Uv ???

[Bluetongue1]

A couple of things still need clarifying...

• It is only UVB light and only a specific part of that spectral range that is required for photosynthesis of vitamin D.
• The supposed influence of UV light on behaviours has been attributed to exposure to light in the UVA range. It has been postulated that UVA affects levels of activity, appetite and breeding behaviour.

Snakes without exposure to UVA still eat and breed. How much is invariably determined by their keeper. Most UVA light passes through glass, unlike UVB. So a window in the same room as the reptiles or even the next room, may allow even small amounts of natural UVA in to assist snakes in maintaining circadian and annual bio-rhythms. But how do you explain those kept in rooms that exclude all natural daylight, still eating and breeding under light without UVA?

As for increased activity, it can only substantiated with some objective measure beforehand and afterwards. The fact that to are spending more time watching your snakes might be why they appear more active. They may get used to see more of you and so not hide as much. The addition a bright light may have an effect. So you would have to add non-UVA light with the equivalent visible spectrum and intensity to half the cages.

Without adequate controls you cannot draw reliable conclusions. To date, the comparisons of outdoor versus indoor with no UV and the provision of UV versus visible spectrum only by Simon Stone provide some measure of control of other possible attendant factors. I have yet to read of a similar setup that has produced contrary results.

SXR and Snake Ranch do not use UV with their snakes. I don’t know about other professional snake breeders in Australia. With both sides of the argument now presented, people can draw their own conclusion.

Blue

 

[Wing_Nut]

I appreciate all the well thought out input to this discussion.

While I do not have all the answers I also doubt anyone has a true and accurate picture when it comes to the exact requirements of captive reptiles. There is a severe lack of scientific evidence to support either view.

http://www.reptileuvinfo.com/docs/ultraviolet-light-and-reptiles-amphibians.pdf

This link provides a good example of how professionals in the field discuss this issue.

I would also like to add a few points that could be clarified better.

There are a great many variables at play in the health of captive reptiles, all that require further investigation. I am not a scientist however I have had two recent conversations with people who are and have been working (with limited funding) with this and other issues, however they are still a long way from providing conclusive evidence, there is however some interesting data being observed. I would certainly like to provide more than generalisations, however that is the only truth at this stage to both sides of the issue. There are still no scientific certainties.

I've read the articles by SXR and they clearly indicate SXR provide there adult reptiles with full spectrum lighting and a black light. Perhaps I have read the wrong articles.

For decades snakes were kept with UV lighting and the practice of not supplying UV is quite a modern practice. I find it bemusing how a practice that bucks the trend of multiple decades of keeping has been so readily accepted without any evidence that can prove or disprove it's requirement, especially given the consensus of professionals is that there is likely benifit from UV exposure.

With regard to rats, it's very unlikely that rodents that are deficent it vit D will show any visual signs until after six months of age. There have been many published papers on this. Given that the large majority of rats are used at ages less than three months I think discounting this as if they look healthy they must be is completely wrong.

I actually find it interesting that a UV requirement can be discounted by observation, but the same cannot be applied to justify it's requirement. Scientifically, there is still a long way to go, and suggesting evidence gathered over a time frame less than an expected life span of the study animal is sufficent to prove conclusively an answer is remiss at best.

In the end, we will all come to conclusions we are comfortable with and that we believe provide our charges with sufficent care. I have no doubt that the majority of us want the best care for our reptiles.

Regards

Wing_Nut

 

[Tempest404]

not a long post but i'm pro UV all the way, if using tube lighting across the top of an enclosure it also provides a great display light. if your goin to put something in like that why not just fork the little bit extra. plus as has been said with the feeder animals, all animals need sunlight (UV) to synthesise vit D for it's purpose, no UV on the rats, very little D. may aswell put it in there for them so they can do it themselves if they aren't getting enough

 

[Ramsayi]

I have some snakes that are now over 25yo.They still produce healthy clutches and are still going strong.No UV supplied.

 

[Marzzy]

Nope don't use them. Waste of money not needed get a strip of LEDs if you wanna brighten up to enclosure...

That's about it....

 

[saximus]

While not exactly health related, there are a couple of extra points I thought were worth mentioning. The first one that some have touched on is how good they look in a display enclosure. When I started out, I admit I was suckered into thinking it was essential and I used to use a Repti Glo 5.0 in my Jungle's enclosure. It gave off a really cool blue-white light that really made his colours look bright. So while I am still not convinced they are of any use whatsoever health wise, they are certainly nice for making pretty display enclosures.
Also, if you stare at them, they can cause damage to your eyes. As Jamie said, there still seems to be some conjecture as to whether it causes harm to reptile eyes but if you choose to use them, don't stare at them without some good sunnies 8)

 

[wokka]

Research dollars are scarce and so tend to be diected where there is an observed need. Many breeders keep and breed pythons sucessfully without UV so it is unlikely that reserch funds will be directed to see if UV inclusion will change the pythons performance.
I have mentioned it before , but Gavin Bedford once mentioned to me his experiences raising Diamond Pythons for years without light in the old Darwin morgue, as part of his PHD. His opinion was that they did not benefit from UV and so no UV was used when establishing Snake Ranch, which appeared to be successful.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

With all due respect Wing_Nut, (and I have to say this is an interesting and useful discussion), I disagree totally that not using UV is a recent innovation in reptile keeping. I've been keeping reptiles myself, and around reptile keepers and large public reptile collections here and overseas since the late 1950s, and until relatively recently (last 20 years), I don't recall UV supplementation ever being discussed. It certainly is not generally true, in my (reasonably extensive) experience that "for decades snakes were kept with UV lighting and the practice of not supplying UV is quite a modern practice."

I'd be interested to see the source of that info.

Jamie

 

[Wing_Nut]

With regards to UV globes causing eye damage I am of the opinion this is the result of incorrect application of UV sources, including but not limited to wrong choice of emitters that provide incorrect wavelength, excess intensity globe and excessive exposure. There is plenty of documented data about emitters and wavelengths that are suitable for reptiles.

In terms of when reptile keeping moved from supplementing UV to discontinuing this practice it is very difficult to say exactly when, but it would appear the practice became more standard from the 1980's. Having said that, the link I posted above represents a discussion of professionals and they are infact discussing the use of UV supplementation. I will concede there is certainly a big difference between the views of keepers and and those of the scientific community (especially vets), however I am yet to find a published text that is directed at the captive keeping of reptiles, particularly snakes, that doesn't discuss UV supplementation to some degree. I am still yet to find any recommendations from said published authors who even come close to suggesting there is no requirement for UV. The general consensus here appears to be along the lines of "I have no doubt that that there are possible benefits for long-term health and propagation with many taxa of snakes". Many of these texts we would agree are considered 'bibles' of herpetology, but it is certainly not limited to earlier publications and similar views are still presented in recent publications. Without any disrespect intended, the adage 'Birds of a feather' may well be apt in describing your conversations Jamie as in many other circles, and perhaps many other countries, there are widely held views. While I cannot simply quote a single text to support my opinion, I have read hundreds of texts dating from the early 1920's to the present and I draw my opinion from the changing views within these text.

Its a credit to your skill and husbandry techniques that you have such long lived and healthy reptiles Ramsayi. I do doubt however you can draw any accurate assumptions regarding UV supplementation from this. Husbandry techniques often developed to fix problems where a deficiency may occur and it may well be that the requirements for your particular animals have been addressed by your observant keeping and modification of your husbandry techniques. Your statement however does little to offer any insight into this discussion, however I would be interested in hearing a more in depth view from you and other particularly experienced keepers as to why your animals have remained healthy and viable for a relatively long period.

Regards

Wing_Nut

 

[Pythoninfinite]

I think the "birds of a feather" thing is a bit unfair W_N ! I'd say in the last 50 years I've been exposed to all sorts of husbandry ideas and theories, and not precluded any which show some demonstrated benefit. I haven't limited my cohort to any particular set of cronies with particular mindsets. As I said, I still do have an open mind and a fullsome preparedness to accept ANY evidence of benefit attributable to supplying UV to snakes. Contrary to your experience, I haven't seen anything convincing in any reputable text regarding purported benefits, and although your language is a bit vague, simply referring to the supply of UV does not imply that it has any important health benefits.

I would be surprised if you could lay your hands on any rigourously reviewed scientific paper which states point blank that UV has proven benefits. With all due respect, is it possible that this is factor that you have a personal belief in, and may be "overthinking" it somewhat? Always keeping in mind my preparedness to accept sound science in the matter...

Jamie
(I love these debates by the way )!

 

[B_STATS]

The Australian Reptile Park doesn't use UV for their pythons, elapids OR Blue tongues in their main reptile room behind 'The Lost World of Reptiles' display area, they just use heat mats. They do slit a mouse/rat along it's belly and place a vitamin filled capsule in the cavity though.

 

[Wing_Nut]

I am glad you have a sense of humor Jamie, and yes, perhaps it was a little bit of a dig.

Perhaps you are right, it is highly likely that I am overthinking things. I think it is in my makeup where there is lack of a definite answer to continually seek to expand my collective knowledge until I have satisfied myself. I find this topic of particular interest and that likely compounds things and while you present a very good argument (with 50 years practice I should hope so ) I will continue to look for ways to increase my understanding of reptile husbandry.

It is always a pleasure to have constructive debates.

Regards

Wing_Nut

 

[junglepython2]

Its a credit to your skill and husbandry techniques that you have such long lived and healthy reptiles Ramsayi. I do doubt however you can draw any accurate assumptions regarding UV supplementation from this. Husbandry techniques often developed to fix problems where a deficiency may occur and it may well be that the requirements for your particular animals have been addressed by your observant keeping and modification of your husbandry techniques. Your statement however does little to offer any insight into this discussion, however I would be interested in hearing a more in depth view from you and other particularly experienced keepers as to why your animals have remained healthy and viable for a relatively long period.

Regards

Wing_Nut

Wing_Nut the original question was on whether UV is or isn't needed for snakes. The fact guys like Ramsayi, Pythoninfinite and commercial breeding operations have successfully kept animals for extended periods of time without UV answers this question without the need for assumptions. It has quite convincingly been shown it is not required, whether it offers some benefits is a totally different question.

 

[Red-Ink]

Are we talking about UVA or UVB for snakes?

 

[Pythoninfinite]

Are we talking about UVA or UVB for snakes?

Oh no... here we go again !

J