SEACHEM FLOURISH VS TMG

[eddie]

SEACHEM FLOURISH (Comprehensive plant supplement) 250ml

Hi can anyone here use before this and TMG..

Have been using TMg but feeling that TMG is much EX than this which cost only #12 compare to TMG$34.

Can anyone advice on this brand ????

Heard from the LFS that this is much better than TMG (don't know true or not?) but found that this is much thicker than TMG ( seachem 5ml treat 200l of water - estimated) whereas TMG 5ml treat 50l of water

Did anyone of U know this brand and though of switching because cheaper ......

[loupgarou]

I trust seachem products.

the CEO greg morin, posts rather helpful info + scientific info about the products when people ask about it in APD (aquatic plant digest).

processes tend to be transparent. so product info is all listed on the bottle (unlike TMG..where its a hush hush secret), in anycase, TMG formulation is available on the web and I believe seachem fluorish contains more stuff than TMG

[DEA]

eh, ok, let's see now...
flourish is an entire system
we have flourish excel, flourish iron, flourish potassium, flourish trace etc
this allows you to control what level of what kind of dosing you want
whereas tmg is one of those one shot fert mixes
depends on which school of thought you ascribe to : macro or microcontrol
on NO account would i say that one contains more stuff than the other

the reason why tmg formulation is on the web is because the ceo told people about it
but even if you know exactly what's inside, what's it going to change?
i mean, seriously, will it make that much of a difference to you if they told you it's iron gluconate instead of iron EDTA?

basically it comes down to brand name and reputation
tropica and seachem have both been quite solid names in the planted tank industry
if you ask me, i think those fertilisers from taiwan will do just as well

[bclee]

Here are the published contents of both:

TMG:
K 0.79% Mg 0.39% S 1.01% B 0.004% Cu 0.006% Fe 0.07% Mn 0.04% Mo 0.002% Zn 0.002% HEEDTA, DTPA, E123 

Flourish:
Total Nitrogen (N): 0.04%; Available Phosphate (as P2O5): < 0.0100%; Soluble Potash (K2O): <0.0600%; Ca (Calcium): 0.1736%; Mg (Magnesium): 0.1154%; S (Sulfur): 0.2773%; B (Boron): 0.0096%; Br (Bromine(as bromide): 0.0001; Cl (Chlorine(as chloride): 1.15%; Co (Cobalt): 0.0004%; Cu (Copper): 0.0001%; I (Iodine (as iodide)): 0.0001%; Fe (Iron/Ferrous gluconate): 0.3886%; Mn (Manganese): 0.0125%; Mo (Molybdenum): 0.0015%; Ni (Nickel): 0.00036%; Rb (Rubidium): 0.0001%; Na (Sodium): 0.0743%; Sn (Tin): 0.000030%; V (Vanadium): 0.000030%; Zn (Zinc): 0.0004%; Arginine: 0.016%; Glutamate: 0.09%; Lysine: 0.03%; Tyrosine: 0.019%; Choline: 0.0004%; Inositol: 0.0011%; Biotin: 0.0004%; Niacin: 0.025%; Pantothenate: 0.0070%; Riboflavin: 0.0020%;Thiamine: 0.0020%; Vitamin B12: 0.00009%; Vitamin C: 1.0%

Both are known to produce satisfactory results.

(Personally I use Flourish with 4x the recommended dosage.)

BC

[Plantbrain]

I've used both for a number of years. I think at best the difference is subtle, I can spot it maybe a few other folks can also. Some plants seem to do a little better with each brand but I'd never blame anything on either brand for not looking the way I want the tank/plants to look.
But these seem to be the best standards out there.

Regards,
Tom Barr