# Is Budget your motivation?



## tazcrash69 (Sep 27, 2005)

I've got to tell you that, I agree with you Otis. I've got a 125 high tech tank with great lush growth, but it puts a lot of demands on my time. I wanted something a lot easier to maintain. 
And I’ll tell you the truth, If I knew I could grow stuff this well, I probably would have gone low tech for the 125. My pygmy chain swords are growing, yet not totally over taking the tank the way they did in the 125, The bacopa Monneri is growing, slower, and with much smaller leaves, but everything is healthy, and seemingly happy. 


This would actually make a good poll. 
reason for Low-tech:
Financial
Maintanance issues
Techno-phobia


----------



## esarkipato (Jul 19, 2005)

Ha, I like this discussion better than "what constitutes low-tech". Let's just assume that "low-tech" tanks are comparatively 1) cheap 2) low maintenance 3) less technology and 4) slower growth.

I love my low-tech tanks (10, 29), for all the above reasons. But honestly, the reason they are low-tech is because I don't have the $$ to go high-tech. This is probably a good thing, though, because there's no way I have the time to maintain 3 fast-growth tanks and they would end up being bowls of algae!

So I guess budget IS my motivation, but in reality I think time/maintenance would end up being the "limiting factor".


----------



## Canoe2Can (Oct 31, 2004)

For me it's all about maintenance. I had a high tech 45, and once I got it balanced it worked out alright. But then I moved, took on a more demanding job, and had less time to get it balanced. For some reason, I've never been able to figure out my local water chemistry here. So I've gone to a low tech 120, and I'm much happier with the results. I still change water every week or two, but with the Python, that's a half hour job that I don't mind. 

If budget was the issue, then I wouldn't have upgraded to a 120 to do it!


----------



## BluSponge (Apr 2, 2006)

Budget was part of it. I mean, all in all I spent about $300 refitting my tank. That's money for new lights, plants, driftwood, and assorted equipment. A CO2 tank would have added around $200 more, minimum. If this was something you could easily do piecemeal, that would be one thing. But given my budget, I had to make certain decisions. Granted, I could do a DIY CO2 kit for about $50, so budget wasn't the primary factor.

The biggest factor was time. I like to travel, and I can be gone anywhere from 2 days to a week at a time. I also know myself well enough to know there will come a time when I just get lazy and let things slip. For that reason, I can't plan to spend 4-5 hours a week working on the tank. I can't expect to do regular dosing, constantly monitor water parameters, or spend a day pruning back an Amano jungle.

Now, if this tank is successful (and if I can beat these damn diatoms, it should be, by all indications), I may eventually try a CO2 set up in a smaller tank. But really, the most appealing thing about doing the low tech tank is that I can leave it alone for a month and not worry about it. All I have to do is make sure the fish get fed and everything is golden.

Unfortunately, I'm still in "constantly fiddle" mode. But I'm doing my best to stop.


----------



## stcyrwm (Sep 1, 2005)

I do it for the ease of maintenance and I enjoy the slower pace of growth.

Bill


----------



## wildfyre (Nov 3, 2005)

Budget is my motive .. I'm broke and any money I do get goes to my plants :fish:


----------



## lumpyfunk (Dec 22, 2004)

Budget is not my primary motive, I prefer to do things on a low cost basis, but my first tank is (was) a high tech 90 gallon that I did a tremendous amount of DIY to get it going. The diy for less was a motivator for me, I like being able to say that I put my entire CO2 system together for less than $150 including a 20lb tank. Since then I have kind of found my personal tech level based on what I want to put in and get out of the tanks. I have dropped the tech level on my 90 to "mid" and have set up a 40 breeder as a low tech with plans for a 46 bow front as a low tech. Partly because of $$ and partly because of personal constraints.


----------



## tekknoschtev (Feb 1, 2005)

As with what other's have mentioned, budget isnt my main motivator for having a low-tech tank. I'm at college year-round now, and while the tank is my sisters (and in her room) its _technically_ my tank that I maintain when I come home. Its nice to not come home to a tank completely overgrown with plants (though, that hornwort took off one week when I didnt come home on the weekend). Its nice that the plants grow at a nice consistent pace without having to worry about an explosion and massive trimming spree when I'm home. Just a quick water change, replant the little plants the pleco ripped up, and enjoy. Given that we have three other reef tanks, and several other freshwater tanks, an iguana, bearded dragon, cockatiel, and cats, its nice to have one or two tanks that my family doesnt have to worry about (and no, not all of those animals are mine) while I'm away.

But budget is a big factor. We've got the 150 gal reef tank that pretty much sucks my wallet dry every now and again, which while the tank is pretty, it'd be nice to have a tank that looked as great as the 55 planted tank I have looks, without pitching fisfuls of cash into. I figure we have about $100 in my sister's 55gal planted tank (as most of the stuff was either used, free or we had laying around, biggest cost has been plants).


----------



## ddawson (May 16, 2006)

Budget is not a concern for me but not being a slave to the tank is.

I just took down a Reef tank I had running for a few years. The constant water changes with two growing boys was just too much.

I’m hoping for a low maintenance tank this time around.

I would do CO2 but the extra work beyond set it and forget doesn’t seem to be there.

Dan


----------



## krazyalways (Feb 25, 2006)

I have gone low tech primarily because of maintance. I enjoy playing with my tanks in the dead of winter. But spring through fall, I barely have time to feed fish. With a low tech I have the flexibility to do both. But cost is also a significant perk. My 180 was an expensive set up. But a whole lot cheaper without Co2 and MH lighting. Also, I live on a well and hate to waste water and my high tech set ups require large amounts of water changes.

Dee


----------



## TAM (Jul 31, 2005)

*Cheap*



esarkipato said:


> Ha, I like this discussion better than "what constitutes low-tech". Let's just assume that "low-tech" tanks are comparatively 1) cheap 2) low maintenance 3) less technology and 4) slower growth.
> ...
> So I guess budget IS my motivation, but in reality I think time/maintenance would end up being the "limiting factor".


Budget is very much a limiting factor for me. Being able to have healthy fish along with a beautiful low maintenance tank makes me happy.  Less fiddling is great too.

TAM


----------



## Shakey (Dec 7, 2003)

Hey I want to save money just as much as the next guy, but I don't believe budget has anything to do with choice between low and high tech. You have about a 200 dollar difference in start up cost, after that the cost difference is nothing, and a low tech-er using excel will end up being more expensive.

Maintenance, well that's one I can see, the amount of work is definitely to my liking, I hate hobbies that turn into a second job, and with enough tanks even a low tech setup can turn into a job. I like to max out in enjoyment time, only running one tank at this time I do find it hard to stay out of the tank very long unless I am buried with lots of OT hours or a lot of other house work junk to do.

Slow growth... PFFT... CO2 junkie myth to sucker people into using CO2.


----------



## mindbum (Apr 7, 2006)

my tanks are low tech and heavily planted.

i came into the hobby knowing nothing about how people make fishtanks. 

but, my goal from the outset was to create self-sustaining ecosystems. or close approximations thereof. i shouted with glee the first time i saw a hydra in my tank. i've always liked hydra. and biodiversity.

hightech seems a precarious balance. i'm looking for something more stable. 

i like over the side filters but use them only with sponges. i guess that could come across as a budget move but it's more a look for simplicity. there arent lids on any of them either.

dollars certainly count a great deal. but i have a dozen fishtanks and can neglect them a week or two and have no worries. or i can spend tons of time with my hands wet. relative to desire. the necessities are not taxing.


----------



## Otis (Jan 4, 2006)

Thanks for all the responses. I also own a maintenance company, so I set up planted tanks for other people. High tech tanks require more service calls than most of my clients are willing to pay for. To be honest, if they are going to pay for very frequent service calls, they most likely will do salt water systems instead. Low tech tanks can be very beautiful and very stable.

It just struck me that budget is a motivation for my clients. Not for the set up, but for the maintenance costs.


----------



## Otis (Jan 4, 2006)

OK, as I was writing my last post, I was staring at my 135 gallon system all ready with driftwood, rocks and collection of rare rasboras and giant danio type fish that I planned on doing a high tech tank with. I have all the stuff, Co2, lights, etc..., but I just can't get myself to do it. It's summer and I'm not sure I want more maintenance. Low tech would be no hassle at all. But I need the practice on a high tech system from a professional stand point. Oh, what am I going to do?


----------



## noncentric (Apr 5, 2006)

I'm running two low-tech tanks now - stock Eclipse set-ups.

At first, I didn't upgrade due to costs - but now I'm realizing that I just don't want to dedicate more time than I already do. I don't want to have to trim more frequently than I already do.

It would seem that low-maintenance is my main motivation for keeping things low-tech. I've accumulated some supplies to get a 10-gal set-up with 2x13 CF lights, but I haven't done it yet because of time issues. Maybe if I scrap the 6-gal, hhmmm.


----------



## esarkipato (Jul 19, 2005)

> I was staring at my 135 gallon system all ready with driftwood, rocks and collection of rare rasboras and giant danio type fish that I planned on doing a high tech tank with. I have all the stuff, Co2, lights, etc..., but I just can't get myself to do it. It's summer and I'm not sure I want more maintenance. Low tech would be no hassle at all. But I need the practice on a high tech system from a professional stand point.


Great to hear you are _thinking about_ taking the plunge! I see exactly your point, especially about the summertime!



> Oh, what am I going to do?


Heh, isn't that a question for another thread :hihi: just kiddin'

Honestly, you are starting big, big, big! That's a very large tank to stuff full of plants under high-light. Here's some things to consider

-once co2 is set and lights are running, all you REALLY need to worry about providing are fairly balanced macro and micro nutrients. Definitely have a plan for this before you set it up and plant it. (I suggest dry ferts from greg watson's site)

-trimming. AAAAAHHHH, trimming. This is what consumes the time that is so very precious to us michiganders in the summer. To cut down on it (no pun intended), try planting lots of slow growers like crypts, ferns, and anubias (i know you have a ton). They do amazingly well under high light, and require FAR less trimming than stems. If you feel like trying out some rare stems (which are great), do it as a compliment to the slow growers.

-downsize the tank. I know you have it practically set up already, but if possible go smaller. This will reduce the time it takes to do EVERYTHING, as you well know.

I'm gonna have to stop in soon and see this future 135! In fact, let me know if I can help you set it up or anything, sounds like a really fun project! :thumbsup:


----------



## Livebearer101 (Feb 7, 2006)

I agree, its the challenge and the understanding that we have yet to get everything or complete everything to do with aquariums. We're excited that there is still something out there and it's difficult to achieve. That's what creates motivation.


----------



## Shakey (Dec 7, 2003)

Otis said:


> Thanks for all the responses. I also own a maintenance company, so I set up planted tanks for other people. High tech tanks require more service calls than most of my clients are willing to pay for. To be honest, if they are going to pay for very frequent service calls, they most likely will do salt water systems instead. Low tech tanks can be very beautiful and very stable.
> 
> It just struck me that budget is a motivation for my clients. Not for the set up, but for the maintenance costs.


When you assess the question from a maintenance company's view, I think most of us would change our view on the money factor. The challenge and reward of doing it ourselves is a major goal for me. Doing so by saving money and getting results comparable what some else has done for much money is great too.

Now looking at the same thing from the view of having a service maintain my tank for me. I know I would be one of the cheap skate clients, cause when your pay for a service your usually paying for supplies at an inflated cost, the servicers time, lets not forgot about his transportation costs to get to your site now that gas is getting closer to $5 a gallon, and if you have flat fee added on for the service call... 

Now looking at the service costs in the last paragraph (I have no clue what you charge so I made that stuff up) I know that would greatly affect how willing I would be to spend on my tank. Now on the flip side if I was doing it myself I might run into situations where I might spend a lot of money but over the long haul it wouldn't cost that much even going highest possible tech. Start up costs are more but after that costs aren't bad at all, when doing it yourself. Now with a high tech there is a lot of putzing involved and if someone is doing that for you, your stuck with continuous charges that would really make it expensive and only possible for wealthiest of clients.



Otis said:


> (clipped)
> To be honest, if they are going to pay for very frequent service calls, they most likely will do salt water systems instead.


I love reefs and I have done and love both. A wicked planted tank can blow your mind just as well as a reef can. (Strictly my opinion here!) --> Actually I found saltwater to be easier to make impressive, and to make a planted tank equally impressive it more challenging. My guess is cause of the naturally gaudy colorations in many saltwater things.


----------

