# kent vs seachem



## turtlehead (Nov 27, 2004)

I currently have kent freshwater Plant Supplement and kent freshwater Pro-Plant. I want to know if those two are better than seachems flourish.


----------



## Raul-7 (Feb 4, 2004)

I recommend using Flourish, it contains more traces than both of the Kent products. If you want a technical comparison, take a look at Gian's chart: http://www.gpodio.com/fert_table.asp.


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't think one is better than the other, but at least seachem tells you whats in the bottle so that you can figure out your dosing routine.


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

Although Kent didn't publish the contents on all their bottles they had no problem sending me the list of contents by email. During AGA Kent gave out buckets of their Botanica line for free which I'm sure will trigger several people into trying their line. I haven't done so yet, at least not with the entire line, but having picked up a bucket for myself I plan to do so soon, I'm still missing a couple of products however to really try the entire line. From the comparison of contents Flourish does contain more items but of course we must also consider the ratios and which items are there as impurities or otherwise already present in tap water, making their presence of little importance to most of us. I think it's worth a side-by-side comparison, I've been using Flourish for a long time, TMG before that and like them both even though TMG contains less elements than Flourish, it still gave me very nice results, even better I felt when I was mixing the two.

Hard to make a call without trying them.

Giancarlo Podio


----------



## aviel (Sep 12, 2004)

Hey Gpodio,

Your table doesn't contain flourish iron. Is that because you don't use flourish iron? Where do you get the fe from then? CSM+B? If yes then what ratio you maintain between Fe and Mn? See I opened a thread few days ago about this problem and wondered if you could take a look -

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3891

I think CSM+B is quite cheap then why do you bother evaluating other traces?

Aviel.


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

I've used Flourish as the only source of iron for some time, I now use 50:50 Flourish and Flourish Iron but only because I have a big tub of it, I can't say the difference is substancial in any way. The reason why I did not add Flourish Iron in the table is because all it contains is iron, there's little to compare. I probably should add the % in the bottom where the macros are listed but it didn't serve much of a purpose in the table itself, originally the table contained the entire line of products but I removed the ones that contain only one element.

Giancarlo


----------



## ShaneSmith (Feb 15, 2004)

It has not made sense to me to add flourish Iron with flourish. I do it because everyone else does and i too bought 2L of flourish Iron for cheap. I would prefer to use CSM + B because it is cost effective and traces wont make or break a tank IMO. I had good results with Flourish + FLourish Iron but i need about 1/5th the amount of CSM+B to keep green than i do using just plain FLourish.


----------



## Raul-7 (Feb 4, 2004)

Dosing Fe separately at higher lighting levels is a must.


----------



## aviel (Sep 12, 2004)

Raul,

Why?

Aviel.


----------



## Raul-7 (Feb 4, 2004)

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.


----------



## trenac (Jul 16, 2004)

I use Kent over Seachem because you can dose by drops with Kent, which I like doing.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

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.


Well they would also use the Mn, the Zn, Mo, Cu and other traces as well, not just Fe.

So adding a _general_ trace seems to be a more hololistic approach.

The Kent and SEaChem lines have competed for some time, Greg is always one step ahead. The products are fairly = these days, but.....it's very difficuklt to say X is better than Y when it's a *trace*, this takes good control and time to gauge, no less than 3 weeks and several trials.
Even then.........
Traces have the least influences on growth, light=> CO2=N=>K=>P=> Traces.
I left out a few becuase those are seldom limiting. Mo is at the end of the scale.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## aviel (Sep 12, 2004)

OK, this time I have comments for (almost) everyone on this thread... Gpodio + Raul + Plantbrain

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 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%

Now the question is whether flourish trace has enough molybdenum.


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?


Tom,

I follow your recommendations and when there's a problem the first thing I look is light, then co2, then NPK and only then micros. But this doesn't mean that the last on the list of micros has less importance for plant growth than say CO2. If there's 0 molybdenum then plants do not use nitrate. Yes - we need maybe one atom of molybdenum for zillion atoms of nitrogen but if this one atom is missing - plants can only uptake NH4. No?

Aviel.


