that's not really the note upon which to end, since it's ignoring what I was trying to get across. Although we don't know the molecular nutritional requirements well enough for most captive reptile species, we can see results (what started this thread) in monitors, crocs, dozens of snake species, not yet as many turtles since the darn generation turnover rate is rather slow. Nutrition-based results are positive or negative. Animals reproduce and carry on, if the positive is achieved.



If you want to claim that by feeding monitors rabbits or snakes on occasion to stimulate a more vicious feeding response, fine. But, that's not nutritional. That's behavioral (this was already discussed in your post above). That is eliciting a different (not better, simply different) natural behavior than with, say, a mouse, which the monitor has learned is quite easy to dispatch, thus, less effort is invested. Reptiles are the kings of conservatism, recall.



One more thought, to quote an idea you shared with hopes of possibly inflicting a different take on your part...



"The crocodile analogy did not support either point of view at all; it was just to show that a terrible diet can also achieve results and in that example, outstanding results, but one could argue that properly fed crocodilians would produce better results; however that is not cost effective."



You're refusing to budge here. The crocs that breed in captive environs everywhere are detracting from your theory that variety is such a big plus for captive reptiles. Not only that, but, captivity. Captivity. Captivity, begets a necessity for practicality. Finances are a huge component of projecting practicality, whether it's farming, breeding for hobbyist consumers, or repatriation/release program breeding. Do most reptile restocking programs feed their inkeeps various wildcaught prey or purchased items? (Hint, it's the latter almost always). So, even if a varied diet (i.e., buying less food products from more food sources) did provide better numerical results with regards to offspring (not proven in crocs nor monitors), that would not prove, in your words, cost effective. That means, poorer results. Don't you agree? If something (single whole-prey diet) has worked for many terms (generations), why question the maintenance regime? Thanks.

[ Show Entire Thread ]