# High tech, low tech



## Dark Storm (10 Sep 2015)

Please explain the difference to me in how they work?
Does one consume more electric than the other?
I don't want to increase the amount of power i'm currently using, it has to be energy efficient. Thanks in advance


----------



## eduard (10 Sep 2015)

All differences has been explained several times on here. I advise you to have a good read through older threads,you'll learn much more than difference between hi and low tech.


----------



## ian_m (10 Sep 2015)

Basically light. The more light you apply (over 1Watt/US gallon is a handy measure) the more tech (and water changes) you have to apply to the tank to keep it healthy as it runs faster then the tank can naturally dispose of waste feeding the plants.


----------



## parotet (10 Sep 2015)

The tutorial section is great for a first reading, but as Ian mentions it's all about light which is the most important driver and determines a good number of inputs needed (Co2, ferts, substrates, etc.) and maintenance needs (water changes, tank husbandry, etc.). However take into account that these categories are flexible and quite a lot of hobbyists have something between low and high tech tanks. Basically, this means working with medium lights and enriching the tank with CO2/ferts. This way you don't have to trim so often, (bad) things do not happen so fast, CO2 levels are not that critical (this is the most difficult part) and you can enjoy a healthy tank without living for it.

Jordi


----------



## Jose (10 Sep 2015)

Its not about light, its about co2. 
Light can be quite high in a low tech as it can be in a high tech. There is a shared area of light intensity for both methods. Yet what makes the difference is wether there is co2 injection or not.


----------



## MrAqua (10 Sep 2015)

Low tech for me is the following, a tank, a simple internal filter, a good chunk of subatrate (gravel type-ish), adequate lightning. Weekly w.changes, roughly 25%30. Doseing fertilizers PMDD-style and liquid CO2. Loads of different plants, both fast growing and some medium demanding plants. Only high tech is the timer who regulate the lights.;o)

Inhabitants have a purpose: shrimps, ancistrus for algae control etc.


----------



## roadmaster (10 Sep 2015)

Jose said:


> Its not about light, its about co2.
> Light can be quite high in a low tech as it can be in a high tech. There is a shared area of light intensity for both methods. Yet what makes the difference is wether there is co2 injection or not.


 
Yes light can be quite high in low tech if...you mean high above the tank.
I see your meaning though.
Without the ability to increase CO2, mega lighting in low tech is only gonna cause grief unless as mentioned ,you hang the lighting high above the tank.
It is the light that drives the demand for more CO2/nutrient's.No?


----------



## Dark Storm (10 Sep 2015)

I have got the Tetra Active substrate, which contains Start up (I've heard of this through fish forums though I never used Tetra start up in my tanks, I used the JBL version which is going well a year on). Both claim to cover 60 litre tanks so should be ample for a 110. If not i'm sure I have some spare grit I can mix in if needed. 
Lighting is a LED set up, A mix of Blue and white light, and is supported by the sides of the tank, at a 1 to 2 inch clearance.


----------



## Tim Harrison (10 Sep 2015)

I've always maintained that it isn't as cut and dried as low-energy vs high-energy...although the addition of carbon as CO2 or bioavailable organic carbon like Excel is often considered heading down the high-energy route.

In reality, as Jordi says, most of our tanks fall somewhere along an energy continuum - with Walstad tanks at one end of the spectrum and super injected high light tanks at the other...that's why I've tried to coin the term "*hybrid-energy*"...there's a fuller definition at the start of my tutorial http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/the-soil-substrate-or-dirted-planted-tank-a-how-to-guide.18943/

Also the terms high-energy and high tech, and similarly low-energy and low-tech are pretty much interchangeable since in the broadest terms there is an underlying and unifying philosophy at work...that is of entropy and energy flows...

...We keep order in our tanks at the expense of chaos in the wider environment....in that it takes an enormous amount of resources (read energy) to produce the fertz, CO2, artificial substrates, glass and plastic components and fuel to get them to market etc to run a single planted tank - even a Walstad tank, it's just relatively less energy demanding than a tank at the other end of the continuum.

