# Sticky  High tech vs. Low tech (El Natural)



## Robert Hudson

This has been discussed before, but I think it always bears re-visiting.

What does high tech and low tech mean to you? How would you define them? If you have a preference, what are the positive things about using either high or low tech? What limitations do you see?


----------



## DataGuru

hmmm, well to me low tech is Diana Walstad's method. A nutritious substrate, natural sunlight, fishfood/mulm feeds the plants, no water ferts, and sunlight combined with moderate lighting. In this type of tank, the plants are the water purifiers rather than the usual filters. Diana says the goal is to set up an ecosystem where "plants and fish balance each other's needs". The only downside I've seen so far is that you can't move plants with large root systems easily and you can't have fish that like to dig or that move a lot of gravel. Other than that, it's a great low hassle approach that results in very happy plants wiithout a lot of tinkering. Here's the progression of my 125 natural planted tank and my 30 gallon bowfront.

High tech usually involves a not so nutritious substrate, dosing with ferts to compensate for the substrate, high lighting and CO2 injection. The emphasis in these types of tank appears to be the plants and aquascaping with the fish being ornaments to complement the aquascaping. These are great if you like to tinker and mess around with the tank constantly.


----------



## Paul Higashikawa

Low tech: Minimal care and minimal use of electricity. Cheap to free substrates. 

High tech: Plants Gone Wild with high-end equipments such as pH controller, pressurized injection, excellent and therefore often higher priced items. Frequent water changes and fertilizations atop a quality substrate system.


----------



## imported_russell

i know robert chose this question to start a friendly debate, so i feel obligated to speak my mind









first off i would like to say that basically everything betty said about natural tanks is right on the money. but i think she didn't give high tech tanks a very fair summary. this is how i see it.

in a high tech tank you have 3 parts: Light, Fertilizers, and CO2.

it is my understanding that most Natural tanks have upgraded lighting, but it just isn't as high as a high tech tank. please correct me if i'm wrong.

so basically when you buy lighting, if you want a high tech tank, spend a few extra dollars and get the 3-4 watts/gallon.

this leaves us with co2 and nutrients. yes, a pressurized co2 system is very expensive, ranging anywhere from 100-300+ dollars. mine was about 230 dollars just for my 30 gallon tank.

fertilizers cost about 30 dollars for a 2-3 year supply if bought from http://www.gregwatson.com .

so yes, high tech is more expensive, but well worth it if you ask me. when you compare a 500 dollar top of the line setup to some hobbys such as cars were you spend thousands just on 1 part.

now, as far as time/maintanance goes, i think a lot of people think that high tech people spend hours a week trimming. i can only speak for myself, but i have 4 high tech planted aquariums, and i spend around 2 hours a week on maintanance. this to me seems minimal considering the amount of beauty you get from these hours of work.

another BIG difference is plant selection. i can go out and get 95% of the aquatic plants i see on the net, and they will grow and do well in my tank. when you have a natural tank, your plant selection is very limited. i mean yes, there are tons of plants out there, but most of them (to me) aren't that appealing to the eye.

i hope i havn't upset anyone, or hurt any feelings. i am just trying to get this thread going a little more with my perspective on things.


----------



## CherylH

I also tend to equate low tech with natural--no CO2, less light (2 wpg or less), less ferts, minimal water changes. Unlike the previous posts, I also think plain gravel rather than a fancy substrate.

High tech--high maintenance, pressurized CO2, high light, high ferts, etc. Plants that look like they're on steroids. 

What surprises/disappoints me is that most of the forums seem to push high tech (kudos to Robert for making a home for low tech/natural and a place where the answer to everything isn't crank up the CO2 and ferts). I'd be thrilled to see more discussion on a moderate approach (neither high tech nor natural, but somewhere in the middle).


----------



## imported_russell

cheryl, i agree totally, it's great that we have established a great natural aquarium community.

its funny that you brought up the "somewhere in the middle". i'm setting up a in the middle tank this week. it is a 10 gallon with 2x10 watt screw in CF bulbs. it will be featuring a large piece of driftwood and a java moss foreground. you never know, i may just find a whole new understanding of low tech aquariums


----------



## imported_BSS

I'm largely in agreement with most of the above. However, I keep going back in my mind to low tech = minimum maint and high tech = higher maint. There are likely counter arguments I haven't thought up yet, but in general, to me, other than food, if you have to add something to the tank more than once a week (either manual or automated), it's high tech. If you don't, it's low. In addition, if you really should be pruning your tank more than once a month, it's high. If not, it's low.

So, to me it's more a question of maint levels.

I've got my higher end 46g where I add daily ferts, do 50% weekly WCs and prune 3 or so times a month. I've also got a 10g with a internal filter, a 27w cf desk lamp and Eco substrate (I figured it couldn't hurt). If I get around to changing water every 8-10 weeks I'm doing good. Certainly not optimal for the inhabitants (fish (low load) or fauna), but the tank continues to look pretty decent and growth is apparanent.

So, what did I miss







?
Brian.


----------



## aquabillpers

I think the main distinguishing factor between low tech and high tech is the amount of light provided. Light drives everything else. Tanks with a lot of illumination need extra CO2 and fertilizer; those with less, don't.

Anything over 2.5 wpg would be high tech under this definition; anything less, low tech. Of course, we then would have lower low tech and 
higher high tech, but these could also be defined by the amount of light provided.

I am an upper-end low tech guy, with 2.0 - 2.2 wpg. I use a soil substrate and I am very happy with the results. I'm sure that there are plants that I could not grow in that environment, but there are a lot that I can grow.

Bill


----------



## whiskey

I two aplaud this fourm for giving us "low techies" a place to hang out.

By some of these definitions my 180 (14 page build thread for those who have not seen it http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/groupee/forums/a/...6048124/m/1941044761 )
would be a high tech tank. I don't agree with that. My tank does use a pressurized CO2 system, but I maintain CO2 about 5 (day) to 10(night)PPM. My tank does use liquid ferts, but only weekly and I dose what I used to dose in my 50 gallon high tech. I do 25% weekly water changes, but don't syphon the gravel. I do use a soil substrate.

The reson I don't think my tank is high tech is that I don't micromanage my plants. I let them grow wild unitl they start to shadow each other, then trim them so they don't. Also the fish arn't there to complament anything, they are there to live. I find something relaxing about a whole bunch of different fish with diffrent manerisms coexisting peacefully. Another thing is I don't worry about this tank the way I used to worry about my high tech tanks. I don't test things every other day I don't stress over the PO4-NO3 relationship or the KH-PH levels either. In fact my 180 does not even have a heater!!!

I think the diffrence between high tech and low tech is stress. Stress over proper levels, proper trimming, perfect temp, "right" fish, ect, ect,.....

Just my take, now I am back to my corner







,
Whiskey


----------



## Miss Fishy

Low-tech means Diana Walstad's method to me too. As Betty said, the goal is an aquarium that that is as close to a self-supporting ecosystem as possible, and which does not require extensive maintenance to stay healthy. 

High-tech to me seems more focused on growing healthy plants by carefully controlling nutrient levels using artificial means (chemical fertilisers, CO2 etc.). Aquacsaping is also easier with this approach because the plants grow so fast. 

I personally like the low-tech method because I prefer watching my tanks to tinkering with them, and because I like the "natural" approach. The only drawback I can think of is that some people may find they get bored with such low maintenance tanks. The only maintenance I do is feeding, topping up and pruning once every two weeks during summer and once every two to three weeks during winter (my tanks are unheated). 

I disagree with Russell's comment that plant species selection is limited with this approach. Currently, I am successfully growing 49 different species of plants in my low-tech tanks. Nearly all of these plants are stem plants, groundcover plants or floating plants, not typical "low tech" or "easy" plants. In fact, I cannot get so-called easy plants like Crypts and Java Ferns to thrive in my tanks, probably because they get smothered by the faster growing plants. Perhaps the reason that many people with low-tech tanks grow easier or slower growing plants is not because they cannot grow anything else, but because they don't want to prune the plants very often or are afraid to try plants that are regarded as being more difficult to grow. 

From Alex.


----------



## Robert Hudson

OK, these artistic, Amano like displays, are they confined to only high tech? Can you be artistic with a low tech planted aquarium? A couple years ago, a gentleman nameed Giancarlo Podio, (I hope I spelled his name right) claimed his tank was low tech and later incorportated some high tech aspects, and really achieved an artistic layout, using artistic principals. Is this possible with a Walstad or in general low tech type tank?


----------



## imported_russell

Robert, i feel that natural planted tanks can reach great aquascapes. i think that a nice moss foreground looks just as good (if used correctly) as a high tech glosso foreground. aquascaping is mostly creativity, and as the 2004 AGA competition proved in the Large tank devision a natural planted tank can be aquascaped well.


----------



## Robert Hudson

I would tend to agree with you Russ. I think many people presume they can not attempt an Amano like tank without C02, or use that as an excuse not to try.



