# Profile Aquatic Soil



## PMD (May 3, 2005)

I'd just like to plug this product.

I've never been that into fertilizer tabs (I only use a cap of flourish w/ water changes + once every 2 weeks) and I'm using a dual compact fluorescent 120W (only run one 65W) on my 20H. I tried DIY CO2. (Did not seem to do anything except make algae grow really well where the bubbles surfaced). I tried Flourite (Did not work- low CEC? The sharp edges scratched my glass when moving things and started to debarb my corys!) Then I tried pea gravel/sand with plant tabs. (Also did not work.)

So, I've basically had ZERO success with getting my plants to grow (and when I say this, I mean I killed everything except my Java Fern, Java Moss, some hair grass, and a few resilient crypts). So, I basically decided I needed to look into a high CEC substrate. I was going to do that EcoComplete natural substrate but then I got really interested in the whole "Kitty Litter Experiment". I was going to try Hartz Mt because everyone said it did not turn to mush, but when I couldn't find it I started looking at alternatives. I saw some Profile in Home Depot, and figured "What the hell.."

Two months later I have plants growing out the yin-yang. FINALLY! Most suprising is my Profile (acrylite) didn't turn into mush, it still looks the same it did when I first put it in. I can pull out my plants (crazy root systems now) and move them around without having much sediment come up. And anything that does get kicked up settles in less than 10 minutes (this tank does not have a pump or filter).

Just wanted to share my experience (my first good one really). Some things I noted: 
*My profile had a lot of clay "dust" in it, but I didn't rinse it like I did with my flourite. I simply added my water after putting it in "dry" and then removed the water and refilled the tank. It has since *NEVER* been cloudy. I did not experience a bacterial bloom either or NH4 spike either. (Maybe because I saved my mulm and 30% of the water from my old tank?)
*The first week my pH did drop quite a bit. (~5.8-6.0) I buffered with some calcium carbonate and now have it at 6.8. I do not know for sure if this was the profile, because a lot of my plants were in the process of dying.
*Some people seem to worry about Cd and other heavy metals in these clays. I think these elements are inert. I do not keep fish in this tank, but I do have dwarf african frogs, Japanese and M. trumpeter snails, ostracods, scuds, ghost and fairy shrimp. None have shown any indication of poor health in this tank. And if these clays really were toxic, don't you think "Fluffy" would be dead by now?


----------



## Praxx42 (Mar 4, 2005)

I'll throw in my $0.02.

Profile rocks, and it's cheap ($7/10 lbs.) My only beef with it is that it's extremely lightweight.


----------



## shalu (Oct 1, 2004)

Praxx42 said:


> My only beef with it is that it's extremely lightweight.


Same beef. not a problem once the plants grow in.


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I have read where some folks do not like Shultz Aquatic Plant Soil (SAPS). I set up two 55g tanks last year mixing 1 bag of Flora base, 1 bag of Flourite, and the remainder SAPS. I don't remember how many 10lb bags now.

The substrate produces stalks the size of a mans pinky finger or larger on plants like P. stellata, H. balsamica, H. difformis and many others. The rrot systems are also very large. I don't know if this is the substrate, the dosing, or the lights on these tanks.

I think this is a very good substrate. The addition of the Flourite helped give it some weight but the Florabase is mostly fine powder now. If I were to do it over again, I would skip the Flora Base and add extra SAPS.

If you do some looking, you can find Turface in 50lb bags for about the same cost that Wal Mart sells 10lb bags. If I ever set up another large tank I will use SAPS and either some Flourite or sand to give it some weight.


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

I think I know why people think it is to light. It holds on to air bubbles when first put in water like there is no tomorrow and that makes it light. If you can agitate it a little with just enough water to cover it to get rid of the bubbles it holds fine.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

No, it is definitely lighter. I've used just about every substrate there is aside from Eco-Complete and this stuff is really light in comparison. I like the way it grows plants, but the color is horrific. YUCK!

Side Note: If you had algae grow as a result of CO2 addition there was something wrong going on, most likely yeast solution in your tank.


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

Mine has been in the tank for over a year and it is still "light" even though it is mixed with flourite. Keeping a rootless topped plant in this stuff once the plant starts pearling is next to impossible!

While my preference for a substrate is black, I don't think the color is too bad and definately prefer the single color of Profile/SAPS to Flourite's multiple colors. Maybe I don't mind the color since I have it mixed with flourite. Maybe the Flourite gives it just enough color to not be offensive  It did look horrible with 9325's over it though. Not bad with Nutrigrow's 5000K temp though.


----------



## PMD (May 3, 2005)

MatPat said:


> If I ever set up another large tank I will use SAPS and either some Flourite or sand to give it some weight.


This is exactly what I did. I got silica sand from Home Depot + Profile. I mixed it in 1:2 ratio, sand : profile.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

Everytime this subject comes up I am amazed that people still use Profile Aquatic Plant Soil instead of Schultz-Profile clay conditioner. It is the exact same product made by the same company but lots cheaper! The last 40 pound bag I bought was $18...for fourty pounds. A few years ago it was 12 bucks. i think it works great and have been using it for years. It gets heavier as sedimant builds in it, but all you have to do is mix a small amount of gravel with it to make it heavier. It is the same color of sand basically, light brown, tan color. If you cover the substrate with plants, who cares what color it is! And, you can always top ot off with something more visually appealing to you.


----------



## troy_h (Jul 12, 2005)

Flourite actually has a very high CEC, plus it contains a good amount of nutrients that your root feeding plants will benefit from. Why you didn't have any success with it is beyond me, certainly such results would be atypical of most who use it.

Schultz Aquatic Soil, Turface, Profile, Structure etc are basically all fracted clay soil amendments. The chain I work for sells a product called Structure of the same genre. It's a mined clay substanced which is then fired to harden it which is why they aren't prone to turning to mush, however, as they contain no useable nutrients in and of themselves, some type of amendment is needed. All have high CEC ratings as well.

Robert is entirely correct though, and to expand, there is virtually no difference between the latter products, even across brands, you'd most likely be hard put to notice any real difference when placed side by side, except of course for the price. Our store brand, Structure, is $14.99 for a 40 pound bag, listed as both a soil amendment and an aquatic soil.


----------



## Sir_BlackhOle (Jan 25, 2004)

I love this stuff but didnt know it could be found for so cheap! I guess the larger stores (home depot, lowes) would have it?


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

Here is a good link to some various types of substrates that were tested. Flourite, Turface, Profile, Onyx Gravel along with some others that are still recommended for planted tanks were sent to a lab for testing according to the author. Here is the link: http://home.infinet.net/teban/jamie.htm

The test results are located in a chart near the bottom of the link.

Note that Flourite has a CEC of 1.7 while the CEC of Turface, Turface Black, and Profile have CEC's near 30 to over 40. According to the tests, the only substrates that tested lower than Flourite for CEC were Lowes Play Sand, Finland Pine/Fir Forest and Finland mixed Forest soils! The latter of the two being sand and silt!

Flourite also contains LESSER amounts of most nutrients than Profile/Turface types of substrates. Considered you can find 40lbs of Turface for around $10 (wish I would've know that before setting up my tanks with Shultz) compared with 15lbs of Flourite for ~$15-20.

I'm not against Flourite in any way but it does not seem to be the great substrate that many folks claim it is, at least according to the tests in the link. People have used Flourite sucessfully for years and I used it in combination with SAPS in two 55g tanks. That leads me to believe that the substrate may not be as important to plant growth as everyone thinks it is!

Robert - I would have used Shultz Clay conditioner if I had know about it at the time. SAPS seems to be carried by most WalMart stores but I have never seen their Clay Conditioner. I guess the SAPS IS MARKETED A BIT BETTER. I assume the packaging in the 10lb bags, along with the "convenient" size attributes to the price difference.

Here a link to a post where you can find some info on Turface. http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?p=54816#post54816

Look for Heather Gladney's response for the links.


----------



## troy_h (Jul 12, 2005)

In regards to Flourite, since the link you included is dated 2000, and the analysis seems to conflict with the analysis provided by Seachem in numerous respects, I would question whether or not the results contained in your link are still valid. I did send an email to Seachem to obtain the most current analysis to see what other discrepancies may exist between the older test you posted and most current data.

I'm also a bit confused on the analysis of Profile because the company itself doesn't seem to claim any nutrient content, nor do any of the similar products.

I've tried several of the other products listed in your link, from a practical standpoint in day to day aquarium keeping, some may be better suited by the numbers but not as good when it comes to application. Kitty litter for instance yielded very good results for me until I had to uproot a sword that had been growing for about 8 months. That was enough to make me look for something a bit less mushy to say the least 

I have to say, to date, Flourite has yielded me the best results in terms of ease of use and plant growth of everything I've tried, the next best thing is a product based apparently on fired red clay that I can no longer get, I have a tank set up at work with Structure but I haven't had it set up long enough to give an honest evaluation, the CEC is ideal, but it needs a top layer and amendments to be used for aquatic plants much like similar products, it wouldn't be my first choice, I just have a cheap boss. We have a case of Flourite coming anyway so if it dorks on me or becomes to much a headache I can use what I know to be a good product.

Overall, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of fracted clay products if cost is a primary concern as long as you factor in the long term costs involved over products like Flourite or Eco. If you make your own root tabs and such, I'd imagine it would be fairly cost effective, if you buy the commercially prepared stuff, in the long run it might cost you more, but the initial casj outlay would be less.

But then I pay $13.50 shipped for a bag of Flourite so lucky me.


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

The tests in the link I referenced was about 5 years old but it is the only link I know of that actually does a side by side analysis of different substrates. I think tests of any fracted clay material is going to differ depending on the source from which it was mined. 

That said, I do tend to believe independent analysis more than those published by a company selling a product. The product manufacturer always has something to gain, the independent analyzer usually does not 

Shultz may not claim any nutrient content on their packaging or site but it appears to have been in the product, at least it was five years ago. Who knows what is in it now. I think that can be said for any commercial substrate...look at what has happened with CaribSea and their bad batches of Eco Complete 

I must say that the 55g tanks I set up over a year ago have some of the biggest stems I have ever seen on plants. These tanks were a combination of SAPS (many bags), Flourite (1 bag) and Floarbase (1 bag). Not sure which substrate, if any of them can be attributed to the stem growth. 

I would attribute the growth to both the substrate and the fact that these two tanks usually have over 20pm of NO3, 2ppm of PO4, plenty of Traces, and CO2 levels in the 50's or 60's. Whatever it is, I'm not willing to wreck them at this point to find out which item is causing the good growth


----------



## troy_h (Jul 12, 2005)

MatPat said:


> That said, I do tend to believe independent analysis more than those published by a company selling a product. The product manufacturer always has something to gain, the independent analyzer usually does not


I would whole heartedly agree with you, but at least in Seachems case, their results are published from analysis performed by a reputable university lab by a stated standard and method. I assume most companies rely on independent analysis today if for no other reason than liabilty. I do note that the lab performing the tests in the link you posted is not mentioned, just the equipment and standard.



MatPat said:


> Shultz may not claim any nutrient content on their packaging or site but it appears to have been in the product, at least it was five years ago. Who knows what is in it now. I think that can be said for any commercial substrate...look at what has happened with CaribSea and their bad batches of Eco Complete


I work for a small regional chain of garden/pet centers in the pet/aquatic gardening sector, I'm fairly familiar with most of the products, none claim any nutrional benefit other than their ability to store nutrients from fertilization. In practical application we use such products to reduce soil compaction primarily, in aquatic gardening, simply as a rooting medium. None provide any fertilization in and of themselves.

At least in my experience, any potential benefit would be pitched agressively by the reps.



MatPat said:


> I must say that the 55g tanks I set up over a year ago have some of the biggest stems I have ever seen on plants. These tanks were a combination of SAPS (many bags), Flourite (1 bag) and Floarbase (1 bag). Not sure which substrate, if any of them can be attributed to the stem growth


The swords in all my tanks have almost finger sized stem growth, the largest one I just transferred to our greenhouse for an emersed growth display, the only common denominator in all tanks is the use of fracted clay substrates, I have different dosing regimens for each tank so I'm assuming the higher CEC relative to any fracted clay product is the primary cause simply because it does indeed get the nutrients to the roots.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

The conditioner is found in the garden section in larger garden stores. Some Home depots carry it. I did my own comparison several years ago of different substrates and fertilizers comparing the guaranteed analysis provided by the manufacturer. Profile claims to provide many more minerals than Flourite, but Seachem told me the only one they ever tested for was iron, so that is all they list. http://www.aquabotanic.com/plantfer.htm
http://www.aquabotanic.com/flourite.htm

Profile is made of a different type of clay than Flourite. I forget the actual name, but the common name is fullers earth. It does have higher CEC than most because it is very porus. This is why it is so light weight. It is so porus that it can trap oxygen in it for several days after putting it in water.

Bear in mind that any clay or laterite soil is not considered fertile. It only contains oxidized minerals that have to become water soluble before plants can use them. Fertile by definition would provide NPK and usable minerals. This is what soil and artificially enhanced substrates offer but it can be depleted. This is why in agriculture fields are regularly turned over, rotated, replenished with compost, manure, fresh sources of nitrogen. Even organicly grown crops must have nitrogen.

I do not know why Jamie Johnson's data would have changed that much in five years. I doubt if any of the products have changed. I do not think it is a question of which one is better or if it matters that much. They both do what they are designed to do according to their limitations. Neither provide NPK.


----------



## troy_h (Jul 12, 2005)

Do you have a link to Profiles website where they list their analysis, I don't even see where they list iron.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

The information I got was from a phone call to Profile and a conversation with their R&D manager. This was before they licensed the product to Schultz.

Now you can poo poo it as sales hype, but bear in mind they do not market this product for aquarium use so they do not really have the motives to lie. And read the interview I did with Greg Morin of Seachem a few years ago about Flourite and tell me honestly if you think there is hype and ambiguity in that conversation. http://www.aquabotanic.com/flourite.htm

All these substrates work, and you can argue about the merits of the different characteristics each has or is reported to have. I like Profile. Its cheap and easy, doesn't make as much dust as Flourite.


----------



## troy_h (Jul 12, 2005)

I'm not arguing about the suitability or merits of each product, ultimately I'd say they perform about the same if applied correctly. I'm more concerned with getting correct information to my customers and others in the hobby, and I'd hate to tell people they need to use an iron supplement in a product that doesn't need it and vice versa etc.

Knowing full well that price is a consideration (and a hinderance perhaps) to people getting into this hobby, I routinely try to find ways to make it less expensive while insuring good results.


----------



## georgedv (Jun 23, 2005)

*Substrates*

I have found loads of info just on this chain alone. Howeve, i am having a hard time locate all these products in South Carolina. Could these items like Profile be sold under another name. (Is Profile the name of the product or the material). I am very new to aquatic gardening, i have done lots of reading, but any ideas, suggestions and lin ks are always welcome.

george


----------



## weaver (Jun 13, 2005)

georgedv said:


> I have found loads of info just on this chain alone. Howeve, i am having a hard time locate all these products in South Carolina.


I'm also from SC and I've been looking for a while now as well. If I find time, I am going to call the manufacturer tommorrow and see if they can give me a list of their local retailers. I'll keep you mind if I find some info.

What part of the state are you from?

Blake


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

Profile is one name of the product. Shultz Aquatic Plant soil is another as is Turface (and the many different types of turface). They are typically used for sports fields...think football, baseball, and golf.


----------



## Sir_BlackhOle (Jan 25, 2004)

Thats interesting....is it added before the grass is planted? Or do they just sprinkle some on every once in a while?


