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

[bif24701]

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.

Have to say very good points right here.

 

[bif24701]

I have a 275-300 gallon system. Display is 180, with large sump and a 30 gallon refigoum (remote 40 breeder). I don't see at this point how I would be saving money considering cost of testing, and minor elements alone. Not considering the 4 part core. For a box of IO 42-50$ I get almost two full 100 gallon water changes. My water is cheap also, 137 TDS from tap with good pressure (60psi) so my BRD 6 stage water saver work really well and don't have to change filters often. I buy a box of salt every 2-3 weeks and that's how often I change water, every 1-2 weeks 100 gallons. The test alone is as much as my salt. I assume ideally should test once a month? More to come but for now, I'm good. Maybe if I was to start a new system and didn't have 5 gallon buckets of soda ash, calcium chloride, and Kalk on hand.

 

[Reef Monkie]

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.

Obviously on a very small system most of the reefkeeping methods people apply are not a necessity, and that probably includes things like a sump and skimmer. I just think it is important to compare like for like when it comes to cost.

When I did the calculations for the Balling method (a 3 part 'complete' dosing system) based upon their recommended dose for a medium load in a 150 gallon tank then dosing that 3 part was about 25% cheaper on a yearly basis than doing 10% weekly water changes and that was before taking into account the need for 2 part dosing when doing water changes and the cost of more frequent RO/DI media replacement. From my perspective 25% is a considerable saving especially when that doesn't include the cost of dosing 2 part.

This was without the use of ICP testing as I consider that a separate cost that one could use in either method, or choose not to use if the system seems to be working well. The Triton method isn't the only no water change method and I think it is fair to say that most people that use forms of dosing don't feel they need it to have a successful tank regardless of their use of water changes.

 

[TbyZ]

Great video BRS & Ryan.
Enjoyed.

 

[fishbox]

I guess the question I have is, have you simply replaced one form of effort and cost with another (i.e. switched from cost and labor to do water changes to cost and labor to implement and maintain the Triton method)? When I bought my Roomba, I found that it really didn't SAVE me any time. I simply shifted my efforts from vacuuming to becoming a Roomba maintenance person.

I am VERY interested in the outcome of this test and have been following this very closely. I have ALWAYS run a refugium on my tank with what I believe to be very good results, but I believe those results could be improved with the addition of the Kessil H380 as well as enlarging my refugium. However, like most reefers, I would LOVE to eliminate the tediousness of water changes (not to mention my back would thank me as well), and would gladly invest in the Triton system if it really did reduce the overall labor required to maintain my tank.

Regardless, great work, and I look forward to continuing to follow this experiment.

The only two trade offs I can see are cost and labor. Triton obviously kicks labor in the butt. If the cost of the Triton method proves to be not much more than doing water changes or better yet cheaper, then I'm all in. Has anyone actually done a true cost comparison?

 

[ReefingwithO]

I've been running the Triton system now for 3 months. Similar to BRS I was moving from ZEOvit and similar to BRS I had issues with the transition. It took about 6 weeks for my tank to stabilize and recover.

I decided to try Triton because I live in an apartment with 2 young children and water changes and a pain. I keep my 20 gallon brute on the fire escape, I have to setup the RODI system every time, pump water all the way to the bathroom, break all the stuff down and put everything away. It's a pain and you tend to skip things when it's not easy.

I also don't have a 10 to 20% fuge. I have a cheato reactor and a 2 gallon refugium with some high performance lights. I harvest the cheato reactor every 2 weeks. Nutrients are low and well within triton recommendations.

Triton is also cheaper than ZEOvit. First year costs of Zeovit was over $1200 including the reactor, zeolit, supplements, zeocarbon - and doesn't include 2 part which I still had to dose. My first year cost of Triton is expected to be less than half of that and includes 4 ICP tests.

 

[A13X]

Can you guys at BRS do a livestock video of the 160.
Seems like every time I see a video on it, there’s something new that catches my eye. [emoji2]

 

[Ryanbrs]

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

Yup 40 ml per solution.

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.

I think it might be more complex than it seems. The issue here is in a zero water change environment any imbalance between major, minor and trace element addition vs consumption will eventually result in large imbalances. I have listened to dozens of additive manufactures tell us their product line is balanced perfectly on all elements and that may or may not be true. With Trition, they are blacking that claim with ICP testing. That said you could use ICP to verify everyone else's claims as well.

