . . if you are starting up a new tank with uncured live rock, if you have a high bioload, or (maybe) if you want to keep SPS corals, then I'd run a skimmer. If you have a low bioload and have designed the tank to run skimmerless, I'd say that you don't need one.

Skimmers strip out organic wastes before they break down and pollute the tank. They also, IMHO, strip out a good deal of plankton and other filter-feeder food in the water. They make a tank less susceptible to disasters (dead fish discovered a day later, overfeeding accidentally, . . .), but they also inhibit the growth of filter feeders (fanworms, sponges, some corals, may hurt the food sources of some fish like mandarins, . . . ).

If you are going skimmerless, I'd have a tank with lots of live rock, preferably a deep sand bed, and preferably a refugium with macroalgae or macroalgae in the main tank. You also need to do regular partial water changes, and maybe carbon.

I had a 58 gallon that ran with an ETS downdraft skimmer (Reef Devil) and skimmerless. The only difference was that the tank had a LOT more feather dusters and sponges when the skimmer was off . . . I would routinely see snails with their shells covered with brown sponge and 20 feather dusters on top of that (and this is a half inch wide snail; looks more like an urchin!).

I like skimmerless systems, and my next tank (when I move and set up the tank again) will be skimmerless. But the ETS will be hooked up just in case . . .

[Ironreef]

reef tank don't produce much plankton anyway. I run a bullet 2 skimmer mak4 pump. i have a mak4 pump for my seaswirl. The one on my skimmer feed my reactor and my refugium. I have mass tube worms poloyps ect. probally from the refugium but They go through heavy skimming 2 big /med pumps 2 powerhead. I got a half dead manderine from lfs fatten it up. I have a 120g 10g refugium dsb. @100-130lbs lr. Skimming isn't needed but I would halve an alga tank. i prefer skimming cuz I like to feed alot. Food is cheap when you make it and my animals stay fat.

[FISH WHISPERER]

When patiently built up, a skimmerless can handle a fantastic bioload. The biofiltration capacity is directly proportional to the bioload... When one increases, so does the other. If you disproportionately imbalance the system, then of course you will have problems. It's great to see that as few as two years ago most folks recoiled in horror at the thought of anyone suggesting a skimmer wasn't mandatory. LOL ;) Now the skimmer has definitively been reduced to "optional" as enough folks have shown that not only is it easy to start out skimmerless as a new hobbyist, but it's also very clear and easy to understand. I suppose for those that don't quite have an idea on how much to feed, they can dump in a truckload and just hope that enough fish/corals get their share before it is skimmed. But it's easy to get a general idea of how much your tank can consume, and then just be consistant. And my, those corals love the natural plankton-green debris wiped off the tank sides once a week.... Of course, with enough caulerpa, there's usually too much competition for any nuisance algae to form.... We've successfully ran all our systems with caulerpa directly in the main show tank, eliminating any need for any complicated refugiums. Pics on the site show some pretty ways to integrate caulerpa into a system.... In our latest show, we have all the caulerpa contained to one corner with some live rock.... That way the danger of snaring any corals is reduced. We just have to pluck the stray strands once a week... Everything is behaving beautifully, and all varieties of corals are doing smashing! :)

I have moved on in the bio-ecosystem sense, ;) and thus my skimmer has joined the plethora of other mechanical filtrations acquired along my journey, signifying the changes/advances made, and my ability to change with the times. :D Isn't there a whole forum about successful skimmerless systems, some with/without refugiums, with/without sumps, and still maintaining all sorts of beautiful corals? :D :D Better yet, didn't some guy named Volk put together a whole beautiful site of skimmerless systems? hehe... We used to have to argue in defense of skimmerless... But nobody is so bull-headed as to say it can't be done unless there's a "low bioload" anymore.... Isn't change, and our ability to accept progress and learn as individuals wonderful? :D Skimmers do allow folks to "overfeed", but if they're not dialed in "just right" they might take out too much otherwise useful nutrients as well... Isn't it better to just learn the right amount that your system will consume? Then it's just remembering to feed! ;)
I'd recommend 1/2 Formula cube per fish, MWF
Flake food daily
Wardley's shrimp pellets fed indiscriminately to the sandbed (I don't think you could ever feed too much of those, and the fish all love the treats too!
Other assorted treats, increasing as the sandbed/infauna/critter population grows. These tanks turn into natural garbage disposals! :D When your whole sandbed starts turning black, that might be a sign of too much over-eagerness.

I dunno.... I have more trouble deciding if our dog (Boxer) eats enough daily, or if he needs more/less.... Tank-droppings are easy stuff.... Everything gets consumed/eaten if you have enough stuff in there to enjoy! :)

Now, what they NEED to do is rig up a skimmer to my own rear hatch, that I might be able to go to my favorite Friday Seafood buffet up in Reno (only been there once, but it was GREAT!!) Then maybe I could sit down for a few hours and just go to town on all the yummy food, and see if that skimmer might clear my excess food so I could continue to sloth back for a few more plates - maybe even a couple of desserts!! :D

But whatever the case, skimmers will never become quite obsolete - you can always find a stoner eager to buy a custom bong. Mine was sitting out on my patio and I had more than a few neighbors finally approach me about when they would be "invited" to come "smoke some" with me, nodding indicatively at my "bong."
Oh, if this was a poll..... I

[Swords]

:lol: Monty...

I'm setting up my first reef in my 75 gallon. Intend on having a DSB lots of Live Rock and a refugium (w another live DSB) + MHs for illumination. I'm a bit confused on this to skimm or not to skimm (ah but that is the question!-sorry! :D ) deal.

Since this is my first setup should I buy a skimmer to use while the sand and rock are curing and slowly wean the skimmer off the tank as it matures? If I were to do that I'd just buy a couple airstone driven Lees. Or is going skimmerless something for you with a lot more experience?

[Stoli]

I have a 90 gallon reef with DSB and plenum. No skimmer but a tidepool 2 sump running with occasional Carbon. Tank has been up for about 3 months. Little nuisance algae. I'm allowing some macro algae and calurpa to grow in one area of the tank and I plan to weed the rest. So far, everything reads zero. Only time will tell though.

[Fishwife]

I'm skimmerless on a 1 1/2 year old 29 gal. and a 1 year old 37 gal. I am slowly weaning my 200 off the skimmer (it's only a Berlin HOT anyway so it isn't much of a skimmer for that size tank). I have a little bit of hair algae in the 37 but it's no big deal.

We started the 200 skimmerless but after about 4 or 5 weeks we decided we needed some skimming to get us over the new tank hump. Things are looking much better though we do still have some cyano. Again, no big deal. We have the equipment to hook up a nice refugium, we just have to find the time to do it. We are now running the skimmer approximately 10 hours a day.

Laurie

[Flatlander]

:D

[alf3482]

I have 55 gal skimmerless 2 years old has been skimmerless 1 year now. I do grow macro in the sump. No mech. filtration. I have 20 gal about a year old never run a skimmer but i do grow macro in the tank. No mech. filtration at all. Never had a problem with algea, or cayno bactiria. In either tank. But i do not keep sps in these two tanks but i have a very health Tiger Derasea clam that is growing like crazy.HTH

[darcitananda]

Set up my 100 gallon as skimmerless about 5 months ago. 140 pounds of live rock. No sump. Got the caulerpa growing. I like being skimmerless. Less noise, less clutter, and I feel confident that if the power goes out for a few hours that everyone will be fine (and the power has gone out for a few hours several times). I don't have any valonia. Occasionally, a low flow area will get a red slime patch; I usually just adjust my powerheads. I do water changes occasionally, mainly to make up for utilized nutrients.

[Vilas]

I'm working towards skimmerless myself, but here's my philosophy.
Things like skimmers are great for those of us with less experience, a less than rock solidly established tank, less apt to strictly follow water change schedules, and a little less courage. They're a bit of a buffer for our mistakes and shortcomings, and at this point, while my tank's still under a year old, it's a bit of peace of mind.
That said, my skimmer was broken for a couple of weeks recently, and things only looked healthier. Granted, my fish load is 2 percs in a 55, but that's about right for me. I'm still too nervous to trust my own ability to keep things happy to leave it as such. My ideal system is so perfectly balanced, no skimmer, no carbon, weekly water changes..and I'm working to that goal. I just think that for newbies and novices, skimmerless tanks are better left to those with a deeper understanding of the reef - the kind that comes best with experience.
Fish Whisperer, as always, I love your posts!

[W_dailey]

I'll jump in.........My tank has been skimmerless for 3 months now and I have a 75 gallon 90 lbs of live rock, 5+" DSB very live and a 5" DSB in a 20 gallon refugium w/ grape caluepra. I have started feeding DT and reef solutions for the new 10 sps frags from Dr. mac and no signs of excess algae. I have even had growth on most of the sps. I will for some reason always think that I need a skimmer but I have been slowly weened away from it completely.


Go Skimmerless!!!!!!!!!!!

[FISH WHISPERER]

Hi, and no, I do not think you should go buy a skimmer to get you started. I do not think it is an issue that needs to be left to the "experienced." Trust me, it takes more experience to understand/run a skimmer than it does to not. ;) The au-natural concept is quite easy to understand... If you allow time for a natural cycle (found here in the archives, or on my website: New Tank Cycling), your sandbed will immediately begin establishing the bacterium necessary to process nitrates. I, for one, have a total "hands-off" approach, to any new system. Detrivores for the hair algae, caulerpa to start major consumption of nutrients that would otherwise feed nuisance algae.... I basically let the tank sit and run for no less than three months before I do a thing to it. What could be easier, or more explainable to a newbie? Sure, it will smell, look horrible, etc... But, my oh my, if things don't have a way of balancing themselves out if we just trust nature to do her job. :) In fact, or latest show was done with the nasties before the three month period. With no water changes to date (we don't change water in any of our systems on a regular basis) we haven't had any recurrence of hair algae (oh, it was bad at first), nor have we had any red cyano. My first skimmered tank had cyano so bad we had to treat with maracyn to help out. So, I've never been "sold" that a skimmer is any type of "savior", even to the beginner. Sure, it helps one's ability to overfeed - but it might also be an adverse foe to some folks, even as it's pulling out nutrients as quickly as the newbie is adding expensive bottles of snake oil to "replenish" them. I think the easiest way to set up a system is to go skimmerless, be patient, let things develop naturally within the sandbed, and then one can learn about all the expensive toys and gadgets and make an educated guess as to whether or not one wants to acquire any such gizmos. My guess is that their tank will be looking so awesome that most newbies would shrug off both the need and desire to have excell life-support systems plugged into their tanks, actually sucking life out of the system. ;) I've set up a fair share of brand-new folks with marine systems, and a skimmer has never been a part of the "process." That's just more to explain, more to operate, and I believe - a false sense of security. To date, nobody has torn down their systems out of frustration; they are all doing really well.
Of far more importance to pass on to newcomers to the hobby is the importance of fish compatibility and overstocking. Sandbeds have allowed us to come milestones, and there's far more important things which will measure our success and efforts than a skimmer. I'm not down on anybody that uses a skimmer, nor do I think that it takes any type of "experienced" reefer to "dare" to go skimmerless... That was the myth a couple of years ago. Far too many brand spankin' new hobbyists have set up beautiful skimmerless reefs from the start and the only concept they've needed to understand was patience. Of course, even a skimmer won't cure impatience, eh?
Now, I don't advocate anyone to just "unplug" their skimmers... No, no no... ;) It's far easier to start out without one than it is to yank something that's prevented your system from developing naturally. And skimmer v. non-skimmered involves no measure of experience. Well, actually, it requires more knowledge to understand/use a skimmer than it does to not, as I've mentioned somewhat tongue in cheek. ;)

I think the toughest thing about skimmers is admitting that it's a multi-hundred dollar piece of equipment that we just don't need, anymore. A sandbed and some caulerpa are far cheaper, and most people with a skimmer have a sandbed, anyway. :confused: I used to justify my collection of skimmers, but as I helped brand new hobbyists start out without any, I had to put my self-important "tools" further back into the shed lest they be questioned!! :D

"What's that???"
"Oh, it's something that we used to have to use... Before sandbeds and macroalgae, we used to rely heavily on mechanical filtration and/or water changes to remove the buildup of everything we put in the tank."
"Oh......"
"Ya, just mix your salt, keep good water circulation, keep the temp up, lay down your sandbed, toss in some cocktail shrimp and just leave everything ALONE for two months... Can you give me that????
"Well, what about the fish????"
"Just stir your sand - that will help spread the bacteria around... Put some pieces of dry base lace/bowl rock in there, and that will be the future home to lots of bugs and critters."
"But what do I need to DO?????"
"Nothing.... Just keep fresh air in the room :D "
"But, I thought this was so much harder???"
"Oh, we can complicate things, if you'd like.... Wanna hook up some stuff with plugs that requires more of your time??? :D "
"Uh... no, I guess not.... You're sure it's this easy?"
"Hey, see that tank over there???"
"Yeah, but you've been doing this for so long....."
"Hey, pal, that tank was set up brand new earlier this year.... My 11 year-old daughter maintains it......"
"REALLY????? What does she do? She drops measured amounts of food in, and makes sure the water doesn't fall below this line.... If it does, we just add fresh water."


In all seriousness, this scenario has been somewhat more than played out a number of times. Of course, with my love to gab, I always tell folks I'm helping about water changes, what they are intended to do, and that it's a good thing to do at least in the beginning so one learns how to mix new saltwater into an established salinity range. There's a whole ton of "basic info" that needs to be parlayed to a newcomer to the hobby, including what a sandbed actually does, the importance of cleanup crews, and of course, let's not forget LIGHTING. The concept of how much and why we need $$ lighting is without a doubt the most intriguing/complicated concept to any new reefer. Skimmerless systems are gaining far more acceptance... Again, two years ago, this would have been a flamefest, no? But now, we seasoned "vets" can't argue with brand spankin' newbies with beautiful tanks who have never spent a moment with a skimmer in their ownership. They really have shown us that there is far more of a "stigma" attached to skimmerless tanks than there is complexity. ;) Again, I think that's because most of us feel a need to justify in any way the major dollars we plopped down on our skimmer armies. Once we "get over it", though, we can see the irony in how it's actually more complicated to use a skimmer than it is to just let nature do her job. :)

[mobert]

I have two 20 gallons and a 6 gallon run skimmerless. LOTS of macro algae. No sump or mechanical filtration (except thin sponges on powerheads & Eheim surface skimmer intakes). I kept a fat Mandarin in the 20 gallon for 12 weeks before moving her to the 240 gallon. The bioload is pretty low in these tanks and there is as much macro algae as corals, but these tanks are easy to maintain and the nitrates are zero.

[fishteacher73]

Just as with many things....there are many styles and mind-sets involved with how to do whatever it is..In the marine tank circle there's about a dozen different "acceptable" methodologies and each has its own merits(and drwbacks), but the ultimate answer to how to set up tank, starts with a question....What do you want do to with the tank? A highly filtered and skimmed tank is good for a FO system and a closed DSB is good for a invert only tank....While we all have our specific opinions and experiences, everyone else has theirs...and even some are contradictory, yet both seem to flourish in their selected use. I say do what has been working....messing with a system, ie adding/removing equpment only throws it out of whack...the best way I have found ist get it running and leave it alone(aside from basic maint.). Tweaking a tank only takes it longer to balance out and get happy...
Well as to the poll...I have a skimmer, but its in the pile of various fish equipment in the garage...Maybe I'll use it on a new tank, but its something else to plug in and tune....I'll probably leave it to gather dust.

[Jawfish]

Pardon me if i stir things up here. This kind of thread scares me as bad advice.

Why? I think the whole 'skimmerless' fad is a great feel-good spin on nutrient export.

So correct me where I'm wrong here, but I believe I'm right on target. (Go figure ;) )

'Skimmerless' is merely referring to a system in which no skimmer is used for nutrient export. My unsubstantiated opinion is that the only really successful long term skimmerless reef systems esentially export excess nutrients by pruning/removing macroalgae. (And an 'Ecosystem' or 'ATS' is essentially only that.)

Is there any proof, and I do mean an impartial non-anecdotal analysis, that the mere elimination of a skimmer HELPS anything (other than infauna, which a refugium can provide, and is perhaps more focused on providing better.)

I submit, for your discussion, that the skimmerless fad is nothing but folks embracing the fact that they have limited their nutrient export tools, and that the ones that fail, are ones in which their macroalgae pruning is insufficient to keep up with their export needs.

I'm interested in why we should encourage folks to limit the tools in their arsenal. All those critters in the sand bed's need Oxygen too. Are we forgetting a skimmer's role in adding Oxygen to water? Or how it can remove excess CO2 from a Calcium Reactor, or help keep PH higher?

I'm all for the natural approach. We should include it in our strategy. But these glass boxes of water are a long way from being oceans. Think of skimmers simulating the froth of the waves.

Just my opinion. Now, I'll don my Kevlar suit.

