I know, Jordan....I was kidding...lol
Madkins007 said:This is MY OPINION currently, based on a lot of different kinds of input.
UVB is not a biological necessity in the sense that air is, but when you have the right UVB levels for the species and age, with the right bulb type (or sunlight), set up the right way, for the right duration, it seems to be beneficial enough to justify its use.
While many people do not use it (at least in the winter time, etc.), the question is whether their animals would be better off with it? This is an old debate, and one that will not be absolutely solved without controlled, long-term tests.
Even though it is not a necessity, I think it offers several benefits, such as:
- Possibly better skeletal, shell, and organ development
- More natural behaviors (this benefit is well-documented, and is by itself a good argument for some UVA and UVB)
- Mild germ- and mold-fighting characteristics
- Possibly better resistance to respiratory and viral diseases
- Seems helpful (but not necesarily required) for better reproduction
Therefore, to me the 'Best Practice' would be to offer at least some low-level UVB to all ages of all species of tortoises all year as part of an overall proper care program.
But- if you have them outside for part of the year, they have a good diet and cares, and are doing well- I certainly won't knock you for not doing it.
Meg90 said:So, if I lived without sunlight for 20 years, but still took a multivitamin, I wouldn't have any bad health effects?
That makes no sense.
-EJ said:Talk to some of those cultures in the norther and extreme southern latitudes. Up until not too long ago in historic terms Rickets was a common problem. This problem was partially resolved through the use of supplements.
What doesn't make sense is how all these reptiles survived long before the UVB lighting. A good number did die but a good number survived.
Also there is no debate whether UVB is beneficial... the debate is whether it is a necessity. As mentioned before... I ran into arguments 10 years ago that the UVB lamps were any good or not. It would surprise you to see the names of some who were dead set against them.
Meg90 said:So, if I lived without sunlight for 20 years, but still took a multivitamin, I wouldn't have any bad health effects?
That makes no sense.
terryo said:Even though it is not a necessity, I think it offers several benefits, such as:
- Possibly better skeletal, shell, and organ development
- More natural behaviors (this benefit is well-documented, and is by itself a good argument for some UVA and UVB)
- Mild germ- and mold-fighting characteristics
- Possibly better resistance to respiratory and viral diseases
- Seems helpful (but not necesarily required) for better reproduction
Just out of curiosity, Mark, can you show me what you based your above opinions on?....Care sheets? or something??
Redfoot NERD said:Mark you don't have the authority [ or personal experience ] to knock anyone.
What good does it do to spend 5X what it costs for a good 'full-spectrum' bulb.. when redfoot tortoises won't make use of them anyway?
Source: Turtletary.. 1998 to present.
Herbivorous tortoises 'need' UVB because they don't get it from their diet.. so they have to bask. So what's the debate all about anyway?
If you or anyone else doesn't give credit where credit is due.. you will be [ questioned ] held accountable.
Terry K
cdmay said:4. The debate is whether UVB is a benefit even if not a necessity.
This above quote by Madkins007 seems to be the center of this very old (and tired) debate.
The fact is, despite some folks denying that redfoots and even yellowfoots bask, these animals do indeed bask both in nature and in captivity. They certainly have in my collection and in all of the keepers care that I know down here in Florida. My big females line up along the western edge of my fence to catch the early morning rays. My hatchlings climb up on top of each other to catch rays. Mind you, this is even during the summer.
In addition I know of many folks who have found both redfoots AND yellowfoots and who have come upon these tortoises while they were basking in exposed patches of sunlight from Colombia to Paraguay. YES, even yellowfoots that according to some avoid sunlight like they were vampires. True, they do prefer more shaded and humid habitats than redfoots but they still expose themselves to sunlight for at least part of the time.
Does this mean that you absolutely must provide some sort of UVA/UVB bulb or direct sunlight for them? I dunno. But if they seek out these things when given the opportunity why not provide it?
Regarding smooth growth without sunlight or UVA/UVB bulbs I would say this: smooth growth on young animals does not in itself mean anything except that their food intake and humidity were well regulated. It does not mean that they will have good internal bone structure or that they will go on to produce large numbers of well calcified and fertile eggs. I would bet that the fertility, egg production and overall health of long term adults is better when they have access to sunlight.
I would also add that the color of their carapace will be more natural as I have seen some captive redfoots (leopard tortoises too) that were raised completely indoors with no natural light that had unusually pale shells. When placed outdoors, the new growth laid down by these tortoises was a healthy black like it is supposed to be.
Madkins007 said:Update on the bulb effectiveness. I figured out why some bulbs did better than others with worse specifications. It seems that a very specific wavelength does the optimal D3 change- 295 nanometers, and the bulbs that do best in the percentage column are those that emit the most of that wavelength.
UVB itself is defined as between 280 and 320 nanometers.
Oh, and fluorescent plant lights would emit UVB as well. Isn't that what you use, TurtleTary?
Madkins007 said:Actually, EJ, the studies we want seem to have been done by a W. H. Gehrmann. I'm trying to locate some of his articles and papers on the subject. Do you have access to any of the journal sites or anything?
Also- ALL of the bulbs in the study are fluorescent, so the mercury vapors were not included. Maybe in some of Gehrmann's stuff?
Madkins007 said:Actually, EJ, the studies we want seem to have been done by a W. H. Gehrmann. I'm trying to locate some of his articles and papers on the subject. Do you have access to any of the journal sites or anything?
Also- ALL of the bulbs in the study are fluorescent, so the mercury vapors were not included. Maybe in some of Gehrmann's stuff?