Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[outhouse]

So what your saying is,,,,,, if you like vibrant, and its working for you, you can save money by buying Algaefix.

Did I get that correct? awesome love saving money

 

[GARRIGA]

No. It says 'blend' and that could literally be anything. So, let's say you make some stuff - you take some aquarium water, you add some food coloring, and some sugar, and let it get good and stinky over the course of a couple of weeks. Definitely could call this a 'bacterial product' - yay for you! Now, you take that stuff and fill a bottle up with it to 95% of the volume of the bottle and then fill the remainder of the bottle with 5% RODI. You still have 95% by volume of your 'bacterial blend', but *NOT* 95% bacteria by volume (or weight). The blended product you are adding does not matter - especially if you say that it is proprietary.

Finally someone gets it.

 

[Lyss]

Finally someone gets it.

Yes, we are assuming bacteria means a blend of bacteria strains but it could be anything blended with some bacteria.

I was on about this earlier in the thread.
The thing that sends me is that dietary supplements that use the proprietary blend wording are required by law to list what is in the blend, they just don’t have to list how much of each ingredient is in the blend.

Why does this industry get away with not listing ingredients? We’re not consuming it so there’s that, but pesticides are regulated by the epa (including bacterial, which fall under biopesticides) b/c the ingredients could be of environmental consequence or pose some danger or risk to those using it.

 

[GARRIGA]

Yes, we are assuming bacteria means a blend of bacteria strains but it could be anything blended with some bacteria.

I was on about this earlier in the thread.
The thing that sends me is that dietary supplements that use the proprietary blend wording are required by law to list what is in the blend, they just don’t have to list how much of each ingredient is in the blend.

Why does this industry get away with not listing ingredients? We’re not consuming it so there’s that, but pesticides are regulated by the epa b/c the ingredients could be of environmental consequence or pose some danger or risk to those using it.

I was commenting as to how 95% and the RODI component can be distinguished. Many have questioned the consistency of that 95% assuming it wasn’t water yet it could be anything. Including distilled or tap or RODI that had bacteria added to it with the 5% RODI being just 100% RODI. Although it seems bacteria not one of the components found during testing and why I’ve commented on another thread that perhaps bacteria was used in the formulation of that 95% but not part of the final product.

Marketing is legally deceptive.

 

[Lyss]

I was commenting as to how 95% and the RODI component can be distinguished. Many have questioned the consistency of that 95% assuming it wasn’t water yet it could be anything. Including distilled or tap or RODI that had bacteria added to it with the 5% RODI being just 100% RODI. Although it seems bacteria not one of the components found during testing and why I’ve commented on another thread that perhaps bacteria was used in the formulation of that 95% but not part of the final product.

Marketing is legally deceptive.

Yes, that is what I’ve been saying about marketing. But marketing or not, there are regulations around what needs to be on a label. My understanding was that proprietary blends must list the ingredients that make them up, but don’t need to list how much of each, but that is specifically for dietary supplements that fall under the FDA (stuff we consume). Most pesticides are honest enough for a consumer to figure out if it’s useful for their purposes.

I know b/c I had an outbreak of spider mites on some of my houseplants a few years ago and bought this pre-mixed neem oil spray. It wasn’t working great and it was only then that I looked on the label and saw it was a small percentage of actual neem oil and the rest was a proprietary blend of various listed ingredients, though none of the proprietary blend ingredients showed how much of each was in, just a % proprietary blend made up of listed individual ingredients. So I bought cold pressed neem oil and mixed an actually effective amount with just organic soap myself. That worked.

That bottled stuff i bought initially is marketed as neem oil pretty deceptively but it’s registered w/the epa and the label lists ingredients. A savvy consumer can figure it out.

The vibrant label only lists the blend, not what makes it up.

 

[GARRIGA]

Yes, that is what I’ve been saying about marketing. But marketing or not, there are regulations around what needs to be on a label. Proprietary blends must list the ingredients that make them up, but don’t need to list how much of each. Most pesticides are honest enough for a consumer to figure out if it’s useful for their purposes.

I know b/c I had an outbreak of spider mites on some of my houseplants a few years ago and bought this pre-mixed neem oil spray. It wasn’t working great and it was only then that I looked on the label and saw it was a small percentage of actual neem oil and the rest was a proprietary blend of various listed ingredients, though none of the proprietary blend ingredients showed how much of each was in, just a % proprietary blend made up of listed individual ingredients. So I bought cold pressed neem oil and mixed an actually effective amount with just organic soap myself. That worked.

That bottled stuff i bought initially is marketed as neem oil pretty deceptively but it’s registered w/the epa and the label lists ingredients. A savvy consumer can figure it out.

The vibrant label only lists the blend, not what makes it up.

Yes, that is what I’ve been saying about marketing. But marketing or not, there are regulations around what needs to be on a label. Proprietary blends must list the ingredients that make them up, but don’t need to list how much of each. Most pesticides are honest enough for a consumer to figure out if it’s useful for their purposes.

