Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Here is a hatchling V.gouldi, in the first pic. And later after the same individual has grown up. A very handsome monitor.

In this case, the hatchling was not so colorful, but grew up to be very colorful and as was said below, vibrant.

About the questions, What I find so odd about these conversations is, there is no conversation, its simply boiled down to, good or bad, use or don't use. I believe this issue should be discussed more then that. We should really talk about it.

I would think, there are important times when calicum is needed. I am sure that the use of calicum is not consistant. It can't be.

There must be times when its use is greater then others. It would be easy to see, that the little monitor above had to increase its bone mass, many hundreds of times, in order to reach the size in the second picture. I believe that the use of calicum must be right or that little fella would be dead. Plainly, its not dead, it fact, it looks great. Try looking a the pics and seeing the bones.

Lets look a little closer, this gouldi grew up in about one year. An even better understanding is they do not grow at a constant rate, they have growth bursts. This animal did most of its growing in a few months. I would think, these months are critical in the use of Calicum

Most people here think, that reproduction puts lots of stress on calicum reserves. I do not believe that at all. In fact, we do not see any effects of calicum use, until after the third or fourth clutch, in a season. If we keep the food flowing(support) we do not see any signs. This is the same for indoors or outdoors, and we do both.

You would think that outdoors we would not see any calicum problems because we have the sun, but unfortunately, we see the exact same things.

Which leads me to believe, that UV and the conversion of D vitamins is not the limiting factor, indoors(normal litebulbs) or outdoors, its simply the supply of usable calicum. At least thats been my experience.

So, why don't the believers of UV bulbs carry on a decent conversation about UV?? About how or when its needed? and any realistic observation of calicum use? I always wonder about this. They seem to quote papers, but have no experience of their own.

For what its worth, this experiences are mine, they are from a keeper of monitors, one thats actually keeping them, one with a history of success. These experiences are to be applied to actual living monitors, not to fit in with current literature.

Its my opinion, that the paper boys, live in a paper world and of course all things written must fit in the paper world, not the real world. Its my humble opinion, that the monitors are the real world and paper is only paper. Our stuff must proof its merit in how it effects the monitors, not how it fits other papers. Thank you, FR

I notice that you always refer to UV bulbs, not UV light, and I see that most of the photos you post are taken in the sun. Doesn't seem quite right to me -- is it UV bulbs you think are useless, or is it UV light you claim that monitors don't need? Why should anyone take you seriously about UVB? Can you explain vitamin D3 synthesis for us? How about calcium metabolism (and don't forget calcium/phosphorus ratios)?

If you want another "discussion", I think we need to see that you understand what you reject.

I have said, UV bulbs, as all lite bulbs emit a range of UV. There is also UV reflected thru our windows, etc, etc. So to say, UV has no effect is not my intend and never was. Its only about The BULBS. If you would take the time to properly read and not fall off the deep end, you should understand. As this has been explained many times. READ THE THREAD BELOW.

On the otherhand, you could discuss its about levels of UV exposure, its possible, that it only takes minute levels.

On the otherhand, we have kept several static monitors with no lites in their cages. We have tested that for three years now, and they are as healthy as any. Again, they are adult non growing or breeding monitors. So their use of calicum is minimal.

You must understand Sam, this is a forum about monitors in captivity, therefore its very natural for us to discuss LITEBULBS. I fear, I must remind you of this, over and over.

IF you would read the post, it also explains a comparison of indoor and outdoor effects concerning calicum depletion during multiclutching. But again, you missed that. Thanks FR

It is my personal belief backed up with a bit of logic and experience that reptiles are metabolizing that D 3 because of heat, not UV from a bulb or the sun.

I have seen no studies that indicate UV is the reason for a healthy lizard vs. an unhealthy lizard.

Here is what has been discovered about lights being on 24/7 that a few here profess to whole-heartedly - and something to consider....furthermore, there is no geographic locality where this phenomena occurs naturally on a 365 days/yr basis...so why do this in your own home for your reptile? Natural? No. Healthy? Most likely NOT....increases stress? Yes. Increase oogensis? Probably so. Overall healthy for reptile? Probably not. Do reptiles get cancer? Yes. Do reptiles get leukemia? Yes.

FYI:

Sleeping with the light on 'raises child leukaemia'
By Nic Fleming
(Filed: 09/09/2004)

Children should not be allowed to sleep with the light on because it inhibits the production of a hormone that protects them from cancer, a scientist said yesterday.

Increased exposure to unnatural night-time light and the resultant reduced capacity to produce melatonin may be one of the reasons for the steady rise in childhood leukaemia over the past century.

Babies up to the age of four or five months are believed to be particularly vulnerable because their bodies do not produce enough melatonin.

Prof Russel Reiter, of the University of Texas, urged parents to use low-intensity lighting if their children have to get up during the night.

Previous research suggests that night workers are more at risk of developing breast and other cancers. Blind people and those who live in the Arctic Circle often have higher melatonin levels and have lower cancer rates.

Prof Reiter, who presented a paper to a childhood leukaemia conference in London, said: "Parents should be prudent about the use of light at night. Once children have gone to bed they should not be permitted to use a light without good reason."

The number of children under five diagnosed with leukaemia has increased by 50 per cent in the past 40 years, statistics published this week showed.

Researchers also suggested that there had been a seven-fold increase in the disease in the same age group during the 20th century, although these data are less reliable because of changes to diagnosis and counting methods.

About 500 children under the age of 15 are diagnosed with leukaemia - cancer of the blood - in Britain every year and around 100 die of it.

Prof Reiter said: "At present we have a lot of indirect evidence but we do not have the proof. Our task is to see if we can find that proof."

Russell Foster, a molecular neuroscientist at Imperial College London, said: "We do not know whether abnormal light exposure is generating this higher incidence of childhood leukaemia but in view of what we know about other forms of cancer this is not unreasonable."

Cheers,
mbayless

Hey Mark,

Does that mean the subject has to be exposed to the light 24/7 and not allowed to get away from it?

I believe most of these guy's using 24/7 lights on allow areas of darkness. Under a hide, in a burrow etc. .

Unless the animals are stuck out in the direct light for that time period I do not see a problem. Also that research was on humans correct? If so it is also shown that no exposure to light can harm humans, mammals, and other animals as well.

I think to argue all of this is silly. In certain circumstances the best things can seem to be the worst and vis versa.

Hi Jody,
I am NOT arguing at all, just presenting some information that may show some enlightenment to some of those who have eyes but do not (always) see.... that is all I am doing here today....
just having fun. And hope you are too.

cheers,
mbayless

Isn't that what it is about? When i stop having fun is when i need to move on.

I'm a little confused/amused with your above post. What is shows me is the standard "scare tactics to get published" mentality that, sadly, is becoming all to common in the academic community. The 'problem' is presented as fact in the first paragraph, but then the 'we think's and the 'may's begin to creep in below, where hopefully no one will notice. The statement about blind people and people living above the Arctic circle, in particular, amuses me. So if the blind cannot see lights or the sun, the cancer won't get them? Even if they work in places with lights or spend lots of time basking at the beach? But then, the people living above the Arctic circle do not go outside much because of the cold, but they also tend to keep the lights on more than most people, due to the desire to counter the depression that occurs when there is no sunlight. Many of them sleep with lights on. (And I got that from a friend who lives and works there two years out of three. He says that most of his co-workers have lights on and are up at hours when the sun would be down if you go by the clock.) He also laughed sadly at the notion that people up there get less cancer. He just recovered from cancer surgery.

It sort of reminded me of when the scientists said that people shouldn't put their babies to bed on their backs, because they thought that SIDS was caused by babies asperating spit-up or vomet. So mothers put their babies to bed on their bellies as suggested, and you know what? Many of them died of SIDS. Now the scientists are telling mothers to put their babies to bed on their backs so they don't suffocate (the new scientific fad cause of SIDS.) The fact is that, just because someone with a lot of letters after their name says smething, does not mean it is so.

