Protein Skimmer vs. UV

[scotikis]

I'm working with my LFS to spec out my first FOWLR aquarium. My guy there believes that if I implement a refugium system (which I am), it's more beneficial to have a UV sterilizer than a protein skimmer. Furthermore he claims that a using a skimmer in conjunction with a refugium may actually harm the refugium because it'll rob it of its food source. Does this sound reasonable? Other tank specifics: 1lb live rock per gallon, 5" sand bed. 125 gallon.

 

[lexluethar]

That does not sound reasonable AT ALL. A skimmer will remove oils and solids from the water, things that CAUSE nitrates, a skimmer doesn't technically remove the nitrates, just the things that cause nitrates. A fuge is a good idea no matter what, but even if you had all the skimming in the world, i would still run a fuge. If you have plants in the fuge they will remove the nitrates from the water depending on how many plants you have in there. The notion that a skimmer will take "nutrient" (does he mean nitrates?) away from the fuge is silly.
What i've read from this site concerning UV sterilizers is that they are a good addition, but will never replace mechanical filtration (skimmer). If you have the ability to run a UV, do it, but do not use it in place of a skimmer. What i understand UV kills a small percentage of the bacteria that causes sickness in our fish - they DO NOT kill nitrates, which is what it seems like this guy is suggesting. And they definately do not "kill/destroy" the solids that lead to nitrates. If you had to choose, choose a skimmer instead of a UV.

 

[vicegrip]

Your skimmer does not instantly remove all waste and/or nutrients and your tanks cycle is always producing nutrients. your "fuge" also uses nutrients slowly.
Imo the skimmer is much more important than the uv. I also have to say adding a "fuge" was one of the best things I could have done for my reef.

 

[andy51632]

IMO having a fuge with UV would be worse than having a fuge with a skimmer. They UV would kill any critters trying to make it back to you display tank(like pods). I guess you would not have to worry about that because you have a FOWLR tank but pods do a good job of eating up debris also. I am not a big fan of using UV so I could be biased. I believe that a good skimmer will provide alot more benefits than the most expensive UV you could buy. I think he is wrong and you should do some more research before going along with what he says.

 

[scotikis]

Thanks all for the advice. Lex: The fuge will have plants in it and I think his point is that the skimmer will remove the primary source of nutrients for the plants. Does the idea of having both a skimmer and a UV sound reasonable? I'm willing to spend the money for both, but I dont want to end up with a situation where one systems' operation is working against anothers. Please let me know if you think having both UV and Skimmer is feasible.

 

[lexluethar]

Ya, i guess i see his point, but this isn't something that would be a detriment to the system. Its like saying well technically you running a MH is taking water out of your system (evaporation) so it is bad for your tank. Well... no its not. Yes he's right, a skimmer takes out a ton of things, and I can't remember the poster (very intelligent guy) but he listed the 25 or so things a skimmer does take out. It takes out food particles, as well as minerals in the system (all-be-it very little). Definately run a skimmer, and if you want run a UV. The two issues i've read with UV's is that they cost a lot and add very little benefit. They add benefit, but not a ton (fuge, skimmer, hob filter all provide way more positives to the home aquarium than a UV). The second issue is they don't discriminate upon what they kill. Yes they kill bacteria - but this is good and bad. They kill pods, beneficial bacertia, etc. But at the same time they are killing ick causing parasites, as well as a ton of others (good and bad).
No, they will not work against eachother, and the plants you are adding to the fug not only take in some nutrients (and nitrates) from the water for their food source, they also will use light as a food source. My vote would be just to run a fuge and leave it be. You can run a UV if you have creaters like Tangs that do their best to find ick.
I hope this helps, and its your tank, i mean do what you want and what you feel best fits your situation/budget/and what you want.

 

[al mc]

I have run both UV and skimmers on my two reef systems with refugiums. After reading here and researching further I pulled my UV's off and have found no problems after about 4 months. IMO, you will get much more benefit from the skimmer. It can not possibly take out all the organics (nitrogens) that will supply your macroalgae with 'food'.
Go with a skimmer first. I would not put a UV light on any new systems now.

 

[acrylic51]

I agree.....your LFS person should do alittle more reading.....

UV over a skimmer......They serve totally 2 different purposes, and I'd take a skimmer any day over a UV.....

