• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

High tech, low tech

Dark Storm

Dark Storm

Seedling
Joined
8 Sep 2015
Messages
20
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 :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 .
 
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.
 
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 :lol:
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top