# carbon or no carbon



## stephen (Jan 12, 2006)

should i use carbon in a planted tank?


----------



## bigstick120 (Mar 8, 2005)

I suggest that you try using the search feature on this forum. Lots of info there about this topic


----------



## jeff63851 (Feb 23, 2005)

No, I would not use carbon in an planted aquarium. The carbon takes out the Nutrients that the plants need.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

IMHO Carbon is very beneficial during the first few weeks of setup until the biofilter gets established. The carbon will help absorb excess nh3 and other water products that lead to algae. After a few weeks you should remove the carbon because it will absorb some ferts that the plants need. Amano uses carbon in the first phases of his setups and filter manufacturers like Eheim, who's filters rely heavily on biological filteration recommend carbon for the first few weeks. 

I believe carbon is even more important if you haven't seeded the biofilter from an established tank or plant very heavily from the start.


----------



## trenac (Jul 16, 2004)

Not for the long term, only to remove medications or in the first few weeks of setup. Carbon will remove nutrients from the water that the plants feed on, how much that is removed by the carbon is debatable.


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

I'm so tired of seeing the same questions over and over and over and over again. 

What is the point of archiving topics and their discussions if we're going to continue to allow them to be repeated. This'll just added to the pile, burying everything that came before it and making it all the more difficult for those people who actually research things to find what they are looking for. 

We should MAKE people use the search by refusing to answer these kinds of questions. When something like this is posted, it should get one response..."Search".

And most importantly, after that response is given, no one should come behind and undermine everything by answering it anyway. 

I'm sorry. But I don't think many of you can honestly say you haven't felt this same way before. I'm just saying what everyone else is thinking. Instead of letting it bother us till the end of time, we should resolve ourselves to take control of the problem.

And BTW, stephen, I'm not upset with you in any way. There's nothing wrong with asking questions here. I just feel that we often steer people in the wrong direction: towards getting simple answers and away from learning how to empower themselves with the ability to glean from all the knowledge that is already out there. It's a disservice to you.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 18, 2005)

*carbon*



stephen said:


> should i use carbon in a planted tank?


I'm sorry I have a 55 gallon heavy planted, I use carbon. Yes it does filter out some of the nutrients that plants use. BUT you can supplement with your ferts and replace cert nutrients with reg WC. I have noticed a diffrence in my fish when there is no carbon. I think your use of carbon depends on you tank set up, fish load, ferts and ect... So you have to go with what works for you. Just my advice.


----------



## AQUAMX (Jan 24, 2005)

Random Alias.

if things are changing all the time and new discoveries are being made, how do you suppose people will then benefit from only old infomation?

It is possible that each time a question is asked, an updated answer may be available. If people are never allowed to offer their ideas the world will never change. But then some people do prefer the horse and cart to carry their steel framed aquarium. 

Brad


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

No one here did anything for stephen that the search wouldn't have done for him. Now, think about how many people have read through this thinking there might be something new or useful?

Of course if there is something new to add then people will add it, along with suggestions to search. If there is nothing new to add, then the recommendation to search and suggested search terms would be all that would be added to the post, not regurgitated information that has not changed. 

To my knowledge, there have been no recent breakthroughs or changes in how carbon attracts and holds nutrients. If you do a search on this topic, you are likely to find other posts with the same exact information in them as this one. If nothing new can be added, then the reply should be to search with maybe some helpful term hints.

I'm all for disseminating new information. It's the redundant stuff that I'd like to see nipped in the bud. There's so much repetitious stuff archived that it's hard to find out if anything has changed or not, what with all the carbon-copy threads that you have to wade through.

Wouldn't it be nice if you searched for something and found one good, informative thread on it, could get your answers, and not have to worry about reading through the 10 other threads to see if anything had changed. How nice would it be to know that if there were 2 threads on a topic, one had the previous information and the second thread HAD to have updated info and that you wouldn't end up wasting your time with an information overload?

Look at the topics on lighting siestas. Those answers are not changing for people but they still ask rather than take the time to search. So, by saving themselves a little time by not searching, they are adding the burden on all the other thousands of users everyday to look through long lists of repetitive threads, and if those threads have several posts we then think we may need to read them anyway because something new has been discovered, otherwise why would so many people be responding? But that is seldom the case.

It just doesn't make sense is all and it wastes a lot of people's time to save a few lazy people a fraction of time and we indulge them and promote it.

IMO, if someone knows about the search but will not use it, then they are probably not the kind of person that can be very successful in this hobby, which requires patience and dedicated work. I wonder what the difference is between this and someone asking you to come clean their tank for them. Just because this is an easier request to indulge doesn't mean it should be acceptable.


----------



## AQUAMX (Jan 24, 2005)

If these forums are not full of random and sometimes repeated questions i wonder what would be here. As you pointed out nothing much in the hobby is changing, or carbon in your example. If this is the case what are we going to discuss?
If we are honest with ourselves and go through all the topics and pages then we will find every subject is a repeated one. Everything has been said at one time or another.
Im even betting 2 people on the earth have had this exact conversation before.

Forums are here for discussing topics, if we all do a google search rather than discuss the topics over and over here, then i guess we would not need the forums anymore.

Just my 2 cents

Brad


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

I love discussions. 

But discussions are usually meant to be broad, where various people share their own personal experiences, findings, research: you know, new information or opinions. 

There's a difference between topics like "In your opinion, what is the best canister filter model?" "What is your favorite carpet plant?" "Where is the best place to buy Manzanita wood?" and topics like "How do I clean my Eheim?" "Can you grow HC without Co2?" "Should I sterilize my driftwood before putting it in my tank?" There isn't much discussion involved in everyone repeating or linking to factual information that has already been covered. Now, if they have something new to add to what has already been said, then they should post it in the old topic and link to that topic.

If 20 people are all repeating what they read in the same topic 2 months ago, then that isn't a discussion, it's a copy of an already covered discussion that other people already had. They should simply link to their sources. If anyone has anything new to add, they can add it in the old post so that there is one comprehensive post on the subject rather than several pieced-up, plagerizing threads to have to be searched through.

I often wonder how much time could be saved, confusion could be avoided, and newbies kept in the hobby if people linked to just a few of the posts Tom has made in the past. I'm guilty of repeating what he has said as well. Can you count the number of posts and repsonses that could have been summed up with one link? All the questions about EI. All the questions on lighting and their discussions that could be avoided by linking to Rex's guides. I'm guilty of everything I have mentioned. I can make changes now to improve the forums, starting with myself. I just want people to see the difference between discussion and parroting.

I mean, if you read it somewhere, learned it somewhere and it taught you and helped you, then why not connect people with the direct source that worked so well for you? There's a reason why people work so hard to organize and validate information and present it in one place for people.


----------



## AQUAMX (Jan 24, 2005)

I have to agree with you totaly. I do think people should post a link rather than repeat the work of someone else.
Im just suprised your so frustrated with it  .

But.....

Maybe people feel good when experts such as barr or senske reply to their topics. Maybe it makes us newbies feel like we are a part of something special. Maybe it gives us the inspiration we need to become greater. I doubt sifting through old topics and search engines will give me the same satisfaction as getting a repeated reply from someone i look up to.

Inspire me, dont shoot me down for asking the same old questions. I just want you to answer this question because it is my first one!

Think about it

Brad


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

Yes. I suppose perfection would be meeting in the middle somewhere.

I'm sorry stephen, I totally hijacked your thread. Should have started my own. People coming here were expecting the conversation to revolve around carbon.

If you would like to read more about activated carbon in planted aquaria, much more than I could add myself, here are some conversations that a search revealed:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?t=11018&highlight=carbon

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?t=9801&highlight=carbon

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?t=7334&highlight=carbon

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?t=4613&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?t=90&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12795&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10616&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6886&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7269&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22207&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21408&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21248&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17741&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17389&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13978&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6064&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4659&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3457&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3190&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=869&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1603&highlight=activated+carbon

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=995&highlight=activated+carbon

I used the term "activated carbon" at this forum and one other forum. I then skimmed the results and read the topics that sounded like they applied. This is a fair representation of what I found.

That's probably enough. And as you can see, a lot of repetition to search through. Hopefully when people find your topic in the future while searching about activated carbon it'll save them a little time and trouble.

Hopefully, this will promote the use of the search feature, it can be truly empowering and extremely useful. How useful it is in, say, 5 years from now is in many ways up to us and how we post in the present.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Whew! Ask a simple question ..................

Actually, I agree with everything said above. I just think the verbosity of the 'counter-point' above is impressive.

It makes me want to start a new thread:

- Do you use water in your planted tank? .......... hahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Actually information changes almost monthly in this hobby. Just over the past few months we have gone from "you gotta check your CO2 concentration and monitor it carefully" to "the KH/PH/CO2 table really doesn't work well. Use your plants and fish as a test device". Also, over the past couple of years or so we have had added to our knowledge "CO2 mist", the non-usefullness of substrate heating, the EI method of fertilizing, the non-criticality of pH in fish and plant health, and on and on. So, as much as I enjoy searching for past comments on a subject, new comments are generally more relevant and accurate.


----------



## gnatster (Mar 6, 2004)

To take this on a slightly different tack...

IF you are using carbon what type of carbon, coal, coconut, hardwood, acid washed, steam activated, bead shaped, large or small particle, pelletized or some combination?


----------



## trenac (Jul 16, 2004)

radom alias... I do agree about asking the same question over and over again, however I gave this guy the benefit of a doubt since he was a new member. He is most than likely not familiar with all the options as of it. 

My opinion is if you come across this kind of question you either need to give a answer and then refer the poster to the search function or just let it be. Just saying to use the search function is rude and makes this place seem unfriendly. This is a good way to run new members off.

So with that said I think that this discussion is going no where and should be discontinued, unless you have anything further to add to the posters question.


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

I Googled for "which form of carbon is best in aquariums" and found some interesting reads...

Info on various types of carbon, what makes them activated, the coconut carbon ordeal, which carbon form is best for filter DOC out of water, etc...

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/marineland_carbon.php

Interesting ideas on how water ph affects carbon's ability to absorb and remove traces, as it applies to sea salt mixes.

Sometimes carbon can absorb carbon dioxide?

And here's another article from the same web source, different author:

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/using_carbon.php

The uncertainty of using carbon, as it casts a wide, stupid net (like an RO membrane, it doesn't discriminate for us, it traps whatever will fit into it's mouth, whether we want to keep it in our water column or not) and how absorbtion rates increase as ph and temp decrease:

http://www.malawicichlidhomepage.com/aquainfo/activated_carbon.html

Skimming it, I did find a typo. DOC is Dissolved Organic COMPOUNDS. AC removes some organics AND inorganics though.

The absorbtion potential of AC on various substances, a little of this info in the last article as well:

http://world.std.com/~enjolras/carbon.html


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

So you don't want users to post threads on topics that have been discussed before (and are therefore findable by doing a forum search)? So which topics does that leave open for new threads? 

stephen, I am very sorry this happened to your thread. Welcome to the boards and to the hobby. I hope you don't let the incident that one person perpetrated in this thread turn you off.


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

I'm confused by this. I've contributed more information to this thread about carbon use in planted aquaria than everyone else has, combined. I also imagine I spent the most personal time and effort looking for that information to help stephen and everyone else that ever reads this thread. I've tried to show everyone practical proof of what I've been preaching and how it is a much more helpful approach.

I've also tried to make it very clear that I do understand that there are topics that deserve to be discussed but no one can deny that sometimes the subjects and answers are very redundant because previous discussions on the subject were not taken advantage of, or even acknowledged.

I've also shown a true interest in the quality of the forum and preserving the future usability of the search feature. Yes, that does involve _talking_ about it. There's no other way to communicate it over a forum.

The contents of this thread should help stephen greatly, not only in getting good answers to his questions about carbon, but also in his methods of learning about everything he wants to learn about.

I'm sorry if some people can't understand that. I've tried to make it as clear as I possibly could. Perhaps I just don't belong.


----------



## gnatster (Mar 6, 2004)

I agree, it is something that does need to be discussed, however, at this point it needs it own thread and not buried in a discussion about carbon.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

I do have something to add to this whole "Carbon or No Carbon" discussion. And yes I have searched and not found anything addressing it. 

I noticed many seasoned APC members do not recommend carbon even at startup. When a new member asks if they should use carbon, most of the time the response is something along the lines "you don't need it because it removes ferts that the plants need and the plants will act as your biofilter. " But I feel (and I would be happy to be scientifically proven to be wrong) this really depends on plant mass and growth and whether the tank is already seeded with a good biofilter from the start. Many APC members don't necesarily pack their tanks with plants, so this leaves alot of wriggle room for algae to get a foothold. Also many new members don't seed their tanks, use peat or other waste absorbers and again this allows algae to gain a foothold. 

If you pack the tank shoulder to shoulder with plants, use mulm from another tank, yes there's a good case for not using carbon, but that is simply not the case for many starting up tanks.

Why is it that Amano and filter manufacturer's like eheim recommend the use of carbon for the first few weeks until the biofilter get's established. Eheim filters also rely more heavily on biological filteration than their competitors.


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

I think the manufacturers recommend it partly for the very same reasons that you have wisely pointed out. I use ADA soil and Eheim canister. Most people don't start off with high plant mass and what they do start off with is usually not at peak health. They don't seed the tank with mulm, they don't add a light sprinkling of peat to the bottom layer of the substrate and they don't start out with established biological media. Most people don't even know about that stuff when they're putting their first tank together. I know I didn't. It's usually when the problems occur that people search for forums to ask questions. 

Seasoned aquarists would prefer people do all the stuff they know should be done but a lot of the people coming here for the first time have already set their tanks up before they started asking questions or reading. Activated carbon is usually a part of those setups and is a good safety precaution on the part of the manufacturers in those cases.

My understanding is that the ADA soils (I use Amazonia) have a good amount of NH4 (ammonia) in them. I've heard some people recommend a few water changes during initial setup to help reduce the prescence of NH4 as it leeches. Since carbon can sometimes absorb NH4, it might be a good idea to use carbon during initial setup of a rich-substrate aquarium so that the NH4 levels aren't so out of proportion to everything else, causing algae blooms.

From practical experience, I setup an unseeded planted 2.5g tank using 100% ADA aquasoil. The tank was planted with dwarf hairgrass and HC. I used reconstituted RO water (equilibrium and baking soda). I dosed EI at 50% and Excel at 2x. There were no fauna in this tank to produce waste byproducts. I did not use a filter. My NH4 readings were off the chart! I knew I wasn't adding it and I knew it wasn't in the water I was using. I would perform a water change and test to see the NH4 readings cut about in half. The next day, they were right back up to high levels. I added a seeded filter to the tank and the NH4 levels dropped within a day. They hovered in the low range for a while before disappearing. 

If I had not been able to seed the filter, which is often the case when someone is setting up their first tank, using activated carbon would have been a good chemical method to reduce the initial NH4 prescence in the tank until the flora had a chance to adjust and begin converting it into plant matter and the bacterial had the time to colonize. 

Sure, it's better to start the tank off like a pro would and it's good advice to tell people not to include AC in their normal, continuous method of filtration, but I can see where it could have a use if things were starting off under less than ideal conditions. The removal and discontinuation of it's use is probably the only important part to remember.


----------



## stephen (Jan 12, 2006)

sorry random for causing such a mess,thanks for the links,first time user
of any type of site like this.I was just looking for simple feed back to what
i though was a simple question.sorry again everybody.


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

Stephan,
What is your decision? Will you use carbon?


----------



## stephen (Jan 12, 2006)

fgencoz,
first thing I'll have to do is a lot of reading, and i will have to get back to you.


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

Welcome aboard Stephen.


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

stephen, you have nothing to apologize for. I should apologize to you. What I said needed to be said, but I should not have said it here, in your thread. When I said it, I didn't anticipate how big it would get in your thread, although I should have been able to see it coming.

my problem is not with you or anyone else posting their questions. My forum history is steeped in a deep and rich history of questions just like yours. My problem is with how the more experienced forum users aren't putting newcomers like you in touch with the vast knowledge and resources that are already available to you, right here in the forum archives. That is what bothers me. That you didn't know or think to try the search. That you may have never been able to read and learn all that stuff I found for you, if you chose to. I want you and everyone else to be able to find the answers you want and need without being limited to the responses that your thread happens to get from a limited number of people in a limited amount of time. I want you and everyone else to always be aware that the information here runs much deeper than the most recent topics that are sitting on top of a mountain of similar or identical discussions. They may not pop out at you or even be in the first page of results, but they are often there when you need them.

Please don't hesitate to ask anything here. Just remember that if you don't look, you may not get all the information you could and you may miss something that would be important to you. Don't let other people determine how much you know. Don't limit what you know to what they choose or do not choose to remember to mention at any given point in time. Often, people will say something once and then never repeat their posts in other similar threads, so just because some piece of useful information wasn't mentioned in the most recent thread on a topic doesn't mean it wasn't mentioned in the first thread on that topic.

And to all the experienced members here that want to help each other, you should be putting people in touch with the same sources that you learned from. If they were good enough to help you they are good enough to help others. The more we tell each others' stories, the more skewed or simplified those stories become.

stephen, this is your thread. It's a thread about carbon and it's a good thread about carbon. And it's a much better thread about carbon that it would have been if research hadn't been put into it. It ties a lot of loose threads together for people and it will always be here for people when they are looking for this information.

I'm sorry I got it sidetracked but I hope my contributions more than made up for my folly. I also hope that, as abraisive as my methods were, maybe everyone will be a little more conscientous about the hard work that has already been done, recorded and saved here and in other places. People pay good money for storage space for this stuff because they know it's useful to you and deserves to be remembered and revisited. We don't have to keep reinventing the wheel, make improvements to it, sure, when we can...but not reinventing it.


----------

