[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>Dave, this should work fine. Profile has a LOT more CEC that Flourite (19.5X
>more), should that be a concern - the Profile in the lower layers should be
>able to snag onto any nutrient ions that migrate into the substrate and hold
>them until the plant roots have a chance to absorb them.
>Profile also has more Calcium (24X) and Magnesium (2.8X) than Flourite, so I
>would expect that you might see an increase in GH and KH over time. Profile
>also has a higher Iron concenration than Flourite (1.37X), although it is
>not clear how "available" the iron in either product is without the action
>of either bacteria and/or plant roots and the enzymes produced by both.
.....is more better? Is an increasing KH/GH better? Is it as controllable?
Everything is a balance. Both work fine but I have found the flourite did
better in several tanks that had had Turface/profile before. Why? I'm not
sure, but things are better in all the tanks and flourite has never caused
any issues in any tanks I have set up and there are quite a few (I lost
count) now. Deep, shallow, RFUG's added or not(the jury's still out)
high/low light etc. the stuff does the job so to me it's well worth it as it
has totally proven itself too many times in too many different water
conditions. It sure cost more..........this is the big issue for most folks
than turface/profile which I like the color of more in many cases but the
stuff is so light like Amano's powersand. I want the stuff to stay put.
Perhaps Greg Morin can chime in here to defend his amounts in this product
and why it has the ratio's it has and would more be better or not or did
they do any research? That may clear up that!