Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[MnFish1]

I think @Randy Holmes-Farley addressed this, but I'm not sure of the answer. I believe he said that there is not evidence that the poly-quats would remain in the tank long term. Randy, can you address this again please?

Maybe. I'm not sure of the long term implications of using an algaecide, even on an empty tank.

This is what he said

 

[IslandLifeReef]

This is what he said

I saw that post. I thought he had some other thoughts on it as well. Maybe I'm confusing it with a different thread. After 49 pages, it's hard to keep track.

 

[DaneGer21]

I think it’s funny that most people on here stated they used it, it worked, but now they won’t use it again.

I understand they “lied”, but you did buy a product to kill things off, or lower something, am I right???

Remember one of the old reefing rules; Don’t use chemicals to treat issues…

Ill never understand some of the thought process

 

[Sean Clark]

Remember one of the old reefing rules; Don’t use chemicals to treat issues…

That is a great rule. It is hard to adhere to that when you don't know you are using chemicals though.

 

[workhz]

I think it’s funny that most people on here stated they used it, it worked, but now they won’t use it again.

Dodging a bullet once doesn’t mean you want to make a habit of it. Well, dodging the bullet would be a good habit but the attempt not so much.

 

[Doctorgori]

I think it’s funny that most people on here stated they used it, it worked, but now they won’t use it again.

I understand they “lied”, but you did buy a product to kill things off, or lower something, am I right???

Remember one of the old reefing rules; Don’t use chemicals to treat issues…

Ill never understand some of the thought process

my thought process…..what if you bought “safe” organic baby formula and your kid lived, but then you found out it wasn’t…
would you use that again? ….
anyway, I’m certain the Vibrant mfg’s will come in here and clear this all up shortly

 

[DaneGer21]

That is a great rule. It is hard to adhere to that when you don't know you are using chemicals though.

Anything other than natural methods of nutrient remove is a chemical treatment, weather stated or not.

 

[DaneGer21]

my thought process…..what if you bought “safe” organic baby formula and your kid lived, but then you found out it wasn’t…
would you use that again? ….
anyway, I’m certain the Vibrant mfg’s will come in here and clear this all up shortly

Nah, we don’t do the whole organic thing. I’ve worked in to many manufacturing plants to believe that crap anyways.

I see your point though…

 

[jcolliii]

Everything is a chemical. Having all of the facts about what chemicals you are adding, I think, is probably the biggest takeaway here. Hope other manufacturers are watching this thread as well.

 

[Sean Clark]

Anything other than natural methods of nutrient remove is a chemical treatment, weather stated or not.

When you say natural methods I can only presume that you mean biological.

 

[DaneGer21]

When you say natural methods I can only presume that you mean biological.
Natural; as in manual removal, or other natural species; algaes/animals/etc

 

[ScottB]

Going back of few posts to the new tank ugly prevention process. The idea of adding bacteria to an otherwise bacterial undiversified captive reef is attractive. I do it with live rock all the time.

Adding Busan 77 to a young biome strikes me as a really bad idea. While I am sure it is doable in theory, you are trying to subvert 100s of millions of years of biome evolution. Algae serves a purpose. Defying Mother Nature with an algaecide at the inception of biome development seems a stretch for my little brain.

 

[Moe K]

Going back of few posts to the new tank ugly prevention process. The idea of adding bacteria to an otherwise bacterial undiversified captive reef is attractive. I do it with live rock all the time.

Adding Busan 77 to a young biome strikes me as a really bad idea. While I am sure it is doable in theory, you are trying to subvert 100s of millions of years of biome evolution. Algae serves a purpose. Defying Mother Nature with an algaecide at the inception of biome development seems a stretch for my little brain.

I agree with this. The more you disrupt the natural process the more pain the ride is going to be to maturity. Although from what I understand taricha found on page 9, section L that the addition of vinegar did show signs of microbial growth.

"5 days after I did the above pH check, I noticed both tubes that had 1% vinegar added had microbial growth in colonies spread around the tubes."

After thinking about this statement I am now wondering if we can correlate some of the problematic side effects to reef tanks that are carbon deficient. Could dosing carbon keep the benefits of an algaecide and manage the risks of negative side effects much better?

Now what I would really like to see as another test is possibly someone that has currently been using vibrant send a sample to AquaBiomics current then several months later "clean" another test to compare the difference in bacteria levels/colonies.

That would be nuts if UCW could have avoided this whole situation by just adding a few drops of vinegar to the bottles just as the labels states as that is what it appears that last section of the tests suggests. Shoot, if they are on to something like that and can prove there is a benefit (or lack of negative side effects) mixing in some carbon source I might actually try some Vibrant 2.0 on a nano tank but only at 50% discount LOL.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I think it’s funny that most people on here stated they used it, it worked, but now they won’t use it again.

I understand they “lied”, but you did buy a product to kill things off, or lower something, am I right???

Remember one of the old reefing rules; Don’t use chemicals to treat issues…

Ill never understand some of the thought process

Either will I.

I could never imagine having an opinion like yours.

Everyone has their own approach to life. To me, truth is paramount.

I would never support or buy or recommend ANY product form a company that I believed lied to me.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Anything other than natural methods of nutrient remove is a chemical treatment, weather stated or not.

Nearly all nutrient removal methods we use are natural, whether chemical or not.

There are actually very few methods reefers use that are not already naturally occurring. We just amplify them for our purposes.

The ingredient in Algaefix and Vibrant is unnatural. It never occurs in nature. A few other materials (such as Purigen) also fit this description.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

When you say natural methods I can only presume that you mean biological.
Natural; as in manual removal, or other natural species; algaes/animals/etc

Why are natural chemicals doing exactly what they do already in the ocean considered unnatural?

Lanthanum, GFO, all types of organic carbon dosing, etc. are taking place all over the worlds oceans, and have been doing so for thousands of years.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

my thought process…..what if you bought “safe” organic baby formula and your kid lived, but then you found out it wasn’t…
would you use that again? ….
anyway, I’m certain the Vibrant mfg’s will come in here and clear this all up shortly

I think the term "shortly" went by the wayside days ago. I told Rev yesterday that fairness is very important when deciding how to treat a situation like this, but my patience for that is waning as the days keep passing.

They've had their own data for 10 days now. And they still won't post, saying lawyers will not yet let them. Why not? What will change tomorrow or the next day or the day after that would suddenly make it OK to explain their own data and what they think it means? How can their own version of the truth not be acceptable to post NOW?

Here's a possible hypothesis: the data looks identical to taricha and JDA data, and it's taking along time to find a plausible and still acceptable explanation for it.

 

[GlassMunky]

I think the term "shortly" went by the wayside days ago. I told Rev yesterday that fairness is very important when deciding how to treat a situation like this, but my patience for that is waning as the days keep passing.

They've had their own data for 10 days now. And they still won't post, saying lawyers will not yet let them. Why not? What will change tomorrow or the next day or the day after that would suddenly make it OK to explain their own data and what they think it means? How can their own version of the truth not be acceptable to post NOW?

Here's a possible hypothesis: the data looks identical to taricha and JDA data, and it's taking along time to find a plausible and still acceptable explanation for it.

Or they could just be pleading the 5th so to speak…. Why talk at all if what you’re going to say is going to implicate you as responsible and liable

seems better for them to stay quiet unless a law enforcement person shows up at their door

 

[DaneGer21]

I could never imagine having an opinion like yours.

Same!

But here we are 49 pages later…

 

[blaxsun]

Three words: Class action lawsuit.