# The truth about Panacur 2.0



## mantisdragon91

First of all let me apologize in advance to anyone who has seen some of this information previously. This was previously brought upon on another board, where the conversation got rather heated, because I presume someone felt their commercial interests being threatened.

Having said that it is interesting that there is still a small number of vets that are prescribing powdered panacur for the treatment/management of parasites. In the past decade there have been a substantial number of studies done on mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians(although sadly no darts) as to the effects of and tolerance levels of panacur dosing. The studies have shown pretty much the same thing. Panacur has a much narrower range of tolerance than previously believed. Too much can lead to bone marrow toxicity and other negative affects up to and including death, too little can lead to parasite immunity and the loss of a valuable weapon in our parasite management arsenal. 

With that being the case how can anyone in good faith recommend dusting your fruit flies with panacur when there is no way to guarantee the dosage consumed because of multiple factors beyond our control?

Out of curiousity I have posed this question to a number of ARAV members and the thing that was consistently pointed out to me is that Panacur carries some of the highest profit margins out of any drug commonly prescribed in the veterinary community. I look forward to people sharing their experiences and thoughts on this and look forward to a positive and productive discussion on the topic.


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

If you can't deliver panacur by dusting fruit flies how do you treat tiny, delicate frogs for hookworms?


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Ivermectin is the medicine of choice because it is water soluble and precise dosages can be delivered.


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

And how would you do that?


----------



## ChrisK

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

I treated a Blue Jeans froglet with an ivermectin dilution at one drop for froglets and 2 drops for pumilio adults on the back, same schedule as panacur.


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

You just drop the solution on the frogs?


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Below is an article provided to me by Kevin Wright DVM this summer. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the section that answers your question:

NAVC Conference 2009
______________________________________________________________________________________________

HOW I TREAT NEMATODES IN FROGS
Kevin Wright, DVM
Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital, LLC
Mesa, AZ
Nematodes are a ubiquitous presence in captive frog
collections. I advocate a discussion between the
veterinarian and the client to understand the purpose of
the frog collection and to develop a preventive health
program based on an assessment of the risk posed by
nematodes and the potential impact their presence may
have on management (eg, exchanging specimens with
other collections). A particularly thorny issue is the
presence of nematodes in frogs destined for assurance
colonies. These frogs are genetic reservoirs against
extinctions in the wild and they come in with a spectrum
of parasites that shared their natural environments. The
balance shifts in captivity for a variety of reasons, many
of which are incompletely understood. Is it the best
management choice to eliminate these parasites in
captive specimens and thereby possibly artificially select
for frogs that have immune systems that have never
encountered by these nematodes when their offspring
may one day be reintroduced into the wild and have to
face these same parasites?
In many cases, frogs appear to be perfectly healthy
despite a high number of nematode ova or larvae being
found regularly in their feces. I believe that in some
cases my prolonged rigorous anthelmintic treatments
and associated sanitation and hygiene management
may have sent frogs into a decline. Currently I do not
recommend treatment for frogs that are apparently
healthy, eating well and maintaining or gaining weight,
and producing normal feces despite the presence of
nematode ova or larvae per high power field on direct or
flotation fecal parasite exams. However, if any frogs in
the collection appear unthrifty, there are mortalities with
nematodes implicated or there are otherwise
unexplained mortalities, or direct fecal parasite exams
reveal more than 5 to10 RBCs or 1 to 5 WBCs per high
power field along with nematode ova or larvae, I do
recommend treatment.
*Topical ivermectin at 4 mg/kg repeated at 7, 14, and
21 days is an easy to administer anthelmintic that is
effective on many nematodes. I have also given it by
diluting 10 mg of ivermectin into 1000 mL of water and
using it as a 60- to 120-minute shallow bath repeated at
7, 14, and 21 days and it appears to be effective despite
the insolubility of ivermectin in water. Direct topical
application or baths are useful for small frogs where
injections or oral medications are impractical. This dose
is quite high compared with the 0.2 mg/kg I recommend
for oral and injectable routes. When ivermectin needs to
be delivered to tiny frogs, consider asking a
compounding pharmacy to prepare a 0.1 mg/mL
injectable solution. Otherwise, you may orally administer
ivermectin diluted with vegetable oil or propylene glycol
to this concentration or even 0.05 mg/mL for very tiny
frogs.*Fenbendazole, at 25 to 50 mg/kg PO once a day for
3 to 5 days and repeated in 14 to 21 days, is also
effective but is more challenging to administer than
ivermectin. There has been some evidence of
leukopenias accompanying fenbendazole treatment in
reptiles but I am unaware of this being documented in
amphibians. While other drugs within this family, such as
thiabendazole and albendazole, are reported in the
literature, I have not used either in an amphibian. I will
often use ivermectin and fenbendazole concurrently.
I have little experience with pyrantel palmoate but it
appears to be an excellent choice to eliminate
nematodes that are resistant to ivermectin or
fenbendazole. A typical dose is 5 mg/kg orally (PO)
repeated in 14 to 21 days. Drontal, which includes
pyrantel palmoate and praziquantel, has been used with
the dosage figured by the amount of pyrantel palmoate
(Brad Lock, personal communication, 2008).
I used to regularly treat with levamisole at 10 mg/L to
100 mg/L as a continuous bath for 3 to 5 days in aquatic
frogs and other amphibians. There is a risk of flaccid
paralysis so it should be used with caution in unfamiliar
species. I have had no cause to use it in several years
as I rarely deal with frogs that cannot be treated in other
ways.
It is extremely important to spot clean visible feces
out of enclosures. With lush planted enclosures that
have been heavily contaminated with nematodes, a
discussion should be had about moving the frogs to
temporary quarters for treatment and an effort to reduce
the parasite load in the main enclosure. A thorough soak
of the plants and substrate with levamisole (100 mg/L)
once a week is helpful. The enclosure needs to be
thoroughly rinsed with fresh water several times. Rinse
water should be tested with modified Nessler’s reagent,
the common reagent used to detect ammonia in tropical
fish water quality test kits, as it will flocculate in the
presence of levamisole at levels as low as 10 mg/L.
I would couple any anthelmintic treatment with
regular direct fecal parasite exams to evaluate a shift in
cytology and fluctuations in nematode ova and larvae.
While there is often no correlation between reduction in
nematode ova or larvae in feces and actual reduction in
nematode numbers, I often see improvement when the
ova or larvae counts go down and the feces has less
than 5 to 10 RBC per high power field and 1 to 5 WBC
per high power field. If a frog is also recovering its
weight, having normal stool, and showing normal
behaviors, I consider the treatment a success. With
problematic enclosures, randomly collected feces should
be assessed for parasites.


----------



## ChrisK

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Vermfly said:


> You just drop the solution on the frogs?


Correct, you measure it out into a dropper and squeeze it out by drop onto their backs.


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

The main reason why I'm skeptical that Panacur isn't still a good option is because I use an ARAV member and when a recent fecal test came back she prescribed treatment using Panacur dusted fruit flies. She actually has PDFs of her own so I would say she's pretty familiar with their treatment for various parasites and illnesses.


----------



## ChrisK

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Yeah I actually prefer panacur myself because it seems less stressful to dump some flies into the QT container than it is to chase a spooked frog around the container till it holds still long enough to get a drop onto it's back, the only reason I used the ivermectin was because I couldn't be sure that the pums were eating the dusted flies - they're not like most other frogs that will just come out and start pounding them down, when you open their containers they head for the hills and you don't know if or when they're eating them. Histrionicus and sylvaticus I had great results with panacur though, each in their own container and they start eating pretty much right when you dump them in


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Vermfly said:


> The main reason why I'm skeptical that Panacur isn't still a good option is because I use an ARAV member and when a recent fecal test came back she prescribed treatment using Panacur dusted fruit flies. She actually has PDFs of her own so I would say she's pretty familiar with their treatment for various parasites and illnesses.


How did she come up with an accurate dosage and how were you able to ensure that it was consumed before the flies were able to clean themselves off? This is one of the main issues that is forcing many ARAV members to shy away from prescribing Panacur moving forward. Scientists and medical professionals hate having factors that they can't control(ie consumption rate of flies, flies grooming the meds off, etc) affecting the final results.


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

I have the frogs in a quarantine container and so I was able to monitor the number of flies they consumed. Based on the size of my froglets she said between 10-15 well-dusted FF's would be the correct dosage. In my situation Panacur was probably a good choice based on the fact I could control the number of flies that were consumed in a quarantine container.


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Vermfly said:


> I have the frogs in a quarantine container and so I was able to monitor the number of flies they consumed. Based on the size of my froglets she said between 10-15 well-dusted FF's would be the correct dosage.


This would actually be a safe compromise. Assuming you had a baseline weight for the froglets to be treated and the dosage could be formulated accordingly. However what happens to frogs that are already in-viv or where there are multiple specimens competing for food at the same time?


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

I would say that would probably be a good situation to use a different treatment method. Any treatment should be based on the individual situation and I think it is prudent to avoid blanket statements about using or avoiding certain treatment routes.


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

I've used ivermectin to treat froglets as small as 0.19 grams.. 

I've also used panacure to treat frogs but never by dusting the food items, instead, we've tubed the frogs to adminster the correct dose. 

I've never been a fan of dusting due to the issues about uncontrolled dosings.. as one of the other issues depends on the granule size.. too large and too little sticks to the flies, too small and too much. All of the extra panacure dust that remains after you dust the flies is a good indication that you are not controlling the dosage... 

People should keep in mind that the frogs are not as fragile as people often make them out to be unless there is some severe underlying condition such as hypocalcemia.. Wild caught animals are the exception and that is often due to the lack of reserves and long periods of chronic stress. 

Ed


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

That's yet another great thing about California. We have lots of herp vets.


----------



## Julio

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Ed,

Have you used Lavacol for nematodes treatment in the past? if so how did it work out?


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Julio said:


> Ed,
> 
> Have you used Lavacol for nematodes treatment in the past? if so how did it work out?


Julio,

Do you mean Levamisol? Lavacol is rubbing alcohol from what I can tell. 
In my experience I had a lot more mixed results with Levamisol and more problems with sensitivity with the treated animals and not as good a clearance of the nematodes. 

Ed


----------



## Julio

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

yeah that is what i meant, thanks for picking that up. 

What problems did you see in terms of sensitivity?


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Julio said:


> What problems did you see in terms of sensitivity?


Toxicity and in several cases death. Sensitivity usually was in the second or third treatment and not the first so it would go fine the first treatment.. 

Ed


----------



## sports_doc

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Important thread to be discussing IMO.....


----------



## Julio

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Ed said:


> Toxicity and in several cases death. Sensitivity usually was in the second or third treatment and not the first so it would go fine the first treatment..
> 
> Ed


do you think that was from the medication being too strong and too much too soon or other factors?


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Julio said:


> do you think that was from the medication being too strong and too much too soon or other factors?


It wasn't too strong as it was dosed by the vets.. to the point of add water and treat.. instead it appears that there is a lot of potential variability between and within species. Don't get me wrong, it is pretty safe but it wouldn't be my first choice if I was talking to my vet. 

Ed


----------



## paintballislife

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Great info guys. Good to know whats out there and to be educated on what kind of treatment I need for frogs and such.


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Seems to me a 60-120 minute bath in a mixture of ivermectin(which is non soluble in water) and water may be a pretty shotgun approach to me. Is there ANY way at all to figure a dosing w/ this method other than somewhere below the 10 mg mixed in the water?
Also $15 for enough panacure to treat a HUGE collection after 15-30 minutes on the phone w/ a vet and it seems your getting the meds for free. If they did nothing but take panacure calls they may make $60/hour(minus the cost of the panacure,then start subtracting bills, rent, secratary, etc.). I just don't think that panacure is a money making scam. Did you do the math on that or are you trying to use another issue which you haven't researched to discredit the person your arguing w/?
And if it is they should've come up w/ something better if they have a vet degree.
Also considering no darts were tested doesn't fare well to being relevant to treating dart frogs, does it? That is not PROOF for anything at all. and the variability between toxicity in species, I would say I'd rather listen to someone who has treated w/ panacure and done necropsies.



mantisdragon91 said:


> Below is an article provided to me by Kevin Wright DVM this summer. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the section that answers your question:
> 
> NAVC Conference 2009
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> HOW I TREAT NEMATODES IN FROGS
> Kevin Wright, DVM
> Arizona Exotic Animal Hospital, LLC
> Mesa, AZ
> Nematodes are a ubiquitous presence in captive frog
> collections. I advocate a discussion between the
> veterinarian and the client to understand the purpose of
> the frog collection and to develop a preventive health
> program based on an assessment of the risk posed by
> nematodes and the potential impact their presence may
> have on management (eg, exchanging specimens with
> other collections). A particularly thorny issue is the
> presence of nematodes in frogs destined for assurance
> colonies. These frogs are genetic reservoirs against
> extinctions in the wild and they come in with a spectrum
> of parasites that shared their natural environments. The
> balance shifts in captivity for a variety of reasons, many
> of which are incompletely understood. Is it the best
> management choice to eliminate these parasites in
> captive specimens and thereby possibly artificially select
> for frogs that have immune systems that have never
> encountered by these nematodes when their offspring
> may one day be reintroduced into the wild and have to
> face these same parasites?
> In many cases, frogs appear to be perfectly healthy
> despite a high number of nematode ova or larvae being
> found regularly in their feces. I believe that in some
> cases my prolonged rigorous anthelmintic treatments
> and associated sanitation and hygiene management
> may have sent frogs into a decline. Currently I do not
> recommend treatment for frogs that are apparently
> healthy, eating well and maintaining or gaining weight,
> and producing normal feces despite the presence of
> nematode ova or larvae per high power field on direct or
> flotation fecal parasite exams. However, if any frogs in
> the collection appear unthrifty, there are mortalities with
> nematodes implicated or there are otherwise
> unexplained mortalities, or direct fecal parasite exams
> reveal more than 5 to10 RBCs or 1 to 5 WBCs per high
> power field along with nematode ova or larvae, I do
> recommend treatment.
> *Topical ivermectin at 4 mg/kg repeated at 7, 14, and
> 21 days is an easy to administer anthelmintic that is
> effective on many nematodes. I have also given it by
> diluting 10 mg of ivermectin into 1000 mL of water and
> using it as a 60- to 120-minute shallow bath repeated at
> 7, 14, and 21 days and it appears to be effective despite
> the insolubility of ivermectin in water. Direct topical
> application or baths are useful for small frogs where
> injections or oral medications are impractical. This dose
> is quite high compared with the 0.2 mg/kg I recommend
> for oral and injectable routes. When ivermectin needs to
> be delivered to tiny frogs, consider asking a
> compounding pharmacy to prepare a 0.1 mg/mL
> injectable solution. Otherwise, you may orally administer
> ivermectin diluted with vegetable oil or propylene glycol
> to this concentration or even 0.05 mg/mL for very tiny
> frogs.*Fenbendazole, at 25 to 50 mg/kg PO once a day for
> 3 to 5 days and repeated in 14 to 21 days, is also
> effective but is more challenging to administer than
> ivermectin. There has been some evidence of
> leukopenias accompanying fenbendazole treatment in
> reptiles but I am unaware of this being documented in
> amphibians. While other drugs within this family, such as
> thiabendazole and albendazole, are reported in the
> literature, I have not used either in an amphibian. I will
> often use ivermectin and fenbendazole concurrently.
> I have little experience with pyrantel palmoate but it
> appears to be an excellent choice to eliminate
> nematodes that are resistant to ivermectin or
> fenbendazole. A typical dose is 5 mg/kg orally (PO)
> repeated in 14 to 21 days. Drontal, which includes
> pyrantel palmoate and praziquantel, has been used with
> the dosage figured by the amount of pyrantel palmoate
> (Brad Lock, personal communication, 2008).
> I used to regularly treat with levamisole at 10 mg/L to
> 100 mg/L as a continuous bath for 3 to 5 days in aquatic
> frogs and other amphibians. There is a risk of flaccid
> paralysis so it should be used with caution in unfamiliar
> species. I have had no cause to use it in several years
> as I rarely deal with frogs that cannot be treated in other
> ways.
> It is extremely important to spot clean visible feces
> out of enclosures. With lush planted enclosures that
> have been heavily contaminated with nematodes, a
> discussion should be had about moving the frogs to
> temporary quarters for treatment and an effort to reduce
> the parasite load in the main enclosure. A thorough soak
> of the plants and substrate with levamisole (100 mg/L)
> once a week is helpful. The enclosure needs to be
> thoroughly rinsed with fresh water several times. Rinse
> water should be tested with modified Nessler’s reagent,
> the common reagent used to detect ammonia in tropical
> fish water quality test kits, as it will flocculate in the
> presence of levamisole at levels as low as 10 mg/L.
> I would couple any anthelmintic treatment with
> regular direct fecal parasite exams to evaluate a shift in
> cytology and fluctuations in nematode ova and larvae.
> While there is often no correlation between reduction in
> nematode ova or larvae in feces and actual reduction in
> nematode numbers, I often see improvement when the
> ova or larvae counts go down and the feces has less
> than 5 to 10 RBC per high power field and 1 to 5 WBC
> per high power field. If a frog is also recovering its
> weight, having normal stool, and showing normal
> behaviors, I consider the treatment a success. With
> problematic enclosures, randomly collected feces should
> be assessed for parasites.


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> Seems to me a 60-120 minute bath in a mixture of ivermectin(which is non soluble in water) and water may be a pretty shotgun approach to me. Is there ANY way at all to figure a dosing w/ this method other than somewhere below the 10 mg mixed in the water?
> Also $15 for enough panacure to treat a HUGE collection after 15-30 minutes on the phone w/ a vet and it seems your getting the meds for free. If they did nothing but take panacure calls they may make $60/hour(minus the cost of the panacure,then start subtracting bills, rent, secratary, etc.). I just don't think that panacure is a money making scam. And if it is they should've come up w/ something better if they have a vet degree.


Aaron,

You have to look at the bigger picture, since Panacur can't fully eliminate parasites because of the scatter shot nature of the application of dosage, you now have a client for life when it comes to fecals. Just the other week there was a girl on here from California complaining that she spend $18 per tank on 4 tanks every 3-4 weeks moving forward for her fecals. Thats a minimum of $72 a month for just for tanks with no end in sight. 

How many fecal tests are being sent a month to certain vets who don't even bother to do what they need to do to qualify for ARAV membership(and thus gain access to the latest research and findings) and what do you think the true cost to these vets is to have a lab assistant run the fecals?


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

That panacur is pretty cheap and that I have cleared worms w/ panacur.

Panacur C: Wormer for Dogs - 1800PetMeds

You'd have to get the three clean fecals either way, w/ ivermectin or panacur, which costs much more than the meds. Human work usually does.

And I'd ask where your proof is that you can't clear worms by dusting. I have had aquariums and zoos tell me that this was the way they treated and they would tell me if anything showed in the fecals of the frogs I sent them. All clean from those shipments.

And where do you get the truth about panacur from when you state, w/ no citations, that recent tests show it to be more toxic then originally thought and then link that to darts which there is no testing for?


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

I couldn't personally care less. I just don't like words like truth being thrown around when it's a debate and nothing is proven. It should read my views and Dr. Wright's views. There are other vets out there. Why wouldn't you get 2nd and third opinions considering Dr. Wright wouldn't even be doing the fecals himself, since he doesn't do that work.

And proof for me is the 3 clean fecals I got after treating w/ panacur that it works for the "strain"? that I had.

How many fecals are done by vet techs or other labs?


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> Seems to me a 60-120 minute bath in a mixture of ivermectin(which is non soluble in water) and water may be a pretty shotgun approach to me. Is there ANY way at all to figure a dosing w/ this method other than somewhere below the 10 mg mixed in the water?


Actually yes.. it is not uncommon to dilute it into an appropriate carrier such as propylene glycol (which can be reviewed by those interested in Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry and administered as a single drop to the back of the frog. This is treatment method used to treat a wide variety of animals so the ability of the drug to be accurately dosed in this manner is well accepted. 




frogfarm said:


> Also considering no darts were tested doesn't fare well to being relevant to treating dart frogs, does it? That is not PROOF for anything at all. and the variability between toxicity in species, I would say I'd rather listen to someone who has treated w/ panacure and done necropsies.


Every time I see this argument, it makes me wonder if the person understands that in virtually all drugs used on dendrobatids, there have been no trials to determine if they are actually safe to use in dendrobatids. For some reason it is okay to argue that no trials have been done showing it is unsafe while ignoring the evidence that there are no trials showing that 
1) no side effects occur (liver damage, anemia, reduced digestive ability)
2) dusting of panacure was able to routinely achiieve a theraputic dose without over or underdosing 
3) lack of parasites in the fecals was not simply due to the frog's immune system suppressing the parasites so shedding of eggs and larva fell below the detection threshold and not the treatment as the treatment could have been below theraputic levels. 

I would be very interested in seeing papers discussing drug trials on panacure in dendrobatids as a counter argument...

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Of course you'd want to see papers. Unfortunately not much moneys going towards research for our hobby. Maybe to other amphibians which may or may not be just like dart frogs. So, unfortunately those papers don't prove anything.

Bath Ed. 60-120 minute bath? Not drop. I understand dilution to more accurately dose w/ drops. 

And I said I'd rather trust a vet who has treated w/ panacur and done necropsies since there is absence of documented studies. 

You should read my whole posts before answering Ed. They're free too



Ed said:


> Actually yes.. it is not uncommon to dilute it into an appropriate carrier such as propylene glycol (which can be reviewed by those interested in Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry and administered as a single drop to the back of the frog. This is treatment method used to treat a wide variety of animals so the ability of the drug to be accurately dosed in this manner is well accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I see this argument, it makes me wonder if the person understands that in virtually all drugs used on dendrobatids, there have been no trials to determine if they are actually safe to use in dendrobatids. For some reason it is okay to argue that no trials have been done showing it is unsafe while ignoring the evidence that there are no trials showing that
> 1) no side effects occur (liver damage, anemia, reduced digestive ability)
> 2) dusting of panacure was able to routinely achiieve a theraputic dose without over or underdosing
> 3) lack of parasites in the fecals was not simply due to the frog's immune system suppressing the parasites so shedding of eggs and larva fell below the detection threshold and not the treatment as the treatment could have been below theraputic levels.
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing papers discussing drug trials on panacure in dendrobatids as a counter argument...
> 
> Ed


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> Of course you'd want to see papers. Unfortunately not much moneys going towards research for our hobby. Maybe to other amphibians which may or may not be just like dart frogs. So, unfortunately those papers don't prove anything.
> 
> Bath Ed. 60-120 minute bath? Not drop. I understand dilution to more accurately dose w/ drops.
> 
> And I said I'd rather trust a vet who has treated w/ panacur and done necropsies since there is absence of documented studies.
> 
> You should read my whole posts before answering Ed. They're free too


Actually I did read your whole post. I simply addressed the points that I thought needed to be addressed... 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

So you think a bath of 60-120 minutes, in a mixture of a substance not soluble in water actually mixed w/ water, is the same as drops on the back(since I never mentioned anything about dropping the medicine on the frogs back I don't know where you got that from in my post).


----------



## Zombie Frawg

The way I read what Ed said is if it was diluted in an appropriate carrier like propylene glycol (sp?). He said nothing about water.

Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> So you think a bath of 60-120 minutes, in a mixture of a substance not soluble in water actually mixed w/ water, is the same as drops on the back(since I never mentioned anything about dropping the medicine on the frogs back I don't know where you got that from in my post).


Did I say that?

I would suggest that you stop trying to put incorrect interpretations on my statements to support your personal agenda. 

Can you provide citations that demostrate that there were trials done to ensure that panacure was safe to use in dendrobatids? You are willing to argue that the problems of toxicity to over dosing panacure in other taxa cannot be applied as it hasn't been documented in dendrobatids yet are willing to argue (as I pointed out above) the opposite position that because the dosages are used in other taxa they must be okay for dendrobatids..... See my above post. 


Ed


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

This thread started out great but has already descended into a pissing contest between Ed and Aaron. Let's put away the measuring tapes and just discuss the issue at hand. 

Is Panacur an appropriate treatment to use on dart frogs? I believe the answer is yes in the right situations where you can observe how many dusted fruit flies the frogs are consuming to make sure they are receiving an adequate dose to kill parasites. Are other treatments better in other situations? Yeah I'm sure they can be. 

I've always loved the quote: "Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." -Paracelsus


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

For those who are interested in wading through the research literature... there is an extensive body of literature in treating aquaculture fish using ivermectin baths.. including residual toxicity in tissues (restrictions for taking fish to market) that goes back a number of decades. 

As a single example of that extensive body of literature I can cite http://ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/a86/00801063.pdf .. 

There are a lot of others if one chooses to wade through the literature and sift the ones where it was injected out of the ones where it was used as bath. 


Ed


----------



## edwardsatc

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Vermfly said:


> I've always loved the quote: "Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." -Paracelsus


Since I am a toxicologist it is also one of my favorites (when quoted correctly), but most miss the point and context of the quote. 

BTW nothing in his original quote (which the above is not) ever mentioned "remedy". Nice twist ...


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Vermfly said:


> This thread started out great but has already descended into a pissing contest between Ed and Aaron. Let's put away the measuring tapes and just discuss the issue at hand.
> 
> Is Panacur an appropriate treatment to use on dart frogs? I believe the answer is yes in the right situations where you can observe how many dusted fruit flies the frogs are consuming to make sure they are receiving an adequate dose to kill parasites. Are other treatments better in other situations? Yeah I'm sure they can be.
> 
> I've always loved the quote: "Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." -Paracelsus


I've noted the problems with dusting as a method of treatment above and in the past.. observing a frog consuming panacure dusted flies actually doesn't give you any indication that the frog is recieving a theraputic dose as you cannot control what does or doesn't stick to the fly, the amount of powder lost to the sides of the dusting container, the amount of powder that falls off when you add the flies to the container, the amount that is lost by contact of the fly with the enclosure, subsequent grooming and/or whether or not sufficient or excess flies (as you don't know the dose carried by each fly) are consumed.. 

This means that you have just as great a chance of having a subtheraputic dose or an overdose. 
As panacure isn't considered to be as safe as it once was, the risk of problems subsequent to an overdose are beginning to be considered larger than what was once considered acceptable... 


Ed


----------



## edwardsatc

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Aaron,
Ed beat me to it but I will expound ~



Ed said:


> Every time I see this argument, it makes me wonder if the person understands that in virtually all drugs used on dendrobatids, there have been no trials to determine if they are actually safe to use in dendrobatids.
> For some reason it is okay to argue that no trials have been done showing it is unsafe while ignoring the evidence that there are no trials showing that
> 1) no side effects occur (liver damage, anemia, reduced digestive ability)
> 2) dusting of panacure was able to routinely achiieve a theraputic dose without over or underdosing
> 3) lack of parasites in the fecals was not simply due to the frog's immune system suppressing the parasites so shedding of eggs and larva fell below the detection threshold and not the treatment as the treatment could have been below theraputic levels.
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing papers discussing drug trials on panacure in dendrobatids as a counter argument...Ed


Seriously, this argument of “it hasn’t been proven or shown in ‘dart frogs specifically’” is just lame. We do have methods to predict toxicity within a species based on toxicity data from model organisms and they are used all the time to assess risk. Humans aren’t used for drug toxicity testing, but I’ll bet you accept the established toxicity values based on other mammals.

What is it about dart frog metabolism that makes you think that they would be radically different from other frogs in the way toxicants are processed? Is there something specific in the metabolic pathways (such as CYP’s) that would lead you to believe that dart frogs metabolize drugs radically different than other anurans? Are there specific enzymes in particular that you can point to that are different in these pathways as compared to a typical model organism such as Xenopus? Do you even know what the metabolic pathway is for panacur in amphibians or dart frogs specifically?

Those that develop pharmecueticals don’t test for efficacy in every species either. So, the efficacy of panacur has not been “proven in dart frogs” either. If dart frogs process drugs differently than other anurans, as you have eluded to, then they may also render those drugs much less or more effective.

Considering the number of amphibian species, potential drugs , and potential acute and chronic endpoints (mortality, reproduction, growth, behavior, lifespan, ….), it’s ridiculous to think that toxicity testing has (or should) be done for each individual species, genus, or even family . This is the reason we use model organisms in most toxicity testing. I’ve spent the past year working out the acute and chronic toxicity (multiple endpoints) of a single antimicrobial compound in a single species of stream macroinvertebrate. Do you think I (or any other toxicologist) will do toxicity testing for every stream macroinvertebrate that may come in contact with this compound – of course not. Do you think it would be necessary for me to determine toxicity levels for every family related to the test organism to show that there are toxic effects – if so, then you have zero understanding of real world toxicological methods, data, and risk assessment. Do you think that there is unlimited funding to keep testing species after species when there is already toxicity data out there for many species?

Aaron, I’ve put this offer out before to other hobbyists who have said “it hasn’t been shown in dart frogs” but here it is again -If you are serious about toxicity testing of panacur and dendrobates, I have the facilities and the equipment. All I need is for you to offer up the frogs, eggs, or tadpoles. You’re welcome to observe the entire process and I’ll even include you as an author when published. So, put your frogs where your mouth is or stop crying that there is a lack of “dart specific data”.

Are the results likely to be _exactly the same_ as other amphibians? Not likely. Are the results going to be so _radically different_ that we should treat dart frogs as a _separate case_ from other amphibians with published toxicity data? Not likely either. But unlike you, I look at the data – NOT- the data that _isn’t_ there.

I’d be inclined to cite the literature, but since you always seem to dismiss every piece of literature that Ed cites and seem to have a general lack of respect for published work, it would appear to be a waste of time.


----------



## fido

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

I have a questions relating to the subject and some laymen (read untrained) observations.
Observation.
Yes, some vets are obviously prescribing panacure as a treatment as we speek. Maybe there doses are off, wrong way of administering etc.

Questions
I have a prescription, from a vet. I inherited the treatment with some frogs I purchased.
Prescription is:
1 drop of diluted panacure with water on the back of a frog for 3 days then retreating. I think it was in 2 weeks. 
From memory the dilution was 1gram of 22.2% panacure/100mils water. 
The frogs were "guess" 2.8gramish they are 3g now so may have been lighter when prescribed.
So vets dilution is 222mg/100ml or 2.22mg/1ml.
Using 20 drops=1ml
1 drop of 2.22mg/ml=.111mg/drop/day.
x3 days=.333mg total treatment.

Does this sound like a good treatment? I have read panacure in not water soluble. Will the frog absorb the panacure? Dr. Wright recommends 50mg./1Kg. or .05mg/1g.or .14mg for 2.8g frog orally.
Now there is a difference yes but the treatments are different oral vs. topical. I would think the topical is not as efficient as oral. Some not absorbed.
Any comments? And please comment. People comment about treating their pets all over the net. Why should darts be any different? I promise I won’t sue anyone. I will use my own judgment. The only reason people are tight lipped is they have been brainwashed into thinking only a vet can calculate dosages. Hogwash I say. Dr. wright has the ba!!s to share treatments. Is he immune to all the Lawyer BS?

I called a vet in my area and it’s going to be 65 for the visit 60 for the fecal. Not going to happen. And is the prescription going to be correct in the end? I would rather get several experiences off the net and deside for myself.

I agree, panacure dusted flys there is no way of determining what you are dosing.
Even if you had the equipment to weigh 100 flys, dust and reweigh them to come up with a magic number, how much is lost before they are eaten. I think the main problem with panacure is overdosing causing the damage.

I am interested in ivermectin.
Dr. Wright quote” Topical ivermectin at 4 mg/kg repeated at 7, 14, and
21 days is an easy to administer anthelmintic that is
effective on many nematodes.”

What is ivermectin suspended in when you buy it? What is it diluted with? Water or propylene glycol? I take it is diluted so one drop on the back is the dose?

Thanks for any help.
Please feel free to PM me if you don’t want your advice public.
Sorry for the long wind I have been seeing lung and hook worms in some frogs and the with size of my frog collection I'm to the point I have to be proactive. Sans $$$$$ to the vet.

Stephen


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

If your frogs were in thier set up enclosures when they tested positive you will probably have to scrap thier exibit as at least Rhabdias has a free living form that produces parasitic offspring which can allow superinfections to occur in the frogs... 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Quote:
Originally Posted by frogfarm View Post
Seems to me a 60-120 minute bath in a mixture of ivermectin(which is non soluble in water) and water may be a pretty shotgun approach to me. Is there ANY way at all to figure a dosing w/ this method other than somewhere below the 10 mg mixed in the water?
Your answer to my above post:
Actually yes.. it is not uncommon to dilute it into an appropriate carrier such as propylene glycol (which can be reviewed by those interested in Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry and administered as a single drop to the back of the frog. This is treatment method used to treat a wide variety of animals so the ability of the drug to be accurately dosed in this manner is well accepted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by frogfarm View Post
Also considering no darts were tested doesn't fare well to being relevant to treating dart frogs, does it? That is not PROOF for anything at all. and the variability between toxicity in species, I would say I'd rather listen to someone who has treated w/ panacure and done necropsies.
Again your answer to my above post
Every time I see this argument, it makes me wonder if the person understands that in virtually all drugs used on dendrobatids, there have been no trials to determine if they are actually safe to use in dendrobatids. For some reason it is okay to argue that no trials have been done showing it is unsafe while ignoring the evidence that there are no trials showing that
1) no side effects occur (liver damage, anemia, reduced digestive ability)
2) dusting of panacure was able to routinely achiieve a theraputic dose without over or underdosing
3) lack of parasites in the fecals was not simply due to the frog's immune system suppressing the parasites so shedding of eggs and larva fell below the detection threshold and not the treatment as the treatment could have been below theraputic levels.

I would be very interested in seeing papers discussing drug trials on panacure in dendrobatids as a counter argument...




Ed said:


> Did I say that?
> 
> I would suggest that you stop trying to put incorrect interpretations on my statements to support your personal agenda.
> 
> Can you provide citations that demostrate that there were trials done to ensure that panacure was safe to use in dendrobatids? You are willing to argue that the problems of toxicity to over dosing panacure in other taxa cannot be applied as it hasn't been documented in dendrobatids yet are willing to argue (as I pointed out above) the opposite position that because the dosages are used in other taxa they must be okay for dendrobatids..... See my above post.
> 
> 
> Ed


Is that the personal agenda you speak of or is that what you wrote?????


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



edwardsatc said:


> Aaron,
> Ed beat me to it but I will expound ~
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, this argument of “it hasn’t been proven or shown in ‘dart frogs specifically’” is just lame. We do have methods to predict toxicity within a species based on toxicity data from model organisms and they are used all the time to assess risk. Humans aren’t used for drug toxicity testing, but I’ll bet you accept the established toxicity values based on other mammals.
> 
> What is it about dart frog metabolism that makes you think that they would be radically different from other frogs in the way toxicants are processed? Is there something specific in the metabolic pathways (such as CYP’s) that would lead you to believe that dart frogs metabolize drugs radically different than other anurans? Are there specific enzymes in particular that you can point to that are different in these pathways as compared to a typical model organism such as Xenopus? Do you even know what the metabolic pathway is for panacur in amphibians or dart frogs specifically?
> 
> Those that develop pharmecueticals don’t test for efficacy in every species either. So, the efficacy of panacur has not been “proven in dart frogs” either. If dart frogs process drugs differently than other anurans, as you have eluded to, then they may also render those drugs much less or more effective.
> 
> Considering the number of amphibian species, potential drugs , and potential acute and chronic endpoints (mortality, reproduction, growth, behavior, lifespan, ….), it’s ridiculous to think that toxicity testing has (or should) be done for each individual species, genus, or even family . This is the reason we use model organisms in most toxicity testing. I’ve spent the past year working out the acute and chronic toxicity (multiple endpoints) of a single antimicrobial compound in a single species of stream macroinvertebrate. Do you think I (or any other toxicologist) will do toxicity testing for every stream macroinvertebrate that may come in contact with this compound – of course not. Do you think it would be necessary for me to determine toxicity levels for every family related to the test organism to show that there are toxic effects – if so, then you have zero understanding of real world toxicological methods, data, and risk assessment. Do you think that there is unlimited funding to keep testing species after species when there is already toxicity data out there for many species?
> 
> Aaron, I’ve put this offer out before to other hobbyists who have said “it hasn’t been shown in dart frogs” but here it is again -If you are serious about toxicity testing of panacur and dendrobates, I have the facilities and the equipment. All I need is for you to offer up the frogs, eggs, or tadpoles. You’re welcome to observe the entire process and I’ll even include you as an author when published. So, put your frogs where your mouth is or stop crying that there is a lack of “dart specific data”.
> 
> Are the results likely to be _exactly the same_ as other amphibians? Not likely. Are the results going to be so _radically different_ that we should treat dart frogs as a _separate case_ from other amphibians with published toxicity data? Not likely either. But unlike you, I look at the data – NOT- the data that _isn’t_ there.
> 
> I’d be inclined to cite the literature, but since you always seem to dismiss every piece of literature that Ed cites and seem to have a general lack of respect for published work, it would appear to be a waste of time.


The way darts process the drug to clear coccidia leads me to believe there is a possibility that panacur would also be different in dendrobates. There is a vet who has done necropsies who has seen no liver damage or bone marrow issues in the darts they have treated repetitively and since there is a lack of papers w/ darts I tend to believe him. 
I have problems w/ Ed's papers because they are pay per view. Also Ed likes to compare things like the breeding biology of bull frogs to darts and the like.
I have also done field research and am friends w/ post docs, techs and researchers and hear the stories about ego getting in the way of research and have seen what the gov't and corps do w/ nutritionism. I have been on projects and have seen the people collecting the data and have had to recommend data not be included in projects. I have seen many papers contradicting each other on a wide array of topics. I'm skeptical. If your articles don't cost money then post the links.

What's involved in the testing for toxicity and how many and what would you need.

Also, I don't think near enough toxicity testing can be done for any environmental issue so I'm biased, but then again I live near a bunch of lakes that are dying, dead or possibly on the return. So, real world or not there isn't enough testing being done, period. Because the one essential in the web that isn't tested for and proves sensitive could lead to the fall of the whole web. It may not be what happens but more should happen to find what levels are acceptable and I'm sure if we knew it all everything would have lower safe levels for everything. they thought phosphate levels in the lakes were fine in the 70's wrong, pcbs, wrong, ddt, wrong, etc.etc.etc. Again, do you blame me for not blindly following?

And i have talked to zoos and aquariums who said they don't have big budgets and dusting panacur is how they treat darts!


----------



## edwardsatc

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> The way darts process the drug to clear coccidia leads me to believe there is a possibility that panacur would also be different in dendrobates. There is a vet who has done necropsies who has seen no liver damage or bone marrow issues in the darts they have treated repetitively and since there is a lack of papers w/ darts I tend to believe him.
> I have problems w/ Ed's papers because they are pay per view. I have also done field research and am friends w/ post docs, techs and researchers and hear the stories about ego getting in the way of research and have seen what the gov't and corps do w/ nutritionism. I have been on projects and have seen the people collecting the data and have had to recommend data not be included in projects. I have seen many papers contradicting each other on a wide array of topics. I'm skeptical. If your articles don't cost money then post the links.
> 
> What's involved in the testing for toxicity and how many and what would you need.
> 
> Also, I don't think near enough toxicity testing can be done for any environmental issue so I'm biased, but then again I live near a bunch of lakes that are dying, dead or possibly on the return. So, real world or not there isn't enough testing being done, period. Because the one essential in the web that isn't tested for and proves sensitive could lead to the fall of the whole web. It may not be what happens but more should happen to find what levels are acceptable and I'm sure if we knew it all everything would have lower safe levels for everything. they thought phosphate levels in the lakes were fine in the 70's wrong, pcbs, wrong, ddt, wrong, etc.etc.etc. Again, do you blame me for not blindly following?
> 
> And i have talked to zoos and aquariums who said they don't have big budgets and dusting panacur is how they treat darts!


Aaron,

Some good discussion points. Unfortunately, I'm leaving very shortly on a road trip to my Wisconsin home for the holidays and don't really have the time to respond properly. I'll post a detailed response this weekend when I have the time to post a thoughtful response.


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Have a safe trip and enjoy the scenery!
Hopefully you'll get some ice fishing in?



edwardsatc said:


> Aaron,
> 
> Some good discussion points. Unfortunately, I'm leaving very shortly on a road trip to my Wisconsin home for the holidays and don't really have the time to respond properly. I'll post a detailed response this weekend when I have the time to post a thoughtful response.


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> The way darts process the drug to clear coccidia leads me to believe there is a possibility that panacur would also be different in dendrobates. There is a vet who has done necropsies who has seen no liver damage or bone marrow issues in the darts they have treated repetitively and since there is a lack of papers w/ darts I tend to believe him.


 
There was a study done on dendrobatids by the staff at NAIB and they demonstrated that treatment did not result in the frog clearing coccidia, it simply resulted in frogs that did not shed coccidia any more.. I know it was posted in the frognet archives but don't feel like digging it out. 

Can you cite the reference that shows dendrobatids process coccidia treatments in a different manner than other frogs? 




frogfarm said:


> And i have talked to zoos and aquariums who said they don't have big budgets and dusting panacur is how they treat darts!


And I've worked at a Zoo without a big budget and toured others and spoke to them about treatment protocols and oddly enought dusting was the last resort due to problems with dosing and issues seen in other animals. Either the frog was tubed, iinjected, dropped on or given a bath (dending on the treatment need and size/stress of the frog). As I noted elsewhere.. I've treated frogs as small as 0.19 grams but not with panacure as it wasn't appropriate to dose them etc...


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Just the one you labeled below. So your saying it doesn't work different since they don't shed and don't clear it like other amphibs would?

No answer for the bath question above and why you would compare it to a drop on the back? 

And since there is a difference in opinion on panacur w/ zoos and aquariums that means that we both have cases to back up our points.



Ed said:


> There was a study done on dendrobatids by the staff at NAIB and they demonstrated that treatment did not result in the frog clearing coccidia, it simply resulted in frogs that did not shed coccidia any more.. I know it was posted in the frognet archives but don't feel like digging it out.
> 
> Can you cite the reference that shows dendrobatids process coccidia treatments in a different manner than other frogs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've worked at a Zoo without a big budget and toured others and spoke to them about treatment protocols and oddly enought dusting was the last resort due to problems with dosing and issues seen in other animals. Either the frog was tubed, iinjected, dropped on or given a bath (dending on the treatment need and size/stress of the frog). As I noted elsewhere.. I've treated frogs as small as 0.19 grams but not with panacure as it wasn't appropriate to dose them etc...


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> The way darts process the drug to clear coccidia leads me to believe there is a possibility that panacur would also be different in dendrobates. *There is a vet who has done necropsies who has seen no liver damage or bone marrow issues in the darts they have treated repetitively and since there is a lack of papers w/ darts I tend to believe him. *I have problems w/ Ed's papers because they are pay per view. Also Ed likes to compare things like the breeding biology of bull frogs to darts and the like.
> I have also done field research and am friends w/ post docs, techs and researchers and hear the stories about ego getting in the way of research and have seen what the gov't and corps do w/ nutritionism. I have been on projects and have seen the people collecting the data and have had to recommend data not be included in projects. I have seen many papers contradicting each other on a wide array of topics. I'm skeptical. If your articles don't cost money then post the links.
> 
> What's involved in the testing for toxicity and how many and what would you need.
> 
> Also, I don't think near enough toxicity testing can be done for any environmental issue so I'm biased, but then again I live near a bunch of lakes that are dying, dead or possibly on the return. So, real world or not there isn't enough testing being done, period. Because the one essential in the web that isn't tested for and proves sensitive could lead to the fall of the whole web. It may not be what happens but more should happen to find what levels are acceptable and I'm sure if we knew it all everything would have lower safe levels for everything. they thought phosphate levels in the lakes were fine in the 70's wrong, pcbs, wrong, ddt, wrong, etc.etc.etc. Again, do you blame me for not blindly following?
> 
> And i have talked to zoos and aquariums who said they don't have big budgets and dusting panacur is how they treat darts!


Aaron,

If the vet you are talking about is who I think it is I have serious doubts abour his credibility/knowledge. This is the same person that stated in the past on this board that a cow would need to consume 10% of its body weight in Panacur before LDL50 is reached. He and his brother are also infamous for throwing around the argument that if a dart was the size of a man they would be able to consume a wheel barrow full of panacur before negative impact is reached. If by chance it is not who you are reffering to then I will offer my apologies in advance. Just some food for thought.


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

OK, so your telling me there is a way to figure out just how much ivermectin is going into a frog when you have these variables:
Frog size: if it is smaller they have much more surface area than a larger frog and will therefore absorb at a different rate. 
60-120 minutes is going to skew the dosage as a frog in 120 minutes should absorb 2x as much ivermectin as a frog only left in 60 minutes.
Ivermectin is not soluble in water which is what it's mixed w/.

Seems like a shotgun approach to me although you can mix it to be a sublethal dose if you know how much the frogs weigh going in. Sounds similar to dusting w/ panacur to me.



mantisdragon91 said:


> * I have also given it by
> diluting 10 mg of ivermectin into 1000 mL of water and
> using it as a 60- to 120-minute shallow bath repeated at
> 7, 14, and 21 days and it appears to be effective despite
> the insolubility of ivermectin in water. .*


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> OK, so your telling me there is a way to figure out just how much ivermectin is going into a frog when you have these variables:
> Frog size: if it is smaller they have much more surface area than a larger frog and will therefore absorb at a different rate.
> 60-120 minutes is going to skew the dosage as a frog in 120 minutes should absorb 2x as much ivermectin as a frog only left in 60 minutes.
> Ivermectin is not soluble in water which is what it's mixed w/.
> 
> Seems like a shotgun approach to me although you can mix it to be a sublethal dose if you know how much the frogs weigh going in. Sounds similar to dusting w/ panacur to me.


Aaron,

I am not telling you anything since I have no personal experience with the drug. I am merely sharing an article that Dr. Kevin Wright was kind enough to provide me with. I believe this was an abstract of his presentation from this summer at a veterinary and zoological conference in San Diego.

My train of thought is simple. When in doubt I defer to a man with 30 plus years of veterinary experience, 150 published papers, numerous industry awards and real life experience as the Curator for one of the larger reptile and amphibian collections in the country. If you have someone you can refer me to with comparble experience and a diffrent view on parasite treatment and management I would love to hear his opinion on the matter as well. 

The problem is the Vet I believe you are reffering too has no published papers, no zoological experience and a track record of making dubious claims on the web which he is often forced to retract or sidestep. As I mentioned previously if you are talking about a diffrent vet then the one I think you are talking than I apologize in advance for the confusion on my part.


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Wel,l my vet, who works extensively w/ exotics, recommended Dr. Frye as he said it's always better to go to someone w/ experience (who specialize) w/ the animals you have.
And didn't the decimal get moved one place and even though it wasn't a wheelbarrow it was a couple pounds for a full grown man? Either way I'll take his word because there are no studies for darts and he is the only one I know who has done necropsies on animals that everyone was saying he was overdosing.


mantisdragon91 said:


> Aaron,
> 
> If the vet you are talking about is who I think it is I have serious doubts abour his credibility/knowledge. This is the same person that stated in the past on this board that a cow would need to consume 10% of its body weight in Panacur before LDL50 is reached. He and his brother are also infamous for throwing around the argument that if a dart was the size of a man they would be able to consume a wheel barrow full of panacur before negative impact is reached. If by chance it is not who you are reffering to then I will offer my apologies in advance. Just some food for thought.


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

And from your experience what do YOU think about the question I posed for baths of ivermectin and does that sound like a shotgun approach to you. Can you tell me the dose a frog will receive if put in that bath? Remember, there is no statement of the size of the frog and no statement on the length of time between 60 and 120 minutes.


----------



## ChrisK

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Just out of curiosity (and I treated frogs successfully with both drugs), are there any studies out there which PROVE ivermectin is a "safer" drug than panacur?


----------



## fido

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Quote
"If your frogs were in thier set up enclosures when they tested positive you will probably have to scrap thier exibit as at least Rhabdias has a free living form that produces parasitic offspring which can allow superinfections to occur in the frogs..."
I think this was a reply to me. Yes I have the frogs in quarantine and disinfect their container the day after treatment. They tanks they were in were torn down.

I check every movement and I find eggs. As far as I can diagnose.
The first eggs are more abundant then the next one.


















And two types of worm.

















Stephen


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



ChrisK said:


> Just out of curiosity (and I treated frogs successfully with both drugs), are there any studies out there which PROVE ivermectin is a "safer" drug than panacur?


I believe there are, but I will defer to Ed and Donn on this and if we can't get information from them directly, I will be more than happy to shoot an E-mail on this to Dr. Wright asking for supporting documentation. My initial suspicion though is that its more about the ease of controlling the delivered dosage as opposed to the safe limits of the drug, but I am curious to find out as well.


----------



## rmelancon

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

This is the quote I really like:

"In many cases, frogs appear to be perfectly healthy
despite a high number of nematode ova or larvae being
found regularly in their feces. I believe that in some
cases my prolonged rigorous anthelmintic treatments
and associated sanitation and hygiene management
may have sent frogs into a decline. Currently I do not
recommend treatment for frogs that are apparently
healthy, eating well and maintaining or gaining weight,
and producing normal feces despite the presence of
nematode ova or larvae per high power field on direct or
flotation fecal parasite exams. However, if any frogs in
the collection appear unthrifty, there are mortalities with
nematodes implicated or there are otherwise
unexplained mortalities, or direct fecal parasite exams
reveal more than 5 to10 RBCs or 1 to 5 WBCs per high
power field along with nematode ova or larvae, I do
recommend treatment."

There is so much misinformation being propagated to new hobbyists on so many fronts. It seems so much is given with hidden or not so hidden agendas, promoted as truth to further ones own opinions. I know it's to be expected, but I would hate to be a new hobbyist in the current environment.


----------



## ChrisK

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



mantisdragon91 said:


> I believe there are, but I will defer to Ed and Donn on this and if we can't get information from them directly, I will be more than happy to shoot an E-mail on this to Dr. Wright asking for supporting documentation. My initial suspicion though is that its more about the ease of controlling the delivered dosage as opposed to the safe limits of the drug, but I am curious to find out as well.


Well then the same test that we're trying to get done here with the panacur should also be done with ivermectin right? Otherwise the panacur test would prove nothing about the safety of using ivermectin.


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



ChrisK said:


> Well then the same test that we're trying to get done here with the panacur should also be done with ivermectin right? Otherwise the panacur test would prove nothing about the safety of using ivermectin.


Couldn't agree more. The only way our hobby grows is if we put our agendas and prejudices aside and work together for the common good of our animals.


----------



## Philsuma

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



rmelancon said:


> This is the quote I really like:
> 
> "In many cases, frogs appear to be perfectly healthy
> despite a high number of nematode ova or larvae being
> found regularly in their feces. I believe that in some
> cases my prolonged rigorous anthelmintic treatments
> and associated sanitation and hygiene management
> may have sent frogs into a decline. Currently I do not
> recommend treatment for frogs that are apparently
> healthy, eating well and maintaining or gaining weight,
> and producing normal feces despite the presence of
> nematode ova or larvae per high power field on direct or
> flotation fecal parasite exams. However, if any frogs in
> the collection appear unthrifty, there are mortalities with
> nematodes implicated or there are otherwise
> unexplained mortalities, or direct fecal parasite exams
> reveal more than 5 to10 RBCs or 1 to 5 WBCs per high
> power field along with nematode ova or larvae, I do
> recommend treatment."
> 
> There is so much misinformation being propagated to new hobbyists on so many fronts. It seems so much is given with hidden or not so hidden agendas, promoted as truth to further ones own opinions. I know it's to be expected, but I would hate to be a new hobbyist in the current environment.


Who is that a quote from?.......


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Philsuma said:


> Who is that a quote from?.......


 
I believe that is a quote from Dr. K. Wright one of the author/editors of Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry, ex-curator (and ex-vet) for the Philadelphia Zoo, among many other things... 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Philsuma said:


> Who is that a quote from?.......


That was in the abstract that I provided from Dr. Kevin Wright that he presented at the NARBC conference in San Diego this summer. This is also one of the major changes that he has made in his parasite management regimen from his 2001 book.


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



ChrisK said:


> Just out of curiosity (and I treated frogs successfully with both drugs), are there any studies out there which PROVE ivermectin is a "safer" drug than panacur?


Chris it depends on what you mean by safer? You can easily kill a frog with an overdose. The main difference between the two is that unlike dusting there are methods that allow for exact dosing ivermectin. 

As for testing to prove safe tolerances in frogs (which unless there is a reference posted above I haven't gotten to yet), there have been trials done in anurans with ivermectin. For a small scale, I suggest getting a copy of Efficacy of ivermectin as an anthelmintic in leopa... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1992] - PubMed result (there are no free access that I could find but the abstract is pretty clear)
Efficacy of ivermectin as an anthelmintic in leopard frogs 

The differences between the two is the method of administration. If you can control the actual dosage ingested by the frog, then panacure is probably as safe as ivermectin (except as noted I have yet to see any studies on panacure toxicity in frogs). 

Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Your right Ed, it means nothing. I'm talking dedication to the dart frog hobby when no one else was really dedicating the time to them. Other people were busy doing tests on other animals to get published. I wouldn't want to be part of the publish or perish community as I hear about it at home every nite.
Which is probably why people should wait for updates, no?


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> That was meant for Ed. And I can tell you of a vet who has worked w/ more DART FROGS than any other I know of. You keep replying in terms of the whole rest of the animal community BUT the people who work w/ darts. And some people are busy working in their offices and doing WORK and don't have time to publish papers. I always lash out about this because there are numerous people out there who don't have all the papers and credentials and still do more for the animals they work on then someone who thinks they are above doing fecals and are only interested in the accomplishment of writing papers. I don't know dr wright from adam but I have been next to Dr. Frye while he did a slew of fecals for mw ehre he let me look under the scope. Everything was pretty clean so I didn't get a chance to ID much. Either way I saw him taking about 10+ minutes looking thru each slide and DOING the work himself. The more work you push off to others the shakier your confidence on the work being correct becomes(unless of course they are better at the job than you are).
> I


 
Ignoring the many years that Kevin worked as the curator and/or vet for several zoos which oddly enough had dart frogs.. as well as many other amphibians (and lots of anurans) the fact that he is also the vet for AZDR.. so I'm not sure your comparision on dart frog experience is valid...


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> Just the one you labeled below. So your saying it doesn't work different since they don't shed and don't clear it like other amphibs would?
> 
> No answer for the bath question above and why you would compare it to a drop on the back?
> 
> And since there is a difference in opinion on panacur w/ zoos and aquariums that means that we both have cases to back up our points.


So where did you get the evidence that other amphibians actually clear coccidia and simply do not end up asymptomatic like dendrobatids? Please supply the reference... 

In reality, the issue isn't in how the frogs' process the drug (and to be clear we are not talking about Panacure(fenbendazole) here).. instead it is how the parasite responds not the frogs.... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Yes. you are in correct on how it acts in other amphibians. 

And I supplied a response to your question on the ivermectin bath which included a suggestion to review the expansive literature on its use in the aquaculture industry. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> I stand corrected then. Wasn't it Dr. Whitaker that worked w/ teh darts though?


Dr. Whitaker did the study on protozoas in that one example, however he and Kevin then went and extensively collaborated on many other items (including the text book on Amphib medicine) but Kevin also worked at several institutions which had/have extensive amphibian collections including dendrobatids for which he was the vet. 
In addition, at least one of those institutions had a board certified exotic animal pathologist working full time so the frogs had not only gross necropsies (which are all most vets at best can do) but histopathologies... 

Ed


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> So you're saying you can deduce what dosage each frog will receive in such a bath no matter what the size of the frog or whether it's in the bath for one hour or 2? I would like to see the equation if you have it.


 
Considering that in an ivermectin bath (if one chooses to review the extensive body of literature) they can treat a juvenile fish as well as adult fish where the size difference can be many fold between the two with great success.. (and some of the literature has persistence in tissues etc data) then without some hard data to demonstrate otherwise, I'm willing to accept those examples. 

I would also strongly suspect that the variation in the bath is leeway for the treating vet to adjust based on a number of factors such (not meant to be a final answer) as parasite load, condition of the animal... 

Ivermectin doesn't dissolve in water but that does not preclude making a suspension of ivermectin in the water..(if the proper dilution was already made)... If people can make a suspension when making a vinegarette, then it should be pretty simple to make a suspension of ivermectin...


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

And have it not seperate for 2 hours? Don't fish stay submerged in water, breathe it in(pass it over their gills), etc.etc.? Now your comparing fish to frogs? Do they have the same range of tolerable levels(toxicity)? You do the same thing as nutritionism, which says there are numerous variables we can't control and no tests have been done on this method but we'll make the leap anyway and revise it if we need to. So you strongly suspect something, isn't that the same as I'm not too sure but if fish are exactly like frogs it should be the same? Don't fish and frogs have different skin texture and absorbtion rates?



Ed said:


> Considering that in an ivermectin bath (if one chooses to review the extensive body of literature) they can treat a juvenile fish as well as adult fish where the size difference can be many fold between the two with great success.. (and some of the literature has persistence in tissues etc data) then without some hard data to demonstrate otherwise, I'm willing to accept those examples.
> 
> I would also strongly suspect that the variation in the bath is leeway for the treating vet to adjust based on a number of factors such (not meant to be a final answer) as parasite load, condition of the animal...
> 
> Ivermectin doesn't dissolve in water but that does not preclude making a suspension of ivermectin in the water..(if the proper dilution was already made)... If people can make a suspension when making a vinegarette, then it should be pretty simple to make a suspension of ivermectin...


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> And have it not seperate for 2 hours? Don't fish stay submerged in water, breathe it in(pass it over their gills), etc.etc.? Now your comparing fish to frogs? Do they have the same range of tolerable levels(toxicity)? You do the same thing as nutritionism, which says there are numerous variables we can't control and no tests have been done on this method but we'll make the leap anyway and revise it if we need to. So you strongly suspect something, isn't that the same as I'm not too sure but if fish are anything like frogs it should be the same?


Don't the frogs stay in contact with the bath? If you are concerned about the frogs climbing out of the water, then one could use wet paper towels (provided the vet okays it) so the frogs stay in contact with the suspension... 

On what basis do you have to argue that the uptake over the gills is different than the uptake over the skin of the frog? Particularly when both organs have analagous functions? 

I make comparisions on things that tend to be highly conserved between taxa.... which is why we can use nutritional studies done on other animals to optimize nutrition for the frogs... If you did the same amount of research on nutrition that I have, then you might see the connections as well... 

Virtually all (if not all) of the treatment regimens used on frogs (including dendrobatids) are based on other taxa... so the bath comes from the aquaculture treatments..and has hard data supporting it.... this is how the new treatment protocols get/got established including panacure.... and over time as more evidence comes out, it gets changed again... this is what is occuring with panacure. 


Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

So fecals and panacure and first aid kits don't count for what you get back. I think people go to him for fecals and meds. I don't think they deserve papers too or they should've paid more. He consults w/ anyone who sends them fecals and relays his work to them and will let them look thru the microscope if they can be there to do it. Why would u say he owes them more than a consult or owes people who haven't paid him a paper on what he's learned? What happens if the bills for vet visits didn't pay for his practice? He should still focus on the darts he takes care of and take time away from his practice to write a book or paper? There are a LOT of vets out there who don't write books or go for peer reviewed papers because they are too busy to document all the other findings and write it up in paper form. Are all those other doctors hacks too?


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

My vet, who is a member of ARAV, has also prescribed Panacur for a hookworm infection while in quarantine. I think that even among ARAV members there is not 100% agreement with your views on Panacur.


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Vermfly said:


> My vet, who is a member of ARAV, has also prescribed Panacur for a hookworm infection while in quarantine.* I think that even among ARAV members there is not 100% agreement with your views on Panacur*.


That is absolutely correct. However the consensus seems to be towards moving away from Panacur as the drug of choice because of all the dosing control issues that Ed has previously mentioned. It will be interesting to see if your Vet is still prescribing Panacur a year from now as these issues become even better known and documented. Your vet has obviously placed a premium on learning and expanding her/his base of knowledge which is why I would value her/his input on the topic over a non ARAV member.

When you have a chance can you bring up some of the concerns with dosing that Ed has brought up with your Vet? I would be interested in getting their take on them.


----------



## frogfreak

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



ChrisK said:


> It can never hurt to get fecals done even if you don't decide to treat, you'll just get a better picture of what's going on. Then you can decide what to do with the vet's recommendation, asking opinions etc.


Very true, but my guess is that any vet will recommend to treat them. It's standard practice. I realise that we don't have to, but again the info is confusing as hell. Then there's always the issue of "no such thing as a clean frog" Back to the parasite build up in the tank's...

I'm looking more toward experienced hobbiest's and their experience's. How many treat and how many don't? Losses to parasite's and losses to med's?

Maybe a poll? Maybe just a discussion about that?


----------



## frogface

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

I think the panacur debate is interesting. Most of it is way over my head, but, I've enjoyed reading it. I'm not sure how Dr Frye got stuck in the middle of it. 

Back in June, I received a sick pum. I contacted Dr Frye and he returned my email within a day or so (this was over a weekend). Attached to my email with a description of the frog's condition, were pics. I knew this was not the ideal way to obtain veterinary treatment, but, that frog was not going to survive a trip to some random, yellow pages, vet who may or may not have ever seen a dart frog before. 

Dr Frye suggested what he thought the issue with my frog was, suggested a couple treatments, and suggested a couple other things that are good to have on hand. He did not try to strong arm me to buy anything. Nor did he try to make a conclusive diagnosis based only on my pics and description. He mentioned that he could do fecals, but, again, did not try to sell me on it. 

I did buy the suggested meds. It was not a lot of money. Far less than trying to get set up as a new patient with a vet, for a frog that was not likely to live regardless of treatment. 

Not sure where I'm going with this. I guess to say that Dr Frye has been available to hobbyists when they need him and he does not seem to be actively trying to promote himself as the 'go to doc' for hobbyist's frogs.


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfreak said:


> We've been on the fence, for a *long* time, on this one. We have been thinking about sending out fecal's and now we read this. Laura and I have about 50 adult Dart's and have raised our fair share of froglet's. We've had 1 death from a newly purchased froglet a while back. We figured that if the frog had half an immune system, it could fight them off. Then we started reading about a potential build up of parasite's in the tank and got concerned about that.
> 
> How is this issue addressed?


Hi Glenn,

There are in my sole opinion three major ways to look at this.. 
1) from the point of view of the hobby at large
2) from the point of view of the individual hobbyist 
3) from the point of view of the frog 

In the first case, it is always going to be best if one knows the parasite status of the frogs and given the rate of turn over in the hobby, look to manage the parasite levels in the frogs particularly if a lot of your trading/sales are to resellers or to new hobbyists. 

In the second case, it is probably beneficial to the hobbyist to know what parasites are in thier collection, but it may not be beneficial to treat unless the frogs are having issues due to costs and stress to the keeper and the animals. 

In the third case, it would be beneficial to know if the frogs are carrying parasites but probably not beneficial to the frog to be treated (particularly if the frog is a recent import) unless the frog was doing poorly. 

In a stable enviroment, the risks of problems are reduced unless something compromises the health of the frogs however this is when high enviromental exposure to certain parasites can act quickly on the health of the frog (for example lungworms in the genus Rhabdias) as they can rapidly build into superinfections. 

Tying back to point one, frogs with heavy infections can show a rapid decline once they are removed from thier stable enviroment (such as being shipped to a new keeper). This happened within the institutional system as one institution shipped one of the Gastrotheca (G. Riobambae if I remember correctly) to other institutions with 100% mortality due to heavy loads of Rhabdius despite no signs of issues with the population before shipping. However this can be offset by rapid acclimation into good enviroments.. so it can also depend on the skill of the recipient. 

Personally I strongly suggest knowing what is in your frogs and at least monitoring the levels of parasites. As for when to treat, you have to look at where the best intersections of points one, two and three above work for you and your collection. (I left out a fourth point, which is the point of view of a vet as it is up to the keeper to decide). 

If Rhabdius shows up in my collection, I would work to eliminate it.. but I probably would just monitor other parasites particularly in light of the emerging evidence in multiple taxa that some nematodes (pinworms) increase the ability to digest food items and look for spikes in levels and frogs that are doing poorly but this is my personal opinion and what works for me and my frogs may not work for you or your collection. 


Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Woodsman said:


> I have a lot of respect for vets. Unless I had personally experienced a negative interaction related to my own animals with a vet, I wouldn't have such a strong attitude against someone I didn't know. I don't think I would publish my negative views so openly on a public forum.
> 
> I have interacted with Dr. Frye on several occasions and found him to be pleasant and very helpful. Brother Rich is a totally different story.
> 
> Richard.


There is one similarity between the two. Neither seem to like to provide direct answers to questions in a public forum. You have met me at the MADS meeting at my house this fall. I think you know I have no agenda here other than to get straight answers for people to be able to refer to moving forward. And as I have previously stated I have no problems admitting I am wrong and apologizing publicly if that is indeed the case.


----------



## jeffr

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



mantisdragon91 said:


> Cliff,
> 
> Not my intention and I apologize if this is the direction its going. Aaron brought up his vet as a source that highly recommends the effeciency of powdered Panacur. At that point I felt it important for people to understand the diffrences in core competencies, relevant experience and credibility in the industry between the two vets. Just like in anything else in life not all "experts" are created equal and it is important for everyone to understand the sources of information so that they can make their own educated decision.
> 
> By all means back to the discussion


Sorry but my opinion is you intended for this thread to go the way it went, which is why you started it. Aaron brought up his vet because he knew where you were going with this. I knew it too after what I read on the other site. This started as different treatment methods for Darts to calling out someone for soliciting members of this board. Like I said this is just my opinion based on what I've been reading the last few weeks


----------



## Vermfly

*Re: The truth about MantisDragon*



mantisdragon91 said:


> shipping medicines across state lines in clear violation of ARAV policies?


I can see why he ignores this silly rule. If you run a fecal exam and it finds a parasite easily treated by a certain medication why would you make that person go search out a local vet who may know nothing about poison dart frogs and who probably will charge them a ridiculous "office visit" fee just to give the same diagnosis and sell you the same drug? 

I am lucky enough to live in California which has quite a few exotic specialists including several in the Sacramento and Bay Area near my location. Not everyone is so lucky. I had to search out a vet who wouldn't make me come in and spend $50 to visually inspect my dart frogs before running my fecal exam. In some states folks might not have the option to shop around.


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



D3monic said:


> Not sure what your agenda is but dear got man give it a rest.... I suppose your answer to all of this is to let our frogs, especially the WC one's live with a massive infestation feeding on them?
> 
> Its obvious you like your frogs that way...(note to self dont ever buy off you) but no amount of slander is ever going to get people to convert to your methods.
> 
> your threads on this are getting old fast.


My agenda is to expose lies where I see them. If you claim to not advertise on this board then maybe you shoudn't have active threads showing the exact opposite. And if you are lying about that what else are you lying about? On the other hand of you don't like this thread there is certainly no one forcing you to read it.


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Okay trying to get us back to the original discussion as there are some good discussion points. 

This was my last post several pages back (post 125) giving my personal opinion.. (quoted from here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge.../61615-truth-about-panacur-13.html#post536013) 

I did correct one spelling error. 



frogfreak said:


> We've been on the fence, for a *long* time, on this one. We have been thinking about sending out fecal's and now we read this. Laura and I have about 50 adult Dart's and have raised our fair share of froglet's. We've had 1 death from a newly purchased froglet a while back. We figured that if the frog had half an immune system, it could fight them off. Then we started reading about a potential build up of parasite's in the tank and got concerned about that.
> 
> How is this issue addressed?


Originally Posted by *frogfreak*  
_We've been on the fence, for a *long* time, on this one. We have been thinking about sending out fecal's and now we read this. Laura and I have about 50 adult Dart's and have raised our fair share of froglet's. We've had 1 death from a newly purchased froglet a while back. We figured that if the frog had half an immune system, it could fight them off. Then we started reading about a potential build up of parasite's in the tank and got concerned about that. 

How is this issue addressed?_

Hi Glenn,

There are in my sole opinion three major ways to look at this.. 
1) from the point of view of the hobby at large
2) from the point of view of the individual hobbyist 
3) from the point of view of the frog 

In the first case, it is always going to be best if one knows the parasite status of the frogs and given the rate of turn over in the hobby, look to manage the parasite levels in the frogs particularly if a lot of your trading/sales are to resellers or to new hobbyists. 

In the second case, it is probably beneficial to the hobbyist to know what parasites are in thier collection, but it may not be beneficial to treat unless the frogs are having issues due to costs and stress to the keeper and the animals. 

In the third case, it would be beneficial to know if the frogs are carrying parasites but probably not beneficial to the frog to be treated (particularly if the frog is a recent import) unless the frog was doing poorly. 

In a stable enviroment, the risks of problems are reduced unless something compromises the health of the frogs however this is when high enviromental exposure to certain parasites can act quickly on the health of the frog (for example lungworms in the genus Rhabdias) as they can rapidly build into superinfections. 

Tying back to point one, frogs with heavy infections can show a rapid decline once they are removed from thier stable enviroment (such as being shipped to a new keeper). This happened within the institutional system as one institution shipped one of the Gastrotheca (G. riobambae if I remember correctly) to other institutions with 100% mortality due to heavy loads of Rhabdius despite no signs of issues with the population before shipping. However this can be offset by rapid acclimation into good enviroments.. so it can also depend on the skill of the recipient. 

Personally I strongly suggest knowing what is in your frogs and at least monitoring the levels of parasites. As for when to treat, you have to look at where the best intersections of points one, two and three above work for you and your collection. (I left out a fourth point, which is the point of view of a vet as it is up to the keeper to decide). 

If Rhabdius shows up in my collection, I would work to eliminate it.. but I probably would just monitor other parasites particularly in light of the emerging evidence in multiple taxa that some nematodes (pinworms) increase the ability to digest food items and look for spikes in levels and frogs that are doing poorly but this is my personal opinion and what works for me and my frogs may not work for you or your collection. 


Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Sorry I missed the window for answering your posts. It's not really worth my time to start a new thread to argue w/ you and I see enough other people are relating their experience so I'm out.



mantisdragon91 said:


> Yes I did. But at no point did I mention anyone by name until you did. This was relevant to the discussion at the time as way of establishing the core competency levels and experience levels of the two vets with the diffrent opinions on whether Panacur should be the drug of choice.
> 
> Either way I think the consensus of the board is for us to get back to the topic of the drugs themselves. If you want feel free to start a separate thread on this and I will join.
> 
> Regards,
> Roman


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> Ed, First off, I see what you mean w/ the leeway for treatment, it didn't say that in the article but I may be mistaking it.
> 
> Is the gill surface area proportions conserved between small and large fish? Because I know the surface area of a small frog is much larger than the surface area of a large frog as per surface area/mass. If they are dosed according to mass a small frog may receive a much larger dose than a large frog. If the hour is for small frogs and the 2 hours for large frogs that would account for it. Since there is no explanation I'm just checking. If the vet doesn't think it matters and just is somewhere between an hour or 2 there may be a problem.


Hi Aaron,

If you want to look at a closer analogy in the fish, ivermectin baths are also used to treat scaleless fish such as catfish. These fish uptake the drug across thier whole body not just the gills in much the same way that frogs can/do so you have the same issues with skin area to volume (mass isn't really correct to use here as mass doesn't increase at the same rate as volume unless the ratio of mass to volume is one to one, it does increase but we can't use the normal ). 

I mentioned it before, keep in mind that the frogs don't have to be immersed in the bath. Only the ventral area (particularly) the drinking patch really needs to be in contact with the suspension. With hylids or other species that would readily climb out of a bath, I have with the vet's okay used unbleached papertowels to line the sides and bottom of the container and then wetted them with a treatment suspension/solution with good success (I did that with some red eye treefrog metamorphs that had issues with repeat prolapses due to nematode levels and weren't responding to fenbendazole treatments). 


Ed


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfreak said:


> Hi Phil
> 
> Could you expand on this comment, please? Why do you feel this way? I've said this before and it's merely a guess...I'm guessing that less than 5% of frogger's use med's on their frog's. I don't know anyone in Canada that doe's it atm.
> 
> This has been our stance from the beginning, then we were on the fence, but now we're going to send out fecal's just to see what's up with our collection.


While not Phil.. If I understand your question correctly, I would like to add the following... 

One of the common things through the herp hobby is treating animals with a succession of medications in the hopes that one of them will "cure" the animal. This is done without determining the root cause of the issue and the stress is often worse for the animals. 
In many cases, the source of the medicine is over the counter drugs intended to treat aquarium fish, using capsules which contain active and inactive ingredients which are not uniformly distributed in the capsule. This leads to further issues in dosing along with the potential of over/underdosing. 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Ed said:


> While not Phil.. If I understand your question correctly, I would like to add the following...
> 
> One of the common things through the herp hobby is treating animals with a succession of medications in the hopes that one of them will "cure" the animal. This is done without determining the root cause of the issue and the stress is often worse for the animals.
> In many cases, the source of the medicine is over the counter drugs intended to treat aquarium fish, using capsules which contain active and inactive ingredients which are not uniformly distributed in the capsule. This leads to further issues in dosing along with the potential of over/underdosing.
> 
> Ed


In conversations with a number of knowledgeble people I have seen mentioned that our use of Panacur and other parasite management drugs may actually wipe out beneficial gut flora and fauna in our frogs as well, which can lead to shorter lifespans, weakened immunity and other unpleasant side affects. Any thougts on the subject?


----------



## Philsuma

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



Ed said:


> While not Phil.. If I understand your question correctly, I would like to add the following...
> 
> One of the common things through the herp hobby is treating animals with a succession of medications in the hopes that one of them will "cure" the animal. This is done without determining the root cause of the issue and the stress is often worse for the animals.
> In many cases, the source of the medicine is over the counter drugs intended to treat aquarium fish, using capsules which contain active and inactive ingredients which are not uniformly distributed in the capsule. This leads to further issues in dosing along with the potential of over/underdosing.
> 
> Ed


Agree.

Glenn...you aked for my personal "stance" on medication in the hobby...

At an I.A.D conference quite a few years ago, I listened to a major FF vendor that was giving an overview of feeder insects in the hobby, focusing primarliy on FF and realted issues and problems. He was heard to say that his company and it's fly stock " NEVER" had mites. Never is the word he used. Unbelievable and all but impossible to achieve, especially on a large scale. I think all major FF vendors have sold cultures with mites to customers here and it's probably been documented in a thread somewhere. Would some consider it a blatant marketing lie?

anyhoo....

Same with "dirty" , parasite ridden ect...dart frogs. I just don't believe there can exist such a thing as a totally clean frog. I think it just defies nature to believe that it's possible.

I see another equally alarming American trend with hobby exotics and that is.....clean, medicate, fecal, test, dose, clean, sterilize, boast, proffer, beat-up other's collections that don't do any of the above, clean some more, autoclave, dust, dose.....well.....you get the idea. It's just bad for the frogs IMO. Frogs don't exist in such a hygenic environment in nature. A lot of people want to also "keep medicines on hand in case _something _happens". I don't know how that can be thought of as safe, when most small amounts of meds generally go bad very quickly and most meds need almost a hands on vet's expertise and small scale ect, to even begin to think about safe and correct dosing. And then we are still very much split to dosing and amounts within the hobby as well.

When, if ever, would I ever take drastic action and consider meds? When the frog is losing notable weight and body mass, not feeding correctly or displaying locomotion problems.....that type of thing. Emergency stuff.

This a hard topic to address in so few typed words paragraphs on a forum but it is worth trying.


----------



## Ed

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



mantisdragon91 said:


> In conversations with a number of knowledgeble people I have seen mentioned that our use of Panacur and other parasite management drugs may actually wipe out beneficial gut flora and fauna in our frogs as well, which can lead to shorter lifespans, weakened immunity and other unpleasant side affects. Any thougts on the subject?



There isn't any hard data in the literature on this topic specific to dendrobatids so we have to look at wider group of taxa for guidence. 
There is usually a fairly wide variety of organisms that inhabit the gut of an anuran (parasites and commensuals) without any good guidelines on which are which..but one can become the other.... 
When you start looking across taxa one of the items that becomes clear is that some of the items frequently considered parasites may actually be commensuals until thier population density crosses a threshhold and becomes a detriment to the frog. A example that is holding across taxa are pinworms.. for example, pinworms have been shown it assist tortoises in digestion of plant matter by breaking down cell walls, with a similar example in bullfrog tadpoles (where the infected tadpoles actually grew faster and metamorphed at a larger size than uninfected tadpoles) to the use of nematodes in Phrynosoma to help break down prey items that are high in chitin. 

When a fecal is examined by a vet or a vet tech, the fecals are typically graded as to the level of what is seen.. unfortunately these levels are totally subjective and two different readers can make two different determinations as to what and when it is or isn't a problem. So it is easy to see where these treatments can cause problems with some of the animals as there are benefits to the presence of some of the gut fauna but overgrowths of these can cause a lot of problems as well this is also some of the real reasons why tracking fecals can be important. 
It should be noted that unless there is an active treatment regimen going on, fecals really don't need to be checked except every few months (a lot of zoos do them on either a six month or annual basis). 

Some general thoughts,

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> Not the way this witch hunt is going. I take it when I have conversations w/ people over the phone it is in confidence. Unless I contact them and ask if I can divulge the info I won't and no, I'm not going to. If you don't believe me, that's your own issue.
> 2 posts in 11 minutes asking the same question?


Aaron,

There is no witch hunt, paranoia on certains people's end perhaps but no witch hunt. The point I am trying to make is that the "dusted panacur" camp makes many claims but provides no suppourting documentation for those claims. At least on my end I do my best to provide documentation to support every statement made, as do Ed and others.

In the interests of fairness lets leave the vets names out of this since I don't want to impose on any one's private business. Zoos and Aquariums on the other hand are public institutions so there is no reason to protect them. Let me take the initiative and give you four names and institutions that will only use dusted panacur as a final option:

1) Philly Zoo as relayed by Ed Kowalski
2) Bronx Zoo as relayed by Frank Incoviglioto(sorry if I may have butchered his last name)
3) National Zoo as relayed by Trooper Walsh
4) San Diego Zoo as relayed by Jeff Lemm

These Zoos contain 4 of the biggest reptile and amphibian collections in North America. So which Zoos can you provide me information on that do recommend dusted Panacur as the drug of choice?


----------



## kyle1745

All,

We have removed the inappropriate personal comments of this thread, and are now returning it to the masses. If we have missed something please report it.

Lets take a minute and remember the rules that we do not allow feedback. We do allow facts, and while this is a good conversation with various angles lets keep the doctors names and comparisons to ourselves. With many things in science there are different viewpoints and methods, and many times both are effective.

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to send me a PM or email.


----------



## Ed

> _Correct me if I'm wrong but Horned Lizards(Phrynosoma) are primarily ant eaters in the wild ( hence the high chitin load of the prey) and a large portion of our darts diet in the wild also consist of similarly high chitin prey such as ants and various pill bugs. Is it possible a very similar dynamic is at play in the what seem to be the very high parasite loads that are frequently seen in recently WC darts? _





Hi Roman,

I don't think that is the case, in the case of imports, the levels are probably elevated due to the stress, overcrowding and other poor conditions prior to and immediately post import that prevent the frog's immune system from controlling the parasite levels. If my memory serves me correctly, excess levels were not seen in the Atelopus zeteki and varius imports for Project Goldenfrog but these were handled in a manner very different than virtually all of the imported frogs that show up in the pet trade. 

Even in species where they are known to be beneficial (pinworms in tortoises) excess levels indicate that there is a problem and the worms need to be brought back under control. The difference is that you want to reduce the levels, not wipe them out (although this can also select for resistence if repeated too frequently) as wiping them out prevents the benefit. However in some cases, wiping the parasite out may be the long-term goal (Rhabdius lungworms, hookworms for example) or controlling other parasites (coccidia for examples).

As far as I know there has been one paper on protozoal organisms living in the frogs and none on the levels of frogs in the wild (which would require sacrificing the frogs and doing various studies as one has to also account for parasites in other tissues as well as intracellular parasites). 

Some thoughts along this line.. 
Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> [/I]
> 
> 
> Hi Roman,
> 
> I don't think that is the case, in the case of imports, the levels are probably elevated due to the stress, overcrowding and other poor conditions prior to and immediately post import that prevent the frog's immune system from controlling the parasite levels. If my memory serves me correctly, excess levels were not seen in the Atelopus zeteki and varius imports for Project Goldenfrog but these were handled in a manner very different than virtually all of the imported frogs that show up in the pet trade.
> 
> Even in species where they are known to be beneficial (pinworms in tortoises) excess levels indicate that there is a problem and the worms need to be brought back under control. The difference is that you want to reduce the levels, not wipe them out (although this can also select for resistence if repeated too frequently) as wiping them out prevents the benefit. However in some cases, wiping the parasite out may be the long-term goal (Rhabdius lungworms, hookworms for example) or controlling other parasites (coccidia for examples).
> 
> As far as I know there has been one paper on protozoal organisms living in the frogs and none on the levels of frogs in the wild (which would require sacrificing the frogs and doing various studies as one has to also account for parasites in other tissues as well as intracellular parasites).
> 
> Some thoughts along this line..
> Ed


I see a lot of claims of "clean" frogs being thrown out there. How realistic do you see that being, based on your experiences of attempting to totally eliminate parasites during your time at the Philly Zoo and within your personal collection?


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> I see a lot of claims of "clean" frogs being thrown out there. How realistic do you see that being, based on your experiences of attempting to totally eliminate parasites during your time at the Philly Zoo and within your personal collection?


Hi Roman,

People need to keep in mind that having some level of other a nematode in the gut of an animal as a benefit is relatively new to the hobby world. One of the first articles on it that I could locate was back in 1990 (see JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie ). Until those studies started becoming more common (in more recent years), the medical and herpetocultural community focused solely on the negative aspects of those infections as lethal impactions of the same types of nematodes (see BioOne Online Journals - LETHAL OZOLAIMUS MEGATYPHLON INFECTION IN A GREEN IGUANA (IGUANA IGUANA RHINOLOPA) and this citation AGRIS repository search result) were well known, which resulted in a sort of clear the decks mentality. 

Now that we have some historical perspective we can discuss the topic... 
for example coccidia can never be cleared from a frog.. all treatment does is render the frog asymptomatic and non-shedding but histopathology on necropsy readily demonstrates the frogs are still infected. 
As a further discussion point, a clean fecal producing frog is not automatically an uninfected frog as the frog may simply not be shedding ova or larva in that fecal or series of fecals which is why if you test the frogs long enough you will usually find something. Now the eventual discovery of "something" may be due to the repeated stresses of collection decreasing the immune response of the frog (for those who want an good breakdown of stress and immune response I suggest Health and Welfare of Captive Reptiles) and allowing the parasites to respond. I have seen animals provide negative fecals for months or years before suddenly becoming positive for nematodes. Now it is possible that the nematodes were introduced via wild insects (this is a probable common introduction of coccidia) or cage furnishings but it is also possible that the frog was infected but asymptomatic during that time frame. 

This is why on occasion one needs to triage thier new frogs (whether imports or from another person) and make a determination if the frog needs to be stabilized before testing, or testing can occur during stabilization. These two criteria can lead a person to determining whether it is okay to treat if positive or to wait despite a positive fecal report. 

And I will repeat that the levels of the parasites needs to be at least monitored on some routine schedule as overgrowths of the parasites can also have serious consequences. Frogs housed in groups can usually have a group fecal taken for monitoring as long as it is fresh. I normally would recommend pulling a random frog for the fecal as this prevents false positives from freeliving nematodes. Usually it only takes a very short period of time for the frog to pass a fecal if they have been well fed.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Hi Roman,
> 
> People need to keep in mind that having some level of other a nematode in the gut of an animal as a benefit is relatively new to the hobby world. One of the first articles on it that I could locate was back in 1990 (see JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie ). Until those studies started becoming more common (in more recent years), the medical and herpetocultural community focused solely on the negative aspects of those infections as lethal impactions of the same types of nematodes (see BioOne Online Journals - LETHAL OZOLAIMUS MEGATYPHLON INFECTION IN A GREEN IGUANA (IGUANA IGUANA RHINOLOPA) and this citation AGRIS repository search result) were well known, which resulted in a sort of clear the decks mentality.
> 
> Now that we have some historical perspective we can discuss the topic...
> for example coccidia can never be cleared from a frog.. all treatment does is render the frog asymptomatic and non-shedding but histopathology on necropsy readily demonstrates the frogs are still infected.
> *As a further discussion point, a clean fecal producing frog is not automatically an uninfected frog as the frog may simply not be shedding ova or larva in that fecal or series of fecals which is why if you test the frogs long enough you will usually find something*. Now the eventual discovery of "something" may be due to the repeated stresses of collection decreasing the immune response of the frog (for those who want an good breakdown of stress and immune response I suggest Health and Welfare of Captive Reptiles) and allowing the parasites to respond. *I have seen animals provide negative fecals for months or years before suddenly becoming positive for nematodes. Now it is possible that the nematodes were introduced via wild insects (this is a probable common introduction of coccidia) or cage furnishings but it is also possible that the frog was infected but asymptomatic during that time frame. *
> This is why on occasion one needs to triage thier new frogs (whether imports or from another person) and make a determination if the frog needs to be stabilized before testing, or testing can occur during stabilization. These two criteria can lead a person to determining whether it is okay to treat if positive or to wait despite a positive fecal report.
> 
> And I will repeat that the levels of the parasites needs to be at least monitored on some routine schedule as overgrowths of the parasites can also have serious consequences. Frogs housed in groups can usually have a group fecal taken for monitoring as long as it is fresh. I normally would recommend pulling a random frog for the fecal as this prevents false positives from freeliving nematodes. Usually it only takes a very short period of time for the frog to pass a fecal if they have been well fed.


Are these statements based strictly based on your experience? Perhaps you can share the names of some Zoological institutions or well respected proffesionals that can validate the above statements? Would these statements fall in line with the claims of certain "dusted panacur proponents" that all "bad" parasites can be completely eliminated through their treatment regimen?


----------



## paintballislife

I think a lot of people need to take into mind and consider that this is how new treatments and methods come about. This is basically an evolution in medicine. Just like the many before it. Its also a different way to think, people seem to forget that theae animals in the wild live with these parasites for a lonnnggg time. Yes some die off because of them, but we still dont know what we are really doing to the frog when we try to rid these frogs of parasites.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed

Roman,

Some of that is in my own words directly from Amphibian Medicine and Captivity Husbandry, some of it is explicitly indicated from the same book but not directly stated and some is due to my experience working under Dr. Wright and several other vets. If I remember correctly, there were discussions of this on frognet.org as well. 

If a frog couldn't skip a fecal or fecals without shedding parasites, then there would never have been any need to suggest that multiple fecals in quarantine and post treatment are needed or as part of a routine monitoring program.. I suggest reviewing the information on at least pages 302-304 of Amphibian Medicine and Captvie Husbandry. 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

As a quick aside since I realize many of the people on this board are relatively new to the hobby and do not know the history of what has transpired in the last 15-20 years:

In the 90's there was a small very vocal minority of people claiming Vitamin A toxicity on the Chameleon forums. There was never any documentation presented to prove the claims made and many experienced people had their doubts but got tired of arguing and gave up in disgust. However the group was vocal enough and persuasive enough in their arguments, that many people started to believe their claims and started looking for a supplement that contained Beta Carotene only which the group claimed can be converted to Vitamin A(still with no proof). A supplement was hastily rushed to market to take advantage of the "Beta Carotene" craze. The Europeans just chuckled and continued using Nekton Rep and KorminVit(both very high in Vitamin A)

The end result was that the mortality rate in captive kept chameleons skyrocketed and reproduction became stagnat. The end result multiple species were permanently lost to the hobby and many hobbyists left the hobby entirely frustrated with the lack of success they were experiencing. I know I was one of those hobbyists. In the last decade multiple studies have shown the benefits of Vitamin A and there has been slight evidence if any that Beta Carotene can be converted into Vitamin A by the species the "supplement" in question was marketed to.

