- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 53
hes right in that there is no need to run it constantly but with its ability to absorb large organic molequles and its low cost i run it all the time as part of my normal filtration.
JDavid;936189 wrote: What is the alleged downside to running carbon 24/7 (besides cost)
JDavid;936189 wrote: What is the alleged downside to running carbon 24/7 (besides cost)
Curtismaximus;936197 wrote: I have heard of cheep carbon destroying a saltwater tank. If you dont change out the carbon fast enough it will trap nitrates. Not good for algae. This could be bad for livestock if left untreated for to long.
Ringo®;936199 wrote: Granted that not all carbon is created equal. I wouldn't say that any of it is going to be detrimental to your tank. The cheap stuff is going to require a realllllly good rinse though.
One thing to keep in mind if you've never run it before......the more "pollutants" it removes from the water, the clearer your water will get. The clearer your water is, the easier it is for light to penetrate.
I've seen posts saying that carbon nuked a persons tank. I think the unknown boost to PAR levels is more often to blame.
JDavid;936204 wrote:
What about the phosphate leaching issue?
JDavid;936204 wrote: +1 it is extremely effective at removing the compounds that cause yellowing in water. I have heard this from several different sources. These particular compounds block a lot of light and removing too much too fast can cause corals to expell zooxanthelle, or those that can't fast enough, "melt".
What about the phosphate leaching issue?
Curtismaximus;936207 wrote: Are weekly water changes not enough to keep up with smell and yellowing of the water? Imo if either of these things are happening you are either overfeeding or not doing adequate water changes.
DawgFace;936153 wrote: Honestly that's about the worst case of a hacking I've seen. Next we should edit the thing to say salt is not needed.
For what he meant actually is very clearly understood and like skriz said. Here is the full paragraph word for word.
"Activated carbon for the most part is just a bandaid. When it comes to wasting money in the aquarium hobby, activated carbon takes first place. While it does have it's uses in the aquarium like removing medications or tannins from the water column. There is absolutely no reason you should be running it constantly. Especially when the more important biological media could be taking its place. Save your money and stop buying it".
So, to wrap this up, the "save your money and stop buying" snippet obviously contradicts the paragraph when applied together. Clearly he's saying stop using it as a constant but as an as needed role.
While I agree fully with this gentlemans assessment here. I agree with Acroholic, this is not someone I would ultimately trust for advice.
Acroholic;936212 wrote: I run carbon 24/7 and I challenge anyone to scientifically, not anecdotally, prove to me it is bad or a waste of money.
As Heath posted, it is just one of many weapons in the arsenal.
franciscosalazar;936177 wrote: So, use it in emergency situations only then, right Dawgface?
DawgFace;936215 wrote: In this industry I've found that sentence requirement to be rare if at all for any of our practices. Certainly not for the items in questions; for or against.
DawgFace;936215 wrote: have seen many systems ran continuously with carbon without ill effects so you won't here me say otherwise. However, to answer your question albeit not scientifically, but factually, both the correlation of HLLE to activated carbon and the removal of trace elements are still under intense test in hopes of coming to a scientific consensus.
Acroholic;936224 wrote:
Another area where my own anecdotal experience does not correlate with this supposed connection. I have six tangs in my 465, have had them in there for 16 months with GAC running 24/7, and do not have any HLLE whatsoever in any of them. Several of them were in my 300 gallon for a prior year+ with the same 24/7 carbon running before going into the 465, again with no HLLE.
Personally, I don't subscribe to this idea, but cannot prove it one way or the other.
JDavid;936204 wrote: +1 it is extremely effective at removing the compounds that cause yellowing in water.