# I DISCOVERED A DANGER TO OUR FROGS...



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

The commonly used and trusted plant fertilizer, DynaGro, has a component called EDTA which has a tendency to bond with trace minerals such as iron, zinc and others. These minerals are needed by animals to function properly. If ingested over an extended period of time, this could result in some type of mineral deficiency. Maybe this explains SLS and the sudden 'floppy leg' syndrome despite calcium and vitamin supplementation....?

Ask anyone who have seen these problems with their frogs if they spray fertilizer on regularly, and return here to post your findings, if you would help me in this little research endeavor. 

I'm switching to dried bat guano... :shock:


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Typically you don't need fertilizer for vivariums. Frog poo and natural decomposition is typically enough.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

I have been told that before as well, but since I am just setting up the tank, I figure a couple doses of fertilizer will help the plants adjust to the new environment and get a head start.

The frogs are free of parasites/bugs and ready to go in the tank.


----------



## evolvstll (Feb 17, 2007)

Hence, quarantine. One should be setting up a tank before getting frogs (does not happen offen). I have never added fertilizer to my coco fiber and wood chip husk tanks, they all are doing well. 
Just a thought, I tend to spray my glass with water and wipe with paper towerls. I spray RO water or distilled water in the tanks (no hard deposits on glass). If I have a water feature: moving water; add indian almond leaf water (change every 4-6 weeks),. Stagnant water: change every week.
Tanks are planted well..............................


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

evolvstll said:


> Hence, quarantine. One should be setting up a tank before getting frogs (does not happen offen). I have never added fertilizer to my coco fiber and wood chip husk tanks, they all are doing well.
> Just a thought, I tend to spray my glass with water and wipe with paper towerls. I spray RO water or distilled water in the tanks (no hard deposits on glass). If I have a water feature: moving water; add indian almond leaf water (change every 4-6 weeks),. Stagnant water: change every week.
> Tanks are planted well..............................


Good to know---I was just going to spray on this weak organic bat guano solution once in a while rather than mix it into the substrate. What I am worried about is froggers using DynaGro by spraying it onto the plants and then the poor frogs suck it up along with dinner---and the tadpoles soaking in it...not good. 

(By the way, EDTA is also in your foods and drinks, hygenic items---you name it. We're a nation of toxic waste guinea pigs and blind to the danger of it. "Not tested on humans." You won't read that on any label... :x ...OK, getting off the soapbox now...)


----------



## DizzyD (Sep 19, 2006)

This is a great little post. In the first tank that I ever set up I used a few drops of that stuff mixed in w/ the substrate(that was it, I now use it to help out that house plants and the Ivy cuttings I take in my backyard.....non-viv), and waited a month and change until I added a frog. There were no ill effects that I noticed, but I could be wrong. I never used it on any other vivs again though, I just added lots of FF's and springs to an unihabitated tank, the dead bugs seemed to be enough fertilizer to start.
That's a good heads up for beginners though, if you wanna use fertilizer, just let a FF culture die, don't feed from it. Dump dead bugs in w/ substrate mix, I bet that plants will thank you.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Fertilizers have long been suspected in amphibian deformities, this IS NOT NEW NEWS! Many frogs can breathe cutaneously(through the skin) and can absorb h20 the same way. Why put chemicals on your frogs? Would you drink fertilizer? even organic fertilizer? Any good user of fertilizers know that you are supposed to flush your crops for at least a week before harvest with only water to remove excess fertilizer residue. You are not supposed to consume it, and animals are NOT SUPPOSED TO COME INTO CONTACT WITH IT!


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

frogparty said:


> Fertilizers have long been suspected in amphibian deformities, this IS NOT NEW NEWS! Many frogs can breathe cutaneously(through the skin) and can absorb h20 the same way. Why put chemicals on your frogs? Would you drink fertilizer? even organic fertilizer? Any good user of fertilizers know that you are supposed to flush your crops for at least a week before harvest with only water to remove excess fertilizer residue. You are not supposed to consume it, and animals are NOT SUPPOSED TO COME INTO CONTACT WITH IT!


It's funny that this is not new news, yet some very popular dart frog suppliers are selling this fertilizer and not contraindicating it for use in a terrarium. Perhaps they have not read the ingredient label...?

You seem like a revolutionary of sorts---maybe you can contact them and advise against selling it at all for terrariums.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Yes they have read the ingredient label, and know that ANY fertilizer can be a risk, which is why they recomend to use it diluted only if really needed. Constant exposure to ANY fertilizer - organic or otherwise - can cause issues with frogs because the chemicals are in too high a concentration for the frogs to handle. People tend to "push" plants, and many fertilizers are sold to encourage this, but in terrariums it is rarely needed unless it is a tank with low frog density, and typically with epiphytes only (which normally get water with nutrients in them but we give them pretty much pure water...). When used correctly, the fertilizer isn't an issue... it's just that many people seem to think the fertilizer is necessary to have pretty plants.

I don't recomend fertilizing a tank unless you see a plant with a clear deficiency... which typically is due to a mistake in how the tank was set up more than a fertilizer issue. The plants don't need the boost when first put in the tank because there should be plenty of nutrients in the tank, fertilizers are for when they've depleted what was there.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

Many people break down their tanks every year or two to give them a thorough cleaning. At this point, you could fertilize if you wanted to before the frogs go back in. 
Once again I would like to point out that better plant choices initially will prevent problems with under fertilization. 
AND dyna grow sucks


----------



## flyangler18 (Oct 26, 2007)

> Many people break down their tanks every year or two to give them a thorough cleaning. At this point, you could fertilize if you wanted to before the frogs go back in.


I'm not so sure 'many people' are breaking down tanks that often, if at all.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I have read posts from people here who say they do this. I still think the point of this thread should be that people shouldn't need fertilizers in their tanks, and that even with an organic fertilizer under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should said fertilizer come into contact with your frogs, and a little better research on which plants to use( many threads here on the board) and where to put them will alleviate many of these " fertilizer issues" which I suspect are actually more akin to lighting, stagnant air and poor substrate to begin with. Just because you can buy " tropical plants" at any supermarket or nursery doesn't mean they wil;l thrive in an enclosed system like a vivarium. You don't need to spend a fortune on orchids, and broms should never need to be fertilized while frogs are in the tank. There are plenty of "tried and true" plants constantly touted here like the creeping ficus that are bomb proof and thrive on a little neglect. Someone else here suggested using ocean forest potting soil. This is a great ORGANIC soil from foxfarm, and even though it is expensive, its not like it has to be replaced after it is in the viv, and old leaves and frog poop should supply all the rest you need


----------



## flyangler18 (Oct 26, 2007)

> I still think the point of this thread should be that people shouldn't need fertilizers in their tanks, and that even with an organic fertilizer under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should said fertilizer come into contact with your frogs, and a little better research on which plants to use( many threads here on the board) and where to put them will alleviate many of these " fertilizer issues" which I suspect are actually more akin to lighting, stagnant air and poor substrate to begin with.


I don't disagree with anything you say on the subject of fertilizers, just felt it prudent to mention that an annual or biannual full-breakdown for maintenance (barring a disease outbreak or similar) is not common practice in the hobby. A fully matured viv needn't be broken down at all for cleaning.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

True. I just remember reading in a few posts that some people do do this. A tank like mine where nothing is fixed and no background makes it easier to do, but I never intended for it to be permanent ( my learning curve viv) And even then, I just wipe the glass w/paper towels and siphon excess h20. I only have gravel as a substrate, which stays super clean with all the misting and siphining. With the vivs I am working on now with siliconed wood and tree fern panels, as well as a mixed substrate of tree fern, spagnum, oak leaves, and charcoal chunks I can see how it would be much more difficult. 
Hopefully this fertilizer issue has been adressed thoroughly now. 
From my experience here are some bombproof tank tested plants ( not orchids)
Ficus-just about any one that is small enough for a viv should do just fine
cryptanthus- terrestrial broms from brazil good for planting or mounting
neoregalia-good broms *stoloniferous ones make for super easy mounting*
vresia- there are a few small enough for tanks. my leucs love one they have w/black stripes on dark green leaves. Root "baskets" form around the bases of these for me.awesome broms
guzmania-very few minis, but worth the look for another great brom
baby's tears- great creeper that can have wet feet. needs good light to flourish
riccia- great as long as it is wet and in good light
spike moss(selaginella?) super as long as it doesn't stay soggy. an upper level plant
bladderworts(utricularia?) super for gravel bottom tanks. neat orchid like flowers. loves it wet(needs) subterranean traps catch nematodes and other soil or h2o borne bugs
wandering jew-indestructable but grows too fast. root cuttings right into the gravel


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

Couple of thoughts...

I don't know any long term keepers that purposefully break down their tanks yearly... breaking down a tank disturbs and stresses the frogs, and will often throw them off breeding if they are breeding. Unless you have a good reason for doing so, it sounds more like a case of PPP. The idea behind the vivaria we set up for these frogs is a long term mini ecosystem that involves little work after it's established... trimm the plants, feed the frogs, remove froglets/tads when they overpopulate, etc. This is also why many are so paranoid about what goes in the tanks, so they don't have to rip it down later. Breaking down the tank yearly is not a recomended practice... but then again you can read posts of people who want to clean their tanks weekly because that's what they do with their snakes (in which Ed posts some great papers on why you should modify your tanks as little as possibly after being established).

