Bactereial Counts: Skimmmers vs No Skimmers and GAC

Help Support Reef Frontiers:

Boomer

RF Staff
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
2,774
Location
Duluth, Minnesota

Skimmy

SKIM FU
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
3,872
Location
Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
MEH... what a load of waffle...
ummm we dont know how that works, more research is needed, but yeah, carbon dosing(via pellets/vodka/etc) and skimming do remove some nutrients/bacteria, but not others, and it's different in closed systems compared to nature...

LOL... I wont be turning off/changing my skimmer, biopellets, or GAC regime any time soon...
 
Last edited:

TJL

copod
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,436
Location
Everett, WA
Hey Boomer, thanks for sharing this link. Very interesting/informative and hope someone follows through on which types/strains of bacteria are actually removed by skimming and use of GAC and may be manually replaced/dosed for a healthier reetank. Also very enlightening on the Red Sea Salt mix having a substantially higher bacterial load, after 25+ years using I/O will now look into a change???

Cheers, Todd
 

Boomer

RF Staff
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
2,774
Location
Duluth, Minnesota
Skinny

You obviously did not understand what you read, as if you know more LOL



TJL
What they are saying is the Red Sea is contaminated be it good or bad is unknown.
 

Gort

Dazed and confused
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Renton
It was unclear to me whether their conclusions tend to favor or disfavor skimmers in reef aquariums. The removed bacteria have a nutrient load, but are they not also the bacteria that are vital to the nitrogen cycle?
 

Boomer

RF Staff
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
2,774
Location
Duluth, Minnesota
There was no disfavor at all only what was seen. Neither of them will tell you to remove your skimmer nor will I. Most of it revolves around what skimmers really do vs claims, not they they should be thrown out the window. A big issue in this hobby for years is all the skimmer marketing hype on what they do. In fact, what we have seen in all of Ken's tests is that the Bubble King works well and much better than others. So, skimmer design and operation is an important issue. A big iisue with bacterial counts being low in reef tanks is that they are very low compared to the ocean. The issue is this bad or good thing for reef tanks. Bacteria are a major food source for corals. Freshly made sea water, for example, has a higher count than a reef tank. One thing that has not been looked at yet is what speices of bacteria are they and what is their roll. What ever the case may be many reef tanks run just fine, despite bacterial counts or TOC levels. We are trying to undserdtand why and what it means so we can run systems better. That is everybody's goal I think. We have come a long way in the last 10 years.
 

Boomer

RF Staff
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
2,774
Location
Duluth, Minnesota
Yup kinda figure skimmy you where one of those guys, one that has nothing to add just make remarks how flawed something is. So, here is your big chance, fell free to show us how flawed it is and how you can make it so unflawed :lol:
 

Gort

Dazed and confused
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Renton
Boomer - I'm obviously new to this - keeping a nano-sized reef tank. I realize that margins for error are smaller in a small tank, yet I have a "mentor" who has had great success with a BioCube 28 running no skimmer at all. Water changes plus a strict maintenance regimen seem to work well for him.

Although my Solana 34 came with a stock skimmer - many users relate that model is not very efficient. I hope to emulate my buddy's results without relying on a skimmer.

As you imply, there doesn't seem to be just one right answer to the question ...
 

Boomer

RF Staff
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
2,774
Location
Duluth, Minnesota
Gort there are quite a few reefers that run skimmer less tanks. A couple of Sanjay's tanks not only do not have skimmers but have very little maintenance.
 

Gort

Dazed and confused
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Renton
Gort there are quite a few reefers that run skimmer less tanks. A couple of Sanjay's tanks not only do not have skimmers but have very little maintenance.
Thanx, Boomer - I will definitely search out Sanjay's threads.

Since I've got you on the line - I have a question about mechanical/chemical filtration. Should I post it here, via PM or on another forum?
 

