# 'Low Tech': Definition & Typical Setup



## Cheese Sandwich (Mar 20, 2006)

Let us get this forum rolling with a general intro-level discussion of the low-tech concept. What is it, and what would a typical low-tech tank setup be.


----------



## BluSponge (Apr 2, 2006)

Well, here's a link to Tom Barr's exceptional article on the subject. It has a lot of good details on set up and maintenance. 

Tom


----------



## Cheese Sandwich (Mar 20, 2006)

BluSponge said:


> Well, here's a link to Tom Barr's exceptional article on the subject. It has a lot of good details on set up and maintenance.
> 
> Tom



Thanks, that is a good writeup, though I'm not sure I buy his argument against doing water changes (that it introduces CO2 to the tank, re-energizing algae which responds quicker to more CO2 than plants).


----------



## RoseHawke (Mar 10, 2004)

I'm not sure it would always add CO2 back to a tank anyway, if I'm understanding my water board's water quality report, my tap water has from 0 (not detected) to something like 5mg/l of CO2. I'd pretty much say that counts as "none!" But the water changes would surely be fewer, and certainly not the comparatively huge 50% weekly water change EI folks use in any case. 

I'd say there's going to be a range of low-tech, just like there's a range of hi-tech. One thing for certain, no CO2 injection; little if any ferts, as if you have a light bio-load I can see possibly adding a small amount of some all in one type thingie, although I guess you could always just feed more; lower light, in the range of 1.5-2wpg. Tom Barr (and presumably Diana Walstead, I've not read her book, it's on the "to do" list,) advocate a "rich" substrate as well.


----------



## BluSponge (Apr 2, 2006)

The article was the first thing I found that resemebled a comprehesive explaination, and is where the lights started coming on in regards to people mentioning a low-maintenance tank. Now, whether or not everything in the article is spot on remains to be seen. Just from reading posts around here, its very clear people have different experiences. But there are a few constants:

1) Lighting = 1-1.5wpg.
2) Rare water changes (maybe 25% once a month or so) -- instead, top off the tank when it gets low.
3) Very light dosing

I figure, like anything else, once you get it stablized and working, THEN you can experiment.

Tom


----------



## Naja002 (Oct 12, 2005)

To me: Low-tech is that vague point below High-tech where C02 becomes *Optional.*<--That is what I see as the High-end of Low-Tech.

I think if we are going to try to define "Low-Tech": We need to locate the "High-End" of it--because anything below it: _*is*_ Low-Tech.

Low-Tech is generally considered: No C02 and 1.5-2watts/gal. _*Then*_ the benefits of less water changes, less ferts, etc seem to be thrown in as just that: "Benefits".

What if I have 2.5 watts/gal.--Do I _*Need*_ C02? Or is it optional?

To me, the dividing line seems to be whether C02 is Needed or not.....


----------



## GulfCoastAquarian (Jul 30, 2002)

I hadn't heard that argument against water changes in low-tech tanks. Interesting. Can't exactly come up with an argument against it. Truth is, if plants are able to develop an internal mechanism to cope with low levels of CO2 in the water, it does seem to follow that introducing sporadic increases in CO2 could trigger a plant to shut down those internal mechanisms. 
For what it's worth - I've increased the number of weekly water changes in my 55g in the last few months due to the addition of a few piece of driftwood that have introduced tannins and stained my water tea brown. Spot algae has become dramatically worse during this period. Whether it's due to the increased water changes reducing the plants low CO2 enzymes or not, who knows?


----------



## Cheese Sandwich (Mar 20, 2006)

GulfCoastAquarian said:


> I hadn't heard that argument against water changes in low-tech tanks. Interesting. Can't exactly come up with an argument against it. Truth is, if plants are able to develop an internal mechanism to cope with low levels of CO2 in the water, it does seem to follow that introducing sporadic increases in CO2 could trigger a plant to shut down those internal mechanisms.
> For what it's worth - I've increased the number of weekly water changes in my 55g in the last few months due to the addition of a few piece of driftwood that have introduced tannins and stained my water tea brown. Spot algae has become dramatically worse during this period. Whether it's due to the increased water changes reducing the plants low CO2 enzymes or not, who knows?


