What is the physiology behind pyramiding?

[tortadise]

I am curious by saying it is the same with Kinixys. I have only seen pictures of 3 properly pyramided kinixys species

A couple for your collection.

Prime examples, at that...

Very nice specimen. I have read some on these belliana in those regions(Zululand/Swaziland) Once were labeled belliana zulensis. But phylogenic analysis kept them as Belliana Belliana. Flintus. Your thinking of the Natals and the Belliana in those regions of South East Africa. Some lobatse too. They react similar to Pyxis. Hibernate or more along the lines of aestiviate during extreme seasons of dryness.

 

[Yvonne G]

Just a note from one of the moderators to a fairly new member here on the Forum. We allow everyone to have their opinion here on the Forum. If you don't agree with that opinion, or in YOUR opinion, the other guy has posted something that he hasn't read and understood, we still allow him to say it anyway. We don't make fun of posts made by others and we don't talk down to them. I must say that even after your rude remarks, the person they were said to responded in a polite manner. Speaks well for him, but not so well for you.

Please don't sling mud. Keep it polite.

 

[Testudoresearch]

There is a fundamental difference between facts and opinions.

Anyone can have an opinion. No problem with that.

Misrepresenting and distorting established facts, however, is another thing entirely.

 

[Yvonne G]

That's fine, but in a debate, you come back with your proof as to why the debated comment is a misrepresentation, you don't talk down to him or be rude.

 

[Testudoresearch]

That's fine, but in a debate, you come back with your proof as to why the debated comment is a misrepresentation, you don't talk down to him or be rude.

I have responded with real proof. Repeatedly. It is consistently disregarded and ignored.

"The suggestion - if that is what you really are trying to suggest - that the RH in these burrows approaches 100% on a regular or routine basis is absolutely ridiculous. It simply does not happen like that. I have taken (using data loggers) over 25,000 measurements in such burrows to date over a continuous 4 year period at all times of year, and the typical range is 40-60%. You only have to visit these habitats to know why this is the case, and why suggestions of 80, 90 or 100% are just so plain silly and totally impossible it should not even be up for discussion.

FYI, we measured active, occupied burrows in Morocco as far back as 1996 and published the results(1). The results:

"burrow humidity rarely exceeded 60% and was typically 50% or less compared to external ambient air humidity levels of approximately 20%.... Burrow humidity was often sustained below 45% for extended periods during peak periods of tortoise activity and growth in the Spring period, and reduced to 40% or less in June, July and August....Shallow tortoise scrapes possessed marginally higher relative humidities than the prevailing ambient conditions, but not by much, typically by less than 5% over ambient (scrapes are far less efficient at sustaining a stable temperature and higher localised humidity than are true burrows). It is also necessary to point out that tortoises using such scrapes tend to only partly bury themselves, primarily covering the front limbs and head, leaving the vast majority of the carapace fully exposed and therefore entirely subject to the prevailing ambient conditions of temperature and humidity"

Fact. Based on real measurements. Not guesswork and speculation."

 

[lilacdragon]

Tom wrote:

This I do not understand. Please elaborate. So you are saying that with good temperatures, diet, hydration, and outdoor exercise and sunshine, my tortoises are going to grow up and seem to be healthy and fine, but somehow, after 50 years of health and reproduction, I am going to discover some health issue because of how they were started 50 years ago? Forgive me, but this defies any known logic, and I can think of nothing to relate this too. Unfortunately, it is likely that none of us will be around to see if this is true or not.

Tom, I will need to collect some references for my reply to this very good request. Please bear with me as I collect up what I need. As regards tortoises specifically, I don't have much data. I hope Andy will be able to indicate some good quality research we can read.
But as a veterinarian (although now retired) I have always been very aware that much anatomy and physiology applies to all vertebrate life, so it is often perfectly okay to cautiously extrapolate when dealing with very basic principles...
There is a growing field of human data on the effects of what seem like minor, inconsequential deficiencies early in life, to adult health. There are also disturbing associations between certain apparently harmless things, like diet and light-at-night, and later development of cancer, in mammals. I'll dig out the papers and post some links to them.

Hi, guys.
I'm sorry that I've taken so long to get back to this - and the debate has moved on a lot over the holiday period - but if anyone's still interested in how apparently minor deficiences or stress in early life can affect health in adulthood, then I have a couple of interesting references here... These are not referring to tortoises, or even reptiles, however, so if anyone knows of any relevant studies on reptiles I would very much like to hear of them!

What seems to happen is that as an animal develops, there are "windows of opportunity" in which immature organs respond to very specific inputs - either biochemical (eg. nutrients or hormones) or physical (eg. sounds or sights) - for optimal development and "normal" responses to occur later in life.
The concept has been given the name of "fetal programming".

Here are three examples:

1. Hyppönen, E. (2010). Vitamin D and increasing incidence of type 1 diabetes—evidence for an association?. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 12(9), 737-743.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01211.x/pdf
This reviews the evidence for vitamin D deficiency in early life predisposing human children to the development of the auto-immune type of diabetes. The authors describe the development of diabetes in genetically modified mice born to vitamin D- deficient dams, in one experiment.

NOD mice that were vitamin D deficient in utero and in early life (up to day 100) had earlier disease onset and higher incidence of diabetes compared with controls......... The more aggressive disease pattern in the vitamin D deficient group continued after restoration of normal vitamin D status and metabolism, suggesting that early life influences may contribute to the disease progression in the NOD mouse.

2. Crozier, S. R., Harvey, N. C., Inskip, H. M., Godfrey, K. M., Cooper, C., & Robinson, S. M. (2012). Maternal vitamin D status in pregnancy is associated with adiposity in the offspring: findings from the Southampton Women's Survey. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 96(1), 57-63.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/1/57.full.pdf+html
In this study, children born to mothers who had low vitamin D levels during their pregnancy (which would presumably mean that as fetuses, they also had low vitamin D status) had a higher proportion of body fat at 6 years of age.

One interpretation of our data is that there are programmed effects on the fetus that arise from maternal vitamin D insufficiency that remain with the individual and that may predispose him or her to gain excess body fat in later childhood.

3. Delisle, H. (2002). Programming of chronic disease by impaired fetal nutrition. Evidence and implications for policy and intervention strategies. Suiza: World Health Organization.
http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/programming_chronicdisease.pdf
And this one published by the World Health Organization reviewed causes of death of a population of humans, when comparing those whose birth dates occurred during seasons when food was scarce, with those born at "better" times of the year. They found there was no difference between the two groups in childhood mortality, so one might conclude they were all equally healthy; but when adulthood was reached, the people who had, in theory at least, less optimal nutrition before birth were more likely to die from infections...

Based on cohort studies in the Gambia and in view of animal evidence, fetal programming of immunity was hypothesized.
There was a marked increase .. (in risk of death after puberty) ... with a risk ratio of 3.7 for deaths after 14.5 years, and of 10.3 for deaths after 25 years, in people born during the hungry season. Causes of death were primarily infection or infection-related, not chronic diseases. It was therefore suggested that early life events caused permanent damage to the immune system.
There is abundant evidence of sustained effects of fetal undernutrition on immunological function in animals. Zinc depletion during gestation, in particular, has a profound effect on the development of lymphoid organs, especially the thymus and spleen, and later repletion is ineffective. Intergenerational effects of maternal zinc deficiency have even been reported in the ’70s. Similar effects may result from protein-energy or other micronutrient deficiencies, but zinc is known to play a prominent role in the modulation of immune function.

Normal "Fetal Programming" of many organs may require adequate vitamin D during development.
Here is an excellent article that I can recommend:
Hossein-nezhad, A., & Holick, M. F. (2013, June). Vitamin D for Health: A Global Perspective. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Elsevier.
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619613004047.pdf

Epidemiologic evidence has suggested a link between fetal life events and susceptibility to disease in adult life.
The role of vitamin D in epigenetic modification and fetal programming could potentially explain why vitamin D has been reported to have such wide-ranging health benefits.
Vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy may, therefore, not only impair maternal skeletal preservation and fetal skeletal formation but also influence fetal “imprinting” that may affect chronic disease susceptibility soon after birth as well as later in life.

I think this review is well worth reading, even though it is about humans, since MBD resulting from vitamin D deficiency is still one of the most common conditions presented to reptile veterinarians.
Many pet tortoises have obvious MBD, which indicates gross deficiency.. I don't think we can ignore the possibility that in view of the high incidence of such severe deficiencies in the population, many apparently normal tortoises, like apparently normal humans, may have "normal" skeletons and carapaces, but still be deficient enough to have increased susceptibility to a whole range of conditions in later life...

This is of course looking at vitamin D, which is what I study most. However, I have come across some other articles relating to early influences on health in later life. Most are relating to prenatal influences on mammals, but a few studies are appearing on birds. I only have access to the abstract of this paper - on the effect of stress hormones on chicks - but it looks relevant:
Spencer, K. A., Evans, N. P., & Monaghan, P. (2009). Postnatal stress in birds: a novel model of glucocorticoid programming of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Endocrinology, 150(4), 1931-1934.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/en.2008-1471

Postnatal stress (post-natal exposure to glucocorticoids) has significant long-term effects on the physiological stress response in birds and provides a potential mechanism underlying long-term behavioural responses to developmental conditions.

I hope this hasn't deviated too far from the latest posts; if so please just carry on and ignore it...
Best wishes
Frances

 

[BeeBee*BeeLeaves]

I am really enjoying the back and fo of this thread, such wonderful information for consideration, albeit it does take me-brain a little time to digest it all, so I have to read and re-read. And re-read again ... woo hoo!

Just want to say thank you all so much! Again, just passing by ... this time with my lil friend from the Masai Mara National Reserve (picture by Robert Winslow). Look at that shell! Love me the tortoises and all this awesome tortoise education from everybody! Lots to think about! Back to reading the links! Muah! (blowing kiss) : )

 

[Dizisdalife]

That's fine, but in a debate, you come back with your proof as to why the debated comment is a misrepresentation, you don't talk down to him or be rude.

I have responded with real proof. Repeatedly. It is consistently disregarded and ignored.

Perhaps you missed the part about talking down to him or otherwise being rude. I, for one, had tuned out this thread because it had, in my opinion, strayed far from the topic. When I saw that Yvonne had posted here I came back to read her post. It did not surprise me, and it was written as a moderator. I have to admit that I have learned a few things reading this thread. There are many things presented here that I already knew and from the postings here I can see that there is some science to it. The fact that spot lights create hot spots on the carapace that are damaging, for instance. A good diet of fiber and high calcium is essential, as another example. However, after reading post after post, over and again, I have no more knowledge of the "physiology of pyramiding" that I did two weeks ago.
Testudoresearch, I have mostly enjoyed your input here. I can't say for certain that I will buy your forthcoming book, but your presence here is welcomed by me. I am a pet owner. Not too different than most others here. Maybe I am a tortoise enthusiast. As such, I think that over the years science has failed us. Your references to research that is 10, 20, or more years old just doesn't have the influence on me that techniques being tried and implemented today will have. 20 years ago I was being told to keep my tortoise in a small aquarium on sand under hot lights. No, you were not the one saying those words. I used that as an illustration of why I have a difficult time reading old research. Perhaps 20 years from now we will have the answers that we seek.

 

[Testudoresearch]

I would disagree strongly that "science has failed us". Good science is just that. Good science. It reveals truth, and it makes sense. If it does not make sense, that is the time to question the quality of the science being relied on.

