Uvb and D3

[LilyPad]

Waxy monkeys are not the greatest example to use unless dealing specifically with waxy monkeys, particularly for the reasons you've already listed into your post (the fact that they make their own sunscreen, different than any other species of amphibia.)

Here is some reading material you should probably take into consideration -

Species: Common Toad (Bufo bufo)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortality and reduces larval survivalReferences: Lizana and Pedraza (1998); Häkkinen et al. (2001)

Species: Western Toad (Bufo boreas)
Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortality, causes developmental abnormalities and hampers antipredator behaviorSynergism: Exposure to high levels of UV-B increases susceptibility of embryos to infection by a parasitic fungus Saprolignia ferixReferences: Worrest and Kimeldorf (1976); Blaustein et al. (1994); Kats et al. (2000); Kiesecker and Blaustein (1995); Kiesecker et al. (2001

Species: Peron's Tree Frog (Litoria peronii)Effects of UV-B: Adult and larval frogs show behavioral avoidance of high levels of UV-BReferences: van de Mortel and Buttemer (1998)

Species: Verreaux's Tree Frog (Litoria verreauxii)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortalityReferences: Broomhall et al. (2000)

Species: Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B causes developmental and physiological abnormalities and reduces larval survivalSynergism: Exposure to UV-B in combination with high levels of nitrates reduces larval survivalReferences:Hays et al. (1996); Ovaska et al. (1997); Hatch and Blaustein 2003

Species: Moor Frog (Rana arvalis)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortalityReferences: Häkkinen et al. (2001)

Species: Common Froglet (Crinia signifera)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortalityReferences: Broomhall et al. (2000)

Species: California treefrog (Hyla cadaverina)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B increases embryo mortalityReferences: Anzalone et al. (1998)

Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis)Effects of UV-B: Exposure to UV-B causes embryonic deformitiesReferences: Starnes et al. (2000)

Species: Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea)Effects of UV-B: Adult and larval frogs show behavioral avoidance of high levels of UV-BReferences: van de Mortel and Buttemer (1998)



None of these studies have been contested and have not been reviewed, therefore cannot be considered outdated.

http://arcadia-reptile.com/jungle-dawn-led/ - Being a Brit, you should know this company well. They have put a lot of research into the best lighting for vivariums and the animals they contain. A quote from their page -

The Arcadia Jungle Dawn is perfect for use in or over all Amphibian setups and especially those in which live plants are grown. It can also be used with day geckos, crested geckos, chameleons, snakes and all other reptiles and amphibians where a high quality non UV emitting light is required.

I received this information from a batrachologist that I had and hoping he will come on at some point to discuss this some more.

Either way, I have seen some troubling suggestions that supplements are bad, and this is NOT TRUE. Supplements are absolutely necessary when dealing with captive animals. There is no way (even with UVB lighting) that we can replicate their wild diet without the addition of supplements.

If you want to discuss anecdotal evidence as you've been regularly posting, which is pretty much worthless, then I can easily tell you that I have NEVER seen a case of MBD in frogs caused by deprivation of UVB. However, I have seen many cases, on multiple forums and facebook groups, of people asking for help with their MBD frogs as a result of deprivation of supplements. In some cases, UV LIGHTING WAS PROVIDED.

[Diver]

I think you may be struggling with understanding much of the above information, can I suggest you go back over it and if you have any specific questions I'll do my best to help.

To address your concerns above, I do recall reading most of those studies from 15+ years ago, they were testing the effects of subjecting amphibians to EXCESSIVE UVB to gauge the effects, much like the study I posted from the Manchester museum. I would not advocate subjecting frogs to excessive UVB exposure from which they cannot escape. The point is to try and recreate the UVB exposure of the wild with places to take cover and therefore self regulate. I think that's very clearly stated.

I am aware of the company Arcadia, yes. You may have missed who the correspondence outlining the method for determining the correct UVB exposure was from

You seem confused about supplements and their purpose. The ONLY supplement that has at any time been called into question is the ORAL SUPPLEMENT OF VITAMIN D3 as an artificial replacement for the natural production of D3 via UVB. No other supplementation has been called into question, in fact calcium for instance is a hugely important supplement as it is lacking in the common feeder provided. I'm not sure how you missed that, again it's deliberately very clear and is in fact the very substance of the discussion.

