Grrrr whys my water murky?

M

Maldivan

[Hey All,
My water is looking sad the last couple of days! Its almost has a soft milky white hue to it! It looked like this when my powerhead behind my LR lost a few suction cups and blasted my sand all night.But this time the powerheads in place and I cant find anything wrong with any equipment.I did a 5 gal water change yesterday to try and help but no luck. Parameters are as follows.

Temp :79
sal : 1.025 ( corrected )
PH : 8.0
Alk :5.5meq/l (Its high but cal + PH is good so Im not worried)
Cal : 350
Ammonia : 0
Nitrite : 0
Nitrate : 0

The fish are fine and all my corals are acting normal.Wierd !
Any suggestions?

Andy]
 
@TealCobra wrote:
[Do you run any carbon? That will really help to polish the water for you. Not a bad idea to run it periodically every month.] said:
[I never run carbon and I mean never :) I worry about it taking good stuff out of the water.

BTW Your tank should return to normal in a couple days. I use a HOB magnum with micron to polish my water nice and clear, and it only take a couple hours.]
Click to expand...
 
[Hi Teal ,
Ya I run Carbon 24/7 as most reefers do! I just dont understand why its a tad Murky. I change the carbon every 4 days.I add 10 teaspoons full to a bag. Infact I just changed the carbon yesterday! GRRRR! As Far as Carbon removing essential elements form the water table ........ Id be more concerned about your Protein Skimmer doing that more than the carbon is. Dr.Ron From RC reccomends using carbon as does Stephen Pro from Wetwebmedia.And if the majority of the old salts in reefing do it so I guess it cant be wrong.

Andy]
 
[Not to start a whole carbon vs no carbon argument but what exactly are you trying to remove with carbon? IMO if you do bi weekly water changes, have a good skimmer, and a well established system, there is nothing there for the carbon to remove except the good stuff :) I guess softies release some bad stuff, but I don't have any of those. Is carbon a part of the natural processes, since that is what we strive to replicate? I know the ocean has a very deep sand bed, natural skimmer (surf), and elements are added from runoff (calcium, etc). Maybe the ocean has some form of carbon/chemical filtration but I must have miissed that episode on Discovery..]
 
[@mmiller40 wrote:
Not to start a whole carbon vs no carbon argument but what exactly are you trying to remove with carbon? IMO if you do bi weekly water changes said:
A counterpoint might be, what "good stuff" are you worried about carbon removing?

When I had my mixed reef, I used carbon for about 5-7days a month. FWIW, lignite based is among the best, as tested by Aquarium Fish Magazine a few years ago. Oddly enough, the Two Little Fishes Brand, Hydrocarbon II, is lignite based, and works very well. IME, not only did the water look better, but my corals opened up larger when using it.

Even if for no other reason, in a mixed reef(softies, LPS, SPS), running carbon is highly advantageous, for the reason you mention. Soft Corals can give off some pretty nasty compounds as they compete for space. The more densely packed your reef becomes, the more important this is.

I'm not suggesting that one HAS to use it to have a good reef. Of course not. Not suggesting one shouldn't use it either. But, ime, the benefits of using a good quality carbon, in an active manner(ie not just a bag tossed inthe sump) yields more advantages then disadvantages, especially in a mixed tank.

As for the ocean analogy... I've never seen a CA reactor, MH's, powerheads, closed loops, etc...on the Discovery channel either. Yet, each of the above mimics some part of a reef system.

What does carbon imitate? I submit a billion trillion gallons of water. The toxins mentioned above exist in the wild as well. But due to the shear volume of the ocean, are obviously greatly diluted. If one wished to do the water changes required to lower the concentrations of toxins in their tanks so that they simulated the ocean, great. I think most would find using carbon to remove these compounds an easier row to hoe.

We can only imitate so far, at the end of the day we have glass boxes filled with water, not little oceans. Focusing on creating desireable resultant conditions, is much more important than how those conditions are specifically derived, imo.]
Click to expand...
 
[According to an articalby Richard Harker, the only proven use of carbon is to remove any yellowing of the water.