Interestingly after the fact it was learned that the hard core of the vocal minority that propogated the "Vitamin A Toxicity" discussion all had business interests in the "Beta Carotene Supplement" that came out to take advantage of the fears of "Vitamin A Toxicity"


The really amusing part is that the most vocal champion of the school of thought that advocates for treatment at the slightest sign of parasites and the wonders of dusted panacur, will also in the same breath claim that the need for Vitamin A is over rated and that he has seen first hand Vitamin A Toxicity in darts fed on crikets fed on fish food.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford

Doesn't every animal, frog, fish, lizard, cat, etc. always have some form of parasite? Especially a wild caught animal. Isn't the key really maintaing your animals in the proper enviroment to reduce stress. I leared a long time ago that stress leads to a weakening of the immune system which leads to disease, ie parasites. Obviously a new aquisition should be tested, treated if necessary and tested again. But beyond that point what should one do? Have every frog get a fecal test once a month? Once every six months? At the first sign of anything unusual? If one had the proper enviroment, diet, and stress free frogs(as much as can be expected in captivity) wouldn't this whole topic be moot? Just asking.


----------



## Ed

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> Doesn't every animal, frog, fish, lizard, cat, etc. always have some form of parasite? Especially a wild caught animal. Isn't the key really maintaing your animals in the proper enviroment to reduce stress. I leared a long time ago that stress leads to a weakening of the immune system which leads to disease, ie parasites. Obviously a new aquisition should be tested, treated if necessary and tested again. But beyond that point what should one do? Have every frog get a fecal test once a month? Once every six months? At the first sign of anything unusual? If one had the proper enviroment, diet, and stress free frogs(as much as can be expected in captivity) wouldn't this whole topic be moot? Just asking.


 
The answer to your last sentence is maybe. It depends on the frogs and the parasites in questions. This was discussed in this post from this thread http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...8-truth-about-panacur-2-0-a-9.html#post536097 to some extent. 

Frequency of fecal checking depends on what is going on in the collection.. for quarantine purposes, three fecals 5-7 days apart within a 30 day period, two fecals post treatment and then a follow-up every six months or so are recommended in the literature and used at some institutions. If problems show up then a more frequent routine may be called for to determine if there is a problem. 
This is also subject to modification depending on your goals for your collection, input from your vet and whether or not you are selling to less experienced people or to wholesellers. 


Ed


----------



## Roadrunner

Are we trying to find out the truth about panacur or smear people who can't post here! 

Sheesh, you just don't quit, we'll find out when the toxicity studies are out what the TRUTH is for darts, until then your just speculating on safety in DARTS.

Give it a rest!




mantisdragon91 said:


> As a quick aside since I realize many of the people on this board are relatively new to the hobby and do not know the history of what has transpired in the last 15-20 years:
> 
> In the 90's there was a small very vocal minority of people claiming Vitamin A toxicity on the Chameleon forums. There was never any documentation presented to prove the claims made and many experienced people had their doubts but got tired of arguing and gave up in disgust. However the group was vocal enough and persuasive enough in their arguments, that many people started to believe their claims and started looking for a supplement that contained Beta Carotene only which the group claimed can be converted to Vitamin A(still with no proof). A supplement was hastily rushed to market to take advantage of the "Beta Carotene" craze. The Europeans just chuckled and continued using Nekton Rep and KorminVit(both very high in Vitamin A)
> 
> The end result was that the mortality rate in captive kept chameleons skyrocketed and reproduction became stagnat. The end result multiple species were permanently lost to the hobby and many hobbyists left the hobby entirely frustrated with the lack of success they were experiencing. I know I was one of those hobbyists. In the last decade multiple studies have shown the benefits of Vitamin A and there has been slight evidence if any that Beta Carotene can be converted into Vitamin A by the species the "supplement" in question was marketed to.
> 
> Interestingly after the fact it was learned that the hard core of the vocal minority that propogated the "Vitamin A Toxicity" discussion all had business interests in the "Beta Carotene Supplement" that came out to take advantage of the fears of "Vitamin A Toxicity"
> 
> 
> The really amusing part is that the most vocal champion of the school of thought that advocates for treatment at the slightest sign of parasites and the wonders of dusted panacur, will also in the same breath claim that the need for Vitamin A is over rated and that he has seen first hand Vitamin A Toxicity in darts fed on crikets fed on fish food.


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> Are we trying to find out the truth about panacur or smear people who can't post here!
> 
> Sheesh, you just don't quit, we'll find out when the toxicity studies are out what the TRUTH is for darts, until then your just speculating on safety in DARTS.
> 
> Give it a rest!


Aaron,

I am showing a lesson from history. Very well respected and knowledgable people within the Chameleon hobby put their financial interests ahead of the interests of the hobby. Should I be foolish enough to believe the same can't happen here. Especially when I see the same scenario with lack of documentation and evasion of questions playing out before my eyes? I have listed 4 major zoological instituitions in a previous post that no longer use dusted panacur except as a last resort, can you do the same for zoos that still use it as the drug of choice?


----------



## Roadrunner

From what he said to me was that vit A CAN be overdosed and we dust that on flies. From what he said to me he had darts that ate nothing but springtails for a couple months and that they must not NEED dusting for extended periods and dusting w/ panacure was SIMILAR to dusting w/ supplements hi in Vit A. I didn't READ anything he wrote but I said it seems plausible to me.
And again your comparing chameleons to darts.


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> From what he said to me was that vit A CAN be overdosed and we dust that on flies. From what he said to me he had darts that ate nothing but springtails for a couple months and that they must not NEED dusting for extended periods and dusting w/ panacure was SIMILAR to dusting w/ supplements hi in Vit A. I didn't READ anything he wrote but I said it seems plausible to me.


This is factual and mirrors what I have read on the boards by him as well. But the comparison was that dusting with Panacur was similar to dusting with Vitamin A. Do you personally believe that the tolerance levels for Panacur are the same as the tolerance levels for Vitamin A? And do you believe that dusted Panacur is just as essential to the long term health of darts as Vitamin A to justify the added risk of over/under dose? Are the two substances one an essential nutrient and one a poison designed to rid worms in horses the same in your eyes when it come to application methodology?


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> And again your comparing chameleons to darts.


And to account for your last edit. A lot of the same problems we saw with Chameleons in particular the weak offspring, lack of stickyness of the tongue and poor reproduction can also be improved in darts with the addition of proper quantities of Vitamin A. Or perhaps you would care to replicate the Chameleon experiment and only feed your darts supplements containing Beta Carotene moving forward. Please feel free to let me know how your collection is doing a year from now


----------



## Roadrunner

I know they can get vit a from their food w/out dusting. And you don't know the answers either. I know people were having problems who were just using nekton as a vit supplement and it is extremely hi in vit a. I know that you don't dust 3-7 times a week w/ panacur as you would a vit supplement.
And supplements are a poor choice or maybe a good choice for comparison considering that most tested by the zoos didn't contain the levels stated and some had no vits in them at all as they are not controlled to standards. And did I say anything about feeding just beta carotene in supplements? No I did not. I don't think the person you speak of did either. And darts may need less than chameleons do as I don't think I remember anything specific to darts and nutrition. So just because you can cite another animals problems you CAN NOT use that as proof of anything w/ darts. If the supplements contain no vits or 50,000iu of vit a how can you suggest a dusting schedule not knowing how much vit a is present in your supplements?


mantisdragon91 said:


> This is factual and mirrors what I have read on the boards by him as well. But the comparison was that dusting with Panacur was similar to dusting with Vitamin A. Do you personally believe that the tolerance levels for Panacur are the same as the tolerance levels for Vitamin A? And do you believe that dusted Panacur is just as essential to the long term health of darts as Vitamin A to justify the added risk of over/under dose? Are the two substances one an essential nutrient and one a poison designed to rid worms in horses the same in your eyes when it come to application methodology?


----------



## paintballislife

Sorry, had to.


----------



## frogface

Hahahha lmao!


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> I know they can get vit a from their food w/out dusting. And you don't know the answers either. I know people were having problems who were just using nekton as a vit supplement and it is extremely hi in vit a. I know that you don't dust 3-7 times a week w/ panacur as you would a vit supplement.
> And supplements are a poor choice or maybe a good choice for comparison considering that most tested by the zoos didn't contain the levels stated and some had no vits in them at all as they are not controlled to standards. And did I say anything about feeding just beta carotene in supplements? No I did not. I don't think the person you speak of did either. And darts may need less than chameleons do as I don't think I remember anything specific to darts and nutrition. So just because you can cite another animals problems you CAN NOT use that as proof of anything w/ darts. If the supplements contain no vits or 50,000iu of vit a how can you suggest a dusting schedule not knowing how much vit a is present in your supplements?


Aaron,

I believe you have either missed or chosen to ignore my point on this. How can you in good faith compare the two. I can think of many keepers that have never used Panacur on their frogs even WCs yet have had them live long happy lives and reproduce healthy offspring. How many keepers do you know that use no Vitamin A in their frogs diet? And no one that I know dusts with Vitamin A at every feeding so that is just another evasion perpetrated by "the panacur dust" camp. And who do you know that has had problems using Nekton Rep? The Europeans have been using it for decades with no documented issues.

As for the darts and chameleons issue they may very well need less then chameleons but the results of a deficiency are strikingly the same. All zoo personel that I have talked in the last couple of years stated the importance of supplementing with Vitamin A. Not one has stressed that I dust my animals with Panacur.

Bottom line is simple you can easily maintain a collection with out ever using panacur dusted or other wise. Can you do the same without some source of vitamin A? And keep in mind that I am not talking for a couple of months as your source states on the other board. I am talking no Vitamin A for years and with healthy offspring to boot. Think that is possible?


----------



## Roadrunner

And I think you missed my opening statement which said I KNOW THEY CAN GET VIT A FROM THEIR FOOD WITHOUT DUSTING!!!

Last answer and you go to the ignore list. Did I say no vit A? No I didn't. Varied diet and feeding your feeders w/ good leafy greens or something hi in vit a. How do the animals live in the wild w/out us dusting their food for them? How come they can go their whole life w/out ever getting food dusted w/ vit a?

Stress does have a lot to do w/ parasite loads. So, it seems to reason an animal w/ heavy parasite loads can handle less stress before falling ill. They may be able to handle much more stress if the parasite load is so small as to not be able to reinfect till the animal gets acclimated and then the immune system would better be able to fight off problems.

Some people, who would never pipette and pry open a frogs mouth, would be better inclined to dust and keep parasite levels down or non existent. Remember, there werent recommendations for dropping ivermectin on a frogs back or baths back a couple years ago as far as I know. I had heard in the past ivermectin had to be properly dosed and pipetting a very small liquid dose can be very hard on an animal and the owner.

Oh, and the europe has had problems w/ it(as I've purchased frogs before that the person selling them dusted w/ nekton on my eu shipment) as well as a couple froggers back 15 years ago when I started.


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> From what he said to me was that vit A CAN be overdosed and we dust that on flies. * From what he said to me he had darts that ate nothing but springtails for a couple months and that they must not NEED dusting for extended periods and dusting w/ panacure was SIMILAR to dusting w/ supplements hi in Vit A.* I didn't READ anything he wrote but I said it seems plausible to me.
> And again your comparing chameleons to darts.


The exact quote upon further review was that it was froglets. Here is a very plausible scenario that I see happening and feel free to correct me if there is a flaw in my logic:

Most tads are fed fish food, spirulina or other diets that are high in Vitamin A

Vitamin A is a fat soluble vitamin that can be store in the body for an indeterminate period of time(This was one of the main arguments used for year by the "vitamin A toxicity camp")

Is it possible that the froglets leave the water with a large enough store of Vitamin A in their system to carry them through for a few months at least, before the reserves are depleted and Vitamin A deficieny becomes apparent?


----------



## Roadrunner

Crap, I forgot to put you on ignore.
The froglet thing doesn't matter, who's dusting all the wild animals food?
So vit a DUSTING is not needed if they are fed a well rounded diet and dusting could lead to overvitaminizing because you can't measure the dosage. Correct?
I'll take you off ignore once the testing is done, have a happy holiday!



mantisdragon91 said:


> The exact quote upon further review was that it was froglets. Here is a very plausible scenario that I see happening and feel free to correct me if there is a flaw in my logic:
> 
> Most tads are fed fish food, spirulina or other diets that are high in Vitamin A
> 
> Vitamin A is a fat soluble vitamin that can be store in the body for an indeterminate period of time(This was one of the main arguments used for year by the "vitamin A toxicity camp")
> 
> Is it possible that the froglets leave the water with a large enough store of Vitamin A in their system to carry them through for a few months at least, before the reserves are depleted and Vitamin A deficieny becomes apparent?


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> And I think you missed my opening statement which said I KNOW THEY CAN GET VIT A FROM THEIR FOOD WITHOUT DUSTING!!!
> 
> *Last answer and you go to the ignore list. Did I say no vit A? No I didn't. Varied diet and feeding your feeders w/ good leafy greens or something hi in vit a. How do the animals live in the wild w/out us dusting their food for them? How come they can go their whole life w/out ever getting food dusted w/ vit a?*
> Stress does have a lot to do w/ parasite loads. So, it seems to reason an animal w/ heavy parasite loads can handle less stress before falling ill. They may be able to handle much more stress if the parasite load is so small as to not be able to reinfect till the animal gets acclimated and then the immune system would better be able to fight off problems.
> 
> Some people, who would never pipette and pry open a frogs mouth, would be better inclined to dust and keep parasite levels down or non existent. Remember, there werent recommendations for dropping ivermectin on a frogs back or baths back a couple years ago as far as I know. I had heard in the past ivermectin had to be properly dosed and pipetting a very small liquid dose can be very hard on an animal and the owner.
> 
> Oh, and the europe has had problems w/ it(as I've purchased frogs before that the person selling them dusted w/ nekton on my eu shipment) as well as a couple froggers back 15 years ago when I started.


Aaron,

Yet again we are dancing and evading. Bottom line is the great majority of proffesionals now recomend that Vitamin A needs to be added to the diet on a once a week basis. An ever shrinking number vets still recomend dusted panacur as the drug of choice. To follow your argument to it's logical conclusion what is being said is to paraphrase your words:

*Its okay to dust with Panacur since we dust with Vitamin A. That analogy falls flat on its face. We know that darts need Vitamin A in some form or fashion in their diet( I think that is fairly conclusive but feel free to bring up arguments to the contrary) No one can show me evidence that darts will not survive unless dusted with Panacur(But feel free to try. I am alway open to listening and learning from documented evidence as opposed to hear say and inuendo.)*

And in aswer to the part of your post that I bolded. How do animals go through their entire lives without being dusted with Panacur in the wild? The majority of us can't provide a varied enough diet in captivity and thus Vitamin A and other essential nutrients are needed to compensate. Last time I checked leafy greens aren't an option in gut loading fruit flies and not many people that I know of are feeding crickets to their darts as the primary diet. On the other hand last time I checked not everyone is convinced on the need to treat darts with moderate parasite loads and even if they are there is a huge debate on whether Panacur is still the drug of choice(because of all the accurate dosing challenges ED and myself have brought up previously in this thread) I think its a little disingenious to continue and try to link the two. Loyalty to your friends is an admirable thing to have, not so much when you allow that loyalty to cloud your judgement and common sense.


----------



## Roadrunner

Try not to paraphrase me as your no good at it. It's okay to dust w/ panacur if your frogs have hi parasite loads because they are stuck in that tank you have them in and may get reinfected to superinfection status(just because they are alive does NOT mean they are in a good state of health). Since you think panacur is highly toxic to darts and worry, why do you dust w/ vit a since they can be overdosed on that too and you can't get a true dosage?

They don't sit in their own crap and aren't confined to a 10g tank in the wild. What about farm animals that need to be treated because they graze the same infected field year after year? Comparing wild animals to captive animals is wrong unless your talking about feeding as YOU CAN feed them a varied diet. So because people are lazy they should dust w/ vit a and risk overdosing? Most people buy their dust all in one so what about getting the other vitamins in the correct proportions? Considering testing showed that vit may not be present in listed concentrations or at all.

And zoos work w/ LOTS OF OTHER ANIMALS TOO, so if certain or more species are being found to be sensitive to panacur zoos should change since the probability of them having a sensitive species is much higher than someone who only has dartfrogs.

And I don't know how to dance




mantisdragon91 said:


> Aaron,
> 
> Yet again we are dancing and evading. Bottom line is the great majority of proffesionals now recomend that Vitamin A needs to be added to the diet on a once a week basis. An ever shrinking number vets still recomend dusted panacur as the drug of choice. To follow your argument to it's logical conclusion what is being said is to paraphrase your words:
> 
> *Its okay to dust with Panacur since we dust with Vitamin A. That analogy falls flat on its face. We know that darts need Vitamin A in some form or fashion in their diet( I think that is fairly conclusive but feel free to bring up arguments to the contrary) No one can show me evidence that darts will not survive unless dusted with Panacur(But feel free to try. I am alway open to listening and learning from documented evidence as opposed to hear say and inuendo.)*
> 
> And in aswer to the part of your post that I bolded. How do animals go through their entire lives without being dusted with Panacur in the wild? The majority of us can't provide a varied enough diet in captivity and thus Vitamin A and other essential nutrients are needed to compensate. Last time I checked leafy greens aren't an option in gut loading fruit flies and not many people that I know of are feeding crickets to their darts as the primary diet. On the other hand last time I checked not everyone is convinced on the need to treat darts with moderate parasite loads and even if they are there is a huge debate on whether Panacur is still the drug of choice(because of all the accurate dosing challenges ED and myself have brought up previously in this thread) I think its a little disingenious to continue and try to link the two. Loyalty to your friends is an admirable thing to have, not so much when you allow that loyalty to cloud your judgement and common sense.


