GreenNeedle
Member
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.
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.
) but any mention of a "siesta" is a fools errand ... though, again I don't see the scientific evidence. 
