- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
i have a newly established tank should i wait until it grows more before adding carbon and gfo or should i go ahead and run it now?
carbon and gfo
- Thread starter dannyafoster
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 0
Carbon now (and IMHO always) and GFO sometime down the road when you need it and after you understand the risks vs rewards of it. I still see very little need for GFO in a properly ran tank.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok what do you mean by risks?
Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 0
Well if I gave you all the answers then it would be no fun when you learned stuff yourself. But I would look at the relationship between GFO and alkalinity. I would look at what GFO does to many needed trace elements like zinc, manganese, cobalt, iodine, and iron. Me personally, I would never add anythjng to YOUR tank that YOU do not understand how and why it works plus the pros and cons of it.
Why are you wanting to run GFO anyways?
Why are you wanting to run GFO anyways?
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
I just had read it was good at removing phosphates
Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you have phosphates? Have you tested for phosphates? Silicates? Given that you started a new tank, regardless of what you do you are going to get algae. I caution against using anything to correct a problem that you do not have with a product that you do not understand.
Best advice... water changes, water changes, water changes!!!
Best advice... water changes, water changes, water changes!!!
- Messages
- 6,671
- Reaction score
- 15
as soon as cycle is over, yes. Just use like a cup per 100 gallon and change it every week or 2. Large weekly (or biweekly) water changes are awesome, but GFO is king.
GFO is pretty much a standard on almost all tanks now for phosphates, just as some type of Nitrate removal such as Carbon dosing, bio-pellets, sulfur nitrifier, etc..
Congratulations on the new tank, how long has it been running?
Carbon and Gfo are both very beneficial and easy to use. After cycling, do a large water change and then test your parameters. Look at the numbers and that will determine if you need to run media reactors.
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
I have cycled it and it's been running for almost 1 month
Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk
- Messages
- 6,671
- Reaction score
- 15
Brandon, your info is sooo 2008....
you don't need to test for phosphates to use gfo, there was and is only a few hobby grade test kits that measured that low anyway...
It does not do anything to trace elements that have been an issue anyway...
Get out of the timewarp, lol...
Seriously, nutrient reduction via GFO and an Awesome Nitrate reduction system via Carbon dosing and the like will get you far...
Not only have I been using GFO since 2006, it's become almost standard!
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh Ralph... My Ralph... I might be rusty at one thing, but it is not reef keeping, it is taking you to school. Time to knock the dust off. Get your pin and paper ready because you are going to want to take notes for this. *Warning* People like BrandonMason, Eric B, and JBDreefs that think I am too much of a smart *** might need to turn away from this page now. This is not going to be a conversation for the kiddies out there! Ear muffs may be needed!!!
First off, Lets not assume that since I was not around this little corner of the web that I have not been around. During my much needed time away from the ARC, I only did not have a tank running for about 18-20 months. Much of that was due to a housing move and nothing more. But even during that time, I still talked with many of my learned friends about changes in the hobby and just general discussion. So I did not just step out of a time machine as you would like to suggest, and have on a few occasions now.
So what is this "Standard" that you talk about now? For something to be a "standard" it has to be commonplace in the field, well studied, totally accepted, and widely used. I would consider a skimmer STANDARD in the hobby. You mentioned something else being "Standard" a few weeks ago but what it is escapes me. (Maybe food related). Anyways, The use of GFO is <u>NOT</u> and even more so the use of carbon (vodka and sugar) is <u>NOT</u> standard. (You also state that a sulfur "nitrifier" is standard. I assume that you mean a <u>DE-</u>nitrifier since a nitrifier would be very bad.) While they are used I would wager an educated guess that less that 50% of the tanks maintained by people in the ARC use GFO. I would bet that that number drops to less than 5% that use a carbon source. I would guess even less than 1% use sulfur. Educated guess there but I have seen about 10-15 tanks since coming back around the ARC and only 1 of them was using GFO and none of them talked about carbon dosing or sulfur as part of their tank maintenance. These have been small tanks, large tank, multi-tank set ups. No wide spread or "Standard" use. So what is this "standard" that you speak of?!? Where are all these people that have passed me by?!? Maybe it is only the elite people right? Of the about 10 "elite" reef keepers that I know off of the top of my head, 4 of them I know use GFO, 1 of them uses a carbon source, and I can not think of anyone running sulfur. Now these are not just people who troll local reef boards or think they are elite on RC, these are the people that write the books and the articles. Why so low if this is the standard now?!? Maybe because someone needs to get a new definition of the word "standard" and quit dropping it for every thing that they personally have been doing like they are some form of trend setter?!? Maybe it is because there are other ways that are lower maintenance, more cost effective, and/or better husbandry for removing PO4 and NO3 that do not involve a reactor and media. So instead of trying to find a solution to the problem, how about you correct the cause of the problem. Wanna control NO3, figure out why you have NO3 first. Wanna control PO4, figure out why you have PO4 in the first place. I am really glad you are not my doctor because if I came to you with a leg pain you would chop off my leg so I would have no more pain. Heck, forget that, you would chop off my leg BEFORE I could get a pain in there!
