• 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

Poll: what level of tech do you have/prefer?

What is the tech level of your tank(s)?

  • High tech

    Votes: 8 17.8%

  • Low tech

    Votes: 17 37.8%

  • Both

    Votes: 18 40.0%

  • Neither

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • Wait what?

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Total voters
    45
Wolf6

Wolf6

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
958
Location
Netherlands
The discussion of high tech vs low tech regularly returns (not in a negative way thankfully). This got me wondering as to the ratio of users on this forum. Do you have high tech, low tech, both, or some sort of fusion or neither?
 
Cast the first vote myself, I have 2 high tech (defined by using co2) and one low tech. Both kids have a low tech tank too.
 
One high tech (though technically more 'mid-tech') one low tech. I suspect all future tanks for me will be 'mid-tech' - not an official term I know, but by that I mean lower light (via dimming or heavy surface plant cover), longer (12 hour) photo period, with a little CO2 addition to aid plant growth (but aiming for less than the standard 30ppm).
 
Wookii said:
One high tech (though technically more 'mid-tech') one low tech. I suspect all future tanks for me will be 'mid-tech' - not an official term I know, but by that I mean lower light (via dimming or heavy surface plant cover), longer (12 hour) photo period, with a little CO2 addition to aid plant growth (but aiming for less than the standard 30ppm).
Click to expand...
Same, I found that fish seem happier/more active that way, and fish are the main attraction for me 🙂
 
One thing that bothers me about both my hi-tech tank is eventually over time they get large areas of bba; the low tech tanks also get bba but not nearly as much and sometimes not at all. All tanks are well established (3 of them 3 years 2 of them 18 months) so i've had a bit of time to experiment. i realize that i'm not doing things 'right' since we see all these wonderful bba free pictures but my tanks get clumps of bba here and there (my hi-tech tanks are 120gallon and 40 gallon which i think are more difficult to uniformly balance than smaller tanks). The low tech tanks are 29 29 and 5 and the 29 really grow well (ignore the lousy landscape):
b29_nov_2021.jpg29w_new.jpgtt2.jpgtt1.jpg

With regards to bba i've found that even shading from plants above can trigger bba on plants below which is quite frustrating.
 
Wookii said:
One high tech (though technically more 'mid-tech') one low tech. I suspect all future tanks for me will be 'mid-tech' - not an official term I know, but by that I mean lower light (via dimming or heavy surface plant cover), longer (12 hour) photo period, with a little CO2 addition to aid plant growth (but aiming for less than the standard 30ppm).
Click to expand...
This is the option I go for too. Fish are always going to be the priority for me. I keep my lighting quite low now with a low amount of co2 . Now I’ve sorted my inconsistent co2 it seems to be doing the trick.

Cheers
 
I voted low tech but i would call the fact I'm using Amazonia cheating really... I did do a tank with only sand and dosing ferts to the water column, it did very well and was going for over 2 years with no co2, part of the reason i stopped co2 was i was gassing out my shrimps and stuff, trying to get the bps/ppm right without an expensive reg and a decent needle valve was almost an impossible task, if I did a plants only tank I would consider using the fire extinguisher I've got stashed.
 
MichaelJ said:
Low-tech for me... I like the term low-energy better btw., because that is really what it is. Low-tech sounds like we are heating our tanks with a candle underneath and occasionally stir up the water with a spoon :lol:
Click to expand...
Me put water in box! ugh ugh! :lol:
 
I voted high tech because I do have CO2 but nominally I suspect in a 100 gallon tank. But lots of floating plants and 'easy' plants in gravel. (it would definitely be low tech if it weren't for the CO2)
 
The grumpy one said:
I would say low tech. But as I dose Dennerle Carbo Elixir BIO I am not sure so I said "neither"?
Click to expand...
Thats a problem... I kind of suspect the poll is supposed to reflect whether your injecting CO2 or not, or do both... Personally I do not consider dosing liquid carbon being "high-tech", but that wouldn't be left to opinion if the question would have been specific to CO2 injection or not.
 
MichaelJ said:
Thats a problem... I kind of suspect the poll is supposed to reflect whether your injecting CO2 or not, or do both... Personally I do not consider dosing liquid carbon being "high-tech", but that wouldn't be left to opinion if the question would have been specific to CO2 injection or not.
Click to expand...
I would also not consider dosing Glut as low-tech either... :twisted:
 
MichaelJ said:
Haha! Oh, so your cheating as well? Yeah you see what I am saying... Now we are arguing what low-tech vs. high-tech actually means...
Click to expand...

😂 of course we are.
Specificity in the parameters of the query required otherwise…..any excuse for a good old debate. 👍

I’m running Co2 so automatically high tech as far as I’m concerned…..but I’m currently running low light so….. 🤔 but might well increase it later 🤔 perhaps there should be an ‘undecided’ button. 😂😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top