I think again your last comment is because you're not understanding about supplements. If one provides UVB but does NOT provide calcium, then yes MBD will develop. Calcium should always be given, it is vitamin D3 that is necessary for the calcium to be utilised by the animal. The thread's purpose is to show that it has been scientifically proven that UVB (and hence the animal's own production of D3) rather than oral D3 supplements is the correct method.

Hope that helps

[Monkey Business]

Thank you for this info specifically about waxies. I am supplying via a UVB bulb about 3 hours per day and my guys do sleep at the top, just under it. I do not have a meter to get readings so I will do that.

I keep and breed parrots and my husband is an avian vet, so we are able to check things like bone density at will. Many of the same things seem to apply, as these are also arboreal creatures of various habitats (rainforest, Savannah, etc.). Parrots easily overdose on D as do all creatures since it is a fat soluble vitamin and the excess is not excreted like vitamin C for instance.

So the best results by far are obtained by giving calcium without D and exposing the birds to REAL sunlight at least one hour per week. Tons of studies on this that are not for this forum.

In an attempt to do the same, I take my frog enclosure outside into the sun (easy as it is a mesh cage) for about an hour once a week. Only once did I have a frog move from the top down to a leaf where he got partial exposure; I see that as an indication that they are indeed "aware" of the sun even when sleeping.

We have no way of knowing if commercial bulbs provide everything that the natural sun does so I feel this is a prudent strategy.

(PS although I do not keep them, I would have to assume that even floor dwellers like dart frogs would encounter dappled sunlight and I don't think they should be completely deprived of that-purely an opinion)

[jasonm96]

You're right about darts, I don't understand how people can say they get d3 in their diet, they do not as they're limited to insects, which don't contain d3. Dart frogs just don't need as much uvb as animals like beardies, they can probably absorb sufficient levels from scattered uv or a step in the sun for a short period of time. But there's so much research to be done, hopefully in a few years time we will have more information and proven results.

[Diver]

Most frog keepers are catching on luckily Monkey Business, and as Jason said there's only one place they get D3 from in the wild and it isn't from diet. The days of over-reliance on supplements ought to be behind us, supplements are there to fill in the gaps of what we are not able to provide in the captive environment, not a beginning point and with the ready availability of UVB bulbs now we don't need to be relying purely on unnatural artificial dietary means.

I'm sure UVB bulbs aren't as good as natural sunlight, but they are a close second. I see from your location that you are lucky enough to have a ready supply of the real thing!

[jasonm96]

I still provide low levels of d3 for all frogs receiving uvb just because it isn't the same as natural sunlight. It's an obvious one with dart frogs that they use uvb but when you look at species like horned frogs, african bull frogs, cane toads etc you probably do have to supplement moderate levels of d3 as they feed on vertebrates as well as inverts, so uvb itself might not be enough. There's always going to be a need for supplements as in captivity we rely mainly on crickets as a dietary source and other insects. Perhaps some do actually get all the d3 they need in their diet but smaller frogs like darts, mantellas, fire bellies, red eyed tree frogs for an example most likely use uv for their complete d3 needs.

[Diver]

Yep, I do too. Pretty much all of the multivitamin supplements around contain at least some D3 but I can't imagine the frogs getting enough to cause hypervitaminosis and the other vitamins are nice to have I definitely wouldn't rely on supplements to get adequate amounts of any vitamin let alone D3 though, much better to concentrate on a varied, well gut loaded diet and UVB and use supplements as a safety net. The problem in some circles is that a culture of feeding (usually one) easy to obtain feeder insect and throwing powder at it has developed. To me, that's a bit like giving a human a multivitamin pill and nothing but cheese sandwiches. You wouldn't die, but your health wouldn't exactly be optimum either.

[jasonm96]

Me neither but we're never really going to be able to provide the varied wild diet of some animals though and so the vitamins compensate for that. Think of horned frogs, a big part of their diet is other frogs (including their own)... To feed them other frogs in captivity isn't feasible considering frogs go for more or less a tenner each. People feed fish and pink mice to compensate for the calcium they'd get from this but pink mice are fatty and fish can be diseased.

