Scutterborn Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I may be showing the green in my gills here but, I had an idea. Filter feeders pull nutrients from the water. We use foam fractioning to pull nutrients from the water. We spend money on power foods to feed our coral. Our skimmers pull some/most of it back out. Why can't we use skimmate to taget feeds things like clams? Specifically when we are rehabbing them and do the I'm gonna enclose you in a bottle" feeding. I'm also not talking about just dumping our cups out into the DT. That would just be ignorant. While most of us try to run a low nutrient system we like to keep things that would thrive on a higher nutrient system. - Ben - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timfish Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Excellent question I think. But this subject is going to be argued for a long time to come. For more reading here's an analysis of skimmate: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature Another interesting study, http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature showed skimming dramaticly reduces the bacterial populations form what is found in nature but in the conclusion the researchers say this about skimming: "Aquaria subjected to active filtration via skimming present water column bacteria populations that are approximately 1/10 of those observed on natural reefs. The consequences of this disparity on the long-term health of the tank's livestock are not known. How do reef tank organisms adapt to such a bacteria-deficient environment? Is the whole food web in an aquarium perturbed, or are there compensatory mechanisms that maintain an appropriate energy transduction through all of the trophic levels? Is "old tank syndrome" related to possible nutritional deficiencies stemming from this bacteria "gap"? Alternatively, could "old tank syndrome" be symptomatic of a gradual decrease of bacterial diversity as a consequence of selective skimmer-based removal of only bubble-susceptible bacteria? At present, it is not possible to go beyond speculation on these points - further research is needed." Another interesting comment by Charles Delbeek, "Coral" Nov/Dec 20ll pg 127 "Our crystal clear aquaria do not come close to the nutrient loads that swirl around natural reefs." I for one do not see the need for skimming and have kept systems for many years without it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkness Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I know of a few tanks that are very very nice.tanks that dont use a skimmer and know of a few people on here that dont.use skimmers and i am not going to use a skimmer on the frag tank i am building and am in the process of making a sump/ refuge for my 210 so i no longer need a skimmer for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scutterborn Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 As much as I respect your wisdom and experience. The question wasn't "should I run a skimmer". I have three tanks. 2 of them are without skimmers. That is an entirely different debate. I'm simply curious as to whether the skimmate is worth using or is there too much unusable waste to worry about. Tim, I haven't had a chance to read the links yet. I'm at work and limited on time allowed to peruse these articles. I will, however, read them extensively when I get free time at lunch. - Ben - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juiceman Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 It's an interesting thing to ponder. My thought is that most coral foods don't reek of decayed food and waste. I have been using the Zeovit foods as of late, and they all smell like vinegar or similar. I would be afraid to add the skimmer contents. I think fresh skimmate maybe, but not the stuff that's been collecting over the week/month. I've heard of it feeding your garden though! like maybe right after you feed frozen food, let the juices etc get skimmed out, then spot feed it you your corals. Makes sense. Then the excess would get skimmed right back out! lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timfish Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Definitely read the research by Feldman et al. There is some earlier research by them that showed skimming only removes about a third of the Total Organic Carbon products in water (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature2). Looking at the two articles In my first post abut two thirds of the simmate is inorganic products atributed to bacterial debris. Considering this with the research showing skimming removes bacteria from the water column and it sounds like we're suggesting is we're going to be removing bacteria, killing a percentage of them then adding the dead and decomposing bacterial bodies back to the tank. Why not just leave the live bacteria in the tank? Incidentally, since a significant part of the bacterial debris includes inorganic phosphate this is probably the best argumnent for skimming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Tim, Love the material you provide. I have a pretty important question that the article never addresses. Why is bacteria in the reef important? If it is important, why are we not using it as an indicator parameter for captive reef health? It is clear that the data shows that the counts are lower in captivity vs. the wild, I just didn't see anything to the causality of more bacteria = healthier reef. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Bio)³ Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 This sounds like fish jenkem in the making... I bet I could add it to my jenkem reactor and this could be a neat cycle. Jenkem reactor drips it in, skimmer pulls it out, tap the skimmer cup so it feed back to reactor instead on external container, it might work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sascha D. Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I would think that doing anything with skimmate besides discarding it would not produce enough benefits to be worth the trouble. If only 25% of the crud is organic, then you would have to separate it. Technology beyond my brain at least! I would think spot feeding it would just result in everything getting pull out by the skimmer over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+brian.srock Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I wouldn't want to put the crud my skimmer pulls out back into my tank. Whenever I feed I now take the return pump offline and clean it while the fish and coral are eating. This way its not wasting coral food and it allows me to keep my system cleaner by removing stuff that ends up in the return pump if not eaten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timfish Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 . . . I have a pretty important question that the article never addresses. Why is bacteria in the reef important? . . . I think this line from the conclusion of the research I referenced in my first post does address this "Is the whole food web in an aquarium perturbed, or are there compensatory mechanisms that maintain an appropriate energy transduction through all of the trophic levels?". But I realize answering a question with a question is not generally considered a satisfactory answer This is something that still requires a whole lot more research. It is believed that many corals may be bacteriavores. When considering the nurtient pathways on reefs and in our tanks another question is why are we not seing sexual reproduction in our tanks? I have not researched this much but I know Sr. Shemik (a strong supporter of DSBs although his appraoch is very different from Dr Jaubert) wrote an article in Nov/Dec issue of "Coral" titled "is your reef anorexic" and speculated one reason we are not is we may be drastically underfeeding our corals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victoly Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yeah, that sounds like the proverbial can of worms. What the research seems to suggest to me then, is that even the most beautiful, successful captive reefs are not reaching their full potential. Although ultimately what does "full potential" mean? Great growth and coloration can already be achieved. Are we looking for even more colorful and growth-ier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timfish Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 . . . Although ultimately what does "full potential" mean? Great growth and coloration can already be achieved. Are we looking for even more colorful and growth-ier?There's no doubt aquarist are seeing significant growth (the Green Slimers in my first post were 1" frags 3 1/2 years ago) and honestly the way we are manipulating them we're getting brighter colors than is seen in the wild1. I have not seen any specifics on growth rates in aquaria vs nature but I would not be surprised if studies actually showed faster growth rates in aquariums but we are seeing something like with old grwoth trees vs farmed trees where the wood in farmed trees is softer and weaker. It would be interesting to see reseach looking at the skeletal density of aquarium grown corals vs nature.1 The link in the thread "Color M Stressed" a telling comment is made about some divers thinking brown colored corals are unhealthy when the opposite is true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.