# Once and for all: Does Flourite contain as many nutrients as Seachem claims it does?



## ZooTycoonMaster (Apr 23, 2008)

Just want to clarify this once and for all...


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Just because Flourite contains all of those nutrients doesn't mean they are all easily available to the plants. When someone reports that their sword plant filled tank now has badly deteriorated Flourite after a couple of years, then I will believe the plants actually consume those nutrients. The Flourite would end up as sludge or mud if the clays it is made of were to break down enough to make the minerals in the clay become ions available to the roots. That is my intuitive reasoning anyway.


----------



## Emerc69 (Mar 28, 2008)

i would like to say yes but i also believe hoppycalif. to an extent i kno it works because the roots of the plants are semi tinged the same color the flourite is. i also have a slightly better success with it than plain sand.


----------



## jazzlvr123 (Apr 29, 2007)

yup what hoppy said most most of the stuff isn't available for consumption by the plants until many years of deterioration like minerals such as Mg


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Flourite doesn't contain nutrients the same way that ADA's products do. They add lots of organics and nitrogen compounds up front.

Flourite's best quality isn't that it is "loaded up with nutrients at the factory". Instead, it is the large cation exchange capacity inherent to the material. In a nutshell, this property of the substrate allows for molecular nutrient exchange at the root zone. How do the nutrients get there? Mulm accumulation, root tabs, diffusion from the water column, etc.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

hoppycalif said:


> Just because Flourite contains all of those nutrients doesn't mean they are all easily available to the plants. When someone reports that their sword plant filled tank now has badly deteriorated Flourite after a couple of years, then I will believe the plants actually consume those nutrients. The Flourite would end up as sludge or mud if the clays it is made of were to break down enough to make the minerals in the clay become ions available to the roots. That is my intuitive reasoning anyway.


Yep, I think that's a really good point and I think there's also some confusion on whether these "loaded" substrates are valuable to the plants through their roots or are the simpy using it because it leached into the water column. I've never used Flourite, but Aquasoil I believe it is the leaching that benefits the plants the most and as a result most don't need to fertilize large or any amount of N or P, but only K and micros.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Tom Barr's position is that a nutrient loaded substrate does feed the plant through the roots, making water column fertilizing less critical. He still likes to use heavy water column dosing with ADA aquasoil, although not the full EI dosing. As a result, if he neglects the dosing for a couple of days the plants are still well fed by the roots.

I don't think it has been established yet just how ADA's nutrients reach the plants. It would take a well designed set of tests to do that. I do have a vague memory about reading some results demonstrating that aquatic plants do absorb at least some nutrients through the roots.

I know Tom did one series of tests that, oddly enough, showed that for a couple of plant species, SMS is at least as effective as ADA Aquasoil, and a system of SF Bay delta silt plus SMS was a bit better than ADA Aquasoil. This suggests to me that a substantial amount of nutrients reach the plants by way of the roots, for those two species. Otherwise the high CEC SMS would not have been so effective.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

_I don't think it has been established yet just how ADA's nutrients reach the plants. It would take a well designed set of tests to do that. I do have a vague memory about reading some results demonstrating that aquatic plants do absorb at least some nutrients through the roots._

That's probably true and I didn't mean to imply that the roots do nothing but anchor, but it seems when you dose the water column aquarist can grow plants without any deficiences even in an inert substrate, but I don't think the case is true the other way around with as many plants. Having aquasoil is almost like having a timed-release fert system in the tank.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Hmmm. I think certain species are highly dependent on substrate nutrient uptake. Crypts, for one, will grow in an inert substrate with enough water column dosing, but they don't really grow well. Add a few root-tabs up front or wait a few months for mulm to accumulate and WHAMMO - they go absolutely nuts.

I think the number of plants that are obligate root-zone feeders is rather small - only a very few species. Most annoyingly fast growers (fine, frilly leaves) probably rely very little on root uptake. The majority of plants that we keep will probably do fine getting their nutrients either way, but still, I suspect that most species get most of their nutrients from the root zone in nature.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

guaiac_boy said:


> Flourite doesn't contain nutrients the same way that ADA's products do. They add lots of organics and nitrogen compounds up front.
> 
> Flourite's best quality isn't that it is "loaded up with nutrients at the factory". Instead, it is the large cation exchange capacity inherent to the material. In a nutshell, this property of the substrate allows for molecular nutrient exchange at the root zone. How do the nutrients get there? Mulm accumulation, root tabs, diffusion from the water column, etc.


Flourite is a naturally occuring clay product. It is mined and not manufactured like ADA and Eco. Unlike ADA and Eco it does not leach nutrients into the water column. Some nutrients found in Flourite are taken in by the roots not just from mulm that settled in the substrate.

Article from the Krib:
Re:Flourite
by Greg Morin <greg/seachem.com> 
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999
> Dr. Morin, could you please comment on this? You stated at one point I
> believe that Flourite was a naturally mined material. Is it subjected to
> high heat (fired) during processing (to increase internal pore space I would
> assume) or is it just cleaned, crushed and bagged?

Well, I can't say too much without getting in trouble ;-)

All I can say is, the material has experienced high levels of heat. 
It is naturally mined. And the order actually would be crushed, 
cleaned, and bagged ;-)

Hope that helps, but I can't really say much more without giving away 
a little bit of the "secret".

- -Greg Morin

Gregory Morin, Ph.D. ~~~~~~~Research Director~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seachem Laboratories, Inc. www.seachem.com 888-SEACHEM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Eco Complete is not altered by baking or other manufacturing steps, other than crushing and grading for particle size, as far as I know. Its nutrients come from the black water they package with it, again as far as I know.

ADA Aquasoil is, I think, baked and loaded with some nutrients as part of the manufacturing process.

Flourite and SMS are clays that are baked, with no nutrients added.

I could be wrong on all of those statements, but I don't think so.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

I am led to believe that Eco is not naturally occuring for the following reasons: All they will say about it on the website and bag is that it is 'all natural' which does not equate to naturally occuring. The other reason is why so many BAD batches? Does nature screw up? Or is it the manufacting process that gets it wrong.

Too many issues with people complaining about their pH and algae problems due to this stuff leaching into the water column for me to use it.

Like you Hoppy, I could be wrong.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Rumor has it that the "contamination issue" was a result of their SW substrates (crushed shells) getting mixed in with their FW substrates at the yard. Truth? Fiction? Who knows.

What is certain is that CaribSea lost a bunch of potenial customers during that episode. I find Eco to be an ideal substrate, but that's just me talking. You can have success or failure with just about anything.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Jan 31, 2008)

Having temporarily owned 5 bags of the "bad" Eco, IMO it LOOKED like the planted got mixed up with their cichlid substrate. There were some seashells in mine. 

I've read through a few threads where CaribSea reps claimed that they were mining a new pocket that gave some unexpected content. 

Whichever, I took it all back and am quite happy with my black Fluorite, so they lost me on that one purchase, at least?


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Have then tell you what type of rock it is and then I will believe it is natural.


----------



## Nelumbo74 (May 2, 2008)

I use flourite without any liquid fertilizers whatsoever, and my plants grow like weeds. I also get wonderful coloration. I think there is entirely too much emphasis put on liquid ferts. That's only my opinion.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Nelumbo74 said:


> I think there is entirely too much emphasis put on liquid ferts. That's only my opinion.


Well, it's really depends on your particular light intensity. I have a 46g heavily planted, CO2 injected, low/medium light tank that get's no ferts beyond fish food. The plants are beautiful, dense, and don't grow so quickly that they're a nuiscance. It's also 100% algae free (knock on wood). In that sense, I agree with you.

If I tried the same thing on my high-light tank it'd go to pot real quick. Growth rates are simply too fast to keep up with using substrate-only methods. I've tried it. It sometimes makes me wonder why I bother with the high-light stuff.


----------

