[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hi/lo tech
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:41:55 -0700
> From: "Alysoun McLaughlin" <alysoun.mclaughlin at ncsl_org>
> Subject: Re: High tech/low tech
>
>
> Here's my personal definition of "low-tech" --
>
> - -substrate purchased from aquarium store
> - -any liquid, tab fertilizer purchased from an aquarium store and added per
> package instructions
> - -no test kits (other than perhaps for pH, hardness)
> - -standard filtration unit (waterfall, canister)
> - -lighting fixture purchased from aquarium store
> - -1 to 2 watts per gallon
> - -no CO2 added
Although I advocate a somewhat different method, I think your method
would qualify as low-tech. At least until I see an official "-tech"
guide, I now pronounce your method unofficially low-tech (you need to
name it).
I don't agree with you about CO2, as the yeast method seems pretty
low tech. I'm also not so sure I like 1 watt per gal, but I guess it's
ok if you don't mind some limitation of plant choices. There are a few
other points I don't agree with personally, but if your happy and it
works, go with it. Most of you know I'm the last to ever argue (or is it
that I always like last word?).
FWIW, what prompted me to write was not the lack of a definition for a
low-tech tank. Nor was it really to criticize the use of a UG filter
and/ or for that matter that it takes that particular method of low-tech
4 years to work properly. I was only concerned that a beginner might
assume that all low-tech methods are basically the same (and most kind
of are) so therefore it could also be assumed that most take 4 years
before they prosper. Most low-tech methods should peak at 6 months or
much less depending on your husbandry skills.
Lastly, I have no problem with a 4 year, low-tech method either, if
you have that kind of patience.
Dan (TKLM)