New - ats or uas and skimmer less

[Toejam]

Hi all,

I'm starting my 150 gallon tank and have been doing a lot of reading regarding ats and skimmers etc, I plan on using either ats or uas instead of a skimmer. I read the test carried out on skimmers which found they only removed up to 30% organics and some of that is food and beneficial organics which to me suggests it's not very efficient especially as the other 70% of organics will break down into inorganics which will not be removed from the system untill you remove them via water change.

So by using a ats/uas my coral, fish, cuc, siphon during maintence will eat any of the organic material in the tank, then when it breaks down into inorganic the ats will remove it from the system while also adding trace elements. If so why do people invest so much money into skimmers when they appear to be so inefficient? Is it because that's the trend?

I appreciate using both would be good but the cost to benefit ratio of a skimmer does not seem very good, granted its because I've never seen the benefits of a protein skimmer.

Also would I be better if using an ats or uas? If I go uas is the screen size the same ratio as for a waterfall ats?

[SantaMonica]

Welcome from England.

Skimmers have marketing budgets to make it look like they are everywhere. So, people want what they see others doing.

And, people associated brown food particles (skimmate) with "bad". But food particles are... brown. So unless you need a display that is unnaturally clear (like in a store), then it's better to let the corals, shrimp, small fish eat those particles. Just like real reefs and lakes.

A UAS® is one type of ATS, and a waterfall is another type of ATS. Although ATS is a registered trademark of Hydromentia.

Upflows are technically more effective because of the air bubble air/water turbulence, but in practice you have to use what you can fit, build, clean easily, not overflow, etc.