Vibrant Liquid Aquarium Cleaner review

[seabass]

1 hour ago, A.m.P said:

I almost wonder if it would be better to just drip a much lower dose over the course of most a year to attempt getting the same results but without some of the hardship and system-shock.

For each single dose, it's recommended to dose it all at once.  So the variable lies in how often you dose.  Per their website, "For a very well taken care of, clean aquarium, add 1ml of Vibrant per 10 gallons of aquarium water once every 2 weeks.  For a dirtier aquarium, add 1ml of Vibrant per 10 gallons of aquarium water once per week.  If you are battling Bryopsis or Turf algae, dose 1ml of Vibrant per 10 gallons of aquarium water two times per week."  For ongoing maintenance, Underwater Creations (UWC) recommends dosing once every two weeks.  Some people report that you can even keep chaeto alive while dosing once every two weeks.

 

Your suggestion to slow the process down sounds logical.  But I go back to my speculation that the unlisted ingredients might be dimethyliminoethylene dichloride, ethoxylate.  If true, you could see why a full dose would be recommended, as the concentration might not be strong enough if dosed in smaller quantities.

 

 

 

[A.m.P]

18 minutes ago, seabass said:

For each single dose, it's recommended to dose it all at once.  So the variable lies in how often you dose.  Per their website, "For a very well taken care of, clean aquarium, add 1ml of Vibrant per 10 gallons of aquarium water once every 2 weeks.  For a dirtier aquarium, add 1ml of Vibrant per 10 gallons of aquarium water once per week.  If you are battling Bryopsis or Turf algae, dose 1ml of Vibrant per 10 gallons of aquarium water two times per week."  For ongoing maintenance, Underwater Creations (UWC) recommends dosing once every two weeks.  Some people report that you can even keep chaeto alive while dosing once every two weeks.

 

Your suggestion to slow the process down sounds logical.  But I go back to my speculation that the unlisted ingredients might be dimethyliminoethylene dichloride, ethoxylate.  If true, you could see why a full dose would be recommended, as the concentration might not be strong enough if dosed in smaller quantities.

 

 

 

Honestly the only reason I brought it up is, IIRC, Tidal Gardens, and a few other aquaculture sites, did low-dose trials for a year or two and found it to be quite effective at keeping pretty-much algae-free systems. Although I think Tidal Gardens stopped because it was slowing down the growth of their acan colonies.
I microdose h202 for a few weeks when film algae starts to break out, or spot-treat for cyano, but that wouldn't help much here XD
My system is full of macro too, I'd be pretty heartbroken in a situation where I needed to dose Vibrant.

Thanks for sharing the ride with us and I hope both systems turn the corner quickly, I'm glad to see the nems have been weathering things so well.

[seabass]

6 minutes ago, A.m.P said:

I'm glad to see the nems have been weathering things so well.

Yeah, if anything, they have gotten larger.  Even the babies seem to have increased their typical growth rate.  Now this might be due to better nutrient levels, more consistent alkalinity levels, increased water changes (trace elements), or less algae to compete with (for nutrients as well as space).  Anyway, you're correct, they seem to be doing well during this process.

[seabass]

Week 14: Another water change and dose #19 today.

[seabass]

I mixed up some monopotassium phosphate that I got from Planted Aquarium Fertilizer.  The calculator I used earlier didn't have a selection for MKP, so I guesstimated based on my NO3 solution.  But before I dosed, I realized that 1 ml of my NO3 solution added 1 ppm to 10 gallons of water (which would make phosphate quite high).  So I diluted it down and dosed less.  I should've been more scientific about it, but testing afterwards resulted in:

 

40 Gallon	01/09/21	01/07/21
Alkalinity:	NA	10.2 dKH
Phosphorus:	11 ppb*	1 ppb*
Nitrate :	NA	0.0 ppm
100 Gallon	01/09/21	01/07/21
Alkalinity:	NA	10.5 dKH
Phosphorus:	8 ppb**	7 ppb**
Nitrate:	NA	5.0 ppm

 

* 0.034 ppm phosphate

** 0.024 ppm phosphate

 

I suppose it was a decent/lucky guess.  But I plan to mix up another batch, so that it's less of an unknown.

[Murphs_Reef]

TLDR 🤣 

 

Are you skimming as well?

[seabass]

2 hours ago, Grimes said:

Are you skimming as well?

Yep, both tanks.

[seabass]

In an effort to better understand what conditions favor algae over coral, I came across this article again (which I believe that I've seen mcarroll link before):

Effect of inorganic and organic nutrient addition on coral–algae assemblages from the Northern Red Sea

This states that the "elevated organic nutrient concentrations stimulate algal growth, while coral tissue pigmentation and chlorophyll a content were significantly decreased... Supplementary logger measurements revealed that O₂ water concentrations were significantly lower in the elevated organic nutrient mesocosm compared to all other treatments, confirming side-effects on microbial activity. These findings indicate that organic nutrient input into coral reefs can affect physiology and metabolism of both corals and benthic turf algae. Reinforcing interaction between both groups of organisms along with involvement of microbes may facilitate phase shifts in coral reef ecosystems."  The glucose levels, caused by the breakdown of organics (essentially fermentation), likely contributes to this phase shift.

[Murphs_Reef]

5 hours ago, seabass said:

In an effort to better understand what conditions favor algae over coral, I came across this article again (which I believe that I've seen mcarroll link before):

Effect of inorganic and organic nutrient addition on coral–algae assemblages from the Northern Red Sea

This states that the "elevated organic nutrient concentrations stimulate algal growth, while coral tissue pigmentation and chlorophyll a content were significantly decreased... Supplementary logger measurements revealed that O₂ water concentrations were significantly lower in the elevated organic nutrient mesocosm compared to all other treatments, confirming side-effects on microbial activity. These findings indicate that organic nutrient input into coral reefs can affect physiology and metabolism of both corals and benthic turf algae. Reinforcing interaction between both groups of organisms along with involvement of microbes may facilitate phase shifts in coral reef ecosystems."  The glucose levels, caused by the breakdown of organics (essentially fermentation), likely contributes to this phase shift.

Now that's some interesting shit right there man....

 

As an update on my own vibrant progress. I'm on week 4 which is 6ml (1.5 per drop). GHA couldn't care less. Although I'm registering 0.00 phosphate, no big surprise I guess as its locked in the GHA.

The rest of the Grimes nano world however is great disregarding the GHA spots the general look of the tank is spotless. Glass looks sharp, sand and water look very clean. In terms of the rock I can see how porous  it actually is now that other algae strains have disappeared... Just wish it would kill the GHA.. I mean it's not rampant but just enough to keep a bunch of zoas unhappy and to make the Duncan's flesh to recede up its stem a good amount...

[seabass]

I've been having an ongoing online conversation with @mcarroll about phosphate levels.  It seems like my opinion might be slowly starting to evolve.

 

Over the last decade or more, I feel that we've been trying to make phosphate (versus nitrate) the limiting factor for algae growth.  IDK, maybe this is why there seems to be an increase in dinos (although I suspect that it has more to do more with the switch from using live rock taken from the ocean, to dry rock mined from the ground).

 

Dinos tend to bloom when there is lack of competition.  Obviously dry rock fails to introduce the biodiversity that live rock has traditionally offered.  But also, lack of phosphate can discourage competing populations, while dinos are able to exist unchecked in the low phosphate environment.

 

Now I'm starting to think that we might be better off limiting nitrate, while maintaining phosphate at a higher level.  Although I'm still not sure what that level might be.  I'd think that 0.03 ppm is a reasonable target, although maybe 0.05 or even 0.10 ppm might be acceptable (or, IDK, even preferable).

 

To further back this up, here's a pic that Matt shared from Chemical Oceanography (third edition), by Frank J. Millero:

 

 

which states that, "The minimum level of PO4 needed is ~0.3 µM but may vary with different species. This does not occur in the oceans since N is exhausted before P falls to a critical level".

 

Some reefers recommend that nitrate be kept at a minimum between 2 and 5 ppm, to help discourage cyanobacteria blooms.  As we know, cyano can fix atmospheric nitrogen; so nitrate in the water isn't a limiting factor for it.  However, it's my thought that organics (dissolved and/or otherwise) have more to do with cyano blooms than inorganic nutrient levels (a thought that isn't necessarily, universally embraced).

[Murphs_Reef]

Looks at that. I must admit that I take little note of my nitrate, on last measure it was 10ppm, my primary (and maybe even sole) focus is on phosphate and trying to keep it to 0.03 (where is generally fail as I act to late or early most of the time). 

It could be suggested that I need to focus in on nitrate levels.

Though my general assumption and it could be wrong is that if you ensure good phosphate reducing measures (water change, regulated feeding, skimming etc) then nitrate should reflect phosphate levels in that they are high or low. 

[seabass]

1 minute ago, Grimes said:

Though my general assumption and it could be wrong is that if you ensure good phosphate reducing measures (water change, regulated feeding, skimming etc) then nitrate should reflect phosphate levels in that they are high or low.

There is a relationship in that photosynthetic life will utilize both nutrients, and that certain bacteria will consume carbon along with N and P (in known ratios).  However, lack of either can become a limiting factor for photosynthesis (and thus restrict the consumption of the other nutrient).  But other than this, nitrate does not directly restrict phosphate, or vice versa.

[Murphs_Reef]

Yes indeed. This has made me feel a little like a lazy reefer 

[seabass]

1 minute ago, Grimes said:

This has made me feel a little like a lazy reefer

Not at all.  I've seen what you've done, it's impressive.

[A.m.P]

I know I linked something a while back, but the mechanisms behind harmful algal blooms were not particularly-well understood and the reefing-hobby in general made poor-assumptions based on sparse-data which they didn't necessarily understand.

The current understanding suggests Influx of Nitrogen, from runoff or what have you, can cause massive upticks in coral-growth temporarily until they become P04 limited, at which point organisms which do not care about P04 (cyano, Dino, other pest algaes) overrun and cannibalize healthy ecosystems, coral, macroalgae and all. This theory meshes nicely with what's understood about hypoxic events caused both, by upwelling, and by agro-industrial runoff as well, since it helps explain the "how did it get here" mid-steps.

There's always a distinct possibility that this is a incomplete or limited-use understanding given the deplorable-lack of meaningful funding or investigation, but I like oversharing.

I'm with you on the organics and cyano, too many unls, high-flow, or otherwise normal systems have incredible outbreaks for it to be chalked-up to conventional-scapegoats, it has to be something collecting on the surface or another factor.

This isn't the paper I had in mind, but it's close enough lol...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5441187/

[seabass]

Thanks A.m.P.  I have the feeling that we are going to be reading a lot more about the importance of phosphate.  Given that phosphate levels among a healthy ocean reef is barely detectable with a Hanna ULR Checker, I wonder what the consensus will be as to optimum phosphate levels in our reef tanks.

 

Here's an interesting article, from nearly ten years ago, discussing the growth rate of staghorn Acropora at various phosphate levels:

https://reefbuilders.com/2011/12/05/acropora-phosphate-growth/

[A.m.P]

50 minutes ago, seabass said:

Thanks A.m.P.  I have the feeling that we are going to be reading a lot more about the importance of phosphate.  Given that phosphate levels among a healthy ocean reef is barely detectable with a Hanna ULR Checker, I wonder what the consensus will be as to optimum phosphate levels in our reef tanks.

 

Here's an interesting article, from nearly ten years ago, discussing the growth rate of staghorn Acropora at various phosphate levels:

https://reefbuilders.com/2011/12/05/acropora-phosphate-growth/

It's interesting because, if I'm not mistaken, that original paper launched one of the most pervasive and persistent lay-person misunderstandings and myths in the hobby's history, that high phosphate leads to weaker coral skeletons. People skimmed the paper and didn't realize that the lower-density of new skeleton found in the study was of nearly-identical density to new-grown skeleton in colonies not subjected to elevated P04 levels, in all fairness I believe the authors themselves mistakenly-alluded to the possibility of needing additional research to confirm there wasn't a discrepancy and... well that's enough for some I guess lol.

Otherwise it's a hard question to answer, our tanks aren't the ocean, where upwelling/tides will routinely spike N03 + P04, bringing with them veritable-avalanches of mulm and organic material, our aquarium corals, no matter how well "fed", have routinely shown to have almost totally given-up their feeding response compared to wild colonies, because at-the-end-of-the-day, we starve them.
Those who have managed to get acros and other corals to sexually-reproduce have systems which may never be desirable or attainable by hobbyists (and also very browned-out and colloquially "unhealthy" appearing corals to we hobbyists), but, at the very least, some pest algae legitimately appear to have a hard time in low-to-middling N03 and High P04, whereas corals seem to do just fine, I honestly don't really think we'll ever have a one-size-fits-all answer.

(I'm mostly spitballing/inferring and I could be wildly-off-base, this is just what I've read and what the lightbulb-powered greymatter upstairs managed to spit onto a page this particular day lol.)

[seabass]

12 minutes ago, A.m.P said:

because at-the-end-of-the-day, we starve them

This, I believe, is why phosphate might be more important to our reef tanks,  It helps feed the symbiotic algae, which in turn provides energy to our corals (somewhat making up for the lack of food in our tanks).  Good discussion.

[seabass]

Week 15: Vibrant dose #20, with water changes today.

 

I also purchased Dr.Tim's 120 gallon Cyanobacteria Treatment Bundle (which includes Re-Fresh and Waste-Away).  I'm hoping that it helps with the cyano, as well as with the organics.  It's essentially a thirteen day program; but I'll wait 24 hours (since today's dose of Vibrant) before starting:

• Day 1: Dose Re-Fresh to your tank at a rate of 5 ml per 10 gallons, then wait 48 hours.
• Day 3: Treat with a full dose of Re-Fresh again. Wait 48 hours.
• Day 5: If Cyanobacteria are noticeably disappearing, begin dosing Waste-Away. We STRONGLY suggest you start with 1/4 (or less) of the normal dose. Turn the skimmer, UV and ozone off for 2-4 hours immediately following treatment. If the water starts to turn cloudy, turn these back on ASAP. Do not dose and leave the tank unobserved at first! Every tank reacts differently - watch yours closely. Wait 48 hours.
• Day 7: Dose Waste-Away. Wait 48 hours.
• Day 9: Dose Waste-Away. Wait 48 hours.
• Day 11: Dose Waste-Away. Wait 48 hours.

