Filter cleaning

[aqua_chem]

I think that more than monthly is probably too much, and less than every 4 months is probably too long, but beyond that you can't really successfully argue that anything is too much/too little. If anything you could clean/chuck your fine filtration every couple of months and be better off for it.

Regarding activated carbon, it's an 'ok' biomedia. It provides plenty of surface area of bacteria to grow on, but less than more modern ceramic biomedia for sure. Whether or not you need that extra area for growth is another conversation that probably wouldn't get anywhere. It probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference really.



FOR THE RECORD, I appreciate the correct usage of absorbed vs adsorbed going on in this thread.

 

[dalto]

I believe very few would hold that same interpretation of what was posted.

I could claim Dalto has been "going after" me in that he's posted things that conflict with what I've posted, a lot.

I think the more likely explanation is that not a lot of people are posting a lot here, and we are two who are. And our experiences are very different and we've got different things to say.

I've found in life, an awful lot of what I thought was about me, really isn't.

+1

See, we do agree sometimes.

 

[Virbius]

There is a question about activated carbon.

I would agree and disagree with you. Activated carbon has been associate with many mystery deaths in aquariums. When fresh, it tends to remove everything, both good and bad from the water. It is largely used as a chemical filter and not a biomedia. It can even reset the biofiltering by removing various gases and nitrogen compounds.
On the other hand, when aged, it becomes a biomedia.

I think that more than monthly is probably too much, and less than every 4 months is probably too long, but beyond that you can't really successfully argue that anything is too much/too little. If anything you could clean/chuck your fine filtration every couple of months and be better off for it.

Regarding activated carbon, it's an 'ok' biomedia. It provides plenty of surface area of bacteria to grow on, but less than more modern ceramic biomedia for sure. Whether or not you need that extra area for growth is another conversation that probably wouldn't get anywhere. It probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference really.



FOR THE RECORD, I appreciate the correct usage of absorbed vs adsorbed going on in this thread.

 

[treemanone2003]

I run the 205, 306, and 406 and never touch carbon. IMO it's just bad for your tank. Also to point out, with the fish I keep, I've committed to a WC schedule of 50% 3 times per week and 100% on Sunday, so I really get no benefit from AC. Here's an article (I couldn't find the FW one I was looking for) in regards to HLLE and AC in the marine environment and I'll dig deeper for the FW article when time allows. hth.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/activated-carbon-affirmed-as-causative-agent-for-hlle-disease


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium advice.

 

[Rodeo one]

Agree with the planted tank comment. All my tanks are planted which equals messy, especially the Zebra loach tank cuz they are active little guys & stir a lot of s@"! up.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[aqua_chem]

I would agree and disagree with you. Activated carbon has been associate with many mystery deaths in aquariums. When fresh, it tends to remove everything, both good and bad from the water. It is largely used as a chemical filter and not a biomedia. It can even reset the biofiltering by removing various gases and nitrogen compounds.
On the other hand, when aged, it becomes a biomedia.

What you're really saying is that AC has been blamed for many 'mystery deaths', but there has been very little evidence of this beyond the known HLLE association linked above. As for gases and nitogenous compounds, that sounds silly. I've never heard of any gas being able to 'reset' a biofilter, and releasing nitrogenous compounds really isn't a big deal, as the rate of release would really be very miniscule and the biofilter would easily be able to adapt to it without putting the tank at risk because it would be a fairly slow process.


Regarding HLLE, it's a valid point to consider in species that are prone to that disease, but as far as I know that's a pretty limited list, although a much greater concern in the cichlid world. For the rest of us, it's of little consequence.

 

[aqua_holic]

I agree, any and every thing gets associated with "mystery deaths". Does seem silly to place blame on something when the cause of death is admittedly a mystery...

 

[bigdaddymagnum]

i mean i would assume a mystery would mean that the cause could be anything, i just read it leaches... wether or not it does, hey id rather just stay away and play it safe, ive found better alternatives...

 

[Virbius]

Excellent point,

I use carbon in my hospital tank after completing a treatment and before the fish enter back into their home tank. Otherwise, I have no use for carbon either.

In the home tanks, I do 20% water changes two times weekly, but I stock at about 1/2 the normal rate. 100 percent changes are a rare thing for me.

Now, if I could say the same thing about my ponds, that would be great, but I overcrowd them and filter them heavily with a huge home made filter where lava rock has a spray of water on them, the second stage has fine pea gravel and the last stage has native fresh water shrimp. - Oh, then the gravel of the aquaponics plants.
The bilge pumps are solar/battery powered so that no power interruptions will bother them.

100 percent in agreement that activated carbon has been pointed to frequently as the cause behind some illnesses.

I run the 205, 306, and 406 and never touch carbon. IMO it's just bad for your tank. Also to point out, with the fish I keep, I've committed to a WC schedule of 50% 3 times per week and 100% on Sunday, so I really get no benefit from AC. Here's an article (I couldn't find the FW one I was looking for) in regards to HLLE and AC in the marine environment and I'll dig deeper for the FW article when time allows. hth.

Activated carbon affirmed as causative agent for HLLE disease — Advanced Aquarist | Aquarist Magazine and Blog


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium advice.

 

[treemanone2003]

I use carbon in my hospital tank after completing a treatment and before the fish enter back into their home tank. Otherwise, I have no use for carbon either.



In the home tanks, I do 20% water changes two times weekly, but I stock at about 1/2 the normal rate. 100 percent changes are a rare thing for me.



Now, if I could say the same thing about my ponds, that would be great, but I overcrowd them and filter them heavily with a huge home made filter where lava rock has a spray of water on them, the second stage has fine pea gravel and the last stage has native fresh water shrimp. - Oh, then the gravel of the aquaponics plants.

The bilge pumps are solar/battery powered so that no power interruptions will bother them.



100 percent in agreement that activated carbon has been pointed to frequently as the cause behind some illnesses.

Totally understand carbon after meds and that's sort of what makes me often wonder about it and how it's often perceived to be the culprit at times. I guess if it's left to the imagination, anything could be taken into account on what good or bad it actually does in a total "cleanup" of the water and all it's detectable or trace undetectable elements. So with that being said, I would presume some "truth" possibly of carbon being the culprit in mysterious deaths. The only thing factual I can say, is it's just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium advice.

 

[trennamw]

+1

See, we do agree sometimes.

The way I see it, you frequently point out the flaws in my wording, and the gaps in my knowledge ... And once in awhile there might be a tangent I've explored that you haven't.

And from big daddy I appreciate the change in tone, but that's Ms. good sir to you. Lol.

The carbon discussion is getting interesting. Enough to add to the "it's probably fine to use it or not, either way."

Adsorbed vs absorbed is why I try to use phrases like "makes it go away" ... But some of the picking apart is unnecessary.

Feature function benefit, as I learned in sales. I don't think that it's only the masters of science that have something to offer here (which is why I'm happy to post what I can, try to add the right disclaimers, and suck it up when Differently experienced people correct me). Often they're entirely correct and entirely impossible to understand. My customer never cared that a copier had a 125ppm ARDF, or that it utilized bank ATM technology. They cared that they could set a stack of papers in it and walk away. I didn't need to be able to engineer the thing to give very sound advice about what was needed.

So. I'm thinking I'll stick with "the jury is out on carbon, for daily use. there are lots of different claims, some to the extreme that it is eventually harmful. It might be as good a biomedia as you need, it might provide no lasting benefit ... "


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