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

["Jim Seidman" <js5 at seidman_net>]

I have to agree with Ellen O'Connell that low-tech is really a matter of
preference. (And disagree with Bill Wichers' presumption that today's low-tech
tanks necessarily use CO2.)

I have a low-tech tank. In my case, that means no CO2, a topsoil substrate, and
moderate light. Sure, I'm not growing Cabomba furcata, but so what? I'm trading
the ability to grow some high-light plants for only having to prune once a
week.

(As an aside, Walstad doesn't recommend minimal lighting. Rather, she
recommends getting sun light so that minimal *artificial* lighting is
necessary.)

I am sure that an AGA-winning low-tech tank is possible. However, I suspect
that low-tech entries will be rare. My guess is that a lot of low-tech tank
keepers are, like me, not interested in the high-maintenance regimens necessary
to keep the tank perfectly groomed. My tank is "mostly groomed," meaning that
everything is trimmed to make it look nice and give it enough room so that I
can wait at least a week before pruning it again. That's enough to make a tank
that wows non-aquarists, but not enough to win the AGA competition.

- Jim


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