A really interesting and fantastic thread on skimming and skimmate

[nano-paul]

Foam Fractionation

A method of chemical filtration that has been available for decades but only recently has become popular is foam fractionation (protein skimming). A foam fractionator consists of a column through which a very fine mixture of air and water is pumped. If you have spent any time along an ocean shore, you may have noticed varying amounts of foam. This foam is produced by the action of the waves, which combines air, water and certain polar organics to form a stable foam. A foam fractionator works in a similar manner. If the foam is collected, proteins and other organics can removed from the water before they are mineralized into nitrogen-containing compounds and other toxins. As a result, the quality of the tank water is improved and is easier to maintain.

 

Of the various chemical filtration methods available, only foam fractionation completely removes most organics before they begin to break down (Moe, 1989). The list of substances removed by fractionation includes amino acids, proteins, metals such as copper and zinc complexed with the proteins, fats, carbohydrates, phosphate, iodine, fatty acids and phenols. A more detailed discussion of foam fractionators, including their operation and construction, will appear in a future issue of AFI.

 

In my opinion, a foam fractionator is an indispensable piece of equipment for a marine aquarium, particularly in a reef system. Foam fractionators have been used in European aquariums for years and are often the sole form of filtration in these tanks. This level of filtration, however, cannot be achieved with the smaller, inside-the-tank fractionators that have been commonly sold for years in North America. What is required are larger, external models, which are only now becoming more common in North America. These units have traditionally been imported from Europe, but a number of companies in North America have introduced a variety of models.

 

Its called google people.

 

A skimmer won't crash a normal system set up with one initially but adding anything new to an existing system needs to be done with caution.

I disagree from personal experience. I had 2 -75g tanks that we skimmerless and I thought they were doing wonderfully. That was until I bought skimmers for them. I turned them on and adjusted them correctly and it made a huge difference in my overall water quality.

[SPS20]

A skimmer won't crash a normal system set up with one initially but adding anything new to an existing system needs to be done with caution.

 

I definitely see what you are saying with the air being close to the reef and getting churned into the reef itself but that is more of an argument for good aeration than anything else. The churning is not causing matter to be lifted out of the reef. The currents may be doing that but only gasses can escape through the air. There is no doubt that currents sweep through quickly and both import and export items. But to think a skimmer does this export is all opinion and a skimmer is honestly not replicating any form of nature. I agree that in reality nothing in our tank replicates nature... we are creating very very artificial environments and I think it is a freak accident to begin with that our livestock survives for a day

 

When I first got into the hobby skimmers were all the rage. The first question asked when you said you were starting a tank is what skimmer you were going with. People honestly considered it more important than lighting and water movement (especially water movement). All I'm saying is that the norm and the 'tried and true' method should not always be accepted. I was told to expect a crash within weeks after starting a skimmerless tank, but I'm still waiting for it. I keep colorful SPS, healthy fish, and a wide mix of all other corals all with no skimmer. There are many other variables in a tank but a skimmer should NOT be considered a necessary one.

 

Ok, I'm not saying I feel you NEED to do so, but you can add a skimmer to a skimmerless tank safely, I have done it and seen it done. The thing is to make sure the skimmer is properly tweaked so it pulls out a nice dry sludge.

 

I am saying that I think you would be pleasantly surprised at the results. Yes, it costs a fair amount of money to buy a good skimmer, and its not strictly neccessary to keep your critters alive and growing, but properly-employed skimming really isn't going to hurt even established systems.

 

I respect your caution, that is really the proper attitude regarding any change to your system. The people who told you that you MUST put a skimmer on your tank or it WILL crash were certainly incorrect. Thats just the herd chasing the fad with little understanding of why they are doing it. Skimming is just a tool, a means to an end. I really happen to believe it is too good a tool to pass up the use of.

 

I have set up experimental systems, "method" systems, if you will. Jaubert, Berlin, DSB-based, refugia, etc, etc. All of it works, in the sense that it can do the job. The systems that used powerful skimmers were, however, always the easiest to maintain and keep in top shape.

 

- Josh

[shaggydoo541]

I am planning a larger tank for when I finish my basement. I may just get the larger tank running and then experiment on my existing system. Maybe add a skimmer to see what if anything would happen. This has perked my interest. Now to sell my wife on the new tank idea

 

Honestly I am pleased with my current system. I have kept some hard to keep livestock but this all could be due to other factors and have nothing to do with the fact I have no skimmer. But I really do think that with no skimmer I have been able to keep more food in the water column for many of my corals to utilize.

 

I also like the look of a dirtier tank.. with floaties in the water and all. More natural imo. Plus I have been able to feed ridiculous amounts of food to my tank with no issue. I am up to several cubes of frozen food every other night and nori every day. Pellets when I think of it. All this without all the filtration that many say is a must.... especially for SPS. Maybe I just like testing the boundaries and going against the grain

[Uhuru]

IMO you will see less brown and improved coloration in your existing sps corals if you add a skimmer to your system.

 

SPS20 said it best:

The ultimate goal is to approximate the nutrient-poor yet food-rich waters

[Daemonfly]

Imho, there's good points to both sides of most reef keeping opinions.

 

Carbon - removes lots of good stuff (traces, etc..) but also helps remove bad stuff (aleopathic toxins, for example).

 

Skimmer - similar thing - great at removing organic waste, but can also remove other beneficial things.

 

DSB - quite limited in standard tank sizes, but it can work great, as long as you don't overload it and have proper sand bed fauna.

 

Even aiptasia can be used in a beneficial way (aiptasia filter).

 

Because even the best setup reef tank is no where near real-ocean conditions, there are compromises that need to be made. Of course, this is where most heads clash: What side of the compromise is best? There will never be a clear-cut answer here, especially when most people run mixed tanks. Conditions that make SPS thrive definitely won't be the same as those where goniopora thrives.

[OB1]

Too clarify I am not saying all of fiji, but some of the islands formed. Also I never said all reefs form strickly offshore, but look at the GBR most of it is at least 10 miles of shore with some going out over 160 miles out. Hardly relatively close to shore.

 

I think some people here are missing an important fact about distance regarding our oceans. 160 miles is like the distance from one end to the other in 55 gal. aquarium. The ocean is one gigantic aquarium. Foam that removes organics on any coastline will have an impact on reefs hundreds maybe thousands of miles down current. If you don't believe this you must not be aware of how ocean currents flow.

[The Propagator]

Okay so you have 15 years of time to come up with your opinions on why things work and what works for you. Thats fine and you probably have a wealth of good knowledge but its still doesn't make them scientific fact.

First off most reef are not close to the shorlines, many are miles off shore, think of 90% of the reefs in australia and around the world. The vast majority of the great barrier reef is miles off shore. Think of most of the fiji island they are coral reefs that formed over millions of years out in the middle of the bumm #### no where. By you saying ALL of our reefs are close to shore you truely prove you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Also by your logic: Reefs are in the ocean, right? Penguins live in the ocean, right? So penguins live on reefs, right? NOOOOOOO!!!

Really, how much are you asking?

 

 

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

 

Do they teach you kids nothing in school these days?

I won't rehash every thing thats already been pointed out thats HORRIBLY WRONG about every word of what you typed save for one thing......

 

PENGUINS ARE ALSO FOUND ON AND NEAR REEFS !!!!!!

 

The Magellanic Penguin ( Migrates, found most on Argentina, Chile, Faukland islands. Migrates following ocean currents. Can be found on or around reefs following food sources)

The Black footed Penguin ( South Africa, on or around reefs frequently )

The Galapagos Penguin ( Galapagos Islands, Obviously found on or around reefs)

The Humboldt Penguin ( Migrates following ocean currents, Argentina, Southern Chile. sub tropical not found near reefs but follows food sources that land it on or around them from time to time)

 

All tropical to subtropical Sea birds and most migrate following food sources which ultimately land them on or near by reefs during bate fish migrations. Its the only time of year where they are not the hunted and hunt sid eby side with great whites, white tip reef sharks.. etc.etc.... Especially In south Africa, and the Galapagos.

 

For gods sake man read a book or turn on the discovery channel.

 

This is the advanced forum.

Not the spout out anything you feel like so that some one who is an even larger noob than your self can read it, try it and kill all their live stock forum. Thats why I get so upset when I read crap like this and post retorts the way I do. Not because I like being an azz and causing a ruckus but because I don't want some new reefer chick or dude getting drawn in by this nonsense and loosing time, money and a whole lot of effort by following complete garbage advice. Its called responsible posting. Remember you are on a forum that is designed to help others. To share FACTUAL information with others on efforts to help them better their reefs and learn new things. Most newbies will try anything a person recommends based on their post count alone.

So you should try and be more responsible when posting information as fact, and suggesting other people try it.

 

What I stated is not opinion it is fact.

Scientifically proven fact.

Geographically accurate fact.

Documented by marine biologists since the beginning of recorded ocean studies.

 

Aye yi yi........

 

 

If what you are doing works for you thats great. Do it.

