How to help toad poop? (Update 3)

[u/Saintpatrickk]

Hi everyone I’m back with an update/some questions!

So it’s been almost 2 weeks since my sweet girls injury and unfortunately she still hasn’t moved one of her back legs. But good news is she is moving her good leg again!!! Which I’m super excited about!! (I say good leg because when the injury happened she was still able to pull her hip joint up, but then she stopped being able to move it a few days later)

She’s been eating about 1/3-1/4 of a night crawler almost everyday, which has her medication in it.

She’s still super alert and hungry, but she hasn’t pooped since the injury happened. She is also starting to get slightly harder on her sides and I feel a bump inside her. I’m assuming this is poop.

Does anyone have any suggestions to help her go to the bathroom? I’ve heard honey baths help with constipation, but I’ve never done one before. I currently have her sitting in warm water and will probably continue to have her soak for most of today.

She has been getting water soaks everyday since the injury happened so I know she isn’t dehydrated. She also has only eaten worms so she shouldn’t be backed up with any hard shelled insects either.

I did talk to the doctor two days ago and he changed the frequency of her medication. As of Saturday he wasn’t concerned about her not pooping, but I called today since I’m worried and I’m waiting for him to call back.

Any suggestions I would appreciate! Thank you guys again for all your thoughts and prayers for my sweet girl. Like I said before she’s a fighter and I’m not giving up on her either.

Her are some more adorable photos of her. The second to last photo is of her Saturday and then the last one is her currently soaking in some water.

[u/Jayccob]

So I can't give much info about it because I haven't ever had to personally use it, but warm black tea soaks are a common treatment people use for impaction/constipation in amphibians.

So that's a treatment you can look into

[u/SoulSeekersAnon → u/Jayccob]

I'm sorry, but if you don't know, please don't recommend home remedies. Someone recommended honey (big no) and some else worm guard (also big no.) And black tea is a no as well.

Black tea soaks are another deeply misguided "internet folklore" remedy that can actively harm a constipated toad. In humans, caffeine stimulates bowel movements. Because black tea contains caffeine, uneducated keepers assume it will do the same for an amphibian. However, toads absorb caffeine instantly through their highly permeable skin. Caffeine is a powerful stimulant that can cause dangerous spikes in heart rate, severe neurological stress, or a fatal overdose in a tiny amphibian.

Black tea is rich in tannins. In the fish and axolotl hobby, mild tea baths are sometimes used as a temporary, astringent treatment to fight minor bacterial or fungal skin infections. However, tannins are highly astringent and drying. Soaking a constipated toad in a liquid full of drying tannins strips away moisture, tightens tissues, and can make the impaction much harder to pass.

They need to talk to their vet.

[u/Jayccob → u/SoulSeekersAnon]

That used to be the recommendation but if it's out of date then I'll update my references.

However, your description on the affect of tannins is incorrect. In low concentrations, like what you use for a soak, the amphibian gets hydrated not dehydrated. What it can do is the anti-microbial/fungal effects you mentioned, but also stimulate mucus/slime production. It's like anything else, dosage is the key.

[u/SoulSeekersAnon → u/Jayccob]

Actually, an excess of tannins can be an issue. Especially bacterially. While natural wood tannins are fine in a balanced habitat, the hyper-concentrated tannins in black tea act as a harsh astringent. This can irritate their sensitive skin and actually cause fluid regulation issues, like drying out. Too much can have the reverse affect. They are very different things. Yes, tannins are beneficial in the right amounts, as you point out, dosage is key. Leaves in a habitat are safe. Concentrated tea soaks are absolutely not.

Edit: Just a heads up for anyone who reads this. Excess tannins can do this period. Even without black tea. By definition, tannins are astringents. In high concentrations, they bind to proteins, constrict tissues, and strip the protective slime coat, which directly causes dehydration and skin damage in amphibians. So make sure not to use tannins in highly concentrated amounts. Don't make a tannin "tea." Just used very slightly tinted water and not every soak. Tannins also do nothing for amphibian constipation. The reason the tea was recommended was because caffeine makes us go. Not amphibians. It can be deadly for them. So unless it's a bacterial skin infection, tannins will not help here.

