# Dendrobates granuliferus



## Guest (Mar 18, 2006)

Anyone any thoughs on keeping Dendrobates granuliferus, was reading a site and it says they can difficult to look after compaired to other breeds. How is this so?
thx


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2006)

I don't know if anyone in the states has granuliferous, but you may see some in Europe. I think the reason it is more difficult to care for is because it is so intricately tied to its environment. They are probably extremely sensitive to any changes or fluctuations of temp, humidity, etc. Not only are they very sensitive, I have heard they are next to impossible to breed. Conditions have to be _perfect_. 

Anybody ever hear of successful breeding within the species?

Hope this helps.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2006)

Was reading that there very similar to pumilio's which are also konw to be hard to breed. Found a site which suggests if the conditions are correct like u say, it shouldn't be a problem.

http://www.saurian.net/htm/dendrobates_ ... _sheet.htm


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2006)

Not all pums are very hard to breed. They're just less efficient at it because they must raise their tads. As you probably know pums, granuliferous, lehmanni, histrionicus, sylvaticus, and maybe some others are all obligate eggfeeders. An experiment is being conducted right now by someone on this board by feeding pum tads chicken whites and tadpole bites. Histrionicus are more common, I think rmelancon has some and he only gets sporadic production and they are prone to stress and disease. 

http://www.robbster.com/RobbHome/FrogPage/TabTop.asp?Tab=HISTOS
^^^^^^^^^^
There's his website talking about his experience w/ histrionicus. They are by no means easy to breed though. 


> The problems come in getting the females to properly raise the tads to froglets and then keeping the froglets alive for more than a months or even weeks.


 I think histos are more common than granuliferous, and histos are extremely rare still.

Do you have access to granuliferous or histrionicus? If you do and you have your heart set on a challenging obligate eggfeeder, I wouldn't go with granuliferous. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## benmz (Feb 18, 2004)

I have seen granuliferous here in the states. The person who had them is on this board. He had a great setup for them. A very large viv with tons of cover and an automated misting system and tried everything to get them to breed without success for years. He last said he was going to trade them out for some hard to find pumilio. That was a while ago.

Have to say they were beautiful to see and much larger than I expected, we're talking auratus size (if my memory serves me well). 

I don't think we'll be seeing any available, not even in the distant future. 

We should all be happy to be raising some of the more "common" frogs. Never forget where our frogs originally come from. There are probably more Azureus in the hobby than there are in the wild. That is awesome if you really think about it. I remember when everyone was poo-pooing tricolors as a "weed" frog, now it is somewhat hard to find and quite valueable. So hopefully most of us can keep our dreams to more attainable levels....even Fantasticus is an awesome frog that is really hard to breed. 

my 2 cents

-Ben


----------



## benmz (Feb 18, 2004)

double post sorry


----------



## bluedart (Sep 5, 2005)

There are some D. granuliferus in the states, but it is still considered rare. Histos are quite rare as well. Also, both of those are NOT beginner frogs or even moderate frogs... they're not hardy frogs at all. Leave them to the experts, who have kept frogs for years and know techniques and meds to administer when things go bad. Yes, when. Adults are often considered as sensitive as rectic babies, which, as you probably know, have quite high mortality rates. If you're looking for a first frog, try looking at the beginner stickies. I'm not trying to flame you or anything, but these frogs are very advanced. Happy frogging!


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2006)

Agreed to everything bluedart and benmz said. Us froggers in the states probably will hever have access to rarer frogs like some Europeans do, but I'm happy with the ones here. rmelancon reports that many of his histos only live several years in captivity. Histos and granuliferous are expensive, hard to care for, easily stressed, and almost all are WC. I think granuliferous are one of the more "impossible" ones to breed. Anybody know about husbandry and breeding of lehmanni? I would much rather see rare frogs such as granuliferous, histos, lehmanni, speciosus, etc. in the wild than in my living room. They're definately not suited to captive life. With almost no hope for breeding frogs such as granuliferous, lehmanni, etc. I see no reason for myself to get any. (I'm talking about in the DISTANT future, like when I have a couple decades of experience) If the frogs cannot be bred in captivity with significant results, then they should not be taken out of the wild just so their wild populations can dwindle.


----------



## bluedart (Sep 5, 2005)

Ross-
one of the biggest points of our hobby is to establish captive populations of dwindling animals. That is why it is integral that we DO have captive members of the Histo group, so that if, and most likely when, they go extinct in the wild we will be able to have these animals for generations to come. They're not impossible to breed, just difficult. Do you know how long it took for people to figure out just how to breed pumilio? Now look, they're being offered on the board all the time! So, it's always going to be a matter of time, but this matter of time just needs to happen a bit sooner.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2006)

I have no intention to argue but releasing CB animals into the wild, even in their native range is not good. 



> First these cb individuals usually have different genetics than wild individuals and thus their release may detrimentally affect the fitness of the wild population. Second the cb could carry diseases which are introduced to wild pops. third cb animals usually behave differently (usually are more aggressive towards conspecifics and less wary of predators) thus they can negatively affect wild populations by attracting predators which will then also feed on wild individuals or by displacing wild individuals from "cover" habitat and thus increasing their predation rates. Finally by dumping a bunch of cb animals into a habitat which is already at carrying capacity or "full" of wild individuals you end having most of the cb guys die and some of the wild ones as well. In all these cases you actually hurt the wild populations.


Since imports of rare frogs are far apart, many of the frogs people have could be related. Inbred lines of frogs, then released into the wild could have adverse effects down the road. If you want an example, take the Florida panther. At one time there were so few in the wild they were inbreeding. Many animals had severe problems. So they brought in cougars from the northern states. In comparison to frogs they were different "morphs" of the same species, Puma concolor. Now, you will never see a pure Florida panther thanks to hunting, lack of conservation, and the introduction of a similar, but nonnative animal. Breeding projects have been attempted in many place, including my hometown, but the true Florida panthers have become diluted. Many panther/cougars in wildlife sanctuaries have cross-eyes or other effects that inbreeding have cause and now the animals cannot survive in the wild. Isn't breeding different morphs frowned upon in the hobby? Many of the things that were leading to the Florida panther's demise could also happen to histos; the animals should never go extinct if we protect their environment, and we cannot introduce animals that are _similar _. 

I don't think hobbyists will ever become as proficient at raising histos, lehmanni, etc. as pumilio because they are supposedly more sensitive. I have no experience with histos, of course, but judging by the handful of people that have them, with little to no success breeding them, they are obviously alot more difficult to care for. I really do hope that someone will crack the code on histos, but for now, I'll look at photos and leave them in the wild. 

I think that breeding for release in the wild is not as important as prevention from them ever becoming extinct is. If there is little hope in the near future for a sure-fire way to breed histos with significant success, then they should not be taken out of the wild. We may be experimenting for years on the best ways to raise them in captivity, but if we keep taking them out of the wild, their populations will decrease while we try and find a way to make the CB pop. increase. It should not be left to the hobbyists to repopulate an area where the frogs go extinct. If there was a considerable breeding program that raised hundreds of CB histos with different bloodlines then that would be great for the wild populations. But as far as I know, no major zoos, universities, museums, or organizations have done so. 

