My speculation: Vibrant has some fluconazole in it...

[ScottB]

***** EDIT 5-December-2021*****
My original speculation was inaccurate. However, it did prompt another hobbyist to run some tests similar to those published in this paper. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33191523/
"This study investigates the utility of bromophenol blue (BPB) as a safe, rapid and user-friendly indicator to detect in situ residual QACs [quaternary ammonium compounds] dried on hard, non-porous surfaces, as well a means to assess their antimicrobial efficacy. At pH 7, BPB has a purple colour which turns blue upon its complexation with QACs..."

"QACs" stands for quaternary ammonia compounds. QACs are commercially used to create disinfectants and algaecides. It is a listed ingredient in AlgaeFix.

I think you will find the evidence fairly compelling that Vibrant does contain a QAC similar to that found in AlgaeFix and in similar proportion.

You can avoid all the noise of this thread simply by starting around Page 4 and then reading the posts authored by our fine fellow hobbyist @taricha

***** End of EDIT and back to October 20th*****


How did I come up with this theory? Allow me to explain.

About the only nuisance pest/algae I have not had is bryopsis in any of my tanks, but I have used fluconazole in other bryopsis overrun displays a few times. My LFS services many tanks so they have considerable experience with it as well. Most outcomes were quite good. A very small handful of very bad outcomes. That is covered in other threads, so I will leave that debate aside.

Vibrant I have dosed a small handful of times in my own display to help manage this or that, when my herbivore population has gone on strike, or I get some bubble algae. I never dose it higher than the suggested levels for a fairly "clean" tank. My experience with it is generally pretty good, but I am very cautious and patient with it.

Early Summer, I removed a bunch of my old rock from my display as it was overrun with encrusting SPS plus a bizarre vermetid outbreak. I built some nice structures with dead rock, made a modest effort to cure it, and chucked it in. Well, you know what happened then. Got GHA all over it within a couple months. CUC and herbivores weren't getting it done, half the tank looked terrible, so I started in with some Vibrant, and now maybe 5-6 weeks in with it.

-- All of the GHA that is exposed to my lights got weak and died out.
-- All of the GHA that is shaded, seems rather content.

If you follow the fluconazole thread, you will see that this is also how fluconazole behaves. The cellular disruption process (as described by Jose Mayo) requires active photosynthesis to occur. Any bryopsis (or GHA) that is shaded remains in tact. I am aware that Vibrant is marketed as a "blend of bacteria". Given that it does tend to lower nutrients gradually over time suggests to me that it does have some bacteria in it. It is also a carbon source.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MY THEORY?

To me, this is a smoking gun. Like many/most(?) of you in the SPS forum, I love me my acropora and the risk -- however small -- of a bad outcome for my expensive tenuis is just not worth it. I will just have to let this algae phase pass on its own.

Two pics. The first is my (now) pristine rock that is fully exposed. The second pic is my happy GHA, hidden under an overhang.

 

[blaxsun]

It's not the least plausible idea out there - you may be entirely correct.

 

[Big Smelly fish]

I think you may be on to something, or else something similar is in vibrant. I like you take on photosynthesis .

 

[ScottB]

It's not the least plausible idea out there - you may be entirely correct.

I am not trying to diss on Vibrant; for 90+% of reefers -- when used correctly -- I think it has some real value. But for those few that are spending stupid money on these crazy colored tenuis... the calculus is a bit different.

For real bryopsis, well, you don't have many good choices other than fluconazole. But Vibrant is marketed for general "dirty looking" tanks with your basic algae outbreaks.

 

[Isopod80]

It's my understanding that a few reef clubs had vibrant tested and found that it contained a known algaecide. I think the thread may be on here somewhere.

 

[Miami Reef]

I also thought this. How are you expecting me to believe a “random” aquarium maintenance company decided to get into lab experiments and cultured their own special “bacteria” to dose into their client’s tanks.

They basically only have anecdotal claims by customers who “wanted to know what that bottle was”. I just don’t see it plausible and think there’s something there they aren’t disclosing that is actually doing the work.

How is it possible for bacteria to basically “melt” the algae like BRS shows?

This is speculations, of course. And I don’t hate vibrant. I have a bottle at home. I’m just curious about how they invented this bacteria culture.

 

[Isopod80]

Not to mention the fact that this "magic bacteria" seems to indiscriminately feed on all forms of marine algae yet can't replicate in a marine environment and thus has to be dosed regularly. Lol. It's pretty laughable. I don't doubt that it kills algae....that's what algaecides do.

 

[Miami Reef]

Not to mention the fact that this "magic bacteria" seems to indiscriminately feed on all forms of marine algae yet can't replicate in a marine environment and thus has to be dosed regularly. Lol. It's pretty laughable.

I’m happy to say that I never bought into it. I also didn’t understand how they couldn’t reproduce especially if they have all their food source. Bacteria should be extremely resilient.

 

[Tamberav]

I mean if it was a bacteria that could eat algae like vibrant does... you think it would be able to reproduce... which is a scary thought for the actual ocean.

Calling it bacteria makes people feel like it's safer and probably increases sales though.

 

[Isopod80]

They way I see it, if such an indiscriminate algae destroying bacteria existed in nature our ecosystem would be a very different place. If such an organism was to be engineered in a lab it would almost certainly require special permits to culture and possess. I seriously doubt the EPA would want to risk such an organism ending up in the wild. Marine algae is one of the major oxygen sources for our planet afterall.

 

[Uzidaisies]

Contact them and ask for an msds

 

[Miami Reef]

Is there a reason why vibrant kills algaes but not Coralline algae? BRS used it and saw that coralline algae increased because the competition from other algaes diminished.

 

[homer1475]

I think I'm going to have to disagree here. If it contained fluc, then it would work on bryopsis, yet bryopsis flourishes in tanks that are running vibrant(as vibrant has no effect on bryopsis). I would think even if it had a small amount of fluc in it, it would have some effect on bryopsis.

I have no idea what vibrant is, or isn't either. I have used it in the past, and it actually does work as described.

 

[ScottB]

I think you may be on to something, or else something similar is in vibrant. I like you take on photosynthesis .

I learned about that in this thread linked below. He's not on R2R anymore, but (Dr.?) Jose Mayo was the one who discovered the use of this fungicide for this purpose and he described this cell wall destruction process somewhere in these 5800+ posts. I have seen it in real life as well. Anything in the shade is spared, bryopsis, GHA, and in the rare event of an SPS collapse/crash, some of the shaded pieces live longer than the rest.

Bryopsis Cure: My Battle With Bryopsis Using Fluconazole

I think that is a fair number -- anecdotally of course. I've been following this thread for a long long time and that feels about right. When it goes bad, it can go bad very quickly. Other times it can cause a slower decline I've never been able to understand when/why, but I have seen it first...

www.reef2reef.com

Is there a reason why vibrant kills algaes but not Coralline algae? BRS used it and saw that coralline algae increased because the competition from other algaes diminished.

I can confirm Vibrant does not hurt coralline algae.

 

[ScottB]

I think you may be on to something, or else something similar is in vibrant. I like you take on photosynthesis .

*edit. sorry double post

Bryopsis Cure: My Battle With Bryopsis Using Fluconazole

I think that is a fair number -- anecdotally of course. I've been following this thread for a long long time and that feels about right. When it goes bad, it can go bad very quickly. Other times it can cause a slower decline I've never been able to understand when/why, but I have seen it first...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[ScottB]

I think I'm going to have to disagree here. If it contained fluc, then it would work on bryopsis, yet bryopsis flourishes in tanks that are running vibrant(as vibrant has no effect on bryopsis). I would think even if it had a small amount of fluc in it, it would have some effect on bryopsis.

I have no idea what vibrant is, or isn't either. I have used it in the past, and it actually does work as described.

Fair point. I can't say I have seen Vibrant promoted as a bryopsis remedy now that I think of it.

 

[Williamson’s Reef]

I learned about that in this thread linked below. He's not on R2R anymore, but (Dr.?) Jose Mayo was the one who discovered the use of this fungicide for this purpose and he described this cell wall destruction process somewhere in these 5800+ posts. I have seen it in real life as well. Anything in the shade is spared, bryopsis, GHA, and in the rare event of an SPS collapse/crash, some of the shaded pieces live longer than the rest.

