# "Natural": Method vs. Style



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

In the Water Bucket there is a really good thread about "money and the hobby". (I highly recommend reading it, BTW. ) It has sparked some great conversation and has actually gotten a bit off topic (I'm guilty of this) so I'm continuing that side topic here.

When you hear or see the words "*El Natural*", or "Walstad", or "natural method", what do you think of? What do you see? Is this a style of aquascaping,&#8230;or simply a method to fit ANY style,&#8230;a combination of those?

What about "*Nature Aquarium*"? What comes to mind?

Often, when newcomers enter the planted tank hobby, I'll hear comments like "I'm on a tight budget" or "I don't have time to devote to water changes or fertilizing", or "I'm not ready to make the ADA plunge" etc&#8230; and I suggest "El Natural " to them as an option. But what am I REALLY suggesting? Am I recommending a low-light tank, with soil capped by gravel, and filled with crypts and swords? Or am I simply recommending using natural ingredients to achieve the same aquascape they would want if they chose a "high-tech" method?

Can you have both? Can you have a "natural" tank (set up using what we have come to know as "El Natural" or "Walstad" methods) that is also a "Nature" tank (the term we use to describe ADA-style) or a "High-Tech" tank? Can we blur the lines? Can we mix and match? Is there a limit?

I could go on much longer, but for now I want to get some feedback on this and then I'd like to share/give background on some photos that may (or may not) surprise you.

-Dave


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

With Takashi Amano and Diana Walstad, we have published works to read and on which to base our opinions.

Amano discusses aethetics and style extensively. His designs unite aesthetics and horticulture. I have not read nearly all of his work, but what I have read tends to be rather vague on horticulture and technique.

On the other hand, Walstad almost never talks about aethetics. When she does, it is even more vague than Amano on horticulture. She does cover aquatic horticulture, freshwater ecology, and plant physiology in detail. She uses this scientific knowledge to develop a low maintenance, technologically simple method for creating and maintaining planted aquaria.

For this reason, I do not think Walstad's method is a "style". She says virtually nothing about design principles. She does not present a particular point of view about aesthetics. Walstad's method is a technique which can be used to create designs in many, perhaps all, styles.

Amano's aesthetic contributions to the planted aquarium art form actually fall into two separate and distinct styles. Using his names, these are the "nature aquarium" and "iwagumi". This is where language and translation have led us astray. When Amano says "nature", he is talking about aesthetics--remember, his first profession was fine art nature photography. When Walstad says "nature", she is talking about nutrient cycling, allelopathy, chemistry in bodies of freshwater, etc. In a word, science; not aesthetics.

A Walstad tank can look like anything you want, despite the fact that many practioners of her techniques like very casual, almost undesigned aquaria. An Amano-inspired tank is either nature aquarium style or iwagumi style; and both are aesthetic statements.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

Right, Michael. Reading Walstad's literature/posts, it's clear she is sticking to a method of horticulture and not an aesthetic style of presenting it.

Most tanks that I see in the El Natural forum have a certain look to them. Not that it’s a good or bad look (I personally like it, and most of my tanks have been El Natural, or at least started off that way), but one can nearly always look and know, “that’s an El Natural set up”.

I believe most hobbyists coming into the hobby are looking for the “Nature Aquarium” look (judging by the popularity of ADA and the number of hits, even on this website, in the “Aquascaping” forum vs. the “El Natural” forum. ) I also believe that, here in the U.S. at least, hobbyists want the best deal, the cheapest monetary investment, to achieve their goal. I think that often drives people to want to use the El Natural method. But, when they see such a difference between the “style” currently represented by El Natural vs. that of Nature Aquarium, they think that's what El Natural is supposed to look like and they don’t see that the “methods” can be matched to multiple styles and vice versa.

In other words, I’m saying you can have a “Nature Aquarium” style or even a “Dutch” using “El Natural” methods…to an extent (I’ll expand more on this later). And I don’t think new hobbyists are making that connection. Nor are they seeing the distinction between style and method.

-Dave


----------



## JustLikeAPill (Oct 9, 2006)

To me, "Nature Aquarium" is not JUST an aesthetic style... It is every aspect of a system working together. The flow rate is important, the type of flow (laminar) is important, a large emphasis on biological filtration and paying attention to the critters that do the work for us is important, using "just enough" water column fertilization and a rich substrate is important, using enough light without too much excess is important, etc. Etc. It is all this, along with a certain style.

I think it is a very balanced method of caring for a tank and an attempt to recreate an idealized image of what we think of of when we think of nature. It is "photoshopped nature" aesthetically, but pretty natural when you realize the emphasis on water movement, biomedia, etc.

You don't need any ada products to have a "nature aquarium" in my opinion. I think the entire concept of the nature aquarium is a commercialized and upgraded (tech wise) version of the walstead method but with a strong emphasis on aesthetics and style guidelines. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Well I think the term "Nature Aquarium" is still mostly visual and many don't associate the term with what goes on beyond the visual and this is way so many fail. They see a contest worthy setup, get attracted to it because of the visual, try to replicate it without any real knowledge, fail miserably and there time in the hobby is over. 

Also the term "Nature Aquarium" has moved beyond ADA and there are many ways to achieve the look, health, etc. without following the same path. Just take a look at all the contest entries and what they do. 

That being said I give full credit to ADA for starting the movement. I liken them to Apple (please no Apple bashing here) in there respective space. How many rimless tanks and lily pipes were marketed on a broad level here before ADA. How many touchscreen smart phones and tablets were marketed before Apple came out with the iphone and ipad. They did open the market for the look and associated products.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

Yes, the Nature Aquarium is indeed a well tuned system as well as a style. And the Walstad El Natural is a natural system that can be applied to different styles. 