I know b/c I had an outbreak of spider mites on some of my houseplants a few years ago and bought this pre-mixed neem oil spray. It wasn’t working great and it was only then that I looked on the label and saw it was a small percentage of actual neem oil and the rest was a proprietary blend of various listed ingredients, though none of the proprietary blend ingredients showed how much of each was in, just a % proprietary blend made up of listed individual ingredients. So I bought cold pressed neem oil and mixed an actually effective amount with just organic soap myself. That worked.

That bottled stuff i bought initially is marketed as neem oil pretty deceptively but it’s registered w/the epa and the label lists ingredients. A savvy consumer can figure it out.

The vibrant label only lists the blend, not what makes it up.

Do believe products have to be labeled for certain components such as satisfying the inclusion of pesticides but I don’t know that aquarium supplements need to disclose their ingredients. Pretty sure most of Seachem products don’t.

I don’t have an issue with the 95% vagueness. Just the exclusion that it might contain a pesticide assuming that’s conclusive. At some point the EPA should get involved but I believe we are waiting on the manufacturer to conclude their own tests.

Although I don’t place much value in tests where a manufacturer controls the process including submission of the test material. I’d rather see an independent party buying off the shelf.

Do understand the manufacturer wants to test old products to conclude if something changed. Whether that is being honest or just the newest narrative I don’t know. Have my doubts considering the back and forth in the past as to having or not having bacteria by the manufacturer.

Full disclosure. I’m skeptical by nature.

 

[Lyss]

Do believe products have to be labeled for certain components such as satisfying the inclusion of pesticides but I don’t know that aquarium supplements need to disclose their ingredients. Pretty sure most of Seachem products don’t.

I don’t have an issue with the 95% vagueness. Just the exclusion that it might contain a pesticide assuming that’s conclusive. At some point the EPA should get involved but I believe we are waiting on the manufacturer to conclude their own tests.

Although I don’t place much value in tests where a manufacturer controls the process including submission of the test material. I’d rather see an independent party buying off the shelf.

Do understand the manufacturer wants to test old products to conclude if something changed. Whether that is being honest or just the newest narrative I don’t know. Have my doubts considering the back and forth in the past as to having or not having bacteria by the manufacturer.

Full disclosure. I’m skeptical by nature.

It is a pesticide though, even if it’s bacteria — biopesticide. Neem oil mixed with soap and bottled up and sold as spider mite killer is a biopesticide, even if it is natural. A pesticide is any product that kills pests, including aquatic pests and algae, so it shouldn’t matter if you put it on your houseplant or in your aquarium.

I looked some stuff up and did find the below. It looks like only active ingredients need to be listed. But I could argue that the 95% bacterial blend in vibrant is the active ingredient and should be listed. Anyway, this is an aside to the main discussion I guess. Ppl just want to feel assured that they’re not getting a chemical when it says bacteria.

Pesticide Labeling Questions & Answers | US EPA

Pesticide manufacturers, applicators, state regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders raise questions or issues about pesticide labels. The questions on this page are those that apply to multiple products or address inconsistencies among product labels.

www.epa.gov

 

[dank reefer]

There's a running joke in certain circles in the reefing world about Craig being erroneously referred to as "Greg Biggerman". When you set me up with "Greg", I couldn't resist!

Now he is known as Craig "The Beef" Bingman, Or Craig The Beefanator!

 

[DE FISH]

Vibrant, Vibrant, Vibrant, What you gonna do ? What you gonna do when Randy comes for you?

 

[BeMoto]

Frog

 

[DopamineKata]

Now he is known as Craig "The Beef" Bingman, Or Craig The Beefanator!

Will he be coming out of retirement for a rehabilitation match?

 

[GARRIGA]

It is a pesticide though, even if it’s bacteria — biopesticide. Neem oil mixed with soap and bottled up and sold as spider mite killer is a biopesticide, even if it is natural. A pesticide is any product that kills pests, including aquatic pests and algae, so it shouldn’t matter if you put it on your houseplant or in your aquarium.

I looked some stuff up and did find the below. It looks like only active ingredients need to be listed. But I could argue that the 95% bacterial blend in vibrant is the active ingredient and should be listed. Anyway, this is an aside to the main discussion I guess. Ppl just want to feel assured that they’re not getting a chemical when it says bacteria.

Pesticide Labeling Questions & Answers | US EPA

Pesticide manufacturers, applicators, state regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders raise questions or issues about pesticide labels. The questions on this page are those that apply to multiple products or address inconsistencies among product labels.

www.epa.gov

But to your point on active ingredients being listed, this only applies to that requiring labeling per EPA guidelines. My point being that aquarium supplements, in general, don't need to list ingredients.

It has not been equivocally proven that this is a pesticide. Not by EPA standards. Were it then (I'm likely safe to assume) that new labeling would then be required, at which point ingredients would then matter.

Hopefully as promised by the manufacturer, they present their findings. I'm assuming at that point, if it doesn't align with the thread then next move is reporting it to the EPA for definative findings, although, someone mentioned they did but not sure if that was true or just hyperbole.

 

[RyonFly]

 

[Lyss]

But your point on active ingredients being listed only applies to that requiring labeling per EPA guidelines. My point being that aquarium supplements in general don't need to list ingredients.

It has not been equivocally proven that this is a pesticide. Not by EPA standards. Were it then I'm likely safe to assume that new labeling would then be required at which point ingredients would then matter.

Hopefully as promised the manufacturer presents their findings. I'm assuming at that point if it doesn't align with the thread then next move is reporting it to the EPA for conslusive findings, although, someone mentioned they did but not sure if that was true or just hyperbole.

But my point was that you can really only ask if it's technically a pesticide or not b/c they don't directly say "algae killer' on the label -- instead it's marketed as an aquarium cleaner or something vague like that. But they have bottled it to be used to kill algae, and so it is a pesticide. Pesticide doesn't mean chemicals. A biopesticide is natural, like oils, bacteria, microbes. I was just trying to say that if it's bacteria, and it's being sold to kill algae, by definition it's still a pesticide.

But anyway, the main concern with this thread and the research done was that ppl want to know that it is actually bacteria and not a chemical.

 

[IslandLifeReef]

But my point was that you can really only ask if it's technically a pesticide or not b/c they don't directly say "algae killer' on the label -- instead it's marketed as an aquarium cleaner or something vague like that. But they have bottled it to be used to kill algae, and so it is a pesticide. Pesticide doesn't mean chemicals. A biopesticide is natural, like oils, bacteria, microbes. I was just trying to say that if it's bacteria, and it's being sold to kill algae, by definition it's still a pesticide.

But anyway, the main concern with this thread and the research done was that ppl want to know that it is actually bacteria and not a chemical.

Don't pesticides kill pests, i.e. bugs? Is algae a bug.

Again, why are so many people putting so much faith into one anonymous posters testing of Vibrant? People are ready to hang UWC, but know nothing about the test and are taking one anonymous persons word for it.

I hope that R2R has good lawyers, because if I were UWC and my tests show that there is no algaecide in the bottles, I would be looking at a libel case against the poster and R2R for allowing the discussion to continue as it has.

 

[rtparty]

Don't pesticides kill pests, i.e. bugs? Is algae a bug.

Again, why are so many people putting so much faith into one anonymous posters testing of Vibrant? People are ready to hang UWC, but know nothing about the test and are taking one anonymous persons word for it.

I hope that R2R has good lawyers, because if I were UWC and my tests show that there is no algaecide in the bottles, I would be looking at a libel case against the poster and R2R for allowing the discussion to continue as it has.

That "one anonymous person" is far more credible than UWC.

Look at track records for both and it's pretty easy to spot what is going on

 

[Lyss]

Don't pesticides kill pests, i.e. bugs? Is algae a bug.

Again, why are so many people putting so much faith into one anonymous posters testing of Vibrant? People are ready to hang UWC, but know nothing about the test and are taking one anonymous persons word for it.

I hope that R2R has good lawyers, because if I were UWC and my tests show that there is no algaecide in the bottles, I would be looking at a libel case against the poster and R2R for allowing the discussion to continue as it has.

I am just commenting RE the pests being bugs -- common misconception. If you Google EPA and pesticides, you will find a definition that says a pesticide is any pest, including plants, algae, etc.

Edit, here is the legal definition of what a pest is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/152.5

 

[jda]

Don't pesticides kill pests, i.e. bugs? Is algae a bug.

Again, why are so many people putting so much faith into one anonymous posters testing of Vibrant? People are ready to hang UWC, but know nothing about the test and are taking one anonymous persons word for it.

I hope that R2R has good lawyers, because if I were UWC and my tests show that there is no algaecide in the bottles, I would be looking at a libel case against the poster and R2R for allowing the discussion to continue as it has.

This is why the horse has to be beaten even after dead. People have not followed the issue, read the other threads or otherwise are uninformed. There have been more than one anonymous person.... first, the main poster is identified and standing behind their work. Second, the tests are well documented and appropriate. Third, this testing saw the eyes of numerous other scientists before it got posted and then also got the approval of our Reef Chemist and a few others that have very high reputations not only in their fields but also in our hobby community. The only thing else that is needed is perhaps one last NMR from somebody else and then, as our respected chemist said "it is game over."

People who would have followed along from the beginning also know that Busan 77 is an EPA registered algaecide that requires accurate labeling or otherwise under penalty like any other EPA registered product.

This is why it must be said many times... and it is an exercise worth doing so that the narrative stays accurate and honest.

 

[BanjoBandito]

That "one anonymous person" is far more credible than UWC.

Look at track records for both and it's pretty easy to spot what is going on

Yeah, I'm backin' one of our own science nerds in this one too. lol. Dude is legit, I've seen his work on here....he's thorough and seems to be pretty good at just presenting his findings without making grand assumptions or statements.

 

[GARRIGA]

Don't pesticides kill pests, i.e. bugs? Is algae a bug.

Again, why are so many people putting so much faith into one anonymous posters testing of Vibrant? People are ready to hang UWC, but know nothing about the test and are taking one anonymous persons word for it.

I hope that R2R has good lawyers, because if I were UWC and my tests show that there is no algaecide in the bottles, I would be looking at a libel case against the poster and R2R for allowing the discussion to continue as it has.

Not sure why you quoted me.