Switch....
honestly a lot of skimmer tanks i seen has a very small amount of micro life in there tanks no food for filter feeders to eat all skimmed out
what....like this..:tongue1:
This Image was taken from the previously shown system during strip down just before a house move.
The fan worm density under the rock work was so thick, they had to be cut out in 2" deep slabs approximately 6"x6" square...these were then passed on as starter colonies to a host of other aquarists.
That system ran a Deltec AP850 rated at 333 gallons on a 200 gallon system. I'd challenge anybody to say that even an over rated skimmer can have any serious impact on micro fauna populations, or at least to any definitive degree its measurable conclusively and can be used as an argument against their use..
On the whole, Sponges are more limited by the availability of water born bacterial concentrations than anything else (hence the reason many Mitrate reactor people have good sponge growth). but in relation to skimmers, you have to know the difference between whether free floating bacteria are being skimmed out indiscriminately, or if its a consequence of having a high degree of water-born particulates that the bacteria are binding to, growing on, and then being pulled out...You realy cant set any trends that hold in all instances as far as im aware.
In all seriousness. some of the arguments that have been put up across a host of boards since the whole ATS thing kicked off again are simply ludicrous in how strongly tailored they are to sway the reader/observer into agreeing with something that doesn't realy need agreeing with..Quite often a little bit of factual information has been taken and twisted to appear more important than it is...Thats not science..and its not a balanced appraisal of a method. its simply people desperate to prove something works...Strange seeing as nobody dissagrees with that fact...so why pit the method against others rather than accepting it as just 'another' method that can work...
In terms of balanced appraisal, The image in your previous post is a prime example...it makes no mention whatsoever of the fact that hardly any reef-tank is devoid of algae, no matter what filtration method you are running, It also doesn't mention alternate pathways of nutrient uptake, conversion nor assimilation...It also makes no mention of what kind of stock and at what densities are involved, nor how they affect the whole...It also conveniently omits the fact that the vast majority of tanks these days are already running fuges or cheato in the sumps so algae is indeed present.
It basically says...Algae does everything...and it does it better than other methods.... It doesn't and its not in all cases....Its nothing more than 'part' of the picture. Any scientist/biologist will tell you...whilst algae are important (and pretty much unavoidable) they are not what defines a reef...biodiversity does...biodiversity is the number one factor
why reefs are as successful as they are, and why they function the way they do. The algae just form 'part' of the chain.
regards
Edit to add a conclusion as I feel alot of the time threads on this subject become a war of methods, rather than anything realy constructive...why anyone needs to pull other methods apart to defend thier own I'll never know, but when its done with flawed or innacurate information, that just makes it worse for the unknowing unfortunately..
So heres my exiting conclusions based on my experience and understanding of both natural and artificial methodology..
Does ATS work ?...yep, it certainly does..
Does it negate a load of other equipment.? in some cases yes, in others no.
Does it mean the hobby at large has been doing it wrong for years (including all the proffesionals and authors etc..?...Erm, no it doesnt not by a long long way. All it proves is what we already know...There are a million and one ways to run a reef which dependent on a whole host of criteria will either succeed or fail, but no single method offers instant nor guarenteed success. The degree of that success is ultimately down to the keeper and thier knowledge (factual over assumed) rather than the method itself.
