this is probably a dumb question but im curious

[Paul B]

The only chemical or chemical remover I put in my tank is seawater, and occasionally a little rust.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

so could gfo be a replacement for carbon? in freshwater ..my thinking is that it would remove food for plants but what would be the effect on fish and quality of water ...levels of nitrate phosphate etc...not as critical in a freshwater tank..but a positive or negative effect?

There is no reef aquarium situation where I consider GFO and GAC suitable replacements for each other.

GFO primarily binds phosphate and some trace elements.

GAC primarily binds organics

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Wait what! It is practically a part of the hobby down here in Australia - Everyone I've spoken to said prime prime prime when discussing the tank move I did. And the guy I bought the tank off had like 4 bloody litres of the stuff.

Would definitely like to know more!

Sadly, it is big in the USA as well. The two links below give hundreds of posts on experiments evaluating the idea of ammonia reduction using Prime and related compounds

But let me give a true analogy that explains why, IMO, so many people believe Prime is useful when it is not.

Many years ago, I went to a tourist attraction in Florida called Monkey Jungle. Lots of monkeys. One apparently did not like people visiting. He positioned himself on top of the exit section and screeched at people as they walked out and left. One of the attendants explained that it was a learned behavior: every time he screeched at people, they left. He wanted them to leave, so he kept doing it. Every time they left. Not once did folks turn around and come back inside.

The same is true of Prime and related products. Folks add it in all kinds of scenarios where fish would not die. They "know" that 3 ppm ammonia would kill a fish, have 3 ppm ammonia, add Prime, the fish lives, and the "knowledge" that Prime works is built up over and over in the minds of hobbyists, LFS selling it, etc.

Never do they really look into how much ammonia it takes to actually kill a fish. No publication indicates less than 10 ppm ammonia will kill marine fish. It takes more. It's the false assumption that lower levels kill fish that leads to the equally false conclusion that Prime is saving them.

This article of mine details all of the studies on ammonia tox that I could fine:

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/ammonia-is-our-friend.1062/
Here's one of the threads detailing experiemnts designed to test the effect:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-prime-actually-detoxify-free-ammonia-nh3.849985/

 

[Privateye]

While I agree that Prime is not a great solution for ammonia, I think the primary selling point is that it's a fairly concentrated dechlorinator for the price. It's 10x the concentration of Amquel, which was very popular in the past. Aqua Vitro's "Alpha" is 15x the concentration of Amquel.

Over the years, even more concentrated dechlorinators have become available. So I don't think this selling point is as relevant as it used to be, but it's still a lot cheaper than some options out there. Bang for the buck was always the pro I told customers.

My main con is that they aren't the kindest to their employees.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

While I agree that Prime is not a great solution for ammonia, I think the primary selling point is that it's a fairly concentrated dechlorinator for the price. It's 10x the concentration of Amquel, which was very popular in the past. Aqua Vitro's "Alpha" is 15x the concentration of Amquel.

Over the years, even more concentrated dechlorinators have become available. So I don't think this selling point is as relevant as it used to be, but it's still a lot cheaper than some options out there. Bang for the buck was always the pro I told customers.

My main con is that they aren't the kindest to their employees.

It’s a fine dechlorinator. That does not make marketing it as an ammonia detoxifier acceptable to me.

 

[mook1178]

Let me count the ways. lol

First, all of this is my personal opinion.

I do not respect them ethically or scientifically.

They push products that do not appear to work as claimed. Prime is an example. Very extensive testing by people here show no useful effect on ammonia, even when tested in a way that Seachem claims would show the effects

They push products that cannot work as claimed, and even when that fact is provided to them, they do not accept the simple chemistry. Aquavitro balance is an example. It is a hydroxide additive, yet they ludicrously claim it does not change alkalinity. Brightwell made a similar claim, but retracted it when confronted with the data and/or a request they test for themselves. Seachem simply disagrees with simple facts.

They fought me tooth and nail about Phosguard releasing aluminum back in the days before icp was widely available. They tout a study showing it does not release aluminum by using a method that by their own numbers could not have detected the levels I reported. Now everyone can see for themselves whether aluminum rises with Phosguard in their own tanks.

I have been using Phosbond in my aquarium. It contains Aluminum Oxide. I have high levels of Aluminum in my current ICP. I am switching to a pure GFO.

 

[strich]

Wait what! It is practically a part of the hobby down here in Australia - Everyone I've spoken to said prime prime prime when discussing the tank move I did. And the guy I bought the tank off had like 4 bloody litres of the stuff.

Would definitely like to know more!

Sadly, it is big in the USA as well. The two links below give hundreds of posts on experiments evaluating the idea of ammonia reduction using Prime and related compounds

But let me give a true analogy that explains why, IMO, so many people believe Prime is useful when it is not.

Many years ago, I went to a tourist attraction in Florida called Monkey Jungle. Lots of monkeys. One apparently did not like people visiting. He positioned himself on top of the exit section and screeched at people as they walked out and left. One of the attendants explained that it was a learned behavior: every time he screeched at people, they left. He wanted them to leave, so he kept doing it. Every time they left. Not once did folks turn around and come back inside.

