# Giving Up on Low tech. Anyone have long term success?



## longgonedaddy (Dec 9, 2012)

I had great success for about four years, until I took the tank down. I set it up with low-mid light, dosing Seachem's ferts. Took a little bit to figure out what plants did well, and what didn't. I think I had a fairly heavy plant load, not a Dutch scape by any means, but not thin either. 

It was fish-first tank, so I occasionally had some algae issues, the usual initial diatoms, then I had some hair and string algae, then the last I had was BBA. But all were manageable wth good husbandry practices. The BBA took a little extra work, with peroxide and Excel direct dosing, but I had it beat for months before breaking down the tank. 

Like I said, I had it up for about four years, I think that's long term. I'd post a pic, but f-ing photobucket stopped allowing links.


----------



## Doppelgaenger (Jul 20, 2015)

I have had a 6g low tech tank with java ferns, a bolbitis fern, Java moss and what started as a single strand of Heteroscyphus zollingeri in there for way over a year, possibly even 2. The Java ferns were OK, but didn't do spectacularly. The bolbitis fern will barely grow under low tech conditions and I can't recommend anyone try it. On the other hand, the Heteroscyphus has gone from a single strand to a mat that is about 6 inches around and, believe it or not, actually outcompeted the java moss by a large margin.

I've had algal infestations by diatoms, BGA, BBA, green hair and GSA at one time or another, but all of them have died off or been killed with peroxide.

I ran dry KNO3 and K3PO4 for ferts along with seachem flourish and excel, and the regular water change intervals in the low tech tank. That tank now only has the Heteroscyphus in it and one small java fern, along with the massive infestation of snails that were killing all my plants and a pea puffer I just added to eradicate the snails.

I've been doing a "medium tech" tank in my new 29g tank with a soda bottle chemical reactor for CO2 instead of a pressurized cylinder, most of my larger java ferns and bolbitis fern are now in there along with some new plants and they are doing spectacular except for the Bolbitis fern which I think is going to melt back to the rhizomes before putting out new leaves, one of which is forming already. I was very surprised to find out that the java ferns would pearl more than any other kind of plant in the aquarium so far. So to answer the question, yes it's possible to have long term success with low tech , but I"m becoming more and more of the idea that only a few select plants can truly thrive in the low tech setup. If you want your plants to grow right, you pretty much need CO2.


----------



## JJ09 (Sep 11, 2014)

My low tech tank has been running just over two years now and after a rocky start (I was about to give up six or seven months in) I think I have finally found the balance. I use EI ferts and sometimes root tabs. Vast improvement since I got shrimps to help eat algae (also nerites, trumpet snails and one otocinclus) and cut back on feeding. I do get BBA cropping up when I neglect something, but usually it's on older leaves I just trim out. 

I have five kinds of crypts, two types of aponogetons, java ferns regular and windelov, bacopa, elodea, vallisneria, subwassertang, anubias petite, flame moss, bolbitis fern, bucephalandra, echinodorus, some kind of ludwigia hybrid and hornwort floaters all thriving. My aponos have been flowering and my crypts and vals have baby offshoots. The bolbitis was really slow to take but is finally growing noticably now. Yes those are all relatively undemanding plants and I have tried quite a few that just died on me- I have bits of hydrocotytle tripartita, crypt parva and watersprite (for some reason) that just keep limping along. But each day I love the tank more and I don't mind having a limited palette. I really hope it keeps doing so well, I figure as long as I dont change the fert dose or stocking dramatically there's no reason why it shouldn't continue to thrive.

It's the 38gal in my signature if you want to see pics.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

My wife managed to have two very lush no-tech shrimp tanks.
2-20G longs with about 8 watt of 6500K LED's stretched over each.
Dimly lit and refused to introduce any ferts for fear of losing shrimp.
Only water changes every 3 weeks sustained the plants.
It took 2.5 years to grow the jungle but after all plants were sold it brought in about $125.


----------



## theatermusic87 (Jun 22, 2014)

I think it's about finding the right plant balance for the tank. I have 2 low tech tanks a 5 and A 3 gallon tank. Both with the same lights and filters, same substrate (sand over dirt) and besides floaters they won't grow the same plants. One had anubias, ludwigia, and crypts. The other has crazy emersed riccia on the filter and Cardinal plants. Both tanks are going on 2-3 years. Almost never ferts, water changes every couple weeks and lightly stocked with shrimp.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

I think my light were too strong for low tech. The ludwigia needed the light..i had to choose between growth and algae. By then my fish needed a larger tank, so i started over..this time w c02.

Congrats to those of you who had the patience to get it working. Ive got my eyes on some red and orange plants that need high light. I want to see major pearling and bright colors! Algae is the pits.


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> Tank is/was sand over yard soil, root tabs, Leaf Zone, CO2 Booster, Seachem Nitrogen. Did a 5/4 with 3 hour siesta.


I think the problem is your fertilizer. Let me explain. There are two classes of nutrients a tank need macros and micro nutrients.

Macro nutrients are N, P, K, Ca, S, Mg (Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium calcium, sulfur, magnesium. These are typically present in the water 1ppm (part per million) or higher. Plants use a lot of these nutrients. Most fertilizers don't include sulfur and calcium.

thee Micro nutrients are B, CL MN, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mo, Ni, Co (Boron, Chlorine, Manganese,ion, zinc, copper, Molybdenum, Nickel, and Cobalt. These are typically found in water at PPB )Parts Per Billion) Levels. Plants don't need a lot of these nutrients. Frequently Chlorine, nickel and cobalt are not included in fertilizers.

That is 15 nutrients that plants need to grow.f any one is missing plant growth can slow or even stop. And when the plants are growing slowly due to a nutrient definecy Algae takes over. Algae has a unique ability to grow quickly in in water with very low nutrient levels.

You were using API leaf zone. This fertilizer has the following nutrients: Iron and Postasiusm. You were adding nitrogen and using Phosgene which removes Phosphorous. *Overall you were possibly deficient in 12 nutrients. * With this situation your are in my opinion guaranteed to have Algae problems. You need a better fertilizeer. The most complete on the market are Sachem Flourish Comprehensive and Brightwell Aquatics Florinmulti. 

These two are not perfect but they are the best available. Even the most frequently mentioned fertilizers on this site are all deficient (including CSM+B, Nilog, Osmocote). Everything else on the market is defycient in at least *4 nutrients or more*. Some are like leaf zone are in my option a total wast of money. You tank was never deficient in CO2. It was deficient in everything else. And nutrients that are in your tape water but not in the fertilizer was rapidly consumed by by the fertilizer induced rapid plant growth that proceeded the algae surge.

