The carbon controversy HLLE and anything else you have.

[reptileguy2727]

Encyclopedia of Aquarium Plants published by Barron's specifically states that carbon can be used to remove color and toxins, but will also remove nutrients. So apparently the idea is old enough and supported enough to make it into books.

What I explained is science in general. What you described was a detailed version of the scientific method. They are not mutually exclusive. I am VERY aware of the scientific method and exactly how it is used (I have done it repeatedly).

Scientific trials cannot prove or disprove a hypothesis, only support or fail to support that hypothesis. So, as I described, if all the trials in a number of experiments fail to support diet as a cause of HLLE, it does not mean diet is not a cause of HLLE, just that in those cases it was not a or the cause.

And experiments should actually try to disprove the theory, not try to prove it. If you try to disprove it and fail, you know the hypothesis is strong. If you try to prove it and end up supporting it, it does not mean as much.

In the case of HLLE, step five (repeated results supporting a single theory) is failing. None of the hypotheses set forth to explain HLLE work.

When the scientific method and detailed, narrowly focused experiments keep failing, sometimes you need to take a step back and simply look at the facts, not trying to prove or disprove ideas already in your head, but start from scratch and look for patterns not easily observed when looking at one thing or another. In this case we need to take a step back and look at just the facts. Don't look at each hypothesis and which one has more or less supporting evidence, but all the basic facts from many cases. That is when it becomes obvious that there is no single unifying detail, no single cause, but a number of possible causes that need to be considered.

This is from the past four years of college, majoring in Biology.

 

[JamieB]

I have been using carbon for over 20 years and I agree about the crystal clear water the carborn use results in. My most recent start up of three years ago has shown no ill effects and the fish are doing fine.

 

[reptileguy2727]

What filters do you use and how do you set them up?

I don't know what all may be making a difference, but I have found that with a properly setup and maintained filter there is no difference in clarity, carbon in use or not. With adequate water changes I see no problems with odor or discoloration either.

 

[Rbishop]

Wouldn't it depend on your source water?

 

[reptileguy2727]

It could, but your source water would have to be bad to cause clarity problems.

Keep in mind I have stated that there are situations that warrant carbon use, I just have found them to be a minority so the general rule in my experience is don't use carbon (unless warranted based on specific situations).

 

[Que]

Encyclopedia of Aquarium Plants published by Barron's specifically states that carbon can be used to remove color and toxins, but will also remove nutrients. So apparently the idea is old enough and supported enough to make it into books.

No argument here if you can tell me which nutrients and if the removal really even matters.

What I explained is science in general. What you described was a detailed version of the scientific method. They are not mutually exclusive. I am VERY aware of the scientific method and exactly how it is used (I have done it repeatedly).

Who said they were mutually exclusive?

Scientific trials cannot prove or disprove a hypothesis, only support or fail to support that hypothesis.

I was wrong to say that the scientific method can prove or disprove and you are right about supporting or failing to support a hypothesis.

So, as I described, if all the trials in a number of experiments fail to support diet as a cause of HLLE, it does not mean diet is not a cause of HLLE, just that in those cases it was not a or the cause.

The same can be said of carbon.

And experiments should actually try to disprove the theory, not try to prove it. If you try to disprove it and fail, you know the hypothesis is strong. If you try to prove it and end up supporting it, it does not mean as much.

Sounds good.

In the case of HLLE, step five (repeated results supporting a single theory) is failing. None of the hypotheses set forth to explain HLLE work.

Do you mean that when each possible cause of this disorder is taken separately (single theory) and examined methodically (scientific method) that no single cause is supported? If so then I agree, there is no argument here. If so then carbon isn't supported as a cause either.

When the scientific method and detailed, narrowly focused experiments keep failing, sometimes you need to take a step back and simply look at the facts,

What are the facts? That carbon as a cause of HLLE is unsupported by scientific research? That it only seems to be supported by anecdotal evidence?

not trying to prove or disprove ideas already in your head,

Like carbon being a cause of HLLE?

but start from scratch and look for patterns not easily observed when looking at one thing or another. In this case we need to take a step back and look at just the facts. Don't look at each hypothesis and which one has more or less supporting evidence, but all the basic facts from many cases. That is when it becomes obvious that there is no single unifying detail, no single cause, but a number of possible causes that need to be considered.

Now, finally, something I can wholeheartedly agree with you on.

Q

 

[Mgamer20o0]

Encyclopedia of Aquarium Plants published by Barron's specifically states that carbon can be used to remove color and toxins, but will also remove nutrients. So apparently the idea is old enough and supported enough to make it into books.

there is also a book that states a oscar can be raised in a 5 gal tank. again just because its a book or web page doesnt make it true.

not saying its fact or not just saying cant believe anything you read.

 

[reptileguy2727]

Carbon definitely does remove beneficial nutrients. What are they? I don't know. How do I know? Because over and over planted and reef aquarists are no longer using it because they get better results without it. Just because we don't know everything about something does not make it untrue, it means we still have more to learn (which is a good thing). Books, advanced aquarists, etc. support that carbon is not necessary and can cause problems, or at least that plants and reef invertebrates do better without carbon.

The way you said it implied that what I said was not true, that what you said was. I thought about it later and what I described was more of a mix of steps one and two, look around and come up with the simplest explanation (aka a hypothesis). On a larger scale what I said could mean to look at the results or many different experiements (many cases of people running through those steps), and look at their results in total and come up with the simplest explanation.

I have not seen any scientific research about carbon as a cause of HLLE. I have seen it mentioned that they didn't support the hypothesis, but no actual details or citations at all. If anyone has any information about those trials please share them.

In general there is VERY little research done on aquarium/pet fish and their care, diet, etc. Most of the research with fish is done with food species and experiments in reference to raising them for food (getting the most growth in the shortest time, effects of different protein sources, etc.). These are almost always useless to fishkeepers. So waiting for truly scientific evidence for almost anything in fishkeeping is not really an option.

In these science experiments everything is kept the same and you change one thing and observe the results of that one change. In a few (not many) cases of HLLE, the fishkeeper did not change anything except carbon. It was removed, the HLLE went away. They returned the carbon, and the HLLE returned. These may not have been done by a University or something like that, but the scientific method was (accidentally) followed. These are the facts of only a couple cases I came across. The simplest explanation for this is that carbon (in these cases, not all and far from many) caused the HLLE. Does this mean it always will? Absolutely not. Does this mean there are no other causes? Absolutely not. Does this mean that in some cases it may be one of if not the only cause? Yes. So when people try other treatments and they fail, carbon should be in question.

If anyone can up with a more scientifically accurate reason (a simpler reason) for these cases to show that they may not have been caused by carbon, please share. Otherwise you are simply discrediting them based on the fact that they were not done by professionals (do any of the hypothetical causes actually have experiments in peer-reviewed scientific journals to support their hypothesis?).

Yes, I think we need to look at each possible cause separately and see if in those cases anything else could have accounted for it. For example: if someone uses metronidazole AND improves water quality AND improves diet and cures the HLLE, that does not mean that the metronidazole cured it and it was parasitic HITH, but that at least one of those changes removed the cause. If someone uses metronidazole AND removes carbon and the HLLE or HITH goes away, it does not mean that it was the carbon causing HLLE because it may have been the medicine curing HITH. In the cases I cited above, the carbon was the only change. There were other cases where carbon was one of multiple changes and MAY have been the cause, but those do not prove carbon to be a cause. The cases cited in the previous paragraph do.

For more details about the 'research' I did on it please read the whole article I wrote on it in my blog. The research I did was to collect data by posting on many different forums, asking about people's experience with HITH, HLLE, metronidazole treating these, etc. I also brought in my personal experience with different cases and cases I have talked to customers about (I work in an LFS). One surprise were the cases that showed carbon was a cause in those cases. Other cases showed no apparent cause and either went away on their own or killed the fishin spite of various attempts to cure. Other cases show that Hexamita spp. and Spironucleus vortens are both parasites that can cause HITH. Other cases show that diet and/or water quality were the causes (the most common for HLLE).

