[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]
[AGA-Contest] Re: "Natural/Soil-Based" category for AGA 2005?
Phil wrote:
I was just commenting over at APC regarding our/their 2005 contest and
came
up with some thoughts about soil-based/natural aquascapes. What do you
think?
I would argue that any time you out water in a small glass box, you are so
far from "natural" that it's all just variations on a theme.
My definition of a natural aquarium is one where there is no external
supplimentation to un-naturally stimulate growth. Some supplimentation is
necessary to maintain plant health dependant on regional water chemistry.
ie: Charlotte water is really soft and lacking in minerals so I may have
to
add a little calcium or something to make up for an essential deficiency.
This rules out regular/sustained use of CO2, PMDD, and any commercial
plant
suppliments. We're already on an honor system, this would just have to be
an extention of that.
I have the same problem with this that I do with HAP programs who award more
or different points for those who grow plants without CO2 than those who
grow them with CO2. To me, it's no different than saying, "OK, we'll award
more points to people who manage to grow their fry up on flake food rather
than live food. We know the fry raised on live food will be
bigger/nicer/healthier, so feeding live food gives those folks an unfair
advantage."
...I feel it would be good to have a separate category/system for
soil-based
"natural" or "no-tech" tanks. There are things that one just can't do in
a
natural tank that are taken for granted in artifically supplimented tanks.
Natural tanks also have their own flavor/traits that are separate of
"artifical" aquariums. A spectacular natural aquarium, one that is a true
achievement of its type, would/could look very different than an
artificial
tank simply because the metabolic limitations prohibit the excessive
grooming that an artificial tank can withstand.
And if it were truly spectacular, it would deserve to win in any company.
Incidentally, I _did_ win the rather large BAS Home Show "Natural Tank"
division (in that competition, "Natural Tank" only means no artificial
decorations) with a planted tank w/o CO2, against a very knowledgeable
aquarist who was using CO2. (he actually taught me to use CO2 shortly
thereafter) And in a Home Show, the judge has his nose against the glass,
and can see every flaw, up close and personal.
The other problem is the idea that it would be OK for someone to ad calcium,
but not other important nutrients. Why would calcium be OK, and other
nutrients not? Everyone is going to have a different make-up to their
water, soil, fish and feeding. Therefore, there are three choices as I see
it. Feed whatever you're missing, let the plants go hungry and stunt (or
lose those that can't tolerate the meagre fare) or take the picture quick,
before either of the above have a chance to happen. Plants have certain
well defined nutritional needs. These must be met, one way or another.
Scott wrote:
Otoh, I think it's tough for a soil-underlayment tank
*without* added CO2 to compete against CO2 and added fert
tanks. So this might be an exception to the problem and
actually bring in more entries.
To me, the difference here has much more to do with adding supplemental CO2
than it has to do with the soil substrate. Soil substrates can work very,
very well... long term... with supplemental CO2 and nutrients added (as
needed) to the water column. Both Christel and Amano are much stronger
proponents of fertile substrates than we see in this country (largely due to
Tom Barr) and both produce outstandingly beautiful tanks, if of different
styles.
Scott, you heard Christel say she ALWAYS uses soil substrates, and says she
doesn't have to add nutrients to the water column for a LONG time. (over a
year after set up) but she wouldn't think of doing a serious tank without
CO2, because many of the more delicate plants just can't be grown without
it.
Erik wrote:
Something that *might* make this fly is to have a specialty of the year,
kind of like the way they do with the Olympics. For instance, Ricky was
interested in having something called the "10 gallon challenge", partly
for the bad pun, but also to encourage something more than just the
"small" category. So for next year, maybe we could feature Natural tanks,
"This Year Only!"
I really like the idea of specialty classes. It would be a good way to try
out something new, and if it seemed popular, we could give it more permanent
status. (which, of course, is just what they do at the Olympics) But I
think we'd have to be very clear on just what we meant by a "natural" tank,
or we'd have more of a muck than we had the first year of the
natural/biotope class.
Karen
_______________________________________________
AGA-Contest mailing list
AGA-Contest@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-contest