[green_valley]

Hello everyone, I have been researching, and reading reading reading, and I finally got confused.:hihi:

What does Low-tech really mean? I thought the real difference between Low tech and High tech, is the light (low light or high light). High tech also has CO2.

Then I was reading about Eco-Complete substrate for low tech, and some people say that Eco-Complete is not really a low tech. So can someone clarify my confusion as to exactly what's considered to be Low-tech and what's high-tech. Is it just the light? substrate? plants? I think I am missing something here.

Thank you.

 

[HolyAngel]

eh, idk what the substrate has to do with anything.. maybe since eco is inert.. but low tech basically means no co2. also low light but thats a given since no co2. High tech = pressurized co2.

 

[kamikazi]

there are quite a few threads debating this very question.

For most people I'd say low tech means lower light and no additional CO2 added.

Others feel Excel dosing and DIY CO2 can still qualify as low tech.

Then others will say anything specifically made and technologically advanced makes it high tech rather than low tech, IE using substrate specifically manufactured for plant growth like Eco-complete.

Point is there is alot of different views and ideas, and it really depends on who is talking.

 

[SearunSimpson]

I find anything low-tech is anything low-maintenance.
You can go "High-tech" with your EI dosing, your high wattage, pressurized Co2, fast growing plants, weekly trimming, etc...which I sometimes do.

But in my own opinion, a low tech tank would be a medium light tank with slow growers, crypts, vals, microsoreum and anubias. Dosing Excel and a weekly water change or whatever. Anything that isn't too time consuming in my own mind is something that is low tech.

 

[green_valley]

Hmmmmm....so it seems like, it really depends on how you look at it. Very interesting.

 

[Hoppy]

It means whatever you want it to mean. One could say that an "el natural" tank, the Walstad method, is the only real low tech tank. One could also say, any tank without a computer controlling light, CO2, feeding the plants, and water changes is low tech. Personally I don't call anything either low tech or high tech.

 

[green_valley]

Alright, well, I guess I will have the meaning myself. Anything without CO2 is low-tech.

 

[OverStocked]

I do not use "low tech" or "high tech".

I use terms appropriate to light/co2. Low Light. Medium light. Medium/high light, co2 dependent. High Light, co2 dependent.

That is the best descriptor I can use with little effort.

Otherwise, I'm not really sure what the "point" of labeling something "low tech" is? Perhaps I am missing the bigger picture.

Describing the light seems like something that will give a better overall picture of the tank requirements.

 

[aman74]

I do not use "low tech" or "high tech".

I use terms appropriate to light/co2. Low Light. Medium light. Medium/high light, co2 dependent. High Light, co2 dependent.

That is the best descriptor I can use with little effort.

Otherwise, I'm not really sure what the "point" of labeling something "low tech" is? Perhaps I am missing the bigger picture.

Describing the light seems like something that will give a better overall picture of the tank requirements.

I tend to agree with this.

I think, in general, low tech is meant to mean no CO2. However, what drives that need and the need for dosing and water changes, is light. I think it's a mistake to think of it in terms of the actual tech used. More appropriate to think of it in terms of maintenance demand, which again, is driven by light.

The lines, for me, are blurred because even low light tanks benefit from CO2. However, this can, but doesn't have to, drive the need for dosing and water changes.

So, I guess I agree that there's no standard definition and what Overstocked proposes is the most beneficial descriptor. It describes the main factor that drives maintenance requirements.