Siestas - Good Or Bad?

[daizeUK]

Initially I thought that siestas were supposed to be good for CO2 absorption in non-injected setups so I had my lights off for a couple of hours after lunch.
 
Now I've read that siestas favour algae and aren't a good idea.  Also plants don't recognise a photoperiod in chunks of less than 4 hours.  The siesta also needs to be at least 3 hours for worthwhile CO2 absorption.  It seems I've messed that up since I had a 2.5 hr siesta followed by 3 hrs of light between 4-7pm.
 
I think I'm going to ditch the siesta entirely and have a longer constant photoperiod and see how it goes.  I'll keep an eye on the algae to see if it gets better or worse!  I'll try 11 hours at 0.8 WPG from 8am-7pm with a 6-7 hour burst with extra lighting at 1.7 WPG.
 
11 hours might sound like a long time but the instructions that came with my tank say that the built-in lights need to be on for 10-12 hours to achieve plant growth (these are 14 watt lights for a 17 gallon tank which work out as 0.8 WPG).
 
Any thoughts?

 

[levahe]

I have no experience of siestas, but I have read quite a few times that it doesnt help with anything so is pointless. As for how long you have your lights on for, I personally would consider starting with a shorter time slowly increasing until I find the limit - when algae appears then back off a bit. I found with mine (60w T8's over 160l) the limit is 8 hours

 

[SLIM]

I have no experience of siestas, but I have read quite a few times that it doesnt help with anything so is pointless. As for how long you have your lights on for, I personally would consider starting with a shorter time slowly increasing until I find the limit - when algae appears then back off a bit. I found with mine (60w T8's over 160l) the limit is 8 hours

Agreed. Good advice

 

[SO19Firearms]

Certainly the "disrupt algae" part of it is balls IMO - But if it's long enough then I don't see why a plant couldn't see it as an accelerated light cycle - If that's the case it's possible that the CO2 ramping (decrease during light - increase during dark) could average out enough to not have algae trigger - as opposed to not having a siesta and the CO2 continue to fall past liebig's minimum for the tank......resulting in algae.
 
All that would only apply to a moderately lit low tech tank tho - If you inject CO2 it's pointless.
(If you inject CO2 and you have algae, you need to sort the problem by cutting out the variables, not increase them by adding in siestas....)

 

[daizeUK]

It makes sense that siestas are a bad idea for CO2 injection, what about liquid carbon supplementation?

 

[SO19Firearms]

Liquid Carbon is useful in a tank for about 12hrs or so before it's used up one way or another - to waste 4 hrs of that by turning off the lights doesn't seem like a good idea TBH - I'd treat it the same as injection and again try to fix the reason for any algae - poor distribution, too much light etc.

 

[SLIM]

Liquid Carbon is useful in a tank for about 12hrs or so before it's used up one way or another - to waste 4 hrs of that by turning off the lights doesn't seem like a good idea TBH - I'd treat it the same as injection and again try to fix the reason for any algae - poor distribution, too much light etc.

+1

 

[daizeUK]

Oh can you tell me what you mean by 'used up one way or the other'?  I assumed that if I didn't have enough plants to use up the carbon it would just accumulate in the tank until a water change.

 

[SLIM]

Oh can you tell me what you mean by 'used up one way or the other'?  I assumed that if I didn't have enough plants to use up the carbon it would just accumulate in the tank until a water change.

No it kinda biodegrades. It stays in the water column of 12hours max

 

[daizeUK]

Ah I didn't know that.  That explains why it has to be added daily.
I don't think the siesta would matter in my case because I add Easycarbo at 8am and the lights are out by 7pm anyway, but for a longer siesta it could be a waste of resources.
Thanks for the help guys!