# Can fruit flies be gut loaded?



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

I like the idea of gut loaded feeders. The dust on the flys only does good when they eat them right away.


----------



## gturmindright (Mar 15, 2006)

I don't know about the flies but I know the maggots can be.


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

I think Ed was saying it has been studied, and supplements stick with the fly for quite a while when dusted...probably longer than one would think...
Most peopkle think ff's can't be gutloaded...I wonder why there is crap on the sides and cover of my cultures then....


----------



## gturmindright (Mar 15, 2006)

I thought that the flies eat the yeast.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Insects with very short digestive tracts have very short retention times for food items which means that they excrete any ingested material very quickly. This significantly affects any attempts to gut load the insects as the amount of stuff in the digestive tract maybe insufficient to change the overall composition of the insects body or it can be lost before the frog has time to consume a sufficient quantity of flies to supply a sufficient amount for metabolic needs. 

Unless I am using the larva as a feeder I do not add any additional material other than some spirulina to my ff media. The spirulina is because the flies will sequester some carotenoids and any addition to this is of use. 

As I understand it, ffs feed in the same manner in a classical dipteran method (ala house flies) by lapping up liquids and dissolvable soilds over which digestive fluids have been excreted. This can and does include yeast but it isn't restricted to yeast as it can include (but not be limited to) things like starches, sugars, dissolved protiens, bacteria and yeast. 

Some thoughts

Ed


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

so how do you know that you are providing proper nutrition.gut loading and dusting seem very temperary states.Can a fecal provide the info?


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Fecals as far as I know are mean't for finding parasites, not for nutritional issues. But I don't know how exactly to answer the other Q as I have been wondering that myself. I'm guessing if your frog is not having seizures or other problems you can assume you supplementing regime is working


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> so how do you know that you are providing proper nutrition.gut loading and dusting seem very temperary states.Can a fecal provide the info?


Back up a step, is there data that establishes a base line for nutrition for dart frogs, or even other frog groups at large? Without that info "proper nutrition" is impossible to talk about.


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

So do we feed them vitamins based on assumptions of thier needs or are there studies that clarify those needs?How do we as a community decide what is a good vitamin suppliment and what isn't?
Is it merely that we define the basics such a vit.A.,D3,and calcuim then try to diversify enough of the rest in hopes of covering the spectrum?
What we are doing seems to work i just want to know why it works that way,how do we know it works and is thier any kind of refinement to the process that can better mimic the frogs natural diet.Possibly making it easier to breed some of the species while prolonging the life of others.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Back up a step, is there data that establishes a base line for nutrition for dart frogs, or even other frog groups at large? Without that info "proper nutrition" is impossible to talk about"endsnip

Yes. With a few exceptions amphibians in general and anurans in particular fall within the same baselines established for domestic animals(just like people do). Check the frognet archives there was at least one paper published on required amino acids for dart frogs. 

If you want to establish the exact base lines then you need to be 
1) extremely rich as the testing is incrediably expensive
2) have a lot of frogs to test 

To establish the exact baselines you have to be willing to test large numbers of frogs to destruction by establishing large groups 
where you start out withholding all of the nutrient in question. After a period of time (or if they die before hand then they are necropsied and the effects documented). Then you start increasing the quantity of the nutrient in question in the next test group, repeat the necropsy and documentation and continue until you can no longer detect deficiencies (but don't stop). The study continues until you cause overdosing of the nutrient and these are documented. There is a range that results where there are no detectable effects, a point in the middle of this range is chosen and used in effect as the RDA. 

Ed


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

How about doing field sweeps of thier natural enviorment and finding the nutrient content of the insects they feed on?Would that tell us more about thier diet?
I've also been curious about what in thier diet that makes them poisonous.Does it play any role in thier well being?


----------



## gturmindright (Mar 15, 2006)

What exactly is spirulina? How do you get it? What are it's benefits?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip"How about doing field sweeps of thier natural enviorment and finding the nutrient content of the insects they feed on?Would that tell us more about thier diet? 
I've also been curious about what in thier diet that makes them poisonous.Does it play any role in thier well being"endsnip

Yes and no, it can tell you what insects they feed on but this data is often skewed because soft bodied invertebrates are frequently digested before they are washed from the frogs. (there have been some discussions on this on the boards) Dietary analysis of insects is expensive and requires a large amount of insects (typically about half a kilogram of each invertebrate). 

There has been a lot of discussion about what makes them toxic on this and the other formats like frognet. As to whether it is part of thier well being it depends on what you mean. If you are referring them requiring the toxins as part of thier diet then no (otherwise we would have lost the frogs generations ago). If you are referring to possible antimicrobial activity then the answer is maybe depending on the toxin but again this isn't supported by the success in keeping the frogs alive in captivity. 

Spriulina is a dried algae used as a dietary supplement and is a good source of protien as well as carotenoids mainly betacarotene. There have been a lot of discussion on this on the boards as well. 

Ed


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

snip"If you are referring to possible antimicrobial activity then the answer is maybe depending on the toxin but again this isn't supported by the success in keeping the frogs alive in captivity"end snip

This is more of what I was questioning.With the curent problem of the chytrid and the swarm of frogs coming into captivity I 'm intersted in what is the required for the process of reintroduction.We keep frogs in a realative safe bubble.They are less exposed to bacteria and diseases in a quaritined containment but if they are lacking what are thier natural defenses from toxins or other benificial bacteria or possible parasite loads the are consumed in thier diet, wouldn't that send them to a rapid death or decline once reintroduced into thier natural enviorment assuming that its still around when all is siad and done?If that is the case then aren't we stuck between the choice of letting nature take its coarse and not import them or import them from the wild and seal thier fate as being a purely captive species.
Have we ever reindroduced a species before?

As far as the spriulina goes,That would be considered gut loading then wouldn't it?
I like the idea of fortifing nutrients from organic sources since the absorbsion of nutrients seem to be more likely over those chemically or sythetically derived.Its just theory though, not like I would really know.
I just want to see how nutrition is approached by someone professionally in the field.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

When it comes to fruit flies, for the reason Ed mentioned before, adult flies really aren't gut loadable, to provide better nutrition its easier to dust them. The larvae on the other hand, are feasible to gut load, as well as pinhead crickets. The rest of the foods we generally culture for their consumption don't usually fall into the gut loadable category. Dusting with vitamins and calcium, as well as varied diets are used to counteract any possible dietary problems that may come from a diet primarily of the adult stage of FFs.

I think this information is more important in the long term health of the animal rather than any thoughts on releasing them into the wild - just about all the frogs in captivity will never be reintroduced to the wild. Only a few reintroductions have been done, and if you think our pets live in a "bubble" then you should see what those frogs go thru. 

PDF wise, Azureus have been reintroduced into the wild again, I'm not sure there is any documentation on the success of these frogs after introduction (these were CB animals) but the fact that their predators probibly had an instintual aviodence response to them, and a population of perfectly toxic animals to blend in to, they probibly did rather well and picked up their toxins over a matter of months. As we are not entirely sure of where certain PDFs get their toxins, the best bet would be to have them in holding pens where they could feed on native invertabrate fauna until they develop toxins, or do a project similar to azureus, releasing them into a population. Either way, native predators would still have their aviodence response, and this would probibly keep the frogs alive long enough to develop toxins again. You're assuming their predators taste test the frogs, which most of the time they don't after evolving with them... they either can't eat them and don't, or can eat them and ignore the aposematic coloration because they can eat the frogs just fine. They can't tell by looking at the frog whether its toxic or not, and if its a species that is normally toxic and normally aviod, they will aviod them.

And yes, it would be considered gutloading to add spirulina assuming the flies actually hold onto caretaniods like Ed hopes. Its even better when used in gut loading of insects that have larger digestive tracts (and thus have more gut to load, which is why most smaller bugs are considered less gut loadable) but generally there is little you can do to change the nutritional content of an adult fly. 

Here is a good way to approach PDF nutrition... gut loading can only really be done with FF larvae and pinheads crickets, everything else is just the way it is. Use vitamin and calcium powder to make up for this, and use it on what bugs it sticks to and doesn't kill (powder clogs important breathing holes on some bugs). Otherwise, vary the bugs they eat as much as possible, using as many different types of bugs (fruitflies, crickets, termites, springtails, aphids - the more different they and their diets are, the better) rather than varieties (strains of fruitflies are still fruit flies eating similar diets, and have only slight variation in nutrition).


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

Its not predators that I see as a problem with reintroduction but diseases and bacterias that could attack the frog quickly with out proper biological defense(assuming that it is lost or comprimised when in captivity).

snip"I think this information is more important in the long term health of the animal rather than any thoughts on releasing them into the wild - just about all the frogs in captivity will never be reintroduced to the wild. Only a few reintroductions have been done"end snip

If we are accepting the fact that captive breed frog are not to be reintroduced into the wild the why are we bringing over so many imports of species we believe to be at risk to chytrid.I thought the intent was to prepare them for their inevitable return to the wild once a solution to or supression of chytrid.

I'm not overly concerned about the finer points of nutrition when involving purely captive species.The fact that they have lived in captivity for so long shows that we are doing a good part of this right. But we have a community of people trying to save a large population of frogs from what seems as eminent extinction.The stakes rise and new questions must be asked before we interfer with nature.Who is to say that it isn't doing more harm to remove them than to let things take there course.If 95% of a species is wiped out but a few develop immunities then repopulation is possible.If we take a large portion of that poplation away then that leaves fewer to make an evolutional transition of survival and without understanding or at least having an approach to understanding what their biological defenses are then we could be hindering and not helping the goal which we wish to achieve.
It would be as if people were contianed in an enviorment predominently viod of our natural occurring biological threats such as chicken pox or a common stirand of the flu.Then when we are reintroduced to our natural enviorment we no longer suffer the threat of what brought us to contianment but lack the tolerance that our bodies once had to these common biological threats. The adults that contract chicken poxs suffer a greater health risk than when they were young.Creating a trap that causes all humans to be held in captivity until they make te decision to set us free and let our bodies redevelop those defenses at a higher rate of loss than before the original contianment.

snip"if you think our pets live in a "bubble" then you should see what those frogs go thru"end snip
The greatest hardship I think they suffer is the "how many frogs can I fit in a small space"syndrome that has been plagueing this and most other captive animal hobbies.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Its not predators that I see as a problem with reintroduction but diseases and bacterias that could attack the frog quickly with out proper biological defense(assuming that it is lost or comprimised when in captivity). "endsnip 

The toxins aquired from the invertebrates may have some antimicrobial function but this isn't thier real purpose, antipredator defense is thier purpose. The frogs do not lose the ability to produce the peptides that are the antimicrobial secretion (for a primer on this I suggest reading Amphibian Biology (The Integument) Heatwold.


snip "If we are accepting the fact that captive breed frog are not to be reintroduced into the wild the why are we bringing over so many imports of species we believe to be at risk to chytrid.I thought the intent was to prepare them for their inevitable return to the wild once a solution to or supression of chytrid."endsnip

Who are you referring to here? The imports that are being brought over by the various institutions involved in the amphibian crisis are different than the animals available in the pet trade (and I am unaware of these being disseminated to hobbyists so there is a very distinct difference between the frogs in the pet trade and those in the amphibian crisis). 

snip "But we have a community of people trying to save a large population of frogs from what seems as eminent extinction."endsnip 

The hobbyist at this time isn't saving anything other than the frog equivalent of the domestic cat. This is because the hobbyists are not tracking blood lines (other than the recent introduction of frog tracks), make assignements of morph, locality origin, and/or species based on visual appearence (see http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewt ... highlight= for an example of this), engaging in proper quarantine and other issues. 

snip "The stakes rise and new questions must be asked before we interfer with nature.Who is to say that it isn't doing more harm to remove them than to let things take there course.If 95% of a species is wiped out but a few develop immunities then repopulation is possible."endsnip 

Except that only a few species have remnant populations left after chytrid passes through the area and in the time since those populations have been documented a number of them have now either gone extinct from the chytrid. (I believe A. varius was the one this year). Chytrid does cause 100% mortality in the course of a couple of years. Also what it also appearing in these pockets is a lack of recruitment as the chytrid infects the tadpoles and kills the metamorphs when they transform leaving a remenent population of adults that have no recruitment. 
What you are referring to only occurs if the disease in the course of its infection evolves into a less lethal form. This only occurs when there are insufficient hosts to maintain the disease. However as this isn't a species dependent disease (so the host range isn't limited) and is still continuing to move into new territory and new hosts, there really isn't any pressure for it to evolve into a less lethal strain and a lot of pressure to maintain its current ability to infect and kill the amphibians. 


snip "If we take a large portion of that poplation away then that leaves fewer to make an evolutional transition of survival and without understanding or at least having an approach to understanding what their biological defenses are then we could be hindering and not helping the goal which we wish to achieve."endsnip

These are two different things here. In reality the only people that are removing large numbers of populations from the wild is the pet trade (in the case of dendrobatids. We can discuss the bushmeat trade if you want). The amphibian crisis task force is only removing something along the line of 100 pairs of the targeted species. When you are referring to biological defense I assume you are referring to the skin secretions as opposed to coloration, behaviors etc. We do know a fair bit about the skin secretions of amphibians. Each amphibian may have a somewhat unique profile but there are a large number of "universal" secretions.... 

snip "It would be as if people were contianed in an enviorment predominently viod of our natural occurring biological threats such as chicken pox or a common stirand of the flu.Then when we are reintroduced to our natural enviorment we no longer suffer the threat of what brought us to contianment but lack the tolerance that our bodies once had to these common biological threats. The adults that contract chicken poxs suffer a greater health risk than when they were young.Creating a trap that causes all humans to be held in captivity until they make te decision to set us free and let our bodies redevelop those defenses at a higher rate of loss than before the original contianment"endsnip 

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The amphibian humoral immune system is not the same as a mammalian system and as noted above the antimicrobial peptides are still secreted on the amphibian skin. 

Ed


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

snip"(for a primer on this I suggest reading Amphibian Biology (The Integument) Heatwold." endsnip
Thank you for the resource Ed.This is the kind of information I really appreciate.

snip"and I am unaware of these being disseminated to hobbyists so there is a very distinct difference between the frogs in the pet trade and those in the amphibian crisis)."
So are you saying that those in the pet trade are not effected at large by chytrid? 

snip"You are comparing apples and oranges here. The amphibian humoral immune system is not the same as a mammalian system and as noted above the antimicrobial peptides are still secreted on the amphibian skin. 

"endsnip

Sorry to use a bad analogy.Have there been studies comparing the peptides release form WC frog versus CB frogs.
Also do the toxins or other secretions they produce in the wild have any kind of effect among themselves such as breeding?I've heard of a few instances where a captive pair wasn't breeding but the introduction of a wild caught frog stimulated breeding? Would that be caused from simply supplying a different mate or could there be a hormonal difference in WC species versus CB.

Thanks for tolerating all me B.S.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

I don't think the addition of another animal to get breeding going is unusual (this has been talked about a bit in the lehmanni thread). It doesn't really matter if the animal is WC vs. CB, it has more to do with the animals that weren't breeding together "not working out" (the male may not be what the female instinctively is looking for and she doesn't breed with him until there is no other option which may be years down the road) and the introduction of the new animal either gave needed competition to get the original pair breeding and/or the new male was the female's type, and she was more than happy to breed with him over the other male (who is promptly ignored). This is more a case of mate selection and rejection, rather than WC vs. CB.

Breeding in these frogs is highly complex and behavioral, and the toxins have very little to do with it (other than in a very indirect way... toxicity allowing for aposematic coloration which these animals may use for species recognition type thing). If it were more directly related, these animals wouldn't be so easy to breed in captivity. I wouldn't imagine something as environmentally dependent as their toxins being that highly involved in behavior that developed in the family before toxins and aposematic coloration.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Okay to keep this in context 



snip " "If we are accepting the fact that captive breed frog are not to be reintroduced into the wild the why are we bringing over so many imports of species we believe to be at risk to chytrid.I thought the intent was to prepare them for their inevitable return to the wild once a solution to or supression of chytrid."endsnip 

snip"and I am unaware of these being disseminated to hobbyists so there is a very distinct difference between the frogs in the pet trade and those in the amphibian crisis)." 
So are you saying that those in the pet trade are not effected at large by chytrid? "endsnip


I was not referring to animals in the pet trade being affected by chytrid and I still don't read that as the question you asked or that I answered. I was clarifying that the frogs being brought over that at this time could be repatriated or released are not the ones in the pet trade due to the reasons I provided above. 

To answer the new question, I think that given that chytrid infected amphibians have been documented from multiple importers that it may be one of the major causes of deaths in captive animals. Until such a time as necropsies become widespread in the hobby the actual number of deaths will be unknown. 

snip Sorry to use a bad analogy.Have there been studies comparing the peptides release form WC frog versus CB frogs. 
Also do the toxins or other secretions they produce in the wild have any kind of effect among themselves such as breeding?I've heard of a few instances where a captive pair wasn't breeding but the introduction of a wild caught frog stimulated breeding? Would that be caused from simply supplying a different mate or could there be a hormonal difference in WC species versus CB. endsnip 

Yes. For example in probably the best studied anuran (Xenopus laevis), the peptide profiles are the same. 
Peptide profiles have been used to support speciation and the secretion of toxins and the lack there of in captive Dendrobatid frogs is well documented (just do a literature search). 
In anurans the call and staked out breeding sites are the parameters for mate selection.... 
If there is a hormonal difference between wc and cb that is more likely due to insufficient enviromental triggering and/or exogenous endocrine disrupters.... 
In animals, long term maintence together of animals can result in a lack of breeding (referred in some texts as the Coolidge effect) but the addition of some small stressor can result in the triggering of reproduction. In the case of the addition of the wc frog, (a cb frog of the same age and sex would also work) changes the dynamics for mate competition and results in breeding..... 

Ed
Ed


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

Snip"I was not referring to animals in the pet trade being affected by chytrid and I still don't read that as the question you asked or that I answered. I was clarifying that the frogs being brought over that at this time could be repatriated or released are not the ones in the pet trade due to the reasons I provided above. "endsnip
I didn't intend the question to be confusing. Maybe I should of asked : Are most the frogs in the current hobby trade affected by Chytrid in the wild?

snip"To answer the new question, I think that given that chytrid infected amphibians have been documented from multiple importers that it may be one of the major causes of deaths in captive animals. Until such a time as necropsies become widespread in the hobby the actual number of deaths will be unknown. " endsnip

I believe this answers that question but i'm not sure.

Would it seem possible that the current population in the hobby could one day be used for repopulation?

Back to the intent of this post(I feel I went astray for a moment but thats what I get for writing a post at 2:30 in the morning).
If spiurlina has been used as a dietary supplement has there been any positive changes in the health?
Has there been any other experimentation with other natural suppliments?
Also when refering to the small digest tract of the fuit flies,what is the time frame for the passing of nutreints through thier tracts? If they constantly are eating from a particular nutrifying food source would there always be a presence of that in thier tracts until they are removed from that food source?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Would it seem possible that the current population in the hobby could one day be used for repopulation? "endsnip 

Under the current way the hobby is run? No. 

snip " If spiurlina has been used as a dietary supplement has there been any positive changes in the health? "endsnip

It has been used as a source of carotenoid pigments to enhance some colors in anurans such as yellows. In some species it helps to enhance reds but reds are more frequently associated with pterins or other non-beta carotene carotenoids. 

snip "Has there been any other experimentation with other natural suppliments? "endsnip

There are a lot of experiments but these are typically done by shot gun methods so there are lots of anecdotal reports but no hard evidence. In most cases items like spirulia do not harm the ffs or the frogs and as ffs do store carotenoids in their eyes and presumably in thier fat bodies some level of carotenoid is making to the frogs. 

snip "Also when refering to the small digest tract of the fuit flies,what is the time frame for the passing of nutreints through thier tracts?"endsnip

Do a literature search. There is a ton of info on ffs. Try starting in the bibliography in this article http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi ... 802.123416

snip "If they constantly are eating from a particular nutrifying food source would there always be a presence of that in thier tracts until they are removed from that food source?"endsnip 

This seems obvious. 


Ed


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

Thanks a bunch for the info.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> I like the idea of fortifing nutrients from organic sources since the absorbsion of nutrients seem to be more likely over those chemically or sythetically derived.Its just theory though, not like I would really know.


Just wanted to address this quickly... it's actually completely impossible to tell a "synthetic" chemical from a "natural" one (organic and natural are often used interchangeably, but when you're talking about chemistry they mean completely different things). Beta carotene is beta carotene, exact down to the last atom, and not a living organism nor the best chemist in the best lab on Earth can distinguish which pure chemical was made in a lab and which harvested from a natural source (the only possible exception may be for certain compounds which exist as enantiomers where one enantiomer dominates the other naturally but not synthetically). 

The "organic" and "natural" craze is a bit of a marketing scam - given equal amounts of pure compound, synthetic vs natural makes no difference AT ALL. In some cases, a naturally derived compound may have been more environmentally friendly (less energy/waste to produce, or something) but there is NO nutritional difference. *This is not to say that eating "natural" foods rich in a certain nutrient may be better than supplementing your diet with the pure nutrient (synthetic or natural).*

A natural SOURCE (approximated by gutloading) may be better than a synthetic supplement (ie dusting) because levels of a nutrient in a prey organism, even a captive prey organism, may better approach those levels for which the predator has evolved and which it requires. However, that is predicated upon the assumption that we know (and can provide) a "natural" diet for the prey item (ad infinitum), which is a clear and glaring fallacy. Most wild insects don't eat spirulina-rich foods.

All of which is to say two things: 
1) it's an imperfect science. Variety, past experience (remarkably successful with the supplements we have available, I'd say), and continual study and experimentation are all we have to work with.
2) be wary the "natural" craze, and evaluate critically the superlatives used by anyone trying to sell you something.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Well said. Probibly should clarify on "organic" as well... are you talking chemical organic (vs. inorganic?) or are you talking about organic as in organic foods? First time I read that I was like... what... are you talking about using organic potato flakes? Do they even make those yet?

Remember - you are what you eat. And if you pinheads eat sweet potatoes that had fertilizer/pesticide residue on them it can go up the food chain (which can lead to some interesting chemicals showing up on necropsies).


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

I want to say that it is the micronutrients that come with natural alternitives that attract me to the natural craze.If I had the choice of vitamin C pill and a mango, I'd think I would go with the mango becuase it provides more than just vitamin C. Its like the plants that I grow could be in a hydroponic setup using just the P-N-K's found in common chemical fertilizers but if use soul and naturally derived fertilizers I feel as if I'm giving them more then the P-N-K's.Now that I've said that I wouldn't feel so wary of synthetic suppliments if the covered a wider spectrum(if we knew what spectrum to cover) then they already do.From the looks of some of the replies(especially ED's),it looks like a daunting task to try and figure out the micro nutritution of these frogs.

I know what you mean about the natural and organic craze that has hit consumers,especially in the grocery stores.I don't buy into the organic foods for double the price.Beef without steriods would be nice but I don't worry about it so much.
Variety definitely seems to be key here.Gut loading was questioned because I (maybe not the frogs some much) felt that the suppliments were being consumed at a greater success than dusting, seeing as how the dust could be washed or removed easily.Now that I know that flies don't carry what they consume for long I can't say that gut loading is even realistic.I was suggusted some other dusting supliments that I could see being benificial, such as naturose and powdered fruits and veggies.I haven't tried any but input on these would be appreciated.

All in all, I have a very small scope on these things and asked a large scoped question in hopes of being enlightened.Thank you for the response.


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

KeroKero said:


> Remember - you are what you eat.


This is too scary for me to fathom :shock:


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Especially with some of the stuff I've eaten.... I'm picky about some foods but other times.... I've probibly eaten more types of bugs (on purpose) than my frogs. Termites taste like... sawdust. Mealworms are crunchy (and so are roasted crickets, much better that squishy live...)

... or is this starting to get into TMI?


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

As long as I don't eat rocky mountian oysters I'm ok with becoming what I eat(as scared as I am).

I feel a digression here.
Do you gut load your bugs before you eat them?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip " Beta carotene is beta carotene, exact down to the last atom, and not a living organism nor the best chemist in the best lab on Earth can distinguish which pure chemical was made in a lab and which harvested from a natural source (the only possible exception may be for certain compounds which exist as enantiomers where one enantiomer dominates the other naturally but not synthetically). "endsnip

This is the case with beta carotene. There are three isomers all of which have a different rate of conversion to retinol and hence have a different "activity" level. The ratio is pretty consistant (as I understand it) in "natural" food sources while the ratios in synthetic sources can vary. 


snip "A natural SOURCE (approximated by gutloading) may be better than a synthetic supplement (ie dusting) because levels of a nutrient in a prey organism, even a captive prey organism, may better approach those levels for which the predator has evolved and which it requires. However, that is predicated upon the assumption that we know (and can provide) a "natural" diet for the prey item (ad infinitum), which is a clear and glaring fallacy. Most wild insects don't eat spirulina-rich foods. "endsnip

This is an nutritional issue/idea that gets bound up in a lot of idealogy and dogma based on the premise that the diet the animal "evolved to eat" is inherently better than a diet that provides the same nutrition through alternate sources. With respect to the dusting/gut loading diet, it has been shown that for example unless a source of D3 is provided the frog cannot metabolize the calcium from the gut of the insect.... 
We know that gut loading with calcium is really not that effective without being able to strictly controlling the conditions on which the insects are maintained and furthermore there is some preliminary data that indicates that some of the nutrient content of the insect (I'd have to go back to the literature and review it (check Mader's book second edition) to see what they were exactly referring to) isn't significantly modified through "gut loading". 
And yes while the insects maynot eat spirulina in the wild they do consume other sources of betacarotene so it really isn't that different from thier naturally diet.... 

Ed


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

Ed,

I didn't mean to imply that a "natural" diet is inherently better than a supplmented diet that provides the same nutrition from different sources - just the opposite, in fact. Didn't make that clear as I wanted to. However, (hypothetically) it would seem easier to achieve proper nutrition through feeding 100% natural (ie native) prey... that was the point I was trying to make. 

I agree with (what I presume to be) your opinion that supplementation through dusting, etc is (especially as the science continues to evolve) a sufficient and effective means of delivering proper nutrition.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Ed: Is it correct to assume with most anurans we are not sure where they are getting the nutrients in the wild that they receive in captivity through dusting?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hey Npaull, 

Your post did look that way a little but this is a dogmatic issue that routinely gets tied up with diets of not only animals but people (and as such irritates me a little) so I thought I would add my 2 cents..... In general knowing what an animal evolved to eat enables us to develop suitable substitutions for the diet that meets the needs of the animal but it doesn't mean that we have to feed that exact diet to the animal. 

Hi Dendrobait;

snip "Ed: Is it correct to assume with most anurans we are not sure where they are getting the nutrients in the wild that they receive in captivity through dusting? "endsnip

It depends what you mean by this statement. For example we know that that primary source of calcium is terrestrial arthropods and retinol comes through carotenoid conversion to retinol (which can take a lot of arthropods as they are known to be poor sources of carotenoids and as retinol and carotenoids is/are deposited in egg yolks is one of the reasons we can see this as a problem in metamorph) and D3 comes from conversion of proD to D3 through UVB induced conversion and isomerization. Do we know the exact species sources for most of these items, no. 

Ed


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

So if terrestrial arthropods(guessing that applies to the springtails and woodlice we culture) provide a viable source of calcium in the wild would a regime with feeding them lots of those and either giving them UV or just VitD3 be practical?


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

Ed-

I hear you, and appreciate the expertise of your perspective. The "natural" craze drives me nuts too.

Dendrobait - Not really sure I understand you (though I know you're asking Ed)... seems like the success (with most species to which we have access) with repeated, muiltigenerational captive propagation indicates that a relatively variety-poor, properly-supplemented diet is perfectly adequate and sufficient.


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

npaull said:


> ... seems like the success (with most species to which we have access) with repeated, muiltigenerational captive propagation indicates that a relatively variety-poor, properly-supplemented diet is perfectly adequate and sufficient.


So what would be considered more than adiquate?
I like asking what end up being absurd and often vague questions like these becuase I don't want to strive for just minimal requirements. 
If gutloading isn't feasable then variation in diet (as in feeders) and what I dust them are with more reasonable applications. What are some of my extended choices in feeders and suppliments?
I currently have luecs and lamasi.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

There are lots of threads on this that discuss these in more detail, but off the top of my head: ffs, spring tails, dwarf woodlice, rice flour beetles, pinhead crickets, roach nymphs, aphids, and field sweepings are all potential prey items for dendrobatids.


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

npaull said:


> Ed-
> 
> Dendrobait - Not really sure I understand you (though I know you're asking Ed)... seems like the success (with most species to which we have access) with repeated, muiltigenerational captive propagation indicates that a relatively variety-poor, properly-supplemented diet is perfectly adequate and sufficient.


My thinking was if we could figure out a way to get the frogs everything they need except for D3(vits, minerals, calcium etc.) then D3 might be the only thing you'd need to supplement with, or simply exposure to some UV or sunlight. Maybe a pipe-dream or too much trouble to bother with?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "My thinking was if we could figure out a way to get the frogs everything they need except for D3(vits, minerals, calcium etc.) then D3 might be the only thing you'd need to supplement with, or simply exposure to some UV or sunlight. Maybe a pipe-dream or too much trouble to bother with?"endsnip

What you are referring to is basically recreating all of the diet as seen in nature which is very impractical. This would require a huge stable (that can withstand the predation pressure as well as interspecific competition) variety of invertebrates and the community that supports them. The frogs would also have to have free access to all of the invertebates at the same time so they can modify thier diet as needed.... 
We are not going to be able to find this in the limited diet that we feed which is why we have to adjust the nutrient profile of the feeder invertebrates. 

Ian, there are many lengthy discussion on the boards that will come up in a search. Use the following keywords seperately carotenoids, astaxanthin, supplement, nutrition, calories, pedialyte, calcium gluconate, clinicare (I think that covers a bunch of them). 

Ed


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

This question has been bugging me. If a fly can't be gut loaded because of the length of its digestive track, then how do darts in the wild get the nutrition they need (this assumes the length of the digestive track of a FF is sililar to that of an ant or other insect consumed in the wild)? 

No one dusts the ants in the wild, so all nutrition is supplied by the contents of their digestive track. What is keeping us from doing the same thing with fruit flies?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "This question has been bugging me. If a fly can't be gut loaded because of the length of its digestive track, then how do darts in the wild get the nutrition they need (this assumes the length of the digestive track of a FF is sililar to that of an ant or other insect consumed in the wild)? 

No one dusts the ants in the wild, so all nutrition is supplied by the contents of their digestive track. What is keeping us from doing the same thing with fruit flies"endsnip

In the wild, the frogs can ingest other insects (and they consume a lot more things than ants) which provides a variety of different nutrients unlike the very restricted variety we offer in captivity. It has been shown that in other species they chose the prey item based on the nutritional content of the food item. 

The idea that all of the nutrients are supplied by the digestive tract is incorrect, as this does not include the items that surround the insect when it is hit by a tongue flick or particles that are stuck to it when consumed (soil on/around terrestrial invertebrates is a major source of calcium for insectivores). 

Also you are comparing apples and oranges with respect to the ffs and the other insects as the method of consumption and digestion are different. As with other dipterans, ffs consume liquids that have been exposed to digestive secretions (saliva both from the adult flies and excreted saliva by the ff larva) causing a very rapid transit time for nutrients while for ants foods can be contained in a second crop for distribution to the colony. Also there is some research that at least in caterpillars the gut contents do not significantly change the overall fat and protein content of the caterpillar but does adjust the carotenoid content (as insects are a poor source of carotenoids). 


Ed


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

I also want to stess, like ed sis, that while this thread is focusing on "gutloading" insects our frogs eat - which is limited due to the small insects' small digestive tracts - I think you're missing the point that the frogs are eating the whole insect - not just the digestive tract (which is, at best, a bonus).

PDFs in the wild, as Ed said, eat a huge range of insects - and not just one type (even tho limited knowledge of these guys in the wild lead many keepers to believe its almost totally ants) but a huge range of *types* of critters too... and these types have significantly different nutritional make up even before you consider what they were eating. This is the variety I try and give my frogs the most of in captivity, and why I don't bother gutloading. I believe they get more nutritional value over being fed different types of foods (FFs, crickets, beetles and larvae, aphids, termites/roaches, ants, springtails, etc.) rather than attempting to gut load any of the feeders. The vitamins and calciums is just to try and cover all the bases... even with more than 4 or 5 food types, their food variety is pathetic to that which their wild relatives eat.

This is why i kinda just have to sit back and laugh at this gutloading threads... with the effort that many of us would put into gutloading FFs, we could be culturing another feeder insect and probibly giving them much better nutrition from doing so than we would "gutloading" FFs.


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

So what other insects can be reasonably cultured.Ants need a queen or the colony dies.I've heard that some ants can porduce a queen but I'm not sure what kind they are.Even then the frogs still have to eat them which I have had no such luck with.
I've given up on the idea of gutloading and am more focused on what I put on the feeders.I've started to use naturose and am looking for more.
Now my question is, is it better to dust with differents kinds of supplements seperately?


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Fruit flies
crickets (pinheads)
rice flour beetles
micro mealies
shorelinite beetles
springtails
small roaches
isopods
aphids
houseflies
silkworms
waxworms
firebrats

All species, with varying degrees of difficulty and effort required (and some are only eaten by larger frogs due to size), that can be cultured as frog food. Termites are especially popular as frog food, and workers can be collected by the thousands from a clean colony and housed for months before being fed (better to rip a couple logs up every couple of months then attempt to culture, the dampwoods breed slowly, and subterraneans are next to impossible to get a queen... but then again you wouldn't want one in your house!). Appropriate ants can also be collected, as well as aphids and general field sweepings.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

Gotcha. I was reading one of Ed's posts on the first page incorrectly:



> Insects with very short digestive tracts have very short retention times for food items which means that they excrete any ingested material very quickly. This significantly affects any attempts to gut load the insects as the amount of stuff in the digestive tract maybe insufficient to change the overall composition of the insects body or it can be lost before the frog has time to consume a sufficient quantity of flies to supply a sufficient amount for metabolic needs.


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

Well I like the idea of termites but the don't live in Montana.I would try to get them shipped but I think its illegal.
As far as suppliments go did you have any sucess with cyclopeeze. I also read about the spidermites proposal that Brent was talking to me about a couple weeks ago,has that been atempted yet(I know of a plant that attracts all spidermites within a ten mile raduis,garanteed)
I just read enough pages on caroteniods to make my eyes bleed,ugh


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Now my question is, is it better to dust with differents kinds of supplements seperately"endsnip

As most of the supplements have different make-ups and formulation methods as well as short shelf lives you may just want to pick a decent one and stick with it. 

Ed


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

Ed, what do you use to feed your frogs?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

At home for the moment I use Rep-Cal and Herptevite although at some point in the near future I am going to switch to the frog and toad ff and pinhead dust offered by Rock Solid Herpetoculture (it was formulated by Walkabout Farms) for most of my amphibians as it is manufactured to deal with the fact that these small insects retain more dust per thier size which could lead to toxicity issues. 

Ed


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

I remember reading about walkabout Farms,Is that available to general public?
Do you use paparika,Naturose, or powdered fruits?
What about crustaceans?


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Walkabout Farms no longer sells to the public, their formula is sold thru Rock Solid Herpetoculture (which is why Ed brought that up). I have had the chance to use Walkabout Farms in the past before they stopped selling to the public, and liked it. Herptivite is a popular one on the market that has done well long term. Dendrocare is a european suppliment that a good percentage of people reported problems with, so its not very popular (not sure if its the suppliment, or how we do diets compared to the euro hobby that was the problem).

In any case, using a seperate calcium suppliment (Rep-Cal) is also needed. I also know of breeders who used Miner-al as well to try and get the full round diet thing going.

Paprika, Naturose, cyclopeeze, certain powdered fruits and veggies, and crustaceans are additional suppliments used for color purposes for xanthophore coloration (yellows, oranges, reds in most of the frogs except for thumbs which tend to show these colors using iridiphores mostly). Xanthophores are diet dependent caratinoids and our captive diets tend to be lacking. A range of these color suppliments need to be used to get the range of ceratinoids needed to fully color up a frog, and you need to be careful as they are vitamin A complexes that can he highly toxic to PDFs. They are not to be used in place of general vitamin suppliments, but rather in conjunction with them (much like the calcium and miner-al are used in conjunction).


----------



## froggerboy (Jul 9, 2006)

I knew the were add ins and not replacements to the multi vitamin and calcium but wanted to know if you dusted them seperately when they were used?
I read a whole bunch of previous threads from a year ago about trying to color up frogs and wanted to see if anything panned out since then.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I don't think I would expect to see significant changes until a few more years out (or even a few more generations) as it is possible that there are windows when carotenoid sequestion would make a difference in color. Also there are significant levels of carotenoids deposited in the eggs so this can also make a difference as it may not change the adults but if there is sufficient in the diet, the offspring maybe more brightly colored. 

snip "needed to fully color up a frog, and you need to be careful as they are vitamin A complexes that can he highly toxic to PDFs"endsnip

Unless there is something I am not aware of this isn't correct. Some carotenoids can be precursors of vitamin A (like betacarotene) but any toxicity issues are often the result of the carotenoid itself not vitamin A. There are feedback mechanisms that prevent excess conversion of carotenoid to vitamin A (which is why betacarotene is so non-toxic). 
The ones that come to mind that show some levels of toxicity tend to cause liver issues and can elevate levels of liver enzymes and cholesterols. 

Ed


----------

