# The High-Tech Way or the Highway?



## Tim Harrison (16 Nov 2011)

Can I be perfectly frank, and I don’t mean to sound rude or to be deliberately contentious, but when I decided to return to the hobby on a whim after more than 25 years absence to say I was aghast at how much had changed is an understatement. Or rather I couldn’t for the life of me understand why so many aquarists were spending so much time, effort, and money on what I considered gismos and gadgets to set up high-tech aquariums; when similarly stunning results could be achieved the “low-tech” way with minimum effort and very little expenditure: and especially despite Diana Walstads book; who incidentally I knew nothing about until a couple of months ago.

I have pretty much always set up my tanks with soil based substrate. Well I say always that’s not completely true. In the beginning some 35 years ago at the tender age of 11 (god I’m old) I started just like everyone else by putting plants in an aquarium furnished with pea gravel and a single tungsten bulb. The plants did ok for a month or so and then started to decay and everything became covered in algae. 

Then my parents, who were keen to indulge my passion, to keep me out of mischief, brought me a subscription to “The Aquarist” and brought me a very big book by a Dutchman and it all changed overnight. Anyway, cut a long story short, I soon had several tanks heavily planted with a not insignificant list of species that seemed to thrive in the local hard water conditions, contrary to almost every other expert author I’d read. The key to this success seemed to be soil based substrate, peat filtration, and good lighting. It wasn’t rocket science, and once I knew it worked it really was child’s play. So at a time when many aquarists were leaving the hobby in frustration because they kept killing their plants and fish I was giving them away because I had too many.

35 years on perhaps nothing has really changed that much. It seems that the knowledge base that I had access to all those years ago has simply disappeared, or been regurgitated only to fall on deaf ears. And despite 10 or so years since its first run, the “Walstad Way” is still either largely misunderstood, or regarded as either too contentious, or too risky to try. Instead the general consensus is that, to have even a remote chance of success at maintaining a planted tank, it is essential to have CO2 injection, and a huge filter that turns over at least 10 times the capacity of the aquarium, and drop testers, and lily pipes, and constant dosing with fertilizers, and frequent water changes, and bubble counters, and diffusers, and inert clay substrates impregnated with nutrients; the list is seemingly endless. 

All the aquarist forums are full of buzz words such as Estimative Index (which seems like overkill to say the least, and yes I do understand the science behind it, so equally I can understand the attraction), and Nature Aquariums and Biomes. The latter, at least, are nothing new; within a year I had moved on from a community tank and had set up very successful biomes. The most notable amongst them were an Amazon biome in a 50 gallon tank, and an Asian one in a 20 gallon tank and all without recourse to soda siphon cylinders, industrial hurricane like filtration, and fertilizers, and what is more I kept them going for years and years…trouble free, I might add.

Anyway, I digress, so back to the original point. I can see the attraction of the high-tech method; all those gadgets and gizmos, I am tempted by new toys just as much as the next bloke, and I will set up a high-tech tank at some stage so that I can play too, but also to compare directly the two methods; high-tech and low-tech. But I kind of know already that the law of diminishing returns will probably not warrant the huge investment a high-tech setup requires; especially when all indications are that a low-tech set up can also achieve stunning results too. 

I also think, and I am sure it has been said before, that there is something of a blind spot when it comes to the low-tech method, and many aquarists have never heard of it let alone dared try it. Probably because putting soil in an aquarium is counter intuitive and goes against everything an aquarium is perceived to be. A low-tech set up is also perceived as being too close for comfort to the aquarium that caused the failing hobbyist so much pain and grief in the first place. So as a consequence all those aquarists that left the hobby in despair - and there are lots of them - think they have tried everything already.

However, the more persistent and optimistic amongst them have searched for an alternative and discovered the high-tech method and understandably consider it the answer to all their aquarium dreams; an aquarist panacea. And lets face it it’s not hard to discover, just type a search for “aquarium” in Google and it throws countless references to the “high-tech” with little if anything referring to the “low-tech”. This is hardly surprising really since we live in a very commercial world. If there’s a buck to be had manufacturers and retailers naturally scramble to create and satisfy market demand. And before you know it everyone jumps on the bandwagon and the high-tech niche market becomes big business overnight perpetuating the perception that the high-tech way is the only way. 

Meanwhile, the low-tech blind spot grows, and vested interests, especially Japanese ones (mentioning no names), do the rest and cleverly market the high-tech method using a unique and stunning set of skills. And so the myth is borne, grows and is perpetuated at the expense of the alternatives, and also a growing number of aquarist’s bank accounts. So before you take the high-tech plunge consider the low-tech method and let nature do the hard work for a change. Honestly, it really isn’t rocket science and once the basic principles are grasped the benefits are there for the reaping.

Troi - research ecologist, writer, and underwater gardener.   


Written in relation to my thread “low-tech aquarium” in the Planted Tank Gallery: http://ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... 0cd550e4d5


----------



## clonitza (16 Nov 2011)

Well Troi a lily and a CO2 cylinder doesn't make a tank high tech. I think the term is misunderstood.
I imagine a high tech having a controlled undergravel heater, a ph controller, auto dosing system etc. that type of gizmos. 

So why the fuzz about CO2 and big filtration: just because some want more light for faster growth.

Cheers,
Mike


----------



## ceg4048 (16 Nov 2011)

Hello,
        I don't see the point in high tech bashing. There is no way you can compare the two regimes and conclude that everything is equal. CO2 grows plants faster, bigger and prettier. This is no contest, and it might have been better if you had actually tried the high tech method and become successful at it before making the comparison. Many people give both methods a go and decide which way they prefer. Some people conclude that high tech is high stress and that life is easier in the slow lane. Others decide that they like what they are able to accomplish with CO2 and that the stress is worth the rewards. If the vast majority decide on the latter, well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Now I've looked at the tank shown in the link you posted and while it looks OK, it cannot compare to what I see in my CO2 enriched tanks or what others are able to accomplish generally with CO2. I don' think I'm being mean spirited here at all, but simply being honest. This is not to say that a nice tank can't be achieved, only that whatever you can do without CO2 can be done better and faster using CO2/nutrient enrichment.

Now, have people been sucked in by marketing? Yes! have people been duped by disinformation? Yes! have people made their own lives miserable by following the incorrect path? Yes!. Is it symptomatic of a get-rich-quick, instantaneous gratification, consumer drive superficial society? Probably. Despite all that, instead of throwing in the towel and going low tech, a better option might be to understand the truth and to do things the common sense way instead of falling for the marketing.

What we try to show here is that there are easier, less complicated and less expensive ways of accomplishing high tech goals than being sucked into the marketing, without having to abandon one's high tech goals in favor of someone else's low tech vision.

The inventor of the Estimative Index technique actively encourages people to try low tech methods, and to decide for themselves which method they prefer. in no way are we attempting to subdue or eradicate the non-enriched methods. I'll have to admit though that I do agree that often, when a low techer asks for help with a problem in their tank, people immediately advise to "get CO2" which I feel does the OP a disservice, because it leads the inexperienced to automatically think in terms of CO2 enrichment by default. Within that context I agree with your argument wholeheartedly.

In fact, CO2 usage is very similar to a narcotic, but that's because it can make your tank fly and it can make you really feel good. This is an undeniable and irrefutable allure, but the path to equality is in pointing out the ease and lowered stress of the non-enriched method - NOT by trying to convince people that the two methods are equivalent or that they produce identical results because that's just another illusion.

Cheers,

Edit: Please also refrain from double posting. Your identical topic in the Tutorials section has been deleted and other posts merged into this one.


----------



## Tim Harrison (16 Nov 2011)

Hi, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't high-tech bashing just trying to promote the low-tech method as a viable alternative. But thanks for your participation anyway, especially as we seem to have so much in common.

Go easy on my tank its only 6 weeks and 3 days old.


----------



## Tim Harrison (16 Nov 2011)

> So why the fuzz about CO2 and big filtration: just because some want more light for faster growth.



Hi that's my point if a low-tech system is set up properly the growth rate can be quite phenomenal.


