Excel and water changes

[jlm]

Many see the finished articles which quote that they run 10 hours of light, but they forget to realise at the start that would of been much lower until the aquarium balance is established.

This is an invaluable piece of advice for a newbie, cheers! I am starting with 6 hours a day in two three-hour periods and will take it from there.

The plants finally arrived after 4 days in transit due to the postal strike. Some of the plants are in poor shape and won't survive, but most of them hopefully will, especially the Cabomba, Vallisneria, Wisteria and Java moss which are looking good considering the ordeal they went through.

I inserted the root tabs and have commenced dosing TPN+ at half the standard dose, as recommended.

 

[CeeJay]

Hi jlm.

Sounds like you're on the right tracks .
Personally I would just have one 6 hour photoperiod, because if you've got the balance right, algae won't be a problem anyway, but that's just my preference

Chris

 

[Superman]

Personally I would just have one 6 hour photoperiod, because if you've got the balance right, algae won't be a problem anyway, but that's just my preference

I agree with that too, having the lights in two stints could cause fluctuations in water parameters which aren't good.
But if you're trying to do it when people are in to see the tank, then thats not too much of a problem.

 

[jlm]

Personally I would just have one 6 hour photoperiod, because if you've got the balance right, algae won't be a problem anyway, but that's just my preference

Reason for the two light stints is algae prevention - someone in one of the many forums (can't remember who, sorry) I have been visiting suggested this as a way to discourage algae, I think his/her reasoning had something to do with the algae being quicker to react to any changes on account of them being simpler organisms, therefore reflecting the lack of light sooner which would slow their growth if there is any. Plants would just be happy if the total number of light-hours is right in a 24 hour period, no matter whether in stints or in one single period. Would this make any sense?

 

[Superman]

Having a break in the lights could work like you describe, but it's not something that experts use when setting up a new tank.

In life, I try and have things tending to simplier ways. If I were you, I'd start with a 5-6 hour photo period in one go and see how it goes. I mean, having a break inbetween isn't going to slow down algae growth that much, as soon as it's there it'll grow with or without the break in lighting.

You're much better and keeping things simple than making them over complicated.

 

[jlm]

Ok thanks, I'm inclined to follow your advice, given that it isn't standard procedure to split the light period. I'll stick to one period per day.

On the subject of lighting hours, does it matter if they coincide with the hours of natural light, or can these be ignored when it comes to choosing when to light the aquarium? Theoretically, if natural and aquarium lights do not coincide, the aquarium will be getting more hours of light than needed, although the natural ligtht is soft in winter, in the UK anyway... and can probably be ignored, am I right or am I fussing over nothing?

 

[CeeJay]

Hi jlm

I have my lights on from 4pm till 11pm (7 hours creates more than enough maintenance for me ).
No point in having them on if I'm not at home to look at it .
Plants don't seem to mind. The only thing I will say is that some of my stems tend to lean towards the direction of the natural light and spend the first 2-3 hours of the photoperiod straightening themselves up again
Apart from that, no problems.

Chris

 

[baron von bubba]

Personally I would just have one 6 hour photoperiod, because if you've got the balance right, algae won't be a problem anyway, but that's just my preference

Reason for the two light stints is algae prevention - someone in one of the many forums (can't remember who, sorry) I have been visiting suggested this as a way to discourage algae, I think his/her reasoning had something to do with the algae being quicker to react to any changes on account of them being simpler organisms, therefore reflecting the lack of light sooner which would slow their growth if there is any. Plants would just be happy if the total number of light-hours is right in a 24 hour period, no matter whether in stints or in one single period. Would this make any sense?

even the "dennerlle guide to fascinating aquariums" recommends a lighting break, they do say algae cant adjust as well and it doesnt harm the plants as it simulates a tropical thunder storm or something other similar twaddle.

i think the reason it benefits tho, is because they also recommend running the co2 at lower levels than most on here would.
so i think it would maybe help as the co2 levels could get a chance to get back up.
altho i spose this could also induce BBA, so not totally sure.

i think in a low tech or "liquid carbon" tank it would make little or no difference at all.
altho the only advantage would be just for personal viewing at different times of day.

i recently had lights out for about 5 days because i ran out of CO2, didnt notice a single issue with any plant from this, so i cant see that a couple of hours break would do damage should you want to do it.

 

[ceg4048]

even the "dennerlle guide to fascinating aquariums" recommends a lighting break, they do say algae cant adjust as well and it doesnt harm the plants as it simulates a tropical thunder storm or something other similar twaddle.

I've sent in a request to Dennerle to have their guide renamed "Dennerle Guide to Fantasy Aquariums". I mean, let's have sip of reality juice, shall we? If algae doesn't adjust well, then why is there so much algae in the world? Good grief. In real life the situation is exactly the reverse. Higher plants respond better to stability. Algae respond quickly and thrive under transient conditions.

Cheers,