No Lights for 3 Days Every Couple of Months Works Wonders!

[John Kelly]

Originally posted by drummereef
.......

Originally posted by outy
...........

It is obvious from what you all are advising that you haven't read any of the thread.

[TriniStylez]

Growing up in the Caribbean, I know first hand how often we would get huge storms and no sun for days. I used to snorkel in a local reef with my dad on sunny and cloudy days. The corals, as I remember, on cloudy days were closed up a bit and dull, like our tanks might get without light. I also know that on the island Im from its local knowledge that THE BEST diving/snorkeling is after a storm...always the prettiest colors!

Anyways, I have just finished trying this out and it worked great! No I do not know the long term effects on a tank but no one does when a new idea comes along! Someone has to give it a shot and this one does not seem to be very risky at all. What I do know is that I have no more Cyano and a bunch of happy corals, which opened right up as soon as the regular lighting period began again. I wouldn't say they look better but certainly no worse. The tank as a whole looks WAY better!

I will keep this up each month I think.

[Aquabucket]

Did a bit more research and found this interesting article about bacterioplankton and sunlight.

Here some quotes from the article:

"Aquatic bacterioplankton has been shown to be sensitive to sunlight radiation, especially to the shortest-wavelength fraction of UV radiation. Solar UV radiation (UVR, 290 to 400 nm) causes cellular damage on different cell targets, including nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids, which may end up in mutations, cell inactivation, and death. Because bacteria are considered to be too small to develop efficient photoprotection against UVR and their genetic material comprises a significant portion of their cellular volume, bacteria are probably among the most susceptible group to photodamage within the plankton."

"Solar UVR has the potential to negatively affect bacterioplankton in environments such as the surface layers of the open ocean, where diurnal stratification of the water column is common (13), or in highly transparent shallow coastal areas"

There have also been some experiments with starving photosynthetic corals of light by C. M. Young and A G Nicholls.

C. M. Yonge 1931 ~ The effect of starvation in light and in darkness on the relationship between corals and zooxanthellae. Scientific Reports of the Great Barrier Reef Expedition 1928-29. Vol I no 7:

"Corals kept in the dark but fed lost a high percentage of their zooxanthellae (colourless to the eye) but survived until the end of the experiment ( 228 days). Variable according to species."

C. M. Yonge and A. G. Nicholls 1931 The structure, distribution and physiology of the zooxanthellae. Scentific Reports of the Great Barrier Reef Expedition 1928-29. Vol I no 6:

They constructed a light tight box on the reef flat through which the seawater could flow. After 152 days many of the species contained very few zooxanthellae but were otherwise in good condition. Their conclusion in this respect was "without any doubt that individual reef-building corals at any rate can flourish without contained zooxanthellae."

Their evidence seems to point to an ability to survive without zooxanthellae if a source of food is available, and presuming the stress which caused the zooxanthellae loss does not persist or at least does not have a directly deleterious effect on the coral host itself.

[outy]

well there mr john k

i not only have read it, ive tried it gave my kudos to the original poster for a good idea and moved on. simulating nature is not rocket science lol. even if it did nothing more then save electricity for 3 days... its still a positive for that alone.

i have not dwelled on it dumped on it or been sarcastic

[Criminal#58369]

I have a question, i have done this a few days ago and it cleared up my algae problem, now i don't feel like reading threw the rest of the pages, but do you have a fuge? Do you leave the fuge light on for the 3 streight days, because i read the reverse photo period is also used to keep ph up when the display lights is out any comments are welcome.

[jnb]

I vote leave it on

Originally posted by Criminal#58369
I have a question, i have done this a few days ago and it cleared up my algae problem, now i don't feel like reading threw the rest of the pages, but do you have a fuge? Do you leave the fuge light on for the 3 streight days, because i read the reverse photo period is also used to keep ph up when the display lights is out any comments are welcome.

[kslick]

From what I undestand people are leaving their lights on over the fuge or just leaving the lights on their normal cycle.