This is not meant to offend anyone. I just think that we should focus on conserving their natural habitats more than experiments if we can raise them in captivity or not. If you have histos, good luck! I hope that you can prove me wrong and have great success with these challenging frogs.[/i]


----------



## NCSUdart (Oct 1, 2004)

it is not so much the care of adult frogs that inhibits the breeding of histos/ granuliferous, lehmanni as it is the care of neonates/froglets. Any obligate eggfeeder, save for ones being heavily exported like MC, basti, chirique pums will always be rare. In europe the rarer frogs are more available since they are being continually smuggled, the same holds true in the states, but is much more frowned upon and frogs known to be smuggled are not openly available. I believe it was blake wood who had the granuliferous offered for trade a few years ago, i believe that rich frye aquired them for 4 darklands. whether or not they have bred i have no idea, but most frogs once they are established are fairly hardy as long as you do not stress them by altering their environment/moving them. you should also remember that in the 90's histos were very plentiful, going in pet stores for 30 or so each but not a lot was known about them. If similar exports from columbia were to come in today, with the increased knowledge about husbandry i personally think that we would be able to maintain the populations instead of them quickly becoming incredibly rare after columbia stopped histo exports. I think it is the same for most of the rarer frogs, first exports made them available but nodody knew how to care for them. the few who managed, kept the species in the hobby but in incredibly small numbers.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2006)

> Quote:
> The problems come in getting the females to properly raise the tads to froglets and then keeping the froglets alive for more than a months or even weeks.


from http://www.robbster.com

If more hobbyists had groups of histos, I'll bet that we could learn the best methods of husbandry in the near future, but since Columbia stopped exports, we are stuck until the few breeders that have them figure out how to keep them. But like what rmelancon says on his site, most of the people w/histos keep their experiences private. They should make it public so that everyone learns about the species. Then maybe we wouldn't be in this situation where captive breeding/rearing of neonates is very difficult.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

*diet?*

I wonder if the difficulty that everyone has with histos, granuliferous, etc. might be a diet-related thing. I'm thinking of how difficult it is to keep Phrynosoma, UNLESS you have access to ants, in which case they are easy as pie.

It just seems hard for me to believe that there are environmental conditions that we can't duplicate (or that are that drastically different from other darts, given that we know the geographies of these animals). On the other hand, it is EASY for me to believe that there may be some diet specialization in these guys... that's where I'd put my money on why they are difficult, anyway... anyone have any more insight?


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2006)

If anyone on the board has histos, chime in! (So everyone can send you PMs to get on your lists) :lol: 

The diet idea may be right, but keep in mind that we're not feeding other dart frogs on their natural food. Fruit flies are obviously an adequate food source for all other frogs because many regard drosophila as a good staple for their darts. (provided that they are supplemented with vitamins) After all, PDFs toxicity in the wild is believed to be caused by their diet of toxic insects. I think I heard that beetles in the melyridae family cause the powerful batrachotoxins in p. terribilis. There are also a few other food sources that hobbyists can use like jewel wasps. A varied diet is important for all animals but maybe it is essential for histos.

Does anybody know if the ranges of histos or lehmannis overlap with more common frogs? If they do, then they probably share some of the same food sources.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

But just because some darts do fine on ff and other stuff doesn't mean they all would, even if they live sympatrically. After all, horned lizards and sideblotched lizards live in the same habitat, but one needs ants to live and the other doesn't. In fact, if they lived sympatrically, it would almost make more sense if some of them specialized in one kind of insect or another...

Cool discussion...


----------



## bluedart (Sep 5, 2005)

Squidbillie said:


> If anyone on the board has histos, chime in! (So everyone can send you PMs to get on your lists) :lol:
> 
> The diet idea may be right, but keep in mind that we're not feeding other dart frogs on their natural food. Fruit flies are obviously an adequate food source for all other frogs because many regard drosophila as a good staple for their darts. (provided that they are supplemented with vitamins) After all, PDFs toxicity in the wild is believed to be caused by their diet of toxic insects. I think I heard that beetles in the melyridae family cause the powerful batrachotoxins in p. terribilis. There are also a few other food sources that hobbyists can use like jewel wasps. A varied diet is important for all animals but maybe it is essential for histos.
> 
> Does anybody know if the ranges of histos or lehmannis overlap with more common frogs? If they do, then they probably share some of the same food sources.


FF's are actually not the best staple for darts, but we use them because of ease of culturing, rate of production, etc. Many hobbyists, myself included, keep 4 or 5 types of feeders and try to feed them almost like a 1:2 or 3 ratio, the 1 being the alternate food source, and the 2 or 3 being the staple. Pinhead crickets are much healthier for the darts, and would make a much more ideal staple if we had better access, they cost less, and they wouldn't grow up in our vivs and become problematic for the frogs well-being. Most darts eat beetles and ants as the bulk of their diet in the wild. How many of us use these feeders on a regular basis? Very few. It is possible that member of the histo group are diet sensitive, but I think that this could be related to rectics in a different manner, leaving out the food sensitive part.

Rectic adults are quite hardy when given a good setup with lots of leaf litter. The same cannot be said about the froglets, which are extremely sensitive and have a high mortality rate. Because we have many more adult, breeding rectics in the US than we do probably of the entire histo group combined, we will have more overall success. All of the froglets of both species are probably very stress, not diet, sensitive.

Does that mean that the mortality rate between rectics and any given histo are different? No. It means that we have more breeding rectics. In 3 years, rectic froglets may be considered easy due to more people with experience raising them, and them in turn passing that information along. Establishing numbers is probably key in establishing these rarities, and hopefully another import or two will occur in the future, enabling us to preserve this unique species for years to come.


----------



## Tadpole4 (Mar 16, 2006)

Deep!! Wow such heated opinions!
Hey Ross, I grew up in Orlando and I wrote my sr research paper on the FL Panther, and the introduction of non native specis! Great paper I got an A. Hope you are making awesome grades too :lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2006)

I realize that FFs are not the best food source but we do the best we can. I never offer one food source to any of my animals because that is not at all how they would eat in the wild. Unless it was a highly specialized feeder. I actually was wondering where to get jewel wasp cultures because I want to raise those, springtails, FFs, and maybe flour beetle larvae. 

Anyways, back to histos. If we do get more shipments of histos then maybe we _can_ establish them in the hobby, but if we ever have to release them back into the wild, which you state is one of the most important parts of our hobby, that will NOT be good. Histos are so variable that if we ever bred adults in the U.S., we could only release animals that come from a _very_ specific range. Also, most people that actually have success with histos wouldn't offer up their proven pair to be released back into the wild. They would offer related frogs that would eventually breed in the wild. I know many hobbyists breed F1's and F2's and that isn't considered too bad because it's usually the best we can do. But let's say that we release a group of about 10 frogs all bred from a few pairs of histos. Most likely, their range will be restricted to a a few acres. When they breed their offspring will inevitably be related and over time they will breed until all the frogs in the area are somehow related. This may lead to an initial increase in thier population but decades down the road, if they haven't come in contact with many wild histos and they're still breeding inside the family, they could have severe disabilities. Besides, even if we did offer histos that were CB to go back into the wild, Colombia probably wouldn't accept them. The CB ones would dilute the genetic diversity of the wild populations and weaken the species. We should never release any animals into the wild unless they are prepared by professionals at zoos, universities, etc. Even when those types of places release less sensitive animals such as tigers, there is a huge amount of preparation. And the animals they release may be brother and sister, but they recognize each other and they will probably not mate. 

I don't think that one of the most important parts of our hobby is repopulation of the wild. We may like to tell ourselves this so we feel like "naturalists", but if we do release into the wild, that could be destroying the wild populations. The best thing that can from from our hobby is to increase awareness of the threats that we pose to rainforests and that we must stop before it is too late. 

Tadpole-I'm actually getting OK grades. I go to an International Baccalaureate school, if anyone knows what the mumbo jumbo means. :? 
We have it drilled into our minds that the introduction of non-native species is bad, there's plenty of it down here. ...freakin' burmese pythons BREEDING in the Everglades...not good.

P.S. - Could a Mod move this to the Advanced Section?


----------



## ColombianFrogger (Jul 9, 2004)

Histos are sympatric with:
northern Choco: aurotaenia, minutus, fulguritus, auratus, E. boulengeri and truncatus
middle choco: P. bicolor, minutus, fulguritus, boulengeri
southern Choco: terribilis, viridis, boulengeri and occultator
lehmanni is sympatric with D. viridis

as you can see, they shares their habitat with a lot of other easy to breed darts.


----------



## bluedart (Sep 5, 2005)

Just a couple quick things--nobody wants this thread to get locked. I don't think anybody said anything about repopulating the wild with CB frogs--but preserving these animals in captivity is the goal. If, and probably when, histos go extinct in the wild, then there will be no wild genetic pool to dilute. Plus, if we had several imports come in, where do you think the animals would have come from? They would come from these "very specific" areas, and would be semi-related as it is. That's why, in our hobby, we do work towards keeping lines the same, and attempting to breed distant cousins rather than brothers and sisters. And, also, brother and sister animals breed ALL the time. And, in the wild, having lots of inbreeding usually doesn't cause many ill effects because those offspring that are born mutated usually fall ill, are victim to predation, etc. Additionally, it wouldn't be considered "established in the hobby" if there were only say, 1 dozen proven pairs. Established is having lots and lots of pairs, all breeding and happy. So, you're exactly right, "one of the most important parts of our hobby" is not repopulating the wild, but rather keeping these dwindling species alive in captivity for future generations to see.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2006)

Didn't see this post


> But just because some darts do fine on ff and other stuff doesn't mean they all would, even if they live sympatrically. After all, horned lizards and sideblotched lizards live in the same habitat, but one needs ants to live and the other doesn't. In fact, if they lived sympatrically, it would almost make more sense if some of them specialized in one kind of insect or another...


But horned lizards and sideblotched lizards aren't in the same genus, therefore they would not have evolved similarly. That's why the horned lizard needs ants and the side blotched lizard doesn't. The Dendrobatids we're talking about did evolve similarly. Most likely, if our frog found a colony of termites, it'd eat it no matter what type of termite it is. The point is, I don't think the frogs are specifically looking for a certain species of insect because I believe people have seen other PDFs eating in the wild. If we saw that they were exclusively eating one species of bug then we could determine which insects attribute to their toxicity. But this isn't the case. There are thousands of different insect species with hundreds more still not discovered in the rainforests, how could a species so small as histrionicus survive on only one or two species of insect? With all of those different types of insects, they have to be opportunistic and eat whatever they can as it comes along instead of searching for _one_ type of insect. Not only would searching for this one food source be exhausting, they would have little time to mate or feed their tadpoles.

EDIT: I don't want this to be locked either. This is a very interesting topic that needs to be discussed. I was just using an example to how interbreeding can be detrimental to populations with the FL panther thing. I also mentioned that it could cause problems "decades" down the road. For the time being we shouldn't be collecting these frogs. There's my main point. We should try and keep them in the wild for as long as we can. If the governments down there were to establish more wildlife refuges then we shouldn't have to worry about them going extinct. It takes years for a species to go extinct and it's not like there are only a dozen histos left in the wild. Would you rather see histos in the wild, or in some breeders "collection" while they are doing nothing to help the status of wild or _captive _populations. Understand that when CB animals are released with the intention to repopulate an area, they are almost never as successful as they hope. 
How is "preserving these animals in captivity" a goal? That's horrible that all some of us care about is keeping them alive in captivity, waiting for their wild counterparts to go extinct. I'm not speaking of anyone in particular but there are people out there that do that. Like people who import WC pumilio when they are capable of breeding them in captivity. 



> So, you're exactly right, "one of the most important parts of our hobby" is not repopulating the wild, but rather keeping these dwindling species alive in captivity for future generations to see


Keeping a dwindling species alive in captivity is a bad goal to set for a hobby regarding rare animals. They need to be kept in the wild. If future generations wish to appreciate the animals for how they should be they need to be kept in the wild, not in a glass box. I know that I keep pets in cages/aquariums but they're all CB. I also know that certain frogs are very rare in the wild, but they are easy to breed in captivity. This is different from the situation with histos. Histos are rare in the wild, but they are very difficult to keep and breed in captivity. Our captive populations of histos are being supported by wild ones that are dwindling enough. If the captive pop. is never growing, then why would we take more wild ones? We're just digging ourselves in deeper.

If anyone else has more comments, I'm interested in hearing them. This is a subject that needs to be discussed.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Some comments from the different sections (I'm trying to not take them out of context). 

snip "But horned lizards and sideblotched lizards aren't in the same genus, therefore they would not have evolved similarly. That's why the horned lizard needs ants and the side blotched lizard doesn't." endsnip

Except there are several studies that have shown that at least some species of Horned lizards do not require ants.. There have been multiple generations bred in captivity without ants in the diet. If you want to discuss this more pm or e-mail me off list. 

snip "The point is, I don't think the frogs are specifically looking for a certain species of insect because I believe people have seen other PDFs eating in the wild. If we saw that they were exclusively eating one species of bug then we could determine which insects attribute to their toxicity. But this isn't the "

Except this isn't supported in the literature. If given the option, an amphibian (or reptile) will choose certain prey species over other prey species based on caloric content and/or mineral content.... This can go to the point where in some caudates females discriminate against males that have territories than include nutritionally poorer insects as a food source as opposed to those that have more nutrient rich territories. 

snip "we shouldn't have to worry about them going extinct. It takes years for a species to go extinct and it's not like there are only a dozen histos left in the wild. "

Um, with some species it can take less than a season (or a month or two for those with restricted ranges (like Bolitoglossa aquatica)) for a species to go extinct. Extinction events can occur very quickly. While the years estimate can be accurate as in more than one year, it can occur in less than three years... Golden Toads.... When chytrid moves into an area, the extinction event can occur within 3 years with most of the deaths occuring in years one and two.... 

snip "FF's are actually not a good staple for darts, but we use them because of ease of culturing, rate of production, etc. snip and snip Pinhead crickets are much healthier for the darts, and would make a much more ideal staple if we had better access, they cost less, and they endsnip

Can I ask on what data you base this decision? 

snip "adults are quite hardy when given a good setup with lots of leaf litter. The same cannot be said about the froglets, which are extremely sensitive and have a high mortality rate." 

Why do you feel this is diet related and not due to stress from other items like a need to be better able to mange its osmotic balance through correct niches? 


snip "On the other hand, it is EASY for me to believe that there may be some diet specialization in these guys endsnip

Why does a diet specialization mean that if they readily accept a substitute diet that there is problems with that substitute diet? 

Ed


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

Ed-

Good points all around. I was actually writing a similar response to the one you wrote (about horned lizards) when my computer crashed... but yes, there is tremendous variation within the Phrynosoma about how dependent they are on ants. Not only that, but there are species of lemur that specialize on certain species of plants, hummingbirds which focus on just a few flower species, etc. So the example of horned lizards vs. sideblotched wasn't the best, but I still do not think, in response to Squidbillie, that one can discount the hypothesis that certain darts have problems in captivity because of dietary issues. Ed in response to your last quesiton, I'm not sure I totally understand you... many organisms that have diet specializations will accept other items with gusto for awhile, and then eventually die (horned lizards are again a great example here, I can vouch from experience gathered as a boy that at least one species that need ants to survive will live for a few months, aggressively eating crickets, etc before dying). I'm sure that both cases exist - those in which animals with diet specialization do fine with an alternate food source, and those in which they do not.

All I am saying, in any of this, is that I believe there is a large body of evidence indicating that:

a) diet specialization is common in closely related organisms, I would even go so far as to venture an educated guess and say especially so in organisms that live sympatrically. It may even be selectively favored as a way to minimize interspecific competition.

b) diet specialization is known to have caused/is known to cause difficulties with many different species of herps. Offhand, I can think of horned lizards, hognosed snakes (easterns, anyway), and a few species of ant-eating anurans (their names elude me right now...), some horned frogs (Suriname?) that are difficult to maintain or adapt to captivity specifically because of dietary issues, and I am sure there are dozens more. Moreover, it is a common phenomenon that the young of certain species, ie green tree pythons, often refuse common food sources, but will accept lizards, etc as a first few meals. Indeed, several products have come to the market recently specifically to address "scenting" issues.

c) to my knowledge, there has been inadequate study done on diet specialization in dart frogs to conclude a priori that it is not a primary or contributing factor in the difficulty of captive maintenance of some species.

I have no doubt that some environmental conditions, particularly in the tadpole or froglet stage, may be to blame for problems. However, for species that occurr in very similar or practically identical (and this may not be all of the difficult ones, but surely it applies to some) habitats to species currently maintained and bred in captivity, I find it harder to believe that a habitat/environment construction problem is to blame. This is especially true in reflecting on anecdotal stories I have heard in which individuals will do OK for awhile in captivity, and then eventually die off, fail to breed, etc. This is the exact pattern noted by many disappointed young boys who try and keep horned lizards in captivity without ants, although in fairness it must be said that it is not inconsistent with improper environment.

In a nutshell, I just think it would be foolhardy for us to say "there's something in their environment that we can't emulate" without also seriously considering what we're feeding the animals.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2006)

About the horned lizards. I didn't make the post so direct the comments elsewhere please. I was just restating his original thought. They're not really relevant to the darts we're talking about so I suggest we drop that. 

I know that certain animals will choose other insects over others but I was trying to point out that a dart frog, particularly histos, would have a difficult time trying to locate that one species amongst thousands of other types of insects. If there are any dart frogs in the Dendrobates genus that specializes in only a couple species of insect, please tell me. I'm not saying that their poor successes in captivity _aren't_ linked to diet, because they definately could be. I agree with npaull, we definately need more research on the proper nutrition for our frogs.

When I said it would take years for a speciesto go extinct...I meant The species in question, histrionicus. The golden toads, b. periglenes, were in a different situation than that of the histos we're discussing. Their species only mated for a few days out of the year. The other portion of the year they spent living in cavities amongst root systems. There were low numbers of them in the first place. Where did you hear that chytrid killed the golden toads? I've never heard that before. (Not to sound like a prick, I'm interested) 

I would think it would be easier for larger animals such as lemurs to specialize in one or two fruits because they can cover a much larger territory in search for their food source. 


> o the example of horned lizards vs. sideblotched wasn't the best, but I still do not think, in response to Squidbillie, that one can discount the hypothesis that certain darts have problems in captivity because of dietary issues.


I'm not discounting it at all. I just thought it was a little unlikely, but since we're having limited success, that would be very exciting if I was proven wrong. Then maybe we could find out what dietary needs must be met to keep these frogs.

Has anyone ever observed diet specialization in dendrobatids? This is a really interesting discussion. It's surprising how little we know about the best way to keep these frogs but we have success still. Imagine if we knew exactly what foods were the best. Let's keep the comments coming; this is a very interesting subject.[/u]


----------



## bluedart (Sep 5, 2005)

Ed said:


> Some comments from the different sections (I'm trying to not take them out of context).
> 
> snip "FF's are actually not a good staple for darts, but we use them because of ease of culturing, rate of production, etc. snip and snip Pinhead crickets are much healthier for the darts, and would make a much more ideal staple if we had better access, they cost less, and they endsnip
> 
> ...


I base the decision about ff's not being a good staple simply on hobbyist opinions. I should probably reword that to say "not the best staple", rather than "not a good staple." In addition, I've seen the work ups which show the contents of each insect, and the crickets seemed to be superior to the fruit flies.

In regards to the rectics: It's not diet related at all, and nowhere in my post did I was it was diet related (I don't believe I did, any. I agree, it's stress related issues that kill off rectic froglets and histo froglets. Maybe I should have made that point more clear, but I don't think I said anywhere anything about food.



Squisbillie said:


> Would you rather see histos in the wild, or in some breeders "collection" while they are doing nothing to help the status of wild or captive populations.... That's horrible that all some of us care about is keeping them alive in captivity, waiting for their wild counterparts to go extinct.... Keeping a dwindling species alive in captivity is a bad goal to set for a hobby regarding rare animals.


I would much rather see these animals in the wild, but there is a time in which you need to see the obvious and realize that there is a great chance that this species WILL go extinct. You're having unrealistic thoughts at the prospect of governments making lots and lots more reserves... it's just probably not going to happen. I've donated lots of financial support to organizations working in S.A. to keep these animals alive. You're taking what is being said, and making it into a whole other topic entirely. Keeping them alive in captivity is NOT all that some of us care about, you're twisting words. Our focus as HOBBYISTS, or those who keep these frogs captive, should be to establish captive breeding programs for them, because most of us cannot be in SA working with the governments all the time. I have to get this out: your posts are inflaming me. You're twisting words around, and missing the point of the HOBBY. Listen, and don't worry if you're not always right. It's good to learn from those around you. Embrace the opportunity you have on this board.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Good points all around. I was actually writing a similar response to the one you wrote (about horned lizards) when my computer crashed... but yes, there is tremendous variation within the Phrynosoma about how dependent they are on ants." endsnip

I am unaware of any further studies that documented the dependence on ants in any of the species when the required enviromental paramaters are met.... 

snip "Not only that, but there are species of lemur that specialize on certain species of plants, hummingbirds which focus on just a few flower species, etc. So the example of horned lizards vs. sideblotched wasn't the best, but I still do not think, in response to Squidbillie, that one can discount the hypothesis that certain darts have problems in captivity because of dietary issues. Ed in response to your last quesiton, I'm not sure I totally understand you... many organisms that have diet specializations will accept other items with gusto for awhile, and then eventually die (horned lizards are again a great example here, I can vouch from experience gathered as a boy that at least one species that need ants to survive will live for a few months, aggressively eating crickets, etc before dying). I'm sure that both cases exist - those in which animals with diet specialization do fine with an alternate food source, and those in which they do not. endsnip 

