Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[taricha]

Can we get a recap of the evidence for polyquat binding to DOC in your system and that it can still be precipitated with SDS? I seem to have lost the plot

1 - Pre-treating my tank water with GAC, then removing GAC before I add Vibrant to the water (described here) (and here) dramatically reduces the amount of detected Vibrant associated material by SDS cloudiness, compared to adding Vibrant to my tank water un-treated. Treating with GAC makes the detection behave almost like in distilled water or clean Instant Ocean - near the lower sensitivity that you reported.
The complexes formed after adding Vibrant can also be removed by later addition of GAC. (here)

This paper co-authored by researchers at Buckman Labs (manufacturer) describes a possible mechanism for very sensitive detection being aided by organics in the water.
[WSCP = Busan 77, HA = humic acids]

This formation of large complexes could explain why Vibrant material detection sensitivity drops a lot when I run my water through GAC first, removing the necessary organics that serve the role of the humic acids in the above quote.


2 - medium-term stability (~1month to depletion) of the SDS measurement in my tank water even though I am skimming and carbon dosing, and have new macroalgae in the sump and corals etc in the main tank, with no previous Vibrant/algaefix usage for 3 months prior. (no GAC.)

(light red stars = 1st dose, broken into half-doses. Dark red stars = 2nd dose, broken into half-doses.)

3 - very low level of effectiveness on algae of repeated doses of Algaefix and Vibrant in my system & water. Anecdotal: ~15+ doses of algaefix spread every 3 days for weeks. Very slow decrease in GHA.
Also some preliminary measured data on caulerpa that I shared with you points a similar way, 5 vibrant doses over 15 days without apparent caulerpa damage.

[The missing bit that would thoroughly convince me would be here....
4 - if in clean Instant Ocean Vibrant detection were stable until adding macroalgae and then it drops rapidly, replicating your experiment. But in my tank water if it were stable and stayed stable even after adding macroalgae, replicating measured behavior in my tank.... but that test hasn't been done yet. ]

 

[Xero]

Good points.

I wonder about the effectiveness of polyquats in saltwater. If they were a drug, would they have a large NNT, number needed to treat? By this I mean the number of aquaria with algae needed to be treated before one beneficial outcome was observed.

This large NNT might be, as you point out, a misdiagnosis of the nuisance photosynthetic organism. The second factor might be the minimum dose to be effective might rarely be attained. And the third factor is that polyquats are not effective in saltwater and/or polyquats are effective against very few marine algae.

I think that's just a problem in general with this hobby. We go through fads - and those fads are often based upon some new product, trend, or perhaps some new "problem" that was introduced. It tends to blind proper decision making. Oh, you have hair algae? Here's 3 different fluconazole-based, products I can sell you. Never-mind checking whether what you had was actually hair algae (derbesia) or bryopsis, or not. It's insult to injury to the fact that middlemen are already trying to sell us a common ingredient with a fishy sticker, and that's not just talking about this product, it's almost everything. It's like a play on the old addage, cost of hammer, $5, knowing where to hit....how much of this hobby is just exploitation of that. Too much already.

One interesting thing about cladophora, my primary use for algaefix, it branches asymmetrically, but, to the unknowing eye - it can look a lot like bryopsis when it has that branching growth pattern at shorter lengths. It's still clearly not, once you've seen them both in person, cladophora has more of a drab green color, but, it's that kind of stuff alone which can lead to misidentifying and knee-jerk reactions. The larger problem with vibrant was more so, how were we even supposed to know what algae it worked on in the first place? It makes me wonder what's in a few of these other "bacteria algae cutter" products....I'm at the point in the hobby where, if I don't have some general clue of what's in it, I am really not sure I want to be using it....

I was only half-joking with the "seasonal" thing I said before, even algae problems and such can come and go as trends, and I'm not talking about particles-in-the-air-stream. I mean more like, now that we don't really ship in much live ocean rock anymore, the variety of algae/hitchhikers/etc we do see is much more limited to what comes in on wild frags, etc....and unlike ocean rock, vendors tend to try and sell their frags clean, they dip, they pick off algae, re-frag/re-glue them, etc, so, in general, the variety of algae is probably lesser now in the hobby than ever before.