> I disagree with Russell's comment that plant species selection is limited with this approach. Currently, I am successfully growing 49 different species of plants in my low-tech tanks. Nearly all of these plants are stem plants, groundcover plants or floating plants, not typical "low tech" or "easy" plants.


Thats interesting. Can you list the 49 plants?


----------



## Miss Fishy

> Originally posted by Robert H:
> Thats interesting. Can you list the 49 plants?


Sure, here is the list:

_Azolla pinnata
A. filiculoides
A. filiculoides _variety _rubra_
_Ceratophyllum demersum
Chara _species (possibly _C. corallina_)
_Chara_ species (I have no idea which one this is)
_Crassula helmsii
Cryptocoryne wendtii
Didiplis diandra
Echinodorus _species (some kind of chain sword but I'm not sure which one)
_Egeria _species
_Elatine gratioloides
Eleocharis accicularis
E. pusilla
E. _species (I am waiting for it to produce some seed heads to identify it)
_Glossostigma elatinoides
Hemianthus micranthemoides
Hydrilla verticillata
Hydrocotyle verticillata
H. _species (possibly _H. leucocephala_ but I'm not sure)
_Hyrgophila difformis
H. polysperma _"Rosanervig"
_H. _species "Narrow-leaf"
_Landoltia punctata
Lilaeopsis brasilensis
L. polyantha
Limnophila sessiliflora
Ludwigia arcuata
L. peploides _subspecies_ montevidensis
L. repens
Lysimachia nummalaria
Marsilea drummondii
M. mutica
Myriophyllum aquaticum
M. caput medusae
M. crispatum
M. papillosum
M. salsugineum
M. simulans
M. variifolium
Microsorum pteropus 
Najas _species
_Nitella_ species
_Nymphoides crenata
Potamogeton australiensis
P. crispus
Ranunculus amphitrichus
Riccia fluitans
Ricciocarpus natans
Rotala rotundifolia
Spirodela polyrhiza
Triglochin procera
Utricularia gibba_ subspecies _exoleta
Vallisneria americana _variety_ gigantea
V. spiralis
Vesicularia dubyana_

When I actually sat down and thought about it, I discovered I had acquired a few more plant species since I last counted; I could remember 56 different plants off the top of my head, I think (not including a few plants whose names I don't know). If I actually went and counted them I might find some more but this list gives you a good idea of the types of plants I am growing.

As you can see, there aren't any "difficult" species, but neither are they all typical low-tech plants. I hope more people with low-tech tanks will try growing plants that supposedly need CO2 injection and high light levels. Don't get me wrong - I love tanks with mosses, Crypts and Java Ferns - I just think that people with low-tech tanks should not be limited to these kinds of plants simply because they believe nothing else will grow in their tanks. I know other people in "El Natural" have also had success with groundcovers and a variety of stem plants.

From Alex.


----------



## Robert Hudson

That is a lot of plant.. all in one tank? How do you have room for the Glossostigma?

So what size tank and how much lighting are we talking about with the glossostigma? Is the Glosso growing horizontal or verticle?


----------



## Miss Fishy

> Originally posted by Robert H:
> all in one tank? How do you have room for the Glossostigma?










LOL! No, I have five tanks set up at the moment. I have Glosso growing in two of the tanks. Both tanks are 24 inches x 12 inches x 12 inches. One tank has 2.6 wpg and some sunlight, and the other tank lives outside and gets morning sunlight. In the indoor tank which has been set up for eight months, the Glosso started out horizontal, then grew about an inch high for a few months, and has now gone horizontal again! The Glosso in the outdoor tank which has been running for about two years, has always grown horizontally.

From Alex.


----------



## Mr Fishies

Without an exact high-tech "parts list" of my own, and only reading other's posts and sites, I would say that a major defining characteristic of high-tech is the number of components the hobbyist uses to *enjoy* their hobby. It's quite high&#8230;compared to low-tech as I see it.

My low tech-equipment list includes:

50G Tank, Stand, Eheim 2213 filter, 200W heater, 1 96W AHSupply CF light in DIY canopy, gravel, soil, Seachem Equilibrium & baking soda at water changes with the aim of keeping my tank at about 6 KH/GH (my local water is about 2-3 for each).

8 major components.

If it were high-tech it would likely double the WPG, add compressed CO2, regulator/solenoid/PH meter assy (not necessarily all), and I would be dosing "ferts" and "traces" a few times a week, along with weekly water changes. Maybe using water that's been treated with RO/DI and re-mineralized before use.

Most low-tech tank keepers, from my reading, are usually not using enriched gravels either.

This is where El Natural, or "Walstad tanks" come into the picture which seem to be an offshoot of low tech with 3 pre-requisites. The hobbyist will [1.] Include a layer of soil of some sort as an enriched base for their substrate. [2.] Situate the tank where it will receive sunlight. [3.] Use little or no biological filtration leaving the plants to consume the products of the ammonia/nitrate cycle. (my plants struggled and algae thrived while I had biological media in my filter, now I have only foam and about 1" of fine media).

I suppose some would contest that I am not keeping an El Natural tank since it gets no sunlight after September and only a small amount during the summer months and I use some chemicals to alter my water conditions. I even recently resorted to using H2O2 to slow/stop the algae that had continuously developed while my filter had the bio media in it. The plants are now thriving, I am sucesfully growing (in 1 tank) l.repens, h.difforms and h.polysperma, b.monnieri and b.caroliniana, s.subulata, a.nana, m.pteropus and c.wendtii. c.balansae. I recently added a.reineckii and c.crispulata balansae which seem to be doing well, but it's only been about 2 weeks. Some grow better than others, and there have been a few flops, but I think that was my inexperience and choosing plants that wanted a lot of light.

I am however, trying to adhere to the methods and tactics in The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium since I admire the notion that the El Natural method seems to be striving to build a glass encased pond rather than a "plant tank". The fish and snails and all the little critters we can and can't see are key components, contributing "fertilizer" by way of waste, ammonia, CO2. A big plus: less frequent water changes. There also seems to be a much longer life span between tear downs of El Natural tanks.

I'd say that's my 2 cents, but this turned into a 25 cent post!


----------



## Robert Hudson

That is interesting. I would love to see pictures of what your Glosso looks like. I have had a real hard time getting this plant to do well in anything other that bright light and very high levels of C02. Even with very moderate levels of C02 using "Carbo Plus" the glosso grew and spread at a snails pace and was over taken by Micranthemoides in a 20 gallon tank I did a couple years ago. 

But 2.6 watts per gallon is moderately high light, and if your tank is only 12" tall, then that is pretty good light penetration. I would like to see how thick it is growing and the leaf size without any C02 in the water.

As I see it, the major difference between "low tech" and "high tech" plant tanks is the use of C02 injection.

Without adding any C02 to the water, the most C02 you can ever achieve is around 5ppm. That includes C02 generated by decaying organic material, (soil, peat, compost) bacteria, fish and other animals. What kind of growth, photosymthesis can you expect at such a low level? There is no question that raising C02 levels increases the growth rate, makes plants stronger and more resiliant and affects color and leaf size. It also allows many plants to grow under water that otherwise would not be able to so easily.

My understanding of the Walstad approach is that it is all centered around the use of soil in the substrate. I do not think low light, or the use of sunlight is a pre-requisite. Ms. Walstad has said that she uses power compact flourescents.

The end result of either approach is the growth rate. Elevated C02 levels along with adequate NPK and trace minerals produce a much faster growth rate. No added C02 and a fertile substrate produces a comparitively much slower growth rate. We are talking about weeks compared to months, and months compared to years. 

I think that is the main thing one should look at when deciding which approach to go with.

Anyone disagree?


----------



## aquabillpers

> As I see it, the major difference between "low tech" and "high tech" plant tanks is the use of C02 injection.


Sure, I'll disagree









The amount of light has a far greater impact on plant growth than CO2. Try injecting CO2 into a well planted, 1.5 wpg aquarium. You'll see an increase in plant growth, but not a big one.

Increase the wpg to 3.0 with the same CO2 and there will be a big increase in plant growth, along with increases in dosing requirements and other maintenance.

Alternatively, increase the light to 3.0 wpg without CO2 and dosing, and in time you will see a mess.

The amount of light is the controlling variable.

Bill


----------



## imported_russell

i think that if you upped the lighting, the plants will grow faster, but they will look worse. they will grow really tall and leggy looking. i hate that look. 

i think that robert has a great point when he said the injection of co2. you can also consider flurish excel, so we can just say carbon enriched tanks. APC recently had an aquascaping contest and they had 2 prize elligable categories. co2 tanks, and non co2 tanks. the tanks were basically co2 = high tech, and non co2 = low tech.

i know my plants grow much faster when i add co2.

i wonder if diana could comment on this thread? that would be interesting.


----------



## Miss Fishy

Robert, I will post some picures of the Glosso in the indoor tank later today. 

