# Midday lighting pause (siesta) - in tanks without CO2



## TallDragon

Hi.
The topic of having a midday a few hour break in lighting during the midday has been mentioned here a few years ago: http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/mid-day-ciesta.673/
That thread was only discussing tanks with CO2.
What is the situation if I do not plan on having CO2 in my tank? - just maybe liquid carbo?

A reputable company whose name starts with D is distributing little brochures in the stores where I live on topics like Algae and Lighting and it contains the concept of 10 hours per day, with a 2-4 hour break midday "to keep algae in check". Recommend 9-2pm ON, then 2-5pm Off, then 5pm-10pm on again.
Brochure quote: "A high level of light is a strong oxidation factor (highly conducive to algae growth) and needs to be offset by a correspondigly strong reduction factor (no algea growth) .... Algae do not like the midday dark phase. It does not bother plants and fish"

Disregarding the addition ON/Off cycle for the T5 tubes, which may reduce lifetime, what is the current thinking on the topic? - Is there anybody using this timing on their tank?   --- I've read threads where midday 'blasts' were mentioned, but very few, who use this midday siesta.


----------



## pepedopolous

To save Ceg the time, I searched for 'Dennerle siesta'.

http://ukaps.org/forum/threads/what...t-and-what-to-do-now.20421/page-2#post-210384

P


----------



## Sacha

Brace yourselves.


----------



## Vinkenoog1977




----------



## TallDragon

pepedopolous said:


> To save Ceg the time, I searched for 'Dennerle siesta'.
> 
> http://ukaps.org/forum/threads/what...t-and-what-to-do-now.20421/page-2#post-210384
> 
> P


I did not find the particular post informative, nor convincing. I would be curious about the thoughts of people who tried it. At this time - with all due respect - I do not wish to read more of ceg's anti corporation marketing conspiracy theories. I assume there are others on this forum too - ceg is one voice - who can provide their experience.


----------



## pepedopolous

TallDragon said:


> I did not find the particular post informative, nor convincing. I would be curious about the thoughts of people who tried it. At this time - with all due respect - I do not wish to read more of ceg's anti corporation marketing conspiracy theories. I assume there are others on this forum too - ceg is one voice - who can provide their experience.


Yeah, I mean can you actually prove there isn't a flying spaghetti monster just past Venus? Have you actually been there yourself?

P


----------



## TallDragon

pepedopolous said:


> Yeah, I mean can you actually prove there isn't a flying spaghetti monster just past Venus? Have you actually been there yourself?
> P


Dear P. --- this is getting me nowhere. Please, in the spirit of a 'cordial' and 'polite' forum, offer assistance, or do not post in this thread. I think I have the same rights as you to be active in this forum, and become informed. This need not turn into a 'flame' war and bullying.
In another forum many use a midday break with success.


----------



## foxfish

Hi, I would give it a go if I were you as that is probably the best way to fine out for yourself.
The method was very popular in the 80s and to the best of my knowledge nobody caused anny real harm but applying a siesta to the lighting time.
I was one who tried it and to be honest I can't say it made any difference one way or another but we were mostly using low light tanks anyway.


----------



## Dantrasy

I tried it once. I really just wanted a light on the lounge when I woke up in the morning. It was a 3ft low tech, no Co2. I can't say I made a difference to the algae in any way. But I enjoyed having the light come on. Today I have a seedling tray growing hc in the lounge (my wife puts up with a lot) and the photo time is split - 6hr in the morning, 6hrs at night. Again, I do it because I like the light in the morning and in the evening. 

So it's not a bad idea. But it's not a good idea either if your doing it to control algae.


----------



## Julian

Just doesn't seem natural to cut the lights half way in the day, to then turn them back on again. This would never happen in nature, and I can't see how it would cause any benefits to the plant either.


----------



## parotet

I agree with Dantrasy... And it reminds me to the light temperature discussions. At the end it is a matter of personal choice, you may like your tank more or less yellow, you may prefer to see light in your tank when you are at home. The point is that there is no (scientifically) proven benefit of this technique regarding algae control... 
My guess is that a 2 or 3 hours break does not harm your plants but cannot be correlated to any benefit.

Personally I prefer not to compare our tanks with natural conditions (you know, the argument 'this is like or this is not like nature') that is sometimes used to defend or not this and other methods. Our tanks are very far from being 'natural' despite all this publicity of 'nature aquarium, coming back to nature and all this stuff'. I would say they are oversimplified version of nature and highly modified to achieve what we want to see (high diversity and density of plants in a tiny surface, clear water and rustiness environment) and to avoid what we do not want to see but occur in nature (algae, low species diversity, few places really suitable for plant growing, muddy waters, etc.). 

So again, if you want to do this and fits with your timetable or other likings.... Then do it, but UKAPS is a brilliant place to read about myths and it looks like this is another one.

Jordi


----------



## TallDragon

foxfish said:


> Hi, I would give it a go if I were you as that is probably the best way to fine out for yourself.
> The method was very popular in the 80s and to the best of my knowledge nobody caused anny real harm but applying a siesta to the lighting time.
> I was one who tried it and to be honest I can't say it made any difference one way or another but we were mostly using low light tanks anyway.


Thanks for your thoughts. I am a child of the 70s, so low light might be good enough for me, since I cannot yet put in a full CO2 set. I'll try it out. 
Nobody can really tell the difference unless 2 exact same tanks are run in parallel as an experiment.


----------



## TallDragon

Julian said:


> Just doesn't seem natural to cut the lights half way in the day, to then turn them back on again. This would never happen in nature, and I can't see how it would cause any benefits to the plant either.


Thanks Julian for your thoughts.
What is your recipe for an algea free tank?


----------



## TallDragon

parotet said:


> I agree with Dantrasee... And it reminds me to the light temperature discussions. At the end it is a matter of personal choice, you may like your tank more or less yellow, you may prefer to see light in your tank when you are at home. The point is that there is no (scientifically) proven benefit of this technique regarding algae control...
> My guess is that a 2 or 3 hours break does not harm your plants but cannot be correlated to any benefit
> 
> Jordi


Thanks parotet.
On the topic of light temperature, what works for you? What tubes have you tried and were pleased with?


----------



## foxfish

Julian said:


> Just doesn't seem natural to cut the lights half way in the day, to then turn them back on again. This would never happen in nature, and I can't see how it would cause any benefits to the plant either.


 Hi Julian, I believe the theory was based on what happens in nature, dappled light from moving trees, moving clouds, heavy rain, cloudy water etc.
The belief was very few underwater plants receive constant sun...


----------



## parotet

TallDragon said:


> Thanks parotet.
> On the topic of light temperature, what works for you? What tubes have you tried and were pleased with?


Hi TallDragon, I use 2x24w T5 tubes and I have combined different ones: 10.000 K, 6500K and 4500K, even a pinkish one. I get used to what I have  but pink bulbs glowing in your living room are a bit weird
Here's an example http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/how-to-set-up-the-camera-for-testing-aquarium-lights.34296/


----------



## Sacha

Instead of just "trying it out and hoping for the best", don't you want to actually understand the science behind photosynthesis and plant growth? 

If not, then give it a go and hope for the best. If however, you are interested in knowing exactly how plants use light and why a siesta is such a bad idea, read this post: 

http://ukaps.org/forum/threads/ei-calculators.26669/#post-277421


----------



## Sacha

3. Activation of the enzyme is very slow at the beginning of the photoperiod. The RuBisCO in algae is more efficient because algae have a mechanism which concentrates CO2 and holds it, so they respond very quickly to the daylight. This is why siestas are a very bad idea.


----------



## Julian

foxfish said:


> Hi Julian, I believe the theory was based on what happens in nature, dappled light from moving trees, moving clouds, heavy rain, cloudy water etc.
> The belief was very few underwater plants receive constant sun...



I thought it was likely that those were the reasons. But I think all of those conditions are rather spontaneous and not likely to happen every day on a timer.


----------



## parotet

Julian said:


> I think all of those conditions are rather spontaneous and not likely to happen every day on a timer.


As I mentioned in post #11 (sorry it was edited after posting) conditions in our tanks are far from being natural. Even these new (and extremely expensive lights) that can be controlled from a computer to simulate these conditions adding more "natural cycles", I really doubt plants care. IMO this is not a good argument for discussing this issue.

If you want to have a siesta in your tank photoperiod, if you want to simulate a storm, a thunderstorm or whatever... then go ahead. Why not? Your limitation will only be plant's health (in that sense a long siesta won't do any good) and in some cases your wallet. The real point is to know that, as mentioned, there is no reasonable explanation to say it has a benefit for fighting against algae. Therefore it is just a matter of personal choice.

Jordi


----------



## GreenNeedle

I have long laughed at that company beginning with a D and their suggestion of a siesta.  Not for the reasoning behind a siesta, just their reasoning of imitating tropical thunderstorms which is laughable in terms of being anything other than trying to imitate a natural occurrence.

In terms of tanks with pressurised CO2 injection it is of no use at all unless you haven't got the CO2 sorted out properly.

The real reason behind the idea which is nothing to do with D's suggestion is where a setup is struggling to maintain a good level of CO2, mainly thinking DIY CO2 setups where it is not possible to increase or decrease the CO2 by any margin other than massively up or massively down and also where the level of injection will be pretty inconsistent over the timeframe of the fermentation.

In these cases the siesta *may* let the CO2 level rise again in that siesta period.  Whether it has much effect at all is debatable and to be honest I doubt it has much effect if any.  Plants tend to suck in as much as they want in the first few hours of the photoperiod.

You could argue that this would be the same scenario in a 'non CO2' tank but I would suggest not.  There would not be that much use of the extra couple of hours in terms of natural gaseous exchange and if you are running a non CO2 tank then you should really be figuring in the fact you are relying on natural equilibrium to maintain that natural amount of CO2 within the water.

So unfortunately I have to 'side' with Ceg and add my 'one voice' to that side of the argument which incidentally is not an _anti corporation marketing conspiracy theories._  Far from it it is plain and simple an understanding of how the world of marketing works and the artistic licence that goes with marketing.  Dennerle suggesting a siesta works is fine because there is no real evidence other than circumstantial to prove it right or wrong.  It is the artistic licence they apply with their depiction of imitating thunderstorms being beneficial to sell their product in the same way that lighting manufacturers proclaim their full spectrum aquarium light is better than a general household light, market it as such and price it at a premium price.

You really should not dismiss anyone's opinions in such an abrasive way.  You will end up missing out on many facts that are incredibly beneficial if you dismiss those opinions because you think their tone is wrong.  Ignore the tone, ignore your suspicions of their intentions and take in what they say.  Weight what they say against others and come to your own decisions.

For every question you ask on the internet you will get answers from both sides.  They *can *be both right sometimes but not often and if you go into research wanting to find out if you are right and looking for an answer that agrees with your belief you will find it.  Personality should never come into it at all or you will only ever take the views of the polite or the ones that write in a nice way and ignore those that are straight to the point or sharp.


----------



## Another Phil

Hi TallDragon,
My understanding of the siesta period initially was nothing to do with algae control.
I thought it was a way of having more intense light prior to the days of CO2 injection.
 ie. fish produce CO2 overnight, lights come on and CO2 drops as plants use it, then lights off, CO2 builds up until second light period when the plants use it again, allowing either a longer viewing period or more intense light without CO2-depriving your plants.

cheers phil


----------



## ourmanflint

Plants are relatively simple organisms that will continue to grow as long as conditions are right. There is next to no evidence that plants need any rest, they can happily grow 24 hours per day every day providing conditions are right. It just so happens that on our planet they have to endure a daily night cycle. The exception is flowering plants that regulate flowering by reacting to incresing or decreasing photoperiods. Plants do seem to fair better when grown commercially at least, when longer photoperiods at lower light levels rather than high intensity shorter photoperiods.


----------



## pepedopolous

Hi Talldragon,

SuperColey, in post #22 puts it so much better than I can. 'Dead horse' also comes to my mind. There are more obvious and important things to consider if you want a successful planted aquarium.

P


----------



## Tim Harrison

Try this link also http://ukaps.org/forum/threads/split-photoperiod.32744/#post-347905 Best advice is to suck it and see...and it may work for you, and IME it won't do any harm.


----------



## Marcel G

TallDragon, you can find some useful information here, where D.Waldstad explains the main reason for siesta time in non-CO2 tanks. She also gives some proof of this in the form of a chart.


