# Snow hognose UVB



## Dandridge (Oct 20, 2021)

Hi, I'm picking up a snow hognose in November and I was wondering about lighting? I've read a lot of conflictiing information online about whether a UVB lamp harms the eyes of pink eyed snakes. What does everyone else use?


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Snakes don't need uv like lizards do. There is some evidence that they behave differently and have more enhanced colours but it's not essential for healthy development. For that reason I would err on the side of caution with albino snakes and not use it.


----------



## LiasisUK (Sep 30, 2019)

There has been no evidence that UVB has a negative effect on albino snakes of any species. 

I wouldn't worry about it, though as Ian says snakes do not require UVB in the same way lizards do so you don't need to provide a very high level (if any), especially considering hognoses are basically fossorial.


----------



## Dandridge (Oct 20, 2021)

Thanks guys, you confirmed what I was thinking. Much appreciated


----------



## Crablet (Dec 27, 2012)

UVB is beneficial to all reptiles, regardless of requirement. Buy the lowest wattage UVB you can, the 2.5% ‘shade dweller’ from Arcadia would be perfect for this, and put in on for a few hours during the day in the enclosure with lots of available hides and the snake can choose to bask as it wishes.


----------



## MrsTim (Aug 20, 2012)

So, l'm going to go - partially- against the popular opinion, again.

I would not be comfortable keeping an albino snake with UV, even when providing cover ( as you can't explain to the snake not to get too close to the bulb, or stay in UV for long periods ). I think if you said to a vet " I'm going to keep my albino animal ( with absolutely no melanin for UV protection) permanently in a box with UV light" they would have something to say about that.. as we know, human and other animal albinos are much more prone to skin cancer and sight loss, when exposed to UV light over period of time.

Now in case of albino lizards, who most definitely NEED UV to survive ( will suffer with MBD and eventually do die if UV is not provided ) the benefits of providing the UV most definitely outweigh any cancer risk. But with snakes, who may benefit, but not NEED UV to survive ( i.e. have led, over many captive generations, perfectly healthy lives without MBD with no UV provided ) l'm sorry, but I'm not convinced.

Don't take me wrong, l'm not against providing snakes with UV, and I'm absolutely for improving the welfare and keeping methods.But, what concerns me greatly is this recent massive push for UV, only stating benefits and completely disregarding any possible downfalls.

I have a female cornsnake, who becomes so distressed when provided with UV, that her entire behavior and personality changed completely. I gave her plenty of cover, and a chance to move from one end of the viv to the other completely under cover. Still, she would not venture out of the darkest hide at all, under any circumstances, regardless at what temperature the hide was, until the light went off. She became quite unhappy in herself, nervous. I persisted with the UV for months, to her distress. Eventually, I changed her over to much softer daylight / heating bulb, and she became her old self almost immediately. 

On the other hand, my hognose loved, and very much used his UV, every day, as does one of my male corn snakes. I however do not, and sorry, will not, provide UV to my albino corn snake, or to the ( normal )female corn, that proved to be so distressed by it.

What also very much concerns me, is that the push for UV for snakes is becoming such, that you are almost considered a "bad" keeper if you do not provide UV, to the extend that some charities will now not let you rehome a snake, if you do not provide UV. I'm really saddened by this, as l really do not consider myself a bad keeper, I do plenty of research, and tend to go well beyond in all my animals' care, yet I would not be considered "suitable" to adopt if not providing UV.

I have seen a few youtube videos, where people were so hang up on providing UV to snakes that they completely ignored other, much more important snake needs, like decent thermal gradient, or any form of heating for a royal python at night ( but they had UV, so that was OK).

Basically, they were putting something that might be beneficial ( no doubt about that ), but that can also in some cases cause problems, and is not necessary , -above something absolutely crucial ( appropriate heating and heat gradient ).

Sorry for the long post, rant over


----------



## Thrasops (Apr 15, 2008)

The issue of UV for albino/ white snakes has been _vastly _overplayed. As Tom said above - there has been no evidence at all that UV is any more harmful to albino snakes than it is to normals. The reason for this is actually rather simple. In mammals (such as humans) the lack of melanin is a problem as we use melanin to protect against sunlight. Even in albino eyelid geckos like Leopard geckos there is the possibility of it being detrimental to their eyes which is why some seem to show discomfort beneath bright light.

