The Tint

Blowing up Brackish

One of the great things about the aquairum hobby is that there are so many directions you can take to enjoy it. So many different avenues to explore. One of the hobby's most neglected speciality areas is brackish water aquariums.

Yes, brackish. And yeah..neglected...As in not done by a lot of people.

Okay, let me clarify: Lots of hobbyists have played with brackish water tanks over the years; however, the reality is that brackish has been pretty much neglected by the mainstream of the hobby. How neglected? Well,  brackish aquariums make blackwater aquariums seem downright popular by comparison!

Yeah, brackish. As in, brackish water aquariums; mangrove estuaries, intertidal habitats...

Over the years, I've become quite familiar with these habitats, both as an aquarist and as a traveler, having spent many happy hours in stinky, mosquito-filled tropical backwaters, often knee-deep in mucky soil, poking around the mangroves with the delight that only a fish geek can bring!

I had kept brackish tanks for years...a natural compliment to the reef tanks I'd been obsessed with. And it always seemed like a good way to transition from the coral world, at least!  I figured that the "Tannin thing" would come later, a natural "digression" from salt-sequentially, if you will. Brackish always made sense for someone who had his head firmly in the saltwater world for decades, both as a hobbyist and later, as a business person.

Yet, it's at this point that I should address the common misconception that brackish water aquariums are like "reef aquariums lite" or somehow this easy-breezy training ground for saltwater aquariums. It's not. It's a separate "thing." Now, brackish water aquariums do involve some skills that might be of use in marine aquarium adventures, such as preparing and measuring saltwater, managing evaporation. and maintaining water quality in a dynamic, ever-changing system. 

Yet, have no illusions. It ends with that, IMHO. Brackish water aquariums are really  not a "gateway to saltwater." In fact, I'd wager that a high percentage of the few aquarists who have played with brackish water aquariums have never kept a reef tank. So, I think that we could get that idea out of our heads once and for all.

Difficult?

Not much more difficult than any other type of aquarium, really. You just need to learn the "operating system." 

Then why aren't brackish water tanks more popular?

Brackish water (arguably possessing a specific gravity of 1.005-1.010) is a sort of "middle ground" that for decades in the hobby has not been well-travelled. And widely mis-understood. I've played with brackish water for almost two decades, in between reef keeping and my blackwater/botanical-style aquarium stuff, and in researching both the hobby work that has been done, and the scientific materials out there on the wild habitats, I have sort of made this conclusion that it's simply been an afterthought, at best for aquarists.

Although there is a good amount of scientific information about the brackish-water habitats from which brackish water fishes come, in the hobby, (with the rare exception of some biotope enthusiasts) we've sort of distilled brackish-water aquarium "aesthetics" down to white aragonite sand, a few rocks, and maybe some hardy plants...and it's been mired in that aesthetic hell for decades.

And again, it all goes back to that "perception" thing...

I think that the perception among many aquarium hobbyists has been that brackish is more" tricky" to keep than freshwater, easier than a reef tank, yet offers little in the way of excitement on first glance to make it worth the effort. I mean, the fish selection and availability to the hobby has not exactly been stellar, with many dealers hesitant to stock many brackish fishes for simple lack of demand and interest. Some, like Scats and Monos, simply get too large to be candidates for many hobbyists' aquariums. Others are just not widely understood to be brackish dwellers.

And quite frankly, many fishes that have been perceived to be "brackish" by hobbyists are either actually from pure freshwater habitats (I'm thinking about certain Glassfish and some Rainbows), or have some populations that are from brackish (which are seldom imported). And then there are those fishes, like Mollies or Endler's Livebearers, which are Euryhaline (capable of tolerating a wide range of salt concentrations), with the majority of the wild populations being found in pure freshwater. 

Salt, in many cases, is simply used for health purposes by breeders.

 

When I started working with brackish again a few years back after a long break, the idea, was to demonstrate how we could bring some new life and a slightly more realistic approach to the rather staid, traditional brackish water aquarium as the hobby knows it. Of course, our "slightly more realistic approach" is actually somewhat of a radical departure from the usual brackish water tanks which have dominated this obscure niche for decades.

As a decades-long reef aquarist and blackwater, botanical-style aquarist, how could I resist a "fusion" of the two? Besides, it was another example of the world being the way it really is, and how we as hobbyists chose to interpret it in our aquairums. And I personally felt/feel that we've been sort of choosing the safe, "established", generally unrealistic, and altogether boring path in brackish for decades! 

That doesn't cut it.

So, I had this idea to portray the brackish environment as it really is...not some sanitized, "aquarium aesthetic" version. And of course, as you know, if an idea is a bit out of the norm, we're all over it! It was time to "evolve" brackish aquariums into something that put function first.

And when an idea like an "evolved brackish system" pops into our heads, it's time to give it a whirl, as they say.

And it starts with a few important pieces of hardware; some stable environmental parameters, and patience...

There are several physical materials that are the basis for our concept of the "evolved" brackish-water aquarium:

-Mangrove branches

-Rich substrate

-Mangrove propagules

-Mangrove leaf litter

These are all things that we've touched in detail over the years in "The Tint", so I won't reply touch on them individually too much in the context of this piece...We'll revisit each again for sure in the future, however!

Let's talk about the operating parameters used in our approach, for just a second. And of course, it all starts with salt, right?

We initially targeted a specific gravity of 1.004. That is a sort of "average" of some of the habitats which I have studied over the years. However, for a variety of reasons, over the lifetime of my aquariums, I often migrated the specific gravity up to 1.010. People ask me a lot what set to use. I use Tropic Marin salt mix to achieve this. It's been my "go-to" salt brand for almost two decades. There are many other fine salt mixes out there...You can use any one of 'em. Just choose on and stick with it.

So, one consideration in keeping a brackish tank; indeed, replicating a brackish habitat- is that they it's a surprisingly dynamic one, subject to tidal influences (impacting specific gravity, temperature, and turbidity) and other environmental variations, like current and light penetration. And, in our approach, the influence of botanical materials, substrate, and mangroves is another factor to consider.

So, although maintaining an absolutely rock steady specific gravity is admirable, it's not absolutely mandatory for success. Stability within a range is more important in brackish, IMHO.

Oh, by the way, my fave piece of testing equipment for specific gravity is a digital refractometer...it eliminates any "interpretation" and guesswork when you're trying to determine the lower specific gravity levels that we play with! Swing arm hydrometers and the floating varieties work just fine, yet are prone to losing calibration and giving erroneous results easily.

So,  why not drop a few extra bucks and get something which is ridiculously accurate once and for all? If you're going to play in this "slightly salty" world, a digital refractometer is a great investment!

We maintain the specific gravity consistent by use of a very simple automated top-off system, the "Smart ATO Micro", which consists of an optical sensor, which you place in your tank at the depth you want the water level to remain at. When the system detects that the water level has dropped, it activates a tiny but incredibly powerful DC pump, which you place in a reservoir or other container below the tank, filled with fresh water.

There are other auto top-off systems which you can use. And of course, you can go manually, but the automated way is much easier, IMHO.

Other parameters?

I shoot for a water temperature is 77.5 F /25.2C. The typical pH of the water in my brackish tanks is 7.6-7.8, and the KH is 7.  These are not "absolutes" or "recommended parameters"- these are just the ones that my tanks are kept at. An interesting set of readings...And we can talk more about this stuff in a future installment of "The Tint", as it's probably worth more discussion! 

Water chemistry in brackish water habitats is influenced by many things, including the substrate, accumulation of botanical materials, the presence of mangroves, and the influence of ocean waters.

Interestingly, however, this type of system runs much like the freshwater botanical-style systems that we are used to, with the exception that it is likely more "nutrient rich" than the typical botanical-style tanks we play with here. The dynamics of decomposition and the ephemeral nature of leaves and such in the water are analogous in many respects, as well.

Our natural "muse" is the mangrove ecosystem.

And of course, there are a few components which, in our opinion, "power" the brackish water, botanical-style system: Mud, leaf litter...and mangroves.

The complex ecology of these natural ecosystems is as fundamental to our aquarium approach as it is in the freshwater botanical-style systems we're more familiar with.

Fungi and bacteria in brackish and saltwater mangrove ecosystems help facilitate the decomposition of mangrove material, just like in their pure freshwater counterparts. Interestingly, in scientific surveys, it's been determined that bacterial counts are generally higher on attached mangrove leaves than they are on freshly-fallen leaf litter.

This is kind of interesting, because ecologists feel that attached, undamaged mangroves leaves don't release much tannin, which, as we know might have some ate-bacterial properties. However, it's also been found that materials like humic acid, which are abundant in the mangroves, stimulate phytoplankton growth there. 

Interesting, right?

The leaves of mangroves, as they break down, become subject to both leaching of the compounds in their tissues, as well as microbial breakdown. Compounds like potassium and carbohydrates are commonly leached quickly, followed by tannins. Fungi are the "first responders" to leaf drop in mangrove communities, followed by bacteria, which serve to break down the leaves further.

So, in summary, you have a very active microbial community in a brackish water aquarium. 

And the idea of a rich, sedimented substrate has been another "backbone" of our approach to brackish water aquariums. Our systems revolve around the growth of mangroves, which need these types of substrates. But it's not just for the mangroves that we incorporate them in our tanks.

We've utilized a very rich mix of aquatic soils, similar to what has been used in "dirted" tanks by aquatic plant geeks, yet with a buffering component (finer, aragonite or calcareous substrates) and commercially-available marine biosediment materials.  We created a "workable" environment to grow mangroves with such a substrate.  

And by managing the water quality with regular, frequent water changes, and careful, automated topoff to keep specific gravity constant within a range at a brackish level (like-this is a fundamental thing), I believe that we have been able to simulate this environment on at least a superficially functional level.

Kind of like what we're doing with our freshwater leaf-litter-bed aquariums?

I wanted to create a functional mud-like substrate that would facilitate both denitrification and the ability to  provide a habitat for minute life forms. I spent a lot of time playing with different mixes of sediments, muds, sands, and soils to create what I feel is a great brackish-water mangrove habitat substrate. We have formulated it to be included in our NatureBase line under the product name, "Mangla."

I felt that this substrate would provide a more natural setting, and would facilitate more natural ecological function for a brackish water aquarium. My original intent was to plant some Cryptocoryne ciliata, a species well-known for its ability to adapt to a low salinity brackish-water environment.

I just couldn't do it, lol.

I couldn't help but to focus on my first love, mangroves, employing some fresh propagules, and to increase the specific gravity of the aquarium to 1.010, considerably higher than the documented SG at which C. ciliata is known to survive (typically 1.002-1.005).

The second reason for employing such a rich substrate in a "non-planted"  aquarium such as this was to set up the system in anticipation of the time when the mangrove propagules, which I anchored to the upper part of a dead mangrove root/branch "structure", would put down prop roots and ultimately "touch down" and penetrate the substrate layer. I knew this process would take many months, of course, given the depth of the tank.

Patience is another key ingredient in the brackish water aquairum which employs mangroves.

I also added some dried Malaysian Yellow Mangrove leaves to the surface of the substrate, with the intention of letting them do their thing and decompose on the substrate and "do their thing" to help enrich the habitat with tannins and humic substances. A crew of Olive Nerites snails was added to the system as a means to control algae and "work over" the decomposing leaves, and they are remarkable for their ability to do both. 

So, what we typically see over the first six or so months of most of our aquarium's existence is the development of a remarkably stable, biologically active, and rich habitat. The mangroves do just what I thought they'd do in these cirumstances: They put down prop roots, and grow many leaves, some of which do dry up and fall...and of course, we do allow the leaves to accumulate on the bottom, just like in the natural habitats we are attempting to replicate to a certain extent.

The nutrients the mangroves seek lie near the surface of the mud, deposited by the tides. Since there is essentially no oxygen available in the mud, there is no point in the mangroves sending down really deep roots. Instead, they send out what are called "aerial roots" (that's what gives them their cool appearance, BTW), sort of "hanging on" in the mud, which also gives the mangroves the appearance of "walking on water."

And of course, when the leaves and other mangrove materials break down, they form detritus.

In wild mangrove habitats  a significant amount of detritus is readily consumed by a group of specialized animals and fishes before it is being rematerialized completely in to inorganic nutrient form. And production and accumulation of detritus in these systems has been correlated by scientists to increased growth of the mangroves themselves.

Now, interestingly enough, as I've experienced with my freshwater, botanical-style aquariums, I've seen a remarkable stability in terms of the environmental parameters, and a definite solid growth in the mangrove seedlings I grow, which is especially impressive once the roots begin "touching down" and penetrating into the substrate layer.

What I'm seeing over and over in these systems- and what I planned on seeing before I took this approach- is that the substrate plays a very important role in the overall setup.With the mangroves growing at a significant pace, laying down thicker and thicker root structures.

I am very diligent about not overfeeding my brackish tanks, but I do little to no siphoning of the substrate. Even the nutrient-rich fecal pellets of the snails are allowed to accumulate...Yeah, this is a far, far different approach than I've ever taken with any aquarium! Almost contrary to anything I've done before with other types of aquarium systems.

And I'm okay with that.

Although it seems very weird simply stating, "I'm not siphoning the bottom of my aquarium and allowing the detritus produced by decomposing leaves and such to accumulate." - I have no particular feelings of negativity attributed to this practice. I'm quite okay with it, because it's a well-managed aquarium, with the other basics of aquarium husbandry attended to.

As I've talked about so many times here, detritus is not the nightmare that we make it out to be. Remember, the idea is that we're trying to work with the micro and microfauna which reside on the substrate, and to deprive them of their food  source is, well, problematic if that's the end game, right?

It's about cultivating life forms throughout the ecosystem.

This type of brackish water aquarium is truly one of the most stable, easy-to-maintain systems I've ever kept. And really, everything has been remarkably predictable! The biggest surprise was the very rapid establishment of the mangroves- in particular, the robust development of the leaves.

And really, the idea of creating and managing a little ecosystem is simply not that new to us; it's simply being applied to a different type of aquarium. 

 

I think that the current "version" of brackish water aquariums as presented in the aquarium hobby  is a good part of why they've remained relatively obscure for so long...they are, well...kind of monochromatic, shockingly unrealistic, and dare I say, boring! Sure, there are always exceptions, but the majority of brackish tanks I've seen set up in that manner have, IMHO, left little to generate more than an occasional acknowledgment from the aquarium world at large.

I think we can/will do better.

 

Like anything else in the hobby, brackish water aquariums require little research, work, understanding of the natural habitats that we're trying to replicate...and a lot of patience. Pushing in a new direction in this rather obscure niche will require everyone who plays in it to bring a sense of adventure, experimentation, and purpose. 

And the rewards will be rich. The secrets revealed game changing. The lessons learned, transformative.

Let's keep moving out into this territory and keep blowing up brackish!

Stay curious. Stay creative. Stay observant. Stay passionate...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

Leaf Litter Beds: The habitat we can't get enough of...

Of all of the botanical materials that we employ in our aquariums, none are more common, well-studied, or simply ubiquitous in aquatic habitats than leaves.

In nature, leaf litter zones comprise one of the richest and most diverse biotopes in the tropical aquatic ecosystem, yet they are seldom replicated in the aquarium. Now, more so than in years past, but I would not call aquariums configured to replicate these habitats "common."

Why?

I think this has been due, in large part- to the lack of a real understanding about what this biotope is all about- not to mention, the understanding of the practicality of creating one in the aquarium.

It's important to understand that a leaf litter bed in Nature- or the aquarium, for that matter- is a rich ecosystem, providing food and shelter to a diverse community of organisms, ranging from fungi to bacterial biofilms.

And of course, fishes and invertebrates which live amongst and feed directly upon the fungi and decomposing leaves and botanical materials contribute to the breakdown of these materials as well! Aquatic fungi can break down the leaf matrix and make the energy available to feeding animals in these habitats.

And look at this little gem I found in my research:

"There is evidence that detritivores selectively feed on conditioned leaves, i.e. those previously colonized by fungi (Suberkropp, 1992; Graca, 1993). Fungi can alter the food quality and palatability of leaf detritus, aecting shredder growth rates. Animals that feed on a diet rich in fungi have higher growth rates and fecundity than those fed on poorly colonized leaves. Some shredders prefer to feed on leaves that are colonized by fungi, whereas others consume fungal mycelium selectively..."

"Conditioned" leaves, in this context, are those which have been previously colonized by fungi! They make the energy within the leaves and botanicals more available to higher organisms like fishes and invertebrates! 

It's easy to get scared by this stuff...and surprisingly, it's even easier to exploit it as a food source for your animals! This is a HUGE point that we can't emphasize enough.

Here is an interesting except from an academic paper on Amazonian Blackwater leaf-litter communities by biologist Peter Alan Henderson, that provides some context for those of us considering replicating these communities in our aquaria:

"..life within the litter is not a crowded, chaotic scramble for space and food. Each species occupies a sub-region defined by physical variables such as flow and oxygen content, water depth, litter depth and particle size…

...this subtle subdivision of space is the key to understanding the maintenance of diversity. While subdivision of time is also evident with, for example, gymnotids hunting by night and cichlids hunting by day, this is only possible when each species has its space within which to hide.”

In other words, leaf litter beds facilitate and accommodate diverse populations of fishes, and we should consider this when creating and stocking our botanical-style aquairum systems.

Some litter beds form in what stream ecologists call "meanders", which are stream structures that form when moving water in a stream erodes the outer banks and widens its "valley", and the inner part of the river has less energy and deposits silt- or in our instance, leaves.

There is a whole, fascinating science to river and stream structure, and with so many implications for understanding how these structures and mechanisms affect fish population, occurrence, behavior, and ecology, it's well worth studying for aquarium interpretation!  Did you get that part where I mentioned that the lower-energy parts of the water courses tend to accumulate leaves and sediments and stuff?

It's logical, right? And it's also interesting, because, as we know, fishes and their food items tend to aggregate in these areas, and embracing the "theme" of a litter/botanical bed or even wood placement, in the context of a stream structure in the aquarium is kind of cool!

Incorporating leaf litter in our aquariums opens up all sorts of possibilities for interesting experiments ranging from community displays to fry rearing systems. You can go with just a few leaves in your tank- or really go crazy with a deep bed of leaf litter in your tank. It's wide open for experimentation.

How do you create one? 

Well, it's not particularly complicated, really. Simply add a selection of the prepared leaves of your choice to your aquarium! I mean, simple... In a brand new tank, devoid of fishes, you can add as many as you want all at once. In an established, populated tank, you should build up the depth and quantity gradually  over the course of several weeks, monitoring any environmental impacts regularly, to gauge for yourself any issues which may arise along the way. Common sense, right?

How many leaves, what kind, and how often to add them is a topic open for discussion and debate, really.

I periodically ponder and discuss the idea of creating a really deep litter bed in an aquarium, to more accurately replicate some of the litter beds found in South America, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere. By "deep", I'm talking 6"- 12" (15.24cm-30.48cm). Yes, there are deeper litter beds in these areas (several feet in depth); however, for practical aquarium display purposes, I think the rational "upper limit" is likely more like the 12" (30.48cm) range.

Or, is it?

Now, there is certainly a difference between the "theoretical" and the "practical", but I can't help but think that there is something beneficial about such a deep leaf litter bed...perhaps stuff we haven't imagined, because we're too busy talking about all of the possible "downsides" of the idea.

And it's intriguing for me to contemplate how to make such an idea work. I mean, it isn't really all that much different than what many of us do now...the main difference being that we'd use MORE of the same materials. I don't think that there is, really.

In researching the idea of executing such a deep litter bed, I thought about what would be the main considerations when attempting to create one in an aquarium. 

The ratio of "leaves to water" in a given aquarium could be quite significant. I mean, what size aquarium do you go with? I'm also curious about the impact on the water quality and oxygen levels with that much decomposing materials "in play."

On the other hand, starting from scratch with a new system and cycling it with bacterial products (like "Culture")  and/or "seeded" substrate materials would no doubt at least "kick start" the biological filtration before fishes ever enter the equation.

And, although a large mass of leaves can be considered "bioload", I can't help but wonder if it would also function as a "nutrient processing" facility, much in the same way live rock does in a reef aquarium? I mean, with that much "media" surface area, could this be the case? Like, denitrification by "deep leaf litter bed!"

Maybe?

Leaves should be continuously replaced. View them as "consumables", which they are. And, by adding new leaves as existing ones decompose, you are not only keeping some form of environmental stability, you're replicating the processes which occur in Nature, where leaves drop continuously and find their way into waterways.

And we keep coming back to the idea that leaf litter beds in aquariums can function in a similar manner as they do in Nature- providing supplemental food for the fishes which reside amongst them. This is a really significant thing...

I’ve seen all sorts of fishes spend large amounts of time during the day picking at leaf litter and the surfaces of decomposing botanicals in such beds, and maintaining girth during periods when I’ve been traveling or what not, which leads me to believe they are deriving at least part of their nutrition from the leaf litter/botanical bed in the aquarium. It compelled me to create s series of wildly successful  "leaf litter only" tanks to test the validity of my hypothesis.

In the aquarium, much like in the natural habitat, the layer of decomposing leaves and botanical matter, colonized by so many organisms, ranging from bacteria to macro invertebrates and aquatic insects, is a prime spot for fishes!

The most common fishes associated with leaf litter in the wild are species of characins, catfishes and electric knife fishes, followed by our buddies, the cichlids (particularly Apistogramma, Crenicichla, Dicrossus, and Mesonauta species)! Some species of RIvulus killies are also commonly associated with leaf litter zones, even though they are primarily top-dwelling fishes.

And of course, fishes, and the other organisms present- and their processes- create not only the basis of a "food web", but the development of an entire community of co-dependant organisms, which work together to process nutrients and support life forms all along the chain.

When we encourage, rather than remove these organisms when they appear, we're helping perpetuate these processes. I can't stress how important it is to let these various organisms multiply.

And we need to re-think our relationship with leaf litter, detritus, decomposing botanical materials, and sediments in our tanks. 

Yes, I'm asking you to not only "leave them be" -but to encourage their accumulation, to foster the development and prosperity of the organisms which "work" them. 

Once again, I have to at least ask the rather long question, "Are these things (detritus; decomposing leaves) really problematic for a well-managed aquarium, optimized to take advantage of their presence  Or, do they constitute an essential component of a closed aquatic ecosystem...One which can actually provide some benefits (ie; supplemental nutrition) for the resident fishes and the community of life forms which support them?"

Many of us have already made a mental shift which accepts the transient, subtle beauty of decomposing botanical materials, tinted water, biofilms, and the like, so it goes without saying that taking it a little further and allowing these materials to completely breakdown to serve as the substrate for our aquatic eco-diversity is simply the next iteration in the management of blackwater/brackish botanical-style aquariums.

Don't be afraid. Open your mind. Study what is happening. Draw parallels to the natural aquatic ecosystems of the world. Look at this "evolution" process with wonder, awe, and courage.

Stay inquisitive. Stay thoughtful. Stay open-minded. Stay brave...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

 

Radical approaches, risk, criticisms, and the challenges we take on...

I dare you.

I dare you to try something a bit different in your aquarium work. To take a bit of a risk. To play a hunch. To employ or create a technique that others might consider reckless, radical, or utterly unconventional, at the least. To embrace aesthetics which place function at the forefront.

Why?

To be a pain in the ass? To "poke the beehive" of mainstream aquarium culture? 

Of course not.

However, likely you will. It's just what happens when you try something different. People get defensive, indignant. Even self-righteous. It's easier to criticize the ideas of others than to come up with your own. 

Its always been that way in the hobby.

Granted, sometimes you try an idea that IS truly reckless. Maybe it's doomed to fail, but you're determined to try anyway. Some will commend you for your courage and fortudide. Others will call you an idiot.

That's the "price of admission" -and the invigorating (depending upon how you look at it) part of forging ahead on your own path.

It's lonely. It opens you up to criticism. Some of it really good. Some of it ill-informed and unwarranted. 

Yet, all of it is open for others to judge.

And that's not easy for a lot of people to stomach. However, it's how we let the criticisms and comments impact our work that counts.

Perhaps some personal views might help illustrate the idea a bit more.

At Tannin, we've had rather unconventional hobby viewpoints since our founding in 2015. As an aquarist, I've had these viewpoints on the hobby for decades. A desire to accept the history of our hobby, to understand how "best practices" and techniques came into being, while being tempered by a strong desire to question and look at things a bit differently. To see if maybe there's a different- or better-way to accomplish stuff.

I never liked shortcuts...I never spent time looking for ways to avoid water exchanges or stuff like that. Rather, my time has been occupied by looking at how Nature works, and seeing if there is a way to replicate some of Her processes in the aquarium, despite the aesthetics of the processes involved, or even the results.

As a result, I've learned to look at Nature as She is, and have long ago given up much of my "aquarium-trained" sensibilities to "edit" or polish out stuff I see in my aquariums, simply because it doesn't fit the prevailing aesthetic sensibilities of the aquarium hobby. Now, it doesn't mean that I don't care how things look...of course not! Rather, it means that I've accepted a different aesthetic- one that, for better or worse in some people's minds- more accurately reflects what natural aquatic habitats really look like. 

Okay, that was a bit of a digression of sorts from the main "theme" of today's piece, but the point is that you can look at things differently, approach stuff from a different perspective than the prevailing thinking in the hobby, seem a bit rebellious, even- yet still be correct. There is no single "best" way to approach everything in the hobby. The only "rules" are those imposed by Nature, governing how ecosystems work.

When we "pick and choose" parts of Her system to suit our needs, we need to accept the consequences of our decisions. For example, when we over stock our systems with fishes, we need to employ more robust nutrient export processes (filtration, water exchange, etc) to compensate. Otherwise, wastes accumulate and our fishes' health is compromised. If we want to keep high light loving plants, we need to employ higher light intensity. Or, we can grow less light-demanding plants. It's as simple as that.

And you will face criticism- sometimes warranted, often unwarranted- from other hobbyists when you try different ideas; push thinking which goes against "conventional" aquarium hobby wisdom and practice. Some people will simply question. Others will attack. Others will have passionate views on a subject, because they're coming from a different orientation or POV than you are. That's perfectly understandable. Two people can have different views, with each being "correct", yet still disagree. And it can be civil.

I've experienced both types over the years in the hobby. I've gotten rather used to it, because it goes with the territory. If you're experimenting with stuff in an unusual or contrarian manner, and sharing it extensively with the hobby as we try to do, inevitably, you'll run up against criticisms. Rather than get all pissed off, we should welcome this as an opportunity to discuss and exchange ideas, all the while, receiving feedback from a different POV. And even in the face of criticism, it's okay to be humble and civilized.

And sometimes, you need to be humble and really see the other person's POV. You don't have to agree with them, but you can be empathetic to their view and interpretations of things. Sometimes, it's about context and nuance- or lack thereof.

A recent example was an exchange I had with a fellow hobbyist on Instagram. I had published a "story" kinda of drilling down on the idea that botanicals can provide a supplemental (or in some instances, primary) food source for many fishes, if a tank is properly configured. It's an idea we've discussed here and in our podcast and elsewhere ad nauseam. 

To illustrate the point, I shared a small video snippet of a group of Pygmy Corydoras which resided in one of these specially configured setups. The only other "context" offered for this was the several dozen "Stores" posts we've put up over the years touting the same idea, along with (by last count) 19 blogs and 21 podcast episodes touting the same idea over the past 4 years alone. However, the inevitable happened.

A fellow hobbyists politely pointed out that it gave the impression that you can dump a bunch of Pygmy Cories into a tank and never feed them. He (incorrectly) pointed out that they looked "thin"- which they did not. When the video was shot, they had also just completed a group spawning event about 10 hours prior (which I didn't mention in the post), so perhaps they weren't as rotund as they usually were- but hardly "thin" or malnourished.

He was concerned because these fishes do have a reputation for being difficult to feed, or at the least non-competitive feeders. Which is, of course, precisely why I elected these fishes for inclusion in one of my "self-feeding botanical-style aquarium system" experiments! 

We had a little exchange where we both shared our correct viewpoints. I could see his point, and I think that he could grasp mine. However, his concern was that I was "just tossing it out there" in a somewhat reckless or "sensational" manner. Was he right? Was I right? I think we both were. I mean, in the grand scheme of social media. maybe one or two of the 1,176 people which happened to catch that "Stories" video might have ignorantly made the assumption that there's nothing to keeping these fishes this fashion, tried it, and killed some fishes. 

Thats one or two people too many, of course.

On the other hand, I'll wager that the majority of the almost 17,000 followers of Tannin on that platform understand the context of what was presented, and that about 1,174 people didn't rush off breathless to the LFS, purchase a group of Pygmy Cories and throw them into a tank without feeding them ever, resulting in their slow death from obvious starvation. We've beaten the crap out of the process, philosophies, and methodology about what we do here for almost 7 years now. 

Rather than be butt hurt and overly defensive, I simply engaged him and the conversation sort of trailed off. We both made our points. I agree that next time I tout this idea, I had better consider the (small number of) people who might see my feed and, without context, rush off on some radical process for all the wrong reasons...Lest I become one of the very "content creators" I rail upon, producing shallow, vapid, misinformed content.

Will that stop me from sharing ideas that some people seem to feel are controversial?

Hell, no.

The bottom line is that, when you put ideas out there- you need to be able to explain and engage when required, without attitude. If your idea is stupid, poorly thought-out, and simply invalid, you deserve to take the heat. You're not a "visionary"- you're a fool!  That's a fact.

When you know that your idea has merit, the criticism still comes sometimes, but it might be easier to deal with.

Of course, anyone who's boldly forged a path into unknown areas of the hobby and shared them has likely taken "incoming fire" before- and not all of it is constructive or civil, like the episode I just shared. Sometimes it's brutal, completely underserved, and downright mean. 

What to do?

Engage if it's worth it, ignore if its not...and keep moving ahead and sharing the good and the bad of your ideas.

With my "self feeding botanical-style aquarium" idea, I would definitely share the stories of the fishes getting ill or starving during the experiment...but there were no such stories. None. I never lost a single fish. Ever. Dumb luck? Or valid idea? I tend to favor the latter.

My experiments were not performed in a reckless, sensationalistic manner, and they were closely watched, and really not all that radical. And I repeated the process 4 different times with different fishes and tanks. Same outcome each time. My conclusion was that, if you create a carefully conceived, well thought-out habitat which creates lots of correct feeding opportunities for the resident fishes, and nurture the habitat accordingly, there are not all that many downsides, IMHO. 

Regardless, when we push unusual ideas; things that not everyone in the hobby views as "normal", it's to be expected that people will call you out from time to time.

Our interpretation of the natural habitats we admire might be extremely off-putting to some people who are not familiar with them.

You've heard me say this a million times before:

NEWS FLASH: What we proffer-our interpretation of Nature- is not everyone's idea of a dreamy aquarium.

Frankly, it puts off some people. It scares the living shit out of others. And many just don't understand. They can't get past brown, soupy water and all of the good stuff that goes with it. IMHO, they've been sort of "programmed" by the world of perfectly clean sand, bright lighting, rocks you could eat off of, and wood that, on day 45,  looks as sterile as they day it was submerged. Oh, wait...Don't those guys usually break down their tanks by day 45?😆

("C'mon, Fellman, THAT was just mean!")

It's okay. I get it. We all get it.

Yet, some of the adherents to this rigid interpretation of Nature love to "call me" on this for some weird reason to "tamp down" our ideas just a bit, I suppose. I'll get some rather nasty DM's from time to time.

Reality check, guys.

What you do is cool. I dig it. Seriously. it's rad. Do YOU, and keep sharing your fine work.

However...

Stop trashing on what you don't really understand.

You need to understand that Nature is really not always clean and tidy. In fact- most of the time, it isn't. And if you buy into the head-scratching hobby narrative that every pristine "high-concept" contest aquarium is somehow what Nature "looks like", you're simply fooling yourself.

Sure, there are some really clear, sparkling habitats out there in the world, but they represent the exception, really.

And I'll go out on a limb and suggest that none of them have tidy rows of symmetrically trimmed, color- balanced plants, or neatly arranged rocks of related size and proportion.

Talking tough here, but I can't stress this enough.If you really want to understand the natural aquatic habitats of our fishes, some of you have to get out of the idealized aquascaping mindset for a bit and stop dissing everything that doesn't fit your idea of the way the world should be, and just accept the realities which Nature presents...

I am actually surprised we still get the occasional DM like this.

So I must push back a bit.

I am not at all joking when I tell you that I'd take an aquarium that can faithfully replicate the scenes above or below in form and function over any IAPLC "Grand champion's" aquarium. Like, any day of the week.

With zero hesitation at all.

None.

Tinted, turbid water. Sediment, biofilm. Decomposing botanical materials. Soil. A random scattering of branches covered in fungal growth.

To me, it's freaking gorgeous. Beyond anything I've ever seen in any contest anywhere on planet Earth.

Unfiltered Nature.

Okay, I'm not mentioning this to brag about how our avant-garde love of dirty, often chaotic-looking aquariums makes us cooler than the glass pipe and stupidly-named aquascaping stone crowd, or something like that. 😆 (well, possibly, but..)

However, I want you to understand the degree to which we at Tannin Aquatics love the concept of Nature in it's most compelling form, and how strongly we feel that we as a global community of hobbyists need to look beyond what's regularly presented to us as a "natural aquarium" and really give this stuff some thought. We CAN and SHOULD interpret natural aquatic features more literally in our aquairums. This is different than what we see a lot in the hobby, but it's really not all that radical.

And not all of Nature requires us to make extreme aesthetic preference shifts in order to love it.

Well, maybe not all. A lot of it, though.

Radical?

Perhaps to some, but in reality- it's really not. It's simply different. 

And by the same token, I also understand that not every hobbyist wants to-or can-go to the other extreme-trying to validate every twig, rock, and plant in a given habitat, as if we're being "scored" by some higher power- a universal "quality assurance team"- which must certify that each and every rock and branch is, indeed from the Rio Manacapuru, for example, or your work is just some sort of travesty.

At the end of the day, we all should do what we love. That's a given. 

However, we should also stop convincing ourselves that what we do is the only way to achieve a successful, beautiful aquarium. There is much we can learn from each other. And much we can learn from Nature- which can help us create more successful aquariums.

We also need to be open-minded to new ideas. We need to be able to "get out of our own way" from time to time and look at other ideas and judge them on their merit, not just based upon them being different from what we know and are comfortable with.

I hardly see any controversy in that!

Stay bold. Stay disciplined. Stay diligent. Stay creative. Stay thoughtful...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman 

Tannin Aquatics 

 

 

 

Does your "blackwater aquarium" truly contain "blackwater?" A "case study" in hobby responsibility.

We interrupt our blissful ignorance for a cold whack upside the head...

Do we have something wrong here? 

Seemingly out of nowhere, the idea of creating a deep, dark, mysterious "blackwater aquarium" utilizing botanical materials has become a sort of “thing.” Now, in all fairness, hobbyists have been experimenting with blackwater aquariums for decades.

Yet, I wonder if what we call "blackwater" squares with the ecological description of what it really is, and what characteristics define it.

"Shit, there he goes...!"

I like emphasizing the phrase "botanical-style" aquarium even more than the term "blackwater aquarium", although I have used the two sort of together over the years. 

No one can argue that what we play with in our little hobby niche is NOT a "botanical-style aquairum"- there is little to dispute that.

The whole concept of utilizing these materials to create not only healthy  environments for our fishes, but to create aesthetically fascinating, remarkably faithful functional replications of wild habitats is being given some new life.

It's been amazing so far.

Yet, are these "blackwater aquariums?"

Or, do we just use the term "generically" to describe our love of tinted, tannin-stained water? Regardless, it's an unusual sector of the hobby where a lot of people are starting to play...

The idea of blackwater aquariums, or at least, aquariums with deeply tinted water being seen as a "side show" curiosity is falling by the wayside, as hobbyists are utilizing these types of tanks to keep even fishes which have been with us for decades, and achieving remarkable results...and discovering a new aesthetic and enjoyment in the process. 

And, for almost as long as hobbyists have been playing around with them, there has been confusion, fear, misunderstanding, and downright misinformation on almost every aspect of them! We’re still seeing a lot of that confusion.

It’s important to really try to understand the most simple of questions- like, what exactly is “blackwater”, anyways?

A scientist or ecologist will tell you that blackwater is created by draining from older rocks and soils (in Amazonia, look up the “Guyana Shield”), which result in dissolved fulvic and humic substances, present small amounts of suspended sediment, and characterized by lower pH (4.0 to 6.0) and dissolved elements, yet higher SiO₂ contents. Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, and Calcium concentrations are typically very low in blackwater. Electrical conductivity (ORP) is also lower than in so-called "whitewater" habitats.

Tannins are also imparted into the water by leaves and other botanical materials which accumulate in these habitats.

 

The action of water upon fallen leaves and other botanical-derived materials leaches various compounds out of them, creating the deep tint that many of us are so familiar with. Indeed, this leaching process is analogous to boiling leaves for tea. The leached compounds are both organic and inorganic, and include things like tannin, carbohydrates, organic acids, pectic compounds, minerals, growth hormones, alkaloids, and phenolic compounds.

In summary, natural "blackwaters" typically arise from highly leached tropical environments where most of the soluble elements in the surrounding rocks and soils are rapidly removed by heavy rainfall. Materials such as soils are the primary influence on the composition of blackwater.

Leaves and other materials contribute to the process and appearance in Nature, but are NOT the primary “drivers” of its creation and composition.

 

So, right from the start, it’s evident that natural blackwater is “all about the soils…” Yeah, it’s more a product of geology than just about anything else. 

More confusing, recent studies have found that most of the acidity in black waters can be attributed to dissolved organic substances, and not to dissolved carbonic acid. In other words, organic acids from compounds found in soil and decomposing plant material, as opposed to inorganic sources. Blackwaters are almost always characterized by high percentages of organic acids.

Knowing what we now know from science, does a "blackwater aquarium" as we call it it really contain "blackwater?" Or is this another case of the aquarium hobby running with the easiest definition and basing it off of aesthetics over everything else? You know- the water is dark and tinted, and it looks different than clear water, so...you've got a "blackwater aquarium", right?

Well, you can have stupidly hard, alkaline (and even brackish!) water and have a definite brownish tint, imparted by tannins from leaves and such. Is THAT "blackwater?"

Well, in the aquarium hobby it might be. But not to a scientist. However, we don't run our tanks to please the scientific community, right? They're supposed to be for our enjoyment. Yet, Nature has rules and characteristics that are unavoidable, which define and influence things, wether we like them or not.

I use straight-up, reverse osmosis, deionized water in my tanks, use weird clay/sediment substrates, and add lots of leaves and botanicals to my tanks. The water is generally darkly tinted, and the pH tends to run in the "mid sixes"; carbonate hardness is minimal. 

Is it "blackwater?"

Not by the strict ecological definition. I mean, it has SOME characteristics of natural blackwater, but it's not exact. It's a representation of blackwater characteristics.

Splitting hairs? 

Perhaps. 

Remember, again-blackwater habitats in Nature are strongly influenced by geology.

As aquarists, we tend to over-emphasize the role of leaves and botanicals in creating “blackwater”, because we approach things a bit differently than Nature does.  In an aquarium, we can use a slightly different techniques and materials to achievef the same, or similar results as Nature does.

Again, that's okay.

It starts by utilizing water with little to no carbonate hardness (that’s sort of equivalent to what you get in Nature when the water drains over those weathered rocks and soils).

Yet, if you embrace the scientific description of blackwater based on its chemical/ionic composition, you just have" tannin-stained water", with lower pH and hardness.

NOT "blackwater", by the strict ecological definition, right?

It's a "semantics thing", isn't it? 

Likely.

And I do understand that it's probably not THAT big a deal. However, it IS important for us to not delude ourselves into thinking that just tossing some leaves into an aquarium and admiring the tinted color gives us a "blackwater aquarium," like you see in a lot of the so-called "influencer" videos on social media that pop up regularly now. Just sort of "mailing it in" by touching on the most superficial aspects of the concept.

If we throw around ideas like, "The tank in this video represents a blackwater river in Amazonia" or some other such grandiose pronouncement, we owe it to our audience to either try to explain what this means, what the characteristics of a natural blackwater habitat are, or why our tank, filled with lots aquatic plants, gravel, a few leaves, and water of unspecified chemical characteristics isn't "blackwater." It perhaps, superficially, mimics some aspects of the blackwater environment. It's "inspired by..."

But that's it.

And that's okay, but we have a responsibility to our fellow hobbyists to explain this.

To NOT be more accurate in our description about what we do in this sector-to just "cliche" it and label any tank with tinted water a "blackwater aquarium" runs the risk of simply "dumbing down" what we do, and working against the efforts and progress made by so many hobbyists to create a proper, replicable, and consistent methodology to creating botanical-style aquariums.  And it displays a fundamental ignorance of the work of many researchers and scientists, who help classify and study these habitats.

Botanical-style aquariums. Tanks which incorporate botanical materials to influence some aspects of the water chemistry and biology. That's what we play with. Many times, the result is an aquarium with water that has a brownish tint, perhaps a slightly reduced pH, and an array of decomposing leaves and seed pods. 

It's a methodology to create more natural functioning aquariums. It just happens to result in aquariums which look different- perhaps, superficially like blackwater habitats. 

So yeah, there's that.

I mean, there is no grand, omnipotent "aquarium terminology and standards committee" that is responsible for assuring that a set of agreed upon standards applies in order for an aquarium to be classified as a "backwater aquarium", or whatever. Rather, it's the collective responsibility of all of us who play with tanks that seek to replicate this environment to educate ourselves about natural blackwater habitats, and to not convince ourselves and others that we are working with something that is a precise replication of them. 

Seems like I'm really harping on an issue that is not all that important, right? I beg to differ...Not because I'm trying to be an arrogant jerk, shitting on everyone who throws a specific label on their work. It's not because I know everything (I sure as hell don't!). It's because we are at an important inflection point in hobby history, where the superficial can easily overtake the substantial- simply because it's easier to say whatever, and because fewer and fewer hobbyists seem to be inclined to research stuff or themselves, relying on "that guy online" or wherever to be the ultimate "authority" on whatever he or she is producing a video about.

Damn, I keep coming back to this stuff, don't I? Because I think it's really important that we hold ourselves accountable, It's what will keep the hobby healthy and thriving for years to come.

So, does your "blackwater aquarium" actually contain "blackwater?"

Likely not, at least by the generally agreed-upon ecological description used by scientists. However, by the standards which many in the hobby use to define "blackwater"- it just might be. And that's not a bad thing, of course. Perhaps the qualifiers "blackwater inspired", or "aquarium-hobby-defined blackwater" would be admittedly clunky, yet reasonably appropriate descriptors to use.

Perhaps not.

Does it matter? 

Well, it matters if we are convincing ourselves that we have something that we don't, and if we make dogmatic statements based largely on assumptions. And it matters most of all, to our fishes, whose very lives depend on the quality and diligence we apply to our work.

Regardless, we need to enjoy it for what it is, strive to refine and improve it if it's not what we want, and to understand and share what we do have as accurately and honestly as possible.

Like so many things in nature, the complexity of blackwater habitats is more than what meets the eye. Chemically, biologically, and ecologically, blackwater habitats are a weave of interdependencies- with soil, water, and surrounding forest all functioning together to influence the lives of the fishes which reside within them.

No single factor could provide all of the necessary components for fish populations to thrive. To damage or destroy any one of them could spell disaster for the fishes- and the ecosystem which supports them. It is therefore incumbent upon us to understand, protect, and cherish these precious habitats, for the benefit of future generations. 

Yes, blackwater aquariums have started to move out of their long-held status of "side show" and onto the "main stage" of the freshwater aquarium hobby- attracting new hobbyists not only with their unique aesthetics- but with the promise of tangible benefits for the fishes which we love so much.

It goes way beyond the unique aesthetics. It's about ecology. Function. Process.

And, like so many things in the hobby, patience, understanding, and responsibility are some of the most valuable "ingredients" for success.

Stay diligent. Stay observant. Stay creative. Stay honest. Stay responsible...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Environmental Intimacy" and the Case for Killifishes...

 

Killifishes are beyond fascinating for us. Not only is their life cycle amazing, the fact that they are so closely connected to their environments perhaps more than almost any fishes we've worked with in the hobby is an amazing 'unlock" for so many things we want to do as hobbyists.

And the annual varieties, in particular, are really interesting, because of what I like to call "environmental intimacy"- the ecology and life cycle of the fishes are influenced profoundly by the environments in which they are found.

Literally, the composition of the soils and sediments of these habitats where annual fishes are found are of such importance, that they impact virtually every aspect of their existence- and it all starts with how it impacts the development of their embryos.These fishes inhabit (often temporary) pools, which are of very specific composition. Because of the way rain falls in these habitats, many of these habitats fill and empty with the weather seasonally. 

Yeah- the substrate of these pools has profound influence on the life cycle of these killifishes.

Add some hardy plants, like our fave, Acorus, if you want call it a day. Dose initially and several times a week with PNS bacteria to help establish and maintain the microbiome. For fishes, I'm thinking of species like Epiplatys, Fundulopanchax, or Aphyosemium. And of course, you could try Nothos or South American Annuals, just ditch the plants, because they will be uprooted due to their substrate-spawning habits. Change about 20 percent of the water weekly, and that's about it. No heater required. No "filter" necessary. 

Does it get any easier? It's essentially a more "permanent" play on the way killies have been set up and managed in aquariums for generations. The main difference is that the aquairum in this instance is likely a more faithful representation of the natural habitats from which these fishes come. As we have discussed before, you can "operate" these tanks by slowly draining out water to simulate a "dry" season.

The beauty is that the level of care required for many of these fishes is not that great. Keeping them in such a system helps reinforce many of the fundamental aspects of our botanical-style aquarium practice, including a greater understanding of the relationship between the fishes and their habitats.

Killies are perfect for these types of setups, because they offer us the opportunity to rear the resulting fry in a habitat which is perfect for supplying them with initial natural foods, such as Paramecium, Euglenids, etc. And even adding Cyclops, Daphnia etc. as well is cool, too. "In situ" food culture is a real advantage of this type of setup. Being able to leave the eggs/fry in place and removing the parents is an easy thing to do.

In fact, I have reared many species of killies in these types of setups a number of times from fry all the way to young adults, with almost no supplemental feeding during the first two to three months of their lives, and a growth rate comparable to fry that I've reared in dedicated "nursery" tanks with a lot of food.

Yeah, this is just an evolved, reimagined version of the "jungle tanks" of my youth, only instead of ridiculously dense plant growth, we have less emphasis on plants, and more liberal use of rich substrates and botanical materials. 

The main "theme" of the killifish hobby, at least in my opinion as a sort of "peripheral" killie keeper, has been simply to breed them and maintain captive populations of them. 

A super noble goal, of course, yet rather "one dimensional", in my opinion. The "formula" is straightforward: Keep them in small aquariums filled with spawning mops, containers of peat moss, and maybe a few floating plants. Useful, efficient, highly functional, and..well...boring.

The idea of controlled breeding in peat-filled containers is just one way to approach their care. Imagine the interesting types of "permanent setups" you could create by looking more closely at the actual physical/chemical/environmental aspects of their natural habitats and attempting to replicate them in the aquarium.

Yeah. As I've mentioned before, the habitats themselves are the key, IMHO, to unlocking more interest in these amazing fishes! 

"Environmental Intimacy" is a very interesting phenomenon...And I think it can pull killies out of the hobby "backwaters" they inhabit. I think that it's the "shot in the arm" that the hobby needs to make 'em more popular! 

Not convinced, you old-school killie people?

Hear me out...

Arguments abound online in killifish forums with hobbyists preferring all sorts of ways to popularize these rather under-appreciated fishes, and what many call a "moribund" sector of the aquarium hobby, seemingly lacking a significant influx of new hobbyists. So, why not solve this "problem" by working on "the whole picture" of killifish care?

The inspiration is right in front of us. The information about them is abundant.

Many killifish enthusiasts have visited the wild habitats of killies and documented information about the ecosystems in which they are found, so why not use this data to replicate this most interesting, yet remarkably under-represented aspect of the killie realm?

Think of what our community, which has a tremendous amount of experience with unique aspects of habitat replication, can bring to the table here!

I've already started doing some of this type of work with South American annual killifishes, keeping them in my "Urban Igapo" habitat replications in "wet/dry" cycles, and the results have been really interesting! Spawning annual fishes in an aquarium environment which more realistically and accurately represents the natural habitats from which they have evolved in over eons is truly exciting!

And of course, a vast variety of killifish species inhabit leaf-strewn, sediment-laden bodies of water.

Bodies of water which offer habitat "enrichment", physical structure, and chemical influence. Bodies of water which our community is quite "fluent" at replicating in the aquarium. Leaves, botanical materials, and sediments are right up our proverbial "alley", right?

Sediments and substrates and leaves...again!

Yeah, I suspect that we would do well to work with sediments, particularly sediments mixed with finely-crushed botanical materials like leaves. These materials will, of course, not only visually tint the water snd add some turbidity, they'll very accurately represent some of the chemical aspects of the natural habitats, too.

 

And of course, Africa has some other very compelling environments that would be equally fascinating to replicate in our aquaria. Environments seldom replicated in the hobby:

Tiny jungle streams, vernal pools, and... MUD PUDDLES!

Yes, mud puddles! Now, would it be possible to recreate a mud puddle in an aquarium to any degree? I think so! We've more-or-less done this already, right?

And what better fishes to use as "subjects" for this unique biotope-inspired work than killifishes?

I mean, for the hardcore biotope enthusiast, messing around with aquariums simulating the various habitats in which killies alone are found could be a lifelong obsession!

 

Imagine how cool it would be to delve into the world of killies...By working with "the whole picture" of their world?

To me, the reasons above and many others have kept them "top of mind" for me over the years, even though I may not always have kept them consistently.Their relative difficulty to obtain has sort of added to the "mystique" for me. That and the fact that they typically will not have "common names", and are generally referred to by their scientific name, followed by a geographic locale and some other numbers makes them all the more alluring to me!

Hmm...and "geographic locales" never scared anyone...They're like clues-keys to treasure troves of information that can unlock many secrets, right?

Yet, I digress... these arcane names don't help in the splashy, superficial "Insta world" of social media that we've created in the 21st century, I admit. When I see discussions on killie forums lamenting the fact that these fishes aren't more popular to newer hobbyists these days, it's kind of easy to see wyt, right?

I mean, shit- there's like 0.000034% chance that a fish with a name like "Austrolebias arachan, UYRT 2015-04" is EVER gonna knock off the Cardinal Tetra or Angelfish and crack the "Hot 1,000" list of the most popular aquarium fishes, right? 

Yet, as I just mentioned, the precise Latin descriptors and type localities bely a secret to those who do the work...they give us information of incalculable value about the specific biotope/habitat from where the fish hails from. And to those of us who strive to replicate- on many levels- the wild habitats from which our fishes come from, this stuff is pure GOLD! 

(Chromaphyosemion bivittatum, pic by Mike PA Calnun)

And of course, one of the things I like best about killifishes is that many come from habitats that would be perfect for us to replicate with our skills and interest.

Yes, they've been kept by avid enthusiasts for a century or more, but there are still so many secrets to unlock, practices to perfect. I think that the killifish hobby is really great at what they do, but it's a classic case of "not seeing the forest for the trees!"  The answer to getting these amazing fishes more into the mainstream of the hobby AND bringing in new enthusiasts at the same time is right in front of our eyes!

And there ARE problems that even the hardcore "elders" of this fascinating niche deal with. Problems that could maybe use a dose of this "new thinking."

I was reading about the difficulties that some hobbyists have had over the years incubating annual and other killie eggs in peat moss, and I couldn't help but reflect back on the idea that more acidic substrates tend to inhibit development of Nothobranchius embryos, according to some researchers... So, perhaps incubating Nothos eggs in other materials, like the aforementioned smectite and perhaps mud, would yield more consistent, reliable results? 

Perhaps the (frustrating to many hobbyists) process of diapause could be overcome by incubating eggs in a material which more closely resembles the substrate in which they are found in Nature? Maybe?

Okay, maybe I'm heading off into territory which I'm not really qualified nor knowledgeable enough to comment on, and many serious killie keepers are likely rolling their eyes at me(or worse) right now- but it DOES make you wonder a bit, right? I mean, could there be some merit to questioning this stuff?

Why question a technique and the use of a material which experienced killifish fanciers have been utilizing for the better part of the century, with pretty damn good results, right?

Well, I can't help but at least wonder why peat has been used as the incubation media of choice for annual killies for so long ("...'cause it works, you fucking moron!")? I mean, is it because its physical moisture retention characteristics resemble, at least superficially, those of the substrates in which annual killie eggs are found? Could it be because it's cheap and readily available? Because it works "well enough" and that consistent results may really duplicated by the widest variety of hobbyists? 

Well, likely all of the above. However...

Can we use something that works even better? IS there something that works better? I mean, peat is pretty acidic, right? (like, pH 4.4), and we've already seen scientific work which indicated that many Nothos are not found in ponds with highly acidic substrates, so...

"Do the work, Fellman."

Of course, I need to. I will.

Only further research -by self-appointed prognosticators like me- and other, far more talented/experienced/qualified hobbyists than I will determine if this is a good idea. Now, I suppose I need to at least explain my rationale for looking at stuff like this more critically..

I often think about my predilection for questioning stuff that's long been held dear in the hobby, and wonder why I think the way I do.  I mean, it's not like I'm some well-informed genius or something. I'm not trying to be a hell-raiser (well, occasionally...😆).

Creating aquariums that specifically aim to replicate the function of particular habitats of some of these species is simply beyond just an "under-served" area of the hobby. It's one which YOU could make very useful contributions to with a little research and some cool documented work!

I couldn't think of a better way to increase awareness within the hobby and outside of it about an amazing group of fishes, and the awe-inspiring natural habitats from which they come. Habitats which are increasingly endangered by mankind's encroachments and activities.

Habitats which happen to need our protection more than ever!

Habitats for which we can create a greater appreciation and understanding of by attempting to replicate them in the aquarium in function and form! 

What better outcome for the fishes, the hobby, and the planet-could there be than that? 

And of course, the case for working with killifishes is made easily when we talk about things in this context. Yet, a whole world of possibilities awaits with the total array of tropical fishes- and information about them- now at our disposal.

Yeah, studying the idea of "environmental intimacy" is something that I think could  really impact the hobby in a positive way. It's one of the concepts that ties in so well with what we do in the natural botanical-style aquairum world. And the hobby has never been in a better position to explore ideas like this than it is now...

Let's get cracking!

Stay enthusiastic. Stay brave. Stay curious. Stay dedicated...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

 

 

 

What's the big deal about substrates?

Of all the fun topics in botanical-style aquarium keeping, few hold my interest as much as substrates.

I imagine the substrate as this magical place which fuels all sorts of processes within our aquariums, and that Nature tends to it in the most effective and judicious manner. 

Yeah, I'm a bit of a "substrate romantic", I suppose.😆

Particularly in transitional habitats, like flooded forests, etc. the composition and characteristics of the substrate plays a huge role in the ecology of the aquatic habitat. The presence of a lot of soils, clays, and sediments in these substrates, as opposed to just sand, creates a habitat which provides a lot of opportunity for organisms to thrive.

The substrates are not just "the bottom." 

They are diverse harbors of life, ranging from fungal and biofilm mats, to algae, to epiphytic plants. Decomposing leaves, seed pods, and tree branches compose the substrate for a complex web of life which helps the fishes we're so fascinated by to flourish. And, if you look at them objectively and carefully, they are beautiful.

Detritus ("Mulm") located in the sediments is the major source of energy and/or nutrients for many of these dynamic aquatic habitats. The bacteria which perform all the important chemical reactions, such as converting ammonia to nitrite, nitrates to nitrogen, releasing bound-up nutrients, neutralizing hydrogen sulfide, etc. will obtain  essential nutrients from the detritus (this is what autotrophic bacteria that metabolize ammonia/ammonium or hydrogen sulfide for energy do).

These bacteria may also "harvest" those nutrients, as well as metabolize (aerobically or anaerobically) the organic compounds present in the detritus for energy, just like heterotrophs do.

The processing of nutrients in the aquarium is a fascinating one; a real "partnership" between a wide variety of aquatic organisms.

Yes, there is a lot of amazing biological function occurring in these layers. And of course, fostering this dynamic in the aquarium is one of the things we love the most. It's all part of our vision for the modern, botanical-style aquarium.

Now, hobbyists have played with deep sand beds and mixes of various materials in aquariums for many years, and knowledgable proponents of natural aquarium management, such as Diane Walstad, have discussed the merits of such features in far more detail, and with a competency that I could only dream of! That being said, I think the time has never been better to experiment with this stuff!

Again, we're talking about utilizing a wider variety of materials than just sand, so the dynamics are quite different, offering unique functions, processes, and potential benefits.

I've been thinking through further refinements of the "deep botanical bed"/sand substrate relationship. I've been spending a lot of time over the years researching natural aquatic systems and contemplating how we can translate some of this stuff into our closed system aquaria.

Before we talk about the actual substrate materials again, let's think about the processes that we would like to foster in a substrate, and the potential negatives that may be of concern to those of us who play with botanicals in our substrate configurations

 One of the things that many hobbyists ponder when we contemplate creating deep, botanical-heavy substrates, consisting of leaves, sand, and other botanical materials is the buildup of hydrogen sulfide, CO2, and other undesirable compounds within the substrate.

Well, it does make sense that if you have a large amount of decomposing material in an aquarium, that some of these compounds are going to accumulate in heavily-"active" substrates. Now, the big "bogeyman" that we all seem to zero in on in our "sum of all fears" scenarios is hydrogen sulfide, which results from bacterial breakdown of organic matter in the total absence of oxygen.

Let's think about this for just a second.

In a botanical bed with materials placed on the substrate, or loosely mixed into the top layers, will it all "pack down" enough to the point where there is a complete lack of oxygen and we develop a significant amount of this reviled compound in our tanks? I think that we're more likely to see some oxygen in this layer of materials, and I can't help but speculate- and yeah, it IS just speculation- that actual de-nitirifcation (nitrate reduction), which lowers nitrates while producing free nitrogen, might actually be able to occur in a "deep botanical" bed.

And it's certainly possible to have denitrification without dangerous hydrogen sulfide levels. As long as even very small amounts of oxygen and nitrates can penetrate into the substrate, this will not become an issue for most systems. I have yet to see a botanical-style aquarium where the material has become so "compacted" as to appear to have no circulation whatsoever within the botanical layer.

Now, sure, I'm not a scientist, and I base this on close visual inspection of numerous aquariums, and the basic chemical tests I've run on my systems under a variety of circumstances. As one who has made it a point to keep my botanical-style aquariums in operation for very extended time frames, I think this is significant. The "bad" side effects we're talking about should manifest over these longer time frames...and they just haven't.

We need to look at substrates literally as an aquatic organism. And, like aggregations of organisms, they may be diverse, both morphologically and ecologically. They're a dynamic, functional part of the miniature ecosystems we create in our aquariums. We've used the "basic" stuff for a generation. It's time to open up our minds to a few new ideas. To rethink substrate. To reconsider why we incorporate substrate, and what we use.

What kinds of materials can we employ to create more "functional" substrates (which just happen to look cool, too?). What kinds of functions and benefits can we hope to recreate in the confines of our aquariums?

 

First off, think beyond just sands...or anything resembling "conventional" aquarium substrate. Think about what goes on in the benthic (bottom) regions in the natural habitats we love, and what benefits or support the materials which aggregate there provide for the organisms within the ecosystem.

Understand that the substrate is a dynamic, extremely important part of the aquarium, too. And what we construct our substrate with, and how we manage it, is of profound importance to our fishes!

Fostering fungal growth, as well as other microorganisms and small crustaceans, should be a huge component of the "why" we do this. These organisms, as we've discussed repeatedly, form a part of the "food chain" within our captive ecosystems, and offer huge benefits to the aquarium not only as potential supplemental nutrition for fishes, but as a means to process and export nutrients from within the botanical-style aquarium.

 

So, yeah, in summary- the substrate plays a huge role in the function of a botanical-style aquarium. We can create a "facility" with substrate materials which provides not only unique aesthetics- it provides priceless benefits: Production of supplemental nutrition for our fishes, and nutrient processing via a self-generating population of creatures that compliment, indeed, create the biodiversity in our systems on a more-or-less continuous basis.

True "functional aesthetics!"

A combination of finely crushed leaves, bits of botanicals, small twigs, etc. can form the basis for a more "biologically active" and even productive substrate. As these materials break down, they are colonized by fungi and biofilms, and impart  tannins, lignin, and other sources of carbon into the water to fuel a variety of microbial growth. 

As you might have gathered by now, we are an advocate of some rather "unconventional" substrate materials, particularly a classification what we call "Sedimented Substrates." 

Yeah, that'd be ours. NatureBase "Igapo", "Varzea", and the upcoming "Mangal", "Floresta" and "Selagor", are examples of substrates which have a lot of sediments and clays in their formulation. These substrates realistically replicate the composition, function, and look of soils which are found in many tropical aquatic habitats.

In fact, most of our NatureBase substrates have a significant percentage of clays and sediments in their formulations. These materials have typically been something that aquarists have avoided, because they will cloud the water for a while, and often impart a bit of color. Like, that's a problem? We also have some botanical components in a few of our substrates, because they are intended to be "terrestrial" substrates for a while before being flooded...and when this stuff is first wetted, some of it will float. And that means that you're going to have to net it out, or let your filter take it out.

You simply won't have that "issue" with your typical bag of aquarium sand!

You can mix them with any of the above-mentioned commercially-available sands, or use them alone. You can gradually add water (as in our "Urban Igapo" concept), or simply fill your tank form day one. Expect significant cloudiness for several days as the materials settle out, though. Don't rinse these substrates...just put them to work right away.

Now, although you can (and should) play with these substrates "wet" from the start, I'd be remiss if I didn't remind you again that the igapo and varzea substrates were initially intended to be "terrestrial" for a period of time, to get the grasses and plants going, and then inundated.  

 

So, yeah, you'll have to make a mental shift to appreciate a different look and function. And many hobbyists simply can't handle that. We've been up front with this stuff since these products were released, to ward off the, "I added NatureBase to my tank and it looks like a cloudy mess! This stuff is SHIT!" type of emails that inevitably come when people don't read up first before they purchase the stuff.  

And the warning and mental shift indoctrinations have worked. No one has freaked out.

Instead, we're hearing how incredibly natural these aquariums look, and how the biological diversity and stability of these tanks are.

What goes on in an aquarium with sediments, botanicals- or leaves, in this instance as the total  "substrate" or "hardscape", as the case may be, is that they become the basis for biological activity in the tank. As we have discussed a million times here, as botanicals break down, they recruit bacteria, fungi, and other organisms on their surfaces.

That's the "big deal" about substrates.

Mix it up. Play with sediments, crushed leaves, broken bits of botanicals..All sorts of natural "stuff" which would previously have been considered "dirty" and "bad for long term maintenance" in almost anyone's book. Look at the advantages that can be realized, instead of the potential risks involved in experimenting.

Open your mind up to accept the look and function- and the "aesthetic challenges" of using non-traditional materials in your substrates. 

Stay creative. Stay excited. Stay bold. Stay studious...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

 

Filtration and the Botanical-Style Aquarium...

When we were first indoctrinated into the aquarium hobby, we were typically advised to purchase an aquarium, a heater, and a filter...

A "filter." 

Yup.

One of the more "basic" components of an aquarium is filtration. And with filtration, you have the collateral effect of water movement in the aquarium. This is a topic to which we as aquarists typically give modest amounts of thought, other than determining what type/size of filter to use in our tank. Then, it's on to sexier topics, like "Which piece of Manzanita do I use...?" 

We spend a great deal of time contemplating the look and feel of our botanical-syle aquariums, and wrapping our head around the various "mental shifts" necessary to really appreciate and embrace this approach...You know- learning not to fear the tinted water, decomposing botanical materials, biofilm, detritus, etc.- all that stuff.

And that's really great. It's foundational.

However, I must admit that another one of the "foundational" things we don't talk about as much as we should is filtration. We receive a surprisingly large number of questions on the topic.

Yeah, the ubiquitous, necessary, and highly important function of filtration in our aquariums is definitely something we, as lovers of leaves and botanicals, need to give a little thought to when we set up our systems. 

 

The reality is that, in a botanical-style natural aquarium, filtration and water movement are influential and pretty important in the grand scheme of things. As with any aquarium, it's important to apply filtration that keeps up with the specific needs of your tank and its inhabitants. Of course, with the heavily botanical-influenced aquarium, there is the added consideration of all of those leaves and pods and such.

These items not only are part of the "hardscape"- their ephemeral nature makes them a component of the bioload of the system- and due consideration needs to be paid to their impact on the closed system's environment. Remember, leaves, seed pods, and the like are "ephemeral"in many respects, slowly decomposing and breaking down, releasing not only "bits and pieces", but organic materials as well. 

That's where filtration comes in.

Now, Nature provides Her own form of "filtration" in the form of the nitrogen cycle and the bacteria which accompany it. Bacterial biofilms- the bane of many a new aquarist- are actually a true benefit because of what they are comprised of (bacteria, hello!), and for the potential supplemental food source they become...Oh, I"m digressing, yes. And of course, fungal growth on the botanicals also serves to physically break down and "process" some of the botanical materials and their accompanying organics from the water column.

 

Now, I'm no filter "expert." I'm not an aquarium "gearhead."  In fact, I really don't care much for the gear. It neither excites me or stimulates ideas for me. I mean, I DO like reef gear, but overall, it's not my hobby obsession. I view it as something necessary to operate an aquarium.

Shit, Sounds like I'm the PERFECT guy to write a piece on filters, right? My thoughts on this topic are based, like everything I write- on my personal experience and ideas, laced with a healthy dose of "opinions" and stubbornness... 🤔

So, here's the "long and the short" of this topic:

You can use just about any type of filter available in the hobby on your botanical-style blackwater/brackish aquarium.

The real considerations, IMHO, are: A) where in the water column you are bringing in water, and b) Where the outputs are aimed. Oh, and C) what media you're using in the filter.

So, let's look a bit closer. 

I have used all sorts of filter systems on my BWBS style systems over the years, but the ones that I tend to use will surprise you...maybe. Maybe not.

As a reefer, I love my tanks with built in overflows and sumps.

I love sumps.

I love them because:

a) You don't see any of the ugly shit (heaters, etc.) in the tank proper. Oh, and even that damn "glassware"- yes, I know that YOU may not think they're ugly, but I'm no fan of them as they are now. They completely and utterly suck in every way, in my humble opinion. I hate them. Why? We can have that discussion some other time, okay?😳

b) Sumps add water volume to your tank. As the sayings goes, "Dilution is the solution to pollution"- and stability! 

c) Sumps provide an area where you can keep filter media, biological media, botanicals, wood, etc. to influence environmental conditions in the display aquarium. Like, if you just hate the look of leaves and decomposing stuff in your display, but love the blackwater look and biodiversity, sumps are a good choice. No, actually- they're a great choice!

d) They rely on surface overflow "weirs" to supply water. Overflow weirs skim water from the surface, removing the film which accumulates and can interfere with gas exchange...Important when you have lots of botanicals in your tank breaking down, right?

So-called "all-in-one" tanks, like my Innovative Marine "Fusion Lagoon" system, or my Ultum Nature Systems AIOs, offer a great "hybrid" of a "sump" (in this case, a rear-mounted external filter compartment) and an external filter, making an affordable, simple, aesthetically clean, easy-to-maintain-and-operate system.

Now, I realize that not everyone wants the expense, logistics, challenges, and additional considerations (return pumps, space under the tank, etc.) which go along with the use of sumps. I also realize that the majority of freshwater hobbyists utilize glass aquariums without overflows and such, so there are numerous other options.

And of course you can employ those ubiquitous, ever-popular canister filters!

 

Shit, canister filters necessitate the need for glassware, right? Arrghhhh.... 

IMHO, you should direct the return from canister filters near the surface, to create agitation and to facilitate gas exchange. Unlike pure planted aquariums, where there is a definite benefit from using those damn "Lily Pipes" and such to return water well below the surface to preserve CO2, I personally believe that heavily-stocked botanical-style aquariums benefit from this surface agitation.

Oh, did I mention that I hate those pipes? Just wanted to make sure on more time...

To be clear- I hate them...😆

And yeah, I've broken a bunch over the years...

You can return some of the water towards the lower levels of the tank to keep things "stirred up" just a bit, without blowing shit all over the tank. (that's a technical term, by the way).

And of course, outside power filters do the same thing- keep everything relatively neat and tidy, and potentially outside of the tank if you like.

Oh, and sponge filters are great- and those so-called "Matten Filters", too- because they are primarily biological filters and are relatively easy to hide in displays...

Now, I have spent a fair amount of time alleviating the fears of you weirdos who don't want to see leaves and pods and such in your tank physically by explaining that you can just toss these things into your filter or sump! And of course, it goes without saying that you can utilize all of these filters with the botanicals present in the display, as well, of course.

Like, duh.

The real "issue", if you want to call it that- with filtration in regards to our botanical-style aquariums is what media you utilize. Again, I call on my reef-keeping experience to tell you that I am a huge fan of activated carbon. I use it on every tank I set up- even the ones with the gnarliest (yes, it's a word- I'm from L.A.-we talk that way. It's a word. Deal with it.), darkest "tint"  imaginable. 

I love activated carbon.

 

"Carbon? WTF Fellman?"

Yes, carbon can remove some of the tint and probably even some of the valued humic substances and other beneficial compounds exuded by botanicals. It's not selective. That being said, it also can remove impurities, like volatile dissolved organic compounds, urea, some metals, etc. It's valuable stuff.

The key is to just not overdo it.

Of course, if you want leaves and such in your tank, but not the tint- as we've discussed many times- just use the 'recommendedl" dose of carbon and you have the best of both worlds- at least, aesthetically.

Better as chemical filtration media would be stuff like specialized ion-exchnage or "organic scavenger resins" and zeolites- stuff which requires more research, trial and error, and testing. But it is possible, at least in theory, to incorporate filtration media which removes the undesirable pollutants and retains the desired humic substances and tannins. Oh, and proper biological function in low pH systems, fostering the "biome" of these tanks.

I like the"Poly Filter" pad, by Poly BioMarine, as it removes organics and can remove stuff like ammonia even in low pH systems. In my years of working with this stuff, I have not seen it remove substantial amounts of the "tint" in the water caused by tannins from botanicals. This is hardly a scientific assessment of the stuff, but I believe in it. I've used it for decades in pretty much every type of aquarium- fresh, brackish, reef- that I've maintained with excellent results. 

And back to those "specialized resins" and such...

These things are are all something we will see more of in the future...trust me. There are numerous materials out there, used in other water purification work , that will definitely work with our aquariums.

In the mean time, you can continue use materials like carbon, Purigen, etc. to do the trick; just be aware of the way they work and what they will do. If you go "full power" (ie; the typical manufacturers' recommended "dose"), you'll have a really clear tank- if that's what you want.

Nonetheless, I adore Seachem Purigen.

It's a "macro-porous synthetic polymer" (aka "organic scavenging resin") that removes soluble and insoluble impurities from water by adsorption. In other words, it cleans up stuff.

Like, really well.

I think every aquarist should have Purigen in their "box of fish stuff...not just for regular use, but for...well...emergencies and stuff. It's really good stuff.

Yeah, you could use no filter, or just aeration, or even just employing a surface skimmer- and no other filter. The skimmer would facilitate gas exchange and provide some aeration.

The air/water interface is the "boundary" (technically called the "surface micro layer" by scientists) where all exchange occurs between the atmosphere and the aquatic environment. Interestingly, the The chemical, physical, and biological properties of the SML can differ significantly from the water just a few centimeters beneath the surface! 

In Nature, the concentration of these surface compounds depends on the source of the nutrients, as well as weather, like rain and wind. These organic compounds on the surface impact the the very physical and light admittance properties on the air/water interface. 

As aquarists, the biggest concern is that the surface film can interfere with gas exchange.

Oh, and it looks like shit, right? 

Or does it? I mean, we embrace turbid water and detritus and stuff, so why not accept some surface film? 

Well, we could. However, keep in mind the whole "gas exchange" thing. 

Now, you would have to obey the fundamental principles of aquarium management...water exchanges, proper stocking, careful feeding, etc. However, you can do this; I've done it many times.

We've especially done this with the "Urban Igapo" type of tanks, which rely on the biotia in the tank as a result of the substrate, vegetation, and botanicals. It's a throwback, if you will, to the earliest days of the aquarium hobby, when process and active management performed many of the same functions as filtration does today.

 

When we consider the aquarium itself as a living, breathing entity- one which has levels of life forms performing the biological "filtration" function, such bold experiments and concepts aren't all that weird, right?

This is a real "open source" component of what we do. An invitation and opportunity for YOU- the working aquarist- to make a big impact on the hobby, fostering benefits perhaps as yet not understood...

Is there one "best" filtration method?

Of course not.

So, yeah- use what works for you, benefits your fishes, and creates the best outcomes for them. There are so many approaches, any of which could work for you. 

The concept of filtration is constantly evolving. To me, besides the obvious benefits of utilizing media which can remove impurities and organics on a continuous basis from the aquarium, the most important ones are circulation and gas exchange/aeration.

The Botanical-Style Aquarium as The "Filter"

Okay, back to that thought we just hit on...

So, my thinking has been that you could actually use the tank itself and the botanical environment as the"biological filter", and simply use aeration/surface skimming and/or circulation pumps to facilitate the gas exchange. Not revolutionary, of course- but an idea that's often overlooked today.

The botanical materials present in our systems provide enormous surface area upon which beneficial bacterial biofilms and fungal growths can colonize. These life forms utilize the organic compounds present in the water as a nutritional source.

Oh, the part about the biofilms and fungal growths sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Let's talk about our buddies, the biofilms, just a bit more. One more time. Because nothing seems as contrary to many hobbyists than to sing the praises of these gooey-looking strands of bacterial goodness!

Structurally, biofilms are surprisingly strong structures, which offer their colonial members "on-board" nutritional sources, exchange of metabolites, protection, and cellular communication. They form extremely rapidly on just about any hard surface that is submerged in water.

When I see aquarium work in which biofilms are considered a "nuisance", and suggestions that it can be eliminated by "reducing nutrients" in the aquarium, I usually cringe. Mainly, because no matter what you do, biofilms are ubiquitous, and always present in our aquariums. We may not see the famous long, stringy "snot" of our nightmares, but the reality is that they're present in our tanks regardless.

The other reality is that biofilms are something that we as aquarists typically fear because of the way they look. In and of themselves, biofilms are not harmful to our fishes. They function not only as a means to sequester and process nutrients ( a "filter" of sorts?), they also represent a beneficial food source for fishes.

Now, look, I can see rare scenarios where massive amounts of biofilms (relative to the water volume of the aquarium) can consume significant quantities of oxygen and be problematic for the fishes which reside in your tank. These explosions in biofilm growth are usually the result of adding too much botanical material too quickly to the aquarium. They're excaserbated by insufficient oxygenation/circulation within the aquarium.

These are very unusual circumstances, resulting from a combination of missteps by the aquarist.

Typically, however, biofilms are far more beneficial that they are reven remotely detrimental to our aquariums.

Nutrients in the water column, even when in low concentrations, are delivered to the biofilm through the complex system of water channels, where they are adsorbed into the biofilm matrix, where they become available to the individual cells.  Some biologists feel that this efficient method of gathering energy might be a major evolutionary advantage for biofilms which live in particularly in turbulent ecosystems, like streams, (or aquariums, right?) with significant flow, where nutrient concentrations are typically lower and quite widely dispersed.

Biofilms have been used successfully in water/wastewater treatment for well over 100 years! In such filtration systems the filter medium (typically, sand) offers a tremendous amount of surface area for the microbes to attach to, and to feed upon the organic material in the water being treated. The formation of biofilms upon the "media" consume the undesirable organics in the water, effectively "filtering" it!

Biofilm acts as an adsorbent layer, in which organic materials and other nutrients are concentrated from the water column. As you might suspect, higher nutrient concentrations tend to produce biofilms that are thicker and denser than those grown in low nutrient concentrations.

Those biofilms which grow in higher flow environments, like streams, rivers, or areas exposed to wave action, tend to be denser in their morphology. These biofilms tend to form long, stringy filaments or "streamers",which point in the direction of the flow. These biofilms are characterized by characteristic known as  "viscoelasticity."This means that they are flexible, and stretch out significantly in higher flow rate environments, and contract once again when the velocity of the flow is reduced.

Okay, that's probably way more than you want to know about the physiology of biofilms! Regardless, it's important for us as botanical-style aquarists to have at least a rudimentary understanding of these often misunderstood, incredibly useful, and entirely under-appreciated life forms.

And the whole idea of facilitating a microbiome in our aquariums is predicated upon supplying a quantity of botanical materials- specifically, leaf litter, for the beneficial organisms to colonize and begin the decomposition process. An interesting study I found by Mehering, et. al (2014) on the nutrient sequestration caused by leaf litter yielded this interesting little passage:

"During leaf litter decomposition, microbial biomass and accumulated inorganic materials immobilize and retain nutrients, and therefore, both biotic and abiotic drivers may influence detrital nutrient content."

The study determined that leaves such as oak "immobilized" nitrogen. Generally thinking, it is thought that leaf litter acts as a "sink" for nutrients over time in aquatic ecosystems.

Oh, and one more thing about leaves and their resulting detritus in tropical streams: Ecologists strongly believe that microbial colonized detritus is a more palatable and nutritious food source for detritivores than uncolonized dead leaves. The microbial growth which occurs on the leaves and their resulting detritus increases the nutritional quality of leaf detritus, because the microbial biomass on the leaves is more digestible than the leaves themselves (because of lignin, etc.).

Okay, great. I've just talked about decomposing leaves and stuff for like the 11,000th time in "The Tint"; so...where does this leave us, in terms of how we want to run our aquariums?

Let's summarize:

1) Add a significant amount of leaf litter, twigs, and botanicals to your aquarium as part of the substrate.

2) Allow biofilms and fungal growths to proliferate.

3) Feed your fishes well. It's actually "feeding the aquarium!"

4) Don't go crazy siphoning out every bit of detritus.

Let's look at each of these points in a bit more detail.

First, make liberal use of leaf litter in your aquarium. I'd build up a layer anywhere from 1"-4" of leaves. Yeah, I know- that's a lot of leaves. Initially, you'll have a big old layer of leaves, recruiting biofilms and fungal growths on their surfaces. Ultimately, it will decompose, creating a sort of "mulch" on the bottom of your aquarium, rich in detritus, providing an excellent place for your fishes to forage among. 

Allow a fair amount of indirect circulation over the top of your leaf litter bed. This will ensure oxygenation, and allow the organisms within the litter bed to receive an influx of water (and thus, the dissolved organics they utilize). Sure, some of the leaves might blow around from time to time- just like what happens in Nature. It's no big deal- really!

The idea of allowing biofilms and fungal growths to colonize your leaves and botanicals, and to proliferate upon them simply needs to be accepted as fundamental to botanical-style aquarium keeping. These organisms, which comprise the biome of our aquariums, are the most important "components" of the ecosystems which our aquariums are.

It means adopting a different outlook, accepting a different, yet very beautiful aesthetic. It's about listening to Nature instead of the asshole on Instagram with the flashy, gadget-driven tank. It's not always fun at first for some, and it initially seems like you're somehow doing things wrong.

It's about faith. Faith in Mother Nature, who's been doing this stuff for eons.

It's about nuance.

It's about looking at things a bit different that we've been "programmed" to do in the aquarium hobby for so long. It's about not being afraid to question the reasons why we do things a certain way in the hobby, and to seek ways to evolve and change practices for the benefits of our fishes. 

It takes time to grasp this stuff. However, as with so many things that we talk about here, it's not .revolutionary...it's simply an evolution in thinking about how we conceive, set up, and manage our aquariums. 

And the idea of "filtration" is as much about incorporating natural processes into our aquariums as it is about employing some piece of gear, perhaps more so.

Think about that the next time you consider what type of "filter" to employ in your next aquarium.

Stay thoughtful. Stay creative. Stay bold. Stay diligent...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

 

 

A marriage of convenience?

One of the great developments in the botanical-style aquarium world has been the awareness that everyone's work has brought to tangential areas of interest, like the ecology of wild habitats where our fishes come from. 

The idea of biotope aquariums is well-covered territory in the hobby. I really don't need to discuss the whole concept with you. However, the idea of 'biotope" or "biotope-inspired" aquariums should be, in my humble opinion, more than just trying to capture the look of a habitat. IMHO, the very finest biotope-inspired systems foster the function as much as the aesthetics.

And, when we approach recreating some of these habitats from a "function forward" approach, as opposed to just trying to recreate the look, not only do you create interesting "operational parameters", you get many unusual benefits as well- some of which are analogous to those which the natural environment offers to the organisms which reside there. And of course, the aesthetics often look substantially different than what you get when you just go "diorama mode."

We have discussed many aspects of these unique habitats and how we as aquarists can replicate aspects of them to create unique and highly functional aquariums for the fishes that we keep.

SPOILER ALERT: You can have a great looking, almost "artistic" aquascape and still embrace and mimic natural functions.

Yeah, we've talked a lot about them, and we've seen many of you go on to successfully recreate some of them. And they are as beautiful as they are functional. And the "functional" aspect is, in my opinion, as compelling- if not, even more so- than the mere sexy aesthetics of these habitats. Just thinking about the dynamics, fish adaptations, and components of these systems can really get your creative juices flowing!

