New Fluval Bio-FX Media Advertisement

Cody

Tonight I saw a post on FluvalSmart Instagram advertising a new media called Bio-Fx. It looks like their traditional ceramic media but modified it have more porous holes resembling a sponge.

Not to rekindle the forever debate on what media is best. At the end of the day you could shove and old sock in your filter and and it would eventually work as bio media.

The only thing that did make me laugh, was that someone commented asking how if was different then using a sponge. the response was that A sponge does not provide “remotely as much surface area” as this media. But again back to my point, the media looks like little ceramic sponges!
 

KingOscar

Yay, Marketing! And here I just bought some of yesterdays Biomax. :p
 

Cody

Which again, people have successfully used Biomax forever and I have never heard of a tank failing due to it!

But it does show you they want and answer for the sponge army out there!
 

Redviper

It's great to see Fluval taking ceramic media seriously. Their earlier offerings would slowly turn into sand. Foam aficionados need to understand that foam (mechanical), as it currently exists, needs to be supplemented with a more stable/predictable form for best results.
 

Cody

I have used pure foam in all my filters for years at this point with great results in my setups. Again this was not to start debate. But I will say the design of this would make me more willing to try some form of ceramic media.

In my head the goal is to have water flow through something and it always seemed with ceramic media you rely on microscopic holes in the media to house BB which works well but in time it seems water would flow around vs through. So even though the surface area is there, is the water actually utilizing it or going around it. This is why the sponges always made more sense to me.

Downside to the sponge is that eventually just squeezing them in water to ring them out is not enough and you end up needing to spray them out, which I think supports your point that they can be a challenge as the sole media.

But that’s where these seems to meet a nice middle ground!
 

Thunder_o_b

The ceramic media is for anaerobic bacteria. I use both the Fluval and the Seachem for nitrate control. It takes a good while to start but seems to work.
 

Redviper

Sintered stone has been around for a long time and available for biological filtration for a good while. I enjoy playing with new tech so I have 3 different variations of sintered media. When seeded properly, and given about a month to adhere and grow they all work well.

I'd suggest that anyone who wants to see foam mats shine learn how to manipulate PPI ratings for effect. As an example, with the canister's I use, the initial mat in an FX-series filter is as easy as pie to clean (low PPI). Increasingly dense foams, that catch smaller debris also keep downstream mats (sintered media in my case) much cleaner.

I'm sure this level of detail seems excessive, but being aware of these things has removed a great deal of guess work, like when to service and what to expect when I open one of these beasts. I wish I had a reason to try Bio-Fx though! :rolleyes:
 

Redviper

The ceramic media is for anaerobic bacteria. I use both the Fluval and the Seachem for nitrate control. It takes a good while to start but seems to work.
I may be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that a large portion of BB is aerobic by nature and represents the nitrogen cycle mostly. Anaerobic (oxygen hating) bacteria works to remove nitrate, but requires media that allows it to grow in a more isolated area of the media itself.

The only media I know of to make a claim like this is Biohome and that may have been click-bait.
 

KingOscar

I may be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that a large portion of BB is aerobic by nature and represents the nitrogen cycle mostly. Anaerobic (oxygen hating) bacteria works to remove nitrate, but requires media that allows it to grow in a more isolated area of the media itself.

This is my understanding as well. There is no anaerobic activity going on in a running filter. (because it's constantly seeing freshly oxygenated water)
 

Redviper

This is my understanding as well. There is no anaerobic activity going on in a running filter. (because it's constantly seeing freshly oxygenated water)
Thanks KO. I watched a very convincing video from a guy who said that it was possible to have a nitrate-eating filter (very limited water changes), under certain conditions.

1. The right sintered media
2. A dedicated standalone pre-filter with tons of mechanical foam media.

I brought it up on a forum, with supporting information, and ended up with a huge argument instead of something more than marketing.
 

KingOscar

Thanks KO. I watched a very convincing video from a guy who said that it was possible to have a nitrate-eating filter (very limited water changes), under certain conditions.

1. The right sintered media
2. A dedicated standalone pre-filter with tons of mechanical foam media.

I brought it up on a forum, with supporting information, and ended up with a huge argument instead of something more than marketing.
Interesting topic, did you post it here? Sometimes arguments are fun.
 

Redviper

Interesting topic, did you post it here? Sometimes arguments are fun.
No, not here. It's been close to a year and that forum is sort of "dark" compared to fishlore. I'll see if I can locate it.
 

Azedenkae

Is there any benchmark for the product? Like surface area to volume ratio compared to bioballs or whatever?
 

