Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Don Gillespie is the reptilian curator at DVM El Paso Zoo when asked about UVB lighting he had this to say......

Why the Active UV Heat lamp is an important advance.
(Satisfying Reptilian Vitamin D3 Requirements Indoors)

Confusion abounds in popular magazines regarding reptiles, lights, and vitamin D. Requirements are unknown except for a few lizards and some must get vitamin D3 from an ultra-Violet (UV) source instead of the diet. Various lamps are labeled as full-spectrum whether they are or not. Light output is stated in very general terms of output but effective distance and exposure time are not mentioned. Direct sunlight is the ultimate solution for maintaining proper vitamin D3 levels in diurnal (day-time) lizards. Considerations of housing or climate may limit direct sunlight exposure to part of the year or none. The best measure of any UV lamp is the ability to maintain or elevate 25 -hydroxyl vitamin D3 blood levels. This is the standard used for man and many animals. A study of vitamin D3 in large monitors in the wild and captivity has established normal and deficient vitamin D3 level for these species. Monitors in the normal group had direct sunlight access part to all of the year or other significant UV exposure such as UV-permeable acrylic skylights in their housing area. Monitors in the deficient group were inevitably kept indoors with no artificial UV source or with perhaps an UV source too far away to be effective for the animal. Thus a solid standard could be used in evaluating the effects of Active UV Heat in vitamin D3 "synthesis for these species.

A female crocodile monitor (Varanus salvador) had no Ultraviolet (UV) light source or dietary vitamin D3 supplementation for several years. The animal was exposed to a 300-watt flood Active UV Heat bulb for four months at a ceiling high distance (2.0 to 2.2 meters). 2.5-hydroxy vitamin D3 levels were low-normal (100 nmol/L) as compared to other large monitors with exposure to direct sunlight. Then the animal was given UV through a focus-spot 160-watt Active UV Heat bulb at the same distance (2.0-2.2 meters) and vitamin D3 blood levels were measured again 30 days later. Vitamin D3 levels had continued to climb to mid-normal range (157 nmol/L). Daily exposure averaged 8-10 hours.

There were other significant improvements in this animal condition. A strong improvement occurred in the animal appetite to include only balanced prey items, which had not been previously possible. This species yellow spots became a bright gold as achieved with exposure to abundant natural sunlight. Three other crocodile monitors in this collection also demonstrated enhance natural colors under these lights. In one other zoo both a water monitor (Varanus salvador) and Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) have been documented with normal to fairly high levels of vitamin D3 with use of the Active UV Heat lamp at distances of 4-7 feet away.

Consistently there has been a need in reptile exhibit lighting for a bulb that could project ultraviolet for some distance (many fluorescent UV-B lights project over an effective distance of only 12-18 inches). It would be even better to utilize incandescent fixtures. The Active UV Heat bulb does this on a real time basis for large monitors. Added advantages of heat and excellent visible-light spectrum make this bulb ideal for most reptile enclosures. Anecdotal experience with appetite problems that resolved after lamp use with a crocodile monitor and python would suggest problem feeders in variety of reptile species would benefit from it use.

--- Don Gillespie, DVM El Paso Zoo

DON, VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE.I ALWAYS TRY TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF UV LIGHT WEATHER IT BE BUY NATURAL SUNLIGHT OR UV BULBS INDOORS. THANKS ED

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

Actually Dr. Don Gillespie is the reptilian curator at the El Paso zoo. He has a PHD in biology, anthroplogy and microbiology. He is consider by many to be one of the first herpetologist. His studies and work are taught by major universitys all over the country. I am a 3rd year biology and anthropology major, I am using Dr. Gillespie's study for my own thesis on the synthesis of calcium and many other vitamins and minerals in the larger monitor species. Fr, nothing is wrong with your set-up and what works for you works for you, this is from a scientific standpoint, not a breeder standpoint. All phases of life will be studied, with a control group, the study will go on for at least 5 years and will be the driving force for my PHD. Any results that are found to be conclusive I will be more than happy to post. But I am not here to argue, I am here to spread the knowledge gained. But one thing THAT IS 100% CONCLUSIVE is ultraviolet light DOES have an effect on all species of monitors, but to what extent we dont know, at least not for a few years....

PS I work for the Seneca Park Zoo, and am a full time biology and anthropology major witha minor in life sciences. I work with the most expierenced herpetologist's in the NE United States......just a little food for thought

I get the feeling your not absorbing any of this. You stated, what works for you, works for you. That is in error, my husbandry WORKS for the monitors. Not using UV bulbs, works for the monitors. I try to avoid UVA and UVB as it causes skin cancer. IT does so, because it penetrates the skin to deeply. hmmmmmmm think about that one.

I sorry but I get the feeling that your experiences are suppose to help your point, yet they only show naivity. A third year student. Hmmmmmmmm compare that to generations of monitors, including larger ones. Generations upon generations, and your still in school.

You do understand, your schooling is suppose to prepare you to work with the subject, that is, to start your real education. The actually working with the animals. Your schooling is to prepare you to START. When your done with your schooling, you are a beginer, you can now start.

Where you totally fail to help your case is, you also said, Dr. G, is one of the first herpitologist. OH my god, I hope he does not see that, he would smack you silly. Hes not even close. You have no sense of time. There have been generations of herpitoligists before him.

Please understand, my monitors being highly successful without the use of UV bulbs, is not about Dr. G, or never intented to disgace him in any way. Is is merely an innocent bystander.

My monitors are successful because of one reason, they are supported to be successful. Much like nature must support species in order for them to exsist.

Lastly from your last statements, about whom you work with. I get the feeling, your more into people then the animals. I do apologise, I am more about the animals then the people, which does prove to be offensive at times. So I apologise to the people who were offended by the success our monitors have had and continue to have, inspite of not doing it right(U know, no uv bulbs). Cheers

To me, this is very disappointing. The purpose of schooling is to give you lots of infomation. No one ever said you should believe it, just remember it until after the test. You gain all this information, then your suppose to learn to think. Your suppose to think about that infomation you learned. Your suppose to question it. Thats science.

The key of your science background is to question. They, the teachers, are suppose to teach you to question what you learned. If you find fault or weakness in what you learned, your taught to prove it, one way or the other. This is base for scientific writing. Its not suppose to be religion or law. Its to be questioned over and over. The scientific comunity thrives on doing and redoing. That is scientific progress. Not to believe it, thats religion, but to test it over and over, thats science.

Your learning is suppose to teach you, in order to change some of this stuff you read, you are suppose to create tests that show the stuff is in error, then show repeated results. That again is base of what your suppose to be learning.

You are not suppose to believe a person or a group of persons. Your suppost to question all alike. YOUR SUPPOSE TO HAVE FAITH IN RESULTS. Not believe or have faith in people(authors).

That you believe a paper(because of who wrote it) over generations upon generations of repeatable results is astounding. You just got a F.

If you see repeated results that indicate something contrary to what you read, then your suppose to investigate. To be clear, investigate in a unbiased way. To test.

That I told you of our results, should inspire you to investigate. Not say, but so and so said, and hes a baddddd dudddde. If not, you've failed again. Cheers

P.S. please send this to Dr. G and your biologist friends and see what they think. I bet you will be getting the wrong end of the stick. You see, I do have faith in biology, I just think you do not have a handle on it yet.

FR your missing the point in the study, its at least a 5 year program with two groups, uv and non uv, the paper by Dr. G, was my inspiration to conduct a FULL investigation, I know its old thats why it needs updating, im sorry you have already come to a conclusion on UV but most of the scientific world isnt satisified, Id think you would want a definitive answer, thats too bad. Its kinda of funny that the two opponents I have, FR, and Robyn seem to be the same two enemys that almost very person in here has had. Thats funny, maybe you two need some more social skills, espeically since you TWO are the ONLY ones making money off monitors, interesting..... breeders

Sir, your the one missing the point. No one said, Using UV bulbs doesn't work, The POINT, not using UV bulbs works EXTREMELY well. And by extention, when you or anyone suggest UV bulbs are needed, that is work, they are not needed. As monitors can and have been are continuing to be hatched, raised, bred, and grow OLD, without the use of UV bulbs(or the sun) That is the point.

Whats funny is the more you go on an on, the more I get to bring my evidence to the forefront. Thanks

I see the post you made was not written by yourself. Now you said the study was a 5 year program with two groups. Who did this you or Dr. G?

I'd rather hear what his findings are from him then your interpritation of what his findings are.

Example would be what Fr has asked why does he then have success without it? I tried to talk about that a bit with my post asking what about diet.

As in the paper you reffered to in your post it says "some must get vitamin D3 from an ultra-Violet (UV) source instead of the diet." Key words there Some, and Diet.

Then I see it says "A female crocodile monitor (Varanus salvador) had no Ultraviolet (UV) light source or dietary vitamin D3 supplementation for several years." Again key words NO dietary Vit D3 for several years.

Ok now it says they then were exposed to UV and the D3 levels climbed. "There were other significant improvements in this animal condition. A strong improvement occurred in the animal appetite to include only balanced prey items, which had not been previously possible."

So you had some monitors not getting UV or dietary D3. You then gave it Uv and it increased the vitD3, then it was offered balanced prey items. Improvements where seen and noted.

Well I must say I agree that it has been known for along time that Vit D3 is needed in reptiles, it is also known that a source of that is UV another being diet. So please tell me what is new with this study? And how it shows UV to be needed by monitors clearly it shows it can be used as a tool but so can diet or suppliments.

For the LAST time, the study was done by Dr. G, not me, it is an incomplete study, read the posts shadow, becuase it is a incomplete study, I am using it to conduct a FULL study over the next 5 years, in cooperation with the Rochester Institute of Technology, and the seneca park zoo. The purpose it to end these petty arguements that everyone seems hell-bent on starting. I am aware the study is incomplete and flawed, let me do my job and finish it.

A five year study would indeed be wonderful.

How are you going to test UV and what controls are you using?

Also, what standards are you going to use?

For instance, one of the flaws in the original study is there not not progress in the monitors. Its normal these days for monitors to achieve life events. That is, hatch, mature, reproduce, and over and over.

The reason I say that is, to progress thru lifes normal events does indeed require a range of Calicum requirement.

As I mentioned, we have progressed thru many generations of many species without the need to add UV bulbs for indoor monitors. To add to that in lite of Jodys comments, with medium to larger monitor species we do not suppliment in any way.

One little point about the past discussion, you seem to get mad at me for going against what other varanid authors had said or written. You are misguided doing that. You should either be mad at my monitors, as they are the ones that are actually doing it. Or you should be mad at those authors, biologist, for not investigating all or at least over approaches. You see, its they was say you need UV bulbs. Not me or my monitors

I wish you all the luck in your project and look forward to reading it. Cheers

The study will include, two monitors of the following species with and without Uv, thats four for you people who need these posts read to you. Mangrove, Nile, Croc, Savannah, and either timors or dumerils, not entirely sure yet. They will be housed at the seneca park zoo, daily observations by myself and the herpetologist on duty both on the physical and biological levels. My findings will be reported to my biology and anthropology professors. Please understand this is not a study I decided to conduct one day, this study is in cooperation with the Seneca Park Zoo, and the Rochester Institute of Technology, and the study was not developed by me it was developed by my biology Professor Dr. Hanson. I am merely taking part and using it to achieve my doctorate. So if you think about it, its not me you are disagreeing with, its the Zoo, and my professors, who not by chance have made their life the pursuit of truth. Yes we know that monitors can be raised without UVA or UVB but what we are studying is the effects UV has whether good or bad, why is that so hard to accept? Its just a study to find a definitive answer, relax, no one is saying anyone is wrong. This is comparable to new ideas in the south, no one is saying your wrong, but wouldnt it be nice never to have to have this arguement, let me do my job, and if you dont like it for some reason dont say anything, I have nevrer once said anyone was wrong for thier methods, what im confused about is why you would be hostile at someone in pursuit of the truth, very strange, sounds like somones just trying to start a fight......

Again you have it wrong and thats what worries me. You keep saying its me thats in disagreement, its not. Its you or the zoo that disagrees with my monitors. You must understand, the monitors, you know, the ones pictured above and many more are what upsets your apple cart. They are the results of no UV bulbs. I am just the messenger that has brought this information to you.

AT this time, I look at hundreds of healthy productive monitors that do not use UV bulbs and have showed nothing. So of course I have to believe real results, the monitors.

What I do question is, What experience does the zoo have with varanids. You see, if they are not proficent with varanids to start with, then an experiment is pretty much useless. They have to have a base level of husbandry. You must understand that.

For instance, the information I offer you is based on monitors achieving life events, not just having a heartbeat. To keep a display animal healthy and alive really is only basic husbandry and very easy to do. A display animal does not require much calicum compared to a fast growing juvinile or a reproductive female. Again, I surely hope you realize that.

I am sure the zoo is very capable of this. We would all surely love to see these zoo monitors. Please take some pics and share with us.

One little problem. As a researcher you must not be prejudiced. That is, you must not start with a preconcieved notion of what the results will be. Yet here you are alreay calling your results "the TRUTH". The way you say it inferes that what I am showing you is not the truth. You see, its this type of approach that makes the difference between bad research/academics and good one. I hope your a good one. Cheers

Hi,

I have to ask, do you really think that a comparison of two individuals of 4 species will give you any kind of conclusive results? again, I am not trying to start trouble, but I don't think observations taken from such a small group will really tell you much of anything. Just individual variation alone between the 8 animals could effect the results. I would think for this project to be of value, you must study many, many individuals. I understand that you are seeking the truth, but I don't think you could honestly say you discovered/uncovered anything definitively with such a tiny number of subjects. Thanks.

Will

PS - I don't think your comment about having a post read to us was necessary. There are many folks here who dwarf you in both varanid experience and formal education, so comments like that are not helping your case.

Some things that stand out to me

"no Ultraviolet (UV) light source or dietary vitamin D3 supplementation for several years."

"A strong improvement occurred in the animal appetite to include only balanced prey items, which had not been previously possible."

Since it is stated no dietary vitamin D3 supplementation, does it then mean it was not feeding on whole prey items, or any animal matter?? what was it eating?