Home | About Us | Contact Us


Koi Forum - Koi-Bito Magazine straight from Japan
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Parasite question

  1. #21
    Oyagoi kingkong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    2,021
    I am appealing to anybody with logicl thoughts. If indeed Ich and Costia had a "dormant" cystual latent state that lasted an "infinite" time period there would be no fish aquariums, there would be no koi ponds. It would be impossible to rid our systems of parasites and all fish would eventually succumb .
    Now if you want to believe this junk JR is parroting, be my guest but please keep an open mind.

  2. #22
    Tosai
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Orange Park, Florida, U.S.A
    Posts
    47
    Several years ago, a friend who lived within “spitting distance” of a small river, (actually called a “creek”) had three separate instances of large invasions of frogs in her pond. After each of these frog invasions, her koi were literally COVERED with fish lice (argulus) – 30 or 40 on each fish, and that was just the visible ones. Nastiest thing I’ve ever seen! At the time, I had a goodly stock of Dimilin that I had acquired “just in case” and I ended up giving her most of my Dimilin to use on her pond and fish, which quickly cleared the problem, each time. I have always thought that the frogs came from the creek, because, although I often have seen large frogs and toads in my own pond, I have never yet had a problem with fish lice. In over 16 years, the only louse seen on my own fish was on the dorsal fin of a new koi, while it was still in quarantine.
    S. Stone

  3. #23
    Sansai redman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    266
    Thanks guys. I didn't mean for this to turn into an arguement. Kong, I always keep an open mind and value all opinions and responses. The more we discuss this the more questions I come up with. Kong, I understand what you are saying, that contamination would come from the water associated with the frog, not the frog itself. And JR, if I'm not mistaken, you are saying that it is possible the frog could be a carrier of some parasites. So, if we were to scrape a frog, could we find say costia "feeding" on a frog? Is a frog a regular victim of costia or just fish? Has anyone done such an experiment?

  4. #24
    Daihonmei
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,642
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by redman View Post
    Thanks guys. I didn't mean for this to turn into an arguement. Kong, I always keep an open mind and value all opinions and responses. The more we discuss this the more questions I come up with. Kong, I understand what you are saying, that contamination would come from the water associated with the frog, not the frog itself. And JR, if I'm not mistaken, you are saying that it is possible the frog could be a carrier of some parasites. So, if we were to scrape a frog, could we find say costia "feeding" on a frog? Is a frog a regular victim of costia or just fish? Has anyone done such an experiment?
    good way to learn and a good way to go through life Redman. In the case of Kong, I once hurt his feelings and he has been 'after me' ever since. I say black and Kong will say white. That's who he is. so enough air wasted on that subject---

    Parasites are not all what we think of when we say the word parasites. I recall when I was talking zoology courses in college that a considerable amount of time was spend on breaking the species of insects, portozoa, crustaeans, worms, flatworms etc into various relationships with hosts.

    Some harm, some do no harm and some kill. It is usally not in the 'best interest' of a parasite to kill its host! yet when populations are in abnormal settings and under stress even' mild ' opportunistic parasites can kill by sheer physical presence.

    Frogs have parasites like any other wild animal. Universal parasites and species specific parasites.
    Frogs can also be vectors- meaning they physically transport water /cells containing parasites.

    There is a another large hobby, Herpetology where people keep and breed reptiles and by extension- amphibians. I used to breed poison arrow frogs for instance. But mostly king and milk snakes and their various hybrid combinations. Parasites were a big problem when you gathered together in large numbers, snake and frog species from all over the western world.
    The tick for instance was non species specific. But certain internal flukes were species specific. And the far eastern forms had 'wild' parasites that could kill naive species in a week.
    In frogs, flukes were an issue in the aquatic forms. You could scape them and examine the flukes under a microscope.

    In the case of fish aquariums, by the way, the marine hobby has used a nasty anti-parasitic in the form of copper. Levels are considered theraputic at levels of .5 mg/l for most difficult species. But if you don't keep that level at .5 for three weeks ( some species will take 6 weeks to 6 months) you will have cystic forms that survive and will linger as a low level parasite until a new weak fish arrives or until the water conditions decline and then those few individuals will epxlode in numbers to infestation levels. These parasites are responsible for more marine hobbyists leaving the hobby than any other event. This also represents the greatest risk to wholesalers and store owners, in that one bad shipment can wipe out an entire inventory if not acted upon in quick fashion. oodinium is enemy number one. And 'stress ich' is as common as hen's teeth. In that case, thank goodness, good water will push back the cycle and fish will remain unaffected, even though a low level of ich is likely always around them.


