[plantbrain]

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

 

[plantbrain]

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