# Sips and coccidia



## frogface

My Sipawilini pair has been getting treatment for presumed coccidia. I have this discussion going on two other sites. I don't think we can link to the other sites, so, if you want links to those threads just PM me. I'll try to be as consistent as possible, going from my memory. Please note that I did not keep a log and I may not be remembering everything exactly how it happened. 

Here's their story:
I got the female as a tad. She was OOW in the spring of 2011. In the spring of 2012, I got a froglet, hoping it would grow up to be a mate for her. In the fall of 2012, the froglet was still too young but another Sip male was available so I paired them up. I didn't do formal QT for him but he'd been isolated for about a month and seemed to be healthy. 

After being together for a bit, they both started showing signs of having problems pooping. When they did poop, it was watery and in very small amounts. When there was any substance to the poop, it looked like used coffee grounds. The male suddenly died. I could not afford a full necropsy (it's sent out to the state lab) but my vet's office performed a gross necropsy on him, free of charge. What they found was his belly was packed full of food and his GI tract was inflamed. The fecal exam was clean except for an unknown protazoan. I got metronidazole to treat the female and she improved. She got a new tank. Fecals were clean.

After a few months of her appearing to be healthy, I put her into another new tank and paired her up with the froglet that was now old enough to breed. Not long after, they both developed the symptoms that had been seen previously. Got fecals that did not show any problems. Treated them both with metronidazole and they improved. Symptoms returned. Obviously something was not right. I was talking with Ed Kowolski and Bill Schwinn about these frogs in email. They both suggested that I consider coccidia. 

I asked my vet what she thought about treating them for coccidia given the repeat clean fecals. She agreed, saying that coccidia is often not seen in fecal exams but they did have clinical signs. She prescribed ponazuril, by mouth, 2x a day for 3 days. She had high hopes that this med would work. She said that the earlier drugs did not rid the animal of coccidia but this newer drug had been found to work in bearded dragons. 

I treated them with the ponazuril. After each dose (one in the morning and one in the evening) they each went into a new, sterile container lined with paper towels. I did it over a weekend so I could monitor them. As they stained the paper towels, I would remove that section and replace it with new, so they weren't reinfecting themselves. By the 2nd day, they had both pooped for the first time in months! Not a good tinc poop but it was poop. It had some form to it, not just drops of watery stuff. Soon they were both pooping with wild tinc abandon. Follow up fecals have been clean.

They went into a temp tank from their treatment containers and then into a fully set up 20g. They have been doing great. They started laying clutches but I was culling them because I got a mixed reaction from the folks on the other sites. I don't want them to breed if people aren't going to want the froglets. I did end up with 4 tads from a clutch they snuck past me. At that point, I moved them to separate tanks. 

So now they are just hanging out in their own tanks. I've kept in touch with my vet via email regarding their recovery and my concerns about whether or not they should be bred. She was at an ARAV conference in September when she got an email from me with an update on the frogs. She asked Dr Wright about it and here is how she said he responded (shared with her permission): 



> Sorry for taking so long to get back to you! I was actually at the ARAV conference this week, so was not checking email very frequently, but when I got your message I asked the experts! I talked to Kevin Wright and asked if he felt he had ever eliminated coccidia with any of the newer meds. If you remember, the older sulfa drugs we used to use for coccidia is what never really eliminated them. He told me that if you treat for 30-40 days with ponazuril, he feels like he has eliminated them, but of course it's hard to prove it when you can hardly ever find it on a fecal. There is a fancy PCR test at University of Florida that we can use if you want but it's probably at least $100-150 I'd have to check (PCR if you are unfamiliar checks for DNA of an organism). Using that test he believes he's eliminated it in some frogs, but with that long treatment protocol. He asked if yours had clinical signs that resolved with meds and when I told him yes, he felt that was a really good sign that we've gotten rid of it. He had absolutely no qualms about you selling any babies that came from these guys, so that made me feel good, but you wouldn't want to sell these adults without full disclosure. He did suggest that maybe every 3-4 months or so we may want to treat the adults again like we did before just so that if there are any coccidia present, we can keep them under control and from causing problems again. He told me he'd been doing that in some collections and also in some bearded dragons (where coccidia can be a big problem) and it's been working really well for him, so that may not be a bad idea.


This is were we are now. We decided to do another 3 day course and then the PCR test. The PCR test will look for DNA of coccidia and will be collected from fecals and cloacal swabs. It will have to be done a month or so after the next round of ponazuril so that we don't get a false negative. The test will cost 215 per sample run, so I am not doing this lightly. I feel very strongly that these frogs are healthy.

So, denizens of dendroboard, what do you think about all of this?


----------



## frogface

the female just a couple weeks oow









the pair just after treatment, still in their recovery tank









female yesterday


----------



## frogface

short vids of the male in his tank and the female in hers:

male
Male D tinctorius Sipawilini - YouTube

female
Female D tinctorius Sipawilini - YouTube


----------



## SilverLynx

Coccidiosis is indeed difficult to treat and get rid of. I totally agree that more treatments with the drug prescribed should be done in the future. May I suggest that you use, Benzalkonium Chloride to disinfect tanks and equipment on a regular basis. You can discuss this with your vet. BC is a quaternary Ammonium commonly used to kill pathogens. Many hand sanitizers contain it, as it is safe to use on skin and mucosal tissue in low amounts which are effective. I used it with fish, and one of my patents contains it. IMO it is safer and more effective than bleach.

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## SilverLynx

Also, you are doing the right think by treating your frogs again, paying for the DNA/PCR testing. KUDOS!!!!! You have nice frogs and it is good to know that you 
are doing everything possible to keep them healthy. 

Thanks,
Lane, SilverLynx


----------



## hypostatic

We use Virkon at the lab to disinfect surfaces that have come into contact with viruses or bacteria. It's used at vets as well.

Virkon S Broad Spectrum Disinfectant Tablets | QC Supply

It's only stable for a few days, so I imagine it might be safe to use before adding frogs if you let it air out for a few days


----------



## SilverLynx

Virkon is very good disinfectant. I used it in my kennel, but I found the BC to be for effective for porous surfaces. BC is also very effective in killing Chytrid. We used it in hatcheries, etc. it was extremely effective. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## Elphaba

Hey Kris,

I am eager to see the results of the testing, but based on what you've done so far as described here, I have to agree: I'd strongly feel these frogs are healthy too.

Best,
Ash


----------



## Judy S

Props to Frogface for his outstanding post...It is a measure of his honor and dedication to the hobby. I would hope that this post become more readily available such as a sticky in the disease forums...Some of the meds used are valuable to refer to with a sick frog to ask the vet about...and I was really surprised to read that coccidia was not reliably found in feces...is this going to be another consideration when purchasing WC frogs??? Thanks for the post Maybe I should have used the pronoun "her"!!


----------



## mydumname

How do you guys feel about chlorhexydine as a disinfectant?


----------



## frogface

Judy S said:


> Props to Frogface for his outstanding post...It is a measure of his honor and dedication to the hobby. I would hope that this post become more readily available such as a sticky in the disease forums...Some of the meds used are valuable to refer to with a sick frog to ask the vet about...and I was really surprised to read that coccidia was not reliably found in feces...is this going to be another consideration when purchasing WC frogs??? Thanks for the post Maybe I should have used the pronoun "her"!!


Thanks Judy. That's one of the reasons I posted it. Not many people will talk about their sick frogs, unless it is someone in desperate need of advice; usually someone new. I think that if we all talked more openly about the kinds of illnesses that can afflict our frogs, how we treated and how they responded, there would be a much better understanding of frog care in general.


----------



## Judy S

Absolutely...and I believe that people will PM someone but not post because of that concern that they'll never be able to sell the babies. With the current thread about CB frogs being sold to who-knows-who....there really DOES need more readily available information. If I hadn't gone through something similiar, this thread might not have gotten my total attention.


----------



## SilverLynx

While chlorhexidine glauconate is a very good disinfectant for gram positive and 
negative bacteria, I still HIGHLY recommend Benzalkonium Chloride. Please refer to an article written by Barbara Scott, M.D. on the use of BC to treat early infections of Chyrid. So far as I know, Itraconazole and Benzalkonium Chloride are the only two compounds that have been shown to effectively treat Chyrid. But, it would be good to have Virkon S along with BC. I have used both. Virkon S does effectively kill most pathogens including Coccidia. 


Thanks,
Lane, aka, Silver Lynx


----------



## Splash&Dash

hypostatic said:


> We use Virkon at the lab to disinfect surfaces that have come into contact with viruses or bacteria. It's used at vets as well.
> 
> Virkon S Broad Spectrum Disinfectant Tablets | QC Supply
> 
> It's only stable for a few days, so I imagine it might be safe to use before adding frogs if you let it air out for a few days


how effective is that stuff on viruses? It would be nice to have something in spray form that was so heavily geared towards them for when taking plants cuttings, etc


----------



## hypostatic

Here is the data sheet from the manufacturer. It claims "Virkon®S delivers 99.9999% kill of numerous pathogens including 31 bacterial strains, 58 viruses, and 6 fungi with no evidence of resistance, eliminating the need to rotate disinfectants to avoid resistance buildup." It seems pretty effective against viruses in particular.

http://www.qcsupply.com/media/pdf/340340_Data_Sheet.pdf
also the MSDS:
http://www.qcsupply.com/media/pdf/340340MSDS.pdf

As I think it has been stated before, Virkon isn't as effective against a spectrum of mold spores as it it against viruses/bacteria.


----------



## SilverLynx

Please keep in mind that when it comes to pathogens, there is NOT a one shot kills all disinfectant. I came from fisheries science, where different disinfectants were used. It would be very unwise to expect one disinfectant to wipe out all pathogens. I personally use a couple of them, but I routinely use the BC. Also, contact and exposure times are CRITICAL!!!!! Please do your homework before using any disinfectant, and use proper dilution. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

SilverLynx said:


> Please keep in mind that when it comes to pathogens, there is NOT a one shot kills all disinfectant. I came from fisheries science, where different disinfectants were used. It would be very unwise to expect one disinfectant to wipe out all pathogens. I personally use a couple of them, but I routinely use the BC. Also, contact and exposure times are CRITICAL!!!!! Please do your homework before using any disinfectant, and use proper dilution.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane, aka, SilverLynx


^^^^^^^
This.

Because you really do need to properly use disinfectants. As a zookeeper, our vet required all new keepers to sit through her course on the various disinfectants we used. It was cleverly titled, "It's easier than you think to eat poop". All keepers had to take a refresher once a year.

The important thing though is that the disinfectants are used properly or you may not be using them effectively or could actually be causing harm. 

Good post and good thread in general. I applaud your openness. I'm often PMd or emailed questions because people are afraid to discuss problems/diseases/treatments etc. openly because they fear it makes them look like a less than competent Frogger and worry that will negatively influence their ability to sell frogs/offspring in the future. This is a huge problem in my estimation.


----------



## frogface

I have been told that coccidia can come in on plants and leaf litter. How would you disinfect these items? Plants get a soak in 5-10% bleach water but I don't see how it can be completely sanitized this way; there is still residual dirt around roots and leaf axils. I boil leaf litter. Does that help?


----------



## Judy S

THAT is a great question...here we think that we are doing the best...bleach...can we do something better??? Would the plant roots survive a different treatment??? Should the leaves we use go through through a different process...???


----------



## rigel10

Maybe because I'm tired after a day at work, but I do not understand how to use BC. Is it used to disinfect tank (about 6 ml per liter)?


----------



## Dane

My understanding is that coccidia cannot be completely cleared from dendrobatids, so the treatment regimen may need to be continued as required for the lifetime of the frogs. There are still several forms that are naturally occurring, and I'm sure that many wild populations live fairly normal, long lives with it. 
Over the years I have received frogs from several sources, including some of the most respected breeders that tested positive for coccidia. I was certainly never given notice from any of them that there was any potential issue, so I would assume that they were either unaware, or did not consider it a serious risk. I have personally only sold frogs that I knew were infected once, and I did inform the buyer before purchase. Whether or not you make it known that the adults have it when you sell the offspring is up to you, but this thread will probably serve as something of a public notification.
I believe that it may still be possible to get clean froglets from an infected pair if the fertile egg mass is removed quickly and rinsed several times during development. I seem to recall Methylene Blue being mentioned for this purpose in the past, but I can't comment on the effectiveness, as I haven't researched it.


----------



## frogface

Thanks Dane



> Whether or not you make it known that the adults have it when you sell the offspring is up to you, but this thread will probably serve as something of a public notification.


Absolutely, this is a public notification. I wouldn't transfer any frogs without giving their health history, as I know it. This thread makes it easier because I can just sent the potential new owner a link.


----------



## hypostatic

It's worth mentioning also, that most frogs that are found in the wild have a whole array of parasites/pathogens living inside of them. Most animals (including humans) have a whole ecosystem living inside of them. They only really become a problem when something happens which causes the organisms to be out of balance/whack


----------



## purplezephead

I am currently having an issue w/frogs in my care and was also too afraid to post. I recently took in my friends collection, while she was moving to a new state and will have them for awhile. A couple weeks after getting her frogs her male patricia died, his belly looked normal but his legs were stick thin and you could see his spine. I thought it was from the stress of the move, then from the female being a food hog. He died before I got a chance to set up a separate tank. A couple weeks later 2 more of her frogs were looking thin (a male nakita and a male colbalt), so I bought a fecal kit (I have some experience in a zoo setting w/this) and a reference Ed recommended in a thread. After doing 2 fecals 3 weeks apart I found hookworm ova. I started treatment 3 weeks ago w/fenbendazole on 10-20 ff once a week, and the next day I put them into new sterile containers. Their feces look like coffee grounds, one is mucousy and the other looks bloody. If this is simply hookworm shouldn't I expect to see some improvement after 3 weeks of treatment? Their feces are still not normal and neither has put on any weight, one looks to have lost weight and seems a bit more lethargic. What are other symptoms of coccidia (now I'm paranoid)?


----------



## frogface

Oh no! Well I'm just leaving the office. Gotta stop and get some crickets. Hmm should be home and online around 7ish. I'll reply then.


----------



## frogface

Ok purplezephead, yes it did seem mucus-y. In fact, it was when I described mucus to Bill Schwinn that he suggested it might be coccidia. When they improved with metronidazole (and never to full tinc poop glory) the poo would then progressively get smaller, like a very tiny ribbon of poop. Then when the vet described the GI tract as inflamed, it made sense. Just prior to treatment, with ponazuril, the poop was very small puddles of wet brown watery mucus-y stuff. Sometimes had little globs of 'used coffee grounds.'

As for other symptoms, I saw absolutely none. Well, no, they did lose some weight (not a lot), but, at the same time, I was feeding them less due to the necropsy report of that one poor frog with his belly packed full and his GI inflamed. I imagined the flies going in but not coming out. So, they were getting less food and were losing weight. Also they spent quite a bit of their day sitting in their pond and trying to poop. Otherwise they appeared normal. No lethargy. No changes in skin. They had good appetites.

Do you have a vet you can take them to?


----------



## purplezephead

I'm in Gainesville home of the University of Florida, so yes. The reason I didn't go there first was they will only do a fecal ($25) w/an exam, which is $85. I know how to do fecals, but am not an expert on parasites, so I thought I'd do it myself. Now hearing that coccidia doesn't necessarily show up I'm wondering if I should take one in. Do you or anyone else reading this know if I should definitely see improvement by now if it were hookworm? I have to call my friend and see what she wants me to do as they are hers and the cost would be on her. I'm concerned b/c of my collection as well, we're talking about 41 frogs in all and I'm sure there has been cross contamination....


----------



## frogface

From what I've been hearing (from my vet, Dr Wright, Ed, Bill) coccidia is not uncommon in collections. It is usually controlled (by the frog) and no symptoms are noticed. Sometimes it is brought out by another problem. That might be what is happening with your friend's frogs. It might already be in your collection and it might not be an issue. 

Of course, we don't know that they have coccidia.

Are you sure you couldn't get them to look at a fecal without an exam? My vet won't treat based on fecal without an exam but they will run the fecal. The thought is that there might be other issues in addition to what is seen on fecal or might make the treatment contraindicated


----------



## purplezephead

I'm sure I called 4 vets in my area, including UF. One would do the fecal, but would only be able to tell if it was pos or neg, but not be able to tell me how to treat; another that is listed on arav and proclaims to treat amphibians on his web site that told me he doesn't do that kind of amphibian.....; a third that I begged and asked what was the point of becoming a vet before he said he'd send the fecal to a lab for testing, but only w/an exam; and the vet school that would do a fecal only w/an exam. This is what led me to buying my own kit, b/c at the worst I can tell if its pos or neg and go from there.


----------



## frogface

Doesn't do that kind of amphibian?! WTF? Amphibian poop is amphibian poop. Right?

Well maybe Ed or someone can tell you where to find the info you need to read for coccidia.


----------



## Judy S

we have that problem in MD., the vet has to actually examine the "patient" before doing one dang thing...it makes it economically difficult... And when you have a situation where culturing, or collecting something that, up front, may not be a definitive...like a pointless exercise...


----------



## frogface

And because everyone loves a good poo picture 

Now this is some nice POO!









Contrast to his poo while in treatment. This poo was an improvement from what it was.


----------



## purplezephead

That was pretty much my reply to that vet. Thanks for your help! I was prepared to call my friend and give her the bad news, but now I'm a little more confident that it's not an execution sentence or a million dollars.


----------



## SilverLynx

For those interested, I would reccomend the you research and talk to your vet about using ROCCAL D. I used it as a general disinfectant when I was working with the Parsonni chameleons. It contains a quaternary ammonium. I personally use 50% Benzalkonium Chloride, but that is not available to the public. I had and FDA registered laboratory, so I could purchase various chemical compounds in bulk. I recommend the ROCCAL D above the Virkon S for coccidiosis and fungal spores. Please FOLLOW directions!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Zookeeper Doug, do you work at the San Antonio Zoo??? We are practically neighbors. I live 32 miles east of SA. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## SilverLynx

Also, Frogface and others, crickets carry Coccidia. I would not recommend feeding crickets if you have an active infection. It is hard to find clean crickets. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## hypostatic

SilverLynx said:


> Also, Frogface and others, crickets carry Coccidia. I would not recommend feeding crickets if you have an active infection. It is hard to find clean crickets.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane, aka, SilverLynx


Crickets are nasty scary creatures. I've seen pics of herps that have been nibbled on by them. One more reason to dislike them.


----------



## frogface

My darts don't eat crickets, but, if coccidia can come in on plants, leaf litter, wood, moss, and now, crickets, that leads me back to one of my other points of this thread; how common is coccidia in our collections?

Also, given that coccidia may well reside, undetected, in many collections, what do people think about breeding this pair? Dr Wright felt that the froglets would be fine. Would you take a froglet from them? If the PCR comes back negative? If the PCR comes back positive?


----------



## SilverLynx

Frogface, it is hard to answer your questions. But I would not breed the frogs until after treatment and recovery time. They need time to recover and get strong. Good supplementation will aid in their recovery. Are you testing the froglets??? 


Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## Judy S

I think my yellow terriblis just ate their last cricket...


----------



## frogface

SilverLynx said:


> Frogface, it is hard to answer your questions. But I would not breed the frogs until after treatment and recovery time. They need time to recover and get strong. Good supplementation will aid in their recovery. Are you testing the froglets???
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane, aka, SilverLynx


My frogs are under veterinary care. My vet and Dr Kevin Wright have both told me that the froglets should be ok. In fact, per my vet, Dr Wright waved his hand in a 'pffft' manner when asked his opinion on whether or not the froglets would be ok, and said they should be fine. 

I'm not concerned about the froglets. I'm concerned about the perception people have about coccidia in dart frogs and the willingness of the community to take froglets.


----------



## frogface

Perhaps wrongly, I assume everyone is familiar with Kevin Wright, who has, very sadly, recently passed away.

Kevin Wright DVM Passes, Reptile/Amphibian Keepers Lose a Good Friend


----------



## hypostatic

Honestly, if you can keep them in a clean enclosure after they've been treated I see no reason why their offspring would be undesirable. It's not something genetic that intrinsically makes the frogs "broken". If they're generally healthy I personally see no issue.


----------



## rigel10

SilverLynx said:


> For those interested, I would reccomend the you research and talk to your vet about using ROCCAL D. I used it as a general disinfectant when I was working with the Parsonni chameleons. It contains a quaternary ammonium. I personally use 50% Benzalkonium Chloride, but that is not available to the public. I had and FDA registered laboratory, so I could purchase various chemical compounds in bulk. I recommend the ROCCAL D above the Virkon S for coccidiosis and fungal spores. Please FOLLOW directions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Excuse me, but how to use Benzalkonium Chloride? (You can find this stuff in stores for restoration of furniture, paintings, etc.)..


----------



## SilverLynx

Rigel, what percentage or ratio of Benzalkonium Chloride do you have? Also, I would assume that you are using it for general disinfection, correct???? General disinfection amounts and treatment amounts differ. I was not aware that you could obtain it through furniture stores. I got mine through Spectrum Laboratory Chemicals. 

Also, you can PM me for any additional questions. I generally have time to answer questions late evening. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## rigel10

No, I do not have benzalkonium chloride - I did not know it before you talk about it. I'm just curious because it is new to me and I may need it in the future (I hope not, of course). Here, in Italy, I found this stuff on a site that sells products for restoration: Prodotti chimici
It is in Italian 'benzalconio cloruro 50%'.


----------



## srrrio

frogface said:


> My frogs are under veterinary care. My vet and Dr Kevin Wright have both told me that the froglets should be ok. In fact, per my vet, Dr Wright waved his hand in a 'pffft' manner when asked his opinion on whether or not the froglets would be ok, and said they should be fine.
> 
> I'm not concerned about the froglets. I'm concerned about the perception people have about coccidia in dart frogs and the willingness of the community to take froglets.


 I admire Kris for her willingness to share her story. It is not the first time she has been open about frog care and because of that, a lot of people learn about husbandry issues they have not even thought about. That awareness no doubt saves a lot of froggie lives. I think I have already told her that would have no problem with the baby sips personally.

With that said I also think that even if her frogs are confirmed to have coccidia with the PCR test, does it really make a huge difference? If coccidia is throughout the hobby and it is difficult to diagnose.. my frogs could have it and so could everybody else’s. Fecals that come back negative don’t really comfort me. As many factors could produce the negative results. So I just wanted to put it out there that we can get off track a bit. and I really would hate see people jumping to conclusions that Joe Bloe’s frogs have coccidia and start little witch hunts.

Also speaking as someone who has not been able to find a vet to do in house fecals,( the ARAV vets here all send to labs) I would love to see, with more people seeking vet advice, that some more good amphibian vets identified. Then take that thought a little further and have those vets share info, and that info is somehow is funneled back to the hobbyist. I was actually considering a road trip with a few frogs to see Dr. Wright as he saw some of my collection years ago, and so am truly sad about his passing in a a bit of a selfish way myself. There are other things I would like to find out about.. for example; why do so many tinctorius end up with legs that are dislocated. 

Hmm I may have rambled but out of time!


----------



## frogface

Thanks Sally 

I feel very, very fortunate to have a great local exotic vet. They do inhouse fecals and take animal care very seriously. I take the poop, fresh from the frog's butt, wrap it up and put it in a cooler, and drive it right over to the office. It was suggested, elsewhere, that the reason my Sip's fecals were always negative for coccidia was because my vet's office didn't know how to read fecals. I asked my vet, last week, what she thought of that possibility and she almost died laughing. Really, it was a side-splitting moment. 

Let me point out again, this is an Exotic Vet Practice. All they see is exotic animals. No cats or dogs there. Just exotic animals.


----------



## Ed

SilverLynx said:


> Also, Frogface and others, crickets carry Coccidia. I would not recommend feeding crickets if you have an active infection. It is hard to find clean crickets.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane, aka, SilverLynx


This is an often repeated undocumented rumor perpetuated via the internet... It is interesting to note that depending on the person, the crickets are supposedly vectoring coccidian for bearded dragons, frogs, insectivorous snakes, birds, insectivorous mammals.... That is a lot of coccidian taxa to be passed along in the crickets as frog cocciidans can't infect snakes or mammals or birds or bearded dragons and in general vice versa for the other taxa (some like cryptosporidia can infect snakes and bearded dragons but again, contaminated poop needs to be fed to the crickets)... 
Actually most of the major cricket farms run clean operations due to other issues if contamination is allowed (for example, the virus that wipes out Acheta domestica....) 

Additionally, people often ignore the following facts... 
1) amphibian coccidians show some host specificity so even if there were coccidians in the crickets it is unlikely they are going to be able to infect everything.. 
2) for the crickets to be vectors for the coccidians, the crickets would have to ingesting coccidians that are found in amphibian fecal material.. 
3) processed dry diets are the primary food source and as such are very unlikely to be a contamination source for the crickets
4) the same issues should also apply to roaches, mealworms, fungus gnats, fruit flies, spiders and other invertebrates... If flies can get from one cage to another they can actively vector coccidians between enclosures by either walking across a fecal, feeding on it (attempt to gather minerals, tocopherols) 

So in short there is a lot of BS hype on crickets that is unsupported by the actual facts... 





SilverLynx said:


> I still HIGHLY recommend Benzalkonium Chloride. Please refer to an article written by Barbara Scott, M.D. on the use of BC to treat early infections of Chyrid. So far as I know, Itraconazole and Benzalkonium Chloride are the only two compounds that have been shown to effectively treat Chyrid.


That supposed study isn't a study in any way shape or form. It is nothing but an anecdotal account with some meaningless window dressing.. 
The following errors in the study accurately demonstrate that it isn't a study
1) the frogs treated with benzalkonium chloride are not confirmed to be infected... even though PCR was available for testing it wasn't used...in fact the author demonstrates no indication that she was aware it existed. 2)None of the treated frogs were tested to see if they were still infected post treatment.
3) no indication that temperature was controlled before, during or after the study as 
a) chytrid doesn't kill frogs that have a consistent body temperature above 75 F
b) frogs can clear chytrid if kept above 80 F
3) Even recent papers (she referenced an old paper from 1991 instead of the more recent and controlled studies...) see for example the historical review here where it indicates that the reference by Groff was actually ineffective... http://www.researchgate.net/publica...t_clinical_trials/file/32bfe5113852a524c0.pdf 
Specifically the quote here from the above reference


> Some treatments for chytridiomycosis (e.g. benzalkonium chloride) that were trialled at levels above the effective
> _in vitro _levels were ineffective _in vivo _(Groff et al. 1991). This may be due in part to protection of _Bd_
> ​​​​by its intracellular location and possibly from the modification of the epidermal cells that occurs with ​
> ​
> _Bd _infection (Berger et al. 2005a), or t limited uptake ​


So at best she misquoted the reference and at worst simply lied about it's validity. 


Some comments 

Ed ​​


----------



## Ed

Judy S said:


> we have that problem in MD., the vet has to actually examine the "patient" before doing one dang thing...it makes it economically difficult... And when you have a situation where culturing, or collecting something that, up front, may not be a definitive...like a pointless exercise...


This is due to legal issues. In addition, for things like coccidians, you will often have a clean fecal while the frog has symptoms that can be noted on an evaluation. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## SilverLynx

Rigel, I use %10, with a contact time of 20 mins. Cultures that I performed on Agar were clear of pathogens at that ratio and contact duration. Hope that helps.

Frogface, I guess that I am not clear on the froglets. I just assumed that the frogs bred during the active coccidia infection. After treatment, this should not 
be an issue. You should be able to breed and sell your froglets, no problem. As far as fecals go, the Oocysts can be detected when they are being shed in the feces. Coccidia is not always detectable through regular fecal exams. In fact, it generally takes several collected over a few days to detect. After the full course of treatment, I would put frogs in a clean enclosure and discard all soil, plants, etc in the contaminated one. 

As far as your vet goes, I would have to say she is very capable, as you are doing all the right things under her advise. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## frogface

I'm sorry, I must have been unclear about how I managed their treatment. 

They were treated, separately, while living in small tubs that I bleached and discarded after each dose (x2 per day). I didn't want to mess around with wondering if I had fully sanitized their containers. After treatment, I put them into a *new 10g temporary tank, with just moss and some vines, so they would be more comfortable and I could easily keep an eye on them. After a few weeks in there, I moved them into yet another *new tank; a 20g, set up with false bottom, substrate and plants. They had not been trying to breed from a few months prior to treatment until a few weeks(?) after being moved to the 20g tank. The eggs occurred in the 20g tank, after treatment, and, after a recovery period in the 10g. They are now separated; not because they appear unwell, but, because I don't want to just breed them to death while I decide whether or not to raise offspring. 

*by new, I mean brand new, nothing ever lived in it before, tanks.


----------



## SilverLynx

It is obvious that some of my text has been misconstrued. Barbara Scott MD wrote an article based upon ACTUAL, REPLECATED studies. Several summary studies can be found and easily understood by going to: 
Remove or control invasive Cuban tree frogs - Conservation Evidence
Titled: Use Antifungal Treatment to Reduce Chyridiomycosis

A replicated,controlled study of captive amphibians in the USA (Groff et al 91)
found Benzalkonium Chloride was more effective at REDUCING Chyrid infection
(misdiagnosed as Basidiobolus ranarum, Berger, Speare,Pessier, Voyles and Skerratt 2010) than copper sulfate or formalin-malachite green in dwarf African 
clawed frogs, Hymenochirus curtipes. Mortality at day 24 was lower for 2 mg/l
(10%) compared to 4 mg/l Benzalkonium Chloride (16%), 1 mg/l copper sulfate (30%) and formalin (10 mg/l), malachite green (0.8 mg/l; 25 %) In the control group 74% died. Frogs treated with 2 mg/l Benzalkonium Chloride that survived had only mild infections compared to moderate to severe infections following the other two treatments. A group of 135 frogs from an INFECTED population was bathed each in each treatment. Frogs were bathed for 30 mins on alternate days over six days, this was repeated after eight days. There was an untreated control group of 130 frogs. Five frogs from each group were examined for infection before treatment and on days 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 after treatment had started. The study ended after 24 days.


The above text can be found on the site posted above. Accusing Barbara Scott MD is not only unnecessary, but not even close as she did not conduct the studies! Frankly, I am shocked!

Second, I have quite a bit of experience with coccidiosis in chameleons. Contaminated EGG crates were the source of infection. The crickets carried it 
on their legs, the chameleons ate the contaminated crickets. 

Third, my last name is FLUKER and, yes, I am related to the Fluker's that own Fluker Farms and Labs. I think I know a little bit about how crickets are raised, etc, etc. 

Frogface, you are doing all the right things. Especially taking the risk by openly talking about it. I just might have to buy some of those beautiful frogs in the future. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## frogface

> Frogface, you are doing all the right things. Especially taking the risk by openly talking about it. I just might have to buy some of those beautiful frogs in the future.


Great! I'll put you on the list 

I don't know what your experience with dart frogs is, but, my female Sip is exceptionally beautiful. Folks have been clamoring for her and her offspring but I didn't want to get them breeding and start passing out froglets before I knew I had a handle on their health.


----------



## SilverLynx

Frogface, I am a relative newbie to darts, but I am a scientist with years of experience with herps and fish. With that being said, i do have quite a few darts including the big Oophaga, and plenty of experience in proper quarantine procedures, etc, etc. I have been wanting to do a display in my bedroom, might just have to put some Sips in there. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## Ed

SilverLynx said:


> It is obvious that some of my text has been misconstrued. Barbara Scott MD wrote an article based upon ACTUAL, REPLECATED studies.


So where was it published? A google search turns up her "study" in a TFH publication which documents all of the flaws which I enumerated above... See Aquarium Science: Diagnosis of Chytridiomycosis in Pet African Dwarf Frogs | Freshwater | Feature Articles | TFH Magazine® 
So the claim that it is based upon replicated studies is not only suspect but incorrect as I documented with an appropriate reference above. See below the problems with both your and her interpretation of the supposed replicated study (which has been debunked repeatedly since then if one chooses to peruse the literature....see the reference I cited in my earlier post above).... 



SilverLynx said:


> Several summary studies can be found and easily understood by going to:
> Remove or control invasive Cuban tree frogs - Conservation Evidence
> Titled: Use Antifungal Treatment to Reduce Chyridiomycosis


The link takes me to a short synopsis on trapping Cuban treefrogs with no mention of chytrid... 



SilverLynx said:


> A replicated,controlled study of captive amphibians in the USA (Groff et al 91)
> found *Benzalkonium Chloride was more effective at REDUCING Chyrid infection*
> (misdiagnosed as Basidiobolus ranarum, Berger, Speare,Pessier, Voyles and Skerratt 2010) than copper sulfate or formalin-malachite green in dwarf African


Reducing is very different than curing or eliminating chytrid unless you have a significantly different dictionary than I do...which is why I posted the relevant sentance in bold. The rest of the paragraph is fluff.. This is made repeatedly and abundantly clear in the subsequent and recent literature (one of which I correctly quoted debunking your claim using that reference). So lets be clear, when discussing in vivo treatments.. benzalkonium chloride does not cure chytrid. This has been demonstrated repeatedly. 



SilverLynx said:


> The above text can be found on the site posted above. Accusing Barbara Scott MD is not only unnecessary, but not even close as she did not conduct the studies! Frankly, I am shocked!


I'm not sure why you are shocked given that you are the one who cited her as a reference drawing attention to the flawed article that was published in Tropical Fish Hobbyist (which you were using as a reference).. 

And as for things that cure chytrid, you may be better off doing some literature searches as there is more than itraconazole in use at this time...such as terbenafine hydrochloride and chloroamphenicol.... although buffered itraconazole appears to still be the gold standard. 



SilverLynx said:


> Second, I have quite a bit of experience with coccidiosis in chameleons. Contaminated EGG crates were the source of infection. The crickets carried it
> on their legs, the chameleons ate the contaminated crickets.


Where was this published? Was it at least peer reviewed? 



SilverLynx said:


> Third, my last name is FLUKER and, yes, I am related to the Fluker's that own Fluker Farms and Labs. I think I know a little bit about how crickets are raised, etc, etc.


So let me get this straight... you are saying that Fluker's sells crickets contaminated with coccidians that can infect chameleons? 

As for "years" of experience... sometimes that is not a good thing when your relying on data that has been subsequently corrected.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Hey! Can either of you smarty pants help purplezephead with this?




purplezephead said:


> I am currently having an issue w/frogs in my care and was also too afraid to post. I recently took in my friends collection, while she was moving to a new state and will have them for awhile. A couple weeks after getting her frogs her male patricia died, his belly looked normal but his legs were stick thin and you could see his spine. I thought it was from the stress of the move, then from the female being a food hog. He died before I got a chance to set up a separate tank. A couple weeks later 2 more of her frogs were looking thin (a male nakita and a male colbalt), so I bought a fecal kit (I have some experience in a zoo setting w/this) and a reference Ed recommended in a thread. After doing 2 fecals 3 weeks apart I found hookworm ova. I started treatment 3 weeks ago w/fenbendazole on 10-20 ff once a week, and the next day I put them into new sterile containers. Their feces look like coffee grounds, one is mucousy and the other looks bloody. If this is simply hookworm shouldn't I expect to see some improvement after 3 weeks of treatment? Their feces are still not normal and neither has put on any weight, one looks to have lost weight and seems a bit more lethargic. What are other symptoms of coccidia (now I'm paranoid)?


----------



## billschwinn

frogface said:


> Hey! Can either of you smarty pants help purplezephead with this?


what is purplezephead oops, nevermind


----------



## purplezephead

Yes I really want to know if I should expect to see improvement at this point. Anyone? Should I start a new treatment course, any suggestions?


----------



## SilverLynx

Ed, I better things to do than get into a pissing contest with you. The authors of the studies are referenced in the cited literature. You or anyone else can look them up. As far as I know there is no cure for adult infected frogs, only various treatment options. New strains that are resistant will more than likely crop up, as they always have. I do believe that I mentioned Itraconazole, which will effectively treat BD until the next resistant strain crops up. Salt solutions in various ppm have also shown to effectively treat Chyrid. 
conservationevidence.com has 16 summary studies cited for effective treatments. Anyone with frogs displaying symptoms of an illness should immediately consult with their DVM or find one that works with Amphibians.

No, I did not say that Flukers sells contaminated crickets, I said that, "it is hard to find clean crickets", they are nasty critters. Spend a day at a cricket farm, enough said. 

I don't need to do a study on coccidia and crickets as carriers, there are already plenty of them out there. Whether you chose to accept it or not is your business. 
So go please argue with someone else, as I stated above I have better things to do. People can do their research and discuss it with their vet as I previously mentioned in prior posts. Time to move on.

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## rigel10

It is always basic contact vets. But regarding vets, the problem is always the same: it is difficult to find vets experts about dart frogs! For me, it is impossible here! I contacted a vet (the best reputation in the area) about bloat months ago and he said he does not deal with frogs and he did not want. For this reason every info here, on the forum, and experience of others breeders can be very helpful.
That said, however, I reiterate that contact vet is basic.


----------



## Ed

SilverLynx said:


> The authors of the studies are referenced in the cited literature.


Based on this statement I'm guessing you haven't looked at the recent literature. I cited a much more recent paper (and quoted some of the relevant data) than anything you provided... Attempting to cite a non-peer reviewed article in a hobby magazine does not constitute proof. 




SilverLynx said:


> You or anyone else can look them up.


Since I'm citing the more recent literature, it is clear that I have looked at the various studies... 




SilverLynx said:


> As far as I know there is no cure for adult infected frogs, only various treatment options.


Again, this indicates that you have not read any of the recent literature. Here is one you can give you a start.... http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/Martel%20et%20al%20chytrid%20vori%20Med%20Mycol%202010.pdf



SilverLynx said:


> New strains that are resistant will more than likely crop up, as they always have. I do believe that I mentioned Itraconazole, which will effectively treat BD until the next resistant strain crops up.


Where is the citation that Bd has evolved resistance? I can not find any such record. 



SilverLynx said:


> Salt solutions in various ppm have also shown to effectively treat Chyrid.


Typically when one makes the claim to effectively treat a disease process the understanding is that the treatment results in a cure. This does not occur using salt baths at various concentrations. See PLOS ONE: Sodium Chloride Inhibits the Growth and Infective Capacity of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus and Increases Host Survival Rates Instead what happens it does not clear the chytrid from the animal, it remains infected and infective. It just slows the growth and reduces the ability of the motility of the zoospores. 
Again, you must be using a different dictionary than me. 



SilverLynx said:


> conservationevidence.com has 16 summary studies cited for effective treatments.


Google scholar has more peer reviewed literature.... 




SilverLynx said:


> Anyone with frogs displaying symptoms of an illness should immediately consult with their DVM or find one that works with Amphibians.


no kidding. 



SilverLynx said:


> No, I did not say that Flukers sells contaminated crickets, I said that, "it is hard to find clean crickets", they are nasty critters. Spend a day at a cricket farm, enough said.


Again, the claims are unsupported. I asked where the crickets came from as the only supplier you indicated above was Flukers, so you really cannot claim you did not implicate Flukers as the source of the contaminated crickets. If it was not Flukers, then where did the supposed contaminated crickets originate? If you can't answer that question, your going to leave people to draw their own conclusions. I'm not the one implicating a specific farm, you are. 

I should also note that regardless of the source of your "contaminated" crickets (even if they were carrying coccidians for chameleons), that the coccidians would not be able to infect amphibians... 



SilverLynx said:


> I don't need to do a study on coccidia and crickets as carriers, there are already plenty of them out there. Whether you chose to accept it or not is your business.


Actually, this is a total dodge. I did not suggest or state that you needed to do a study, you might want to reread my post. I wanted (and still want) to know the study that documents your claim that chameleons acquired coccidian infections that were traced back to the crickets that transported the coccidians from contaminated materials to the chameleons. If you can't cite a peer reviewed citation, then it is nothing more than more BS. 




SilverLynx said:


> So go please argue with someone else, as I stated above I have better things to do.


Actually I'm providing current best information debunking information that is at best questionable. This is not an argument. You are being challenged to back up your claims with real information without specious claims to experience and knowledge. Your not the only person on here that is a scientist and/or has a lot of experience in a professional setting... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

purplezephead said:


> Yes I really want to know if I should expect to see improvement at this point. Anyone? Should I start a new treatment course, any suggestions?


 
It isn't uncommon to see more than one parasite/pathogen show up in frogs that have been stressed. Can you find a vet who will consult with you via e-mail or phone? If you have any questions shoot me a e-mail. 

Ed


----------



## Judy S

would there be negative consequences to assume coccidia and treat accordingly? The bloody stool would be enough for me to do so....we, the unwashed, appreciate the exchanges of information among the scientific posters....and it is not easy to understand a lot of the information, but also to judge where the truth lies...thanks.


----------



## Ed

Judy S said:


> would there be negative consequences to assume coccidia and treat accordingly? The bloody stool would be enough for me to do so....we, the unwashed, appreciate the exchanges of information among the scientific posters....and it is not easy to understand a lot of the information, but also to judge where the truth lies...thanks.


Judy,

Coccidia is often diagnosed not based on detecting it in a fecal but by the symptoms while ruling out other potential causes. As a result vets often treat for it based on empirical symptoms. 
Stress from various things like other disease processes or shocks can enable it to get out of control as those factors suppress the immune functions. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Judy S said:


> would there be negative consequences to assume coccidia and treat accordingly? The bloody stool would be enough for me to do so....we, the unwashed, appreciate the exchanges of information among the scientific posters....and it is not easy to understand a lot of the information, but also to judge where the truth lies...thanks.


Judy, my frogs had multiple fecal tests and none showed coccidia. Because they had symptoms that did not clear up with other meds, we presumed coccidia and tried a drug for that; ponazuril. The medication did not seem to bother the frogs at all. The only side effect I noticed was that they stopped eating. According to my vet, their appetite was likely suppressed due to parasite dumping (not sure I'm phrasing that exactly right). They were eating normally, again, within a few days. Anyway, other than having to manhandle the frogs, the treatment seemed pretty benign.


----------



## Judy S

thanks, Ed....but my question remains: would there be negative consequences to treat for coccidia by assumption because nothing else shows on exam???


----------



## frogface

Judy are you asking about treating a frog without diagnosis but with clinical signs (which is what I did) or treating a frog that is showing no symptoms?


----------



## Judy S

that is precisely what it all boils down to....the clinical symptoms and lack of any other explanation...


----------



## SilverLynx

Ed, I really don't know what your agenda is or why you are assuming and posting remarks about my posts that simply are not true. I NEVER stated that Fluker's was a source of contaminated crickets, I stated that the owners are family members. In fact, I have never obtained crickets from them. So you can cease with your remarks regarding contaminated crickets and Fluker Farms! 

As far as peer reviewed literature on crickets being a source of coccidia, you can refer to, The Merck Veterinary Manual under protozoan infections. 

I have already referenced the studies on Benzalkonium Chloride for the treatment of Chytrid. The article that was PUBLISHED in 07 confirmed earlier
studies in 91 by (Groff et al. 91) You insinuated your earlier post that Dr. Scott MD was authoring false articles. Dr. Sylvan Cohen prepared the specimens and assisted with the histiological findings, which were prepared in an method generally accepted in the scientific community. No need for PCR as Chytrid was CONFIRMED through histiological pathology on preserved specimens. Replicated studies have shown Benzalkonium Chloride to be an useful tool when used in amounts shown to be effective on adult African dwarf frogs. The link to the study you posted above had mixed results on two Antifungal medications used, but it would be a gross misconstruing of the study to say that the two compounds used were NOT effective. 

If you have a problem with the studies, you should contact the authors/ researchers. I am very comfortable with the science and methods used in 
the published studies. You use the word, "debunked" I am sure these researchers would be very interested in hearing your methods for, "debunking"
their research. When it comes to terminology, most of us in the scientific community do not use terms such as, "cured", but rather terms such as cleared
or effective treatment. 

Again, I will respectfully ask you to refrain from personal attacks on my experience level as it is offensive. Your tone to me is very disrespectful. 
This post will be MY LAST response to your post/remarks.

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## frogface

Ed likes a good debate but he makes us show our work. That doesn't end well for most of us


----------



## Ed

SilverLynx said:


> Ed, I really don't know what your agenda is or why you are assuming and posting remarks about my posts that simply are not true. I NEVER stated that Fluker's was a source of contaminated crickets, I stated that the owners are family members. In fact, I have never obtained crickets from them. So you can cease with your remarks regarding contaminated crickets and Fluker Farms!


As I noted above, you are the person who prefaced a statement about contaminated crickets with the reference to Flukers... The implication was that your infected crickets were acquired there since you stated that was why you should know about raising crickets (and therefor infected crickets). I have no agenda other than clear information... I asked the question for clarification and you dodged it in your initial response to me... 



SilverLynx said:


> As far as peer reviewed literature on crickets being a source of coccidia, you can refer to, The Merck Veterinary Manual under protozoan infections.


Is this the section you are referring to from the Merck? 


> Fastidious, daily cleanings are necessary to remove all feces and feces-contaminated food and water. Insects and other food items must be removed on a daily basis as they are another source of contamination (eg, crickets may eat the oocysts while gathering fluid from the feces).


If so, it doesn't support your statement that crickets were contaminated by exposure to contaminated substrate and then infected chameleons... It indicates that the crickets can cause reinfection (implying amplification) if not removed when not ingested. 

Let me ask again... where is the publication that chameleons were infected with coccidians from crickets that carried it (using your word) on their "legs" from contaminated substrate... 



SilverLynx said:


> I have already referenced the studies on Benzalkonium Chloride for the treatment of Chytrid. The article that was PUBLISHED in 07 confirmed earlier studies in 91 by (Groff et al. 91)


 
No you have not referenced any paper published in 2007.. You have implied that there was some study but the only link was the old data from Grof et al.. So what was the title and where was it published? 
*And to reiterate a point, your claim* *involving the validity of Groff et al, is debunked*. The frogs did not clear the infection. See (again) Treatment of chytridiomycosis requires urgent clinical trials. - ResearchGate 
which specifically states that benzalkonium chloride did not cure the infection (and yes they used the word cure referencing Grof et al). That is unless of course you missed the use of the words cured and no..... 



SilverLynx said:


> You insinuated your earlier post that Dr. Scott MD was authoring false articles. prepared the specimens and assisted with the histiological findings, which were prepared in an method generally accepted in the scientific community. No need for PCR as Chytrid was CONFIRMED through histiological pathology on preserved specimens.


Actually, no I did not insinuate any such thing. I referenced the only published account of the study by Dr. Scott and the issues with the only published write up I could fine.. I did a google scholar search for chytrid benzalkonium chloride and got no hits on either of the authors... So I tried the authors and chytrid and no hits under google scholar... so I tried the author that did the histopath and surprise no hits.. I think you really need to go back and read what I wrote as you clearly didn't understand it. My comments for pcr was that the remaining live animals* according the account by Dr. Scott *were not tested post treatment. The sole published report by Dr. Scott indicated that the animals were apparently living in good health and were not tested to determine if they were still infected or not. It is well established that if the amphibians are kept above 75 F and/or can bask and elevate their body temperature can live just fine with a infection of chytrid. 



SilverLynx said:


> Replicated studies have shown Benzalkonium Chloride to be an useful tool when used in amounts shown to be effective on adult African dwarf frogs. The link to the study you posted above had mixed results on two Antifungal medications used, but it would be a gross misconstruing of the study to say that the two compounds used were NOT effective.


Where is this this study demonstrating the replicate trials? And as for misconstruing, I'm guessing you have a different reading of the words cured and no than I do... It is clearly laid out in the tables in the paper that benzalkonium chloride did not cure the frogs of chytrid. I have to admit, that accusing me of grossly misconstruing the understanding of cured and no has me laughing. 



SilverLynx said:


> If you have a problem with the studies, you should contact the authors/ researchers. I am very comfortable with the science and methods used in the published studies. You use the word, "debunked" I am sure these researchers would be very interested in hearing your methods for, "debunking" their research.


If this is supposed to scare me, it's not working. My statements on the publication by Dr. Scott in Tropical Fish Hobbyist stand... 



SilverLynx said:


> When it comes to terminology, most of us in the scientific community do not use terms such as, "cured", but rather terms such as cleared or effective treatment.


Well so far you have yet to provide proof of cleared or "effective" and you directly ignored the reference to cured by one of the leading pioneers of amphibian medicine and attempted to categorize it as a gross misconception... 
Maybe if I include a scan of the table in the article where it says cure and no and specifically indicates that the study by Groff did not cure.... 



SilverLynx said:


> Again, I will respectfully ask you to refrain from personal attacks on my experience level as it is offensive. Your tone to me is very disrespectful.
> This post will be MY LAST response to your post/remarks.


It is hard to be respectful to a person who makes unsupported claims that are clearly incorrect on even a cursory review (see the picture..click on it to make it larger) of the literature. It is also hard to be respectful of a person who makes repeated appeals to their credentials to support incorrect information.. As I noted, you are not the only person on here who is a scientist and had a long career in herp related industry. I was fortunate for a number of years to work with and learn from Dr. Kevin Wright DVM... who was instrumental in breaking a lot of ground in amphibian medicine... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Judy S

I guess it is naive of me to think someone other than a vet can recommend a propholactic treatment for coccidia...it occurred to me in the middle of the night that perhaps I had put Ed on the spot...which certainly is not fair or appropriate. But I think the question of treatment could and should be asked of an amphibian vet...that is the one I asked in a previous post...would love to get an answer.


----------



## frogface

I don't know if there is any point in treating for coccidia if there are no symptoms. Apparently it is fairly common in amphibian collections and isn't an issue unless it becomes symptomatic. Also, treatment doesn't necessarily get rid of it. Although, Dr Wright indicated that he got a negative PCR DNA test after 30-40 days of treatment.


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> I don't know if there is any point in treating for coccidia if there are no symptoms. Apparently it is fairly common in amphibian collections and isn't an issue unless it becomes symptomatic. Also, treatment doesn't necessarily get rid of it. Although, Dr Wright indicated that he got a negative PCR DNA test after 30-40 days of treatment.


Some vets may feel it is appropriate so this should be discussed with your vet.

In general, some of the more emerging ideas in in the vet field indicate that there isn't any point in treating a frog that is not showing signs (if coccidians are detected in a fecal with no other symptoms, then this should be discussed with your vet). The reason is that at least with the older generation of medications (example Albon), the coccidian was not totally wiped out. Instead it appears to allow the frog's immune system to get back into the upper hand. On the other hand, treating an asymptomatic frog may can introduce a temporary immune suppression (up to two weeks post incident) that could cause issues (including proliferation of the coccidian post clearing of the treatment) such as parasites becoming more active. 

