# Aquascaping in Low-Tech



## davemonkey

This thread is the spawn of THIS thread, in which several of us discussed the difference between "natural" and "nature" and the method vs. the style.

Here, I'd like to post, and see posts of, beautiful scapes (*I know...it's all a matter of opinion*) that rely on Low-Tech or "El Natural" methods. I want to show hobbyists that an aesthetically pleasing aquascape is possible with even the lowest tech set-ups. I want to dispel the myth that NPT's are merely functional, that they are also capable of producing art.

Anyone is welcome to share photos/info here. Be mindful that the goal is to showcase low tech tanks and the scapes created with them.

-Dave


----------



## davemonkey

So, I guess I'll start. Here is my latest low-tech* scape. I put the * because this is the last photo of the scape while still in a low-tech state. After the photo was taken, it started getting "enhanced" and will soon be all-out high-tech (though the substrate will not change).

As of this photo, the scape was 3 or 4 months old. Main plants are Anubias 'nana' and 'coffeefolia' with Amazon sword, _Crypt. spiralis_ and _C. retrospirali_s and a foreground of _S. repens_.

Growth was SLOW (except the sword) and I was fortunate enough to be able to start off heavily planted (benefits of local clubs). Lighting was 4 x 39watt t-5HO (1.25 WPG) and soil is mineralized topsoil capped with misc. used left-overs from fellow hobbyists. No ferts to speak of at this point. Moderate fish load and heavy feeding.


----------



## dabrybry

I want that tank to have my babies dave


----------



## mthom211

This is an old picture of my scape, The big sword, blyxa and broad leaf chain sword do most of the bio filtering I thing. This tank worked so well I had no nitrates and got GBA, trasitioning it to high tech now and removed teh big sword and now have dwarf hairgrass in that area. It used to be 2 WPG now it is 5.6 WPG, setting up C)2 and ei ferts. I have an algae problem right now, using exel instead of CO2 until iget my bubble counter, once it has grown in I paln to scale it down to low tech again to see if it works. Will get some piccies later


----------



## houseofcards

Well since we're talking design and low tech I'll throw my little nano in here. I really only change the water once a week and/or top off. I haven't been dosing and the lower light level keeps the sand clean as well. The tank has been running for 5 months now and houses a few RCS. No reason this tank isn't scalable to something larger.


----------



## Michael

I have two aquaria to add, so I'll describe them in separate posts.

This first one is called Hidden Spring, and you can read my journal here: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/journals/73533-el-natural-hidden-spring.html These are new pictures of the tank.

This is a wood and plants composition. There is a horizontal piece of manzanita, partially buried in the substrate, that creates a terrace. Three vertical pieces of wood extend above the surface of the water. Two are in back of the horizontal piece, and behind it on the left. The other is on the right in front.

The planting is pretty simple. A center piece red cryptocoryne is on the left of center, in front of the terrace. Two species of back ground plants fill the space behind it. A light colored foreground plant contrasts with the cryptocoryne. Anubias grows on the driftwood, and moss adds some detail.

The planting has been simplified since the tank was new. There is less moss, vallisneria has taken the place of wisteria, and two species of crypts have been removed.

The emersed wood was originally intended to be a major element of the design, but my lighting is not adequate to grow epiphytes in the air, and grow plants underwater. So the fixture is mounted below the tops of the wood. One interesting little detail that does not show up in a whole tank shot gives me a lot of pleasure. This is the little gardens of submersed and emersed moss and riccia that grow around each vertical piece of wood. This is only place I can keep riccia alive, and periodically tiny mushrooms sprout from the wood.

This tank is now about 11 months old.


----------



## Michael

The second aquarium is called Tributary, and its journal is here: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...uatic-plant-club/77266-journal-tributary.html

This tank is only about 6 weeks old, so it has a long way to go. It is a stone and plants design. The stones (Texas limestone "holey rock") form a terrace on either side, separated by the tributary on the left of center. Substrate in the back on the terraces is dark gray and is intended to be completely covered by foliage. Substrate in the front is light colored, and at least part of it will be visible when the design is complete.

This design is deliberately more open and light than Hidden Spring, with lots of negative space in the middle. Hidden Spring has been described as "shady and jungly", and Tributary is supposed to be the opposite, although not to the extreme of iwagumi. Right now I am working on how to achieve occult balance between the two sides, and how make the negative space interesting without filling it up with "stuff"--that would defeat the purpose.


----------



## davemonkey

Dabrybry, as long you mean baby Apistos, that's fine. But I expect a full courtship and formal proposal, and the Apistos must vow to love and cherish...'til death do they part. 

House, I think your nano is what we were trying to describe to mudboots earlier. 

Great low-tech aquascapes guys!!! Keep them coming.

-Dave


----------



## Michael

davemonkey said:


> Dabrybry, as long you mean baby Apistos, that's fine. But I expect a full courtship and formal proposal, and the Apistos must vow to love and cherish...'til death do they part.


And a BIG ring from Jared.

It's a pleasure to see the other aquaria--more, more!


----------



## Dielectric

one of my low tech scapes. i personally think low tech can be whatever you want it to be scape wise. it doesnt have to be a dirty mess.


----------



## mudboots

I'll start my 6 cents worth on one that did NOT work.

This is a 20 gallon NPT and was my first ever attempt at planted tanks. I attempted El Natural with a deep substrate, about 4 inches on average. It worked for a while and then everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, died overnight. Here are two pics, then my take on what likely went wrong.

















The pea soup obviously was not the happy point, but it started to clear nicely. Plants were slow however. Looking back, I am pretty certain that the bottom line was that I lacked the initial root mass in this tank to start with using such a deep substrate and high lighting. I lacked any floaters to compensate for nutrient/light imbalance as well (thus the pea soup) and the plants were all short, so there was a large amount of open water while using a tremendously rich substrate (fertilized yard soil). Without getting too deep into chemistry and ecology, the result was death and unhappiness, but also a learning experience that lead to my next few tanks, two of which I 'll post in this thread.


----------



## mudboots

This one was my second ever attempt at p[lanted tanks, and is also an example of Natural "method" using the El Natural to the fullest, with extremely limited water movement most of the time, and zero dosing of anything chemically, relying on the feedings to to the job. It took several months of green water and wondering why I ever set it up to begin with, but patience pad off once the system settled in, for after that this became a nearly zero-maintence, algae-free joy.

A moderate-to-heavy fish load with many other critters (worms, snails, whatever) helped each other to make it work. The tank started off weak, but came on strong once the plants got going. The substrate at 2 inch avg. depth proved almost too little for the nutrient hog lotus and swords, but kept them from out-competing the stem plants, which made the tank feel a bit more "scaped" to me. Overall my favorite tank as I had lots of options to play with, though I had to learn the hard way not to get carried away in moving plants around, and what lighting was too much vs not enough using T-5 HO.


----------



## mudboots

This is my picotope that davemonkey referred to earlier. It's "style" is nothing, as I simply set it up to look at from the desk and like the particular species that are planted, but again, the "method" is El Natural.

1.5" substrate average, 9 watts of old 50/50 lighting, flora is Crypt. willisii x lucens 'bronze' and Staurogyne 'Porto Vehlo' with a touch of Anubias 'nana' and some Fissidens in the shaded areas.

This tank is failrly old. What made it work out to be a zero-maintence tank (aside from adding water monthly at the water change) was starting with lots of floaters and critters and slowly thinning them out until the tank was well established. But in the end I have noticed that every low-maintenence tank has something in common; they are well established, or aged. And for that matter every well seasoned tank I've seen seems to be relatively low maintenence, so perhaps as Niko has stated earlier, this is the whole point.

















I will eventually "tech-up" this tank, but for now I like the simplicity of not dealing with it. The substrate feeds the plants mostly, as it is spiked with slow-release fertz at a low rate.


----------



## Michael

Mudboots, I notice that your second tank is in a window, and could get a lot of natural light. My very first Walstad experiments were natural light shrimp bowls, and I have one 10 gallon set up that gets sunlight. BTW, your tank is gorgeous!

I find this to be a mixed blessing. Natural light is free, and can be very intense to allow the growth of high-light plants. But you can't control it very well, and this can make it difficult to keep everything balanced. I have come to prefer 100% artificial light.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?


----------



## mudboots

In aquariums I have come to prefer 100% artificial light, but on my semi-emmersed tank (sort of a paludarium I guess; the 55 I took from Dave) I prefer some indirect sunlight. But I'm in a shaded spot and the window is facing NNE, so not too much of an issue like others may have.


----------



## f1ea

Nice tanks. I love the Picotope!! 

i dont think it needs a rescape... looks great as it is; maybe just add some shrimp or fish and hardscape/driftwood, or some taller plants on the back (like e. vivipara). But i dont know what it is a Biotope of, so maybe it'll stop being a biotope.

Right now i have 3 low tech tanks. I have one 35G to post later today (waiting for a friend to bring her camera) cause i dont wanna post cel phone pics.

Also the 200G is almost ready as i've rescaped it recently. Have a little problem with MTS bringing up soil from underneath the sand... right now its cloudy because of that. I'm on a snail hunting mission right now; so it may have to wait a week or so for it to look ok.

Have a 25G as well, it still doesnt have the definitive fish... i'm thinking about it still. So i will update this thread as the tanks get to a look.

The best thing about the tanks posted on this thread is that they do have a composition. Its still somewhat rudimentary compared to the best guys... but its a start; also Mudboots' 125G has great colors and overall health, very little to envy the top tanks regarding that.

Keep em coming.


----------



## TarantulaGuy

Here's my 10 gal, low tech. Not too much of a scape to it, but its packed full of life, and for me thats where the fun is.


----------



## f1ea

Here's some quick pics of one of my tanks 
36 Gal - 36" x 12" x 20"H

Pretty much no maintenance... only change DIY CO2 every 2 weeks... top evap... no water changes in over 5 months (not even after large trims). No Excel.. no dosing.....

I have only recentely added the Cabomba and Crypt parva, the rest has been there for a couple of months. It is still not fully grown to what i want, and i have just done a major trim last week... but i will post some better produced pics when the tank gets closer to what i have in mind. As well as pics of my other tanks....

These are simple pics, no post-editing, no tank-prep, just simple point and click.

Cheers!

PS - I hate the background, but i just havent gotten around to changing it...


----------



## MonoBarrientos

Dielectric said:


> one of my low tech scapes. i personally think low tech can be whatever you want it to be scape wise. it doesnt have to be a dirty mess.


Wow, really beautifull tank!!
Brilliant work
"Saludos" from Chile


----------



## davemonkey

You guys have some really great low tech tanks!!


----------



## Gumbie

So, “low tech” includes DIY CO2 ??


----------



## mudboots

Gumbie said:


> So, "low tech" includes DIY CO2 ??


Good question. One point in this would be scope and effect. A DIY CO2 on a 20 or smaller would have a much different impact than the same set up on a 120 or larger. I don't know if folks using "low tech" use different amounts of DIY CO2 in different size tanks, but it would seem logical that you could very well be moderate to high tech even just with DIY CO2 in the tank. Then again, sometimes it's more of playing around with wine recipes than wanting CO2 in the tank...

Anyway, a good question that I don't have the answer for. I don't use it in my aquariums, but I have some wine brewing and am using the CO2 in my toad-arium (the 48"/10 gallon tank) for the emmersed plants. Cheers eh?


----------



## greengreen84

I'll add my low tech to the list it's been setup for about 4 months in this picture with ada amazonia II substrate and led lighting, but it's still a working progress and just planted the foreground in this pic with staurogyne tropica this is the most recent pic I have right now from over a month ago and not much has progressed with the staurogyne tropica as well, not yet that is lol.












Gumbie said:


> So, "low tech" includes DIY CO2 ??


I don't think it does but I could be wrong? For the only reason that low tech is also called non Co2 tanks but saying that you can also add Excel and it can still be a non co2 tank, maybe what they mean is non Co2 injected? but I havn't seen DIY Co2 classifed as low tech or a non Co2 tank, but that's just my observations from what I see.

Cheers from David


----------



## greengreen84

woops double post please delete


----------



## f1ea

Gumbie said:


> So, "low tech" includes DIY CO2 ??