Can a Nature Aquarium appearance be obtained, though, with El Natural method/system?

Yes...sort of. Too many times I have seen comments that elude to the fact that scapists avoid El Natural altogether because of how those tank appear. I'd like to present that an El Natural does not have to "look" "El Natural"; that a Dutch style or even Nature Aquarium style can be acheived...it all depends on the scapist. 

However, there are limits, which I'll explain as they are mentioned in the next few posts.

I'm going to share some photos of tanks (a couple are my own, but not all). For each tank I show, I'll give as much detailed information on it and whether or not is was a successful system, etc...and what might have been (or has been) done to obtain better results.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

To start off with, here is a 3 gal picotope. This one actually looks very El Natural to me, but it isn't as typical as most would picture in their minds if I said "I'm about to set up an El Natural picotope". It is not anything close to Nature Aquarium, not even Dutch...just a mixed-style that started only because I wanted to conduct some experiments on certain plant competitions (native vs import). This scape is what it has grown into without any scaping effort on my part.










Obviously you can tell that this is not as strict to the Walstad method as the next tank I will post. The black background prohibits the use of windowlight from a window (unless I were to allow light in from the side, which I don't). To compensate for this, I have allowed for moderate-high lighting instead of low light + sunlight. Other than that, this is completely natural. No filter (yet the water is crystal clear), no heater, no pumps, no ferts, no water changes. Just RCS and an occasional feeding of pellet food.

If CO2 injection and biological filtration is needed (to the tune of ADA set-ups&#8230;10X per hour filtration with 10% of the tank in filter capacity) then how does this system work? (Let me first make you aware, I DO believe that filtration to those specs is needed in most aquaria&#8230;and I have a 125 to be posted here as well that will demonstrate that). This system, however, is able to function beautifully without a filter. Why? It's because of, to my understanding, the way the plants grow. There is no portion of the water column that is not being filtered in this tank. Plants are planted in the substrate, reaching up into the column, and floaters at the top (a Riccia mat) are all acting as one large filter. Any one of these to go missing, however, (remove the Riccia mat or trim too heavily on the bottom plants) and the system fails (green water, algae, cloudy water, etc&#8230; ) until the natural filters (plants) have grown back.

As to the CO2, that is produced out of biological activity in the substrate.

Is this a perfect functioning tank? No. It is deficient in Potassium. I don't fertilize it, so it has a perpetual deficiency which I am willing to live with.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

I have two journals on Walstad aquaria for anyone who is interested: 
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/journals/73533-el-natural-hidden-spring.html
and the recent http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...uatic-plant-club/77266-journal-tributary.html


----------



## Gumbie (Apr 18, 2011)

I don’t normally look at this forum because “Aquascaping” sounds too highfalutin for me. I also don’t look at the El Natural forum because I don’t use garden soil in my tanks. Thanks for clearing up some of my misconceptions. I am enjoying this discussion.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Davemonkey, I really like the picotope; it comes as close to the old balanced aquarium idea as anyone is likely to get. It also has a pleasing composition with nice contrast of foliage texture and color.

Have you tried feeding a spirulina-based diet? Spirulina is supposed to be high in potassium, and might help with your defficiency.

On the sunlight issue, I have tried tanks set-up with all sunlight, sunlight and artificial light, and all artificial light. Frankly, I prefer all artificial light because it gives me more control. With artificial light I can use a siesta schedule, and never have problems with algae.

So I'm not a Walstad purist either, lol.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

Michael, thanks for the compliment adn the advice...I have not tried them, but I will.

Thanks also for posting your journals. I was going to eventually get to a "what's missing" post and get into driftwood layouts!


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

*Can Nature Aquarium and El Natural possibly have that many similarities? Are they that closely realted?* Let's look at a Dutch vs. a Nature Aquarium "style"...both 125's....both Walstad method...

Okay, I know I said I'd post a true Walstad method tank next, but this one really caught my eye. This is not one of my tanks and I did get prior permission to use the photo. This is a Dutch-style El Natural. It also has been modified to use moderate lighting rather than low-light + sunlight. But it uses the potting mix soil, gravel cap, heavy planting, fish load + food as fertilizer, etc&#8230;per the El Natural recommendations.



















The owner of this scape said there was a long period of green/cloudy water (about 4 - 5 months) that suddenly just went away, leading to crystal clear water and FAST growing (and algae free) plants. I had a chance to review the photo/journal history of these and I can say none of my natural tanks ever grew that quickly&#8230;perhaps due to the very hard water I have here.

Given the history, here's why I think this set-up worked. The scapist actually employed the system that ADA employs&#8230;but on an "El Natural" level. Let's look aside from substrate and light for a moment and look at filtration. The filter on this tank, along with a powerful Koralia, was not utilized fully until later in the tank's development (which I believe helped clear up the water). The filter itself is not really sufficient to biologically filter a tank this size (125 gallon), pumping only about 200 - 290 gph and containing only 3-4 gallons of media. However, look at the variety of plants. Some of those species are known to grow fast and be nutrient hogs. You also are not able to see the mass of floating plants he had at the surface and the emergent stems. I believe that factors into filtration a great deal.

I can tell you that I now have a 125 set up "naturally" and am using this same filter, same lights, etc&#8230; with poor results. The reason? The only difference between my new scape and the one pictured above (other than hard water) is the plant composition. I have nearly 90% slow growing species, no floating plants, no emergent stems; which translates (in my slightly-educated guess) to less filtering by the plants. So, I actually NEED the 10X per hour tank volume movement (maybe 5-6 would suffice on something this size? ) and the larger volume of biological filter.