----------



## Raul-7 (Feb 4, 2004)

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?
> 
> Aviel.


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.

As for micros, Flourish, TMG, etc. would work in both low and high light tanks.

Just remember in high light tanks you need to double/triple the recommended dosage on the bottle, I mean only in terms of Fe and micros.

BTW, I don't think a plant will suffer if it doesn't get enough molybdenum..that's why they call it micros :wink:


----------



## aviel (Sep 12, 2004)

Raul,

If I look here - http://fins.actwin.com/aquaticplants/month.9902/msg00087.html

then I can see a table with the ppm of each and every element in the plant - here it is -

Element	mg/kg Relative # of Atoms
N 15,000	1,000,000
K 10,000	250,000
Ca 5,000 125,000
Mg 2,000 80,000
P 2,000 60,000
S 1,000 30,000
Cl 100 3,000
Fe 100 2,000
B 20 2,000
Mn 50 1,000
Zn 20 300
Cu 6 100
Mo 0.1 1
Ni 0.1 1

Now let's take just the biggest player in the micro domain: Fe vs. Mn

The ratio in the plant tissue is 2:1 for Fe:Mn.

If I use CSM+B then I get 6:53:1.87 which means - 
if I want to dose enough Mn then I get extra Fe - So there's too much Fe here, you don't have to dose extra Fe, on the contrary - you have already more than enough.

Reagarding other fertilizers - like flourish - the iron and the trace are on seperate bottle so there's no meaning to 'dose more iron'. On the contrary flourish iron = 1.0% while manganese in flourish trace is 0.085% that's more than 10:1 for the advantage of the iron. So again the iron is already at high volumes and no need to sose 'more'.

If plants 'element cake' has nothing to do with dosing quantities - then what is the optimum percentage? Is it enough to make sure that there's "enough" trace elements in there or should we be carefull that one micronutrients won't block another one? Should we increase dosage of specific elements in the case of low PH? High KH? Till today I haven't seen any serious article surveying this for planted tanks.

As for the molybdenum - 'that's why the call it micros' is not an argument - they call it micros because plants need it in small quantities - if that one Mo atom is missing and I keep NH4 low in my tank and there's no NO3 then there's nothing for my plants to eat!! Absolutely nothing at all !!!

Aviel.


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

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!!


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.



> I care now about micros - (I have other sources for NPK) so here's the main micros comparison -
> 
> Element Seachem fourish trace Kent Micros
> 
> ...


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.



> Now the question is whether flourish trace has enough molybdenum.


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.

Giancarlo


----------



## aviel (Sep 12, 2004)

Hi,

Does any body know what's the deal with the Kent Vita product? Can plants benefit from vitamins? Also I remeber reading that some fertilizers contain amino acids. What's that?

Aviel.


----------



## Chuck H (Jan 25, 2004)

Aviel,

Plants do need vitamins, but it is unclear to me whether we should worry about them in terms of fertilization. I think it's probably not important at all. The fact is that plants make their own vitamins (animals do as well). As long as we provide the MINERALS plants need, they are capable of making the organic things they require. That's my feeling on vitamins, though I'll defer to those with greater knowledge of plant physiology.

Amino acids, simply put, are the building blocks of proteins.


----------



## m.lemay (Jan 9, 2005)

So whats the deal with KB micro in Gpodios' chart, is the manganese concentration correct or not. 

I'm asking because I may be having an Mn deficiency in my tank and this might help to straighten it out.

Thanks 
Marcel


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

Aviel was right, I missed a 0 while entering the numbers. I've updated the chart so it should all be right now.

Thanks again Aviel
Giancarlo


----------



## marinesci (Aug 31, 2005)

Hi All,
I just wanted to throw my $0.02 in on this chat, though I see that it's old. Just to clarify, I formulated Botanica largely after the Tropica Mastergrow formula and data that I have on aquatic plant nutrient requirements, however I wanted to split as many categories of nutrients into different bottles as possible in order to enable hobbyists to tweak concentrations as much as they wanted. You can see by the lay out of the labels that this line was intended for advanced hobbyists such as yourselves. I was the one at the AGA convention in Annapolis handing out those buckets; hopefully they went to good use.

Take care...

Chris


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

aviel said:


> Tom,
> I follow your recommendations and when there's a problem the first thing I look is light, then co2, then NPK and only then micros. But this doesn't mean that the last on the list of micros has less importance for plant growth than say CO2. If there's 0 molybdenum then plants do not use nitrate. Yes - we need maybe one atom of molybdenum for zillion atoms of nitrogen but if this one atom is missing - plants can only uptake NH4. No?
> 
> Aviel.


How do intend to prevent no Mo from getting in there?
How would you know? 
Do you have a clean room?

I seriously dount anyone will experience Mo deficency, fish waste, plant leakage/decay of older leaves etc.

We just do not need much, it's always in excess if we dose.
Non CO2 tanks get enough from the fish waste.

But it is an essential element, I do go down a flow chart, jumping around from nutrient to nutrient haphazardly is not wise.

Rule things out before making a routine change or dosing more/less.
Too many jump to a conclusion, misread their test kits and assume way too much.

I know of no one that has ever tested for Mo in the hobby. We use Trace's Fe reading as the proxy for all traces.

I'll get into Fe and Mn heavily is a few months on the BarrReport.
Far more than anyone has done obviously in relation to aquatic plants for culture.

I'll pick on Mo, Zn, B, Cl and the rest of the misfits as I call them the following month.

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com exclusive cheap semi soft enriched clay Barr Substrates for subscribers only! Molasses added to encourage growth of bacteria and mychorrhizal fungi. Cost relative to "MPV Turface", doing an ADA soil vs this product presently. Various grain sizes also(Dark black brown color) appears very much like ADA aqua soil except 10X cheaper (and much cheaper than Onyx/Flourite etc). Various nutrient content options also. Available late Oct.

*Light is assumed to the limiting factor *
At least above a MCP(min compensation point) and the nutrients/CO2 are the non limiting elements.

Ahhhh..............

That is why I used high light to find max uptake rates..............

And compared to natural sunlight, our lights seldom get beyond those intensities...............

So light is not part of the equation if you dose excess based on max rate.

Excess traces do not cause algae or shrimp or plant issues either.

So..............


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

marinesci said:


> Hi All,
> I just wanted to throw my $0.02 in on this chat, though I see that it's old. Just to clarify, I formulated Botanica largely after the Tropica Mastergrow formula and data that I have on aquatic plant nutrient requirements, however I wanted to split as many categories of nutrients into different bottles as possible in order to enable hobbyists to tweak concentrations as much as they wanted. You can see by the lay out of the labels that this line was intended for advanced hobbyists such as yourselves. I was the one at the AGA convention in Annapolis handing out those buckets; hopefully they went to good use.
> 
> Take care...
> ...


You all might want to know this about iron, plants use the same transportor that Cu also uses and that high Fe levels will inhibit Mn uptake also, although in Hydrilla, even an 85:1 ratio still increased growth as Fe was increased even to 6-8ppm, after which growth rates leveled off.

I routinely added 1-2ppm of TMG in the past with excellent results and crazy color.

If you want to make a product, use both DTPH and gluconate as chealtors and complexes and not just for iron alone. Use it for Mn, Cu etc....not just EDTA.

As far as Vitamins and hormones etc, good old Super Thrive works quite well.
Slap a label on it, toss a little of this or that in there, you are set.

I think too many trace options causes confusion rather than an increase in the market and options aquarist really need.

Adding extra Fe is not helping the plants really relative to adding enough of a general trace mix, although some might feel adding a spike here and there is somehow "sexy" as one well spoken person put it.

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com exclusive cheap semi soft enriched clay Barr Substrates for subscribers only! Molasses added to encourage growth of bacteria and mychorrhizal fungi. Cost relative to "MPV Turface", doing an ADA soil vs this product presently. Various grain sizes also(Dark black brown color) appears very much like ADA aqua soil except 10X cheaper (and much cheaper than Onyx/Flourite etc). Various nutrient content options also. Available late Oct.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## marinesci (Aug 31, 2005)

Tom, thanks for your insightful comments. I have noted them.


----------

