Are Lights Necesary

[-SPB-]

Are lights necesary, I've got an algae problem and am putting my lights on to a minimum. God knows what algae it is, i've posted on here about it but with minimum responses, so i'm gonna go for the trial and error route.

So, my first port of call is minimum light with a med (anti hair algae). Hair algae is self diagnosis.

My question is, does light affect the fish health wise.

 

[rdd1952]

If you can get a good photo of the algae, Im sure someone can ID it for you. In answer to your question, it depends on whether you have live plants or not. If not, then no, you don't ever need lights except to view your fish. I'm sure the fish would much prefer not to have the lights on. If you have live plans though, you need light for them to grow.

Here is a pretty good site with photos of most algae that may help you ID it.

 

[Puffdaddy]

No, you don't have to have lights, unless you got live plants in your tank. Your fish will be alright with no lights on at all. You can try wrapping a large blanket around the tank, so no light gets in what so ever. Leave it there for about 3-4 days (no peeking). And don't feed the fish for this period of time (the fish will be ok for 3-4 days with no food). This is called the "blackout" method.

 

[Bignose]

rdd, puff, you guys are wrong. Fish do need light, it is essential for their long-term health. Just like people, fish need Vitamin D, and also just like people, most of their Vitamin D is self-made, and light is a key part of the synthesis of Vitamin D. It is produced photochemically in the skin.

Vitamin D is very important, it helps regulate the calcium and phosphorus levels in the blood by promoting their adsorption through food through the intestines. Vitamin D also promotes bone formation and is essential in keeping bones strong -- if you don't get enough Vitamin D people get a disease known as rickets. I don't know what fish-rickets are, but I do know it cannot be good.

So, in summary, fish do have to get significant light. They need the light to make sure that they are getting their essential vitamins.

Now, if you want to do a blackout for several days, that it ok. A few days without light is fine, but you cannot leave the fish in the dark long-term. And room lighting/windows usually aren't enough unless the lights are right near the tank or right near the window.

 

[GuppyDude]

You are correct Bignose, but provided his tank is not in his basement, enough light should be available during the day to give the fish atleast a little light. And im guessing his tank is somwhere with natural lighting, as his alge sounds like it might be a little out of control. If you have enough room in your tank Sam, you could try adding a trio of otto catfish, they're only and inch long max, and can really put away alge in a heartbeat.

 

[chibi]

The blackout method really works. Wrap your tank in newspaper or a trash bag for about 3 days. Turn the lights off. Afterwards, open it up and behold! Clean tank!

 

[rdd1952]

rdd, puff, you guys are wrong. Fish do need light, it is essential for their long-term health. Just like people, fish need Vitamin D, and also just like people, most of their Vitamin D is self-made, and light is a key part of the synthesis of Vitamin D. It is produced photochemically in the skin.

Maybe what I said wasn't clear. I know they need light. But I would think they should get enough ambient light just from the lights in the room and the sunlight (even if not in direct sunlight). I guess it really depends on where the tank is located though and how long the rooms lights are on. I know that mine get a lot of light even though they aren't in direct sunlight but both the 29 and 75 gallon are within 5' of a window. Actually the 29 gallon is within 3" (the edge of it touches the window jamb) but still no direct sunlight. And the lights in the room the tanks are in are probably on at least 10 hours a day.

Edit: Before buying an algae eater, I would determine what type algae it is as different fish eat different types of algae and nothing that I've ever heard of will eat the dreaded BGA.

 

[Tolak]

Well, I hate to contradict Bignose; I know he will come back with some published scientific paper refuting my experiences. I realize that a long-term blackout will deprive fish of necessary nutrients, especially vitamin D. I also know one of the tricks to getting half black angels to color up properly is in the light & dark periods in a 24 hour day. I think what is more in question is how much & what kind of light.

Here is a picture of the far end of my fishroom;

In the back, towards the left, there are a pair of 20's above a 55. The 20's are lit by a 40-watt incandescent bulb, that I will often keep dimmed half way during the day. They house a couple of breeding pairs of angels, who do really well. The furthest tank held a pair of apistogramma cacadouides about a year ago, they bred as well. It is commonly accepted that breeding fish are happy, healthy fish. The same 40w bulb lights the black 150-gallon tub you can see peeking in the pic on the right. The 55 on the bottom has an 18" single tube fixture, I've gotten plenty of pairs out of there in the past, it houses a group of half dollar to dollar size koi angels atm. In the foreground are some hatching tanks, little 2.5's.

Here's a pic of the middle of the fishroom;

Behind the 55 on the top is a glass block window, partially obscured by an exhaust fan & the vent it's attached to. Above the 55 is a 4-foot flouro fixture, single tube. I don't turn it on during the day; the window provided enough light for the 55, the 20 below it that houses another pair, and the hatching tanks. That middle rack is a busy area, tanks constantly changing. The very bottom has another pair of 20's, with two more breeding pairs of angels. Another 18" single tube flouro. Towards this end is another 40w incandescent that I only turn on in the evening.

