# Quarantine standards.



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Cut/pasted from a post by 'Ed'



> If we look at institutional standards for amphibians such as those that are in Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry, an amphibian that arrives and has a clean fecal, then 30 days (or 60 if you want to be more conservative) or two more clean fecals which ever is longer is recommended. It is only longer if the frog shows up positive and a large part of that is due to the interruption of the quarantine for treatment of the frogs.
> 
> In general quarantine should be
> 1) in a seperate area from the established collection
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Here's part of the sticky in the gen health and disease section. ASN requires cat 3 which is 90 days, which is why I thought quarantine time had changed.
Quarantine Procedures
The spread of infectious disease is a serious concern whenever multiple groups of animals are housed in the same facility. All animals should be isolated for a period of time before being introduced to their tank mates, or in some cases, even the area of the facility where other animals live. New acquisitions may harbor disease and should be isolated from other animals in your collection . New or sick animals should be held in quarantine for at least a period of 45 days, but up to 3 months would be ideal. 

A quarantine setup should not suggest that they must be in a bare, sterile box. This can cause physical and emotional stress on the animals and if they did harbor pathogen(s), allow them to overtake their immune capacity. Quarantine tanks should provide cover, warmth, hiding/sleeping spots, water and plenty of food. They should also be away from household activity that could cause undue stress to the animals as they get acclimated to captivity. If possible, quarantine tanks should be kept in a different room or building from other amphibians and quarantine enclosures should always be serviced last when making daily rounds.
Animals managed under Category 3-4 standards should, at a minimum, be quarantined in a separate room or approved isolation chamber for 90 days prior to moving them in with a cosmopolitan collection. As previously mentioned, Category 4, specimens may require additional quarantine protocols such as long term maintenance in isolation from a cosmopolitan population.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Those were conditions for populations that could be repatriated or otherwise had the potential for release or to supplement institutional breeding programs that could result in release of animals. Since that is unlikely to occur, those suggested guidelines are under review and will be edited and changed. 

The standards for those cases have significantly tightened in the zoological industry in recent years to the point where animals that are destined for release have significant standards to be met.. For example, the strictest standard (used at some institutions) is that no herps from captivity that were housed outside of thier native range or in a building with animals from outside their native range can ever be released and many institutions are including some if not all of the following for animals destined to be released 
1) amphibians are not to be housed in the same building with amphibians or reptiles from different zoogeographic localities,
2) should be managed through biosecure methods (foot baths, showers, change of clothes on entering and/or leaving),
3) all water, and other materials should be sterilized or otherwise treated to prevent the risk of any novel pathogen exposures 
4) all feeders for those animals must be housed where they are not exposed to non-native insects, pest species (rodents, ants, cockroaches) or in a building where herps from other zoogeographic regions are kept
5) animals are quarantined before release to screen for novel pathogens and parasites (may include some random animals being sacrificed for necropsies to ensure novel pathogen and parasites are not released). 

Some institutions do not deparasitize wild caught animals to be used to breed for release since there is data that releasing animals with no prior exposure (and stressed from travel and release), often results in unacceptable levels of mortality. Instead the monitor the levels of the parasites and only treat if it looks to be causing a problem for the animal) or only release animals at a life stage where the risk of a parasite or pathogen decimating them is reduced (for example, Puerto Rican Crested toads are released as tadpoles to 1) imprint them on the breeding pools and 2) this allows exposure at a time the animal can handle it better than releasing metamorphs or adult toads do). 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So that's for coccidia too. They just have to have 30 days w/out shedding then they can be put in w/ clean frogs?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> So that's for coccidia too. They just have to have 30 days w/out shedding then they can be put in w/ clean frogs?


30 days and/or three clean fecals, which ever is longer..... If they aren't shedding coccidia in any of the fecals then the only way to tell if they have it is to cut them open and biopsy large sections of the digestive tract and have histopathology done on it. Those that are shedding coccidia (as has been documented in the vetrinary literature) can be turned into non-shedders by simply treating them appropriately but as with other medications, treating animals in a shotgun methodology is very questionable. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ya, but they can start shedding again passing it on to clean frogs.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Ya, but they can start shedding again passing it on to clean frogs.



How do you know that any of the frogs are clean? The frog that just had the three negative fecal samples could be the one that is clean and the group you are adding it to, the ones infected... As I noted above (and repeatedly previously), the only way to know for sure a frog doesn't have coccidia is to euthanize and necropsy it, this is well supported in the literature and backed up by documented data *(for example see the relevent sections in Amphibian Medicine and Husbandry). 
The frogs in the original enclosure could have just as easily picked it up from fungal gnats or flies (fruit or other) that wandered from one cage to another, or if a person fed termites or meadow plankton, or have a mouse that ingested coccidia that could parasitize frogs while feeding on grasshoppers pass coccidia into fecal fragments that end up into the tank and then into the frog... 

