Understanding Vibrant: Algaefix, Polixetonium Chloride / Busan 77

[taricha]

I would of explored further the bacteria options, technically if there is a strain that would utilise nitrogen sources as other utilise carbon that could lead to macro algaes lost or stall some of this algaes will prefer nitrogen sources to nitrates.

hey Sixty, Believe it or not, I started with analyzing Vibrant from a bacterial perspective (as part of a larger look at a number of bacterial products). I didn't post much about it because it revealed nothing interesting or explanatory. Vibrant didn't do anything important to P or to the nitrogen economy. It didn't process ammonia and it didn't make NO3 disappear etc. If you want to do those things, get nitrifiers or feed carbon.

I also cultured up all the common saltwater bacterial products I could get my hands on including vibrant and pooled the results and shipped them to aquabiomics.
I posted the results in another thread, and here you can see the full report of all the identified strains.
There's nothing revealing there. No bacillus murderchaetomorphus or any other fictional algae-eradicating bacteria and as @Dan_P referenced, difficult to find any evidence of such a thing even existing.

One thing that the aquabiomics data might suggest is that if you feed sufficiently rich food to whatever comes out of bacterial product bottles, you can grow stuff. But there's no guarantee what you grow would be relevant. Many of the top strains detected are things that have no business in bacterial products.
...and that is kind of an answer to your question, here....

This test raises questions that not been answered yet? What is inside the vial that made the water cloudy

since the cultures for a bona fide bacterial product (MB7), a known algaecide (algaefix), and vibrant all cultured up similarly - it tells you that this test is limited because it can't distinguish bona fide bacterial cultures from random contamination. Which helps explain why the aquabiomics data is a mix of useful genera and things that have no business there.

As I see it they had similar results to a bacteria based product that contains dormant bacteria.
feel free to explain the similarities.

Randy and others are too nice to say I contaminated it, but the short answer is that a small amount of random contamination is completely consistent with all the data. NMR that shows no sign of bacteria, no centrifuge pellet, no detected biologically digestible organics, and yet responsive culture-up to very rich food.
Contamination could have happened at any point during or before addition to my sample tubes. Could've been in my (previously sealed) syringe, could've been in the transfer from bottle to syringe, could've been during my earlier usage of the bottle, could've been introduced when I broke the seal or in the cap that's not sealed, or in the bottle previously before I got it...and on and on up the production chain.


Showing that an algae killing product's actual algae-killing power was due to its bacteria would require such bacteria existing, finding published evidence of their existence and activity against the wide range of "algae" to match the product effects, require finding those bacteria in the bottle, and doing genetic testing more sophisticated than aquabiomics to confirm exactly their identification, and demonstrating that they can do something in saltwater under aquarium conditions.

Meanwhile, the um... actual algaecide that's been used to kill algae and has been registered in the U.S. for 50+ years is right there in the same bottle staring back at you.

Makes the whole bacterial discussion just silly and moot, right?

 

[polyppal]

I’m pretty sure it’s already been addressed by the people doing the research. And I agree with Randy… if it isn’t deception and UWC have run their own tests, why haven’t they said ANYTHING since.

 

[Sean Clark]

in their defense,

(1)hydrogen and
(2)oxygen

are multiple ingredients...

I was going to refrence the thread on the dangers of hydrogen dioxide but I cannot seem to find it. Looks like someone doesn't want the people to know the truth about hydrogen dioxide.

 

[polyppal]

I was going to refrence the thread on the dangers of hydrogen dioxide but I cannot seem to find it. Looks like someone doesn't want the people to know the truth about hydrogen dioxide.

 

[sixty_reefer]

hey Sixty, Believe it or not, I started with analyzing Vibrant from a bacterial perspective (as part of a larger look at a number of bacterial products). I didn't post much about it because it revealed nothing interesting or explanatory. Vibrant didn't do anything important to P or to the nitrogen economy. It didn't process ammonia and it didn't make NO3 disappear etc. If you want to do those things, get nitrifiers or feed carbon.