----------



## pepedopolous

Another Phil said:


> Hi TallDragon,
> My understanding of the siesta period initially was nothing to do with algae control.
> I thought it was a way of having more intense light prior to the days of CO2 injection.
> ie. fish produce CO2 overnight, lights come on and CO2 drops as plants use it, then lights off, CO2 builds up until second light period when the plants use it again, allowing either a longer viewing period or more intense light without CO2-depriving your plants.
> 
> cheers phil


Now that actually sounds plausible compared to the Dennerle explanation...

P


----------



## alto

ourmanflint said:


> Plants are relatively simple organisms that will continue to grow as long as conditions are right. *There is next to no evidence that plants need any rest, they can happily grow 24 hours per day every day providing conditions are right.* It just so happens that on our planet they have to endure a daily night cycle. The exception is flowering plants that regulate flowering by reacting to incresing or decreasing photoperiods. Plants do seem to fair better when grown commercially at least, when longer photoperiods at lower light levels rather than high intensity shorter photoperiods.



It's my poor recollection that given a 24h photoperiod, not all plants "grow" constantly ...
I didn't spend much time looking for articles but


> At the end of the experiment, shoot mass and yields of plants grown under a 14-hour photoperiod were equal to or higher than plants under continuous light.





> Furthermore, in some plant species continuous light induces severe injury, which is only poorly understood so far.


(of course the next step is looking for the mutation that will allow

There seems to be an acceptance on this forum that a 3day blackout to control algae is "correct" (I'm still looking for the offered scientrific evidence ... OK not really  ) but any mention of a "siesta" is a fools errand ... though, again I don't see the scientific evidence. 

TallDragon asks questions and that is a good thing, I admire his persistence in the face of the jeering crowd.
While it's great to refer back to previous discussions, why not also engage in further discussion  ... it can't be the aspect of repetition 

I've not done any sort of "experiments" with siesta, I use it sometimes as it suits me to observe the tank at both ends of the day ... sadly I'm not all that great at growing algae with any consistency despite running lights from 7am - 11 pm (or 6pm - 2am), providing none to erratic CO2, & in general being a crap planted tank aquarist.
I prefer slow growth tanks as I'm too inconsistent to be successful otherwise - though perhaps then I would become a mad algae grower  
I've had some awesome successes with algae but only when I've been absent for 2 months so not sure that really counts.

Another Phil offers an intuitive explanation, but it's also quite possible that Dennerle originator had been inspired by daily consistent thunderstorms  (spent 2 weeks in Mexico during the season of sunny morning, clouds by 10am, RAIN, cloud, clearing by 3pm & sunny until evening)


----------



## kirk

This place is getting strange lately, why do people get there posteriors in there hands over such simple topics, we are all different alot of us clowns me included and I injoy reading the odd clever clogs joke along with the serious stuff.  If you don't like Clive's responses or anyone else's big deal. Read the next one.  I'm not having a go by the way there just seems to be alot of it lately.   anyway to the point of my post.  we have chose for a while now to run our sons lowtec tank on a split lighting schedule.  His light comes on at 6.30am to get the boys up lol. Then off at 8.30am before school.  Then back on at 3.30pm until 8.30pm. The reasons for this realy are about saving energy. It works like a bedroom lamp for them when they get up and when they go to bed tank goes out..... Boys it's light out.  They never use the bedroom light so it saves energy.   Also it gives me a fair few hrs of lights off to change water when they are not home, also being lowtec no co2 I prefer to do it with the lights off.   So the benefits are.... They can enjoy the tank when they are home and it saves putting lights on.   we have a fair bit of algae but it's all very natural and all inhabitants seem happy, plants grow well too.  So I would say it's all down to preference.  Our lounge tank is hightech and lights are on at 3.30pm and off at 9.30pm. No pause inbetween. Cheers kirk.


----------



## ourmanflint

Alto -  Like I said flowering plants are an exception, but even then the species negatively affected by continous photoperiods seem to be in the minority. Aquatic plants are on the whole much simpler so I would assume less prone to be damaged by continous light. There have been experiments where duckweed has been grown under 24 hr lighting for over a year without any damage at all
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j150254a004?journalCode=jpchax.2


----------



## alto

My confusion I suppose, but my impression is that many (most?) of the plants used in the aquarium trade do flower, some emersed & some submersed.

In terms of the linked study, I'd like to see a modern day repetition with biochemical analyses 
My understanding is that some plants appear to have no negative response to continuous light (though often the studies are focused on crop production so short term rather than following generations), others have relatively "benign" response, others strongly deleterious - with the majority falling in that middle category where biochemical differences are observed.


