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

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Ryanbrs After watching this one, couple things: You mention only 3 reasons for doing a water change. I would add two more that I think you missed: maintaining ionic balance and reducing the acidic effect of dissolved organics that will drive down Ph. .

This idea is widely believed, but I think it is not entirely complete in its description of the process.

Degrading organics can add CO2, and added CO2 lowers pH. If that is what you mean, that's perfect. CO2 and carbonate alkalinity together mathematically determine the pH.

But if the carbonate alkalinity is normal, the only other factor in determining pH is the CO2 level in the water. "Acidic substances" do not lower pH in seawater just by being there. They may reduce alkalinity when first added, and some may even mislead aquarists in determining the relationship between total alkalinity and carbonate alkalinity, but they are not lowering pH (unless they degrade to CO2).

 

[Bouncingsoul39]

This idea is widely believed, but I think it is not entirely complete in its description of the process.

Degrading organics can add CO2, and added CO2 lowers pH. If that is what you mean, that's perfect. CO2 and carbonate alkalinity together mathematically determine the pH.

But if the carbonate alkalinity is normal, the only other factor in determining pH is the CO2 level in the water. "Acidic substances" do not lower pH in seawater just by being there. They may reduce alkalinity when first added, and some may even mislead aquarists in determining the relationship between total alkalinity and carbonate alkalinity, but they are not lowering pH (unless they degrade to CO2).

Thanks for the clarification. I've come across many a tanks in the past while doing professional aquarium maintenance with "Old Tank Syndrome" that had severely depressed Ph. I now know that this due to increased CO2 and not actual acidic substances.

 

[Ryanbrs]

@Ryanbrs After watching this one, couple things: You mention only 3 reasons for doing a water change. I would add two more that I think you missed: maintaining ionic balance and reducing the acidic effect of dissolved organics that will drive down Ph. I haven't notice you mention anything about Ph on the 160? Maybe I missed it. I want to add a sixth thing but I'm not aware of any science backing it up but this: people that have been keeping fish for a long time have noticed that after a partial water change the results on the fish is like "a breath of fresh air" for them. I've often noticed that fish perk up and appear more vibrant afterwards.

The next thing I want to point out is that technically speaking, the Triton method is not a zero water change method. Randy Holmes Farley pointed out this fact recently. Those white bottles are full of.....wait for it.....water and you dilute them with more water. Whatever Triton part you are dosing, is top-off water you wouldn't be adding. You are still doing tiny daily water changes. Theoretically, this will result in a long term build of up salts.

Now getting into the value of Triton vs regular partial water changes. I'm not one to run the numbers, but my general impression is that the larger the tank is, the better value you can realize from running Triton instead of water changes. Even then it is debatable after all things considered and really depends on the daily consumption of elements.
What I just realized in your video, you show the contents of the Triton bottle being directly poured into the Apex dosing containers whereas the instructions state to dilute with 9L of RO? Are you guys dosing 40ml of pure solution straight from the bottle on the 160 or 40ml the diluted mixture? Or not even using those Apex reservoirs period on the 160 since they only hold 2L?

Another thing I'd like to mention for discussion is how messy a chaeto refugium is. I haven't seen much mention of that but after having one and seeing how tiny bits of chaeto go everywhere it drove me nuts. I like to keep an immaculately clean sump and display and keeping chaeto out of your return pump strainer and keeping it from going into the display is a whole other issue, that probably requires mechanical filtration at multiple points.

All in all, I'm not at all sold on the Triton method though I do like to learn more about it just to know if it truly is an advancement in the hobby. In my opinion, it is not. It's just a different way to do the same thing we have been doing for a long time. An expensive one to boot. To my eye based on what is seen in the clips the BRS 160 looked 10 times better with Zeo than it does with Triton. Part of that may be due to the shock the system went through and is still recovering from the switch. If money was not an issue, Zeo still seems to be the best method. If money is an issue, carbon dosing with regular small partial water changes + 2 part or Kalk is the way to go.

To your comments about "ughh hauling buckets of water is the worst!" haha, man if you are still hauling buckets you are doing it wrong. There are a number of easy ways to not haul buckets and still do your water changes.

Quite a few questions here but I will do my best : )

I think the ionic balance you are referring to is in relation to increased salinity or related changes from the 4 parts. They suggest skimming wet and letting the ATO replenish with freshwater to account for this. If this doesn't keep up just remove a gallon of water periodically but it shouldn't be often. We will continue the ICP testing and this will give a window into if this an accurate approach or statement.

The Ph ranges between 8.0 and 8.2 on weekdays because there is so much co2 in the building from the 60+ people who work here. On weekends when only a few people are here it ranges between 8.25 and 8.35. I will try and share how that goes with the updates.

I don't think adding the 40 ml of Triton solution a day can be considered a water change because we are not removing a water unless you consider the wet skimming. Even with that, I'm not sure if that gets to the spirit of what a water change means to most reefers.

The Triton core 7 doesn't need to be diluted. I think the version you are referring to is the older base elements version.

I have only had issues with cheato getting out of the fuge when it is first added and there are often lots of tiny bits. Once it grows out into long strands I haven't encountered that. I do understand the desire for a clean looking sump

The tank did look better on Zeo but I think that's related to the change and not Triton. It happened almost immediately and there is no way the tank could respond that way to a few doses of 4 part, it was almost certainly all the system changes.

I am not sold either. I am sold that there is a plausible concept here worth exploring and sharing the progress on. Hopefully watching the progress will be beneficial to answering many of these questions. We strongly suggested this week that reefers don't jump on the bandwagon and wait and see what our long-term results are first.

I agree 100%. The value proposition on KZ and Triton is not lowest available cost, not even close : ) Almost everyone here in the office has had some awesome kalk and two part tanks, there is no disputing the results. As always I think the hobby is looking for advancements in every direction, cheaper, easier, faster, more colorful ... Everyone has different priorities, I think some of the longest and least helpful debates are the result of forgetting all of our priorities are different or trying to convince people to change their priorities.

The buckets comments and goofy scenes we shot are meant to be somewhat humorous but also get to the heart of the chore that's is related to this

 

[MnFish1]

Triton doesn't claim "water changes are useless". Nobody does for that matter. Water changes are necessary to eliminate contaminants that we add to the water, either by food, or bulk dosing elements, or some other form. If you don't have contaminates there is no need to change water. Just because 200 other people on a forum say they do a 10% weekly water change just because. Because it makes them feel good, or someone else told them that's the number doesn't make it the correct amount either. Some claim it's what it takes to eventually change out trace elements. But if you've done any kind of testing you'll see sat mixes all lack trace elements anyway. Compared to natural sea water that is.

Most of the things you mentioned are self regulating. Low nutrients, macro won't grow as fast. I'm yet to see the stuff die too. If it does you are doing something wrong. Sponges won't grow either if the conditions aren't right.

I never said that Triton said water changes are useless. In fact I said its common for Triton to recommend water changes for contaminants. I was making the point that many people here are making the claim that regular water changes are 'useless'. You are placing emphasis on the word 'useless' - Im using it synonymously with 'not required', 'rarely required', 'not needed' if one is using the Triton method. The main rationale that BRS is testing Triton - is that the need for water changes will be eliminated or drastically reduced.

Triton doesn't measure 'all contaminants' - nor does anyone else.

I did not defend doing weekly water changes - I do not do weekly water changes.

 

[TbyZ]

MACNA 2015 Triton workshop day 1 of 3. Presentation by Unique Corals

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...=9o4GgCWqf3g&usg=AOvVaw3YqFksdNo_xqFLI5O1l9Ed

 

[randyBRS]

It R2R FAQ time everyone!

Today, Ryan not only answers questions from @Spotted , @bh750 , @Monkeynaut , @Jason Oldfield , @fishbox , @Joe Grubbs BUT he also shares some changes we've recently made to the BRS160 in terms of flow and lighting!

 

[revhtree]

Great info!

 

[sweat90lx]

Really like the flow rates on the gyres.
I need to try something like that with my jebaos. That program should work if I'm running them off variable speed port and set the lowest setting at 30%.

 

[Roggio]

@Ryanbrs Is like the Steve Irwin of reef tanks; he shares his passion with the world. Instead or saying gorgeous he just says awesome.

 

[Terence]

Great video. One thing maybe Ryan and team can do is save those Gyre settings as Schemes so you can search for them in your Apex Fusion dashboard and simply load them up to use with your gyres. Here is a video on how Schemes work if you are not familiar. These schemes also work for dosing, radions, vortechs, kessils, and more!

 

[Terence]

BTW, I am a recent Triton convert. But I use both the Triton system AND my calcium reactor to help supplement (kind of half and half). Within two weeks I could see a major change in my tank. It was doing good. OK really. But now six weeks later it is amazing the difference. The growth has been at least twice as fast on my acros and zoanthids that had almost completely disappeared are now coming back. Here is a video I took yesterday - no joke some of these corals have grown nearly an inch since I have been using Triton. If you want to read more about my tank and how I am using Triton, there is a link in my signature.

 

[TbyZ]

@Ryanbrs Is like the Steve Irwin of reef tanks;

Crikey mate

 

[Terry DeMott]

can you use the setting on the Gyre for the wav to ?

 

[Terence]

can you use the setting on the Gyre for the wav to ?

No. Schemes only work with the same category of equipment.

The WAV pumps also have a much more feature-rich set of flow options similar to what you get with the Vortech pumps. Pumps like the Gyre and Tunze simply can be made to ramp up and down.

That said, you could easily emulate these same settings with the WAVs and also make the intervals slightly smaller as Ryan was desiring. All you would do is set up one side to have the interval you want, and then select inverse for the opposite side.

Once you create the settings for the WAV, then you could share that with others.

One more benefit of the WAV is that they do not require a separate control interface, pump controllers, or power supplies so it really helps clean up the wires under the cabinet.

 

[SharkbaitMuhaha]

How well does the Triton Method play with Ozone? Can this method still produce crystal clear water even without filter socks or water changes?

 

[fishbox]

It R2R FAQ time everyone!

Today, Ryan not only answers questions from @Spotted , @bh750 , @Monkeynaut , @Jason Oldfield , @fishbox , @Joe Grubbs BUT he also shares some changes we've recently made to the BRS160 in terms of flow and lighting!

My girlfriend is over here cracking up. I just watched the video (before seeing that I was tagged here). I heard my R2R name followed by my question. I lit up with excitement and started hollering... "Babe, Babe, that's me, that's me ... Ryan said my name"!!! [emoji12]

 

[TbyZ]

It R2R FAQ time everyone!

Today, Ryan not only answers questions from @Spotted , @bh750 , @Monkeynaut , @Jason Oldfield , @fishbox , @Joe Grubbs BUT he also shares some changes we've recently made to the BRS160 in terms of flow and lighting!

I don't agree at all with Tritons assumption that algae scrubbers don't remove co2 from the water, only from the air. If they can show any scientific study that came to this conclusion, I'd be eager to read it.

As I understand it there is very little co2 in seawater in any case. It is quickly hydrated & becomes carbonic acid, & then almost instantly converted into bicarbonate.

Figure 1 shows data calculated for all three species as a function of pH in seawater. From this graph, it is clear that if getting carbon dioxide itself is limiting at pH 8.2, it might be more efficient to get it from bicarbonate because so much more is present. In fact, roughly 200 times more bicarbonate than carbon dioxide is present in seawater at pH 8.2. In most reef aquaria the bicarbonate is present at between 2 and 4 mM (millimolar = meq/L), or about 122 to 244 mg/L bicarbonate. For comparison, carbon dioxide is much lower, on the order of 0.01 mM (0.5) mg/L at pH 8.2.

