Should I use an UGF?

[Ray Pollett]

Reason I ask is everyone seems to think a Protien Skimmer is essential. To those who have been around a while, that was also true of UGFs. No- one years ago would think of reccomending a tank set up without an UGF. But times change. For those who are no old enough to remember, the UGF changed saltwater fish keeping. It allowed most people to keep fish alive for more than a few months. Everyone said you had to have one. Then Protein skimmers came along. We were now able to keep fish and corals alive. So they became the equipment you had to have to keep a saltwater tank. Well today most no longer use crushed coral on the bottom; they use a sand bed. A lot of people use a DSB and LR. What a lot of people are seeing is with a DSB, LR and detrivores a Protien skimmer is no longer needed. It is just the changes in the hobby, and we will see otther changes if we hang around. So please stop telling people a Protien Skimmer is required, It is not. It is optional.

By the way I still have one tank with an UGF, crushed coral and LR. A healthy tank.

Ray

 

[mogurnda]

There are certainly many ways of acheiving the same goal. I have kept fish and motile invertebrates in tanks with UGFs, and they did fine. I found it really hard to keep nuisance algae under control, so I probably wouldn't do it again.

I agree that a skimmer is merely an adjunct to the biological filtration provided by live rock and a dsb. I have found that my water quality is somewhat lower without one, so I use it. In many cases, there may not be a measurable difference, especially in larger, less densely populated tanks.

One thing that I hope we can avoid is having a "party line" about how to set up and maintain a tank. With each choice, whether it's the source of live rock, the filtration (or absence), the use of additives, the livestock, and so on, there are advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this board is for people to learn from the experiences of others, and also to make use of the collective knowledge we have obtained from reading and hanging out with fellow hobbyists.

As a developing modlet, I am still trying to figure out how to encourage diverse opinions from experienced reefers, and to squeeze feedback on their experiences from the newcomers. As always, there's a PM button down there somewhere if you have ideas.

 

[Kit Walker]

I used UGF on a couple of small fish only setups, in which I was able to do water changes easily. I only kept a couple of fish and snails in each tank though. The fishes health was fine, but I found I couldn't control algae. On my large fish and reef systems I prefer the flexibility of skimmers and cannisters/hob. It allows room for error as you can quickly add Phosguard or denitrate to these types of filters.

 

[Ray Pollett]

Originally posted by mogurnda
There are certainly many ways of acheiving the same goal. --- I agree, The only reason for the post was it seemed many were posting and pushing that the PS was essential. I wanted to show that over the years other pieces of equipment were considered essential by most and some are rarely ever even talked about now let alone used. I have kept fish and motile invertebrates in tanks with UGFs, and they did fine. I found it really hard to keep nuisance algae under control, so I probably wouldn't do it again. --- Just out of curiousity - Did you use Detrivores in the crushed coral. I have one ( because of a wierd situation that has crush gravel full of detrivores and it stayes amazingly clean of algae. I do about 25% water changes almost every week (tap water)

I agree that a skimmer is merely an adjunct to the biological filtration provided by live rock and a dsb. I have found that my water quality is somewhat lower without one, so I use it. In many cases, there may not be a measurable difference, especially in larger, less densely populated tanks.

One thing that I hope we can avoid is having a "party line" about how to set up and maintain a tank. With each choice, whether it's the source of live rock, the filtration (or absence), the use of additives, the livestock, and so on, there are advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this board is for people to learn from the experiences of others, and also to make use of the collective knowledge we have obtained from reading and hanging out with fellow hobbyists. ---I agree, I am not trying to cause a split. I just want to make sure people are giving options to base a decission on. And I thought compareing it to the then ESSENTIAL UGF might help people to realize no one piece is essential.

As a developing modlet, I am still trying to figure out how to encourage diverse opinions from experienced reefers, and to squeeze feedback on their experiences from the newcomers. As always, there's a PM button down there somewhere if you have ideas.

What's a modlet?

Best Wishes,
Ray

 

[Ray Pollett]

Originally posted by Kit Walker
I used UGF on a couple of small fish only setups, in which I was able to do water changes easily. I only kept a couple of fish and snails in each tank though. The fishes health was fine, but I found I couldn't control algae. On my large fish and reef systems I prefer the flexibility of skimmers and cannisters/hob. It allows room for error as you can quickly add Phosguard or denitrate to these types of filters.

Hi Kit,

I wasn't avocating use of the UGF and agree with you post.

Ray

 

[mogurnda]

duh!

Only saw the irony in the title after I thought a while. I generally give my brain the weekend off

Did you use Detrivores in the crushed coral.

Nope. At least not intentionally. There are probably ways to make it work better, but I would need to quit my job to find time to do all the aquarium experiments I want.

help people to realize no one piece is essential

Totally agree. Wet/drys also were considered critical at one time. Of course, they remain a useful approach for some systems.

Based on the reefers I know here, and my visits to other sites, protein skimmers are standard in the hobby. Aside from cost, the detrimental effects of skimming are largely undocumented and anecdotal, so I figure they will be around for a while yet. But technological trends come and go, so we'll see.

modlet: (noun) a new moderator.

 

[Ray Pollett]

Re: duh!

Originally posted by mogurnda
Only saw the irony in the title after I thought a while. I generally give my brain the weekend off --- ]Your doing better than most. On three boards your the only one so far.

Nope. At least not intentionally. There are probably ways to make it work better, but I would need to quit my job to find time to do all the aquarium experiments I want.---]Do I understand. There are so many things I'd love to try and see how it works out.

Totally agree. Wet/drys also were considered critical at one time. Of course, they remain a useful approach for some systems.

Based on the reefers I know here, and my visits to other sites, protein skimmers are standard in the hobby. Aside from cost, the detrimental effects of skimming are largely undocumented and anecdotal, so I figure they will be around for a while yet. But technological trends come and go, so we'll see. True

modlet: (noun) a new moderator.

Best Wishes,
Ray

 

[Gealcath]

Sure a skimmer isnt required, i dont use one on my 15gl aquarium, but using a skimmer will increase the chance of your fish/inverts living, and you can stock it more then you could without a skimmer.

 

[Ray Pollett]

Originally posted by Gealcath
Sure a skimmer isnt required, i dont use one on my 15gl aquarium, but using a skimmer will increase the chance of your fish/inverts living, and you can stock it more then you could without a skimmer.

Not really in either case on some set ups. Tanks setup with DSB, LR, and lots of detrivores can handle as many fish without a PS as with. And if we are talking a tank set up that way with softies, anemones and some stonies like bubble corals the PS will actually decrease the chance of them living IMO as it removes too much of the food the tank produces that is closer to their natural food.

ray