Redviper

Beyond giggly product reviews, I haven't seen anything that detailed. The reviews look REALLY go though. So much so that I'm considering replacement of the sintered stuff I'm already using. The change would cost me $150-200 though. :eek:
 

Azedenkae

Beyond giggly product reviews, I haven't seen anything that detailed. The reviews look REALLY go though. So much so that I'm considering replacement of the sintered stuff I'm already using. The change would cost me $150-200 though. :eek:
Wow that's a lot of money. How much would you be replacing for what size tank?
 

Redviper

Enough to fill 3 filter trays across an FX4 and an FX6. That comes out to be about a pound of media per tray. My show tank is 130G, non-planted. The family preference is larger fish like BR parrots and Silver Dollars.

I bought this tank to save a pacu from a terrible, mostly hate-filled environment located at an NGO I worked for.
 

AvalancheDave

One liter of bio balls (notorious for having low surface area) can support 6 lbs of fish at a 2% body mass/day feeding rate (it's more like 0.5% in home aquaria). There are other experiments that came up with similar results--it takes very little surface area to house the bacteria needed to oxidize the amount of ammonia produced in aquariums.

Stick with media that's cheap, doesn't degrade, and doesn't have small holes prone to clogging. It doesn't matter which media has more surface area because all of them have more than enough. Seachem, Fluval, MarinePure, Biohome, etc., are selling you a solution to a problem you don't have.


2019-11-22 16_23_15-bio media - MarinePure Project Report.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Pro DC.png

https://www.cermedia.com/MarinePure Project Report.pdf
 

Azedenkae

Enough to fill 3 filter trays across an FX4 and an FX6. That comes out to be about a pound of media per tray. My show tank is 130G, non-planted. The family preference is larger fish like BR parrots and Silver Dollars.

I bought this tank to save a pacu from a terrible, mostly hate-filled environment located at an NGO I worked for.
Welp lol that's very expensive then.

Unless it is gonna outperform MarinePure, does not seem like it'd be worth it.
 

Redviper

Stick with media that's cheap, doesn't degrade, and doesn't have small holes prone to clogging. It doesn't matter which media has more surface area because all of them have more than enough. Seachem, Fluval, MarinePure, Biohome, etc., are selling you a solution to a problem you don't have.
I understand what you're saying and why, AD. There is however that other aspect of keeping fish. For me, I buy the aspects of the hobby I want to PLAY with/evaluate for the fun of it.

Additionally, I have a fish that's been my responsibility for nearly 10-years. For me this is a powerful impetus to this in a flashy, effective manner.
Welp lol that's very expensive then.

Unless it is gonna outperform MarinePure, does not seem like it'd be worth it.
It may very well outperform prior offerings. We'll see.
 

Azedenkae

It may very well outperform prior offerings. We'll see.
That'd definitely be cool. I used to work at a LFS and first thing I learnt was that they had MarinePure in all their systems. Since then I used MarinePure in all my systems, including in my marine aquariums.

I am partially surprised no comparable product had yet come onto the market, but also not surprised why because CerMedia is huge and not only supply our hobby but also aquaculture and stuff.

Would be cool to see an actual competitor on the market. :p
 

Redviper

That'd definitely be cool. I used to work at a LFS and first thing I learnt was that they had MarinePure in all their systems. Since then I used MarinePure in all my systems, including in my marine aquariums.

I am partially surprised no comparable product had yet come onto the market, but also not surprised why because CerMedia is huge and not only supply our hobby but also aquaculture and stuff.

Would be cool to see an actual competitor on the market. :p
For me the best way to learn many things is through solid, trusted testimonials.

There are at least 2 products that make similar claims and more. I have both in my filters, but I can't tell which one works best. It took 2-weeks of 0 maintenance to go from 10 PPM nitrates to 30. That with my wife feeding the babies like CRAZY (like my ma fed us)! ;)
 

Cody

Is there any benchmark for the product? Like surface area to volume ratio compared to bioballs or whatever?

Fluval states 2250 square meters of surface area per liter of media for this new stuff. For reference to the others.


I’m with AvalancheDave as to this can be accomplished with simple cheap materials or expensive bio media, hence my old sock reference in in earlier post. I have always just loaded my filters and canisters with 20ppi foam and it has worked well for me.

Which Daves point kind of feeds my original point of this post. Someone questioned how this was better then using foam only. And they responded that a sponge doesn’t offer any thee near what this media does for surface area. Which they should say that because their trying to sell you something.

