Activated Carbon: Yea or nay? Why?

[stevejrnc]

i have a 2 part carbon gfo unit running in 24/7
do i need it not really but it looks cool

but carbon is extremely necessary for folks that condition there tap water into saltwater

 

[thebanker]

I've switched my stance on carbon. I was against it because people on RC said they didn't use it, but now I'm hearing that going without AC is detrimental. If it removes organic compounds from my water and does so cheaply, I'm all for using it.

For the people who don't use it, I think there is something in your filtration / husbandry that accomplishes the same task. I know a guy who ran an ecosystem miracle mud tank for 12 years, and the tank looked amazing. Maybe the refugium removed compounds that carbon is able to remove?

My friend bought the tank from him, and it still looks good without carbon. After no carbon for the past month, i went back to using it due to a large HA outbreak and some problems with my frogspawn dying, etc.

 

[Octoshark]

My girlfriend uses it because she has a small tank without a skimmer.

 

[Hephalump]

I just started running carbon on my tank in a small HOB. I had a few friends over who had seen my tank a few days beforehand. I received many comments about how "vibrant" and "clear" it looked. If a non-hobbyist can notice a difference in water quality just by looking, then it must have been a BIG difference. I don't always run it, but I see no reason not to. I definitely notice that my water looks crystal clear when I use it.

 

[Mr. Right]

I’ve used it w/ HOB filter in a media bag, media bag in sump, canister filter and now use it in a reactor. I use it because I see improved water clarity and it also helps with keeping the house from smelling fishy.

GO CARBON!

 

[thebanker]

Exactly, it cuts down on that "marine smell"

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There's a lot of things in this hobby that can be side stepped if you know what your doing. This tank ran smoothly without carbon for nine years with only a DSB, skimming, and regular water changes. Whether it's necessary or not, I don't know, but nobody will will ever convince me otherwise. I've done just fine without it.

I don't dispute that, but your original statement was rather different, saying water changes accomplished the same as GAC, while this one says that the combination of several things makes a fine tank without GAC.

Those are very different conclusions, and even so, the latter may apply to the specific creatures you kept rather than the general case.

 

[thebanker]

Would it be safe to say that with enough water changes, one can somewhat reduce the need for activated carbon?

Of course, there's no activated carbon in nature, but there's also MASSIVE water volume to work with.

 

[pmcadams]

There's a lot of things in this hobby that can be side stepped if you know what your doing.... I've done just fine without it.

I agree that you may not need it, but I disagree that the reason other people use it is because they don't know what they are doing. There are benefits to running activated carbon. It does 'polish' the water and though corals may grow without it, they may grow better with it.

http://www.hallman.org/filter/gac.html

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Would it be safe to say that with enough water changes, one can somewhat reduce the need for activated carbon?

Yes, but only marginally so. If you have a toxin in the water, and once a month you remove 25% of it, that seems not very effective.

IMO, there are other practices that are way more useful in competition with GAC. Skimming is a big one, as is GFO and various polymer products, like Purigen.

 

[Adam76]

I run it 24/7

 

[runyonh]

I run it 24/7 in a homemade canister filter

 

[bgibb42]

I don't understand the debate. The use of carbon offers many advantages, but not many disadvantages that really stick out (or none at all), is readily available, inexpensive, and easy to use. Am I missing something? It seems like such an easy way to improve water quality; and if no harm comes from it, is a no brainer IMHO.

Just my two cents, worth exactly what you paid for it...

 

[undrtkr_00]

I did not run carbon for the first year or so in my tank. Then I started to have a number of corals, both stonies and softies, closing up and looking stressed even though my parameters (including nitrate and phosphate) were testing out fine. I started running carbon and, over a few weeks, things started to look much happier. I suspect the issue was a buildup of allelopathic toxins over time. Now I run carbon 24/7 and it seems to keep things happy.

 

[thebanker]

Would it be safe to say that with enough water changes, one can somewhat reduce the need for activated carbon?

Yes, but only marginally so. If you have a toxin in the water, and once a month you remove 25% of it, that seems not very effective.

IMO, there are other practices that are way more useful in competition with GAC. Skimming is a big one, as is GFO and various polymer products, like Purigen.

What does purigen that is superior to activated carbon? I've used both, and I haven't noticed that one is better than the other. The guy at my LFS said Purigen leaves beneficial compounds that activated carbon removes, and yet again failed to tell me EXACTLY WHAT beneficial molecules the activated carbon removes.

Also, i just got back from picking up water from my LFS on a lunch break, and the guy there told me that running activated carbon is a newbie mistake on reef tanks, and most guys don't use it. Really? Because this survey says otherwise.

 

[Dave Harms]

I run it all the time along with GFO. For sure keeps my water clearer.

 

[cloak]

I agree that you may not need it, but I disagree that the reason other people use it is because they don't know what they are doing. There are benefits to running activated carbon. It does 'polish' the water and though corals may grow without it, they may grow better with it.

http://www.hallman.org/filter/gac.html

They may grow better, yes, but then again, they may not. Over the years as a hobbyist, you'll end up finding out what you need and what you don't. If you can get the same results not running things like carbon, GFO, using a refuge, etc, why run them? That's a no brainer for me. Lets say two 50 gallon tanks are set up right next to each other and they both look AMAZING, same lighting, same skimmer. The one on the left has got all the bells and whistles going. Carbon, GFO, a refuge, a skimmer, a reactor, water changes, etc. The one on the right is pretty simple. It just has a skimmer, calcium dosed manually, and regular water changes are performed. None of that other stuff. If it's up to me, I want to know what the guy on the right is doing to get that tank to look the way it does. See what I mean?

 

[GQuinn]

I use a bag of it in my sump and replace it every 2-3 weeks.

Gary

 

[forrealb50]

Use it all the time. I place it in a bag in the sump.

+1 but it's in my HOB fuge.

 

[GoingPostal]

I used it non stop for the first few years in the hobby, all nano tanks, all hang on back. Never really noticed a difference for better or worse. Slacked off for the past couple years, I would throw a bag on a tank if it had been a while or something seemed unhappy.

I had been battling a brown algea and film algea since upgrading my latest nano, tons of water changes with no improvement, cut back on lights, feedings, etc. Threw a hob filter with some carbon on it about two weeks ago and it has cleared up completely. I will probably remove it in a couple weeks and see if the tank stays clear or if it needs to be run nonstop but this is the first time I've seen such a huge improvement due to carbon. Must be pulling something nasty out.