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

[Miami Reef]

“And we claim the opposite of what it really is so it’s all good”uwc

But at least everyone likes it! Oh, and ps, remember we said it was 100% reef safe…yeeeaaaah…nothing is! Whoops!

 

[ScottB]

This will more than likely be my last post in this thread as your guys have taken it to absolutely no man lands.

You guys are really talking in circles at this point. When we spoke with the EPA about registration and also third party registration companies, they seemed very uninterested in wanting to do anything with Vibrant. This market is too small and it seems like a sector they are not interested in getting involved in at this point. Maybe years ago when things were different before literally tens of thousands of products hit the market via the internet in every market sector of the world, it would have been different as there were so few companies involved.

Go to BRS's additives page or any wholesaler and scroll through all the pest products. whether that be for aiptasia, flatworms, algae's and so on. How many of these are registered with the EPA? Don't know if any of these companies tried to register or if they ran across the same thing, but none of them are registered. This would include Reeflux, chemiclean, dinox, products from Fritz, Dr. Tims, Brightwells and the list go's on and on and on. The EPA at this point is simply not interested in our market as it is such small fish, so to speak. They are after the broad market application products . Is the EPA being out of our hobby good or bad? I guess that's up to how you interpret what would happen if they were involved.

As for the fraud claims, yeah right. We created one of the most consumer happy products in the market that has stood on its own very well. Head back on over to the BRS additives page and scroll through the products and see how many companies actually list their ingredients (minus plain things like bicarbonate, et.). I'd say it's 50/50 and some actually list no ingredients at all. There is a reason for this and a reason for why some things are listed as proprietary. We are not the only ones. We are again talking about basically every company in this market that makes supplements. Run tests on these products and you will come back with wildly different test results from what is listed on the ingredients label.

Are all reef products 100% reef safe? Nope and neither are any products sold in this market and you see this daily with threads popping up about x product or y product. Why is this? Why does one thing work so well for others and can be a complete disaster for someone else? Nobody will ever know as there are far too many variables involved. One thing though, it's easy to come to a conclusion if something generally works for the masses and what does not.

As I never had any interest in the EPA aspect, I don't find this post particularly constructive but, no biggie. I think we are good.

I win the Internet today.

 

[a.t.t.r]

This will more than likely be my last post in this thread as your guys have taken it to absolutely no man lands.

You guys are really talking in circles at this point. When we spoke with the EPA about registration and also third party registration companies, they seemed very uninterested in wanting to do anything with Vibrant. This market is too small and it seems like a sector they are not interested in getting involved in at this point. Maybe years ago when things were different before literally tens of thousands of products hit the market via the internet in every market sector of the world, it would have been different as there were so few companies involved.

Go to BRS's additives page or any wholesaler and scroll through all the pest products. whether that be for aiptasia, flatworms, algae's and so on. How many of these are registered with the EPA? Don't know if any of these companies tried to register or if they ran across the same thing, but none of them are registered. This would include Reeflux, chemiclean, dinox, products from Fritz, Dr. Tims, Brightwells and the list go's on and on and on. The EPA at this point is simply not interested in our market as it is such small fish, so to speak. They are after the broad market application products . Is the EPA being out of our hobby good or bad? I guess that's up to how you interpret what would happen if they were involved.

As for the fraud claims, yeah right. We created one of the most consumer happy products in the market that has stood on its own very well. Head back on over to the BRS additives page and scroll through the products and see how many companies actually list their ingredients (minus plain things like bicarbonate, et.). I'd say it's 50/50 and some actually list no ingredients at all. There is a reason for this and a reason for why some things are listed as proprietary. We are not the only ones. We are again talking about basically every company in this market that makes supplements. Run tests on these products and you will come back with wildly different test results from what is listed on the ingredients label.

Are all reef products 100% reef safe? Nope and neither are any products sold in this market and you see this daily with threads popping up about x product or y product. Why is this? Why does one thing work so well for others and can be a complete disaster for someone else? Nobody will ever know as there are far too many variables involved. One thing though, it's easy to come to a conclusion if something generally works for the masses and what does not.

Listing something proprietary and listing it as something else and making false claims are two different things. You promote this as a bacterial product when it is not

 

[mojo8427]

When we spoke with the EPA about registration and also third party registration companies, they seemed very uninterested in wanting to do anything with Vibrant.

AlgaeFix registered with the EPA, Dino X is registered with the EU and German equivalents, BAuA Reg. No.: N-71725. Reef Flux is exempted it seems as it is fungicidal and the front of the bottle states that much.

1. "Products intended for use for the control of fungi, bacteria, viruses, or other microorganisms in or on living humans or animals, and labeled accordingly." Are exempted by the EPA.

Chemi-clean seems like they are an antibiotic (erythromycin) and got an EPA exemption for registering with them.

All the other ones you listed seem to be bacterial products - yours is not. I don't know if they registered or not but that is a poor defense.

Are all reef products 100% reef safe? Nope

Your website: "Vibrant is safe with all fish, corals and invertebrates."

 

[taricha]

As I never had any interest in the EPA aspect, I don't find this post particularly constructive but, no biggie. I think we are good.

same here.
Well, almost good. So far I haven't suggested to anyone they should stop using Vibrant. But I think that changes without some assurance from UWC.

See, for hobbyists it would still be helpful to know definitively that the risks associated with Vibrant are only those associated with the AlgaeFix active ingredient and not some other similar algicide that may be less tested, less safe, or simply have different risks / behavior.
We have no assurance on that, @UWC.
All we have is a bunch of tests that say we seemingly can't tell the Vibrant and AlgaeFix apart by any chemical property, and also they are indistinguishable in concentration.

Put it this way, if you use AlgaeFix (as I sometimes do), then you have all the volumes of documentation of exactly what the risks are (RIP my long spine urchin).
Here's a link to a 60 page work paper from 2015 on the effectiveness of the ingredient in AlgaeFix on everything from trout to rabbits to tomatoes.
It's full of info like this... (hey look, it's good at killing diatoms), elsewhere the effects on crustaceans and mollusks are quantified.

If, however you use Vibrant, you only know that you are probably using a similarly potent chemical in a similar concentration but you have no idea if this level of safety check has ever been done on Vibrant. Because @UWC hasn't or can't give that assurance (because possibly it hasn't been tested except on their systems and then the hobby).

So if you use Vibrant, you're actually just HOPING it's actually the AlgaeFix ingredient at a similar concentration. That's really the best-case scenario at this point.

 

[Miami Reef]

same here.
Well, almost good. So far I haven't suggested to anyone they should stop using Vibrant. But I think that changes without some assurance from UWC.

See, for hobbyists it would still be helpful to know definitively that the risks associated with Vibrant are only those associated with the AlgaeFix active ingredient and not some other similar algicide that may be less tested, less safe, or simply have different risks / behavior.
We have no assurance on that, @UWC.
All we have is a bunch of tests that say we seemingly can't tell the Vibrant and AlgaeFix apart by any chemical property, and also they are indistinguishable in concentration.

Put it this way, if you use AlgaeFix (as I sometimes do), then you have all the volumes of documentation of exactly what the risks are (RIP my long spine urchin).
Here's a link to a 60 page work paper from 2015 on the effectiveness of the ingredient in AlgaeFix on everything from trout to rabbits to tomatoes.
It's full of info like this... (hey look, it's good at killing diatoms), elsewhere the effects on crustaceans and mollusks are quantified.

If, however you use Vibrant, you only know that you are probably using a similarly potent chemical in a similar concentration but you have no idea if this level of safety check has ever been done on Vibrant. Because @UWC hasn't or can't give that assurance (because possibly it hasn't been tested except on their systems and then the hobby).

So if you use Vibrant, you're actually just HOPING it's actually the AlgaeFix ingredient at a similar concentration. That's really the best-case scenario at this point.

Can you determine how much algaefix is required to kill diatoms, algae etc? Just standard label instructions? Trying to figure out how much algaefix is required to kill the “most difficult” algae from the study.

Will polyquat kill dinoflagellates?

 

[MnFish1]

same here.
Well, almost good. So far I haven't suggested to anyone they should stop using Vibrant. But I think that changes without some assurance from UWC.

See, for hobbyists it would still be helpful to know definitively that the risks associated with Vibrant are only those associated with the AlgaeFix active ingredient and not some other similar algicide that may be less tested, less safe, or simply have different risks / behavior.
We have no assurance on that, @UWC.
All we have is a bunch of tests that say we seemingly can't tell the Vibrant and AlgaeFix apart by any chemical property, and also they are indistinguishable in concentration.

Put it this way, if you use AlgaeFix (as I sometimes do), then you have all the volumes of documentation of exactly what the risks are (RIP my long spine urchin).
Here's a link to a 60 page work paper from 2015 on the effectiveness of the ingredient in AlgaeFix on everything from trout to rabbits to tomatoes.
It's full of info like this... (hey look, it's good at killing diatoms), elsewhere the effects on crustaceans and mollusks are quantified.

If, however you use Vibrant, you only know that you are probably using a similarly potent chemical in a similar concentration but you have no idea if this level of safety check has ever been done on Vibrant. Because @UWC hasn't or can't give that assurance (because possibly it hasn't been tested except on their systems and then the hobby).

So if you use Vibrant, you're actually just HOPING it's actually the AlgaeFix ingredient at a similar concentration. That's really the best-case scenario at this point.

Curious - the 'bacteria' in vibrant and algaefix is 'the same' - right - according to your tests. An older version of algaefix did list bacillus - with a CFU count - I believe. How do you know - that Algaefix is not listing bacteria - now - and vice versa. To me the question has and always has been - does it work. Bacteria can mess up a reef tank - so can algaecides. Seems to me that the problem here is the regulations that allow all of the companies - to list what they want. Go ahead - add too much vodka to your tank - see if your corals have problems. its the same - all it does is cause 'bacterial growth'. IMHO - it would be best if all the companies listed their 'EDIT - INORGANIC and organic' (i.e. chemicals) and 'bacterial' additives. But - alas - thats not the way it is. So. - we can keep debating this like Don Quixote - or just accept that the Vibrant works for most people - if the directions are followed - thats the important thing IMHO. BUT - I do wish they were more forthcoming.

I also had the thought - after reading the EPA rules - how many products that are sold - that meet the EPA definition of pesticide - that are not registered with the EPA. For example - the case that was mentioned previously - was basically an 'oxydator-like' product. They were fined 21K - for not having EPA approval. lol. The whole regulation thing is laughable.

 

[UWC]

You know what's odd. I've never seen any of you at the facility where Vibrant is made. I really don't need to spell anything out on a open forum. Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the (edit) extract is used. All created by BACTERIA.

The group we work with has submitted into the ASM Microbe abstract and awards for early 2022. Once things have been presented. I will gladly post up a bunch of info on our site.

 

[mojo8427]

You know what's odd. I've never seen any of you at the facility where Vibrant is made. I really don't need to spell anything out. Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the abstract is used. All created by BACTERIA.

The group we work with has submitted into the ASM Microbe abstract and awards for early 2022. Once things have been presented. I will gladly post up a bunch of info on our site.

Maybe you ought to read your product label where it states 95% BACTERIA. So which is it?

 

[a.t.t.r]

You know what's odd. I've never seen any of you at the facility where Vibrant is made. I really don't need to spell anything out. Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the abstract is used. All created by BACTERIA.

The group we work with has submitted into the ASM Microbe abstract and awards for early 2022. Once things have been presented. I will gladly post up a bunch of info on our site.

All I see is not properly labeled products that really need more investigations by the ftc and epa. Every time you post you have a new story about what it is or isn’t.

 

[taricha]

I really don't need to spell anything out.

Ah well. I thought we might have reached a point where transparency was in UWC best interest. Guess they see differently. Okay then.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Maybe you ought to read your product label where it states 95% BACTERIA. So which is it?

Which one the one on the product on the shelf or the one on the website they are not the same label.

 

[Miami Reef]

Maybe you ought to read your product label where it states 95% BACTERIA. So which is it?

It’s 95% bacteria blend. So maybe that blend contains 99% polyquat and 1% bacteria…

 

[a.t.t.r]

You know what's odd. I've never seen any of you at the facility where Vibrant is made. I really don't need to spell anything out. Maybe you all should research Algecide bacteria abstract. Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the abstract is used. All created by BACTERIA.

The group we work with has submitted into the ASM Microbe abstract and awards for early 2022. Once things have been presented. I will gladly post up a bunch of info on our site.

This brings me back to the days of the eco aqualizer staff scrambling for reaponses and claiming that the magnets are unipolar and agreeing with a joke post that lithium is one possible method to remove bipolar magnetism. (A joke a bout lithium being common treatment for bi polar disorder that went right over their head)

 

[a.t.t.r]

It’s 95% bacteria blend. So maybe that blend contains 99% polyquat and 1% bacteria…

More like 95 percent algaefix (of which is what you listed) and 5 percent other.

 

[Miami Reef]

More like 95 percent algaefix (of which is what you listed) and 5 percent other.

Ouch. Imagine if Vibrant is just a watered down version of API algae fix.

And let me guess, the “reef version” and “saltwater fish version” are just the same thing but different labels for marketing? Pathetic.

UWC was very quick to deny fluconazole and eucalyptus, but they seem to have hit a wall with the polyquat claims.

 

[a.t.t.r]

I’m not a microbiologist but “research Algecide bacteria abstract Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the abstract is used”. Abstract is part of a research paper. So if you could link to what ever you are talking about that would begreat because no combination of those three words turn up anything beyond millions of research papers with an abstract section or maybe autocorrect messed up your post and that is not what you intended to say?

 

[J1a]

I’m not a microbiologist but “research Algecide bacteria abstract Where the bacteria are filtered out and discarded and the abstract is used”. Abstract is part of a research paper. So if you could link to what ever you are talking about that would begreat because no combination of those three words turn up anything beyond millions of research papers with an abstract section or maybe autocorrect messed up your post and that is not what you intended to say?

I assume it should be extract ?

Or maybe according to the steps outlined, sounds like bacteria filtrate.

 

[DrZoidburg]

How strange that AlgaeFix also breaks the Hanna test in the same way Vibrant does

This is good you have entered the worm hole of molybdenum organometallics. Some are colored some are not, some precipitate some do not. At any point in the mechanism of this test kit is potential for weird complexes. Also potential for interferences. I have similar pictures of amino acids with limited phosphate though even slightly blue. Although yours kinds of looks like hydroxide precipitation and doesn't match your first description? That's odd.

 

[MnFish1]

I assume it should be extract ?

Or maybe according to the steps outlined, sounds like bacteria filtrate.

I will just say 'no'. There is no conclusion here. Its a dead thread. IMHO.