The BRS 160: 10 Weeks of the Triton Method | BRStv Investigates

[Vleis]

Hey guys,

So no filter socks on the system?

 

[TbyZ]

Also, an algae scrubber requires more power as you have to flow in and out of it plus you have the lights. I know you will say you simply tee off your manifold, but you pay for that flow one way or another.

Sorry, again I think you are incorrect.
My scrubber is fed water from the tank overflow -through the scrubber - to the sump. And I don't need a pump that turns water over at ten times tank volume. Of course some people choose to use a dedicated pump in the sump for their scrubber, but I believe a pump turning over the chaeto in a fuge is important so the entire mass is rotated & gets light, and people use this extra pump in the fuge for this purpose.

Lights? A fuge needs light. Many people are using expensive lighting for a fuge because as BRS showed, its makes a big difference.
Lighting for a scrubber is in fact much cheaper. Dedicated LED spectrums targeting the screens, not flooding the entire cabinet.

Anyhow, I'm not against fuges with chaeto at all. Its just that scrubbers are much better.

 

[MnFish1]

While that may be true, I still prefer the ease of use of grabbing a two pound chunk of chaeto and chucking it out the door and into my garden to mulch down.

Who wants to open up an algae scrubber, take out a screen, pull off the goop, reassemble it, etc. Also, there is a side benefit of the life that thrives in a big patch of macro - mine is teaming with pods of all sorts, snails, little stars, stomatellas, you name it.

Forget the CO2, just do it because its easier.

But in reality you have no clue what you are chuciking. Therein lies the problem with the so called method

 

[Rip Van Winkle]

For my part, I don't equate the main feature of the Triton method with drastically reducing water changes. If someone's main concern is finding an easier way to make water changes, there should be some automated way to specifically do that. I haven't really seen anything on the market that does it (yet?) but I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to put together. After all, everyone has a flushing toilet in their home (except if you're in the Philippines, LOL) and that basically does something similar. Not something impossible to do or even high tech, if you see what I mean. Point is, someone could always find a way to plumb their mixing station so that pushing a button drains some water from a section of the sump and then allows some freshly mixed salt water to be dumped in. I'm actually surprised I haven't seen sumps with a water change section built into them yet but I digress....
So if someone is on the Triton method and "doesn't end up having to lug buckets around", that's just something incidental and not really a selling point for adopting the method. Or at least I feel it really shouldn't be. I don't mean to sound critical but what I get from that is it belittles the other -way more important- elements of the method and really shouldn't be touted as a major selling point.

I guess the Triton method may drastically reduce the need for water changes but the obvious thing here is that it doesn't waste saltwater. Has it ever been considered that the saltwater that is being thrown out during regular water changes is actually not so depleted in elements and nutrients to make it utterly useless? I find that an awful lot of water is really just wasted. And a bucket of salt is not given for free. We're paying for that (well you guys are). That's what always bothered me about water changes.
The other thing is that it allows for a deeper understanding and insight (via IPC testing results) of what the water in your system is really like. Something very necessary to be able to balance the water column in a reef system that just didn't exist before.
It's also an intelligent way to manage a reef system - as opposed to just guessing - that ends up saving maintenance time.
Finally, something that hasn't been mentioned,... If you know you'll be upgrading your tank in the future to something bigger, the Triton method might actually allow you to save the saltwater you would normally discard after a water change. It could be stored and used later to fill the new system as it will eventually be subject to dosing with corrective chemicals anyway.

 

[fishbox]

For my part, I don't equate the main feature of the Triton method with drastically reducing water changes. If someone's main concern is finding an easier way to make water changes, there should be some automated way to specifically do that. I haven't really seen anything on the market that does it (yet?) but I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to put together. After all, everyone has a flushing toilet in their home (except if you're in the Philippines, LOL) and that basically does something similar. Not something impossible to do or even high tech, if you see what I mean. Point is, someone could always find a way to plumb their mixing station so that pushing a button drains some water from a section of the sump and then allows some freshly mixed salt water to be dumped in. I'm actually surprised I haven't seen sumps with a water change section built into them yet but I digress....
So if someone is on the Triton method and "doesn't end up having to lug buckets around", that's just something incidental and not really a selling point for adopting the method. Or at least I feel it really shouldn't be. I don't mean to sound critical but what I get from that is it belittles the other -way more important- elements of the method and really shouldn't be touted as a major selling point.

