# "Siesta" period: who does this?



## DBridges (Sep 22, 2009)

Just curious who here still does a "siesta" period in their lighting schedule. I've traditionally done it, but I'm not too sure how much of a difference it's made where algae is concerned.

Is there very much science out there to back it up?

David


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

I do it, but only for personal convenience.

I want my lights on at 8am and 10pm. But running the lights 14 hours a day is a bit much and a recipe for algae. I inserted a 2 hour siesta to get the total "on" time down to 12 hours, which seems to be working well, although I've only been doing this for a bit over 3 weeks.

I personally don't think that 6 on, 2 off, 6 on, 10 off is really any different algae-wise than 12 on, 12 off. It seems to me that the extent it adversely affects algae, it should also adversely affect plants. Of course, others more experienced than I may beg to differ.


----------



## AquaAurora (Jul 10, 2013)

I do it jsut because there are times of the day me or my husbnad aren't around to view the tanks, and instead of the lights being on when no ones in the room to enjoy it, and too ark when we are, we have a broken up lighting scheduled.
4.5 hours on, 4.5 off, 2-2.5 on, then night time/long off time.
Unfortunately I am battling hair algae in my husbands 12g long, but its because it gets too much indirect light from my 7gcube putting one end of his tank at high light instead of medium.. and it has vals so excel bombing is out, and otos so no peroxide treatment either (seems to kill them), and too nervous to use co2.. afraid of gassing his fish. I want to have my cube where he can see it too but I might have to move it to the other side of my desk :/


----------



## AGUILAR3 (Jun 22, 2013)

I did it to combat a small algae issue I was having then realized it did absolutely nothing. I Googled "Siesta Aquarium" and found out that its been talked about for years and years. I kept the "siesta" on 2 of my tanks so my sons and I could enjoy them at our convenience.

_



To do any cause of effective control test with algae, you must first induce algae growth and then do any treatment.

This way you have the same starting point and relative place to compare treatments and rep's.

This is very basic stuff, but few hobbyists seem to have any idea about how to go about it, since most just want to the algae to go away and really do not care about why it is there in the first place.

They might even care, however, not enough to induce the algae and then research treatment methods.

And that is really the bottom line why so many myths, issues and really lack of knowledge about algae.

As far as I know, myself and a few others are the only people that have looked at specific cause. I've never met a single hobbyists that has done any real test for inducement.

Think about it, if you know what starts an algae bloom, then you know the cause specifically. Then you can prevent it and prevent new growth occurrence.
This concept is lost on many. Some would rather claim PO4 causes algae and carry on like wind bags without doing anything to answer the real question.

Yack yack and no work, no test, they just are "smart". I'm not so smart and know it, so I have to use methods to make sure what I do and what I conclude is well founded and is reasonable.

That's why I start at the same place when comparing treatments to a specific species of algae. Not doing so, not acknowledging this etc....you make yourself look foolish to anyone that's done any testing with algae. The Do Nothings really have no opus to say anything about algae cause.

I do not make good friends with Do nothings, but that's tough.
That's their problem. Show me a test, show me how the method/test results you use supports the question you ask.

Then do the test and repeat it a few times, under a few different conditions, treatments etc. Let us know you gave things some consideration and the problems you found a long the way.

Speculation is fun, but does not answer the question.
*IME and IMO, siesta does little and only reduces the CO2 demand for a bit to help the plants, thus is a indirect effect, one that does not address/answer the root cause: why you have algae in the first place.*

Then if you address the root cause, then go back and test the siesta, now we see if has no effect. We induce the algae again, and it still does not...........

So the results are fairly clear to me.
The rest of the folks, and a horde of me too's hop on board and act like a mob.........

I've seen this 100X at least over the years.
20-30x on this one subject
And still the myth is continued.
Does not matter what results or what I say, the myth will keep going.


Regards,
Tom Barr

Click to expand...

_


----------



## DBridges (Sep 22, 2009)

Thanks for the replies. I'm going to skip it this next go around. I'll be setting up a new aquarium in November, and not doing the siesta will simplify how I program my new LED light. I suspect I won't miss the siesta.

David


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

DBridges said:


> Just curious who here still does a "siesta" period in their lighting schedule. I've traditionally done it, but I'm not too sure how much of a difference it's made where algae is concerned.
> 
> Is there very much science out there to back it up?
> 
> David


I doubt there's any science involved. As far as I know a siesta is a time of reduced photosynthesis, not complete stoppage. In many tropical regions cloudy conditions occur because of storms in the afternoon and plants reduce their processes in accordance.
I suspect those that have algae problems do so for reasons other than the variable of light I suspect. In all my history the only times I had algae do to light was when I was using a 175w metal halide light on a 45 gal. square tank. The algae only occurred on plants near the waters surface. So what caused the algae? Was it the overall PAR or was there specific wavelength output that favored the particular algae? I had hair algae once. Hair algae likes _oligotrophic water _I think. Black Beard algae, inconsistent carbon supply. People should state if their tanks are heavily or lightly stocked with plants. Right now and most of the time I use natural light to run the tank. no algae. There was once posted a photo of a tank here run solely by natural direct sunlight with no algae. Everyone has opinions.


----------



## lochaber (Jan 23, 2012)

I do it, but it's more for convenience/aesthetics, so the tanks are on more when I'm around (morning and evening/night), and less for optimizing the tank or whatever.

Aside from that, Walstad has a bit in her book where a siesta can allow CO2 levels to recover, but this is only for low-tech tanks.


----------