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I'm not really sure how they do it but I would assume it is under the topsoil and grass  It (Turface) is supposed to help with drainage and probably compaction too.

Here's a link to a Turface field maintenance PDF sheet that explains it a bit:

http://www.turface.com/turface/turface_fieldmaintenance.pdf


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Another version of "Profile" is Scott's Clay Soil Conditioner, which my local plant nursery sells. I haven't tried it, but I have read that it is the same stuff.


----------



## marinesci (Aug 31, 2005)

Hello All,
I have a question regarding the Profile product or any of its analogues: how much would you estimate is needed to create a depth of 2" in a 72"x24" footprint? Would a couple of 50-lb. bags do it?

TIA...

Chris


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Yep

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

i've read alot of differing info with no conclusive results as to whether Schultz Aquatic Plant Soil does or does not raise gh...

you guys who use it, any definitive answers?


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

Profile is the original manufacturer or they used to be. All the Profile Products now have the Schultz name on them. I do not know the legalities, but I presume Profile contracted it to Schultz or they have some kind of partnership. When I contacted Profile a few years ago, it was only Profile on the bags, not Schultz. At the time I told them many people were using it in aquariums and they were surprised. What is interesting is there is nothing else quite like it in garden stores. There are other types of clay conditioners that have all sorts of things in it we dont want. I think Scotts was one of the ones I looked at in the store and it had a bunch of other stuff in it. In fact I do not even know how the "clay conditioner" works. It is supposed to be for treating clay soils in gardens, but it is made of pure clay...so it doesn't make any sense to me.

Aquatic Plant soil and Clay Conditioner are the easiest to find. I have personally never seen Turface any where. I have heard stories before that it raises the GH, but I have never bothered to find out.


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I've had SAPS in two tanks for over a year now in two different water sources. It is not 100% SAPS substrate but is mixed with Flourite (1 bag) and Florabase (1 bag) so it is possible that the Florabase may have initially skewed the results of the GH and KH

My Southern Maryland water source had a KH of 7dKH and a GH of 4dGH. After the first month, water parameters never changed from the tap parameters over the course of a week. Weekly water changes were performed on these tanks so that may have kept the GH stable.

My Ohio water source has a KH of 5dKH and a GH of 10 dGH. GH values do not rise even when water changes are stretched to monthly.

I believe Turface is used mainly for sports fields. Here's a link to a post with a link to the Turface site. 
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?p=54816#post54816
A local guy here claimed to have found 50lb bags of Turface for $10!


----------



## marinesci (Aug 31, 2005)

I spoke with Profile's office and got the name of a local distributor that has 50-lb. bags of Turface MVP for $12.50. I'll be making a trip tomorrow...


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

but nobody knows for sure that it doesnt raise gh? 

the sand i was using raised my gh 2 degrees in 2 days so, and the stuff i read online said that the guy who tested it put it in a beaker snad tested after 24 hours and the gh went up by 2 or 3 degrees in that time... but this was in 99-2000 so...


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

It has not raised the GH in my tanks since June so I'd say that is a pretty good indicator that it does not raise GH.

When the tanks were first set up I seem to remember the GH being lower than my tap water. I no longer have the data in my spreadsheet for that time. I have assumed that the possible GH lowering properties of the Florabase (1 bag in a 55g tank) have been exhausted in the year that the tank has been set up. The GH currently remains stable on both tanks with this substrate.

If you are in doubt, purchase a small bag of SAPS (~$10) at WalMart and give it a test! Place a small amount (1-2" layer) in a 5g bucket and fill it with water. Check the GH upon fill up and after a week in the bucket. If you do not add anything to the bucket (fertilizers, Gh increasers, etc) for a week's time period it should give you a pretty good estimate in what will happen in your tank over the course of a week. 

This "experiment" will give you a definitive result as to whether the SAPS will raise your GH or not! 

