What is in skimmate?

[jmaneyapanda]

An important issue to consider is the variable of TIME is this question. If a huge bolus of waste enters the systems (dying fish, clam, coral, etc), when will a water change take it out? Immediately? No, only when you do it. A skimmer is a constant method of filtration which absolutely , without doubt, removes organic waste as soon as it hits the water that feeds the skimmer. Furthermore, it arguably is perpetual. Carbon needs to replenished/renewed frequently to be effective.

In my almost 20 years of marine keeping, a skimmer is a piece of equipment I have learned I would <u>NEVER</u> run any system without, under any circumstances. With, of course, the exception of a flow through system, if I lived on a pristine coast.

To bluntly answer this question, this is what it takes out (compliments of Skriz). Why would you want that in your tank water? Yes, Carbon and water changes may also removes such material, but not as immediately and without such tremendous effort, and arguably greater costs over the "big picture".

alt="" />

 

[snowmansnow]

I think skimmers are part of the evolution of the hobby. Sure, you CAN run a system without a skimmer, but why? They do take goo out.

I was recently reminded of this when my skimmer cup, half full of brown sludge, overfilled back into my sump, dumping all that stuff back in. EWWWWW.

I did a google images search on skimmerless reef tanks and found some AWESOME looking tanks... that being said they were slammed full of softies and such. Very few SPS tanks out there are skimmerless, at least according to google.

B

 

[grouper therapy]

That is one of the questions at hand that Ken was attempting to address is how much of that visual that Jeremy supplied (best sales tool) is actually harmful to your marine system. Just because it looks gross doesn't deem it waste or harmful. Skimmers no doubt remove some organics but how much is and has been a question that until now was not even attempted to be answered. While Jeremy makes a very good point that they are constantly removing organics is it enough to offset the 100% removal of organics per water change volume? While skimmers do nothing to replaces major or minor trace elements(maybe even remove some) water changes do replenish these.

 

[grouper therapy]

SnowManSnow;594203 wrote: I think skimmers are part of the evolution of the hobby. Sure, you CAN run a system without a skimmer, but why? They do take goo out.

I was recently reminded of this when my skimmer cup, half full of brown sludge, overfilled back into my sump, dumping all that stuff back in. EWWWWW.

I did a google images search on skimmerless reef tanks and found some AWESOME looking tanks... that being said they were slammed full of softies and such. Very few SPS tanks out there are skimmerless, at least according to google.

B

Cost effective perhaps? Could that same energy and cost be applied in a more effective method of oc removal? Keep in mind that I am referencing cost of and operating cost of a skimmer supposedly big enough for a 1000 gallon system. $3000 to $ 6000 that is a lot of salt mix

 

[puffer9375]

grouper therapy;594109 wrote: [/B] What percentage of that balance does the skimmer contribute is my?

I am going to put in three cents cause I like you.

ONE

I can not believe I just read that article. Much less read some parts again trying to understand it better. After doing so I do not think the answer to your question is there or in my brain sorry man. :confused2:

TWO

What's TOC got to do with it, I thought skimming /fractionation was used to remove dissolved organic compounds (Crap) from the water column. His experiment showed that 30something percent of that (Crap) was comprised of TOC. How much TOC was in the water column being skimmed? What percentage of that was caught? Maybe that's all there was. He earlier in the article said no one is certain what the breakdown of TOC is or the concentration of it in natural seawater.
Or maybe I really did not understand it at all and think I did.

THREE

Are you trying to stir up another to skim or not to skim debate?

For what it's worth man I think you will be doing enough water changes to nullify any ill effects of not skimming. Hey how about creating a device to collect the foam caused by your surge device. That would be cool. After all thats how the big guy skims.

 

[grouper therapy]

I think it is more than simply water changes vs. skimmers. We already do water changes anyway so how much/many more would we have to do to compensate for not using a skimmer based on the info Ken F. has obtained. I am assuming that his info is somewhat accurate at least no one here has challenged it. Then there is the time factor that Jeremy pointed out. How often would we need to do them.

 

[misu]

well you sort of answered that earlier with that 37% that the best skimmer pulls. Just figure out how much water to replace to do the same thing over the same period of time.

I have a feeling it would be a lot and like Jeremy put it you will lose the "stability in total crap" a skimmer gives you

 

[grouper therapy]

puffer9375;594323 wrote: I am going to put in three cents cause I like you.

ONE

I can not believe I just read that article. Much less read some parts again trying to understand it better. After doing so I do not think the answer to your question is there or in my brain sorry man. :confused2:

TWO

What's TOC got to do with it, I thought skimming /fractionation was used to remove dissolved organic compounds (Crap) from the water column. His experiment showed that 30something percent of that (Crap) was comprised of TOC. How much TOC was in the water column being skimmed? What percentage of that was caught? Maybe that's all there was. He earlier in the article said no one is certain what the breakdown of TOC is or the concentration of it in natural seawater.
<u>Or maybe I really did not understand it at all and think I did.</u></em>

THREE

Are you trying to stir up another to skim or not to skim debate?

For what it's worth man I think you will be doing enough water changes to nullify any ill effects of not skimming. Hey how about creating a device to collect the foam caused by your surge device. That would be cool. After all thats how the big guy skims.

First since I respect you. (noticed I did not say like j/k)You would have to read his first article on the skimmer test to answer those ? The TOC he used was a protein(kinda like crap) from bovines and was a way to control the amount of oc in his system.
Second the above underlined is what I'm putting my money on!!:lol2:
Third Absolutely!! Respectful debate is healthy.

I'm actually planning a Reverse Carlson surge device very little foam production.

 

[grouper therapy]

misu;594328 wrote: well you sort of answered that earlier with that 37% that the best skimmer pulls. Just figure out how much water to replace to do the same thing over the same period of time.

I have a feeling it would be a lot and like Jeremy put it you will lose the "stability in total crap" a skimmer gives you

I understand that the skimmer starts to pull out the organics or dead fish, crabs or left over food instantly but it does not complete that task instantly. So how long does it take to do so and does it offer stability based on that time frame.
The 37% mentioned was on his tank at his level of TOC to begin with ,which would vary on other system. So I guess one would need to know that level to calculate the performance level of the skimmer to calculate the volume of the compensating water change. Interesting point MISU.

 

[puffer9375]

Your system now is what 300 gallons and you change 50 gallons a week is that correct? Do you still run that giant skimmer how much skim do you collect between changes? Did you collect more back when you did less frequent and smaller changes? Is there a formula to be derived from that?
I see what you are saying about time as Panda stated. I think he is correct IMO there is no subsitute for skimming. But then some say there is no substitute for a porsche yet there is as pointed out in a post some time back.

Seriously will your surge cause foam?

 

[puffer9375]

I type to slow I see you answered the foam question.

 

[grouper therapy]

puffer9375;594342 wrote: Your system now is what 300 gallons and you change 50 gallons a week is that correct? Do you still run that giant skimmer how much skim do you collect between changes? Did you collect more back when you did less frequent and smaller changes? Is there a formula to be derived from that?
I see what you are saying about time as Panda stated. I think he is correct IMO there is no subsitute for skimming. But then some say there is no substitute for a porsche yet there is as pointed out in a post some time back.

Seriously will your surge cause foam?

Not at all, nothing absolute anyway. So far as the amount of skimmate that it produced I'm not sure. That can change with the slightest turn of a valve handle so that's not a very reliable constant to use IMO.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Dave- I have no idea what your fishing at here.

Is skimmate "bad" or "harmful"? Probably not. Is it desireable? Also probably not. What are you looking for? I would argue that a tank FULL of aiptasia, Derbesia, Caulerpa, Bryopsis, and Valonia would mak a very stable, healthy, and suitable tank in terms of certain parameters. But it is COMPLETELY undesireable.

No on claimed that skimmers replace elements. However I DO claim, tthat is a main pinnacle in maintaining a desireable level of water quality that water changes and carbon filtration will not be able to handle.

So, please answer me this, what end goal are you hoping to achieve by running skimmerless? Low nutrient? Stability? Fish health? Coral health? Ease of maintainence?

In my experience, and having seen likely thousands of tank setups (including some of the worlds premier ones), Like I mentioned, I would NEVER set up ANY tank without a skimmer. In thinking more too, I do not know of ANY major aquarium (public aquarium) that doesnt spent an ENORMOUS amount of money on skimming. If foam fractionation were such marginally successful or questionable thing, why does EVERY major aquarium use them?

 

[grouper therapy]

jmaneyapanda;594436 wrote: Dave- I have no idea what your fishing at here.

Is skimmate "bad" or "harmful"? Probably not. Is it desireable? Also probably not. What are you looking for? I would argue that a tank FULL of aiptasia, Derbesia, Caulerpa, Bryopsis, and Valonia would mak a very stable, healthy, and suitable tank in terms of certain parameters. But it is COMPLETELY undesireable.

No on claimed that skimmers replace elements. However I DO claim, tthat is a main pinnacle in maintaining a desireable level of water quality that water changes and carbon filtration will not be able to handle.

So, please answer me this, what end goal are you hoping to achieve by running skimmerless? Low nutrient? Stability? Fish health? Coral health? Ease of maintainence?

In my experience, and having seen likely thousands of tank setups (including some of the worlds premier ones), Like I mentioned, I would NEVER set up ANY tank without a skimmer. In thinking more too, I do not know of ANY major aquarium (public aquarium) that doesnt spent an ENORMOUS amount of money on skimming. If foam fractionation were such marginally successful or questionable thing, why does EVERY major aquarium use them?