Glosso grows much more slowly without CO2 injection, of course, but mine is healthy and seems very happy with my tanks. In its natural habitat, Glosso can grow emergent on wet ground, in shallow water and completely submerged, so it doesn't surprise me that it is possible for it to grow successfully underwater without the aid of emergent leaves or CO2 injection. 

From Alex.


----------



## Miss Fishy

Here are the pictures of the Glosso in my indoor tank (sorry about the poor quality photos; I'm still learning about aquarium photography):

















They were tanken when it was growing vertically. It is now horizontal again but I don't have any very recent photos to post.

Here is a picture of the whole tank (for a list of plant species, water parameters etc. see my thread about this tank):










From Alex.


----------



## imported_russell

i was at first shocked to see that you could pull this off. i will still have to see it growing horizontal to be a true believer









good job anyhow though.


----------



## Miss Fishy

Thanks! I'll take some more photos of the Glosso in a couple of weeks. It is looking a bit ragged at the moment; I left it too long without thinning it and it started to grow over itself and the lower plants got smothered. 

Still on the subject of Glosso... I was looking through the Nature Aquarium World books a few days ago, and noticed that many of the tanks, especially in books 2 and 3, have Glosso that is growing vertically. It was surprising to see how different the same species can look from tank to tank, even when the tanks have the same lighting, substrate, CO2 and fertiliser levels as each other and the Glosso is not shaded. 

So just what does make Glosso grow horizontally? If it is lighting levels as many people have told me, why does it grow tall in some of Amano's tanks with their intensive lighting, and why did it start to grow vertically in my tank during summer when my tank gets more sunlight? Anyone have any ideas? 

From Alex.


----------



## aquabillpers

From what I have read, glosso seems to grow horizontally under strong light and vertically with less light ("reaching for the sun"?).

Here's one of the several links I found: http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200401/msg00387.html

But some have said that they have grown it horizontally under low light.

I do know that E. stellata grows taller under higher light. I can see that just 10 feet away.
But that's probably a different thing.

I'm glad for the chance to add to the confusion.









Bill


----------



## Jane of Upton

Actually, since learning that Alex was growing glosso, I decided to try it, too, and have had great success. I got a small bit that was grown submerged at the BAS auction. I think the fact that it was NOT grown emersed was key - I'd tried glosso before that was emersed-grown, and failed at it very quickly during the transition to submergent growth. I've had it going since early November (about 3 months) in a Walstad-style 15 gal tank, and recently upgraded the lighting to a Coralife 65 w 24" with a 6700 K bulb, on for 11 hrs per day. It was very slow to get going, but since no one dug it up, and I got some TINY algae eating snails to keep it clean, its finally settled in. In the last 6 weeks, its started taking off (*relatively) - I've had to cut back runners that were scrambling up a piece of driftwood, and replant them to shape the lawn-in-progress. It is VERY small, and hugs the bottom (with the exception of climbing up the driftwood) VERY tightly. (I have GOT to get photo-capable!)

In fact, given the success, I recently obtained a large amount of glosso from one of our members here. I know he uses "high tech" methods, and that this glosso had overgrown itself. I was struck by how large each plantlet is! Literally, there is a difference of 2-3 TIMES the leaf size! Plus, his from the CO2-enriched, fertilized conditions is a brighter apple-green. My low-tech grown stuff is a darker green, about like a young oak leaf. The size difference was quite remarkable! I've planted this new glosso in my 30 gal tank, and hope it will settle in nicely. 

Back to the topic, for me, "Low Tech" includes not only Walstad-style setups, but Quackenbush-style setups. In the Q-style, a plain granular baked clay (kitty litter that stays fairly granular in water, and has been tested for pH swings and turbidity when submerged) is supplemented with slow-release fertilizer (I use a type like Osmocote, but rated for even slower release). This layer, 1-1.5", is CAPPED with fine sand to keep the nutrients out of the water column. This part is crucial to prevent algae blooms. There is very little exchange between the water column and the substrate. For reasons that the articles I read went into in depth, the substrate can still bring oxygen in via the plant roots, and the high chealating/ionizing capacitance of the soil. I still run two tanks in this style, because I set them up before finding the El Natural forum here, which prompted me to read the Walstad book. The longest Quackenbush style tank I had running was 6 years. It got a mix of a single 15w NO flourescent, and relfected sunlight in a west-facing room. I believe its demise was when I removed a water sprite from next to a huge (soccer ball volume) amazon sword, and clay layer turned anoxic, furthered by the sword roots dying, and it eventually crashed. But, during those 6 years, I used to get enough plant growth to trade the LFS for lots of fish, fishfood and water conditioner. My hobby basically sustained itself once set up. Plus the LFS owner loved my plants! I regularly brought in java fern, water sprite, some saggitaria and java moss. He was dumbfounded when I told him it was a 10 gallon! I grew "easy" plants, but now realize I was just intimidated out of trying anything else. Plus, on a limited budget (in college) I didn't have the funds to "try" something unless I was pretty sure of success. Between prunings, one could barely see the fish. I had Rainbowfish that I had to give away because they got too big, and were raucous when spawning. I also had White Clouds, and some eggs survived (very few given the huge amount of spawning that happened) and I raised a second generation, too! My cories died of old age (nearly 6 yrs old) in that tank. My two current Q-style tanks are not as successful, but they're both under artificial light, and I realize I may have lucked out with the "perfect balance" on that first tank. 

I probably run, on average, at least around 3 wpg (high for an el natural) of light on both the Walstad and Quackenbush tanks. I also combat algae with snails, freshwater shrimp, and floating plants which seem to have an inhibitory effect on many algaes. Plant growth IS slow, but I've been experimenting with other types of plants, with a good amount of success. 

For me, Factors which keep me in Low-Tech land are 

1) Cost. My hobby budget is pretty low right now, and the investment in CO2 equipment is prohibitive right now. I haven't ruled it out, but its not in my near future. 

2) Time (in the tank). Right now, I only do tank maintenance infrequently. I occasionally trim plants, and do a water change, but I can be lazy and let it go for a very long time. I love to feed my fish and sit and watch, and the Walstad method "allows" me to feed liberally (within reason). I also don't test my water as often as I probably should, but I've learned to learn a lot by observation. Recently, I noticed some pinholes in my M. umbrosum (which grows like a weed). So, I did a trim, and a water change, and put some KCl (certain salt substitutes, needed to search to find them without anti-caking ingredients) into the water with the water change. The problem seems to have cleared up. 

3) Time (away from the tank). Also, I know I can leave my aquariums on a moment's notice without having to worry that there will be a pH spike due to complications with CO2, or some other water chemistry crisis. My elderly father is needing more frequent visits, and I am self-employed, so this type of Aquarium keeping keeps with the schedule I've designed, in which I can go away for a week on fairly short notice. I don't have to enlist the help of anyone to make sure my tanks are OK (barring a heater malfunction). I've come home to find out that the power has been out, and when the light timers started up again, its caused all my tanks to switch to the "night shift", but effectively, no harm done. The fish are regularly well fed, and there are enough tiny critters in the tanks that the fish are fine without being fed for a week. When I've gone away for longer, my BF came in and dumped pre-measured feedings (in a stack of dixie cups) into the tanks, and all was well. 

I'm sure I'll think of more, but I've chewed everyone's ear off enough today!
-Jane


----------



## Jane of Upton

OK, I've had a question about the 3 wpg on the El Natural tanks. This is the average. Currently, I have one that is technically running at 4.3 wpg - a 65 w Coralife over the 15 gal. Others are probably around 2.0 - 2.5 wpg. BUT, I have floating plants, and while I try to keep them thinned to the point that there is some continual movement from surface flow, so there are no permanent shady spots, I'm often remiss with this. So, I'll bet the water column really isn't getting the full shot of light it could. Its VERY difficult to calculate "WPG", given all the types of fixtures, the quality of reflectors, etc. I also have 26 w over a 10 gal, but because its an AH Supply kit, it really looks MUCH brighter than another 10 I have which runs (technically) 28 watts. There is no comparison. Next time, I'll get the AH Supply kit with the great reflectors, too. I cheaped out and got the 2x13w one (rather than the 36 w w/the spiffy reflector) and put it into an existing strip light housing. I put foil tape into the existing housing to reflect better, but its not the lovely parabolic reflectors AH sells. 

OK, just thought I'd head off any questions about the 3 wpg. With all the floating plants (Salvinia auriculata, Frogbit, and some dregs of Duckweed) I'm sure the actual light penetration is much less. 

I have not had problems with things getting leggy - if anything, stuff in the tank with the big lighting upgrade is doing very well. The a. reineckii (Red Temple Plant) is such a hot pink/purple underneath that its beginning to look too garish for the rest of the tank. Internode length is still between 1" and 1.25", it seems tighter since the upgrade. 

