As you may have heard, I have kept and bred, thru many generations, over 20 species of monitors. Up to and past 10 generations. This includes the species of the paper, Croc monitors.

All the babies do not recieve any additional UV, they only recieve the benefit of an incandesent litebulb(phillips 25W)consider, this is hundreds upon hundreds of babies.

Our normal procedure is, hatch the eggs, put the babies in the baby rack, then sell the excess and place the ones we keep in raise up cages. The raise up cages are normally troughs with incandesent 60 or 65 watt incandesent bulbs(one per cage)

From here they proceed to breeder cages, some are indoors, some our outdoors and some are indoor/outdoor. We see no physical difference between these cages, with incandesent bulbs or the sun. All do well and progress without problem.

It seems to me the addition of something like UV bulbs is to add to the result you would have without them. Is that not true? The problem we have is, We or the monitors do not have a problem. We have already added to what was thought possible, so you want more?

We have set growth records, reproductive records, and longevity with animals, sans any type of UV bulbs.

For instance, we have had several small species go from egg to egg in 4 months. Several medium species go from egg to egg in 6 months, and some larger species go from egg to egg in aprox 12 months.

Some of these have gone on to achieve amazing reproductive results. For instance, I have a gouldi cross, that just laid her 61st clutch. Sir, that is impressive PERIOD, she was raised without UV bulbs or the sun, only incandesent bulbs as stated above. I have two V.acanthurus, that are now gravid on their 12th clutch(each) in 12 months. I once had a V.kingorum, lay 14 clutches in 12 months and two V.t.orientalis, lay 11 clutches in 11 weeks, then one rested a month and gave us our record clutch, of 16 egg that resulted in 16 neonates.

We raised a lacie we hatched, she bred at 13 months and produced 5 clutches her first 12 months of breeding. Again all without UV bulbs.

So I wonder, how is this possible?

Don't you think If UV was needed I would not have achieved such results.

It does boil down to this, talk is talk, results are results. We have continued and consistant superior results without using UV bulbs.

You do understand if you have achieve equal results to what we have(have you) that it would mean, UV bulbs are not needed. If it isn't A and its not B, then a or b are not the problem, its something else. In my opinion, its a general lack of varanid husbandry understanding that causes calicum problems.

The problem I see with your paper(are you DG?) is you do not have any standards what so ever. The use of calicum is not consistant, that is, a fast growing neonate consumes places many many times the calicum that a non-productive non-growing adult consumes and places. A reproductive female consumes and places more than a non reproductive female, etc. Your paper did not include a spectrum of Calicum needs, young growing individuals, highly reproductive animals, etc. All you did was test for a very short time a few static individuals with no history.

If you would have hatched them, you would know the history. Why I bring this up is, you most likely started your study with depleted imported individuals in normal poor shape. You then took some care of them and measured progress. Of course they responded, but I question what they responded too. The lite bulbs or the care givin.

Unfortunately, you cannot win this discussion, as I have far to much success and history of successful results. I think you should try again. Do you know Mr. Johnson, I believe, my best friend and field partner is good friends of his. I have been in the field with him too. Sorry he may be Dr. Johnson. I will check with my partner and correct this. Cheers

[ Show Entire Thread ]