# Seachem Flourish vs. Seachem Flourish Advance



## LaceyRen

Hey has anyone tried both? Which one is better? Is there even a difference? 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## infolific

They are completely different products and not substitutes for each other. I saw no benefit from using Advance and nothing negative when I stopped using it.

The Seachem line of plant nutrients is good, but expensive and overly complex depending on your interest in plants. To use everything they've got you're looking at multiple bottles dosed at different times throughout the week.

If you're someone that does regular water changes and you just want your plants to grow nicely, I'd look for an all-in-one product or maybe a two-bottle solution (separate bottle for macro and micro nutrients).

If you're really, really looking to get into the details you can buy various components in powder form and mix up your own blends.


----------



## LaceyRen

Thanks for the in depth explanation. I just want give my plants a boost, they are doing well so far in my little 15 gal in the kitchen. Plenty of natural light and LEDs. They are growing fast but very skinny. Since most are not free floating plants maybe root tabs would be better? I was looking at diy root tabs on YouTube osmocote plus and make miracle-gro seems popular (I'm leaning towards the osmocote plus because of the macro and micronutrients). I figure all the extra I have I'll just use for my porch garden. I really regret not put a cap on my aqua soil, I feel like all the nutrients have leeched out. Plus I use to go crazy with the gravel vac, I was so obsessed with removing fish poo I probably removed tons of good stuff from the soil too️

The 20 gal I have downstairs has no natural light and the LEDs on it aren't great, am looking to buy better ones. Hoping to compensate with some plant food.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## infolific

LaceyRen said:


> They are growing fast but very skinny.


Plants that are "leggy" typically (not always of course) indicate not enough light. Nutrient deficiencies typically result in unhealthy-looking growth e.g. holes in leaves, discolouration, wrinkling. If your plants look healthy, but not bushy then I'd guess too little light is your problem. Especially if the growth at the top of the plant that is closer to the light looks good. If you have stem plants with growth at the bottom looking quite different than growth at the top, that's another sign that light is probably insufficient.



LaceyRen said:


> Hoping to compensate with some plant food.


It doesn't really work that way. Plants need light first and foremost. What you're describing is like giving someone without a can opener 2 cans instead of 1 can with the hope that having 2 cans will compensate for not being able to open 1 can. Yep, I just came up with that


----------



## LaceyRen

infolific said:


> Plants that are "leggy" typically (not always of course) indicate not enough light. Nutrient deficiencies typically result in unhealthy-looking growth e.g. holes in leaves, discolouration, wrinkling. If your plants look healthy, but not bushy then I'd guess too little light is your problem. Especially if the growth at the top of the plant that is closer to the light looks good. If you have stem plants with growth at the bottom looking quite different than growth at the top, that's another sign that light is probably insufficient.
> 
> It doesn't really work that way. Plants need light first and foremost. What you're describing is like giving someone without a can opener 2 cans instead of 1 can with the hope that having 2 cans will compensate for not being able to open 1 can. Yep, I just came up with that


Lollll @ can opener analogy. I guess I can turn the light brighter on it to see it will help. I do have it pretty dim, lowest or second lowest setting. I thought the natural light would be plenty.

As for the downstairs tank, I KNOW I need more light, am shopping around and doing my research. I have a separate thread on that topic too...

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## TOtrees

infolific said:


> It doesn't really work that way. Plants need light first and foremost. What you're describing is like giving someone without a can opener 2 cans instead of 1 can with the hope that having 2 cans will compensate for not being able to open 1 can. Yep, I just came up with that


I like that analogy. Another one I used to share with clients when I was in the landscape trade is this (it's for describing situations with multiple nutrient deficiencies in plants): Imagine a guy out in a lake who is a) drowning and b) hungry. Tossing him an apple won't help his chances of surviving.  You need to address the most critical deficiency first.


----------