The one plant I'm having trouble with is Didiplis diandra (Water hedge). The old growth is blanching. New growth is a nice light green, but the older growth does not look good. I don't think its LACK of light, since when I trim it and replant, the growing tips, even now "shorter" show the same thing. I think its starved for nutrients. But, it was exhibiting this behavior to a lesser extent before the lighting upgrade. H. costata in this tank is looking beautiful, so I might replace the diandra with more H. costata. 

Also in the 10 gal with the 2x13w kit, I've got some Hemianthus callictroides that is growing at a snails pace. It looks healthy, but each small piece I planted (a stem w/ 3-4 leaves each) has maybe put out one new leaf in 6 weeks. Its growing, but OH, so slowly. I'm going to wait with this, because I hope that once fully settled in, it will pick up speed like the glosso did. 

-Jane


----------



## Jane of Upton

OK, so here's a difference between "High Tech" (which I too would define as using CO2 supplementation, and shifting the limiting factors on plant growth) and "Low Tech". The Low Tech setups FORCE you to learn patience (or pull all your hair out in frustration), LOL! The biggest thing I've found is the time it takes for a plant to become "established". For this reason, I no longer put emersed grown plants directly in an el natural tank - the transition time is fraught with algae problems, and can affect the rest of the tank in a very adverse way. I have a small transition tank in the basement under my plant lights. There, the plants will undergo their transition (in a Walstad mini setup) with a team of snails and a few shrimp to keep the dying emergent leaves cleaned up, and the algae at bay. I really think a lot of my problems could be traced back to the transition period - it just seemed to upset the proverbial apple cart of my el natural setups far too much.

Whew, more than my 2¢ worth.
-Jane


----------



## Matt S.

Hi, reposting from an El Natural thread when I realized this was my 2 cents worth on this more philosohical question.









The low tech approach attempts to work as closely as possible within the parameters that nature gives us in the tank in order to create a balanced and self sustaining ecosystem -or at least a "low maintenance" ecosystem. As noted by Jane, the high tech approach generally represents an increasing manipulation of parameters (adding CO2, ferts and so on) in order to lift those natural limits on plant growth. These are often presented as diametrically opposite approaches, however it is possible to concieve of a gradient between low tech and high tech of increasing manipulation of various parameters. Even the low techies here will dose to change unfavourable water parameters and nuke algae with various concoctions.

Wiskey's tank (mentioned above and the focus of a monster thread in the El Natural forum) is a great example of a combined approach falling somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

A tank can also fall at different points along the low/high tech spectrum at different points in time. My 100 G tank started out high tech: JBL base substrate, CO2 injection, High light & fertilization. Things grew like crazy. Then I got lazy. The CO2 ran out, I stopped fertilizing, I didn't change the PL lights for a year, I dropped water change frequencies to once in three months and let the fish poo do the fertilizing. Somewhere in the middle of that process I read Diana's great book and decided that this wasn't laziness - it was an Approach.









Anyway, thats just my attempt to muddy the water.


----------



## littleguy

Well I'm really late jumping on here, but I wanted to throw in my 5 cents.

Some people like to distinguish the two types using hard numbers, parameters, equipment, substrates, lighting, CO2, words like "artificial" and "natural", and so forth. I say these are all secondary characteristics.

To me, the primary distinction is *PHILOSOPHY*. The equipment, substrate, etc. are simply METHODS to achieving the philosophy but should not be confused for the philosophy itself.

As I see it:
A low-tech aquarist wants to minimize the amount of required human interaction with the tank to maintain stability. Aquarium self-stability is the highest priority to the low-tech aquarist. As Whiskey said - the plants [and other things] aren't micromanaged. They're left to their own devices for weeks or months. As Jane said, she can leave home for the weekend at a moment's notice and not worry about the system crashing.

The high-tech aquarist makes aesthetics the highest priority of the tank. They want to be able to paint a picture and use the aquarium as a canvas. They'd like to have a wide variety of paints (plants and fish) available. They don't mind putting in extra effort (e.g. pruning, monitoring, dosing, etc.) to build the vision of beauty they imagine in their mind.

Of course there is a spectrum between the philosophies, and most of us espouse elements of both.

Now there are some common METHODS people use to achieving these philosophies.

The "El Natural" or Walstad approach is a complete package for achieving low-tech ideals - namely self-stability. The Quackenbush style is another method to achieving a low-tech tank.

Tom Barr and many other folks have developed and refined other approaches that allow one to achieve the high-tech philosophy successfully. These methods specify a dosing regime (e.g. the estimative index EI, etc.), CO2 levels, nutrient levels, water change schedules, etc. But these are just a means to achieving the philosophy.

In the end, yes, there's commonality in the equipment, substrate, etc. used by low-tech or hi-tech folks. But to me the equipment doesn't define the style as much the philosophy does.


----------



## bergzy

i may not be qualified to reply to this thread as i just started fw plants.

i read as much as i could before setting up my 29g fw planted tank. it is my 'test' tank before i set up my 390g.

i am a total newbie at fw plants but have been dealing with reef aquariums for quite some time. the concept of fw plants and reef are quite similar. low nitrate/phosphate to avoid problem algae, constant discussions on light and of course, the amount of technology one chooses to use.

from my extremely limited fw plant growth...i guess you would call mine a high tech with 5 watts/gallon of 5200k metal halide, co2 injection with a reactor controlled by a pH controller, fertilizer and eco-complete substrate. i also use 3 ro/di water to 2 tap water ratio to get kh of 6 and gh of 9. most likely, i will go with 100% ro/di and treat the water with kents ro right. water changes are 10% 3 times/week.

plant growth, color and thriveness (is that even a word?) has been nothing but phenomenol. i followed the dupla guidleine and havent looked back. now, if i can only maintain this for the long haul!!!









high tech, for me so far, has been relatively little work in comparison to my 180g reef aquarium.

a quick comparison with reef aquaria. reef can be horrifically complex with endless, endless amounts of equipment, additives, foods, etc to use on the tank. for example, a skimmer for a large tank (180g) can cost $3000 with lighting also in the thousands. more often than not, a lot of reefers go overboard on their systems...becoming equipment/tech junkies.

or:

there is a minority of reefers who use 'low tech' equipment to keep their tanks going. having diy lights, diy skimmers and doing frequent large water changes.

i have seen both have excellent results and horrific results. success appears to be in the hands of the one who understands the complexity of the mentioned aquaria and is able to effectively utilize it. in other words...it's a moot point (to me) whether one chooses high or low tech!


----------



## Robert Hudson

So, is there a hybrid method inbetween the two?


----------



## stcyrwm

I think of mine as low tech but maybe they are hybrids. I currently have three tanks with about 2 wpg compact flourescent. I dose Excel at minimum recommended dosage and dose 1x weekly macros and micros per Tom's recommendations. No CO2. Flourite and Onyx sand as substrate although I may try something more "nutritious" for my next tank. I have five or six plant species per tank. Water changes 10 to 20% per week and use HOT Magnums as my filters on all three tanks.

Bill


----------



## patx

bonjour,

almost the same thing for me.

200g (60x36x24inch.) 
25% flourite and 75% sand
320w (T8 fluo)
2x eheim 2026 and 1x magnum 350
CO2 injection (10-20ppm)
not fertilizing.
i don't clean the substrat 
water change ~ 40% (3-4 month)
almost anything grow in that tank. (except java moss :doubt: )

the tank around 2 month old

this week plantation (not finish)

is this a low, high or inbetween tech tank ?

(sorry for my english  )


----------



## bpimm

> As I see it, the major difference between "low tech" and "high tech" plant tanks is the use of C02 injection.





aquabillpers said:


> Sure, I'll disagree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amount of light has a far greater impact on plant growth than CO2. Try injecting CO2 into a well planted, 1.5 wpg aquarium. You'll see an increase in plant growth, but not a big one.
> 
> Increase the wpg to 3.0 with the same CO2 and there will be a big increase in plant growth, along with increases in dosing requirements and other maintenance.
> 
> Alternatively, increase the light to 3.0 wpg without CO2 and dosing, and in time you will see a mess.
> 
> The amount of light is the controlling variable.
> 
> Bill


I think both of you are on the right track, Here is my observations based on three of my tanks.
Tank 1, 29 Gal. Soil substrate 1.5 WPG no CO2. Some natural light.
Tank 2, 80 Gal. Soil substrate 1.5 WPG with CO2. 82.5 CRI lights
Tank 3, 30 Gal. Soil substrate 2.5 WPG with CO2. 92 CRI Lights

Tank 1 is definitely low tech, slow growth with less coloration in the red plants.
Tank 2 has faster growth by a factor of about 2-3 times with better coloration.
Tank 3 has about the same growth rate as tank 2 just has better coloration, but I think that is from better lights not more of it.

My biggest increase came with CO2 and bumping the light may have increased the growth a little but not near as much as the CO2. What I need is a tank without CO2 with 2.5 WPG to compare to but unfortunately I don't have one.

Brian


----------



## bpimm

Robert Hudson said:


> So, is there a hybrid method in between the two?


