Skimmer or ATS first?

[dirtycontour]

Skimmer or ATS first in sump? Reasoning?

[kotlec]

Skimmer. Aerates water and helps scrubber breathe. There is Garfs separate topic on that.

[Garf]

Skimmer. Aerates water and helps scrubber breathe. There is Garfs separate topic on that.

There's no right or wrong way to do it, just depends on what you consider to be more important to your tank;
http://algaescrubber.net/forums/showthread.php?2169-Skimmers-help-Scrubbers-breathe

[duganderson]

Don't most folks have success without a skimmer? If the scrubber is enough, aren't you just at risk for pulling out too many useful nutrients with the skimmer?

I don't really know these things. I've read about these concepts and am more asking for what actually works for folks.

[RkyRickstr]

And i have been running scrubber only with no water changes for a year.

I recently added bubbles to my screen to see if it helps the scrubber breathe.. might get me a skimmer soon. I just cant justify spending so much for a skimmer that i might not even need.

[SantaMonica]

pulling out too many useful nutrients with the skimmer?

Skimmers don't remove nutrients; they remove food particles, but leave nutrients in the water.

[Ace25]

I run my skimmer after the scrubber, but don't use the cup on the skimmer to collect anything, it just overflows back into the sump. I use the skimmer just for added aeration of the water, but that is a very expensive aerator ($300 in my case). I had the skimmer before I started using ATS's, otherwise I wouldn't use one, and on my second tank I have never used a skimmer.

[Garf]

Skimmers don't remove nutrients; they remove food particles, but leave nutrients in the water.

Still don't get this one. Makes no sense. What your saying here is don't scrub because your removing the nutrients that turn into particulates which feed the tank. Please enlighten me.

[SantaMonica]

Skimmers remove food particles and leave nutrients in the water.

[Ace25]

Garf, let's not go through this again. I think we have beat that topic to death. ;) It is semantics. Both views are right.. but my view is similar to yours Garf (#2).

View #1: Food contains nutrients bound up, nutrients never enter the water column, instead skimmer removes them, ie. doesn't remove nutrients per se.
View #2: Food contains nutrients bound up, by removing them via skimming you are removing nutrients from the system before they ever enter the water, leads to the opinion skimmers do in fact remove nutrients in a round about way.

I think the point that Santa Monica is so eloquently able to convey (sarcasm), is a skimmer does not remove N/P directly out of the water is any meaningful amount. Nutrients must be used/bound up in other things the skimmer can remove.

[duganderson]

Skimmers don't remove nutrients; they remove food particles, but leave nutrients in the water.

Christopher Marks on Nano-Reef in his article about natural filtration writes....

"Studies of skimmers have shown that they remove various trace elements, along with pods and plankton. When people run protein skimmers, they dose trace elements to replenish them after their corals and skimmers use them. Because the skimmer removes most of the elements, such as iodine, it is dosed back in causing almost an endless cycle. The main problem this holds in nano reefing is that many of the trace elements cannot be easily tested for, so no one ever knows where their level is. This can lead to overdosing which will crash a nano reef in a matter of hours. The skimmer also begins to starve your corals by removing their food source. It's simply too risky."

Are you saying his comments are not accurate??

[Ace25]

This article answers that question pretty clearly.

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

[duganderson]

This article answers that question pretty clearly.

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

Very interesting article....thanks for the reference.

Is there a similar scientific article analyzing what is pulled out of the tank with a scrubber or UAS by analyzing the algae removed????

[SantaMonica]

The Marks quote sounds good.

Here are some other things which "contain" nutrients: Tangs, zoo's, coral banded shrimp, coralline, amphipods, clownfish, phyto.

[sabbath]

The Marks quote sounds good.

Here are some other things which "contain" nutrients: Tangs, zoo's, coral banded shrimp, coralline, amphipods, clownfish, phyto.

Ya my Wife got to watch a Tang become nutrients to an Anenome once.
This was followed by a load yell of my name.

[Garf]

The Marks quote sounds good.

Here are some other things which "contain" nutrients: Tangs, zoo's, coral banded shrimp, coralline, amphipods, clownfish, phyto.


Indeed, but in your ecological model, removing a tang, or clownfish or filamentous algae (for instance) does not remove nutrients. This is just plain wrong. Now, if your talking dissolved inorganics, your right, skimmers don't remove them. But the only difference between an organic and inorganic is that the latter is not bound into a living cell. "nutrients" in your model are actually "dissolved inorganics".

[mess7777]

Indeed, but in your ecological model, removing a tang, or clownfish or filamentous algae (for instance) does not remove nutrients. This is just plain wrong. Now, if your talking dissolved inorganics, your right, skimmers don't remove them. But the only difference between an organic and inorganic is that the latter is not bound into a living cell. "nutrients" in your model are actually "dissolved inorganics".

Unless the tang dies and is stuck under rocks where you can't get it!! That's what happened to me.