Vibrant Liquid Aquarium Cleaner review

[brandon429]

I honestly think it will not kill your stuff. I recommend rip cleaning the system (I know / broken record sound) but that’s specifically because rip cleaned systems are free of invaders and free of pent up waste, organics, and resulting mass bacteria loads-that’s why. A rip cleaned tank is the opposite of a primed chemical stew.

 

It’s opposite condition of every single reef that has ever mentioned a vibrant kill. They dose it full strength into a system full of waste and target, full to the brim with extra bacteria that capitalize on this waste (mixed generalized aerobes) and all that mass rots and swirls in the system. That’s what the masses do

 

**Seabass was testing the common mode here,  I wouldn’t want it any other way for their testing. But for your tank enhance the safety side since your goal is not a vibrant analysis but rather a target kill.

 

You’d also lower your light intensity for a while during dosing, down from the full production mode / bright skies mode. Then in the scraped-clean condition post rip clean, your vibrant dose can be dropped by half vs what the instructions said to do. Ramp back light power slowly over ten days and if you notice any bleaching at all, stop the method. The drop lighting is a universal bleach preventer we use in lots of jobs and no reef minds a ten day cloudy/ not full light power mode, that happens in nature.

 

 

also this brain storm: after the rip clean sand and after your rocks have been knife-scraped clean of all valonia (but we know they’re likely to regrow) you can put a 2x strength dilution (1 mil per five gallons vs ten per the directions, the liquid prep painted onto the rock where valonia lodges) of vibrant right on the rocks, outside the tank, then rinse it off very very well and put back…having dosed nothing at all into the water! See how nanos can utilize accessibility we don’t have to fall in lock step with what large tankers do in unison.

 

heck Id love to see the job done here live time then I’ll take the liberty of linking it back to vibrant hate threads as a fair balance. I’m not buying into its hate, not one iota. We can make use of the good aspects and amplify the safety angles. If for some reason you don’t want to clean the sand, you can still remove rocks even with corals attached and do the detailed scrape removal first and set them back on dirty sand,  not a problem. 
 

**disclaimer: I fully understand the heinous nature of not writing exactly what’s on the formula on the label, I just don’t care that’s my personal opinion. I use it based on pattern, that’s all. I would absolutely endorse a fair application of vibrant using the modified means live time and I think UWC deserves it anyway for the jobs they’ve completed well in the past. I have never seen vibrant associated with a fish kill not once, not ever, for the times I did link a vibrant loss thread it was coral bleaching as the risk, and above steps are designed to specifically prevent that based on pattern.

[A.m.P]

1 hour ago, brandon429 said:

I personally think its crappy they're about to cancel UWC without inventing any decent replacement, these masses are darn hard to please you'll be canceled in a nano second for any form of noncompliance to the crowd I can see. anything positive it ever did: gone, zip, zilch, no factor. 

 

it was beating the pants off peroxide dosing into the water that's for sure and I sure love me some peroxide.  

Love peroxide too (dose it daily), have also advocated for Vibrant microdosing, genuinely could be that their normal dosing schedule was the result of trial and error finding a way to keep the algaecide from hurting most people's systems.

I don't much care for, or back, hysterics of any kind.
But, at the end of the day, it ain't bacteria and false advertising is false advertising.

I also don't follow or care about cancel culture, past professors losing their jobs for doing their damn jobs, but if canceling these days has just become code for someone you personally like facing the consequences of their actions then I'd say it has well-past lost any meaning lol.

If they want to rebrand, then fine, they should. I have no problem with the product remaining on the market, and will still recommend it, if they're willing to stop doubling-down on it being something it's not.

Rings about the same way as the Hawaii ban, the exporters and collectors lied, for years, now we deal with the result. Tough, actions have consequences, personal responsibility, accountability and all that jazz.

In fairness, if you take another read-through, @seabass didn't have the most positive experience, opinion, or outcome in this thread, so it's not the best example. 
Tidal Gardens and other folk microdosing it for years and the drip dosing you mentioned yourself would all likely be better angles, but TG stopped using it themselves b/c some corals just don't like algaecides.