I don't know, but i think you'd look VERY ridiculous if you open up a stand in 2011's ADA/AGA convention where your new product line consists of a homemade juice jug with a sugar and yeast mix


----------



## Jark

f1ea said:


> I don't know, but i think you'd look VERY ridiculous if you open up a stand in 2011's ADA/AGA convention where your new product line consists of a homemade juice jug with a sugar and yeast mix


You could set it up in some crazy continuous yeast bio-reactor so you only have to add more sugar. Basically a huge auto-dosing set up for a yeast culture. Make sure to etch your fancy company logo on every part from the power cord on up.


----------



## Michael

CO2 injection is the boundary I do not wish to cross. And I'm not too fond of Excel and fertilization either, although I am using them in some plant-only propagation nanos. But in anything 20 gallons and larger, with a soil substrate and robust fish population, I don't want to use either. I would use some supplemental fertilization to correct an obvious deficiency.


----------



## Gumbie

Still waiting for davemonkey to comment. My question was in response to his compliment on a low tech tank that according to the poster was “Pretty much no maintenance... only change DIY CO2 every 2 weeks.” 

I think it’s a great thread and like to see photos of tanks that are more stylized but still considered low tech or NPT. It would be helpful to know which tanks are being given CO2 bubbles.


----------



## davemonkey

Hey Gumbie! Yeah, I think of DIY as a low-tech supplement since it's home-made and requires no gadgets of significance. It would NOT adhere to "El Natural" or Walstad method, but it is still a low tech way of getting carbon to the plants IMO. (But I'm not the authority on low-tech...so take that with a grain of salt.  )

Mudboot's comment also bears weight. A picotope with a gallon jug DIY on it is getting the same CO2 it would with a pressurized system. But still, that is a low-tech method of CO2, right?

The tanks that I have posted were not supplemented with CO2...at least not at the time the photos were taken. My 125 currently set up actually has pressurized CO2 now, which is why I won't post an update photo of it here...it's no longer low tech.


----------



## Gumbie

Ah, got it. I deleted the word “pressurized” from my post. I think I’ll give the DIY CO2 a try in one tank. I'll have to hurry so that Jark and I are prepared to launch our new product line at the 2011 convention.


----------



## davemonkey

Gumbie said:


> I'll have to hurry so that Jark and I are prepared to launch our new product line at the 2011 convention.


HAHA! Sign me up for one of those as well!


----------



## f1ea

Gumbie said:


> Ah, got it. I deleted the word "pressurized" from my post. I think I'll give the DIY CO2 a try in one tank. I'll have to hurry so that Jark and I are prepared to launch our new product line at the 2011 convention.


good luck!! and make sure you remove ALL of the juice jug's labeling. Wouldnt want your costumers to think you're affiliated with Mott's 



> Still waiting for davemonkey to comment. My question was in response to his compliment on a low tech tank that according to the poster was "Pretty much no maintenance... only change DIY CO2 every 2 weeks."
> 
> I think it's a great thread and like to see photos of tanks that are more stylized but still considered low tech or NPT. It would be helpful to know which tanks are being given CO2 bubbles.


ah you meant my tank... in any case Dave never specifically complimented my tank. Maybe he re-write his post to do so 

Anyway.... no i dont think DIY is high tech. Far from it. Pressured CO2 is really high tech, mainly because it requires the work of several industrialised machines to make it happen. A co2 tank could be low maintenance... but its still tech.

In my case, there's much more technology going on in my lights and HOB filter than the DIY CO2 in itself, so i think you should have been more concerned with those. But for some reason lights, filters and UV lamps are "exempt" for NPTs........

Here's a good controversial one: i think Excel is much more techy than DIY CO2. Excel is an industrialised product and YOU have to add it every day, there is no natural process going on in the tank or around it to synthetise Gluta and introduce it to your tank. You can't make Gluta from stuff you'd find in your patio.

Now, the reason i dont use it is not because it is high tech... i dont use it because i have to pay attention to it, and dose it daily. I prefer being able to leave my tanks completely unattended for a week without worrying about an algae mess.


----------



## Michael

f1ea said:


> Here's a good controversial one: i think Excel is much more techy than DIY CO2. Excel is an industrialised product and YOU have to add it every day, there is no natural process going on in the tank or around it to synthetise Gluta and introduce it to your tank. You can't make Gluta from stuff you'd find in your patio.