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> They don't sit in their own crap and aren't confined to a 10g tank in the wild. What about farm animals that need to be treated because they graze the same infected field year after year? * Comparing wild animals to captive animals is wrong unless your talking about feeding as YOU CAN feed them a varied diet. So because people are lazy they should dust w/ vit a and risk overdosing? * Most people buy their dust all in one so what about getting the other vitamins in the correct proportions? Considering testing showed that vit may not be present in listed concentrations or at all.
> 
> *And zoos work w/ LOTS OF OTHER ANIMALS TOO, so if certain or more species are being found to be sensitive to panacur zoos should change since the probability of them having a sensitive species is much higher than someone who only has dartfrogs*.


Aaron,

Yet again you are serving as the mouth piece for some one else without stopping to think this through. Most people aren't lazy we simply do not have the sheer variety of feeder insects that animals would have available to them in the wild and thus outside supplementation is needed. Do you mean to tell me you use no supplementation for your darts?

And yet again if every species tested to date has shown to have very similar tolerance levels to Panacur why would we belive that darts would react diffrently? Simple scientific method is that in the absense of evidence on a specific species you refer to the next best piece of information which is testing on other forms of vertebrates. Most human medicine/supplement testing is done on rats and mice, to follow your argument its not relevant unless we can actually use humans as test subjects

As an addendum I have spoken to numerous medical proffesionals and zoo personnel in the last couple of years. Not one has said we supplement with Vitamin A and abstain from dusting with Panacur for all our animals but darts. I have asked a number of them in the last 6 months specificly as it pertains to darts and they all state that their parasite management regiment and nutritional regimen is the same for them as it is for other species of reptiles and amphibians. Can you provide any evidence that shows otherwise?


----------



## Roadrunner

Uh, eventually we do use humans as test subjects and not everything works the same in humans, even in different humans. And no they haven't shown the same tolerance. Where is the paper that said that certain species were extremely sensitive to panacur, it seems to be lost.
And to beat you to the punch, I do have references you just don't accept them as they aren't in writing for you to accept. Also only you would ask me to disclose info from customers of mine as you wouldn't understand confidence of a customer. Didn't that info get taken down and you want me to disclose what you did and got reprimanded for?
Have a happy holiday Roman, bye.




mantisdragon91 said:


> Aaron,
> 
> Yet again you are serving as the mouth piece for some one else without stopping to think this through. Most people aren't lazy we simply do not have the sheer variety of feeder insects that animals would have available to them in the wild and thus outside supplementation is needed. Do you mean to tell me you use no supplementation for your darts?
> 
> And yet again if every species tested to date has shown to have very similar tolerance levels to Panacur why would we belive that darts would react diffrently? Simple scientific method is that in the absense of evidence on a specific species you refer to the next best piece of information which is testing on other forms of vertebrates. Most human medicine/supplement testing is done on rats and mice, to follow your argument its not relevant unless we can actually use humans as test subjects
> 
> As an addendum I have spoken to numerous medical proffesionals and zoo personnel in the last couple of years. Not one has said we supplement with Vitamin A and abstain from dusting with Panacur for all our animals but darts. I have asked a number of them in the last 6 months specificly as it pertains to darts and they all state that their parasite management regiment and nutritional regimen is the same for them as it is for other species of reptiles and amphibians. Can you provide any evidence that shows otherwise?


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> Uh, eventually we do use humans as test subjects and not everything works the same in humans, even in different humans.
> Have a happy holiday Roman, bye.


So no evidence, no references and no documentation on your end? Typical and disappointing. Happy holidays to you and yours as well


----------



## mantisdragon91

Keeping editing your posts Aaron. It really helps you to keep covering your tracks.


----------



## Roadrunner

I'm sure some people will get a good laugh out of it





mantisdragon91 said:


> Keeping editing your posts Aaron. It really helps you to keep covering your tracks.


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> I'm sure some people will get a good laugh out of it


Many are laughing at the comparison between Vit A and Panacur even as we speak. I've taken the liberty of forwarding this thread to a number of Curators of Reptiles at a number of Zoological institutions here and overseas. Figured it would brighten up their holidays for them.


----------



## Roadrunner

Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Thanks
AlexRible
View Public Profile
Send a private message to AlexRible
Find all posts by AlexRible
Add AlexRible to Your Contacts
#16 (permalink) Report Post 
Old 04-04-2009, 12:03 AM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 8,172
Thanks: 34
Thanked 225 Times in 143 Posts
Default Re: Frogs literally dropping like flies!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbird View Post
I'd try it myself if it's good (which I'm thinking it is if so many of you use it ), but it seems I'd have to have it imported from America.
Here, a lot of people use the Korvimin ZVT + Reptil, I'm not sure why, the vitamine A is 500,000 I.U. per kg. It started out with over 2,000,000 I.U. vit A per kg (), they've since reduced that a bit.
You need to look at the ingredients to see if all of the reported vitamin A is from a retinol/retinioc acid/retinyl source or is from beta carotene or a combination of beta carotene and retinol. If the source is primarily from beta carotene then then the reported vitamin A values can be virtually off the charts as there are currently no known toxicity threshold of beta carotene. This is also needed for comparision of the ratio of vitamin A as retinol to D3 as the ratio should be 100:10 (or 10 to 1) to prevent some of the problems with these vitamins.

Calcium in the supplement should be in a ratio between 1 and 2: 1 of calcium to phosphorus as most of the common feeder insects are poor sources of calcium and adequate sources of phosphorus (you want to shoot for a supplemented insect with that ratio ideally..)

Once the lights go out, people should remember that the plants consume oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Recovery would depend on how severe the effects of the carbon dioxide would be on the frogs..

Even if the temperature is averaging in the safe range, a rapid spike above and then drop back to normal could also show those symptoms and result in death. Often rapid temperature changes can be more lethal than slower ones even if the slower one gets to a higher temperature.

Ed
Share on Twitter
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Thanks
Ed
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Ed
Send email to Ed
Find all posts by Ed
Add Ed to Your Contacts
#17 (permalink) Report Post 
Old 04-04-2009, 09:57 AM
frogfarm frogfarm is invisible
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Akron, N.Y. 14001
Posts: 2,866
Thanks: 12
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to frogfarm
Default Re: Frogs literally dropping like flies!
Wouldn`t a supplement problem present itself over time though, not all at once w/ multiple frogs?
__________________
Aaron`s Frog Farm
http://www.aaronsfrogfarm.com
Share on Twitter
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Thanks
frogfarm
View Public Profile
Send a private message to frogfarm
Send email to frogfarm
Visit frogfarm's homepage!
Find all posts by frogfarm
Add frogfarm to Your Contacts
#18 (permalink) Report Post 
Old 04-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 8,172
Thanks: 34
Thanked 225 Times in 143 Posts
Default Re: Frogs literally dropping like flies!
Yes unless the level of one of or more of the fat soluble vitamins was so high it would be dangerous but even then it would unlikely to present so quickly... for example excess D3 can potentially take months to present itself.

Ed 



At home I do alternate to avoid interactions but it may not be the one expected. If you alternate, then you avoid the vitamin A-D3-E competition for uptake (which for A-D3 is not a problem for Herpetivite as it used beta-carotene for its source of A but is still an issue for E). This is an immediate issue as the competition occurs in the intestional tract. Alternating also reduces the risks of overdosing on the fat soluable vitamins (remember to keep in mind, these are toxic in too large an amount and amphibians are hardwired during periods of abundence (which is a daily occurance in most frog tanks) to stuff themselves which can lead to oversupplementation. (Oversupplementation can also occur with calcium carbonate). 


Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Thanks
#12 (permalink) Report Post 
Old 01-18-2006, 09:39 AM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 8,172
Thanks: 34
Thanked 225 Times in 143 Posts
Default
If mixed, the fat soluable vitamins will catalyze a more rapid oxidation of each other (which is why Rep-Cal and Herptevite are seperate with one haveing A and E and the other D3) than if they are kept seperate (however they still will oxidize which is why the recommendation is to replace the supplements every six months or so).

However in the digestive tract, A, D3 and E compete for uptake by the animal. This is why the ratio of the vitamins in the supplement should be somewhere close to 10 to 1 to 0.1 (A to D3 to E) as large variations outside of this range can cause deficiencies of one or more of the vitamins (this was (may still be) the most common cause of "MBD" (metabolic bone disease which is actually a group of diseases that present the same symptoms by disrupting calcium metabolism) when the diet contained excessive vitamin A). I have a whopping headache so I am not going to check the labels but you need to make sure that if you are mixing the two before dusting that the resulting ratio of A3 and E are correct which may cause you to change the amount you mix.
By alternating the dustings with the feedings, there is less issue with uptake of the fat soluable vitamins as the frog can store the excess in the fat, liver and skin (depending on the vitamin)..

This also allows for alternation of calcium supplementation as excessive calcium can also cause conditional deficiencies and in extreme excess and a high fat diet cause the deposition of calcium salts in the digestive tract.

If you come to IAD, I will again be presenting a nutritional workshop for amphibians which is expanded from the one I gave last year.

Ed


Old 01-23-2006, 01:33 PM
Ed Ed is offline
TWI/ASN

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 8,172
Thanks: 34
Thanked 225 Times in 143 Posts
Default
Well carrots are a good source of betacarotene which in dart frogs can be converted into vitamin A so that lessens that concern/risk.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, make sure that the ratio of A to D3 to E does not exceed 10 to 1 to 0.1 and that you want a ratio of Ca to P between 1 and 2 to 1.

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

Aaron,

Thank you. I finally got you to provide some documentation. Keep in mind that this is from 2004 since then some of the dosing recommendations have been scaled down and most of the supplements have adjusted the dosages down significantly. On the other hand most of the Panacur dosages recommended are from 2001 and still have not been changed at all.

There is also some interesting info in there on why not to use Beta Carotene which validates my previous statements


----------



## Roadrunner

Also, Ed said that a study was conducted and only one type of vit supplement had all of what it said it did. Some supplements didn't have any of what it said it had. How do you even know your dusting is providing anything that's listed on the label? Did you notice that Ed said darts CAN convert beta carotene to vit. A? Seems to be a difference between darts and chameleons, huh?

Unread Today, 11:07 AM
mantisdragon91
This message is hidden because mantisdragon91 is on your ignore list.

You need to look at the ingredients to see if all of the reported vitamin A is from a retinol/retinioc acid/retinyl source or is from beta carotene or a combination of beta carotene and retinol. If the source is primarily from beta carotene then then the reported vitamin A values can be virtually off the charts as there are currently no known toxicity threshold of beta carotene. This is also needed for comparision of the ratio of vitamin A as retinol to D3 as the ratio should be 100:10 (or 10 to 1) to prevent some of the problems with these vitamins.

Well carrots are a good source of betacarotene which in dart frogs can be converted into vitamin A so that lessens that concern/risk.


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> Also, Ed said that a study was conducted and only one type of vit supplement had all of what it said it did. Some supplements didn't have any of what it said it had. How do you even know your dusting is providing anything that's listed on the label? *Did you notice that Ed said darts CAN convert beta carotene to vit. A? Seems to be a difference between darts and chameleons, huh?*
> Unread Today, 11:07 AM
> mantisdragon91
> This message is hidden because mantisdragon91 is on your ignore list.


Actually I did not see that and will wait for Ed to confirm or deny.

Supplements are inaccurate and hard to dose properly and I will freely admit that. So is dusted Panacur. The diffrence in my eyes is that in light of the limited diet choices available in captivity supplements are a neccessary evil to allow us to keep our charges, healthy and reproducing in captivity. Panacur isn't. Feel free to show me any flaws in my logic.


----------



## Roadrunner

Then you didn't read to the bottom, you can search that sentance and it'll link right to his quote. You should've searched and read what Ed said about nutrition before even accusing them of being that different a situation.
Now you say dusting is a necessary evil? Man I never thought I would be happy to go xmas shopping



mantisdragon91 said:


> Actually I did not see that and will wait for Ed to confirm or deny.
> 
> Supplements are inaccurate and hard to dose properly and I will freely admit that. So is dusted Panacur. The diffrence in my eyes is that in light of the limited diet choices available in captivity supplements are a neccessary evil to allow us to keep our charges, healthy and reproducing in captivity. Panacur isn't. Feel free to show me any flaws in my logic.


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogfarm said:


> Then you didn't read to the bottom, you can search that sentance and it'll link right to his quote. You should've searched and read what Ed said about nutrition before even accusing them of being that different a situation.
> Now you say dusting is a necessary evil? Man I never thought I would be happy to go xmas shopping


I understand you like to take things out of context and run with them so let me simplify it for you. 

1) I want to hear from Ed on this before I make a decision because we all know the dangers of interpeting a fragment of a thread taken out of context.

2) I've always considered dusting a necessary evil because by nature I am a control freak and hate using anything where I can't control the dosages. I just have not figured out a way around it when it comes to essential nutrients which we can't provide otherwise. As a point of reference for my Uromastyx and Russian Tortoises which I have more food options available for I utilize dusting on a bi-weekly or once a month level depending on the time of the year. Does this mean they need less supplements than my geckos, lizards, tree frogs, mantellas and darts? Not at all, but I simply have more options of how I can deliver those needed nutrients to them. Same thing happens when I gut load my crickets with leafy greens prior to feeding them to my larger frogs, geckos and lizards.

As always if I have overlooked anything in my answer feel free to point it out. *Please note that I am still waiting on the answer I've asked on a number of posts ago on whether Panacur and Vitamin A deserves to be considered the same when it comes to the risks taken when dusting your darts prey with it?*


----------



## Ed

I'm going to work my way backwards through this thread.. I have seen some issues on both sides so neither of you should take this to mean that I am taking sides. 

There are significant problems with most of the supplements on the market both manufactured within and without this country. There can be significant deviations from what is listed on the lable both within and between batches... out of all of the supplements tested at that time (the only test to date by a neutral third party evaluation) only one (which is no longer manufactured) contained not only the ingredients but the levels advertised on the lable. (see Crissey; Susan D.; Ward, Ann W.; Maslanka, Mike T.; 2001; Nutrient content of nutritional supplements available for use in captive lizard feeding programs; Proceedings of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) Nutrition Advisory Group Fourth Conference on Zoo and Wildlife Nutrition). Of all of the supplements tested at that time, several had 0% of advertised levels of some ingredients. Nekton as I recall had 0% of vitamin A as retinol in the batch tested for that study. 
The study has never been repeated due to threats of lawsuits by the various manufactorers. 
This has since resulted in a recommendation (per communication, Toddes (exotic animal nutritionist) to rotate supplements as this reduces the risk of the insufficiencies seen in single supplements.
Some of the newer supplements may provide all of the nutrients in the correct balances but there has been no independent analysis as of yet, primarily due to the threats of litigation by the assorted companies. 


Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> *Please note that I am still waiting on the answer I've asked on a number of posts ago on whether Panacur and Vitamin A deserves to be considered the same when it comes to the risks taken when dusting your darts prey with it?*


If one stops to think about the metabolic needs and effects of the two, the administration of the two may be similar, but the (in my opinion, significant) differences begin to diverge at that point. 

1) the rate of retention of fenbendazole and the fat soluble vitamins are very different
2) there is competition for uptake between fat soluble vitamins, there may be differences in uptake of fenbendazole based on gut contents, it isn't in direct competition with other metabolites 

This is more of an apples and oranges argument. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

frogfarm said:


> Did you notice that Ed said darts CAN convert beta carotene to vit. A? Seems to be a difference between darts and chameleons


Insects are known to be poor sources of both vitamin A as well as carotenoids (see reference below linked below), and fruit flies reared on standard media on analysis had no detectable vitamin A (as a retinoid) or carotenes. So for many years, there was little direct vitamin A (as a retinoid) supplementation for the frogs yet the frogs did relatively well. 
This is supported by the enormous amount of anecdotal evidence, because even though there is a lot of evidence (in retrospect) pointing towards hypovitaminosis (such as poor egg development, and sls), if the frogs were unable to convert any beta carotene to retinyl palmiate/retinoic acid, there would have been much poorer success with the frogs during the period when virtually all of the supplements used at large only contained beta carotene. 

The same can also be said for chameleons.... there isn't any evidence that they cannot convert beta carotene..there is anecdotal evidence that they convert it poorly but there is good evidence that they do uptake beta carotene (see for example Carotenoids, vitamin A, and vitamin E concentrations during egg development in panther chameleons (Furcifer pardalis) - Dierenfeld - 2002 - Zoo Biology - Wiley Online Library ). 


Ed


----------



## Ed

frogfarm said:


> Last answer and you go to the ignore list. Did I say no vit A? No I didn't. Varied diet and feeding your feeders w/ good leafy greens or something hi in vit a. How do the animals live in the wild w/out us dusting their food for them? How come they can go their whole life w/out ever getting food dusted w/ vit a?.


I'm going to hopefully clarify this statement slightly.. with respect to vegetables that are supposed to be high in vitamin A.. such as leafy greens, carrots, yams etc. those vegetable actually don't contain any preformed vitamin A at all. Instead they are rated on thier content of carotenoids that are considered convertable to vitamin A (virtually always beta carotene). This conversion does not occur to any real level in insects as they don't store preformed vitamin A and only have some analogs in thier eyes. 

The reason they can go thier whole lives without a source of preformed vitamin A is because the frogs can convert some alternative carotenoids to vitamin A (see the review in the latest issue of Leaf Litter, TWI Publications, 2010). 

Some comments, 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed,

Thank you for your clarification. It seems I may have been hasty in some of my statements and will have to review them further.

Since it seems that frogs can survive for quite a while and even possibly process beta carotene into Vitamin A to some degree, how do you account for the numerous reports from Hobbyists that they have seen a drastic reduction of SLS, improvements in fertility and decrease of "short tongue syndrome" through the addition of extra Vitamin A. This also seems to be a hot button for Dr. Wright in his latest communications both to me and to the Veterinary community in general.


----------



## Roadrunner

Thank you Ed!

