# % of darts w/ parasites



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

of all the darts that you get, what percentage have parasites? external or internal included. only answer if you know for sure and have gotton a fecal, not just if your frog looks good.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

At some point in time, I would say that all dart frogs in captivity have had or will have parasites. At work we test all of the animals for parasites twice a year and treat all that show up positive. I have to say that there I have had frogs test negative for a number of years suddenly test positive... 
You need to add one more class to the list above... 100%

A healthy unstressed frog may be shedding at the time a fecal is taken so a negative fecal doesn't mean the frog doesn't have any parasites.... typically a frog should not be considered clear unless there have been three of more fecals taken one week apart. 

In addition, if the frog had coccidia and was treated it is still infected, but asymptomatic as the treatment causes the paratite to stop shedding and stops the symptoms. 

Ed


----------



## bellerophon (Sep 18, 2006)

Ed breaks it down the best but I'm assuming you want to know the percentage of frogs purchased within our collections that tested positive. I have all of mine tested and have recieved frogs from many different sources, hobbyists and breeders alike. So far almost all have some sort of parasite load that needed treatment and I've been skeptical of the results that came back negative. As Ed says, multiple tests are needed to confirm results.


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

woops, i definetily meant to add a 100% catagory. can i fix that? somebody needs to come out with a book that teaches you how to identify dart parasites. it's so $$$ to have them shipped off. 

but of all the parasites, how many of them are "potentially fatal?" coccidia, lungworm, hookworm? and the less harmful are what? 

sorry for all the questions, and thanks!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Most of the books that would be of use start around $100-150 but you can start with this one http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Rep ... 1882770900 

You will also need a decent microscope as well as the ability to conduct floats. 

Ed


----------



## lacerta (Aug 27, 2004)

Potentially fatal? As in the direct cause of death ? Probably not as bad as most people think. The nematodes found in our captive bred frogs are pretty benign for the most part. Lung worm... sounds scary but actually almost all nematode parasites (to include intestinal worms) will migrate through the lungs as infective juveniles before seeking their final location within the host. Curiously, visceral migration via lungs is a nematode trait that is conserved in almost all groups. Even common human parasites (Ascarids and Strongyloides) will pass through the lungs with little more then a dry cough and a maybe a little tickle. 
The most debilitating worms are those found in WILD CAUGHT frogs. These are generally parasites with one or more intermediate or paratenic hosts that will include a "frog" stage. The longterm health of the frog is of no consequence to such a thoughtless guest. In fact most of these nasties will purposely cripple or alter the behavior of their host to increase the host's odds of falling victim to predation by the next intermediate or final host. Parasite Induced Trophic Transmission (PITT) can take on many fascinating forms, none that bode well for the health of the host. 
Those worms commonly found in our dart frogs are usually host specific and have been dance partners in a very long evolutionary ballet. Most have long since declared a "detente" in their arms race with the frog's immune system to avoid mutually assured destruction of both parties.
Rarely are they the direct cause of a frogs demise. I know it is often hard to convince people of this fact. As a culture, most of us are repulsed at the very thought of internal parasites. But when viewed from an evolutionary and ecological perspective they are quite normal. I am convinced that all the trouble some of us go through to treat our frogs, displace them into tempory quaratine, and totally disinfect everything is unwarranted and causes more harm than the parasite in the frog. 

Regarding Klingenburg's second edition. A big improvement over the first edition but I am a bit annoyed at some of the parasite lifecycle information that is outright erroneous or misleading. Good info on meds and treatment protocols. Dr. Klingenburg is first and foremost a vet, and obviously not a parasitologist. But in order to effect treatment, I suppose it is not necessary to count lips or compare copulatory bursae. 

George


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

thanks for the link Ed, i will get that soon. i have a decent mircoscope, but i don't have the equipment needed to conduct floats. what will i need? a sugary mixture and .... i need to learn more about this. 

lacerta, thanks for your opinion and info about Dr. K, i also agree he is def. not a parasitologist. when you say most parasites are host specific, how specific? dart frog to another dart specific, dart to another frog specific, dart to a reptile specific?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

lacerta said:


> Potentially fatal? As in the direct cause of death ? Probably not as bad as most people think. The nematodes found in our captive bred frogs are pretty benign for the most part. Lung worm... sounds scary but actually almost all nematode parasites (to include intestinal worms) will migrate through the lungs as infective juveniles before seeking their final location within the host. George


When I am referring to lungworms I am referring to nematodes of the genus Rhabdias. These have larva that can infect the host frog directly and do not require an intermediate host. In addition as they also have a life style that allows for free living adults which can produce infectious larva there is a significant risk of infections heavy enough to cause problems with the frogs.
While hookworms do not have a freeliving reproductive stage, the larva can directly infect the frog without an intermediate host and are also able to build up to very heavy infections. 
When you refer to direct causes of death do you include debilitating the frog to the point a secondary infection or stress kills the frog? 




lacerta said:


> The most debilitating worms are those found in WILD CAUGHT frogs. George


This may be true to some extent but infections with coccidia (depending on the strain), lungworms (aka Rhabdias) and hookworm are just as serious in an enclosed enviroment as those parasites typically interefere with a behavior that allows the frog to be at higher risk of predation but does not change mortality in the same way. One of the exceptions are the trematodes that can disrupt limb development. 



lacerta said:


> Those worms commonly found in our dart frogs are usually host specific and have been dance partners in a very long evolutionary ballet. Most have long since declared a "detente" in their arms race with the frog's immune system to avoid mutually assured destruction of both parties.
> Rarely are they the direct cause of a frogs demise. I know it is often hard to convince people of this fact. As a culture, most of us are repulsed at the very thought of internal parasites. But when viewed from an evolutionary and ecological perspective they are quite normal. I am convinced that all the trouble some of us go through to treat our frogs, displace them into tempory quaratine, and totally disinfect everything is unwarranted and causes more harm than the parasite in the frog. George


This is true with many of the parasites that infect frogs however there are exceptions such as hookworm, Rhabdias and some strains of coccidia. As for the host specifity, the ones I have listed above show an amazing ability to jump hosts and the same species of Rhabdias that infects frogs readily infects caudates...
The PITT transmission you refer to above tends to be the most host specific as the parasite has an end host it is trying to reach but this does not prevent cross infection of other hosts..(like sparganosis)(I think I spelled that correctly). 


Ed


----------



## lacerta (Aug 27, 2004)

> When I am referring to lungworms I am referring to nematodes of the genus Rhabdias. These have larva that can infect the host frog directly and do not require an intermediate host. In addition as they also have a life style that allows for free living adults which can produce infectious larva there is a significant risk of infections heavy enough to cause problems with the frogs.
> While hookworms do not have a freeliving reproductive stage, the larva can directly infect the frog without an intermediate host and are also able to build up to very heavy infections.
> When you refer to direct causes of death do you include debilitating the frog to the point a secondary infection or stress kills the frog?


I am also refering to Rhabdias. I know that several digenentic flukes common in the pleural cavities of frogs are also called "lungworm". These require multiple hosts and not likely to be encountered in captive bred frogs. Regarding the lungworm Rhabdias, much of what we know is work done with Rhabdias bufonis, but other species are presumed to have identical lifecyle. Yes direct lifecycle/single host. No, risk of hyperinfection in healthy frog is minimal. Appears that the immune system response will regulate parasite load at non pathogenic levels. 
Studies with both the human parasite Strongyloides stercoralis and sheep parasite Trichostronyloides sp. has shown that, at least in mammals, the immune response has a powerful regulatory effect on worm load as demonstrated in experiments with auto infections and attempts to reach hyperinfection levels. 
Regarding hookworm, I find this diagnosis curious as it appeared several times on this forum. Most literature states that hookworms are found in all classes of vertebrates. My own experience suggests that they are not found (or are very rare) in both fish and amphibians. Certainly a possibility but I have yet to find a specific case cited in any literature. And I also wonder how a vet could arrive at this diagnosis from a visual examination of a fecal specimen. Hookworm appear as eggs in fresh fecals. Unless the eggs are cultured in vitro to at least the J3 stage identifcation is impossible without DNA-RFLP. The J1 and J2 of almost all Strongyloides, Rhabdias, and Ancylostoma are virtually identical. I am curious how these vets are making this diagnosis with a $25.00 fee.
Yes, if you have hookworm you have reason for concern. They feed on blood taken from the mucosal lining of the intestine and do lots of physical damage that can easily lead to lethal bacterial infection. Also if hookworm infection is possible in frogs, then the vivarium and its moist environment would be ideal for reinfection. 



> The PITT transmission you refer to above tends to be the most host specific as the parasite has an end host it is trying to reach but this does not prevent cross infection of other hosts..(like sparganosis)(I think I spelled that correctly).


Obviously PITT is relevent to those parasites with one or more intermediates. Yes the biological mandate is to "win the lottery" by transferring to an appropriate definitive host, or end host as you call it. Normally this is done in imaginative and innovative strategies where the intermediate host is ultimately sacrificed. The end host is not necessarily that specific. In the case of Dyphyllobothrium latum, any large carnivore (bear, human, dog, otter) feeding on infected fish is an appropriate host. Another classic example is Dichrocelium dendriticum, that infects an ant and changes its behavior to climb to the end of stalk of grass where it can be eaten by any large ungulate/cervid. Host specificity is not tied to PITT. Sparganosis is spelled correctly by the way. It refers usually to the procercoid of another Psuedophyllidean tapeworm that infects cats. In this case it is host specific and if an inappropriate host such as a human eats the infected intermediate, the procercoid (or spargana) will treat the human as yet another paratenic/intermediate. Same with hydatid cysts of Taenia solium in the human brain. Or the practice in Southeast Asia of using a split-open frog as a poultice, where the spargana of the Dyphyllobothrium erinacei is commonly found and it will readily establish itself in the orbit of the eye, the vagina, or wherever the poultice is applied. Lesson learned here is that if you are going to harbor parasites it is always better to be a definitive host (end host) than to be an expendable intermediate.

Lest this turn into a long monologue about parasites, let me wrap up by saying that as hobbyists keeping captive bred/born stock, parasites seem to get a very bad and unwarranted rap for all ills. They are a scapegoat for poor husbandry in my opinion. I make the distinction between Wild Caught and Captive bred because I think it is very important. Years ago, much of our captive stock were wild caught and disease from some very nasty parasites was a very real concern. One needed to test early, test often, and be fearful.

Those helminthic parasites we encounter today are far more benign than what we would commonly encounter in wild frogs. 

George


----------



## *slddave* (Jun 2, 2006)

I haven't really read most of the posts so I'm sure someone already said this but here I go:

Every living thing has some sort of parasite load, it's usually a healthy balance though.


----------



## lacerta (Aug 27, 2004)

> Every living thing has some sort of parasite load, it's usually a healthy balance though.


You are right!! Parasitism is such a successful mode of life that over 75% of all living organisms are parasites. Consider that each species of vertebrate has at least three common parasites on or within and many of these parasites are host specific. Multiply this number by the number of known free living organisms and one can easily understand how important parasites are in the grand scheme of life. 

George


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

thanks for the info, i needed a bit of clearing up obviously.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

So what happens when the frog becomes stressed?

And as for the healthy frogs have no problems see this PHD study...

http://www.invasiveanimals.com/images/p ... r_ff-1.doc 

"infected with the lung nematode Rhabdias cf. hylae, reflecting a host-shift from Australian frogs. To evaluate whether infection with this helminth influences cane toad viability, we experimentally infected metamorph toads (the smallest and potentially most sensitive terrestrial phase of the anuran life cycle) with the helminth. Infected toads exhibited reduced rates of survival and growth, impaired locomotor performance (both speed and endurance), and reduced prey intake. Histopathology of infected lungs revealed considerable damage (epithelial thickening, elevated heterophil counts and reduced erythrocyte counts). Infection with R. hylae can substantially reduce the viability of metamorph cane toads, suggesting that the parasites offer promise for biological control of this invasive anuran." endsnip

There are more examples of where "healthy" animals are adversely affected by Rhabdias.. 

Ed


----------



## lacerta (Aug 27, 2004)

This is frustrating. I had a response all prepared and when I submitted I was prompted to LogIn. I must of timed out or dropped the connection. So here goes a second attempt. 



> So what happens when the frog becomes stressed?


Impaired immune response. This immuno suppression can persist for a long time long after the stressors are removed. Both internal and external biota that would normally be innocuous, can then lead to a disease condition. This include not just helminthic parasites but even bacteria that is normally harmless.



> And as for the healthy frogs have no problems see this PHD study...
> 
> http://www.invasiveanimals.com...r_ff-1.doc


Thanks Ed for citing this interesting tidbit. Lesson learned: DONT MIX SPECIES. Specifically in this case Australian and South American. I wish them luck in finding a successful biologic control of this expanding anuran scourge. But despite the prevalence of infection in some areas it hasn't seemed to slow these exotics down. I am not surprised at the morbidity seen in young morphs with a naive immune system facing an exotic parasite. Of those that survive, I wonder how long it will take to establish an acquired or innate immunity in the overall population. 

It may seem that I'm a champion for parasites (I do find them fascinating) but what I am attempting to do here is to offer an alternative position to mediate what I perceive as excessive fear mongering regarding parasites. 
What we normally encounter in captive bred frogs (again, I make this important distinction) are parasites that are remarkable in their ability to persist for generations and generations. If a breeder sells a frog that tests positive, and almost all do, then chances are all his frogs are infected. I don't mean this as an indictment agains any breeder, but a recognition of reality that these parasites are part of the normal internal biota of the dartfrog. My impression is that the majority of people in this community do not get fecal examinations until their frog becomes ill. Announcing that one's frog is sick is invariably followed by some well meaning person asking "Did you get a fecal?". The implication is that the presence of nematode larvae in feces is the causative agent in that frog's illness and all one needs to do is spend more money on meds and problem solved. Normally this occurs long after the frog becomes inappetant and is wasting away. At this stage any treatment is usually futile. The real etiology is unknown because it is just assumed "he died from worms". The worms we commonly find in captive bred frogs are rarely the direct cause of death. Like I have said before-- these parasites are usually the 3rd or 4th domino in the progression of disease. When the dominoes start to fall, treating for parasites will often be expensive (overnight shipping of meds) and the whole disinfection and quarentine procedure will likely stress the frog beyond the point of no return. 
What I suggest is that if one finds themself tossing and turning late at night with worry over parasites then the time to act is when your frog is robust and healthy. Have the frog tested while he is healthy. And don't be surprised if the test comes back positive as it will in the majority of cases. The presence of nematode larvae with an absence of disease symptoms does not warrant treatment in my opinion. But if it makes YOU feel better than go ahead and medicate. Deworming a healthy frog is easy. You can then go through the dislocation, break down of viv and total disinfection. Or you can medicate and leave him alone. I have done it both ways: Medicate and vacate, and medicate and leave him in his viv. Curiously the results have been the same. I have frogs that were treated 18 months ago, left in their own viv, and they remain worm free to this day. Being familiar with the lifecycle of these parasites it doesn't seem possible that they wouldn't become reinfected in short order. This hasn't been the case. I theorize that treatment with Panacur over a two week period kills not only the adult worms within the frog, but also protects the frog during the short window when the infective stage arises from the freeliving generation in the substrate. A few years ago participated in research with Rhabdias bufonis that required I keep an in vitro culture going past the freeliving stage. I couldn't do it unless I used a frog as host reservoir. The juvenile 3 (J3) simply dies after about 3 days. More recently I observed some adult Strongyloides that were voided by one of my D. tinctorius following
treatment with Panacur. It was a rare treat to actually look at adult specimens without having to cut open a frog. I noted that all females (parthenogenic while parasites) were chock-a-block full of larvated eggs. My attempts at culturing these eggs, which should have been easy, failed and all were dead after 48 hours. I read somewhere recently ( I think Klingenburg's book) that fenbendazole not only inhibited the uptake of glucose in the adult worm, but it also had ovicidal (sp?) properties. If this is the case then it makes sense that a period of treatment with fenbendazole over a two week period would effectively deworm and prevent reinfection. I hope to conduct some experiments in the near future to test this theory.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

lacerta said:


> This is frustrating. I had a response all prepared and when I submitted I was prompted to LogIn. I must of timed out or dropped the connection. So here goes a second attempt.



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



lacerta said:


> > So what happens when the frog becomes stressed?
> 
> 
> Impaired immune response. This immuno suppression can persist for a long time long after the stressors are removed. Both internal and external biota that would normally be innocuous, can then lead to a disease condition. This include not just helminthic parasites but even bacteria that is normally harmless.


The problem here is that a population of some parasites (like the three I named) can either contribute to this or once it occurs result in the death. One of the benefits I have in working at a Zoo with a pathologist is that we get necropsies performed on everything that dies and we also get to hear about issues at other institutions that perform necropsies. 
Not too long ago, one institution distributed cb Gastrotheca ssp to other (multiple) institutions. All of the Gastrotheca died within days of shipping due to (confirmed by necropsy) very heavy Rhabdias infections. On necropsy they otherwise were in good condition. The stress of the shipping combined with the heavy infection resulted in the death of those frogs. 



lacerta said:


> > And as for the healthy frogs have no problems see this PHD study...
> >
> > http://www.invasiveanimals.com...r_ff-1.doc
> 
> ...


In additions to the issue with a naive immune system... all metamorphs are automatically immunosuppressed (and fairly significantly) due to changes in the immune system and to prevent them from rejecting the new adult tissues. Because of this, if they are in an enclosure with a heavy population of a parasite that can directly infect the metamorph, there can be losses as see in that link. This doesn't happen as much in the wild because the numbers of parasites are "diluted" by the volume of habitat in the wild.. but in an small enclosure, the exposure is much higher over a much longer period of time. 
Also while R. bufonis may be considered the most commonly found species in captive anurans this does not mean that this is the one with which the anurans coevolved. There are a number of Rhabdias that infect anurans, and given R. bufonis's global distribution, I would not be surprised to learn that this is due to anthropogenic assistance or is actual a complex of species..... so the anurans are potentially encountering a novel (newly exposed to in the last 200 years) parasite just like the Marine toads in the link.... 



lacerta said:


> It may seem that I'm a champion for parasites (I do find them fascinating) but what I am attempting to do here is to offer an alternative position to mediate what I perceive as excessive fear mongering regarding parasites.


With the exception of Rhabdias infections (and if the person wants to make sure there is a distinction between these and say intestional nematodes, they can get any deaths necropsied or get a lungwash), hookworms (again necropsies are invaluable) and some strains of coccidia, most of the parasites we see in captive dendrobatids just need to be monitored as to estimated levels of infections which can be done by routine fecal checks. If the levels get too high then the frogs can be treated but there are several where inaction can be a problem. 




lacerta said:


> What we normally encounter in captive bred frogs (again, I make this important distinction) are parasites that are remarkable in their ability to persist for generations and generations. If a breeder sells a frog that tests positive, and almost all do, then chances are all his frogs are infected. I don't mean this as an indictment agains any breeder, but a recognition of reality that these parasites are part of the normal internal biota of the dartfrog. My impression is that the majority of people in this community do not get fecal examinations until their frog becomes ill.


As I noted above, when I stated at one point or another virtually all frogs will eventually have one or more parasites. It is also my impression that people do not due routine fecal checks and often attempt to deal with frogs that are showing disease signs by shotgun treatments. 



lacerta said:


> Announcing that one's frog is sick is invariably followed by some well meaning person asking "Did you get a fecal?". The implication is that the presence of nematode larvae in feces is the causative agent in that frog's illness and all one needs to do is spend more money on meds and problem solved.


I know the reason I suggest it is because that removal of the stress caused by the parasite is one less stressor on the frog and can enhance its chances of recovery not that it is the cure all.. and if one of the frogs is heavily infected its quite probable the others in the enclosure are also heavily infected so their parasite load should be reduced/eliminated as normally the stress is not restricted to one frog in an enclosure or enclosures. 



lacerta said:


> Normally this occurs long after the frog becomes inappetant and is wasting away. At this stage any treatment is usually futile.


This is usually true if there is insufficient supportive therapy such as tube feeding the frog. 



lacerta said:


> The real etiology is unknown because it is just assumed "he died from worms". The worms we commonly find in captive bred frogs are rarely the direct cause of death.


But the only way to be sure of this is via monitoring the parasite load of the frog (or other animal) and necropsies otherwise this is a presumption. 



lacerta said:


> What I suggest is that if one finds themself tossing and turning late at night with worry over parasites then the time to act is when your frog is robust and healthy. Have the frog tested while he is healthy. And don't be surprised if the test comes back positive as it will in the majority of cases. The presence of nematode larvae with an absence of disease symptoms does not warrant treatment in my opinion.


I support this statement. Just make sure that if a frog dies you get the necropsy performed (and the time to set up the method to get the necropsy performed is before the frog dies as the frogs decompose rapidly upon death and freezing is not acceptable). 




lacerta said:


> I have done it both ways: Medicate and vacate, and medicate and leave him in his viv. Curiously the results have been the same. I have frogs that were treated 18 months ago, left in their own viv, and they remain worm free to this day.


I would suggest working with your vet on this one.. 
When working with a large amphibian collection, I have had both results. For example, I have had RETF metamorphs begin to prolapse due to heavy nematode levels (confirmed on necropsy) require multiple rounds of treatments in sterile enclosures due to persistant infections and reinfection upon return to the enclosures and have had other frogs clear parasite loads and not become reinfected in some cases for a number of years (hence my earlier statement about frogs testing negative for years suddenly testing positive). 





lacerta said:


> If this is the case then it makes sense that a period of treatment with fenbendazole over a two week period would effectively deworm and prevent reinfection. I hope to conduct some experiments in the near future to test this theory.


My concern with this is how routinely fenbendazole is used in the hobby and how it is usually dosed. There is little assurance that the frog is being correctly dosed or the correct parasite is being treated.... Contrary to public opinion, fenbendazole is not as safe a treatment as was once thought, more and more signs of overdose are showing up in the literature and these overdoses can result in death of the affected animal.


Ed


----------



## lacerta (Aug 27, 2004)

Ed, I appreciate the time you devote in your responses, not only in this thread but in all the others. You present many valid points and obviously take delight in a good repartee. Cheers.

George


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi George,

Thanks for the compliment.. 
I don't mind a good back and forth as long as there is good information coming out of it.. and I think there has been in this discussion (and my position on shotgun treatments and monitoring parasite loads as opposed to blanket treatments goes back a long way (check the frognet archives...)..

I have had the benefit of working with a large amphibian collection at an institution for over 15 years now. One of the benefits is that we have necropsy records, 3 vets, a certified vet pathologist and 3 vet techs (all fulltime) on staff as well as access to the Uof Penn Vet Hospitals resources so issues tend to get figured out in one way or another. 

You presented a lot of valid points as well. 

Ed


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

The question is is that are the parasites wild frogs have the same as those in captivity? As in...do wild frogs run around with coccidia in them? 

Here is a post on this topic from another forum.
http://www.dartden.com/viewtopic.php?t=2885

I find his claim that WC darts generally do not have parasites rather surprising. Probably due to parasites having trouble reinfecting new hosts in the wild. Have any studies caught and done necropsies on many wild frogs?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Some of the parasites are the same but for example with coccidia, there are many different strains which have differnet ranges of pathnogencity some of these strains are not going to be found where that frog was native. Once a frog has been infected with coccidia, it is always infected as has been shown on necropsy
Also there are a number of different Rhabdias species that have differnet host ranges in thier natal ranges but as shown with the Marine toad link, they are capable of jumping hosts. 

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

There are a number of parasite surveys of wild anurans... just search the literature... new parasites are discovered all the time... 

Ed


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Ok, so if most frogs, and amphibians, have parasites, generally they are benign. Are certain species(such as darts) more vulnerable to parasites than others(firebellied toads, newts, etc...the ones you never hear of people doing fecals for)?

Or is it that they are less vulnerable to stress?

This whole parasite thing worries me about anurans. I've never really known anything like that to happen with newts as long as I've been keeping them.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> Ok, so if most frogs, and amphibians, have parasites, generally they are benign. Are certain species(such as darts) more vulnerable to parasites than others(firebellied toads, newts, etc...the ones you never hear of people doing fecals for)?
> 
> Or is it that they are less vulnerable to stress?
> 
> This whole parasite thing worries me about anurans. I've never really known anything like that to happen with newts as long as I've been keeping them.



I wouldn't refer to them as benign.... Wild animals that get heavy parasite loads tend to end up deceased and feeding something else..... 
see http://www.springerlink.com/content/46325232h4759567/ for an example of this trend... 

If look at this study you can see that parasite prevelance ranged as high as 47% http://www.springerlink.com/content/n175277r6k620p66/ for one type of parasite in one subspecies of frog... 
If you look at this study, it shows that (small sample size) 97% of the toads examined had parasites. http://www.actaparasitologica.pan.pl/ar ... /Luque.pdf


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Whoops...that was meant to be a question mark on that sentence Ed. Study one is very interesting though! 

What is your thinking on the second part regarding different species(in captivity)?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The differences in the appearence of issues with other species could simply be due to how they handle stress and immunocompromise from stress. 

I think if you test any wc amphibs you will find similar rates of infections. 

Ed


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Ed: So if most frogs have parasites(and any that are cleared probably get infected sooner or later again?) should we perhaps clear out the parasites prior to exposing the frogs to a stressful situation? With the Gastrotheca babies perhaps if they were given meds and cleared prior the shipping things would have went better.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendrobait said:


> Ed: So if most frogs have parasites(and any that are cleared probably get infected sooner or later again?) should we perhaps clear out the parasites prior to exposing the frogs to a stressful situation? With the Gastrotheca babies perhaps if they were given meds and cleared prior the shipping things would have went better.


I have to qualify this one... with a it depends. Its a good idea to test the frog to see what parasites it maybe carrying and how large that population is in the frog. If the adult frog is very heavily parasitized with one or more types of worms then treating the frog could kill the frog when the massive numbers of parasite(s) die off. In this case, the frog may need a more careful regimen of treatment(s) (see your vet) or the frogs can be managed as infected adults (again see your vet) with the offspring being maintained to eliminate or reduce the parasite(s). 

Are you referring to clearing the frogs before shipping or some other major stressor? This may be an option but you may be better off monitoring the levels of the parasites and checking with your vet for an opinion on it. Keep in mind that treating the frogs can also be a significant stressor and can have negative effects for the frogs (overdosing and/or toxicity from the parasites dying off for example). 

Most institutions attempt to maintain totally parasite free frogs. This is in part possible due to the ability to send out multiple fecal checks on the aninmals however there is some potential risk in this outlook as some parasites have potentially positive benefits (like pinworms in herbiverous tortoises. The pinworms break up plant cell walls allowing for greater ease of digestion. So in herbiverous tortoises unless the pinworms develope into too large a population they should not be eradicated) however this needs to be worked out on a case by case issue. 


Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

These numbers came from my brother and are loose estimations.
There is a huge difference in the numbers and loads of parasites in WC Darts and CB Darts. Out of the 500 or so fecals run by my brother on freshly imported frogs the percentage of Darts with one or more types of parasite is around 15%. This percentage has remained the same over the last few years. The percentage of CB Darts with one parasite is now around 60-70% , 25-30% for those with more than one type of parasite. This number is VERY much lower than it was a few years ago. It should be noted that out of the thousands of Dart customers my brother has only around 15 froggers send in fecals for follow ups after the first fecal comes back clean. This being said there is a very good chance that the numbers would be a bit bigger after the second or third fecal . But the percentage of those frogs that test clean on the first fecal that then test positive after the second or third ( baring any parasites introduced due to lack of quarantine or other negligent husbandry issues) is not expected to push the numbers up that noticeably. Yes they can test negative and not be shedding at the time of testing , only to test positive on a follow up, but it does not happen often.
As to the issue of parasites found in our Dart collections being harmful or not, or being an issue to be concerned about, all I can offer is this;
Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed species tanks. There is no known benefit to the frog at all with either.

