# Please define Low Tech, High Tech (your take)



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

I have one tank that I consider low tech:

small tank, low light, inert substrate, 2 filters, easy plants, few inhabitants(shrimp).
no ferts, no CO2. very rare water changes. Di water + gh booster.










----------------------------------------


I have a bigger tank that I dont know what to consider.

Bigger tank, medium light, 2 filters, pressurized co2, easy plants, inert substrate, few inhabitants(shrimp), no ferts, tap water + gh booster, no water changes so far, but maybe every 3-4 months.


----------



## ShortFin (Dec 27, 2005)

IMO

high tech = pressurized Co2.
low tech = DIY Co2 or none.

Light and substrate does not matter.

I have High Tech (currently turn off) with no stems.


----------



## Aquatic Delight (Mar 2, 2012)

to me high tech requires timers and CO2 and ferts you cant buy at petcomart

low tech is turn on light, feed fish, turn off light.


----------



## fusiongt (Nov 7, 2011)

Yep I think high tech = pressurized CO2... because with that, the rest are a given - you don't have pressurized CO2 with low lighting (defeats the purpose).


----------



## jeremyTR (Mar 21, 2012)

I must be medish tech then

Sent from my HTC Evo 4G


----------



## Big O (Jun 28, 2011)

HO lights and pressurized c02= high tech
To me anyway. 
I have five tanks at home and one at work, and all but one are low tech.


----------



## vincenz (Jan 29, 2012)

I also think high tech is marked by pressurized CO2 because if you have that, then everything else will follow-- high lighting, stem plants, more difficult carpeting plants, trimming, dosing, water changes, etc.

If you don't have pressurized CO2 and still have to do all of the above, then I'd call it medium tech.

Low tech is pretty much none of that.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

Low tech = low on the tech front. No timers, no dosers, no auto top off. 
High tech = high on the tech front. Light timers, fert dosers, solenoid on co2 or ph controlled, etc. 

Most of amano's tanks are low tech. Somebody turns off the lights, somebody turns off the co2, somebody squirts the ferts into the tank, somebody tops up the water. 

My tanks are all high tech because I am lazy. They are fully planted so I still have co2 and ferts because I try to mimic conditions in nature -> non limiting ferts and co2. 

IMO tanks without co2 are generally not as healthy because you aren't feeding the plants. Some may look well, most do not.


----------



## GMYukonon24s (May 3, 2009)

The way I define the levels of tech I somewhat look at it the way vincenz said. I look at it as 3 levels.

*High tech *- which is high light, pressurized CO2,and ferts. With high tech your able to grow any plant you want.

*Medium tech *– which is working with DIY CO2 or Excel and ferts.

*Low tech *– which is not using any type of CO2 or ferts. Basically just having a light over the tank.


----------



## smokaah (Nov 30, 2011)

pejerrey said:


> I have one tank that I consider low tech:
> 
> small tank, low light, inert substrate, 2 filters, easy plants, few inhabitants(shrimp).
> no ferts, no CO2. very rare water changes. Di water + gh booster.
> ...


How do you get buy changing water every 3-4 months? I do 20-30% a week.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

smokaah said:


> How do you get buy changing water every 3-4 months? I do 20-30% a week.


 You know what is the TDS start point of the water quality you want and whenever the TDS goes far from that then you change some water to come back to desired TDS. This is easier in tanks with few inhabitants and no dosing.


----------



## Quesenek (Sep 26, 2008)

High tech - pressurized co2
Medium tech - DIY co2
Low tech - no co2 or excel


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Seems to be more co2 related huh?


----------



## wendyjo (Feb 20, 2009)

Aquatic Delight said:


> to me high tech requires timers and CO2 and ferts you cant buy at petcomart
> 
> low tech is turn on light, feed fish, turn off light.


^This!


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

So why is a low tech tank considered a planted tank? As far as this thread is describing, a fish bowl is a planted tank. 

If the conditions in the tank cannot support any plant available, how is it a planted tank? I suppose my 5 gallon bucket is a "planted bucket" because it has anubias in there that are still growing, and they've been in there for over 8 months. 

Yet, if I throw some glosso stems in there they die. It doesn't seem like very good conditions for plants in general. 

So how can a tank without co2 and ferts be classified as a planted tank. It is simply an aquarium with plants in it. If I have a dog, is my house a dog pound?


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

jcgd said:


> So why is a low tech tank considered a planted tank? As far as this thread is describing, a fish bowl is a planted tank.
> 
> If the conditions in the tank cannot support any plant available, how is it a planted tank? I suppose my 5 gallon bucket is a "planted bucket" because it has anubias in there that are still growing, and they've been in there for over 8 months.
> 
> ...


 I'm not sure if I understood if your opinion is about defining low tech and high tech. Is it about weather a planted tank is a planted tank because of its nutrients? Interesting point of view tho.


----------



## vincenz (Jan 29, 2012)

jcgd said:


> So why is a low tech tank considered a planted tank? As far as this thread is describing, a fish bowl is a planted tank.
> 
> If the conditions in the tank cannot support any plant available, how is it a planted tank? I suppose my 5 gallon bucket is a "planted bucket" because it has anubias in there that are still growing, and they've been in there for over 8 months.
> 
> ...


