# Regular treatment for parasites?



## kyle1745

This topic has been debated until some people are blue in the face so I would like to start a poll just to get a general idea of where every one falls. This also may help some people who are on the edge on this topic.


----------



## Ed

If a fecal demonstrates a need for treatment then yes I would routinely treat but if the fecal was negative then no as there can be toxic problems from the use of the wormer as well as the risk of resistance developing. In addition the routine treatment may suppress the immune system of the frog( if it is a treatment that requires capture and isolation for a period of time such as some worming baths) which would give the parasite an even better foothold. 

Most worming treatments are not one treatment but two or more treatments a set time apart (depending on the wormer) and routine scheduled treatments will temporarily reduce the levels but in the long run not help the animal. The same goes for animals with a positive load of some parasites that are capable of reinfection (such as Rhabdias) that are kept in a infected terraria. 

Ed


----------



## steelcube

I think a bit of explanation is needed. 

What do you mean by "regularly treating"? 

If I check for parasites regularly and treat them when needed, would you consider me into the regular category or the non-regular category?

Do you mean regularly treating without knowing what parasites the frogs might have in the 1st place? 

There are people who do not treat their frogs at all, would this be considered as "non-regular"?


----------



## kyle1745

My original thought was "regular" = "prevenitive", but I think you bring up a very good point, and I will add a 3rd option.


----------



## kyle1745

I have reset the poll as I agree with steelcube it needed to be a bit more clear.


----------



## Homer

I wholeheartedly agree with Ed. Ed hit right on the head the two things that make me disagree most with prophylactically treating for parasites or routinely using wormers just as you would use vitamins: negative side effects of the drugs on the frogs, and the very real potential for creating drug resistant parasites. I do believe in treating parasites, but only if the frogs have 'em. 



Ed said:


> If a fecal demonstrates a need for treatment then yes I would routinely treat but if the fecal was negative then no as there can be toxic problems from the use of the wormer as well as the risk of resistance developing. In addition the routine treatment may suppress the immune system of the frog( if it is a treatment that requires capture and isolation for a period of time such as some worming baths) which would give the parasite an even better foothold.
> 
> Most worming treatments are not one treatment but two or more treatments a set time apart (depending on the wormer) and routine scheduled treatments will temporarily reduce the levels but in the long run not help the animal. The same goes for animals with a positive load of some parasites that are capable of reinfection (such as Rhabdias) that are kept in a infected terraria.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Guest

Homer, Ed, do either of you own dogs? If so, do either of you use monthly heartworm preventative?


----------



## Ed

Yes I do own dogs and yes I do treat for heartworm but then I am also in an area with a high level of heartworm infection in untreated dogs (I also get my dogs tested twice a year to make sure that they don't have it). If I didn't treat my dogs, then when (not if in my region) they aquired heartworm, depending on when it was caught, the treatment could kill the dogs (see http://www.heartwormsociety.org/CanineHeartwormInfo.htm for more information) it certainly would result in requiring hospitalization of the dog during treatment as the adulticide contains arsenic... 
With respect to other parasites, I am not continually treating my dogs for coccidia or giardia (or other worms). I get a fecal test done whenever I suspect there is a problem, I don't go, oh look the dog has diarrhea, it probably has coccidia or giardia (or nematodes) so I'll dose them with albon and metronidazole (or panacure). 

However there is a difference between the two examples. The only way to prevent heartworm is to 
1) keep your dogs inside away from all mosquitos (sort of causes a sucky life for all but the smallest dogs as well as housebreaking issues) or 
2) treat the animals in a preventative measure 

while frogs in enclosures can be screened for parasites and treated if necessary as infection by the parasites can be prevented by feeding clean food sources, using clean cage furnishings, and quarantining and testing all animals before introducing the frogs to each other. Heartworm cannot be prevented through these methods and even treating all of the dogs in an area won't eliminate the heartworm because heartworm has over 30 species of wild animals that serve as alternative hosts allowing for continual risk of infection while if some simple precautions are followed the frogs can be prevented from most infections. 

Ed


----------



## Guest

Heartworm preventions actually do treat almost all intestinal worms a dog can get (with the exception of tapes and in some cases whipworms.) So, Ed, why exactly is it okay to potentially creat antiparasitic resistant dog worms that can affect over 30 species of wildlife and are exposed to the dog waste? It seems like a necessary risk, but from your earlier positions.... well, it is hard for me to believe you support this type of insanely remotely dangerous preventative messure.


----------



## Guest

Oh, yeah.... forgot to mention.... Adulticide heartworm treatment (or any heartworm treatment for that matter) hasn't contained arsenic in it for over 9 years. Not since the advent of Immiticide - the only approved form of heartworm treatment currently in the USA. You might want to update some of your searches or stockpiles of parasitic info.


----------



## vet_boy77

I also advocate year round prevention, and annual testing (provided you live in a prevalent area). I agree with Ed in that heartworm is a different circumstance than intestional worms. I see way too many advanced heartworm infections in the RIchmond area. Monthly preventative is safer than treating an adult heartworm infection, has little to no side effects (provided the treated animals do not already have an infection), and is even more economical than the adulticidal treatment. Additionally, monthly preventative is a dosed treatment targeting the infective heartworm stages, as opposed to a blanket drug that you hope will get the parasite you want.
Keeping with the dog analgy, some worms are killed with one drug, that will miss other worms completely, and coccidia are completely missed by most dewormers. Just like how baby heartworms (microfilaria) are killed by one drug, and adults are killed with another. That's why we look...so we know what drug to give. I wouln'd treat a dog for adult heartworms unless I knew it was positive. 
Yes, the preventative (ie ivermectin, selemectin, etc.) do get some intestional worms, but I can personally attest they don't do a very good job (meaning they don't eliminate them completely with one dose)

PS: Melarsomine dihydrochloride (Immiticide) is an aresenical. 

John


----------



## Guest

Vetboy, "little to no side effects?" really? What do you do with all those resistant parasites this monthly treatment creates? Especially if the monthly preventative doesn't do a good job of illiminating intestinal parasites (the same parasites that the drug does claim to kill) you'd think that the creation of super worms would be a huge problem (if you chose to believe what you read in forums like this.) How many antiparasitic resistant worms have you encountered in your career?


----------



## Guest

P.S. saying that immiticide is an arsinical and leaving it at that is the same as saying that Tylenol 3 (with codiene (sp?)) is the same as a heroine and asprin cocktail. They are in the same drug family (tylenol & asprin - codiene and heroin) but they aren't quite the same drug. The drug companies have cleaned up some of the nasty parts and excentuated the benefits. How many heartworm cases have you treated with Immiticide? How many have you lost?


----------



## Guest

Boy, vetboy, with all the advanced cases of heartworm you are seeing, I'd bet you wished you saw more testing and preventative used, eh?


----------



## Homer

When my first frog dies of Heartworm, I'll be sure to call you, Locke. 

Until then, you may want to read up on some of the literature in the agriculture/vet industry that report strains of intestinal parasites becoming resistant to wormers commonly used.


----------



## Guest

Sure, Homer. Give me some links.
So I guess you, unlike vetboy amd Ed, don't believe in preventative messures. I guess an ounce of prevention is lossed on you.


----------



## Guest

Even I, an uneducated retiroree, know that heartworm doesn't effect amphibians, Homer. Keep your head deep in the sand, and your anologies deep in the manure, and maybe, just maybe, you'll never be disturbed by reality.


----------



## Ed

Snip " So, Ed, why exactly is it okay to potentially creat antiparasitic resistant dog worms that can affect over 30 species of wildlife and are exposed to the dog waste? It seems like a necessary risk, but from your earlier positions.... well, it is hard for me to believe you support this type of insanely remotely dangerous preventative messure."endsnip 

As I pointed out above, if this was a situation where I could readily prevent infection in my dogs through hygiene and quarantine and test my dogs and treat them with minimal risk if they become infected then I would not be administering the medication to them as a preventative. However this option is not available at this time. 

