Active carbon

[RedDevil83]

I like butting heads with M!
Anyone remember "point /counterpoint" on the original "60 minutes"?
I am the water change guy(also sponge /ram guy{who knows what else they call me in the dark?}).
I like PP!
Until any of you(not just M, but get in gear M) can tell me what your DOC level is you have all missed a very important part of proper waterchanges and fishkeeping IMO.
I have and still do change more water then most .
I breed GBR and raise them(even harder then breeding) along with owning a 6 foot tank for the last 20++ years(180g for last 8ish years).
Water changes are #1 IMO but they do NOT tell the whole story.
There should be no reason if I change 50% or more weekly for there to be an accumulation of DOC( from what "all of you" are saying),yet time after time(years) my treatments with potassium permanganate show differently.
I would love to explain why water changes less then 100% aren't enough so maybe you all will look in on this;

http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f17/potassium-permanganate-338314.html
Looking for input ;skeptical and questioning.
I wish waterchanges were the end all be all but I am afraid they are not unless in HUGE volumes.
They may do well for many over a couple of years,
I am talking long term like some of my fish are between 10-13 + years old.

You like PP!?

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[Fresh2o]

You like PP!?

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

Potassium Permanganate


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[RedDevil83]

Lol I know I'm pulling your leg.....

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[jarrod0987]

I didn't use carbon for over a year.

Then I put it in to remove tannins, some new driftwood was sharing its tannins more than I wanted. It didn't make a dent in the tannins and didn't affect KH or GH (I supplement for both).

You're going to want KH and GH of at least 3 degrees.


Sent from my iPhone with three hands tied behind my back.

Not all brands of AC are the same, and after 24 hours you may need to replace it if you were removing a large amount of DOC such as Tanins. D. Walstad even says in her own book she sometimes uses it for this purpose. Not all DOC is the same molecular size either and different AC types may do better or worse. I like ROX and Chemi Pure Elite. Here is a cool demo.

 

[Mebbid]

Sorry but blanket statements like this do not always hold up. It is true an equilibrium will be reached but when and what level all depend on what rate substance comes in at and no mater what rate you remove it at, it will always be less then 100% so there will always be a rising level over time. AC is a way to remove all the organics. That does not mean it is always "Necessary" but it provides a very nice water quality improvement in most cases. Let's be honest. Even 1 single fish in a aquarium of any size is a higher bio load them most bodies of natural water anyways. That said most of us overstock because empty aquariums are boring. I'm done arguing these well studied and understood points with people who just refuse to accept them. I know I cannot change there mind.

No, there will not be a rising level over time assuming you do steady water changes. If you dump a consistent amount of something in the water every week and change out the same amount of water every week then it _will_ reach equillibrium. At a point where the amount being removed equals the amount being added. That's the definition of equillibrium. If things worked how you're saying than us water keepers that don't test nitrate would have continually rising levels and would eventually test off the charts. It doesn't happen because that's not how math works.

I like butting heads with M!
Anyone remember "point /counterpoint" on the original "60 minutes"?
I am the water change guy(also sponge /ram guy{who knows what else they call me in the dark?}).
I like PP!
Until any of you(not just M, but get in gear M) can tell me what your DOC level is you have all missed a very important part of proper waterchanges and fishkeeping IMO.
I have and still do change more water then most .
I breed GBR and raise them(even harder then breeding) along with owning a 6 foot tank for the last 20++ years(180g for last 8ish years).
Water changes are #1 IMO but they do NOT tell the whole story.
There should be no reason if I change 50% or more weekly for there to be an accumulation of DOC( from what "all of you" are saying),yet time after time(years) my treatments with potassium permanganate show differently.
I would love to explain why water changes less then 100% aren't enough so maybe you all will look in on this;

http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f17/potassium-permanganate-338314.html
Looking for input ;skeptical and questioning.
I wish waterchanges were the end all be all but I am afraid they are not unless in HUGE volumes.
They may do well for many over a couple of years,
I am talking long term like some of my fish are between 10-13 + years old.