So whilst our tanks may look awesome it comes at a considerable down stream cost, just like most other consumer goods. This is where Amano's whole Nature Aquarium philosophy falls down for me...although I also appreciated that one of Amano's main goals was to promote greater understanding and appreciation of nature through the Nature Aquarium concept, so there is perhaps a legitimate trade off.

But in answer to the OP a true Walstad tank will consume considerably less energy/electricity than higher energy alternatives.


----------



## Jose (10 Sep 2015)

To roamaster: Most co2 injected tanks actually have less light than many well kept non co2 ones? How can this be if light drives co2 demand? Well its not that simple. Plants can also use resources better when light is high (no co2) compared to low light if given enough time to adapt.
Now there is a light limit for a non co2 injected tank after which you need co2 to keep plants healthy but its ablurry limit. But as ive said light is not what determines low tech or high tech. Look at it this way:

High tech=very rapid plant growth for which you need co2 but light can have different values.
Low tech=slow plant growth. Without co2, no matter how much light, growth will be slow.
Basically what makes the biggest difference in plant growth is co2 not light.
Everything else i.e water changes, ferts, flow etc come as a result of plant growth.
Light plays a part but not the main one.


----------



## roadmaster (11 Sep 2015)

No one can move  away from the fact that light drives the demand for that which plants need,light,CO2,fertz.(algae need's much less of everything)
Less light,= less demand, and managing the tank becomes easier, which those injecting CO2 discover fairly quickly where light is driving everything at eleven.
Those running low tech NON CO2 tanks also learn fairly quickly how much light or PAR they can get away with.
The ones that  are stubborn/determined,or can't grasp, soon become student's on method's of controlling algae in all it's forms.
Plant's under moderate light with what CO2 is available naturally,and slower growth, can be just as healthy as plant's in injected tank's under much more light.
Yes, increasing the light  increases the plant's metabolisim's and they can more quickly utilize the resources if they are there, but in NON CO2 tanks increasing the light will quickly reveal the lack of  CO2 and quite possibly nutrient's as well.
It will alway's be the light that drives the metabolisim's and thus the demand for CO2/nutrient's.
I will leave the semantic's for those who wish to pursue them, but the path for me is clear.


----------



## Jose (11 Sep 2015)

You seem to have a very rigid view of things. Which is fine. But you also cannot negate that co2 addition makes the biggest difference in plant growth. This is not semantics, thus determining if a tank falls under low tech or high. Obviously there are middle grounds.


----------



## Jose (11 Sep 2015)

Another thought: if its light that drives metabolism:
What if we have a tank without co2 and x ammount of light. Then we start adding co2 to that tank. Is the metabolism going to be the same? No, it will be up to 10x higher. 

The phrase light drives metabolism is true but what makes the biggest differnce in metabolism is the addition of co2.


----------



## roadmaster (11 Sep 2015)

Jose said:


> Another thought: if its light that drives metabolism:
> What if we have a tank without co2 and x ammount of light. Then we start adding co2 to that tank. Is the metabolism going to be the same? No, it will be up to 10x higher.
> 
> The phrase light drives metabolism is true but what makes the biggest differnce in metabolism is the addition of co2.



Only makes a difference in growth/health if CO2 delivery matches the amount of light energy being used.
Plant's will still struggle and algae will thrive if light energy is in excess of the CO2 available for plant's to draw from.
Hence the suggestion's of reducing light energy, or increasing CO2 to match said light energy that most are directed  to do when they have problem's .
Riddle me this..what if your fishes or other critter's cannot tolerate anymore gas being injected.?
What would be you next move to bring relief to the plant's and fauna alike ?


----------



## Jose (11 Sep 2015)

It depends you can do many things:
1: lower light thus reducing metabolism and co2 need from the plants. Notice I agree light drives co2 demand but this is not what Im debating as this is not a black or white thing. Light can be at many values without determing if its high or low tech. Would you agree more if you heard it from T Barr or ceg?
2: You can add more flow or change your co2 delivery method i.e to gaseous co2.
3: you can increase your o2 levels. Also many times the problem is not enough off gassing of co2 so the levels keep climbing. In this case you can increase surface ripple and maybe even increase co2 slowly.

What Im debating here is what draws the line between high and low tech. Its co2 as it makes the biggest difference in plant growth.


----------



## roadmaster (11 Sep 2015)

I will agree that the addition of CO2 will be biggest difference in plant growth,not necessarily plant health.
Plenty of low tech tanks with healthy plant's have been seen here and elsewhere on other forum's .
Will also agree that lighting alone does not indicate high tech or low tech,  but easily identifies high light,or low light, depending as mentioned  on how much energy or PAR is being directed at the plant's .


----------



## MrAqua (12 Sep 2015)

Is the additional source of CO2 really what makes the difference between low and high tech..? I mean CO2 is always present in a tank, more or less in form of decomposing plants, left over food etc.


----------



## James O (13 Sep 2015)

Light drives photosynthesis
CO2 does not
Ferts do not

Your tank could be sponsored by St Pellegrino but that doesn't mean it's hi tech


----------



## Jose (13 Sep 2015)

Rigid thinking once more.


----------



## Jose (13 Sep 2015)

Rigid thinking once more. Everything affects photosynynthesis not just light. Can you make a plant grow ten times faster by adding more and more light in a non co2 tank? No. Can you do it by adding artificial co2 (and keeping light the same). Yes.

Sorry for the double psot.


----------



## alto (14 Sep 2015)

Jose said:


> Rigid thinking once more.


That road goes both ways 

Place a plant in the dark without light & add all the CO2 possible, report back in 2 months on how much "_photosynthesis_" you observe ... choose an "easy" plant such as Cardamine lyrata which is listed as low light demand & medium CO2 - this should facilitate your hypothesis.


----------



## Jose (14 Sep 2015)

alto said:


> Place a plant in the dark without light & add all the CO2 possible, report back in 2 months on how much "_photosynthesis_" you observe ... choose an "easy" plant such as Cardamine lyrata which is listed as low light demand & medium CO2 - this should facilitate your hypothesis.



I've never contradicted what you guys say. Light drives photosynthesis? Yes, of course. I'm asking you to think outside that. What makes a high tech a high tech? Is it the ammount of light?

Your example given doesnt fall under any category because obviously the first thing you need to give a plant to survive is light. The same would happen if we eliminate all source of co2 for the plant, it would also die this way, so I dont see what we can get out of that example really.


----------



## Edvet (14 Sep 2015)

For me adding an extra carbon source means high tech, this means the light can be increased and growth will be enhanced. Of course the line between them is fluid (see the pun) but without CO2 there is only so much light you can safely use.


----------



## roadmaster (14 Sep 2015)

High tech for me is.. CO2 tank's,diffuser's,reactor's,drop checker's,regulator's,solenoid's,frequent dosing of nutrient's,large frequent water changes.
Low tech = none of the above.


----------



## Jose (14 Sep 2015)

roadmaster said:


> High tech for me is.. CO2 tank's,diffuser's,reactor's,drop checker's,regulator's,solenoid's,frequent dosing of nutrient's,large frequent water changes.


Everything that comes with the addition of co2...


----------



## roadmaster (14 Sep 2015)

Jose said:


> Everything that comes with the addition of co2...



For sure.


----------



## alto (14 Sep 2015)

Jose said:


> Basically what makes the biggest difference in plant growth is co2 not light.





Jose said:


> Light plays a part but not the main one.



My point: I couldn't disagree more with these 2 statements

Unless you are discussing rare dark-adapted "plants", light is the driving force behind photosynthesis.
The only time CO2 or nutrients, take on this _apparent_ role is when either becomes the limiting ingredient ie there is sufficient light ... in your posts on this subject you seem to be proposing that CO2 is a greater necessity than light.


----------



## Jose (14 Sep 2015)

alto said:


> light is the driving force behind photosynthesis.


Yes, but this statement is just oversimplified.


alto said:


> The only time CO2 or nutrients, take on this _apparent_ role is when either becomes the limiting ingredient ie there is sufficient light


Yes this is totally right. The difference between a low tech and a high tech is actually that. In a low tech CO2 is the main limitting factor and in a high tech co2 becomes less limitting. Light cannot be treated in the same way and that's why you can get a benefit by adding co2 even in a low light tank, because co2 in a low tech tank is much more limitting than light. This is easier to see with examples.


----------



## roadmaster (14 Sep 2015)

Can add CO2 to any tank and see improvement, but use too much light,and then CO2 becomes limiting in any tank quite possibly nutrient's as well.


----------



## alto (14 Sep 2015)

Jose said:


> Yes, but this statement is just oversimplified.


Is it? - look at the biochemical pathway ... where do photons appear? where does CO2 appear? what are photon source options vs CO2 options?

hint: there are CO2 scavenging pathways


----------



## Dark Storm (15 Sep 2015)

My 90 litre tank, without CO2, most of the plants have actually rooted into the substrate, where as my 55 litre (think long tank), they haven't but it is brighter than the 90 (which is deeper).


----------



## James O (15 Sep 2015)

Somewhere around here is a link to a Tropica (I think) paper on this subject.  In proper test situations they found:

1) Added co2 & low light = some growth
2) High light & no added co2 = more growth
3) High light & co2 = more than combined totals of 1 & 2


----------



## Tim Harrison (15 Sep 2015)

Yep there is...http://www.bio-web.dk/ole_pedersen/pdf/PlantedAquaria_2001_2_22.pdf


----------



## James O (15 Sep 2015)

Thanks Troi!  Was my summary correct ish?


----------



## Tim Harrison (15 Sep 2015)

I think so James, well sorta...I also think this discussion has kinda been had before...http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/low-tech-lighting-levels.29004/page-2#post-302596

Edit:
The results of the research indicated that *high* light and* low* CO2 provide better growing conditions than *high* CO2 and* low* light, but together high light and high CO2 can provide optimum growth rates


----------



## James O (15 Sep 2015)

Troi said:


> I also think this discussion has kinda been had before



On UKAPS? No?

Did we come to the same conclusion again this time?


----------



## Jose (15 Sep 2015)

What about if we took medium co2 and added high light. Compare that to having medium light and adding high co2. No one knows which will win. Why? Because starting values are aleatory the same as for the tropica paper.


----------



## foxfish (15 Sep 2015)

~I have only been involved in this hobby for about 37 years & up until reading this thread, I would define low tech as a planted tank "without manually adding C02". A high tech tank is a planted tank "with manually added C02" = pretty simply really but I will stand back and let you guys have fun....


----------



## Newbiedoobydo (15 Sep 2015)

So what happens if you have high light but don't add CO2?


----------



## ian_m (15 Sep 2015)

Newbiedoobydo said:


> So what happens if you have high light but don't add CO2?


You vaporise all the plants and grow algae.


----------



## Newbiedoobydo (15 Sep 2015)

ian_m said:


> You vaporise all the plants and grow algae.


----------



## James O (16 Sep 2015)

Newbiedoobydo said:


> So what happens if you have high light but don't add CO2?



Adding floating plants is a good way of mitigating the issues of high light.  They can soak up loads of light and have access to atmospheric CO2.  They'll grow like mad, create shade for fish and shield some of the tank from the blistering rays 

Plus you can sell them on to UKAPS members


----------



## Edvet (16 Sep 2015)

Newbiedoobydo said:


> So what happens if you have high light but don't add CO2?


----------



## James O (16 Sep 2015)

wow Edvet!  

If algae is so easy to grow why isn't there an ancient Japanese art of algae topiary?

Can you imagine the challenge of not letting it get out of hand


----------



## Newbiedoobydo (16 Sep 2015)

Eeeeeeeeeeek! That's a very flourishing, erm, algaescape you have there...

