• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Another controvercial topic:The Crypto "secret"...

Good points MegF and Diamondlil. Interesting about Msra too. I have no knowledge about it but it's always interesting to hear that kind of thing.

On the crypto though, it sounds like the best way to deal with it is not to deal with it at all unless it shows up, and is confirmed, in a collection. Any other ideas?
 
tbtusk said:
On the crypto though, it sounds like the best way to deal with it is not to deal with it at all unless it shows up, and is confirmed, in a collection. Any other ideas?
This could get contraversial. For each keeper there is going to be a cost/benefit calculation to testing that is going to be as individual as their circumstances. If I had one snake that cost almost £7,000 (ball python, spider het clown from a UK supplier), and maybe it was to be a foundation for breeding stock, would I test it? I'd be just as likely to test a normal corn that cost me £30. I'd have to weigh up how invasive the tests were, how effective they were, any treatment options if the snake tested positive and the implications of a positive result.
If a snake tested positive but showed no symptoms what would my options be? I could never then breed that snake unless I 'forgot' the results, which might (correct me if I'm wrong) be what this thread is about.
My personal take on the 'all american imports are infected, burn them!' type reaction is that if most if not all snakes carry the organism, it may be that the stress of transit during imporation can sometimes lower their natural immunity to the point where it allows the disease to be expressed. A European-bred snake that has never had any contact with an import could equally well carry the organism and then express the disease if its' immune system is compromised enough at any stage of its' life
 
Crypto Articles

Here's a section of an article on reptile diseases from Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine printed about a year ago (pardon any typographical errors, I had to type it up).

Selected Infectious Diseases of Wild Reptiles and Amphibians
Juergen Schumacher, Dr.med.vet., Dipl. ACZM

Cryptosporidiosis has a cosmopolitan distribution and has been reported in a variety of different reptile species, including snakes and lizards. This disease appears to be common in wild and captive populations of reptiles, and transmission occurs by the fecal-oral route. Infected reptiles may be subclinical, may not show sings of infection but are intermittent shedders, or may develop clinical signs by regurgitation and weight loss accompanied by hypertrophy of the gastric mucosa. Quarantined wild caught, juvenile green snakes (Opheodrys aestivus) were diagnosed with severe Cryptosporidiosis causing enteritis and high mortalities. Organisms were detected in the small intestine in infected snakes. Histopathologic evaluations of selected tissues did not reveal any gastric lesions in the affected snakes.

Diagnosis of Cryptosporidiosis is challenging. One method of diagnosis is the demonstration of oocysts within a fecal specimen by acid-fast staining. However, a negative acid-fast stain only indicates that the reptile was not shedding at the time of sampling. Endoscopy, including gastric lavage and the collection of biopsy specimen, can also be utilized. Attempts of treatment, including administration of trimethoprim-sulfa, spiromycin, and paromomycin will not effectively eliminate the organism but reduce shedding of occytes. Strict hygiene and quarantine of infected and exposed animals are mandatory for control of Cryptosporidiosis.

I'll have another 1 or 2 up when I find the others that I have on the subject.
 
So it sounds like careful, very careful, might I add, quarentining might be helpful. I'm still hung up on that problem that most cleaning agents have no affect on the parasite. I don't see how one can prevent transmition because of this.

Daimondlil, that's an interesting idea for why the european collecters blame imported animals for being infected with crypto. It makes sense that that is why it's thought.
 
Cryptosporidium is an organism that is also found in humans although it is a different strain. In humans not much was known about it until HIV/AIDs. In humans with deficient immune systems cryptosporidium causes a chronic diarrhea and have devastating effects. Today it is recognized as a very common cause of diarrhea in humans and is usually self limited - meaning you recover on your own with no treatment. Some people may carry it but for the most part the feeling is that it is found in many (Most?) water supplies/sources. It is very hard to eradicate.

I find it hard to believe that the same is not true for the cryptosporidium strain that is found in reptiles. I bet most snakes have it and only a small portion get sick with it. I also believe that trying to quarantine it is extremely difficult. I think it is worthwhile doing your best to quarantine realizing that you are only human and some bacteria and viruses are tougher than you are!
 
It's found in many species of animals. Their are 3 strains that infect reptiles (one of which is mammal based, but can be passed from rodent to reptile). I have an entire article on the strains that infect reptiles, but I haven't found it yet.
 
diamondlil said:
This could get contraversial. For each keeper there is going to be a cost/benefit calculation to testing that is going to be as individual as their circumstances. If I had one snake that cost almost £7,000 (ball python, spider het clown from a UK supplier), and maybe it was to be a foundation for breeding stock, would I test it? I'd be just as likely to test a normal corn that cost me £30. I'd have to weigh up how invasive the tests were, how effective they were, any treatment options if the snake tested positive and the implications of a positive result.
If a snake tested positive but showed no symptoms what would my options be? I could never then breed that snake unless I 'forgot' the results, which might (correct me if I'm wrong) be what this thread is about.
My personal take on the 'all american imports are infected, burn them!' type reaction is that if most if not all snakes carry the organism, it may be that the stress of transit during imporation can sometimes lower their natural immunity to the point where it allows the disease to be expressed. A European-bred snake that has never had any contact with an import could equally well carry the organism and then express the disease if its' immune system is compromised enough at any stage of its' life


I agree 100%!
So,the only thing we can do is to keep strict quarantine and hygiene rules,and maybe do some tests if we can/want.
But,I keep asking myself...What if Crypto shows up?
"Forget it"?"Those things happen"?
I wish these weren't some people options..
That's what is all about for me.
 
Noe..gr said:
I agree 100%!
So,the only thing we can do is to keep strict quarantine and hygiene rules,and maybe do some tests if we can/want.
But,I keep asking myself...What if Crypto shows up?
"Forget it"?"Those things happen"?
I wish these weren't some people options..
That's what is all about for me.

On this forgeting it thing that keeps coming up as a problem or an option, is there a serious threat to a collection when one animal is infected and showing symptoms? It seems to me that threat is minimal. The fact that an animal is showing symptoms or has died from the parasite just proves that crypto is in the collection, which it probably was already. it doesn't raise the chances of another snake being symptomatic, does it? If all the other snakes are healthy with strong immune systems there is little threat to the collection. Am i right on all that? I think that's sortof what you were asking, Neo..gr

So if this is true then what's the point of culling an entire collection once an animal has been infected. Chances are the keeper has been infected is carrying the parasite as well by then, so it's not that helpful to the animals nor the keeper.
 
Okay, I swore I read that their was one strain that could... but clearly i'm wrong. oops, thank's for correcting me.
 
More Crypto Articles

I found parts of two of the other articles I have on Crypto, sadly the papers were damaged by water when my car got busted up during a storm a few weeks ago. I am missing sections, but I think I have most of the important information.

From: APPL. ENVIRON. MICROBIO
Volume/Issue: Unknown, missing beginning
Author: Unknown, missing beginning

Distribution of Cryptosporidium in snakes from samples provided by the St. Louis Zoo

Snake Common Name | Type of Crypto found in specimen
• Amazon Tree Boa | C. serpentis
• Ball Python | C. serpentis
• Ball Python | C. parvum
• Black Rat Snake | C. parvum
• Black Rat Snake | C. serpentis
• Black Rat Snake | C. parvum
• Black Rat Snake | C. muris
• Black Rat Snake | C. parvum
• Boa Constrictor | C. serpentis
• Boa Constrictor | C. serpentis
• Boa Constrictor | C. serpentis
• Boa Constrictor | C. serpentis
• Boa Constrictor | C. serpentis
• Boa Constrictor | C. serpentis
• Boa Constrictor | C. muris
• Boa Constrictor | C. parvum
• Boelen's Python | C. serpentis
• Boelen's Python | C. serpentis
• Boelen's Python | C. serpentis
• Bornmueller's Viper | C. serpentis
• Bull Snake | C. saurophilum
• California King Snake | C. serpentis & C. muris
• California King Snake | C. serpentis
• California King Snake | C. serpentis
• Cornsnake | C. serpentis
• Cornsnake | C. serpentis
• Cornsnake | C. serpentis & C. muris
• Cornsnake | C. serpentis
• Cornsnake | C. serpentis
• Cornsnake | C. parvum
• Cornsnake | C. parvum
• Cornsnake | C. serpentis
• Cornsnake | C. parvum & C. muris
• Cornsnake | C. parvum
• Cornsnake | C. serpentis
• Emerald Tree Boa | C. serpentis
• Emerald Tree Boa | C. parvum
• Fox Snake | C. serpentis
• Fox Snake | C. parvum
• Louisiana Pine Snake | C. saurophilum
• Louisiana Pine Snake | C. saurophilum
• Milk Snake | C. parvum
• Mountain Viper | C. serpentis
• Mountain Viper | C. serpentis
• Mountain Viper | C. serpentis
• Prairie King Snake | C. parvum
• Taipan | C. serpentis

More to come...
 
From: APPL. ENVIRON. MICROBIO
Volume/Issue: Unknown, missing beginning
Author: Unknown, missing beginning

Because C. muris and C. parvum mouse genotype were found in high frequency in snakes and lizards from the Saint Louis Zoo, whose diet contained mice, fecal samples were taken from 11 feeder mice and analyzed for Cryptosporidium. Three such samples were positive for Cryptosporidium by PCR analysis of the SSU rRNA gene. RFLP and sequence analyses showed the presence of the C. parvum mouse genotype in two mice and a mixed infection of C. muris and C. parvum mouse genotype in one mouse.

Effectiveness of the diagnosis-euthanasia control strategy. At the Saint Louis Zoo, a diagnosis-euthanasia program was initiated in March 1999 after the identification between December 1998 of chronic Cryptosporidium in snakes. To monitor the effectiveness of the control measures, samples were periodically taken from snakes for 1 year. Right after the initiation of the control measure, 5 of 10 and 8 of 17 snakes samples were positive for C. serpentis or C. saurophilum in May and June of 1999, respectively. Afterwards, only 1 of 45 snake samples taken at five different time periods was positive for C. serpentis.

