# Disease Transmission, (Split from Mixing Discussion)



## PeanutbuttER (Jan 1, 2011)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

pl259: This thread is a split from a mixing discussion in the General Forum



TheUnseenHand said:


> First, wouldn't such diseases likely be passed to the other members of the viv regardless of species? I.E. Say you have a 40 gallon with 4 of the same species and one has a disease mentioned; all other things being equal (which I know they aren't necessarily) wouldn't the other three have the same chance to get the disease as if they were all different species? (not recommending putting 4 different species in the same viv, BTW)


I don't remember if anyone responded to this or not, so excuse me if it's already been addressed. However, I think you're viewing this from the wrong angle. If you've got 4 frogs of the same species from likely the same source then the diseases they're bringing to the viv to share are going to be the same. For arguments sake, say they each arbitrarily bring 2 diseases with them. The tank still only has 2 diseases since all the diseases they brought are the same.

Bring in 4 different frogs from different sources(including different species, different parents, and possibly different rearing enclosures) and they can each bring different diseases. Say again for argument sake that each frog brings in 2 diseases. Now in the tank with a minimum of two and maximum of 8 unique diseases. That's how I see it. It's a risk not a guarantee of failure, but I personally don't see the point in risking it to begin with.


I was also wondering if anyone had an outside source of the diseases that captive darts or even captive frogs at large carry or a list of health risks associated with mixing darts or amphibians in general. I'm looking around for a journal article or something credible but I can't seem to find anything concrete. Just people saying "hookworm, chytrid, etc" but I'm not finding any source that that's being taken from. I know someone must have something like this, not everybody is just saying what they've read on the board. Thanks guys.


----------



## TheUnseenHand (Mar 8, 2011)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



PeanutbuttER said:


> I don't remember if anyone responded to this or not, so excuse me if it's already been addressed. However, I think you're viewing this from the wrong angle. If you've got 4 frogs of the same species from likely the same source then the diseases they're bringing to the viv to share are going to be the same. For arguments sake, say they each arbitrarily bring 2 diseases with them. The tank still only has 2 diseases since all the diseases they brought are the same.
> 
> Bring in 4 different frogs from different sources(including different species, different parents, and possibly different rearing enclosures) and they can each bring different diseases. Say again for argument sake that each frog brings in 2 diseases. Now in the tank with a minimum of two and maximum of 8 unique diseases. That's how I see it. It's a risk not a guarantee of failure, but I personally don't see the point in risking it to begin with.
> 
> ...


I said all thing being equal. I understand that things won't always be equal and I imagine you could come up with hundreds of possibilities where a mixed tank could potentially introduce more disease. What I'm wondering about is the likelihood of a mixed tank introducing more disease than a single species tank. It is also theoretically possible that all 4 of the frogs in the single species tank have different diseases, and introduce each one to the other frogs, correct? You can say it's less likely to happen than with a mixed species tank, but is it really? Are there any statistics on this matter? Is it really as big a deal as it is being made out to be? (not the diseases themselves, but the possibility of frogs transmitting them to other frogs; or the possibility of mixed species being more likely to carry different diseases which will be spread to the other frogs).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



PeanutbuttER said:


> I was also wondering if anyone had an outside source of the diseases that captive darts or even captive frogs at large carry or a list of health risks associated with mixing darts or amphibians in general. I'm looking around for a journal article or something credible but I can't seem to find anything concrete. Just people saying "hookworm, chytrid, etc" but I'm not finding any source that that's being taken from. I know someone must have something like this, not everybody is just saying what they've read on the board. Thanks guys.


Amphibian Medicine and Captive husbandry, 2001, Krieger Press 

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.jvdi.org/cgi/reprint/11/2/194.pdf

http://ccwhcit5.usask.ca/atlantic_blog/wp-content/uploads/chytridiomycosis-forzan-et-al.pdf

Helminth biodiversity of Costa Rican Anurans (Amphibia: Anura) - Journal of Natural History

Google scholar can be your friend..... these are only a small sample of the mountain of literature available through the search feature...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



TheUnseenHand said:


> I said all thing being equal. I understand that things won't always be equal and I imagine you could come up with hundreds of possibilities where a mixed tank could potentially introduce more disease. What I'm wondering about is the likelihood of a mixed tank introducing more disease than a single species tank. It is also theoretically possible that all 4 of the frogs in the single species tank have different diseases, and introduce each one to the other frogs, correct? You can say it's less likely to happen than with a mixed species tank, but is it really? Are there any statistics on this matter? Is it really as big a deal as it is being made out to be? (not the diseases themselves, but the possibility of frogs transmitting them to other frogs; or the possibility of mixed species being more likely to carry different diseases which will be spread to the other frogs).


You may want to look up ranavirus and how they can be local and site specific as one example.... or the history of mycoplasma infections in native Gopherus ssp... or even the possible translocations of viral infections into new populations by the release of box turtles...


----------



## TheUnseenHand (Mar 8, 2011)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



Ed said:


> You may want to look up ranavirus and how they can be local and site specific as one example.... or the history of mycoplasma infections in native Gopherus ssp... or even the possible translocations of viral infections into new populations by the release of box turtles...


I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying diseases can't be site specific. I assume none of us are planning on releasing frogs, or live in an area where they could thrive if they escape. I guess some may so I should say I'm going under a couple assumptions.

1. As stated above.
2. Someone keeping a mixed tank plans to cull offspring. They do not plan to sell any frogs. They would just keep the viv until the frogs died.

Now, I'm talking purely about statistical probabilities. Do 4 frogs of different species have a higher probability of one or more carrying a disease than 4 of the same species?

Again, I'm not condoning this at all. FWIW I'm not going to attempt a mixed tank and would certainly not recommend one. I like to play devils advocate not to start flame wars, but to have healthy, informative debate. I'm learning from all this, and I enjoy soaking up this information  I'm not trying to annoy anyone, but if it comes across that way, I apologize and will stop.


----------



## PeanutbuttER (Jan 1, 2011)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



Ed said:


> Amphibian Medicine and Captive husbandry, 2001, Krieger Press
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> ...


Thanks. I've already been on google scholar and working through the university database search (which has a lot not available through google scholar) and I'd come up with very little that relates diseases in captive populations and wild populations or that directly implicate mixed-species vivaria as a source of the spread of those diseases. I read the middle two articles about chytrid already but I'll give those other 2 a read through as well. Thanks again.


----------



## TheUnseenHand (Mar 8, 2011)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



PeanutbuttER said:


> I'm not sure what you mean then by "all things equal". I thought my example was pretty fair as far as keeping things equal.


I just meant stress level within the viv and the likelihood that a disease would be transmitted from frog to frog in the viv is the same in both cases (mixed and single species). Is it impossible for 4 frogs of the same species from the same local to each bring in a unique disease? 

Basically, my question boils down to this:

Do 4 frogs of different species have a higher probability of one or more carrying one or more unique diseases than 4 of the same species?

Right now I'm basically sleepwalking because I woke up early to work an 11 hour day (though I did get to post here while at work), so I may not be communicating things in a very easy to understand manner at the moment. For that I do apologize. I don't think I can stay up anymore tonight so I'll pick up on this again when I get another chance. I appreciate your response.


----------



## tim13 (Feb 1, 2011)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

I have no scientific literature to back this up, but my gut tells me anytime you have frogs from different sources (breeders, locations, walks of life, etc) your risk for disease in general gets higher. This risk is usually mitigated by the fact that most of the time our frogs are kept in separate enclosures. Of course, if you order another frog and add them to the viv after quarantine then you have likely increased the risk of disease in the viv. So, your likelihood of disease is highest in a mixed tank due to all the different sources of the frogs seems somewhat logical to me. I can get behind that just because common sense makes it seem reasonable.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

Yes, definitely a higher probability(unless your getting all 4 from different sources). If your getting one morph from one breeder, they'll all have the same thing if they were kept together. If you start mixing and matching, you'll also be collecting new parasites along w/ new frogs. If any of them were clean in the first place they won't be after a week in a mixed viv if any of the frogs have anything. Coccidia is the one you definately don't want to get as it's incurable.



TheUnseenHand said:


> I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying diseases can't be site specific. I assume none of us are planning on releasing frogs, or live in an area where they could thrive if they escape. I guess some may so I should say I'm going under a couple assumptions.
> 
> 1. As stated above.
> 2. Someone keeping a mixed tank plans to cull offspring. They do not plan to sell any frogs. They would just keep the viv until the frogs died.
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> Yes, definitely a higher probability(unless your getting all 4 from different sources). If your getting one morph from one breeder, they'll all have the same thing if they were kept together. If you start mixing and matching, you'll also be collecting new parasites along w/ new frogs. If any of them were clean in the first place they won't be after a week in a mixed viv if any of the frogs have anything. Coccidia is the one you definately don't want to get as it's incurable.


Coccidia is also one of the things you can't avoid as there are lots of diffterent strains found globally and can be transmitted to the frogs by insects.. so to avoid coccidia, you would have to start with clean frogs (which means having the gut biopsied to make sure they are clean, as coccidia isn't always shed consistently..it can have long periods without any sign of it), excluding rodents and insects from the rooms, having totally 100% insect proof enclosures, keeping feeder cultures 100% protected from outside insects and rodents, using autoclaved materials (as some coccidias are resistent to everything but live steam or straight ammonia) for decorations and builds.... 
Attempting to prevent coccidia from being in your collection is considered so difficult by institutions that they simply monitor for it, which is done by routine fecal testing. It can be readily controlled with a fairly simple treatment regimen....


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

Funny, I had coccidia in some tricolors that didn't produce for years and had everything tested around that tank and the rest of my collection and never found any signs outside that one group. Why doesn't everyone have it then? Why didn't it spread here? Are you sure there aren't different strains that spread differently? Also couldn't the coccidia in zoos be spreading from fecal material from other animals like geckos or mammals? Zoos are a bit different than a small collection of darts.

I guess if you call fairly simple a drop on the back every day of their life.

Also Tb mycobacteria as there isn't a test for that unless you draw fluid from an infected spot. Kinda like poking in the dark.



Ed said:


> Coccidia is also one of the things you can't avoid as there are lots of diffterent strains found globally and can be transmitted to the frogs by insects.. so to avoid coccidia, you would have to start with clean frogs (which means having the gut biopsied to make sure they are clean, as coccidia isn't always shed consistently..it can have long periods without any sign of it), excluding rodents and insects from the rooms, having totally 100% insect proof enclosures, keeping feeder cultures 100% protected from outside insects and rodents, using autoclaved materials (as some coccidias are resistent to everything but live steam or straight ammonia) for decorations and builds....
> Attempting to prevent coccidia from being in your collection is considered so difficult by institutions that they simply monitor for it, which is done by routine fecal testing. It can be readily controlled with a fairly simple treatment regimen....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



tim13 said:


> I have no scientific literature to back this up, but my gut tells me anytime you have frogs from different sources (breeders, locations, walks of life, etc) your risk for disease in general gets higher. This risk is usually mitigated by the fact that most of the time our frogs are kept in separate enclosures. Of course, if you order another frog and add them to the viv after quarantine then you have likely increased the risk of disease in the viv. So, your likelihood of disease is highest in a mixed tank due to all the different sources of the frogs seems somewhat logical to me. I can get behind that just because common sense makes it seem reasonable.


 
It actually isn't mitigated that much unless you practice good hygiene between cages.. If you go from cage to another without washing your hands, your frogs may as well be kept together.... You also need to have your cages tight enough to prevent wild insects from being able to enter (if you've had fungus gnats in your tank, it isn't that tight), or insects from being able to escape one cage and enter another.... 

People routinely put materials in thier enclosures that cannot be sterilized (wood) or get live plants that were from cuttings in other people's frog's tanks, or trasfer cuttings between tanks for plantings.. and so forth. 

Compared to all of the other things people do with thier enclosures worrying about parasites from different frogs is only a small tip of the iceberg.....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> Funny, I had coccidia in some tricolors that didn't produce for years and had everything tested around that tank and the rest of my collection and never found any signs outside that one group. Why doesn't everyone have it then? Why didn't it spread here? Are you sure there aren't different strains that spread differently?
> 
> I guess if you call fairly simple a drop on the back every day of their life.
> 
> Also Tb mycobacteria as there isn't a test for that unless you draw fluid from an infected spot. Kinda like poking in the dark.


Did you have all of the frogs necropsied and histopath done on them? That is the only way to find it in a frog that isn't shedding... It runs about $250 a frog... 

Aaron, I suggest you review the literature on treating coccidia.. it is not a drop on thier back twice a day... 

If you review the literature, the Tb that is most commonly found in frogs (M. marinum group) is found everywhere in soils and moist enviroments. You cannot exclude it from the enclosures....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



TheUnseenHand said:


> I just meant stress level within the viv and the likelihood that a disease would be transmitted from frog to frog in the viv is the same in both cases (mixed and single species). Is it impossible for 4 frogs of the same species from the same local to each bring in a unique disease?


People often bring up the stress issue.. we have no indication that the stress of interaction between two different species is any greater than the interaction between two frogs of the same species. There is stress but we can't say it is greater or lesser without proof. 




TheUnseenHand said:


> Do 4 frogs of different species have a higher probability of one or more carrying one or more unique diseases than 4 of the same species?


Unique isn't the correct way to look at it.. many pathogens eventually end up in a balance with the host they normally use.. but if they jump to a novel host, there isn't the same balances. We have seen this with a number of pathogens (although some of the examples with iridoviruses are probably the most clear when looking at anurans) in a variety of taxa. 
In reality, the risk of a pathogen jumping between species doesn't stop simply because the frogs are housed in seperate cages. If this is really a concern for those keeping frogs then frogs from different localities regardless of species should not even be housed near one another in the same room, as this is considered a major risk for cross contamination.....


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



TheUnseenHand said:


> I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying diseases can't be site specific. I assume none of us are planning on releasing frogs, or live in an area where they could thrive if they escape. I guess some may so I should say I'm going under a couple assumptions.
> 
> 1. As stated above.
> 2. Someone keeping a mixed tank plans to cull offspring. They do not plan to sell any frogs. They would just keep the viv until the frogs died.
> ...


Just as a clarification.. you don't have to release the frogs to introduce parasites.. dumping water or materials from the tanks into the enviroment can pass along pathogens. 

There have been anecodtal estimates that over 90% of the frogs in captive collections have one or more parasites.. 

Given that most of the bacteria that cause issues with frogs are always found in thier enviroments and/or part of thier normal gut flora, we can comfortably move that to approaching 100%....


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Yep, 3 histopathologies and multiple fecals from multiple vets and it wasn't found again. I think the strain may be of importance on how detrimental it is and how easily it's spread, from my experience. And the tb I imagine would be strain related as i've had galacts w/ it that died and never had problems w/ the rest of my collection. Maybe it needs sickly frogs to infect or something but your references don't match up w/ my experiences.
Also the vets i've talked to say it's a drop on the back every day for coccidia. I wasn't aware of another treatment regime.



Ed said:


> Coccidia is also one of the things you can't avoid as there are lots of diffterent strains found globally and can be transmitted to the frogs by insects.. so to avoid coccidia, you would have to start with clean frogs (which means having the gut biopsied to make sure they are clean, as coccidia isn't always shed consistently..it can have long periods without any sign of it), excluding rodents and insects from the rooms, having totally 100% insect proof enclosures, keeping feeder cultures 100% protected from outside insects and rodents, using autoclaved materials (as some coccidias are resistent to everything but live steam or straight ammonia) for decorations and builds....
> Attempting to prevent coccidia from being in your collection is considered so difficult by institutions that they simply monitor for it, which is done by routine fecal testing. It can be readily controlled with a fairly simple treatment regimen....


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

I can't get proof, i can only observe and make decisions. From that I've seen worse problems w/ different species inhabiting the same viv. Usually one stresses the other moreso than the same morphs from my observations.



Ed said:


> People often bring up the stress issue.. we have no indication that the stress of interaction between two different species is any greater than the interaction between two frogs of the same species. There is stress but we can't say it is greater or lesser without proof.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> Yep, 3 histopathologies and multiple fecals from multiple vets and it wasn't found again. I think the strain may be of importance on how detrimental it is and how easily it's spread, from my experience. And the tb I imagine would be strain related as i've had galacts w/ it that died and never had problems w/ the rest of my collection. Maybe it needs sickly frogs to infect or something but your references don't match up w/ my experiences.
> Also the vets i've talked to say it's a drop on the back every day for coccidia. I wasn't aware of another treatment regime.


I suggest getting a copy of JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie and reading it. If I remember correctly it is where they discuss the only viable method of detecting it is post-mortum. Unless the person reading the histopathology is really good at it and the whole intestine has been sent out for histopathology, the infection can be missed on necropsy. If your vets only did a gross necropsy then they could easily miss it. 

Look at page 316 first paragraph top left part of the page.. 

I would have to look up the dosing regimen but the whole regimen is much shorter, the maximal regimen is 21 days... again see page 316... and this also references that coccidia is still present post extensive treatment.


----------



## Wallace Grover (Dec 6, 2009)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



Ed said:


> I suggest getting a copy of JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie and reading it.


 10charsforya


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

Yes, JSTOR always does that for me.. but I really don't care as the link still works if you choose to click on it... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



Ed said:


> Look at page 316 first paragraph top left part of the page..
> 
> I would have to look up the dosing regimen but the whole regimen is much shorter, the maximal regimen is 21 days... again see page 316... and this also references that coccidia is still present post extensive treatment.


 
The references to pages are from Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry. I got distracted and forgot to add that is the source of the reference. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

Sorry Ed, as usual I can't see that page and ain't buying it. It seems to me that vets were bullshitting me and it's too intense and costly to even find out what's really in your collection? Why even care then, I guess.

How do you pull the truth out of the bullshit on these papers? It seems to me each one contradicts another and the info you get from vets(multiple) doesn't match up w/ other vets or publications? And when your observations don't line up w/ any of the info presented? Seems like looking for a needle in a big pile of crap to me. Esp when new "information" is coming out that contradicts what was stated in the "last edition" of the same book. Doesn't it ever make you want to just throw up your hands and say screw it? I mean how many times have you cited other peoples work only for it to be overturned in a later edition?



Ed said:


> I suggest getting a copy of JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie and reading it. If I remember correctly it is where they discuss the only viable method of detecting it is post-mortum. Unless the person reading the histopathology is really good at it and the whole intestine has been sent out for histopathology, the infection can be missed on necropsy. If your vets only did a gross necropsy then they could easily miss it.
> 
> Look at page 316 first paragraph top left part of the page..
> 
> I would have to look up the dosing regimen but the whole regimen is much shorter, the maximal regimen is 21 days... again see page 316... and this also references that coccidia is still present post extensive treatment.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

The citation is Poynton, Sarah L.; Whitaker. Brent R.;1994; Protozoa in Poison Dart Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Clinical Assessment and Identification; Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 25 (1) :29-39.. The link to the first page does work as I checked it.. if you don't want to be bothered to aquire the article so you can read the actual documentated research (by purchasing it from that site), then there is the summary in Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry. 

You can choose to ignore what you wish...people irrationally do it all the time.. 

I can't speak to the "advice" you recieved, but as I noted there are discrepencies with your information that are not supported by the literature. In the real literature I did not find anything that contradicts the citations I provided.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

Whatever. People get bullshitted a lot too. If you don't have an answer as what vets to trust and such don't say I'm irrationally ignoring it, just don't know who I can trust. I have already got scammed(according to you) on trying to detect it in other frogs and had to sacrifice 3 frogs because they said they'd be able to tell with those inexpensive tests(necropsy). Your book isn't going to do a histopathology for me. So don't call me irrational. Confused, untrusting sure, but not irrational.

So to me your then saying I can't trust my vet sources.

And sorry, $20 for an article is a scam to me. Sorry $19 for an article is a scam to me.



Ed said:


> The citation is Poynton, Sarah L.; Whitaker. Brent R.;1994; Protozoa in Poison Dart Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Clinical Assessment and Identification; Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 25 (1) :29-39.. The link to the first page does work as I checked it.. if you don't want to be bothered to aquire the article so you can read the actual documentated research (by purchasing it from that site), then there is the summary in Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry.
> 
> You can choose to ignore what you wish...people irrationally do it all the time..
> 
> I can't speak to the "advice" you recieved, but as I noted there are discrepencies with your information that are not supported by the literature. In the real literature I did not find anything that contradicts the citations I provided.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> Whatever. People get bullshitted a lot too. If you don't have an answer as what vets to trust and such don't say I'm irrationally ignoring it, just don't know who I can trust. I have already got scammed(according to you) on trying to detect it in other frogs and had to sacrifice 3 frogs because they said they'd be able to tell with those inexpensive tests(necropsy). Your book isn't going to do a histopathology for me. So don't call me irrational. Confused, untrusting sure, but not irrational.
> 
> *So to me your then saying I can't trust my vet sources*.
> 
> And sorry, $20 for an article is a scam to me. Sorry $19 for an article is a scam to me.


Aaron,

I've said all along that you can't trust your vet sources and you got upset at me for it. Our body of knowledge when it comes to parasite treatment and management is constantly evolving and unless your sources keep up on the latest information and belong to organizations that distribute this information that their recommendations should be treated with a grain of salt.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

So you tell me whether or not they got it right this time, really? Constantly evolving = bullshitting.
Seriously doesn't the coccidia and tb info seem like a mind teaser to you? Coccidia is everywhere, you can't find if a frog has it unless you cut it open and kill it(or get a rare positive fecal), but here's how to treat it? That is if we didn't make a mistake and only certain strains are actually harmful.
As I said, one group had it and it was confirmed in another state and here w/ the remaining 2 by 2 different vets. I went thru the rest of the collection and nada. Had necropsies done and was told they could find it thru lesions and presence in the intestines. Didn't cost near as much as Ed stated it would and no other sick animals ever had it show and have had no sick animals in the last couple years. Now why would you want to treat if it's everywhere, why would you care if it's everywhere and usually can't be detected. It seems if a frog ever has problems and has coccidia, it's probably not the coccidia. Or there are multiple strains and only one is harmful. So I'm supposed to pay $19/article to read up on everything to be able to pay a vet to do things right? Or is Ed just saying don't worry about coccidia and tb? 
Signed, confused and sick of bullshit.

Now if the scientist writing the paper and actually doing the research could talk to me maybe we'd get somewhere.

And no Roman, the DR. your thinking of wasn't even involved that far back. And why would you trust a vet that published something and then went back on it? Sorry i killed your animals, next time I'll do more research before publishing? Seems like your more trusting than I. At least the vets I went to had information that went along w/ what I was seeing in real life.

The first vet I went to here told me the frogs I brought in had tb and to destroy them or I'll catch it(tb). After that I went to another vet here for the coccidia.

Seems like none of them really know what they're talking about, or the paper was wrong or incomplete, after seeing new info come out routinely I'll think the papers missing something. Either coccidia isn't everywhere or it can't spread that easy or there are only some parasite strains and the rest are commensual. 

Whatever, I don't see any problems and haven't had anything show up so I'll continue to make decisions based on the real world perceptions instead of reading someone who I can't get to to question anyway.




mantisdragon91 said:


> Aaron,
> 
> I've said all along that you can't trust your vet sources and you got upset at me for it. Our body of knowledge when it comes to parasite treatment and management is constantly evolving and unless your sources keep up on the latest information and belong to organizations that distribute this information that their recommendations should be treated with a grain of salt.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> So you tell me whether or not they got it right this time, really? Constantly evolving = bullshitting.
> Seriously doesn't the coccidia and tb info seem like a mind teaser to you? Coccidia is everywhere, you can't find if a frog has it unless you cut it open and kill it(or get a rare positive fecal), but here's how to treat it? That is if we didn't make a mistake and only certain strains are actually harmful.
> As I said, one group had it and it was confirmed in another state and here w/ the remaining 2 by 2 different vets. I went thru the rest of the collection and nada. Had necropsies done and was told they could find it thru lesions and presence in the intestines. Didn't cost near as much as Ed stated it would and no other sick animals ever had it show and have had no sick animals in the last couple years. Now why would you want to treat if it's everywhere, why would you care if it's everywhere and usually can't be detected. It seems if a frog ever has problems and has coccidia, it's probably not the coccidia. Or there are multiple strains and only one is harmful. So I'm supposed to pay $19/article to read up on everything to be able to pay a vet to do things right? Or is Ed just saying don't worry about coccidia and tb?
> Signed, confused and sick of bullshit.
> ...


What I am saying is that we rush to treat animals in the hopes of creating a 100% clean frog something that doesn't exist in nature and is almost impossible to achieve in captivity. Rather than worry about things they may or may not have, why not leave them alone unless they are visibly having problems?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

All the testing I've heard about on wc is that they are cleaner than cb, so who do you believe?

I should've known better than to get involved, I always end up more confused than when I started.

You say don't treat and Ed says you won't know if they have it and here's the treatment. Again, who do I believe? I've seen treated frogs do better w/ my own eyes and have seen frogs do bad w/ coccidia right next to frogs doing fine w/out coccidia for years. The untreated coccidia frogs died and i killed the ones next to them to see if they had it, because it's sooo contagious, which didn't translate to the real world. Yet it's everywhere. But most frogs don't have it. Give me a break.

I guess I should just stick w/ the real world observations that seems consistent to me and leave the papers to the parasitologists, which seem to be a confused bunch.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> Coccidia is everywhere, you can't find if a frog has it unless you cut it open and kill it(or get a rare positive fecal), but here's how to treat it? That is if we didn't make a mistake and only certain strains are actually harmful.


Okay lets go through this.. One of the two authors of the article I cited is also one of the author editors of Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry. If you look through Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry, it is summarized there, you just don't get to see the data. 

For ease of typing lets start with Tb. 

The most common Tbs seen in amphibians in general and frogs specifically tend to belong to the M. marinum group. These are also opportunistic human pathogens and are not uncommonly found in people who work with fish and amphibians (see for example the free pdf here http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/7/441.full.pdf and the abstract here SpringerLink - European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Volume 25, Number 10). Contact with an infected animal is not required simply exposing an open wound can be sufficient to induce the infection. Treatment can take a long time to resolve infections in humans. (When I worked at one of the pet stores, my roommate contracted it.. he had six abscesses form on his right forearm and it took six months of treatment to clear it up). The method of pathnogenicity in amphibians is the same across taxa.. the animals are constantly exposed to the bacteria but the level of exposure can change based on conditions in the enclosure as this changes bacterial counts. Stressed animals are also more likely to become infected as they are also often immunosuppresed by the bacteria which is why cases are often linked to dirty, overcrowded conditions. Once the infection has taken hold in one animal, transmission to other amphibians is at greater risk (in part because those animals also tend to have been stressed). Treatment of infected amphibians is not effective in part due to the lack of effective antibiotic agents to those bacteria (and that amphibians don't like being heated up to 98 F..). 

Onto coccidia, the reference I supplied covers a lot of the issues in detecting coccidia... but it is summarized in Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry if you read through all of the relevent sections... First off coccidia is a intercellular parasite which is why good histopathology is required to detect it. A gross necropsy is not going to detect the infection unless there has been massive tissue damage (and then histopathology is needed to confirm the cause). In healthy amphibians, coccidia is normally kept in check by the immune system of the frogs which is why it is not commonly detected in healthy frogs. Frogs that are actively shedding coccidia typically are ones that immunosuppressed for one reason or another which is stated in the literature that diagnosis is difficult while the frogs are alive. It also goes onto state that treatments tend to render the frog(s) asymptomatic but not free of the parasite (which was confirmed through multiple necropsies and histopathology in the original article). I'm not going to guess why the vets made those recommendations to you but the above is consistent in the literature both for amphibians in general and dendrobatids specifically. 

And yes there are not only different species but genera of coccidia. There are also potentially different strains of those species.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> But most frogs don't have it.


 
Where in the literature does it say that?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

It wasn't in the literature. It was from actual fecals on wc which are stressed and should show.

This info still gets me no closer to telling what to do about coccidia or if it's even a problem. Why suppress it if it's everywhere and everything has potential to have it. How is a vet going to tell anything apart as to whether it's harmful? Why even get a vet involved? Sounds like any info on it would be a crap shoot. And these are the people I'm supposed to trust? That book won't do fecals for me and tell me what's up. So if researchers only write the articles and don't do fecals what's the point?



Ed said:


> Where in the literature does it say that?


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> It wasn't in the literature. It was from actual fecals on wc which are stressed and should show.
> 
> This info still gets me no closer to telling what to do about coccidia or if it's even a problem. Why suppress it if it's everywhere and everything has potential to have it. How is a vet going to tell anything apart as to whether it's harmful? Why even get a vet involved? Sounds like any info on it would be a crap shoot. And these are the people I'm supposed to trust? That book won't do fecals for me and tell me what's up. So if researchers only write the articles and don't do fecals what's the point?


They do fecals. I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that Dr. Wright has done and still does fecals. I would wager the number has to be in the tens of thousands in his career. These are not people sitting in ivory towers but are writing based on real life experience often in their personal collections.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

I thought he didn't do the fecals?
What do you think it would cost to classify a coccidia down to genus/species and strain?


mantisdragon91 said:


> They do fecals. I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that Dr. Wright has done and still does fecals. I would wager the number has to be in the tens of thousands in his career. These are not people sitting in ivory towers but are writing based on real life experience often in their personal collections.


----------



## mantisdragon91 (Jun 2, 2010)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> I thought he didn't do the fecals?
> What do you think it would cost to classify a coccidia down to genus/species and strain?


Would hate to give you bad info on pricing but here is the link to the service section of his practice in case you care to explore the option.

Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/v...redir=1#search="amphibian+coccidia+prevalence" (up to 77% of adults infected) 

http://www.paru.cas.cz/images/laboratory/2/19-37-Jirku-Protist-2009.pdf 

http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2006/70/d070p237.pdf

I restricted my searches to free pdfs.. since you chose not to aquire those that you have to pay for.. with a difference in species of coccidia and across species of frogs we see a difference in prevalence between types of coccidia that runs between 50 and 100% in wild populations. If your vets were doing floats using hypersaline solutions, then they may have underreported the presence of coccidia as thin walled coccidia rapidly burst under those conditions.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

It was kind of a joke. Sounds like $250 for a histopath and then microscope work afterwards. Sounds maybe a little more than it's worth, esp if the frog had to be dead to detect it. Kinda playing on the probable cost(cash and life of the frog). 
AS I don't have amphib and reptile medicine, what's supposed to happen after this 21 day ? regime? Is it permanently suppressed?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

The 21 days was the maximal dosing schedule I could find in the literature. I know there are shorter ones (as I've used them at work) it depends on the drugs being used but 7 consecutive days is one treatment regimen. I would suggest consulting with Kevin if you wish as he is probably going to have the most modern outlook and information. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

Why thank you Ed. I don't have the free access you do, sorry. Can you not copy and paste from a pay article? I didn't read the terms.

Neat Michelle collaborates w/ the third author on the first paper.



Ed said:


> http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/v...redir=1#search="amphibian+coccidia+prevalence" (up to 77% of adults infected)
> 
> http://www.paru.cas.cz/images/laboratory/2/19-37-Jirku-Protist-2009.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

It's really of no use to me now. I was wondering if it was permanently suppressed and if it could be spread or shed after that. I heard there wasn't a "cure" and am just trying to understand why you'd do anything about it. Esp if supposedly 50-100% of the frogs has it. You said you've worked with it I was wondering why? Is it only a problem if it's shedding.


Ed said:


> The 21 days was the maximal dosing schedule I could find in the literature. I know there are shorter ones (as I've used them at work) it depends on the drugs being used but 7 consecutive days is one treatment regimen. I would suggest consulting with Kevin if you wish as he is probably going to have the most modern outlook and information.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> It's really of no use to me now. I was wondering if it was permanently suppressed and if it could be spread or shed after that. I heard there wasn't a "cure" and am just trying to understand why you'd do anything about it. Esp if supposedly 50-100% of the frogs has it. You said you've worked with it I was wondering why?


When I get access to paid articles they aren't online normally, they were print from the zoo which is why I don't cut and past them into a pdf .. (well now I have to ask the wife to copy them) although I have purchased a lot of articles on carotenoids (I think I've spent well over a grand on them) and nutrition in amphibians as I couldn't get them through the Zoo. 

In general.... you don't treat for coccidia unless the frogs are showing negative signs from it.. lethargy, loss of weight, diarrhea etc... if the frogs are shedding small amounts of it, then a discussion may be warrented but treatment may not be necessary. 

The school of thought is that by treating it you limit damage to the frog and allow the frog's immune system to get it back under control. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

How do you know if the coccidia is doing the damage and not a dirty tank, aerosols, pesticides,bacteria, hot, cold, etc.etc.? You just look for large #'s and figure that's the problem? Why keep the frogs around if you only suppress for a while to try and keep it from shedding? 

So, since different frogs have different types and some may be harmful, I'd say mixing different strains could have different effects on different frogs(linking back to the original post)?



Ed said:


> When I get access to paid articles they aren't online normally, they were print from the zoo which is why I don't cut and past them into a pdf .. (well now I have to ask the wife to copy them) although I have purchased a lot of articles on carotenoids (I think I've spent well over a grand on them) and nutrition in amphibians as I couldn't get them through the Zoo.
> 
> In general.... you don't treat for coccidia unless the frogs are showing negative signs from it.. lethargy, loss of weight, diarrhea etc... if the frogs are shedding small amounts of it, then a discussion may be warrented but treatment may not be necessary.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> How do you know if the coccidia is doing the damage and not a dirty tank, aerosols, pesticides,bacteria, hot, cold, etc.etc.? You just look for large #'s and figure that's the problem? Why keep the frogs around if you only suppress for a while to try and keep it from shedding?
> 
> So, since different frogs have different types and some may be harmful, I'd say mixing different strains could have different effects on different frogs(linking back to the original post)?


If the frogs have an infection that is causing the symptoms they will at the same time be shedding large numbers of coccidia, this was supported by the literature. Treatment resolved symptoms and stopped shedding at the same time. 

A read through the literature indicates that frogs can be infected with multiple types/species of coccidians. Depending on the species of coccidian and frog, infection rates in wild frogs run as high as 100% and it can't proven that a frog doesn't have it unless a person performs surgery and histopathology... so if you are going to use infection with one or more types/species of coccidia as a reason to to not keep the frog around, then there isn't any reason to keep any frog around. 


As an argument against mixing.. coccidians are a weak argument in the face of all of the potential methods of introducing coccidia into an enclosure (ranging from feeders (termites..), leaf litter, wood, moss, plants compared to the chance that a frog is infected with at least one type of coccidia.... a blind eye cannot be turned towards all of the other methods to single just one of them out..


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

But this thread is about mixing not disease transmission vectors. Chytrid and hookworm and lungworm can all be transmitted the same way(plants soil, soil w/ termites, moss, hands). Considering some are parasitic and cannot be ridded from the animal I'm sure the stress of mixing different frogs could lead to shedding a potential harmful to a different morph or genus from a different area that was never meant to get it. And if you clean between tanks and make them ff proof you can control spread? If the coccidia that are harmful aren't spread by termites and you don't put dirt, plants and soil from one viv to another you could keep it from spreading? Is it airborne?

It seems to me that, if they cause harm and act in different ways and different frogs had different kinds(do we really know what every one of them does or the potential harm they can cause) and you can only suppress them, why would you want to throw a whole bunch of different ones into different frogs in a mix? Especially if you can't get rid of them. I'd say hookworm and lungworm and chytrid wouldn't be as bad as they can be cleared and gotten rid of.

And you spending a grand on something you were researching for an article is different than me spending $20 on an article to argue w/ you about coccidia, yours is worthwhile. The way we argue I'd go broke I'll go on advice I've gotten and what I've seen and experienced and won't mix animals possibly shedding or harboring a harmful coccidia strain w/ other species. I can't understand why only one group of frogs in my collection ever had a problem w/ coccidia when they were all housed the same way under the same conditions. Just seems weird. I wish they were around so I could do an experiment.



Ed said:


> If the frogs have an infection that is causing the symptoms they will at the same time be shedding large numbers of coccidia, this was supported by the literature. Treatment resolved symptoms and stopped shedding at the same time.
> 
> A read through the literature indicates that frogs can be infected with multiple types/species of coccidians. Depending on the species of coccidian and frog, infection rates in wild frogs run as high as 100% and it can't proven that a frog doesn't have it unless a person performs surgery and histopathology... so if you are going to use infection with one or more types/species of coccidia as a reason to to not keep the frog around, then there isn't any reason to keep any frog around.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> But this thread is about mixing not disease transmission vectors. Chytrid and hookworm and lungworm can all be transmitted the same way(plants soil, soil w/ termites, moss, hands). Considering some are parasitic and cannot be ridded from the animal I'm sure the stress of mixing different frogs could lead to shedding a potential harmful to a different morph or genus from a different area that was never meant to get it. And if you clean between tanks and make them ff proof you can control spread? If the coccidia that are harmful aren't spread by termites and you don't put dirt, plants and soil from one viv to another you could keep it from spreading? Is it airborne?
> 
> It seems to me that, if they cause harm and act in different ways and different frogs had different kinds(do we really know what every one of them does or the potential harm they can cause) and you can only suppress them, why would you want to throw a whole bunch of different ones into different frogs in a mix? Especially if you can't get rid of them. I'd say hookworm and lungworm and chytrid wouldn't be as bad as they can be cleared and gotten rid of.


 
I am going to refer back to Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry where it was summed up by the phrase


> *In general, coccidian infections are relatively benign in adult hosts*, *and coccidia may be seen in the feces of apparently healthy animals*. *Pathology associated with infection is most commonly seen in young or compromised animals*, and may include weight loss and diarrhea. Renal coccidia are associated with nephritis.


 on page 205.

This is different than the more common perception seen with respect to lungworms or hookworms (although this is also changing see this post by Kevin http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...regular-treatment-parasites-4.html#post298624) which are in general considered to be much more of a threat. With respect to coccidia jumping hosts, this is fairly routine in many wild populations where multiple species are found together so we really can't extrapolate that it is a greater risk in captivity given the examples seen in the wild populations. 

The answer to why you saw issues with the one group and not the others is simple and answered in the literature.. there was some other process that compromised the health of the frogs allowing the coccidia to get out of control. This is supported by the best treatment listed in the literature.. which is aimed at both a bacterial infection as well as the coccidia (page 205) and runs for 7-14 days. 

All of this along with the fact that the frogs are probably already infected with at least one species of coccidia, the risk of transmission into the enclosure or between enclosures, makes coccidia a weak example for not mixing... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm sure we don't know everything about it and from what I know about chytrid, that there are many forms and only one or a couple strains are harmful, I'd rather not collect them all.


copied from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/65959-making-people-care-about-mixing-18.html 

There is a lot of literature that does not support your comparision to chytrid or your position on coccidia. As an example, the risk of your frogs being already infected with chytrid does not approach 100% and chytrid does kill healthy frogs. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

I'll do what I do until the next edition comes out. Since they haven't catalogged them all or know what they all do, the body of literature is lacking. Somewhat like panacur I guess.
As I said I've seen frogs not thrive w/ it and i believe it to be a certain type as all the frogs were housed the same. Why would you get "outbreaks" and I don't? There wasn't anything different about that tank w/ coccidia and any of the others. I'll do what i will with that belief and you can keep on doin what your doin. But experience tells me other than what the literature says. And since some can be parasitic or harmful as you said and some are commensuels, I'm sure they aren't all created the same.



Ed said:


> I am going to refer back to Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry where it was summed up by the phrase on page 205.
> 
> This is different than the more common perception seen with respect to lungworms or hookworms (although this is also changing see this post by Kevin http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...regular-treatment-parasites-4.html#post298624) which are in general considered to be much more of a threat. With respect to coccidia jumping hosts, this is fairly routine in many wild populations where multiple species are found together so we really can't extrapolate that it is a greater risk in captivity given the examples seen in the wild populations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I don't care, the literature doesn't take care of my frogs or know every interaction and strains effects on dart frogs.

Ya, but what kind of coccidia? I don't care if there is a non parasitic form of chytrid in my tanks. Have you studied them all? If not your evidence is lacking. Forgive me if I lean to the side of caution since you don't know everything about coccidia.

You know doctors make different decisions w/ the same information. I guess I'll just suggest differently than you as i see more potential for harm from real life experience.



Ed said:


> copied from http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/65959-making-people-care-about-mixing-18.html
> 
> There is a lot of literature that does not support your comparision to chytrid or your position on coccidia. As an example, the risk of your frogs being already infected with chytrid does not approach 100% and chytrid does kill healthy frogs.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> . And since some can be parasitic or harmful as you said and some are commensuels, I'm sure they aren't all created the same.


Where did I say they were commensuels? If you have that interpretation, then you have misunderstood both what I have stated and the literature. I have clearly stated they were parasites. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> I don't care, the literature doesn't take care of my frogs or know every interaction and strains effects on dart frogs.
> 
> Ya, but what kind of coccidia? I don't care if there is a non parasitic form of chytrid in my tanks. Have you studied them all? If not your evidence is lacking. Forgive me if I lean to the side of caution since you don't know everything about coccidia,


So you don't accept the literature when it explains (clearly) the issues with coccidia but you do accept the treatment regimens it prescribes that was developed based on that understanding? 

There are no non-parasitic forms of chytrid that infect frogs. 

You aren't erroring on the side of caution.. you are refusing to accept a comprehensive body of literature on the frogs and vertebrates in general.. and according to you based on the fact that you don't want to spend the money to gain access to the literature....


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Call it what you will, then yes i don't believe the extensive body of literature, why does that make you angry? There is a body of literature on panacur, in the same book, that changed from one edition to the other. Fool me once....

And yes Ed, i won't spend the money to read what you want me to. Sorry, I'm not writing a book on it and don't have any problems w/ it and don't want to spend money to argue w/ you. I wouldn't ask you to spend money to argue w/ me.

And don't darts react differently to coccidia than other amphibs, as in they can't clear it from their body and other frogs can? 



Ed said:


> So you don't accept the literature when it explains (clearly) the issues with coccidia but you do accept the treatment regimens it prescribes that was developed based on that understanding?
> 
> There are no non-parasitic forms of chytrid that infect frogs.
> 
> You aren't erroring on the side of caution.. you are refusing to accept a comprehensive body of literature on the frogs and vertebrates in general.. and according to you based on the fact that you don't want to spend the money to gain access to the literature....


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

I'm not digging thru to where you said there are a bunch of different types and they act differently. Even better if they're all parasites I'd rather not mix and match.


Ed said:


> Where did I say they were commensuels? If you have that interpretation, then you have misunderstood both what I have stated and the literature. I have clearly stated they were parasites.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> And don't darts react differently to coccidia than other amphibs, as in they can't clear it from their body and other frogs can?


No, that is a myth that was perpetuated on frognet by one individual.. It is the same across all anurans and amphibians in general... this is clear in the literature. 

It doesn't make me angry.. I do get frustrated when deliberate ignorance is not only allowed free rein but is then passed on to the newer people. 

With respect to panacure.. it isn't a surprise that issues were eventually detected in species that were not part of the initial trials. Panacure was tested in domestic farm mammals (cows, pigs, sheep), those trials were extrapolated by vets into other species based on small scale (often use in a single animal) successes. There then was a huge bandwagon effect by vets and the hobby who started to use with little if any discretion (look back at the prophylactic dosing threads) with little or no attempt to control dosages (as it only had side effects when massively overdosed)... so it isn't surprising.. the literature for use of panacure in herps was very small and not replicated unlike the coccidia literature..

The thing about this argument is that if you are using it for panacure, then you shouldn't be using any supplements either.. as all of them were developed using data developed with domestic animals.. and we have seen issues with them as well... So the literatu


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*



frogfarm said:


> I'm not digging thru to where you said there are a bunch of different types and they act differently. Even better if they're all parasites I'd rather not mix and match.


I didn't say they acted differently.. so you did misinterpret. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

My fault then.
So your saying all coccidia are created equal? None are any more pathogenic than any other genus, species or strain?



Ed said:


> I didn't say they acted differently.. so you did misinterpret.
> 
> Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Making people care about mixing*

So your saying all coccidia are created equal? None are any more pathogenic than any other genus, species or strain?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Must've missed this post, looks like you got cut off too. 

Ignorance? For not wanting to transfer coccidia? I see it the same way as your ignorant to everything not included in that study. Funny.

Chytrid was found when it started affecting different frogs in different ways. Your telling me that novel pathogens not currently found in different species will have no different affect no matter what the genus/species and I just don't buy it. You said in that mixing thread that were constantly finding out new stuff about new pathogens.

Great argument that you can't tell if the frog doesn't have it till it's dead. I'll tell you what, I'll go on the idea that they don't have coccidia and try to maintain them w/out it till they die. Considering there are different types and probably different pathnogenicities I'll not try to collect them all. Considering I only had one case that definitely had adverse affects and have never found it otherwise(even though they were housed near and the tanks were the same and nothing was really different in the care of said animals and I've never had an "outbreak" here). Just because it's found in wc frogs doesn't mean it's passed on to every juvi born from it. I'll even tell them you don't believe my view for you. To me it's better to be cautious as I don't think they've studied all coccidia, that report was for auratus and pumilio, not epis, phyllos or any other species. I don't think you(well really they) are wrong, just incomplete in your body of knowledge. Like i said i'll be cautious till the next edition comes out

By the way, how did the ones that were free of coccidia avoid it if it's everywhere and so easily spread? Seems like there is some data missing.

What do you think of this?

Calci-Worms are also a natural weapon against coccidia. In addition to having a perfect balance of calcium and phosphorus, Calci-Worms provide high levels of natural lauric acid. Lauric acid is known for its excellent antimicrobial properties including potent activity against lipid coated viruses, clostridium and pathogenic protozoa including coccidia. Lauric acid is a medium chain saturated fatty acid found in Calci-Worms as well as some vegetable oils and in dairy products. 53% of the fat in Calci-Worms is beneficial lauric acid, a proven antimicrobial especially effective against coccidiosis.



Ed said:


> No, that is a myth that was perpetuated on frognet by one individual.. It is the same across all anurans and amphibians in general... this is clear in the literature.
> 
> It doesn't make me angry.. I do get frustrated when deliberate ignorance is not only allowed free rein but is then passed on to the newer people.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> Ignorance? For not wanting to transfer coccidia? I see it the same way as your ignorant to everything not included in that study. Funny.


No, my comment was to your direct refusal to look at any of the studies or accept any of them, even when the data was able to explain your experience with coccidia. I was clear on this.. 



frogfarm said:


> Chytrid was found when it started affecting different frogs in different ways. Your telling me that novel pathogens not currently found in different species will have no different affect no matter what the genus/species and I just don't buy it. You said in that mixing thread that were constantly finding out new stuff about new pathogens.


 
You are making an apples and oranges argument here.. Chytird is not a coccidian.. so it behaves differently. I suggest reading the papers on both.. 



frogfarm said:


> Great argument that you can't tell if the frog doesn't have it till it's dead. I'll tell you what, I'll go on the idea that they don't have coccidia and try to maintain them w/out it till they die.


So you have decided to ignore the data that supports infection rates of 100% for an individual of coccidia species and ignore the fact that each frog can be infected with multiple species of coccidia... as well as the fact that frogs may not shed it (indicating an infection), as well as the potential risks that allow them to become infected with multiple species. 



frogfarm said:


> Considering there are different types and probably different pathnogenicities I'll not try to collect them all.


This is a position that indicate a refusal to look at the research..




frogfarm said:


> Considering I only had one case that definitely had adverse affects and have never found it otherwise(even though they were housed near and the tanks were the same and nothing was really different in the care of said animals and I've never had an "outbreak" here). Just because it's found in wc frogs doesn't mean it's passed on to every juvi born from it.


I pointed out how the literature explained this above.. 



frogfarm said:


> I'll even tell them you don't believe my view for you. To me it's better to be cautious as I don't think they've studied all coccidia, that report was for auratus and pumilio, not epis, phyllos or any other species. I don't think you(well really they) are wrong, just incomplete in your body of knowledge. Like i said i'll be cautious till the next edition comes out
> 
> By the way, how did the ones that were free of coccidia avoid it if it's everywhere and so easily spread? Seems like there is some data missing.


Actually you are making an assumption that I am arguing from a position of belief. I am not argueing from a positon of bellief as I have not only supplied references that support my position but explain your experience.

Where did it say that there frogs that were totally free of coccidia? I suggest you review the articles and methodology as this indicates an ignorance of the data and the studies. 



frogfarm said:


> What do you think of this?
> 
> Calci-Worms are also a natural weapon against coccidia. In addition to having a perfect balance of calcium and phosphorus, Calci-Worms provide high levels of natural lauric acid. Lauric acid is known for its excellent antimicrobial properties including potent activity against lipid coated viruses, clostridium and pathogenic protozoa including coccidia. Lauric acid is a medium chain saturated fatty acid found in Calci-Worms as well as some vegetable oils and in dairy products. 53% of the fat in Calci-Worms is beneficial lauric acid, a proven antimicrobial especially effective against coccidiosis.


I'm going to say that if you bother to actually do some research you might not believe the hype as you could (in theory) gain an understanding of fat metabolism and absorbition during coccidia infections.. but given that you have decided that your position is going to be the opposite of any data or references I can provide, I'm not going to bother as I have better things to do than waste my time on this any more. 
Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Kewl......


Ed said:


> No, my comment was to your direct refusal to look at any of the studies or accept any of them, even when the data was able to explain your experience with coccidia. I was clear on this..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

This all tells me they don't pass them on to their offspring except for crapping in their pool(doesn't happen in captivity). Also that some cross species and some don't and that some frogs don't have coccidia, even in the wild. Considering it's a parasite and causes damage, I don't believe 100% of captive born have it and I also believe they are better of because of it. Just because wc animals have it a lot doesn't mean cb will, which is probably why in general cb breed better than wc animals and why they live more than the 3 years they make it in the wild. As most of us are not zoos and don't have rats and la cucurachas roaming freely, maybe 100% of cb frogs don't have it. I was unable to find anything in the first study about cb frogs, do any of the studies mention anything about cb frogs so I can read about that?

In their comprehensive review of anuran coccidians, Upton
and McAllister (1988) suggested strict host specificity. Of the
6 species of frogs we examined from Nebraska, only western
chorus frogs were infected with coccidians. Importantly, at our
study site all frog species were collected from the same general
location and overlap in habitat use, particularly during the
breeding seasonThese observations may be important when considering that
most anuran coccidians are fully sporulated in the gut lumen of
their amphibian hosts and, therefore, are probably directly infective
when ingested (Paperna and Lainson, 1995). Our data
support observations by Upton and McAllister (1988) that most
anuran coccidia rarely cross species boundaries. A recent review
by Duszynski et al. (2000) indicates that of the 22 species
of Eimeria and 22 species of Isospora reported from anurans,
L cruzi has been shown to infect 4 species of Scinax (treefrogs,
Hylidae), whereas 4 Eimeria species and 2 Isospora species
have been shown to infect multiple species of true frogs (Ranidae),
i.e., Rana. If our specimens of E. streckeri from Nebraska
chorus frogs and the ones described by Upton and McAllister
(1988) from Texas P. streckeri are really a single species, it
can also be added to the list of coccidians that can infect multiple
species of frogs. Therefore, it appears that at least some
anuran coccidian species can infect multiple species of frogs in
the same genus, but none is known to cross generic boundaries.
Unfortunately, few studies examine amphibians of multiple species
from the same location for coccidian parasites. More field
studies and experimental infections must be conducted before
we have a better understanding of host specificity of coccidian
parasites of frogs.
parasites of frogs.
In our study, tadpoles of frogs were not infected with E.
streckeri, whereas 25% of laboratory-maintained P. t. triseriata
tadpoles shed oocysts of L cogginsi during June 2002


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> This all tells me they don't pass them on to their offspring except for crapping in their pool(doesn't happen in captivity). Also that some cross species and some don't and that some frogs don't have coccidia, even in the wild. Considering it's a parasite and causes damage, I don't believe 100% of captive born have it and I also believe they are better of because of it. Just because wc animals have it a lot doesn't mean cb will, which is probably why in general cb breed better than wc animals and why they live more than the 3 years they make it in the wild. As most of us are not zoos and don't have rats and la cucurachas roaming freely, maybe 100% of cb frogs don't have it. I was unable to find anything in the first study about cb frogs, do any of the studies mention anything about cb frogs so I can read about that?


 
I suggest a review of frog physiology and structure and how wastes and other materials are voided. You are missing a huge potential method that would allow infection of the tadpoles eggs. 

Your premise is also ignoring the flaw in the methodology. 

I cited the paper on captive frogs early on.. you refused it as you couldn't access a free copy. As you have refused to critically reveiw the free examples I was able to pull for you.. I'm not going to do the work. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

The only way they say, in those free articles, that coccidia is passed on to tads is thru a frog decomposing and releasing coccidia from the liver or from pooping in the pool. There is no talk of eggs, just liver and poop. There is talk of less than 100% infection rates though. Maybe I'll have to go to the library but I don't see what you wanted me to gleam from those articles as they only talk about coccidians that can cross species boundaries and w/ the # of species present in each genus for dart frogs it looks like a lot of cross infection can go on. They did state that there are populations that have coccidia and populations that don't, and some individuals in contaminated population that don't have coccidia. And there are a lot of" we think this is the way it happens" and "the most likely way for this to happen would be", etc. 
And you may be right, a potential method, not definite. As I said, you can draw your conclusions and act accordingly and I'll draw mine since there weren't many definites from what I've read. Esp. from 2 different continents which dart frogs don't live and all that according to wild as opposed to captive situations. And I still don't see how cockroaches and rats come in if they can't cross species boundaries.
Like I said, I'll try and get to the library. 



Ed said:


> I suggest a review of frog physiology and structure and how wastes and other materials are voided. You are missing a huge potential method that would allow infection of the tadpoles eggs.
> 
> Your premise is also ignoring the flaw in the methodology.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I'm not going to bother going through the effort to provide the appropriate references as they will just be dismissed out of hand... 

1) there is no indication that coccidia are only excreted with fecal material. In fact this is contraindicated by not only experience with other issues but physiology. For example, there is no indication that coccidia are not voided along with the bladder contents or with eggs, particularly in light of coccidia that infect the kidneys and would be transported to the bladder. The contents of the bladder are also used to wet eggs or transport sperm for fertilization. Knowledge of the behaviors and physiology of the host is as important as understanding the parasite. 

2) verticle transmission of microsporidia has been shown to occur in the ovaries before eggs have even been deposited as far back as 1978. 

3) shedding in a fecal or urine sample demostrates a positive but a failure to detect coccidia in the fecal can be due to a failure of methodolgy or the fact that frogs can go long periods without ever shedding coccidia, this is well represented in the literature. 

4) a squash of the intestines only finds coccidia that parasitize the intestines and misses coccidia that infect other tissues (which can still cause symptoms) (only one of several of the possible reasons it wasn't found on the necropsies you had done)

5) coccidia can be transported in or on, an invertebrate or rodent (or other mobile organism (or plant material or wood into an enclosure). Ingestion of coccidia can occur by ingestion of infected soil, materials, insects or other vectors. 

6) methodology in the most of the articles does not check all tissues but only fecals or at best intestines and fecals yet other literature indicates the only way to be sure of a lack of infection is antemortum.

7) the same genera of coccida found in Europe and North America are also known to occur in amphibians in Africa and Latin America. I didn't bother to look at Asia for examples but there isn't any reason to think they wouldn't be there as well as they are considered to be distributed globally.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Is there proof, that in dart frogs, they are discarded in the bladder contents? And since they don't always shed doesn't that mean they won't always be deposited w/ eggs, so there'd be a chance some/most would be clean, esp if being suppressed? What about washing the eggs w/ distilled as if they're that prone to popping I'm sure distilled would do the same as saline? If there are any populations w/out coccidia of say pumilio, auratus, tincs etc., which by those papers I'm sure there are, they'd cross infect in a mixed viv. Does the paper your citing say they are definately passed that way or do they think they're transmitted that way, there's a difference. And is transmission always 100% across all populations of dart frogs?

So your telling me there is no possible way to get a clean frog from an infected frog and that there is no chance of clean populations of dart frogs? For someone who doesn't like absolutes you sure like absolutes. 

In that mixed viv equation didn't you say that a clean frog could get out of balance if introduced to pathogens? Basically they'd take a clean gut and overpopulate it? Or am I remembering wrong?

And one of the papers said that the coccidia population was gone/died when the pools dried up. So how would it transfer w/out moisture?

And it seems that, by sacrificing a tadpole or 2 you should then be able to tell if your breeding pair does in fact have coccidia and if it is always passed in the tads.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

1) coccida can remain viable in the enviroment (and substrate) for more than a year.... 

2) the frogs can readily track spores from infected soild etc into the egg deposition site before, during or post egg deposition. Washing the eggs is likely to be ineffectial.. (I'll give you a hint.. look at the physiological actions of the jelly mass.. ) 

3) I would suggest rereading the paper regarding moisture.. they stated they were unable to test for it as they couldn't aquire specimens from that area to check.. 

It isn't my absolute (despite your opinion otherwise), it is what the data indicates.. 
There are many parasites that are found in a majority of a population.. for exampler Demodex canis (which is found in close to 100% of all puppies raised by thier mothers).. and as with the recommendations with coccidia, we don't treat for them unless they are causing problems. Since infection with coccidia is effectively unavoidable (much like trying to get and keep a dog free of Demodex mites), the method is control only if it causes disease. This is not a novel ideal in treatments... (or Demodex brevis which can be found in over 70% of the human population).


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I'll do the tadpole test before I accept it's in all my frogs. Phrases like unlikely to be effectual dont sit well w/ me. I'm kinda the doubting Thomas type if you hadn't noticed. 

And your saying that suppression or not shedding is still going to transfer coccidia to eggs? I don't see how if it's suppressed and not in the immediate environment to transfer in to the eggs. And I didn't say washing I meant a liquid w/ the correct pressure to pop them. You said they rupture easily. Either way I'll still act as if it's not in my collection. It takes hardcore proof for me to accept it's in everything. Esp since there are populations recorded that don't have coccidia.
I'll go to the local university and see if anyone wants to do a paper by dissecting some tads. It seems to me if some tads don't get affected in the wild there is much better chance of having some in captivity that don't have it either. Although I haven't read the last paper I'm not convinced yet.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

*Some thin-walled* species are popped through the use of hypersaline.. I suggest you review the effects of the jelly so you understand why rinsing won't work.. 

Not all coccidia use the tadpole stage to carry to the adult, you are misconstruing the data.. 


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Protozoa in Poison Dart Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Clinical Assessment and Identification
Sarah L. Poynton and Brent R. Whitaker
Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine
Vol. 25, No. 1, Reptile and Amphibian Issue (Mar., 1994), pp. 29-39


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So your saying some aren't present in the tadpole stage then how would the metamorphs get it then? Esp if they go into their own tank that doesn't have it? The papers you gave me don't have that data, you must be referring to the pay per view. I did only skim the articles but i don't remember anything about the egg jelly.
And if you supress it or it's not shedding it shouldn't come out in feces, sperm, egg or from the bladder.




Ed said:


> *Some thin-walled* species are popped through the use of hypersaline.. I suggest you review the effects of the jelly so you understand why rinsing won't work..
> 
> Not all coccidia use the tadpole stage to carry to the adult, you are misconstruing the data..
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Sigh... 

1) a lack of a coccidia in a tadpole does not indicate that the metamorphs or the adults are clean as 
a) they could become infected through consuming insects.. such as the scenario you refer to as a reason to get out of breeding for the pet trade 


> live too close to a number of bodies of water and have insect hatches getting thru the screens during the summer.


. 
b) coccidia can remain viable for more than a year in substrates or other materials (and some coccidia can resist pretty much anything except autoclaving) so the frogs can contract it from these exposures 
c) aquire it from transfer between cages (by keepers or stray insects)


With respect to the jelly... it uptakes and swells around items close to the eggs.. it would encase and protect any coccidia deposited on/under the eggs (and this is ignoring coccidia that could be present ahead of time, or transferred during site prep.. or during fertilization or during wetting.... or simply walking across the eggs.. 

The coccidia remains in the enclosure etc as a viable infectious agent for a long time.. and as noted some coccidians can be transmitted directly to the egg.. 

And just for the record, I am going to refer back to Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry which (as a paraphrase) says, coccidia are not a concern unless you are actually seeing disease symptoms such as (not meant to be inclusive), lethargy, diarrhea, rapid weight loss.. along with shedding of coccidia and even then the treatment is more aimed at controlling bacterial infections than the coccidia..


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

If it's not found in some tads and there are no transgenic coccidia, how would tadpoles transferred to a different facility get coccidia. There are no dendrobatids native to the US. Transgenic means across genus transfer, correct? If froglets are cared for first, and I don't go poking in all my tanks, froglets should be clean for a while if they have a clean substrate that doesn't come from SA.
I was referring to chytrid which may be found around here, not coccidia which shouldn't be able to transfer to any frogs I have here from the outside as there are no native dendrobatids here. 
And if the frogs aren't shedding there shouldn't be tons of coccidia all over to spread around. You said they could be not shedding for extended periods of time.
And how would treating bacteria suppress coccidia?
So your whole premise of them getting coccidia after metamorphosis is about bad husbandry(going tank to tank) and not having ff proof tanks?
Sorry no proof there. If the tads can not have it then they can retain that to adulthood from getting tads and not having other frogs in that genus or acquiring all your frogs as tads. I simply refuse to believe that something is that contagious w/out being airborne. Maybe you couldn't contain it or keep it out in a zoo but i'm sure that home collections could if they aren't transferred across genus. Maybe someone who reuses substrate, transfers plants and the like couldn't contain it but that doesn't mean it can't be excluded.


Ed said:


> Sigh...
> 
> 1) a lack of a coccidia in a tadpole does not indicate that the metamorphs or the adults are clean as
> a) they could become infected through consuming insects.. such as the scenario you refer to as a reason to get out of breeding for the pet trade
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So the frogs immune system suppress' it? Then the immune system should keep it from shedding for extended periods resulting in coccidia free tads.

That should be after how would treating bacteria suppress coccidia.

And i'm not worried about some coccidia( the marathon ones that don't affect dendrobatids) I'm interested specifically w/ the ones that affect dendrobatids. The other ones it really doesn't matter what they can do if they don't parasitize dendrobatids.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> If it's not found in some tads and there are no transgenic coccidia, how would tadpoles transferred to a different facility get coccidia. There are no dendrobatids native to the US. Transgenic means across genus transfer, correct? If froglets are cared for first, and I don't go poking in all my tanks, froglets should be clean for a while if they have a clean substrate that doesn't come from SA.
> I was referring to chytrid which may be found around here, not coccidia which shouldn't be able to transfer to any frogs I have here from the outside as there are no native dendrobatids here.
> And if the frogs aren't shedding there shouldn't be tons of coccidia all over to spread around. You said they could be not shedding for extended periods of time.
> And how would treating bacteria suppress coccidia?
> ...


No that is not what transgenic means see define:Transgenic - Google Search 

1) there is abundent data that coccidia can jump taxa.. for example cryptosporidia serpens complex normally infects reptiles but it has been reported a number of times from amphibians as active infection (and that is totally incurable and untreatable). So you cannot say that local coccidia cannot jump into dendrobatids not only from other amphibians but reptiles. With that said, we go back to the policy on coccidia risks as outlined in the literature and repeated several times above. (as a side note.. anurans can get and be killed by Toxoplasmosis as well..) 

2) Chytrid unlike coccidia is easily managed in the collection and there is amply evidence that a collection can be managed to be free of chytrid while the opposite is true of coccidia. Also the medical literature supports that a collection should be managed to be free of chytrid while coccidia should be considered to be present and only managed if it causes symptoms...

3) even if the coccidia is not consistently shed, this does not mean that there is not a moderate or even large load of coccidia in the enclosure or on materials being placed into the enclosure. Intermittant shedding does not mean that low numbers are shed into the substrate. 

4) despite abundent evidence in the literature (including medical), you keep attempting to inflate the risk than an infection of coccidia poses to the frogs while refusing to believe that it is as prevelent as indicated by the literature (which also looked at captive dendrobatids as cited above).. 
No where have I indicated that coccidia may not be an issue, but it is only an issue when it casuses a problem, and I have provided examples that are parallel.. here is the final parallel.. Aeromonas hydrophilia is a known amphibian pathogen that is always found in thier captive enviroments, and often in the digestive tracts of the frogs, yet even though it is there all of the time, we do not attempt to prevent exposure to Aeromonus nor do we treat frogs for it if it shows up in a fecal unless there are signs of an infection (even though septicemias from this bacteria can kill a frog in a matter of hours)...

5) coccidia as demonstrated by abundent data is not the risk to the collections posed by chytrid.. see #2

6) There is significant evidence in the frog medical literature (which you have consistently attempted to ignore), that the problem is a bacterial infection of the digestive tract (See Poynton etal or Wright et al) that could be from the coccidia. Controlling that infection appears to be as important or more important than treating the coccidia (actually the "treatment for coccidia in frogs is an antibiotic with a coccidiostat combination). It is considered to be a problem as coccidia are being shed from the infected region of the intestional tract along with the bacterial infection so the goal is to stop the bacterial infection and shedding of coccidia to allow the tissues to heal... A coccidiostat is used as it can't be cured so they just attempt to temporarily stop it from reproducing. 

Aaron, you have been unable to refute any of the arguments provided by the literature and the evidence against your postion is very significant, yet you continue to look for loopholes or potential exceptions while refusing to even look critically at the few articles you could get for free. Your position is unsupported, and even contradictory to the large body of literature. This has become beyond tedious as you are going to continue to look for a way out that allows you to "win" and the literature just doesn't support it. 

*To reiterate, coccidians, are not considered to be a medical issue for healthy amphibians.. This is repeated both implicitly and specifically in a number of places in the literature. *


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

You simply can not make the conclusions you do w/ the data present. Your really stretching the data to suit your concept that animals can not be clean from coccidia and use the fact that they may never shed and can only be considered negative after histopathology to make your claim irrefutable. There is no evidence that says 100% of amphibians in captivity are positive as not even 100% of the amphibans in the wild have it. You have proven nothing. Your just stretching data to support an idea that is an absolute, which is your theory. Just because there is a hi possibility(depending on your husbandry) that your frogs may get it is not a reason to throw up your hands and not try.
I've said over and over we'll have to disagree but you seem to want to make an absolute out of a theory. You've used qualities from numerous coccidia that probably don't even affect darts to make scenerios which can't be confirmed in darts. 

You can try all you want but I simply don't buy your pitch. No where have I seen the phrase" you can't keep coccidia out of your darts" anywhere, it's simply your interpretation that you can't. So you gave up. All studies on wild amphibs and you know stuff from the field doesn't transfer into the lab all the time and vice versa. You have proven nothing. You simply can't prove it and your making your own conclusions.

I can't get those free papers but I'll have to go back and read what they said about coccidia being able to infect different species in teh same genus but they knew of none that could infect outside their genus. Maybe I used the wrong word.

Simply stated since amphibians can be free of coccidia and it is a parasite and poses risk, you'd not want to put an amphibian w/out coccidia in with an animal w/ coccidia as you stated yourself a clean gut can be overtaken by parasites and cause a problem.

And a few hisopaths on frogs bred by one person or institution says more about the husbandry of said institution than it does about the hobby as a whole.



Ed said:


> No that is not what transgenic means see define:Transgenic - Google Search
> 
> 1) there is abundent data that coccidia can jump taxa.. for example cryptosporidia serpens complex normally infects reptiles but it has been reported a number of times from amphibians as active infection (and that is totally incurable and untreatable). So you cannot say that local coccidia cannot jump into dendrobatids not only from other amphibians but reptiles. With that said, we go back to the policy on coccidia risks as outlined in the literature and repeated several times above. (as a side note.. anurans can get and be killed by Toxoplasmosis as well..)
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> You simply can not make the conclusions you do w/ the data present. Your really stretching the data to suit your concept that animals can not be clean from coccidia and use the fact that they may never shed and can only be considered negative after histopathology to make your claim irrefutable. There is no evidence that says 100% of amphibians in captivity are positive as not even 100% of the amphibans in the wild have it. You have proven nothing. Your just stretching data to support an idea that is an absolute, which is your theory. Just because there is a hi possibility(depending on your husbandry) that your frogs may get it is not a reason to throw up your hands and not try.
> I've said over and over we'll have to disagree but you seem to want to make an absolute out of a theory. You've used qualities from numerous coccidia that probably don't even affect darts to make scenerios which can't be confirmed in darts.
> 
> You can try all you want but I simply don't buy your pitch. No where have I seen the phrase" you can't keep coccidia out of your darts" anywhere, it's simply your interpretation that you can't. So you gave up. All studies on wild amphibs and you know stuff from the field doesn't transfer into the lab all the time and vice versa. You have proven nothing. You simply can't prove it and your making your own conclusions.
> ...


1) I am not streching the data.. contrary to your position. 
2) I am not pitching anything or selling anything.. I am not even stating my opinion, I have repeatedly provided citations that prove my point. Contrary to your claim, you have repeatedly refused to look at that data unless it was provided free of cost to you.. even when I provided those sources, you refused to critically read the information and as a result repeatedly incorrectly interpreted the information. When I typed out relevent citations you refused to accept the citations... even when they come from acknowledged experts in the field (as you have decided your anecdotal information trumps the experts (and no I'm not referring to myself). 
3) you have repeatedly been unable to provide citations or data that support your postions or anecdotal information in direct contrast to my ability to directly support my positon with multiple references.
4) your position is not only in direct conflict with the best medical information which has not changed in more than a decade but is also in conflict with a large body of evidence. 
5) you have refused to acknowledge the study done in dendrobatids because you cannot be bothered to aquire it for yourself. 
6) you have continually attempted to interpret the data as a personal opinion of mine totally disregarding the data. 

I provided proof and references for my positions... we are no longer in the 1980s or 1990s when there wasn't access to a lot of literature or references to learn about these things.. it is time to move out of the darkness into the light.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 9,168
Thanks: 49
Thanked 450 Times in 266 Posts
Default
Rarely are they the direct cause of a frogs demise. I know it is often hard to convince people of this fact. As a culture, most of us are repulsed at the very thought of internal parasites. But when viewed from an evolutionary and ecological perspective they are quite normal. I am convinced that all the trouble some of us go through to treat our frogs, displace them into tempory quaratine, and totally disinfect everything is unwarranted and causes more harm than the parasite in the frog. George
This is true with many of the parasites that infect frogs however there are exceptions such as hookworm, Rhabdias and some strains of coccidia. As for the host specifity, the ones I have listed above show an amazing ability to jump hosts and the same species of Rhabdias that infects frogs readily infects caudates...
The PITT transmission you refer to above tends to be the most host specific as the parasite has an end host it is trying to reach but this does not prevent cross infection of other hosts..(like sparganosis)(I think I spelled that correctly).





Ed said:


> 1) I am not streching the data.. contrary to your position.
> 2) I am not pitching anything or selling anything.. I am not even stating my opinion, I have repeatedly provided citations that prove my point. Contrary to your claim, you have repeatedly refused to look at that data unless it was provided free of cost to you.. even when I provided those sources, you refused to critically read the information and as a result repeatedly incorrectly interpreted the information. When I typed out relevent citations you refused to accept the citations... even when they come from acknowledged experts in the field (as you have decided your anecdotal information trumps the experts (and no I'm not referring to myself).
> 3) you have repeatedly been unable to provide citations or data that support your postions or anecdotal information in direct contrast to my ability to directly support my positon with multiple references.
> 4) your position is not only in direct conflict with the best medical information which has not changed in more than a decade but is also in conflict with a large body of evidence.
> ...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-health-disease-treatment/24598-darts-w-parasites-2.html

11-17-2007, 09:39 AM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 9,168
Thanks: 49
Thanked 450 Times in 266 Posts
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacerta
This is frustrating. I had a response all prepared and when I submitted I was prompted to LogIn. I must of timed out or dropped the connection. So here goes a second attempt.

This also happened to me which between being tired and irritated resulted in the short response above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lacerta
Quote:
So what happens when the frog becomes stressed?
Impaired immune response. This immuno suppression can persist for a long time long after the stressors are removed. Both internal and external biota that would normally be innocuous, can then lead to a disease condition. This include not just helminthic parasites but even bacteria that is normally harmless.
The problem here is that a population of some parasites (like the three I named) can either contribute to this or once it occurs result in the death. One of the benefits I have in working at a Zoo with a pathologist is that we get necropsies performed on everything that dies and we also get to hear about issues at other institutions that perform necropsies.
Not too long ago, one institution distributed cb Gastrotheca ssp to other (multiple) institutions. All of the Gastrotheca died within days of shipping due to (confirmed by necropsy) very heavy Rhabdias infections. On necropsy they otherwise were in good condition. The stress of the shipping combined with the heavy infection resulted in the death of those frogs.


Thanks Ed for citing this interesting tidbit. Lesson learned: DONT MIX SPECIES. Specifically in this case Australian and South American. I wish them luck in finding a successful biologic control of this expanding anuran scourge. But despite the prevalence of infection in some areas it hasn't seemed to slow these exotics down. I am not surprised at the morbidity seen in young morphs with a naive immune system facing an exotic parasite. Of those that survive, I wonder how long it will take to establish an acquired or innate immunity in the overall population.
In additions to the issue with a naive immune system... all metamorphs are automatically immunosuppressed (and fairly significantly) due to changes in the immune system and to prevent them from rejecting the new adult tissues. Because of this, if they are in an enclosure with a heavy population of a parasite that can directly infect the metamorph, there can be losses as see in that link. This doesn't happen as much in the wild because the numbers of parasites are "diluted" by the volume of habitat in the wild.. but in an small enclosure, the exposure is much higher over a much longer period of time.
Also while R. bufonis may be considered the most commonly found species in captive anurans this does not mean that this is the one with which the anurans coevolved. There are a number of Rhabdias that infect anurans, and given R. bufonis's global distribution, I would not be surprised to learn that this is due to anthropogenic assistance or is actual a complex of species..... so the anurans are potentially encountering a novel (newly exposed to in the last 200 years) parasite just like the Marine toads in the link....


Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 9,168
Thanks: 49
Thanked 450 Times in 266 Posts
Default
Some of the parasites are the same but for example with coccidia, there are many different strains which have differnet ranges of pathnogencity some of these strains are not going to be found where that frog was native. Once a frog has been infected with coccidia, it is always infected as has been shown on necropsy
Also there are a number of different Rhabdias species that have differnet host ranges in thier natal ranges but as shown with the Marine toad link, they are capable of jumping hosts.

Its not really fair to cite Rich on here when he can't comment or refute anything on this site but based on studies done in other anurans, that the wild populations have a prevelance of infected frogs but the parasite load is low.
I have to say in 15 years of quarantining and testing wild caught and captive bred amphibians, I am always surprised when an amphibian or group of amphibians in quarantine tests negative... and am not surprised when they test positive...

There are a number of parasite surveys of wild anurans... just search the literature... new parasites are discovered all the time... Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

> So the frogs immune system suppress' it? Then the immune system should keep it from shedding for extended periods resulting in coccidia free tads.
> 
> That should be after how would treating bacteria suppress coccidia.
> 
> ...


Yep, from the Herp Vets, and other Vets along with Vet Techs coccidia is easy to see under a microscope. Not curable in darts but can be put in remission with meds. 
Controllable and treatable yes, do I want them in my collection, no. I test!
For those out there that do not test or treat, buy WC frogs......
Buyer beware! The seller selling the WC do not give a care in the world about you or the frogs being sold just the almighty dollar. 
Why the big upset? Do you care about your frogs, reputatation? I would hope you do.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...isease-chytrid-testing-large-collections.html

Old 03-11-2007, 06:44 PM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 9,168
Thanks: 49
Thanked 450 Times in 266 Posts
Default
Some comments,

At work all incoming animals are tested via three fecals for any intestional parasites. If they originated in a group (say siblings) then group fecals are fine as opposed to individual fecals. Then the animals have thier fecals checked twice a year after that (although if they are then housed in a group a single fecal is used to check the enclosure) unless there are health issues noted when multiple fecal submissions maybe required.

the water would not drown the hookworm or lungworm larva so yes if either of these are present in the collection it would facilitate thier dispersal into the wider community and lungworms can be very difficult to clear...

Yes you could easily spread ranaviruses, iridioviruses etc through the collection. Red leg is a little different as this is typically caused by one or more species of bacteria that are always found in the enclosures we use to house amphibians. This typically only shows up when the amphibian is immunosuppressed for some reason.

When I last looked into the testing of chytrid they were working on a PCR test on water the frog was soaked/washed in but hadn't gotten it to the point where it was reliable.

We automatically test/treat all suspected amphibians for chytrid. Species that are very sensitive such as Atelopus ssp and Bufo baxteri are prophylactically treated upon arrival.

The problem with itraconazole is that it is an acidic solution which is why it caused problems in the initial testing of its effectiveness and needs to be buffered to a neutral pH (hence the use of ARS) so I am at a loss why you would want to mix it with orange juice which is already a low pH....

