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

[DieHardPhotog-Reefer]

Provided reefers are interested I think we might start producing these other approaches to zero water changes fairly soon. Similar to Triton, I don't want to just say don't do water changes and hope for the best. I am looking at holistic approaches which make real attempts at proper filtration and chemistry in a no maintenance water change environment. I feel like we are on the cusp of an evolutionary process where the community is about to take what we have all learned in the last decade and take it to a new level.

Our family is in a similar situation. We've got tanks, sump and tons of equipment sitting in the floor and on a huge table but no water moving yet. The plumbing plan is designed to simplify the effort required for water changes; even so, we would prefer a more stable approach because much of what we've learned so far is that the consistency is more advantageous than the constant change in parameters. And yes, the idea of less labor in water changes isn't a bad idea either so please, please continue the research in this area.
We're planning on a 90 gal display tank, 26 gal sump, 30 gal display refugium with a variety of macro algae along with a DIY chaeto reactor. The hope is that the natural results will be more beneficial and nature will minimize the need for additives and changes. Any advice/wisdom the BRS team can provide will be a great blessing to our reef growth.

 

[Herby’s reef]

I haven't found Triton to be much additional work. The four part is no change from the 2 part we were dosing because it's on dosing pumps. The ICP testing really only needs to be done a few times a year, maybe every 3-4 months. Same with the corrections. It's not designed for anyone to play mad scientist and try to make weekly or monthly element corrections. Just periodic adjustments to a handful of elements that may be significantly off track. I can tell you this is a 10th the effort that went into Zeovit. In my eyes, it's not proven like Zeo but on it's way. I liked Zeovit a lot and it produced legit results but this is much less work

In the video, you said that you are now using 40ml per day of the triton core. Is that 40 ml per solution? Or 10 ml per solution making 40 ml? The cost, if it is 40 ml per day of each solution seems huge! At that rate you go through a full bottle every 25 days or so

 

[mckinleyw]

Love this will continue to follow. Thinking about triton myself. I have a good size fuge could make bigger. My question is how bad does detritus build up look in fuge?

 

[MnFish1]

Our family is in a similar situation. We've got tanks, sump and tons of equipment sitting in the floor and on a huge table but no water moving yet. The plumbing plan is designed to simplify the effort required for water changes; even so, we would prefer a more stable approach because much of what we've learned so far is that the consistency is more advantageous than the constant change in parameters. And yes, the idea of less labor in water changes isn't a bad idea either so please, please continue the research in this area.
We're planning on a 90 gal display tank, 26 gal sump, 30 gal display refugium with a variety of macro algae along with a DIY chaeto reactor. The hope is that the natural results will be more beneficial and nature will minimize the need for additives and changes. Any advice/wisdom the BRS team can provide will be a great blessing to our reef growth.

Honestly. No clue what you are saying

 

[MnFish1]

another question from a scientific point of view would be. If you just had a huge Refugium and used any kind of supplement. Would it be the same result. Likely so. There was a no magic to chemistry.

 

[Antics]

I think the tank looked a bit better on Zeo... but I could change my tune in 3-6 months as things continue to stabilize and recover. It could also just be the lighting difference between the Zeo video and this one. It looks like your coraline algae on the back wall took a hit during the change?

 

[HeadStrongGrafx]

I’d like for you guys to test the Reef Grow method!!!

 

[bh750]

Here's the video we did when we were prepping for the Triton Method. In this one Ryan lays out our 10-point plan to transfer over. Converting to Triton

-Randy

Thanks Jason, that's what I was looking for. However is there anything else after that on the fuge? Asking b/c I'm thinking about the Triton method and the only thing I need to do is ready my fuge which is already 75 gallons (on a 300 gallon system). So I have the room/space just need a little more help on setting it up. Is it just as big as you can go (minimum 10%), with 10x turnover, and the T5 lighting? Or were there other details I maybe missed?