Might be due to the nutrients introduced by the driftwood.


----------



## GulfCoastAquarian (Jul 30, 2002)

Cheese Sandwich said:


> Might be due to the nutrients introduced by the driftwood.


Possible. Since I started the weekly 25% water changes, though, I've actually had to add KNO3 to keep it above non-detect levels.

Regarding definition of Low-Tech: To me, low tech has been eliminating CO2. That's sort of where I draw the line. Naturally, without CO2, your light levels would decrease as well in order to eliminate algae problems.


----------



## mshaeffer (Nov 29, 2002)

I always thought "low-tech" referred to the equipment we use. A tank with upgraded lighting, pressurized CO2, and all kinds of ferts is high tech to me. A tank with only the lights that came with it, little or no added ferts, and diy CO2 is "low-tech". That is the way I have always looked at it. Just like a CD player is "low-tech" where a full home theater system is "high-tech"


----------



## JBN (Oct 31, 2005)

To me a low-tech setup includes

1) 2WPG or less
2) Co2 is optional 
3) No dosing of ferts
4) Rare water changes

(Simliar to BluSponge's post but modified a bit)


----------



## Lucky_13 (Apr 18, 2006)

if your tank has fish in it, you should be doing weekly water changes whether you have plants or not. you have to take into account total dissolved solids, nitrate levels, etc.

i have 2.5wpg, no CO2, i JUST started adding Excel about a week ago, no other ferts. i have a slightly overstocked tank on fish, and i do 40% water changes one to two times a week. you can never do too many water changes. that is probably the reason i've been able to get away with not adding ferts, is because i am constantly replenishing the nutrients with water changes, as my tap water is very nutrient-rich. 

i don't think ANY tank should go more than a week without a water change. its just not healthy.


----------



## CrownMan (Sep 8, 2005)

To me, Low Tech means no CO2 or Excel, change water once a week or once every other week or monthly if I am out of town. I never go longer than 1 month and I always change 50%. 

I shouldn't have to trim plants but once every month or so and algae should be nonexistent. Light ranges from 1 wpg to 3 wpg (10Gallon tank has higher wpg but lux indicates it is still a low/medium light tank). I have 5 low tech tanks setup this way, all with low to medium fish or shrimp loads but heavily planted. Some plants I trim out of my 3 high tech tanks go in these and they actually grow better to my eyes. Didipilis Diandra is one that grows much more compact. Ludwigia Repens stays red but looks much more symmetrical. Ludwigia Cuba slows down considerably but still looks great. Anyway, a nice contrast between the high tech tanks in the same room.

Dosing is sporadic but I do dose small amounts of KNO3, PO4, TMG, Flourish and Equilibrium after water changes. I don't dose NO3 or P between water changes as I get enough from fish wastes and fish food for the slower growing plants. Substrate is Flourite in all 3 tanks.

Any new tanks I add now are low tech.


----------



## GreenerSideofLIfe (Dec 24, 2005)

To me, low tech means every thing is DIY. You dont buy fancy equipment. You stick to the min requirements & keep your focus on finding a natural balance w/in the aquarium rather than the flashiest top of the market set up. If your aquarium is stable and you have gotten to the point you dont have to do that much... youve done it.


----------



## tazcrash69 (Sep 27, 2005)

I'd have to go with the low lights (< 2WPG), which means that CO2 optional, and little or no ferts.



GreenerSideofLIfe said:


> To me, low tech means every thing is DIY. You dont buy fancy equipment.


Sorry, but I'm not sure I agree with this. I've seen some pretty high tech stuff done with DIY. ODNO lights, multiple DIY CO2 bottles, etc..


----------



## GulfCoastAquarian (Jul 30, 2002)

tazcrash69 said:


> I'd have to go with the low lights (< 2WPG), which means that CO2 optional, and little or no ferts.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not sure I agree with this. I've seen some pretty high tech stuff done with DIY. ODNO lights, multiple DIY CO2 bottles, etc..


True, and DIY requires a certain amount of expertise.

I think the idea that Low Tech is definitively Low Budget is a misconception. By nature, it should be cheaper, but not necessarily.


----------



## RoseHawke (Mar 10, 2004)

GulfCoastAquarian said:


> True, and DIY requires a certain amount of expertise.
> 
> I think the idea that Low Tech is definitively Low Budget is a misconception. By nature, it should be cheaper, but not necessarily.


True, I doubt you could call a 180 gallon tank "low budget" for instance although I assume one could be set up as low-tech.


----------



## Canoe2Can (Oct 31, 2004)

How nice of the site moderators and administrator to set up this new low tech forum so that no one can agree what it even is. :hihi: 

For starters, I don't know that it can be exactly defined. Pretty much every set up is unique, and as such it would be hard to draw a hard and fast line. If low tech is less than 2 Watts per gallon and no CO2, what do you do with a tank that has 2.1 WPG and no CO2? I think that it's best, in general, to leave it up to the owner of the tank to determine whether or not it is low tech. Here's my reasoning:

Watts per gallon: an inexact measurement that breaks down at the high and low ends of the scale. Plus it fails to account for efficiency of lighting, reflector, etc.

CO2: There seems to be a lot of disagreement about whether or not it should be used in lower light tanks. In my case, I'm using it on my medium-low (!?!) tech tank because I already had the equipment. 

Fertilizer dosing: Every tank has fertilizers added. They just might come in the form of solids, liquids, root tabs, substrate, fish food, etc.

Water changes: Again, there seems to be disagreement about whether or not these are good for low light set ups. And it also brings up the issue of bio-load. How much bio-load is appropriate for low tech. 

DIY equipment: Again, this could also be true of high tech. It could be that your DIY equipment is metal halide lighting.

My example of low tech is my old 30 gallon. Lighting was two NO T-8s. Substrate was gravel with laterite and a thin layer of top soil added. I dosed a comprehensive liquid fertilizer once or twice a week, plus root tabs for my swords. I changed 20% of the water every other week. CO2 was a pop bottle reactor, fed into the filter intake. Filtration was just a regular old HOB.


----------



## GulfCoastAquarian (Jul 30, 2002)

Canoe, I think your line of reasoning is sound. There are too many variables to define low-tech narrow enough to be able to specify an actual wpg, dosing regimen, etc. But in my book, I have to draw the line at CO2.

I think low-tech has more to do with growth rates, and how challenging a plant species can be kept. Once you throw CO2 into the equation (whether is a full-tilt pressurized system complete with a pH controller, or a DIY yeast jug), growth rates grow tremendously (on the order of 5x-10x, according to Tom Barr). This requires careful monitoring of nutrient levels on both the macro and micro level.
Without CO2, things happen more slowly, and are therefore more forgiving. You have weeks rather than days to respond to deficiencies.

Bottom line: If an aquarium is equipped with CO2 - it's pretty near impossible to consider it low-tech, don't you think?


----------



## deleted_user_4 (Mar 8, 2006)

To me, Low-Tech = Low-Maintenance... and CO2 = maintenance.

I consider my office desktop tank low tech. No CO2, no water changes except to replace evaporative losses, no heater, and is probably a little overstocked. However, in my defense the fish are happy, show bright colors, and have spawned in the tank before, though none of the eggs survived hungry residents. With the fishload and plantload that I have, the tank maintains a pretty constant nitrate level of about 5 - 10 ppm. It's kinda cool. 

