"I remember Rich Fife describing to me how he worked with one of the universities to determine how significant UV bulbs and calcium supplements were for turtles' shells.
It was amazing the disparity between the way the average herp guy would talk about it with an absolute assuredness that he was right and the way the scientists approached it by comparing groups of 100 hatchlings to see which theories really held out.
Till we do that, it's all speculation.(important speculation"


Unfortunately, your "scientific" example doesn't hold water. Over twenty years of successful turtle propagation has proven without question that uv is absolutely unnecessary. Turtle shell growth is entirely dependent on usable basking heat and the consumption of whole foods. I have had this discussion and compared growth rates with many keepers who espoused uv only to see their ultimate frustration over wasted money on those over-priced bulbs. The modest improvement in shell growth is not from the benefits of the uv, but the close proximity of the bulb (because uv dissipates quickly with distance from the bulb, they are place close to the turtle, which allows greater heat access). When fed whole foods (earthworms, pink mice, crickets), turtles are able to draw all of the nutrients they need if given the option to bask at temperatures exceeding 100F. This is part of the problem, these scientific studies which are held as gospel by some people, are not reflective of the actual issues keepers face, and the theories they "prove" give inaccurate information to keepers. I would compare growth rates of any turtle species with anyone who wants to challenge the value of whole foods and usable heat. I will feed the items mentioned and use my good 'ole 45w R20 floods. These studies encourage keepers to buy expensive, unnecessary equipment when they should just put the money into a sack of frozen pinkies or a box of night crawlers.

Will

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