Now all that said some people have good luck with very poor fertilizers or no fertilizers at all. The reason for this is that drinking water can have widely variable nutrient levels. If your drinking water comes from a swamp the water likely has everything your plants need. However if your drinking water is primarily soft rain water you may not have everything. If you tap water delivered to your home is RO will you have zero nutrients and nothing will grow and even algae will struggle. In other cases your tap water will be saturated with calcium and magnesium (hard water) or NPK (farm field runoff in to a river).


----------



## Axelrodi202 (Jul 29, 2008)

It is possible to have a nice, stable non-CO2 tank. But will it ever be as lush and verdant as one with even a low rate of CO2? No. Don't fool yourself. Maybe it can after many years, but who has the time or patience for that?


----------



## Fish Em (Jul 3, 2015)

It seems like people agree that it is too much work to maintain a low tech tank. For me, I have no time to set up a proper high tech tank, so it is work with what I have. 
A pair if small LED's on my marineland kit will kill just about any plant because it is not enough light. Except for Java moss! So that became my shrimp tank.

A 15w light above a 20H is perfect for a growing family of jungle val. 

So I do have the usual diatoms and gda, but snails get to that before I see it on plants. I have these for 3 years, except I tore down my shrimp tank to set up a new tank. With new lighting. So far lots of gda.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Surf said:


> I think the problem is your fertilizer. Let me explain. There are two classes of nutrients a tank need macros and micro nutrients.
> 
> Macro nutrients are N, P, K, Ca, S, Mg (Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium calcium, sulfur, magnesium. These are typically present in the water 1ppm (part per million) or higher. Plants use a lot of these nutrients. Most fertilizers don't include sulfur and calcium.
> 
> ...


The tank was doing great for 3-4 months, lots of growth, very little algae.

I suspect the heavy root feeders were getting those nutrients from the root tabs in soil substrate. Amazon swords had explosive growth. Ludwigia Broadleaf grew steadily, tight growth with reddish leaves.

When I added the giant hygro, that is when the problems began. They were also planted in soil, but are big water column feeders. If anything I suspect phosphorus deficiency was culprit.

I agree there was a fertilizer problem and I got lucky with the root feeders. My observation is that putting together a CO2 system for high tech may "pay for itself" in increased growth rate, prettier plants, ability to propagate, higher success rate with wider variety of plants, etc.

The main problem with low tech is that once there is an algae problem, to recover from it (aestetically) can take months to a year. Plants dont grow fast enough to replace damaged or ugly leaves in real time.

A lot of low tech tanks, the owners are ripping out dying plants and replacing with new on a regular basis. I want to avoid that.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

ChrisX said:


> The main problem with low tech is that once there is an algae problem, to recover from it (aestetically) can take months to a year. Plants dont grow fast enough to replace damaged or ugly leaves in real time.
> 
> A lot of low tech tanks, the owners are ripping out dying plants and replacing with new on a regular basis. I want to avoid that.


You had 3 sources of nitrogen in that tank. Unless you were monitoring your nitrate levels and controlling them as needed, you tank was a haven for algae. 

Both of my tanks are low tech. I do not spend my time pulling and replacing plants. Plants are 'fed' one a week as that's all they need. Root tabs are a waste of time and money as they are not necessary.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Smooch said:


> You had 3 sources of nitrogen in that tank. Unless you were monitoring your nitrate levels and controlling them as needed, you tank was a haven for algae.
> 
> Both of my tanks are low tech. I do not spend my time pulling and replacing plants. Plants are 'fed' one a week as that's all they need. Root tabs are a waste of time and money as they are not necessary.


My current tank will soon have CO2 and I'm buying dry ferts for EI. I agree, mistakes were made. Those mistakes could have paid for the CO2 system.

We all have to start somewhere.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

ChrisX said:


> My current tank will soon have CO2 and I'm buying dry ferts for EI. I agree, mistakes were made. Those mistakes could have paid for the CO2 system.
> 
> We all have to start somewhere.


That's fine, however, this was a 'user' problem, not a plant / low tech problem as you keep declaring. 

If you like the high maintenance tank life, good for you. CO2 is not a magic fix for all things algae related either. If CO2 goes out and is not dealt with right away, you're going to have algae problems. There are plenty of high tech journals around here to show how that plays out. Overdosing without controls in place such as water changes will also lead to algae problems. 

Good luck!


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Smooch,
I think you misunderstood my intention. I wanted to find out how many people have stayed with low tech for long term, and how many have gone high tech. Im not saying low tech is bad.

In low tech threads, people often complain that "x species" wouldnt grow. In high-tech threads, people are more likely talking about the characteristics of their growth. Its not about inches per month, but inches per week.

Obviously low-tech puts alot more constraints on people (things like plant choice, light level, etc.) 

I made a decision to go high tech for a number of reasons and wondered if this was the normal progression. Or perhaps 90% of people have no desire to use CO2. From my vantage point, having more control makes things easier.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Low tech to high was a natural progression for me.

Started my first planted tank low tech, a 75 gal with java moss and some ferns, couple more things.

Wasnt long before I was dosing Excel at 2x the daily amount. This went on for 6-7 months with pretty good success. Even grew some ludwigias and other borderline plants pretty well.

Then I rigged up some diy co2 jsut to see what would happen. The explosion in growth and colors was nothing short of amazing. Wasnt long before I invested in a pressurized set up and never looked back.

Currently have 4 "high tech" tanks and cant imagine ever doing one without co2. Even if I ever do a low light tank with stuff like Anubias and aroids or whatever. It will have co2.


But it is certainly possible to have a nice low tech. There are literally hundreds of examples in that "Low tech can be lush too" thread.


----------



## klibs (May 1, 2014)

once you go CO2 you won't go back

even if you stay with lower light and easier plants they just do so much better with CO2

low tech is great but there's a lot you simply can't do with it. CO2 just makes it so much easier. with any tank you have to keep things under control... prune plants that are taking over, don't let plants die and rot in the tank, keep the water clean, etc... any tank can 'crash' if you don't have good tank husbandry.

my advice would be to be realistic and plan your tank accordingly. if you want that jungle of stems with beautiful colors... guess what? you're gonna spend an awful lot of time trimming and maintaining the tank. high light and great results come at the price of putting a lot of work in and a steep learning curve. if you just want to do a water change every week and trim plants very rarely then stick with slower growing species and lower light levels.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

burr740 said:


> Low tech to high was a natural progression for me.
> 
> Started my first planted tank low tech, a 75 gal with java moss and some ferns, couple more things.
> 
> ...