I guess the Triton method may drastically reduce the need for water changes but the obvious thing here is that it doesn't waste saltwater. Has it ever been considered that the saltwater that is being thrown out during regular water changes is actually not so depleted in elements and nutrients to make it utterly useless? I find that an awful lot of water is really just wasted. And a bucket of salt is not given for free. We're paying for that (well you guys are). That's what always bothered me about water changes.
The other thing is that it allows for a deeper understanding and insight (via IPC testing results) of what the water in your system is really like. Something very necessary to be able to balance the water column in a reef system that just didn't exist before.
It's also an intelligent way to manage a reef system - as opposed to just guessing - that ends up saving maintenance time.
Finally, something that hasn't been mentioned,... If you know you'll be upgrading your tank in the future to something bigger, the Triton method might actually allow you to save the saltwater you would normally discard after a water change. It could be stored and used later to fill the new system as it will eventually be subject to dosing with corrective chemicals anyway.

Well there's plenty of automatic water change systems being utilized these days. So switching to this method to simply save your back muscles may sound good to some but it's definitely not the only solution to achieve that.

 

[Terence]

But in reality you have no clue what you are chuciking. Therein lies the problem with the so called method

Sorry. I don’t understand the problem here you are alluding to. I have used a RDP macro algae method successfully for nutrient export for years and years before the Triton method was released.

Also, with ICP one does understand how the water is balanced so you do kind of have more of a clue than you otherwise would.

In the end while I appreciate the spirited debate, I know what is working for me at the moment. I like the idea of a replenishment t system with testing. The rest of the guidance for the “system” I had already been doing. The success is what matters most for me. The elimination (extreme reduction) of water changes is just a bonus.

 

[wssprk]

BTW, I am a recent Triton convert. But I use both the Triton system AND my calcium reactor to help supplement (kind of half and half). Within two weeks I could see a major change in my tank. It was doing good. OK really. But now six weeks later it is amazing the difference. The growth has been at least twice as fast on my acros and zoanthids that had almost completely disappeared are now coming back. Here is a video I took yesterday - no joke some of these corals have grown nearly an inch since I have been using Triton. If you want to read more about my tank and how I am using Triton, there is a link in my signature.

Are you running the calcium reactor like you did before Triton and dosing less of the 4 parts or did you dial down the reactor and dosing like Triton recommends?

 

[menglish]

I’ve been trying to find out fir a while now,
Can you use a Ca reactor with Triton? Anyone?

 

[Terence]

Are you running the calcium reactor like you did before Triton and dosing less of the 4 parts or did you dial down the reactor and dosing like Triton recommends?

I have done both. I started by doing 20ml at first, then I gradually upped the dosage over two weeks while at the same time raising the ph in my CaRx. All the way I have been monitoring Alkalinity (with our prototype) and tweaking as necessary.

This is not the recommended method for combining these two things. It is my way. What I have asked Triton to consider is a (2 or 3 part) blend that is specifically targeted for CaRx users. We will see - who knows that might come at a later time. For now what I am doing has been working well. Going to do another ICP next week.

 

[Ryanbrs]

I don't agree at all with Tritons assumption that algae scrubbers don't remove co2 from the water, only from the air. If they can show any scientific study that came to this conclusion, I'd be eager to read it.

As I understand it there is very little co2 in seawater in any case. It is quickly hydrated & becomes carbonic acid, & then almost instantly converted into bicarbonate.

Figure 1 shows data calculated for all three species as a function of pH in seawater. From this graph, it is clear that if getting carbon dioxide itself is limiting at pH 8.2, it might be more efficient to get it from bicarbonate because so much more is present. In fact, roughly 200 times more bicarbonate than carbon dioxide is present in seawater at pH 8.2. In most reef aquaria the bicarbonate is present at between 2 and 4 mM (millimolar = meq/L), or about 122 to 244 mg/L bicarbonate. For comparison, carbon dioxide is much lower, on the order of 0.01 mM (0.5) mg/L at pH 8.2.

The rate at which carbon dioxide is used by rapidly photosynthesizing organisms is fast enough that organisms can deplete the carbon dioxide in the surrounding seawater faster than it can be replaced by diffusion and other transport mechanisms through the seawater.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-10/rhf/index.php

So I have no doubt that the algae growing on a screen takes up the co2 from the water passing over it, just as a ball of chaeto does in a fuge.

