Brighter light = shorter photo-periods?

WPG?

That's their advice?

Can you see an issue with like..........as in immediately?
Is WPG the best metric to measure light????

You cannot even suggest or argue any of this without having some comparable units.
I would suggest that if the units are comparable(which they are not above), then the relative growth total's per day would be close.
But is that the goal?

Why run things shorter photo peroids when you add more light?
In other words, why are you adding higher light to begin with?
Why do you add high light? => The question and the advice should START there.

So why do we add high light?
Well, faster rates of growth, when you stop adding high light, there's no growth, same as if you add low light and then stop.
The rates of growth are different, but the total will be the same.

I'm not so sure that the goal when people add high light??????????
Most add more light for faster and more total growth, not to have the same amount of growth they do with less less.

That's dumb.
Just use 1/2 the light and get to see the fish/plants for 12 hours.

That way you get far more light use efficiency, over the same time peroid and with less equipment. Also, there's much less demand for nutrients/CO2 during that time frame than trying to cram it all into 6 hours.
Why not add 6w/gal and cram it all into 4 hours? Or 8w/gal and in 2-3?

I use 1.5-2w/gal as T5/PC and use 8-10 hour ranges, or put in real comparable terms, about 40-50micromols at the sediemnt evenly sporead throughout the tank.
PAR factors all the other issues like Reflectors, bulb efficiency types etc.

High light is NOT Expert level either, high light does not impart any experience or wisdom, I'd say the oppositite actually.
Lack of wisdom.

All my tanks would fall under the low light range according to that.
A much better understanding about light and it's effect on growth is Tropica's article, they did not use wpg, they used PAR, but converted it to lumens, but you can convert it back and forth in their case for that experiment since they started with PAR.

More light does not mean better and most cases, it means worse. A real expert would tell you this.
Measuring ADA's tanks and other top scapes, including the highest ranked one in the USA, was the same as my own tanks. The ADA tanks had 3w/gal, sometimes more...... but identical PAR and evenness.

I see little utility in shorter photoperiods vs using less wattages, more effective reflectors and lighting types like T5's.
For all the pissing and moaning I see about water changes, dosing just enough, the min amoutns etc....... and CO2 issues, algae etc, not to mention fish health due to CO2 issues at higher light wattages/PAR, it's much easier to simple get the same growth with a longer time frame per day, over the course of a month, you still end up with the same total growth, so why try and pack it all into a small time space?

You gain nothing and waste/impose more hardship for labor and your aquarium plants/risk more algae and stress the fish more.
This assumes they can even measure light to begin with, rather than merely guessing and wasting excess light and higher electric bills, more algae etc.
Ignorance, speculation and guessing vs confirmation via measurement.

I'll let you decide from here.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

Well, you have the drive the rest of things at a higher rates/cram more into a shorter window in doing so.
This is fine, but.you end up losing/wasting light energy, adding more heat, add more CO2/nutrient stress over a shorter time frame.

I do not think that is wise approach and tells folks that more light is somehow better, more expert than something else.
Nor does it measure the PAR.......

I do not think many have found much difference between split times.
I do not like it, I can see my fish when the lights are off, or just adjust the lights for the evening.
You could also run most oif the lights, then leave one on a bit longer.

I'd not bother, just set the lights for the evening when you are around more(or wheer that is for the most time).

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

I've found no evidence the split times help anything. But they do not seem to harm either............you can try it and see.
I've not done much regarding the veg growth, flowering and tuber production, how plants respond to shorter days etc, I have.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

Well, the faster things go, the less efficient and the more likely something will go wrong.

With this specifically in mind...........and given you add the same energy over say 10 hour vs say 6, why not use 10 hours?
You gain nothing over the total 24 hour period and simply makes things more difficult.
I'm not clear what goal this would achieve in forcing shorter and more intense burst.

There's some MET rate issues to account for, they have limits. So do you. Do you like to sleep all day and night, then do extreme workouts for 6 hours, burning say 3000-4000 calories?
Vs say slow normal walking for 2-3 hours, other simple activity, and being up for 12 hours actively? Then get a good nights 10-12 hour sleep?

Same sort of thing, aquatic plants are best geared to about 8-12 hours of light.


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

This is highly dependent on which species we are talking about.
And these studies where NOT done on the aquatic species we typically keep.

Most use 10 hours of light on average. Some use 12, a few might use 8.
I use 8-10, but also use low light, I get plenty of growth and tight dense growth.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

Perhaps there's a better analogy

Anyway, the metabolism rates are much faster/harder and less efficient at higher levels of light/temp etc.
I can burn say 3000 calories in 2 hours by climbing fast with a pack up a mountain.
I can also burn this same amount of calories in 8 hours by walking easily.

I'll be trashed and recovery will long, I'll have far more chance for something to go wrong, sprained, pulled, twisted, broken, cramps etc..........at higher intensity.
Same is true for the Car analogy:
Faster I go, say 60mph vs say 20mph.

60mph for 2 hours vs 20mph for 6 hours.
Same distance, I still get there in the same day. If anything goes wrong, at the slower rate, the damage will be much less.
Also, you get much bette gas miliage at 20mph.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

Yes, the plants will use the CO2 for about 6-8 hours.
After that, nope, you are feeding the algae.
You can see most species close up their tips after 7-8 hours.

They are done after that.

Still, why drive real high light for 4-6 hours vs say 8-9 at lower intensity?
What are you gaining? This is more prone to algae and drives the CO2/demand much faster over a smaller time frame.

Internodal spacing is driven much much more by CO2(a lack) and there's a lot of experimental and plant molecular evidence to support this.
Plants basically starved for CO2/low O2 will try and get to the surface asap!!!!
Most any aquatic species does this via the Ethylene mediated pathway.
How plants do this is interesting. Several papers by Jackson discuss and review this.

This is why I have such dense growth even with low light that cough cough...........I've actually measured with a light meter rather than just guessing and speculating what the light might or might not be.
I've never understood how some can critique EI as guess work but then give a free pass to measuring light.

Without actually measuring it, it may or may not be high/low/med light etc.
Since they have no way to quantification, it's really a HUGE MASSIVE GUESS with error up to 300-400%.
EI at least has some user control over the error rate, lighting has none.


Regards,
Tom Barr