It has 2wpg, and I dose a couple drops of flourish and flourish excel every few days, but this is by no-means a regular occurence. It's an office tank, so I don't always have time to stick to a tank maintenance schedule. The only thing I do regularly is feed the fish, and put in a cup or two of RO water to replace evaporative losses.

I have generic cheapo peat substrate, with about 2" of 5mm gravel to hold it down. That's about it. With this setup, my Bacopa puts on about 2" - 3" a week. I've trimmed and replanted this plant as well; and I just got it from aquaphish about 3 weeks ago. Anubias runners are everywhere, and my Java Fern (rooted in the substrate) has had 2 new sprouts. 

I think if you can take care of a tank using just your spare time, then it qualifies as Low-Tech... or you have too much free time.


----------



## PMD (Jan 28, 2006)

Yes, I agree with GulfCoastAquarian that adding additional CO2 should be the demarcation line for the Low Tech Forum.

As plant growth rates increase - response time for correcting deficiencies decrease:
• High Tech = Fast Growth-regardless of the equipment that gets you there. 
• Low Tech = Slow Growth-regardless of the equipment that gets you there. 

Since CO2 is the primary nutrient that drives growth rates, we should probably use it as the determining factor for delineating "High Tech" and "Low Tech" tanks.

Light levels chosen are predominately driven by CO2 levels. The CO2 level in the water forces you to maintain appropriate light levels – algae growth is the check that will keep on the straight and narrow. So, the amount of light you use is up to you. For non-CO2 tanks it could conceivably range from one light bulb over the tank to all the way up to one sun over the tank. 

Do I hear anybody else vote for using CO2 as the barometer for the Low Tech Forum? :thumbsup: 

PMD


----------



## Defchilde (Jul 12, 2005)

I also define lo-tech based on CO2 (or Excel) usage.

CO2 is the marker that indicates if you need a sophisticated fertilizing regime, and high-lights and other related needs.

As this relates to budget, I think that my 125g with just 2wpg costs around the same as a 55g with 3-4wpg and CO2 and ferts...

CO2 is the line in the sand....


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

I had a 43 gal tank in my garage, sponge filter, shoplight (inefficient, ~1.8 W/gal, no good reflector), and rarely dosing of small amounts of fertilizers.

Low tech? I think so!

But, I had a soda bottle attached that produced CO2. Still low tech? I'd say so!

I would not draw the line between CO2 yes/no. IMO, there are low tech tanks with low light, no ferts, but a little bit of CO2. I used it mainly to reduce pH from 7.8 to a fish & plant friendlier 7.3 or so.

Maybe the CO2 level in the water would be an indicator? Anything over 10 ppm is high tech?

Obviously it is not easy to draw the line.


----------



## Defchilde (Jul 12, 2005)

Wasserpest said:


> Maybe the CO2 level in the water would be an indicator? Anything over 10 ppm is high tech?
> 
> Obviously it is not easy to draw the line.


True, the line is difficult to draw. I think that the use of 10 ppm would be difficult for some of us, especially me, as I rarely ever test. That is why simply the use of CO2 would be the definer. It would be difficult to get above 10 ppm without the use of CO2 (either pressurized or DIY).


----------



## Naja002 (Oct 12, 2005)

This is why I suggested that we define it at the point where C02 becomes: *Optional.*



> We need to locate the "High-End" of it--because anything _*below*_ it: _*is*_ Low-Tech.


----------



## Guillermo (Dec 19, 2005)

I think my 82 gal is low tech, I have 1.5 watts per gallon (4 32 watts fluorescent lamps) 10 hours a day, no co2, the filter is an Eheim Classic 2250, I do 30-40% water changes every 2 or 3 weeks (even a month), when I set it up I put two bags og Azoo plant grower bed mixed with regular gravel, but it was almost 3 years ago, recently (March 12th, 2006) I began to put some root tabs for the crypts and its the only way I fertilize the tank.

I think it needs a re-scape, but I like the looks of it for now.

I took this pic some minutes ago:










Thanks for reading


----------



## Cheese Sandwich (Mar 20, 2006)

Nice! :thumbsup:


----------



## tekknoschtev (Feb 1, 2005)

I consider my tank low-tech, and while it, by no means, defines low-tech, I am in agreement that low-tech inherently implies low-maintenence. Not that there cant be high maintenence lowtech tanks, just in what I've seen.

55gal, 2x 40W NO Flourecent bulbs, HOT Magnum filter, pea gravel substrate, no CO2, no ferts AT ALL. Plant growth is vigorous, but I cant say as to it being fast, given that I have never had a tank with CO2 and high light to compare. From the sounds of it, my "vigorous" plant growth is more like creeping plant growth in comparison to high light CO2 tanks .

I can say this however: Given that the tank is at home, and by technicallity it is my sister's tank (I just buy the plants and such, she keeps it at home while I'm at school, gee, who got the short end of the straw here?) its nice to not have to worry about massive plant trimming every time I go home (generally every other week, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter). We have several tanks from reef to freshwater and everything in between, reptiles, cats, etc, and its nice having one tank/critter that I dont have to attempt to communicate either through email, phone or instant messaging for tips to care for. Its pretty much takes care of itself with waterchanges ranging in frequency from weekly to monthly.

When we move the tank to another room in the house, we may decide to go more towards the "high tech" side, but not much  Generally speaking, it costs more.


----------



## Guillermo (Dec 19, 2005)

Thanks Cheese S., glad you like it :redface:


----------



## Keck (Jan 18, 2006)

I guess there needs to be a mid-tech.

I still consider mine low-tech even though I run CO2. To me, there would have to be some “tech” somewhere in my tank for it to be “High-Tech”. I think it would depend on how dependent you are on technology for upkeep.

Lighting – I think more along the lines of what type of lighting rather than ho much (even though they would pretty much go hand-in-hand). CF, HO, VHO, MH, etc…high-tech. NO, Incandescent or my choice, Halogen,…low-tech.

CO2 – Pressurized with all bells and whistles = high-tech. DIY yeast jug = low-tech.

Ferts – A powdered bucket of each and every macro and micro available = High-Tech. Basic plant tabs, general liquid ferts that include iron and a few others, Excel = Low-Tech.

I find it hard to take water changes into consideration unless you are doing it for EI reasons. Then you could say High-Tech. Yes, I do 2 water changes a week, but not because I have to. I do it for precautionary maintenance and the fish and plants thank me for it. I’m sure I could go over a month and everything would be fine, but doing a water change is a lot easier than dealing with problems from algae, poison or disease.


----------



## GulfCoastAquarian (Jul 30, 2002)

There probably is a "gray area" that might be considered "mid-tech", but if the system is advanced enough to no longer be considered low-tech, then it probably belongs in General Discussion. 

I still believe that low-tech has more to do with complexity than the actual "tech" in our tanks - the technology. Sure electronic ballasts with high power factors are a lot more high tech than an incandescent light bulb, but they're both just as easy to plug into the wall and flip the switch.

I think we're just talking about tanks that are simpler here. Slower growth rates, less maintenence, less cost. I hope we don't get hung up and spend the next few weeks in various debates over the definition of "low tech". I voted to create this section for basically two reasons:
1) Help out people who get intimidated by the often staggering amount of technology in planted tanks.
2) Showcase the possibilities in low-tech tanks. Many advanced hobbyists might even be inspired to start a low tech tank in addition to their existing displays. It can be a challenge to see just how "low you can go".


----------



## CrownMan (Sep 8, 2005)

Possibly another way to differentiate the gray area between high tech and low tech is time spent in maintenance. My high tech (CO2 injected, high light) tanks take on average 1 hour per week each for maintenance which includes water changes (I use a python), inspection, trimming, dosing, testing and cleaning (filters, gravel, etc.). My low tech tanks take about 10 minutes average per week which includes irregular water changes, weekly inspection and cleaning and trimming when necessary.

Mike


----------



## Jens (Apr 21, 2006)

The definition of ‘low-tech’ tank was first published by Diane Walstad in her book “Ecology of the planted aquarium”

It seems like the term showed up in the mid ‘90s in the news groups as a counteraction to the expensive tank setups from Amano and some Aquarium outfitter. People have been running tanks without those equipment successful for year. But of cause CO2 is the number one limiting factor in a tank.

After a blackout this winter I lost all my fish in my 3 year old planted tank. Finding a new balance for my tank I stumbled across Diane’s book. Very interesting scientific read. (it is only a text book, no pretty pictures!). All her findings are underlined with scientific prove. 

Her main definition points for a low-tech tank are:

-	50% water change every half year 
-	A regular top soil as substrate
-	Low light <2wpg, tank in sun light is fine too!
-	Heavily planted
-	No additional fert, all fertilizer are getting supplied by fish food (does mean feeding more than the fish needs)
-	Slow moving filter, minimal biological filtration required. Plants taking care of biologic filtration
-	A good bio-load

I only can recommend to have read in this book just to understand the underlying principles in our little eco systems. Injecting CO2 and additional fertilizer results in a high-tech tank aka frequent maintenance. 

I started my tank (50gal) as a DIY high tech tank 3 years ago with CO2, ferts and 2 wpg and over the time it became a low tech tank due to lack of interest in performing regular maintenance. Only during the initial setup I have to fight with algae. Since now I only lost one Sword plant and some vals. The tank is still heavy planted with Anubias (wich has some black algae), sword, vals and java fern. The only algae eater in it was a common pleco, accommodated by 3 Pearl Gourami, 3 Emperor Tetra, 4 Madagascar Rainbowfish. For at least 2 years maintenance was a 25% water change every 3-4 months, filter cleaning ones a year(I could have turn it off) and feeding the fish and I never had a test kit. Plant grow went down to 1/10 of the initial setup, but the tank was already grown in. Since the lost of all fish during the blackout the tank came out of balance and I got a algae bloom. I’m still trying to get the balance back… During the entire time the tank was always nice to look at for my taste.


----------



## tazcrash69 (Sep 27, 2005)

Hey Jens Welcome. 

BTW, where in NJ are you? Check out the NJ local forum.

OK, I do have that book on order from amazon, becuase I'm really intrigued. 
I admit, I'm a total newb to planted tanks, but I always considered what you describe as a "Natural Aquarium", basically setting up a little almost self-sufficient eco-system. 
While that is low-tech, I think of it more as a niche of low-tech aquariums in general. 

FWIW, Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Nikki (Nov 7, 2005)

Hmm, I'm on the fence on the CO2 question. I don't have pressurized CO2 at all, and have been using DIY CO2 mainly to get the pH down, since my tap water runs high. I had put a Hagen ladder and DIY CO2 on my 5gal Eclipse hex, and decided to try Excel, but if I use Excel on a nano, then it's not low tech either? It will be interesting to see how this forum develops, but I think it will definitely be a godsend to newbies who feel they need a chemistry degree to keep a planted tank.


----------



## jimjim (Nov 9, 2003)

*My Def of Lo-tech*

I guess I'd have to define lo-tech as a tank (no matter what size) that I dont have to screw with for anything but maybe feed the fish avery now and then. I had a 75 gal that way, drained water once a month, only trimmed every few weeks (took about 30 min), fed fish once a day. Spent 99% of my time with iced tea in hand watching it and letting the day go by....Jim....PS, Yes that is a Hagon ladder in the corner, it never got hooked up


----------



## krazyalways (Feb 25, 2006)

*Low Tech*


Hi all,

Glad to see this forum. I'm getting ready to set up my 4th "Low Tech" tank (7 gallon nano shrimp tank) They're all different sizes and all have different set ups. Soil, potting soil and soil less. Expensive and no cost. CF lighting for some sunlight for others. Fertilizers some times for some of them, even excel, absolutely natural for others. So I hate to see this forum too defined. To have people cut out because a yeast bottle is what, high tech? Or they didn't follow a precise method.