That same 40w incandescent lights this end of the room's tanks;

The top row has a 2' single tube incandescent lengthwise at the base of the tanks on the far right hand side. The second row has the same sort of fixture, across the top of the three 29 gallon tanks. The 10 & 15 on the left get by fine with room light, and any light provided by the flouro fixtures. I do have a light on the bottom 10, it is so far removed from an overhead light source it does need it. There is no designated light above the second 150-gallon tub, ambient light does just fine.

Nothing I have is planted, so low wpg does not affect them. I've never totaled up how many wpg I have running in total, but the fish I sell do well for the shops & their customers, and the potential breeders I keep grow out just fine. I would probably have to get some sort of meter & figure out lumens, or some other scientific measurement, but no matter if it's a tank right under a flour fixture, or one off towards the end, the fish grow & thrive just the same.

As I stated, this is no scientific study, just my fishroom observations & me refusing to give any extra money to the utility companies.

 

[Bignose]

Well, guys, I was responding to statements like "you don't ever need light except to view your fish" (post #2) and "No, you don't have to have lights, unless you got live plants in your tank. Your fish will be alright with no lights on at all." (post #3). I didn't see any conditions you guys put on there, like "for a few days" or "for a week" so I just wanted to make sure that the first person who asked the question is clear, that no light whatsoever is a bad thing for the fish. Maybe I am just picking nits, there, but I just wanted to make sure it was 100% clear that while blacking out for a week or so is ok, in the long-term fish need to have light.

Actually Tolak, I actually don't know what the minimum amount of light is needed. Obviously, considering how healthy the stock you sell is, your fish are getting enough. But, zero light is obviously not enough. I don't know if anyone has ever done a study on how might light fish need. I know that the study has been done for people, but fish... hmmm, I'll have to try to look that up sometime in the future.

 

[andywg]

I seem to recall that the amount of light needed is not that massive, even in humans. When I was working nights (about 5 years ago now) I am sure I read, or heard on the radio, that one decent day in the sun was enough to provide someone with enough Vitamin D for close to a year.

Now I have no idea on the accuracy of that and haven't had the time to search for any proper science to back it up (as I was reading it in the media the chances are that I was reading the mmedia's view on a new theory before the peer review process).

 

[Lynda B]

I think of it more as trying to duplicate nature for them. If you have an astyanax fasciatus mexicanus, then you can probably do away with lights entirely. If not, it's my belief that you should give them the amount of light they would find in their natural habitat (if you can).

 

[Davidtq]

rdd, puff, you guys are wrong. Fish do need light, it is essential for their long-term health. Just like people, fish need Vitamin D, and also just like people, most of their Vitamin D is self-made, and light is a key part of the synthesis of Vitamin D. It is produced photochemically in the skin.

Vitamin D is very important, it helps regulate the calcium and phosphorus levels in the blood by promoting their adsorption through food through the intestines. Vitamin D also promotes bone formation and is essential in keeping bones strong -- if you don't get enough Vitamin D people get a disease known as rickets. I don't know what fish-rickets are, but I do know it cannot be good.

So, in summary, fish do have to get significant light. They need the light to make sure that they are getting their essential vitamins.

Fish dont synthesize Vitamin D in their skin using sunlight as humans do, Fish get their entire vitamin D content from their food. Most of the fish's Vitamin D will start off in aquatic plants or algae or phytoplankton etc and work its way through to the fish. Hence cave dwellers, black water fish and deep sea fish do just fine despite low or zero light levels. I wouldnt suggest keeping fish in zero light levels long term - many fish do use their eyes to see... but many fish do appreciate darker aquariums. Ive found that very dark aquariums are ideal for hospital tanks the VERY LOW light levels seem to lower stress levels in many species, particularly in blackwater \ deep water species species

 

[-SPB-]

If you can get a good photo of the algae, Im sure someone can ID it for you. In answer to your question, it depends on whether you have live plants or not. If not, then no, you don't ever need lights except to view your fish. I'm sure the fish would much prefer not to have the lights on. If you have live plans though, you need light for them to grow.

Here is a pretty good site with photos of most algae that may help you ID it.

This is a photo of my aglae. At present am treating with hair algae med, and very minimum lighting, like none for a week.

This was my original topic Original Post

Was told hydrogen peroxide might work

 

[Aphotic Phoenix]

Did you do a complete black out for a week or did you just not turn the lights on? (Complete blackout means covering the tank with a heavy cloth, and not even opening it to feed the fish)

Can you remove the item in question to scrub it manually?

I linked a forum post about using Hydrogen Peroxide in the other thread, but I would only try that as a last resort because there is some risk involved.

 

[-SPB-]

I'm just keeping the lights turned off at the mo. I'm going to get the bogwood and other stuff out at the weekend and boil it then scrub it. I'll do a complete blackout if it returns, then after that i may venture to hydrogen peroxide but hopefully it won't come to that!!!

Thanks