"Natural Filtration"

[wombat]

http://www.nano-reef.com/articles/?article=3

 

I think it's fine that you advocate a simple and unique filtration system of your own design that doesn't utilize a skimmer, but the article contains a lot of misinformation.

 

With this natural method, no protein skimmers or dosing is used. Studies of skimmers have shown that they remove various trace elements, along with pods and plankton.

 

Can you reference these studies? What "trace elements" do they remove? The only detailed analysis of reef aquarium skimmate I've seen is this one by Ken Feldman:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature

 

When people run protein skimmers, they dose trace elements to replenish them after their corals and skimmers use them. Because the skimmer removes most of the elements, such as iodine, it is dosed back in causing almost an endless cycle.

 

Again, can you state a reference for this extraordinary claim? There is no evidence I'm aware of that shows skimmers remove iodine preferentially. The concentration of iodine tends to drop quickly in any tank regardless of the filtration type if it is not supplemented.

 

The main problem this holds in nano reefing is that many of the trace elements cannot be easily tested for, so no one ever knows where their level is. This can lead to overdosing which will crash a nano reef in a matter of hours. The skimmer also begins to starve your corals by removing their food source. It's simply too risky.

 

It's "too risky" to put a protein skimmer on a tank? There are certainly benefits to running a tank without a skimmer, but the absence of risk is not one of them. By the same token one could say that it's just too risky to place a heater on a tank (note all the electrical fires and overheating events caused by them), therefore we should not place one on our tank.

[KngLurker]

Great analysis .

[Weetabix7]

Truthfully, I think both positions have merit.

[wombat]

Truthfully, I think both positions have merit.

 

To be clear I am not taking a position that either skimmer or skimmerless is better than another. I am taking the position that if you make extraordinary claims (skimmers preferentially remove trace elements) they should be backed up with evidence.

 

Unfortunately all ideas don't have equal merit simply by virtue of being an idea.

[zemuss]

Do the beneifits of skimming outweigh not using a skimmer?

[Weetabix7]

Do the beneifits of skimming outweigh not using a skimmer?

 

Oh boy.....

 

My honest answer to that one is that I think it varies from tank to tank and depends on your livestock and system and what you are trying to do with the tank.

For example, a skimmer is much more useful on an SPS dominated tank than on a Soft Coral dominated tank.

[debbeach13]

Oh boy.....

 

My honest answer to that one is that I think it varies from tank to tank and depends on your livestock and system and what you are trying to do with the tank.

For example, a skimmer is much more useful on an SPS dominated tank than on a Soft Coral dominated tank.

 

Do you think a Soft Coral dominated tank with just a few hard corals and a mini carpet with out a sump should run a skimmer?

[blasterman]

Can't think of a single statement in the article that makes sense, and I'm neutral on the skimmer thing. Article sounds like it's comparing skimmers to the depth of your sand bed and assumes everybody has the same livestock and does 20% weeky water changes.

 

My conclusion is we have very few, good, small skimmers on the market.

[RayWhisperer]

To be fair, that article was written probably 10 years ago. Much in the hobby has changed in that time. Protein skimming, and methodology have changed drastically.

 

While I'm not willing to spend any time on it, I did a quick google search and found nothing scientific favoring either option. Most everything was forum or aquarium article info. This http://www.mchportal.com/fishkeeping-mainm...am.html?start=1 link wasn't the first I came across, but best described in a very short answer, the effects of a skimmer on trace element removal. Granted, it was written in 2004. Knowledge may have changed since then, I really don't know.

 

From my own personal experience, I will say this. On very small scale aquariums, like we are dealing with. I've had better success going skimmerless. That being said, I've never done an SPS dominated nano, where the need for a skimmer would be more critical. Another note on SPS dominated tanks. They are generally heavily dosed, or maintained by a calcium reactor of sorts. This would replenish any elements lost. So, take that tidbit of anecdotal info for what it's worth.

[franklypre]

The theory of going skimmerless is great. "I'll change 25% twice a week and save $350 on that skimmer" but all that make up water/salt./carbon<skimmers. Plus everyone loves seeing that nasty gunk being erupted from the tank. My aquariums are like a never ending science project.

[wombat]

Can't think of a single statement in the article that makes sense, and I'm neutral on the skimmer thing. Article sounds like it's comparing skimmers to the depth of your sand bed and assumes everybody has the same livestock and does 20% weeky water changes.

 

My conclusion is we have very few, good, small skimmers on the market.

 

This is true. You don't start getting pumps powerful enough to make lots of fine small bubbles until you have a fairly large unit. The simplest solutions I have found for small tanks is to do an airstone driven DIY version. Of course many people find it an incredible pain to replace a $2 limewood airstone once a month.

 

To be fair, that article was written probably 10 years ago. Much in the hobby has changed in that time. Protein skimming, and methodology have changed drastically.

 

Nothing about the way bubbles act in seawater has changed in the last 10 years. Our understanding of it has, but I am hard pressed to find any evidence that skimmers were ever shown to remove trace elements. I think it is one of those suspicions or hunches that got repeated enough that people started saying it as if it was a fact.

 

While I'm not willing to spend any time on it, I did a quick google search and found nothing scientific favoring either option. Most everything was forum or aquarium article info. This http://www.mchportal.com/fishkeeping-mainm...am.html?start=1 link wasn't the first I came across, but best described in a very short answer, the effects of a skimmer on trace element removal. Granted, it was written in 2004. Knowledge may have changed since then, I really don't know.

 

That article is doing the same thing as the "Natural Filtration" article did--stating that skimmers remove trace elements without showing any source reference for that statement. Where is the study where this was demonstrated?

[michelleshusband]

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php

this article has pretty good information about protein skimming.

It does mention about the effect on iodine.

 

Many aquarists believe that iodide is readily skimmed out. I do not believe that to be true. It is unlikely that iodine, in any natural inorganic form present in seawater (iodide or iodate), will be appreciably removed by skimming. These forms will not be attracted to an air/water interface, nor are they especially strongly bound to organics. However, many organic compounds that contain iodine will be skimmed out (as well as possibly evaporated into the air). The conversion of the various forms of iodine to iodoorganic compounds is one way that iodine is removed from the water column of marine aquaria (another being by uptake into organisms such as algae), and skimming may enhance this export rate by intercepting compounds before bacteria can break them down again, releasing iodine. The removal of whole microorganisms (bacteria, algae, etc.) is another way that iodine can be removed by skimming. Analyses of skimmate, as mentioned above, are fairly limited in scope, but one published study shows substantial elevation (several hundred-fold) in total iodine relative to ions not selectively skimmed out (say, magnesium or sodium) when compared to the ratio of the same ions in seawater or reef aquarium water.

 

I guess it is possible for the protein skimmer to skim iodine only when it is in a different forms (contained by organic compound or by evaporation). But near the conclusion, the author states that "skimming also does not create any need to dose iodine, although it may export organoidoine forms from the system." He claims that we continuously supplement iodine through marine based foods.

[wombat]

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/rhf/index.php

this article has pretty good information about protein skimming.

It does mention about the effect on iodine.

 

Many aquarists believe that iodide is readily skimmed out. I do not believe that to be true. It is unlikely that iodine, in any natural inorganic form present in seawater (iodide or iodate), will be appreciably removed by skimming. These forms will not be attracted to an air/water interface, nor are they especially strongly bound to organics. However, many organic compounds that contain iodine will be skimmed out (as well as possibly evaporated into the air). The conversion of the various forms of iodine to iodoorganic compounds is one way that iodine is removed from the water column of marine aquaria (another being by uptake into organisms such as algae), and skimming may enhance this export rate by intercepting compounds before bacteria can break them down again, releasing iodine. The removal of whole microorganisms (bacteria, algae, etc.) is another way that iodine can be removed by skimming. Analyses of skimmate, as mentioned above, are fairly limited in scope, but one published study shows substantial elevation (several hundred-fold) in total iodine relative to ions not selectively skimmed out (say, magnesium or sodium) when compared to the ratio of the same ions in seawater or reef aquarium water.

 

I guess it is possible for the protein skimmer to skim iodine only when it is in a different forms (contained by organic compound or by evaporation). But near the conclusion, the author states that "skimming also does not create any need to dose iodine, although it may export organoidoine forms from the system." He claims that we continuously supplement iodine through marine based foods.

 

That is a great link, thank you. I'm sure I've read it before but couldn't find it in my search on this subject. It is interesting that in the study Randy refers to by Ron Shimek, Caulerpa and Xenia removed more iodine than skimming did.

[jeremai]

Many aquarists believe that iodide is readily skimmed out. I do not believe that to be true. It is unlikely that iodine, in any natural inorganic form present in seawater (iodide or iodate), will be appreciably removed by skimming. These forms will not be attracted to an air/water interface, nor are they especially strongly bound to organics. However, many organic compounds that contain iodine will be skimmed out (as well as possibly evaporated into the air). The conversion of the various forms of iodine to iodoorganic compounds is one way that iodine is removed from the water column of marine aquaria (another being by uptake into organisms such as algae), and skimming may enhance this export rate by intercepting compounds before bacteria can break them down again, releasing iodine. The removal of whole microorganisms (bacteria, algae, etc.) is another way that iodine can be removed by skimming. Analyses of skimmate, as mentioned above, are fairly limited in scope, but one published study shows substantial elevation (several hundred-fold) in total iodine relative to ions not selectively skimmed out (say, magnesium or sodium) when compared to the ratio of the same ions in seawater or reef aquarium water.

This paragraph is the reason I included the removal of iodine by skimming in my article. When you're writing for noobs, as Chris was, it's easier to just say the effect without spelling out a cause that no one will understand anyway.

[RayWhisperer]

This is true. You don't start getting pumps powerful enough to make lots of fine small bubbles until you have a fairly large unit. The simplest solutions I have found for small tanks is to do an airstone driven DIY version. Of course many people find it an incredible pain to replace a $2 limewood airstone once a month.

 

 

 

Nothing about the way bubbles act in seawater has changed in the last 10 years. Our understanding of it has, but I am hard pressed to find any evidence that skimmers were ever shown to remove trace elements. I think it is one of those suspicions or hunches that got repeated enough that people started saying it as if it was a fact.

 

 

 

That article is doing the same thing as the "Natural Filtration" article did--stating that skimmers remove trace elements without showing any source reference for that statement. Where is the study where this was demonstrated?

I don't know if you read too deeply into my post, or didn't read it whatsoever. I was only giving you a point of reference as to the age of the information and how it may have changed. I plainly stated I wasn't going to spend time searching anything and even mentioned the article linked was NOT scientific as well as being almost as old as the article you are posting about.

 

TBH, I think you are taking this a little too seriously. While I don't doubt there are links available to give creedence to the article. I'm quite sure they are fairly old, and likely buried below thousands of newer links. Perhaps the info has even proven to be false. Like I said, I don't know.

 

If you really think that an article giving the benefits of skimming would be helpful to the site. I'm quite sure you could type one up and submit it to CM. He'd probably even put it in with the other articles linked on the home page. At the very least, he'd probably give it a "sticky" in one of the forums.

[mmcguffi]

This is a great thread, very calculated and thought out--just what I was looking for! I posted pretty much the same question (in regard to Christopher Marks' article) on a different thread yesterday. It would be great to hear Mr Marks himself chime in with his input

[Bishop]

You guys can run skimmers if you want to but I refuse to use on on my reef tanks. I'm a firm believer that they steal food from coral and anemone. I don't use a filter either. Over the past month, my tanks have only been getting about 15% water changes every two weeks. Nitrates in the 20 gallon are at zero and the 36 gallon are less than 5 ppm.

[lakshwadeep]

I cringed a little just from reading the title.

 

+1 to Ray. One only has to look at the lighting article to see how much the hobby has changed.

 

Also, if there aren't studies on trace elemental analysis of skimmate, then it's a stretch to go beyond questioning references and claim deliberate misinformation.

[lgreen]

Ok, so how about if we all just conclude the article is a bit out of date and could use some revising.

 

/thread

[mmcguffi]

Well before this thread is through, Im still curious as to if skimmers are actually beneficial or are "harmful" in nano/pico sized tanks (which is really the question all along right?). Is there no consensus, just personal opinion and it being highly dependent on the situation?

 

According to most everything stated above, it seems as if there is no hard evidence that skimmers are actually taking anything important out (besides perhaps iodine compounds which are "dosed" back in anyway). Based on this it seems like skimmers ARE indeed helpful.

 

Sorry if Im being redundant I just want to try to reach a consensus on this, it's something Ive been wondering for a while.

[lgreen]

I just received an issue of Coral magazine today which conveniently has like three articles on trace elements.

 

To very quickly summarize what it says about trace elements and skimming:

 

"Trace elements are not removed directly by the protein skimmer, but rather along with the organic compounds in which they frequently accumulate (Fossa & Nilsen 2010)"

 

Protein skimmers are a preventative tool. The idea is for them to remove organics before they get a chance to be broken down in to nitrate/nitrite/etc. If you operate a nano which has a high amount of nutrient input (overstocked, overfeeding, keeping species that require extra feeding, feeding corals, etc.) then a protein skimmer could be beneficial. If your tank is lightly stocked, not over fed, and low nutrient input, water changes alone may be sufficient to keeping your tank in good health.

 

In general people on this website seem to promote the idea that frequent water changes are key to success with keeping nanos. Given many people follow that philosophy, I really think there is no need to be concerned about a skimmer being "harmful". Even if a significant amount of trace elements are being removed by skimming, they are being replaced with every water change.

[wombat]

Well before this thread is through, Im still curious as to if skimmers are actually beneficial or are "harmful" in nano/pico sized tanks (which is really the question all along right?). Is there no consensus, just personal opinion and it being highly dependent on the situation?

 

According to most everything stated above, it seems as if there is no hard evidence that skimmers are actually taking anything important out (besides perhaps iodine compounds which are "dosed" back in anyway). Based on this it seems like skimmers ARE indeed helpful.

 

Sorry if Im being redundant I just want to try to reach a consensus on this, it's something Ive been wondering for a while.

 

My opinion--you can make a very nice nano reef aquarium with or without a protein skimmer. Period.

 

For what it's worth, the point of the thread was not to debate which methodology is "better".

[RayWhisperer]

I don't think most who posted tried to debate which is better. Perhaps my anecdotal info seemed that way, but it wasn't meant to.

 

I am serious, though. You may be able to post something about it and CM may decide to make it a sticky,

[TheUnfocusedOne]

It's times like this that I wish I still had access to journals...

[michelleshusband]

You guys can run skimmers if you want to but I refuse to use on on my reef tanks. I'm a firm believer that they steal food from coral and anemone. I don't use a filter either. Over the past month, my tanks have only been getting about 15% water changes every two weeks. Nitrates in the 20 gallon are at zero and the 36 gallon are less than 5 ppm.

 

hows the algae growth in your tank? I also dont run protein skimmer nor filter on my tank and i only do water changes (15-20%) per week. I have significant algae growth and want to fight it off naturally and eventually have no algae. running chaeto refugium with chemipure, adding 20+ snails from reefcleaners.org on weds (estimated arrival time) on top of 8 snails + 3 hermits for my 10gal + 5gal refugium. i read 0 nitrates/phosphates probably because macro and nuisance algae consuming it. The tank has 3 different flows probably added to be over 700 gph. If the snails don't handle it, I might have to T.T cut down on feeding T.T, which I really don't want to do since I already did.