Snakes, on the other hand, are different. While they do also have melanin and that does prevent a certain amount of transmission, snake scales themselves - including the brille (eyecap) - have a keratinous layer that inherently reduces transmission of UV (and do so far more effectively and efficiently than 'just' melanin in the skin). We know this as there have been several studies now on snake spectacle transmittance and permeability of snake skin to UV. It actually takes ridiculously gargantuan amounts of UV to damage snake skin - there were some very cruel experiments done on Beauty snakes in which it was shown the absolute peak transmission of UVB through their scales is only 5.1 +- 0.36% and that it takes insane amounts of UV - up to 800 mJ/cm2, FAR more than is found in midday sun - to cause damage.

Snake eyes are protected by scales which also filter UV. The amount of UV filtered depends on species, with active diurnal sun-basking species having the best protection, but even nocturnal species have a degree of protection. And - directly related to the question - transmission of UV through Hognose snake scales has been studied and they actually have relatively high protection from UV as Hognoses are in fact quite diurnal and active foragers. In fact they have higher λ50% (measure of protection) than almost all other colubrine species studied other than Coachwhips. Hognose snake spectacle scales are actually tinted for this reason, although whether albino animals have the same degree of tinting I am not sure.

So - no there is no worry at all providing LOW levels of UV for an albino or snow hognose (low levels of UV are all that is advised for most snakes anyway). Frances Baines has suggested an Arcadia Shade Dweller providing not more than UV Index 1 is more than ample for albino snakes.

Providing UV by itself is not going to compensate for poor husbandry. Using it will not compensate for poor enclosure design, a poor diet, a lack of health care or any other form of poor management. Providing UV is ONE important aspect of animal welfare, it will not cover all bases but that should be obvious. They are not magic lights, if you stick a UV light in a viv where the temperatures are wrong, or the habitat is wrong, or the food being offered is wrong, it is not going to solve any of those problems. Why would it? UV has its own health benefits not catered to by any of those things, why would it cater to the animal’s needs for correct temperature, diet and so on? They are different things. Yet it is all too common to see people against the idea of providing UV try to deflect its usage this way. That does not mean UV does not provide its own benefits, and they are benefits you cannot provide another way.

UV is in fact particularly important for snakes like hognoses which are not strictly fossorial but which are in fact active foragers that travel great distances during the day in their search for prey. We know this because there have been several radio telemetry studies on their foraging ecology that show they are diurnally active hunters that move across large home ranges of around 50 hectares. While they may aestivate in the hottest parts of summer, they are active on over 57% of days, with average movement being around 120 metres PER DAY. This is why in all the North American Snake Identification groups I participate in, Hognoses are one of the most commonly sighted snakes, along with rat snakes (Eastern Hognoses are more commonly posted than Westerns though, presumably because they are more variable in pattern and coloration and harder for laymen to identify, as well as due to habitat differences). Of course part of the reason they do this is to hunt for toads, which they will then excavate with their rostrum. They were even observed to emerge and move short distances during hibernation periods to bask!


----------



## Dandridge (Oct 20, 2021)

Wow, I wasn't expecting such conflicting opinons on here too. I guess I'll be doing some further research. For now, I'm erring on the side of just something to provide a bit of light for viewing (My living room can be quite dark, especially in winter). My other hog has the Arcadia 2.5 but he's a normal and everything feels different now I'm getting an albino morph. I will ask the breeder when I pick him up what he would do. Thanks to everyone who has provided information, it's all very useful


----------



## MrsTim (Aug 20, 2012)

Thank you Thrasops for the information, very interesting. I have only read the research that shows the snake scales alow the UV light to permeate, so the above is new and useful.

The hognose l had did bask much more often than my male corn snakes ( and l also know that hognoses are much more diurnal than corn snakes ) so if l ever have another hognose, l will most certainly provide UV again. 

