# Ranavirus and chytrid testing



## frogface

Given recent collections contamination with chytrid, and, a community that can be somewhat remiss about doing their due diligence with getting their own frogs tested, let's get a list going for good labs to send samples for ranavirus and chytrid. 

Please post links to labs and any other advice you can give.

Here is the San Diego Zoo: 
SDZ Global Wildlife Conservancy - News - Amphibian Disease Laboratory


----------



## bsr8129

Does San Diego zoo do it for private collections the website says for zoo collections?


----------



## frogface

From that page:

The laboratory is also able to provide assistance in working up outbreaks of infectious diseases in captive collections (especially molecular diagnostic testing) working together with your facility veterinarian and pathologist.

Available Tests:

1. Real-Time (Taqman) PCR for Amphibian Chytrid Fungus - $20
2. Real-Time PCR (Taqman) for Ranavirus - $25


----------



## bsr8129

When you take it out of the context of the whole web page it sounds like individual collections but reading the whole page it sounds like zoo collections. not aware of any one on here having a facility veterinarian or pathologist. Seems something a zoo would have.


Only way to know for sure is to ask them and sent an e-mail to find out.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

bsr8129 said:


> When you take it out of the context of the whole web page it sounds like individual collections but reading the whole page it sounds like zoo collections. not aware of any one on here having a facility veterinarian or pathologist. Seems something a zoo would have.
> 
> 
> Only way to know for sure is to ask them and sent an e-mail to find out.


The way I read it, it does sound like it is limited to zoological collections.


----------



## CJ PELCH

frogface said:


> Given recent collections contamination with chytrid, and, a community that can be somewhat remiss about doing their due diligence with getting their own frogs tested, let's get a list going for good labs to send samples for ranavirus and chytrid.
> 
> Please post links to labs and any other advice you can give.
> 
> Here is the San Diego Zoo:
> SDZ Global Wildlife Conservancy - News - Amphibian Disease Laboratory


Research Associates Laboratory ($18.00/test)

Chytrid Treatment:

1cc LAMISIL spray to 220ml decholorinated water bath for 5-7 minutes. Each each day after treatment put frog into seperate quarantine tank and bleach the one that was used the day before. Treat for 14 days...then quarantine for another 15 days then RETEST.


----------



## JJuchems

CJ PELCH said:


> Research Associates Laboratory ($18.00/test)
> 
> Chytrid Treatment:
> 
> 1cc LAMISIL spray to 220ml decholorinated water bath for 5-7 minutes. Each each day after treatment put frog into seperate quarantine tank and bleach the one that was used the day before. Treat for 14 days...then quarantine for another 15 days then RETEST.


Treatment only has to done 8-10 days. Soaks for approximately 5 min. in the solution of 1cc/mL to 200mL of amphibian safe water.


----------



## Brian317

I've used RAL as well. Great lab and usually get results by 3pm the day they get it.

For treatment, itraconazole. .5ml itraconazole in 500ml of spring water. 5 min soaks for 10-12 days. Put frogs in clean container after soak and sterlize the old container. Testing after treatment, then another follow up test a week after.


----------



## oldlady25715

I think it would be great to have testing available at shows such as Microcosm and Frog Day, or kits for sale to do the testing at a later time. Even though Microcosm stresses CB frogs only, it wouldn't hurt to be able to test a new acquisition. 

I'm not suggesting people bring in frogs for testing from their collections.


----------



## epiphytes etc.

I think that bringing what amounts to a biohazard to these events is a terrible idea.


----------



## oldlady25715

epiphytes etc. said:


> I think that bringing what amounts to a biohazard to these events is a terrible idea.


Yes, edited my post after seeing it up!


----------



## frogface

Just came across this place in a google search: 
Zoologix: PCR testing for animals


----------



## Bcs TX

Here is a good list of labs and info on chytrid from Amphibian Ark:
http://www.amphibianark.org/the-crisis/chytrid-fungus/


----------



## OrangeTyrant

Also, for what it's worth, not all testing is the same, be sure to contact your lab to see how the testing is done. Work with a knowledgeable exotics veterinarian to interpret these tests or compare them to see which one is right for your situation. While PCR swab tests for chytrid can be effective, PCR swab tests for ranavirus antemortem may be of little use. PCR tissue tests for ranavirus are effective but are obviously part of a necropsy work up. Not all PCR tests are created equal either, you want TaqMan PCRs. 

Itraconazole diluted with amphibian Ringer's solution to 0.01% for 5 min/day for 10 days is an effective treatment (be cautious of compounded itraconazole drugs, may have lower dose of effective drug, send to lab and test if concerned...) and there's literature supporting low dose itraconazole at 0.005% that is effective and better tolerated.


----------



## bsr8129

frogface said:


> From that page:
> 
> The laboratory is also able to provide assistance in working up outbreaks of infectious diseases in captive collections (especially molecular diagnostic testing) working together with your facility veterinarian and pathologist.
> 
> Available Tests:
> 
> 1. Real-Time (Taqman) PCR for Amphibian Chytrid Fungus - $20
> 2. Real-Time PCR (Taqman) for Ranavirus - $25


Responce from them:
Hello,



Unfortunately, we are unable to perform testing for private collections at this time. You might consider contacting Pisces Molecular Home Page | Pisces Molecular



Sincerely,



Allan Pessier



Some people need to have better reading comprehension.


----------



## frogface

bsr8129 said:


> Some people need to have better reading comprehension.


LMAO! Doesn't change anything for me since I am doing my testing through my veterinarian and pathologist


----------



## kermit2

Pices is great! Although in my experience with them I had to amputate a foot and freeze it then send it to them.I think the swabbing of the animal is less traumatic. Vetdna.com is where I send all my swabs if interested. $18 for Chytrid and $26 for rana virus.


----------



## Bcs TX

kermit2 said:


> Pices is great! Although in my experience with them I had to amputate a foot and freeze it then send it to them.I think the swabbing of the animal is less traumatic. Vetdna.com is where I send all my swabs if interested. $18 for Chytrid and $26 for rana virus.


Mike I use them for my testing as well, it's actually 18.00 per test, so testing the same swab for rana and bd is 36.00.


----------



## Brian317

I actually just got some results back on my collection from Research Associate Lab today. Here is an example of what the results will look like. I had my entire collection swabbed for chytrid (for the 3rd time since July) with NEG results  Figured I'd share:



Blacked out boxes are just my personal info, if anybody is wondering.


----------



## frogface

What to folks think about also testing for mycobacterium? From what I understand, not only is it contagious but it's also zoonotic. OrangeTyrant, what do you think?

eta: This place does chytrid, ranavirus and mycobacteria as an assay panel http://www.zoologix.com/zoo/Datasheets/AmphibianScreeningPanel.htm

I called Zoologix and got a quote of 113.00 for the following:



> Amphibian screening PCR panel
> 
> Test code: P0031 - Amphibian screening PCR panel. Ultrasensitive detection and differentiation of the following pathogens using real time PCR protocols:
> 
> Chytrid fungus
> Ranavirus
> Mycobacterium xenopi
> Mycobacterium chelonae
> Mycobacterium liflandii / ulcerans / marinum


----------



## mydumname

I just paid vetdna.com $40 to do both tests a couple months ago.

As for having testing kits at the shows.....I actually had a box of the swabs at my table....not one person asked what they were for.


For some reason today I can't seem to get the vetdna site to open up on my computer or phone....strange.


----------



## Halter

mydumname said:


> I just paid vetdna.com $40 to do both tests a couple months ago.
> 
> As for having testing kits at the shows.....I actually had a box of the swabs at my table....not one person asked what they were for.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Excellent idea Greg, I may have to utilize that when I start vending.


----------



## mydumname

Yeah but no one cared. I thought it would have been handy for someone to purchase one or two as opposed to having to order a box. You can find individual ones but the cost seemed to be higher then the per unit cost by buying a box.


----------



## OrangeTyrant

frogface said:


> What to folks think about also testing for mycobacterium? From what I understand, not only is it contagious but it's also zoonotic. OrangeTyrant, what do you think?
> 
> eta: This place does chytrid, ranavirus and mycobacteria as an assay panel Amphibian screening PCR panel
> 
> I called Zoologix and got a quote of 113.00 for the following:


As far as Mycobacterium zoonosis goes, only certain species are zoonotic (M. bovis namely, while M. tuberculosis is human to human and M. avium and a few others are only *rarely* zoonotic in immunocompromised people - like those with HIV), so it is unlikely that the frog Mycobacteriums are zoonotic, although not impossible. 

Again, we're back to the issue of tissue testing vs. swab testing here like with Ranavirus, so I'm unsure of the usefulness of this assay panel on an outwardly healthy collection. 

The sensitivity of these tests would need to be provided by the laboratory for sure, and I haven't done that research with this particular lab, but I would suspect that a positive test would tell you the frogs are more than likely infected, while a negative test may not definitively confirm that the frogs are disease free, if that makes any sense. So basically a negative result tells you nothing. But this is why you talk to your lab and your vet, because each lab and test has different sensitivity and specificity levels and interpretation of their usefulness. 

Zoologix also doesn't state that they run TaqMan PCR - they may, but you'd have to ask, see my earlier comments on this. 

For my money, I would generally run a chytrid swab by TaqMan PCR at a lab I trust and that's about it on outwardly healthy frogs. (Along with quarantine, hygiene, avoiding cross-contamination, etc. of course). I would only run the other tests on tissues of euthanized or deceased frogs by TaqMan PCR accompanied with histopathology. I just don't think the swab PCR tests for Ranavirus or Mycobacterium are good enough at this point in time.


----------



## sports_doc

I use Vet DNA [Research Associates Laboratory]

1. Now, you should only swab 1-4 frogs per 'test' [frogs in same tank obviously]
More than 4 is discouraged.

2. You need to be pretty 'aggressive' with the swabs, getting between the legs/crotch and belly for sure.

3. Each in to a zip lock, use gloves, change with each tank/QT container. 

4. Clean entire area with Chlorox wipes when done. 

5. Best to do while animals are in QT, and b/f they hit a viv, bc you are looking at taking an entire viv down and sterilizing if +

6. If you get a +, the treatments outlined do work. Take a bit of practice and attention to a sterile attempt. I rec doing in a kitchen/ bathroom and keeping the animals there until finished.

7. Retesting 2 weeks after treatment is recommended.

I think if anyone has Rana +, they need to realize there is no cure, and you either are culling animals or becoming a pet keeper.


----------



## Ed

OrangeTyrant said:


> As far as Mycobacterium zoonosis goes, only certain species are zoonotic so it is unlikely that the frog Mycobacteriums are zoonotic, although not impossible.
> .


Isn't M. marinum and M. ulcerans found in moist, wet enclosures like we house the frogs? ? Isn't M. marinum known to cause "fish tank granulomas" in tropical fish hobbyists or has that been transferred to a different species? I haven't looked at the data recently...

Ed


----------



## OrangeTyrant

Ed said:


> Isn't M. marinum and M. ulcerans found in moist, wet enclosures like we house the frogs? ? Isn't M. marinum known to cause "fish tank granulomas" in tropical fish hobbyists or has that been transferred to a different species? I haven't looked at the data recently...
> 
> Ed


You are correct that these species could be found in our frog enclosures, but it is an opportunistic bacteria, so you would need to be immunocompromised and/or not following common sense hygiene while messing about in a positive enclosure (i.e. breaks in the skin and then not wearing gloves while doing maintenance). I still believe it's rare to become infected with it, but not impossible as I stated earlier. 

And again to truly test for mycobacteriums, you probably need a more effective test than a simple swab if you're just trying to screen your collection for it. 

So the real moral of the story to me is to practice good hygiene and quarantine in general to minimize our exposure and spread of these things - not to mention the many diseases and viruses we haven't even identified yet (let alone have tests for) that our exotic animals probably have. Both ranavirus and chytrid are relatively "new" in terms of our identification and diagnosis of them.


----------



## Ed

OrangeTyrant said:


> You are correct that these species could be found in our frog enclosures, but it is an opportunistic bacteria, so you would need to be immunocompromised and/or not following common sense hygiene while messing about in a positive enclosure (i.e. breaks in the skin and then not wearing gloves while doing maintenance). I still believe it's rare to become infected with it, but not impossible as I stated earlier.


I have had several friends who specialize in fish aquariums who had Mycobacterium granulomas despite taking care when working in the tanks.. They would take no solace in that it is supposed to be rare.. (one of them got it via the punctures from a lion fish sting through a rubber glove) (he was very very unhappy about it something about salt being rubbed in a wound...). 
It isn't always easy to wear gloves and have them act as sufficient protection as you can easily puncture them on many things in the enclosures... 

Thanks for the clarifications. I appreciate it. 

Ed


----------



## frogface

I just got test results for some new froglets. Positive for chytrid and ranavirus. Also positive for coccidia on fecal exam by my vet. Can that be right? They are just a little bit thin for the amount of food they eat. How can they have both chytrid and ranavirus and appear so healthy other than not being porkers?

I used Research Associates Laboratory.

The breeder has asked that I send them back so they can be swabbed and tested by them. My heart is broken 

eta: Before anyone asks, these frogs are in QT in their own room on the opposite side of the house from my frog room. Their tub is ff proof with weather stripping on the inside of the lid. They have their own supplies; ffs, dusting cup, sprayer, gloves, paper towels.


----------



## frogface

Interesting factoid: I've just learned that ranavirus positive frogs can have ranavirus negative tadpoles.


----------



## Brian317

Ouch  sorry to hear. If you need somebody to talk to, let me know...


----------



## bsr8129

Who's the breeder??? Pm me if nessary


----------



## frogface

I don't know what I'll do about naming the breeder. Right now I'm thinking no. Otherwise people will avoid that breeder and damage their livelihood, while buying frogs elsewhere and assuming they are disease free. The reality is that these can be any frogs from any breeder. All new acquisitions should be assumed to be infected and should be tested.

I'm going to find and post links to where to buy testing supplies and how to swab. I am very lucky to have a local frog vet and she did the swabbing for me, but, not everyone has that option. 

Last night I sent an "OMG how can this be?!" email to my vet. Here is a snippet of her response:



> With PCR, false positives are usually much less common than false negatives, as you can "miss" the agent when sampling if not done properly and get false negatives. I don't know if you saw what I was doing, but when you sample for chytrid you rub the pelvic patch, underside of each thigh, and the underside of the feet 5 times each to have the best chance of finding it if it's there. Usually the only way you can get false positives with PCR is if somehow your sample is contaminated from the environment or if you have agents that are closely enough related that you have DNA from another agent that cross-reacts with what you are testing for. That is pretty unlikely, and the only things the frogs touched were my gloves (which were brand new for each frog and why I washed my hands between frogs), and that's why I didn't weigh them until after I swabbed them.


----------



## Judy S

So sorry to read your post... Good thing that you have a vet who appears to have a thorough understanding of the issue.... I don't know how much help it would be...but if you need amphibian Ringer's for electrolyte balance...Carolina Biological has it...reasonable priced by comparison to what I had to pay to get it made for me. I imagine you are having nightmares about the situation...


----------



## Halter

Frog face I hope everything's going to be okay you can also try soaking the Frog in Pedialyte that works really well

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Judy S

NO.....please do not use Pedilyte...the components of any other "Ringers" is totally different than the one for amphibians...Google it if you do not believe me...A very knowledgeable DB member here pointed that out and sent me to the proper references...That is what I used when I had a bout of WC frogs that tested positive for Cytrid. Only use one specifically for amphibians.


----------



## Halter

Oh i didn't know that.. I've always use Pedialyte for my froga and I always seem to do well...i didn't mean to give you bad advice I'm sorry

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Halter

Judy could you please PM me that information just so that way I know for future references I appreciate you clarifying

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk


----------



## frogface

The frogs seem well so I don't think they need any soaking. They were eating up a storm this morning. I do have ARS on hand though.

eta: Had it not been for the thread about RETFgirl's and Corey's tree frogs, I might not have bothered with testing these froglets. It has truly been eye opening for me and I hope for others too. Given some emails and PMs I've received, positive ranavirus testing is not as unusual as we may think. IMO, we should be talking about it more. They are animals. Animals get sick. We can pretend that it doesn't happen to our frogs and keep spreading it around, or, we can be proactive and try to combat it.


----------



## frogfreak

frogface said:


> I just got test results for some new froglets. Positive for chytrid and ranavirus. Also positive for coccidia on fecal exam by my vet. Can that be right?


Hi Kris,

The first thing I would do is send swabs to a different lab and see what comes back.


----------



## Judy S

Done..........


----------



## frogface

frogfreak said:


> Hi Kris,
> 
> The first thing I would do is send swabs to a different lab and see what comes back.


That's what I was thinking. But, what happens when the next test comes out negative? Do I accept that result because I like it more? Do I test a 3rd time? Do I trust the 3rd test? I don't know. 

As it happens, the breeder really wants these frogs back so they can swab and re-test them, themselves. So, I'll be sending them home. I want to keep the frogs but I'm really not equipped to manage frogs that might be ranavirus positive.


----------



## frogfreak

frogface said:


> That's what I was thinking. But, what happens when the next test comes out negative? Do I accept that result because I like it more? Do I test a 3rd time? Do I trust the 3rd test? I don't know.
> 
> As it happens, the breeder really wants these frogs back so they can swab and re-test them, themselves. So, I'll be sending them home. I want to keep the frogs but I'm really not equipped to manage frogs that might be ranavirus positive.


I guess it really doesn't matter if they're going back.


----------



## Judy S

I think it is worthwhile to follow up on the disposition of the frogs...there has already been a messy problem with another member here on DB


----------



## bsr8129

What happens if these frogs do go back and test positive with the breeder, then are sold to someone else that doesnt test. Without tracability these frog will get lost in the system. There needs to be more transparency in the hobby and not all of the cloak and dagger, behind PM's and not naming names.


----------



## Dendrobati

frogface said:


> I don't know what I'll do about naming the breeder. Right now I'm thinking no. Otherwise people will avoid that breeder and damage their livelihood, while buying frogs elsewhere and assuming they are disease free. The reality is that these can be any frogs from any breeder. All new acquisitions should be assumed to be infected and should be tested.
> 
> I'm going to find and post links to where to buy testing supplies and how to swab. I am very lucky to have a local frog vet and she did the swabbing for me, but, not everyone has that option.
> 
> Last night I sent an "OMG how can this be?!" email to my vet. Here is a snippet of her response:


Not wanting to sound partial, but I don't think that those frogs could be from any breeder. We test our frogs for both Rana and Chytrid. In fact, last month we spent over $400 with tests. Not only that, we actually treat most of the new frogs we get as if they had chytrid and only test afterwards (due to false negatives). We test every new frogs we get (for rana and chytrid), even if they are froglets. 

Rana is a VERY serious issue, and I do think people deserve to know where one of the sources of it could come from. 

Chytrid is bad, but you can work with it. Rana is a whole different issue, and these breeder should come forward, own up to his mistake, test his whole collection and share the results. People deserve to know, as much as he deserves a chance to clean his collection. 

The longer it takes for you to name the breeder / the longer it takes the breeder to come forward, the bigger the chances of someone else getting rana in their collection from that breeder, and start passing it along everyone else... and, let's face, most people do not test their frogs for chytrid or rana, especially if they are froglets. So it will keep spreading and spreading... with no cure. 

Give it some thought... 

Thanks,
Marta


----------



## frogface

Well, I believe you Marta. However, the words you typed about your own testing procedures sound almost identical to what I was told by the breeder. In fact, I was told that this particular breeding group was tested as recently as June with negative results and no possibility of cross contamination since then.

My purpose for saying they could be 'any frogs from any breeder' is that you do not know the health of a new frog except what you are told.

Let's say the frogs came from you. You had negative testing and I had positive testing. Which samples are accurate? You say they were negative, I say they are positive. Can't prove either way. Should I come to the board and tell people you sold me ranavirus positive frogs? Will you then come here and say 'no I didn't?' What happens other than you lose a lot of customers?