[kslick]

and I agree 100%, the worst we could be doing with our tanks is at least we are helping with global warming and saving electrcity, by turning our lights of for three days.

[zeusfc]

It's more than just lights... my chiller hasn't cut in for 3 days!

I've also just done my second 3-day blackout, and taken the opportunity to introduce a couple of new fish while everyone is disorientated!

and another thing... my alcyonium has new branches that DEFINITELY weren't there on monday!

[Coderabit2]

I tried this out and had good results like I've read in the thread, but I found my fungia doing something interesting in the middle of it.

[michaeltwana]

I just have a couple questions or comments about this "method"--even though it really is not a "method"--it doesn't really make sense to me as to why one would really do this. But maybe someone can clarify this too

1. It has been claimed that "good results" have occurred--What are the results? What are the qualifiable results? What are the measurable results?

2. "my tank has never looked better" is not a measurable result. If you turn off the tank for two to three days no wonder it looks great, you haven't seen it lit up for three days.

3. What is your experimental method? If you say that "I did this and my tank looks great and clear" that is not one.

One would be better off with programmable dimmers for ones lights--

One also would benefit from more short and long term being patient, not over feeding, and following tight controls...


Let me know what the answers to these are please...thanks.

[RobbyG]

michaeltwana

1) The good results are Algae reduction/elimination

2) Nope the water looking cleaner is not just from "not seeing the tank a few days". Many of us have left our tanks to go on vacation etc. This is not the same thing, the water is Crystal Clear in a very noticeable way.

3) One would benefit more from not over feeding etc. but this is more about dealing with an existing problem of algae growth.

[drummereef]

Originally posted by John Kelly
With that, I am finished.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were "finished".....

[RobbyG]

Originally posted by John Kelly

I have asked multiple questions in this thread and I don't remember any of them being a point of discussion. Instead, I get "isn't there a way to get rid of him?", or the question gets completely ignored altogether. That's a real productive discussion. Actually, there isn't much of a "discussion" here it at all.

John it's not what your saying, it's how your saying it.
You sound very hostile and personal towards Aquabucket, almost like he is playing in your personal sand box. I don't think that is your intent, but it certainly does not help warm people up to your posts.
I think you have many valid points, yes this all may end up being starving corals responding to a bit of much needed light, I feel pretty certain that most peoples long term Algae problems are not going to be solved by this, but there is noticeable changes happening that seem to be beneficial. In my case my Acropora has been growing at a stellar rate since I tried this, my question is why. These are the kind of things I hope this thread reveals over time.

[michaeltwana]

Robby G--
1) "The good results are Algae reduction/elimination"

How are measuring this? How are the results being tested? Is this a long term test that has tested results?
Lets say that the algae is dying off after three days--which I doubt--how are you measuring their populations?What is happening to the dying populations? How are you removing them from the tank?

2) "the water is Crystal Clear in a very noticeable way."

Is that not the same thing? If not, why? Why is your water " Crystal Clear" and how are your measuring this so called clarity? How can one prove to me that this "method's" methods are such
so that I can achieve the same "Crystal Clear" water that you have?

3) Your algae growth is not because of light is it? Have all the
other factors been eliminated from your study that in fact lead
you to believe that this is the only factor that you need to study?

Some clarification would be nice of your scientific methods please...

What is your hypothesis in this study RG?

[Abynum1]

My results: (I don't know how one would measure them,but here they are again)
All cyano gone,has not returned AT ALL.
Hair algae gone by 80% (guess)
Hard to tell how much would have came back because my LMB has been able to keep it mowed down since.
The water and sand looks way cleaner after the period.
No this is not because I haven't seen it in 3 days,I know what my tank looked like 3 days ago,I've sat there and watched enough,I should know.
I only have softies but they were all extended when the lights came back on with no noticeable negative side effects.
Take in consideration that my tank is not even 3 months old so some of the problems that were "corrected" such as the cyano and hair algae may have just been due to the new tank and may have been on their way out to begin with which may explain why they haven't come back.
I had my fuge (w/macro) lighted the entire time and did a big water change afterwards.
Regardless, I honestly can't see the harm that this would cause if you're only doing it for 3 days every few months.

Does anyone honestly believe that the corals in the wild don't have periods of darkness or near darkness?
They definitely don't have the lights popping on and off at the same time every day like they do in our tanks.
I taught SCUBA for years and traveled all over the world doing so.
I can remember days in Tahiti when I would have to take my dive light down with me to shine on the fish just so that the guests could see all the pretty colors.
This would be at midday! and would go on for 3 or 4 days at a time!
At 40 feet down you could barely tell one color from the other and could hardly see 25 ft in front of you on these days compared to normal days with close to 200ft of visibility.
Now granted,these periods of bad weather were rare and more or less only came around for guess what:about "3 days every couple of months or so!!!"
Imagine that!
Some times the poor weather would last a week, some times only a day,but if you took the average, it would be very close to what we are doing here.
It doesn't always look like it does in the brochures,trust me.

Now I admit it was never completely dark during these days of bad weather, but my tank was not completely dark during my "treatment" either. I had plenty of ambient light during the day and had the TV at night.

I believe that anyone who thinks we are doing harm here has greatly underestimated mother nature.

Mother nature never intended for any creature to have ideal living conditions 24/7. If she did,we wouldn't't have storms,droughts,natural disasters and the like.
All we are doing here is mixing it up a little like nature intended.
Granted,we are probably not doing it exactly like mother nature does,but I promise she didn't intend for the corals to get their light on a exact timed schedule every single day either!
Geez, if the people who are against this are so worried,then why did they ever get an aquarium??
Guess what,I don't care how perfect you say you're tank is, it's NEVER going to completely mimic mother nature!!
You want measurable and qualifiable results as if you are challanging us.
I tell you what,bring us some measurable and qualifiable results that proves we are doing more harm then good.
If you can,I promise I'll never do the lights out again!

In the meantime, all we can do is experiment and learn like we are trying to do here.
If no one ever did,then this hobby would have never progressed to where it's at today.

[melev]

Originally posted by michaeltwana
How are measuring this? How are the results being tested? Is this a long term test that has tested results?
Lets say that the algae is dying off after three days--which I doubt--how are you measuring their populations?What is happening to the dying populations? How are you removing them from the tank?

Visually, you can see if you have more or less algae in the tank after the 3 day period. Especially slime algae, cyano bacteria, and the algae sheen that is on the glass each day. After 3 days, all four walls of my tank were totally clean as if I'd just used the cleaning magnet. And that included areas where I would normally not have access due to LR or corals.

As the algae dies off, it breaks down somewhat. While I didn't think it through at first, on day 3 my skimmer pulled out almost double what it did the day before.

All the tips of the SPS that were affected with algae growth (brownish slime or cyano) were completely devoid of that. The white tips were showing. Which btw isn't necessarily a good thing as the tips should be healthy with tissue but once algae kills the tip, you need to prune anyway. At least this was stopped and I could trim those tips without spreading the bits of algae throughout the rockwork.

For at least the last 6 months, I've had a brown film algae on the glass that takes over the glass daily. I'm not sure how that started or why it persisted, but after the 3 days of darkness, I finally saw that familiar green film beginning to appear on the glass within a couple of days. I'd really prefer the green over the brown, so my theory is that the brown stuff outcompetes the green film and the darkness weakened it enough for the green to return.

My guess is the brown is the early stages of dinoflagellates that never quite take off in my tank. I do feed too much though, so that is probably a fuel source.

Is that not the same thing? If not, why? Why is your water " Crystal Clear" and how are your measuring this so called clarity? How can one prove to me that this "method's" methods are such
so that I can achieve the same "Crystal Clear" water that you have?

You can see the improved clarity especially if you look from the end of the tank. If you are unsure of the difference, take a picture before the 3 day period, then again the day the lights are turned on again. Compare the two. I can tell what my tank looks like as I see it daily and if the water looks somewhat opaque or greenish, I know it is time to change the carbon. I also could tell after three days that the water was more clear than it was prior to darkened period.