The rate at which carbon dioxide is used by rapidly photosynthesizing organisms is fast enough that organisms can deplete the carbon dioxide in the surrounding seawater faster than it can be replaced by diffusion and other transport mechanisms through the seawater.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-10/rhf/index.php

So I have no doubt that the algae growing on a screen takes up the co2 from the water passing over it, just as a ball of chaeto does in a fuge.

 

[Terence]

So I have no doubt that the algae growing on a screen takes up the co2 from the water passing over it, just as a ball of chaeto does in a fuge.

While that may be true, I still prefer the ease of use of grabbing a two pound chunk of chaeto and chucking it out the door and into my garden to mulch down.

Who wants to open up an algae scrubber, take out a screen, pull off the goop, reassemble it, etc. Also, there is a side benefit of the life that thrives in a big patch of macro - mine is teaming with pods of all sorts, snails, little stars, stomatellas, you name it.

Forget the CO2, just do it because its easier.

 

[TbyZ]

Who wants to open up an algae scrubber, take out a screen, pull off the goop, reassemble it, etc.

I do. Much rather have the algae contained in a scrubber. It takes no effort at all. And not goop; ulva!
You're making it out to be more troublesome than it is in reality. And then there's the design of the scrubber & how the screens are accessed to boot.

Also, there is a side benefit of the life that thrives in a big patch of macro - mine is teaming with pods of all sorts, snails, little stars, stomatellas, you name it.

My scrubber drains into my sump. Heaps of life in there just the same. I can utilise the sump for pods, rock & sponges, etc.

Forget the CO2, just do it because its easier.

Not easier at all in my opinion.

I like the scrubber because the algae that appears on the screen appears naturally, from the system, unlike chaeto for example, where it’s introduced. Many people that start fuges with chaeto end up complaining about other algaes growing instead. This is because that's the algae that takes off naturally when given the chance.

The scrubber screens are harvested weekly, & therefore the amount of algae in the system is controlled.

Triton uses a huge fuge & a lot of chaeto that they leave to grow & grow, & die off. The least amount of algae that can be used to control inorganic nutrients the better because the exudates that algae release can contain sugars that are detrimental to corals. It can promote virulent bacteria & bacteria that can interfere with the functioning of the coral holobiont.
Bigger is not better. Effectiveness is best, & a scrubber provides an optimum environment for growing algae in a much smaller area.


A scrubber really cuts down on the room needed for growing algae, compared to the very large Triton fuge.

 

[Terence]

I do. Much rather have the algae contained in a scrubber. It takes no effort at all. And not goop; ulva!
You're making it out to be more troublesome than it is in reality. And then there's the design of the scrubber & how the screens are accessed to boot.


My scrubber drains into my sump. Heaps of life in there just the same. I can utilise the sump for pods, rock & sponges, etc.


Not easier at all in my opinion.

I like the scrubber because the algae that appears on the screen appears naturally, from the system, unlike chaeto for example, where it’s introduced. Many people that start fuges with chaeto end up complaining about other algaes growing instead. This is because that's the algae that takes off naturally when given the chance.

The scrubber screens are harvested weekly, & therefore the amount of algae in the system is controlled.

Triton uses a huge fuge & a lot of chaeto that they leave to grow & grow, & die off. The least amount of algae that can be used to control inorganic nutrients the better because the exudates that algae release can contain sugars that are detrimental to corals. It can promote virulent bacteria & bacteria that can interfere with the functioning of the coral holobiont.
Bigger is not better. Effectiveness is best, & a scrubber provides an optimum environment for growing algae in a much smaller area.


A scrubber really cuts down on the room needed for growing algae, compared to the very large Triton fuge.

Lots of ways to do things. I have seen what it takes to do the algae scrubber - and I know what I do - grab a handful - chuck it out the door. Not saying it is unbelievably difficult, just more messy and cumbersome for many. '

Also, an algae scrubber requires more power as you have to flow in and out of it plus you have the lights. I know you will say you simply tee off your manifold, but you pay for that flow one way or another.

You are spot on though that if you are super tight for space, an algae scrubber is better than nothing.

As I said, many ways to do nutrient export - and I don't have a personal horse in this race - so scrub refuge away people!