----------



## Dendrobati

bsr8129 said:


> What happens if these frogs do go back and test positive with the breeder, then are sold to someone else that doesnt test. Without tracability these frog will get lost in the system. There needs to be more transparency in the hobby and not all of the cloak and dagger, behind PM's and not naming names.



Agreed. This is extremely serious. 

Also, what if the breeder tests them and says they came back negative and it was all a mistake? He can even test other frogs so that he has a negative test result, so that his reputation isn't at stake... 

Marta


----------



## Judy S

what will be happening is--people will destroy their "positive" frogs,or pass them along to an unsuspecting buyer...,or treat the valuable ones...and in the end the buyers will have to pay the price in one way or another. May result in fewer species of frogs from which to choose... Personally, I would like to know much more about Ranovirus and the implications of a positive test...


----------



## Dendrobati

frogface said:


> Well, I believe you Marta. However, the words you typed about your own testing procedures sound almost identical to what I was told by the breeder. In fact, I was told that this particular breeding group was tested as recently as June with negative results and no possibility of cross contamination since then.
> 
> My purpose for saying they could be 'any frogs from any breeder' is that you do not know the health of a new frog except what you are told.


Well, ask for the test results back?

Can the breeder provide them?


----------



## frogface

Dendrobati said:


> Well, ask for the test results back?
> 
> Can the breeder provide them?


I don't know. I am really unsure of how to proceed. Still feeling sick to my stomach.


----------



## Dendrobati

frogface said:


> Well, I believe you Marta. However, the words you typed about your own testing procedures sound almost identical to what I was told by the breeder. In fact, I was told that this particular breeding group was tested as recently as June with negative results and no possibility of cross contamination since then.
> 
> My purpose for saying they could be 'any frogs from any breeder' is that you do not know the health of a new frog except what you are told.
> 
> Let's say the frogs came from you. You had negative testing and I had positive testing. Which samples are accurate? You say they were negative, I say they are positive. Can't prove either way. Should I come to the board and tell people you sold me ranavirus positive frogs? Will you then come here and say 'no I didn't?' What happens other than you lose a lot of customers?



I never heard of positive rana tests that are a false positive.  

Chytrid, sure. Not rana.


----------



## frogface

Judy, ranavirus cannot be treated, from what I understand.

There are other people who have had positive ranavirus tests (some are posting in this very thread) who have not been pointing fingers back to the breeders. What say you other people? Do you want me to put my neck out while yours are safely pulled in? 

I liken frog disease to human STDs. It doesn't matter how clean or healthy they look. It doesn't matter what you are told about their health. You still need to protect yourself. Technically they may be wrong for getting you sick, but, you still get sick. You chose to not use the condom.


----------



## Bcs TX

With real time PCR no such thing as false positives unless cross contaminated.
The DNA is found in the swab how can that be a false positive?

Kris, I would not ship known positive Chytrid frogs. IMO the breeder should refund your money.


----------



## frogface

Bcs TX said:


> With real time PCR no such thing as false positives unless cross contaminated.
> The DNA is found in the swab how can that be a false positive?
> 
> Kris, I would not ship known positive Chytrid frogs. IMO the breeder should refund your money.


The breeder is refunding the money.


----------



## JPccusa

frogface said:


> Judy, ranavirus cannot be treated, from what I understand.


That is correct. Ranavirus is incurable. 

Some reading materials:

The Rise of Ranavirus | The Wildlife Society News

http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao_oa/d087p243.pdf

https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/464/1/DUFFUSRanavirusEcology2010.pdf

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://public.wsu.edu/~jesse.brunner/pdfs/BrunnerEtAl2007DAO-Transmission.pdf


----------



## Dendrobati

Ranavirus can also infect a wide range of animals. From fish to amphibians to reptiles. A turtle can pass it onto a gecko, for example. There is no cure. This is serious stuff. 

Brad


----------



## SilverLynx

If ANY breeder is representing frogs sold as PCR tested for Rana and Chyrid, then COPIES of the results should be provided. I do believe another member posted a picture of some lab results. Telling people that frogs have been tested is NOT enough, nor should that be accepted. ONLY actual results should be accepted as proof frogs have been indeed been tested.

The breeder you bought them from should provide you with the test results. Sending PCR positive for Rana and Chyrid through normal shipping channels is not only a BIOHAZARD, but illegal. PLEASE let your vet handle this matter. She is bound by State and federal laws. There are strict protocols for the handling and shipping of bio hazardous live tissue. 

Whoever sold you these frogs should come forward. Asking you to ship back PCR positive frogs is NOT COOL. These kind of activities can and will destroy the hobby.

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## frogface

SilverLynx, thank you for the info. Since the frogs are now known to be positive, the illegality would be on my end. I am now having strong second thoughts. I will contact my vet.


----------



## Bcs TX

I test and QT all new frogs even if negative test results are shown by the seller,
IMO it is up to keeper to test their frogs. Kudos to you Marta for testing your collection, very few breeders do.


----------



## Brian317

What I'm curious about is how prevalent is Rana and Chytrid in captive populations. I know they both spread in the same fashion, but is one more common than the other? It is very hard to judge as some never swab due to either financial reasons or scared of the results.


----------



## frogface

I'm waiting to hear back from my vet about what I need to do to make sure they are shipped safely and legally. I will not ship them out illegally. I'll let you know what I find out.


----------



## Ed

JPccusa said:


> That is correct. Ranavirus is incurable.


\

Okay.. it is incurable, because we don't have good ways to treat viral infections except symptomatically but this doesn't mean that an animal infected with it is going to remain infected it's whole life. For example in http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao_oa/d087p243.pdf, it states that Xenopus exposed to F3 (frog virus 3) cleared the infection in a month and a second infection in 5 days. So it is accepted that a frog can clear infections of these virus.. however, this needs to be confirmed by repeat testing and the frogs need to be kept seperately from one another to prevent repeated exposures so any asymptomatic carriers can be identified... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

SilverLynx said:


> If ANY breeder is representing frogs sold as PCR tested for Rana and Chyrid, then COPIES of the results should be provided. I do believe another member posted a picture of some lab results. Telling people that frogs have been tested is NOT enough, nor should that be accepted. ONLY actual results should be accepted as proof frogs have been indeed been tested.
> 
> The breeder you bought them from should provide you with the test results. Sending PCR positive for Rana and Chyrid through normal shipping channels is not only a BIOHAZARD, but illegal. PLEASE let your vet handle this matter. She is bound by State and federal laws. There are strict protocols for the handling and shipping of bio hazardous live tissue.
> 
> Whoever sold you these frogs should come forward. Asking you to ship back PCR positive frogs is NOT COOL. These kind of activities can and will destroy the hobby.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane, aka, SilverLynx


Can you provide a link to that information?? I would like to read the regulations myself. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Brian317 said:


> What I'm curious about is how prevalent is Rana and Chytrid in captive populations. I know they both spread in the same fashion, but is one more common than the other? It is very hard to judge as some never swab due to either financial reasons or scared of the results.



It is going to vary depending on the species in question and the source but it has been documented in a number of captive taxa.. for example of the potential scale http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/kilpatrick/publications/Schloegel et al 2009 Biol Cons.pdf 

Also check out the cited by section here An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Here is the full citation on FV3 and Xenopus G MANIERO, H MORALES, J GANTRESS, J ROBERT. (2006) Generation of a long-lasting, protective, and neutralizing antibody response to the ranavirus FV3 by the frog Xenopus. Developmental & Comparative Immunology 30:7, 649-657 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## SilverLynx

Kris, I am sure your vet is already aware of this, but APHIS/USDA Veterinary Services will provide her with the proper protocol for transporting the PCR positive frogs. They are the federal regulatory agency that deals with these matters, especially since both Rana and Chyrid became WHO reportable diseases in 2008. I had to go through them when I worked with LMBV, Largemouth Bass Virus which is a Ranavirus. 

Ed, as I have already TOLD you in previous treads, I WILL NOT RESPOND to any of your posts, or requests on ANY THREAD. I thought that I made that VERY CLEAR. If not, you can use this as clarification.

Thanks,
Lane,aka, SilverLynx


----------



## Ed

SilverLynx said:


> Kris, I am sure your vet is already aware of this, but APHIS/USDA Veterinary Services will provide her with the proper protocol for transporting the PCR positive frogs. They are the federal regulatory agency that deals with these matters, especially since both Rana and Chyrid became WHO reportable diseases in 2008. I had to go through them when I worked with LMBV, Largemouth Bass Virus which is a Ranavirus.
> 
> Ed, as I have already TOLD you in previous treads, I WILL NOT RESPOND to any of your posts, or requests on ANY THREAD. I thought that I made that VERY CLEAR. If not, you can use this as clarification.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane,aka, SilverLynx


Interesting... searching the APHIS site for ranavirus regulations turns up nothing except some older proposals on importing or exporting aquatic amphibians and/or their products.. For some reason, I can't find any permit requirements or transport regulations for ranavirus on the APHIS site... Could it be that you have mistaken the information?
Instead of refusing to answer the question, you would make yourself much more credible if you provided the link to the regulations you are "referencing". 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## SilverLynx

No Ed, I am not mistaken! There is a section for scientists and veterinarians to contact the proper dept/individual for protocols and or permits. They do not post
that information for the general public as their protocols and permits are not intended for non licensed individuals. The general public and or hobbyist need to contact their LICENSED vet if transportation of live animals with WHO reportable pathogens/diseases across state lines is involved. These pathogens can injure and harm wildlife. 

Since you can't seem to respect my wishes, I will put you on my IGNORE list.
Since you like to look up info on the internet, I suggest you research TX Penal Code 33.07 and 42.07. There are certain sections that apply should this continue to escalate, as I refuse to be intimidated or harassed by you! I owe you ZERO responses. 

So, let's see how well the ignore feature works on this site!

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## Judy S

SilverLynx....you sort of muddy the waters by your refusal to provide Ed with the sources...unfortunately we Earth people do not have the background, experience, education and whatall to make an informed decision. Scientists usually are open and most willing to share such information because of the confidence they have in their material...They are, indeed, proud of their findings and background. Please do not take questions as an insult, but rather an attempt to further important information from someone who knows the correct and appropriate questions to raise.


----------



## SilverLynx

Judy S, those kind of questions should be answered by a licensed vet. People should rely upon information provided by their vets, state and federal agencies. I already answered the question. Hobbyists need to conduct their own research, as there is NO ABSOLUTE in science and NO SINGLE EXPERT! Scientific studies are NOT ABSOLUTES, nor should they be presented as such.

So hopefully Kris will hear back from her vet, as none of us outside a laboratory setting should be shipping contaminated LIVE ANIMALS, without the involvement of the proper regulatory agencies. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

Lane. Ok for whatever reason it seems you have an issue with Ed. That's not really any of my business. Aside from him asking the question of you, would you mind if I asked?

I am genuinely interested in understanding the regulations involved. I don't doubt that you're correct in stating there are regulations in place governing this. In fact I certainly hope that there are.

So would you please provide links to those regulations? It seems like you know what you're talking about. I'd just like to read the regulations myself.

As I understand it! we as a hobby could have another serious issue on our hands not unlike Lacey act compliance. If we are in fact prohibited from sending animals that are infected it Chytrid or Ranavirus then anyone who does so, even unknowingly may be in violation. This is why I'd like to look at the regs and interpret them myself.

Any idea how these regs apply to sending fecal samples, swabs, etc?


----------



## srrrio

frogface said:


> I don't know what I'll do about naming the breeder. Right now I'm thinking no. Otherwise people will avoid that breeder and damage their livelihood, while buying frogs elsewhere and assuming they are disease free. The reality is that these can be any frogs from any breeder. All new acquisitions should be assumed to be infected and should be tested.
> r


Sorry I am just catching up to this thread and just wanted to give my input on this burden Kris now has. 

I feel pretty strongly at this point you should absolutely NOT name the breeder.

First because the vast majority of us do not test at all. I am pretty sure right now on the classifieds you would find very few that have fecal testing and I’d be surprised if you find 1 or 2, or none, that have tested for chytrid and or rana. Then there is the problem of cross contamination. Unless the tests were done the day before shipping. things can change. 

Yes, written documentation from the lab is great, but if I am doing the swabs and writing the frog info and mailing it in to the lab, who is to guarantee I wrote the correct sample info?

Second, if we continue to “out” breeders and hobbyists on this very public forum. How long will it be before those who don’t approve of keeping poison dart frogs in glass boxes use this as a reason to prohibit it. 

With that said opening our eyes to health issues, using vets, testing, proper disposal of enclosure materials, and taking personal responsibility vs playing the blame game is the right thing. I myself have plenty of improvement to do. 

Rather then going after people who have possibly infected frogs, it seems like it would be more helpful to form a group that is willing to submit their results to a central neutral party that could report findings so the we know more about numbers of animals with the various diseases. I remember I took part in the Treewalkers chytrid study which certainly made me feel better about my frogs and of other peoples at the time. Yet again, if there are widespread issues,.. what is going to happen?


----------



## bsr8129

If we dont "out" breeders that are selling infected frogs, how are we ever going to know who is passing around sick frogs. And very recently a breeder was "outed" on this board about sellings frogs with cytrid and some other unknown dieses. Should we not have outed this breeder, where was the cry for not ousting him? Right now it might be to soon to oust with out confimation of results, but if they are true then it should be said who sold the frogs as other people may have frogs from this person.


----------



## frogface

Thank you Sally 

I've received lots of PMs asking for the breeder. Some of them state that they want to know so they can avoid that breeder. I think that is the wrong approach. What do we know about the testing practices of any of the breeders (except Brad and Marta  ) ? If you have PMed me, I'm not ignoring you, I'm still mulling things over.

Here is what I am thinking right now: We should continue to buy frogs just as we have. Then we test the frogs we receive. Let's say 10 people purchase frogs from a breeder. Those 10 people test their frogs and they are positive. Those frogs are then returned to the breeder for a refund. That breeder is going to change things or go out of business pretty quickly. 

If we continue to just talk about these issues in back channels, and people continue to purchase and not test, what motivation do the breeders have for upgrading their frog keeping and making sure the animals they sell are healthy? 

As for the samples that were taken; I was there and observed my vet taking them. She was painfully careful of cross contamination. When she dropped one swab, still in the package but open, she threw it out, got new gloves, and then a new package. As each sample was taken, it was immediately placed into a tube (also fresh from the package) and then taken home by me. I did not open those tubes, ever. 

I called the lab today to ask if they thought there could have been any cross contamination on their end. I spoke with the person who conducted the testing. She said that they do each sample individually, not batch samples, and, mine were the only chytrid/ranavirus samples they had received that day. I don't recall the exact words she used but she said that the chytrid was the strongest positive and that the ranavirus, while not as strong, was definitely positive.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

I think any argument as to wether or not we out the breeder is irrelevant. I don't think the moderators would allow that. In the case of CJ Pelch/AIR exotics, he outed himself.

I would like to see the breeder in question reply. It is the right thing to do. I feel they have a responsibility to our frogs and the community to do so. This is one of the few times the PM channel has failed me as my inquires as to who is involved have been ignored and no one has volunteered information.

Bottom line, test your frogs and quarantine them. The buck stops with the hobbyist purchasing frogs to protect their collection.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> Here is what I am thinking right now: We should continue to buy frogs just as we have. Then we test the frogs we receive. Let's say 10 people purchase frogs from a breeder. Those 10 people test their frogs and they are positive. Those frogs are then returned to the breeder for a refund. That breeder is going to change things or go out of business pretty quickly.


I respectfully disagree Kris. This only protects the individual and not other hobbyists. Furthermore, we know we can rely on the vast majority of people to take the proper precautions, to disinfect waste water, etc, so this puts the native environment at risk.

I have no problem with a breeder going out of business if they're selling infected frogs.


----------



## Dendrobati

srrrio said:


> Sorry I am just catching up to this thread and just wanted to give my input on this burden Kris now has.
> 
> I feel pretty strongly at this point you should absolutely NOT name the breeder.
> 
> First because the vast majority of us do not test at all. I am pretty sure right now on the classifieds you would find very few that have fecal testing and I’d be surprised if you find 1 or 2, or none, that have tested for chytrid and or rana. Then there is the problem of cross contamination. Unless the tests were done the day before shipping. things can change.


I do not see why does the fact of most people not testing their frogs have anything to do with not naming the breeder...



srrrio said:


> Yes, written documentation from the lab is great, but if I am doing the swabs and writing the frog info and mailing it in to the lab, who is to guarantee I wrote the correct sample info?


Cmon... 



srrrio said:


> Second, if we continue to “out” breeders and hobbyists on this very public forum. How long will it be before those who don’t approve of keeping poison dart frogs in glass boxes use this as a reason to prohibit it.


So... your approach is to keep things like this hidden, not to talk about it and not mention names, so that nobody complains about us keeping dart frogs as pets, as a lethal disease spreads, and spreads, and spreads... that is an interesting approach. Certainly you are putting the frogs and their well being first, I see that. 




srrrio said:


> With that said opening our eyes to health issues, using vets, testing, proper disposal of enclosure materials, and taking personal responsibility vs playing the blame game is the right thing. I myself have plenty of improvement to do.
> 
> Rather then going after people who have possibly infected frogs


We do need to go after the people that have infected frogs if they are big breeders. Especially when you buy from a business, you should expect them to be chytrid and rana free. It is the business responsibility to sell healthy frogs, not frogs with rana, OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 

When big breeders get a message saying that the frogs they just sold were positive for rana, send replacement frogs and those too are infected with rana... and this happen with multiple frogs in multiple occasions... then yes, we should name them. Something has to be done. 

SOMEONE HAS TO SPEAK UP, because the breeder clearly doesn't care, as this keep happening with the same business over and over again.

Thanks,
Marta


----------



## frogface

Picture this:

Frogger says the frogs the bought from Breeder test positive. She tells all about it on the public forums and names Breeder. Breeder says, my frogs are not positive. Frogger obviously contaminated those frogs herself! 

Ok who is right? You have Frogger's word but she could be completely full of BS. Maybe she tossed them in with another group of frogs. She didn't but who really knows? Now Breeder is losing business because of Frogger. So Breeder sues Frogger for damaging his business with no proof that the frogs were sick before shipping. Frogger loses her home, which will suck for her and will be a big disappointment to Breeder because it's a dump and not worth much, but it's all she has.


----------



## JPccusa

SilverLynx said:


> Since you can't seem to respect my wishes, I will put you on my IGNORE list.
> Since you like to look up info on the internet, I suggest you research TX Penal Code 33.07 and 42.07. There are certain sections that apply should this continue to escalate, as I refuse to be intimidated or harassed by you! I owe you ZERO responses.
> 
> So, let's see how well the ignore feature works on this site!
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane, aka, SilverLynx


The ignore list works fine. You will still see when Ed posts but will have to opt to read his post by clicking on a link. 

As far as intimidation and harassment goes, I do not believe Ed did either. He is challenging your claims because they are unsupported and, nowadays, anyone can be anything they want behind a computer (State Farm commercial comes to mind). This is how forums work and you should expect to continue to be challenged if someone else can backup their rebuttal with proof. The idea here is to weed out misinformation or outdated data. Don't take it personal as these posts often aren't.

Now let's all focus on helping Kris.


----------



## frogface

To the benefit of the breeder, they offered a refund, I did not ask. Mostly, I was contacting them to let them know of a problem. They guaranteed live arrival. They did not guarantee disease free. I appreciate that they did step right up with a refund offer. I also think that they deserve the opportunity to test the frogs themselves. I think any breeder here would agree.

eta: Maybe that's the next step. Buyers start asking for a disease free guarantee. Then they would need to follow through with testing.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

There is a huge issue here that I've neglected to think of until, but that Kris has a good point about. Accusing the breeder would basically become libelous. It would come down to he said she said and you would be exposing yourself to a lawsuit should the breeder decided to file a lawsuit. They would of course have to prove loss.