I'll do my water changes and resume Vibrant dosing again on day thirteen (two weeks since the previous dose).  I feel like my corals could use a break from it anyway.

[seabass]

Here are both of my tanks as of today (before the first dose of Re-Fresh):

 

The bottle of Re-Fresh is 120 ml.  And since I needed two doses for each tank, I dosed 45 ml into the hundred gallon tank, and 15 ml into the forty gallon tank.

[A.m.P]

Honestly things are looking really good, love how stretched that big nem's foot is.

[seabass]

So the DrTim's Cyano Bundle worked like a champ.  It's not sudden like Chemiclean, but it doesn't contain antibiotics.  I did water changes before each dose of Waste-Away.

 

Today, I resumed Vibrant dosing.

[Jungle_vip]

I just read your entire thread. I made my third dose of vibrant on Sunday and now I have a cyano bloom across my sand bed. Makes more sense now because I didn’t understand how it came about so strong so fast. Also have yet to see any difference in the GHA I was trying to rid. Your information and now my cyano issue has me second guessing this path. I just had a conversation two days ago about the lack of pods and brittle stars that i was accustomed to seeing. They were literally everywhere before. I don’t even know if I see half of what I saw running around after only two and a half weeks. At this point I’m uncertain if I’m going to be dosing anymore. I only did it to combat the GHA before it got much worse. Not sure if it’s worth it to me to battle cyano and loss of organisms along with the GHA. Either way I have to manually remove the GHA. Wish I Had come across this thread before making a decision. Could have prevented me from going this route. The BRS videos along with others stories of success convinced me it was safe. I only came across one story of having loss of life and they admitted they over dosed. I don’t like how multiple people have put it under a microscope without any bacteria present. Especially since their claim to fame is 95% cultured bacteria. Not sure you about you but I feel taken advantage of. 

[seabass]

4 hours ago, Jungle_v_i_p said:

I just had a conversation two days ago about the lack of pods and brittle stars that i was accustomed to seeing. They were literally everywhere before. I don’t even know if I see half of what I saw running around after only two and a half weeks. At this point I’m uncertain if I’m going to be dosing anymore. I only did it to combat the GHA before it got much worse.

Yeah, currently I can't find even one pod, micro brittle star, or even a flatworm (at least bristle worms seem immune).  It feels like a giant step back.  However, it has definitely done a number on the turf algae in my tanks.  But now there are spots where GHA is showing up.  I feel that Vibrant might eventually kill off hair algae too, but it doesn't seem to be as effective against this common type of algae.

 

Now I'm also seeing some bleaching of my monti cap.  I'm not 100% sure what's to blame; could be lack of nutrients, or the other changes I've made, or Vibrant itself.  Like you, I'm also uncertain about the use of this product going forward.  It feels like I'm close to getting rid of the unwanted algae species (I'm OK with leaving some hair algae behind); and I feel that most of the beneficial life has been eliminated already, so I don't have to factor in that.

 

I'm also debating whether I should push nutrient levels up higher.  But with the new presence of GHA, I worry about an uptick in this algae.  I think to myself, do I continue dosing the algaecide with higher nutrients, or stop using Vibrant altogether.  I'm unsure.

 

4 hours ago, Jungle_v_i_p said:

Not sure you about you but I feel taken advantage of.

A bit.  Assuming that the label is accurate, I feel like the active ingredient has been masked as "Other Ingredients", while online statements from UWC claim that it's just RO water.  Since I have no proof either way, I always feel a little wary about making such claims.  But if true, I just wish they'd be upfront about what's in it, or at the very least, say nothing and not claim that it's something else.

 

I feel that they realized there are a number of people who are more comfortable with dosing bacteria than with dosing a chemical biocide.  Marketing Vibrant as a bacteria culture separates them from competitors (like Algaefix).  Also, they likely don't want another company copying their formula (and introducing a competing product called Vivid).

[Murphs_Reef]

I made last weekends my last dose. For 6 weeks I have been dosing to help with GHA. It has done nothing at all to that algae but I have noticed that my rock is looking more like fresh base rock every day. It once looked rich in dark reds, greens, and a number of other patched colours .. now it's all but white / gray. 

 

As for pods I have added 3 bags to my 15 gal in the last 2 weeks. Seen them for the first few days and now see nothing at all on glass or when changing floss... The tank used to have a great deal of them prior to vibrant. 

 

I still have a lot of bristle stars and worms of a few types which I am thankful for.