Perhaps I am wrong, sorry, I was just going on by what information I was given :-
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Regarding your question on Axolotls ([/FONT][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Ambystoma mexicanum[/FONT][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]) I can provide the following,[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Both Melafix and Pimafix have been recommended and used with Axolotls for years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]One of the main reasons for Axolotls and other amphibians especially tadpoles that develop fungal growth is often a result of underlying bacterial infection first and the fungal infection as a secondary infection. While each case is different, in most cases bacterial has been found to be the primary infection. A secondary reason for the development of fungal infection is through damaged tissue. Damaged tissue can be a result of shipping, breeding, and fighting of species in the aquatic environment. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT]
When it comes to treating animals that may be considered sensitive (newts, axolotls, mudskippers, rana frogs, various tadpoles) with Melafix or Pimafix, both medications have been used on sensitive species from axolotls to frogs. In fact we have numerous wholesalers and breeders who go to these product as their first choice. One consistent stubborn problem has been with tadpoles in the spring at Nurseries/Water Garden stores. The tadpoles develop a whitish film on the backs that has been identified as bacterial, fungal or both. As the fungus was found on tadpoles it was suspected of being [FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis[/FONT] and not [FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Saprolegnia[/FONT] sp. More commonly associated with fish. Previous treatments with antibiotics were not working and other medications were too harsh but Melafix has been the industry go to product for treating the white growth on the backs of tadpoles. So the recommendation of Pimafix for simple fungal infections is still correct but under many situations treating with Melafix may be the better choice based on the information already provided.
We have seen through research treating fish on numerous occasions where the use of these products separately have been very successful at treating bacterial infections. We have done controlled studies in vitro that provides evidence that an equivalent concentration of the actives found within an aquarium dosed with either Melafix® or Pimafix® (≤1.32ppm) are effective at significantly reducing bacterial abundance of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Aeromonas hydrophilia. We have observed and have many reports of Melafix enhancing tissue re-growth faster than other treatments. New tissue growth in fish is often seen within four (4) days of initial treatment. We have seen through research where Pimafix has treated internal infections. We have additional bacterial challenges that have also been successful. To further support current US legislative changes other fish pathogen studies are ongoing. We have not performed controlled studies exclusively using Axolotls.
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]The best approach is to develop an environment and maintenance regiment that will eradicate the conditions that allowed the infections to start in the first place. We have shown through competitive inhibition research that the addition of Stress Zyme has reduced the organic loading and thus reduction of the breeding areas for pathogenic bacteria populations. Assuming that the underlying cause of the fungal infection is a combination of water quality issues and bacterial infection the addition of Stress Zyme would be highly recommended to establish and maintain a healthy environment for keeping axolotls. Recommending Melafix or Pimafix is appropriate to treat the disease, but proper husbandry should also include routine additions of Stress Zyme to eliminate the conditions for the disease to develop in the first place. [/FONT]
