# Better Media?



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

What is the better media for bacteria growth pot scrubbers or biomax rings?


----------



## xeloR (Jan 2, 2009)

WetDry or Canister?

Edit: WetDry


----------



## JoeDizzleMPLS (Nov 5, 2007)

the biomax rings probably provide more surface area for bacteria to grow, but the pot scrubbers would be MUCH cheaper, so you can't really go wrong either way


----------



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

For a canister.

I know the difference in cost but what would be better for my p's. If it is a major difference I'd rather spend the extra $$$


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Yeah....since bio-media is specifically designed to provide as much surface area for bacteria as possible....they are probably more efficient. Pot scrubbers are an inexpensive alternative that have been proven effective. It is what I will be using when I set up my larger tank and sump.

Oh...for a canister. Pot scrubbers are good for a wet/dry....not sure if they would work well in a closed environment like a canister. I would probably just go with bio-rings.


----------



## JoeDizzleMPLS (Nov 5, 2007)

i have seen people pack their fx5 with pot scrubbies and they said they worked great, i don't know how they would work on a smaller canister though... i'd probably stick with bio max or matrix to get as much surface area as you can


----------



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

So it sounds like pot scrubbers are the way to go. I'm gonna be putting them in a fx5 in another thread a guy said he fit 39 ot scrubbers inside of it. Should I force as many into the filter as I can or just put them in?


----------



## Plowboy (Apr 9, 2008)

Regular bio media is more efficient than pot scrubbers by a large margin in a canister filter. In a wet/dry regular media is almost worthless because it will clog up with bacteria pretty quick. That's why in a sump they use light airy media like pot scrubbers, cocktail straws, and bio balls.



brian519 said:


> So it sounds like pot scrubbers are the way to go. I'm gonna be putting them in a fx5 in another thread a guy said he fit 39 ot scrubbers inside of it. Should I force as many into the filter as I can or just put them in?


If your looking for bio media on the crazy cheap, go get some lava rock from lowes, menards, home depot, etc. You can get 40 pounds of the stuff for under $10, i think, and it will still be more effective than the scrubbies in a canister.


----------



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

Plowboy said:


> So it sounds like pot scrubbers are the way to go. I'm gonna be putting them in a fx5 in another thread a guy said he fit 39 ot scrubbers inside of it. Should I force as many into the filter as I can or just put them in?


If your looking for bio media on the crazy cheap, go get some lava rock from lowes, menards, home depot, etc. You can get 40 pounds of the stuff for under $10, i think, and it will still be more effective than the scrubbies in a canister.
[/quote]

I'm gonna be using an fx5 if it's $10 on scrubbers or rock or $30 on biomax rings I'd rather spend an extra $20 if it was better for my p's


----------



## Plowboy (Apr 9, 2008)

Unless your bio laod is pretty small, I would not recommend the scrubbies.

For large to extreme bio loads get the biomax or other regular bio media.

For anything else, there's lava rock.


----------



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

I have 10 1.5" natts now eventually want 6-8 in a 125gal so thats a heavy bio load(I think)?


----------



## Plowboy (Apr 9, 2008)

I think you would be fine with lava rock in a canister that big, but if you can find regular bio media on the cheap, I would get that.


----------



## Ægir (Jan 21, 2006)

Scrubbies would be better for a sump because A) they are cheaper per volume of area they fill and B) they are better for aerobic bacteria (high oxygen) hosting... they dont "clog" as easy. most canisters will have a pre filter thats a sponge before the media itself...

Ceramic rings, lava rocks, or even sand (not really possible in a canister but, as an example) would be better for a canister or sealed environment because they host anaerobic bacteria (higher CO2) better. The only oxygen in a canister, is whats in the water... where as in a sump (wet/dry) its mixing with air as it flows through the drip tray and media below.


----------



## assclown (Dec 12, 2005)

brian519 said:


> I have 10 1.5" natts now eventually want 6-8 in a 125gal so thats a heavy bio load(I think)?


thats a moderate bio load....get more p's


----------



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

I'm waiting to find some ternetzi's to add to my natts but I thought 8 p's in a 125gal was the most I should have?


----------



## shiver905 (May 27, 2009)

Its all about money here.
Bio Max Im shure is better - specially made for this application.

A cheaper way to go is scubies. 
If shure every1 would use bio max if it costed as much as scrubies.


----------



## assclown (Dec 12, 2005)

brian519 said:


> I'm waiting to find some ternetzi's to add to my natts but I thought 8 p's in a 125gal was the most I should have?


if your bio filtration is heavy, you can do 15 to 20 IMO....ive had 25 to 33 
in my old 150g WITHOUT any issues for several years


----------



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

Filtration is not a problem I'll get whatever I need to to keep it filtered. My concern is the aggresion of the p's towards each other and the space they have. But I would love to have 4 natts, 4 terns and 4 caribe would it be a problem in a 125gal?


----------



## assclown (Dec 12, 2005)

no you can do more if you wanted....are you starting out with babies?
or adults?

here is my old 125g with adults...i still had room to add....all i had on that tank for filters
were 2 ac 110's...thats it....enjoy


----------



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

I have 1.5" natts now so I'm gonna try to get terns and caribe close to the same size as my natts (can't find any right now)


----------



## assclown (Dec 12, 2005)

not in season right now....for little ones anway


----------



## CuzIsaidSo (Oct 13, 2009)

Yeah I gotta wait till june


----------



## HGI (Oct 27, 2009)

brian519 said:


> So it sounds like pot scrubbers are the way to go. I'm gonna be putting them in a fx5 in another thread a guy said he fit 39 ot scrubbers inside of it. Should I force as many into the filter as I can or just put them in?


41... I managed to shove 2 in that intake thing lol..

I've taken the intake thing off and cleaned it off 2ce now, it sure stops a lot of junk from going into the actual canister but probably slows down the rate of flow.

But on top of all this I only have 1 basket full of pot scrubbers, one basket is full of those biomax rings I got for free from an established fx5 and the last basket is half full with biomax rings and 4 pot scrubbers on top.


----------



## assclown (Dec 12, 2005)

HGI said:


> So it sounds like pot scrubbers are the way to go. I'm gonna be putting them in a fx5 in another thread a guy said he fit 39 ot scrubbers inside of it. Should I force as many into the filter as I can or just put them in?


41... I managed to shove 2 in that intake thing lol..

I've taken the intake thing off and cleaned it off 2ce now, it sure stops a lot of junk from going into the actual canister but probably slows down the rate of flow.

But on top of all this I only have 1 basket full of pot scrubbers, one basket is full of those biomax rings I got for free from an established fx5 and the last basket is half full with biomax rings and 4 pot scrubbers on top.
[/quote]







i did the same on mine


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2010)

I wouldn't stuff as many in as possible - I would put a layer of fine floss if you want to polish the water. If you are going to clog it up, make sure you clean it often, slowing the flow too much is likely bad for the motor.


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Yeah....since bio-media is specifically designed to provide as much surface area for bacteria as possible....they are probably more efficient. Pot scrubbers are an inexpensive alternative that have been proven effective. It is what I will be using when I set up my larger tank and sump.
> 
> Oh...for a canister. Pot scrubbers are good for a wet/dry....not sure if they would work well in a closed environment like a canister. I would probably just go with bio-rings.


Did not read past this post, but must agree!!

Ceramic and sintered glass media offer MASSIVE surface area. I would fill my sump with them if it was practical.

Since my sump came with bio balls I have not tried any other media. with 10G of bio balls I have more than enough.

Someone once told me, and I believe that lava rock is a great media as well especially for sumps... more surface area and dirt cheap...

Anywho... My bacon is ready... good luck!!


----------



## Plowboy (Apr 9, 2008)

Plowboy said:


> Scrubbies would be better for a sump because A) they are cheaper per volume of area they fill and B) they are better for aerobic bacteria (high oxygen) hosting... they dont "clog" as easy. most canisters will have a pre filter thats a sponge before the media itself...
> 
> Ceramic rings, lava rocks, or even sand (not really possible in a canister but, as an example) would be better for a canister or sealed environment because they host anaerobic bacteria (higher CO2) better. The only oxygen in a canister, is whats in the water... where as in a sump (wet/dry) its mixing with air as it flows through the drip tray and media below.


----------



## wizardslovak (Feb 17, 2007)

for canister filter i would go with bio media only ,pot scrubbies are perfect for wet/dry . you need more scrubbies to work efficiently.!!! 
i have bio media in canister and 5 gallons of pot scrubbies , 3lb of biomedia and 1000 pieces cut straws in wet dry and thats for 55 gall


----------



## Johnny_Zanni (Nov 8, 2009)

ceramics work better in a fully submerged enviroment so go with them.


----------

