Quote Originally Posted by jasonm96 View Post
To me, it just looks like a guide to what exposure per species would have in the wild and how to recreate that. But I'll read it fully later. Many believe that D3 should still be included even if UVB is used, but that's its cut down. Animals that get real sunlight might not need it at all

Exactly. A guide to the UVB present in the wild and how to recreate it is exactly what it is required when planning the best photo-gradient.

Rhinella marina I doubt feeds a lot on vertebrate prey, it's just very opportunistic. Now, horned frogs on the other hand do, especially C. Cornuta on other frogs. They can eat their other siblings even at the young age hence why many breeders raise them in incidual deli cups. It could meet all their needs? Many used to be raised on just fish and pink mice with no supplementation, but we do know now that this can cause other problems. There's plenty of evidence that they can do well without it.

All large frogs and toads are opportunistic predators and marinus definitely eats a large amount of vertebrate prey. It's a big problem for native wildlife in Australia. Highly doubtful that any could meet all d3 needs throughout life from diet alone. 'Doing well without it' could mean that everything seems fine, but the frogs bones are like rubber. They can survive surprisingly well with such deficiencies, but it's very poor husbandry to allow it to occur.

Now, when we talk about let's say fire-bellied toads or red-eyed tree frogs, it is very obvious to me that they will use the suns rays for the vitamin D needs. Does this mean that they need it to do well in captivity? No. Would it be beneficial? Of course. But UVB is just as much guesswork. Realistically, a lot of hobbyist ain't going to pay £200 for a UV meter unless they have a large collection. UVB lamps are delicate, can be damaged or installed incorrectly. If you're using UVB, it's always better to go for a large tank, unless the species does sit indirect sunlight for hours on end (waxy monkey frogs, although this frog needs a large tank anyway) Too much or too less exposure can be bad, just as manmade D3 products. I am actually going to get one of these myself at one point. I do get the argument on UVB and I support that it could be beneficial to many species, but I not believe anyone who is keeping their frogs without UVB is providing bad husbandry... on the other hand, if the invidual species actually has been proven to benefit from exposure and it's easy enough to provide, then I would encourage the provision of UVB. But I wouldn't recommend cutting D3 from supplements.

Hypervitaminosis d3 is impossible with UVB, it's only possible with synthetic supplementation. The idea is to mimic the UVB index that naturally occurs where the animal lives in the same way we mimic the temperature, humidity and photo period. This is the advanced husbandry that we should all be encouraging people to strive for in the interests of the animals and the hobby in general. Can you keep animals in a way that requires less effort? Yes. Should you? No. It's the keeper's responsibility to provide the best possible care available. Lights being delicate or possibly being incorrectly installed is a very poor excuse to not use them and justifying a tiny enclosure on the same basis is even worse.
You're obviously interested in the subject matter Jason, and to be honest I don't come on here very often any more as like most fora now this one is becoming quieter in favour of the many very active Facebook groups. Could I suggest you join us in the group 'Advanced Herp Husbandry'? You will have access to many of the world's leading scientists and herpetologists who are at the cutting edge of modern husbandry practices. I think you'd enjoy it