# Fluorite: black vs onyx vs sand EDIT: Ordered Aquasoil...



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

I'm confused... please clarify if you can. I'm looking to replace the nightmarish SMS charcoal in my 46 bow with another black substrate. I've had pretty good results with the regular old red fluorite so... I'm assuming that the fluorite black is the same as the red, how does the fluorite black compare to the fluorite black sand? How does the fluorite black sand compare to the onyx sand? Is one better then the other for plants? Is the copper content a concern for any shrimp? I had thousands of red cherry shrimp with fluorite but all or my crystals died in it/// could this have been the cause? Now I'm getting off topic... thanks


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

Flourite and Flourite Black are not the same thing. Their composition is very different. Not suprisingly, the iron content in original Flourite is far greater than any of the other Flourite substrates.

You make a trade off for color. If you are interested in black, I would go with either the Flourite Black or Black Sand. Onyx is more charcoal than black. It's darker than SMS, but not as black as Black and Black Sand. 

Other than that, it's just up to you on how fine you want the substrate.


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

jmhart said:


> Flourite and Flourite Black are not the same thing. Their composition is very different. Not suprisingly, the iron content in original Flourite is far greater than any of the other Flourite substrates.
> 
> You make a trade off for color. If you are interested in black, I would go with either the Flourite Black or Black Sand. Onyx is more charcoal than black. It's darker than SMS, but not as black as Black and Black Sand.
> 
> Other than that, it's just up to you on how fine you want the substrate.


Thanks... wow you're right about the iron content.. red has 18500 mg vs 4388 for the black, the onyx sand has 2846, but also the lowest copper content 4 vs 17 for all of the other varieties. Another question, why "not surprisingly"? I was surprised!


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

otter said:


> Another question, why "not surprisingly"? I was surprised!



As a general guideline, when things in nature are red/orange/brown, it's a safe guess that they have a higher iron content.

I figured this, but it was interesting when I looked it up and saw just how much more iron is in flourite compared to the others.


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

I'm skeptical of how bio-available the compounds in the different seachems are. Reading the mineral composition, it seems like onyx would be great for invert tanks, having low iron and high Mg.

That's if these things leach out into the water.


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

They should make this easier to find on the Seachem website!


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

jmhart said:


> As a general guideline, when things in nature are red/orange/brown, it's a safe guess that they have a higher iron content.
> .


Good point.. sometimes obvious things escape me!


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

It's on the bottom of the page for all the planted tank substrates:


http://www.seachem.com/support/GravelMineralComposition.pdf

Pretty useful

I feel like, from a marketing standpoint, they should do a better job of explaining the different products. As it is, you see a bunch of different substrates, can't see a clear winner, and then therefore think there must be something wrong with all of them.

A better explanation I think would sell more, but maybe that's just me.

*I also think ADA should give a more clear explanation of the differences between Amazonia and Amazonia II


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

jmhart said:


> It's on the bottom of the page for all the planted tank substrates:
> 
> 
> http://www.seachem.com/support/GravelMineralComposition.pdf
> ...


hmmm... I don't see a link to the chart there... I go to seachem.com, gravel, planted substrates and scroll to the bottom... nothing... I found it in a FAQ


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

jmhart said:


> It's on the bottom of the page for all the planted tank substrates:
> 
> 
> http://www.seachem.com/support/GravelMineralComposition.pdf
> ...


ABSOLUTELY! It's a second full-time job trying to research this stuff! I'm thinking I should tackle compiling information on all the commercially available substrates and get samples and make a definitive sticky... as long as I'm doing the research... as long as you mentioned it, I was going to ask that question as well... What is the difference between the Amazonia and the Amazonia II?


----------



## jmhart (Mar 14, 2008)

otter said:


> hmmm... I don't see a link to the chart there... I go to seachem.com, gravel, planted substrates and scroll to the bottom... nothing... I found it in a FAQ



Beats me. I purchased about a dozen bags a while back, been sitting in my storage room ever since. Waiting to move(long store) before setting up a new tank(180g).

Point is, never used AS. Dude an Aqua Forest ran down the difference for me, asked me about my source water, and suggested Amazonia


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

otter said:


> ... What is the difference between the Amazonia and the Amazonia II?


ADA Amazonia is recommended where the base water is alkaline which would translate to 7.5 PH or higher. Anything neutral(7 PH) and lower, original ADA Amazonia is recommended.

However, folks have had many issues(ongoing cloudiness and premature breakdown) with ADA AS II and one supplier will no longer carry it.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...51581-word-about-amazonia-vs-amazonia-ii.html

I would recommend original ADA Aquasoil regardless of whether your water is alkaline or not.