I will say Triton is also designed to be used with a refugium as well. Meaning it includes elements the macroalgae consumes which is different than other methods.

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

The only issue I see is the Nopox is likely not needed if you have a well-designed fuge. Both work but if I had to rely on one or the other I think I'd rather rely on algae growth rather than bacteria populations simply because the export mechanism of the algae is better understood and easier to manage.

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?

There are lots of organisms in the tank that consume silica. After the first month, it dropped to natural sea water levels.

@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?

They say you can use them if you need them but we haven't had any need to do that. If I needed to I would likely select GFO but they say rotate removal types.

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 method, 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.

I am not sure on the total cost vs other methods but everything has a different value proposition. Both an economy car and a BMW will get you to work and back, one just does it faster : ) I don't think Triton's value proposition is cheapest. I think it is based on achieving better results through maintaining natural seawater parameters and lower maintenance. I will say one of the things we rarely see here is calculating the value of our own time. One hour of my weekend time is worth a lot to me, particularly in Minnesota Summers where I have a million things I'd rather do. Winters are a different thing : )

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.

I agree, a lot of reefers would like to see a control but on a full reef tank, there are so many variables I don't think the a/b results would compelling or should be considered accurate. Just as likely to send reefers down the wrong path as right.

Our goal is just to document the results and challenges we run into with each method to help give a window into what might be best for your particular needs or desires : )

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?

That could be true and probably why people are cautious but in a zero water change environment with proper testing, I don't think anything will happen fast or go totally unnoticed.

I think you could do water changes with Triton but you are going to always be asking why am I hauling this bucket around : )

 

[Ryanbrs]

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!

This type of feedback is often the most valuable and I appreciate it because it keeps us sharp and focused. It is very hard to clearly demonstrate the advantages of one approach without it coming across as validation that it is a better way than others. It's also very difficult to stop and weigh each option against all the other options out there, I think that's better done on the forums here : ) Our focus has always been to provide as much data on a piece of gear or approach as possible in a single topic and let the reefer use that information to make up their own decsions on what suits their needs the best.

I will say one method is always better than another but that is based on thorough consideration of the individual's goals, space, budget, time and overall desires for the tank. Sometimes I will outright say I love this thing or method and it is straight up the best but more often we are just exploring the claimed benefits and identifying if they are real.

I think it is obvious that Triton matches many of my individual desires and the approach makes theoretical sense to me but we are going to challenge that in the upcoming months by not only following Triton and the 160 but I think we are also going to develop some similar approaches and follow those as well : )

 

[Cment]

@Ryanbrs . Im really loving these videos, keep em coming! I know you guys put a lot of time and effort into these videos and it doesnt go unnoticed on my end. You guys have the ability to do all these awesome experiments that most hobbyist like myself cannot. So thank you!

 

[madweazl]

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

The purpose isn't to demonstrate one method being better than another, it is to demonstrate that you can eliminate variables and water changes to promote stability and maintain a successful reef tank.

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

Cost is the one area that I remain skeptical; thriving tanks are going to mow through the solutions. Ryan's comment regarding his time being valuable is likely to resonate with many people though.

 

[MnFish1]

I think it might be more complex than it seems. The issue here is in a zero water change environment any imbalance between major, minor and trace element addition vs consumption will eventually result in large imbalances. I have listened to dozens of additive manufactures tell us their product line is balanced perfectly on all elements and that may or may not be true. With Trition, they are blacking that claim with ICP testing. That said you could use ICP to verify everyone else's claims as well. I will say Triton is also designed to be used with a refugium as well. Meaning it includes elements the macroalgae consumes which is different than other methods.

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens if/when various things do 'build up' - with ICP testing. If it does, will the solution be 'buy another product' (to absorb metals, etc) - or will it be (as I have seen on some reports) - do 6x15% water changes to lower whatever is elevated. Hopefully you guys will keep track of the number of water changes you end up needing to do (if any) , any coral mortality (or which seem to do better than others if any) to see if indeed the testing is actually finding issues that 'require' correction and how you decide to correct them.

PS - was at BRS the other day - your anemone tank still looks awesome. do you ever remove any (hint hint)... As always excellent customer service and staff.

 

[MnFish1]

The purpose isn't to demonstrate one method being better than another, it is to demonstrate that you can eliminate variables and water changes to promote stability and maintain a successful reef tank.

I agree Madweazl, and to a degree the tank before and after triton acts as its own control. The goal of 'eliminating variables' and 'increasing stability' are very general - and Im not sure how the Triton method does that (theoretically). 1. With no water changes, organics, metals, etc - may build up until a 'test is done'. Then recommendations are given to 'resolve' those test results (add x, change water, etc) (this seems to lead to less stability than small water changes weekly with dosing of trace elements and feeding the fish) on a constant basis.
2. without some kind of a 'control group' there is no way to see if the method is 'harmful' in some ways over time.

I guess in my opinion, I am interested to see if the methods are at least equivalent, and if so, which is more expensive over time. I applaud BRS for doing this tank - and look forward to the results.

 

[Joe Grubbs]

You guys are confirming everything that I have been kind of doing. I am making changes as I go along slowly. I have not done a water change since I moved my main 150g tank 6 months ago. Before then I had not done a water change for over two years. I use the BRS Kalk tied to my auto top off based on evaporation and adding supplements to my tank. I am thinking of going Triton as my supplements are the Red Sea Colors right now and have been for over a year. I will continue to make changes or adjustments base on your investigations and of course how my tanks are doing. Please keep going. I look forward to your videos, all of them.

I'm interested in knowing if (and how) you clean your gravel? Over time I find that the gravel substrate will become solid in many areas of the tank where the it is not stirred by the snails and starfish or my effort to clean it.

 

[madweazl]

I agree Madweazl, and to a degree the tank before and after triton acts as its own control. The goal of 'eliminating variables' and 'increasing stability' are very general - and Im not sure how the Triton method does that (theoretically). 1. With no water changes, organics, metals, etc - may build up until a 'test is done'. Then recommendations are given to 'resolve' those test results (add x, change water, etc) (this seems to lead to less stability than small water changes weekly with dosing of trace elements and feeding the fish) on a constant basis.
2. without some kind of a 'control group' there is no way to see if the method is 'harmful' in some ways over time.

I guess in my opinion, I am interested to see if the methods are at least equivalent, and if so, which is more expensive over time. I applaud BRS for doing this tank - and look forward to the results.

In regard to reducing variables, my thoughts were that you're adding a specific amount of solution x vs a water change of x gallons (that may or may not be of the same brand mix, salinity, etc.). That also requires faith that solution x remains constant (from a manufacturing stand point) over time. In theory, this should promote stability. Ideally, everything remains "balanced" so you aren't trying to resolve any issues but only time will tell in this regard.

I'm setting the new tank up to be compliant with Triton's recommendations regarding the sump/refugium and flow rates and if things pan out with the tanks I'm following and costs are at least in the same ball field, I'll give it a shot. I'm also finally working on a nice mixing station in the event they don't LOL.

 

[Zagreus]

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.

Great video and team that made it. Very helpful to test other methods. Triton water tests were a game changer for me. I also had the same results using red sea blue bucket salt that you did, but also I was using red seas color program and the drop in hope approach based upon calcium re uptake. The results were that some of my elements were high and some of my elements were low and there was no way to sort through the 4 bottles to see if I could isolate and remove the elements that were high while keeping and supporting the elements that are low. So I have now removed the red sea color program. For me I run aJBJ45 so I really don't have a big fuge area accept small space in a filter compartment. I have considered buying a HOB Pax bellum 17 algea reactor to create the algae refugium needed for the Triton method. But for now I'm using a very limited amount of nopox. Would love to see your thoughts on those 2 issues tested or discussed. Also a look into the methods that the top reefers are using like polatta masters article. For example I was very surprised for wwc main display they do not even use a algea refugium. Basically all they do is consistent water changes, calcium reactor, carbon, good lighting, set lower than I think most would think and only use gfo if needed from time to time if testing shows the need. They keep it very basic. What a great thing to see in action visiting the best tanks and seeing first hand the methods they use.