Another reason why the DB moderators wouldn't allow that info to be posted, to shield DB and it's owners from litigation, even though they're legally insulated, it is better to avoid getting sued.


----------



## Ed

SilverLynx said:


> No Ed, I am not mistaken! There is a section for scientists and veterinarians to contact the proper dept/individual for protocols and or permits. They do not post
> that information for the general public as their protocols and permits are not intended for non licensed individuals. The general public and or hobbyist need to contact their LICENSED vet if transportation of live animals with WHO reportable pathogens/diseases across state lines is involved. These pathogens can injure and harm wildlife.


So in violation of the open government policy, the APHIS site has a "non-public" area where policies and permits are not available for the general public to see... Interesting since I can gain access to permits and regulations on virtually everything else including things that are also reportable and are regulated.... I'm guessing I'm going to have to send a FOIA request to them to gain access to these secret permits...

This is the request I just sent them as per thier website


> To Whom it may concern,
> 
> I'm trying to get clarity on the current status of being able to transport suspected ranavirus infected frogs across state borders. The question arose as part of a discussion as a friend of mine had tested some frogs she had purchased from a breeder and subsequently they tested positive for chytridmycosis and ranavirus. She has the frogs in isolation and bleaches any waste water as well as double bagging any materials that have come in contact with their enclosure before discarding it into the trash.
> The breeder has requested that they be returned to him so he can test them further.
> One of the people in the discussion (and I'm quoting that person directly)
> quote "There is a section for scientists and veterinarians to contact the proper dept/individual for protocols and or permits. They do not post
> that information for the general public as their protocols and permits are not intended for non licensed individuals. The general public and or hobbyist need to contact their LICENSED vet if transportation of live animals with WHO reportable pathogens/diseases across state lines is involved. "endquote
> 
> So is what she said true, that
> 1) there is a section of information unavailable to the general public reserved only for licensed vets and scientists?
> 2) that only a licensed vet can transport the frogs with the suspected infection?
> 
> Thanks in advance



Some comments 

Ed


----------



## JPccusa

frogface said:


> eta: Maybe that's the next step. Buyers start asking for a disease free guarantee. Then they would need to follow through with testing.


The guarantee would have to be very specific and current in order to be useful.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> eta: Maybe that's the next step. Buyers start asking for a disease free guarantee. Then they would need to follow through with testing.


This is why I want to know if Lane is correct in the assertion that there are regs regarding the transport/shipping of infected animals. We need to know. We may very well have a legal obligation(we probably already have a moral) to make sure our frogs are clean before shipping.


----------



## Bcs TX

Kris I think it is really bad idea to ship positive tested frogs period. If they want to have the frog's retested at a different lab at their expense then have your vet reswab and send them to another lab or have a histo done at their expense. 
A better way for them to approach this is to test THEIR own frogs instead of having you ship the positive tested frogs back to them.


----------



## frogface

Bcs TX said:


> Kris I think it is really bad idea to ship positive tested frogs period. If they want to have the frog's retested at a different lab at their expense then have your vet reswab and send them to another lab or have a histo done at their expense.
> A better way for them to approach this is to test THEIR own frogs instead of having you ship the positive tested frogs back to them.


Beth, I'll be doing it through my vet, following whatever prescribe method there is. I'm thinking there must be biohazard containers or something? Waiting for her reply email.


----------



## Ed

ZookeeperDoug said:


> This is why I want to know if Lane is correct in the assertion that there are regs regarding the transport/shipping of infected animals. We need to know. We may very well have a legal obligation(we probably already have a moral) to make sure our frogs are clean before shipping.


Here is the APHIS website USDA - APHIS, they have regional contact offices as well as a central contact office as well as a contact for FOIA requests. You can easily search the site, or even search using a google or other engine search request... use something like APHIS ranavirus interstate transport... 

the USDA does list ranavirus as a WHO animal health reportable disease but also indicates that is established in the wild which is true. It does not list a permit requirement anywhere I can locate it.. which is not the same for other WHO reportable diseases like rinderpest. I guess it's possible that I'm looking in the wrong area but I should have resolved that via the information request. 

I sent an information request to APHIS, and I'll hear back for them somewhere between 2 and six weeks... and as I have with other information requests, I'll share the information. Now other people should can also query the site to answer questions.... Chytridmycosis is also a WHO reportable disease and as we all know, there is currently a review in front of USF&W to add it to the injurious wildlife listings but nothing has been added as of yet... so it is still legal to ship chytridmycosis infected animals across state borders. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

Ed said:


> Here is the APHIS website USDA - APHIS, they have regional contact offices as well as a central contact office as well as a contact for FOIA requests. You can easily search the site, or even search using a google or other engine search request... use something like APHIS ranavirus interstate transport...
> 
> the USDA does list ranavirus as a WHO animal health reportable disease but also indicates that is established in the wild which is true. It does not list a permit requirement anywhere I can locate it.. which is not the same for other WHO reportable diseases like rinderpest. I guess it's possible that I'm looking in the wrong area but I should have resolved that via the information request.
> 
> I sent an information request to APHIS, and I'll hear back for them somewhere between 2 and six weeks... and as I have with other information requests, I'll share the information. Now other people should can also query the site to answer questions.... Chytridmycosis is also a WHO reportable disease and as we all know, there is currently a review in front of USF&W to add it to the injurious wildlife listings but nothing has been added as of yet... so it is still legal to ship chytridmycosis infected animals across state borders.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Lane says she knows otherwise, just refuses to answer you. I'm trying to put aside that difference by asking myself for that information to be provided. Despite whatever personal differences there might be over whatever perceived slights may have occurred, if Lane has information regarding this subject, it should be provided as it could be helpful.


----------



## Judy S

If retesting is done as suggested in post 86...it should be done at a mutually agreed upon lab...seller to pay


----------



## frogface

Judy S said:


> If retesting is done as suggested in post 86...it should be done at a mutually agreed upon lab...seller to pay


I offered to have them re-swabbed and tested at the lab of the seller's choice. They were adamant that they wanted the frogs back to do the swabbing themselves.


----------



## Ed

JPccusa said:


> The guarantee would have to be very specific and current in order to be useful.


And pretty much useless.... How would you enforce it? How many people go to a show or get frogs in and the first thing they do is place them in a cage in thier frog room? Or into their intended final enclosure? That would violate any guarantee right off the bat... and it would be a he said/she said situation.. 

I'm not defending the breeder at all, but we need to take a step back from the hysteria. 

Ranavirus, and chytrid can be bad for a collection.. but they are bad for a collection if you don't use proper quarantine, and don't test. The same thing can be said for Rhabdiform lungworms.. or even hookworms. Both are heavily infections, can persist in the enclosure, and be transferred between enclosures and kill frogs... 

Use the following guidelines for quarantine

1) quarantine as far from the established collection as possible, ideally in another building, if not possible another room on another floor, if not possible then another room. 
2) use insect tight enclosures to prevent cross infection via contaminated invertebrates 
3) service quarantine enclosures after you have taken care of your other animals. If you have multiple enclosures in quarantine, service the animals that have currently tested negative first, then oldest enclosure to newest enclosures. 
4) Do not use the same tools, instruments between the established collection, and quarantine. Ideally use a different tool, instrument between quarantine enclosures. Disinfect tools between enclosures. 
5) either use a new pair of gloves between enclosures or throughly wash hands between enclosures. 
6) disinfect all waste water with bleach. Ideally let sit for 48 hours before discarding
7) double bag all waste materials before placing them into the trash bag. You can use either more trash bags or even zip top sandwhich bags. The idea is to get something that can handle a little trauma in the waste stream. 
8) ideally do not wear the same clothes used to service the quarantine animals in with the established collection. 

9) *IF there is a positive test result, don't panic! It isn't the end of the world* As I noted above here http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/ge...-ranavirus-chytrid-testing-7.html#post1611626 it can be managed and potentially even cleared. In the past, I was much more of the mindset of depopulate and sterilize but data has indicated that this may not be required... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Bcs TX

Let's take 2 steps back and look at this. Why the hell do they want the frog's back? Why not simply test the parents or siblings of the frogs that were sent to Kris? The frog's have not one but 3 disease positive tests, the swabbing was done by a Vet.


----------



## Judy S

Ed...somewhere along the DB world...your advice should be a sticky...the beginner forums should have this information... About the breeder asking for the frogs to be returned...am I showing my cynical side by thinking no good can come from that scene???


----------



## Dendrobati

frogface said:


> I offered to have them re-swabbed and tested at the lab of the seller's choice. They were adamant that they wanted the frogs back to do the swabbing themselves.


We should get Vegas involved take bets on what their results will be. 

My money would be on negative. Its better PR. 

Brad


----------



## frogface

I love you guys 

Bottom line is I have already spent around 700 bucks on these frogs. I'm kind of at the point where I'm cutting my losses. I can still keep them. I've paid for them and they are in my possession. Then what? I can treat them for chytrid. I can treat/manage the coccidia. The ranavirus might go away. On the other hand, any one of these could flare up start a health avalanche and the frogs would, I imagine, drop pretty quickly. 

What would you do with these frogs?


----------



## Judy S

Not to be a smart ass...but you have already seen a couple of posters who have some serious props on the subject...and they may be able to suggest further paths for a longterm resolution to your moral/actual dilemma...Your own moral compass will reveal itself and you will do the right thing...otherwise you would have kept all this to yourself...I applaud you for your sense of character and internal debate...the measure of true character is revealed when no one is watching...


----------



## Ed

If I was the breeder, the scientist in me would want to run the tests... where I could watch the sample collection and send it out. I would want to see the quarantine conditions and look for errors.. but that is the scientist in me wanting to make sure there weren't any errors in the process. So I can understand it pretty well. 

As for the concerns about shipping ranavirus contaminated animals across state borders, this happens every day on a scale you probably can't imagine. See http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/kilpatrick/publications/Schloegel et al 2009 Biol Cons.pdf for the details. Nothing has been done to require permits for these interstate transports... Again, you can take steps to prevent the release of any materials from the boxes... Starting with not using anything that is so wet it drips.. That prevents water loss from the box if damaged which could result in contamination.. So actual contamination could only result if the entire box and containers holding the frogs were compromised... Adding another container (doing a box inside a box would reduce the risk even further...). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Thanks Ed. We were already planning on a box within a box for shipping. They are sending the shipping supplies and label to me.


----------



## frogface

Judy S said:


> Not to be a smart ass...but you have already seen a couple of posters who have some serious props on the subject...and they may be able to suggest further paths for a longterm resolution to your moral/actual dilemma...Your own moral compass will reveal itself and you will do the right thing...otherwise you would have kept all this to yourself...I applaud you for your sense of character and internal debate...the measure of true character is revealed when no one is watching...


Judy I understand what you are saying but I don't understand what you think I should do. Would you keep the frogs? Retest them yourself? I appreciate your candor so don't be worried about offending me.

If you are saying that I should be publicly outing the seller, can I ask if we have a DB Legal Fund available?


----------



## Ed

Dendrobati said:


> We should get Vegas involved take bets on what their results will be.
> 
> My money would be on negative. Its better PR.
> 
> Brad


And this is very healthy skepticism.. worthy of being a scientist.. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> I love you guys
> 
> Bottom line is I have already spent around 700 bucks on these frogs. I'm kind of at the point where I'm cutting my losses. I can still keep them. I've paid for them and they are in my possession. Then what? I can treat them for chytrid. I can treat/manage the coccidia. The ranavirus might go away. On the other hand, any one of these could flare up start a health avalanche and the frogs would, I imagine, drop pretty quickly.
> 
> What would you do with these frogs?


Kris,

Are you only being refunded the cost of the froglets? If they turn out positive on their end, are you going to get some of your costs back? That seems like the correct relationship tact for them to take. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Ed said:


> Kris,
> 
> Are you only being refunded the cost of the froglets? If they turn out positive on their end, are you going to get some of your costs back? That seems like the correct relationship tact for them to take.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


At this point, the refund is for the frogs and shipping. We haven't discussed cost of testing. I could ask that they refund testing if they are positive on their end, but, well, Vegas and all.


----------



## Ed

I am not suggesting the following as the source of the tubs but instead as an example.... 
These are my go to tubs for quarantine and/or anything I want to keep fruit flies in and other things out Sterilite 20 Quart Gasket Box 

One of the nice things is that the gasket can be removed for cleaning and then replaced. This means that all of the hard materials can be bleached and the gasket can be washed and disinfected with a shorter cycle. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## cbreon

I would strongly suggest NOT shipping the frogs. Based on the results of a licensed vet, they are viewed as a biohazard by USFW, APHIS, and WHO. Shipping the animals without the assistance of a licensed professional or regulatory agency would, at best be unethical, and likely illegal. Keep in mind this is a public forum.


----------



## frogface

cbreon said:


> I would strongly suggest NOT shipping the frogs. Based on the results of a licensed vet, they are viewed as a biohazard by USFW, APHIS, and WHO. Shipping the animals without the assistance of a licensed professional or regulatory agency would, at best be unethical, and likely illegal. Keep in mind this is a public forum.


Thank you! I won't be shipping them without the assistance of my vet. I'm hoping that they will box them up for me, in appropriate containers, on the way to the airport to ship them off.


----------



## Ghost vivs

Film or facetime the swabbing being done by the vet, the whole process, from swabbing to putting the swabs in a sealed shipping container. 

I say Beth is on to something also. Seller should just start testing everything in their collection. 

*But* what really blows my mind is the seller questioning Chris(frog face) honesty She's one of the most honest, helpful, and forgiving people in this hobby. Ask *anybody* on this forum if that's not a *fact*!

Casper


----------



## frogface

Thanks Casper. That really made my day!

If I may be honest and forgiving for a moment, the seller did not know me prior to this transaction. He doesn't know how awesome I am


----------



## Dendrobati

Kris, we can't make right someone else's wrong. I truly think what you did, posting this publicly, is great. Thank you. 

If its of any interest, you can do the right thing with the frogs without worrying about a refund from the breeder and we will replace them with something from our site. A pair of something is fine. (Still try to get your refund!)

Just let us know. 

Brad


----------



## frogface

Dendrobati said:


> Kris, we can't make right someone else's wrong. I truly think what you did, posting this publicly, is great. Thank you.
> 
> If its of any interest, you can do the right thing with the frogs without worrying about a refund from the breeder and we will replace them with something from our site. A pair of something is fine. (Still try to get your refund!)
> 
> Just let us know.
> 
> Brad


Thanks Brad. What is the right thing to do?


----------



## Dendrobati

frogface said:


> Thanks Brad. What is the right thing to do?


I don't think I can answer that for you. You are vested both financially and emotionally. 

The only thoughts I could share would be that I don't believe I would be willing to ship the frogs. The breeder doesn't need these frogs to test. I personally don't see any gain for shipping, only risk. 

Keeping them is extremely risky due to having other frogs. Even if you didn't....still very risky.

I sadly think I would euthanize. I don't say that lightly and I'm sure others will disagree. I think your vet could give you some guidance. She/he would be more up to date than I am regarding this subject.

Brad


----------



## mydumname

Ed,

Walmart also carries a couple gasket tubs made by ziploc. I can not find it online but I got some from a couple walmarts local to me. About $11 for a 30qt which has some nice dimensions for quarantine.



For the refund, the seller may require the frogs back to give refund. Especially if they are paying shipping as well and refunding that also.


----------



## frogface

Dendrobati said:


> I don't think I can answer that for you. You are vested both financially and emotionally.
> 
> The only thoughts I could share would be that I don't believe I would be willing to ship the frogs. The breeder doesn't need these frogs to test. I personally don't see any gain for shipping, only risk.
> 
> Keeping them is extremely risky due to having other frogs. Even if you didn't....still very risky.
> 
> I sadly think I would euthanize. I don't say that lightly and I'm sure others will disagree. I think your vet could give you some guidance. She/he would be more up to date than I am regarding this subject.
> 
> Brad


Actually, euthanizing was my plan before they asked that the frogs be returned. It would crush me but I saw it as the most reasonable solution. I did talk to my vet about it, and, she agreed. 

I do have other frogs here. Not just my own but also frogs that belong to someone else. Remember, I am the frogsitter. I have contacted the owner of those frogs and he is aware of the situation. Additionally, I was to take care of another froggers collection in a few weeks, while they were out of town. They have also been contacted and we decided to not move her frogs in here. I'll be traveling to her house to check on the frogs, instead. She doesn't live very close but it is better than risking her collection (they would have been moving into the room that these froglets are in now). 

If they were to be euthanized if they stayed here, why not send them back for a refund?


----------



## Ghost vivs

Well then it's high time this seller learns something...

No thanks needed! We all need to thank you for even posting this! 

I remember not to long ago someone was honest with their test results and they were drug over hot coals and labeled a liar. 

*Don't tell anyone who the seller is!!*

Want to know why I say that? This will make *everybody* question their next frog purchase and until that happens people will keep on not testing. Let the fear in people lead to change in our hobby. 

That may(will) upset some but that just means that the fear is taking hold...To blunt? Hell yeah it is. But it's the truth! 

Casper



frogface said:


> Thanks Casper. That really made my day!
> 
> If I may be honest and forgiving for a moment, the seller did not know me prior to this transaction. He doesn't know how awesome I am


----------



## mydumname

I would probably send them back if that was what I needed to do for a refund. The chances of something happening to spread contamination during shipping I feel is slim. I never received a box that looked to be opened in any way.....and I received quite a number of packages as would be evidenced by the ridiculous quantity of shipping boxes in my attic. Ha


----------



## epiphytes etc.

I wouldn't worry about the actual shipping as much as what the breeder will do with them.


----------



## frogface

I am hoping (naive?) that they will euthanize if they get positive tests. I haven't asked directly. Perhaps I should.


----------



## Ghost vivs

You say that like the rest of their collection hasn't been cross contaminated already...  
(Edit... not Chris!!! The sellers collection)

I also think it's highly likely more people than Chris have got frogs from this source... 

Casper




epiphytes etc. said:


> I wouldn't worry about the actual shipping as much as what the breeder will do with them.


----------



## mydumname

Like siblings to these......


----------



## Dendrobati

frogface said:


> Actually, euthanizing was my plan before they asked that the frogs be returned. It would crush me but I saw it as the most reasonable solution. I did talk to my vet about it, and, she agreed.
> 
> I do have other frogs here. Not just my own but also frogs that belong to someone else. Remember, I am the frogsitter. I have contacted the owner of those frogs and he is aware of the situation. Additionally, I was to take care of another froggers collection in a few weeks, while they were out of town. They have also been contacted and we decided to not move her frogs in here. I'll be traveling to her house to check on the frogs, instead. She doesn't live very close but it is better than risking her collection (they would have been moving into the room that these froglets are in now).
> 
> If they were to be euthanized if they stayed here, why not send them back for a refund?


It's unreasonable for the breeder to require them to go back. At least that is how I feel. 

I have to wonder what their intentions are with bringing them back. Would they be resold? Would they reenter their population? Would they???

My personal feelings are that when the frogs are with you, you are in control. If the frogs go back, who knows....

If you NEED to send them back for a refund......that's hard to argue with. Hopefully they don't force that.

Brad


----------



## frogface

Ghost vivs said:


> You say that like the rest of their collection hasn't been cross contaminated already...
> 
> I also think it's highly likely more people than Chris have got frogs from this source...
> 
> Casper


Oh no! I have been very, very careful. They are in the back of the house in their own room. All of their own supplies and nothing back there has been removed from the room except the frogs on swabbing day. And they made their way through the house all boxed up 

One of the reasons I tested them, aside from deciding that it needs to be done every time (see CJ and RETFgirl's thread) is that when I told a few people that these frogs were coming in, I was advised to test. Apparently there were others. Yes, mydumname, siblings. I really thought the tests would be negative. These frogs look healthy. My vet gave them exams after swabbing and commented on how good their skin looked. Other than the fecal that was positive for coccidia, there were no findings on exam. I really thought they would be negative


----------



## Bcs TX

I am out of "Thanks" not sure why there is a limit but I digress. Again I plead do not ship the " maybe breeder possible flipper" back the frog's that tested positive for 3 pathogens. I only know one breeder that would want positive tested frogs back and due to this litigious era have been warned by my attorney not to post it but will reveal the name via e-mail or text message. Kris if you have your $ back good for you, I was not offered a refund only a replacement of yet more rana positive frogs, which I euthenized. The "so called breeder blamed it on me" I have tested from 2 labs and received negatives from my collection. I would euthanize and move on and continue to test all frogs and new additions to your collection. I advise all to test to prevent this from further hurting our hobby etc.
To the breeders that do not test for at least bd and rana shame on you, not only are you hurting the hobby but the environment.


----------



## Ghost vivs

Not you!!! The seller...




frogface said:


> Oh no! I have been very, very careful. They are in the back of the house in their own room. All of their own supplies and nothing back there has been removed from the room except the frogs on swabbing day. And they made their way through the house all boxed up
> 
> One of the reasons I tested them, aside from deciding that it needs to be done every time (see CJ and RETFgirl's thread) is that when I told a few people that these frogs were coming in, I was advised to test. Apparently there were others. Yes, mydumname, siblings. I really thought the tests would be negative. These frogs look healthy. My vet gave them exams after swabbing and commented on how good their skin looked. Other than the fecal that was positive for coccidia, there were no findings on exam. I really thought they would be negative


----------



## cbreon

Animal Related
USDA/ APHIS permits are required for imports/ exports and inter-state transport of:

animal or plant pathogens including challenge material from the USDA, see Appendix 2
specimens reasonably believed to contain animal or plant pathogens*
vectors of animal or plant disease*
potentially hazardous animal or plant products
*USDA/APHIS regulation 9 CFR Animals and Animal Products Parts 94, 95, and 122 covers transport of organisms or vectors that can cause infectious diseases of animals. The regulation defines material requiring a permit as, "(d) Organisms. All cultures or collections of organisms or their derivatives, which may introduce or disseminate any contagious or infectious disease of animals (including poultry). (e) Vectors. All animals (including poultry) such as mice, pigeons, guinea pigs, rats, ferrets, rabbits, chickens, dogs, and the like, which have been treated or inoculated with organisms, or which are diseased or infected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease of animals or poultry or which have been exposed to any such disease." Animals and Animal Products.

An Import/Transport permit:

must be obtained by the intended receiver of the material before shipment is made
is good for one year and is amendable/renewable
application (VS Form 16-3) can be downloaded at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/animals/downloads/vs16_3.pdf or see Appendix 3
form is for either foreign import or interstate transfer
requires 6 to 8 weeks for processing
To determine if the material you wish to transport requires a permit, visit the APHIS: National Center for Import and Export (NCIE) Website at USDA - APHIS - Import and Exports

NOTE: According to the USDA, "Generally, a USDA veterinary permit (VS-16-6) is needed for materials derived from animals or exposed to animal-source materials. Materials which require a permit include, animal tissues, blood, cells or cell lines of livestock or poultry origin, RNA/DNA extracts, hormones, enzymes, monoclonal antibodies for IN VIVO use in non-human species, certain polyclonal antibodies, antisera, bulk shipments of test kit reagents, and microorganisms including bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi. Exceptions to this requirement are human and non-human primate tissues, serum, and blood ."

this full article can be found here: Shipping


But based on this statement from APHIS, you would need a permit to ship these types of things....


----------



## frogface

Thank you. Looking at this, does that mean that the samples that we send out to labs would fall under the category of needing a permit?



> NOTE: According to the USDA, "Generally, a USDA veterinary permit (VS-16-6) is needed for materials derived from animals or exposed to animal-source materials. Materials which require a permit include, animal tissues, blood, cells or cell lines of livestock or poultry origin, RNA/DNA extracts,


----------



## cbreon

frogface said:


> Thank you. Looking at this, does that mean that the samples that we send out to labs would fall under the category of needing a permit?





cited document; said:


> specimens reasonably believed to contain animal or plant pathogens*
> vectors of animal or plant disease*


It also states that the receiver needs permits, which apparently are good for a year. I would imagine this type of regulation is commonplace among Vets, hospitals, etc. But for the common hobbyists, its a little more difficult to discern. Obviously, it would be nice if someone from APHIS/USFW/USDA was here to answer our specific questions, but from what I can tell, once you know/suspect an animal is sick, its potentially illegal to ship them without proper permits and/or protocol.


----------



## cbreon

frogface said:


> Thank you. Looking at this, does that mean that the samples that we send out to labs would fall under the category of needing a permit?


I think this is referring to known/suspected infected samples, not routine checks, etc...


----------



## SilverLynx

Zookeeper Doug, all I can tell you is what I have already posted. It is illegal to transport LIVE animals across state lines or ship internationally that have tested POSITVE for a WHO reportable disease. When I dealt with Rana in fish, the specimens/tissue were from dead animals. I had to obtain USDA permits. There are phone numbers on the USDA/AHIS site. You should be able to get information rather quickly as it relates to the, "hobby". I will not do it! 

So let's discuss the hobby. I just received email transmissions from another member who also received darts that tested positive for Rana and Chyrid. Included in the emails that I received were the PCR results. The frogs originated or were sold to her by a rather large entity. The breeder also asked for the frogs to be returned for further testing, but they were euthanized. The individual receiving the frogs stated to me that shipping the frogs back was out of the question. Now for the real shocker, this person received TWO shipments of frogs that tested positive for Rana from the same breeder. My educated hunch is that the hobby is dealing with a pretty large breeder/dealer that DOES NOT TEST even after knowledge that frogs shipped out of their facility ARE TESTING positive for Rana and Chyrid. Now couple that with hobbyists who don't test frogs. Do you really expect a positive outcome???? It is not a sin or unethical to have Rana, Chyrid or other diseases crop up in collections, but it sure as HELL is unethical to ignore, or cover it up. 

Either the hobby better start self regulating itself by conducting proper testing or the USDA will do it for the hobby in the form of regulations. 

In my own case, I had already discussed testing with my vet. He will be making a house call to collect swab samples from frogs. In other words, I am paying him to drive out, collect samples and send them to the laboratory. Any frog that is PCR positive for Rana will be euthanized and properly disposed of by my licensed vet. 

People, there are NO GOOD EXCUSES for not testing!!!! If you don't have the money, then you should NOT OWN DART FROGS!!!! Thank God there is a breeder out there with whom I have done business with that does PCR testing for Rana and Chryid. THANK YOU, Brad and Marla!!!!! 

This is ALL I have to say about this subject. If you have questions that you want a response on from me, use the PM feature. Also, don't ask me who the breeder is that I mentioned. They know who they are, and I hope they realize how much damage they are doing to the hobby, collections and last but not least the frogs!

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## frogface

SilverLynx

Do you think I should euthanize and call it a day? Is that what people are saying? The others aren't coming out and saying it (don't try to spare my feelings here, people) but I think you almost did. 

I do not know this to be a fact, but, based on your post, I think we are talking about the same place. However, that can't be because I have been told that there have been no positive tests and no customers have reported positive tests. I must be mistaken.

eta: Given the above, I have growing concern that these frogs will be resold.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

SilverLynx said:


> Zookeeper Doug, all I can tell you is what I have already posted. It is illegal to transport LIVE animals across state lines or ship internationally that have tested POSITVE for a WHO reportable disease. When I dealt with Rana in fish, the specimens/tissue were from dead animals. I had to obtain USDA permits. There are phone numbers on the USDA/AHIS site. You should be able to get information rather quickly as it relates to the, "hobby". I will not do it!


Why not? I guess I just don't understand your unwillingness to be helpful in providing information that you have access to that the rest of us stand to benefit greatly from. If it is simply because Ed asked first and the two of you have some beef, well that's a shame.

You're right though. I can and will find out. It's just frustrating that someone who seems to already know their way around the system is unwilling to be of assistance. That's all that was really being asked of you, at least by me. If you have some other reason for not wanting to reveal more, by all means, please PM me.


----------



## mydumname

Wouldn't this make imports illegal to ship....doesn't most wc stuff have at least some pathogen?

As for requiring animals back for refund....could be the seller protecting himself in the event he felt the animals don't have these issues and that the buyer is trying to get one over on them....like getting refund and keeping animals. Not in any way saying this is what is going on here....but you do have to be cautious nowadays.


----------



## frogface

Ok informal DB poll. If you think I should euthanize then like this post. If you do not think I should euthanize, please post what you think I should do instead.


----------



## SilverLynx

Greg, to answer you question, the pathogen must be an WHO reportable disease. This thread is why I FULLY expect the USFWS/USDA/APHIS to ask congress to pass regulations that will require USDA licensing and testing for Rana and Chyrid. That law WOULD include W/C frogs. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## frogface

SilverLynx said:


> Greg, to answer you question, the pathogen must be an WHO reportable disease. This thread is why I FULLY expect the USFWS/USDA/APHIS to ask congress to pass regulations that will require USDA licensing and testing for Rana and Chyrid. That law WOULD include W/C frogs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane, aka, SilverLynx


What would such licensing entail? Take a breeder who is already importing and exporting internationally. Wouldn't a breeder like that have a license or readily get one?


----------



## SilverLynx

Kris,

I absolutely believe that you should euthanize the frogs. Do it for sake of the frogs and the hobby. I really feel bad for you and the frogs. 

Thanks,
Lane,aka, SilverLynx


----------



## SilverLynx

Kris, the USDA already requires licensing with dogs, cats, etc. it entails yearly licensing fees, and a minimum of one yearly visit by USDA/AHIS inspectors to your facility to make sure all testing is complete and up to date. They are very concerned about Rana since the virus could wipe out commercial hatcheries. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## bsr8129

For the love of god someone pm me who this is.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

I really strongly feel that feedback needs to be left. This is serious.


----------



## frogface

ZookeeperDoug said:


> I really strongly feel that feedback needs to be left. This is serious.


What feedback would I leave? They immediately offered a full refund, including shipping.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> What feedback would I leave? They immediately offered a full refund, including shipping.


They sent you frogs with Ranavirus bro! It's feedback, it factual information. Just relay the full experience, everything that transpired.


----------



## SilverLynx

Bcs TX has stated to me that she is willing to divulge the breeder via PM

Kris, maybe you should consider doing the same. This is not about the money. It is about saving the hobby from immediate shutdown!

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## frogface

The folks that knew I was getting these frogs know how devastating this is for me. I apologize for not being more decisive about how to proceed. I'm still reeling a bit.


----------



## SilverLynx

Kris, how you proceed is up to you. As for myself, I will not be purchasing frogs that have not been PCR tested for Chyrid and Rana. I am more than willing to pay more money for frogs that have been tested, with copies of testing. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## frogface

How do you know that the testing is for the frog you are buying?


----------



## Azurel

frogface said:


> The folks that knew I was getting these frogs know how devastating this is for me. I apologize for not being more decisive about how to proceed. I'm still reeling a bit.



After reading this thread in all honesty Kris I would put them down. It is a hard choice to make no doubt but once they have passed the risk they pose alive will be over. 

Then you will be left with only dealing with the issue of the breeder, naming them or not and knowing you did everything you can/could do to to due it right by your collection, future frogs you sell, those that get any future frogs from you and the hobby....No one could blame you or hold you in bad light by doing so. It isn't something you asked for but I am glad it happend to such an honest person and one that is as open as your are.

I will have to say as well a kudos to Brad and Marta for offering to make up a terrible ordeal by offering Kris frogs from their collection...


----------



## SilverLynx

Kris, I only purchase frogs from a select group of people who I know test their frogs. They also know that I will retest the frogs. I have bought frogs from Brad and Marla of Dendrobati as well as Shawn H. Both of them PCR test. As you already know, the breeder you purchased frogs from sold frogs to Beth that also tested positive. 

I have already stated that my veterinarian, Dr. Cord Offermann will be paying a visit to my, "frog farm" to swab and collect samples. Trust me, everything will be documented! 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## Judy S

In this day of instant litigation...it is understandable why the breeder's name cannot be revealed in this public place...the breeder would undoubtedly file a lawsuit for slander. It is truly a catch 22...we purchasers of frogs will be left in the dark, especially if this breeder sells a lot of frogs...and even tadpoles can carry such diseases...As another poster pointed out, even with a negative report, how would you know that the lab report was for the frog you purchased. Do we actually believe that such large breeder would tear down all the tanks, etc., etc. ? It's almost like the Public Health system trying to track down who the AIDS positive person was who spread the disease, or the one who spread gonorhea...


----------



## mydumname

I just have this feeling I know who it is based on a few comments here. Would like to know for certain though.


----------



## frogface

Just checked on the froglets. They look great. Active, eating up the flies. I'm just at a loss. 

Now I am considering having them reswabbed and sending the samples to another lab. My vet uses Zoologix. They are quite a bit more expensive. Maybe there is a reason for that.


----------



## mydumname

Can I just ask what kind of frogs?


----------



## frogfreak

SilverLynx said:


> It is about saving the hobby from immediate shutdown!


Lane, this statement is a little "out there" no?


----------



## frogfreak

frogface said:


> Just checked on the froglets. They look great. Active, eating up the flies. I'm just at a loss.
> 
> Now I am considering having them reswabbed and sending the samples to another lab. My vet uses Zoologix. They are quite a bit more expensive. Maybe there is a reason for that.


IMHO, that is a very good course of action, Kris. There's no rush here. 

Deep breathes! 

Best,


----------



## SilverLynx

This breeder needs to immediately halt the sale and shipment of all live animals from his facility. If the USDA or USFWS find out this is going on, they can IMMEDIATELY get congressional authority to shut down the transport and sale of amphibians from ALL non licensed facilities. Petco and Petsmart buy frogs from USDA licensed breeders. They have done it before. 

His lines are actively being sold right now in the classifies. The seller is probably unaware that they might be selling offspring from PCR positive for Rana frog. 
The hobby needs to demand that this breeder cease selling frogs!!!! There are a lot of people with frogs from this breeder floating around. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## frogface

I'm off to make the 1 hour drive to the vet's office to see about retesting. I really need to get a phone.


----------



## SilverLynx

When a pathogen becomes listed as a WHO (World Health Organization) reportable disease. Governments have the authority to take immediate action to
stop the spread. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> Just checked on the froglets. They look great. Active, eating up the flies. I'm just at a loss.
> 
> Now I am considering having them reswabbed and sending the samples to another lab. My vet uses Zoologix. They are quite a bit more expensive. Maybe there is a reason for that.


At this point I think you're just wasting your money. This isn't the first time this "breeder" has sold someone frogs with Ranavirus. As has been mentioned, Beth also got frogs from this breeder, TWICE, with Ranavirus. There are pics and threads elsewhere naming the "breeder". My point is it isn't like this a completely random out of the blue freak thing where one would suspect the need for a second opinion. We know this person is less than ethical. Now that I am certain that I know who is responsible, I can vehemently restate.

*I HAVE ZERO PROBLEM PUTTING THIS PERSON OUT OF BUSINESS*

I still think some sort of feedback to warn the community is warranted. You have facts and proof to back up your claim and people need to be aware. This isn't like someone is a bad business, ripped you off, or whatever. This is forking serious. We're again talking about a virulent disease, one that has broader implications beyond just our hobby. Ranavirus mutates rapidly and affects animals other than just amphibians. It can cause serious problems with fish as well. Everyone should take a moment this Saturday morning over coffee to plug Ranavirus into Google and become better informed.

How long before various govt agencies catch wind of these problems and decide to act? Some may think this kind of reaction is a little out there, but is it really? There are agencies with the potential and ability to act. We're already signing petitions about categorical exclusions, regulations, etc. is it really far fetched to think that if a few of the wrong people get wind of a hobby spreading a virulent animal disease around the country with callus disregard for the consequences, that they will not act?

On a scary side note for me personally. I know and have had direct interactions with one or more hobbyist who have gotten frogs from this breeder. While I haven't acquired those actual frogs, I have gotten frogs from one or more hobbyists who have frogs from this breeder in their collection. Thankfully those frogs tested clean,(they got a 3 month quarantine), but in light of these more recent issues, I'll be at the very least retesting those frogs and their enclosure. Furthermore, I know multiple froggers who have also gotten frogs/plant clippings/supplies etc from these fellow hobbyists. Where does this potential disaster stop?

If there is one prevailing message here though, people:

*TEST YOUR FROGS!!!!!*


----------



## JJuchems

SilverLynx said:


> This breeder needs to immediately halt the sale and shipment of all live animals from his facility. If the USDA or USFWS find out this is going on, they can IMMEDIATELY get congressional authority to shut down the transport and sale of amphibians from ALL non licensed facilities. Petco and Petsmart buy frogs from USDA licensed breeders. They have done it before.
> 
> His lines are actively being sold right now in the classifies. The seller is probably unaware that they might be selling offspring from PCR positive for Rana frog.
> The hobby needs to demand that this breeder cease selling frogs!!!! There are a lot of people with frogs from this breeder floating around.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane, aka, SilverLynx





frogfreak said:


> Lane, this statement is a little "out there" no?



Let pause a second here. I read a few post yesterday at lunch, have not been back and there are a ton of post (I have not read them all), but I want to clarify some information. 

APHIS division of the USDA has NO regulation of reptile and amphibians and no authority to do such ( APHIS does not regulate birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians.) If they wish to shut down a trade of a species, congressional authority is not needed. USDA placed a ban on prairie dogs and Gambian pouched rats in the early 2000's because of the spread of Monkey Pox because of a dealer here in Illlinois.

The non regulated species of APHIS have been dealt with by USFW. *Rana virus is 100% on their radar and is most likely their next target to control trade trade of amphibians.* Again, the trade can be basically killed in the US by making amphibian trade fall under the Injurious Wild of the Lacy Act. The process will be to in act a rule change and published in the Federal Register, then a public comment time will be opened. Congress has no part in these actions. The part that helped hobbyist with 2010 purposed Chytrid Injurious Wildlife Listing was that chytrid could be treated in captivity. Now we have a non treatable threat, that could restrict the market of amphibians. 

*So what happens if the injurious wildlife listing is placed but a treatment is found?* I suspect the listing would remain. The FDA has banned the trade of chelonia under 4" because of salominia. In 1975 a suppression method was found Treatment of Salmonella-Arizona-Infected Turtle Eggs with Terramycin and Chloromycetin by the Temperature Differential Egg Dip Method and in 2007 a method was found ...suppress or eliminate Salmonella organisms on egg surfaces and in hatchlings.[Am J Vet Res. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI. And many regualtion is based state by state with many still taking a hard stance even though some species never get above 4" in carapace length.


----------



## frogface

Ok I'm back. 

First thing: She does not have a definitive answer on whether or not it is legal to ship animals that are Bd and rana positive. She is going to find out. Her thoughts are that they should not be shipped, whether technically legal or not. I will abide by her wishes.

Next: She agrees that it is very strange that these froglets can be positive for coccidia, chytrid and ranavirus, yet appear to be so healthy. The coccidia was found on fecal exam, indicating that the frogs are actively shedding. How are they dealing with the coccidia, plus the stress of shipping, while suppressing chytrid and ranavirus? Yet they have no signs of any illness. She said she would particularly expect the chytrid to come screaming out while they are combating stress and coccidia.


I went to sleep last night expecting to get up this morning and kill my frogs. When I saw how good they look, I couldn't do it. I would always wonder if I did the right thing. These frogs are very important to me. I am going to retest them. Maybe I'm throwing good money after bad but I have to know, for my own sake.


----------



## SilverLynx

So here is the deal regarding me posting research, etc, on a public forum. I went through a very messy divorce in 11. I was the lead research scientist for the laboratory that is now owned by my ex husband. My research is also the property of the laboratory that he was awarded in the divorce. I did retain rights to my last patent. Bottomline, I can't publicly post research that was awarded to my ex husband. 

