Activated Carbon In Planted Tank

[Daniel Nebushkow]

Hey Guys.
I was just reading about something that said that activated carbon doesn't do great things for your plants or something and I was wanting to take out the activated carbon that is in the two planted tanks I have and I was just wondering, is there a certain procedure or something for doing this? Will the tanks go unstable or something? (The filters also both have the ceramic bio whatever its called and a sponge)

 

[Jason Tanner]

Activated carbon removes some of the properties in water that are somewhat beneficial to plants. I would reccomend taking it out but it won’t reek havoc on the tank

 

[Little John]

Just done use it, it will take out some of you fertilizer

 

[Daniel Nebushkow]

Activated carbon removes some of the properties in water that are somewhat beneficial to plants. I would reccomend taking it out but it won’t reek havoc on the tank

So if I take it out things will still be ok

 

[Little John]

No I would just take it out

 

[goldface]

Is there actual truth to this? It makes sense, but so do a lot of things that were later proven to be false. I recall a lot of ADA filter systems containing carbon, so I’m not sure.

 

[AquaticJ]

Is there actual truth to this? It makes sense, but so do a lot of things that were later proven to be false. I recall a lot of ADA filter systems containing carbon, so I’m not sure.

I doubt it. Wouldn’t all the ferts say “remove carbon”. I run carbon on my tanks because if I don’t, my fish room has a nice stank to it.

 

[Inactive User]

Is there actual truth to this? It makes sense, but so do a lot of things that were later proven to be false. I recall a lot of filter systems containing carbon, so I’m not sure.

The adsorption capacity of activated carbon for dissolved solids (such as the various salts we use as fertilisers) is very little.

Where it does present an issue is that it causes the dissociation of chelated nutrients from their chelate. For example, the iron ferts that we use are chelated, either with EDTA (Plantex CSM+B, NilocG Thrive), DTPA (NilocG Thrive) and gluconate (Flourish and Flourish Iron). Free iron is quickly oxidised (generally with phosphate) and precipitates out of the water column into a less available form for plant uptake.

However, from what others have reported on other forums, the activated carbon that are retailed for hobbyist aquarium use is generally of the lowest commercial quality and has very limited adsorption capacity: even if you did remove the activated carbon, the benefit is likely marginal at best.

 

[DuaneV]

Is there a reason you're running activated carbon in the first place, or just because it came with your filter? I haven't run carbon in any of my filters for over 20 years. Activated carbon is used to remove organic chemicals from your water. If you don't have organic chemicals that need removing, there's no real reason to use it.

 

[Daniel Nebushkow]

Is there a reason you're running activated carbon in the first place, or just because it came with your filter? I haven't run carbon in any of my filters for over 20 years. Activated carbon is used to remove organic chemicals from your water. If you don't have organic chemicals that need removing, there's no real reason to use it.

I just put it in because it came with the filter. Ummm what kind of organic chemicals are we talking? Sorry I'm still kinda new to aquariums even though I've been in it for a couple of years

 

[DuaneV]

Chloramines, chlorine, phenols & tannins are the main things its used to adsorb. It'll also adsorb most medications, so it has to be removed when treating fish with meds. However, the amount and quality we're using in most filters, it has very little impact. To be honest, I think the only reason most people use it is because it comes with their filter and they just continue to buy it. In my opinion, 99% of the time its a waste of money.

 

[Platyarelife]

I use activated carbon in both my planted tanks. The small tank thrives and they grow like nuts. The larger tank needs CO2 boosters. I can't really say if carbon affects it or not but I can tell you it's possible to keep carbon in with planted tanks.

 

[GabeC]

I’ve never used carbon in any tank. It’s a cash grab since it constantly needs replacing.

 

[Platyarelife]

I’ve never used carbon in any tank. It’s a cash grab since it constantly needs replacing.

Carbon shouldn't need constant replacement, it may not need to be changed as much as you think it does. I use pellets which last a pretty long time. In my 55 gallon I only clean the canister filter once a month and only change the carbon once a month.

 

[!poogs!]

Have never used carbon in any of my tanks. Straight mechanical and biological filtration. You don’t need it. Carbon is good to rescue a tank quickly if something goes wrong a water change won’t remedy or for after medicine applications. Discolouration from plants or woods, is what it is and sometimes enhances the hues in the tank and brings out the colour in fishes.

 

[DuaneV]

I use activated carbon in both my planted tanks. The small tank thrives and they grow like nuts. The larger tank needs CO2 boosters. I can't really say if carbon affects it or not but I can tell you it's possible to keep carbon in with planted tanks.

But WHY are you using it? For what purpose? What are you using it to remove? Its used for a purpose of removing something from the water, not as a filter media.

 

[-Mak-]

Agree that regardless of whether or not it removes fertilizers, there is no need to run carbon unless removing medication or tannins.

 

[Platyarelife]

But WHY are you using it? For what purpose? What are you using it to remove? Its used for a purpose of removing something from the water, not as a filter media.

I added it to help clear the tank and not bothering to take it out. My fish tank also smells like a lake so it's there for the smell as well. It's not a strong smell but I imagine it could be. Why bother removing it? Carbon is beneficial in it's own way. It's not hurting anything by being in there and I don't have anything that carbon would negatively affect, in the tank. The lack of CO2 for the plants isn't a problem anyways since I want this tank really heavily planted in the future it will require more which Is why I'll be adding a CO2 reactor.