And you are wrong again my young Ralph. My info is so 1994 and so 1986 and 1998.... These are periods that GFO was studied by the scientific community for a whole range of applications. Studies published in the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. Studies with names like "Adsorption of cations on hydrous oxides of iron. III. Adsorption of Mn, Co, Ni, and Zn from simple electrolyte solutions". Where did you take your knowledge on the subject from, a post by some guy named "ReeferBob420" on RC?!? (Sorry if there is a guy named ReeferBob420 on RC) These studies show exactly what GFO does to a variety of trace elements and organic material. So lets look at these studies and see what they state with a little graphical help from Dana Riddle:
Every bin of GFO that I have in my garage cautions about the drop of alkalinity that the use of the product will have. Why is this?!? Well BECAUSE IT DROPS ALKALINITY!!!
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image001.png/image_full" alt="" />
As would be expected with an Alk drop, GFO also can cause a rapid shift of PH in the tank:
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image025.png/image_full" alt="" />
What about Cobalt?!? "Cobalt you say?!? Well I never heard about cobalt in my aquarium!!". Cobalt is found in all that fancy salt that you buy and spend big money on. It is an essential trace element for micro algae, bacteria, and animals. What does GFO do to that fancy salt you buy?!? Lets see...
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image003.png/image_full" alt="" />
Most people have not heard of Manganese in their aquarium but it is an essential element for animal and plant growth. So what does GFO do to Manganese levels, I bet you can guess by now...
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image019.png/image_full" alt="" />
So what about Iron?!? I mean GFO is iron after all. A little iron is absolutely required by plants and animals alike. Too much is definitely a bad thing though. Lucky for the home reef keeper it seems like most of the iron released into the tank is suspended and not dissolved BUT suspended iron can still cause problems. This is why every reactor that is worth its weight has some method to try to help large pieces of iron from getting into the tank. Iron has also been shown to impact the precipitation of calcium carbonate. Yep, you guessed it, all that 2 part that you are spending your money on might be partially wasted. Granted, you need fairly high concentrations of iron to have a measured effect. but in the graph below, I would say those are pretty elevated levels for the first 15 hours or so after you add or change GFO. So you advocate that people change their GFO once every 2 weeks right? Well for about 5-10% of the time (in theory) their corals are not taking up the calcium carbonate that they are putting in with their 2 part because the iron levels are too high. Not the desired effect you are going for right?
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image011.png/image_full" alt="" />
Last but not least, how about Zinc? It is added to your old man vitamins for a reason. It is the most metal on this short list. It is essential for growth of plants and animals. It aids in immunity (read: helps your fish not get sick). It is required for <u>[B]ALL[/B]</u> biological reproduction including DNA and RNA syntheses. Zinc is found in every cell, both plant and animal. It is pretty important crap is what I am getting at. So what does GFO do to Zinc levels?