I think the strong dislike and behaviour change my female corn snake had to the UV bulb could have been because of the brightness of the light, despite it being the correct size for the viv, and the correct type for corn snake, and despite having lots of cover. Her mother is exactly the same, she seems happiest with the infrared bulb ( she is the only one of my snakes without a daylight/ or at least UV A headlamps. ) l use Arcadia for all of the bulbs, so the quality couldn't have been an issue.


----------



## Thrasops (Apr 15, 2008)

MrsTim said:


> I think the strong dislike and behaviour change my female corn snake had to the UV bulb could have been because of the brightness of the light, despite it being the correct size for the viv, and the correct type for corn snake, and despite having lots of cover. Her mother is exactly the same, she seems happiest with the infrared bulb ( she is the only one of my snakes without a daylight/ or at least UV A headlamps. ) l use Arcadia for all of the bulbs, so the quality couldn't have been an issue.


Brightness is more likely the cause of the discomfort yes, snakes cannot blink and the lack of pigment on the iris can lead to discomfort under light that is too intense. I have a Creamsicle corn that I rehomed for Darrell Raw's daughter that loves UV basking, I only provide a shade dweller for her though and no LEDs etc. Also if the light is a new stimulus it can take a while to acclimate to it, and over time they get used to it and start coming out more.


----------



## MrsTim (Aug 20, 2012)

P.s. What l still strongly object to is this:

Let's say one person wanting to adopt a corn snake provides a large vivarium, with deep substrate or 2 differnet substrates, many different hides ( and types of hides ) at various temperature levels, water bowl, climbing opportunities, 2 different types of heat ( on thermostst ),some behavior enrichment, varying moisture levels etc. but no UV.

The other person offers same size vivarium, basic substrate, 2 hides ( hot and cold end ), thermostat, water bowl, but no ground cover, no climbing opportunity, no enrichment, but does provide UV... that person could be considered more suitable to adopt, because they have " ticked the right box" as it were...


----------



## Thrasops (Apr 15, 2008)

MrsTim said:


> P.s. What l still strongly object to is this:
> 
> Let's say one person wanting to adopt a corn snake provides a large vivarium, with deep substrate or 2 differnet substrates, many different hides ( and types of hides ) at various temperature levels, water bowl, climbing opportunities, 2 different types of heat ( on thermostst ),some behavior enrichment, varying moisture levels etc. but no UV.
> 
> The other person offers same size vivarium, basic substrate, 2 hides ( hot and cold end ), thermostat, water bowl, but no ground cover, no climbing opportunity, no enrichment, but does provide UV... that person could be considered more suitable to adopt, because they have " ticked the right box" as it were...


I would say _both examples _would need to improve and could use advice - but crucially for this discussion, there are more than two choices and there lies the fallacy. The options are not just 'good husbandry but no UV' or 'bad husbandry with UV.' The best option is 'good husbandry with UV included.' Further, it would be cheaper and easier to improve the setup that already had UV provided with the simple addition of more hides, ground cover and climbing opportunities etc.

This mindset that 'UV is beneficial but not needed so is OK to skip' is incorrect, in my opinion and does nothing to help the image of the average keeper. There are now at least _five _behavioural studies JUST for Corn snakes that show a positive behavioural preference for UV - in other words it does not just offer health benefits, it is also a form of enrichment in and of itself. Let alone the studies showing the same thing in species as diverse as Burmese pythons, Jamaican Boas, False Water cobras, Malagasy Hognosed snakes, other rat snakes etc.

_This _is why organisations are now preferring homes they adopt out to provide UV. If something is shown to be beneficial to an animal - and in the case of UV there are _several _benefits, not just the one usual 'insectivorous lizards NEED it, snakes don't' idea everybody cites that stems from prevention of MBD/ vit. D3 synthesis.

Think of it like this. It is a health benefit to provide UV - in several ways (D3 production, Melatonin-Serotonin cycling, improvements to immune response, improvement to neuromuscular functions, behavioural improvement, improvements to activity.

Knowing this - what reason is there _not _to provide it, and what excuses not providing these benefits, knowing they exist? And why would an organisation looking to adopt out an animal to the 'best' home not factor this in? These are the hard questions we as keepers need to be asking ourselves.


