# Many uses Siesta method, but what about TWO Siestas?



## d33pVI (Oct 28, 2015)

I think the standard 4 hours off is what it is because that's how long it takes to reset the CO2 levels. Nothing wrong with experimenting, though.


----------



## randym (Sep 20, 2015)

The siesta period should be at least 4 hours long.

The reason for this is that higher order plants can start growing immediately when the lights go on. Algae can't. It takes awhile to ramp up after the lights go on.

Therefore, a 4-hour siesta gives the plants a headstart on algae when it comes to absorbing nutrients.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

randym said:


> The siesta period should be at least 4 hours long.


not really sure that is necessarily true...


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Diana Walstad believes that a siesta gives the bacteria in the substrate time to replenish some of the CO2 the plants have been using. That is probably right for low light tanks, with natural soil substrates that she uses, but it wouldn't be at all effective if you have more light or use commercial substrate materials. I don't recall how long she says the siesta should be. She makes her recommendations after doing enough testing to verify that her idea is effective, so we can safely assume that the recommendation in her book is a good one.


----------



## randym (Sep 20, 2015)

She recommends at least 4 hours. I assume that means longer would be fine, if that's what fits your schedule.

She also says the total photoperiod should be 12 hours, but many here use a shorter one, with apparent success.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

> Diana Walstad provided a more plausible account for the effect, which had developed a certain mystic metaphysic, by suggesting in The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium (1999) that during the dark period fish respiration replenishes the CO2 that has been diminished by hours of photosynthesis, hopefully of the higher plants. CO2 is the source of carbon for plant growth. Peter Hiscock's Encyclopedia of Aquarium Plants endorses the practice, reporting the thought that after the dark hours "higher" vascular plants are able to recommence photosynthesis faster than algae. This has not been demonstrated.


Point is 4/5/4 is probably as valid as 3/4/3/4 ect...
that said there are factors such as precurser formation ect. that could be time dependent..

and of course CO2 replenishment is pointless in a CO2 injected tank..

http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...pics/4901-split-photo-period-siesta-pros-cons


----------



## p2002 (Nov 25, 2015)

Thank you all for being so supportive! I love this community. You could've easily said "meh your idea is stupid!" but you took my idea seriously and gave lots of good points. 

For reference sake, here's Diana's original thread where she first introduced the concept online.

She provided a chart showing CO2 levels before, during, and after Siesta period.

So while 4 hours would provide the maximum co2 return possible, it seems even a 3 hour siesta has a great benefit. 

So what about a schedule of *3-3-3-3-3?*. According to Diana's chart, a 3 hours Siesta CO2 will replenish 2mg/l of CO2. And roughly in 3 hours of lighting period, plants will use up 2mg/l worth of CO2. So mathematically the optimal breaks would be 3-3-3-3-3.

I'm really curious to see if you guys think there are any downsides to this plan. One downside I see is perhaps certain plants need more than 3 hours blocks (maybe some plant processes just need 5 hours?). 



d33pVI said:


> I think the standard 4 hours off is what it is because that's how long it takes to reset the CO2 levels. Nothing wrong with experimenting, though.


You're right! Thanks for putting me on the right path.



randym said:


> The siesta period should be at least 4 hours long.
> 
> The reason for this is that higher order plants can start growing immediately when the lights go on. Algae can't. It takes awhile to ramp up after the lights go on.
> 
> Therefore, a 4-hour siesta gives the plants a headstart on algae when it comes to absorbing nutrients.


That makes sense thank you! I really appreciate your analysis.



randym said:


> She also says the total photoperiod should be 12 hours, but many here use a shorter one, with apparent success.


Just out of curiosity, is there any particular data or reason she gives for the 12 hour period? Is it just because it is the natural light cycle for plants?



jeffkrol said:


> Point is 4/5/4 is probably as valid as 3/4/3/4 ect...
> that said there are factors such as precurser formation ect. that could be time dependent.


Thanks for giving this idea the benefit of the doubt! It gave me the idea of the 3/3/3/3/3 above.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Ive often wondered what a perpetual 6 on 6 off routine would do, or even a 4 on 4 off, running around the clock.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

burr740 said:


> Ive often wondered what a perpetual 6 on 6 off routine would do, or even a 4 on 4 off, running around the clock.


Unlike a lot of things we toss around here, that can rather easily be tested by a hobbyist. Someone just has to be willing to run 2 identical tanks, with one using the perpetual cycle and the other using the traditional cycle. It would certainly be an interesting thing to try.


----------



## p2002 (Nov 25, 2015)

burr740 said:


> Ive often wondered what a perpetual 6 on 6 off routine would do, or even a 4 on 4 off, running around the clock.





Hoppy said:


> Unlike a lot of things we toss around here, that can rather easily be tested by a hobbyist. Someone just has to be willing to run 2 identical tanks, with one using the perpetual cycle and the other using the traditional cycle. It would certainly be an interesting thing to try.


All right guys. When I win the lottery (not if, but WHEN), I promise to set up a institute where we do nothing but test out theories like this!


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

My daughter pushed me to participate in H&R Block's little contest to win $1000. She said it would be an easy one for me to win. So, I entered. Last week she won $1000 in the contest. My notification for winning will probably arrive this week. I spent 6 months last year entering the Pub Clearing House contests, knowing I would win $5000 per week, but that notification is still pending. I may join you in starting that institute next month. Look for a good building for us to use.


----------

