High-tech & Low-tech - help with the definition please.

[Andy D]

Hi All,

I am having a 'debate' elsewhere (PFK) about what defines a tank as high-tech or low-tech. Now my understanding (and I believe that of UKAPS?) is that the addition of carbon via Glute or CO2 puts a tank in the high-tech category.

Clive's post explains all this very well - http://www.ukaps.org/forum/index.php?threads/Help-needed-with-low-CO2-setup.4676/

My questions on this are:

1. Who has come up with this definition?

2. Why is it referred to as low-tech and high-tech? The use of the word technology seems to cause further confusion.

Thanks in advance.

 

[naughtymoose]

Maybe it would be better to classify on the basis of amount of work involved?

Low tech = no extra input of anything (maybe this should be called 'no tech'?)

High tech = extra work due to Carbon, CO2, fancy lighting, multiple filters, spray bars, whatchamacallits, oojamaflips, floggle grommits etc

Or, perhaps it should be differentiated on the grounds of cost...

 

[tim]

I agree the word tech leads to more confusion, personally I prefer George farmers terms of high and low energy tanks.

 

[parotet]

I would say that the best definition would be 'high light/C enriched' vs 'low light/not necessarily C enriched'.... It is light (and consequently the need of adding a additional source of C) which drives the changes: fertilization needs, growth speed, tank husbandry frequency, etc.
I agree the term technology here adds confusion.

Jordi

 

[Jose]

If you think of it co2 bottles, regulators, valves atomizers, reactors or anything co2-related is actually quite techy, isnt it? As compared to a low tech where you havy the basic stuff for any aquarium even a fish only tank.

I dont think light determines wether its high or low tech. Light can be all over the place in both methods.

 

[Tim Harrison]

From an ecologist point of view all planted tanks are inherently unstable artificial systems that require our intervention at some point to maintain a healthy equilibrium, whether the're high or low tech, or if you prefer high or low energy (the terminology is often used interchangeably, and in real terms it doesn't really make any difference).

High-tech setups are much more unstable than low-tech setups and therefore require a far greater investment in energy to maintain them...and not just in terms of adding CO2.

For instance, high-energy setups also usually require a relatively "high energy" investment in inorganic nutrients, artificial substrates, powerful filtration, high output lighting, and water changes and electricity etc...and this comes at a cost not only to your wallet but also to the environment in terms of resource exploitation, manufacturing, packaging, and transportation to the market place etc.

The Low-tech route on the other hand requires very few, if any, of the above and is therefore considered a relatively low-energy investment with minimal inputs required to achieve equilibrium and therefore conceivably has a lower cost to the environment.

However, that said the terminology low/high tech/energy is somewhat naive in that nothing is ever that black and white...the above definitions are perhaps only applicable to the polar extremes of the energy spectrum and in reality many planted tank methodologies fall somewhere in between...there is a third way...and that's why I coined the term...Hybrid-energy...

For instance, a soil substrate aquarium is traditionally considered a relatively low-tech/energy approach. However, that does not necessarily have to be the case since it can still utilize sophisticated tech such as state of the art LED lighting and filters etc...and as mentioned above this comes at a cost...so in reality it falls somewhere along the energy spectrum even though it may not use a source of carbon...and is therefore a hybrid-energy tank.

But simply put..if you add carbon then it's high-energy

 

[Andy D]

Thanks for all the replies guys.

Already there are different opinions on what constitutes high/low tech. This does not surprise me.

Clive states that addition of carbon puts a tank into the high-tech bracket and I would agree. The reason for this (and I feel I am about to repeat what Clive has written in the other thread). is as follows. Of the three main elements to a planted tank - light, carbon and ferts, carbon addition is the one that causes all the headaches. If we look at each one then this becomes clear.

Light - we can increase or decrease with ease in several ways. Simple.

Ferts - EI makes this simple. Even if we don't use EI we can simply add more ferts when there is a deficiency showing. Simple.

Carbon enrichment - I won't list all the methods and problems of each but ultimately it comes down to amount, flow and distribution. Not simple.

I feel confident in justifying why carbon enrichment is the key to distinguish between low and high tech.

So does anyone know the origins of classifying tanks as low-tech and high-tech? Is this something that has been twisted over the years?

 

[Tim Harrison]

Actually, carbon makes growing plants easy...it's too much light that's usually the problem. Take a Walstad tank add carbon and don't change any of the other parameters and you will more likely than not see an increase in plant growth and health. Is that then truly high-tech/energy?

 

[Andy D]

Actually, carbon makes growing plants easy...it's too much light that's usually the problem. Take a Walstad tank add carbon and don't change any of the other parameters and you will more likely than not see an increase in plant growth and health. Is that then truly high-tech/energy?

I accept that carbon makes growing plants easier but the difficulty comes in the implementation of the chosen method. How often do we see threads about plants suffering carbon related issues that take a lot of time to solve.

If the problem was too much light this is much easier to solve.

On the basis of ferts, lighting and carbon enrichment, problems with carbon enrichment has to be the hardest to overcome? This is how I understand why the label of high-tech is attached to carbon enrichment rather than lighting or ferts.

 

[Tim Harrison]

Yer...I get what you're saying, but it's not adding carbon per se that causes the problem... it's when people use it to push the envelope. That's when they come home to find Pete Tong lounging on their sofa with his feet up, channel flicking and generally outstaying his welcome...