    In the case of wild frogs, argulus would be a common parasite and usually not seen to often these days in an all koi setting. Trichodina would be carried by frogs as the frog will act as a vector to transfer individuals - in this case, the frogs body is a substrate with bacteria coating on the slime coat- that is the natural food/prey of trichodina.
    Costia would be a true parasite as would chilodonella.
    Amphibians are harder to treat for parasites as they absorb everything through the skin. This makes most things very toxic. But some mild baths and some foods can deter parasites. And like fish, good water/god diet will usually wear down infestations to tolerable levels.
    Please note, we do very little about internal parasites in our koi. in Amphibians, one can't afford to be so casual as many internal parasites will kill entire collections of amphibians and reptiles. JR


  5. #25
    Daihonmei
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,642
    Blog Entries
    2
    here's an interesting piece on parasites and frogs




    VETERINARY NOTES
    What do I do with my new frog(s)?
    by
    Brian Monk

    The following was published in the ADG Newsletter No. 32 April - June 1997 and is used here with the permission of the ADG

    I have been asked this question several times, most often by people who have lost new frogs once and don't want to lose any ever again. It is a good question, as the problems related to the shipping or receiving of frogs (wild-caught or captive-bred) which is probably the greatest cause of death in a newly acquired amphibians. In response to the many questions I have received on this topic, I have written down a few ideas for people to use as a guide in the treatment of newly acquired anurans. Note that these points could apply to almost any newly acquired animal.
    1. Quarantine is probably the most important thing a hobbyist can do for his frogs.
    ALL new frogs should be placed in quarantine for a period of 4-8 weeks, regardless of their appearance. At the very worst, a quarantine period will only keep healthy frogs from the general collection for this time. At the very best, you may save yourself and your frogs a great deal of unnecessary loss.

    Quarantine should be best carried out in a separate room from the general collection. Quarantine facilities should consist of a relatively simple set-up. A 10 gallon aquarium with a small plastic "Honeymoon Hut" and dead sphagnum moss or artificial floor covering. The aquarium and all of its contents should be sterilized before and after each use, preferably with a solution of 10% Bleach in water. Let the tank and its contents air dry in the sun before storing or using. All utensils used for the
    quarantine tank must not be used for any other tank. This means buying a separate spray bottle at the very least.

    Also, work with the quarantine tank AFTER you have worked with all other frogs. This way, you will prevent the spread of potential disease from your hands. It should go without saying that you should ALWAYS WASH YOUR HANDS BETWEEN TANKS.
    2. New frogs are stressed (often severely) and are often diseased.
    Some degree of medical treatment is indicated for newly acquired frogs, be they wild caught imports or captive bred animals from a friend down the street. In addition to potential parasite, bacterial, and protozoa infections, many frogs are also dehydrated and/or malnourished. Medical treatment always includes quarantine, and potentially dehydration,
    deworming, antibiotic therapy, close observation, exam by a veterinarian, and TLC.

    I would suggest that after being shipped all frogs are at least dehydrated. The basic treatment for rehydration includes soaking a frog in an electrolyte solution, like unflavored Pedialyte®, or simply soaking it in dechlorinated tap water. In most cases this should suffice. In addition, a period of quiet, warmth, and dark may also help a frog recover from a rough shipping period.
    (Also see VETERINARY NOTES (Parasites) by Brian Monk).

    3. Parasites can be extremely devastating to a stressed frog.
    The basic treatment for parasite infections include antiparasiticals like fenbendazole (Panacur®) or Ivermectin (Ivomec®) or levamisole or pyrantel pamoate. I use 50-100 mg/kg fenbendazole orally or 50-100 ug/kg ivermectin orally or transdermally. These treatments are done for 1-3 days and repeated 1-3 weeks later. Ivermectin can produce neurologic side-effects, and should be discontinued if these are seen. Fecal exams can be done at home, and typically require a 10-50 power microscope. Direct smear and fecal flotation should be performed. Fecal floats are done as follows: mix feces and Zinc Sulfate in a small container (test tubes are good), fill to brim with Zinc Sulfate, rest a slide or coverslip on top and let sit for at least 10 minutes. Read under microscope. Direct smears are done with normal (0.9%) saline. It is important to note that interpretation of this test is what counts, and this should be done by a veterinarian until you know exactly what to look for.