I suppose that we can look at the use of botanicals in our aquariums from two approaches, really:

*Purely aesthetic

*Purely functional

That sounds right; however, I think that the two go hand in hand.

A "marriage of convenience", if you will.

Huh?

In the case of botanicals, you can't ever lose sight of the fact that you're adding a piece of natural material into your closed ecosystem. These materials WILL impact water chemistry, biological activity...oh, and the "structure" of your aquascape.

I have coined (well, I like to arrogantly THINK that I coined it-perhaps I simply appropriated it from somewhere; not certain...) the term "functional aesthetics" to describe this dichotomy. That is: This stuff gives your tank a certain look (in terms of visual "hardscape" and the color it imparts to the water), while impacting the TDS, pH, etc.

And this idea is not really new, in terms of tangible affects of adding "stuff" to our tanks. I mean, every time we add a piece of wood to our aquarium, there is some leaching of tannins and other compounds into the water. Lovers of "crystal-clear, blue-white water" may do everything in their power to neutralize the impact immediately via activated carbon or other chemical filtration media, but the fact is, there is an impact caused by these materials.

We're seeing more and more hobbyists embrace this concept\, and I think it's doing more than just making a statement or inspiring others. It's helping to open up minds, opinions, and call some attention to the unique wild habitats of our aquarium fishes- some of which face grave threats from man's interventions. This is perhaps the ultimate benefit of embracing the idea of more naturally-functioning and appearing aquariums- "biotope" and otherwise.

Rather than inspiring hobbyists to simply mimic other people's tanks, they help call attention to the natural habitats themselves, and encourage aquarists to find out more about them; how they work, what is happening in them, etc. And if that encourages some people to set up a botanical-style aquarium-despite their initial "aversion" to the "unconventional" aesthetic- it's a victory not only for the hobby- but for Nature as well.

The idea of "function first" aquariums, with the cool aesthetics as a great "dividend"of this approach, is, in my opinion, a fundamental shift in aquarium keeping.

And when you drill down on it, what exactly is the purpose of an aquascape in the aquarium...besides aesthetics? Well, it's to provide fishes with a comfortable environment that makes them feel "at home", right?

Exactly...so when was the last time you really looked into where your fishes live- or should I say, "how they live" - in the habitats from which they come?

Well first off...unless you're talking about large, ocean going fishes, or fishes that live in enormous schools, like herring or smelt- most fishes like structure. Structure provides a lot of things- namely protection, shade, food, and spawning/nesting areas.

Yet, the structure that we are talking about is not just rocks and wood, in the context of aquariums. It can be plants, wood, rocks, or botanicals.

Think about how fishes behave  in Nature.

For one thing, they tend to be attracted to areas where food supplies are relatively abundant, requiring little expenditure of energy in order to satisfy their nutritional needs. Insects, crustaceans, and yeah- tiny fishes- tend to congregate and live around floating plants, masses of algae, and fallen botanical items (seed pods, leaves, etc.), so it's only natural that our subject fishes would be attracted to these areas...I mean, who wouldn't want to have easy access to the "buffet line", right?

Another interesting phenomenon that any fisherman will tell you is that fishes also like to gather under trees. Not only do trees provide a respite from the bright light, they provide an opportunity to grab a meal of insects, fruit, and other materials which might fall from the trees throughout the day. By providing both food and shelter, the overhanging trees provide an interesting place for fishes to hang out.

And of course, what comes from trees? Botanical materials, branches, etc. As these materials fall from the trees, they become apart of the aquatic environment, imparting not only nutrients, tannins, and lignin to the environment, they act as a "substrate" for the growth of fungal threads, biofilms, etc.

And what about how these materials are oriented in the water after they fall? For example, when a tree branch falls into the water, gravity, current, wind, etc influence how it lays on the bottom of the stream. Often times, in shallow streams, the branch extends partially out of the water...kind of like what we do in 'scaping, right? Yet, somehow less "contrived."

When you embrace a sort of "function first" approach 'scaping your tank, it becomes way easier to accept the unique looks! Maybe we don't need to "stress out" so much in our placement of wood and other "hardscape" materials in the aquarium, striving for some "artistic" interpretation...maybe we'd achieve something altogether different- and cool-if we just sort of randomly "drop" the wood into the tank and go from there...maybe?

Could you handle that? 

And what ideas can we glean from tree roots, which often extend into the water of streams, or become submerged in the wet season? They attract tons of fishes in their virtual "maze" of projecting structures. These provide countless sights for fishes to hide, feed, spawn, etc. Just reproducing a small segment of a submerged "root tangle" as an aquarium subject could have thousands of possible configurations!

The interesting thing about tree roots, from an aquascaping perspective, is that we can very effectively simulate them in the aquarium with a number of the more commonly-available wood types.

By happenstance, these formerly terrestrial features become important and unique underwater microhabitats that fishes can exploit for food, protection, and spawning sites.

Roots and tree trunks form structures which foster the accumulation of fallen botanical materials, which gradually break down and continue to impact the underwater environment.

Facilitating these processes- allowing the materials to accumulate naturally and break down "in situ" is a key component of replicating and supporting these functional microhabitats in our aquariums. The typical aquarium hardscape- artistic and beautiful as it might be, generally replicates the most superficial aesthetic aspects of such habitats, and tends to overlook their function- and the reasons why such habitats form in the first place in Nature.

In an aquarium set up to take advantage of these materials and their function, the leaves and botanicals begin to soften and ultimately break down, they will foster microbial growth, biofilms, and fungal growths- all of which will provide supplemental foods for the resident fishes...just like what happens in Nature. 

The marriage of form and function is not just a thing that we take lightly here...It's literally the basis of the botanical-style aquarium concept. We embrace the ephemeral; the change which occurs in our aquarium environment over time. We facilitate the development of a dynamic, ecologically diverse habitat for our fishes.

It just happens to look cool, too!

Stay creative. Stay bold. Stay observant. Stay curious...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

 

 

The cure?

One of the typical "best practices" of modern aquarium keeping is the "preparation" or "curing" of wood before adding it to your tank. There is very little questioning within the hobby about the need for some preparation before it's "suitable" for keeping with fishes. 

We're admonished not to simply toss wood into the aquarium. It makes sense, right? I mean, being a product of the terrestrial environment, wood can contain a lot of dirt, dust, and other pollutants which, upon wetting, will leach into the water. And doing at least a thorough rinse with fresh water is a practice that I absolutely agree with.

When you first submerge wood, a lot of the "dirt" from the atmosphere and surrounding environment comes off, along with tannins, lignin, and all sorts of other "stuff" from the exterior surfaces and all of those nooks and crannies that we love so much.

Ahh, the tannins again.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm always almost sadistically amused by the frantic posts on aquascaping forums from hobbyists that their water is turning brown after adding a piece of driftwood. I mean- what's the big deal?

Okay, not everyone likes it...I get it. But it IS kind of funny to me, lol.

However, when it comes to one of the main reasons why we're educated from day one in the hobby to "cure" wood is that it will leach an abundance of tannins into the water upon submersion, and that most wood types will continue to leach tannins pretty much for as long as they're submerged. As a "tinter", I see this as a great advantage in helping establish and maintain the tinted "look", to foster the microbiome, and to impart the humic substances that have been proven to be very beneficial to the health of almost all freshwater fishes.

It's a unique aesthetic, too, of course!

When it comes to preparation, I'm really more concerned with those impurities- the trapped dirt and such contained within the wood, as opposed to stuff like lignin and tannins.

As you probably know by now, that's also why I've been a staunch advocate of the overly conservative "boil and soak" approach to the preparation of botanicals, too.

When it comes to wood, a lot of material gets bound up in the dermal layer of the tree where the wood comes from. The bulk of the dry mass of the xylem (the "network" within the tree which transports water and soluble mineral nutrients from the roots throughout the plant, and comprises what we know as "wood.") is cellulose, a polysaccharide, and most of the remainder is lignin, which is a sort of complex polymer. 

Why the "mini botany lesson?"

Well, because when you have some idea of what you're putting into your tank, you'll better understand why it behaves the way it does when submerged! In a given piece of driftwood, there is going to be some material bound up in these structures, and it will be released (gradually or otherwise) into the water that surrounds it, often with a big "burst" occurring upon initial submersion. 

This is why, during the first couple of weeks after you submerge wood, that the water often becomes dark, and even cloudy. There is a lot of "stuff" in there!

That's why it's long been recommended as a "best practice" to start the "curing" process in a separate container apart from the display aquarium. This is not rocket science, nor some wisdom only the enlightened aquarists attain. It's common sense, and a practice we all need to simply view as necessary with terrestrial materials like wood and botanicals. You may love the tannins as much as I do, your tank could do without the polyscaccharides and impurities from the outer layers of the wood.

The potential affects on water quality are significant!

"Significant" doesn't necessarily mean "bad", though

Here is a natural corollary: It's pretty plain to see that at least part of the reason we see a burst of new algae growth and biofilm in wood recently added to an aquarium is that there is so much stuff bound up in it. Algal and fungal spores can literally "bloom" during the initial period after submersion. It's exactly what happens in the wild aquatic habitats of the world when tree trunks and branches are covered by water.

A lot of hobbyists simply don't want to see this stuff in their display tank.

On the other hand, the adventurous aquarist in me can't help but wonder if we should just give the wood a thorough washing, and let this whole process play out in the aquarium, to foster this amazing biodiversity within the aquarium itself.

Again, this is an example of setting up an aquarium from the start to replicate both the form and function of Nature.

Why NOT do this? What would the downsides be? I've done this a bunch of times with no issues. However, the experience IS a bit different.

It's starts with what you see.

Yeah, you'll see a lot more biofilm, fungal growth, detritus, and perhaps even slightly hazy water. You'll have to carefully monitor the nitrogen cycle, and manage nutrient accumulations with good husbandry...

You'll have to employ a lot of patience, and yeah, I'd recommend testing during the "break-in"process. Testing for what? Well, I'd likely do ammonia and nitrite, for starters. "Have you done all of this testing when you tried this, Scott?"

Not always, I admit. Why? For one thing , it's because I'm in no rush to add fishes to brand-new tanks. Because I let my tanks develop biologically for a long time before I add them. I did out of sheer curiosity, of course! And the "cycle"time was really nothing extraordinary at all.

Really, the biggest difference between this "in-tank-curing" and using an external container was that any of the stuff that emerged from the wood itself would accumulate in the display tank, and impact the water appearance, and chemistry. Although I admit, I didn't notice a significant difference in nitrate or even phosphate in new tanks where the "curing" process was undertaken internally.

Remember, I'm a water exchange fanatic; I perform 10% water exchanges in every tank I maintain- every week, without fail.  So there was some dilution of whatever organics were found in the water.

The biggest difference determined by testing was often TDS. And of course, because TDS represents the total concentration of dissolved substances in water it can include both inorganic salts, as well as a small amount of organic matter. To me, "TDS" is always a bit of a vague thing; I mean, it can be so many different things. Regardless, when I cured "in situ", TDS readings were higher than in tanks where this process wasn't employed.

Do some of the other materials leached out of wood have implications for the healthy break-in and operation of your aquarium?  Can you even test for everything that leaches out of newly submerged wood, other than simply labeling these compounds as "organics?"

Well, lignin is one substance that you might find leaching out of wood. And there are actually lignin test kits out there for scientific work; I suppose it would be interesting and informative to test for them to see what the concentration was, although I'm not really sure what function it would perform, other this just kind of "knowing."

Just like with testing for tannins, Interpreting what is "baseline" or even "okay" for lignin is something we have never really done in the hobby, right?  Another supposition would be that lignin concentration might be different in a filtered aquarium than it would be in some big container of water without a filter that you might cure wood in.

 

The point is, there are some things that we just don't know. We assume. I Mean, whenever we "cure" wood externally, we almost always see lots of that yucky biofilm and fungal growth on the surface tissues. That's "par for the course" when terrestrial materials are submerged. The real issue that makes "in situ" curing a bit unusual is the possible "gross pollutants" that may leach out of the wood. I suppose that would be stuff like dust, dirt, maybe some small amounts of sap, etc., bound up in or on the surface tissues of the wood.

And of course, the tannins.

It begs the question, once again, about the dangers associated with this process. Are they perceived, or actual? I mean, sure, an initial spray and scrub, or even an overnight soak, is absolutely recommended, even if you're curing in the tank. I also inoculate my tanks with bacteria, such as our Purple Non-Sulphur bacterial additive, "Culture."

If you really want to dig down on the idea, ask yourself this:

What leaches out differently in the display tank than it does in an external curing container? Likely, nothing... The main difference, of course, is that you have these compounds releasing into what ultimately becomes your display tank.

So the initial water quality is impacted while this process plays out...How long does it last? It can be as little as a few days up to a month or more. I say, who cares? We're not in any rush to add fishes to our aquariums, so why is this a problem? We view all of this material as "fuel" for the microbiome we're trying to foster- it's actually a contributor to the ecology of your tank! 

Our work with the "Urban Igapo" concept and it's use of sedimented substrates, roots, etc. has sort of "mentally conditioned" us to accept this process and its cadence. Dealing with "alternate aesthetics" for a period of time is not exactly alien to us.

I did a lot of research on this in the online forums, articles, etc, and the reasons why it's recommended that wood be "cured" outside of the display tank are always listed as (in no particular order):"to leach out impurities", "to leach out tannins", to "let the fungal growth subside", and "to waterlog and sink."

Now, other than "waterlog and sink" process, which you can accomplish in the display tank by simply placing a few rocks on the wood, IMHO none of the other reasons given for external curing of wood are really "non-starters" here.

It's occasionally stated that boiling wood or extended soaking helps eliminate potential parasites that might be present in/on the wood. I'd hazard a guess that most wood used in aquariums doesn't have significant populations of parasites that could harm fishes, either. And again, even if there are such parasites present, if you're taking your time to add fishes (essentially keeping your tank "fallow" for a period of time) you're essentially denying any parasites that are present their "hosts", right? 