So nobody that doesn't have a laboratory to properly test their DOC levels (because that's what they need to have at hand to test that) can say anything about DOC. Well I believe that includes you having no allowable input in DOC. Your experiment only shows that it knocks DOCs down to minimal levels where they rise back up to equillibrium. Hardly a bulletproof test. Where are the DOC measurements?

I'm well familiar with the whole Water changes not chemicals attitude. It is deeply impeded in the hobby. As soon as anyone brings up any chemical or filter media they instantly get attacked for advocating anything other then constant water changes. I never heard a good aquarist say there should be no water changes. The point is that you can get better water quality with water changes and other methods to supplement them. I realize you did not intend to start any argument. Neither did I. However, I have figured out the only answer you are allowed to give to give to any problem except disease here is water changes and nothing but. If you say anything else at all, you are wrong. Doesn't matter how many experiments or books or video's or Dr.'s or science you have behind you. You are wrong if you put anything in your tank except water and prime. This attitude is why the fresh water side has been left in the dark ages. The salt water people are much more willing to accept and try out new methods and info.

END OF RANT

Oh, example. Currently experimenting with a 20 gal Walstad tank. I already do a 30% water change every 5th day (or more often) it is not enough to overcome the yellow water (organics) or hazy water (Resulting from organics). More water changes then that are a pain in the ***. AC has fixed these issues in less then 24 hours. I can still do water changes as normal. I don't feel like increasing them any more then some of you feel like using AC. Just to stir the pot more....Phosphates are coming out of the soil at a high rate. WC is not getting it down low enough. So I am also using GFO Que up the angry protest posts

The problem comes when people tote unnecessary additions to an aquarium as necessary to having a healthy aquarium. Congrats, you're using carbon. It's hardly controversial. It's a good band aid to get lazy with water changes.

 

[RedDevil83]

No, there will not be a rising level over time assuming you do steady water changes. If you dump a consistent amount of something in the water every week and change out the same amount of water every week then it _will_ reach equillibrium. At a point where the amount being removed equals the amount being added. That's the definition of equillibrium. If things worked how you're saying than us water keepers that don't test nitrate would have continually rising levels and would eventually test off the charts. It doesn't happen because that's not how math works.



So nobody that doesn't have a laboratory to properly test their DOC levels (because that's what they need to have at hand to test that) can say anything about DOC. Well I believe that includes you having no allowable input in DOC. Your experiment only shows that it knocks DOCs down to minimal levels where they rise back up to equillibrium. Hardly a bulletproof test. Where are the DOC measurements?



The problem comes when people tote unnecessary additions to an aquarium as necessary to having a healthy aquarium. Congrats, you're using carbon. It's hardly controversial. It's a good band aid to get lazy with water changes.

I find it lazy in a way but if people don't have the time you have to do wc excessively, even though i see wc don't need to be done as much as alot say on here, it makes perfect sense for people that love the hobby and work alot. It all depends on how much you have in your tank also. Not speaking for myself because I do it every two weeks which is all that is needed when adding things like carbon or a uv defuser, people invest on things like this to make it easier for them.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[jarrod0987]

"No, there will not be a rising level over time assuming you do steady water changes."
False.


" If you dump a consistent amount of something in the water every week and change out the same amount of water every week then it _will_ reach equilibrium. At a point where the amount being removed equals the amount being added."

False. You are adding a consistent amount to the whole water but only removing part of the water, so never everything that went in that week. Only a % of it.

Let me give you a problem to show me your math is right.

In my 20 Gal Experimental Walstad tank I had a starting level of 7ppm of phosphate when I first measured it about 1 week in.
After a few more days of testing I determined it was leaching out of the soil at a rate of 1 ppm per day. Eventually that will drop to a lo number but lets say for the sake of this problem it was coming from a high bio load and will continue. The tap water also contains about 1ppm of phosphate as well. Might very slightly depending on the day but lets use easy numbers. Please show me how many water changes it will take to get down to a target level of 0.1ppm phosphate. That is more then enough for plants and Algae btw.

Also...seen as how you mentioned nitrates...Did you ever notice the lower you want to keep them you have to do more and more, bigger and bigger changes until you doing them all the time but having little lasting effect? It all depends on the bio load.



"That's the definition of equillibrium. If things worked how you're saying than us water keepers that don't test nitrate would have continually rising levels and would eventually test off the charts. It doesn't happen because that's not how math works. "

It does but it may take years. Usually, the tanks don't stay running that long because algae comes and people who don't employ other methods for removing nutrients get tired of scrubbing it.

BTW...Calling someone lazy for wanting to do less water changes is bullshit. Having large tanks and salty tanks is a much bigger time and money investment to do a water change. Thats why things Like Activated Carbon, Bio Pellets, and GFO exist. All the best reef keeps (Except maybe Mr. Leng Sy) use these things to spread out there water changes.

If you had a heavily stocked fish only system and to keep nitrates down you had to do 90% water change 2x a day I think you would get irritated if I called you lazy for wanting to put in some plants to make the water changes less. How come your the one who gets to decide where the cut off point on laziness is when it comes to % and frequency of water changes?



So nobody that doesn't have a laboratory to properly test their DOC levels (because that's what they need to have at hand to test that) can say anything about DOC. Well I believe that includes you having no allowable input in DOC. Your experiment only shows that it knocks DOCs down to minimal levels where they rise back up to equillibrium. Hardly a bulletproof test. Where are the DOC measurements?

It is true we don't have a lab that gives a number. However, PP can defiantly give you a direct comparison if 2 samples are similar or very different in there organic loading from each other. I don't understand what you mean by allowable input. Could you explain that please?
The reason why the DOC rises back up to equilibrium is because you keep adding food which adds more DOC of course But the fact that you just admitted PP is capable of getting the organics below the equilibrium caused by frequent water changes proves it is a viable method. If he uses PP an an increased frequency he could get a lower equilibrium then he does with Water changes. But he still does them because they have other benefits.



"The problem comes when people tote unnecessary additions to an aquarium as necessary to having a healthy aquarium."

I believe I specifically said it was not necessary. That it was just another way to improve water quality beyond water changes. Your straw man attack fails.

Why would you call something that improved water quality a band aid? Why would you not call it a benefit? Don't you wish to get the best water quality for you pets that you can? Money being taken into consideration of course but so is time.

 

[Mebbid]

"No, there will not be a rising level over time assuming you do steady water changes."
False.


" If you dump a consistent amount of something in the water every week and change out the same amount of water every week then it _will_ reach equilibrium. At a point where the amount being removed equals the amount being added."

False. You are adding a consistent amount to the whole water but only removing part of the water, so never everything that went in that week. Only a % of it.

Let me give you a problem to show me your math is right.

In my 20 Gal Experimental Walstad tank I had a starting level of 7ppm of phosphate when I first measured it about 1 week in.
After a few more days of testing I determined it was leaching out of the soil at a rate of 1 ppm per day. Eventually that will drop to a lo number but lets say for the sake of this problem it was coming from a high bio load and will continue. The tap water also contains about 1ppm of phosphate as well. Might very slightly depending on the day but lets use easy numbers. Please show me how many water changes it will take to get down to a target level of 0.1ppm phosphate. That is more then enough for plants and Algae btw.

Also...seen as how you mentioned nitrates...Did you ever notice the lower you want to keep them you have to do more and more, bigger and bigger changes until you doing them all the time but having little lasting effect? It all depends on the bio load.

You're right, it absolutely depends on bio load. That's why we have stocking levels for tanks.

Assume you're dumping 100 units of something into the tank weekly and changing out 50% of the water as well. .

Week 1 - 100 units
Water Change 1 - 50 units

Week 2 - 150 units
Water Change 2 - 75 units

Week 3 - 175 units
Water change 3 - 87.5 units

Week 4 - 187.5 Units
Water Change 4 - 93.75 units

Week 5 - 193.75 units
Week 5 water change - 96.875

My point in spelling this out, is that it will never rise above 200 units i.e. Equillibrium.

BTW...Calling someone lazy for wanting to do less water changes is bullshit. Having large tanks and salty tanks is a much bigger time and money investment to do a water change. Thats why things Like Activated Carbon, Bio Pellets, and GFO exist. All the best reef keeps (Except maybe Mr. Leng Sy) use these things to spread out there water changes.

You're right, that was a poor statement on my part.

It is true we don't have a lab that gives a number. However, PP can defiantly give you a direct comparison if 2 samples are similar or very different in there organic loading from each other. I don't understand what you mean by allowable input. Could you explain that please?
The reason why the DOC rises back up to equilibrium is because you keep adding food which adds more DOC of course But the fact that you just admitted PP is capable of getting the organics below the equilibrium caused by frequent water changes proves it is a viable method. If he uses PP an an increased frequency he could get a lower equilibrium then he does with Water changes. But he still does them because they have other benefits.

What benefits does it have exactly? I've heard keeping your water clear but other than this I'm not sure what you guys are trying to argue for. I don't believe I ever heard this one clearly stated. He uses GBRs as an example, however their water has huge levels of DOC in the water where they come from. Why is knocking that down as low as possible helping them?

"The problem comes when people tote unnecessary additions to an aquarium as necessary to having a healthy aquarium." I believe I specifically said it was not necessary. That it was just another way to improve water quality beyond water changes. Your straw man attack fails.

No, you didn't. At all. In fact, this is exactly what you said.

So what you're saying is that without it aquarium water will turn yellow and get smelly. So without activated carbon my tank will be ugly and smelly. That may not be what you intended to say, but that's exactly how it reads.

Why would you call something that improved water quality a band aid? Why would you not call it a benefit? Don't you wish to get the best water quality for you pets that you can? Money being taken into consideration of course but so is time.

I'm calling it a band aid because that's what it is. Those additions can hide problems in your tank, but if you addressed those problems you wouldn't have to hide anything at all. I don't know about you, but I use the aroma of my tank as an indicator for something going wrong (if your tank smells bad there's a huge problem). If I cram AC in the tank to fix the smell then all I am doing is covering up the underlying problem while burying my head in the sand to ignore it.

If you don't have time to do water changes then reduce the stocking of your tank. It's that easy. Smaller bio load, the slower things will change. However, even using buckets to change out 50% of the water on a 55g tank is a 20 minute process (yes i'm sure of that number because I timed it when I was taking care of a friends tank)

If you don't have 20 minutes in your week to do a water change then you are cruising for a heart attack and need to think about restructuring your life.

 

[jarrod0987]

You're right, it absolutely depends on bio load. That's why we have stocking levels for tanks.

Agreed However most people don't observe them.

Assume you're dumping 100 units of something into the tank weekly and changing out 50% of the water as well. .

Week 1 - 100 units
Water Change 1 - 50 units

Week 2 - 150 units
Water Change 2 - 75 units

Week 3 - 175 units
Water change 3 - 87.5 units

Week 4 - 187.5 Units
Water Change 4 - 93.75 units

Week 5 - 193.75 units
Week 5 water change - 96.875

My point in spelling this out, is that it will never rise above 200 units i.e. Equillibrium.


This is exactly what I wanted you to see. Each week you have a little bit more and a little bit more, even after you water change. If you keep going, you will get over 200 Then 300 ETC.
Also, I notice you did not run the math on the phosphate issue. The point was you can;t get below 1ppm if your tap has 1ppm




You're right, that was a poor statement on my part.

I was getting a little heated too. Lets not let a little aquarium debate ruin something more valuable I apologize for being so cranky.




What benefits does it have exactly? I've heard keeping your water clear but other than this I'm not sure what you guys are trying to argue for. I don't believe I ever heard this one clearly stated. He uses GBRs as an example, however their water has huge levels of DOC in the water where they come from. Why is knocking that down as low as possible helping them?


I agree it might be a marginal benefit health wise. After all, almost no one does this. The benefit I was trying to get across is that it is a semi accurate way to have some idea how many organics are in 1 sample of water vs another, or vs a pure sample etc. Something we lack in the hobby. I plan to develop some kind of time test with a standard solution once I get my PP.


No, you didn't. At all. In fact, this is exactly what you said.

Sunday at 9:27 I said "That does not mean it is always "Necessary" but it provides a very nice water quality improvement in most cases."

I did say organics will accumulate over time even with water changes. I did not say it would turn yellow or be smelly. However, now that you mention it...It eventually would get yellow. The smelly part might be avoided from gravel vacuuming but hard to say. 10 points for gryffindor

BTW, 24 hours after implementing AC on my tank the water is looking crystal clear. With only a 20% every 3-4 days it was hazy and yellow due to the soil. I realize most people don't have soil Same thing applies to organics you cannot see.


Sunday at

So what you're saying is that without it aquarium water will turn yellow and get smelly.

Where did I say this? I did say that it helps remove yellow and smelly, not that it was the only way. Although now that I think about it....It probably would. So maybe I should have said that

So without activated carbon my tank will be ugly and smelly. That may not be what you intended to say, but that's exactly how it reads.

I can see where someone might interpret it that way but it is not what I said or meant. We all know water changes will prevent this in most types of tanks. At least for a pretty long time.

I'm calling it a band aid because that's what it is. Those additions can hide problems in your tank, but if you addressed those problems you wouldn't have to hide anything at all.

LOL, what problem? That I have fish that need to eat in my tank? That's where organics come from.


I don't know about you, but I use the aroma of my tank as an indicator for something going wrong (if your tank smells bad there's a huge problem). If I cram AC in the tank to fix the smell then all I am doing is covering up the underlying problem while burying my head in the sand to ignore it.

I do too. If I get a bad smell on a tank I am rehabing for a friend I always do a few water changes and also add some AC if possible to help scrub the last little bit.


If you don't have time to do water changes then reduce the stocking of your tank. It's that easy. Smaller bio load, the slower things will change. However, even using buckets to change out 50% of the water on a 55g tank is a 20 minute process (yes i'm sure of that number because I timed it when I was taking care of a friends tank)

Every bodies situation is different, but also not all species can tolerate this amount of change. For my case I buffer the water above the tap concentration. In the past I had problems with my sensitive neons dying if I changed more then 20% at one time. In fact I just recently learned right here on this forum that TDS (Osmotic) shock is probably more of an issue then Ph Shock. I expect that is what was happening.

Very Nice Aquascape

If you don't have 20 minutes in your week to do a water change then you are cruising for a heart attack and need to think about restructuring your life.

I believe I sad I did 1 change every 3-4 days. Which is more then 1 a week. I still need AC to get what I want. Respectfully, it's not your place to tell other people how they should spend there life or weather they have time for an aquarium or not. As we talked about before, what if 20 minutes a week is not enough. Some people like heavy bio loads and have healthy fish a beautiful tanks. They use other tech to help them do it. It's not a crime.


This thread has gotten way way way to far away from useful. You and I will just have to agree to disagree. I'm going to let it go. I said what I came to say. We have both defended our position. I don't think there is any point we missed. No doubt this battle will happen over and over as high tech approach people battle it out with water change and sponge only approach people.

 

[coralbandit]

Without being able to put a number on DOC how can anyone say what is a safe level?
Is equilibrium anything like nirvana?( I think I was there at lunch!)
I change way more water then most,
I don't use carbon in ANY of my tanks ,but am strongly re considering my choice lately.
When you say I use GBR as my example they do not receive my PP treatments for water quality but more as a medication treatment.
I also site them as they seem to be way ( I mean WAY!!!) more sensitive to water parameters.
If you are going to let your fish guide you ,
what could be a better "canary in the coal mine"?
The fact that it (PP)becomes degraded in 1/4 of the time all scientific studies say it should last leads me to believe that DOC levels(regardless of my nitrate readings ) are out of control,or atleast 4 times higher then they should be as described by MANY.
There is no argument(for me), just a lack of true test to satisfy those who can't let their fish guide them better then test!

 

[Stacey W.]

Following.
Ohh my, what a debate!
So to summarize these posts:
1.) The answer to pollution is dilution.
2.) Do your wc's (don't be lazy).
3.) Don't overfeed your fish.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[coralbandit]

Following.
Ohh my, what a debate!
So to summarize these posts:
1.) The answer to pollution is dilution.
2.) Do your wc's (don't be lazy).
3.) Don't overfeed your fish.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

^YES^!!!!!
But I believe the list goes on ?