[Herpvet]

Yep, I do too. Pretty much all of the multivitamin supplements around contain at least some D3 but I can't imagine the frogs getting enough to cause hypervitaminosis and the other vitamins are nice to have I definitely wouldn't rely on supplements to get adequate amounts of any vitamin let alone D3 though, much better to concentrate on a varied, well gut loaded diet and UVB and use supplements as a safety net. The problem in some circles is that a culture of feeding (usually one) easy to obtain feeder insect and throwing powder at it has developed. To me, that's a bit like giving a human a multivitamin pill and nothing but cheese sandwiches. You wouldn't die, but your health wouldn't exactly be optimum either.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, I would take issue with your comment that "you can't imagine the frogs getting enough [vitamins] to cause hypervitaminosis". Again data is lacking in amphibians (one report is cited in Wright & Whitaker - but how many amphibs routinely undergo post-mortem exam?), but it is not uncommon to see older (usually male) reptiles with blood vessel calcification; hypervitaminosis D is a real possibility. And when you consider supplements are typically "1 pinch per kg of animal" or similar, the difference of a few particles to a dart frog, say, could be a huge overdose. Vitamin supplements are not risk-free by any means. I do use, and recommend, supplementation in many cases (and of course deficiency issues are FAR more common) but care is definitely needed.

Unfortunately as has been mentioned, ideally we need studies including serial radiographs/bone density assessments, and blood sampling if feasible, to evaluate our captive animals, and crucially compare them to wild specimens (the studies that have been done in herps tend to suggest that even our "clinically healthy" animals are often not comparable in bone density and/or blood vitamin D3 levels to wild animals). While certainly not decrying the efforts and skills of keepers who have reared many species/generations of apparently healthy animals, unless all animals are examined for evidence of pathology, particularly post-mortem, then there will always be doubt.

[Diver]

http://arcadia-reptile.com/jungle-dawn-led/ - Being a Brit, you should know this company well. They have put a lot of research into the best lighting for vivariums and the animals they contain. A quote from their page -

I received this information from a batrachologist that I had and hoping he will come on at some point to discuss this some more.

I just realised that your misunderstanding of the product description for Arcadia Jungle Dawn led lights may lead others to believe that Arcadia, a company as you rightly say have 'put a lot of research into the best lighting for vivariums and the animals they contain' DON'T recommend UVB lighting for 'day geckos, crested geckos, chameleons, snakes and all other reptiles and amphibians'. I can assure you that in this you are ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Jungle Dawns are an excellent full spectrum light source that is used in conjunction with UVB. On Arcadia's website, they have a number of well researched and described recommendations for lighting for a good number of species, all including UVB:

American Green Tree Frog.

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...green-frog.jpg

Horned Frog

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...orned-frog.jpg

Fire Bellied Toad

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...belly-toad.jpg

Leucomelas Dart Frog

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...-dart-frog.jpg

Day Geckos

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...-day-gecko.jpg

Crested Gecko

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...sted-gecko.jpg

Yemen Chameleon

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...-chameleon.jpg

Corn snake

http://www.arcadia-reptile.com/wp-co...corn-snake.jpg


There are many, many more and are a really useful resource.

I'm trying to explain the subject matter in as simple terms as possible but I'm concerned that you don't seem to be able to grasp the information. It's probably my fault, but I'm not sure how I can explain things more simply? As I said, if there's any part you're still not understanding, feel free to ask any specific questions.

[deranged chipmunk]

So, i read and re-read each article you linked to, and yes, i understood them fully. Not one of the studies or articles you posted state that UVB lighting is a REQUIREMENT for amphibians. i won't debate whether or not it 'could' be beneficial, because i do believe SOME species could benefit from it, but not ALL, as you seem to state. I am also bearing in mind that, with the exception of the studies on Agalychnis callidryas and Leptodactylus fallax, everything else you posted was purely anecdotal, and these 2 studies weren't very conclusive. This, I found surprising, since you claim an abundance of scientific information proving that it is a requirement. And yes, i did noticed that you accepted anecdotal evidence in one of yours posts. You continually push this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20206712 which is on Bearded dragons. While their biology MAY be similar, this discussion is about amphibians. I could post literally thousands of articles on the requirement of UV lighting in humans, but it's not quite the same now is it? The first post you linked to, referring to MBD, Jeff posted information from Dr. Ivan Alfonso, also about bearded dragons. Lastly, you quoted an email from John Courteney-Smith from Arcadia. While Mr. Courteney-Smith is a brilliant person, I do question whether or not there is a conflict of interest there, since he does have quite substantial investment in UV lighting that he does need to recoup. I'm sure you can understand my doubt referring to his email.

