My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

[Charlie’s Frags]

No one said you were dumb - but - you have to admit the way you worded your first post was a little 'attacking'. Right? Of course I don't hold anyone responsible for remembering anything

BUT - to answer your question. 1) it could be a direct toxic effect of 'something' in the bottle. 2) it could have been coincidence (I don't think so) - 3) it could have been nutrient related - i.e. bacteria using up nutrients - which in my tank tend to run 'low'. It could have been that I used the incorrect dose.

BUT - it wasn't overnight that I had problems with coral - it was over perhaps a week or so. Second - the reason I wouldn't use Vibrant again is not necessarily a total indictment of them - as I think I overdosed it - but its my philosophy to avoid dosing of any products - as it seems that every time I do - it causes more problems than was designed to help.

The only person who said “I was dumb” was me. It happens everyday. And now @JCOLE. Which is fine. I’m used to it. Good luck buying Tenuis from me in the future though @JCOLE (I keep a list of names)

Anyways….I apologize. I didn’t mean to come off as attacking. Really just wanted to know what the “popular product” was on your build thread.

When I used vibrant my no3/Po4 was always +25/0.10 in both systems and sps were stressed in a matter of days. It’s been so long I can’t remember exactly if it was 2 days or a week or whatever.

 

[shwareefer]

Have you tested the different versions? In theory, you should be able to see a different amount of QAC in each type - if indeed QAC was the active ingredient?

This seems like a good idea, at least with the current methodology.

 

[taricha]

You gloss over the question about how vibrant gets away with having supposedly the same ingredients as algaefix - yet Algaefix has an EPA permit.

Arguments that it would be "bad" if it had X, so therefore it probably doesn't have X requires making a presumption about whether I think they would be willing to do something that is perceived as "bad". Similarly arguments about legalities require knowing the consequences and likelihood of enforcement, their awareness of those regulations, and their perception of those consequences and likelihoods.
None of those things seem knowable, so I'll stick to things that can be measured, and I have no interest in discussing the legalities/moralities.

You also gloss over the answer the company has given you.

which was that they'll explain why we detect a quat response later. That's not any testable information. see my reply to them for more.

 

[taricha]

Weird AlgaeFix / Vibrant coincidence number 26 and 27. (kidding, I haven't numbered them.)

Also, a hanna PO4 test on 4mL vibrant / Liter tankwater causes the test to fail. The blue/gray product that the test forms precipitates and clumps, falling out of solution.

I said this back on page 4. I wondered if AlgaeFix does the same.

Left vial is 4mL AlgaeFix / 1L tank water. Right is same but for Vibrant.
Hanna ULR P test. Water cloudy after 2 min shake, and precipitate falls out of solution over next 10 minutes.

How strange that AlgaeFix also breaks the Hanna test in the same way Vibrant does!
(so no ingredients of vibrant are needed to explain this effect aside from a substance similar to what is in algaefix.)

coincidence number 27 or whatever.
indistinguishable specific gravity.

There are many things that could have this spec gravity.
These are both very low information tests. Just a couple more weird coincidences where algaefix and vibrant look more similar than anyone would expect.

 

[JCOLE]

The only person who said “I was dumb” was me. It happens everyday. And now @JCOLE. Which is fine. I’m used to it. Good luck buying Tenuis from me in the future though @JCOLE (I keep a list of names)

Anyways….I apologize. I didn’t mean to come off as attacking. Really just wanted to know what the “popular product” was on your build thread.

When I used vibrant my no3/Po4 was always +25/0.10 in both systems and sps were stressed in a matter of days. It’s been so long I can’t remember exactly if it was 2 days or a week or whatever.

LOL! I thought I was already at the top of that list

 

[jda]

If anybody is using the lack of EPA permitting as a rock solid reason for an assumption or basis for anything, ask yourself if the already proven amount of lies and mislabeling in the product allows for a foundation of trust and integrity? The EPA and their enforcement exists because people often try and circumvent them.

 

[nereefpat]

Bacteria was brought up again. This is not a bacterial culture. Vibrant was centrifuged, and there was no visible amount of cells at the bottom of the tube.

 

[MnFish1]

If anybody is using the lack of EPA permitting as a rock solid reason for an assumption or basis for anything, ask yourself if the already proven amount of lies and mislabeling in the product allows for a foundation of trust and integrity? The EPA and their enforcement exists because people often try and circumvent them.

There are a number of 'correlations' on this thread. I mentioned the EPA permit issue ONLY because so many products with algaecides have permits for this (and other chemicals). I would think that its pretty well known (of course you can be correct). I certainly am not using anything as a rock solid basis for anything - but it is suggestive that if it is present it is present in a low amount.

I think the experiments are interesting. And I agree to a degree with @taricha that each 'one' that seems to fall into play suggests his theory is correct. Whats really interesting is how this thread has evolved. It started with one posters postulate that Vibrant contained fluconazole. It has now delved into many issues affecting the reef community - sudden coral death, product labeling, biological and organic chemistry, ETC ETC.

The questions, comments, etc are the way science (IMHO) is supposed to work. Otherwise there would still be a back and forth debate on whether fluconazole was present or not.

Lots of people think (myself included) - that vibrant could have damaged their corals. I wonder - have we heard those reports about algaefix? If they are the same ingredients (as implied) - why not? The dose for Algaefix recommended is higher than that for Vibrant - why? There are reef versions and Fowlr versions of Vibrant, Why are there not for Algaefix?

Then there is the fact that @taricha found exactly the same (or similar) - bacterial growth with Vibrant as other products. - I cant remember if he did it with algaefix. And QAC are excellent at killing bacteria - and some spores - so this another piece of data.

Then there are the fact that at least in my freshwater tank - there has been no further growth of algae since adding vibrant for a couple weeks. Despite more fish (now) - and the same light. This is common hair algae - which will grow in any tank. The water in the tank has been 80% changed every 2-3 weeks for 6 months - and still no algae - which to me suggests a bacterial product is at least part of the issue.

Aquabiomics showed bacteria DNA in Vibrant.

Bacteria are known to produce chemicals toxic to algae. (as @ Taricha has posted - and I have also posted articles).

So - I guess Im keeping an open mind. What I'm not understanding is how so many people think thats the incorrect approach?

 

[MnFish1]

Bacteria was brought up again. This is not a bacterial culture. Vibrant was centrifuged, and there was no visible amount of cells at the bottom of the tube.

Vibrant was also cultured - and produced bacterial amounts similar to other products. I believe those cultures were also sent to Aquabiomics - and contained multiple strains of bacteria - the genus of some are known to produce bacterial ALGAL toxins.

 

[nereefpat]

Vibrant was also cultured - and produced bacterial amounts similar to other products.

I would like to see that info. Vibrant was cultured and produced similar amounts how? Someone plated vibrant and it had the same amount of colony forming units as bacterial additives?

I believe those cultures were also sent to Aquabiomics - and contained multiple strains of bacteria - the genus of some are known to produce bacterial toxins.

I would like to see this too.

 

[MnFish1]

One more comment

I would like to see that info. Vibrant was cultured and produced similar amounts how? Someone plated vibrant and it had the same amount of colony forming units as bacterial additives?

I would like to see this too.

It is on this thread. Sorry - hang on I'll get the posts

 

[shwareefer]

For the most part this has been adhered to in this thread.

 

[MnFish1]

I would like to see that info. Vibrant was cultured and produced similar amounts how? Someone plated vibrant and it had the same amount of colony forming units as bacterial additives?

I would like to see this too.

Here is one of the posts - there was a lot of discussion about this. There are a couple other experiments that were also done using broth - and the broth samples were sent to aquabiomics - and the bacteria genus that were found were posted (i.e. the report from Aquabiomics).

My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

So... Why does everyone care so much? It works wonders in my tank... I hesitate to even post on the subject because it seems like vibrant is a product people love to hate. I started using vibrant and my tanks have literally never been cleaner. I am very interested in the rise of microbial...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[MnFish1]

For the most part this has been adhered to in this thread.

Absolutely correct - the key part is the part that says communicate results - and then use those results for further experimentation. Which is why I personally appreciate the time/effort @taricha has taken in looking into (and continuing to look into his findings.

 

[nereefpat]

Here is one of the posts - there was a lot of discussion about this. There are a couple other experiments that were also done using broth - and the broth samples were sent to aquabiomics - and the bacteria genus that were found were posted (i.e. the report from Aquabiomics).

My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

So... Why does everyone care so much? It works wonders in my tank... I hesitate to even post on the subject because it seems like vibrant is a product people love to hate. I started using vibrant and my tanks have literally never been cleaner. I am very interested in the rise of microbial...

www.reef2reef.com

I somehow missed that. Give me a minute to read

 

[ScottB]

The only person who said “I was dumb” was me. It happens everyday. And now @JCOLE. Which is fine. I’m used to it. Good luck buying Tenuis from me in the future though @JCOLE (I keep a list of names)

Yes you do keep a list of names.

Poor ole @JCOLE None of these furry frags for you!

 

[ScottB]

Lots of people think (myself included) - that vibrant could have damaged their corals. I wonder - have we heard those reports about algaefix? If they are the same ingredients (as implied) - why not? The dose for Algaefix recommended is higher than that for Vibrant - why?

This kinda gets at my motivation for stirring the pot in the beginning.

Vibrant is branded as a blend of bacteria. We tend to regard bacteria products as very helpful and certainly NOT harmful. Who ever heard of dosing too much bacteria? Is that even a thing? Too much carbon dosing sure, but too much bacteria dosing?

However, if a product is clearly marketed as an algaecide, I think we are far more wary. Not only are we less likely to overdose it, we're less likely to dose it at all.

 

[moz71]

I use to enjoy following this thread. Not anymore! I got what I need. Peace out! God bless us everyone!!!

 

[MnFish1]

@nereefpat Here is a nice article concerning the use of bacillus - in aquaculture as an algaecide.

@taricha - in looking at a couple tests for QAC's - they comment that their products are not affected by 'pH' - but are affected by 'buffering capacity'. I know that you tested the pH of Vibrant and Algaefix - did you happen to test the alkalinity?

 

[MnFish1]

This kinda gets at my motivation for stirring the pot in the beginning.

Vibrant is branded as a blend of bacteria. We tend to regard bacteria products as very helpful and certainly NOT harmful. Who ever heard of dosing too much bacteria? Is that even a thing? Too much carbon dosing sure, but too much bacteria dosing?

However, if a product is clearly marketed as an algaecide, I think we are far more wary. Not only are we less likely to overdose it, we're less likely to dose it at all.

This is certainly true. BUT - one thing you said is a common misconception. There are plenty of 'harmful' bacteria. Vibrio, for example among many others. I'm almost just as paranoid about adding a bacterial product as I am a known chemical - with a known concentration. Why? Because bacteria can grow much differently in 1 tank (with one set of nutrients) as compared to another tank with a different set of nutrients, etc, etc. At least with a 'chemical' its possible to remove it with water changes.