This is really an apples and oranges discussion even though it is related to parasite treatments. One of the major differences is that I am using a prescribed dose for the dogs that can be 100% administered while a lot of the hobbyist worming treatments involve dusting ffs with panacure or other treatment and hoping the frog ingests a sufficient amount of the powder to be theraputic. When dealing with development of resistance in pathnogenic organisms, one of the items that is a primary cause of the development of resistance is improper treatment regimens that and/or do not reach a theraputic dose, or are not continued for the full course of the prescribed treatments. The dusting of the ffs is a horribly inaccurate method of drug delivery as 
1) powder sticks to the dusting container reducing the dose
2) the flies will almost immediately begin grooming off the powder reducing the dose 
3) not all the powder sticks to something thus reducing the dose
4) the amount of flies consumed by the frog may be insufficient to allow for proper dosing of the frogs or the frog may gorge and overdose.... 
5) when 1-4 are added up then it is apparent that there isn't anyway to ensure a 100% correctly adminstered dose (unlike the heartworm medication) of the wormer which means that the frog can be overdosed or underdosed both of which are undesirable.... 

With respect to the arsenic.. I stated in my post that the adulticides contain arsenic. Locke you then stated that they do not. Vetboy pointed out that the primary heartworm medication was arsenical in nature (which means contains arsenic by the way) and you rebut the statement by claiming that they cleaned it up... Can you tell me how you clean up the nasty part of arsenic rendering it harmless to mammals while still toxic to the worms? 
Even parasitides like fenbendazole (panacur) which until fairly recently were thought to be very safe have been shown to cause toxicity when overdosed. 
See 
Weber MA, Terrell SP, Neiffer DL, Miller MA, Mangold BJ Bone marrow hypoplasia and intestinal crypt cell necrosis associated with fenbendazole administration in five painted storks. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002 Aug 1;221(3):417-9, 369

Alvarado, T., M. Garner, K.Gamble, G. Levens, J. Raymond, and R. Nordhausen. 2001. Fenbendazole overdose in four Fea's vipers (Azemiops feae). Proc. Annu. Conf. Am. Assoc. Zoo Vet. Pp. 28-29

Barron, S., B.J. Baseheart, T.M. Segar, T. Deveraus, and J.A. Willford. 2000. The behavioral and teratogenic potential of fenbendazole: a medication for pinworm infestation. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 22:871-877.

Deiana, L., A.M. Congiy, C. Carru, G.M. Pes, and G. Arru. 1990. Embryotoxicity of fenbendazole in Paracentraotus lividus, Bull. Soc. Ital. Biol. Sper. 66:1137-1144.

Hayes, R.H., F.W. Oehme, and H. Leipold. 1983. Toxicity investigation of fenbendazole, an anthelmintic of swine. Am. J. Vet. Res. 44:1108-1111. 

Papendick, R.I. Stalis, C.Harvey, B. Rideout, J. Zuba, J. Allen, and M. Sutherland-Smith. 1998. Suspected fenbendazole toxicity in birds. Proc. Annu. Conf. Am. Assoc. Zoo Vet. and Am. Assoc. Wildl. Vet. Pp 144-146

Some comments. 

Ed


----------



## vet_boy77

By saying "little to no side effects" I am comparing it with adult immiticide treatment. I agree they are not the best drugs at removing intestinal worms, but that is often related to the monthly dosing: it kills adult intestinal worms, but does not kill juveniles or eggs that are about to hatch. Even with the good dewormers, we still target the species, and use more than one dose (usually 2 weeks apart). Animal resistance to parasites (such as seen with coccidian- very rare in adult dogs) also plays a role in treatment. I often see a lot of normal adult dogs with worms too, though spontaneous diarrhea can be inconvenient to owners and the zoonotic potential is another reason for testing and treatment. 

Immiticide has a lot less arsenic, you're right, but it's still an arsenical, and if someone were to overdose it, you can get arsenic toxicity. Tylenol is still an NSAID, even though it's different from aspirin, and Tylenol with codeine is considered an opiate (at least as from the point of view of the FDA & DEA).

I unfortunately have to treat way too many heartworm cases (I practice in East-end Richmond). I rather the dogs be on preventative. Of the dogs that do die from or before treatment, it's more related to advance heart disease/heart failure, than the actual treatment. Of the younger, healthy dogs with little to no clinical signs, the treatment is relatively safe, but we still take precautions in the form of blood work, hospitalization during treatment, etc. 

At this time I can personally say I haven't encountered any really resistant dog and cat parasite infestations. If a dog has recurring episodes, it usually means that the owner didn't give the medicine, or, more likely, the dog reinfected itself (ie went back to the dog park, or into it's contaminated yard). Resistance is more common in food animals. I do consider the heartworm preventive dose a killing dose of to microfilaria and most intestinal worms, so the chance of developing resistance is minimal. With regards to wildlife, resistance is only really an issue if you're trying to remove parasites or if they are causing significant clinical disease. But the impact on the wildlife is relatively minimal (for the reasons that most wild life have parasites anyway, and no one is trying to deworm them), though wildlife can serve as the reservoir for other parasites that will transmit back to domestic and other wildlife species. I imagine the most common method of killing intestinal worms in dear is hitting the deer with a car. 

With regard to our frogs, I think parasite resistance should be a real and valid concern because it causes clinical disease, our frogs are in a closed environment, and there might be a tendency treat without looking or using improper doses of drugs which results in chronic, ineffective doses (a possible method of developing resistance). I am not a fan of the panacure dusting for the very reasons "Ed" mentioned. I am ok with give oral panacure in a properly measured dose, but I can see where the handling and medicating very small frogs becomes an issue.

John

PS: It warms my heart to see such an interest in heartworm prevention. The Wikipedia has pretty decent, general information


----------



## Homer

Username Locke said


> Sure, Homer. Give me some links.
> So I guess you, unlike vetboy amd Ed, don't believe in preventative messures. I guess an ounce of prevention is lossed on you.


If you are retired and have access to more medical and veterinary articles than Ed, as you indicate in your previous post, you should not have any problem finding several articles corroborating my earlier point. I believe I have even provided citations in some of the previous posts.

With regard to my belief in using Panacure or other wormers on a regular basis just "like vitamin powder," I'm pretty sure I'm on record agreeing with Ed's concerns and recommendations. Some of our past discussions clearly show that my comments parallel Ed's pretty well--but I think you know that already. With regard to the final comment you made, there really isn't any reason to make snide remarks or trying to take personal jabs. That typically just indicates you have no facts to back up your "argument."

Username Locke said,


> Even I, an uneducated retiroree, know that heartworm doesn't effect amphibians, Homer. Keep your head deep in the sand, and your anologies deep in the manure, and maybe, just maybe, you'll never be disturbed by reality.


I'm not sure what you are retired from, but I don't know too many uneducated people who have access to, and want to argue the points of, academic publications. Again, the juvenile comments just point out that you are not contributing to the conversation.

We have hashed this out many times over, and I think the result is that the well-reasoned response is to monitor your frogs, perform routine fecals (I can recommend a vet that performs fecals for $10 each if anyone needs such a recommendation), and treat when appropriate. Others may recommend prophylactic use (preventative use) of Panacure by periodically using it just like a vitamin powder supplement, but for the reasons set forth in the above posts, I personally don't think it's a good idea. 

I don't regularly take antibiotics just to keep me from getting ill, and I frankly don't take antibiotics unless I know I have a bacterial infection that my immune system is having a problem overcoming. That's a personal decision, but I feel it's a responsible approach to managing my personal medical decisions. In the past, doctors have regularly overprescribed antibiotics when they were not necessary. The result has been that we now have several antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. The analogy is not exact, but it's far from manure. There are now reports of parasites in livestock showing resistance to once effective medications, and if we approach husbandry of our frogs by using prophylactic treatments, it's only a matter of time before drug resistance will show up there as well.
[/quote]


----------



## kyle1745

Very good points homer as I do know that many of old stand by Human antibiotics are just about useless anymore for these reasons. I take the same approach as you to my personal health and try not to take anything unless its something that will just not go away. 

I think people forget that even our frogs have immune systems and while they may not be in perfect conditions all of the time they do well with consistent care.

One of the major problems I see in both our own health care and our frogs is that in many cases there really is not a lot of info as to why something works or does not. But if it does work watch out as it quickly becomes the norm. How many people take Prozac and etc rather than learn to deal with their own emotions. Im sure there are people that need it but it sure should not be handed out like candy.

We allow insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to rule our lives, and its the same in the pet world. Just because there is a drug does not mean you need to use it. Though that sure does put money in their pockets.