I also cultured up all the common saltwater bacterial products I could get my hands on including vibrant and pooled the results and shipped them to aquabiomics.
I posted the results in another thread, and here you can see the full report of all the identified strains.
There's nothing revealing there. No bacillus murderchaetomorphus or any other fictional algae-eradicating bacteria and as @Dan_P referenced, difficult to find any evidence of such a thing even existing.

One thing that the aquabiomics data might suggest is that if you feed sufficiently rich food to whatever comes out of bacterial product bottles, you can grow stuff. But there's no guarantee what you grow would be relevant. Many of the top strains detected are things that have no business in bacterial products.
...and that is kind of an answer to your question, here....

since the cultures for a bona fide bacterial product (MB7), a known algaecide (algaefix), and vibrant all cultured up similarly - it tells you that this test is limited because it can't distinguish bona fide bacterial cultures from random contamination. Which helps explain why the aquabiomics data is a mix of useful genera and things that have no business there.


Randy and others are too nice to say I contaminated it, but the short answer is that a small amount of random contamination is completely consistent with all the data. NMR that shows no sign of bacteria, no centrifuge pellet, no detected biologically digestible organics, and yet responsive culture-up to very rich food.
Contamination could have happened at any point during or before addition to my sample tubes. Could've been in my (previously sealed) syringe, could've been in the transfer from bottle to syringe, could've been during my earlier usage of the bottle, could've been introduced when I broke the seal or in the cap that's not sealed, or in the bottle previously before I got it...and on and on up the production chain.


Showing that an algae killing product's actual algae-killing power was due to its bacteria would require such bacteria existing, finding published evidence of their existence and activity against the wide range of "algae" to match the product effects, require finding those bacteria in the bottle, and doing genetic testing more sophisticated than aquabiomics to confirm exactly their identification, and demonstrating that they can do something in saltwater under aquarium conditions.

Meanwhile, the um... actual algaecide that's been used to kill algae and has been registered in the U.S. for 50+ years is right there in the same bottle staring back at you.

Makes the whole bacterial discussion just silly and moot, right?

I’ll have to read it better in the morning, I just like to mention that one of the strains you identified on the other thread is fairly common in aquaculture that multiply fairly fast, removes build up detritus, excess organics and work as a algaecide it’s used for algae control in demanding high nutrients aquaculture system.

 

[taricha]

I just like to mention that one of the strains you identified on the other thread is fairly common in aquaculture that multiply fairly fast, removes build up detritus, excess organics and work as a algaecide it’s used for algae control in demanding high nutrients aquaculture system.

Just wait until you get to the part where there's an actual chemical algaecide that was measured in the product. It's also used to control algae and is quite effective ... because it's an EPA registered algaecide. lol.

 

[MnFish1]

Two of those links discuss cyano. Obviously lots of bacteria make bactericidal compounds. Erythromycin that many reefers use to kill cyano is a natural bacterial product.

Nevertheless, I was incorrect in asserting that bacteria were not known to kill macroalgae. This link discusses it:

Unraveling the strategies of marine bacteria that initiate fresh macroalgae breakdown

Due to their important chemical complexity, the utilization of macroalgae is mainly mediated by specialized marine heterotrophic bacteria. But what are the metabolic and ecological strategies of those bacteria to attack and use fresh algae?

microbiologycommunity.nature.com

Too bad UWC did not sell a product like that. lol

Yes - I only mentioned it (as I did earlier in the thread - before the NMR results) - that there are numerous bacterial produced algae-toxic compounds. Not are a refutation of the conclusions already made here - as I said - it seems like that ship sailed once the NMR results came in. Thanks for the article though

 

[ingchr1]

All bottles say at the bottom

3.5% Other ingredients
With a S at the end making it a plural imo

What does that translate to English

It just brings up additional questions.

Why state RO/DI on the website, but call it Other Ingredients on the bottle? Has the bottle label also changed? Mine is from 2019.

Why change the website from Other Ingredients (RO/DI Water) to just RO/DI Water?

Why remove what the vinegar is in there for?

Website 9/19/20
From Wayback Machine, not sure if it may have been different before this. Pages were not loading.

Website Today

Bottle bought 11/5/19

 

[Sean Clark]

Personally, I wouldn't make much of a fuss over the most honest part of the label. My issue is with the rest of it.

 

[MnFish1]

No bacillus murderchaetomorphus or any other fictional algae-eradicating bacteria and as @Dan_P referenced, difficult to find any evidence of such a thing even existing.

Randy and others are too nice to say I contaminated it, but the short answer is that a small amount of random contamination is completely consistent with all the data. NMR that shows no sign of bacteria, no centrifuge pellet, no detected biologically digestible organics, and yet responsive culture-up to very rich food.

1. There are numerous algaecide products produced by bacteria
2. Randy posted an article - I posted a couple a while back
3. It has nothing to do with this thread - as the NMR have suggest about as strongly as can be suggested that Algaefix and vibrant are the same - so its a moot point
4. Your bacterial experiments were probably flawed - leading to others to deny the central conclusion. Maybe stick to physics

 

[sixty_reefer]

Personally, I wouldn't make much of a fuss over the most honest part of the label. My issue is with the rest of it.

Im jut guessing here but if the 3.5% is the secret ingredient as it’s commonly made by many retailers to not reveal all contents, what would that mean?

Im just speculating here, to me it makes sense to use a algaecide to create a initial shock and then use a variety of bacteria blends to decompose the algae and utilise released nutrients by the demineralisation process of the algae, other strains would be beneficial to remove build up excess organic nutrients from the aquarium that could be contributing for the algae growth.

Anyway I’m out this discussion it’s too complicated for me.

 

[rtparty]

Im jut guessing here but if the 3.5% is the secret ingredient as it’s commonly made by many retailers to not reveal all contents, what would that mean?

Im just speculating here, to me it makes sense to use a algaecide to create a initial shock and then use a variety of bacteria blends to decompose the algae and utilise released nutrients by the demineralisation process of the algae, other strains would be beneficial to remove build up excess organic nutrients from the aquarium that could be contributing for the algae growth.

Anyway I’m out this discussion it’s too complicated for me.

So call it RODI water forever and then one day randomly change it to "other" and that "other" happens to be bacteria that isn't part of the 95% bacteria blend above?? Lol okay

Then the most important part...where is this bacteria? It hasn't been found in a single bottle to date. Why hasn't UWC come forward with their testing and info if the bacteria is actually there? That should have taken them about 4 minutes to show their results since they CLAIMED they have the product routinely QC tested.

Or, and I know this is a crazy thing to think, they lied about the whole thing from day one and finally got caught? I mean not THAT crazy after you watch the UWC owner for an hour on the BRS live. Dude had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

 

[rtparty]

Is it really that hard to figure this one out?

A random aquarium maintenance guy decides he wants less work week to week maintaining aquariums. He then sets out to find/create a bacteria that the world has never seen. A bacteria that multi-billion dollar companies can't figure out or are smart enough not to create because it getting loose could destroy entire ecosystems. But UWC guy knew how dangerous this could be so he made sure it doesn't reproduce in saltwater OR freshwater??? Where does it reproduce then?

So UWC starts making this stuff in his basement/garage. They get too big and have to "outsource" to a third party. Third party decides to steal the formula and just put a polyquat in the bottles instead???? Lol. Remember that UWC initially blamed their supplier for switching products on them. WE aren't saying that. THEY did.

So why didn't UWC immediately respond on here that they had proof of this happening and lawsuits were in place? Seems pretty logical and reasonable to have a quick memo made up by the legal team stating this. But no. UWC claims they are having all these test done and will report. Magically when the time comes to show those results the EPA shows up for an audit. Yeah, because the EPA decided to show up with absolutely no evidence.

C'mon UWC apologists. Think for two seconds. The most simple explanation is the correct explanation. They lied about it all. End of story.

 

[Dan_P]

4. Your bacterial experiments were probably flawed - leading to others to deny the central conclusion. Maybe stick to physics

Wow! You just can’t stop throwing stones.

“Probably flawed”?

If you cannot line up objections about the experiment so we can evaluate the validity of your criticism, why don’t you keep these sort of nasty comments to yourself. As I have advised you before, if you don’t understand the science, ask questions. Let’s debate the science.

 

[Dan_P]

Is it really that hard to figure this one out?

A random aquarium maintenance guy decides he wants less work week to week maintaining aquariums. He then sets out to find/create a bacteria that the world has never seen. A bacteria that multi-billion dollar companies can't figure out or are smart enough not to create because it getting loose could destroy entire ecosystems. But UWC guy knew how dangerous this could be so he made sure it doesn't reproduce in saltwater OR freshwater??? Where does it reproduce then?

So UWC starts making this stuff in his basement/garage. They get too big and have to "outsource" to a third party. Third party decides to steal the formula and just put a polyquat in the bottles instead???? Lol. Remember that UWC initially blamed their supplier for switching products on them. WE aren't saying that. THEY did.

So why didn't UWC immediately respond on here that they had proof of this happening and lawsuits were in place? Seems pretty logical and reasonable to have a quick memo made up by the legal team stating this. But no. UWC claims they are having all these test done and will report. Magically when the time comes to show those results the EPA shows up for an audit. Yeah, because the EPA decided to show up with absolutely no evidence.

C'mon UWC apologists. Think for two seconds. The most simple explanation is the correct explanation. They lied about it all. End of story.

Thinking is an acquired skill

 

[taricha]

Thanks for your perspective, MnFish.

 

[taricha]

I always liked the show Law and Order, watched way too much of it.
Sometimes I think about this scene that never happened and only exists in my head.

Lead Detective: *walks in to the crime scene* What do have here?

Junior Detective: here's the gun, and over there is the victim.

Lead Det : So do we think that's the murder weapon?

Jr. Det. : Forensics says the gun was fired pretty recently.

Lead: hmm... mysterious. So what about our victim?

Jr. Det.: And here's the victim. You can see the large gunshot wound in his chest. Pretty clear?

Lead: ok, starting to get the picture. So do we think that's the cause of death?

Jr: And there's the bullet hole in the wall after it went through the victim. Does it make sense?

Lead: I'm starting to get the picture. So we think that the bullet killed him?

Jr: Yeah, and here's the bullet that forensics recovered from the wall. Pretty obvious, right?

Lead: Totally clear now - that bullet is filthy! It's probably covered in bacteria, and when our victim got shot in the chest, it made him sick and he never had a chance...

 

[trainbob]

So taricha are you saying for us non scientist this is how Vibrant works

 

[jda]

UWC is never going to respond. After being exposed, their brand is ruined and with indictment, likely settlement, fines and/or jail time coming so r2r is hardly a consequence to them. If any of the seagulls* out there want to argue with me about this, don't bother unless you happen to have been right about this more than I have in the past (...so like just maybe @taricha and @Dan_P) otherwise save yourself the future embarrassment. I might also know what I am talking about here...

If they do respond, it will be a "cant help themselves" moment which they have been prone to in the past, but without a product to lie about and lowly forum posters to deceive, it does not make any sense now.

I have to think that anybody trying to misdirect now is either a semi useful idiot, un useful idiot or otherwise on their own. I don't see how UWC would have any desire to send people to argue for them since the State or Minnesota and EPA are not on here with feeble minds nor are they able to be fooled anyway.

seagull*: files in out of nowhere, makes a huge mess while crapping all over everything and files out of sight just as fast again.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I always liked the show Law and Order, watched way too much of it.
Sometimes I think about this scene that never happened and only exists in my head.

Lead Detective: *walks in to the crime scene* What do have here?

Junior Detective: here's the gun, and over there is the victim.

Lead Det : So do we think that's the murder weapon?

Jr. Det. : Forensics says the gun was fired pretty recently.

Lead: hmm... mysterious. So what about our victim?

Jr. Det.: And here's the victim. You can see the large gunshot wound in his chest. Pretty clear?

Lead: ok, starting to get the picture. So do we think that's the cause of death?

Jr: And there's the bullet hole in the wall after it went through the victim. Does it make sense?

Lead: I'm starting to get the picture. So we think that the bullet killed him?

Jr: Yeah, and here's the bullet that forensics recovered from the wall. Pretty obvious, right?

Lead: Totally clear now - that bullet is filthy! It's probably covered in bacteria, and when our victim got shot in the chest, it made him sick and he never had a chance...

Nice! lol