There is only so much a reasonable person can do so we have to look at the facts 

Question: A healthy frog can't have coccidia because it is healthy 
Answer False.* A healthy frog can be a asymptomatic carrier of coccidia*. 

Question: My frog has passed one or more fecal checks, so it doesn't have coccidia. 
Answer: False. *A negative fecal check or checks doesn't mean the frog does not have coccidia. A frog may simply be not shedding due to a healthy immune system or it may have been treated in the past, which stops the frog from shedding coccidia*. 

Question: I've never found coccidia in my collection even when I've had necropsies performed so my collection is free of coccidia. 
Answer: *False.. Unless the pathologist knew to specifically look for signs of it in the digestive tract, submitted histopathology to specifically look for coccidia, an infection in a non-shedding frog could easily be missed.* *In addition, frogs in other near by enclosures could be positive due to poor hygiene on the part of the keeper, feral insects or other methods introducing the parasite to the frogs.* 

Routine testing and treatment if a positive is found treatment along with proper disposal of solids and liquids from enclosures are the best management options particularly since it cannot be cured only controlled...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Fact if a frog doesn't show positive on a fecal for coccidia there is a good chance it doesn't have coccidia. Whether you can tell or not I'd assume negative if I don't get a positive fecal. Especially if the parents don't have it. Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean you should give up and assume the worst. Considering it's incurable.

You handle it the way you want and I'll handle it the way I want. I'm sorry I just don't buy into your logic.

Also, I don't believe all coccidia are created equal. I also believe it would be much harder for a frog to get coccidia because it has to ingest it while worms can borrow thru the skin. If your tanks are ff proof the chance of insects getting in and transferring coccidia is slim to nill. I don't believe that coccidia that can affect darts is everywhere. There was a paper that said there were 5 species in the pacific nw of amphibs in the wild in which only the one species of frog had coccidia and the other 4 species didn't, in the same environment. All coccidia are not created equal.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> Fact if a frog doesn't show positive on a fecal for coccidia there is a good chance it doesn't have coccidia. Whether you can tell or not I'd assume negative if I don't get a positive fecal. Especially if the parents don't have it. Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean you should give up and assume the worst. Considering it's incurable.


I just want to note that this is sort of in line with a cliche that bounces around in science circles. Essentially, it is something to the effect of: lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lacking.

I'd say it's better to be conservative, especially on the matter of diseases and biosecurity, than to assume everything is peachy-keen.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Fact if a frog doesn't show positive on a fecal for coccidia there is a good chance it doesn't have coccidia. Whether you can tell or not I'd assume negative if I don't get a positive fecal. Especially if the parents don't have it. Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean you should give up and assume the worst. Considering it's incurable.
> 
> You handle it the way you want and I'll handle it the way I want. I'm sorry I just don't buy into your logic.


Aaron.

As I noted, if the fecals come back negative, you treat the frog as if it is coccidia free and move it in with the group. Yet you then make these statements 


frogfarm said:


> So that's for coccidia too. They just have to have 30 days w/out shedding then they can be put in w/ clean frogs





frogfarm said:


> Ya, but they can start shedding again passing it on to clean frogs.


Which actually is opposite the point you made in your last post (which is exactly what I've stated repeatedly in this thread alone) since you were clearly arguing that adding any frog even if it is negative on the fecals can give your frogs coccidia. So while you claim you aren't accepting my "logic" you are doing exactly what I pointed out several times in this thread alone. My point is and has always been that you can't be sure it is coccidia free unless you euthanize it and necropsy it specifically looking for the coccidia (since asymptomatic infections do not have all of the damage that is the hallmark of a problematic coccidia infection. I have also been very clear in this and other threads, that a frog that does not shed in three consecutive fecals is treated as if it is clean once it passess the quarantine period (remember 3 clean fecals or 30 days which ever is longer). 



frogfarm said:


> Also, I don't believe all coccidia are created equal. I also believe it would be much harder for a frog to get coccidia because it has to ingest it while worms can borrow thru the skin. If your tanks are ff proof the chance of insects getting in and transferring coccidia is slim to nill. I don't believe that coccidia that can affect darts is everywhere. There was a paper that said there were 5 species in the pacific nw of amphibs in the wild in which only the one species of frog had coccidia and the other 4 species didn't, in the same environment. All coccidia are not created equal.


Actually Aaron, I've been clear that there are not only various strains and species of coccidia but that the ability to infect a host doesn't mean that it is going to harm the host.... That is a position you have also failed to follow in several threads on this topic.

With respect to that paper, keep in mind that they still could have missed a novel species or strain since even within a species of coccidia, there are variations in where it infects hosts of different taxa. For example Cryptosporidia serpens in snakes typically infects the stomach (where the disease symptoms appear) but in chelonians, it randomly infects the digestive tract (is often found outside of the stomach) and doesn't produce the disease symptoms that are seen in snakes (Mader's Reptile Medicine and Surgery). So if you were used to seeing coccidia in snakes and then went looking in chelonians, you can easily miss one of the major infectious coccidia of reptiles and erroneously assume that it doesn't infect chelonians. 


Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Uh, that 1st statement was for a frog that was positive for coccidia and then stopped shedding and I asked those in reverse order. The next things you quote I asked before the first thing you quoted.

I argued 3 points
1 that by mixing you could transfer coccidia to other species, esp if you dont test, which may not react well to the coccidia the original species has.
2 that by looking for new blood and mixing unrelateds of the same species/morph you could give them incurable coccidia, meaning inbreeding may have it's merits if it keeps a line of frogs free of coccidia.
3 that, when looking for new blood or mixing, making a frog not shed coccidia and then putting it in w/ frogs that "probably" don't have coccidia is something I think is unwarranted and unwise.

Again, you assume the other frogs have it and it's not a big deal(because it's something you can't be 100% sure of). I'd like to see evidence that coccidia is present in over 50% of the collections and in a good % of frogs in each collection have it before I'd give up and just start mixing positive(non-shedding) frogs w/ ones that "we don't know whether they have it or it isn't showing". or what I call negative frogs.

It can come down to this: Putting a frog that was known to have coccidia and isn't shedding in w/ frogs that are thought to not have coccidia is unwise.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

You were the one that referenced the paper to me, are you know saying they could've been wrong in a paper you cited?


Ed said:


> Aaron.
> 
> As I noted, if the fecals come back negative, you treat the frog as if it is coccidia free and move it in with the group. Yet you then make these statements
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Uh, that 1st statement was for a frog that was positive for coccidia and then stopped shedding and I asked those in reverse order. The next things you quote I asked before the first thing you quoted.


Where did you state that it was for a frog that was positive for coccidia in one test and stopped shedding? I reread your posts and no where did you make that statement. The order of the quotes I cited doesn't change the context or that you were contradicting your statements.. 



frogfarm said:


> I argued 3 points
> 1 that by mixing you could transfer coccidia to other species, esp if you dont test, which may not react well to the coccidia the original species has.


Where in this thread did you state that by mixing species could transfer coccidia to each other? All you stated was that you thought that there were different types of coccidia, you didn't bring up that cross species/genera transfer was a risk.. The closest you came was a paper I cited in a different thread to document coccidia in other taxa and you used it to illustrate that there are different coccidians which in no way changes my position. 



frogfarm said:


> 2 that by looking for new blood and mixing unrelateds of the same species/morph you could give them incurable coccidia, meaning inbreeding may have it's merits if it keeps a line of frogs free of coccidia.


On what basis are you basing that inbreeding is less detrimental than an easy to treat infection? It is clear in the literature (and the literature on this is consistent and goes back a long way (see for a start
Protozoa in Poison Dart Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Clinical Assessment and Identification
Sarah L. Poynton and Brent R. Whitaker Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine Vol. 25, No. 1, Reptile and Amphibian Issue (Mar., 1994), pp. 29-39 (JSTOR: Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Mar., 1994), pp. 29-39)) that it is usually easily treated, and once treated is low if any risk to the frogs or their cagemates..... The fact that they remain infected but do not shed does in no way translate to the same risk that inbreeding does, particularly when they can aquire coccidians in a number of different routes (and I outlined a few earlier)since some coccidians can be very resistent to disinfection methods used in the hobby. Your arguing from a false premise which is that a non-shedding frog must be free of infection which is not supported by the literature on coccidians in frogs much less other herps.. It is not uncommon for coccidial infections to not shed in a consistent manner and are documented to go years without ever being detected (see above citation for one example) until detected on histopathology on necropsy..... 
This is also ignoring the huge potential negative impact of coccidia on an unexposed population (see ScienceDirect.com - Biological Conservation - Optimal release strategies for captive-bred animals in reintroduction programs: Experimental infections using the guppy as a model organism for a model using guppies) in addition to ignoring the impact of inbreeding on resistence to pathogens in general (see PLoS ONE: Major Histocompatibility Complex Based Resistance to a Common Bacterial Pathogen of Amphibians) for a model using variations in major histocompatability complex in frogs). Neither of those are free access but they are critical as they both demonstrate the impact of what you are proprosing to be a big issue for the frogs in long run.... 




frogfarm said:


> 3 that, when looking for new blood or mixing, making a frog not shed coccidia and then putting it in w/ frogs that "probably" don't have coccidia is something I think is unwarranted and unwise.


Which is directly contradicted by the literature and best practices. 



frogfarm said:


> Again, you assume the other frogs have it and it's not a big deal(because it's something you can't be 100% sure of). I'd like to see evidence that coccidia is present in over 50% of the collections and in a good % of frogs in each collection have it before I'd give up and just start mixing positive(non-shedding) frogs w/ ones that "we don't know whether they have it or it isn't showing". or what I call negative frogs.


No, I don't assume the other frogs have it. You keep getting that part wrong as well. My assumption is that you cannot prove that they don't have it. That is the position supported by the best science and reported by the best literature. 



frogfarm said:


> It can come down to this: Putting a frog that was known to have coccidia and isn't shedding in w/ frogs that are thought to not have coccidia is unwise.


Which isn''t supported by the veterinary literature on coccidia in frogs. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> You were the one that referenced the paper to me, are you know saying they could've been wrong in a paper you cited?


 
No, the paper was correct in the context for which I used it. The fact that I read it critically and can apply information to it doesn't mean it or I was wrong. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I stand by my views.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I stand by my views.


Aaron,

This does get tedious. You've shown a pattern of coming into threads where I've (or someone else has quoted me) and making random comments that are not only in conflict with the science (and veterinary science) but conflict with statements you make earlier in the thread. When you get caught out in the issues, you retreat to a belief statement, which in some way is supposed to "refute" the literature. As is typical, you went back to one and I have to ask which view, since you put two conflicting ones up in the thread. When I pointed out that one of those views (which you had repeated twice) was in agreement with me, you attempted to make up something to seem like you weren't agreeing with me. That made up claim was not supported in your prior statements which I had quoted and referenced. 

If it is your wish to breed inbred frogs (which is your statement/claim) on the theory that you prevent the frogs from having coccidia (which they can get from a variety of sources (for example, springtails or isopods that are housed in the enclosures eating fecal material from a contaminated source and transferring it to the frogs), then let it be clear that this is your model for successful frog breeding.... It should also be made clear that this is not supported by the known literature on coccidia, inbreeding depression or population genetics. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

That was one of my points. Not that inbreeding is the PREFERRED method just that all MAY have their warrants. And one of my points was that mixing different species MAY transfer a coccidia strain to another frog that won't deal w/ it in a good way. A risk I'm not willing to take.

If I was confusing i apologize. 

JP even said it's better to ere on the side of caution w/ biosecurity(whether I just took that as I wouldn't put a frog that's known to have coccidia in w/ frogs I don't think have coccidia or not is up to JP)

And I don't take it as a given that frogs are going to contract coccidia from the insects they eat and that's a risk/reward benefit judgement since there isn't hard data on the percentage chance of transferring it. I can keep from mixing frogs I'd rather not streamline the diversity of feeder insects.

Remember, this is what the science USED to say. Just because science has gotten to be able to suppress it doesn't mean it's benign now according to my thoughts and experiences.

And that's the last time I'll argue w/ you as I'm pretty tired of it too. I argue to what I think is in the best interest of the frogs. If you don't care for it I'll stop. And you could've left it as that's my view and I'm sticking to it but you decide to post about how I'm "going against science" and my Preferred method is inbreeding. I'm done!


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> JP even said it's better to ere on the side of caution w/ biosecurity(whether I just took that as I wouldn't put a frog that's known to have coccidia in w/ frogs I don't think have coccidia or not is up to JP)


Let's be careful about what I said. Erring on the side of caution was mainly in reference to quarantine time. If you're concerned about sick frogs, leave them in quarantine longer. It won't hurt

That said, I would defer to what has been done in zoos and veterinary practices. They are, after all, the people who do this for a living and study it.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

> In general quarantine should be
> *4) service only after all established enclosures are taken care of (last to be fed, misted etc).
> 5) do not cross contaminate, use other equipment for those enclosures (misters, fly collection material)
> 6) practice good hygiene between enclosures*
> ...


As someone works in a lab (and has unfortunately seen his fair share of CX), I really wanted to comment on the importance of these highlighted steps. If you don't practice good hygiene between cultures/enclosures, then you can be acting as a carrier of pathogens, and any quarantine steps that you might have taken will have been for naught.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> That was one of my points. Not that inbreeding is the PREFERRED method just that all MAY have their warrants. And one of my points was that mixing different species MAY transfer a coccidia strain to another frog that won't deal w/ it in a good way. A risk I'm not willing to take.


Aaron,

Once again you have made a claim that is unsupported in the thread.. You were arguing that it is better to inbreed frogs than to mix them with other frogs that may or may not be carriers. I pointed this out to make sure people know who owns that statement. I did not indicate that you said it was your preferred method (although you allege as much by stating you stand by your views) or use any synonyms to that effect. Once again, you are attempting to add connotations above and beyond my statements (remember you accusing me of saying your frogs were the equivalent of albino parrots which not only what you called them but the opposite of what I was arguing.), which is also common with these arguments with you. 
If I have to I can cite it in context. 



frogfarm said:


> And I don't take it as a given that frogs are going to contract coccidia from the insects they eat and that's a risk/reward benefit judgement since there isn't hard data on the percentage chance of transferring it. I can keep from mixing frogs I'd rather not streamline the diversity of feeder insects.


Where did I say it was a given? I simply pointed out all of the potential vectors of coccidia into an collection outside of introducing frogs that may or may not be infected with it. That is a point you have consistently attempted to downplay. 



frogfarm said:


> Remember, this is what the science USED to say. Just because science has gotten to be able to suppress it doesn't mean it's benign now according to my thoughts and experiences.


So you have published peer reviewed information to the contrary?* Unless and until it is refuted, it is what science still says... *Your attempting to cast doubt on data that has been repeatedly supported for more than two decades with nothing other than an unsupported viewpoint. I've been on point citing various aspects in the literature including references that are considered authoritative as well as definative. You have provided no support of your position other than opinions and unsupported accusations.
In this thread I even cited cutting edge information that shows how risky it can be to a population to remain unexposed to a parasite (and the benefits of what happens when experienced immune systems encounter it ), as well as the impact of inbreeding on the ability to resist pathogens... 



frogfarm said:


> And that's the last time I'll argue w/ you as I'm pretty tired of it too. I argue to what I think is in the best interest of the frogs. If you don't care for it I'll stop. And you could've left it as that's my view and I'm sticking to it but you decide to post about how I'm "going against science" and my Preferred method is inbreeding. I'm done!


I argue what I think is in the best interest of the frogs and I tend to bring a lot of support to myu points to the table. In the past I actually worked to find you free access pdf in these arguments so you could see the information (since you refused to purchase access which is often required for newer or authoritative references).. but you then refused to accept what they said as well so I'm done with doing the extra leg work. If you want to continue to cling to dogma and at methodology that is questionable at best (inbreeding frogs that may or may not be positive for coccidians) in an attempt to avoid coccidia then that is your choice.. 

So what happens to this hypothetical line of inbred frogs when a offspring turns up positive for coccidia? If it is a froglet you sold to someone and it turns up positive during quarantine do you then try to claim that it couldn't have come from your frogs or collection? Or do you recall all of the potentially affected frogs and euthanize them to check for how widespread the infection is in the group or do you sacrifice all of your adult frogs to see if they were the source of the infection (or do you try to write it off as a feral insect or bad hygiene).... If iti s a froglet you haven't sold yet, do you tell all of your prior customers that you have discovered coccidia in your collection?.. 

It is way easier and way better for the frogs to simply quarantine, treat if necessary and hopefully work with the frogs to maximize the genetics of the population. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ya know I'm not even reading the whole reply, big waste of my time. More than 2 decades? then why did you used to say the same thing I'm saying only a couple years ago? Do I need to cite all your quotes on coccidia? You have one article on cb frogs, that's not a body of work. All the rest were on amphibians in the wild. And research from one vet. That's not enough proof for me.

Why do you have such a hard time that someone might actually disagree w/ you and ere on the side of caution? Seems like you've already made up your mind, then changed it and won't budge now. 

And the reason I disagree is that I have over 15 years experience breeding frogs and talking w/ people who have had problems w/ coccidia and fecals to come to the conclusion I have. And I have experience in running down 7 generations inbred in Dwarf tincs w/ no outward problems.
I disagree w/ you live w/ it!

As I said I'm not wasting my time here anymore. I'm done.


----------

