Panacure (fenbendazole) - Dendroboard
Dendroboard

Go Back   Dendroboard > Dart Frogs > General Health & Disease Treatment
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read Advertise

Support Our Sponsors
No Threads to Display.

facebook

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 04:12 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Panacure (fenbendazole)

Anyone who enjoys reading up on some of the potential health effects of some of the drugs commonly advocated for frogs in some circles might find this report interesting.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/j ... 29je05.htm
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 12:37 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've never heard of anyone suggesting the use of oxfenbendazole for frogs. Who is doing this?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 01:01 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

"2.1.1 Absorption, distribution and excretion

Oxfendazole, fenbendazole and febantel are three metabolically
related anthelmintics. Fenbendazole and oxfendazole are
metabolically interconvertible, and febendazole is a prodrug of them
both.
Oxfendazole and fenbendazole both undergo further metabolic
oxidation and carbamate hydrolysis."

There you go, maybe that will clear things up. :wink:
Reply With Quote
 
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 01:08 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No. I understand what that means. Do you? Are you suggesting that Oxfenbendazole has identical effects as fenbendazole? Or are you suggesting that Oxfenbendazole is "commonly advocated for frogs?"

Once again, who is suggesting this?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 01:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

David, I posted this as a resource so that others can use it as a reference for greater understanding. If you want to read this paper, feel free.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 01:34 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

By the way a prodrug is a precursor to another drug. So, essentially, a prodrug is metabolically converted into a drug. Therefore, fenbendazole is metabolically converted into oxfendazole. The chemical ratio of prodrug to drug varies with species and prodrug, but general side effects of a prodrug can usually be determined from a resultant drug's effects. because the prodrug is converted into a drug.

Yes, I took biochemistry.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 02:23 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh, I have read the paper you posted. It is Yugoslavian research of an American drug. I understand what the paper says. Your original statement was misleading at best, and I just wanted to make certain 1) people didn't believe that oxfenbendazole was commonly prescribed for amphibians, or 2) if some vet was doing this, I would just want to know who so we could discuss it.

If you have any worrys about any side effects of fenbendazole or oxfenbendazole, please bring them up here so we can discuss it and everyone can benefit from the disussion.

Interestingly enough, oxfenbendazole is a very safe dewormer that is FDA approved for cattle - even though cattle are the most adversely effected species. The LD50 is over 100 mg/kg, which means that a cow will need to eat more than 1/10th its body weight of pure drug to have a 50% chance of dying. When you take into account that the drug is only 22% of the powder, that means the cow would have to eat 1/2 of its body weight in powdered drug to have even a 50% chance of dying. Then realize that they mix this powder in water and the cow would need to drink more than its own body weight of liquid before reaching that 50% chance of death. Cows weigh thousands of pounds, Cows don't drink thousands of pounds of water each day. And remember that cows are the MOST ADVERSELY EFFECTED SPECIES IN THIS STUDY.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 02:47 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

What is your source for your LD50 statistics, and what was the species tested? Note that the LD50 varies widely from species to species.

Regardless, it is apparent from this study (and others from DVM/PhD's I have talked to) that fenbendazole causes bone marrow suppression and can cause some liver damage when used long term.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 03:20 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Did you read the study that you posted a link to? I pulled the information directly from that link.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 03:32 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

2.2.1 Acute studies

Table 1. Acute studies on oxfendazole


Species Sex Vehicle LD50 Reference
(mg/kg b.w.)


Mouse M&F distilled water > 6400 Hallesy, 1973

Rat M&F distilled water > 6400 Hallesy, 1973b
Chester & Bidlack,
1987a

Chester & Bidlack,
1987b

Dog F gelatine capsule > 1600 Hallesy, 1973c

Sheep F water > 250 Braemer & Bidlack,
suspension 1976

Cattle M&F water purified > 112.5 Bidlack, 1977

The graph in your link makes it much easier to understand.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 03:36 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Homer wrote, "Regardless, it is apparent from this study (and others from DVM/PhD's I have talked to) that fenbendazole causes bone marrow suppression and can cause some liver damage when used long term."

Actually this study did not look at fenbendazole, and every drug has some side effects at some dose. Asprin causes much much more bone marrow supression and liver damage than fenbendazole. Asprin also causes cartilage damage and gastric ulcers. Asprin is much more harmful and deadly than fenbendazole, but we use asprin all the time and many doctors recommend a daily dose of asprin.

What exactly do you mean by "apparent?"
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 03:40 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Frye
Oh, I have read the paper you posted. It is Yugoslavian research of an American drug. I understand what the paper says. Your original statement was misleading at best, and I just wanted to make certain 1) people didn't believe that oxfenbendazole was commonly prescribed for amphibians, or 2) if some vet was doing this, I would just want to know who so we could discuss it.

If you have any worrys about any side effects of fenbendazole or oxfenbendazole, please bring them up here so we can discuss it and everyone can benefit from the disussion.

Interestingly enough, oxfenbendazole is a very safe dewormer that is FDA approved for cattle - even though cattle are the most adversely effected species. The LD50 is over 100 mg/kg, which means that a cow will need to eat more than 1/10th its body weight of pure drug to have a 50% chance of dying. When you take into account that the drug is only 22% of the powder, that means the cow would have to eat 1/2 of its body weight in powdered drug to have even a 50% chance of dying. Then realize that they mix this powder in water and the cow would need to drink more than its own body weight of liquid before reaching that 50% chance of death. Cows weigh thousands of pounds, Cows don't drink thousands of pounds of water each day. And remember that cows are the MOST ADVERSELY EFFECTED SPECIES IN THIS STUDY.
Yes, David, I read the article. That's why I am perplexed by your LD50 analysis. First, the LD50 for cattle in the study was found to be 112.5 mg/Kg body weight.

That means that for every kilogram of bodyweight, it takes 112.5 milligrams of oxfendazole (not oxfenbendazole) to kill 50% of the cattle. Let's do the math on the percent weight here:

112.5 mg = .1125 grams

1Kg = 1000 grams

Therefore, .1125 grams ofendazole per 1000 grams of body weight of cattle will kill the cattle. That is not 10% of the cattle body weight, that is .01125 % --three orders of magnitude difference there between your calculation and the true LD50 calculation (1000 times off).

Plus, let's remember that we are talking about the effects on mammals here, which varies widely between species. Without actual lab data on its effects on darts, let alone on different species of darts, don't you think that there are going to be varying LD50 levels for different darts? It seems to me that arguing the safety or toxicity of a drug n amphibia based on its widely varying toxicity in mammals should give pause for concern. I thought you were giving me some new data from elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2004, 09:22 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Homer, you are correct. In my haste, I made a decimal place error. I keep forgetting how sensitive these cows are to their own medicine. According to Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry the recommended dose for amphibians is greater than the LD50 for cows. The dose for fenbendazole in amphibians is 100mg-200mg/kg.

24.7 Anthelmenitics
"Fenbendazole is effective in reducing or eliminating many nematode infections in amphibians. Fenbendazole (100 mg/kg PO q 7-10 days) is used often for prophylaxis during quarentine or as therapy for confirmed gastrointestinal nematodiasis in amphibians. Granular fenbendazole may be used to dust insects for administration to small amphibians, but this modality renders it impractical to quantify the amount of drug ingested by an amphibian. NO ADVERSE REACTIONS HAVE BEEN NOTED AT THIS DOSAGE. In resistant cases, fenbendazole may be administered at a lower dose on a more frequent basis to effect a cure (e.g., 50 mg/kg PO q 24 hours for 3-5 days, repeated every 2-3 weeks).

Page 317 under Pharmacotherapeutics

It seems like Doctors Kevin Wright and Brent Whitaker missed the "apparent" problems with fenbendazole. :wink:
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 08-10-2004, 09:28 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Frye
Homer wrote, "Regardless, it is apparent from this study (and others from DVM/PhD's I have talked to) that fenbendazole causes bone marrow suppression and can cause some liver damage when used long term."

Actually this study did not look at fenbendazole, and every drug has some side effects at some dose. Asprin causes much much more bone marrow supression and liver damage than fenbendazole. Asprin also causes cartilage damage and gastric ulcers. Asprin is much more harmful and deadly than fenbendazole, but we use asprin all the time and many doctors recommend a daily dose of asprin.

What exactly do you mean by "apparent?"
David,

I thought you said you knew what a prodrug was. If you administer fenbendazole to an animal, you will get oxfendazole in vivo (in the animal). Therefore, you can extrapolate potential side effects of fenbendazole from an oxfendazole study. You are correct that they won't be at the same dosage because it is not a 1:1 ratio of fenbendazole being broken down into oxfendazole. Actually, it is widely held that oxfendazole is the active form of fenbendazole.

I will continue to post links to sites so that others can make an informed judgment as to what treatments they think are appropriate for their animals. However, I am not going to continue to explain the chemistry behind the science to you or correct your gross dosage miscalculations. In fact, I am now placing you on my ignore list.

By the way, who is recommending the use of Aspirin for dart frogs?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2004, 05:04 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 173
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default drugs

Ok, lets bring a little layman logic to this. Drugs are typically meant to cure one ailing organism by killing a smaller one (parasite, bacteria, fungus). What we are doing by medicating is giving small doses of poison, large enough to kill the invader, but typically small enough to not significantly disrupt the host.

Expecting absolutely no side effect from this process is not very realistic.

Fenbendazole is used preventatively, but not to such a degree where one would see it being a harm to the animal they are treating. So, bringing an unnecessary light to the harmful effects of this drug might be creating an unnecessary concern of those that aren't as biochemically gifted.

I think the ultimate take home message is that use these drugs cautiously. Don't over medicate. Consult with a doctor when you have questions, and don't look at drugs as a cure all.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 03:23 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

and always get a second opinion =)
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 03:31 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

from a doctor.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 04:05 PM
Dedicated Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,437
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default good advice

Getting a 2nd opinion is always a good idea. We have had fecals misdiagnosed before, so it is always a good idea to get the 2nd opinion.

I think the most important thing, is whoever is doing the fecals (you, a friend, or a vet) need to know how to operate a microscope, proper procedures and materials to perform floats, stains, etc, and resources to identify what they have seen. A camera integrated with the microscope is an awesome benefit as well.

If anyone is interested, I will be happy to provide anyone with the name and number for our vet. He charges $10 per fecal and performs two tests on each speciman. 1. a float and 2. a stain.

Thanks,

Melis




Quote:
Originally Posted by idea
and always get a second opinion =)
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 04:22 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Melissa,
It is important to know exactly what you are looking at, what you have found. Leave the fecals to a Vet, for $10 you can not afford to pass it up. Do you know how many different Coccidia there are alone? Knowing what you have found is THE most important part of a fecal exam, there are just too many critters out there for the average Joe to be making definitive guesses at what is in their fecals.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 06:54 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: good advice

Quote:
Originally Posted by melissa68
If anyone is interested, I will be happy to provide anyone with the name and number for our vet. He charges $10 per fecal and performs two tests on each speciman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idea
and always get a second opinion =)
dont think that she does these by herself, looks like she is offering a vet referal to me..... :wink:
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 07:27 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

whoever is doing the fecals (you, a friend, or a vet)




There have been other threads suggesting that it is not a difficult thing to do a fecal. Running a fecal should be left to a Vet.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 07:34 PM
Dedicated Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,437
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: good advice

Yes, I was referring to a vet, not doing them myself.

Regardless, running a fecal exam is not rocket science. There are a lot of people who look through microscopes for a living who are not doctors, vets or people with PHds, I would welcome one of them to do fecals.

Like I said before, with all the resources out there many of the people on this forum have the necessary skills and resources to learn and successfully run fecals.


Melis


Quote:
Originally Posted by idea
Quote:
Originally Posted by melissa68
If anyone is interested, I will be happy to provide anyone with the name and number for our vet. He charges $10 per fecal and performs two tests on each speciman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idea
and always get a second opinion =)
dont think that she does these by herself, looks like she is offering a vet referal to me..... :wink:
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 07:46 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well Melissa,
Let's think about this in terms of "bang for the buck".

First off I need a microscope.....$$$
A digital camera with fittings for the scope...$$$
slides, fecolsol, ect., ect. more$$$$$$

Then I can only hope that I am as good at reading a fecal as someone who actualy went to school for it.

Worst case senario: I misdiagnose my frogs fecals and any number of bad things WILL happen after that.

You said it yourself, $10 for a fecal. Why would you TRY to run one on your own?

I can say with certainty that I could post a number of pics that the board, with all of its resources, would be unable to identify. Fecals are not easy.


Rich
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 09:04 PM
andersonii85's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: OceanCounty, NJ
Posts: 1,411
Thanks: 24
Thanked 36 Times in 27 Posts
Default

When I used to work at the animal laboratory I had access to all sorts of useful chemicals, scopes, and vet's. My parasitology professor used to run my frogs fecals for me at no cost. The only thing I had to do was make slides of them and present them to the class. So, if you go to a University or even Joe Schmoe college- chances are pretty good that you already have access to everything you need to do the fecals.