Again, dusting fruit flies with a medication is not the best method as this can result in under or overdosing of the medication. Underdosing increases the chances that resistance can evolve and may not provide enough control to allow the frog to recover. Overdosing can cause harm to the animal itself. Always consult with your vet about the best method. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## stu&shaz

Ed, as a layman, like so many I guess oft confused by the science. Can you clarify some things please obviously you will correct if I'm wrong.

Coccidia are specific to whole "groups"(apologies I just can't recall correct terminology) not species specific,maybe with exceptions. So one strain of coocidia could potentially infect all amphibia,ie all dart frogs?

Coccidia can be supressed by the correct medication (ponzural maybe be a potential cure),but using coccidostats would give an animal the chance for it's immune system to get the upper hand. so the animal would show no further symptoms,hopefully for the rest of it's life,things like stressors excepting.

My vet with our birds used to tell me,that letting the bird get exposed to coccidia then treating,would almost conferr an imunity to further symptoms(again stressors excepting),would this be true for our darts?

Do we have many forms of coccidia affecting dart frogs,or are there just a few strains?.

I believe,the inert oocyst stage is incredibly difficult to "kill",could you please enlighten me as to the most effective treatment to render oocysts harmless in a viv. Ed this isn't getting out like I want it to,what I'm asking for is the best most effective way to sterilise a viv,that had previously held frogs in that had coccidia. My humble apologies if this has been already covered,I'm somewhat lost in all the science debate that is taking place,in this thread,i guess there might be others too,so I'd rather ask and be sure and ave egg on my face,than not know. No to the best of my knowledge we haven't cocci here,but it's always nice to be armed if it happens. 

Thank you as always for your help,your tolerance for simple folk like me has always amazed me, you probably know that,but I'll never tire of saying so.

Kris,can I recap,just briefly please. You have some stunning sips they were under weight for a while and showed symptoms of not normal tinc poo,you're vet was not able to ID cocci,or any other problem. By a process of elimination she treated for cocci. She seems very thorough demanding fresh poo for fecals and actually examines said froggies,but there has been no problem identified other than the symptoms,have I got there mate,I've been watching this a while,but that's the short of it ,is it not?

I lived with cocci in birds,it's wasn't too bad really ,I had my vet backing me and he was also thorough I believe. I remember Shaz and I breeding something special in our world,naturally they were the ones that got the cocci,my vet told us rip roaring cocci,those were his words,you won't cure these,but here's what to do. My special call ducks of around 8 weeks old,then got treated like day olds and yes we won. My point is this,I would buy your frogs if able,this problem is probably all over the place in collections,we just need to know how to deal with it. Due to your care for all of us,we'll learn a bit more

THANK YOU

Stu


----------



## frogface

stu&shaz said:


> Kris,can I recap,just briefly please. You have some stunning sips they were under weight for a while and showed symptoms of not normal tinc poo,you're vet was not able to ID cocci,or any other problem. By a process of elimination she treated for cocci. She seems very thorough demanding fresh poo for fecals and actually examines said froggies,but there has been no problem identified other than the symptoms,have I got there mate,I've been watching this a while,but that's the short of it ,is it not?
> 
> Stu


Yes, that's right Stu. Coccidia was not found on fecal. Their symptoms were more than just bad poo, but, still subtle. They seemed to spend a lot of their time trying to poo and sitting in water. They also started pushing their lower bellies against things, as if they were trying to relieve some sort of discomfort. I'll see if I can find some of the pics I took of that. 

They haven't been diagnosed as having coccidia but their reaction to the ponazuril was dramatic. If one of these guys dies, I will be sure to get a full necropsy, if only to satisfy myself. And, there will be the PCR DNA test in the next month or so. Also mostly for my curiosity.


----------



## frogface

It's difficult to see what they are doing in these pics. They would find something that was protruding, stem or leaf or bark, and push it into their stomach. You can see the male in the first picture with the edge of a grape leaf against his stomach. In the second picture, the female has a stiff philodendron vine pushing into hers. It looks as thought it's accidental but I watched her repositioning her self and it appeared that she was trying to get this vine to push against her. I saw her do it against other vines in the tank. In the second picture, what you don't see is the piece of charcoal that the male is leaning into. He, also, moved around, seeming to be trying to get himself into the best position. 

They had a water dish nearby that they used for soaking. I don't think that what they are doing here is soaking.

I took a video of them doing some weird maneuvering. It looks like they are trying to get comfortable. I'll post the link once it has uploaded.


----------



## stu&shaz

Thanks Kris,everything is subtle with these frogs,I'd missed that bit. All the hardcore science messes with us mate,but the pictures will help. Trying to read these frogs is very difficult it's somewhat similar to what I used to do. It's getting one's eye in!!

Kris, does the PCR run like those for chytrid/RV ie one has to swab,or are these fecal based? 

So much admiration kiddo,over here we have a little "not worthy button",I want to use it

take care

Stu


----------



## frogface

The PCR test is fecal and/or cloacal swab, with the swab being preferred. I'll only be able to afford one test, so we will likely combine fecal and swab from both frogs to be combined for one sample. Not sure if fecal and swab are run together. If not, then I'll do cloacal only, since it is said to be the more reliable.

I think it is also done with tissue samples but I think I'll pass on that one


----------



## frogface

Ok here's a video. They would do this moving around bit until they were pressed up against something, just so. You'll see her settle down once she is pressing her belly up against the edge of the leaf. This was going on toward the end, before treatment. Pics and video were taken in the end of May. Treatment was a few weeks later in June. They haven't done any of this since.

Sipawilini - YouTube


Note that they aren't toe tapping. Also note the absence of poo in the video and pics.


----------



## stu&shaz

Apologies,i'm slow,yes I see what your saying,I stare alot Kris,but this is one i've never seen yet.It's almost long may that continue now,but much appreciation for the speedy follow up. I guess video will be here before me,huh,please forgive i've got to help a demented lady with her ff

Stu


----------



## Dendrobait

Hm, that is interesting behavior. You say you haven't seen it from any of your other frogs ever? I think I may have observed something similar at times.


----------



## frogface

Dendrobait said:


> Hm, that is interesting behavior. You say you haven't seen it from any of your other frogs ever? I think I may have observed something similar at times.


I had never seen it before in any other frogs and have not seen it since.


----------



## Ed

stu&shaz said:


> Coccidia are specific to whole "groups"(apologies I just can't recall correct terminology) not species specific,maybe with exceptions. So one strain of coocidia could potentially infect all amphibia,ie all dart frogs?


If I understand your question correctly... Pretty much every animal that has been checked for coccidian infections have shown to have their own coccidian species. In general, there is often some coccidians to prefer certain hosts but then there are also coccidians that appear to be able to infect a wide variety of amphibian hosts. An example of this occurs in reptiles where Cryptosporidium serpentis appears to be able to infect a wide variety of reptiles. Unfortunately the information in relation to this topic is still a fairly rapidly evolving field. 



stu&shaz said:


> Coccidia can be supressed by the correct medication (ponzural maybe be a potential cure),but using coccidostats would give an animal the chance for it's immune system to get the upper hand. so the animal would show no further symptoms,hopefully for the rest of it's life,things like stressors excepting.


Correct... and even when stressed it may show no signs. It all depends on a number of factors. A single stressor is unlikely to cause it to emerge unless it was for a longer period of time or there are multiple stressors. 



stu&shaz said:


> My vet with our birds used to tell me,that letting the bird get exposed to coccidia then treating,would almost conferr an imunity to further symptoms(again stressors excepting),would this be true for our darts?


In part... most herp vets that I've spoken with, have concurred that exposure at some part of their life is highly probable and that they will likely become infected so attempting to produce or rear coccidian free frogs is not really worth it... As with some other animals, some of the vets I've spoken with believe that older animals that have not been exposed to coccidians prior to reaching adult size/age may have more problems when infection occurs. However exposure and treatment does not appear to make them immune as there can be reoccurring infections due to immune suppression or infection with a new species. 



stu&shaz said:


> Do we have many forms of coccidia affecting dart frogs,or are there just a few strains?.


There are many different species and strains. See if this helps at all http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...flQCmw7qumFhw497A&sig2=79dRn72Znx60IaetHqyRmg



stu&shaz said:


> I believe,the inert oocyst stage is incredibly difficult to "kill",could you please enlighten me as to the most effective treatment to render oocysts harmless in a viv. Ed this isn't getting out like I want it to,what I'm asking for is the best most effective way to sterilise a viv,that had previously held frogs in that had coccidia.


This depends on the species/genus of coccidian you are trying to control. If for example it is some of the cryptosporidians, then the only two methods are to use undiluted household ammonia or live steam. 




stu&shaz said:


> No to the best of my knowledge we haven't cocci here,but it's always nice to be armed if it happens.


You have it there... you just may not have had an issue with it yet. 



stu&shaz said:


> Thank you as always for your help,your tolerance for simple folk like me


Any time.. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## stu&shaz

Ed, with some confidence you have said basically we all have coccidia,I don't think for one minute you are pointing at me, personally, it is something we all have,correct?. So basically,can I interpret this two fold,first My frogs(with coccidia) bare no more risk to the hobby than any one else's do? Just in case someone get's the wrong idea and twists that: all seems well here,my only necropsy did not show coccidia,I'm being hypothetical,but the betting odds are with the man I'm speaking to not me. Secondly providing we(all of us) can stress our frogs as little as possible, look after them "correctly" then we shouldn't have too much to worry about.

If for example household ammonia(steam) are the only way of clobbering this oocyst,in some cocci strains,then there are so many potential vectors for cocci entering our frogs, that this is something,at this time,we must just live with.Until a frog becomes sick at such time we should act accordingly.

Ed, this final question might be down to the opinion of an individual,even an individual vet,but I would ask for your point of view at this time as views on treatment/medication are changing. A hypothetical situation:I have a fecal done,it shows coccidia,the infected frogs are a picture of health,as their custodian who watches hard nothing is out of place,no unusual behaviour, poo is as it should be etc etc.should this frog be treated~?

Ed,you have understood my questions correctly,before this post,much thanks for your time

kind regards

Stu


----------



## Ed

stu&shaz said:


> Ed, with some confidence you have said basically we all have coccidia,I don't think for one minute you are pointing at me, personally, it is something we all have,correct?.


Basically we should consider all captive frogs as positive for coccidians. The reason for this is that you can't know for sure if a frog is infected for sure without a necropsy. In addition to that issue, if fruit flies can get out of your cages other contaminated invertebrates can get into it... (this is before we get to those that can potentially with stand the treatments the hobby uses on things like leaf litter) so the chance of them picking up an infection through their life time is significant. 

And for people specifically, depending on the country in question more than 50% of the population can show antibodies for Toxoplasmosis gondi.. (the USA, could be as high as one in 5...). 



stu&shaz said:


> So basically,can I interpret this two fold,first My frogs(with coccidia) bare no more risk to the hobby than any one else's do?


Correct and even if they do show symptoms at some point in their life, the problem is easily treated. The risk is form hobbyists who shotgun treat their enclosures or interpret that a frog may not be able to be cured (waiting for the case study on ponazuril...) so they make claims that the frogs need life long treatment.... This can cause hobbyists to over medicate the frogs, or increase the risk of resistance. 



stu&shaz said:


> Just in case someone get's the wrong idea and twists that: all seems well here,my only necropsy did not show coccidia,I'm being hypothetical,but the betting odds are with the man I'm speaking to not me.


 
Sort of... it is possible that one frog was negative while other in the tank are positive. This has been shown to occur in some wild populations of frogs, not all of the animals end up infected. Now it is more likely in the captivity as you don't have space diluting the exposure of any infected fecal material. 



stu&shaz said:


> Secondly providing we(all of us) can stress our frogs as little as possible, look after them "correctly" then we shouldn't have too much to worry about.


Routine fecal checks are always a good option. The reason is that you may be able to catch a parasitic infection before it ends up causing real issues. A simple once to twice a year check on each enclosure is all that is needed for a routine surveillance program. I know that people aren't going to do it due to the sheer number of enclosures they keep but it still should be encouraged as much as possible. 



stu&shaz said:


> If for example household ammonia(steam) are the only way of clobbering this oocyst,in some cocci strains,then there are so many potential vectors for cocci entering our frogs, that this is something,at this time,we must just live with.Until a frog becomes sick at such time we should act accordingly.


Correct. 



stu&shaz said:


> A hypothetical situation:I have a fecal done,it shows coccidia,the infected frogs are a picture of health,as their custodian who watches hard nothing is out of place,no unusual behaviour, poo is as it should be etc etc.should this frog be treated~?


I would probably treat the frog(s) in question. The reason being is that if the coccidians are showing up in the fecal, then there is something going on that is letting them reproduce (in general, coccidian infections tend to be undetected in the feces even when extreme physical symptoms are seen). That reproduction is doing some damage to the digestive tract at that time so it is going to impact the ability to uptake nutrients. 
Treatment is simple (the older method using medications like Albon (Sulfadimethoxine) or other sulfonamide are fairly simple and easy to accomplish). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## stu&shaz

Brilliant,I'm up to speed now Ed,thank you so so much,for your time,as ALWAYS!!.

Oh Kris, my personal thanks for opening this door to allow this conversation with Ed to happen,I guess I'd have bothered him someday as it's been nagging at me quietly,because of what has happened to me in the past.

I see my self out with this Kris,if I had chance to buy your kids,in the cold light of day with Ed's help in educating me,would I still want them,oh hell yeah!!

take care both

best

Stu


----------



## Dendrobait

So treatment only serves to knock back the coccidians and get the frogs back on their feet?

Has anyone tried simply isolating a frog in a low stress environ(say alone in a nice vivarium) and seeing if it recovers on its own?

Have any invertebrates been shown to actually eat and digest parasite ccysts etc. etc.? I know reefers have less of a problem with certain fish protozoans as the liverock/coral zooplankton feeders get a good percentage of the cysts in the water column.


----------



## LoganR

I read another thread talking about Ameerega silverstonei having a tendency to die after being moved from one habitat to another (though this seems to be less of a problem with long-term well-established frogs), then we have the frogs in Gainsville dying after recent relocation. Have there been any studies looing at the stress of relocation leading to imbalances in the natural gut fauna and illness or death?


----------



## Ed

Dendrobait said:


> So treatment only serves to knock back the coccidians and get the frogs back on their feet?


The old standard sulfonamides like Albon did not cure the frogs it effectively prevented it from reproducing allowing the frog to get it back under control. In some other taxa (bearded dragons) Ponazuril actually eliminated the coccidian infection so there is hope for a better medication. 



Dendrobait said:


> Has anyone tried simply isolating a frog in a low stress environ(say alone in a nice vivarium) and seeing if it recovers on its own?


The problem is that when the frog is showing physical symptoms, the damage to the digestive tract is becoming significant. The coccidian life cycle destroys the cells lining the digestive tract reducing and in severe cases preventing the uptake of nutrients (and recovery of fluids and ions) in the digestive tract. 



Dendrobait said:


> Have any invertebrates been shown to actually eat and digest parasite ccysts etc. etc.? I know reefers have less of a problem with certain fish protozoans as the liverock/coral zooplankton feeders get a good percentage of the cysts in the water column.


Arthropods have been shown to ingest it and act as a vector without harming the coccidians.. In the wild, there is generally a large amount of area in which the fecal gets diluted which reduces exposure to the parasite. This dilution effect isn't normally seen in the enclosures but in an enclosure... I guess in theory, it is possible for some other protozoans to consume and digest the parasite.. I'm not sure the impact would be significant. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Wanted to give an update. My Sips continue to do very well. Follow up today shows coccidia free feces. Two of their 4 tads just crawled out of the water. Two more are close behind. Otherwise, I've been culling eggs and/or keeping them separated. As soon as the froglets are eating and pooping well, I'll get a fecal exam for them.


----------



## TheCoop

That's great news! Good job sir!


----------



## frogface

TheCoop said:


> That's great news! Good job sir!


Thank you! <cough> m'am <cough>


----------



## cwebster

Just read your thread with interest because until about two,weeks ago my frogs were in the same room as birds with documented coccidia. Does each species gave only its own coccidia? Read that the symptoms were watery feces and moving around strangely--you tube video. My Pacifics have slightly watery but well formed poop but I have been losing them in great numbers without any real,explanation. What is the best test for coccidia? Vet hasn't found that, just Protozoa. .?


----------



## Ed

cwebster said:


> Just read your thread with interest because until about two,weeks ago my frogs were in the same room as birds with documented coccidia. Does each species gave only its own coccidia? Read that the symptoms were watery feces and moving around strangely--you tube video. My Pacifics have slightly watery but well formed poop but I have been losing them in great numbers without any real,explanation. What is the best test for coccidia? Vet hasn't found that, just Protozoa. .?


Bird coccidia are highly unlikely to infect amphibians. I think I mentioned it above that there is some host specificity in many coccidians and cross taxa infections are going to be very rare. In any case you would have to have a coccidia vector between the two species as it has to be something the frogs would eat ... 

If I remember correctly didn't you have a necropsy done on your frogs? Did they include histopathology?? If so then coccidia should have been evident on the digestive tract exam. 

some comments 

Ed


----------



## cwebster

Ed, really appreciate the info about coccidia. Yes, had necropsies with no signs in the histopathology in the gut.


----------