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image023.png/image_full" alt="" />
So Ralph, I would like for you to explain to the class you claim that:
[QUOTE=][B]Mysterybox wrote:[/B] It does not do anything to trace elements that have been an issue anyway...[/QUOTE]
Is this just in your tank or do you have facts to back that up? The stuff above would show differently and a LARGE number of hobbyist that have used GFO have reported undesirable effects on corals and livestock in their aquarium. Illness, tissue recession, coral bleaching, coloration of the water, etc. Seriously, look at the reports that have funneled in since around 2004 or 2005 about the problems with GFO. Could these report be caused in part by the decline of trace elements (and rapid increase of iron) in the aquarium? Very likely! Now granted some of these reports may be totally caused by something other than GFO but that brings me to my next point. Beginning aquarists using these methods before they fully have the need or experience to do so. And for that I blame people like you Ralph. You are, from what I can measure and if we extend the category a bit, for all intents and purposes an "advanced aquarist". Dang, I cringe just saying it... Lets settle on the fact that you are not a novice. Danny and Destiny are not advanced aquarist... yet! They do not understand the relationship between PO4 and living creatures. Hell most people that run GFO do not even realize that PO4 is NEEDED by your corals to survive. So if you try to get rid of ALL your PO4 you are going to have problems. So advocating that they go out and spend their hard earned money on GFO to correct a problem that [B]<u>YOU</u>[/B] do not know that they have, nor do you know anything really about their tank is really bad practice. What type of tank do they want to have? What kind of coral are they wanting to keep? You realize that many corals, nems, and clams NEED PO4 and NO3. Did you know that it is believed by some pretty smart people that keep these animals that the reason people have a problem keeping clams, nems, and soft corals long term is low PO4 and NO3 levels. Your quick drive by advice and blanket statements do not cover that.
If you go back and read the prior posts you will see that my advice was "in my opinion". I am sorry that my opinion might not be "standard" enough for you but it still stands on its own merits. It is MY opinion that to TRY to limit much of what Danny's new tank is going to go through (algae bloom cycles) is harmful long term to the ecosystem that he is trying to form. But again, you would rather chop of his leg before he ever could have a pain in it, not thinking about the problems of him living a life without a leg could cause. I am glad that Darden restaurants gives you good enough health insurance to afford a prosthetic to get you through not having a leg but his crappy job may not. Instead now he has to suffer while not knowing why his leg was cut off in the first place. My advice would be to not even think about a GFO reactor until your tank is settled and semi-established (6-9 months). If you have a problem with stuff then we can test PO4. (and maybe before then if some serious problems come up) Contrary to what Ralph believes, a Salifert test kit tests down to 0.01 mg/L which is plenty low enough because I would not advocate ever having less than 0.01 mg/L in your tank. You can also do a 1/2 reagent test (double the water volume) to get that low level to 0.005 mg/L if needed. We can also do a colorimeter test if needed too but titration is better for PO4 IMHO. Dang, the more and more I think about it, the more and more I wonder if they MysteryBox in question is where Ralph is pulling all these great "facts" from.
I have advocated it for years... People in this hobby need to read and understand stuff for themselves. Not take my word for it or some words pulled out from some mystery box somewhere. Heck, not even taking my word for it. Or the works of Dana, or Fenner, or Calfo, or Borneman, and most certainly not Julian. Read and understand this stuff for YOURSELF!!! AFTER learning what you can, THEN ask questions if you do not understand some of the terms or advanced concepts. While there are many good things that GFO can do and that is not disputed... Your drive-by advice is harmful to many people. "Well, Ralph does it that way so it must be good for me." Well, Ralph's tank is not your tank. Ralph's GFO is not your GFO. Case in point, you state that he should add "1 cup per 100 gallons" is the 100 DT volume, 100 total water volume, 100 gallons of displaced water volume? What type and brand of GFO is this 1 cup for. I mean since you have been using GFO since 2006, I am sure you are aware that you can not simply substitute different brands of GFO with one another. They have different surface areas, crystallinity, hydration with water, etc. So, again you "1 cup per 100 gallons" might work very well for your tank with your GFO but be very harmful to Danny's! Problem is, people are lazy and want the answers handed to them. People like you like to sound smart but do not have to live with the long term effects of the advice that you give. And people like me are lazy because we do not want to type of the pros and cons to everything 50 times over and over. (in this case taking 3 hours or so)
So you win Ralph!!! I do not have time to dispute your "standards" and quick drive by comments that are based on nothing. Danny, add GFO to your tank even though you might not know what it is, how it works, or the long term effects of using it. For that matter get a "nitrifier" too if you can figure out what that is. Make sure you go buy Vodka today after noon... I think Winder has Sunday sales now and that is a good thing too because your tank is going to DIE without it! Poor feather duster!! Ozone would be great as well. You should pick up one of those units ASAP. I think Atlanta Aquarium might carry a unit and they are open today. Rush other there since I guess all these things are "standard" now!!!
