Explanation by Triton of N-DOC testing

[Mortie31]

Hi All, it appears Triton have emailed customers with an explanation of N-DOC testing and it’s value to us, this may as well be Martian to me, my 1st question is does it make sense and is it worth doing? Also do you feel it is for systems using Algae beds? Wonder what it will imply for those who use carbon dosing and/or PO4 media for there main nutrient export. Thoughts chaps?
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/159b2...c45/Triton_Tech_Paper_TRITON_Ratios_final.pdf
@Lasse @MnFish1 @Randy Holmes-Farley

 

[Dkeller_nc]

Well, my sarcastic response is that it makes perfect sense - for keeping Triton in business.

But it seems mighty bold to define elemental ratios and slap one's company name on them, and then to claim that the company has determined the optimal values of those ratios for a reef tank without any real evidence of how those optimized values were determined.

 

[Lasse]

But it seems mighty bold to define elemental ratios and slap one's company name on them, and then to claim that the company has determined the optimal values of those ratios for a reef tank without any real evidence of how those optimized values were determined.

The whole article explain why and how and they also highlite the source of this (from their article)

At the time of writing the database of analyses draws on 23000 users and >200 000 tests carried out by TRITON Lab representing the largest analytical data set on the behaviour of seawater in closed reef systems ever assembled.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I agree with many of their science assertions, such as Redfield ratio is not an appropriate way to set target levels in a tank. I've never thought was was appropriate. I do not see convincing data that suggests that their ratio is better than a different ratio. It may be true, or not.

 

[Dkeller_nc]

Yeah, that would be the major difficulty. I don't doubt that they have an extensive data set from all of the testing that's taken place in the last 3 or 4 years that the Triton system has become popular, but there's the classic case of "correlation vs. causation" and potential bias in the data set here. Certainly one can average all of that data to come up with a mean value, but an appropriate question would be whether that average represents optimal vs. typical. Moreover, does the "Triton Ratios" that the article describe represent typical (or optimal) values for tanks managed using the Triton system, or for reef tanks as a whole?

 

[Lasse]

Its a way and I think it is more complete than before - and their database is huge. Maybe the first method that highlight the biological issues we see in a reef tank. I assume that their ratio’s is calculated from their database and are evidential – good working reef tanks show ratios like this.

Until today – the only way we have been able to decide if we run the system is short in nitrogen has been to analyse NO3

Are the ratios optimal or typical? - IMO - does not matter at all - as long as they are a better tool than the ones we use today. - Are they that? - I do not know but for me – I can´t argue against their theoretical statements – I agree with them too. I will test and use my own aquaria as an example. I have done one test – just in the beginning – have another one in the pipeline. In my present aquaria – I have nearly 3 years experiences with ICP testing and probably I need as long period as that in order to relate to these NDOC tests.


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Monkeytank]

I just started reading through it and stopped to come here for the condensed version. I knew somebody would start a thread! I'm going to finish reading their document and give it a shot. They have extensive data. I think it would be foolish not to review their findings and add it to my bag of tricks and (limited but always growing) knowledge base. My guess is there is some good information worth considering from this:

"A large number of analyses were made over the course of a year at TRITON Lab using a CHNS elemental analyser (N-DOC) and ICP-OES (ICP) with proprietary modifications by TRITON Lab to improve performance with seawater. Dual sample N-DOC / ICP tests were conducted on seawater samples:
a. submitted from our global TRITON user base.
b. supplied by several Public Aquaria.
c. supplied by project partners Cairns Marine and
Horniman Museum.
At the time of writing the database of analyses draws on 23000 users and >200 000 tests carried out by TRITON Lab representing the largest analytical data set on the behaviour of seawater in closed reef systems ever assembled."

 

[taricha]

P-N-C ratio 1-147-12,400
!!!
That's amazing!