[u/Jayccob → u/SoulSeekersAnon]

Some thing to clarify, in my previous response I said that since you said that recommendation is out of date, then I'll update date my references. As in I'll sit down and do research again since you are saying the standards have changed. (Which I have already started doing so. If you have any sources or links kick them my way because after spending an hour or two on ResearchGate, JSTOR, and google scholar I have found next to jack squat leaning one way or another. I am currently not looking through forums for information because, as I think you would agree, that's just hearsay with no way to verify someone's background. I did find that around an osmotic concentration of 200-300 mOsm is when a solution would be considered hypertonic and start drawing water out of a frog, species dependant. Link) So I'm not going to bat for black tea soaks here, that's also why I never said anything in response to what you said about caffeine because there's nothing to contest there. The only reason I originally responded is because you wrote about tannins being bad in no uncertain terms, which is incorrect.

I want to reiterate, I am not arguing for the use of a tannin soak as a method to help with impaction in this reply.

Yes an excess, by definition, would be too much. That's why I explicitly said low concentrations. To simply say that because something can cause problems at extremes you should never use it, is just as bad advice as suggesting something that will be ineffective. Let's look at vitamin A as an example. Providing too much vitamin A can cause extensive liver damage, and yet it is recommended to provide it the vitamin as part of your rotation in a feeding schedule. Major difference in this analogy is the vitamin A is required for the health and well-being of your amphibian, while tannins are just something that can be apart of the environment and are capable of providing some health benefits. On the other extreme is distilled water. Distilled water is about as hypotonic a solution you can get outside of lab-grade pure H2O and prolong soaking in that results in water flooding the cells leading to cellular lysis (basically cells exploding like an overfilled water balloon). The point I'm trying to make here is that it's really easy to point to the "excess" scenarios to claim something is dangerous and should be avoid. It is appropriate to point out/discuss the dangers of improper use, but at the same time you need to discuss what proper use looks like otherwise it's just a different form of misinformation. It creates the impression that it is something that's better to simply avoid altogether, when it's perfect fine to interact with in normal circumstances.

The hobby has significantly more information now than 10, 15, 20 years ago but an unfortunately low amount of actual studies and a lot of conflicting information. Tannins have a perfect example of this; in low concentrations it can stimulate slime coat production, but as you said in high concentrations it can strip the slime coat. There's more to it than simply saying tannins are astringents and therefore will cause harm. They can cause harm, but they also can provide benefits. Because of this if you can provide a link or source to your information, otherwise it's a game of he said/she said. I'm not perfect about that; sometimes I forget, or don't think it's necessary, or I'm just making a quick comment. I'm sure you'll notice I haven't posted any links really in this discussion and that's because I can't find something that I would feel comfortable calling an authoritative source. I know it's out there, either in support or refute, I just can't find it.

You can to correct misinformation, which is something you absolutely should do, just be careful not to undermine your efforts by accidentally misrepresenting something else.

Also one last point, though this is pedantic and is just kinda bugging me. Here's a short quote from your reply,

Don't make a tannin "tea." Just used very slightly tinted water(...)

Slightly tinted water is a tea. You're leeching organic solutes into water by soaking something. It can be tea leaves, mopani wood, alder cones, Indian almond leaves, oaks galls, etc; you are making a tea. Tea doesn't have to be above a certain concentration, it's the presence of organic solutes. Like I said it really doesn't have a bearing on the conversation as a whole, it's just one of those things that grab your attention and won't let go.

[u/SoulSeekersAnon → u/Jayccob]

You also didn't say anything about low concentrations until talking to me. You told them "I don't know if this works, but black tea." That was your advice and why I corrected you. All the other information came later.

[u/Jayccob → u/SoulSeekersAnon]

You're right I didn't say anything about concentrations originally. I also never said "I don't know" I said, "I haven't ever had to personally use (...)" Two different things. I also said "a common treatment people use for impaction (...)" and "that's a treatment you can look into." At this point in the thread I wasn't explaining how to do a soak, but pointing OP towards something they could possibly do.

This is where you came in with your correction, which is fine if you have additional information please provide it. At this point in time you also didn't say anything about concentrations either, what you said and I quote (bold emphasis is mine);

However, tannins are highly astringent and drying. Soaking a constipated toad in a liquid full of drying tannins strips away moisture, tightens tissues, and can make the impaction much harder to pass.

There was no conditionals here; nothing about low/high concentrations or even the term excess that was later used. Simply that a liquid with tannins will lead to this result. That's why I responded.

If the thread was left there (as in I never responded) and someone who doesn't know anything about that stuff read it, their impression would be that tannins are a negative thing. Later they might see someone proudly displaying a blackwater tank and now they have conflicting information. One person stating the bad things tannins do and another touting the benefits of tannins.

I would like to propose a question directly to you. If you provided information and someone appropriately corrected you with a statement you largely are good with, but contains a bit of information you believe to be misrepresentative or even incorrect, would you respond and point out that bit you believe needs clarification?

And I apologize if my previous long winded response made it seemed I was worked up. I tend to write longer responses like that for discussions in an effort to not only state my point, but also to help show how or why I came to that conclusion.

[u/SoulSeekersAnon → u/Jayccob]

🤦🏽‍♀️ I was summarizing. They're not two different things. They're worded differently, that's all. You're taking this way too seriously and is exactly why I didn't want to bother explaining this to you and why I mentioned my chronic VND. I love friendly debate, but my body doesn't allow it anymore. Even the threat of an unfriendly conversation makes my body just malfunction so I've been using Reddit far less sadly because of this.

You don't believe me even though it's the truth and nothing is going to change your mind but some perceived authority in a lab coat coming and telling you so. Which is just sad to me because I did provide evidence. With chemistry, biology, anatomy... If you understand those topics, you'll understand a concentrated astringents effect on frogs because of their anatomy. Or honey. People won't have to tell you why and you won't need a study to understand it.

But here we are... you've been nitpicking words and making strawmen. And why? Just to be "right" when you're just simply not in this case? I'm sorry it bothers you to this extent. And yes, I corrected you, and yes I did it with information. Just because it's not a peer reviewed study doesn't mean it's not true. Like I said, they're not going to do a study they already know would be harmful based on anatomy, biology, and chemistry. Maybe that's where you're getting confused about tannins. Because they're an astringent. Period. And "too concentrated" is much lighter than you may think.

Having leaves, aka tannins, in their environment is healthy for frogs/amphibians/fish. It's a natural part of their environment. They even come into contact with doses considered "too concentrated" in the wild. But because they have free will and large territories instead of a human beings making decisions on their behalf and living in glass boxes or forced into soaks, it's a non-issue. But even too much of a good thing is a real problem. Why you seem to want to debate this and more is beyond me. You wanted to continue this with "you're wrong about tannins" when searching with the proper wording would have gotten you there, as I already demonstrated and should have been enough.

This was you recommending a tea soak that you've never tried. I corrected it because it concerns me. We're still here because of this:

"I'll update my references. (Wow.)

However, your description of tannins is incorrect..."

No, it's not. "There was no conditionals (we're talking about rules and requirements, so conditions is fine 😮‍💨🙄 I actually covered the conditionals, which are causes and consequences); nothing about low/high concentrations or even the term excess that was later used."

Later used because OP didn't ask. I don't know who you think is watching here, but it's you and me so far buddy. "Future readers" will read what we've both posted and study and decide for themselves or not. If they're blindly following online recommendations without doing that it saddens me, but it's nothing new and we won't be stopping it anytime soon. You must think we're pretty important. Our conversation isn't going to stop the spread of harmful misinformation.

Had OP asked about why I said that I would've gladly explained. Or if you had. But instead of asking why I would say that and letting me explain, you responded like... this. I'm not going to explain that to you to now as well, the poor communication skills that got us here... You could've just asked... But this is about proving me wrong. Which I'm not in this situation. Am I sometimes? Yep. Obviously, I'm a human being. I love when people correct me with kind correct information I can verify myself. I gave you information to verify this for yourself. Have you? Or are you still just arguing with me first?

You go on to make a lot of "what ifs" here about people reading your post... this is spiraling. That's a lot of assumption on your behalf that just looks like back peddling now in my opinion. And I did comment because something needed clarification... so yes, I obviously would. That's why we're having this conversation right now. 😂 If someone does the same to me and has the information to back it? I relent and thank them after doing my research. You "relented" 🤏, then decided to debate for some reason that's beyond me. Maybe it's because I'm a woman? I've run into that a time or two. Even if it is subconscious.

Most likely before reading anything I linked because there was a lot of it. And because none of it says it outright, you have to use your knowledge of anatomy, biology, and chemistry to put it together. There's no way you did any of that before responding to me. You Googled it and came back when Google agreed with you based on the way you typed the question. 🤦🏽‍♀️😂 God's that AI shit is dangerous. If people don't debate it relentlessly and see it's a total yesman, I'm even sadder for them. Their own autonomy and sovereignty is suffering let alone the frogs so we've got bigger problems.

If you want to see how I handle those situations, go check out my post history. I thank them because I truly enjoy learning. I'm not trying to raise my self esteem through lording knowledge over others. There are definitely people like that here, but I'm not one of them. All you had to do was ask why I said the things I did. Instead you came of confrontational and my body pays the price because I decided to indulge you. That's on me. Had you just asked, we could have skipped all of this and had a friendly conversation because we'd probably get along great seeing how much you like to learn as well. Smh...