----------



## ceg4048 (16 Nov 2011)

Troi said:
			
		

> Hi sorry, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't high-tech bashing just trying to promote the low-tech as a viable alternative. But thanks for your participation anyway, especially as we seem to have so much in common.



This sounds like bashing:


			
				Troi said:
			
		

> ...All the aquarist forums are full of buzz words such as Estimative Index (which seems like overkill to say the least, ..... all without recourse to soda siphon cylinders, industrial hurricane like filtration....





			
				Troi said:
			
		

> ...Meanwhile, the low-tech blind spot grows, and vested interests, especially Japanese ones (mentioning no names), do the rest and cleverly market the high-tech method using a unique and stunning set of skills...





			
				Troi said:
			
		

> But I kind of know already that the law of diminishing returns will probably not warrant the huge investment a high-tech setup requires;


 I mean, have you already reached a conclusion before even attempting the method? This is not very objective. Why not study how to execute high tech methods cheaply instead of automatically assuming the worst?

The best way of promoting low tech is always to produce stunning tanks that rival or exceed what is shown definitively to be accomplished high tech methods. Thus far you have failed to so. We've seen one tank that is OK but not world beating. Why not develop and offer a tutorial on Low Tech methods that will attract people instead of saying how bad and uneconomical high tech methods are? You'll certainly not convince people who are already successful at high tech that way because we already know the truth. The fact that we have a Low tech forum section ought to demonstrate that we here at least recognize the importance of pursuing low tech methods. Lets get some positive encouragement for all those that are unconvinced.

Cheers,


----------



## roadmaster (16 Nov 2011)

I am relatively new to the planted tank arena, and decided to accept the advice of one person after listening to many."'Choose a method based on goal's you wish to achieve ,and learn that method well ".
Then try the other method's and do likewise.
I am troubled a wee bit, by the thought of five to ten times the growth rate that CO2 enriched tank's can produce over low tech, Non CO2 tank's and don't really have time to keep up with the maint ,pruning, and so the low tech method suit's me  at this time.(I WILL go with the gas at some point)
I am more troubled as of late, by those few on other forum's I visit and here as well, who are sometimes quick to point out percieved flaw's in method's that they may or may not have tried for themselves ,and spout the folly of the targeted method as opposed to their favored one, which in turn,,, scares or confuses those new hobbyist's who they claim they wish to help.
To me ,,it was about identifying and achieving my desired goal and then weeding out useless, pointless, info and listening to those who could not only talk the talk,, but would be willing to help me achieve my desired goal with the method I chose.
Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Tim Harrison (16 Nov 2011)

Hi ceg4048

Your not a journalist by any chance are you? They also have a habit of taking comments out of context to support their arguments .

Please don't get me wrong I think the hi-tech approach is marvellous and a wonderment to behold. I just think it would be great if the low-tech method got just as much exposure for all the right reasons. It can produce stunning results too and in similar time-frames, so don't be too hard in your criticism.

Forgive me if I am wrong but your approach to my article appears to stem from an entrenched dogmatic perception and a slavish adherence to certain paradigms. As a scientist, experience has taught me that both can seriously affect your judgment not to mention your health .

I wasn't actually pushing my own views but merely commenting on the perception of the wider aquarist community. Maybe if you read my well intentioned article again with that foremost in your mind you will get what I am trying to achieve. After all it seems that you are essentially supporting my argument anyway.


----------



## foxfish (16 Nov 2011)

Hey Troi, sorry to deviate slightly (a lot) but you mention the "Aquarist” is that the same magazine that I remember?
Edited by David Sands, a cat fish expert & later to become Dr David Sands with a spot on channel four television based on animal psychology!


----------



## Tim Harrison (16 Nov 2011)

Yer...I think so, the name rings a bell, but I'm not sure who edited it since I can't remember that far back. Whatever happened to it? I came back in to the hobby still expecting to find it on the shelves of WH Smiths.