All that being said, nobody is saying that UVB is worthless and should just be outright denied, we just don't tell people it is MANDATORY to give ALL AMPHIBIANS UVB lighting. In this day and age, and in the current economies, people are trying to live and enjoy life with their froggy friends on what limited budgets they have. The addition of an extra lighting fixture,bulb replacement once to twice annually (some UVB bulbs can be quite costly), and the added power consumption can drive a potential new frogger away from the hobby before they even begin. And I find that just sad.

We have a saying here in the U.S. 'there's more than one way to skin a cat'. Gruesome, I know, but it is a saying that I live by, whether it be in the frogging hobby, my fish, my plants, whatever. It just means that there is always more than one way to do things. I preach that constantly. The reason I bring this up is this; you say that with all the scientific and anecdotal evidence showing the benefits of UVB, why don't we as a hobby make it mandatory? Here's your answer: because there is just as much, if not more, that today's high quality supplements (Repashy calcium plus, dedrocare line) work just as well. You mention that Mr. Courteney-Smith has done extensive research on the effects of UVB, do you not believe that the companies producing high quality supplements do not as well? It's not some redneck living in a mobile home somewhere, just tossing powders into cups. Thousands upon thousands of keepers worldwide use oral supplements without any issue whatsoever. I personally, have a hard time understanding why you totally discount that much anecdotal evidence. But, as I said, there's more than one way to skin a cat. You have your way, others have theirs. Neither is 100% wrong, neither is 100% correct.

The other reason some of us do not push UVB as a requirement is that so often, UVB is misused. I can preach until I turn blue that you should put UVB over a tank, however, unless I actually put it above a tank, there's no guarantee that it will not go over a tank that has plexiglass or lexan covering the top to help with humidity, or high iron content glass. I can preach about burn in times, but so few actually do it. So here is a scenario for you: Mrs. Jones just bought a pair of red eye tree frogs. She went all out. Huge tank, live plants, UVB, and calcium only supplements, as per someone's recommendation. Two months later, Mr. Jones loses his job. Money is tight. Unemployment just isn't cutting it. Luckily, Mrs. Jones has been raising crickets for her frogs, so the staple food is not an issue, but a week ago, the uv bulb burned out on the enclosure. The Jones don't have the money to replace it. Now that the frogs are only getting calcium, they are lacking D3 supplementation. Who suffers? The frogs. I apologize that this got to rambling, I tend to do that sometimes lol. The point is, Mrs. Jones was 'only doing what she was told'. At least that is her comment when she comes on the forum to ask why her frogs were so healthy just a few weeks ago, and now they have no energy. She never even mentions the fact that light burnt out, because she doesn't truly understand why she has it in the first place. She answers yes to 'do you supplement when you feed', because she is, but neglects to mention calcium only. I know, a slightly over dramatic example, but I think you can see my point here. And believe me, this does, and HAS happened. Just another reason why, when asked, I tell someone it's not a mandatory piece of equipment, provided you dust with calcium/d3.


Basically, my whole point to this post was:

There's more than one way to skin a cat. I think maybe both sides of the debate should remember that.

[jasonm96]

The whole UVB thing with frogs is just another stress to the hobbyist, so much conflicting information takes the fun out of enjoying animals as you're more concerned on the set up rather than the frog itself. Many people come out with broad statements that seem more a personal opinion rather than fact. I don't think there's been enough evidence to actually support that frogs actually need it but there's evidence that they've been kept and raised without for ages and just provided the correct dietary supplementation instead. I encourage more research be done but IMO it's too early to say that all need it, if they did then there would be more sources to say that they did.

[deranged chipmunk]

I couldn't agree more, in the sense that more research needs to be done. I don't even doubt that for some species, it could be quite beneficial, however, not completely necessary. But I also think that there are some that just absolutely don't need it. I think there needs to be more research into the amount of UV species get in the wild as well. I believe there is current research going on about that in certain areas of Madagascar.

[Diver]

Thanks guys, good to some input into the thread. It's a difficult subject and the scientific studies are limited. There is never going to be funding to produce a scientific study pertaining to the UVB requirements of every species in the hobby sadly so we have to work with what is available. When a study shows that dietary supplement of D3 is inefficient and that UVB is not it is reasonable to take that as sound for the reasons stated rather than right it off because it isn't the exact animal you're dealing with. The mechanisms within the body are the same.

I think it's time to simplify things. The purpose of this thread is to discuss a very important part of correctly caring for captive animals and was prompted by seeing people new to the hobby asking about UVB and being given the answer that 'UVB isn't needed for frogs as we supplement with calcium' Apart from being incorrect, this advice disregards one of the most important biological requirements for captive animals that does need to be provided, (Vitamin D3) in order to avoid calcium deficiency.

So, can we all agree that D3 needs to be provided as without it calcium isn't utilised in the body? Or is the provision of D3 at all in question?

If we can agree, then we know that there are two ways to provide D3 in captivity. I promote UVB as it is the way that the animal has evolved to 'manufacture' D3 within it's own body in the wild and also offer many other benefits to the captive animal. With UVB the production of D3 is 'self-regulated' by the animal to produce the correct amount. It does need to be used correctly (placement, intensity and adequate cover all need to be addressed) and it does cost (although 20 bucks once a year shouldn't be beyond reach of anyone keeping animals, if it is that person shouldn't be keeping them).

The alternative method is oral D3 supplementation. I don't like this method because it has been shown to be inefficient, impossible to dose correctly and when overdosed (which is easy enough to do as it can't be dosed correctly) can slowly kill the animal through hypervitaminosis d and does not offer any of the other observed benefits of natural sunlight exposure.

I think at the very least new keepers asking the question should be told about the two alternative ways of providing D3.

For those who prefer to supplement instead of using UVB, could you explain how you work out the dosing for each of your species and how you administer that dose?

[acpart]

I don't have any scientific studies to back me up and am not making any statements about what I think other people should do, but I can recount what I've decided to do and why, so it can possibly help other people in their decision process. I've actually put this info on some other threads, but thought I'd put it here as well. I'm primarily a gecko keeper and that includes mostly nocturnal geckos but also two day geckos. The nocturnal geckos are all maintained on calcium and D3 (Repashy calcium plus). They are fed 3 times a week and their feeders are dusted every other feeding. The day geckos are also maintained on calcium and D3 without UVB as per the practice of Leann and Greg Christenson (based on their book "Day Geckos in Captivity"). The day geckos are 8 and 9 years old and doing well. The only reptiles I have that are being provided with UVB lighting (bulbs changed every 6 months) are my two bearded dragons who are diurnal and fairly large. They get some D3 with dusted feeders twice a week.
Until recently, I was keeping my trio of RETF on calcium and D3 alone, dusting their crickets every other feeding. I've had them for 6 months and they seem to be doing OK. This past week I added a 13 watt UVB compact florescent to the frog enclosure which I plan to replace every month. I also have a LED light for the plants. I decided to do this for several reasons:
--the frogs sleep often in the open. My nocturnal geckos mostly sleep inside their hides and wouldn't benefit from UVB during the day
--the day geckos eat fruit nectar in addition to the crickets. The nectar is formulated with calcium and D3 and is considered a complete meal for them
--I have no idea how long it takes the frogs to eat the crickets. I've never seen any of my frogs actually eat a cricket, but the frogs appear healthy, there is plenty of frog poop and there aren't too many crickets in there. It may be that the crickets groom the supplement off themselves before the frogs can eat them. That was probably the deciding factor to my adding the UVB light.

I have no idea how this will all work out; these are my first frogs. So far, things have gone OK. I'm grateful.

Aliza