Skimmy

SKIM FU
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
3,872
Location
Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Yup kinda figure skimmy you where one of those guys, one that has nothing to add just make remarks how flawed something is. So, here is your big chance, fell free to show us how flawed it is and how you can make it so unflawed :lol:
There was no disfavor at all only what was seen. Neither of them will tell you to remove your skimmer nor will I. Most of it revolves around what skimmers really do vs claims, not they they should be thrown out the window. A big issue in this hobby for years is all the skimmer marketing hype on what they do. In fact, what we have seen in all of Ken's tests is that the Bubble King works well and much better than others. So, skimmer design and operation is an important issue. A big iisue with bacterial counts being low in reef tanks is that they are very low compared to the ocean. The issue is this bad or good thing for reef tanks. Bacteria are a major food source for corals. Freshly made sea water, for example, has a higher count than a reef tank. One thing that has not been looked at yet is what speices of bacteria are they and what is their roll. What ever the case may be many reef tanks run just fine, despite bacterial counts or TOC levels. We are trying to undserdtand why and what it means so we can run systems better. That is everybody's goal I think. We have come a long way in the last 10 years.
I'm sure you think I'm all p.o.'ed about his skimmer remarks...well, shyte, even I know that a good GAC is superior to skimming, but, that doesnt negate skimmings positive effects either IMO, lets get that right out of the way.
But as shortsided/incomplete as I happen to think Feldman's research is on skimmers, that's not my issue here...
I'm sick and tired of scientists comparing the ocean to closed systems in an attempt to prove their conclusions based on a flawed lack of research...
I see this repeatedly and it annoys the hell out of me.
In my uneducated, ignorant opinion, it's a cop out, because no one wants to set up 20+ test tanks and have a phd babysit them in a lab measuring inputs and outputs for 9-18 months to get definitive, long term results from multiple closed systems.
And, it seems like they dont want to/cant research the whole system, so they research minutia, then chain all the individual results together and say "see?? look what I can do!"
I'm sorry for being a naysayer... but I think there has to be a better way, maybe??
or as you suggest, maybe I'm just stupid, ...so be it.
you guys can make me a dunce cap... :)
 
Last edited:

Boomer

RF Staff
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
2,774
Location
Duluth, Minnesota
that doesnt negate skimmings positive effects either IMO, lets get that right out of the way.

It is so obvious either you do no read or do not understand as none of us have said that. So, lets get that out of the way.

But as shortsided/incomplete as I happen to think Feldman's research is on skimmers

Yah right but absolutely nothing to ad now do, as I expected, just whining.

In my uneducated, ignorant opinion, it's a cop out,

More gibberish nonsense. Ken does this for free on his own time. Are you going to pay him or is somebody else willing to pay or fund him to do his. You think some skimmer company will :lol: What a cop-out statement that was you made.


I'm sorry for being a naysayer... but I think there has to be a better way, maybe??

Yah sure , well here is all the space you want on this forum and you having to add now do you.

I'm sick and tired of scientists comparing the ocean to closed systems in an attempt to prove their conclusions based on a flawed lack of research...

And we are sick and tried of people like you that have nothing to add but whine when the results do not fit your cup of tea. You sound like a aquarium company who whines when we find out one of their products does not work as claimed and just a rip-off for hobbyists. Owe wait, you are a sponsor and that is often the same thing. How dare we hurt your bussiness of ripping off the hobbyist for selling useless products or one that does not work as claimed. If was not for many researchers that are in this hobby, where reef keeping is their hobby, such has Ken, Sanjay, Gary or Randy Holmes-Farley and many others finding things out for us we would still be in the stone age of reef keeping. From your post on nay saying you not only did not understand it but I doubt you even read it. What did you do just look at the nice charts without reading the actual words to explain them and what their thoughts and conclusions were ?

comparing the ocean to closed systems in an attempt to prove their conclusions based on a flawed lack of research.

You are just lost on this, need I say more.

If you have NOTING constructive to say then say off my forum ;)
 

Skimmy

SKIM FU
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
3,872
Location
Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
this is a public forum, you dont have to like everyone's opinions,
and I could care less what you think of mine. Erase them for all i care...
I personally cant believe you'd post this kind of crap and not expect anyone to have any criticism...
I mean, the first thing out of your mouth was:
"I just love it when all he lines connect to the dots. Skimmers get beat up more by Ken."

And what a childishly low blow to resort to calling me a shill just because I have criticism of the methods your friends choose to do research with,
not only a bold face lie on your part, but a nice way to distract from the fact that this study is COMPLETELY FLAWED.... lol
Sadly, MASSIVE VOLUMES of "scientific data" amount to nothing more than a bunch of spit in a dribble cup just because of this very same errogant, egotistical attitude that "scientific method" is beyond reproach.

and no, im not paying you nerds to do the research... your the ones making these claims, so the burden of evidence is yours, not mine, lazy...

so here's the deal, boomer, agree to dis-agree, and i'll stay away from this thread, (hell your whole little section on chemistry with boomer)as long as you dont bait me with BS... I dont think the mods/mems appreciate this stupid crap, and it's not what either of us signed up for... YOUR the one that made this personal, and started being disrespectful to me, until then, I in no way attacked you personally, so LET IT GO!!!
 
Last edited:

mojoreef

Reef Keeper
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
7,530
Location
Sumner
Ok Lets calm this dont a bit and try to stay on the subject of the paper written and submitted please.

On that note I am about half way through so not real thoughts just yet, but Boomer can you let me know what are your views of this study and its meanings?? I am still trying to figure that one out.

thanks

Mojo
 

Boomer

RF Staff
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
2,774
Location
Duluth, Minnesota
I personally cant believe you'd post this kind of crap and not expect anyone to have any criticism...

You are the only one whinning, as it did not give the results YOU wanted.

to resort to calling me a shill just because I have criticism of the methods

You have given no criticism of the study at all you just like to hear yourself sound off trying to make yourself look like something.


