running carbon....

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

bigford84

Aquarium Advice Freak
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
214
Location
oregon
whats the best possible way to run carbon in my sump, without using a reactor?

how do you run carbon?

or should i even run carbon?
my tank is a 55 gal with a 30 gal sump/fuge
 
You should have a reason to run carbon, coral toxins from a densely packed tank, water clarity, etc. Otherwise it isn't necessary. If so, it should be in a mesh bag in a high flow area of the sump. A filter canister designed for carbon, or a reactor is a better way to go if available. Some folks don't run carbon (or at least some brands) because it can cause disease in Tangs. I run carbon because of a packed coral population, but I run a pellet version that I rise very thoroughly before use to reduce carbon dust. My Tangs have not shown any problem after several decades of use.
 
carbon

i do weekly water changes on the 180 about 40 gal. and havent used carbon in a year with no adverse results.i do have purigen in the sump.didnt know about the carbon and tang issue and i have three of them so if that is the case i am feeling relieved.
 
Carbon is only "thought" to be one possible cause of HLLE in tangs and angels,,its not proven at all...There is a fairly new study about it ,but still not solid evidence ...
Run chemi-pure if you think you need to run something
 
I have seen cases that demonstrate carbon as a cause of HLLE in freshwater fish, but this is rare. In marine fish it is well demonstrated to be a dietary issue.

Carbon can remove trace elements and micronutrients, which are both vital to fish and corals. Many people report their corals and plants (in planted tanks) doing better without carbon filtration. However, this is only if the tank is running so well that those trace elements and micronutrients are the limiting factor in the tank. There is always a limiting factor, but in most tanks it is not these things. In the tanks where these are not the limiting factor I think carbon is worth running, but still not essential. Most of the issues that carbon takes care of can be better handled with water changes.
 
Both informative articles. This is why a well-written, 'well' researched article may not be. If you look hard enough you can find flaws in almost every scientific research article out there. I did this in college and it is amazing how flawed actual scientists published in peer-reviewed journals can be.
 
if you are going to use it, you should run it in a reactor. using it passively in a bag in the sump is just a waste of effort. you won't get much, if any benefit from it that way.
since it makes the water crystal clear, i was told to either run it 24/7/365, or not at all. i have heard of people running carbon and their water cleared up so much that the light penetrated a lot better and they burnt some corals.
 
Burning corals should only be an issue if you all of a sudden start using a lot. If you use a little and increase the amount slowly it should be no different than slowly moving a high light coral up your rock work, it will adjust.

I have heard the opposite. One idea is to use carbon for short periods on a regular basis (like for 24 hours once a month). This gives you the benefit of removing the bad things without constantly removing the good things as well.

I agree that a reactor is the best way to use it. However, I wouldn't say it is the only effective way. As long as the carbon is getting some flow (high or low) it will do its job. If tossing a bag in the sump was ineffective than the carbon in a bag in the sump would never become exhausted, which I think we all would agree would not be the case.
 
You don't really. With GFO you can test the phosphate of the output water. With carbon there is no way of knowing and it varies based on the quality of the carbon, the amount, the amount of things in the water it will be removing, etc. It is guesswork. Buy high quality carbon and guess that you change it often enough to keep it effective. I am just saying that although it is more effective in a canister or reactor, it isn't noneffective in a media bag just sitting in the sump.
 
so, like using a giant protein skimmer on your tank but only feeding it with a 250gph pump, so is the media bad scenario compared to the reactor set up.
 
I said the reactor (or a canister) is better than just sitting the carbon in a bag in the sump. I just don't agree that: "using it passively in a bag in the sump is just a waste of effort. you won't get much, if any benefit from it that way." Flow is flow, more is better. Sitting it in a sump will provide flow, but not much and it will definitely allow bypass. It is better than nothing, but definitely not the best option.
 
I don't think you made it clear in your original post. It gave the impression that carbon in a bag in a sump does nothing and I just wanted to clarify that. Sorry.
 
ok thanks for the info.... im running the carbon in a filter sock that is just as fine as a fish net. but im gonna ditch it after reading about the tang problem. if it was gonna happen to anyone, it will be me.
 
I think as long as the carbon pieces are not jiggling around and producing fine particles, you will be fine. But it is controversial, water changes aren't. I think a reactor might produce more dust than a filter cartridge or sump bag. I have used it for years and my corals respond well to it. No problem with Tangs. People that support densely packed SPS gardens almost always have to use it.
 
Back
Top Bottom