 

[Fabianslit]

What is the reason for stopping carbon dosing? I use NOPOX along side cheato and red sea colors

 

[Bonfish]

I have been using the triton method for about two months as well with very good results. As the weather becomes colder I have shut the windows and my pH starts to drop. As a result my system then uses very little Alk , calcium, of magnesium. So if I cannot regularly replace trace elements because I have gone from dosing 9ml each bottle each day to 2ml or less every other day or more. Do I need to start water changes again or do I stick with the triton method and add only when needed based on testing?

 

[GBRsouth]

Following with interest. Am planning a large system and would also be interested in your other "no water change methods" investigation. Would love you to also investigate at what stage to change a new system over to "no water change methods" given the higher nutrients generally associated with new systems. Keep up the great work!

 

[Coralfuture]

This was a great video this week particularly around "wait till 9months to a year" I feel that comment is EXTREMELY responsible of a VENDOR of the product and system advertised

 

[Robert Scott]

To be honest, looking at the video it was hard for me to determine the conclusion...other than stability. It was packed full of work a rounds. adjustments and issues. As someone who relys on consistent water changes I would not change my approach to save a few bucks. Maybe there is a slow migration that makes sense to move into the latest and greatest.

 

[Derek Clifford]

On the 1st ICP test results it showed elevated silicate, as you mentioned. Did you actively reduce it after the test result? Are you running GFO? At the time of the 1st test was silicate measurable on a test kit?

 

[IronChefItaly]

Having followed BRS since I began the hobby, I've come to hold them to a certain standard for open-mindedness and a lack of bias when exploring different methods and techniques. While I still think much of the information in this video is fantastic and sheds a whole new light on reef keeping, I'm getting a sense in the more recent videos of a forceful push for certain products that go against those said principles.

I love the idea of no water changes and I think everyone does but the argument in this video seems very much one sided. I see the two different methods in very much the same light as two-part and a calcium reactor. Either method cannot be generalized as better than the other but rather the demand of a given system will make one choice more or less feasible than the other. In the case of water changes, I'll use my Red Sea Reefer 250 as an example. For the same cost as three Triton tests, I can buy three buckets of Red Sea salt. With those three buckets, I can do 10% weekly water changes and three consecutive 50% water changes twice over the course of a year. Surely, this argument only becomes stronger as your system volume decreases and weaker as the volume increases. Additionally, I think something can always be said for simplicity. While more laborious, water changes remains one of the simplest methods of obtaining NSW parameters and performing a system reset. To conclude, I feel this video and the others highlighting the Triton really fail to mention these points and bring a well-balanced educational video to the saltwater community that upholds BRS. I hope I don't sound too bitter or reluctant to change and would love others if of the same opinion to speak up and invite those who disagree to chime in.

As always, thanks for reading!

 

[Monkeynaut]

@Ryanbrs or @randyBRS
I didn’t hear any mention of phosphate media in this video. I know it can be a recommended part of the Triton program. So does this mean you are having success with low phosphates without phosphate removers?

If you are using them, which version have you chosen?

 

[Reef Monkie]

Having followed BRS since I began the hobby, I've come to hold them to a certain standard for open-mindedness and a lack of bias when exploring different methods and techniques. While I still think much of the information in this video is fantastic and sheds a whole new light on reef keeping, I'm getting a sense in the more recent videos of a forceful push for certain products that go against those said principles.

I love the idea of no water changes and I think everyone does but the argument in this video seems very much one sided. I see the two different methods in very much the same light as two-part and a calcium reactor. Either method cannot be generalized as better than the other but rather the demand of a given system will make one choice more or less feasible than the other. In the case of water changes, I'll use my Red Sea Reefer 250 as an example. For the same cost as three Triton tests, I can buy three buckets of Red Sea salt. With those three buckets, I can do 10% weekly water changes and three consecutive 50% water changes twice over the course of a year. Surely, this argument only becomes stronger as your system volume decreases and weaker as the volume increases. Additionally, I think something can always be said for simplicity. While more laborious, water changes remains one of the simplest methods of obtaining NSW parameters and performing a system reset. To conclude, I feel this video and the others highlighting the Triton really fail to mention these points and bring a well-balanced educational video to the saltwater community that upholds BRS. I hope I don't sound too bitter or reluctant to change and would love others if of the same opinion to speak up and invite those who disagree to chime in.