 

Am I missing something here? 

I don't really think so. It's just that I don't see the "stuff" that happens during the curing process as a problem.

"In situ" curing isn't a perfect, guaranteed route to accomplishing everything you want to easily, but it works. And the process and its impacts on the ecology of your aquarium is not all that different than what occurs in Nature, when you think about it.

In Nature, it is not uncommon at all for small (and large) trees to fall in the rain forest, with punishing rain and saturated ground conspiring to easily knock over anything that's not firmly rooted!

 

When these trees fall over, they often fall into small streams, or in the case of the varzea or igapo environments in The Amazon ( the ones that I'm totally obsessed with), they fall and are ultimately submerged in the inundated forest floor when the waters return.

And of course, they immediately impact their (now) aquatic environment, fulfilling several functions.

Fallen trees provide a physical barrier or separation from currents, perhaps creating a little "dam", which accumulates leaves, sediments, and detritus- all important as food sources to a huge number of aquatic organisms. 

They also provide a "substrate" for algae and biofilms to multiply on, and providing places for fishes forage among, and hide in. Many fishes, like small cichlids, will reproduce and raise their fry among these fallen tree trunks.

An entire community of aquatic life forms uses the fallen tree for many purposes. And the tree trunks, branches, and other parts of the tree will last for many years, fulfilling this important role in the aquatic ecosystems they now reside in each time the waters return.

Let's focus on this "ecological component" for just a bit. Let's review what happens when a tree falls...literally!

Shortly after falling into the water, fungi and other microorganisms act to colonize the surfaces, and biofilms populate the bark and exposed surfaces of the tree.  Over time, the tree will impart many chemical substances, (lignin, humic acids, tannins, sugars, etc.) into the water as the bark breaks down and the tree itself softens.

In aquatic ecosystems, much of the initial breakdown of botanical materials is conducted by detritivores- specifically, fishes, aquatic insects and invertebrates, which serve to begin the process by feeding upon the tissues  while other species utilize the "waste products" which are produced during this process for their nutrition.

In these habitats, such as streams and flooded forests, a variety of species work in tandem with each other, with various organisms carrying out different stages of the decomposition process.

The fallen tree literally brings new life to the waters.

I can't stress enough how interesting and important this transformation of the terrestrial environment to the aquatic one is. It helps explain so much of why the aquatic habitats look and function the way they do, and how they impact the life forms which make use of them.

The materials that comprise the tree are known in ecology as "allochthonous material"-  something imported into an ecosystem from outside of it.  (extra points if you can pronounce the word on the first try!)  We've talked about that stuff for a while now, right?

Yeah.

So, to "put a bow" on the idea of "in situ" curing of wood, it is sort of analogous to this natural process, both in terms of the way various compounds are imparted into the water, and in terms of the ecological impacts it causes in the aquarium. Now of course, an aquarium is not Nature, and being a closed system, there needs to be biological processes in place to assimilate these materials. 

It's as simple- and as complex- as that.

So the idea of "curing" wood for aquarium use- while important to understand- may not be as impactful as we think, especially if we look at the process as a means to contribute to the ecological processes which occur in your aquarium. It's about perspective, as much as anything, right?

I think that so many things in the hobby that we consider "problems" are simply not problems. They require us to think critically and consider the context of what we do.

I'm curious to hear fo your experiences with this non-conventional approach! Remember, it's not "bad" unless you don't understand the implications of what you're doing. 

Think about that!

Stay curious. Stay observant. Stay experimental. Stay informed...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

 

 

What Nature does...

First off, before we get too far into this- I want to make it clear that I'm not angry. I'm not writing this piece to be a jerk. I'm not trying to pass judgement on the hobby, even though it will likely come across that way.

It's that I was drawn into a discussion a few days back that featured a beautiful, so-called "Nature Aquarium"-style tank. It was truly worthy of admiration. Definitely a fine example of a well thought-out, nicely executed tank. It was an interesting discussion, featuring different opinions and views, too.

However, what made things take a sort of dark turning my mind was when it was vigorously asserted and mentioned ad nauseam that the tank was (and I quote literally) "...a perfect representation of Nature", with a full-throated homage to Mr. Amano, along with lots of elegant, poetic, haiku-like quotes attributed to him and his disciples, about "standing with Nature" and stuff like that.

I mean, cool. 

Yet, it became a full-on fanboy fest from that point.

Objectivity was thrown out the window. Bold, prosaic-sounding statements were made. It turned into a celebration of Mr. Amano, which was really neat, and an homage to how the tank in question captured the essence of his work..Which it likely did. I'm a fan of Mr. Amano's amazing works, too, so I can appreciate.

Where I personally lost my shit, though, was when the assertion was made repeatedly that this highly- stylized, heavily "design-centric" aquarium was, "...the ultimate expression of Nature!" and that it "...looks just like an Amazon basin stream does." (it most certainly did not) And that this tank, "...communicates how Nature really works in a better way than virtually any other aquarium we've seen..." (again, I'm quoting literally)

Yeah. "Ultimate" really got to me somehow.

I mean, look- everyone has an opinion. I totally get that.

The tank was beautiful, objectively. No disputing that.

However, when a perfectly-ratioed, overtly color-coordinated, highly artistic, "lab-sterile" display is called the perfect representation of how Nature looks, we have a bit of a problem.

We're deluding ourselves, IMHO.

In the aquarium hobby, we tend to convince ourselves of a lot of things, IMHO.

As I've argued before, one of the things that we seem to buy into a lot are that our  aquariums are perfect replications of Nature.

They're not.

Representations of aspects of Nature, sure.

Replications? Likely, not.

I'll come out and say it: I believe that the words "Nature" or "natural" are probably the most over-used ones in the aquarium hobby. I've heard it argued-and am inclined to agree at times- that the words almost have no meaning in our hobby at this point, IMHO, because they've been so over-used, mis-applied, and straight-up "dumbed down" over the years by hobbyists, authors, and brands. 

Nature is not a "style."  

It's defined as "...the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations."

Okay, cool. 

Nature is ubiquitous. Unavoidable. Nature is...well- everything.

Nature- or more specifically, natural processes, find their way into every aspect of our existence. In the aquarium hobby, natural processes control the success or failure of our tanks. They influence our techniques, and react to our actions. This may sound mean or harsh, but Nature couldn't give a fuck about your ideas and how you want to do them.

Yeah. Ouch.

She will react to what you do or don't do. 

But don't take it personally.

It's not about you. Or your fancy gear, your expensive "designer" wood, the brand you support, or the philosophy you follow on aquarium keeping. 

She doesn't "judge."

She determines. She reacts.

She works with whatever you give her; applies her processes to it, and determines how it will evolve and grow.

It's about process...and how what you're doing either works with or against Hers. 

NEWS FLASH: Your sexy, pristine-looking "Frodo Stone"-laden Iwagumi tank is not..well...natural. Not in the sense that it was created by Nature. Not in the sense that it represents accurately a specific wild aquatic habitat in its form, or maybe  its function. Nature generally doesn't assemble or curate rocks and plants in a specific, perfectly-ratioed, color-balanced design, with crystal-clear water endnote a speck of algae to be seen.

Now, it does incorporate some natural materials and follow some natural processes. But Nature didn't create it. You did. It's an artificially constructed, human-conceived art piece, which incorporates some aspects of Nature in its execution.

And that's just fine. It's gorgeous, and you can pat yourself on the back for bringing something beautiful into the world. 

Yet, not "natural" in the sense that Nature, Herself created it.

And look, there are plenty of super crystal-clear, pristine-looking aquatic habitats in Nature. However, they pretty much never have aggregations of perfectly proportioned rocks, or impeccably manicured plants.

So an aquarium which has that sort of look may encompass some aspects of the appearances or functions of Nature, but it certainly is not "natural"- especially not in the sense that it perfectly and accurately recreates a natural aquatic habitat.

Neither is your earthy, botanical-style aquarium, with all of its decomposing leaves, biofilms, tinted water, and fungal growth. It may embrace and accept more natural processes and functions than many other aquarium approaches- but Nature didn't create it. You did. Nature took the materials that were-placed in the tank, and applied Her processes of decomposition, bacterial growth, etc. to what you did. You simply assembled the stuff, and (thankfully) got out of the way to let Nature do Her work.

Closer, but it's still an artificial assemblage of natural materials.

And the biotope aquariums that we see splashed all over social media? They do an amazing job. I'm a huge fan, but really, if relook at them objectively, they're more about the look of Nature than the functions. They capture the essence or superficial  aspects of natural aquatic habitats way better than many approaches, but still, they're largely "aesthetics forward" IMHO.

Okay, sounds like I'm completely shitting on everything in the hobby, right?

NO. I'm clarifying.

And it's perfectly fine that we all enjoy our tanks however we want to. It's just that I think we need to be a bit more realistic about how we view our work, and present it to the hobby and others. It kind of goes back to that responsibility thing that we have to understand how what we present impacts other hobbyists and the uninformed public alike.

Yes, this is my opinion, but I feel that I have a responsibility to call bullshit on stuff that seems way out of touch with reality.

And it's not all negative.

Yeah, this message isn't intended to be negative, although it might come across that way. And it's not intended to be a chest-beating tirade about how my views on aquariums are best, and the only ones worth accepting.

No.

It's intended to give aquarium hobby culture a metaphorical "whack upside the head" to stop deluding ourselves into thinking that everything we do is a perfect encapsulation of Nature.

It's not.

And that's perfectly okay, too.

The important thing is to draw the distinction between us incorporating elements of Nature in our aquariums, and the way Nature works with all of the elements at Her disposal.

"Natural" is defined as, "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

See the part about "...not made or caused by humankind?"

Yeah, that's the key.

We create aquariums which incorporate many aspects of Nature. In some cases, they are assembled in a manner which seeks to replicate many aspects of Nature in both form and function.

However, WE did them. Nature INSPIRED us.

How we choose to work WITH natural processes, as opposed to push back against them- is our choice. 

Sure, every aquarium embraces Nature in some ways- we're reliant on the nitrogen cycle, etc. Some, like the botanical-style aquarium, incorporate an understanding and acceptance of natural functions (like decomposition,etc.) as part of the process. A little more..."natural.."

But still not "Nature."

 

Because it was "...made or caused by humankind..."

Again, that's okay!

I'm beating the proverbial "dead horse" here, I know.

Look, all I'm saying is that we, as hobbyists, need to be a little more thoughtful when we toss that word, "Nature" around. Because...

Let's say that our work captures the attention of non-hobbyists...the kind who just skim YouTube or whatever. And let's say that they see an "Iwagumi" or a "diorama-style" tank, and see the drooling fanboy comments extolling the tank as "looking just like a natural habitat"- the kind of comments we see a lot.

And let's just say that one of these casual observers has the opportunity to see a real wild habitat. Suddenly, their reference point is all messed up. They're convinced that The Amazon, for example, is just this "brown, dirty mess" and is obviously polluted- or in need of remediation! Build that dam, rather than keep that "polluted" stream flowing! 

Now, sure, that's likely the other extreme, but it's within the realm of possibility, right?

We, as a hobby, need to wake up a bit, IMHO.

To take a look at what a real wild tropical aquatic habitat looks like. Not all of them are brown, turbid places, of course. Some ARE crystal clear, with beautiful stands of aquatic plants. Some are just cloudy water, rocks, and tons of fishes. Some are just sand. Some are muddy expanses. But I'm willing to bet that they're all a little different than what some hobbyists would think of when they hear the word, "Nature." 

And, as I've said like 1,000 times here in "The Tint", I'm not going to delude myself into believing that what we espouse here is the ultimate form of "natural" aquarium.

It isn't.

It's just a different approach that embraces different aspects of Nature. Perhaps in a way that is "deeper" and more consequential than another approaches. I think the biggest difference is our crowd- YOU- who understand this important distinction.

You get it.

We need to keep calling attention to this concept and the importance of understanding what we do in the aquarium hobby, and its relationship with Nature and natural processes.

Education is a huge component of the hobby, and spreading bad information is really easy to do nowadays. We need to go beyond glorifying the most superficial aspects of things.

Let's just keep holding ourselves to higher standards.Going deeper.

Let's be more accurate. Let's call out B.S. when we see it. Let's make the effort to not automatically accept the the easiest or most popular explanations for stuff.

We need to go deeper as a hobby- not to just throw out some well-honed rhetoric.

Part of the game, as we've discussed ad naseum here, is to understand, appreciate, and ultimately embrace the way the aquatic environment is influenced by the fungal growths, biofilms, and decomposition which occurs when wood, rocks, and botanicals are added into our aquariums. 

That may come easier to those of us who specialize in working with botanicals in our aquariums, because these processes and characteristics are the whole game in what we do! We have an understanding about what happens when terrestrial materials are placed in an aquatic environment. We don't fight what happens. We attempt to understand it.

And, as we often say, that means making a mental shift to accept the unique aesthetics of a botanical-style aquarium: Brown water, stringy biofilms, and decomposing leaves and botanicals. All have their place in our world. The most challenging part of starting and managing one of these "functionally aesthetic" systems is to appreciate not only how they function, but to understand why the way they look the way they do.

To those of you just jumping into this world, I assure you it's like no other aquarium you've ever maintained. Botanical-style aquariums embody the art of observation and study. Much like managing any type of aquarium, the successful botanical-style aquarium is about understanding a balance. 

A quantity; a "cadence" for adding stuff, so that the closed environment of your aquarium can assimilate the new materials, and the bacteria, fungi, and other organisms which serve to assimilate the bioload and break them down can adjust.

You want to "Stand before Nature", as is oft-quoted?

Then, understand Nature as She really is, a little better.

Educate. Elevate. Share.

Do that.

Stay honest. Stay observant. Stay studious. Stay vocal...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics