Philsuma Wrote:Is it worth mentioning and discussing ? - Yep. ( I did get one PM from someone saying it was "Drama")..
Drama? Hopefully someone will benefit from it...Maybe they will die, maybe the will clear themselves of it. Either way, we will learn from it. Just the fact that the virus is not transferred to the tad is something I didn't know 5 months ago. I have yet to see it in any literature either...Most papers are about frogs in the wild and yes they contaminate their own breeding pools killing off many tads.
Philsuma Wrote:I think it is more common than we think and has probably been in the U.S hobby for years, if not a decade..
Two of my buddies tested their collections. Zero positives. Until more people test we will not know.
Philsuma Wrote:We need to keep gathering info on it and how it impacts the hobby.
Agreed.
frogfreak Wrote:I have 20+ infected frogs in my collection. They were from a US import from last November and I'm 99.9% sure of that. They are in isolation two floors from the rest of my frogs. Separate shoes are used to enter the room and disposable gloves are used. Separate feeders are used as well. Nothing comes out of the room that isn't sterilized or double bagged. When I first discovered that I have the virus in my collection I was in total panic mode and was prepared to euthanize all the frogs. After multiple conversations with Ed and people from all across North America and the UK I decided to keep them. I've read so much about this virus it makes my head hurt! Bottom line is in my case. The frogs are doing fine. I see no ill effects from the virus, so far. The strain has not been identified as of yet. I have two pairs breeding and they are not passing the virus onto the offspring. These are all Tincs and Auratus. I'm not where I want to be yet. The goal is do set up and house each frog individually in 10g tanks except for two breeding pairs and study them long term with the help of others.
Best
So I have some ugly questions.......
From what I understand this virus is incureable if this is true wouldn't the best protocol be to destroy any and all the infected?
There seems to be no benefit to keeping infected frogs.
If I were to go out and purchase some expensive frogs like histos or grannies and during QT I discover that they are infected. Should I expect a refund for the cost of the frogs?(I am talking about CB frogs not WC)
-Byron
Armson Wrote:So I have some ugly questions.......
From what I understand this virus is incurable if this is true wouldn't the best protocol be to destroy any and all the infected?
There seems to be no benefit to keeping infected frogs.
That's up to the individual and believe me I changed my mind 50 times! Because I held onto them I've found out that I can get ranavirus negative offspring from them. That and they are cool frogs! 8)
Armson Wrote:If I were to go out and purchase some expensive frogs like histos or grannies and during QT I discover that they are infected. Should I expect a refund for the cost of the frogs?(I am talking about CB frogs not WC)
I've inquired about more frogs since acquiring these and have asked the people to test at their end. They agreed. I will do my testing as well upon arrival. If they came back positive I definitely would expect a refund. Just be up front with the seller.
It just seems like a recipe for disaster. Even if your tads are showing negative, they are still being kept in the same room as the infected? I would imagine that you would need a 3rd location to keep negative tads. Then one night you walk into your house and .......
Animal activists have invaded your laboratory with the intention of releasing frogs that are undergoing experimentation, infected by a virus -a virus that causes ranavirus. The naive activists ignore the pleas of Glenn to keep the cages locked, with disastrous results. Twenty-eight days later, Glenn, wakes up from a coma, alone, in an abandoned hospital. He begins to seek out anyone else to find Ontario is deserted, apparently without a living soul. After finding a church, which had become inhabited by zombie like frogs intent on his demise, he runs for his life. Byron and Phil rescue him from the horde and bring him up to date on the mass carnage and horror as all of Ontario tore itself apart. This is a tale of survival and ultimately, heroics, with nice subtext about mankind's savage nature.
-Byron
Well, that was a waste of a post from my end...
frogfreak Wrote:Well, that was a waste of a post from my end...
No, no it was not.
Keep up the good work.
Sally
frogfreak Wrote:Well, that was a waste of a post from my end...
I guess 28 days franchise wasn't a big hit in Canada.
And the question was .......
Isn't keeping them alive a recipe for disaster?
It sounds exactly like the plot for 28 weeks later
-Byron
Isn't keeping them alive a recipe for disaster?
Why? Did you read my posts and the links provided in this thread? The virus is not airborne! All waste water is treated and nothing comes out of that room that isn't sterilized. With a few simple precautions I can keep them alive and well. Ranavirus is already in our environment. The frogs are happy and growing like weeds, so why kill them? Some are breeding. As far as I'm concerned they act and look like the rest of my frogs and the offspring is negative. What would be the point of killing them? Let me ask you something. Have you tested? If not, you may have positive frogs and not know it. Have you tested for Chytrid? What are you going to do?
-Noticed I changed the word euthanize to kill. Euthanize almost sounds easy...
The issue of RV, while being nothing new to the hobby....is still very much open to hobby management interpretation.
I don't think studying anything is nessa bad. We just don't know enough or have decent management protocol yet.
Glenn ,you've already told us that invertebrates are a possible vector for transmission,I'm presuming water is also? what other possible vectors are there? i'm also presuming you use bleech to sterilise waste water,as per Ed's recommendations,ha and Jon
Can you list the known strains of virus,please?
Buddy are you using methyl blue with your eggs as a form of sterilisation,or something else by chance? to allieviate the risk of vertical transmission,or is this happening naturally as it were.
Thankyou ,
best
Stu
frogfreak Wrote:Isn't keeping them alive a recipe for disaster?
Why? Did you read my posts and the links provided in this thread? The virus is not airborne! All waste water is treated and nothing comes out of that room that isn't sterilized. With a few simple precautions I can keep them alive and well. Ranavirus is already in our environment. The frogs are happy and growing like weeds, so why kill them? Some are breeding. As far as I'm concerned they act and look like the rest of my frogs and the offspring is negative. What would be the point of killing them? Let me ask you something. Have you tested? If not, you may have positive frogs and not know it. Have you tested for Chytrid? What are you going to do?
