Jeff, do you have a reference that proves they do not require formic acid? I just ask because you say it's been proven. Are you referring to Baur?

I personally don't feel they "require" formic acid or Pogos ( to live anyway ). But everything I've seen shows formic acid and Pogo's are beneficial to their health in several respects, and that ants which provide this are "small prey", conveniently. I'd say "requirement" in the sense that it seems to be "best" for them. There are also more possible complications that can arise from feeding excessive high fat and sodium feeders. It consumes more of the reptile's water stores to metabolize and puts more strain on the organs. Crickets are more completely digested. But it is still apparent in the scat what masses in the scat are not ants.

Less "competition" for the food source, or "requirement"? The reason why Darwin's chicken crossed the road doesn't really
matter at this point does it?

They are adapted to eat that food source. I don't think anyone disagees. So I would have to also ask: what is the advantage of trying to use "primary" food sources other than which it was adapted? Everything else in the world usually comes with a voided warranty warning or a bad unintended consequence when man tries to meddle with it. I don't see a problem with exploring for scientific answers...but what is the hypothesis and why does it need to be solved? I think it is economics, and HL marketability to the masses, bacause it can't be that Pogos are not good enough.

Most of the ant species they eat or will eat may not contain formic acid as you say. There are far more species available to them that don't have formic acid. But, which ant they eat the most of by volume is the question. If you listed "most" of the foods I ate, most of them would not be breakfast cereal, bread, meat, or pasta. But ask me what I eat the "most of"...and that is an entirely different question. Let's say a HL eats 20 different species of ant in it's range, and only 1 of those species contains formic acid. Does this mean it eats more of the others by volume than the formic acid variety?

I used to push the Pogo-less diet around here, and listened to Cable telling me repeatedly that they won't do well, particularly in the breeding area. I'm now confused as to why it is after my nearly 3 year experience, I no longer advocate such a diet, and Cable is now interested?

The only reasons I see for a Pogo-less diet, is for the economic/market/convenience reason. I admit that was one of my considerations in the past because other sources were more available. It's more economical ( or convenient ) for people to buy crickets instead of ants, or even gather ants. Ants can be bought more cheaply than crickets, but many more ants are required. Therefore, many people see it as more economic to buy a sack of crickets for a few dollars vs. buying a 1000 ants at several times the cost. They also very often think they'll get by even better by giving the lizard a few big ones instead of a lot of small ones. Gathering ants is not more economical either the way most people view it. Time is money, and most people probably won't go gather thousands of ants...especially if they don't live in a rural area and they have to drive and look; when they can just pop in to the pet store on the way home and pay 3 bucks for some crickets. The economical reason for using crikets can be justified in many ways. I think the economic/marketability standard is the wrong standard to go by when considering the best diet if that is the concern.

It's trouble to gather ants, and in reality costs me more to drive around and vacuum them up. I really don't have the time for it. I would probably still be using other things if I thought they were just as good. My girl works at Petco and can get plenty of cheap crickets. I don't even have to go over there myself. But I do see a difference in growth and activity levels, and I choose to keep using Pogos.

Todays domesticated dogs and cats in many ways only resemble their ancient feral ancestors. Many of these domestic breeds are purely man made. Rottweilers, Spaniels, Persian house cats...They didn't exist ten thousand years ago. Man created them. Now were feeding them things made up of mostly plant matter rather than real meat. Even so, such mammals are more highly variable in the foods they make use of. Reptiles we all know are more tailored to a certain type of prey in many cases, like the Horned Lizard is.

Not bashing anybody. I don't think the results would prove the diet beneficial, but nontheless would be of interest. I just think nature already worked out that question and Horned Lizards have a lot of "evolution" in the domestic department before something else could be better for them. Is the experiement to really answer the question: "what is better for them"? Or is it something else? That's my question.
-----
"A man that should call everything by it's right name, would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy." The Complete Works of George Savile, First Marquess of Halifax 1912,246

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]