Second, and even more importantly. One of the patents has been in use by USFWS. To simplify it for you, I have ties to the USFWS. The USFWS is currently the agency that regulates Exotics. The USDA is the agency that regulates WHO reportable pathogens. I am very familiar with the USDA/AHIS. I had to obtain permits through them to work with the Rana virus, LMBV (Largemouth Bass Virus) and VHS (Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia). When VHS hit the Great Lakes the USDA/APHIS shut down ALL state and private hatcheries that bordered the Great Lakes. This was done in a matter of DAYS!!! To this day, fish transported from hatcheries must be tested for VHS. 

No favors are being done by ignoring the fact that Rana PCR positive frogs are being sold and transported. The virus can also be transported via soil, plants, etc. So Doug is correct, even if have not bought frogs from this breeder, we still could have Rana introduced into our collection via contaminated soil, plants, etc. That has major implications. The breeder should IMMEDIATELY halt the sale of everything coming out of his facility. Will it put him out of business, probably so. But the breeder needs to ask himself which is worst, going out of business or facing possible federal criminal indictment and jail time for the sale and transport of WHO reportable, Rana and Chyrid positive frogs. The breeder has a hard decision to make and the window for that decision is closing in fast. As I understand it, Ed has already sent an inquiry email to the USDA/AHPIS. You want to see Feds swoop in and shut things down, just mention Ranavirus to them and see what happens. 

Thanks,
Lane, aka, SilverLynx


----------



## Dendrobati

frogface said:


> Ok I'm back.
> 
> First thing: She does not have a definitive answer on whether or not it is legal to ship animals that are Bd and rana positive. She is going to find out. Her thoughts are that they should not be shipped, whether technically legal or not. I will abide by her wishes.
> 
> Next: She agrees that it is very strange that these froglets can be positive for coccidia, chytrid and ranavirus, yet appear to be so healthy. The coccidia was found on fecal exam, indicating that the frogs are actively shedding. How are they dealing with the coccidia, plus the stress of shipping, while suppressing chytrid and ranavirus? Yet they have no signs of any illness. She said she would particularly expect the chytrid to come screaming out while they are combating stress and coccidia.
> 
> 
> I went to sleep last night expecting to get up this morning and kill my frogs. When I saw how good they look, I couldn't do it. I would always wonder if I did the right thing. These frogs are very important to me. I am going to retest them. Maybe I'm throwing good money after bad but I have to know, for my own sake.



Well, if that is what you want to do and feel like you should do, then go for it!

Let us know when you get the results back

Marta


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> Ok I'm back.
> 
> First thing: She does not have a definitive answer on whether or not it is legal to ship animals that are Bd and rana positive. She is going to find out. Her thoughts are that they should not be shipped, whether technically legal or not. I will abide by her wishes.


Good call. I don't think we have a definitive answer yet on if this is legal or not. And on top of that, it seems like asking the question that we absolutely NEED an answer to, may expose this hobby to scrutiny that it just does not need right now.



> Next: She agrees that it is very strange that these froglets can be positive for coccidia, chytrid and ranavirus, yet appear to be so healthy. The coccidia was found on fecal exam, indicating that the frogs are actively shedding. How are they dealing with the coccidia, plus the stress of shipping, while suppressing chytrid and ranavirus? Yet they have no signs of any illness. She said she would particularly expect the chytrid to come screaming out while they are combating stress and coccidia.


This does seem strange. As far as chytrid goes, my understanding is your frogs may be tolerating it if temps are high enough, and bumping them up, may even help kill it.



> I went to sleep last night expecting to get up this morning and kill my frogs. When I saw how good they look, I couldn't do it. I would always wonder if I did the right thing. These frogs are very important to me. I am going to retest them. Maybe I'm throwing good money after bad but I have to know, for my own sake.


This is a reasonable course of action. I know you'll share the results with us. What though if those results come back negative? I'm sure you'll due your due diligence no matter what.


----------



## frogface

Thanks Doug 

I will absolutely let everyone know the results. 



> This does seem strange. As far as chytrid goes, my understanding is your frogs may be tolerating it if temps are high enough, and bumping them up, may even help kill it.


My house is no where near the 78 or whatever degrees recommended to keep chytrid at bay. My temps range from 60-70. I don't have money for all that heat because I keep spending it on my stupid frogs


----------



## frogface

ZookeeperDoug said:


> This is a reasonable course of action. I know you'll share the results with us. What though if those results come back negative? I'm sure you'll due your due diligence no matter what.


If the results are negative, they will stay in QT. A month or so out, they will be tested again. If those tests are also negative, maybe I'll build them a real tank.

These guys are tiny froglets. I have a male that is waiting for them to grow up. I have about a year before they are old enough to be introduced to him. So, in the meantime, they will stay in the back room, alone, where I will keep a close eye on them.


----------



## Azurel

I don't see anything wrong with getting them tested again. Probably a reasonable course of action...as it is now they are safe and seperated...maybe another test will clearify a few things and make the next course of action more reasonable no matter what that is....Glad to see your vet as involved as she is.


----------



## mydumname

If you keep a collection on cooler side....and you had chytrid, would symptoms likely arise?

I feel like I remember hearing a story of a collection being kept warm and when it got cooler symptoms came about and chytrid was discovered.


----------



## Gamble

Someone should tell a certain somebody to keep her man issues to herself & stop running back to DD to get her kitty stroked.


----------



## Azurel

mydumname said:


> If you keep a collection on cooler side....and you had chytrid, would symptoms likely arise?
> 
> I feel like I remember hearing a story of a collection being kept warm and when it got cooler symptoms came about and chytrid was discovered.


I think I have read about that instance as well....


----------



## frogfreak

SilverLynx said:


> This breeder needs to immediately halt the sale and shipment of all live animals from his facility. If the USDA or USFWS find out this is going on, they can IMMEDIATELY get congressional authority to shut down the transport and sale of amphibians from ALL non licensed facilities. Petco and Petsmart buy frogs from USDA licensed breeders. They have done it before.
> 
> His lines are actively being sold right now in the classifies. The seller is probably unaware that they might be selling offspring from PCR positive for Rana frog.
> The hobby needs to demand that this breeder cease selling frogs!!!! There are a lot of people with frogs from this breeder floating around.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lane, aka, SilverLynx


Like others, I 100% agree with the breeder going on lock down! No brainer...

BUT, to say that the government is going to cease all transport of amphibians because of this is a weeeee bit premature, don't ya think?

We don't have the FACTS yet, now do we? How many are testing positive? Is this an isolated incident? Are there a few frogs positive or hundreds? Is it a false positive? See where I'm going here?

The point is, WE DON"T KNOW! You seem to like using caps lock, so I thought I'd return the favour. 

For a scientist, you don't seem to be very analytical, which seems very odd...Get the facts first and then act. Don't spread fear and pandemonium without FACTS!


----------



## pafrogguy

I feel I should throw this out there. I won't mention names but I have probably around 30 or 40 frogs from this said breeder. I do fecal and QT my frogs. Only exception are a few recent things that I got from someone who I know does the same and had no other frogs in his collection but these. Now all of mine came back negative for rana and chytrid. Now could Kris' frogs have been infected? Sure. But this does not mean all frogs from said person are. I think that is important to establish before we cause mass frog hysteria. Hopefully Kris will get another test and it was just a false positive. It does happen I hear from time to time. With so many wc and fr pumilio coming it, I think there are a heck of a lot more sources to look at than this one. A lot of vendors dealing with those type of animals do 0 tests. ZERO. Now how many folks on here bought shiney new pumilio this year? How many had them tested? I bet those two numbers are VERY different.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogfreak said:


> BUT, to say that the government is going to cease all transport of amphibians because of this is a weeeee bit premature, don't ya think?


She don't exactly say they're going to. She says they CAN. I don't know for sure if that is accurate or not. I think it is a bit of a stretch to think that they would act in this extreme. I do know it is scrutiny that we don't need or want right now.




> We don't have the FACTS yet, now do we? How many are testing positive? Is this an isolated incident? Are there a few frogs positive or hundreds? Is it a false positive? See where I'm going here?


We don't have all the facts in the case of Kris' frogs. It may be a false positive. But we do know that no, this isn't an isolated incident. This breeder has a history of selling frogs that test positive for Rana and Chytrid. Beth also received frogs from this breeder that were positive for Rana. The second batch was also positive. There is more history here than you may be aware of.

Several other fearful hobbyists have confirmed to me that they also purchased frogs from this breeder that died. Obviously we don't know the cause of those deaths, but it does help establish a pattern with this person. I've found some other references to frogs from this breeder dying in various threads just by searching their name.

Doug


----------



## Blue_Pumilio

PCR testing does not have false positives unless they are contaminated (not easy to do). False positives come from antigen based tests.


----------



## frogfreak

ZookeeperDoug said:


> She don't exactly say they're going to. She says they CAN. I don't know for sure if that is accurate or not. I think it is a bit of a stretch to think that they would act in this extreme. I do know it is scrutiny that we don't need or want right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have all the facts in the case of Kris' frogs. It may be a false positive. But we do know that no, this isn't an isolated incident. This breeder has a history of selling frogs that test positive for Rana and Chytrid. Beth also received frogs from this breeder that were positive for Rana. The second batch was also positive. There is more history here than you may be aware of.
> 
> Several other fearful hobbyists have confirmed to me that they also purchased frogs from this breeder that died. Obviously we don't know the cause of those deaths, but it does help establish a pattern with this person. I've found some other references to frogs from this breeder dying in various threads just by searching their name.
> 
> Doug


I get all of that Doug, but we need to gather all of these facts before acting in haste and/or creating panic. That's all I'm trying to say. 

Information is power. It will take time to compile it all and present it to said breeder.

I am very aware of the history.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

pafrogguy said:


> I feel I should throw this out there. I won't mention names but I have probably around 30 or 40 frogs from this said breeder. I do fecal and QT my frogs. Only exception are a few recent things that I got from someone who I know does the same and had no other frogs in his collection but these. Now all of mine came back negative for rana and chytrid. Now could Kris' frogs have been infected? Sure. But this does not mean all frogs from said person are. I think that is important to establish before we cause mass frog hysteria. Hopefully Kris will get another test and it was just a false positive. It does happen I hear from time to time. With so many wc and fr pumilio coming it, I think there are a heck of a lot more sources to look at than this one. A lot of vendors dealing with those type of animals do 0 tests. ZERO. Now how many folks on here bought shiney new pumilio this year? How many had them tested? I bet those two numbers are VERY different.


I'm glad that your frogs tested negative. Are you sure those were not false negatives? I here those happen from time to time. How many tests did you run?

No one has said that all this persons frogs are infected, but anyone ever selling any frogs that are should be put under the microscope. If you knew for a fact that this breeder had infected frogs in their collection possession, would you purchase frogs from them?

I'm not sure why you raise the issue of recent Pumilio imports. Certainly there are issues there as well that we should be concerned with as well. We need to be just as concerned about those issues as we are with this breeder. I'm just curious why you bring up an entirely other equally if not more disturbing problem in this discussion.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogfreak said:


> I get all of that Doug, but we need to gather all of these facts before acting in haste and/or creating panic. That's all I'm trying to say.
> 
> Information is power. It will take time to compile it all and present it to said breeder.
> 
> I am very aware of the history.


Fair enough. I just don't think this is something said breeder is unaware of. This guy sells sick frogs, this isn't the first time. I was warned off him by many people.

I don't think panic is really fair. I'm not panicking, nor should anyone else be. At the same time though, the potential gravity of the situation must be conveyed. There is certainly the potential for some serious issues to arise. Hopefully by talking about it here, we can contain it.


----------



## frogfreak

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Fair enough. I just don't think this is something said breeder is unaware of. This guy sells sick frogs, this isn't the first time. I was warned off him by many people.
> 
> I don't think panic is really fair. I'm not panicking, nor should anyone else be. At the same time though, the potential gravity of the situation must be conveyed. There is certainly the potential for some serious issues to arise. Hopefully by talking about it here, we can contain it.


Agreed and the panic point I made was posted for Lane.


----------



## pafrogguy

I did actually only ever have one retested. That was because I lost a female to a pair while I was on vacation. Someone was watching my frogs for me and not thinking I did not have them freeze the frog for a necropsy. So when I returned I had the tank mate tested, and everything was negative. I never have had anything retested afterwards as I have not had any problems. 

I agree if a frog comes from somewhere and is positive, that should be investigated obviously. If I knew they had frogs in their possession with rana would I buy frogs from them? No, I would not. I only know of one previous instance about rana with this person. Not saying there are not more, but that is all I know of. I do know many folks here in Maryland and Pennsylvania who have frogs from them as well with zero issues. If they currently have it in their collection, then yes it is an absolute problem. But it seems to be implied by some, they would knowingly do this, and that I just don't believe.

And man, reading a bit too much into me bringing up pumilio. I was just saying there is a lot more untested frogs out there than most realize and that is just a simple fact. I have recent pumilio imports. Mine were tested and treated. Most I am sure are not. Was nothing more to it than that. I am willing to bet most large breeders don't test everything that comes in. That is unfortunate, but true. I just think this could happen a bit more common than we are letting on. I mean where do we go from here? Copies of all testing done every time someone sells a frog? Not saying that is a bad idea, because that would be nice, but the chance of it happening are slim.


----------



## Ed

mydumname said:


> If you keep a collection on cooler side....and you had chytrid, would symptoms likely arise?
> 
> I feel like I remember hearing a story of a collection being kept warm and when it got cooler symptoms came about and chytrid was discovered.


Correct, as the literature now stands temperatures below 75-80 F result in the death of infected frogs. Keeping them higher than those temperatures also can potentially allow for the frogs to clear the fungus... Frogs that can tolerate higher temperatures are in general better equipped to clear the fungus. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## sports_doc

Judy S said:


> Ed...somewhere along the DB world...your advice should be a sticky...the beginner forums should have this information... ?


Agreed
Done


----------



## Ed

Blue_Pumilio said:


> PCR testing does not have false positives unless they are contaminated (not easy to do). False positives come from antigen based tests.


Sort of... It depends on the primers that are used for the amplification. If the wrong primers are chosen then another virus (or viruses) that are present in the iridovirus family on/in the frogs can be amplified resulting in the false positive. 

For example FV3-54F (frogvirus 3 primer) and FV3-584R can amplify a wide variety of ranavirus including oddly enough LMBV (large mouth bass virus)... so even without actual contamination, you can end up with a false positive for it... 
See http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2003/54/d054p029.pdf

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> Next: She agrees that it is very strange that these froglets can be positive for coccidia, chytrid and ranavirus, yet appear to be so healthy. The coccidia was found on fecal exam, indicating that the frogs are actively shedding. How are they dealing with the coccidia, plus the stress of shipping, while suppressing chytrid and ranavirus? Yet they have no signs of any illness. She said she would particularly expect the chytrid to come screaming out while they are combating stress and coccidia.


It isn't that complex a situation... Consider this possibility.. 
The froglets have coccidia, and the reason they are shedding it is because they relatively recently went through metamorphosis and have been shipped. This are both significant stressors that can result in temporary immune suppression resulting in the shedding of the coccidians. 

With respect to the ranavirus and chytrid, it is possible that the chytrid is an escalating infection which would explain that the PCR generated a stronger response than the ranavirus. The ranavirus could also be the result of an infection and survivial as a tadpole/metamorph (see my earlier posts on references) which means that the infection is on the decline. 

There is a fairly wide range of lethality from the different strains of ranaviruses and some good indications that coevolution with one strain reduces mortality in the animals from that region. There is some thought that ranavirus (in multiple strains) is very widespread and the reason we are seeing so much of it now is because we are looking for things killing off amphibians. 

As I noted earlier with citations, it is possible that the frogs can clear an infection of ranavirus on thier own and that results in at least for a time a strong immune response to it providing protection. 

As for the government shutting it down, as Jason noted, it is very premature to scream about the sky falling from that issue... And in any case, if the frogs can clear it on their own... it is possible to get a collection that is free from it if you are willing to be proactive and quarantine and test. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

pafrogguy said:


> I agree if a frog comes from somewhere and is positive, that should be investigated obviously. If I knew they had frogs in their possession with rana would I buy frogs from them? No, I would not. I only know of one previous instance about rana with this person. Not saying there are not more, but that is all I know of. I do know many folks here in Maryland and Pennsylvania who have frogs from them as well with zero issues. If they currently have it in their collection, then yes it is an absolute problem. But it seems to be implied by some, they would knowingly do this, and that I just don't believe.


Let me be clear, I'm not implying this person *knowingly* sold sick frogs.

That said, I do think this is a person who SHOULD KNOW when frogs in their collection or frogs they've recently imported are positive. They bring in enough imports and work with a large enough collection that frequent testing should be part of their regimen. Let's deal with what we know.

Beth got European import Mints from this person. Those frogs were + Rana.

Beth got replacements for those mints. Those were also + Rana.

Kris got frogs, they were + Rana, chytrid, coccidia!

I know what frogs Kris got. Those are frogs that this person breeds. How the hell did they get contaminated?

This person is big enough and experienced enough that this should not have happened. How and why and what will be done to prevent it in the future?

I personally think that someone of this alleged calibre could have would have should have prevented this from happening. 



> And man, reading a bit too much into me bringing up pumilio. I was just saying there is a lot more untested frogs out there than most realize and that is just a simple fact. I have recent pumilio imports. Mine were tested and treated. Most I am sure are not. Was nothing more to it than that. I am willing to bet most large breeders don't test everything that comes in. That is unfortunate, but true. I just think this could happen a bit more common than we are letting on. I mean where do we go from here? Copies of all testing done every time someone sells a frog? Not saying that is a bad idea, because that would be nice, but the chance of it happening are slim.


Actually no I was very careful to try not to read too much into it, which is why I was very careful to ASK. 

I does seem like a bit of a distraction from the topic at hand. Yes, other importers and breeders may also not test, but this does not forgive the person in question for selling sick frogs.

It is absolutely a discussion we should be having, just not here.


----------



## Ed

Azurel said:


> After reading this thread in all honesty Kris I would put them down. It is a hard choice to make no doubt but once they have passed the risk they pose alive will be over. .


Why? As I noted earlier, it is not a treatable disease but it is well established that the frog's immune system can handle it and result in an immunity to it... All that needs to be done is to test to deal with an asymptomatic carriers.. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## sports_doc

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/be...ntine-suggestions-discussion.html#post1614338

The general discussion about Ed's QT / husbandry recs as they pertain to pathogen containment may be best continued in the 'Sticky' thread.....

so that per chance good information gets lost in this thread over time...

Continue on


----------



## frogface

Ed said:


> Why? As I noted earlier, it is not a treatable disease but it is well established that the frog's immune system can handle it and result in an immunity to it... All that needs to be done is to test to deal with an asymptomatic carriers..
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Ed, what do you think of my plans to retest?


----------



## Azurel

Ed said:


> Why? As I noted earlier, it is not a treatable disease but it is well established that the frog's immune system can handle it and result in an immunity to it... All that needs to be done is to test to deal with an asymptomatic carriers..
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


After reading some of your posts and links clearified somethings that choice might not be the proper one...Thanks Ed..


----------



## Ed

I think at this time, we should have some discussions on ranaviruses.. 
There are a wide variety of ranaviruses that infect a number of "cold blooded" organisms including fish, reptiles and amphibians. In related genera like iridoviruses we see that viruses infecting insects can be transmitted to reptiles and back again. 

With respect to the ranavirus group, we see a wide range of lethality with some major differences occuring between the US and Europe. In the US, while we do get mortality in adult amphibians, we tend to see the highest mortality in larval amphibians. This tends to be due to the fact, that in a wide variety of amphibians, the larvae are the ones that tend to be found in the greatest concentrations allowing for amplification of the virus and the potential for selection for greater lethality through serial passage. See for discussion Phylogeny, Life History, and Ecology Contribute to Differences in Amphibian Susceptibility to Ranaviruses - Springer 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## pafrogguy

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Let me be clear, I'm not implying this person *knowingly* sold sick frogs.
> 
> That said, I do think this is a person who SHOULD KNOW when frogs in their collection or frogs they've recently imported are positive. They bring in enough imports and work with a large enough collection that frequent testing should be part of their regimen. Let's deal with what we know.
> 
> Beth got European import Mints from this person. Those frogs were + Rana.
> 
> Beth got replacements for those mints. Those were also + Rana.
> 
> Kris got frogs, they were + Rana, chytrid, coccidia!
> 
> I know what frogs Kris got. Those are frogs that this person breeds. How the hell did they get contaminated?
> 
> This person is big enough and experienced enough that this should not have happened. How and why and what will be done to prevent it in the future?
> 
> I personally think that someone of this alleged calibre could have would have should have prevented this from happening.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no I was very careful to try not to read too much into it, which is why I was very careful to ASK.
> 
> I does seem like a bit of a distraction from the topic at hand. Yes, other importers and breeders may also not test, but this does not forgive the person in question for selling sick frogs.
> 
> It is absolutely a discussion we should be having, just not here.


Agreed. I did not mean to imply that you were saying he knowingly sold sick frogs. Sorry if it was taken that way. And there def needs to be some steps taken to address the issue. These are frogs bred there and should not have been able to be contaminated if proper steps were taken to prevent this. So I guess is to await and see what the person does to combat the issue. They will either deal with it, or won't. Guess these are all questions only the breeder can answer.


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> Ed, what do you think of my plans to retest?


I think it is a wise thing to do. As I mentioned earlier, that at one time, I would have been advocating euthanize, depopulate and sterilize as the response but data has since come forth indicating that response is probably out of date. 

Retesting can have a couple of good results.. it can verify a positive result (resolving the false positive quandry), if you get a greater response on the ranavirus you may be able to guess that you have a new infection that is gaining ground (same for the chytrid) and if it is a lesser response, it could be that the frogs are clearing the infection. 

At the moment, I would suggest figuring out a way to give them at least the option to bask as that can significantly help them to resist chytrid infections (unless you are planning to treat them). 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Ed said:


> I think it is a wise thing to do. As I mentioned earlier, that at one time, I would have been advocating euthanize, depopulate and sterilize as the response but data has since come forth indicating that response is probably out of date.
> 
> Retesting can have a couple of good results.. it can verify a positive result (resolving the false positive quandry), if you get a greater response on the ranavirus you may be able to guess that you have a new infection that is gaining ground (same for the chytrid) and if it is a lesser response, it could be that the frogs are clearing the infection.
> 
> At the moment, I would suggest figuring out a way to give them at least the option to bask as that can significantly help them to resist chytrid infections (unless you are planning to treat them).
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


I'll have to see about getting the detailed lab report so it can be compared. I asked them about it and was discouraged from obtaining it because "it won't really tell you anything." Any thoughts on that? Is that something I need to get and what words do I use to ask for it so that they don't tell me I don't need it (or realize that I have no idea what I'm talking about so I clearly don't need it).


----------



## Ed

Blue_Pumilio said:


> Ed,
> 
> We both know they are using primers that are produced specifically for this test. It's not like they are using different primers each time. This is not a new test, and is the exact same test being used by others to check for Chytrid and Rana. So the statement you made has nothing to do with the tests being run showing false positives.
> 
> If the PCR test shows a positive, then the DNA (RNA in some cases) HAS to be present, end of story. How it got there can be debated, but it will not show a false positive.


Justin, 
Contrary to you assertion, a similar virus can result in a false positive. That is why I linked the specific reference to my comment. There are a lot of different viruses in the iridovirus grouping and a wide variety of them are not lethal to amphibians... and it is possible that a gene sequence from one of them was amplified. 
Selection of the primers is the key issue. You are correct in that PCR is not a new test but each lab doesn't have to use the same primers... And that can make a major difference. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

When I was talking to my vet about this today, she tried to explain ranavirus testing to me. She was describing different sorts of viruses that can trigger positive results based on the type of testing. I understood almost none of it but it sounded a lot like what Ed is saying (which I also don't understand).

I really wish I had paid more attention in my biology classes


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> I'll have to see about getting the detailed lab report so it can be compared. I asked them about it and was discouraged from obtaining it because "it won't really tell you anything." Any thoughts on that? Is that something I need to get and what words do I use to ask for it so that they don't tell me I don't need it (or realize that I have no idea what I'm talking about so I clearly don't need it).


In this case, just the results are important. You can ask your vet about the hypothetical example and see if she feels the actual report would help. 

Ed


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> When I was talking to my vet about this today, she tried to explain ranavirus testing to me. She was describing different sorts of viruses that can trigger positive results based on the type of testing. I understood almost none of it but it sounded a lot like what Ed is saying (which I also don't understand).
> 
> I really wish I had paid more attention in my biology classes


It's not that bad (and it's a really cool topic..). Let's see if I can simplify it for the non-tech geeks... 

For example, isopod iridovirus and FV3 (Frog virus 3) are both in the the iridovirus group and are related to one another. As a result, they share large sections of DNA that are the same. PCR works by causing chosen samples of DNA that are in the rargeted organism (here ranavirus) to be made until they are easily detected through designated testing methods. Ideally, the sections of DNA that you amplify are going to be unique sections from the targeted organism. The problem is that DNA sections from closely related organisms are going to show a lot of similar overlap and in this case the iridovirus group is pretty large. As a theoretical example, say the isopods used in the froglet tanks are infected with a non-lethal iridovirus. This means that the enviroment (including the froglets) are going to be contaminated with iridovirus DNA particles. IF the primer amplifies the DNA from the isopod iridovirus, you get a false positive. 

This is why when sampling outbreaks of suspected ranaviruses, the tissue of choice is the liver after it has been dissected from the body. If care is taken, you can aquire liver tissues that are not contaminated by enviromental iridoviral particles limiting the risk of a false positive. 

Does that help? 

Ed


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

So Ed, are you saying that it is possible that Kris' fogs have another virus that isn't Rana that resulted in a positive test result?


----------



## Ed

ZookeeperDoug said:


> So Ed, are you saying that it is possible that Kris' fogs have another virus that isn't Rana that resulted in a positive test result?


Yes... See my example immediately above your last post. It is possible and depends on a number of factors starting with the primers... This is why a retest ideally using different primers would be helpful. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

False positives http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/mgray/Publications/Grayetal2012.pdf 

Close to 1 in ten..... 


Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Ed said:


> At the moment, I would suggest figuring out a way to give them at least the option to bask as that can significantly help them to resist chytrid infections (unless you are planning to treat them).
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


How would you give them basking light in a QT setting (plastic tub)? I don't want to cook them and I don't want to burn my house down. Do you mean UVB or heat or both?

I do plan to treat them. They are going in for new swabbing on Wednesday. They seem fine today. Do you think it's reasonable to wait until Wednesday? I thought they should reswabbed before treating.


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> How would you give them basking light in a QT setting (plastic tub)? I don't want to cook them and I don't want to burn my house down. Do you mean UVB or heat or both?
> 
> I do plan to treat them. They are going in for new swabbing on Wednesday. They seem fine today. Do you think it's reasonable to wait until Wednesday? I thought they should reswabbed before treating.


Just heat. There are a number of ways to avoid burning down your house. You can make this PVC holder but with an addition L overhang so you can hang it over the box. 




They should be fine until Wed. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Bcs TX

I am not a Vet and still reiterate that Point but I ask a lot of questions from the lab, various vets etc. The frog's tested positive for THREE pathogens, 2 are non-curable and the so called "breeder" wanted them back. Not sure why this is a "debate" but a call for testing for all selling darts. Big breeders small breeders etc. Rana is a virus plain and simple a virus mutates, the labs test for certain pathogens, I would deduce some labs test for certain pathogens. I will say that this lab that has positive bd results when frogs were cooled down in QT were bd symptomatic. Sorry no Google papers or studies to link, honest truth IMO we do not know the effects of rana positive frogs in PDF' s because the studies are not there.


----------



## Ed

Bcs TX said:


> I am not a Vet and still reiterate that Point but I ask a lot of questions from the lab, various vets etc. The frog's tested positive for THREE pathogens, 2 are non-curable and the so called "breeder" wanted them back. Not sure why this is a "debate" but a call for testing for all selling darts. Big breeders small breeders etc. Rana is a virus plain and simple a virus mutates, the labs test for certain pathogens I would deduce some labs test for certain pathogens. I will say that this lab that has positive bd results when frogs were cooled down in QT were bd symptomatic.


I'm not sure why you feel that a discussion to disseminate information is a debate... 

As for the claims of two being "incurable"... First off, we have to argue that this may be incorrect given that ponazuril has been shown to clear coccidians from animals that were previously considered to be incurable. So the jury is still out on this one. 
Second... As I've mentioned and cited more than once now, incurable does not mean that the animal is guaranteed to have it their entire lives. It can and has been documented to be cleared by the frog's immune system... so we can put this also in a box labled untreatable but can be cleared on it's own.. In the latter case, supportive therapy may be a good adjunct to survivial and clearance particularly if secondary infections can be avoided. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

Curable or not, the frogs should not have been sold. It is an otherwise relevant and important subject, but I'm sure that all would agree that no breeder has any business selling frogs that are positive for any of these pathogens, let alone all three.

So maybe Kris' Rana test is a 10% fluke. And maybe Beth's two sick Mints of different origins but supplied from the same breeder were also positive for Rana are also a 10% fluke?

Maybe coccidia was not present in fecals at the breeder and began as a result of stress from shipping.

Can Chytrid also have a false positive?

But all three at the same time? Come on.

What is more likely? A perfect storm arose and that the frogs are actually negative for all three pathogens or that the breeder has been careless and irresponsible in their husbandry and Kris ended up with infected frogs?

We can postulate until were blue in the face about possible circumstances, but the reality is that this breeder sold Beth and Kris infected frogs.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

Ed said:


> Yes... See my example immediately above your last post. It is possible and depends on a number of factors starting with the primers... This is why a retest ideally using different primers would be helpful.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Thanks. I thought I understood it correctly, just wanted to ask bluntly.

Frogface needs to find out if the different labs are using different primers.

But this raises huge questions for me. It sounds like we can't actually completely trust positive test results or negative results.


----------



## Azurel

Not sure how a post in another thread ended up here...stupid tapatalk.


----------



## Ed

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Curable or not, the frogs should not have been sold. It is an otherwise relevant and important subject, but I'm sure that all would agree that no breeder has any business selling frogs that are positive for any of these pathogens, let alone all three.


People keep jumping past go here... First off, we have to consider is whether or not the seller actually knew they were positive. So lets start with ranavirus: Given that depending on the strain of virus involved, and the exposure, you could have 
a) a non-lethal strain
b) asymptomatic carriers that (making an assumption here) that were missed during testing. In general, it is appropriate to assume that testing one frog in an enclosure gives you a good picture of the infections since if one has it, all probably have it, but the science indicates that frogs can form a strong immune response to it. This means, that asymptomatic carriers can be missed unless all frogs are swabbed and it also assumes that it doesn't cause a false negative... 
c) a recent exposure in the collection that hasn't made it obvious there is an issue. 

Now there is history about this topic with this breeder but making the jump to the idea that they haven't tried to resolve the issue is a big leap and potentially a risky legal one. 

Second lets look at coccidia... 
a) right off the bat, the only way to be sure a frog is negative at this time, is to kill the frog, necropsy it, and perform histopathology. There is apparently a PCR test that may be able to detect coccidians in frogs but I haven't heard how wide a group of coccidians it can detect as there are multiple taxa of coccidians that infect frogs much less anurans. So coccidia has to get a pass. 

Chytrid. This is a little more problematic but how often does the hobby test for it unless there is a problem? Pretty much not at all and we know for a fact that if you keep your enclosures above a set temperature range, your not going to see symptoms. 
Now this one is something we could get a handle on it.. but as I noted, you typically have to get someone with symptoms before they test. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

So let us consider the influx of "farmed" and wild caught pumilio that have come into the hobby. There is some pretty good science out there that these animals are also at risk of not only carrying chytrid (despite being a lowland species), but ranavirus as well... 

See Inter Research » DAO » v104 » n2 » p173-178 

and a picture of the EU hobby animals can be found here http://www.ravon.nl/Portals/0/Pdf/Spitzen Chytrid terrarium AR 2011.pdf 

So those people who are getting "cherry" picked frogs from wholesellers down in Florida or another importer in say the mid-west may want to consider the risk to their collections and use a stringent quarantine along with at least one test for chytrid and ranavirus. I would suggest two tests, one at the beginning of quarantine and one at the end.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Ok Ed, I made myself read it. It was actually very interesting. 

Snipped from Results:

Test results from tail clips and swabs were identical
with the results from the liver for 74 and 66% of sam-
ples, respectively (Fig. 1). False-negative and false-
positive rates were 20 and 6%, respectively, for tail
samples, and 22 and 12% for swabs (Fig. 1). F
http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/mgray/Publications/Grayetal2012.pdf


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> Ok Ed, I made myself read it. It was actually very interesting.
> 
> Snipped from Results:
> 
> Test results from tail clips and swabs were identical
> with the results from the liver for 74 and 66% of sam-
> ples, respectively (Fig. 1). False-negative and false-
> positive rates were 20 and 6%, respectively, for tail
> samples, and 22 and 12% for swabs (Fig. 1). F
> http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/mgray/Publications/Grayetal2012.pdf


Yep, in that study, they demonstrated a false positive rate of 12% for swabbing... which is close to 1 in 10... Hence why I posted it on here.... and that is before we get into the discussion on primers. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Ed said:


> Yep, in that study, they demonstrated a false positive rate of 12% for swabbing... which is close to 1 in 10... Hence why I posted it on here.... and that is before we get into the discussion on primers.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


You mean I have to keep reading?


----------



## frogface

Another good read posted by Ed. This one is about chytrid in collections. 

http://www.ravon.nl/Portals/0/Pdf/Spitzen Chytrid terrarium AR 2011.pdf


----------



## Judy S

so, to my addled brain... it boils down to a couple of questions. If you've had an infected frog...are you obligated to tell a future buyer of that history? At what point can you integrate a treated frog into your collection because of false positives? When people get in new frogs that they QT, are they following ALL the guidelines -- gloves, etc. -- so we have to assume that they have done so before we buy from them at some future time. What sort of things are going on in Europe on this subject??? The virus issue I get--it's like getting over childhood viruses-they are not totally eliminated, but lurk in the background opportunistically...like Herpes, Shingles, chicken pox...that sort of thing.


----------



## frogface

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Curable or not, the frogs should not have been sold. It is an otherwise relevant and important subject, but I'm sure that all would agree that no breeder has any business selling frogs that are positive for any of these pathogens, let alone all three.
> 
> So maybe Kris' Rana test is a 10% fluke. And maybe Beth's two sick Mints of different origins but supplied from the same breeder were also positive for Rana are also a 10% fluke?
> 
> Maybe coccidia was not present in fecals at the breeder and began as a result of stress from shipping.
> 
> Can Chytrid also have a false positive?
> 
> But all three at the same time? Come on.
> 
> What is more likely? A perfect storm arose and that the frogs are actually negative for all three pathogens or that the breeder has been careless and irresponsible in their husbandry and Kris ended up with infected frogs?
> 
> We can postulate until were blue in the face about possible circumstances, but the reality is that this breeder sold Beth and Kris infected frogs.


Doug I agree with you.

In my mind, there is no doubt about the coccidia. I have a pair of Sips that have been treated for presumed coccidia, based on symptoms, but all fecal samples have been negative. They dramatically improved with treatment. It became sort of a joke in my vet's office every time I brought in a poop sample from them because nothing was ever found. When I brought these froglets in, and the sample was positive for coccidia in frogs with no obvious symptoms, we all laughed about it (the samples were pulled and run by the lab techs during the swabbing appt). Frog health is crazy. 

I'm also thinking that the chytrid is positive. When I contacted the lab about the results, she indicated that chytrid was a very strong result. It's the ranavirus that I question. It's probably just very wishful thinking on my part but I am not as sure about the ranavirus as I am about the others. 

So, most positive outcome that I can see is that the re-test comes back positive for chytrid and negative for ranavirus. Then I am dealing with only coccidia, which can be managed and/or treated, and chytrid, which can be treated. When have you ever hoped your frog only had coccidia and chytrid??

Either way, these are infected frogs. The seller was made aware and hopefully they are taking appropriate steps.


----------



## Ghost vivs

Unfortunately they did nothing but threaten legal action the last time someone made them aware they were selling sick frogs. So the only thing I see them doing is sweeping this under the rug like last time.

Their 1st "oops" can be a mistake, their 2nd "oops" is a bad habit...


Casper




frogface said:


> The seller was made aware and hopefully they are taking appropriate steps.


----------



## markpulawski

Kris when did you receive these frogs, Chytrid takes from 4 to 6 weeks to finally show up in it's lethal last day or 2 (this is triggered by being exposed to cool temps, usually which occur in shipping), once those symptoms show it is about 24 hours until they are dead. You can treat with Miconozole, several dunkings in a Miconozole bath over a few days time would kill the fungus completely. With a good sized collection, I would euthanize these frogs after a 2nd positive battery of tests, you have a lot more to lose than gaining a few Mints and always wondering if the "bomb" is going to go off in your collection is not a fun way to enjoy your hobby.
I would agree that this breeder should start the pain staking process of testing and isolating the culprits in their collection, could be they have many frogs that are free of disease but getting frogs from them now is like playing Russian Roulette.


----------



## frogface

I received them on 10/30. They have an appointment on Wednesday for reswabbing. I was going to see about starting chytrid treatment at that appointment. I have cancelled plans to receive other frogs; no new animals in my house for the time being. I'm still contemplating whether or not to try to manage this group or euthanize. 

Not that it matters, I suppose, but, these are not Mints.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> Not that it matters, I suppose, but, these are not Mints.


No, I think it is a potentially important distinction. We know mints from this persons collection have tested positive, now we know other frogs in their collection, the ones they sold you have also tested positive. This worries me. It could be indicative of poor husbandry practices.


----------



## frogface

ZookeeperDoug said:


> No, I think it is a potentially important distinction. We know mints from this persons collection have tested positive, now we know other frogs in their collection, the ones they sold you have also tested positive. This worries me. It could be indicative of poor husbandry practices.


You're right, Doug. That is important. I hadn't looked at it that way. Thank you.


----------



## frogface

Here is the lab report in case anyone wanted to see it. I have erased info that I wanted to keep private:


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> Doug I agree with you.
> 
> In my mind, there is no doubt about the coccidia. I have a pair of Sips that have been treated for presumed coccidia, based on symptoms, but all fecal samples have been negative. They dramatically improved with treatment. It became sort of a joke in my vet's office every time I brought in a poop sample from them because nothing was ever found. When I brought these froglets in, and the sample was positive for coccidia in frogs with no obvious symptoms, we all laughed about it (the samples were pulled and run by the lab techs during the swabbing appt). Frog health is crazy.
> 
> I'm also thinking that the chytrid is positive. When I contacted the lab about the results, she indicated that chytrid was a very strong result. It's the ranavirus that I question. It's probably just very wishful thinking on my part but I am not as sure about the ranavirus as I am about the others.
> 
> So, most positive outcome that I can see is that the re-test comes back positive for chytrid and negative for ranavirus. Then I am dealing with only coccidia, which can be managed and/or treated, and chytrid, which can be treated. When have you ever hoped your frog only had coccidia and chytrid??
> 
> Either way, these are infected frogs. The seller was made aware and hopefully they are taking appropriate steps.


I hope at the very least since the breeder sold you infected frogs, that they are covering the costs of of all these detests and treatment. I know if it was me who was responsible for selling someone else something sick that was going to cost them more money, I would be extending an offer to help defray your costs for vet visits, treatment medicines, etc.


----------



## frogface

I have not heard from the seller since emailing them that my vet did not think shipping the frogs was a good idea. I'll let you know if I do hear back.