Bunch of BS.... At least the old debates with Cameron and Jeremy were based in some sort of fact. :doh:
First off, Lets not assume that since I was not around this little corner of the web that I have not been around. During my much needed time away from the ARC, I only did not have a tank running for about 18-20 months. Much of that was due to a housing move and nothing more. But even during that time, I still talked with many of my learned friends about changes in the hobby and just general discussion. So I did not just step out of a time machine as you would like to suggest, and have on a few occasions now.
So what is this "Standard" that you talk about now? For something to be a "standard" it has to be commonplace in the field, well studied, totally accepted, and widely used. I would consider a skimmer STANDARD in the hobby. You mentioned something else being "Standard" a few weeks ago but what it is escapes me. (Maybe food related). Anyways, The use of GFO is <u>NOT</u> and even more so the use of carbon (vodka and sugar) is <u>NOT</u> standard. (You also state that a sulfur "nitrifier" is standard. I assume that you mean a <u>DE-</u>nitrifier since a nitrifier would be very bad.) While they are used I would wager an educated guess that less that 50% of the tanks maintained by people in the ARC use GFO. I would bet that that number drops to less than 5% that use a carbon source. I would guess even less than 1% use sulfur. Educated guess there but I have seen about 10-15 tanks since coming back around the ARC and only 1 of them was using GFO and none of them talked about carbon dosing or sulfur as part of their tank maintenance. These have been small tanks, large tank, multi-tank set ups. No wide spread or "Standard" use. So what is this "standard" that you speak of?!? Where are all these people that have passed me by?!? Maybe it is only the elite people right? Of the about 10 "elite" reef keepers that I know off of the top of my head, 4 of them I know use GFO, 1 of them uses a carbon source, and I can not think of anyone running sulfur. Now these are not just people who troll local reef boards or think they are elite on RC, these are the people that write the books and the articles. Why so low if this is the standard now?!? Maybe because someone needs to get a new definition of the word "standard" and quit dropping it for every thing that they personally have been doing like they are some form of trend setter?!? Maybe it is because there are other ways that are lower maintenance, more cost effective, and/or better husbandry for removing PO4 and NO3 that do not involve a reactor and media. So instead of trying to find a solution to the problem, how about you correct the cause of the problem. Wanna control NO3, figure out why you have NO3 first. Wanna control PO4, figure out why you have PO4 in the first place. I am really glad you are not my doctor because if I came to you with a leg pain you would chop off my leg so I would have no more pain. Heck, forget that, you would chop off my leg BEFORE I could get a pain in there!
And you are wrong again my young Ralph. My info is so 1994 and so 1986 and 1998.... These are periods that GFO was studied by the scientific community for a whole range of applications. Studies published in the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. Studies with names like "Adsorption of cations on hydrous oxides of iron. III. Adsorption of Mn, Co, Ni, and Zn from simple electrolyte solutions". Where did you take your knowledge on the subject from, a post by some guy named "ReeferBob420" on RC?!? (Sorry if there is a guy named ReeferBob420 on RC) These studies show exactly what GFO does to a variety of trace elements and organic material. So lets look at these studies and see what they state with a little graphical help from Dana Riddle:
Every bin of GFO that I have in my garage cautions about the drop of alkalinity that the use of the product will have. Why is this?!? Well BECAUSE IT DROPS ALKALINITY!!!
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image001.png/image_full" alt="" />
As would be expected with an Alk drop, GFO also can cause a rapid shift of PH in the tank:
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image025.png/image_full" alt="" />
What about Cobalt?!? "Cobalt you say?!? Well I never heard about cobalt in my aquarium!!". Cobalt is found in all that fancy salt that you buy and spend big money on. It is an essential trace element for micro algae, bacteria, and animals. What does GFO do to that fancy salt you buy?!? Lets see...
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image003.png/image_full" alt="" />
Most people have not heard of Manganese in their aquarium but it is an essential element for animal and plant growth. So what does GFO do to Manganese levels, I bet you can guess by now...
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image019.png/image_full" alt="" />
So what about Iron?!? I mean GFO is iron after all. A little iron is absolutely required by plants and animals alike. Too much is definitely a bad thing though. Lucky for the home reef keeper it seems like most of the iron released into the tank is suspended and not dissolved BUT suspended iron can still cause problems. This is why every reactor that is worth its weight has some method to try to help large pieces of iron from getting into the tank. Iron has also been shown to impact the precipitation of calcium carbonate. Yep, you guessed it, all that 2 part that you are spending your money on might be partially wasted. Granted, you need fairly high concentrations of iron to have a measured effect. but in the graph below, I would say those are pretty elevated levels for the first 15 hours or so after you add or change GFO. So you advocate that people change their GFO once every 2 weeks right? Well for about 5-10% of the time (in theory) their corals are not taking up the calcium carbonate that they are putting in with their 2 part because the iron levels are too high. Not the desired effect you are going for right?