If you consider there to be only two methodologies of tanks then yes there are Hybrids, I would consider mine to fall in that category. But I don't really see the need to have such a narrow view of the methodologies. They are all differing styles of aquaria that overlap each other in one way or another. I find some of the aquascapes quite pleasing to the eye as do I with some of the wild overgrown natural tanks, in fact I have both kinds wild and attempted aquascapes, The attempted is there for a reason.

I think littleguy said it best with this statement.


> To me, the primary distinction is PHILOSOPHY. The equipment, substrate, etc. are simply METHODS to achieving the philosophy but should not be confused for the philosophy itself.


Brian


----------



## lljdma06

This is an interesting thread. I currently use inert substrates (1-3mm gravel) with either laterite or rootabs for supplementation, so what I do doesn't really keep entirely with either the High-tech approach or Walstad's method. I have, however, kept both high light (Above 2.5WPG) and low-light. I've kept red plants, A. reineckii and lotus and have honestly seen little difference in growth rate. In fact, my A. reineckii is actually redder in my non-CO2 8g nano than it was in my EI, 3.86 WPG with CO2 injection, so go figure. This is the same plant too

In addition, I think that there are hybrid methods and actual true methods that neither conform to high-tech nor to the Walstad method, that work just as well. People, after all _did_ keep planted aquariums before Takashi Amano and Diana Walstad came to town. This isn't a new hobby. This has been done for decades.

I also think it is entirely possible to have low-tech/low-light tanks that feature complex, involved scapes. My 8g is modeled after a typical Dutch layout (Unusual considering the size) and requires quite a bit of manipulation than a typical low-light setup.

Again, great thread, pretty eye-opening.


----------



## Edward

What feature removes an aquarium from the El-Natural category? I've been asked by members and am not sure what to say. Can you clarify this please? Thank you.

Light intensity over specific level?
Light period in hours?
Dosing CaCl2?
Dosing CaCO3?
Dosing CaSO4?
Dosing K2SO4?
Dosing KNO3?
Dosing KH2PO4?
Dosing MgSO4?
Dosing Trace elements?
Dosing baking soda?
Dosing KHCO3?
Injecting CO2?
Inert substrate?
Substrate heating cables?
Aeration?
Filters?
Powerheads?
Pumps?
Water changes?
Using RO / DI water?
Using test kits?
Temperature control?
Plant selection?
Undergound Filter?
?
?
?



Thank you for your help
Edward


----------



## Jimbo205

When technology is used more than biology to maintain the tank. 

I just read this recently in a book. When I find the name of the author, I will post it. 
The author of that book had as his motto: 

Less Technology - More Biology.


----------



## Jimbo205

Quoted from the foreword (the foreword is written by Martin A. Moe, Jr.) 
"This tenet is also the core of John (H.) Tullock's captive aquatic philosophy. "Tullock's Razor," More Biology, Less Technology, defines the structure of the aquarium system by the vitality and ecology of the organisms, and by following his recommendations, an aquarist can be sure to avoid unnecessary technical complexity." 

APC has motivated me to purchase some very good books. But I will say this for myself - when he says more biology, that does not mean for the layman (myself) that it will be easy to understand. If anything (for me) it means that understanding and reading more about aquariums is much more complex. My appreciation for biologists and environmental scientists has grown. Each creature, plant, algae, macroalgae is so unique with its own 'rules'. 

Google the name. John H. Tullock. Wow. One of the Legends.

If you are not made of money and you want to figure out a way to have an nice aquarium - try very hard to find a biologist or environmental scientist that has the patience to explain the complexity to a layman. If you have found one - you have found a goldmine (in the aquatic hobby world). 

And thank you to all those scientists that are willing to share with us laymen (and women). 
I appreciate it very much.

Jimbo205


----------



## fuzzyletters

which book was it?


----------



## Jimbo205

He has a bunch. 
Google his name and indulge yourself either at the local library or order online. Enjoy.

Now I have a question about High Tech vs. Low Tech.

From what I have read and REREAD in Diana Walstad's book (also a classic that I reread about every 2 months, no exaggeration here!);

plants take care of or 'eat' or consume nitrates. They prefer ammonium and expend energy to utilize nitrates, but they do consume nitrates.

Why do I continue to read about nitrates being a concern in tanks with plants in them?

I don't get it.

If you have plants, nitrates should NOT be a problem; correct?

Or is there something that I missed while re-reading that chapter again (very, very good.)?


----------



## Kelley

I think that SUFFICIENT nitrates are the problem. When you have a high light set-up, your fish do not contribute enough nitrogenous wastes to nourish the plants. Of course, you can always have to much. It's all about balance.


----------



## gf225

High-tech offers limitless plant choice.

Low-tech has limited plant choice.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other.

I've seen much better low-tech aquascapes......not many though.


----------



## gf225

Robert Hudson said:


> So, is there a hybrid method inbetween the two?


Ha, ha.

I run 1 wpg T8 with CO2 mist at 20ppm. Soil-based substrate, TMG 2x week, tap loaded with NO3 and PO4. 1/3 water change per week. Low fish load.

What's that? Low or high-tech?

Probably high. The plants (crypts, ferns and anubias) are all pearling after a few hours.

Growth is slow enough though, minimal maintenace except the weekly water change and 2x week dosing. So could be low-tech....?

Or mid-tech?

Ha, ha.


----------



## Jimbo205

George, it doesn't matter. You aquariums kick butt. Nuff said. :biggrin:


----------



## wakemenow

Yep. I agree. It's definitely a difference in personal philosophies.


----------



## Homer_Simpson

wakemenow said:


> Yep. I agree. It's definitely a difference in personal philosophies.


It also depends on how much time, money, and effort that you are prepared to put forth. I have done both, and hands down, low tech is the least costly and takes the least effort. If I were retired, I would definitely go high tech as I would have more than enough time to manage it and any problems that may arise. With very limited time on my hands, I would go low tech.


----------



## howie

I am switching from high tech to low tech and cutting down the number of tanks I have. Have a baby coming and all my tanks take a good 4 hours of maintenance every week. Not to mention the daily dosing. I have a 10 gallon low tech shrimp tank with 1wpg, no dosing and weekly water changes and it is doing the best. I am getting tired of pruning and fighting algae.


----------



## dwalstad

Welcome aboard!


----------



## Manwithnofish

I didn't read much in this thread regarding how the two approaches differ with respect to algae. Do high-tech aquariums have to deal with algae to a much larger degree that the El-Naturals? 

Because it's been my experience that with high tech, you MAY figure out how to get things in balance and have some peace of mind. I never found the secret. Is it just as difficult on the low tech side?


----------



## szymonw

Manwithnofish said:


> I didn't read much in this thread regarding how the two approaches differ with respect to algae. Do high-tech aquariums have to deal with algae to a much larger degree that the El-Naturals?
> 
> Because it's been my experience that with high tech, you MAY figure out how to get things in balance and have some peace of mind. I never found the secret. Is it just as difficult on the low tech side?


well, in general I would say that in HT you have to control much more to keep the balance as you say. in LT nature works much more for you. the secret to run LT untroubled lies in proper substrate. the (lightning, fishes etc.) you can easily correct in case "in progress" but when you make mistake with substrate you too often have to start again.

the question I replied stayed unanswered by quite a long time but in fact i'd like to know what you all think about it as we have different experiences.


----------



## hippophagy

Hi,

I like a tank that looks like an Amano in design but with the ease of care of a Walstad. I also mix the two philosophies somewhat. I am currently using a substrate (eco-complete) that sat at the bottom of a dismantled tank for over a year. I mixed that with some flora base (at the recommendation of my LFS). I will not be vacuuming the gravel. The eco-complete had quite a bit of mulm. So much so that I had to rinse the tank a bit before I got it setup. I believe that mulm should be allowed to collect as it becomes part of the "filtration" for a natural tank. I don't use filters just a simple submersible pump to increase water flow. I am a firm believer in as many creatures in the life cycle as possible. I stock my tanks with the usual snails and shrimp but in addition I add scuds, daphnia, tubifex worms, copepods, etc. Not only do these organisms help to break down wastes but they are also a food source. I prefer no feed tanks when possible. I don't like pandering fish. Fish that feed on live food ignore humans and act more like wild fish. Seeing fish hunt is a remarkable and fascinating thing. I did invest in a metal halide light fixture and I am very happy with it. The light it throws is breathtaking and plants flourish under it. I am using the "green" ADA 150W bulb over a 45G tank. I am adding CO2 via a simple setup that feeds a mix of air and CO2 into the submersible. I bought the Hydor kit and found a generic CO2 cartridge to fit it. The plants are quite happy and I have grown a lush carpet of HC with this setup in the past. It's my understanding that most natural bodies of water have far more CO2 then what we can get in the average planted tank. I guess the approach I favor is set it and forget it. Find that right balance and then let the tank do its thing. In past tanks I have avoided water changes and only top up for evaporation. I believe in very low fish loads and very high planting. I don't trim plants normally although I might in this tank. I probably won't add ferts I'll just let the plants grow as much as they can with what's available. Anyone share my middle of the road approach?


