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

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

reef jacob

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
210
Reaction score
204
Location
West Richland, wa
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm curious how much detritus accumulates in Triton sumps without mechanical filtration? If you don't regularly do water changes what happens to all of the sediment?
You can use a pump and filter sock to suck up all the detritus instead of doing a water change.
 

TRNANCE

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
61
Reaction score
47
Location
SC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I've been running the Triton method for just over a year, I am by no means a pro at it. Now keep in mind that's two different tanks, one crashed (August in Texas with no AC for a couple days tends to be bad), so I upgraded to a 150. So a couple thoughts on the things I've read here.

1. Every time I read one of these threads people always bring up the cost of this method. While I have not kept track of costs, I do think it's less cost, but that's just me, but probably not by a lot. If you think about it, you aren't buying salt, and you most likely are already buying supplements, you are just changing which ones you are buying. Sure there's the costs of tests, but once you get things settled out you can test less. More often is always better so that you are informed of what's going on in your tank. I don't think this method has ever been marketed as "cheaper". While I can appreciate doing a cost / benefit analysis of everything in this hobby, this is not the hobby to be cheap. Trust me I am the king of cheap. What kills me with the Triton method is buying the various supplements the tests suggest. A couple of them I've only had to dose very little and only once.

2. It bears mentioning again, but the REAL benefit is your time in my opinion. My daily tasks take me about 5-8 minutes (56 minutes a week roughly), test Alk, feed, and quick visual inspection of equipment. If I was doing weekly water changes, add in the time to make RO water (or going to the LFS to buy water), time to mix it up and match the salinity, set everything up to do your water change, do the water change, clean up etc....you are easily doubling the time each week, if not more. Can I tell you how many arguments I had with my wife because we had to plan around time for me to do a water change?

I'm spending more time looking at my tank and enjoying it now, which isn't that the whole point?

I agree completely and thats what I am try to achieve by considering Triton or a similar method, its seems to be very simple to me and the more simplistic the daily,weekly,yearly routine the more time I get to spend just enjoying the hobby. I am not looking for a cheap way out or the lazy way out I just want less problems and more enjoyment out of this hobby.
 

TRNANCE

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
61
Reaction score
47
Location
SC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I appreciate BRS' honesty & openess. I'd imagine other retailers would (quitely to themselvs) consider running the Triton no water change test a conflict of interest to their business model.
I trust BRS, & this is why I started the thread https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/p...ox-0-8-v-purigen-comparison-test-poll.332949/

System organics export would be high on my list in a no water change system. Its a pity my thread got such a poor response.

Thanks for sharing your thread, I will read it.
 

Spotted

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Messages
12
Reaction score
2
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Turf scrubber will remove nutrients but the scrubber algae is designed to be scraped and harvested whereas Triton promotes letting the algae in the bottom of the fuge die off to release nutrients, carbohydrates and amino's into the tank.

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, we are not to harvest the algae, but let it actually die off underneath?
 

Ryanbrs

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
616
Reaction score
2,024
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, we are not to harvest the algae, but let it actually die off underneath?

I think you do harvest occasionally but they definitely suggest allowing die off as natural and good for the system.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Having read all the comments, a question that keeps coming to my mind is this: Is this 'method' really just a way that Triton is able to sell testing and trace elements that are not really necessary for a reef tank. (And props to them - since people seem to be buying into it). Take a reef tank, put chaeto in a refugium, maybe have a biopellet and carbon reactor, dose 2 part, and add (pick your brand of trace elements) and I would postulate you would be as successful as someone using the 'Triton' method - and maybe we do too many water changes with no real reason (I dont see any 'magic' in the Triton method that allows fewer water changes above adding trace elements).

One interesting potential test @randyBRS might be to send in ICP testing from one of your non triton tanks at the same time you send in your testing from the BRS 160 - and see - over months whether anything varies (trends up/down) etc. And Thanks Randy for answering all the comments its interesting getting your thoughts on this.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I think you do harvest occasionally but they definitely suggest allowing die off as natural and good for the system.

Do you know the rationale for this? I have always thought that dying algae releases much of the stuff the algae was taking up from the water.
 

Scott.h

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
840
Location
Clio Michigan
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Will the Triton method work with a turf scrubber in place of a larger refugium? I don't really have the room for a 10% refugium. How does using an ATS effect the Triton method?
It all depends on how stocked your tank is. If it's understocked it can work. If you don't have the room, then you don't. Before converting give it a trial run. Utilize the 10% fuge. Carbon dose with something pure that won't build up elements over time, such as vodka or vinegar. See what happens after a few weeks. If you do go full method use the "other method" bottles. Even if the goal is to eliminate water changes, you'd most likely have unwanted algae in the display without that larger fuge space utilizing the macro elements contained in the full method bottles.
 
Last edited:

Scott.h

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
840
Location
Clio Michigan
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm curious how much detritus accumulates in Triton sumps without mechanical filtration? If you don't regularly do water changes what happens to all of the sediment?
Utilizing power heads in the sump makes a good deal of difference.
 

Scott.h

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
840
Location
Clio Michigan
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, we are not to harvest the algae, but let it actually die off underneath?
Spin it with a stick. Harvest as needed. Ideally I try to keep as much or as little algae in my low nutrients tank as possible. You don't want a true zero tank. The more algae you have the lower the nutrients will end up. If it starves the tank it's a big problem. On my higher nutrients tank I let it pack in there and rotate the macro so the light hits it all every few days. I haven't harvested that tank in probably 2 years.
 

Ryanbrs

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
616
Reaction score
2,024
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Do you know the rationale for this? I have always thought that dying algae releases much of the stuff the algae was taking up from the water.
I believe it is because it releases nitrogen, phosphate, carbohydrates, amino's and minerals into the tank. This makes them available to the corals however the top half is removing the excess on a daily basis as well. Kind of goes against historical thought processes but also makes sense at the same time.
 

Ryanbrs

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
616
Reaction score
2,024
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Having read all the comments, a question that keeps coming to my mind is this: Is this 'method' really just a way that Triton is able to sell testing and trace elements that are not really necessary for a reef tank. (And props to them - since people seem to be buying into it). Take a reef tank, put chaeto in a refugium, maybe have a biopellet and carbon reactor, dose 2 part, and add (pick your brand of trace elements) and I would postulate you would be as successful as someone using the 'Triton' method - and maybe we do too many water changes with no real reason (I dont see any 'magic' in the Triton method that allows fewer water changes above adding trace elements).

One interesting potential test @randyBRS might be to send in ICP testing from one of your non triton tanks at the same time you send in your testing from the BRS 160 - and see - over months whether anything varies (trends up/down) etc. And Thanks Randy for answering all the comments its interesting getting your thoughts on this.

I think that's what the skeptic in all of us say and largely because we have been sold so many magic elixirs in the past. Not just in this hobby but every area of our lives. In the end, we will never definitively know the role of every one of these elements. This hobby just isn't large enough to support that kind of true research. I say that because even though the dog and cat industry is a hundred billion dollar industry we are still debating what makes a good dog food. The best we can do is follow what sounds plausible backed some experiments as well as the community's collective results.

I think one of the benefits of this approach is, we don't have to debate if xyz elixir works or if zink has a specific role. The goal here is to match natural seawater and we can all agree natural seawater produces results. I think the only reason why we are approaching this from a standpoint what elements are ok to be depleted or not is simply because it was more difficult to maintain them years ago. It was also almost impossible to test and confirm our approach was working before. I do think you can debate the accuracy of ICP if want but in the end, it is almost certainly producing a better window into this than we ever had before.

So end of the day, you're right, the pitch of matching natural seawater parameters might just be a solid marketing message designed to sell us test kits and element bottles. However many of these elements are being consumed by the corals as a component of biological processes and I think it is wiser to assume there are benefits associated with maintaining them than assume the corals will be just fine when they are depleted. BTW I cant share the details but we have a goal this quarter of getting redundant systems up to test what is depleted and to the best of our ability the benefits of replenishment : )
 
Last edited:

Greaps

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
171
Reaction score
118
Location
Miami FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If everything in food and fish waste break down into nutrients that support the macro algae refugium, were does a skimmer come in? Are there different organics that a skimmer takes up that the macro algae misses? Seems like a large refugium would self regulate where if you have declining nutrients the cheato would slow in growth and die off some, and after a harvest / export of whatever amount one chooses you would see increased growth again, less die off ect.

Is brs done with that 4 tank cheato only filtration experiment?
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,559
Reaction score
62,861
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If everything in food and fish waste break down into nutrients that support the macro algae refugium, were does a skimmer come in? Are there different organics that a skimmer takes up that the macro algae misses? Seems like a large refugium would self regulate where if you have declining nutrients the cheato would slow in growth and die off some, and after a harvest / export of whatever amount one chooses you would see increased growth again, less die off ect.

Macroalgae do not generally take up organic matter. Some simple and easily absorbed molecules such as acetate, but they do not generally survive by taking up organics.
 

Greaps

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
171
Reaction score
118
Location
Miami FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Macroalgae do not generally take up organic matter. Some simple and easily absorbed molecules such as acetate, but they do not generally survive by taking up organics.

Question if skimate was poured back into a tank and not re-skimmed what does it break down into? Nitrate and phosphates? Anything else?
 

TbyZ

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
944
Reaction score
727
Location
34.5782° S, 150.8697° E
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Turf scrubber will remove nutrients but the scrubber algae is designed to be scraped and harvested whereas Triton promotes letting the algae in the bottom of the fuge die off to release nutrients, carbohydrates and amino's into the tank. Since a scrubber gets the co2 from the surrounding air rather than the tank water, it won't have the same beneficial increase in PH.

So you could use a scrubber but there will likly be slower growth related to the lower PH and availble nuttrients.
The above is both debatable & confusing. I don’t necessarily like the idea of letting algae die & rot within the fuge. Apart from other issues, this is adding humic compounds to the water?


An algae scrubber does remove co2 from the water, and my pH is never below 8.1 (using a scrubber). But what happens to the co2 the fuge algae has taken up when its allowed to ‘die off’ (break down) within the fuge ?
The carbon is released & I imagine through natural processes, is converted back to co2 then carbonic acids.


Algae’s release about 10% of their daily take up of carbon back into the water as DOC – proteins, carbs – aminos-vitamins, etc…. without dying.


Apparently Triton’s method is meant to act as a closed system, which might be ok if the fish were eating the fuge algae as their only source of nutrition. But they’re not. Fish food is externally introduced to the system continuously.

I don’t understand how inorganic nitrogen & phosphate are controlled in this system if a reasonable amount of the fuge algae is not being exported regularly.

Surely if the PO4 and NO3 levels are getting above desired levels the fuge algae would not be left to die & rot away in the bottom of the fuge, rather than harvesting it?
 

Ryanbrs

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
616
Reaction score
2,024
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The above is both debatable & confusing. I don’t necessarily like the idea of letting algae die & rot within the fuge. Apart from other issues, this is adding humic compounds to the water?


An algae scrubber does remove co2 from the water, and my pH is never below 8.1 (using a scrubber). But what happens to the co2 the fuge algae has taken up when its allowed to ‘die off’ (break down) within the fuge ?
The carbon is released & I imagine through natural processes, is converted back to co2 then carbonic acids.


Algae’s release about 10% of their daily take up of carbon back into the water as DOC – proteins, carbs – aminos-vitamins, etc…. without dying.


Apparently Triton’s method is meant to act as a closed system, which might be ok if the fish were eating the fuge algae as their only source of nutrition. But they’re not. Fish food is externally introduced to the system continuously.

I don’t understand how inorganic nitrogen & phosphate are controlled in this system if a reasonable amount of the fuge algae is not being exported regularly.

Surely if the PO4 and NO3 levels are getting above desired levels the fuge algae would not be left to die & rot away in the bottom of the fuge, rather than harvesting it?

I don't have enough first-hand experience to say if this is wise or not. Just sharing their response to that question, it gets asked a lot : )

I think it is a common question because large fuges have not been a popular component of sump design for a while. Most people don't want to buy a new sump or cut out other areas like the filter sock area. Adding an ATS might be simpler but it also might be the same amount of work and cost in the end.
 

TbyZ

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
944
Reaction score
727
Location
34.5782° S, 150.8697° E
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't have enough first-hand experience to say if this is wise or not. Just sharing their response to that question : )
hey, no worries Ryan, I understand you're just relaying tritons philosophy. I just don't necessarily agree with them on this point; not when there isn't anyother obvious inorganic nutrient export method used?
 

Ryanbrs

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
616
Reaction score
2,024
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Macroalgae do not generally take up organic matter. Some simple and easily absorbed molecules such as acetate, but they do not generally survive by taking up organics.
I have to say I have been questioning the same thing. If the fuge is pulling out all the excess nitrogen and phosphorus is the skimmer playing any major role other than additional gas exchange?
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I have to say I have been questioning the same thing. If the fuge is pulling out all the excess nitrogen and phosphorus is the skimmer playing any major role other than additional gas exchange?

Algae takes up 'nitrogen (nitrate)' and 'phosphorous (phosphate) after its broken down from other molecules (protein amino acids, fish waste, fish food, etc). The skimmer removes larger molecules entirely before they break down into compounds usable by algae (as well as some particles)
 

Mastering the art of locking and unlocking water pathways: What type of valves do you have on your aquarium plumbing?

  • Ball valves.

    Votes: 73 51.8%
  • Gate valves.

    Votes: 72 51.1%
  • Check valves.

    Votes: 36 25.5%
  • None.

    Votes: 31 22.0%
  • Other.

    Votes: 9 6.4%
Back
Top