----------



## MrsTim (Aug 20, 2012)

Thrasops said:


> Brightness is more likely the cause of the discomfort yes, snakes cannot blink and the lack of pigment on the iris can lead to discomfort under light that is too intense. I have a Creamsicle corn that I rehomed for Darrell Raw's daughter that loves UV basking, I only provide a shade dweller for her though and no LEDs etc. Also if the light is a new stimulus it can take a while to acclimate to it, and over time they get used to it and start coming out more.


I'm pretty sure she had the shade dweller, and l stuck with it for 7 1/2 months ( had to check my records  ). I think it was still too bright for her, she doesn't seem to mind the Arcadia UV A floodlight. That one has quite a warm light, and is mostly partially dimmed, which I think helps.


----------



## MrsTim (Aug 20, 2012)

Thrasops, please understand I'm not against using the UV light, l like learning about new research, and l try to implement much of it. 

On the other hand, I have learnt to be a bit cautious, I like to find out both the advantage and disadvantage of everything, and then, most importantly, l watch the snakes and try to take my cue from them and their behaviour, hence l decided against UV for this particular snake, but did use it for the hognose.

In this case, l'm glad you have posted about the fact that snake scales filter out some of the UV light, which would make me more comfortable with using it. One of my worries is ( with the T5 ) if the snake get too close to a bulb ( l think they recommend 20 cm away from the bulb, no closer?)then decides to settle down and fall asllep very near the bulb, will they be getting too much/ too high levels of UV? Hence l used the T8...maybe too bright.




Thrasops said:


> I would say _both examples _would need to improve and could use advice - but crucially for this discussion, there are more than two choices and there lies the fallacy. The options are not just 'good husbandry but no UV' or 'bad husbandry with UV.' The best option is 'good husbandry with UV included.' Further, it would be cheaper and easier to improve the setup that already had UV provided with the simple addition of more hides, ground cover and climbing opportunities etc.
> 
> This mindset that 'UV is beneficial but not needed so is OK to skip' is incorrect, in my opinion and does nothing to help the image of the average keeper. There are now at least _five _behavioural studies JUST for Corn snakes that show a positive behavioural preference for UV - in other words it does not just offer health benefits, it is also a form of enrichment in and of itself. Let alone the studies showing the same thing in species as diverse as Burmese pythons, Jamaican Boas, False Water cobras, Malagasy Hognosed snakes, other rat snakes etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thrasops (Apr 15, 2008)

MrsTim said:


> Thrasops, please understand I'm not against using the UV light, l like learning about new research, and l try to implement much of it.
> 
> On the other hand, I have learnt to be a bit cautious, I like to find out both the advantage and disadvantage of everything, and then, most importantly, l watch the snakes and try to take my cue from them and their behaviour, hence l decided against UV for this particular snake, but did use it for the hognose.
> 
> In this case, l'm glad you have posted about the fact that snake scales filter out some of the UV light, which would make me more comfortable with using it. One of my worries is ( with the T5 ) if the snake get too close to a bulb ( l think they recommend 20 cm away from the bulb, no closer?)then decides to settle down and fall asllep very near the bulb, will they be getting too much/ too high levels of UV? Hence l used the T8...maybe too bright.


I am not posing this just to you - I think 'trying UV and finding a Corn snake freaks out underneath it' is as valid an excuse as any. I am sure there would be ways to alter this behaviour by varying things, but it is better to at least experiment for yourself and find an individual does not like it than deny it at all.

My comments are more towards the kind of mindset some breeders use - 'I have this snake that simply _will not_ eat in large spaces so I must keep it in a small tub' - used as an excuse for keeping ALL their snakes in small tubs, is a good analogy. Yet when you ask them 'so why do you use the behaviour of the one outlier to justify how ALL the animals are kept, you get accused of being an oriflamme or some kind of elitist rather than asking a perfectly reasonable question.

It is obvious you have not done that in your case, where you have experimented, found an individual has different preferences and adjusted accordingly... so please don't think I am targeting you. Merely having a friendly discussion. 

At the same time, I am very firmly of the opinion myself that UV should be provided as a matter of course for _most _captive animals - and certainly all commonly kept pet reptiles.


----------



## Malum Argenteum (5 mo ago)

Crablet said:


> UVB is beneficial to all reptiles, regardless of requirement.


