# Healthy Frogs: What Do You Do



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

In another thread recently (I don't really see the need to specify or rehash any of that) a question was posed to an individual that was never really answered. I'm interested in opening that question up to the general public, if only to see if there has been a shift over the last five years in the public hobby's thinking.

When you make a frog purchase, what steps do you take to ensure that your frogs are healthy and that they don't spread diseases, pathogens, or parasites to the rest of your collection (we can talk about chytrid specifically, but there are plenty of other potential pathogens that as bad, or in some ways, I think, even WORSE because of the seemingly immediate deleterious effects it can have (I'm thinking specifically of hookwork, I'm sure there are others))? I've heard a number of mentalities on the subject, here are a few:

- I quarantine and test for chytrid, rana virus, and run fecals before they make it to the frog room. I wash my hands in between dealing with the qt tank and the frog room tanks. When I'm sure there are no pathogens, they can be moved to the permanent tank. I also take periodic swabs and fecals of random frog tanks every six months to ensure continued health.

- I quarantine and test for chytrid, rana, and run fecals before they make it to the frog room. I wash my hands between dealing with the qt tank and the frog room. I only test before they go in the frog room. If they're healthy, they're good and there's no further reason to run tests.

- I quarantine for an extended period of time. If I notice any potential health issues I'll run tests.

- I quarantine for a brief period of time. The stress of shipping should bring out symptoms of any pathogen the frog has.

- I buy only from trusted sources that I'm as sure as I can be don't have pathogens. The frogs go right into their frog tank.

- I don't worry about pathogens. A pathogen is natural for an animal and as long as your husbandry in all other matters is good there are generally no deleterious affects from pathogens.

If you have another thought on frog health mention it! I just don't think it's fair to put testing and quarantining procedures of one person under the microscope if we're not all willing to be transparent about our practices. I'd love it if the person the question was originally posed to hopped in on this 

For the record, I'm somewhere in between one and two with ideas from three and five incorporated (I test my frogs when I first get them. I try to be diligent about retesting, but it's not religiously every 6 months like some people. I also have an extended quarantine procedure just in case the animal wasn't excreting parasites at the time of the fecal. I do my best to only purchase from people I believe have the highest probability (no one is perfect) of providing clean frogs to me).


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

Jake I am between 1 and 2 as well, I try to do annual fecals and encourage all that buy frogs from me to do at least fecals and give me input on the results.
New frogs are in QT away from my collection, have their own feeding supplies etc. and are fed and hand misted last plus tested for Chytrid and rana along with 3 clean fecals 2 weeks apart before going into their permanent home.
I am extremely picky who I buy from as well.


----------



## oldlady25715 (Nov 17, 2007)

I don't think people who don't quarantine are going to say so in a thread started by the "frog police". LOL


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

oldlady25715 said:


> I don't think people who don't quarantine are going to say so in a thread started by the "frog police". LOL


Fair enough. It's more of a joke than anything. If you pay attention to most of my posts you'll recognize it's pretty rare that I'm actually rabid about anything. It's interesting the way that people want information from others, especially when they're on a witch hunt, but are unwilling to offer the same information they demand from others.


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Fair enough. It's more of a joke than anything. If you pay attention to most of my posts you'll recognize it's pretty rare that I'm actually rabid about anything. It's interesting the way that people want information from others, especially when they're on a witch hunt, but are unwilling to offer the same information they demand from others.


Exactly!
The pictures of new frogs in containers and pics in the new viv is pretty evident of no QT. you do not have to be "The Frog Police" to notice that, plenty of posts on recently acquired frogs being sick or passing on within a short time of receiving them.
Here are some of the issues: cross contamination with your collection, the environment, bad husbandry practices. Then those that "are afraid to test what they have for fear of the results." 
If you cannot afford to test or treat than you need to refrain from frogs and get a goldfish. If you are selling frogs and not testing shame on you.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Bcs TX said:


> Exactly!
> The pictures of new frogs in containers and pics in the new viv is pretty evident of no QT. you do not have to be "The Frog Police" to notice that, plenty of posts on recently acquired frogs being sick or passing on within a short time of receiving them.
> Here are some of the issues: cross contamination with your collection, the environment, bad husbandry practices. Then those that "are afraid to test what they have for fear of the results."
> If you cannot afford to test or treat than you need to refrain from frogs and get a goldfish. If you are selling frogs and not testing shame on you.


All great points. My point is a little closer to this: if you're not doing what you can in your collections to keep your frogs healthy, why does it matter how your sellers monitor disease in the frogs they're sending you. A lot of us have been getting up in arms over a vendor, having a conversation I fully condone, but I wonder if, when we take a step back and look at our own practices, we conform even remotely to what we want to see in out vendors.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

I don't have a "collection" of frogs (just one tank), and from what I've read, the biggest issue come from the first point you made -- specifically washing hands between tanks. I think I've read several cases where a frog was introduced to the collection, and even though it was QT'd, it ended wiping the collection.

I think its because people don't wash hand between tanks. Ideally you should wash your hands between EVERY tank. Which would seem unfeasible if you have a bajillion tanks, but the more tanks you have, the greater the potential loss could be...

Like, people often cite the potential sharing of novel pathogens as an example of why not to mix species. But if you're not properly disinfecting yourself as you move between one tank and another, and in between tanks and FFs, then you just acting as one giant potential vector for pathogens.

Just a though.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

SmackoftheGods said:


> All great points. My point is a little closer to this: if you're not doing what you can in your collections to keep your frogs healthy, why does it matter how your sellers monitor disease in the frogs they're sending you. A lot of us have been getting up in arms over a vendor, having a conversation I fully condone, but I wonder if, when we take a step back and look at our own practices, we conform even remotely to what we want to see in out vendors.


Given Dart Frog Connections affiliation with Taron Langhover, I feel pretty confident asking them if they test for Bd. Given the history with disease in his collection and the sick frogs, I am happy to suggest that it would be prudent for them to do so, especially to reassure the community that we have nothing more to be concerned about. Alex of course ignored this question/suggestion. If any vendor deserves to be under the microscope, it is DFC considering that Tarons collection is their breeding stock, I'm under no illusion that they or any other vendors do so with any regularity if at all.

As for my collection, had all my frogs fecaled regularly at work. Not sure what I'm going to do now that I'm here in San Antonio. I'm hopeful I can find a local vet. If anyone in the San Antonio/Dallas/Houston area knows a good herp vet that does fecal testing locally, please share. So I'm in the second group. I ran a few fecals on some frogs before I left, and that will be it for a while unless I add frogs to my collection. It is going to really suck not to just be able to grab a quick fecal from the gals in the clinic. Having learned from them, to run fecals, it's scary to learn all the stuff swimming around in poo. 

As for Bd/ranavirus I collaborated with a research student at UTEP in El Paso to have tests run. Youll be happy to know that none of the local toads in El Paso tested positive nor did any animals in my collection. None of our frogs or other amphibians at the zoo ever tested positive either, which is great since we have assurance colonies of Puerto Rican crested Toads and Panamanian Golden frogs as well as a breeding population of Chiracaon Leopard Frogs.

I have to admit that early on, I was not as diligent as I should have been, put frogs right into tanks, didn't quarantine, etc. I was reassured by some early on that everyone does this and so long as you get frogs from good people you have nothing to worry about. After reading the horror stories, I felt it was only prudent. It sucked at the time to spend so much on tests, but the peace of mind. All new frogs have been tested and quarantined. I'm confident that my collection has tested consistently clean for quite a while. I'm happy to say that it appears that careful research and only purchasing from reputable dealers protected my collection. Was it stupid and careless not to do so, absolutely, and I'm a bit ashamed to admit it, but since I'm expecting others to be honest and transparent, I should be too.


I want to mention a few practices that I would add to the list. These are all things I do. 

- I use an alcohol based hand sanitizer frequently when doing any work on my tanks that involves trimming, touching anything, cleaning, etc. beyond feeding or hand misting(got this one from the other Doug)

- All tools are sterilized between use in tanks, this includes hemostats, tweezers, surgical sheers, frog catching tubes, etc...

- I frequently spray frequently touched common surfaces in my frog room with a mild bleach solution, table, door handles, vivarium handles/latches etc. shelves, racks, fruit fly drawers, etc

- when feeding, I usually prep flies for everyone. I am careful not to touch anything in the tank with the feeding cup as I move from tank to tank.

- all my tanks now have individual drains

- I of course double bag and disinfect my waste water

-any plants moved between tanks are of course properly sterilized.

Thanks for posing the question Jake and I too hope Alex from DFC weighs in when he gets back.

Doug


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

Doug just to be clear, this needs to be done with all frogs bought from anyone...
Even big breeders such as Sean Stewart, UE, Josh etc... 
All frogs received need to be properly QT and tested.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Bcs TX said:


> Doug just to be clear, this needs to be done with all frogs bought from anyone...
> Even big breeders such as Sean Stewart, UE, Josh etc...
> All frogs received need to be properly QT and tested.


I know. And you're absolutely right. I've done it with Everyone and will continue to. I just wanted to be clear that since my past mistakes, I've tested everything and had no issues. And purchasing from reputable dealers is probably a big reason why I don't have any problems. I am not trying to say tho, that if you only purchase from reputable dealers you're 100% safe. In fact, I've heard some thing privately since this discussion began that have me very concerned and even happier that I chose to test.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

hypostatic said:


> I think its because people don't wash hand between tanks. Ideally you should wash your hands between EVERY tank. Which would seem unfeasible if you have a bajillion tanks, but the more tanks you have, the greater the potential loss could be...


A bottle of 70% ethanol and rubber / nitrile gloves could be used to make this go way faster. Squirt your hands, rub them together till they are dry, which is like 20 seconds and it would probably kill most of the pathogens and actually would by way more likely to be safe than hand washing. Your hands would probably dry before you got to the next tank.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

SmackoftheGods said:


> All great points. My point is a little closer to this: if you're not doing what you can in your collections to keep your frogs healthy, why does it matter how your sellers monitor disease in the frogs they're sending you. A lot of us have been getting up in arms over a vendor, having a conversation I fully condone, but I wonder if, when we take a step back and look at our own practices, we conform even remotely to what we want to see in out vendors.


It could also be viewed the opposite way, most consumers try to buy from trusted sources because they want to jump right in. They would expect a certain level of quality control with any product they buy or animal. A breeder should have the ability to diagnose many diseases in house which would lower the costs anyway and then could be a feature of that breeder. Ideally which of course is not reality you would think that you would be able to purchase a frog from a place like Josh's frogs and know it is not going to have any of those parasites and that they would actually screen frogs before they go out. 

I think if people are expected to quarantine frogs from known breeders then that speaks very poorly of the hobby. Obviously shady breeders, flippers and imports are a different story. And in any niche herp community a lot of animals come from those sources which is probably why people are just "used to it". But do we take a step back and ask the question why should we need to do that for animals which are expected to be healthy from captive breeders?

You will also notice that for a lot of people practical situations come into play. Some just seem to have it all at their fingertips working in zoos or labs having microscopes and thermal cyclers around and people who don't seem to mind if they use them. But really that can in no way be normal. Most people are lucky if they can even find a vet that is decent with herps.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Pubfiction said:


> A bottle of 70% ethanol and rubber / nitrile gloves could be used to make this go way faster. Squirt your hands, rub them together till they are dry, which is like 20 seconds and it would probably kill most of the pathogens and actually would by way more likely to be safe than hand washing. Your hands would probably dry before you got to the next tank.


This is essentially what purel or othe gel hand sanitizerd are, ethanol I personally don't like recommending hloves, they're wasteful.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Doug, I'd like to keep DFC out of it if possible so as not to shut this thread down. Yes, they're included. No this thread is not specifically directed at them. And for the record, I'm of the opinion that there are other breeders who should be put under a microscope much sooner than DFC. Do I support DFC? Not personally. But I have yet to hear of any diseases frogs coming out of their facility (doesn't mean there aren't any, but I haven't heard of them). I know of other big breeders that DEFINITELY ship out sick frogs.

Crazy the way a "witch hunt" (the term is being used very loosely here) can explode and EVERYONE has an opinion, but when people are asked to examine their own practices so few people want to voice their opinion. Maybe we should give Alex and others a bit of a break for not wanting to answer that question. Why expect an answer to a question we're unwilling to answer ourselves?

Hypostatic, I think sanitization between tanks is HUGE. But it certainly can't be considered the sole distributor of pathogens.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Doug, I'd like to keep DFC out of it if possible so as not to shut this thread down. Yes, they're included. No this thread is not specifically directed at them. And for the record, I'm of the opinion that there are other breeders who should be put under a microscope much sooner than DFC. Do I support DFC? Not personally. But I have yet to hear of any diseases frogs coming out of their facility (doesn't mean there aren't any, but I haven't heard of them). I know of other big breeders that DEFINITELY ship out sick frogs.
> 
> Crazy the way a "witch hunt" (the term is being used very loosely here) can explode and EVERYONE has an opinion, but when people are asked to examine their own practices so few people want to voice their opinion. Maybe we should give Alex and others a bit of a break for not wanting to answer that question. Why expect an answer to a question we're unwilling to answer ourselves?
> 
> Hypostatic, I think sanitization between tanks is HUGE. But it certainly can't be considered the sole distributor of pathogens.


Well I disclosed my practices, so I feel fine asking them. I don't really expect an answer. I expect they'll dodge that concern entirely. As I stated though, here is why I asked them and why I think the hobby deserves an answer.

Taron. He is their breeder by their own admission and has a proven track record of selling sick and skinny frogs. Given the nature of his past, I don't think it is an unreasonable request.

