|
 |
 |
|
May 19th, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Keeper
|
LetDiceFly,
Actually, I have a heavily planted tank and use carbon all of the time. My plants flourish without the need for fertilizers or growing agents. So much so that I've had to thin them. I started with 3. I've split them up and used them to plant the rest of my tank and have given many to friends and relatives to use in their tanks.
Furthermore, I've never had disease, parasites or fungus in my tank. That's not to say I haven't had an occasional fish die, but I've never had to medicate my tank.
|
|
|
|
May 19th, 2008
|
|
|
Moderator
|
Sorry, Vin, but nothing you've said actually shows much of anything. The talking with the marine folks is the closest thing, but they are just doing what they've always done. So they see that carbon works well to keep their tanks healthy. Like I said, it provides excellent biological media, which will help them keep their tanks running well.
The filters in water purifiers a) have more carbon than a typical Tetra filter for a 30g tank, and b) only have to deal with the impurities in the tap water. Aquariums add even more, from little particles of food to fish waste, to dust from the substrate, to dust settling into the tank, to rotting plant matter.
I do realize why carbon makes good biological media, and it remains a good biological media even after it's "full", because there are cracks and divots that are too big to collect the tiny particulates, but still provide extra surface area.
|
|
|
|
|
May 30th, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Helper
|
Sorry,sirdarksol,but nothing you've said actually shows much of anything either.It seems to me like a few of you in this forum have come up with a theory that activated carbon only works for a few hours,and that now you expect everyone to believe you.The fact that you said you want to try some "experiment"proves that this is a theory,and that like most people here,what you think and give as advice,may very well not be true.
|
|
|
|
|
May 30th, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Keeper
|
I have used carbon in some of my tanks.
I have stopped using carbon in some of my tanks.
Both tanks are healthy, and house healthy fish. I have stopped using carbon because of the cost. It didnt really work, but it didnt harm. I just dont have the money to spend on carbon.
|
|
|
|
|
May 30th, 2008
|
|
|
Moderator
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by vin
LetDiceFly,
Actually, I have a heavily planted tank and use carbon all of the time. My plants flourish without the need for fertilizers or growing agents. So much so that I've had to thin them. I started with 3. I've split them up and used them to plant the rest of my tank and have given many to friends and relatives to use in their tanks.
Furthermore, I've never had disease, parasites or fungus in my tank. That's not to say I haven't had an occasional fish die, but I've never had to medicate my tank.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbum
Sorry,sirdarksol,but nothing you've said actually shows much of anything either.It seems to me like a few of you in this forum have come up with a theory that activated carbon only works for a few hours,and that now you expect everyone to believe you.The fact that you said you want to try some "experiment"proves that this is a theory,and that like most people here,what you think and give as advice,may very well not be true.
|
LOL ... nobody came down with any "carbon" theory here. I don't know who said that "carbon only works for a few hours" but it's certainly not true. However, it's also untrue that it will work for the whole month before you change it again. From what I've learned from my readings, and I believe it's fairly safe to state, is that activated carbon works for only a week or two, after which time it becomes of no use. Furthermore, if you keep a bag of activated carbon in your filter for too long (I personally wouldn't leave an activated carbon bag in my filter for more than 4 weeks), it will eventually start leeching the toxins (which originally it was supposed to remove) back into the water column. This is something none of us would want as it would make our fish sick as well as disrupt the stability of water chemistry.
Now, with regards to keeping activated carbon in planted tanks. There are a lot of factors to consider here. Anybody can say, "Oh, I'm keeping a.c. in my planted tank and everything's OK with my plants". But, firstly, you need to take into account the following considerations: How heavily is your tank planted? Is the entire tank floor planted too? What kinds of plants do you have (i.e. low-, medium-, or high- light)? What kind of substrate and lighting do you have? What kind of filtration system do you have? What and how many filter media do you have in your filter? What kind of fish and how many fish do you have (i.e. the total bioload with respect to the amount of plants)? Are you injecting your tank with CO2? Et cetera ...
All of these factors combined - when you are or are not using activated carbon in your filter - will have different results for each individual fish keeper / planted tank hobbyist, depending on individual tank set-up characteristics. If you have just a few low-light plants, regular lighting, regular substrate, etc ... Having activated carbon in your filter probably won't do any harm to your plants, as low light plants do not metabolize fast and therefore do not need as many nutrients as higher-light plants would require. Now, if it were a heavily planted tank with more demanding plants, with higher lighting, nutrient-rich substrate, and perhaps with CO2 injections ... then in such case, I believe, activated carbon would in fact cause harm to plants. Because in such tanks nutrition for plants is very important (as they metabolize faster in such conditions), activated carbon would continue to be removing these nutrients from the water column - something not very desireable in a heavily planted tank.
So, as you can see, just because you say "I have a planted tank with activated carbon and my plants are fine", it doesn't show much of anything either. You have to be more specific and much more considerate of various factors involved here. And remember, not one planted tank is working out the same for every planted tank enthusiast. |
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Helper
|
Dino said carbon only lasts a few hours and sirdarksol agreed.This is a theory,as they have no information form any source to back this up.
Vin said carbon lasts 2 to 3 weeks and got this information from conversations with marine biologist,but still a theory.
Websters defenition of theory is:
1.a speculative plan
2.a formulation of underlying principals of certain observed phenomena that has been verfied to some degree
3.the principals of an art or science,rather than its practice
4.a conjecture or guess
My point is and was that all of these conversations dealing with carbon are theories at best,including Isabellas.Carbon has been used in aquarium filters for as long as people have been keeping fish in modern aquariums.If it is working for you,continue to use it.If you are not or have never used it,why start?
But it seems like just about everyone here insits that if you do use it and do not change it within 4 weeks,it will "leach out" everything that it has absorbed.Where are you all getting that information from?This is one thing I do not believe anyone who has said this has any proof of.
I have 6 tanks right now,some have carbon,some do not.My smaller tanks are the ones with carbon,and I can honestly say that in 2 of them,one is 10 gallons,the other 5 gallons,that I have literally gone for 5 months without changing the carbon,and none of the fish in either of these tanks have died or had any disease. Nor has there been any increase in ammonia,nitrite,or nitrate in these tanks,I test them at least once a week.
|
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Helper
|
Another thing,
what works for one person with one aquarium may or may not work for someone else.Even if it is the same size tank,same filter,with the same fish and plants.No two aquariums are ever the same.
|
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Master
|
I have found since being here on fishlore, that my overstocked tanks benefit from carbon..but I do change it every two weeks...but my other tanks, do great without it..all readings were great before the carbon and only thing I had issue with were nitrates on my overstocks....which is normal in an over stocked tank and the carbon has helped alot with that...so I do use carbon and I dont use carbon LOL
|
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Moderator
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbum
My point is and was that all of these conversations dealing with carbon are theories at best,including Isabellas.Carbon has been used in aquarium filters for as long as people have been keeping fish in modern aquariums.If it is working for you,continue to use it.If you are not or have never used it,why start? ... But it seems like just about everyone here insits that if you do use it and do not change it within 4 weeks,it will "leach out" everything that it has absorbed.Where are you all getting that information from?This is one thing I do not believe anyone who has said this has any proof of
|
Fishbum, in case you haven't noticed, nowhere do I say "What I'm saying is right and my 'theory' is right". If you read carefully, my words include "I think", "I believe", or "According to my readings". All of these phrases in no way imply that I have some fixed theory and that I'm right. As I've said before, I don't have any "theories" as to carbon, but what I've said previously is based on my personal research (i.e. various readings and cumulative experiences/opinions of others). My opinion may be wrong, sure, I don't know that 100%. BUT that doesn't mean I can't at least try to give an advice that to the best of my conscience isn't misleading and will not cause harm to the fish of the fish keepers using my advice. That's the best I can do.