Wait wait, why can't a tank that's without CO2 and ferts be called a planted tank?

The tank is planted, plants are growing, fish are being fish. What's the difference between that and an equivalent tank with the addition of CO2 and ferts?

A fish bowl is not a planted tank just because it's low tech. A dog house is not a planted tank just because it's 4 wooden walls and a roof (low tech). A fish bowl that has a plant in it could be called a planted bowl. Your logic is kind of mixed up.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

Not quite, and that isn't exactly my point of view. I'm more of the opinion that a planet tank is in the eye of the beholder/ owner but we should classify them by light level, as fert and co2 amounts aren't optional as you get up the scale. 

Low light - co2 and ferts not needed. Low light demanding plants, slow growing. Co2 will have fantastic results if used. Easy to maintain. Limited species can be kept. 
Med light - co2 and ferts needed for easy balance. Walking a tightrope without co2. Eventually plants will stunt due to growing faster and not being fed. Think 40umol at substrate. Can grow anything with pressurized co2. 
High light - non limiting ferts, co2. Fast growth. Any mistake and you have an algae bloom in two days. Think Tom's 120 gallon.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

vincenz said:


> Wait wait, why can't a tank that's without CO2 and ferts be called a planted tank?
> 
> The tank is planted, plants are growing, fish are being fish. What's the difference between that and an equivalent tank with the addition of CO2 and ferts?
> 
> A fish bowl is not a planted tank just because it's low tech. A dog house is not a planted tank just because it's 4 wooden walls and a roof (low tech). A fish bowl that has a plant in it could be called a planted bowl. Your logic is kind of mixed up.


Just being devil's advocate. But you missed a bit of what I was saying. I said my house isn't a dog pound just because I have a dog. 

This isn't quite my view, read my post above.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

jcgd said:


> Not quite, and that isn't exactly my point of view. I'm more of the opinion that a planet tank is in the eye of the beholder/ owner but we should classify them by light level, as fert and co2 amounts aren't optional as you get up the scale.
> 
> Low light - co2 and ferts not needed. Low light demanding plants, slow growing. Co2 will have fantastic results if used. Easy to maintain. Limited species can be kept.
> Med light - co2 and ferts needed for easy balance. Walking a tightrope without co2. Eventually plants will stunt due to growing faster and not being fed. Think 40umol at substrate. Can grow anything with pressurized co2.
> High light - non limiting ferts, co2. Fast growth. Any mistake and you have an algae bloom in two days. Think Tom's 120 gallon.


Ah! Ok! That makes more sense to me, sorry I didn't get what you meant in the first post. Thanks!


----------



## wendyjo (Feb 20, 2009)

Here's my tank AFTER a major trim in which I pulled out a sword as big as my head and handfuls of sag bigger than my head. I use no added ferts and no co2. If you don''t consider this a planted tank then I dunno what to tell ya.


----------



## vincenz (Jan 29, 2012)

jcgd said:


> Just being devil's advocate. But you missed a bit of what I was saying. I said my house isn't a dog pound just because I have a dog.
> 
> This isn't quite my view, read my post above.


No, I was just questioning what you said about low tech tanks not being planted tanks. I can understand that a tank with just gravel, filter, and goldfish NOT being a planted tank (because it has no plants in it, not because it's low tech), but if it has gravel, filter, goldfish, and plants, then we can call it a planted tank. Do the plants have to be growing for it to be called a planted tank? I guess that's another issue.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Light is what drives all other requirements for a planted tank. Higher light forces you to use CO2, to avoid serious algae problems, dose a complete menu of nutrients, use methods for ensuring good water circulation in the tank, etc. With low light, you can use CO2 if you wish, dose the water if you wish, maintain good water circulation in the tank if you wish, etc. So, to me, low tech is another phrase for low light.


----------



## green_valley (Sep 14, 2011)

In my opinion:

High Tech = High light + CO2 + High Maintenance 
Low Tech = Low light + No CO2 + Low Maintenance


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

A little recap:

Most people relate the injection of co2 with the definition. One member nailed a big fact. Light.
Hight light needs co2. Low light doesn't.
Hmmm... Enlightening perspective indeed, litteraly!


----------



## Quesenek (Sep 26, 2008)

Hoppy said:


> Light is what drives all other requirements for a planted tank. Higher light forces you to use CO2, to avoid serious algae problems, dose a complete menu of nutrients, use methods for ensuring good water circulation in the tank, etc. With low light, you can use CO2 if you wish, dose the water if you wish, maintain good water circulation in the tank if you wish, etc. So, to me, low tech is another phrase for low light.


I agree.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

pejerrey said:


> A little recap:
> 
> Most people relate the injection of co2 with the definition. One member nailed a big fact. Light.
> Hight light needs co2. Low light doesn't.
> Hmmm... Enlightening perspective indeed, litteraly!


But how does that make one high tech and the other low? The terms themselves make no sense. 

I could have a tank, clean the glass top and jump from low tech to high by accident, just because my light intensity jumped 20%. Give it three weeks and I'm back to low tech. 