Just be carefull though as sometimes things are misdiagnosed and a second opinion never hurts, esp. if you care about your frogs.

Justin
__________________
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but cancer will probably kill me" - Sheer Terror
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 09:09 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would say that a parasitology professor is indeed qualified to run fecals.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 09:18 PM
Dedicated Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,437
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Justin,

Good post. Just like everything else in this world, reading fecals takes practice.

You don't have to be an electrician to install a light bulb (except if it is a union shop!), nor be a car mechanic to change your oil. Most vets or professionals will assist hobbyists is learning how to do their own fecals.

The most important part is to have the resources available when needed.

Melis


Quote:
Originally Posted by andersonii85
When I used to work at the animal laboratory I had access to all sorts of useful chemicals, scopes, and vet's. My parasitology professor used to run my frogs fecals for me at no cost. The only thing I had to do was make slides of them and present them to the class. So, if you go to a University or even Joe Schmoe college- chances are pretty good that you already have access to everything you need to do the fecals.


Just be carefull though as sometimes things are misdiagnosed and a second opinion never hurts, esp. if you care about your frogs.

Justin
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 09:24 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am curious as to how many members out there have run their own fecals AND have pics of what they have found. I would then ask them if they could ID everything they found.

I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis.


Rich
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 09:59 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The ReturnOfJ105
Well Melissa,
Let's think about this in terms of "bang for the buck".

First off I need a microscope.....$$$
A digital camera with fittings for the scope...$$$
slides, fecolsol, ect., ect. more$$$$$$
Rich, I notice you did not include actual values in your "bang for the buck" theory. I think I know why.

Microscope--$60-$100 for a good used lab scope on ebay (I actually bid on a Bausch & Lomb variable 40-1000 x that closed at $30)

Digi cam and fittings for scope-- unnecessary for a hobbyist, but most of us already have a digicam

Slides, etc.--cheap, especially if you have them from your days as a bio major

So, for as little as $60, you can monitor your collection on a monthly or bimonthly basis yourself and contact a Vet if you see anything suspicious. That is what I do, and the cost was fewer than 4 fecals from your brother, Rich.

Quote:
Then I can only hope that I am as good at reading a fecal as someone who actualy went to school for it.
I don't know of any vets that went to school just to do fecal samples. :lol: If that's the case, it creeps me out a bit. :shock: However, there are a lot of people on the forum who have had microbiology classes to identify at least the genera of a vast majority of what you will see in a fecal exam (or at least be able to identify it and contact a vet). It doesn't take 4 years of vet school to read a fecal, and I doubt there is a "dart frog excrement 101" at vet school, so even your brother has probably had to some research beyond his classes to identify some dart frog parasites.

Quote:
Worst case senario: I misdiagnose my frogs fecals and any number of bad things WILL happen after that.
That's an overstatement that assumes too much. I can understand the point you are trying to make, but the emphasis is a bit strong. It just reads like a scare tactic, and the assertion is just not correct in all cases.

Simply misdiagnosing a frog does not ensure it's demise. If one normal gut flora is misidentified as a parasite, then a fecal is sent to the local vet, I doubt anything bad happens to the frog. There are lots of other scenarios where your statement just isn't right.

Quote:
You said it yourself, $10 for a fecal. Why would you TRY to run one on your own?
I can think of many reasons: personal edification, continuing education, a genuine curiosity, because I can take a VERY fresh sample, monitoring a collection on an ongoing basis, spot checking as part of a greater system you develop with your vet, etc. Further, not everyone charges $10 for a fecal, and some may have to add shipping charges as well, depending on if they have an exotic vet nearby.

Quote:
I can say with certainty that I could post a number of pics that the board, with all of its resources, would be unable to identify.
That is probably true (although there are some very educated people who lurk these boards, and I would not deign to insult them). However, very few vets (and likely no vet) will be able to independently and instantaneously identify every organism that might possibly show up in a fecal.

Quote:
Fecal are not easy.
Well, I have to disagree. Running a fecal is very easy. Identifying everything exactly can be difficult. So, one could theoretically use fecals to identify which animals may be infected, and then have your local vet check out a fresh sample to identify a parasite/organism and treat it. That is an imminently logical system in my humble opinion.


