anyone run skimmerless tanks?
- Thread starter HuuTa
- Start date
Turbosnail
Non-member
I ran a 55 without a skimmer for a year or so and it was a pain to keep clean and stable.
SCHUYLERDR
Non-member
I had a 29 biocube and had the refugium set up in back with no skimmer and it was fine. Had a couple of corals and 3 fish. Never had a problem.
viking
Non-member
I'm in the process of setting up a 29 gallon 30x12x18 and am going to run it skimmerless. Going to use an aqua clear filter with carbon and foam, lots of live rock and sand. Crossing my fingers that it will be fine. Interested to see what the more experienced reefers have to say.
STiTCH87
Saltwater OCD Victim
I ran my old 29g skimmerless for 3 or 4 months between switching skimmers and I didn't notice much difference other than the need for more frequent waterchanges. However, when I got a new skimmer it pulled a VERY CRAZY amount of gunk out of the tank for about a week or two before it ran normal.
And be careful with carbon and foam as the foam can clog and build up bad stuff in it and carbon can sometimes work negatively against certain coral needs.
And be careful with carbon and foam as the foam can clog and build up bad stuff in it and carbon can sometimes work negatively against certain coral needs.
new2saltyfish
Non-member
i had a 29 and a 55 without skimmers back when i started...after getting a good skimmer, i'd never go skimmerless again. I fought nitrates all the time before, but once i got a skimmer, i could go forever without water changes and nitrates would never leave 0.
Reef_Wizard
Non-member
I run skimmer 8 gal DT + 10 gal chaeto+rubble fuge. Been 6 months and no problem so far. I do about total 5 gal wc every 2 weeks (not all at once - I find it more effective to do small wc ~1gal every few days which usually takes about 5 min). I only keep zoas and LPS and they are thriving. I target feed my fish and coral with dropper so almost no leftover food in the system. Hungry snails take care of food particles. I haven't tested my parameters for a while but no nuisance algae.
Having said that the reason I'm not using skimmer is I want quiet tank and I have limited space in fuge for a decent skimmer.
Having said that the reason I'm not using skimmer is I want quiet tank and I have limited space in fuge for a decent skimmer.
I ran two 14 gal Biocubes both skimmerless for a year or so. One of the Biocubes had a pistol shrimp and goby in it, the other tank didn't. Eventually I broke down both Biocubes and merged them into a 34 gal Solana. Something that was quite noticeable at the time, was the difference in the sand between the two Biocubes. The Biocube with the pistol shrimp/goby had clean sand. The Biocube without the shrimp had swampy, dusty, dirty sand.
I also only fed (and still feed) about once or twice a week. The amount and frequency of feeding probably makes a huge difference on whether a skimmer is required or if more frequent water changes are needed.
I also only fed (and still feed) about once or twice a week. The amount and frequency of feeding probably makes a huge difference on whether a skimmer is required or if more frequent water changes are needed.
inverted
Non-member
An ATS can't remove organic carbon and actually adds some. Marine biologists have done lots of experiments and no one has ever shown a strong association between nitrate/phosphate and coral mortality. It just isn't there. These are likely surrogate markers for organic carbon though, as they go together, and organic carbon has been shown repeatedly to be highly associated with coral mortality. Now, too much, or too little organic carbon is bad. Skimmers and especially GAC can remove too much, which is probably a big reason why organic carbon dosing is popular. However, without a skimmer, or GAC, it's possible that organic carbon could get too high too. Unfortunately it's one of those things we can't measure at home. I've seen a number of cases of bacterial blooms though in ATS only tanks, which suggests DOC is getting too high in some of these systems. You don't often, if ever, see bacterial blooms in a tank with a properly sized skimmer. I would never personally run an ATS without a skimmer, or at least GAC, as well. I know it is trendy now though, but that's my .02 is they go along nicely with skimmer, to mop up, but aren't a true replacement.
As to skimmers, I think they are more pain than they are worth on small tanks (<30g or so) as small skimmers just don't work, and oversize skimmers work very inconsistently, as there isn't enough bio-load to maintain the foam head. Water changes are easy on small tanks though, and do the same thing. I've run small and large tanks without a skimmer, and based on these results, I'd say over 30ish gallons, I wouldn't go without a skimmer.
As to skimmers, I think they are more pain than they are worth on small tanks (<30g or so) as small skimmers just don't work, and oversize skimmers work very inconsistently, as there isn't enough bio-load to maintain the foam head. Water changes are easy on small tanks though, and do the same thing. I've run small and large tanks without a skimmer, and based on these results, I'd say over 30ish gallons, I wouldn't go without a skimmer.
Last edited:
dz6t
Acro Garden, BRS Sponsor
Interesting, in a positive way I mean.
I am looking forward to more information regarding this.
NeverlosT
Engineer with a reefing problem
there are a few threads on RC describing TOTM worthy skimmerless tanks. Try heading over there and putting "skimmerless" in the search field.
I will try to dig them up, I remember being surprised that it was possible to have such a large successful tank with no skimmer.
I will try to dig them up, I remember being surprised that it was possible to have such a large successful tank with no skimmer.
NeverlosT
Engineer with a reefing problem
I couldn't find the thread I was referencing, but Jocko on RC sums it up pretty well:
"Ron hit it. I guess the million dollar question is how big is your tank? The skimmer is going to remove hydrophobic (prefer to bind to something other than water) dissolved organics which is exactly what GAC does. Two different tools to do the same thing. It just comes down to what is practical for you.
Neither of them does anything to deal with hydrophilic (prefer to stay bound to water) dissolved organics though. The way you get rid of those is water changes. Water changes, of course, also get rid of hyrdophobic, since you're physically removing the water.
So for a pico tank, it might be easy enough to ONLY use water changes and skip the skimmer and GAC. But as the tank gets bigger, you don't want to be doing such big water changes so you need something to help. For some people maybe running GAC periodically is enough to clean things up. For giant tanks and heavy bioloads, as Ron points out the skimmer quickly becomes an attractive offer. "
"Ron hit it. I guess the million dollar question is how big is your tank? The skimmer is going to remove hydrophobic (prefer to bind to something other than water) dissolved organics which is exactly what GAC does. Two different tools to do the same thing. It just comes down to what is practical for you.
Neither of them does anything to deal with hydrophilic (prefer to stay bound to water) dissolved organics though. The way you get rid of those is water changes. Water changes, of course, also get rid of hyrdophobic, since you're physically removing the water.
So for a pico tank, it might be easy enough to ONLY use water changes and skip the skimmer and GAC. But as the tank gets bigger, you don't want to be doing such big water changes so you need something to help. For some people maybe running GAC periodically is enough to clean things up. For giant tanks and heavy bioloads, as Ron points out the skimmer quickly becomes an attractive offer. "
inverted
Non-member
Here are a few references/abstracts to start with if your interested in the topic. By supplying this information, I am not in any way suggesting that an ATS is detrimental to corals. There is a lot of considerations and overall, I believe that they are beneficial. Also, while many of these references discuss algae adding to DOC, I haven't seen evidence that this is an issue with ATS systems. My issue is more that they are not a complete means of filtration as they are not removing DOC. Again, whether or not this is an issue depends on a lot of things and in most cases it isn't.
Another consideration, that I would mention, while on the topic is that the response isn't as fast as a skimmer. What I mean is that with a skimmer if something dies, a properly sized skimmer will remove it pretty efficiently. With an ATS, it needs to break down and increased algae growth needs to occur before the contamination is dealt with. This may have more lag time. Again though, many people run ATS systems and deal with this through other means, such as monitoring and water changes. However, I still prefer the insurance of a skimmer... just my .02.
Anyways, here are some abstracts. If you search google scholar for them, and look at the citations and citing articles, there are lots more. Also, if something interests you, you may want to try to read the article. Abstracts don't present the entire picture. Some are freely available. I have access to most if not, so, I may be able to answer specific questions if it doesn't require too much time.
Neilan M. Kuntz, David I. Kline, Stuart A. Sandin, Forest Rohwer. (2005)
Pathologies and mortality rates caused by organic carbon and nutrient stressors in three Caribbean coral species. MEPS: 294:173-180
Abstract
Anthropogenic inputs, including organic carbon and nutrient loading, are increasingly changing the water quality on coral reefs. Herein we show that treating Montastraea annularis, Agaricia tenuifolia and Porites furcata with various organic carbon sources (starch, lactose, arabinose and mannose) results in different species-specific and carbon-specific pathologies and rates of mortality. The variation in the pathological characteristics caused by stressors showed that visual cues for determining coral health and disease may be misleading. The probability of mortality increased significantly over time with continual exposure to several of the stressors, suggesting that chronic stressors may be more harmful than acute stressors. In contrast to the organic carbon sources, high concentrations of nutrients (phosphate, ammonium and nitrate) did not directly kill corals. The variation in coral responses to anthropogenic stressors means that changes on disturbed coral reefs will depend on the type of and duration of exposure to the stressor, as well as on the species of coral.
David I. Kline, Neilan M. Kuntz, Mya Breitbart, Nancy Knowlton, Forest Rohwer (2006), Role of elevated organic carbon levels and microbial activity in coral mortality. Mar Ecol Prog Ser: 314: 119–125
Abstract
Coral reefs are suffering a long-term global decline, yet the causes remain contentious. The role of poor water quality in this decline is particularly unclear, with most previous studies providing only weak correlations between elevated nutrient levels and coral mortality. Here we experimentally show that routinely measured components of water quality (nitrate, phosphate, ammonia) do not cause substantial coral mortality. In contrast, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), which is rarely measured on reefs, does. Elevated DOC levels also accelerate the growth rate of microbes living in the corals’ surface mucopolysaccharide layer by an order of magnitude, suggesting that mortality occurs due to a disruption of the balance between the coral and its associated microbiota. We propose a model by which elevated DOC levels cause Caribbean reefs to shift further from coral to macroalgal dominance. Increasing DOC levels on coral reefs should be recognized as a threat and routinely monitored.
Smith, J. E., Shaw, M., Edwards, R. A., Obura, D., Pantos, O., Sala, E., Sandin, S. A., Smriga, S., Hatay, M. and Rohwer, F. L. (2006), Indirect effects of algae on coral: algae-mediated, microbe-induced coral mortality. Ecology Letters, 9:**835–845.
Abstract
Declines in coral cover are generally associated with increases in the abundance of fleshy algae. In many cases, it remains unclear whether algae are responsible, directly or indirectly, for coral death or whether they simply settle on dead coral surfaces. Here, we show that algae can indirectly cause coral mortality by enhancing microbial activity via the release of dissolved compounds. When coral and algae were placed in chambers together but separated by a 0.02**μm filter, corals suffered 100% mortality. With the addition of the broad-spectrum antibiotic ampicillin, mortality was completely prevented. Physiological measurements showed complementary patterns of increasing coral stress with proximity to algae. Our results suggest that as human impacts increase and algae become more abundant on reefs a positive feedback loop may be created whereby compounds released by algae enhance microbial activity on live coral surfaces causing mortality of corals and further algal growth.
Katie L. Barott, Beltran Rodriguez-Mueller, Merry Youle, Kristen L. Marhaver, Mark J. A. Vermeij, Jennifer E. Smith, and Forest L. Rohwer (2011) Microbial to reef scale interactions between the reef-building coral Montastraea annularis and benthic algae Proc R Soc B: rspb.2011.2155v1-rspb20112155.
Abstract
Competition between reef-building corals and benthic algae is of key importance for reef dynamics. These interactions occur on many spatial scales, ranging from chemical to regional. Using microprobes, 16S rDNA pyrosequencing and underwater surveys, we examined the interactions between the reef-building coral Montastraea annularis and four types of benthic algae. The macroalgae Dictyota bartayresiana and Halimeda opuntia, as well as a mixed consortium of turf algae, caused hypoxia on the adjacent coral tissue. Turf algae were also associated with major shifts in the bacterial communities at the interaction zones, including more pathogens and virulence genes. In contrast to turf algae, interactions with crustose coralline algae (CCA) and M. annularis did not appear to be antagonistic at any scale. These zones were not hypoxic, the microbes were not pathogen-like and the abundance of coral–CCA interactions was positively correlated with per cent coral cover. We propose a model in which fleshy algae (i.e. some species of turf and fleshy macroalgae) alter benthic competition dynamics by stimulating bacterial respiration and promoting invasion of virulent bacteria on corals. This gives fleshy algae a competitive advantage over corals when human activities, such as overfishing and eutrophication, remove controls on algal abundance. Together, these results demonstrate the intricate connections and mechanisms that structure coral reefs.
+1 lol
delta
Impatient Reefer
Simple point on a skimmer is it manually removes the excess nutrients/organics. An Algae turf scrubber or Fuge will uptake the excess nutrients and then you need to remove the Algae to remove those nutrients. If you are trying to save money ni the long run you will spend more not having a skimmer than having one.
My personal take is I have run just about every system out there and what has stood the test of time through and through is the skimmer.
I like a fuge for what it adds but the efficiency for nutrient removal doesn't come close to a skimmer.
ATS's are ineffective in the size most would use for an aquarium.
I have run skimmerless (1.5yrs) and the trade off is not worth the wasted time/effort and reef budget to keep the tank in order. So it is possible but for me it is just not worth it
And I would never even think about it on a SPS tank.
My personal take is I have run just about every system out there and what has stood the test of time through and through is the skimmer.
I like a fuge for what it adds but the efficiency for nutrient removal doesn't come close to a skimmer.
ATS's are ineffective in the size most would use for an aquarium.
I have run skimmerless (1.5yrs) and the trade off is not worth the wasted time/effort and reef budget to keep the tank in order. So it is possible but for me it is just not worth it
And I would never even think about it on a SPS tank.
Last edited:
