I currently have kent freshwater Plant Supplement and kent freshwater Pro-Plant. I want to know if those two are better than seachems flourish.
Well they would also use the Mn, the Zn, Mo, Cu and other traces as well, not just Fe.Raul-7 said:At higher lighting levels plants grow faster,and thus nutrients are used up rather quickly. Many people have figured that you have to double or triple your micro dosing, at higher lighting levels, to prevent yellowing stems and stunted growth.
The Fe found in most trace fertilizers isn't sufficient enough for high light tanks, those broad spectrum ferts such as Flourish, TMG, etc. have only enough Fe for dosing in low light tanks where Fe isn't used up that quickly by the plants. Dosing Fe separately gives you more control over how much you're dosing, rather than just dosing a whole bottle of Flourish just to suffice your plants' Fe needs. Also, plants take in more Fe than any other micro, it is usually the first micro to run low and thus you need to dose Fe separately to avoid any deficiency.aviel said:Raul,
In a high light tank I believe you don't need only to drive more Fe, but also more micros so why would you dose fe seperately?
Where did you get that value from? I just want to make sure before I make any corrections to my table as these values were directly from Kent Marine.aviel said:Gpodio,
U have an error in your execl - the manganese concentration in the kent product is 0.0431 and not 0.431% - big difference!!
I think you are comparing the wrong products personally. Kent has divided their macros into two main products (perhaps 3 if you want to include Vita for vitamis which would be a fair comparison when putting it against Flourish), Micro and Grow make up the Kent trace elements while Flourish (not trace, not iron) is the complete trace mixture from Seachem. Trace and Iron are supplements, just like Kent has a separate iron additive too. Some use these additives, some don't, I use Iron as well as Flourish but only because I got a big bottle of it for free, too many changes however to give an accurate opinion on any changes it has made for me, I will know better when the bottle runs out and I stop using it. Trace I tried but didn't notice any differences in my tanks, probably because my tap water already contains plenty of traces. But back to the comparison, another complexity is that the Kent traces are divided into 2 or 3 products, meaning that you can dose them separately and provide different ratios for each group of traces. So while it's valid to compare the ratios within the same bottle, the ratios between the elements found in different bottles are variable depending on the dose you choose to use. So in theory the Kent line should provide more chance for personalization, if that is required of course.I care now about micros - (I have other sources for NPK) so here's the main micros comparison -
Element Seachem fourish trace Kent Micros
Manganese 0.0850% 0.0431%
Molybdenum 0.0003% 0.0028%
Zinc 0.0169% 0.0030%
Never asked myself this question, nor have I ever seen a molybdenum deficiency using any other product. But the dosed amounts are certainly different, actually they are for all the elements. While comparing the % of elements is useful, one must also take the recommended doses into consideration. Kent Micro says to dose 5ml per 10 gallons weekly, Flourish says 5ml per 60 gallons weekly. So the Mo difference if far greater than the table alone shows, which should hint to us that the Mo dosed with the Kent products is far above the minimum required by our plants. That said with the assumption that Flourish does not cause an Mo deficiency as I think enough of us use this product without ever running into such deficiency.Now the question is whether flourish trace has enough molybdenum.