I have respect for your opinions, but that last one really does nothing to make your case.

Leslie

Good points, you always need to view results that come from massive statistical analyses rather skeptically. For most of these medically-related "new ideas" the data themselves do not give an answer that jumps out at you -- instead, what the researchers have done is to look for correlations, small trends that may be buried in masses of contradictory information. Studies of this sort always run a high risk of generating false leads, just because the causal relationships are so weak. As a general rule you cannot do dangerous experiments on people, so "proof" can be elusive.

This should be distinguished from experimental work per se, where the relevant tests can be performed, and a reasonable level of proof achieved.

To bring this into the realm of the current thread, we know from experimental work how vitamin D3 is synthesized, in great detail, and where it goes in the body and what it does. We also know how D3 affects calcium metabolism, and how it operates in a feedback loop with parathyroid hormone and thyrocalcitonin. Dietary D3 does not trigger the same interactions, and robs these hormones of their regulating influences. If you know people who have had thyroidectomies, many have persistent and intractable problems of all sorts from p'thyroid/thyrocalcitonin imbalances, even though they are not D3 deficient -- it's the upstream proceses that are disrupted.

D3 metabolism in reptiles is not known to be vastly different from the processes that occur in mammals (nor would they be expected to be, it's pretty basic life chemistry). So, some of us worry about the "don't need no UV" arguments. Why do I worry about those arguments, myself? It's because they are based on evidence that is at best "statistical" as I described above -- "I got lots of monitors that don't need no UV hahaha cuz they laid eggs hahaha". Analyze the basis for the claim, and you'll find it has less to support it than the studies of SIDS that you criticized -- basically, it's anecdotal.

I don't much care what others think, but when there is experimentally-based evidence of potential problems, and I have the option to choose, I am going to try to match the natural world rather than try to fight it.

Actually, it is the anecdotal evidence that is proving to be of the most help in combattng SIDS. Each individual case sheds more light on what may be going on. After all, you can't do 'experiments' on seemingly healthy infants to see what will bring on a SIDS death.

My curiosity is also aroused by the nocternal lizards I keep. Clearly, the hatchlings need calcium to "build strong bones and healthy teeth." But they do not come out during the day at all to have any benefit from natural sunlight or UVB lights. (We've already disposed of the idea that UV light penetrates the ground to wherever the animals are). So, the only calcium they get is from diet, or supplimentation. If UVB is so important, or even just beneficial, and if dietary calcium is not sufficient, what gives with my leopards and my crested geckos? Perhaps there is another mechanism at work? Perhaps the same mechanism is at work in the monitors and other diurnal lizards that are doing well without sunlight or UVB? The trouble with a great deal of science is that it only continues looking until it has an answer that seemingly proves a theory. The answer may well be wrong, but if it looks good, it will be published, and that is that.

No offense meant, just my experience with the academic/scientific community. Once someone has a pet theory, it is defended ad nauseum even in the face of conflicting information.

Leslie

This is hardly the place for a thread on SIDS, but didn't the aussies link it to CO2 "pooling" in bassinets and so on? That wasn't anecdotal or even statistical, it was thought up then measured....

I'm not so sure that leopard and crested geckos never get UV exposure -- other "totally nocturnal" geckos have turned out to bask briefly in the wild, which has surprized some folks. We assume a lot by using descriptors such as burrowing, or nocturnal, often long before anyone has really looked at the natural histories of the animals carefully. Still, many geckos do store large quantities of calcium in their endolymphatic sacs (along the sides of the neck), so there could well be other mechanisms at work, as you suggest.

I have a slight beef with your statement "The trouble with a great deal of science is that it only continues looking until it has an answer that seemingly proves a theory. The answer may well be wrong, but if it looks good, it will be published, and that is that."

It doesn't take very much looking to see how science is self-correcting -- yes, junk gets published all the time, but if a conclusion does not hold up, it gets knocked on the head pretty quickly. It is actually more noteworthy to shoot down a conclusion than to support it -- a lot of people immediately try to poke holes in anything novel, and there are always iconoclasts woodpeckering around even the well-established, 'sacred cow' concepts.

As a working scientist myself, I hear these sentiments expressed all the time, but I have to say that I don't see it happening. I think many people assume that only 'truth' can be published, and that publication ends the discussion. In reality, it only starts a discussion.

I'll agree with you up to a point. Many 'sacred cows' are probably wrong, but when someone's reputation is based upon them, they fight real hard to keep the status quo. Seen it happen in far too many disciplines.

As to the complaint about the SIDS "thread;" it is not a thread, merely an example, sort of like a basketball and beer?!? But at least it keeps to the idea of 'scientific' vs. 'anecdotal' evidence. The fact is, the anecdotal evidence often shows a lot more than scientists would like to admit. Scientists are often too caught up in the 'published study' mentality to see what's going on within their own area of supposed expertise. And I hear that complaint as much if not more from scientists about their own colleagues than I do from the layman.

My major problem, however, was with the posting of an article with so many holes in its logic as an example of why lights 24-7 was bad. If this is acceptable scientific logic to you, then we have a fundamental difference in evaluating evidence, and, no offense meant, but I've got some mountain property in south Florida I could probably interest you in purchasing.

Leslie

I don't think much of the study you initially responded to, either, and wouldn't have cited it. It's a classic example of the 'statistical' approach I criticized.

No thanks on the Florida mountain lots, I hear the wind blows harder at higher elevations there.

Your body converts hormone seratonin into melatonin only when there is darkness . The younger you are the more your body will produce .

Melatonin helps to regulate cardiac rythems , helps induce sleep , and acts a free radical (much like vitamin c - free radical help to prevent cancerous cell development ) . There is a lot of documentation on this .

There is also documentation that the production of melatonin helps to delay the onset of puberty . By running lights 24/7 you may actually make an animal capable of breeding before it should but by doing so you may also be depriving them of producing a hormone that helps the body heal itself .
-----
Stella St.Pierre
www.bluetegu.com

My problem is with the blind person statement. Blindness would have no effect on melatonin production, or anything else, unless the whole mechanism is through the retina, which is not.

Much of the current research is based on theory, and as we all know, theories change with time. As a sociologist, I know that you can say pretty much anything with statistics, because there is no way to totally isolate what you are studying from other factors that you are not studying and perhaps don't even know exist at this point in time. For years we were told to stay away from eggs because of the cholesterol. Now it is known that the cholesterol in eggs is really not a problem. Studies may indicate something may be going on, but proof is not that easy.

You can think anything you want, but that's rather like saying that you think your car runs on noise, because all the cars you've seen that aren't moving, aren't making noise. Do some reading.

I understand it perfectly, just look at the baby monitor, then look at the adult, It was done perfectly. Ok, I am not sure its perfect, but its pretty good.

I often think this connection is what you miss. I do not need to know how D-3 synthesis works, I only need to make healthy adult monitors out of babies, then have them live a life which includes basic life events.

I surely understand, I cannot and do not give them "everything" But I do think basic life events like having babies grow up, then having adults reproduce and live a decent time and get old and die, is a start.

Considering that the standard for most and I include you in this, are just trying to keep them alive and healthy. May I emphasize try.

Again I feel you concentrate on the "formula" and not the result. I could careless about the formula, and concentrate on the result.

"A reasonable man, would look at the above monitors and ask how, not ask to explain, D-3 synthesis" But then I understood long ago, you are not reasonable. FR

Has perfected a technique to raise gators to 6 feet in total darkness ( 12 months) without any kind of deficiencies, I worked for Edwin and have seen his work and apply his knowledge to my captives, pleas don’t take my word call him!
The funny part that was 18 years ago!

If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.

Newsflash! A monitor lizard's thick skin was designed to preven UV absorbtion.

The main reason a monitor lizard basks is to absorb heat. It uses this heat as energy to properly metabolize food.

UV bulbs are a multi million dollar industry that is founded on the lie that lizards need UV to live healthy productive lives.