Conclusion
Granular activated carbon is a valuable tool for the reef hobbyist. It can play a significant role in maintaining a healthy tank. The hobby’s traditional approach to the use of carbon, however, has been misguided. Optimum use of carbon requires only periodic use. Slow circulation of water through small amounts of carbon will remove significant amounts of color. Passive use of carbon, as well as circulation through high-volume pOver filters should be avoided

Here is more on trace removal... Looks like he proved it at least removes iodine.

Removal of trace elements by GAC
Mr. Sprung’s second assertion about the potential depletion of trace elements by carbon has been repeated many times since his original column. John Tullock is the latest to join the fearful chorus by writing, “Others, including the noted Norwegian aquarist Alf Nilsen, have stated a suspicion that continual use of activated carbon can lead to stony coral bleaching if replenishment of trace elements such as iodine is not done on a regular basis” (Tullock 1997). Iodine is a minor element, not a trace element, and when added to seawater it quickly becomes predominantly iodide. Because of the excessive dosing fueled by such hand wringing, iodide probably accumulates as often as it is depleted in reef tanks.

Like many aspects of the hobby, this folklore has never been evaluated. To determine the accuracy of this claim, I removed approximately 5 gallons (20 liters) of water from my 300-gallon (1100 liters) reef tank and added potassium iodide from ESV until the water measured 0.1 milligram per liter (mg/L) of iodine/iodide as measured by the Seachem test kit. The purpose of increasing the iodide concentration to this level was to exaggerate the iodide gradient and make the detection of adsorption more likely.

The water was divided between two tanks. I placed 20 grams of Hydrocarbon 2 in one tank in the acrylic tube as before. In the second tank, the carbon was placed in a mesh bag. Both tanks were run for 48 hours and then the iodide concentration was measured. The Seachem test kit permits up to six side-by-side measurements, so both tanks were measured simultaneously with two replications. Measurements were taken at full strength and with a 5:1 dilution to counteract the difficulty of interpreting the color at the high end of the scale. After 48 hours, the passive tank had a slightly higher concentration of iodide as indicated by a slightly darker color at the 5:1 dilution. The color difference, however, was only detectable by directly comparing the colors, suggesting a minimal difference in concentration.]
 
[You both have some really good points. You both seem to agree carbon is useful when run for a few days a month.

The problem is most of what is known, is not known. There is no proof carbon can remove coral secretion from the water, but there is no proof it can't either. No one knows for sure, but in the experiences of some, it seems to. Carbon does reduce yellowing, it also reduces odor. Too much is unknown about reef keeping still, just because its not proven doesn't mean its not true, which is why almost any topic can lead to debate, and the sharing of experiences are so important.

I think you need a control tank with no carbon in it for your experiment. If I'm reading that correct you only proved that passive chemicle medias aren't as useful as flow throughs. I would be curious to see the iodine level in an indentical tank, minus the carbon all together.

I am running a magnum 350 filled with about 250mL of carbon, and an aquaC remora on a 10 gallon tank. Maybe in time I can setup an identical 10g next to it for some tests. Time will tell, Who wants to donate softie frags to the toxin test :p

IMO you can never compare an open system to a closed one, Its just not the same. The ocean currents act as water changes due to the sheer volume. So much is unknown about the ocean its pitifull, so much different mineral content in the ocean, what comes out of the volcanos 7 miles under the surface? What types of rocks and mineral deposits touch and leech into the water. There is a HUGE pocket of sulphide gas under miles and miles of the coast off of the Carolinas, what part does this play? The point is like I said you just can't compare the ocean to a closed system and there are likley things at play in the ocean that no one even knows about yet.]
 
[I just dosed the tank with Chemiclean to remove some nuisance red algae thats been on my sand for over 3 weeks.It also claims to clarify water hopefully in 24 hours I will see some results.I turned off the AquaC Remora skimmer and removed my carbon as per instructions! Preys! God the water was worse when i got home - semi Milky white and all my corals have closed up. It Didnt start doing this till I started dripping Kalk 24/7. I immediatly stopped yesterday and tested this morning with the above Numbers.