The same is true of Prime and related products. Folks add it in all kinds of scenarios where fish would not die. They "know" that 3 ppm ammonia would kill a fish, have 3 ppm ammonia, add Prime, the fish lives, and the "knowledge" that Prime works is built up over and over in the minds of hobbyists, LFS selling it, etc.

Never do they really look into how much ammonia it takes to actually kill a fish. No publication indicates less than 10 ppm ammonia will kill marine fish. It takes more. It's the false assumption that lower levels kill fish that leads to the equally false conclusion that Prime is saving them.

This article of mine details all of the studies on ammonia tox that I could fine:

https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/ammonia-is-our-friend.1062/
Here's one of the threads detailing experiemnts designed to test the effect:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-prime-actually-detoxify-free-ammonia-nh3.849985/

That's pretty mind blowing to me given the prevalence of the opposite opinion in the hobby. Thanks for the write up!

It's crazy to me such "basic" incorrect knowledge can be left to turn into fact.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

That's pretty mind blowing to me given the prevalence of the opposite opinion in the hobby. Thanks for the write up!

It's crazy to me such "basic" incorrect knowledge can be left to turn into fact.

When you dig into it, you do find science folks have been challenging whether it does anything.

This is a good read from the freshwater side of the hobby, identical conclusions.

https://aquariumscience.org/5-5-3-2-1-prime-safe-and-ammonia/

 

[aussiejohnny]

Let me count the ways. lol

First, all of this is my personal opinion.

I do not respect them ethically or scientifically.

They push products that do not appear to work as claimed. Prime is an example. Very extensive testing by people here show no useful effect on ammonia, even when tested in a way that Seachem claims would show the effects

They push products that cannot work as claimed, and even when that fact is provided to them, they do not accept the simple chemistry. Aquavitro balance is an example. It is a hydroxide additive, yet they ludicrously claim it does not change alkalinity. Brightwell made a similar claim, but retracted it when confronted with the data and/or a request they test for themselves. Seachem simply disagrees with simple facts.

They fought me tooth and nail about Phosguard releasing aluminum back in the days before icp was widely available. They tout a study showing it does not release aluminum by using a method that by their own numbers could not have detected the levels I reported. Now everyone can see for themselves whether aluminum rises with Phosguard in their own tanks.

ive used phosguard ..my only complaint was it exhausted so quick wasnt aware it could leach aluminum went to there version of gfo ..phosnet ..it works slower but longer so far as i can tell ..wont be using phosguard again i guess

 

[Idech]

They fought me tooth and nail about Phosguard releasing aluminum back in the days before icp was widely available. They tout a study showing it does not release aluminum by using a method that by their own numbers could not have detected the levels I reported. Now everyone can see for themselves whether aluminum rises with Phosguard in their own tanks.

Do you know if Seachem Phosbond has the same problem with releasing aluminum ? That’s what I am using right now.

What product do you recommend ?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Do you know if Seachem Phosbond has the same problem with releasing aluminum ? That’s what I am using right now.

What product do you recommend ?

I expect it must, yes.

Unfortunately, there is no phosphate export method that does not add or some other materials.

I use growing macroalgae for phosphate export.

Bear in mind that some great reef tanks have phosphate as high as 1 ppm or more, so aggressive use of binders may be a waste of time in many tanks.

 

[reefeer]

I wouldn’t think of GFO as a replacement for carbon. They overlap a little in the “water polishing” sense, but they are mostly doing different jobs.
GFO is mainly for binding phosphate, while carbon is more useful for organics, yellowing compounds, odors, and removing certain contaminants/meds. In a freshwater planted tank, GFO could actually work against you if it strips phosphate too low, since plants need some phosphate available.
For fish, I don’t think GFO is automatically harmful if used carefully, but I’d only use it when phosphate is actually testing high and I’d start with a small amount. Carbon or Purigen would still be the better choice if the goal is general water clarity rather than phosphate control.

 

[Euphylliaphyle]

In a freshwater planted tank, GFO could actually work against you if it strips phosphate too low, since plants need some phosphate available.

This is also true of most commonly available corals - the photosynthetic ones. The required PO₄ may be less, but you still don't want to bottom it out.

 

[Reefering1]

This is also true of most commonly available corals - the photosynthetic ones. The required PO₄ may be less, but you still don't want to bottom it out.

The main difference, imo, is that people forget that the coral is a animal- it can capture prey and get its N/P in different forms while the waste products No3/Po4 are maintained in low concentration.

Heavy in- heavy out.

By maintaining elevated No3/Po4 levels you drive zoox (algea) production, instead of favoring the coral animal itself- who can regulate its own zoox population..

But people love these Avatar looking tanks.. Money talks.

 

[vcnt]

I'm not a fan of supporting Seachem

Why not?

 

[Euphylliaphyle]

Why not?

Randy answered that in post #10 of this thread:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/t...question-but-im-curious.1159066/post-14357080