Michael

Ghazanfar's tank might show something that would be necessary for a Walstad iwagumi: sufficient plant mass.

I can't tell if the apparent slope of the "hill" in the design is rock, substrate, or dense plants. I suspect that at least part of it is dense plants. If the topography is created by dense, carefully trimmed plants growing up and around the stones, this would give the necessary amount of planting to make the method work. Larger amnounts of fast growing stem or floating plants might be necessary during establishment, but these could be removed for the final design.

Who wants to dedicate a tank to this challenge?

niko

Supposedly this is a low tech tank. It looks very vibrant. But the tips of the Java Fern show very big areas that are transparent. This happens only when the Java Fern grows extremely fast. And that happens only if there is a good amount of nutrients (especially P), strong light and CO2. I have never seen Java Fern grow such straight leaves without CO2

You be the judge, tank is gorgeous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1T8V7QJo-c

Michael

The tank is beautiful, and look at that water movement!

tylerG

I've always had great difficulty growing plants, despite having two years worth of "experience" with them. I definitely know the basics of keeping planted tanks and have spent countless hours reading about method vs method. The one I've grown to love the most are the El Natural/Low-Tech setups.

My choice of substrate has always driven me nuts... Eco-Complete vs AquaSoil, etc, etc. Ironically, the best substrate I've ever used was Organic Choice Miracle Gro (I think that's the name of it). Plant growth simply exploded in that tank in a short amount of time, maybe a couple months maximum. I used very little dosing and never did water changes.

The point of this post is to enforce the natural/low-tech methods. The best growth I've ever gotten did not come from artificial "soil", but by organic, natural potting soil.

Has anyone else had this same experience? If so, what did you use?

niko

The point of this post is to show that low tech tanks can be as beautiful as high tech. And if this enforces or makes the low tech approach more popular I'm all up for that. I just wrote about an interesting idea - that Amano's tanks are actually more low tech than high tech. Here:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/f...-approach.html

My hope is that this hobby moves toward a more educated approach to running a planted tank. And there will be a lot of "looking back" to the low tech approach - just like Amano has done. The way we understand high tech in the US is very much denying how and why Nature does things the way it does them. We have vibrant, gorgeous looking tanks full of plants in amazing health but our high tech tanks are very unstable systems.

I hope that one day we come full circle and start creating both beautiful and stable aquascapes - again, just like Amano does. This thread I think leads to that eventual turn of events and to me it needs to be a sticky in the El Natural section of APC.

--Nikolay

Ernie Mccracken

By what measure? The Niko scale? IAPLC or AGA results? Amano, Knott, Senske, etc? Finding a handful of beautiful "low tech" (however defined) tanks doesn't speak to the other 99% which are... up for debate.

That said, I hope low light becomes the new low tech. Keep the high flow, 30+ppm CO2, and non-limiting ferts. Enjoy slow growth, less algae, and more room for error.

niko

At times I stand on a high soapbox and I speak as if I see the future. Then someone in the crowd... passes gas.

In Bulgaria we all have a peculiar habit to first say "no, it's not gonna work" to every new idea. In 2002 I said "no, it's not gonna work" to a friend of mine that described his idea of what is now known as iPad.

Here we discuss how to enhance the image of "low tech" tanks. "A long journey starts with a single small step" say the Japanese.

I think you need to move to Bulgaria, Ernie. You and I and 9 million other people will get along very well saying "no" to everything new we see.

Now, if you can get over my sarcasm,and explain how is low light, tons of ferts, way high CO2 and big flow going to make the perfect manageable planted tank. It appears that Amano could have taken a completely wrong approach to whatever he does.

And beaware - I'm Bulgarian.

--Nikolay

Michael

Funny, Niko, you are worrying about "low light, tons of ferts, way high CO2 and big flow". I am worrying that we are going to debate the nature of beauty--an argument that has been raging at least since 600 B.C. And that is only in the Western world!

Let us say that low-tech aquaria can be designed in any aquascaping style, and let beauty remain where it belongs: in the eye of the beholder.

Ernie, does "finding a handful of beautiful "low tech tanks doesn't speak to the other 99% which are... up for debate" mean that all high-tech tanks are up to the standards of Amano or Knott? On reflection, I think you will agree that the ratio of "beautiful" to "debatable" tanks is roughly the same for both high and low tech methods. Technology does not guarantee beauty.

houseofcards

Very well said! I agree technology doesn't guarantee beauty. It's more about discipline and creativity. I do think technology might give you a wider range of 'paints' to work with, but definitely not needed to create a work of art.

jciotti

Niko- Let it be known you are not going un-heard or misunderstood. I get your approach, I agree.

I also agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes peoples eyes don't work very well either.