 

[MnFish1]

Seems to me its a bit of a marketing thing with some science behind it - that may or may not be beneficial. Im glad to see that they mentioned that using the Redfield ratio is not appropriate. @Randy Holmes-Farley and @Lasse are much better versed in these things than I . That said I do not think it makes sense to average out values of thousands of aquaria - (with different filtration, inhabitants, etc etc) and try to emulate that 'average'. Maybe I missed it in the article - but I didn't see the mean and standard deviation of the 'ratios'. My guess is there is a reason for that not being displayed (ie. they are quite large). I wonder if all of the samples were taken at the same time of day (doubtful) - and some of these ratios may be affected by time of day etc etc.

I am not a fan of triton (I tend to think chemicals are chemicals) - I think this is another way to sell chemicals and testing.

 

[Monkeytank]

Seems to me its a bit of a marketing thing with some science behind it - that may or may not be beneficial. Im glad to see that they mentioned that using the Redfield ratio is not appropriate. @Randy Holmes-Farley and @Lasse are much better versed in these things than I . That said I do not think it makes sense to average out values of thousands of aquaria - (with different filtration, inhabitants, etc etc) and try to emulate that 'average'. Maybe I missed it in the article - but I didn't see the mean and standard deviation of the 'ratios'. My guess is there is a reason for that not being displayed (ie. they are quite large). I wonder if all of the samples were taken at the same time of day (doubtful) - and some of these ratios may be affected by time of day etc etc.

I am not a fan of triton (I tend to think chemicals are chemicals) - I think this is another way to sell chemicals and testing.

I just finished reading their document and also wondered what process they used to determine what is optimal. It doesn't say they averaged the results, it says "The data were reviewed weekly and matched with biochemical observations from the supplier.". It sounds like they asked the people who were participants in the study what the status of their tanks was and used that to bounce off the values they had tested. That sounds like a ton of work and could certainly be subjective, but the scale of the study is more than large enough to get statistically significant results. Having done masters level research, I hated doing the statistical studies, but I'd like to see their full research for kicks.

Obviously Triton is a company that needs revenue to exist. I'm of the belief they are like the other major players in this industry and strive to produce high quality goods or services while being a viable business. Like you stated chemicals are chemicals, and I tend to buy mine from the cheaper sources I can find. I've been saving a lot of money following Randy's Recipes and input for years! However the testing and research to determine the appropriate values and making recommendations of what levels to use is valuable to me. This was quite an investment for them to make, so they will definitely have to charge appropriately to make a profit from it. I'm completely okay with that. I'm looking forward to seeing reports of whatever results people get from trying this out. I'll be one of them.

 

[Lasse]

P-N-C ratio 1-147-12,400
!!!
That's amazing!

Yes it is - but according to the P-N ratio - I´m not special surprised because macroalgae is known for weird P/N and it is both inorganic and organic P and N in the equation. Remember this is an analyse of the water and the figure 12,400 for C is not especially surprising with an alkalinity around 7 dKH

IMO - this is a new way of thinking because they include both organic and inorganic content in the water. Normally – when we are talking about ratios of N,P and C – we talk about organic substances – not the inorganic substances. As I understand it - the new thing is that they can test organic C and then calculate the inorganic C from the ICP test. This is – as I understand – the first time we can calculate the CO2, HCO3 and CO3 part of the alkalinity better than before.

@MnFish1 - our tanks is biochemical factories and we need to put in chemicals - otherwise many important substances will be depleted. With different tests – we can get an idea of which substances we need to put in and N-DOC can be another usable tool.



Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

@Tim@Triton - any inputs?

 

[taricha]

Thanks Lasse for a more subtle reading. My first take on that ratio was that this hobby really hates algae and loves bacteria.
Agreed that the ability to look into the organic vs inorganic levels of these important elements is pretty exciting.

 

[MnFish1]

I just finished reading their document and also wondered what process they used to determine what is optimal. It doesn't say they averaged the results, it says "The data were reviewed weekly and matched with biochemical observations from the supplier.". It sounds like they asked the people who were participants in the study what the status of their tanks was and used that to bounce off the values they had tested. That sounds like a ton of work and could certainly be subjective, but the scale of the study is more than large enough to get statistically significant results. Having done masters level research, I hated doing the statistical studies, but I'd like to see their full research for kicks.

Obviously Triton is a company that needs revenue to exist. I'm of the belief they are like the other major players in this industry and strive to produce high quality goods or services while being a viable business. Like you stated chemicals are chemicals, and I tend to buy mine from the cheaper sources I can find. I've been saving a lot of money following Randy's Recipes and input for years! However the testing and research to determine the appropriate values and making recommendations of what levels to use is valuable to me. This was quite an investment for them to make, so they will definitely have to charge appropriately to make a profit from it. I'm completely okay with that. I'm looking forward to seeing reports of whatever results people get from trying this out. I'll be one of them.

I have no problem with them making a product or making money.

What you said in the first paragraph is interesting - They still must have had multiple samples - which they would have then averaged. Maybe they only averaged the results from tanks the owners rated 'doing well' or whatever (in order to pick the 'correct' ratio - but there would still be a mean and standard deviation and a range of values. As to whether the scale is large enough to get statistically significant results - we dont know that either - simply because we don't know how they did the testing. I agree it would be nice if they discussed more how they did the study.

Assuming they picked successful tanks and used those to create the ratios - it would be interesting to see what the ratios of the unsuccessful tanks were (i.e. there may be a ratio that successful tanks have - but what's unknown is how important is that ratio - ie how many unsuccessful tanks have the same ratio).

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1 - our tanks is biochemical factories and we need to put in chemicals - otherwise many important substances will be depleted. With different tests – we can get an idea of which substances we need to put in and N-DOC can be another usable tool.

Thats why I said people like you and @Randy Holmes-Farley know a lot more than I - but since I was asked I tried to answer the question. And I assume that people at Triton know a lot more about it than me as well. I personally did not find their article very convincing as to why to do the testing - except its a 'new' thing to do. Ie there was no evidence presented that I read that suggested any tests have been done showing that tanks that are tested do better than tanks that aren't tested.

Of course we have to add chemicals - that said - the problem I have with all of this 'testing and adding' - is that (I thought) that the triton method was designed to avoid the need to do water changes etc - it seems to me that its adding a whole layer of testing and chemicals that I (personally) find tedious (ie more work than water changes). I would rather just have an algae refugium, and do water changes sparingly. (I happen to think the algae refugium is the key to the 'method' as compared to the chemicals themselves).

 

[MnFish1]

Are the ratios optimal or typical? - IMO - does not matter at all - as long as they are a better tool than the ones we use today. - Are they that? - I do not know but for me – I can´t argue against their theoretical statements – I agree with them too. I will test and use my own aquaria as an example. I have done one test – just in the beginning – have another one in the pipeline. In my present aquaria – I have nearly 3 years experiences with ICP testing and probably I need as long period as that in order to relate to these NDOC tests.

I guess the point I would make is that without evidence that this is a better tool than what we have today - why do it. With all of the data that they have - it seems that they could have done a much better job explaining 'why' to do the testing and 'how' they decided on the ratio they used - and what benefits are expected if one follows their recommendations.

If the ratio they are suggesting is found typical (i.e. average tanks) - then chances are that most tanks already have that ratio without doing anything. If its optimal (the ratio) and its shown that reef tanks do better with that ratio - it makes sense. (Or am I wrong)?

 

[Mortie31]

I guess the point I would make is that without evidence that this is a better tool than what we have today - why do it. With all of the data that they have - it seems that they could have done a much better job explaining 'why' to do the testing and 'how' they decided on the ratio they used - and what benefits are expected if one follows their recommendations.

If the ratio they are suggesting is found typical (i.e. average tanks) - then chances are that most tanks already have that ratio without doing anything. If its optimal (the ratio) and its shown that reef tanks do better with that ratio - it makes sense. (Or am I wrong)?