I do not expect everyone to simply give up what they think and take my word on it. All I ask is that people think about. Is it completely irrational and unssupported that carbon can remove vital nutrients and that sometimes that may affect fish health, even if only on a very rare basis? Is it possible that when other changes fail to cure HLLE that maybe carbon should be considered as the cause?

 

[H3D]

Carbon definitely does remove beneficial nutrients. What are they? I don't know. How do I know? Because over and over planted and reef aquarists are no longer using it because they get better results without it. Just because we don't know everything about something does not make it untrue, it means we still have more to learn (which is a good thing). Books, advanced aquarists, etc. support that carbon is not necessary and can cause problems, or at least that plants and reef invertebrates do better without carbon.

Its interesting to me that you don't know what is being removed, however because people "claim" they get better results without you feel something must be getting removed from the water. Did it ever occur to you that the plants would do better without carbon because more ammonia would be available to them? I really do not know what "beneficial nutrients" you think are being removed from the water by carbon and you refuse to even name one. The other thing you are failing to realize is that what is best for the plants may not be best for the fish. I have seen no (ZERO) scientific research that has ever shown that not using carbon is able to produce equal results or that carbon causes problem for fish.

The way you said it implied that what I said was not true, that what you said was. I thought about it later and what I described was more of a mix of steps one and two, look around and come up with the simplest explanation (aka a hypothesis). On a larger scale what I said could mean to look at the results or many different experiements (many cases of people running through those steps), and look at their results in total and come up with the simplest explanation.

I have not seen any scientific research about carbon as a cause of HLLE. I have seen it mentioned that they didn't support the hypothesis, but no actual details or citations at all. If anyone has any information about those trials please share them.

You are missing the most important step of the scientific method, acceptance by the scientific community. Without being accepted it is still just a conclusion based on "scientific" research. The reason there is little to no research done on carbon being the cause of HIHD or HLLE is because even the notion is ridiculous. There have been many cases of both without carbon ever even being present. The other is there is not even a rational bases as to why carbon would cause either of them. You have suggested that it somehow removes "vital nutrients", but cannot name one of them.

In general there is VERY little research done on aquarium/pet fish and their care, diet, etc. Most of the research with fish is done with food species and experiments in reference to raising them for food (getting the most growth in the shortest time, effects of different protein sources, etc.). These are almost always useless to fishkeepers. So waiting for truly scientific evidence for almost anything in fishkeeping is not really an option.

That may be true. However there are MANY studies done on carbon filtered water. Since almost all water used in our homes is carbon filtered before we even get it. So it is quite easy to find out what is being removed from the water by carbon.

In these science experiments everything is kept the same and you change one thing and observe the results of that one change. In a few (not many) cases of HLLE, the fishkeeper did not change anything except carbon. It was removed, the HLLE went away. They returned the carbon, and the HLLE returned. These may not have been done by a University or something like that, but the scientific method was (accidentally) followed. These are the facts of only a couple cases I came across. The simplest explanation for this is that carbon (in these cases, not all and far from many) caused the HLLE. Does this mean it always will? Absolutely not. Does this mean there are no other causes? Absolutely not. Does this mean that in some cases it may be one of if not the only cause? Yes. So when people try other treatments and they fail, carbon should be in question.

People see what they want. There is more to the scientific method than these people realize. Just practicing the scientific method does not make you a scientist, it requires hours of study, research and practice. The first thing you should have learned in your studies is that science is based on probabilities, not on "fact".

If anyone can up with a more scientifically accurate reason (a simpler reason) for these cases to show that they may not have been caused by carbon, please share. Otherwise you are simply discrediting them based on the fact that they were not done by professionals (do any of the hypothetical causes actually have experiments in peer-reviewed scientific journals to support their hypothesis?).

I can. Stress. Possibly leading to bacteria infections. This has been accepted by much of the cichlid community.

