How Important is carbon?

I have yet to get a carbon/gfo reactor setup in my tank and I am wondering the over all importance of it.

 

I know for carbon it keeps my water crystal clear and filters the water.... I believe Gfo removes phosphates

 

There are some critics of carbon use, however they're few and far between, and their reasoning is pretty relative.
In practical terms, carbon is one of the greatest tools to implement, it binds organic wastes which includes cytotoxins, digestive, and secretory dermal enzymes, competitive and allosteric inhibitors, degraded carbohydrates, organic acids, phenols, benzoids, aromatic hydrocarbons, hormones, immunoglobulins and etc. Some of these can be broken down further via microbial digestion, but this can require a long period of time, considering the rate of accumulation bacteria are unlikely to keep up (probiotic & carbon dosing regimes modify this problem, but don't dispel it). The removal of many of these wastes, of which many are suspended throughout the water column, improves light penetration drastically! Especially shortwave energy produced by actinic 460-480nm wave lengths. This is probably the single most important factor that necessitates the use of activated carbon. Additionally, the removal of wastes temporarily (abruptly but quickly diminishing) improves redox potential, which compounds the ability of microbes and corals to oxidize or reduce organic compounds via route of digestion.
Primarily the arguments against activated carbon use amount to the concern that activated carbon binds to trace element cations and anions. While this is certainly possible, when implemented at a brisk flow rate (80-200gph) bound ions are freed from the porous structure, whereas organic wastes are bound by net negative and positive charges found throughout side chains and residues covalently bound across the length of the entire molecule.
When it comes to choosing a brand of activated carbon there are many options, you typically get what you pay for. Many contain phosphate residue, if not all of them, but the brands of highest quality are mindful of this and make efforts to reduce this problem. Without going into details, I would recommend BRS Rox, ROWA, Black Diamond, or Fluval Carbon as high quality carbons.
GFO is a whole other story, and is of the UPMOST importance to SPS keepers, really anybody keeping scleractinians, which includes LPS keepers. GFO removes phosphate, PO4, which is a major contributor to algae growth, but moreover it is an active inhibitor to the process of calcification. Signs of phosphate stress among SPS corals begins to occur at less than 0.2ppm.....(not 2ppm, 2x10e-1ppm) Thinking in terms and orders of magnitude are critical in this hobby. Elevated phosphates WILL CAUSE CORAL MORTALITY. The only exception to that, are sarcophytons, coralmopharians, etc. (non-calcareous secreting animals). However there is probably some threshold for these types of corals too.
PO4 should be regularly monitored and GFO employed by anybody thinking of keeping SPS.This is largely due to the precipetous nature of phosphate, but that's another story with many tangents and caveats. The best and really only test kits to consider are Sailfert and Lemotte PO4 kits, they're readily available and they measure PO4 much lower than other test kits commonly offered. The API test kit only measures phosphate to 0.5ppm and ideally levels should be lower than 0.06ppm for any SPS tank.

 

Andy, What about running the GFO with Biopellets? I have heard that it is not always advised and/or necessary. Could you shed a little light? Thanks.

 

I would not hesitate to run carbon. But IMO the GFO is more important, as Andy said.

It is generally understood that GFO will inhibit the formation of beneficial bacteria that you raise by running biopellets. I believe once you get your biopellet reactor up and running for awhile you can add GFO at smaller quantities than you were using before.

 

+1 
Phosphates are consumed by the bacteria when growing/propagating.  There's something called the "Redfield Ratio" which says that phytoplankton is made up of 116 parts Cabon, 16 parts Nitrate and 1 part Phosphorus.  While not at the same exact ratio, the beneficial bacteria in your aquarium uses carbon, nitrate and phosphorous the same way.  If you have excess nitrates and phosphorus in your tank, you either don't have enough bacteria to consume it, or you don't have enough carbon to allow the bacteria to consume it.  The biopellets are a constant carbon source, giving your water the carbon needed to grow the bacteria and consume the nitrates and phosphates.  In the same way, if your phosphates are completely consumed before the carbon and nitrates, then you similarly limit the bacteria growth.
GFO binds phosphates to its surface due to the negatively charged oxygen ions in the phosphates resulting in a displacement of hydrogen.  GFO doesn't just bind phosphates, it does the same thing with other elements and materials in the water including sulfate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, trace metals, and organics.  When the surface area of the GFO no longer has area for phosphates to bind to, it will stop removing the phosphates from the water and the ambient level of phosphates will rise again.  This means it's time to replace your GFO.  More information on how GFO works can be found here: http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-11/rhf/index.php
So in short, if your GFO is removing all of your phosphates from the water, the bacteria will be unable to consume the nitrates no matter how much carbon or nitrates are available.
The same holds true for nitrates as well.  If your nitrate levels are close to zero and your phosphates are still higher than you would like, you can run GFO.  Start with small amounts until you figure out how much you need to run in order to keep  your phosphates in check while still allowing the biopellet reactor to do it's job.
--AJ

 

Ok so i ordered the brs duel reactor along with the best carbon and gfo they had and a pump to run em. I been wanting too for sometime but when ai test my po4 comes up at like .25 which my understanding is good. I dont have an algae issue so i just figured i didnt need one. and carbon my understand was it was used to polish water and to help take out accidental toxins. Apparently i was wrong and there is no reason not to run these and every reason too

 

Right! Exactly how these guys covered it. I wrote a little more extensively in a thread about vitamin C as an organic carbon source:

http://www.greateriowareefsociety.org/Community/DiscussionForums/tabid/78/aft/22923/Default.aspx

It's a little lengthy but I cover a few elements between the interactions of various nutrients and bacterial consumption ratios. The Redfield ratio was derived from some brilliantly designed experiments of phytoplankon and isolated species of bacteria in closed culture systems in 1938 I believe it was. It's essentially the founding principal behind organic dosing regimes and more regularly discussed and cited among european reef keepers who essentially pioneered bacterial driven systems via the ever popular KZ zeovit system. You can catch more information about the RR I believe it was in volume 2 issue 5 Coral Magazine.

When bacterial systems started hitting the scene in the US about 2-3 years ago, I remember searching through my archives for this issue to grasp how it all fit together, it's funny how we gloss over up and coming technologies. and FYI I had the idea to create solid carbon pellets 3-4 years ago after learning about and disecting the cryptic methods and unreleased data about the components of the zeovit system. I had no idea that the idea would paramount to polyhydroxyalkanoates, but I totally had the notion first! lol

 

Bingo! Again, the need for these components is more or less depending on your goals, and the species you're keeping. In any case, they will help you maintain an algae free, healthy tank, long term. But at the heart of any TOTM, especially the SPS tanks, you'll find people are either running one of three combinations:
SPS combo #1 (the "american" system):
GFO, Carbon, Skimmer, Refugium.
SPS combo #2 (the "european" system):
Carbon, Skimmer, zeovit reactor
SPS combo #3 (hybrid new age system):
Carbon, Skimmer, biopellet reactor
There are some caveats to bac driven systems, and this has mainly to do with running carbon "passively" that is, not directly in high flow discharge from drains or in reactors, but simply soaking a bag of carbon in the sump. Also, K+ depletion seems to be of great concern, on that, I'm fuzzy on the details but you can find more at reefkeepingmagazine or advancedaquaristonline
Again 0.25ppm is okay, depending on what you're keeping for corals, but SPS will surely be stressed (not showing what they could be) growth greatly diminished, and long term, or sudden rise in this level can lead to death. The preferred PO4 saturation for an SPS tank is less than 0.06ppm, that's 1/4 of your current level, and lower than an api test will measure.

 

I love my Hanna checker for PO4. I run my SPS tank on a zeovit system so my PO4 typically hangs around .01-.03. That little checker is one of the best investments I have made. Especially since I had the hardest time looking at the color chart on my old Red Sea test kit (which still only went down to .10).

 

If setting up a new tank, which of the three combos would you use?

 

I know you're asking Andy, but personally, I would go with option 3.  I've heard keeping the chemistry just right in a Zeo tank can be quite time consuming.  A biopellet reactor is simple...start it up and just monitor it like you would carbon or GFO...make sure it's tumbling.  And the option 1 doesn't do anything for nitrate control.
--AJ

 

[code] [/code] I'm not so sure bio pellet systems aren't sensitive to ion depletion like zeo systems. I can certainly see why they may not ne, but they're certainly just as sensitive in other respects. I like gfo because you can essentially set it and forget it without all the extensive water checking, which really needs to befollowed with biopellet systems.

Refugia with or without a dsb definately6 offers denitrification via macro algae assimilation, so do algae turf scrubbers for that matter. The american system has been tried and trusted for many years (relatively considering reefkeeping has only come into its hayday some 20-25 years ago)

1+ on the hanna po4 checker I love mine, and if you. Understand the numbers about their specificity it totally dispells the wide spread criticizms they've faced.

Overall I have no prefernce forfor any of the aformentioned system types (and many more exist) these are simply the most common ly emplyed and each adresses the challenge of filtration comprehensively, each with their own stregnths and weaknesses. Personally I emply a classic approach because its easiest for me at this point in time, but I'm not opposed to trying other methods, and I have in the past (carbon dosing before the advent of biopellets) ultimatly retuning to the classic approach because of the ease of maintenance, but biopellets are changing that pitfall for bac driven systems.

Ill probably go with bio pellets on my next system, but not to the exclusion of a refugium.

 

[code] [/code] I'm not so sure bio pellet systems aren't sensitive to ion depletion like zeo systems. I can certainly see why they may not ne, but they're certainly just as sensitive in other respects. I like gfo because you can essentially set it and forget it without all the extensive water checking, which really needs to befollowed with biopellet systems.

Refugia with or without a dsb definately6 offers denitrification via macro algae assimilation, so do algae turf scrubbers for that matter. The american system has been tried and trusted for many years (relatively considering reefkeeping has only come into its hayday some 20-25 years ago)

1+ on the hanna po4 checker I love mine, and if you. Understand the numbers about their specificity it totally dispells the wide spread criticizms they've faced.

Overall I have no prefernce forfor any of the aformentioned system types (and many more exist) these are simply the most common ly emplyed and each adresses the challenge of filtration comprehensively, each with their own stregnths and weaknesses. Personally I emply a classic approach because its easiest for me at this point in time, but I'm not opposed to trying other methods, and I have in the past (carbon dosing before the advent of biopellets) ultimatly retuning to the classic approach because of the ease of maintenance, but biopellets are changing that pitfall for bac driven systems.

Ill probably go with bio pellets on my next system, but not to the exclusion of a refugium.

 

this almost seems like a great discussion for a regional meeting.

 

What about Cheim-Pure Elite? Is it pretty much carbon or is it something completely different?

On my 125 SPS dominate tank I'm running an Aqua-C EV240 skimmer, bio pelets, Chemi-Pure Elite, Purigen, filter socks, and a small refugium. Is there anything you see I should change with this? Should I start up a carbon reactor and/or a GFO reactor? I've got a BRS reactor or two laying around, along with a few MJ1200 pumps and plenty of GFO and Carbon. I am always afraid I over filter so I feed pretty heavy and do 20 gallon water changes every other week on average.

This question isn't directed toward anyone specific, the more opinions the better!

Also, good question Mike, I've been thinking about this too!

 

Chemi-pure is a mix of aluminum silicate and ferric oxide, it's basically GFO. Purigen is a macroporous carbon of sorts, it removes large organic particles while allowing small organics to pass. Seachem makes some great stuff, but many of their products come off as voodoo to the average consumer. Not as bad as Marc Weiss stuff, that stuff is literally a load of bull ****! No I'm serious, I think there is fecal matter in some of their products.

Yeah Adam, I'd say your WAAAYYY over filtering. I'm a heavy feeder too 1 square inch block of PE mysis every other day w/1 square inch block of Rods food every other day, spectrum pellets 2-4 times a day, NORI 3x a week, and BRS reef chili food 2x a week. I change 32 gallons of water on a 175 gallon system every 3 weeks, run a refugium, change 1/2 cup carbon every 2 weeks, and reactor 1/2 full GFO every 9 weeks. + a banging skimmer! I'd say you could probably cut a few things out of your filtering regime and save yourself some money. Considering it's an sps system it probably doesn't hurt, but if you were keeping softies they would be dying on you for sure!

 

whats a banngin skimmer?

 

Thats what I was wondering.  Think I need to get one whatever it is...

 

Don't even pretend like you don't know! lol I'm rocking an SRO 3000 now, my old Octopus recirculating DNWB 150 was pretty kick *** too, in fact the new skimmer hasn't broken in to the level of the DNWB skimmer yet.