Well, there isn't evidence sufficient to back this claim. The percentage of reptile species that have been empirically studied in this regard is very, very low. Since we know that all reptiles don't respond to UVB in the same way, extrapolation from a few species to the entire taxonomic class isn't warranted.

The suggestion that UV is behavioral enrichment is one that is pretty easy to agree with, but that's not conclusive reason to provide it. For example, AZA considers heterospecific cohabitation a legit form of enrichment, but that's not a good plan for most hobby keeper situations. Further, to recommend enrichment generally might be warranted (I think it is), but the forcefulness with which one particular form of enrichment is said to be absolutely necessary suggests that there is something more behind the recommendations than pure empirical considerations. 

I'm not making any claims here as to whether UV provision in any specific case is warranted (personally, I think that a keeper providing conservative and measured levels of UVB for a specimen for which they have first hand baseline behavioral observations to compare with changes over the course of UV provision is good husbandry); I'm just pointing out that some of the reasoning here is insufficient to support some of the conclusions.


----------



## StuG (Nov 4, 2009)

Thrasops said:


> I am not posing this just to you - I think 'trying UV and finding a Corn snake freaks out underneath it' is as valid an excuse as any. I am sure there would be ways to alter this behaviour by varying things, but it is better to at least experiment for yourself and find an individual does not like it than deny it at all.
> 
> My comments are more towards the kind of mindset some breeders use - 'I have this snake that simply _will not_ eat in large spaces so I must keep it in a small tub' - used as an excuse for keeping ALL their snakes in small tubs, is a good analogy. Yet when you ask them 'so why do you use the behaviour of the one outlier to justify how ALL the animals are kept, you get accused of being an oriflamme or some kind of elitist rather than asking a perfectly reasonable question.
> 
> ...


Malc’s quote about the UV freaking out the corn got me thinking about the recent video that Liam did about royal Python behaviour and the transition from rack to viv and potential pitfalls-could it be similar in terms of lighting, this isn’t aimed at Malc but rather more generically, but taking a snake from a more sterile set up and then adding lighting could easily overwhelm the animal.


----------



## Thrasops (Apr 15, 2008)

StuG said:


> Malc’s quote about the UV freaking out the corn got me thinking about the recent video that Liam did about royal Python behaviour and the transition from rack to viv and potential pitfalls-could it be similar in terms of lighting, this isn’t aimed at Malc but rather more generically, but taking a snake from a more sterile set up and then adding lighting could easily overwhelm the animal.


This is certainly a possibility and I am sure it can and does happen, and I am sure it does account for a lot of the instances where people experience animals unused to light reacting adversely to it when first introduced. For a similar reason I disapprove of the practice of taking an unacclimated reptile out of its enclosure and plonking it in the middle of the lawn and assuming this is the ideal way to 'provide enrichment' or 'exercise' it (novel experiences CAN be enriching, they can also be overwhelmingly terrifying and stress-inducing - the animal should have agency over how and when it experiences things).

That said my own experience introducing new snakes and geckos to enclosures is that reptiles which have not been exposed to UV before tend to start taking advantage of it very quickly when it is available (sometimes the reaction is almost instantaneous and the animals begin basking straight away). This has even been the case with the various Leopard and Crested geckos I have rehomed, as well as the vast majority of snakes. In fact I've found providing access to it seems to help the animals acclimate better, especially if wild caught.

That said I have one - and only one - snake here that seemed to dislike the UV, at first. It is the small Louisiana Milk snake I was gifted by Teddie Simler. It is very active at night but it was months before I ever saw it by day, and even now I only see it actually basking maybe once or twice a month. Which is fine - I expect this species rarely sun-basks in nature, and we know for some species that just one or two basking periods every few weeks can help regulate things like D3 levels as the photoproducts remain in the body for up to around six weeks before they start breaking down. So it would not necessarily _need_ more exposure than that - it _does_ have the choice though, and it does expose itself occasionally. It is also interesting to note that of the snakes in the study I mentioned earlier, _Lampropeltis_ had the lowest λ50% value of all the colubrines studied. Which makes sense as many of them tend to be secretive.


----------