With better water clarity, the lights will penetrate further with greater PAR. The corals may finally be getting much more light and could be one of the reasons they polyp out so much compared to before. Or maybe the nuisance algae and/or bacteria have been a 'screen' that prevents the corals from getting their full benefit. Once that has been reduced, the corals can stretch out and take everything in under seemingly better conditions.

[michaeltwana]

"Take in consideration that my tank is not even 3 months old so some of the problems that were "corrected" such as the cyano and hair algae may have just been due to the new tank and may have been on their way out to begin with which may explain why they haven't come back."ABYNUM

DING DING DING...I think we have a winner!

"In the meantime, all we can do is experiment and learn like we are trying to do here."

The problem with this is that it is not an experiment at all...

"Guess what,I don't care how perfect you say you're tank is, it's NEVER going to completely mimic mother nature!!
You want measurable and qualifiable results as if you are challanging us.
I tell you what,bring us some measurable and qualifiable results that proves we are doing more harm then good.
If you can,I promise I'll never do the lights out again!"

I don't really have to prove anything, do I? I am not claiming anything here, am I? I am just wondering by what means are you measuring your results. If you say, "my water looks great", that is not really saying much at all...

This method just has no real measurable results that can be tested and/or studied...I am just asking for data, true results with methods that can be duplicated and tested for accuracy. Thats it really...

Do you have anything? Again what are your results? What is it that you are doing that has a meaningful consequence in it's theory?

This is no more than an notion with an observation no more no less...unless you can say otherwise. Which I will agree with once I see the data.

[pledosophy]

Just saw this thread, didn't know it was a secret. I have been doing this on my tanks for years. Cyano will die after three days of no light. Algae problems especially hair algae and bryopsis are also reduced. IMO part of this could be because they are not receiving the light to grow and the clean up crews are still eating them.

My skimmer does pull out more during the dark periods also.

I do have a refugium that I keep lit during the process to help with pH and macro growth.

I have never experienced any negative affects from doing this.

JME, HTH

[Abynum1]

pledosophy,do you do a water change afterwards? If so,how much?
Also, what type of corals do you keep?
Thanks for the input, it's nice to hear from someone that has been doing this for years, very reassuring.

[RobbyG]

John I guess your questions where answered by Melev and Abynum1.
In regards to your seemingly strict scientific methodology, I don't think your going to get those kind of answers in a thread like this, that is way beyond the scope of the one man one tank observations that are taking place here.

[michaeltwana]

MELEV--Your answers don't really address the issue that this is not really anything more than a notion. That is all I am saying. Your answers make sense, but why are they happening?

You might see a drop in algae, but what are these so called "purifications" that are taking place? I have not seen any listed or anything measured.

[michaeltwana]

"that is way beyond the scope of the one man one tank observations that are taking place here."

that is exactly the problem...

a single tank and not multiples where methods and results can be accomplished.

[melev]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by michaeltwana
This method just has no real measurable results that can be tested and/or studied...I am just asking for data, true results with methods that can be duplicated and tested for accuracy. Thats it really...

Do you have anything? Again what are your results? What is it that you are doing that has a meaningful consequence in it's theory?

This is no more than an notion with an observation no more no less...unless you can say otherwise. Which I will agree with once I see the data.

Since we are hobbyists and not scientists, we probably don't go to the extremes you seem to be seeking. While it would be nice to know exactly why this is working, odds are most people don't really crave those details; they would like to know if it will help their tank look better and any associated risks.

As a comparison, many would like to know what the best salt is. No matter how many studies are performed, the debate rages on. Even the most recent study resulted in the one question being asked: "Which salt was the best?" and people began to purchase based on the answer(s) they read. All the while there were an abundance of posts debating how the study was done and how the results weren't accurate enough. I'm glad that club tried to do a salt study as we really don't have enough hobbyists trying to establish important baseline studies.

[michaeltwana]

Melev--I am glad your not a scientist..your too nice of a guy...serious.

lots of love....