----------



## Shawnboy

I think the difference between high and low tech is the amount of stress it creates for the individual when they are away from the tank for more than 24 hrs. 

Low tech. 24 hrs = no problem
high tech. 24 hrs = I hope ________ doesn't break

my 2 cents worth


----------



## dwalstad

Thanks for a good laugh!


----------



## 1aqumfish

Just to let you know we went camping for three days my Son who has a tank, see testimonial he took care or my tanks. My high tech was covered in algae when we got back. It took me days to figure out the co2 was interrupted causing the outbreak. It was just how could it be so bad after only three days when I hadn't cleaned the glass for like two months because it was running so clean. I know the algae adjusts faster to new conditions. My shrimp tanks I just told him to leave them alone so they were fine. But the NPT tank just had more babies and was doing great. I am worrying about our 10 day summer vacation already... what will happen to my 55 high tech under a teenage friends care? I am very afraid!

Tony


----------



## Jane in Upton

Well Gosh Tony....

in my opinion, ANYthing left under the "care" of teenage boys is enough to make one afraid, LOL! Yes..... a movie quote comes to mind.... "be afraid. Be VERY afraid." 

That said, is there a way you could scale BACK your CO2 and lighting in preparation for your 10 day trip? Its like traveling at high speed - any little thing that goes awry has large consequences, and requires focused correction. Whereas, if you're moving more slowly, changes and permutations can be dealt with a bit more evenly, and over-correction isn't as serious a problem as it is at high speed.

If your tank inhabitants are established, you may be able to scale back without disrupting the balances that are in place. I think one of the previous posters mentioned their CO2 running out, bulbs getting old, and their tank just naturally migrated towards lower tech, without major problems.

On a side note, I was just reading the mineralized soil thread, and see that some folks are able to do quite a bit with this substrate method, both high tech and low tech. I will probably try this as a hybrid of sorts, raising the light levels as I have with some NPTs which have been up and running for an extended amount of time. Once the initial flush of nutrient availability in an NPT setup settles down (and with it the algae) I've had a good deal of success with raising the light levels. 

As to the thread topic, I agree it really boils down to the amount of time and effort one is able to devote to your tanks. Personally, I like that my NPTs will chug along without a lot of supervision when necessary.

For the last two years, I've barely paid attention to my tanks, shutting down some and transferring flora and fauna to the couple that have been limping along. Amazingly, they've gotten by with lights on timers, feeding when I think of it, and some half-hearted water changes every 4 or 5 months. Thankfully, an encampment of worms and the natural proliferation of edibles has supplemented the fish. Having low-temp dried daphnia on the menu has helped - the eggs hatch, so on days I forget to feed, there's been other sources. The last month or two, I've finally been able to pay attention to them again, and I've been pleasantly surprised at what is still going in them! I lost a few geriatric red line rasboras, but the harlequins and danios are still going strong. And behind some overgrown Najas, I even uncovered several plants I'd long since written off as gone! Little groups of rooted plants have been welcome discoveries - Crinum calimistratum, some E. angustifolius and different crypts have all been slowly puttering along, hidden from view. Several types of Hygro had become emergent (VERY wild looking) and I was most astonished at the water parameters when I finally brought myself to do some testing. Expecting the worst, and that my poor fish had acclimated to terrible conditions, I could hardly believe when all water parameters were great - ph 7.0 (spot on - that NEVER happens!), ammonia 0, nitrites 0 and nitrates negligible! I measured 4 dKH, and 3-4 dGH. I was absolutely floored at these good readings! Of course, now that I've been messing around with it again, the numbers are not nearly as good - my tap water is hard as rocks, and since I weeded, I've noticed more nitrates. But it is good to be able to SEE the fish again, LOL!

Anyhow, I've been pleasantly surprised at how my little 30 gallon NPT has chugged along with minimal input from me. Granted, it had that overgrown-pond look, but for next-to-no maintenance for a protracted period of time, I really think I'm ahead of the game! I'm sure if it had been a high tech tank, it would have become a smelly algae pool long ago. 

Yeah, I'm hooked on low tech.
-Jane


----------



## gr8nguyen1

bettys step by step article on dianes book stated that after laying down the soil to scatter some crushed shells. can anyone tell me why this is. and also would it be ok for me to use the cuttlefish bones i have for my tortoise


----------



## davemonkey

gr8nguyen1 said:


> bettys step by step article on dianes book stated that after laying down the soil to scatter some crushed shells. can anyone tell me why this is. and also would it be ok for me to use the cuttlefish bones i have for my tortoise


It's for calcium. IF you have very hard tap water, you probably don't need to do this. I'm not sure about cuttlefish bones, but I'd assume it would be similar.

-Dave


----------



## dwalstad

davemonkey said:


> It's for calcium. IF you have very hard tap water, you probably don't need to do this. I'm not sure about cuttlefish bones, but I'd assume it would be similar.
> 
> -Dave


If your tapwater has a GH of 4 or more, you don't need to worry about adding a calcium source.

However, if you have really softwater with a GH less than 4, you can use cuttlefish bones. All bones and shells contain calcium carbonate.

Remember that the more ground up the material-- whether egg shells, oyster grit, crushed coral, cuttlefish bones, dolomite lime pellets, seashells, etc-- the faster it will leach calcium into the water.


----------



## gr8nguyen1

i have a kh test kit that measures in whole numbers i.e 1,2,3,4,5,. the gh test kit measures in ppm. so how can i tell which one to go by my water parameters for hardness are kh 6 and gh 130....i'm a little confused. please help clarify. i'm relatively new to the whole npt thing. i just started about 3 months ago. my first attempt was a disaster...i mean algae everywhere within a month. so this time i decided to learn as much as i can bf starting again. i reread your book in its entirety and i've been reading as many of this posts as possible to learn what i did wrong. at about now the only thing i've learned is that i still have a lot of learning to do


----------



## dwalstad

gr8nguyen1 said:


> i have a kh test kit that measures in whole numbers i.e 1,2,3,4,5,. the gh test kit measures in ppm. so how can i tell which one to go by my water parameters for hardness are kh 6 and gh 130....i'm a little confused. please help clarify.


Your GH kit may be expressing hardness in terms of ppm CaCO3. 130 ppm CaCO3 is fine. See chart in my book on page 185. So I would scratch water hardness off as the cause of your problem.

If you set up a new NPT, I would post pictures on APC as you go along. Sometimes NPTs can be sabotaged by something as "innocent" as an airstone that degasses out all CO2.


----------



## Philosophos

I feel as if high tech is getting turned in to a straw man here.

What high tech is not:

High tech does not have to mean high light, or high growth. It doesn't even mean huge fert doses all the time; some are lean. It does not mean worrying about part of the system failing, striving for stability is a very important part. It does not necessarily mean high upkeep; PMDD with 1.5wpg or EI with an automatic water change system and dosing pump can make it so some technophiles hardly have to touch their tank outside of trimming. 

What does it mean then?

It's the use of CO2 methods, measured fertilizer doses, man made substrates, etc. Some times this involves some fancy test kits, drop checkers, par meters etc. depending on how involved one wants to get. Some of us have small labs sitting around in cupboards because we enjoy it. Others of us have complete labs because we're insane.

Most people don't go insanely high tech, it's not for everyone. What I do find is that people who are capable of running a high tech system are far more competent planted tank keepers than those who stay with low tech the entire time. 

By having the understanding and skill required to run a high tech system, low tech becomes effortless. I have low tech tanks that never see algae problems, and require hardly any upkeep. I did not plan them, and they didn't even have a nutrient rich substrate until yesterday. These are grow out and quarantine tanks.

Some people aren't quite so serious about the hobby. High tech will never be their thing, and low tech will always keep them happy.

-Philosophos


----------



## yungreefer2410

i have a medium tech tank (due to costs) 2 wpg diy co2 flourite and 2 hob filters is all my equipment for this tank


----------



## Brilliant

High tech seems to have gotten a bad rap. I have a beautiful anubias tank with co2, expensive substrate, custom slr based lighting to name a few specs. The tank requires hardly any maintenance at all.

Heck my Tonina tank is the not too far off. The tank requires pruning and weekly doses. 

My most outrageous high tech tank with high light has an autodoser. I have to change water once in a while thats it. I grow plants of all colors and the tank takes less maintenance than most low tech tanks.

I am tired of people mentioning "required" maintenance and giving high tech tanks a bad rap.


----------



## f1ea

I don't think High tech = high maintenance; you could equip yourself to the point of needing very little maintenance. To me high tech simply means more equipment. Low tech means less equipment. But both are interesting and appealing.

Low tech doesnt have to be sloppy, or 'simple'. And High tech isn't inherently beautiful... after all, the very same processes have to take place, its just a matter of whether your allowing them to occur naturally or getting equipment to do it. 