Now, there is always a "safety" measure a fish keeper can take. Firstly, we don't know 100% (or at least I don't know, since I am not a scientist who can examine activated carbon activity on a molecular level) whether the carbon's efficiency expires after a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks. Personally, I'd assume that the more toxins are in the water, the sooner the efficiency of a.c. runs out - so it would depend on how loaded with toxins one's tank water is. Now, since a.c. manufacturers recommend to change it about once a month, maybe there is a reason for it, don't you think? Don't you think they'd have to do a research on a molecular level to see how soon the efficiency of a.c. expires before actually selling a.c. to the masses? So, going back to the "safety" measure. Not being exactly sure when the efficiency runs out, it would never hurt anyone to take a precautionary step and change the a.c. BEFORE, rather than AFTER, its efficiency expires. We don't want to risk our fish dying of some toxic poisoning because we've kept the a.c. in our filters for too long as a result of which it leeched the toxins back to the tank. Therefore, it won't hurt to stay on the safe side. And that's my "theory" of the efficiency of activated carbon, Fishbum. And unless you can scientifically examine the activity of activated carbon on a molecular level, as well as the effects of it on tank water and fish health - also on a molecular level - and provide us all with a detailed and definitive report, I don't think you have a valid "theory" either, as none of us do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbum
Another thing,
what works for one person with one aquarium may or may not work for someone else.Even if it is the same size tank,same filter,with the same fish and plants.No two aquariums are ever the same.
|
That's exactly what I said and what I was trying to convey/make clear in my previous post - did you read it? And I definitely agree with it. |
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Helper
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isabella
LOL ... nobody came down with any "carbon" theory here. I don't know who said that "carbon only works for a few hours" but it's certainly not true. However, it's also untrue that it will work for the whole month before you change it again. From what I've learned from my readings, and I believe it's fairly safe to state, is that activated carbon works for only a week or two, after which time it becomes of no use. Furthermore, if you keep a bag of activated carbon in your filter for too long (I personally wouldn't leave an activated carbon bag in my filter for more than 4 weeks), it will eventually start leeching the toxins (which originally it was supposed to remove) back into the water column. This is something none of us would want as it would make our fish sick as well as disrupt the stability of water chemistry.
Now, with regards to keeping activated carbon in planted tanks. There are a lot of factors to consider here. Anybody can say, "Oh, I'm keeping a.c. in my planted tank and everything's OK with my plants". But, firstly, you need to take into account the following considerations: How heavily is your tank planted? Is the entire tank floor planted too? What kinds of plants do you have (i.e. low-, medium-, or high- light)? What kind of substrate and lighting do you have? What kind of filtration system do you have? What and how many filter media do you have in your filter? What kind of fish and how many fish do you have (i.e. the total bioload with respect to the amount of plants)? Are you injecting your tank with CO2? Et cetera ...
All of these factors combined - when you are or are not using activated carbon in your filter - will have different results for each individual fish keeper / planted tank hobbyist, depending on individual tank set-up characteristics. If you have just a few low-light plants, regular lighting, regular substrate, etc ... Having activated carbon in your filter probably won't do any harm to your plants, as low light plants do not metabolize fast and therefore do not need as many nutrients as higher-light plants would require. Now, if it were a heavily planted tank with more demanding plants, with higher lighting, nutrient-rich substrate, and perhaps with CO2 injections ... then in such case, I believe, activated carbon would in fact cause harm to plants. Because in such tanks nutrition for plants is very important (as they metabolize faster in such conditions), activated carbon would continue to be removing these nutrients from the water column - something not very desireable in a heavily planted tank.
So, as you can see, just because you say "I have a planted tank with activated carbon and my plants are fine", it doesn't show much of anything either. You have to be more specific and much more considerate of various factors involved here. And remember, not one planted tank is working out the same for every planted tank enthusiast.
|
Isabella what offended me about this is you did say was"LOL...Nobody came down with any 'carbon'theory here." When Dino and Sirdarksol did,and said "carbon only has a function life of a few hours"We all have our own theories on carbon,and all aspects of this FUN hobby.But in your second post you say"Nowhere do I say'what I am saying is right and my 'Theory'is right".You are contradicting yourself.You like me and most of us here,have our own theories on many things in keeping fish.You also said in your first post"I don't know who said'carbon only works for a few hours'but it certainly not true.Well Dino and Sirdarksol said that.If you had read the first page of this thread,you would have seen who had said that,which I pointed out in my first post.
Last edited by fishbum; May 31st, 2008 at 09:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Moderator
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbum
Isabella what offended me about this is you did say was"LOL...Nobody came down with any 'carbon'theory here." When Dino and Sirdarksol did,and said "carbon only has a function life of a few hours"We all have our own theories on carbon,and all aspects of this FUN hobby.But in your second post you say"Nowhere do I say'what I am saying is right and my 'Theory'is right".You are contradicting yourself.You like me and most of us here,have our own theories on many things in keeping fish.You also said in your first post"I don't know who said'carbon only works for a few hours'but it certainly not true.Well Dino and Sirdarksol said that.If you had read the first page of this thread,you would have seen who had said that,which I pointed out in my first post.
|
LOL ... Fishbum, I'm certainly not trying to offend you here, if that's what you think. Sorry if you're taking it this way. I'm merely expressing my opinions here - as you are as well - and you certainly don't have to like my opinion at all. You have the right to disagree with it  .
To comment on your other points: I am not contradicting myself. It was you who said we all had some set "theory" here about activated carbon. Indeed I didn't read the beginning of the thread which is why I didn't see Dino and Sirdarksol say "Carbon only works for a few hours." However, the point is not whether I have read what they've said, BUT whether their claim is valid. Personally I do not agree with this claim, EXCEPT in two situations: (1) When one's tank is extremely loaded with toxins, and (2) When a.c. is used after some major tank re-decoration such as re-planting, changing of substrate, etc ... Maybe this is what they have meant.
Next, in what way am I contradicting myself, when I say: "Firstly, we don't know 100% (or at least I don't know, since I am not a scientist who can examine activated carbon activity on a molecular level) whether the carbon's efficiency expires after a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks. Personally, I'd assume that the more toxins are in the water, the sooner the efficiency of a.c. runs out - so it would depend on how loaded with toxins one's tank water is. Now, since a.c. manufacturers recommend to change it about once a month, maybe there is a reason for it, don't you think? Don't you think they'd have to do a research on a molecular level to see how soon the efficiency of a.c. expires before actually selling a.c. to the masses? So, going back to the "safety" measure. Not being exactly sure when the efficiency runs out, it would never hurt anyone to take a precautionary step and change the a.c. BEFORE, rather than AFTER, its efficiency expires. We don't want to risk our fish dying of some toxic poisoning because we've kept the a.c. in our filters for too long as a result of which it leeched the toxins back to the tank. Therefore, it won't hurt to stay on the safe side. And that's my "theory" of the efficiency of activated carbon, Fishbum." <--- If you mean this last sentence, you're certainly intelligent enough to see where I'm going here. What I mean here, is that no one really can say anything certain about the efficiency of a.c. UNLESS that person can scientifically test the activity of the carbon (on a molecular level) and present us all with valid results and proof, lol ... . I'm sorry but I have a feeling you're not reading all I'm saying. |
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Helper
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isabella
LOL ... Fishbum, I'm certainly not trying to offend you here, if that's what you think. Sorry if you're taking it this way. I'm merely expressing my opinions here - as you are as well - and you certainly don't have to like my opinion at all. You have the right to disagree with it .
To comment on your other points: I am not contradicting myself. It was you who said we all had some set "theory" here about activated carbon. Indeed I didn't read the beginning of the thread which is why I didn't see Dino and Sirdarksol say "Carbon only works for a few hours." However, the point is not whether I have read what they've said, BUT whether their claim is valid. Personally I do not agree with this claim, EXCEPT in two situations: (1) When one's tank is extremely loaded with toxins, and (2) When a.c. is used after some major tank re-decoration such as re-planting, changing of substrate, etc ... Maybe this is what they have meant.
