Do I need to use carbon?

That's true carbon can come from a lot of sources and can have a lot of different textures, grain size, porousness, dust content etc.. Definitely not all the same.

As to HLLE, personally I subscribe more to the metal toxicity hypothesis. This theory has been around for a while and goes like this. It's well established that our tanks have high levels of metals, and that these are very toxic to many organism. It also makes sense that metals would effect the lateral line system, as the purpose of the lateral line is to detect voltages. So, in a sense, you could think of it as the metals are floating around, attaching to this circuitry and disrupting it...

However, it is well understood that organics bind to most metals in our system and form complexes, making them biologically unavailable. This does absolutely make them less toxic as they are no longer biologically available and in theory this would prevent them from damaging the lateral line system. So, when you have organics in the water the very high metallic content of our tanks is not as much of a problem. Carbon is really the most efficient form of filtration, for removing organics, availible to us. Normally, carbon should remove these compounds and with them, the metal bound to them. However, if you remove too many of them, then there are not enough organics to bind the metals, and you start seeing negative effects such as HLLE. That dosn't mean that carbon isn't a good thing, that just means you are using too much, or are not feeding enough etc..

Other mechanisms can also remove organics though, such as protein skimming, water changes, and UV and ozone, can break down organics. So, I wouldn't jump so fast to point the finger at carbon alone without understanding the mechanism, especially in light of all the other known factors, when there are hypothesis that fit the data well and offer alternative explanations. There is a lot of research needed to draw those types of conclusions. The article mentioned tested a hypothesis, and did not provide results supporting that hypothesis, so the results are still unexplained (Their hypothesis was carbon fines, but no carbon fines were found in histological examination, so where did they go if fines are the cause?).

Even if fines are the cause, protein skimming (which was not done in the experiment) would likely remove fines as they attach to organics and using using low dust carbon should prevent them in the first place (which also was not tested in the experiment).

So, yes, it's possible carbon is associated with HLLE for some yet to be determined reason. It may even be possible that there are microlesions that aren't noticeable, however, why would you assume that they are more of an issue than all of the toxins and organics that are know to exist in our systems? Until someone can answer that definitively and provide a good alternative suggestions, I'll sleep a lot better running carbon 24x7.

 

The HLLE problems are only present with massive amounts and not an issue with normal preventive levels.

 

The only problem I see with that is that pelletized carbon is more efficient than lignite carbon, which is more potent than bituminous carbon. If the lack of metals in the water due to efficiency was a problem, you'd see a higher incidence in tanks with pelletized carbon, which isn't the case.

 

one thing i believe is for sure is the use or not use of this black stuff is this, it has saved a many of fish and corals life. i don't run it constant but, if i look inside my tanks and see corals and fish i know have been doing great and now show signs of sickness or stress i put the carbon in the reactor and on go's the button and 999 to 1 has turned things around for me. it's one of our best products to save our live stock and is my go to stufff in times of trouble. i will alway's have it on standby.

 

Well, in all fairness, pellet carbon is not more efficient in water. It is more efficient for gases though. I agree on the bituminous carbon likely isn't as efficient, although, I havn't seen any data suggesting lignite is more associated with HLLE than bituminous either. That's speculation, based on a hypothesized cause, as far as I'm aware.... Personally, I still use lignite as I have for almost a decade. I've thought about switching, but haven't seen enough evidence to sway me yet. It's cheaper and more efficient, but IMO, if it's more efficient, then I can just run less If it's a problem, IMO, it's because it's too efficient and your running too much . I do wash it very well though

 

There is data suggesting lignite is more associated with HLLE than pelletized, and the pelletized definitely has less fines than lignite - I mean, it has an adhesive in it. Bituminous vs lignite is something I've come to understand through anecdotal evidence, but it is fact that bituminous has less fines than lignite as well. So, more fines has a higher incidence than less fines. As for the effectiveness of pellet vs lignite, check this out. I normally wouldn't link to another forum, but it helps to prove the point BRS makes on their website on the carbon pages.

 

Well, the coral study showed more of an association with GAC than PAC. If you believe the cause is fines, it's worth noting that they also did not rinse the GAC. Who doesn't rinse GAC?

Also, as I noted previously PAC is less efficient than GAC as it has less surface area for adsorption. At least assuming all other things are equal, such as pore size and distribution, purity etc...

Any presumed difference between HLLE from bituminous vs lignite is pure speculation. No one has ever tested bituminous, nor have they thouroughly tested lignite. Also note Bituminous is generally less efficient than lignite, at least as long as you are comparing quality carbons, not a cheap lignite, vs a good bituminous...

I don't see anyone discussing the effectiveness, people are mostly comparing pelleted to ROX, and saying they like PAC because the fine size of ROX clogs their reactors. This is true, ROX is very, very small, but small is not dust and in fact, it has very, very little dust, esspecially compared to lignite and bituminous. Also, by the way it is neither a bituminous or lignite carbon, it's an extruded peat carbon and more effective than either.

-If your talking about apples to apples quality, say quality lignite PAC vs GAC, the GAC is more efficient.

-If your talking about apples to apples quality, say quality lignite vs bituminous, the lignite is more efficient.

-If your talking about ROX vs lignite or ROX vs bituminous, the ROX is more efficient.

-So far, only one preliminary study has been conducted on carbon and HLLE. It tested lignite PAC vs GAC and found more of an association with GAC. However, they did not find any evidence of carbon fines when they dissected the fish and examined them under a microscope. So, where did the fines go if that's the cause? Perhaps they were just undetectable, or perhaps there is another cause...