Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[N.Sreefer]

Those naturally occurring contaminants are not the same as a purposely added ingredient to act as an algaecide. They are governed by different rules. In the case of pesticides the rules are quite explicit in that they have to be listed and registered. You would see something like 3.5% Busan 77, 96.5% inactive ingredients and then a list containing random crap like "killed bacteria".

Lets use btk as an example

What are Foray and DiPel?
Foray and DiPel are microbial or biorational insecticides produced by Valent BioSciences. They
contain the spores and unique crystalline proteins produced by a naturally occurring bacterium,
Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki (Btk). These biological components are combined with
approved ingredients and water to make the final product.

When I buy the product the ingredients are water and Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki no mention of the proteins (the insecticide) in the ingredient list.

 

[jeffww]

Lets use btk as an example

What are Foray and DiPel?
Foray and DiPel are microbial or biorational insecticides produced by Valent BioSciences. They
contain the spores and unique crystalline proteins produced by a naturally occurring bacterium,
Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki (Btk). These biological components are combined with
approved ingredients and water to make the final product.

When I buy the product the ingredients are water and Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki no mention of the proteins in the ingredient list.

That is because Bt produces the toxins naturally and is itself registered with EPA. If you put busan 77 in it doesn't matter if if you dissolve it [somewhere] you have to list it.

 

[N.Sreefer]

That is because Bt produces the toxins naturally and is itself registered with EPA. If you put busan 77 in it doesn't matter if if you dissolve it [somewhere] you have to list it.

So if I discovered or altered a bacteria species that creates or can accumulate ammonium salts similar to Polixetonium chloride I could not sell that product as bacteria?

 

[jeffww]

So if I discovered or altered a bacteria species that creates or can accumulate ammonium salts similar to Polixetonium chloride I could not sell that product as bacteria?

several points:
1. It was shown that vibrant had absolutely no bacteria in it via nmr and ftir so this isn’t even a valid discussion.
2. you would not without registration as a pesticide and all the labeling requirements that go along with it.

 

[Karen00]

It sure seems that way I was in no way trying to defend them just thinking of tricky ways to get around normal regulations pertaining to the use of algaecides. If you did what I was suggesting you could package it as if it is not a chemical concentrate and perhaps get around some environmental regulations.

I know here in Canada you have to list what the final component is in the bottle so regardless of whether there is any bacteria left if the bacteria produced algaecide and that's in the bottle it has to be listed with all of the appropriate labeling (like do not drink or get on skin or in eyes, etc) and all the appropriate safety sheets and registerd with the government. There is no way around that and I believe it works the same way in every country that regulates this stuff.

 

[jda]

Why would you want to? You could make a fortune explaining and lecturing on how you truly did something novel, even if you should not have. If you took the time and earned the intelligence to actually do this, you might see the problem with an unknown bacteria being release on the world and potentially being a devastating bio weapon. Nobody knows what the EPA would do in such a hypothetical, but they would look at it and change if they needed to.

All of this supposing aside, this is not what we are dealing with here. This is a known product that is registered by the EPA. I kinda find this type of speculation fun, but people who have gone on and on have been labeled as apologists and excuse makers for UWC. I doubt that this is your intention, but the behavior of UWC needs complete and total condemnation right now and the supposing can come later or in another place, IMO.

 

[GillMeister]

Uv can also break down chemicals.
could also have killed things in the water that the algicide then binds to. Could slow the uptake of any releases phosphate by killing things in the water unrelated to vibrant.

I don’t know why ya all keep grasping for something that isn’t there. It has been undeniably established and even said by UWC (during one of they goal post shifts) that there is no living bacteria in the bottle.

Again, the point of my post was questioning the test results and feeling a little misled. No one is questioning what Vibrant is. Knowing what it is made me question BRS's study.

 

[polyppal]

"I’m done trolling them now"​

PFFFT. We will see......... I have a feeling there will be more times you just cant help it. . I give it until lunch. lol

 

[BigMax]

UV could also be damaging the polymer itself and rendering it in effective. What I do wonder is how Vibrant seemingly got such special treatment by BRS, with multiple videos hawking this product and even the maker going on to their show to advertise.

It's a ten minute drive from UWC to BRS.

As GillMeister mentioned they are in very close proximity , and had some mutual friends. Much of BRS success is due to their willingness to spend money on testing products and creating a general resource to the reefing community. Living in Mpls I've talked with Ryan and Randy several times. I know they try and support Mpls local business when possible, Fiji Cube is another example. I honestly believe they have the best interest of the reefing community at heart. There is no way they have the time, resources or money to validate everything they sell. It would have been nice if they had gone more in depth with Vibrant, but I think the old adage applies. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". The removing of the product is their response to the latter.

 

[jeffww]

As GillMeister mentioned they are in very close proximity , and had some mutual friends. Much of BRS success is due to their willingness to spend money on testing products and creating a general resource to the reefing community. Living in Mpls I've talked with Ryan and Randy several times. I know they try and support Mpls local business when possible, Fiji Cube is another example. I honestly believe they have the best interest of the reefing community at heart. There is no way they have the time, resources or money to validate everything they sell. It would have been nice if they had gone more in depth with Vibrant, but I think the old adage applies. "Fool me once shame on you. fool me twice shame on me". The removing of the product is their response to the latter.

I understand the situation now. Thanks!

edit: Makes it even more egregious a person can take advantage of a local's trust and look them straight in the eye and lie to them. BRS are victims in this too.

 

[N.Sreefer]

Why would you want to? You could make a fortune explaining and lecturing on how you truly did something novel, even if you should not have. If you took the time and earned the intelligence to actually do this, you might see the problem with an unknown bacteria being release on the world and potentially being a devastating bio weapon. Nobody knows what the EPA would do in such a hypothetical, but they would look at it and change if they needed to.

All of this supposing aside, this is not what we are dealing with here. This is a known product that is registered by the EPA. I kinda find this type of speculation fun, but people who have gone on and on have been labeled as apologists and excuse makers for UWC. I doubt that this is your intention, but the behavior of UWC needs complete and total condemnation right now and the supposing can come later or in another place, IMO.

I would still condemn them for doing what I was suggesting but I thought it would explain the ingredients list on the bottle. I used btk as an example because in Canada the ingredients list the bacteria but not the insecticidal proteins produced by the bacteria, it is sold as an organic approved biological pesticide with none of the normal pesticide regulations. I'm not a chemist I was just using a precedent from horticulture as that is my field. I brought this up to further my own understanding on the subject not to convince anyone of anything. I understand how the theory I broached does not apply after that discussion. I do apologize if I offended anyone that was not my intention nor is it my intention to defend UWC.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Does not matter how its made I agree but if the chemical is inside bacteria you could list the bacteria as your ingredient instead of that chemical. Alot of the seafood we eat have high levels of mercury if I want to compost seafood at home I am allowed, if I was to dump the equivalent amount of mercury that is in that seafood in my garden I am breaking the law. Dead broken down bacteria would just be ammonia by the time of testing but the guaranteed analysis on the packaging would say bacteria as that's what it contained when packaged. I can buy apricot kernels and kill myself from (amygdalin) cyanide poisoning. It would be alot harder to try and buy packaged cyanide.

And we would see the dead broken down algae in the test. The NMR is too clean to contain any organic.

 

[polyppal]

I understand the situation now. Thanks!

edit: Makes it even more egregious a person can take advantage of a local's trust and look them straight in the eye and lie to them. BRS are victims in this too.

I wouldn’t go as far as labeling them ‘victims’, they made the video to sell product, get notoriety and make money, not out of a sense of loyalty to another local business or education for the community.

All these BRS videos are at their core marketing to sell you products, Ryan has said as much here previously. Not that there’s anything wrong with that - it’s kinda the point when your running a business.

When you reap the rewards along with the manufacturer, I wouldn’t consider that a victim but rather simply a business decision, good or bad. IMO they seem to have done the right/wise thing in washing their hands of UWC after seeing how they’ve responded to the accusations.

 

[polyppal]

In other news... mega thread on R2R about shady bacterial algae eating product turned algaecide crashes the internet and Yahoo. ;-)

Can’t wait to see how tucker Carlson tries to spin this…

 

[a.t.t.r]

Can’t wait to see how tucker Carlson tries to spin this…

Internet losers attacking a small American owned business?

 

[Karen00]

UV could also be damaging the polymer itself and rendering it in effective. What I do wonder is how Vibrant seemingly got such special treatment by BRS, with multiple videos hawking this product and even the maker going on to their show to advertise.

This is something I said about 50 pages back. We all know BRS was duped like everyone else but what this situation has highlighted is that we can't trust any product that claims to be a natural alternative. If BRS wants to be the "go to trusted source" in this hobby they are going to have to "up" their game and go to the lengths of doing NMR testing for products like this or simply not review them if they can't be bothered to go to that level. Obviously this doesn't apply to just BRS. If I saw a future video from them (or anyone) like the Vibrant review and there was no scientific data backing up their claims I would be leaving a comment asking for that data and I would have no problem reminding them of what happened with Vibrant. It diminishes their integrity as well and I'm sure they're trying to escape the fallout and possible liability as well. I'm sure a lot of people purchased Vibrant on BRS's recommendation alone let alone anyone else who might have reviewed it (although I don't recall seeing videos from anyone else).

 

[Karen00]

Can’t wait to see how tucker Carlson tries to spin this…

Ahhhh. The identify of the real mole is revealed. ;-)

 

[happyhourhero]

“Cancel cultures: local scientist who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and created a thriving business torn down by internet mob”

 

[Joe31415]

“Cancel cultures: local scientist who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and created a thriving business torn down by internet mob”

Does it count when you cancelled your own cultures? I understand there's not a single culture to be found in those bottles.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Does it count when you cancelled your own cultures? I understand there's not a single culture to be found in those bottles.

According to the test UWC has no living cultures of anything at the factory.