What tends to then linger and persist in the hobby, is stuff that's hard to get rid of, and slow creeps. Things that can linger in fish store tanks for long periods of time, stuff like that. Cladophora is a really tough macro algae, it's like chaeto that sticks to your rocks, I've read it's calcified, similar to another annoying algae, neomeris. Almost nothing works for it, and if it's thriving in a smaller tank, there's almost nothing you can reasonably put in the tank that would eat it. Once it's dying back from the algaefix, your more typical hair-algae eaters might start touching it, but, overall, algaefix is like a miracle if you have cladophora. I've never had neomeris, but always wondered if it would work on it, and I've heard it works well on dictyota from a source that I would trust.

I can say for certain, algaefix is most definitely effective against certain algaes in saltwater, however, the dose that API suggests - every 3 days - in my experience, is absolutely required, mandatory even. And you often have to do it for like 4-5 weeks minimum. I agree 100% that many people never achieve the minimum dose with algaefix, and had I simply known that vibrant was algaefix, this would have made a lot more sense. I went so far as to write a small script that generates the list of dates to dose, every 3 days, from a given date, just so i could make sure I stick to it properly. Go figure, right? I'm also the guy that follows the praziquantal dosing calculator, heh, I try to pretend I'm doing things the right way with this stuff anyway.....

Truthfully, I've only ever used it on mixed-reef tanks with some SPS, and I've actually never had any major issues or losses, I also usually run carbon/gfo and such and do a big water change when done. I have never used it on an SPS dominant tank, and truthfully, using much of anything like this on an SPS-dom tank deserves a huge red "at your own risk" stamp imho.....It's hard to say how sensitive a tank might be to a given chemical, I think people forget, all tanks are different. Just based on your own routines, feeding habits, etc. A tank that runs heavy import, heavy export, that can handle heavy feedings regularly, as I typically do for mine, is going to be able to handle a minor upset a lot better than a ULNS tank that has never seen nitrate above 10 in it's life, and now you are dosing some oddball chemical into it.

I feel like when I'm in a room with some actual scientists I have to watch my words a little more, but, I just subjectively call this the "strength of a tank's cycle" for lack of better words, and if only I had a way to quantify that in something more than a gut feeling....but what it comes down to is this - I believe there's variables within the different methodology that we run our tanks, which could also change the effectiveness of a given way to treat algae, dinos, cyano, etc, and the way you treat those on one tank, might differ, from how you'd treat it on another. Especially if we're then going to throw an oddball like lyngbya into the mix, a hairy cyano that most would confuse for hair algae, and heck, may even be better be treated by one of the various percarbonate-based cyano treatments....Ahh, yes, another fun "secret ingredient" that stares us right in our face, with an un-ironic description that all but says "bleachless bleach" right in the title..."Red stain remover" lol! I feel like I only just got the joke now....in many ways, this parallels when they got caught selling unlabeled erythromycin in those products, but, AFAIK, they pretty much all re-branded without it after.....

@Xero Thanks! Appreciate the info on first-hand experience with it. Agree that old Algaefix threads + vibrant threads act as a good combined log of experiences.

Did want to point out that the dosages aren't actually different.
Algaefix 1ml per 10 Gal.
Vibrant 1ml per 10 Gal.

Algaefix is every 3 days. Vibrant is once every 2 weeks if you don't have a problem. Once a week if you do have a problem - this is essentially the standard dose as used in vibrant threads. And tough cases / hair algae, it's repeatedly recommended (in the big vibrant thread, by UWC and others) vibrant 1ml/ 10 gallon, 2x per week. And at that point, you're at the same dose and frequency as the algaefix label.

Interesting - you know, I hadn't compared that, and I actually was thinking I probably should before making such broad statements, I guess what I'm not 100% sure of, do we know if the concentration is actually the same? I mean, if this company did as we all suspect - it's not like we should count on their QA for being very good or anything, do we know if it was more concentrated, less concentrated, consistent at all, changed over time? etc? I have more questions than answers right now in that regard.

That's actually even more interesting now that I think about it, because I find algaefix is not very effective at all if you start skipping doses......and on top of that, when we tested this stuff on bubble algae, that would have been at the proper dose, and, yeah, most of us did not have success with that at all....I do wonder if this might just be a case of different species - I do know there's more than one thing we call "bubble algae" that is green and looks this way, and heck, likewise, red bubble, botryocladia, that's yet another thing entirely, truthfully, emeralds loved that stuff more than the green in my experience, so I never really had to deal with it much. Botryocladia is a funny one, as they'll sell varieties of it as "red grape" that grow off branches, and it's then desirable, but if it's the individual form, skottsbergi i think, then it's the bad stuff. And it's not like these are horribly different things or anything, haha.

 

[Dan_P]

1 - Pre-treating my tank water with GAC, then removing GAC before I add Vibrant to the water (described here) (and here) dramatically reduces the amount of detected Vibrant associated material by SDS cloudiness, compared to adding Vibrant to my tank water un-treated. Treating with GAC makes the detection behave almost like in distilled water or clean Instant Ocean - near the lower sensitivity that you reported.
The complexes formed after adding Vibrant can also be removed by later addition of GAC. (here)

This paper co-authored by researchers at Buckman Labs (manufacturer) describes a possible mechanism for very sensitive detection being aided by organics in the water.
[WSCP = Busan 77, HA = humic acids]

This formation of large complexes could explain why Vibrant material detection sensitivity drops a lot when I run my water through GAC first, removing the necessary organics that serve the role of the humic acids in the above quote.


2 - medium-term stability (~1month to depletion) of the SDS measurement in my tank water even though I am skimming and carbon dosing, and have new macroalgae in the sump and corals etc in the main tank, with no previous Vibrant/algaefix usage for 3 months prior. (no GAC.)

(light red stars = 1st dose, broken into half-doses. Dark red stars = 2nd dose, broken into half-doses.)

3 - very low level of effectiveness on algae of repeated doses of Algaefix and Vibrant in my system & water. Anecdotal: ~15+ doses of algaefix spread every 3 days for weeks. Very slow decrease in GHA.
Also some preliminary measured data on caulerpa that I shared with you points a similar way, 5 vibrant doses over 15 days without apparent caulerpa damage.

[The missing bit that would thoroughly convince me would be here....
4 - if in clean Instant Ocean Vibrant detection were stable until adding macroalgae and then it drops rapidly, replicating your experiment. But in my tank water if it were stable and stayed stable even after adding macroalgae, replicating measured behavior in my tank.... but that test hasn't been done yet. ]

Thank you very much for this recap.

Agree that your water has enhanced Vibrant-SDS precipitation that GAC removes.

 

[MnFish1]

He did not say they were experiments, he said they were possible explanations. A possible explanation of why something happened does not have to come with an experimental result that proves it.

I stand by what I said. No more no less. The explanation was not a controlled experiment - which is what I said. Again no more no less. FWIW - I saw the meteor that you posited flew into algaefix a couple weeks ago. Lets decide to have the same criteria for everyone?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I stand by what I said. No more no less. The explanation was not a controlled experiment - which is what I said. Again no more no less. FWIW - I saw the meteor that you posited flew into algaefix a couple weeks ago. Lets decide to have the same criteria for everyone?

Taricha proposed some explanations that you said were invalid because they were not controlled experiments. That’s a nonsensical criticism.

They may be correct explanations, or not. One or more experiments might clarify which, if any, are right, but that is exactly how science works.

you make a hypothesis, and you test it. Hypotheses are never invalid just because they are not themselves a controlled experiment.

 

[A Young Reefer]

Since I am a bit late to the thread, does vibrant contain polyquat?
Assuming it does; if the polyquat binds to the DOC wouldn’t that result in a larger particle size that could possibly be large enough for filtration like a skimmer to pick up?
reason I mentioned this is because I noticed my skimmer skimming much more efficiently after dosing. especially that I suffer from low nutrients, and my skimmer usually barely picks anything up.
I know that a skimmer doesn’t reduce nitrates or phosphates, it only removes waste before it dissolves. But I am assuming that the polyquat reverses the process.
I apologise if my hypothesis are very scientifically in accurate.
Below is an image of my skimmer cup after dosing vibrant (three days worth of skimming) usually without vibrant this would be a month worth of skimming.

 

[taricha]

Assuming it does; if the polyquat binds to the DOC wouldn’t that result in a larger particle size that could possibly be large enough for filtration like a skimmer to pick up?
reason I mentioned this is because I noticed my skimmer skimming much more efficiently after dosing. especially that I suffer from low nutrients, and my skimmer usually barely picks anything up.
I know that a skimmer doesn’t reduce nitrates or phosphates, it only removes waste before it dissolves. But I am assuming that the polyquat reverses the process.

possible.
The polyquat in vibrant itself does not foam or increase foaming.
It's not clear to me if the material in a reef tank that it can floc would become more skimmable (because it's larger), or less skimmable (because it's now attached to non-foaming polyquat), or if it would just fall to the bottom and become debris, maybe some of all those happen.
I haven't seen enough reports of clearly changed skimmer performance to conclude whether skimmer increased removal is typical or not.
But if it did, this would result in slow lowering of nutrients as some organics that would gradually be remineralized to testable N & P instead ended up in the skimmer. That's not immediate lowering of nutrients, but it is removal of future detectable nutrients. (If it happens.)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Since I am a bit late to the thread, does vibrant contain polyquat?
Assuming it does; if the polyquat binds to the DOC wouldn’t that result in a larger particle size that could possibly be large enough for filtration like a skimmer to pick up?

Yes, with a caveat on the mechanism. Skimmers do not sort molecules by size, but by binding them to the air water interface, and the binding of hydrophobic anionic organics to a cationic polymer in seawater are likely to make it more surface active and hence more skimmable. Thus the answer may depend on what specific organics are in the water.

That said, if the polymer disrupts cell membranes of bacteria and algae (as cationic antimicrobials do), some skimmable organics may be released and those too may be what you are observing.

 

[MnFish1]

Taricha proposed some explanations that you said were invalid because they were not controlled experiments. That’s a nonsensical criticism.

They may be correct explanations, or not. One or more experiments might clarify which, if any, are right, but that is exactly how science works.

you make a hypothesis, and you test it. Hypotheses are never invalid just because they are not themselves a controlled experiment.

Yes - you're right. My comment reflected my opinion that unless there were 'experiments' done (most experiments are controlled in one way or another) - I didn't get the point of the discussion. To me - reading all of the possible explanations - many of which contradict eachother has left me totally confused.

1. Do toxic levels of 'polyquat' accumulate or not? To me the answer is 'no'. Even in pools repeat dosage is recommended. Pools are of course different than tanks.
2. Every algaecide is recommended to be dosed repeatedly. Though there are some anecdotes (many)? that algaecides can affect corals negatively (including in my own tank) - I have seen many reports that there corals are not affected at all after multiple uses yet others have problems 'immediately' after using vibrant (within a day or so).

These 2 comments suggest STRONGLY - that toxic algaecide levels do not 'build up' over time. So there is my hypothesis. If I'm reading the graphs and explanations correctly - they contradict eachother in some ways as to this question. Perhaps I'm reading them wrong?

 

[Dan_P]

Vibrant And Mixed Algae Cultures

How does Vibrant affect algae? As a start to answering this question, I subjected four mixed algae cultures to 5X the recommended dose of Vibrant twice (see plots below). After each dose, the medium containing Vibrant was replaced with fresh media. Then the concentrations of nitrate and phosphate were measured over several hours and a consumption rate calculated.

The initial consumption rates (before administering Vibrant) and the rates after each Vibrant dose are plotted below for cultures 1, 2, 3 and 4. BEWARE. These results are no where near as understandable as the results from previous chemistry experiments

The four week old cultures started as nearly identical mixtures of species from my aquarium and were grown under different nutrient conditions. One week before being exposed to Vibrant the nitrate consumption rates were determined to be similar across cultures but the phosphate consumption rates were quite different (see grey bars in charts). Since the initial observation of nutrient consumption was made about a week before the Vibrant dose, there was likely algae growth and a change/increase to the nutrient consumption rates.

After the first dose of Vibrant, the nitrate consumption rates were no longer similar (blue bars). Any rate increase is likely a result of algae growth rather than a Vibrant effect. We might conclude that the first dose of Vibrant affected the cultures differently because the nitrate consumption rates were no longer similar. The phosphate consumption rates changed but whether there is a Vibrant effect is not obvious. After the second dose of Vibrant, the nitrate rates (orange bars) decreased but the phosphate consumption rates declined in cultures 1 and 2 and increased in cultures 3 and 4. To clarify the effect of the second Vibrant dose, the change in nutrient consumption rate between dose 1 and 2 for each culture are plotted against the amount of Vibrant adsorbed 48 hours after the second dose. The dotted lines in the two plots below are there only as a visual aid. It could be fun speculating how culture 2 nitrate consumption responded positively while culture 3 decreased or how the phosphate consumption rate differences of cultures 3 and 4 are similar while their nitrate rates repsonded differently.

I will not (cannot) attempt to make sense of the data trend other than to point out that the cultures seem to behave differently to Vibrant. The cultures‘ nutrient consumption rates changed. Why? WARNING, this is a story…Each culture is like a different aquarium, with a somewhat different species profile and population size adapted to live with the different nutrient amounts that I supplied during their development. The measured nutrient consumption is an average nutrient consumption of the culture’s species profile. When the cultures were exposed to Vibrant, the population profile changed, though not necessarily involving death, and the average nutrient consumption rate changed.

If these results can be replicated, we might be a tiny step closer to understanding the variability in he success rate for removing nuisance algae with Vibrant

 

[MnFish1]

Vibrant And Mixed Algae Cultures

How does Vibrant affect algae? As a start to answering this question, I subjected four mixed algae cultures to 5X the recommended dose of Vibrant twice (see plots below). After each dose, the medium containing Vibrant was replaced with fresh media. Then the concentrations of nitrate and phosphate were measured over several hours and a consumption rate calculated.

The initial consumption rates (before administering Vibrant) and the rates after each Vibrant dose are plotted below for cultures 1, 2, 3 and 4. BEWARE. These results are no where near as understandable as the results from previous chemistry experiments

The four week old cultures started as nearly identical mixtures of species from my aquarium and were grown under different nutrient conditions. One week before being exposed to Vibrant the nitrate consumption rates were determined to be similar across cultures but the phosphate consumption rates were quite different (see grey bars in charts). Since the initial observation of nutrient consumption was made about a week before the Vibrant dose, there was likely algae growth and a change/increase to the nutrient consumption rates.

After the first dose of Vibrant, the nitrate consumption rates were no longer similar (blue bars). Any rate increase is likely a result of algae growth rather than a Vibrant effect. We might conclude that the first dose of Vibrant affected the cultures differently because the nitrate consumption rates were no longer similar. The phosphate consumption rates changed but whether there is a Vibrant effect is not obvious. After the second dose of Vibrant, the nitrate rates (orange bars) decreased but the phosphate consumption rates declined in cultures 1 and 2 and increased in cultures 3 and 4. To clarify the effect of the second Vibrant dose, the change in nutrient consumption rate between dose 1 and 2 for each culture are plotted against the amount of Vibrant adsorbed 48 hours after the second dose. The dotted lines in the two plots below are there only as a visual aid. It could be fun speculating how culture 2 nitrate consumption responded positively while culture 3 decreased or how the phosphate consumption rate differences of cultures 3 and 4 are similar while their nitrate rates repsonded differently.

I will not (cannot) attempt to make sense of the data trend other than to point out that the cultures seem to behave differently to Vibrant. The cultures‘ nutrient consumption rates changed. Why? WARNING, this is a story…Each culture is like a different aquarium, with a somewhat different species profile and population size adapted to live with the different nutrient amounts that I supplied during their development. The measured nutrient consumption is an average nutrient consumption of the culture’s species profile. When the cultures were exposed to Vibrant, the population profile changed, though not necessarily involving death, and the average nutrient consumption rate changed.

If these results can be replicated, we might be a tiny step closer to understanding the variability in he success rate for removing nuisance algae with Vibrant

Thanks for the pictures - however unless the underlying methods are somehow validated - its unclear how to seperate hundreds of reefers who have had success with these products from those who have not. Are you sure you're measuring the right things?

 

[MnFish1]

Vibrant And Mixed Algae Cultures

How does Vibrant affect algae? As a start to answering this question, I subjected four mixed algae cultures to 5X the recommended dose of Vibrant twice (see plots below). After each dose, the medium containing Vibrant was replaced with fresh media. Then the concentrations of nitrate and phosphate were measured over several hours and a consumption rate calculated.

The initial consumption rates (before administering Vibrant) and the rates after each Vibrant dose are plotted below for cultures 1, 2, 3 and 4. BEWARE. These results are no where near as understandable as the results from previous chemistry experiments

The four week old cultures started as nearly identical mixtures of species from my aquarium and were grown under different nutrient conditions. One week before being exposed to Vibrant the nitrate consumption rates were determined to be similar across cultures but the phosphate consumption rates were quite different (see grey bars in charts). Since the initial observation of nutrient consumption was made about a week before the Vibrant dose, there was likely algae growth and a change/increase to the nutrient consumption rates.

After the first dose of Vibrant, the nitrate consumption rates were no longer similar (blue bars). Any rate increase is likely a result of algae growth rather than a Vibrant effect. We might conclude that the first dose of Vibrant affected the cultures differently because the nitrate consumption rates were no longer similar. The phosphate consumption rates changed but whether there is a Vibrant effect is not obvious. After the second dose of Vibrant, the nitrate rates (orange bars) decreased but the phosphate consumption rates declined in cultures 1 and 2 and increased in cultures 3 and 4. To clarify the effect of the second Vibrant dose, the change in nutrient consumption rate between dose 1 and 2 for each culture are plotted against the amount of Vibrant adsorbed 48 hours after the second dose. The dotted lines in the two plots below are there only as a visual aid. It could be fun speculating how culture 2 nitrate consumption responded positively while culture 3 decreased or how the phosphate consumption rate differences of cultures 3 and 4 are similar while their nitrate rates repsonded differently.

I will not (cannot) attempt to make sense of the data trend other than to point out that the cultures seem to behave differently to Vibrant. The cultures‘ nutrient consumption rates changed. Why? WARNING, this is a story…Each culture is like a different aquarium, with a somewhat different species profile and population size adapted to live with the different nutrient amounts that I supplied during their development. The measured nutrient consumption is an average nutrient consumption of the culture’s species profile. When the cultures were exposed to Vibrant, the population profile changed, though not necessarily involving death, and the average nutrient consumption rate changed.

If these results can be replicated, we might be a tiny step closer to understanding the variability in he success rate for removing nuisance algae with Vibrant

I wish we could get away from 'Vibrant'. Maybe it would be interesting to figure out how polyquat algaecide affects your cultures. I mean - you're introducing another variable. Right? There must be sources of the chemical you want to test. No one has any clue as to the percent, etc of algaecide in vibrant. In other words - Algaefix says 3.5 % why not test that known quantity? Better yet - a known chemical?

 

[MnFish1]

Vibrant And Mixed Algae Cultures

How does Vibrant affect algae? As a start to answering this question, I subjected four mixed algae cultures to 5X the recommended dose of Vibrant twice (see plots below). After each dose, the medium containing Vibrant was replaced with fresh media. Then the concentrations of nitrate and phosphate were measured over several hours and a consumption rate calculated.

The initial consumption rates (before administering Vibrant) and the rates after each Vibrant dose are plotted below for cultures 1, 2, 3 and 4. BEWARE. These results are no where near as understandable as the results from previous chemistry experiments

The four week old cultures started as nearly identical mixtures of species from my aquarium and were grown under different nutrient conditions. One week before being exposed to Vibrant the nitrate consumption rates were determined to be similar across cultures but the phosphate consumption rates were quite different (see grey bars in charts). Since the initial observation of nutrient consumption was made about a week before the Vibrant dose, there was likely algae growth and a change/increase to the nutrient consumption rates.

After the first dose of Vibrant, the nitrate consumption rates were no longer similar (blue bars). Any rate increase is likely a result of algae growth rather than a Vibrant effect. We might conclude that the first dose of Vibrant affected the cultures differently because the nitrate consumption rates were no longer similar. The phosphate consumption rates changed but whether there is a Vibrant effect is not obvious. After the second dose of Vibrant, the nitrate rates (orange bars) decreased but the phosphate consumption rates declined in cultures 1 and 2 and increased in cultures 3 and 4. To clarify the effect of the second Vibrant dose, the change in nutrient consumption rate between dose 1 and 2 for each culture are plotted against the amount of Vibrant adsorbed 48 hours after the second dose. The dotted lines in the two plots below are there only as a visual aid. It could be fun speculating how culture 2 nitrate consumption responded positively while culture 3 decreased or how the phosphate consumption rate differences of cultures 3 and 4 are similar while their nitrate rates repsonded differently.

I will not (cannot) attempt to make sense of the data trend other than to point out that the cultures seem to behave differently to Vibrant. The cultures‘ nutrient consumption rates changed. Why? WARNING, this is a story…Each culture is like a different aquarium, with a somewhat different species profile and population size adapted to live with the different nutrient amounts that I supplied during their development. The measured nutrient consumption is an average nutrient consumption of the culture’s species profile. When the cultures were exposed to Vibrant, the population profile changed, though not necessarily involving death, and the average nutrient consumption rate changed.

If these results can be replicated, we might be a tiny step closer to understanding the variability in he success rate for removing nuisance algae with Vibrant

BTW - I'm going to call you out - why do you guys always start out with using x times the recommended dose of a product. How about using the recommended dose? - - IMHO you have no clue - no matter which product it is - whether prime or vibrant or whatever. Just USE THE DIRECTIONS IMHO

 

[taricha]

The measured nutrient consumption is an average nutrient consumption of the culture’s species profile. When the cultures were exposed to Vibrant, the population profile changed, though not necessarily involving death, and the average nutrient consumption rate changed.

I'll need to give this post a deeper read.
But if we take as a baseline expectation the cumulative hobby experience that Vibrant / Algaefix is harder on some "algae" than others, causing some things to noticeably die while others appear and grow - then your above data and interpretation fits quite well.

Threads about vibrant "causing" cyano etc are relevant here. As are Randy's comments about some bacteria being very susceptible to catatonic polymers and others almost totally not, with the suggestion that similar mechanisms could exist in algae, causing large differences in susceptibility.

 

[Dan_P]

I'll need to give this post a deeper read.
But if we take as a baseline expectation the cumulative hobby experience that Vibrant / Algaefix is harder on some "algae" than others, causing some things to noticeably die while others appear and grow - then your above data and interpretation fits quite well.

Threads about vibrant "causing" cyano etc are relevant here. As are Randy's comments about some bacteria being very susceptible to catatonic polymers and others almost totally not, with the suggestion that similar mechanisms could exist in algae, causing large differences in susceptibility.

I think that our observations that stressed algae is a possible stimulant for cyanobacteria growth might work here. I plan to look further at this effect in my algae cultures. Cyanobacteria mats seem to be associated with the older, crowded cultures.

Looking forwards to your questions from the deeper read. I need ideas for experiment designs. Keep in mind these experimental results have not been replicated.

 

[Xero]

I think that our observations that stressed algae is a possible stimulant for cyanobacteria growth might work here. I plan to look further at this effect in my algae cultures. Cyanobacteria mats seem to be associated with the older, crowded cultures.

Looking forwards to your questions from the deeper read. I need ideas for experiment designs. Keep in mind these experimental results have not been replicated.

there's all sorts of weird stuff that can stimulate cyano growth that we dont talk about much - like tanks that have been coppered repeatedly in fish stores tend to get these weird deep/darkly colored cyano mats, dark purple, dark green (with an almost copper tinge to it), etc. like i've always suspected it's not just simply "bacterial imbalance", but it's also like a way of the tank trying deal with & respond to elements that it doesn't like...like the cyano is almost compensating for an imbalance, rather than simply being caused by it.

I also tend to believe things don't usually just come out of thin air, while "air stream" stuff is possible i suppose, i tend to think that we introduce most problems, usually unintentionally, at the microscopic level. That said, are we certain the original algae samples didn't already have some cyano growing on them in the first place, and the death of the algae simply lead to their succession? I would be curious to separate the cyano growth from the algae entirely, which i imagine isn't an easy thing to do - i mean having cyano growing right over/up your hair algae is almost too common, there's also various algae/cyano symbiotic relationships in nature as well, but I have no idea if any of those would be going on here with the specific species in question.

 

[Dan_P]

Thanks for the pictures - however unless the underlying methods are somehow validated - its unclear how to seperate hundreds of reefers who have had success with these products from those who have not. Are you sure you're measuring the right things?

Excellent summary of the situation.

It is always difficult to squeeze any useful information from anecdotal data. Even the estimate of “hundreds of successes” is not only baseless but irrelevant when we do not know whether or not there were thousands of failures.

As for “am I sure that I am measuring the right thing”, I would have to get clarification about the right thing for what?

 

[Dan_P]

I wish we could get away from 'Vibrant'. Maybe it would be interesting to figure out how polyquat algaecide affects your cultures. I mean - you're introducing another variable. Right? There must be sources of the chemical you want to test. No one has any clue as to the percent, etc of algaecide in vibrant. In other words - Algaefix says 3.5 % why not test that known quantity? Better yet - a known chemical?

I am testing Vibrant, right?

 

[deepseabc]

Awesome job. Thanks so much for sharing.

 

[Dan_P]

BTW - I'm going to call you out - why do you guys always start out with using x times the recommended dose of a product. How about using the recommended dose? - - IMHO you have no clue - no matter which product it is - whether prime or vibrant or whatever. Just USE THE DIRECTIONS IMHO

Rather than calling someone out, why not ask a question? Other folks might appreciate the answer you obtain