My New Lighting Regimine

[arabballin]

Well, i have a low light 29 gallon planted tank. There is about 1.4 watts per gallon and the plants are all low light,i.e hygrophilia, various swords, java fern, and a few others to come. My problem is that i am not getting any good growth out of them. I put in root tabs and i lightly dose with Excel and i do a 5 hour light on 3 hour off and 5 hour on light routine.

So i decided i needed to do something. The tank came with a 20 watt light hood but i replaced it with a 40 watt light hood. So my idea was, since the 20 watt just sits around, that for a total of 3 hours a day i would throw on the 20 watt next to the 40 watt which would mean i would have 2 watts per gallon just for those 3 hours.

I hope i described that clearly enough.

But what do you all think, should this work or not really?

 

[Kevstir]

i think it could be the 3 hours without lights in the middle that could have something to do with it, mines get 5 on 1 off and 5 on, the plants grow and a no bad rate too

I'm no expert I'm sure someone with better knowledge will be along to help in a wee while

Kev

 

[rsands]

see the Estimative Index pinned topic.

What tube are you using for the 40watt? how deep is the tank?

 

[arabballin]

its two 20 watt tubes and the tank is 18 inches deep.

 

[montyII]

I'm in a similar position, 1.4wpg, no CO2, and nothing was growing well at all. I started dosing Excel daily (according to instructions on the bottle) as a carbon source for the plants, and plants started growing better. I also added Flourish root tabs, and Flourish once a week, which seemed to make a difference.

The general wisdom seems to be that if you go over 2wpg you need CO2. Personally I decided I wanted to keep it simple for now. So I've just started on an Excel/EI light regime that I read on barreport.com - it's worth reading if you get keen.

Oh yeah, I use 5 on, 2 off, 5 on for lights too. One of the boffins on this site said it works.

 

[SuperColey1]

The idea of a lighting 'siesta' is for DIY CO2 where it can be a little inconsistent and hard to keep the levels required.

Therefore the 2 off means the CO2 can build up again before the second lighting period.

With consistent CO2 it makes no difference and most people who are pressurised dont use a siesta.

I wouldve thought in a low light with no CO2 the siesta would be a little pointless too as there is realtively little CO2 to build up. Just what the fish produce and any other natural source.

Andy

 

[montyII]

I hadn't heard the DIY CO2 theory for light siestas before. I thought the siesta was to try to limit algae growth. I started doing it after I read George Farmer's pinned lighting article, as quoted below.

Plants can apparently adapt to a small dark period whereas algae is not so adaptable. Recommended siesta periods can be from 1 hour to 4 hours with a minimum of 4 hours of lighting either side of the siesta. This is a popular method of limiting algae growth and personally of have had great success with it and still run my lighting with a 2 hour siesta, with 5 hours of lighting either side (5 on, 2 off, 5 on). I can assume that the plants recognise that there is 12 hours of light even though the tank actually illuminated for 10 hours.

Now I'm confused! Seem to spend a lot of time confused in this hobby.

 

[JamesC]

Now I'm confused! Seem to spend a lot of time confused in this hobby.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. There are so many different ways and different opinions on how to do planted tanks it can all become a bit overwelming at first.

If you have poor CO2 then a siesta will help as it will build levels back up again. Doing this method will then help prevent algae as there are better CO2 levels. What is wrong is that algae isn't as adaptable as plants regarding siesta's. Algae is a lot more adaptable and siesta's will actually do more harm to the plants than the algae, so if you have a good supply of CO2 then a straight photo period is best, or a sunburst in the middle if you wish.

James

 

[montyII]

Thanks James... (I seem to be hijacking this thread, oops!) Unfortunately I'm a little more confused now.

If you have poor CO2 then a siesta will help as it will build levels back up again.

So if you're not using any CO2 but using Excel this would allow some nauturally occuring CO2 to build back up? Or is that an insignificant amount?

What is wrong is that algae isn't as adaptable as plants regarding siesta's. Algae is a lot more adaptable and siesta's will actually do more harm to the plants than the algae.....,

Sorry, are you saying that the theory that algae isn't as adaptable as plants to siestas is incorrect? So algae is more adaptable?

My brain hurts.

 

[JamesC]

Thanks James... (I seem to be hijacking this thread, oops!) Unfortunately I'm a little more confused now.

If you have poor CO2 then a siesta will help as it will build levels back up again.

So if you're not using any CO2 but using Excel this would allow some nauturally occuring CO2 to build back up? Or is that an insignificant amount?

What is wrong is that algae isn't as adaptable as plants regarding siesta's. Algae is a lot more adaptable and siesta's will actually do more harm to the plants than the algae.....,

Sorry, are you saying that the theory that algae isn't as adaptable as plants to siestas is incorrect? So algae is more adaptable?

My brain hurts.

Mmm, good question about if you're not adding CO2 - not sure to be honest. May or may not make a difference. If you're adding excel then it will be less of a issue. Keeping CO2 levels stable during the photoperiod is the important thing.

Yep, algae adapt quicker to change then plants which is the very reason why stability is so important.


James

 

[montyII]

Righto, thanks James.

Think I'll still stick with my 5-2-5 routine for now though. Maybe I'll try a straight 10hr photo period once everything else in my tank is stable and see what happens.