Low/ high tech should define the manual labour involved. Not the amount of ligh you have.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

From post #1 :
*I really don't want people to use this poll to start a nasty discussion of right and wrong by putting down other members opinion, lets respect each other. Lets just share our own opinion without judging or correcting other posters, please, please, please :biggrin: peace!roud:*


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

vincenz said:


> I also think high tech is marked by pressurized CO2 because if you have that, then everything else will follow-- high lighting, stem plants, more difficult carpeting plants, trimming, dosing, water changes, etc.
> 
> If you don't have pressurized CO2 and still have to do all of the above, then I'd call it medium tech.
> 
> Low tech is pretty much none of that.


Actually Co2 follows. If you dont have high light you dont need Co2..... Most people find they need Co2 because they went to high light...... Then they realize the need for Co2.


----------



## Aquaticfan (Oct 30, 2011)

Hoppy said:


> Light is what drives all other requirements for a planted tank. Higher light forces you to use CO2, to avoid serious algae problems, dose a complete menu of nutrients, use methods for ensuring good water circulation in the tank, etc. With low light, you can use CO2 if you wish, dose the water if you wish, maintain good water circulation in the tank if you wish, etc. So, to me, low tech is another phrase for low light.



Hoppy has it nailed dead on right here.


----------



## fusiongt (Nov 7, 2011)

> Most of amano's tanks are low tech. Somebody turns off the lights, somebody turns off the co2, somebody squirts the ferts into the tank, somebody tops up the water.


New definition:

- Highest Tech = hire people to turn on/off lights and co2, add in ferts, do water changes, and scrub the algae off the side.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

pejerrey said:


> From post #1 :
> *I really don't want people to use this poll to start a nasty discussion of right and wrong by putting down other members opinion, lets respect each other. Lets just share our own opinion without judging or correcting other posters, please, please, please :biggrin: peace!roud:*


Sorry man, I was just trying to get some discussion going. Are my posts nasty? Just trying to get others to debate the topic. 



Aquaticfan said:


> Actually Co2 follows. If you dont have high light you dont need Co2..... Most people find they need Co2 because they went to high light...... Then they realize the need for Co2.


Exactly. Bang on. Light levels are really the only optional factor. Even low
Light can require added ferts if you have crappy water with nothing in it. 



Aquaticfan said:


> Hoppy has it nailed dead on right here.


He has the same point as me, except he has given up on he low/ high tech debate so he just goes with the terms. IIRC. Even by his definition, low tech isn't low tech. Or the light level where one particular setup becomes low tech could vary from tank to tank.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

Debate?


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

Debate? Now I'm confused. Did you not want discussion?


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

jcgd said:


> Debate? Now in confused. Did you not want discussion?


Nah!  that's how people start attacking each other's opinion. You can do as you wish. I just wanted to know everybody's definition free of judgement.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

Oh I see. Well I'll leave well enough alone then. My apologies.


----------



## pejerrey (Dec 5, 2011)

I totally forgot about this thread! Lol!

I wanted to update my definition of them after reading all of this nice definitions we collected here.

My take:

High tech, can be low to high light but has a more complex scaping goal where there is more maintenance, supplies and equipment involved, therefore co2 delivery. Most of the time is quick growing tanks. The term can be used to mean "expensive" also.

Low tech, I would say it needs to be low light therefore slow growth to need little maintenance, supplies and equipment. The term can be used to mean "cheap" also.

There is technique, equipment and budget involved in coining this terms, been budget the most confusing. 

Thanks ya all for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## Squirt (Nov 21, 2011)

Hmm.

What I think some people see is that photosynthesis is split into two reactions.

I will keep it simple here (not sure is this is 100% accurate but assume it is close) 

The first stage is the light dependent stage. The phase that needs light to function. Pretty much inputs are ADP, Light and water. Water is broken down to H atoms and O atoms, oxygen is expelled as oxygen gas as it is no longer needed. H ions form and the electrons are used to turn ADP into ATP.

(ATP is one of the sources of energy for the plants)

Now there is the light independent phase, which does not directly need Light. Hydrogen and ATP are taken from the previous stage to this stage. This is pretty much where CO2 is re arranged to form glucose with the added hydrogen. Glucose is C6H12O6

So as others where saying light drives this process. Actually if anyone can tell me how nutrients tie into this it would be appreciated:bounce:


----------



## KlintZquarium (Jul 22, 2012)

I've got an Aqueon modular LED light with three modules. That's as "high-tech" as I've got going in my tank.

Does that mean I'm low tech?


----------



## Jules (May 20, 2012)

Pressurized CO2 = high tech
Everything else = low tech (but some low tech is lower than others)


----------



## if_fishes_were_wishes (Jul 29, 2007)

jcgd said:


> IMO tanks without co2 are generally not as healthy because you aren't feeding the plants. Some may look well, most do not.


I politely disagree. Plants also thrive on fish poop, of which I have tons  You can have a healthy, thriving low tech tank...just my opinion though! I don't think "most" low tech tanks are unhealthy, you just rely on "natural" ferts, that's all, not ones in a bottle.


----------