The decline after awhile maybe due to the lack of a nutrient or excess of a nutrient in the diet but it can also be due to problems with the failure to meet some enviromental parameter. This happens fairly frequently in the hobbyist field as many people do not evaluate the diet on the nutrients and when a diet specialist doesn't do well it is often blamed on the diet fed as a replacement when the nutrient values of the normal diet and the replacement diet are often unknown (or are known and not determined before aquiring the animal). Also, asymptomatic deaths due to stress or other causes may be blamed on dietary issues further leading to the idea that the lack of the specialist diet is the cause (often due to the lack of a necropsy). Even animals that have extreme physical specialized adaptations will do well once the nutritonal needs are identified and met (such as those of giant anteaters...) Even difficult to keep primates like the foliverous languers can be kept through the use of substitute foliverous diets supplemented by chows (these diets have been well studied). 

snip "All I am saying, in any of this, is that I believe there is a large body of evidence indicating that: 

a) diet specialization is common in closely related organisms, I would even go so far as to venture an educated guess and say especially so in organisms that live sympatrically. It may even be selectively favored as a way to minimize interspecific competition. "endsnip

Okay but diet specialization is a form of niche explotation and doesn't necessarily mean that the animal cannot due well on a artificial diet.... 

snip "b) diet specialization is known to have caused/is known to cause difficulties with many different species of herps. Offhand, I can think of horned lizards, hognosed snakes (easterns, anyway), and a few species of ant-eating anurans (their names elude me right now...), some horned frogs (Suriname?) that are difficult to maintain or adapt to captivity specifically because of dietary issues, and I am sure there are dozens more. Moreover, it is a common phenomenon that the young of certain species, ie green tree pythons, often refuse common food sources, but will accept lizards, etc as a first few meals. Indeed, several products have come to the market recently specifically to address "scenting" issues. "endsnip

Okay part of the issue here is that you are mixing several different issues under diet specialization. With the Suriname horned frogs, you have prey imprinting issues which is why cb ones do so well. 
As alternate methods of inducing the animals to accept artificial diets are determined many of these species have become easy to keep in captivity without resorting to the native diet. The problem for many years with Chondropython (Morelia) (your example of ontogentic change) was not in rearing the offspring on pinks, but in getting the eggs to hatch. 

snip "c) to my knowledge, there has been inadequate study done on diet specialization in dart frogs to conclude a priori that it is not a primary or contributing factor in the difficulty of captive maintenance of some species. " endsnip 

Even though there has been little data collected on this subject, there has also been little indication that diet specialization and the lack of that diet causes problems in keeping dendrobatid frogs (unlike some other anurans like Bufo baxeri)... To date all data supports the idea that dendrobatid frogs in general require the general dietary standards as seen in other vertebrates (as supported through institutional necropsies) 

snip "I have no doubt that some environmental conditions, particularly in the tadpole or froglet stage, may be to blame for problems. However, for species that occurr in very similar or practically identical (and this may not be all of the difficult ones, but surely it applies to some) habitats to species currently maintained and bred in captivity, I find it harder to believe that a habitat/environment construction problem is to blame." endsnip

I find it easier to believe than the dietary specialization argument.... 
The occupation of the same generalistic habitat does not imply that the animal uses the same niche(s) as the others. If the animal has a more specialized niche requirement then failure to supply that niche will cause increased mortality, reduced reproduction and decreased survivorship of the offspring while a less specialized species from the same habitat may readily adapt to new conditions and thrives... This has been discussed for years in the literature under several different names/ideas, the most common of which was maladaption syndrome and now is just covered under stress. 


snip "This is especially true in reflecting on anecdotal stories I have heard in which individuals will do OK for awhile in captivity, and then eventually die off, fail to breed, etc. This is the exact pattern noted by many disappointed young boys who try and keep horned lizards in captivity without ants, although in fairness it must be said that it is not inconsistent with improper environment. " endsnip

And in many of these cases, the aquired animal is in poor condition, is kept incorrectly and when it dies does not have a necropsy performed to determine the cause of death..... 
With the horned lizards, the literature (check the International Zoo Yearbook index for the citations, I forget what years off the top of my head), most people have aquired animals that are heavily stressed and have been maintained incorrectly before they aquire them, fail to provide the proper thermal requirements, the proper thermoregulation needs, the proper amount of UVB supplementation, and to get them deparasitized but when they die, its because they weren't fed ants........ 

snip "In a nutshell, I just think it would be foolhardy for us to say "there's something in their environment that we can't emulate" without also seriously considering what we're feeding the animals." endsnip

I would agree with this statement as failure to do well should result in a total review of all husbandry procedures. 

Ed


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2006)

Sorry if that inflamed you. I'm not trying to be offensive. I realize that the species could go extinct. If we don't get a better understanding of them or maintain their habitat, I bet it will happen before the turn of the century. I agree that eventually we need to set up captive breeding programs, but if we can't take care of them now, we need to do more research and get it down to a science. Experiments on the frogs is not worth their lives. This is what the last few posts have been about, researching the frogs. That would be great if we could make a breeding program for them, but they should never have to be released back to the wild. If we can learn more about them, then maybe we'll be able to take better care of them in the future. But it's unrealistic to think that we'll be able to establish a breeding program (and I mean a very large one with dozens of pairs) in the near future and then release the offspring in the wild. If we were to create a breeding program to release the offspring only within the hobby, that would be fine, but I don't see it happening any time soon. 

If the animals in the wild cannot be protected by the governments, then there is not much that the hobbyists can do. It's their country. We have to accept that. The last resort would be to have the animals in captivity while the wild ones go extinct. While not the best situation, it would save the species. If the species did ever go extinct in the wild we could then release them without the risks involved with releasing CB animals with wild ones. Hopefully we will never have to worry about that and we can understand the needs of histos, etc. Once again, sorry if I offended you. I never directed it towards you specifically. I was thinking of people that import frogs that will never sustain a captive population or if they constantly import pums even if they can be captive bred. If there's any thing else you want to say about the inflamation sendmea Pm.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "I know that certain animals will choose other insects over others but I was trying to point out that a dart frog, particularly histos, would have a difficult time trying to locate that one species amongst thousands of other types of insects. If there are any dart frogs in the Dendrobates genus that specializes in only a couple species of insect, please tell me. I'm not saying that their poor successes in captivity aren't linked to diet, because they definately could be. I agree with npaull, we definately need more research on the proper nutrition for our frogs. "endsnip

Often the different insects are in a feast or famine status. Such as termites, ffs on fallen fruit, etc. Unlike a lot of other anurans dendrobatids are foragers and hunt for food sources and are not lay in wait predators. This allows for a better selection of prey sources to meet dietary needs. 
I'm not saying it isn't dietary as people often supply the supplements needed to balance the diet.... 


snip "When I said it would take years for a speciesto go extinct...I meant The species in question, histrionicus. The golden toads, b. periglenes, were in a different situation than that of the histos we're discussing. Their species only mated for a few days out of the year. The other portion of the year they spent living in cavities amongst root systems. There were low numbers of them in the first place. Where did you hear that chytrid killed the golden toads? I've never heard that before. (Not to sound like a prick, I'm interested) " endsnip

It has been passed around in several different publications but an easy to pull up check out http://ic.ucsc.edu/~flegal/etox80e/Spec ... ytrid.html

Chytrid was detected at the site in 2001.... But I wasn't speaking that B. periglenes was positively chytrid related. I suspect chytrid hit it at the same time as the El Nino.... But chytrid deaths can wipe out a population in two or three years of it entering an area and it can spread many kilometers in a year... So it is very possible that histos could be wiped out in a couple of years.... 

Ed


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

bluedart said:


> I have to get this out: your posts are inflaming me. You're twisting words around, and missing the point of the HOBBY. Listen, and don't worry if you're not always right. It's good to learn from those around you. Embrace the opportunity you have on this board.



Awww Josh...if you get all inflamed we'll have to take ya to the clinic for another cortisone shot 8) Keep it frosty my man.

Bill


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2006)

Ed, thanks for the info on the golden toads & chytrid. My book with all the info was getting a little outdated. I think it was published before 2001. 

Edit: I didn't know waht inflamed meant at first. Lol. I typed inflamation and I didnt think that sounded right, but oh well. :lol:


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Josh,

snip I base the decision about ff's not being a good staple simply on hobbyist opinions. I should probably reword that to say "not the best staple", rather than "not a good staple." In addition, I've seen the work ups which show the contents of each insect, and the crickets seemed to be superior to the fruit flies. endsnip

If you are basing it on the commonly available nutrient analysis these can be problomatic to compare. The comparisions need to be based on kcals and not the general analysis per gram... Remember that the usefulness of the ffs and crickets will also depend on the supplement and the frequency of the supplementation... 

In regards to the rectics: It's not diet related at all, and nowhere in my post did I was it was diet related (I don't believe I did, any. I agree, it's stress related issues that kill off rectic froglets and histo froglets. Maybe I should have made that point more clear, but I don't think I said anywhere anything about food." endsnip

I took it to be in reference to food because the paragraph follows the paragraph about ffs and other diet issues and there wasn't anything that I took to mean you were talking about a different topic..... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Ross,

Snip "If the animals in the wild cannot be protected by the governments, then there is not much that the hobbyists can do. It's their country. We have to accept that. The last resort would be to have the animals in captivity while the wild ones go extinct. While not the best situation, it would save the species. If the species did ever go extinct in the wild we could then release them without the risks involved with releasing CB animals with wild ones." endsnip

The current problem is that with montane species, protecting the habitat is no longer sufficient as chytrid will still wipe them out and prevent the reintroduction of animals from a different source. 


Ed


----------



## bluedart (Sep 5, 2005)

Squidbillie said:


> Sorry if that inflamed you. I'm not trying to be offensive. I realize that the species could go extinct. If we don't get a better understanding of them or maintain their habitat, I bet it will happen before the turn of the century. I agree that eventually we need to set up captive breeding programs, but if we can't take care of them now, we need to do more research and get it down to a science. Experiments on the frogs is not worth their lives. This is what the last few posts have been about, researching the frogs. That would be great if we could make a breeding program for them, but they should never have to be released back to the wild. If we can learn more about them, then maybe we'll be able to take better care of them in the future. But it's unrealistic to think that we'll be able to establish a breeding program (and I mean a very large one with dozens of pairs) in the near future and then release the offspring in the wild. If we were to create a breeding program to release the offspring only within the hobby, that would be fine, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
> 
> If the animals in the wild cannot be protected by the governments, then there is not much that the hobbyists can do. It's their country. We have to accept that. The last resort would be to have the animals in captivity while the wild ones go extinct. While not the best situation, it would save the species. If the species did ever go extinct in the wild we could then release them without the risks involved with releasing CB animals with wild ones. Hopefully we will never have to worry about that and we can understand the needs of histos, etc. Once again, sorry if I offended you. I never directed it towards you specifically. I was thinking of people that import frogs that will never sustain a captive population or if they constantly import pums even if they can be captive bred. If there's any thing else you want to say about the inflamation sendmea Pm.


It wasn't offensive, you're just missing the entire points of my posts. :shock:


----------



## bluedart (Sep 5, 2005)

Ed said:


> Hi Josh,
> 
> snip I base the decision about ff's not being a good staple simply on hobbyist opinions. I should probably reword that to say "not the best staple", rather than "not a good staple." In addition, I've seen the work ups which show the contents of each insect, and the crickets seemed to be superior to the fruit flies. endsnip
> 
> ...


Great point on the ff's Ed. And, that's probably my bad on the rectics, I'll go back and reword that to make it more evident.


----------



## ColombianFrogger (Jul 9, 2004)

Ok,
I think the problem with histo froglets could be stress and poor nutrition in the tadpole. If the females doesnt egg feed them well, you'll see weak and even deformed froglets who wont survive. But histo froglets are really small, maybe the same size as baby retics. In my experience, shy and tiny froglets tend to shock when kept in small enclosures, and they seems to do it better when kept in big and more stable tanks. The recent article (I think Ed posted it somewhere) also suggest this.


Histos are very territorial, and they needs to have good places to call, (trunks inside the tank). I think they do better in pairs, unless you have a big tank, as they will have the chance to form the pairs, who I think are very important for them. As in bigger parrots, just to have a male and a female doesnt means they will bond each other. I know there are no serious studies about pair bonding in histos, but I think they at least shares biparental care in the breeding time.

dont want to offend anyone, but I think the issue about the hobby as a source for conservation of endangered species has been strongly discuted in the past...


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

Ed-

I agree pretty much entirely with your comments with regards to my last post. I do not think we have signficant disagreement, except perhaps the degree to which I can envision diet vs. environment (in however meaningful a way that distinction can be drawn) playing a role in failed efforts for certain dendrobatids. My previous post was meant broadly to illustrate that diet issues CAN and HAVE caused problems with some species of herps, and we don't know enough to rule it out yet unilaterally, in my opinion. I do not think diet issues are anywhere near the entire picture for all difficult species; though in reflection my posts may have implied that. One last note about the Phrynosoma and then I'll shut up about that genus: I said there is "huge variation," and that's not really true. There seem to be (I am pulling from memory and anecdotal stories) two general breakdowns: those that need lots of ants to thrive, and those that generally don't.

I think the debate about the relative importance of wild vs. captive stocks is somewhat silly; I strongly doubt there is anyone on this board who doesn't wish fervently for all dendrobatids' continued success in the wild. Similarly, I know we all want healthy, responsible breeding and maintenance of as many of these species as is ecologically viable (with regards to pressure on wild stocks), with a strong preference for vibrant captive gene pools. Striking a balance, especially in cases where habitat may be facing impending doom, is understandably more of a gray area, but let's remember that we're all on the same team here...Captive preservation of taxa is clearly a second-choice to their health in the wild, but it would be foolish to discount the potential benefits: look at the relative numbers of spotted turtles vs. bog turtles...


