Any disadvantages to running carbon all the time?
- Thread starter RussC
- Start date
Ccoffel81
New member
Any disadvantages to running carbon all the time?
Just not feeling it today. I'm usually up for a good discussion. New neighbor was gripping to all my other neighbors of 20+ about me riding four wheeler on my property at 5 PM but he gets on bobcat every morning at 6am. So I had a nice conversation with him about it. Enough venting back to op's. My comment was carbon removes trace not all but some.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just not feeling it today. I'm usually up for a good discussion. New neighbor was gripping to all my other neighbors of 20+ about me riding four wheeler on my property at 5 PM but he gets on bobcat every morning at 6am. So I had a nice conversation with him about it. Enough venting back to op's. My comment was carbon removes trace not all but some.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
reefgeezer
Active member
FWIW, I had issues with my Cole Tang, lateral line erosion (hole in the head), possibly from using too much GAC. It was not the highest quality either. I now run 1/4 cup of well rinsed BRS bulk carbon in a reactor about 1 week a month just to polish the water and maybe remove toxins and other contaminates.
WVfishguy
New member
Years ago, I set up several aquariums (water only) with different types of carbon (wood, coconut, store brand, locally produced, most expensive, least, etc.) Same tanks (20 longs) and the same filters. I added a measured amount of methylene blue to each tank, and recorded the time it took for each brand of carbon to clear the dye. I kept adding the dye until the carbon was used up, and recorded that as well. Some cleared the tanks for weeks. I did not use an abnormal amount of carbon to any tank, but the carbon worked a helluva lot longer than "a few days." If that were the case, I'd NEVER use carbon.
reefgeezer
Active member
GAC binds organic compounds that include trace elements taken from the water column when they formed. Technically, that means that yes, GAC does remove some trace elements. IMO, the quantity removed is negligible and easily replaced with water changes. BTW, those trace elements bound in organic compounds are effectively unavailable to most other processes anyway, so it really doesn't matter that much.
How fast the GAC is expended depends on the quality of the GAC, the amount of organic material in the water column, the speed and method the water is exposed to the GAC, and to some extent, the bacterial activity in/on the GAC itself.
It is true that the organics trapped in the GAC are not exported and eventually break down. This allows nitrate, phosphate, and other byproducts of the biological process to be released back into the water column. However, when properly applied and maintained, GAC isn't a big nitrate or phosphate source. To not use GAC because it is a potential phosphate source would not be reasonable.
Some systems can benefit from GAC on a 24/7 basis. Soft coral systems need to regulate chemical warfare toxins, and heavily loaded system may need it just to keep the water from yellowing. If I were using GAC 24/7, I'd rather use a little changed frequently, rather than a lot changed more infrequently.
I like using a small reactor to ensure there is as little channeling as possible to increase efficiency and so I don't have to use a mesh bag which usually clogs long before the GAC itself. I use an old Phosban reactor and a bunch of sponges to fill the extra space. I'm lazy. The reactor makes it easy. I can rinse the sponges and change the GAC in a few minutes if I want, or just pull it out and dump the GAC if I'm not going to use it for a while.
I'm also a KISS fan but my interpretation of the acronym is a little different,. i prefer "Keep It Simple and don't be Stupid".
How fast the GAC is expended depends on the quality of the GAC, the amount of organic material in the water column, the speed and method the water is exposed to the GAC, and to some extent, the bacterial activity in/on the GAC itself.
It is true that the organics trapped in the GAC are not exported and eventually break down. This allows nitrate, phosphate, and other byproducts of the biological process to be released back into the water column. However, when properly applied and maintained, GAC isn't a big nitrate or phosphate source. To not use GAC because it is a potential phosphate source would not be reasonable.
Some systems can benefit from GAC on a 24/7 basis. Soft coral systems need to regulate chemical warfare toxins, and heavily loaded system may need it just to keep the water from yellowing. If I were using GAC 24/7, I'd rather use a little changed frequently, rather than a lot changed more infrequently.
I like using a small reactor to ensure there is as little channeling as possible to increase efficiency and so I don't have to use a mesh bag which usually clogs long before the GAC itself. I use an old Phosban reactor and a bunch of sponges to fill the extra space. I'm lazy. The reactor makes it easy. I can rinse the sponges and change the GAC in a few minutes if I want, or just pull it out and dump the GAC if I'm not going to use it for a while.
I'm also a KISS fan but my interpretation of the acronym is a little different,. i prefer "Keep It Simple and don't be Stupid".
Fourstars
New member
Great information. Some of it is Just your opinion. I haven't run carbon in years never seen a need, don't mind the yellow water and water changes mostly take care of it. If I ever do see the need for it I like our suggestion of a small reactor and frequent changes. That's true with an mechanical filtration.
So that would be KISDBS ?
So that would be KISDBS ?
Last edited:
