Reptile & Amphibian Forums

One of this year's hatchlings (hatched Aug. 3rd) just ate today for the first time. That's a full 12 weeks after hatching. Weight loss over that period was about 11% of its starting weight, or a little more than one gram (1.03g).
This is a new record for hatchlings that I've observed here.

Stephanie

Just out of curiosity...where's here? Also, what type of box turtle was it? Is it your own personal turtle? Thank you for sharing, it makes me feel a little better about the fact that I have a lot of difficulty getting my neonates to feed. I'll stand there forever, clenching my teeth, muttering, "EAT THE GALDARN WORM!!".

That's kindof why I posted it... The majority if this years' hatchlings got started eating later than last years'. I actually still have a couple of holdouts, but they hatched a few days after the one mentioned. They may indeed shatter that record.

I'm in central VA, our turtles are Easterns, it is a hatchling from one of the rescued females we have. I'm headstarting the babies for eventual release: the adults remain with us, and are just beginning to hibernate (they stay outside year round).

Stephanie

You know, I have no idea why some hatchlings are so reluctant to eat, and others will not hesitate...I'm glad that you came away with something vaguely helpful.

One of last year's hatchlings started eating about 3 or 4 days after hatching, but its clutchmate waited a month and is not close to catching up in size even now. That was the previous 'record'. The last time I measured and weighed them, the early eater weighed nearly twice as much as the late one.

This year, the one that went 12 weeks without eating was offered a range of foods, so it wasn't for lack of options. Its clutchmates weren't so particular, evidently, as they have been eating for some weeks now.
Part of me was getting to be rather alarmed, but there really wasn't anything I could do except be patient.

Thanks for sharing Mike Dorcas' name, too.

Stephanie

is that it can be misleading since its margin for error is subject to whoever recorded the data.

Did you take incremental measurements throughout those three months? How substantial was the weight loss during the first month, while the parental investment (i.e. yolk) was likely still wearing off? Did weight loss accelerate at any point in particular, namely, after the first four or five weeks? Were your measurements frequent enough to disclose such info?

This is a record for what? Time till eating after starvation? Was the animal kept at active temps? If so, it should have eaten before it bid goodbye to over a tenth of its body weight during the most delicate time of its life. Something might have been awry. Something environmental? Insufficient dietary provisions? A mistake in husbandry? Any of those would be on your behalf, so they are important methods to disclose with the “result.”

You say you want statements given to come with proof. Here, you share a proof where no statement was given. Some might take from this, wow, baby box turtles can go many months without eating, because Stephanie set a record.

This is why raw data are not usually submitted before they are organized towards manageable theories, points, or proofs for something beyond a measurement of time for which no context is given.

The proof is a metabolically active (presuming it was maintained at an active temp) turtle that lost a ton of weight because it would not fuel its bodily functions. You should focus on inquiry of your methods that achieved that proof - what was the catalyst for the animal’s self-flagellation? You won’t correct the cause for a hatchling’s extended fast by clocking the number of days the turtle goes on an empty stomach.

Should you come up with no questions about the cause of your effect, you could hold such data until someone asks, how long can a baby boxie starve for? Then you can say, I helped one do it for three months (two-ish if you consider the yolk’s influence). You are still right, though (putting aside the role here as devil’s (thinking?) advocate) - an impressive feat for the little thing.

If the information is taken out of context it could be misleading but this information seems to be presented as an anecdotal note and not data as such. I think this kind of information is presented more as food for thought and nothing more.

The basic note is how long a hatchling boxie is capable of going without food. Notice I said 'a' boxie... I did not say 'Box Turtles' as a whole.

Once again you seemed to have made a very interesting and simple note very complex.

>>is that it can be misleading since its margin for error is subject to whoever recorded the data.
>>
>>Did you take incremental measurements throughout those three months? How substantial was the weight loss during the first month, while the parental investment (i.e. yolk) was likely still wearing off? Did weight loss accelerate at any point in particular, namely, after the first four or five weeks? Were your measurements frequent enough to disclose such info?
>>
>>This is a record for what? Time till eating after starvation? Was the animal kept at active temps? If so, it should have eaten before it bid goodbye to over a tenth of its body weight during the most delicate time of its life. Something might have been awry. Something environmental? Insufficient dietary provisions? A mistake in husbandry? Any of those would be on your behalf, so they are important methods to disclose with the “result.”
>>
>>You say you want statements given to come with proof. Here, you share a proof where no statement was given. Some might take from this, wow, baby box turtles can go many months without eating, because Stephanie set a record.
>>
>>This is why raw data are not usually submitted before they are organized towards manageable theories, points, or proofs for something beyond a measurement of time for which no context is given.
>>
>>The proof is a metabolically active (presuming it was maintained at an active temp) turtle that lost a ton of weight because it would not fuel its bodily functions. You should focus on inquiry of your methods that achieved that proof - what was the catalyst for the animal’s self-flagellation? You won’t correct the cause for a hatchling’s extended fast by clocking the number of days the turtle goes on an empty stomach.
>>
>>Should you come up with no questions about the cause of your effect, you could hold such data until someone asks, how long can a baby boxie starve for? Then you can say, I helped one do it for three months (two-ish if you consider the yolk’s influence). You are still right, though (putting aside the role here as devil’s (thinking?) advocate) - an impressive feat for the little thing.
-----
Ed @ Tortoise Keepers
Trying to keep the fun in Chelonian care

Actually I have the information, but you will just have to wait until we publish...and then you will be free to misinterpret the data at your leisure.
Its a shame that you're so unwilling to hold yourself to the same standards to which you would hold others.

Sorry about that, Ed, I lost my place in the thread there...

The information was RAW data, everyone: I thought that when I mentioned that I was headstarting hatchlings, readers would grasp that I was not witholding food, but rather quite the opposite.

Stephanie

Funny, you say to explain and back up what one says. Then you refuse to do so. Wait till "we" publish? Why didn't you wait to share the results till you publish? That's normally the best part to "save for last." Where can we expect this publication to turn up, or do you yet know?

What I was trying to subtly point out is that by sharing that data, you are not sticking to your own guns. You emphasize details and then submit a post that excludes the details which are needed for context.

The only reason I have to make such long posts is because it is difficult to discuss certain factors with someone who wants to argue but also seems to have partial understanding of the subject matter, like your stance on the blood vessel bit below.

I like to keep things simple, but, when I have to step back and explain the principles that the discussion is based upon, it becomes a more elaborate process of attempted communication. How long was my initial post on heating pads, below? How long did they become after you chimed in? All I try to do is point out simplicities. It's when less developed understandings challenge those simplicities that responses grow longer.

I didn't mean that you have to withhold food from the hatchling to help it fast. You think, worms are food, or, crickets are food. What if the hatchling required springtails, or pillbugs, or some even less-accessible invert, to perceive food? That would be an inadvertent mistake on you, to have not met required provisions by way of further experimentation. By sharing the foods you actually offered, the post would have contained info people could use rather than trivia that one hatchling box turtle managed to survive the first quarter year of its life without eating.

I'm not making this complicated. When you demand the explanations you have in the past, be ready to provide them yourself when they're needed for context, or be ready to wear the hat of hypocrisy. Even simple data can complicate understandings if they are given no context. Why risk complicating the understandings of others? Haven't you said that yourself?

Now you say this is for headstarting. The purpose of headstarting is to give hatchlings a head start on life. Is this publication going to fatten the number of case studies which illustrate flaws in headstarting? To remove eleven percent of a hatchling’s weight as the starting point and claim that a record doesn’t sound like a strong method. But, that’s only one of so many complications with headstarting. I hope you have studied some of the others.

Jeez, lighten up. I found her post intersting and didn't find it the least bit confusing. This is not an "academic" board.

Stephanie,

That is VERY interesting. Much thanks for sharing! It is unfortunate what it turned into, but oh well what can you do.

Where did you submit to? I look forward to reading that and other stuff you are, as part as what seems to be a larger project, working on.

Jesse

You're welcome.
We're still collecting data, so I don't have any dates or other particulars to give you at this point.
Stephanie

I would like to thank everyone who made this thread possible. It is very entertaining.