 

[Mebbid]

^YES^!!!!!
But I believe the list goes on ?

And on, and on, and on.

 

[gemach7]

Found an interesting read on this matter.

http://glassbox-design.com/2010/dissolved-organic-carbon-doc-uv-254-aquarium/

Now this is salt water not freshwater but believe in this context the difference is irrelevant.

Now to sound picky maybe willing to change my perspective if:

1) if studies were completed showing a correlation between low DOC and longevity, lack of illness and growth rates.
2) studies showing the same between tanks of equal stocking, filtration, wc schedule, etc but one using carbon.

I find the subject intriguing but I also like keeping a tannin water aquarium to match biotope. And also the ease at which new aquarium owners would find such complicated DOC tests. Many members here still get their water tested at their LFS. And reading through the PP post I also saw a number of issues that could be created by using this substance incorrectly, that I again personally see as a hindrance to its wide use without an easy to use test to verify efficacy in reducing the specific tanks DOC.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[coralbandit]

^Very informative link^
Thanks!

 

[Caliban07]

I'm still struggling to figure out why people are so hung up on dissolved organics...

Since I stopped adding chemicals and large amounts of tap water to my aquarium I honestly believe the water is the cleanest and least harmful it has ever been. I have lots of live plants. Tap water TDS is 60ppm. My tank water topped out at around 160ppm about 3 weeks ago. I do 10% water changes every couple of weeks (or there abouts). I cleaned my canister yesterday for the first time in months.

This is my method and it works for me and my fish all round. I know it works for my fish because of the rapid decline in illness, disease and death to nil.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[newbie_dave]

Wow I wasn't expecting this kind of response thanks guys, nothing like a good debate ?

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[jarrod0987]

Once my PP comes in I plan to make a 1 gram per liter standard solution of it. Then I will figure out how many drops of that I need to put into a 5ml RODI sample to get a nice color. Then I will use it on a regular sample and see how long it takes to turn brown. The faster the worse That is sort of a comparison right there. A number that should be repeatable and quantitative but not a ppm unfortunately. My PP should be here Monday.

 

[jarrod0987]

I'm still struggling to figure out why people are so hung up on dissolved organics...

Since I stopped adding chemicals and large amounts of tap water to my aquarium I honestly believe the water is the cleanest and least harmful it has ever been. I have lots of live plants. Tap water TDS is 60ppm. My tank water topped out at around 160ppm about 3 weeks ago. I do 10% water changes every couple of weeks (or there abouts). I cleaned my canister yesterday for the first time in months.

This is my method and it works for me and my fish all round. I know it works for my fish because of the rapid decline in illness, disease and death to nil.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

I'm still trying to understand why people classify AC as a "Chemical" LOL

Oh...DOC is the molecules where the N and P are bound up. Normally we have to wait for bacteria to break them down. Sometimes the bacteria cannot because the pieces are too big. That is where detritivores and micro fauna come in. Some people use skimmers to remove it before it breaks down. Some people use PP or HP to break it down chemically. The n and P and CO2 inside are not bio available until they are in there inorganic ions. Hence the interest in organics.

 

[trennamw]

I find it lazy in a way but if people don't have the time you have to do wc excessively, even though i see wc don't need to be done as much as alot say on here, it makes perfect sense for people that love the hobby and work alot. It all depends on how much you have in your tank also. Not speaking for myself because I do it every two weeks which is all that is needed when adding things like carbon or a uv defuser, people invest on things like this to make it easier for them.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

Carbon, water changes, and uv sterilizers all do different things. While it is true some people have ways of keeping a healthy tank with fewer water changes than 50% weekly, it's not enough to make another blanket recommendation. And carbon and uv sterilizers instead of water changes isn't consistent with what I've heard from any established authority. Plants remove nitrates, a few non carbon filtration media debatably remove nitrates, but mostly fish keepers remove nitrates.

Good to know that getting tannins out might take daily changes of another quality of carbon. That would take more time than water changes, and sounds expensive.


Sent from my iPhone with three hands tied behind my back.