Burr,

Yours is the type of tank I would like to achieve. A wonderland of beautiful plants.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

ChrisX said:


> Burr,
> 
> Yours is the type of tank I would like to achieve. A wonderland of beautiful plants.


That is quite a compliment! Thank you

And if that's what you want, that's what you'll have. If I can do it, anyone can.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I dunno, I think low tech is pretty easy and prolly easier than high tech. I'm just over a year with low/medium tech and going strong. I had a well established fish only tank with silica (pool filter) sand substrate. I upgraded the lighting and added a bunch of plants and some Malaysian Trumpet Snails. I had an algae issue for a short time, but that went away as balance got closer. Then I inherited some BBA from some plants I bought and needed Excel to get rid of that. I toyed with DIY BIO-CO2 for awhile, but have since stopped. Plants continue to do well with very modest ferts. 
But a picture speaks louder than words....(note this is a 60g 24" tall tank:


----------



## aquaBender (Aug 18, 2016)

ChrisX said:


> Smooch,
> I think you misunderstood my intention. I wanted to find out how many people have stayed with low tech for long term, and how many have gone high tech. Im not saying low tech is bad.
> 
> In low tech threads, people often complain that "x species" wouldnt grow. In high-tech threads, people are more likely talking about the characteristics of their growth. Its not about inches per month, but inches per week.
> ...


I've had low-tech tanks for about 2 years and I don't plan on ever going high-tech. I enjoy finding a balance between flora and fauna stocking, and I feel that staying low-tech inhibits me from overstocking my tanks.


----------



## fracturedapple (Jul 7, 2016)

I have a 150 gal. heavily planted Walstad tank that's been running for 2 years now. 

4 kessil a160we and a internal filter ment for a 60 gal. for some water flow only. 

Everyone is happy with no algae growth on the plants and easily managed algae growth on the glass. 

I did have a hair algae breakout 6 months in but once I got that under control it's been smooth sailing ever since. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

There's nothing wrong with either method, Low-tech you are simply more limited by what you can grow. 

Regardless of whether the plants are low-light, low demand or high-light, high demand they will all grow better, cleaner with co2.


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> I suspect the heavy root feeders were getting those nutrients from the root tabs in soil substrate.


I forgot to mention in my previous post that API root tabs are just as bad as API leaf zone fertilizer. They contain only NPKFe. Seachem root tabs are the best on the market. 

As to all those that say you cannot have lush plant growth without CO2. Sorry that is not true. if you get the nutrient levels right in your fertilizer and aerate your water adequately you can get very rapid plant growth without CO2. It has not been unusual for me to trim my plants once a week. And the only maintenance required was a water change, fertilize, and trim the pants and do my water tests. Some people have found that hey don't even need fertilizers or CO2(their water has everything they need). 

However with most tap water being deficient in something, most fertilizers being deficient in something, it is not surprising that may people have problems with or without CO2. Keep in mind CO2 levels in the air are 400ppm. That is fare higher than the 30ppm target most users of CO2 aim for with their drop checkers. CO2 dissolves very easily in water. Especially cold water. Rain can easily have 1000ppm of CO2 and a PH of 5. But once it hits the ground and warms up the CO2 level drops to 400ppm. Remember the drop checker is not measuring the CO2 in your tank. It is instead measuring the CO2 outgassing from the water. Meaning a properly running CO2 tank is going to have about 430ppm of CO2 while a well aerated tank is going to have about 400ppm CO2. That is not a big difference.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

AbbeysDad said:


> I dunno, I think low tech is pretty easy and prolly easier than high tech. I'm just over a year with low/medium tech and going strong. I had a well established fish only tank with silica (pool filter) sand substrate. I upgraded the lighting and added a bunch of plants and some Malaysian Trumpet Snails. I had an algae issue for a short time, but that went away as balance got closer. Then I inherited some BBA from some plants I bought and needed Excel to get rid of that. I toyed with DIY BIO-CO2 for awhile, but have since stopped. Plants continue to do well with very modest ferts.
> But a picture speaks louder than words....(note this is a 60g 24" tall tank:


Are you using Excel/Carbon? That is one of the things I spent alot on. It doesnt go very far in a large tank.

Great tank!


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

I am in 100% the same position as you ChrisX. Ive had planted tanks for 10 years and I just enjoy the C02 injected tanks more... and I was only using paintball tanks on 75 gallon tanks! I dose a good amount of glut as well and it just isn't comparable. Sure you can spend a fortune on a complex regulator, but affordable ones are pretty good. I'm just doing a GLA PRO and a 20lb tank to 2 75's. Ill eventually get a system for my 150, but its African Cichlids and Haps so I couldn't really get a thriving planted tank in there. Ive spent a good amount on plants that have failed due to lack of CO2. 
What system did you go with? Ive got HOB filters on both tanks so I'm probably just going to use the large GLA atomizers.


----------



## JJ09 (Sep 11, 2014)

ChrisX said:


> The main problem with low tech is that once there is an algae problem, to recover from it (aestetically) can take months to a year. Plants dont grow fast enough to replace damaged or ugly leaves in real time.


Yes, this is true to some degree. I've found that a problem can take weeks to recover from; however lots of my plants grow quickly enough that I do have to do trimming every week. Not the anubias or buces, but the stems. It's not fast enough to be annoying, though- I trim one group of stems one week, another the next, it alternates.


ChrisX said:


> A lot of low tech tanks, the owners are ripping out dying plants and replacing with new on a regular basis. I want to avoid that.


Not the case here at all. I have not bought new plants in eight months, and I'm certainly not tearing dead stuff out on a regular basis. Remove what gets old or a bit of algae, that's all. 

I'm happy with low tech so far. If I get another tank it will be low tech, too. I have no plans to start using C02. That would just be another learning curve, with more complications and things that can go wrong, and I've found the balance and I'm happy with the plants I have. Yes, it would be nice to grow some plants that I can't in this setup, but I don't want the faster growth rate pushing mistakes over the edge into algae bomb with more alacrity. I have enough to manage right now.

My 'window tank' is even simpler, btw. It doesn't get ferts at all, and no heater. Very limited number of plants, but I like it because it's so easy!


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

The Dude1 said:


> I am in 100% the same position as you ChrisX. Ive had planted tanks for 10 years and I just enjoy the C02 injected tanks more... and I was only using paintball tanks on 75 gallon tanks! I dose a good amount of glut as well and it just isn't comparable. Sure you can spend a fortune on a complex regulator, but affordable ones are pretty good. I'm just doing a GLA PRO and a 20lb tank to 2 75's. Ill eventually get a system for my 150, but its African Cichlids and Haps so I couldn't really get a thriving planted tank in there. Ive spent a good amount on plants that have failed due to lack of CO2.
> What system did you go with? Ive got HOB filters on both tanks so I'm probably just going to use the large GLA atomizers.


I went with one of the Chinese ebay regulators. Many of the lower price ones from online sellers are just rebranded chinese ones, probably made in the same factories. I had to get a voltage transformer and order a DIN477 to paintball adapter from CO2Art in UK. I would have had to get a CGA320 to paintball (anyway) if I had purchased a US market regulator.

The whole thing, with regultor, reactor, drop checker, tank, check valve, everything. . is $125. All the parts not here yet.

Paintball tank is not ideal, but later I can get a 20# tank and a paintball refill adapter for $35 to do monthly refills at home.


----------



## Tessa (Dec 8, 2015)

Axelrodi202 said:


> It is possible to have a nice, stable non-CO2 tank. But will it ever be as lush and verdant as one with even a low rate of CO2? No. Don't fool yourself. Maybe it can after many years, but who has the time or patience for that?


Hmm... I have to disagree with this one. Pick the plants that work for you and - BOOM! - a lush no-CO2 tank. Been there, done that, didn't take years.








Save​


----------



## Axelrodi202 (Jul 29, 2008)

Very nice. Certainly CO2 is not the only factor. Good water, substrate, biofilter are important. But without CO2 it is still difficult to get plants to grow in a tight, organized matter characteristic of high-caliber aquascapes. I have tried for many years. You can get close, but not quite, even only growing hardy plants. 

For those that like the wild jungle tanks this is fine, but ADA scapes are what got me into the planted tank hobby and is what continues to inspire me after over a decade.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

Tessa said:


> Hmm... I have to disagree with this one. Pick the plants that work for you and - BOOM! - a lush no-CO2 tank. Been there, done that, didn't take years.


Beautiful tank and I completely agree. 

People spend their time how they see fit. I have a household to run with other pets beyond fish that need my attention. As much as I love my fish, there is more to life and constantly playing around with fish tanks.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Tessa said:


> Hmm... I have to disagree with this one. Pick the plants that work for you and - BOOM! - a lush no-CO2 tank. Been there, done that, didn't take years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This tank looks great, but its not the kind of tank I'm trying to grow.

Also.. the knowledge and resources that went into building that tank (and its predecessors) probably took hundreds of dollars in plants, chemicals, substrate, etc. I'm pretty sure that was not the owner's (yours?) first planted tank.

Did this tank use the liquid carbon? The cost of that stuff adds up quick for tanks over 50 gallons.

My point being that in the full list of (long term) expenses for developing a planted tank, $200 for a CO2 system is just a fraction of the money spent.

This is all IMO. I saw how much I spent in liquid ferts in the first six months, and faster growth would have allowed me to propagate my stem plants. If a stem is growing only 1" week, its kinda hard to clip and replant the tops. By the time it reaches the top of the tank, the lower leaves have already fallen.


----------



## Tessa (Dec 8, 2015)

ChrisX said:


> This tank looks great, but its not the kind of tank I'm trying to grow.
> 
> Also.. the knowledge and resources that went into building that tank (and its predecessors) probably took hundreds of dollars in plants, chemicals, substrate, etc. I'm pretty sure that was not the owner's (yours?) first planted tank.
> 
> ...


Yep, I understand you are looking for a different kind of tank; I simply posted this one to show lush planted tank is doable without too much effort. This is my first planted tank. Simple sand bottom, occasional liquid ferts and root tabs, no CO2 of any kind (liquid or otherwise). It took a bit of time to find the plants that suit my water, but otherwise it's as simple as it can be.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Smooch said:


> Beautiful tank and I completely agree.
> 
> People spend their time how they see fit. I have a household to run with other pets beyond fish that need my attention. As much as I love my fish, there is more to life and constantly playing around with fish tanks.


See, this is what I don't know. Does a CO2 tank take more time than a low tech? 

I still had to dose the liquid carbon daily. Seems about the same amt of work as EI dosing.

And the amt of time I spent cleaning algea, would be otherwise (hopefully) be spent trimming stems.


----------



## Tessa (Dec 8, 2015)

I think it comes down to the simple fact that fishkeeping should be fun, so go with what you want, not what others say or do. That's the most important thing.


----------



## JJ09 (Sep 11, 2014)

Dry ferts are a lot cheaper than liquid and can be more precise, I think. I'm on my third tank in as many years, and have not yet run out of the first package of dry ferts (macros) I bought. i do use liquid for the micros, and that I have buy anew maybe once every three or four months. It's not terribly expensive.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

ChrisX said:


> See, this is what I don't know. Does a CO2 tank take more time than a low tech?
> 
> I still had to dose the liquid carbon daily. Seems about the same amt of work as EI dosing.
> 
> And the amt of time I spent cleaning algea, would be otherwise (hopefully) be spent trimming stems.


Yes, they do. Tanks with CO2 produce faster growth, assuming the tank is balanced to begin with which means more maintenance. Stem plants need to be trimmed and thinned as when they get too thick, the lower leaves of the plants die off. If the tank isn't balanced, you are going to have to work to get it there to prevent algae outbreaks. 

In your reply to Tessa, you talked about buying all kinds of chemicals. I have 5, 6 if you include the bottle of Paraguard that I haven't touched in over a year. Seachem Safe, Carbornate and Mineralize as I use RO water in both of my tanks and 2 bottles of ferts. One contains nitrates, the other does not. You didn't have to buy all the stuff that you listed. If you have spend hundreds of dollars to get your tank to balance, you need help to get your tank straightened out. 

I'm not picking on you, I just don't understand where you get the idea that CO2 will fix everything. As plants grow, you are going to have to spend more money on ferts as the plants are going to demand it. There is a much steeper learning curve for what you want to do than keeping a low tech tank. Burr's tank is beautiful, but he didn't get there overnight. You have to understand that there are people on here that have been in this hobby for many years. Everybody has to go through the same growing pains to figure out what works for their tanks and what doesn't. There is no all-in-one formula. 

I'm not against people using CO2. My fear in this case is that you are under a false impression and are going to find out the hard and expensive way that the idea you have planted in your own mind is not going to be outcome you're after.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Smooch said:


> I'm not picking on you, I just don't understand where you get the idea that CO2 will fix everything.



You completely misunderstand my position. Reason for going to CO2 is not to "fix" anything besides the limitations of low tech tanks.

The problem with my first tank was some challenging stem plants and problems with macro dosing. I had initial success with the lugwigia broad leaf, but then when I made mistakes combatting the diatom bloom, I realized it would take virtually "forever" before the stems would be pretty again. They werent dead, just had been ravaged by algae. 

Realization was that the minimal expense and enjoyment that comes from faster growth and prettier plants makes CO2 a no brainer. I posed the question to see if most people come to the same conclusion. 

So far, the counter argument seem to be that CO2 is more challenging and/or takes more time and with the right plants and tank conditions you can have lush (mostly green) growth with low tech. OK.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

There is no argument or misunderstanding. If you are struggling to get your tank to balance in a low tech set up,which you are, you are in for challenges in a high tech set up. It is that simple. According to you, this is all about lush growth. I got that already, but if you continue to do the same things that caused all the problems before, you're going to have more problems. High nitrates in a tank that is unbalanced equals a algae farm regardless of which set up you use. 

You have said nothing about correcting those issues. Instead you are complaining about spending all kinds of money on things you didn't need in the first place, how people in low tech tanks spend their time replacing plants, yada, yada, yada. Go figure! Have all those other problems been corrected so you can make a decent transition from low tech to high tech?


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

ChrisX it sounds like you are posting what I am thinking!! I understand the desire to rebut any statement, but I don't think that many would disagree that once things are dialed in and you aren't trying to maximize growth in a dutch type tank that CO2 is a bit easier. Ive done heavy glut tanks, complete low tech, low tech with potting soil, and pressurized and from my experience a pressurized tank is easier. Many of the plants with survive for a time in low tech... and youre hoping they make it... and months down the road you are throwing them out or adding some form of carbon supplement in hopes that they will rebound... or you use soil and deal with a mucky tank, endless clogged filters, ammonia bubbles and other struggles. I used a tiny little atomizer with a paintball CO2 tank and everything did well and grew. Even now dosing high amounts of glut things are still not doing what I would like, I'm messing with lighting heights trying to figure out ferts.. and the tanks still don't look like they could. With CO2 I set the system and forgot about it. Dumped in my macros two days a week, micros on different days and occasionally trimmed or moved stuff. If you don't like trimming there are plenty of plants to choose from. Anubias, java ferns, bolbitus, Swords, crypts... that will not only not require trimming... but will grow and allow you to propagate relatively frequently.. I'm just going to go the easy route and all of my tanks and run CO2. Ill use a 20# container for the 2 75's and perhaps a 10 for the 150 as it will fit in the stand. I should get 6 months easy from each tank as long as you get a decent regulator problems like end of tank dump will be all but impossible. 
Results are much faster with CO2. Get the drop checker green and then monitor plants for deficiencies.. If low tech works for you that's awesome. But you aren't going to propogate bucephelandra to spread around the tank, nor will you grow rotala macandra, or develop a nice crypt parva carpet, or have a 2"x2" section of fissidins cover a piece of driftwood in 5 weeks. I think that's the point


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

Getting things dialed in takes time which is my point even though it doesn't want to be heard. And I'm still confused about this pitching of plants thing. The needle leaf java fern I have in both tanks is over 3 years old. It is green, growing and spits out babies. *shrug*


----------



## Dman911 (Nov 24, 2016)

IMO (in my opinion) all tanks will benefit from Co2 injection, you don't need to add 30ppm but rather it depends on the lighting and plants (more light/faster growing plants equal more Co2 consumed). 30 ppm is used simply because of all known aquarium plants it is assumed than none will benefit from more than 30ppm so it would eliminate the guess work much like EI dosing. All this does is ensure that Co2 is not the limiting factor in growth (which allows you to concentrate elsewhere). It will help the plants outcompete algae and in my opinion is easier than low tech. Adding Co2 eliminates 1 more variable that could be of concern when dealing with plants, it does not add one more thing to make balancing more difficult provided your not gassing your fish. Ranges from 15-30ppm. You should be controlling your growth with light not Co2, so the argument of Co2 causing to much growth I don't give much validity to. Yes it will speed up growth under the same lighting condition but all this shows is that Co2 was the limiting factor in growth. It will allow for a much broader selection of plants provided you have the lighting and ferts. Just because you add Co2 does not mean you need 50+ par and a [censored][censored][censored][censored] ton of ferts. you can add Co2 to a lo tech 30 par tank with 1/3 EI dosing depending on plants mass/uptake and see drastic improvements in plant health. Personally I feel getting a nice lush algae free lo tech is without Co2 is more difficult. It can absolutely be done but not as easily IMO. 

I see statements of Co2 is going to cause your tank to grow out of control and require so much maintenance etc. This is simply not true, its the light that drives growth. Adding Co2 will only speed growth up to the point it was limited by Co2. This is the same for ferts etc. So if you keep lower lighting you can easily have a low maintenance tank with Co2, of course slower growing plants will also help. 
@Tessa I think your tank is incredibly beautiful and proof it can be done, but I do see some algae and some plants that could be healthier and your tank may perform better with Co2. I'm not trying to take away from what you have accomplished and if you can do that without Co2 imagine with adding Co2.

Dan


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Smooch said:


> There is no argument or misunderstanding. If you are struggling to get your tank to balance in a low tech set up,which you are, you are in for challenges in a high tech set up.


You see there is a misunderstanding. I am not struggling to get balance in my low tech setup.

My swords and giant hygro are still growing great in low tech. I am not currently having any problems. Just waiting for CO2 kit to arrive before I stock my new tank with plants.

The ludwigia was not growing fast enough (about 1"/wk) to recover from the algae and neglect so I pulled it. I dont see many people growing red plants in low tech and before stocking my new tank I want to have the CO2 in place so I can grow high light varieties.

Thats pretty much all I can say on this.


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

Smooch said:


> Getting things dialed in takes time which is my point even though it doesn't want to be heard. And I'm still confused about this pitching of plants thing. The needle leaf java fern I have in both tanks is over 3 years old. It is green, growing and spits out babies. *shrug*


That's how we develop our opinions. I can tell you that I bought a HUGE mass of needle leaf Java Fern for my 150. I had 2 pretty strong LED fixtures and even dosed Glut, but they slowly faded... and died out... and I tossed them... like Ive done with Bolbitus, Windolev java fern, and probably a few others... I think that's what ChrisX is talking about. Whatever you are doing is working. I havent gotten there with Low tech in 10 years... maybe its my water, maybe too little light, maybe placement, maybe lack of ferts, who knows. As I tried things stuff continues to die. I have upgraded ALL of my lighting and I'm hooking up CO2 on all of them. Ive tossed ALOT of what was nice plants... I worked up to 30ml DAILY of glut.. stuff still died. 
Ive I had growth like you I would probably stay low tech. But I want the plants I want and most require CO2. I like the carefully scaped look and that requires fast growth and propogation.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

This is the time we pull out our API test kits and check our water.:grin2:


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

Maryland Guppy said:


> This is the time we pull out our API test kits and check our water.:grin2:


Lol!! No... 10 fish is my number... until 10 fish die it's probably just coincidence


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

ChrisX said:


> Are you using Excel/Carbon? That is one of the things I spent alot on. It doesnt go very far in a large tank.
> 
> Great tank!


Thanks! After my first 500ml of Excel, I switched to Metricide 14. You can get a gallon + free shipping on Evil Bay for about $20. The BBA problem I had is at bay right now so I stopped using!


----------



## Fish Em (Jul 3, 2015)

Plant death higher rate in low tech death trap, er I mean tank? 

What about the fact that everything on earth will die eventually? If you are looking fir a world record longest plant alive, maybe co2 is (italicized) the right choice.

I sense co2 tanks attract a lot of perfectionists. Can't stand the sight of a melting juncus repens without clutching your bottle of ferts and falling to the ground in shock.

No, I am only not serious. I am confused.

Why so much hate? No patience for low tech? I have like zero patience. I just make do with what I have. So do a lot of low tech people. 

No time or money to get a proper planted tank. Maybe low tech is also poor man's high tech?


----------



## Dman911 (Nov 24, 2016)

Fish Em said:


> Plant death higher rate in low tech death trap, er I mean tank?
> 
> What about the fact that everything on earth will die eventually? If you are looking fir a world record longest plant alive, maybe co2 is (italicized) the right choice.
> 
> ...


I agree hi/lo tech is a choice that's usually made based on goals, money and time. There is no one right answer, both provide challenges and rewards as not everyone's goals are the same.

Dan


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dman911 said:


> I agree hi/lo tech is a choice that's usually made based on goals, money and time. There is no one right answer, both provide challenges and rewards as not everyone's goals are the same.
> 
> Dan


Agree they both work for different situations and goals. That being said after doing both I have pretty much only hi-tech tanks and I actually find it to be less work. 

Since I'm dosing in excess and changing water on a regular basis (50% weekly or so) I do not test anything except co2 levels via drop checker. The regular water change with fast growing plants assures that waste levels will never get too high. A big benefit of EI is not testing. If testing is your thing and you enjoy that part of the hobby that's all well and good, but it's not mine. If I was still testing on a regular basis I probably wouldn't be in the hobby.

My 72G was an example of that. Mostly ferns and never tested anything but co2.


----------



## Dman911 (Nov 24, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> Agree they both work for different situations and goals. That being said after doing both I have pretty much only hi-tech tanks and I actually find it to be less work.
> 
> Since I'm dosing in excess and changing water on a regular basis (50% weekly or so) I do not test anything except co2 levels via drop checker. The regular water change with fast growing plants assures that waste levels will never get too high. A big benefit of EI is not testing. If testing is your thing and you enjoy that part of the hobby that's all well and good, but it's not mine. If I was still testing on a regular basis I probably wouldn't be in the hobby.
> 
> My 72G was an example of that. Mostly ferns and never tested anything but co2.


Beautiful tank.

Dan


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

Houseofcards that tank is simply stunning... That would be total and complete victory for me. If I could get my 75 EXACTLY like that all would be right in the world. Unfortunately Bolbitus doesn't live in low tech for me and Java Fern slowly dies off as well. I guess I never got into the regimented ferts thing as I also hate testing. The EI dosing is much of the reason I want to go high tech. I can do a portion of EI dosing and increase as plant mass increases and simply do a water change weekly. I just get more and more frustrated with the amount of time it takes to see the results of any change in stimulus.


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> Houseofcards that tank is simply stunning... That would be total and complete victory for me. If I could get my 75 EXACTLY like that all would be right in the world. Unfortunately Bolbitus doesn't live in low tech for me and Java Fern slowly dies off as well. I guess I never got into the regimented ferts thing as I also hate testing. The EI dosing is much of the reason I want to go high tech. I can do a portion of EI dosing and increase as plant mass increases and simply do a water change weekly. I just get more and more frustrated with the amount of time it takes to see the results of any change in stimulus.


There are two things that are hghly uncontroled in aquarums. The nutrient content of your tap water is essentially unknown. And most fertilizers are deficient in something. With these unknowns many people are having issue with high tech and low tech plants. Note everyones water is the same. Adding fertilizers can help if it has what your tank is lacking. However if your water is lacking one nutrient and your fertilzier is lacking the same one you are not going to succeed. And no amount of liquid CO2 or CO2 gas will fix that. In my opinion if your Java fern died you likely had a deficency. Note Tom Barr, (the originator of the EI methode) has stated on his website that _"CO2 is not required for a EI tank"._ 


When I started out I went with RO water due to concerns about my tap and used Aqueon fertilizer. At first everything went will but then my plant growth slowed and eventually stopped. I could not see any obviouse sigmes of a deficency like yellowing leaves or or dieing leaves. My plants were just not doing anything and using more fertilizer didn't help. Eventually hair algae took over and that slowly killed my plants. I evenaully noticed Aqueon had no copper and obviousely my RO water didn't. I switched to Seachem flourish comprehensive (it has copper but otherwise is similar to Aqueon). That made a big difference and helped me get my hair algae issue down to managable levels. 

If you couldn't get Java fern to grow you definitely had a nutrient deficiency. And no amount of testing would identify the problem. For the most common deficiencies there are simply no commercial test kits available. Only a detailed lab testing would find it. About the only thing you can do to troubleshoot a deficiency issues is to look at your fertilizer label and compare the ingredients to the list of essential nutrients for plants:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_nutrition

If your fertilizer doesn't list one assume there isn't enough in your water. Then you can try a different fertilizer or take steps to add the missing nutrient. Commonly missing nutrients are calcium, sulfur, chlorine, nickel, and cobalt. Another thing you could do is compare the nutrient percentages on the bottle with other fertilizers. A manufacture may not be adding enough of a nutrient to resolve your deficiency. At present _I have not found any fertilizer that has all of the essential nutrients_ listed in the link above.


----------



## Silang (Mar 28, 2017)

Wow, interesting insights about low and high tech in this thread. I understand everyone's POV here. Different people, different - goal, time, money, effort. I think it is best to just do what suits you. 

As for me. Mine's like the lowest of the low. No ferts. No CO2. No testing. Once a day feeding. One day a week fasting. Frequent but very small water change every three days (I am trying to imitate a local stream here that receives rain every few days)

Old tank - 0$
Yard dirt, gravel, sand (locally sourced) - 0$
Rocks, branches, leaf litter (locally sourced) - 0$
Small sponge filter - 3$ (150 Ph Peso)
11w Light bulb for evening viewing - 4$ (200 Ph Peso)
Sun light - absolutely free

Water is clear, substrate is dirty (fish poop and and plant matter). Fish are healthy. Bugs, mosquitoes, and beetles are common in and around my tank, as I live in a tropical country - free food for my rainbowfish and barbs. Most plants thrive, some plants are slow. Some are dead and dying. And I have no problem understanding that - that's just how nature is. And so far, at 120 days - I like how it looks, and I can say that it works.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dman911 said:


> Beautiful tank.


Thanks! 




The Dude1 said:


> Houseofcards that tank is simply stunning... That would be total and complete victory for me. If I could get my 75 EXACTLY like that all would be right in the world. Unfortunately Bolbitus doesn't live in low tech for me and Java Fern slowly dies off as well. I guess I never got into the regimented ferts thing as I also hate testing. The EI dosing is much of the reason I want to go high tech. I can do a portion of EI dosing and increase as plant mass increases and simply do a water change weekly. I just get more and more frustrated with the amount of time it takes to see the results of any change in stimulus.


Thanks, been doing it for quite some time, so learned what works and what usually doesn't. Although the ferns can grow well in low-tech, hi-tech greatly increases your chances. The reason why ferns usually die off in low-tech is due to that organic build-up on their slow-growing leaves. They become magnets for algae. 

If they are faster growing and your removing large amounts of organics via water changes, carbon, etc. the plant does much better. Another small tank of mine with mostly moss and bolbitus using co2. Note how thick the moss is since it grows fast and stays clean.


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

Surf said:


> There are two things that are hghly uncontroled in aquarums. The nutrient content of your tap water is essentially unknown. And most fertilizers are deficient in something. With these unknowns many people are having issue with high tech and low tech plants. Note everyones water is the same. Adding fertilizers can help if it has what your tank is lacking. However if your water is lacking one nutrient and your fertilzier is lacking the same one you are not going to succeed. And no amount of liquid CO2 or CO2 gas will fix that. In my opinion if your Java fern died you likely had a deficency. Note Tom Barr, (the originator of the EI methode) has stated on his website that _"CO2 is not required for a EI tank"._
> 
> 
> When I started out I went with RO water due to concerns about my tap and used Aqueon fertilizer. At first everything went will but then my plant growth slowed and eventually stopped. I could not see any obviouse sigmes of a deficency like yellowing leaves or or dieing leaves. My plants were just not doing anything and using more fertilizer didn't help. Eventually hair algae took over and that slowly killed my plants. I evenaully noticed Aqueon had no copper and obviousely my RO water didn't. I switched to Seachem flourish comprehensive (it has copper but otherwise is similar to Aqueon). That made a big difference and helped me get my hair algae issue down to managable levels.
> ...


If I am being honest I didn't really think there was a need for fertilizers with no C02. I ordered a full line of ferts just now and I will start dosing slowly and see how it goes. Hopefully there is some adjustments to account for a lack of C02 as I dpnt.want to create an algae farm


----------



## Dman911 (Nov 24, 2016)

Surf said:


> There are two things that are hghly uncontroled in aquarums. The nutrient content of your tap water is essentially unknown. And most fertilizers are deficient in something. With these unknowns many people are having issue with high tech and low tech plants. Note everyones water is the same. Adding fertilizers can help if it has what your tank is lacking. However if your water is lacking one nutrient and your fertilzier is lacking the same one you are not going to succeed. And no amount of liquid CO2 or CO2 gas will fix that. In my opinion if your Java fern died you likely had a deficency. Note Tom Barr, (the originator of the EI methode) has stated on his website that _"CO2 is not required for a EI tank"._
> 
> 
> When I started out I went with RO water due to concerns about my tap and used Aqueon fertilizer. At first everything went will but then my plant growth slowed and eventually stopped. I could not see any obviouse sigmes of a deficency like yellowing leaves or or dieing leaves. My plants were just not doing anything and using more fertilizer didn't help. Eventually hair algae took over and that slowly killed my plants. I evenaully noticed Aqueon had no copper and obviousely my RO water didn't. I switched to Seachem flourish comprehensive (it has copper but otherwise is similar to Aqueon). That made a big difference and helped me get my hair algae issue down to managable levels.
> ...


I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that it is definitely a nutrient deficiency. It could be any type of deficiency but without information of what signs it was exhibiting its hard to say. It could be nutrient deficiency, lighting, Co2 deficiency, algae choking out the plants is what I would lean towards. While these traces are needed the demand for micros in a low tech tank is next to 0. I can see this point if you are using R/O water but I don't think that's the case here. As far as the quote that no EI tank requires Co2, I would say no tank with any type of fertilizer requires Co2 but all will benefit. 

Dan


----------



## Esteban Colberto (Mar 7, 2017)

I have a 30 gallon low tech tank that is only three months old so I don't know if it counts. I didn't have a lot of luck when I first set up as I was (and still am) a complete noob. It's definitely a tweakers game to get things right but now my plants are growing well. I have to trim my Wisteria, Ludwigia Repends and Anacharis every week. My Bacopas are growing well and even my carpet is spreading just fine. I think my biggest problem at first was too much light. I even doubled the light at one point because I thought that there wasn't enough. Now I'm running this:

2x Aquaray GroBEAM 600 Ultima LED lights
1/2 teaspoon of nilocG GH Booster added during a weekly 50% water change
2 pumps of nilocG Thrive the day after the water change
1/2 cap of Seachem Excel daily
5 on, 4 off and 5 on light timing

My substrate is Eco-Complete (which everyone seems to hate) and I put in some Seachem root tabs at the end of the first month. I think it's doing pretty well for a first tank.