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image011.png/image_full" alt="" />
Last but not least, how about Zinc? It is added to your old man vitamins for a reason. It is the most metal on this short list. It is essential for growth of plants and animals. It aids in immunity (read: helps your fish not get sick). It is required for <u>[B]ALL[/B]</u> biological reproduction including DNA and RNA syntheses. Zinc is found in every cell, both plant and animal. It is pretty important crap is what I am getting at. So what does GFO do to Zinc levels?
[IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/2/chemistry_album/image023.png/image_full" alt="" />
So Ralph, I would like for you to explain to the class you claim that:
[QUOTE=][B]Mysterybox wrote:[/B] It does not do anything to trace elements that have been an issue anyway...[/QUOTE]
Is this just in your tank or do you have facts to back that up? The stuff above would show differently and a LARGE number of hobbyist that have used GFO have reported undesirable effects on corals and livestock in their aquarium. Illness, tissue recession, coral bleaching, coloration of the water, etc. Seriously, look at the reports that have funneled in since around 2004 or 2005 about the problems with GFO. Could these report be caused in part by the decline of trace elements (and rapid increase of iron) in the aquarium? Very likely! Now granted some of these reports may be totally caused by something other than GFO but that brings me to my next point. Beginning aquarists using these methods before they fully have the need or experience to do so. And for that I blame people like you Ralph. You are, from what I can measure and if we extend the category a bit, for all intents and purposes an "advanced aquarist". Dang, I cringe just saying it... Lets settle on the fact that you are not a novice. Danny and Destiny are not advanced aquarist... yet! They do not understand the relationship between PO4 and living creatures. Hell most people that run GFO do not even realize that PO4 is NEEDED by your corals to survive. So if you try to get rid of ALL your PO4 you are going to have problems. So advocating that they go out and spend their hard earned money on GFO to correct a problem that [B]<u>YOU</u>[/B] do not know that they have, nor do you know anything really about their tank is really bad practice. What type of tank do they want to have? What kind of coral are they wanting to keep? You realize that many corals, nems, and clams NEED PO4 and NO3. Did you know that it is believed by some pretty smart people that keep these animals that the reason people have a problem keeping clams, nems, and soft corals long term is low PO4 and NO3 levels. Your quick drive by advice and blanket statements do not cover that.
If you go back and read the prior posts you will see that my advice was "in my opinion". I am sorry that my opinion might not be "standard" enough for you but it still stands on its own merits. It is MY opinion that to TRY to limit much of what Danny's new tank is going to go through (algae bloom cycles) is harmful long term to the ecosystem that he is trying to form. But again, you would rather chop of his leg before he ever could have a pain in it, not thinking about the problems of him living a life without a leg could cause. I am glad that Darden restaurants gives you good enough health insurance to afford a prosthetic to get you through not having a leg but his crappy job may not. Instead now he has to suffer while not knowing why his leg was cut off in the first place. My advice would be to not even think about a GFO reactor until your tank is settled and semi-established (6-9 months). If you have a problem with stuff then we can test PO4. (and maybe before then if some serious problems come up) Contrary to what Ralph believes, a Salifert test kit tests down to 0.01 mg/L which is plenty low enough because I would not advocate ever having less than 0.01 mg/L in your tank. You can also do a 1/2 reagent test (double the water volume) to get that low level to 0.005 mg/L if needed. We can also do a colorimeter test if needed too but titration is better for PO4 IMHO. Dang, the more and more I think about it, the more and more I wonder if they MysteryBox in question is where Ralph is pulling all these great "facts" from.
I have advocated it for years... People in this hobby need to read and understand stuff for themselves. Not take my word for it or some words pulled out from some mystery box somewhere. Heck, not even taking my word for it. Or the works of Dana, or Fenner, or Calfo, or Borneman, and most certainly not Julian. Read and understand this stuff for YOURSELF!!! AFTER learning what you can, THEN ask questions if you do not understand some of the terms or advanced concepts. While there are many good things that GFO can do and that is not disputed... Your drive-by advice is harmful to many people. "Well, Ralph does it that way so it must be good for me." Well, Ralph's tank is not your tank. Ralph's GFO is not your GFO. Case in point, you state that he should add "1 cup per 100 gallons" is the 100 DT volume, 100 total water volume, 100 gallons of displaced water volume? What type and brand of GFO is this 1 cup for. I mean since you have been using GFO since 2006, I am sure you are aware that you can not simply substitute different brands of GFO with one another. They have different surface areas, crystallinity, hydration with water, etc. So, again you "1 cup per 100 gallons" might work very well for your tank with your GFO but be very harmful to Danny's! Problem is, people are lazy and want the answers handed to them. People like you like to sound smart but do not have to live with the long term effects of the advice that you give. And people like me are lazy because we do not want to type of the pros and cons to everything 50 times over and over. (in this case taking 3 hours or so)
So you win Ralph!!! I do not have time to dispute your "standards" and quick drive by comments that are based on nothing. Danny, add GFO to your tank even though you might not know what it is, how it works, or the long term effects of using it. For that matter get a "nitrifier" too if you can figure out what that is. Make sure you go buy Vodka today after noon... I think Winder has Sunday sales now and that is a good thing too because your tank is going to DIE without it! Poor feather duster!! Ozone would be great as well. You should pick up one of those units ASAP. I think Atlanta Aquarium might carry a unit and they are open today. Rush other there since I guess all these things are "standard" now!!!
Bunch of BS.... At least the old debates with Cameron and Jeremy were based in some sort of fact. :doh:
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 0
No shots fired... I would never shoot an unarmed man!!! :shades:
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
I didn't want to cause an argument. I was just wondering what kind of negative effects it had. I understand I need to do research on things before I add them to my tank. I just figured since we were discussing it and you brought it up I could get your thoughts. Currently I only have carbon running. Brandon you tell me I need to do extensive reading on these types of things but you know that I am new .to this hobby and when I Google something related to this hobby where does it bring me? Reef central or here or some other forum site. I'm not a marine biologist, I'm a soldier that thinks that a piece of the ocean in my house would be cool. Yes I understand there is a lot to learn and I'm willing to learn it but when I go to people for help I don't expect to be turned away back to Google. Thank you for sharing all that information. I don't mean to take up anyone's time or cause feuds but the reason i joined ARC was to learn more about this hobby and the science of reefkeeping.
Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk
Danny, I apologize for my comments to the other member. I felt there was some validity to a couple of his statements but lashed out for his condescending attitude. I have been designing GFO reactors for the last 3 years for municipalities through-out the world. Our primary contaminant removal is Arsenic, Iron and Manganese. We utilize GFO for Arsenic, it is equal effective on Phosphates, and are faced with intense scrutiny from the EPA among other associations. We have to meet certain maximum contamination levels(MCL) and there is little to no negatives from using GFO as an adsorption media. Furthermore, Carbon media is a standard, available even at Walmart. What to take away from this is not our bickering but an intensity that what we are doing is the best that we can achieve for our own little piece of the ocean. Again, I am sorry if my portion of the bickering affected you in any way. Please continue to ask and not be timid if we go a little overboard sometimes.
Randy
Randy
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 0
No feud Danny. This stuff stems from long before your time and will be around long after.
Google should take you much further than reef central. Again, I would check out the writings of Randy Holmes Farley for most chemestry stuff. Dana Riddle and Steven Pro have done some stuff but most of it based off Randy's stuff. Just google "Randy holmes farley GFO" and that should start you in the right direction. Or maybe "pros and cons to gfo". You can also see if wetwebmedia.com has anything on the subject but it can be hard to sift through that site.
But research outside of reef central is not that hard.
Google should take you much further than reef central. Again, I would check out the writings of Randy Holmes Farley for most chemestry stuff. Dana Riddle and Steven Pro have done some stuff but most of it based off Randy's stuff. Just google "Randy holmes farley GFO" and that should start you in the right direction. Or maybe "pros and cons to gfo". You can also see if wetwebmedia.com has anything on the subject but it can be hard to sift through that site.
But research outside of reef central is not that hard.
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 0
Randy.. I would expect more out of you but then I guess if you have nothing to add then resorting to calling me a moron might be the only thing you can do. I would expect given your job you would realize all that gfo does remove from both fresh and salt water. But maybe not.
Similar threads