Some people just love their gadgets... a brand new 100GB iphone, the 2 oz laptop that costs a fortune, a 20 Mega pixel camera, 9.1 surround sound... etc etc. High tech is definitely for them. Others (myself included) fall asleep when their friends show them the stats on their PCs, or the millions of functions their cell phone has. They are likely to prefer low tech.


----------



## PAUL GRAHAM

Although new to this forum, I am not new to the hobby. 

The "natural" method reflects both the basic and applied science. Walstad's excellent book is a case in point, and there is ample testimony here in these letters of its success. But I don't think of it so much as a regulated procedure as a way of seeing and understanding. 

Nor do I think of "high-tech" so much as a method - a fundamental prescription, as it were (like "this is the right way to do it") - but as a way of implementing a desirable conclusion. It is a regulated procedure only.

Provide the environment and the plant will do what it will. You've either gotten to the right final condition for success or you haven't. These are not necessarily "alternative methods" although we continue to invite comparisons between them as though they were somehow opposed in basic principle.

"Simple" or "natural" are not necessarily the same as "convenient" or "easy". We may sometimes confuse these things, but this has more to do with how we view the task and choose to execute it as it does with any special reality or validity of means to ends. All that counts in the end is the physiology of the plant.

If the tools you use are inherently reliable, but you fail, that failure is in how you used them. It takes some tinkering sometimes to get it right. Notwithstanding the cost, high-tech and low-tech are not different if you get the same results. Low-tech is simple and natural - high tech (once you have it tuned up right) is convenient and easy. The difference is inside the hobbyist, not inside the plant.

I am high-tech - very high-tech. This apparatus allows me to start with controllable initial conditions and provides continuous feedback on my progress. My recent issues are substrate related and I have to take steps. I am not blaming my equipment just because there are things that still need to be done. It offers me tremendous convenience in the doing of them.

Natural is the science - always. High-tech is just very useful plumbing and wiring.


----------



## EMc/

Well, 1st off, I don't do Diana's method, tho' I'm sure it works. I am just a lazy gardener & have striven to have self sustaining tanks. Tho' I have probably never gone longer than a couple of years w/o some sort of water change.

Now, I want to make it clear that this is not some sort of contest w/ me- to see how long I can go between water changes. I am simply interested in the science & as stated before, I am lazy. And I'll add to that, I am cheap. 

I don't even keep any testing kits these days. Last time I had my tank water tested (from a 55G tank that had only had one water change that year) @ my lfs & it was all good. Granted this isn't for all fish or plants or hobbyists, but I have a lot of diversity & the tanks seem "happy" & clean. It's cheap, too.









I have a couple of tanks I haven't done anything to x/ top them off for at _least_ a couple years. They just have najas, endlers, snails, & gammarus (scuds). I understand that gammarus need well-oxygenated & non-polluted water to survive. Mine thrive in those 2 tanks even tho' they get a little over populated w/ endlers from time to time and they are in a metal fab shop, so there is LOTS of metal dust that settles everywhere (think pollutants!). These tanks provide live foods- in endler fry & scud form- for my wild caught angels. I also keep gammarus in a third tank (20 long) that has 3 B. coccinas, 7 B. merah & a plec. It has had, I think, one water change over this past year.

I am having trouble keeping plants in this tank- most likely because of the gammarus. They have voracious appetites, it seems. I thought the bettas would keep the scud population in check, but it hasn't, so they get fished out regularly & fed to the angels as well. Still, even tho' I'm having trouble keeping plants in it, that tank looks pristine. I am beginning to find some plants that the scuds will leave alone (like anubias). This tank sits in front of a west facing window, which is the main source of light. I do augment w/ an overhead fluorescent when we're there (it's a work office tank), so it gets extra light M-F for about 5- 8 hours a day. I do have lots of rocks & fossils in the tank to give the fish hiding places, but they seem pretty happy in there & even the shy bettas are usually out & about these days. Here's a pic of a few of the merah (afternoon sunlight is streaming in- see how clean the rocks are, the water is, the floating anubia [that my bettas regularly dislodge] is in this tank that I don't even know how long it's been since it had a water change, but I think it's over a year now: 









I don't use any mechanical filtration in any of my tanks- all are planted. (I have 10- ranging from 1G to 55G.) I use sunlight as the primary source of light for almost all of my tanks & augment some of them.) Pretty much, the only artificial thing inside any of my tanks are heaters & that's just half a year. (I do have some pottery/ vases & other glass objects in some of the tanks, but predominately it is all natural objects.) I don't use fancy substrates- just gravel. I don't vacuum much, so a "natural" substrate forms.

For fish, I mostly keep livebearers, but I currently also have Betta coccinas, Boras merah, albino ancistrus, wild caught Peruvian angelfish, rams (GBRs) & cories. For inverts, besides the gammarus, I also keep shrimp & P. bridgseii snails. "Mud worms" (Blackworms) have made a presence in one of my tanks, too- they are soooo cool! My flora is rather diverse & I actually can't tell you everything I have- got many from other hobbyists. But it looks pretty good!


----------



## gf225

Hi-tech for me means high-energy. Medium to high lighting, pressurised CO2, daily nutrient additions, lots of circulation.

Low-tech means lower-energy, typically with more basic equipment. Lower lighting, non-CO2 or DIY, cheap substrate, less nutrients, less flow.

You can grow most species of plants in either - just one more quickly than the other.

I am away from a hi-tech tank 5 days a week. I get my daughter to add fertiliser every day, feed the fish, and check the CO2. 6 weeks so far without issue.

If you have reliable equipment, and appropriate plants, then hi-tech can be low-maintenance for sure.

I spend 1 to 2 hours on this at the weekend. I could spend less time but I enjoy maintaining it.

This is the tank at 6 weeks since initial planting -










For me the main advantage of hi-tech over low-tech is it allows me to achieve my creative goals much quicker. I like to set up at least 5 new aquascapes a year.

Last year I did over 10 (in different aquariums). There's no way I could have achieved that with low-tech methodology.

Different hobbyists have different goals. I love to create new aquascapes. The more the better. Others like to grow it slow, and aren't really fussed on the aesthetics. Perhaps the fish are their primary interest.

Each to their own.


----------



## JakeJ

To me, a low tech tank is one that does not utilize pressurized CO2 or large amount of fertilizers and has a low amount of lighting. They usually contain alot more character in my opinion, because unlike high tech tanks, you can't have perfect tank overnight (IE-plants dont grow like crazy!) A high tech tank is one that utilizes pressurized CO2 and large amounts of fertilizers, and has a high amount of lighting. Then there is the ultra-low tech El Natural method. I don't mean do diss any of these methods, I love HT tanks and LT tanks, they just offer a diffrent type of challenge.


----------



## turborayden

OK, my turn. Here is the thing on all these points of view. We can choose to look at it how ever we want or we can look at the root words in the definitions we assign. To me it does not matter if we are talking planted, normal fresh, brakish, reef, marine, or a fowlr. (all types of tanks that are running in my house currently) 

First of all what is tech, it is short for technology, thus meaning having nothing to do with the amount of time you spend working on or caring for your tank in any fashion described. It is the technology we choose to use. In some cases, the tech can cause work but in others it can decrease work. ATO, auto feeders, programable light controlers. things of this nature just make it easier and keeps me from forgetting. 

On the other hand, in the reef tanks lighting is always a big deal, low tech is incadescent, high tech is High power LEDs. or we meet in the middle with moderate forms of florescent. 

Dirt seems pretty low tech to me, however after starting to read more on subsrates, I think you got to do your homework if you want to use dirt rather than just go buy a couple bags of this High tech substrate and pour in some high tech fert.

With all that being said, I am sure that I could put big bucks into a completely automated system that I would only touch once a month, just to prune plants, that would fit the bill for some peoples definition of high tech even though i dont have to mess with it. I could do the same and fit the bill for low tech even though I have a hunded little gizmoes that run the thing.

In the end I think of a car from the early days as low tech, and a new car as high tech. Those old cars require a lot more service and knowhow to maintain on a daily basis than a modern car.

I have a tendancy to go with the naturalist methods in my tanks because I dont mind the extra work of water changes and such, I try not to dose, use skimmers, blah blah blah but I do like to modify everything and automate stuff. Low tech eco systems driven by high tech toys!


----------



## tylerG

It seems like these two should simply be called "CO2 and Non-CO2". 

Using these terms we should be able to create a new thread and discuss the advantages both bring to the tank.. err.. table.


----------



## firefiend

gf225 said:


> Different hobbyists have different goals. I love to create new aquascapes. The more the better. Others like to grow it slow, and aren't really fussed on the aesthetics. Perhaps the fish are their primary interest.
> 
> Each to their own.


Well said here.

I think too much emphasis is being placed on the specific techniques and methods in practice (i.e. CO2, ferts, etc.)

Turborayden was on the right track with the "technology" logic, though I disagree with some of his semantics.