Here's a look at mine, what I consider a Nature Aquarium style (after a water change, so it looks cleaner than it normally is). Notice the cloudy haze? That has gradually cleared some lately&#8230;but it still not CLEAR like the set-up above. I believe that is a filtration issue. (Just to note, this tank is being converted to high tech as we speak...Geissemann bulbs, pressurized CO2 already installed, beefed up filter next on the grocery list. )


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I don't know how much the following video has to do with this discussion. But someone was capable of creating a gorgeous looking planted tank in 1990-92.

I don't know if the guy knew anything about planted tanks or what. He seems to have a very good understanding about morons. I guess from seeing one in the mirror every morning. Whatever the personality his tank is gorgeoous and probably it has to do with this discussion which points out that an aquascaping style is not necessarily a method to run a planted tank.

Once again - this is 1992. I think about that time Amano was still dumping soda water in his tanks to experiment with CO2. So this tank must have been without CO2, no special lights (they appear very bright though) etc:






--Nikolay


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

Niko - that looks like a DAS tank. They have a sponge with a powerhead pulling up through the middle. I had a tank like that a few years after that time period. It grew beautiful plants. T8 and or T12 bulbs. It would not be capable of growing the high light difficult plants we see around today.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

My first view of a real planted aquarium was a color plate in the book _Exotic Aquarium Fishes_, by William T. Innes. Originally published in 1935, the book was continually updated until the 19th edition in the 60's, which is when I checked it out of the library as an eleven year old. The photo showed a Dutch aquarium, and the caption explained that soil was used as a substrate, but warned that this should not be attempted by any but the most advanced hobbyist.

I should have tried it back then!

Back on the subject of planted tank technique, Walstad does not emphasize filtration, saying that plants (and the biofilm that covers everything in the tank) ARE the filter. But she does value flow, running filters without traditional media or adding power heads to obtain flow in her tanks.

This dovetails nicely with Niko's excited discussion of filtration, where we concluded that mechanical and chemical filtration are largely unnecessary, but that flow and biolfiltration are a necessity. (Please excuse my simplification.)

So in my Walstad-derived tanks, I keep nothing but lava rock in my filters with coarse sponges on the intakes to keep the big pieces out. I clean the sponges if the flow goes down, but don't disturb the lava rock.

So far, maintenance is down, flow is up, and I seem to be squeezing as much performance as possible out of my HOB and cannister filters.

Dave, are you going to show us an El Natural iwagumi? This seems to be the greatest stylistic challenge to the limits of the method.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Michael said:


> This dovetails nicely with Niko's excited discussion of filtration, where we concluded that mechanical and chemical filtration are largely unnecessary, but that flow and biolfiltration are a necessity. (Please excuse my simplification.)


Well yes and no. The ADA Nature aquarium relays heavily on mech/chemical at startup to make up for the lack of a biofilter. Remember we need flexibility here if the scape is a sparse iwagumi, etc. We can't always rely on the plants to do that work. That I believe is also a limitation of "El Natural".

Once the tank get's established I don't even thing you need a filter in some cases. In a small tank with a canister yes, there is a good piece of filtration going on, but in a larger tank, I believe most of the filtration is taking place in the tank and we just need enough flow to move the water around.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> Well yes and no. The ADA Nature aquarium relays heavily on mech/chemical at startup to make up for the lack of a biofilter. Remember we need flexibility here if the scape is a sparse iwagumi, etc. We can't always rely on the plants to do that work. That I believe is also a limitation of "El Natural".


You are right. I was thinking of established tanks, or tanks started with the Walstad method of using lots of fast growing stem and floating plants that are removed later.

Walstand wrote an article on dry-start method for popular iwagumi plants that are hard to establish in her usual method. It worked, but the aquaria remained senstive and more difficult to manage than her others. If Dave doesn't have a Walstad iwagumi up his sleeve, I guess one of us will have to do it. Then we will see if it can work or not.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

houseofcards said:


> ...I believe most of the filtration is taking place in the tank and we just need enough flow to move the water around.


Yes, I totally LOVE this statement! I think this not only aplpies to getting nutrients to the plants, but also getting nutrients (watse) to the bacteria/biofilm ON the plants (and hardscape, etc... ). The insides of our aquaria have great potential to be a huge bio filter if we provide the flow. And not just any flow...the RIGHT flow...which takes us back to the filtration thread (laminar vs. turbulent).

Another note: What I have seen in my *small *tanks is that they can function well without a filter, but ONLY whe there are plants literally everywhere (side to side, front to back, top to bottom). When the tank is planted "normal" (maybe less floaters, empty spots for aesthetics, etc... ) or in the larger aquaria, I have to have a filter to have clean water. I think this also ties into house's statement.

And the tank that niko linked us to...I'm stumped. But if it did have a poerhead hooked onto a sponge, there's biofilter right there, with flow.

Michael, I don't have a picture of an Iwagumi El Natural. In my semi-educated opinion, that's where ADA and El natural part ways. Let this be a challenge to anyone reading who has a spare tank to set up. Do an Iwagumi using El Natural and see if it works. My guess, since you would not want a bunch of floaters in the layout, that it would only work with low-moderate light and a slim choice of plants. Any takers??


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

Sorry to get off topic in my own thread...BUT...here I go...

Here's another thing I just thought about (back to water movement). Mike and Jeff Senske (ADG) did a video of a trip to ADA headquarters and had an opportunity to see Amano's big tank. The most remarkable thing that I heard them describe about it was the fact that the stem plants were lush and fully "leaved" (not sure on my language use there) all the way to the bottoms of the stems...and these were THICK groupings that reached from the bottom of the tank all the way to the top! What is that, like 5' tall? 

How were these plants able to retain their leaves like that? Mike jokingly told me, "..because he's magic..." Personally, I think it's all tied to water movement. The plants in the San Marcos River can be likened to this. When you pull a 4' long stem out of the river, it will have leaves all the way down. How many gallons per hour flow do you think the river has?


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Michael said:


> ..Walstad method of using lots of fast growing stem and floating plants that are removed later.


Yep, that lays it out nicely and for me shows a clear difference between the two and also shows how style and method are related to an extent. If the "El Natural" method relies on a lot of plant mass, etc. you are limited in style. While the "Nature Aquarium" does not 'necessarily' rely on this, although it of course makes things easier. Even though you can remove plants, still at it's core is the plant mass and many don't look at it as a 'look', but more an ecosystem.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

What an awesome thread! If I can find a camera in the office or can remember to bring one from home I'd like to post a pic of my Office Pico-El Natural. I do not know what "Iwagumi" means, but it is a scape of few plants, lots of open water, zero water movement and the only green (aside from the plants) is on the rocks. The lighting is modest at best, using at least a 3-year old bulb of 9 watts over 3 gallons, about 6 inches above the water.

Regarding water movement, I have come to see the benefits as well in getting the water and nutrients into and through the biological system. My son has a tank that is "El Natural" with no "filtration" but has lots of water movement; the tank has not been cloudy since day 1 after the initial bacterial bloom. I don't know what the scape or style would be called, but it's nothing fancy. Maybe I'll find a pic of that one as well.

By the way, I love the comparison pics of the "style" differences in the 125 using the same "method". I have never given "method" or "style" a second thought, but I like where this discussion is going in differentiating. Very good discussion.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

I borrowed some batteries for the old 1855 year model camera (exaggerated of course). This is my pico-tope at work. No water movement, limited to no inputs, water change once a month. You can see some tiny snail and even some white-worms (whatever they are called) that feed on the OM in the substrate.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

davemonkey said:


> Yes, I totally LOVE this statement! I think this not only aplpies to getting nutrients to the plants, but also getting nutrients (watse) to the bacteria/biofilm ON the plants (and hardscape, etc... ). The insides of our aquaria have great potential to be a huge bio filter if we provide the flow. And not just any flow...the RIGHT flow...which takes us back to the filtration thread (laminar vs. turbulent).
> 
> Another note: What I have seen in my *small *tanks is that they can function well without a filter, but ONLY whe there are plants literally everywhere (side to side, front to back, top to bottom). When the tank is planted "normal" (maybe less floaters, empty spots for aesthetics, etc... ) or in the larger aquaria, I have to have a filter to have clean water. I think this also ties into house's statement.


I agree, a few times my canister went off in my 72g for a few days. The tank didn't even hiccup from the lose of bio-filtration that the formal filter was providing. Personally I've never understood how the biomedia in a typical filter can compare to the 'biomedia' in the substrate, plants, hardscape, etc. Now if you have a 3g with a canister and the canister dies that to me is a different story.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

Mudboots, you might be on to something there. Your pico is not typical of Iwagumi, but if the rock-work was more pronounced (probably would need larger pieces) and arranged right, it would be there for sure. You've essentially got two species of plants (a foreground and a background). 

So, really all you would need to achieve that particular style would be to redo the hardscape and maybe take out the Anubias 'petite'. The plants may not be what most Iwagumi enthusiasts prefer, but you have demonstrated that the style is indeed possible with a "natural" method (at least as far as low-light set-ups go).

Do you fertilize at all, or do anything else to this tank?

Thanks for sharing the pic!!

-Dave


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

davemonkey said:


> Mudboots, you might be on to something there. Your pico is not typical of Iwagumi, but if the rock-work was more pronounced (probably would need larger pieces) and arranged right, it would be there for sure. You've essentially got two species of plants (a foreground and a background).


I was thinking exactly the same thing!

Iwagumi is primarily about stone work, and the design principles are taken directly from Japanese garden styles. Plants are secondary, playing a supporting role to the stones. Since most iwagumi designs are intended to be miniature landscapes, very fine textured plants are favored. Tiny leaves help with the illusion of scale. That said, some iwagumi tanks have a surprising amount of plant mass. Think of the designs where masses of fine-textured plants are trimmed to look like meadows or hills.

So there is the recipe for el natural iwagumi: excellent stonework (as required in all iwagumi) and fine textured plants that will grow in the Walstad method. If I had the spare tank and space, I would research suitable species for the design, and plant those along with fast-growing nutrient hogs that would be removed later when the tank is mature. You could use floaters that would be easy to take out--in fact, that is what Walstad did in her experimental dry-start tanks. When the tanks were first filled with water, she used frogbit to control light and absorb excess nutrients, thus controlling algae.

Anybody want to give me a 20 long? Please de-rim it first, lol. Perhaps we should call this "iWALgumi".


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

@Dave and Michael - Interestingly I had salvinia as a floater for the first 6 months of this tank, maybe longer, and removed it when we transfered about 5-6 months ago. On fertz, I added slow release to the substrate at that same time. It's got micros as well as macro, but I forget how much. I listed it in my " mudboots' picotope" journal I think. Anyway, that's what gives the substrate the richness and feeds the system, aside from monthly water changes.

Thanks for explaining what iwagumi is; that's not necessarily something I'm into, but at least I know for future reference. Maybe I'll rescape just the hardscape one of these days.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

To me this thread is the beginning of a new trend - the True Natural Aquarium, both as method and style.

I don't know if we want to create a new thread for images only that show low tech beautiful aquascapes. Here's a video that I found this morning and I think it belongs here:






--Nikolay


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

That's a nice looking scape! The water is pretty green, though. 

I think the info and photos demonstrate that there is at least some possibility of achieving the aquascape of your choice using methods that are not always associated with that style of aquascape.

So, what are the limits? What limitations does “natural” method have? I think it depends on the style you are trying to accomplish with it.

The Dutch style scape did not seem to be limited in rate of growth of plants, plant choice, etc…as compared to other Dutch style tanks I’ve seen or had. I think that is because of the ability to fill the aquarium completely full of plants (especially fast growing stems) and have as much light as you could want (within reason).

The Nature Aquarium style seems to me to have its limits, but is still achievable with El Natural. You just have to be careful about plants selection, arrangement (no re-scaping once it’s done), and lighting. If you increase lighting above a certain amount…you may very well wind up with a high-tech system (CO2, etc… ) to combat algae.

Iwagumi is still more limited…but we’ve seen that it is possible. However, it will be a very slow growing system.

But this all mean that the scape of our dreams can be achieved on a low budget? Can we still use cheap lights and equipment and get the same results? We can certainly save money on certain things (provided we are willing to put some effort into them…such as mineralized soil). But, will a $5 light bulb give you the same results as a $20 bulb? Will potting soil substrate nourish the plants as well, or yield the same growth as “Aquasoil”? Will the cheaper version of the canister filter perform for you the way that a better name brand can?


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

Niko, I like the idea of a photo thread of natural aquariums. I think if someone starts that thread, it would be a great service for anyone who posts a pic of their tank to also post a short narrative about why it works, what problems were seen along the way, what are the limitations. That information can really help new hobbyists make an informed choice and know what to expect to prevent the common "my tank gave me fits so I gave up completely on it" scenario.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

davemonkey said:


> That's a nice looking scape! The water is pretty green, though. ...


I thought so too, but in the comments to the video the guy says that it's the settings on his photocamera and the water is completely clear.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

I'm in for a thread on pics of natural method tanks that work with a narrative about the issues. Should this be in the El Natural forum or in this forum? Has one already been started?


----------



## f1ea (Jul 7, 2009)

Interesting subject. To me:

1. Natural, the style (aka Nature aquarium) is something of a series of principles carefully thought of, in order to produce a certain impact/look on the person watching the aquarium. 

2. Natural, the method (aka Al Natural) is more a set of guidelines to allow the natural processes within the aquarium to take care of the most important ecological functions, without necessarily leaving them or relying on technology/equipment.

"Clearly" there is an overlap region, because neither limits the specific area the other most heavily refers to (ie the natural processes of an aquarium do not completely interfere with the way the aquarium is laid out); in return, people can truly choose from each if they are educated enough.

Personally, i only have low tech soil tanks almost al Natural. For a couple of years i was much more interested in reading about processes, filtration, light, co2 etc. Right now, i'd much rather read an Amano article, although i'd probably never buy some of his most fancy, expensive equipment.

My tanks can all live completely alone for almost a week to no trouble (not even fish feeding), and with minimal intervention for about 2 weeks sometimes more. Now that i think about it, my best behaving tank has not gotten even a minimal WC nor a single dose of KNO3 in over 5 months; only thing i do is rinse the sponges every 1-2 months not disturbing bio-media while doing so, and changing DIY co2 mix every 2 weeks or more. Oh yeah, and top off evap with tap water once in a while, trim occasionally and feed daily. That's it.

Will post some pics in a couple of days because i'm not at home until tuesday.

:yo:


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

mudboots said:


> I'm in for a thread on pics of natural method tanks that work with a narrative about the issues. Should this be in the El Natural forum or in this forum? Has one already been started?


It would probably be best suited to the El Natural forum. I think there is a thread that was started many, many months ago (maybe even a couple years ago...I lose track of time) about photos of NPT's. I remember many photos of NPT's and lots of brief info (like "I use xyz lights and had green water" or "never had green water and started heavily planted..." ) but never any in-depth narratives as to what made the system work, what went wrong and why, etc...

Having the "this is why is did or didn't work" would be invaluable information to newcomers in the hobby.

If you start the thread, I'll chip in my bit to it. 

f1ea, I like your analysis of natural (style) and natural (method). Thanks for chiming in and I look forward to seeing pics!


----------



## f1ea (Jul 7, 2009)

davemonkey said:


> It would probably be best suited to the El Natural forum.


Actually, i think it should be the opposite:
on the aquascape forum, with emphasis on the layouts and only brief method details. I think that's a lot less common. Could be a good start for breaking the method-style barrier....

Are there any real "aquascapers" working with natural methods? i don't know; i hope so. it would be nice to see their tanks.

Are the limitations on natural methods coming from the individuals themselves (lack of knowledge, interest, money...) or the method (lack of possibility)?? i think its mostly down to the individuals.



davemonkey said:


> f1ea, I like your analysis of natural (style) and natural (method). Thanks for chiming in and I look forward to seeing pics!


Thanks!
I'll get some pics in this week. i've got some work done in my tanks, although for the past 2 months its been kinda limited due to a wrist fracture :icon_hang 
Also, 1-handed typing is frustrating, so it has been cut down to the necessary minimum


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

f1ea said:


> Are the limitations on natural methods coming from the individuals themselves (lack of knowledge, interest, money...) or the method (lack of possibility)?? i think its mostly down to the individuals.


 Oh, SNAPS!!! And that, my friends, is the thought of the day! 

...Aquascaping forum with details on the scapes and less on method. That makes sense since we'll already know they are all NPT's. If no one has started such a thread by Tuesday I'll jump on it. I probably won't be online at all tomorrow and very little on Monday.

Sorry to hear about your wrist!


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Well, about tanks that need minimal maintenance:

I've mentioned at least 3 times now that if a tank is established properly it reaches a stable state that is VERY hard to disrupt. My experience is with tanks that gradually turn into zero maintenance systems.

What's interesting is that these tanks require one single thing - topping with water to compensate for the evaporation. Never clean the filter. Run CO2 or not - your choice. Add fertilizers if you want to spike up the plant growth or never bother - your choice. Next interesting thing is that such tanks can "grow" a variety of plants that can actually grow pretty fast. Not as fast as with CO2, but maybe 40% of the top speed. And of course not all kinds of plants, but enough to have freedom to aquascape with them. Another thing is that if you place a plant covered with algae in such a tank the algae dies. I've seen BBA literally disappear in thin air in about 6 hours in such a tank.

What I think makes a tank such a hands-off system is gradual establishment. You will see me explain every planted tank problem with bad filtration, but the tanks I'm talking about could care less if they had a filter or not. They need at least 6 months to establish properly. I've alway said that a 5 year old tank is a completely different beast than tanks that are 1-2 years old. So it's about time & patience & knowing about those processes + organisms that we discussed about a year ago in the 10 thread "series" called "Dummy Questions". Bottom line - it's "down to individuals" once again.

--Nikolay


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

"...Aquascaping forum with details on the scapes and less on method. That makes sense since we'll already know they are all NPT's. If no one has started such a thread by Tuesday I'll jump on it." 

I'm in. Dave, I will let you start and title the thread.


----------



## f1ea (Jul 7, 2009)

> Are the limitations on natural methods coming from the individuals themselves (lack of knowledge, interest, money...) or the method (lack of possibility)?? i think its mostly down to the individuals.





davemonkey said:


> Oh, SNAPS!!! And that, my friends, is the thought of the day!


hehe and i forgot the most important: Artistry.



> "...Aquascaping forum with details on the scapes and less on method. That makes sense since we'll already know they are all NPT's. If no one has started such a thread by Tuesday I'll jump on it."
> 
> I'm in. Dave, I will let you start and title the thread.


yes. Your tanks and Dave's are great! should make for a good start. Hopefully we can all contribute, and who knows, maybe find more pleasant surprises than we'd have thought.


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Okay Dave, so I'll +3 on the votes for letting you start/title the new thread and I will comment on 2 tanks that worked and one that flopped miserably.

Looking forward to it...


----------



## arkansasboy (Jul 9, 2013)

This is a very interesting thread so what happened with the idea of Technique vs. Style sticky? I would love to learn more about what you can do using the el natural method and seeing what can be accomplished.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Heya folks,

After 16 months in the Wild, Wild, East, I'm finally back in the states and have vacation time to burn reading through APC. I just caught onto this thread and would like to add my 2 yen.

First of all, ADA's method, not style, but method, very closely mimics nature. I did my Master's research looking at umpteen bajillion different mixtures of things to come up with a substrate to grow aquatic plants in. What I found in my reading is that ADA's substrates are pretty much the same thing as a mineralized soil or non-mineralized soil substrate (on a particulate level) only without the sand cap..and it's processed into little balls. It's got what we found to be the ideal percentages of organic matter and mineral components when compared to natural, native, North Texas (LAERF) old fish hatchery pond sediment. You know, the stuff that will grow anything, anywhere. Why? Because AquaSoil IS soil. Very beautiful, very rich, volcanic soil. Even their method of adding certain minerals and bacteria to the substrate rather than adding them to the water column closely mimics nature. They just happen to be focused on getting the absolute most out of their plants, looks-wise, so they ramp up the light and CO2.

Now, I'm not trying to apologize for or defend ADA in any way. I'm just sharing something that I was very much amazed at when I discovered it. I always thought of ADA's method as being the pinnacle of high-tech high-yield horticulture, when in fact, it's a method of replicating natural processes with a little extra oomph.

Picture time! I think I owe Mike credit for this one, I'm not sure. It's my old 225 back in Lewisville. The substrate is Red Art clay, LAERF pond soil, and Turface; approximately 50/30/20 covered with 2mm water well sand. I had been playing with different mixes of stuff at the lab and decided I'd do my own testing at home with the beast. I think the scape was 5 months old at the time...maybe a little older. High light (approx 4 wpg PC), high CO2, and K, Ca, Mg, and Traces added to the water. Due to the lack of fish and hundreds of dollars worth of Anubias and Java Fern on the walls I did add N and P somewhere in the low to moderate range. Filtration was originally just some filter padding in a sump made for a reef. Some time after this picture was taken I added a trashcan sized Fluval and that helped a lot. I doubt flow was any better, the pump I had running on the sump was excellent. Having a couple gallons of dedicated biological filtration helped a great deal.

Oh yeah, and a boatload of flow. This had been a reef so there were holes everywhere to facilitate a closed loop. Which, of course I took full advantage of.



Compared to this tank three years earlier. Same user, about the same age (maybe a couple months older), same lighting (approx 4wpg PC), similar supplementation, similar moderate-level of filtration and high flow, and with Aquasoil/Power Sand Plus substrate.



Then there's this tank.


20 long, tiny HOB filter pointing lengthwise (so pretty pitiful flow), sand and turface cap over a little bit of soil...I think. It may have just been old sand and turface. No water changes, cheap fluorescent lights, no sunlight, no CO2, no fertilization. I had hoped to get the swords to grow completely emersed, but no such luck. They were stubborn and decided to stay submerged.

What's my point in all this? Aside from my personal biases in favor of supplementing CO2 in almost every setup (except for "trash tanks" like the 20L above); and adding certain minerals to the water column to make up for lack of additions from fish, I'm comfortable saying that the METHODS are essentially seeking to achieve the same thing; mimic natural processes. ADA just goes into a little more detail (to sell products?) than does the minimalist Walstad method. I feel both methods can grow plants beautifully and can support any style of aquascaping an aquarist wishes. (I've just happen to be trying to get a handle on the Dutch style for the past while.)

What do you think of when someone says EI? Personally, I think of the most labor-intensive and high-tech method out there. Even ADA's method just supplements a couple things not supplied in large quantity by the substrate.

Enough of my rambling. Feel free to use any of those pics in whatever aquascaping thread you were talking about.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Phil, thanks for that post! I have suspected the same thing about Aquasoil for some time, without your expertise to back up my suspicions. And I believe Niko has pointed out the similarities between the Walstad method and ADA. One of the practical differences between the two is that ADA is neatly packaged with very explicit step-by-step instructions. With Walstad you need to do some homework.

I am still exploring the limits of the Walstad method, and haven't found them yet. I don't use supplemental CO2, and I do believe that there are some species which simply are not successful without it. Like you, I think lots of flow and good biofiltration are very important.

And thanks for the tip to use Turface mixed with soil before you left Texas. I am still doing it, although I have switched to Safe-T-Sorb because it is much easier to get and much less expensive. My routine mix for the soil layer is 50% STS and 50% mineralized organic soil. I say "organic" soil because my native top soil (Blackland clay) has too much colloidal clay in it for aquarium use, and the bagged "soils" I can buy are almost 100% organic matter. I do choose the bagged soils with the least additives and lowest fertility (if specified). I have also used high quality compost (mineralized) that my neighbor makes with good results.

Congratulations on your new job! And I'm glad my mediocre photo has been put to such good use.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Phil Edwards said:


> ..
> What do you think of when someone says EI? Personally, I think of the most labor-intensive and high-tech method out there. Even ADA's method just supplements a couple things not supplied in large quantity by the substrate...


Hi, just my reaction to your comments from my experience with EI dosed tanks.

EI is simply dosing, ADA is a complete aquarium management system. To be non-limiting, both of these systems require high-tech, I'm not sure how one is more high-tech than the other and as far as substrates they are not mutually exclusive. Plenty of people use ADA Aquasoil and dose EI.

Your analysis of ADA Aquasoil on the other hand is very helpful and makes sense to me and confirms why I always felt the stuff was superior. The growth in AS-based tanks, especially within the first year is amazing even when not dosing anything else.

Also how are EI-dosed tanks more labor-intensive? Both systems usually require 30-70% water changes to be effective depending on the setup. An ADA dosed tank requires more regular fert dosing than an EI one, so please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see where the additional labor comes on. I'm not an EI or ADA fanboy I just think both systems work depending on lifestyle and setup.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

House of Cards,

That's a good question and I only have my own experience to go on. Here are my thoughts, such as they are. I've used PMDD/EI or similar regimens for a long time in my tanks. To be quite frank, I like the control it gives me over nutrients and I even enjoy the measuring and dumping. I've used these methods with inert sand, commercially available 100% mineral substrates, and tanks with AS. In my experience, the reasons EI or similar supplementation regimes are labor intensive are because I have to dose every day or other day, do a big WC every week, and because they work so well that the plants grow like crazy. All that equates to having my hands in the tank a lot. I don't mind that at all, in fact I like to call it my zen time, and look forward to it.

Compare this to my experiences with the ADA system. Yeah, it takes a little while longer to set up and settle down, but once it's going it's a squirt here, a squirt there, a WC every couple weeks, and a big hack back when needed. Because most of the nutrition is coming from the substrate; once the initial bloom is done they're fairly stable systems and can go a little longer without larger maintenance than an EI system. That's what I mean about labor intensiveness. I enjoy both methods and will continue to use volcanic soil based substrates in the future, regardless of the supplementation regime I choose to go with.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

By the way, sorry to get off topic.  Back to the regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## corsair75 (Dec 21, 2011)

Interesting discussion! Thought I might add my 2 cents here.

As far as 'natural' methodology, I tend to draw the line at the use of biomedia. If the nitrogen cycle is being concentrated outside the tank environment, it is an artificially filtered tank. If the nitrogen cycle happens _in_ the tank, it's natural. It also suggests to me a lack of CO2 or major fertilization beyond fish waste. Note this still concedes the need for artificial lighting, heat and water movement.

You can do much more than people suspect without bio-media. With sufficient water movement (8-10x per hour) nitrifying bacteria are more than happy to populate the display. In my opinion, this approach is more stable, and damage resistant than concentrating populations in external filters that must be periodically disturbed for service.

It might be instructive to look at how marine tanks are typically filtered. So called 'live rock' is used for bio-filtration, which is really just porous limestone exposed to high water flow. This even works in reef tanks with absolutely enormous bio-loads and food inputs. The conventional wisdom is that adding bio-media will result in elevated nitrates. The logic is that filters can support nitrifying, but not denitrifying bacteria. When left to occur naturally in the tank, the anaerobic centers of the rocks give rise to the appropriate bacteria colonies. This works in concert with the nitrifying bacteria at the surface to process wastes.

I would speculate that the substrate of the planted aquarium can serve a similar purpose if managed properly. Even when using burrowing inverts like MTS, you get large areas of anerobic substrate. Working in concert with nitrifying bacteria in the upper layers, the substrate slowly becomes a live nutrient processor. This is not nearly so efficient when the nitrifying bacteria are in an external filter. In that case, the nitrates must enter the water column before slowly diffusing into the substrate. By forcing all of the nitrate production into the water, as opposed to adjacent anaerobic zones, you make life much easier for algae and harder for the livestock.

Just some thoughts. The high flow/no bio-media approach has been very successful in my 55.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Corsair,

While the plants and microfauna inside the tank are indeed effective biological filters an external filter is a good bit of insurance. Not only does it provide flow, it also creates an environment for bacteria to grow undisturbed. What happens when someone does a trim on a tank with no filter? All that N processing biomass is removed from the tank and the nutrient processing capacity is thrown all out of whack. Having extra sites for N processing bacteria to grow is a good buffer against the peaks and troughs of the grow-trim-grow-trim in-tank, plant-bacteria only method.

On the topic of reefs, live rock, and bio filters; yeah biofilters produce nitrate, that's their job. Reefers can be so afraid of nitrate that they forget it's actually a good thing. Any filter media, including live rock, that produces nitrates is reducing ammonia and nitrite. It's much better to have something producing nitrate than to have ammonia or ammonium stay in the system. Why is live rock such a good filter? Because water is constantly circulating around it. Those little anaerobic microzones are constantly getting fed nitrate enriched water.

That's not the case with soil in our tanks. Circulation through a fine grained substrate is so small as to be insignificant compared to the amount of water circulating through an external filter or live rock. A silty clay loam (typical MTS) has an infiltration capacity of approx. 1.3 mm/hr when able to drain. Put that in a glass box with no drainage and circulation is reduced greatly. All we're left with is osmotic diffusion, bioturbation, and possible minor circulation transporting things into the substrate. Overall, that's a fairly small amount of natural processing compared to N processing in the water column or external filter. To be frank, I don't believe denitrification is a good thing in a planted tank as it removes a source of N that the plants could be gaining nutrition from.

It's better to have a strong nitrification capacity to quickly convert ammonia to nitrate for both the plants and microbes to use. External filtration is an excellent source of biological filtration that won't be reduced when biomass is removed from the system. Even if a filter's not working at full capacity due to plant uptake of ammonia, there remain sites for microbial growth to buffer against loss of biomass after a trim or plant removal.


----------



## corsair75 (Dec 21, 2011)

Phil,

I have not found my tank to be sensitive in slightest to trimming. Even traumatic ones when I have let things get massively overgrown. I don't believe it is the leaves providing substrate for bacteria as much as the driftwood, stone, substrate etc. Maintaining high levels of water movement increases the efficiency of these sites, allowing them to successfully filter the tank.

"_Why is live rock such a good filter? Because water is constantly circulating around it. Those little anaerobic microzones are constantly getting fed nitrate enriched water._"

What I am contending is that the same thing happens in freshwater. By cultivating similar conditions, you can get similar results. The 'bio-media' in my 55, such as it exists, is the pile of limestone in the corner. I pulled a bunch of mucky, nasty rock out of a river and placed it in a very high flow, turbulent area. This gave me a jump-start, and provided diverse colonies to populate the rest of the tank.



Even with the slow diffusion rates of water in the substrate, just the top layer provides a huge surface area. You just need enough water movement to keep it viable. De-nitrating happens in microzones, rather than a big cohesive layer. Some of those microzones can be right below the surface, inside a rock. They consume nitrates from adjacent aerobic zones. That process doesn't work nearly so well when the nitrate producers are far off in a filter. The nitrates must enter the water column to reach the anaerobic zones.

I think that denitrification is a good thing, even in a plant tank. I believe that the plants are getting their nitrogen from ammonia, leaving the excess to be processed by the nitrogen cycle. Any excess production of nutrients will begin to favor algae growth once it enters the water. This is precisely why bio-media is not favored in marine tanks. It's not that it doesn't work, it's just that it grows algae like crazy. The rock and decor is a better place for the bacteria to live because it allows for anaerobic microzones to exist alongside the aerobic colonies.

By ADA rules, I should have 5 gallons of bio-media. That's either a very large (and expensive) canister, or a costly sump retrofit. If you focus instead on water flow and strategic decor, you just need some pumps and rocks. At best, it's a unnecessary expense. At worst it's a nitrate factory.

The only wrinkle compared to marine is the type of flow. Marine favors turbulence due to filter feeding inverts and higher natural clarity of saltwater. This lets you use giant propeller pumps to hit huge flow numbers with one or two pieces of equipment. To get 900gph(ish) in my 55 I have 3 powerheads and a small canister. Generating big numbers with laminar flow favors real pumps and plumbing.

Aaron


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

A lot of people seem to use terms for different methods interchangeably to refer to the broader philosophy that the method stemmed from. It can become confusing, and makes discussions difficult.

I've seen little evidence that a tank following a more El Natural method actually has to have a distinct appearance to it, granted there are some limitations and tell-tale signs if you don't use CO2. However, even a tank with no filter, low lighting, and no CO2 can be very tolerant of heavy plant cutting, and a proper scape can be maintained with enough plant diversity that there's a wide range of scaping options and styles to play with.

Mind you, there's really no reason why we can't apply technology to the same thinking and principals that El Natural applies, and it sounds like this is close to what Amano has done. 

ADA is not popular here though, so I don't know his methods in-depth.


----------