 

[apos]

Yeah this guy needs to get his head straight. Most people, even the pros, get by fine without UV: some consider it a huge waste of money or even a harm to desired organisms (that's more a reef thing than a FOWLR thing tho).
But no one (except some people who are super duper pros with some crazy alternate method) has a really successful tank without a really good skimmer.
And using a skimmer doesn't hurt fuges at all: in fact, like everything else in the tank, it will help them be more healthy. Unless you have something like a coil denitrator, you are never ever going to get to the point where macroalgae will have nothing to eat. Nitrates form all over your tank (anywhere that nitrifying bacteria live!), and skimmers do not remove them once they hit the water collumn.
This guy has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to skimmers and fuges. Most successful tanks have both, and most unsuccesful tanks are missing one or the other.

 

[acrylic51]

I don't even think the PROS would consider running a tank without a skimmer

 

[alexmir]

After seeing the stuff my skimmer has removed from my water i would never run a tank without a skimmer

 

[apos]

Originally Posted by acrylic51
http:///forum/post/2455038
I don't even think the PROS would consider running a tank without a skimmer

There are actually some folks who attempt to do all "natural" systems. This is something only someone who is super educated in dealing with filtration and water chemistry would attempt, but I have heard of it. Not for any normal reefer though.

 

[claybiking]

im new here -only 15mins old -- can some one tell me what is a fuge -- or give ma a link so i can see one
thanks

 

[vicegrip]

Originally Posted by claybikng
http:///forum/post/2455112
I'm new here -only 15mins old -- can some one tell me what is a fuge -- or give ma a link so i can see one
thanks
here is my reader's digest version .
A refugium is like a safe haven tank connected to your dt for pods and macro algae to grow. the macro algae reduces the nitrates in the display tank (dt). the pods eat diatoms and help feed the fish.
mine is a small one that is part of my sump. it's on the right side of the sump in this pic.

 

[scotikis]

Vice - nice set up. I see that your Fuge side of the system appears to have a sand aggregate. my lfs guy is talking about some kind of mud used in the bottom of mine. have you ever heard of this "mud" configuration; and would this change your opinion of skimmer vs uv?

 

[al mc]

Mud....is miracle mud. Many people use it when they have rooted plants (ex. Mangroves) and/or 'cleaner clams'. I have some in both refugiums. It does nothing to alter my opinion about skimmers versus UV. IMO skimmers are the single most important advance in the swf hobby. It makes it possible for the average hobbyist, like myself, to have a thriving swf tank. I probably would have killed many more fish and be out of the hobby without one. I can not say the same things about UV light.

 

[tangwhispr]

Originally Posted by acrylic51
http:///forum/post/2455038
I don't even think the PROS would consider running a tank without a skimmer

actually they do quite often, I believe either calfo or borneman are looking closely at skimmate to see if there is good stuff being removed.

 

[scotikis]

I'll talk with my LFS guy to further understand his motivation. I'd think that he'd want to sell me the equipment; if for nothing else...to make a sale. Now I'm wondering if he's intentionally recommending that I dont buy it,,expecting that I'll have problems moving forward and need to buy chemicals etc. to keep it functioning properly. I can't imaging that this is the case though. He has a very nice store, plenty of clients and a favorable reputation in the area. Is there some other part of the equasion that I could be missing? It just doesn't add up.
Based on the overwhelming responses in favor of skimmers and the fact that skimmers and UV's dont work in opposition to one another, I'll spec a skimmer into the tank in addition to the uv.

 

[apos]

It's certainly just possible that he's gotten bad information: some folks are out to make sales, but some just genuinely want to help but have just picked up this or that anecdotal opinion about something. Even amongst experts there is sometimes disagreement.
However, he's totally wrong on this. Skimmers help refugia, end of story. You always skim your water first thing when it comes out of the tank, and then this cleaner water flows into the refugia. Skimmers do not and cannot remove nitrates or phosphates, which is what plants need to live. They WILL keep your nitrate levels at reasonable ppt but removing dissolved proteins in the water. But this will make everything living in your tank that doesn't eat nitrates happy.... and it still won't get rid of all nitrates. And the cleaner water from the skimmer going into your fuge = less bad junk hitting your fuge's sand bed and then decaying there, turning it into a nutrient sink over time.
And again: even offering a UV vs. a skimmer is silly. They don't serve even remotely the same function in a tank, and cannot replace each other. A UV light is probably a decent idea for a FOWLR, because you don't care as much about organisms that the UV might kill, but you DO care about making the tank as ich free and other parasite free as possible. This has, however, nothing to do with skimming or successful refugia.

 

[acrylic51]

It's not that UV's don't work, but for the application and principle he's telling you it's totally untrue.....If he stands by his word, why not ask to see his behind the scene works on his display tank and see if he's following what he's advising you???!!!!! Better yet ask him if you follow his advice that if any problems would arise from his advice or info, that he would sell you the "required" equipment of your choice at "his" cost.........