Just FYI,Raul-7 said:
Bigalsonline.com
TMG
500ml - $10.99
5L - $49.99 (THE BEST BUY !!!)
Flourish
500ml - $7.49
2L - $21.99
Personally I prefer TMG which I have been successfully using for few years.
Flourish vs TMG?
Which one is better? I've noticed TMG is much more expensive for the same amount, 500mL: $20 opposed to $5 for Flourish. And TMG has K, which I don't think Flourish has, but Flourish has many more trace elements. So which tends to give better results, and why is it better?
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Bigalsonline.com
TMG
500ml - $10.99
5L - $49.99 (THE BEST BUY !!!)
Flourish
500ml - $7.49
2L - $21.99
Personally I prefer TMG which I have been successfully using for few years.
I like TMG cause I like my buddy Claus. 
I saw a table posted not too long ago where the ingredients and concentrations were posted for these two and PlantexCSM. IIRC, the Plantex and TMG were similar, and Flourish is different in composition. I alternate Plantex and Flourish.
When using TMG, would I still need to dose for trace elements seprately? Jay, have you noticed any differences in growth since the switch?
I used TMG for some time, then switched to Kent, then Flourish (primarily for the additional micros). Solely via observation (and completely anecdotally), I believe that Flourish iron doesn't remain available to plants as long as Fe in the old Kent formulation, chelated via edta.
Most of my tanks are moderately to strongly lit. I dose Flourish on a daily basis and notice a light, whitish cast imparted on water clarity on some days after dosing. It's not something just anyone would notice, but if you look at your setups daily and are familiar with their clarity it is definitely visible. I've begun dosing Flourish in the evenings (after lights out) to mitigate potential breakdown of its stabilizers and so that I don't have to see this opaqueness :shock:
In addition to Flourish, I use a couple of hydroponics-based micronutrient supplements with Fe just to cover my bases.
Erik Leung
Most of my tanks are moderately to strongly lit. I dose Flourish on a daily basis and notice a light, whitish cast imparted on water clarity on some days after dosing. It's not something just anyone would notice, but if you look at your setups daily and are familiar with their clarity it is definitely visible. I've begun dosing Flourish in the evenings (after lights out) to mitigate potential breakdown of its stabilizers and so that I don't have to see this opaqueness :shock:
In addition to Flourish, I use a couple of hydroponics-based micronutrient supplements with Fe just to cover my bases.
Erik Leung
I am still new to this all, but I have been using Flourish and am very happy with the growth of my plants. I am interested to see which product wins the pole in the end though.
I started with Kent, did not care much for it, switched to Sera, I liked it, but cost too much, switched to TMG since EVERYONE else was using it and I did not want to make things different vs other folks I was discussing PO4 etc with.
I really liked TMG but I also really like Flourish.
I'm not quite sure which I like the best, each has a slight, subtle quality that's tough to pin down in a GENERAL term/s, much more an individual tank observation.
I add a "secret sauce" on top of the traces sometimes folks add a tad bit more Flourish iron etc.
But I'm staying with Flourish/TMG for suggestions sinc eI have folks that have only TMG around their neck of the woods and unfortuantely, I'm buds with both Claus and Greg.
So, I like them both
Regards,
Tom Barr
and I did not want to make things different vs other folks I was discussing PO4 etc with.I really liked TMG but I also really like Flourish.
I'm not quite sure which I like the best, each has a slight, subtle quality that's tough to pin down in a GENERAL term/s, much more an individual tank observation.
I add a "secret sauce" on top of the traces sometimes folks add a tad bit more Flourish iron etc.
But I'm staying with Flourish/TMG for suggestions sinc eI have folks that have only TMG around their neck of the woods and unfortuantely, I'm buds with both Claus and Greg.
So, I like them both
Regards,
Tom Barr
So both are equally good?
For those that don't have both:
Tropica Master Grow contents: K 0.79%, Mg 0.39%, S 1.01%, B 0.004%, Cu 0.006%, Fe 0.07%, Mn 0.04%, Mo 0.002% Zn 0.002%. HEEDTA and DTPA as chelators.
Flourish contents: Total Nitrogen (N): 0.04%; Available Phosphate (as P2O5): < 0.0100%; Soluble Potash (K2O): <0.0600%; Ca (Calcium): 0.1736%; Mg (Magnesium): 0.1154%; S (Sulfur): 0.2773%; B (Boron): 0.0096%; Br (Bromine(as bromide): 0.0001; Cl (Chlorine(as chloride): 1.15%; Co (Cobalt): 0.0004%; Cu (Copper): 0.0001%; I (Iodine (as iodide)): 0.0001%; Fe (Iron/Ferrous gluconate): 0.3886%; Mn (Manganese): 0.0125%; Mo (Molybdenum): 0.0015%; Ni (Nickel): 0.00036%; Rb (Rubidium): 0.0001%; Na (Sodium): 0.0743%; Sn (Tin): 0.000030%; V (Vanadium): 0.000030%; Zn (Zinc): 0.0004%; Arginine: 0.016%; Glutamate: 0.09%; Lysine: 0.03%; Tyrosine: 0.019%; Choline: 0.0004%; Inositol: 0.0011%; Biotin: 0.0004%; Niacin: 0.025%; Pantothenate: 0.0070%; RiboÅavin: 0.0020%;Thiamine: 0.0020%; Vitamin B12: 0.00009%; Vitamin C: 1.0%
Flourish does not contain nitrate or phosphate per se, but it does supply a nitrogen source, the Nitrogen equivalent being 400 ppm in the bottle. Phosphorous is not available as free phosphate but as phosphate
esters (100 ppm). Flourish does in fact contain potassium (600 ppm)
but like with the iron, you wouldn't want to use Flourish as the sole
source of potassium maintenance if the potassium is heavily utilized.
Tropica Master Grow contents: K 0.79%, Mg 0.39%, S 1.01%, B 0.004%, Cu 0.006%, Fe 0.07%, Mn 0.04%, Mo 0.002% Zn 0.002%. HEEDTA and DTPA as chelators.
Flourish contents: Total Nitrogen (N): 0.04%; Available Phosphate (as P2O5): < 0.0100%; Soluble Potash (K2O): <0.0600%; Ca (Calcium): 0.1736%; Mg (Magnesium): 0.1154%; S (Sulfur): 0.2773%; B (Boron): 0.0096%; Br (Bromine(as bromide): 0.0001; Cl (Chlorine(as chloride): 1.15%; Co (Cobalt): 0.0004%; Cu (Copper): 0.0001%; I (Iodine (as iodide)): 0.0001%; Fe (Iron/Ferrous gluconate): 0.3886%; Mn (Manganese): 0.0125%; Mo (Molybdenum): 0.0015%; Ni (Nickel): 0.00036%; Rb (Rubidium): 0.0001%; Na (Sodium): 0.0743%; Sn (Tin): 0.000030%; V (Vanadium): 0.000030%; Zn (Zinc): 0.0004%; Arginine: 0.016%; Glutamate: 0.09%; Lysine: 0.03%; Tyrosine: 0.019%; Choline: 0.0004%; Inositol: 0.0011%; Biotin: 0.0004%; Niacin: 0.025%; Pantothenate: 0.0070%; RiboÅavin: 0.0020%;Thiamine: 0.0020%; Vitamin B12: 0.00009%; Vitamin C: 1.0%
Flourish does not contain nitrate or phosphate per se, but it does supply a nitrogen source, the Nitrogen equivalent being 400 ppm in the bottle. Phosphorous is not available as free phosphate but as phosphate
esters (100 ppm). Flourish does in fact contain potassium (600 ppm)
but like with the iron, you wouldn't want to use Flourish as the sole
source of potassium maintenance if the potassium is heavily utilized.
Hi all,
First post here for me...
I've been a strong believer in both products and still today prefer either one of them to any other brand. I initially started using TMG as a trace mix, then switched to Flourish + TMG, then to Flourish + CSM+B. I think the Flourish + TMG mix was the best solution, I plan to go back to that once I finish my exaggerated supply of CSM.
The major differences I have found between these two products are:
- Flourish is by far the most complete trace mix on the market
- Flourish is more concentrated which makes it the cheaper long term solution
- TMG contains 73 times the amount of potassium in relation to the amount of iron contained in both
- TMG contains no other macros or vitamins
- Flourish contains a lot more FE
TMG was the better solution when I lived in Italy, many European water sources have a higher phosphate and mineral content than US sources, at least the ones I have had the opportunity to use. I think this is possibly one of the reasons why certain elements are omitted from TMG. Flourish on the other hand contains a little of everything, even the new Kent Botanica line requires 3 different products to come close to the contents of Flourish.
In the end, I can't say one is better than the other, they are just different. For a basic low-medium light tank Flourish is probably the best product to start with, specially if it's going to be the only product you add to the tank. In a high nutrient tank we are used to dosing macros so the fact that TMG doesn't contain P or N is probably a good thing, or at the very least, we couldn't care less. Its' high levels of K however could possibly throw off your values if you use KNO3 as a nitrogen source. Flourish on the other hand has a lot of FE in relation to the other elements. If like many of us, you use FE levels as an indicator for dosing traces, a TMG user targeting a certain FE level will end up with a lot of K and a good amount of other trace elements. A Flourish user targeting the same FE level would instead end up with a smaller concentration of other trace elements, however a broader range of them.
In conclusion, taking contents and recommended doses, Tropica seems to recommend a higher level of traces than Seachem. Both recommend the same amount of FE however.
It's a little easier to see these differences in the following tables:
- http://www.gpodio.com/fert_table.htm
This is a comparison of what's in each of these products.
- http://www.gpodio.com/fert_table_st.htm
This is a more useful comparison. The values have been standardized based on FE contents to provide a baseline regardless of concentration. At the bottom is a small table indicating FE levels based on recommended doses.
So for me mixing the two gave me the best results.
Regards
Giancarlo Podio
www.gpodio.com
First post here for me...
I've been a strong believer in both products and still today prefer either one of them to any other brand. I initially started using TMG as a trace mix, then switched to Flourish + TMG, then to Flourish + CSM+B. I think the Flourish + TMG mix was the best solution, I plan to go back to that once I finish my exaggerated supply of CSM.
The major differences I have found between these two products are:
- Flourish is by far the most complete trace mix on the market
- Flourish is more concentrated which makes it the cheaper long term solution
- TMG contains 73 times the amount of potassium in relation to the amount of iron contained in both
- TMG contains no other macros or vitamins
- Flourish contains a lot more FE
TMG was the better solution when I lived in Italy, many European water sources have a higher phosphate and mineral content than US sources, at least the ones I have had the opportunity to use. I think this is possibly one of the reasons why certain elements are omitted from TMG. Flourish on the other hand contains a little of everything, even the new Kent Botanica line requires 3 different products to come close to the contents of Flourish.
In the end, I can't say one is better than the other, they are just different. For a basic low-medium light tank Flourish is probably the best product to start with, specially if it's going to be the only product you add to the tank. In a high nutrient tank we are used to dosing macros so the fact that TMG doesn't contain P or N is probably a good thing, or at the very least, we couldn't care less. Its' high levels of K however could possibly throw off your values if you use KNO3 as a nitrogen source. Flourish on the other hand has a lot of FE in relation to the other elements. If like many of us, you use FE levels as an indicator for dosing traces, a TMG user targeting a certain FE level will end up with a lot of K and a good amount of other trace elements. A Flourish user targeting the same FE level would instead end up with a smaller concentration of other trace elements, however a broader range of them.
In conclusion, taking contents and recommended doses, Tropica seems to recommend a higher level of traces than Seachem. Both recommend the same amount of FE however.
It's a little easier to see these differences in the following tables:
- http://www.gpodio.com/fert_table.htm
This is a comparison of what's in each of these products.
- http://www.gpodio.com/fert_table_st.htm
This is a more useful comparison. The values have been standardized based on FE contents to provide a baseline regardless of concentration. At the bottom is a small table indicating FE levels based on recommended doses.
So for me mixing the two gave me the best results.
Regards
Giancarlo Podio
www.gpodio.com
From what my dad tells me (Botanist and Biochemist) iron gluconate is very poor as far as chelation is concerned. He recommended i find a source of Iron DTPA or if i run more co2 Iron EDTA. But he says if i use Iron sulfate my plants will still thrive, he says plant absorption should happen before most of the Iron binds together. But he also was against me dosing PO4 and Nitrate at first. So according to him TMG would be a much better product as far as its actualy worth in the aquarium.
Shane, at 3WPG I think you will most likely need some NO3 and PO4, all depending on tap water contents, plant load, fish load and type of food used. At least don't let them drop to 0ppm. I guess if you had a problem where PO4 or NO3 were in eccess, TMG would be the better choice, but the amounts in Flourish are very slight, specially if you consider the doses used.ShaneSmith said:From what my dad tells me (Botanist and Biochemist) iron gluconate is very poor as far as chelation is concerned. He recommended i find a source of Iron DTPA or if i run more co2 Iron EDTA. But he says if i use Iron sulfate my plants will still thrive, he says plant absorption should happen before most of the Iron binds together. But he also was against me dosing PO4 and Nitrate at first. So according to him TMG would be a much better product as far as its actualy worth in the aquarium.