If you know of other big breeders that ship out sick frogs, I feel like you should warn us. If not publicaly, at least privately if asked. I've heard recently of at least one other large breeder to be concerned about. That information was offered to me privately, but I cannot confirm it so I won't mention it or pass it on. Taron's history is CONFIRMED. We have user testimonies of sick frogs sold to them and records of losses of least the frogs he sold to people if not whole collections wiped out due to his negligence so we can comfortably openly publish that information.


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

Don't think I'm standing up for Taron. I'm not.... Taron has every reason to be scrutinized. But at the same time I'm surprised DFC has given us as much information as they have (even if some of it has been questionable information). I just question how upset we all should be about them not disclosing, in detail, if we (as a community) aren't a bit more transparent with our own practices. That's all.

I disclose all information I have about all breeders when asked. But I'd rather remain in good standing in the community... Which doesn't seem to happen when you try to take down a "Frog God." Much less two or three....


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Hypostatic, I think sanitization between tanks is HUGE. But it certainly can't be considered the sole distributor of pathogens.


Right. I feel like I was basically trying to say that sanitizing between tanks can possibly mean the difference between losing a few frogs due to an infection, and potentially losing a whole collection. Just wanted to put it out there since I don't feel I read it enough on the boards.


----------



## easternversant (Sep 4, 2012)

Here is another point...what about tracking things from outside into your frog room? I generally wear shoes inside, and this could potentially track things in to the frog room to be passed on when you drop something or a frog hits the floor. An outdoor/indoor dog/cat could also be a vector.

I am very careful about clothes I've worn in the field (especially somewhere out of town). The clothes get washed, boots get spritzed with a bleach solution, and my camera gear gets wiped with either alcohol or a clorox (or similar) wipe. I do this before putting any of this stuff on the ground in my apartment or in the yard (but they have to go on the porch to accomplish this). 

I hope that this helps to prevent the spread of Bd/ranavirus/whatever other nasties are around. I am trying to protect my frogs and be a good global citizen.


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

Doug I test and QT everything no matter who I get them from, everyone should. It is sad about big breeders not testing or even 1 that I personally purchased frogs from not standing behind his frogs when they tested positive. (not a sponsor on DB).
Due to the effects of Chytrid in the environment ,my bet is pretty soon we will be required to test before shipping or not allowed to ship at all.
So by not testing and shipping positive frogs potentially hurts all of us.


----------



## Gocubs (Apr 23, 2012)

The pre testing seems like the logical "next step" in the hobby. If i personally had frogs killed from introducing others I think I would insist this happened before even introducing the frogs into the house, let alone frog room. 

We Charge a box fee, why not a bill of health fee wrapped into the shipping or animal cost?

The wonderful thing here is that if there is a chance, people on the board definitely give a warning in private.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

I wonder how many people would be willing to have frogs tested before buying them and how many sellers would make the effort, even if the buyer pays for it.

Beth, I think it is interesting that you suggest to buyers to test your frogs. That's a good thing and something I honestly never thought of suggesting until now.

Jake,


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> I wonder how many people would be willing to have frogs tested before buying them and how many sellers would make the effort, even if the buyer pays for it.
> 
> Beth, I think it is interesting that you suggest to buyers to test your frogs. That's a good thing and something I honestly never thought of suggesting until now.
> 
> Jake,


It's good for all involved, the feedback works both ways and saves me a fecal. 
I would be willing to pay more for frogs that have been tested and have paperwork proof.
I would still put them through QT. lol


----------



## Gamble (Aug 1, 2010)

Bcs TX said:


> If you cannot afford to test or treat than you need to refrain from frogs and get a goldfish.


I had to check the post name twice ...
Coulda swore Rich Frye was back for a second.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Bcs TX said:


> It's good for all involved, the feedback works both ways and saves me a fecal.
> I would be willing to pay more for frogs that have been tested and have paperwork proof.
> I would still put them through QT. lol


Given that frogs aren't always shedding parasite eggs/oocysts etc., a clean pre-fecal is still no guarantee that the frogs are totally clean. If anything, they would be MORE likely to have stuff show up in a float or a direct smear test after being shipped, and placed in new containers.

Lots of good comments on this thread. It's been overdue.

My procedure for adding new animals to the frogroom collection is;

-Minimum 90 day quarantine in vented, flyproof, sweaterbox tubs, kept OUTSIDE of the frogroom. All substrate & bedding materials are boiled & baked before use, and disposed of appropriately after being changed
-2-3 fecals run during first few weeks of QT, 1-2 more at end
-PCR swab test for Bd
-Separate dusting cups for each tub, with glove changes or hand washing between feeding different groups

If any soiled containers or instruments need to be sanitized for re-use, it's typically ammonia, rinse, dry, bleach, rinse, dry, rubbing alcohol, rinse, dry.

I do fecal spot checks on the permanent collection once or twice a year, occasionally do a prophylactic deworming.

Of course nothing is intentionally transferred between permanent tanks, and all plants, substrates, and wood are heat or chemically sterilized before using.

Edit: wanted to add that LOTS of dart frogs out there, captive or wild, apparently healthy or otherwise, carry some parasite burden. It's a natural part of their existence. The key is avoiding the uncommon, especially destructive issues that no frog should have to experience.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Also worth bringing to the discussion -- should every single frog be tested or preemptively treated for parasites and such?

I don't think all frogs should be tested for parasites. Parasites are part of life. Frog's immune systems are developed to cope and live with them. That's why frogs can have parasites and still be reasonably healthy. It's only frogs with weakened, or generally faulty, immune systems that die or lose weight due to parasites.

I feel if we screen and treat every single frog for parasites we're selecting for frogs that have a cruddy immune system, and are generally not as hardy as frogs that have parasites from time to time.


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

Three clean fecals 2 weeks apart is my routine on fecals. 
Yes parasites shed so multiple fecals are needed. 
If you do not want to test that's fine and I am glad you are public about it. I disagree with the statement about immune systems. Not just looking for parasites but coccidia is another one found via fecals.
As far as the Frye comment he is the only breeder whose frogs passed all of my QT's along with negative Chytrid and rana.


----------



## Splash&Dash (Oct 16, 2012)

Bcs TX said:


> Jake I am between 1 and 2 as well, I try to do annual fecals and encourage all that buy frogs from me to do at least fecals and give me input on the results.
> New frogs are in QT away from my collection, have their own feeding supplies etc. and are fed and hand misted last plus tested for Chytrid and rana along with 3 clean fecals 2 weeks apart before going into their permanent home.
> I am extremely picky who I buy from as well.


Yeah, you're the only person i can recall on here who regularly discusses their testing protocol and who has actually outlined their results in a manner that i would consider open. 

As far as most others, it's seems more of a street preaching mentality. Though I tend to be cynical


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

hypostatic said:


> Also worth bringing to the discussion -- should every single frog be tested or preemptively treated for parasites and such?
> 
> I don't think all frogs should be tested for parasites. Parasites are part of life. Frog's immune systems are developed to cope and live with them. That's why frogs can have parasites and still be reasonably healthy. It's only frogs with weakened, or generally faulty, immune systems that die or lose weight due to parasites.
> 
> I feel if we screen and treat every single frog for parasites we're selecting for frogs that have a cruddy immune system, and are generally not as hardy as frogs that have parasites from time to time.


Well it could be viewed that way or it could be the frogs with out parasites had a strong enough immune system to completely clear a pathogen or prevent it from taking hold. In reality it is probably just really random occurrence. 

But I do agree that not all frogs should be tested all the time. For instance if a breeder regularly checks and they check once before a frog goes out it seems unlikely that a parasite would be in the system. Sort of like you don't test for STDs over and over if you are in a monogamous relationship. So ultimately the testing just demonstrates a lack of trust in the breeders ability to keep their collection clean and accurately diagnose. 

Ultimately though it comes down to risk, for a person with a large collection 1 frog could cost them thousands in animals as well has hundred of man hours trying to clean out and sterilize a room full of vivariums.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

And here's an example of what not to do. 
Announce on 5/4 you have a sick frog. 
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-health-disease-treatment/82294-enlarged-backbone.html
Then say you don't have the money to take it to a vet
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/728545-post4.html
All the while you're looking to spend big money on Ameerega
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/wanted/82184-wanted-pepperi.html
Then without saying a word about the mysterious illness that killed the female Cobalt, you put the male up for sale with no warning or disclaimer
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/trading-post/82998-auratus-pair-m-cobalt.html
These are not disposable animals folks, they deserve the best we can give them and sometimes that includes veterinary care.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Pubfiction said:


> Well it could be viewed that way or it could be the frogs with out parasites had a strong enough immune system to completely clear a pathogen or prevent it from taking hold. In reality it is probably just really random occurrence.


So I guess what I was trying to say is that animals in the wild almost always have parasites. Even the healthy ones. Heck, people can have lots of different parasites and die after living a long healthy life without even noticing (example: tapeworms). And from what I think I've read on the boards, almost every single WC frog comes with parasites. It's not that they got those parasites somehow through the importation process -- it's just that animals in the wild have parasites.


----------



## markpulawski (Nov 19, 2004)

Bcs TX said:


> Three clean fecals 2 weeks apart is my routine on fecals.
> Yes parasites shed so multiple fecals are needed.
> If you do not want to test that's fine and I am glad you are public about it. I disagree with the statement about immune systems. Not just looking for parasites but coccidia is another one found via fecals.
> As far as the Frye comment he is the only breeder whose frogs passed all of my QT's along with negative Chytrid and rana.


Beth the Frye comment was not about the health of his frogs, it was about you being judge and jury to people who don't do things they way you think they should be done....they shouldn't even be in the hobby? A little tolerance and an understanding that there is more than one right way to do things in this hobby will go a long way.
I have no doubt your animals would set the standard for health in our hobby but a lot of us are successful without doing things your way.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> So I guess what I was trying to say is that animals in the wild almost always have parasites. Even the healthy ones. Heck, people can have lots of different parasites and die after living a long healthy life without even noticing (example: tapeworms). And from what I think I've read on the boards, almost every single WC frog comes with parasites. It's not that they got those parasites somehow through the importation process -- it's just that animals in the wild have parasites.


I would say that every WC animals has parasites. Every captive one does too. It's normal. However how we keep the has everything to do with whether or not those parasites affect our frogs. Every stress from high temps to shipping has the potential to throw the parasite balance off and cause a heavier than normal load. The key is to prevent such stressors, including intraspecies aggression from becoming that triggering stressor. 
I fall somewhere inbetween 1 and 2. I don't test all the time due to a lack of funds to do so. I do practice a 45 day qt and good overall husbandry to avoid cross contamination. I don't really believe in "shotgun" medication, because you don't really know what you're treating for. I do think it's more important for frogs new to your collection as you don't know what they're bringing with them. Which also goes back to the point of knowing who you're getting frogs from.


----------



## Gamble (Aug 1, 2010)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> And here's an example of what not to do.
> Announce on 5/4 you have a sick frog.
> http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-health-disease-treatment/82294-enlarged-backbone.html
> Then say you don't have the money to take it to a vet
> ...


You should get your facts straight before you try to call somebody out.

BOTH frogs did get taken to a vet. Tests were negative. 
Those results were shared with the buyer & our mutual friend Justin.
Dont assume to think you know what you're talking about just bc I didn't post everything. 
Typical Frye thing to do Jon ... keep keeping it classy!


----------



## jbherpin (Oct 16, 2009)

I didn't buy those frogs. I just don't want to be falsely represented. 

Before I finish my thought on that, I will contribute to the function of this thread. I do not do fecal exams. I do however isolate and monitor the health, fecal(visual-I know I cannot see microscopically, etc.-), and appetite before considering adding to a group or a permanent vivarium. I don't think this is a full proof way to qt(at all) it is however what I can do.

To get back to it. I never saw test results from a lab, I was told by you she was seen. 

Just trying to be honest and, to be honest(lol), not involved.

JBear


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

First of all, Frye can be quite abrasive, but that doesn't mean that his logic isn't (often) sound.

Second, I actually agree with Beth. No, I don't think you HAVE to do things her way. But I think she has some points. Do I do three fecals two weeks apart for every frog I bring in to my collection? No, sadly I can't say that I do. I'm not made of money (and preparing to go to law school and becoming recently unemployed it's looking like I have even less money than I used to). However, if you CAN'T AFFORD to take your frog to a vet, or to get the frog fecaled and swabbed AT LEAST when your frog starts exhibiting signs of illness, she's right: bail on the frogs and get yourself a goldfish. Is there ONE right way to do things? Absolutely not. But I would be willing to argue that there is a minimum standard of what should be done and taking your animal to the vet when it looks sick, I would argue, is part of that minimum standard (I once spent $150 trying to diagnose a frog because it was more gravid than I'd ever seen a frog before and I was worried...).

Hypostatic, you're probably right, every natural frog probably does deal with a parasite. The issue we get in to is when novel pathogens are introduced (a novel pathogen is one that doesn't occur in the frog's natural environment). Obviously a frog develops a defense system for those parasites native to its locale. But when a frog is introduced to a parasite/bacteria/virus that its ancestors never had to develop a response to, it can be quite deadly. The concern for novel pathogens increase immensely when A) the frog is removed from its natural environment, and B) is kept close to frogs from other localities (as I'm sure most of us do.... The risk is further increased within a mixed tank which is one reason many of us don't condone mixed tanks). Some thoughts.

Doug, at the end of your last post in this thread you said "Jake," but never followed up with a comment or question for me.... So... you should rectify that


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

SmackoftheGods said:


> Doug, at the end of your last post in this thread you said "Jake," but never followed up with a comment or question for me.... So... you should rectify that


Yeah sorry I got distracted. Having a 6 month old around will do that. 

I was going to express something about offending the "frog gods" but then thought better of it. I just didn't backspace far enough apparently. Hit me up with a PM or on Facebook iF you're still curious.

Doug


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

If I'm buying frogs from people I truly trust- ie Darren Meyer or Adam Butt... I don't test, I don't quarantine, I don't worry. I can run my own fecals on the scope at work, and I could test for chytrid via PCR if I knew what primers to use etc etc. I rarely purchase frogs from people I don't trust


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Yeah sorry I got distracted. Having a 6 month old around will do that.
> 
> I was going to express something about offending the "frog gods" but then thought better of it. I just didn't backspace far enough apparently. Hit me up with a PM or on Facebook iF you're still curious.
> 
> Doug


Emailing me would be better.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

frogparty said:


> If I'm buying frogs from people I truly trust- ie Darren Meyer or Adam Butt... I don't test, I don't quarantine, I don't worry. I can run my own fecals on the scope at work, and I could test for chytrid via PCR if I knew what primers to use etc etc. I rarely purchase frogs from people I don't trust


Literature on the subject:
A DNA-BASED ASSAY IDENTIFIES BATRACHOCHYTRIUM DENDROBATIDIS IN AMPHIBIANS

Bd1a:
5′-CAGTGTGCCATATGTCACG-3′

Bd2a:
5′-CATGGTTCATATCTGTCCAG-3′


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

frogparty said:


> If I'm buying frogs from people I truly trust- ie Darren Meyer or Adam Butt...


There is a list of about 10 breeders that I'm willing to get animals from, and those two are definitely on it.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

Dane said:


> There is a list of about 10 breeders that I'm willing to get animals from, and those two are definitely on it.


At the risk of offending those 10 breeders who didn't make the cut, care to share who?


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

Yes I'd like to know also.


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

I recently had a frog in to see my vet. We discussed getting fecal testing while there (she pooped in her cup). Vet said ‘I don’t think we should bother. We keep fecal testing your frogs and it is always negative.’ That’s right, multitudes of fecal tests and none have shown anything worth treating for. 

When Bill’s frogs were here, we did treat his entire collection with Ivermectin. This was because of the extreme stress they had been under with Bill’s illness and shipping them around until they got to their final sitter’s house. There was concern, with that stress, they could develop parasite load issues. Fecal exams were done on his, and my, frogs at that time and none showed any glaring concerns, just normal expected frog poop stuff. His frogs were also prophylactically treated with metronidazole and baytril, for the same reason. They did very well and were returned to him in healthy, breeding condition. 

Frogs that belong to other people, that are in my care, get their own rooms. They have their own feeding and cleaning supplies. There is a bottle of hand sanitizer at the door of each room. Hands get sanitized as soon as I walk into a room, whether I was just messing around with another collection or not, and in between tanks. Like easternversant said, contaminants can come from lots of places, not just the frogs or frog room. I also sanitize before and after handling my cat, preparing food in the kitchen, bathroom, etc. If I’ve been deep into a tank, my hands get scrubbed and then drenched with alcohol. 

I haven’t purchased a new frog in some time. The last one was in QT for many months and then in his own tank for a year. 

That said, I do not routinely test frogs. I have a very good, local, exotic vet. They get physical exams and fecals. Testing and or treating for other problems is based on signs and symptoms.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> At the risk of offending those 10 breeders who didn't make the cut, care to share who?


I'm sure that there are more than 10 folks out there that would be offended if I did make such a truncated list public! The froggers that I prefer to buy from are all people that have really impressed me over the years with their personal commitment to their animals.
Funny thing is, when I skim through the frog classifieds, I look at the name of the thread starter before I check the post title to see what they're selling.


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

I wasn’t sure if this would fit in this thread but then decided it would, since it relates to hygiene and contamination. At the very least, it explains why I have sanitizer staged throughout my house and use it, seemingly, before and after every activity.

A couple of years ago, I contracted a very serious illness through contact with a dart frog. By very serious, I mean that I was hospitalized and the CDC was involved. This bacteria is not found in South America. It is a North American bacteria. In the US, it is most prevalent in the Midwest, on mammals and reptiles. So, obviously, the PDF was not the original vector. My belief is that the frog picked it up through contact with a contaminated North American animal or unsanitary enclosure that once held a North American animal. This was also the belief of the doctor I was in contact with at the State Veterinary Diagnostic and Pathology Lab. I’ll leave it to you to consider who might have been collecting North American wildlife and also selling dart frogs. 

There are a few folks here who already knew about this. I know of one person, who is likely on or near the top of most people’s ‘list of 10’, who went on to purchase animals from the source, even though they had detailed knowledge of what happened. Did they test the animals for this bacteria? According to the State Vet Pathologist, there is a very particular test that would need to be run and it would involve their office having to order specific supplies to do it, as it is not something that is kept on hand. Testing was not done on my end, because, testing the dead frog and/or its enclosure would not have been useful, per the MD. The tank mates of this frog were reclaimed by their owner and disappeared into the PDF stream.

Anyway, my point is that it is all fine and dandy to protect your frogs from other frogs. What do you do to protect yourself and others? What do you really know about what goes on with the people on your ‘lists’? 

To me, it makes most sense to consider all frogs, regardless of who last owned them, as if could sicken not only your other animals, but, also you.


(Please don’t light up my PM box with questions. I’m still mad and still paying hospital bills and I don’t feel like talking about it.)


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Thanks for pointing this thread out to me Kris... 

Let me ask a simple question here..... 



> what exactly does a negative fecal tell you about your frogs?


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Ed said:


> Let me ask a simple question here...what exactly does a negative fecal tell you about your frogs?


Ooh ooh I know. That they poop!


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

frogface said:


> A couple of years ago, I contracted a very serious illness through contact with a dart frog.


May I ask what kind of contact it was? I'd like to know so I can take the correct precautions.


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

jacobi said:


> May I ask what kind of contact it was? I'd like to know so I can take the correct precautions.


The contact was resting the glass lid of the tank on my forehead while treating her with antibiotics, as people often do with WC frogs to be on the safe side. That was the point of entry for the bacteria and where the hideous (ok not really hideous, but not pretty  ) scar remains.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

From what I understand a negative fecal doesn't necessarily mean that a frog doesn't have parasites.

And Kris... Was it MRSA? (You don't have to reply if you're not comfortable)


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> From what I understand a negative fecal doesn't necessarily mean that a frog doesn't have parasites.
> 
> And Kris... Was it MRSA? (You don't have to reply if you're not comfortable)


Sorry, I'm not trying to be cryptic. It was not MRSA. It was tularemia. I was very sick for a long time.


----------



## bsr8129 (Sep 23, 2010)

Who uses thier forehead to hold open a tank.


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

bsr8129 said:


> Who uses thier forehead to hold open a tank.


LOL exactly! 

When you have both of your hands inside the tank, how do you hold the lid open? This would be a horizontal, top opening tank. And it was on a rack in QT, not a regular tank. The way it was situated made it difficult to hold open any other way. 

Anyway, I learned my lesson. You never know what is on your frog or your best friend's frog.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Ed said:


> Thanks for pointing this thread out to me Kris...
> 
> Let me ask a simple question here.....
> 
> ...


I take it to mean that whatever is going on the the GI tract is in balance. Doesn't mean that the frogs aren't hosts to a broad spectrum of gut flora, just means that they're dealing with it well. 
I'm sure you can correct me with parasite issues that would be harmful, and not show up in a fecal under any circumstances, but I'd still rather test than not.


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

frogface said:


> LOL exactly!
> 
> When you have both of your hands inside the tank, how do you hold the lid open? This would be a horizontal, top opening tank. And it was on a rack in QT, not a regular tank. The way it was situated made it difficult to hold open any other way.
> 
> Anyway, I learned my lesson. You never know what is on your frog or your best friend's frog.


Kris, (as you know ) you have to be careful when feeding, handling etc frogs. If not just pathogens there is also bacteria. I am anal about hand washing, gloves etc. when it comes to feeding/ handling or collecting fecals on my frogs. I double glove esp. when taking fecals. Due to my RA and meds that lower my immune system I am triple careful. I would recommend the same for all.
Can I say who the frogs came from that you potentially got the infection from....
I would think most would remember but newer members looking for cheap tadpoles will not, feel free to flood my PM box with Kris's ok first.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dane said:


> I take it to mean that whatever is going on the the GI tract is in balance.


Not necessarily... All it really means is that there were no parasites or signs of parasites in that fecal. 




Dane said:


> Doesn't mean that the frogs aren't hosts to a broad spectrum of gut flora, just means that they're dealing with it well.


See above... Even multiple negative fecals conducted over time don't mean the frog is free from parasite(s)... It just means that you didn't catch them in those fecals.... Or in a timely manner of getting the fecal read..for example, you can occasionally have an overgrowth of commensual protozoa, which if the fecal isn't read immediately will die off resulting in a negative fecal. The same problems can also occur when looking for signs of some other issues (like red blood cells or sloughed cells from the digestive tract) as these can decompose readily. 



Dane said:


> I'm sure you can correct me with parasite issues that would be harmful, and not show up in a fecal under any circumstances, but I'd still rather test than not.


As an additional comment, even "bad" parasites may be kept suppressed by the frog's immune system (and this is before we consider the impact parasites can have on one another (you can get some parasites keeping others in check (see for example An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie) and then there is the emerging data that indicates that reducing one group of parasites results in a greater infection by other parasitic taxa (see for example Anthelmintic treatment alters the parasite community in a wild mouse host). As a further interesting tidbit that is emerging from the study of parasitic/host interactions is that the age of the host at first exposure can also be critical.. (and interesting side bar paper on that topic Cambridge Journals Online - Parasitology - Abstract - Parasitic disease in amphibians: control by the regulation of worm burdens ) 


I don't think there is anything in my question that indicates that testing shouldn't be done... and I'm pretty sure I've advocated testing pretty consistently over the years.. I think testing is important but the discussion in this thread places a little too much emphasis on the idea that a negative fecal result really gives you much information... In reality it doesn't, now a positive fecal tells you a lot of information ranging from what can be definitively identified to be in the frog to the impact of environment and husbandry on the frog.. A frog that has been negative for a long period of time suddenly testing positive for a parasite but very few eggs or larva are seen in the fecal may be due to some husbandry issues stressing out the frog(s). Instead of immediately treating the frogs, a husbandry evaluation and retest in a couple weeks may be the ideal course (*discuss with your vet*) since if the frog was immunosuppressed due to some husbandry event, catching up the frog and moving it to quarantine may actually be worse (maladaption syndrome, overgrowth of commensuals due to treatment/immunosuppression, overgrowth of other undetected parasites and so forth), these decisions need to be made via discussion with your vet so an informed decision can be made. 

A negative fecal only tells you that no parasites were found at that point in time... All of the good data is in a freshly produced and read positive fecal.... and not all things that show up in a fecal are going to be bad (many commensuals) such as (potentially) pinworms.. In moderate numbers they may actually beneficial..... 

For those who find the topic interesting (as I do) I suggest checking out the field of parasite ecology. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Bcs TX said:


> If you cannot afford to test or treat than you need to refrain from frogs and get a goldfish.





> If you are selling frogs and not testing shame on you.


I, of course, agree with the second quote, but as for the first, here is what I wrote on another thread:

1) "For me, following this logic, no 12 year-old should ever collect a pair of green or grey treefrogs from near their home, unless their parents can afford to have them tested by an able vet. So yet another problem that costs real $$ that did not only a generation ago (like home alarms, camera phones, dietary supplements, botox, airport security, etc.) Yes, I am for scientific advancement and technological progress--just don't wanna be a slave to them...

I know chytrid is real. So are terrorism, West Nile virus, school shootings and HIV. Is it possible to be careful without being paranoid?"

2) Also, I cannot help but address a political/philosophical dimension. I believe it is important that hobbies such as this one are not reserved for the privileged, for the "boys from Eton" (like orchids in 19th C Victorian England). I live in da hood (Bronx, near _the_ Stadium), and on balance, I think it a good thing when I see homeboyz (and homegirls) with a bearded dragon or baby snake. I think it creates a climate of expanding awareness and empathy. Now, as a person involved in animal rescue (following my big sister), I am well aware that pets often suffer in poorer communities; just last month, the animal rescue I work with (Social Tees) had a Bully bulldog from my hood, taken from a nefarious character. Non-rhetorical question: Do we want to create a licensing requirement for herps? Have to pass a test? Show a W-2 form? Let me be blunt; Do this and this hobby essentially becomes a hobby for white kids from families with $$. I know there are/will be exceptions,but for me, it still smacks of elitism...

3) Someone want to address why the first two pics are acceptable but not the last two? I'm all ears... Yeah, I know reptiles don't have permeable skins like frogs, but my frogs are fine, thanks (Bruce, my White's, will be 15 next month--come to think of, all my frogs are old ). My protocol is: 

--quarantine;
--nutritious, balanced diet;
--Only Taz (the Australian water dragon) and my Chinese box turtle get leftovers from other tanks--no one else, ever (hell, they eat pasta with the dogs);
-- wash bowls often with hot water;
--wash my hands with soap and water between tanks.

I do admit though, if I have a few pets out at the same time (say the WD, turtle, White's, Denny's, Barker, Blue tongue, and I'm feeding supplemented superworms, pasta (with homegrown tomato sauce or pesto) or cheddar cheese goldfish, I will stick my hand back in the bag. I also sometimes let my silly bearded dragon eat with the cats (not the herps, he is a bully). I think of it as enrichment.

And yes, I would not be so cavalier with a smaller animal like a PDF or Bombina, which I would treat more like aquarium fish. 

(In case anyone is curious, all eight dogs, my water dragons, the skink and 20 of our 22 cats are very small-animal friendly, with the herps, our rats and Betty Bunny--it is the rats, bearded dragon and tegu that are not friendly to smaller critters--maybe I should not have named the tegu Alf...)


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Addendum:When it comes to amphibian health, I sometimes wonder if we should pay as much attention to chemicals as we do to potential pathogens--hey, I do live in an urban area. Chloramine, benzene, petroleum distillates, carbon monoxide, colognes, household cleansers, aerosols, asbestos, lead paint, pesticides, rodent poisons--geezus... 

Are amphibian (and fish) tanks always safe? Any thoughts?


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Ed said:


> Not necessarily... All it really means is that there were no parasites or signs of parasites in that fecal.


But without a necropsy/histology, what definitive proof could you attain regarding the overall health of the given animal, other than that acquired through testing and observation? Of course negative results aren't absolute.






> See above... Even multiple negative fecals conducted over time don't mean the frog is free from parasite(s)... It just means that you didn't catch them in those fecals.... Or in a timely manner of getting the fecal read..for example, you can occasionally have an overgrowth of commensual protozoa, which if the fecal isn't read immediately will die off resulting in a negative fecal. The same problems can also occur when looking for signs of some other issues (like red blood cells or sloughed cells from the digestive tract) as these can decompose readily.


So expedited, temperature regulated samples are preferable. I usually took that as a given.



> As an additional comment, even "bad" parasites may be kept suppressed by the frog's immune system (and this is before we consider the impact parasites can have on one another (you can get some parasites keeping others in check (see for example An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie) and then there is the emerging data that indicates that reducing one group of parasites results in a greater infection by other parasitic taxa (see for example Anthelmintic treatment alters the parasite community in a wild mouse host). As a further interesting tidbit that is emerging from the study of parasitic/host interactions is that the age of the host at first exposure can also be critical..


Isn't this indicative of an overall balance within the frog?




> I don't think there is anything in my question that indicates that testing shouldn't be done... and I'm pretty sure I've advocated testing pretty consistently over the years.. I think testing is important but the discussion in this thread places a little too much emphasis on the idea that a negative fecal result really gives you much information... In reality it doesn't, now a positive fecal tells you a lot of information ranging from what can be definitively identified to be in the frog to the impact of environment and husbandry on the frog.. A frog that has been negative for a long period of time suddenly testing positive for a parasite but very few eggs or larva are seen in the fecal may be due to some husbandry issues stressing out the frog(s). Instead of immediately treating the frogs, a husbandry evaluation and retest in a couple weeks may be the ideal course (*discuss with your vet*) since if the frog was immunosuppressed due to some husbandry event, catching up the frog and moving it to quarantine may actually be worse (maladaption syndrome, overgrowth of commensuals due to treatment/immunosuppression, overgrowth of other undetected parasites and so forth), these decisions need to be made via discussion with your vet so an informed decision can be made.
> 
> A negative fecal only tells you that no parasites were found at that point in time... All of the good data is in a freshly produced and read positive fecal.... and not all things that show up in a fecal are going to be bad (many commensuals) such as (potentially) pinworms.. In moderate numbers they may actually beneficial.....
> 
> ...


In a somewhat related vein, and since this thread seems the ideal location for this question, I'll ask it;

What are the thoughts on "hard quarantine"? In essence, providing a less than optimal environment in the interest of teasing out underlying health issues?


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Dane said:


> In a somewhat related vein, and since this thread seems the ideal location for this question, I'll ask it;
> 
> What are the thoughts on "hard quarantine"? In essence, providing a less than optimal environment in the interest of teasing out underlying health issues?


1) Do you mean the old moistened paper towel/water dish/ one hide log spartan set up? Hmnn... I was under the impression that we accept that healthy animals (including us) normally do carry some bad gut flora; these are kept in balance by beneficial organisms (see Ed's previous posts). Is not what you are suggesting potentially stressful? 

Or, is the idea that we want to prevent future problems and/or not expose other animals (that may not be prepared for a novel pathogen)?

2) Why would this be necessary if I acquire healthy, young CB stock from a reputable source?

3) I am curious, do serious aquarists employ similarly exhaustive protocols? I do not know any... I know some killie and dwarf cichlid breeders who quarantine, but what of marine keepers?

4) Also, do we have any hard data on this? Specifically, In years _____ to ______, X % of quarantined/ tested etc. frogs successfully acclimated, vs Y % of frogs that were only quarantined vs Z % of frogs just placed in their new homes? I suspect not. Of course, people may have different ideas what defines successful acclimation (6 mos? 1 year? breeding?) I think this would be a fascinating database, organized by species, CB vs WC, test results, etc. People would have to be honest about their methods and results!


----------



## frogface (Feb 20, 2010)

Bcs TX said:


> Kris, (as you know ) you have to be careful when feeding, handling etc frogs. If not just pathogens there is also bacteria. I am anal about hand washing, gloves etc. when it comes to feeding/ handling or collecting fecals on my frogs. I double glove esp. when taking fecals. Due to my RA and meds that lower my immune system I am triple careful. I would recommend the same for all.


I guess that's really the way it should be done. Who would have thought that you could get that sick from touching the inside glass of a tank? Who hasn't had their hand brush against the glass when feeding or pruning or collecting eggs? 

Beth, do you change gloves between each tank when you are feeding? Is this with your regular collection or only when QTing new frogs?



> Can I say who the frogs came from that you potentially got the infection from....
> I would think most would remember but newer members looking for cheap tadpoles will not, feel free to flood my PM box with Kris's ok first.


You can say, but, I want to stress that short of going back in time and testing all of the animals that have been in and out of the the seller's home, there is no proof that it happened the way I think it did.


----------



## Bcs TX (Sep 13, 2008)

Kris, I do not wear gloves when I feed, each viv has their own strainer to strain off the ffy's from the supplements. I wash my hands before and after I feed and if when feeding I accidentally come in contact with a plant etc. from one viv I wash my hands and then continue feeding.


The QT frogs are away from my collection, last to be fed, misted and the have their own feeding and misting supplies. Any time I am in direct contact I wear gloves.


----------



## gturmindright (Mar 15, 2006)

My biggest worry is also chemicals. I apply pesticides for a living so I dont go into the frog room without taking a shower and of course change clothes.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

As a scientific test, a fecal exam simply tests for whether any parasites are being excreted along with the feces. Since a frog can be healthy and have a positive fecal, or unhealthy and have a negative fecal (or vice versa), it doesn't say anything actually directly relating to how healthy the frog is.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Groundhog said:


> 1) Do you mean the old moistened paper towel/water dish/ one hide log spartan set up? Hmnn... I was under the impression that we accept that healthy animals (including us) normally do carry some bad gut flora; these are kept in balance by beneficial organisms (see Ed's previous posts). Is not what you are suggesting potentially stressful?


Not exactly. The intent of my question was in regards to getting more accurate fecals and behavioral cues to underlying issues that could be overlooked if everything is hunky dory within the sweaterbox. As Ed pointed out, frogs that haven't seen much stress or inappropriate husbandry are less likely to shed anything that could be picked up by a microscope.

I was thinking more of less frequent feedings (except in the case of froglets), slightly cooler temperatures than are considered optimal, possibly lower humidity than the frogs would prefer, and less frequent bedding changes.



> Or, is the idea that we want to prevent future problems and/or not expose other animals (that may not be prepared for a novel pathogen)?


Isn't that always the idea with quarantine?



> 2) Why would this be necessary if I acquire healthy, young CB stock from a reputable source?


Is this to suggest that buying from the right people precludes the animals from having undiagnosed ailments? It certainly helps the odds, but it's far from 100%.



> 4) Also, do we have any hard data on this? Specifically, In years _____ to ______, X % of quarantined/ tested etc. frogs successfully acclimated, vs Y % of frogs that were only quarantined vs Z % of frogs just placed in their new homes? I suspect not. Of course, people may have different ideas what defines successful acclimation (6 mos? 1 year? breeding?) I think this would be a fascinating database, organized by species, CB vs WC, test results, etc. People would have to be honest about their methods and results!


I would consider successful acclimation to ultimately be a realistic captive life-span (on the higher end, hopefully).

Most of my notes/spreadsheets regarding my collection, as well as lab results were lost several years ago, and I haven't been as meticulous with record keeping since. I'm sure there are some folks out there that do have enough info to extrapolate an ultimate % value of quarantined and acclimated frogs to those lost in QT, or otherwise deemed unfit for exposure to collections. Maybe one of them would be willing to do the work and post some data?


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Groundhog said:


> 3) I am curious, do serious aquarists employ similarly exhaustive protocols? I do not know any... I know some killie and dwarf cichlid breeders who quarantine, but what of marine keepers?


Reef keepers definitely do quarantine from known good pet shops. Now do all of them? Nope but in the end I think it gets down to 2 things. 1 almost all reef fish are wild caught, 2 their collections are expensive and mixed and 1 bad fish can wipe out a lot of fish. In fact at the spring MI frog meet a discussion about that came up and it was revealed a lot of froggers used to be reefers and they had given up some of them because 1 thing or another had wiped out thousands of dollars worth of a collection. 

With frogs I think we have a lot more isolated systems, usually just 2-4 frogs per tank and each tank is single species so people do not have as large a concern.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Pubfiction said:


> With frogs I think we have a lot more isolated systems, usually just 2-4 frogs per tank and each tank is single species so people do not have as large a concern.


There is still a very good chance that something will find its way from one tank to another, either with insects as the vector, or a spray botte, or a dusting cup, etc...


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Dane said:


> There is still a very good chance that something will find its way from one tank to another, either with insects as the vector, or a spray botte, or a dusting cup, etc...


Yes but not nearly the same chance as something in a single large reef tank.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Dane said:


> Is this to suggest that buying from the right people precludes the animals from having undiagnosed ailments? It certainly helps the odds, but it's far from 100%.


Dane: I was asking a question, not making a statement. You say "far from 100%?" Hmnn--how far is far? Following this logic, one is taking a serious risk when one:

--Picks up a broad. I'm serious--I would never do what those silly Secret Service clowns did (my apologies to any broads reading this);
--Travels by air;
--Tries a new dish;
--Let's their kids go out and play.

Let me make clear, I do quarantine. I was under the impression--maybe a bit of a pollyanna--that CB animals greatly minimizes risks. Maybe it depends on perspective: A grade of 92 percent on an exam is very good; a 92 percent fielding percentage for a first baseman blows... 

I do appreciate your detailed, informative replies.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Pubfiction said:


> Reef keepers definitely do quarantine from known good pet shops. Now do all of them? Nope but in the end I think it gets down to 2 things. 1 almost all reef fish are wild caught, 2 their collections are expensive and mixed and 1 bad fish can wipe out a lot of fish. In fact at the spring MI frog meet a discussion about that came up and it was revealed a lot of froggers used to be reefers and they had given up some of them because 1 thing or another had wiped out thousands of dollars worth of a collection.
> 
> With frogs I think we have a lot more isolated systems, usually just 2-4 frogs per tank and each tank is single species so people do not have as large a concern.


That many wipeouts?!? Holy spit--thank the Lord I never was moved to get into salt water...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dane said:


> But without a necropsy/histology, what definitive proof could you attain regarding the overall health of the given animal, other than that acquired through testing and observation? Of course negative results aren't absolute.


(If I understand you correctly, if not please correct my interpretation).. Given that animals are often asymptomatic even though they are infected with parasites or even other pathogens (for example, chytrid according to the literature doesn't kill frogs if the frogs remain above 75 F)... at this time, none if there are only negative fecal tests. At some point, PCR will catch up with the testing and give us a better chance of detecting asymptomatic infection (although even with PCR, false negative can occur... for example, if one doesn't properly swab for chytrid (or it is a very early infection), a false negative can be the result...). 



Dane said:


> So expedited, temperature regulated samples are preferable. I usually took that as a given.


Given the number of fecals that are mailed, it isn't a given... 



Dane said:


> Isn't this indicative of an overall balance within the frog?


The answer is maybe.. There are a number of different types of latent infections that still may not show up.. for example some coccidians or other parasites can also infect muscle tissues or brain tissue, since these are not going to pass eggs, spores or larvae in the fecals, they are easily missed.. However this does not mean that they cannot infect other hosts. If the frog dies and is scavenged by isopods or other invertebrates then these can then be transmitted to a new host (and coccidia have a low threshold of infection as they can produce the next generation to be directly infective). 




> What are the thoughts on "hard quarantine"? In essence, providing a less than optimal environment in the interest of teasing out underlying health issues?


This can cause the shedding of one or more parasites but the risk needs to be weighed against the negative impact on the animal (example maladaption syndrome). Doing this wth heavily stressed frogs could result in a high mortality rate. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dane said:


> I'm sure there are some folks out there that do have enough info to extrapolate an ultimate % value of quarantined and acclimated frogs to those lost in QT, or otherwise deemed unfit for exposure to collections. Maybe one of them would be willing to do the work and post some data?


This can be highly variable.. Between home and when I worked at the zoo, I've had groups of animals have 0% mortality during quarantine and I've worked with some species that repeatedly had 100% mortality during quarantine. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------