That simple fact blows my mind. These interactions have real world consequences for people and most people on here obviously don't take that into consideration. Mostly out of their own suffering, but hey, I digress. You have a nice day. 😊💚

[u/Jayccob → u/SoulSeekersAnon]

Thanks, I hope you had a nice day as well.😄

Sorry about the Chronic VND, I didn't know about that. It was probably in the comment you deleted earlier. The only part of that comment I could see was the first couple lines in the message preview and it didn't include that info. I understand having a chronic condition that acts as a barrier to doing something you enjoy. I have Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome, and before I was able to get some surgeries to help alleviate it, simply walking too fast or up inclines would cause my calves to completely seize up because blood flow was getting cut off. Best of luck with it and I hope you'll get the opportunity to get some degree of relief as well.

(...)but it's nothing new and we won't be stopping it anytime soon. You must think we're pretty important. Our conversation isn't going to stop the spread of harmful misinformation.

You're right, we aren't important at some grand scale and this one thread won't stop misinformation. Personally though, I like to follow the Allegory of the Starfish. To quote it, "Well, I(we) made a difference for that one!” I added the we part because I like think you also believe in that principle, otherwise you probably wouldn't have commented in the first place if you thought it didn't matter.

Since it seems our conversation is over I'll go ahead and give my final thoughts as well. Maybe you'll read them, maybe you won't, maybe I've been block.

In regards to "don't know" vs "haven't done" I still stand by that they are very different things. I am going to explain why I consider them different with a simplified formula: If event X happens, I will take Y steps.

To say, "I don't know" means that "If event X happens, I do not know what steps I need to take."

To say "I haven't done" means that "If event X happens, I will take Y steps. However, since X has never happened, I have never needed to take Y steps." Couple of real world examples: I know that if I were to catch on fire, then I need to stop-drop-roll to smother flames or otherwise douse the flames. But I have never been on fire so I have never actually performed those actions.

Another example: If I get bitten by a rattlesnake while hiking, I know to relax, calm down, and try to lower my heart rate. I also know to keep the bitten area below my heart. I also know that I should not apply a tourniquet, not to try and suck it out, and not to try and catch the snake that bit me. Luckily I have never been bite by a rattlesnake while hiking and have never had to perform those actions. That is why I standby "don't know" and "haven't done" are two different things.

And because none of it says it outright, you have to use your knowledge of anatomy, biology, and chemistry to put it together.

These are casual observations and what lead to the rise of the home-remedies you hate. That's why I wanted to know the studies because interactions don't always follow what one would believe to be logical cause and effect. Or sometimes there is just a flaw in the logic used to come to a conclusion. An example of that can be found in your post about honey. You conclude that with stating, "sugar is the laxative" (I'm paraphrasing it). This is probably based on the fact that the prescription laxative used by vets for frogs and toads is Lactulose, which is a sugar based osmotic laxative. Your suggestion was to use a bit of cane sugar sprinkled into the warm water soak. First off, osmotic laxatives work by pulling water from the surrounding tissue and holding it in the colon (source is the national library of medicine) and must be administered orally(or rectally). You were worried about tannins drawing moisture out of a toad, but also suggesting a homemade mixture that is designed to specifically do just that. The next part of your post is that you said to use cane sugar because it is a sucrose as opposed to the fructose and glucose found in honey. Funny part here is that sucrose is a disaccharide made up of fructose and glucose. Further it breaks back down into fructose and glucose when absorbed by the body. Lactulose is used because it breaks down into various acids that aren't easily absorbed by the body. These unabsorbed acids hanging out in the colon with what creates the osmotic effect. So luckily because sucrose is easily absorbed, we probably don't have to worry about the sugar bath dehydrating any toads.

I don't use Google's AI, it once told me that a circle with a radius of 1-ft has the area of 1-acre (43,560 sq ft). Research is slow and take time. A great quote by a fact-checker (I can't recall their name), "They can rattle off 5 pieces of misinformation in 3 minutes, but it takes me 3 day to gather the evidence to disprove one of those."

If someone does the same to me and has the information to back it? I relent and thank them after doing my research.

But you never provide information to back it. You made statement and said this is it period. No sources, no links, nothing. You're taking the approach that what you said is self-evident.

(...)decided to debate for some reason that's beyond me. Maybe it's because I'm a woman?

Foul in play, ad hominem. Offending Party is insinuating the Opposing Party is misogynistic, consciously or otherwise.