Lights off for first 4 months?

[Mattg023]

Hi all,

I’m currently cycling my tank for a week now. I have had my lights off, and plan to get a pair of clowns as the first additions once the cycle completes. My question is, how long should I leave the lights off for? I just watched a fairly recent BRS video saying to leave lights off for 4 months, even with fish in, and that the ambient lighting should be good enough. The purpose would be to allow time for tank to stabilize and not be as susceptible to algae blooms, which seems rational. but I’m just curious what others with more experience think? They also recommended to dose vibrant during that 4 month time as a preventative measure. Any thoughts? Thanks

 

[Mattg023]

Bump

 

[dwest]

I think 4 months lights off is OK. If you don’t have herbivores, but turn lights on, you are gonna have problems. I personally would not dose anything after the ammonia cycle, but I have no experience with vibrant.

I think patience here will be rewarding. Good luck.

 

[Lizbeli]

Thats a bit excessive in my opinion. To me even a 4mth old tank isn’t even close to stable if you are looking at all parameters (if you started with dry rock). I wouldn’t be scared of algae, its going to come either way, and most new tanks deal with green hair algae which can easily be handled. I bet my tuxedo urchin could mow down all my rockwork in less than a week If needed.

Everyone has their own ways, but I cycle with my lights on. I want diatoms to grow. Once the cycle is complete I rely on any algae in my tank to feed my first inhabitants which are snails. I figure the sooner I get the new tank blooms out of the way, the better. But people seem to be scared of algae nowadays. I suppose its worth a try, but I have always done it this way. Adding chemicals to a brand new tank is silly imo. I don’t believe in short cuts for long term tank health.

 

[Mattg023]

Thats a bit excessive in my opinion. To me even a 4mth old tank isn’t even close to stable if you are looking at all parameters (if you started with dry rock). I wouldn’t be scared of algae, its going to come either way, and most new tanks deal with green hair algae which can easily be handled. I bet my tuxedo urchin could mow down all my rockwork in less than a week If needed.

Everyone has their own ways, but I cycle with my lights on. I want diatoms to grow. Once the cycle is complete I rely on any algae in my tank to feed my first inhabitants which are snails. I figure the sooner I get the new tank blooms out of the way, the better. But people seem to be scared of algae nowadays. I suppose its worth a try, but I have always done it this way. Adding chemicals to a brand new tank is silly imo. I don’t believe in short cuts for long term tank health.

I totally agree about not adding chemicals to a new tank. However, vibrant is just adding beneficial bacteria to the tank, which I figured could be a good thing.

 

[MJ in Boise]

Agreed with above. My lights go on right away. Gets the nasties over with sooner imo. First thing is add is appropriate cuc, sloooowly.

 

[SMSREEF]

I had my rocks cycling for 3 months in the dark. When I turned the lights on, I have a similar ugly stage Within 5 days of lights on as when I turn lights on right away.

I would not do lights off cycling again, ever.

 

[Mattg023]

Maybe will turn my lights on soon then..

 

[Lizbeli]

I totally agree about not adding chemicals to a new tank. However, vibrant is just adding beneficial bacteria to the tank, which I figured could be a good thing.

Oh yes sorry. For some reason I was thinking vibrant was one of those algae treatments. I used biospira to help my dry rock sure this time around. But I usually just add pure ammonia and wait.

Don’t worry about the normal uglies, they can be fixed and will happen no matter what, especially when starting with dry rock.

 

[Victor_C3]

Thats a bit excessive in my opinion. To me even a 4mth old tank isn’t even close to stable if you are looking at all parameters (if you started with dry rock). I wouldn’t be scared of algae, its going to come either way, and most new tanks deal with green hair algae which can easily be handled. I bet my tuxedo urchin could mow down all my rockwork in less than a week If needed.

Everyone has their own ways, but I cycle with my lights on. I want diatoms to grow. Once the cycle is complete I rely on any algae in my tank to feed my first inhabitants which are snails. I figure the sooner I get the new tank blooms out of the way, the better. But people seem to be scared of algae nowadays. I suppose its worth a try, but I have always done it this way. Adding chemicals to a brand new tank is silly imo. I don’t believe in short cuts for long term tank health.

I don’t think it’s just nowadays people are terrified of algae, it was that way 14 years ago when I first got into the hobby. Beyond that, I totally agree with what you said.

I try to do everything I can to preserve and add biodiversity to my aquarium. I believe it’s vital to the long term health of our systems as it serves to both provide ancillary food items, but also keep certain pests in check.

To that end, I refuse to run any sort of media, skimmer, or socks. I sometimes run activated carbon, but only as a passive media bag.

So, I’d turn on the lights from day one. You’re going to have to deal with algae at some point. You might as well get it worked out sooner rather than later.

 

[Maxcmo]

Bump on this I am about to turn on my lights after a month and a half. In terms of nutrients I test every other day everything is pretty stable and I figure I can deal with the algae in a couple months while adding some Corals as well am I to impatient!? I have read to many people saying they waited and still had to deal with it anyways.

 

[Bad Company]

I've always added a dwarf angel to a tank in the first couple of weeks. They get FAT off the algae. I don't think a tank should be sterile, and the ocean has tons of herbivores for a reason.

 

[Maxcmo]

I've always added a dwarf angel to a tank in the first couple of weeks. They get FAT off the algae. I don't think a tank should be sterile, and the ocean has tons of herbivores for a reason.

I agree when I mentioned this to my LFS owner who has some amazing SPS tanks in his place he was like what!? 4 months? He said your going to deal with it anyways might as well be sooner than later just keep your tank right...

 

[olonmv]

I turned my lights on after about a month when I added my first fish. Went through the uglies but got out of them fairly quickly. I started with dry rock.

 

[Mattg023]

I ended up doing a week or two of lights off. Turned on lights and dosed vibrant for a few weeks. Never went through any large algae outbreak

 

[Jekyl]

There is only one magic cure for getting passed the ugly phase quicker..... by using established rock.

 

[EugeneVan]

Here is what I did. I have the light off for 3 months when I first start my 210 gal with 120 lbs of dry rock in to do the cycling. I start growing the chaeto in my refugium/sump with 5 hours of light 7days a week since day one. When I switch on my main lighting at the end of 3 months. I setup the lighting in my display tank with 5 hours a day and increase 20 minutes every week. I may be lucky, I never come across any ugly stage. And now my tank is about 7 months old, and all my SPS and LPS are growing fine with good color as well.

 

[rainsong]

Here is what I did. I have the light off for 3 months when I first start my 210 gal with 120 lbs of dry rock in to do the cycling. I start growing the chaeto in my refugium/sump with 5 hours of light 7days a week since day one. When I switch on my main lighting at the end of 3 months. I setup the lighting in my display tank with 5 hours a day and increase 20 minutes every week. I may be lucky, I never come across any ugly stage. And now my tank is about 7 months old, and all my SPS and LPS are growing fine with good color as well.

I am a saltwater newbie coming from freshwater planted tanks. This sounds a lot like what we did in freshwater. You start the tank with a large volume of fast-growing plants and you don't even need to cycle the tank. Plants (in this case the chaeto) are quick to grab any ammonia/nitrate out of the water column.

 

[mattdg]

Many of us keep rocks in unlit stock tanks, to develop bacteria, some times for up to a year. At least I have. Kind of the same idea, accept in your future display tank.

If the rocks were dry previous to adding them to the tank, they will likely have bound nutrients waiting to be extracted by algae, that will grow once the lights are on. In my experience, if the phosphates and detritus are in the rock, no matter what, you will go through some sort of ugly stage, triggered by the tank being lit. If you cooked the rocks before adding them to the display, you may experience less of an algae bloom.
Hopefully you will get lucky and experience little or no ugly stage.

Either way, I believe letting dry rock sit in an unlit container anywhere from 4 months to a year is critical for getting those bacterial populations up.

 

[EugeneVan]

I am a saltwater newbie coming from freshwater planted tanks. This sounds a lot like what we did in freshwater. You start the tank with a large volume of fast-growing plants and you don't even need to cycle the tank. Plants (in this case the chaeto) are quick to grab any ammonia/nitrate out of the water column.

Bingo, I use the same theory as I setup my freshwater plant aquarium. It work perfectly in freshwater too.