Skimmerless Systems?

[ChrisP]

Does anyone have any thoughts about Eric Borneman's recommendations for for heavy reef feeding and NOT using a skimmer?

[charlesr1958]

Am all for it IF and only if some of the other habitats that make up the word "reef" are included as part of an overall system. Single tanks and all their inherant problems almost demand the use of a skimmer while also supporting and encouraging a large industry based on trying to solve all of those inherant problems.
I do not use a skimmer, yet have one standing by for emergency use and instead much prefer to have at least two of the other four habitats that make fringing coral reefs possible in use, which by the way allows me to feel more honest about saying that I have a "reef" aquarium while greatly increasing my own enjoyment of watching it all in action while doing very little as far as maintenance. A lighting system and some pumps is all that is needed, if....set up properly. Oh, and I feed my system twice a day, once for the daytime feeders (fish and some coral species) and at night for the nocturnal feeders (most coral species and a host of other inverts)
Is there something specific that worries you or are not in agreement with?

Chuck

[ChrisP]

No, chuck, there's nothing that worries me about it - I've read Eric Borneman's philosophy about it on another forum and it's difficult to take issue with his logic or his expertise. I just thought it might be interesting to hear other hobbyists' thoughts. Thanks for providing yours. Skimmers (the bigger the better) still seem to be regarded but most as being indispensible to reef-keeping.

[Reefland]

Once you get a wiff of the disgust that a good skimmer pulls I don't see whyanyone could refute their benefit.

[Ninong]

Skimmers are great. You can run a reef tank system without one provided you are truly dedicated and willing to do what it takes. Are you talking about Eric's multi-tank system?

Even if you were to set up an elaborate multi-tank system with more water volume in the satellite tanks than in the main display tank, it would still be nice to have a skimmer hooked up just in case.

If you wanted to be really creative, you could set up a nice display reef aquarium of say 500 gallons and then have a really large equipment room behind it. In that room you would have perhaps two or three different refugia hooked up to the system. One refugium could have nothing but chaetomorpha that you harvest twice a month. Another refugium could have a DSB planted with sea grass and yet another refugium could have a DSB, mangroves, and a small amount of live rock. And you could have a skylight in the roof to keep the mangroves and sea grass happy. You would also want a phytoplankton reactor and a zooplankton reactor -- one to grow phyto and the other to breed rotifers. You might also add a brine shrimp breeder, too. Believe it or not, there are a few setups like this in private homes.

[ChrisP]

Once you get a wiff of the disgust that a good skimmer pulls I don't see whyanyone could refute their benefit.

That's what I had always thought, but Borneman believes there are valuable food sources in the skimmate. He's currently analyzing skimmate - in case you have any extra! It should be interesting to see what he discovers.

[ChrisP]

"Are you talking about Eric's multi-tank system?"

Ninong - Eric is advocating for skimmerless systems in many circumstances. For example, when I emailed him about my AP24 which only has carbon and a filter pad (no skimmer of course) he suggested that I should even remove the filter pad.

[Ninong]

Eric is advocating for skimmerless systems in many circumstances. For example, when I emailed him about my AP24 which only has carbon and a filter pad (no skimmer of course) he suggested that I should even remove the filter pad.

Removing the filter pad, or any mechanical filtration of any sort, just keeps more of the natural food in the system.

There is nothing wrong with running a completely natural system if that's the way you want to go. Just make sure you understand the tradeoffs first.

Eric's good friend, Ron Shimek, used to think that skimmers were worthless except for "aeration" of the water but he changed his mind after doing a skimmate analysis. Eric is familiar with that study.

Ron's skimmate analysis study from 2002:

Prior to doing this study, I was quite convinced that none of the export methodologies that were available to aquarists were very good. I was surprised to find that that is definitely not the case with regard to many of the elements needing export. Foam fractionation, coupled with organism export, decidedly provides ways to remove many elements and to keep them from accumulating, given a normal feeding regime.

Again, an ideal natural system would incorporate virtually all natural filtration methods. That means no mechanical filtration of any kind, no skimmer, no UV, no ozone, etc. It would include deep sandbeds and means for exporting nutrients by regular harvesting of macroalgae or sea grasses. It's not very difficult to manage a 180-gal tank naturally without a skimmer if you have an attached 300-gal refugium, which is what some people actually do.

[ChrisP]

Ninong,
You mention the "trade-offs" in running a skimmerless sytem. I'm still a bit ignorant about exactly what the trade-offs are. If you run a skimmerless system without even mechanical filtration (but with lots of carbon as suggested by Eric) and feed daily and heavily, wouldn't you need a ton of flora and fauna to digest and harmlessly export all that organic load from the food? If so, why would Eric even suggest to me (knowing that I have no skimmer, fuge, macroalgae, and just some zoos and rics) that I shouldn't even use mechanical filtration. As you can tell, I only have a VERY basic understanding of the biology involved.