We make the baths up daily from the liquid itraconazole suspension and discard after treatment. You can treat animals in groups in each bath (1 liter is a typical bath amount for us) although I would use different baths for each group to prevent the spread of coccidia, lungworms etc...
The liquid suspension as long as it is kept out of the light (dark containers) and cool is supposed to have a reasonable shelf life.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Just the quote of you saying there are different pathnogenicities and they are one of the three you listed to worry about, as they can compound stress, is enough to tell me that mixing may cause some problems when coccidia is involved. Unfortunately you can never tell if they have coccidia. Your words. And since you can't tell whether an animal has them or not, why risk it?


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Old 10-28-2008, 09:35 PM
kwrightdvm kwrightdvm is offline
Junior Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 5
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Post Re: Regular treatment for parasites?
This is my first posting to the forum so I apologize if I am overlooking a comment that was similar to mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Wright, DVM
Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital
744 N Center Street
Mesa, AZ 85201
Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital
Share on Twitter
Reply With Quote


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/12712-quarantining-later-life-3.html#post110399

Old 06-24-2006, 10:14 PM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 9,168
Thanks: 49
Thanked 450 Times in 266 Posts
Default
snip "Ed. the soil and it's microbes, plants, fungi etc do a great job at cleaning up the waste (nitrogen cycle etc,) but do nothing to eliminate the parasitic eggs and larvae or coccidia. Moist soil is the ideal environment for these pathogens. Or did I misunderstand you?"endsnip

I was referring to the ability to break down waste and process nitrogenous waste. The idea that the frogs are walking around in their own waste is only partially correct as once the tank gets going, waste in moist locations (off plant leaves) is rapidly degraded through the action of a lot of organisms including soil nematodes.

Onto the topic of parasitic organisms, many of these require a host stage or vector to be transmissiable to the frogs. In those that don't require a host stage like the Rhabdias nematodes that have free living life stage then these are the ones that readily build up into super infections. Coccidia requires the ingestion of the oocysts for the infection to continue. This typically occurs via a insect that has consumed the coccida but direct transmission can occur through the consumption of the infectious particles as secondary material when prey items are consumed.
With respect to coccidia, once the frog is infected, it will always be infected (Whittaker and Wright; 2001), treatment only renders the frog asymptomatic.

Some comments,

Ed
_______________


I don't know why you'd want to disinfect for coccidia but.....

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/12632-used-tank-question.html#post108448


Old 07-24-2006, 08:21 AM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 9,168
Thanks: 49
Thanked 450 Times in 266 Posts
Default
snip "Just posting to say that bleach will not kill coccidia (Mader, Reptile Medicine and Surgery)! It will desroy the living organisms, but not the endospores, which will just come "back to life" when favorable conditions return. Cleaners, such as MRs40 (designed "endsnip

As I understand it, it depends on which "coccidia" is being considered as the infectious agent. Mader's statement is correct because cryptosporidia is considered by some to be a coccidia (see htttp://biology.unm.edu/biology/coccidia/home.html for an example) and the oocysts of this are not affected by bleach but I believe other coccidia oocysts are effectively disinfected by bleach.

Ed
__________________
Cottleston, Cottleston Cottleston Pie,
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.
Share on Twitter
Reply With Quote


http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/food-feeding/10956-foods-parasite-vector.html#post92214


04-01-2006, 07:35 PM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 9,168
Thanks: 49
Thanked 450 Times in 266 Posts
Default
It is unlikely (very very) that this will introduce chytrid to the enclosure unless you include soil in with sample.
As for coccidia and other parasites, this is a possibility however, you should keep in mind that unless your enclosure is sealed from insect penetration then there is a risk that these parasites can be introuduced into the enclosures via outside contaminents such as fungus gnats, phorid flies, soil attached to plants and moss samples etc.

That said, you should also keep in mind that some insects are going to be at greater risk for parasite transmission as opposed to others. Insects like ants, and beetles are some of the higher risk field plankton while insects like aphids will be a lower risk... (this is a opinion based on gleaning through a lot of articles and not on a definitive report). (for an article on rearing aphids see http://www.tracyhicks.com/aphid.htm )

The use of things like field plankton helps prevent prey satiation while potentially adding carotenoids etc that the frogs are not recieving through the normal diets.

Ed


Ed
__________________
Cottleston, Cottleston Cottleston Pie,
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.
Share on Twitter
Reply With Quote

Old 04-04-2006, 03:44 PM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 9,168
Thanks: 49
Thanked 450 Times in 266 Posts
Default
If you trade cutting etc, then using plants from outside is really no different. Chytrid is endemic to a lot of places in the USA so there is a risk for that as well as coccidia and other parasites.

Ed
__________________
Cottleston, Cottleston Cottleston Pie,
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.
Share on Twitter
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Thanks


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

I don't want to join the debate, but want to add a few thoughts and links. 

Coccidia is suppressed in many captive herps. Leopard Geckos and Bearded Dragons to name a few. I believe the summery is really pointing at management http://wvc.omnibooksonline.com/data/papers/2005_V424.pdf

Wild population with coccida present, and in check:
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/documents/05DEG.A01.pdf

I don't like adding this link "Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry" can be downloaded from two links provided here:
Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry - Free eBooks Download

A good list of disinfectants and what they can treat: 
Disinfectants


----------



## Steve25 (Jan 29, 2010)

Just to add a note.. I'm still a newbie. I had a fecal test on my frog and it had coccidia. I only have 1; Auratus is super fine, perfect weight and bold. She is 16 months old.. Should I worry even though she looks normal

I received the coccidia power from the DVM on board and I give that to her 1-2 times a week. From reading the posts it seems no matter what frog we get we are bound to have some sort of parasite, disease, or harm.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Aaron,

I'm not sure what you intended to prove with pulling up those older posts.. I've moved my thoughts on issues as the information has become more available to me (As indicated by the numerous citations) and I've been clear multiple times, that I intend to keep looking for new information. A good example of this is how my thoughts on hypovitaminosis of A and carotenoids has changed in the last 20 years and the impact the sharing of that information has had on the hobby.... 

I am always looking for the best information which means I research topics and move forwards with my thoughts.. As I noted above, we are no longer in the old days when anecdotal information provided virtually all of the methods of husbandry. Unfortunately, anecdotal advice is often based on incomplete or incorrect ideas.... 

So if you can provide better citations than quoting me during my evolution of ideas on this topic.. feel free...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Steve25 said:


> Just to add a note.. I'm still a newbie. I had a fecal test on my frog and it had coccidia. I only have 1; Auratus is super fine, perfect weight and bold. She is 16 months old.. Should I worry even though she looks normal
> 
> I received the coccidia power from the DVM on board and I give that to her 1-2 times a week. From reading the posts it seems no matter what frog we get we are bound to have some sort of parasite, disease, or harm.


Harm is the wrong word... If the frogs are healthy and given proper husbandry, they can deal with the majority of exposures. With that said there are some potential exceptions... I suggest following the treatment regimen provided by the vet and get routine fecal checks to monitor the frogs and use a supplement that contains a source of vitamin A as retinyl palmitate. 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

The beginning premise of the paper was that there are less than 12 papers on dendros and they are mostly from wc animals and most are isolated reports rather then comprehensive surveys. It lists that the studies were from wc pumilio and auratus(missing 4 genera and countless #'s dendrobatid species reports and the cb were from one very large collection which houses wc frogs and has other critters transporting stuff and multiple employees which may or may not disinfect equipment or themselves well). The final conclusion of that paper was that they studied wc frogs and need to further research what's actually in future colonies that are cb since the gut fauna had changed. The protozoal communities change with further generations in captivity. Coccidia was only present in 1% of the feces, which means it isn't being spread all over to be taken up by insects. There are no conclusives from what's naturally in their system as opposed to what's gotten in from backyards or which is more harmful. You have not convinced me that there is no issue w/ mixing when coccidia is involved. It lowers the ability of the animal to deal w/ stress. And i probably missed it(since I don't know all the commen genera and species of coccidia as opposed to commensual protozoa) but it said 100% had protozoa but I'm not sure what % had coccidia.
So you no longer think that there are different coccidia that are of more harm than others?
You seem to only see what's in front of you and neglect what's possible.
You continue w/ your view and I'll continue w/ mine. 
you should probably post up the new info you get in the sticky on health rather than correcting people who are remembering your past posts. Maybe start by saying i used to think that but w/ this new info.... Seemd like you were just contradicting your past thoughts to get on my nerves (considering i didn't think there was enough info to change my mind and considering those articles were from 94 - 96 when you thought differently). Not that I think anything has changed w/ this one new paper but your free to interpret things however you like. Well I guess you kinda 



Ed said:


> Aaron,
> 
> I'm not sure what you intended to prove with pulling up those older posts.. I've moved my thoughts on issues as the information has become more available to me (As indicated by the numerous citations) and I've been clear multiple times, that I intend to keep looking for new information. A good example of this is how my thoughts on hypovitaminosis of A and carotenoids has changed in the last 20 years and the impact the sharing of that information has had on the hobby....
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

If you look at how people set-up and maintain enclosures you would see a lot of the same crossover risk of infection.. I believe I stated this was a risk several times in this whole argument…. Which you proceeded to attempt to dismiss.. 
Actually if you go back through the entire thread, *I have never said that coccidians were not harmful, in fact when you attempted to state they were commensuals I challenged you on it. *I have repeatedly cited the medical literature and I have in fact stated several times that coccidians were directly harmful to anurans.. and I have in fact repeated the current medical standard on coccidians.. which was quoted directly from Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry. 
With respect to the argument about coccidian preventing the frog from dealing with stress that you need to review how stress actually works as you are putting the cart before the horse….. 
*With respect to the risks of different coccidians.. you have not demonstrated that the risk of one coccidian is any greater than any other, while I have demonstrated that it does occur in the wild witt the implicit demonstration that is of no greater risk. *
Attempting to argue the positon on lack of coccidia is an argument from ignorance. It has no merit as it can be demostrated that coccidians are widely distributed and infectious in all amphibians studied to date along with the documentation that it can cause pathology in captive dendrobatids. 
*The position I started with and maintained through the whole argument was that using coccidians as a reason to not mix was a weak argument. I suggest that you critically read through your argument for the last couple of pages as you have been repeatedly making that point for me over and over again while trying to prove me wrong. *


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

It's a strong enough argument for me. Frogs can handle less stress before they start to get harmed w/ coccidia present. Really not worth all this arguing though. Peace out.


Ed said:


> If you look at how people set-up and maintain enclosures you would see a lot of the same crossover risk of infection.. I believe I stated this was a risk several times in this whole argument…. Which you proceeded to attempt to dismiss..
> Actually if you go back through the entire thread, *I have never said that coccidians were not harmful, in fact when you attempted to state they were commensuals I challenged you on it. *I have repeatedly cited the medical literature and I have in fact stated several times that coccidians were directly harmful to anurans.. and I have in fact repeated the current medical standard on coccidians.. which was quoted directly from Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry.
> With respect to the argument about coccidian preventing the frog from dealing with stress that you need to review how stress actually works as you are putting the cart before the horse…..
> *With respect to the risks of different coccidians.. you have not demonstrated that the risk of one coccidian is any greater than any other, while I have demonstrated that it does occur in the wild witt the implicit demonstration that is of no greater risk. *
> ...


----------

