Hey Triton, what's going on with my macro algae?

[Reefahholic]

Dennis, I have a feeling that the pro algae elements in the regular Triton Method Core7 is what caused ur issue.

I'm going to a hybrid system with the Other Methods Core7 which you know is exactly the same but less pro charged algae elements.

Hopefully this will prevent pest algae from invading my display. That Triton Method formula is too strong (algae elements) especially if you have a young tank.

Let me know ur thoughts. I'm scared now.

 

[Reefahholic]

Sorry...double post

 

[d2mini]

Dennis, I have a feeling that the pro algae elements in the regular Triton Method Core7 is what caused ur issue.

I believe so too.
At least after the fuge crashed and couldn't support the macros to uptake those elements.

 

[Reefahholic]

I believe so too.
At least after the fuge crashed and couldn't support the macros to uptake those elements.

Yeah, you should do a hybrid this next time with the regular "other elements." That's what I'm doing. Too many issues with the first formula.

You've never had any issues growing cheato or other macros so you don't even need the pro algae elements.

 

[Want2BS8ed]

I'm not convinced... Dennis you and I both experienced the same initial surge in Macros at startup and then a precipitous drop.

It's a gut call, but my intuition continues to lean towards a lack of some key element that is either more abundant or stable in mature systems.

...and why go hybrid? The appeal of the Triton method (at least for me) was the simplicity. If I were to abandon it (which I am giving considerable thought) I would return to constant water changes and dosing 3-part where I had more control over their formula and supplementation.

FWIW, I am still eyeballing the Fe group...

 

[d2mini]

...and why go hybrid?

Exactly.
I'm just setting up my simple AWC setup, berlin sump with a chaeto fuge like I always have, and going back to a CaRx eventually. It was easy and always worked well for me.
K.I.S.S.

 

[Reefahholic]

For me... the draw to Triton was always about the stability that all the right elements brought to a reef tank. Who better to get these elements from than the guy who has the most accurate water chemistry machine know to our hobby. I'm pretty sure my 50 liters of Siporax and GFO (when needed) combined with a smaller fuge will do basically the same thing as a full Triton system. This should allow me to go without water changes 75% of the time (possibly 95%) which results in stability and simplicity. I'll still run a smaller fuge (that I have room for) for minimal nutrient export reasons as well as food for the fish and corals (micro Fauna, fatty acids, & pods). With the "other method" which has way less pro algae elements, I'm hoping to avoid pest algae in the display. Plus... it will still provide a "minimal amount" of algae elements for my fuge to stay healthy which should out compete any algae in the display.

I think the initial surge you guys saw was the pro algae elements fueling the algae in the fuge, but IMO, it was also fueling algae to start growing in the display. I think when the algae in the display started to out compete the refugium, this is why you saw a precipitous drop. I calculated D2mini's fuge volume from one of his YouTube videos and it's roughly 20 gallons according to the numbers he gave. The Triton fuge looks like it could be triple that and is able to handle the pro algae elements.

Just my thoughts...

 

[Want2BS8ed]

I think the initial surge you guys saw was the pro algae elements fueling the algae in the fuge, but IMO, it was also fueling algae to start growing in the display. I think when the algae in the display started to out compete the refugium, this is why you saw a precipitous drop. I calculated D2mini's fuge volume from one of his YouTube videos and it's roughly 20 gallons according to the numbers he gave. The Triton fuge looks like it could be triple that and is able to handle the pro algae elements.

No, I don't think so, or at least not in my case. First couple of weeks the dosers were not online. Triton recommends stabilizing at 8dKh and I spent the next month and a half chasing that. First few days of dosing, alkalinity jumped to 13dKh, so a fair amount of that time I wasn't dosing at all or very little.

Macro rise and decline and DT algae was more linear as well. Robust growth in the refugium> decline> then algae in the display. My impression, the DT algae never out competed the refugium macros, but were more opportunistic to uptake the available nutrients after the refugium macros fell off. I went through the same brown snot Dennis did. Fortunately in my case I have been able to get through that and it is now gone in my DT. I attribute that more to continuous water changes to rid the system of high tin than anything else.