[Swords]

Hi Monty,

Yes, I know there are tons of things I need to know about Deep Sandbeds, Refugiums, water circulation & lighting. I've been reading everything I can on reef tanks for the last year or so before I even decided to seriously get into it and give it a try. To make myself feel better about this experiment of setting up a reef tank I am going to build it entirely on captive bred & aquacultured creatures, rock & sand. But since I've just recently come onboard to RC I've been reading about the skimmerless method combined with the DSB & Berlin Method. It is in direct opposition to what all the books say (even the recent ones) but I do understand the concept of the skimmer pulling out phytoplankton and zooplankton before the corals and other things can get hold of it. what I'm most worroied about is the 'break in/die off period' because I intend to use uncured live rock (either gulf view and/or TBS) and I have read that curing rock can get pretty nasty.

I also know much of patience, being a big fan of the Japanese style nature aquariums (and having a house full of them) where the plants are used as filtration and filters are just used basically as water circulating devices. I'm used to making myself maintain low bioload tanks and allowing nature to stabilize itself. My 75 gallon which is intended for the reef at one time housed a whopping 4, 2" killifish. :D

I'm interested to read more about the skimmerless theory and how to maintain the tank during it's "ugly" cycle.

[dkreef]

I have went skimmerless last month.
One because it wasn't pulling much out and 2nd, i added a 20gal refugium w/ 6" DSB and lots of macroalgae.

Before all this, my nitrate used to be in 20-40ppm.
Now, it is 0ppm.
i still have the skimmer in their just in case but not turned on.

The best way is to follow what i did.
During the initial set up, use the skimmer and when yu set up the refugium(w/ DSB and macros), wait til the skimmer collects not much of the waste. You can then pull out the skimmer.

[BrianD]

Is there any doubt why newbies go nuts trying to figure this hobby out? One thread will be debating the "best" skimmer, most powerful skimmer to buy, and the next thread will be telling newbies that they don't need a skimmer.

For me, I hooked up my Bullet skimmer to my sump when I "connected" two 180 gallon tanks to it. Basically, this skimmer was responsible for skimming 2 180 gallon tanks and a 40 gallon sump. I was lazy in my maintenance, and for the first couple of months I didn't even pay attention to my collection bucket (it was a 5 gallon bucket, and I just made sure it wasn't overflowing).

Turns out that I hadn't pulled anything out of the tank in that 2 months (or more). The skimmer wasn't "tweaked" to the proper water level, so it really wasn't working like it should. I ended up unplugging it, and for the last 2 months I have been "skimmerless". No noticeable change in my tank. I only have a few LPS (bubble) and some soft corals in the tank (getting prepared to move again, so don't want to have too much livestock). My few corals are all expanding and growing beautifully. I also have incredible sponge growth all over my live rock.

Admittedly, my tanks are meagerly stocked with corals (and certainly no delicate ones), but the tanks are doing fine. I think strong circulation, a healthy sandbed, and SANE stocking levels are the key. The more poop in the tank, the more poop has to be taken out.

Brian

[Reef Maniac]

Well, It looks like I will stay skimmerless
...or maybe I'll try a skimmer...hmmm

[Ironreef]

fwiw 1/2 a cube of formula 1 wouldn't do it for my fish I feed probally 4 cubes of various foods and a good pinch of spinurila. daily Any thing less and my fish look skinny. ever see a wild tang? They should look fat not like what ppl usually see they look funny.I've had my 120g without a skimmer for @6weeks. reduced feeding didwith a full refugium which is the only way I would grow caulerpa= I hate it in my reef. But I have huge tube worm mass pods in tank and in the refugium. My dsb isn't for filtration but for pods to grow. I pull alot of gunk from my tank. I know what I feed and food is cheap. My tank jsut looks better with good skimmg. But I do have a mixed reef. probally why my sps doesn't look good without skimming maybe chemical warefare. But IME I've seen more alga in ecosystem tanks than skimmed ones. But also have seen the same person with a skimmer and ecosystem = Theres many methoids I believe its more of the reefkeeper. Skimmers are newer than going skimmerless so going skimmerless isn't nothing new

[Aquariust]

I

55G w/ a 4" sand bed and 125lbs of LR.

Actually, I have a skimmer attached to my HOB Amiracle w/d. Damn thing doesn't work though, so I consider it skimmerless.

Worked good in the beginning. Had to put an airstone in it to make it foam. Took out airstone 2-3 months ago.

Only adverse effects are my cup coral hasn't been doing well, and my mushrooms have all pretty much shriveled up and disappered. Can't say it's the skimmer though, but the timing is right. Could also be the toadstool leather I added, timing is right there too.

[fishymissy]

When I first started up the 29g, I had a skimmer in place. And even though things looked good in the tank, it wasn't until after I removed it that everything started to really perk up. My feather dusters are twice the size they were before and all the mushroom corals are reproducing like mad. I don't have a sump or refugium on this tank, BUT....the HOB filter is acting like a refugium and an algae scrubber too! If you look in the filter, you can see all kinds of sea squirts, and on the overflow "lip" there is a nice growth of algae where none of the snails can get at it. The only thing in the filter pad is Phos-zorb to remove phophates and silicates. I also have a nice growth of yellow sponges on the LR since the skimmer has gone!

[OrionN]

I got a RS Berlin skimmer for my 400 g tank. I have not clean it in more than one year. Over the last month or so, the skimmer just clotted up and no water flowed throug it at all. Thus I am now completly skimmerless. Not even use it to oxygenated the water.

[harris611]

Had a 110 that I set up as an Ecosystem tank with Miracle Mud. Have to admit that it did very well for a year until I crashed it with copper poisoning.

Everything looked great until the copper. I threw a Lifereef skimmer on it when I did not know what was wrong, though, and it pulled out TAR. Man was it gross. I think this time around I am going with skimmer / refugium combo. Best of both worlds.

Gotta say though, I had NO algea through the life of the tank and corals did great.

[sod]

My 29 has been skimmerless sience Feb 99. Also i have high disolved organics. I too had a bad attack of hair but i started adding as many macro algaes as i could find and now i have almost no hair and my hippo keeps it in check. in my opinion most corals dont mind high doc and some thrive like my green digitata. Also without a skimmer coral more often come out of the rocks like my star polyps and evan a blastomussa. i dont see them useful unless you are dealing with finiky sp like acropora and then you can keep them with frequent water changes.

[FISH WHISPERER]

hehe...

I got a good "lesson" in the whole chemistry bit of the oxygenation gab. See, I used to think that the bubbles of course put oxygen in the water.

I was first "placed" a few years back when my marine biology (for credentials ;) ) friend at UCSC told me that those "bubbles" were insignificant, and that my "oxygenation" would come via an excellent surface exchange. Seeing as he had what came to be my first tank up and running for 12 years, and I saw how beautiful his systems were, I accepted his "word" as significantly "experienced."

It was until just recently, however, that I got a much clearer understanding of the whole "bubble theory." ;) Some will remember that awesome debate over at AL.

Now, I'm not a chemist, but the guy explaining, saltshop, really knows his stuff, and although I was on the right line of thinking, he cleared up the process significantly. There's only so much oxygen saturation in the water. Putting "bubbles" from a skimmer will not put more oxygen in the water unless that water has less oxygen than the oxygen contained in the bubbles. Confusing? Don't let it be... It's real simple... More oxygen in the bubbles will transfer into the water, but more oxygen in the tank and those bubbles will actually consume oxygen from the tank.... Now, unless you have a tank which is covered, sealed and otherwise deprived of oxygen, a skimmer will not put more oxygen into the tank. This is because with a good surface agitation, and good exchange at the top of the tank (assuming the tank is well circulated) the tank will have achieved a certain oxygenation level. Now, your skimmer is taking air from the same environment, right? And in some cases, the skimmer (especially the air pump) is located in a stagnant cabinet. This "air" being injected into the skimmer's water column might actually deprive one's overall oxygen levels. This would be rare, and I'm not doing anything other than showing a graduated example. If you are obtaining air from an environment with far more pure oxygen, then sure, you will naturally put more oxygen into the water. But how many of us have our skimmer pumps located remotely from the tank, or have them outside the house, where they might actually bring in fresh oxygen? The bubbles rising actually can produce an exchange, but it will work to the benefit of whichever "unit" is oxygen deficient. That means it will either take, give, or remain balanced. With a good surface exchange, there's just no way that a skimmer can "inject" more oxygen than what is already stable from the same atmospheric source.

Why argue or debate? Get a good probe, put it in your tank, and watch your readings.... See if they change from one day to the next with "injections" of bubbles with the same oxygen content as what is already in the tank. Some of ya might even freak if your numbers dip because your air pump is in a mildewy, stank cabinet (I raise my hand here, because that's what I experienced - yes, it was that bad).

Again, if a person has a tank which is fairly "sealed off" from getting a good surface exchange, then adding bubbles for possible exchange in the sump can be a positive thing. But for those running systems with easy access to the air in the room, and a good surface exchange, bubbles from the same air won't help increase the oxygen level.

I have a problem putting things simply, but I Saltshop was able to put years of chemistry studies behind his explanation. I just try to put it as basically as I can. Hopefully, it makes sense... If not, like I said, get the ORP probe and see for yourself. You simply can't "exchange" oxygen if the levels are the same in both the bubbles and the tank - which is the case in most of our systems where we shoot for a good "surface exchange."

Now, who said skimmerless is a fad??? ;) Au contraire, this hobby was around long before these plastic bongs, ;) and if I might politely interject, the skimmers are the fad to the hobby. They are clearly a device which made its appearance, was heavily relied upon, and now, thanks to a greater appreciation and understanding of how our systems can utilize organics, are indeed making their way to more and more garages... Now, you tell me: Which is the fad? The aquarium, or the skimmer? ;) So many folks have never even owned a skimmer, and really the big question was can we keep corals, and so many other things "in question" as readily healthy without a skimmer. Clearly, it has been shown that we can. Indeed, some folks report much better appearances once they ceased skimming... You can't fault them for what they see to be true. There should be no animosity or despise, nor should there be this so untrue theory that "skimmerless" is best left for the experienced. I've set up too many folks, and seen too much success for this thought to even register as potentially valid. We all agree that beginners should never rush into this hobby without researching, right? Well, that same research that you "require" them to have will carry them over just fine without the need for a skimmer. Proper cycling and establishment does not require our interference. There's no "skill" involved in letting things sit.
And there's far too many folks not using skimmers to consider it a "fad." Again, if anything is the "fad" it is the skimmer itself, which will take it's place in history alongside the wet/dry trickle filter, and cannister filters also once "required" to run a successful saltwater aquarium.... It's not that skimmers don't serve a purpose, it's just that I think folks are coming to see them as a bit over-rated, and actually completely unnecessary. ;)

There are always a few schools of though, as noted. The student of the skimmer-professor will no doubt experience the awe and wonders of the conventional skimmer, and naturally become trained in thought that the skimmer is an "essential" element to the success of the system.... That person (especially after having spent hundreds of dollars on it :D ) will always justify it's need and purpose.....

Then there is the student who I set up... No skimmer, spend your money on lights, concentrate on circulation and a good surface exchange.... Explain how caulerpa works (and by the way, I have never used a refugium, as pictured on my website I love to employ the look of caulerpa right in my main tank). This student will never come to know the skimmer other than an explanation of what it is used for, and why it is not necessary. I will explain precisely what it does, and how that can often be contrary to the nutrient needs of many systems. By example, I would point out the dozens of snake-oils (err, necessary elements) that proclaim their success in "replacing trace elements removed by skimming." :eek: The long and short of it would be I would show him/her my systems, even the most basic of them, and Smitty's systems, Redhawk's system... Ken's systems.... Marc's system..... Some of the local folks... But after a few short months, the "student" would be well on the way to a successful, stable system not contingent upon a life support system... I would of course advise them not to dump anything into the tank "by accident", and show them how easy it is to lay the food out on the table, and then only bring over to the tank what is necessary, so there is no danger of "overfeeding" or justification for nutrient removal with a skimmer. ;) But of course, if they don't have common sense to begin with, I can't help them....

No, skimmerless can't be considered a fad, it has been around longer than the skimmer itself, so by nature of the definition of the word, that would be a false assertation at best. :D

I know it can be confusing to beginners, but every one I've "gotten my hands on" has conclusively agreed after a few months that they are glad they didn't throw their money away. A good cannister filter is always recommended to have on hand to pull out any medications, or to run carbon if one desires. I guess it's like driving a stick..... Those that can, think of it as second-nature, while those that can't regard it with a type of mystical engagement of awe, that people have such awesome "experience" to engage in transportation with such a type of transmission. ;) The only bad thing with that analogy is that you actually do have to learn to drive a stick, while you don't need to "learn" how to go skimmerless.

But hey, I thought we were through debating skimmers??? Dayung..... There's nothing left to "prove", now the issue is whether or not it's "recommended" to beginners... Like I say, everybody I mentor goes skimmerless from the start, and I am not sent new hobbyists from MENSA, or any other supremely intelligent source. Indeed some of the folks I take under my wing would probably be taxed a bit too much if I explained the work involved in setting up, maintaining, checking, adjusting, dumping skimmate, making sure the seal is made, airstones reknewed, etc., etc., No, better for me to just explain the skimmer and wet/dry as more recent fads to a hobby that has been in existance for decades, and how we have advanced so that we don't need to rely on mechanical filtration.... and how it's much easier..... etc. etc.

[David Grigor]

I will swallow a little pride here but.....

Skimmerless is a time bomb. Don't think because you have been skimmerless for 6 months that you have conquered the world. For those that have been skimmerless for years then your doing something right and congradulations !!!!!

All I can say is that if something goes south and your refugium basically gets wiped out then you have no other filtration to fall back on your in big trouble and can happen quickly in just a few weeks !!! I will be the first to admit that.

I went almost an entire year skimmerless and was awful proud of myself. But it takes more work skimmerless IMO than just slapping a super-duper skimmer on a tank and being done with it.

First off tank is 190g acrylic, 66g refugium / sump ( refugium area is 36"L X 20"W X 14"H ). Was skimmerless for almost a full year with refugium as the main filtration. Later added a DIY 5' CC skimmer. Lighting over the refugium is 4 X30W NO daylights. Tank is full of SPS and other corals. Here is a quick pic to show I do not have a lightly stocked tank:
http://adriansreeftank.homestead.com/files/Full_view_20K_2weeks.jpg

I learned a few lessons ( seem quite obvious now ) that I will share. You may or may not agree with but fit my situation.......

1.When you seen any kind of nuisance type algae forming in the refugium get it under control immediately. I had some red fuzzy ball type algae growing in there. It seems easy to remove and for diversity I left it in and never saw it growing in the main tank. Well it didn't happend immediately but months later started popping up in the main tank. Now with Corals that are bushy it gets caught in the middle of the coral starts growing and impossible to get out.

2. Export regularly. Originally thought process was more calerupa the better. If gets too much in refugium it chokes out the lower stuff and dies. My new general rule of thumb NOW is You need to be able to still see the majority of the bottom of the refugium. It it is so packed you can't see it then you probably are getting die off from the bottom up.

3. Don't take drastic measures. My tank is acrylic and really difficult to get behind the rockwork plus I have a back on it so you can't see through. Well unknown to me, There was tons of Halmedia growing from the bottom of the tank all the way up to the top of the 24" high tank in the back. After dicovering this, about 12" high of it was snow white because it got choked out. My first reaction ( STUPID STUPID STUPID ) was to get it out. I pulled out three literally stuffed plastic grocery bags full of it some dead and some still green. Within weeks of this my trouble EXPLODED !!!

4. Keep filter floss between the return pump and the refugium. I know this is contrary to most people objectives that they want the critters to make it up to the main tank. But if this is going to be your main filtration I would forgoe the critters to keep the algae from making it's way to the main tank. For the first 6-8 months I had filter floss in the sump/refugium in the partition just before the return pump. I never saw any algae making its way up to the show tank. Then removed it ( STUPID STUPID STUPID ). Algae slowly began to progress in the main tank. This is when I added a CC skimmer to combat and place filter floss back on.

5. Keep snails and urchins in the sump to help combat unwanted algae.

Current: I completely cleaned out my refugium and placed all the LR that was down there is a holding bin. The challenge is now that my main filtration is basically GONE, I don't have a super-duper skimmer to keep up. I am adding a second DIY 5' CC skimmer tower to my setup. Heavy on the water changes while siphoning out. I have plenty of sources locally to reseed the calerpa to get me throught till spring. At which time I will probably order from Inland ( or where ever that is ) to get more proper algae for in the sump. Also I am going to try the 24/7 lighting in the sump. I have a spare Icecap 660 that I am in the process up putting on the sump 2X110W VHO to replace the 4X30W NOs.

Does this change my philosophy on refugiums ? NO. I did some real stupid things ( Hindsight ) that could have prevented. I have some challenges in the main tank to overcome but I have seen far worse before. No deaths of any SPS that I think was contributed to this problem. Nothing really seems to be on the decline ( except a little pride ). I did have 1 frag die recently but could have been anything and it was small..... Once things are back under control I have some SPS that I will probably frag so that I can clean out the nusiance algae that has gotten in between the branches.....

[Jawfish]

Originally posted by FISH WHISPERER
...
But hey, I thought we were through debating skimmers??? Dayung..... There's nothing left to "prove", now the issue is whether or not it's "recommended" to beginners... Like I say, everybody I mentor goes skimmerless from the start...