    4. Protozoal infections are typically NOT infections.
    Many protozoans have been shown to be present in normal frog GI tracts, and this suggests they are commensal organisms, if not beneficial to the frogs. Treatment should be avoided unless populations of protozoa are extremely large, or all other causes for a frog's illness have been ruled out. Metronidazole at 50 mg/kg once per day orally for 1-3 days and repeated in 1-3 weeks is appropriate, although many people will give metronidazole as a one time dose of 50 mg/kg. Metronidazole can have
    severe neurologic side effects, so used it carefully and discontinued if neurologic signs are seen.

    5. Bacterial infections can be particularly devastating to frogs, as the are very susceptible to septicemia (bacteria living and reproducing in blood), and can quickly succumb and die from even minor infections.
    Infections typically occur via wounds, and may present as dark or red blotches, ulcers, or general depression and ADR (Ain't Doin' Right). Normally gram negative pathogens are involved, and treatment with appropriate antibiotics of the correct dosage is indicated. Enrofloxacin (Baytril®) is my personal favorite, but it is alcohol based and not suitable for transdermal or topical application. Better drugs for topical application are ophthalmic preparations which are meant to be applied to sensitive areas and are properly formulated.

    6. Fungal infections can and do occur, particularly on the eyes and skin.
    These may be primary or secondary, and can be diagnosed by microscopically examining skin scrapings for fungal elements. Appropriate therapy with topical or systemic antifungal medications is indicated.

    7. Severely emaciated frogs may have to be force fed before they will recover enough to eat on their own.
    The technique varies with the size of the frog, but in general a good force-fed diet includes all of the necessary nutrients, often in a concentrated form to decrease the volume of food to be force-fed. Several commercial force-fed diets are available. A simple diet can be made by making a paste of fruit-flies, crickets (without the legs or wings), vitamin/mineral powder (VERY LITTLE), and a few drops of water. A mortar and pestle can be used to grind these ingredients together, and a small
    syringe and catheter can be used to feed the mixture. Most frogs (thankfully) will eat on their own providing other problems and diseases are taken care of.

    8. Get a veterinarian.
    Pick a veterinarian who is willing to listen and work with you. Most vets don't know much about frogs, but they know a lot about the art and science of medicine. Give them a chance, and they will provide you with plenty of knowledge and help. You will pay for their services, but most vets have gone to school for 8 years and are $40,000 to $80,000 in debt from student loans. You pay a veterinarian for his/her knowledge, and not just the drugs they give you.

    A frog owner should not simply go to the pet store and buy some fish medication and treat his frogs. Granted, some will have some luck with this method. But the greater majority of the time this technique will be ineffective at best, and harmful (potentially fatal) at worst. A frog owner should work in conjunction with his/her veterinarian, even if this means visiting the vet only one time to explain your problems and situation. 9. If anyone has a sick frog and they want to send me a picture of it or present it for further work up, I would love to hear from you.
    Hobbyists are invaluable in expanding the base of knowledge we veterinarians have concerning amphibian medicine. Not much is known specifically about amphibian disease. Particularly now, in this time of drastic declines in world amphibian populations, knowledge of amphibian disease is very important. The salvation of species may depend on what we know. You, as collectors and hobbyists, have a much greater daily exposure to these animals, and you can help the veterinary community by telling us what you have found.