"Technology" is science driven, regardless of time or effort spent. And applied science is all about manipulation of the natural processes, that's what it is. So, the more you, as the hobbyist manipulate the natural process the more high-tech your set up is.

calculating WPG, CO2, fert ammounts, calcifying soil, supplementing Iron, are all manipulating the natural process.

So, in a NPT, for example, since the goal is to manipulate the natural environment as little as possible it is low tech. Whereas high-tech systems require more demanding attention and manipulation to more aspects of the natural environment.

And, of course, the only no-tech systems are those in nature.


----------



## JeffLL

When I started my paludarium 12 years (five teardowns) ago, there was little published on how to, neither on the web nor hard copy. In its first iterations, the claw and leopard frogs and eastern painted turtles wreaked havoc on the landscaping in my 75g. Now I keep only fish, olive nerite snails and RCS shrimp. BTW - a LOT of fish. I have had upwards of 200" of fish running in 35 - 40 gal with 20-25 g of rock and LECA, plus Eco-Complete as the substrate over the bio-balls supporting egg crate and fiberglass mesh as the UGF with a corner sump and two submersibles stirring things up and drawing the column thru the EcoC; and the LECA pile covered in mostly granite. The light fixture is a T8x2 (~1.5 WPG) shop light with a gro-light and an aquarium lamp, 12 hours a day on a cheap timer. The fish provide all the CO2 and ferts (occasionally adding micros). I almost never change water, merely adding RO/DI every few weeks (a 3"x4"x1/2" slab of coral and the shells of golden clams that did not survive provide hardness). Essentially, fish food from the auto feeder (two weeks' worth) goes in, and plants are pruned out (into my zero-maint 30g shrimper with only a filterless hanging penquin doing circulation). I don't even do substrate siphoning in either.

It's about balance. I don't check water parameters. They are whatever. The fish are happy, and live forever. Or die, unable to cope with THIS environment (and become shrimp food). Generally, the tank hangs around 7.low pH. There are over a dozen varieties of tetras (skirted b&a, pristella, peppermint, Buenos Aries, a few different neons & glows, diamond, and others w/o remembered names, many long fin with no nips), and barbs (tiger, albino, Odessa, cherry, rosy, ruby, clown) and danios (zebra, pearl and leopard); the Amazon sword has sent daughters, the anubias fastened to driftwood, anachris floating in a bunch, a few banana plants barely hanging on, water wisteria nearly growing backwards for years, an island of emersed moneywort, and a front lawn of java moss. And, of course, the hair algae that grows in mats, mostly downstream of the uneaten food, in the very strong current. Until the olive nerites died off after 5+ years and two total teardowns, the glass was sparkling (except for their eggs).

I don't think it's about high tech vs. low tech. It _is_ about either a high level management of a system to support an aggressively maintained tank; or, the Zen of a tank with schooling fish that can sustain itself for weeks (and looks like a slice of Mother Nature's own riverbed). The greatest thrill for me has been the flowering of the money wort and the swords. A happy tank indeed. While the Bosemani Rainbows didn't make it, my SAE made it to five years. The Amazon, wort, anachris, nana and moss, are all from the 1st setup after moving to SoFla in '07.

Thanks, Diana


----------



## Flear

personaly, i'd rate in on a wattage scale, the more watts the more 'high tech'
the more the tank takes care of itself, the more low tech.

personaly i want a self-sustaining tank, i think that gets to be independant of hightech or lowtech, yet common concesus sounds like they want an 'all-in-one'

the more i have to feed and maintain my tank, the more sustainable it is.
the more i have to interact with the tank, ... i like an aquarium to relax infront of, like around christmas time theres the channel that is nothing more than a guy maintaining his fireplace, all day long, ... relaxing

going to read more of the replies in here, but i'll stick with "wattage" for the difference, a tank that is consuming 90watts is just that, could go into lights, heating pumps, automated timers and feeders. and it makes it a very small tank to do all that on 90 watts

a 200gallon tank running on 90 watts, ... i'd say that's very low tech
(the little i've come across for LED lighting, ... Lumens per watt isn't all that different from T5HO)

my 30Gallon is probably about 100Watts (including heating), i'd guess that counts as more 'high-tech" vs. "low-tech" by my own standing if i had plenty of direct sunlight i could forgo the lighting and be running with just a pump, then i'd call it "low tech"

goal = 90 gallon, plent of watts for heating, lighting, water curculation, but very sustainable as i want it to maintain itself (including feedings)

i guess high-tech vs. low-tech could also be cost per gallon, cost of pumps, lights, heating equipment, cost per month in electrical. i should probably consider that a better estimate.

cost of the tank $, cost of lighting $$, cost of additional equipment $$$, cost of operations (including food) $$$$

LED vs Florescent makes a significant change in hightech vs low tech then as well (till you can't find florescent on the market (i dread that day) like CRT vs LED computer monitors, ... the quality was all CRT, still is, eye-strain was releaved with LED, but visual quality and capabilities, CRT is superior even if large, bulky, high power consumption.

LED lighting vs. florescent seems, ... dishonest as light output seems significantly less in everything i'm coming across


----------



## dfak1m

_For Me..._

Low tech = low nutrition, low light, low CO2. (No fert added, combined with indirect sunlight, depends on microorganism & animal to suply CO2.)

High tech = high nutrition, high light, high CO2. (Fert tab & liq, No sunlight, CO2 pressured.)

It's true that technology doesn't related with maintenance as too many factors affect.
Ex : El Natural doesn't need water change for 6 months, but when your guppy/molly/cherry breeding and you want the fries survive, you need to do water change every 1-2 weeks to keep the pH/TDS stable. And you are still using Low tech method on your tank.

Some people said that low tech means CO2 DIY, LED DIY, Canister DIY, etc. ( low budget )
I don't think so because CO2 DIY made to replace CO2 pressured. It's not to reduce the technology but _another option_ to *inject CO2* in water for plants growth. 
In Aquascape, we are not talking about aesthetic, budget, maintenance, etc. The most important things is to create *Balance tank* with high CO2 or low CO2. If you want to create environment with high CO2 , you need to keep it balance with high Light and high Nutrition; and vice versa.

:cheer2:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/86327-72l-el-natural.html#post645175


----------



## nickmcmechan

I don't believe there is a black and white definition, but there are extremes, such as a top end Amano aquascape versus a tank set up according to principles in Diana's book.

I think the pivot point between high and low tech is the necessity for an additional source of carbon, such as pressurised co2. You will never be able to convince me your tank is low tech if you need to inject pressurised co2.

Other elements seem to go with co2. For example EI dosing versus no dosing in a Walstad style, 50% weekly water changes versus top ups, daily pruning and attention versus much longer period of time, etc....however you will find low tech set ups where 50% weekly water changes, liquid fert dosing and daily pruning are done no and one would argue whether its a low tech tank i.e. I don't believe you can define low tech by the maintenance schedule. Indeed a low tech may have high light - there may be floating plants and making sure your tank is hit by sunlight daily is pretty high light!......so the defining moment, IMO, when you cross from low to high tech is forcing a carbon source into the aquarium, that is needed rather than desired.


----------



## Cactinae

I guess my 10 g is a 50/50 since I use .98 cent clay kitty litter 2 watts per gallon exactly and rarely and I mean rarely do water changes. I do however have a $45 pressurized floating needle CO 2 system and I do on occasion dose some excel and trace but only every few months. So in a full natural setup if one added a heater would it still be natural? 
I tried an el natural approach some years back and experienced bad condensation from the constant temp changes from day to night. Especially in winter when we let our house sink to around 55 in the day then raise it to 68-72 in the evening. I seemed to always have a puddle around the tank/ vase/bowl. I tied every type of glass container and had the same results! Adding a tiny heater fixed it all but then to me, it seemed like a more conventional aquarium. Any thoughts?


----------



## TropTrea

For me the difference between Natural and High Tech is completely different. In a natural environment you are trying to mimic nature as much as possible. As an example your lighting should be the same as what the plants would see in there natural habitat. If you have low light plants form some small stream under a triple canopy jungle 1 watt per gallon may be excessive while if you have plants from an open full sun lighted shallow pond 5 watts per gallon may be on the low side. 

Now for the high tech tank your trying to take your plants beyond what nature provides for them. You adding CO2 to higher levels to force some faster growth. Besides that you furnishing light at levels well beyond what they would see in natures. Why in order to get faster of bigger growth than they would have in nature.


----------



## 1077

High tech for me is.. CO2 injection/enhancement, regulator's,solenoids,drop checker's,diffuser's, higher lighting,and growth measured in day's.
Low tech to me is.. NON CO2 enhanced,less equipment,less light,and growth measured in week's,month's.


----------



## BBogdan

1077 said:


> High tech for me is.. CO2 injection/enhancement, regulator's,solenoids,drop checker's,diffuser's, higher lighting,and growth measured in day's.
> Low tech to me is.. NON CO2 enhanced,less equipment,less light,and growth measured in week's,month's.


Also in my opinion .


----------