Let us know what you find out if you give it a try. Unless you are trying to grow soft water species like Toninas and Eriocaulons, a small rise in GH over the course of a week isn't going to matter much anyways.


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

only home depot and lowes have it here. but i guess i'll have to cause i have no idea where to laterite anf fluorite other than online.

but i have to do something soon this sand just keeps raising my gh up.
and i have killis so this gh thing is kind of important.
does anyone know if lacerock is inert?


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I have no clue but the same test would work with the lace rock...put a small piecein a glass/bucket of water and watch the Gh for a few days...


----------



## marinesci (Aug 31, 2005)

I'll be filling the tank with RO water so a slight increase in GH simply means that I have less fiddling around to do when briging the parameters into the proper ranges. I will, however, do a before and after test on GH and publish the results here.


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

well a call to the number on the bag at the store got e through to customer service and they assured me it does not in fact change gh and is neutral in ph. Schultz Aquatic Soil is tan to red brown, and is made of arcilllite.

i also found quickrete Medium Sand and while the package said "may contain silica crystals" i would say from the split bag i saw the it is ALL silica crystals. but i thought silica is the stuff they put in shoe boxes to absorb water. always says "DO NOT EAT"


----------



## Mookka (Aug 29, 2005)

*A quick read*

Hey all,

First off Im new here!!! just tranfered over from ac to a good plant specific forum. Anyway, from what i can tell from my skim read of this is that it is extremely efficient with a bag of flourite b/c it has such high CEC. This is what makes sense to me because nobody here has a 100% SAPS tank. I really hope I didn't miss a post or anything but thats what i think is up.


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

so when building this substrate with SAPS should i set down a layer of the saps and then a layer of like Quikrete Medium Silica Sand?


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I think the reason no one has 100% SAPS is because it it so light! Even mixed with flourite it can be difficult to keep larger stem plants like H. balsamica in the substrate. 

My personal reason for mixing the different substrates was because I had 2 bags of flourite, 2 bags of Florabase and two 55g tanks to set up. SAPS got the choice because it was so inexpensive. If it had more weight to it, I would've used 100% SAPS in my tanks. 

Urville, your idea to mix some sand with SAPS is probably a good idea. You can try layering the two as you mentioned but they will eventually mix together. The sand should give some weight to the SAPS making it easier to keep plants in the substrate.


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

i apologize ahead of time
but i want to be 100% on this. you know the internet, you get alot of crazy info, but some is real and here is some, that makes me ask...

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-9884.html


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Add 50% sand (2-3mm) and match it up well color wise and you should be fine.

Add some peat and mulm.
If you like that ADA talk, add some Super Thrive(see any nursery).


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

REALLY?
I actually have superthrive but had been unable to find anyone who had used it in a tank, and was well unwilling to experiment with my one curent tank. I wasnt sure what was in it and didnt want to kill any fish.
I use superthrive in my outdoor garden all summer and it saved me from a a two-week rainathon where my plants got no sun and lackluster temperatures.


----------



## urville (Sep 20, 2004)

well last night at 12:45 i added a handful of very well rinsed SAPS to a glass of water and tested t
he water from the tap at 7.6 ph, kh of 3, gh of 5

this morning at 11:20 i retested TWICE and: 
the ph was a little bit lower7.2-7.4, it does say neutral ph on the bag
the kh was still 3
but the gh had gone up one degree in that time period to 6
i really dont want to have to redo this again later. 

i called their number and they advised that there shouldnt be any reason the water's gh is rising. that there is no crystallized minerals or something and that she would forward the info the R&D team and call back in 48 hours, but just off this i think this bag will have to go back. 

too bad i cant find laterite or fluorite or something here as my gh in the tank from the playsand is now up to 12.

maybe if i use straight R/O drinking water or peat? will peat lower the kh too? i could sprinkle down some peat, then put the schults(??) and the coarse silica sand??
i know the r/o will lower the kh.
of course i cant find r/o water treatments locally so maybe mix it with my water at 70% R/O and 30% my water? that way if it does go up it will be to maybe 5 or 6?


----------