Yes, I think we need to look at each possible cause separately and see if in those cases anything else could have accounted for it. For example: if someone uses metronidazole AND improves water quality AND improves diet and cures the HLLE, that does not mean that the metronidazole cured it and it was parasitic HITH, but that at least one of those changes removed the cause. If someone uses metronidazole AND removes carbon and the HLLE or HITH goes away, it does not mean that it was the carbon causing HLLE because it may have been the medicine curing HITH. In the cases I cited above, the carbon was the only change. There were other cases where carbon was one of multiple changes and MAY have been the cause, but those do not prove carbon to be a cause. The cases cited in the previous paragraph do.

Many have found that low light, proper diet, heat, salt and water changes are the only necessary steps to combat them.

For more details about the 'research' I did on it please read the whole article I wrote on it in my blog. The research I did was to collect data by posting on many different forums, asking about people's experience with HITH, HLLE, metronidazole treating these, etc. I also brought in my personal experience with different cases and cases I have talked to customers about (I work in an LFS). One surprise were the cases that showed carbon was a cause in those cases. Other cases showed no apparent cause and either went away on their own or killed the fishin spite of various attempts to cure. Other cases show that Hexamita spp. and Spironucleus vortens are both parasites that can cause HITH. Other cases show that diet and/or water quality were the causes (the most common for HLLE).

The conclusions in your so called article have many errors from poorly done research. It is not a credible source at all. Why you continue to quote it is beyond me.

I do not expect everyone to simply give up what they think and take my word on it. All I ask is that people think about. Is it completely irrational and unssupported that carbon can remove vital nutrients and that sometimes that may affect fish health, even if only on a very rare basis? Is it possible that when other changes fail to cure HLLE that maybe carbon should be considered as the cause?

You expect everyone to take your word. You give no real evidence to support your claims. The reality is that you have no real claims to support to begin with. That is what's most amazing. You have no proof that a so called deficiency is the cause of either, or that carbon is the reason for that deficiency.

 

[reptileguy2727]

If you are going to ignore or dismiss any facts that happen to not agree with your current ideas or those ideas found by most (who admittedly do not fully understand the disease) than there is no point in continuing this conversation.

You CANNOT assume that stress, or anything else played a part in the carbon caused cases when it was not part of the facts of that case. What you are doing there is adding 'facts' to support your own theory, something completely unscientific.

Again, I may not know exactly what is being removed, but do you KNOW that nothing beneficial is? I will not name any because I don't know them and refuse to BS anyone by stating what I think it removes without knowing it as a fact. Does water treatment with carbon look into things like micronutrients and trace elements, or do they focus on heavy metals and other toxic chemicals?

Have you asked about it on advanced forums dedicated to planted or reef aquariums? Have you asked the people, the ones with the first hand experience with it, what they have found? But I guess those are just 'random people online on a forum' and therefore if they have any evidence that carbon can cause problems then they must be wrong. But if they have not noticed any difference then they are part of the 'correct majority' that supports you.

People have found ways to fight it, and in MOST cases it may work, but it is not always successfully (and it does not just fail in cases that are too far along to reverse). But even with these treatments it is not always the cure. So apparently there is more going on, at least in some cases. The article linked to earlier even states that carbon should be removed. It was used as a good article on HITH and HLLE, but I guess that part was an error on his part.

Yes, HITH and HLLE have showed up in tanks and fish that have never been exposed to carbon. YET AGAIN, this means that carbon is not the only cause, not that it is never the cause. Something I have been saying all along.

ANY scientific research to support any of the other causes of HITH or HLLE? Yet carbon has to be very well-supported and accepted by the scientific community, but not the others?

The idea of carbon caused HLLE is rediculous, even with cases where that was the one thing changed and the HLLE went away?

What stressed caused the bacterial infections (that you made up) in those cases? Bacterial infections cause HLLE? The carbon caused stress? Explain how those cases were caused be something besides carbon and removing the carbon fixed them.

Do you know that the nutrients that when missing are cited as possible causes of HLLE cannot be removed by carbon?

How exactly is my article so erroneous? Rather than simply state it, please support your statement. (Something you are claiming I am doing, yet to prove your point are doing the same.)