Fish Wisperer,

I still have to ask why? Why limit your export mechanism to algae? There is no advantage to having 'less tools'.

I can export algae and use a skimmer too.

What's the down-side? The phytoplankton-removal argument? I contend that I'm better using DTs than relying on what my tiny glass box can produce.

On the O2 benefits, we disagree. I can site Dilbert & Sprung, Tullock, Harker and others with an opposing viewpoint.

Again, other than the sales pitch, all I see is a downside to the skimmerless approach. (Tank effects, I'll agree it's cheaper, but I'm not going to recommend it.)

For ever (X) successful skimmerless tanks I'll bet there is (Y*X) skimmed tanks, and that (Y) is greater than one.

Wether or not it is an old approach, please, no sales pitch, why is it better? I only see it cheaper by the cost of the skimmer and it's power requirements, and more limited in exporting nutrients.

[dragon0121]

To turn the question around, why is skimmerless more limited than a skimmer? Do you know what a skimmer is actually exporting? How about algal growth?

Personally, I don't! :D

[David Grigor]

Jawfish,

I learned the hard way but I agree with you totally. Skimmerless I think is mostly a pride thing. I learned for myself that it is best to have a combination. Limiting your self to just one ? Why not have the best of both worlds ?

I haven't given up on refugiums but from now I will not be caught with my pants down !!! I will be more prepared and will some type of skimmer even if not a super duper skimmer.

There is just too much at risk. ( For me anyway )

[dragon0121]

To turn the question around, why is skimmerless more limited than a skimmer? Do you know what a skimmer is actually exporting? How about algal growth?

Personally, I don't! :D

P.S.
A DSB will be producing zooplankton, which is significantly different than DT's phytoplankton.

[Jawfish]

David,

I'm not disagreeing with a thing you've said. I'm glad you posted. Although I think someone who can run a skimmerless tank has reason for pride, I learned the hard way, long ago, with a crappy counter-current (Amiracle) skimmer on a 75 (almost skimmerless LOL!). It was eventually moderately successful, when I reached the point of pruning a head-of-lettuce sized wad of macroalgae a week.

But if you prune too much, IME, it seems more likely for the macro algae to crash (I don't know why tho.)

I very much believe in refugiums, and use them myself.

Dragon0121,

Skimmerless, IMO, is more limited than using a skimmer, since the only 'recommended' method of nutrient export is pruning algae. In a closed system, if you don't export enough nutrients, it will eventually 'crash'. A skimmer is another, and probably the 'only other' decent method of nutrient export. (I'm not a big fan of mechanical filter/export) The skimmer skum contains dissolved organics, and some contend (under the right conditions, say using kalk) phosphates. There have been skimmate analysis(es) published. In short the skimmer removes 'stuff' that includes bad things, like phosphates. Perhaps things like dissolved organic compounds, or at least part of them, can be fully cycled in a tank with a DSB, but phosphat buildup, for example can be big trouble. Regardless, unlike the ocean, an aquarium is 'nutrient-rich'.

There is nothing that prohibits using a DSB (and plenums still work too), or a refugium with a skimmer. I use both. And yes, a DSB does aid in the production of zooplankton. Yet zooplankton are present, and multiply, in the area of my sump that my skimmer is in. (And it's one huge badass skimmer. :) )

I also believe, (and so does the vast majority of reefers), that a skimmer removes my excess CO2 from my calcium reactor, and GREATLY assists in adding oxygen. The increase in my PH from adding a EuroReef CS8-3 when I replaced my small downdraft skimmer convinced me of that.

Now it is also conventionally accepted that a DSB is a large consumer of oxygen (at least the upper layer). Although I have no proof backing this theory, my contention is that it may aid in the support a greater level of life in my DSB. But again, this is anecdotal hogwash, even if I believe there is more life there or not.

Fish Wisperer,

I hope your realize that I'm just debating you here. I've always like your posts. The ones on this thread were so colorful, interesting, and against my beliefs, I had to post an opposing view. I know I'm no diplomat, and have little time to edit my posts to make them diplomatic, so...please don't take my disagreement personally.

[FISH WHISPERER]

Great question, and it's been debated and even argued that "too much" skimming can be bad, and one would have to "make up" for what is all removed. I personally don't make that argument, because frankly I'm not versed enough on what it all removes. All I can say is that I don't think it can be called a "timebomb"... Were all tanks "timebombs" before somebody slapped together an acrylic tube, forced air into the water and invented the "skimmer"? I think not. ;) Better yet, don't tell Eric Borneman his tanks are "timebombs." ;) I think he would know just a bit better, certainly more than me.
So, WHY do I go skimmerless? Is it a pride thing? Certainly not for me. I have some nice skimmers in my shed, and they would indeed look impressive on my systems... THAT would be pride. I think more so than not, the pride is expressed by folks that have dumped some hundreds of $$ into their tubes and want to feel good about it. So, why? I guess I got frustrated with trying to keep the water level adjusted in some skimmers, and even with overflow containers I experienced plain old tank water overflowing - not because it was pulling gunk, it was quite clear... It was just because the water level rose significantly enough to overflow. So, to me it was a headache... The skimmer was the most "dangerous" thing on my tank; if it overflowed, my sump was pretty much empty and pumps can run dry = not good. ;) When I had one of my tanks in pursuit of a lagoonal look, and the razor caulerpa was nice and lush, the skimmer just stopped working.... So, I didn't even replace the airstones... It pretty much went "skimmerless" all on its own... My pride had no influence. ;) Thank God that "timebomb" of a skimmer is no longer a threat! ;) No more spills, no smells....
And what's the tradeoff? I have beautiful caulerpa in my current show, nicely stuffed to one side. It is razor caulerpa... It doesn't go sexual, and I've never had a problem with it. I've never had a refugium, so I can't comment on those being a "timebomb." I suppose one might take a gander and say I have my "refugium" right in the main tank. That's okay by me. It works.

Everybody was skimmerless before there were skimmers. I must direct your attention back to that fact. I can't see a need for a skimmer, even as a "backup." I have a cannister ready to go if there's ever a need for "emergency filtration." I just don't see a need for a skimmer. If one person could justify an actual need then I of course would be using one. But I'm lucky, because I like razor caulerpa in my tank, I like not having to worry about a timebomb skimmer spitting water inside my cabinet, and I like the way I know there's plenty of nutrients in the water column. I LOVE the way my corals look. I don't worry about the "timebomb" theory, because it's one of those things always warned about, but with absolutely zero conclusive evidence. Just because someone has their tank take a plunge has nothing to do with whether or not they skim.. Plenty of folks with skimmers are crying all the time about their "problems." So, it's not like it's any sort of "end-all."

It's odd, it's those folks with skimmers all the time preaching the need for them, and it's those without who don't understand the hysteria. :eek: Again, I feel it has nothing to do with "experience" because everyone I've started out has done so without a skimmer, and I'm not passing on anything supremely intelligent to them; just the basics. It's simple.... Caulerpa gets to trimming size - trim. It grows back, trim. Repeat steps. There, now how in the world does that require an "expert hand?" Anyways, I'm nobody special, but there's an ocean of folks who have been skimmerless for years... So newbies shouldn't worry. Hopefully, those that want to be "relieved" of another piece of tank equipment will get advice from those that have done so successfully. That makes sense. If I want to know how to do a refugium, I'd ask someone that isn't afraid of them, or doesn't think they are a timebomb. Same thing with skimmerless. You see, there's just too many folks who shrug off the paranoia about "skimmerless" because it's probably as logical as not going outside because one day the sun is going to burn the earth up. :rolleyes: People on both sides of the issue can have disasters in their tanks. People without skimmers will never have a disaster with one.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I know some people think skimmerless is a challenge, and maybe they try it for that reason. I've got a forum full of folks who admit rather sheepishly that it's absolutely the biggest "hype" possible. "Ooooh I'm going to go skimmerless......." Followed by, "My God, I didn't DO anything, and things look great."

Tanks did fine for years without skimmers before they were invented. To say they now "can't" is ludicrous, and absolutely disproven by the mere fact of time and grade. So stop all the nonsense, and if you want to go skimmerless, it's far less of a headache, and just ask someone who is not jolted by the "challenge." You'll find it's a piece of cake. The only pride will be in the fact that you are not soiling your cabinet/carpet! :D If you don't want to go skimmerless...Don't. Isn't that simple? There's plenty of folks who run beautiful tanks with a skimmer.... There's plenty of folks who run beautiful tanks without a skimmer.... So it's not a deciding factor. I suppose if one doesn't like caulerpa, and insists on using caulerpa that goes sexual, or spews milk in the tank, that's a personal option. I always recommend razor caulerpa, and will continue to do so. Remember, folks, just because your tank "crashes" without a skimmer doesn't mean that's the reason. Did you have a UV? Maybe THATS what caused it? Not running a wet dry? Maybe THATS why the tank crashed. Ooops... As you can see, many folks don't run any, and do so successfully. Some folks will have a bout of bad luck... Maybe it could just be poor husbandry, or just blatant neglect? Maybe something died, and the system couldn't handle the load? Maybe maybe maybe...

