# Quarantining later on in life



## gturmindright (Mar 15, 2006)

Okay, I never got a fecal done. I'm going to have one done shortly and if my frogs end up having something which they probably will I will be quarantining them while I treat them. Has anyone done this? It makes sense to me to take them out of their small tank full of their feces and put them in separate containers that I can change weekly as I treat them. Has anyone done this? Is this okay?


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

Is there a reason to have the fecal done in the first place? Are your frogs exhibiting problems? There is research to suggest that animals have some "natural" load of parasites that the body can live happily with. So you may very well find something, but is that something really a problem? IMO, without some other indicators, I don't think it is.

Having put my two cents out there, yes remove them from their regular tank and treat them as if you just got them into your collection. Put them in a temp tank and all that good junk.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

There are multiple opinions on this, but generally it seems to be that you want to get fecals done when you first get your frogs, and if your frogs develop problems (or other frogs in your collection do and you're making sure the other frogs don't have the same problem - assuming its a parasite). 

You'll want to put them in a temp tank to grab the fecal, it shouldn't take more than a couple hours to get what you need (then they got back in their tank, they don't stay in there longer than needed!). Talk to your vet about the exact proceed they want done to get the most accurate fecal you can - the fresher the better, and the cleaner the environment it was given in the better.

Ok, so say something comes up, and you need to treat it. So say you move them out of the tank they're in, and put them in a treatment tank, then you treat them (all clean!) and then... what? Put them back in the tank they were in before? You'll just reintroduce them into the environment that has whatever baddie they had present... they will just get reinfected.

If they have something that is worrisome you need to figure out if you can somehow treat the tank (if only this was as easy as fish tanks) or you'll have to rip it up, disinfect it, and start over (anthing that can't be cleaned needs to be tossed).


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

I tend to agree with Mike. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Frogs, and most animals carry some sort of parisite load that is perfectly under control by their immune systems, and only become pathogenic if the frog (or other animal) is stressed enough to affect their immune system. If their other normal flora is disrupted--usually by some sort of shot gun antibiotic treatment that depletes the other floral competitors for space in the gut without killing the particular parasite, chaos can occur. Many parasites don't necessarily re-infect directly, but need an alternate host and have complicated life cycles. Just because a "parasite" is found in a fecal sample doesn't mean that it is pathogenic to the frog. I would say, if your frogs appear active and healthy, leave them the hell alone. 

Here is an example in the human realm that I have observed time after time: A patient comes into the hospital with a viral pneumonia. The doctors in their ass-covering wisdom, (even though they know better) treat the patient with broad spectrum IV antibiotics, which they know full well will not touch the viral component, but if they don't do this, the patient will not think he is being fully treated and might sue. The viral pneumonia is cured because of the respiratory therapy, and other measures of hydration, etc. Then a few weeks later, the patient comes back with severe diarrhea, which is diagnosed as Clostridium difficile. Clostridium difficile is just a part of the normal gut flora in small numbers, but when antibiotics it is resistant to wipe out the competiting E. coli and other normal flora, it becomes a pathogen and causes severe, toxic problems. So then, instead of trying to simply re-establish the normal flora, the doctors use even "better" antibiotics, to wipe out the Clostridium, perhaps Vancomycin or Metroniazide. A week or so later, the patient has a fungal ear infection, and female patients also have vaginal yeast infections. So now the doctors feel they have to have to treat with fungicides. The patient's normal flora is now totally f'd up, and this can go on for years. 

If there is a specific parasite or bacteria that is definitely the culprit of a sick individual, be it frog or human, has been diagnosed as such, then specific antibiotics or paracides can be used against this. But shotgunning with out specific identification and susceptibility tests is the reason we are in so much trouble now with so many scary, resistant organisms that we can't invent new antibiotics fast enough to keep up with them. 

This is my particular rant. I've spent most of my 72 years as a microbiologist, and have seen the advent of penicillin, the original magical cure once for most gram positive infections such as Staph aureus, create resistant monsters of these organisms from careless misuse. 

Quarantine all of your frogs separately for a couple of months to see that each is feeding and doing well and is healthy. If so, don't treat them prophylactically with anything, just add them to the collection and enjoy them.


----------



## gturmindright (Mar 15, 2006)

I'll get a fecal anyway and let you know what they might have. What you were saying is my original thought. They seem fine and happy so why mess with a good thing. What threw me off was all of the posts I've read at the dart den about it. I have a new larger tank coming that I'd like to add them all to and I just wanted to see if I could eliminate anything bad before I put them in the new tank.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

Ok, you're making sure the slate is clean before you put all of the frogs in the larger tank. 

I'll admit, I'm sloppy with my cross contamination, or actually down right dangerous with it, so heed that warning. In the 9ish months it's been up and running my 75g tank has seen 75% of my collection in it at one point or another. Thus far every frog that has/is been in the tank is exhibiting normal frog behavior. Usually I only put a few in there at a time, with the max being 7 (4 Azureus and 3 Leucs) that were in there for about a month before I removed the Leucs because I noticed possible dominance problems. 

My thinking is this: unless one is completely sterile with their general husbandry, the tanks have all ready been cross conaminated. The close proximity of our tanks, especially with racks, is a great case of this theory. Dane would be one of the people I know who probably don't have much/any cross contamination. He is very cautious about what he puts in his tanks and how he goes about his husbandry - rubber gloves and the whole works. What you are thinking of doing would be inline with a more cautious approach and there's noting wrong with that. 

As one's collection grows, one needs to become more aware of the pathagen "game" and the risks involved. Because of the recent boom in the size of my collection, my husbandry procedures have changed and will continue to do so until I'm satisfied that I'm not shooting myself in the foot. 

I guess what I'm saying is to critically analyse your plans and take actions accordingly. If that's to q-tine your collection and treat them, or to dump them, know what you're doing, why you're doing it, and how to fix it if things go awry.


----------



## littlefrog (Sep 13, 2005)

I had fecals done on all five of my tanks a few months ago. The frogs that looked happiest to me had a hookworm infestation that was 'record breaking' (to paraphrase). And the frogs I was worried about were clean. Shows what I know.

Anyway, based on the recommendations of the vet, I started treating the infested frogs once a week for the last month. And they do look a hell of a lot better, so evidently I really didn't know what I was looking at. 

As a molecular biologist, I know that continuous antibotic treatment is a VBT (Very Bad Thing), so I'm not going to do that. As a compromise, any new frogs I get will be de-wormed (if necessary), and I'll try to remember to check them all once a year. I don't expect to be parasite free, I don't think it is possible or, frankly, a good idea. In fact, a very popular theory about the increase in allergies and asthma in humans is that (at least in part) children are growing up in too clean an environment, and it hypersensitizes their immune system. A little immune challenge is a VGT (Very Good Thing).


----------



## bgexotics (Feb 24, 2004)

> I'll get a fecal anyway and let you know what they might have. What you were saying is my original thought. They seem fine and happy so why mess with a good thing. What threw me off was all of the posts I've read at the dart den about it.


Not to stir up anything but Dart Den is run by the brother of Dr. Frye who is a frog vet and makes money by charging people for fecals and medications. There have been some nasty battles on this issue here in the past especially regarding prophylactic treatment of frogs. A fecal can be done by any vet, in fact it is usually a vet tech performing the fecal. My husband and I run our own fecals as needed and work with a local vet to get any needed medications.

That being said, I have almost never had to treat a dart frog, but do this more for imported amphibians and reptiles. Working in the pet industry I have seen what overuse of mediation can do. Many fish farms have created highly resistant parasites by over-medicating their fish. I usally try to approach a problem non-medically at first by giving good care and probiotics and electrolytes. Mild dewormer is used if there are parasites present followed up with probiotic therapy to replace gut bacteria. If there is no response then I move to a stronger medication. Import animals are highly stressed when you get them and instantly treating them with meds can often be too much.


----------



## audioandroid (Mar 13, 2005)

i also have the theory that if its not broke don't fix it. back and forth in quarentine and messing with them in my opinion causes more stress. unless there's a problem let them enjoy as much hands off as possible.


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

bgexotics: You have gone where we more cowardly "angels" have feared to tread, by pointing out that not all advice is given for strictly eleemonsynary purposes. :shock:


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Sheesh I had to go look up 'eleemosynary' and I have a pretty broad vocabulary 

Bill


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2006)

Blue Grass Exotics, I believe you made a mistake about Dart Den. Corey Briere is the owner and runs it.

I guess I also don't understand your point that Dr. Frye actually makes money by performing veterinary services. Isn't he supposed to?

Patty, what exactly are you suggesting? Being a little angel, I would think that you would be above making sly little allegations against a professional frog breeder and a veterinarian. Maybe I'm wrong, though... and maybe you are.


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

Well, Rich Frye picked it up on Dart Den and responded there, and knew what eleemonsynary meant, or looked it up quickly. He does not manage or own Dart-Den, as he explains, which I didn't think he or his brother did, but wasn't sure. Check out his response. 

Gotta love that guy, just for goosing things up, even if I disagree with him about parasite prophylaxis for frogs in particular.


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

The "angel" allusion is self deprication, about being too cowardly myself about going into direct conflict, especially without all the facts, but I do slyly enjoy it when some one else has the nerve to point something out that I don't, even if she was partially wrong about some of the facts. 

I have no particular agenda here, except I raise and keep a lot of dart frogs and so does everyone else on this forum, so it's a social thing I share with everyone during cocktail hour, rather than discussing world events as they rarely reach me, becaue I live off the real world and don't have a TV, and radio reception is unreliable, or the latest book I'm reading, with my dogs and cats. I can scarcely believe that FROG froums are now my major social life! 

I also can't miss a chance to goose up Rich Frye. He's got to be sharp to have read what I wrote here and made a defense on another forum not five minutes later. I love him.


----------



## bgexotics (Feb 24, 2004)

I lurk on Dart Den from tiem to time but it is not active enough to keep me interested. I associate Rich with Dart Den since he seems to be the most active poster on that board and tends to be the main "expert" on that board. I meant no ill will towards either of the Frye brothers.


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

Things can be controversial without "ill will," per se, but disagreements are always going to offend someone along the line.


----------



## gturmindright (Mar 15, 2006)

One thing I do know is that he definitely doesn't make money by doing fecals. Maybe by selling medication but I doubt he even makes much of a profit doing that. Still even if he makes money by selling meds it's okay. If there wasn't any demand he wouldn't be doing it. I know the $15 dollars isn't really worth his time considering all of the education he has. It's crap for god's sake!


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

<<<< steers topic back to original purpose as a purely eleemosynary deed :wink: 

Bill


----------



## littlefrog (Sep 13, 2005)

elmoisfive said:


> <<<< steers topic back to original purpose as a purely eleemosynary deed :wink:
> 
> Bill


<<<<< Googles eleemosynary >>>>>

Seriously Bill, that is one heck of a word.


----------



## biocmp (Mar 7, 2006)

<<<the next to google eleemosynary. Thanks for expanding my vocab...


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Thank Patty for our mutual education :wink: 

Bill


----------



## Grassypeak (Jun 14, 2005)

Of Chytrid, bacteria, and worms


O.K. this has been bugging me since I started keeping darts. We hear warnings of introducing Chytrid or other parasites from plants, soils, and wood. Because of these warnings I have dutifully dried, cooked and bleached anything that my darts come in contact with. I have prophylacticily wormed my frogs and fed them only fruit flies. All of this has been work and it detracts from the fun of the hobby. 

Now that it is summer time we hear about people feeding field plankton, termites and whatnot. Well, Chytrid is a soil fungus, so how the heck do you feed termites without potentially introducing Chytrid? Crickets are a known carrier of Coccidia, so why risk using them? Other varieties of field plankton are surely carrying their fare share of parasites, some of which may be capable of infecting darts.

I would love to give up on all of the sanitary measures that I currently have in place, but I fear for my frogs. On one hand, I like what Patty (slatonp) has said about microfloral/ faunal balance, but on the other hand our frogs are forced to walk in their own feces 24-7. this is not a natural situation for them, so I feel that some effort on my part is necessary to tip the scale in their favor. 

What to do?


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

I wish I had seen this topic while it was still in hijacked mode, but in the absence of the brothers Frye, I think it's only fair to point out that Dr. Frye charges half of what any local vet I've visited has requested to run fecals. Obviously he's not trying to make a quick buck. This is the kind of work most vets outsource to their technicians, and if I'm not mistaken Dr. Frye does them himself. 
Back on track, there's nothing wrong with sporadic testing of adult frogs in permanent enclosures, but like Corey said, if they do have something threatening, the tanks will have to be emptied & sterilized, or junked. In your situation Gturmindright, it might just be better to leave them be. They're established, probably happy, and by now would have found a balance with any parasite load they may or may not have. Either way, make your own informed decision as to what action to take.


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

Chris: You brought up some very good points. Since Chytrid has been in the soils for ages, I wonder what has rather suddenly made frogs all over the world susceptible to it "en-mass." What has caused their recent general lack of immunity to it? The environmental stresses? New lethal strains? 

Parasites are generally relatively host specific, and not all of them are necessarily pathogenic. Only 3 intestinal coccidians actually infect humans pathogenically: Cryptosporidium parvum, Isospora belli, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, and with the exception of AIDS patients or those who are immunocompromised otherwise, the diseases they cause are unpleasant, but self-limiting. While humans are certainly not frogs, the analogy should hold true to an large extent. The flagylate species found in wood-eating termite gut are not pathogenic to dart frogs. They are not pathogenic to termites, but have a specific mutualistic relationship with them, producing celluases, enzymes necessary for the digestion of cellulose. Without these, the termite would die. There are also coccidian and other protozoan species that are found in the gut of many different animals, but which are not pathogens. They may be commensual or even have a symbiotic relationship. How well can these be differentiated and diagnosed from a fecal examination? It's pretty difficult to speciate with a microscope. And exactly which coccidians are frog pathogens, and which are not? (Of course, if anything of this sort is found in overwhelming numbers, along with illness, this does suggest pathogenicity.) I'm not denying that fecals, especially on wild-caught frogs aren't a really good idea, and that these should be treated as specifically as possible-- if possible. 

Antibiotics/antiparacides/antifungals, all have side effects of some sort on the animal being treated. Some of these, such as killing off normal flora that help keep pathogens in line by merely taking up space and competing with them, and of course killing off all but a few of the pathogenic species, leaving the more resistant ones to multiply are just a couple of the problems. Many antibiotics may also challenge liver and kidney function as the body processes them for excretion. (Anti-biotic, after all, means "anti-life," and the broader the spectrum the more collateral damage it can do.) 

I need to start diluting my Bulliets before I post smart-ass words, which was a low blow on my part, (sometimes I think I'm incredibly funny, but the next morning, find out I've merely peed on the rug,) but with apologies to Rich and David Frye, I'm glad I helped keep this discussion going, because it's an important one. I just didn't realize neither of them are no longer able to post on this board, but I don't know the history of this. I do disagree with them strongly on this one issue, and this issue alone. 

Can anyone identify the specific coccidians or other parasites by genus and species that are pathogenic to dart frogs? I don't think enough work has been published on this yet, but if any has, I'd like to read it.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> sometimes I think I'm incredibly funny, but the next morning, find out I've merely peed on the rug


HHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!! You would have fit in perfectly in my dorm last year. Oh, that's f-in great! 

I actually digested about half of that post but I think I got the important parts. It's nice to know that the decisions that I've made thus far with frog keeping haven't been entirely reckless and instead actually have some backing that they were good choices - and they're being supported by people on both sides of the fence.


----------



## biocmp (Mar 7, 2006)

> and they're being supported by people on both sides of the fence.


 I belive there is only one side of the fence that would advocate how you've treated to this point. Of course, I'm not calling you out, as I have not had fecals run... yet (i'm waiting on my last few frogs to get here so I can send them all off at once). I like patty's reasoning because it means one less thing I have to pay for. But, I look at the success Rich has had with the species he keeps and it makes me think that his frogs are "happy" that they have been treated and therefore reproduce consistently to show it. 

I know, I know, there are plenty of people who's frogs reproduce consistently and they haven't been treated, which is why I'm torn. I believe I will get the fecals run because I want to know what's going on with all of my frogs (some FR/WC)

(SIDE NOTE)-- does anyone use Metronidazole to dust their flies? does it get into the frogs system properly if done this way?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Chris: You brought up some very good points. Since Chytrid has been in the soils for ages, I wonder what has rather suddenly made frogs all over the world susceptible to it "en-mass." What has caused their recent general lack of immunity to it? The environmental stresses? New lethal strains? "endsnip 

Well, there are many different chytrids of which only one infects vertebrates specifically amphibians. What makes it look like amphibians all over the world have become susceptiable to it is because it is native to Xenopus laevis in African and its initially spread was due to human influences through the use of these frogs in labs and the pet trade and later through the transport, culture and in some cases the release of frogs, larval salamanders and axolotls. 


snip "Can anyone identify the specific coccidians or other parasites by genus and species that are pathogenic to dart frogs? I don't think enough work has been published on this yet, but if any has, I'd like to read it."endsnip 

You may want to find a copy of the following 

Paperna, I. 1995. Coccidiosis in anurans. Proc. 5th int. symp. Pathol. Rept. Amphib. Alphen a.d. Rijn, 31-3-02-04. 81-82.

Poynton, S.L. and B.R. Whitaker. 1994. Protozoa in Poison Dart Frogs (Dendrobatidae) - Clinical Assessment and Identification. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine. 25 (1):29-39.

and 
Poynton, S.L. and B. Whitaker. 1995. Protozoans and metazoans of poison dart frogs (Dendrobatidae): identification and clinical significance. Proc. 5th int. symp. Pathol. Rept. Amphib. Alphen a.d. Rijn, 31-3-02-04. 79-80.

(I don' t have copies of these as yet). 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "O.K. this has been bugging me since I started keeping darts. We hear warnings of introducing Chytrid or other parasites from plants, soils, and wood. Because of these warnings I have dutifully dried, cooked and bleached anything that my darts come in contact with. I have prophylacticily wormed my frogs and fed them only fruit flies. All of this has been work and it detracts from the fun of the hobby. "endsnip 

Yes it can detract from the hobby. The only way to safely deal with this issue is rountine fecals, annual checkups and necropsies. 

snip "Now that it is summer time we hear about people feeding field plankton, termites and whatnot. Well, Chytrid is a soil fungus, so how the heck do you feed termites without potentially introducing Chytrid?"endsnip 

If the termites are collected in a clean trap then the risk is minimized. 

snip "Crickets are a known carrier of Coccidia, so why risk using them? "endsnip 

Many other insects also can carry coccidia. Even restricting the diet to cultured ffs won't ensure that there isn't any coccidia as wild insects can also be carriers. 

snip "Other varieties of field plankton are surely carrying their fare share of parasites, some of which may be capable of infecting darts. "endsnip

Yes this is the risk. 

snip but on the other hand our frogs are forced to walk in their own feces 24-7. this is not a natural situation for them, so I feel that some effort on my part is necessary to tip the scale in their favor. "endsnip 

The soil in the enclosure has a very significant ability to process waste material particuarly when compared to similarly aquatic enviroments. 

Ed


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2006)

Ed. the soil and it's microbes, plants, fungi etc do a great job at cleaning up the waste (nitrogen cycle etc,) but do nothing to eliminate the parasitic eggs and larvae or coccidia. Moist soil is the ideal environment for these pathogens. Or did I misunderstand you?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Ed. the soil and it's microbes, plants, fungi etc do a great job at cleaning up the waste (nitrogen cycle etc,) but do nothing to eliminate the parasitic eggs and larvae or coccidia. Moist soil is the ideal environment for these pathogens. Or did I misunderstand you?"endsnip 

I was referring to the ability to break down waste and process nitrogenous waste. The idea that the frogs are walking around in their own waste is only partially correct as once the tank gets going, waste in moist locations (off plant leaves) is rapidly degraded through the action of a lot of organisms including soil nematodes. 

Onto the topic of parasitic organisms, many of these require a host stage or vector to be transmissiable to the frogs. In those that don't require a host stage like the Rhabdias nematodes that have free living life stage then these are the ones that readily build up into super infections. Coccidia requires the ingestion of the oocysts for the infection to continue. This typically occurs via a insect that has consumed the coccida but direct transmission can occur through the consumption of the infectious particles as secondary material when prey items are consumed. 
With respect to coccidia, once the frog is infected, it will always be infected (Whittaker and Wright; 2001), treatment only renders the frog asymptomatic. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

Thanks for the sources and enlightenment, Ed.

It dawned on me today that I've been just a bit hypocritical here about prophylaxis, because I routinely worm my horses for stronglyes and bots without doing routine stronglye counts, etc. The difference as I see it, is that I know they are continually re-infected due to the fact that they are in long-time horse pastures and eat grass that may be re-contaminated with the horse strongyles, and these also may have a non-parasitic life cycle phase and can live for years in the soil before suddenly becoming parasites again, so essentially no horse pasture is totally "clean." And of course, we have bot flies that are difficult to control, and can't guarantee grooming all of their eggs off the horses' legs, (which is where they pick them up by biting at them and licking them off.)


----------



## c'est ma (Sep 11, 2004)

slaytonp said:


> I need to start diluting my Bulliets before I post smart-ass words, which was a low blow on my part, (sometimes I think I'm incredibly funny, but the next morning, find out I've merely peed on the rug,)


GOL! (Guffawing out loud!) Patty, you're funny as hell!

Jeez, I'm out a week with the creeping crud (some GI virus) and miss all this fun.

Patty, I'm pm'ing you.

FWIW, I second (tenth?) the cautious approach, i.e., if it ain't broke...

Submitted mostly to subscribe to this thread...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "It dawned on me today that I've been just a bit hypocritical here about prophylasis, because I routinely worm my horses for stronglyes and bots without doing routine stronglye counts, etc. The difference as I see it, is that I know they are continually re-infected due to the fact that they are in long-time horse pastures and eat grass that may be re-contaminated with the horse strongyles, and these also may have a non-parasitic life cycle phase and can live for years in the soil before suddenly becoming parasites again, so essentially no horse pasture is totally "clean." And of course, we have bot flies that are difficult to control, and can't guarantee grooming all of their eggs off the horses' legs, (which is where they pick them up by biting at them and licking them off"endsnip


As with many things there are shades of grey as opposed to black and white.. 
Treating to prevent a known problem from occuring/reoccuring when this is the only reasonable method of prevention is significantly different than shotgunning an animal just because or because it evidences some symptoms that may or may not be parasite related. 

The differences is that in most cases, it isn't unreasonable to tear down and reset up an enclosure that is contaminated but it is unreasonable to attempt to clear the pasture of the stronglyes and/or bot fly (differences of scale). This is where the difference comes into play. Some people may not want to tear down the enclosure simply because the frogs have an infection of X, and would prefer to keep treating them on a consistant basis which in the long run will select for resistant organisms as well as exposing the animals to the issues you cited. 

Ed


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2006)

But in Patty's selfproclaimed hypocritical action of prophylactically deworming her horses (and in turn possibly creating resistant parasites) she is exposing the entire environment to these theoretical super-worms. If a hobbiest treats his frogs, and somehow creates a strain of worms resistant to a dewormer, these worms stay in a little glass box in someone's apartment or house. They aren't released into the wild to infect future generations and travel through the soil (or air) to travel throughout the world.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "But in Patty's selfproclaimed hypocritical action of prophylactically deworming her horses (and in turn possibly creating resistant parasites) she is exposing the entire environment to these theoretical super-worms. If a hobbiest treats his frogs, and somehow creates a strain of worms resistant to a dewormer, these worms stay in a little glass box in someone's apartment or house. They aren't released into the wild to infect future generations and travel through the soil (or air) to travel throughout the world."endsnip

Actually they can be readily released to the wild through the disposal of plant material and waste water from the enclosure. Unless you autoclave all of the material from the frog tanks you are putting the whole enviroment at risk of any "super bugs" that develop through the use of unrestrained treatments. 

In any case, to compare Patty's example and the glass box again; A glass box can be cleaned, sterilized and reset up, an infected field cannot. In the latter case routine prophylactic treatments maybe only reasonable option for preventing sever infection in the horses etc while in comparision it isn't really a reasonable option when dealing with the frogs.. 

Ed


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2006)

"In any case, to compare Patty's example and the glass box again; A glass box can be cleaned, sterilized and reset up, an infected field cannot. In the latter case routine prophylactic treatments maybe only reasonable option for preventing sever infection in the horses etc while in comparision it isn't really a reasonable option when dealing with the frogs.. " -ED

Ed, I have to disagree. Not with everything you wrote, but with the message this implies.

First, horses have been recieving prophylactic dewormings for many decades, right? This is fairly standard, right? Do you know of any antiparasitic resistance becoming problematic? Anyone? How about for pigs, chickens, cattle, etc (even dogs recieve monthly antiparasitics for heartworm.) Does anyone know of a superworm created this way? If so... you would treat that worm with any of the numerous other antihelmenthics on the market. Bacteria evolves quickly, mutates quickly, and does show remarakable ability to aquire antibacterial resistance. Worms are much less successful in this aspect. Please correct me if I am wrong - anyone.

Second, if Patty does infact buck the odds and creates a superworm, it will be deposited into a field exposed to other horses and UNABLE TO BE CONTAINED. It will actually spread to other horses being treated with the same or similar dewormers which may not be able to kill said superworm further spreading the disease. Creating worms resistant to a dewromer and releasing it into a population that IS BEING TREATED with dewormers could cause a problem. In the example of creating a super dart frog worm and releasing it into the environmet 1) it probably will not infect any local wild amphibians (fairly host specific) and 2)if it did, the fact that the worm is resistant to a dewormer is irrelevant because NO ONE TREATS WILD FROGS WITH DEWORMERS - so there is no pressure on this superworm to outcompete other worms. It has no reason to thrive or even survive. Worms resistant to dewormers are not hardier, smarter, or more dangerous, than the original they just (theoretically) wouldn't die after their host was doused with said dewormer.
The horses across the road from Patty will probably be treated with dewormers (thus giving the superworm an advantage.) the leopard frogs in the pond are not going to be treated. See my point?
Next, how specific are these worms? Do they need to affect dart frogs or any frogs? Just asking here.

The wife's calling me to lunch. I'll try to jump back on this evening.


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

Locke said:


> First, horses have been recieving prophylactic dewormings for many decades, right? This is fairly standard, right? Do you know of any antiparasitic resistance becoming problematic? Anyone? How about for pigs, chickens, cattle, etc (even dogs recieve monthly antiparasitics for heartworm.) Does anyone know of a superworm created this way? If so... you would treat that worm with any of the numerous other antihelmenthics on the market. Bacteria evolves quickly, mutates quickly, and does show remarakable ability to aquire antibacterial resistance. Worms are much less successful in this aspect. Please correct me if I am wrong - anyone.


You are right about the difference in generation times between bacteria and nematodes/strongyles/helminths. This doesn't mean that the worms are unable to develop resistance - it just takes longer for the resistant population to grow.

Antiparasitic resistance is quickly becoming a huge problem. The most readily used antiparasitic is Ivermectin - and the resistant population is very quickly growing. Several years ago - parasite resistance was not an issue - but I can assure you it is today. The compounding problem is the current state of antiparasitic drug development is WAY behind where it needs to be. The most likely situation is the resistant parasites will be prevalent much sooner than new drugs will be available.

This is why it is highly recommended for horse owners (as well as other livestock owners) to rotate both the type of dewormer used, as well as the brand - so that any parasites in your pasture that develop resistance to one agent will quickly be wiped out in the next round of treatment.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "In the example of creating a super dart frog worm and releasing it into the environmet 1) it probably will not infect any local wild amphibians (fairly host specific"endsnip

This is an incorrect assessment. Many of the pathnogenic parasites are not that host specific. For example (in captivity) both Rhabdias spp and the same species of Coccidia have been documented in multiple amphibian genera ... This is a good indication that it can readily infect amphibians. 
In most of the cases when dealing with a host specific parasite you are looking at a parasite that has a multistage host requirement and needs to be selective about the hosts to ensure a proper end host however there are exceptions to this process (such as sparganosis). 
(and in other pathogens it hasn't held true for example chytrid). 

snip "and 2)if it did, the fact that the worm is resistant to a dewormer is irrelevant because NO ONE TREATS WILD FROGS WITH DEWORMERS - so there is no pressure on this superworm to outcompete other worms. It has no reason to thrive or even survive. Worms resistant to dewormers are not hardier, smarter, or more dangerous, than the original they just (theoretically) wouldn't die after their host was doused with said dewormer. "endsnip 

This assumption is based on the idea that the parasite is harmless to the amphibian... This is a stretch consider chytrid, as well as a iridovirus found in tiger salamanders which was introduced from game fish populations (see Mol Ecol. 2005 Jan;14(1):213-24. Evidence for emergence of an amphibian iridoviral disease because of human-enhanced spread. Jancovich JK, Davidson EW, Parameswaran N, Mao J, Chinchar VG, Collins JP, Jacobs BL, Storfer A. School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA.) Macroparasites can also have a significant effect on survivorship of the affected amphibians, the trematode that causes disruptions of limb development is the first one that comes to mind. This parasite has a end host in birds that feed on amphibians and modifys the amphibians metamorphosis to ensure the transmission to the end host. 

The idea that no one treats the worms in the wild so it wouldn't have any selection to survive is not necessarily correct as 1) there isn't any indication that these trait(s) make them less likely to survive than non-resistant populations and 
2) there are significant pollutants downstream from major cities/agricultural areas that there can be helping to select for the resistant organism. The more analysis that are performed on water ways the more of these pharmaceuticals are being documented... 

Ed


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

I appologize for creating tangents here, but back to the horse stronglyes. I was born and raised around horses for work and recreation, and I'm rather old, so this has been a long time, and in various ranches in Nevada, California and Idaho. I was born in 1934. Before about 1978, we never dewormed horses, never even knew a dewormer existed, if indeed it did, and I can't recall a single incident of colic, which an over-load of worms can cause, (at least among our own horses,) or "long hair" syndrome, sometimes associated with a large worm load, except in very, very old horses that would develop the latter, but we never worried about it. If our horses carried strongyles, which they probably did, they were quite obviously able to take care of them and keep them under control immunologically. Once in awhile, a particularly skinny horse was said to be "wormy," and treated with home remedies of some sort. (I can remember my grandparents boiling lots of garlic and making a soup of it to feed on mash for what was suspected to be a wormy horse.) It usually worked, or appeared to work, from my memory. Our horses also lived to great old age, and exercised hard on a daily basis, because that's the way we got around, except for monthy excursions to town for supplies in a 1937 Dodge with a ram hood ornament. My first horse was a 30 year old mare who subsequently had a colt, and lived to be 37. (She walked into and out of a forest fire unscathed, but I'll tell that tale elsewhere some day.) 

Since about 1975 or 1980 however, it seems that if one doesn't regularly de-worm horses, they are prone to colic from strongyles and/or anemia from bots. This corresponds rather closely to the advent of Ivermectin and other de-wormers, and now regular de-worming is an essential part of responsible equine husbandry, and you just can't get away from it. 

Are paracides (and other antibiotics) aside from potentially creating "superworms," interferring with natural immunity somehow, by preventing early exposure to a significant enough level of a potentially pathogenic organism to create an adequate immune response in the young, newborn animal? (The "too clean" thing has already been mentioned somewhere earlier on this thread--) Could what we are releasing into the environment from these domestic live stock-enhancing activities also be affecting amphibian (and other wild animal) IMMUNITY somehow? (This is aside from all of the other shit we are doing, even when we drive a gas-eating vehicle to Wall Mart to pick up some "Great Stuff" or egg crate for an artificial "rain forest" for our froggies that are rapidly losing their own natural habitat, so we are ostensibly "saving them," spray for bugs that annoy us, and spray our hair, etc. or vote for a president.) 

My next life, I'm coming back as a cockroach, then evolve from there, if necessary.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> My next life, I'm coming back as a cockroach, then evolve from there, if necessary.


 \m/ :twisted: \m/ That would rule.


----------



## c'est ma (Sep 11, 2004)

Patty, Ed, Locke, Oz, whomever I've missed--this is a great discussion! Like being at an academic seminar. Thanks all.

Just to increase the metastasis of the thread--_I_ was reminded of the situation in goats, which I keep off and on, and a ubiquitous retrovirus known to most as Caprine Arthritis Encephalitus due to its possible effects on adults and kids respectively. When I started keeping goats there was quite the controversy over trying to eliminate the virus from one's herd by bottle feeding kids, versus the old-timer position which was that one kept the goats that were least affected or showed no symptoms. Of course the elimination forces prevailed, strongly favored by those who were most intent on maximum pounds of milk per doe. 

It's also reminiscent of a controversy among cage birds enthusiasts and the development of vaccines to treat Psitticine Beak & Feather Disease. The aviculturalists who felt very strongly that they were maintaining genepools of species severely threatened in the wild had some reservations about playing with natural immunities by routine vaccination...

Boy, can I free associate...


----------



## Grassypeak (Jun 14, 2005)

Patty, thank you very much for the anecdotes. When your autobiography comes out, I will be first in line to buy it  .

A few thoughts on Patty’s last comments:
1.) Is it possible that today we have more pathogenic parasites in our domestic livestock due to the proliferation of non native parasites through imports and exports?

2.) As far as Chytrid is concerned, I think we have good data to show that we are dealing with a specific species/strain which has been spread through our own actions and is now continuing to spread. This is not a sudden sensitization to a common soil/water fungus. It is a specific pathogen which is no longer contained in its South African home.

3.) For another human analogy let’s get back to our American Mummies. Patty is more familiar with some of these than I am, but the basic story goes like this: There are many examples of naturally desiccated human remains from the American South West down through the high and dry places of South America. Many, if not all, of these remains show signs of heavy parasitization and the associated physical ramifications. I have read that these parasite loads caused problems ranging from bone deformities to secession of peristalsis in the colon. These people lived short lives due to a number of factors but it is not difficult to imagine that the parasite load had a hand to play. This gets us back to the non native parasites. In this case it was the humans that were non native. One of the nastier parasites that they had to deal with was a sea lion tape worm. Some tribes along the pacific coast ate raw fish. The fish were an intermediate host for the sea lion tape worms and the humans ended up with the adult worms. I’m not sure of the mechanism, but these worms caused bone deformities in growing humans who had no/not enough natural immunity against them. If you think abut it, we expose our captive frogs to all kinds of parasites that do not originate in the South and Central American tropics.


----------



## Grassypeak (Jun 14, 2005)

Mike,

I don’t want to be critical, but cycling all of your frogs through one tank sounds a little scary to me. I can tell you doing this with fish is a surefire recipe for disaster. A number of years ago I rented an apartment in a town that had experienced a large gasoline spill. It quickly became apparent that I was not going to be able to use tap (well) water for my fish, so I had to cart my water in from various friends’ and my family’s home. In order to save water, I took all of the water for my fry tanks from one particular tank and then topped that tank off. Well, as it turned out there was a nasty little bacteria in that one tank. Exposing all of my fry to water form that tank meant that my entire collection became infected.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

With respect to the livestock, while in some cases the animals have been introduced to novel parasites (such as screw worm in cattle in the USA) many of these parasites came over with the livestock and established themselves in areas where these animals are kept. 

There is some data coming out that indicates that humans may be living too clean with insufficient immune challenges to keep ALL of us healthy but this is potentially a very very fine line to walk when discussing a whole population as most of the people do not have the issues that are shown by the few (for example would it be worth infecting everyone with pig whipworms to prevent/treat Crohns disease? (see abstrat at http://www.nature.com/ncpgasthep/journa ... p0107.html)). One of the important things to consider is that the parasites are not neutral when they inhabit the body and do cause some level of irritation and in and of themselves can cause potentially serious/life threatening complications so there is a significant risk/benefit issue to be weighed here. (For example the old old sterotype of Southerns being slow and/or stupid was due to large portions of the population hosting heavy hookworm infections resulting in severe anemia (as well prejudice) The anemia prevented proper brain development as well reduced the energy level of the population)). 
This may carry over to livestock but I haven't seen any supporting data as of yet and this maybe at least partially due to the fact that livestock are not as "clean" as people are (in many senses of the word). 

Back to frogs (and to a lesser extent livestock), there are problems when we try to apply this logic to the animals in small enclosures. The issue is that in the wild the parasites are diluted and potentially preyed upon by other organisms reducing the potential number of parasites that can infect the host. In addition, the host organism isn't as restricted in space. These aspects of the enviroment are either absent or hampered in an enclosure allowing for a large concentration of the parasite to buildup and potentially overwhelm the host. (this can take a significant period of time such as requiring a concomitant suppression of the immune system) or it can be fairly quickly depending on the parasite and its action on the host. 

Some more thoughts 

Ed


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> I don’t want to be critical, but cycling all of your frogs through one tank sounds a little scary to me.


No, that's cool. I don't think you're being critical at all. But I guess I'll explain the sequence of events and the logic behind it. Even if it's flawed someone can learn from what I've done and make their own decisions. 

Not all of my collection has been in this tank, only a select few species. My Dwarf Cobalts and my Auratus have neen in and out of contact with each other since I got into the hobby around 5 years ago. They were in the tank first. I moved them out to put the Azureus in - the permanant residents of this tank. 

I hand picked the Azureus so I know how they were kept: in with other clutchmates in a simple raising tank. Neglecting anything that could have transfered from them being a tad to a frog, I'd consider them clean. Since I've never read about this being a concern, I take it to be a safe risk. It's a bad analogy but putting the Azureus in the 75g is like taking RO water (the Azureus) and adding something to it so it isn't "empty" (whatever my Tincs/Auratus have if anything). 

The Leucs are similar in that they were juvis who had no exposure to other frogs but I would have much rather housed them seperately but for whatever reason at the time I decided not to. They were in the tank for about a month so I could get some things arranged and get them into a proper tempory tank. 

My other frogs (Pumilio, Red Galacts, and my Female Auratus) have remained seperate because they came from someone's collection that I know nothing about or they're FR/WC. Also as my collection grows, I have to be more cautious about cross contamination so after my little game of Russian Roulette with the 75g. 

Here's something I've been wondering. Most people keep tanks within inches of each other. Is it even possible under normal circumstances that the tanks aren't cross contaminated? To me it seems that something as simple as a fly wandering from one tank to the other or one slip up during routine maintaince would break down any sterility barrier.


----------



## Grassypeak (Jun 14, 2005)

Ed,

As always, thank you for your input. You have been an invaluable source of information for me over the past year. 

Back on page 2 of this discussion I had mentioned the fact that our frogs are exposed to their feces 24-7. I should have made myself clearer, in that my concern was over parasite transmission, rather than exposure to nitrogenous waste. I believe that there is a need to strike a balance in all things, and it seems to me that if we are going to keep our frogs in closed systems, then we have to do our best to keep certain nasties out. To this end I do the following things.

-I thoroughly dry all wood and substrate prior to placing it in a new viv.
-I harvest dry Oak leaves, which have not fallen to the ground, from a local nature preserve (with permission from the curator). These are then baked at 125-180 for a few hours.
-I soak my plants in 2% bleach for 10 minutes and then rinse thoroughly.
-For mosses and Bromeliads, which don’t like to be bleached, I’ve come up with a new plan. I intend to place them in an aquarium with a false bottom. The area below the false bottom will be flooded and will have a submersible heater set at 90 degrees F. I will heat the plants for 48 hours and then give them a bath in a flubendazol which is a more soluble form of Pancure. I will repeat the flubendazol treatment after four days to make sure that I have killed any worms that may be living on the plants.
-I feed only fruit flies although I will probably expand this to include captive reared Shorelinite beetles and springtails.
-I fungus gnat proof my vivs so that I do not have insects coming and going from viv to viv.

I also treat all of my frogs with Pancure for three consecutive weeks and Ivermectin for the next three weeks prior to placing them in a new viv. Except for two small frogs that were looking bad to begin with. I have not noticed any side effects to this treatment.


----------



## Grassypeak (Jun 14, 2005)

Mike,

Rich Frye once told me that he believes that tadpoles are infected soon after hatching. He believes that the parents track fecal material onto the eggs when they fertilize and hydrate them. With this in mind, it is possible for newly morphed froglets to carry a parasite load.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Chris,

Snip "For mosses and Bromeliads, which don’t like to be bleached, I’ve come up with a new plan. I intend to place them in an aquarium with a false bottom. The area below the false bottom will be flooded and will have a submersible heater set at 90 degrees F. I will heat the plants for 48 hours and then give them a bath in a flubendazol which is a more soluble form of Pancure. I will repeat the flubendazol treatment after four days to make sure that I have killed any worms that may be living on the plants. "endsnip 

On one of the recent AZA Amphibian listserve posts, Dr. Wright (of Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry) suggest using levamisol treatments to reduce/eliminate the parasitic worm population in/on some plants that cannot be sterilized via other methods.. The downside to this as well as your treatment is that you are also eliminating naturally occuring soil nematodes that assist with the correct functioning of the breakdown of waste. Regardless, according to Dr. Wright, repeating the treatment within 4 days is too soon as it can take up to a week for the nematode eggs to hatch so it is recommended that the treatments be about 7 days apart. 

I also agree with Dr Frye that tadpoles can be infected at hatching or later and take the parasites with them into the terrestrial stage. 

Ed


----------



## Grassypeak (Jun 14, 2005)

O.K. so I’ll move the second antihelmetic treatment out to 7 days after the first. Do you think that 48 hours at 90 degrees F. is sufficient to do away with Chytrid? I’m thinking 90 degrees shouldn’t stress the plants too much so I could make this treatment longer.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Chris,

Based on what I remember the 48 hours would be insufficient. I would have to dig up the reference to get the closer time frames but if you can bump the temps up a few degrees (like to 100-104 F then you should be in the 48 hour ballpark.) You should shoot for a longer exposure at the temps to ensure that the effect of the temperature penetrates all of the potential microclimates involved (maybe use a probe thermometer to check). 


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Patty,

I meant to address this before but got sidetracked 

snip "I can remember my grandparents boiling lots of garlic and making a soup of it to feed on mash for what was suspected to be a wormy horse.) It usually worked, or appeared to work, from my memory. Our horses also lived "endsnip

Garlic has been used a vermifuge for a long time however it really needs to be administered raw to have the optimal effect.... 

Ed


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

Just a few more comments-- will I never shut up? --and another second-hand anectdote: 

We can't use the word "sterile," or "sterility barrier," because nothing we do with our sanitizing and caution comes anywhere near being "sterile," nor should it. We try to "sanitize," to eliminate as many pathogens as possible. Keeping things clean, washing our hands between activities from one tank to another, cleaning out tanks and sanitizing them from one use to another, and not, of course, re-using water or the substrate from one tank to another, are all good sanitation practices. We can do nothing about a single fruit fly going from one tank to another, but that would be a far-fetched source of potential spreading of problematic organisms. Fruit flies do not serve as an alternate host or carrier for any frog parasites, and it takes a certain minimal dose, depending upon the bacteria or parasite, for any new micro-organism to get a hold and reproduce successfully in a new environment against the many other competitive micro-flora already present. This minimal dose doesn't usually apply to multicellular parasites like the nematodes, etc., but they aren't going to spread from one tank to another on the back of a fruit fly, either, and most often need specific interim hosts, often more than one, to complete a life cycle before re-infecting the major host. 

The anecdote, for what it's worth: My son has been living in Ghana, working for a Canadian company that is prospecting for gold under the auspices of the Ghanaian government. He lives in a village and the company/government policy is to employ as many native workers as they can to create employment and spread the wealth. So he has two cooks, both beautiful ladies of traditional build. The usual fare consists of fruits and vegetables, chicken, rats and the occasional goat for special occasions. It bothers him they do not always eviscerate the goats or rats before cooking them--just chop everything up into chunks and boil them, guts and all. He has also been a gourmet chef in a past occupation, so has been interested in their cooking, especially some of the great labor intensive fruit concoctions. He relates that shortly after he arrived, he came home one day to a putrid odor coming from the kitchen. He went in and asked them, "What smells like dog shit in here?" There was a pot of chopped up "un-cleaned" goat entrails along with hunks of boiling bones and flesh. He screamed, "I can't believe you are cooking shit!!" 

"Oh no, Meester Jeem," they said, "it was inside the goat, so it is good to eat. When it is outside the goat--THAT is shit." He tells me that is the first time he every realized the definition of "food" sometimes depends upon which side of the rectal sphincter of an animal it is on.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

Nothing like a little fine dinning, but good doG.


----------



## krowleey (Sep 21, 2006)

and now after i built created and added 4 frogs i read this....WTF now im scared about parasites, i just hope it isnt like saltwater ich. i did buy all my frogs from one breeder that bred these frogs. in fact im going to her house this froday i will be sure to chat with her about this.


----------