Unfortunately.... in the pet keeping field there are a lot of people who try to interpret science, but lack the knowledge and experience to do so accurately. The internet, which should have made sharing real knowledge and factual information easy and available to all, has - in my opinion - made things even worse. You only have to peruse internet forums to see that. The "signal to noise ratio" is now overwhelmingly awful, and poor information vastly outnumbers the good. You have totally unqualified, inexperienced people proclaimed as "experts" - just because they shout the loudest and have an "opinion" on everything. It is not an advancement. It is a massive dumbing down. It is hugely destructive and has real impacts. Very negative impacts. Today, quite a high proportion of serious welfare and rescue cases that arrive at reptile rescues are the direct result of poor information and advice sourced from the internet, for example. One time, you just had to worry about "TFH" publications.... now the bad science and atrocious advice is everywhere.

One problem area is that many average keepers simply have no grasp of the fact that comparative biology/physiology is a completely valid and incredibly useful tool. I have seen valuable (and totally valid) data obtained from, say - a lizard - dismissed out of hand by tortoise keepers because it was "a different animal"! They simply do not comprehend the points of similarity and differences. To them... it is a meaningless comparison.....

Good research and good science also stands the test of time. There are biology papers and books written not 10, 20 or even 50 years ago that are still valid, but some from 100 years ago and more. There are books and papers published this year that are full of errors, based on appalling methodology, and that reach entirely erroneous conclusions. I can think of one immediately (published in 2002 and much referenced by some) that achieves the dubious honor of fulfilling all three criteria.

Good science is incredibly useful and can have huge practical applications and benefits. Work on UVB in reptiles, for example... and the work we have been doing with the effects of basking lamps. These things can be the difference between illness and health, life and death. We are learning more all the time. We just have to be careful we do not bury it under pseudo-science and ill-informed nonsense. Keepers need to educate themselves, to at least the point where they are capable of determining fact from fiction.

 

[Testudoresearch]

To return to the very core of this matter as unfortunately far too much extraneous matter has been introduced...

Would any care to comment, for or against, the 'infamous' paper by Weisner and Iben which most pro-humidity proponents routinely cite as their prime source?

Does anyone see any problems with the methodology used there? Anything at all?

If you think it is a great piece of research, feel free to explain why it is to be relied upon.

 

[Sulcata_Sandy]

Andy, from a scientific standpoint, it's very sloppy, poorly written, and not, in fact, very scientific at all.

One sp is used, a relatively small selection at that, and from I gather, out of the same clutch. This represents a very small scope of only the G. Sulcata species. It does not touch upon what was fed, just a weak description of protein, with no values, and lists a HUGE RH range. I find this article completely useless for even a remote assumption of pyramiding causes.

In my professional opinion...as a Licensed Veterinary Technician with 25 years of experience with reptiles (and 8 academic years), this is a very small scale and useless article. I have gleamed nothing from it, accept that they had some interesting findings with their small scale "experiment".

 

[Yvonne G]

May I ask which article you are referring to, Sandy?

 

[Dizisdalife]

I would disagree strongly that "science has failed us". Good science is just that. Good science. It reveals truth, and it makes sense. If it does not make sense, that is the time to question the quality of the science being relied on.

Okay. I really didn't mean to paint science as a bad thing. After all, I relied on science, physics, applied physics, and mathematics to do my work for far too many years. But I did see "good science" fail. I do agree whole heartedly that when it does not make sense then it time to question the quality of the science relied on. That is mostly what I was referring to in my statement. The tortoise care information that was generally available 20 to 30 years ago, for the most part, yielded poor results. If it had yielded good results then keepers would not have resorted to alternative measures. I sympathize with you. As a scientist you must feel like the MD viewing all those "cold remedies" that are on the market. If you exercise and eat right and are otherwise healthy you should not be prone to colds. And if you do get a cold then get plenty of rest and drink liquids and your body will naturally fight off that cold. Sometimes a bowl of chicken soup just makes you feel better.