I would encourage anyone who wants to eliminate the hassle of a skimmer to ask someone who has "been there and done that." Not someone still tethered to what they think is a "must have" for their tank. The worst experience I ever had was years ago with a "skimmed" tank. Because of the cyano crash, I didn't "blame" the skimmer. That wasn't the "reason." So reasoning, I find it difficult to believe that a tank would crash and not having a skimmer would be to "blame." If a tank crashes that bad, I doubt seriously a skimmer would be a cure. Remember, the skimmer is there to provide help AFTER the screw-up. ;) Having caulerpa and a DSB and a well-balanced ecosystem seems for many folks to prevent there being a screw-up unless there's man-made involvement in said screw up. I can assure folks that Martin Moes tanks were hardly time-bombs..... And they were hardly skimmed. Eric Borneman? I would find myself quite arrogant to tell such an experienced biologist that his tanks are "time bombs." Cute "warning", but please don't think that your bad experiences will hold true for everyone else. (Not directed at Dragon, but the person who's tank crashed, and therefore thinks that everyone elses will follow suit. ;) )

Saying skimmerless is a "timebomb" equates (in my mind, anyway) the same thing as saying that not having a wet/dry will create a "timebomb." Times advance, technology advances, and most importantly knowledge and experience advance. Bottom line, if you think a diver with bubbles will help your tank, go for it. If your "tool" of choice is a skimmer, best of luck to you, that's what we all want, is for everyone to be successful. But if someone opts for a more natural filtration system, please don't slam 'em for it, or give dire warnings with absolutely zero substantiation other than your own bad luck. You can't argue with the fact that so many folks are successfully skimmerless, and again, pride has nothin to do with it... More likely is the desire to streamline the system, or perhaps make it more stable and self-reliant. That's the case with me, anyway.... For me, it's all about having the most maintenance-friendly system. I guess I was never up to the challenge of keeping a skimmer tuned, and water off the cabinet/carpet. Now, does that mean that everybody else has a timebomb just because I screwed up? Nah. That was just a personal failure, and I got over it.... Certainly I can guarantee that it will never happen again. :)

[FISH WHISPERER]

Hi Jawfish -
Not to worry, I understand the debate. Certainly nothing personal is intended, nor taken. I certainly think everyone should be exposed to all opinions regarding skimming/not skimming. That's what a good thread like this does. I would be quite shallow to take insult at discussion of practice. Certainly skimmers do exactly what they are intended to. I do not challenge their effectiveness in doing so. I just hated the darn things and am glad mine stopped working and enlightened me as to the benefits of macroalgae. Even more lucky for me, is that I LOVE the lush razor caulerpa in my tank, so it all works out well for me, my grazers, and the nutrient load. I'll definitely sound a warning horn if my sandbed starts turning majorally black! ;) Cheers, and great discussion, that presents a pretty fair support of both sides of opinion.
Regards! :)

[Mr.4000]

I have been skimmerless since i started my tank over a year ago and everthing is still doing great.I get many e-mails and comments on how i need a skimmer and in time my tank will crash.Well all i can say is read FISH WHISPERERS post, i couldn't say it any better myself, thanks FISH WHISPERER!!!!!!!

[Vins Fins]

ok I have to jump in here, there is no way I could run my set up with out a skimmer unless I did massive water changes, I have a 180 gal tank loaded with sps, leathers and lps corals. I also have 4 lrg angel fish , 1 lrg tang, anthias, clowns , and a couple other small fish. my sump is a 200 gal sump/pond with a aerofoamer 830 skimmer. every two weeks I fill the pond up with macro algae.
I have tried turning down the skimmer, but in doing so i start getting red slime growing in the main tank, as soon as I turn the skimmer back up the slime is gone in about 3 to 4 days, the pond also has a 12" deep sand bed that is over 4' long and more than 2' wide. I feed my angel a lot , 5 times a day.
The point i'm trying to make is first decide what type of reef you want, i like large expensive fish around my reef, especially the destructive ones:D After you decide your fish load then you can decide wether or not you need a skimmer. skimmerless could be done in my system, but i'm to lazy to do that many water changes. Most people start off saying I just want a reef and don't care about many fish, but over time you will go into your favorite fish store and pick up just one more fish, cause you know theirs always room for just one more special fish :D so get the skimmer for back up and use it if you need it or turn it off if you think you can live with out it, but it's always their for backup

[Jawfish]

Fish Wisperer,

I did check your web site link. Come now, fess up. If those are pictures of your tank, it would explain a lot. I see a FOWLR full of macroalgae, not a reef. Let alone an SPS reef.

Mr. 4000,

I've seen your site, and it does appear to be a reef. The scale of your effort is impressive. I'm aware of your ecosystem approach. Pruning macroalgae is your export mechanism. More power to you if you can keep it going as your tank matures. If you can continue to export large quantities of macroalgae, you very well may succeed.

For a tank your size, I can't imagine the skimmer you'd require, the cost of the electricty to run the pump for the skimmer. I'd suspect that dictated your approach.

You're still limited in your export mechanisms. And a large tank is easier than a small tank. At a year, your tank is barely mature. As it matures, I fear you have few options. You're bound to sink or swim on a grand scale.

On a side note, I'd love to have a tank that size, and pump in water directly from the ocean. (I'm not implying that you do, just wish I could.) In that case, I don't think I'd want a skimmer either!

My bet is that you pull one HUGE, and I do mean HUGE wad of macroalgae from that tank now. On a regular basis. What was it, two 200 gal macroalgae tanks?




In short, isn't the reason you two have had some success is that you're pulling massive clumps of macroalgae on a regular basis? You have an effective, single, export mechanism. I still see this as a limit.

Say you don't have two 200 gal refugiums (which an ecosystem sure seems like), or a tank as overgrown with macroalgae as the ones on Fish Wisperers web page. Would this be a recommended approach? Say you had an SPS tank with a small (or no) refugium. I think you would have to consider an additional export mechanism.

Note David Grigors tank, very much like my own. Vins Fins tank, and IronReef's are similar to my understanding. If we don't want our display tank overgrown with macroalgae, and don't want 200 gallon refugiums, will skimmerless work. My take is, not enough to export. (And I prune a lot of macro from my refugium regularly. )

In terms of algae export as a sole export, isn't it still unproven? Fish Wisperer talked of the before-protien-skimmer days. Come now, in those days success was limited. Very Limited. 10 years ago, folks though Acropora was impossible.

If macroalgae export as the sole export mechanism is such a great approach, why do ATS systems (ala Dr. Adey) do so poorly with SPS?

Again, I'd like to pose the question: Do you think a higher % of skimmerless systems succeed than systems with skimmers?

From my years on the boards, it's very much the opposite.

Show me the skimmerless SPS tanks!

[Maximus]

It's pretty obvious you havent seen Sue Truett's tank. She is skimmerless and has a awsome sps tank. I too am skimmerless, and the frags i have are doin great.

[David Grigor]

Yes, of course I made mistakes. I was candid and surely admit to it.

From my experience my philosophy has changed a bit to account for my mistakes ( and probably won't be the last ). I kind of think of it like I do with computers having redundant CPUs, having multiple circuits for your tank etc. Why not both. Both have advantages and can back up each other to account for mishaps..........

[Ironreef]

Fwiw Sue T skimmerles tank is new. Eric B doesn't use his skimmer but he keeps on on his tank and uses it occationally of feels better on having it. Ask Him. I've seen eco systems crash after a year. When the caulerpa went sexual. Not saying the tanks would have crashed anyway.But the best skimmerless tanks that house corals have nice refugiums not just a tank full of caulerpa IMO doesn't look good if trying a reef. Caulerpa mixed with corals. But I've seen some ecosystem tanks or tanks with caulerpa filters that are years old but they still use carbon look nice. But i still stand I use alot of caulerpa it filters my tank =refugium, grows mass pods mass sponges ect. ect... i use heavy skimming also. I feed @4 cubes aday. I only have 2 med-large fish but they eat most before it hits the sand. My ls can probally eat all 4 cubes on it's own. My point is in a healthy tank you will have alot of critters. I have 3 types of snails breeding in my tank. With heavy skimming. i dunno what it takes out but it smells like a sewer. it doesn't take out calcuim,alk or ph so whatever else it takes out I'm not concerned. One thing about this post it's no big deal on going skimmerless but the poster had valvonia problem if you look at the post a few weeks back. Not saying a skimmer would cure it alot of ppl use skimmers and still get it. Just it comes from excess= a skimer may have helpd. =the caulerpa didn't

[NaH2Ofreak]

Fish Whisperer.........what kind of skimmers do you have laying around that you dont use anymore?????? I need a new one. Seriously.....send (dennis4679@yahoo.com) me an email!