----------



## TallDragon

Thanks for the responses. Keep the discussion going, please.


----------



## TallDragon

ardjuna said:


> TallDragon, you can find some useful information here, where D.Waldstad explains the main reason for siesta time in non-CO2 tanks. She also gives some proof of this in the form of a chart.


Thanks for the post. Very interesting reading. As I do not plan to use CO2, this is relevant for me.


----------



## PARAGUAY

Isnt the Dennerle system tuned toward a low tech tank, therefore a break in the photoperiod in the usual high tech  CO2 tank would cause algae.We can replicate nature a little but after all its a glass box we are doing it in.


----------



## GreenNeedle

Most systems are tuned to a low - mid light setup.  They just perpetuate (or don't deny) the high light method to sell lights.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 
I have all my tanks on a 12 hour day, if I have more PAR I just end up with more plants. 

The tanks at home have a split lighting period, coming on from about 06:30 until 11:00 and then from 14:00 until 20:30. The tanks in the lab. don't, and come on at 08:00 and go off at 20:00.  

I've not noticed any difference in plant growth or health. 

I have a slightly different approach to Diana Walstad in that I like a large gas exchange surface. The advantage is that both dissolved oxygen and CO2 levels will be constantly replenished and/or out-gassed. 

Have a look a this thread <""maxing CO2 in low tech..">

cheers Darrel


----------



## TallDragon

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> I have all my tanks on a 12 hour day, if I have more PAR I just end up with more plants.
> 
> The tanks at home have a split lighting period, coming on from about 06:30 until 11:00 and then from 14:00 until 20:30. The tanks in the lab. don't, and come on at 08:00 and go off at 20:00.
> 
> I've not noticed any difference in plant growth or health.
> 
> I have a slightly different approach to Diana Walstad in that I like a large gas exchange surface. The advantage is that both dissolved oxygen and CO2 levels will be constantly replenished and/or out-gassed.
> 
> Have a look a this thread <""maxing CO2 in low tech..">
> 
> cheers Darrel


Darrel, how big is your tank? And how many watts / lumens are you using! I fear that with a 64l tank and a 2x24w T5 lumiere I will not use 12 hours like you. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Oh the fun we've all had discussing these issues in the past, and now we get to share again...it's the forum that just keeps on giving...
I think perhaps Tom Barr sums up the siesta period rather sucintcly here...http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...asurements-in-a-non-co2-enriched-planted-tank
I think also that a combination of Darrel's method, Diana's siesta period and decomposing organic matter in the soil may cover all the bases with regards CO2 in a low-energy tank.


----------



## TallDragon

Troi said:


> Oh the fun we've all had discussing these issues in the past, and now we get to share again...it's the forum that just keeps on giving...
> I think perhaps Tom Barr sums up the siesta period rather sucintcly here...http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...asurements-in-a-non-co2-enriched-planted-tank
> I think also that a combination of Darrel's method, Diana's siesta period and decomposing organic matter in the soil may cover all the bases with regards CO2 in a low-energy tank.


Hi Troi I am glad you are enjoying the open discussion. What is your personal experience trying the midday break?


----------



## Tim Harrison

TallDragon said:


> Darrel, how big is your tank? And how many watts / lumens are you using! I fear that with a 64l tank and a 2x24w T5 lumiere I will not use 12 hours like you. Thanks for the link.


Wow that's some wattage...you may find that half of that and a 6 hr photoperiod will still be too much, at least to start with and without Darrel's massive biomass to soak it all up.


TallDragon said:


> Hi Troi I am glad you are enjoying the open discussion. What is your personal experience trying the midday break?


Well it's like Tom said really...but as I'm too lazy or otherwise too preoccupied to quantify the anecdotal I tend to try and cover all the bases, as suggested above. 
But that's part of the fun experimenting and learning what works not just from success but also from failure...
And to make matters even more complicated what works for one aquarium may not work for another even though you may think you've pretty much replicated all the variables.
Sooo...give it a go and see where the journey takes you, you've certainly got enough here and in the tutorials section to give you a good start.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





TallDragon said:


> Darrel, how big is your tank? And how many watts / lumens are you using! I fear that with a 64l tank and a 2x24w T5 lumiere I will not use 12 hours like you. Thanks for the link.


