Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[Cell]

Trying to bring the spotlight back to where it should be. Directly aimed at UWC until they address this.

 

[GARRIGA]

Trying to bring the spotlight back to where it should be. Directly aimed at UWC until they address this.

Were I them. I'd go quietly into the night never to be heard from again.

 

[Karen00]

Let's not kid ourselves, there are probably hundreds of reef additives that may questionable claims and are not straight forward on their ingredients. Vibrant was not the first.

Vitamins, polymers and immunostimulants, LOL.

Fish Stress Relief & Immune Support | First Defense | DrTim's Aquatics

DrTim's First Defense Fish Stress Relief reduces stress, promotes healing, fights disease and repairs wounds in your aquarium.

www.drtimsaquatics.com

What you say is most likely true and this is when the road gets rocky. One company does it and gets caught then it leads to suspicion about other products whether from the same company or different companies. Now, anything being pushed as all natural makes me want to see an independent test done on it. :-( How can we trust what any of these companies claim when they come up with supposedly "natural solutions". I'm going to think they're all sketchy now unless it has already been proven otherwise. I don't like it that a company has made me start to think this way. Eroding trust isn't good.

 

[Hal3134]

I just got off the phone with Bulk Reef Supply. I had ordered a bottle of Vibrant that arrived just before I saw this thread. Without getting in to specifics, Bulk Reef Supply did right by me. Their customer service was excellent!
Also, they shared that UWC is not currently responding to BRS either.

 

[Dan_P]

Whew, I did it. I read the whole thread. Do I get a cookie?

Some spicy discussion in here. This is some pretty decent drama so I think we’re all like “ooooooooooohhhh”

I want to thank Taricha and Randy (and all others) for their contributions to the community here. Ironically, I was just talking to some friends about Vibrant. I’ve been trying it for a few weeks with GHA (first time I’ve ever dosed some “magic” that wasn’t nitrate additives or the like); I explained to them that it’s mainly just bacteria, “look at the bottle!”. How timely for this information to come out. I imagine this is exactly how some retailers are feeling right now too and I do feel for them.

This will be my first and last time dosing a product like this. Back to the natural means that haven’t failed me yet. I sincerely hope I haven’t affected my tank negatively in the long term. Feels pretty bad to have been duped about a product like this (I know people have had mixed success but I figured it was a healthy dose of human error due to the Marine vs Reef version of the product). I really hate being in this spot; I put something in my tank based on my understanding of the label and now I find out it’s some pesticide that I would NEVER put in my tank if I had known.

Yes, you deserve a cookie for reading the entire post!

Would you use an algicide if the label said “this stuff is an algicide“?

 

[Dan_P]

Let's not kid ourselves, there are probably hundreds of reef additives that may questionable claims and are not straight forward on their ingredients. Vibrant was not the first.

Vitamins, polymers and immunostimulants, LOL.

Fish Stress Relief & Immune Support | First Defense | DrTim's Aquatics

DrTim's First Defense Fish Stress Relief reduces stress, promotes healing, fights disease and repairs wounds in your aquarium.

www.drtimsaquatics.com

What do think? Half the products are the equivalent of snake oil, 25% live up to their claims 50% of the time, and 25% have legitimate product claims?

 

[Lyss]

What do think? Half the products are the equivalent of snake oil, 25% live up to their claims 50% of the time, and 25% have legitimate product claims?

I personally don't buy the ones that have labels like that. The only one I have purchased that doesn't list ingredients is NoPox b/c I knew it was a mixture for carbon dosing that contains ethanol, I understood the risks of carbon dosing and how to ensure success, and it clearly states instructions and warnings on the label (ex: to run a skimmer b/c of the risk of oxygen depletion).

 

[Dan_P]

I personally don't buy the ones that have labels like that. The only one I have purchased that doesn't list ingredients is NoPox b/c I knew it was a mixture for carbon dosing that contains ethanol, I understood the risks of carbon dosing and how to ensure success, and it clearly states instructions and warnings on the label (ex: to run a skimmer b/c of the risk of oxygen depletion).

Me neither. Some people just are not interested in miracles in a bottle.

 

[Uncle99]

HI. First of all it is clear marked on the bottle what is in and its made especially against Dinoflagellates. We use for this another type of algicide and we. Say clearly when and under which circumstances it should be used, DinoX did not kill corals, this is the situation why you have dinoflagellates. So this is really nothing which you can compare

After 6 treatments of the correct dosage with a day in between, corals lost both colour and size. This resulted from a significant loss of micro fauna, likely affecting zooanthelle within the coral tissue.

Did get rid of Dinos though.