Thankyou,
Dennis

[Jawfish]

Sue T.'s 180 is skimmerless? I might eat some crow here. It's the nicest SPS tank I've seen (pics), since her 120. LOL! I thought she ran a skimmer, I was aware of the ecosystem.

OK scratch that arguement for now. Maybe the ATS/SPS analogy was crap. ;)

I'm still not buying the ecosystem bioballs, (or the miracle garden dirt), and you'll only remove my skimmer prying it from my cold dead hands! :)

[rrrrob]

I never had a skimmer running in my tanks for the first 15 years of my experience....ran with undergravel filters with monthly water changes. Did great, although I could never keep my nitrates low (I was told this was due to the waste trapped in the gravel, even though I vacuumed when doing water changes). Recently I bought my first skimmer because I thought it would improve the overall water quality and help keep the nitrates down. My current theory is that skimmers are good and useful to those of us still using crushed coral substrate and undergravel filters, although not completely necessary. Perhaps with a sandy substrate and outside filter, skimmers aren't needed at all....I am thinking the usefulness/uselessness depends on your system...

[ShipMate]

I am surprised nobody mentioned Steve Tyree's newer books on skimmerless reef aquaria research. A MUST read for skimmerless fans and very interesting anyhow.

"The Environmental Gradient,
Cryptic Sponge and Sea Squirt Filtration Models" Vol 1 CMAT
by Steve Tyree

http://www.dynamicecomorphology.com/depublish.htm

[FISH WHISPERER]

Come now, Jawfish, you don't think I'd be throwing a flat ball, do ya? Pics on my website show a heavily stocked tank, and I've left them there for all that say a skimmerless "can't have a heavy bioload...." Indeed, someone just mentioned something about "needing" a skimmer because they like fish.... I, too, like fish, and that's one system with about as heavy a bioload as one could conscientiously have with or without a skimmer. You of course are intelligent enough ;) to know that corals wouldn't fare thee well in a tank with a Picasso trigger, clown trigger, longhorn cow, choc. chip star, AND a Red-Sea slate urchin. The tang? He'd be okay.... Indeed, the tang is now in a different tank, a 100g custom 5-sided corner, with plenty of corals. I wouldn't be talking "skimmerless reef" if I didn't have the experience behind it. Fortunately, I can speak to both heavily-stocked skimmerless, and full-reef skimmerless. MY pictures of the reef tank wouldn't be much different of many beautiful pics, but if you "need" confirmation that I do indeed have a full-reef skimmerless, drop me an email and I'll send you some pics. Or maybe I'll say if ya don't believe me, you're more than welcome to come over and check it out in person, because a picture could come from anywhere, no? Still better, if ya think I might be a fraud, some folks that made the trip down to Jeff's Exotics with me will gladly whisper in yer ear that it might be better to not insinuate that I might be misleading. At least, I hope I haven't been misleading... I DO have a wide range of corals, but it's not about proving that something "awesome" has been accomplished. Indeed, it's "just another reef tank." Tantamount to any argument, it's not about "Fish Whisperer's" reef tank, it's the fact that everytime someone says something "negative" or "forwarning" about skimmerless reefs, there are plenty of folks out here who shake their heads in wonderment.
I don't want anybody reading this to think that anything out of the norm is being accomplished with skimmerless tanks... Indeed, some of us think it is better to not have a skimmer, and indeed it is clearly easier to not have one other piece of equipment that could fail/flood. I think skimmers are best left to those with enough experience and plumbing/pressure knowledge to deal with them. :D

As always, my systems are always welcome to help me meet new friends from the boards. The general routine is, we meet at a local fish store, and my wife whispers in my ear if she thinks the person is a total nut. I mean, our home is open, but not to anybody weirder than me!!! That would be dangerous! :D Then we usually come over, chat fish, and have one of my awesome BBQs. Tankin's great, and there are many ways to do things. I don't think a skimmer allows any sort of advantage and I think that's key here. Let's all remember that we shouldn't talk too knowingly about what is good/bad/right/wrong unless we feel we have sufficient experience in doing whatever it is we are professing about. ;) Because just when one person is saying what can/can't be done, there is another person laughing at the suggestion that they are doing the "impossible." My tanks are by no means any sort of measure, nor do I have any special skill or "knowledge." Again, they are basically designed for ease of maintenance, success, and prevention of mechanical intervention/failures. ;) Indeed, there's not possibly an easier way to keep a reef/fish tank... I like beginners to hear that side of the coin, and like I've said, everyone I've helped start out in the hobby has been greener than caulerpa, but they've had no problems "grasping" this notion that some people think requires some type of "experience or in-depth knowledge." So, by virtue of their success, it debunks any false claims that "skimmerless" should only be tried by those with experience. Indeed, I believe the next phase of reefkeeping with macroalgae has simplified the hobby even further. Certainly, some folks with mondo investment bongs will still cling to an imagined justification that their tanks would "die" without them, but too many people have jumped from this particular floor successfully for anybody still inside the building to say it's a "fatal leap." :) Macroalgae = skimmer. One is free, the other is not. Both require maintenance, but if you don't have the desire for any maintenance, then no doubt the hobby experience will be short-lived. And remember, it's best to be careful about saying what can/can't be done, because remember, there's usually always going to be someone there who proves you wrong by actual experience/tangible proof , and that's rather hard to argue... In fact, success can't be argued. And just because someone has failed after a few months of skimmerless does not mean that everyone else will do the same.... Indeed, by virtue of the many years of proven skimmerless reefing, it is fair to say that those systems did NOT fail because there was no skimmer.... What say, in all my redundancy ;) , have I failed to oft repeat the fact that if a skimmer is "saving" your tank from crashing, you have a much greater problem.... Something is making it crash, eh? No tank crash, no need for a skimmer... Simplicity is blissful. And no, not having a skimmer will not make a tank "crash." You can't make any sort of factual statement that has been conclusively proven to the contrary and not be wrong. And I do hate saying anybody is wrong, so I'll just plop the numbers out there and ya'll can do your own math and draw your own conclusions. ;)

I suppose I'll get around to a list of all my corals, but that would prove nothing "new and exciting" to the many folks that are doing just the same thing. To us, it's not "amazing", it's just easy, simple, and quite enjoyable. I have, and will continue to encourage all new hobbyists to explore all the tools and methods, and let them choose which "system" they would find most "user-friendly." So far, all have ix-nayed the concept of skimming. Seeing my tanks, and those of others, they can clearly see that beautiful reef tanks can be had without the use of a skimmer... That shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings. ;)

[cagri]

I went skimmerless on my 40 gallon reef tank 7 monyhs ago because of a failed skimmer. I only have soft corals in my tank and I noticed a significant improvements in growth after I went skimmerless. I also started feeding less(once every other day) and doing less water changes. My reef keeps getting better and better everyday. I also have minimal caulerpa only growing on two of the rocks. I am puring it once a month. I am all for all natural approach. It is great :)

I have just finished cycling my new 130 gal reef(41 days old), with 80 % cured and 20 % uncured and 3 pieces of cocktail shrimp as FW recomended. Cycling went great, the tank cyvled in 24 days. This one is skimmerless all the way from the beginning, I am fighting some brown and red slime in my sump, but I am noticing red slime is starting to go away already :) My yellow tang and 2 clowns are doing great. I wish more people would realize how simple and easy it really is.

By the way, thanks FW for all your help and information.

[rrrrob]

Weren't we ALL pretty much running "skimmerless" prior to the invention of the protein skimmer? When I started out, there WERE NO skimmers....I just purchased one recently to improve the water quality in my tank....I think going back to "skimmerless" is a step backwards, not forwards....

[AHAB]

Howdy,
Been skimmerless for approximately 4 1/2 years.

The tank is running great coral growth and color is great.

No complaints...I have seen very healthy skimmed tanks as well.

These are just two methods of many, we will probably see other filtration methods as time goes by.

I am happy with the health of the tank, I would do it again.

I do also have a 37 skimmed tank and a skimmerless 10 gallon nanno tank as well.
All are healthy!

If you know what you are doing and keep track of the health of the inhabitants all will be well!

Good husbandry is the key no matter what filtration method you use.
Jim T.

[gregt]

I agree with the "There is no advantage to having 'less tools'" point of view, and I do run a skimmer on my tank.

However, from my experience, most people are running skimmerless tanks, despite the piece of Acrylicrap they may have attached to the tank. Most skimmers don't do squat from what i've seen.

