An overview of the Brazilian frog farming

Ribeiro, Luisa P.; Toledo, Luı́s Felipe

doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737623

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Little information about these individuals is available, and the outcome of this introduction is not confirmed nor discussed in the literature. The same is true for small-scale occasional introductions supported by individual breeders, without any official registers, such as a supposed bullfrog batch introduced from Mexico in the early 2000’s 38 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there is very limited knowledge about the possible impacts of bullfrogs over native species in Brazil, this species is widespread in the south and southeast regions of the country, with limited distribution in the northeast and north 37 , 38 . There are over 150 known breeding facilities in the country, that produce around 400 tons/year, moving around 1.9 million USD 38 . According to published accounts, bullfrogs were first imported to Brazil to produce meat for human consumption in 1935 by a Canadian technician named Tom Cyrril Harrison who brought either 300 individuals 39 or pairs 40 from an unknown locality to a Brazilian government breeding facility in the city of Rio de Janeiro 41 , 42 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Escape and release of bullfrogs from farms are spatially correlated with feral bullfrog populations 43 – 45 , being the most likely cause considering the disconnected distribution of these populations in Brazil, although the dispersive potential of bullfrogs is not well documented. Although advances in technology and increased market demand have enabled bullfrog farming to expand greatly over the last 10–15 years 46 , many of the earlier frog farms failed in the 1990s 38 , resulting in massive releases of bullfrogs when businesses closed (Valdir Alves, owner of Pedrinhas bullfrog farm, personal communication). In the 1970s, an additional 20 pairs of adult bullfrogs were imported to Brazil 28 from the University of Michigan to São José do Rio Preto in São Paulo state by Luiz Dino Vizotto (C. M. Ferreira, personal communication).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If all the introduction events were successful, different lineages in the country might be going through an introgressive hybridization process due to the common practice among farmers of purchasing breeding stock from multiple farms in different states with the goal of increasing the genetic diversity of the frogs bred in their facilities (Romar’s bullfrog farm owner, personal communication) 38 . If only one event was successful, followed by strong selective pressures of breeding facilities, the genetic diversity of bullfrog populations in Brazil should be quite limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Genetic structure of American bullfrog populations in Brazil

Jorgewich-Cohen

Toledo

Grant

2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-native species are a major problem affecting numerous biomes around the globe. Information on their population genetics is crucial for understanding their invasion history and dynamics. We evaluated the population structure of the non-native American bullfrog, Aquarana catesbeiana, in Brazil on the basis of 324 samples collected from feral and captive groups at 38 sites in seven of the nine states where feral populations occur. We genotyped all samples using previously developed, highly polymorphic microsatellite loci and performed a discriminant analysis of principal components together with Jost’s D index to quantify pairwise differentiation between populations. We then amplified 1,047 base pairs of the mitochondrial cytochrome b (cytb) gene from the most divergent samples from each genetic population and calculated their pairwise differences. Both the microsatellite and cytb data indicated that bullfrogs comprise two populations. Population grouping 1 is widespread and possesses two cytb haplotypes. Population grouping 2 is restricted to only one state and possesses only one of the haplotypes from Population grouping 1. We show that there were two imports of bullfrogs to Brazil and that there is low genetic exchange between population groupings. Also, we find that there is no genetic divergence among feral and captive populations suggesting continuous releases. The limited genetic variability present in the country is associated to the small number of introductions and founders. Feral bullfrogs are highly associated to leaks from farms, and control measures should focus on preventing escapes using other resources than genetics, as feral and captive populations do not differ.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Genetic structure of American bullfrog populations in Brazil

Jorgewich-Cohen

Toledo

Grant

2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Identification and pathogenicity of multidrug‐resistantElizabethkingia miricolaisolated from farmed American bullfrogsRana catesbeianain China with in vitro screening of herbal antimicrobial agents

Liu

Hou²,

et al. 2023

J Aqua Anim Hlth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective In 2021, an outbreak of an infectious disease characterized by torticollis, cataracts, and neurological disorders caused massive mortality in farmed American bullfrogs Rana catesbeiana in Hubei province, China. We identified the causal agent in this outbreak, characterized its pathogenicity, and screened candidate antimicrobial agents for future disease control. Methods Bacterium was isolated from the diseased American bullfrogs and identified based on biochemical tests, sequence analyses (16S ribosomal RNA; DNA gyrase subunit B), and experimental challenge. Furthermore, antibiotic sensitivity of the isolated strain was detected with Kirby–Bauer paper diffusion method, and the antibacterial activity of 60 traditional Chinese herbal extracts against the isolated strain was evaluated by agar disc diffusion and broth dilution assays. Result We identified Elizabathkingia miricola strain FB210601 as the causative agent of this disease. The isolated E. miricola strain FB210601 exhibited extensive antibiotic resistance to all tested quinolones, β‐lactam antibiotics, and aminoglycosides. Eight herbal extracts exhibited excellent antimicrobial activity against E. miricola FB210601, especially Caesalpinia sappan and Rhus chinensis, with minimal inhibitory concentrations less than 0.2 mg/mL. Additionally, the combined effects of two‐component herbal mixtures containing C. sappan or R. chinensis were greater than those of the individual extracts. Conclusion Our results provide a reference for understanding the pathogenesis of Elizabethkingia infection in frogs. Furthermore, this study will aid in the application of herbal extracts for protection against infections caused by multidrug‐resistant Elizabathkingia in the future.

show abstract