[brandon429]

Hey that is a really good perspective no I didn’t finish the whole read to see it was negative, just mainly that first picture set when the reduction happened. That was the thick kind of growth we cull out before treating in the ideal world, but in all fairness the directions don’t say to do that so if innovation is required to be safe that’s another detail missing from the label. Point well said I thought 

[seabass]

Yeah, my experience was mixed at best.  I dosed more than was indicated on the label, but not more than what was (at least at the time) being recommended online for stubborn varieties.

 

This heavier dose caused an obvious loss in biodiversity (mostly small inverts, like micro brittle stars and pods) which I couldn't attribute to anything else.  And unfortunately, I believe that this loss of diversity ended causing a dino bloom.  Coral losses also occurred; however, I don't know if the coral losses were directly associated with dosing, or indirectly caused by the side effects (like cyano, dinos, or even the breakdown of algae).

 

I don't believe that this means there isn't a use for such a product; only that the dosing method which I used resulted in negative side effects.  It sounds like people might have discovered alternative dosing procedures which may be effective without inducing the extent of the damage that my tanks experienced.

 

In my case, the problem algae was ultimately removed.  And after fighting an elongated battle with dinos, and attempts to increase the biodiversity, my tanks (and surviving corals) have been recovering nicely.

 

I believe it was @Murphych which exposed an algae infested zoanthid frag to high doses of Vibrant, then reintroduced it back into the display.  Ultimately, the algae died, while the zoanthid colony prospered.  I believe there may be value in some of these alternative treatment protocols.

 

I haven't been keeping up with what's been going on lately.  However, it sounds like I'm missing out on some pretty good drama.

Maybe I'll have to catch up on it sometime.

[Murphs_Reef]

Yes it was. I had a zoa rock heavily covered by GHA, to such an extent that the zoas began not only to close but to recede dramatically... If memory serves, it was something daft like a triple dose or whatever.. then back into the tank. The GHA died over a couple days... What ever the numbers, the zoa rock is now a colony x3.... The only algae on these rocks is coralline...

[brandon429]

Taking notes / excellent feedback. Readers see the spectrum of risk, loss, gain from recommended or slightly higher doses, and can make strategies off that including external treatments not in the display. This particular vibrant post is a good balancing one just so that any utility of the product can be reviewed vs discounted

 

 

Regarding labeling, tbd. folks getting restless waiting for UWC self reported lab study reply in the reef2reef thread but I bet he relays it when the finals get in. If he never showed up to the thread it would be suspect, but UWC was there a little over a week ago stating they were awaiting lab results. He will post again is the bet after that lead in 

[seabass]

13 hours ago, Murphych said:

Yes it was. I had a zoa rock heavily covered by GHA, to such an extent that the zoas began not only to close but to recede dramatically... If memory serves, it was something daft like a triple dose or whatever.. then back into the tank. The GHA died over a couple days... What ever the numbers, the zoa rock is now a colony x3.... The only algae on these rocks is coralline...

If I recall, the zoanthid frag was cleaned then put in another tank containing a strong concentration of Vibrant for 24 hours (not just dipped for a few minutes), then returned to the display.

 

I seem to recall someone else accidentally overdosing Vibrant by 10 times the recommended dose (without widespread loses).  While my experience would suggest that prolonged exposure to high concentrations of Vibrant would be detrimental to certain animals (likely including certain stony corals), there might be an algae treatment protocol somewhere in there involving a quarantine tank and temporarily exposing a coral fragment, or a rock, to elevated levels of Vibrant (much like chemotherapy).

[seabass]

@Murphych, how long did it take for your treatment to show results?

 

 

A proposed test (based on Murphych's experiment) using Vibrant to target treat an algae infected frag:

• Use a 5 gallon bucket with 5 gallons of tank water (or fresh saltwater).  Tank water might be preferable, as the nutrients might help the algae uptake more algaecide during the growth cycle.
• A powerhead, a heater, and a standard household 75W equivalent daylight spectrum LED bulb overhead.
• 2ml of Vibrant for the 5 gallons of water (4 times the recommended dose).
• Treatment should last for one complete 8 hour light/growth cycle.
• Manual removal of algae.
• Return the frag back into the display, frag, or QT tank.

Maybe someone could test this out.  I've been a little busy lately, but maybe I could find some time to do this too.

 

I'm also not sure whether it would be more effective to manually remove the algae before or after treatment.  Initially I was thinking that removal prior to treatment (as Murphych did) would be best.  However, now I'm wondering if the algae would uptake more algaecide if the frag was treated before manually removing the algae.

[Murphs_Reef]

I'll have to dig through my posts as memory isnt as good these days 😁 but I think it was a very short time. 

 

Post 1 from this thread

 

Oh god the science is strong on this post.. looks like I was a few cans of lager deep so the values are less than perfect!! But 7 days seems to be the answer in terms of timing

 

[A.m.P]

I may just have to try this out, see if it kicks this PITA Chrysophytes and lyngbya off my rocks.
Dealing with 100 other things right now so it'll not be for a few months, but I may just give it a whirl since I've taken it out and drenched it in H202 and unceremoniously tossed it back in after a scrub already anyway.

Though, just to be a cheapskate PITA, I'd probably use the Vibrant-instructed dose amount of AlgaeFix.

We'll see what the company issued lab test looks like, I have a sinking feeling they're going to claim that the bacteria eating the dead algae quantifies the algaecide as a "bacterial-algae-removal-solution".
At this point there's basically no possibility that it's chemically anything besides Algaefix.

[seabass]

Thanks A.m.P.  I'm obviously making a bunch of assumptions here.

1. That an algaecide might be more effective during a light cycle.
2. That 8 hours is a sufficient amount of contact time.
3. That a 4x dosage is enough to kill algae but not enough to kill coral.
4. That this protocol would be effective against a wide variety of pest algae.

I realize that certain modifications (like dosage and contact time) might be necessary with certain types of algae and certain types of coral.

[less than bread]

I started Vibrant in my 20 gallon on Friday the 11th. When I bought it, the guy at my LFS talked about recent reports of Vibrant being linked to coral death and recommended I start with doing half the recommended dose to see how it goes. He said 9/10 times, it will be fine and do what it's supposed to do but also that he thought the claims of Vibrant killing corals are legitimate and to be careful. I'll update as I go. Adding just 1 mL per week for now.

[ererer]

On 3/7/2022 at 4:39 PM, brandon429 said:

I personally think its crappy they're about to cancel UWC without inventing any decent replacement, these masses are darn hard to please you'll be canceled in a nano second for any form of noncompliance to the crowd I can see. anything positive it ever did: gone, zip, zilch, no factor. 

 

I mean, if it turns out it's the same thing as algaefix, just buy algaefix. 

[ererer]

1 hour ago, less than bread said:

I started Vibrant in my 20 gallon on Friday the 11th. When I bought it, the guy at my LFS talked about recent reports of Vibrant being linked to coral death and recommended I start with doing half the recommended dose to see how it goes. He said 9/10 times, it will be fine and do what it's supposed to do but also that he thought the claims of Vibrant killing corals are legitimate and to be careful. I'll update as I go. Adding just 1 mL per week for now.

I think your LFS guy watched Ryan's BRS video that has since been deleted. As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely zero data to back up that 9 out of 10 figure. Could be close, but Ryan just pulled it out of thin air. 

[brandon429]

Kalk dumps have killed more coral than Vibrant has even if vibrant was allowed to run for ten more years, but thanks to the cancel crowd hype train it won’t. 
 

the hype train against vibrant is now ten miles long, that’s how the web works. 

 

 

their lawyers are studying, prepping.

 

I am 110% against the hype pile on train against Vibrant. Alagefix was not winning against valonia and we watched it used for years. Agreed the data plots between the two chems appear to line up, the outcome patterns don’t and that’s all I care about in reefing- extracting and using patterns to enhance reefing off web posts. Vibrant is just a tool in a set of tools, when this hype train ends I’ll be very happy.

 

 

less than bread, why not simply reef in a way that doesn’t require you to use such an expensive additive? You don’t need it in your nano, nor any other anti algae water additive how about we change course on your tank just to save cash and take the power away from an external doser and give that control power to you freely instead?

 

 

I like vibrant for the valonia jobs it’s cured. Since you’re not dealing with that I’m assuming let’s get you off it

 

 

you won’t need algaefix either and you won’t be putting peroxide in your reef water, forego all of that try using direct control means they’re best always.

[less than bread]

1 hour ago, ererer said:

I think your LFS guy watched Ryan's BRS video that has since been deleted. As far as I'm aware, there's absolutely zero data to back up that 9 out of 10 figure. Could be close, but Ryan just pulled it out of thin air. 

Makes sense. I’ll just take it slow and see what happens.

[ererer]

3 hours ago, less than bread said:

Makes sense. I’ll just take it slow and see what happens.

Yeah, I mean clearly some people have had no issues, and it can be effective reducing algae. And clearly as Brandon or BRS says, not everyone has issues. Just the whole 9 out of 10 thing was clearly conjecture. Hope it works well for you though!

[A.m.P]

4 hours ago, brandon429 said:

Kalk dumps have killed more coral than Vibrant has even if vibrant was allowed to run for ten more years, but thanks to the cancel crowd hype train it won’t. 

Agreed the data plots between the two chems appear to line up, the outcome patterns don’t and that’s all I care about in reefing- extracting and using patterns to enhance reefing off web posts. Vibrant is just a tool in a set of tools, when this hype train ends I’ll be very happy.

 

To the first, yeah they sure have but those are accidents, bit of apples-to-oranges.

 

To the second, I wonder if the difference is a higher-quality manufacturer or higher-grade starting product?
Can't really be more concentrated because the densities were nearly-identical, possible there's another handful of nearly-unrepresented additives which do have an impact, but at that stage they'd have to tell folks what they are for people without a full lab and extensive knowledge/time to have any idea.

[brandon429]

Well said

 

Im not qualified to analyze chemistry readouts and those peak and trough charts look like carbon copies of one another lol between the suspect chems…especially in the ways the forum chemists have positioned their opening volley.

 

 
 

 

 

On the reef2reef thread I’m watching extreme claims of risk get stated-the hammering of Vibrant for putting folks in harms way/ pics on last pages show a small child is present during reefing activities which probably 99% of us here as parents have also done before bc kiddos really like to help especially with things they see us dedicated to

 

 

 being ‘exposed’ to vibrant made the dad angry, whereas if the label had ‘busan’ in it I take from the hinting they would have promptly looked up osha/msds charts and risks on the chemical and promptly opted out…not buying it.

 

 

The microbiological risk in reefing via surface and water contact makes anything retail look like baby water, it was on another thread I’d mentioned the “265 reef” from R2R / a quick search on that seven page rip clean train wreck -the closest I’ve ever come to thinking a reefer might die due to accessing rocks for cleaning, I thought he might go anaphylactic or wheeze out in the night. Pics are fugly of his injuries… I remember you had some good medical insight into the potential strains of bacteria that could cause such wounds, now that’s a risk to children in reefing and we can’t get a hype train started on that front, which is a risk to any household with a reef.

 

I think it’s pretty upstanding of this forum you guys and gals aren’t hammering down someone who isn’t buying into the meanness groupthink. I get it fully if the labeling would have swayed someone from use nowadays, in 2008 nobody would have cared that’s for sure but it’s cool you all accept various takes on the issue.

 

 

If I had a retail chemical for sale and didn’t want it publicly detailed, under the scope on Randy’s forum is the last place I’d want to be mentioned. For those who care/ have always cared apparently about pinpoint precision labeling on reef materials like they do organic labeling for their groceries they have a legitimate beef. I’d never met anyone who cared so much about reef additive labels vs outcome patterning until reading that thread on reef2reef 

 

 

[seabass]

For me, I was interested in Vibrant because they stated that it was bacteria.  Not that I haven't ever considered using an algaecide before.  However, at that particular point in time, I wouldn't have picked a chemical algae treatment for any of my reef tanks - despite reports of success.

