I was going to post this over on the Barr Report site but its not working. Im wondering if there is too much of a hoopla about substrata if you are correctly dosing EI? I read a Barr Report which seemed to suggest that Sand was as good as one of the most expensive brands on the market. I am also confused a little about the role anerobic activity plays in tank and root health. Am i correct to think that finer grain substrata promotes this anerobic activity more and that this activity is bad for plants. Am i correct to think that bigger grain substrata promotes circulation of both nutrients , water flow over beneficial bacteria and less anerobic activity ( Hydrogen sulphide as the product ). I have developed the impression that a 50 quid bag of substrata over sand is a bit like gold plated speaker cables , there mighr be a difference in a scientific test but not one thats audible to the human ear ( i thought and still think my father is bonkers trying to justify that one ). I dont mean to be offensive to anybody has paid a lot of money for substrata but i just cant really find any evidence that its worth it beyond people who have paid for it saying it is which would be fine except for the Barr Report has opened a door.... I know that there is a magazine article from the UK mag about it ( written by somebody who sells substrata ? ), is it worth getting a back issue or does it just compare all the ones that you have to fork out handsomely for ? I am a marketing consultant and quite frankly apart from putting products into the consumers limelight the secondary part of the job is "not what it is but what you can make people think it is". Over the last 18 months I can see various marketing people have done a good number on me as i have a closet full of crap i do not need (and if it solved the problem or facilitated a solution it would be pot luck) and am running through each element of my next tank with a fine tooth comb.