Promoting Planted Aquariums

[dizzied]

Ironic how you make fun out of the planted (and reef) hobby, yet you ask for some Java moss donations in a previous thread.

Adding a little java moss to a tank won't turn it into salad.
Besides, it's just a joke.

 

[Tolak]

I personally don't have any live plants in any of my tanks, most don't even have substrate. I do appreciate the time, as well as artistic ability, needed to create a nice planted tank. If I were limited to a smallish tank or two it's something I would probably try, seeing as I do get into the technical end of aquatics a bit.

Those 8 gallon tanks look larger than they actually are, the detail needed to give that impression gives me ideas. I have a tiny 2.5 gallon tank I was thinking of setting up in miniature, a few pygmy corys & neons, tiny driftwood, fine gravel, with some fine IV tubing for air lines. Thanks for posting the pics, it makes the gears in my head turn.

 

[tear-scar]

Ok, I just read through this thread, earlier post I just posted.

Here's what I have to say:

For crying out loud people-- this discussion has gotten pretty ridiculous. George started this thread just as a way to show people the awesomeness of aquascaping, and maybe give people a chance to see what's possible. No one is telling you how you have to keep your fish.

I understand this is a fish-keeper's forum, and most people on here care most about that-- the best way to keep their fish. Yeah, it's also true that maintaining a planted aquarium is a method to make a very good environment for keeping fish, and yes it's also true that it has its limitations (just like every other method honestly). Fish keeping is all about receiving satisfaction/happiness from keeping fish. Well-executed planted aquaria can be a good route to achieve this goal, if what owner cares about is an aesthetically pleasing tank with compatible fish. It's true that it's not a good route for those who are more satisfied by different goals.


Really, none of that is the point.


Fishkeeping, as far as I'm concerned, is just a footnote in the book of Aquascaping, no more important than knowing how to rig up a good CO2 line. This isn't just a hobby, it's an art-form. It's just an art form that happens to involve keeping fish, and since you're all fish keepers, George thought some might be interested in trying it. He just thought you might be interested in seeing something that he thinks is truly amazing because,


Those of us striving for the top, are all serious to become the best.


Honestly, I have a deviantart account that I made just to introduce aquascaping to more people in the art community, just like George wanted to introduce it to more people in this community. But, you can be sure that not a single painter, photographer, computer graphics designer, sculptor, fashion designer, or anyone else at deviantart told me something like,

"Nice but I like my way better."


which is pretty much the art-equivalent of what is being said by a number of posters on this thread.

Well, I guess that's because they're artists, not hobbyists. They care more about learning from the creativity of others than about believing their ways are the only ways.

 

[andywg]

I think you are somehow saying that if the tank is heavily planted then you see the fish less right? Very human way of looking at things!

Nope. I am saying that the conditions needed to create a heavily planted tank (little surface agitation, cluttered tank) will not allow for larger fish that require more oxygen (hence more surface agitation and gas exchange) and more swimming room.

And to Tear-Scar:> To me this is not an art, it is a science. I won't put a fish in because I think it will look nice, or provide some asthetic counterpoint. I will research the fish, find its ideal conditions and strive to provide them. I think of myself as a hobbyist as it is a pursuit I do not get paid for but which I enjoy.

You can't really mind if someone asks "why not try it?" in the first post that people then give their reasons as to why they won't.

 

[oldwhitewood]

I think you are somehow saying that if the tank is heavily planted then you see the fish less right? Very human way of looking at things!

Nope. I am saying that the conditions needed to create a heavily planted tank (little surface agitation, cluttered tank) will not allow for larger fish that require more oxygen (hence more surface agitation and gas exchange) and more swimming room.

And to Tear-Scar:> To me this is not an art, it is a science. I won't put a fish in because I think it will look nice, or provide some asthetic counterpoint. I will research the fish, find its ideal conditions and strive to provide them. I think of myself as a hobbyist as it is a pursuit I do not get paid for but which I enjoy.

You can't really mind if someone asks "why not try it?" in the first post that people then give their reasons as to why they won't.

So you wont be rushing out to get that CO2 kit anytime soon eh

 

[craynerd]

I think the answer here is, each to their own.

George has shown some awesome pictures and I provided a link to the members’ gallery which also houses some great tanks!

No one is telling anyone they should be a planter, but the fact is that planted tanks are definitely fun and enjoyable challenge to some people and its nice to make people aware so that the planted tank community in the UK can continue to grow!!

The more people who enter this field, the greater the wealth of information and the better resources in terms of info and materials become available to us.

I think the whole point of this thread is to show people who are not familiar with this side of the hobby, to make them aware and give the an opportunity to divulge and research into it. If you have already tried and don`t like, then that’s fine, but no need to flame and exadurate the reasons.

If you don`t like planted tanks, thats no problem, but if you are even veigly interested then come over to the planted tank forum and find out more.

Regards

Chris

 

[tear-scar]

And to Tear-Scar:> To me this is not an art, it is a science. I won't put a fish in because I think it will look nice, or provide some asthetic counterpoint. I will research the fish, find its ideal conditions and strive to provide them. I think of myself as a hobbyist as it is a pursuit I do not get paid for but which I enjoy.

You can't really mind if someone asks "why not try it?" in the first post that people then give their reasons as to why they won't.

No, it's you who ought to know he didn't mean to force anyone into it. As a question form, the phrase "why not try it?" can be completely (as in this case) unforceful, and just offering up an interesting path to whoever wants to try. What you're saying is completely unreasonable, and rude.


Fishkeeping is not an art, but Aquascaping definately is. You cannot say "this is" and lump aquascaping with every other form of fish keeping, because it's clearly different, and that's what I said: they're different. What you may be doing is science, but what I'm doing is different. Part of that difference (aside from obvious difference in method) is that I am doing art.

In any case, I'd wish George good luck, but I doubt he'll ever be able to make a thread like here and not get this type of trash response. As I thought, it's really not worth my time to come here.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Indeed, but since, as I and others have pointed out, GF did say 'So why not take the plunge?'. So why the opinions of those who don't choose to plant their tanks matter less than those who do, I don't quite know.

I must admit I was quite saddened when I saw you mention roman ruins, fake castles etc, I almost found it a little insulting to be honest, not just to me but to everyone else passionate about this side of the hobby. Believe me we couldn't be further from that! But I respect your viewpoint and I'd like to say a few things from my point of view.

I didn't mean it in a literal way, it's jsut what it reminds me of. While some people may find it 'sad' to see fish kept as they are in the wild, I also find it somewhat sad (in the case of the really icky neon dayglo tanks), or just plain odd (in the case of the planted 'terrestrial' landscapes) that someone would want to keep fish in a tank that doesn't look as though fish should be in it.

To explain, I think discus in their true form are some of the most beautiful fish out there, but the keeping them in a plain tank with a few brown leaved straggly amazon swords and some random pieces of bogwood to me is just wrong.

Why is that? There are some equally stunning blackwater setups with few or no plants involved, and why would keeping a fish in a habitat in which it thrives be 'just wrong'? That sounds very much like the attitude of someone who woul buy fish becasue they are 'pretty' or looked nice in the tank...

 

[Bloo]

I think many people here are just missing the point of this thread entirely!

There are many many different levels of "planted tanks" and not all high tech tanks (with pressurised CO2 etc.) are these art works of beauty and creativity. Gorgeous community tanks that spring to mind are Fillet-o-Fish, AlexandCarmen, llj - there are loads more, but they are just the first ones I can think of. Check them out - they are stunning lush highly planted tanks. This thread was created to show the many different LEVELS of planted tanks and educate people. In exactly the same way as I was

 

[oldwhitewood]

Indeed, but since, as I and others have pointed out, GF did say 'So why not take the plunge?'. So why the opinions of those who don't choose to plant their tanks matter less than those who do, I don't quite know.

I must admit I was quite saddened when I saw you mention roman ruins, fake castles etc, I almost found it a little insulting to be honest, not just to me but to everyone else passionate about this side of the hobby. Believe me we couldn't be further from that! But I respect your viewpoint and I'd like to say a few things from my point of view.

I didn't mean it in a literal way, it's jsut what it reminds me of. While some people may find it 'sad' to see fish kept as they are in the wild, I also find it somewhat sad (in the case of the really icky neon dayglo tanks), or just plain odd (in the case of the planted 'terrestrial' landscapes) that someone would want to keep fish in a tank that doesn't look as though fish should be in it.

To explain, I think discus in their true form are some of the most beautiful fish out there, but the keeping them in a plain tank with a few brown leaved straggly amazon swords and some random pieces of bogwood to me is just wrong.