 

We are often called on to make a number of decisions on how we wish to treat various situations (everything from replenishing alkalinity, to killing off pest anemones).  We evaluate the pros and cons of each known method and choose what might work best for us and the sensitive animals that we care for.

 

Am I above using a chemical algaecide?  No.  However, if I had known what was in the product, I wouldn't have picked Vibrant, or the treatment protocol that I did at the time.  And I probably wouldn't have upped the dosing frequency as the company representative had endorsed online.

 

Today, I would likely put Vibrant in a similar category with hydrogen peroxide.  I'd consider its use as a localized treatment, but probably not something that I'd normally subject my whole reef tank to.  The losses that my tanks sustained were notable, and the costs were real (everything from the loss of the careful additions of biodiversity, to the cost of salt mix, to having to deal with dinoflagellates once again).

 

I have a similar opinion about Chemi-Clean, which states that it doesn't contain "Erythromycin succinate".  However, it has been determined to contain some form of Erythromycin.  People decide to use it, not realizing that it's an antibiotic.  But Boyd claims that Chemi-Clean is an oxidant which can be used as part of your regular aquarium maintenance.

 

Does this preclude its use?  Maybe not, but I feel the nature of the product should be disclosed so that people can decide whether to, or how they might wish to use the product.

 

It's funny that Boyd Chemi-Clean is discussed in the BRS video about Vibrant and side hustles.  The marketing of these two products is more similar than we knew at the time.

[brandon429]

This recent post from the R2R thread sums up Vibrant 100% in my opinion

GrimReefer51

"I've been using vibrant for six weeks in a 1.5 year old 7 gallon. Fortunately, using half the dosage (5 drops every week or so) to battle a minimal case of bubble algae which is gone.

I understand that its an algaecide, not bacteria as they claim. Phosphates and Nitrates are stable so far but I'm worried about the future consequences I may face for using this rebranded AlgaeFix.

What are the dangers of using it and should I be worried? Any insight would be appreciated as I'm concerned."

 

Its valonia cures are simply out of the ballpark stellar, best in the industry, with no replacement, and mithrax crabs now can't find decent employment in a reef tank with this stuff available. Just mentioning a positive aspect of Vibrant that isn't part of any shilling (I myself will never own it, nor any other bottled doser outside of C Balance) its merely a reflection on a notable notable trend UWC was able to earn for the last few years. I expect this person to be pounced on immediately by the way for writing anything nice lol. 

 

Now  I'm off to do some basic searches for algaefix and valonia to see if that can even tough a tenth of this level of control that Vibrant has earned for valonia. I think it's rather hit and miss for the other invasions, or at least equal to other bottled ways of controlling turf algae, GHA etc but somehow for valonia they've really engineered a home run at 98% efficacy in my opinion of thousands of invasion posts + outcomes. 

[brandon429]

there were indeed lots of testimonies in the affirmative about algaefix and valonia on ultimatereefs, reefcentral, the standard ones. get popcorn stat lol

[seabass]

On 11/21/2020 at 7:19 PM, seabass said:

I believe you can purchase dimethyliminoethylene dichloride, ethoxylate in higher concentrations as a pool chemical.

This whole drama about Vibrant is probably the best thing ever to happen to sales of Algaefix.  I don't wish to pile on UWC; but also, I don't feel too sorry for them.  They should have just been upfront to start with.  And assuming that Vibrant won't be available in the future, we still have Algaefix for those interested in this sort of a product.

 

It sounds like there is a demand, and the popularity of Vibrant has provided lots of documentation (with positive results as well as some negative side effects).  Maybe all of this will ultimately provide better dosing protocols, or even alternative dosing methods (such as the test that I proposed above).

[seabass]

Sorry, I was trying to edit the previous post, and quoted it instead.   Still getting used to the new update.

 

[brandon429]

I bet fully new market ventures on retailed bottled sellers have that label absolutely ironclad and triple-reviewed by the labeling team and then reviewed thrice more by in house lawyers before final print n stick. UWC has changed the labeling landscape for aquarium products is the bet. Changed by their dime.