But the fact of the matters that just any one isn't going to be able to go skimmerless on a large system or a small system ( unless we are talking under 10g or so). For many reasons.

In fact I would go so far as to say over 80 percent of the reefing community are those people.

So I would not suggest any one through out their skimmer just yet.

 

Read, read and read some more.

When you think you have read all your head can hold read some more.

Then take over half what you have read and throw it away as garbage and mix the rest with your own ideas and you will have some thing that works for you.

[MrAnderson]

just read that thread - i just can't belive how amateurish the whole "thing" was. i won't call it an experiment, because it wasn't.

 

not for nothing, but if he's still a grad student with access to a lab, his facilities sound like my high-school labs with 30 year-old equipment. not to mention he seems fantastically ignorant of simple yet relevant techniques that would enable him to resolve what's in the skimmate much more effectively than what he's doing. there are at least a half-dozen simple low-budget assays he could do on borrowed reagents (if he's at a research institution) that would tell him what's in that skimmate better than the weirdness he's doing.

 

a dissecting scope? is he for real? "oh i see an amphipod molt". like, who cares? what about bacterial counts? how about the stuff at the scale that coral polyps eat to see if coral food is getting removed? what about simple assays to detect nucleic acids to determine the proportion of stuff that's alive? nope, none of that. he's filtering with no analysis beyond weight?? that's circa 1950 techniques. hello, it's 2008. it's like he's trapped in a scientific technique time-warp and mentally trapped in hobby world, as if no other knowledge or techniques exist except for 1950s technologies and Salifert test kits. so bizarre...

 

anybody eating this stuff up is clueless.

 

me and prop don't usually agree on much, but we do agree that Borneman is a hobbyist, not a scientist. and as such, his "experiments" are fairly uninformative, if only because he doesn't know how to do them.

[OB1]

Amen to those last 2 posts from Prop and Mr A. And by the way, I am a total noob in the saltwater hobby and not a scientist but I have been an ocean lover for toooo many years.

[The Propagator]

Your dog AV is killing me OB1 I keep looking at those teeth and rolling on the inside

[The Propagator]

just read that thread - i just can't belive how amateurish the whole "thing" was. i won't call it an experiment, because it wasn't.

 

not for nothing, but if he's still a grad student with access to a lab, his facilities sound like my high-school labs with 30 year-old equipment. not to mention he seems fantastically ignorant of simple yet relevant techniques that would enable him to resolve what's in the skimmate much more effectively than what he's doing. there are at least a half-dozen simple low-budget assays he could do on borrowed reagents (if he's at a research institution) that would tell him what's in that skimmate better than the weirdness he's doing.

 

a dissecting scope? is he for real? "oh i see an amphipod molt". like, who cares? what about bacterial counts? how about the stuff at the scale that coral polyps eat to see if coral food is getting removed? what about simple assays to detect nucleic acids to determine the proportion of stuff that's alive? nope, none of that. he's filtering with no analysis beyond weight?? that's circa 1950 techniques. hello, it's 2008. it's like he's trapped in a scientific technique time-warp and mentally trapped in hobby world, as if no other knowledge or techniques exist except for 1950s technologies and Salifert test kits. so bizarre...

 

anybody eating this stuff up is clueless.

 

me and prop don't usually agree on much, but we do agree that Borneman is a hobbyist, not a scientist. and as such, his "experiments" are fairly uninformative, if only because he doesn't know how to do them.

 

 

Every time I think of an Eric B experiment I picture Jerry Lewis with those buck teeth implants, spiked, out of whack hair, thick black frame glasses and a lab coat with the tail on fire.

Seriously what is he like in his 10 th year as a grad student now in a 4 year study?

I do not think that the man has contributed nothing to the hobby. I think the information he re hashes and re words that some one else has done the proper research on years ago has its place and can be very helpful.

But he should definitely stop using what little academic weight he has combined with his small cult following in the reefing world as a stage to voice his opinion with no fact.

 

I mean what the heck is he using a sea monkey tank with magnifying bubbles in it?

Remember the salt testing? Plastic dixie cups, Mason jars, His mantel as the lab with plastic wrap and rubber bands. OH .. let not forget the classy black felt tip marker.

 

 

The ONLY reason EHB has any sort of standing in the reefing community today is because he is damn near the worlds greatest bull shiatter. He bull shiatted his way through school so far and is now stuck for ever as a grad student. He bull shiatted his was through 4 -5 books using other peoples research.

He bull shiatted the State of Florida into giving him umteen truck loads of endangered coral species and then " they all died" and mysteriously showed back up only on retail vendors websites in small numbers.

 

 

Yup he is a turd burglar.

 

Even though we both see each other as turd burglars also MR.A I whole heartedly agree with your opinion on EHB. ( Eric Hugo Borenman )

[dvlax40]

he is a d bag

[glennr1978]

Amen to those last 2 posts from Prop and Mr A. And by the way, I am a total noob in the saltwater hobby and not a scientist but I have been an ocean lover for toooo many years.

+1

[SeeDemTails]

I have to agree with Propagator on the ocean skimming, I learned about it in my toxicology class.

 

Im not getting into the tank part, but this is correct.

 

Waste builds up into sheets on the surface of the ocean, which are then blown by the wind to the beach where waves crash and wash this up as foam onto the beach.

 

Anyone who has a boat has cleaned this waste line off the side of it many times.

 

You can easily see this in your tank too, just stop surface skimming for a day or so.

[The Propagator]

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

[Paulc]

Just wanted to play devils advocate here ....

 

 

 

If you compare tank volume in a typical nano-reef ( ~ 20G ) vs volume of water around a typical reef ( ? G) with volume of skimmate produced by mechanical skimmer vs skimmate produced via natural systems ... wave + wind etc ... I would be very surprised if they were anywhere near the same. Therefore justifying mechanical skimmers in this way is IMO wrong. I'm not saying that skimmers don't work, I just don't think that we can say that the way they work reflects the way that waves , wind generate skimmate in the natural environment.

[OB1]

Just wanted to play devils advocate here ....

If you compare tank volume in a typical nano-reef ( ~ 20G ) vs volume of water around a typical reef ( ? G) with volume of skimmate produced by mechanical skimmer vs skimmate produced via natural systems ... wave + wind etc ... I would be very surprised if they were anywhere near the same. Therefore justifying mechanical skimmers in this way is IMO wrong. I'm not saying that skimmers don't work, I just don't think that we can say that the way they work reflects the way that waves , wind generate skimmate in the natural environment.

Yes but it is the closest thing yet invented to reproduce natural foam fractionation in a small closed system. There is going to be varing degrees of this in nature as well as in an aquarium. Basically similar to the difference of no skimmer vs the best skimmer you can buy.

[Greenstar]

Where does most of that foam created in the ocean go?

[OB1]

Where does most of that foam created in the ocean go?

Most of the foam is created with wave action against beaches. It is blown on shore, pounded by waves and filtered into the sand. I have seen foam blowing across the surface miles out but most often at the beach.

[Greenstar]

So ultimately back into the ocean?

[JG]

Where does most of that foam created in the ocean go?

 

 

Something to think about next time your laying in the skimmate, I mean sand on the beach.

[Greenstar]

Go to http://news.yahoo.com/featured go down to odd news, click on cappuccino coast watch the vid. The kids play in the skimmate.

[OB1]

So ultimately back into the ocean?

Sort of It wouldn't be like pouring your skimate back into your tank. First you would have to whip it to a foam consistancey then pound it through tons of sand. Whip it back up again and pound it through the sand again, and again, and again.... I hope you see where i'm going with this. It's natual filtation. what ultimately goes back into the ocean is cleaner than the foam came out.

[Greenstar]

I just wanted to make sure it was fairly irrelevant to the convo...

[The Propagator]

Just wanted to play devils advocate here ....

If you compare tank volume in a typical nano-reef ( ~ 20G ) vs volume of water around a typical reef ( ? G) with volume of skimmate produced by mechanical skimmer vs skimmate produced via natural systems ... wave + wind etc ... I would be very surprised if they were anywhere near the same. Therefore justifying mechanical skimmers in this way is IMO wrong. I'm not saying that skimmers don't work, I just don't think that we can say that the way they work reflects the way that waves , wind generate skimmate in the natural environment.

 

 

The biological filtration capacity of our oceans is HUGE. Thats why you don't see heavy sea foam every day.

Only certain times of the year. The process is so efficient its amazing. Now since the biological filtration in our oceans is huge the only way we can even come close to it is with mechanical filtration, refugiums, and protein skimmers.

Now the reason it does not seem to match quantity to our eye is because of the vastness of the playing field. but it is MUCH greater than the efficiency of our little toy protein skimmers in comparison.

You can't site the water volume around a given reef system as a viable example. "Why?" Oceanic and inner tidal currents.

Oceanic and inner tidal currents rapidly turn over huge volumes of water. In inner coastal areas the nightly tides helps move double the volume.

The same water is never in any one spot very long at all.

 

Absolutely no comparison what so ever with our little glass boxes.