And what a childishly low blow to resort to calling me a shill just because I have criticism of the methods your friends choose to do research

Oh, but it's OK for you to do name calling of the authors correct ? But not somebody to do the same to you. You sure have yourself up their on that high pedestal don't you.


not only a bold face lie on your part, but a nice way to distract from the fact that this study is COMPLETELY FLAWED

Do you actually understand what you just said ? You said the study is a bunch of crap and flawed. How the heck is that a bold face lie on my part. And you just repeated yourself again. "criticism of the methods" you have given none, where are they at please point them out.



so here's the deal, boomer, agree to dis-agree

I do not make deals with those that have no input other than arrogant remarks based on nothing to add.

that made this personal, and started being disrespectful to me

You where being disrespectful to the authors where there was no need to. If you would have posted to this article in a respectful way, as 99 % of the people here do, you would have gotten respect. On my forum what comes around goes around or what is good enough for the gander is good enough for the goose but you seem to think you are beyond that. NOT HERE

as long as you dont bait me with BS..

I do not bait ANYONE with BS that is my reputation or post BS gibberish articles here.

but a nice way to distract from the fact that this study is COMPLETELY FLAWED.

LOL where am I or them distracting from the fact it is flawed. You are the one that is COMPLETELY FLAWED go back an re-read your own remarks.

I dont think the mods/mems appreciate this stupid crap

Your the one that started it all and does not want to LET GO. You do not like it that I do not like your means of posting and will say something about it. I DO NOT let people get away with crap post like yours. If you do not like it then debate it as MOST ALL do here, with out you childish remarks and post like an adult form the get-go.
 

Krish

RF STAFF
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
25,293
Location
Nassau, Bahamas
I started reading the article last night and got a bit lost especially with the kids running around the place making noise! Probably a bit advanced for me, but will try re-read it again when I have some peace and quiet to see what I can gather from it. Some big words caught me off guard :p. With that said, I like the fact of people dedicating their time to do research. Kind of comes in handy as well as shows you what advancements are made in the hobby as things are always changing (no more wet/dry filters taking the world by storm :lol: ). Not sure what was discovered in this particular research as like I mentioned, I didn't get to get through it much, but the way I look at anything in this hobby is if it works for you (whatever it is you are doing) and you are satisfied with the results you are getting, then by all means continue doing what you are doing. Some people are die hard skimmer users and some don't even bother with using them. Some people run carbon 24/7 and others only for 24 hours once a week. Whetever the case, it has been proven that both parties can keep healthy thriving reefs which goes to show that there is more than one way to skin a cat in this hobby so hopefully we can get to the point where we all understand this and just enjoy discussing the topics at hand. Thanks for posting the article Boomer. So far it's way over my head, but I will give it a shot again tonight. :)
 

Boomer

RF Staff
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
2,774
Location
Duluth, Minnesota
Mojo

It is pretty simple. It is showing how bacterial counts shift between skimmers and no skimmer and with or without GAC or UV, lights on and lights off and adding or not adding a carbon dose. We are trying to find out what cause shifts in bacterial counts in the water column, to see in the end how it may or many not affect coral/tank health. It will help us understand the system and to find better means of Aquarium health, something we all are after. Its point is also to show some of the issue of what or how well a skimmer, GAC and UV work in regards to changing the population density of water column bacteria. WC bacteria are a major food source. I wish Ken would have thrown in Ozone also. This article is just a staring point on these issues. Many of us were surprised by some of the results, especially Gary White, an expert on bacteria and carbon dosing. A fresh bucket of new sea salt has on the order of 10 x more bacteria than a reef tank and a reef is more than 10 x that bucket..............WHY ? Is it they are getting removed by filtration, no growing for some unknown reason or getting remove by animals as fast as the form ? And is such a low count bad or a good thing in a reef tank ?
 

mojoreef

Reef Keeper
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
7,530
Location
Sumner
A fresh bucket of new sea salt has on the order of 10 x more bacteria than a reef tank and a reef is more than 10 x that bucket..............WHY ? Is it they are getting removed by filtration, no growing for some unknown reason or getting remove by animals as fast as the form ?
Thats a tough question though, with so many variables in play between natural enviroment and reef tank. In the wild food source is alot more then one would find in a tank, one also has to look at baterial settlement right? In the wild most surfaces are fully settled, further addition would change the enviroment of the biofilm itself right?? thus it would be easier to understand a higher population available in the water column. Also if one relates that to a reef tank settlement would be alot more likely and available which would then relate to whats left in the WC?

Not really disputing anything here just trying to wrap my arms around this and its pertainance. If one looks at the chart with the variety of tanks and natural enviroments WC bacterial count one could say that tanks without sand sediment have a larger population of said bacteria in the WC. Is this because their is less settlement area??


Anway interesting but I am still a little incomplete on it.


Mojo
 
2
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.
Top