----------



## foxfish (16 Nov 2011)

Are well I got to meet the chap & I wrote a few articles for the mag too!
I managed a Koi farm & tourist attraction at the time & we bought a fish called TC, a huge red tailed cat that weighed 36lb.
Anyhow I had built this 1000gal tank for the catfish & the mag featured the whole event of the fish being shipped from England to Guernsey where I live.
David  stayed at my house for two days & my planted tank was featured in the mag - I guesse this was in about 1985-7
The Mag went down due to strong competition from Practical fishkeeping & another mag, the name I cant remember at the moment.
In some ways those were great days of learning through publications.


----------



## Tim Harrison (16 Nov 2011)

They were halcyon days. I remember the mag was quite academic in its approach so I guess the more accessible and popularist approach of Practical Fishkeeping and Tropical Fish Hobbyist eventually did for it. But it's good you managed to get some mileage out of it as well before its demise.


----------



## Brenmuk (21 Nov 2011)

The high tech vs low tech debate is age old and IMO is kind of pointless. It soon leads onto other debates about what exactly is high tech and low tech and which variant is better etc. 

I think people, myself included get inspired when they see a great looking aqua scape and then try to find out how it was achieved and attempt to follow those steps. I went the Walstead route because I saw some lush jungle style tanks which I loved the look of - it turned out that these tank used soil and cat litter as substrate and had hardly any maintenance.. I then found out more and the rest is history. I never set out to follow the Walstead method it just happened to be the method used by a style of tank that appealed to me.

So far the best scapes I've seen and the ones that win competitions are high tech and so these will probably inspire new aqua scapers to initially go high tech etc so its easy to see why the low tech end of the hobby gets overlooked. 
Having said that you do from time to time see some great tanks when one of the talented scapers has a go at low tech.

The more experienced scapers in the hobby I find are less bothered about a particular method more about achieving a particular look or style and are happy to promote either high tech or low tech - its just a means to an end.


----------



## Tim Harrison (22 Nov 2011)

> its easy to see why the low tech end of the hobby gets overlooked



Absolutely right, so i am sure you agree there's no the harm in trying to inform or create interest in the use of soil based substrates. After all it could give people a lot of pleasure and save them some time and money, not too mention heartache. 



> The high tech vs low tech debate is age old and IMO is kind of pointless. It soon leads onto other debates about what exactly is high tech and low tech and which variant is better etc.



You are also right about the age old debate, except that it's not just kind of pointless, it's totally pointless. But you've got to admit that it often leads to some of the most hilariously funny scientific mumbo-jumbo, which is at best imperfectly understood. And anyway what exactly is hi-tech and low-tech?

It’s easy to get hung up on terminology and our seemingly unceasing desire to categorize everything, and it’s not always very helpful…so lets just start by putting all that hi-tech, low-tech, hi-energy, low-energy gubbins in to context.

Aquariums are at best semi-natural systems and they require our intervention to reach a healthy equilibrium. The greater the intervention the greater their inherent instability and the greater the investment in energy required to maintain them, and so on (for energy also read effort on your part). That is why, at least in ecological terms, the CO2 route requires a relatively massive energy investment not just in terms of adding CO2, but also fertilizer, artificial nutrient impregnated substrates, and powerful filtration and lighting etc. The soil substrate route on the other hand is a relatively low-energy investment with minimal inputs required to achieve equilibrium, and by design with minimal outputs to. 

Unlike the relatively higher energy approach soil substrates use potential energy already harnessed by nature and once your aquarium is full of water it takes greater advantage of life’s natural flows and cycles. 

The key word throughout the above statements is relative. This is the fundamental principle behind using soil based substrate in an aquarium; it is a relatively low energy solution, however, similarly, it is a misnomer to refer to it as low-tech; it is relatively low-tech. For instance, the methodology I’m advocating aims to produce fast and luxuriant plant growth without recourse to high energy inputs such as CO2 injection and regular water column dosing with proprietary fertilizers. But by the same measure it takes full advantage of T5 lighting or similar alternatives and mechanical filtration. So if you had to categorise my approach, hybrid-energy or hybrid-tech would be as good a phrase as any to adopt; but only if you felt the absolute and irresistible urge.

There is of course a fundamental scientific philosophy underlying the above concerning energy flows and entropy but that's beyond the scope of this forum.


----------

