# Husbandry Improvements - Tank Size & layout



## kyle1745

Starting this thread to discuss care improvements of tank size & layout.

Edited in some quick thoughts...

Tank size in my recent opinion maybe of our most overlooked aspects of the care of these animals. I myself am guilt of keeping multiple species in 10gals and possibly have lost my fair share of frogs due to this.

Now while I think pairs may be fine in smaller enclosures I think there can still be aggression in some species between the opposite sex so introducing them can be tough or even deadly.

Another pet peeve of mine is paludariums, while many look amazing, in most cases they take an already drastically small floor space and reduce it to virtually nothing.

The vertical obsession... I think this has been really over blown, and honestly a 10gal verts in my opinion is only acceptable for some pumilio pairs. It is by no means ideal. Ive seen way to many cases of leucs and auratus in 10gal verticals and honestly this is just asking for problems.


----------



## Roadrunner

Moving frogs to a simple 10gal setup is not stressful to a frog esp. if it`s been in the same tank w/ it`s mate breeding for over a year.
Mine are doing much better by themselves. they are fatter, brighter and eating quite well.
My blue sip male had been getting too fat for a while and my female was getting skinny. This allows me to put him on a diet and beef up the female for a while.


----------



## yuri

*Re: husbandry improvements #4 - tadpole care*



kyle1745 said:


> 4. Improved tadpole care


Kyle, great idea!

I think under number 4. it would be interesting to discuss letting parents do more raising. Very loosely (and with heavy generalizations), there seem to be two main camps in this hobby regarding this issue. One is the volume camp and the other is the let nature do its thing camp. NOTE: this is not a negative criticism of the volume camp as I like loud music and lots of frogs.

Volume camp - is to produce as many eggs and tadpoles and froglets as possible. This involves removing eggs in the case on non-obligate oophages and trying to get each and everyone morph into a froglet. One of the intended or unintended consequences is that a lot of froglets are produced. My initial euphoria over having frogs led me to want to have many more frogs and I started off trying to maximize reproductive potential using outside influences to get as many eggs to survive and as many froglets.

Nature camp - is to let the parents do what they evolved to do - tend to eggs, transport tadpoles. This requires good tank design with good tadpole deposition sites. One of the consequences is that the design (size/volume, tadpole deposition sites, viable food sources) dictates the capacity for producing froglets. This is the course you have to take with obligate oophages (e.g. pumilio, histrionicus, lehmanni). These are also considered to be more 'advanced' frogs and lest to people with a higher level of experience. That is an interesting comment to me, because can we make it more challenging to ourselves as frog culturers to design our vivaria and our husbandry techniques to raise non obligate oophageous species in a more natural manner. Will the viability of the individual offspring be greater than volume raising? Will the behavioural viability of the species be maintained? Is the volume method leading us down the path of pseudo domestication of some species?


----------



## kyle1745

Yuri,

Interesting points, and ill comment briefly as I am short on time...

Some things to think about on the nature side is that to completely allow them to do things naturally we would need to devote massive amounts of space, not to mention water features and etc to meet the needs. While I agree it be accomplished on a smaller scale Im not sure we can maximize this method or even fully understand it without a rain forest in our back yard.

Just some quick thoughts to keep the discussion going...


----------



## Ed

With respect to the natural method.. If each person allowed some rearing we could be sure that we are still maintaining the traits in the captive population. 

I don't remember if I have mentioned it here or not but people often use the standard that if the frog is breeding then the person is keeping the frog optimally. This is not a good standard to use and is no longer used by Zoos to judge if they are keeping the animals well. I would suggest that as the data is collected that we include increasing median lifespans (point at which half the population has died) and attempting to maximize life spans. Many of these frogs can live for more than 10 years (and there are reports of potentially reaching 15-20 years).. I suspect that the median lifespan of many of these frogs is no where close to 7-10 years). 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

Agreed Ed but how would that be measured?

To clarify my point I was not discouraging the natural method, but implying that we may not be able to completely replicate the complete natural processes due to basically just lacking the space. Im thinking of potential inter population interaction as well. For example egg eating... is this as big of a issue with more space than we offer?

Just some thoughts to think about, and if needed we can start a thread per idea to keep them all separate...


----------



## Roadrunner

The BIG thing your lacking in each viv is the natural predators which shape the population. 
We`re really just trying to do the best we can w/ what we have. Letting them take it as far as we can. If you had a big enough viv, group breeding and raising would be best. I`d love to set aside an 8x8 room for azureus and let them do their thing.
I`m sure my pvc containers, though they work are nothing like the nutrition they would get in the wild. We can`t even feed the frogs what they would get in the wild. It`s like bringing an asian into an american diet. Actually the opposite since ff`s are probably much lower in protein than their(frogs) natural diet of ants and mites w/out calcium and vitamins. 
None of the natural droughts, heat waves or anything other than what we let in is actually happeneing as it would in the wild. 
These things probably shape the population in the wild and if we want a wild type population, the frogs that couldn`t handle this should be weeded out. 
I`d love to link into a years run of actual weather station data from a pdf site. We collected all sorts of data in missouri(herps, birds, plants, full weather log, insects etc.). If that info was available you could mimic a habitat weatherwise at a year to a day behind. dial in the temps, make it rain when it rains. mimic the microhabitats to provide the range of conditions they`d actually see. You`d be closer but still not there in terms of shaping a wild population. Even the predator/prey ratio would be skewed if you didn`t have something to shape the predators(predators from up the chain).
Sorry, went off on a tangent. 
As I see it, carrying tads and maybe letting them come out in the parents tank for further possible learning by interaction w/ the parents would get close. You`d have to have a wild group if they are to learn any dominance interactions or certain breeding behavior also. Does anyone know if there are different "dances" or breeding rituals for different morphs.
I doubt anyone has studied past egg feeding but I do remember a certain thread that males carry tads too but rich has rasied pumilio by flopping a male and letting females raise on their own. It`s possible some pumilio pops have a male traveling to different females along the line. If his territory were 3 x the size of a females territory a 1.3 ratio or 2.6 ratio would be natural. we can`t get there if we don`t know about it.
Sorry, don`t mean to be a downer but we can only accomplish so much. 
We may have already lost some of the "culture" of pdf`s, if there is such a thing.
Are learned actions to much of a stretch w/ pdf`s? I know octopi can learn to open a jar but I`m not sure how that would fit here.


----------



## sbreland

I think being able to offer more foods like our frogs would encounter and eat in the wild would be a start. Like Aaron said, our frogs are used to eating a variety of things and specific things in the wild and then we place them in our care and only offer one or two things... it just doesn't work. Like he said, it would be like us eating all the good food we have here in the US every day and then all of a sudden being shipped to Mexico and being told that the only thing we could have to eat was bean burritos and an occasional taco. It would just suck. What I would love to see is if we could actually work to import or at least use more new types of food insects rather than just always importing frogs. Now obviously regulations are going to be a big tie up here as the F&W doesn't want to allow in species of insects that could potentially escape and cause problems to people or crops, but I would have to believe that there are some insects that we could import that would be able to pass some of the sanctions and restriction needed. It would just be nice to be able to offer my darts xyz bug that they are used to seeing and taking in the wild and I bet in the end this would be a great step in the right direction on how to better keep our animals.


----------



## spydrmn12285

^you forgot to mention one other externality and that is...

toxins! If there was a chance that we were able to import natural prey items, we wouldn't know which ones are the prime ingredients for PDF's toxins. I think that we do have plenty of food items, enough to feed the frogs something different everyday with the occasional treat based on money or season. When my collection gets larger, I hope to implement this sort o feeding regime, to add enough variety (though of course wouldn't equal the variety in the wild but is the best we can do).


----------



## bbrock

Whenever this topic of natural rearing comes up, the conversation always drifts toward our inability to replicate nature perfectly, predators, toxins, and things like that. Although all this is true, it strays from the original point. First, I will point out that even if we all had an unlimited number of biospheres to keep our frogs in, we still wouldn't be able to match wild populations perfectly because of founder effect and genetic drift. Our biosphere populations would still wind up different from our wild populations. But who cares?

There are two reasons for natural rearing. The first is to maintain those behavioral characteristics in our frogs that we find so intriguing. This hobby is unique in that the majority of us appreciate the way our frogs come to us from nature and intend to keep them that way. So if they look and act like wild frogs, we should be happy. The second reason is for maintaining captive populations that could be used for wild reintroductions. This gets pretty complex because so many factors determine whether animals will make it in the wild. In some cases animals can be successfully reintroduced to the wild after many, many, generations in captivity and in other cases, even F1 generation captive born can be difficult to reestablish in the wild. It is a pretty good guess though that with proper husbandry and reintroduction techniques, that PDF and other amphibians would still be able to adapt to the wild after quite a few generations of captivity.

Do we have to replicate nature perfectly to meet either of these reasons for natural rearing? Of course not. Would we even want to? I don't see a reason why. But it is not that difficult to provide the right conditions for PDF to pull off their complete life cycle inside a viv without our interfering other than to provide the environment and nutrition. Most of us already keep frogs in setups that will get them to the tad carrying phase. In fact, if your frogs are proucing eggs, then you've already licked that part because all you have to do to get to tad carrying is leave the eggs alone. The bottleneck is in the tad rearing sites. It's not that difficult to provide. I know a guy who was having more auratus froglets morphing unaided from his 20L viv than he really cared to deal with. I routinely have vittatus froglets morph out in a 20H. Another friend never pulled imitator eggs from his 29 gal. viv and the thing was always swarming with froglets. So it isn't that difficult to do and helps preserve some of the most endearing characteristics of these frogs that are also the most vulnerable to loss. 

I've proposed in the past that at a minimum breeding groups should be "tested" every 3rd generation to make sure they still retain the necessary behaviors to complete their life cycle on their own. If a group is found to have lost necessary behaviors, then the last known "good" group is usually still alive and provides the safety net needed to restore the behavior for future generations. It's really a pretty tiny adjustment in husbandry practices but I think could go a long way toward maintaining what we love about these animals.


----------



## npaull

> Are learned actions to much of a stretch w/ pdf`s? I know octopi can learn to open a jar but I`m not sure how that would fit here.


Almost definitely... but it depends on how you want to define learning. Complex emulation and abstract thought are clearly out. Stimulus/response conditioning is clearly in. Watching parents/adults to learn ritualistic mating behavior? That's some very high-functioning brain activity; I'd be stunned speechless if it happened, but I don't know of any evidence either way.

Minor point - I take issue with your assertion that ffs are not as high in protein as pdfs natural diet. Beetles, ants etc are very chitinous; I would guess there is actually more digestible material (including protein) in most captive diets than there is in most wild diets... of course, that doesn't mean that the total nutritional profile of a wild diet is better than an unsupplemented captive diet. However, with the exception of skin toxins, I do not believe there is any evidence that well-supplemented fruit fly diets are not more than sufficient.


----------



## kyle1745

Starting this thread to discuss care improvements of tank size & layout.


----------



## Ed

I'm guessing that was a hint we were straying from the topic at hand... 

snip "Tank size in my recent opinion maybe of our most overlooked aspects of the care of these animals. I myself am guilt of keeping multiple species in 10gals and possibly have lost my fair share of frogs due to this. "endsnip

While larger enclosures may allow the animals to have a larger range of natural behaviors, I don't think in general the ten gallon tank is necessarily the item that causes the loss of the frogs... This is a very difficult item to get a handle on for many reasons as the hobby does not routinely get necropsies done on frogs that die, routinely test for parasites (to at least monitor the load), test for chytrid (as noted in a different post Chytrid was detected in imported amphibians for the pet trade in Japan so I have no doubts that it is in the general population in captivity), or even monitor the median lifespan of the frogs. ( check out http://www.pondturtle.com/lfrog.html#Dendrobates for some outdated longevities). 
If the enclosures are set up properly with sufficient hides and visual barriers, then the tens should work but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't use larger enclosures if possible. I also suspect that we may be making things worse by the tight sealing to maximize the humidity as this also reduces air flow into the enclosures. In the wild, the frogs have access to microclimates which enable them to access sufficient humidity as needed but we tend to make the entire enclosure moist and wet.. Now this may also maximize the amount that the frogs maybe seen but it also maynot be the best for the frogs... 

snip "Now while I think pairs may be fine in smaller enclosures I think there can still be aggression in some species between the opposite sex so introducing them can be tough or even deadly."endsnip

But this can often be overcome through some simple methods such as introducing both animals into a novel enclosure at the same time, insuring that there are sufficient visual barriers, offer food in more than one location.... 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

Good points Ed, and as always I have a knack of making it sound too direct or that all 10s are bad. I do think the 10verts are bad in almost every case though. Most of the frogs I keep seem to use the floor space a bit more than I would have thought they would. I would also say they should not be used for any more than 2 frogs, and that is even with some thumbs.

For many species they are ok, but I think you said it much better in that we should provide them as much space as possible.

I also have recently thought about the tanks that are too sealed. While I vent my tanks I think I need to vent them even more. The worry I have is that if a misting nozzle would clog and I would not catch it. Granted I still think it would take a few days before something would dry out enough to work about. Its still a fine line at times...

On the other end of the tanks being too sealed I think in many cases a misting system helps as you can flush the tanks a bit. I know I run 4-5 gallons or so through mine at least one time a week just to try to flush the tanks a bit.


----------



## npaull

Seems like there is just a *ton* of speculation here without really any evidence to back this stuff up. People are (from what I can say) basically just saying "10 gallons are bad" "we need more ventilation" etc. There is a subtle but important difference between these declarations and... "I wonder if..." statements, let alone "I have observed that" statements. We should be careful about leaping to prescriptions without understanding problems, ideally doing some tests, or at least having some anecodtal evidence.[/i]


----------



## Ed

My thoughts on trying to keep the tanks as closed as possible have several different components but one is that it reduces the animal's ability to self regulate thier needs based on moisture. In the wild, the frogs have access to dry but humid microclimates, dry but lower humidity microclimates, and assorted wet microclimates. 

It has been shown with reptiles that providing as much as possible niches to allow for behavioral self regulation significantly reduces stress while increasing normal behaviors. (see reference cited in stress thread). This can play a signficant role in increasing the life span of the animal, increasing normal behaviors as well increasing the chance of reproduction in those hard to breed species. 

In addition to these potential issues there maybe further stress placed on the frogs due to low air turn over. During the day, the plants of course produce lots of oxygen while at night the plants respire CO2. If the tank is tightly sealed the frogs maybe exposed to levels of CO2 that while they do not kill the frog, can place stress on the animal. (amphibians can ususally tolerate fairly high levels of CO2 but this doesn't mean its in thier best interest (this does not include the CO2 produced through the breakdown of the leaf litter, substrate etc). 


Some comments... 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

Im wondering what levels would be ok, and not ok... I would also think a well planted tank could normalize those levels. Then again maybe this is more of a hope...


----------



## Roadrunner

All these levels can be provided in quite a small tank. A long tank(20l) w/ the light source placed at the back and misting in the front has provided dry cork layers in the back basking area of the tank. The front of the tanks get misted w/ a misting system and the back actually dries out somewhat. I hand mist the back of the tanks once a week or 2. They have a humidity level above 50% throughout the tank and some areas in front under the cork are closer to 80-100%. Small holes drilled at the bottom and top at the back and front(above the substrate of course) provide a little airflow w/ fans constantly blowing down the isles to keep the temperatures near constant from the ground to ceiling. This is what you would tend to see in the wild, laying sites in darker cooler wetter sites in the viv and the cork would be the part of their env where sunlight actually gets thru and warms and dries the ground. as a layer of co2 builds up at ground level it would flow out thru the holes w/out a fan. the sheer heaviness of co2 would make the layer flow out the holes to find a lower spot if there are holes placed at substrate level.
Just think of the science experiments w/ dry ice, as it "smokes" it rolls over the glass and down to the floor. some of this is because of the extreme cold, which also sinks but co2 is much heavier than air and will do somewhat the same thing. it`ll form a layer and try to find a way out to get lower.


----------



## kyle1745

I run a similar setup where the front of my tanks are vented, and ther rears are not. This has a similar effect, but I do not think I see as great of a difference. Now with some of my newer tanks I am using a bit more vented area which may help this as well.


----------



## bbrock

Once again I think I should point out that there is a difference between air movement and ventilation. Ventilation exchanges gas with the atmosphere outside the vivarium. But much of what we are talking about can be accomplished by recirculating air in a vivarium which conserves humidity while setting up a hetergeneous environment inside the vivarium.

There is no question that there is a relationship between vivarium size and the heterogeneity of the environment. When we place frogs in small vivaria that are relatively homogenous, we do so with the assumption that the homogenous environment will be adequate for all of the frog's needs. We can also use a few tricks to increase the heterogeneity of the environment in small vivs but the limits of potential heterogenity will be reached at lower levels in a small vivarium than they will in a large one. What this boils down to is that small vivaria can, when properly designed, provide adequate, and even excellent, environments for PDF. But as the vivarium size increases, their success becomes less dependent on our assumptions about the correct conditions because the large vivaria can provide a wider margin of error around those assumptions.

I talk a lot about my pumilio viv because it's the only vivarium I have that meets my standards of a very good setup. Hopefully all of my vivaria will be built to the same specs some day. This vivarium is large but it is also almost completely hermetically sealed. There are no ventilation holes at all other than the very small gap between the by-pass doors. Instead, air is recirculated through ducting and a 6" fan so air blows in through 3, 2" vents on one side and exhausts through 3, 2" vents on the other. The fan runs all the time. There is a breeze in the vivarium that you can both see by the movement of the plants and feel. The air movement creates a very different environment from my other, more traditional, vivaria. When you open the viv, it does not feel steamy and damp like typical vivaria and it smells much fresher. There is easily a 10F temperature difference between the coolest and warmest parts of the vivarium. There is a large difference in moisture as well with some areas almost constantly dripping and other areas almost bone dry. As far as I can tell, the frogs use every inch of that vivarium. Calling and courting tends to be done in the most exposed and dry locations. Obviously egg laying is done in more secluded moist areas. And hunting is typically done among the leaf litter that tends to be dry with a few pools of water collected in cupped leaves. Calling a reproduction in this viv is nearly constant and froglets rear themselves in this viv with no assistance from me. In contrast, the same type of pumilio kept in a typical 20T vivarium housed just a few feet from the larger viv almost never call and never reproduce. The smaller vivarium seems adequate for keeping the frogs alive and apparently healthy but is apparently too homogenous to let them really express their full range of behaviors.


----------



## Ed

snip " I would also think a well planted tank could normalize those levels. Then again maybe this is more of a hope... "endsnip

Just a comment here... What we typically consider well planted tanks are not the habitat in which many of the frogs live... (species dependent). Many of these frogs do not live in the planted jungles that we typically use to house them. Most use the leaf litter without all of the plant growth we provide... (except as tadpole tanks)... 


Ed


----------



## Dancing frogs

It's been one of my goals for a while to eventually get all my frogs into bigger tanks...for example >10gallons per frog for thumbnail species.

I'm pretty happy (and my frogs seem to be too) with the 20H tanks set up for a pair of retics each, and would have prefered to use 25 gallon tanks, for a little more height, but the price was right (dollar a gallon).

Of course, everyone should also realize that a well set up ten gallon could probably provide just as much usable area as a 20 gallon that is not so well set up.

I'm also starting to think that all tanks, whether set up for "terrestrial" or "arboreal" should have more height than is commonly given.

Reasoning for that is that I've noticed most of the frogs I keep prefer to sleep up high, and also gives the air some room to stratify into warm and cooler areas.

I'm also working towards having some ventilation in all of my tanks.

In the first PDF viv I built (a ten hex rebuilt to be 24" high) I put a vent in the back of the tank, 2/3 of the way up (idea from Staniszewski's Mantellas book), and with a little bit of ventilation on the lid to complement, the heat generated from the lights doesn't seem to get to the areas under the back vent, as natural convection pulls much of the heat out.


----------



## kyle1745

Brent,

Interesting... internal air movement has not been brought up in some time. I personally would like to try this as it does make a lot of sense. Granted on a small scale im not sure how feasible it is.

Brian,

Im not sure I agree on the vertical space unless the floor space is also increased. Yes they can benefit from both, but if you can only provide one I think floor space is more important for most species.


----------



## Dancing frogs

kyle1745 said:


> Brent,
> 
> Interesting... internal air movement has not been brought up in some time. I personally would like to try this as it does make a lot of sense. Granted on a small scale im not sure how feasible it is.
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Im not sure I agree on the vertical space unless the floor space is also increased. Yes they can benefit from both, but if you can only provide one I think floor space is more important for most species.


I think air movement is interesting, and most likely has plenty of benefits, however I have been wondering if the frogs experience stress from vibration of fans buzzing on the viv, I don't notice them freaking out or anything, but being that some species sleep on a leaf, supposedly so they can feel vibrations of things passing by, or planning on eating them, I can't help but wonder. I know I get tired of listening to fans all day, why wouldn't they?

As far as floor space, it probably is more important for most species, from my observations, my amazonicus and imitator rarely visit the ground. For these types, I would say it would be more ideal to have vertical space that is usable to the animal, i.e. tall leafy plants, branches and bromeliads to climb on, in essence, floor space, but in multiple floors.

Again, not saying that is ideal for some big fat tincs or other ground dwellers, but I think they would even enjoy a thicker canopy overhead, along with the larger varience in temperature available, but I'm not saying such frogs should be put in a vert tank or anything like that.


----------



## Ed

snip "don't notice them freaking out or anything, but being that some species sleep on a leaf, supposedly so they can feel vibrations of things passing by, or planning on eating them, I can't help but wonder. I know I get tired of listening to fans all day, why wouldn't they? "endsnip

If the vibration becomes constant then it would end up being a background vibration to which the frogs adapt. The same goes for the noise.. 

If you look at the studies done with the reaction to red eye tree frog eggs, you will see that the vibrations that trigger the early hatching behaviors are fairly specific. 

Ed


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> Brent,
> 
> Interesting... internal air movement has not been brought up in some time. I personally would like to try this as it does make a lot of sense. Granted on a small scale im not sure how feasible it is.


You obviously haven't been reading frognet lately. Shame on you ;-) I posted pictures of my recirculating system not long ago. It actually can be done fairly easily in a small viv too. The simplest method is to just mount a computer fan in a short piece of pvc, slap some plastic mesh over both openings, and drop the thing inside the viv. The pvc can easily be hidden using the old tricks we all know.



> Brian,
> 
> Im not sure I agree on the vertical space unless the floor space is also increased. Yes they can benefit from both, but if you can only provide one I think floor space is more important for most species.


I actually think aquaria are pretty poorly dimensioned to make good vivs. I think they are too short and too wide. Most aquaria should be double their depth in my opinion to make them a good dimension for vivs. And only the tall tanks are appropriately proportioned for height (just my opinion). But my dislike for the dimensions has as much to do with the ability to plant the darn things as with the frogs. But all of my frogs tend to climb high to spend the night. That includes heavy bodied Phyllobates and auratus as well as notorious leaf litter dwellers like reticulatus. Although some of the retics do sleep in the litter, most seem to migrate up into the broms at night.

I hate fan noise too. That's why I try to use only larger 4" minimum fans if possible or put speed controllers on smaller ones to slow them down so you don't hear them. I also don't like using fans unless necessary because of the energy consumed. But for air movement, I haven't found an alternative. The breeze created should not be a problem since the tropics have breezes too. Some good frogger friends recently returned from Peru and one comment they made was that the air was much fresher and breezier than they expected.


----------



## kyle1745

lol, yes im a bit behind on frognet but still have them all here... 

I agree on the tank sizes, and Ive recently become a big fan of 15gal standards over 10gals due to the increased floorspace.

Im hoping to try a large exo terra soon and might have to try the internal fan. I have a couple of tanks that run external fans blowing a little bit of air in, but need to try the internal.


----------



## bbrock

I had been contemplating ideal tank sizes quite a bit even before this thread started. I have come to the personal opinion that a good average, optimal vivarium size would be about a 2'x2'x2' cube which provides both more floor space and height than the most commonly used aquaria. Then I decided to pull out my copy of Heslhaus' book _Poison-arrow Frogs_ to see how this compared with his recommended vivarium sizes.

Under his generic section of vivarium construction he states, "I make the terraria I use for poison-arrow frogs in sizes between 60 x 60 x 40 cm (2 x 2 x 1-1/3 ft) and 80 x 80 x 50 cm (2-1/2 x 2-1/2 x 1-1/3 ft). Under his pumilio section he states, "Strawberry poison-arrow frogs can be kept well in terraria measuring 60 x 60 x 40 cm (2 x 2 x 1-1/2 ft). Larger terraria are also suitable if a few pieces of banana are laid out so food insects (_Drosophila_) concentrate around them." This latter comment reflects the notion that large vivaria are difficult to keep well fed which I completely disagree with. But the real reason for bringing this up is that this notion of larger vivaria has been around since at least 1988 in Europe. So here we are in America discussing this as the "new advances" in husbandry and we are actually 20 years behind.

And while I'm on a rant. I think vivarium shape is an overlooked component. Aquariums were originally designed to provide a wide viewing area that crams the inhabitants toward the front for easy viewing. A square footprint provides more depth that allows the animals more security to perform the more hidden aspects of their lives.


----------



## Guest

> That's why I try to use only larger 4" minum fans...


Was that a typo, Brent? Did you mean 4" minimum fan size...or that 'minum' is a type of fan? I'm not familiar with computer fans, so I was just curious...and a Google search for 'minum' didn't give me jack. :roll:


----------



## bbrock

skylsdale said:


> That's why I try to use only larger 4" minum fans...
> 
> 
> 
> Was that a typo, Brent? Did you mean 4" minimum fan size...or that 'minum' is a type of fan? I'm not familiar with computer fans, so I was just curious...and a Google search for 'minum' didn't give me jack. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, that was a typo. I've fixed it now. The idea being that larger fans can move larger volumes of air with lower blade speeds and thus less noise. I'm told that Silenx fans are very good and are said to be the quietest available.


----------



## stchupa

*frogs & thy devices*



Ed said:


> snip " I would also think a well planted tank could normalize those levels. Then again maybe this is more of a hope... "endsnip
> 
> Just a comment here... What we typically consider well planted tanks are not the habitat in which many of the frogs live... (species dependent). Many of these frogs do not live in the planted jungles that we typically use to house them. Most use the leaf litter without all of the plant growth we provide... (except as tadpole tanks)...
> 
> 
> Ed


I have to stop for a moment and quote Ed here before I get too far ahead of myself and start tossing previous ideas.

One thing we all know is that darts have eyes. Surprising, (to some) I know. Through having eyes, very decent ones I might add, they tend to use them to full effectiveness, and are thus highly observant creatures and 'intuitively' ("gene"memory) aware of the surroundings 'they' inhabit.

What I'm trying to get at is, darts' (true) behavioral position won't ever be known/seen (for what it really is), if you know the frogs have an unobstructed view of you, then that is surely dictating (an)otherwise uninfluenced behavioral characteristic(s). Chances are if you (have the chance to) see a frog (wild or not), that frog had been watching your trek for at least enough time to decern your intentive trajectory (longer perhaps if being entertained by the monkey). If you're somehow able to sneak up on a frog w/out it knowing about it, then there is something different/'wrong' about that frog.

And the point is.....
The frog(s) being observed in and amongst the leaf litter and the reason of them being known (sp.specific) to have the disposition of such preference may be do solely to our interaction being observable to them and them reacting to the situation on hand. This would be the case every time w/ wild interaction as ther's no way to camouflage yourself from a frog (at least a dart) so what is being cataloged may not (closely) resemble the natural uninhibited behavior even though we consider the wilderness natural (it is) we don't set the equation rules implicating interference (by humans) and it ends up being labeled "as is", as WE (not the frogs) know it to be and that's it.

A stationary video camera may or may not work (if they were being used). They would probably react to the camera as a new addition to their environment, again tripping the line of unsurity and offensive behavior.

Just as you might not want to be viewed (for a # reasons) at particular times and anytime you are, you may not act as you would if you weren't, it's really no different for anything w/ any amount of (what's know as) consciousness. The only differences are reasons, as humans have inherently picked up on the common ideal that naked needs cover when viewable. What a set focus...w/ reason...

If a tree falls in the forest does anyone hear it? The frogs do is that not somebody? They would not only hear it but having (for lack of a better phrase) curious nature (arboreal and leaf burrowers aside for now, not that it would make a difference) they would investigate and likely make use of a new and slightly varying habitat. If their were leaves (stilll) once where the tree is now there going to make do w/ both at different times for differing purposes. Frogs not known to scrounge in leaves will when/if given the reason(s)/chance.

As for evidence only observation can be taken as so. I am currently undertaking an experiment w/ two (secluded behavioral) types as of now and I must say it is interesting to notice the difference, subtle at times, but something completely unseen otherwise. The ability through which communication happens isn't at the immediate/largely apparent pieces, but the bits that make up those pieces, non vocal and very subtle. Singing is not communication on the information level (i.e. I'm healthful, vibrant, strong fighter) but only to indicate type and location.
Regardless of a female being able to tell (through the call) if a male is worthy or not in some area (health) she will investigate if having any interest. We all know it is the body language at which they can understand each other, what most don't know is how extended that vocabulary is and the extremely subtle bits that make up the pieces WE CAN INTERPRET. Size helps, but it doesn't determine the intellectual inferior/superior-ness of an animal. There's a divide among communication (between unrelated organisms, not species) for REASON, think tribal w/ anticipation. Privacy is in language. Interaction will always be differing w/ each (accessible) individual from the one individual doing the talk, but each repetitive interaction will have it's 'own' varying signature for varying compatibilities/association between the two.

I'll stop there for now, hard for me to organize something that needs explanation from the general, but for me, I'd say it's ok.

Trying not to mix stress too much but I'd like to go on later w/ more vulnerability issues of not just frogs but tads and their awareness potential and reactions.


----------



## defaced

> And while I'm on a rant. I think vivarium shape is an overlooked component. Aquariums were originally designed to provide a wide viewing area that crams the inhabitants toward the front for easy viewing. A square footprint provides more depth that allows the animals more security to perform the more hidden aspects of their lives.


I agree, but to some extent this is being delt with by turning the tank sideways to fit them onto shelves. It's not the best solution but I think it's better than the alternative. 

Funny you mention the 2' cube size as that is what I've decided my next group of tanks will be (for Pumillio).


----------



## kyle1745

The 30gal oceanic are a good size as well. Ive also been eyeing a 37gal cube at the local store..  Granted a bit more than some other options. I like the new exo terras as well, but they need a bit of work before they are ready for frogs. Im hoping to setup a couple exo terras myself soon and have a number of ideas for them.


----------



## lacerta

What attracted me to this hobby was not just the frogs but the whole "system" to include mini biome. The whole nitrogen cycle thing, with energy input in form of light and fruitflies, frog poop breaking down into nitrates from bacterial activity, plants taking up nutrients. There is a lot of pleasant intervention on my part as I get to be the Oz behind the curtain, setting timers, automating gadgets for adjusting humidity levels and photoperiods, providing drainage, pruning overgrowth, researching, observing, learning and maintaining what I feel are optimum environmental parameters for the vivarium's inhabitants. And my hope is that if I do everything right (or right enough) my charges will reward my efforts by successfully breeding. I'm sorry but I can't help but feel that reproduction is the Sigma/Magna Cum Laude of animal husbandry. I may not necessarily want to become a frog breeder (at this point in the hobby) but I feel it would be nice to see it happen, at least once (or maybe a couple times). Another notch on my herpetoculture belt. 
As I look back over the years I recall a time when I was a youngster collecting reptiles and amphibians in my native California. Back then in the '60's it was quite a challenge to just keep things alive, let alone think about captive breeding. Hobbiests and zoo professionals smarter than me finally cracked the code and now it seems reproduction is almost commonplace for most species. Instead of black magic it was things like UV light, supplementation, maintaining temp gradients, veterinary medical advances, and reducing stress. The key component to successful husbandry seemed to be based on learning about a specie's natural history, habitat, and behaviour and then trying to replicate the same conditions in a captive setting. A desert snake belongs in a terrarium with sand, deep humid hides, pronouced temp gradients. A woodland skink needs a well planted terrarium, with mulch and leaf litter, etc. And a PDF needs a terrarium set up like a rainforest. 
And it's a beautiful thing!! A little slice of rainforest in my study. Misters going off and the sound of calling frogs. Frogs making love in the coco hut. ( It hasn't happened for me yet but I am hopeful.)
Now here is my dilemma (paradigm shift) that I have recently experienced. As my frog collection grows I need to set up more vivariums. I want to have the frogs but do I really need to have a "show style" viv for each pair or species group? Isn't this hobby just as much about the vivariums as the frogs? I have room in my home for maybe 3 or 4 beautifully planted vivariums and really no more. But I would really like to keep other species. The solution to my dilemma appears to be the "rack system". Shelves of 10gal tanks down in my finished basement to quarantine and grow out juvenile frogs. My initial reaction when first seeing examples of frogrooms here on the Dendroboard was "No frikkin way am I going to put a PDF in a sphagnum lined fishtank on a shelf ! And, oh my God, is that Pothos (ughhhh) in the tank??! . Blasphemy! What's next ?? Rubbermaid shoeboxes?? "
In December of last year and earlier this month my collection of frogs went from 4 to 21. My latest acquistions were juveniles of four different species and/or morphs that needed to be separated and quarantined. Out of necessity I reluctantly put them into a rack system. Yes, with false bottoms, sphagnum, and Pothos clippings (Uggh) for visual barrier and hiding. One end slopes down to form a saturated gravel "pond". Shoplights on a timer mounted over each row of tanks. Frogfarm's posts were very helpful to me in getting set up. The only improvement that I would like would be to find some of those spigots so I can set up an easier drainage system. My intention was that this would be a temporay setup for just a couple of months. 
Well, after using this rack system for about 6 weeks I am totally sold that this is the way to go for ease of maintanance and care. I guess I shouldn't be surprised but the frogs appear to be doing just as well, if not better, than the ones living in the high-dollar planted, CF lit, automated misted, vivarium. I feel that I can better monitor and respond to their needs in the much simpler 10 gal setup. My "show" vivs are still my pride and joy but I will be expanding my rack system very soon and if I finally do have tads, I will use something like the NAIB system I suppose.
So what is the point of my rambling? I guesss it is that we (at least I do) often get wrapped up in thinking that the naturalistic approach is the best way to keep our animals healthy and happy. And that reproductive success is a measure of how happy and healthy our animals are. Yet I must admit, since spending time on Dendroboard and seeing the success others are having, I am not so sure that the naturalistic approach is always the best, or should I say the most practical. So I love my vivariums with the broms and jewel orchids. They are the centerpiece of any room they are in. But I also love the rack system in its simplicity and in providing what seems to be the most essiential needs of the frogs. Frogs don't care if they are living among orchids and broms, or if they are living among Pothos (Ughh) and film canisters. Or they are not worse off because they are eating fruitflys and temperate springtails, rather than their own tropical brand.
George


----------



## bbrock

George,
We are people of like mind from the same era. Except my love of the system drives me to find systems that minimize the need for Oz behind the curtain (I grew up in Kansas and had my fill of Oz) but to find better ways to use what nature provides to make a self-regulating system.

But that's not really the point of my post. There is no doubt that small vivs in rack systems have been hugely successful for many species. But there are also many species that we, as a hobby, have been unmitigated failures with. Most notably are the egg feeder and some thumbnails which do not respond well to the standard setups. So the first problem is the one size fits all approach to frogging which leaves some species as winners and others as losers. My second problem, and this becomes a near blanket condemnation of 10 gallon tanks, is that what we call "successful breeding" doesn't cut it in my book. If our idea of successful breeding is to set frogs up to where they lay and fertilize eggs and then we take over from there, we have failed. Wild PDF have these remarkable parental care behaviors that we are robbed of witnessing when we always remove the eggs. Worse, by robbing ourselves of witnessing these behaviors, we may be robbing future generations of the opportunity to see them as well because we quite likely will breed the behavior right out of our frogs. To me, the loss of these behaviors would be just as terrible a loss as the loss of their colors or beautiful skin patterns. And while it isn't impossible to set up a 10 gallon tank to allow frogs to fully complete their life cycle unaided, it is more difficult than in a larger vivarium.

As I've said before, I don't think we have to raise every froglet produced as "free range". But I do think we need to be more responsible as a hobby to make sure we don't lose some of the more fascinating traits of these animals. But you are right that there is a trade off between the sizes of vivs and the number of species we can keep. For me it is not much of a trade. After 11 years at this I still haven't grown tired of the same 6 species. Just today I discovered a clutch of nearly ready to hatch blue jeans pumilio eggs in the leaf litter of their viv. These frogs have been reproducing for over 7 years and this is only the 2nd time I've gotten to see the eggs. And while I admired the eggs I watched two small froglets from a prior clutch hopping around. The surprises never end.


----------



## Ed

snip "I'm sorry but I can't help but feel that reproduction is the Sigma/Magna Cum Laude of animal husbandry"endsnip

A lot of people feel this way but it is not the gold standard people make it out to be. A lot of animals will successfully reproduce in marginal conditions often mutiple times. This is simply a sign post that you are getting enough enviromental cues correct that the frogs will breed. This is/was a mistake many Zoos held to well into the 1990s and beyond.. As we advance the care of the animals we discover that there are more sign posts out there that we haven't reached yet. Zoos have moved beyond the simply breeding sign post and are now looking at having the animals behave as naturally as possible, extending both the median and maximal longevities while maintaining those behaviors... (to name some other worthy goals).. 



Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

Exactly what Ed said. I`ve had animals breed to death before. 
My study has always been optimal conditions, but optimal conditions may just make them overbreed. We all do things that aren`t good for us. Frogs are programmed to eat and breed. If they are givin the chance they will do this as best they can as long as conditions hold out, actually to their detriment. 
I`ve switched focus to optimal, sustainable conditions. Since I can`t produce the conditions here to breed some and shut some off(since I really don`t know the "seasons" for everyone in the wild and couldn`t duplicate them all if I did). It`s easier just to seperate to relieve the stresses of being w/ their signifigant other all the time. Think of how you`d be, psychologically, if you were put in a 2400 sq ft house w/ your mate 24/7. I`m still working on other things along these lines. I feel bad my animals don`t get the ability to "drive away" other competitors and stake claim to their own territory. If they can see the tank next to them they are constantly taunted w/ a challenge they can never confront. The phyllos and leucs worry me also in the sense they could make themselves deaf w/ the loudness of their call. They obviously use this since they aren`t always near their mate and need them to be able to find them. This may mean they should be introduced instead of being kept together all teh time.
some can breed 5 yrs w/out a break and still do quite fine and some probably breed year round in the wild but i`m not sure which ones that may be. Either way sustaining constant breeding means you have to get everythihng just right to maintain proper levels of nutrition/minerals/vits. your much more susceptible to deficiencies w/out giving your breeders time to recoop and the resulting offspring are much healthier when given sufficient breaks.


----------



## kyle1745

Interesting points, and I brought up something similar in the stress thread. The call volume in an interesting thought as well... I often wonder if some species do not care to be as close as we put them in some cases, other than when they want to breed.


----------



## lacerta

Wow. There is a lot more to this hobby than I expected. Brent and others bring up issues I really hadn't considered. Maintaining the future viability (the genetic integrity) of each species we breed. That's a heavy responsibility to place on a private hobbyist. Wouldn't that require everybody who keeps and breeds these animals to be on board? How likely is that? This also implies that there is some possible intent to use the progeny of our breeding efforts for repopulating a former habitat. How likely is that? Has there ever been a precedent whereby hobbyists provided animals for reintro? And is that why most of us keep PDF's? 
I think it is a proper and noble cause. Not sure why, other than for the obvious esthetic reasons. My training in biology allows me to appreciate these organisms as the product of millions of years of evolution, shaping each specie's physiology and complex behavior with the selective pressures unique to it's environment. Removing/altering selective pressure by denying parent frogs the opportunity to feed/transport tads could possibly compromise a future generation's ability to ever survive again in the wild. Because I have chosen to keep a group of organisms that have suffered worldwide declines in wild populations, I suppose I should wear the sacred mantle and vow to protect the future of the species lest they be reduced to garrish and grotesque koi-like (or leopard gecko-like) monstrosities. Hmmm. I'm on board. 
And I like your idea about allowing parent frogs to rear their young every third clutch. I think that would satisfy both camps (save-the-species, and crank-out-the-froglets). 
George :wink:


----------



## defaced

> Wouldn't that require everybody who keeps and breeds these animals to be on board? How likely is that?


Pop "asn" and/or "amphibian steward network" into the search. The idea is already rolling.


----------



## bbrock

defaced said:


> Wouldn't that require everybody who keeps and breeds these animals to be on board? How likely is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Pop "asn" and/or "amphibian steward network" into the search. The idea is already rolling.
Click to expand...

You can also visit the Tree Walkers International web site:
http://www.treewalkers.org

We have been working on getting the ASN handbook ready for release and it is starting to come together.

Very briefly, there are two main reasons we want to maintain genetic integrity. The first is that most people in this hobby are like George and appreciate the frogs as products of evolution. But if we don't provide good stewardship of their genes, they won't resemble thos products of evolution for long. When that happens, people will want to go back to the wild and extract more frogs not unlike what happened with orchids.

The second reason is for reasons you already stated. There is currently a massive push to bring critically endangered amphibians into captive breeding programs until we can figure out how to restore them to the wild. If hobbyists can become organized enough to manage genes of non-endangered amphibians, then we will have developed the skills to become partners in these conservation captive breeding programs. There is general support for us from the professionals so the prospects look promising.


----------



## kyle1745

I think the sad truth is that no matter what happens in the future some or even many of these animals may only exists in the hobby. While I love the idea of repopulation, unless we have something catastrophic wipe some humans out this will most likely never happen. We are just going to eventually over populate the world, and this will require using every free chunk of land. We need our own breeding restrictions... Say 1-2 children per family. Since ice caps are melting, maybe over time we will evolve into fish. ;-)


----------



## stchupa

The thought that humans are (have been) "de-evolving" was (has been) already accepted. Duh.... :roll:


----------



## lacerta

Kyle opines:


> While I love the idea of repopulation, unless we have something catastrophic wipe some humans out this will most likely never happen.


Catastrophic for the humans I suppose but maybe not so catastrophic for the rest of creation. As much as I want to remain optimistic, I cannot deny the fact that our legacy on this planet has been one of environmental destruction and mass extinction and we continue on that path unchecked and unabated. I think humankind will eventually self destruct. Just another truncated branch in the fossil record, a failed experiment. Life ultimately will go on. Who knows, our demise may allow the amphibians to rise up and take their turn, develop advanced communication, agriculture (fruitflies probably), and maybe do better than us. Sorry I strayed from the topic of this thread.
George


----------



## bbrock

Just to interject a little bit of optimism here. In a recent lecture I saw E.O. Wilson give, he quoted research that suggests that the human population will peak at about 7 billion and then decline slightly before leveling off. He went on to explain that we have the technology to feed this many people and, in fact, we are producing enough food to do that today. So the challenge will be to develop economies based on sustainability of natural resources. And while I share the pessimistic views expressed here, I do think there is a chance to turn things around.

A few other things to consider are that while we have been destroying the planet, some cool things have happened too. Our water and air is much cleaner in the US than it was 40 years ago although we have a long way to go. But I'm also encouraged by things like that wolves were delisted from the endangered species list last week in the upper Midwest and will likely be delisted in the Northern Rockies this year if Wyoming will pull their heads out. The Yellowstone grizzly population is also on track for delisting although only marginally but still a vast improvement in their status from 30 years ago. So if these large carnivores can recover in the face of some of the highest human population growth rates in the country, then it indicates there is potential to actually do something good in our lifetimes.


----------



## kyle1745

Good points Brent, and what I think will be interesting is how well the couple of examples you mentioned last over time.

If I get some time I will try to find some old articles on our natural parks, and while it was based on photography they discussed plans to start limiting the number of people allowed in these areas yearly and etc due to the vast amount of truism. I think we will see more and more of this as the populations rise, but I could also see losing these areas as well.

My over all point is this... if it comes down to saving a human, or having room for them to live, vers an animal, and its habitat, the animal will lose almost every time. Yes this is sad, but yet it is human nature to survive. I just see more and more of this becoming a problem in the future as we are not doing anything worldwide to control our own extreme population issues.

None of this means we don't try, but that on a grand scale its a much bigger fight than many realize. I think this also creates a great importance on some of the breeding projects and etc, and even if they are never able to repopulate the wild, at minimum the animals may still exist...

The catastrophic comments I made are just based on history, and while it sucks to think about it we are way past due. It could be anything, from the Bird Flue to a nuclear war, but we are due.


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> Good points Brent, and what I think will be interesting is how well the couple of examples you mentioned last over time.


The long term prospects actually look quite good if we can maintain a political focus on real recovery rather than just managing these populations at the knife's edge of sustainability. What we have learned is that these species are much more adaptable and tolerant of humans than we once thought. All they require is some human tolerance of their existence within human occupied areas. No more of this "wilderness belongs there and we belong here" nonsense. As I type this, I'm watching a large moose outside the window browsing hawthorn under the aspens.



> If I get some time I will try to find some old articles on our natural parks, and while it was based on photography they discussed plans to start limiting the number of people allowed in these areas yearly and etc due to the vast amount of truism. I think we will see more and more of this as the populations rise, but I could also see losing these areas as well.


They've talked about this for a long time but it is pretty much non-existent in current policy and plans. I don't think it will happen other than in special cases in our liftetimes for a couple reasons. The first because National Park funding has become increasingly dependent on gate receipts which creates a disincentive to limit visitation. The second is that the vast majority of park visitors never venture more than a few meters from a paved road or developed attraction so, even though the parks are crowded, the impact is limited to a small percentage of the parks. And a third reason could be included which is that the public feels an entitlement to be able to visit "their" parks making it politically very difficult to limit visitation.

Instead, what I think you are likely to see are policies that allow the maximum amount of people to visit while providing a high quality experience for them. So things like better quotas on how many RV campgrounds are allowed and cleaner, quieter, public transportation to relieve traffic congestion are likely the changes we will see. Also, and this is the real shocker to me. Park visitation by younger age groups is way down. The family camping trip is becoming a rare thing. And kids just aren't as interested as they once were.



> The catastrophic comments I made are just based on history, and while it sucks to think about it we are way past due. It could be anything, from the Bird Flue to a nuclear war, but we are due.


But there are a few things that have changed that make it impossible to extrapolate the future from the past. We are learning that high quality of human life is found in areas that maintain relatively high quality of natural habitats. Therefore, the longterm welfare of people is connected to maintaining natural areas (not necessarily pristine wilderness). And at the same time, we actually have gotten better about figuring out how to support modern human lifestyles while accomodating natural areas. But that doesn't mean we don't have some very grim challenges ahead. These things only work in areas with political stability and economies that can support a reasonable standard of living. So addressing poverty while insisting that economic policies operate within the laws of ecology are the long term keys. But that will require a tsunami change in our current "make me rich" social and political system.


----------



## lacerta

I have read several of E.O. Wilson's books. Two titles that come to mind are "The Naturalist" and the "Future of Life". Wilson introduces the concept of ecological footprint. This is the average amount of land it takes to provide sustainable energy (food), shelter, and waste absorption for each human on this planet. The average footprint I believe was 4.5 acres. Now that is a worldwide average. Here in the United States and much of western Europe, the footprint for each individual is around 20 acres. No doubt resulting from our extravagant consumption and addiction to oil and to resource-intensive foods products such as beef and pork. Now if we make the assumption (I don't know if we can but it seems to be the trend) that the rest of the developing world wants to also have a sack full of Big Macs and a garage with 2 SUV's in it then we are really in trouble. If the present world population each had an ecologic footprint identical to the U.S. and western Europe then it would require the resources of 3 planets the size of the earth. Now this was written several years ago and the hope is that 1) technology would mitigate/reduce this footprint significantly, and 2) the population would plateau at a sustainable size. 
Now Brent you said 7 billion but I remember reading estimates as high as 10 billion by 2050. Supposedly as developing countries make economic gains and improve the quality of life for their people, birthrate always falls. I know a few "eco-feminist" professors who say it is because of women becoming "enpowered", whatever that means. :roll: Anyway, the birthrate in America and western Europe is very low except for some large "disenfranchised" ethnic groups. The current birthrates in France and the Netherlands puts the Arab populations on a trajectory to become the majority in 20 years. And in the U.S. the hispanic population is the fastest growing as African americans continue to increase their economic fortunes as middle class Americans. 
So yes, Brent we have seen environmental improvements in this country with regard to water quality, and in managing many threatened and endangered species. I think Rachel Carson's (another one of those eco-feminists) "Silent Spring" along with the Cayahoga river catching on fire was a big wakeup call. Environmentally I think we have turned the corner in this country, provided we can get a handle on other issues such as rampant illegal immigration. But for the rest of the world I think things may continue to decline for awhile before they get better. At the very least I suppose we can remain hopeful, and become active in organizations like the Nature Conservancy and Treewalkers International.
George


----------



## Dancing frogs

...And that's why a bigger tank is always better!


----------



## kyle1745

LOL, yea I guess we got way off topic... then again maybe not completely.


----------



## zBrinks

So if we make sure to keep our frogs disenfrancised, they will breed more?


----------



## kyle1745

No but I think larger tanks will promote healthier breeding and life in general.


----------



## zBrinks

I have a bunch of 30cubes to rack up after I move this summer - Im thinking only one pair of frogs will inhabit each. I want to attempt to include plenty of desposition sites and a water feature to give the frogs a chance to raise their own young.


----------



## Dancing frogs

One thing I just thought of, as I was doing a concrete primer background, was if we should consider taking "environmental samples" in our tanks and send them in for testing for toxicity issues.
Some of the things that have become considered safe (because the frogs don't die) I really wonder whether they have effect on the long term health of the animal.
For instance, there has been reports a month or two ago, where people have put frogs in a tank that had only been curing for a day or two, and found their frogs belly up...
I know the problem there was not letting it cure, but I also know if you get a big enough pile of GS, that the center may not always cure.
Same with silicone...the question that pops up every month...
Surely someone on here knows roughly how much it would cost to have samples tested?
What do y'all think of that...if there is enough interest, perhaps we could do a donation deal, and have some tests done, on tanks just set up, one year old, and multiple years old.
I'd say it would be worth knowing.


----------



## kyle1745

Interesting Brian, and I would be very interested in testing some of the soil, and water within my tanks, for things such as parasites, bacteria, mineral content. It is my understanding bacteria may not be easy to test for.


----------



## Dancing frogs

Yeah, that too...


----------



## stchupa

I had some well water tested maybe five years ago, maybe more. They would (said they only COULD) test for mineral and known contaminants. I asked if they could test for synthetics (plastics ect.) and it was just "no". Cost about $50 then and maybe today that CAN/WILL test for a broader range of things. But that was here, in other places they may be more meticulous.

I say if you know what's in the viv you know whats in the rest (i.e. water soil, air, frogs). No real need to test for silicone/platics/polys if you know they're present, because you've already given it a chance.

Not a bad idea, if anyone knows where to send water to get an analysis of not just the basics but looking into detail, I'm in. This may be essential to the future of dart frog husbandry (or any animal) to find problems out before it being to late and problems/ailments become the excepted (by us) norm.

There's no real argument to be made over this (though always those that will/think they have to) as (I think) we can all agree that not having garbage in your vivs is better off than having any amount. Especially being the "new" of the "given" unknowns/intentionally not looked into/researched. Regardless of what people think they think about plastics and those of the similar, they ALL degrade and are not above becoming dust like everything else.


----------



## kyle1745

I think the one concern I have is the bacteria build up over the years in a setup. After a good amount of dead ffs how does that change the soil and characteristics of the tank.


----------



## bluedart

Stchupa--incidentally, trash piles in the wild are often dart frog HAVENS. Certainly, in the wild the can move on to other conditions and our tanks are sealed and impermeable to the frogs (we hope), however people tend to worry way too much sometimes in regards to the "hygenics" of dart frogging. 

Kyle--
Bacteria have limiting factors just like everything else. I don't *believe* that the bacterial microfauna of our vivariums would build up to unsustainable and/or unsafe levels with time. However, I agree that it would be a great idea to have some samples tested. Tor, I believe, has some tanks that have been set up for 10+ years and new tanks are crafted daily. 

I think another variable we might consider would be locality, not just state-wise but internationally. Does Europe have different microorganisms proliferating their tanks than we do? Japan? It would all be highly intriguing to sit and compare; even species tank to species tank might yield different bacterial elements. 

Overall, there are so many variables to what will influence microfauna in our tanks that we need to address all of them--the task of testing water, on the other hand, might be a feasible undertaking for now. That is, until we get a bacteriologist amongst us... :twisted:


----------



## stchupa

kyle1745 said:


> I think the one concern I have is the bacteria build up over the years in a setup. After a good amount of dead ffs how does that change the soil and characteristics of the tank.


Bacteria (assuming it's not something newly introduced/anaerobic/pathogenic) won't harm anything. If anything, maintaining that balance (for as long as possible) would be preferable. A way to determine if the bacteria in the tank is "healthy", conclude (through longevity and sample analysis) the long-term inhabitants health, and not just the frogs' but the total diversity of the tank from the plant's everything down to the micro fauna, different algae and even soil fungi. When you dig in 'good' soil, you can tell when it's just right, and when hyphae are present it becomes a dead give away that the activity is well balanced.. 
Toxins that are converted and begin to accumulate from the bacteria would be a problem w/ time. However not (so much) in the soil but mainly in the drainage water as they are leached (as to not remain accessible to the environment naturally). Since we have contained conditions they would not be continually leached (aside an open drain system) and there would be peeks/falls of saturation. Though to get amounts to be "harmful" would take much longer than how often we typically drain our tanks.
This is also assuming everything is well ventilated/oxygenated (including the water/soil) as to not encourage the wrong bacteria thereby producing (more of) the 'wrong' toxins. I really don't think bacteria is a worry unless the tank is rather aged, has had switching of inhabitants and is non-ventilated. Non-ventilated tanks should probably be redone every couple years.The smell can be an real decent indicator of imbalance. 
If you create an imbalance by cleaning or otherwise (adding something you shouldn't) that can give favor to the 'wrong' getting established over the 'right'. Bad=bad. There is a real differing smell between the vented and the non, though I've never smelled a non I felt could be considered "bad', but I'm sure it could happen.

As for the fruit flies accumulating, it shouldn't be a problem if the fruit flies are healthy and fed the 'right' things and given the 'right' conditions. Ex: If you have a culture that smells 'bad' (obviously having the 'wrong' things/bacteria/fungus growing in it), or the flies are dying/stunted/immobile then whatever their diet is may be highly toxified. 
Through time off adding things the characteristics would surely change, but that doesn't make change 'bad' if what's in/given to the soil is varied and always remains capable of draining/staying aerated.

Having the most diversity in the tank as possible is key (along w/ proper drainage) to assuring more toxins will be rendered less abundant.

Plant's are really 'good' indicators of accumulated toxins if you pay attention to them and how they were/are/will be. Then again so is everything else if you pay attention/compare what is optimum to what is not.




bluedart said:


> Stchupa--incidentally, trash piles in the wild are often dart frog HAVENS. Certainly, in the wild the can move on to other conditions and our tanks are sealed and impermeable to the frogs (we hope), however people tend to worry way too much sometimes in regards to the "hygenics" of dart frogging.


I wasn't talking hygienic (everyone having there own definition). I consider unhygienic as having the 'wrong' things living (giving their preferred/optimum conditions) and not continually washed as it would be in the wild. I see some people's Vivs and I just about puke because they rarely spray their tank (another reason to discourage non-vents) and it's absolutely covered in you know what. That Would also be considered unhygienic.

In the wild (sorta what you said, I guess) frogs are going to take advantage of everything they can (Just as a tree fallen in the middle of a thick canopied forest, even being leaf rooters [when observed]). Just like kids, they're not going to pass by a jungle gym w/out a little investigation at least. Might as well, might find something you like.

Now lets consider something artificial introduced (can, bottle, human skull) they're are going to react the same, they have no reason not to, they know no better. They're not going to look at a bottle as a bottle, a skull as a skull, they're going look at it as a niche waiting to be taken advantage of. Humans do know better (should), that's why it is our part to ensure discluding these things as much as possible.
Also (what I think you were trying to say) is in the wild these things aren't contained and if it's plastic/metal the chemicals/ toxins leach through the environment (aside from what gets absorbed through the little of/quick contact). But the conditions we give don't allow for that process and things that leach remain contained and thus are absorbed by everything (to some extent/time pending) in that environment, both directly and passively through contact (this would be especially true for frogs, or any thing that absorbs water passively).

The plastics themselves decaying is not the top concern but the chemicals used to make it rigid (some cases soft/elastic) continually leaching from the start.

Problems are just like pests, pave the way and their set. Don't fix what's not broken, then nothing will take advantage of your effort. Everything must cycle properly (as it would/should minus human interference). Skipping steps, our implications are the problem and the only problems.


----------



## bluedart

stchupa said:


> Also (what I think you were trying to say) is in the wild these things aren't contained and if it's plastic/metal the chemicals/ toxins leach through the environment (aside from what gets absorbed through the little of/quick contact). But the conditions we give don't allow for that process and things that leach remain contained and thus are absorbed by everything (to some extent/time pending) in that environment, both directly and passively through contact (this would be especially true for frogs, or any thing that absorbs water passively).


I'm fairly certain I alluded to that point...

Anywho, I was mentioning the garbage not for the fact that the frogs are frequently exposed to it, but because they are able to utilize it. I know people who have observed pumilio egg feeding in coke bottles. My point is: these guys are much more resilient than we give them credit for. We need to focus more on improving what we've got, not addressing concerns that don't exist within our hobby.


----------



## stchupa

bluedart said:


> stchupa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also (what I think you were trying to say) is in the wild these things aren't contained and if it's plastic/metal the chemicals/ toxins leach through the environment (aside from what gets absorbed through the little of/quick contact). But the conditions we give don't allow for that process and things that leach remain contained and thus are absorbed by everything (to some extent/time pending) in that environment, both directly and passively through contact (this would be especially true for frogs, or any thing that absorbs water passively).
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain I alluded to that point...
Click to expand...

Well I wasn't, can never tell. A little vague to fit all that into one sentance.



> Anywho, I was mentioning the garbage not for the fact that the frogs are frequently exposed to it, but because they are able to utilize it.


Isn't exposure required in order for something something to use it?




> I know people who have observed pumilio egg feeding in coke bottles. My point is: these guys are much more resilient than we give them credit for.


Kinda like a brom huh.. but worse.

How does that qualify resiliant? Supposedly the Dinos are gone but amphibians are all still here. You expect something as miniscule as a plastic bottle is going to cause them all to keel over? They need to be able to put up w/ a little of this/that or they wouldn't be here, it's called adaptation. Do you also expect it to be immediate (it would be in the 'right'/'wrong' concentrations). Do you think we are right to determine their eventual evolution, or have to put up w/work around/evolve to our preferences/unecessary toxin exposure.

I think the way they first had it was pretty well off, if I might say so myself. Unfortunately they may never get back to it as long as people of the like insist on making an agrument of it.

Not to mention, you're completely missing the point as I'm sure no one (in their right mind) is going to intentionally introduce that bottle into their viv. If it's in the wild (as I said before not contained) then that lessens the exposure tremendously. But again doesn't make the exposure the 'right' to do, nor give reason to further trash their world.


> We need to focus more on improving what we've got, not addressing concerns that don't exist within our hobby.


Exactly

The only way it could become apparent is for the frogs to die?

Just like anything else it won't be a noticed problem unless in excess. But when things considered 'bad' in low amounts (TOXINS) still inhibit. Safeness of anything should never be determined by you or any humans observances but by analysis of exposure and compared. Humans don't seem well tuned for realizing when things are inhibiting something. Subtle or large. 

In my oppinion subtle inhibition of any kind is too much.

Anything displaceed or never was, never should be.

What's the intent behind using something you know you don't have to? Just make something out of nothing/ to argue...

The only "purpose" I see on the GIVEN arguement is for some else just to argue (that seems to like to). No benifit here. Count me out of that needless part of the discusion. If it continues I hope the rest know enough to ignore this side track.


----------



## Dancing frogs

....ummmm?

I'm concerned about it (chemicals in our vivs) yes our frogs are very resilient...which (I would think) should be more of a reason to try to find out just what will or could leach bad stuff.

Just to go on assuming things are safe because a very resilient animal doesn't die when housed in a chemical lined enclosure strikes me as kind of strange and thoughtless.

Take for instance mercury in fish...tis not natural, but they live with it, but if humans are only supposed to eat one fish a week...what do you suppose the health of that fish is like?

...Waiting for someone to link slap me, with proof xyz material is bonafide safe.
I know if used correctly, according to msds and such, many of the materials widely accepted for viv use are "safe", but I know for a fact that GS, when exposed to the elements outside, turns to something that easily crumbles to dust in under a year in Wisconsin weather...so I'm not so sure.

I say it would be interesting to see.

The ultimate test (one I don't think many of us would like to participate in)
would be a tissue anylasis of a CB frog, raised in a viv, vs a WC.


----------



## stchupa

Dancing frogs said:


> ....ummmm?
> 
> I'm concerned about it (chemicals in our vivs) yes our frogs are very resilient...which (I would think) should be more of a reason to try to find out just what will or could leach bad stuff.


That's why I adressed the issue, Josh must have missed that part.



> Just to go on assuming things are safe because a very resilient animal doesn't die when housed in a chemical lined enclosure strikes me as kind of strange and thoughtless.


Exactly, not only that but we owe it to them to maintain correctiveness as it is our responsibility and if we don't look into/practice it who will?

To assume is to fail. To know is to avail.


> Take for instance mercury in fish...tis not natural, but they live with it, but if humans are only supposed to eat one fish a week...what do you suppose the health of that fish is like?


Again right on the head, it's what we constantly accumilate and can't process out of our bodies that causes illness and death. Mercury being one of those, that when you get it it stays w/ you. And anything synthetic that carries potential to become part of.



> ...Waiting for someone to link slap me, with proof xyz material is bonafide safe.
> I know if used correctly, according to msds and such, many of the materials widely accepted for viv use are "safe", but I know for a fact that GS, when exposed to the elements outside, turns to something that easily crumbles to dust in under a year in Wisconsin weather...so I'm not so sure.


Isn't just hilarious how people demand proof that something is 'bad' to stop them from using it. But they don't have any proof it's 'good' but still use it and don't demand that proof. Just a little irratating. Backword? What is that? I hope it's due to our "control" and not true nature of human kind otherwise we're doomed.



> I say it would be interesting to see.


Sure as hell wouldn't hurt. Save a lot of time through bepassing the agrue scenario. But it needs also to be done multiple time through different analists as to get a legit average of findings.



> The ultimate test (one I don't think many of us would like to participate in)
> would be a tissue anylasis of a CB frog, raised in a viv, vs a WC.


[/quote]

The thing about this is it may be in vein, since the analysis may not be specified to find what we are TRYING to pick out as a culprit. It may not even register and more or less remain an invisable part. If it's not expected but still present, it won't be found. Most of the "worrying" contaminants aren't even listed/cataloged known, especially once absorbed and converted.

But if someone does have dead frogs, they should be put to use to better inform us and better the continual husbandry we know now.

This might need branched to a different thread as this has little to do w/ size/layout.

Wild new avatar btw, haven't seen that yet. Fits you perfectly, always looking into the small details that make up the big picture.


----------



## stchupa

A thread about pum problems, sparked this thought, so I thought I would add now as to hopefully discourage any more arguing later.

All these problems people are having w/ "their" frogs. I can go on to name a page load, but things such as seizures, even spindley for all we know. People still dispute what causes these things. The frogs I keep don't seem to display these issues. Something is inhibiting these frogs that is being over looked and that's why we don't know (w/ certainty for some) what is the cause. It's evidently preventable as this is not/ cannot be naturally occuring. A vitamin/mineral difficientcy may be, but those vits/mins can be present and still having the frog ailed, so something in syncronicity w/ regulating/inhibiting the uptake must be happening.

Some of us (probably those asking for the proof) have it right in front of them and it's simply not being acknowledged. There's something awry about the care some people are taking and everyone knows it. What is it?
Should be about time to find out by broadening the veiw of all potential cause. No reason to treat it if you don't have it.

From the little general info I know about plastics, and the huge understanding of how they work and their place. I can say now that at least in part some of these problems can be completey avoided by riding these things of expoure to it. The rest mainly composed of diet. But even on a 'good' diet the absorbtion/proper use of it will be inhibited by a toxic invironments. Spending energy to cope w/ this/try to rid of it, will cause cellular stress. 

We know plastics are toxic, we know toxins are 'bad', any further questions/proof needed.


----------



## Dancing frogs

All very good points, and glad you like the imi-hand.

Also, there are fugus out there (are they in there too) that will decompose just about anything...

A guy I know was trying to sue his neighbor for having too much trash (old cars and appliances, nasty stuff) in his yard...not for the eyesore, but because this individual picks wild mushrooms on his property...he says the mycelium spreads wide and far underground, and the mushrooms he picks could carry these heavy metals, pcbs or what have you...

...What does that have to do with a viv?

Fungus in the viv (good thing), potentially a fungus that decomposes (x), (bad thing), woolice and springtails that eat fungus (great thing)...woodlice and springtails that eat fungus, that ate (x)...just one possible route of toxification.

Sure (I) we are drifting some here, and possibly getting out of the realm that some don't care to know, but these threads were (I think) meant to push things to a higer level.


----------



## bluedart

> Exactly
> 
> The only way it could become apparent is for the frogs to die?


Nobody has said anything about waiting until the frogs die to do something about it--that's why we're currently discussing what could be going wrong now so that we can eliminate as many future implications as we can. 



> In my oppinion subtle inhibition of any kind is too much.


We inhibit our frogs in countless ways--tank size, diet, artificial rearing--just to name a few. We will probably never be able to eliminate all of the inhibitions that we place on our frogs. However, we can minimize these inhibitions. Somebody brought up letting the frogs rear every third generation of offspring--that is definitely one way to limit the inhibitions. By providing the most spaceous enclosures we can within our personal means we are also minimizing the inhibitions.

--------

In regards to the plastics--I'm relatively unfamiliar with the effects that plastics have on organisms on a cellular level. I do, however, agree that the idea should be addressed. Is there even an economically feasible test available that could test for trace plastics in our soils? In frog carcasses? It's great to want to know this, and even better that there is some semblance of a plan in the works, but we need to consider the extreme financial burden that sending out dozens of frogs for necropsies and soil samples from tanks to detect trace amounts of unnatural components. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Is it feasible? Probably not on a scale large enough to reach a definitive answer. 

One approach that might be considered would be finding out the rates of decay for the synthetics in our tanks. Brian mentioned all of the fungus--that is a point of consideration. Why not experiment with ways of removing all synthetics from our tanks save the occassional silicon squirt for security? I know many people who use tree fern panels rather than GS for the background, etc. Rather than immediately aiming for the product trace plastics that might be ingested by darts), look for the source (decomposing or digested synthetics). 

I'm merely trying to present several views to the discussion--I'm not trying to "argue for the sake of arguing" or dissenting from a general consensus to be a troll. There are thousands of angles and variables from which we could view our problems but haven't yet. There will always be room for improvement, and it is our jobs to do everything we can to constantly improve. I'm just trying to add to the discussion--I'm sorry if anybody took my comments the wrong way.


----------



## Ed

snip "Just like anything else it won't be a noticed problem unless in excess. But when things considered 'bad' in low amounts (TOXINS) still inhibit."endsnip

Toxins do not have to be in low quantities to cause issues... And many of the things that are desirable in the diet of the frogs can be toxins if supplied outside of the parameters required. For example vitamin D3 in excess has been used as rat poison... 

snip "Safeness of anything should never be determined by you or any humans observances but by analysis of exposure and compared."endsnip

How do you obtain the data to analyze exposure without the use of human observation at some point in the process???........ 

snip "Humans don't seem well tuned for realizing when things are inhibiting something. Subtle or large. "endsnip

Given that this the potential extent of this problem has only really started to become apparent in the last 15-20 years, this is at best a inexact statement. 


snip "People still dispute what causes these things."endsnip

Typically the dispute is between people that haven't reviewed the available literature.... 


snip "Something is inhibiting these frogs that is being over looked and that's why we don't know (w/ certainty for some) what is the cause."endsnip

In the majority of these cases its not because we don't know, its because the person caring for the animals has failed to do the research to determine and eliminate the potential causes. Also many of the issues you are alluding to are disruptions caused by a spectrum of causes. For example you can have "MBD" from too little D3, too much vitamin A (as retinol) in relation to D3, too much phosphorus compared to calcium, or simply too little calcium in the diet as well as things like cancer. This doesn't mean that we don't know what causes "MBD", it simply means that the person has to do a work up to determine the exact cause for that particular case even though we know all of the potential causes.... 

snip "It's evidently preventable as this is not/ cannot be naturally occuring."endsnip

I have to disagree with this statement as it can be naturally occuring... 

snip "A vitamin/mineral difficientcy may be, but those vits/mins can be present and still having the frog ailed, so something in syncronicity w/ regulating/inhibiting the uptake must be happening. "endsnip 

This is not necessarily the case as there can be other causative factors that have nothing to do with the uptake.... For example, if you rear D. ventrimaculatus tadpoles too cool they will develop spindly leg... This obviously has nothing to do with uptake but with temperature lability of the developmental process in this species. 

snip "We know plastics are toxic, we know toxins are 'bad', any further questions/proof needed."endsnip

This is an overly broad generalization that is incorrect.. We do not know that plastics are "toxic"... nor are all toxins bad in moderation as even pure water can be toxic to animals when ingested in excess... 

snip "And anything synthetic that carries potential to become part of."Endsnip 

Again not true... there are many synthetic items that are not maintained in the body any longer than natural sources of the same material... synthetic and natural sources of vitamins come to mind as a simple example... 

Just some points to keep in mind here.. 

Ed


----------



## bluedart

I did some research on plastics...

Some plastics are a definite concern--both inside the vivarium and out. Tyrone Hayes is a professor at the University of California--Berkley. He has been doing research with reed frogs and the effects of natural and synthetic human hormones. To cut the story short, some synthetic hormones are found in plastics; these plastics can be absorbed through the skin (most often during developmental stages) and have been shown to affect sexual dimorphism in reed frogs. 

Just one example to highlight plastics dangers:
Some plastic baby food containers and bottles have been found to secrete synthetic estragen. This estragen has both cancer causing and reproductive effects on frogs, and in high enough doses, people. It's scary what we find in our products. 

Do a search on Tyrone Hayes, it's fascinating information. 

If we can limit the introduced synthetics to 100% silicon, we might be onto something. Remember though: Not all synthetics will lead to bad things. However, what Brian brought up (which was an excellent point) leads to the introduction of this idea: many of the plants we purchase and raise will have been introduced to chemicals and toxins that, while we can erase from the surface, will remain in the plant until it dies. Once it dies, the decomposers will have at it, the microfauna will take up the toxins, and the could ultimately be introduced into the frogs. 

Just another thought.


----------



## Dancing frogs

Also, on plastics...
Very many people use film cans...I do.

I remember many years ago, in Backpacker magazine, someone wrote in to warn people not to carry food items (salt, pepper, other condiments) in film cans, as they have some pretty nasty stuff in them...if I remember right, it didn't exactly wash right off either, hence the warning.

I remembered this when I first started getting into PDF's, but figured if the biggest and best breeders do OK with them...why not?

I don't know what the chemical might be that would be so bad, but it is worth noting, and looking into.


----------



## stchupa

Sorry for skipping but I have to address Ed first otherwise I'll never get to it.
I feel I'm not sticking to my words here by responding (if this is what I think very well could be).
I should've known better than to be devoid of the whole picture. Of course someones going pick them out for me, what was I thinking. Thank Christ Josh gave a break. I have little time, figured that was understood.
You asked for it Ed, I'm gonna milk you the same way.



Ed said:


> snip "Just like anything else it won't be a noticed problem unless in excess. But when things considered 'bad' in low amounts (TOXINS) still inhibit."endsnip
> 
> Toxins do not have to be in low quantities to cause issues... And many of the things that are desirable in the diet of the frogs can be toxins if supplied outside of the parameters required. For example vitamin D3 in excess has been used as rat poison...


Never said *anything* about have/ing to be *anything*.

Issues would be the result of 'inhibition'. (By something/what ever)

Don't you mean w/in the parameters required.. I so dislike having to correct you.

Not talking about correct informational nutrition here. Talking of things being present w/in the parameters of a dart THAT SHOULD NOT/NEVER BE.

How many times have I said this: 'Any/EVERYTHING is a poison to the extent of excess oversomething not adapted to those concentrations.' Or something along those lines (usually less but no voids remember).
The things that are poisons even when moderated are the things that shouldn't be.



> snip "Safeness of anything should never be determined by you or any humans observances but by analysis of exposure and compared."endsnip
> 
> How do you obtain the data to analyze exposure without the use of human observation at some point in the process???........


Now catching skimping on this I wont hold anything against you.

What I should of said is w/ the oppinated judgement of the humans behind it. Just follow direction and get the actual verification on data only. No more no less, a robots' job.



> snip "Humans don't seem well tuned for realizing when things are inhibiting something. Subtle or large. "endsnip
> 
> Given that this the potential extent of this problem has only really started to become apparent in the last 15-20 years, this is at best a inexact statement.


Well yeah, for those not paying attention. How big of difference is needed, 15-20 years, that's a big difference to me. Would be easily noticable if people could remember instead of settling in and conform/adapt to (every)continuous change.

I didn't mean evey human, just that there are many that 'seem' to be so out of tune w/ everything around, including (especially in some cases) themselves.

I'll never be exact Ed, when using your words. I think you think we live in a chemical universe. :?: 



> snip "People still dispute what causes these things."endsnip
> 
> Typically the dispute is between people that haven't reviewed the available literature....


uH HUH, yeah, whole heartedly agree there.




> snip "Something is inhibiting these frogs that is being over looked and that's why we don't know (w/ certainty for some) what is the cause."endsnip
> 
> In the majority of these cases its not because we don't know, its because the person caring for the animals has failed to do the research to determine and eliminate the potential causes. Also many of the issues you are alluding to are disruptions caused by a spectrum of causes. For example you can have "MBD" from too little D3, too much vitamin A (as retinol) in relation to D3, too much phosphorus compared to calcium, or simply too little calcium in the diet as well as things like cancer. This doesn't mean that we don't know what causes "MBD", it simply means that the person has to do a work up to determine the exact cause for that particular case even though we know all of the potential causes....


Now that's what you should always do. Instead of picking on me for leaving holes, fill them, elaborate, I know you know what I mean. If I wrote every single thing you think I would ever get away from this.

A myriad of causes can/will create a single effect. (i.e. MBD, SLS, CANCER, most...)
Likewise, one cause will perpetuate a # of effects (BKA the domino effect)

Or both.

I'm sure I've said that MORE than a few times.



> snip "It's evidently preventable as this is not/ cannot be naturally occuring."endsnip
> 
> I have to disagree with this statement as it can be naturally occuring...


I agree that isn't right. What I was thinking was the extent of happening here couldn't be so in the wild and not draw the viable gentic diversity down w/ it to extiction. Seclusion, of one pop. while there's being another (divided from) would be the exception. And the thought that the chances of actually seeing this happen before it does is unlikely, as those inhibited and left wild don't last. Didn't know how to put it at the time (nor now really). It was nearing the butt crack of dawn and I was well on my way, cut a little slack.

The point was that they need the conditions they were given as to not even create an issue to begin w/. Prevention.



> snip "A vitamin/mineral difficientcy may be, but those vits/mins can be present and still having the frog ailed, so something in syncronicity w/ regulating/inhibiting the uptake must be happening. "endsnip
> 
> This is not necessarily the case as there can be other causative factors that have nothing to do with the uptake.... For example, if you rear D. ventrimaculatus tadpoles too cool they will develop spindly leg... This obviously has nothing to do with uptake but with temperature lability of the developmental process in this species.


Too cool? That's backwards from here in CO. Vents here will develope spindly at warmer temps (creeping near 74-75). They might at temps lower than 70, but I never let it get that far. 

If they're informed up to this part they should at least be able to get temps where they need to be.

I was trying to get ahead, to the point. Wasn't considering those that would screw up on the already common knowledge.

Apples and oranges. Where you going? Nothing's never always and I never said that.



> snip "We know plastics are toxic, we know toxins are 'bad', any further questions/proof needed."endsnip
> 
> This is an overly broad generalization that is incorrect.. We do not know that plastics are "toxic"... nor are all toxins bad in moderation as even pure water can be toxic to animals when ingested in excess...


Who's we?

Overly broad, do you expect me to list every damn plastic type that's know to be toxic and all the products they are further split up in?

And w/ plastic, again I'm not talkin in excess.

Water being one of those EVERTHYTHINGS, no kidding. I don't why you said animals, as it'll be a problem for anything in excess when not having had adapted to using/working around it. Melons and peppers here. Lets make actual comparisons instead of diverging from them.



> snip "And anything synthetic that carries potential to become part of."Endsnip
> Again not true... there are many synthetic items that are not maintained in the body any longer than natural sources of the same material... synthetic and natural sources of vitamins come to mind as a simple example...
> 
> Just some points to keep in mind here..
> 
> Ed


What's not true, synthetics don't become part of? I thought that's what sythetics did, that's why they're synthetic.

I shouldn't have said everything (I was thinking plastics at the time, since that was the point of the discussion at the time).

Not something MEANT to be nutrition.

Life is a rust, oxidizing the environment. If we change that rate at which this happens we change (disorganize/incorrect order) the information that makes up/tells where/how/what to be when being deciphered and deposited in/by the body/org.


----------



## stchupa

Brian-I thought it was the coating on the film leaving a residue. Not to say I would be surprized to find out the plastic is toxic too.


----------



## bbrock

bluedart said:


> Kyle--
> Bacteria have limiting factors just like everything else. I don't *believe* that the bacterial microfauna of our vivariums would build up to unsustainable and/or unsafe levels with time. However, I agree that it would be a great idea to have some samples tested. Tor, I believe, has some tanks that have been set up for 10+ years and new tanks are crafted daily.


I think only two of my vivs has been set up less than 10 years. You are right that bacteria follow the law of limiting resources just like anything else so populations actually stablilize fairly quickly in vivaria. The dead flies and such are broken down like everything else until the become part of the humic fraction which still contains some carbon energy but is broken down so slowly it often lasts for centuries. If you use non-organic substrates, then a vivarium should be able to remain functional indefinately.

As for the species of bacteria present. There are so many species of bacteria in every scoop of soil that if you collected a thousands soil samples around the globe, you would find hundreds of species that are found in every single sample. And you would find hundreds of others that are found only in a single sample. The major players in the nutrient cycle are pretty much the same everywhere you go so in one sense, the bacteria in Japan are the same as in Germany which are the same as in the US. But in another sense, they are all different. To me by far the largest worry about bacteria are the ones that come in on other frogs. If a pathogen is going to be introduced, it is far more likely to be introduced through a host than through some random sample of material.


----------



## stchupa

Dancing frogs said:


> All very good points, and glad you like the imi-hand.
> 
> Also, there are fugus out there (are they in there too) that will decompose just about anything...


Yes and yes, but I don't know if they can break down plastics, but just like anything else they will absorb it.

Mycorrhizals will take up more complex bonds and make them more readily available to the plants. Or convert for example unusable nitrogen compounds into something easily utilized.



> A guy I know was trying to sue his neighbor for having too much trash (old cars and appliances, nasty stuff) in his yard...not for the eyesore, but because this individual picks wild mushrooms on his property...he says the mycelium spreads wide and far underground, and the mushrooms he picks could carry these heavy metals, pcbs or what have you...
> 
> ...What does that have to do with a viv?


Well you must know, you brought it up. What doesn't it have to do w/ a viv? Just a larger scale.



> Fungus in the viv (good thing), potentially a fungus that decomposes (x), (bad thing), woolice and springtails that eat fungus (great thing)...woodlice and springtails that eat fungus, that ate (x)...just one possible route of toxification.


Got your wheel oiled up nice. It's a spinnin. Now you're really seeing the point of all this and how it all falls back.



> Sure (I) we are drifting some here, and possibly getting out of the realm that some don't care to know, but these threads were (I think) meant to push things to a higer level.


Maybe they weren't meant for solving, but this one just got a new meaning.


----------



## stchupa

bluedart said:


> one example to highlight plastics dangers:
> Some plastic baby food containers and bottles have been found to secrete synthetic estragen. This estragen has both cancer causing and reproductive effects on frogs, and in high enough doses, people. It's scary what we find in our products.


And people dare to compare human in/tolerance to frogs'. Human's are not something to judge safety by. Human tolerance goes through the roof on most things, no other "animal" really compares. Something deemed safe for a human doesn't make that so for anything else, otherwise it would say for any application.


> Do a search on Tyrone Hayes, it's fascinating information.
> 
> If we can limit the introduced synthetics to 100% silicon, we might be onto something. Remember though: Not all synthetics will lead to bad things. However, what Brian brought up (which was an excellent point) leads to the introduction of this idea: many of the plants we purchase and raise will have been introduced to chemicals and toxins that, while we can erase from the surface, will remain in the plant until it dies. Once it dies, the decomposers will have at it, the microfauna will take up the toxins, and the could ultimately be introduced into the frogs.


Just another thought.[/quote]

I do my best w/ the plants I care for as to not leave pruning/ dead leaves in the tank until they have grown for at least a year or so.

Now everyone 'seems' to get point, very 'good'.


----------



## stchupa

bluedart said:


> In my oppinion subtle inhibition of any kind is too much.
> 
> 
> 
> We inhibit our frogs in countless ways--tank size, diet, artificial rearing--just to name a few. We will probably never be able to eliminate all of the inhibitions that we place on our frogs. However, we can minimize these inhibitions. Somebody brought up letting the frogs rear every third generation of offspring--that is definitely one way to limit the inhibitions. By providing the most spaceous enclosures we can within our personal means we are also minimizing the inhibitions.
Click to expand...

--------

The more bugs worked the marrier. Size is always a consideration of mine. I don't bother to fit as MANY small tank as I can to get the most, no benifit, for me or them.



> In regards to the plastics--I'm relatively unfamiliar with the effects that plastics have on organisms on a cellular level. I do, however, agree that the idea should be addressed. Is there even an economically feasible test available that could test for trace plastics in our soils?


I would bet not. I'm not even sure they could pin point the ones we need them to, at the level of degradation that is most problematic. 

In frog carcasses? 


> They can get the effect w/out actually seeing what's causing it if it imitates everything else around it (to the detail we have the ability to look into, structure would be same to us if looking AT the structure and not what makes up that structure) "perfectly".
> It's great to want to know this, and even better that there is some semblance of a plan in the works, but we need to consider the extreme financial burden that sending out dozens of frogs for necropsies and soil samples from tanks to detect trace amounts of unnatural components. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Is it feasible? Probably not on a scale large enough to reach a definitive answer.


Probably so, but some/any validation would be priceless. Money wasn't the top priority concern. But we do need to find out an actual figure.



> One approach that might be considered would be finding out the rates of decay for the synthetics in our tanks. Brian mentioned all of the fungus--that is a point of consideration. Why not experiment with ways of removing all synthetics from our tanks save the occassional silicon squirt for security?


Passed that, and yes it is not an impossibility, you just can't settle for less.




> I'm merely trying to present several views to the discussion--I'm not trying to "argue for the sake of arguing" or dissenting from a general consensus to be a troll. There are thousands of angles and variables from which we could view our problems but haven't yet.


One thing at a time, if we don't maintain focus on problems individually, they won't be solved because everyone's to busy jumping.

A lot of variables can be ruled out when details are known.


----------



## Scott

I read about Dr. Hayes work well over 10 years ago (when I was more into Reed Frogs).

Because of the studies he has done - I make it a point to raise all of my tadpoles in glass, rather than plastic, containers.

s


----------



## Ed

With plastic and leaching of endocrine disruptions... this is from polycarbonates... there are a lot of other plastics that are not made using polycarbonates (specifically bisphenol A).... You also have to heat the polycarbonate to get the leachage.. in other words, heating the container causes the plastic to begin to decompose and releases the bisphenol-A.. (see Biles, J.E., et al. 1997. Determination of bisphenol-A in reusable polycarbonate food-contact plastics and migration to food-simulating liquids. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 45(September):3541.) 

Soda bottles on the other hand are made from one of the different types of polyethylene terephthalate which does not leach endocrine disrupters or carcinogens.. Also other food containers made from polypropylene (such as plastic yogurt containers) do not leach any endocrine disrupters. 

other random comments to follow 

snip "Human tolerance goes through the roof on most things, no other "animal" really compares. Something deemed safe for a human doesn't make that so for anything else, otherwise it would say for any application. "endsnip

Other than pigs, rats, chimps, gorillas,..... Also keep in mind that there are no medicines that were developed for amphibians or any of the non-commecially valuable animals. The applications of these medications were extrapolated from people or other animals and then applied to the target animal. The basics of the nutritional needs of amphibians and reptiles were extrapolated from studies done on domestic animals... human nutritional needs were also extrapolated from these studies... 

snip "Yes and yes, but I don't know if they can break down plastics, but just like anything else they will absorb it. "endsnip 

It depends on how it is broken down.. Most of the time, the fungi and some bacteria use the plastic as a carbon source (as plastics other than nylon do not tend to contain nitrogen). To do so they break the carbon linkages and degrade it.. (also this decomposition frequently occurs as a function of a community of microorganisms each using a different linkage of the plastic) with the end result being conversion to CO2.. 

snip " Issues would be the result of 'inhibition'. (By something/what ever)"endsnip

Inhibitions can be caused by non-toxic items or at levels that do not cause symptoms of toxicity. For example, a small non-malignant tumor or cyst can cause a male mammal to have less testosterone in thier system allowing the naturally occuring estrogen in their body to cause/not develop body hair or even develop breasts but not cause any other issues with the function of the animal.... 

snip "Don't you mean w/in the parameters required.. I so dislike having to correct you. "endsnip

No I said what I meant. I repeat it again here snip "And many of the things that are desirable in the diet of the frogs can be toxins if supplied outside of the parameters required"endsnip 


snip "The things that are poisons even when moderated are the things that shouldn't be. "endsnip 

This depends on what you mean by moderation.. For example in moderation digitalis is a potent medication but in excess a great poison. The same can be said for UVB, D3 (whether from a natural source or synthetic). 


snip "Given that this the potential extent of this problem has only really started to become apparent in the last 15-20 years, this is at best a inexact statement. 


Well yeah, for those not paying attention. How big of difference is needed, 15-20 years, that's a big difference to me. Would be easily noticable if people could remember instead of settling in and conform/adapt to (every)continuous change"endsnip

Actually this is now mainly coming to light in that time period due to changes in our ability to test things. The time frame listed above is when we really started to have the sensitivity to detect things in the minute quantities we are discussion or have the sensitivity to be able to detect it in the minute quantities in a complex mixture (like say apple juice). 

snip "I'll never be exact Ed, when using your words. I think you think we live in a chemical universe"endsnip

As most of the processes that allow things to live are based in chemistry and physics, I would have to say we do live in a chemical universe... 

snip "Who's we? "endsnip 

Hmm, how about the people who have reviewed the literature.. Or maybe a large section of people with a biochemical background... 

snip "Overly broad, do you expect me to list every damn plastic type that's know to be toxic and all the products they are further split up in? "endsnip

When the issue is caused by one type of plastic (polycarbonate).. then I do expect you to list the type that is a problem instead of lumping all plastics into that category as many (as noted above) do not cause the leachate issues. To do otherwise is providing disinformation causing panic and further misunderstanding among the people who read the thread.. 

snip "And w/ plastic, again I'm not talkin in excess. "endsnip

If you are not talking in excess (leachage of bisphenol A), then there isn't any way for it to cause a disruption as it would be within the norms of the organism's ability to tolerate without any disruption. 

snip "snip "And anything synthetic that carries potential to become part of."Endsnip 
Again not true... there are many synthetic items that are not maintained in the body any longer than natural sources of the same material... synthetic and natural sources of vitamins come to mind as a simple example... 

What's not true, synthetics don't become part of? I thought that's what sythetics did, that's why they're synthetic. "endsnip

All because something is synthetic doesn't mean that you can 
1) tell the difference in its bioactivity from a natural source of the same item
2) the rate of absorbtion or incorporation of the item is any different than a naturally derived source of the item. 

No sythetics are synthetics becase they have been manufactured as opposed to derived from naturally occuring sources. For example, Vitamin D can be made via laboratory synthesis, exposure to UVB, or extracted from cod liver oil. One is synthetic, while two are not but all three behave the exact same way in the body. 

snip "I shouldn't have said everything (I was thinking plastics at the time, since that was the point of the discussion at the time). "endsnip

With respect to plastics, you are not incorporating or absorbing the plastic itself but a decomposition product of polycarbonate, bisphenol-A. 

Some more comments

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

Maybe I should elaborate, and I am by no means a biologist...

So for example could say a sphagnum based substrate harbor an environment over time that would be prone to a bacteria inbalance that could impact the animals. As opposed to say soil? What about gravel? Leca?

Also could you explain this statement:


> If you use non-organic substrates, then a vivarium should be able to remain functional indefinately.


Are you implying that a gravel or leca based substrate could prove to be more stable over time? I have recently thought of moving a couple tanks to gravel only to see how they do over time.



bbrock said:


> bluedart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kyle--
> Bacteria have limiting factors just like everything else. I don't *believe* that the bacterial microfauna of our vivariums would build up to unsustainable and/or unsafe levels with time. However, I agree that it would be a great idea to have some samples tested. Tor, I believe, has some tanks that have been set up for 10+ years and new tanks are crafted daily.
> 
> 
> 
> I think only two of my vivs has been set up less than 10 years. You are right that bacteria follow the law of limiting resources just like anything else so populations actually stablilize fairly quickly in vivaria. The dead flies and such are broken down like everything else until the become part of the humic fraction which still contains some carbon energy but is broken down so slowly it often lasts for centuries. If you use non-organic substrates, then a vivarium should be able to remain functional indefinately.
> 
> As for the species of bacteria present. There are so many species of bacteria in every scoop of soil that if you collected a thousands soil samples around the globe, you would find hundreds of species that are found in every single sample. And you would find hundreds of others that are found only in a single sample. The major players in the nutrient cycle are pretty much the same everywhere you go so in one sense, the bacteria in Japan are the same as in Germany which are the same as in the US. But in another sense, they are all different. To me by far the largest worry about bacteria are the ones that come in on other frogs. If a pathogen is going to be introduced, it is far more likely to be introduced through a host than through some random sample of material.
Click to expand...


----------



## kyle1745

On the plastics leaching, would they post less of a concern based on the tank layout? For example most of my tanks are misted and drained so wouldn't most contaminants be drained away with the misting water?


----------



## Ed

snip "On the plastics leaching, would they post less of a concern based on the tank layout? For example most of my tanks are misted and drained so wouldn't most contaminants be drained away with the misting water?"endsnip

Again, this only a concern if you are using polycarbonate in the tank and at some point the polycarbonate has been heated at some point releasing the bisphenol A.. 
But to answer your question, then yes this will mitigate or reduce/eliminate exposure (provided of course you do have a source of bisphenol A in the tank) as the water will rinse the bisphenol A out of the tank (particuarly as it is water soluable). This will work best if the frogs do not have access to a pool of water that is touching the polycarbonate. Also keep in mind that bisphenol A has a relatively short half life in the body before being excreted (the half life is 6 hours) (it is processed by the liver into d16-Bisphenol A glucuronide) . 

snip "So for example could say a sphagnum based substrate harbor an environment over time that would be prone to a bacteria inbalance that could impact the animals. As opposed to say soil? What about gravel? Leca? "Endsnip

If I get something wrong here Brent can correct me.. 
It depends what you mean by a bacterial imbalance. Sphagnum is a fairly acidic substrate which will encourage a different group of bacteria than a slightly acidic soil would encourage. One of the differences between the soil, gravel and leca is that the larger the particle size of the substrate the reduced area available for bacterial growth... 
Another item to keep in mind is that the many of the amphibian pathnogenic bacteria are normally found in the enclosures and tanks... There isn't any practical way to eliminate Aeromonas, Pseudomonas, and Mycobacterium from the enclosure we use... 

Ed


----------



## kyle1745

> One of the differences between the soil, gravel and leca is that the larger the particle size of the substrate the reduced area available for bacterial growth...


So is this saying that leca will reduce the area for bacteria to grow?

With that said it is my understanding there are good and bad bacteria, that in most cases will workout a balance. So could a different substrates cause issues with this balance, and swing things one way or the other? I would tend to believe, and have seen in a couple of my tanks that soil holds up a bit better over time than sphagnum. Now would aquarium gravel or a leca only pose a similar problem, or is it even a better option.

I have been pondering a leca base with aquarium gravel over that as a substrate for my breeder tanks... Any thoughts on something like this?


----------



## bbrock

Ed got it right. When I say "non-organic" I mean substrates that don't contain organic (carbon containing) compounds and thus are not subject to decomposition. REAL soil fits this description as well because it is mineral based with usually some organic material mixed in.

The way I think of bacteria imbalance is that somehow over time the population grows out of acceptable limits or the composition of bacteria changes. The first part ain't gonna happen because the bacteria will run into nutrient limitations. A common excersise in microbiology is to calculate the unrestricted growth rate of bacteria. Under optimal conditions they can divide every 20 minuts and after a couple of days their mass would be expanding away from the earth at the speed of light.... if their growth had no limits. In a new viv, microbes go through an exponential growth phase, then peak before the population declines a bit and then levels off. Barring any sudden changes in nutrient availability, that's the way it will stay as long as the nutrient inputs remain about constant.

But shifts in microbial composition can occur over time. The most obvious way this happens is through decomposition of the substrate which changes its stucture. As the pore spaces between substrate particles get smaller, the amount of anaerobic space increases so your ratio of aerobic to anaerobic bacteria can shift. A lot of the nasty bacteria is either obligate anaerobic or facultatively anaerobic. Anaerobes can also do good things like change nitrate into free nitrogen gas. As long as the anaerobes stay mostly down in the lower layers of the substrate where the frogs aren't constantly in contact with them, everything should be fine. But it is possible that the substrate will break down into a sloppy anaerobic glob. A sulfur smell or other stench coming from the viv tells you there is a problem.

As far as using gravel, it works fine. My P. bicolor are in a viv with nothing but a gravel substrate and it has been motoring for about 10 years. It has a layer of humus that has built up now but I never added anything but gravel to start. Personally, I'm a fan of real soil because of some other benefits but it can be a bit of challenge.


----------



## bluedart

kyle1745 said:


> With that said it is my understanding there are good and bad bacteria, that in most cases will workout a balance.


I wouldn't necessarily say that there are "good and bad bacteria," but rather bacteria that behave differently in different circumstances. For example: E. coli. When people hear E. coli, they either think of bad diarreha, spinach, or both (the spinach part is a joke...). However, what most people don't realize, is that we all have E. coli in our bodies and it is an important part of our digestive processes. For example, our bodies are unable to digest lactose (milk sugar)--E. coli digests lactose for us when we drink milk. E. coli only becomes really dangerous when it is in *excess*. So, really, no bacteria is either good or bad, but rather bacteria behave differently and have different effects based on conditions and concentration. Another example--streptococcus (causes strep throat). I promise that if somebody did an analysis of your throat right now, that they would find some streptococcus. I know that this rant has been dwelling on the insignificant, but it's important to realize that bacteria are neither. 

Then again... I can't really think of anything good about Necrotizing fasciitis... :twisted:


----------



## Ed

snip " E. coli only becomes really dangerous when it is in *excess*. So, really, no bacteria is either good or bad, but rather bacteria behave differently and have different effects based on conditions and "endsnip


Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely agree with this statement... For example there are a number of different sero-types of E. coli, some non-pathnogenic and some pathnogenic (if I remember correctly there are over 700 different sero-types of E. coli). As the pathogenicity can be passed from bacterium to bacterium via plasmids, you may not need a large number of a pathnogenic strain of E. coli to develop symptoms.. 
(Also some of the pathnogenic strains have really nasty enterotoxins which do not have to be in large amounts to cause some significant problems..) 

How about obligate pathnogenic species like Mycobacterium leprae?...

But in general many of the bacterial infections in amphibians are by bacteria that are ubiquitous in the terraria (as noted in a different post in this thread). Often the infections are the result of some kind of immunosuppression of the frogs.... Infections by these bacteria have been linked in the literature to dirty and/or unhygenic enclosures but if you look at the literature most of these cases are reported from basic set-ups not from the types of enclosures we use... (not to say that you can't get a great buildup of say Aeromonas by adding a lot of organic material that will decompose in the tank at one shot...) 

Ed


----------



## bluedart

Well said, Ed. 

See, I keep on thinking about all the variables, but I forget to mention them. Like immunosupression, conjugation, etc. 

But I suppose I kind of summed it up in there are different conditions which make present bacteria go from indifferent to bad...

*bows down to the Ed*


----------



## kyle1745

Ive recently moved a few tanks to soil over leca, using Jungle mix, which is now sphagnum and fir bark mix. It seems to hold up a bit better than sphagnum, and so far has been a good soil mix.


----------



## Ed

Hi Kyle,

Just keep in mind that Jungle mix is again a soil free mixture. 


Ed


----------



## kyle1745

But true soil would be rough in a tank... I doubt it would drain well enough.

So is there anyway to tell if this mix is better than say just gravel?


----------



## Ed

Hi Kyle,

I think it depends on the soil but one of the potential problems with these soilless mixtures is that they lack calcium..... also unlike real soils as they break down (and they do breakdown) the pore volume decreases which can lead to anaerobic conditions building up in the tank... 

I am not as well versed on soils as Brent.. (there have been several different threads in the frognet archives for those would maybe interested in browsing) but I suspect that the lack of soil invertebrates along with the lack of calcium in the soils is one of the problems with some of the more difficult froglets.... 

Ed


----------



## bbrock

I will stand on the pulpit again in defense of soil! Remember that sand would qualify as true soil. Soil is a mixture of mineral particles that are classified by size into sand, silt, and clay in order of decreasing particle size. So if you have a soil that is very sandy, it drains well. But here's something fascinating. Tropical soils tend to be very weathered clays but the clay sticks together to form sand-sized aggregates. So your typical tropical soil is clay that acts like sand. Regardless, I've been using various mixtures of clay in my vivs for years and it is my prefered substrate. It ain't good for folks who like to move their vivs alot since it is very heavy. It also stays pretty darn wet so plants that need good drainage shouldn't be planted directly in it. However, most of those plants can be planted as epiphytes or lithophytes. And if you really have a terrestrial you must have that wants drainage, you can provide it by making a little raised bed with some orchid mix or something.

Matt Mirabello is working on some neat ways to simulate tropical soils but until he perfects his method, Redart clay used for pottery does a fair job. It actually is tropical soil but it has been pulverized into a fine powder so it loses its texture. But it still makes a nice substrate in a viv if you have the guts for it. I think that most viviculturists have read so many horticulture books and articles that stress drainage so much that it unnerves them to try something completely different. But if you put good light on a viv and pay attention to matching the right plants to the conditions available, you can have a nice looking viv using just about any substrate.

As for soiless mixes, I'm partial to those that contain a fair amount of fir bark myself. Like Kyle, I've found they hold up over time (but not as well as clay). Peat-based mixes have to be the worst and that includes most soilless potting soils. A decent mix that I've used is equal parts fir bark, coco fiber, and charcoal (the charcoal is optional. You can add sphagnum to the mix if you want something that stays a little wetter.


----------



## kyle1745

Maybe something like this:
Flourite Clay-based Plant Gravel
http://www.herpsupplies.com/product.cfm?id=ASM495

Jungle mix used to read this on the label:


> It is a unique blend of sterilized virgin organic soil, fine grain sand, vermiculite, peat moss, orchid bark and green tree moss.


The replacement is supposed to be the same with a new name.


----------



## Dendrobait

I've added Home Depots Aquatic plant soil(looks like flourite but different clay that is inert) to the water section and later mixed it into the land section. I'm not sure it helps drainage...but it does hold water in it and has a large particle size.


----------



## Guest

Brent, what's your consensus on using kitty litter at this point?


----------



## bbrock

skylsdale said:


> Brent, what's your consensus on using kitty litter at this point?


Ten years and still going strong. The only reason I'm not using it anymore is because I like the look of Redart clay better. But kitty litter is textured more like tropical soil which is ironic since Redart clay IS tropical soil. But the clay has been pulverized to a powder so it loses its texture. I'm going to experiment with a way to restore it to sand-sized aggregates but don't know if it will work. But anyway, for a cheap and easy substrate that works well, kitty litter is pretty good. Just don't expect to be able to grow a lot of plants in it - or any of the clay-based substrates. I like to leave a lot of the floor as just leaf litter anyway and when I do grow plants in the clay, I usually just toss them on top and let then run their roots along the surface the way roots are meant to be.


----------



## Ed

When using the clay based substrates, I have been tinkering with them a little and I find I like the results when there is a bed of clay underneath a thin layer of the soil/soiless mixture. If you texture the clay you can create hummocks and raised areas where the surface can even be dry to the touch as well as moist area.. When accompanied by some hide areas and/or leaf litter these ares can provide dry high humidity hide area for the frogs... 
This also allows for good plant growth.
Ed


----------



## kyle1745

Any thoughts about the Flourite Clay-based Plant Gravel? From what i know it works great in aquariums for planted tanks.

http://www.herpsupplies.com/product.cfm?id=ASM495


----------



## cbreon

What about including just a small percentage of these clays into a more traditional substrate mix (peat moss, sphagnum, coco, charcoal, etc.)? Also, would these clays work better than peat or coco for background material?


----------



## Dancing frogs

How about Montrimillate clay?
http://www.king-cart.com/cgi-bin/cart.c ... rraPond+SL
http://www.king-cart.com/cgi-bin/cart.c ... ERRAMIN+SL

I've seen the pond stuff before, and it looks like regular, powder clay...
How much different it is from regular clay, I'd like to know.


----------



## kyle1745

Interesting idea of mixing it...


----------



## Dancing frogs

One benefit to adding air circulation that may not be so obvious...
Getting the bugs to move!
Many times, I will see bugs sitting in one place, and a frog sitting in one place, open the lid, or otherwise disturb the viv, the bug starts to move, and the frog goes for it.


----------



## sports_doc

I am jumping in at the end of this discussion so sorry if this has been said.

I have been using Schultz Aquatic Plant soil for 2.5 yrs now

http://www.schultz.com/ProductCategories/Soilsamendments/AquaticPlantSoil/

Usually I add 2-3 inches (it is heavy mind you) then 2-3 inches of coco/fir bark/tree firn fiber on top....then the leaf litter or moss layer.




























and there are a bunch of them like that 










Has really held up and I suspect will continue to do so.

Shawn


----------



## kyle1745

Interesting... I may get a bag of the clay based stuff to try in a tank or 2...


----------



## kyle1745

Shawn,

Have you ever used the Schultz Aquatic Plant soil alone? or over leca?


----------



## Tripod

^^^ 

Kyle, 

I have a 20g. vert set up with Aquatic Soil as the only drainage/substrate layer (+ a leaf litter covering). It's only 3-4 months old, but everything appears to be doing well. I have several types of plants rooted in it and they are all growing and blooming. No complaints from the frogs....

Steven


----------



## kyle1745

A recent concern I have is that sphagnum starts to break down and then promotes mites. I have had tanks almost infested with mites where I have had to break them down and redo them. I see much less issues with the jungle mix over time, but am looking for other options.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Catfur

Breaks down and promotes mites? Sounds like a ready made solution for raising pumilio froglets (and other tiny metamorphs).


----------



## kyle1745

I wish, but it becomes too much and I have lost frogs to it in the past.


----------



## bbrock

cbreon said:


> What about including just a small percentage of these clays into a more traditional substrate mix (peat moss, sphagnum, coco, charcoal, etc.)? Also, would these clays work better than peat or coco for background material?


This is also intended to address Kyle's recent post but I saw this old question was never answered.

One of the major advantages of real soil (mineral soils) is that its texture improves with age. In contrast, any type of organic substrate will eventually decompose, lose texture, and possibly go through a stage where it promotes an overabundance of something like mites. Mixing a small amount of clay with traditional substrates might provide some marginal benefit of the clay like introducing some cation exchange capacity or adding mineral content. But I suspect the advantage would be small to insignificant. As you increase the clay content of the mix, you would approach a substrate that has all the disadvantages of both types (heavy and potentially gloppy, but still decomposes and loses texture over time. I become more convinced every day that mineral based substrates are "the bomb" for long term, stable enclosures. They just improve with age and they won't break down in a million years... really.


----------



## kyle1745

Brent are there example of store bought products that would work? I know of some aquarium substrate, but I would bet it would be a bit rough for the frogs.

I also am a bit puzzled why the jungle mix which still has sphagnum in it does not have the same problems as sphagnum itself. I think sphagnum when it is saturated (misting system) breaks down rather fast, but just the top level. It may be that the sphagnum itself does not break down but that the poo and dead ffs can not drain away.

I have been slowly converting all of my tanks to the jungle mix, but still wonder if something would not be a better fit. The stuff Shawn posted seems interesting but would it be too abrasive for the frogs as the only substrate?


----------



## sports_doc

kyle1745 said:


> Shawn,
> 
> Have you ever used the Schultz Aquatic Plant soil alone? or over leca?


no, but I bet Brent can tell us ways of 'improving' upon that product.

It has held up well, even when I've pulled tanks apart to dispose of the organic top layer that had gotten too gloopy. I reuse the clay gravel.

I can easily see using the Shultz product alone with leaf litter or moss cover. Plant roots love the stuff.

S


----------



## Guest

I don't think the Schultz product would really break down over time. From what I understand, it's somewhat similar to laterite, which is used frequently in aquaria...and I want to say it is 'fired' before being packaged and sold.

If you're only interested in using a product you can buy, I think your only options are the Schultz aquatic plant mix, or picking up some Flourite or Laterite from a fish store that sells planted tank supplies.

I recently switched a tank over to a claylike pseudosand mixture that I made by hand. I also have a tank with the Zilla Junglemix (mixed up with some sand, chopped moss, ground up magnolia leaves). I would like to eventually swap the Junglemix out for the clay as well. My experience has been that all organic substrates just break down into a complete mess over time. The clay (although it's only been in the trial tank for a very short time) is holding up very well. I also like the clay/psuedosand for the reasons that Ed mentioned: it's isn't constantly sopping wet (like my organic substrates usually are) and provides drier areas as well as damp ones that allows the frogs to regulate themselves.

I posted some pics of the psuedosand substrate I created in my gallery.


----------



## kyle1745

What do you think the cost ran of making your own? and how did you do it?

Im really interested but the cost is a issue too with the number of tanks I have.

Any concerns with how rough some of these products are?


----------



## kyle1745

Any ideas where to look for the Shultz product? There website does not seem to have a "find a local dealer" section.


----------



## Rambo67

My local Home Depot has it, cant remember the price but I know it wasnt a lot.


----------



## Corpus Callosum

I checked out some Laterite at a local shop and I like the particle size better than the schultz stuff. I assume you get the most benefit from a straight clay substrate, but I do want to keep the mix somewhat open/loose in certain areas for those plants I like that require drainage. I'm thinking I will add some fir bark and leaf litter to the laterite base to help with that. Is there anything else I could add to increase the mineral content of the mix? or is the laterite alone enough?


----------



## kyle1745

I was thinking of something finer as well, but where did you find the Laterite?
I have been to both Home Depot and Lowes this week with no luck on the Schultz product. I may try to make it to a large aquarium store tomorrow if I get some time.

Also any thoughts to putting this over leca? My thought is to still use my lecal layer 2-3 inches, some type of clay, then leaf litter.


----------



## Corpus Callosum

I found the laterite at my local pet shop labeled as 'Pure Laterite', but I also found it online at drfosterandsmith (which i think had some finer substrate choices, also clay based), ebay, and other sites.


----------



## kyle1745

I noticed it at Dr. Fosters as well...

Id like to find it locally to save on shipping.

Im wondering how the frogs hold up on this as I have heard they can get sores on gravel and this would be a bit more sharp than aquarium gravel.


----------



## zBrinks

With a nice thick layer of leaf litter, would it still be an issue?


----------



## bbrock

kyle1745 said:


> I noticed it at Dr. Fosters as well...
> 
> Id like to find it locally to save on shipping.
> 
> Im wondering how the frogs hold up on this as I have heard they can get sores on gravel and this would be a bit more sharp than aquarium gravel.


I haven't used this stuff but the substrates Ron and I are using are based on Redart clay. There are no issues with the texture as the clay is actually pretty soft. Also, I've kept my P. bicolor on gravel for 10 years with no problems. I used gravel because it was a "temporary" tank but it worked so well I've never replaced it. I don't think I would keep frogs on any volcanic based gravel or crushed rock. But water-worn gravel is actually more smooth that LECA.


----------



## kyle1745

Correct Ive never had a just leca tank, but I use it for the bottom layer and drainage. Less water than a false bottom which equals less weight if I need to move the tank.

Ive thought about using just fine gravel over the leca, but am interested by all of the clay talk lately. Im a firm believer in leaf litter but my middle layer needs some work and I think the clay may fit that need. Just a matter of finding something that won't break the bank. I have at least 10-20 tanks that are due for a revamp and so far have been using the Jungle mix.

I think many options work in the sense of substrate, but I am starting to think sphagnum should not be used for small tanks, or misted tanks. It does start to break down and it does not allow the waste to drain off.


----------



## melissa68

I have started using coconut husk chips over geolite pellets and have been pretty happy with the results. But, like Kyle I am interested in some other options as well.

How is the weight of the clay products compared to others?

Melissa


----------



## bbrock

melissa68 said:


> I have started using coconut husk chips over geolite pellets and have been pretty happy with the results. But, like Kyle I am interested in some other options as well.
> 
> How is the weight of the clay products compared to others?
> 
> Melissa


It's heavier of course because it is a true soil and more dense than organic materials. Once it is processed, it is about the density of average topsoil. Being a real soil, the structure will break down rapidly if it is disturbed too much (just like plowing a field destroys the soil texture). But left alone with some earthworms and fungi, the soil structure improves with time. So once the substrate is place, it is best to leave it alone. So I think it reaches its full potential in vivs that are intended to be left undisturbed for many years.


----------



## rdooley79

*leca only substrate*

I have gone the route of a leca only substrate in my tanks. I have gone this route for a few reasons, There are also some negatives as well which I will step through. Of course this is all my opinion......(grain of salt)
Pro's
1. cleanliness, the waste can be flushed by the misting system. this allows the environment to maintain a fairly clean environment. 
2. drainage, the plants all seem to do much better in an environment that tends to be well drained. I use tree fern pots and plaque on all my vivs which do allow for soil to be added in certain spots. 
3. looks, the leca balls always look clean and like the viv is fresh even though it has been setup for a while
4. simplicity, basicaly you dump in LECA arrange your rocks and plants and then frogs can go in, takes very little time.


Con's
1. springtails, This is the main thing that I do wish I had a good alternative for. As we all know having a springtail population in our vivs is a great thing to have. I mentioned that I use tree fern pots which can have spoil in them. These are the places that I have seeded my springtails but I dont see the production that I have gotten in my other vivs. 
2. nutrients directly in the soil, I dont see this as a major problem for the plants as the frogs produce the best fertalizer possible and also I have had FANTASTIC success with worm casting/bat guanno dropping tea that I spray the viv with using a spray bottle. I use it on all my plants in and out of the viv and they LOVE it. as it is natural pooooo I dont have to worry about the frogs getting it on them and burning them. its all safe


My conclusion is getting completely away from soil is a better way to create an environment for our froggies. It does not look as natural and I am quite sure there arent any LECA forest floors in the wild, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages especially if the proper care is taken to make a place for springtails to propogate at. Also as a added bonus if you do this just for your temp tanks you can wash teh leca balls and then let them sit in a very mild bleach solution of 50 parts water to one part bleech. This will completely disinfect and remove any smells or bad critters from the LECA and also make it so you dont have to buy more LECA. Great for juvie rearing tanks.

I have substrate tanks and all my new tanks are just LECA from here on out. I wont do it any other way.


----------



## kyle1745

What type of frogs? Leca can be rather abrasive and if I remember correctly can cause rubbing issues. You may want to cover it with a thin layer of aquarium gravel.


----------



## sports_doc

*Re: leca only substrate*



rdooley79 said:


> My conclusion is getting completely away from soil is a better way to create an environment for our froggies.
> 
> I have substrate tanks and all my new tanks are just LECA from here on out. I wont do it any other way.



eeek.....LECA only :?: 

"Bubble Baby" vivs: for the genetically inferior frog incapable of living in a true biological system :?: :wink: 

Of course there is sarcasm there, but it is a bit out of the ordinary....

S


----------



## rozdaboff

I have moved the rest of the discussion regarding clay-based soils to this thread:

http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31551


----------



## MonopolyBag

I got two examples, a 12x12x18 exo terra and theya re doing fine in there, 4 vents, breeding, and a 40 g oceanic cube, and they are also doing fine, 4 leucs, still not fully grown, I think it depends on the frog.


----------