Regarding the size of the refugium, I do not believe that is at issue either: I am running a 120 gallon DT with a 125 gallon aquarium in the basement as a sump. Roughly 4' of the sump's 6' length is dedicated to the refugium. Plenty of capacity to handle the tank if needed.

My pea-sized brain's understanding of the Triton Method? It's all about balance.

My theory (and this is totally my opinion) there is a clear order as to which comes first in the Triton method: the chicken or the egg.

Dosing targets are based on alkalinity, a measurement that is for simplicity's sake, regulated by the growth of coral. I am thinking it is reasonable to assume until there is a certain mass of coral growth and uptake of alkalinity, one is likely to be limiting the elements necessary for sustained macro growth (i.e. the macros rapidly outstrip their available supply of nutrients). Boom, bust and lower forms of algae take hold. There is a lack of balance.

In more mature systems, there is higher alkalinity uptake, increased dosing and therefore more nutrients available on top of what is being spun-off by the biological processes of coral growth. Until the system is balanced, you are not going to see success.

Triton has always recommended a variety of macros and cautioned individual species would wax and wane depending on conditions. I theorize until you hit a certain dosing level, the conditions of a lightly stocked new tank simply can’t sustain macro growth.

In the end I think Dennis was right when he originally started this thread, it is a lack if nutrients and not an excess that is the root cause. Phosphate is low, but adequate. Have been dosing nitrates for a while. Question now is do I start dosing iron while I am still doing water changes to eliminate Tin or wait...

 

[Reefahholic]

Hmm, it's hard to believe that a lack of nutrients can cause an algae outbreak bad enough to shut a tank down. Can you guys help me wrap my brain around that. I'm confused.

Further elaboration please...

 

[HolisticBear]

Hmm, it's hard to believe that a lack of nutrients can cause an algae outbreak bad enough to shut a tank down. Can you guys help me wrap my brain around that. I'm confused. .

This is not my thread, only following. The lack of nutrients lead to a large die off of existing life in the refugium. This die-off triggered a cascade of problems. The shutdown was triggered because to no avail could the refugium be restarted, algae only grew in DT.

 

[Want2BS8ed]

This is not my thread, only following. The lack of nutrients lead to a large die off of existing life in the refugium. This die-off triggered a cascade of problems. The shutdown was triggered because to no avail could the refugium be restarted, algae only grew in DT.

Exactly! Sorry my earlier post wasn't clear... it was stream of consciousness typing!

M

 

[Reefahholic]

This is not my thread, only following. The lack of nutrients lead to a large die off of existing life in the refugium. This die-off triggered a cascade of problems. The shutdown was triggered because to no avail could the refugium be restarted, algae only grew in DT.

I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around this.

So the die off was from lack of nutrients. This lack of nutrients triggered a cascade of issues.

Can you guys be more specific about the issues? I'm trying to piece this thing together. It's really interesting and there must be some explanation as to how this lack of nutrients killed the algae in the fuge, but yet fueled it in the display. It sounds like it doesn't make sense because we all know you have to have some nutrients to grow algae. Could this die off have sparked increased nutrients in the display due to the micro fauna and pods that died increasing the bio load and yet causing the tank to nearly crash due to it's main source of nutrient export no longer online?

Sounds like almost like the perfect storm. How long after the die off did you guys notice the DT going to crap? Did you guys happened to test the water before and after this all happened?

I can't sleep at night! This is really bugging me.

 

[HolisticBear]

Dosing targets are based on alkalinity, a measurement that is for simplicity's sake, regulated by the growth of coral

I'm have limited knowledge of Triton, but your quote above caught my eye.

Alkalinity can decrease for reasons besides calcium uptake. I cycled a fishless aquarium using ammonia chloride, following Dr. Tims guidelines which results in a huge amount of nitrates. I was confused by rapid consumption of alkalinity given no calcium consumption, but found an explanation in the chemistry forum which states that increasing levels (not stable) of NO3 consumes alkalinity.

You point about new vs mature systems is interesting when combined with the idea that dosing is based off alkalinity. If the idea is you're dosing to match you coral consumption, what happens when non-coral consumption is a measurable percentage? Does dosing suddenly cross a line where it's fueling algae + bacteria past a point that's needed for nutrient export for corals + fish? My chemistry is weak and I don't know Triton, so take this as random uneducated thoughts from the audience. But the chemistry of a new tank in months 0...8 is different than month 12+ with established bacteria + established demand.

 

[Reefahholic]

I'm have limited knowledge of Triton, but your quote above caught my eye.

Alkalinity can decrease for reasons besides calcium uptake. I cycled a fishless aquarium using ammonia chloride, following Dr. Tims guidelines which results in a huge amount of nitrates. I was confused by rapid consumption of alkalinity given no calcium consumption, but found an explanation in the chemistry forum which states that increasing levels (not stable) of NO3 consumes alkalinity.

You point about new vs mature systems is interesting when combined with the idea that dosing is based off alkalinity. If the idea is you're dosing to match you coral consumption, what happens when non-coral consumption is a measurable percentage? Does dosing suddenly cross a line where it's fueling algae + bacteria past a point that's needed for nutrient export for corals + fish? My chemistry is weak and I don't know Triton, so take this as random uneducated thoughts from the audience. But the chemistry of a new tank in months 0...8 is different than month 12+ with established bacteria + established demand.

I think that most tanks who are running the Triton method are at a more advanced level and should have enough filtration to keep NO3 at bay or where it would not consume ALK (if it does-never heard that) or the reefer should at least be able to deal with the > NO3 levels. When you say "non-coral consumption" could be a measurable percentage, you could back off on the dosing. It's very likely that if you dose too much, the corals will not consume everything. We should be able to test for certain things to identify any excess nutrients or potential problems that need adjustment. I definitely feel that over-dosing the Core7 with either formula could fuel excessive algae growth in the display if the fuge cannot handle the extra load. I don't think that bacteria would be an issue though. Bacteria is good and is what keeps our tanks stable. I don't think we can have too much filtration/ bacteria colonization. Too much nutrients on the other hand that overloads a fuge/tank could end in disaster. Disaster being plague algae in the display. We all know that once it gets started, it's nearly impossible to stop a lot of the time.

I need to go back and read about D2mini and Want2BS8ed's issues and try to figure out what happened. I don't want to start over like D2 is having to do.

 

[Lasse]

It’s not high NO3 levels itself that consume alkalinity. It’s the nitrification process that consume alkalinity. The nitrification bacteria need inorganic carbon for their growth - and it take it mostly from carbonates. The nitrification process also contribute with H+ - which further lower the alkalinity.

My refugium has been working well for 8 months now. I do not use Core7 – just normal Balling. I ad iodine at a daily schedule and have some GFO (iron based) in the system. I´m very keen of not let the NO3 level going down too much. The ratio of P and N in macro algae can reach levels of 1-70 compared with normal algae that’s normally has the ratio of 1-16 – therefore the macro algae need a stable nitrogen source. The breakdown of a refugium will also produce a lot of ammonia ions and from freshwater it’s known that microalgae loves this. I have around 30 watts of LED over the refugium that’s measure 80*15*30 cm (app 30 litres). The refugium is directly after the display tank and has a flow around 2500 l/h. The bottom of the refugium is a 30 cm deep DSB with a slow reverse flow of about 40 l/day.

My PO4 levels is around 0.05-0.1 ppm and NO3 levels between 3 - 20 ppm. I dose KNO3 on a Daily schedule if I need.


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Reefahholic]

It’s not high NO3 levels itself that consume alkalinity. It’s the nitrification process that consume alkalinity. The nitrification bacteria need inorganic carbon for their growth - and it take it mostly from carbonates. The nitrification process also contribute with H+ - which further lower the alkalinity.