Why does a discussion about have to be a fishing trip? I never said that skim mate was desirable so I don't follow you on your reference to the nuisance aiptasia and algae . I never claimed skimmers replaced elements either so I guess we agree on that ,I did however claim that water changes did replace elements something I think we will also agree on. So far as a skimmer being the pinnacle of maintaining water quality , I disagree. Do they help absolutely !!! I never denied that. I asked first about the information obtained in this article and if anyone ,who knew more about that type of testing, observed any holes in the data collected. No one as of yet has. With that assumed correct information considered I then asked for discussion on maybe other alternatives of removing the same amount or more Organics in a more effective/cost effective manner. Also if water changes were the answer then what would that needed wc volume need to be.
Yes that is my goal why would you assume any differently?

I am absolutely thrilled that you have been able to visit so many aquariums. I'm sure you enjoyed that ,I would have.
Kinda one of my points with the public aquariums. According to you they spend "ENORMOUS "amounts of money on skimmers which I am sure they have to do this in order for their skimming to be effective. I don't have the "enormous" money they have. That said I am looking and discussing possible alternatives. There does not have to be a right and wrong here or an angle. I can respect your love affair with skimming which may prompt your defense of skimming but it is not necessary as this is not an anti skimmer thread . Skim away my friend as I may ,if I exhaust other methods.

 

[rbredding]

grouper therapy;593876 wrote: What is in skimmate?

salt... LOTS of it...

 

[grouper therapy]

Rbredding;594482 wrote: salt... LOTS of it...

Enough for a water change?

 

[ralph atl]

Out of town, I'll read through when I
Get back...

 

[jmaneyapanda]

grouper therapy;594475 wrote: Why does a discussion about have to be a fishing trip? I never said that skim mate was desirable so I don't follow you on your reference to the nuisance aiptasia and algae . I never claimed skimmers replaced elements either so I guess we agree on that ,I did however claim that water changes did replace elements something I think we will also agree on. So far as a skimmer being the pinnacle of maintaining water quality , I disagree. Do they help absolutely !!! I never denied that. I asked first about the information obtained in this article and if anyone ,who knew more about that type of testing, observed any holes in the data collected. No one as of yet has. With that assumed correct information considered I then asked for discussion on maybe other alternatives of removing the same amount or more Organics in a more effective/cost effective manner. Also if water changes were the answer then what would that needed wc volume need to be.
Yes that is my goal why would you assume any differently?

I am absolutely thrilled that you have been able to visit so many aquariums. I'm sure you enjoyed that ,I would have.
Kinda one of my points with the public aquariums. According to you they spend "ENORMOUS "amounts of money on skimmers which I am sure they have to do this in order for their skimming to be effective. I don't have the "enormous" money they have. That said I am looking and discussing possible alternatives. There does not have to be a right and wrong here or an angle. I can respect your love affair with skimming which may prompt your defense of skimming but it is not necessary as this is not an anti skimmer thread . Skim away my friend as I may ,if I exhaust other methods.

My apologies Dave. I think I misppoke, and caused you to misinterpret my comment. I didnt mean you were "fishing" for trouble. Just I didnt understand what you were asking about. I erroneously mistook this thread as a "skimmers arent necessary" thread, which is why I responded the way I did. I comment on the element replacing, etc, as a comment to a previous comment by you, which I admittedly misinterpreted.

My comment regarding having seen a lot of aquariums was not to boast or gloat, but to merely comment on the validity of skimmers.

Regardless, if this thread is to merely discuss options for you, I apologizing for derailing it.

 

[brianjfinn]

I don't think anyone has addressed this yet:

Dave, you may want to consider running a cost/benefit analysis on running a system with vs. without a skimmer. Unfortunately, I think there will be too many unknown variables which will require you to make assumptions, but I do think you could get pretty close.

What you'll have to consider is this:
Will the frequency and size of water changes depend on whether a skimmer is used or not?
Will purchasing a skimmer affect whether an efficient water change system is built and utilized?
Will running a skimmer affect other additives that are used, such as carbon sources.

I think you could come up with a reasonable analysis if you estimate the costs of the above items based on what you would change with or without a skimmer.

If I understand what your question is, you're wanting to know whether it would be more efficient to utilize the money that would be invested in a skimmer on some other means of nutrient export. I think the answer is "It Depends." It all depends on what maintenance regime you would be able to implement and whether you would be able to use the money elsewhere, assuming you've set a strict budget and the net effect on the budget is 0.

 

[rbredding]

grouper therapy;594627 wrote: Enough for a water change?

possibly, for $hits and gigglez one day I tasted it when I was cleaning the MR2 collection cup...

that's all you taste.. just salt...





(no, I didn't take a spoonfull or anything, just touched it to my tongue)