-Noticed I changed the word euthanize to kill. Euthanize almost sounds easy...
I think the point is that you would terminate a possible vector for the disease (because shit does happen). Obviously it's your choice on what to do, but if it was me I would likely euthanize once I had offspring from the frogs
PS the whole euthanize/kill question is a bit over dramatic, mate. At the end of the day they are only frogs
On one hand, if this virus was deadly to dart frogs, I'm sure we would have heard of mass losses of collections by now. As I stated above, because RV is not routinely tested for, we don't know for certain that it's not in most collections and only causing minor illness, if any.
On the other hand, if we are dealing with a virulent virus that has a high mortality rate, I don't think we are prepared to manage it. I don't know much about RA. It could be very fragile outside its host and only live a matter of minutes or hours outside the host, or it could be like hepatitis or flu viruses that can stay viable for days or weeks on inert surfaces. The implications of this would likely be catastrophic if the virus is deadly to most dart frogs because everything brought into proximity to the frogs, including feeders/cultures, plants, substrate, rocks, wood, cork bark, clay, etc. could be carrying viable viruses. I don't know what temperatures RV can survived under, but some viruses cannot be destroyed at the boiling point of water. Therefore, we'd be faced with chemical sterilization or autoclaving. Obviously nothing living could be placed in the viv and swab testing a plant or feeder culture might miss it given the large surface area.
I strongly suspect that if scenario 2 above was the case, we would have seen it by now. If we are dealing with a virus that causes only mild infection, then the frogs will fight it off and without additional hosts, the viruses in that viv would likely die off over time, so Glenn, I see no reason to kill the frogs that have tested positive.
Also Glenn - how long have the viruses persisted in a given viv, if you have that information? My guess is that after infecting all the frogs in the viv, with no new addition of viruses, they would test negative after several weeks to months.
brotherly monkey Wrote:I think the point is that you would terminate a possible vector for the disease (because shit does happen).
I'm not sure this would be the case since the frogs themselves are not the only means of spreading the virus and once the frog has contracted RV and recovered, it will no longer shed viruses. If RV is a persistent virus, as I suggested above, then the entire viv would have to be sterilized. Also, based on what I have read, RV more commonly infects tadpoles than it does adult frogs, so the petri dishes from the parents' viv would very likely have viruses, the gel around the eggs, etc. Also, perhaps Glenn's tadpoles are contracting a mild illness and are immune and free of viruses by the time they metamorphose.
One way to check would be to send in samples of the water periodically during tadpole development. But, this would be a costly experiment.
I think Glenn has stated he has had fruit flies test positive with the virus.
And all this is why people keep this info private. I believe he is doing what should be done. I think it is very brave to come out and say that SOME of his collection is infected. I do believe the research has been done and all precautions are being made. Yet many will see his collection as a pariah because he had the balls to be open about it. Movie references and a call to cull his collection are unwarranted as he has thoroughly explained his qt of that part of his his animals.
We can't have transparency when those who come forward are damned and shit starts flying. Especially when the person who is forthright with info is doing everything that they need to be doing.
I think I need a break from the forum nonsense. We are now going after and trying to out the responsible keepers as well as those who are shady.
Sean
heyduke Wrote:And all this is why people keep this info private. I believe he is doing what should be done. I think it is very brave to come out and say that SOME of his collection is infected.
I'm not sure you can equate my disagreement with him above as an attack on him: I pointed out why I disagreed with his position, but clearly indicated that it boils down to a personal choice
nothing scandalous
heyduke Wrote:Yet many will see his collection as a pariah because he had the balls to be open about it. Movie references and a call to cull his collection are unwarented as he has thoroughly explained his qt of that part of his his animals.
We can't have transparency when those who come forward are damned and shit starts flying. Especially when the person who is forthright with info is doing everything that they need to be doing.
I saw it as a bad attempt at a joke and referencing the animals that were already testing positive. But beyond that, the discussion seemed pretty respectful
heyduke Wrote:I think I need a break from the forum nonsense. We are now going after and trying to out the responsible keepers ad well as those who are shady.
yeah, it might help, considering your making an issue over nothing here
This hobby would be in a world of SHIT right now, without the checks and balances of Forums.
The lying,misrepresentation, hiding, withholding info, stealing.....without this forum... multiply all that times 10.
A reference to an apocalyptic movie for a slight bit o' humour.... Roll with it, folks.
You are right when you say Glenn is very responsible...he is much more than most. I wouldn't hesitate to take frogs from him and THATS the point. This RV stuff is NOT to the level of DEFCON 4. It's simply another little blip on the radar and we are talking about it. That's all.
PS And yes, I agree Glenn deserves serious props for being honest in this situation. Also, I'm sure he was aware that not everyone would agree with his position (be it in polite manner, or not)
Ok Phil but doesn't it seem that this thread had gone to out whoever was responsible enough to have their frogs tested?
And when someone stepped up and and said what was happening in regards to their own collection, stated the turmoil that they had been through and the extensive research they had done, and what they do to keep their situation under control, and offered advice to everyone in the hobby. Then this same responsible acting keeper who is actualy trying to help keep this hobby out of a world of shit is now being criticized by his very informed decisions and responsible actions and passing that info on for everyone. That kind of forum bullshit is what makes it hard for many to go public. Crusade to out all you want. Outing is police work and needs to be done. But when someone puts it out there voluntarily stand behind them. That is transparency. That is responsability to the hobby. And
isn't that really what your crusade, your forum, your philosophy is all about? Honesty and transparency?
Sean