Help picking the right skimmer

[Timfish]

I only listed tanks that I have visited in person. I could add Mitch's to the list as well, but his tank isn't very old either. I'm pretty sure Clint's tank is more than two years old. The only other age i know for sure is that Richard's is only a few years old. As for picking RC, where else was I supposed to go to find large, nice looking tanks? Door to door ? It's the largest de facto reef tank database, so i find it puzzling that you would think I would go anywhere else.

I'm not saying your theories are incorrect, I'm saying that a huge majority of the best looking tanks (in my opinion) on the internet (and in austin) use skimmers, and I want my tank to look more like theirs than yours. No offense meant, just my opinion on my style of husbandry and the look I'm trying to achieve.

Additionally, here's RHF's opinion on the skimmer/bacteria research, and his criticism leads me to believe that you may be putting too much stock in the conclusion that you frequently make (Skimmers = reduced bacterial count = Old Tank Syndrome = Poor Coral health). In his words the study "raises more questions than it answers". If bacterial count is such an important parameter, why are we not monitoring it and adjusting practices accordingly?

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18451325&postcount=11

No, I do not make or argue the conclusion that "Skimmers = reduced bacteria counts = Old Tank Syndrome = Poor Coral Health" First, Old Tank Syndrome is not unique to systems that just use skimmers but is something that can develop with any methodology, this is also the first time I've brought it up in 8 months so it's not a frequent subject for me by any means. I do argue that ultra low nutrient systems that are intended to increase the color of corals by reducing the brown dinoflaggellate simbionts corals use is questionable and this reservation is shared by marine scientists researching reef systems. I have also pointed out, and research I have linked to, heterotrophic corals, at least some, are able to adapt to an autotrophic life style without thier symbionts so there is obviously no direct correlation between a corals health and whether it is heterotrophic (has brown dinoflagellate symbionts) or autotrophic (missing dinoflagellates). I do maintain the research published by Feldman, et al, not just the one paper on bacterial counts, but also regarding Total Organic Carbon in aquaria, Granulated Activated Carbon and skimmings effect on Dissolved Organic Carbon and Total Organic Carbon culmulitively show there are serious questions about the use and effacy of skimming.

We all owe Randy Farley-Holmes a dept of thanks for the various articles he has published particularly on the relationships between Carbon Dioxide, pH, Alkalinity and Calcium. His quote "Raises more questions than it answers" echos not only the sentiments of Feldman, et al, but my own. I also eagerly look forward to any research that looks at the questions he raises about Feldman's research. What I find questionable is his assertion in this thread: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2173292 post #16 and #23, that the cloudyness in his tank is indicative of a high bacteria count ("So the skimmer alone absolutely did not cause it to have levels of bacteria only 10% of natural reefs") and therefor contradicted Feldman's reasearch but he appears to have determined this by eyesight. (There are many types of small organisms beside bacteria that could cause cloudy water and he did not elaborate how he deteremined it was bacteria.) But accepting his claim that it is bacteria, Feldman's testing methodology, as you pointed out, specificaly looked at bacteria of a size found on reefs, if the bacteria in Randy Farley-Holmes is larger it still shows skimming is altering the bacteria populations in reef aquariums and echoing Feldman the consequences of this disparity on the long-term health of the tank's livestock are not known.

I have no objection and am I'm quite happy you went to a national forum to find reef systems you like that are 5 years old. It is confirmation of my observation reef systems set up with heavy skimming and fast growing stoney corals in the Acroporidae and Pocillopordae families have a low long term survival rates. I have never said it can't be done and I am very well aware of systems that are much older than 5 years that would fit your requrements. (One local I know of probably doesn't qualify as the owner does 20% weekly water changes in addition to skimming.) It seems to me it would be to your advantage to find local aquarists who have older systems which conform to your criteria and find out what they do. It would be to all of our advantage if you prove my prediction wrong and not just one but all three of the tanks you posted not only make it to 5 years without a significant and inexplicable dieoff but far beyond.

A final point is one glaring ommision in the critisism of Feldman's research I have seen not only here but on other forums is no one can show to any other research contradicting it. If you know of any please post it.

[Sascha D.]

Congratulations! This is why I skip all threads about skimmers, lagoons, DSB and refugiums.

+1 for DT + sump size. I bought an ASM G4X, rated to 450g and put it on my 250g system. I was disappointed in the performance and ended up selling it. I won't be buying oversized again.

i guess you don't watch real housewives, either?

Haha does anyone watch that show? I just remember when this was Austin Reef Club, not Austin Skimmer Debate Club. There are certain people that I skip entirely, no matter the subject. I'm sad that it has come down to that. My next step will be drastic.

[Planeden]

Congratulations! This is why I skip all threads about skimmers, lagoons, DSB and refugiums.

+1 for DT + sump size. I bought an ASM G4X, rated to 450g and put it on my 250g system. I was disappointed in the performance and ended up selling it. I won't be buying oversized again.

i guess you don't watch real housewives, either?

Haha does anyone watch that show? I just remember when this was Austin Reef Club, not Austin Skimmer Debate Club. There are certain people that I skip entirely, no matter the subject. I'm sad that it has come down to that. My next step will be drastic.

I spent a rather embarrassing amount of time one that post. I was having trouble coming up with a show without dating myself by saying Jerry springer. I see your point, and that's a shame. I'm new, here and to the hobby, so I like hearing the two sides. I'm just not telling you what I'm doing .

[+KimP]

I like hearing both sides, on any subject. I especially appreciate the posts that have me thinking hard on the decisions I make for my tank. My tank is better from it. The debates only enrich the forum, as long as they don't get ugly, of course.

[Timfish]

. . . If bacterial count is such an important parameter, why are we not monitoring it and adjusting practices accordingly? . . .

I forgot to add if you read through the first third of Feldman's research, http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature counting bacteria is not an easy task and is probably one reason so little research has been done on bacteria in aquaria. Even on corals reefs in the wild the research looking at coral holobionts is still very new and a great deal more needs to be done. I would add from what I've read and heard hat bacteria are the fundemental issue with success or failure in any ecosystem.

[Timfish]

Ooooops! My bad! In post #26 I swapped "Heterotrphic" and "Autotrophic" in the fourth sentence. It should read "I have also pointed out, and research I have linked to, autotrophic corals, at least some, are able to adapt to an heterotrophic life style without thier symbionts so there is obviously no direct correlation between a corals health and whether it is autotrophic (has brown dinoflagellate symbionts) or heterotrophic (missing dinoflagellates)."

[Reburn]

Tim,

Way to catch it..........36 months later.......

[Bpb]

Better late than never

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[+BobcatReefer]

This is why I avoid big words.