I think it is just "less" not all or nothing

 

[wssprk]

I have done both. I started by doing 20ml at first, then I gradually upped the dosage over two weeks while at the same time raising the ph in my CaRx. All the way I have been monitoring Alkalinity (with our prototype) and tweaking as necessary.

This is not the recommended method for combining these two things. It is my way. What I have asked Triton to consider is a (2 or 3 part) blend that is specifically targeted for CaRx users. We will see - who knows that might come at a later time. For now what I am doing has been working well. Going to do another ICP next week.

I agree, by melting coral and replacing the majority of what they need to grow you really would need all 4 parts. A 2 or 3 part would be great for replacing what your ca rx can't. Thanks for the info

 

[TbyZ]

I think it is just "less" not all or nothing

Hi Ryan; thanks for the reply.
I think the Triton Team's statement that because algae scrubbers utilise atmospheric co2 from the surrounding air rather than dissolved co2 in the tank water you may not see the same elevated pH benifit,
is baseless & nonsensical. If they actually meant that a scrubber utilises less co2 than a fuge, I say the same. I'd like to hear the Triton Team's theory for the mechanism whereby the algae on a scrubber screen can reject the dissolved co2 already in the water passing over it, & instead take up co2 from the surrounding air directly? I call bunkum!

consider -
"The rate at which carbon dioxide is used by rapidly photosynthesizing organisms is fast enough that organisms can deplete the carbon dioxide in the surrounding seawater faster than it can be replaced by diffusion and other transport mechanisms through the seawater." R.H.F.

Despite the fact that photosynthesising organisms, where necessary, utilise bicarbonates to source their co2 needs, you found it advantageous to artifically diffuse co2 into your fuge by intentionally letting your overflow suck in the surrounding air. This isn't necessary for a scrubber, because the thin layer of water flowing over the algae screen (the air - water interface) allows easier difusion of atmospheric co2 into the water. The amount of co2 taken up by the water is governed of course by the partial pressure of co2 (equilibrium).

I also disagree with theTritons teams belief that algae has to die off to add benificial disolved organic compounds into the water. Algae is organic matter, & algaes, on average, naturally release around 10% of their daily inorganic carbon take-up as disolved organic compounds. It doesn't have to die.

cheers

 

[Rip Van Winkle]

Well there's plenty of automatic water change systems being utilized these days. So switching to this method to simply save your back muscles may sound good to some but it's definitely not the only solution to achieve that.

You lost me, Brother. Not sure how this relates to what I was saying..... Unless you're in agreement with me?

 

[fishbox]

Lol yes I was

 

[Rip Van Winkle]

Hahaha Okay

 

[MnFish1]

Sorry. I don’t understand the problem here you are alluding to. I have used a RDP macro algae method successfully for nutrient export for years and years before the Triton method was released.

Also, with ICP one does understand how the water is balanced so you do kind of have more of a clue than you otherwise would.

In the end while I appreciate the spirited debate, I know what is working for me at the moment. I like the idea of a replenishment t system with testing. The rest of the guidance for the “system” I had already been doing. The success is what matters most for me. The elimination (extreme reduction) of water changes is just a bonus.

I meant - when you say 'you are chucking' a certain amount of macro algae, you don't know how much you are throwing out, so it is another variable in this method - that is supposed to aim for ultra stability. Also depending on how well your macro algae is growing will also play a role. I have no problem with people using it - it probably works fine - but is it 'more simple' that other methods of nutrient export/dosing or any better? I'm not sure.

The only real problem I have with the protocol is if you have a problem with your tank, it will take several days-2 weeks to get any results back from testing . By then, a small problem may be a big problem. If you decide to prophylactically test lets say every 3 months - it costs more money - and from what I have seen at least from the comments on some of the threads - there are alot of results that come back unexplainable - and water changes are recommended - and you may be chasing your tail a bit with spurious results.

 

[Scott.h]

Someone that knows what they are doing can make any system work, even if it's as simple as kalk. A good reefer wants to tinker so they have a full understanding of how other systems work so they can better themselves within the industry. That's what got me into triton. It just so happens that it's working well, and happens to be quite a bit less work.

 

[Reef Monkie]

The only real problem I have with the protocol is if you have a problem with your tank, it will take several days-2 weeks to get any results back from testing . By then, a small problem may be a big problem. If you decide to prophylactically test lets say every 3 months - it costs more money - and from what I have seen at least from the comments on some of the threads - there are alot of results that come back unexplainable - and water changes are recommended - and you may be chasing your tail a bit with spurious results.