The fertilizer issue has been addressed thoroughly now, but not with a solid consensus... any terrestrial plant, or plant pulling it's nutrients from it's roots in the substrate should not need to be fertilized (when the tank is properly cared for by rinsing debris into the substrate and leaf litter cosntantly breaking down and being added to, and a good substrate is used from the begining) - this is one of the reasons Ficus pumilia does so well is because even tho it climbs all over the tank the main plant is rooted in the substrate. In small tanks with most PDFs, there should be no issue with the majority of epiphytes because the frogs drag debris all over the place and if the plants are rinsed you're rinsing debris off the leaves to where the plants take their nutrients (axils/roots).

Any epiphyte with no connection to nutrient rich substrate, and in a low frog density large tank that is lacking debris for nutrients (but is given everything else it needs for optimum growth) is at risk for burning itself out and may need to be lightly dosed with fertilizer... but we rarely have tanks on this scale because honestly, who has tropical tanks that large with that low a frog density in the US? It's not a case of never use, it's a case of having to be knowledgable about the cases of when you should, and how to do it... very low does very occassionally. There are rarely cases of absolute nevers in this hobby, and fertilizing isn't an absolute never... but if you have to ask if you need to fertilize it's almost a guarentee you don't. If you really know your plants, their needs, and what they are getting out of their set up, you would know when it's ok.


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

The use of chelating agents such as EDTA to complex metals in formulated materials is quite common. While on the surface this may look alarming, the association constant of a positively charged atom (metallic elements) with a chelator such as EDTA is very concentration dependent. As one sprays a diluted solution into the viv followed by even more dilution with misting, the metal-EDTA complex will dissociate to free the metal ion. The EDTA in turn will complex with more commonly available cations (positively charged atoms) such as sodium, potassium etc. So no long term problem..

Futhermore, a review of the MSDS will show that the level of EDTA is quite low relative to all cationic materials in the preparation. In addition, given the level of supplements normally provided to our frogs, the small amount of EDTA will be of no consequence in terms of sequestration of metallic elements.

Now having said all this, your frogs will provide the majority of fertilizing potential to a viv and use of exogenous fertilizers such as DynaGro can be viewed in terms of the need to spot fertilize plants or to start up the viv.

Bill


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

As an interesting pseudo-tangent, it bears remembering that the poison is in the dose.

Guess what a treatment for lead poisoning is in humans?

EDTA.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

The frog will directly fertilize the plants (frog poo! and dragging detritus around the tank), or indirectly (we feed FFs to our frogs, do you honestly think they eat all of them? They tend to go up near the light and die... great for the epis). If the frog isn't doing the job, spot fertilizing is all you should need... but this is a maintenence thing so I'm missing the point of using it on start up unless you're desperate for fast growth (not all that great for the plant).


----------



## Ben E (Oct 1, 2004)

you sure you are not jumping the gun a little bit there? This tank....








has been set up for nearly 2 years and run without soil on recycled water with added fertilizer that is misted over the frogs and plants 6 times a day. I have a tank full of imitators that were parent reared in there and they seem all exceptionally healthy...








What about micronutrients? does the frogs poo contain enough boron, manganese, molybdenum, etc? maybe it does. maybe it doesnt... i really like the two little fishies floraplan for micronutrient additions and occasionally dose with other planted aquarium fertilizers. I always take conductivity readings to make sure my nutes are where they should be and start with R>O for my baseline. Try growing a soil less tank under 200 watts for longer than a year and tell me if frog poo is enough.....i just think that outright saying use of fertilizer has no place in the hobby might be a bit extreme....


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I just said that spraying fertilizer on your frogs is a bad idea. I think if you wouldn't drink it, don't spray it on your frogs. 200 watts? seems a little excessive, what size tank? But whatever, keep spraying chemicals on your pets if you want, I will choose not to. 6x per day foliar feeding? Thats not weed you are growing don't you think you could do with less fertilizer? 

here is an idea for a soilless tank for you, how about a viv on top of an ebb and flow hydro setup where nutrient h2o from a resevoir is pumped up into a tray containing the plant roots to be fertilized, but seperated from the floor of the viv somehow. It wouldn't be foliar feeding, which I agree is far more efficient, but you could fertilize your plants wityhout having the ferts touch the frogs.

Remember that bioaccumulation of harmful salts and heavy metals etc can take a long time to show the detrimental effects, sometimes even a generation or two. especially when generations are so closely spaced and longevity is long (10 years is long for such a tiny animal, especially since many small rainforest animals don't live long compared to say animals fom the desert)

I am a large proponent of epiphytes in the viv specifically because of the reasons mentioned by me and others above. Use them on the ground or mounted, they will give you less problems in the end. 

Once again there is STRONG STRONG evidence that fertilizers in the water are a cause of aquatic amphibian deformities. Why take a risk

I have been growing plants of all kinds for years as a professional organic farmer, hobbyist orchid breeder and once upon a time a pro grower of certain plants that smell like two skunks getting amorous under a eucalyptus tree. I have encountered many philosophies about fertilizers and their uses, both organic and non, and have seen the end results of all, and I can say without hesitation that my minimalist fertilizer approach has lead me to equal or greater success with all my crops than my contemporaries with almost none of the headache associated with under or over fertilizing. 

I will continue to rest easy in the knowledge that my froggies are happy and fat and all my plantlife looks great throughout my whole house, and none of my frogs will get cancer from fertilizer residue. 

I have no more to say about this


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

I know, as a general principle, that when man messes with anything found in nature, it tends to cause complications as a result. Take the medicalization of childbirth, for instance. Drugs that are essentially brothers to cocaine and heroin are currently used in laboring mothers more than 90% of the time, yet know one realizes the inherent danger of drugging up their baby for the sake of convenience. Death is a visible risk; genetic and brain/tissue damage are invisible or difficult to detect at best. Therefore, there are other possibly unseen dangers by using similar components in a vivarium---if it's not found in nature, why take the risk?

After reading all these posts and seeing the success from both sides, I would rather leave man-altered chemicals out of the equation and out of the tank. There will always be a never-ending issue on this topic, but since I started this post, I say that I still hold to the same opinion----reduce the possibility of unnecessary risk from man-altered/man made chemicals and enjoy a better outcome. No amount of posts after this point will say something that hasn't already been said. But thanks for all your input---it has been very enlightening.


----------



## Ben E (Oct 1, 2004)

ever read the back of the supplement you are using? what about those salts?


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

Ben E said:


> ever read the back of the supplement you are using? what about those salts?


I am using thousand-year old bat guano. No ingredient list. Just dead bugs made into poop and used in first setting up the substrate. I can't tell to whom you are responding, but that's what I am doing.


----------



## Ben E (Oct 1, 2004)

i meant your fruit fly supplement....also i think that the link of fertilizer to frog deformities has to do with excess nitrogen and phosphate causing algae blooms causing snail booms causing tremetode blooms which in turn infect the tadpole causing deformities


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

In general, adding fertilizer is counterproductive to the goals of a naturalistic vivarium. Vivaria tend to establish healthy and sustainable ecosystems much better when there is strong competition for limited nutrient resources. A lot has been posted on this in the past. But there is a long laundry list of problems that can come from adding fertilizer and a very, very, short list of benefits. I have often commented that I think anyone getting into naturalistic vivariums should throw away their horticulture books and pretty much forget everything they have read in there. Horticulture is designed to maximize plant growth to produce some crop (fruit, foliage, pretty flowers, etc.). The techniques that maximize crop production are pretty much the opposite of the techniques for developing a diverse and flourshing ecosystem.


----------



## Ben E (Oct 1, 2004)

we supplement our frogs because they are not in nature, why is it different to supplement our plants? if we are trying to shrink a working ecology why not try to optimize it? also i run my ppm at about 250 ppm....this is lower than many tap water sources around the country, my salts are just a little bit more specific, i know im not growing corn, im growing the air turn over and water recycling system.....planted aquariums and reef tanks benefit from supplements and some specimens require it....how does the addition of supplementals go against naturalistic vivariums? you add flies for the frogs no?


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

Ben E said:


> i meant your fruit fly supplement....also i think that the link of fertilizer to frog deformities has to do with excess nitrogen and phosphate causing algae blooms causing snail booms causing tremetode blooms which in turn infect the tadpole causing deformities


Interesting---I know that they say you should limit the amount of powder that goes into the tank---I am using herptivite. I looked on the label and I don't see any weird preservatives like the cheaper brands have----i.e. it says no phosphorus. Maybe that's the reason why. Typically plants will break down the nitrates fast enough in the tank to reduce the risk of algae blooms, thus creating the necessity of waiting a month for plants to be well-established before adding frogs, poop and other foods to the tank that could cause an imbalance like an algae bloom. Good point---less is more...