Andy]



Edited By Maldivan on 1087679125
 
[Kalk would seem to be the culprit actually. I bet your Ca and Alk results are incorrect, at this point.

Mark, I'm running a Magnum 350 with about a cup's worth of Carbon on my 29g with the Remora skimmer... about the same setup. I have a very heavy population of softies (mostly red mushrooms) and all of my SPS are in serious decline in the past two weeks. I did three water changes in as many days a week ago, and now I'm running carbon to see if I can figure out the problem.

I'll be testing everything again tomorrow, but two days ago my Phosphates were off the chart. I think the new carbon gave me a misreading, to be honest as it was added to the system about 2 hours prior to testing.]
 
[Ill re-check the readings in the morning but I did run ALK 2 times to verify it was 5.5 meq/l.My cal checked in at 350 again about 30 mins ago. The Chemiclean has been in the tank now for about 8 hours and im getting some decent clarity. Ill do the 20% water change at the recommended time.


Andy]
 
[5.5 meq/L is way too high, if you are trying to match NSW. You want 2.86 to 3.89 meq/L. Or 8 to 11 dKH. Right now your running at 15.4 dKH.

Your Calcium is 50 to 100ppm too low, and your pH would better be at 8.3 than 8.0.]
 
[Heheh Yes Marc I agree on all accounts sir!I believe ill just deal with it by doing a good water change after the recommended time frame for the chemiclean to work. Today the water is crystal clear.I do believe the kalk dripping 24/7 was the culprit as well.Ill go back to my 20 oz a night routine that was successfull in the past.I dunno what through my readings outta whack like that. Usually im dead on :
ph - 8.2
alk - 3.5 meq/l
cal - 350

No more 24/7 kalk dripping for me :)

Andy]
 
[Mitch,

Not to belabor the point, but with avg tank trace element concentrations well in excess of NSW values, I think a fear of removing these things to be overstated. In fact, if carbon does reduce these elements, it could be argued you are doing your tank a favor by using carbon.

I urge you to consider Shimek's studies here, specifically the first one dealing with trace element toxicity. I'll quote him here:

"The best solution would be to use natural seawater in a system with frequent large water changes. This option is not feasible for the vast majority of hobbyists living more than a few miles from the seashore. For those aquarists who must use artificial seawater, it is imperative to find out the contents of the salt mixes that are available, and to use the one with the lowest concentrations of trace materials. If possible, RO/DI water should be used, or water should be tested to learn what trace elements are in it. Trace element supplements should not be added because of toxic levels already present for some elements in artificial seawater. As most reef aquaria are generally kept on a starvation diet, cutting back on feeding is not an option, so trace element accumulation will still occur. Regular and large water changes will help slow the accumulation of trace elements, and aggressive skimming may assist in this process. Additionally, the use of filtration media such as Polyfilters™ and activated carbon, which may remove heavy metals, is indicated for probably ALL systems. As toxic trace elements will likely accumulate in live rock and sediments, there is likely a finite life span for a reef tank. As a guess, I would suspect that for hobbyists that have to rely on artificial sea water, it will be prudent to breakdown and re-establish a tank every four or five years, perhaps more frequently. For those that use natural seawater, the period between breakdowns will likely be longer, but I can’t hazard a guess as to how long it might be." (Shimek)



http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-08/rs/feature/index.htm

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-03/rs/feature/index.htm

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-04/rs/feature/index.htm

Additionally, a quick search on ReefCentral in the coral forum will reveal that Eric Borneman is also a carbon user, and cites a number of the concerns I raised here as his justification for doing so. I know from personal conversations with him, that he is a big proponent of carbon use in a mixed tank.

Richard Harker is a really great guy. We had him speak at our XMAS party a couple years ago, and he's a big supporter of our club. I would try to keep those remarks in context. For example if he says carbon usage only removes yellowing in the water, one has to ask, what causes yellowing in the water. As most here know...it's dissolved organic compounds(or DOCS). That's still a pretty ambiguous term. However I think one could safely assume that coral toxins are in fact organic compounds, so if carbon removes those, it may in fact remove carbon toxins as well.