----------



## markpulawski

Sorry Kris I knew you had not said what type of frog these were, guess I had Mints on the brain. I would suggest this is a result of a much larger than average collection and some cross contamination has occurred and the likelihood that other species/morphs that were imported were also contaminated. It's overwhelming to think about sorting out a mess like this if you think about testing 100's of frogs but more importantly breaking down and sterilizing just as many tanks. It's a big job but one that should be done and hopefully this breeder does the right thing otherwise we will see this scenario repeated.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> I have not heard from the seller since emailing them that my vet did not think shipping the frogs was a good idea. I'll let you know if I do hear back.


Did you try calling them? I never did have good luck getting ahold of this breeder back when I inquired about some of their frogs by email, but a phone call was answered promptly by someone other than the actual breeder himself.


----------



## frogface

I want to thank everyone for their support on this; on the thread and in emails and PMs. It's been very difficult but you've all really helped me to think things through. I've been crying my eyes out for 3 days, and, at my age that's not a good look.


----------



## frogface

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Did you try calling them? I never did have good luck getting ahold of this breeder back when I inquired about some of their frogs by email, but a phone call was answered promptly by someone other than the actual breeder himself.


They have been pretty quick to respond to emails. Maybe they don't check on weekends. I've only been in contact with someone associated with the breeder. I've not spoken to the breeder directly except for a very brief conversation the day I purchased the frogs. That call was immediately turned over to an associate.

I might call but it will have to wait since I don't have a phone.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

markpulawski said:


> Sorry Kris I knew you had not said what type of frog these were, guess I had Mints on the brain. I would suggest this is a result of a much larger than average collection and some cross contamination has occurred and the likelihood that other species/morphs that were imported were also contaminated. It's overwhelming to think about sorting out a mess like this if you think about testing 100's of frogs but more importantly breaking down and sterilizing just as many tanks. It's a big job but one that should be done and hopefully this breeder does the right thing otherwise we will see this scenario repeated.


This is what is so potentially scary to me. We're not talking about some small guy like me who has a handful of frogs and occasionally sells their offspring. I don't call myself a breeder.

I'm very hopeful that this is a very isolated incident and all the crazy excuses and possibilities, no matter how far fetched, turn out to be the case. Seriously, I hope were all over reacting, I really do. Because that means the problem is probably isolated. 

But let's face it, I'm willing to bet everyone here knows someone with frogs from this guy. Some people posting here have been in his facility. For the sake of everyone and hobby, let's hope this turns out to be nothing.


----------



## ecichlid

I will be the first to admit that I am guilty of. It reading this entire topic. That being said, I think I have seen enough of it to know that FrogFace is concerned about the legal implications of revealing too much.

Consider that it is not libelous if you state only the facts as you know them. I expect that your seller is very scared and I also expect that if he (or she) is purchasing animals for resale, then he is continuing to do so right now and will continue to do so in the future.

If this person is a reseller or importer does a volume of any significance, then this situation is much more serious then you could possible know. There is no libel in answering this question:

Who sold you these frogs?


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

ecichlid said:


> I will be the first to admit that I am guilty of. It reading this entire topic. That being said, I think I have seen enough of it to know that FrogFace is concerned about the legal implications of revealing too much.
> 
> Consider that it is not libelous if you state only the facts as you know them. I expect that your seller is very scared and I also expect that if he (or she) is purchasing animals for resale, then he is continuing to do so right now and will continue to do so in the future.
> 
> If this person is a reseller or importer does a volume of any significance, then this situation is much more serious then you could possible know. There is no libel in answering this question:
> 
> Who sold you these frogs?


You're right, but, I think that the forum rules prohibit an open answer here. If you would like to know, it is not at all hard to find out. You just need to ask the right person.


----------



## edwardsatc

Ed said:


> including oddly enough LMBV (large mouth bass virus)...


Lol, seems as someone has done his homework


----------



## ecichlid

ZookeeperDoug said:


> You're right, but, I think that the forum rules prohibit an open answer here. If you would like to know, it is not at all hard to find out. You just need to ask the right person.


 Doug, you don't sound quite certain. Would a moderator or administrator like to clarify? If not, it would be a great service to the hobby to reveal the seller so that this situation can be made public.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

ecichlid said:


> Doug, you don't sound quite certain. Would a moderator or administrator like to clarify? If not, it would be a great service to the hobby to reveal the seller so that this situation can be made public.


I can't speak for the moderators, but I'm confident that they would view that action as feedback, which is prohibited in this portion of the forum. They've redacted named before for that reason. Obviously the only certain answer could come from a mod. I agree though, it should be public.


----------



## Ed

Mark.



markpulawski said:


> Kris when did you receive these frogs, Chytrid takes from 4 to 6 weeks to finally show up in it's lethal last day or 2 (this is triggered by being exposed to cool temps, usually which occur in shipping), once those symptoms show it is about 24 hours until they are dead.


 The time line cited above is not necessarily accurate. There is a lot of variation depending on the strain as well as enviromental conditions. Death can occur in as little as 9 days or more than 60... See discussion here http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/6216/1/6216_Berger_et_al_2005.pdf
Even if the frog(s) under go a cool period triggering chytrid symptoms, raising the temperature can prevent death... For an interesting discussion on it see PLOS ONE: Nothing a Hot Bath Won't Cure: Infection Rates of Amphibian Chytrid Fungus Correlate Negatively with Water Temperature under Natural Field Settings 




markpulawski said:


> You can treat with Miconozole, several dunkings in a Miconozole bath over a few days time would kill the fungus completely.


Miconazole isn't as well tolerated as other antifungals, probably due to the formulation. It should also be done for more than a few days for optimal treatment... The minimal treatment time I could find recommendations for was 8 days and most seem to suggest 10 days. It should also be noted (see An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie) that prompt treatment of even frogs exhibiting terminal stage signs of chytridmycosis can be cured and returned to good health... 




markpulawski said:


> With a good sized collection, I would euthanize these frogs after a 2nd positive battery of tests, you have a lot more to lose than gaining a few Mints and always wondering if the "bomb" is going to go off in your collection is not a fun way to enjoy your hobby.


If you engage in a fairly strict quarantine, and treatment, there should be no risk of a "bomb" going off in the collection. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## sports_doc

I am certainly not going to speak for the forum owners....

and be aware [again] moderators are just volunteers, regular Froggers like you, who are just slightly more resilient to being thrown under the bus every time there is a controversy online. , by the membership. 

That being said, my simple opinion, it that we gain nothing from tossing out the vendors name here, other than the 'satisfaction' of string up another witch. People love that you know 

I can hope they are changing practices.

I can hope we all learn something.

I can hope that you all realize you are not as safe as you think, unless you really do practice the 'perfect' QT husbandry Ed outlined, and has previously been outlined by TWI. [Some may, so those I look up to]

I think the value of this thread is for us to decide what is important regarding testing, QT, responsibility [both ways], and I think Kris would agree. 

We can change, by demanding, and paying for better! But, it is going to be at a compromise. We all are responsible for where we are now.

Everyone who has bought animals, and tossed them into their 'awesome' vivs! Responsible.

Everyone who has shiny new WC/FR animals and hasn't done full QT and treatments. Responsible.

Everyone who has traded frogs, sold frogs, loaned frogs to their 'friends' with no thought of even testing. Responsible.

Everyone who has ignored this topic, for years, except for the intermittent crisis thread. Responsible. 

Everyone who has moved plants around, wood, moved their hands from tank to tank, riffled through leaf litter looking for froglets, and then closed the doors and moved throughout the room. Responsible. 

So, how do we 'fix' all that by stringing some breeder up? Maybe we are a little jealous of this person, maybe there are axes to grind, maybe we just like taking down the 'big' guy, maybe we think if someone else is at fault, then we aren't? Anyway, I'm not passing judgment on any of us, just thinking it through out loud is all. 

Just my opinion, but I think we can be more constructive on DB, and save the BS for the bar.


----------



## frogface

I want to let people know that I have been offered a refund without returning the frogs. I have been told that they are testing the breeders, have contacted customers, and, will not be providing animals until the matter is resolved.


----------



## ecichlid

ZookeeperDoug said:


> I can't speak for the moderators, but I'm confident that they would view that action as feedback, which is prohibited in this portion of the forum. They've redacted named before for that reason. Obviously the only certain answer could come from a mod. I agree though, it should be public.


 I'm glad you agree that it should be public. I disagree that this is a review or feedback. There are plenty of posts where people stated what they purchased and from whom. That being said, it appears that FrogFace is happy with what the seller has stated he is doing. If someone would post here that they have been proactively contacted by the seller, then I would believe it's actually happening.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

sports_doc said:


> I am certainly not going to speak for the forum owners....
> 
> and be aware [again] moderators are just volunteers, regular Froggers like you, who are just slightly more resilient to being thrown under the bus every time there is a controversy online. , by the membership.
> 
> That being said, my simple opinion, it that we gain nothing from tossing out the vendors name here, other than the 'satisfaction' of string up another witch. People love that you know
> 
> I can hope they are changing practices.
> 
> I can hope we all learn something.
> 
> I can hope that you all realize you are not as safe as you think, unless you really do practice the 'perfect' QT husbandry Ed outlined, and has previously been outlined by TWI. [Some may, so those I look up to]
> 
> I think the value of this thread is for us to decide what is important regarding testing, QT, responsibility [both ways], and I think Kris would agree.
> 
> We can change, by demanding, and paying for better! But, it is going to be at a compromise. We all are responsible for where we are now.
> 
> Everyone who has bought animals, and tossed them into their 'awesome' vivs! Responsible.
> 
> Everyone who has shiny new WC/FR animals and hasn't done full QT and treatments. Responsible.
> 
> Everyone who has traded frogs, sold frogs, loaned frogs to their 'friends' with no thought of even testing. Responsible.
> 
> Everyone who has ignored this topic, for years, except for the intermittent crisis thread. Responsible.
> 
> Everyone who has moved plants around, wood, moved their hands from tank to tank, riffled through leaf litter looking for froglets, and then closed the doors and moved throughout the room. Responsible.
> 
> So, how do we 'fix' all that by stringing some breeder up? Maybe we are a little jealous of this person, maybe there are axes to grind, maybe we just like taking down the 'big' guy, maybe we think if someone else is at fault, then we aren't? Anyway, I'm not passing judgment on any of us, just thinking it through out loud is all.
> 
> Just my opinion, but I think we can be more constructive on DB, and save the BS for the bar.


I agree with everything you say, except for the question of stringing the breeder up. I don't think it is about that. Besides this is someone who has been around for a while and in generally well respected by a lot of people. I think he would weather that storm just fine. I think they'd weather it better if they publicly accepted responsibility and took accountability.

People with frogs from this breeder need to take a second look at their collection, especially if they're "responsible" for any of the various other items you mention. It would only be prudent.

For example, I received frogs from someone, who has frogs from this breeder. I practiced good quarantine and testing with those frogs, and they're clean, but I'm still giving them a second look. 

Kris has stated that they're notifying customers and offering a refund and that they won't be offering animals until this is resolved. I think that's a good, even if it is second hand information, it's a good start and sign.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

ecichlid said:


> I'm glad you agree that it should be public. I disagree that this is a review or feedback. There are plenty of posts where people stated what they purchased and from whom. That being said, it appears that FrogFace is happy with what the seller has stated he is doing. If someone would post here that they have been proactively contacted by the seller, then I would believe it's actually happening.


I disagree that it is feedback as well, but neither of us makes board policy.


----------



## ecichlid

Does not matter, the buyer will not disclose the information.

Dear Anonymous Seller:

Do yourself a favor. Please have a few of your customers who have purchased from you, post here, so that we know you are acting responsibly. If you do not, you will do more damage to yourself, as there will be growing rumor mill that will no doubt affect your sales in a negative manner. It's obvious based on this conversation, that you not strictly a hobbyist and therefore should not be treated as such.


----------



## markpulawski

Ed my 4 bouts of Chytrid, 3 of which proved 100% fatal to my collection was pretty much at 4 to 5 weeks after receiving the frogs at which point the symptoms could be seen and within 48 hours all frogs were dead, so I can only speak from personal experience dealing with it. I also 100% eradicated Chytrid with the Miconozole treatment which at the time was the only treatment known to me and came from a talk given during frog day 10 years ago or so. I have told Kris in a PM that her vet would have a much more effective antifungal and to go with their recommendation and procedure.
I was merely relating my personal experience with Chytrid in instances where it killed my collection and when I was able to eradicate it, with the tools only a layman had available at that time. There is so much more knowledge out there, great testing and information all should use it to their benefit, sadly no one even knew what wiped out our collections when Chytrid hit the US.
Kris I am glad this vendor is testing these frogs, good for them, hopefully they will spot check a few more in their collection. Good luck with working though this, many of us know what a PIA it is.


----------



## frogface

What good does naming the breeder do? So you can avoid that particular breeder? Are you going to avoid all of the other breeders too. How many test their stock? How many of the people who receive frogs test them? We would also need to avoid all of the small time keepers/sellers who do not test animals. Wouldn't that be almost all of them? 

Maybe what we need is a sticky list of breeders/sellers who do routinely test their animals. I think that would be easier (and certainly a much smaller list) than trying to figure out who to avoid.


----------



## ecichlid

frogface said:


> What good does naming the breeder do?


 You have already made your decision, we are past a debate. Since you are going to take this retailer's word that he will contact other recent buyers, so that they can act responsibly, that's your decision. Frankly I won't believe it unless it's verified here by a few of his other customers.


----------



## frogface

Snipped quote. This is why.



Ghost vivs said:


> *Don't tell anyone who the seller is!!*
> 
> Want to know why I say that? This will make *everybody* question their next frog purchase and until that happens people will keep on not testing. Let the fear in people lead to change in our hobby.
> 
> That may(will) upset some but that just means that the fear is taking hold...To blunt? Hell yeah it is. But it's the truth!
> 
> Casper


----------



## ecichlid

*frogface*, I am not putting any onus on you. This is directed to this particular retailer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Mr. Anonymous Retailer: *

A few people here have written things here that makes it clear that they know who you are. I think you are going to hurt your own business if you do not not have a couple of your customers jump in here and proactively tell us that you reached out to them with this problem. Verification is not a unreasonable request.


----------



## stu&shaz

Hi Kris,
ahh man I so feel for you !! Honestly I just hope for 3 negatives for you and the same with the repeat test,when you get there. I just can't imagine what you have been through. My hopes lie not in any errors as such ,but in the importance of these primers Ed has mentioned more than once in this thread.

I'm repeatedly told that repetitive testing with realtime PCR is significant to getting clear results,well,that is what my research lead me to,I don't really understand all this,like so many of us. 

For the record I wouldn't be giving out names either,until I was 100% completely sure what has happened,I couldn't do that on the back of one test,which has the aforementioned chances of false positives,it's just seems premature to me,beyond any other reasons. I can see why folks are so concerned, this is a nightmare for anyone that keeps frogs,but complete and absolute certainty,would be a must for me.

Kris,you have a vet watching and helping you,whom so obviously cares,you have done all the QT stuff,as best you can,as a born optimist I know you'll be ok,got this nagging feeling in my gut,that all this is too early yet,and the frogs might be ok too.No substance to that,but I'll say it anyway,as some positive thought is about all I can really offer.

Good luck mate,we are both thinking of you, oh and the kids

best

Stu and Shaz


----------



## frogface

Thanks Stu 

Yes my vet does really care. She's not just a vet, she's also a hobbyist. She and her SO keep reptiles and reef tanks.


----------



## Ghost vivs

I have been informed that this seller is contacting their customers and telling them what is going on. 

No I will not tell who told me. 

Yes I know who this seller is, no I will not tell. 

*But what I will do is offer free swabs to anyone that wants to test their own collection. I will ship them at my expense.*
Email me at [email protected] if you're interested.

Casper



ecichlid said:


> *frogface*, I am not putting any onus on you. This is directed to this particular retailer.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Mr. Anonymous Retailer: *
> 
> A few people here have written things here that makes it clear that they know who you are. I think you are going to hurt your own business if you do not not have a couple of your customers jump in here and proactively tell us that you reached out to them with this problem. Verification is not a unreasonable request.


----------



## frogface

Thanks Casper. I, too, have received word from a few people that they have been contacted.

eta: I didn't want to say it first because I thought it might sound fishy


----------



## FroggyKnight

I wish I was contacted…. I honestly have no idea who the breeder is (not been with darts long) and I'm very curious. I don't want to bring the full wraith of the hobby on him nor do I wish to put him out of business. I just like to know as much as possible on who I purchase from. Could you PM me with any info you feel comfortable disclosing? 

I respect your decision Kris and I wont push you on it any further.

Good luck with the babies! My heart goes out to them


----------



## pafrogguy

I was contacted. I am with Kris in I did not want to say anything as people would assume something was up. I am having my own stuff re-tested as a precaution and forwarding my results to them.


----------



## sports_doc

It would seem, at least as a first step, the breeder is indeed doing the right things....which is very good to see. Not a surprise at all. 

I think the "I know who you are, but won't tell" can stop now, no?

Maybe we can let this thread settle until more testing results are back perhaps?


----------



## ecichlid

sports_doc said:


> Maybe we can let this thread settle until more testing results are back perhaps?


 Yes, sure.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

Kris, any status updates as far as your retests?


----------



## frogface

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Kris, any status updates as far as your retests?


Their appt for reswab is Wednesday. I'll see about starting them on tx for chytrid at that appt too but I wanted to do the swab before treating. So far they are still doing very well. They are active and eating. No skin problems that I can see from 10 feet away in my HazMat suit.


----------



## FroggyKnight

better make that 11 feet, just to be on the safe side


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> Their appt for reswab is Wednesday. I'll see about starting them on tx for chytrid at that appt too but I wanted to do the swab before treating. So far they are still doing very well. They are active and eating. No skin problems that I can see from 10 feet away in my HazMat suit.


Ah, 10-4. For some reason I thought Gould already swabbed them again, thanks.


----------



## Ed

Did you put the video camera on the end of the ten foot pole so you can be sure to avoid contamination? 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Ed said:


> Did you put the video camera on the end of the ten foot pole so you can be sure to avoid contamination?
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Yes and then I sanitized the room with a flamethrower


----------



## ecichlid

frogface said:


> Yes and then I sanitized the room with a flamethrower


 Whoa, wait a minute! Save that. We need that when responding to posts.


----------



## edwardsatc

I'm glad to see that the disease threads are still going. 

I was afraid that the whole Fart Dogs Airhouse thread would divert most off the attention. 

Keep up the good commentary!


----------



## frogface

I have somewhat of an update. I have contacted a different lab and described the issues. He, too, was surprised that these, apparently, healthy frogs would have both chytrid and ranavirus. They have different methods for swabbing and preserving swabs, and, testing than the other lab, and thinks it could make a difference. He is going to email me the particulars and I will present them to my vet.


----------



## Dendrobati

frogface said:


> I have somewhat of an update. I have contacted a different lab and described the issues. He, too, was surprised that these, apparently, healthy frogs would have both chytrid and ranavirus. They have different methods for swabbing and preserving swabs, and, testing than the other lab, and thinks it could make a difference. He is going to email me the particulars and I will present them to my vet.


Wet swab?

Could you forward the info along when you get it?

Thanks,
Brad


----------



## frogface

Dendrobati said:


> Wet swab?
> 
> Could you forward the info along when you get it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Brad


Yes, of course. Wet swab and dry feces. He really wanted cloacal swabs but their butts are so small. Their poop is pretty big, though. Maybe she'll give it a try 

Here is the lab: Home Page | Pisces Molecular


----------



## frogface

Sorry to spam up the thread, but, I wanted to add that he was telling me ways that the results could be false positives. Unfortunately, I did not understand it well enough to repeat it for you.


----------



## frogfreak

frogface said:


> Sorry to spam up the thread, but, I wanted to add that he was telling me ways that the results could be false positives. Unfortunately, I did not understand it well enough to repeat it for you.


Maybe he could put it in an email, Kris?


----------



## Azurel

frogface said:


> Sorry to spam up the thread, but, I wanted to add that he was telling me ways that the results could be false positives. Unfortunately, I did not understand it well enough to repeat it for you.


Call him back hold your cell phone up with talk to text on. Then copy and paste it back to this thread...lol

Glad to hear another opinion from a different lab....Just lets you know that things are not as settled and concrete as we might think or that Ed was once again on the right track.


----------



## frogface

Azurel said:


> Call him back hold your cell phone up with talk to text on. Then copy and paste it back to this thread...lol
> 
> Glad to hear another opinion from a different lab....Just lets you know that things are not as settled and concrete as we might think or that Ed was once again on the right track.


Ed and his being right all the time is starting to get on my nerves! 

He also told me to go with Pisces from the start. I didn't because they are more expensive and they didn't have their process laid out on the website where it was easy to find. I'm going to tell them to update their website to make it easy for noob froggers to use, because we got a few thousand people who need tests, lol.

Eta: Bad news is that results turn around is 2-3 weeks. Now I am stuck not knowing if I should treat my froglets for chytrid or let them sit for a few weeks. Is treatment for chytrid safe enough to use on a frog that might not have chytrid?


----------



## pafrogguy

Kris do you have that lab's info? Maybe I missed it if you already posted it. Figure it would not hurt to try somewhere different than I previously have.


----------



## frogface

pafrogguy said:


> Kris do you have that lab's info? Maybe I missed it if you already posted it. Figure it would not hurt to try somewhere different than I previously have.


Home Page | Pisces Molecular

You have to call them to get their sample requirements. They haven't updated their site. Very nice and professional on the phone. Sound like they know what they're doing.


----------



## frogface

Update and some changes.

My vet's office has a lab that they prefer to send these samples to. It turns out that they use different labs for different types of sample based on the protocol, I guess. Anyway, since the Pisces lab has a 3 week turn around, and I am sure I would die of a heart attack before the results came back, I asked her to send it to her preferred lab, Zoologix PCR testing for zoo and wildlife species . This is also the lab that was recommended to me by the State Veterinary Diagnostic and Pathology Lab when I called them for advice. 

Yes it is more expensive to do it this way but I'm afraid that trying to cut corners is what got me into this mess in the first place. They are taking care of everything; swabbing, packing, shipping. I'll get a cc to my email in 2-3 days with the results. 

I asked my vet if we should start treating the frogs for chytrid in the meantime. She felt that we should wait. They seem to be so healthy. She noticed that they have grown and put on weight in 7 days since she last saw them. They were very wiggly and put up strong fights when she was swabbing them. She said that maybe if we were using the 3 week lab, but, since they appear to be in good shape, we should wait for the re-test results.

Of interest, she has a friend who is a vet at our Museum of Natural History and she consulted him on the positive results. She said that according to this guy, their amphibian collection is swabbed and tested regularly, and, they quite frequently get positive chytrid and ranavirus results that are negative on retest.


----------



## Ed

Was that my name, that I heard being taken in vain again?? 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Retest results show positive for Bd and negative for ranavirus. I'll post a copy after I get home.


----------



## pafrogguy

Still not the best results, but that is better than being positive for all I guess. Still disappointing to say the least. Thank you for sharing your results.


----------



## Dendrobati

frogface said:


> Retest results show positive for Bd and negative for ranavirus. I'll post a copy after I get home.



Interesting! Now which test do you trust? False negatives are more likely than false positives, at least as far as I understand.

Chytrid is easy to treat. 



Brad


----------



## frogface

pafrogguy said:


> Still not the best results, but that is better than being positive for all I guess. Still disappointing to say the least. Thank you for sharing your results.


I am thrilled with the results, lol. Chytrid can be treated. I also understand that it is very easy to get a false positive for Bd, so, I'm not even convinced that they have chytrid. They still look beautiful and active.

I'll go ahead and start treatment, asap. Got a call in to my vet to see when I can pick up the meds.


----------



## frogface

Dendrobati said:


> Interesting! Now which test do you trust? False negatives are more likely than false positives, at least as far as I understand.
> 
> Chytrid is easy to treat.
> 
> 
> 
> Brad


They will remain isolated in the back room for the time being. I'll treat them for chytrid and then leave them alone for a bit. Retesting to be done at some point in the future. 

I don't understand all the ins and outs of testing but the vet at the museum indicated that false positives were not all that uncommon at all.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

frogface said:


> Retest results show positive for Bd and negative for ranavirus. I'll post a copy after I get home.


Well that is at least a relief that although you were sold infected frogs, they can be treated at least for Bd.

As for the Ranavirus, so we have two different results for two different tests. How do we know which one is accurate? 

Is it possible that when the frogs were stressed from shipping, that they were shedding Ranavirus, and now that they've settled down their immune system has suppressed the infection?

What about the coccidia?


Anyways, kudos to you for testing for one, sharing positive results second, and most importantly, scaring this crap out of a lot of people, this starting the most serious dialog we've had on this subject that I can remember.


----------



## frogface

I would say it's still possible that they have one or the other, both, or neither 

Coccidia doesn't scare me anymore. I'll treat for presumed Bd and then that won't scare me anymore either. Then I'll keep a close eye. I'm still very happy to have these little frogs.


----------



## pafrogguy

I agree, that this was something that drew some needed attention to the hobby. I am glad you did not immediately euthanize them. Hopefully the next test results you get are even more favorable and you can enjoy them for a very long time.


----------



## frogface

Here's the lab report. It's an assay. Supposed to be very sensitive:


----------



## Judy S

so now what...?


----------



## frogface

Judy S said:


> so now what...?


I'll pick up the meds tomorrow and start them on treatment for chytrid. Once they are done with that, I'm putting them in a real tank so they'll be more comfortable. They're just little things, so I'm going to let them grow up a bit. Then, I'll test again. They are going to stay isolated in the back room.


----------



## Bcs TX

First of all Kris I appreciate your transparency and glad it has been received as wake up call to the hobby. IMO this is good for the frogs, hobby and environment.

I am glad you are still keeping them in QT and will test in the future.

One thing that has not been mentioned in this thread is that different labs use different protocols/requirements for swabs, I have used Pisces along with a UK lab that requires the swab to be put in a solution, (they provide the swabs and solution to put them in after swabbing per lab). Personally, I would be cautious on the coccidia results, your Vet did see them under her microscope, not to mention the positive rana result from Vetdna.
I would hope "that the seller" is not only reimbursing you for the frogs and shipping but also the testing, after all this should be a "wake up call" for them, you have done them a big favor for letting them know the frog's you bought from their collection has tested positive for 3 pathogens.


----------



## frogface

I was reimbursed for the frogs and shipping, even though I kept the frogs.


----------



## Bcs TX

A small "token" considering your collection was compromised.


----------



## frogface

Consider that my collection has been compromised every time I brought in a new animal without testing. 

Really, I feel pretty confident that my other frogs are ok. I've been very careful with isolation and QT.


----------



## Bcs TX

frogface said:


> Consider that my collection has been compromised every time I brought in a new animal without testing.
> 
> Really, I feel pretty confident that my other frogs are ok. I've been very careful with isolation and QT.


Great point! Another indicator we should QT and "they look ok so are ok." IMO is the general consensus among some breeders (this one has been told about bd and rana on at least several occasions), the positive tests from one lab or another still a concern esp 3 pathogens. Hope the breeder is "paying attention" and tests their frogs, this is not the first time they have received pos results of bd, rana or mycobacterium.


----------



## Ed

I'm going to repeat this from another thread... 

*As I've noted multiple times in the last at least 5 years ( and probably much longer), a negative fecal or other test does not indicate that the frog is free of that parasite/disease, just that nothing was detected at that time. Multiple tests increase the chance that you will detect that there is something wrong with the animals but it doesn't guarantee that the frog is free of those parasites/pathogens. A repeated positive test from a reputable lab/vet is a much better indicator (provided the person also evaluates the health of the frog) but still isn't 100% proof. *


I'm going to add this comment to the post above about mycobacterium in the frogs.... This is a bacteria that is very commonly found in the enclosures of the frogs. It would be very difficult to make the claim that they did not aquire the infection post shipping since these bacteria have been isolated from drinking water..... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Reading some of your other posts, Ed, about plants transferred between people and tanks, has me wondering more about plants. We bleach them, but, if we don't scrub them and get every spec of organic material off of them, prior to bleaching, then we still may be passing pathogens around. I would think there is also danger of pathogens hiding down between leaf axils and between roots. Am I understanding that correctly?

The breeder of my frogs is retesting their frogs; the breeding group and froglets from the grow out tank. I wonder if the contamination could be in the plants used for shipping?


----------



## frogface

I started treatment today. I really hate manhandling my frogs. They give me such evil looks.

Anyway, I decided to use 2 fruit fly cups. One of them with holes in the bottom. I wrangle the frogs into one cup then put the one with holes in the bottom inside, that way they can't climb up the walls of the cup and must sit in the solution. Then I pour in the solution, which sort of rains down through the holes. They are forced to sit it in, by the inserted cup. I held both cups to make sure they weren't crushed between them or forced under water. It worked pretty well. 

Moved them into a sanitized tub, sanitized the one they were in and the fruit fly cups. One down, 10 to go  .


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> Reading some of your other posts, Ed, about plants transferred between people and tanks, has me wondering more about plants. We bleach them, but, if we don't scrub them and get every spec of organic material off of them, prior to bleaching, then we still may be passing pathogens around.


Keep in mind that you can't scrub all of the organics off since the plants themselves are organic.. The process is based on the methedology used to sterilize plant tissues for use in plant cloning. It is important to get rid of all soil or other growing substrate as this can shelter not only pathogens but unwanted hitchhikers. 




frogface said:


> I would think there is also danger of pathogens hiding down between leaf axils and between roots. Am I understanding that correctly?


Correct. If there are air bubbles or small crevices that can't be fully in contact with the disinfecting solution, all can shelter unwanted things. 



frogface said:


> The breeder of my frogs is retesting their frogs; the breeding group and froglets from the grow out tank. I wonder if the contamination could be in the plants used for shipping?


Sure if they are pulling from one tank and using with animals from another tank but we should also keep in mind that many people on the forum buy, sell or trade cuttings from enclosures which are then placed into other enclosures.... so it's pretty hard to point a finger at a process by a breeder when there is a very common practice in the hobby that is just as bad. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## frogface

Ed said:


> snip:
> 
> Sure if they are pulling from one tank and using with animals from another tank but we should also keep in mind that many people on the forum buy, sell or trade cuttings from enclosures which are then placed into other enclosures.... so it's pretty hard to point a finger at a process by a breeder when there is a very common practice in the hobby that is just as bad.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


Thanks Ed. I certainly didn't mean to point any fingers. I'm just wondering how froglets with negative parents and negative siblings could be positive, unless the contamination was not in the parent or sibling tank, but, rather in the plants. Do people, who sell lots of frogs, generally keep a separate tank of plants for shipping? Grab out a handful of plants to pack some frogs. Oops, didn't get enough, grab just a bit more. Did the plants in the plant tank just get contaminated?

This is just a general question. I don't know the results of the breeders testing, in my situation. The situation there may have no similarities to the one I just posted.


----------



## Dendrobati

Ed said:


> also keep in mind that many people on the forum buy, sell or trade cuttings from enclosures which are then placed into other enclosures.... so it's pretty hard to point a finger at a process by a breeder when there is a very common practice in the hobby that is just as bad.


Only partially related to the above comment: Are large breeders held to higher standards than hobby members? Should they be?



frogface said:


> Do people, who sell lots of frogs, generally keep a separate tank of plants for shipping? Grab out a handful of plants to pack some frogs. Oops, didn't get enough, grab just a bit more. Did the plants in the plant tank just get contaminated?


Do people often ship with plants? We've never shipped with plants and we have rarely received frogs shipped with plants. 

New sphagnum moss and one frog are the only two things we put in our shipping cups. 


Thanks,
Brad


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

Dendrobati said:


> Only partially related to the above comment: Are large breeders held to higher standards than hobby members? Should they be?


IMO, we should hold everyone to a high standard, not just big breeders.



> Do people often ship with plants? We've never shipped with plants and we have rarely received frogs shipped with plants.
> 
> New sphagnum moss and one frog are the only two things we put in our shipping cups.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Brad


Quite a few people do actually. I know I generally do, but I'm rethinking that, as it really isn't needed. I'd say for my shipments of frogs it has been 50/50. Some from very well respected members.

When I do use a plant, it is either a pothos leaf from a hanging basket or a leaf from something growing in the grow out with the frogs I'm shipping. It is just a leaf though. 

I do generally, where possible, include a small bag of clippings as a freebie. Clients are always informed as to the naupture of those plants and informed to properly sterilize them.

I can tell that the distribution of plants, clippings, and how we use them is going to become another big topic in the discussion about the spread of infectious amphibian diseases.


----------



## ecichlid

Dendrobati said:


> Only partially related to the above comment: Are large breeders held to higher standards than hobby members? Should they be?


 How about you turn your question on yourself and other large breeders? Do you want to be held to a higher standard than an average hobbyist? 

Obviously Brad, you have stepped up to the plate with your actions. The question is, will it make good business sense to you? That answer will depend on your potential customers. Will they recognize the value that the additional cost it brings to each frog? Perhaps for higher end frogs the difference in price is minimal as a percentage and people will pay it. I'm not so sure the same will be true for frogs like azureus and leucs.

What do you think?


----------



## Ed

ZookeeperDoug said:


> I can tell that the distribution of plants, clippings, and how we use them is going to become another big topic in the discussion about the spread of infectious amphibian diseases.



People need to keep this in perspective.... There are a lot of attempts (of which the vast majority are ineffective) to sterilize things placed into enclosures and then everyone ignores the fact that the fruit flies are free to wander their frog rooms... or that fungus gnats can find their way into the enclosures... 
Exchanging plants and clippings from one frogs enclosure to another is a risk but ignoring the free traveling invertebrates is kind of like ignoring the elephant in the room. This is one of the main reasons that quarantine needs to occur somewhere outside of the frog room or at least as far from the other frogs as possible. It really is a futile effort to quarantine and treat a frog(s) when the invertebrates are allowed to navigate from that enclosure to another one... If this is occuring, then you need to really think about what is going on in the collection. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed

Another point to add to the perspective.. people who don't have drains built into their enclosures (bulkhead fittings) and go through the room removing excess water from the enclosure via a siphon or turkey baster need to remember that this is a very easy method to transfer not only parasites and pathogens between enclosures but unwanted hitchhikers such as (possibly) nemerteans or even snails.. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Fantastica

If you're interested in free chytrid testing, send me a PM. I wrote up a proposal for research on the prevalence of Bd in the hobby, and we'll see if it gets approved. If everyone's interested in being anonymously associated with the research, I think it would open peoples eyes up to how prevalent it is in the hobby, and hopefully people will treat more often and reduce the risk of it spreading.




Brian317 said:


> What I'm curious about is how prevalent is Rana and Chytrid in captive populations. I know they both spread in the same fashion, but is one more common than the other? It is very hard to judge as some never swab due to either financial reasons or scared of the results.





srrrio said:


> Rather then going after people who have possibly infected frogs, it seems like it would be more helpful to form a group that is willing to submit their results to a central neutral party that could report findings so the we know more about numbers of animals with the various diseases. I remember I took part in the Treewalkers chytrid study which certainly made me feel better about my frogs and of other peoples at the time. Yet again, if there are widespread issues,.. what is going to happen?


----------



## frogface

Count me in. 

My little guys have completed their treatment will be getting retested again, soon. I'll continue to do this through my vet, for consistency, with this group. However, I have another room full of frogs that I would happily offer up for your research.


----------



## Judy S

could very well be an invaluable service....at the very least it may seriously open some eyes...having someone available at the shows/sales as volunteers could be huge...as a sheet of explanation could be handed out as sort of "care" sheet...good luck with your project...


----------



## frogface

If you get this project going, would you post up instructions for swabbing to make sure everyone is doing it right, and, as consistently as possible for a herd of cats?


----------



## Fantastica

frogface said:


> If you get this project going, would you post up instructions for swabbing to make sure everyone is doing it right, and, as consistently as possible for a herd of cats?


Absolutely, that's part of the plan! Need to make sure all of my results are valid. Have a meeting with the Chairperson tomorrow, so I should know by then. Testing should start in February.


----------



## frogface

Just a quick update. 

My frogs are scheduled to be re-swabbed on January 6th. Meanwhile, they are all doing very well. They eat and poop like good little frogs and they are growing fast. I have separated them into their own tubs due to a little bullying. I'm hoping that means I have at least 2 females (I have a male waiting for them).

Once they get the all clear for chytrid, I'll get their coccidia sorted out. 

eta: This is why these little frogs mean so much to me http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/breeding-eggs-tadpoles/74657-lorenzo-clutch-watch.html


----------



## frogface

For those interested, re-test date has been moved to January 13. Frogs continue to do well. I'll be glad when I can move them from their stark QT tubs to real tanks.


----------



## frogface

Test one and two positive for chytrid. Approximately one month s/p treatment and test three is negative!! YAY! 

I'll continue to keep them in their own room and handle them as if they are positive, for a while. But at least I can get them out of QT and put them into nice comfy tanks. 

(once again I have erased vet's info that might be personal)









eta: Here is the wiki link to the med they were treated with. It says oral or IV but this was prepared for the frogs as a soak, 5 min a day for 11 days. 
Itraconazole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## pafrogguy

That's great news!


----------



## FroggyKnight

AWESOME!!!! Thats great news to hear


----------



## frogface

Thanks guys! I really needed some good news and this has made my day


----------



## FroggyKnight

frogface said:


> Thanks guys! I really needed some good news and this has made my day


I know it made mine

John


----------



## Brian317

Congrats!!! Has to feel good


----------



## Nismo95

Woo! Congrats Kris! Looks like you're seeing light at the end of a very long tunnel eh?


----------



## Ed

frogface said:


> hey were treated with. It says oral or IV but this was prepared for the frogs as a soak, 5 min a day for 11 days.
> Itraconazole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A ten day bath in dosed itraconazole is the gold standard for treating frogs with chytrid. It's used on some very critically endangered species like Atelopus zeteki and Anaraxys baxteri. 

Congrats Kris, I'm looking forward to seeing froglets from those frogs. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## nish07

You'll be amazed how fast they get better. My frogs that I wrote up the chytrid treatment thing on 4 years ago or went from near death to healthy frog in 1-2 days.

I also went an extra day or two because it didn't seem to bother them. I wanted to be absolutely certain that they were free of it. Make sure you baste their eyes and backs when you treat for chytrid.

-Nish


----------



## nish07

Too tired to look up ranavirus and how it incubates/spreads etc. Would it be possible that the virus could be in a dormant stage for a false negative?

-Nish


----------



## ZookeeperDoug

Ed said:


> A ten day bath in dosed itraconazole is the gold standard for treating frogs with chytrid. It's used on some very critically endangered species like Atelopus zeteki and Anaraxys baxteri.
> 
> Congrats Kris, I'm looking forward to seeing froglets from those frogs.
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


We used it on our Peltophryne lemur at the EP zoo as well.

Kris, I'm relieved that you've weathered your storm and admire your courage and honesty through this whole ordeal. You opened a hell of a lot of people's eyes.


----------



## frogface

nish07 said:


> Too tired to look up ranavirus and how it incubates/spreads etc. Would it be possible that the virus could be in a dormant stage for a false negative?
> 
> -Nish


I know almost nothing about ranavirus except that a positive result can come from other things. Hmm I think Ed talked about that on this thread along with links to studies showing 12% false positive rate. I'm too tired to look it up too, lol. 

Maybe it was this thread: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/141506-quarantine-suggestions-discussion.html

Between multiple tests (mine and the breeder's) only one was positive for rana with all others being negative. In addition, all frogs appear to be healthy, despite various stressers. So I'm going with rana negative (and keeping my fingers crossed).


----------