 

[i_declare_bankruptcy]

Yes, you deserve a cookie for reading the entire post!

Would you use an algicide if the label said “this stuff is an algicide“?

Exactly; I definitely wouldn't.

 

[puffy127]

Under Water Crickets

 

[Terence]

Reefing report discussed this on YouTube last night. Won’t let me post a link though.

Yes, @craigbingman graciously came on to answer a few questions that we had in our minds. It would have been nice to hear from the manufacturer and @taricha as well. We all agreed that the manufacturer needs to come forward with more information and that more tests should be done.

Here is a link to the livestream:

 

[UWC]

Hello Everyone,

As everyone knows Vibrant has been wildly popular. We stand by Vibrant 100% and we are not taking these accusations lightly.

At this time, we have samples of Vibrant out to Labs for independent certified testing dating back to batches from 2016 to current to compare them to see if there have been any changes in the production of Vibrant.

We are hoping to have these results back by the end of this week and we will post everything that we have.

I know this post will not please everyone, but we want to have as much information as possible for the community before we make any official statements.

Thank you,
Jeff
UWC

 

[Terence]

Hello Everyone,

As everyone knows Vibrant has been wildly popular. We stand by Vibrant 100% and we are not taking these accusations lightly.

At this time, we have samples of Vibrant out to Labs for independent certified testing dating back to batches from 2016 to current to compare them to see if there have been any changes in the production of Vibrant.

We are hoping to have these results back by the end of this week and we will post everything that we have.

I know this post will not please everyone, but we want to have as much information as possible for the community before we make any official statements.

Thank you,
Jeff
UWC

Jeff, a key simple question we (Craig, Mark, and I) were discussing last night and could not seem to collectively understand is the label. It says 95% bacteria. And separately lists water. If this was 95% bacteria in there wouldn't it be basically a sludge? Please forgive my ignorance but this just seems hard to understand. Can you help us better understand the label?

 

[jcolliii]

@UWC: What sorts of tests?

Terence - My interpretation is that 95% of what is in the bottle is some bacterial blend, not that bacteria make up 95% by volume or mass of what is in the bottle. That could be aquarium water. It could be a culture that achieves x number of cells per ml... could essentially be anything, but 95% by volume of what is in the bottle is whatever that stuff is.

 

[reefiniteasy]

I think it’s so great that the company accused of knowingly/unknowingly mislabeling their product is having their product tested independently. (This is sarcasm)

@UWC The bottles you are having tested, where did you get them, in house? And what is the name of the lab you have contracted to do this? I would like to look them up.

 

[dvgyfresh]

I think it’s so great that the company accused of knowingly/unknowingly mislabeling their product is having their product tested independently. (This is sarcasm)

@UWC The bottles you are having tested, where did you get them, in house? And what is the name of the lab you have contracted to do this? I would like to look them up.

“We investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing”

 

[reef_ranch]

@UWC: What sorts of tests?

Terence - My interpretation is that 95% of what is in the bottle is some bacterial blend, not that bacteria make up 95% by volume or mass of what is in the bottle. That could be aquarium water. It could be a culture that achieves x number of cells per ml... could essentially be anything, but 95% by volume of what is in the bottle is whatever that stuff is.

This does not compute. 95% is a percentage of a total. When applied to a liquid, it must mean either volume or mass. If they intended to convey something else (what I can't even guess) they didn't do it. Let's not cut breaks where none are deserved.

And since they separately listed the weight or volume of water, the bacteria HAS to be a sludge or dry weight.

 

[IslandLifeReef]

I think it’s so great that the company accused of knowingly/unknowingly mislabeling their product is having their product tested independently. (This is sarcasm)

@UWC The bottles you are having tested, where did you get them, in house? And what is the name of the lab you have contracted to do this? I would like to look them up.

Are you asking the same questions to the person who sent samples to a lab to be tested? What lab was used? Who verified the samples?

In one post, the original tester stated that the sample was Vibrant Freshwater.

I'm not trying to discredit the poster of the thread that @Randy Holmes-Farley mentioned, I am only asking if we are holding everyone to the same standards.

I am willing to give @UWC a chance. I have used Vibrant with great results.

 

[Terence]

This does not compute. 95% is a percentage of a total. ...

And since they separately listed the weight or volume of water, the bacteria HAS to be a sludge or dry weight.

This is where my confusion at the outset of this whole thing really got started. The label just doesn't seem to make sense. If the "Cultured Bacterial Blend" is not just a blend of various bacteria, then it could be all sorts of other things in that blend I guess. And that is what I am getting at. What did the manufacturer mean when they put that on the label?