I'm not suggesting one has to use carbon, but I maintain that the fear of it stripping your tank of trace elements to be greatly exaggerated.]
 
[I thought this article by Richard Harker was a good one, and bookmarked it when I read it:

http://www.pets-warehouse.com/carbon.htm

Also, in Mike Paletta's book "Ultimate Marine Aquariums", one of the things in common from all 50 tanks was that the majority ran carbon. I don't run it too often. Actually it is quite rare, but I've been running it on my 29g for the past 3-4 days trying to resolve an SPS issue that has occured.]
 
[GRRRRRRRRRRR day 4 and its stilll murky!It lookes as if cigarette smoke is rolling around in the water. I did have some small patches of red cyno on my sand but it wasnt anything to write home about and usually my queen conch and turbos knock it out.Well since my cloudy water was an issue for 3-4 days i figured id use the Chemiclean that i bought and knock out this cyno thats on my sand. It also claims to clarify water. I dosed the chemiclean per instructions,unplugged skimmer and removed my carbon. Waited 24 hours , and boom the water was CRYSTAL CLEAR , I did a 20% water change as suggested and withen 4 hours my water was back to being smokey.Ive tested all my parameters and are as follows:

PH : 8.1
Alk : 5.0 meq/l
Cal : 350
temp : 79
Nitrates-trites and ammonia : 0

After reading previous posts on this issue on RC I see that snail spawning may cause this. I do have 2 Turbos and about 10 nasarrius , and 5 Astrea Snails. I did notice Very small nassarius babys lately on my glass but this was when the water was still cloudy. Any other suggestions? I put carbon back in the sump where the overflow runs through it and added filter floss between baffles- still no luck. Im toying with the idea of lights out for 48 hours. Would this harm my hammers,frogspwan, and zoos? Whos been smoking in my 55?!!

Thx

Andy

BTW: Carry on with the carbon debate! :)


___]



Edited By Maldivan on 1087872176
 
[update :

Water still cloudy, looks like cigarette smoke in the water. I retested the water before i went to work today and :
SG : 1.023
Alk : 4.5 meq/l
Cal : 350
PH: 8.0
temp: 79
ammonia-nitrite - Nitrates : 0

The fish seem to be ok and corals are fine. Its just a visual nightmare.All I can do is wait it out I guess.

Andy]



Edited By Maldivan on 1087952028
 
[Duanne, I was a big Dr Ron fan when I first got started(even used crystal sea bioassey for several months). But a lot of his opinion's have kinda fallen out of favor lately. I posed the carbon question to Randy Holmes Farley(who I like more and more lately) and his response was "Well, since I do not do it, I do not believe there is a strong reason. But many organics are detrimental (toxic, calcification inhibitors, BOD demand during a power failure, etc) so reducing them may well be quite useful".

BTW the question was "what is the point of running carbon"?

It is not that I am against running carbon, my point was more along the line of "why bother if everthing is ok ?" I kinda feel the same way about adding all those trace elements. My father always told me "if it aint broke don't fix it". But it seems a lot of people run carbon 24/7/365 without any pourpose other than "everyone else does it". I like to know what exactly I am trying to accomplish before I waste time and $$.

So If I understand this correctly... If carbon removes only DOC's , everyone that runs carbon could get a better skimmer and skip the whole carbon process? BTW I am huge fan of monster skimmers and think that a correctly sized skimmer will remedy lots of newbie problems.]
 
[In this particular case the AquaC Remora In this 55 Isnt doing squat to help the cloudiness. Nor for that matter is the carbon ive been running.Im at a loss as to why my water remains cloudy.Oh well Ill do a few more water changes and see how that goes.]
 
[I believe you could run monster skimmer on a tank 1/2 as big as the skimmer is rated for and it would never remove some organics that carbon or a polyfilter would. And I am not saying that a great skimmer does not get rid of a bunch of waste, just different stuff.
Just look at it like this, you could run some waste water through a few filter pads and skim it for a year but I am not drinking it. You run the same water through the same filters and then through carbon and it will be clean enough to drink.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top