I've been told by some heavy hitters in the industry that it would be best if I just kept my mouth shut about the need for UV. Might piss off the wrong people. They tell me,"so what if it's a lie, it's not hurting anyone."

I am working on putting a study together as we speak. Eventually the findings will be published.

People sure get angry when you attack their religion.

There are several issues with your observations.

First, as I pointed out below, your success is relative. It is wonderful that you have bred multiple generations of more than one species. However, your "success" while more than anyone else who posts on this forum, is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the length of time and millions (billions...) of monitors that have lived throughout time. Although this forum is mostly about captives it is naive to think that captive care exists in a vacuum from the monitors in the wild. In fact, I find it interesting that when you argue that they burrow, you cite their behaviors in the wild, yet when we discuss UV light (bulbs or natural), suddenly the wild monitors no longer matter. That point is minor though.

Second, your all or nothing thinking really shines through in the following quotation and shows that while you may be several steps ahead of many others you are severely limited:

Most people here think, that reproduction puts lots of stress on calicum reserves. I do not believe that at all. In fact, we do not see any effects of calicum use, until after the third or fourth clutch, in a season. If we keep the food flowing(support) we do not see any signs. - FR

Do you honestly believe that the first two or three times there is no calcium stress and then suddenly on the third or fourth clutch the stress just appears from nowhere? I really hope not. You see, it is more likely a process. It develops over time. In a similar line as any illness. Take, for example, those people who say, "my monitor was perfectly healthy and then just died." (we didn't see any signs of stress, then we did) Surely sometimes that might be right, but I doubt it fits the majority of instances. The people who say such things are often wrong. They simply missed the signs of the problem until it was too late. The fact that you do not SEE any signs means very little. In fact, it means almost nothing. It might very well mean there is no problem, as you suggest, or it might mean you just are not experienced enough to see the signs. Your 3 - 4 year "study" of that one particular individual is certainly a start, but hardly valid enough to make sweeping conclusions.

Next, the following comment, made by you, also shows a limitation:

You would think that outdoors we would not see any calicum problems because we have the sun, but unfortunately, we see the exact same things. - FR

No one suggested that you would see no problems, except you. In fact, I think it is evidence of the actual stresses that some of the life events place on the monitors, including clutching and multiclutching. Your usual line of defense here is to challenge the multiclutching comment. That comment, though, really is minor. It is more an issue of stressing the monitor and what we do to reduce or address that stress. UV might be one way to reduce that stress (calcium depletion or whatever it is that increases the stress).

Here is an example citing my OWN failures/problems. Mushu, my salvator, produced some very nice eggs many times. I managed to kill lots of the babies, usually full-term in the egg (and I seem to be doing it again albeit on a lesser scale - care to offer any potentially useful suggestions for resolving my problem?). However, my December hatchlings, for the first time in my experience, suffered what appeared to be some serious calcium issues and several died, one has seemed to have recovered. I began supplementing Mushu with calcium. I also supplemented (for the first time ever) the next clutch of hatchlings (who were laid before I began supplementing Mushu) Again, although I killed some babies full-term, I did not experience a similar calcium issue with the next clutches. Was it a calcium supply issue or was it the limited ability to utilize the calcium available or was it combination of both or something completely different? I do not know. I certainly leave open the possibility that access to UV might have helped (maybe not cured, but it might have helped). I simply do not know. Maybe someday I will.

The end point is really that you do not care. Before you attack that comment, who cares if you care? You are content with your current level of success; and if that is enough for you, so be it. I am not content to say I am content with my level of success. The difference is simply that I leave open the possibility that UV might be one component where I can improve what I do. I confess, as I did below, on my list of priorities UV is fairly low. I know it is not NECESSARY for breeding and so I am looking for the necessary components for repeated (F2s) breeding. When I figure those components out, then I will revisit the UV component... maybe. I simply leave it open.

Happy herping

-----
^x^ Bloodbat ^x^
Monitors, monitors everywhere
and all the food they ate.
Monitors, monitors everywhere,
their parents loved to mate.