My understanding is that Seachem Onyx Sand will also buffer your PH to a higher PH level unlike regular fluorite or fluorite sand. Some folks don't like this. Personally, I have found no issues. I have a low tech 5 gallon tank where I used Seachem Onyx Sand as recommended by Tom Barr and the plants are growing well, with no major issues.


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

Homer_Simpson said:


> ADA Amazonia is recommended where the base water is alkaline which would translate to 7.5 PH or higher. Anything neutral(7 PH) and lower, original ADA Amazonia is recommended.


Thanks, for clarification, it's Amazonia II for alkaline water?


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

otter said:


> Thanks, for clarification, *it's Amazonia II for alkaline water?*


You are welcome and yes, according to to ADA ADA AS II is for use with alkaline water only. For the record, I have not many of the major issues(instant disintegration of the substrate, ongoing cloudiness, etc.,) that others have had with ADA Aquasoil II, but given that so many people are having issues, my guess is that there are probably lots of bad bags of ADA AS II floating around, so for any future tanks I would stick to original ADA Aquasoil regardless of whether I have alkaline(my water tests neutral out of the tap) or not. When you pay so much for a substate, it is just too big a risk to use ADA AS II only to find it self destructs on you.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I've got Onyx sand in my 10gal RCS colony and I think this might just be my fav tank... :thumbsup:

If you want to save some $$, get Seachem's marine tidal gray (in the SW section of LFSs, usually)- it's exactly the same as Onyx sand just usually a whole lot cheaper.


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

Homer_Simpson said:


> You are welcome and yes, according to to ADA ADA AS II is for use with alkaline water only. For the record, I have not many of the major issues(instant disintegration of the substrate, ongoing cloudiness, etc.,) that others have had with ADA Aquasoil II, but given that so many people are having issues, my guess is that there are probably lots of bad bags of ADA AS II floating around, so for any future tanks I would stick to original ADA Aquasoil regardless of whether I have alkaline(my water tests neutral out of the tap) or not. When you pay so much for a substate, it is just too big a risk to use ADA AS II only to find it self destructs on you.


I'm just in the process of redoing my tanks and going forward I'm going to do water changes with collected rainwater since my tap water is so hard (15) and alkaline (8.2 rested) so maybe I'll look more in the Aquasoil. Two more questions about the fluorite black sand... is there anything additional that I need to do if I use it as the only substrate? Do I need to worry about anaerobic pockets?


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

OK... can anyone confirm this quantity of Aquasoil regular? I figure four 9l bags will give me 4" of depth in a 46g bowfront (15"W x 36"L x 4"D)


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

otter said:


> ...Two more questions about the fluorite black sand... is there anything additional that I need to do if I use it as the only substrate? Do I need to worry about anaerobic pockets?


As far as I know, no. I have no experience with Fluorite Black Sand, but I believe it is the same grain size as the Seachem Onyx sand. I have used Seachem Onyx sand in a 5 gallon low tech tank for over one year, and so far no anaerobic pockets, so I don't believe you should have problems. But if you are worried, just be sure to plant some very deep rooting plants like cryptocornes and swords. As the plant forms deep roots, oxygen will be released deep into the substrate which in theory is alleged to prevent the formation of anaerobic pockets. Also, cory catfish or loaches that stir up the sand should help.


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

otter said:


> OK... can anyone confirm this quantity of Aquasoil regular? I figure four 9l bags will give me 4" of depth in a 46g bowfront (15"W x 36"L x 4"D)


I could be wrong so someone hopefully will correct me. I believe that one 9 litre bag is supposed to be enough for a 20 gallon tank. So, if that is true you shouldn't really need more than 3 bags. But like I said, I could be wrong.


----------



## Avalon (Aug 14, 2004)

otter said:


> OK... can anyone confirm this quantity of Aquasoil regular? I figure four 9l bags will give me 4" of depth in a 46g bowfront (15"W x 36"L x 4"D)


3 bags will suffice. Four bags would be for 75/90g's with the 48"x18" footprint.

As for the substrate in general, I don't particularly like Seachem substrates, but Flourite would probably be the best, followed by the Black. Onyx is not really a planted tank substrate. That was their answer to people wanting a black substrate long ago (although it's not black). It's essentially calcium carbonate and for a marine tank. It will raise your KH, GH, and pH, which is generally a bad thing in planted tank. You can grow plants in it, but it's not an optimal substrate.


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

Homer_Simpson said:


> I could be wrong so someone hopefully will correct me. I believe that one 9 litre bag is supposed to be enough for a 20 gallon tank. So, if that is true you shouldn't really need more than 3 bags. But like I said, I could be wrong.


I spoke with Jeff Senske today... what a nice, helpful guy.. anyways, he confirmed that four bags should give me 3-4" depth. I guess I'll find out. There's no such thing as extra since I have several nanos!