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

Ben E said:


> we supplement our frogs because they are not in nature, why is it different to supplement our plants? if we are trying to shrink a working ecology why not try to optimize it? also i run my ppm at about 250 ppm....this is lower than many tap water sources around the country, my salts are just a little bit more specific, i know im not growing corn, im growing the air turn over and water recycling system.....planted aquariums and reef tanks benefit from supplements and some specimens require it....how does the addition of supplementals go against naturalistic vivariums? you add flies for the frogs no?


Well, I do admire the way your tank looks---the plants certainly look optimally healthy. My point is---there can be unseen damage done to organisms when exposed to a third-party substance. Like, what if you do marijuana just once? Sure, you may seem to be OK in the long haul, but there are unseen effects. The point here is---if it's not essential, don't do it. Childbirth drugs are a luxury---humans create endorphins to reduce pain naturally when relaxed during birth, just as commercial fertilizer is a luxury since the tank's inhabitants produce fertilizer naturally. Nature has a balance for a reason. If we grow our plants out huge and beautiful right from the get-go---it looks nice, although you can acheive the same results over a longer period of time naturally. But is it worth the potential risk of harm to the fragile ecosystem? Think what they do to cows for beef---pump them full of steroids. That affects us---everything is affected on down the food chain. Frogs are not excluded from this natural law of cause-and-effect.


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

Ben, what fertilizer do you use in how dilute is it. I've been thinking of adding a little salt to my distilled deionized water, and using fertilizer as a salt source could accomplish 2 goals at once. How do your frogs react to being sprayed with the water?
-mark


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

many chemicals are only available as "salts" the "salts" in your vitamins are "salts" because that is how they are synthesized. Lets take mescalin for example. almost impossible to synthesize and the end result is actually mescalin sulphate ( a "salt" form of a chemical) you can't get it out of solution without first turning it into a salt to percipitate it out of solution. Any synthetic vitamins made in a lab are most likely salts of the vitamins in order to get them out of solution. Same for the inorganic or processed ingredients in fertilizers. I wish I was more caught up on my chemistry so I could explain it better. 
I love what was said about ferts being counter productive to a " naturalistic" viv. I agree. In nature nature provides all. Noone goes through the rainforest and sprays ferts on the plants because they don't thinkthey are doing well enough. 
Amphibian deformities don't always start at the tadpole level, and there are nitrates and phosphates in all fertilizers. N-P-K NITROGEN PHOSPHOROUS POTASSIUM. :roll:

And using a good soil like ocean forest with all the good micronutrients you need will solve many problems for you. There is a big difference in ferts in the soil and ferts in h2o. If you are really gung ho on ferts in your tank, why not add something like rainbow mix( a granular time release organic fertilizer for grow or bloom) to your substrate instead? 

Remember, organic fertilizers are available to plants at all times and are released by bacterial breakdown. Inorganic fertilizers are only available when there is adequate water in the substrate to dissolve it, and as a result inorganic fertilizers are more prone to cause salt accumulation in and around your soil.

Also what about mycorhizal fungi? I use these tabs on all my plants and they increase the surface area of your roots by a factor of 10 which means 10x the absorbtion powers meaning you need less water and ferts( I use a product called plant success tabs)If you look at healthy forest soil it can be up to 90 percent fungal hyphae, making an interconnected web stretching through vast areas of forest and connecting all the trees they come into contact with. Orchids can't survive without them in the wild, no seeds would germinate.


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

As far as I know, a salt is just the dry (non aqueuos) form of an ionic substance. If it is bound to H+, it is an acid, OH- is a base, and any other ion it is a salt. What I really meant by my comment was that I wanted to add to ionic strength to the water I use, because the frogs don't seem happy when sprayed with it. I suppose I should also test the pH.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

my frogs used to hate being sprayed, even with britta filtered water. Then I switched to rain water I collect that never touches roofing or metal and collects in a rain barrel I clean every time it gets dry. Now my frogs come out for their misting. I hate the tap water at my house which is why I always used to let it sit for a day, then britta filter it twice for myself as well as the frogs. They LOVE rainwater


----------



## Ben E (Oct 1, 2004)

frogparty said:


> I love what was said about ferts being counter productive to a " naturalistic" viv. I agree. In nature nature provides all. Noone goes through the rainforest and sprays ferts on the plants because they don't thinkthey are doing well enough.


Ii know, this is the point, we are not dealing with nature so the vivarium operator must take up slack where in nature it would not be needed. Composting debris, and nutrient containing mists are constantly dripping and collecting on epiphytes in the wild. In fact, nitrogen sampling among epiphytes grown in composting debris vs bare rooted show very similar amounts of nitrogen, displaying that epiphytes "feed" off of the mist in the air much more than their substrate.



frogparty said:


> many chemicals are only available as "salts" the "salts" in your vitamins are "salts" because that is how they are synthesized. .. Same for the inorganic or processed ingredients in fertilizers.


I wasnt asking what a salt was, just why the salts in your ff dust are ok but the salts in a fertilizer are not ok? 



frogparty said:


> Amphibian deformities don't always start at the tadpole level, and there are nitrates and phosphates in all fertilizers. N-P-K NITROGEN PHOSPHOROUS POTASSIUM. :roll:


are the frog deformities that are linked to fertilizers happening at a stage beyond tadpole stage? i couldnt find anything. There are plenty of plant fertilizers in which the macronutrients are not included such as the floraplan i mentioned above as well as many iron supplements. here is a cut and paste from two little fishies "FloraPlan - A NEW Trace element Supplement with micronutrients in compounds easily utilized by plants and fish. Developed by Julian Sprung. Activates root growth and fosters colorful foliage, healthy roots and stems. For beautiful planted aquariums, paludariums, water gardens or ponds. No Nitrates or Phosphates."



frogparty said:


> And using a good soil like ocean forest with all the good micronutrients you need will solve many problems for you. There is a big difference in ferts in the soil and ferts in h2o. If you are really gung ho on ferts in your tank, why not add something like rainbow mix( a granular time release organic fertilizer for grow or bloom) to your substrate instead?


as stated above epiphytes sequester their nutrients through the air in fine mist and drips. Also the product you are recommending is meant for one short season of abundant plant growth, what happens when the micronutrients are sequestered? you have to tear it down and start over, by constantly leaching dilute portions of these "fertilizers" i can mimic more closely what is happening in the wild.



markbudde said:


> Also what about mycorhizal fungi? I use these tabs on all my plants and they increase the surface area of your roots by a factor of 10 which means 10x the absorbtion powers meaning you need less water and ferts( I use a product called plant success tabs)If you look at healthy forest soil it can be up to 90 percent fungal hyphae, making an interconnected web stretching through vast areas of forest and connecting all the trees they come into contact with. Orchids can't survive without them in the wild, no seeds would germinate.


i innoculate with mycorhizal as well.....and to just add one more thing i would be really interested to see your nitrate levels in your drainage water, as i believe that i probably run lower macronutrient levels in my system than in yours. When plants are growing well they tend to keep things pretty tidy, and i can monitor how the salts are being used by the plants by monitoring my reservoir conductivity. I have built several plant filters for ponds and actually would have LOWER nutrient levels in the water when i would fertilize!


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ben E said:


> we supplement our frogs because they are not in nature, why is it different to supplement our plants? if we are trying to shrink a working ecology why not try to optimize it? also i run my ppm at about 250 ppm....this is lower than many tap water sources around the country, my salts are just a little bit more specific, i know im not growing corn, im growing the air turn over and water recycling system.....planted aquariums and reef tanks benefit from supplements and some specimens require it....how does the addition of supplementals go against naturalistic vivariums? you add flies for the frogs no?


Hi Ben,

You know I'm not trying to knock what you do. Clearly your results speak for themselves. But there are a few things that I think can get the average vivarist in trouble when we start supplementing with nutrients. First is simple overdose. Nitrogen is toxic to frogs so whe don't want to have too much of it swimming around. Also, many mineral and nutrients are tightly conserved in ecosystems meaning that once they enter the system, they are not transported back out easily. Phosphorous is a good example of this. For those nutrients, you have to be careful of continually supplementing because they accumulate. In other words, not all nutrients are used up and lost at the same rate. More important though is the relationship between nutrient availability and diversity. Numerous studies have shown that fertilization of climax communities in ecosystems tends to increase productivity (the production of biomass) and decrease plant species diversity. This is because plants in climax communities tend to be very good competitors for limiting resources which is accomplished largely through niche partitioning. In other words, when everyone is hungry for a resource, they have a way of fighting for it so that a number of species manage to latch on to enough to survive. But when that limiting resource becomes abundant, there are typically one or two species that exhibit rampant growth and crowd out the other species. Grow a heart-leafed Philodendron in a mixed vivarium with plenty of fertilizer, and it will grow abundantly and tend to require frequent trimming to keep it from overcrowding other plants. But grow the same plant in a nutrient limited environment, and it will not show those aggressive tendencies.

It all comes down to how much manipulation you want to do in a vivarium. To me, a naturalistic vivarium takes advantage of as many ecological mechanisms as possible to create a semi-sustainable, and relatively low maintainence system. Abundant plant growth, and aggressive growth of dominant species are not things that I find desireable in a naturalistic setup. Using the principles of ecology, it is possible to develop systems that maintain themselves reasonably well without a lot of inputs and manipulation.

There are also some major differences between aquaria and vivaria. The nutrients in vivaria can be stored in the substrate and biomass, and perpetually cycle because there is nothing equivalent to regular water changes which dilute nutrient concentrations in aquaria. What nutrient leaching does occur through water drainage and plant clipping is easily compensated for by the addition of feeder insects etc. Also, there are some pretty strong export pressures in aquaria. CO2 tends to escape into the atmosphere for example. We supplement the frogs because we house them in boxes much smaller than the space needed to support a complete food web that would sustain them. But even here, it is looking like by providing mineral substrates, thriving and sustainable soil microfauna populations, and UVB lighting, we can reduce the dependence on artificial vitamin and mineral supplements. I don't think we are to a point where we can confidently eliminate supplements, but by working with natural processes, we may be moving in that direction.

In summary, natural climax and sub-climax ecosystems tend to be limited by resources. Three commonly limiting resources are nitrogen, light, and water. In the wet tropics, nitrogen, phosphorous, and light tend to be commonly limiting resources. By limiting the resources in a vivarium, we do 4 things. We more faithfully mimic the conditions found in nature, we ensure there will be strong competition for nitrogen which eliminates the risk of problems with toxic nitrogen compounds, we reduce the total biomass production of the vivarium which reduces the frequency of pruning and its related disturbance to frogs, and we promote a system of strong resource competition which naturally supports increased plant diversity.

That doesn't mean I think you can't have a healthy fertilized vivarium. But I think for the majority of vivarists, not fertilizing is safer and more beneficial. Obviously for those who really know what they are doing, and like to put in the effort required to do it right, it can produce very nice results. But you can have very healthy and abundant plant growth in a terrestrial vivarium without nutrient supplementation. You can do it in a planted aquarium too if you use ecological processes to your advantage. I can't really comment on the question about optimizing because what is optimal depends on your goals. For me, an optimal vivarium is healthy and natural looking growth that supports a diversity of species with a minimum of effort and scissor action on my part.


----------



## Ben E (Oct 1, 2004)

i do agree with you mostly brent, but i think that i could argue that a recirculated recycled mist system that can go 2 months without water addition is pretty low maintenance. 



bbrock said:


> Three commonly limiting resources are nitrogen, light, and water. In the wet tropics, nitrogen, phosphorous, and light tend to be commonly limiting resources.


I would argue that my supplemented system is closer to being nitrogen limited than a low light unsupplemented system. When i open the door and stick my head in there and take a deep breath i am treated with the crisp clean smell of photosynthesis. Why dont we start posting up some actual nutrient readings???? im sure ive got some test kits around....

I was just put off my the alarmist nature of the thread's subject line and the alarmist response by some people. The original post was looking for examples of fertilized tanks and i have been fertilizing in some sort since '94 and have never seen deformed frogs from it. I have one tank that is over 10 years now with the original frogs that has been fertilized..Maybe some others have had deformities? I just dont think there is a huge threat in using many of these products and i have many examples of the contrary. What about the populations of tricolor that get routinely fertilized at abg? they seem to be doing ok.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Something to think about along these lines... there is increasing evidence that nitrate is a problem as it can cause other problems. 

http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0019384/hamlin_h.pdf

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... e_in_Water

see http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/45/1/19 


A lot of this information is new but its something to keep in mind. To reduce levels of nitrate and nitrite in systems at work I am moving them to reconstituted RO as this will reduce the initial level of nitrogen input from chloramines. 
If these nitrogen compounds are rapidly taken up and sequestered then there is little chance for harm but if the system is running like some fish tanks where the nitrate levels can be very high then a second look maybe needed. 

Ed


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

Ben E said:


> I was just put off my the alarmist nature of the thread's subject line and the alarmist response by some people. The original post was looking for examples of fertilized tanks and i have been fertilizing in some sort since '94 and have never seen deformed frogs from it. .


Actually, my focus was not so much on fertilizing as it was on the chemical component in DynaGro known as EDTA. I have already researched this man-made chemical and it is not the best thing to put into a confined ecosystem, let alone in your own body. 

This conversation has evolved into the woes and joys of fertilizing, but that was not my original intention. We'll just see what happens...


----------



## Ben E (Oct 1, 2004)

sounds good


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ben E said:


> i do agree with you mostly brent, but i think that i could argue that a recirculated recycled mist system that can go 2 months without water addition is pretty low maintenance.


I didn't mean to suggest that your methods are not low maintenance. Although I am curious about how often you have to trim vegetation. I've personally had some aweful experience using recycled water with egg feeders but that doesn't mean that someone that knows what they are doing can't make it work.



> I would argue that my supplemented system is closer to being nitrogen limited than a low light unsupplemented system. When i open the door and stick my head in there and take a deep breath i am treated with the crisp clean smell of photosynthesis. Why dont we start posting up some actual nutrient readings???? im sure ive got some test kits around....


I agree. Because we have terrestrial systems and terrestrial plants, our vivs have a nitrogen cycling capacity that far exceeds the average aquarium. But if plants are growing slowly because of low light, it means the nitrogen is not being utilized by the plants. But you can have high productivity and nitrogent limited systems, as well as low productivity nitrogen limited systems. Low productivity means less trimming and less tendency for a few plants to crowd out the others. It's all a matter of finding the right balance that works for you.

I've been shopping for test kits but it isn't quite in the budget right now. However, I'm not sure what the numbers would tell us other than to compare nutrient levels with those found in wet tropical forests (or whatever habitat we are emulating). To me, the best indicator is the growth of the plants. And success depends on what you are after in a vivarium. I tend to like to see healthy and steady growth, but not particularly lush or vigorous growth. So I'm looking for that balance between healthy plants, and stiff competition that makes each plant have to fight for a living.



> I was just put off my the alarmist nature of the thread's subject line and the alarmist response by some people. The original post was looking for examples of fertilized tanks and i have been fertilizing in some sort since '94 and have never seen deformed frogs from it. I have one tank that is over 10 years now with the original frogs that has been fertilized..Maybe some others have had deformities? I just dont think there is a huge threat in using many of these products and i have many examples of the contrary. What about the populations of tricolor that get routinely fertilized at abg? they seem to be doing ok.


I guess I see the alarm as being somewhat warranted. I agree that the deformity issue seems pretty low on the list of potential problems to me. Obviously people with your level of experience and understanding of vivaria can experiment and succeed with things that have potential dangers involved. But I just did a quick count in my head of the number of people in the US hobby who are maintaining vivaria at your level, and I came up with only one. For the rest of us, I think it is far safer and more beneficial to forego the fertilizer. Typically the original substrate in a viv (even crappy substrate) contains enough nutrients to supply the plant's needs for years. The occassional plant may show signs of deficiency and can be either spot supplemented, or moved to a location where it receives what it wants. Using fertilizer in a vivarium may be a bit like digging a big hole. You might be able to dig a hole really fast using dynamite if you know what you are doing. But for the rest of us, a shovel is a much safer approach even if it takes more time.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I will try to get my h2o levels checked for you, but I siphon 2x per week now since I have been misting heavily to establish some new riccia as well as to keep my leucs pumping out a clutch a week.

I can check it at the hatchery, ut will be gone on vacation for a few days. The vast majority of the poo in my tank gets deposited in the broms, and I have some cuttings rooted right into the gravel bottom that try their part to get all the nutrients they can.

One thing I will say is that with that recirc system, you are using progressively less and less ferts as the plants use them up, and as long as you are scrubbing whatever holds the water when you put new solution in, salt buildup would be less of a problem with ferts.
I am glad someone else besides me uses these mycorhizal fungi tabs. I have been super impressed by the results.
When I use epiphytes in a tank, they are not put into soil, but mounted on wood with a little or no moss. I like to put wood of different sizes with different epis around in the tank, and then if you want to plant like a begonia or something like that, I would make a little hidden pot for it and plant it

I really didn't want to start arguing with anyone, just concerned that animal that can breathe and absorb water cutaneously would absorb something that could be detrimental.
Research by the wdfw has shown adult amphibians put into high runoff areas, like drainage ditches and golf course ponds especially, can develop skin problems and eventually tumors. I will try to cite some research here if you want, I know I can find it again.
 I still think some kind off ebb and flow viv system is the per fect answer to this issue. 
The fact is that there are far more stomata on the undersides of the leaves of plants than the tops, and stomata are where the ferts are absorbed, and unless you are adding some kind of wetting agent to your ferts, it runs off the surface very quickly. Most misting systems I see here are misting the tops of the leaves, not the undersides. 
Using an ebb and flow tray and pump to pump ferts to plant roots without contacting frogs seems like an elegant solution here. Plant all your plants you want to fertilize on the bottom, and fill the upper level with epis. All your hungry plants can get ferts, while the epis that don't need them, along with the frogs, can go fertilizer free  
And if you are fertilizing plants outside of a tank, let me again recommend botanicare's pure blend pro fertilizer. Far superior to dyna grow, which I suspect has a following here only because vendors sell it.
The composted seabird guano makes it impossible to list as an omri product, but it is all organic. My orchids love it,(I fertilize only veryminimally because many of my orchids are grown in pure pumice with no nutrient content, or to maximize the size of flower spikes on some of my show plants) as well as my garden. I have strawberries the size of doorknobs (almost)


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

frogparty said:


> I
> I am glad someone else besides me uses these mycorhizal fungi tabs. I have been super impressed by the results.


Another thing worth mentioning is that mycorrhizae tend to have more of a benefit in a nutrient limited environment. Bascially the symbiosis is a trade-off where the plant gives the fungus carbon (sugar) in exchange for nutrient transport (most notably this is phosphorous but can include other nutrients as well). The plant benefits because it can then access nutrients that are out of reach of its own roots. But when the plant has access to abundant nutrients through its own root system, it makes no sense to be so generous with the sugar it produces. At that point, the fungus really has nothing to offer the plant since the plant is already living in the lap of luxury.


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

In an optimal setting I agree you can't see a big difference, but I think you can still tell a bit. I just wanted to bring it up here because it is a great way to boost the vigor of your plants w/o ferts for all those reading this trying to get good ideas on how to perk their plants up. Just a few years ago hardly anyone knew about mycorhizae it seems. Now it is becoming more widespread in use and their are many many studies now to look at to see the results. 
I think its interesting that most rainforests have quite poor soils comparitively. Temperate as well as tropical. Makes the fungal relationship just that much more important to the big trees as well as the little plants. I have had great luck adding a tab to my terrestrial orchid pots( paphiopedilums) and the flower size and color quality have increased noticeably. Because I am worried about fert burn on the orchids and so fertilize as little as possible, having the mycorrhizae there to make the most of it makes me happy, and saves me money in ferts


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

And as for the micronutrient thing... I would like to refer to the "ultimate clay based soils " thread here and show the dedication some of these people have shown to getting the most complex micronutrients in their substrate. Not only to benefit the plants, but also the tiny springtail sizeed bugs that establish themselves in mature vivs that frogs and especially froglets feed on. A neat thing to get into, but there comes a point when things just get too complicated for my taste. 
In a soilless viv, it is a mute point though. 
What do you think of the ebb and flow table idea? Maybe I should ressurect some old hydro gear and set one up for an experiment.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Actually, the research on mycrorrhizae has been going on for decades and their importance in natural ecosystems has been known for quite some time. But I believe it has been only relatively recently that they have been explored for use in horitcultural applications. Despite their importance in natural ecosystems, I still question their value in traditional horticulture. However, their influence on soil structute and nutrient availability is complex and they likely do play many roles even in well-fed systems.

As for the ebb and flow idea, I think it depends on the ecosystem being mimicked. Nutrients inputs among ecosystems vary and periodic pulses of inputs can be very important in some. In others, not so much.


----------



## Matt Mirabello (Aug 29, 2004)

elmoisfive said:


> Futhermore, a review of the MSDS will show that the level of EDTA is quite low relative to all cationic materials in the preparation. In addition, given the level of supplements normally provided to our frogs, the small amount of EDTA will be of no consequence in terms of sequestration of metallic elements.


Bill, thanks for the good information and reference to the MSDS. I also wanted to mention that once consumed and in a frogs acidic stomach the EDTA will be protonated changing its change and releasing any nutrients it was holding.

On the topic of its safety here is some information on how it affects fish:
http://pesticideinfo.org/List_AquireAll ... Group=Fish

note that the "behavioral changes" do not occur until 10 times the highest "accumulation" dose (which is still much lower than any does the frogs could pick up.

I am not saying EDTA does not have the potential risk for our frogs but I think that the amount in the fertilizer probably poses a smaller risk than the fertilizer itself. I am a strong advocate of people reading labels of products they buy (for themselves and their pets) but equally advocate proper research of these effects of the chemicals at the concentrations being used and consumed.

Ben and Brent both have excellent points. I personally do not fertilize my tanks BUT do not have any larger tanks with important plants. I just make sure there is sufficient plant growth to keep the waste level acceptable for the frogs.

To me this thread comes down to perceived risk and actual risk. Read ingredients and know what you are exposing your frogs to but keep that in the context of all the other risks the frogs are being subjected to.


----------



## a hill (Aug 4, 2007)

One question I have reading all this debating is what are people who do not use RO water or Distilled water using to treat their water?

EDTA is a large part of many if not all commercial water treaters like Prime and Stress coat and what not.

Coming from the planted fish tank side of things I really don't think there would be enough EDTA in fertilizers to harm your frogs as others have mentioned. Then again depending on the water conditioner that you use for your tads water if it isn't RODI or distilled that I would be interested in.

For example I have a Crystal Red shrimp tank, they're one of the most fragile shrimp and they also live in water where in my tank there is plenty of EDTA floating around bound to iron and what not. I don't do water changes and only top off the water (its a low light low tech tank) so none of it is coming out via water changes. If this was soo toxic they'd all be dead.

I know this hobby likes to be very careful but I doubt you'll be killing tads and what not because of EDTA versus other problems.

Maybe I'm wrong just some thoughts. Also, What is more dangerous? Measuring and controlling what fertilizers are in your tank or not and figuring everything is ok? Granted I doubt its much of an issue but I would think knowing and controlling fertilizer dosing (as long as you know what your doing) is fine.

-Andrew


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

This comes back around again to my point---will things unseen be assumed to be harmless? Can we assume that what looks well superficially is well just because "it seems to be working for me"?

For example, take the pandemic proportions of medicalized childbirth in this country. 90 to 95% of babies are born with drugs in their bodies that are chemical brothers to heroin or cocaine, commonly known as childbirth drugs. They carry these drugs around in their bodies for at least 2 months because their livers are inadequate to filter the drugs out quickly. Can we assume that there has been no damage done because it is not readily visible? On the contrary---these babies are born dusky blue, not pink and screaming, and often cannot breathe or breastfeed without significant help. They are high on Demerol or other drugs. 

My point is----tadpoles and frogs carrying around a payload of EDTA that builds up over the course of their life are carrying a potentially harmful factor in their bodies that may not show immediate effects. Aquatic life filter substances out through osmosis a lot more readily than frogs. Frogs are designed to retain toxins---why would this not apply to man-made chemicals? 

The medical industry still condones the use of 'heroin' on babies for convenience's sake---why should we condone the use of man-made chemicals on animals for the same reason?


----------



## a hill (Aug 4, 2007)

I see what you're saying. I don't believe the comparison of EDTA to heroine is just though.

What do you condition tad's water with?

-Andrew


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

a hill said:


> I see what you're saying. I don't believe the comparison of EDTA to heroine is just though.
> 
> What do you condition tad's water with?
> 
> -Andrew


I agree with you that it's not equivocal in terms of harm, but it is the same principle---a man-made device thrown into a natural machine just is not safe. 

I would just replace half of the water every couple of days.


----------



## KeroKero (Jun 13, 2004)

There are plenty of non-man made devices that are just as bad. And honestly, whether it's man made or not doesn't always influence how an organism reacts to it, as it's more a case of something they are designed to handle or not.

Yes, EDTA is an issue in too high amounts. Considering the main way it would be interoduced to the frog - via fertilizer - I think you're also missing out that the fertilizers have other very well known detrimental to amphibian chemicals in them in much greater amounts. It's all a matter of exactly how much they are getting... and while yes it's an issue, I think you're overestimating how much of this product is actually used around these animals, and how much is actively available to them.

"Frogs are designed to retain toxins---why would this not apply to man-made chemicals? "

I think this is a blanket comment that isn't totally true and is a bit alarmist. First... a chemical is a chemical... doesn't matter if it's man made or not, occuring in nature doesn't mean it's that much safer. I don't agree that frogs are designed to retain toxins... PDFs in particular retain certain specific compounds from the food they eat, modify it for their own needs, and add it to the toxins they produce on their own to maintain protection. Many other amphibians don't even do that, but make their own from scratch (PDFs just took a cheap way to have an expensive defense). Toxin defenses aside, it really depends on the chemical on how and where it would be absorbed, how fast it's metabolized, and how much the animal is getting. Do you know that EDTA is not metabolized in frogs and is held in their systems?

Yes, many of us agree that EDTA, and the fertilizers it's often a componant of is a danger. But at the same time, going by how most of us are setting up the tank, it's making a mountain out of a mole hill. There is a difference between being present and being dangerous/potentially dangerous.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

KeroKero said:


> "Frogs are designed to retain toxins---why would this not apply to man-made chemicals? "
> 
> I think this is a blanket comment that isn't totally true and is a bit alarmist. First... a chemical is a chemical... doesn't matter if it's man made or not, occuring in nature doesn't mean it's that much safer. I don't agree that frogs are designed to retain toxins... PDFs in particular retain certain specific compounds from the food they eat, modify it for their own needs, and add it to the toxins they produce on their own to maintain protection. Many other amphibians don't even do that, but make their own from scratch (PDFs just took a cheap way to have an expensive defense). Toxin defenses aside, it really depends on the chemical on how and where it would be absorbed, how fast it's metabolized, and how much the animal is getting. Do you know that EDTA is not metabolized in frogs and is held in their systems?
> 
> Yes, many of us agree that EDTA, and the fertilizers it's often a componant of is a danger. But at the same time, going by how most of us are setting up the tank, it's making a mountain out of a mole hill. There is a difference between being present and being dangerous/potentially dangerous.


I agree with you for the most part. However, I know that in humans, at least, EDTA, methylparaben, polyparaben, sodium laureth sulfate, etc., are stored in fatty acids. Until I see that is not the case in other animals who possess body fat, I am not going to assume otherwise. My post is alarming, and rightfully so. It's not bad to ruffle some feathers that haven't been ruffled in awhile---helps get some fresh air to them.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

earthfrog said:


> I agree with you for the most part. However, I know that in humans, at least, EDTA, methylparaben, polyparaben, sodium laureth sulfate, etc., are stored in fatty acids. Until I see that is not the case in other animals who possess body fat, I am not going to assume otherwise. My post is alarming, and rightfully so. It's not bad to ruffle some feathers that haven't been ruffled in awhile---helps get some fresh air to them.


From what I rememebed EDTA (and confirmed on a quick google search), EDTA is not stored in people in the fat cells but is excreted over several days (for a good case study see http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html and its references). See also http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/j ... bcj09.htm.. 

EDTA is often used in animal feed to deliver trace elements to animals...... 

Ed


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

In addition, EDTA is only poorly absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract with the majority of orally adminstered EDTA being eliminated in the feces. EDTA that does get distributed systemically is primarily eliminated by the kidney.

Bill


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

Ed said:


> earthfrog said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you for the most part. However, I know that in humans, at least, EDTA, methylparaben, polyparaben, sodium laureth sulfate, etc., are stored in fatty acids. Until I see that is not the case in other animals who possess body fat, I am not going to assume otherwise. My post is alarming, and rightfully so. It's not bad to ruffle some feathers that haven't been ruffled in awhile---helps get some fresh air to them.
> ...


Thanks for looking that up----but bear in mind that it stays in the body for several days. I know that it was not immediately excreted like salt because it is used for chelation therapy for people with heavy metal poisoning---my point is that it stays in the body and some of it gets absorbed--perhaps not stored in fatty acids, but not quickly excreted nonetheless. 


The following suggests it leads to calcium depletion within the body----thus my initial observation about using it around breeding frogs and possibly having spindly leg syndrome as a result, which has been linked to the frog's nutritional intake, whether solid or liquid:

"What’s chelation therapy? 
Chelation therapy is administering a man-made amino acid called EDTA into the veins. (EDTA is an abbreviation for ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid. It’s marketed under several names, including Edetate, Disodium, Endrate, and Sodium Versenate.) EDTA is most often used in cases of heavy metal poisoning (lead or mercury). That’s because it can latch onto or bind these metals, creating a compound that can be excreted in the urine. 
Besides binding heavy metals, EDTA also "chelates" (naturally seeks out and binds) calcium, one of the components of atherosclerotic plaque. In the early 1960s, this led to speculation that EDTA could remove calcium deposits from buildups in arteries. The idea was that once the calcium was removed by regular treatments of EDTA, the remaining elements in the plaque would break up and the plaque would clear away. The narrowed arteries would be restored to their former state.

Based upon this thinking, chelation therapy has been proposed to treat existing atherosclerosis and to prevent it from forming.

After carefully reviewing all the available scientific literature on this subject, the American Heart Association has concluded that the benefits claimed for this form of therapy aren’t scientifically proven. That’s why we don’t recommend this type of treatment."

From http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. ... er=3000843


----------



## Matt Mirabello (Aug 29, 2004)

I had a reply all typed out last night but apparently the draft was not saved. will try it again:
(and try and find the references I had last time)

I am going to address some of the issues you presented (and sources as well) and then present a basic model that shows that EDTA amounts we are using are not of real concern for our frogs.

You stated:



earthfrog said:


> The following suggests it leads to calcium depletion within the body----thus my initial observation about using it around breeding frogs and possibly having spindly leg syndrome as a result, which has been linked to the frog's nutritional intake, whether solid or liquid:
> “After carefully reviewing all the available scientific literature on this subject, the American Heart Association has concluded that the benefits claimed for this form of therapy aren’t scientifically proven. That’s why we don’t recommend this type of treatment."
> 
> From http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. ... er=3000843


The source does not state anywhere that EDTA depletes calcium from a person (or from arterial plaques). 

In fact it goes on to say:
“What kind of scientific experiment or study is needed to validate (or invalidate) chelation therapy? 
The best way to study chelation therapy would be to conduct a two-part study. 
•	Step one would be a study that proves EDTA can remove calcium from arterial plaque (and that the plaque. dissolves). The study should also show that this occurs without dangerous side effects.”

It is a great source for why the current medical research does not support chelation therapy. However it provides no details to EDTA’s ability to remove calcium or states the concentrations used. Similarly only one trial resulted in deaths, the other found no difference from placebo.
On the topic of calcium loss in the blood (in humans) due to EDTA the following study states:
“EDTA chelation drops the serum calcium concentration acutely, but results in negligible long-term loss”
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRel ... onimp.html

Additionally the same webpage states that the reason EDTA is used for chelation therapy is that it preferentially binds to heavy metal ions better than calcium. The Dyna grow contains the EDTA pre bound to Mn, Fe, Cu, and Zn. All of which have higher binding constants for the metals they are on than calcium.
http://www.detoxamin.com/affinity.html
(I will come back to this point later)

Now I present a basic model or “back of the envelope” calculation for how much calcium a frog has and how it might be removed by EDTA

Here is the data for percent water and calcium (by dry weight) in a frog:
http://rodentpro.com/qpage_articles_03.asp
A frog is roughly ~25% drymatter (75% water) and of the dry matter ~4.55% is calcium (bones/muscles/etc)
[data for Cuban treefrog and green frog]

According to: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/s ... ureus.html
A poison frog weighs ~3 grams
So a full sized frog has ~.75 g dry matter, of which .034 g is Ca.

How many flies does a frog need to consume to get that much calcium?

Calcium in Insects:
An undusted fruit fly is ~30% dry matter and .1% Ca
http://www.nagonline.net/Technical%20Pa ... DIFIED.pdf
a fruit fly weighs ~.65 mg dry (lost the reference, sorry)

114 grams of flies or ~174000 (undusted) flies (not counting the fact that the frog metamorphosed with calcium in it already)

Conversely how much calcium is consumed by a frog in a year?
~100 flies per day that is ~36,000 flies a year.

(these numbers do not seem entirely reasonable perhaps Ed K can include some better sources/details on the calcium content of flies (dusted/undusted) as well as the quantity consumed by a frog.)

Here is a calculation as to the amount of EDTA it would take to prevent that calcium from being taken up by the frog (or leached out). The frog is consuming ~.007 g Ca a year (again, undusted flies). .007 g Ca is .000175 moles (units) of calcium, that would be leached by an equivalent unit of EDTA which would have a mass of .050 g or 50 mg.

According to the Dyna-grow MSDS
http://www.lsorchids.com/pdf/msds-gro-b ... series.pdf
dyna grow has ~.18% by mass EDTA (in Mn, Fe, Cu, and Zn complexes)
that is the amount of EDTA in 28 grams of dynagrow or about 4 gallons of fertilizer solution (@ 1 teaspoon per gallon).
A frog would need to consume all of that EDTA *uncomplexed* to have it affect it counteract the amount of calcium it would consume only eating fruitflies that were undusted.
To deplete 10% of the calcium in the frogs body (assuming no input of food) would take ~13.6 grams of dynagrow

I am not sure of the typical application rates people are using for this product (concentration of solution used and amount applied). But I feel the amounts presents are in far excess of what people actually use and do not account for the amount naturally bound up in the soil or degraded by microbes or taken up by the plants. The micronutrients bound to the EDTA in Dyna grow have a HIGHER affinity for those metals than Calcium. Even if the frog ingested these chelated EDTA metals it should not remove calcium from the frog. Additionally the metal plant nutrients (Cu, Zn, Mn, Fe) are chelated because plants can take up that form preferentially. 

I do not know if the EDTA does not persist once the leaf dies and can be taken up by the frogs but my guess is it does not. A quick search to see if frogs can even uptake EDTA through their skin yielded no results. 

As I posted previously I am a proponent of “reading labels” but then following that with a risk assessment that is as encompassing as possible. At the levels of fertilizer needed to cause an EDTA problem the nitrates/phosphates may have already caused problems in the frogs. 