I don't care what's proved where as long as I don't have to type and read anymore.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Thank you for your clarification. It seems I may have been hasty in some of my statements and will have to review them further.
> 
> Since it seems that frogs can survive for quite a while and even possibly process beta carotene into Vitamin A to some degree, how do you account for the numerous reports from Hobbyists that they have seen a drastic reduction of SLS, improvements in fertility and decrease of "short tongue syndrome" through the addition of extra Vitamin A. This also seems to be a hot button for Dr. Wright in his latest communications both to me and to the Veterinary community in general.


I thought this was self evident in the information I've posted here and elsewhere.. 

Direct supplementation of vitamin A as a retinoid, avoids the conversion issues (and the issue on the conversion is probably due to frogs using other carotenoids as precursors) and allows for supplementation to meet metabolic needs (provided you don't disrupt the A to D3 to E balance or over supplement and cause hypervitaminosis of A) even though there may be excessive demands for vitamin A due to husbandry issues. If you look back through the anecdotal reports (or see Kowalski, Ed; 2007; Spindly leg syndrome; a review; Leaf Litter; TWI Publications), one can see that resting frogs was one of the methods used to deal with sls. This is because it allowed the adults to sequester the needed vitamins. If one reviews the literature on egg development in anurans (reviewed in Kowalski, Ed; 2010; Carotenoids; Leaf Litter 3(2):2-5 (or Morton, R. A. and Rosen, D. G. 1949. Carotenoids, vitamin A and 7-dehydrosteroid in the Frog (_Rana
temporaria_). Biochem J., 45(5):612-627.)) , it appears that retinoids may not be detectable in unfertilized anuran eggs but are detectable in fertilized eggs. This appears to be due to conversion of carotenoids to vitamin A.. (such as lutein). 

Does that help? 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

Can you dumb it down for us a little


----------



## frogfreak

mantisdragon91 said:


> Can you dumb it down for us a little


Ummmm....a lot maybe


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Can you dumb it down for us a little


I'm going to take this to mean it at least appears that I know what I'm talking about and don't have to cite to prove each point.. 

Based on the literature and anecdotal evidence, frogs can and do uptake beta carotene and according to at a large amount of anecdotal evidence convert at least some level of beta carotene to vitamin A; however when the individual tissues of the frogs are examined one has to note that different carotenoids are not evenly distributed through the tissues. This indicated that different tissues have different demands for beta carotene (and otherh carotenoids).. This indicates that beta carotene has more than one metabolic use in frogs and toads.. In other taxa, accumulation and storage of beta carotene in tissues is dependent on the demand for vitamin A and only when metabolic demands of vitamin A are met does the animal store beta carotene. This may not be the case with the frogs as intensity of yellow coloration (stored carotene) does not appear to vary with signs of hypovitaminosis of A as this can indicate other metabolic needs that exceed the demand for conversion of beta carotene to vitamin A. This could have evolved as frogs have alternate pathways for the formation of vitamin A including but not limited to the conversion of other carotenoids like lutein, and/or astaxanthin to vitamin A or vitamin A analogs. 
When looking at SLS, the proportion of vitamin A in the egg can be directly proportional to the level of stored carotenoids. There is some conflicting data as to when retinoids become available in anuran eggs as one study involving the whole ovary detected vitamin A, while another study on unfertilized eggs demonstrated no vitamin A in the unfertilized egg implying that it was made available due to conversion of carotenoids due to embryo development. This is important as tadpoles naturally utilize a different isomer of vitamin A than do metamorphed frogs (there isn't any indication that the tadpoles can only use the one isomer only that it is the one found naturally in the tadpoles) which is derived from a different pathway of carotenoid metabolism. Increasing the levels of retinol fed to the females can free up additional reserves of carotenoids for deposition into the yolk of the egg allowing the tadpoles to have sufficient levels of vitamin A to complete development. 

Ideally, one wants to use several different carotenoids as part of the supplement (see the Carotenoid Review I referenced above) as those are the most commonly found ones in anurans (and they are not equally distributed in the tissues indicating different roles for different carotenoids.. in addition, there is the alternate conversion pathways that need to be considered... 

Does that make it more clear?


----------



## mantisdragon91

It does for me and thank you for your time on this. For a second there I thought I was going to have to get and Ed to English translator kit


----------



## Roadrunner

*Re: The truth about Panacur*

Hey Donn,
Any ideas on the panacur tests?


edwardsatc said:


> Aaron,
> 
> Some good discussion points. Unfortunately, I'm leaving very shortly on a road trip to my Wisconsin home for the holidays and don't really have the time to respond properly. I'll post a detailed response this weekend when I have the time to post a thoughtful response.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Aaron,

In the past couple of posts Ed was kind enough to point out a couple of errors we both made, and I am man enough to admit I was wrong about the total inability of darts to convert Beta Carotene. I specificaly asked Ed to point out any mistakes I may have made in the interest of providing the board with most accurate information possible on this thread.

I hope you share the same goal as I do. So in the spirit of providing the most accurate and upto date information possible on what we both feel is a very important topic, I will ask you the following quetion again since I have never recieved an answer from you. Earlier in this thread you made the claim that in recent correspondences many zoos and aquariums told you they still utilize dusted panacur as the drug of choice. I asked you for the names of any that still do so. I also provided the names of 4 major zoos- Bronx, San Diego, Philly and National that haven't used dusted panacur except as a last resort in years. So I'm asking you again as politely as I can to provide any that still do.


----------



## ChrisK

mantisdragon91 said:


> Aaron,
> 
> In the past couple of posts Ed was kind enough to point out a couple of errors we both made, and I am man enough to admit I was wrong about the total inability of darts to convert Beta Carotene. I specificaly asked Ed to point out any mistakes I may have made in the interest of providing the board with most accurate information possible on this thread.
> 
> I hope you share the same goal as I do. So in the spirit of providing the most accurate and upto date information possible on what we both feel is a very important topic, I will ask you the following quetion again since I have never recieved an answer from you. Earlier in this thread you made the claim that in recent correspondences many zoos and aquariums told you they still utilize dusted panacur as the drug of choice. I asked you for the names of any that still do so. I also provided the names of 4 major zoos- Bronx, San Diego, Philly and National that haven't used dusted panacur except as a last resort in years. So I'm asking you again as politely as I can to provide any that still do.


Roman,

What type of case would be a "last resort" that those zoos use Panacur?


----------



## mantisdragon91

ChrisK said:


> Roman,
> 
> What type of case would be a "last resort" that those zoos use Panacur?


When nothing else has worked or there is nothing else at hand and the animal in question is still visibly declining.


----------



## mantisdragon91

*Re: The truth about Panacur*



frogfarm said:


> The way darts process the drug to clear coccidia leads me to believe there is a possibility that panacur would also be different in dendrobates. There is a vet who has done necropsies who has seen no liver damage or bone marrow issues in the darts they have treated repetitively and since there is a lack of papers w/ darts I tend to believe him.
> I have problems w/ Ed's papers because they are pay per view. Also Ed likes to compare things like the breeding biology of bull frogs to darts and the like.
> I have also done field research and am friends w/ post docs, techs and researchers and hear the stories about ego getting in the way of research and have seen what the gov't and corps do w/ nutritionism. I have been on projects and have seen the people collecting the data and have had to recommend data not be included in projects. I have seen many papers contradicting each other on a wide array of topics. I'm skeptical. If your articles don't cost money then post the links.
> 
> What's involved in the testing for toxicity and how many and what would you need.
> 
> Also, I don't think near enough toxicity testing can be done for any environmental issue so I'm biased, but then again I live near a bunch of lakes that are dying, dead or possibly on the return. So, real world or not there isn't enough testing being done, period. Because the one essential in the web that isn't tested for and proves sensitive could lead to the fall of the whole web. It may not be what happens but more should happen to find what levels are acceptable and I'm sure if we knew it all everything would have lower safe levels for everything. they thought phosphate levels in the lakes were fine in the 70's wrong, pcbs, wrong, ddt, wrong, etc.etc.etc. Again, do you blame me for not blindly following?
> 
> *And i have talked to zoos and aquariums who said they don't have big budgets and dusting panacur is how they treat darts![/*QUOTE]
> 
> I asked almost a week ago for names of said institutions with no response. I would still like some validation to the statement I bolded. It is very easy to throw out statements in the heat of the moment and I am just as guilty of it as the next guy.
> 
> However if we want this thread to be seen as two diffrent opinions on panacur usage than you need to step up and produce some institutions that will validate the claim above.


----------



## Roadrunner

Almost forgot. Edwardsatc , Donn, what's needed for the panacur tests?


----------



## Reef_Haven

Reviving this thread do to a nematode problem with one of my frogs, which I elected to treat with Panacur. Proper dosing seems to be the concern with using Panacur. Someone mentioned giving 10-15 dusted flies. 25-50mg/Kg has been mentioned as an appropriate dose. Does anyone have any idea what portion of a flies body weight the dust can represent? If 1%, it appears 10 flies might be O.K. for a 3 gram frog; assuming 0.75 mg per fly.
Is there any reason to think you cannot dilute the Panacur into a suspension and treat orally at an appropriate dose? 
It seems Ivermectin is the current drug of choice. Is this available over the counter anywhere. How much does it cost and what might a vet charge to write a script?
Since this thread also discusses Vitamin A. What is an appropriate dose of Vitamin A, twice a month; assuming no additional Vitamin A is dosed from other sources?


----------



## Ed

With respect to panacure.. It can be dosed orally using it as a suspension. I've done it with auratus and tinctorius when I was working as a ZooKeeper. This may not be practical for smaller frogs or froglets due to getting the dosing correct in a solution or restraining the frogs. In those cases, ivermectin or other wormers that can be used as a topical application (drop or bath) may be preferable. I've used ivermectin to dose frogs as small as 0.19 grams (golden mantella metamorphs). 

Ed


----------



## Reef_Haven

Can fenbendazole be absorbed by frogs cutaneously? I made a suspension 1% in water and it has stayed in suspension for 5 days, there is some settling but not as much as I expected. I have not used this for treatment, because I don't know if it can be absorbed thru the skin or at what rate?
Obviously oral would be the best way to ensure a correct dose, that is what I will go with in three weeks, assuming my little guy makes it that far. Just concerned with the amount of stress this puts on an already stressed and immunity compromised frog.


----------



## Ed

I have not seen anything that would make me think it would be absorbed cutaneously. 

If you are concerned about the stress and dosing, you need to talk to your vet about possibly using alternative helmetics. To do this you need an accurate weight on each frog as well as the ability to tell the frogs apart for proper dosing. 

Ed


----------



## Reef_Haven

So, I ran this little experiment of mine twice now.
I weighed approx 150 wingless melanos on an analytical balance. Avg fly weight was 0.81mg. Then I dusted them with Repticalc and immediately reweighed them. Both times the dust came out to avg 2% by body weight. However within 45 minutes the flies had cleaned themselves of at least 90% of the dust.
IMO, unless the diffence between a safe dose and an effective dose is a factor of 10, there would be no way to accuratly dose by dusting. 
Thinking thru this, I will change the way I dust flies with suppliments for my frogs. Very bold frogs, I will cut back by 50%.
Very shy frogs will have their flies dusted every feeding and wont be fed until I am ready to leave the room.


----------



## Ed

Transient conditions can also impact the amount of the supplements held on the flies, these conditions can include humidity and particle size of the dusting supplement. The finer the supplement the better it holds and the higher humidity can reduce holding by causing the powder to clump together. 

Ed


----------



## Reef_Haven

Any reason to think my plan for supplement dusting based on animal boldness isn't sound?


----------



## mantisdragon91

Back in December of last year a certain rather volatile member of this community had Chris Miller post a thread for him here announcing that he was going to do a study to prove once and for all that Panacur was safe to use for darts with a wide dosing variance. Has anyone heard anything about this study or is this more hot air from this individual that he is hoping that everyone has forgotten about by now?


----------



## Dendrobatid

I apologize in advance because I have not had time to read this entire thread. I have worked in what I think is one of the better zoological institutions in the country. This zoo had some very good herp vets. I have not worked with any vets that would just start dosing animals without first doing a fecal to determine the specific parasite or parasites. I personally feel that it is detrimental to Dendrobatids to us the shotgun method of treating for parasites. Why expose the animal to drugs that are not necessarily going to be effective for the specific parasite. It's somewhat akin to taking some drugs that you have hanging around in your medicine cabinet.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## james67

resurrecting the thread with a Q for you Ed:

while treating 2 of my animals with panacur, there was a bit of a problem....

obviously both were being fed well along with their panacur dusted flies.

i was treating a mancreek and oyapock female. on the day of the second dose, they both ate the med dusted FFs and seemed fine, the next day i fed the oyapock female and decided to use my roommate's new repashy vit A supp. (the mancreek wasnt fed as she doesnt eat nearly as much or as frequently as the tinc) within a couple hours it was clear that there was something very wrong, the oyapock female was having small seizures and acting erratically, she passed the next day. 

i believe this had to be a result of the panacur and vit A having some sort of reaction, since the mancreek female (not given the A) is doing very well. is it possible that this combination was the source of the seizures and death of the animal, or is it more likely just coincidental?

james


----------



## Ed

It is coincidence with the vitamin A as fenbendazole has not been shown to have any contraindications with respect to food or vitamins.. however seizures and death are some of the potential side effects from the drug itself or possibly the death of the parasites if there was a large enough load. See the label on the bottle here Panacur ® (Brand) 

Ed


----------



## Ed

This is the labeling statement


> *What side effects may be seen when taking Panacur?*
> Rare. May see vomiting.If your pet experiences an allergic reaction to the medication or has a reaction to the dying parasites, signs may include facial swelling, hives, scratching, sudden onset of diarrhea, vomiting, shock, seizures, pale gums, cold limbs, or coma. If you observe any of these signs, contact your veterinarian immediately.


----------



## james67

i assumed that the mass die off of parasites would occur at the first treatment. there was the usual loose red-ish stool with that dose, but it wasnt until the A had been given (the day after the second dose) that there were visual signs of issues occurring. 

thanks for the input Ed. as always its much appreciated.

james


----------



## Ed

Hi James,

There are a number of scenarios that could have been playing out.... 

1) the frog overdosed on the second day of treatment. This could have been from several different routes including but not limited to, consuming a greater amount of dusted flies or flies that retained a greater amount, or not having cleared enough from the dose the previous day's dosing (which could be due to liver issues). 
2) the problems were the result of a massive die off of parasites and an inability of the frog to handle all of the decomposing parasites. With respect as to how much is killed with the first dose, this depends on the actual dose taken in by the frog on day one, so it is possible that the dose on day one did not kill a lot of the parasites. 
3) a combination of one and two (or several of one and/or two). 

Ed


----------



## james67

just to clarify. dosing was done once every 7 days,(if that wasnt clear)

james


----------



## Ed

james67 said:


> just to clarify. dosing was done once every 7 days,(if that wasnt clear)
> 
> james


Hi James, 

It wasn't totally clear to me but I think I just read it wrong... however most of the potential conditions still apply.. 

Ed


----------



## Reef_Haven

mantisdragon91 said:


> Back in December of last year a certain rather volatile member of this community had Chris Miller post a thread for him here announcing that he was going to do a study to prove once and for all that Panacur was safe to use for darts with a wide dosing variance. Has anyone heard anything about this study or is this more hot air from this individual that he is hoping that everyone has forgotten about by now?


Here is a reprint from the book "Understanding Reptile Parasites" that still proclaims Panacur as safe at very large doses. 
Reptiles Nematode Parasites Treatment: Fenbendazole
Here is a quote: *Even a dose greater than ten thousand times a normal dose would not consistently kill mice or rats. In addition to its excellent safety record, fenbendazole does not cause birth defects, unlike most of the other drugs of this group.*
Not that results with mice, would in any way translate to results in frogs.




james67 said:


> i assumed that the mass die off of parasites would occur at the first treatment. there was the usual loose red-ish stool with that dose, but it wasnt until the A had been given (the day after the second dose) that there were visual signs of issues occurring.
> 
> thanks for the input Ed. as always its much appreciated.
> 
> james






james67 said:


> just to clarify. dosing was done once every 7 days,(if that wasnt clear)
> 
> james


Another quote: *Fenbendazole functions by inhibiting the uptake of glucose (sugar) in the nematode parasite. This block of glucose uptake is slow, so fenbendazole works better when given over a course of several days than in single or multiple doses that are given at spaced time intervals. Fenbendazole is the drug of choice for nematode parasites and is given orally at 25–50 mg/kg once daily for three to five days and then repeated in ten days, if warranted. *

It would seem to me that since Fenbendazole kills adult nematodes by starving them, there would not be a massive die off all at one time and as long as there is continued feeding; the die offs should be able to be excreted without a large build up.


----------



## mantisdragon91

You do realize the book was published in 1993 and the reprint was just that with no new info added. I suggest you take that for dated information. Multiple studies on vertebrates have shown that the tolerances are nowhere as wide as what is published not are the side effects as benign.


----------



## flyfanatic14

Fido, FINALLY a post with information that I find helpful! Thank you very much for posting dosing/diluting info. I read two of these huge threads to find it. I wasn't sure my math/method was correct. I'm sure the members start with good intentions, but wow, they devolved into never ending "debates". Thanks again!! Note: Sorry I'm a noob, but this is a reply to a post on page one of this discussion.


----------



## Ed

flyfanatic14 said:


> Fido, FINALLY a post with information that I find helpful! Thank you very much for posting dosing/diluting info. I read two of these huge threads to find it. I wasn't sure my math/method was correct. I'm sure the members start with good intentions, but wow, they devolved into never ending "debates". Thanks again!! Note: Sorry I'm a noob, but this is a reply to a post on page one of this discussion.


I should note that the safety of fenbendazole is not what was once claimed. It has been shown to cause fatal cases of aplastic anemia if overdosed or dosed (even at microdoses) in animals that are sensitive to it. As a result dusting of feeder insects has to be considered as risky and either dosing the animal via tubing or using another wormer that can be more accurately dosed (such as ivermectine drops on the exterior of the frog). 

some comments 

Ed


----------