 

[waxhawreefer]

Great video, I have a red reefer tank like so many others, I tried cheato twice, once in the 3gallon ato and again in my sump, both times, didn’t do much, I used a kessil freshwater light, and an h80 light,then I tried calerpa which grew great and started to remove nutrients for a while but even when it was out of control it only did so much, like it wasn’t large enough, now I’m trying the aqua forest products and little bottles like the kz line and it’s still too early to talk about my nitrate/phosphate levels, but after 4 20% water changes , I did an ati icp test from marine depot, my nitrate test from my test kit Red Sea nitrate kit said 8ppm-ati 16.88, wow twice as much, my cal-salifert, mg-salifert, spot on,dkh-hanna 7.3,ati-6.85 , close, phosphate from my crappy Hanna checker, I mean not the phosphorus one, .07-ati .07, shocking, how do I even know what’s right??? I posted on the you tube video from BRS, a guy dans reef from the UK, did three different ICP tests using the same water from his tank, triton, ati,aqua forest, all three came in at different levels, some not even close to the others, I mean just because triton says this or that, should we believe it, or is it this months pyramid scheme, I mean every few months go by and now this is the best thing you can do for ur tank, buy now,!!!!

 

[TbyZ]

I haven't found Triton to be much additional work.

And no filter socks to wash.
Which leads me to the question: some folks cannot comprehend a tank without water changes let alone a tank without mechanical filtration & no water changes to boot.
Quote Triton - "Triton does not recommended the use of filter socks/floss as they remove benificial ingredients that algae require.
Ryan, can you elaborate a bit more on this, ie, what are these "benificial ingredients" that algae require besides nitrogen & phosphate?

cheers

 

[Ryanbrs]

Great video, I have a red reefer tank like so many others, I tried cheato twice, once in the 3gallon ato and again in my sump, both times, didn’t do much, I used a kessil freshwater light, and an h80 light,then I tried calerpa which grew great and started to remove nutrients for a while but even when it was out of control it only did so much, like it wasn’t large enough, now I’m trying the aqua forest products and little bottles like the kz line and it’s still too early to talk about my nitrate/phosphate levels, but after 4 20% water changes , I did an ati icp test from marine depot, my nitrate test from my test kit Red Sea nitrate kit said 8ppm-ati 16.88, wow twice as much, my cal-salifert, mg-salifert, spot on,dkh-hanna 7.3,ati-6.85 , close, phosphate from my crappy Hanna checker, I mean not the phosphorus one, .07-ati .07, shocking, how do I even know what’s right??? I posted on the you tube video from BRS, a guy dans reef from the UK, did three different ICP tests using the same water from his tank, triton, ati,aqua forest, all three came in at different levels, some not even close to the others, I mean just because triton says this or that, should we believe it, or is it this months pyramid scheme, I mean every few months go by and now this is the best thing you can do for ur tank, buy now,!!!!

I think it is wise to challenge anything new like this. Like anything it has it's flaws. I think the question is does it add enough value to justify the cost and effort? I don't know the answers to all your questions but based off what I have read I can take a shot at a few.

1. I believe ICP is designed or at least in this case configured to test very low levels of elements and is less accurate with higher levels. Meaning it may not be the best tool for calcium and magnesium because +/- 10% 400 could mean 360 to 440.
2. I wouldn't test your test kit against a checker or against a ICP test. The hobby grade test kit and your procedure could easily be off +/- 10% . The only thing that would be accurate is testing against a standard.
3. The ICP in many causes is testing into the parts per billion and for some elements pretty accurate and for others less so. However, collectivly across all elements is much more accurate than a complete mystery or lack of knowledge.
4. I would wager the differences between the different ICP test providers out there is the machine itself, how it is configured, knowing and following proper procedure, cleaning, machine care and general benefits that come with time, expertise and related learning curve.

I know we all want lab-level accuracy with our test kits, checkers, and ICP but almost no one is willing to pay for it so we have to understand all of these things are simply designed to get us close or into an acceptable range where the corals will thrive. I think we can get totally lost trying to identify perfection and absolute accuracy or we can use the tools as designed which is to get us close. Just like selecting a brand of test kit, I think you are likely best off using a team who has demonstrated competence in that field for a prolonged period of time and seems dedicated to the process. The overnight "me toos" and lowest cost options may be just as good but if they are giving different readings you have to decide who is worthy of your trust.

 

[Gerhardus Bergh]

Just the best video series ever. Thanks guys for the time and effort you put into this. Its very handy when a new guy asks questions or experienced guys want to try something new. I simply shoot them the relevant video. Great work.

Oh and thanks to the Cheato algae video's I have since switched to a refugium and did away with my reactors and dosing lanthium or Nopox. So much cleaner and just feels right using a natural method to keep levels low. SO my next step will be to consider the no water change approach. But i'll see how things go after dosing Red Sea ABCD for a while first, and of course testing and verifying the numbers.