Embedded Files
There is a philosophical void in the hobby today. If I were to ask you what are our first principles, our technical underpinnings, traditional best practices and ethics, could you answer me concretely and in a concise list format? Could anyone? I certainly can't. Some would claim to have those items handy but are their statements overly conditional, fuzzy and vague? Could they even be said to remotely approach anything that could reasonably be called philosophy? Probably not.
I see threads in various forums here and there where someone tries to build such a system but does not provide a true framework that truly touches on the applied like our unique epistemology, logic, metaphysics, morals, ethics and aesthetics though this last item seems to be developing quite well on its own. Each in its own time, I suppose.
This all of course doesn't preclude what a basic biology textbook would tell us. We don't need to review plant physiology, nutrition and photosynthesis. Sources of animal husbandry are already abundant and well defined. Ecology can be discerned by the individual with little assistance. The question is how to usefully think about these things and connect them to a purposeful, concrete whole that the hobby can benefit from is the goal. History may have the answer.
Almost 200 some odd years ago, the aquarium hobby in general took off with much zeal. The Germans and English really leading the way. Saltwater, brackish, fresh and paludariums already existed much as they do today. Aquariums were a natural extension of the then revolutionary Wardian Case in 1829. This period of time in general was an incredible boon scientifically and many horticultural practices were quickly discovered and refined once specimens could be reliably shipped to universities across the world in these glass cases. Research commenced rapidly and virtually unimpeded.
The aquarium itself though was still not within grasp of the common man. This was definitely a hobby for the wealthy and fortunately at the time being wealthy meant that one must also possess a scientific bent if one was to be part of the new post industrial society. Even as a mere pretense this worked out well for us.
By and by through trial and error an understanding of ecology was born and elements naturally came together. In order to have a successful aquarium, there had to be synergy between all the inhabitants from the tiny bacteria, to the bigger invertebrates and ultimately the fish and plants. This applied to both marine and freshwater set-ups. A de facto method arose and ultimately a very technical philosophy promoting nature and balance but how was this defined?
Let me introduce you to James Shirley Hibberd an early author on the subject though in 1875 a very well established horticulturist. He wasn't the first to write about aquariums, certainly not the last. Here is an excerpt from his book The Aquarium, chapter 3 “The Philosophy of the Aquarium”, page 221.
“The mere assignment of a few fishes, sea anemones, plants, or other gatherings of aquatic life to a vessel of water, does not constitute an Aquarium. The term implies a self-sustaining collection, so adapted that the balance of forces which is maintained in the scheme of nature shall have its counterpart on a smaller scale.
There can be no success, no pleasure, and but little instruction in the keeping together of heterogeneous assemblage by merely artificial means.”
These words are starting to sound familiar I hope. Start thinking about how we as planted aquarium keepers use the term balance and what we mean. Continuing on with the excerpt an interesting, almost crude and very wrong sentiment appears. Something that flies in the face of modern aquarium management today.
“But it is an essential principle of the Aquarium, scientifically considered, that the water shall never be changed, and that no artificial means whatever shall be used to keep up the supply of life giving oxygen for the support of its animated inmates.”
What is the meaning of this? Some bizarre Victorian pronouncement born arbitrarily? No, it is a rhetorical device I assure you. I'll let Mr. Hibberd disabuse you.
“By 'never changed' I mean the balance shall be so perfectly established between the reciprocating actions of animal and vegetable life, that the changing of the water becomes a matter of convenience, and not of necessity; it may be changed perhaps once a year, for the purpose of re-arranging the furniture, or laying down a bed of fresh pebbles, but not at all for the purpose of promoting the health of the creatures.”
Given the last few sentiments, you must be aware that at the time the Victorians didn't know about osmotic balance of the cells of aquatic organisms, the importance of calcium, potassium and sodium. No, this was the presentation of an ideal if a balance was properly struck. We know now for certain that water must be changed for precisely these reasons and to dilute the accumulated organic wastes.
One could argue that Dr. Diana Walstad supported this notion with her natural planted aquariums and in her book Ecology of the Planted Aquarium but when we dig a bit deeper, that's not the case at all and maybe Mr. Hibberd can be forgiven of this notion.
No, nutriment enters the system by feeding the fish, the excess food and the mulm is processed by the the snails, the shrimp and bacteria, all the processes buffered by the soil substrate where vast reserves of carbon and plant nutrients lay along with a thriving microscopic ecosystem tying together the macroscopic. Eventually though, even a successful natural planted tank needs a water change and a top off if anything to accommodate, as Mr. Hibberd observed, large scale maintenance and evaporation. If only he were alive today.
Time and time again we see similar sentiments echoed by other of Mr. Hibberd's near and distant contemporaries; Henry D. Butler's The Home Aquarium of 18562
“'To stock' signifies to associate in a tank those living things which, when arranged in the just proportion that enables each to contribute sufficiently to the support of the other, constitute an Aquarium.”3
Reverend J. G. Wood's The Fresh and Saltwater Aquarium4 from 1868 immediately starts out with choosing between different species of macro-algae and demands we establish them and the rock work first before introducing animals and goes as far as to suggest an experiment to prove to yourself that the bubbles produced are life giving oxygen which is vital to the future animal inhabitants.
I could go on and on with other examples in the literature going all the way up to 1960 but I think I've made my point. Balance then is the same and absolutely central to planted aquarium keepers today. But what about other aspects of the aquarium hobby in general? You'll find modern technology and understanding has created a remove.
Let's take for example Cichlid and goldfish enthusiasts together. Other than meeting certain environmental and dietary requirements, what's there to balance beyond having the right number of animals in a given volume of water, good enough filtration, just enough light to see the animals and their basic husbanding? Not much really. Regular water changes, some medications just in case. The bare bones set-ups used by breeders. Not all that challenging really when they are just trying to display, manage and breed their prize fish. Balance is not something that has to enter their vocabularies because of the Spartan operation required to merely keep and breed fish. It's not that hard is what I'm saying especially with all the modern conveniences.
What about reef keepers? That certainly would seem more analogous to this philosophy of balance and very much akin to what we do with our plants. In fact a lot of reef keeping innovations are in use in our own tanks. But is it really? Yes and no.
Yes, the lengths reef keepers go to understand the ecology of their captives is incredible. There are deep sand beds to perform denitrification to the point of reducing nitrate back to nitrogen gas. This is also accomplished with their precious live rock. Sometimes they even go the technological route and use nitrate reactors which either can use anaerobic bacteria which are kept alive with a slow drip of dirty aquarium water and the occasional shot of sugar and cheap vodka or with a full blown chemical reactor that has the same end result but its waste product is sulfuric acid which for safety's sake also goes through a separate process of containment and neutralization.
With this understanding they have invented wet/dry systems that greatly increase the amount of heterotrophic bacteria they can host thus allowing them to increase stocking levels, foam fractionators (more commonly called protein skimmers) and kalkwasser reactors5 for injecting calcium carbonate to maintain alkalinity and carbonate hardness by reacting caustic lime with carbon dioxide.
The lighting systems that have been developed for reef keeping are marvels of science and engineering alone allowing any hobbyist to keep any group of animals no matter how far flung their natural habitats. Water purification systems that can put many cities to shame that assure a nigh inexhaustible supply of clean, nearly chemically pure water that need only be collected and mixed with synthetic sea salts at a moment's notice.
I could go on and on and on about the impressive technological leaps made by the reef keepers but I won't because it's a sham. Why such an ugly word that almost smacks of libel and slander? With all their innovations they are now unlimited in what they can keep and how much they can cram in a tank almost. It's all about equipment and additives and how to replace as little water as possible and let's face it, saltwater is expensive, liter per liter, when compared to fresh or even brackish water. That's why all those innovations exist. A large investment now to defray costs in the future that also allows any individual to keep any animal of his choosing, his personal wealth being his only limitation.