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2006)

Alot of detailed replies anyway. Is it more of a problem when it comes to feeding the tadpoles and that adults will happily feed on springtails, pinheads, fruit flies and the likes. I accept that there natural environment will be impossible to replicate. Surly over time IF they were to become captive bread they'd adapt as many other creatures have done.[/b]


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

G1ROSS1,

I don't think anyone really knows exactly why some of these species are so difficult to keep - that's sort of the one consensus that can be drawn from all of this. Certainly we are not at the point where we can say the adults will do fine under conditions x if neonates have conditions y. I have been arguing that these problems may, for some species, at some stages, be linked to diet specialization problems, or a failure of nutrition in some other respect. Others have submitted that microenvironmental issues are more likely to blame. The truth may well (and probably does) involve both issues, to widely varying degrees, for different species. I think it is safe to say we're still at the hypothesis stage, and all options need to be evaluated.

I do not think it would be true to say that there are conditions that we can never emulate, but rather that we currently are ignorant as to what conditions those may be. Until we know what's missing, we can't know what to replace. Unfortunately, there are really only two ways to find out: detailed in-situ studies, and trial-and-error experiments...

Lastly, (and I am not saying you are doing this) I think some people confuse "adapting to captivity" with evolving to be better suited to captive conditions. I don't think any herps have been in captivity long enough to have evolved significantly towards tolerance of captive conditions; rather, some species were predisposed to be easy to maintain, others were difficult until healthy, nonstressed imports were available, etc. The success currently enjoyed with many dart frog species is due to ready availability of healthy animals and knowledge of their needs, not because they have adapted as a species (=evolution) to captive conditions.


----------



## Tim F (Jan 27, 2006)

I confess…like to watch, and I’ve “lurking” ever since I stumbled across this site. As I step out, I apologize in advance if what I’m posting has been addressed (probably has, especially by the time I finish) somewhere else in this forum. 

With regard to keeping, breeding and rearing histos and granies, assuming environmental requirements are met, I’m leaning heavily toward diet as the big problem. Seemingly healthy adults will not guarantee healthy offspring, assuming you can encourage breeding behavior. Undetected deficiencies would have an effect on the physical and neurological development of eggs, tads, and froglets. When I say “neurological” I’m suggesting that developmental problems in this area have a bearing on how the young metabolize stress in certain species, which affects their rate of survival in captivity. Just a thought, because all of our frogs are lacking to a degree.

Now before everyone jumps on my case with “my frogs are health you @#@!,” I’d like to offer one simple fact. *None* *of our pdfs are all that they should be no matter how fat and happy they appear to be*. Dietarily, they are lacking. If your P. terribilis is not straight up deadly, it is not all that nature had intended. It has a deficiency.

To what extent might these deficiencies affect different species? Is it that big of a stretch to imagine that decreased toxicity is not the only side effect a captive pdf’s diet? I think that some can be raised on ff and crickets and have healthy young, while others simply cannot. If this is the case, it doesn’t matter how beautiful or realistic your viv seems, or how often you mist! In nature, they’re able to get what they need. In our vivs, they get what we give ‘em, which is dictated by and large by what is convenient for us and what’s convenient for us will not always be enough to produce breeding behavior or raise healthy young. 

Should we even bother with difficult species? No doubt that the excitement is in the challenge. But what about when the difficult species are also rare and endangered? Whether your thing is frogs, fish, plants or whatever, this debate nearly always at the fore of discussion: Breeding for conservation/restoration vs. greater emphasis on conservation and leaving the things in the wild. I am also a coral reefer / marine aquarist, and I can’t tell you how often I see animals offered for sale that are becoming increasingly rare that are known to have zero survival rates in captivity even for professionals. Should we, for example, continue to chip away at our dwindling reefs for these animals in hopes that some day hobbyists and/or zoos will be able to keep them alive for more than a few months (in some cases) and maybe “crack the code” and breed them so that maybe they can be reintroduced? This question also applies to certain dwindling pdf populations and habitats. I lean towards restricting trade and preserving habitats to whatever extent that we are able to, and "rescue" if necessary.

Hope that wasn't a rant.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip " Seemingly healthy adults will not guarantee healthy offspring, assuming you can encourage breeding behavior. Undetected deficiencies would have an effect on the physical and neurological development of eggs, tads, and froglets. When I say “neurological” I’m suggesting that developmental problems in this area have a bearing on how the young metabolize stress in certain species, which affects their rate of survival in captivity. Just a thought, because all of our frogs are lacking to a degree. 

None of our pdfs are all that they should be no matter how fat and happy they appear to be. Dietarily, they are lacking. If your P. terribilis is not straight up deadly, it is not all that nature had intended. It has a deficiency" endsnip

If I follow your thoughts correctly here, it appears that you are mixing the idea that nutrients that are metabolically necessary and bioactive agents that are not metabolically necessary but are sequestered for other purposes are both necessary for proper development of the frogs.. 

I agree that seemingly healthy adults can have poor survivorship of the offspring particuarly with egg feeders as this is the source of the tadpole's nutrients and any deficiency in the adult's diet will be magnified in the tadpole. However, I think that it is an excessive reach to think that the frogs with the proper supplementation cannot be reared on a diet of ffs, and/or crickets. It is way too early to make this sort of value judgement given how rapidly the field of amphibian nutrition is changing at this time...

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "Lastly, (and I am not saying you are doing this) I think some people confuse "adapting to captivity" with evolving to be better suited to captive conditions. I don't think any herps have been in captivity long enough to have evolved significantly towards tolerance of captive conditions; rather, some species were predisposed to be easy to maintain, others were difficult until healthy, nonstressed imports were available, etc. The success currently enjoyed with many dart frog species is due to ready availability of healthy animals and knowledge of their needs, not because they have adapted as a species (=evolution) to captive conditions."


I am not so willing to dismiss this as the pressure to evolve would be ferocious particuarly in the darts that have been established in captivity the logest... The animals that were more able to adapt are the ones that would be able to survive and reproduce and thier offspring that could adapt the best would then be the ones that survived and bred. This may not be as true today given the amount of work in setting up low stress enclosures etc for the new imports but 10, 15 and 20 years ago this would not have been the case most of the time..... 

Ed


----------



## Tim F (Jan 27, 2006)

Hey Ed – the hook!

Ok, I’ll bite.

*snip “If I follow your thoughts correctly here, it appears that you are mixing the idea that nutrients that are metabolically necessary and bioactive agents that are not metabolically necessary but are sequestered for other purposes are both necessary for proper development of the frogs..” end snip *

It is my suggestion that insects that supply “bioactive agents” may also supply “metabolically necessary” nutrients absent in ffs, crickets and the supplements that are currently available to us. I will also suggest that bioactive agents may trigger or enable metabolic activity. It is seen throughout nature that elements seemingly unrelated engage one another for a singular purpose. Remove, alter, or substitute an element or two, or three, and you will have an outcome other than that which nature had intended. This is why we have non-poison pdfs in captivity, and likely have limited or no success with some species. 

However, my point here is that a lack in toxicity is an obvious consequence of an unnatural diet. It shouldn’t be difficult to imagine that there are other elements in a pdf’s natural diet that supply nutrients for functions that are not quite so obvious, and that there are consequences when these functions are not engaged. Functions that may, for example, stimulate breeding behavior in D. granuliferous, or strengthen tads and froglets known to have high mortality rates in captivity.

*snip “I think that it is an excessive reach to think that the frogs with the proper supplementation cannot be reared on a diet of ffs, and/or crickets. It is way too early to make this sort of value judgement given how rapidly the field of amphibian nutrition is changing at this time...” end snip*

"Excessive reach?" "Value judgment?" Interesting. I suppose I didn't spell out the fact that I raise pdfs. That's why I'm on this forum. Therefore I know that _some_ species are fine w/ ff, crickets, and other things thrown in for variety. IMO, the "difficult" species, which I do not raise, are not.