  6. #26
    Daihonmei
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,642
    Blog Entries
    2
    Finally here is another study that is current ( 2005) and interesting in that you will recognize the protozoa and flukes mentioned -----



    Appendix III: National Wildlife Health Center Pathology Reports
    Preliminary Diagnoses:
    1. Oral discs: Depigmentation of jaws or toothrows in 8 of 85 tadpoles from Welaka NFH, 6 of 20 tadpoles from Warm Springs NFH, and 9 of 23 tadpoles from Orangeburg NFH.
    2. Gall bladders: Myxozoan parasite (Myxidium sp.) in 24 of 27 tadpoles from Welaka NFH, 5 of 7 tadpoles from Warm Springs NFH, 6 of 10 tadpoles from Edenton NFH, and 1 of 3 tadpoles from Orangeburg NFH.
    3. Skin ectoparasite: Gyrodactylus sp (monogean trematode) in 11 tadpoles from Welaka NFH, 5 tadpoles from Warm Springs NFH, no tadpoles from Edenton NFH, and no tadpoles from Orangeburg NFH.
    4. Intestinal pinworms: Gyrinicola batrachiensis in 9 of 85 tadpoles from Welaka NFH, 1 of 20 tadpoles from Warm Springs NFH, and no tadpoles from Edenton and Orangeburg NFH.
    5. Bacterial culture result: Aeromonas hydrophila was isolated from the intestines only of 7 of 8 tadpoles from Welaka NFH, 1 of 3 tadpoles from Warm Springs NFH, 1 of 4 tadpoles from Edenton NFH, and 1 of 6 tadpoles from Orangeburg NFH.
    Background:
    One hundred fifty larval anurans of 11 species were collected from 4 national fish hatcheries in the months of May and June, 2005, for health screening (diagnostic examinations). The main purposes of this study were to determine whether any diseases of fish could be detected in amphibians from fish hatcheries and whether hatchery-associated amphibians had any important amphibian diseases that could be transported to new sites when hatchery-raised fish were shipped. The 4 national fish hatcheries, amphibian species and numbers of amphibians are shown above.
    Preliminary Results:
    This preliminary report includes results of virus cultures, bacterial cultures, external parasite examinations (for ectoparasites) and partial parasitology results. Histological examinations are in progress and will be reported later.
    Virus cultures were done on 105 tadpoles. Fathead minnow cell lines were used for all virus cultures in order to increase chances of isolating fish viruses. No viruses were isolated in cultures.
    Bacterial cultures were done on 42 tadpoles. Salmonella spp. were not isolated from any tadpoles. Recognized bacterial fish pathogens, such as Yersinia spp, Edwardsiella sp., Flavobacterium spp, Vibrio spp. and Aeromonas salmonicida were not isolated from these tadpoles. Coliform (sewage) bacteria such as Escherichia coli were not isolated from these tadpoles. The bacterium, Aeromonas hydrophila, which may cause secondary or opportunistic infections in fish and amphibians, was isolated from the intestines only (not from livers) of 10 of 21 tadpoles; this bacterium was isolated from the intestines of at least one tadpole from each of the 4 fish hatcheries. Because A. hydrophila was not isolated from the livers of any tadpoles, it is likely the organism was a normal, non-pathogenic inhabitant of the amphibian gut. Aeromonas hydrophila is ubiquitous in wetlands and has been isolated frequently from the intestines of normal-appearing amphibians nationwide.
    Parasite examinations were done on the gall bladders of 47 tadpoles and many intestinal nematodes and ectoparasites. Thirty-six (76.6%) of 47 tadpoles had myxozoan parasites in their gall bladders; these myxozoa were identified as Myxidium sp. At least one tadpole from each fish hatchery had myxozoan parasites in their gall bladders. Very little is known about the myxozoan parasites of amphibians; for example, it is unknown whether fish and amphibians share this parasite, and the complex life cycle of all amphibian myxozoans has not been investigated. Illness and death have not been associated with infection by this parasite, but it is important to note that the intermediate life stages and route of infection to the gall bladder remain unknown. Furthermore, it is likely that a second common and presumably innocuous myxozoan parasite of the mesonephroi ("kidneys") of amphibians, Leptotheca ohlmacheri, will be detected in these tadpoles in histological examinations at a later date.
    Intestinal parasites in these tadpoles were limited to the common and geographically widespread amphibian pinworm, Gyrinicola batrachiensis. Nine tadpoles from Welaka NFH had pinworms and only one tadpole from Warm Springs NFH had pinworms. It is likely additional small or immature pinworms will be found in these tadpoles in histological examinations. Pinworms are considered innocuous, even in massive infections of the intestine. Cestodes and adult trematodes were not found in these tadpoles, but it is possible these parasites will be found in histological examinations. Immature trematodes (metacercariae) were found at dissections in a few tadpoles (n= 11) from these fish hatcheries; this suggests that few aquatic snails (the first intermediate host for metacercaria that infect amphibians) were present at the hatcheries and sites where the tadpoles were collected and that the final hosts of these parasites (usually fish- and amphibian-eating birds and mammals) also were present. Metacercariae were observed in the skin, muscles, body cavity and mesonephroi ("kidneys") of 11 tadpoles. Because most encysted metacercaria are too small to be seen with the naked eye, it is likely more tadpoles will be found to have metacercaria in histological examinations.
    The skin of many tadpoles was examined microscopically with the animal submerged in water in order to detect minute ectoparasites. Protozoa resembling Epistylis and Trichodina were found in many tadpoles, but because these protozoa tend to increase in numbers in captive situations, and because many tadpoles were held alive for up to 10 days before being euthanized and examined, the significance of these protozoa is uncertain. Illness and death in amphibians have not been linked to these two genera of protozoa. However, an uncommon monogean ectoparasite of amphibians was detected in 11 tadpoles from Welaka NFH and 5 tadpoles from Warm Springs NFH. These numbers do not represent infection rates in tadpoles from these 2 hatcheries, because examinations for the parasites usually were halted when 1-3 tadpoles in each group were found to be infested. The monogean trematodes in a few tadpoles were identified by a parasitologist as Gyrodactylus sp. This genus is principally an ectoparasite of fish, but it is infrequently detected in aquatic amphibians in southeastern USA and California. Light or mild infestations, as were found in these tadpoles, probably are innocuous, but heavy infestations can cause skin irritation and may result in secondary or opportunistic bacterial or fungal skin infections. It is unclear why this fish-associated ectoparasite was not detected in tadpoles from Orangeburg and Edenton NFHs.
    Oral discs of these tadpoles were carefully examined and the toothrows were sketched. Special attention was given to the black, keratinized portions of the jaw sheaths and toothrows because loss of black pigment may indicate infection by the pathogenic amphibian chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Other causes for loss of black pigment (depigmentation) are possible, but oral chytridiomycosis is probably the most common cause of depigmentation of the oral disc. A total of 23 tadpoles from 3 of 4 fish hatcheries had partial depigmentation of their oral discs. Histological examinations will be necessary to confirm whether any of these abnormal oral discs were due to infection by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis.
    Discussion & Conclusions:
    Viruses. All virus cultures are complete. No viruses were isolated from tadpoles in this study. It is unlikely but possible that viral infections will be detected by histological examinations at a later date. But at present, there is no evidence for common or widespread viral infections in amphibians from southeastern national fish hatcheries.
    Bacteria. All bacterial cultures are complete. Important bacterial diseases of fish, such as those caused by Yersinia spp, Vibrio spp, Edwardsiella sp, Streptococcus iniae, and Aeromonas salmonicida were not detected in these tadpoles. In addition, coliform bacteria were not isolated from the intestines and internal organs of the tadpoles. Routine and special bacterial cultures for Salmonella spp. also were negative in all tadpole specimens. Absence of bacteria ("no growth") in the livers of all sampled tadpoles indicates there was no evidence of bacterial septicemias in the amphibians and that appropriate sterile technique was maintained during the dissections of these frequently tiny tadpoles.
    Fungi. There was no overt external evidence of watermold infections in the tadpoles, hence, no specimens were submitted for watermold cultures. Cultures for chytrid fungi are not done at our Center. Histological examinations will be completed at a later date and may provide confirmed diagnoses of oral chytridiomycosis in some tadpoles. Other fungal infections also may be detected in histological examinations.
    Protozoa. No specific tests for protozoa were attempted on these tadpoles. While many tadpoles were examined microscopically for ectoparasites while submerged in water, most of the observed protozoa were considered innocuous. About 35% of tadpoles had Epistylis-like protozoa attached to their skin; however, this number probably is the minimum infection rate because once the parasite was detected in 1 to 3 tadpoles of each species from a site, submerged examinations on remaining individuals from the group were not done. About 22% of the 105 tadpoles from Welaka and Warm Springs NFHs had mild numbers of Trichodina-like protozoa on their skin (and in their mouths and spiracles). Again, this protozoa is generally considered innocuous. Additional protozoa, such as intestinal coccidia, may be detected later in histological examinations.
    Myxozoa. Perhaps the most unexpected finding in these tadpoles was the high infection rates by the myxozoan parasite, Myxidium sp. in the gall bladders. A total of 36 (76.6%) of 47 tadpoles had myxozoan parasites in their gall bladders. At least one tadpole from each of the 4 fish hatcheries had this parasite. Because so little is known about amphibian myxozoans, the significance of this parasite to the amphibian hosts and the susceptibility of fish at each hatchery are unknown. While the parasite probably is innocuous in amphibians, the effects of heavy or massive infections remain unknown. It is likely a second common and generally innocuous myxozoan parasite, Leptotheca ohlmacheri, will be found in the mesonephroi ("kidneys") of some tadpoles in histological examinations at a later date.
    Helminths. Encysted metacercariae were present in various body regions in these tadpoles, and a few had innocuous pinworms in their intestines. It is likely that 3 or 4 different genera or species of metacercaria were found in these tadpoles, since each species usually has a preferred body region or organ. Hence, the metacercaria in the mesonephroi probably are Echinostoma sp. (or Family: Echinostomatidae) while the very tiny metacercaria in the skin of the ventrum, vent tube and hindlimbs probably are Ribeiroia sp. The identity of the metacercaria in the skeletal muscles and body cavity is unknown. It is possible additional helminthic parasites will be detected later in histological examinations.
    While all helminthic parasites appeared to be present in sparse or very mild numbers, it should be noted that until recently most metacercariae were considered innocuous. Recent experimental studies with metacercariae of the malformation-inducing parasite, Ribeiroia sp., indicate that as few as 5 metacercaria may kill very young tadpoles.
    Ectoparasites. At least 3 types of parasites were found on the skin of these tadpoles. Two were protozoa and were previously discussed. The third ectoparasite was the monogean trematode, Gyrodactylus sp. All infested tadpoles had mild numbers of these parasites and were from Welaka and Warm Springs NFHs. Again, rates of infection in each species of amphibian and each hatchery were not determined, because examinations were halted after 1-3 tadpoles in each group were found to be infested. It is not clear whether these ectoparasites are host-specific for amphibians or are generalists capable of infesting fish and amphibians. Identifications of some preserved monogeans to species may be attempted later. Although pathology reports generally avoid lists of diseases and organisms that were not found, it should be noted that anchorworms (Lernaea sp.) and leeches were not detected in any tadpoles.
    Summary
    Viruses were not isolated from any tadpoles from the 4 national fish hatcheries. Well known bacterial diseases of fish were not detected in cultures in any tadpoles. Salmonella spp and E. coli were not isolated from any tadpoles. In external examinations under a dissecting microscope, several tadpoles had loss of pigment (depigmentation) on their oral discs; while these abnormalities may have multiple causes, the most common cause is infection by the pathogenic chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Histological examinations are still in progress and will be necessary to confirm chytridiomycosis. A few ectoparasites were found in tadpoles from Welaka and Warm Springs NFHs; it is possible the monogean trematode, Gyrodactylus sp., represents transmission of a fish parasite to amphibians, but this ectoparasite has been detected in amphibians in other states and may be a fairly common parasite of aquatic amphibians. Although a high rate of infection by the myxozoan parasite, Myxidium sp., was found in the gall bladders of tadpoles from all 4 fish hatcheries, the significance of this parasite to fish and amphibian health is uncertain. Additional parasites and infectious diseases may be detected in these tadpoles in histological examinations that are still in progress.
    ___________________________
    Pathologist: D. Earl Green, D.V.M.
    Diplomate, Amer. Coll. Vet. Pathol.

  7. #27
    Daihonmei
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,642
    Blog Entries
    2
    Arthropods
    Also potential vectors of infectious disease, various arthropods
    may act as parasites for amphibians. Small crustaceans
    known to parasitize fishes may also affect aquatic life stages
    of amphibians. Such parasites include the fish louse (
    Argulus)
    and the parasitic
    anchor wormcopepod Lernaea

    (Crawshaw 1992). These organisms attach to skin or gill*

    From Vet text parasites of frogs

    Note the common term for argulus on frogs is "fish' louse

  8. #28
    Daihonmei
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,642
    Blog Entries
    2
    And for those trying to get their minds around protozoa - here is a good simple explanation---

    Protozoa
    Protozoa are single celled organisms that are very diverse groups. They vary in their size, shape, features, and habitat. The characteristic of the protozoa are usually liked with other animals. The most common characteristic of the protozoa are mobility and heterotrophy. Protozoa are grouped in the kingdom Protista.
    There are about 92,000 described species of protozoa in the world. The protozoa can be seen in all the habitats including freshwater, marine water, and terrestrial soil. Most of the protozoa are the agents for human diseases like malarial and parasitic diseases.
    Normally the protozoa range from 10 to micrometer but some has the capacity to grow up to 1mm. The protozoa cannot be seen with the naked eye. They can be seen only under the microscope. The protozoa move with the help of flagella a whip like tail structure. Protozoa reproduce through both sexually and asexually means. To know more about their characteristics refer to the page Characteristic of Protozoa.
    Protozoa prey on unicellular and filamentous algae as a predator. In the food chain the protozoa play a very important role both as herbivores and consumers. They mainly control the growth of bacterial population. The protozoa in take their food with the help of the cell membrane. Some of the protozoa surround their prey and swallow them and some others have an opening called the mouth pores through which they sweep the food. The foods eaten by them are digested in the vacuoles a stomach like compartments.
    The protozoa have a skeletal structure called a Pellicle which consists of the plasma membrane and cytoskeleton. Plasma membrane act as the outer surface and the cytoskeleton consists of the additional membranes, microtubules, plates, and microfilaments. The pellicle is in the shape of the cell. To know more about the body structures of the take a visit to the page Anatomy of the Protozoa.
    Protozoa can be further classified on the basis of locomotion. They are:



    • Flagellates
    • Amoeboids
    • Sporozoans
    • Ciliates

  9. #29
    Daihonmei
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,642
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by S. Stone View Post
    Several years ago, a friend who lived within “spitting distance” of a small river, (actually called a “creek”) had three separate instances of large invasions of frogs in her pond. After each of these frog invasions, her koi were literally COVERED with fish lice (argulus) – 30 or 40 on each fish, and that was just the visible ones. Nastiest thing I’ve ever seen! At the time, I had a goodly stock of Dimilin that I had acquired “just in case” and I ended up giving her most of my Dimilin to use on her pond and fish, which quickly cleared the problem, each time. I have always thought that the frogs came from the creek, because, although I often have seen large frogs and toads in my own pond, I have never yet had a problem with fish lice. In over 16 years, the only louse seen on my own fish was on the dorsal fin of a new koi, while it was still in quarantine.
    S. Stone
    Stone, to investiage your experience, we would need to see the environment that the frogs came from. Fish lice come from water that is high in organics and lower in oxygen. That means that they are most common in still ponds and plant rich ponds. The more mulm, the more you will see certain species-- fish lice and trichodina being the most common. And there are also certain species of frogs associated with these kind of water conditions. So bull, green and a few local species really like the same kind of environment as argulus and trichodina do.
    If however, we are talking about pickle or lepoard frogs, they like moving water along creeks and streams. And that is ,by definition, cleaner water than still water. Less parasite habitants. So this 'might' explain your observations?
    And you are right, dimilin, a chemical that will not allow shelled creatures to molt their outer ectoskeleton, will break the morphing and growing cycle of all argulus and anchor worm, for almost complete eradication ( the exception is the anchor worm well hidden in mucous or just budding and then a second application is needed to get them before they are old enough to breed another generation. JR

  10. #30
    Oyagoi kingkong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    2,021
    It just goes on and on. The question is can a frog from a 5 year old's collection introduce costia to a koi pond? No matter how much tad pole bull frog nonsense JR is throwing into the wind, the answer is still slim and none. Is costia in some form in every koi pond? The answer is plain and simple NO.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Koi Parasite Identity
    By tdavies73 in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 08:30 PM
  2. Parasite question
    By kingkong in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 10:04 PM
  3. Filter/Parasite question
    By redman in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-20-2009, 10:11 AM
  4. Parasite question
    By gcuss in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-10-2009, 10:27 PM
  5. Parasite treatment
    By Gotokeys in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-17-2009, 06:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Articles - Sitemap - FAQs and Rules

KB Footer Graphic
Straight from Japan... For the serious hobbyist!
All content and images copyright of: Koi-bito.com