Re: High Tech

["Christopher Newell" <newellcr at yahoo_com>]

Comment interspersed below...

> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 21:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
> From: john wheeler <jcwheel76 at yahoo_com>
> Subject: Re: high tech
>
> Hey gang,
>
>
> I'm posting because I've seen the term "High Tech"
> applied toward the activity too many times to feel
> comfortable....especially at this late date.
>
> (many apologies to the most recent poster. This is
> *not* directed at you or anyone else.)
>
> What is so "high tech" about good lights, CO2
> injection, water column ferts, and an enriched
> substrate? I'm having a terrible time deciding where
> this term came from and why people still insist on
> calling it that when the things I mentioned above make
> things *so* much easier than the alternative.

John, I have always thought that high tech was a comparison between fish
waste, simple lighting, and plain gravel as compared to; dosed macro and
micro nutrients, super powerful fluorescent fixtures with complex phosphors,
and injected co2.  In that light the "high tech" term seems to apply rather
well.  I can't quite follow your statement about the high tech approach
method being easier than the alternative.  Nothing is easier than ~not~
doing something - like not fertilizing is easier than fertilizing, not
injecting CO2 is easier than injecting Co2, and a simple fixture or bare
bulbs is easier than figuring how to cram intensive lighting over an
aquarium.

There
> are many "approaches" that have given all of us a fool
> proof way to fertilize our tanks,

I don't think that the high tech approach is foolproof.  If the high tech
method is so foolproof, why is there so much endless discussion of
individual nutrients and CO2 tinkering?

 including , but not
> limited to CO2....There is no guess work involved. Or
> "technology" for that matter;) All of that which you
> need is very carefully chronicled in the archives.
>
> High tech should read "things that plants need method"
> and low tech should read "trying so hard to cheat
> algae, and save a dollar method".

I can't follow this statement either.  There are many folks who have healthy
plants (without excessive algae) who don't do what you refer to as "things
that plants need".  These people enjoy a simple way of managing their
aquariums and can have beautiful plants as a result.  Most of my plants are
grown under what I would call low tech conditions.  Sometimes I use some
high tech methods, but mostly it's fish waste and shop lights.  I am really
unimpressed with your evaluation of the low tech method.  Is it possible
that you made this statement in haste or jest?  I hope so.

Both projects end up
> costing the same if you look at it in dollars per
> year. The way to get a really "juicy" tank is to give
> plants what they need.

I think you are linking super high growth rates with healthy plants
exclusively.  This really isn't the case.  It is very possible to have
healthy thriving plants that grow slowly - or slowly compare to the
phenomenal rates you can see with the high tech approach.

Isn't that why we do this
> anyway?

I enjoy caring for the fish and plants and seeing both thrive.  I also enjoy
the discussions with fellow hobbyists about fish and plants.  Even with the
low tech approach, I can do this.  Some people really enjoy to tinker and
experiment, the high tech approach lends itself well to these folks.  Enjoy
that if you like, but please don't disparage the low tech enthusiast.

>
> John Wheeler

Kind Regards,

Chris Newell
Warren, MI