Who's doing the full triton method?

[Scott.h]

My other thinking is that it would be feasible for me to have a fuge double the size of my display eventually. At that rate I could see TOC staying in check long-term. However, it stems the other conversation. Could macroalgae release chemical warfare and outcompete corals at that ratio?

From the article

 

[Nano sapiens]

The other thing Im skeptical of that is its scientificly proven live rock, skimming, carbon, and a fuge (of normal size) won't remove 100% TOC in a normally stocked tank.

Removing 100% of the TOC (POC and DOC) in a functional reef aquarium would be very difficult since DOCs are released into the surroundings from coral mucus, algae exudates, etc. However, adequate control of excess DOC is an easily achieveable goal with GAC being especially effective and skimming being much less effective (I have read through all the Ken Feldman articles related to TOC).

If I had a large system where water changes were a hastle, and/or too costly, I'd have no qualms using the 'Triton method'. As you do now, I'd be quite mindful of the need for adequate, consistent husbandry (which is true for any reef system, really, if one wants to maintain it long term).

Good luck!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't understand the concern with TOC, or why a refugium would reduce it.

Is especially low TOC a goal for you?

 

[Nano sapiens]

I don't understand the concern with TOC, or why a refugium would reduce it.

I think that Scott.h is concerned with excess TOC (specifially the DOC component) which has been linked to coral mortality per scientic experimentation. This type of mortality has occured in experiments where coral frags from reef-normal DOC levels have been subjected to much higher levels exuded by macro algae. Current theory put forth is that the elevated DOC causes microbial overpopulation within the coral holobiont and thus deprives the coral animal of oxygen...so it basically suffocates.

A refugium, full of macro algae, would actually exude DOC and one would think that based on the experiments that the DOC from a good amount of macro algae would negatively effect the coral. But in today's systems employing GAC and skimming the DOC level is typically adequately controlled. Based on the testing that Ken Feldman performed on various types of reef aquarium systems (ranging from very simple to complex), he found some outlying systems with DOC levels ranging from 5x to 1/10 of the levels on a pristine reef, respectively. My takeaway is that coral can adapt to various DOC levels if the changes are gradual enough to avoid sudden increases in microbial growth within the holobiont.

Ralph -

 

[Scott.h]

I don't understand the concern with TOC, or why a refugium would reduce it.

Is especially low TOC a goal for you?

I think that Scott.h is concerned with excess TOC (specifially the DOC component) which has been linked to coral mortality per scientic experimentation. This type of mortality has occured in experiments where coral frags from reef-normal DOC levels have been subjected to much higher levels exuded by macro algae. Current theory put forth is that the elevated DOC causes microbial overpopulation within the coral holobiont and thus deprives the coral animal of oxygen...so it basically suffocates.

A refugium, full of macro algae, would actually exude DOC and one would think that based on the experiments that the DOC from a good amount of macro algae would negatively effect the coral. But in today's systems employing GAC and skimming the DOC level is typically adequately controlled. Based on the testing that Ken Feldman performed on various types of reef aquarium systems (ranging from very simple to complex), he found some outlying systems with DOC levels ranging from 5x to 1/10 of the levels on a pristine reef, respectively. My takeaway is that coral can adapt to various DOC levels if the changes are gradual enough to avoid sudden increases in microbial growth within the holobiont.

Ralph -

Nano said it. Better then I could have actually. If I'm missing something I'd like to learn so please chime in. Am I not correct in thinking macro manipulates the tanks TOC levels? I'm adding nutrients now, but I know that won't always be the case.

As far as GAC, can I assume this would have to be changed out weekly to be effective at controlling TOC, and risk filtering trace elements changing it that often?

I'm not concerned with anything right now. Triton meathod will work now, I'm certain. Although cost, it would be easier to do a 10% weekly water change at 100 gallons total water volume. Everything I'm thinking and planning for is for the years to come. Not right now. Lots of flow, bare bottom, my fuge being almost the size of the display, dosing pumps, understocked fish, etc. Minimum husbandry. So as life happens the tank can be successful more so then my other 2 systems that need nonstop attention.

 

[Nano sapiens]

Nano said it. Better then I could have actually. If I'm missing something I'd like to learn so please chime in. Am I not correct in thinking macro manipulates the tanks TOC levels? I'm adding nutrients now, but I know that won't always be the case.

Macro algae are one contributor to DOC. So are corals (via mucus production), bacteria living in/on the coral, phytoplankton. Consumers are heterotrophic bacteria in the water column, sponges and their associated bacteria.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3

As far as GAC, can I assume this would have to be changed out weekly to be effective at controlling TOC, and risk filtering trace elements changing it that often?

Determining when GAC is depleted and needs to be changed can be a challenge. For this reason, I believe it best to err on the side of caution and change the material out ever few weeks to maybe a month. The better quality material *should* last a bit longer, but it's difficult to know without proper testing. Also depends on how the GAC is used; water actively forced through it which is more effective and exhausts the media more quickly, or 'passively' which is the opposite). If GAC is left too long in the aquarium (many months) it turns into a biological filter and it is possible that it can then release some of the previously absorbed substances back into the aquarium.

I'm not concerned with anything right now. Triton meathod will work now, I'm certain. Although cost, it would be easier to do a 10% weekly water change at 100 gallons total water volume. Everything I'm thinking and planning for is for the years to come. Not right now. Lots of flow, bare bottom, my fuge being almost the size of the display, dosing pumps, understocked fish, etc. Minimum husbandry. So as life happens the tank can be successful more so then my other 2 systems that need nonstop attention.

One piece of advice that I picked up decades ago is that if a system is too difficult to maintain and/or requires to much time, it will likely not succeed over the long-haul. I personally believe in using the simplest methods possible that will provide for the animals' good health.

 

[Scott.h]

Macro algae are one contributor to DOC. So are corals (via mucus production), bacteria living in/on the coral, phytoplankton. Consumers are heterotrophic bacteria in the water column, sponges and their associated bacteria.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature3



Determining when GAC is depleted and needs to be changed can be a challenge. For this reason, I believe it best to err on the side of caution and change the material out ever few weeks to maybe a month. The better quality material *should* last a bit longer, but it's difficult to know without proper testing. Also depends on how the GAC is used; water actively forced through it which is more effective and exhausts the media more quickly, or 'passively' which is the opposite). If GAC is left too long in the aquarium (many months) it turns into a biological filter and it is possible that it can then release some of the previously absorbed substances back into the aquarium.



One piece of advice that I picked up decades ago is that if a system is too difficult to maintain and/or requires to much time, it will likely not succeed over the long-haul. I personally believe in using the simplest methods possible that will provide for the animals' good health.

I read the article. Good article. Every question tends to lead to another.

So like I thought previous, if you have too much macro it could increase TOC to harmful levels. The coral can either tolerate it, we can try to keep it in check running skimmers, gac, etc, but ultimately it can't be too low either. Where is the balance? How much macro is enough or too much? We can't test for it.

I've sometimes wondered if the benefits of a fuge outweigh the possible negatives. I have another system that has a ton of macro in it. It definitely helps keep my nitrates down, but I've also had mysterious things happen in there for no apparent reason. Add vodka to whatever happens with the bacteria that grow on the coral, it's no wonder we have tank crashes. I only understand it enough to make me dangerous.

As far as running carbon, I've always changed it monthly or so. But when we do weekely water changes these things aren't really a concern. Change it too much might be harmful too. If we could test TOC etc, we would have better understanding.

 

[Nano sapiens]

Since TOC is so difficult to measure, it's not really on most reef aquarists' radar. The standard methods of maintenance, filtration and water changes typically keep it at a reasonable level. Without water changes, standard filtration practices should still do the trick. Even if DOC does get a tad high, the corals should easily cope as long as the ramp up is gradual.

As far as a refugium goes, I've never used one. However, from what I've read over the years, the common error that many have made is using a 'fuge that is too small for their system (what would be considered the 'optimal' size is perhaps up for debate, but 1/3 - 1/2 the size of the display tank seems to be a common suggestion). The main idea behind the 'fuge as nutrient export' is for it to outcompete algae that may be growing in the display tank, so the 'fuge's macro algae (often Chaetomorpha) needs to be growing rapidly and harvested regularly to export N and P. Keeping the macro algae in a state of continuous growth is also important in keeping DOC prodution in check since algae that is growing will utilize much of it's photosynthetic products (carbohydrates in the form of sugars) for growth. If growth stops, the photosynthetic machinery, however, does not (little metabolic cost to the algae to keep photosynthesizing) and the photosynthetic products produced (including DOCs) are then released into the surrounding water.

And that's about all I have on this topic

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

IMO, many types of TOC (such as bacteria and other particulates, and possibly including some DOC) is important and useful food for many organisms. I would not want it driven too low.

The main reason I dosed organic carbon (vinegar) was to drive bacteria growth as a source of food.

That said, I also used GAC and skimming to keep the water from yellowing and to keep it from accumulating potentially toxic compounds produced by various organisms.

 

[Scott.h]

IMO, many types of TOC (such as bacteria and other particulates, and possibly including some DOC) is important and useful food for many organisms. I would not want it driven too low.

The main reason I dosed organic carbon (vinegar) was to drive bacteria growth as a source of food.

That said, I also used GAC and skimming to keep the water from yellowing and to keep it from accumulating potentially toxic compounds produced by various organisms.

Yes for sure. At that level I do understand. That said, do you think there becomes a point when TOC could potentially get too high because of the algae? Keeping in mind triton is relying on a fuge to drastically limit water changes. So the plan is create the environment that becomes stable and self sufficient without that. (Possibly more gac, the right amount af algae) Also if macro is used in conjunction with carbon dosing, could those two things together crate an unbalance in bacteria?

Some of these thoughts are provoked from another system. I don't harvest algae. I don't see die back with the caulerpa, nitrates are still in the 40 range, and I'm also minimal carbon dosing to keep it there. I would think if I removed half the algae, nitrates would climb, ph would decrease, and I don't see a need to harvest. Maybe I'm wrong with my thinking. But I don't really understand how the bacteria works together at that level.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yes for sure. At that level I do understand. That said, do you think there becomes a point when TOC could potentially get too high because of the algae? Keeping in mind triton is relying on a fuge to drastically limit water changes. So the plan is create the environment that becomes stable and self sufficient without that. (Possibly more gac, the right amount af algae) Also if macro is used in conjunction with carbon dosing, could those two things together crate an unbalance in bacteria?

Some of these thoughts are provoked from another system. I don't harvest algae. I don't see die back with the caulerpa, nitrates are still in the 40 range, and I'm also minimal carbon dosing to keep it there. I would think if I removed half the algae, nitrates would climb, ph would decrease, and I don't see a need to harvest. Maybe I'm wrong with my thinking. But I don't really understand how the bacteria works together at that level.

My primary concern with dissolved organic carbon is generally water yellowing. Algae can certainly contribute to that.

I've seen scientific reports that relate coral problems to organics, but I'm not sure whether that is an issue in reef tanks. I've not seen convincing evidence that people who do not aggressively lower DOC have more coral issues.

I don't know what an imbalance in bacteria might even mean. You will get the ones that are most suited to grow under your tank conditions. I'm not sure of any drawback to that.

 

[Scott.h]

Directed more @Tim@Triton, but anyone who has experience with this feel free to chime in.

It's been a few weeks now of dosing. Before Triton, my calcium and magnesium were/are elevated slightly, and my 10% weekly water change supplied everything within spec for my small coral demand, with the exception of daily alkalinity dosing of 4 ml a day of saturated ash solution.

Just a recap - 100 gallons total water volume, a 90 gallon display and a 70 gallon sump/fuge, 8 months of system maturity, and I've been daily dosing no3/po4 for awhile to keep it measurably on the low end. No notable issues since the tank was set up.