Regards
Giancarlo Podio
I dose nutrients fully, it just took a little to a coax my dad into beleving the fish wont give my plants enough PO4 and NO3. I think he read the conlin paper. Once i added jobes he was convinced the tank would be better so i got Kno3 KCL sodium phosphate and traces.
Shane, that's the point of gluconate being used vs ETDA, DTPA etc, it's easier for uptake by the plant, as a botantist/biochemist he should know that plant uptake involves the Fe transporter to remove the Chelator(Gluconate, ETDA, DTPA etc) and take the Fe2+ internally into the plant root or leaf/stem/shoot/thallus.
Plants are pretty good at getting the iron in most chelators. Flourish has more iron than TMG, perhaps for this reason. I do not think or believe it is a great advantage to use gluconate presoanlly. TMG does fine.
But a mix of both may prove the best solution as far as growth.
Traces are funny, and they are complicated biochemically and difficult to work on in aquariums for many reasons since they are in such small amounts and have less impact than say PO4 or NO3.
It takes time to watch your plants and make a judgement.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Plants are pretty good at getting the iron in most chelators. Flourish has more iron than TMG, perhaps for this reason. I do not think or believe it is a great advantage to use gluconate presoanlly. TMG does fine.
But a mix of both may prove the best solution as far as growth.
Traces are funny, and they are complicated biochemically and difficult to work on in aquariums for many reasons since they are in such small amounts and have less impact than say PO4 or NO3.
It takes time to watch your plants and make a judgement.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Just out of curiosity but has anyone experienced cloudy water when dosing Seachem Fluorish Iron or Seachem Fluorish? My water is fairly hard and Ive heard that the Iron may be reacting with my hard water to precipitate out of solution? I read that Erik Leung doses at night to avoid this water cloudiness and Ive tried that except that the cloudiness stays until the next day. My gH is about 15-20 degrees and kH is 6 degrees. Sorry to get off topic here. My 2 cents is that fluorish is a very good trace source although I will be trying out Plantex CSM+B very soon.
I have very hard water and use flourish with no cloudiness problems.
Does it concern "Flourish" or "Flourish Trace" ?Art_Giacosa said:Flourish contents: Total Nitrogen (N): 0.04%; Available Phosphate (as P2O5): < 0.0100%; Soluble Potash (K2O): <0.0600%; Ca (Calcium): 0.1736%; Mg (Magnesium): 0.1154%; S (Sulfur): 0.2773%; B (Boron): 0.0096%; Br (Bromine(as bromide): 0.0001; Cl (Chlorine(as chloride): 1.15%; Co (Cobalt): 0.0004%; Cu (Copper): 0.0001%; I (Iodine (as iodide)): 0.0001%; Fe (Iron/Ferrous gluconate): 0.3886%; Mn (Manganese): 0.0125%; Mo (Molybdenum): 0.0015%; Ni (Nickel): 0.00036%; Rb (Rubidium): 0.0001%; Na (Sodium): 0.0743%; Sn (Tin): 0.000030%; V (Vanadium): 0.000030%; Zn (Zinc): 0.0004%; Arginine: 0.016%; Glutamate: 0.09%; Lysine: 0.03%; Tyrosine: 0.019%; Choline: 0.0004%; Inositol: 0.0011%; Biotin: 0.0004%; Niacin: 0.025%; Pantothenate: 0.0070%; RiboÅavin: 0.0020%;Thiamine: 0.0020%; Vitamin B12: 0.00009%; Vitamin C: 1.0%
The right link is: http://www.gpodio.com/fert_table.aspgpodio said:- http://www.gpodio.com/fert_table.htm
This is a comparison of what's in each of these products.
In this thread:
Ni (Nickel): 0.00036%
but that links states that:
Ni: 0.036%
It's a huge difference [smilie=c:
Ni (Nickel): 0.00036%
but that links states that:
Ni: 0.036%
It's a huge difference [smilie=c:
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Aquatic Plant Forum
A forum community dedicated to aquatic plant owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, tanks, styles, troubleshooting, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
FernKing
46 Replies
PlentyCoup
28 Replies
johnwesley0
24 Replies
Recommended Communities