Rich


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

I'm not the best guy to respond to this post, but from what I can see your position and that of lacerta represent the two different sides to this issue.

Interesting on the wild frogs. That is a significant number...but nothing compared to the prevalence in captive collections. How were the numbers for captives collected btw? If this is number of customer sent fecals that have tested positive, the results may be skewed somewhat as people who's frogs are doing well(and perhaps more likely to be parasite free) are less likely to send in fecals. Unless that is you did some kind of random sample on all hobbyists frogs. 

Once frogs are "clean" or treated for parasites(that can be eliminated), what are the chances of reinfection(lets assume that the owner did all the proper viv sanitizing etc. procedures)? If Ed is surprised when frogs are clean is it viable to maintain a parasite free collection(particularly with naturalistic enclosures)? 

Was coccidia found in wild darts? Are darts more sensitive to the effects of parasites than other amphibians?


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Hi,
The numbers on the CBs are total fecals done. It is interesting that you would assume fecals were sent (in many cases) because of frogs not doing well due to parasites. I agree with your assumption and also think the numbers are getting a bit more representative of frogs showing no symptoms at time of fecal due to the fact that more and more froggers are including fecals in their quarantine procedures.
Once a frog has tested clean the chances of keeping it clean are reduced only by adding parasites to the viv. This can be done by adding non cleansed plants, substrate, hands, other animals, field sweepings, ect. We do not know exactly where each and every parasites comes from. But we can clean the frog up in the vast majority of cases before placing the frog in-viv. 
I have not asked my brother about the number of cases of coccidia found in WCs but I know the numbers are big in CB Darts. Darts' immune systems do not have the ability to eradicate coccidia as many other amphibians and other animals can. The coccidia can be treated, not cured.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Some thoughts:
- I would expect the majority people who have fecals done have reason to believe there is a problem. Tank mate died, frogs looks or acts wrong. This could exaggerate the %'s. I would expect the majority of pet/animal owners do not take the time to check their animals unless something is suspected. Even with my dogs cats and etc my vet does not take a fecal unless something is wrong. I would be interested in what a fecal on ourselves would turn up.

- Having had some discussion with a Microbiologist friend of mine on this topic. In some cases the perception that some parasites are 100% gone from a treated animal maybe tough to prove. Some may remain dormant until stress or an opportunity presents itself, to then attack again, or in such low levels that they are not detected. I am sure this depends on the parasite and is much more complex than I have described here, as I am far from a expert on the subject. If anyone else has information around this feel free to share.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

And people have to keep in mind that a clean fecal doesn't mean the frog doesn't have parasites and a healthy frog may not shed eggs with each fecal.... 

Ed


----------



## Rich Frye (Nov 25, 2007)

Again, I and my brother agree as stated that a fecal or two or three may not prove a frog is clean as an absolute. 
I simply put out numbers from a vet who does fecals as part of his daily profession, answering the thread's question. For those who would like to back up these findings elsewhere there is only one other vet that I know of who has been running Dart fecals as a 'specialty' . Dr. Monk used to post on frognet and here. I am not sure how to contact him at this time but the numbers and information my brother has passed along has been very similar to Dr. Monk's finding in the past. 
Paging Dr. Monk.
Other than answering the original thread's question as to percentages in WCs and CBs all I can offer (stick to) as a layperson is my new signature (sorry S. Colbert  ) 


Darts with parasites are analogous to mixed species tanks. There is no known benefit to the frog at all with either.

Rich


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

It is hard to tell if the % is greater or less based on the possible variables. One thing is for sure is that the parasites are probably NOT beneficial in any way as if they were likely far more wc frogs would have them. I still find it hard to believe that the ideal situation of no parasites is obtainable by an average hobbyist.


----------