 I've got 2 that are 60cm x 30 x 38, so similar in size.

The one at home has a 2 x 24W T5 "Hagen Glo" luminaire, and the one at work a 2 x 24W T5 "Eheim" fitting (the old white one), all 6500K lamps. I haven't got a recent FTS shot of the home one, but this gives you a bit of idea.




 

This is the lab tank FTS and from above in this thread <"Water Lettuce......"> and 

 

The smaller tank is at home now, and has an 11W PL2 tube.  At work I now have a "Fishbox 48" from this thread <Replacement lighting..>

 

and the little tank next to it has a 3 x 8W T5 Boyu unit.

cheers Darrel


----------



## TallDragon

Troi said:


> Wow that's some wattage...you may find that half of that and a 6 hr photoperiod will still be too much, at least to start with and without Darrel's massive biomass to soak it all up.
> 
> Well it's like Tom said really...but as I'm too lazy or otherwise too preoccupied to quantify the anecdotal I tend to try and cover all the bases, as suggested above.
> But that's part of the fun experimenting and learning what works not just from success but also from failure...
> And to make matters even more complicated what works for one aquarium may not work for another even though you may think you've pretty much replicated all the variables.
> Sooo...give it a go and see where the journey takes you, you've certainly got enough here and in the tutorials section to give you a good start.



I am getting a used kit. I too am starting to feel that 2x24w is too much. Especially without Co2. I am not surprised prior kit owner did not have luck. Troi, with this tank and a single T5, how many hours would you run the lights for? (filter will be an Eheim 2071, that I will probably need to throttle back.) 
You thoughts?


----------



## Tim Harrison

dw1305 said:


>



You've stolen my cat...






TallDragon said:


> I am getting a used kit. I too am startimg to feel that 2x24w is too much. Especially without Co2. I am not surprised prior kit owner did not have luck. Troi, with this tank and a single T5, how many hours would you run the lights for? (filter will be an Eheim 2071, that I will probably need to throttle back.)
> You thoughts?


The solarium Scruffy the cat is currently modelling is 90l and has 30w of T8 - photoperiod approx 8hrs. One of your T5 tubes suspended a foot or so above the tank with a photoperiod of around 6hrs would be a good place to start.
But you should also take a leaf out of Darrel's book and plant heavily...preferably from the outset, and give some thought to floating and/or emergent plants they will help reduce light intensity too, and greatly improve your chances of success.


----------



## alto

Troi said:


> Oh the fun we've all had discussing these issues in the past, and now we get to share again...it's the forum that just keeps on giving...
> I think perhaps Tom Barr sums up the siesta period rather sucintcly here...http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...asurements-in-a-non-co2-enriched-planted-tank


But that's just a statement - with no supporting data or materials & methods, no link to a published peer reviewed journal ... it's no less discussion than anything else that might be offered here
(again it's intuitive so acceptance is "easy" )


----------



## Tim Harrison

Maybe...but I think it's pretty much self-explanatory and logical, and Tom does provide a ref at the end...although I'm not that bothered that I want to subscribe to TAG back issues to find out


----------



## alto

TD I suspect if you run only one T5 lamp (not sure that will be an option) you will need to be conscious of light distribution & scape/plant accordingly - I'd be inclined to run each lamp alternately if you can manage a system for that ... perhaps add generous amounts of floaters to start as that will filter the light - & everything will be v.e.r.y green 
- perhaps even those green neons (mine were a group of wild caught & absolutely nothing green about that locale)

You can also employ the "dirty glass top method" to limit light transmission (alright you might just use some opaque film).


----------



## TallDragon

Troi said:


> Wow that's some wattage...you may find that half of that and a 6 hr photoperiod will still be too much, at least to start with and without Darrel's massive biomass to soak it all up.


Hi Troi.
Over the weekend I got the tank set up. It is a tank that was running before, and now I bought it all used, and set it up. (see thread on the moving topic)
The tank, with much more biomass, than it has today, was running at 7,5hours every day with 2 x 24 w T5s
Taking your advice, I disconnected the pink plant tube and left in the 6500K tube.
I will try running it 8am-10am, 4h pause, then 2pm-8:30pm. Actually fits in with my lifestyle.
Over the upcoming days what should I look out for.