[Ninong]

Why should you use mechanical filtration in the first place? There is no need to use mechanical filtration no matter what the size of the aquarium. Granted some people employ mechanical filtration but it's certainly something that is not required, especially on a continuous basis. The live rock and sand bed can handle the filtration without the need for any mechanical filtration.

"...wouldn't you need a ton of flora and fauna to digest and harmlessly export all that organic load from the food?" I'm not sure I follow you on this question. Nothing the flora and fauna digest is exported from the system unless it is removed by skimming or some other means, or unless the flora and fauna themselves are removed from the system.

Flora, in the form of macroalgae, can be exported by harvesting or pruning. That mass is actually exported from the system. So whatever nutrients were tied up in the macroalgae that is removed is exported from the system.

Anything the inhabitants of the aquarium consume is not exported from the system unless it is exported by skimming or some other means. To export means to physically remove from the system. Any food that fish eat, for example, is not exported from the system. Perhaps as much as 10% of it is converted to energy and tissue but the rest is passed as waste which is then consumed by other inhabitants of the tank through several successive levels. But none of it is exported unless you remove a dead fish or remove some algae.

You can operate a 24-gal nano tank without a skimmer and you can certainly operate it without mechanical filtration of any sort. A skimmer helps but you can get by without one. You would be amazed at what you can do with small aquariums and frequent water changes. In fact, some smaller nano-tanks are managed entirely with frequent water changes.

The comment about "trade-offs" in running a reef tank without a skimmer (which applies more to larger tanks) is that you are giving up the very real benefits to be had with a skimmer. Please read Dr. Shimek's article for a more detailed explanation.

The benefits of running a completely natural system without a skimmer are that you will preserve more of the natural interactions and preserve a more natural food web in your system. Here I'm talking about all the larvae produced by the various polychaetes, microcrustaceans, molluscs, corals, etc.

Most people who operate average sized reef tanks consider a good protein skimmer a valuable tool for maintaining good water quality. It's certainly possible to get by without one, especially if you are willing to spend a fortune on extra tanks to support the main display tank. I remember seeing a very, very nice 180-gal reef tank on the boards several years ago that was supported by an amazing series of connected tanks. The guy lives in Southern California and he even had a nice website but it has been down for years now. Attached to his 180-gal reef tank was a sea grass aquarium with a 10-12" aragonite sandbed inhabited by nothing but grass eels. This tank was at least as large as the reef tank. It was part of the system. He also had a 300-gal refugium loaded with more live sand, live rock and mangroves hooked up. Then there was his frag tank that was hooked up. His QT tank was separate, of course, but the total water volume of his entire system was several hundred gallons even though the reef tank itself was only 180 gallons.

There's another guy who has a refugium that is several hundred gallons that he put on a heavy-duty platform he built for it in the equipment room. Most people use really large stock tanks (as in cattle) for this purpose because they are sturdy and cheap. This guy had a DSB plus live rock, mangroves, etc., in his really, really large refugium.

There are very few reef tanks above a certain size that are operated without a protein skimmer. Yes, it can be done. Is it being done, not so much. I don't believe I remember a single Tank of the Month on Reef Central that did not have a skimmer unless it was one of their nano-tank winners.

[ChrisP]

Thanks once again, Ninong. I'm beginning to understand. I definitely understand that I misused the term "export" in my post. I had been under the impression that smaller systems like mine would be much more vulnerable to evils such as high nitrates, related to feeding/waste, than large systems and so would have a greater need for a skimmer.

Please tell me if the following statement is correct: With small systems like mine, water changes can substitute for skimming since (as compared with a large system) a much larger percentage of water can be easily changed, thus manually "exporting" waste, mostly in the form of disolved nitrates, detritus, etc.
Chris

[Ninong]

I had been under the impression that smaller systems like mine would be much more vulnerable to evils such as high nitrates, related to feeding/waste, than large systems and so would have a greater need for a skimmer.

Smaller tanks like yours are more susceptible to rapid water temperature fluctuation and rapid changes in water parameters mainly due to the relatively small volume of water involved. Everything happens quicker.

Please tell me if the following statement is correct: With small systems like mine, water changes can substitute for skimming since (as compared with a large system) a much larger percentage of water can be easily changed, thus manually "exporting" waste, mostly in the form of disolved nitrates, detritus, etc.

Yes, that is correct. Some people with really small nano tanks (those little bitty 7-gal things) will change one-third of the water every week.