Carbon - Yes or No?

Delphinus · #1 11-08-2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reefwars

come on theres got to be a buch of people who dont use carbon so its a fact that its not needed

This line of reasoning is flawed. The real question is how long do those tanks last, that are setup without carbon use? If the goal is simply to eek a tank out for a few months to a year and then move on, then sure, maybe you can get away without carbon use, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been a benefit had carbon been in there also.

I know there is some speculation between a link of excessive carbon use and HLLE but as far as I'm aware there has not yet been any causative link established, just speculation. And frankly, HLLE isn't that well understood anyhow. To me the definitive pros outweigh any speculative cons.

Read the article I linked, it has some informative insights regarding accumulation of organics over time that can't be skimmed out. Doesn't it make sense that "old tank syndrome" has a cause that could be conceivably related to that? What about allelopathy? It's not just softies tanks that are susceptible to this. Carbon can alleviate the effects of this.

What's the adversion to using carbon?

lastlight · #2 11-08-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphinus

If the goal is simply to eek a tank out for a few months to a year and then move on

Geez that hit close to home! I'm actually not running carbon on my current tank for a while and will then try some after a few months to see if I notice any difference.

Delphinus · #3 11-08-2012, 04:53 PM

That's the thing, you probably won't notice a difference like that, at least not beyond the short term benefits of water clarity maybe. I'm talking about the kind of difference you notice after 5 years and "gee, this tank just doesn't sustain corals the way it used to. And all my parameters are fine so what gives?" ... I guess if it's a rare thing to push a reef tank beyond 5 years than I guess it's totally plausible to see so many questioning it.

Besides on a tank that size, doing a 100% water change to reboot the tank is something totally realistic too. This changes the playing field somewhat. So maybe yeah, in some cases, carbon isn't "necessary." But I still think there is benefit to its use in this case as well.

reefwars · #4 11-08-2012, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphinus

That's the thing, you probably won't notice a difference like that, at least not beyond the short term benefits of water clarity maybe. I'm talking about the kind of difference you notice after 5 years and "gee, this tank just doesn't sustain corals the way it used to." I guess if nobody makes it to 5 years anymore than it's going to be real easy to question why something is necessary.

Besides on a tank that size, doing a 100% water change to reboot the tank is something totally realistic too. This changes the playing field somewhat. So maybe yeah, in some cases, carbon isn't "necessary." But I still there is benefit to its use in this case as well.

I can run a reef tank VERY successfully for a week with crappy lights, no skimmer, and no waterchanges and and come on here and declare all of the usual support tools as "totally unnecessary and I'm the proof." It doesn't carry the same weight as someone who's run a successful tank for 5-10 years though. And I guess each person's definition of "successful" will probably have some variation from person to person too.

i do agree though tony that yes there are situations that would make one think whether running carbon is a good idea , im not saying its bad , im also not saying its needed for long term use either , but i am saying its not something that has to be running on a system , myself and a many others are proof.

kien · #5 11-08-2012, 04:57 PM

reefwars · #6 11-08-2012, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphinus

This line of reasoning is flawed. The real question is how long do those tanks last, that are setup without carbon use? ?

your one of a small fraction who keep tanks for ten years , most people upgrade or ditch the hobby long before , how long do you think an average reefer keeps his tank is my question then??

reefwars · #7 11-08-2012, 04:59 PM

if my bubble tip hits the powerhead you can better believe ill run some carbon , but i wont run it 24/7

so my question regarding the organics the skimmer doesnt catch , if running carbon is beneficial to solving that(which i doubt carbon would do by its self) would it be safe to say if i ran my carbon reactor one day a week would fix that?? or may be twice a week? or would i have to run it 24/7??

reefwars · #8 11-08-2012, 05:02 PM

carbon bad = most times not(notice i said most lol )

carbon good= sure it is its a fact

carbon needed to run reeftank = no

carbon need to run a reeftank longterm = whos to know for sure??

if i have a tank for one year maybe i got lucky and had a good year with no carbon while if i have the same tank for ten years maybe i didnt get so lucky and had a few incidents where i was glad i ran carbon, one method compared to the other can ony really be done by a tank to tank basis, your tank in ten years may not be in the same state mine is in ten years and vice versa.

lastlight · #9 11-08-2012, 05:08 PM

there's only about a million other factors to influence how a tank does over ten years or even a year. that said i am still a believer in running carbon 24-7 i just don't have any yet lol.

kien · #10 11-08-2012, 05:13 PM

ya, I have no clue if it is needed or not. I have always run carbon though because I like the clearer water that it gives me. I can totally tell the difference. I had a tank in the basement that I didn't run carbon on and that water in a white bucket definitely appeared less clear than the tank that had carbon running.