"siesta" Lighting Period

[flix_cw]

My planted tank is a 28L low-tech setup with ~1.5 WpG. I have the lights on for 10 hours a day, and have recently introduced a 2hr lights off period in the middle to try to curb a thread algae problem in my java moss i can't get rid of.

I started dosing with Seachem Flourish Excel last week and i must admit, the algae doesn't seem to be taking hold as much. Will this be down to the seachem or siesta? Or is it multi-factorial?

Being a student i'm home a fair bit, and it's nice to have the tank lights on, so my heart always sinks when those lights go off for a bit .

So, is it necessary?

 

[kaivalagi]

Maybe add some dim blue LEDs into the mix? That way you'll still get to see your fish without bright lights being on for 10 hours

Not being an expert on algae I would say that both the 2 hour outage and the ferts have helped, both are talked about as remedies for algae I think

You could always try a black out for a few days, that might curb the algae based on what I've seen posted here before now.

I run my lighting for 7 hours and use Flourish and I still have a slight hair algae problem, in my case I think I need better window blinds for blocking out the bright sunshine in the middle of the day.

 

[Truck]

the 2 hour Siesta benefits one organism...Algae, it doesn't prevent or kill algae, it actually gives it favourable conditions, algae is the most adaptive organism out of the two and will respond almost immediately to light, whereas with plants, it is about 3-4 hours before they're fully photosynthesising.

Please Id the algae:

http/www.theplantedtank.co.uk/algae.htm

 

[fishyfeet]

I was told the break in lighting would help too, i have bba, and the blanket weed i think sometime hard to identify as it look like hair algae as well. Ive added more plants and tried a nitrazorb and phoszorb in the filter, seems to have helped. di

 

[RadaR]

Truck is correct. This method was only used years and years ago when we couldn't keep the CO2 levels high enough. However now we can thanks to pressurized.

tried nitrazorb and phoszorb in the filter,

Is your tank planted? If so, why on earth have you done that? Plants need N+P in order to grow and maintain a healthy structure. Exess amounts of N+P do not cause algae anyway. BBA is strictly CO2 related.

 

[fishyfeet]

Whats the advice for people with co2 then, apart from add some co2, di

 

[RadaR]

Whats the advice for people with co2 then, apart from add some co2, di

Use a drop checker filled with 4dkh solution and bromo blue reagent. Place this around the tank to get an idea of the CO2 levels in the tank.
Either increase the injection rate and/or improve the flow distribution/strength. A good guide is to have 10x the amount of flow per volume of your tank. E.g. 100litre tank, you would want 1000 litres per hour of flow. Lily pipes and spray bars are good at distrubitng the flow. If the filter isn't large enough, then powerheads can be used like Koralias.

 

[lljdma06]

Truck is correct. This method was only used years and years ago when we couldn't keep the CO2 levels high enough. However now we can thanks to pressurized.

tried nitrazorb and phoszorb in the filter,

Is your tank planted? If so, why on earth have you done that? Plants need N+P in order to grow and maintain a healthy structure. Exess amounts of N+P do not cause algae anyway. BBA is strictly CO2 related.

You can also keep CO2 levels high enough on small tanks with fermentation. It need not always be pressurized CO2. As long as a dropchecker is present, CO2 levels can be well-monitored.

No siesta is also currently advocated for non-CO2 methods so I also keep a smaller photo-period. We are almost the same, except I change my tank water much less often (to keep CO2 levels stable) and do less overall work. Go me! If the plant mass is small, reduce your photo period to between 4-6 hours. If your plant mass is large and you have many stems, then the maximum of 8 hours can be implemented. My guess is that the dosing of Excel is beginning to have an effect,which is good. You should still look at the wonderful website linked to you and try to get a proper idea. For some algae, CO2 is the culprit, for others, small ammonia spikes.

It is very well possible that someone told the OP to go lean. This, while not being practiced here often anymore, is still being advocated in many shops and other forums. Same people that insist that you cannot grow anything with less than 2WPG. I'll tell you, 5 years ago, the planted guy at my LFS in Illinois almost had a cow when I was starting EI because I was adding the nutrients in excess. We argued quite heatedly. I showed him pictures of my 15g and he was quiet really fast.

llj

 

[fishyfeet]

Sorry i meant tank without co2, i have no co2 but have a huge planted tank without no problems i have a smaller tank that i have these algae issues, they both have an external fluval 3 with a diffuser which would make the smaller tank have a much better water turnover rate than the big one, yet the big one has no algae whatsoever.

large tank 50 gal filtered with ex fluval 3, heavily planted same light tubes
small tank 25 gal as above, planted, not so heavily as plants die or have algae on them same light tubes as above only smaller obviously, both fluval tanks so lighting is appropiate.

so if co2 is the cause why dont i have the same issues with the larger tank. di

 

[lljdma06]

Sorry i meant tank without co2, i have no co2 but have a huge planted tank without no problems i have a smaller tank that i have these algae issues, they both have an external fluval 3 with a diffuser which would make the smaller tank have a much better water turnover rate than the big one, yet the big one has no algae whatsoever.

large tank 50 gal filtered with ex fluval 3, heavily planted same light tubes
small tank 25 gal as above, planted, not so heavily as plants die or have algae on them same light tubes as above only smaller obviously, both fluval tanks so lighting is appropiate.

so if co2 is the cause why dont i have the same issues with the larger tank. di

What is the specific wattage on the bulbs?

What is the maintenance regimen on both tanks? It still holds true with planted tanks as with any other type of system. The larger the system, the inherently more stable it is. Larger tanks take more time to manifest problems. That is why they are so good for beginners. You have more time to deal with a problem and are less likely to be overun as one would be with a smaller system. I'm just offering a suggestion.

llj

 

[flix_cw]

Thanks for the flood of replies!

I think i'll take the siesta period out then, judging by what people have been saying, and reduce the overall lighting to 8hrs.

I recently changed my UGF outlet to a spraybar too, so flow is more evenly distributed throughout the tank.

The closest culprit to the page you gave me, Truck, is the staghorn or cladophora. It's tricky. Here's a similar page where i believe the hair/thread algae fits the bill. http/www.guitarfish.org/algae .

Here's a pic of my moss before i removed ALL the threads (chore!) and reattached it all to the rock, added seachem and changed to a spray bar:

 

[Teephphah]

I'm baffled to hear that the "siesta" period is something that "only benefits algae" and was used "years and years ago" when I've only been trying to kill live plants in my tank for about a year and a half now, and I know for a fact that I learned about the "siesta" period on this very forum sometime within that very same year and a half time period.

How "common" is this knowledge supposed to be at this point and/or are we just making these things up as we go now?

 

[Dave Spencer]

I'm baffled to hear that the "siesta" period is something that "only benefits algae" and was used "years and years ago" when I've only been trying to kill live plants in my tank for about a year and a half now, and I know for a fact that I learned about the "siesta" period on this very forum sometime within that very same year and a half time period.

How "common" is this knowledge supposed to be at this point and/or are we just making these things up as we go now?

"People with DIY (yeast based CO2) were the ones that benefitted from this method.

People using pressurised CO2 have never needed to have the midday siesta.

CO2 tanks generally have higher light levels than non CO2, as the light levels are the primary driver for plant growth. At around 2WPG of the very vague WPG rule, CO2 is essential in order to prevent plant deficiencies rapidly surfacing in a fast growing environment. Once a healthy plant becomes nutrient deficient, it will start to leach ammonia in to the water column.

This is why plants, arguably the best anti algae device available, actually become infested in algae, due to localised high levels of ammonia. This implies, to me, that ammonia is an algae trigger. Make CO2 a limiting nutrient in a high light planted tank and BBA and staghorn algae are virtually guaranteed visitors, clinging to leaf edges. Plants take their cue from low CO2, and start to transfer their efforts in to manufacturing RuBisCo for fixing the carbon from CO2. In a high CO2 environment, plants will not produce RuBisCo to the same levels, and just use what CO2 is readily available to them, whether it be gaseous (preferred form), or aqueous. Plants in elevated CO2 environments concentrate their energies on food production and storage, rather than use valuable resources on uptake enzymes. Once the plants are no longer growing, and producing RuBisCo, ammonia can leach across the cell walls as carbon becomes limiting, and algae now takes this as a cue to bloom.

My belief is that DIY methods are far less efficient at delivering CO2 to the water column, and increased photosynthesis during the photo period depletes the CO2 levels, making it a limiting nutrient to plant growth. Having the light siesta during the photoperiod halts the photosynthesis before CO2 depletion, allowing the CO2 to build back up again to non limiting levels for the next time the lights come on.

The method for diffusing DIY CO2 could possibly alleviate the need to run the siesta. Many people with DIY CO2 use Hagen ladders, and the like, for CO2 diffusion. A better method would be to use a ceramic diffuser, with the filter outlet blowing the resultant micro bubbles around the tank. These bubbles become trapped among the plants, and under leaves, making the CO2 available to them in their preferred gaseous form. I have always had more pearling from this method than any other ie ladders, inline CO2 reactors, diffusing in to the filter suction.

The siesta is, therefore, suggesting that CO2 levels are too low to run a full, uninetrrupted photoperiod. Algae is the first to respond to the lights coming on (pearling being a good indication of this), but the benefits of not depleting the CO2 to the point of it becoming a limiting nutrient, and allowing the levels to recover during the siesta outweigh this.


In conclusion, I would say that the siesta could be beneficial to some people using DIY CO2, but all they are doing is showing that they do not have enough CO2. Its potential to prevent algae is a bonus, but it is the CO2 levels that need addressing. To eradicate the need for the siesta, drive down CO2 requirements by reducing lighting, improve diffusion/water movement or go pressurised."

Quoting myself from a post on this forum two years ago.

Dave.

 

[lljdma06]

I'm baffled to hear that the "siesta" period is something that "only benefits algae" and was used "years and years ago" when I've only been trying to kill live plants in my tank for about a year and a half now, and I know for a fact that I learned about the "siesta" period on this very forum sometime within that very same year and a half time period.

How "common" is this knowledge supposed to be at this point and/or are we just making these things up as we go now?

"People with DIY (yeast based CO2) were the ones that benefitted from this method.

People using pressurised CO2 have never needed to have the midday siesta.

CO2 tanks generally have higher light levels than non CO2, as the light levels are the primary driver for plant growth. At around 2WPG of the very vague WPG rule, CO2 is essential in order to prevent plant deficiencies rapidly surfacing in a fast growing environment. Once a healthy plant becomes nutrient deficient, it will start to leach ammonia in to the water column.

This is why plants, arguably the best anti algae device available, actually become infested in algae, due to localised high levels of ammonia. This implies, to me, that ammonia is an algae trigger. Make CO2 a limiting nutrient in a high light planted tank and BBA and staghorn algae are virtually guaranteed visitors, clinging to leaf edges. Plants take their cue from low CO2, and start to transfer their efforts in to manufacturing RuBisCo for fixing the carbon from CO2. In a high CO2 environment, plants will not produce RuBisCo to the same levels, and just use what CO2 is readily available to them, whether it be gaseous (preferred form), or aqueous. Plants in elevated CO2 environments concentrate their energies on food production and storage, rather than use valuable resources on uptake enzymes. Once the plants are no longer growing, and producing RuBisCo, ammonia can leach across the cell walls as carbon becomes limiting, and algae now takes this as a cue to bloom.

My belief is that DIY methods are far less efficient at delivering CO2 to the water column, and increased photosynthesis during the photo period depletes the CO2 levels, making it a limiting nutrient to plant growth. Having the light siesta during the photoperiod halts the photosynthesis before CO2 depletion, allowing the CO2 to build back up again to non limiting levels for the next time the lights come on.

The method for diffusing DIY CO2 could possibly alleviate the need to run the siesta. Many people with DIY CO2 use Hagen ladders, and the like, for CO2 diffusion. A better method would be to use a ceramic diffuser, with the filter outlet blowing the resultant micro bubbles around the tank. These bubbles become trapped among the plants, and under leaves, making the CO2 available to them in their preferred gaseous form. I have always had more pearling from this method than any other ie ladders, inline CO2 reactors, diffusing in to the filter suction.

The siesta is, therefore, suggesting that CO2 levels are too low to run a full, uninetrrupted photoperiod. Algae is the first to respond to the lights coming on (pearling being a good indication of this), but the benefits of not depleting the CO2 to the point of it becoming a limiting nutrient, and allowing the levels to recover during the siesta outweigh this.


In conclusion, I would say that the siesta could be beneficial to some people using DIY CO2, but all they are doing is showing that they do not have enough CO2. Its potential to prevent algae is a bonus, but it is the CO2 levels that need addressing. To eradicate the need for the siesta, drive down CO2 requirements by reducing lighting, improve diffusion/water movement or go pressurised."

Quoting myself from a post on this forum two years ago.

Dave.

Beat me to it, Dave. Was teaching a voice lesson and had saved that very quote onto my clipboard.

Seriously, as Dave said, I use a rhinox 1000 diffusor in conjuction with my Nutrafin canisters. I get far-improved dispersal of CO2. Add the dropchecker to measure the levels and good water circulation, I achieve very good CO2 levels that are stable. Granted, I would not do this in a larger tank, but for a tank less than 10g, it's perfectly fine.

The thing about forums, is that you'll get different information from different members. One person can be practicing a technique for years, the other for only a couple of months. I'm still getting posts about needing at least 2WPG to have a good planted tank. I know, based on own my experience, that that is not always the case, but other types of information are still lurking about. Not to say that the 2WPG+ crowd couldn't grow plants, they could, they just had to do a lot more than I ever did. Heating cable people are still lurking about, they grow plants too. Lean nutrient people still lurk as well.

The point is that the poster takes the information that they get and comes to their own conclusions.

llj

 

[Teephphah]

I'm baffled to hear that the "siesta" period is something that "only benefits algae" and was used "years and years ago" when I've only been trying to kill live plants in my tank for about a year and a half now, and I know for a fact that I learned about the "siesta" period on this very forum sometime within that very same year and a half time period.

How "common" is this knowledge supposed to be at this point and/or are we just making these things up as we go now?

"People with DIY (yeast based CO2) were the ones that benefitted from this method.

People using pressurised CO2 have never needed to have the midday siesta.

CO2 tanks generally have higher light levels than non CO2, as the light levels are the primary driver for plant growth. At around 2WPG of the very vague WPG rule, CO2 is essential in order to prevent plant deficiencies rapidly surfacing in a fast growing environment. Once a healthy plant becomes nutrient deficient, it will start to leach ammonia in to the water column.

This is why plants, arguably the best anti algae device available, actually become infested in algae, due to localised high levels of ammonia. This implies, to me, that ammonia is an algae trigger. Make CO2 a limiting nutrient in a high light planted tank and BBA and staghorn algae are virtually guaranteed visitors, clinging to leaf edges. Plants take their cue from low CO2, and start to transfer their efforts in to manufacturing RuBisCo for fixing the carbon from CO2. In a high CO2 environment, plants will not produce RuBisCo to the same levels, and just use what CO2 is readily available to them, whether it be gaseous (preferred form), or aqueous. Plants in elevated CO2 environments concentrate their energies on food production and storage, rather than use valuable resources on uptake enzymes. Once the plants are no longer growing, and producing RuBisCo, ammonia can leach across the cell walls as carbon becomes limiting, and algae now takes this as a cue to bloom.

My belief is that DIY methods are far less efficient at delivering CO2 to the water column, and increased photosynthesis during the photo period depletes the CO2 levels, making it a limiting nutrient to plant growth. Having the light siesta during the photoperiod halts the photosynthesis before CO2 depletion, allowing the CO2 to build back up again to non limiting levels for the next time the lights come on.

The method for diffusing DIY CO2 could possibly alleviate the need to run the siesta. Many people with DIY CO2 use Hagen ladders, and the like, for CO2 diffusion. A better method would be to use a ceramic diffuser, with the filter outlet blowing the resultant micro bubbles around the tank. These bubbles become trapped among the plants, and under leaves, making the CO2 available to them in their preferred gaseous form. I have always had more pearling from this method than any other ie ladders, inline CO2 reactors, diffusing in to the filter suction.

The siesta is, therefore, suggesting that CO2 levels are too low to run a full, uninetrrupted photoperiod. Algae is the first to respond to the lights coming on (pearling being a good indication of this), but the benefits of not depleting the CO2 to the point of it becoming a limiting nutrient, and allowing the levels to recover during the siesta outweigh this.


In conclusion, I would say that the siesta could be beneficial to some people using DIY CO2, but all they are doing is showing that they do not have enough CO2. Its potential to prevent algae is a bonus, but it is the CO2 levels that need addressing. To eradicate the need for the siesta, drive down CO2 requirements by reducing lighting, improve diffusion/water movement or go pressurised."

Quoting myself from a post on this forum two years ago.

Dave.

"I see," said the blind man.

Seriously . . .wow.

Thank you?

I feel like I should be paying you for at least one academic credit hour or something. And, after reading your response (and even daring to think I may have grasped certain portions of it, however tenuously), not ONLY have I gained a better understanding of the "when," "why" and "how" a siesta period may or may not be helpful to live aquarium plants, but I also think I know why I probably skimmed over and/or dismissed whatever "poo-poo-ing" of the practice that I may have encountered previously - the fact that I run what you might call an ultra-low-tech set-up. I don't even have a DIY fermentation carbon injection system so obviously my Co2 levels are low. I don't practice EI dosing. I'm the n00b-est of the n00bs. So, naturally I probably tuned right out when the grown-ups were talking about the lack of need for a siesta period.

I apologize for my ignorance.

But again, thanks for sharing the info!