This is my current "opinion". One among what I'm sure are many. I will gladly alter, expand or change my opinion altogether as new information is made available. However, what we know now, in this moment, is that the pdfs addressed in this post, along with a number of others, are not being bred in captivity to any degree that would constitue success applying current pdf keeping techniques known to US hobbyists. While this may change at some point in the future, for now, it is neither a “reach” nor a “judgment”. It’s the way it is, and you may attribute this to whatever you'd like or feel comfortable with. 

Finally, I agree that amphibian nutrition is advancing, and thankfully so. None of us would be in this hobby were this not the case. It will never be static. No real science can be, nor can any scientist be assured the last word.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Tim,

snip "It is my suggestion that insects that supply “bioactive agents” may also supply “metabolically necessary” nutrients absent in ffs, crickets and the supplements that are currently available to us." endsnip

Based on what literature is currently available, the make up of insects in general for metabolically necessary nutrients is pretty uniform overall... They have poor calcium to phosphorus ratios, little to no vitamin A (as retinol), and poor sources of carotenoids... 

snip " I will also suggest that bioactive agents may trigger or enable metabolic activity. It is seen throughout nature that elements seemingly unrelated engage one another for a singular purpose. Remove, alter, or substitute an element or two, or three, and you will have an outcome other than that which nature had intended. This is why we have non-poison pdfs in captivity, and likely have limited or no success with some species. " endsnip

It depends on the bioactive agents under discussion here. There has been a lot of work done on the various toxins and there has been no indication in any of the models that they enhance or enable uptake of any metabolically necessary nutrients or are used as a metabolically necessary nutrient. As I understand it, there is little to no modification of the toxins sequestered and secreted by the dart frogs. The frogs have evolved pathways to prevent these alkaloids from affecting the frogs.. There are a number of different animals that sequester toxins from other sources and these toxins are not metabolically necessary (such as tetrodotoxin sequestering and use by blue-ring octopus and pufferfish, or the vast number of invertebrates that sequester plant toxins for defense (such as monarch butterflies and tomato hawkmoths). 
If you are talking about carotenoids instead of the toxins, there are over 500 different carotenoids which may or may not have an effect on the metabolism and may or may not be usable as a preretinol precursor.... 

snip "However, my point here is that a lack in toxicity is an obvious consequence of an unnatural diet. It shouldn’t be difficult to imagine that there are other elements in a pdf’s natural diet that supply nutrients for functions that are not quite so obvious, and that there are consequences when these functions are not engaged. Functions that may, for example, stimulate breeding behavior in D. granuliferous, or strengthen tads and froglets known to have high mortality rates in captivity. " endsnip

As I understand it, most of the granuliferous in captivity are not cb but are wc and the problems with these animals may be due in part to the lack of the appropriate enviromental cues stimulating reproduction in captivity as well as poor adaptation to the provided conditions. 
As for the offspring, we are just beginning to understand the nutritional effects of the diets fed to the frogs and there is a lot of bad information being passed around on the net. For example there has been at least one study (unpublished as of yet) that documented that ffs retain more dusting material per thier size that crickets which means supplements targeted for feeder insects in general may be resulting in the oversupplementation of calcium (or other vitamins/minerals). If the calcium is in excess then there may be conditional deficienies in other vitamins and minerals. Another potential problem may be with vitamin A... Some anurans have been shown to poorly convert betacarotene to vitamin A resulting in hypovitaminosis (with betacarotene being the major source of vitamin A in most diets and supplements). As the tadpoles are obligate egg feeders all sources of vitamin A are maternally determined and low levels of vitamin A in the tadpole can result in deaths within a year after metamorphosis (this is a hypothesis do not go out and start pumping egg feeders full of vitamin A as excess can cause similar issues). 

snip "snip “I think that it is an excessive reach to think that the frogs with the proper supplementation cannot be reared on a diet of ffs, and/or crickets. It is way too early to make this sort of value judgement given how rapidly the field of amphibian nutrition is changing at this time...” end snip 

"Excessive reach?" "Value judgment?" Interesting. I suppose I didn't spell out the fact that I raise pdfs. That's why I'm on this forum. Therefore I know that some species are fine w/ ff, crickets, and other things thrown in for variety. IMO, the "difficult" species, which I do not raise, are not. " endsnip 

On what do you base this opinion? See my comments above. 

snip "This is my current "opinion". One among what I'm sure are many. I will gladly alter, expand or change my opinion altogether as new information is made available. However, what we know now, in this moment, is that the pdfs addressed in this post, along with a number of others, are not being bred in captivity to any degree that would constitue success applying current pdf keeping techniques known to US hobbyists. While this may change at some point in the future, for now, it is neither a “reach” nor a “judgment”. It’s the way it is, and you may attribute this to whatever you'd like or feel comfortable with. " endsnip

This is also potentially also due to the method in which the frogs were collected, shipped, acclimated, cycled, housed with a acceptable mate as well as fed. If any of these are significant sources of stress or are a improper stimulus then the cycle will not be completed and no successful offspring will result. I was around when histrionicus was imported back in the day, the pet store I worked for bought them for less than $15.00 each in lots of six... I have seen first hand how they looked when they arrived. 

snip "Finally, I agree that amphibian nutrition is advancing, and thankfully so. None of us would be in this hobby were this not the case. It will never be static. No real science can be, nor can any scientist be assured the last word." endsnip 

And no real science will occur until people document thier processes and methods when caring for these species. Until that occurs, it will all be anecdotal why someone fails. 

Ed


----------



## Tim F (Jan 27, 2006)

*"On what do you base this opinion?"*

I base my "opinions" on years of experience with exotic animals (land and marine), plants and insects, and voraciously reading everyting I can get my hands on - including things that you have posted.

I too worked in a pet store "back in the day" and witnessed the state of pdf early arrivals. I've seen the arrival many exotics newly introduced to hobbyists, and have (regretably, in some cases) enthusiastically participated in some of the experimentation.

Literature is vitally important to any study; however, it does not trump hands-on experience and personal observation, as this not only inspires the literature, but amends it.

There is, for example a popular book often referred to in this forum that contains information that runs counter to current popular experiences. If another edition is planned or in the works, it will no doubt be amended.

It will be interesting to revisit this discussion in a couple of years.

Thanks Ed.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Tim

snip "Literature is vitally important to any study; however, it does not trump hands-on experience and personal observation, as this not only inspires the literature, but amends it. " endsnip

However until the experience/issue etc is documented in the literature with the supporting evidence it is anecdotal and assuch is as valid within the correct context as all other anecdotal reports on the same topic. If it runs contrary to the documented evidence then it will not have the same weight in an discussion or as a reference (with that then apply the following caveat) Many items in the literature may be reported without corroborating evidence (or even peer review) and if there is no corroborating evidence/documentation treated as anecdotal... 


snip "There is, for example a popular book often referred to in this forum that contains information that runs counter to current popular experiences. If another edition is planned or in the works, it will no doubt be amended " endsnip 

I have often recommended items that are contrary to popular dogma and have modified the dietary data as fast as I can get my grubby little hands on the data.. 

Ed


----------