Let us not forget that gluteraldehyde is toxic--very toxic. I used to work with the stuff long ago when I was a lab tech, and all those warnings on the label are there for good reason. Even the fumes can cause permanent scarring on your corneas.


----------



## Gumbie

Michael,
Being ignorant of all things carbon, I mistakenly googled “is Excel a form of CO2” and got quite an education.

F1ea,
Dave did compliment your tank, it was just inclusive. I think it is superb as well (and similar to mine). 

I guess we’ll have to include you in our venture since without your remark, Jark wouldn’t have proffered his prototype. Remove the juice jug labels? Hmmm, perhaps Motts or Ocean Spray would like to sponser our gambit (e.g., Lowes, Viagra, Goodyear decals on race cars).

My tanks have plants, fish, snails, HOB filters and T5HO lights on timers. I use Flourish Tabs occasionally, and Prime in w/c. That’s it. I never considered them low tech or low maintenance, definitely not high tech. I feed the fish and check on the plants daily. I do weekly water changes because.....because I do.

Low tech, high tech, I guess it all comes down to semantics.


----------



## niko

El Natural, good flow, only biomedia, sunlight + that swivel light at night.

Amazing!






--Nikolay


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> El Natural, good flow, only biomedia, sunlight + that swivel light at night.
> 
> Amazing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Nikolay


Does that tank belong to someone you know?


----------



## niko

Yes, right here in DFW.

But there is MUCH MORE to see. All these tanks are El Natural.

Here (sit before opeing link, you may faint):

https://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/DFWAquaticPlantClubMeetingPart1Inside#

--Nikolay


----------



## Tex Gal

Wonderful pxs Niko! What a great meeting we had!


----------



## niko

Just stumbled on this on Facebook. It's Ghazanfar's tank apparently.

The title says:
"No filter. No ferts. No CO2. Ambient light."










Don't know what substrate. It matters not - we are expanding this hobby into a new direction for sure:

*LOW TECH AQUASCAPING.*

--Nikolay


----------



## niko

I think Michael needs to setup the tank he has been beating around the bush about - low tech Iwagumi.

Besides being mindblowingly boring in real life Iwagumis seem to normally make use of even less plant species than Ghazanfar's tank above (if it's his). But I still think his tank is probably the first US low tech iwagumi ever. And I don't think that particular tank is boring in real life or on that picture.

--Nikolay


----------



## 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:


----------



## 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/...-plant-club/79486-adas-low-tech-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

niko said:


> The point of this post is to show that low tech tanks can be as beautiful as high tech.


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.



Ernie Mccracken 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.


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

Michael said:


> 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*.


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.


----------



## Ernie Mccracken

niko said:


> 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.


I'm not naysaying a new idea (FYI - In the US, we call those people "haters"). People have been growing plants in low tech aquariums since long before any of us were born. I'm asking why step backward instead of forward? We _do_ need new ideas. Better canister filters, LED lighting, better ways to regulate CO2, lower touch way to add ferts. To me, this is the future of the hobby.

Better question - how would our perception of Amano be different had he stuck with low tech? Prior to his work (and many others) in pioneering what we consider modern methods of nutrient supplementation, aquascaping barely existed as we define it now. Keeping plants alive and fighting off algae seemed to be enough of a challenge up until the past 10-15 years.

Success can only be defined by a goal. If the goal is a beautiful display (loose APC standards - lush growth, no obvious deficiencies, minimal algae), I am of the opinion that skipping out on equipment often creates more issues than it solves. There's room for everyone on the spectrum, but saying low tech can be just as beautiful as high tech is an overstatement if we're speaking in generalities.

I understand the desire for simplicity as it's human nature. Our tolerance for the time and financial burden is cyclical, and eventually, we all look for ways to cut back on the imprint this hobby has on our lives. I just paid a boatload of money to have TPN+ shipped from the UK. Saves me all of 5 seconds, but _everything in one bottle_ is so intrinsically appealing.



Michael said:


> 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.


Can a low tech display be beautiful? Sure. I also know that many photographers can snap great photos using any decade old point and shoot, but that doesn't mean I'm trading in the DSLR. For me, it still provides the most effective path to reach my goal.

There are no absolutes in subjective judging, but try this - Find 50 or 100 photos of your all time favorite planted aquariums. Take the list and then tally up the ones that you consider to be low tech. For me, there are only a few.

When you consider that there are exponentially more low tech tanks out there than high tech ones but very few which catch our attention, how can you estimate equal ratios of hot/not?


----------



## niko

Amano maybe an undercover low-tech:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...-plant-club/79486-adas-low-tech-approach.html

Low tech tank more beatuful than most of our tanks adorned with super nice equipment:





As usual - we can type many pretty little letters but at the end we will agree that ADA has figured it out a long time ago. And I think I see that what they do is as low tech as possible. With a glamour shine given by approaches that enhance the same old low-tech basics. Using methods/equipment that we see as "high tech", readily acquire originals or copies, and use the wrong way most of the time.

Glad to see this here Ernie as an intelligent and knowledgeable individual with a lot of perspective on things. The second person I met today on that site that has a deeper understanding of this hobby. For me this was a good day here on APC.

I think we will all agree - it does feel that today we made another little step in this long journey. And there is more to come - this other guy I mentioned will hopefully come up with a very interesting article about things we intuitively started to figure out lately. Things are getting interesting indeed.

This topic is starting to veer away from the original idea to be a showcase of low-tech aquascapes and changing the view of low-tech tanks as messy. Maybe we better keep this topic as originally intended so things are in order.

--Nikolay


----------



## mudboots

niko said:


> This topic is starting to veer away from the original idea to be a showcase of low-tech aquascapes and changing the view of low-tech tanks as messy. --Nikolay


In that case here is my re-scaped office picotope. It's still low-tech, but I added a nano-filter with little sponge things for future bio-housing. The reason for the rescape is that I dropped this tank on the floor while trying to move it to another desk and do my job at the same time...wooops...


----------



## Michael

Mudboots, that picotope looked like so much fun, I had to try myself. You can read more at http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...uatic-plant-club/79824-pico-de-camarones.html Needless to say, this is a Walstad tank.


----------



## tantaMD

mudboots said:


> This one was my second ever attempt at p[lanted tanks, and is also an example of Natural "method" using the El Natural to the fullest, with extremely limited water movement most of the time, and zero dosing of anything chemically, relying on the feedings to to the job. It took several months of green water and wondering why I ever set it up to begin with, but patience pad off once the system settled in, for after that this became a nearly zero-maintence, algae-free joy.
> 
> A moderate-to-heavy fish load with many other critters (worms, snails, whatever) helped each other to make it work. The tank started off weak, but came on strong once the plants got going. The substrate at 2 inch avg. depth proved almost too little for the nutrient hog lotus and swords, but kept them from out-competing the stem plants, which made the tank feel a bit more "scaped" to me. Overall my favorite tank as I had lots of options to play with, though I had to learn the hard way not to get carried away in moving plants around, and what lighting was too much vs not enough using T-5 HO.
> 
> View attachment 14653
> 
> 
> View attachment 14654
> 
> 
> View attachment 14655


@ mudboots: this is the best el natural aquascape i've seen


----------



## frroK

Here is my ADA MINI-M that I started on 1/4/2012. No co2, some trace every now and then but only fish food for ferts really. Lights are 13w cfl. Can anyone critique my scape? I tried hard to stick with the golden ratio. Stem plants are ready for a trim , which I am doing soon. Thx for looking.


----------



## dawntwister

davemonkey said:


> My latest low-tech* scape. Main plants are Anubias 'nana' and 'coffeefolia' with Amazon sword, _Crypt. spiralis_ and _C. retrospirali_s and a foreground of _S. repens_. Lighting was 4 x 39watt t-5HO (1.25 WPG)


Is this 1 of the tank without a filter? If not got a link to 1 without a filter?


----------



## DutchMuch

This was a good read (besides people arguing)
Inspired me to do a low tech, NPT.


----------



## terryna

Indeed, very interesting thread


----------



## spaquarista

I'd like to share my boyfriend's low-tech planted tank, I might be biased but I think he achieved something really awesome!
It's only 3 months old.


----------

