[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

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