Hello,

Like Michael mentioned in a reply to my previous thread ("Why won't my
plants grow?"), it wouldn't be very wise of me to spend hundreds of dollars
on equipment and chemicals to keep a few plants in a 20 gallon aquarium.
Incidentally, a book came to me (a friend recommended it) that argues that
natural aquarium is not only much cheaper and easier to maintain, but also
is beneficial to both plants and fish (_Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_,
Diana Walstad, 1999, Echinodorus Publishing). I only started reading the
book yesterday, but so far the author has talked about how fish, bacteria,
and fish food (through fish and bacteria) provide all nutrients needed by
the plants. She also mentions numerous laboratory and practical
experiments that support that.

However, since I have practically no knowledge of biology, chemistry,
botany, or even fish-keeping, I'd like to ask your opinion on the idea of
natural aquarium (i.e. having an almost self-sufficient micro-biosystem
without expensive equipment and chemicals) and what do you think of the
aforementioned book and/or its author. I couldn't find much info on this
approach on the net, hopefully that doesn't mean that nobody has tried it
or is interested in it.

Thanks in advance!

Richard

--
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War
IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

http://mike-edwardes.members.beeb.net/plant/lotech.html

Most of us prefer the un-natural aquarium, though. Running a natural aquarium
can be a joy -- easy, low-cost, low-maintenance. But there are tradeoffs. The
soils substrates are messy. The lack of mechanical filtration means you have
to be careful about stocking levels. You can't choose the plants you want;
rather, you plant a variety of plants, and let the ones that do well take over.
It can take weeks or months for the tank to find its balance, and while it
does, it can be rather unattractive.

But if you have the discipline and patience for this method, go for it!



Leigh

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/

You can substitute Flourite, about 4 inches or so, for the soil and
add about 1/2 inch of peat to the bottom layer along with lots of mulm
from a mature tank. This works better than soil after a year or so. It
also only gets better as it ages and also is far less messy.

Regards,
Tom Barr

In article ,
Richard Krush wrote:
Like Michael mentioned in a reply to my previous thread ("Why won't my
plants grow?"), it wouldn't be very wise of me to spend hundreds of dollars
on equipment and chemicals to keep a few plants in a 20 gallon aquarium.
Incidentally, a book came to me (a friend recommended it) that argues that
natural aquarium is not only much cheaper and easier to maintain, but also
is beneficial to both plants and fish (_Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_,
Diana Walstad, 1999, Echinodorus Publishing). I only started reading the
book yesterday, but so far the author has talked about how fish, bacteria,
and fish food (through fish and bacteria) provide all nutrients needed by
the plants. She also mentions numerous laboratory and practical
experiments that support that.

However, since I have practically no knowledge of biology, chemistry,
botany, or even fish-keeping, I'd like to ask your opinion on the idea of
natural aquarium (i.e. having an almost self-sufficient micro-biosystem
without expensive equipment and chemicals) and what do you think of the
aforementioned book and/or its author. I couldn't find much info on this
approach on the net, hopefully that doesn't mean that nobody has tried it
or is interested in it.

Yes, some of us have tried it:
http://mike-edwardes.members.beeb.net/plant/lotech.html
Works for me!
High-tech aquaria can look fabulous (been there, done that, although
YMMV), but for a discussion of the disadvantages, see:
http://mike-edwardes.members.beeb.net/plant/hitech.html

Mike.
--
Mike Edwardes Tropicals
http://mike-edwardes.members.beeb.net