hypertech June 27, 2012 Share June 27, 2012 I only run carbon when I suspect something is up. It really doesn't last that long, so to effectively run it all the time, you'd have to change regularly and would go through a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToddR June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 I run 1 cup of carbon for 24 hours once a month. I don't really see any difference if I don't run carbon. It's more an old habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Puckstable June 28, 2012 Author Share June 28, 2012 For those who aren't running GFO, are you guys dependent on your clean up crew and fish for algae control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Origami June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 GAC (granular activated carbon) depletion depends on a host of factors, including how dirty your tank is, whether or not you run a skimmer, and how much carbon you're running. If you run it intermittently, certain organics will build up and, when the carbon is introduced, the increased concentration will deplete the carbon faster. In many ways, it's like DI resin that way. From Advanced Aquarist, February 2008: "An interesting observation to emerge from these simulations is that, at least for the 100 gallon water volume/100 gm of HC2 case described by Table 5 and Figure 11, the GAC saturation times vary tremendously depending upon the clean/dirty state of the tank water. Under conditions of aggressive DOC removal (skimming, water changes, GAC use), the GAC charge should last over a month, but under more passive nutrient removal husbandry (no skimming? no frequent water changes?), the GAC charge will be depleted in just a few days." (HC2 is a hydrocarbon additive that the scientists were using to measure the uptake performance of different forms / brands of GAC.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surf&turf June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 I run a filter pad with about an ounce of carbon in it and change it every 3 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan S June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 (edited) I couldn't imagine running a tank w/o carbon. I've tried it before and you can see the difference in the clarity of the water. Further, it's absorbing all sorts of heavy metals and toxins in the water. In the very least, I'd keep a jug on hand for emergencies. As for cost - carbon is super cheap. 1 gallon costs $14 at BRS. 16 cups in that. I use 2 cups a month on my 150g tank. So that's $21/year. (Even if I changed it every 2 weeks, which you probably should, that's still just $42/year). 1g of GFO is $50 at BRS. I use 2 cups every 2 months with that, so that's $37.50/year. Double the cost of Carbon, but for $58.50/year, that's not much at all (I spend $151.20/year on salt, as a comparison). Edited June 28, 2012 by Ryan S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surf&turf June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 I couldn't imagine running a tank w/o carbon. I've tried it before and you can see the difference in the clarity of the water. Further, it's absorbing all sorts of heavy metals and toxins in the water. In the very least, I'd keep a jug on hand for emergencies. As for cost - carbon is super cheap. 1 gallon costs $14 at BRS. 16 cups in that. I use 2 cups a month on my 150g tank. So that's $21/year. (Even if I changed it every 2 weeks, which you probably should, that's still just $42/year). 1g of GFO is $50 at BRS. I use 2 cups every 2 months with that, so that's $37.50/year. Double the cost of Carbon, but for $58.50/year, that's not much at all (I spend $151.20/year on salt, as a comparison). You only spend 150 dollars a year on salt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypertech June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 You only spend 150 dollars a year on salt? No, he spends 151.20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overklok June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 I quit using GAC, it gave my fish HLLE. After the Kent Marine heavy metals in our carbon fiasco (oops), I would be extra leery of GAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan S June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 You only spend 150 dollars a year on salt? A little off topic, but here is the breakdown. The $150 calculation assumed the old price of $41.99, but they are now $44.99 for a 200g box of IO salt. I change 60g/month for water changes, which is 720g/year. So let's say 4 boxes a year, which is $180. The point being, a heck of a lot more than my $20/year fund for carbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan S June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 I quit using GAC, it gave my fish HLLE. After the Kent Marine heavy metals in our carbon fiasco (oops), I would be extra leery of GAC. This is a very valid concern. The HLLE article that came out last month was very interesting. I've never experienced that before, but it's definitely something to keep in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan S June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 (edited) I think that I'd remove my biopellets before I removed my carbon. I'm with Tom. (I don't use biopellets at all - but considered them). The first reactor I added to my system was carbon, followed by GFO (the BRS dual reactor works great for both of them). Edited June 28, 2012 by Ryan S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Puckstable June 28, 2012 Author Share June 28, 2012 I quit using GAC, it gave my fish HLLE. After the Kent Marine heavy metals in our carbon fiasco (oops), I would be extra leery of GAC. When running my BRS dual with GFO and carbon, my blue tang would get HLLE. I had to either stop running it or move the tang. Running carbon or not is not a money concern for me. It's more of a space issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan S June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 When running my BRS dual with GFO and carbon, my blue tang would get HLLE. That's your answer then. Can you fit a small UV in the space? That will help with water clarity without having carbon present. Another alternative to GFO/biopellets is vinegar dosing. I run GFO and vinegar, and my phosphates are a solid 0.00 on my hanna checker. I may try removing the GFO entirely and seeing if the vinegar can keep the phosphates at 0 by itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Puckstable June 28, 2012 Author Share June 28, 2012 This is for a different tank. I pretty much have space for just one pump to feed something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan S June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 This is for a different tank. I pretty much have space for just one pump to feed something. I wonder what Rob would say. If he could only put 1 reactor on a client's tank, I wonder what would he would use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Puckstable June 28, 2012 Author Share June 28, 2012 I'm thinking of just using the dual because I have it. How do you feel about running GFO and pellets in the same chamber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surf&turf June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 I'm thinking of just using the dual because I have it. How do you feel about running GFO and pellets in the same chamber? I don't think that work, the flow that it takes to tumble the pellets would be to much for the GFO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trockafella June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 I'm thinking of just using the dual because I have it. How do you feel about running GFO and pellets in the same chamber? Bad idea... They need to be run seperate in there own reactor. Will this tank utilize a refugium at all.? You could also run something like Chemi-pure Elite which has both carbon and gfo (or similar product) together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trockafella June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 Also, you dont have to use a reactor for carbon, I just hang a bag in my sump where the overflow dumps in at. Personally I am a big fan of carbon. I also hang a bag of seachem Phos remover as well sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surf&turf June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 I'm thinking of just using the dual because I have it. How do you feel about running GFO and pellets in the same chamber? I have considered running bio-pellets in the sump in a media bag. Several threads on RC about people using them that way. These say you can use either way. http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=23764 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Origami June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 Kent carbon is bituminous carbon, I'm pretty sure. It's very soft and, if you put it in a tumbling reactor, it is likely to break up into micro-particles (carbon dust). I believe that it's these micro-particles that are implicated in HLLE. Lignite carbon is harder and more resistant to abrasion. However, you shouldn't tumble it aggressively. BRS sells a press-formed carbon, ROX, that is low-dust and seems to be very hard. I use it. I do have some Kent carbon running on the back end of an ozone reactor right now - not tumbling. I would not mix carbon and GFO because the GFO will abrade the carbon. I would not mix carbon and biopellets either. Biopellets benefit from some good tumbling action to dislodge the growing bacteria that you want to export. That tumbling action can abrade the carbon granules. It's best to match flow to each reactor contents if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Origami June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 I have considered running bio-pellets in the sump in a media bag. Several threads on RC about people using them that way. These say you can use either way. http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=23764 You really want to tumble biopellets. While it's bacteria food, you want to dislodge that bacteria, sending it to your skimmer to get skimmed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surf&turf June 28, 2012 Share June 28, 2012 You really want to tumble biopellets. While it's bacteria food, you want to dislodge that bacteria, sending it to your skimmer to get skimmed off. Thats what I have read, but supposedly running them in a media bag is a less aggressive way of running them. Just info I have seen on other sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Puckstable June 28, 2012 Author Share June 28, 2012 Bad idea... They need to be run seperate in there own reactor. Will this tank utilize a refugium at all.? You could also run something like Chemi-pure Elite which has both carbon and gfo (or similar product) together. Nope, no Refugium. That's why I wanted to run the pellets to help remove nitrates. I'll figure something out. Thanks guys, for all your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now