Next, in what way am I contradicting myself, when I say: "Firstly, we don't know 100% (or at least I don't know, since I am not a scientist who can examine activated carbon activity on a molecular level) whether the carbon's efficiency expires after a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks. Personally, I'd assume that the more toxins are in the water, the sooner the efficiency of a.c. runs out - so it would depend on how loaded with toxins one's tank water is. Now, since a.c. manufacturers recommend to change it about once a month, maybe there is a reason for it, don't you think? Don't you think they'd have to do a research on a molecular level to see how soon the efficiency of a.c. expires before actually selling a.c. to the masses? So, going back to the "safety" measure. Not being exactly sure when the efficiency runs out, it would never hurt anyone to take a precautionary step and change the a.c. BEFORE, rather than AFTER, its efficiency expires. We don't want to risk our fish dying of some toxic poisoning because we've kept the a.c. in our filters for too long as a result of which it leeched the toxins back to the tank. Therefore, it won't hurt to stay on the safe side. And that's my "theory" of the efficiency of activated carbon, Fishbum." <--- If you mean this last sentence, you're certainly intelligent enough to see where I'm going here. What I mean here, is that no one really can say anything certain about the efficiency of a.c. UNLESS that person can scientifically test the activity of the carbon (on a molecular level) and present us all with valid results and proof, lol ... . I'm sorry but I have a feeling you're not reading all I'm saying. |
You contradicated yourself when you said nobody came down with a carbon theory here.People here inlcuding myself,and yourself have theories on carbon and many other things in keeping fish. |
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Helper
|
I have also NOT examined carbon on any kind of molecular level.I work in a warehouse not a laboratory.I have only stated my experience with carbon,and that my experience contradictes many peoples,including the manufactures recomendations in when to change it.
Cheers to you Isabella,you made my evening interesting,and thoughtfull 
P.S.Starting out a post with LOL,can and does offend people,and can start a conversation out on the wrong track,even if that is not what you intended to do.
Last edited by fishbum; May 31st, 2008 at 10:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Master
|
my question is, im wondering if randrjax is even following this thread ?
|
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Helper
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnie
my question is, im wondering if randrjax is even following this thread ?
|
Probably not anymore,I kinda got it off subject a little,sorry to all,especially randjax |
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Helper
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isabella
Fishbum, in case you haven't noticed, nowhere do I say "What I'm saying is right and my 'theory' is right". If you read carefully, my words include "I think", "I believe", or "According to my readings". All of these phrases in no way imply that I have some fixed theory and that I'm right. As I've said before, I don't have any "theories" as to carbon, but what I've said previously is based on my personal research (i.e. various readings and cumulative experiences/opinions of others). My opinion may be wrong, sure, I don't know that 100%. BUT that doesn't mean I can't at least try to give an advice that to the best of my conscience isn't misleading and will not cause harm to the fish of the fish keepers using my advice. That's the best I can do.
Now, there is always a "safety" measure a fish keeper can take. Firstly, we don't know 100% (or at least I don't know, since I am not a scientist who can examine activated carbon activity on a molecular level) whether the carbon's efficiency expires after a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks. Personally, I'd assume that the more toxins are in the water, the sooner the efficiency of a.c. runs out - so it would depend on how loaded with toxins one's tank water is. Now, since a.c. manufacturers recommend to change it about once a month, maybe there is a reason for it, don't you think? Don't you think they'd have to do a research on a molecular level to see how soon the efficiency of a.c. expires before actually selling a.c. to the masses? So, going back to the "safety" measure. Not being exactly sure when the efficiency runs out, it would never hurt anyone to take a precautionary step and change the a.c. BEFORE, rather than AFTER, its efficiency expires. We don't want to risk our fish dying of some toxic poisoning because we've kept the a.c. in our filters for too long as a result of which it leeched the toxins back to the tank. Therefore, it won't hurt to stay on the safe side. And that's my "theory" of the efficiency of activated carbon, Fishbum. And unless you can scientifically examine the activity of activated carbon on a molecular level, as well as the effects of it on tank water and fish health - also on a molecular level - and provide us all with a detailed and definitive report, I don't think you have a valid "theory" either, as none of us do.
That's exactly what I said and what I was trying to convey/make clear in my previous post - did you read it? And I definitely agree with it.
|
When did I suggest that you thought you theory was right?? |
|
|
|
|
June 1st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Helper
|
The forums on the plant sites I go to all seem to think carbon is bad and purigen is good. I am trying it out, but I find it doubtful that it leaves beneficial nutrients alone and takes out the bad stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
June 1st, 2008
|
|
|
Fish Keeper
|
I just dont understand why everyone it taking this to heart. Its like me telling you that Jelly on toast is better than peanut butter. Its a personal preferance.
(and by the way I like Jelly and Peanut Butter on my toast  ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Aquarium Fish Forum Threads