There have been lots of requests on tritons Fb page for more detailed information, I’m surprised like you that with all of this research and thousands of tests that they haven’t bothered to explain it better... it does seem strange to me. I am interested to know how altering these ratios effects my tank, and just why this triton ratio is better for my tank or is it just another set of numbers to chase and spend money on?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Its a way and I think it is more complete than before - and their database is huge. Maybe the first method that highlight the biological issues we see in a reef tank. I assume that their ratio’s is calculated from their database and are evidential – good working reef tanks show ratios like this.

Until today – the only way we have been able to decide if we run the system is short in nitrogen has been to analyse NO3

Are the ratios optimal or typical? - IMO - does not matter at all - as long as they are a better tool than the ones we use today. - Are they that? - I do not know but for me – I can´t argue against their theoretical statements – I agree with them too. I will test and use my own aquaria as an example. I have done one test – just in the beginning – have another one in the pipeline. In my present aquaria – I have nearly 3 years experiences with ICP testing and probably I need as long period as that in order to relate to these NDOC tests.


Sincerely Lasse

I only had time to skim the article, but I didn't see any info on what is best. Because it is present in a reef tank doesn't seem to be ANY justification for it being optimal in a reef tank. If my ratio is far off of their Triton ratio, is there evidence that my ratio is less optimal? What is that evidence?

Even to have correlation (as opposed to causation) I would think one would want to rate a lot of reef tanks for good, bad, etc., then see what ratios are present in them, and finally, whether certain ratios are much more likely to be present in tanks rated as good tanks.

 

[Monkeytank]

What you said in the first paragraph is interesting - They still must have had multiple samples - which they would have then averaged.

Assuming they picked successful tanks and used those to create the ratios - it would be interesting to see what the ratios of the unsuccessful tanks were (i.e. there may be a ratio that successful tanks have - but what's unknown is how important is that ratio - ie how many unsuccessful tanks have the same ratio).

It's not just an averaging of samples. That's an oversimplification The sample size required to get a 99% confidence level with a very tight confidence interval of 1 for a population of 100,000,000 tanks is about 16,500 participants. I don't know how many reef tanks are out there, but they said they had 23,000 participants. They have enough scale to get statistically significant results, if that's what the data shows, but that doesn't mean any results they got are actually statistically significant. To your point though, we don't know enough to determine the value of any of this yet. How they got their sample population matters. If only people with great healthy tanks participated, it would skew the data. It would be great to know what conditions existed in the tanks of the people to the extremes of the ratios; if a certain imbalance made nuisance algae proliferate, if a certain imbalance resulted in no algae but also no coral growth, if any of them aligned with acro RTN or STN, etc...

With 23,000 "users" it would seem there is a good chance someone on Reef2Reef participated. If anybody reading this was a participant, could you give us some idea of the information they requested and you reported?

 

[Dkeller_nc]

I only had time to skim the article, but I didn't see any info on what is best. Because it is present in a reef tank doesn't seem to be ANY justification for it being optimal in a reef tank. If my ratio is far off of their Triton ratio, is there evidence that my ratio is less optimal? What is that evidence?

Even to have correlation (as opposed to causation) I would think one would want to rate a lot of reef tanks for good, bad, etc., then see what ratios are present in them, and finally, whether certain ratios are much more likely to be present in tanks rated as good tanks.

Yep, that's the fundamental objection, and why I question the usefulness of summarizing the data from their database. So far as I'm aware, one does not submit a tank survey with one's Triton water sample. So it would be difficult to get a correlation between water parameters they obtain and "good" results. Even defining what "good" is would be somewhat difficult in the reef tank hobby.

And personally, measuring inorganic carbon vs. organic carbon is singularly unimpressive. The techniques for accurately doing this have been around for many decades. It may be that after a few years of hobbyists doing this (measuring T.O.C.), a correlation may be inferred about how a reef tank looks, how the coral in it grows and other subjective factors with respect to low or high TOC. But at the moment, stating that any particular ratio is preferred (much less "optimal") is highly speculative.