Since the full Triton method was selected, I remodeled my sump, making the first section (also the biggest section, approximately 15% of my display volume) my fuge, where I have 3 types of macro and fuzzy mature live rock with a few years of maturity. (Around 15 lbs). I'm doing everything Triton requests to a "T", with the exception of using filter socks still. I may remove these a some point once I feel the system fully mature. Right now I'm still blowing off a bit of debris from my original dry rock, etc.

Currently I'm getting a silt like algae in my display on my powerheads and some rock. Each day more. It's not cyano though. I've started the Triton system at 2 ml a day, bumping up a bit as I go, and supplementing my alk needs with soda ash along the way. I'm currently at 6 ml a day of each core bottle. I need to increase this so I am no longer dependent on soda ash, which I've been minimly topping off each evening to keep alkalinity at 7.0 as I'm dialing it in.

My question - not knowing what's in each of the bottles, I don't want the algae to get worse in my display. I feel like continuing to increase the core 7 equally would increase what I'm seeing on th rocks. Understanding my demand previous to the use of core 7, my coral demand isn't utilizing much trace elements. Would I be better off not adding more of the core bottles and let the system use the elements that are in the water column with the exception of using soda ash, or only dosing 3a and 3b until the macro elements are used within the system? I've not done any kind of a water change since June 10th, and I see no reason to. I can scrub the algae off and then change my filter socks. So those elements currently within the system will stay. What are the dangers of using only 3a and 3b, assuming a triton test would show all my trace elements to be within spec?

Thanks, just trying to understand and make sure I keep this at check. What is your suggestion?

 

[Tim@Triton]

Directed more @Tim@Triton, but anyone who has experience with this feel free to chime in.

It's been a few weeks now of dosing. Before Triton, my calcium and magnesium were/are elevated slightly, and my 10% weekly water change supplied everything within spec for my small coral demand, with the exception of daily alkalinity dosing of 4 ml a day of saturated ash solution.

Just a recap - 100 gallons total water volume, a 90 gallon display and a 70 gallon sump/fuge, 8 months of system maturity, and I've been daily dosing no3/po4 for awhile to keep it measurably on the low end. No notable issues since the tank was set up.

Since the full Triton method was selected, I remodeled my sump, making the first section (also the biggest section, approximately 15% of my display volume) my fuge, where I have 3 types of macro and fuzzy mature live rock with a few years of maturity. (Around 15 lbs). I'm doing everything Triton requests to a "T", with the exception of using filter socks still. I may remove these a some point once I feel the system fully mature. Right now I'm still blowing off a bit of debris from my original dry rock, etc.

Currently I'm getting a silt like algae in my display on my powerheads and some rock. Each day more. It's not cyano though. I've started the Triton system at 2 ml a day, bumping up a bit as I go, and supplementing my alk needs with soda ash along the way. I'm currently at 6 ml a day of each core bottle. I need to increase this so I am no longer dependent on soda ash, which I've been minimly topping off each evening to keep alkalinity at 7.0 as I'm dialing it in.

My question - not knowing what's in each of the bottles, I don't want the algae to get worse in my display. I feel like continuing to increase the core 7 equally would increase what I'm seeing on th rocks. Understanding my demand previous to the use of core 7, my coral demand isn't utilizing much trace elements. Would I be better off not adding more of the core bottles and let the system use the elements that are in the water column with the exception of using soda ash, or only dosing 3a and 3b until the macro elements are used within the system? I've not done any kind of a water change since June 10th, and I see no reason to. I can scrub the algae off and then change my filter socks. So those elements currently within the system will stay. What are the dangers of using only 3a and 3b, assuming a triton test would show all my trace elements to be within spec?

Thanks, just trying to understand and make sure I keep this at check. What is your suggestion?

We don't recommend only using some of the bottles and not others they are designed to be used as a set.

Can I ask what algae light you are currently using?

Ideally you should only be relying on the Core7 for the Alk, Mg, Ca et all and not being having to supplement with Soda Ash.

Have you had a recent ICP done? There may be other elements in play fuelling the pest algae.

 

[Scott.h]

We don't recommend only using some of the bottles and not others they are designed to be used as a set.

Can I ask what algae light you are currently using?

Ideally you should only be relying on the Core7 for the Alk, Mg, Ca et all and not being having to supplement with Soda Ash.

Have you had a recent ICP done? There may be other elements in play fuelling the pest algae.

I believe I have Chaeto, the leafy style caulerpa, and caulerpa racemosa

Yes, my iron would probably be the culperate, elevated 2.479. Assuming from my original salt mix. Tropic Marin pro

I was planning to quit using the soya ash. Not knowing the stength of the core I was just supplementing, and lessening to keep my alk number steady until I found my core dosing amount. I'd need to increase.

 

[Tim@Triton]

Sorry you misunderstood me, what lighting do you use over your algae bed? LED, CFL, T5?

Fe not likely to come from TMPro as it is a known good salt brand and one that we recommend in fact, most likely from trace mixes etc.

If you tell me what you Alk drop would be in 24hrs then I could calculate a more accurate dose..

 

[Scott.h]

Sorry you misunderstood me, what lighting do you use over your algae bed? LED, CFL, T5?

Fe not likely to come from TMPro as it is a known good salt brand and one that we recommend in fact, most likely from trace mixes etc.

If you tell me what you Alk drop would be in 24hrs then I could calculate a more accurate dose..

I have a Led -20" fuge light with mostly plant growth pods installed. 10 pods?
http://elivepet.com/fish/products/led-lighting/led-module-track-light/

My typical alk drop pre-triton was about 4-5 ml BRS soda ash. (.1-.3ish dkh) I'm at 6ml a day now of the Triton- its pretty close. I just need to bump it a bit more. One or two ml a day more I'd assume. It's just that the more I add the more algae I'm getting.

The tank has always had TM salt in it. 8 months. My return pump and powerheads are all external, high end, and 8 months old. I've combed the tank to make sure nothing has fell in etc. I don't see anything where it could have came from. The only thing I could see possible with the exception of salt, is my skimmer pump that I replaced with a Sicce a week ago just to make sure nothing was leaching internally. Visually nothing was wrong with it. I haven't added enough bulk additives to this system to amount to anything. With 4 fish total, the amount of fish food that I'm feeding wouldn't increase FE that much either. Maybe I had an elevated bucket of salt. Nothing else makes sense. I'm assuming I'll have to let it decline unless detox will remove it? Maybe once the algae lowers the iron a bit the algae will slow down.

 

[Tim@Triton]

I have a Led -20" fuge light with mostly plant growth pods installed. 10 pods?
http://elivepet.com/fish/products/led-lighting/led-module-track-light/

My typical alk drop pre-triton was about 4-5 ml BRS soda ash. (.1-.3ish dkh) I'm at 6ml a day now of the Triton- its pretty close. I just need to bump it a bit more. One or two ml a day more I'd assume. It's just that the more I add the more algae I'm getting.

The tank has always had TM salt in it. 8 months. My return pump and powerheads are all external, high end, and 8 months old. I've combed the tank to make sure nothing has fell in etc. I don't see anything where it could have came from. The only thing I could see possible with the exception of salt, is my skimmer pump that I replaced with a Sicce a week ago just to make sure nothing was leaching internally. Visually nothing was wrong with it. I haven't added enough bulk additives to this system to amount to anything. With 4 fish total, the amount of fish food that I'm feeding wouldn't increase FE that much either. Maybe I had an elevated bucket of salt. Nothing else makes sense. I'm assuming I'll have to let it decline unless detox will remove it? Maybe once the algae lowers the iron a bit the algae will slow down.

I'm not familiar with that unit so can't really comment on it's effectiveness.

Based on your consumption figures you should be dosing 2-6ml of Core7 a day to maintain, but as growth increases as will the consumption and of course the dose so monitor it closely.

Fe will be consumed by the algae and other inhabitants so as long as the contamination has stopped it will come down. Detox will not work for Fe.