Contemplating a Skimmerless Tank

[fragalot]

Originally Posted by fragalot

Hi,

Can tank run without a skimmer? Of course. With well knowladge, lightly loaded, lightly feeding, lots of biological filtration and keep close eye on your tank. It can be done very well.

But if we keep this topic under like " Skimmerless is better " Its not going to help new hobbiest with very limited knowladge.
So please dont forget what we are talking about. Skimmer covers alots of new hobbiest mistakes.

[Delphinus]

Well, MY point is (and always was if you "read my posts carefully" see? two can play at this game ) is that skimmerless is certainly an option, because it's not about what equipment you have, but what your nutrient import/export balance is all about. It's a simple producer/consumer scenario. If less goes in, there's less to accumulate. If more goes in, you need to take more out. The goal is equilibrium. A skimmer is but one tool in the arsenal for this goal. There are several others.

I'm sorry but I guess what bothering me here is that over the years I've heard this argument again and again where someone takes a stand and seems to implicate that we should all throw our skimmers away "because they don't use it, and they have success." To turn things around on you a bit, it's the same thing as saying "Because *I* use a skimmer and have success, everyone who doesn't have one should go out and buy one" and that's the very sentiment to which you seem to be objecting. Never at once disputed success isn't possible, but MY point is that there is value in a properly tuned, good design skimmer.

(True, there are plenty of skimmers out there that may as well not be running for all the good that they do. So there may be some instances where indeed there's no difference to the system whether the skimmer is there or not.)

There was another user on Canreef a few years ago who used to argue this point as well, but what was never advertised was that his tanks were never more than a year old AND he used things like chemical resins. Show me a tank that has run skimmerless for 5 years or more without any kind of overhaul, without any new rock, and without any incident of nutrient buildup, and suddenly the playing field changes a little. Not saying it's not done, it most certainly IS done, but these people have a tank maintenance regime that very likely compensates for the function that a skimmer would otherwise provide.

Ultimately, like with any tool, it serves a function, but of course you should only use that tool if the function it provides is something you beleive has value to you. This applies to anything, be it skimmers, UV, halides, .. whatever.

Peace out.

[fragalot]

It cant be said better Tony.

[Der_Iron_Chef]

Originally Posted by Delphinus

Show me a tank that has run skimmerless for 5 years or more without any kind of overhaul, without any new rock, and without any incident of nutrient buildup, and suddenly the playing field changes a little.

Beverly?

[Der_Iron_Chef]

On a side note, I think it's interesting that all this broo-ha-ha came up when I mentioned putting my skimmer BACK on! He he. Ahh, I've never met a more passionate bunch.

Except for, maybe, the Buffy the Vampire Slayer crowd.

[Delphinus]

Mmmm. Buffy....

Bevery had some nice tanks, although (not to belabour the point) I don't think any one of them did make it to 5 years. But, be that as it may, I don't think I know of anyone who was more anal about her weekly tank vaccuuming and water changes. She was right on top of that sort of thing. So I think she falls under the category of a "tank maintenance regime that compensates."

[Der_Iron_Chef]

Buffy would never use a skimmer.

[Delphinus]

Buffy didn't have much of a nutrient buildup problem though.




(Zing!!!!)

[Der_Iron_Chef]

Damn you, Tony! Always with the witty comeback...

[Delphinus]

Yeah, but in person it's more like this:

Homer(/Tony): I believe we were talking of the land of chocolate? (I believe we were talking of Buffy?)
Germans: Zat vas ten minutes ago!!!