I see your point about having a mix of academic and experiential based information. There is a lot of bad information out there and a lot of new keepers, like myself, who often dont take the time to find out which is the best information.



Im interested in the argument of rodents versus inverts and would like to discuss it further. Like I said above, I am in no way even close to any kind of authority. Im merely a new keeper who has read everything I can get my hands on. I've read the numerous articles about wild savs and their natural foods. While you are right that millipedes were the bulk of the insects they eat (and lets face it, no one is feeding them that), the overwhelming thing I get from this is that there are no vertebrates at all in any of the animals collected. The biggest difference between verts and inverts is fat content, so this begs the question. With such a specialized diet in the wild is it healthy over time to mess with that? The idea is not to have an animal that merely lives or continues but to give them the healthiest diet we can possibly give them as responsible owners. I know that my children will live and grow if I feed them hamburgers, but I also know that this could very likely lead to health problems down the road, even if I make them also run a few miles a day. I guess I dont see the point of feeding more than the very occasional mouse. If we know that their diet in the wild (which is what we are trying to replicate) does not include vertebrates, and it is very simple to feed them their natural diet, then why not do so? Will they still live and breed? Odds are yes. Will my children live and have their own children if I feed them McDonalds three times a week? Odds again are yes, but Im still not doing that. Again, Im not saying this from some great experience, but rather from what I think is a common sense approach to what I have learned from the scientific evidence we have of them in their natural habitat

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]