This is not balance. Not the kind we're looking for, not what the early aquarium pioneers meant though certainly they would be impressed and for very good reason. It is an improvement though with a price close to that of a new luxury car. With such a safety net one can safely be just ever so slightly incautious every now and again. This lesson is not for us.
It's not even for some of them anymore as there has been a backlash. More and more reef keepers are going back to more primitive, naturalistic methods that take them back almost two hundred years.
Nano reefs come immediately to mind. Their maintenance is virtually identical to what Reverend Woods advised and with a few modern conveniences it isn't that much different: Heaters, air pumps, simple power heads and enough of the right kind of light. His understanding of the things of his age have been expanded with the understanding of our age. We keep the live sand and introduce macro-algae and just meet the basics. Modern marine biology helps us go further with light stocking and purposely creating an interdependent web of inhabitants like Tridacnid clams along side our nitrate consuming macro-algae and certain soft bodied corals such as Xenia that we know will consume additional wastes from the water column. Simple and elegant.
That elegance comes at a cost, though: Feeding your head. It is thinking critically and reaching out to communities and participating in those communities meaningfully. It is researching your decisions and mastering the technical while embracing the humane. It is the parsimonious application of our valid theories to date and creating balanced ecosystems in our homes for our plants and fish. It is expunging myth without sacrificing history and friendships for a better practice, greener plants, healthier fish and knowledge for its own sake.
Our modern world makes this simultaneously easier what with the free flow on information through the Internet and more difficult and distracting for the same reasons. Those early Victorian ideals will be our first principles. From there we can build a real philosophical system together.
Our philosophy might be listed thus, though don't take my word for it just yet. This is a group effort after all. This is just a skeleton, not even remotely approaching the usefulness of a rough draft.
1. Epistemology
A. Skepticism
B. Rationalism
C. Empiricism
2. Logic
A. Deduction
B. Induction
C. Inference
D. Predication
E. Proposition
3. Metaphysics
A. Merely understanding, studying and predicting probabilistically post primary and secondary consequences as the result of both direct and indirect actions in our shared space-time continuum. Nothing more than that for our narrow scope.
4. Ethics
I. Morals are personal and shouldn't be brought into the fray. This is for each individual to decide for themselves. The below are meant to be universals lacking in arbitrariness as much as is practical without becoming paralytically over reductive.
A. The Meta
B. The Normative
C. The Applied
D. The Descriptive
5. Aesthetics
A. I still assert this is taking care of itself in the form of Amano Takashi. We just need to enjoy the ride on this one and let it happen while exploring other people's gardening traditions. The will continue to evolve from the preceding items.
There you go. Have a fun and fill in the blanks as a community. Merely defining each A, B and C with examples, counter examples then reshaping it to fit precisely into the planted aquarium viewpoint will probably take at least another hundred years but I hope I've seeded that undertaking with this old concept of balance. Let that be the basis of the system and work from there. I'll help as much a possible with the heavy lifting, many hands do lighten the load and make the work easier. Have fun.
Remember, the sciences we draw from already know themselves and have established philosophical underpinnings. We need only take the relevant cores, filter them through these terms with a specific focus on the planted aquarium hobby while comparing it to this notion of ecological balance as prescribed by our ancestors. It will need to be dense and verbose, but not pedantic though certainly pedagogical if it is to receive widespread acceptance and cannot, should not be left in the hands of just one person. This is and forever will be a communal effort.
Our future was in our past all along.
1. Please read the entirety of the passage and even the whole book yourself at http://books.google.com.nf/ebooks/reader?id=2kUuAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA22.
2. Indulge yourself at http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/10294931?n=1&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.5&printThumbnails=yes.
3. Chapter 4, “Plants – Their Nature and Phenomena.”, page 37.
4. Just read it for goodness sake, it's beautiful! http://books.google.com/books?id=SUgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR3&dq=rev+jg+wood+the+fresh+and+saltwater+aquarium&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Yg_wTsm0OanE2gXW3u2lDw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false or go straight to chapter 1, “Algae or Seaweeds”, page 16. Page 17 has the experiment for verifying oxygen production.
5. Also known as a Nilsen Reactor.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse