Re using corkbark and other items.

[Stylopidae]

if its coming from enclosure A, what would you be trying to kill before moving it to enclosure B? I mean, it can from an enclosure with a tarantula, and assumng the t from the previous enclosure is no longer on it, what on earth is there to kill? I just dont get it....

I literally just wipe away the old webbing and re-use and plant, enclosure or wood.

Viruses, mainly. Maybe microsporidians, too.

Many viruses can be passed from mother to offspring and lay dormant across generations. It's why nudiviruses are a big problem in silkworm cultures. You get a group which looks healthy one week, and the next they're all black goo. You literally have to breed the nudivirus out once it gets into a culture. Beekeepers also have issues with transmitting dicistroviruses (e.g. deformed wing virus) between hives by reusing frames. Many cricket cultures are decimated by cripaviruses which can be spread through contaminated hides.

That last one is particularly important because cricket paralysis virus has a HUGE host range, and I haven't seen any data on whether it can infect spiders. Given that there's been an ongoing outbreak for years, it makes sense to be a little cautious. Maybe spider A was fed on crickets for a period of time, while spider B has never met a cricket. Moving materials from enclosure A to B would potentially expose spider B to pathogens from spider A.

I think microsporidians are another potential issue. Many can be transmitted across species, and symptoms are very subtle. They often don't kill their hosts outright, but can weaken them to the point where survival (or breeding) becomes difficult. I don't know of any microsporidians in tarantulas, but these animals are poorly studied so it wouldn't surprise me if they're an issue we haven't caught onto yet.

Etc, etc, etc. We don't know much about tarantula pathogens, and sterilizing stuff is so ridiculously easy that there's no reason to not do it.

I always bake my wood at 350*F for at least half an hour before moving it to another cage. All of my enclosures are sterilized with bleach before reuse. The hands-on time for baking is less than a minute (pop in, pop out and let cool) so there's really no reason to not do it. Better safe than sorry.

 

[cold blood]

Viruses, mainly. Maybe microsporidians, too.

Many viruses can be passed from mother to offspring and lay dormant across generations. It's why nudiviruses are a big problem in silkworm cultures. You get a group which looks healthy one week, and the next they're all black goo. You literally have to breed the nudivirus out once it gets into a culture. Beekeepers also have issues with transmitting dicistroviruses (e.g. deformed wing virus) between hives by reusing frames. Many cricket cultures are decimated by cripaviruses which can be spread through contaminated hides.

That last one is particularly important because cricket paralysis virus has a HUGE host range, and I haven't seen any data on whether it can infect spiders. Given that there's been an ongoing outbreak for years, it makes sense to be a little cautious. Maybe spider A was fed on crickets for a period of time, while spider B has never met a cricket. Moving materials from enclosure A to B would potentially expose spider B to pathogens from spider A.

I think microsporidians are another potential issue. Many can be transmitted across species, and symptoms are very subtle. They often don't kill their hosts outright, but can weaken them to the point where survival (or breeding) becomes difficult. I don't know of any microsporidians in tarantulas, but these animals are poorly studied so it wouldn't surprise me if they're an issue we haven't caught onto yet.

Etc, etc, etc. We don't know much about tarantula pathogens, and sterilizing stuff is so ridiculously easy that there's no reason to not do it.

I always bake my wood at 350*F for at least half an hour before moving it to another cage. All of my enclosures are sterilized with bleach before reuse. The hands-on time for baking is less than a minute (pop in, pop out and let cool) so there's really no reason to not do it. Better safe than sorry.

seriously, viruses....no offense, but that's incredibly weak and ridiculously uncommon......if a virus was present that was dangerous to ts, you would have been dealing with a dead or dying t to begin with...I dont think that's what anyone meant by re-using wood.....and if a virus was present, it would almost certainly already be in your t room, ready to return as soon as the item is placed back in another enclosure.

"and sterilizing stuff is so ridiculously easy that there's no reason to not do it"

There are indeed reasons NOT to sterilize, in fact IMO its one of the worst things one can do in an enclosure as it invites a whole host of issues to take over.

Artachnologist Sam Marshall explains this and gives examples in his book, "tarantulas and other arachnids", where he explains that there is "little reason to sterilize", because the instant the item is exposed to air, it will begin to be colonized by all the things you are likely trying to kill, like mold, spores, mites, etc.. He goes on to say;

"if you have freshly sterilized soil [or anything] the first things to colonize it will take over, as they have it all to themselves. For instance, the worst fungal growth I have ever had has been in cages lined with sterilized peat moss and bark chips. In these cages, I had white, wooly looking mats of fungus growing all over the substrate. Other cages that had the same, but unsterilized substrate, had no such fungal growth....by having a natural array of organisms in the tank, they are able to keep each other in check."

My experiences have been the same which is why I always discourage sterilization of anything to be put in an enclosure.

 

[l4nsky]

While biosecurity is a potential concern in the back of my head, realistically since I'm not sterilizing all instruments (tongs, scoops, hemostats, catch cups, prodding sticks, etc) between their uses in each enclosure, or enforcing strict quarantine procedures, I'm not truly adhering to the practice. With that being said, I do have a few rules in my collection around the idea of biosecurity.

• I don't reuse corkbark or plastic plants currently, but I am saving it to either use it as decor in future vertebrate habitats (where the webbing/smells will be environmental stimulation and there really isn't any cross species infection possibility) or to pasteurize it (NOT sterilize, there's a difference) in the future for reuse.
• I only reuse substrate if it was in an enclosure used by a specimen produced in house.
• For sling enclosures and even juvie enclosures, if I have an unexpected death occur that has no possible explanation, I'll toss the whole enclosure and it's decor out as the cost is usually minimal.

Now I realize there are still plenty of contamination vectors in my husbandry, but I'm reasonably confident in my approach.

 

[Stylopidae]

seriously, viruses....no offense, but that's incredibly weak and ridiculously uncommon......if a virus was present that was dangerous to ts, you would have been dealing with a dead or dying t to begin with...I dont think that's what anyone meant by re-using wood.

...are you running PCR on your spiders and following up those results with bioassays? Doing similar surveys of invert keepers? Probably not. So you can't really say for sure whether viruses are common.

Unless you're rearing your spiders in axenic conditions, they're gonna be carrying some sort of microbiota. Good? Bad? Who knows.

Different viruses affect different animals differently. A vulture infected with HPAI can travel across continents, while a chicken pretty much dies on the spot. There are also plenty of examples of baculoviruses which kill one caterpillar, while being completely harmless to another species in the same family. Ditto with all the bee dicistroviruses. Viruses lethal to one spider may be harmless to another.

Since we know nearly nothing about what viruses infect spiders, or how those symptoms progress, it's logical to assume that the same rules which apply to every other animal also apply to tarantulas.

if a virus was present, it would almost certainly already be in your t room, ready to return as soon as the item is placed back in another enclosure.

Most viruses which infect insects are spread by fomites, which require exposure to an infected host to spread disease, so that last sentence doesn't really reflect how outbreaks work in insect cultures. If you disinfect between uses, then the pathogen won't be there to return when the item is placed in another enclosure.

Microsporidia, also an issue for similar reasons. Can drastically affect the health of an arthropod in ways not easily detectable by the standard invert keeper, and spread by feces-contaminated fomites.

"and sterilizing stuff is so ridiculously easy that there's no reason to not do it"

There are indeed reasons NOT to sterilize, in fact IMO its one of the worst things one can do in an enclosure as it invites a whole host of issues to take over.

Artachnologist Sam Marshall explains this and gives examples in his book, "tarantulas and other arachnids", where he explains that there is "little reason to sterilize", because the instant the item is exposed to air, it will begin to be colonized by all the things you are likely trying to kill, like mold, spores, mites, etc.. He goes on to say;

"if you have freshly sterilized soil [or anything] the first things to colonize it will take over, as they have it all to themselves. For instance, the worst fungal growth I have ever had has been in cages lined with sterilized peat moss and bark chips. In these cages, I had white, wooly looking mats of fungus growing all over the substrate. Other cages that had the same, but unsterilized substrate, had no such fungal growth....by having a natural array of organisms in the tank, they are able to keep each other in check."

My experiences have been the same which is why I always discourage sterilization of anything to be put in an enclosure.

With all due respect to Sam Marshall, my MSc is in insect pathology. I've successfully dealt with viral (and bacterial-Serratia to be exact) outbreaks before in insect cultures. This is a topic I know well, certainly better than most people. Probably better than him.

We're talking about the risks of moving materials such as hides from one enclosure to another, which the above comment does not address. While, sure, sterilizing EVERYTHING can be bad...for the reasons he mentions...we're talking about sterilizing materials and equipment between uses. Some stuff (like substrate) is one-time use, while multiuse things should be sterilized (or at least pasteurized) between uses.

Any zookeeper will tell you about the importance of sterilizing equipment which travels between enclosures. Hell, AZA accredited zoos even have containers full of disinfectant (e.g. foot baths) they use to decontaminate their feet while walking between exhibits.

While biosecurity is a potential concern in the back of my head, realistically since I'm not sterilizing all instruments (tongs, scoops, hemostats, catch cups, prodding sticks, etc) between their uses in each enclosure, or enforcing strict quarantine procedures, I'm not truly adhering to the practice. With that being said, I do have a few rules in my collection around the idea of biosecurity.

• I don't reuse corkbark or plastic plants currently, but I am saving it to either use it as decor in future vertebrate habitats (where the webbing/smells will be environmental stimulation and there really isn't any cross species infection possibility) or to pasteurize it (NOT sterilize, there's a difference) in the future for reuse.
• I only reuse substrate if it was in an enclosure used by a specimen produced in house.
• For sling enclosures and even juvie enclosures, if I have an unexpected death occur that has no possible explanation, I'll toss the whole enclosure and it's decor out as the cost is usually minimal.

Now I realize there are still plenty of contamination vectors in my husbandry, but I'm reasonably confident in my approach.

I mean, I have access to lab ethanol and could easily spray down tongs/catch cups between uses like I did when I worked at the zoo.

Would that be best practice? Yes, absolutely.

Do I actually do that? No, because it costs money and takes time.

I don't think that most keepers practice perfect technique, but I feel like attempts should be made when it's easy/convenient as you've described above.

Today, I removed a dead centipede from an enclosure. No clue why it died, but you bet your ass that I disinfected EVERYTHING which came into contact with the enclosure afterwards. Tongs: boiled. Wood: baked. Substrate: tossed.

 

[cold blood]

While, sure, sterilizing EVERYTHING can be bad...for the reasons he mentions...we're talking about sterilizing materials and equipment between uses. Some stuff (like substrate) is one-time use, while multiuse things should be sterilized (or at least pasteurized) between uses.

The example I, or rather Sam Marshall gave, involved sterilization of one single aspect of the enclosure...moss.

Any zookeeper will tell you about the importance of sterilizing equipment which travels between enclosures.

I worked at a zoo for over a decade, you are comparing apples to oranges here. Cleaning out a bonobo enclosure or a pachyderm enclosure is not akin to re-housing a significantly more clean and simple animal that's kept in your home.

Look at it like this, you have cats and canines in a zoo....you may need to do as you are saying and sterilize many things when moving them around....yet no one on the planet is going to such lengths for their dogs and house cats, not even close, because they live in a house, which is, compared to a zoo, practically a sterile environment (even though its not actually sterile, its an obviously and significantly cleaner, drier environment in every way imaginable).....I mean, I drop a single skittle in the Pachyderm bldg, I aint gonna pick it up much less eat it, but I could spill a whole bag in my house and I would pick up and eat every skittle without issue.

Since we know nearly nothing about what viruses infect spiders, or how those symptoms progress, it's logical to assume that the same rules which apply to every other animal also apply to tarantulas.

And there you go.......you seem to think that because we know "nearly nothing", we should assume the worst possible outcome every time....I feel that if this were actually a real problem, we would certainly know more about it...or at least something. I look at knowing nearly nothing about it, and still having it NOT be an issue...at least not an issue I have ever heard of with ts, as a solid basis that this isnt something we need to be concerned about with ts.

Its not logical to make the assumption that the same rules apply, when we know for a fact, that many, if not most of the mammals/fish/reptiles/bird rules actually dont apply to tarantulas. Places few "warm bloods" could survive, spiders thrive...I recall the pit at the zoo....always full of dung, yet there were always spiders up in the top parts...they literally lived and bred in poo.....something that most warm blooded creatures just couldnt tolerate.

 

[Stylopidae]

The example I, or rather Sam Marshall gave, involved sterilization of one single aspect of the enclosure...moss.
I worked at a zoo for over a decade, you are comparing apples to oranges here. Cleaning out a bonobo enclosure or a pachyderm enclosure is not akin to re-housing a significantly more clean and simple animal that's kept in your home.

Look at it like this, you have cats and canines in a zoo....you may need to do as you are saying and sterilize many things when moving them around....yet no one on the planet is going to such lengths for their dogs and cats, not even close, because they live in a house, which is, compared to a zoo, practically a sterile environment (even though its not actually sterile, its an obviously and significantly cleaner, drier environment in every way imaginable).....I mean, I drop a single skittle on the Pachyderm bldg, I aint gonna pick it up much less eat it, but I could spill a whole bag in my house and I would pick up and eat every skittle without issue.

Veterinary care for mammals is different than invertebrates. Not only are things like antibiotics available for mammals, but vaccines are as well. That's why parvo isn't a thing in most households.

Antibody production is a synapomorphy of vertebrates; tarantulas don't make them. We also can't really give antibiotics/antifungals to inverts. The vast majority of vetinerary care for bugs revolves around hygiene as a result.

Even with all the medical care available for mammals, are you telling me that they simply move animals between enclosures without any disinfection protocols?

So I mean, you're right...these situations are very different. But not in a way which supports your position.

And there you go.......you seem to think that because we know "nearly nothing", we should assume the worst possible outcome every time....I feel that if this were actually a real problem, we would certainly know more about it...or at least something. I look at knowing nearly nothing about it, and still having it NOT be an issue...at least not an issue I have ever heard of with ts, as a solid basis that this isnt something we need to be concerned about with ts.

I mean, I didn't say we should assume the worst possible outcome every time. I did say, however, that it was a good idea to disinfect things between uses.

Tarantulas definitely get diseases. DKS, that thing where they molt and stay wet and then die, nematodes, etc. Plenty of animals die prematurely in this hobby for a variety of reasons. We usually don't know the cause. Because we don't know the causes, we don't know how widespread each cause is

Nobody's studied this, and there's not really a huge economic incentive to do so. We get most of our information about insect viruses and microsporidians from pestiferous (e.g. mosquitoes, caterpillars), model (Drosophila, Tribolium) and beneficial insects (honeybees) because there's an economic incentive to use these as models. Frankly, I'm not surprised we know nothing about tarantulas.

Its not logical to make the assumption that the same rules apply, when we know for a fact, that many, if not most of the mammals/fish/reptiles/bird rules actually dont apply to tarantulas.

I mean, sure. There are many differences between vertebrates and invertebrates, but as I pointed out earlier, those differences result in hygiene being more important for care of invertebrates. This is a case where what you say is true, but not in a way which supports your position. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Regardless, every time I used a vertebrate as an example for a rule, I backed that up with several examples from invertebrates. That's why I feel confident in pointing out that those specific rules are either universal, or nearly so.

One example of a rule I'd argue is universal: I think you'll have a hard time convincing an epidemiologist that a particular pathogen will cause identical symptoms in every member of an animal family when they don't even cause the same symptoms in every member of a given species. While a pathogen might be harmless to tarantula A, it could still pass it to a vulnerable species.

Just because it's been raised in captivity doesn't mean it's free of pathogens...that's why I brought up the example of nudiviruses in silkworms. This is an example where vertebrates are indeed different than invertebrates. There are no diseases (that I know of) in vertebrates which are maintained through vertical transmission, and then passed on horizontally during outbreaks.

 

[cold blood]

Veterinary care for mammals is different than invertebrates.

Yeah, it exists for vertebrates.

Not only are things like antibiotics available for mammals, but vaccines are as well.

Has there ever been proof that these are necessary or would even be beneficial for a t?

Antibody production is a synapomorphy of vertebrates; tarantulas don't make them

Its possible, even highly likely that they dont make them because they dont need to make them.

Even with all the medical care available for mammals, are you telling me that they simply move animals between enclosures without any disinfection protocols?

Did ai say that? In fact I said the opposite. I said we dont do those things for our dogs and cats at home, but indeed said they would be necessary in a zoo.

.these situations are very different. But not in a way which supports your position.

and how exactly does it support your position?

I did say, however, that it was a good idea to disinfect things between uses.

and I disagreed, and offered the counter-point from an arachnologist.

Tarantulas definitely get diseases. DKS

DKS is a disease now? prove that one, as it sure seems like the symptoms of something other than disease....like poisoning or perhaps dehydration....but I have never seen evidence that it is, or is caused by disease or virus.

that thing where they molt and stay wet

again, thats not a disease or virus, its an uncommon molting complication.

nematodes,

again, not a disease.

Plenty of animals die prematurely in this hobby for a variety of reasons

Plenty of humans do to, it doesnt mean we would benefit from a sterile environment any more than the arachnid would.

We usually don't know the cause. Because we don't know the causes, we don't know how widespread each cause is

If disease were widespread, it would be obvious, as many of us have huge collections from all over the world. Disease is clearly not a widespread problem.

There are many differences between vertebrates and invertebrates, but as I pointed out earlier, those differences result in hygiene being more important for care of invertebrates.

No, much much less important......see my example above of spiders living and breeding in the poop pit.....or in any of the dirties, nastiest places on earth that are almost across the board, teeming with inverts.

Mammals are far more dependent on hygiene and far more likely to get sick from a virus or other pathogen. Its why we all have showers in our house and a sewer system...lessons learned from things like the plague. We're still waiting on that great spider plague.

I think you'll have a hard time convincing an epidemiologist that a particular pathogen will cause identical symptoms in every member of an animal family when they don't even cause the same symptoms in every member of a given species.

That's not an argument that I made.

 

[Dry Desert]

Yeah, it exists for vertebrates.

Has there ever been proof that these are necessary or would even be beneficial for a t?

Its possible, even highly likely that they dont make them because they dont need to make them.

Did ai say that? In fact I said the opposite. I said we dont do those things for our dogs and cats at home, but indeed said they would be necessary in a zoo.

and how exactly does it support your position?

and I disagreed, and offered the counter-point from an arachnologist.

DKS is a disease now? prove that one, as it sure seems like the symptoms of something other than disease....like poisoning or perhaps dehydration....but I have never seen evidence that it is, or is caused by disease or virus.

again, thats not a disease or virus, its an uncommon molting complication.

again, not a disease.

Plenty of humans do to, it doesnt mean we would benefit from a sterile environment any more than the arachnid would.

If disease were widespread, it would be obvious, as many of us have huge collections from all over the world. Disease is clearly not a widespread problem.

No, much much less important......see my example above of spiders living and breeding in the poop pit.....or in any of the dirties, nastiest places on earth that are almost across the board, teeming with inverts.

Mammals are far more dependent on hygiene and far more likely to get sick from a virus or other pathogen. Its why we all have showers in our house and a sewer system...lessons learned from things like the plague. We're still waiting on that great spider plague.

That's not an argument that I made.

I quite agree.

The worst thing possible for ANY form of life is a sterile environment.

As far as I am aware the only sterile environments occur in research laboratories and hospitals, and look at the lengths they go through to prevent any introduction of anything into their sterile environment.

Life has evolved on this planet that enables one organism to counteract/ balance out another thus providing a livable environment.

If things were permanently in a sterile flux all life would have to be enclosed in a huge bubble.

Nature looks after its own and has a remarkable way of doing that.

Sterilisation is the worst thing possible in many ways as if used it cannot be maintained.

And as my colleague on this board has said many times
" Nothing is truly sterile unless it's autoclaved "

Imagine how much fun that would be.

 

[Matt Man]

if its coming from enclosure A, what would you be trying to kill before moving it to enclosure B? I mean, it can from an enclosure with a tarantula, and assumng the t from the previous enclosure is no longer on it, what on earth is there to kill? I just dont get it....
I literally just wipe away the old webbing and re-use and plant, enclosure or wood.

why I said some times. If I think there may have been mites or any fungal growth I'll just give it a freeze. Just so it is starting as close to zero as I can get. And again, mostly a sometimes

 

[IntermittentSygnal]

I clean them off with a quick scrub with my cork brush under running water, because I was a second child who got hand-me-downs, too.

 

[Stylopidae]

Has there ever been proof that these are necessary or would even be beneficial for a t?

We don't know anything about spider pathogens. If we knew more, I'm sure there would be use cases.

Its possible, even highly likely that they dont make them because they dont need to make them.

If they didn't need acquired immunity, they wouldn't have RNAi. There is some evidence of an acquired immune system, but we don't really understand how it works. It doesn't appear to be as sophisticated or as effective as the antibody system in vertebrates. The immune system of an arthropod is basically a C student; it does enough to get them through life despite not being as complex as similarly long-lived mammals.

Did ai say that? In fact I said the opposite. I said we dont do those things for our dogs and cats at home, but indeed said they would be necessary in a zoo.

Are most people keeping dozens of species of mammals in close proximity to one another?

The way people keep tarantulas is far more comparable to a zoo environment than a domestic dog/cat situation.

and how exactly does it support your position?

Because hygeine is more important for maintaining arthropod cultures than it is for maintaining mammals.

and I disagreed, and offered the counter-point from an arachnologist.

With all due respect to Sam Marshall, he is not an insect pathologist. I am.

As I said earlier, the passage you quoted isn't relevant to disinfection/biosecurity.

There's a difference between rearing something in a sterile environment, and having rudimentary disinfection protocols. Conflating the former with the latter doesn't make sense, and I'd go so far as to argue that it's a strawman.

DKS is a disease now? prove that one, as it sure seems like the symptoms of something other than disease....like poisoning or perhaps dehydration....but I have never seen evidence that it is, or is caused by disease or virus.

Nobody actually knows what it's caused by (or even if it's one disease-it could be several diseases with similar symptoms for all we know), and that's kind of my point. DKS has very similar symptomology to Cripavirus infection in crickets, so a similar cause may exist in spiders. Or maybe not. My point is that neither of us knows for sure, which means that disinfecting stuff would be a safe move.

again, thats not a disease or virus, its an uncommon molting complication.

...and do you know what this complication is caused by?

Has anyone performed Koch's postulates with the molting fluid?

While I'm sure there are many potential explanations, disease (communicable or otherwise) cannot be ruled out based on the information we have.

again, not a disease.

Okay, sure. You got me here on a technicality. The nematodes are the etiologic agent, while the symptoms they cause is the disease. It's a distinction without any practical meaning for this conversation, though. I'm not going to get that far into the semantics.

Plenty of humans do to, it doesnt mean we would benefit from a sterile environment any more than the arachnid would.

I quite agree.

The worst thing possible for ANY form of life is a sterile environment.
<snip>

Conflating an axenic (e.g. sterile) environment with a disinfection protocol is a strawman. It's kind of a weird one, too.

If disease were widespread, it would be obvious, as many of us have huge collections from all over the world. Disease is clearly not a widespread problem.

No, much much less important......see my example above of spiders living and breeding in the poop pit.....or in any of the dirties, nastiest places on earth that are almost across the board, teeming with inverts.

Mammals are far more dependent on hygiene and far more likely to get sick from a virus or other pathogen. Its why we all have showers in our house and a sewer system...lessons learned from things like the plague. We're still waiting on that great spider plague.

As someone who has maintained insect cultures, and helped to manage outbreaks in those cultures, I can pretty confidently say that you're wrong here.

I mean, not entirely wrong. You're right that we don't see massive spider die-offs, but you're wrong that this means that disease isn't present for the reasons I listed in previous posts. It means that pathogens which cause quick deaths and obvious symptoms have been eliminated from culture, but it doesn't mean that disease won't pop up...and it certainly doesn't mean that diseases can't be introduced and transmitted.

Insects have extremely high mortality in the wild. Less so in captivity, and hygeine is the major reason why.

If you wanted to keep those spiders in captivity, would you keep them around animal dung just because that's (one) environment they're found in? I feel like you'd agree that this is a bad idea, for like, hygiene reasons.

Just because something can live around a pathogen like Serratia, doesn't mean that it's something you should tolerate in a feeder colony (for example).

That's not an argument that I made.

Those are the specific rules I was referencing in the section you quoted, and they were laid out in full just above the section you disagreed with.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Nobody actually knows what it's caused by (or even if it's one disease-it could be several diseases with similar symptoms for all we know), and that's kind of my point. DKS has very similar symptomology to Cripavirus infection in crickets, so a similar cause may exist in spiders. Or maybe not. My point is that neither of us knows for sure, which means that disinfecting stuff would be a safe move.

When it comes to DKS, I have reached the conclusion that when the term is used any number of different conditions are being referred to. Just a quick search on YouTube using the keywords "dks tarantula" reveals a lack of consistency of what the condition looks like. About 20 years ago when I first learned of this syndrome, it was a very distinct condition where a tarantula's limbs moved so quickly and erratically that it appeared seizure-like. These days, any number of conditions are labeled as "DKS" that it is difficult to determine what exactly anyone is talking about. It has become a generalized term that includes any number of problems that have an unknown cause. If by referring to the cricket paralysis virus by using the term "cripavirus," then no, the symptoms of DKS in tarantulas is nothing like that. Tarantulas suffering from true DKS, or at least how I understand it, are most definitely not experiencing any kind of paralysis.

 

[cold blood]

We don't know anything about spider pathogens. If

If they didn't need acquired immunity, they wouldn't have RNAi. There is some evidence of an acquired immune system, but we don't really understand how it works

Nobody actually knows what it's caused by

and do you know what this complication is caused by?

Has anyone performed Koch's postulates with the molting fluid?

Ok, so here he have a bunch of complete unknowns....making the arguments utterly pointless and nothing more than speculation. How can we claim to know so much on one hand, when we can readily admit we know so little on the other hand?.

As someone who has maintained insect cultures, and helped to manage outbreaks in those cultures, I can pretty confidently say that you're wrong here.

arachnids are not insects

I mean, not entirely wrong. You're right that we don't see massive spider die-offs

and this is the crux of my argument.

, but you're wrong that this means that disease isn't present for the reasons I listed in previous posts.

but if its an unknown, how can you claim to be right...and how can you claim I am wroong....see the issue....unknowns prove nothing.

nsects have extremely high mortality in the wild. Less so in captivity, and hygeine is the major reason why

arachnids still are not insects....but judging from the fact that the absolute dirtiest, most unclean places in the world, literally all have arachnids living and breeding in these places, I would have to strongly disagree.....spiders and the insects they feed in, easily tolerate nasty conditions nearly all other life forms would consider almost unlivable.

Just because something can live around a pathogen like Serratia, doesn't mean that it's something you should tolerate in a feeder colony (for example)

we aren't talking about feeder colonies; we are talking about arachnids. There is zero evidence that arachnids and insects can even share or transmit disease between the groups. Like many things I might worry about, don't affect my dog, like salmonella, horse diseases might not affect or be able to jump to squirrels, etc. Knowing this, its a reach to assume all, most or even some insect disease can even cross into the arachnid arena.

 

[Stylopidae]

Ok, so here he have a bunch of complete unknowns....making the arguments utterly pointless and nothing more than speculation. How can we claim to know so much on one hand, when we can readily admit we know so little on the other hand?.

Because we know some things for sure, but we don't know other things.

Knowing that spiders have RNAi, but not knowing if DSCAM acts similarly to antibodies doesn't mean we know nothing about arthropod immunity.

By definition, having incomplete knowledge isn't a complete unknown.

arachnids are not insects

They're close enough to insects to share the same pathogen types, which is why I'm talking about them. The most important pathogens of shrimp cultures are baculoviruses and dicistroviruses. Even spiders get baculoviruses*. Much of what we know about these viruses comes from insect models like caterpillars and honeybees.

It's not a leap to claim that the pathogens which infect spiders are similar to, and transmit similarly to, insect pathogens. We know, for instance, that spiders also get Wolbachia. Spider Wolbachia isn't going to magically turn the spider blue (referencing iridioviruses here) just because it's a spider.

and this is the crux of my argument.

Did you see the part where I pointed out that many infections don't result in the death of the infected individual? Because I addressed this in my very first post when I brought up stuff like microsporidians. That's why I mentioned them, specifically.

For example, many pathogens which are passed through the ovaries have a nasty habit of killing eggs. Not all the eggs, though...a certain percentage survive but remain infected to pass on to the next generation. Very common in things like ticks passing along rickettsiae and spirochaetes. I doubt anyone's tracking stuff like this for spiders.

Pathogen infection isn't a dead/not dead scenario. Pathogens can weaken their hosts, make them less capable of reproducing, or lay unsymptomatic and allow them to kill another host which gets exposed.

Nature isn't all or nothing.

but if its an unknown, how can you claim to be right...and how can you claim I am wroong....see the issue....unknowns prove nothing.

It's not about right or wrong. I'm suggesting a practice which takes literally 30 seconds, and is in place in every arthropod rearing facility.

Disinfection protocols are nearly universal, and for good reason.

arachnids still are not insects....but judging from the fact that the absolute dirtiest, most unclean places in the world, literally all have arachnids living and breeding in these places, I would have to strongly disagree.....spiders and the insects they feed in, easily tolerate nasty conditions nearly all other life forms would consider almost unlivable.

In biology, when we have incomplete information, we make inferences from other species while acknowledging that specifics might work differently between groups. Which is exactly what I've done here.

Animals living in those unclean places frequently die of infections because, well, that's just how things work. You can't possibly be suggesting that these animals are just as healthy as captive specimens, or would have similar mortality rates.

In captivity, that's why we do things like remove food boluses and the like.

I mean, I'm assuming you remove food boluses every once and awhile. I assumed it was a universal practice, but the reaction to suggesting a simple disinfection protocol makes me not so sure anymore.

we aren't talking about feeder colonies; we are talking about arachnids.

There is zero evidence that arachnids and insects can even share or transmit disease between the groups. Like many things I might worry about, don't affect my dog, like salmonella, horse diseases might not affect or be able to jump to squirrels, etc. Knowing this, its a reach to assume all, most or even some insect disease can even cross into the arachnid arena.

Serratia is a broad-spectrum pathogen capable of infecting plants, coral, fish, people and insects. It's a fairly common pathogen of insect cultures, and can wipe them out if not managed properly. It's also the thing that turns your shower pink after awhile, so it's in your house right now.

While it hasn't been documented in spiders, only because nobody's actually looked, I'm fairly confident it wouldn't have an issue infecting them because it's been found infecting (and killing) so many different things.

So here is a specific example of a common pathogen that is almost certainly capable of jumping from a feeder colony to a spider.

*The reference for this specific statement is in a book I don't actually have access to, so I don't know the full details.

 

[Stylopidae]

When it comes to DKS, I have reached the conclusion that when the term is used any number of different conditions are being referred to. Just a quick search on YouTube using the keywords "dks tarantula" reveals a lack of consistency of what the condition looks like. About 20 years ago when I first learned of this syndrome, it was a very distinct condition where a tarantula's limbs moved so quickly and erratically that it appeared seizure-like. These days, any number of conditions are labeled as "DKS" that it is difficult to determine what exactly anyone is talking about. It has become a generalized term that includes any number of problems that have an unknown cause. If by referring to the cricket paralysis virus by using the term "cripavirus," then no, the symptoms of DKS in tarantulas is nothing like that. Tarantulas suffering from true DKS, or at least how I understand it, are most definitely not experiencing any kind of paralysis.

Reinganum's original work described crickets whose movements become uncoordinated early in the infection, which is what you're describing when talking about your first exposure to the term. I know this because I cited the paper in my MSc dissertation. Later authors have suggested insecticide bioaccumulation and prions, but the only consistent thing people have isolated from tarantulas with DKS are bacteria which appear to be either opportunistic pathogens or early colonizers of dead animals.

So, as I said, it's probably a constellation of diseases with similar symptoms. Some of those causes could be genetic, while others may be communicable.

Added by edit: Apparrently the virus which is causing outbreaks is some other densovirus, and not the CrPV that Reinganum originally isolated. Not sure if it's relevant, but it's still kind of a neat fact.

 

[cold blood]

having incomplete knowledge isn't a complete unknown.

No, but it's a terrible basis for which to act upon as it just leads to unsubstantiated, unprovable, speculative conclusions.

Because we know some things for sure, but we don't know other things.

Knowing that spiders have RNAi, but not knowing if DSCAM acts similarly to antibodies doesn't mean we know nothing about arthropod immunity.

By definition, having incomplete knowledge isn't a complete unknown

by definition incomplete knowledge should always be questioned.

It's not a leap to claim that the pathogens which infect spiders

I'm not saying pathogens cant affect them, I am saying we dont know, and as its not something experienced in the hobby, its not a logical direction to even be speculating.

.

Did you see the part where I pointed out that many infections don't result in the death of the infected individual?

Right, so lets panic because ebola is a tiny slight possibility because we know ebola exists....and that's my point, I dont worry about things that have virtually zero chance of affecting me, simply because they exist..

not about right or wrong. I'm suggesting a practice which takes literally 30 seconds,

And I pointed out how that 30 seconds can have a highly detrimental effect on an enclosure.

and is in place in every arthropod rearing facility.

But in exactly zero hobbiests homes.....and lets guess where more spiders reside......plus, many "rearing facilities" would be labs, labs MUST be kept sterile or experiments hold no value...again, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Sterilizing something for experimental purposes is completely different than sterilizing something to aid survival. The former is a must, the latter isn't.

In biology, when we have incomplete information, we make inferences from other species while acknowledging that specifics might work differently between groups. Which is exactly what I've done here

If you did an experiment, and used flawed, incomplete or purely speculative data, would the scientific community accept your results? nope

Animals living in those unclean places frequently die of infections because, well, that's just how things work. You can't possibly be suggesting that these animals are just as healthy as captive specimens, or would have similar mortality rates.

where did I suggest that? How about no where. I said that spiders and insects can live in condition few other groups of animals could survive.....showing they can survive terrible conditions that would kill other living things, showing that sterile, or even clean environments are less important for them than for almost all other life forms.

In captivity, that's why we do things like remove food boluses and the like

yeah, humans keep things in their homes clean...no revelation here, just an obvious statement.

If we didnt we would get mites and such, these things are irritants, virtually none of which would actually kill or harm the spider.

Serratia is a broad-spectrum pathogen capable of infecting plants, coral, fish, people and insects. It's a fairly common pathogen of insect cultures, and can wipe them out if not managed properly. It's also the thing that turns your shower pink after awhile, so it's in your house right now.

Show an example of such things happening within the tarantula hobby...just one single example over the past 50 years. So its in my house right now, and affecting absolutely nothing...doesnt sound all that concerning.

While it hasn't been documented in spiders,

And you dont think that is a critically important fact? I think its THE critically important fact.

only because nobody's actually looked

And why is that? Do you think that's because its never been a problem.....we have such diseases in crickets for example, and as a result, its been studied and we know about it. We typically dont look at things just to look at them, there is usually something that happens or is observed that makes us take a closer look..

 

[Stylopidae]

No, but it's a terrible basis for which to act upon as it just leads to unsubstantiated, unprovable, speculative conclusions.

by definition incomplete knowledge should always be questioned.

I mean, sure. Question it.

The issue is that your knowledge is incomplete as well, so we're both questioning each other. I think this kind of discourse is completely healthy.

.

Right, so lets panic because ebola is a tiny slight possibility because we know ebola exists....and that's my point, I dont worry about things that have virtually zero chance of affecting me, simply because they exist..

I mean, we have more knowledge about ebola than we have about tarantula pathogens. I'm just going to reference my previous comments about microsporidians and rickettsiae/spirochaetes because I've already addressed this line of thinking several times in several ways.

And I pointed out how that 30 seconds can have a highly detrimental effect on an enclosure.

No, you created a strawman where you pretended that I was saying that we should be rearing spiders in a sterile environment which was not what I suggested.

If we're arguing from anecdotes, I disinfect all enclosures with 5% bleach between uses and bake all wood before and after putting it in an enclosure. I don't reuse substrate. I've never had the mould problems Marshall describes.

But in exactly zero hobbiests homes.....and lets guess where more spiders reside......plus, many "rearing facilities" would be labs, labs MUST be kept sterile or experiments hold no value...again, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Sterilizing something for experimental purposes is completely different than sterilizing something to aid survival. The former is a must, the latter isn't.

I'm sure that most hobbiests have some sort of disinfection protocol. A search for bleach yields quite a few results, which implies that it's common practice to disinfect enclosures/materials between uses.

Maybe you don't, but I'm guessing you're in the minority here. I don't have time to read through 10 pages of threads, so maybe I'm wrong.

Having worked in many rearing facilities from academia, industry, and government, I can tell you that sanitation protocols are used to prevent excess deaths. I mean, sure, experiments aren't valid if half your critters die...but that's why sanitation is needed. It's even explicitly in the training materials given to new employees at some institutions. Without these protocols, insect rearing on scale would not be possible.

If you did an experiment, and used flawed, incomplete or purely speculative data, would the scientific community accept your results? nope

If you did an experiment ignoring what's already known from similar situations, the scientific community wouldn't accept your results either. That's why every paper starts with a long background section discussing what's already known/theorized about the topic at hand.

where did I suggest that? How about no where. I said that spiders and insects can live in condition few other groups of animals could survive.....showing they can survive terrible conditions that would kill other living things, showing that sterile, or even clean environments are less important for them than for almost all other life forms.

They can definitely survive unclean situations, but does that mean we should be recreating unclean situations in captivity?

It seems like you accept the idea that unclean conditions will decrease the lifespan of animals, so it seems like having a cleaning protocol is a good, logical step.

Show an example of such things happening within the tarantula hobby...just one single example over the past 50 years. So its in my house right now, and affecting absolutely nothing...doesnt sound all that concerning.

And why is that? Do you think that's because its never been a problem.....we have such diseases in crickets for example, and as a result, its been studied and we know about it. We typically dont look at things just to look at them, there is usually something that happens or is observed that makes us take a closer look..

Show me a keeper who's done a necropsy of their animals. Just one single example over the past 50 years.

Lots of tarantulas die when they're young, and there's even threads in here about people losing multiple animals in quick succession. We basically shrug and say things like 'slings are just fragile' and move on. Nobody really investigates the cause, or it's chalked up to inexperienced keeping without any real evidence or further examination.

The reason we've looked at crickets is because there is, and I've said this before several times, but there is a economic incentive to study them. Not so for spiders.

 

[cold blood]

The issue is that your knowledge is incomplete as well,

But i am not the one suggesting to do anything.....because I have no basis to do so.

No, you created a strawman where you pretended that I was saying that we should be rearing spiders in a sterile environment which was not what I suggested.

No, I was responding directly to your "rearing facilities" argument

If we're arguing from anecdotes, I disinfect all enclosures with 5% bleach between uses and bake all wood before and after putting it in an enclosure. I don't reuse substrate. I've never had the mould problems Marshall describes.

If you are arguing anecdotes, i have never sterilized a thing in 20 years and literally never had a single problem. However, when I first started out, i did sterilize things, and as I mentioned earlier, my results were exactly the same as Sam Marshall explained....which is why I dont sterilize and suggest others dont.

If you did an experiment ignoring what's already known from similar situations, the scientific community wouldn't accept your results either. T

yep, but just because you have knowns, doesnt mean you can disregard the mountain of unknowns.

They can definitely survive unclean situations, but does that mean we should be recreating unclean situations in captivity?

Again, NO ONE suggested that, I merely pointed out that they live and thrive in such situations...none of these situations are captive situations though, are they.

Show me a keeper who's done a necropsy of their animals. Just one single example over the past 50 years.

Whenever i have had a t that I thought was gravid die, I always open them up to verify that and to see if i can find any anomalies....and we have indeed had threads where others have done similar things to their dead ts, like to check for impaction.

 

[Stylopidae]

No, I was responding directly to your "rearing facilities" argument

Still a strawman, no matter how you slice it.

If you are arguing anecdotes, i have never sterilized a thing in 20 years and literally never had a single problem. However, when I first started out, i did sterilize things, and as I mentioned earlier, my results were exactly the same as Sam Marshall explained....which is why I dont sterilize and suggest others dont.

There is a difference between disinfecting and sterilization. The protocol I mentioned earlier does not result in any flora problems.

yep, but just because you have knowns, doesnt mean you can disregard the mountain of unknowns.

I mean, yes. Fact is, we don't actually know the reasons most animals die in the hobby. Disease is one reason, and that can be minimized with basic sanitation.

Again, NO ONE suggested that, I merely pointed out that they live and thrive in such situations...none of these situations are captive situations though, are they.

They are not captive situations, which is why this argument isn't convincing. There is a reason captive animals tend to have longer lifespans than wild animals; sanitation is a part of optimizing care.

Whenever i have had a t that I thought was gravid die, I always open them up to verify that and to see if i can find any anomalies....and we have indeed had threads where others have done similar things to their dead ts, like to check for impaction.

Cool. I think this is good, but I'm not sure whether people would know what to look for. You'd need to be familiar with what the insides of a healthy spider from the same sex and species looks like, and I'm thinking that there's not a whole lot of teaching specimens floating around to allow such comparisons. As a result, I'm not sure you'd be able to differentiate healthy tissue from standard postmortem necrosis in a home setting. I also don't think most people would be able to run pathology on specimens to detect most pathogens. Even someone like me, who's done the work before, would require a lab and reagents which were arthropod-specific. There's folks who could do this (Venomtech does spider necropsies occasionally, for example), but it would be more expensive than a standard mammal necropsy pathology report (which can run into the several hundreds of dollars).

So I'd be very surprised if any home necropsy included a pathology component.

Maybe you'd be able to tell something obvious, like severe impaction, but I'm guessing that something like a clogged sucking stomach (like from a bad moult or something) would be easily missed by a hobbiest.

So, I mean, infectious disease is probably rare in the hobby. That doesn't mean that it's not present, and more spiders than you think probably die from infections...especially slings.

Most keepers have simple disinfection protocols, which are different than sterilization. Baking wood and disinfecting the enclosure with either a quick ethanol spray or a rubdown/rinse with 5% bleach won't hurt anything. Kritter keepers and ceramic water-dishes are even dishwasher-safe, so there's another route one could go. Plastic sauce cups, used by slings, are cheap enough to be one-time use. Use only captive-bred feeders. Don't reuse substrate.

Basic sanitation. Not sterilization.

 

[cold blood]

Still a strawman, no matter how you slice it.

I was responding to YOUR argument, your statements, so if its a straw man argument, its yours.

There is a difference between disinfecting and sterilization.

nice, moving the goalposts....until now, the term disinfecting hasnt even come up...we are talking about sterilization here.

Disease is one reason, and that can be minimized with basic sanitation

I never said things shouldnt be kept clean, I said they dont need to be sterilized.

They are not captive situations, which is why this argument isn't convincing. There is a reason captive animals tend to have longer lifespans than wild animals; sanitation is a part of optimizing care.

I was NOT IN ANY WAY comparing the two, I was stating that they CAN live in places most other living things cant, showing they have a significant resilience to things other animals won't....of course captive animals live longer, that's not the discussion here. I am also not saying to not clean things, or keep enclosures clean, I dont know how you are even making that reach.....I am saying, sterilization isnt something that will optimize care, because its unnecessary and can actually cause complications.

Cool. I think this is good, but I'm not sure whether people would know what to look for. You'd need to be familiar with what the insides of a healthy spider from the same sex and species looks like, and I'm thinking that there's not a whole lot of teaching specimens floating around to allow such comparisons. As a result, I'm not sure you'd be able to differentiate healthy tissue from standard postmortem necrosis in a home setting. I also don't think most people would be able to run pathology on specimens to detect most pathogens. Even someone like me, who's done the work before, would require a lab and reagents which were arthropod-specific. There's folks who could do this (Venomtech does spider necropsies occasionally, for example), but it would be more expensive than a standard mammal necropsy pathology report (which can run into the several hundreds of dollars).

So I'd be very surprised if any home necropsy included a pathology component.

I agree, no one is doing an actual full necropsy at home, but...

Maybe you'd be able to tell something obvious, like severe impaction,

This is exactly what I was pointing to.

So, I mean, infectious disease is probably rare in the hobby. That doesn't mean that it's not present,

If they are probably rare, as would be shown by the total and complete lack of any evidence suggesting otherwise, then why would it be a concern. Look, I can reduce my chances of getting hit by lightning by always walking on rubber surfaces, but that doesn't mean I would be in danger if I don't. My point is that we shouldn't be worrying about things that are virtually unheard of.

And nowhere have I argued that viruses are not present, that's another absurd conclusion you are jumping to to try to help your argument...I argue that there is no evidence ever presented by anyone, anywhere, showing that viruses are a problem with captive tarantulas in the hobby...zero evidence, and i am not going to go to extreme measures like sterilization, to combat something that's basically, unheard of, just because.

Most keepers have simple disinfection protocols, which are different than sterilization. Baking wood and disinfecting the enclosure with either a quick ethanol spray or a rubdown/rinse with 5% bleach won't hurt anything. Kritter keepers and ceramic water-dishes are even dishwasher-safe, so there's another route one could go. Plastic sauce cups, used by slings, are cheap enough to be one-time use. Use only captive-bred feeders. Don't reuse substrate.

First off, nowhere have I said not to clean enclosures...nowhere....that's just absurd....and then there is the other point, that many long time keepers, do in fact, re-use substrate all the time, and they do so without issue.....and there is absolutely NO danger in cleaning a plastic disposable water dish and using it again.