If there is a problem fix it, if not don't, and regular checkups like with us will help our animals.

An example would be this.. say you get 5 frogs from different tanks tested and 1 has something, treat that frog and its tank mates but not all 5 tanks if they do not have the same thing. Not to say the you may not need to treat 1 tank for something and another for something else, but you get the idea.


----------



## kyle1745

Locke,

How about telling everyone your name and background to put some credibility behind your comments. Currently it seems you are just out to question everyone and everything, which to be honest does not do much for your credibility.


----------



## Ed

Snip " am not a fan of the panacure dusting for the very reasons "Ed" mentioned. I am ok with give oral panacure in a properly measured dose, but I can see where the handling and medicating very small frogs becomes an issue. "endsnip 

And if oral dosing of small frogs is an issue, then with vet support and oversight there are other wormers that can be administered as a topical wormer. Using the topical method I have wormed frogs as small as newly metamorphed golden mantellas (smaller than 0.5 grams). 

Ed


----------



## elmoisfive

Locke said:


> Oh, yeah.... forgot to mention.... Adulticide heartworm treatment (or any heartworm treatment for that matter) hasn't contained arsenic in it for over 9 years. Not since the advent of Immiticide - the only approved form of heartworm treatment currently in the USA. You might want to update some of your searches or stockpiles of parasitic info.


Here is the chemical structure of Cymelarsan aka Melarsomine aka Immiticide.....










Hmmm....contains arsenic (As), is structurally related to other arsenicals (including ones studied in humans)...guess it must be an arsenical.

arsenical - relating to or containing arsenic

Bill


----------



## racer69

I think all living things should only be treated as needed. By treating continuously or preventatively, I feel you are making the medications less effective and the parasites or bacterias more immune to our meds.


----------



## melissa68

*Very Good Post*

Can't believe I never saw this post before. I also agree with vet_boy, Homer, Ed & Kyle. 

I hope some people read this thread, as there is some good information in it.

Melissa


----------



## rmelancon

What is to prevent a frogs natural immune system from fighting off an "infection" of typical worms or coccidia? Assuming that the frog is otherwise healthy with a healthy immune system and is in an environment where stress is reduced to a minimum. Are hook worms or lung worms always fatal in the wild or can a healthy frog with a healthy immune system fight them off naturally?


----------



## Roadrunner

Coccidia can`t be gotten rid of in darts, even w/ meds. It can only be suppressed. Some coccidia is definately harmful and some May not be. Hookworms and lungworms can live for years in a host w/out causing any apparent problems. I know my bicolor may have had hookworm for as many as 9 years. After seperating and treating them they look like thay may be ready for another 9. I was growing up a group to replace them because they looked "wormy". The problem is w/ the unnatural buildup of the parasites that can live freely in the viv and reinfect the host building up to superinfection status. A small parasite load in nature, where these things can`t really reinfest at a significant enough level isn`t bad. Mostly these parasites can`t build up if the frog poops someplace in the sun on a dry rock the parasites die in the drying poop or get washed away in the next downpour.


----------



## Detrick105

Just finished reading the thread and I got a question for all of you....How often should you take a fecal sample into the vet to get it tested for parasites? Only when you think that you have a problem? or every 4-6 months/once a year? 
Also, if it comes back positive for parasites and you treat the frogs, is it necessary to rip down the tank and clean everything? 
Thanks for your time!
Stephanie


----------



## Ed

I would recommend getting fecal checks no less than once a year as it is an inexpensive way to monitor one aspect of the health of your animals. Fecal checks on animals that are having issues can be very helpful in diagnosing problems but typically need to be done quickly to have any value (it doesn't help if the frog dies before you get the results).

As for tearing down the enclosure, it depends on the parasite. This will be required for some parasites like lungworms as they have a freeliving form that produces infectious larva that burrow through the skin of the frog allowing massive infections to occur. 

Ed


----------



## Minois

What can I do to treat them? Can you list a few treatments? I did not know people have preventive measures so their frogs don't get ill. I would be very interested in what kinds of things I can feed/give to the frogs to prevent illness.


----------



## Ed

The best thing you can do is get a fecal check done. Blind treatments are not a way you should be wanting to go as this can lead to resistance to the treatment by the parasites. 

Ed


----------



## earthfrog

With such a delicate organism as a dart frog, you only need to treat if there is cause. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", as Dr. Frye says. Always run fecal counts on new frogs and wait for the results before putting them into your main tank. You can send your cultures to Dr. Frye in Michigan via overnight mail many times cheaper than you can get fecals done at your local vet---here in Austin it is $60 compared to Frye's cost of $18 plus overnight shipping costs, usually under $20 depending on your package weight. His email address is [email protected].

For example, esp. w/antibiotics---treating without cause has helped bacteria in humans to evolve faster into resistant strains that can't be treated any longer. Giving a frog dewormer when he doesn't have worms can cause worms that resist treatment as well and ruin everyone's future chances of healthy stock from that 10% of breeders who follow this rule. Be safe and treat only when fecal counts show it is necessary. Otherwise, you are contributing to producing potentially devastating 'super bugs' and introducing them to the rest of us.


----------



## Rich Frye

Actually , my brother never says "if it ain't broke , don't fix it". He , and I , say "Test . Test to find out if your frog/s is/are in-fact broke. Because it is impossible to look at a frog and guess at it's state of health. Impossible." And some of the very "most reputable breeders" have sold me frogs with the very most nasty of nasties out there, in the worst health . Shocking, huh?
There was a time , some 5+ years ago ,that we used to prophylactically treat our collection with Panacur, due to the unknown factors as to how exactly many of these parasites end up in our vivs. And it's (Panacur) relative safeness. But, after properly quarantining each and every one of our new acquisitions before, before placing them in-viv, I seem to now have pretty much zero parasite loads in my frogs. So the prophylactic treatments (as pretty much everybody with a dog, horse, cat and the like should be doing to stem the tide of heartworms and such) have now ceased with my collection. Those dogs without heartworms are not broke, due to the "shotgun" treatments of heartworm meds per month . BTW.

Rich


----------



## frogsanddogs

I actually have been wondering about a few of the same concerns that have been answered in this very helpful thread and have a couple of additional questions related to the last few that people have asked and answered by Ed and Rich. 

1)If an "established" (by established I am meaning frogs that I had when I first started in the hobby before I started quarantining and testing every new aquisition, so they have been in their viv for a couple of years) group of frogs were tested now and their fecal showed a low load of hookworm infection and they were being treated with Panacur, would it be necessary to remove them from their viv and place in quarantine to treat them? And is there any benefit to doing this if you are able to regularly monitor them and their behavior in their viv? (Please note that in this case I am referring to what was found to be a "low load of hookworm" as I am guessing that the answer might be different if it were a high load as it might then be necessary to break down the whole tank?)

2) Is their any way to test a new vivarium or environment that you have created before introducing frogs to it? I have some new vivs I have built for frogs that I have recently aquired and that are currently in quarantine. I am allowing them time to run without the frogs but I still worry about the possibility that something could have survived on one of the plants I planted or as I have seen from some posts even on something as simple as sphagum moss. Aside from disinfecting any plants and other items that could harbor something and letting the new vivs run on their own without frogs for a while, what else can be done to prevent this sort of exposure? 

3) Along the same lines as in number 2, with either a newly constructed viv or one that previously housed frogs that had been infected with hookworm, is it possible to "clean" the viv by removing the frogs for a period of time and allowing lots of springtails or isopods to do the cleaning? Would this work?

Thank you in advance for any answers anyone can provide to these questions!
Marissa


----------



## kyle1745

I think your second question is one of my biggest problems with the "clean" theories. My understanding is that even labs have a problem with getting totally clean, and the idea that a vivarium with livings can be seems impossible. Even if everything could and was boiled you still have to add outside items. When feeding, and general maintenance. The variables alone make it a pipe dream in my opinion. 

I think the key thing is what can be done to keep things within reason and im not sure starting clean is the best way to do that.


----------



## kwrightdvm

This is my first posting to the forum so I apologize if I am overlooking a comment that was similar to mine.

For details on my background, check out my bio at Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital (See webpage "About" and then select "Kevin Wright"). I may be familiar to some of you who have read the book I co-authored, Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry.

