# Who says low tech isn't lush?



## bloo (Jan 20, 2010)

A pic before I cut back the java fern some. I think I'll need a machete!


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

> Who says low tech isn't lush?


not many any more.

tank looks good


----------



## bloo (Jan 20, 2010)

This is my office tank. It is the easiest tank I have ever maintained by a mile. Going on about 3 years now, but it got a total remodel at the end of year 1.

65g
2xT5HO but I only run 1 at a time (each for half the photoperiod)
Ecocomplete substrate
Rena XP3 canister filter
I dose some KNO3, KH2PO4, Equilibrium, and CSM+B "most" fridays
One 75% water change a year and glass scraping whether it needs it or not

Plants (named as sold to me): java fern 'needle leaf', crypt lutea, crypt wendtii 'mi oya', kleiner prinz dwarf sword, taiwanese fern

Fish: 6 panda cories, 10 denison barbs


----------



## Bushkill (Feb 15, 2012)

Nice!


----------



## Entomologist210 (Nov 16, 2013)

This is going to sound stupid, but can someone tell me the difference between low and high tech?


----------



## bloo (Jan 20, 2010)

Entomologist210 said:


> This is going to sound stupid, but can someone tell me the difference between low and high tech?


The definition varies depending on who you ask, but my answer is simple: Pressurized CO2.


----------



## Knotyoureality (Aug 3, 2012)

Entomologist210 said:


> This is going to sound stupid, but can someone tell me the difference between low and high tech?


Yep, C02 injection is pretty much the agreed upon definitive line, not just because it requires actual TECH but also because it goes hand in hand with higher light levels and higher fertilization schedules: the holy trinity of high tech (and for many, of planted tanks). 

That said, some non-C02 tanks end up with massive tech: filtration, sumps, power heads, in-line heaters, UV, high light levels etc.. which can end up being a little confusing if you then try to say they're "low tech".  

Like light levels--most often talked about in terms of low or high light--there's actually a lot of middle ground that gets overlooked in everyday conversations.


----------



## Entomologist210 (Nov 16, 2013)

Ah, I see now. Thanks for the info!


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

i think the line is where we start increasing/adding supplements. dry ferts, co2 pressure, high lighting. i think we should start calling it high light or low light, as the lighting amount really dictates the necessity of the other item's addition. you can add co2 or ferts and be fine without additional lighting; unless you go way overboard. But if you add oodles of lighting you NEED co2 and ferts to adequately grow plants and not algae.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

If you have 30ppm of CO2 from pressurized, versus the same from DIY, I'm not sure that really makes any difference in "tech" level.

Although if you have 10ppm of CO2 from pressurized/DIY, versus the same from decomposing materials in the substrate, it might.  Which is why I started calling levels of CO2 injection well below 30ppm "medium tech".

Even some "low light" tanks, while that's an accurate descriptor of the artificial light provided, are deliberately set up to receive a few hours of sunlight from a window; so they're not _truly_ low light.

Often the names follow philosophies, rather than fixed parameters and definitions.


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

maybe we should bring back watts per gallon, except measure all the wattage being used to keep the system going.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

scapegoat said:


> maybe we should bring back watts per gallon, except measure all the wattage being used to keep the system going.


Oh gawd no, LOL. It would suffice just to mention that some sunlight is involved, as that's relevant; but which is frequently omitted.

And how would you measure the sun power? I can imagine the tank descriptions, and questions...



> Lighting: 3,860,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts. Full-spectrum, no reflector. 92,960,000 miles from the substrate (approximate)
> 
> Is this considered high light??


:hihi:


----------



## Eddie_42 (Dec 18, 2013)

DarkCobra said:


> Oh gawd no, LOL. It would suffice just to mention that some sunlight is involved, as that's relevant; but which is frequently omitted.
> 
> And how would you measure the sun power? I can imagine the tank descriptions, and questions...
> 
> ...


 ha.....thats fun. Im a science guy, and I just recently looked this up as Ive been doing my research of a light. Average Global sunlight power at sea level is 342 W/m^2. So by the definitions in these forums...its crazy high power

In my experience (all of a week), I would concur that CO2 injection is the line, though not because CO2 id USED..but rather that CO2 is REQUIRED. Once you have high lights, big tanks, crazy ferts, and all the gadgets and gizmos, you are likely also pumping in CO2. 

Again, just my observations from what Ive read this past few weeks.


----------



## kali mist (Dec 12, 2013)

Very nice tank you have there,what bulbs are you running in your fixture?


----------



## bloo (Jan 20, 2010)

I run two 39W hagen lifeglo 6700k T5s. I run each bulb for half the photoperiod, basically giving me the same as 1 bulb of coverage all day. The bulbs are very old - about 3 years or so.


----------



## anfield (Dec 1, 2013)

So I'm setting up a similar tank, but I was not going to dose ferts/carbon because I read that you then need to do 50% water changes weekly, But it sounds like you are using weekly dosing and not doing frequent water changes. I am using eco-complete same as you and do not plan to add dirt/soil. So you are able to do this without frequent water changes?


----------



## samwoo2go (Apr 27, 2013)

anfield said:


> So I'm setting up a similar tank, but I was not going to dose ferts/carbon because I read that you then need to do 50% water changes weekly, But it sounds like you are using weekly dosing and not doing frequent water changes. I am using eco-complete same as you and do not plan to add dirt/soil. So you are able to do this without frequent water changes?


You are reffering to the EI Method, which works around the principal of overdosing to ensure there are no deficiencies and then "resetting" the levels each week with a 50% WC. He is not doing that, he is underdosing.


----------



## anfield (Dec 1, 2013)

Interesting! So I could underdose ferts and carbon and still get away with 20% water changes every 3 weeks or so? Where can I read more about this approach?


----------



## samwoo2go (Apr 27, 2013)

anfield said:


> Interesting! So I could underdose ferts and carbon and still get away with 20% water changes every 3 weeks or so? Where can I read more about this approach?


There's not really a formula for this approach. It depends on so many variables. You are essentially guessing until you get the balance just right. Depending on how much plants you have, I would just start from 1/4 of the recommended dosage to start. Unlike CO2, you CAN overdose liquid carbon, so start low and let your plants tell you how much they need.


----------



## anfield (Dec 1, 2013)

I misread the original post. Looks like he is dosing ferts but not carbon. Was reading earlier that if you dose carbon then you have to up fert dosage etc leading to increased need for water changes. Going to start with just the ferts for now and no carbon.

If you have a tank well stocked with fish, is there really a need to add additional nitrogen? Their waste should be adequate right? Plan to plant heavily.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

anfield said:


> If you have a tank well stocked with fish, is there really a need to add additional nitrogen? Their waste should be adequate right? Plan to plant heavily.


Easily. With what some would consider a slight overstocking, I get enough nitrogen for even tanks with high-tech/high-light/CO2.


----------



## anfield (Dec 1, 2013)

Don't mean to hijack the thread but have one more question. I read that the half life of excel carbon is approx. 11-12hrs. If so, is there any point to dosing carbon at longer intervals such as a week?


----------

