clownfish4 Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Is a skimmer absolutely necessary? I am currently running one, but am not a big fan of it. Is there anyway to keep the tank healthy without one? Link to comment
onthefly Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 NO! and YES! Water changes! Link to comment
birdman204 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 why don't you like your skimmer?> Link to comment
zizmans Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 If I didn't have fish in my nanos then I would not run a skimmer. I use them, like them and have good coral growth. So, not totally sure if either arguement is 100%. But in a nano IMO, with no fish, it's just not needed. Link to comment
birdman204 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 ziz, me - nano , no skimmer, unga bunga - feel like stone age.....ugh... Fuge work fine w/ no unga-fish. WC uggh work good too. unga.... Cleaning skimmer unga-unga smell like Tharg's teeth... Ummmmm ok.... Link to comment
movingshadow Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 unga bunga, hey birdman, bunga... hehehehe (for some reason that just cracked me up) I just ordered a piccolo for my tank which I'm planning to run for about 1/2 the day. overskimming can have adverse effects, but so can not doing waterchanges. Being pretty religious about the latter, I decided to give skimming my tank a try and at $18 brandnew I couldn't say no.... its mostly a matter of bioload and waterchanges, if you keep those in check you don't really need a skimmer... Link to comment
wetworx101 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 nanos are small enough that frequent water changes (and Im only tankin 10% a month here) is enough to keep the waste down along with the LR. Now, if you want to cut down on those water changes, or intend on a higher-than-usual bioload (like 5 fish in a ten gallon), then a skimmer can be a good idea for raw watse removal. I would look into a fuge before a skimmer for a nano...just moke more sense. Skimmers not only take out the bad stuff, but the good stuff too. Nutrients, planktonic organisms, etc. This means you will either have to dose more, feed more, or do water changes anyways to replace the depleted elements. Not a real win here. A fuge can have mud that releases nutrients, and serves to cultivate macro algae that in turn takes in nitrates, as well as provide a natural breeding ground for pods, mysis shrimp, and other natural foods (ie less processed food needed, less waste, less water changes). A fuge and nanos just make more sense IMO, unless you have a high bio-load where the extra and direct waste removal is needed. When I run a fuge on a nano, it cuts my water changes down to prolly 20% every three months...if that. Oh, and... Me no like you say Targ mouth bad smell! Targ get thwak'em stick an' beat senseless you! Ugh, you manners need better! Me think you loin-cloth need cleaning and all sticky! You homo-erectus! You no human! you not even spell me Targ's unga-unga-bunga name right! You baaaaad caveman... Link to comment
birdman204 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Unga yes, to all he said!!! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.