SPS can thrive in skimmerless tanks, see the above link. I think in some cases a skimmer can become a hinderence to inexperienced reef keepers. They go out and buy the current new fangled bubble tube and get a false sense of security. Adding too many fish and overfeeding can't be overcome by the inefficient skimmers out there. Scientific studies have proven that $200 skimmer A removes the same thing as $800 skimmer B. There's going to be a new study coming out (according to Josh Sanjay) that a filter sock and a bag of carbon outperforms all the skimmers they tested. I add a little GFO to my carbon in my 90gal. SPS tank and have always registered 0 nitrates on my Elos test kit and about .02-.04 phos. on my Hanna photometer.
anyone run skimmerless tanks?
- Thread starter HuuTa
- Start date
inverted
Non-member
I think Science is hardly ever "necessary" to grow corals, other than knowing the basics, such as that they need saltwater, light and food. Reefkeeping is more of an art than a science. However, for some anyways, a big part of the hobby is about understanding the organisms we keep. For others, there are always cases, especially when things aren't going so well, when science can be beneficial.
For example, some of the science mentioned in this thread, still applies to your 29g, whether or not you think about it. It was mentioned that nitrate and phosphate may decrease skeletal growth, but still can increase tissue growth. Your finger leather, doesn't have a skeleton, it's all tissue. So, your system happened to fit it, but if you stuck it in a ULN SPS system, it may be helpful to know that latter, when your trying to figure out why it wasn't doing so well. I'm not sure about the science behind frogspawn growth; I just know the stuff grows like weeds no matter where you put it
Also, mentioned in this thread, algae can have negative impacts on corals, especially Stony corals. Whether SPS, LPS, it doesn't matter. In your case, you got rid of the algae, because you found it to be unpleasant looking, however, if you were someone else who liked, or did not mind the algae, perhaps you would have left it. Only to latter wonder why your LPS corals were starting to recede. I personally experienced this, not because I liked the algae, but because I was in college, had finals and was too busy to keep up with my system. Back then, we were always told as long as your parameters were good, algae was not harmful to corals and just a nuisance for aesthetic reasons. So, my parameters were good and I let it go for a while and only focused on maintenance to keep my parameters in check. As a result, many of my LPS corals died off. Certainly you can learn from trial and error, but that gets expensive. I appreciate the fact that now, by being technical, I can understand and explain why that happened and prevent similar occurrences from happening.
What it comes down to IMHO, is not that certain corals require being technical and others don't. Really SPS are not any tougher than Soft corals, in fact, in my current system, they are much easier. What it comes down to understanding the environment that your corals do best in and providing it for them. Technical knowledge is one tool to help do that, but no tool is "necessary". I can pound in a nail with a hammer, but I could also pound it in with a crow bar... I personally prefer a hammer though, if available to me
Last edited:
STiTCH87
Saltwater OCD Victim
That's a very interesting comment on saying that SPS are not any tougher than soft corals. Many people would read that and be baffled and not expect to hear it. But I can honestly agree with you there for sure. Maybe they require a bit more effort and money to maintain as it's usually a good idea to dose certain things and test more often, but otherwise, they ARE coral just like LPS and softies. And yes I know the reasoning as to why LPS and softies thrived in my tank. =] Since softies love "dirtier" water they had more stuff to thrive in. Now what I get most impressed with is how SPS and softies (as far as I understand and have read?) tend to need opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to water conditions to thrive where SPS needs a super clean stable tank and softies tend to grow quick on a nutrient rich tank. IIRC I read once that what benefits SPS can hinder softies and vica versa and yet I see people with a greatly mixed tank and SPS, LPS, Softies, and NFS all in one tank, one or two of which I saw were skimmerless and that right there surprised me.
And to KSC, VERY VERY interesting about the whole carbon in a sock outperforming a skimmer. Would love to read an article backing that up? Where did you find that info? Because that'd be good learning info for some of us, or for myself anyways.
And to KSC, VERY VERY interesting about the whole carbon in a sock outperforming a skimmer. Would love to read an article backing that up? Where did you find that info? Because that'd be good learning info for some of us, or for myself anyways.
inverted
Non-member
I think the big thing is SPS die quicker. There are various reason, for example, they don't have the ability to change their shape, to adjust to light levels, or flow. They are less reliant on bacterioplanton and can be less tolerant of high TOC/bacterial counts. With modern methods though, SPS are not "difficult" IMHO. Although obviously like the science stuff a lot, the challenge of reefing is mostly in the art of setting up a visually appealing and diverse system.
I mentioned Ken Feldman a few posts back. He is in the Chem department of PSU and did most of the studies on skimmers and organic carbon in our systems.
Some people like to quote him as saying things such as:
"The rather counterintuitive observation that protein skimmers remove only 20 - 35% of the measurable Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in reef aquarium water (Feldman, 2009; Feldman, 2010) begs the question, "what is all that "stuff" that collects in our skimmer cups?"
His articles can be tough to discuss in such as setting, as they are much more technical than anything mentioned here so far. I did find this thread on RC though, discussing his
"Elemental Analysis of Skimmate" article (quote above - http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature), which is the one most of the non-skimmer guys reference.
However, it should also be noted, in his "Elemental" article, certain organics, were removed with 100% efficiency!
And in this thread (see: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1799719&page=2), discussing the article, he responds on post #28.
An interesting quote:
"Bubbles are a rather poor medium (compared to GAC, for example) for removing organics, but they are cheap! Skimming does remove some organics, but leaves a majority untouched. That scenario isn't necessarily bad; some TOC/DOC is essential to keep the food web of the tank fueled – remember, TOC is called "the soil of the sea" for a reason."
Also, in another article, on GAC, he says:
"Under conditions of aggressive DOC removal (skimming, water changes, GAC use), the GAC charge should last over a month, but under more passive nutrient removal husbandry (no skimming? no frequent water changes?), the GAC charge will be depleted in just a few days."
The point that I was making in this thread is that while skimmers do not "necessary" they are inexpensive for what they do do, and do indeed perform certain, important functions very well!