Hey, I have no problem admitting that there is no replacement for a good veterinarian or another specialist. However, I don't share your viewpoint that you should NEVER TRY TO DO ANYTHING BY YOURSELF, and never question what a doctor says. That just seems to be a little self-serving for you in this scenario. Further, if you check earlier in this post, you will see that vets are not infallible, and sometimes make dosing miscalculations that are 10-1,000 times off from reality.

So, am I in favor of double checking and making sure I am informed enough to know whether my vet is a decent vet or a crummy vet? You bet, and that is exactly what these posts should be about--educating yourself about your animals and how you can ensure the best care for them. I just personally reject the theory that you should bury your head in the sand and follow any procedure a doctor recommends.

As a board, I think part of the function is to help facilitate learning. Even if you don't do something yourself, you can know what is involved so you can ask the right questions. Yes, I have baseline fecals done by a vet to check my animals, then monitor them myself thereafter. That makes good sense to me, and I really don't see a logical reason not to do it that way.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 10:03 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Homer,

Please post pics.

When I want to have a legal doccument looked over , I go to a lawyer.
When I want my fecals looked over ,I go to a vet.
I can think of sooo many other ways to further ones knowledge in this hobby without taking chances on my frogs health.


Rich
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 10:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The ReturnOfJ105
I am curious as to how many members out there have run their own fecals AND have pics of what they have found. I would then ask them if they could ID everything they found.

I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis.


Rich
Rich, I think you assume to much. For starters, taking pics of what you find is not necessary to ensure your animal is properly cared for--check my previous post.

Further, none of the posts I have seen have recommended treating frogs yourself. I think I have started most of the threads about this, and indicated that I was going to run fecals myself, get a copy of Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry to educate myself and help my local vet determine how to treat. As it turns out, I found a local vet that didn't need to see my copy, but I still find the resource interesting and helpful.

I'm not really sure that I would call running a fecal "medical analysis." It might be a part of medical analysis, and identifying parasites or bacteria might be part of medical analysis, but I don't think that simply looking at smeared excrement is medical analysis. Regardless, I don't see the harm of doing it yourself in association with a larger plan (involving a vet) to care for your darts. Why are you so against having people educate themselves?
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 10:19 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The ReturnOfJ105
Homer,

Please post pics.

When I want to have a legal doccument looked over , I go to a lawyer.
When I want my fecals looked over ,I go to a vet.
I can think of sooo many other ways to further ones knowledge in this hobby without taking chances on my frogs health.


Rich
Rich,

I would post pics, but, if you will read my last two posts, I don't have a camera adapter for my $30 scope. So, when I wasn't finding anything, I had a qualified vet run fecals. Guess what? He didn't find anything either. So, I guess I can't post a picture of nothing, even if I did have a camera adapter for my 'scope.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 10:23 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Homer,
Not ever against anyone furthering themselves.
What I am trying to get across is this:
It is not as easy as some , you, would have the members believe, to run fecals.
This is probably why you also send them to a vet, a pro.
Pics are very important unless you have a photographic memory. This should be obvious.
I have never said that an attempt should not be made, in fact I believe it was my brother who first attempted to show Sarah and Melissa how to read a fecal.

They do not do their own fecals.

I would also say that if you have never found anything, and your above statement sounds like you took a sample to a vet once, then you need to check again. I would also be a bit concerned if my scope costs less than an adaptor for pics.


Rich
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 10:50 PM
Dedicated Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,437
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Rich,

FYI, we don't do our own fecals because we don't have time. When we have the time, we will begin to do them. It is not the lack of skill or want to learn, just a lack of time.


Melis

Quote:
Originally Posted by The ReturnOfJ105
Homer,
Not ever against anyone furthering themselves.
What I am trying to get across is this:
It is not as easy as some , you, would have the members believe, to run fecals.
This is probably why you also send them to a vet, a pro.
Pics are very important unless you have a photographic memory. This should be obvious.
I have never said that an attempt should not be made, in fact I believe it was my brother who first attempted to show Sarah and Melissa how to read a fecal.

They do not do their own fecals.

I would also say that if you have never found anything, and your above statement sounds like you took a sample to a vet once, then you need to check again. I would also be a bit concerned if my scope costs less than an adaptor for pics.


Rich
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 10:52 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Melissa,


Did Homer not just tally up an extremely small amount to get started doing fecals?
He says he can do them for far less than a vet.

[/quote] It is not the lack of skill or want to learn, just a lack of money.

Although Melissa edited her above post, most will agree: Time=Money :wink:

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 11:08 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The ReturnOfJ105
Homer,
Not ever against anyone furthering themselves.
What I am trying to get across is this:
It is not as easy as some , you, would have the members believe, to run fecals.
Hey, Rich, for people who have taken microbiology and histology labs, it really isn't that difficult to run fecals. I understand that not everyone has that background, but those who do can learn to run fecals given the information that I posted. Justin has indicated that he has done it, and the link that I post in the "how to run fecals" post was written by a goat farmer.


Quote:
This is probably why you also send them to a vet, a pro.
Pics are very important unless you have a photographic memory. This should be obvious.
If you find something suspicious and have your vet run fecals (yes, I would have more than one run if I found something suspicious and my vet did not), you don't have to take a picture. That is what should be obvious.

Quote:
I have never said that an attempt should not be made,
Really? Then why did you post this:

Quote:
When I want my fecals looked over ,I go to a vet.
and

Quote:
I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis.
and

Quote:
Why would you TRY to run one on your own?
It sure sounds like you were arguing that it shouldn't be tried. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.

Quote:
I would also say that if you have never found anything, and your above statement sounds like you took a sample to a vet once, then you need to check again.
Yup, there's logic for ya'. If you don't see anything, and your vet doesn't see anything, it MUST have a parasite. That's just another self-serving scare tactic that is not beneficial to anyone.

Quote:
I would also be a bit concerned if my scope costs less than an adaptor for pics.
Yes, I would not recommend that everyone go out and buy the cheapest 'scope they can find. Most of the "cheap" new ones are not good quality. However, the scope is well used but functioning Bausch & Lomb, is very similar to one that we used in labs, and I was lucky. Further, I don't think it takes a vet to determine whether a scope is good enough to use for finding micororganisms, and most afficionados look for 1950's scopes because they have good quality optics and all metal gears, and can be worked on. Most college bio students could figure that out within 5-10 minutes of fiddling with one, and there are people you can consult to help you pick one out if you are willing to call your old college professors.

Is it what I would have if I was making a living off of doing this? No. But I don't need top of the line to see microorganisms, just like I don't need a Porsche to drive me to work when a Chevy will get me there--especially when I can buy more frogs with the money I saved.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 11:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Bottom line, Rich: I run fecals AND have a vet run fecals. I don't think you can argue that is a bad combination, or irresponsible. Others are free to do what they want, and providing them with that info is what the board is about. If they want to try doing fecals, I don't see why they shouldn't.

Personally, I wouldn't drill glass myself, but I wouldn't rant and rave at others that wanted to try it, and I wouldn't discourage others from posting information on how to do it. So we disagree. That's fine, man.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 11:29 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi again.


Quote:
Hey, Rich, for people who have taken microbiology and histology labs, it really isn't that difficult to run fecals. I understand that not everyone has that background, but those who do can learn to run fecals given the information that I posted. Justin has indicated that he has done it, and the link that I post in the "how to run fecals" post was written by a goat farmer.

It would seem that you keep adding qualifiers as we go Homer.

This is probably why you also send them to a vet, a pro.
Pics are very important unless you have a photographic memory. This should be obvious.

Quote:
If you find something suspicious and have your vet run fecals (yes, I would have more than one run if I found something suspicious and my vet did not), you don't have to take a picture. That is what should be obvious.

I would ask anyone out there if they have ever taken a sample to a vet, been given a clean bill of health, and then went on their way thinking that their frog would forever stay in it's "clean" state. Tell me the downside to pics please.

I have never said that an attempt should not be made,

Quote:
Really? Then why did you post this:


When I want my fecals looked over ,I go to a vet.

I do, I watch, I learn, from the vet.

and


I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis.

Are you kidding me???

and


Why would you TRY to run one on your own?

Taking COSTS into account.

Quote:
It sure sounds like you were arguing that it shouldn't be tried. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.


I would also say that if you have never found anything, and your above statement sounds like you took a sample to a vet once, then you need to check again.

Quote;
Yup, there's logic for ya'. If you don't see anything, and your vet doesn't see anything, it MUST have a parasite. That's just another self-serving scare tactic that is not beneficial to anyone.

Self serving? I make zero on meds, fecals, ect. My brother makes less. Again, state of health changes.

Quote:
I would also be a bit concerned if my scope costs less than an adaptor for pics.


Yes, I would not recommend that everyone go out and buy the cheapest 'scope they can find. Most of the "cheap" new ones are not good quality. However, the scope is well used but functioning Bausch & Lomb, is very similar to one that we used in labs, and I was lucky. Further, I don't think it takes a vet to determine whether a scope is good enough to use for finding micororganisms, and most afficionados look for 1950's scopes because they have good quality optics and all metal gears, and can be worked on. Most college bio students could figure that out within 5-10 minutes of fiddling with one, and there are people you can consult to help you pick one out if you are willing to call your old college professors.

Is it what I would have if I was making a living off of doing this? No. But I don't need top of the line to see microorganisms, just like I don't need a Porsche to drive me to work when a Chevy will get me there--especially when I can buy more frogs with the money I saved.

Again, more qualifiers , now.


Homer, try your fecals, good luck. You make me tired.

With the above qualifiers, please try your own fecals, then take them to a vet.

Rich
Back to top
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 09-13-2004, 11:43 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've tried to stay out of this for a while.

I could care less who checks your frogs' fecals, but have it done. If you have a good vet that knows what they are looking at, you should be fine. If you've been trained in parasitology, you should be fine. But MANY MANY MANY people will miss the smallest microorganisms, and assume there was nothing there.

I remember trying to teach Sarah and Melissa how to see some of these tiny organisms. I had a $1800 scope locked dead center on some small parasite at 400 times magnification, and Melissa admitted that she couldn't see it and wouldn't be able to find it later herself. Sorry, Melissa, but you should remember that.

Homer, I'd really be suspicious of a vet who found no parasites in your fecal exams. Some fecals are negative. They are quite rare, but do happen. Yours on the other hand most likely have some tiny little parasites that you have over looked time and time again.

For my part, I'd rather people use their own vets and other local vets than use me. I am no where near as inexpensive as S&Ms recommended vet, and I have other work to keep me busy. I will still offer this service, but will not be offended by anyone for using any other method possible.

Worms are huge and usually move. Worm eggs are much more important and quite a bit smaller. Protozoan and other parasites smaller yet, and often overlooked. Bacterial overgrowths are difficult to recognize without a decent amount of experience.

Homer, this post started off as you spouting off side effects of a drug related to Panacur. You state that you own a copy of Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry. Do you know of any better medical book for amphibians? What does Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry say about the safety and use of Panacur?
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2004, 12:05 AM
kyle1745's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 13,236
Thanks: 24
Thanked 375 Times in 104 Posts
Default

While I do not intend to push this already questionable conversation any further I do have some general points, and a warning. Please keep to the topic and disagree without direct comments to each other.

1. Anyone could easily learn to run a fecal, though I would not recommend that you do unless you can do a couple of things:
- also have a vet review them
- or take pictures of what you see to a vet

2. Remember that a med student that gets straight D's is still called Doctor after graduation. Get referrals and etc. Just because they have gone to school does not mean they have a clue. The point is anyone can learn to run fecals without that much work. Now making an accurate diagnosis is a whole different issue, but with frogs even most vets guess. This is why there are no standards for treatment.

3. Most college today is nothing more than a formality to get your foot in the door, they by no means teach what you see in the real world. Now the medical field is a bit different in some cases, but not all. College is just big business anymore. I can tell you after doing many technical interviews we don't hire anyone without years of experience, college just doesn't cut it.

As for this comment yes I would agree that with a little training almost anyone can make some medical diagnosis. Is that to say its the best method? No, not at all. My point is this, you can go to college for 4 years for a CIS, and I could teach you more and have you doing more in 6 months. Most things are simple, but can not be taught in a class room.
Quote:
I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis.
Are you kidding me???
__________________
Kyle
Site Administrator
http://www.kylesphotos.com
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2004, 12:11 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kyle,
You can not graduate from vet school with any Ds. Or at least not MSU. I know that you can not graduate with all Ds from any vet school, barring posssibly some Carribian/Off-Shore schools.

Rich
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fenbendazole back2eight General Health & Disease Treatment 15 05-07-2006 06:38 AM
Panacure/Metronidazole use (long) Dane General Discussion 7 11-07-2004 12:06 AM
Panacure Good or Bad? I dont know Anthony Jackson Beginner Discussion 3 10-11-2004 08:08 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.