 

[DuaneV]

I didnt say or imply it was hurting anything, but its one of the bigger "scams" of the industry, in my opinion. Sure, if you have a smelly tank or want to remove tannins, it does that. Otherwise, the industry is just making a boat-load of cash scamming beginners into thinking they need it for their filters.

 

[Thunder_o_b]

I run several pounds of carbon in my canisters and my plants are doing quite well. But I use Seachem products that are absorbed quickly so the loss is said to be only 15-20%

My carbon is quality coal so I can reactivate it every two weeks.

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

 

[Inactive User]

I didnt say or imply it was hurting anything, but its one of the bigger "scams" of the industry, in my opinion.

There is actually a hypothesis that activated carbon is associated with Head and Lateral Line Erosion (HLLE, "hole in the head disease"). Studies by Hemdal and Odum (2011) and Stamper et al. (2011) on marine aquarium fish seems to lend more credence to this idea. The hypothesised pathogenesis (mechanism of action) is that very fine carbon dust interacts with fish skin and causes lesions.

Whether this is the case for freshwater fish or whether there are multiple causes for HLLE is uncertain.

 

[JupiterBeauty]

There is actually a hypothesis that activated carbon is associated with Head and Lateral Line Erosion (HLLE, "hole in the head disease"). Studies by Hemdal and Odum (2011) and Stamper et al. (2011) on marine aquarium fish seems to lend more credence to this idea. The hypothesised pathogenesis (mechanism of action) is that very fine carbon dust interacts with fish skin and causes lesions.

Whether this is the case for freshwater fish or whether there are multiple causes for HLLE is uncertain.

Intriguing. Any way I can have a link?

 

[Inactive User]

Intriguing. Any way I can have a link?

I'm not sure whether these journal articles are accessible for free as I accessed them through my university library subscription.

The full references are:

Hemdal, J., & Odum, R. A. 2011. 'The role of activated lignite carbon in the development of head and lateral line erosion in the Ocean Sturgeon'. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 73, 489-492.

Stamper, M. A., Kittell, M. M., Patel, E. E., & Corwin, A. L. 2011. 'Effects of full-stream carbon filtration on the development of head and lateral line erosion syndrome (HLLES) in ocean surgeon'. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 23(3), 111-116.

 

[JupiterBeauty]

I'm not sure whether these journal articles are accessible for free as I accessed them through my university library subscription.

The full references are:

Hemdal, J., & Odum, R. A. 2011. 'The role of activated lignite carbon in the development of head and lateral line erosion in the Ocean Sturgeon'. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 73, 489-492.

Stamper, M. A., Kittell, M. M., Patel, E. E., & Corwin, A. L. 2011. 'Effects of full-stream carbon filtration on the development of head and lateral line erosion syndrome (HLLES) in ocean surgeon'. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 23(3), 111-116.

Beautiful thanks! If I can access them I'm in for a fun weekend lol

 

[goldface]

There is actually a hypothesis that activated carbon is associated with Head and Lateral Line Erosion (HLLE, "hole in the head disease"). Studies by Hemdal and Odum (2011) and Stamper et al. (2011) on marine aquarium fish seems to lend more credence to this idea. The hypothesised pathogenesis (mechanism of action) is that very fine carbon dust interacts with fish skin and causes lesions.

Whether this is the case for freshwater fish or whether there are multiple causes for HLLE is uncertain.

I’ve read something about carbon causing HLLE in oscars. It’s been a while though, and I can’t recall where I’ve read it.

 

[AquaticJ]

But sadly, all they’ve found was simple correlation. That’s not convincing to me. It’s also almost entirely focused on marine fish, which is a different world. I’ve seen various cases of HITH at the store I worked at, oddly enough, all the tanks were just run on sponge filters, no carbon.

 

[Inactive User]

But sadly, all they’ve found was simple correlation. That’s not convincing to me. It’s also almost entirely focused on marine fish, which is a different world. I’ve seen various cases of HITH at the store I worked at, oddly enough, all the tanks were just run on , no carbon.

There's a lot of uncertainty about HLLE and whether the marine and freshwater pathology refer to one syndrome with a similar aetiology, or whether it's multiple syndromes with separate aetiologies. For example, much of the marine research on HLLE treats it as distinct from freshwater HLLE, whereas Noga (2010) uses an altogether different term, Lateral Line Depigmentation (LLD) to refer to clinical signs in both marine and freshwater fish with the implication that the aetiology may be similar.

You are right that it is a fallacy to confound correlation with causation, but we must be careful to avoid the opposite fallacy that implies correlation cannot be suggestive of causation or that correlation is altogether without use. This is untrue: it can be very useful as a statistical measure to highlight the strength of linear relationships between variables in clinical research and is commonly used as such. For example, the study by Stamper et al. (2011) contains a statistical analysis as part of its methodology to examine the correlative relationship, and I would regard it as robust from a clinical perspective.

In fact, a relatively large proportion of the clinical research (both human and animal) evidence base is correlative in nature. This is often because the pathogenesis (the mechanism of action that causes a disease) or the pharmacodynamics (the mechanism of action for a drug's treatment of a disease) is unknown or uncertain, and this may be because of limitations imposed by current technology or the constraints of natural phenomena.

 

[Platyarelife]

You guys do know you just piggy backed on this guys post right...He asked about Carbon in planted tanks....

 

[Inactive User]

You guys do know you just piggy backed on this guys post right...He asked about Carbon in planted tanks....

We all have provided direct posts to the OP's question about carbon and planted tanks: myself in post #8, AquaticJ in #7, scarface in #6. I provided some more information on the use of carbon (with an examination of the scientific literature) that may assist with another perspective on activated carbon.