I think I already have a bit of thread algea and some BBA.
Recommendations ? 
I was given an Easy Carbo bottle that prior owner barely used. Tomorrow morning I think I should start putting in 1ml every other day.

Before




After a 200km move, and rebuild, on the next day.


----------



## pepedopolous

Cut out any BBA-affected growth and/or spot-dose EasyCarbo. Once you have BBA it's difficult to stop it. I had it before and never  managed to fully control it. Now I don't have any (touch wood) possibly due to having a better CO2/light balance.

P


----------



## roadmaster

alto said:


> But that's just a statement - with no supporting data or materials & methods, no link to a published peer reviewed journal ... it's no less discussion than anything else that might be offered here
> (again it's intuitive so acceptance is "easy" )



I believe Tom has done plenty of testing ,tried differing method's at growing aquatic weed's in route to getting his degree.
His post's over some decades,, seem to fairly well explain his expieriment's  and his success and failures.
As for peer reviewed articles,, plenty of his peer's have been able to duplicate his success and proved to themselves all they need to know.
Plenty of peer reviewed crap out there that still suggest's that phosphates/nitrogen cause algae in the aquarium.
If you are so keen to see the afore mentioned supporting materials and or method's you need only roll up your sleeves and get busy producing them.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Looks really good...lighting the tank to suit your lifestyle is fine and I'm sure that whatever the arguments for and against a siesta period it won't do any harm, but it will definitely increase you enjoyment of your tank, and that is the most important consideration after all.
All you can do is follow advice, and keep an eye on things...controlling the lighting and good tank husbandry are perhaps key to success especially in the early stages whilst the tank settles in and becomes biologically stable. A large plant biomass helps a great deal, and it looks like you've made a great start.


----------



## TallDragon

Well, I will move my personal stuff to my new Journal, that you are invited to follow. Thanks to everyone for the advice.
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/two-rocks-balanced-64l-low-tech.36129/
I have chosen to run it with a siesta


----------



## Justal

I've always run my planted tanks with a substantial siesta too. Mainly because when I first set up a tank about 20 years ago it was all the rage, but also so that I can actually see my tanks when I'm in the house. I leave for work at 6:45am and don't get home until about 7:30pm many days so tend to split the day into four as far as the lighting goes. An early short photo period from 6am-10am so that I can see my tank before I leave for work, then lights out all afternoon, before another 4 hours from 5pm-9pm so that I can see it in the evening. 

It may not provide any benefit to the plants or the fish, but both seem OK on it, and it does provide a benefit for me.

Al.


----------



## TallDragon

alto said:


> TD I suspect if you run only one T5 lamp (not sure that will be an option) you will need to be conscious of light distribution & scape/plant accordingly - I'd be inclined to run each lamp alternately if you can manage a system for that ... perhaps add generous amounts of floaters to start as that will filter the light - & everything will be v.e.r.y green
> - perhaps even those green neons (mine were a group of wild caught & absolutely nothing green about that locale)



Hi alto,
My new tank has been ticking away nicely in the past week. I am using a brand new single T5 Giesemann 24W Midday 6500K tube. Very nice and pleasant white light. 7:30-10am then 2:30pm-9pm. I am adding 1.2 ml of EasyCarbo every morning. All is nice and clear: No BBA as in first day, but a bit of thread algea.



dw1305 said:


> Hi all,  I've got 2 that are 60cm x 30 x 38, so similar in size.
> The one at home has a 2 x 24W T5 "Hagen Glo" luminaire, and the one at work a 2 x 24W T5 "Eheim" fitting (the old white one), all 6500K lamps.
> cheers Darrel


I definitely do not have major biomass in the tank at the moment, but that will change eventually. For now 1 x T5 is Ok. I think.


----------



## GreenNeedle

If you are adding Easy Carbo I'm not sure why you are asking about the siesta.  A bit confused by that unless it is just so that the light is one when you are about.


----------



## TallDragon

SuperColey1 said:


> If you are adding Easy Carbo I'm not sure why you are asking about the siesta.  A bit confused by that unless it is just so that the light is one when you are about.


Primary reason for siesta: so tank is lit, when I am about.
Secondary: I read it allows CO2 to recover during midday. Also, no harm, probably.
Reason for EasyCarbo: to keep BBA under control in high flow, but low biomass tank.


----------