I have more, but I need a break from typing right now. ;)
 
very interesting. I'd love to know if that one snake helped to infect the rest of the snakes again, or if onthers were re-infected again. The next post maybe then... Thanks for typing that all up.
 
Yes, sorry, I realize that. I guess I said the wrong thing. What I meant was did that one snake that was infected after the euthanising help to infect the other, un-infected snakes in the test group? Really what I'm thinking, is how quickly did crypto (of some kind) get re-introduced into the zoo's collection?
 
It wasn't one snake. That long list in post #31 were the ones that tested positive in the first round. A single negative test for Crypto doesn't mean they're free of the parasite either. So while some may have tested negative in round #1, in round #2 they could have been shedding occytes and tested positive. General rule of thumb is three negatives means the chances are slim that the animal is carrying Crypto.
 
hmm, I'm a little confused. i realized everything your saying. I'm refurring to the bottom of the second post where it says that just after they started the control measure 5 of 10 and 8 of 17 snakes tested possative during 2 sets of test, but later on only 1 in 45 tests over a period of time resulted in a possative. So, I guess I was assuming that meant they were moderately successful in what they were doing. I assume that crypto made it's way back into the zoo, as it seems to have a habit of doing, so I was wondering if later in the article (we will see eventually, no need to deal with it now) they tested the snakes again,say a year later, and got more p[ossatives than in the second round of tests.
 
From: APPL. ENVIRON. MICROBIO
Volume/Issue: Unknown, missing beginning
Author: Unknown, missing beginning

A total of nine Cryptosporidium spp. were found in captive snakes, lizards and tortoises in this study. The most common parasites were C. serpentis and the Cryptosporidium desert monitor genotype. Both parasites were detected in snakes as well as lizards. Two other Cryptosporidium spp. previously reported in captive snakes, C. muris and the C. parvum mouse genotype, were also found in some snakes and one lizard. Another common Cryptosporidium parasite in mammals, the C. parvum bovine genotype, was also identified in six lizards from Switzerland. Four other Cryptosporidium spp. detected in this study, however, presented new Cryptosporidium spp.: a tortoise genotype identified in three tortoises, two new snake genotypes, and another new Cryptosporidium genotype from a lizzard, which was genetically distinct but was related to C. serpentis.

Oocysts of the C. parvum bovine and mouse genotypes and C. muris found in some of the snakes and lizards in this study probably do not represent true parasites of these animals. Instead, the oocysts were probably from rodents ingested by these carnivorous reptiles. This possibility was supported by the presence of organisms belonging to C. muris and the C. parvum mouse genotype in some of the feeder mice which were fed to snakes and some lizards in the Saint Louis Zoo. Although the C. parvum bovine genotype has not been found in mice in the United States, it has been previously reported in mice in Austrailia. Thus, oocysts of the C. parvum bovine genotype seen in lizards in Switzerland could also be from ingested prey or feeder mice. Previously, it has shown that oocysts of the C. parvum bovine genotype was not infectious to snakes. Nevertheless, the possibility of organisms belong to the C. parvum mouse and bovine genotypes and to C. muris infecting reptiles can only be totally rules out by careful biologic and genetic studies.

Because the four new Cryptosporidium spp. found in this study have never been reported in other animals before, they probably were true parasites of these captive reptiles.

Currently there are no effective control strategies against Cryptosporidium in reptiles. In a small-scale study, it was demonstrated that snakes with clinical and subclinical Cryptosporidium could be effectively treated with hyperimmune bovine colostrum raised against C. parvum. A common control practice is to euthanize Cryptosporidium-infected snakes, which would prevent the spread of infection to other animals. This diagnosis-euthanasia strategy was apparently effective in the conrol of Cryptosporidium infection in snakes at the Saint Louis Zoo in this study. The effectiveness of the method was supported by te evident reduction of C. serpentis infection in snakes at the zoo. In addition to the premature death of infected animals, one problem with the control measure is the frequent presence of oocysts of C. muris and the C. parvum mouse genotype in snake because of the use of feeder mice as part of the diet. Because it is difficult to differentiate oocysts of the pathogenic C. serpentis from those of nonpathogenic Cryptosporidium spp. that merely pass through the gastrointestinal tract, the diagnosis-euthanasia control strategy would lead to the killing of uninfected animals.

Something I want to point out...

This statement:

In a small-scale study, it was demonstrated that snakes with clinical and subclinical Cryptosporidium could be effectively treated with hyperimmune bovine colostrum raised against C. parvum.

Does NOT mean that the bovine colostrum CURES Crypto. It TREATS the parasites to reduce sickness and shedding of oocysts.
 
Turner, in the paragraph you're referring to, those are statistics. Not actual numbers. They also didn't test every snake, lizard & tortoise they had in the facility, only random groups.

I do have a chart with the statistics...Let me scan it and upload
 
Back
Top