That is the kind of logic I keep hearing here, in this thread. If I keep my tortoise in the same conditions that it would experience in the wild then it shouldn't pyramid or have MBD. I can not disagree with that, but is it really science? What I am looking for science to do for me is to teach me how to keep my tortoise in unnatural conditions, as far as climate goes, and yet have the same results as if they were raised in their native land. Maybe this is too much to ask?

The answer may be wasted on me as I have my limit of tortoises. I don't expect that I will again raise a hatchling. It may serve to help others.

Unfortunately.... in the pet keeping field there are a lot of people who try to interpret science, but lack the knowledge and experience to do so accurately. The internet, which should have made sharing real knowledge and factual information easy and available to all, has - in my opinion - made things even worse. You only have to peruse internet forums to see that. The "signal to noise ratio" is now overwhelmingly awful, and poor information vastly outnumbers the good. You have totally unqualified, inexperienced people proclaimed as "experts" - just because they shout the loudest and have an "opinion" on everything. It is not an advancement. It is a massive dumbing down. It is hugely destructive and has real impacts. Very negative impacts. Today, quite a high proportion of serious welfare and rescue cases that arrive at reptile rescues are the direct result of poor information and advice sourced from the internet, for example. One time, you just had to worry about "TFH" publications.... now the bad science and atrocious advice is everywhere.

Can't disagree with you about the internet making a lot of bad information available. On the other hand, if not for the 'net we would not be having this conversation at all. My sulcata would have been raised entirely on a dry substrate with hot lamps and no thermostat or perhaps even a thermometer! I provide a service to over 1000 home owners in San Diego. Not related to pets of any type. I get into many homes every year and have seen how people keep their tortoises. I try to steer them to this forum because I know that here they will get some practical help and advice. I just hope they don't stumble into a thread like this right off the bat. In my opinion, it is the absence of the internet that has keep tortoise keepers in the dark about the needs of their pet. When I got my first tortoise, a rescued California desert tortoise, twenty-five years ago, I went to a Tortoise Society meeting and was given a three-page handout covering the care and diet of this animal. Wow!

So, for all the misinformation that is out there, I feel that the internet is positive tool for us pet keepers. It facilitates discussions such as the one we are having. It does allow for, and I too feel the frustration with this, the constant challenging of existing ideas, concepts, and practices. It's not that everyone thinks they are an expert it is more that the experts have to pull more people up to their level than ever before. That's a tough job. I can see why you think it is a massive dumbing down. There was a time in my life when my professional career, mostly pre-internet, but focused on the technology that ushered in the "internet age", called upon me to write for industrial journals, present at association meetings, conduct seminars, and participate in advanced studies. Once the internet became established the questions seemed to come out of left field. It was as if I were starting over with the entire education process.

One problem area is that many average keepers simply have no grasp of the fact that comparative biology/physiology is a completely valid and incredibly useful tool. I have seen valuable (and totally valid) data obtained from, say - a lizard - dismissed out of hand by tortoise keepers because it was "a different animal"! They simply do not comprehend the points of similarity and differences. To them... it is a meaningless comparison.....

The problem is that I am the average keeper. I am the many or the most that you are referring to. I read these statements as an attempt by you to classify yourself as the "all knowing" and the rest of us as the "incapable of knowing". You are certainly more educated than myself when it comes to tortoises, that's for sure, but statements like this I find to be condescending. Maybe it is just me and I am the only one that thinks that this is arrogant. Facts, and research, and experiences can be presented without condescension and rudeness.

Good research and good science also stands the test of time. There are biology papers and books written not 10, 20 or even 50 years ago that are still valid, but some from 100 years ago and more. There are books and papers published this year that are full of errors, based on appalling methodology, and that reach entirely erroneous conclusions. I can think of one immediately (published in 2002 and much referenced by some) that achieves the dubious honor of fulfilling all three criteria.

Good science is incredibly useful and can have huge practical applications and benefits. Work on UVB in reptiles, for example... and the work we have been doing with the effects of basking lamps. These things can be the difference between illness and health, life and death. We are learning more all the time. We just have to be careful we do not bury it under pseudo-science and ill-informed nonsense. Keepers need to educate themselves, to at least the point where they are capable of determining fact from fiction.

Good science and good research does endure when it is indeed good and has met the test of application and usefulness. I applaud the ongoing research by you and others to bring to light new information that can be applied to better the environments for our pets. We keepers do need to educate ourselves and we need teachers that can relate to our problems and answer our concerns. We need simple, direct answers that are believable and fit into a frame of reference that we can relate to.

For all the science that has been referenced here (I admit that I find it to be dry reading and difficult for me to really get into) I don't know any more about the physiology of pyramiding than I did two weeks ago. Am I failing science or is science failing me? I guess that is what I mean when I am suggesting simple, direct answers are what works here. At leasts I don't find them to be rude or condescending. Tom just tells me I am wrong and tells me how he does it. He took the time (and he is a busy man) to teach me how to cut a notch for the doorway of my tortoise house. Very practical and useful advice. It has had a great impact on the life of my sulcata. Tom gave me the dimensions to use for this doorway. Again, practical and useful information.Yvonne tells me she does it a different way and it works for her. Len creates something that works even better. Ken has great advice. When I ask them for help they give it freely and courteously. So do many other keepers here. Pseudo-science and ill-informed non-sense? Maybe. But these are the people I am most likely to trust when it comes to tortoise husbandry, methods, techniques and information. Without the internet I would be not have access to their experience. I would be sitting reading research papers wondering why my sulcata was not growing like the ones in the pictures I saw. Why his nose is always runny or his stools are always loose. It is due to the internet, this forum, and these good people that I do not have these worries. Maybe someday we will have a answer to "what causes pyramiding", but until then we keepers will adopt methods to raise our pet the best we can.

 

[jaizei]

Andy, from a scientific standpoint, it's very sloppy, poorly written, and not, in fact, very scientific at all.

One sp is used, a relatively small selection at that, and from I gather, out of the same clutch. This represents a very small scope of only the G. Sulcata species. It does not touch upon what was fed, just a weak description of protein, with no values, and lists a HUGE RH range. I find this article completely useless for even a remote assumption of pyramiding causes.

In my professional opinion...as a Licensed Veterinary Technician with 25 years of experience with reptiles (and 8 academic years), this is a very small scale and useless article. I have gleamed nothing from it, accept that they had some interesting findings with their small scale "experiment".

Did you read the article?

May I ask which article you are referring to, Sandy?

Wiesner CS, Iben C. 2003.
Influence of environmental humidity and dietary protein on pyramidal growth of carapaces in African spurred tortoises (Geochelone sulcata).
J Anim Physiol a Anim. Nutr 87:66-74.

It was previously uploaded to the forum here:

http://www.tortoiseforum.org/attachment.php?aid=32499

 

[Testudoresearch]

The problem is that I am the average keeper. I am the many or the most that you are referring to. I read these statements as an attempt by you to classify yourself as the "all knowing" and the rest of us as the "incapable of knowing".

Really sorry if it seems that way, as it is not the case at all. My frustration actually stems from the very fact I have made so many mistakes myself over the years... and I hate to see people repeating them. I unfortunately learned some things the hard way... or rather animals I was responsible for did. Mixing species... before we knew the problems... incorrect diets... even more recently, over-use of heat lamps... unfortunately I have made all those mistakes. The only thing I can do now is to try to help other people avoid making the same ones over and over.

For all the science that has been referenced here (I admit that I find it to be dry reading and difficult for me to really get into) I don't know any more about the physiology of pyramiding than I did two weeks ago. Am I failing science or is science failing me? I guess that is what I mean when I am suggesting simple, direct answers are what works here.