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

Avalon said:


> 3 bags will suffice. Four bags would be for 75/90g's with the 48"x18" footprint.
> 
> As for the substrate in general, I don't particularly like Seachem substrates, but Flourite would probably be the best, followed by the Black. Onyx is not really a planted tank substrate. That was their answer to people wanting a black substrate long ago (although it's not black). It's essentially calcium carbonate and for a marine tank. It will raise your KH, GH, and pH, which is generally a bad thing in planted tank. You can grow plants in it, but it's not an optimal substrate.


Oh... I didn't see this before my previous reply. Three it is, I can always order another. Thanks


----------



## Avalon (Aug 14, 2004)

You're right about that! Any extra I've had has always been used; I'll come up with something. Best wishes on your tank!


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

Avalon said:


> ... It's essentially calcium carbonate and for a marine tank. It will raise your KH, GH, and pH, *which is generally a bad thing in planted tank.* You can grow plants in it, but *it's not an optimal substrate.*


Perhaps in theory but not in practice. If you check my signature you will see that I set up a low tech tank using Seachem Onyx sand and experienced explosive plant growth off the bat. The plants continue to do well as do the assasin snail, amano shrimp, endler's live bearer and dwarf aquatic frog. It is certainly no Aquasoil, but having set up tanks using schultz aquatic soil and fluorite(with DIY c02 to boot), seachem onyx sand(no c02), I can honestly tell you that plant growth with Seachem Onyx Sand was superior to that of the Schultz and fluorite. I have also seen posts from others who have used Seachem Onyx sand as a planted tank substrate without any issues. 

It should also be noted that Tom Barr recommends Seachem Onyx sand as a substrate for a low tech planted tank setup up. 
http://www.barrreport.com/articles/433-non-co2-methods.html


----------



## Avalon (Aug 14, 2004)

I stand by what I say because I have practiced it. You can grow plants in dang near anything, but my meaning of optimal is subjective. Onyx does provide a better rooting media than a gravel with nutritional values being pretty much moot, since over time many substrates can provide the same nutrition. Some have fortes, but when dosing the water column, plants have an alternative selection.

When I say higher KH, GH, and pH's are bad for a planted tank, I mean that excessive values are either harmful in a round-a-bout way or are useless. GH would be the useless factor. You raise KH, you generally will raise pH. Raising the KH will also make it more difficult to inject enough CO2 in the tank. This is the problem I'd have. Granted there are certain levels that won't make too much of a difference, generally lower levels, but when you already have moderate to high KH water, adding a substrate that makes KH even higher is counterproductive. pH means little, but it's common knowledge that plants uptake nutrients better in acidic conditions. 

And I don't need to read Barr's article to understand why he recommends it. When CO2 and high light is not a factor, Onyx is on the same playing field as many substrates with one exception: the increased KH can be utilized as a source of carbon for plants. In high tech tanks, Onyx will not provide much, if any benefit. But Barr's method is only theory as well, as we have an alternative theory in Diana Walstad's method, which I would prefer. It's cheaper too. I've also had low tech tanks with Flourite that have thrived, no extra KH necessary.

When someone says a particular substrate works better than another, I immediately question why because it's YOU that made the difference, not the substrate. For the most part, substrates aren't a critical component if you're not totally relying upon them, which most people do not. I prefer ADA because of what it's meant to do during the initial stages of new planted tanks, and ironically that's why some people hate it (because they don't understand how it's supposed to work). After that it's simply a convenience factor as to why I like it. There is no magic substrate, only convenient ones.


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

Avalon said:


> I stand by what I say because I have practiced it. You can grow plants in dang near anything, but my meaning of optimal is subjective. Onyx does provide a better rooting media than a gravel with nutritional values being pretty much moot, since over time many substrates can provide the same nutrition. Some have fortes, but when dosing the water column, plants have an alternative selection.
> 
> When I say higher KH, GH, and pH's are bad for a planted tank, I mean that excessive values are either harmful in a round-a-bout way or are useless. GH would be the useless factor. You raise KH, you generally will raise pH. Raising the KH will also make it more difficult to inject enough CO2 in the tank. This is the problem I'd have. Granted there are certain levels that won't make too much of a difference, generally lower levels, but when you already have moderate to high KH water, adding a substrate that makes KH even higher is counterproductive. pH means little, but it's common knowledge that plants uptake nutrients better in acidic conditions.
> 
> ...


First of all I don't disagree with some of your points, but your generalized statement in the post earlier about Seachem Onyx Sand being less than ideal is something not borne out by my experience. When the dust settles what really matters are observations and real life results regardless of the theoretical twists on why something cannot work. As far substrates not being a critical component and folks not relying on them totally, this again is a bit of a fallacy. With mineralized topsoil, the substrate is the critical component and with Diana Walstad's Natural Planted Tank method, the substrate again is fully the critical component with water column dosing not recommended and not employed by most users including Diana Walstad herself. Heck, there are people who even set up high tech tanks with ADA Aquasoil that do not dose water column ferts that have plant growth with no ill effects; in that case they soley rely on the substrate and it is a critical component, although there would be no harm in dosing water column ferts. And yeah, you can say that it is because ADA AS changes water parameters(PH, KH, GH) to favor plant growth. But then that does not explain results people claim with mineralized topsoil and some even go so far as to claim equivalent or better results with mineralized topsoil than ADA AS. As far as the high tech slant, there are folks(i.e., SCMurphy) who have set up tanks with mineralized topsoil for many...many...years that don't dose other than perhaps minute quantities of potassium and use pressurized co2 with fabulous results. They have also set up low tech tanks using mineralized topsoil with similiar positive results. Recall the use of crushed coral or dolomite in the mineralized topsoil recipe. Lol, I wonder what this does to the KH levels. It really depends on the method you decide to follow. Dosing water column fertilization extends the life expectancy of your substrate and ensures that plants have access to nutrients through the water column and substrate. This is Tom Barr's take on it and he would argue that no substrate can infinitely supply all required nutrients to feed plants and fish waste alone will not supply all essential nutrients required for healthy plant growth. Diana Walstad would argue that you do not need to dose water column ferts that over time enough mulm will form to support plant growth. The importance of a substrate also has to do with plants grown. With water column feeders like java moss, java ferns, and anubias, it is less critical. As far as plants doing better with a slightly acidic pH, again I have set up tanks where plant growth was explosive and lush green with a constant neutral PH of 7 measured monthly for a year. As far as differences in substrates and plant growth, believe me when I tell you that there is a difference as I have set up various tanks with all other things being equal(including lighting, c02 injection, and water column fertilization) and only the substrate being different. The substrate did make a difference whether you want to believe it or not. Best to try different methods and draw on your conclusions rather than assume why something will not work or cannot work. For the most part, I have a bias towards Tom Barr's findings and methods, not because of some blind unwavering allegiance but because I have seen his concepts and methods yield great results in tanks where I have employed them. And I think it is important to also note, although I don't want to speak for Tom Barr, his low tech method is not theory. Things are only theoretical when they are proposed as possibly working but have never been tested by the person who proposes them. I doubt Tom Barr proposed a low tech method without first trying it himself to see what would happen. Others, including myself, have also had success with this method and that fact takes it out of the realm of theory and places it in the realm of real life. Having a bias for Tom Barr's method and concepts does not mean I am not open to trying different things like mineralized topsoil, elements of which may be at odds with what he says. But as I have repeatedly stated the best way for anyone to weed through much of the conflicting and contradictory information is to try yourself and see what happens. No offense, but I doubt you have ever used Seachem Onyx Sand.


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

Thanks for the input gentlemen


----------



## Avalon (Aug 14, 2004)

You assume I'm talking theory--I'm not. I'm not much of a theorist. Everything I say has been practiced by myself. I don't read stuff and spout off other people's ideas. I'm familiar with who you are and what you like to do, and I highly respect you for it. Like you, I do the "dirty work" by experimenting and drawing my own conclusions. I love to do the dirty work, but at the same time, it must coincide with the science behind it. Until it does, the experiment is not complete.

Some of these "new things" like mineralized soil I've done before, many years ago. Mineralized soil is not new, it's been popularized; I already knew it would work and work well when I first read AaronT's article on it. I'm happy to see it finally catch on. However, I think you're missing my point: I'm not trashing Onyx. I said it wasn't optimal. I also said you could grow great plants in it. What I am saying is that before encouraging others about how well it works for you, you should be aware of the downsides and be able to tell them about it. Your tank is not theirs and vice versa. Frankly, I don't care what anyone uses. I don't care about popular methods. If it works, then go with it. I've learned enough from my own success and failures to know what it really takes to grow healthy plants, and it's extremely simple. What disturbs me the most about the whole planted tank education process is that people rely upon products rather than methodology. Learn the methodology, then use the products as tools to serve the purpose at hand.

It's tough to be specific because I could easily write 20 pages on substrates and their role in planted tanks. Ask me specifics and I'll happily tell, but be careful not to generalize my generalizations. As for me using Onyx, no offense taken, but you'd be wrong. I used it for a long time before it drove me nuts. For what it's worth, I learned quite a bit when using it. This will likely be my last post to this thread. If you would like to discuss it more via PM or another thread, that would be cool.


----------



## otter (Oct 22, 2005)

Avalon said:


> What disturbs me the most about the whole planted tank education process is that people rely upon products rather than methodology. Learn the methodology, then use the products as tools to serve the purpose at hand.


Thanks Avalon, I'd like to hear more about your methodology, can you start a thread about it?


----------