Read here about the effects of nitrate on amphibians in the United States:
(looking at over 5000 locations)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1566592

PS I am not defending my use of this fertilizer or any fertilizer, in actuality I do not use any fertilizer because for my tanks I feel that plant growth is sufficient without it. This response was focused on the risk of EDTA levels that were initially presented as the start of this topic. Fertilizer was just the mode of delivery, this could just as easily be applied to medications, vitamins, etc.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

Well, I guess it's settled then---it's only a remote issue and then only if taken regularly in large amounts, EDTA can flush calcium and other minerals out of the bloodstream. I was just thinking of those little tads in their eggs soaking in the accumulated fertilizer when developing in a pool of bromeliad water that was sprayed daily with the Dynagro when I wrote this---that might be the only situation in which to be concerned. Based on everyone's findings, the risk to fully developed, adult frogs seems to be a side issue, but not the main one.. The positive effect of all this is that people become aware that it's good to do research in order to stay on top of what's best for our frogs and for our own bodies in general. Thanks for everyone's input in this discussion.


----------



## Matt Mirabello (Aug 29, 2004)

Once again I managed to lose my reply right after I typed it (I need to start writing them in another program and then paste them into here)



earthfrog said:


> I was just thinking of those little tads in their eggs soaking in the accumulated fertilizer when developing in a pool of bromeliad water that was sprayed daily with the Dynagro when I wrote this---that might be the only situation in which to be concerned.


This is a more probable than the EDTA is to frogs/tadpoles. Using the dynagrow referenced in the MSDS above at the concentrations recommended will lead to nitrate-N levels of 9-34 ppm. The study referenced at the end of my reply above states: 

“In the laboratory lethal and sublethal effects in amphibians are detected at nitrate concentrations between 2.5 and 100 mg/L”

Tadpoles or frogs in bromeliads/film canisters could be exposed to Nitrate above those levels using the recommended dynagro dose. To bring the level of nitrate in the fertilizer solution below the minimum level of 2.5 ppm Nitrate-N you would need to use ~1/14th of a teaspoon per gallon (~.5 g/gallon). 

It should be noted that the study did not say how long the amphibians were exposed to these concentrations, in your terrarium they may be initially high but will reduce over time with misting and plant uptake.

I looked back to your initial post in this thread and wanted to touch on one of the issues brought up:


earthfrog said:


> … has a component called EDTA which has a tendency to bond with trace minerals such as iron, zinc and others. These minerals are needed by animals to function properly. If ingested over an extended period of time, this could result in some type of mineral deficiency. Maybe this explains SLS and the sudden 'floppy leg' syndrome despite calcium and vitamin supplementation....?


Essential minerals/nutrients can be very important to a developing tadpole or even an adult frog. In most cases they look at absolute levels in the animals and not the distribution within them.
A similar example of this comes from sugar maple decline due to acid rain. It was determined that acid rain was leaching calcium from the leaves of the trees, a significant level when compared to non-acid rain. When evaluated on a total percent of calcium lost from the leaf the amount was insignificant. Further investigation showed that the calcium that was leached was important for the leave’s long term health and the tree may not have had a way to replace it once lost. Amending the soil with calcium allowed new leaves that grew the ability to withstand the acid rain since they put more calcium into their leaves.
This could be analogous to problems in tadpoles/frogs. Perhaps a nutrient is being removed from the frogs in a specific place (or prevented from getting to a specific place) even though on the whole the affected and non-affected animals do not seem to have different total levels of the nutrient/mineral. 

I encourage those who have SLS or other chronic developmental issues in their frogs to record them along with your husbandry techniques so it can contribute to the larger body of knowledge on the subject.

Susan, thank you for starting this thread which led to a productive and interesting discussion on the subject.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> The medical industry still condones the use of 'heroin' on babies for convenience's sake---


Don't you think this statement is a little simplistic?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

earthfrog said:


> Well, I guess it's settled then---it's only a remote issue and then only if taken regularly in large amounts, EDTA can flush calcium and other minerals out of the bloodstream. I was just thinking of those little tads in their eggs soaking in the accumulated fertilizer when developing in a pool of bromeliad water that was sprayed daily with the Dynagro when I wrote this---that might be the only situation in which to be concerned. Based on everyone's findings, the risk to fully developed, adult frogs seems to be a side issue, but not the main one.. The positive effect of all this is that people become aware that it's good to do research in order to stay on top of what's best for our frogs and for our own bodies in general. Thanks for everyone's input in this discussion.


Also keep in mind that EDTA is poorly absorbed through oral routes (which should be similar to amphibian skin) and that when treating heavy metal poisoning, the EDTA is administed through an infusion/IV drip. 

If your read through those links I provided, you can see that EDTA has a very short half life and is rapidly excreted.. typically in a day or two. 

I have elsewhere provided how many live flies need to be fed to a frog based on the calculations and weight of live flies.. see food-feeding/topic13443.html?hilit=ohaus#p96622 

Ed


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

npaull said:


> > The medical industry still condones the use of 'heroin' on babies for convenience's sake---
> 
> 
> Don't you think this statement is a little simplistic?


No, I don't, not when you note that 98% of women are drugged with Demerol, which is analogous to cocaine. Stadol, Demerol, any narcotic ending in 'ol' is a heroin analog. You may not realize it, but this stays in the babies body for two months, affects the mother's milk supply, the baby's ability to nurse naturally and even in some cases causes death from respiratory depression. Many babies born drugged come out blue, limp and not breathing---like a drowned frog, if you will. They need an anti-narcotic just to survive this terrible ordeal. There have even been studies linking drug abuse in teens to drug abuse as newborns. Animals are made to live as they were created, not as man can manipulate them to produce the outcome he wants. 

Considering that women trained in natural childbirth can successfully give birth without need of drugs 90% of the time, I'd say this is by no means a simplistic, blanket statement. In this country, drugs, chemicals, surgical operations, machines and other conveniences are often just that----conveniences. But for whom? The frogger who wants lush plants (I know I'm stepping on toes, but readers, just for the sake of argument, hear me out) or the doctor who wants to get to his/her golf game? I have heard from women who spoke of doctors that tear open a woman's cervix or stomach just to hurry up and get her delivered before that golf game or vacation. :evil: If that doesn't make you sick, I don't know what else to tell you to prove my point. 

I'll get off my soapbox now---you'll have to forgive this natural childbirth instructor. I am very defensive of living things. I am not jacking the thread since this extenuation helps to support the fertilizer/EDTA argument. Thanks a ton, Matt, for helping me out in this.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> Demerol, which is analogous to cocaine


Demerol is an opiate, which is very, very different from cocaine.



> You may not realize it, but this stays in the babies body for two months, affects the mother's milk supply, the baby's ability to nurse naturally and even in some cases causes death from respiratory depression.


All opiates carry some risk of respiratory depression, and of course it is a legitimate concern. Where are you getting the "two month" data? I'd like to see that paper. The half-life of demerol is about 4 hours in adults and maybe a day in neonates, so I have a hard time believing the drug is present for that long. What studies have shown nursing interference? Again, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I just think it's a clear exaggeration to claim that the medical community "condones the use of heroin on babies for convenience." Come on.



> They need an anti-narcotic just to survive this terrible ordeal.


As far as I know, neither naloxone nor naltrexone are regularly required to rescue babies from opiate pain control for mothers.



> Considering that women trained in natural childbirth can successfully give birth without need of drugs 90% of the time, I'd say this is by no means a simplistic, blanket statement. In this country, drugs, chemicals, surgical operations, machines and other conveniences are often just that----conveniences.


I'm skeptical that a woman needs a whole lot of "training in natural childbirth" to be able to deliver a baby without drugs, and I'd agree that there is a lot of overuse of medicine in general. But again, this is different from antagonistic, conspiracy-theorist statements like "doctors condone the use of heroin on babies for convenience sake."



> I have heard from women who spoke of doctors that tear open a woman's cervix or stomach just to hurry up and get her delivered before that golf game or vacation. If that doesn't make you sick, I don't know what else to tell you to prove my point.


This would be malpractice, and represents an extreme minority. Also, organs are not "torn open" in surgery. And the stomach is a very, very rare location for an ectopic pregnancy.

I guess the only reason I'm responding to this is that the demonization of obstetrics is usually done by those who have very little knowledge of it, and/or who are totally ignorant (willingly or by no fault of their own) of how incredibly important and life-saving a field it can be. It is true that most women need no help to deliver; but when help is needed, there is absolutely no substitute for an obstetrician. And no, I am not an obstetrician.

And we've officially diverged off the thread.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

npaull said:


> > Demerol, which is analogous to cocaine
> 
> 
> Demerol is an opiate, which is very, very different from cocaine.
> ...


All opiates carry some risk of respiratory depression, and of course it is a legitimate concern. Where are you getting the "two month" data? I'd like to see that paper. The half-life of demerol is about 4 hours in adults and maybe a day in neonates, so I have a hard time believing the drug is present for that long. What studies have shown nursing interference? Again, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I just think it's a clear exaggeration to claim that the medical community "condones the use of heroin on babies for convenience." Come on.

I'd be glad to send it to you. Send me your email in a PM and I'll get back to you in a couple of days with the document. It's not an exaggeration at all. 



> They need an anti-narcotic just to survive this terrible ordeal.


As far as I know, neither naloxone nor naltrexone are regularly required to rescue babies from opiate pain control for mothers.

I don't believe you've done enough research to make that judgment. I have done much, much reading of cases in which it is necessary to rescue these babies from death. Again, send me your email and I'll get back to you in a couple of days. 



> Considering that women trained in natural childbirth can successfully give birth without need of drugs 90% of the time, I'd say this is by no means a simplistic, blanket statement. In this country, drugs, chemicals, surgical operations, machines and other conveniences are often just that----conveniences.


I'm skeptical that a woman needs a whole lot of "training in natural childbirth" to be able to deliver a baby without drugs, and I'd agree that there is a lot of overuse of medicine in general. But again, this is different from antagonistic, conspiracy-theorist statements like "doctors condone the use of heroin on babies for convenience sake."

It's not antagonistic. 98% of women DO NOT go drug-free in the hospital. That is a fact---call any hospital's maternity ward and they'll tell you that at least 90% of women use the drugs. If people can do natural childbirth without drugs, somehow it certainly is not being promoted or acheived in most hospital settings. Npaull, I teach for a natural childbirth academy that is supported internationally. My so-called "antagonistic, conspiracy theories" are supported with nearly 50 years of research by many PhDs and doctors sympathetic to our cause. I suggest you check out the website, http://www.bradleybirth.com, for more information. I'll be happy to send you all the documents to back this up if you give me your email via pm.


> I have heard from women who spoke of doctors that tear open a woman's cervix or stomach just to hurry up and get her delivered before that golf game or vacation. If that doesn't make you sick, I don't know what else to tell you to prove my point.


This would be malpractice, and represents an extreme minority. Also, organs are not "torn open" in surgery. And the stomach is a very, very rare location for an ectopic pregnancy.

You are sure putting a lot of opinions out there without having the research to back it up. Does 33% of women (the percentage receiving cesarean sections in this country) seem like a minority when the proven medical need for cesarean sections is only 3%? Actually, if you ever get around to watch a cesarean video, they have to tear the womb open by hand, carefully, to avoid cutting through major arteries. This makes recovery much more painful and leads to extensive scarring that lasts a lifetime, grows scar tissue into other organs and cause death in later years, etc. 

I guess the only reason I'm responding to this is that the demonization of obstetrics is usually done by those who have very little knowledge of it, and/or who are totally ignorant (willingly or by no fault of their own) of how incredibly important and life-saving a field it can be. It is true that most women need no help to deliver; but when help is needed, there is absolutely no substitute for an obstetrician. And no, I am not an obstetrician.

OK. I will tell you that as a certified natural childbirth teacher the medicalization of childbirth has become a pandemic in civilized nations. I am not a renegade troublemaker who saw a few articles on the internet. I have spent years getting certified, have had two totally drug-free births and have done extensive research. The only need for OBs is in a life-or-death situation, which in Dr. Bradley's practice is only 6% of the time. Midwives are an excellent and statistically safer substitute. Let's end this publicly before we get ousted from this forum. Send me a PM---let's not continue to jack the thread.

And we've officially diverged off the thread.[/quote:8sodhpte]

You ought to have been sending me this via pm so we wouldn't diverge off the thread. Please continue this discussion via pm.


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

By all means, continue to add to this discussion about fertilizer dangers. The thread can now go on.


----------



## a hill (Aug 4, 2007)

Well to get back on topic  

I asked earlier about how you're treating your water you use in your tank.

Why?

Because from what I've been told and found out is pretty much all the major brand water treatment products are very high in EDTA, yes its safe but if you're worried about EDTA in your tank made for these frogs that is where I see the most getting in Not in little fertilizers. 

As mentioned above calcium is low on the list of elements that EDTA will bond with. It really loves iron and whatnot as mentioned above. Ever wonder what is SOOO good about "tadpole tea"? from what I know what it really is a humic acid bath. What does humic acid do? Its an organic compound which binds to other elements making them non toxic just not as well as EDTA does.

There is a good chapter or so in Diana Walstand's book Ecology for the planted Aquarium. 
http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-Planted-A ... 969&sr=8-1

I think you'd like the book even if it is a book about planted fish tank ecology. 

Granted I'll let the experts correct the information and whatnot I'm sure I'm a bit off. Then again, I'm missing all the education most of the others have here. (what a wonderful thing youth can be)

-Andrew


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

a hill said:


> Well to get back on topic
> 
> I asked earlier about how you're treating your water you use in your tank.
> 
> ...


(As a general note to any doctors or OBs reading this thread---I am very supportive of you as a necessary cornerstone to medical care and refer my students to those of you with natural childbirth philosophies. I just do not approve of the 'active management' philosophy of labor in regard to obstetrics.)

Thanks Andrew---the only water feature in my tank are the brom pools, and I use pure spring water---no tea leaves, chemicals, etc.---just as it is in nature. 

And like you, I'm young, but don't let anyone look down on you because you are young---I just understand the basic principle at work in nature here---"if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" That is---you could only make it worse by messing with a healthy system.


----------



## a hill (Aug 4, 2007)

earthfrog said:


> And like you, I'm young, but don't let anyone look down on you because you are young---I just understand the basic principle at work in nature here---"if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" That is---you could only make it worse by messing with a healthy system.


Ohh no, I'm younger than you :lol: 

I'm 16 :wink: 

-Andrew


----------



## earthfrog (May 18, 2008)

earthfrog said:


> Well, I guess it's settled then---it's only a remote issue and then only if taken regularly in large amounts, EDTA can flush calcium and other minerals out of the bloodstream. I was just thinking of those little tads in their eggs soaking in the accumulated fertilizer when developing in a pool of bromeliad water that was sprayed daily with the Dynagro when I wrote this---that might be the only situation in which to be concerned. Based on everyone's findings, the risk to fully developed, adult frogs seems to be a side issue, but not the main one.. The positive effect of all this is that people become aware that it's good to do research in order to stay on top of what's best for our frogs and for our own bodies in general. Thanks for everyone's input in this discussion.


Also, I have heard a testimony recently from a fellow frogger who lost their frogs due to fertilizer contact. I don't know what kind they used, but it was organic. Some frogs sat in one place and died while others dragged their legs behind them...i.e., floppy leg syndrome. Symptoms sound similar to chytrid, but I would think that there would also have been skin defects; however, no other symptoms were noted.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

a hill said:


> There is a good chapter or so in Diana Walstand's book Ecology for the planted Aquarium.
> http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-Planted-A ... 969&sr=8-1
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

earthfrog said:


> earthfrog said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I have heard a testimony recently from a fellow frogger who lost their frogs due to fertilizer contact. I don't know what kind they used, but it was organic. Some frogs sat in one place and died while others dragged their legs behind them...i.e., floppy leg syndrome. Symptoms sound similar to chytrid, but I would think that there would also have been skin defects; however, no other symptoms were noted.



Lesions are one of the indications of chytrid but the absence or presence of lesions are not a confirmation of the presence or absence of chytrid. 

Ed


----------



## a hill (Aug 4, 2007)

Ed said:


> earthfrog said:
> 
> 
> > earthfrog said:
> ...


Then again, if you start spraying fertilizer on your frogs... I have a feeling it will usually kill them.

Another method from the water filled world you may want to read up on some is the EI method of dosing planted aquariums and whatnot. 

Fertilizers aren't BAD killing machines when used correctly knowing what the nutrient contents of your water/soil and maintaining them should be a more importantly thought of aspect of this hobby IMO. 

Diana Walstands book is great reading. I learned more from one page in that book than I did the entire year of "chemistry" at school (more like "waste a class period for a year" than chemistry  )

Just some thoughts, its a bit off topic though, maybe I'll make a topic sooner or later about it.

-Andrew


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I would like to comment on the " frogs are designed to accumulate toxins thing" said earlier. While dart frogs can and do take alkaloids from the insects that they eat and convert them to batrachotoxins and some nudibranchs take chemicals and pnematocysts from sponges to convert them to their own defences it doent mean they can just absorb anything they come into contact with with no ill effects. 

And I am happy to see some other people talking about bioaccumulation and the fact that it can take a long time to see the results of it, especially when the generational spacing is so short while individual life span is long. 

And now for my final questions... Why take a chance? Are you really convinced your plants in your viv will die w/o ferts? Are you up enough on your botany to confirm your plant problems are a result of lack of ferts? And to be more specific, what mineral deficiency they are suffering from? 

I really think some people need to see what inadequate light, too much root moisture, spidermite damage and viral damage look like before they assume that ferts or lack there of are the problem.
While there are MANY knowledable plant people here, some more so than I , I think many others jump to conclusions without the knowledge necessary to identify the problem correctly.

Lets see some pics of some supposed fert issues and see if that is realy what the deal is.

When prime specimins of some species of frogs are approaching 200 dollars, I know I won't be considering it, even with 200 bucks worth of plants in the viv.


----------