Now I started the path I did because it sounded simple and cheaper. And it’s never been an issue. But had I started with sintered media I would not dump through it in the trash for sponge or vise versa.

There’s just so much marketing hype in this hobby from companies and even all the influencers out there. I think this hobby is a lot simpler some make it out to be. Not to take away from anyone liking to play with products, I love to tinker myself!

Appreciate all this discussion here! Always and interesting topic to hear everyone’s experiences and opinions!
 

Azedenkae

Fluval states 2250 square meters of surface area per liter of media for this new stuff. For reference to the others.
Oooh, that's heaps! Interesting.
 

Redviper

There’s just so much marketing hype in this hobby from companies and even all the influencers out there. I think this hobby is a lot simpler some make it out to be. Not to take away from anyone liking to play with products, I love to tinker myself!
It's interesting how similar topics tend to tilt the same way.

There are spectacularly expensive tanks that are limited only by what the owner wants to keep. I've seen home marine kits that were so complex that they had plumbed resources which existed on a different floor than the main show tank.

I've also admired far less advanced, brute-force planted tanks. These rigs had one purpose only that I could understand, indulging the wants/needs of the owner on a lark.

We should be able to discuss these things as open-minded hobbyists, without what seems to be a human necessity to teach life-lessons to utter strangers.

It's fine that some people are more or less subject to advertising, or spend more or less than I do. After all, I only have to pay for one persons choices. :)
 

Cody

It's interesting how similar topics tend to tilt the same way.

There are spectacularly expensive tanks that are limited only by what the owner wants to keep. I've seen home marine kits that were so complex that they had plumbed resources which existed on a different floor than the main show tank.

I've also admired far less advanced, brute-force planted tanks. These rigs had one purpose only that I could understand, indulging the wants/needs of the owner on a lark.

We should be able to discuss these things as open-minded hobbyists, without what seems to be a human necessity to teach life-lessons to utter strangers.

It's fine that some people are more or less subject to advertising, or spend more or less than I do. After all, I only have to pay for one persons choices. :)

Very much so! Places like this are just nice to show that nothing is necessarily better then one or another. Like for me, I own and love the fluval Plant 3.0. Which is a very expensive light but, I have seen my tanks on here powered by a less expensive Nicrew that admittedly look better than my tanks. But I chose the Fluval simply for the control I get from the app and the warranty and full water proof waiting. But it has not thrusted me into any more success then I could of with the 40% cheaper Nicrew.

One other point this discussion has led me to question is how the flow as your media becomes dirty comes to play in decisions. I recently switched to canister filters and I do think my flow is probably more impeded at the end of my maintenance window for the canister with having all sponge media in my baskets. Now when I ran HOBs I think the all sponge made more sense since most HOBs do not really provide a ton of space to fill with ceramic media and still maintain good mechanical filtration.

So if I were to create a curve of the flow drop off after let’s say 3 months between maintenance. What is my sacrifice in flow compared to if I switched a tray out with with bio media.

Ahh this could go on for weeks LOL!
 

Redviper

Very much so! Places like this are just nice to show that nothing is necessarily better then one or another. Like for me, I own and love the fluval Plant 3.0. Which is a very expensive light but, I have seen my tanks on here powered by a less expensive Nicrew that admittedly look better than my tanks. But I chose the Fluval simply for the control I get from the app and the warranty and full water proof waiting. But it has not thrusted me into any more success then I could of with the 40% cheaper Nicrew.
Another aspect of this hobby that can be a LOT more complex than it initially seems. :D I bought a C-USA Serene because it had an interesting feature list. After decades of standard tank lighting, the Serene opened my eyes so to speak. I'm sure I could have done better in terms of abilities if I had spent more time with research. I wish I had waited for a WiFi light instead.


One other point this discussion has led me to question is how the flow as your media becomes dirty comes to play in decisions.

So if I were to create a curve of the flow drop off after let’s say 3 months between maintenance. What is my sacrifice in flow compared to if I switched a tray out with with bio media.
TBH, I've come to view filter mechanics not just in terms flow rate. The FX6 design allows for a fair amount of customization. With a bit of effort and understanding it's possible to create a mat order and an easy/effective maintenance cycle that protects hard bio material quite well.
Considering the weight of either filter maintenance can be a PITA, but as long as I service them once every 5-weeks they work like swiss watches.
Ahh this could go on for weeks LOL!
Indeed! :cool:
 

New Aquarium Filter Threads

Latest Aquarium Threads

Top Bottom