Last edited:
Here's some good info. You'll have to wait until the PSU study is published to see the results of the testing regarding filter sock/carbon vs skimmer. There were a few posts alluding to the preliminary results that might shock most reefkeepers.
Is a skimmer becoming obsolete
« on: September 18, 2010, 11:18:04 PM »
I have gathered a few points that might be worthy of discussing
What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature
The chemical/elemental composition of skimmate generated by an H&S 200-1260 skimmer on a 175-gallon reef tank over the course of several days or a week had some surprises. Only a minor amount of the skimmate (solid + liquid) could be attributed to organic carbon (TOC); about 29%, and most of that material was not water soluble, i.e., was not dissolved organic carbon. The majority of the recovered skimmate solid, apart from the commons ions of seawater, was CaCO3, MgCO3, and SiO2 - inorganic compounds! The origin of these species is not known with certainity, but a good case can be made that the SiO2 stems from the shells of diatoms. The CaCO3 might be derived from other planktonic microbes bearing calcium carbonate shells, or might come from calcium reactor effluent. To the extent that the solid skimmate consists of microflora, then some proportion of the insoluble organic material removed by skimming would then simply be the organic components (the "guts") of these microflora. These microflora do concentrate P, N, and C nutrients from the water column, and so their removal via skimming does constitute a means of nutrient export
The work of Ken Feldman on protein skimmer efficacy or lack there of is leading us closer to closed systems without sumps. If protein skimmers can only remove 20% of the TOC (total organic carbon), then maybe we should scrap them entirely and spend the (protein skimmer, surface skimmer, sump, plumbing, & return pump) money on better resources. That's a lot of money and energy that can be redirected to more efficient means of TOC reduction. Maybe our protein skimmers should be out in the garage with our bioballs and exercise equipment (as seen on TV)
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17637377&postcount=4305
To oversimplify, here are some methods...
Biological:
- nitrification (bacteria on substrate surfaces)
- denitrification (bacteria & in-fauna/sand critters in substrate internal structure)
- assimilation (microbes/bacterial film on coral & algae tissue)
- nutrient export (mangroves, algae, and coral harvesting)
Chemical:
- carbon (ROX type is faster)
- granular ferric oxide (GFO phosphate removal)
- aluminum oxide (phosphate removal)
- chemipure (TOC & heavy metal removal)
- polyfilter (TOC & heavy metal removal)
- zeolite (TOC & heavy metal removal)
- protein skimming (TOC & heavy metal removal)
- ozone (oxidation of bacteria, parasites, & TOC/total organic carbon including particulate & dissolved)
- ultraviolet sterilization (oxidation of bacteria, parasites, & TOC/total organic carbon including particulate & dissolved)
- water changes (nutrient export)
Mechanical:
- filter bags/socks
- cartridges
- sponges & pads
- physical removal (settling & siphoning)
Many reef aquarists only employ a few of these methods or do so to a limited extent. Carbon levels are typically elevated in marine aquaria and cause stress to corals and feed nuisance algae. Granular activated carbon (GAC) has proven to be the most effective method of TOC export, removing about 80% at a faster rate than protein skimming. Water changes can remove the remaining excess nutrients and organics as needed.
There is no overwhelming benefit to removing a protein skimmer that is in place, but considering it is the least efficient and most expensive & labour intensive device available, we should think twice about where to put our resources when designing a new tank. The marketing machine has sold us on the newest skimmer trends for years. That manufactured demand focus has now shifted to LED lighting. As John Tullock says "Less technology, more biology".
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17638248&postcount=4316
Ken Feldman had a nice demonstration in his presentation at MACNA. He showed two pictures of a skimmer cup. One was rich and dark brown with dry foam, while the other one had opaque light brown liquid and wet bubbles. The audience agreed that the darker skimmate was superior. He then disclosed that he used 2.6 oz of coffee grounds and some liquid soap he bubbled with a straw in the "efficient" cup. He placed a dime beside the dried coffee to put it into perspective. The "inefficient" skimmate was created with 10 oz of brown sugar and a little less effort with the straw in the liquid soap. The seemingly less efficient skimmate had five times more "stuff" by dry weight and the dime looked more like a peso next to it.
Unless you have a fancy TOC analyzer, you have no reasonable method of measuring your protein skimmers abilities. There is an easier method where PAR readings can be compared, but even this is out of reach for most hobbyists.
A healthy substrate can oxidize/assimilate detritus as quickly as it forms, providing your flow delivers most of it to the corals and filtration. There is usually a settling point(s) with most systems. It is possible to create a cone that would collect and export detritus automatically. Just make sure fish and inverts don't get exported to
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17638716&postcount=4323
Re: Is a skimmer becoming obsolete
First of all, I don't want to be known as the guy who told you to "just unplug your skimmer" They do remove 20% of the TOC and do so quickly. I would however advise against spending that extra $500 on the $1200 model.
There have been many successful reef tanks that have not had protein skimmers. There are also quite a few successful tanks that have skimmers that barely skim. The idea of abandoning a protein skimmer is enhanced when you can ditch your open system (sump) at the same time.
The caveat (warning) here is that you need to refocus the protein skimmer resources in other areas of TOC removal and nutrient export. If you follow Ron Shimek's work, you will know that there are many ways of exporting nutrients other than protein skimming. Take a look at the charts here... http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php
While many hobbyists have refugiums, few exploit them to their fullest potential. A few compact fluorescent lights will grow macro algae, but with a little fine tuning you can harvest enough algae to keep your local health food store stocked
Header tanks (filter tanks above the display) can raise as many problems as sumps. The weight needs to be managed for one, and the water needs to be drained without adding bubbles to the display. One of the obvious advantages is that live food (plankton) can easily migrate from the refuge of the macro algae to the waiting polyps of the display tank.
Activated carbon (GAC) is another filtration method that is often carried out passively. ROX type carbon should be used and replaced frequently. In most cases the water clarity and colour is enough of an indication. Carbon should be placed in the path of moving water but in a way that limits channeling and clogging. A fluidized bed filter helps with this.
Ozone is another underutilized tool. You don't need a protein skimmer to dose ozone. If you increase the production of your refugium then you need to deal with the secondary metabolites (algae toxins) that are a byproduct. Protein skimmers can remove these, but carbon and ozone are more efficient.
Mechanical filters are also more efficient at removing POC (particulate organic carbon) than protein skimmers. Make sure you don't overlook this important filtration device if you omit a skimmer.
There is no significant gas exchange provided by protein skimming that you can't get with good water flow. Take some of the money you are saving and do your flow dynamics right. The air/water interface at the surface is constantly rolling and changing. This is where the chief oxygenation is occurring.
There is a certain peace of mind one gains by having a closed system without an open sump. You should still use a rubbermaid container or liner to catch drips and direct them to a drain. These systems also run silently.
OceanClear makes a modular canister filter system with biological, chemical, UV sterilizer and mechanical options. The only issue I have with them is the lid is quirky and can be difficult to get a good seal. There is a flaw in the mould that leaves a seam where the "O" ring seats on the top. Pentair has a similar line but they are tall and narrow and subsequently difficult to fit under a display tank.
This OceanClear canister has been modified with a 1" compression fitting to hold a heater, a clear acrylic lid for light penetration, a totally inadequate Coralife power compact light (it was 7 years ago), and a bag of carbon. The flow is strong enough to keep the Chaetomorpha algae ball spinning for better light exposure and detritus removal. A second OC canister is attached to this one (located in an adjacent cabinet) with 25 micron mechanical and 18 watt Aqua UV sterilizer. The tank is a 55 gallon reef with only one pump on a 2-Way OceansMotions wave maker.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17640641&postcount=4333
Is a skimmer becoming obsolete
« on: September 18, 2010, 11:18:04 PM »
I have gathered a few points that might be worthy of discussing
What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature
The chemical/elemental composition of skimmate generated by an H&S 200-1260 skimmer on a 175-gallon reef tank over the course of several days or a week had some surprises. Only a minor amount of the skimmate (solid + liquid) could be attributed to organic carbon (TOC); about 29%, and most of that material was not water soluble, i.e., was not dissolved organic carbon. The majority of the recovered skimmate solid, apart from the commons ions of seawater, was CaCO3, MgCO3, and SiO2 - inorganic compounds! The origin of these species is not known with certainity, but a good case can be made that the SiO2 stems from the shells of diatoms. The CaCO3 might be derived from other planktonic microbes bearing calcium carbonate shells, or might come from calcium reactor effluent. To the extent that the solid skimmate consists of microflora, then some proportion of the insoluble organic material removed by skimming would then simply be the organic components (the "guts") of these microflora. These microflora do concentrate P, N, and C nutrients from the water column, and so their removal via skimming does constitute a means of nutrient export
The work of Ken Feldman on protein skimmer efficacy or lack there of is leading us closer to closed systems without sumps. If protein skimmers can only remove 20% of the TOC (total organic carbon), then maybe we should scrap them entirely and spend the (protein skimmer, surface skimmer, sump, plumbing, & return pump) money on better resources. That's a lot of money and energy that can be redirected to more efficient means of TOC reduction. Maybe our protein skimmers should be out in the garage with our bioballs and exercise equipment (as seen on TV)
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17637377&postcount=4305
To oversimplify, here are some methods...
Biological:
- nitrification (bacteria on substrate surfaces)
- denitrification (bacteria & in-fauna/sand critters in substrate internal structure)
- assimilation (microbes/bacterial film on coral & algae tissue)
- nutrient export (mangroves, algae, and coral harvesting)
Chemical:
- carbon (ROX type is faster)
- granular ferric oxide (GFO phosphate removal)
- aluminum oxide (phosphate removal)
- chemipure (TOC & heavy metal removal)
- polyfilter (TOC & heavy metal removal)
- zeolite (TOC & heavy metal removal)
- protein skimming (TOC & heavy metal removal)
- ozone (oxidation of bacteria, parasites, & TOC/total organic carbon including particulate & dissolved)
- ultraviolet sterilization (oxidation of bacteria, parasites, & TOC/total organic carbon including particulate & dissolved)
- water changes (nutrient export)
Mechanical:
- filter bags/socks
- cartridges
- sponges & pads
- physical removal (settling & siphoning)
Many reef aquarists only employ a few of these methods or do so to a limited extent. Carbon levels are typically elevated in marine aquaria and cause stress to corals and feed nuisance algae. Granular activated carbon (GAC) has proven to be the most effective method of TOC export, removing about 80% at a faster rate than protein skimming. Water changes can remove the remaining excess nutrients and organics as needed.
There is no overwhelming benefit to removing a protein skimmer that is in place, but considering it is the least efficient and most expensive & labour intensive device available, we should think twice about where to put our resources when designing a new tank. The marketing machine has sold us on the newest skimmer trends for years. That manufactured demand focus has now shifted to LED lighting. As John Tullock says "Less technology, more biology".
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17638248&postcount=4316
Ken Feldman had a nice demonstration in his presentation at MACNA. He showed two pictures of a skimmer cup. One was rich and dark brown with dry foam, while the other one had opaque light brown liquid and wet bubbles. The audience agreed that the darker skimmate was superior. He then disclosed that he used 2.6 oz of coffee grounds and some liquid soap he bubbled with a straw in the "efficient" cup. He placed a dime beside the dried coffee to put it into perspective. The "inefficient" skimmate was created with 10 oz of brown sugar and a little less effort with the straw in the liquid soap. The seemingly less efficient skimmate had five times more "stuff" by dry weight and the dime looked more like a peso next to it.
Unless you have a fancy TOC analyzer, you have no reasonable method of measuring your protein skimmers abilities. There is an easier method where PAR readings can be compared, but even this is out of reach for most hobbyists.
A healthy substrate can oxidize/assimilate detritus as quickly as it forms, providing your flow delivers most of it to the corals and filtration. There is usually a settling point(s) with most systems. It is possible to create a cone that would collect and export detritus automatically. Just make sure fish and inverts don't get exported to
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17638716&postcount=4323
Re: Is a skimmer becoming obsolete
First of all, I don't want to be known as the guy who told you to "just unplug your skimmer" They do remove 20% of the TOC and do so quickly. I would however advise against spending that extra $500 on the $1200 model.
There have been many successful reef tanks that have not had protein skimmers. There are also quite a few successful tanks that have skimmers that barely skim. The idea of abandoning a protein skimmer is enhanced when you can ditch your open system (sump) at the same time.
The caveat (warning) here is that you need to refocus the protein skimmer resources in other areas of TOC removal and nutrient export. If you follow Ron Shimek's work, you will know that there are many ways of exporting nutrients other than protein skimming. Take a look at the charts here... http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/index.php
While many hobbyists have refugiums, few exploit them to their fullest potential. A few compact fluorescent lights will grow macro algae, but with a little fine tuning you can harvest enough algae to keep your local health food store stocked
Header tanks (filter tanks above the display) can raise as many problems as sumps. The weight needs to be managed for one, and the water needs to be drained without adding bubbles to the display. One of the obvious advantages is that live food (plankton) can easily migrate from the refuge of the macro algae to the waiting polyps of the display tank.
Activated carbon (GAC) is another filtration method that is often carried out passively. ROX type carbon should be used and replaced frequently. In most cases the water clarity and colour is enough of an indication. Carbon should be placed in the path of moving water but in a way that limits channeling and clogging. A fluidized bed filter helps with this.
Ozone is another underutilized tool. You don't need a protein skimmer to dose ozone. If you increase the production of your refugium then you need to deal with the secondary metabolites (algae toxins) that are a byproduct. Protein skimmers can remove these, but carbon and ozone are more efficient.
Mechanical filters are also more efficient at removing POC (particulate organic carbon) than protein skimmers. Make sure you don't overlook this important filtration device if you omit a skimmer.
There is no significant gas exchange provided by protein skimming that you can't get with good water flow. Take some of the money you are saving and do your flow dynamics right. The air/water interface at the surface is constantly rolling and changing. This is where the chief oxygenation is occurring.
There is a certain peace of mind one gains by having a closed system without an open sump. You should still use a rubbermaid container or liner to catch drips and direct them to a drain. These systems also run silently.
OceanClear makes a modular canister filter system with biological, chemical, UV sterilizer and mechanical options. The only issue I have with them is the lid is quirky and can be difficult to get a good seal. There is a flaw in the mould that leaves a seam where the "O" ring seats on the top. Pentair has a similar line but they are tall and narrow and subsequently difficult to fit under a display tank.
This OceanClear canister has been modified with a 1" compression fitting to hold a heater, a clear acrylic lid for light penetration, a totally inadequate Coralife power compact light (it was 7 years ago), and a bag of carbon. The flow is strong enough to keep the Chaetomorpha algae ball spinning for better light exposure and detritus removal. A second OC canister is attached to this one (located in an adjacent cabinet) with 25 micron mechanical and 18 watt Aqua UV sterilizer. The tank is a 55 gallon reef with only one pump on a 2-Way OceansMotions wave maker.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17640641&postcount=4333
Last edited:
inverted
Non-member
I agree with some of what you say, but don't see where your showing a cheaper/easier alternative to skimming. For example, you have shown that a skimmer may remove as much as a 20-35% water change. If I do a 20-35% weekly, on top of the 15% I already do, I've paid off my skimmer in just over 1/2 of a year! You make interesting points, but if I go through, line by line, it and look at the whole picture, it seems that skimmers are cheap and efficient compared to the other methods you mentioned, at least in all but the smallest tanks.
The skimmer in the cup says nothing about the proportion/amount in the tank....
The protein skimmer removed 20%-35% of TOC. In Kens study, previously mentioned, It removed 100% of certain organics. (I would call 100% efficient ). Also, Kens study here: (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature) shows that skimmers removed a lot of bacteria. Also, not more than the range of TOC really, but still enough to bring aquaria bacterial levels down to below ocean levels without organic carbon dosing. Some would consider that skimming too much, regardless of the number. I don't see why anyone would think that you need to remove 100% of TOC, as I mentioned in Kens quote, "TOC is called "the soil of the sea" for a reason." A stronger argument against skimming is still that it removes too much. You never need to remove all of the TOC, just a small amount if and when it accumulates too high
Yes this is good
Thik of it like this. From here: Randy H-F says:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1779237
" For those interested in knowing how much phosphorus is being exported by macroalgae, this free PDF article in the journal Marine Biology has some important information. It gives the phosphorus and nitrogen content for nine different species of macroalgae, including many that reefkeepers typically maintain. For example, Caulerpa racemosa collected off Hawaii contains about 0.08 % phosphorus by dry weight and 5.6% nitrogen. Harvesting 10 grams (dry weight) of this macroalgae from an aquarium would be the equivalent of removing 24 mg of phosphate from the water column. That amount is the equivalent of reducing the phosphate concentration from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm in a 67-gallon aquarium. All of the other species tested gave similar results (plus or minus a factor of two). Interestingly, using the same paper's nitrogen data, this would also be equivalent to reducing the nitrate content by 2.5 grams, or 10 ppm in that same 67-gallon aquarium."
From here Randy says:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/index.php
" Flake fish food is typically about 1% phosphorus (3% phosphate equivalent) by weight (and many products have such phosphorus data on their labels). Consequently, if five grams of flake food is added to a 100-gallon aquarium, there is the potential for the inorganic orthophosphate level to be raised by 0.4 ppm in that SINGLE FEEDING!"
The point is we have a lot of input. To get it out, you need a combination of factors. Skimmers are individually, likely to still be one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient per dollar.
And how much would it cost to replace GAC/GFO every few days?
Again from Ken, I think we'd agree, the same should apply to GFO ?
"Under conditions of aggressive DOC removal (skimming, water changes, GAC use), the GAC charge should last over a month, but under more passive nutrient removal husbandry (no skimming? no frequent water changes?), the GAC charge will be depleted in just a few days."
Aluminum oxide, is expensive, depletes quickly and can leach back into the water once exhausted. Also, may irritate certain corals:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/7/chemistry
Chemipure is just GAC and GFO. The chem gurus tell me that the ionizing resins don't work in saltwater. Do you disagree?
I think they are like $6 a pad and IME last maybe a few days to a week.
I would like be interested in seeing that they remove metals in saltwater. The chem gurus, such as R-H-F seem to disagree. Also, removing them can remove bacteria and TOC. Can you show how effectively it does so compared to a skimmer?
expensive compared to a skimmer. Also, not sure how effective:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/rhf/index.php
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/rhf/index.php
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-05/rhf/index.php
Expensive compared to a skimmer. Also, not effective. Here is couldn't even reduce bacterial counts, which is what it is intended to do LOL
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
A skimmer removes 20-35% of DOC. So, that would mean you need to do a 20-35% water change to accomplish the same!
Need to be replaced/cleaned very often or are reported to result in nitrate issues. I haven't used these in a decade LOL.
I disagree, when you look at skimming compared to the other methods, there is overwhelming evidence that it is one of the single most efficient and least labor-intensive devices. I set it forget it and it removes as much TOC as a 20-35% water change! That's awesome!
All of the other things you mention seem expensive and inefficient compared to a skimmer.... 20-35% is not trivial.
The skimmer in the cup says nothing about the proportion/amount in the tank....
The protein skimmer removed 20%-35% of TOC. In Kens study, previously mentioned, It removed 100% of certain organics. (I would call 100% efficient ). Also, Kens study here: (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature) shows that skimmers removed a lot of bacteria. Also, not more than the range of TOC really, but still enough to bring aquaria bacterial levels down to below ocean levels without organic carbon dosing. Some would consider that skimming too much, regardless of the number. I don't see why anyone would think that you need to remove 100% of TOC, as I mentioned in Kens quote, "TOC is called "the soil of the sea" for a reason." A stronger argument against skimming is still that it removes too much. You never need to remove all of the TOC, just a small amount if and when it accumulates too high
Yes this is good
Sure, but it is still in the system until removed. A skimmer removes a fair amount of this stuff when it is floating around.
And you think skimming is inefficient? This is not at all more efficient than skimming. For most systems, you would need a huge reservoir for all that cheato, mangroves and macro. How much salt and heating costs would that add?
Thik of it like this. From here: Randy H-F says:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1779237
" For those interested in knowing how much phosphorus is being exported by macroalgae, this free PDF article in the journal Marine Biology has some important information. It gives the phosphorus and nitrogen content for nine different species of macroalgae, including many that reefkeepers typically maintain. For example, Caulerpa racemosa collected off Hawaii contains about 0.08 % phosphorus by dry weight and 5.6% nitrogen. Harvesting 10 grams (dry weight) of this macroalgae from an aquarium would be the equivalent of removing 24 mg of phosphate from the water column. That amount is the equivalent of reducing the phosphate concentration from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm in a 67-gallon aquarium. All of the other species tested gave similar results (plus or minus a factor of two). Interestingly, using the same paper's nitrogen data, this would also be equivalent to reducing the nitrate content by 2.5 grams, or 10 ppm in that same 67-gallon aquarium."
From here Randy says:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-09/rhf/index.php
" Flake fish food is typically about 1% phosphorus (3% phosphate equivalent) by weight (and many products have such phosphorus data on their labels). Consequently, if five grams of flake food is added to a 100-gallon aquarium, there is the potential for the inorganic orthophosphate level to be raised by 0.4 ppm in that SINGLE FEEDING!"
The point is we have a lot of input. To get it out, you need a combination of factors. Skimmers are individually, likely to still be one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient per dollar.
And how much would it cost to replace GAC/GFO every few days?
Again from Ken, I think we'd agree, the same should apply to GFO ?
"Under conditions of aggressive DOC removal (skimming, water changes, GAC use), the GAC charge should last over a month, but under more passive nutrient removal husbandry (no skimming? no frequent water changes?), the GAC charge will be depleted in just a few days."
Aluminum oxide, is expensive, depletes quickly and can leach back into the water once exhausted. Also, may irritate certain corals:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/7/chemistry
Chemipure is just GAC and GFO. The chem gurus tell me that the ionizing resins don't work in saltwater. Do you disagree?
I think they are like $6 a pad and IME last maybe a few days to a week.
I would like be interested in seeing that they remove metals in saltwater. The chem gurus, such as R-H-F seem to disagree. Also, removing them can remove bacteria and TOC. Can you show how effectively it does so compared to a skimmer?
expensive compared to a skimmer. Also, not sure how effective:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/rhf/index.php
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/rhf/index.php
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-05/rhf/index.php
Expensive compared to a skimmer. Also, not effective. Here is couldn't even reduce bacterial counts, which is what it is intended to do LOL
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
A skimmer removes 20-35% of DOC. So, that would mean you need to do a 20-35% water change to accomplish the same!
Need to be replaced/cleaned very often or are reported to result in nitrate issues. I haven't used these in a decade LOL.
I'm fond of this method, but very labor intensive.
I disagree, when you look at skimming compared to the other methods, there is overwhelming evidence that it is one of the single most efficient and least labor-intensive devices. I set it forget it and it removes as much TOC as a 20-35% water change! That's awesome!
All of the other things you mention seem expensive and inefficient compared to a skimmer.... 20-35% is not trivial.
Last edited:
I think this from one of the above links sums it up best.....
"Our earlier research on the topic of carbon nutrient levels in marine aquaria (Feldman, 2008; Feldman, 2009; Feldman, 2010) has provided experimental documentation for four conclusions that impact on TOC management in our reef tanks:"
1.Reef aquaria utilizing active filtration (GAC, skimming) maintain equilibrium TOC levels within the range found on healthy tropical reefs.
2.Protein skimming (i.e., bubbles) is not very effective at removing TOC from aquarium water, depleting typical reef tank water of only ~ 20 - 35% of the post-feeding TOC present.
3.GAC filtration is quite effective at stripping reef tank water of its TOC load, removing 60 - 85% of the TOC present.
4.And, quite intriguingly, the natural biological filtration, which starts with bacteria and other microbes, is remarkable in its capacity to remediate reef tank water of TOC, easily removing 50% or more of the post-feeding TOC increase in tank water.
Conclusions (2) and (3) describe the consequences of mechanical filtration on TOC levels, but the 4th conclusion emphasizes the importance of the "hidden" part of the remediation equation, bacterial predation, for gaining an understanding of the dynamics of carbon commerce in our aquaria. In fact, this observation, coupled with the advent of Carbon Dosing strategies for nutrient export, led to a new series of questions regarding the perhaps pivotal role of bacteria, or at least skimmable water column bacteria, in successful reef aquarium husbandry.
"Our earlier research on the topic of carbon nutrient levels in marine aquaria (Feldman, 2008; Feldman, 2009; Feldman, 2010) has provided experimental documentation for four conclusions that impact on TOC management in our reef tanks:"
1.Reef aquaria utilizing active filtration (GAC, skimming) maintain equilibrium TOC levels within the range found on healthy tropical reefs.
2.Protein skimming (i.e., bubbles) is not very effective at removing TOC from aquarium water, depleting typical reef tank water of only ~ 20 - 35% of the post-feeding TOC present.
3.GAC filtration is quite effective at stripping reef tank water of its TOC load, removing 60 - 85% of the TOC present.
4.And, quite intriguingly, the natural biological filtration, which starts with bacteria and other microbes, is remarkable in its capacity to remediate reef tank water of TOC, easily removing 50% or more of the post-feeding TOC increase in tank water.
Conclusions (2) and (3) describe the consequences of mechanical filtration on TOC levels, but the 4th conclusion emphasizes the importance of the "hidden" part of the remediation equation, bacterial predation, for gaining an understanding of the dynamics of carbon commerce in our aquaria. In fact, this observation, coupled with the advent of Carbon Dosing strategies for nutrient export, led to a new series of questions regarding the perhaps pivotal role of bacteria, or at least skimmable water column bacteria, in successful reef aquarium husbandry.
inverted
Non-member
KSC, you definitely provide some great discussion and make excellent points! Thanks for posting, I know we all have our opinions, and certainly others can make more informed decisions if a range of opinions are presented. I certainly agree that there can be a case for skimmerless tank, I just don't agree that it is cheaper, or less labor intensive to run a skimmer less tank. Also, bacteria, algae, GAC and other methods do not respond as fast as a skimmer when something happens, such as a fish or coral death. Overall though, if there is an argument against skimmers, for reasons mentioned, I personally find it more convincing that they remove too much as opposed to too little though. Otherwise, I have no issue with your statements really.
just to follow up though.
That seems like a good thing.
How much do you need to remove?
And exhaust quickly.
First, this happens with or without a skimmer. Also, they remove organic carbon from the water. As discussed previously, some of it goes to CO2 and is removed, the rest goes to tissue for biomass and stays in the tank. This is only 50% of what you add though, so, somehow you need to remove more, to get a steady state. Also, anything stored in tissue must be physically removed. Co2 used by macro algae can potentiall add some back etc... One way to remove some more though is with a skimmer. The article you got this from goes on to say:
"Overall, the major conclusions from these water column bacteria removal experiments are
1. GAC (Granular Activated Carbon) filtration does not remove bacteria from the water column.
2. Protein skimming (bubbles) removes approximately 30 - 40% of the bacteria in the water column of carbon-treated or organic rich water, but the remainder is not susceptible to bubble-based removal.
3. Steady state bacteria populations in skimmed reef tank water are not subject to further skimmer-based bacteria removal - there is a baseline value that the skimmer will not go below.
"
Although, I do not agree with the statement GAC does not remove bacteria. When you remove the GAC, the bacteria colonizing it is also removed. How much that is, is questionable though, it may be trivial compared to what is removed by a skimmer. I don't know.
For many tanks, a combination of filtration should be employed. You've pointed out alternative combination. As far as return on time and investment goes, a combination with a skimmer seems to be one of the most efficient as far as I have seen.
just to follow up though.
That seems like a good thing.
How much do you need to remove?
And exhaust quickly.
First, this happens with or without a skimmer. Also, they remove organic carbon from the water. As discussed previously, some of it goes to CO2 and is removed, the rest goes to tissue for biomass and stays in the tank. This is only 50% of what you add though, so, somehow you need to remove more, to get a steady state. Also, anything stored in tissue must be physically removed. Co2 used by macro algae can potentiall add some back etc... One way to remove some more though is with a skimmer. The article you got this from goes on to say:
"Overall, the major conclusions from these water column bacteria removal experiments are
1. GAC (Granular Activated Carbon) filtration does not remove bacteria from the water column.
2. Protein skimming (bubbles) removes approximately 30 - 40% of the bacteria in the water column of carbon-treated or organic rich water, but the remainder is not susceptible to bubble-based removal.
3. Steady state bacteria populations in skimmed reef tank water are not subject to further skimmer-based bacteria removal - there is a baseline value that the skimmer will not go below.
"
Although, I do not agree with the statement GAC does not remove bacteria. When you remove the GAC, the bacteria colonizing it is also removed. How much that is, is questionable though, it may be trivial compared to what is removed by a skimmer. I don't know.
For many tanks, a combination of filtration should be employed. You've pointed out alternative combination. As far as return on time and investment goes, a combination with a skimmer seems to be one of the most efficient as far as I have seen.
Last edited:
STiTCH87
Saltwater OCD Victim
So what you two's opinions be on all that info applied to a 5g pico? How would you two personally set it up and run it? I'm setting mine up as we speak after having once had a 29g for a year and a half and i'm ofcourse going skimmerless but would love feedback on if/what I should dose and if/what filtration should be used aside from weekly 2g waterchanges.
inverted
Non-member
Well, that's easy as we have had a 6g Fluval edge setup in our kitchen for 8 months or so. Right now, we just have the stock filter, with the cartridges removed. In place of the cartridges, we have a filter bag, with a mix of ROX .08 carbon and GFO. The GFO and GAC are changed weekly and we do a 10% water change per week. Nothing is dosed, but it is mostly Ricordia and Zoanthids. At the moment there also a frogspawn and a small monti frag, which seems to be doing well. I've had other corals in the tank from time to time, mostly for experimenting with different lighting from the main tank. Everything I have put in it seems to do well with that maintenance routine.
STiTCH87
Saltwater OCD Victim
I assume that ROX .08 and GAC are the same thing? (ROX is activated carbon i'm assuming...) And really only a 10% WC? I was thinking 20% for mine but how do you feel yours is doing personally at 10? And yeah i'll be keeping mostly softies. Maybe a frogspawn or candycane or similar LPS but nothing more "difficult" of an LPS or any SPS. What type of lighting do you have? I bought an Ecoxotic EcoPico with the 3 LED strip rated for reefs but IDK just how bright it is in lumens and judging watts for coral health with LEDs isn't as easy for me as the known figured i'd choose with T5s or similar.
You have any photos?
If so PM me some links as I don't want to jack this thread off-topic.
You have any photos?
If so PM me some links as I don't want to jack this thread off-topic.
inverted
Non-member
Will do. ROX .08 is basically just a high grade, low dust carbon. I think the water changes are less because I use almost as much carbon as on my 93g. However, it's cheap enough to do so on such a small tank. Everything is relative. As KSC mentioned, carbon is very effective at remove organics, much more so than skimming without a doubt. If I scaled that up to the big tank, that would be a massive amount though. Whether necessary or not, I don't know. As KSC mentioned we don't have the means to detect organic carbon levels, so, there is some guess work and no one can say for sure what is necessary or isn't. We all have our opinions though.
Last edited:
STiTCH87
Saltwater OCD Victim
So how much GFO and GAC do you dose in your 6g? I assume you mix the two in the same sock in your stock skimmer? I also have an AC70 I was thinking of setting up into a 'fuge for chaeto. Opinions? I'm gonna start a new thread about my 5g to get more help on it that way I don't jack this thread off-topic so reply on there =]
inverted
Non-member
Well, this is related to skimmer less filtration, so, as long as we're discussing the filtration, it seems in line to me. I kind of eyeball the filtration media now, I don't remember the exact amounts. For carbon, I think it's around a cup. Which is about 25-50x most recommendations. Probably about 1/3 cup of GFO, not quite as aggressive, but still about 4x what most of the calculators will recommend. I can't measure organic carbon, but I can go by what the corals look like, water clarity and algae. For GFO I use a Hanna 736 checker to measure phosphorous. Everything seems happy and very minimal algae, with 2 feedings per day (1 flake, 1 frozen). I'm not that familiar with AC70 but from the pictures I see online, it looks like it could work.
me2003
Non-member
There are some basic issues with Ken S. Feldman articles in Advanced Aquarist.
I am not necessarily saying they are incorrect and not interesting additional information.
A warning with many articles is just because they sound technical does not mean they are science.
Some issues
1. Advanced Aquarist is not a peer reviewed magazine and unless reviewed by other scientist in the field
they should be treated as only anecdotal information.
2. The methods section seems to missing important details which could help define his data.
3. The experiment is impossible to replicate and has no statistical analysis.
4. Intro,methods,results and discussion using standard traceable methods and established protocols.
I am not sure what the article is really stating.
"Only a minor amount of the skimmate (solid + liquid) could be attributed to organic carbon (TOC); about 29%"
29% is not a minor amount.
"The majority of the recovered skimmate solid, apart from the commons ions of seawater, was CaCO3, MgCO3, and SiO2
- inorganic compounds" Why? I would think that such large loss of common ions would be easily measurable.
Phrases like this are concerning.
"authentic ocean TOC"
"with a little chemical intuition"
"These data can be interpreted with some application of chemical intuition and some assumptions."
"might just be"
"it is most likely derived"
"One caveat on this interpretation, of course, is the fact that ~ 90% of the crude original
skimmate was washed away with water. Perhaps that water-soluble fraction contained significant
quantities of dissolved organic carbon, which would be undetected by the above analysis."
I am not necessarily saying they are incorrect and not interesting additional information.
A warning with many articles is just because they sound technical does not mean they are science.
Some issues
1. Advanced Aquarist is not a peer reviewed magazine and unless reviewed by other scientist in the field
they should be treated as only anecdotal information.
2. The methods section seems to missing important details which could help define his data.
3. The experiment is impossible to replicate and has no statistical analysis.
4. Intro,methods,results and discussion using standard traceable methods and established protocols.
I am not sure what the article is really stating.
"Only a minor amount of the skimmate (solid + liquid) could be attributed to organic carbon (TOC); about 29%"
29% is not a minor amount.
"The majority of the recovered skimmate solid, apart from the commons ions of seawater, was CaCO3, MgCO3, and SiO2
- inorganic compounds" Why? I would think that such large loss of common ions would be easily measurable.
Phrases like this are concerning.
"authentic ocean TOC"
"with a little chemical intuition"
"These data can be interpreted with some application of chemical intuition and some assumptions."
"might just be"
"it is most likely derived"
"One caveat on this interpretation, of course, is the fact that ~ 90% of the crude original
skimmate was washed away with water. Perhaps that water-soluble fraction contained significant
quantities of dissolved organic carbon, which would be undetected by the above analysis."
me2003
Non-member
Activated Charcoal has a limited capacity and lifetime (Clogging, max absorbance etc)
Protein skimming pulls out organics.
Poly filters remove organics also.
Water changes also remove organics etc.
I use all four methods and tend to consider aquariums as highly polluted systems
and I am amazed what grows in them.
Since Lee Chin Eng natural reef aquarium people have been trying to recreate
a quality skimmerless system. It is not an easy task.
There are articles on this from late 1950s early 1960s that I have never been able to find a copy of
for example
Lee Chin Eng in a 1961 issue of Tropical Fish Hobbyist magazine (Eng, 1961).
I have actually purchase (EBAY) some TFH from that time and never got the right month
After several years of trying and searching ebay, I stopped looking. I just check
and there may be some available that I don't have now.
Protein skimming pulls out organics.
Poly filters remove organics also.
Water changes also remove organics etc.
I use all four methods and tend to consider aquariums as highly polluted systems
and I am amazed what grows in them.
Since Lee Chin Eng natural reef aquarium people have been trying to recreate
a quality skimmerless system. It is not an easy task.
There are articles on this from late 1950s early 1960s that I have never been able to find a copy of
for example
Lee Chin Eng in a 1961 issue of Tropical Fish Hobbyist magazine (Eng, 1961).
I have actually purchase (EBAY) some TFH from that time and never got the right month
After several years of trying and searching ebay, I stopped looking. I just check
and there may be some available that I don't have now.
Last edited:
inverted
Non-member
Yes, even with peer reviewed journals there can be issues with interpreting the comments, rather than the methods and results. In college, we were always told to focus on and critique the methods and results and pay less attention to the comments. There are also different levels of peer review journals, some are much more rigorous in their requirements. I remember once in college, I had to write a term paper and there was a paper that seemed to answer one important question for my discussion. The issue was the results presented in the abstract and results section were the complete opposite! I showed a number of people and they all agreed that there must have been a typo, it wasn't a misinterpretation. Still boggles my mind to this day
I think Ken does great work, but, keep in mind, it is a starting point, not the final word. There are plenty of places I see potential issues. One quote that I have used for example, certainly should be critiqued more:
"Under conditions of aggressive DOC removal (skimming, water changes, GAC use), the GAC charge should last over a month, but under more passive nutrient removal husbandry (no skimming? no frequent water changes?), the GAC charge will be depleted in just a few days."
The main issues I see with this quote are that it is based on a model, which makes certain assumptions, that may or may not apply to any given system. One such assumption is the idea that GAC could last over a month. In the scientific literature for example, there is examples of bacterial colonization. The bacteria can actually extend the life of the GAC, by consuming organics on the surface. However, at the same time, it inhibits flow to the surface and may reduce the available surface area for adsorption of organics. From what I remember, Ken did not seem to model or account for this.
inverted
Non-member
There are two other topics, related to a skimmer less tank, that, it seems to me should be discussed a bit. I don't have time to post on them now, but they are HLLE and carbon and metals/impurities, and water changes. As these are mentioned as key alternatives to skimming, they are probably worth discussion.
If these topics have a larger than expected response, or people think that they should have their own thread, I will move them to a new thread and just provide a link here, so that it doesn't take up too much space.
If these topics have a larger than expected response, or people think that they should have their own thread, I will move them to a new thread and just provide a link here, so that it doesn't take up too much space.
me2003
Non-member
HLLE should be a separate and here are a two articles to start with.
http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/content/activated-carbon-hlle-smoking-gun-found
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/activated-carbon-affirmed-as-causative-agent-for-hlle-disease
For metal removal this is an interesting patent. I don't understand the chemistry used in poly filters and wonder if it releases anything harmful.
This would be a separate thread like What is poly filter and how does it work
Patent 4,076,619
Hydrophilic acrylic polymers as marine filters, algae growth catalysts, and breeding stimulus for fish and invertebrates
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/4076619
There are two basic rules that poly filter usage violates. (Informal rules on BRS Possibly Greg Hiller as a source)
1. If you don't know what it is don't put it in your tank.
2. If you can't measure its effect than don't add it.
http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/content/activated-carbon-hlle-smoking-gun-found
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/activated-carbon-affirmed-as-causative-agent-for-hlle-disease
For metal removal this is an interesting patent. I don't understand the chemistry used in poly filters and wonder if it releases anything harmful.
This would be a separate thread like What is poly filter and how does it work
Patent 4,076,619
Hydrophilic acrylic polymers as marine filters, algae growth catalysts, and breeding stimulus for fish and invertebrates
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/4076619
There are two basic rules that poly filter usage violates. (Informal rules on BRS Possibly Greg Hiller as a source)
1. If you don't know what it is don't put it in your tank.
2. If you can't measure its effect than don't add it.
Last edited:
Aquaman_68
too many gadgets to fail
Man......I haven't seen much talk about HLLE in over 20 years....pretty much the cause of HLLE is the lack of certain trace elements & also algae in a closed system....Not from the absence of protein skimming!!!!Oh....brings back some fond memories of Leng Si & his "Miracle Mud".....It pretty much was able to trap certain proteins & also trace elements benificial to fish prone to getting HLLE..... People called it a gimmick!!!!But it actually worked!!! Helped to reverse the condition on fish that had it!!!!(this was back when most people who had salt water tanks were just that!!! A saltwater tank with SW fish & dead coral skeleton!!! Then Vita Chem was introduced to suppliment the food to help combat the condition....Then next selcon!! (fatty acids)...I actually used both & it did reverse the condition....but very very slowly & never completely....
These were the reasons that made me go to reef after spending close to 13 years with a swfo.....When I got into reef.....Brown Digi sticks were like the holy grail cause they were alive & encrusting!!!!
poly filters scare me cause once they r full they can purge toxins at an alarming level....They also remove some good with the bad!!!!! any kind of carbon use in a mechanical & not passive situation is a bad measure.....Removing it mechanically disturbs the delicate balance as it removes too quickly.......They take out bad...But also remove bennificial as well...... As far as non skimming an an sps tank.....NO way!!!! Too many "toxins" excreted by different sps species If u have a majorty of one family or genius of sps that is fine.......but different family & genius can & will b a bad situation......They will b declairing war on eachother & wittout the skimmer...there is no line of defense for the weaker!!!
Mixed reef.....Softies,sps,lps....No skimmer ur asking for alot of trouble.....It can b done but the balance is way out of the means of hobbiest!!!
These were the reasons that made me go to reef after spending close to 13 years with a swfo.....When I got into reef.....Brown Digi sticks were like the holy grail cause they were alive & encrusting!!!!
poly filters scare me cause once they r full they can purge toxins at an alarming level....They also remove some good with the bad!!!!! any kind of carbon use in a mechanical & not passive situation is a bad measure.....Removing it mechanically disturbs the delicate balance as it removes too quickly.......They take out bad...But also remove bennificial as well...... As far as non skimming an an sps tank.....NO way!!!! Too many "toxins" excreted by different sps species If u have a majorty of one family or genius of sps that is fine.......but different family & genius can & will b a bad situation......They will b declairing war on eachother & wittout the skimmer...there is no line of defense for the weaker!!!
Mixed reef.....Softies,sps,lps....No skimmer ur asking for alot of trouble.....It can b done but the balance is way out of the means of hobbiest!!!
