I think the use of dirt is a great idea as I said before. What I am saying is that it is not the only effective method of husbandry. Who knows if these other substrates are poor husbandry? They have been used in a large colony of very successful breeders with outstanding results so they can not be that bad. I don't know what standards uromastyx have other than what is reported by researchers of wild animals. If I had to go by what is reported I would have to say they were very successful. It sounds as if there was something missing in the husbandry of monitors and Frank found the missing piece of info. Uromastyx are not monitors and are succesfully bred with out the use of large quantities of soil for them to dig burrows in. I am talking breeding every year for many consecutive years. They're not that many large scale breeders of uros out there but I do not think it is because they are hard to breed. Mostly it is just hobbiest with a few animals. The only true large scale breeders I knew were Matt Moyle and Nancy Kingston and they had outstanding success by anyones standards. They sent me their availability list one year and it had over 350 uros on it. The proof was in the numbers(size of clutches, % of animals that produced, and hatch rate) they produced. I guess what I mean is that I don't think the use of soil is going to be a big breakthrough in uro breeding. Sure it offers them enrichment. I guess that is all I can say so I will drop it now as I feel we may be beating a dead dog here. Respectfully Tom Greb. PS what are you doing with diet?

[ Show Entire Thread ]