My refugium has been working well for 8 months now. I do not use Core7 – just normal Balling. I ad iodine at a daily schedule and have some GFO (iron based) in the system. I´m very keen of not let the NO3 level going down too much. The ratio of P and N in macro algae can reach levels of 1-70 compared with normal algae that’s normally has the ratio of 1-16 – therefore the macro algae need a stable nitrogen source. The breakdown of a refugium will also produce a lot of ammonia ions and from freshwater it’s known that microalgae loves this. I have around 30 watts of LED over the refugium that’s measure 80*15*30 cm (app 30 litres). The refugium is directly after the display tank and has a flow around 2500 l/h. The bottom of the refugium is a 30 cm deep DSB with a slow reverse flow of about 40 l/day.

My PO4 levels is around 0.05-0.1 ppm and NO3 levels between 3 - 20 ppm. I dose KNO3 on a Daily schedule if I need.


Sincerely Lasse

Sound like your on target Lasse! Thanks for your knowledge.

 

[Want2BS8ed]

Dosing targets are based on alkalinity, a measurement that is for simplicity's sake, regulated by the growth of coral.

I'm have limited knowledge of Triton, but your quote above caught my eye.

Alkalinity can decrease for reasons besides calcium uptake. I cycled a fishless aquarium using ammonia chloride, following Dr. Tims guidelines which results in a huge amount of nitrates. I was confused by rapid consumption of alkalinity given no calcium consumption, but found an explanation in the chemistry forum which states that increasing levels (not stable) of NO3 consumes alkalinity.

You point about new vs mature systems is interesting when combined with the idea that dosing is based off alkalinity. If the idea is you're dosing to match you coral consumption, what happens when non-coral consumption is a measurable percentage? Does dosing suddenly cross a line where it's fueling algae + bacteria past a point that's needed for nutrient export for corals + fish? My chemistry is weak and I don't know Triton, so take this as random uneducated thoughts from the audience. But the chemistry of a new tank in months 0...8 is different than month 12+ with established bacteria + established demand.

You are absolutely right. There are a number of factors that impact alkalinity other than coral growth. Ideally though (and that's why I mentioned for simplicity's sake) we want our coral's to be the largest consumers of the elements that make up alkalinity.

A new 120 gallon DT with a dozen 1" frags and a fully stocked refugium; logically the system can't be in balance if you are dosing to the alkalinity requirements of the dozen 1" frags. The macros will starve. If I am interpreting the Triton guidelines correctly the refugium is supposed to be somewhat dynamic; expanding or contracting to the needs of the system. I do think there is a point (i.e. with a new aquarium) where there just aren't enough nutrients to sustain the macros.

 

[Want2BS8ed]

I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around this.

So the die off was from lack of nutrients. This lack of nutrients triggered a cascade of issues.

Can you guys be more specific about the issues? I'm trying to piece this thing together. It's really interesting and there must be some explanation as to how this lack of nutrients killed the algae in the fuge, but yet fueled it in the display. It sounds like it doesn't make sense because we all know you have to have some nutrients to grow algae. Could this die off have sparked increased nutrients in the display due to the micro fauna and pods that died increasing the bio load and yet causing the tank to nearly crash due to it's main source of nutrient export no longer online?

Sounds like almost like the perfect storm. How long after the die off did you guys notice the DT going to crap? Did you guys happened to test the water before and after this all happened?

I can't sleep at night! This is really bugging me.

Nothing nearly that dramatic. This is over a period of 5 months, not 5 days and at no point was the system even remotely close to "crashing".

Testing was almost daily early on and while I can't tell exactly at what point the brown snot appeared, I do know the macros started to decline when phosphate and nitrates hit zero.

And don't forget, macros are not a nutrient export with this method. Certainly a nutrient sink, but when they go, anything they had bound up would be released back into the system.

 

[Reefahholic]

You say not a nutrient export due to the macros not being harvested right.? Yeah... if they're holding a lot of nutrients and other undesirables, then when they die I guess it's all released back into the water column. I didn't realize that, but it makes sense.

So why didn't you dose Spectracide or Phytofeast to get your NO3 / PO4 up before the macros died?

 

[Lasse]

I forgett to say that I harvest around 2 litres of Chaeto every 15 - 20 day (not compressed). Leaving most of the Chaeto in the refugium. I have also other macro´s. No sign of microalgae.

I use Chile salpetre (NaNO3) or salpetre (KNO3) from the grocery shop's spice rack

Sincerely Lasse