Why is that? There are some equally stunning blackwater setups with few or no plants involved, and why would keeping a fish in a habitat in which it thrives be 'just wrong'? That sounds very much like the attitude of someone who woul buy fish becasue they are 'pretty' or looked nice in the tank...

You misunderstand me, the type of setup I am talking about takes astetics into consideration only on a very simple level. If I were to set up a discus tank I would use big jutting pieces of wood with moss and ferns where they could hide etc. I wouldn't just dump a few pieces of bogwood in the tank and expect the fish to 'thrive' as you put it. I would carefully take into consideration the whole display, so the fish were presented in the best possible light. This is the point I'm labouring to make here! I wouldn't create an underwater landscape using rocks and grasses as this wouldn't be a good representation of a discus setup. I would pick plants and hardscaping materials which imitated a version of the fishes own habitat, not a copy or a biotope version, an imitation of nature.

Your statement about me being the type of person that buys fish to look 'pretty' in a tank is spot actually. I prefer for example looking at a bolivan ram than I would do an oscar, guilty as charged! You look at the marine reefkeeper who would rather keep drap looking fish rather than colourful reef dwellers? Unless you are running a fish only setup with large interesting fish as andywg pointed out you are going to pick fish which look pretty, be them clowns, firefish etc. If you want a big cichlid skulking around in a tank with bare gravel and plant pots that's cool. I'm just saying for me I just don't see the point

 

[OohFeeshy]

You misunderstand me, the type of setup I am talking about takes astetics into consideration only on a very simple level. If I were to set up a discus tank I would use big jutting pieces of wood with moss and ferns where they could hide etc. I wouldn't just dump a few pieces of bogwood in the tank and expect the fish to 'thrive' as you put it.

Fair enough, your original wording made it sound like you think keeping a fish in an unnatural surrounding is much better than keeping it in something which imitates it's natural habitat.

 

[oldwhitewood]

You misunderstand me, the type of setup I am talking about takes astetics into consideration only on a very simple level. If I were to set up a discus tank I would use big jutting pieces of wood with moss and ferns where they could hide etc. I wouldn't just dump a few pieces of bogwood in the tank and expect the fish to 'thrive' as you put it.

Fair enough, your original wording made it sound like you think keeping a fish in an unnatural surrounding is much better than keeping it in something which imitates it's natural habitat.

 

[andywg]

In any case, I'd wish George good luck, but I doubt he'll ever be able to make a thread like here and not get this type of trash response. As I thought, it's really not worth my time to come here.

If you cannot accept that when someone asks a question why people don't do something that is a matter of personal choice they reply with their reasons why they would not do it then the forum would be at no great loss were you not to frequent it.

There has been little flaming or "trash" here, and certainly not from me. I went to pains to point out that whether you do planted or not depends on your view on fishkeeping. It depends on where you stand in the spectrum.

In theatre you can move from the ultra realism of Stanislavsky where the stage should be a window onto another world, through Chekov towards the other end where Djurenmat and Brecht dwell where the message of the theatre is far more important than the stage set up.

That can easily be converted to fishkeeping where those heavily into planting can be viewed as like Stanislavsky where the tank should be a window onto a world and the tank as a whole is the important thing and those of us who prefer keeping larger and more unusual fish dwell with Brecht believing that the fish is of paramount importance and the tank should be set up around that.

However the issue of planted tanks, just as that of bettas, always brings out people far too polarised in their views to accept others hate what they love.

 

[Graeme Edwards]

Well it seems that page 2, 3 and 4 are just about who said this and who said that and i don't agree with that!!!!!

George is advertising a side of our hobby that is relatively new in the UK.This new side to our hobby is an art!!

Its all about taste, like it or lump it, it exists.

Right behind you George.

 

[andywg]

I think it has been a great thread, as it has highlighted what planted tanks look like, but also reasons not to do one. I would hate to think someone bought some bala sharks which need a lot of oxygen and then dump them in a low gas exchange tank and then suffer the inevitable deaths that would ensue.

Some people really seem to forget that forums are first and foremost about discussion. This thread would have served no purpose in the planted forum as it would be preaching to the converted, but some people seem unable to handle criticism of something they like.

I often think this forum is too friendly, and the moment a debate breaks out everyone cries that people aren't agreeing on everything.