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

["Robert H" <robertph3 at comcast_net>]

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. Everything from Dan Quackenbushes kitty litter method, Jim
Kellys Yuma Loam, Rhonda Wilsons natural sunlight to Steve Pushaks great
soil crusade, much of which seems grossly out of date now to me.

Does low tech exist anymore? What does it consist of by todays standards?
Is it measured solely by cost, ease of use, or is it simply if you use
injected C02 or not as some people have suggested to me?

To me, Seachem's Flourite was the death of kitty litter and cheap soil
substrates. How much more low tech can you get than that, you just put it in
your tank, (after lots of rinsing) and you are done. The Walstad book seemed
to re kindle some interest in "low tech", but how far can that approach
really be taken? 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?

The interest in aquascaping has grown tremendously. People are interested in
lush foregrounds, colorful and exotic plants. Can this be achieved with the
Walstad method or with no C02 and minimal lighting?  I will not use the
"Amano" word, but can an aquascape worthy of winning the AGA contest be done
as "low tech"?  And lastly, I noticed back then several people like Roger
Miller indicated they were using soils. I am curious if these people are
still using soil today or have given that up for clay gravel of some sort
with a different goal or emphasis in mind.

Robert Paul Hudson
www.aquabotanic.com

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