It's fun to experiment and share experiences. On the other hand, with so many variations on "Low Tech" people will need to be very specific in the details of their set ups.

Nice to meet you,
Dee


----------



## A Hill (Jul 25, 2005)

Keck said:


> I guess there needs to be a mid-tech.
> 
> I still consider mine low-tech even though I run CO2. To me, there would have to be some “tech” somewhere in my tank for it to be “High-Tech”. I think it would depend on how dependent you are on technology for upkeep.
> 
> ...


i think this right here hits it pretty good. also the time is going to play into the high or low. BUT you can buy all the fully automatic stuff... auto ferts light timers (which EVERYONE should have) auto feeder and all that stuff. 

but i think it should be the "matnence" that generally goes into it. what i consider my low matnence tank is...

10g 
the standard strip light. i get 1.5-1.8 wpg.
substraight is a bag or flourite with some larger gravel mixed in to give me a bit more depth and variation.
really old hob filter will some floss
plants right now are moss. growing them out.
no fish at the moment. there are some snails breeding in there to help on the algea! yey

time i put into this tank? about 5 mins max a month. unless i do something major....


so i think its "more" of a personal thing to say if its high or low. a 1 bottle co2 thing i dont think is high. but if with the co2 you are also doing extensive fertelizing... well then its high. 

-=- fish newb -=-

y o y did the mods and admin make this forum.... LOL this will be a stickey im willing to guess... and i think it will take a few YEARS untill we all agree on something....:icon_roll


----------



## esarkipato (Jul 19, 2005)

Whoever said that there are too many factors (light amount, type, co2 amount, type, fertilizers) to try to narrow this down in those terms. Rather, I think something regarding maintenance is in order.

How 'bout: "hours per month spent doing maintenance on the tank", or even "hours spent/month/gallon"!!!

On my 10g shrimp tank ("low-tech"), I spend 0.5 hour/month/10g= 0.05

On my 29g high-tech tank, I spend probably 4 hours/month/29g=0.14

So PER GALLON, the high tech setup is almost 3 times more time consuming.


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

I don't think time spent on a tank is a good indicator. Imagine a high tech tank with automatic water change, automatic dosing... All you really do is prune those plants, if there are not too many stem plants then even that isn't necessarily a weekly chore.

Maybe...

Low tech = low cost. Isn't that what keeps ppl from having planted tanks, the initial cost of the light and CO2 system? Isn't that why we want a low tech section, because you can have a nice planted tank with little money too?

Regular (maybe even OD'd) fluorescents. DIY CO2. Substrates like sand or soil or gravel or -eeww- kitty litter. Sponge filter instead of Eheim canister. See what I mean?


----------



## BSS (Sep 24, 2004)

This topic came up in another forum not too long ago. My thought at the time, which I still tend to like, is that it's more of a maintenance issue.

Though I can't say I'm proud of it :frown: , my second tank is a 10g w/ a small internal filter and a 27w CF desk lamp. I tend to clean the filter and change 50% of the water every 2+ months (or when I can't hear the filter moving  ), mostly because it just doesn't get high enough on the priority list. I have a small bottle of Excel sitting behind it, but I add it like every 2-3 weeks. The tank contains cherry shrimp and 5 penguin tetras. There is never really an algae issue. The nana continues to throw out new growth. I couldn't get some narrow leaf java to take in my high-tech tank, so I threw it in here. Within days the shrimp had it cleaned off, and it's looking 100% better. I've even got some Crypt wendtii that is starting to get some nice sized growth.

So, even at 2.7 WPG, it's definitely not high-tech. But, the maint level is certainly low. I'm likely averaging less than 1-2 hours/month on this guy.


----------

