Siesta Lightning Time
Anyone have heard of lightning the aquarium with plants in Siesta mode? I read an article on this guy that he switch on the lights at 9am off at 1pm on again at 5pm and off at 10pm this way he says that algae hates it. Did anyone tried it yet?
Also I have a 60 litre with 15W T8 Lightning on for 10 hours per day. (if it will be right I will change to 9am-1pm and 5pm-10pm) I have low light plants such as moss, crypts and anubias. I am going to add co2 gas and was thinking of 1 bubble per 5 seconds. As nutrients if i get the Seachem Flourish Tabs would it be enough or should I also give weekly Seachem Flourish? Also they have Flourish Iron, Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorus. Should I give any of these? As gravel i have Seachem Black Sand.
There has been much debate over the "siesta" timing system for plants in a tank. I personally tried it, and didn't see a huge difference. I run my lights for 10 hours a day and have been sucessful doing just that. I do not have a CO2 system nor do I have a bubble wand.
I would advise using flourish along with your root tabs and that will be all the fertilizing you'll need. I wouldn't pick up any of the other fertilizers as the comprehensive will be all you need for the plants listed.
seriously he can set the timer that way? i cant even get my timer to work right
I read the same article.That guy did the heavily aquascaped "gardens" in a high tech set-up.When you add CO2 you will also have to add more light and more ferts to keep everything in balance.In a low-tech set-up if everything is in balance you won't have algae problems and a siesta time isn't necessary.
Right now i only have that little algae on the glass which is normal i think. If i add the 1 bubble per 5 seconds co2 do you think that i will start encountering aglae? Or I will help the plants to flourish more?
Two different issues are being discussed in this thread. First is the siesta light question, second involves the effect of CO2.
On the CO2 first. What makes you think you need it? There is quite a lot of CO2 occurring naturally in a planted aquarium. We tend to think of fish producing the CO2, but the fact is that more CO2 comes from the bacteria in the substrate, filter, everywhere than from the fish. And I am not meaning only the nitrification bacteria, there is a huge array of bacteria in the substrate.
There has to be a balance between light and nutrients, and the nutrients themselves have to be in balance for what plants require. Increasing one, like carbon (CO2) is going to tip the existing balance (assuming there is one, I don't know the state of your aquarium) and mean increasing other components to re-establish a new balance. And the higher the additives, the more something can go wrong to bring it all down.
As for the light siesta, this is generally believed to have some impact on algae. But here again, messing with photo periods is going to have some effect on the fish and the plants. No one has yet assessed the impact on fish. The authors who endorse this method believe plants are not affected. I am not convinced.
This method of a mid-day siesta was raised on a plant forum by Diana Walstad as beneficial. Tom Barr's response was that it was unlikely to be worth anything. I agree with his assessment that if algae is a problem, you have too much light for the nutrients. That is easily resolved, and without possible risk to fish and plants.
Natural planted tanks are supposed to be just that--natural, using nature rather than paraphernalia to do the work.
Ok thanks Byron, so your opinion is to introduce seachem flourish tablets, seachem flourish but i do not introduce the co2?
The tank has been running for about 9 months. I have a Juwel Rekord 600. 60 litres tank with 15 W T8 on for 10 hours a day. Seachem Black Sand gravel. I have 2 kribensis in it.
There really is a lot of CO2 in an aquarium. I had my 33g setup as plants only (growing out daughter swords, etc) with no fish in it, and Flourish once a week. The plants remained healthy and grew, actually somewhat to my surprise since no fish would means little CO2 I had thought, but obviously not. There was always detritus in the substrate (in spite of no fish, no fish foods) so obviously bacteria breaking it down provided CO2.
Right now I had to cut all the plants because they where melting because of the summer heat. The plants i have are almost all crypts.
For CO2 i think i would be better off buying a co2 test and go from there right?
No mention is made of fish in this tank, but fish produce CO2. And bacteria in the substrate (the aerobic bacteria that colonizes the substrate in planted tanks, not just meaning the nitrification bacteria) actually produces more CO2 than the fish, unless you are way overstocked. You will find it will be adequate for the plants if the light is kept minimal. And weekly liquid ferts. Adding CO2 will mean increasing these as well to balance. Plants grow according to the "law of minimum"--the first requirement (be it light or a nutrient) that is not adequate will determine the point at which photosynthesis cannot continue. This should always be light, or algae takes over.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.