I started out 20 years ago approaching frog parasites (and dendrobatid frog parasites in particular) with the approach that any parasite was a bad parasite. Lots of work has shown the huge parasite population found in healthy newly captured dendrobatids (and what happens following collection). In the past decade (and even since I wrote the book) I have concluded that failure to find a parasite in a dart frog is simply failure to look hard enough and often enough, and that the cost of achieving this "negative" state was often detrimental to the frogs with poor reproduction, poor body conditions, and outbreaks of random illnesses occuring that I could only attribute to the stress of treating asymptomatic frogs for parasites I perceived to be a problem but that may not have actually been problems in and of themselves. Since that time, papers have come out demonstrating that fenbendazole is not benign and causes immunosuppression and liver changes even at levels lower than have been advocated as benign and appropriate for prophylactic management of nematodes. When I stopped being so aggressive and just monitored fecals for existing levels of parasites and only treating where I saw frogs that were unthrifty and had white blood cells and red blood cells in their feces, along with parasites, I experienced a much more healthy frog population with fewer incidents of random deaths. In fact, I know of dendrobatids with high levels of various nematode parasites, flagellated parasites, and even amoebas, that lived long lives with good bodyweight and successful reproduction and recruitment/survival of offspring.

That said, there are some parasites I always worry about. Certain nematodes (Rhabdias and Strongyloides), coccidia, and Cryptosporidium are all parasites that I feel can be devastating if introduced to a collection or, if already present, aren't managed appropriately. Cryptosporidium is currently in a nebulous area but given the problems seen in reptiles, I certainly think Crypto-positive animals should be identified and managed to prevent spread to other animals & enclosures. Coccidia is often effectively treated with a few doses of ponazuril. Rhabdias and Strongyloides can be managed, but not eliminated, with a variety of anthelmintics including pyrantel palmoate, ivermectin, levamisole, and fenbendazole.

I know this opinion may not be a popular one but it is one derived from 20 years of experience with captive amphibians including several years managing a large captive collection of amphibians at the Philadelphia Zoo. It is amazing how many "parasite infections" turn out to truly be poor nutrition, poor husbandry, or underlying diseases such as ranavirus, toxicoses, or other problems.

I assess a collection's overall health, recommend regular fecal parasite examinations (fresh are best, generally observed within a few hours of deposition; if older, I recommend splitting a fecal and looking at some by direct wet mount and some preserved in polyvinyl alcohol and sending to a lab for identification of protozoa/cysts) to assess what is really going on in the collection, and coming up with a targeted preventive medicine program based on the species, the fecal fauna identified, and the morbidity & mortality of the collection.

As far as "clean tanks", there is no way to guarantee you are not bringing in a nasty with live plants (or, as appears to be the case with ranavirus, live food). A healthy vivarium with a low level of frogs, thriving plants, and good sanitation is somewhat self-policing except for things like Rhabdias, Strongyloides, and coccidia (including Cryptosporidium). You may run levamisole through a system to try and wipe out larval nematodes but Rhabdias can become free-living generation and persist in the soil without frogs! Look at your frogs before you put them in a new tank so you know what is going in there.

My final comment is to always look at the level of vitamin A in your diet as so many outbreaks of illness are now tied in to hypovitaminosis A!

Kevin Wright, DVM
Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital
744 N Center Street
Mesa, AZ 85201
Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital


----------



## sports_doc

thank you for taking the time. I'm certain your comments [and experience] will resonate with the DB community.

Sincerely,

Shawn Harrington


----------



## melissa68

Kevin,

Thank you for posting and joining Dendroboard. 

Melissa


----------



## rmelancon

Thank you so much for taking the time to report your research on this board. I hope everyone on this board takes the time to read this post and this thread.


----------



## kyle1745

I agree great information, though I have a question.

I thought too much vitamin A was also very risky. What would be your recommended supplementation methods, and products?


----------



## Rich Frye

Thanks for the great post. 
I think it may help if we throw out the layman's terms for the Strongyloides (hookworms , I assume are ones you refer to), Cryptosporidium (a protozoa , as is Coccidia) and Rhabdius (lungworm). So when people get their fecals back positive for large loads of these three big killers , along with Coccidia, they understand these are the ones you feel can be devastating to the collection. 
And some to people if passed along.

Rich


----------



## Ed

kyle1745 said:


> I agree great information, though I have a question.
> 
> I thought too much vitamin A was also very risky. What would be your recommended supplementation methods, and products?


Hi Kyle,

Unless Kevin has some information I don't (which is possible), as long as the ratio of vitamin A to D3 isn't higher than 10:1 (and should be close to it) then you should be in safe territory. Within the last few months I have started including a supplement that contain retinol as the source of vitamin A in my supplements by rotating it in with the herptivite and rep-cal once every ten days. Depending on what I see, I may increase the rotation. 

Ed


----------



## skylsdale

> Depending on what I see, I may increase the rotation.


What, specifically, are you looking for?


----------



## melissa68

kwrightdvm said:


> I assess a collection's overall health, recommend regular fecal parasite examinations (fresh are best, generally observed within a few hours of deposition; if older, I recommend splitting a fecal and looking at some by direct wet mount and some preserved in polyvinyl alcohol and sending to a lab for identification of protozoa/cysts) to assess what is really going on in the collection, and coming up with a targeted preventive medicine program based on the species, the fecal fauna identified, and the morbidity & mortality of the collection.
> 
> 
> Kevin Wright, DVM
> Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital
> 744 N Center Street
> Mesa, AZ 85201
> Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital



So, only doing 1 of the 2 tests on a fecal collected the previous day will not give an accurate result of what is going on with the collection. Since most of us do not have you in our back yard, what kind of information could we share with our local vets to ensure they are checking fresh fecals (EDIT) _correctly and interpreting the results correctly?_

Thanks for sharing the info, it really sheds some light on some additional facts for getting accurate results in fecal exams.


----------



## Rich Frye

melissa68 said:


> So, only doing 1 of the 2 tests on a fecal collected the previous day will not give an accurate result of what is going on with the collection.



This may be a bit of an assumption. And is not what Dr. Wright wrote . If a simple fecal float from one day old poop comes back positive for large loads of hookworms, lungworms, and coccidia, it is safe to say there may be a very good idea of "what is going on" with the sampled frog/frogs.

Rich


----------



## melissa68

Actually, that is what he wrote, here is the quote again. 



> I assess a collection's overall health, recommend regular fecal parasite examinations _(fresh are best, generally observed within a few hours of deposition;* if older, I recommend splitting a fecal and looking at some by direct wet mount and some preserved in polyvinyl alcohol and sending to a lab for identification of protozoa/cysts*)_ to assess what is really going on in the collection, and coming up with a targeted preventive medicine program based on the species, the fecal fauna identified, and the morbidity & mortality of the collection.


"His" recommendation & procedures checking the overall health of a collection are stated above. In that, he say that unless you use both methods on fecal tests of older (more than a few hours) fecal material, the 2nd test should be done in addition to the first to "assess" what is going on in the collection and properly medicate. 

Yes, a simple 1 day fecal float may return some of what is going on with the collection, but not everything. That is why he suggests doing the 2nd test to get "the rest of the story".


----------



## Rich Frye

Melissa, 
I'm not going to get into a fight involving semantics with you. I can read, and interpret, even without the bolds, highlights, italicizing, or yelling. 
But I do fully agree that we should share this information. My brother would love to offer any testing available. Such as histiopathy by labs. Expensive, yes, but well worth it at times. 
And thanks again to Dr. Wright for the recommendations. 
Does anyone know what the cost of the additional 2nd test of sending the fecal to a lab for identification of protozoa/cysts will cost the veterinarians? That cost will have to be passed along, and actually in most cases it will have to be doubled due to overhead, consultation, and the like. If Dr. Wright could post that info it would be great. But I have to guess that he may check in here time and again, but not really check this post/the Board as much as many of us. I checked his website for fecal information and could find no information other that "be sure to bring in a fresh sample". 
So, Melissa, in order to help the other vets be able to offer this added testing could you maybe contact Dr. Wright, or a lab if you know of one that does this testing, and pass along that cost to us so we can get an idea of what it will cost the froggers to get both of these recommended fecal tests done?


----------



## boyaminalnurse

The cost in CA to send a fecal to the lab for microscopic exam (what we would charge clients at our hospital) is about 32.00. As Rich said more in depth testing would be expensive sometimes extremely expensive. Just to put it out there, the technician performing a fecal will know if they see a parasite egg. They can look for pictures online or the DVM can post on a DVM website to find out what they are looking at. Just remember though the benifit to sending your fecal to a DVM who has experienced technicians in exotic medicine will know exactly what they are seeing without having to try and research it. Protozoa / cysts in a frog will be much smaller then those in a dog or cat, yet all can have coccidia, hookworms or lungworms. Another benifit of sending your fecal off to a DVM specializing in these is lungworms in dogs and cats are normally only seen in tracheal washes. This is not something that the normal practice looks at. It is sent off to an outside lab after the tracheal wash is performed, or referred to a specialist who will do the entire procedure at their hospital. Yes the fresher the fecal the better. The longer the fecal sets the more chance you are taking of the protozoa / cysts not being present. I believe (and rich correct me if Im wrong) as in dogs and cats if you are going to send the fecal place it in refridge until you send it and send it with ice packs to keep it cool. This will help preserve the life of the protozoa / cysts. Keep in mind most hookworm species look the same under a microscope, just varrying sizes as does coccidia. I am going to be doing fecals on my own frogs (just came in yesterday) as I want to see if I can find anything as well as send them out to Dr. Fry and possibly my outside lab. Just my 2 cents. Sorry if I am repeating anyone.


----------



## melissa68

I have no doubt the 2nd test would be more expensive. I was just thought it was very interesting & reiterated the point that a fecal float on 'non fresh' poo might not tell the entire story.

Not everyone will be willing to go the extra mile to have the 2nd test - but for those that do, they will have the peace of mind of knowing the entire story of what is going on with the frog and not taking a roll of the dice. 

As Dr. Wright has said in his book (considered the standard of amphibian medicine) & in his post above, sometimes the cost of achieving a parasite free frog is is detrimental to the frog.



> I started out 20 years ago approaching frog parasites (and dendrobatid frog parasites in particular) with the approach that any parasite was a bad parasite. Lots of work has shown the huge parasite population found in healthy newly captured dendrobatids (and what happens following collection). In the past decade (and even since I wrote the book) I have concluded that failure to find a parasite in a dart frog is simply failure to look hard enough and often enough, and that the cost of achieving this "negative" state was often detrimental to the frogs with poor reproduction, poor body conditions, and outbreaks of random illnesses occuring that I could only attribute to the stress of treating asymptomatic frogs for parasites I perceived to be a problem but that may not have actually been problems in and of themselves. Since that time, papers have come out demonstrating that fenbendazole is not benign and causes immunosuppression and liver changes even at levels lower than have been advocated as benign and appropriate for prophylactic management of nematodes. When I stopped being so aggressive and just monitored fecals for existing levels of parasites and only treating where I saw frogs that were unthrifty and had white blood cells and red blood cells in their feces, along with parasites, I experienced a much more healthy frog population with fewer incidents of random deaths. In fact, I know of dendrobatids with high levels of various nematode parasites, flagellated parasites, and even amoebas, that lived long lives with good bodyweight and successful reproduction and recruitment/survival of offspring.


​I also found this part of his post interesting as well. Often, people assume a frog which is not doing well has a parasitic infection & the advice is to send a fecal.... I think the first place to look is husbandry. 


> I know this opinion may not be a popular one but it is one derived from 20 years of experience with captive amphibians including several years managing a large captive collection of amphibians at the Philadelphia Zoo. It is amazing how many "parasite infections" turn out to truly be poor nutrition, poor husbandry, or underlying diseases such as ranavirus, toxicoses, or other problems.


I just find it refreshing & valuable to see a professional, with 20 years of experience post on this board and share his views and experience. 

I was actually excited when I saw Dr. Wright's post on this board, and thought....well, maybe enough time has gone by where I can share my thoughts and opinions on this topic without ..... ? Guess I was wrong. I will go back to being a lurker in this area.


----------



## Rich Frye

Melissa, 
I'm not sure why you would feel the need to go bye-bye. Nobody is beating you up.

Now, I feel it very important to point out a few things, as I belive once again that Melissa , and a few others, do not really get what my brother and myself have been trying to get across for the last few years. When I use the term "clean" it does not mean parasite free or sterile. This may come as a huge surprise , but I know for a fact that there are some parasites such as some protozoa and some worms that will do no harm to the darts. No good either, as defines by the term parasite, but no harm. I totally agree (why would I not) with everything Dr. Wright had posted. Period. My, and what I assume would be most vets definition of clean would be a clean bill of health. That's it. This may vary a bit from frog to frog and from vet to vet , but I am not looking for a sterile , parasite free animal. I would also point out that as per ASA "three clean fecals " clean is the operative word here again, it is this clean fecal the ASA and many other institutions are looking toward as a goal before animals are taken out of quarantine. Does this mean parasite free or sterile? No. 
To achieve this three clean fecal testing by the two method recommendation it is unfortunately out of the financial reach of many froggers out there, including myself at this time. Quick math tells me that if we triple (at the very least for three clean fecals) the "home vet's" test #1 fee at an average of $18 (could be much more, have not seen it much less) and then at least triple the fee that Marshall quoted of $32 per #2 test for protozoa/cysts being sent out to a lab, we come up with a sum of $150 , if all the tests come back with no need for further testing. I have about 40 vivs running right now. 40 times $150, no need to press the = button for me. At this time in our hobby it is sometimes hard to get froggers to send one fecal for that #1 $18 fecal...
Just a few facts on where I stand and the hard monetary issues involved with more than a nice base test.

Rich


----------



## kyle1745

Rich, I think it is time your brother posts for himself. Its fine to post your opinions on the matter but he needs to post his own. 

We do value your ideas on the matter but the back and forth with Melissa is a perfect example why this thread as many others will most likely die. No one, including myself has the time or energy to argue minuscule points with you. Make your points, post your thoughts, and move on.

In this case I think Melissa has a point and obviously it would be more costly. My take on the point is that such things can be hard to identify or find so testing twice would make sense based on this information.

My thought on the matter and to be upfront as possible, I am by no means questioning the skill required to be a vet yet simply stating it may make sense for people with larger collections. What about checking yourself, the price of a microscope and supplies would be a upfront cost but save a lot over time. If something is found then use a vet as a confirmation. Over time you could also learn what to look for. Also in this day and age why do we need to send the poo, why not a picture from the microscope. Pay for the research not the transport... Sort of like a car, sure mechanics are fine but its a ton cheaper to do it yourself.


----------



## Jason

kyle1745 said:


> We do value your ideas on the matter but the back and forth with Melissa is a perfect example why this thread as many others will most likely die. No one, including myself has the time or energy to argue minuscule points with you. Make your points, post your thoughts, and move on.


I don't think it is fair to blame Rich for all this. People have different opinions and that is the value and beauty of this board. What works for one may not work for another. You may see arguing, but I see a discussion and I wish there were more discussions like this on Dendroboard so I can read them, learn from them and create my own opinion. 

This is an important issue and I thank all who have posted here for their knowledge and intellect. The more we learn and open our minds to new ideas is what leads to an increase in the understanding of the hobby. This thread has been and I hope it continues to be a great read.


----------



## boogsawaste

kyle1745 said:


> Sort of like a car, sure mechanics are fine but its a ton cheaper to do it yourself.


Until they come to my shop after they "fixed" it and now I have to fix even more than was initially needed  Just pestering and back to the real topic which I'm finding very interesting.


----------



## kyle1745

Jason, I'll start a thread in the feedback section so we don't take this thread any more off topic.

boogsawaste, I agree and which is why I tried to preface it with its not a substitute.


----------



## boogsawaste

kyle1745 said:


> Jason, I'll start a thread in the feedback section so we don't take this thread any more off topic.
> 
> boogsawaste, I agree and which is why I tried to preface it with its not a substitute.


I'm just messing with you kyle. But it does happen. Back to the topic.


----------



## Rich Frye

kyle1745 said:


> Jason, I'll start a thread in the feedback section so we don't take this thread any more off topic.


Wow.
What exactly are you going to start up? A post on me "making my points, posting my thoughts, and moving on"? You seem to be the only one here that is distracted or agitated , other than Melissa, by my input. 
Or are we starting a thread on getting my brother back as a member here so he can post his thought and I don't need to pass along his professional opinions second hand?
If you read my posts Kyle I state a few times that I not only agree with Dr. Wright , but also with Melissa . Correct?
If people do not want to debate topics that are most certainly debateable, don't. Period. Just read what is posted. Or not. 
There has been a thread started already about doing your own fecals. If any other vets would like to jump in here and state the relative difficulty or ease of running them _ and IDing each and every bad, bad, and benign parasite_ in them, please do so. To be able to take pics of all these critters and get someone to go through them may also be harder than it is worth.
It may just be me, but once again I am feeling a bit singled out here. I'm not one to sit on the pity-pot either...

Now, yes, let's get back on topic.

Rich


----------



## Rich Frye

Looking at the poll results, I wonder why over 41% of the pollsters do not treat their frogs at all? I doubt that 100% of the frogs owned by those who do not treat are 100% healthy and not in need of some kind of treatment. Do they think that medicine is some kind of hoodoo? You will not find a vet out there that recomends not treating at all. Just curious what's behing this thinking.

Rich


----------



## dom

not trying to get off topic and im only posting this once.. but i agree with kyle its fine to post your opinion but i always ALWAYS read about oh my brother this my brother that. he says do this .. you should have him post.


----------



## Rich Frye

Hi Dom, 
There is a reason for that. Read post #57.
Time to reinstate my brother's memebership here?


----------



## jubjub47

Rich Frye said:


> There has been a thread started already about doing your own fecals. If any other vets would like to jump in here and state the relative difficulty or ease of running them _ and IDing each and every bad, bad, and benign parasite_ in them, please do so. To be able to take pics of all these critters and get someone to go through them may also be harder than it is worth.
> 
> 
> Rich


Hey Rich, I take care of very large(30,000 gal +) aquariums with trophy fish(bass, striper and such) and the like. One of the responsibilities that I have is being able to take biopsies and such from the fish and check them under a microscope for parasites and such. We do have a very good system that we are able to log into and see pics of different things to help diagnose what we have. We're then required to send pictures and water quality reports to a vet which in turn will verify our findings and give us the required treatment. We keep most of the meds that we will ever need on site so we just get the dosage and start treatment. 

There may be a system set up like this for amphibian keepers...if so I'm not aware of it. While it's intimidating to get started doing these kinds of things it is by no means difficult. I currently have been doing my own fecals, but I take findings to a local vet - my sister. A project of getting a database going with pictures and descriptions to help the frogger identify the problems could streamline the entire system and would not really cause much of a strain on the vets either. I can run a fecal, send pics to the vet and have a treatment protocol in less than an hour most times if I have an idea of what it is I'm looking at. You didn't really post an opinion on how you feel about a system like this, but I think if done properly could be a very useful tool for the hobby.


----------



## Rich Frye

jubjub47 said:


> Hey Rich, I take care of very large(30,000 gal +) aquariums with trophy fish(bass, striper and such) and the like. One of the responsibilities that I have is being able to take biopsies and such from the fish and check them under a microscope for parasites and such. We do have a very good system that we are able to log into and see pics of different things to help diagnose what we have. We're then required to send pictures and water quality reports to a vet which in turn will verify our findings and give us the required treatment. We keep most of the meds that we will ever need on site so we just get the dosage and start treatment.
> 
> There may be a system set up like this for amphibian keepers...if so I'm not aware of it. While it's intimidating to get started doing these kinds of things it is by no means difficult. I currently have been doing my own fecals, but I take findings to a local vet - my sister. A project of getting a database going with pictures and descriptions to help the frogger identify the problems could streamline the entire system and would not really cause much of a strain on the vets either. I can run a fecal, send pics to the vet and have a treatment protocol in less than an hour most times if I have an idea of what it is I'm looking at. You didn't really post an opinion on how you feel about a system like this, but I think if done properly could be a very useful tool for the hobby.



Hi Tim, 
I also think it would be a great thing if this system actually were out there. It is not at this time. One of the reasons may be the fact that this hobby is in it's relative infancy compared to fish keeping and fish medicine. And as Dr. Wright stated, the dosage and understanding of some drugs has changed in the last few years. A relatively short period of time. In his book that came out this decade he states that Panacur is relatively safe and in his post in this thread he states that this has changed a bit and that relative safeness is not quite as safe as previously written in his book. I'm glad that I no longer prophylactically treat my frogs and that during the relatively short period (and small dosage) that I did there were no adverse side effects of this treatment. I have to assume they would have shown up by now. 
I doubt though that there are very many hobbyist who will go to this suggested extent to test. As I stated, it is hard enough to get everyone to send out fecals at the cost of $12. I can't see every, or even many, homes with a microscope and camera utilizing this sort of database in the near or distant future. Unfortunately.

Rich


----------



## jubjub47

I agree Rich. I used to treat very similarly to what you were saying back when I was breeding chameleons and leaf tail geckos. Fortunately I never had any problems that I was able to detect from it. I know that most hobbyist aren't going to purchase a microscope and other supplies to do this. My thoughts were posted towards to keepers of larger collections that would have staggering amounts of money invested into fecals. These are the keepers that would be necessary in any development of these databases and such since they're likely to see a larger variety of parasites and things. While I'm not a member of ASN, I do agree with most of the practices and feel they would probably have a good opportunity to set up such a database. With the way that meds recommendations can change quickly it would always be best to show your findings to a vet trained in amphibians. I see a lot of potential out there for a system like this, but maybe your right and a database like this is just ahead of it's time for this young hobby.


----------



## kwrightdvm

I've read through the comments that have been passed around since my posting. I am likely going to be only an occasional visitor to dendroboard and will likely remain somewhat challenged with navigating, posting, and the like. (I'd like to spend more time but opening a new hospital got in the way.) So, if what I am posting is more appropriate elsewhere, someone can quote me as a new thread.

If I can recall the various questions people asked.

*Vitamin A deficiency*

Metamorphs and rapidly-growing juveniles are most commonly affected, but it may occur at any age and should be suspected with low reproductive success (low fertilization rates, low numbers of eggs produced, early deaths of larvae, and failure of larvae to complete metamorphosis), as well as frogs that bloat and in collections where there are outbreaks of infectious disease without a common pathogen being found.

The goal is to provide a supplement with a balance of fat soluble vitamins, A:E. Typically, these vitamins should be present at ratio of 100 iu A:10 iu D:1 iu E. Where vitamin A is <100, there is an increased risk of developing the disease. This often happens with aged or inappropriately stored vitamin products (i.e., high heat or humidity).

On the other hand, excess levels of vitamin A will inhibit the absorption and utilization of vitamins D, E, and K. High dosages of vitamin A may cause corneal ulcers, hyperkeratotic skin, long bone deformities, and other unusual signs develop.

This is an extremely prevalent condition in captive amphibians. Due to its prevalence, any ill amphibian should receive vitamin A supplementation as part of its initial treatment. Some amphibians develop the disease despite being fed items dusted with supplements rich in vitamin A. This is likely due to inappropriate storage of the product with concomitant degradation of the vitamins. However, species-specific needs for vitamin A may be a factor.

Avoid the use of supplements that list beta-carotene as an ingredient unless there is clearly stated a different primary source of vitamin A. I have started to recommend that at least once a week a frog's food is dusted with a supplement rich in vitamin A, even grinding up a human grade vitamin A tablet (again, make sure it is not beta carotene). There are many pet vitamins out there but unfortunately the quality control varies quite a bit among companies and even among different batches you may by from the same company; that's why I often recommend human vitamins. There are some new supplements out on the market for frogs that have high levels of vitamin A but I do not have experience with them.

*Cost of Fecals/Worth of Fecals*

I do "distance diagnosis" and will be happy to set-up a relationship through my office with someone who wants to do so by contacting my hospital.

That said, I agree that having a local vet who can look at your fecals is best. However, I consult with lots of veterinarians and am often frustrated by their inability to describe what they are seeing or to take a digital pic (easy to do even with a microscope that isn't adapted for cameras) to send to me. Thus I may only be able to say "sounds like a hookworm but if you can't tell me what's inside, it could be something else". As an example, one protozoal cyst looks almost identical to the egg of a fluke, so if the wrong identification is made, a frog may undergo pointless treatment for the fluke! There are many resources to identify parasites but they require some effort to acquire and the willingness to spend money on obscure things that are likely not going to make that veterinarian much money.

As far as cost, the direct fecal exam cost will varies from vet to vet and cost is not always a guide to reliability. A direct fecal is much more than just looking at "the bad guys". It is looking at the presence of other cells (intestinal lining, white blood cells, red blood cells), mucus, overall abundance of "the bad guys" and knowing what is normal for a particular group of amphibians. It takes many years to reach that level of knowledge and, frankly, I believe that what I charge for a direct fecal exam is fair no matter what other vets are charging for running the same test. Vets in Phoenix charge anywhere from $20 to $38 (and might be more, I didn't call some of the known high end clinics).

The client costs for polyvinyl alcohol identification of protozoal cysts may run $35 or more depending on the lab that is used. Often, a vet has to go to a research lab and make friends with a parasitologist to get some of these identified as the commerical lab may only be able to tell you "protozoal cysts". That might be done for free or a donation to the parasitologist's research may be requested. And, unfortunately, sometimes identification just cannot be made on preserved specimens.

What tests you run depends on what your collection's overall health is and what your overall goal is with regard to morbidity/mortality and identifying underlying causes. Someone with 40 tanks must take a herd health approach while someone with 3 or 4 tanks may be more likely to take an individual pet approach. As a veterinarian, I offer what I think is best and then work from there to come up with a plan that is right for a client's particular situation. If you tell me your budget is $200 for 40 tanks, then obviously we have to pick and choose what preventive measures we can take.

*Discussing and prescribing medications*
I will often discuss medications in general terms in a forum like this. I am uncomfortable offering certain advice due to the regulations governing veterinary medicine in Arizona. I cannot legally prescribe medications for pets unless I have developed a doctor-client relationship. In today's litigious world, lawsuits have flared over someone taking internet forum advice and applying it to their pet and having the pet die (whether or not the advice ahd anything to do with the pet's death). So I am happy to talk about some things but I will rarely, if ever, post a specific dosage for medicine or even a recommendation on a particular brand of a product (notice I did not tell you the vitamin supplement to use). Sorry, but that's what I have to do to cover my butt!

*Now I know I forgot something*
But it's 1:30 am and I need to get to sleep!


----------



## kwrightdvm

I don't know why there is a smiley in my sentence. It should be ratios of A to D to E. Apparently putting in colons triggered the smiley!


----------



## kyle1745

Thanks again for the great information.


----------



## Roadrunner

Thanks Kevin. One thing though. I have used herptavite exclusively for years now and it has no Vit A just beta carotene. I have seen no adverse effects w/ this supplement regime. Most of my pairs breed regularly and produce good froglets from the start at well under a year old. I only feed crickets(gutloaded w/ strictly leafy greens) once a month or less now so springs fed yeast and ff`s and supplement is all they get anymore. I don`t know where they could be getting the vit A from other than converting beta carotene. There was a scare years ago about oversuplementing A by using nekton because of the huge amount of A in this form. It was said this was more for snakes and monitors who ingest the livers of mammals?


----------



## kwrightdvm

Vitamin A levels may vary quite a bit depending on species, what's going on in the vivarium, etc. Most captive amphibians that have been on a diet that does not have a source of vitamin A that have had liver analysis done are extremely low (often undetectable) levels of vitamin A. There is a risk of oversupplementation but with a once weekly dusting, the risk is extremely low. I listed some of the known signs of toxicosis just for that reason.

My assumption now is to think a vitamin A deficiency is playing a role in any problem unless I am able to conclusively rule out otherwise. It would be interesting to look at the frozen livers of any of the frogs that may die (for any reason) that are on a supplement lacking vitamin A to see what their levels are. Sometimes "good reproduction" will found to be actually "low reproduction" compared to frogs that are normalized with respect to vitamin A levels.

Sadly, it is a vastly underexplored and undocumented field, amphibian nutrition, and I know that there are many factors that affect individual hobbyists' success beyond what is in the bottle!


----------



## Roadrunner

Thanks for the input. I may get some nekton again and try it out. 
I hate that there isn`t more of a call for the info on cb frogs. Sooo many questions and so few outlets.


----------



## Ed

I have been pondering the vitamin A as retinol issue for awhile now and with respect to dendrobatids, a source of vitamin A may be in the diet of the flies but it will depend in a large part on the components of the media used to rear the flies and the conditions in which the flies were reared... if the media contains sufficient carotenoids that the fruit fly can use as a precursor then the fly will synthesize 11-cis 3-hydroxyretinal from the carotenoid.. 
However basic potato flake recipes (standard used in labs) contain very little in the way of carotenoids like beta carotene (about 21 mcg of beta carotene and 88 mcg of vitamin A as retinol per cup of rehydrated flakes). This is then subjected to a fermentive culture in which the flies are reared and fed causing the maggots and the flies to compete with the yeast and bacteria for these food items potentially resulting in the published analysis that fruit flies are deficient in retinol. 

The levels may also be affected depending on when the flies were removed from the cultures.. so earlier batches of flies may contain greater levels of 11-cis 3-hydroxyretinal than later batches of flies. 

So to get to the point, if a media was used that contained a sufficient source of carotenoid the flies would have a higher level of 11-cis 3-hydroxyretinal which when combined with a supplement allows for a sufficient supply of vitamin A to the tadpoles. This could be one of the possible differences seen in the success of some people with obligate egg feeders. 

Now this train of thought is not proven but you can see the connections together above... 
Some thoughts.. 

Ed


----------



## melissa68

Ed - not to sound chemistry or biology challenged, but what type of additional Vitamin A source are you/do you suggest to use in cultures, quantities, etc...? 

Taking this a step further, what do you suggest to use for the dusting (I know some of this info is above) of fruit flies to increase this as well? Frequency?

Be kind - most of us are not working around or have access to lab scales, or reading technical journals that you might - so if you could translate some of your info that would be great. Not that we can't figure out what you are saying - just at the moment I am feeling challenged .

_On a side note - Has anyone thought about or used folic acid to dust fruit flies before? As an essential building block necessary for human development I wondered if anyone has ever considered using it or have used it. I have tried it a few times - think I have noticed an improvement in egg/tad development success but have not tried to quantitatively or qualitatively monitor it's use. Usually, I will toss it into my dusting powder when I remember - could be 1-2 times a month or 3-4 times a year. Like I said - I am not sure if I had any positive results that I can back up - just curios what others think or if they have tried this._

Thanks






Ed said:


> I have been pondering the vitamin A as retinol issue for awhile now and with respect to dendrobatids, a source of vitamin A may be in the diet of the flies but it will depend in a large part on the components of the media used to rear the flies and the conditions in which the flies were reared... if the media contains sufficient carotenoids that the fruit fly can use as a precursor then the fly will synthesize 11-cis 3-hydroxyretinal from the carotenoid..
> However basic potato flake recipes (standard used in labs) contain very little in the way of carotenoids like beta carotene (about 21 mcg of beta carotene and 88 mcg of vitamin A as retinol per cup of rehydrated flakes). This is then subjected to a fermentive culture in which the flies are reared and fed causing the maggots and the flies to compete with the yeast and bacteria for these food items potentially resulting in the published analysis that fruit flies are deficient in retinol.
> 
> The levels may also be affected depending on when the flies were removed from the cultures.. so earlier batches of flies may contain greater levels of 11-cis 3-hydroxyretinal than later batches of flies.
> 
> So to get to the point, if a media was used that contained a sufficient source of carotenoid the flies would have a higher level of 11-cis 3-hydroxyretinal which when combined with a supplement allows for a sufficient supply of vitamin A to the tadpoles. This could be one of the possible differences seen in the success of some people with obligate egg feeders.
> 
> Now this train of thought is not proven but you can see the connections together above...
> Some thoughts..
> 
> Ed


----------



## Jason

I wonder if making sweet potato, squash, etc. cultures would help. 



> The orange-colored fruits and vegetables including carrots, apricots, mangoes, squash, and sweet potatoes contain significant amounts of beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, and beta-cryptoxanthin.
> 
> Green vegetables, especially spinach, kale, and collard greens, also contain beta-carotene, and are the best sources of lutein.


WHFoods: carotenoids


----------



## Ed

melissa68 said:


> Ed - not to sound chemistry or biology challenged, but what type of additional Vitamin A source are you/do you suggest to use in cultures, quantities, etc...?


This to some extent is all guesstimates as I have yet to see an analysis on it.. Personally I add some spirulina to my ff media to bump up the levels of available carotenoids as not only does it contain several different carotenoids but depending on the strain it can have a lot more beta carotene than carrots or sweet potatos. 
For those who want to peruse ff nutritional requirements see The Nutritional Requirements of Drosophila Melanogaster -- BEGG and ROBERTSON 26 (4): 380 -- Journal of Experimental Biology 

As to amount, given that the flies are in effect living in a uncontrolled bioreactor with all kinds of other organisms.. your guess is as good as mine. For more than a year now I have been adding about a teaspoon per cup of dry media at the time I make up the cultures (otherwise the spirulina is stored in the freezer to dimish oxidation). 





melissa68 said:


> _On a side note - Has anyone thought about or used folic acid to dust fruit flies before? As an essential building block necessary for human development I wondered if anyone has ever considered using it or have used it. I have tried it a few times - think I have noticed an improvement in egg/tad development success but have not tried to quantitatively or qualitatively monitor it's use. Usually, I will toss it into my dusting powder when I remember - could be 1-2 times a month or 3-4 times a year. Like I said - I am not sure if I had any positive results that I can back up - just curios what others think or if they have tried this._


At least some of the common supplements already contain folic acid as do the ffs and the brewer's yeast used in many of the cultures.... 
It should be stored in the liver and the occasional (stress occasional here) addition is unlikely to be harmful but real excesses can cause problems including seizures. 

Some thoughts, 

Ed


----------



## Judy S

This whole thread has been really enlightening...and perhaps should be revived...I am considering treating one of my frogs who appears too skinny...so am reading up on treatment for worms...Would love to see some updating on the latest treatments, thinking, options....things of that sort.


----------



## aspidites73

Judy S said:


> This whole thread has been really enlightening...and perhaps should be revived...I am considering treating one of my frogs who appears too skinny...so am reading up on treatment for worms...Would love to see some updating on the latest treatments, thinking, options....things of that sort.



Judy, I do not believe prophylactic treatment with biocides is a wise choice. In fact, and in my opinion, many medications (all antibiotics and some of the more toxic antiparasitics) should not be used at all (with a rare exception or two) without proper testing, including drug sensitivity testing in the case of bacteria. *Please, Please, Please, Please!!! Get proper Medical advice from a qualified vet before allowing anyone here to play doctor with your animals. *There is a potential fine line between doing nothing and doing something without knowing what that something should target.

Thanks for reviving this thread. Stay tuned for an idea I have to help everyone become more aware of proper preventative husbandry.


----------



## Judy S

Glad that this thread was brought back...thanks Kyle. I do not regularly treat unless it seems appropriate...however...having a skinny frog that is otherwise healthy seems suspicious to me. Contamination of the environment and shedding of nasties for vivmates does concern me. Unfortunately in MD, you actually have to have the vet examine the patient...which seems ludicrous...what are they going to do, wait for the frog to poop, run to the microscope and examine ? The fresher the sample, the better chance for a more accurate result...but retesting and retesting is the best course of action. So options include finding a sympathetic vet, going on (pardon the pun) gut instinct, or spending an enormous amount of money on visits to the vet for "examination."


----------



## aspidites73

A vet, and any medical doctor for that matter, cannot legally prescribe medication without a doctor/patient relationship. I find it hard to believe a vet will refuse a routine fecal exam to confirm presence. If present it would become imperative to establish a doctor patient relationship to determine animal weigh, proper dose, contamination containment and isolation, and disinfection protocal for the enclosure. If one frog out of several in the same viv has parasites, the other animals (with a few exceptions) must be treated as carriers. As Ed has stated many times: a negative test does not equal no parasites. If a cagemate is symptomatic I would put money on the vet prescribing treatment to the vivarium as if it was a single organism represented by the frog you bring in. Prophylactic treatment based on suspicion is NOT a valid choice and should be regarded as such. (a rare example may be fresh imports for chytrid/ranavirus with a follow up test to confirm treatment, and only then by experienced keepers who do not need to ask a forum for instructions. I do not fault you. Actually I commend your stepping up to the plate for the health of your frogs!!! While your intentions are good, the road to hell is also paved with the same! 

PS i got your PM and will respond shortly


----------



## OrangeTyrant

Many states have this law, Judy, and it is in place to establish a patient-owner-doctor relationship. The way it is carried out is usually rather loose however once you trust your vet and they trust you. 

Often an initial physical exam is required (and why wouldn't it be? I'd be very uncomfortable if my human doctor thought they could diagnose me over the phone!), but follow up rechecks on fecals and the such do not require them to again see the animal in person, unless, of course, you would like them to. 

Each state is different of course, but I find if you have a good working relationship with a veterinarian, they tend to cut you some slack here and there where they can. A good exotics veterinarian will understand the limitations of transporting a sick dart frog every two weeks and wouldn't request it unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## Judy S

I appreciate the posts about this....and am trying to keep it "alive" for a bit so that other people will more readily see it. To me it is interesting that routine deworming for my horses, dog, cats is just that: routine. Having things become immune to medications is not a new concept to me--antibiotics being the prime example. However, seems like oceans between this animal husbandry approach and that of our captive frogs. Common sense, experience, and sensitivity to "normals" is what I'm trying to achieve. Yes, a relationship between client and vet plays a part...and perhaps this is the better way to achieve best results. But pardon me, I still think it stupid to have to take the frog.....


----------



## Ed

Hey Judy,

People need to keep in mind that some of that information is now significantly out of date. With respect to shot gun treatments, there is a lot of problem with that approach as you'll need at least three different treatment medications to account for the main parasites that cause that sort of symptoms. 

The reason it is important for the vets to see the animal as opposed to just the fecal is because if the animal is asymptomatic with a positive fecal then depending on the parasite in question, the best course of action may be to not treat but just monitor the animal. There are people in the hobby who take the position that no parasites are acceptable in the frogs. The problem with this position is that the more cutting edge of the vet community has been moving away from that position for a number of years now since it is possible to cause harm to the animals if it isn't done properly. Keep in mind that while treating one parasite it isn't uncommon for a second one to make it's appearance as the stress of the treatment lets the second parasite to become more active. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Judy S

Thanks Ed...and revising the sticky is an opportunity to weed out the outdated material if the Mod chooses to do that...it was one of my intentions to hope that it happened. You have made the point about other opportunistic organisms ... and how sometimes the unintended consequences are worse than the original problem. And as with my horses, I know that repeated treatment is absolutely necessary to catch the worms at their various stages of development. How "fresh" do you consider the sample to have to be for accuracy of identification, and therefore the treatment...? Other questions may follow...but if you could find the time (HA!) to give better guidelines on parasites, I believe it would be most valuable. Thank you, as usual...


----------



## Ed

Hi Judy,

refrigerated and read the same day is ideal. The reason this is important is that some of the important signs of a problem can degrade if the time line is longer. For example, sometimes issues are with an overgrowth of organisms that are normally a commensual in the digestive tract. This can cause weight loss and a loss of appetite due to irritation by the protozoa. If the fecal sits too long, these protozoa either encyst or die and decompose. 
Another potential signal is the sign of red blood cells in the fecals, these are sometimes symptomatic of a coccidian infection and they are likely to degrade as well. 

Sometimes you need to rule out various things because nothing shows up in the fecal. Some of the vets I knew would start thinking coccidian infection if an animal was losing weight but nothing was detected on the fecal. 

In both of these cases, different medications are typically used so treating symptomatically for one doesn't correct the problem. 

Also on a side note, protozoan overgrowths are typically treated with metronidazole and this is where it got the reputation for being an appetite stimulant.. It actually doesn't increase appetite but by knocking back the overgrowth, the animals begins to feel better and then feed. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## VoidDiver

Do you guys have any sources on the cycle, especially hardiness and spreadability, of nematodes? 

My first frogs just completed treatment for the above and chytrid. While my current quarantine and sanitation precautions are now solid, they weren't when I first got into darts a few months ago. Chytrid is not very hardy outside of damp conditions and I'm fairly confident that has been eliminated. My remaining worry is reinfecting the frogs with worms via cross contamination from my frog supplies...


----------



## logansandres

That just made me feel so guilty, cause I shamefully tend to negclect minor stuff..(


----------