There is a brief, practical list of things in this thread. Post number 9.

http://www.tortoiseforum.org/thread-84819.html

 

[ulkal]

Unfortunately.... in the pet keeping field there are a lot of people who try to interpret science, but lack the knowledge and experience to do so accurately. The internet, which should have made sharing real knowledge and factual information easy and available to all, has - in my opinion - made things even worse. You only have to peruse internet forums to see that. The "signal to noise ratio" is now overwhelmingly awful, and poor information vastly outnumbers the good. You have totally unqualified, inexperienced people proclaimed as "experts" - just because they shout the loudest and have an "opinion" on everything. It is not an advancement. It is a massive dumbing down.

Jaa, too bad it was opened up to the plebs. Dunno what I dislike more, rude (!) disregard of other peoples opinions and experiences or cultural/civilizational pessimism. Majority of people isn't dumb, people just have different backgrounds. I understand that you approach studies like this differently than the "amateur". You are trained for this.


This is like the guys (ja,mostly guys, unfortunately) at tech customer service getting annoyed with old people asking basic questions about computers. You studied it years and years and years and get mad at people with a different background. There is a saying in German: There are no dumb questions(I leave the second part out)

As to the study, it tackles the issue from a different end than you. Amateur question: Can a study be conclusive with taking only 2 variables into account and no thorough physical examination of all growth (bone, shell, organs)?Nevertheless, can it be a starting point buy showing which variables actually to take into account?
__________________________________________________________
okay, I just saw you answered before me and understand that you are very passionate about this. But people do not try to maliciously antagonize they just reflect on things in different ways. IMO.

 

[Testudoresearch]

The problem with uncritical acceptance of "facts" or advice is that it can - and does - lead to devastating mistakes being made. Other people come along and add their own misinterpretations.... and the poor information gets even poorer.

In the case of captive animals, those mistakes cause illness, suffering and death.

That's why it matters.

This paper, for example... used as prime source and cited countless times on tortoise forums as reliable research.

http://www.tortoiseforum.org/attachment.php?aid=32499

Read it carefully.

 

[ulkal]

The problem with uncritical acceptance of "facts" or advice is that it can - and does - lead to devastating mistakes being made. Other people come along and add their own misinterpretations.... and the poor information gets even poorer.

In the case of captive animals, those mistakes cause illness, suffering and death.

That's why it matters.

This paper, for example... used as prime source and cited countless times on tortoise forums as reliable research.

http://www.tortoiseforum.org/attachment.php?aid=32499

Read it carefully.

I understand, but then isn't it a good thing that people also challenge facts that you give, amateur or not? Whats the problem with them to say "oh, I heard otherwise" or "I came to a different conclusion". Has nothing to do with being dumb. Pointing then out the flaws in their interpretations of the sources or the sources itself is perfectly fine.

I read it and had two initial questions in my former post:
"Amateur question: Can a study be conclusive with taking only 2 variables into account and no thorough physical examination of all growth (bone, shell, organs)?" You might add two variables in captivity.

 

[Testudoresearch]

Certainly. By all mean challenge any data I present.

Could you explain your question in more detail. What study are you referring to? Which two variables do you mean?

 

[ulkal]

Certainly. By all mean challenge any data I present.

Could you explain your question in more detail. What study are you referring to? Which two variables do you mean?

Thats what I meant that nobody is just antagonizing for the sake of antagonizing here. Neither you nor anyone else.

Sorry if that was unclear, I am referring to the Iben and Wiesner study.

http://www.tortoiseforum.org/attachment.php?aid=32499

You asked what we think about the methodology and I in return wanted to know if it is "enough" to conduct this in captivity and only look at two variables. For me it does not read as if looking for the reason of pyramiding in captivity or for pyramiding in general. Also, the physical examination does not include a look at bones, organs, etc.