As always, thanks for reading!

I don't think that is a fair comparison, you are comparing the cost of testing water to the cost of doing water changes, if you do water changes without testing the water and added no other elements via 2 part or one of the other methods then that should be compared to dosing triton's 4 part without doing any testing. In both cases you are then adding stuff without knowing what you are adding or what your system needs.

Triton and other similar methods like Balling should be compared using the total cost. These methods claim to replace water changes and Magnesium/Alkalinity/Calcium.

You don't need to do ICP tests for either methods, you could just 'trust' that your system is 'average' and use hobby tests to ensure that Magnesium/Alkalinity/Calcium are correct using Triton or Balling. You could also use ICP tests if you do water changes if you want to know the chemical composition of your water beyond the hobby tests, or you could just hope that everything is ok.

 

[IronChefItaly]

It is too bad that there isn't some kind of 'control' for this project. At the end there will be no real way to determine whether this method is more or less successful than any other method of reef keeping - only that the Triton method worked for this particular tank and these particular inhabitants. It will be interesting if/when water changes will be recommended by the ICP testing. In any case - it will be interesting to watch -thanks for making the videos (this one and the rest) - they are a great benefit to this hobby

From a practical approach, I don't think a control would offer much given the additional effort and cost involved. Rather, I see the value of their investigation in a few different ways. I feel the BRS team is doing a great job in catalyzing the exposure of new approaches to reef keeping - in this case Triton. The main point to me is, with proper implementation what sort of results can be achieved from every perspective of what we deem the "perfect system" not just SPS coloration. In other words, what does Triton offer. Comparing it to other reef keeping methods such as Zeovit and traditional systems, surely we can expect a spectrum of affordability, difficulty of implementation, maintenance and stability among other factors. In the end, I expect it will come down to which method works best for any given individual.

 

[Servillius]

I can’t escape the feeling not changing water is just aquarium Russian roulette.

I mean any system will work without water changes as long as you can test for enough stuff. The more you can test for, the less risk one slips by you. We always knew that.

Being able to test for a lot of elements isn’t the same as testing for everything though. Water changes are my aquarium backup plan. Heck, wouldn’t Triton be safer with the addition of water changes?

 

[IronChefItaly]

I don't think that is a fair comparison, you are comparing the cost of testing water to the cost of doing water changes, if you do water changes without testing the water and added no other elements via 2 part or one of the other methods then that should be compared to dosing triton's 4 part without doing any testing. In both cases you are then adding stuff without knowing what you are adding or what your system needs.

Triton and other similar methods like Balling should be compared using the total cost. These methods claim to replace water changes and Magnesium/Alkalinity/Calcium.

You don't need to do ICP tests for either methods, you could just 'trust' that your system is 'average' and use hobby tests to ensure that Magnesium/Alkalinity/Calcium are correct using Triton or Balling. You could also use ICP tests if you do water changes if you want to know the chemical composition of your water beyond the hobby tests, or you could just hope that everything is ok.

First of all, I consider the biggest selling point and innovation of Triton to be their ICP testing and maybe I'm wrong in that. From here on in, consider my argument made against the 'full' Triton method.

I appreciate the reply as you do raise a valid point. I do fully realize that my comparison is 'cheap' and largely incomplete from a cost analysis perspective but I only did so for simplicity sake. Rest assured, I keep a spreadsheet in which a evaluate and compare each and every product I use on an annual cost basis. That being said, I would still expect it to be true that the full Triton method is more valid of an option for larger volumes and less valid for small systems. The point I'm trying to hit home is that there's a suitable application for the full Triton method as there is a suitable application for water changes and I feel this is largely misrepresented. I don't think anyone can dispute that water changes are less valid for a 500 gallon system than a calcium reactor and skimmer, likewise, a calcium reactor and skimmer is less valid than water changes for a 5 gallon. At some point there is a grey area for each alternative where specific system requirements and ultimately preferences win rather than cost.