But by that logic you could say the same about water changes or any other method of maintaining the health of a tank. You notice a problem and you guess that it is the skimmer, or the GAC, or the GFO, or that you need a water change, but you have no way of knowing since you don't test so a small problem can become a large problem within several days if you guessed wrong or the water change did not solve the issue.

None of the methods to reduce water changes forbid you from doing a water change if you believe that will mitigate a acute problem. The way I see it the ICP test is just information, it is a tool, and I can't see how you can argue that more information about the contents of the water in the tank can make things worse. You seem to be arguing that it is just better to not know and do a water change and hope that this magically solves all problems.

You also seem to have a problem trusting the results of the ICP and/or what is in the Triton products, which ignores the fact that you could send a sample to a competing ICP lab to have it tested. And by that logic you should also have a problem trusting your salt mix, or the two-part or other methods to dose, can you trust the hobby tests, the food you feed, can you trust what a skimmer is doing, what GAC/GFO are actually doing or what is in the GAC/GFO you are sold. I find this strange since the point of ICP seems to be that you don't have to blindly trust everyone so unless you are making the case that ICP has significant flaws or there is actual evidence that there is something wrong with Triton dosing products that they cover up in the ICP tests then I don't understand this argument you are presenting.

 

[Terence]

The amount of macro I remove each time and dispose of is close enough to the same so as to be consistent in light of such a big patch and the amount of water in my system.

As far as the infrequency of ICP, no one said I don’t still check manually on things. ICP is a trending tool. Nothing good happens fast in a reef tanks so my dosing and CaRx are very steady and when changed only done so in small increments. I also have the benefit of 4 automated alkalinity tests A day. So long as I trust the ratios in the four part are solid, and I watch that ICP from time to time, I think this all goes together well.

And, yes, there are plenty of alternative ways to be successful. I have done many of them. However, I think because of the balanced ratios of trace elements in the Triton method, it will have a leg up simply because it is not using water changes or other unknown bottles and ratios to catch up.

I was a skeptic. Going on six weeks now and seeing the transformation from good to great. I am gladly paying the premium.

 

[MnFish1]

But by that logic you could say the same about water changes or any other method of maintaining the health of a tank. You notice a problem and you guess that it is the skimmer, or the GAC, or the GFO, or that you need a water change, but you have no way of knowing since you don't test so a small problem can become a large problem within several days if you guessed wrong or the water change did not solve the issue.

None of the methods to reduce water changes forbid you from doing a water change if you believe that will mitigate a acute problem. The way I see it the ICP test is just information, it is a tool, and I can't see how you can argue that more information about the contents of the water in the tank can make things worse. You seem to be arguing that it is just better to not know and do a water change and hope that this magically solves all problems.

You also seem to have a problem trusting the results of the ICP and/or what is in the Triton products, which ignores the fact that you could send a sample to a competing ICP lab to have it tested. And by that logic you should also have a problem trusting your salt mix, or the two-part or other methods to dose, can you trust the hobby tests, the food you feed, can you trust what a skimmer is doing, what GAC/GFO are actually doing or what is in the GAC/GFO you are sold. I find this strange since the point of ICP seems to be that you don't have to blindly trust everyone so unless you are making the case that ICP has significant flaws or there is actual evidence that there is something wrong with Triton dosing products that they cover up in the ICP tests then I don't understand this argument you are presenting.

The point was if you see a problem with your tank you can fix the skimmer/do a water change/ etc immediately. If you send an ICP test you are waiting up to 2 weeks or more for the results. So - by the time you receive the test results, whatever shows up on the test will not reflect whats happening in the tank. So - in reality - there was no benefit to the 'test' if you have changed something in the tank by the time you have received the test results.

I have no reason to suspect that there is a problem with Triton products quality control - or any other product you mention. Nor have I ever said that. My comment relates to the point that many of the things measured are rare to cause problems. Of the test reports I've seen, almost everything is 'spot on' except for some metals - which there is usually no real consensus as wo there they are coming from or what do do besides using 'detox' or water changes. You can google or look in this forum, results from the same sample to different ICP tests - and apparently all companies are not created equal.

In any case there is a standard level of 'error' in every test range of values considered normal. Google specificity/sensitivity/predictive value of a positive test and negative test - and you can see the problems associated with 'shotgun' testing when there is. a low probability of a problem being present (i.e. if a person just decides to send in a test every month)..