I do have lots of floating plants (courtesy of Darrel) and have just started adding Seachem Flourish Excel. Plus the lights are on for only 6-7 hours/day. Hopefully that will keep any algae in check.


----------



## James O (16 Sep 2015)

Algaescape


----------



## Edvet (16 Sep 2015)

Newbiedoobydo said:


> you have there


not mine, i have had my own algea farm.


----------



## ian_m (16 Sep 2015)

My mate got an algae-scape similar to this.

He changed his very very very old faded single T8 tube to a brand spanking new T5 HO tube. Also increased the T5 length compared to T8 as fitted a Juwel length tube, as original T8 only covered centre 3/4 of tank. Tank was much brighter and looked good, but didn't add carbon source or fertilisers as never needed to with T8 tube.

Noticed a bit of algae, before he went away on holiday, few plants (egeria) turning brown..

Anyway came back from holiday and found light timer had failed and T5 had been on 24/7 for a week. Tank was completely full of green fluff just like Edverts picture, though not as good as Edvert's as glass was completely green coated as well. No plants left at all, but fish all happy.


----------



## Edvet (16 Sep 2015)

ian_m said:


> fish all happy.


i bet the fish will love it


----------



## Scapefu (16 Sep 2015)

Hi all,

A little late to the interesting discussion but I thought I would throw in how I view things.

To me:

Low tech = low levels of technology in the planted aquarium
Mid tech = medium levels of technology in the planted aquarium (most hobbyists)
High tech = high levels of technology in the planted aquarium
By technology, I mean gadgetry.

There are other categories, IMO, such as Diana's _El Natural _that don't necessarily fall in the three mentioned above.

Of course, the above are simply labels and should really not mean much. What we really are asking when we use the labels is:

What light are you using?
How are you introducing CO2?
How are you fertilizing?
How are you filtering?
Bear in mind that levels of light, CO2, fertilization are not necessarily indicative of the label. For example:

Would you say high light automatically means high tech? Well, what if I'm using the sun for light? What if I'm using shade cloth to throttle down the sun?
I use LED, pressurized CO2, auto-dosing EI solution and Eheim canister filtration and a power head for movement. However, I adjust down the power and dosing for all of these so that my plants grow much slower similar to a low light environment. Am I high tech or low tech?
My point is that we really should do away with these labels that create more confusion than anything else. Instead, we should ask the above questions that will, in turn, dictate how we reach a stable and beautiful aquascape.

If you're interested on how to aquascape when you have a slow-growing environment, I did a ScapeFu Podcast on Low Tech Aquascaping that is relevant to this subject.

What do you think?


----------



## James O (16 Sep 2015)

Scapefu said:


> Would you say high light automatically means high tech?




Yup. Because you have to do all sorts of things to use the higher light levels and prevent an algaescape.


----------



## Andy D (16 Sep 2015)

I raised this question (as many have) before and linked to Clive's post on the subject. I found it useful so will link to it again. 

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/index.php?posts/51835/

Ultimately I'm not sure there is ever going to be a consensus on it.


----------



## Scapefu (17 Sep 2015)

James O said:


> Yup. Because you have to do all sorts of things to use the higher light levels and prevent an algaescape.




Well? I could simply add more ferts and supplement CO2 with DIY yeast?


----------



## flygja (21 Sep 2015)

As with a lot of things in this hobby that I've realised recently, a lot of generalisations but no use getting into specifics sometimes. I guess its like asking someone "What's a powerful car?" My mum might say 150 bhp is plenty powerful, but I might think nothing is powerful until it hits 300 bhp. What's medium lighting? 20 PAR at the substrate? 50? 80? Not many can agree to this either!

Myself, I'm sticking to CO2 injection - CO2 injection whether it'd be bio yeast or pressurised is high-tech. The yeast is just DIY'd high-tech. Adding liquid carbon doesn't count for me, I'm sure many of you with disagree. Personally because I've never used liquid CO2 as a carbon source, but more of an algaecide.


----------