Bryopsis Cure: My Battle With Bryopsis Using Fluconazole

I think that is a fair number -- anecdotally of course. I've been following this thread for a long long time and that feels about right. When it goes bad, it can go bad very quickly. Other times it can cause a slower decline I've never been able to understand when/why, but I have seen it first...

www.reef2reef.com

I can confirm Vibrant does not hurt coralline algae.

It never affected my coralline until the the 3rd time I used it. I only had some bubble algae I was trying to clean up. And I had sheets of coralline falling off my back glass. All my rocks lost all coralline. It’s still not full back on my rocks.

 

[Chrisv.]

They way I see it, if such an indiscriminate algae destroying bacteria existed in nature our ecosystem would be a very different place. If such an organism was to be engineered in a lab it would almost certainly require special permits to culture and possess. I seriously doubt the EPA would want to risk such an organism ending up in the wild. Marine algae is one of the major oxygen sources for our planet afterall.

I'm going to push back a little on this one.

The diversity of microbial life on earth is, in a word, vast.

The idea that such an abundant energy source would go unused by microbes just does not make sense. Microbes are absolute experts at evolution. Some of them go through a generation every 20 minutes. That's 72 generations per day. Microbes have adapted to grow in the most extreme environments and consume even the most unlikely food sources. So, of course there are microbes that eat algae.

I don't think anyone has proposed that the people who make vibrant engineered the microbes that are supposedly in vibrant, only that they identified several natural microbes that work well as a community to degrade algae. As a biologist, I see no reason why this couldn't work.

That being said, I have no idea if vibrant contains microbes or not. I agree that it seems far more likely that an aquarium maintenance company came up with an algicide concoction than a microbial concoction. To deliberately identify a community of microbes that are algae consuming generalists would likely take some actual research and a significant investment. Diluting a few algaecides and mixing them is WAY more trivial. On top of that, if you compare vibrant to known microbial products (e.g. Dr Tims waste away and refresh) the microbial products are cloudy and tan in color...and look like a bacterial culture. Vibrant looks clear to my eye.

Hasn't anyone sent vibrant in to aquabiomics yet?

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

I think I'm going to have to disagree here. If it contained fluc, then it would work on bryopsis, yet bryopsis flourishes in tanks that are running vibrant(as vibrant has no effect on bryopsis). I would think even if it had a small amount of fluc in it, it would have some effect on bryopsis.

I have no idea what vibrant is, or isn't either. I have used it in the past, and it actually does work as described.

Do you have good PE on your acros??
Asking for a friend

 

[Isopod80]

I'm going to push back a little on this one.

The diversity of microbial life on earth is, in a word, vast.

The idea that such an abundant energy source would go unused by microbes just does not make sense. Microbes are absolute experts at evolution. Some of them go through a generation every 20 minutes. That's 72 generations per day. Microbes have adapted to grow in the most extreme environments and consume even the most unlikely food sources. So, of course there are microbes that eat algae.

I don't think anyone has proposed that the people who make vibrant engineered the microbes that are supposedly in vibrant, only that they identified several natural microbes that work well as a community to degrade algae. As a biologist, I see no reason why this couldn't work.

That being said, I have no idea if vibrant contains microbes or not. I agree that it seems far more likely that an aquarium maintenance company came up with an algicide concoction than a microbial concoction. To deliberately identify a community of microbes that are algae consuming generalists would likely take some actual research and a significant investment. Diluting a few algaecides and mixing them is WAY more trivial. On top of that, if you compare vibrant to known microbial products (e.g. Dr Tims waste away and refresh) the microbial products are cloudy and tan in color...and look like a bacterial culture. Vibrant looks clear to my eye.

Hasn't anyone sent vibrant in to aquabiomics yet?

I agree that there are algae eating microbes but a completely indiscriminate form that eats any algae it comes across yet can't sustain itself within the same environment seems unlikely to me. The biology of different algaes seems too diverse for that. I'm not suggesting that they engineered them either. Just making a point that such an indiscriminate yet unsustainable organism would either have to exist naturally (unlikely) or have been engineered. Since both scenarios are unlikely then Vibrant is unlikely to be bacterial based. To me the origin story of Vibrant is about as convincing as Pierce Brosnan was as a Native American. Some things just don't pass the smell test. I smell bull@#$*. Lol