Skimmer vs. Carbon

[Amphiprion]

That's pretty much what I was going for. The long chain aminos and proteins can be picked up by the corals. But I've got enough problems keeping calcium and magnesium high enough... I certainly don't want them pulled out.

I'll stick with carbon for now. My tank has very limited room for a skimmer anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I do advocate skimmers in many circumstances, as they have their place and purpose. There are just other things that work better for certain needs. In my new tank, I'm using carbon and will set up another turf scrubber for N and P reduction. I don't have the room for a skimmer, either, due to the unique dimensions of everything. Those two things will do more for dissolved C, refractory organics, N, and P than a skimmer would. Not to say that a skimmer wouldn't help the entire situation, as it would in many respects. It just isn't practical (due to space constraints and some performance dips as a result of limitations of models in my size range) for my setup.

 

[Cerianthus]

I love this type of discussion which helps me to refresh my memory. Not that I remember much from Ingorg and Org chem. Sometimes I will be happy if I remember what I ate last night.

W/o going into detail, solubility of protein at its isoelectric point is very low (also depends on types of amino acids). And adsorption by activated carbon is to remove soluble substance (be it organic or inorganic).

Protein skimmer (by means of surface tension), wiil remove proteins before they breakdown which are primary/major source of NO3 production thus some uses denitrator (reduction of Nitrate into N2) and/or algae scrubber/Plenum (I dont know if any one incorporates Plenum anymore).
If memory serves, CaCO3 is inorganic compound and it is salt and are readily dissolved in water.

PS is the most essential piece of equipment , IMHO, in reef keeping. Bear in mind I dont perform wc like most hoobyist do. Very Very minimal and very seldomly, if any, once tank is well matured..

Carbon on other hand will remove not just pollutant, it will adsorb other soluble compound which are necessary elements for corals.

Photosynthetic corals utilizes not just CO2, they utilizes No3, PO4 as well (action of zooxanthellae) and I dont see how proteins accumulating from decaying matters in the water (pollutants) are utilized by corals, at least to my recollection.

On top of above, it is very difficult to know when is right time to change the carbon
since we simply dont know whats in the water and what/how much carbon adsorbed and trapped in given time.
To activate used carbon, one must recharge in specific solvent or by burning. Of course you can buy new too.

Comparing tank with carbon in the system and tank with PS incorporated into system, I achieved better results with one with PS..
Well!. the results will somewhat depend on types of corals of course, of course.

anyway, good luck with new set up and

Amphi, if you can provide me links and/or abstract on the topic of CaCO3 removal by PS in a way it poses instability of water, I would be much obliged as I dont recall this topic at all. Perhaps I forgot???

 

[Amphiprion]

Sure: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature

I'm not saying that skimmers remove enough CaCO3 to be a problem, but that is most of the carbon they remove. They just aren't as effective as previously thought. That's not to say that they don't work and that they don't provide plenty of benefits, but they may be being given more credit than what they actually do.

Activated carbon, on the other hand, only tends to remove things complexed with organics specifically. Protein skimmers are much more indiscriminate in terms of what they remove. Even then, I don't see any issues from the things that are commonly removed, anyway--that includes those removed by carbon and skimming. What particular things are removed that are of notable, proven importance (that are not easily replaced)?

Edit: FWIW, proteins and free amino acids are actually consumed from solution. However, that isn't the primary means of heterotrophy. That is where some of the faults with skimmers tend to show, since they are quite good at removing planktonic organisms. That doesn't mean that every tank should be without a skimmer, as many tanks probably need them for added waste removal. It depends upon a number of circumstances, really.

 

[Cerianthus]

Thanx for link and very intersting but you have to understand that this analysis is based on assumptionS that Ca/Mg are from CaCo3/MgCO3. Ca ions and Mg ions couldve came from so may other sources as they also specified. Although I never ran experiments in reference to CaCos/MgCO3, I dont recall reduction/decrease in Mg/Ca level due to PS running 24/7/365. Also, this system ran with carbon medium which may have reduced/altered the constituents of skimmates. Besides, my PS would skim and stop and skim and stop as water chemistry is always changing in the tank water (Although I tried and still trying to inform thru f/w section, no one seemed to catch the importance of water stability. Changing 90 % of tank water at one shot?? Fish may survive for someone at given time, but it could also cause/create complications at other given time. Only time I need to change all is if and only if toxins somehow found their way into my tank).
Like I said every tank water is different as you would agree thus analysis may reveal similar but different yields.

It is my understanding some corals are heterotrophs but being heterotroph, one need to intake food (organic matter thus digestion) in order to obtain/synthesize required nutrients but not from free amino acid in the water. I dont think they drink salt water nor has ability to filter AA to be utilized as building blocks for necessary protein synthesis...

Thanx again for the link. I wonder if anyone analyzed natural skimmates from ocean.
Believe it or not, people uses such skimmates from ocean as cosmetic called Mud Pack (after proper processes). I guess it contains nutrients that human skin can benefit from since it is ever so popular.
Please dont use skimmate from PS as mud pack, fellow reefers. LOL!

 

[Amphiprion]

As far as the carbonates, the source isn't quite as important. Whether it is biotic or abiotic in nature, it still presents a problem. If it is biotic, that means that it is exporting mostly planktonic microorganisms--at least some of which may be sources of food. If it is abiotic, that means it is simply pulling in more seawater than we thought. In all, the end result is that in at least some cases (probably more), a skimmer isn't primarily removing the things we want it to. They were also able to conclude that the carbon proved minimally decisive in the results. Of course, this will likely vary tank by tank, but the fact that it is removing a lot calcium carbonate compared to organics is a bit disheartening. I know skimmers work, as I have used them for a long time myself, but they may not be the most efficient means of satisfying various respective ends.

All corals are heterotrophic to one degree or another. Only their symbionts are autotrophic. There are several studies out there that do prove cellular uptake of amino acids in solution. They don't drink seawater exactly, but they are capable of quite a lot of absorption of organic material. Heterotrophy also isn't necessarily directly associated with prey capture nor does it necessarily preclude "food-like" substances. It is much broader than that, encompassing quite a few things.

 

[the wizard]

I am not too proud to say that I am now thoroughly confused.

I have a 12 gal. aqua pod reef that I am planning to move into a larger tank. I am looking at possibly a standard 29 gal glass tank or a bio cube 29. due to price of what I will need, and the fact that I have trouble finding a T5 set up in 30" I am considering the bio cube.

Should I go with the PS that they sell?

 

[Amphiprion]

Again, that depends. Protein skimmers can and do reduce N and P, but they do so indirectly by removing particles that contain those two elements. Those particles may be leftover food, waste, bacteria, or even larger planktonic animals (skimmers are great at removing the latter, which may not be a good thing), plus they also heavily aerate. They can help in instances where there is a large particulate input (spawning, overfeeding), but aren't so good at removing dissolved organic carbon--at least when compared to activated carbon. Activated carbon actually removes dissolved compounds. As you can see, they do very different things. In some situations, a protein skimmer may be the best, most convenient choice, but it won't always be, depending on what you are looking for. I'd say, in your case at least, go for it. Try to see if you can also manage a refugium in one of the compartments, which will help in reducing dissolved N and P.