----------



## Stijn Grundeman (Feb 21, 2017)

My low tech tank is very successful actually and has had zero problems. The tank has pretty poor lighting (it was one of those really cheap aquarium kits) and im using some floating plants. Basically, this leads to me the tank having zero algae problems ever. The plants (vals, dwarf sag, anubias as well as some other easy plants which names i forgot) are doing surprisingly well and are even growing. i dose ei by the way. The best thing is that i can neglect the tank pretty much with regard to water changes and dosing and there are no real consequences. My high tech tank on the other hand is causing way more headaches so i would argue the opposite, low tech is easier than high tech. Maybe the lights you have are brighter than you think they are?


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

I am not sure how to respond to this thread any more.

It is all a matter of preference I suppose.
I have seen beautiful tanks of all tech levels.
There is no right or wrong approach.

I enjoy the science project in it all.
Experimentation with ferts, DIY lighting, and PAR research.
Everytime a fert bottle gets low I get to play mad scientist again and devise another "improved solution".
CO2 is not too exciting just set it and forget it but don't forget to keep an eye on the HP gauge.

Most of all is plant experimentation and collection for me.
When I get something new I divvy it up into at least two different hi-tech environments to establish best results.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I think there's something being somewhat missed here...

CO2 is not a magic bullet. Sure, adding CO2, more light and more ferts will cause plants to grow faster AND some (e.g. carpet) plants need high light in order to grow well or at all.
HOWEVER, I think if there's a problem in low tech with growing plants and/or with too much algae, CO2 is not a sure cure. The cure is finding the root cause. Too much/little nutrients, too much/little light....BALANCE is required in "any tech" method.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I agree that co2 is not a magic bullet for all setups, but it could be for certain ones. 

Let's take the low tech tank you describe that has too much algae. Assuming their is enough nutrients the uptake will increase and reduce the organic content in the water. With more faster growing plant mass all the anecdotal evidence we have (thousands upon thousands of planted aquariums) the algae will have a harder time surviving and competing with the faster growing plants. 

I don't believe co2 to be a magic bullet for all tanks because it's benefit is directly tied to how much plant mass you have. Co2 is not an algacide in itself so without the plant mass the organic content won't change that much in the water and algae will still grow.

Water changes IMO are the closest we come to a "Magic Bullet" since it benefits all setups as long as you DOSE back in what is removed. Removing water with its organic nutrients and dosing inorganic salts like NPK is always better from an algae standpoint.


----------



## ChrisX (May 28, 2017)

Another thought on this debate... is that people with algae in low tech are advised to reduce their lighting. My tanks are currently in a mid day siesta and I can't really watch them.

What if you want you tank to be viewable in all its planted glory throughout the day? 

You can lower the lighting.. which might be difficult depending on your light, or might create a dark tank that is not visually appealing. 

Or.. you can add CO2 which lets you keep the lights on all day.

Dont aquatic plants have more CO2 in natural settings? Its amazing that we obsess over our fish's diets to give them the best color and growth, yet somehow skimping with the plants is ok.

I respect low tech, but its not what I want.


----------



## blink (Feb 22, 2012)

Success in low tech REALLY depends what you are looking to be successful at, if you want a pristine, groomed tank then I haven't got much advise for you. If you want a more natural look I've had a few tanks that I consider successful low tech mostly because I filled them with plenty of hardy, easy to grow plants and left them alone.
I will move plants around and prune when things get ridiculous, I fertilize with liquid a couple times a week but otherwise I leave well enough alone and the plants and fish are pretty happy.

I've had more luck growing "medium" difficulty plants in low tech than I've had with "Easy" plants in my high tech, so much so that I turned down the kessil and disconnected the CO2 and let it junglefy.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

ChrisX said:


> What if you want you tank to be viewable in all its planted glory throughout the day?
> 
> Or.. you can add CO2 which lets you keep the lights on all day.
> 
> Dont aquatic plants have more CO2 in natural settings? Its amazing that we obsess over our fish's diets to give them the best color and growth, yet somehow skimping with the plants is ok.


If you wish to view your planted glory all throughout the day be careful!

If one feeds their fish they need to feed their plants too!


----------



## jflng (Apr 5, 2007)

The Dude1 said:


> That's how we develop our opinions. I can tell you that I bought a HUGE mass of needle leaf Java Fern for my 150. I had 2 pretty strong LED fixtures and even dosed Glut, but they slowly faded... and died out... and I tossed them... like Ive done with Bolbitus, Windolev java fern, and probably a few others... I think that's what ChrisX is talking about. Whatever you are doing is working. I havent gotten there with Low tech in 10 years... maybe its my water, maybe too little light, maybe placement, maybe lack of ferts, who knows. As I tried things stuff continues to die. I have upgraded ALL of my lighting and I'm hooking up CO2 on all of them. Ive tossed ALOT of what was nice plants... I worked up to 30ml DAILY of glut.. stuff still died.
> Ive I had growth like you I would probably stay low tech. But I want the plants I want and most require CO2. I like the carefully scaped look and that requires fast growth and propogation.


Glut can kill needle leaf, and many other plants. Glut is not necessary for a low tech tank, but could help with certain plants. Same goes for any fert.

Low tech tanks are just that. I think a lot of people here are overteching their 'low techs.' There are quite a few plants that will do very well with low light, low ferts, low care overall, and there are many other plants that may require more light, co2, etc. You have to pick your plants according to the habitat you're providing.

I've run low, medium, and high tech tanks for years, and by far, the low techs are easiest. I have one 10g that has been running for 10+ years, and several others that are multiple+ years in age. I hardly tend to them.


----------



## aquaBender (Aug 18, 2016)

Low-tech versus high-tech also seems to be a bit of a divide between those who want to control a system and those who want to watch the system develop under its own control. Like having a heavily tended garden versus restoring the landscape and letting it run itself.


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> Dont aquatic plants have more CO2 in natural settings? Its amazing that we obsess over our fish's diets to give them the best color and growth, yet somehow skimping with the plants is ok.


The air has 400ppm of CO2 With sufficient mixing of air and water CO2 levels in the water will reach 400ppm. There are 3 natural places where CO2 levels will exceed 400ppm.

1. volcanoes inject CO2 in water.
2. rain water. The amount of CO2 water can hold is dependent on temperature. Cold water holds more CO2. Rain water will start out very cold and by the time it reaches the surface it can easily have 1000ppm. CO2 levels drop rapidly when it warms at the surface.
3. Rain water that quickly sonks into the ground will carry CO2 to ground water. Potentially making the aquifer acidic. 

In all 3 cases CO2 levels will Equilibrate with air CO2 then the water reaches the surface. Most streams and rivers have CO2 levels near 400ppm.


----------