And to flip flop yet again, I'll pull my Euro-reef off my tank the day it stops producing very nasty output despite my refugium.

[Stoli]

I've been skimmerless for about four months now on my 90 Gallon Reef with a Tidepool 2 sump. Pulled out the biowheel of course. All readings (Ammo, Nitrite, Nitrate) are at 0. I mentioned this to my LFS (seems quite knowledgeable), and he commented on possible contaminants for which you cannot test. (ie. terpenes, undissolved organics, etc.). Two things.
1. I use carbon in the sump and wonder if that will cut down on these 'other contaminants'.
2. Although everything seems great right now, am I asking for trouble down the line?
I know this is getting to be an old topic but I feel that those operating skimmerless are, in some ways, on the cutting edge of the hobby. BTW, I also use a DSB with a Plenum and suspect that has something to do with success so far. Then again, maybe the stars are just aligned in my favor at the present time.

[highlands]

I ran a variety of tanks skimmerless for about ten years just fine. I also had one with a skimmer and that was just fine. More recently I tore down and rebuilt one tank, adding a in tank sump and in sump skimmer (simple cocurrent of PVC) which pulls rich dark gunk when run. When I stopped it from running for a month the nutrient levels went up some but dropped again when I ran it again as I do now.

My tanks all have low fish loads, lots of live rock, deep sand beds and I don't feed heavily so the nutrient load isn't very high.

All that said, I would suggest skimmers for people who want more of a sure thing. The skimmer makes the job of maintaining the tank easier. A gentle air driven skimmer may be all that is necessary and is more gentle on the plankton as well as stripping less of the trace elements.

YMMV.

[Flatlander]

[i]

However, from my experience, most people are running skimmerless tanks, despite the piece of Acrylicrap they may have attached to the tank. [/B]

Heh,heh. A good old quote from Greg. :lol:

[afishyonados]

Monty, I believe Jawfish nailed it on the head. Don't lessen the value of a skimmer by considering its function only to remove organics. It could also remove metals and funk your water purifier could be missing.
On many tanks, I run skimmers, but I retard thier efficiency (lower the water level in the reaction chamber). This prevents "overskimming" with all of the benefits Jawfish exposed his jugular about.

Why is everyone so afraid of a cycling tank of live rock? Seriously. Why?

Fishteacher73, why does it have to be the Dark Side? Evil spelled backwards is live, and we all want to do that!

[loosbrew]

I hat ethis arguement, time and time again for the past 10 year sI have been involved in this crap ... I've seen tanks look incredible with or without skimmers. Its a tool, if you choose to use it is up to you. Just understand what it does, and take it from there. I personally like a nutrient richer environment, I have had success with it. My LTA and all ofmy corals grow fast enough, plus I'm not loking to break any world records on growth. That being said, I do run a skimmer for aeration in my current 55 gal reef (an old paragon homemade jobby), but I also have DSB in both the 29g sump and the main tank. The sump is at about 6-7" and the main tank about 4 of SD. Do I have algea..yes...do I care...no...I'm just looking to keep my animals happy, and so far I still own my very first coral ever purchased, a sarco, 11 years ago at ace pet shop in flushing NY. Still have my first anemone, LTA for about ten years along with the 10 yo tomatoe clown...etc etc...I have propagted many corals in my day and gave them all to friends, including favites and heck, my old FOWDSB spawned some wierd jelly fish looking things one year a few years after I put in a bunch of RI beach sand from ft wetherul.

Skimmers are optional, but a very useful tool nonetheless.

Luis

[HippieSmell]

Wow, way to resurrect a dinosaur highlands. I'm going skimmerless, and I don't bring it up very often because I'm tired of getting flamed for it. It depends on what you want to keep. I personally want to keep a lot of filter feeders, so the extra organics will help.

[Rikko]

I run a 65 with a Prizm.. I figure that's about as close to skimmerless as you can get.

[Silencer]

Pardon me if i stir things up here. This kind of thread scares me as bad advice.

Why? I think the whole 'skimmerless' fad is a great feel-good spin on nutrient export.

So correct me where I'm wrong here, but I believe I'm right on target. (Go figure )

'Skimmerless' is merely referring to a system in which no skimmer is used for nutrient export. My unsubstantiated opinion is that the only really successful long term skimmerless reef systems esentially export excess nutrients by pruning/removing macroalgae. (And an 'Ecosystem' or 'ATS' is essentially only that.)

Is there any proof, and I do mean an impartial non-anecdotal analysis, that the mere elimination of a skimmer HELPS anything (other than infauna, which a refugium can provide, and is perhaps more focused on providing better.)

I submit, for your discussion, that the skimmerless fad is nothing but folks embracing the fact that they have limited their nutrient export tools, and that the ones that fail, are ones in which their macroalgae pruning is insufficient to keep up with their export needs.

I'm interested in why we should encourage folks to limit the tools in their arsenal. All those critters in the sand bed's need Oxygen too. Are we forgetting a skimmer's role in adding Oxygen to water? Or how it can remove excess CO2 from a Calcium Reactor, or help keep PH higher?

I'm all for the natural approach. We should include it in our strategy. But these glass boxes of water are a long way from being oceans. Think of skimmers simulating the froth of the waves.

Just my opinion. Now, I'll don my Kevlar suit.

Skimmerless is hardly a fad. As has already been pointed out, if anything, skimmers are the fad. It's only a matter of time before some new filtration system is invented and everybody switches over to that. As far as I'm concerned skimmers are generally good. I do feel there is a very important point to consider about a skimmerless system however. What's the harm in trying without one?

Think about it, seriously. You can always add a skimmer at a later date if and when you need one. What's the harm in trying without one? It has already been proven that you can run a successful reef tank without a skimmer so obviously it can be done, and it certainly doesn't cost anything to try. There isn't really even any risk involved either. As long as you properly plan and maintain your tank you will not have any sudden shifts in the health of your tank so there will be plenty of time to buy one if you absolutely need to. You have much to gain and nothing to lose by trying so why not?

That's how I'm doing my tank. It will be a 180g reef with a 125g refugium. I will not be starting with a skimmer or any filtration other than live rock, sand and macro algae in the fuge. If things work out than great, I've saved myself hundreds of dollars and kept my tank simple and straightforward. If things become difficult to maintain and the health of the tank is heading downhill I will simply add the skimmer that so many people recommend. It won't hurt me to try so I'll give it a shot and see how it works out.

[smallaussiereef]

Imo i think a tank can be run either way successfully just to show you how simple it can be i have posted and old pic of my TV tank this pic was taken when tank was about 4-5months old it is now over a year old with no problems what so ever......... as for filtration it uses a plenum with an air uplift tube and untill recently had 2 tiny 300lph powerheads now has one 300 and one 600 due to pump failure...... the tank is approx 20 g........ i will try to find time to take a curent pic and post.....

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/64967tanks_shot_for_rc2.jpg

[tritontr21]

I un hooked my skimmer after a fight with red algae and hair algae and my tank looks wonderfull and all creatures are doing fine. im going to continue to run with out it for a while and see what happens. less heat with the extra pump not running as well.

[Northside Reef]

well lets see some pictures of these skimmerless reefs.

[Mr.Yuk]

Have any of you successfully [long-term] kept a RBTA in a skimmerless aquarium setup?

I only ask because I have a thriving 75G ecosystem for 3 years, but for some reason the RBTAs dont do well.

[xcreonx]

My 180g doesn't have a skimmer. It's been up for 2 years and no issues. I have a big fuge with lots of macros and I do 40 gallon waterchanges every month or so. My bioload is small and I feed sparingly.
<img src="http://goodmorningheartache.com/newtank/tank34.jpg">
I do have a few corals that seem to like the more nutrient-rich water. Also i have some non-photosynthetic corals and nverts that are doing very well.

Just a side note, I do have some SPS corals that grow like there's no tomorrow.

So skimmerless can be done if you put the time in other areas like water changes and monitoring your fishload / feeding.

[Cody Ray]

I decided to bump this back up, it deserves to be discussed again.

[HippieSmell]

This is the thread that will not die. That being said, my new tank has a big beckett on it. My old skimmerless 58 gallon (skimmerless, then a seaclone, so essentially skimmerless the whole time) was doing great for a year. It did begin developing a red flatworm problem in the fuge that was probably due to lack of inadequate flow. It had a bunch of worms, sponges, tunicates, and some mollusks in the rock (barnacles I was told), and everything was growing really well. However, my sand was disgusting and I didn't keep up with water changes, so I was probably not far away from some major problems. All in all, I think my new 120 with a big skimmer and high flow is a more stable system (even though my barnacles died from lack of food I'm assuming).