AGA Contests Results Are In

Leopardess I think you should be very proud of your submitted tanks. They look great in my opinion. I like your difformis foreground a lot, which shows everyone sees tanks differently. Excellent job.

Overall I think the quality of tanks in the contest this year is higher than in past years. Although I find that the judge's are basically set on what they were looking for and would critisize based on that. For example, not enough rocks, not the right colour rocks, shape isn't right, those types of plants don't belong there, etc. If you let others dictate how your tank should and will be then in my opinion it's not artistic and creative.
 
Captain, you are right about what you said at the end, I think. That very concept is being discussed on a plant forum right now. I think we (me too, to a degree) may try to please the judges more than ourselves in contests like these on occasion.

Thank you for the comments btw. Timmain - my tanks were:

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/2004.cgi?&Scale=258&op=showcase&category=0&vol=0&id=111

and

http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/2004.cgi?&Scale=258&op=showcase&category=0&vol=2&id=109

Biogirl - Yes the contest is open to everyone from the most basic novice to professionals. There is a nominal 5$ fee per entry and a form to submit (can be done online).
 
Gee, I was contemplating entering the AGA contest for next year, but the judges comments see a little harsh.

Maybe it's just me. I don't think that's going to stop me tho, I'm 40% done with my entry already.
 
The judges are very harsh... ...I cant see any of the stuff they complain about. Your tanks are beautiful! I wish I had the money for that many plants :sigh:. I guess I should start saving. I'm not trying to be rude but, how much money is it to heavily plant a 55 gal tank like that?
 
Not a lot at all, dismantle. The fish in that tank cost as much as the lighting and substrate combined and then some!

My intent with that 55g was to be very low maintenance and low tech. I do not fertilize it and I hardly remember to fill the DIY co2 when it runs out. I used schultz's aquatic soil (6$ a bag, 5-6 bags), and regular flourescent 48" lighting which isn't the best but if you dont need super high light, its fine (total cost: of the lighting system ~80$ iirc).

All that java fern came from a 6$ bunch of 6 leaves about 1.5-2 years ago. You can buy difformis from a lot of petstores for a few dollars, though Gomer gave that to me, as well as the anubias. Those plants are all very common and inexpensive and don't grow very fast which means they're low maintenance.

In short, it doesn't *have* to take a lot of money at all. Some people have to get the rare crypts and use eco complete and metal halide lights, along with fertilizers and what not, but you don't need to. Even then, with a high tech, high light tank, after the initial cost, it isn't much money to keep going. Don't be discouraged! You can make a gorgeous tank with java ferns, anubias and some crypts in low light!

As for the judges comments, some were perhaps a little..disheartening, but they did have over 120 tanks to comment on...so I guess we could cut them a little slack.
 
Last edited:
Ive been looking at a few plants here. And I have it narrowed down to a list of about 15 kinds I like. The problem is all I have is play sand for substrate. No nutrients :( . I made a thread 'plants' go there if you want to see more.

I'm looking for low cost, low light, low maintenence plants other than java fern/moss... ... kinda tough finding plants like that. Oh well.
 
leopardess, i share the same sentiment. i think your 10g is excellent. i would be very honored to have these judges evaluate my tanks, but you're right--being told that you set up a tank just for the sake of setting up... kinda leaves me with an empty feeling also. good luck to you next year. :)

thanks for the link, i didn't realize the contest was over.
 
I went to the AGA symposium over the weekend, and when the winners were being announced the judges were there to talk about their decisions. They said that the quality of tanks was overall so much higher this year and that they had to be very selective in order to come up with a winner. They were extremely complimentary of the entries as a whole.

I don't think they meant to come across as harsh, the criticisms they are listing are the reasons why a certain tank may not have been scored above a slightly better tank. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is a massive fault. They even had similar comments to make about the winning tanks when those were announced. I suppose it is similar to the Olympics... where everyone is such an expert that it comes down to tenths or hundredths of a point to declare the victor.
 
Hehe my only hope on comments like that from amano are that something (hopefully) got fouled up in translation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom