VIBRANT!!!!!! Alagaecide

[brandon429]

it's to fill the void in valonia control after they left, that nobody bothered to fill in better.

you hate him for mislabeling, not for harming reefs or failing to make the best valonia cure in reefing, we're driven by wholly different motivations in our vibrant assessments.

kalk misuse has killed reefs, nobody is stating to quit using kalk. in no way did I think one post about harm here equates to five years of searchable vibrant works on file regarding valonia and other challenges. those are largely safe, any reader can see in searches.

imagine if the angry digital pitchforks aimed all that resource, all that $, all the university lab testing equipment and careful sampling of chemistry issues in valonia tanks, the countless assays, the careful tracking of every minute detail of the matter and charts created with data plots into running a valonia work thread: progress would be made to replace the value Vibrant gave to reefing.

work threads aren't fun, because they sometimes have noncompliant outcomes, and what balances out on paper doesn't always apply.

but to rise up digitally, skewer UWC for mislabeling and not provide any working alternative nor have any motivation to ever do so, that's offensive to people who do or value work threads.

 

[brandon429]

I do think label cops provide a valuable service though. if it weren't for the risk of market verification, retailers could make up all kinds of things.

 

[jda]

Yes, it was reportedly an extensive research project that finally found an algaecide that worked as well as the original bacteria. lol

Not that we need to rehash this, but if that bacteria did exist, then it would likely be responsible for the 6th mass extinction event on Earth. I still cannot believe that people thought that this was a bacteria, but I am glad that it was not.

 

[ingchr1]

I think you left out "intentionally" mislabeling and "intentionally misleading the reefing community".

Algaefix has the same active ingredient as Vibrant, no additional "work threads" are needed on this....

it's to fill the void in valonia control after they left, that nobody bothered to fill in better.

you hate him for mislabeling, not for harming reefs or failing to make the best valonia cure in reefing, we're driven by wholly different motivations in our vibrant assessments.

kalk misuse has killed reefs, nobody is stating to quit using kalk. in no way did I think one post about harm here equates to five years of searchable vibrant works on file regarding valonia and other challenges. those are largely safe, any reader can see in searches.

imagine if the angry digital pitchforks aimed all that resource, all that $, all the university lab testing equipment and careful sampling of chemistry issues in valonia tanks, the countless assays, the careful tracking of every minute detail of the matter and charts created with data plots into running a valonia work thread: progress would be made to replace the value Vibrant gave to reefing.

work threads aren't fun, because they sometimes have noncompliant outcomes, and what balances out on paper doesn't always apply.

but to rise up digitally, skewer UWC for mislabeling and not provide any working alternative nor have any motivation to ever do so, that's offensive to people who do or value work threads.

 

[brandon429]

that only matters to label cops. I don't need to read anyone's label to complete the work I complete. we do not use the same tokens to discern value or wrongs done, we cannot see eye to eye here.

I am not offended by someone's labeling issues whatsoever. The juice was turning out valonia fixes right and left, 95% estimated thank you rate to UWC, it was one of the strongest patterns I've seen in reefing. none of that is factored here, or by Randy, or the other crew who truly took offense to fine print lies and omissions. that's what chemists do, what work threaders do will never involve someone's labeling in any way. I am not offended one bit by UWC, I'm offended by people who didn't develop a halfway decent replacement option / are recommending alternates they have never managed for others.


the killing of Vibrants business was one of the most coordinated and well-funded ire-of-the-chemist group effort actions I've ever seen result from a collection of web threads.

I want that same passion aimed at the replacement for the lost valonia tanks since then.

it was easy to kill the helpful thing, certainly justified based on wrongs done by UWC labeling, but replacing it's results gets 0% effort from those powerhouse posters.

that's not ok by me, that's what offends. we are offended by different things.

digital pitchforks didn't value Vibrant's effectiveness on valonia because the labeling issue made them blind and indifferent to results, that's not me. I'm opposite.

because it works so well, I don't care about the label not one bit.



AF marine didn't work this well, I'd been tracking it since 2009. There are huge threads on it from reefcentral circa 2009 for the reading. I had seen af marine cause much more damage than Vibrant, yet it remains a darling since the legalese lines up. results don't factor.

 

[ingchr1]

...the killing of Vibrant was one of the most coordinated and funded and chemist-ire-aimed actions I've ever seen result from a collection of web threads...

And thank you to all that contributed to exposing it for what it is. They are the ones that deserve the praise here.

 

[Readywriter]

How much do they pay you?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

that only matters to label cops. I don't need to read anyone's label to complete the work I complete. we do not use the same tokens to discern value or wrongs done, we cannot see eye to eye here.

So before you use a generic medication to treat, say, a headache, you want to see a work thread rather than a label that says what is in it?

 

[FishTruck]

I'm a label cop. As a physician I watch people spend hundreds of dollars on over the counter stuff full of mystery herbs (and get no results), when a 20 dollar generic drug would solve the problem.

It is very annoying to me that antibiotics, antifungals, algaecides are sold in the pet world as relabeled generic drugs, without an expectation to accurately label the drug and dose.

Intentionally mislabeling is counterfeit. It is a strategy that should not be rewarded with repeat business - if there is another option. I'd even forgive Vibrant if they fixed the label at this point. It does not appear that the label has been changed, though. I also admit, that if used as directed it did work for me with bubble algae when nothing else did. Next time, I will use a properly labelled algaecide if I go that route.

 

[ingchr1]

...Intentionally mislabeling is counterfeit. It is a strategy that should not be rewarded with repeat business - if there is another option. I'd even forgive Vibrant if they fixed the label at this point. It does not appear that the label has been changed, though...

They have since registered it with the EPA, here is the new labeling.

Labels for Vibrant Aquarium Cleaner (101854-1) | US EPA

ordspub.epa.gov

 

[brandon429]

Consider the different types of bottled bacteria out there for the taking.

Every one of us here who enjoys working stuck cycle posts has developed brands we recommend and ones we don't


For example mb7 is an option few umps recommend. Retailers recommend it, that's different

Anyone knows fritz biospira and Dr Tims are the recommended matched speed and ability for our reefs


Yet all those labels including mb7 say its for cycling. We, in the field, developed recommends off results not off labels

Just because mb7 is a slow as molasses I don't want to sue them, or check their label for legal accuracy. Not my wheelhouse

They didn't win the results race, so cycle umpires aren't recommending them and that's the price paid.

Social credit lost. I don't want them destroyed as a business, what if they develop a much faster option by leaving them the heck alone. Besides:

If they want my recommend they're going to have to earn it by results in testing changes, I still don't care to know what their mix or stain is at any time

Results only, percent compliance rates per job, predictability, that's my driver

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

They have since registered it with the EPA, here is the new labeling.

Labels for Vibrant Aquarium Cleaner (101854-1) | US EPA

ordspub.epa.gov

I still find the label contradictory... Compare the 2 statements below:

 

[ingchr1]

It's possible, the differentiator is "concentrated product" vs when dosed as recommended.

I still find the label contradictory... Compare the 2 statements below:

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

It's possible, the differentiator is "concentrated product" vs when dosed as recommended.

They can claim that's what they mean, but since the first sentence (of the first clip) already says "the concentrated product is harmful to fish and other aquatic organisms", the assumption is that the second sentence is adding additional information. "Snails, shrimp, clams..." are aquatic organisms and there is no need for the second sentence if they're not saying something about the non-concentrated product.

 

[FishTruck]

Well, bravo for changing the label.... if the implication of magic bacteria has been removed.

Regarding the new label, and comparing it to Algae fix... I notice that Algae fix has a CAUTION against using algefix for FRESHWATER crustaceans - with the freshwater version.

Algaefix marine says nothing about risks to crustaceans.

Perhaps the difference in the Saltwater application. Hard to know what's going on since none of them list the active chemicals . Vibrant did not harm my snails or clams when I used it.

 

[Garf]

They can claim that's what they mean, but since the first sentence (of the first clip) already says "the concentrated product is harmful to fish and other aquatic organisms", the assumption is that the second sentence is adding additional information. "Snails, shrimp, clams..." are aquatic organisms and there is no need for the second sentence if they're not saying something about the non-concentrated product.

Algaefix says to keep it away from freshwater snails, shrimp etc. And if it's the same stuff, well probably a good idea to avoid those. No idea if being in a marine setting has any reduction in toxicity. I suppose if things are eating the poisoned organisms, all bets are off.

Edit - considering the algaecide attaches to algae, would this not be considered as concentrated?

 

[Orito]

that only matters to label cops. I don't need to read anyone's label to complete the work I complete. we do not use the same tokens to discern value or wrongs done, we cannot see eye to eye here.

I am not offended by someone's labeling issues whatsoever. The juice was turning out valonia fixes right and left, 95% estimated thank you rate to UWC, it was one of the strongest patterns I've seen in reefing. none of that is factored here, or by Randy, or the other crew who truly took offense to fine print lies and omissions. that's what chemists do, what work threaders do will never involve someone's labeling in any way. I am not offended one bit by UWC, I'm offended by people who didn't develop a halfway decent replacement option / are recommending alternates they have never managed for others.


the killing of Vibrants business was one of the most coordinated and well-funded ire-of-the-chemist group effort actions I've ever seen result from a collection of web threads.

I want that same passion aimed at the replacement for the lost valonia tanks since then.

it was easy to kill the helpful thing, certainly justified based on wrongs done by UWC labeling, but replacing it's results gets 0% effort from those powerhouse posters.

that's not ok by me, that's what offends. we are offended by different things.

digital pitchforks didn't value Vibrant's effectiveness on valonia because the labeling issue made them blind and indifferent to results, that's not me. I'm opposite.

because it works so well, I don't care about the label not one bit.



AF marine didn't work this well, I'd been tracking it since 2009. There are huge threads on it from reefcentral circa 2009 for the reading. I had seen af marine cause much more damage than Vibrant, yet it remains a darling since the legalese lines up. results don't factor.

Just use it, it's still the same, nobody coordinated anything against the product, they only made clear it wasn't what the label said.
If you think it's a great thing against valonia keep using and recommending it.

 

[FishTruck]

Consider the different types of bottled bacteria out there for the taking.

Every one of us here who enjoys working stuck cycle posts has developed brands we recommend and ones we don't


For example mb7 is an option few umps recommend. Retailers recommend it, that's different

Anyone knows fritz biospira and Dr Tims are the recommended matched speed and ability for our reefs


Yet all those labels including mb7 say its for cycling. We, in the field, developed recommends off results not off labels

Just because mb7 is a slow as molasses I don't want to sue them, or check their label for legal accuracy. Not my wheelhouse

They didn't win the results race, so cycle umpires aren't recommending them and that's the price paid.

Social credit lost. I don't want them destroyed as a business, what if they develop a much faster option by leaving them the heck alone. Besides:

If they want my recommend they're going to have to earn it by results in testing changes, I still don't care to know what their mix or stain is at any time

Results only, percent compliance rates per job, predictability, that's my driver

This is a dark ages type of disadvantage that we are up against. I mean no disrespect to this methodology that you explained, but these efforts to understand and advise would be so much easier if the products were properly labelled.

I do understand that bacteria in a bottle is a bit different (kind of like listing what's in Kombucha versus diet coke), and I appreciate the efforts to collect results - as crude as the process must be.

 

[brandon429]

FIshtruck thank you for posting. well said.

 

[Miami Reef]

We need products to be honest with their composition. We cannot tolerate companies who deceive to make sales. Especially with an EPA-regulated algaecide.

The morality should be a reason enough to avoid this product.


For years people have always asked us how we keep our aquariums so nice and clean. The answer was a simple response, we use our own homemade liquid aquarium cleaner. The next question would always be, do you sell it? The answer from us was always, no, it is for our use only.


After being asked so many times, we decided that we should share what we knew worked so well. So, we teamed up with a group of scientists and created a consumer based version of the same product, which we have simply named Vibrant.

Underwater Creations Inc. | Vibrant Liquid Aquarium Cleaner

Vibrant is a revolutionary liquid aquarium cleaner developed by scientists and the professionals at Underwater Creations, Inc.

www.uwcmn.com

I interpret this as them using algae fix, then making their own algae fix to sell to consumers. Algaefix will work the same as Vibrant.