Re: [APD] What is "low tech" by todays standards?

["Ellen O'Connell" <oconnel4 at ix_netcom.com>]

> I got really bored tonight, and spent a couple hours reading the APD archive
> from 96 to 98, and was somewhat amused by the discussion at that time of low
> tech approaches vs high tech, and the arguements and passion of some people
> at that time.

I'm not sure I understand why there are passionate arguments.  Isn't this 
just a personal preference?  Some people like plants that require high 
light and like, or at least don't mind, dosing fertilizers, pruning, 
topping, etc.  Others, like me, don't like any of that and have found low 
light (and in my case soil substrate) tanks are less demanding, and we're 
satisfied with the more limited variety of plants that grow in such a setup.

> Does low tech exist anymore? What does it consist of by todays standards?

Well, to me it means I can delete without reading the technical posts on 
APD about CO2, needle valves, kinds of light, etc.

> To me, Seachem's Flourite was the death of kitty litter and cheap soil
> substrates * * * The plant species suitable for a Walstad tank is limited.
> Do soil substrates fit in better for the hobbyist that is more interested in
> scientific application than esthetics?

I think you are wrong in thinking Flourite makes everyone happy.  My first 
setup was gravel and laterite and it did okay and I was happy enough with 
it.  Then I tried a second tank with Flourite and I hated it.  I didn't 
like the orangey look (it was regular Flourite, reddish brown stuff), had a 
lot more algae problems (admittedly probably because I'm not good at dosing 
with this and that regularly), etc.  Then I tried a small tank at my office 
with soil a la Walstad and liked it so much I converted all my tanks.  I'm 
not vaguely interested in a scientific approach.  I want to set something 
pretty up and have it stay pretty with minimum work and be healthy for the 
fish.

> I will not use the "Amano" word, but can an aquascape
> worthy of winning the AGA contest be done
> as "low tech"?

Okay, the one time one of my tanks looked pretty enough that I entered the 
AGA contest, it didn't win, it got an honorable mention, but none of the 
judge's comments gave me the impression something like it with minor 
changes couldn't win.

I really think you just don't hear as much from us low tech tank people on 
the list because low tech by definition means you don't have to ask as many 
questions about the tech you don't have (and can't answer questions from 
other people about high tech you don't use).  And I also think you aren't 
allowing for differences in taste in considering the range of people 
interested in aquascaping.  Just as a for instance, I like a lot of the 
"American" aquascapes that are entered in the AGA contest a lot better than 
what I saw of the entries that won the Amano-sponsored contest.


Ellen O'Connell
Parker, CO
mailto:oconnel4 at ix_netcom.com

_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants